Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

moki · Dec 3, 2003, 04:18 AM

One word: "woah" This is some fairly serious rhetoric being bandied about. Given that Taiwan is heavily involved with US corporate interests, and given that Taiwan is the #1 buyer of military hardware from the US, let's hope this doesn't get too nasty.

from: http://sg.news.yahoo.com/031203/1/3ge65.html

.....

Chinese military ready for "necessary" casualties over Taiwan

Senior Chinese military officers warned Taiwan it was staring into the abyss of war and the mainland was ready for "necessary" casualties if the island pursued its independence drive.

The comments in the state-run Outlook Weekly magazine, carried by the Xinhua news agency and major websites, followed Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian's plan to hold a referendum on the island's future.

Two People's Liberation Army (PLA) officers quoted by the magazine said Chen would be held responsible if war breaks out and said separatists "will be treated the same way war criminals are dealt with elsewhere in the world".

"Chen has touched on the mainland's bottomline on the Taiwan question," said Luo Yuan, a senior colonel with the Chinese Academy of Military Sciences.

"He is actually playing with fire. It is very dangerous -- and immoral as well -- for Chen and his predecessor Lee Teng-hui to take the restraints and tolerance of the mainland as signs of weakness.

"If they refuse to come to their senses and continue to use referenda as an excuse to seek Taiwan independence, they will push Taiwan compatriots into the abyss of war," he said.

Premier Wen Jiabao has indicated China was willing to "pay any price" to deter Taiwan independence, and these prices were outlined by Major General Peng Guangqian, also with the Academy.

They include boycotts of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, decreasing foreign investment, worsening foreign relations, economic recession, and "necessary" casualties of the PLA, he said in the magazine.

"All these prices are bearable when compared with the Taiwan issue, which is of the highest interest for the Chinese nation," he said.

"If Taiwan separatists want to gamble on it (by pushing for independence), they will pay a heavy price and be defeated with shame. We will definitely intervene."

Chen, from the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party, said at the weekend that China's deployment of 496 ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan had prompted him to push for a vote to safeguard the country's sovereignty.

He argued a referendum law passed last week by parliament allowed him to stage a "defensive" vote on "issues of national security concern" in the event of a foreign threat.

China, which regards Taiwan as part of Chinese territory awaiting reunification, has repeatedly threatened to attack the island should it declare formal independence.

voodoo · Dec 3, 2003, 04:46 AM

I am trying to figure out WHY I should care what China & Taiwan work out between themselves?

There's enough trouble at home IMO.

Ω · Dec 3, 2003, 05:07 AM

Being from Scandinavia, the meaning is small.

However China has a hard-on to re-establish Taiwan as its own. Want to see China and the US go toe-to-toe? Taiwan might be the reason. The established super-power against the new super-power. Potential for violence is high....

SimeyTheLimey · Dec 3, 2003, 06:07 AM

My only knowledge of Chinese foreign policy comes from a class I took in undergrad under the then-head of the CIA China desk. His comment is that you should look at China's capability. It doesn't matter what they say, China really doesn't have a blue water navy. China can throw missiles and insults at Taiwan, but it can't yet invade it.

Spheric Harlot · Dec 3, 2003, 07:10 AM

I'm not knocking moki here, but I'm honestly wondering:

Is there anything actually new in that article? This seems to me like the exact same rhetoric that has been flying back and forth between Taiwan and China for the past 50 years.

Has the situation really become more threatening of late?

-s*

moki · Dec 3, 2003, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Has the situation really become more threatening of late?

I think it has, yes, because people in Taiwan, led by Chen, are likely going to make an attempt at stating their independence. They've already changed their passports, and they already consider themselves "Taiwanese" not "Chinese"

I am friends with some Taiwanese people (some in the US currently, some in Taiwan currently), and they have told me that with the political campaigns gearing up, things have indeed gotten more tense.

Let's hope it is all just rhetoric.

As for why it matter, well, it certainly matters to the Taiwanese, so that's a reason to discuss it, no? Moreover, it matters to the US and other countries, because many goods (such as iPods, G5s, PowerBooks, etc.) are manufactured in Taiwan.

Wiskedjak · Dec 3, 2003, 03:17 PM

Hong Kong being reintegrated into China hasn't had disasterous effects, has it? It's unlikely that China would do anything to affect Taiwan's relationship with the US economy. That relationship would be far too valuable to the Chinese economy.

moki · Dec 3, 2003, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Hong Kong being reintegrated into China hasn't had disasterous effects, has it? It's unlikely that China would do anything to affect Taiwan's relationship with the US economy. That relationship would be far too valuable to the Chinese economy.

Well, China has tried -- the trouble is that Hong Kong won't allow China to institute too much control. There have been a lot of protest marches there of late...

SimeyTheLimey · Dec 3, 2003, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Hong Kong being reintegrated into China hasn't had disasterous effects, has it? It's unlikely that China would do anything to affect Taiwan's relationship with the US economy. That relationship would be far too valuable to the Chinese economy.

This isn't a case of a lease termination and reversion to China like Hong Kong. Whether Taiwan rejoins the mainland is something for the Taiwanese people to decide.

Wiskedjak · Dec 3, 2003, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This isn't a case of a lease termination and reversion to China like Hong Kong. Whether Taiwan rejoins the mainland is something for the Taiwanese people to decide.

I'm not saying it was. Just that Hong Kong is doing fine under Chinese rule.

MacGorilla · Dec 3, 2003, 04:33 PM

What China has on its side is really numbers. huge numbers of everything but below the surface China's army is considered by US analysts no match for the US.

I think Taiwan could fend off a Chinese invasion. I've lived there. The whole country is a millitary base. There are jets, bunkers and barracks everywhere.

Wiskedjak · Dec 3, 2003, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
I think Taiwan could fend off a Chinese invasion.

With the US behind it ... no question. Alone? I doubt it. Although, I'm not entirely convinced that the US would back Taiwan 100% in the event of a Chinese attempt at reintegration. I don't think even Bush would want to risk a war with China.

Certainly the US would win such a war, but the cost would be extremely high for very little return.

thunderous_funker · Dec 3, 2003, 05:24 PM

Perhaps an emboldened and vindicated second-term Bush would consider liberating Taiwan to be of utmost importance to American interests?

I know it sounds crazy, but I seem to remember lots of Bush supporters insisting that he wasn't crazy enough to actually invade Iraq, and not to worry because it was just brinksmanship.

The question is do we do it before or after we liberate N. Korea?

fulmer · Dec 3, 2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
What China has on its side is really numbers. huge numbers of everything but below the surface China's army is considered by US analysts no match for the US.

China's problem is that it cannot project their land forces in large numbers. They could not secure the troop transport ships necessary to project force beyond their coastline or even into Taiwan. US subs and carrier battle groups, along with the Taiwanese forces would destroy most of the landing craft.

With all of China's supposed might, it still remains savagely landlocked in its military capabilities. The true measure of a superpower is in a nation's ability to project meaningful force anywhere on the planet and fight and win a major conflict. The United States is still the sole superpower.

theolein · Dec 3, 2003, 07:19 PM

Finally a thread that's about something else than the usual <insert inflammatory title and post here>.

I for one think that China would invade if Taiwan declared full independence. The recent vote to allow the Taiwanese people to hold referendums is a good thing for the Taiwanese people, as referendums help to keep the politicians on their toes, but it should be noted that the law was weakened by Chen in order to appease the Chinese. Referendums on independence can not be held.

Nevertheless I feel damn sorry for the Taiwanese, as they've been deserted by almost every other country out there. They are only officially recognised by 30 countries. The US was traditionally the guarantor of Taiwan's security, but given how Bush reacted to North Korea I somehow don't think he'd be willing to risk a full on war with China for Taiwan. (And no, I'm not going to start a whole thing about hypocrisy etc, because that's another subject and I'm sure someone will probably do it anyway, sooner or later).

A war between China and the US would run the very real risk of going nuclear, although it's not guaranteed to do so. China is not some third world country that needs to use bluff to get what it wants, and it has an estimated arsenal of some 300 ICBMs. You can imagine what would happen to both the USA and China in that case, and I presume that both the Chinese and the US can do so as well, so it would take quite a lot to get that far.

A war with China would also bring the Chinese economy to a shuddering halt, as most of it's economy is based on exports. That would not only ruin China's huge yearly growth, but would also heavily impact western economies that are dependant on cheap Chinese imports. If the Chinese invade it means that you will have to wait a couple of years for your new Macintoshes as most of them are built there and Apple would have to find new sites and build new fabs etc.

You can imagine that China would be almost instantly isolated internationally once again, as happened after Tianmien, but on a larger scale. the Chinese would probably cope and would probably be back in business in one or two decades when business and the international media have forgotten about it all.

The Russians probably wouldn't give a damn and would probably continue selling military equipment to them.

I think that the Taiwanese are playing a high risk game, but the Chinese are too. Interestinly though, the Chinese offered Taiwan a deal a while ago in which China promised that not a single Chinese soldier would be stationed in Taiwan if Taiwan were to accept a Hong Kong type of deal to become a Special Administrative Region of China. I don't know that China could be held to it's promise but I can well imagine that that would be the easiest path for everyone to go down, given how obsessed the Chinese are with Taiwan.

On the other hand China has a stated goal of developing a true blue water capability for it's Navy within the next 25 to 50 years and to develop true force projection capabilities. Sooner or later, in other words, the US and China are going to be staring at one another across the gun barrels and it might well be in the US' interest to do so sooner than later, but I can imagine that no US president would want to face that type of nightmare unless he really had to.

Myriad · Dec 3, 2003, 08:16 PM

More posturing by the PLA. Little else.

The fact of the matter is that while China would love for Taiwan to rejoin the mainland, they are content with the status quo for now. They can't invade Taiwan, for reasons already stated, but they could do a good job of leveling the island. Of course this would mean annihilating their prize, as well as bring the wrath of the international community in terms of sanctions. The communist party in China has made leaps and bounds when it comes to their place in the world economy, and they would be loath to throw it all away.

They need to keep Taiwan guessing about what they're reaction may be, because there are more hot spots in China that could try to make a pitch for sovereignty, and weaken the party in general.

BlackGriffen · Dec 3, 2003, 08:19 PM

I just don't get why China is so obsessed with Taiwan. It would be like if, in the U.S. Civil war, Florida had managed to stay independent, and having the president obsess about it 50 years later.

The civil war ended more than 50 years ago. Formosa and China are separate. I see no reason to keep the delusion going, and even less reason to for China to start a war over a delusion.

Wait a minute. What am I talking about? Delusions, especially of grandeur, is one of the classic causes for war.

I wonder if China would be so eager to invade if Taiwan "held a gun to it's head?" Saying something like, "If you invaded, we'll make sure you pay the heaviest price we can, and if it looks like we could lose, we'll make sure you don't gain anything." Scorched earth is a better tactic for someplace like Russia (since they have so darned much land), but I doubt that the Chinese would want to invade if they felt that they would lose much and gain nothing.

BlackGriffen

tie · Dec 3, 2003, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by Myriad:
The communist party in China has made leaps and bounds when it comes to their place in the world economy, and they would be loath to throw it all away.

The problem with communism is, you never know when some wacko will take control and declare war on Taiwan. I think we need a preemptive strike on China to eliminate this sort-of-imminent threat!

Myriad · Dec 3, 2003, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:

I just don't get why China is so obsessed with Taiwan. It would be like if, in the U.S. Civil war, Florida had managed to stay independent, and having the president obsess about it 50 years later.

They're obsessed with the idea of a unified China. National pride is a very important tool of the Chinese government. For all practical purposes, Taiwan is independent, but as long as the mainland can keep it's rhetoric going, they can send a message to the rest of China that Taiwan is just another part of the whole. The leaders of China see threats to stability everywhere. There are militant Muslims in the north, democracy movements in the east, and huge populations of poor and unemployed who have no stake in the system the way it is. It's not so much Taiwan's independence that worries them, but what would happen after.

SimeyTheLimey · Dec 3, 2003, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by fulmer:
China's problem is that it cannot project their land forces in large numbers. They could not secure the troop transport ships necessary to project force beyond their coastline or even into Taiwan. US subs and carrier battle groups, along with the Taiwanese forces would destroy most of the landing craft.

With all of China's supposed might, it still remains savagely landlocked in its military capabilities. The true measure of a superpower is in a nation's ability to project meaningful force anywhere on the planet and fight and win a major conflict. The United States is still the sole superpower.

That's pretty much exactly what China expert Dr. Robert Sutter told me. Don't worry about what they say, look at what they can actually do.

Wiskedjak · Dec 3, 2003, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I just don't get why China is so obsessed with Taiwan.

For the same reason that Americans are so obsessed with preemptively striking anyone different from them.

Originally posted by tie:
I think we need a preemptive strike on China to eliminate this sort-of-imminent threat!

BlackGriffen · Dec 3, 2003, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
For the same reason that Americans are so obsessed with preemptively striking anyone different from them.

That looks more like you need to get your sarcasm detectors tuned up.

BG

moki · Dec 3, 2003, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
For the same reason that Americans are so obsessed with preemptively striking anyone different from them.

Ah yes, more insight from the 51st state.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Dec 4, 2003, 01:19 AM

Oh yeah? Well bring it o...!

What's that? How many Chinese again?

nevermind.

SimeyTheLimey · Dec 4, 2003, 05:22 AM

OK, now I do have to ask, what possible justification is there for France and Germany pushing to resume arms sales to China?

Link

Schr�der supports arms sales to China
By Richard Spencer in Beijing
(Filed: 04/12/2003)

Gerhard Schr�der, the German Chancellor, has joined France in calling for a resumption of arms sales to China, as the Beijing government reiterated threats to invade the democratically governed island of Taiwan.

Mr Schr�der, who is currently visiting China, told the country's new prime minister, Wen Jiabao, that he would "work towards" lifting the ban on arms sales, according to a German government spokesman. The embargo was imposed after the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989.

Michele Alliot-Marie, France's defence minister, made a similar call during the summer, and Mr Schr�der's proposition also received some support from the European Union trade commissioner, Pascal Lamy, who told reporters on Tuesday the EU "would be ready to reconsider" the ban.

I'm not a Sinophobe. I think on this issue that China's bark is worse than its bite. But don't sell them a better bite.

Spheric Harlot · Dec 4, 2003, 05:35 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
OK, now I do have to ask, what possible justification is there for France and Germany pushing to resume arms sales to China?

Link

I'm not a Sinophobe. I think on this issue that China's bark is worse than its bite. But don't sell them a better bite.

I agree.

BlackGriffen · Dec 4, 2003, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
OK, now I do have to ask, what possible justification is there for France and Germany pushing to resume arms sales to China?

Link

I'm not a Sinophobe. I think on this issue that China's bark is worse than its bite. But don't sell them a better bite.

God damn, money grubbing, soulless politicians! Gah!

BlackGriffen

Wiskedjak · Dec 4, 2003, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm not a Sinophobe. I think on this issue that China's bark is worse than its bite. But don't sell them a better bite.

Why not, if they're willing to buy it?

voodoo · Dec 4, 2003, 11:46 AM

I still don't see what the fuss is all about.

You guys (teh USA) can just preemptively strike them. But before or after N-Korea? Decisions decisions. Then again. Teh USA may be wearing its troops a bit thin if they try it. Oh I think this will all be settled behind closed doors.

:/

Damn I guess I'm feeling too pragmatic today. And not the least bit worried. If people want to kill themselves .. be my guest.

voodoo · Dec 4, 2003, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Why not, if they're willing to buy it?

Exactly. If I understand things correctly Taiwan is receiving a lot of modern weapons. Why not give some to the Chinese too? Why play favorites? Why the outrage?

SimeyTheLimey · Dec 4, 2003, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Why not, if they're willing to buy it?

In a previous life, did you by any chance sell opium?

Wiskedjak · Dec 4, 2003, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
In a previous life, did you by any chance sell opium?

Why not, if they're willing to buy it?

Spliffdaddy · Dec 4, 2003, 11:54 AM

integrity?

finboy · Dec 4, 2003, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
My only knowledge of Chinese foreign policy comes from a class I took in undergrad under the then-head of the CIA China desk. His comment is that you should look at China's capability. It doesn't matter what they say, China really doesn't have a blue water navy. China can throw missiles and insults at Taiwan, but it can't yet invade it.

Yup. But folks who discount China's ambition are the ones I worry about. I don't think CIA makes that mistake anymore.

finboy · Dec 4, 2003, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:

I just don't get why China is so obsessed with Taiwan. It would be like if, in the U.S. Civil war, Florida had managed to stay independent, and having the president obsess about it 50 years later.

The civil war ended more than 50 years ago. Formosa and China are separate. I see no reason to keep the delusion going, and even less reason to for China to start a war over a delusion.

Wait a minute. What am I talking about? Delusions, especially of grandeur, is one of the classic causes for war.

I wonder if China would be so eager to invade if Taiwan "held a gun to it's head?" Saying something like, "If you invaded, we'll make sure you pay the heaviest price we can, and if it looks like we could lose, we'll make sure you don't gain anything." Scorched earth is a better tactic for someplace like Russia (since they have so darned much land), but I doubt that the Chinese would want to invade if they felt that they would lose much and gain nothing.

BlackGriffen

The gun is Taiwan's nuclear capability. Without that, they'd have been history twenty years ago.

The obsession isn't uncharacteristic -- China has a very long memory, culturally and politically.

Plus, the infrastructure in Taiwan would take too many years to develop on the mainland. Why not just grab it?

SimeyTheLimey · Dec 4, 2003, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Why not, if they're willing to buy it?

I'm sorry, but I find that completely immoral. You do have some responsibilty when you choose to sell weapons. China doesn't want weapons for defensive purposes. There is nobody who poses a military threat to China, least of all little Taiwan. Taiwan, on the other hand, does face a military threat from China. It's not yet fully developed, which is why the French and German governments should not be trying to make a fast Euro by selling China weapons.

There is another problem. If France and Germany start selling high-tech weapons to China, I give it about 30 minutes before Congress authorizes new military sales to Taiwan. Maybe you are comfortable with profiting from an unnecessary arms race, but I have a problem with it. I think it would be better if the outside world tried to cool this dispute off, not try to profit from it.

BlackGriffen · Dec 4, 2003, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by finboy:
The gun is Taiwan's nuclear capability. Without that, they'd have been history twenty years ago.

The obsession isn't uncharacteristic -- China has a very long memory, culturally and politically.

Plus, the infrastructure in Taiwan would take too many years to develop on the mainland. Why not just grab it?

Right, but the commentary was more about scorched earth tactics than holding a gun to China's head. I accidentally forgot the reflexive pronoun. What I meant to say was, " I wonder if China would be so eager to invade if Taiwan "held a gun to it's own head?""

BG

Wiskedjak · Dec 4, 2003, 12:14 PM

I just find it laughable when the world's greatest military power complains about other countries building up their own military strength.

Tell me, if China isn't justified in building up it's military, what justification does the US have for it's massive military without the existence of the USSR?

Spliffdaddy · Dec 4, 2003, 12:20 PM

I find it laughable that most countries DON'T build their own military strength - relying on the good ol' USA to save their ass, instead.

We never claimed we were the best at saving your ass...only our own.

SimeyTheLimey · Dec 4, 2003, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I just find it laughable when the world's greatest military power complains about other countries building up their own military strength.

Tell me, if China isn't justified in building up it's military, what justification does the US have for it's massive military without the existence of the USSR?

China can build up its military strength all it wants. It's worrying and it is worth keeping an eye on, but China is a sovereign nation, that's their business. But that doesn't mean you have to sell them the weapons, and it doesn't absolve you of some responsibility if you sell them knowing full well that the only reason they want them is to squash some little democracy.

In arms sales above all other things you sell, you had better ask why your customer wants them, unless you like having blood on your hands.

Wiskedjak · Dec 4, 2003, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
In arms sales above all other things you sell, you had better ask why your customer wants them, unless you like having blood on your hands.

So, when Isreal uses F-16s to attack "terrorists" in civilian areas ...?

SimeyTheLimey · Dec 4, 2003, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
So, when Isreal uses F-16s to attack "terrorists" in civilian areas ...?

And that justifies France and Germany wanting to lift the arms embargo and sell weapons to China how, exactly?

Wiskedjak · Dec 4, 2003, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And that justifies France and Germany wanting to lift the arms embargo and sell weapons to China how, exactly?

Kettles and pots

SimeyTheLimey · Dec 4, 2003, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Kettles and pots

But you said it doesn't matter. To quote "[w]hy not, as long as they are willing to buy it."

Now, do you have a point?

thunderous_funker · Dec 4, 2003, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
In arms sales above all other things you sell, you had better ask why your customer wants them, unless you like having blood on your hands.

1000000% agreement.

Hopefully this mentality will be contagious and we'll begin to question our arms dealing with other nations. At least while they are pursuing policies which are contrary to our nations ideals and ultimately counter-productive to our interests.

Wiskedjak · Dec 4, 2003, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Now, do you have a point?

Only that you don't have one if you're going to criticize France and Germany for wanting to sell weapons to China but not the US for selling weapons to Israel.

SimeyTheLimey · Dec 4, 2003, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
1000000% agreement.

Hopefully this mentality will be contagious and we'll begin to question our arms dealing with other nations. At least while they are pursuing policies which are contrary to our nations ideals and ultimately counter-productive to our interests.

theolein · Dec 4, 2003, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
OK, now I do have to ask, what possible justification is there for France and Germany pushing to resume arms sales to China?

Link

I'm not a Sinophobe. I think on this issue that China's bark is worse than its bite. But don't sell them a better bite.

Welcome back to the forums. I agree that selling arms to China is less than bright. The resulting flame session after your post, which had to go and drag the usual candidates into the thing, as if they're responsible (Nice derailment there, really) is one of the reasons I'm not so keen on posting in this shithouse of a political section anymore.

It's boring.
Has any point, ever, been actually discussed here, without the whole thread turning into a the usual US/France/Germany/Israel/Iraq/Jew/Moslem/Christian flaming match? I had hopes for this thread. Dumb of me, really.
Has anyone actually ever bothered to see anyone else's point here? No, of course not. We're all to high and goddamn mighty and proud to admit that none of us really know jack-shit and it's impossible since everyone is always trying to convince the others that they are right.
Has anything changed? No.
Have we actually learned something here? That if one goes into a discussion with the agenda of trying to convince others that one is right, nothing will ever happen.

Wiskedjak · Dec 4, 2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by theolein:
It's boring.

I'm sorry, but you can't criticize other countries for doing something without opening your own country up to the same criticism ... especially if your country is guilty of the same crime.

SimeyTheLimey · Dec 4, 2003, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I'm sorry, but you can't criticize other countries for doing something without opening your own country up to the same criticism ... especially if your country is guilty of the same crime.

So countries A and B want to get an arms embargo lifted against country C so that A and B can make lots of money selling to country C. You justify that by saying that D sells arms to E? That's a terrible argument that makes no sense at all. E has no relationship with C. They are thousands of miles apart.

If you want to make a good argument, say that neither A, B, or D should not sell arms to C or E. At least that would be consistent. Or give some reason why C is not like E and therefore why D is not like A and B. That might be sophisticated. But don't just make spurious statements about unrelated things.

In any case, that wasn't what you said. You said there was no reason not to sell arms to China as long as China wants them. Then you brought in Israel in (as Theolein correctly point out ) an attempt to divert the topic.

So, without the diversions. What justifies anyone selling arms to China?