Our European Allies

[CSM]

US warns EU over China embargo

BIG BRAWL?: Pentagon officials are unimpressed with the prospect of the Chinese military killing Americans with weapons from Europe, and will act to prevent it

AFP , LONDON
Saturday, Dec 25, 2004,Page 1

The US is ready to hold back military technology from Euro-pean allies over EU steps to revoke its arms embargo on China, the Financial Times reported yesterday.

The British financial daily quoted unnamed Pentagon officials who said the US would likely withdraw government backing for measures to improve military technology transfers to European countries if the EU begins to sell arms to China.

At a Brussels summit on Dec. 17, EU leaders declared their "political will" to lift an arms embargo on China, possibly by next June, while stressing that Beijing must respect human rights and regional stability.

"This has the potential to be a big brawl," an anonymous senior Pentagon official involved in Chinese policy told the Financial Times. "They're talking about helping the Chinese kill Americans more effectively. This is not what Europe should be doing."

Another official told the newspaper: "If a situation arises where European systems are pointed [by China] at American personnel and platforms, one cannot just assume we're going to continue our arms sales.

"Efforts we've made to open, widen, deepen transatlantic defense industrial trade are going to be circumscribed," the officials said.

EU leaders said after summit talks that they were "looking forward to further progress in all areas" of the 25-nation bloc's relationship with China, hoping for greater economic cooperation with a country whose economy has grown in leaps and bounds since the arms embargo was imposed in the wake of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre.

The Financial Times said that Britain stands to be the hardest hit by any US retaliation over any EU moves to sell military technology to China.

British firms BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce are the Pentagon's two biggest suppliers.

Britain has an increasing reliance on US military technology, having won backing from the US Congress three months ago for special preferred status when applying to gain access to US military technology.

EU countries like France and Germany -- both major arms exporters -- agree with China that the ban is "outdated."

But the US argued that a resumption of European arms sales will undermine Taiwan and encourage domestic repression in China.

China wants access to cutting-edge technology to upgrade its weapons systems and to reduce its reliance on Russian exports, analysts said.

They said that with the US intent on maintaining its own arms embargo on China, Europe is the only other outlet capable of offering high-tech systems such as radars and sonars coveted in Beijing.

France and Germany have no qualms about siding with despots and tyrants when it suits them. They ae even more inclined to do so when those despots and tyrants are in direct opposition to US interests.

 

[padisha emperor]

France and Germany have no qualms about siding with despots and tyrants when it suits them. They ae even more inclined to do so when those despots and tyrants are in direct opposition to US interests.

CSM, you mean often that I'm close minded, but you're more, and also paranoiac !

France and Germany's aim is not the fall of USA.
France and Germany have better proprities and occupations !

And for the country who support bloody dictators......you're not the best country to make moral lessons about it, you did it maybe more than the other countries.

 

[no1tovote4]

CSM, you mean often that I'm close minded, but you're more, and also paranoiac !

France and Germany's aim is not the fall of USA.
France and Germany have better proprities and occupations !

And for the country who support bloody dictators......you're not the best country to make moral lessons about it, you did it maybe more than the other countries.

Nah, France and Germany have both been around much longer and have supported more Dictators and Despots than the US sometimes even in their own countries.

We are quickly catching up, but they still have the win in that regard....

The point is sometimes politics make strange bedfellows, lately it appears that France simply is attempting to be contrary so that they can be considered powerful in their own right not because of major differences of belief. This is being done regardless of the natural fit as allies and that we are allies (see NATO). France is doing this because they want to position themselves as the de facto leader of the EU.

 

[padisha emperor]

France and Germany are already the leaders of Europe.................................

Nah, France and Germany have both been around much longer and have supported more Dictators and Despots than the US sometimes even in their own countries.

WWII, again................boring.

oh, don't be so sure...USA have a good level at it too.
Only in South Amreica and Central America, the USA are propbably better at this kind of thing.
So, afetr, add Africa and Asia......whow !
Champion USA

 

[no1tovote4]

France and Germany are already the leaders of Europe.................................



WWII, again................boring.

oh, don't be so sure...USA have a good level at it too.
Only in South Amreica and Central America, the USA are propbably better at this kind of thing.
So, afetr, add Africa and Asia......whow !
Champion USA

As I said, politics make strange bedfellows. And they aren't the indisputed leaders of the EU. Positioning themselves in strength they are more likely to be the ones that end up being the leaders but it has not yet been settled that other countries are willing to put up with it.

 

[onedomino]

Another official told the newspaper: "If a situation arises where European systems are pointed [by China] at American personnel and platforms, one cannot just assume we're going to continue our arms sales.

The solution is to point out that if European systems are transferred to China, then American systems will be pointed at Paris, Berlin, and Madrid. Maybe then the French public will comprehend the idiocy of its government's foreign policy (but probably not). Let's see exactly how much France wants a "multi-polar world."

British firms BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce are the Pentagon's two biggest suppliers.

Of course this statement is false.

But the US argued that a resumption of European arms sales will undermine Taiwan and encourage domestic repression in China.

And cause the Japanese to re-arm...big time. Possibly with nukes.

France and Germany have no qualms about siding with despots and tyrants when it suits them. They ae even more inclined to do so when those despots and tyrants are in direct opposition to US interests.

No question about that. Thus we should end mil-tech transfers to Europe and any other country with Euro-sympathies, get our troops out of Germany, and park carrier battle groups off the coast of France.

 

[padisha emperor]

No question about that. Thus we should end mil-tech transfers to Europe and any other country with Euro-sympathies, get our troops out of Germany, and park carrier battle groups off the coast of France.

For your bright idea of a naval force and carrier near the french coast....you can't, dear.
Look at the maritim rules.....


And look at the french fleet.

And post your carrier everywhere, at usefull place. North Korea ?

 

[no1tovote4]

For your bright idea of a naval force and carrier near the french coast....you can't, dear.
Look at the maritim rules.....


And look at the french fleet.

And post your carrier everywhere, at usefull place. North Korea ?

One is already there.

I would love to see your "fleet" do something about it. LOL.

 

[onedomino]

For your bright idea of a naval force and carrier near the french coast....you can't, dear.
Look at the maritim rules.....And look at the french fleet.

And post your carrier everywhere, at usefull place. North Korea ?

Do not call me "dear." Since when have the French been concerned with "rules?" Soon, the French will understand that their lust for a "multipolar world" will have very negative ramifications. Go ahead, transfer French weapons systems to China. Just get prepared for the consequences...like having American systems pointed at Paris. God, I miss the Cold War. At least the Russians were sane. The French are irrational.

 

[no1tovote4]

Do not call me "dear." Since when have the French been concerned with "rules?" Soon, the French will understand that their lust for a "multipolar world" will have very negative ramifications. Go ahead, transfer French weapons systems to China. Just get prepared for the consequences...like having American systems pointed at Paris. God, I miss the Cold War. At least the Russians were sane. The French are irrational.

They are not irrational, their current leadership is willing to sell his soul for more power for France regardless of common belief and a natural fit for allies he has begun to position France as an enemy so that there can be a "counterweight". In so doing they are willing to give unnatural allies power such as weapons systems.

The French people are being convinced by their leaders to follow a path that may lead them where they never imagined they were going.

 

[onedomino]

The French people are being convinced by their leaders to follow a path that may lead them where they never imagined they were going.

Quite correct, no1tovote4. Do the French honestly think that there will be no negative repercussions for selling advanced weapons systems that the Chinese will use to threaten Americans? Before it is too late, the French should imagine what it would be like to be the object of US military planning. Are the French ready for economic and military confrontation with America? They want a "multi-polar world?" Then they better get ready for the harsh economic and military costs of that geopolitical path.

 

[padisha emperor]

Don't you think that Iraq war will not have bad repercussions for USA ?
Same thing ofr the sale of weapons.
USA sold weapons and sent CIA advisors in Afghanistan during the war against CCCP. now, they fight against these afghans (some of the Al Quaeda HQ's member, like Bin Laden, were in this war and were trained by CIA guys.


So, of course the sale of weapons to China will probably have consequence. But I'm not sure that China will attack USA.
China has alreadu the Nuke weapon, no ? and an awesome army. So, if China really wants to attack USA, she is able to do it yet. Without the french weapons, even if they are good.

And : China will probably not attack USA, or not soon : why this country would make war with the most powerful country of the wolrd. In this situation, i think that EU will jion USA. France too, of course, like for Cuba '62 : France was the first country who said that she will follow USA to the war if there is a war against USSR.

No1vote4.
You laugh about the french fleet. of course, the US Navy is the bigger fleet of the wolrd, and has a lot of carriers.
But be sure that the french fleet, even if it is less numerous, is good.
And you probably respect the Royal Navy : now, the Marine Nationale has mor surface vessels than RN.
US army forces are awesome in comparison with the european states. but don't laugh at it al the same. A missile Exocet can be really bad. Ask for the Britains.......

 

[onedomino]

And : China will probably not attack USA, or not soon : why this country would make war with the most powerful country of the wolrd. In this situation, i think that EU will jion USA. France too, of course, like for Cuba '62 : France was the first country who said that she will follow USA to the war if there is a war against USSR.

Do I really have to explain this to you? Obviously, China will not directly attack the US. It is not suicidal. But it may very well attack Taiwan. We realize that the French do not care about the democracy on Taiwan and would rather sell weapons to the totalitarian PRC. The US, however, will defend the democracy on Taiwan. And if Americans are shot at by French weapons in the hands of Chinese attacking Taiwan, then before Beijing, America’s first retaliatory Tomahawks should fly to Paris.

By the way, Americans realize that France would have been no help in combat against the Soviets. We understood General Patton when he said, “I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French division behind me.”

--------------

Est-ce que je dois vraiment expliquer ceci à vous? Évidemment, la Chine n'attaquera pas directement les USA. Elle n'est pas suicidaire. Mais elle peut très bien attaquer Taiwan. Nous nous rendons compte que les Français ne s'inquiètent pas de la démocratie sur Taiwan et vendraient plutôt des armes à la RPC totalitarian. Les USA, cependant, défendront la démocratie sur Taiwan. Et si des Américains sont tirés à par les armes de French dans les mains de Taiwan attaquant chinois, puis avant Beijing, le premier Tomahawks de représailles de l'Amérique devrait voler à Paris.

D'ailleurs, les Américains se rendent compte que la France n'aurait été aucune aide dans le combat contre les Soviétiques. Nous avons compris le Général Patton quand il a dit, "J'aurions plutôt une division allemande devant moi qu'une division française derrière moi."

 

[padisha emperor]

thaks for the translation, but I prefer in english, sometime the automatic translators mad so awesome mistakse that the text is quite no more understandable.


For the fact that France let Taiwan without help in front of the PRC........

France already sold fregate to taiwan, type La Fayette, excellent ship, most modern fregates.
So, your argue is quite "fucked", no ?

France would have no help uS ? how do you know that ? War didn't came.
Look the french against communists : Indochina. better individula fighters than US troops in VN. So, what proof to say that france would had not follow USA ?
your arguments are based on air and clouds. Nothing strong. only wind.

USA will never attack paris. First, they love to much it.
And it will be a WWIII. The whole world would see that USA strike an ally country without real reasons.
The US government, fortunatly for the world, doesn't listen to you.


Sale of weapons has a risk : the risk that a country can have casualties from an ally country's weapon.
Look falkland's war : a british ship was sunk by a missile Exocet, sale by France to Aergentina before the war.
But Fra,ce did'nt wish that british troops died .
As cynic and cruel it is, it is the risk of the job.

 

[nosarcasm]

the immature posturing , if you dont do what we say then we gonna
threaten you sure will help


.

 

[Johnney]

And it will be a WWIII. The whole world would see that USA strike an ally country without real reasons.

you seriously believe that? without real reason? get off the oxy buddy, check into some rehab some place.

 

[Johnney]

!

France and Germany's aim is not the fall of USA.

maybe notfrane <i>and</i> germay, but you can bet your ass its frances

 

[onedomino]

France already sold fregate to taiwan, type La Fayette, excellent ship, most modern fregates. So, your argue is quite "fucked", no?

No is correct. One small coastal warship is not the weapons trade that France wants to conduct with the PRC.

France would have no help uS ? how do you know that ? War didn't came. Look the french against communists : Indochina. better individula fighters than US troops in VN. So, what proof to say that france would had not follow USA ?

The French were not fighting the communists in Viet Nam because they were communists, as your note implies. They were fighting because they wanted to keep their colony. The French showed what great fighters they were when they were pounded at Dien Bien Fu in 1954 and lost control of their Southeast Asian fiefdom.

your arguments are based on air and clouds. Nothing strong. only wind.

My argument is based on the evidence of French foreign policy since 1940 to the present day. Did the French military quickly capitulate to the Nazis? Yes, and with breath-taking speed. Did French military units fight against America in North Africa and Europe during WW2? Yes. How many soldiers did France send to the Korean War? 1119. What a magnificant contribution to the defense of freedom! Did the French kick NATO Headquarters out of Paris? Yes. Did the French help America fight the war against communism in Southeast Asia. No. Did the French help America defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan? No. Did the French help America defeat Sadaam Hussein? No. What evidence do I have that the French would not have helped America fight the Soviets? How much more of a history lesson to you want?

Sale of weapons has a risk : the risk that a country can have casualties from an ally country's weapon. Look falkland's war : a british ship was sunk by a missile Exocet, sale by France to Aergentina before the war. But Fra,ce did'nt wish that british troops died. As cynic and cruel it is, it is the risk of the job.

You are quite right. Your argument is cynical and cruel. It is a perfect representation of the treachery of French foreign policy. Do you think the parents of the dead British sailors that were shipped home in boxes from the Faulkland Islands accept your cynical and cruel argument?

 

[NATO AIR]

from now on, we should end ALL military technology transfers to EU nations with the exception of Britain, Poland and Italy. Pull US forces out of Germany and Spain. Post them in Italy, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, etc etc. The EU and China can have each other at this rate, the love fest is seemingly unstoppable, unless (as is expected) the French and Polish populaces reject the EU consitutition, hurling the EU into chaos

Padisha, your navy sucks more cock than a porno star. Your carrier (s) is a piece of shit that had to be drydocked multiple times because of poor design, poor crew training and general all in all crapiness. Your jets pale in comparision to our Super Hornets, our Raptors, our JSF's. Your soldiers are LOSING a peacekeeping operation in the Ivory Coast, just like they lost Rwanda. Keep up the great work, and your country's going to keep sliding down the shit hole it is now.

 

[padisha emperor]

Nato, the Rafale is the best fighgter of the wolrd, and even the Mirage 2000 kick your Falcon.

French army, be sure, is for quality better than US.

And an toher big difference : our casualties : our soldiers and our allies's soldiers are killed by ennemies, not by our bullets....Ask for english troops....I think they have a quite bad souvenir of some US troops.....

Onedomino :

The French were not fighting the communists in Viet Nam because they were communists, as your note implies. They were fighting because they wanted to keep their colony. The French showed what great fighters they were when they were pounded at Dien Bien Fu in 1954 and lost control of their Southeast Asian fiefdom.

They were fighting to keep Indochina to France, but anyway, they were fighting communists. I believe that USA fouight in VN for freedom of South Viet NAm....Was it wrong ? Was it only to fight some commies ? No...... i can't believe it ? USA ? Liars ? impossible !!!! .....

And for your last sentence : I can say the same thing for US : the US soldiers showed their valour when they lost in VN. Butit is wrong
Your statement is stupid : in Indochina, French won lot of battle. But you know, the fight against an invisible ennemy, far from home, a guerrilla war......hard, really...like your VN.
But if there is one army who fought until the last ammo , it is the french army. And you can show it only with DIEN BIEN PHU : battle from 11/20/53 to 05/07/54. Hell from march to may. No white flag. the french were so brave and courageous tyat even radio moscow stop to insult them, like they do usuallly against capitalists. Here, they respect these french soldiers.
15,000 against more than 100,000..............and resistance dutring several monthes. read something correct abaout DBP, you will see that one thing cannot be denied : the valour, honour, courage of French.

You are quite right. Your argument is cynical and cruel. It is a perfect representation of the treachery of French foreign policy. Do you think the parents of the dead British sailors that were shipped home in boxes from the Faulkland Islands accept your cynical and cruel argument?

first : a soldiers is paid to be prepared to fight, and alos to die.

Second : the trade of weapons has some risks. You can not deny it.

And : this pathetic argue from you is worthless, from your part : do you think that the english parents of the several british soldiers killed by US SOLDIERS accept that ? hmmmm ? Different between US and France, here : both may kil unfortunatly allied soldiers. But : france do it not directly : it is the french weapons. USA do it directly. Since the Korea, i believe that 1/5 of the US KIA are killed by US soldiers........

My argument is based on the evidence of French foreign policy since 1940 to the present day. Did the French military quickly capitulate to the Nazis? Yes, and with breath-taking speed. Did French military units fight against America in North Africa and Europe during WW2? Yes. How many soldiers did France send to the Korean War? 1119. What a magnificant contribution to the defense of freedom! Did the French kick NATO Headquarters out of Paris? Yes. Did the French help America fight the war against communism in Southeast Asia. No. Did the French help America defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan? No. Did the French help America defeat Sadaam Hussein? No. What evidence do I have that the French would not have helped America fight the Soviets? How much more of a history lesson to you want?

France capitulated quick, but nowithout fights. 90,000 french were killed during the campain of France '40. Think at Dunkirk (1940) too...........At Bir Hakeim (1942). Toulon(1942). Italy Campain(1943/44). Sienna(1944). Provence(1944). Vercors(1944). Paris(1944). Alsace(1944/45)................
The french who fought US troops in North Africa were VICHY soldiers. And for the most patr they rallied the Allies. they just obey to the order. (and know that since Mers El Kebir, the french of Vichy don't trust a lot the allies.)
For Korean. Number makes not quality. And some french officers got the Silver Star, from Gen. Ridgway's hands....
France kick NATO HQ, yes. And ? you always say that France sucks. Are you not hapy to be in Belgium ?
And France didn't really to be used as a chess piece in the giant chess game between USA and USSR. When you say that UAS were against colonialism. Was it for the human rights ? No......Only to be more mighty : USA put dictators to be mighter than Communists. So, the human rights, they don't care ! The end of colonialism would put in the "market" a lot of new States. USA wanted to put these new States in USA's influenece area.


For the fact that france didn't help against commnuists...Indochina ? no ? yes. so...

For the Afghanistan.....Amazing, how USA forget the help of some countries....
French Air Force gave a lot the intelligence informations, and french soldiers were on the ground too.....so shut up.
And french army is still here to help for the reconstruction....

So, your "great arguments" have no valor...and proove nothing, except your unhability to reflexion.


Now : Did USa help france and Europe in 1914 ? no. in 1939/40 ? no ? they wiated until an attack to fight. Fucking isolationnists.
Did they help france Uk and Israel ni 1956 ? no, they impeacched them.....
Did France help USa in Gulf War ? yes. In kosovo ? oh yes ! in Afghanistan ? yes.