 |
| |
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
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 Instead, he has chosen to conserve a project that the Chinese have made outdated.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 
Last edited by Spiffor on 23-04-2005 at 20:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
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
|
 |
AUERSTADT
Jun 2002
time: 05:35
|
|
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
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
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...on/11454823.htm
Last edited by DanS on 24-04-2005 at 00:15
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
 |
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:35
|
|
Earlier in this thread, UR asserted that China was supporting the U.S. dollar and, by extension, the U.S. economy.
That has piqued my curiosity because the last time I checked, China was far from being the only nation to have dollar reserves and, secondly, has pegged the value of its currency — the yuan, I believe (correct me if that's not right, please) — to that of the U.S. dollar. The practical effect is that it makes Chinese goods cheaper on the U.S. market, which helps to ensure that U.S. consumers buy them, which in turn is said to contribute to our trade deficit with China (which, I believe, is in the billions by now).
How is this supporting the U.S. economy? One would think that if China was really certain of *its* economic strength, it would have no problem de-linking the yuan to the dollar. Yet it won't do that. Why? Are they afraid the yuan would skyrocket in value and, thus, reduce their ability to sell their goods overseas — i.e., to U.S. consumers? And wouldn't such a move actually make U.S. goods a bit cheaper in China? If such a de-linking were to occur, wouldn't it be a double whammy against China's economy and a double-win of sorts for the U.S. economy?
I freely admit that economics aren't my speciality, but if even a part of what I wrote above is true, how the heck is UR's assertion — namely, that China is supporting the U.S. economy — even remotely true?
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
"Lancer, I tend to agree with your title, as does Spiffor apparently. Is the entire nation of France a pack of slut whores, or is it just the Gaulists I wonder?"
Ned, consider Spif's take on the matter. No, I can't generalize to include all Fwench. I will say that I believe a majority of the French population supported Chirac, a class A *******, likely a bought class A *******, in his opposition to the war in Iraq. They are America and American haters, mostly, lacking in reason, and their food sucks no matter what anyone says. 
Spif I like though, there is some small hope for him.
"I was just reading up on Frankin in Paris. It appears that even then the French were doing everything in their power to screw the Brits, then the big kid on the block. Nothing has changed in the French character."
It would appear that the government os of the franc and for the franc, and much of the citizenry is down with that. Same in Franklin's time? I'm shocked.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sandman
In any case, it hardly comes close to the madcap, anti-French hysterics some of your lot are indulging in, does it? I'll bet that internal French opposition to lifting the ban has hardly been covered in the American media. |
Actually, I have never found anything in the French media that mentioned domestic opposition to the ban. We have a tradition of letting "high diplomacy" in the hands of the president, and we have a very poor background of criticzing presidential international decisions.
When the media mentioned the issue at all, it was treated as some faraway diplomatic move, not as something criticism was possible on (even die-hard opponents of Chirac like the Commies). I've seen a very different tune in Germany, where the Green party has some actual weight.
True, there's some French-bashing: this thread would have probably never had so many posts if the Belgians or the Germans had been the guilty part. However, France definitely deserves to be bashed on that one. We are doing a terrible policy.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-04-2005 19:41
|