China says Iran sanctions no cure

[Flavius22]

BEIJING (*******) – China's Foreign Minister said on Sunday new sanctions on Iran will not solve the standoff over its nuclear program, while chiding the United States after two months of tensions between the big powers.

***

Shi said China would be wary of sanctions on Iranian banks that could entangle its energy imports from Iran, the fast-growing Asian economy's third biggest foreign supplier of crude oil last year.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100307/ts_nm/us_china_parliament_1

Activity in 1909–1979

In May 1901, William Knox D'Arcy was granted a concession by the Shah of Iran to search for oil which he discovered in May 1908.[5] This was the first commercially significant find in the Middle East. On 14 April 1909, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) was incorporated to exploit this.[5]In 1923, the company secretly gave £5,000 -- the equivalent of perhaps millions in today's money -- to future Prime Minister Winston Churchill to lobby the British government to allow them to monopolise Persian oil resources.[6] In 1935, it became the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC).[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP

[Ordie]

I guess China prefers nuclear proliferation and global instability.

[acosta]

I guess China prefers nuclear proliferation and global instability.

your cliché won't help, smart ordie. you are not a kid.

china has its own national interest and strategy, you always blame unless you get your way.

[FlintHillBilly]

Whats new here? China does not (EVER) agree with the US or anything the UN says/does/attempts to do.

[vinny_121_ND]

Economic sanctions don't hurt anybody except the people. When sanctions hit Iraq after the 91 gulf war, Iraqis didn't have medicine, didn't have working electricity plants, couldn't provide clean drinking water. Burma has sanctions on them, nothing is new, the regime is still in power and I don't expect sanctions to solve anything.

[Solvent]

People are always the biggest victims in sanctions. Big bosses in those countries still can get what they want just in a harder way. As I said before, why not to bomb Iran if somebody is really uncomfortable with Iran's nuclear program. The same fashion has been carried out before, why not this time?

[HVU]

Old article regarding sanctions.

Thanks for the Sanctions
Why do we keep using a policy that helps dictators?
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Wednesday, Aug. 2, 2006, at 4:45 PM ET

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
When trying to rein in the misbehavior of roguish regimes, be it nuclear proliferation, support for terrorism, or internal repression, the United States increasingly turns to a policy of economic sanctions.

A quick survey: We began our economic embargo against North Korea in 1950. We've had one against Cuba since 1962. We first applied economic sanctions to Iran during the hostage crisis in 1979 and are currently trying for international sanctions aimed at getting the government there to suspend uranium enrichment. We attached trade sanctions to Burma beginning in 1990 and froze the assets of Sudan beginning in 1997. President Bush ordered sanctions against Zimbabwe in 2003 and against Syria beginning in 2004. We have also led major international sanctions campaigns against regimes since brought down by force of arms: Milosevic's Yugoslavia, Saddam's Iraq, and Taliban Afghanistan.
RELATED IN SLATE
Franklin Foer offers a who, what, and why on economic sanctions. Fred Kaplan dissects a report that reveals sanctions did prevent Sadaam Hussein from jumpstarting his WMD program. Michael Crowley listed who did the plunderin' and the corruptin' in the Iraqi oil-for-food program. Jacob Weisberg described why President Bush is contributing to Fidel Castro's career longevity. Here's the way sanctions against Iran can work.
America's sanctions policy is largely consistent, and in a certain sense, admirable. By applying economic restraints, we label the most oppressive and dangerous governments in the world pariahs. We wash our hands of evil, declining to help despots finance their depredations, even at a cost to ourselves of some economic growth. We wincingly accept the collateral damage that falls on civilian populations in the nations we target. But as the above list of countries suggests, sanctions have one serious drawback. They don't work. Though there are some debatable exceptions, sanctions rarely play a significant role in dislodging or constraining the behavior of despicable regimes.

Read the rest here:
http://slate.com/id/2147058

[Beholder]

Ofcource sanction can fail.There is always way around.But if not sanction then what?Its not like we will wait for Iran to have nukes.

[vinny_121_ND]

Ofcource sanction can fail.There is always way around.But if not sanction then what?Its not like we will wait for Iran to have nukes.

Anybody read 'how to win friends and influence people'? Instead of making enemies, be friends with them and empower the people.

[cn_habs]

Ofcource sanction can fail.There is always way around.But if not sanction then what?Its not like we will wait for Iran to have nukes.

How does sanctions stop the nuclear development if there's indeed one? CIA needs to show the proof first.

The only way to stop Iran is to bomb the facilities and launch covert ops.

[Beholder]

How does sanctions stop the nuclear development if there's indeed one? CIA needs to show the proof first.

The only way to stop Iran is to bomb the facilities and launch covert ops.

Well i'm israeli,so Mossad works for me.:)
I have no problems with bombing,or covert ops,but if we do have time,why not atempt sanctions?
And i doubt China support any forceful action any more then they support sanctions.


Anybody read 'how to win friends and influence people'? Instead of making enemies, be friends with them and empower the people.

Its great philosofy.In the name of our future frendship,can you pls send me 2000$?And if not why?

[Hollis]

Anybody read 'how to win friends and influence people'? Instead of making enemies, be friends with them and empower the people.

I guess we can also sing kumbaya too. Sadly there are socialpaths and psychopaths in the world and very unreasonable people who are set on their way. They have no interest in your way.

[skyrock]

North Korea has nuclear weapons, and Kim is alive and kicking.

Iraq did not have nuclear weapons, and Saddam was hung.

It is not hard for Iran, the last member of the Axis, to figure out what to do, no matter whether there is a sanction or not.

[Beholder]

But money they need.Iran is somewhat different,they cant press population too hard.IMO

[Confuse]

china has it's own interests to look after, unless you can give proof that iran is building nukes and not a OOPS iraq WMD redux, china isn't going to play along with this new regime change game and screw its own oil contracts for the sake of US interests.. sanctions are just a slow and painful death to the people, sanctions rarely end in collapse of the regime, if you want to stop the supposed nuke program or regime change then why even bother asking for chinese UN support, it didn't stop the US in iraq so why bother now, just bomb iran and be done with it.. the truth is that even without chinese support their will be sanctions, then after the sanctions don't work then the bombing.

[Confuse]

But money they need.Iran is somewhat different,they cant press population too hard.IMO


just because they don't like their regime doesn't mean they will screw themselves by supporting US or israel bombing their country, they (general population) don't have much if any love for the US or jews either..if they want to change the government they have to do it on their own and they are wary of becoming a foreign pawn that is supported to outsiders interests and not their (general population) own

[Beholder]

Well China not just "isn't going to play along",China intend to use veto power.It means oposition,not neutrality.

[Beholder]

just because they don't like their regime doesn't mean they will screw themselves by supporting US or israel bombing their country, they (general population) don't have much if any love for the US or jews either..if they want to change the government they have to do it on their own and they are wary of becoming a foreign pawn that is supported to outsiders interests and not their (general population) own

But said regime cant make bomb without money.If regime dont have money(sanction work),regime will stop developing nuke,or will have to take money from population.Then maybe population will have more desire to change said regime.Israel and USA not even in the picture.:)

[Solvent]

Well i'm israeli,so Mossad works for me.:)
I have no problems with bombing,or covert ops,but if we do have time,why not atempt sanctions?
And i doubt China support any forceful action any more then they support sanctions.


I actually sort of feel that if there is somebody go ahead bombing Iran, China gov may feel happy and relieved.

[Beholder]

I think that is the case.For China as of now,concept of "power comes with responsibilities" seems foreign,or they simply dont feel like folow it.

[Solvent]

China is not super hero. As a country, looking after the interest comes first.

[Beholder]

Yes,just not any coutry have veto power.:)

[Confuse]

I think that is the case.For China as of now,concept of "power comes with responsibilities" seems foreign,or they simply dont feel like folow it.


"concept of power comes with responsibilities" isn't something based on "goodness" as much as it is to push interests of a set country, it's approach is too much lordship over others, currently i think china's approach is give help to build up a society self-sufficience to a level where social development can happen over material needs (when material and survival needs gets to a certain point then self-fulfillment and moral sense of "good" fulfillment can advance) and let the country develop in it's own path... the fear is that the "power comes responsibility" is mostly a moral good wrapping of a darker core selfish interest, which is only a recent event, pre WW2 was a free for all of might makes right, today might still makes right just wrapped in a pretty bow... also china isn't at a stage where it is at a power to be "world police" it's people per capita are still for lower than the "west" , when they reach close to comparable then it can be "world police, or policy maker"

[Beholder]

Once again,every time China uses veto power it is world police.By definition.

[Confuse]

Yes,just not any coutry have veto power.:)


the winners of WW2 have veto power...but interests comes first, just look at the cold war where rivals US and soviets vetoed each other left and right based on naked self interests.. the whole communists or democracy ideology BS went out the window with countless coup of elected governments or good people killed to be replaced by an evil puppet

[Confuse]

Once again,every time China uses veto power it is world police.By definition.


china mostly abstains, also you can treat china as a "police that has responsiblities" when you want something , but then give it the big f*ck you when you don't (tibet, taiwan, etc.) , it isn't a constant policy, and for such reason there is NO real trust that such said "responsibilities" are not just cover of self agendas ..... also if china played "world police" and did it just like the other "responsible" powers there would be screams of china the evil empire of world domination, with military bases everywhere and sanctions at a drop of a hat

[Beholder]

So what?Both US and Soviet were not good cops?Agreed.:)

[Beholder]

china mostly abstains, also you can treat china as a "police that has responsiblities" when you want something , but then give it the big f*ck you when you don't (tibet, taiwan, etc.) ,

If China want use veto power and support iranian regime for interest China i have no problem with it,but i dont have to call it neutral either.

[vinny_121_ND]

Once again,every time China uses veto power it is world police.By definition.

This is how the arab world views the United States everytime it uses its veto power in support for Israel.

I'll give you 2000 for invested interest that will go to your scholarship fund and you become the next Bill Gates.

[cn_habs]

I think that is the case.For China as of now,concept of "power comes with responsibilities" seems foreign,or they simply dont feel like folow it.

The Chinse were saying the same thing about the Taiwan arm sales. It's not we are selling the weapons to the Hamas or Hezbollah. So we ought to shoot ourselves in the foot to please the US and Israel? You'll have a hard time understanding things in life if you refuse to look at them from others' perspective.

Truth to be told, every government is selfish and look after its own interests first.

[Beholder]

This is how the arab world views the United States everytime it uses its veto power in support for Israel.

Rightly so.It's intendent porpose of veto in the first place.China can take iranian narrative,can take israeli,but need to pick one,or not use veto power.



I'll give you 2000 for invested interest that will go to your scholarship fund and you become the next Bill Gates.

No i want cash,so no funds.So you give?

[cn_habs]

Rightly so.It's intendent porpose of veto in the first place.China can take iranian narrative,can take israeli,but need to pick one,or not use veto power.



No i want cash,so no funds.So you give?

We'd like more hi tech from the Israel but Iran has so much to offer. We aren't doormats trying to please everyone out there.

"It's better to be feard if you can't be loved."

[Beholder]

The Chinse were saying the same thing about the Taiwan arm sales. It's not we are selling the weapons to the Hamas or Hezbollah. So we ought to shoot ourselves in the foot to please the US and Israel?

Truth to be told, every government is selfish and look after their own interests first.

Ok,so how it contradicts:
"I think that is the case.For China as of now,concept of "power comes with responsibilities" seems foreign,or they simply dont feel like folow it."(C )Me.

[cn_habs]

Ok,so how it contradicts:
"I think that is the case.For China as of now,concept of "power comes with responsibilities" seems foreign,or they simply dont feel like folow it."(C )Me.

Why did the Congress authorize the arm sale to Taiwan that itself considers part of PRC? No one else gave a rat's ass about this violation of Chinese sovreignty. Don't give the us this BS.

This is how the world works. Period.

[Beholder]

China did something,i think its something not good and say so.Then people come and say that how world is.:)
I do understend why China use veto and still think its not ok.

[Blue P]

Whats new here? China does not (EVER) agree with the US or anything the UN says/does/attempts to do.

you need to check the history of un veto tickets usage before making such comment.

112878

[Ordie]

It is in China's best interest to have a stable world and not another Asian nuclear contender.

[budgie]

Whats new here? China does not (EVER) agree with the US or anything the UN says/does/attempts to do.

This is often the case, but not always. But just to play the devil's advocate; China has been moderating for years with North Korea and seen first hand how sanctions sometimes only serve to push a regime further into isolation and paranoia, and make them even more desperate for WMD. Sanctions may limit access to some channels for nuclear materials but didn't stop Pyonyang. Why should it stop Tehran?

[Blue P]

It is in China's best interest to have a stable world and not another Asian nuclear contender.

and dominated by the united states?

[Confuse]

and dominated by the united states?

is the so called "china's best interests" really the US best interest, china would just be damaging itself, but that would just be "killing two birds with one stone" for the US

[Beholder]

is the so called "china's best interests" really the US best interest, china would just be damaging itself, but that would just be "killing two birds with one stone" for the US

No,Iran with nuke is not in China interests.But if China think,that West will solve this problem alone,then China use veto and get good relations with Iran,then West solve Iranian problem anyway.

[Sootan]

No,Iran with nuke is not in China interests.But if China think,that West will solve this problem alone,then China use veto and get good relations with Iran,then West solve Iranian problem anyway.

Iran's oil is China's interest.

Israel's well being, not so much.....

[Beholder]

Israel once again not even in the picture.Another nuclear state not in China interest with or without Israel.

[Sootan]

Israel once again not even in the picture.Another nuclear state not in China interest with or without Israel.

Maybe. But then again, a military confrontation with Iran is not in China's interest either. Or you should ask the opinion of the Chinese members here.

[Beholder]

How it will get to military confrontation(that ofcource not good for China)?

[cn_habs]

Israel once again not even in the picture.Another nuclear state not in China interest with or without Israel.

First of all, North Korea proves that sanctions don't exactly work. There's always clandestine ways to obtain materials. Had India not lost kgs of plutonium in recent years?

Second, the Chinese don't even think the world evolves around China. You think Israel has to be involved in every simple important decision in this world? You are not even the superpower world wide. Additionally, show the world the solid evidence first.

The bottom line is Israel desn't give a rat's ass about China's well being and territorial integrity and the inverse is true. Why is this complicated to understand to some people like you?

[cn_habs]

How it will get to military confrontation(that ofcource not good for China)?

You guys just have to send in your elite and create distraction at the same time. Bomb everything else to make sure facilities are destroyed.

I know it's easier said than done but certainly doable. You have all the resources.

As long as you don't overthrown the regime and cause further political instability in the regoin, I don't care what you destroy.

[sterrius]

Another nuclear state not in China interest with or without Israel.

Having to search elsewere in the world for 10-15% of the oil it needs is not in china interest either.

No other country can replace that much oil. China will not hurt its PIB for years. Iran have good relations with them, sells oil to them, have interest focus on middle east only and is not going to anger China,US,Russia and UE at same time crossing the red line of all those countrys. (Not even north korea have this kind of death wish).

And china already have india, pakistan and russia with nuclear weapons close to them. Its not like iran is the first one.

[Sootan]

How it will get to military confrontation(that ofcource not good for China)?

Somebody got scared enough of potential Iranian nukes and attacked unilaterally and preemptively? I wonder who would do that......

[Beholder]

First of all, North Korea proves that sanctions don't exactly work.

North Korea dont prove anything,becouse Iran is not North Korea.South Africa surrendered nukes and it dasnt prove anything,becouse Iran is not SA.



Second, the Chinese don't even think the world evolves around China.


Word evolves around power,in this particular case veto power.:)
Simply put China have say in matter that conserns me,so i'm grade what they did.I cant?:)



You think Israel has to be involved in every simple important decision in this world?


No,but i think i can have an opinion about every decision made and voice it if it that conserns me personaly and act and based on said opinion.I dont demand from China to listen.



You are not even the superpower world wide.


So what?



Additionally, show the world the solid evidence first.



Not world,China right?Russia changed its position.IAEA report been a factor i think.:)



The bottom line is Israel desn't give a rat's ass about China's well being and territorial integrity and the inverse is true.


Meaby.:)



Why is this complicated to understand to some people like you?


Its not hard realy.I do understend why China do it,i still dont like it.So why is this complicated to understand to some people like you? :)

[Beholder]

You guys just have to send in your elite and create distraction at the same time. Bomb everything else to make sure facilities are destroyed.

I know it's easier said than done but certainly doable. You have all the resources.

As long as you don't overthrown the regime and cause further political instability in the regoin, I don't care what you destroy.

Well now Israel is in the picture.:)
That we do if all else fail.

[Beholder]

Somebody got scared enough of potential Iranian nukes and attacked unilaterally and preemptively? I wonder who would do that......

But,without sanctions that will be the case.
So or China dont care if some other state do this,as such attack will hardly harm China,or they dont believe in such an attack.:)
Your pick?:)

[Sootan]

But,without sanctions that will be the case.
So or China dont care if some other state do this,as such attack will hardly harm China,or they dont believe in such an attack.:)
Your pick?:)
China cares if the attack disrupted the flow of oil out of Iran. Think you can attack Iran and ensure that the oil flows like nothing happened?

[Beholder]

Having to search elsewere in the world for 10-15% of the oil it needs is not in china interest either.

That is main reason they use veto.


No other country can replace that much oil. China will not hurt its PIB for years. Iran have good relations with them, sells oil to them, have interest focus on middle east only and is not going to anger China,US,Russia and UE at same time crossing the red line of all those countrys. (Not even north korea have this kind of death wish).


So China have power over Iran,becouse Iran now cross EU,Russia,USA and cant afford to cross China.And Iran hve power over China,becouse China need oil.And Iran need to export oil,cant keep embargo,wich you somehow forget.Right.So what?(North Korea sended kids with key from the heaven to clean minefields?)


And china already have india, pakistan and russia with nuclear weapons close to them. Its not like iran is the first one.


1.The less the better.
2.Iran not exacly India,Russia,or Pakistan.

[Beholder]

China cares if the attack disrupted the flow of oil out of Iran. Think you can attack Iran and ensure that the oil flows like nothing happened?

It depends.Iran have nothing to gain from distrupting oil flow to China,but its hard to predict.

[Ordie]

and dominated by the united states?

If it wasn't for the United States, neither China or Israel wouldn't be were they are.

What you refer to US Domination prevented inter-European wars for the first time in generations, kept the peace between contending powers in Asia which in turn created an environment for trade and prosperity, and created global systems through the UN including the IMF, World Bank, ICAO, WHO and WTO etc..........so that we don't go to war over petty issues.

Now imagine the world without the US.

[acosta]

If it wasn't for the United States, neither China or Israel wouldn't be were they are.

What you refer to US Domination prevented inter-European wars for the first time in generations, kept the peace between contending powers in Asia which in turn created an environment for trade and prosperity, and created global systems through the UN including the IMF, World Bank, ICAO, WHO and WTO etc..........so that we don't go to war over petty issues.

Now imagine the world without the US.

What a holy joke, buddy.

China has been there for many thousand years. Don't argue like an idi$ot mutter.

or you would say " ...it wasn't for china, neither Columbus or Mayflower wouldn't sail to where the new world was found."

the argument will go as long as silkroad , US made japan and china at peace, meanwhile blocking china for interacting with the world for 30 years, even at war with china at korea peninsular and viatnam, plus arm sale to taiwan, supporting his holiness DL and Reybia's good course of separation.....etc.

name a thing that china did harming u.s.and its interest.

[Ordie]

US made japan and china at peace
Thanks to the US postwar administration of Japan, it is not agressive.


blocking china for interacting with the world for 30 years
We haven't since 1971.


even at war with china at korea peninsular
If China did not participate, they've could've had Taiwan today.


arm sale to taiwan
But the US does not stop the ROC and PRC from engaging with each other peacefully.


supporting his holiness DL
The US government recognizes Tibet as an integral part of China.


and Reybia's good course of separation
It was China fault for kicking her out of the country and sending her to the USA.

China is an international stakeholder and needs to consider greater stability, and regional security including the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons.

[Eventine]

Ordie has good intentions. I am a bit too cynical to buy the idealism, but some of our Chinese members here would do well to take his points more gently.

[Mavet]

In international politics, people only use idealism to hide their true intentions. No matter it is 19th century or 21st century. I NEVER buy idealism. And nor should anyone who's interested international poltics, it blinds people.

[Solvent]

Ordie has good intentions. I am a bit too cynical to buy the idealism, but some of our Chinese members here would do well to take his points more gently.

Interested maybe. But Good intention, I think not. If he has good intention, he may look into things a little bit deeper, instead of chewing on old material again and again.

[Mordoror]

As I said before, why not to bomb Iran if somebody is really uncomfortable with Iran's nuclear program. The same fashion has been carried out before, why not this time?

ecause nobody wants a oil barrel skyrocketting at 300 $, modern weapons flooding all the ME from Lebanon to Astan and possible terrorist strikes on his own country
and moreover nobody wants a certain nulcear Iran

without a strike a nuclear Iran is a possibility
with a strike a nuclear Iran is a certainty....it may take longer depending of the amount of facilities destroyed but as casus belli will trhow Iran on the path of a nuke weapon as sure as 2+2 = 4

[Mordoror]

Maybe. But then again, a military confrontation with Iran is not in China's interest eithereconomically it is not of course (they desperately need the iranian oil)

politicaly if it hurts USA and western powers a lot, cost life and equipment in a long lasting war on several fronts (Iran itself, but aslo Irak, Lebanon, Syria and Astan) and if it hurts the political prestige of the west it could be worthy

did the Sun Tzu not said that hurting your ennemy without raising a sword is the best kind of victory ?

the question is how much the economical interest may be superior to the political interest and how long ?

[Solvent]

ecause nobody wants a oil barrel skyrocketting at 300 $, modern weapons flooding all the ME from Lebanon to Astan and possible terrorist strikes on his own country
and moreover nobody wants a certain nulcear Iran

without a strike a nuclear Iran is a possibility
with a strike a nuclear Iran is a certainty....it may take longer depending of the amount of facilities destroyed but as casus belli will trhow Iran on the path of a nuke weapon as sure as 2+2 = 4

No, I think Iranians are smart enough to know that the real breakthrough is to own nuclear weapon no matter what. Without strike, most certainly they are determined to have it. They are not just talking, they know what they are doing.

[Blue P]

If it wasn't for the United States, neither China or Israel wouldn't be were they are.

What you refer to US Domination prevented inter-European wars for the first time in generations, kept the peace between contending powers in Asia which in turn created an environment for trade and prosperity, and created global systems through the UN including the IMF, World Bank, ICAO, WHO and WTO etc..........so that we don't go to war over petty issues.

Now imagine the world without the US.

first of all, i need to make my point clear. i'm not saying the us is the bad guy. all i want to prove is, that the us, like any other nations, acts to and only to protect his interests.

true, without the us, israel would be in a quite different situation i suppose. but china? yes, china did receive a huge amount of aid from the us to defeat the japanese invasion. but the us was supporting the so-call nationalists who were actually less less nationalism and very dependent on american aid, in another word, a puppet. when chiang kai chek's corrupted government appeared to be on the losing side, the us tried to mediate into 2 chinas divided by the yang-zi river. the same trick worked well in europe for centuries but utterly failed in china, so there came the republic of china. you probably who have a great knowledge of the rest of the history. so i will not waste my time here.

and, did us PREVENTED the wars in europe? according to my memory, the 2 world wars did happen and started in europe first. and the us only joined the first when all the warring nations were exhausted to pick up the bonus for the winners. after them 2 wars, the us gained a great deal of influence and reinforced its domination even further. so to be fair, should we say, that the us has always been fighting for his own stronger position? and what about peace in asia? after chinese civil war, asia WAS in peace. apart from korea civil war, which should have been a short civil conflict. due to some ideological bs and again his own interests, the us joined and the war was extended for years and millions peopel suffered. and countries in asia have been trading for centuries long before the founding of united states. we didn't need any of your help from that aspect.

ordie, i respect your knowledge on history and politics. but once the us gets involved in the discussion, your national narcissism gets the upper hand over that.

[Halcyon]

Deleted as somebody already brought up the argument.

[Blue P]

Sanctions are the only option the world community has besides the military one to dissuade Iran from getting the bomb. By blocking sanctions they are probably trying to push the US into a conflict with Iran, as part of some kind of an attempt to weaken US power. Very sun-tzuie.

"it's my way or no way!!" and "he who disagrees with me eats my bombs!!"

i see the combination of american and indian traditions has been serving your well......

[Halcyon]

"it's my way or no way!!" and "he who disagrees with me eats my bombs!!"

i see the combination of american and indian traditions has been serving your well......

Are you trying your best not to make any sense? I don't see anyone interfering with 'Iran's way' whatever that may be, merely certain countries trying to preclude the possibility of a nuclear holocaust, unless you mean to suggest that is 'Iran's way'.

[the_Wicked]

"it's my way or no way!!" and "he who disagrees with me eats my bombs!!"

i see the combination of american and indian traditions has been serving your well......

It really doesn't matter whose sensibilities we hurt as long as we prevent a nuclear holocaust, as Halcyon pointed out.

[cn_habs]

Are you trying your best not to make any sense? I don't see anyone interfering with 'Iran's way' whatever that may be, merely certain countries trying to preclude the possibility of a nuclear holocaust, unless you mean to suggest that is 'Iran's way'.

India is the country that accelerated world wide nuclear proliferation. Not saying you are not allowed too but Pakistan wouldn't have had the incentive to obtain nukes if you had gotten it in the first place. The only reason the US didn't do **** is b/ they want to be on good terms.

[hulaku]

India is the country that accelerated world wide nuclear proliferation. Not saying you are not allowed too but Pakistan wouldn't have had the incentive to obtain nukes if you had gotten it in the first place. The only reason the US didn't do **** is b/ they want to be on good terms.

Any links for your accusations??

And you know that the US sanctioned India ??

And I assume that you know that India did its first nuclear test in 1974??

[Halcyon]

India is the country that accelerated world wide nuclear proliferation. Not saying you are not allowed too but Pakistan wouldn't have had the incentive to obtain nukes if you had gotten it in the first place. The only reason the US didn't do **** is b/ they want to be on good terms.

Your world view, which basically starts and ends with 'West and India = bad, China and supporters = sunshine flowing out of their bums', is ridiculous, I feel sorry for you.

[cn_habs]

Any links for your accusations??

And you know that the US sanctioned India ??

And I assume that you know that India did its first nuclear test in 1974??

Would Pakistan have utilized that many resources to obtain nukes right away if India didn't have it in the first place?

The US sanctioned everyone else that she didn't like at the moment and she could have tried harder in the 90's had she not cared about bilateral relations.

[cn_habs]

Your world view, which basically starts and ends with 'West and India = bad, China and supporters = sunshine flowing out of their bums', is ridiculous, I feel sorry for you.

You got nukes first which forced the Pakistanis to try their best to obtain the same thing. Now many complain how an unstable Pakistani government with nukes can be extremely dangerous to the rest of the world which I agree. Who might have caused this eventual nuclear holocoast that you mentioned about?

What did I say regarding China in this thread? Yeah right, everything I said was about praising China.

[sterrius]

You got nukes first which forced the Pakistanis to try their best to obtain the same thing. Now many complain how an unstable Pakistani government with nukes can be extremely dangerous to the rest of the world which I agree.

Well... i can`t say i trust the other nuclear powers too! Well, i think very few people trust any country with nuclear weapons unless its a country where you live or that have very close relations. (Sometimes not even that, well.. for me a world without nuclear bombs or with a very limited number is best, but no, makes too much sense).

[Halcyon]

Would Pakistan have utilized that many resources to obtain nukes right away if India didn't have it in the first place?

The US sanctioned everyone else that she didn't like at the moment and she could have tried harder in the 90's had she not cared about bilateral relations.

Not many resources were required, a lot of the stuff including weapons grade nuclear material came straight from China (ref: Mr AQ Khan). And Pakistan's nuclear ambitions pre date India's, contrary to popular belief. US policy regarding non-proliferation has been pretty consistent, you're just too stubborn in your hatred to see that.

[Beholder]

economically it is not of course (they desperately need the iranian oil)

politicaly if it hurts USA and western powers a lot, cost life and equipment in a long lasting war on several fronts (Iran itself, but aslo Irak, Lebanon, Syria and Astan) and if it hurts the political prestige of the west it could be worthy

did the Sun Tzu not said that hurting your ennemy without raising a sword is the best kind of victory ?

the question is how much the economical interest may be superior to the political interest and how long ?

If in the end Iran do get nukelear weapon it will bring destabilisation to ME.Now China get ~15% oil from Iran,but more from ME.So Iran with nuke not in China interest from this point and strike by someone probably preferable for China.


In international politics, people only use idealism to hide their true intentions. No matter it is 19th century or 21st century. I NEVER buy idealism. And nor should anyone who's interested international poltics, it blinds people.

Simply put you live in world where strong rules.Just because you dont want to bother yourself trying to figure other people intentions.
Its your choice,so fine by me,but why you want everyone live in such world?Like you make assumption that other people cant see where idealism used for bad purpose.

[Ordie]

If in the end Iran do get nukelear weapon it will bring destabilisation to ME.Now China get ~15% oil from Iran,but more from ME.So Iran with nuke not in China interest from this point and strike by someone probably preferable for China.

If Iran goes public with nuclear weapons, it crosses the rubicon and opens a padora box.
In retaliation Israel may go public and the Arabs will seek a nuke of thier own.
Thus destablizing the region and Asia ending up being nuclear Quentin Tarantino film finale.

This is why China needs to become a responsible stakeholder and use thier economic clout for good not evil.

[Solvent]

If Iran goes public with nuclear weapons, it crosses the rubicon and opens a padora box.
In retaliation Israel may go public and the Arabs will seek a nuke of thier own.
Thus destablizing the region and Asia ending up being nuclear Quentin Tarantino film finale.

This is why China needs to become a responsible stakeholder and use thier economic clout for good not evil.

Padora box has been opened long time ago. And what's the difference that Israel go public since everybody already knows?

All your assumption is based on the sanction works. Unfortunately, however, it doesn't.

[Ordie]

Padora box has been opened long time ago. And what's the difference that Israel go public since everybody already knows?

All your assumption is based on the sanction works. Unfortunately, however, it doesn't.

How can China use its influence in Iran towards the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons?

[Solvent]

How can China use its influence in Iran towards the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons?

Do you really think Iran gives a damn about China thinks? They are just playing games.

They don't care about America, they don't care about their own people, they certainly don't care about China either.

[Blue P]

If Iran goes public with nuclear weapons, it crosses the rubicon and opens a padora box.
In retaliation Israel may go public and the Arabs will seek a nuke of thier own.
Thus destablizing the region and Asia ending up being nuclear Quentin Tarantino film finale.

This is why China needs to become a responsible stakeholder and use thier economic clout for good not evil.

america allowed india to weaponries nuclear technology without much resistance, and even today it's still a aggresive non-npt country, which gravely destabilized the region and resulted in pakistan's determination to arm with nuclear weapons for self-preservation. has america been doing good or evil?

ordie, would you just stop using the words like good or bad discussing politics. i'm sure a wise man like you well understand these things don't exist in this game. so please just cut it!

the thing is simple here on this topic. in order to stop iran obtaining nuclear weapons, america needs help from china. and the question is why? why do you think china will help you?

[Ordie]

why do you think china will help you?

It's in our mutual best interest.

[Ordie]

They don't care about America, they don't care about their own people, they certainly don't care about China either.

I have yet to meet a salesperson (of oil) who didn't care about a customer.

[Halcyon]

america allowed india to weaponries nuclear technology without much resistance, and even today it's still a aggresive non-npt country, which gravely destabilized the region and resulted in pakistan's determination to arm with nuclear weapons for self-preservation. has america been doing good or evil?

ordie, would you just stop using the words like good or bad discussing politics. i'm sure a wise man like you well understand these things don't exist in this game. so please just cut it!

the thing is simple here on this topic. in order to stop iran obtaining nuclear weapons, america needs help from china. and the question is why? why do you think china will help you?

Actually, good and bad does exist in politics, just like it exists in everything else. I imagine you're trying to cover your ass though by bringing everything to the same level.

[Ordie]

america allowed india to weaponries nuclear technology without much resistance, and even today it's still a aggresive non-npt country, which gravely destabilized the region and resulted in pakistan's determination to arm with nuclear weapons for self-preservation. has america been doing good or evil?

China got nukes because of the Soviet Union.
India got nukes because of China.
Which in turn forced Pakistan to get nukes.

[Blue P]

It's in our mutual best interest.

and so is supporting separatists and theocracies against china?

[Solvent]

I have yet to meet a salesperson (of oil) who didn't care about a customer.

How many oil sales person you meet? They know China needs oil desperately, therefore, they have the leverage.

Remember one time China company tried to buy an American oil company, and was turned down by congress. If we can't find help here, can we look at other place, can we?

[Solvent]

China got nukes because of the Soviet Union.
India got nukes because of China.
Which in turn forced Pakistan to get nukes.

I want to know Soviet Union got nukes because of who?

[Halcyon]

Self deleted.

[Blue P]

China got nukes because of the Soviet Union.
India got nukes because of China.
Which in turn forced Pakistan to get nukes.

all the parliament members of security council are nuclear armed and signed the the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapon. the responsibility to keep the world in order is ultimately backed by their military power. and china was the last one to obtain the such power. is it quite reasonable for you that china has nukes?

and i can understand israel, a such small country surrounded by so many potential enemies. they could not secure their very survival without some form of wmd.

but india? india's situation is contrasting all the points i listed above. if there was a pandora box, it was the us opened it when she gave the go to india.

and if your logic makes sense, should i say iran is working on nukes because israel has them? would that make iran's nuclear programme legitimate?

[Ordie]

and so is supporting separatists and theocracies against china?

We recognize Tibet, East Turkistan, and Taiwan as integral parts of China.

[Blue P]

We recognize Tibet, East Turkistan, and Taiwan as integral parts of China.

and arm the separatists from these region to kill chinese at the same time?

[Halcyon]

all the parliament members of security council are nuclear armed and signed the the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapon. the responsibility to keep the world in order is ultimately backed by their military power. and china was the last one to obtain the such power. is it quite reasonable for you that china has nukes?

and i can understand israel, a such small country surrounded by so many potential enemies. they could not secure their very survival without some form of wmd.

but india? india's situation is contrasting all the points i listed above. if there was a pandora box, it was the us opened it when she gave the go to india.

and if your logic makes sense, should i say iran is working on nukes because israel has them? would that make iran's nuclear programme legitimate?

"US gave the go to India" Lol

Almost like a clueless propaganda tape. Whats the pay like?

[Ordie]

and arm the separatists from these region to kill chinese at the same time?

Where is the evidence?

[Ordie]

but india? india's situation is contrasting all the points i listed above. if there was a pandora box, it was the us opened it when she gave the go to india.

India's rationale for nukes is based on its failure to secure the Aksai Chin from China.

[Solvent]

"US gave the go to India" Lol

Almost like a clueless propaganda parrot. Whats the pay like?

Somebody here really has bad habit. If you get something, just say it. Why put on big hat to other people directly.

Seriously, propaganda money is not that easy to earn. If you know the channel, please let me know.

[Halcyon]

Somebody here really has bad habit. If you get something, just say it. Why put on big hat to other people directly.

Seriously, propaganda money is not that easy to earn. If you know the channel, please let me know.

I really don't know what you're saying but how else does one explain the kinds of asinine claims this fellow is making; When one sees them one has two choices: Ignore them or Make fun of them.

[Solvent]

I really don't know what you're saying but how else does one explain the kinds of asinine claims this fellow is making; When one sees them one has two choices: Ignore them or Make fun of them.

Unfortunately, what you said is not funny. Almost like an empty accusation.

[Blue P]

India's rationale for nukes is based on its failure to secure the Aksai Chin from China.

so a border conflict gives a country a legitimate cause to arm itself with nukes?



Where is the evidence?

<the cia's secret war in tibet> ?

[Halcyon]

Unfortunately, what you said is not funny. Almost like an empty accusation.

Wasn't an accusation, more of a taunt.

[Estopped]

If Iran goes public with nuclear weapons, it crosses the rubicon and opens a padora box.
In retaliation Israel may go public and the Arabs will seek a nuke of thier own.
Thus destablizing the region and Asia ending up being nuclear Quentin Tarantino film finale.

This is why China needs to become a responsible stakeholder and use thier economic clout for good not evil.

This is simply disingenuous.

Firstly if you're talking about a pandora's box then you must recognise that it's already been opened. Israel brought nukes into the middle east and they shouldn't complain when others follow suit.

Now Israel having nukes fits nicely with the US being the pre-eminent power because they are allies. Now, the same can be true for Iran and China. The question is why should China adopt a model that is built around US interests in the region, and not its own. As a corollary why should other middle eastern countries simply be content to play second fiddle to Israel while it reserves he capability to flatten them.

This stake-holder nonsense is basically doublespeak for China acting as a subservient actor in the region, deferring to US interests. I think the way things are going this is not the model the Chinese will adopt as their power increases. They will act in their own interests.

[Ordie]

<the cia's secret war in tibet> ?

It's history.
Richard Nixon stopped it.

[Ordie]

This is simply disingenuous.

Firstly if you're talking about a pandora's box then you must recognise that it's already been opened. Israel brought nukes into the middle east and they shouldn't complain when others follow suit.

Now Israel having nukes fits nicely with the US being the pre-eminent power because they are allies. Now, the same can be true for Iran and China. The question is why should China adopt a model that is built around US interests in the region, and not its own. As a corollary why should other middle eastern countries simply be content to play second fiddle to Israel while it reserves he capability to flatten them.

This stake-holder nonsense is basically doublespeak for China acting as a subservient actor in the region, deferring to US interests. I think the way things are going this is not the model the Chinese will adopt as their power increases. They will act in their own interests.

How do you know if Israel has nukes or not?

[Estopped]

It's in our mutual best interest.

is it though?

China doesn't see Iran as a threat. In the longterm the US is their chief rival.

[Estopped]

How do you know if Israel has nukes or not?

How would they go public if they don't?

[sterrius]

so a border conflict gives a country a legitimate cause to arm itself with nukes?

The country you see as a threat can use nukes against you even if you use only conventional weapons?

You need to see how each country use nuclear weapons to respond your question! (not today, in the time they got the weapons).

[Blue P]

It's history.
Richard Nixon stopped it.

and after that, the presidents of the united states still host meetings with the heads of saperatists to show their support, to sabotage china's stability.

[Blue P]

The country you see as a threat can use nukes against you even if you use only conventional weapons?

You need to see how each country use nuclear weapons to respond your question! (not today, in the time they got the weapons).

i did read that history. my question is, does the existence of that threat, make your claim for developing nuclear weapon legitimate? if it does, then which country in this world is not entitled to own nuclear weapons?

[Ordie]

and after that, the presidents of the united states still host meetings with the heads of saperatists to show their support, to sabotage china's stability.

How could a meeting with a monk destabilize a country of a billion?
If you believe that, then you believe the Chinese to be very insecure abouth themselves.

[Blue P]

How could a meeting with a monk destabilize a country of a billion?
If you believe that, then you believe the Chinese to be very insecure abouth themselves.

it's not a matter of the threat itself. it's all about the attitude. you don't stab your partner in the back, no matter the size of the knife you use, especially when you are looking forward to being treated as a partner yourself.

[Halcyon]

This is simply disingenuous.

Firstly if you're talking about a pandora's box then you must recognise that it's already been opened. Israel brought nukes into the middle east and they shouldn't complain when others follow suit.

Now Israel having nukes fits nicely with the US being the pre-eminent power because they are allies. Now, the same can be true for Iran and China. The question is why should China adopt a model that is built around US interests in the region, and not its own. As a corollary why should other middle eastern countries simply be content to play second fiddle to Israel while it reserves he capability to flatten them.

This stake-holder nonsense is basically doublespeak for China acting as a subservient actor in the region, deferring to US interests. I think the way things are going this is not the model the Chinese will adopt as their power increases. They will act in their own interests.

As China grows it will have two choices vis-a-vi the US, co-operate where it can and collide where it must, or collide where it can and co-operate where it must.

China if it encourages a nuclear Iran suggests the latter.

It's indubitable that Iran going nuclear will have far reaching affects on the region, because everything said and done the Arabs trust Israel more. And it's not just the region, the world is looking to move towards nuclear disarmament and no one wants to see a nuclear war in the future, one would hope that while pursuing its interests and making alliances China would keep that in mind.

[Ordie]

it's not a matter of the threat itself. it's all about the attitude. you don't stab your partner in the back, no matter the size of the knife you use, especially when you are looking forward to being treated as a partner yourself.

When have we backstabbed China for the past 30 years?

[Solvent]

When have we backstabbed China for the past 30 years?

So selling weapons to Taiwan and Sanctions on high tech are not backstabbing in your book?

[Estopped]

As China grows it will have two choices vis-a-vi the US, co-operate where it can and collide where it must, or collide where it can and co-operate where it must.

The question is why China must collide with the US when the US is ripe for giving way simply because it cannot collide in any meaningful manner on the issue.



It's indubitable that Iran going nuclear will have far reaching affects on the region, because everything said and done the Arabs trust Israel more. And it's not just the region, the world is looking to move towards nuclear disarmament and no one wants to see a nuclear war in the future, one would hope that while pursuing its interests and making alliances China would keep that in mind.All I see is the status quo - which is utterly unstable - ceasing to continue. The question is why instability which favours Israel persist. China has no vested interests in Israel. The people there have no religious affinity with them like the evangelical christians in the US. The real question is why should the Chinese adopt the US position when it is contrary to its overriding interests?

The arabs don't trust Israel. They trust the US, and the reason they fear Iran is because it wields far more power than Israel culturally and religiously. Israel simply doesn't have that power . There's no restive jewish populations in the oil producing regions of Saudi Arabia or Bahrain.

[Universal_Soldier]

What in the world is wrong with China? Who says sanctions are meant to cure? By design sanctions are didactic (albeit in a mean way) and not therapeutic. The Iranian administration are not under any illusions or disease. They actions are deliberate and well thought out.

How do you know if Israel has nukes or not?

That's a rather dumb question to ask. cos you dam sure know the answer.

[Ordie]

So selling weapons to Taiwan and Sanctions on high tech are not backstabbing in your book?

If we didn't sell the weapons to Taiwan, China would not engage in peaceful means of reproachment and economic ties with the ROC.

High tech sanctions? where do you think the world's computers are built?

[Ordie]

That's a rather dumb question to ask. cos you dam sure know the answer.

Its one thing to allude in having nukes, its another thing to declare you have nukes.

[Solvent]

If we didn't sell the weapons to Taiwan, China would not engage in peaceful means of reproachment and economic ties with the ROC.

High tech sanctions? where do you think the world's computers are built?

Peaceful united with Taiwan is our goal, you make it very difficult.

Assemble computers is not exactly high tech.

[Ordie]

Peaceful united with Taiwan is our goal.

If that is the case, why are there 1500 PRC Missiles pointed at Taiwan?

[Blue P]

If we didn't sell the weapons to Taiwan, China would not engage in peaceful means of reproachment and economic ties with the ROC.

High tech sanctions? where do you think the world's computers are built?

would you mind if china sell some heavy weapons to cuba to encourage some " peaceful means of reproachment" between you the them?

when will this double standard bs stop?

[Ordie]

would you mind if china sell some heavy weapons to cuba to encourage some " peaceful means of reproachment" between you the them?

when will this double standard bs stop?

Go ahead.

The Soviets did it for years.

[Blue P]

Go ahead.

The Soviets did it for years.

lol, maybe you don't really mind. but look about here, ordie. now just becausa china disagrees on the sanctions on iran, all your people are crying as if there is no tomorrow already. american have got used to getting anything in anything your want. as i siad, self-righteousness and ignorance has been past from your politicans to your people since the collape of ussr. and there doesn't seem to be a fix or you want to fix it either.

[Sootan]

If that is the case, why are there 1500 PRC Missiles pointed at Taiwan?

Where else should they point the missiles at?

Come to think of it, why the US is pointing missiles at certain other countries?

[Sootan]

Its one thing to allude in having nukes, its another thing to declare you have nukes.Who actually believe that Israel doesn't have nukes?

[cn_habs]

China got nukes because of the Soviet Union.
India got nukes because of China.
Which in turn forced Pakistan to get nukes.

Ridiculous statements. How did China force India to get nukes? Nothing else than a border skirmish has happened since 1949. China was a factor but not the reason India got nukes.

[cn_habs]

We recognize Tibet, East Turkistan, and Taiwan as integral parts of China.

Yet you playing games with us. We all know how those statements don't mean squat in real life.

We can declare to be your friend too and stab you in the back like what the US always does with those arm sales.

Who gives a darn about what some of you think is right while you still do whatever suits you the best including compromising Chinese Sovreignty with us? :)

[hulaku]

Ridiculous statements. How did China force India to get nukes? Nothing else than a border skirmish has happened since 1949. China was a factor but not the reason India got nukes.

It was a war in 1962 if you care to remember. Of course the CCP history lists it as a border skirmish. And this happened after all the talk of "Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai" (Indians and Chinese are brothers) and Panscheel. And the occupation of Aksai Chin.

And the gifting of Shaksgam Valley to China by Pakistan.

India had no option but to go in for nukes in face of having two territorial rivals on either side.

China was the main factor behind India getting itself nukes.

[Blue P]

It was a war in 1962 if you care to remember. Of course the CCP history lists it as a border skirmish. And this happened after all the talk of "Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai" (Indians and Chinese are brothers) and Panscheel. And the occupation of Aksai Chin.

And the gifting of Shaksgam Valley to China by Pakistan.

India had no option but to go in for nukes in face of having two territorial rivals on either side.

China was the main factor behind India getting itself nukes.

so having a confilct with a nuclear armed country is a reasonable cause to arm yourself with nukes?

[hulaku]

so having a confilct with a nuclear armed country is a reasonable cause to arm yourself with nukes?

Having a conflict with a nuclear armed neighbour which illegally occupies thousands of square kms of your country's territory and at the same time proliferating this nuclear technology to another neighbour with which you have a territorial dispute is a a good enough reason as any for a nation to pursue nuclear weapons.

And you do know that India has a no-first use policy in case of nuclear weapons.

Some links for Chinese proliferation to Pakistan. Do read up

In 1982, a Pakistani military C-130 left the western Chinese city of Urumqi with a highly unusual cargo: enough weapons-grade uranium for two atomic bombs, according to accounts written by the father of Pakistan's (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/pakistan.html?nav=el) nuclear weapons program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, and provided to The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/12/AR2009111211060.html


Washington D.C., 5 March 2004 - Over the course of three presidential administrations, U.S. governmental officials repeatedly pressed the Chinese government to explain whether it was providing any assistance to Pakistan in the nuclear weapons field, but Chinese officials responded with denials and equivocation. New evidence from Libya of Chinese-language material among the nuclear weapons-design documents supplied by Pakistan raises new questions about the Chinese contribution to Pakistan's nuclear proliferation activities.http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB114/press.htm


In the past, China played a major role in the development of Pakistan's nuclear infrastructure, especially when increasingly stringent export controls in western countries made it difficult for Pakistan to acquire materials and technology elsewhere. According to a 2001 Department of Defense report (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/prolif00.pdf), China has supplied Pakistan with nuclear materials and expertise and has provided critical assistance in the construction of Pakistan's nuclear facilities.
In the 1990s, China designed and supplied the heavy water Khusab reactor, which plays a key role in Pakistan's production of plutonium. A subsidiary of the China National Nuclear Corporation also contributed to Pakistan's efforts to expand its uranium enrichment capabilities by providing 5,000 custom made ring magnets, which are a key component of the bearings that facilitate the high-speed rotation of centrifuges.
According to Anthony Cordesman (http://www.csis.org/burke/hd/reports/threat_pak_nukes.pdf) of CSIS, China is also reported to have provided Pakistan with the design of one of its warheads, which is relatively sophisticated in design and lighter than U.S. and Soviet designed first generation warheads.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/

[HellToupee]

Well yes, since its large imbalance of power, they could freely nuke without retaliation.

[Ordie]

Yet you playing games with us.

What games?

Our policy towards China has been consistant for the past 30 years.

And it has been beneficial for the average Chinese.

In reality, the CCP and the USA are on the same page in reagrds to Taiwan.

The CCP knows it cannot survive politically if they militarily attack Taiwan.
The USA knows it cannot deal with another hotspot in regards to Taiwan.

Therefore both are encouraging towards the current policy of promoting peaceful economic, social and political reproachment.

The recent helicopter sales are for replacement of older equipment and lack the range and offensive capability to pose a threat to the PRC.

[Sootan]

so having a confilct with a nuclear armed country is a reasonable cause to arm yourself with nukes?

Hell yeah! Are you suggesting otherwise?

[Blue P]

Having a conflict with a nuclear armed neighbour which illegally occupies thousands of square kms of your country's territory and at the same time proliferating this nuclear technology to another neighbour with which you have a territorial dispute is a a good enough reason as any for a nation to pursue nuclear weapons.

And you do know that India has a no-first use policy in case of nuclear weapons.

i'm not talking about who is illegally occupying whose land since we won't reach an agreement because it is called a border dispute for a reason. and india's first nuclear weapon test was 26 years earlier than that of pakistan's. so your second point is not valid. all i ask is, if a country had a conflict with a nuclear armed nation, does that automatically give the right to nuclear arm himself? i'm not accusing anything but want to figure out your logic on this issue.

yes, i knew india has a no first use policy on nuclear weapons just like china. and i agree that policy enhanced the regional stability. but i too aware that india never signed the npt. is there any reason not to join like most of the other countries?

[hulaku]

i'm not talking about who is illegally occupying whose land since we won't reach an agreement because it is called a border dispute for a reason.
Ok I agree with you. Lets leave this issue for another day.


and india's first nuclear weapon test was 26 years earlier than that of pakistan's. so your second point is not valid.
India tested its first "nuclear device" in 1974 and the main reason was China and not Pakistan. You do remember that in 1971 India had soundly defeated Pakistan and cut it up into two. Also after 1971 Pakistan's leader Bhutto went into an overdrive to acquire this ability. His famous words about eating grass and still getting nuclear weapons are well still famous.

Pakistan had acquired this ability in the late 80's with a lot of Chinese support and China even tested a device for them in 1990. Surprised? See the link below

Did the Chinese further assist in the Pakistan program?
Under Pakistani president Benazir Bhutto, the country built its first functioning nuclear weapon. We believe that during Bhutto's term in office, the People's Republic of China tested Pakistan's first bomb for her in 1990.There are numerous reasons why we believe this to be true, including the design of the weapon and information gathered from discussions with Chinese nuclear experts. That's why the Pakistanis were so quick to respond to the Indian nuclear tests in 1998. It only took them two weeks and three days. When the Soviet Union took the United States by surprise with a test in 1961, it took the U.S. seventeen days to prepare and test, a device that had been on hand for years. The Pakistani response makes it clear that the gadget tested in May 1998 was a carefully engineered device in which they had great confidence.http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2009/01/02/why-china-helped-countries-like-pakistan-north-korea-build-nuclear-bombs.html

India had no option but to take its program out of deep freeze and go nuclear in a fully overt way. Nothing wrong with that one might add.


all i ask is, if a country had a conflict with a nuclear armed nation, does that automatically give the right to nuclear arm himself? i'm not accusing anything but want to figure out your logic on this issue.
The main issue is not the conflict but the causes of the conflicts ie territorial disputes which are still there. And having two nuclear armed neighbours with whom you have disputes and conflicts have arisen out of these disputes is a good enough reason to to nuclear armed.


yes, i knew india has a no first use policy on nuclear weapons just like china. and i agree that policy enhanced the regional stability. but i too aware that india never signed the npt. is there any reason not to join like most of the other countries?
India has not signed the NPT because we believe it to be discriminatory. China has signed the NPT, but nobody could stop it from proliferating to Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Libya etc etc

Are Chinese proliferation programs ongoing?
Since 1991, China has been assisting the raw-materials side of the Iranian nuclear program with shipments of uranium, instructions on the design of a conversion facility in Eshfahan, and an enrichment facility at Karaj. China has been using North Korea as the re-transfer point for the sale of nuclear and missile technology to Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen.http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2009/01/02/why-china-helped-countries-like-pakistan-north-korea-build-nuclear-bombs.html?PageNr=2

[Blue P]

Ok I agree with you. Lets leave this issue for another day.


India tested its first "nuclear device" in 1974 and the main reason was China and not Pakistan. You do remember that in 1971 India had soundly defeated Pakistan and cut it up into two. Also after 1971 Pakistan's leader Bhutto went into an overdrive to acquire this ability. His famous words about eating grass and still getting nuclear weapons are well still famous.

Pakistan had acquired this ability in the late 80's with a lot of Chinese support and China even tested a device for them in 1990. Surprised? See the link below
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2009/01/02/why-china-helped-countries-like-pakistan-north-korea-build-nuclear-bombs.html

India had no option but to take its program out of deep freeze and go nuclear in a fully overt way. Nothing wrong with that one might add.


The main issue is not the conflict but the causes of the conflicts ie territorial disputes which are still there. And having two nuclear armed neighbours with whom you have disputes and conflicts have arisen out of these disputes is a good enough reason to to nuclear armed.


India has not signed the NPT because we believe it to be discriminatory. China has signed the NPT, but nobody could stop it from proliferating to Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Libya etc etc
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2009/01/02/why-china-helped-countries-like-pakistan-north-korea-build-nuclear-bombs.html?PageNr=2

let's put aside some disputive events on history, we can say, india chose to arm herself with nuclear weapons, because she felt she was under pressure from china and pakistan. do you agree? if you could turn back the time, let's fold back to the year of 1967 after the border conflict between ours countries and chinese first hydrogen bomb, would there be anything china could do, to prevent indian from starting research on the nuclear weaponries?

[hulaku]

let's put aside some disputive events on history, we can say, india chose to arm herself with nuclear weapons, because she felt she was under pressure from china and pakistan. do you agree?
Yes, I agree with you.


if you could turn back the time, let's fold back to the year of 1967 after the border conflict between ours countries and chinese first hydrogen bomb, would there be anything china could do, to prevent indian from starting research on the nuclear weaponries?
The fact is that India and China had their confrontation in 1962 and in 1965 India went to war with Pakistan. As China and Pakistan grew closer India had reasons to feel for her security and did what it had to do.



In 1954, India was the first country to stress the need for an end to all nuclear weapons testing, and in 1965 it proposed a nondiscriminatory nonproliferation treaty. In 1978, India proposed an international convention that would prohibit the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. In 1982, India called for a “nuclear freeze,” that is, a prohibition on the production of fissile material for weapons, on production of nuclear weapons, and on related delivery systems. At the UN General Assembly Special Session on Disarmament in 1988, India put forward a Comprehensive Plan for total elimination of weapons of mass destruction.
While India pursued a solely “peaceful nuclear program” in the 1950s, by the mid-1960s it reconsidered its aversion to nuclear weapons in the face of escalating regional instability. India’s two main rivals in the region have been Pakistan and China.
India’s earlier decision to develop the complete nuclear fuel cycle allowed it to easily acquire technical capability to build nuclear weapons when the geopolitical situation changed. In November 1964, Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri authorized theoretical work on the Subterranean Nuclear Explosion for Peaceful Purposes (SNEPP). India commissioned a reprocessing facility at Trombay, which was used to separate out the plutonium produced by the CIRUS research reactor. This plutonium was used in India's first nuclear test on May 18, 1974, described by the Indian government as a “peaceful nuclear explosion.” An expert analysis of the explosion demonstrated India’s capability to produce nuclear weapons.
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/proliferation/india/index.htm

As for what China could have done to prevent India from research on "Nuclear weapons" is anybody's guess. As the above article indicates the Indian Nuclear program was initially aimed at harnessing Nuclear energy but it was later on easy to develop the ability to produce nuclear weapons.

[Blue P]

As for what China could have done to prevent India from research on "Nuclear weapons" is anybody's guess. As the above article indicates the Indian Nuclear program was initially aimed at harnessing Nuclear energy but it was later on easy to develop the ability to produce nuclear weapons.

so nuclear technology for civil usage and weaponry are quite close to each other. once a country obtains the former, the later is only a pace away. so if you want to prevent a country from having nuclear weapon you have to stop him from developing any civil nuclear technology.

i wonder, once the military conflict between india and china had happened, had it been any turn back, anything china could have done, chances that a nuclear armed india would not appear? or it was an historical inevitability, that india would eventually acquire nuclear weapons?

[acosta]

would you mind if china sell some heavy weapons to cuba to encourage some " peaceful means of reproachment" between you the them?

when will this double standard bs stop?


Go ahead.

The Soviets did it for years.


in conclusion, PRC is such a peace-loving country. that's why it insists dialogues on iran nuke crisis.


maybe next time, china should take u.s.' approach in 1962 to resolve a taiwan nuke sale crisis...um...

see the difference? cuba got plenty of weapons from ussr, but a nuke one make different. china will take u.s. approach in that event, for sure.

[acosta]

some thoughts:
A. don't try to stir up u.s.-relations, they have a tied "one" economy, it will never look like a cold war, but and embarrassed G2 situation.
B. don't blame iran, all patriates want their countries have nukes, for whatever reason.
C.don't bring india into this argument, india has its right to have nukes, it does not need no reason, so does pakistan.

there will be a solution accepted by both china and u.s.and the bottomline, nukes won't be an issue in the future, tech advance will make all countries capable of doing nukes.

can we end this discussion?

[Beholder]

So selling weapons to Taiwan and Sanctions on high tech are not backstabbing in your book?

China to take Taiwan peacefull in negotiotions like Hong kong is one thing,allowing China to start a war to take Taiwan is another.
Human rights sometimes do beat territorial integrity.:roll:


Israel brought nukes into the middle east and they shouldn't complain when others follow suit.


Iran have put signature on NPT,Israel have not,Iran making big treats,Israel is not.Iran support terrorism,Israel dont.Iran is not democracy,so not that stable,WMD in such country is a problem,Israel stable democracy.Iran have very violent ideology with religios roots directed outside of Iran,Israel have not.And so on...
Ofcourse you as a honest person folow the same ideology(juge on action,not taking motive,or situation in account) you displayed on the forum in your everyday life,right?So you not going to exersise selfdefence in case of robbery for example,because violence is always violence,right?:roll:


How many oil sales person you meet? They know China needs oil desperately, therefore, they have the leverage.

Remember one time China company tried to buy an American oil company, and was turned down by congress. If we can't find help here, can we look at other place, can we?

OPEC dictate amount of oil every member of OPEC can drill.Is that maximim or minimum amount?How do you think?;)

[Solvent]

China to take Taiwan peacefull in negotiotions like Hong kong is one thing,allowing China to start a war to take Taiwan is another.
Human rights sometimes do beat territorial integrity.:roll:

OPEC dictate amount of oil every member of OPEC can drill.Is that maximim or minimum amount?How do you think?;)

Difference between Hong Kong and Taiwan is the Taiwan strait. Otherwise, really no big difference.
Can you give a example how human rights beat territorial integrity?

Do you have oil? If you do, then you can do the talking.

[Beholder]

Difference between Hong Kong and Taiwan is the Taiwan strait. Otherwise, really no big difference.
Can you give a example how human rights beat territorial integrity?


Palestinian-israeli conflict.Most countrys who support palestinian right on WB,dont support terrorism as a means to get it.Georgia,most countrys who support georgian rights for South Osetia dont support violent solution.And so on...
USA dont try to interfere in Taiwan-China dialog,so...



Do you have oil? If you do, then you can do the talking.

I dont demand from China to do anything,Israel will do what Israel must do.
Just say that posibility to put pressure on Iran China have.

[Solvent]

Palestinian-israeli conflict.Most countrys who support palestinian right on WB,dont support terrorism as a means to get it.Georgia,most countrys who support georgian rights for South Osetia dont support violent solution.And so on...
USA dont try to interfere in Taiwan-China dialog,so...

I dont demand from China to do anything,Israel will do what Israel must do.
Just say that posibility to put pressure on Iran China have.

Support doesn't beat reality, unfortunately.

I know Israel gets to do what she needs to do. I suggested air strike long time ago. China is always under pressure, I don't think pressure for this case is too unbearable.

[Beholder]

Support doesn't beat reality, unfortunately.


Well,China-Taiwan relationship is not that hot.:)
No matter what analisis say on the internet China dont have military capability to invade or even put blocade on Taiwan and will not have in near future,Taiwan cant invade China.Non of them employ terrorism and they have succesfull example of Hong Kong integration,so it will probably work somehow.IMO


I know Israel gets to do what her needs to do. I suggested air strike long time ago. China is always under pressure, I don't think pressure for this case is too unbearable.


There is more or less consensus in Israel that China will not support kind of sanctions we think needed.And i dont think there was great pressure on China.

[Solvent]

Well,China-Taiwan relationship is not that hot.:)
No matter what analisis say on the internet China dont have military capability to invade or even put blocade on Taiwan and will not have in near future,Taiwan cant invade China.Non of them employ terrorism and they have succesfull example of Hong Kong integration,so it will probably work somehow.IMO

There is more or less consensus in Israel that China will not support kind of sanctions we think needed.And i dont think there was great pressure on China.

Peaceful way to tackle Taiwan issue is the best and becomes more and more practical those years. Taiwan people are lovely and share similar roots with us. Nobody is willing to see bad things happen.

When Israel joined the sanction against China. We didn't expect too much from Israel either, since we knew you have to consider US's opinions. Israel is a strong and smart country. She must know how to do next.

[Beholder]

When Israel joined the sanction against China. We didn't expect too much from Israel either, since we knew you have to consider US's opinions.

That true.But sanction we want on Iran are different.Sanction on China not made to hurt China,but to hurt(slow) growth of military capabilities.Big difference from crippling sunctions.If China will make a transition to full democracy and solve varios border disputes i think this sanctions will be dropped.I also dont think it will happend soon.:)
China big country,so have big cultural inertia.

[Solvent]

That true.But sanction we want on Iran are different.Sanction on China not made to hurt China,but to hurt(slow) growth of military capabilities.Big difference from crippling sunctions.If China will make a transition to full democracy and solve varios border disputes i think this sanctions will be dropped.I also dont think it will happend soon.:)
China big country,so have big cultural inertia.

Without strong military, a country like China is equal to cripple.
Democracy is not a magic pill, once you take, all your problems are gone. Democracy is a far and sweet dream. It really depends on the foundation of the people and the society.
And as for the sanction, I really don't know how it can work.

[Beholder]

Without strong military, a country like China is equal to cripple.


Not true.China dont have enemy in a military sense.Sanctions on China a lot like situation for Israel in first 20 years,but without strong neiborhood states willing to atack.In the end Israel gained local ability to manufacture core defence items.That will be effect on China i think.So it realy slow and not cripple.:)


Democracy is not a magic pill, once you take, all your problems are gone. Democracy is a far and sweet dream. It really depends on the foundation of the people and the society.


That what i said,big cultural inertia,so transition will be slow.


And as for the sanction, I really don't know how it can work.

No money,no bomb and probably angry people on the street changing goverment.
Anyway sanctions not aproved,so this is moot point.

[Solvent]

Not true.China dont have enemy in a military sense.Sanctions on China a lot like situation for Israel in first 20 years,but without strong neiborhood states willing to atack.In the end Israel gained local ability to manufacture core defence items.That will be effect on China i think.So it realy slow and not cripple.:)

That what i said,big cultural inertia,so transition will be slow.

No money,no bomb and probably angry people on the street changing goverment.
Anyway sanctions not aproved,so this is moot point.

Defense industry is core foundation to a country. It contributes to both GDP and military. I am glad that we are producing major portion of the defense equipments on our own now.

For the humanitarian purpose, even under sanction, oil exporting can't be stopped completely. Therefor, they still can get money.