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.

 

Why Isn’t China Supporting the US Position Over Iran?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I like China's position because it is similar to my own as far as not doing anything unless Iran causes the aggression. Should they it will be very, very easy to deal with them. As far as oil goes this line of action won’t be that much more economically painful than it would be now. Maybe it would be easier? After all without any people there will be no insurgents to blow up the oil pipelines in Iran (unlike Iraq), furthermore Iran's oil won't be that radioactive because it’s underground.

But there is a question here...
1. Is China pursuing a far less gun ho (and perhaps wiser) policy than America for the sake of its economic interests?
2. Or is it doing it as part of a path towards confrontation with America?

Cos if it’s the latter then I say: CUT ALL TRADE WITH THEM NOW
We can do our trade in India; there are plenty of children who like making shoes over there. India has modelled its economic system on Britain’s (and other western nations). Therefore it is more compatible, and less likely to be nationalised by a sudden change of Chinese Government heart. India is a democracy, and sod Pakistan it’s just another Muslim dictatorship we support. In this case it’s supposed to be because of the war on terror. But I would much rather loose some mountainous border ground on the war on terror than I would loose a war with China.
In which case surely our direction should depend on China's behaviour? Trouble is so far, so ok I don't really get it. Do you?


[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]




posted on May, 5 2006 @ 08:39 PM
link   
I too am more concerned with China than Iran, look at the way they have handled the problems below. They have not dealt with any of the pertinant issues facing our two nations and the world. They much rather have the sit back and wait approach like you said. I believe this is to make the US seen as worse than what it is in Global Politics and by default have China appear better than it actually is in world politics. This strategy is also proving to be expensive for the US and cheap for them since they dont do anything.

The Chinese have been indifferent to any and all problems between the US as in recent years. Here is a list I compiled on another thread that talks about what China hasnt confronted.

1. Trade Deficit/undervalued Chinese Currency is it the Yuan>
2. the unresolved problem with North Korea
3. the unresolved problem of Iran
4. the potential conflict over Taiwan
5. the oil crisis - from where will China get its oil
and now 6. The People's Republic of China Roman Catholic Church(bad joke)

It seems that every time we attempt to hammer out one of these problems China starts another one.

And where is China when we try to solve any of these problems. They become indifferent!! The People of the World should take note of this!!

If attacking Iran means leaving us vulnerable to a Chinese/Russian attack we might want to have second thoughts about this.

Regardless the Iranian Pres. should be taken out, hopefully by sniper fire.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   
China doesnt care about human rights it jsut wants tp get oil from where ever it can and it doesnt care if the gov they buy it from murders its people. Thats why i dont get why people are looking foward to china be powerful, if you think the usa is bad what do you think china is going to do. People act as if china is gonna be this great counter weight to the usa. It is just going to be another russia , but less powerful because it doesnt have control over countries like russia did.We shouldnt want a powerful china but europe and russia jsut want anyone that can counter us.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Trade might be part of the reason but ultimatly countries like China will not allow a US double standard where countries like Israel are allowed to have nuclear weapons and countries like Iran are forced to sign on to the NPT and then sanctioned just because they're not getting along totally with the IAEA..diplomatic presure is OK but sanctions are just to extreme.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
Why Isn’t China Supporting the US Position Over Iran?

For the very same reason that many here feel the US went into Iraq for: oil.







seekerof



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by jajabinks
...and countries like Iran are forced to sign on to the NPT

Iran was far from pushed, coerced, or "forced" to sign onto the NPT. In fact, Iran eagerly and willingly signed the NPT on the very first day that the NPT opened for signatures, by all nations opting to become signatory participants.




and then sanctioned just because they're not getting along totally with the IAEA..

Getting along?
Iran went from allowing access to every site in the 1980s up through the mid-1990s granting the IAEA total access till Iran had their dispute with the EU. Accordingly, this is not a simple matter of 'getting along,' it is a matter of violation.





diplomatic presure is OK but sanctions are just to extreme.

That is the only tool that the UN has at its disposal that remotely seems effective in most applied cases. Furthermore, sanctions have become a standard and accepted form of dealing with non-compliant nations, long before the United Nations. If you think that sanctions are so "extreme," apparently you need to send a memo to the Iranian president and mullah-run Iranian government and let them know just how extreme sanctions can be, cause they obviously do not give a damn, as asserted by some Iranian leaders just within the last week or so?








seekerof

[edit on 6-5-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Seekerof hit the nail on the head....Russia and China will both play a duel game in this action, due to the vast resource of oil, which Iran has..

Spacemunkey



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 06:55 AM
link   
who inspects russian or american or british nuclear reactors?

no one


do as i say not do as i do.



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
For the very same reason that many here feel the US went into Iraq for: oil.







seekerof
The US could have taken over the entire mideast during WWII if it really wanted to control the world's oil. I don't know where people get the idea that the US is the big bad wolf of the modern world while, in truth, it is the total opposite. But then, hey, why not check out Pravda english.pravda.ru... on the net and read some more blatant lies (such as 'The Demise of the US'), about the United States...


[edit on 6-5-2006 by signs]
[edit: removed nested quote]

[edit on 5/6/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   
[Mod Edit: removed unnecessary quote of Entire preceeding post]


dont be so naive, there is enough information that america goes to extremes to expand their economical , geopolitical and miltairy power.

Mod Edit: Quoting – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/6/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Bush:Saddam has concealed many Weapons of Mass Destruction
Annan:why do you say that
Bush:because we can't find them

That's the logic of America.
Why Iraq was invaded,because they have no Weapons of Mass Destruction
Why Syria and Libyan not,because they have ,at least thay claim thay have.
So it's clear that what should be done for Iran to intend to exist as an independent country.---claim they have nulear weapons and develop them

like the war on terror,thanks to America's war on terror,toerrorists can exist
rationally,---at least many Iraqis think so.
so the number of terrorists has been increasing since the beginning of the war on terror. American should have a serious self-questioning.
Torrorism stemed from hegemonism!
American, you lost.



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
who inspects russian or american or british nuclear reactors?

no one


do as i say not do as i do.


Are you sure??
Because I think they are opent to inspections by the IAEA.Need to do some research on this..



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
The Chinese have been indifferent to any and all problems between the US as in recent years...

If attacking Iran means leaving us vulnerable to a Chinese/Russian attack we might want to have second thoughts about this.


if i may say so...china will not go to war with the states over iran.

the chinese people are more concerned about their own welfare...their childrens education and making more money for a better life. this is true for overseas chinese and those in china...

ask a chinese if he would fly a plane into a building in the name of religion and chances are 99% of the time it would be hell no...in this sense maybe they are self centered...



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   
G'day all,

I reckon that with China yearly increasing their military budget, that they clearly have imperialistic ambitions for the future. They know that if they sit back and stay quiet and not get involved with international conflict the west will continue to be stupid enough to invest in China's economy, thus building it stronger and ever more quickly.

Yes, many of you would say that the USA has imperialistic ambitions too, and yes, you may be right. But as an Aussie, I can truly and honestly say to you and many would agree with me,tnat I'd rather have Uncle Sam behind my ass then the Chinese!

The Chinese along with India are growing their economies at phenominal rates due to slave labour. The rest of the world cannot compete with the price of slave labour and thus their economies will continue to grow whilst the western nations will decline, and the winners in the end will only be major global corporations profiting from all this and governments who have their hands in the kitty of all the dirty money flowing around the world.

NUKE them all now, for by taking out political and economic adversaries now and future, you minimise the chances of a catastrophic battle further on down the timeline. You have to look after your own before others and if your backyard and your means of income is under threat than you should be able to do whatever it takes to remove that threat out of the equation.

Melbourne_Militia



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia
...The Chinese along with India are growing their economies at phenominal rates due to slave labour. The rest of the world cannot compete with the price of slave labour and thus their economies will continue to grow whilst the western nations will decline, and the winners in the end will only be major global corporations profiting from all this and governments who have their hands in the kitty of all the dirty money flowing around the world.


yes youre right...it is all the foreign investments made by the west that are faning the unprecedented growth of the chinese economy...

theres no need to nuke china...get the govts to pull out all companies that have invested in china...simple? ill bet you 1bil that it will not be done


money talks...bull# walks



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Interesting points Low Orbit but tell me if you disagree with me on where the Chinese position is…
1. Trade Deficit/undervalued Chinese Currency is it the Yuan: Keep it low it suits us; but so does U.S trade so we’ll budge a little if they really push us.
2. The unresolved problem with North Korea: Be friends
3. The unresolved problem of Iran: Be friends
4. The potential conflict over Taiwan: As long as they don’t have nukes we can always invade them.
5. The oil crisis - from where will China get its oil: Iran, Russia and the global market

The last point raises an interesting question: If the Iran crisis is pushing up the global oil price then surely the existence of this crisis is not in China’s interests. But because the high oil price benefits the oil exporter of Russia, and because both share the same Iranian position could there be some sort of deal between them?

Jajabinks Interesting point; but why should China give a toss about a double nuclear standard between Iran and Israel? Are you saying China has suddenly taken a great moral leap forward?

I know what your saying Seekerof but if China really cares about oil then surely the same is also true about high oil prices?
China could do a France on the U.S where you back it up verbally but not in practice.
And wouldn’t have backing up the U.S earlier in the game (instead of undermining it) have at least stood a chance of getting the Iranians to comply a bit more, and hence avoided the position (and high oil prices) the world currently has now?

And of course you’re right about Iran not giving a damn about sanctions. So long as China remains opposed to these (verbally and literally) they should be confident there’s a happy customer in the pipeline.

signs Of course the U.S could have taken over the entire Middle East during world war two and so could Britain but why would they?
Back then you could still discover new oil reserves in Texas (let alone the United States). Britain was an example of a country with Middle Eastern territory and we were having an expensive time policing these colonial possessions. Hence the fact that we gave away Israel to the Jews in 1948, and made Kuwait fully independent some time in the 1960’s. Back then the world was dotted with oil, and the policy of “Independence and Alliance” as opposed to “Conquer and Rule” seemed so much cheaper to everyone. If the U.S ever had a motive during the WII period to conquer the whole of the Middle East it would have been solely to prevent the Soviet Union from getting it.

But if Iran is liberated-liquidated today then to all practical purposes the U.S has conquered the Middle East. There will be no real opposition to it getting what it wants from any Arab States. Syria will ether have a new master or will follow the Iranians into disaster. In fact one thought on Bush’s mind might be to make Middle Eastern oil a U.S (and allies only) trade zone product. This would be built on the same logic used to dish out contracts in Iraq “didn’t help us; then don’t get to play with us”. But if he’s learnt anything from Iraq he would do well to remember what happens to oil pipelines in places of danger (they get blown up by angry natives).
Then again the blood spilt in such a war could leave Iraq as one of the most populated places in the Middle East (that’s if they’re leaders don’t side with Iran which they have already threatened to do).

One last thought: (“Targeted Sanctions” aside) is the real position of China and the U.S that different? Could it be that like China the U.S isn’t going to invade-attack Iran?
There is one BIG peace of evidence for this: The U.S is making no long term expansion of its national oil reserve capacity. Not only would this be good gesture politics, but it would be ABSOLUTELY necessary if the U.S was serious about any reasonable militarily action against Iran. Think about it; depending on how things work out, the Middle East could be mostly (and certainly sporadically) out of production for the best part of a year. America simply must build bigger oil reserves if it is serious about this adventure. But I haven’t heard of much construction yet, have you?
The last I heard was strategic oil stocking up was down to relieve market price pressure...
Link: news.bbc.co.uk...


[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   
I'd have to agree that the answer is definately oil.




One of its most ambitious investment proposals targets Iran, which has the third largest proven oil reserves in the world. In 2005, China bought about 11 percent of its crude oil imports from Iran. But what China really seeks is to tap into Iran's vast reserves directly, through investments in exploration and production.

For two years, China has been pushing a $100 billion deal that would grant the state oil company Sinopec a 50 percent development stake in Iran's Yadavaran field. It has simultaneously made goodwill investments in other projects, such as Tehran's subway system. However, negotiation has been tortured because of differences over pricing, and Sinopec said in March that talks had broken down, so it's not clear that the deal will bear fruit.

Nonetheless, Beijing's pursuits show that it is eager to take advantage of openings in countries where its would-be competitors are barred from doing business, as U.S. companies are in Iran under sanctions imposed by Washington. It also has demonstrated that it will use its permanent position in the U.N. Security Council to oppose multilateral sanctions that would prevent its own companies from doing the same.


www.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   
I don't know about a great leap but yes I do think they give a # about double standards, it's ridiculous to say THIS country can have nukes and THIS cannot in the first place, they're basically going along with that anyways but both China and Russia draw the line at actually assigning punitive measures to a double standard. If the west wants to have a racist double standard, then let them but they can forget about the 'world' being forced to go along with it via the UN security council. If they don't want to trade with Iran thats their perogative, but they can't force countries in Asia to go along with that crap. Thailand just signed a major deal to export rice to Iran, deals like that are not going to be cancelled because America/Israel don't like Irans nuclear program.


Liberal 1984: Jajabinks Interesting point; but why should China give a toss about a double nuclear standard between Iran and Israel? Are you saying China has suddenly taken a great moral leap forward?



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   
They do not care if Iran attacks the USA as long as they are not attacked themselves, I guess do no see Iiran as a threat unlike the USA and European Countries... Or it could be they are just waiting for the right moment to interveane and capatalise on it....



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
I know what your saying Seekerof but if China really cares about oil then surely the same is also true about high oil prices?

I would suppose so but cannot give further commentary till you give a bit more insight of what your are saying or asking.





China could do a France on the U.S where you back it up verbally but not in practice.

True.




And wouldn’t have backing up the U.S earlier in the game (instead of undermining it) have at least stood a chance of getting the Iranians to comply a bit more, and hence avoided the position (and high oil prices) the world currently has now?

In essence, yes, but it was the EU, not the US, that was attemtpting to negotiate with the Iranians over their nuclear program, thus, having China and/or Russia to back up the EU would or may have been more benficial. With the failure of the EU-Iran negotiations, the EU passed the situation off to the US, with them in the support role (much like the US was when the EU was negotiating with Iran), and yes, Russian and/or Chinese support would help. As such, these two particular 'Big Five' security members are simply in it for their own national interests: China-for OIL, since they have just signed a huge OIL deal with Iran, and Russia--arms supplying/dealing, as well as providing assets for Iran's nuclear program.







seekerof



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join