China Warns U.S. Against Attack On Syria

[Purveyor]

Source: LA TIMES

BEIJING -- In what has become a predictable refrain from Beijing, the Chinese government Thursday warned the United States against conducting airstrikes against Syria. All of the major Chinese news organizations railed against military action, saying Syria could turn into another Iraq. The Chinese also said they were not convinced that Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government used chemical weapons against its own people, as asserted by the White House.

In a statement posted on the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s website, Foreign Minister Wang Yi implied that Beijing would exercise its veto power on a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force. The point is somewhat moot because Russia already has said it would block such a resolution.

"External military intervention is contrary to the U.N. charter aims and the basic norms governing international relations and could exacerbate instability in the Middle East," Wang said.

"Turning Syria into another Libya or even Iraq is the last thing most people around the world want to see," opined the English-language China Daily in a strongly worded editorial on Thursday. "Before the crisis takes a turn for from bad to worse, it is high time the U.S. learned from its past mistakes."

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fg-wn-china-syria-20130829,0,4025128.story

[Comrade Grumpy]

1. This whole "let's bomb Syria" thing keeps hitting bumps in the road.

[HereSince1628]

3. This isn't a road bump, it's a turnstyle

The US always has to pass through criticism from China and Russia.

Why? Well, it makes Russia and China look like serious players. They've given this real consideration and they have doubts.

Doubts, always. Certainty, almost never. Consequently, no matter how things turn out, Russia and China can ultimately choose what side to be on...after the dust has somewhat settled.

This is just traveling through the usual tangles of the undergrowth.

It means next to nothing.

[AllTooEasy]

12. Another Irag?!

There wasn't a ongoing Iraqi civil war resulting in the deaths of 100,000+ people when Bush decided to invade for WMDs that didn't exist. What the hell is China talking about??? Have they noticed the deaths and atrocities during the past few months? Have they noticed the chemical weapons that do exist, and are actively being used?

Or are they just full of it?

Another Iraq...Syria alreadly looks like Irag 2006.

[RC]

17. What you do not seem to understand is that most of the refugees from our war crime into Iraq,

overwhelmed the resourced of Syria, leading directly to the current situation.

What we should have done, would have been to supply food, medical supply's, and shelter. But that is not what we are all about. Fomenting conflicts for profit is what we are all about. And now we have another chance to make some money.

[TwilightGardener]

2. What Bush/Cheney did with Iraq was allow countries with no moral leg to stand on (China, Russia)

to forever throw it in our faces in order to try to manipulate our actions now. Honestly, I don't think Obama should pay attention to them unless it comes down to actual WW3. We should learn from past mistakes, but not be forever hamstrung by them.

[RobertEarl]

4. Right, screw them

Do they know who they are messing with?

What makes them think they have any right to tell the US where we can make war, right? We the bad ass mofos and we showed the world that in Iraq and other places. They best watch out, right? How dare they try to "manipulate our actions"

<f'n sarcasm just for the gardener's delight>

[dkf]

5. Just wait til their military rivals ours. What will we say when they decide on adventurism?

[TwilightGardener]

8. OK, sport.

[Iliyah]

6. There is always saber rattling

from countries when situations like this occur. Even China and Russia are concern about chemical warfare and whomever dropped the chemicals onto civilians in Syria is truly a major concern for majority of the countries around the world. It is correct that death is death regardless of guns, bombs, et al. Gawd forbid a chemical weapon that is airborne.

[gordianot]

7. WMD bothers everyone especially when considered in the context of limited war.

To use these weapons in civil war is a huge quandary one that threatens large countries with the potential of well armed rebellions like China and Russia. Remember the Soviet Unions fear of the Neutron Bomb that would kill people and leave building intact? Never mind that radiation bombs were considered for decades.

At some point China and Russia need to consider is Assad worth it even if they identify with his dilemma.

[John2]

11. China and Russia know what War is like on their territories,

do the U.S. know? The reason Russia and China armed themselves with the same nuclear technology was because of the threat from the U.S. We are the only country to actually use it and don't forget using agent Orange on the populations of Vietnam and North Korea. We had no problem dropping chemicals on populations.

[bvar22]

13. What?

U.S. Officials say 'no smoking gun' implicating Assad in chemical attack
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023557390

I think that the USA should have decided whether Assad is worth it,
especially if we don't have PROOF that he was even behind these attacks.

[gordianot]

16. I tend to agree what is an attack on Syria going to prove or remedy beyond a larger conflict?

Someday a break away faction in Russia or China could place them in the same situation as Syria. Who thinks the United States would risk an intervention in that situation if these weapons were used in those conflicts? Even if there is a smoking gun implicating Syria all of this could lead to smoking ruins in a variety responses. This may even be a faction within Assad's forces.

It is easy for talking heads to say "There should be a response" just what response? If recent history has proven anything in the Middle East one problem leads to another.

As a peon typing on a PC I am sure my opinion weighs heavily on the outcome.

[John2]

9. You people

are really miscalculating this time. Just what allies did Libya or Iraq have? Russia nor China were their Allies. Those countries didn't have allies in the Middle East either such as Iran or harbor powerful groups like Hezbullah or the militias in Iraq.

Syria is different. Neither Libya or Iraq had the kind of military history of the Syrian Army. Syria maintained a presence in Lebanon for many years before their Army retreated. They also have an armistice, just like Egypt had with Israel. One of the reasons Syria and Egypt was accused of losing a War with Israel was because Assad's father kept the Syrian Air Force from protecting Syrian armored units in the Golan Heights which helped him in his coup attempt to take over the Government of Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood has blamed Assad's father ever since.

By all accounts, the Syrian Armed Forces is a lot more experienced at fighting Wars than either Libya or Iraq's Armed Forces were. Assad was also educated in the Syrian military and served as a air force commander just like his father did. I don't think the Syrian Army or Air Force will be so easy to defeat as many people are thinking from a military stand point. Most of their military are Alawites too. That is how they were able to take power, because it was mostly their only opportunity to advance.

I think the back channel communications are being misinterpreted too between certain states like Iran and North Korea too. People don't have any idea about what is going on with those meetings between Government officials in the Syrian Government and their assurances from states like Iran or North Korea on these high level visits. They have no idea what is going on between the Iraqi Government and Syria or Iran in these meetings either.

I will bring up Egypt too and the overthrow of Morsi. The Egyptian has explicitly said they will not participate in any attack on Syria. So this just leaves Saudi Arabia, Qatar and mostly these Gulf states, along with Erodgen also. That will implicate the Kurds if Turkey does participate in an attack on Syria, because the furthest thing the Kurds want is Turkey's involvement in Syria. They have came out and said they don't believe the Assad Government used chemicals because Assad's forces was winning the War. People supporting this attack must think this is a game and one side is bluffing, but the side giving warnings think the other side will be stupid enought to attack. They have given the warnings, this will spread and it want be just about Assad. They have been preparing just in case. Those states in the immediate area such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey are depending on us to protect them from damage with superior technology. That is the gamble they are willing to take with their populations. War is a dangerous game and nothing to play with. It want be some video game like Libya or Iraq.

[bvar22]

15. Thanks for your posts in this thread.

Solid information combined with good, clear thinking.

[indepat]

10. Who the hell do other members of the UN Security Council think they are when questioning the

righteousness and propriety of the decider's actions in the international arena? If ever they are anointed the decider, they sure as hell would not like being questioned.

[Supersedeas]

18. righteousness...we've heard a lot of that lately

[indepat]

19. There's so much righteousness in the wind, so many must be killed and maimed in the

righteous march to stamp out the evil of others in the world.

[geek tragedy]

14. China: we prefer Syria to become another Sudan instead. nt