Possible Chinese involvement in fighting ISIS

nemo said:

Let me add something that hasn't been mentioned.

US is essentially doing more of the same -- the same strategy that has not worked before. So why should China contribute to something that is not likely to work?

Click to expand...

Lots of Western journalists and politicians have mentioned US/EU need different strategy to deal with a different problem. IS/ISIS/ISIL is new and there's not a lot of people saying the same old strategy would work against them. What that new strategy ought to be is still in debate.

If China wants to contribute, will China get to contribute the strategy? What happens if China demands that US cease to remove Assad and instead *help* Assad in stabilizing Syria? What happens if China demands that Iran's interest to be considered? I very much doubt either is going to happen, but those are the most expedient ways of suppressing ISIS.

Click to expand...

You lost me; what are the most expedient ways of suppressing ISIS? Syrians and Iraqis have failed, and it's questionable what Iran can or will do that's acceptable to regional countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordon. If the Communist Overlords choose to sit it out, then what happens when well trained and well experienced Ughyer terrorists return home to Xinjiang and cause murder, mayhem, and terror? The biggest losers would be innocent Han and ethnic Xinjiang peoples.

I really doubt anyone with independent foreign policy and interest will help US on the mess of its own making.

Click to expand...

Oh, is that so? America is well on her way to energy independence, and China just passed her up as the biggest user of oil in the world. US national interests in the Middle East would likely diminish over time, while China's interests are only beginning to peak. So, it is in China's national interests to cooperate and coordinate with the US while the Islamist threat is still gathering steam.

The bottom line is, in spite of Barack Obama, the United States could handle it and we don't need China. But it's in China's interests to build some bridges and show it can be a partner rather than an adversary.

.....

Brumby said:

China has vested interest in the region and any potential fallout that is likely to involve Xinjiang. There is no assignment of responsibility to be had, it is reality whether you choose to admit it or not. Strangely. you are rather emotional over this issue because of the number of emotional words that are being used. For goodness sake, chill out.

Words have meaning even if you choose to be liberal in your usage and its meaning. As I said no one is demanding, it is simply your own choice of words.

Click to expand...

Maybe you think the Iraq War made Iraq a better place for then China to do business for then to believe China is getting a free ride from the utopia that was created in Iraq by the West.

If you believe China has some obligation, then you're whining and demanding. What was the nonsense about the coalition of the willing? If China has chosen to not be willing to send troops just like every ally of the US, then what are you whining about China having to contribute? Because what did China get for free? You say China has vested interest? How can China be invested if according to you China got everything for free hence a free-loader?

Yeah I can see how liberal you use words that they lose their real meaning. Again what has China gotten for free?

AssassinsMace said:

Maybe you think the Iraq War made Iraq a better place for then China to do business for then to believe China is getting a free ride from the utopia that was created in Iraq by the West.

Click to expand...

I have not made any suggestions whether Iraq is a better place - you are the one attempting to introduce a new element into the discussion. Unfortunately it is really superfluous to the conversation. When China decided to invest in Iraq, China had effectively hooked onto a problem by having assets in there. You can take an Ostrich approach as you have suggested and hope for the best that the invested assets are not impaired. However I would call it dereliction of duty. Those assets are at risk whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

You can continue to focus on the blinded view that someone else created the problem and rather participate to resolve a common problem, you would rather put your own assets at risk. It is called cutting off the nose.

You can sit back and let others deal with the problem just because there are others more willing. It is call free loading.

Take your pick.

Brumby said:

I have not made any suggestions whether Iraq is a better place - you are the one attempting to introduce a new element into the discussion. Unfortunately it is really superfluous to the conversation. When China decided to invest in Iraq, China had effectively hooked onto a problem by having assets in there. You can take an Ostrich approach as you have suggested and hope for the best that the invested assets are not impaired. However I would call it dereliction of duty. Those assets are at risk whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

You can continue to focus on the blinded view that someone else created the problem and rather participate to resolve a common problem, you would rather put your own assets at risk. It is called cutting off the nose.

You can sit back and let others deal with the problem just because there are others more willing. It is call free loading.

Take your pick.

Click to expand...

There is no moral obligation for China to send troops to protect her installations much less anything resembling a 'duty' to do so. Iraq's government is responsible for providing a secure environment for foreign customers, not the customers themselves. Your mistake is thinking that China's being at risk equates to her having an obligation. It does not.

China is victim to circumstances not of her own making. To somehow frame the victim as being responsible for finding a solution is called victim-blaming. China was never involved in allowing for the rise of the IS nor should she be responsible for putting an end to or even contributing to putting an end to their shenanigans.

Brumby said:

If China is looking for an excuse not to participate then there are plenty of reasons that can be offered. After all it is a coalition of the willing and able. It boils down to what role China wants to play on the world stage when issues align with its own interest and how it would be perceived by others - either as a free loader or a country stepping up and shouldering a share of the problem in line with its status.

We don't need another anti China or media conspiracy default defence every time a discussion comes up. Don't you get tired of using the same lines?

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "able"? Able to do what? Able to bomb or able to help solve problems? Why should China help to bomb?
China is not a free loader. It is the victim of mayhem causes by other countries in for example Libya. That it has some advantage of mayhem caused by other countries in Iraq doesn't make it a free loader.

Brumby said:

I have not made any suggestions whether Iraq is a better place - you are the one attempting to introduce a new element into the discussion. Unfortunately it is really superfluous to the conversation. When China decided to invest in Iraq, China had effectively hooked onto a problem by having assets in there. You can take an Ostrich approach as you have suggested and hope for the best that the invested assets are not impaired. However I would call it dereliction of duty. Those assets are at risk whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

You can continue to focus on the blinded view that someone else created the problem and rather participate to resolve a common problem, you would rather put your own assets at risk. It is called cutting off the nose.

You can sit back and let others deal with the problem just because there are others more willing. It is call free loading.

Take your pick.

Click to expand...

free·load·er

/ˈfrēˌlōdər/

noun
informal

a person who takes advantage of others' generosity without giving anything in return.

Click to expand...

What generosity did China take advantage of without giving anything in return?

I guess that's make you more a freeloader when you demand China do something and you personally aren't going to fight ISIS yourself. You're a hypocritical freeloader. And by your loose definition of a freeloader, you don't think the West is a freeloader? What did the West do when Chinese civilians were attacked by terrorists? Nothing.


You are still avoiding explaining what China is getting for free. That's assuming the US and the West did something for China to get for free. What is that? Iraq is worse than before Saddam fell. And who's saving China's assets for China to be obligated? Maybe you're already assuming victory over ISIS ahead of time to demand China contribute and owes for a victory that hasn't happened.

China invest assets and they lose assets. How does that translate in your bizarro world that China has to contribute to the punishing ISIS over the beheading of Americans. Because that's the reason why Obama is taking actions not because he's saving Chinese assets. Is Chinese investment the reason for the rise of ISIS? No! So where's the responsibility and obligation for China to help punish ISIS for beheading Americans?

jobjed said:

There is no moral obligation for China to send troops to protect her installations much less anything resembling a 'duty' to do so. Iraq's government is responsible for providing a secure environment for foreign customers, not the customers themselves. Your mistake is thinking that China's being at risk equates to her having an obligation. It does not.

Click to expand...

You are certainly entitled to hope that the Iragi government will get their act together and blame them if they fail to protect your assets.

jobjed said:

China is victim to circumstances not of her own making. To somehow frame the victim as being responsible for finding a solution is called victim-blaming. China was never involved in allowing for the rise of the IS nor should she be responsible for putting an end to or even contributing to putting an end to their shenanigans.

Click to expand...

You can certainly go into denial mode that the problem isn't there and hence conclude no action is necessary.

Blackstone said:

Lots of Western journalists and politicians have mentioned US/EU need different strategy to deal with a different problem. IS/ISIS/ISIL is new and there's not a lot of people saying the same old strategy would work against them. What that new strategy ought to be is still in debate.

Click to expand...

This is why I say that China and every other sensible country in the world should stay out of this war. They are going to war without a strategy! Its simply bomb first and think later. What can possibly go wrong ?

And US energy independence ? Dream on! Its a bubble!

delft said:

What do you mean by "able"? Able to do what? Able to bomb or able to help solve problems? Why should China help to bomb?
China is not a free loader. It is the victim of mayhem causes by other countries in for example Libya. That it has some advantage of mayhem caused by other countries in Iraq doesn't make it a free loader.

Click to expand...

I have already made my points in other posts. Repeating them would sound like a broken record.