Should China respect sanctions on Iran?

R

Red Moon

Junior Member
plawolf said:
Your replies get more nonsensical with every post. :rolleyes:

Now how many times have I got to repeat this? China cannot, and will not support Iranian attempts to develop a nuclear weapon.
Click to expand...
The American government's position is that if you are opposed to sanctions against Iran and the DPRK, then you are an "enabler" and you are against non-proliferation. Therefore, you can go ahead and repeat your point a million times. Every time you say "I am against sanctions", jantxv hears "I am against non-proliferation". Meanwhile, as SampanViking pointed out, for the US, Israel and India are cool. Don't even mention them in the context of non-proliferation.

As far back as January, jantxv argued for sanctions as a way of preempting Israeli military action, (another made-in-USA argument)
It is usually in no nation's national interests to enter into open military conflict. Some may argue sanctions against Iran are a last ditch effort to prevent open warfare between Iran and Israel. If that premise is accepted, then opposing the sanctions may hasten military hostilities.
Click to expand...
and more recently he has implied that China would have to go to war if it votes against sanctions (now that's foaming at the mouth). In the past, sanctions have been a PRELUDE and preparation for war (Iraq) or have accompanied war (Nicaragua, Sudan). Generally, they serve to weaken the target regimes, to soften them up for the kill.
 
Last edited:
Finn McCool

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
I really think the only way that Iran will agree to give up its nuclear weapons program (because let's be honest here they aren't doing it for "peaceful nuclear energy) is if they are traded for Israel's nukes. And I don't see that happening before Iran gets the bomb. Israel refuses to discuss it's nukes at all.

The US nuke deal against India does make a mockery of non-proliferation policies. But maybe those policies are dead anyway and the only good decision was to make friends with India while the US still could, hypocrisy be damned. Since when has hypocrisy stopped a nation from doing something in geopolitics? But the fact remains that no one will take US non-proliferation policy as seriously as we like if we continue preferential policies.

The non-proliferation regime is falling apart.
 
SampanViking

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Im not being desparate, merely responding to Sampans post. In fact it is most fortutious that Israel did have a nuclear weapon, otherwise she would have been struck from the pages of history.
Click to expand...

Sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander Bladerunner and there is no argument made by Israel which cannot be parroted with as much justification by countries such as NK or Iran. More so really as neither have the worlds leading superpower in their pockets rather actually face it as theor premier adversary.

AS everybody else is saying, Non-proliferation has to applied evenly or its a dead duck.

(sorry for the water fowl allusions, just having a bit of swansong:D)
 
M

Mightypeon

Junior Member
VIP Professional
While talking to some Iranians (who really disliked the current regime), all of them were in favor of getting a nuke, as none of them assumes that the US threat will subside if the current regime falls. After all, Iran still has oil after Ahmedinaschad is removed, and removing him would alienate a significant amount of the rural population, making defending Iran more difficult.
 
bladerunner

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
Mightypeon said:
While talking to some Iranians (who really disliked the current regime), all of them were in favor of getting a nuke, as none of them assumes that the US threat will subside if the current regime falls. After all, Iran still has oil after Ahmedinaschad is removed, and removing him would alienate a significant amount of the rural population, making defending Iran more difficult.
Click to expand...

You mean these people are prepared to use it on their own people?
 
L

LostWraith

New Member
plawolf said:
Well thank you, and Israel will not get to simply ignore the issue because as soon as Iran makes such an offer, all the pressure and attention will be switched instantly onto Israel and its backers.

Iran would be able to turn every single argument used against it on Israel and anyone in the west who tries to play double standards. Hell, all they need to do is make a mix tape and play the American, British and Israel UN delegations their own righteous indignation right back at them to justify crippling sanctions if Israel refuses to play ball.

Either the west holds its hands up and act in a truly fair and just manner and treat Israel no differently as Iran, or show publicly to the world that all its rhetoric on nuclear disarmament is nought but a sham and loose all credibility to demand sanctions against Iran.

No matter how Israel and the west plays this, Iran wins. Be it the total disarmament of Israel's secret nuclear arsenal or the totally collapse of sanctions and a legitimate excuse to keep its nuclear weapons free of consequence.

The only question remaining would be are western leaders smart and decisive enough to cut their losses and turn this into a win-win and ride the middle east of nuclear weapons, or loose all credibility in the eyes of the world and much of their own population.

Israel might want to do nothing, but its western backers have everything to loose and a great deal to gain to see that Israel gives up its own weapons.

In the end, I believe that self interest and self preservation will do the rest.
Click to expand...

Well don't thank me yet. I think most of the your point is pretty good until you get to that part where Israel will consider mutual disarmament with Iran.

For Iran the game is simple. Get nukes = crippling sanctions. Give up nukes = crippling sanctions followed by invasion. Israel will never be treated the same way as Iran because the interests that they have in the West. It's "double standards" or whatever else you want to call it, but that's the way it is.

The west will be discredited and shamed if they don't cooperate? I don't think credit is worth anything on a national scale. There's only interest. The west has done way worse things than to cripple one country on unfair terms.

The West will have the regime change it wants in Iran. China has no power to stop it, but China can make it a lot easier for the US, and that is a useful token for China to trade for something more useful.
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
LostWraith said:
The West will have the regime change it wants in Iran. China has no power to stop it, but China can make it a lot easier for the US, and that is a useful token for China to trade for something more useful.
Click to expand...

I was with you until I got to this part. What makes you so sure that the West will be successful in overthrowing the current Iranian government?
 
L

LostWraith

New Member
solarz said:
I was with you until I got to this part. What makes you so sure that the West will be successful in overthrowing the current Iranian government?
Click to expand...

My bad let me qualify it. If Iran doesn't get its nuclear weapons, then the West will force a regime change. If it does, then it might turn into a NK type stalemate.

Without nuclear deterrent Iran has not nearly enough military power or land mass to deter an invasion. The US military is light years beyond anything the Iran has in possession, both equipment wise and philosophy wise. Iran has a significantly more complicated geography than Iraq, but I'm confident that if military action does take place, the US will triumph. It might not as easy as taking Iraq, but it won't be much harder. The 2003 Iraq War is a bad example, but remember the first Gulf War where Iraq was still a mighty regional power with years of combat experience and high morale. There were many doubts as to the losses that NATO forces may have suffered before the action started, but the war concluded with minimal casualties and cemented the military dominance of the coalition forces.

The more difficult part would be to manufacture a reason to attack Iran, but I am also confident in the abilities of the US and its allies to pull that one off.
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
LostWraith said:
My bad let me qualify it. If Iran doesn't get its nuclear weapons, then the West will force a regime change. If it does, then it might turn into a NK type stalemate.

Without nuclear deterrent Iran has not nearly enough military power or land mass to deter an invasion. The US military is light years beyond anything the Iran has in possession, both equipment wise and philosophy wise. Iran has a significantly more complicated geography than Iraq, but I'm confident that if military action does take place, the US will triumph. It might not as easy as taking Iraq, but it won't be much harder. The 2003 Iraq War is a bad example, but remember the first Gulf War where Iraq was still a mighty regional power with years of combat experience and high morale. There were many doubts as to the losses that NATO forces may have suffered before the action started, but the war concluded with minimal casualties and cemented the military dominance of the coalition forces.

The more difficult part would be to manufacture a reason to attack Iran, but I am also confident in the abilities of the US and its allies to pull that one off.
Click to expand...

I would say as long as the US and Nato have their hands full with Iraq and Afghanistan, they're in no position to mount another invasion.

Further, the international community have now witnessed first hand the human suffering caused by the invasion of Iraq. Would they, which includes Western voters, be willing to go ahead with an Iran invasion?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top