View Full Version : EU's "expensive and useless" weapons - China
Kilgor
03-06-2005, 07:23 PM
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12461789%255E2703,00.html
China talks tough on Taiwan
Catherine Armitage, China correspondent
March 07, 2005
BEIJING warned the US and Japan yesterday that their increased military co-operation must be strictly bilateral and not encompass Taiwan.
Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing issued the warning during the National People's Congress, the Chinese Government's annual legislative session, which opened with a vow never to allow Taiwan independence.
But Premier Wen Jiabao offered few details of an imminent law that is expected to provide legal backing for China's intention to use force if Taiwan tries to formalise its de facto independence.
The US has vowed to protect Taiwan, a commitment that is feeding Washington's concerns about European Union plans to resume arms sales to China.
The so-called anti-secession law, which awaits rubber-stamping at the congress this week, "reflects the strong determination of the Chinese people to never allow secessionist forces working for Taiwan to separate Taiwan from China", Mr Wen said on Saturday.
Speaking at a media conference yesterday, Mr Li said: "Any part of putting Taiwan directly or indirectly into the scope of Japan-US security co-operation constitutes an encroachment on China's sovereignty and an interference in China's internal affairs."
China objected to a US and Japanese joint statement last month that described Taiwan as a common security issue.
The US is concerned the military balance across the Taiwan Strait might shift when the EU lifts its 16-year-old arms embargo on China, probably by the middle of this year.
Mr Li described the embargo as "obsolete and useless", while declaring China did not need the EU's "expensive and useless" weapons.
Last week Chinese President Hu Jintao said China would "never tolerate" Taiwanese independence.
But he noted "certain signs of relaxation" in Taiwan's approach to the mainland, apparently referring to a recent political pact between President Chen Shui-bian and James Soong, who heads the opposition Kuomintang party that favours re-unification with the mainland.
Mr Hu said he was willing to overlook the past to open a dialogue with Taiwan, but he re-asserted China's insistence that talks could not proceed unless Taiwan accepted the principle that it is part of China.
On North Korea, Mr Li repeated China's hopes that six-nation talks on nuclear disarmament would soon resume, but said he had no information on whether the Stalinist state had nuclear weapons, as it claimed last month.
On the economy, Mr Wen committed the Government to a target of 8 per cent economic growth this year.
He said the Government would create 9 million jobs while limiting public spending and debt in a continuation of efforts to cool overheated sectors of the economy. This year's target for investment growth is only 16 per cent, well down on the 26 per cent achieved last year.
Solving agricultural problems to lift incomes among the 800 million-strong rural population would be a top priority, Mr Wen said, noting that "there are more than a few factors affecting social stability". He vowed to abolish the main taxes on farmers by 2006, two years earlier than previously promised.
rofl rofl
Now.. im not saying euro weapons are useless and expensive as this is clearly not the case. I just cant believe china thinks the US is that stupid
Parzival
03-06-2005, 07:56 PM
Who knows, We invaded Iraq, That is stupid.
Kilgor
03-06-2005, 08:06 PM
Who knows, We invaded Iraq, That is stupid.
Your mother giving birth to you by the sounds of it too.
Operation Ivy
03-06-2005, 08:56 PM
Who knows, We invaded Iraq, That is stupid.
Your mother giving birth to you by the sounds of it too.
just cause he doesnt agree with the war hes stupid, come on people grow up
Kilgor
03-06-2005, 10:06 PM
What has going to war in iraq got to do with the original topic ?
one stupid comment deserves another.
China did not mean the weapons are "USELESS"
The media was confused with the chinese phrase "NOT TO BE USED". It means China does not need to buy the weapons because China has no intention of using it.
It does NOT mean the weapons are useless in a negative way.
melon
03-06-2005, 11:56 PM
China did not mean the weapons are "USELESS"
The media was confused with the chinese phrase "NOT TO BE USED". It means China does not need to buy the weapons because China has no intention of using it.
It does NOT mean the weapons are useless in a negative way.
I guess the Chinese military stationing missiles across from Taiwan is just the Chinese way of saying that they are looking out for the best interests of the island nation. Was this just lost in the media translation too?
China did not mean the weapons are "USELESS"
The media was confused with the chinese phrase "NOT TO BE USED". It means China does not need to buy the weapons because China has no intention of using it.
It does NOT mean the weapons are useless in a negative way.
I guess the Chinese military stationing missiles across from Taiwan is just the Chinese way of saying that they are looking out for the best interests of the island nation. Was this just lost in the media translation too?
:lol: good point melon...
GrimmyRX
03-07-2005, 12:05 AM
China did not mean the weapons are "USELESS"
The media was confused with the chinese phrase "NOT TO BE USED". It means China does not need to buy the weapons because China has no intention of using it.
It does NOT mean the weapons are useless in a negative way.
I guess the Chinese military stationing missiles across from Taiwan is just the Chinese way of saying that they are looking out for the best interests of the island nation. Was this just lost in the media translation too?
Boy oh boy, was that ever not what the article was about, lol. title of the thread reads "EU weapons so and so" not "Taiwan's gonna get hit by a bunch of missles so and so".
melon
03-07-2005, 12:16 AM
China did not mean the weapons are "USELESS"
The media was confused with the chinese phrase "NOT TO BE USED". It means China does not need to buy the weapons because China has no intention of using it.
It does NOT mean the weapons are useless in a negative way.
I guess the Chinese military stationing missiles across from Taiwan is just the Chinese way of saying that they are looking out for the best interests of the island nation. Was this just lost in the media translation too?
Boy oh boy, was that ever not what the article was about, lol. title of the thread reads "EU weapons so and so" not "Taiwan's gonna get hit by a bunch of missles so and so".
Thats why I used the quotes button. Was commenting on the specific response.
China did not mean the weapons are "USELESS"
The media was confused with the chinese phrase "NOT TO BE USED". It means China does not need to buy the weapons because China has no intention of using it.
It does NOT mean the weapons are useless in a negative way.
I guess the Chinese military stationing missiles across from Taiwan is just the Chinese way of saying that they are looking out for the best interests of the island nation. Was this just lost in the media translation too?
Since this is out of topic of the article...I'm not going to go into your argument too much. But to give you a response, all countries with the capability of deploying missiles, aims missiles at each other......whats your point?
melon
03-07-2005, 12:27 AM
China did not mean the weapons are "USELESS"
The media was confused with the chinese phrase "NOT TO BE USED". It means China does not need to buy the weapons because China has no intention of using it.
It does NOT mean the weapons are useless in a negative way.
I guess the Chinese military stationing missiles across from Taiwan is just the Chinese way of saying that they are looking out for the best interests of the island nation. Was this just lost in the media translation too?
Since this is out of topic of the article...I'm not going to go into your argument too much. But to give you a response, all countries with the capability of deploying missiles, aims missiles at each other......whats your point?
If you dont get it, I'm not going to explain it. Obviously its lost in the translation.
GrimmyRX
03-07-2005, 12:37 AM
China did not mean the weapons are "USELESS"
The media was confused with the chinese phrase "NOT TO BE USED". It means China does not need to buy the weapons because China has no intention of using it.
It does NOT mean the weapons are useless in a negative way.
I guess the Chinese military stationing missiles across from Taiwan is just the Chinese way of saying that they are looking out for the best interests of the island nation. Was this just lost in the media translation too?
Since this is out of topic of the article...I'm not going to go into your argument too much. But to give you a response, all countries with the capability of deploying missiles, aims missiles at each other......whats your point?
If you dont get it, I'm not going to explain it. Obviously its lost in the translation.
Huh, a whitty thing ain'tcha? You're basicly the first person to even mention Taiwan in this threat, so, tell me again, what did your responce have to do with either the thread or that guy's responce?
He said, basicly, that the Chinese weren't calling EU weapons useless, just that China would not use them.
How did your Responce in ANYWAY have to do with that?
melon
03-07-2005, 01:23 AM
Study the phrase, "Lost in translation," now apply that to the comment that the media mis-translated the "useless" adjective in the comment from the Chinese official. Ofcourse you have to see the humor and stupidity of the statement of buying weapons and not using them. Who does that? Visions of world peace aside, countries don't buy weapons and not use them at some point.
Now, carry forward the idea to the Chinese putting missiles around Taiwan, under the guise of "looking out for their neighbor." Something else that MAY get lost in the translation is their intent of deploying such missiles, much like the how the word useless was "lost in translation."
Its all about the reading comprehension.
Besides, what friggin' difference does it make?
GrimmyRX
03-07-2005, 02:35 AM
Study the phrase, "Lost in translation," now apply that to the comment that the media mis-translated the "useless" adjective in the comment from the Chinese official. Ofcourse you have to see the humor and stupidity of the statement of buying weapons and not using them. Who does that? Visions of world peace aside, countries don't buy weapons and not use them at some point.
Now, carry forward the idea to the Chinese putting missiles around Taiwan, under the guise of "looking out for their neighbor." Something else that MAY get lost in the translation is their intent of deploying such missiles, much like the how the word useless was "lost in translation."
Its all about the reading comprehension.
Besides, what friggin' difference does it make?
Hell, at what point did the guy even say that they WOULD by them eh? They just said that the ban itself was outdated.
So that takes out your FIRST paragraph.
As for your second, without your first, it's moot.
So why don't YOU try some reading comp, bud? Because it's fairly obvious that you missed a thing or two.
roland
03-07-2005, 03:34 AM
The title of the article = bad translation, of course a deceptive one.
Just an other American media crap :roll:
Carefull guys, everybody is starting to laugh at you. Your media should adopt some quality control and fast.
AmericanImperialist
03-07-2005, 03:42 AM
Who knows, We invaded Iraq, That is stupid.
the most beautiful thing about our country is that people like you are allowed to have opinions like that.
walford
03-07-2005, 03:48 AM
BEIJING warned the US and Japan yesterday that their increased military co-operation must be strictly bilateral and not encompass Taiwan.Or what? So what kind of shape is the People's Liberation Navy in these days anyway?
Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing issued the warning during the National People's Congress, the Chinese Government's annual legislative session, which opened with a vow never to allow Taiwan independence.I hate to break this to you babe, but that has been the case for more than 2 generations now -- whole different government and everything..
The so-called anti-secession law, which awaits rubber-stamping at the congress this week, "reflects the strong determination of the Chinese people to never allow secessionist forces working for Taiwan to separate Taiwan from China", Mr Wen said on Saturday. Have you seen a map lately? You want reunification? Maybe if you guys decide to catch up with your bretheren on Taiwan and have a popularly legitimated government. Think about it...
roland
03-07-2005, 03:55 AM
Who knows, We invaded Iraq, That is stupid.
the most beautiful thing about our country is that people like you are allowed to have opinions like that.
?? looks normal to me.
AmericanImperialist
03-07-2005, 03:58 AM
Who knows, We invaded Iraq, That is stupid.
the most beautiful thing about our country is that people like you are allowed to have opinions like that.
?? looks normal to me.
Are you dense or is English just your second language?
roland
03-07-2005, 05:19 AM
Who knows, We invaded Iraq, That is stupid.
the most beautiful thing about our country is that people like you are allowed to have opinions like that.
?? looks normal to me.
Are you dense or is English just your second language?
That is a nice avatar you have. I see here well with a French flag and called Marianne. :P
they may be expensive but once you let a leopard 2 and a type98 duke it out you'll know why that is.
you get what you pay for woot
BEIJING warned the US and Japan yesterday that their increased military co-operation must be strictly bilateral and not encompass Taiwan.Or what? So what kind of shape is the People's Liberation Navy in these days anyway?
Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing issued the warning during the National People's Congress, the Chinese Government's annual legislative session, which opened with a vow never to allow Taiwan independence.I hate to break this to you babe, but that has been the case for more than 2 generations now -- whole different government and everything..
The so-called anti-secession law, which awaits rubber-stamping at the congress this week, "reflects the strong determination of the Chinese people to never allow secessionist forces working for Taiwan to separate Taiwan from China", Mr Wen said on Saturday. Have you seen a map lately? You want reunification? Maybe if you guys decide to catch up with your bretheren on Taiwan and have a popularly legitimated government. Think about it...
YuP!!!....so if what your saying is true...the US should have no reason to be concerned about the balance of power in the strait right?... and yet, thats not the case...
Try to get back on subject... This IS a big deal.
China has a very lax philosophy regarding intellectual property. The Euros (folk, not the currency) are an inventive lot. China intends to reverse engineer everything and manufacture that stuff that works. That's why they can claim to not be buying a whole bunch Euro-arms.
Some of the Euro-weaponry is garbage. Some, as we in the US have had to admit, is very innovative- the self-targeting and forging anti-tank bomb recently used in Iraq is a good example. Some of the US weapons are garbage too. I have great faith in Chinese willingness to improve. I do not have the same faith in their willingness to show an "international attitude."
walford
03-07-2005, 01:46 PM
YuP!!!....so if what your saying is true...the US should have no reason to be concerned about the balance of power in the strait right?... and yet, thats not the case...The one-party state's continued bellicose rhetoric toward Taiwan and submarine program is reason enough to be concerned indeed. There is no doubt in my mind that if the Party decides that it is feasible to take Taiwan by force, military operations will commence.
Belrick
03-07-2005, 02:25 PM
History tells me Chinese arrogance, brainwashing and desire to flex there muscles coupled with there victim mentality will end ultimately with war.
That is a scary thing but unless there's a revolution in China war will happen one day. I for one think the arms embargo should stay in place.
YuP!!!....so if what your saying is true...the US should have no reason to be concerned about the balance of power in the strait right?... and yet, thats not the case...The one-party state's continued bellicose rhetoric toward Taiwan and submarine program is reason enough to be concerned indeed. There is no doubt in my mind that if the Party decides that it is feasible to take Taiwan by force, military operations will commence.
Well, aren't you the person that said "Or what? So what kind of shape is the People's Liberation Navy in these days anyway?"
If your saying that China's navy has no chance against Taiwan's navy...you have nothing to worry about. ;)
RomanS
03-07-2005, 03:09 PM
What has going to war in iraq got to do with the original topic ?
one stupid comment deserves another.
STFU
Charlie 356
03-07-2005, 03:46 PM
I wouldn't be surprised at all if sometime in May or early summer the Chinese flexed their muscles and went for Taiwan, especially since the United States will be so heavily involved with Iraq at that point.
It's not like the old days when we could commit a huge force to stopping Chinese aggression. All we have right now is our troops on Okinawa (a mere speedbump compared to Chinese landforces), South Korea (would we be willing to take them off the line with North Korea beating its chest like a guerrilla next door?), and the pacific fleet. The 25th ID on Hawaii would never make it in time. Granted, we could probably still get the drop on their navy, but if they wanted it really bad, then my bet is China will take back Taiwan.
As for losing Most Favored Nation Status with the US, China has so completely diversified their economy that they could give two licks about the US withdrawing economic support. Heck, even the Europeans want to start doing business with them again. It might put them back ten years if we withdrew all support, but it just depends on how bad they want it, and whether or not other countries in the region would be willing to stand up to them if they took back their "lost state." China has shown an amazing ability to mix Communism with Capitalism, so it might not be hard for them to find more, less-developed trade partners while losing one to two more-developed trade partners.
bloddyaxe
03-07-2005, 03:55 PM
I just hope Taiwan doesn't declare independence and that PRC doesn't invade. Because in the long run everyone will benefit from doing nothing but flex muscles and rattle sabers.
Imagine how expensive computers would suddenly become if Taiwan was bombed to stone-age or just bronze-age.
walford
03-07-2005, 04:37 PM
Well, aren't you the person that said "Or what? So what kind of shape is the People's Liberation Navy in these days anyway?"
If your saying that China's navy has no chance against Taiwan's navy...you have nothing to worry about.I'm saying that given the comparative strength of the US Navy vs the PLN, for China to presume to 'warn' the US and Japan not to cooprerate in defending Taiwan is absurd.
That being said, however, the Chinese government is astute enough about American politics to know that an equal match is not necessary. All there needs to be is a weak vacillating president in the White House and the credible ability to inflict significant damage upon American naval power.
If an Al Gore type is Commander in Chief and China merely demonstrates that she can sink a carrier [for example], the peace-niks will come out of the woodwork and be taken seriously. They will argue that Taiwan is not worth fighting for.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if sometime in May or early summer the Chinese flexed their muscles and went for Taiwan, especially since the United States will be so heavily involved with Iraq at that point.
It's not like the old days when we could commit a huge force to stopping Chinese aggression. All we have right now is our troops on Okinawa (a mere speedbump compared to Chinese landforces), South Korea (would we be willing to take them off the line with North Korea beating its chest like a guerrilla next door?), and the pacific fleet. The 25th ID on Hawaii would never make it in time. Granted, we could probably still get the drop on their navy, but if they wanted it really bad, then my bet is China will take back Taiwan.
As for losing Most Favored Nation Status with the US, China has so completely diversified their economy that they could give two licks about the US withdrawing economic support. Heck, even the Europeans want to start doing business with them again. It might put them back ten years if we withdrew all support, but it just depends on how bad they want it, and whether or not other countries in the region would be willing to stand up to them if they took back their "lost state." China has shown an amazing ability to mix Communism with Capitalism, so it might not be hard for them to find more, less-developed trade partners while losing one to two more-developed trade partners.
No..China wouldn't attack Taiwan if Taiwan keeps the status quo. China does not want to risk damaging its growing economy. Even if taiwan does declare independence, China wouldnt do anything... Just look at the recent events...Japan took over the Diaoyu Islands and China didn't do anything. However, I cannot predict what will happen after 2008. After hosting the Olympics things might flare up.
I hope things remains peacefull in the future because I live on the 30th floor. I'm screwed if any taiwanese cruise missiles crashes into my building. :|
I just hope Taiwan doesn't declare independence and that PRC doesn't invade. Because in the long run everyone will benefit from doing nothing but flex muscles and rattle sabers.
Imagine how expensive computers would suddenly become if Taiwan was bombed to stone-age or just bronze-age.
Yes...I remember how expensive RAM was after the earthquake in Taiwan.
Charlie 356
03-07-2005, 10:11 PM
I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Ooh, the anticipation...
GrimmyRX
03-08-2005, 11:30 AM
It's like watching a movie... in real life! :lol:
Prometheus
03-08-2005, 12:32 PM
If an Al Gore type is Commander in Chief and China merely demonstrates that she can sink a carrier [for example], the peace-niks will come out of the woodwork and be taken seriously. They will argue that Taiwan is not worth fighting for.
And if a stupid cowboy like Bush is "Commander in Chief" we're slithering directly to World War 3 :bash:
As a wise man said before:
http://colorado.indymedia.org/usermedia/image/3/7764_Stop-Bush.gif
walford
03-08-2005, 12:52 PM
http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/117-1782_IMG.JPG
walford
03-08-2005, 12:52 PM
http://img105.exs.cx/img105/2308/911reichstagbanner23uc.jpg
GrimmyRX
03-09-2005, 11:51 AM
http://img105.exs.cx/img105/2308/911reichstagbanner23uc.jpg
the second you bring Hitler into it as a comparison, you've lost me, the guy beside me, and the whole **** load of people now going "oh bullsh*t"
Shadow Cobra
03-10-2005, 09:50 PM
The title of the article = bad translation, of course a deceptive one.
Just an other American media crap
Carefull guys, everybody is starting to laugh at you. Your media should adopt some quality control and fast.
:oops:
Maybe someday. In the meantime we can just watch the Daily Show for more accurate news. ( The Daily Show is a fake news show on Comedy Central.) :lol:
ibstolidude
03-10-2005, 10:13 PM
The title of the article = bad translation, of course a deceptive one.
Just an other American media crap :roll:
Carefull guys, everybody is starting to laugh at you. Your media should adopt some quality control and fast.
is that like the way everyone is now laughing at your lack of attention to detail?
Who knows, We invaded Iraq, That is stupid.
WTF
You are for sure a swedish kid, why are you claiming to live in the US?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.