China ships more advanced weapons to Sudan

Status
Not open for further replies.

ROCK45

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #21
Sudan & China

Hi Schumacher
Schumacher
Agree, don't know abt oil
You wrote "don't know about oil but" the oil is the main reason why China is there and selling weapons. China is selling arms to a country, Sudan in a middle of a civil war for oil basically. Other posters explain the situation better then I just just follow arms sales.

I actually think comparing Sudan to Iraq is more appropriate in terms of loss of lives etc.
I think a little different in Iraq you have two sides wanting to gain power and control with a third party messing everything up by: killing and blaming the other side, by killing both sides, by making sure any chance of peace is ruin. Even if it means blowing of women and children shopping in open markets. Most of the third party causing the problems are outsiders not even Iraqi's so it's complex.
Sudan I'll admit I know less about I believe it's two sides fighting over power and control and oil. I'm sure there are others here that can explain it better and I would be interested in learning more about it myself.
I saw K-8 trainers, A-5 plus tanks and manpads it caught my eye. I'm always interest in how arms deals effect the current fighting and what other countries have around them basically the balance of power in the area.
 
Last edited:

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Hi Schumacher

You wrote "don't know about oil but" the oil is the main reason why China is there and selling weapons. China is selling arms to a country, Sudan in a middle of a civil war for oil basically. Other posters explain the situation better then I just just follow arms sales.


I think a little different in Iraq you have two sides wanting to gain power and control with a third party messing everything up by: killing and blaming the side, by killing both sides, by making sure any chance of peace is ruin. Even if it means blowing of women and children shopping in open markets. Most of the third party causing the problems are outsiders not even Iraqi's so it's complex.
Sudan I'll admit I know less about I believe it's two sides fighting over power and control and oil. I'm sure there are others here that can explain it better and I would be interested in learning more about it myself.
I saw K-8 trainers, A-5 plus tanks and manpads it caught my eye. I'm always interest in how arms deals effect the current fighting and what other countries have around them basically the balance of power in the area.
Thanks for contributing Rock45.:)
 

Generalissimo

New Member
Look if China really had an ethical arms policy here that truly helped Sudan defend itself and safeguard its energy supplies without contributing to the genocide they would sell SAMs, radars, ships, and other things that care helpful against invasion but useless against civilians and guerillas in Darfur. As it is they have sold A-5s and K-8s as the main ticket items. They will be used as attack aircraft that are light and easy to maintain, perfect for strafing and bombing villages etc. So it is dubious at best to say China is just helping Sudan defend itself.

I do concede to Chino that the US has provided weapons to regimes that have massively violated human rights. We don't do that as much anymore, and that doesn't make it right anyway.
 

Chino

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I wasn’t trying to get tough with you as you boldly type that hiding behind your monitor and by the way the civilized not civilized. Like you wrote above try using some and the comment was over the line you don’t know me.
Geez...Since you're smart enough to establish that you can't intimidate anyone over the internet, why not give it a break?


So when swerve disagrees you quickly changed your comment to “all most”
Sigh... I did not quickly change anything. I did not write clearly and Swerve misunderstood. Unlike you, ROCK45, I don't feel the need to gain other people's favour, bring them onto my side or have cheerleaders (like your other American friend).

When I air these highly unpopular opinions, I am prepared to stand alone. But this is a forum, this is the place to air these different points of view. I find debate entertaining, I only wish we don't get off to an emotional start. If you don't mind your language, kindly explain why I shouldn't reply in kind?

Show you respect? It takes 2 hands to clap.

Anyway, I feel a warning coming. So...
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Geez...Since you're smart enough to establish that you can't intimidate anyone over the internet, why not give it a break?




Sigh... I did not quickly change anything. I did not write clearly and Swerve misunderstood. Unlike you, ROCK45, I don't feel the need to gain other people's favour, bring them onto my side or have cheerleaders (like your other American friend).

When I air these highly unpopular opinions, I am prepared to stand alone. But this is a forum, this is the place to air these different points of view. I find debate entertaining, I only wish we don't get off to an emotional start. If you don't mind your language, kindly explain why I shouldn't reply in kind?

Show you respect? It takes 2 hands to clap.

Anyway, I feel a warning coming. So...
Yes Chino - like his other (American friend) who is willing to show his support
when he has someone with the likes of you attacking him for no apparent reason other than you did not like what he posted with a response to what you decided to write, if you were that concerned or upset you could of sent him a PM, I assure you that he is mature enough to work it out so that there is no misunderstanding between the two of you and may of likely edited what may of offended you. Neither him or I are biased towards other nationalities even though you may have that impression.
 

PullerRommel

New Member
I dont think its really fair to "attack" China for selling arms to Darfur. AS was previously stated the US as wellas many countries around the world have supported regimes commiting genocide and breaking Human Rights. (Shah of iran) This is the world and this is reality and sad to say but everyone does have a price. SOrry if this a tad pessimistic.
 

ROCK45

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #28
Add to the thread

PullerRommel
I dont think its really fair to "attack" China for selling arms to Darfur. AS was previously stated the US as wellas many countries around the world have supported regimes commiting genocide and breaking Human Rights. (Shah of iran) This is the world and this is reality and sad to say but everyone does have a price. SOrry if this a tad pessimistic.
PullerRommel
I’ll admit this thread took some bad turns but let me remind you how it started. I posted an article about China selling weapons to Sudan and posted it. Chino responded with I’ll attach two quotes:
Chino
With all the hullabaloo about Dafur, genocide etc... it won't be long before US feel it is ripe for invasion.

The US, you see, is very interested in the internal problems of oil-rich countries. Sudan provides just the right pretext for US to invade, and take its oil for its own consumption, like Iraq.
This is a bash or an American put down so I ask you why didn’t you decide to join the thread at that point and say to him “I don’t think it’s really fair to attack the United States”? One may even say what does the United States even have to do with this article? He put down the United States or attack it unfairly wouldn’t you agree? I can assume you read the whole thread right, I did not say anything bad about China at that point? I just posted a simple article and he went after the United States so I assuming he was Chinese which at that point is safe to assume from his quotes, then as you put it ‘I went after the Chinese’. His off topic quotes weren’t exactly nice things wouldn’t you agree but you didn’t say anything then, why not? I actually have a lot of respect for Chinese military equipment like the J-10 and other types but sadly like in other forums it changes from a topic to put downs. His first quotes were off topic and putting down Americans and should have been stopped right at that point. Do you think I would have been right to put down China in the manor he put down the United States? So I hope I clear this situation up for you. Next time maybe join in a little sooner in the thread maybe your input might have prevented it.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Just a quick update, according to MDB, Russia has signed a contract for delivering Mi-17 to Sudan as late as 2005. They are supposedly civilian variants. And (also 2005) an arms transfer of 30 BTR-80.

It won't let me post links to the articles, (too few posts) so if you're interested for sources I'll give them a bit later (once I have enough posts).
 

PullerRommel

New Member
Well my comment was not meant to be in defense of, or to try to shut anyone up. I was more commenting on the overall picture were regular people may it be here or on the news etc. Try to bash or attack China for supplying weapons to Sudan. I dont agree somewhat with his comments because i doubt the US would invade Sudan and i would bet more on a UN force entering.

I hope that made sense
 

ROCK45

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #31
More arms

Hi Feanor
Thanks for the arms sale info

Did a little hunting and there's a lot to look through. I found this not sure how much is true or not. There's an African Military Blog that I saw once that might be able to help. I'll look for it and maybe get some current info this guy seem to have a nice rundown on African armed forces.

This is a quote from a section a little down from the top
In early 2003, an Interim Committee of the Lithuanian Parliament examined the controversy surrounding the export of a Mi-8T helicopter to Sudan by an aircraft repair company, Avia Baltika. The company specialized in Mi8 and Mi17 helicopters and Antonov airplane repairs, overhauls and upgrades, carrying out preliminary refurbishing of helicopters in Russia, then completing the work at its small plant in Lithuania.(37) The Committee’s report states that "the Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not approve the application of UAB Avia Baltika of 21 June 2001 for a licence for the export of Mi-8T helicopter to Sudan", but that "the president of Avia Baltika, Jurijus Borisovas, recalled the request for a licence and urgently exported the helicopter to Sudan without a licence on the basis of the procedure which was in place at that time"(38) The Committee concluded that "The actions of exporting a Mi-8T helicopter to Sudan in 2001 did not violate the Lithuanian law which was effective at that time, however, it ran counter to the principles of an embargo of the European Union and EU sanctions."(39) Subsequently, the government of Lithuania amended the law and in December 2002 placed Sudan on a list of embargoed destinations.

The Interim Committee also reported that "in February 2003, at Karmelava Airport, officers of the Customs Crime Service detained a Mi-17 helicopter, which had to be transported, through Sudan, to the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This helicopter was repaired by Helisota, as commissioned by a company registered in Cambodia. The detained helicopter was released after the route was changed and the helicopter was taken directly to the UAE."(40) According to the report, the President of Avia Baltika and some of the company’s staff "refused to answer several questions of the Committee members, including questions about the company’s activities, the circumstances of it being founded, its owners and links with Russian companies. Questions about Mi-8T helicopter, exported to Sudan in summer 2001, were not answered either."(41)

In October 2003, Lithuania’s State Security Department (VSD) delivered a report to Parliament, which amongst other things, claimed that the same aircraft repair company was involved in the supply of spare parts for helicopters and MiG-24 jet planes to Sudan and other EU or UN embargoed destinations between 2001 and 2003.(42)

On the 22 May 2003, a contract for the supply of spare parts for civilian and combat Mi-17 helicopters was signed in Moscow between the Sudanese Ministry of Defence and Heli Lift Co Ltd, a company based in Khartoum and allegedly with close links to Avia Baltika,(43) The VSD said that office of Avia Baltika in Russia (SPARK helicopter repairs) had signed a trade agreement with Heli Lift for the supply of helicopter parts to the Sudanese Ministry of Defence.(44) Specialists from Avia Baltika and its partners were reportedly working in Sudan.(45) The company denied all allegations of illicit trade in strategic commodities.

Russian Federation:

In July 2004, the Sudanese government announced the import of 12 MiG-29 jet fighters to Sudan at the same time as the Sudanese government was being accused in the United Nations Security Council of supporting Sudanese militia in a campaign of ethnic cleansing in Darfur.(46) On 21 August 2004, the Russian government dismissed any connection between the delivery of fighter planes to Sudan and the escalating conflict in Darfur. The Russian envoy to the UN said that the sending of Russian fighters to Sudan was to fulfil an agreement signed between the two countries in December 2001.(47)

The Russian Aircraft Corporation (RSK MiG) is the supplier of these jets. This was confirmed to reporters by Mikhail Dmitriyev, head of the Committee on Military and Technical Cooperation with Foreign Countries. According to one report, a Sudanese official was quoted as saying that "The first pair of MiG-29 jets reached Sudan in December 2003 and two more were delivered in January 2004. The rest are expected to reach Sudan during this year." The value of the contract is estimated at between US$120 and US$370 million.(48)


Link to where I found the above
http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAFR541392004?open&of=ENG-SDN
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
My info comes from Moscow Defense Brief which lists the sale and arms transfer in their 2006 issue.

mdb.cast.ru/mdb/1-2006/facts/item3
mdb.cast.ru/mdb/1-2006/facts/item2

Scroll down to the Sudan entry.

EDIT: Don't forget to add http:// before the address I posted here. I noticed another member in another thread also provided links like that so I figured I might try it.
 

ROCK45

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #33
Missing something

Hi PullerRommel
Well my comment was not meant to be in defense of, or to try to shut anyone up.
Thanks for posting but let me ask you why when I said something bad about the China did you make a post commenting to me. Why didn't you say something to him for saying something bad about about the US? That's my point why is one wrong (when I said something bad about China) and when he said some bad about the (us) you say nothing? Don't you see that's it's wrong and was out of place saying it in the first place. By saying something to me for my comment your in a way siding with him and his anti-American comment. Hope I make sense to you I'm trying.

I was more commenting on the overall picture were regular people may it be here or on the news etc. Try to bash or attack China for supplying weapons to Sudan
.
I kind of don't understand your point sorry. If you like try explaining it again I'll try to understand better.

I dont agree somewhat with his comments because i doubt the US would invade Sudan and i would bet more on a UN force entering.
Either do I mainly because his first few comments were very anti-American and had no place in the post at that time. He could have made it clearer his disapproval of the article instead of putting down the United States. Since I'm American I took offense to it and I'm assuming your Chinese and took offense to me saying something bad about China? Correct me if I'm wrong. Not all his comments were anti-American and some could be taken a few ways dealing with the Sudan situation.


I hope that made sense post again or PM and I'll explain anything I can.
 

ROCK45

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #34
Cool link

Thanks Feanor I saw this once before but haven't been here in long time, this time I saved it.
 

PullerRommel

New Member
I understand what your saying.

What my post was trying to get at was neither your nor Chinos comments it was more to of an in general thing on how people usually bash and bash China but never take into account the wrong doings of there own country. Then they try to play it off like it was the past.

I also dont disagree with on his comment about the US going into Iraq becuase i dont htink the US invaded on good intentions. I also realized thta your comment about the US getting involved in a country were they are killing themselves over Religion is wrong. They were not that happened after the US invaded.
 

s002wjh

New Member
consider US was selling arms to Iraq before 90's, so Iraq can attack Iran include using of chemical weapon, so what so different between china selling weapon to Sundan?

beside isn't this article said china selling advance weapon, ground to air missile etc? advance weapon are essentially useless against civilians, right?
 

ROCK45

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #37
Weapons

There is no difference but do you think the US approved Iraq using chemical weapon against Iran?
 

PullerRommel

New Member
Im pretty confident that they did. It would not make sense to ship the materials to build the Chemical/Biological weapons and then say dont use them against Iran.
 

ROCK45

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #39
What?

PullerRommel do you have way to back up that statement?

PullerRommel
It would not make sense to ship the materials to build the Chemical/Biological weapons and then say dont use them against Iran.
Is this what they teach you in your schools?
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Admin post.

This thread is, as some here have realised, getting out of hand. I suggest that posters exercise a little restraint and thoughtfulness, & try to avoid anything that might cause offence.

I appreciate that a discussion of arms sales and their security is inherently both military and political, but in the interests of good order and reasoned debate, it would be best to try to keep the political element to the minimum compatible with continuing a lively discussion.

And please, no "your country is as bad as/worse than mine".

Your co-operation will be appreciated.

pji
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top