 |
| |
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Just saying there isn't that great of a chance of war with India and Pakistan (in fact nukes may have prevented a war between the two states in the late 90s... not like they weren't due for one), so basing your fears on an East Asian nuclear WW3 is kind of silly. Nukes prevent warfare, as they did between the USSR and US (without nukes, WW3 would have occured, I'm sure of it). |
I'd rather not stake the continued existence of a billion or so people on a mere 60 or so years of historical precedent. The avoided hot war between the Soviets and the West caused quite a few not insignificant proxy wars and the political ossification of a huge portion of humanity for decades. The transition after the Cold War was bloodier and much more difficult to deal with because in many ways and places things hadn't changed much since the 1940s. States fell apart as their final raison d'etre fell away, others fell into near anarchy with their economies largely destroyed. Many small wars began and even where the effects of the end of the Cold War have been largely positive one still has to mourn the wasted decades and trillions of dollars and wonder what could have been.
The big losers in an Asian arms race / rapid emergence of the Chinese superstate are going to be all of the neighboring countries which have a freer political system than the Chinese. The U.S. loses only by deciding to get involved, we can pack up and leave Japan, Taiwan, The Phillipines, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia, NZ, Australia, and dozens of other Central and South Asian states in the lurch and hope that the new Greater Asian Prosperity Sphere is a kindlier and gentler entity than it's predecesor.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
OK, the thread seems to have moved on slightly since the second page (I stopped reading then). But, up to there, people couldn't understand why the Europeans were selling arms to China. This might shed some light (only the bold is important)
quote:
Niall Ferguson
Monday February 21, 2005
The Guardian
When Richard Nixon visited China in February 1972, the world was agog. His reputation as an anti-communist and cold war hawk was well established. China was in the grip of the cultural revolution, a deranged civil war between the generations unleashed by Mao Zedong. And yet there were Nixon and Mao swapping toasts and guzzling feasts in the Forbidden City.
Today there are those who find the idea of George Bush in Europe almost as improbable. But that is where President Bush is heading this week - to Brussels, Mainz and Bratislava.
Like Nixon, Bush has a track record of hostility towards his hosts. In his first term, he and his closest colleagues made no secret of their impatience with the reluctance of France and Germany to become involved in the war to depose Saddam Hussein. Two years ago, in a spectacularly undiplomatic moment, Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, sneered at what he called "old Europe" - meaning the original members of the European Union, as opposed to the "new Europe" of east European statesabout to join the EU.
For much of 2003 a mostly frivolous but sometimes earnest mood of Francophobia swept the US. White House speechwriters did not actually use the phrase "cheese-eating surrender monkeys". But it was easy to imagine the president muttering it in private. Bush in Europe? It really is as incongruous as Nixon in China.
Meanwhile, Europe itself - like China in 1972 - has been undergoing profound change that has seemed for some time to rule out meaningful transatlantic reconciliation. Ever since the decline and fall of the Soviet Union, Europeans have depended far less for their security on the US. That has significantly reduced the incentives for harmony within what used to be called "the west".
Perhaps more importantly, large Muslim populations (especially in France and Germany) have subtly shifted European attitudes towards the Middle East, the world's geopolitical hub. Traditional Arabophile tendencies on the part of European diplomatic elites have been reinforced by politicians fearful of alienating Muslim constituents if they adhere too closely to the US. In some quarters, European hostility to Israel has become more strident, sometimes (at least to American ears) even anti-semitic.
For these reasons, it is hard to feel optimistic about the tour. Yet the lesson of Nixon in China is that sometimes opposites really can meet.
Both sides seem in the mood for rapprochement. Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell's successor at the state department, was not known for her cheerful demeanour in her four years as national security adviser. But on her recent tour of European capitals she was all smiles. Nobody was left in any doubt that the second-term Bush administration had rediscovered the delights of diplomacy. Ms Rice's trip was the opening salvo of a US charm offensive.
And there are signs that this amity could be mutual. The Dutch secretary general of Nato has said he will try to get more European member states to contribute to the training of Iraqi security forces. Peter Mandelson, the EU trade commissioner, has proclaimed his eagerness to "revitalise transatlantic relations". Last Tuesday, Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy representative, said the tension was over. It was time to "look to the future".
Yet it is impossible to escape the suspicion that this mood music conceals fundamental differences on three major international issues.
Number one remains Iraq. France and Germany still refuse to allow military personnel to enter Iraq. Any contributions they make to training will take place in countries neighbouring Iraq.
Number two is Iran. The US is intensely suspicious of the recent European deal that elicited promises from Tehran - a "totalitarian" regime, according to Condi Rice - to renounce uranium enrichment in return for assistance with non-military nuclear projects. The European position, as enunciated by the German defence minister last week, is that Iran will "only abandon its nuclear ambitions if _ its legitimate security interests are safeguarded". This does not play well in Washington, where plans were quite recently afoot for air strikes against Iranian nuclear facil ities. At the very least, the US wants to put the case for sanctions against Iran before the UN security council.
The biggest source of tension, however, may relate to China. The Europeans plan to lift the arms embargo imposed in 1989 after Tiananmen Square. The Americans oppose this, but their opposition is a symptom of a deeper suspicion of what Europe is up to in Asia.
It is not widely recognised that the US is currently being subsidised by foreign monetary authorities, mostly Asian. Central banks, led by the People's Bank of China, are financing about 75%-85% of the US current account deficit. In essence, the Chinese are buying dollars and US bonds to prevent their own currency appreciating against the dollar, which would in turn hurt exports.
N ot only are the returns on these dollar holdings miserably low, but as the US "twin deficits" grow, the exposure of China's central bank to a dollar devaluation grows. According to a recent estimate, if the yuan appreciated by 33% against the dollar, it would inflict a capital loss on the People's Bank equivalent to 10% of GDP.
From an American perspective, this arrangement is just fine. American consumption and foreign policy are effectively being paid for with low-interest loans from Asia, allowing the Bush administration to give American voters both butter (tax cuts) and guns (the occupation of Iraq). And economic interdependence notionally reduces the risk of Sino-American disagreements on strategic matters, notably North Korea but also Taiwan. Yet the Chinese must be feeling nervous. It clearly makes sense for them to reduce their economic dependence on the US export market and their exposure to the dollar.
Step forward Europe -already a bigger market than the US for Chinese goods and proud owner of the euro, a currency looking increasingly like an alternative reserve currency to the dollar.
The irony is that just a few months before Bush's visit to Brussels, a European statesman went on a little-reported trip to Beijing. President Jacques Chirac was there ostensibly to promote trade and cultural exchanges with France. But Chirac surely had a rather grander design in mind. He knows that talk of transatlantic rapprochement amounts to little more than empty rhetoric. He also knows that Europe has an opportunity to woo China from the American embrace.
Today, as in 1972, the international system has a triangular shape. Then it was the US that outwitted the Soviet Union by making overtures to China. Perhaps it is now Europe's turn to outwit the US by doing the same. Or has George Bush already booked his flight to Beijing?
· Niall Ferguson is professor of history at Harvard, a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford, and a senior research fellow of Jesus College, Oxford; his latest book is Colossus: The Price of America's Empire |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:22
|
|
DD attracted this thread to my attention, and warned me to ignore the trollish part. Which is why I carefully avoided to read anything other than the OP 
I think this issue will be probably the one where we'll see if the EU-US relationships have grown in maturity since the Iraq diplomatic debacle (which was a debacle for all parties involved, unlike what the article is suggesting).
The EU wants to open the huge Chinese weapon markets to its productions. This demand is also motivated by Chirac's megalomaniac willingness to create a multipolar world*. The US wants to maintain its hegemony, and doesn't want to let China be dangerous enough that it cannot defend Taiwan anymore. Such a defeat (although the US would avoid the fight altogether rather than fight in a quagmire/defeat/nuclear holocaust) would seriously shake American hegemony.
Now, it seems Bush has grown wiser since the Iraq experience, and the EU doesn't lack pragmatists either. Instead of threatening the EU like the bigot journalist is suggesting, they should work on a compromise. And in particular, the US should jump the bandwagon if any arms trade is open with China: most US-EU disagreements come from the fact that the EU accepts clients the US doesn't want to hear about (pretty much all the "rogue States").
If the US and the EU managed to discuss the topic, rather than staying on their positions, hurling mud and threats at each other, then the Transatlantic Relationship would prove solid.
If the US behaves like the bigot journalist says, i.e. threatening and acting against the EU, it will achieve nothing. That's because the moron who wrote it couldn't understand one thing: the EU now intends to be considered an equal partner of the US, not a vassal anymore. The very fact that even Tony Poodle wants to lift the ban does show it. If we are treated with contempt -as inferiors- we will further build a united diplomacy, like we have begun to do.
The Transatlantic relationship will only be functional if both parties are prone to discuss. The European Political culture is now full of compromise-loving, and the occasional moron (Chirac) won't change our willingness to negociate. The US now has to understand that it too must talk, that it too must make concessions.
Let's hope the Yank diplomats understand it better than the journalist.
*it is only megalomaniac because Chirac wants to be in the history books for that. The world will be multipolar in a few decades anyway, but Chirac wants to be the guy that had pushed for it. It's completely stupid to rush things like that for personal glory.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Straybow Originally posted by GePap
Well, for one thing we like to take seriously that old saw, "He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it." For example, the Brits saying in 1932 that there was no possibility of war within 10 years. How they were too weak just 5 years later to oppose Hitler, the Brits and French turning their backs as Hungary was forced to surrender the Sudatenland. |
OH, invoking Godwin already! Good for you, first Nazi reference!  ...
But lets take your little rant- lets say China became "fascist"- how does that directly threaten Europe? Answer, it does not.
quote:
If you are weak, your enemies are encouraged to take advantage of that weakness. There was no WW3 against the Soviets because we never let down our guard. There will be no WW3 with the Chinese if we continue to keep our guard up.
|
You realize that this goes ditto for the other side? Unless you assume some basic aggresive intent on only one side, and assume the other side is made up fo sugar, spice and everything nice? Yes, the US kept its guard up - AND SO DID THE SOVIETS. Do you think that is the US had seen a window of opportunity to destroy the Soviets because of Soviet military weakness, the US would not have taken it?
This means that China has a huge incentive to build itself up, to prevent any possible hostile US intent- I know you will haw about how that is insane, and other crap, but you know what? The US has as good a record of foreign aggression as China, heck, in the last 50 years a much bigger one. So do pray tell why, when you have people going on and on about the grave Chinese threat in the US, should the Chinese not say : these people are ideologicall nutters, and lets be armed to the teeth to make them think twice.
quote:
Is this principle something you honestly don't understand, or are you merely ideologically obtuse?  "If we all just laid down our guns there'd be no more war." |
NO, in fact, unlike you, I realize all conflicts have two sides. It works better when you see this, instead of living in some fantasy charicature world were your side is eminetly good and pure, and evryone who does not see that must be some satan spawn. Or is that too hard for you to understand?
quote:
Hah! The Europeans did think the races of the lands they colonized should be grateful for the internal peace, education, and other benefits of civilization brought in. |
Certainly, but they never did any of these things for the benefit of the locals, only for their benefit. Its akin to the moronic arguement that blakcs should be glad they were taken slaves cause America is so much nicer than Africa. NO, Europeans invaded people for their own good, and then thought- you are better off under us. The US invades people and tells them- we are doing this for you, not us, you.
That is the difference.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DaShi
I'll just say this: Take a close look at how Chinese treat their own people. Then ask yourself, how would they treat foreigners, if they held power over them? |
The same way they treat their own people : duh.
This, of course, assumes the Chinese have some devious intent on swallowing up the world. The one territorial claim the Chinese have with any population to speak of is Taiwan, which is a left-over of the civil wars of the 1920-40's. Every other territorial dispute of note involves sparesely, if at all populated pieces of territory. A war for any such pieces of dirt and rock are utterly stuypid, on all sides- waste of people and resources to lay claim to what?? Any thing found there will eventually be sold and simply ent5er the world economy, so wasting anything on fighting for rocks is, again, just moronic, and all states that would partatke in such stupidity should be castigated- I failt to see, for example, what, besides 50,000 + dead, Ethiopia and Eritrea got out of their battle for dirt and rocks along their borders.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
That assumes, of course, "an aggresive China". But I guess in some circles, that is a given.
Sad, really.
And why on earth would Europe see a threat in Russia?? Unless Russia itself became "aggresive", but then, how dare the peace loving, wonderful, lovely, never bad people of the grand allience of love ever allow an aggressor into their midsts!!
Man, let the paranoia run wild....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
The same way they treat their own people : duh.
This, of course, assumes the Chinese have some devious intent on swallowing up the world. The one territorial claim the Chinese have with any population to speak of is Taiwan, which is a left-over of the civil wars of the 1920-40's. Every other territorial dispute of note involves sparesely, if at all populated pieces of territory. A war for any such pieces of dirt and rock are utterly stuypid, on all sides- waste of people and resources to lay claim to what?? Any thing found there will eventually be sold and simply ent5er the world economy, . |
it will be sold, and paid for, and someone will get the revenue from those sales. GePap is confusing the fact that which party owns a resource is not relevant to third parties, with the incorrect notion that ownership is of no value to the owning parties.
As for China being a status quo power once it gets Taiwan - that is precisely what is in dispute. China's navy has reached out to Pakistan for an Indian Ocean presence, and seems to be looking at operational strategies far into the Pacific. It MAY be a conservative power that ONLY wants Taiwan. For the moment the US and Japan will test China by looking at HOW China approaches Taiwan - a China that endangers regional security by attempting to resolve the Taiwan problem by FORCE would be an indication of an irresponsible China.
Im sure there will be some response about the absurdity of looking at the plans of the Chinese military as an indication of Chinese strategic goals. Maybe so, but such folk have no problem with taking US military plans, even statements of out of office US officials, as indicators of alleged plans by the US.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
That assumes, of course, "an aggresive China". But I guess in some circles, that is a given.
Sad, really.
And why on earth would Europe see a threat in Russia?? Unless Russia itself became "aggresive", but then, how dare the peace loving, wonderful, lovely, never bad people of the grand allience of love ever allow an aggressor into their midsts!!
Man, let the paranoia run wild.... |
1. I was going with the assumption you stated. I dont KNOW that China is NOW aggressive. Nor do i feel confident in predicting what China will be like in 20 years. I do think it wise to be cautious. Neither to provoke China, nor to ignore potential danger.
2. An EU that is no longer interested in global peace, to the point that it could ignore the threat presented by a fascist China, might well have conflicts with Russia of all kinds.
3. In the event of a China that was sufficiently strong and sufficiently aggressive, the alliance to contain China would have no choice but to look for allies where it could find it. That is NOT the current US policy - we're far from that point and may never reach it. The current US policy is to reconcile with Europe based on shared global concerns. The question NOW is whether EU policy toward China is compatible with those shared global concerns.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:22
|
|
DD:
You might also like that I comment about EU's willingness to deal with an antidemocratic country such as China, hurting the interests of a democratic country such as the US along the way, and destabilising the region.
Well, for one, I don't think any modern weapon (whether Russian, Israeli, European or American) would worsen the everwdaw life of the average Chinese. Even old air forces and old tanks can be very efficient at keeping civilian populations in check. When the average civilian weaponry stopped progressing at light RPGs, the need for a more modern military to oppress them has dwindled as well.
For second, I don't think China will want to bully any of the other big ones in forseeable future. With regional rivals such as India, Russia,and to a smaller extent Pakistan, China certainly won't attack them directly. I also don't see them attacking Japan or South Korea outright, because the US will make it very clear that these countries are under its protection. And China doesn't have much too gain from attacking these countries anyway. After all, it's much more efficient to promote anti-Japanese hatemongering while the Japanese are still around.
This lets the perspective that a modern Chinese military will bully lesser neighbours, first and foremost Taiwan. This is indeed the biggest prospect of unstability in the region, and the eventual confrontation may be hastened if the trade embargo is lifted. This is indeed the one point where the dots can be connected so that the EU's decision can be really criticized, and harshly so: our greed will probably hasten the death of thousands. And this is why there should be a political will from the European humanists to maintain the Chinese embargo.
But I don't think these humanitarian concerns have anything to do with the American position on the matter, and I am quite surprised that it has to do with yours, as I considered wou to be a hardcore realist.
In realistic terms, what I wrote in my previous post stands. The Transatlantic Relationship will show its maturity if both sides are able to compromise on their greedy interests. If both sides stay adamant, it'll show the Transatlantic Relationship won't be able to resume properly until there's a change of leadership, or until a common foe unites us again.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
it will be sold, and paid for, and someone will get the revenue from those sales. GePap is confusing the fact that which party owns a resource is not relevant to third parties, with the incorrect notion that ownership is of no value to the owning parties. |
The possible benefits of any said resources would pale in comparison to the cost of a war- hence, to fight for the right of ownership would be a pure act of stupidity, and only nationalistic chauvinism would stand in the way of coming to a sensible aggreement.
quote:
As for China being a status quo power once it gets Taiwan - that is precisely what is in dispute. China's navy has reached out to Pakistan for an Indian Ocean presence, and seems to be looking at operational strategies far into the Pacific. It MAY be a conservative power that ONLY wants Taiwan. For the moment the US and Japan will test China by looking at HOW China approaches Taiwan - a China that endangers regional security by attempting to resolve the Taiwan problem by FORCE would be an indication of an irresponsible China. |
And anyone care to say why China would ahve any more of an aggresive bent than , HMMM..., the US? The US currently has the ability to send its fleets anywhere, yet until the neo-cons began their little ideological crusade, most people in the world did not think the US had inherently aggresive intents. For something to be a threat, you need capability AND intent. No one here has shown why China would have an intent.
AS for the Taiwan issue- that as I said previously, is a left over of the civil wars- certainly, it goes to the very roots of the legitimacy of the current regime, and they have been very constant in saying this is their main concern- certainly it would be much better for China to seek to resolve things peacefully, since a military strike, even if succesful, would yield few benefits. Thjat said, I think it is wrong to see Taiwan as indicative of anything else, since China has been more than clear fro over 50 years that Taiwan is an issue on its own. Our own policy towards Taiwan (which the US recognizes as part of China) shows that that conflict is a thing in and of itself.
quote:
Im sure there will be some response about the absurdity of looking at the plans of the Chinese military as an indication of Chinese strategic goals. Maybe so, but such folk have no problem with taking US military plans, even statements of out of office US officials, as indicators of alleged plans by the US. |
And do you have the plans of the Chinese military laying around? Care to share them, oh wise knower of Chinese military positioning and planning?
Oh, and I love the whole "ohh, they blame the US first.." crap. I don;t think China is nice, nor do I think China is lovable, nor in any way better than the US. The problem LoTM is that you assume the US for some archane reason to be better than China in its international behavior, and hence everyone should love and understand the US, whatever. The double standard is from your end, not mine.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
DD:
For second, I don't think China will want to bully any of the other big ones in forseeable future. With regional rivals such as India, Russia,and to a smaller extent Pakistan, China certainly won't attack them directly. I also don't see them attacking Japan or South Korea outright, because the US will make it very clear that these countries are under its protection. And China doesn't have much too gain from attacking these countries anyway. After all, it's much more efficient to promote anti-Japanese hatemongering while the Japanese are still around. |
1. Paki isnt a rival to China, but a natural ally.
2. Russia may be a natural rival, but is not acting that way now. To the extent the US and EU reconcile, Russia is likely to shift back to China.
3. Protecting Skor and Japan is costly to the US, and will grow more burdensome as China grows relative to the US. At some point the US and Japan will need additional allies. If the EU is unavailable, they will have to find them elsewhere, which may be uncomfortable for the EU. If the EU IS going to someday join in the defense of Japan, the EU would be wise to think if abandoning the prosperous democracy on Taiwan will make the task of defending Japan easier or not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Last Conformist
|
 |
of Calakmul
Jul 2003
time: 06:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
You realize that this goes ditto for the other side? Unless you assume some basic aggresive intent on only one side, and assume the other side is made up fo sugar, spice and everything nice? Yes, the US kept its guard up - AND SO DID THE SOVIETS. Do you think that is the US had seen a window of opportunity to destroy the Soviets because of Soviet military weakness, the US would not have taken it?
This means that China has a huge incentive to build itself up, to prevent any possible hostile US intent- I know you will haw about how that is insane, and other crap, but you know what? The US has as good a record of foreign aggression as China, heck, in the last 50 years a much bigger one. So do pray tell why, when you have people going on and on about the grave Chinese threat in the US, should the Chinese not say : these people are ideologicall nutters, and lets be armed to the teeth to make them think twice. |
Realizing that China has rational reasons to build up its military capacity doesn't mean one needs to be happy about it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. I was going with the assumption you stated. I dont KNOW that China is NOW aggressive. Nor do i feel confident in predicting what China will be like in 20 years. I do think it wise to be cautious. Neither to provoke China, nor to ignore potential danger. |
I never stated China would be aggresive, so I don;t know where you get this from.
quote:
2. An EU that is no longer interested in global peace, to the point that it could ignore the threat presented by a fascist China, might well have conflicts with Russia of all kinds. |
Whatever- global peace under whose definition?
quote:
3. In the event of a China that was sufficiently strong and sufficiently aggressive, the alliance to contain China would have no choice but to look for allies where it could find it. That is NOT the current US policy - we're far from that point and may never reach it. The current US policy is to reconcile with Europe based on shared global concerns. The question NOW is whether EU policy toward China is compatible with those shared global concerns. |
The problem is that the US has an inherently selfish (much like China) policy, in which it is trying to get Europe to back it in the continuation of US global military Hegemony, under the idea that the US is the best and nicest steward of world politics, and hence, things under OUR control is the best world possible.
Its obvcious the Europeans do not share any longer this notion that a unipolar world with the US on top is the desireable world. While some Europeans probably think a unipolar world with them on top would be best, and some might think that a multipolar world balance is more desirable, the general trend of moevement in Europe seems to be moving from a "polar" world , period. MOves to create and integrated EU, support of international actions like Kyoto and the ICJ are the firt baby steps to seemingly trying to end the nation-state as the sovereign unit of the world system and replace it with something else.
Current Us concerns are "terrorism", maintianing its soverignty, and maintaining its military hegemony, and spreading free trade. Neocons would add the spread of democracy throught the use of the US military hegemony, but that is a torny and devise issue even in the US.
Europe's concerns are continuing its EU development, greater internationalism, spread of free trade, and global development.
So currently US and European goals intersect in only a few ways- why then should the Europeans back the US, speuically in ways which meet none of its goals, but back US goals which might be in contradiction to its own? (Maintaining US military hegemony vs. greater internationalism)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Im NOT again going to debate US behavior for the last 70 years with you, since I know your opinions. Im speaking to Europeans. Those whose view of the cold war is that the US and the USSR were equally at fault, and that US behavior in alliance with Europe during that period should NOT be accounted as positive, will OF COURSE have no reason to share my view of the US vis a vis China. However that is not the official position of any european govt, and AFAICT is not the majority view on the continent. Similarly those who see the US involvement in Iraq as not simply a mistake(as many view it) but as aggression of the first order, will also share your view. |
You're not going to debate, but you are goign to make utterly wrong assumptions about other peoples' positions? (but of course, you were not going to argue, so if I point out how wrong you are, well, that would be arguing :rolleyes Oh, and let me add- you don;t KNOW my position, you know your impressions of my positions (unless you read minds LoTM< but for some reason I seriously doubt you do). An honest man would know as much and realize only by arguing and listening will they actually know the other guy's position.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-02-2005 14:57
|