Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

It looks like the Euros will not – in the end – sell arms to China.

The French, especially, hoped to lift the embargo in relative secrecy. Nobody would notice and they could go back to making money. Now with the bright light shining on them, they are scampering back to their dark hiding places.

It didn’t hurt that the U.S. has threatened to suspend weapons development cooperation with those firms selling to China. Condi Rice hit the issue hard and George Bush is playing hardball. It looks like we will prevail in the end.

The interesting thing is that back in November, it looked like a done deal. The embargo looked certain to be lifted. This is a case of subtle (and not so subtle) diplomacy. I am convinced that had this happened under Clinton or a hypothetical Kerry administration, we would have caved back in November. The French would have praised our flexibility for a day or two before they went back to their usual habits.

The Euros know they are wrong. That is why they were trying to slip it out without significant fanfare.

Now we have changed the game. Even if some face saving way is found to “lift the embargo” it won’t include the battlefield command technologies that we really care about. Score one for muscular diplomacy.

Ditto on what Jack said.

The EU and france are backing away from that idea.

I would like to know WHY there is not a bigger stink about this.
If it were the U.S. doing it the world press and other governments would be ALL OVER us.
As long as it is Chirac … everyone just understands and gives him a ‘pass’?
Chirac is just trying to look out for his countries economy and export interests?
Where is the outrage from the people in our OWN country who damn Bush for every move he makes?

The only way I knew this story even made the news lately was through a scroll on the bottom of my television during discussion about M.Jackson, Terri Schiavo, and Martha’s ankle bracelet.

It was also on NPR yesterday, in conjunction with the story to sell fighter jets to Pakistan. I think that both what the EU was proposing doing with China, and what the US is still contemplating with Pakistan are equally BAD BAD HORRIBLE ideas….. and I am someone who does damn Shrub for about every move he makes.

I agree dawn, more attention needs to be called to Chirac on this one.

Dawn,

Breaking News:..

You’ll never see much in MSM if its critical of france or the EU.

They are mostly socialist, just like the MSM.

But I don’t see a media bias ( cough, choke, gag).

come on people, get real.

‘Now with the bright light shining on them, they are scampering back to their dark hiding places. ‘

Let not prentend like the U.S. has any reguard for who we’ll sell arms too if we can turn a buck. We sold weapons to Iraq, we sell them to Isreal and we’re going to continue to sell them to Pakistan. None of this justifies France or any one else from selling arms to other oppresive countries, but I think maybe we can get down off our high horse on this.

Justin,

High horse? Which one of us put the U.S. on this high horse you mention?

I am questioning our selling fighter jets to Pakistan. What if we end up having to shoot them down at the risk our pilots’ lives??
I do not like the idea.

I really never understood selling arms to Iraq. That was just dumb.
We liked Iraq better than Iran? Bad excuse.

Apparently Israel has had to use some of these weapons we sell them to defend themselves.
We like Israel better than Iran and Syria? I don’t mind that one.
I am waiting for the backlash when they decide to bomb Iran.

A few details and points

The U.S. sells arms to many nations.

We have respected the arms embargo against China since we and the Euros imposed it.

The U.S. sold insignificant amounts of arms to Iraq. The idea that the U.S. armed Saddam is simply disinformation. You don’t have to believe what I say, but just look at the arms that Iraq had on hand when they fought the Gulf War. There were Soviet tanks and French aircraft, but not American equipment.

During the Iraq-Iran War it looked like Saddam was the lesser of the evils. The U.S. allowed some transfer of intelligence information and weapons from other Arab states to Saddam, not to allow Saddam to win but to prevent him from losing. Not a great deal. It was a lot like helping Stalin against Hitler. But the bulks of Saddam’s forces were not then and never were American equipped.

We have no cause to feel particularly guilty about that one.

jack,

Of course, you are right. USA never sell any significant amount of arms to Iraq. Just transfer to them the biochemical warfare capacity. That’s.

So, let me get this straight. If you can manufacture WMD’s that might contribute to conflict that’s A.O.K. but you can’t buy them from another country?

Here’s an idea, try to settle disagreements with things OTHER than weapons. Then, you don’t have to worry about who has the bigger gun. Of course, seeing as the U.S. has the biggest guns of any nation, that’s a policy we do not often follow.

Zeek.
“Of course, seeing as the U.S. has the biggest guns of any nation, that’s a policy we do not often follow.”

I can’t see us not having ‘the biggest guns’ given the world as we know it.
Who would you prefer had them?
France? Russia? Germany? Iran? Syria? N.Korea?
Anybody but US?

In a perfect world ….

Dawn, Canada. Who better than the peace loving Canadians to have the largest destructive power in the world?

Ok, maybe that was a joke. However, my point was not that we shouldn’t have “the biggest guns” in the world, it was that we should settle disputes without whipping them out all the time. Just a suggestion.

Sister

The U.S. did not transfer bio chem warfare capacity to Iraq either. More disinformation. Once again, you don’t have to believe me, just consider the type of capacity Iraq had. Iraq never developed any sophisticated biochemical capacity. The mustard gases they used against the Iranian and the Kurds are 1915 technologies, unfortunately very easy to produce. The U.S. would not have to transfer any capacity of this type. The problem is not capacity; it is intent. Any despot can develop the capacity to produce poison gases. That is what makes them so dangerous.

The whole idea that the U.S. created Saddam is a pernicious piece of disinformation built on a very flimsy base. You could just as well make the case that Brazil or Czechoslovakia created Saddam, since those countries sold more weapons to Saddam than we did.

Zeek

Why can’t we all get along. Let’s give peace a chance. What if they held a war and nobody came? We have achieved peace in our time. If we are harmless as a baby and threaten no country, no country will threaten us. Just a few of the thoughts I have heard on this subject. Usually they are expressed just before somebody starts a particuarly bloody war.

I almost put Canada right after France …

I don’t think we ‘whip them out’ all the time. We have people who wanted to attack Iran because it was a choice that made ‘more sense’ than Iraq.
(When it becomes available I will have last night’s interview on Lou Dobbs with Tim Russert about the decision to go to Iraq and what our politicians are saying now.)
I think the reasoning behind not attacking Iran is that they have a much stronger movement in their country toward overthrowing the leaders.
N.Korea is another one that some are just ‘dying’ to attack. Why? Isn’t N.Korea a bigger responsibility of China than US?
What I can’t get a grasp of is those that were/are so opposed to what happened in Iraq complaining that we haven’t attacked Iran.
By opposed, I mean, they didn’t believe in a pre-emptive action.

Zeek,

Just imagine Chirac, Schroeder, or Putin having ‘the biggest guns’ in the world.
In my mind you couldn’t trust any of them.
We may have a President who uses our ‘big guns’ but I can believe he is trying to do the ‘right thing’ more than I could ever imagine the other three would.

Dawn, you miss my point. I’m not disputing you’re argument, I’m just saying it would be nicer if we didn’t use intimidation or brute force to settle disputes so often (this is pretty unrealistic though).

However, for some people, there’s just no substitute for expediency. It seems that much like the lethargic chestnut, America has become lazy.

MSM. Murdoch Seduced Media?

I should point out that the US is selling Fighters to Pakistan whose Human Rights Record is worse than China’s. I suppose there is a difference when the US is sending Prisoners tp Pakistan for Torture. heh.

Aldous,

No, he was talking about MSM - Microsoft Messenger. He’s right; I’ve never seen a single conservative viewpoint expressed in any of my chats.

The Sale has been postponed, not canceled. The EU will try to sell again next Spring.

Dawn,

I believe that our president uses our “bigger guns” to do what he thinks is right. I also believe that Chirac, Schroeder, or Putin would use them to do what they thought was right. They just all have a different idea of what “the right thing to do” is.

I agree that we wouldn’t be able to trust Chirac, Schroeder, or Putin. Where we seem to differ is on whether we trust Bush.

One thing I can guarantee you, Dawn, is that the French, Russians, Chinese, Germans, etc. all look on American military dominance with the same disdain that you would look on French or Chinese military dominance with. You see us as the Good Guys, who should keep the weapons away from the Bad Guys. The rest of the world doesn’t see it that way. To them, we’re just another imperialistic country, who just happens to have the biggest guns.

Ditto on Rob’s comment.

Iraq never developed any sophisticated biochemical capacity.

Wait a minute! Jack, I thought Iraq was a grave and growing threat to the US with their biochem capabilities. I totally remember you saying we’d find them and thank God they didn’t fall into the hands of the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent terrorists whom we’re cleverly drawing into battles everywhere Reagan-era hawks have wanted to invade for decades.

By your account, we’ve known Iraqi biochem weapons weren’t a threat since the 80s.

Dawn, right now there’s a big debate going on within the administration as to whether China is a friend or foe. The Pentagon uses China as the “next big threat” for planning and procurement (combatting terrorism is still a low priority), so Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perl, et. al. push Bush to take a hard line on them.

On the other hand, the State Department, US businesses, the EU, and the rest of the world - including almost half of all Taiwanese citizens - see a liberalizing China as an emerging market and a potential partner.

It’ll be interesting to see which way the administration finally jumps, though they’re trying really hard not to make a decision by pushing for a peaceful reunification.

In other words, you’re not going to see US forces fighting China over Taiwan.

AP

The point is that a bio or chemical weapon need not be sophisticated (by our standards) to be deadly. The technologies to make such weapons are old and relatively well known. That is why they are dangerous. Even primitive dictators can produce very dangerous weapons if they have the will to do so, the money to pay for it and the ruthlessness to deploy them. This describes Saddam.

I never argued here that Saddam wasn’t dangerous. What simply pointing out to those who hadn’t thought about it very much that the weapons Saddam deployed were very obviously not American or American sourced by any reasonable standard and that the argument that the U.S. supplied Saddam doesn’t make any sense.

Another point that is very important to remember about chemical and bio weapons. They are of little value on the battlefield against troops prepared for them. The combatants in World War I learned that and that is why they were rarely used since. Chemical weapon have been used successfully only against technologically backward troops (Italians used them in Ethiopia), poor equipped or led (Saddam used them against the Iranian human waves) and civilians. That is why they are so evil. They have almost no legitimate military use.

The China issue needs its own column.

Suffice to say that it is a problem that cannot be solved under today’s circumstances. That is not as depressing as it sounds. Circumstances evolve. The U.S. goal should be (and probably is) to keep both sides from doing anything stupid until conditions are ripe for a solution.

“Where we seem to differ is on whether we trust Bush.”

Rob,
I didn’t say I trust Bush completely.

Chirac, Schroeder, and Putin are not exactly making great strides in the world when it comes to negotiating their way to peace and prosperity.

I can’t believe that selling weapons (by any of us) will accomplish the ultimate goal of a peaceful world.

Take Pakisatn and our possible contract to sell jets … this deal is being set up with a leader who may not be there much longer. We have no idea who would end up with the power to decide how to use them. We should not take this chance.

The French supplied Saddam with his first two nuclear reactors. When Israeli forces sabotaged the reactors (shortly before Iraq had produced enough weapon-grade material for its first nuke), the French condemed the Israelis and replaced the reactors.

The Germans supplied Saddam with most of his facilities for chemical and biological weapons. When they asked what it was for and the Iraqi scientists couldn’t give a plausible explanation, Germany merely tripled its price.

The Russian government (through Ukraine’s formerly puppet government) supplied Iraq with weapons systems during the 2nd Gulf War.

Saddam tried to get an American company to help him build his chemical labs. But when the company realized what it was for, it pulled out and reported the incident. Some American companies sold Iraq telecommunications equipment and other stuff for their growing economy in the 80s. But few, if any, actually contributed to his arsenal.

The Europeans have been playing this dirty game for the last 20 years. But the only thing that their conscience has permitted them to boycott is Starbucks. Another favorite activity is smashing up McDonald’s restaurants and spraypainting obscenities on them. Just read the news archives from March 2003.

Aldous and I actually agree for once. The EU will most certainly try to sell again next spring.

I think you all know that MSM = main street media, and by that I’m talking network tv, the alphabet channels, abc, cbs, nbc, and even fox.

On cable/satalite I give them all some credit, for having some news programs, that are balanced and more “in depth”.

Most Americans get what little news they do watch from network tv however, and that amounts to a few blurbs of limited topic.

I’m no fan of expanded government or regulating private industry, but I would like to see everyone with phone service have basic internet access included without extra charge.
When spread out across the board it likely would raise everyones phone bill 2-3$ a month, but look at the education benifits for poor kids being able to research facts and information.

Computers cost money also, but what do you folks do with one 5-7 yrs. old? Take it to the dump? They have little to no market value by then, even if they still function just fine.

Perhaps the Salvation Army could distrubite more than old coats and jeans?

Rather than being labeled “socialistic” , I’ll end with a challenge to one of our fine editors here on Watchblog, to start a thread, is the internet entertainment or education?

Just my humble opinion.

Take Pakisatn and our possible contract to sell jets …

Interesting thing about that, dawn. The Bush administration asked Pakistan for a terrorist capture during the Democratic Convention in return for some nuclear-capable F-16s. They delivered. Now the GOP leadership is honoring their side of the bargain.

Unfortunately, it means tipping the Pakistan/India balance: the F-16s are Pakistan’s best nuclear delivery system. So now, Congressional Republicans are trying to find a way to sell India arms that would re-balance the situation.

That’s not the way I understood it. The planes are NOT being sold with the nuclear capabilties.
Pakistan wanted but US said no.

AP & Dawn

re f-16 and nukes. F-16 are multirole fighter aircraft used for close support. They can be equipped with various types of weapons, but they are not strategic bombers. I suppose you could load a many kinds of bombs on board, but it doesn’t make sense to do so. The Pakistanis would be better off passing the bomb from man to man and the last guy tosses it and runs.

Jack, the F-16 is the best long range nuclear delivery system in the Pakistani arsenal.

Given that the F-16 is undoubtedly the most capable Pakistani attack aircraft, it would likely be tasked with the delivery of nuclear air-to-ground munitions.. Pakistan also has other attack aircraft such as the Mirage III and Mirage 5, but given the few bombs in their arsenal, the F-16 would probably be the only aircraft to have a nuclear role.

If it wasn’t for the F-16, the Paks would have to pass them man-to-man.

So the GOP is rewarding Pakistan for the election year help, and scrambling to figure some way to re-balance the nuclear situation on India’s side.

How long was it between the start of Reagan’s Iran/Contra deal, and the start of the official investigation… Oh, but that’s right. We actually had checks and balances back then, didn’t we?

Selling arms to unstable countries is a bad idea. I’ve said so since this thread started coming up.

It is ironic that the F-16 issue has come up since we started talking about this. The U.S. doing anything that contributes to the the arms race problem with India and Pakistan is poor policy.

Is anyone here, right or left, saying that it’s a good idea to sell arms and the accroutments of warfare to any of these countries? Anyone?

Julia

Don’t think so Julia. I’ve not found anyone in support of this.
Of course we are all so busy deciding one woman’s fate - including our leaders.

Julia, if, after 9/11, a President Gore or a President Kerry had OK’ed the sale of a nuclear delivery system to an Islamic state, he’d have been crucified - and rightly so.

This administration has an interesting theory of foreign policy that they’re implementing: step back, let the rest of the world fight out their problems, and then support the winners.

Rice, in an interview with Washington Post editors and reporters, said she was guided less by a fear that Islamic extremists would replace authoritarian governments than by a “strong certainty that the Middle East was not going to stay stable anyway.”

Sure, it’ll work. But is an even more fundamentalist Middle East in the best interests of the United States? Is the support of a military junta in Pakistan - which is reluctent to root out bin Laden (remember him?), and also allowed the AQ Kahn nuclear proliferation network to operate - worth whatever tidbits of anti-terrorist info we’re getting from them?