China backs up Iran

[Theige]

No, it's not about "Western Democracies", but about "Christian Countries against Muslim Countries", because, as ALL know, there CAN'T be Christian fundamentalists, only Good Christians.

Aint' funny that the ONLY excuse about not allowing other countries to get nukes(so they won't be "liberated" anymore) is that they're contained by Muslim fundamentalists? Look what the West has done to all the Asia/Middle East all those years/centuries: is it weird that the people gather close to what has left to them, their religion/beliefs?
Is it weird that they're desperate because they haven't the same weapons as their enemies and they use whatever they can?

What would the Westerners do if they were in their position? Maybe they'd do/follow the same tactics?

I really hope/wish that the U.S will follow the same path as China did: make deals for something you want and don't invade countries.

Theres a treaty called the Nuclear Non-Proliferalation Treaty, in which countries agree to not try and build nuclear weapons, because the spread of these weapons to any nation is considered extremely dangerous by the UN, as it should. I believe the number of countries who have signed this is around 180. These Muslim Fundamentalist countries are in fact dictatorships, do you feel its safe for a bunch of dictators to have nuclear weapons?

Your right, China is a prime example of doing everything the peaceful way ...

Need i remind you of Tibet, India and North Korea to name a few (I believe someone listed the rest in another recent thread). North Korea is my favorite, they actually fought a full-fledged war against a UN army, all the while sitting on the security council of the UN.

and just to anoy people, i think grid iron sucks, gays should have rights and Osama isnt all bad.

It doesnt really annoy me (an american) that you think grid iron sucks, I in fact enjoy rugby and soccer

I doesnt annoy me that you think gays should have the same rights as anyone else, because I agree with you

It makes me sick to my stomach (an american, and aslo a new yorker) when I read that last part; It also makes me think people outside the US have really lost their minds, or just don't care if terrorists attack the US, as long as they are left alone.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Need i remind you of Tibet, India and North Korea to name a few (I believe someone listed the rest in another recent thread). North Korea is my favorite, they actually fought a full-fledged war against a UN army, all the while sitting on the security council of the UN.

Your ignorance is showing.

The Republic of China (KMT Taiwan) held the UN Security Council seat until the mid 70s. China was an international pariah fr the PRC's formation until then, before the US finally made an entente with the Chinese and turned them into a sort-of ally vs the Soviets.

The Sino-Indian War was an unfortunate and unnecessary affair, but with the Indian press, Parliament and military feeling over-confident and militant, it was pretty much inevitable.

I'd agree Tibet was an out-and-out conquest though.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

As for India Pakistan and China are'nt exactly buddies. There will be a nuclear war and I don't plan to be here when it happens. Espically in Bangalore.

Relations betw the three are getting better.

Indian IT firms are investing quite a bit in China and vice versa. I've read an article which argues that in the decades to come, Sino-Indian trade would be so huge, it would overshadow Asia-West trade by some degrees. Like in the old days.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Stratego, when it comes to oil, you want absolutely everything you can get. Iran has a lot of oil, and it isn't being tapped by western companies to the extent it could be.

Be realistic. There are only so many places to get CHEAP oil, and China is now the second largest importer in the world.

That's pretty much it.

China at present is experiencing massive power failures, due to insufficient energy production and is getting any oil anyway it can (Siberia, W Africa, Sudan etc). The Chinese are also looking hard at alternative energy sources, as well as trying novel solutions (like running more factories at night, to ease on the load).

 

[G-Man]

' 'Western' democracies are allowed nuclear weapons because they are inherantly more trustworthy, and they're just for MAD anyway, they won't use them, no sir. But those Arabs what a nasty bunch, evil I tell you!'

Yes, democracies are more stable. Furthermore, democracies have mechanisms within them making sure that they remain stable and that they act responsibly. Iran doesn't have these mechanisms. Their leaders can and are doing whatever they want. They've built a gigantic terror infrastructure, and the only thing stopping them from activating it is the threat of being destroyed. So unless their regime is changed to a democracy and stops supporting terrorism, I see no reason why they should be allowed to get nukes.

BTW they're not Arabs.

 

[G-Man]

No, it's not about "Western Democracies", but about "Christian Countries against Muslim Countries", because, as ALL know, there CAN'T be Christian fundamentalists, only Good Christians.

There are founmentalists for all religions. But Iran has more than just founmentalists - it's a theocracy.

Aint' funny that the ONLY excuse about not allowing other countries to get nukes(so they won't be "liberated" anymore) is that they're contained by Muslim fundamentalists? Look what the West has done to all the Asia/Middle East all those years/centuries: is it weird that the people gather close to what has left to them, their religion/beliefs?
Is it weird that they're desperate because they haven't the same weapons as their enemies and they use whatever they can?

The reason not to allow them to get nukes is because these nukes will be used in order to allow them to use terrorism as much as they like. I don't care what caused them to do so, the fact is that Iran is the single biggest supporter of terrorism, and that as such it must not be allowed to gain nukes.

What would the Westerners do if they were in their position? Maybe they'd do/follow the same tactics?

Any country which supports terrorism shouldn't be allowed to get nukes.

I really hope/wish that the U.S will follow the same path as China did: make deals for something you want and don't invade countries.

You can't always make deals. Iran considers the US to be its nemesis and they refuse to stop their nuclear project. You can't have negotiations without having an alternative to them.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I just can't get the argument I shouldn't care if Iran gets nukes because Pakistan, Israel and the US already got them. It's like saying that just 'cos someone has broken two of my fingers, I shouldn't try and avoid getting the rest broken too.

 

[King Alexander]

There are founmentalists for all religions. But Iran has more than just founmentalists - it's a theocracy.

It's their right to have a Theocracy, and some believe that the U.S itself is walking towards it. These nations never wanted a Democracy but other forms of goverments. Maybe one day they'll change to something else, but we can't forbid them to have any type of goverment they want.

The reason not to allow them to get nukes is because these nukes will be used in order to allow them to use terrorism as much as they like. I don't care what caused them to do so, the fact is that Iran is the single biggest supporter of terrorism, and that as such it must not be allowed to gain nukes.

They want nukes because the West NEVER was good to them or the nations in the area, and this goes for years and years now. If the West would have treated them better, their view of the West wouldn't be the same as is today.

You can't always make deals. Iran considers the US to be its nemesis and they refuse to stop their nuclear project. You can't have negotiations without having an alternative to them.

Because you can't always make deals, is this gives the right to invade and create a mess in other countries? Has Iran or Iraq invaded the U.S?

 

[King Alexander]

Theres a treaty called the Nuclear Non-Proliferalation Treaty, in which countries agree to not try and build nuclear weapons, because the spread of these weapons to any nation is considered extremely dangerous by the UN, as it should. I believe the number of countries who have signed this is around 180. These Muslim Fundamentalist countries are in fact dictatorships, do you feel its safe for a bunch of dictators to have nuclear weapons?

So what about if there is a NNPT, Israel didn't got nukes? I did't see anyone to speak of it. Israel feels that is being threatened by other countries and I could say the same for the later(just expressing as neutral I can).

Your right, China is a prime example of doing everything the peaceful way ...

I didn't saw otherwise, did you? If China has done some bad things, the U.S has put dictatorships all over the world in the past(my country included), has supported regimes like that of Saddam(didn't cared if it was a dictatorship), has used guys like Osama to do their things and who later turned against them, has never done anything to stop genocides made by their past/former allies, etc.... You can't possibly compare China with the U.S in this field.

All the countries that got nukes found their peace and freedom as no one messed with them ever since.

 

[The Last Conformist]

So what about if there is a NNPT, Israel didn't got nukes? I did't see anyone to speak of it. Israel feels that is being threatened by other countries and I could say the same for the later(just expressing as neutral I can).

Israel didn't sign the non-proliferation treaty.

 

[Tassadar]

Israel didn't sign the non-proliferation treaty.

Yep, and strangly there is no embargo agaisnt them, they even have unconditional support form USA with their veto.

So i see no problem at all that China is helping Iran. Devloping good relation with your neiborg ( insteed of stealing their land for the messia return) is the way to prevent guerrilla/resistance to occupation ( note i didnt say terrorism).


If US support Isreal's land grabing, then Iran can certainly support palestinian resistance.

Isreal wont take th risk to bomb Iran, Iran is very well equip now with chinese missile, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Last I checked, not signing the treaty wasn't a crime. Signing it and going on to develop nukes is one, tho.

But I forget. As long as it's no US and friends that's breaking int'l law it's OK with you.

 

[Sanaz]

Last I checked, not signing the treaty wasn't a crime. Signing it and going on to develop nukes is one, tho.

But I forget. As long as it's no US and friends that's breaking int'l law it's OK with you.

Israel not signing the treaty is a problem, and I have no idea why people gloss over this. Israel isn't as bad as some people like to state, but they are not innocent either. The problems in the region can not be blamed on "theocracies", and then forgotten. There are many causes of problems over the last 50+ years (and much, much longer, of course), and the Israel/US have done their share of damage. Anyone who blames one side and claims innocence for the other is mistaken.

So far, Iran has done nothing illegal wrt to nuclear power development, and has shown no intention of doing so. This is a reason that, even as the UK is fighting side by side with the US in Iraq, they are negotiating with Iran today. Iran does not want to be left behind in the 21st century, and will "play along" to help their own development. And they don't have the imperialistic desires that would make them a true threat - they aren't looking for a return of the Persian empire.

Israel's concern for Iranian sponsored terrorism is valid, from their viewpoint. With Iraq out of the way, Israel's largest single remaining "threat" in the region is Iran, so it is natural for them to focus their energy there. I am not surprised by this and certainly don't hate them for it, but I do disagree. I am not convinced that Iran sponsors terrorism at the state level, despite reading some "interesting" documents from highly biased sources that draw some conclusions that I wouldn't.

 

[thestonesfan]

Why don't we just ignore them? Let Iran have their nukes. They won't use them.

 

[King Alexander]

Israel didn't sign the non-proliferation treaty.

And even if it had signed it, it could go on and produce nukes, according to TODAY'S World Situation, where the U.S first doesn't care about International Laws, the U.N, etc...
As the U.S doesn't care for International Laws, so can do all the other countries, that's why it was so bad that the U.S treated the U.N like garbage.

Anyway, the rest of the world as well as the citizens of the U.S never were so divided as in the days of GWB, after the end of the Cold War.

China should support Iran as much as they can, so there's an end to all this arrogance and disrespect of the international laws and treaties.
The previous laws were created exactly for keeping a reasonable balance between the countries and the first who's benefited from that was/is the U.S, so today, the U.S goes against it's own interests, IMHO.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Israel not signing the treaty is a problem, and I have no idea why people gloss over this.

It happens to be a fact that Israel did not violate the non-proliferation treaty by acquring nukes. Stating that fact does not gloss over anything. It does not even imply that Israel's possession of nukes is not a problem.

Israel isn't as bad as some people like to state, but they are not innocent either. The problems in the region can not be blamed on "theocracies", and then forgotten. There are many causes of problems over the last 50+ years (and much, much longer, of course), and the Israel/US have done their share of damage. Anyone who blames one side and claims innocence for the other is mistaken.

This relates to my post how?

So far, Iran has done nothing illegal wrt to nuclear power development, and has shown no intention of doing so.

They hid their uranium enrichment programmes, in violation of their treaty obligations, for decades.

This is a reason that, even as the UK is fighting side by side with the US in Iraq, they are negotiating with Iran today.

I believe it's known as "damage minimization". There's no way left of stopping them from getting nukes except convincing them they don't want any.

Iran does not want to be left behind in the 21st century, and will "play along" to help their own development. And they don't have the imperialistic desires that would make them a true threat - they aren't looking for a return of the Persian empire.

Conclusion being, we shouldn't care if they develop nukes?

Personally, I believe the less countries have nukes, the lower the risk that anyone uses them, and that we should thus do everything reasonable to limit further proliferation.

 

[The Last Conformist]

@KA: Yes, they could have signed the treaty and still acquired nukes. But since would have violated that int'l law that's so precious to you, one might have expected that you'd like it better the way it was done.

 

[Theige]

Your ignorance is showing.

The Republic of China (KMT Taiwan) held the UN Security Council seat until the mid 70s. China was an international pariah fr the PRC's formation until then, before the US finally made an entente with the Chinese and turned them into a sort-of ally vs the Soviets.

Yea, my bad - they still fought against a UN army

 

[G-Man]

It's their right to have a Theocracy, and some believe that the U.S itself is walking towards it. These nations never wanted a Democracy but other forms of goverments. Maybe one day they'll change to something else, but we can't forbid them to have any type of goverment they want.

We have no say as long as that regime is an internal business. Once they threat other countries, support international terror organizations and build missiles that can hit half the world and carry nukes they make it other people's business.

They want nukes because the West NEVER was good to them or the nations in the area, and this goes for years and years now. If the West would have treated them better, their view of the West wouldn't be the same as is today.

I don't care what caused them to feel that way. The fact is that they are massively supporting terrorism and they're considering it to be their goal to spread their religion, and as such a country they're extremely dangerous to other countries and should not be allowed to gain nukes.

Because you can't always make deals, is this gives the right to invade and create a mess in other countries? Has Iran or Iraq invaded the U.S?

No, but the fact that Iran considers the US to be the "great satan", that they support terrorism and that they develop missiles and weapons that can destroy entire cities across half the globe does provide a certain legitimation to stopping them from getting these abilities.

 

[silver 2039]

Your ignorance is showing.

The Republic of China (KMT Taiwan) held the UN Security Council seat until the mid 70s. China was an international pariah fr the PRC's formation until then, before the US finally made an entente with the Chinese and turned them into a sort-of ally vs the Soviets.

The Sino-Indian War was an unfortunate and unnecessary affair, but with the Indian press, Parliament and military feeling over-confident and militant, it was pretty much inevitable.

I'd agree Tibet was an out-and-out conquest though.

Thats complete and total BS. China falesly claimed Indian teritory as it's own (Aski Chin, Arunacul Pradesh) Then it annexed Aski Chin after India and China signed a freindship treaty and launched a completly unprovoked attack on India. China has a history of agression from Korea in 1950, Tibet in 1950 something, India in 1962, Vietnam in 1979, skirmishes in the Spartly Island.