Should China respect sanctions on Iran?

Engineer said:

Iran is smart to decline, because those are traps instead of genuine offers. Had Iran accepted, it would have lost its nuclear program in exchange for an empty civilian nuclear powerplant, where all the essential technologies to make it work are barred from being exported to Iran.


First, which couple hundred of countries press corps reported that Iran wants to "utterly destroy Israel"? I dare you to list them. If you can't, then don't throw random numbers around. Secondly, Western media is 100% untrustworthy. As we have already witnessed in 2008 Tibet riot and 2009 Xinjiang riot, Western media doesn't report facts. It massage facts to promote its own views. Then, we also have

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, where the Western media didn't find the interviewee's answer suitable and conjured up a translation instead. Given these prior records, the answer is yes, the Western media made up the story unless you can prove otherwise.


Of course, you can easily prove them wrong by finding the original statement that says they want to "utterly destroy Israel". It is that simple really.

Click to expand...

the persians are very proud and smart people. they know what's going on. with what happened in their history relating to US/UK, then to see what happened to their neighbor, it's quite a reinforcing reminder to be even more careful of the west. and i agree with u about the viewpoints of the west

Mr T said:

Out of curiosity, would you say the same about the Taiwanese general who referred to the possibility of the HF-IIE reaching the Three Gorges Dam? Chinese netizens got pretty upset about that and argued it was a good reason why Taiwan shouldn't be allowed to buy arms.

As for Iran, China needs to ask itself the question "do I support nuclear proliferation?" Because things won't stop with Iran - Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and maybe others will go nuclear as well. Once that happens, can China be sure that terrorists won't get their hands on a nuke one day and set it off in Beijing?

Also unless China really wants to keep its nukes at any cost, how can it achieve global disarmament (or at least reductions to very low levels) if the nuclear states keep growing in number? We need to rid the world of nuclear weapons and that won't happen if anyone can get them with impunity.

Click to expand...

back to the game theory my friend
communism, cartels, and even this nuclear proliferation, all bent on the innocent concept of obeying the honor system. idealistic at best(we all wish for that happy green earth don't we?), but not very feasible when the benefits to disboey > to obey

1. there are no guarantees of a nuke-free earth
2. even if every single warhead were destroyed, it's simply very easy to start producing them behind the sun
3. nukes will only disappear when a.) a weapon worse/better than the nuke has been developed b.)nukes lost its purpose c.)we played with fire and got scarred badly

as we can see, thats why the best we can do, will be to reduce the stockpile.

the game theory applies to why nukes will never disappear, but also why MAD won't happen

Mr T said:

Out of curiosity, would you say the same about the Taiwanese general who referred to the possibility of the HF-IIE reaching the Three Gorges Dam? Chinese netizens got pretty upset about that and argued it was a good reason why Taiwan shouldn't be allowed to buy arms.

As for Iran, China needs to ask itself the question "do I support nuclear proliferation?" Because things won't stop with Iran - Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and maybe others will go nuclear as well. Once that happens, can China be sure that terrorists won't get their hands on a nuke one day and set it off in Beijing?

Also unless China really wants to keep its nukes at any cost, how can it achieve global disarmament (or at least reductions to very low levels) if the nuclear states keep growing in number? We need to rid the world of nuclear weapons and that won't happen if anyone can get them with impunity.

Click to expand...

Of course that's rhetoric as well. I believe the Taiwanese leadership is smart enough to realize that bombing mainland China is a very bad idea in pretty much any scenario. Such rhetoric aims to please the more war hawkish population in Taiwan and that's pretty much the only purpose it serves. People get riled up by things like this easily because they believe there's meaning where there isn't any.

With the issue of nuclear proliferation, it's pretty much the interest of every nuclear nation to prevent it (except in the case of an extremely close ally for the sake of balance of power, such as in the case of India/Pakistan) and every non nuclear nation to acquire nuclear weapons.

I strongly believe that the Chinese leadership does not want a nuclear Iran, but would like to stop short of crippling sanctions due to economic interests in Iran. The US would like to cripple Iran so as to inspire/install a more pro-US regime to acquire the economic interests there that it currently does not have. At the very least, a crippling sanction will prevent other countries such as Russia and China from obtaining the resources that the US cannot access.

Therefore, even disregarding the Chinese economic interest in Iran (which is significant but not critical), China can use it as a bargaining chip with the US. The US has very strong interests in an Iranian regime change and China can deny or allow it with its UN position. Therefore, Iran is an asset for the Chinese government. If the Chinese agree to sanctions, chances are that there's an agreement between the US and China on something else that benefits Chinese interests somewhere else. Nukes in Iran are a side-issue to the ultimate question of regime change because it will make the regime change more difficult. China moderately favors the status quo while the US strongly favors a change, and the rest is chip pushing.

Edit: Forgot about the nuclear reduction issue. It's never going to happen unless a better weapon is discovered with less post use effects (same as the poster suggested above). Any nuclear free earth talk is rhetoric meant to please some people (certainly not me). There is zero motivation to voluntarily dismantle all nuclear weapons unless one desires a third world war. It's a senseless decision from any viewpoint.

@ engineer

First, which couple hundred of countries press corps reported that Iran wants to "utterly destroy Israel"? I dare you to list them. If you can't, then don't throw random numbers around

Click to expand...

My mistake I dont think there actually is 200 recognised counties so Ill rephrase

"Ajads inflatioary speech involving the destruction of Israel was reported by all the worlds reputable newspapers"

bladerunner said:

@ engineer



My mistake I dont think there actually is 200 recognised counties so Ill rephrase

"Ajads inflatioary speech involving the destruction of Israel was reported by all the worlds reputable newspapers"

Click to expand...

war is a costly business
there are no incentives for anyone to go2 war unless long-term profits>costs

but words, not so much, other than producing a lot of rants by others

lastly, "world's reputable newspapers" = reputable media = mainstream media = unreliable+biased

also western media were known famously for being biased. (and i detest such ignorance)

i just hope no one here will mention fox as their primary digest of ideas. it's very bad for the mind

LostWraith said:

There's no denying that the Iranian government/Ahmadinejad has at some point said they wanted to destroy Israel. Most Muslim middle eastern countries have said that at some point. There have four major wars and countless smaller conflicts.

Rhetoric is rhetoric, and Ahmadinejad says things like this to rouse public support in the same way US presidents speaks rhetoric about NK to rouse public support. Both realize that most of their population like to hear these things and both are smart enough to know that actual military action = disaster. You have to treat governments and bodies of power, even those of the enemy, as rational beings with reasonable objectives. These objectives may be disagreeable due to cultural differences, but to treat the Iranian government as an irrational body bent on the destruction of Israel at all cost is unwise.

Click to expand...

ravenshield936 said:

war is a costly business
there are no incentives for anyone to go2 war unless long-term profits>costs

Click to expand...

To believe that governments are ultimately rational actors has been dis-proven by history time after time. To suggest that Israel and Iran will make reasoned judgments without regard to their religious imperatives are naive. Iranian and Israeli national identities and actions are driven by religious, not secular motivations. Yes, both nations have a will on this Earth to survive, but their mortal existence pales almost completely when they compare it to the eternal afterlife.

It may be hard for those of us of secular development to fully appreciate the lengths to which these opposing powers are willing to go. Perhaps both Israel and Iran are ready to battle into the afterlife, but I do not think the secular world is.

Nuclear weapons make even the smallest power, perhaps even individual, capable to destroy even the largest nation. To think that a nation as small as Iran or Israel can kill hundreds of millions of people of the strongest of nations in mere minutes should make the world pause for thought. Realpolitik should not be played in these cases.

ravenshield936 said:

war is a costly business
there are no incentives for anyone to go2 war unless long-term profits>costs

but words, not so much, other than producing a lot of rants by others

lastly, "world's reputable newspapers" = reputable media = mainstream media = unreliable+biased

also western media were known famously for being biased. (and i detest such ignorance)

i just hope no one here will mention fox as their primary digest of ideas. it's very bad for the mind

Click to expand...

if you think western media is bias, then you should read mainland chinese media, oh wait they jailed anyone who criticize the government. so basically everything reported in china is good news.

s002wjh said:

if you think western media is bias, then you should read mainland chinese media, oh wait they jailed anyone who criticize the government. so basically everything reported in china is good news.

Click to expand...

what a naive comment... and how much Chinese media do you consume? When's the last time you visited a Chinese forum? Or even dare I say turned on the TV to watch CCTV?

It only takes one "reputable" Western news source to print a story, and it will be repeated by hundreds of others. This is well known. Go to some newspaper in South Africa, Pakistan or Canada (all of which publish in English) and look for a story relating to some country not on this list. All of them will use a wire service or will quote directly from a "reputable" source.

The issue with Ahmadinejad's statements is that they are quoted out of context, and of course, twisted through the translation. The same happens with Chinese statements, for example on the issue of the exchange rate.

jantxv said:

To suggest that Israel and Iran will make reasoned judgments without regard to their religious imperatives are naive. Iranian and Israeli national identities and actions are driven by religious, not secular motivations.

Click to expand...

You still insist on this nonsense. Please read post #141