Stinking Fwench Government Whores Sell Soul (again) and Tiawan to Chinese Commies

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
And what's the deal with the EU giving Yushenko a cold shoulder? He gets a standing ovation at a joint session of the congress and a red carpet press conference at the White House -- real hero treatment.

The EU institutions laudate him probably more than the US'. However, some Member-States may be willing to curry favour (or at least not lose favour) with Russia.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Dracon II
How dependent on the USA is Israel?

They've recieved around $1.6 trillion since 1973.

PS If you insist on quoting Mearshimer to me, I'd like a real explanation of why it would be sound French policy to aid in the rise of a potential regional hegemon when the benefits to them are unclear at best or non-existant at worst? I still haven't seen a clear and concise reason for that beyond pithy comments about a desire to "make a few Euros" or blaming it on Chirac's megalomania. When you comment please keep in mind that France stands alone in their position among EU members so this isn't an American position.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Colon
I agree that France is shooting itself in the foot big-time. The EU's greatest asset in international diplomacy is its moral authorithy (supposed or real) and lifting the embargo deal be a severe blow to it.

I don't understand why my Dear Leader doesn't understand it.
He was much more successful than Bush when he propagandized his "moral high ground" during the Iraqi crisis. He has always supported negociation with the "baddies", which is happening currently in Iran. He was the second most vocal opponent of Syria during the Lebanon crisis. Despite his rapprochement with Moscow and Beijing, he had many markings of moral superiority.

And now, for a few billions, he gives a terribly untimely blow to his reputation

Another reason why I think Chirac is utterly incompetent, once again, is because the EU is currently trying to have a common foreign policy. The negociation with Iran is a proof of that, and the lift on the weapon embargo was supposed to be another biggie. Especially after the fact that the EU kept its cohesion after hearing the US' opposition. But the Chinese wasted the opportunity completely, as they passed their law. Now, the opposition to the lift is serious, and the EU will end up divided on the issue (with the anti-lift side being the bigger).

Chirac could have pushed for the whole EU to remain a united voice, and change its position after the Chines anti-independence law (in other words: go with the new flow, and be active in it, so that no Member-State misses the flow). Instead, he has chosen to conserve a project that the Chinese have made outdated. He is bound to end up being the divider of the EU common foreign policy, simply because it wouldn't go his way this time

[KrazyHorse]

Wow. Who could have guessed that this thread would descend into the gutter?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I still haven't seen a clear and concise reason for that beyond pithy comments about a desire to "make a few Euros" or blaming it on Chirac's megalomania.

Actually, the few billions can be some serious money in the future. If China has cordial relationship with France, and not with the US, their booming air market could mean a serious sifference of income for Airbus, at a time France has serious domestic economic problems.

There may be the possibility that they have deemed this money (real money) as being more important than reputation and European unity.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Wow. Who could have guessed that this thread would descend into the gutter?

It gets somewhat better after the NYE tantrum IMO.

[DAVOUT]

Welcome to the French bashers club which was not very active recently.

As usual they consider that any advantage taken by France or EU is detrimental for the US; even an attempt is a crime. And they are displeased by the recent enrichments of the relationship between China and EU: China participates now in the ITER program and supports EU initiatives; China is financing Galileo, a program which is hated by the US because it will take a share of the monopole enjoyed by the GPS. On these two matters, they could not use the threat to stop the technology transfer, since they ignore the new technology. On the armament, they just dont want not to be deprived of the future business; and they use two threats : the stop of the transfer of technology, and the interdiction for European firms to make business in the US; it is the only reason for the EU not to end the embargo now; and it is therefore only a polite word to declare that we support the end of the embargo.

[Spiffor]

DAVOUT:

As much as I love to stick it to the US, you have to agree that our current bedfellows in Russia and China aren't terrific. The one reason why China hasn't declared war on Taiwan yet, is because the current Chinese technology wouldn't win against a localised US force, or at huge costs.

If we provide weapons to China, we'll make China bolder wrt Taiwan, and we'll definitely contribute to the destabilization of a region. And I think we're suppposed to oppose wars, instead of nurturing them.

I don't think the US merely wishes to keep a potential market for itself. If they wanted to tackle the Chinese weapon market, they'd simply open trade, and they'll become the favoured supplier for most fields, because they have superior technology in most kinds of military equipment.

The US does want to protect its status, and to prevent the rise of China as a country it cannot monitor. It's because of this imperial reason that they try to impress the EU into submission. But even if it is normal to hate their guts, it is not good to nurture a potential war merely in order to stick it to them.

[DAVOUT]

Spiffor,

You translate supporting the idea of ending the embargo in selling weapons. This is wrong. There could be years between the two situations, or the second could never occur. Did you forget that the embargo was decided in 1989, which mean that before the armament market was opened, with a China which was not fondamentally different from now, only a bit less liberal?

As for opposing war, we must be realistic : Europe needs a military industry, and a military industry needs export markets; if Israel and Russia are exporting weapons to China, I cant see why the EU could not compete. Dont forget also that armaments manufactures are NOT delocalised.

The superior technology of the US is mainly in items that are not exported : carriers, submarines, bombers, some fighters. There is no superior technology at work in Irak, and the Brits are using their own weapons GB made.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
You translate supporting the idea of ending the embargo in selling weapons. This is wrong. There could be years between the two situations, or the second could never occur.

Well, considering the current economic climate in France and Germany, these two countries won't be too shy about selling weapons once legal. We sell weapons to countries/groups that are far more prone to wreck havoc with them, so I don't see what would prevent us from selling, except the American diplomacy we have decided to ignore on the issue.

Did you forget that the embargo was decided in 1989, which mean that before the armament market was opened, with a China which was not fondamentally different from now, only a bit less liberal?

I didn't forget that. And actually, the weapon embargo was more of a feelgood measure than anything useful at the time, because Chinese-made weapons can oppress civilian populations just as good as ours. Ours make a difference in international wars. And the prospect of an international war involving China is even closer now than in 1989.

As for opposing war, we must be realistic : Europe needs a military industry, and a military industry needs export markets; if Israel and Russia are exporting weapons to China, I cant see why the EU could not compete. Dont forget also that armaments manufactures are NOT delocalised.

Absolutely. However, I prefer the non-expansion of our markets over participating in the death of thousands (and maybe hundreds of thousands). We might lose 0.01% of growth if we went with my choice, but I'm a moralist zealot like that.

The superior technology of the US is mainly in items that are not exported : carriers, submarines, bombers, some fighters. There is no superior technology at work in Irak, and the Brits are using their own weapons GB made.

True, but the US have a secure hold on many markets nonetheless, where we barely penetrate. India and Pakistan are good examples.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Spiffor

And the prospect of an international war involving China is even closer now than in 1989.

Does not seem serious. What do you mean by closer : 2089 instead of 2189 ?
I dont remember any danger of international war in 1989, except possibly a 100 hours war being prepared for 1990 by a wide coalition which did not include China.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
We keep Israel from selling the good stuff and have killed at least one of thier deals over the years. Personally, I'd be for waving the big stick of cutting the aid we give them in order to stem the flow of Israeli arms to China even further. We have no such influence over Russia. Is that what you wanted to hear?

Yes, pretty much.

[Az]

They've recieved around $1.6 trillion since 1973.

roo?

[DanS]

Yeh, that seems a little high, Dino. Present your backup.

Or are you just conceding the point that it's a ton of support?

[DanS]

Again: When are Russia and Israel going to pay for their treachery?

We're cutting off some technology transfers to Israel over the matter.

This is something that Europe needs to keep in mind, since the technology is flowing its way from the US under NATO, among other guises. Almost no technology flows towards the US from the EU. That was the message that Bush communicated to the EU after the lifting of the embargo was proposed by France. And a lot of EU took notice, because it was considered a reasonably fair action by the US. The French proposal was probably dead, even before the secession law. The secession law was just a convenient excuse for the EU to tell France that their proposal was dead.

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/living/religion/11454823.htm