Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sparks on April 01, 2005, 11:49:06 PM
-
I know, I know, Britain is in EU and we trade with China but it doesn't mean I agree with it .............
Arms to China (http://newsbox.msn.co.uk/article.aspx?as=article&f=uk_-_olgbtopnews&t=4023&id=747833&d=20050402&do=http://newsbox.msn.co.uk&i=http://newsbox.msn.co.uk/mediaexportlive&ks=0&mc=5&ml=ma&lc=en&ae=windows-1252)
The clock ticks ... wtg Chirac.
-
France is run by a bunch of unrealistic, idealistic idiots. They are on the wrong side of almost everything.
-
They don't manufacture weapons systems to defend their own country - they depend on the USA to do that. Instead they manufacture weapons to sell to the Chinese that will be used to kill Americans if they attempt to defend Taiwan from a mainland invasion.
Then again, who am I to talk? Every toy my children own has "Made in China" on the bottom.
Talk about feeding the crocodile...
:rolleyes:
Cest la Guerre.
SEAGOON
-
:aok WTFG Chirac! What a bumbling idiot, this is remeniscent of the drunk Neville Chamberlain waving the "papers in the air".
Karaya
-
Inflammatory
-
Why do the Chinese need to buy weapons they make and export enough of their own!
-
I have heard here that French stuff is junk, so this should be good for america. You only have to deal with french junk weapons.
Stop buying Chinese stuff and they wont have the money to buy as many foreign weapons and you may get some jobs back too.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Why do the Chinese need to buy weapons they make and export enough of their own!
If they wnt real weapons, they buy them.
-
We will never go to war with China. It would interrupt WalMart's supply chain.
-
Originally posted by rpm
We will never go to war with China. It would interrupt WalMart's supply chain.
Lazs wouldn't like that.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
France is run by a bunch of unrealistic, idealistic idiots. They are on the wrong side of almost everything.
It's such a blow to the neighbourhood bully when the other kids ignore his rantings.
-
the exocet sure isn't junk.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
They don't manufacture weapons systems to defend their own country - they depend on the USA to do that. Instead they manufacture weapons to sell to the Chinese that will be used to kill Americans if they attempt to defend Taiwan from a mainland invasion.
IMO you just don't know the cold war is over.
Please name me a weapon system made in US we use ?
-
straffo he doesnt mean french army uses US gear, he means france depends on US army for its defense.
-
Originally posted by OIO
straffo he doesnt mean french army uses US gear, he means france depends on US army for its defense.
Yeah, with all those US Military installations we have in France?
Of all of the EU, France is the one that is least under the US defense umbrella.
As to lifting the EU Arms ban, that's probably going to hurt the Russians a hell of a lot more than anyone else.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by OIO
straffo he doesnt mean french army uses US gear, he means france depends on US army for its defense.
Well this is how I understand his sentence :
Originally posted by Seagoon
They don't manufacture weapons systems to defend their own country
Giving Seagoon job I guess he know the power of words and their meaning.
Perhaps I've made a translation error but his sentence was clear IMO.
-
Originally posted by straffo
IMO you just don't know the cold war is over.
Please name me a weapon system made in US we use ?
pffft that's easy to answer. you use expatriate American liberal feminists with unshaven armpits and poor dental hygene. also richard simmons was reported to be skipping up and down the champs elysees. :D
-
richard simmons is not married with SOB anymore ?
Damm I need to by more "people" newspaper ;)
-
What`s the surprise here?
It`s France. They can just surrender so many arms at once.
They have to sell off the excess.:D
-
Straffo - why do you feel it is necessary for France, or any other country for that matter, to sell arms to China ??
They are technologically advanced enough to send a guy into space, have nuclear capability, and the largest army in the world. To me the only explanation is to give the Chinese access to the very latest technology - seems to me a very BAD idea. Unless of course you feel the necessity to "buddy up" to a country which you feel will be the next super power.
This is either purely financially driven - in which case it stinks - or it's trying to buy favour - in which case it stinks.
Which ever way you look at it our children will be the ones picking up the pieces.
-
Good analyse.
Looking how French weapon market as been reduced during the last 10 year I understand why our weapon seller want so bad new market.
If the US don't want this to happen the US will need to share a bit of their own market and it won't happen.
So ?
What to do ?
Sell our weapon to the USA ?
Won't happen.
Give up and buy our weapon in the US?
Won't happen either.
-
Originally posted by straffo
IMO you just don't know the cold war is over.
Please name me a weapon system made in US we use ?
I know one.. it may not be a weapon but.. The Hawkeye is used on the Charles De Gaulle. :p
-
So it's ok to sell Hi-tech arms systems to anyone who wants them, regardless of the known attributes of the purchaser, if it keeps the prodction lines running.
And the fault of course is not with the French government - oh no - it's everyone else not opening up the markets.
Please tell me I'm not reading this .........................
So now you know - if you don't want France to sell arms to potential enemies you better get your wallet out and buy them yourself. If you don't you only have yourself to blame :rolleyes:
-
Is selling weapong to Pakistan or India smarter ?
-
Nope Starffo - don't agree with that either.
Strangely enough pointing out another act of stupidity doesn't seem to make the first one intelligent.
The only point I would make is India and Pakistan only want to kill each other basically.
I don't think anyone in the West can clearly say what China's ambitions are in 50 years
-
I'm not pointing other act, we were trying also to sell weapong to them.
I'm not sure it's smart to sell weapon to China and I've no influence on this.
Personnaly I don't think it's smart, but I'm not the one deciding on this subject.
-
Interesting chart --- (I'm not promoting the site - just useful info)
Whos buying and selling (http://www.controlarms.org/the_issues/movers_shakers.htm)
Note that China is an exporter - that means they have enough standard stuff - they need the new whizz bang stuff.
But hey France makes money out of it :aok
-
France has a real 'stick it to the U.S.' attitude that I admire. In response to Nuke's characterization of French leadership I'd reply maybe its the U.S. that is run by a bunch of unrealistic, idealistic idiots. Remember "Freedom Fries"? How stupid and juvenile that was.
They have their own set of problems and I'm sure they are acting in their best interest, just as the US has done and continues to do.
By the way, I wonder what an emergency response plan for Indian offshore IT resources looks like, when everything has been incinerated in a nuclear firestorm? Gonna make the twin towers disaster look like a fire drill, I expect.
-
Straffo,
First, please understand that my objective is not to beat up the French simply for being wilfully French. My point was to criticize their decision to sell arms to the country (China) that is currently the greatest potential threat to the country that defends them. (the USA).
To argue that the USA doesn't defend Europe, and that the Europeans do is simply nonsensical. Europe depends on NATO for its defense, and NATO is in fact the American Armed Forces, with some European assistance. This is what allows the European nations to spend such a small amount of their total GDP on their armed forces.
For instance, despite the fact that the French defense budget has increased dramatically over the past few years to the current high of $39.2 Billion in 2004 and the French deployed 34,000 worldwide last year, this spending is still dwarfed by the US defense budget of well over $400 Billion and a total troop deployment into the hundreds of thousands for the same year. It is not the threat of French intervention worldwide that keeps nations like China and North Korea within their borders, and it certainly wasn't fear of the dreaded French Foriegn Legion or even French Nukes that caused the USSR not to roll its armored legions into Western Europe.
How is France considering repaying the US for its past and present largesse? By selling weapons systems, and more importantly weapons technology to China, a country that spends over $70 Billion on its armed forces, and which might already be able to dominate in a single theater war with the US forced to cover so many areas at once.
Surely you aren't seriously going to defend this policy? Selling to India and Pakistan is dicey, but its hardly the same as selling to a country that has expressed a willingness to engage the US or NATO in a head-to-head conflict. By Comparison, it would be like selling weapons to the Japanese in 1940.
- SEAGOON
-
Can't really blame them. The US and Russia have locked up all the smaller countries that just want to kill each other as customers. French weapons manufacturers just doesn't have many options for a market, except to sell to countries we won't. Arguing they are supplying someone we may have to fight is pretty weak, considering how many countries we have supplied ourselves with weapons that have ended up killing our troops later. Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, Pot.
-
Look like you've read more than I posted :)
Originally posted by Seagoon Straffo,
First, please understand that my objective is not to beat up the French simply for being wilfully French. My point was to criticize their decision to sell arms to the country (China) that is currently the greatest potential threat to the country that defends them. (the USA).
I think I've exposed my arguements to spark ,no need to rehash thi here.
To argue that the USA doesn't defend Europe, and that the Europeans do is simply nonsensical. Europe depends on NATO for its defense, and NATO is in fact the American Armed Forces, with some European assistance. This is what allows the European nations to spend such a small amount of their total GDP on their armed forces.
Didn't wrote that or argued we were autome ,I just reacted to your remark about weapon we were unable to build for our own defense.
I speak of technology and you write here about a more quantitative approach ,Apple and Orange IMO.
For instance, despite the fact that the French defense budget has increased dramatically over the past few years to the current high of $39.2 Billion in 2004 and the French deployed 34,000 worldwide last year, this spending is still dwarfed by the US defense budget of well over $400 Billion and a total troop deployment into the hundreds of thousands for the same year. It is not the threat of French intervention worldwide that keeps nations like China and North Korea within their borders, and it certainly wasn't fear of the dreaded French Foriegn Legion or even French Nukes that caused the USSR not to roll its armored legions into Western Europe.
I know France is dwarfed by the US concerning military ,didn't argue the "contraire" :)
How is France considering repaying the US for its past and present largesse?
If you want to use an "accountant" approach what date will you choose to look at this to see if it's balanced ?
from 1763 to today ?
from 1776 to today ?
or from 1942 to today ?
My guess is like lot of people you don't want to look past the last 60 year.
And it's simply dishonest.
By selling weapons systems, and more importantly weapons technology to China, a country that spends over $70 Billion on its armed forces, and which might already be able to dominate in a single theater war with the US forced to cover so many areas at once.
I don't think France will be ever able to sell enought weapon and technology to China to represent a danger.
You can note I wrote above I think it's not a good idea,and lastly I'm pretty sure the US know pretty well our weapon capability
Surely you aren't seriously going to defend this policy? Selling to India and Pakistan is dicey, but its hardly the same as selling to a country that has expressed a willingness to engage the US or NATO in a head-to-head conflict.
I'm sure you know the 1st stone parable.
By Comparison, it would be like selling weapons to the Japanese in 1940.
- SEAGOON
Well I don't think so we not own Indochina anymore so the rick for us is pretty low.
This sentence is here only to fuel the debate :D
And take more as an harhs joke ;)
-
Originally posted by straffo
IMO you just don't know the cold war is over.
Please name me a weapon system made in US we use ?
E-2C Hawkeye for one
Until recently the f-8 Crusader (Don't know why ya'll hung on to those relics so long)
More (http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/arms/france.html)
-
I wouldn't say anything about France and it's intentions to sell weapons/technology to china, because it is a "bad country".
Not when the USA has done similar kind of business throughout the years with different countries.
It's real nice of you to sell weapons to questionable countries and then critisize others for doing that :rolleyes:
If it'd be up to me, the weapons could be as well ridded all together, but thats not going to happen as long as humans are humans.
Basically theres no reason to not to sell weapons to China, other than that it is a communistic country.
But then again some countries do sell weapons to worse governments than the chinese communists.
So why have these countries, like the USA, sold weapons to these worse governments?
What comes to the USA fightning chinese, it is all about Taiwan, since there are no other reasons why the two would engage in a war.
Keep in mind that Taiwan is not recognized as sovereign country worldwide. Not even by the USA to my knowledge.
Then again it could be also part of Japan, but they renounced their claim on Taiwan.
It has been debatable for a long time whether Taiwan is part of China or not.
Not so surprisingly China considers Taiwan as a part of it and on the other hand that is true, while on the other hand it might not be.
Therefore China has all the right to defend Taiwan as their land and it would be a domestic issue, in which the USA would actually be the invaders.
However the USA doesn't want to consider Taiwan as a part of China.
Therefore Taiwanese matter is not a reason to ban weapons sale to China.
Which is the only reason why the USA would be in a war against the weapons.
Weapons sale to China was stopped after the violent end to the demonstrations, not because of the Taiwan issue.
However I do find it highly unlikely for the USA to enter in a war against chinese.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
E-2C Hawkeye for one
Until recently the f-8 Crusader (Don't know why ya'll hung on to those relics so long)
More (http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/arms/france.html)
hmmm ... I was more thinking of lethal weapon but your post is correct.
Concerning the F8 I don't know.
-
Seagoon, I think the French would object to the insinuation that they are being 'defended' by NATO. Didn't they withdraw from the treaty and throw NATO out of France in the mid-60s?
Also I am pretty sure they would not consider the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as actions taken in their defense. So from whom are you implying that the US is defending the French?
I have to agree with Fishu, and I would add that it is the US who is pursuing a far more reckless course regarding arms sales. Not only do we sell arms to a country (Taiwan) who is a sore spot to our largest trading partner and creditor nation (China), but we sell arms to BOTH sides (India, Pakistan) in one of the world's flashpoints. Seems to me the Indian subcontinent is a pretty strong candidate for the world's first nuclear exchange.
Concerning the F8 Crusader, I am pretty sure the French hung on to them so long because 1) it was an excellent, useful arcraft and 2) they wanted to replace it with a French-developed aircraft. I think it was replaced by the Rafale.
-
Originally posted by straffo
hmmm ... I was more thinking of lethal weapon but your post is correct.
Concerning the F8 I don't know.
I could be off base here, but I think they kept the F8 because they held onto the Foch for so long. When they developed the Navalized Rafale, they didn't want to be constrained by retaining an operational requirement for flying from the Foch or Clemenceau.
Does anyone know if the Rafale ever operated on those CVs? I mean aside from the expermental and test phases, were they ever operationally deployed?
-Sik
-
Fishu - no-one is condoning previous arms trades with dubious countries. As I said earlier, raising past stupid acts as evidence of acceptability doesn't make future acts sensible.
China is a different ball game. They don't want the arms because they can't produce enough of their own - they are an exporter. They want the technology. And Straffo - it isn't quantity that is the concern it's the content. Also to look at this in terms of starting a war in the short term is naive. Chinese view their policy in decades. Do you really want the Chinese government as the major superpower on the planet ??? It is a very real possibility.
Chinese government doesn't play to an electorate.....
In the months preceding the ten-year anniversary of the Tiananmen Square demonstrations Chinese government and party officials have reexamined and often revised the official version of the military crackdown. In April 1999, Zhu Muzhi, the president of the China Society for Human Rights Studies (a government think tank) observed that, "If the way we handled the Tiananmen crisis was incorrect, we would not have todays prosperity. China would be in chaos. The people would have risen and resisted the government." He added that, "At that time, the police were poorly equipped ... They had never witnessed such large-scale protests ... They did not have rubber bullets then nor gas masks... The only weapons they had were their guns."
That quote from here (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB16/documents/index.html#12-29)
In 10 years we could be facing east knowing that the fingers on the buttons in Beijing have as good or better systems at their disposal than us................... and who will remember it was Chirac that gave them it ???
-
Hmmm... doesn't Israel have a history of selling stuff to China?
-
So Oboe - laying aside the stupidity of arming Sudia Arabia, Pakistan (which is mainly Russian btw), India and all the other nut job countries - your reasoning is that because we in the west like to buy cheap consumer goods and because China has a large chunk of US debt it's OK to sell them the latest weapons systems.
"Hey nice fridge - thanks. Btw that missile of yours is waaaay out of date - here buy this one and copy it"
Tell it to your grand kids.
-
Originally posted by Sparks
They don't want the arms because they can't produce enough of their own - they are an exporter.
So they want to sell weapons with better technology to all their neightbours and leave themselves with the old technology? ok.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
I could be off base here, but I think they kept the F8 because they held onto the Foch for so long. When they developed the Navalized Rafale, they didn't want to be constrained by retaining an operational requirement for flying from the Foch or Clemenceau.
Does anyone know if the Rafale ever operated on those CVs? I mean aside from the expermental and test phases, were they ever operationally deployed?
-Sik
I think you got it exactly right, Sik. I couldn't find any indications of operational deployments for the Rafale on either Foch or Clemenceau, just tests.
-
Fishu ..... Huh ??????:confused:
Nooo the other way round - they want the new technology for themselves while they sell the obsolete stuff to pay for it.
-
IIRC the french retired the F8-E (FN) in 1999 the last squadron being flotille 12F aboard the Clemençeau.
-
Originally posted by Sparks
So Oboe - laying aside the stupidity of arming Sudia Arabia, Pakistan (which is mainly Russian btw), India and all the other nut job countries - your reasoning is that because we in the west like to buy cheap consumer goods and because China has a large chunk of US debt it's OK to sell them the latest weapons systems.
"Hey nice fridge - thanks. Btw that missile of yours is waaaay out of date - here buy this one and copy it"
Tell it to your grand kids.
No, that's not my reasoning - sorry if I wasn't clear. I think its stupid to arm other countries, nutjobs or not. But I don't think its right to criticize France for selling arms to China when, in my view, the US sells arms to much more dangerous client states. Some criticize France for selling arms to China because US soldiers may have to fight against them. We ourselves helped arm Iraq, and then sent our boys in to fight. I think its doubtful that we will end up in a war against China - and I hate the fact that we are in so much debt to them.
The future for everyone's grand kids looks bleak to me, for so many reasons. I use my vote to try and stop what's happening; I boycott Walmart. I'm open to further suggestions...
-
Originally posted by Sparks
Pakistan (which is mainly Russian btw),
I don't know anything about the Russian/Pakistan arms trading. Are we talking small arms here?
-Sik
-
Truth is..evry country that manufactures arms is quilty of selling arms to undesirables..USA just as quilty as anybody..it's never gonna stop...It's part of the world economy and probrably always will be....So it's senseless to ***** about it...and to point fingers and shame other countries for doing it...just accept it as a world way of life.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Seagoon, I think the French would object to the insinuation that they are being 'defended' by NATO. Didn't they withdraw from the treaty and throw NATO out of France in the mid-60s?
France pulled out of the "military command" structure in 1966, but remains A NATO member.
:D
That tell you anything?
-
It tells me NATO is more complicated an organization than I thought! :o
Are you suggesting that France pulled out of the commnad structure but remained a member to benefit from NATO's protection but save on any costs they might have been incurring as a member of the command structure?
Still, who is NATO protecting anybody against these days?
-
Really no need for NATO anymore..Just another money pit for us...another place where multiple countries decide that we should use military force...then the US picks up most of the tab in men, equipment, and money.
-
There is an answer!
Just stop making weapons in such quantities and go make something more usefull, enlightening or whatever. The ammount of money wasted on weapons could've put men on mars by now!
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
The ammount of money wasted on weapons could've put men on mars by now!
But then what would those guys shoot each other with?
-Sik
-
:rofl
-
Originally posted by oboe
It tells me NATO is more complicated an organization than I thought! :o
Are you suggesting that France pulled out of the commnad structure but remained a member to benefit from NATO's protection but save on any costs they might have been incurring as a member of the command structure?
Still, who is NATO protecting anybody against these days?
hehe. Nope. Read it again. Not command structure, but" military command". Also I don`t know where you come up with the cost factor.
In simple terms it amounts to exactly what Seagoon was saying. For France it was a statement of" we won`t get our hands dirty or do the work, but we will hold the umbrella for you, but in case of a storm you have to shelter our squeamish butts." A shelter in a storm.
-
england doesn't even allow airguns and they aren't on mars.
lazs
-
I dunno bout that Lazs. Not to mention any names but some of em are speaking fluent martian sometimes.
-
Jackal -
Can you explain the difference between 'command structure' and 'military command'? I thought they were pretty much interchangeable terms.
The cost factor was just a guess as to the motivation for the French to remove themselves from NATO command but remain a member.
Interestingly, the only references I ever heard regarding the French and NATO while growing up was that the French 'kicked NATO out' or 'withdrew from NATO' - along those lines. The impression given was the France wanted to go it alone...
-
The motive was independance and autonomy.
One of the reason is : if the red army succesfully invade Germany and is at our border we won't have to wait for the OTAN to use nuke.
Even if a "vitrification" of Germany is to be expected.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Jackal -
Can you explain the difference between 'command structure' and 'military command'? I thought they were pretty much interchangeable terms.
The cost factor was just a guess as to the motivation for the French to remove themselves from NATO command but remain a member.
Interestingly, the only references I ever heard regarding the French and NATO while growing up was that the French 'kicked NATO out' or 'withdrew from NATO' - along those lines. The impression given was the France wanted to go it alone...
Well yea, by pulling out of military command it simply means they do not have to participate in the actual fighting. On the other hand they stayed in simply to avoid losing the shelter they had in times of trouble. Sort of a cake and eat it too thing.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Well yea, by pulling out of military command it simply means they do not have to participate in the actual fighting. On the other hand they stayed in simply to avoid losing the shelter they had in times of trouble. Sort of a cake and eat it too thing.
Completly wrong and more : a lie.
Now I'm sure your knowledge of NATO is simply null.
-
They are just bating you Straffo, let go.
-
Perhaps , Oboe please read that :
http://www.charles-de-gaulle.org/article.php3?id_article=181
-
Hmm....I always figured that DeGaulle withdrew from the command structure because NATO did not have a well thought out surrender policy.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Completly wrong and more : a lie.
Now I'm sure your knowledge of NATO is simply null.
No lie. Just the facts Mam. If you can`t handle the truth, so be it.
You can paint a picture in any color you wish, but yellow will always bleed through.
-
straffo, laisser quelle ceci trolls vont, I think. :D
-
Je crois que tu as raison :)
-
oui :)
sa jalousie ;)
-
Thanks for that link, Straffo. It had always been my understanding that France pulled out of NATO as an assertion of its independent thinking. I didn't know that you could pull out and remain a member at the same time, however; that article cleared up some of my misconceptions.