It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chinese ambassador Wang Guangya: China won't support sanctions against Iran

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrsdudara
we have China, Russia, Iran, Syria, Venesuala, Cuba, and most likely Canada if China has anything to say about it, and Mexico if Iran asks them. All aginst us......this is going to get ugly.


- Canada!?
That one is an interesting choice.

As for the rest?
China is a major trading partner and Mexico has always been as is Russia now and you want to seriously hold up those (no offence to Mexicans, Iranians, Syrians, Cubans or Venezuelans) economic and military 'titans' as something to be afraid of?!

Talk about paranoia.....and what is it you imagine them being "all aginst us" is going to amount to anyway?

Just cos they dare to do things their own way, see things differently and not eternally and slavishly toe the current administration US line.

(But admit it, you're kidding, right?)




posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Do you always try to belittle people?

To me, something to be afraid of is war. I dont like war. The point I was trying to make, is that war with these tyrants is seeming more and more imminate. You laugh because I inclued Canada. True, Canada itself is harmless, but if it is forced to choose sides, it wont choose US. That is my honest opinion. Will it allow, or could it be forced by another country, a foe to the US, to temporaraly place its troops there in order to harm the US? I dont know, and that not knowing is worrysome to me. I am not afraid of any of these tyrants individually, but I do worry about them joining together to cause us grief. Yes we are the big bad United States of America, but that does not in any way mean that we are bullet proof.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Manincloak

Not me.

I've always said China and Russia are just "playing" with the west, niether of them will let any sanctions come to Iran.


I agree with you in this.


Originally posted by Manincloak
And niether of them would ever under any circumstances support a war, even if there was solid proof Iran already had nukes, I still think they would rather have a peaceful disarmament.


This is the part I don't agree with. China and Russia are two of the countries that provide military technology to Iran, military technology is not for peaceful purposes, and much less when the regime of the country buying the weapons has said that Israel should be wiped off the map, alongside the U.S. and even threats of attacking other western countries.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by zhangxi0183
with all due to respect.

But i just want ask one question. if Israel has the nukes,why Iran can't?


Because the Iranian authorities have been talking about "wiping Israel off the map" and " to have acquired 29 western targets which they are ready to strike when their leader tells them to."

Israel has not said they should or will wipe any countries, even Iran, off the map....



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Manincloak

Originally posted by zhangxi0183
But i just want ask one question. if Israel has the nukes,why Iran can't?


Because the US gov. are hypocrytical bastards who excercise favouratism on a global scale.



Let me think, perhaps its because Iran signed a International agreement the NPT that bans them from buying or developing nuclear weapons of any kind.

Israel never signed the NPT and is not bound by its laws. Iran had the choice not to sign it and still has the choice to drop out of it if the give member nations 6 months warning before hand.

As long as they remain members to the NPT they are not allowed to have nuclear weapons.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   
And it appears that's exactly what they're going to do.



Ahmadinejad appeared in part to be responding to a call on Thursday by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan for Iran to restore a freeze on its nuclear activities and pursue talks to shift its uranium enrichment program to Russia.

“The nuclear policy of the Islamic Republic so far has been peaceful. Until now, we have worked inside the agency (International Atomic Energy Agency) and the NPT (Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty) regulations.

“If we see you want to violate the right of the Iranian people by using those regulations (against us), you should know that the Iranian people will revise its policies,” he said.


So if Iran withdraws from the NPT, everything's hunky-dory if they go ahead and build the bomb? Why do I doubt that?



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Well if they drop out of the NPT and dont violate it they are no longer bound by it. Fact is they are still members of the NPT and bound by it.

You can talk about what they might or might not do in the future till your blue in the face and it matters not to the facts as they are today.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   
What does that mean? We shouldn't speculate on what might happen, because it hasn't happened yet?
We're going to have to delete about half the posts on this site then...

Iran withdrawing from the NPT appears to be a real possibility.
So if Iran withdraws from the NPT, is the whole crisis just going to fizzle?
Like I said, I doubt it.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Ok, I am confused. So if Iran drops out of the NPT, then they CAN have a bomb?, and there is nothing anyone can do about it? Please tell me this is incorrect.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join