Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

China slams new US-Iran sanctions as 'serious violation of intl rules'

page: 2
45
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


You don't know the future. For all you know, 5 years from now a national socialist Greece, emerging out of an EU civil war, will be invading and collapsing Russia, and influencing them to help their war against Germany. China desperately tries to protect itself from a vengeful United Korea, as millions of exiled Koreans across Manchuria rise up and declare independence. All the while America is burning in Civil War and Iran is collapsed to invading Turko-Greek Forces united against their common Russian enemy.

You don't know the future.


To assume so great as you, is truly to be a fool of the absolute highest order.

Do not assume the future, least you fall to it.
edit on 1-8-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
As much as I agree, China really needs to not throw bricks when it lives in a glass house. China's nose is hardly clean when it comes to things like this, either.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mcamp2011
this slam from the biggest violators of human rights on the planet, who gives a # what this hypocrites say about rights or rules, they have listened to no one when it comes to rights or rules. These are most egregious manipulators of human suffering on this earth and they have the nerve to complain, and complain to the country that has basically given them every penny they have because we import more things from china than the rest of the world combined.


Please source how they are the biggest violators of human rights on the planet.

The US has given them every penny? How is it China's fault that they US cannot be, and are not fiscally sound, nor do they invest in their own country? The US is flushing the toilet on their own economy, that has nothing to do with China or this thread.
edit on 1-8-2012 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by mcamp2011
 



Originally posted by mcamp2011
this slam from the biggest violators of human rights on the planet, who gives a # what this hypocrites say about rights or rules, they have listened to no one when it comes to rights or rules. These are most egregious manipulators of human suffering on this earth and they have the nerve to complain, and complain to the country that has basically given them every penny they have because we import more things from china than the rest of the world combined.


Hypocrites? Come on. When all these rights and rules that you blabber on about were being formulated China was under the grip of foreign colonialism and did not have a say in how these so called "rights or rules" were drafted. China has been extorted by western powers for a long time and only after World War II did they finally get a seat at the table of international relations. I stand amazed at how you can belligerently bemoan the actions of China with your clear historical ignorance. The populations of certain western nations have this maniacal belief that their way of life and law is the only acceptable way to live. This will be their downfall.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


It's no different to bombing there cities for no reason. Either way, Iranians will suffer because of stupidity. Its not the regime that will feel the pinch, it will seep down to the civilians.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by DarknStormy
 


I think stopping a ship is a little bit different than sending high explosives.

Let me demonstrate

This:

www.cs.utah.edu...

Is not this:

aroundtheedges.files.wordpress.com...


Building a wall is not dropping a bomb. Suffering is not a deceleration of war. Their civilians have all the right to protest their government and change their policies and leaders if they want it to stop.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


An embargo is not an act of war.

It is a nonviolent act.


I see Ron Paul in you display pic, so I'm not entirely sure if you're being sarcastic or not. I can't help but wonder what kind of "act" the US would consider this if an "embargo" were placed on it with the intent to destabilize and collapse the economy?
edit on 2-8-2012 by rock427 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by rock427
 


Agreeing with Ron Paul on domestic policy does not mean I agree with him on foreign policy.

An Embargo on the US would not be a declaration of war. Considering we did have an embargo placed on us for a prolonged period of time and did not invade those countries, but rather, listened to their requests and opened dialogues to what they wanted, I would consider an Embargo a very powerful tool to be used in preference over war.

The US did not attack OPEC for their embargo. Their Embargo was not viewed as a deceleration of war. We instead talked to them. Furthermore, the OPEC embargo was not a signalling for a desire of war from them against us. In fact, they wielded it instead of war, knowing they could not win favorably in open conflict. In this case, the Embargo was used as a means to avoid war, not a set up for it.

Embargoes are not decelerations of war, but rather an opportunity to make peace through nonviolent aggression.
edit on 2-8-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


An embargo is not an act of war.

It is a nonviolent act.


Actually an embargo is the prelude to war.....by using a nonviolent act to bring about a violent response by those being embargo'd.

And when you take away a mans ability to live his life, he becomes violent and desperate. So yes....it is a act of war.

Thats like me freezing your bank accounts and placing a lein on your mortgage....given enough time under those circumstances, you'd start to become violent too with no means to support your life style.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Kastogere
 


Funny, I don't remember the US declaring war on OPEC.

hmm....

Yea, now that I think about it, I seem to remember the US actually listening and being quite civil about it, opting to do as told to make peace and find a better solution that most would agree too.


Funny you'd call that a war. I'd call it aggressive diplomacy...and it worked. The US listened rather than fight. It could have won, but it choose to listen instead.

Don't confuse aggression for war. You can be aggressive and never seek war.
edit on 2-8-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-8-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


An embargo is not an act of war.

It is a nonviolent act.


Sanctions can cripple an economy forcing a military response,i dont know how you can not see that as a prelude to war.

Imagine if your walking to the shop and i block your way and tell you to go back home,your probably going to smack me one.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


War does not have to manifest physically silly to be called a war. I can do just as much damage to someone finacially, mentally, emotionally as i can physically. And to you it would feel like a war. Ever hear the saying the war of words?

Your thinking in such narrow terms. I don't think you got my point.

And besides my post was merely an example....and an embargo is not diplomacy...it is an act of aggression in its purest form.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by amurphy245
 


Not if you own the store.

Once again I reply with the OPEC Embargo on the US.

There was no desire for war.

There was no plan to invade or attack the US. Nor was there one on the US side...so long the soviets stayed out.

The embargo was used only for and for no other reason than diplomatic leverage. They owned the produce, they had the right to dictate who gets it for whatever conditions.


It's as simple as that.


Either you don't have the military strength to get your way or don't have the desire to, but have economic strength? Embargo is your only option.


I don't know about you, but if I were an economic centerfold and felt abused, I damn well would embargo my abusers until they treated me with respect. Be that the US, or Iran. There is no indication in this action that I want to start a fight. In fact, all evidence suggest it is a motion that states I don NOT want to fight, but want my way. Or at least, fairness in dealings.




There are TONS of reasons to use an embargo without any desire for war.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Kastogere
 


Don't play semantics. If I wanted a war, I'd send men with guns to kill you and your people until you did what I said. It's as simple as that.

Now you are saying it is an act of aggression. Congratulations on using correct language.

Acts of aggression are not acts of war. In fact, in many cases they are acts to prevent war.

If I am feeling threatened by the presence of 42,000 men with guns right across my border, don't be surprised if I act a little aggressive to remind you that you may just end up leaving my country without those 42,000 men. My aggression is not a sign that I want to fight you. It is a sign I am warning you that if you fight me, you're f*cked
edit on 2-8-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


honestly i dont care, I think we should nuke the whole middle east and turn it into glass.....at least then we can make pretty windows.....stain glass i think they call it.

Any embargo however usually results in a bitter taste in the mouths of one or the other...and eventually leads to conflict...usually....why then did the US not attack when embargo'd? are you kidding? Do you realize how much oil the US sits on? how many other sources they pulled from? honestly I don't think they cared they were being embargo'd if they did I guarentee they would have attacked, its the american way.

Now lets look at Iran, smaller country, less resources available directly due to government rule type. Do you really think they are gonna dig an embargo for very long without showing some teeth? They don't have the capacity of the US so there is no comparison there. Your comparing apples and oranges in that respect.

And yes to them...an embargo is an act of war because it directly effects the personal lives of the country in the way of living condition.

But as i said...a few well placed nukes.....and we have pretty glass......
edit on 2-8-2012 by Kastogere because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Kastogere
 


Affect on civilian lives is irrelevant. Pollution affects us all but I don't see anyone considering the Chinese pollution as a deceleration of war.

The US actually was severely affected. Judging from how you responded you likely don't know enough about the event. Go look it up. Our economy crashed for a few years, and another year or two would have lead to another Great Depression.
edit on 2-8-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by VI0811
 





China can go to hell. Half the issue with the world economy is because of their misuse of money. They will get whats coming to them soon enough.


Are you having a laugh. It is the US debt that has bought the world to its kneees. Not the Chinese...



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Um....our economy crashes on average 5 times a century...this aspect is nothing new. And the only reason it effected us all so greatly is because the Gov didn't want to raid the stockpiles. Im not going to read anything, i undestand fully what happened.

Your just not seeing my point....your comparing the american embargo to Irans...and its not the same thing. Not by far.

An embargo on Iran is a aggressive act that will lead to war because of the economy. When you kill someones method of living they get violent. The embargo on the US didnt do that nor have that total effect like it does to smaller countries. WWII is a fine example of that when Germany was feeling the crunch coming out of WW I.

Those economic sanctions is the very reason Hitler rose to power inciting the violence that he laid forth to start WWII.

I understand your point...but you cannot throw all countires under the same bus and call it the day. In this specific case any embargo on Iran is seen as an act of war for the very reasons i stated. And China either has to play along, or they go total black sheep...which i doubt they would because I dont think they're ready to yet.

Either way you look at it America is goading everyone involved into a war for the sake of being crowned king of the hill while they're still able to.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Kastogere
 


Of course not. But Iran is in the same situation, scale wise, as America was in with the 70's oil crises. The fact that our economy regularly tanks is also a product of the patters of history, so it's safe to say its existence is irrelevant. We are looking at the reason why. Each part of the pattern has a reason.

The US was feeling the punch in the 70s. We became more local and conserved more. Like we did in WW2 and like the Germans did before.

Either way you look at it, there is no reason to assume an embargo will lead to war when it has historically been used in a grand multitude of reasons including war, but also influence.

Hell if I was president, I would start a slow embargo on China and demand they do things. Things like open freedom of the press, or close labor camps. I'd slowly work it up, just as OPEC did to America, and do so until my demands are met. I would have no plans to do war.

Simple fact is I would use my economy as a means of taking a country hostage so they adopt my values. I would do this. And if you don't want to play by those rules, go shop somewhere else.

I see nothing wrong with this. It is a very powerful force to wield. And I would wield it for good. And if that means war, you can keep it. I won't go over to you, and I will defend my ships. And because I have the upper hand, I really don't have to lay a finger on you. You just sit there and moan, and collapse from within.

That's not war to me. That's simple aggressive diplomacy. Unless I am landing troops to fight you, I am not fighting you.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


You do realize that all it would take is a popular general to declare it, and the debt would simply no longer exist.

There is no rule book that says you can't just declare the debt no longer existing; no reason why a dictator cannot tell China to go screw over.

Now within China, oh yes. They would still have to deal with that made up money. They would collapse with us.


When you sign a deal like China and America have, you either stand together or fall together. When the US collapses, China has no more money. When China collapses, the US has no more consumer economy.


The two shall burn in the same fire.
edit on 2-8-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
45
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join