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

I'd like everyone to remember that the US consumes the most Chinese goods in the world. China may talk a big game with what we're proposing to do with Iran but in the end THEY'LL do nothing. Why? Money that's why, and goods much more of which come from America then they do Iran.

reply to post by jhn7537


I assume that's why when protesters were being machine gunned in the street in Bahrain, the U.S sat back and did nothing.

I'm sure that the big U.S naval base wasn't a factor in that.

reply to post by Kram09

I don't agree with these sanctions and I feel the United States's actions are merely a form of bullying.

Here is some more bullying, it's getting out of hand. The White House is poking a hornets nest.

US blames Russia, China in Annan resignation

The White House says Kofi Annan's resignation as United Nations envoy to Syria highlights the failure of Russia and China to support action against Syrian President Bashar Assad.

White House press secretary Jay Carney says the U.S. is grateful for Annan's willingness to lead efforts to seek a resolution to the ongoing violence in Syria. But he says the Syrian government was never willing to embrace Annan's plan, which included a cease-fire and allowing international monitors to operate in the county

This is getting interesting, they are pushing buttons on all fronts.

reply to post by VI0811


Irans basically being bullied by the all of the west and china is sticking up for them :s no harm there if u think ur on the good side u really need to wake up

I guess with all those sanctions they hope the people in Iran will revolt as in other nearby country's.
It's just a clever/sneaky (&evil) way to get control in the middle east.

What I see happening perhaps that all those country's will somehow unite and stand together to get Israel. They are seen as a cause of all their problems most likely.
So if that happens, all this interfering in the ME will cause what the west wants last to happen.
All those Middel East country's on the border of Israel united, with 1 big enemy (Israel). The US is too far away anyways and just not achievable to get revenge. Israel is.

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


That probably deserves it's own thread! Or has it been covered before?

reply to post by Haknow


Yet another example for war, I can give you examples of peace. OPEC's embargo is still a great example.

Blockades involve firing on ships that try to escape. We are not doing that, so it is not a blockade.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Cyber attacks logically are justifiable reasons to declare war, but there is no precedent that says it is an act of war. Not one nation on Earth has declared war over a cyber attack to my knowledge. The Soviets cyber attacked our early internet systems, the Russians cyber attacked eastern European networks a few years ago, China has cyber attacked us and our companies, and I could go down a long list of government sponsored cyber attacks....

....But in going down that list you would not find a deceleration of war.

There is no historic precedent that cyber attacks are war.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


You call me simple minded. Twice.

Insult for self righteousness.

Now I know you're speaking out of your bum.

reply to post by rock427


That's recent history. Not all of history. I'm sure if we only took 2-5 year snippets of things we could justify anything.

I'm looking at all of history. And Embargoes are not guarantees to war.

reply to post by purplemer


A lot of that assumes a continuation of the now.


That's an awfully ignorant thing to do.

Just look at this website. Rewind every two years and look at the assumption of continuations. Obama was suppose to be a dictator. Oh wait no, Bush was. Oh wait no, Cheney was. Oh wait no, we were suppose to invade Iran in 2008. Oh wait no, 2006. Oh wait, no, 2004. We're going to go into camps in 2012. No wait, 2010. No wait, 2008.....And so on and so forth.

Things rarely go the way you expect them to go.

reply to post by purplemer


Cool, let them rot. That's not a deceleration of war however.


Let me tell you a little secret. In war, civilians don't matter. So there's no reason why their suffering is a deceleration of war.

Once again, the case of Chinese pollution. I don't see other nations declaring war because of the aerial embargo of the sun...

reply to post by DarknStormy


Oh yea, sure. Only country to use a WMD over a populated city...how about near?


Oh well, that would make everyone guilty.

mmmm, I love the smell of irradiated wind.




Who am I to dictate terms? The Government of 15 trillion dollars of GDP. That's who.

The makers decide who gets the produce. Don't like it? Shop somewhere else. Better yet, make your own.

I said it before and I'll say it again. I'd do what OPEC did. I'd put up exponentially growing sanctions on China until they closed labor camps and gave freedom of press. If you don't like it, sucks to be you.

reply to post by DarknStormy


If they simply stop doing what they want and listen to the international community, it would be finished quite quickly.



Iran's government has been trying to do things their way. I've no problem with international actions to stop that short of war.

Don't you think if we wanted a war we would have invaded in, oh, the last decade or something? This is literally been a longer "acts of provocation" than any other nation in our history to my knowledge.

Oh yes I believed we "wanted war"...in 2004. Then 2005 came, and still no war...and 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011....I think it's pretty clear we don't want to invade Iran by this point. And if you think we do, then why the f*ck have we waited 10 years for them to decay into a collapsing nonfunctional state?

In case you don't know, you can't invade a failed state, because there is nothing to invade. Invading a failed state is like going to a party and saying its yours. Everybody is too busy doing their own thing. You think they'll listen to you? Try opening an oil rig in a failed state. See how long it lasts.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

 

Cyber attacks logically are justifiable reasons to declare war, but there is no precedent that says it is an act of war. Not one nation on Earth has declared war over a cyber attack to my knowledge. The Soviets cyber attacked our early internet systems, the Russians cyber attacked eastern European networks a few years ago, China has cyber attacked us and our companies, and I could go down a long list of government sponsored cyber attacks....

....But in going down that list you would not find a deceleration of war.

There is no historic precedent that cyber attacks are war.

Your posts are riddled with hypocrisy. You pick and choose what is suitable and what isn't suitable to be considered an act of war to suit your agenda while you post. You consider cyber attacks warfare, but sanctions that cripple economies and starve people not to be an act of war.

You go Gorman !

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

 

You call me simple minded. Twice.

Insult for self righteousness.

Now I know you're speaking out of your bum.

Yes, perhaps twice wasn't enough.

YOU called me names first, while my reference was "simple" observation. Here me refresh your "not so simple" memory.

You called me a fool.

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

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can dish it but can't take it, be a man.

Now let's get back on topic please.

Sanctions are an act of war whether you are too stubborn to admit it or not.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Well no, it was a warning.

What an excellent example you have provided. You responded to my warning that continuing down your line is to be a fool with assuming I was calling you a fool and therefore must be met with aggression


Honestly, thank you. You just proved why it's better to sanction Iran than deal with it. Can't take anything. Better to just cut them off, let them moan in their room for a while, and when they feel like begin welcomed back to the human race, let them try again.



And yes I do decide what is war and what is not if I were leading a country. I don't actually consider cyber attacks and act of war, also btw. I said logic suggests they ought to be, but no nation has done so, so it is logical to assume that it is therefore not considered an act of war, otherwise there would be a response.


War, in case you don't know it, is a state of open aggression in which the goal is extermination. The elimination of a people. You bomb, kill, shoot, destroy, and exterminate your enemy without limit until he surrenders or is dead. There is no such thing as "reasonable response" in war. You fire bomb their cities, destroy their tanks, fracture their ships, cut off their supply lines, assassinate their generals, land your own troops to exterminate the remainder, and put their people in shackle until they submit....You annihilate your enemy, by whatever means makes it most efficient and quick. You can wash up the name war all you want. If you are not doing this, you are not at war.

I do not see any American bombs on China for cyber attacks, nor Iranian bombs in America for our cyber attack. It is therefore reasonable to assume it is not an act of war. I do not see any American troops landing on Iran and exterminating their military. it is therefore reasonable to assume there is not a STATE of war.


Unless this changes, and btw people like you have been saying it will for, oh, a decade now, then there is no logical reason to assume there will be a war. As the time we have been dealing with Iran has been in excess of 10 years. Indeed, there was greater justification of war in the 80s than today, but we didn't even invade then.

Without any sort of evidence that we will be actually landing troops, I cannot say there is any evidence that there is an attempt to make war with Iran. Nor does there seem to be any justifiable reason to go to war with Iran, as they are in many ways, pathetic as a country. And sanctions will make them more pathetic.

Let them rot. Sanctions are better than war. When they feel like being respectable human beings and not nationalist a**holes, they can rejoin the human race.

reply to post by Gorman91


I agree with some thing's that you say, but I disagree with most. Not by the way you present it, but because of the fact that you take a lot as certain when everything in politics and strategy is anything but straight-forward.

For instance, you talk about invading a failed state, that no country does it and it makes no sense doing it.

Then, in that case, how do you explain Iraq? Iraq was a functional and active state before Desert Storm. I'm aware that they were only attacked because of the invasion to Kuwait, but Desert Storm brought Iraq to the ground.

If they were already in trouble, already becoming a failed state due to the same exact sanctions Iran is getting, and due to the exact same type of isolation policy that Iran is suffering from, then what your argument for the U.S. invading it a second time? (I don't really call Desert Storm an invasion, it wasn't an effective invasion)

By your logic the U.S. and it's allies would have left Iraq alone, since they were a "failed state".

In my point of view, that's exactly when you do the attacks. When people are hungry and weak, when the opposing forces are low on moral and even lower in organization, etc....

If we look back at Iraq, we saw a major confrontation first (Desert Storm), followed by a international "attack" on it's economy with sanctions and cut of diplomatic ties, and a growing feeling of international isolation. Then we had the whole "they have WMD's" episode, that pushed the idea of an offensive forward. They called it a pre-emptive attack, if you care to remember.

What happened? The weakned regime gave no resistance, to the point where the "holy" president of Iraq was found later in a hole no bigger than my clothes closet. The resistance we see, according to reports, comes mostly from groups outside of Iraq that seized the opportunity for assymetric warfare against the U.S., and I have no doubts there were people there studying U.S. military capabilities.

Using Iraq as a comparisson, Iran is going exactly down the same path. Until the recent implementation of the sanctions, Iran had a stable economy capable of offering a stiff resistance to any western country that attempted an attack (being an invasion or pre-emptive attack).

What do you have now? A country that is in international isolation, with a hand-full of allies (questionable allies), crippled by sanctions and deals that are cut by the UN laws, and it appears that everyone is stepping up the idea of Iran having WMD's, even more serious that what Iraq was supposed to have.

If countries don't invade when states are in bankrupcy or weakned, they have done it before with Iraq. And if they have done it with Iraq, I don't see why they wouldn't go for the same measures against Iran.

And we could also address the issue of Afghanistan. I don't think anyone saw Afghanistan as a "non-failed state" at the time, much the opposite. They seemed to have failed even in the most simple humanitarian causes.

reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy



As far as I can tell, Iraq was doing pretty well before the war. Desert Storm sent them into trouble.

Interesting to note is the minor economic boom right before 9/11, ....hmmm. Interesting to note its GDP from after the invasion.

www.google.com...:IRQ&dl=en&hl=en&q=iraq+gdp



Iraq was not a failed state until we intervened. So I don't get what you're asking. We were retarded invading it, and even more retarded for staying through their civil war, but I would say that the way it is today is better than it was before. That does not mean that we should pride ourselves off that war when 100,000 died and it was based off lies. Iraq is a failure of a mistake-turned victory. And to be honest, it's because of the very late Bush policies and Obama Policies. Had we continued as we had been doing in 2003-4, we would have had another Vietnam.

Iraq was not at risk at becoming a failed state from the sanctions as far as I know. Iraq was becoming a failed state because of what we did in the Gulf war.




As to when you attack, you actually want to have a slightly prolonged war so you can gain GDP off it. You only want them in a failed state AFTER you've taken them over. Because then they cannot mount a resistance.

If you invade during a collapse or after, it rallies the divided people into unity stronger than in peace. If you invade and then they collapse, then they will be too busy fighting each other to take you down. You want them divided after you've settled in. This was the European strategy for colonizing Africa, and even today it shows.

Have I missed something? Here I thought that US plans won't work on IRAN as did 9 11. to get out east! OIL, OIL, OIL!!!! I tell you its ISRAIL people!!!!! The best place to hide 666 is in the HOLY LAND!!!! IRAN has not bothered anybody that I know of in the past, so why NOW? Nuck power plants, we have them and so do others started this right? All this # and money wasted on oil, we could have already found another source of power, but NO! They could not make any money that way, or the save the PLANET GAME! Oil companys make BILL"S in proffit and control most of the trade thats going on everywhere. Last place there is OIL is IRAN!!