China Urges EU to “Trash” Arms Embargo Ahead of Visit.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by NEO_CON, Nov 5, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. You mean they could go around bombing and invading other Nations?
    The USA wouldn't stand for that - that's their job.....
  2. The only advantage that the US has over China at present is technology, opening this door to trade would give them the jump they need.

    Have to agree with Neo-Con, I'd rather have the US and their "enforced" democracy, and all that that entails, than China and its glorious communist policies :evil:
  3. Is this what you so disagree with Neo?

    ''Why should we expect the Chinese to act any differently than the US did? Are they more principled than the Americans are? More ethical? Less nationalistic? Less concerned about their survival? They are none of these things, of course, which is why China is likely to imitate the US and attempt to become a regional hegemon.

    It is clear from the historical record how American policy-makers will react if China attempts to dominate Asia. The US does not tolerate peer competitors. As it demonstrated in the 20th century, it is determined to remain the world's only regional hegemon. Therefore, the US can be expected to go to great lengths to contain China and ultimately weaken it to the point where it is no longer capable of ruling the roost in Asia. In essence, the US is likely to behave towards China much the way it behaved towards the Soviet Union during the Cold War''.
  4. Nehustan

    Nehustan On ROPs

    Well wouldn't you know, and as people have pointed out, the USA trying to maintain their global Hegemony. As if they haven't caused enough problems in their own back yard that the NSA now has to try and tidy up or at least contain (re: Mafia {mia figlia} wing of the Honourable Society of Siciliy, not so honourable in the US it seems!!!, in cahoots with the 'Feds' in the black ghetto's of the US in the mid part of last century) it now has to basically hazardously play with the whole world.

    I think any attempt to convince the Chinese to follow the Russian model post the soviet era is not going to wash, they surely will intend to steer their own course, no matter how much the company would smile to see Beijing run by tryads :wink:

    We recently had the Chinese in the UK, president HU, don't think they are planning a cultural revolution here, they probably find our system quaint and amusing much like the rest of the world. Made me smile when I added up HU, it equals 56, and wouldn't you know so does one of our government departments. I heard whispered that some of our 56 scientists (good old Q Branch :twisted: ) may have met with chinese counterparts. If things went well China may not have to rely on Oil as a source of power as we progress into C21st, and it doesn't matter what Bush says while he's there, the US rely heavily on oil (and so does his families bank balance!!!)

    I just hope the US (Govt.) still tries to ride the wave of neo-imperialism, while I'll wait to whistle that great cultural export of 1963, by which I mean the song by the The Surfaris....

    'Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-a, Wipeout!!!'

    (And no I'm not Anti-American, I have always tried to be nice and mannered to their citizens through sympathy!)
  5. What this has to do with China , I can't figure out .

    The title of the article is what really caught my attention ,also what paper it is in, The Australian. The people in Australia must be looking at the rise of China much more nervously than either the US or Britain. Look if the US isn't the world Hegemony as you on the left like to accuse us as being. I will still be able to vote Republican in the next election and watch real football on Sunday's, no skin of my nose. Let you British be the Hegemony. You did a credible job for a couple of hundred years, not perfect mind you but credible. You can help Australia if they need it.

    While your deciding, listen to the Journalist from Hong Kong, remember Hong Kong. He starts about 45 minutes in to the conference.
  6. How far does this arms embargo go btw?
  7. Nehustan

    Nehustan On ROPs

    Then let me delineate. The reference to and thus the use of the organised crime analogy is introduced early in the post, with apparently no reason. There is however multiple reasons for it. It stands to show that underhand dirty tricks can 'blow up' in ones face, and lead to bigger problems than an average person would deem fit, necessary, or desirable i.e. drug and gang culture in the ghettos of the USA. This introduces a subtext regarding the actions of the US in a global context, i.e. the war on terror, which is paralleled by the cited 'local' behaviour, i.e the war on drugs.

    I then move on to draw into the analogy of the Soviet transition from their brand of Socialism into a world based apparently based upon 'capitalist' values, and the problems that the Russian Federation has had re: organised crime, seperatist movements, corruption. A direct connection between China, Russia, modernisation, and organised crime/terrorist groups is then made stating that Beijing may want to steer their own path forward 'no matter how much the company would smile to see Beijing run by tryads'. (I am sure that the company will also probably have people out in the large Chinese muslim population seeding discontent, but I guess that's not relevant to this post, tho' if you're Chinese it might seem pretty relevant!!!)

    Thus the first part of my post is, thus, a comment on the inevitable rejection by Beijing of anything the US says on the grounds that they are dirty underhand self interested amateurs at the Great Game, prone to shooting themselves in the foot. The second part is naught more than a smug 'dig' at 'G' types. However, it may well be that what is happening in America is not actually a mistake in the eyes of Neo-Cons (can maintaining a hegemony be considered 'Neo'?), nor their policies around the world. If so then all those loony NWO conspiracy types may have at least some points in their rantings.

    As to the charge of being 'on the left'. You will have to explain what exactly you mean? Are you refering to a qabbalistic left or a political one? My answer to the charge of either will be the same, so consider it a rhetorical question requiring no answer. Single thinkers (i.e you) often accuse dialectic thinkers (i.e. me) of being on this wing or that (re: politics) or of walking this path or that (re: The tree). The truth is we approach all things using this small concept. Thesis : Antithesis : Synthesis leading to a new Thesis etc. ad infinitum (or appearing to us as infinite from our finite position). I am a Liberal, I stand at the centre with what I like to describe as a left wing informed by Marxist critique, and a neo-conservative right wing.

    Does that make the point of my first post any clearer? Probably not, it's hard to break the chains of a whole life of political 'single thinking' indoctrination.
  8. Neo Con.

    Out if interest, have you looked at any stories on trade links between Israel and China?

  9. Gosh your are smart.

    I will say the British did, in a historical context, a decedent job of playing the great game. The first part of the 20th seemed to end that run. I don't blame the British for the falure of the world system they help set up after Waterloo. It lasted a long time.

    I think, my self included, most Americans really don't want to play the Great Game. The first part of the 20th made that a particularly unappealing option. . We are looking for a way out of balance of power politics. Not a EU-- UN type organization, where you must surrender your liberties and your prosperity to a bunch of do nothing corrupt elites.

    So to promoting free trade and democratic governments is a plausible option.

    Unnecessary name calling, but no problem. I am use to it. There are 300 million Americans many who even have college degrees.

    ----- Marxist governments have a real record of successful governance.

    Color me indoctrinated.
  10. Nehustan

    Nehustan On ROPs

    Do you know Neo-con as I wrote my post I actually came up with the response that I would give if you replied with 'You think you're so clever!!!' By Iove wouldn't you know you basically resorted to a playground response when confonted with basic arguments you missed (re. subtext), tho' so apparent even a blind man could have avoided them. Admittedly your wording was slightly different 'Gosh your are smart' which I will take to mean 'Gosh you are smart.' My reply is my preplanned one. I am actually of fairly average intelligence, but on a relative scale it's not that I'm smart its that you are basically ******. Lets see if you are quick enough to decypher that.

    regarding the fact that,

    that's great news, at least we know where to come when we run out of toilet paper. Save Condalisa's for me, if you'd be kind enough.


    As Noam Chomsky has said,

    [align=justify]'I don't think it takes great genius to understand that. I think, in fact, it takes a good education not to understand it.' [/align]
  11. Prior to the embargo what sort of toys did China receive?

    Anyone know?
  12. Nehustan

    Nehustan On ROPs

    I guess that depended on what was 'en vogue' with Santa Claus and his little helpers.....

    (As a postscript did you hear about the dyslexic that sold his soul to Santa?)
  13. Hello All,

    This is my first post, but this seemed as good a place to start than any.

    From my understanding of reading early 20th Century history our (British) ideas of maintaining a global hedgmony all went pear shaped because the bloody frogs didn't do their job. I imagine there are a few heads getting scratched now! Well the great plan was that France & the new unified German state would counter balance (and tie up) each other allowing Britania to merrily rule the waves and therefore world 'free' trade. Of course we entered into agreements with France but government thinking was that all we would need to is provide a token army presence on the continent and keep the trade lanes open for France who would then fight the Germans to a standstill allowing us to then cash in on the rebuilding of a shattered Europe and set up some nice UK style democratic governments. Of course it all went tits up when it emerged the French would not cope without significant contributions from the UK. The US seemed to adopt this plan when WW2 broke out (and we once again had to throw our entire weight behind France) and my god what a good plan it was!