Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Russia, China Won't Back Iran Sanctions(And we continue to trade with the Chicoms & Russkies?)
myway.com ^ | Nov 2, 2006 | STEVE GUTTERMAN and EDITH M. LEDERER

Posted on 11/02/2006 5:54:32 AM PST by kellynla

MOSCOW (AP) - Russian and China indicated that they will not support a draft U.N. resolution imposing tough sanctions on Iran for its refusal to halt its nuclear enrichment program.

The comments by Russia's foreign minister and China's U.N. ambassador were the strongest reactions yet to the draft by the two key U.N. Security Council members, and signaled difficult negotiations ahead on the resolution drawn up by Britain, France and Germany.

"We cannot support measures that in essence are aimed at isolating Iran from the outside world, including isolating people who are called upon to conduct negotiations on the nuclear program," the Interfax news agency quoted Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov as saying Wednesday.

China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya said "there are still different views on what kind of actions the council needs to do under the current circumstances."

Wang said "the major concern" is that some members want tough sanctions like those in the resolution that the council approved on Oct. 14 to punish North Korea for conducting a nuclear test.

The European draft on Iran orders all countries to prevent the sale and supply of material and technology that could contribute to Tehran's nuclear and missile programs. It imposes a travel ban and freezes the assets of people involved in these programs - and also orders countries to freeze the assets of companies and organizations involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs.

"I think the situation, the cases, are slightly different," Wang said. "Of course, the main concern is nuclear, but I think that North Korea had a test and the Iranians always claim that their programs are for peaceful use."

Unlike North Korea, Iran has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, he said.

Both Russia and China, which have strong commercial ties to Tehran, agreed in principle to sanctions over Iran's defiance of the council's ultimatum to freeze uranium enrichment and dramatically improve cooperation with the U.N. probe of suspect Iranian atomic activities.

But both nations have continued to publicly push for dialogue instead of U.N. punishment, despite the collapse last month of a European Union attempt to entice Iran into talks. The EU had proposed that Iran at least temporarily freeze enrichment as a condition for multilateral talks aimed at erasing suspicions it may be trying to build nuclear arms in violation of its treaty commitments.

Wang said the question is "what is the best way out."

"We want to have a solution of the Iranian nuclear issue, whether sanctions is the right way or whether further negotiation," he said.

The five veto-wielding permanent council members - the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France - were expected to discuss the resolution this week at the United Nations.

Lavrov said that Russia would seek to focus the document on aspects of Iran's program that the International Atomic Energy Agency has identified as possibly serious risks, including uranium enrichment and a heavy-water reactor, the ITAR-Tass news agency reported.

While Russia and China signaled the draft resolution is too strong, the United States indicated it considers the draft too weak.

Russia's Security Council chief Igor Ivanov indicated in comment Tuesday that Russia could support sanctions as a way to push Tehran into talks, but also left plenty of room for wrangling in the council.

Speaking Wednesday in Moscow, South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon, who will take over as U.N. secretary-general on Jan. 1, urged Iran to halt uranium enrichment and accept the incentives in return, Interfax reported.

A Russian Defense Ministry official told The Associated Press on Wednesday that his government would fulfill a contract to supply air defense missiles to Iran unless Moscow decides to back the international sanctions that would make it illegal.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, denied an ITAR-Tass report that said Russia had already started delivering the missiles.

Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov defended the $700 million contract signed last December to sell 29 Tor-M1 air defense missile systems to Iran, saying they were purely defensive weapons with a limited range.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: bombirannow; bomboilpiplines; china; iran; iraniansanctions; russia; sanctions

1 posted on 11/02/2006 5:54:34 AM PST by kellynla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Of course we still trade with them...$$$ trumps all else.


2 posted on 11/02/2006 6:01:28 AM PST by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to.....otherwise, things would be different.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Russia is in some ways as bad as it was when it was the head of the Soviet Union, only weaker.

This is to be expected of the PRC; they are still Communist-controlled, after all.

3 posted on 11/02/2006 6:08:44 AM PST by Jedi Master Pikachu ( New FRaccounthomepage which some of you kindly gave codes and input for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Well, let the Israelis take care of them- they have both the fewest inhibitions and the strongest incentive.


4 posted on 11/02/2006 6:09:28 AM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr; kellynla; ninenot; sittnick; steve50; Hegemony Cricket; Willie Green; Wolfie; ex-snook; ..
Of course we still trade with them...$$$ trumps all else.

Not with the Russians. With the Chinese yes.

During the whole time of Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin Russia was and is under Soviet era sanctions by USA and still is being prevented from joining WTO. So Russia is FORCED to trade with the countries on the periphery or outside of US influence and this means often weapons.

Yeltsin said several times, that his country does not need help from USA but it needs removal of sanctions and closer economic ties.

That is why asking Russia to join some sanctions when Russia is under sanctions herself does not make much political sense.

5 posted on 11/02/2006 6:25:11 AM PST by A. Pole (Saint Augustine: "The truth speaks from the bottom of the heart without the noise of words")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
Of course we still trade with them...$$$ trumps all else.

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''


Iran is the absolute devil in the axis of evil. Witness North Korea going back to talks after China shuts off oil supplies. Russia, and China do not have the same issues at stake in this fight with islam as we do. Everyone will have issues with islam but to a different degree. We must understand that Israel and USA are the object of jihad. China/Russia have issues with USA that trump their fear of islam. Consequently they will support Iran because it occupies our energy and our resources. We shouldn't be surprised at that. It only points out the absolute folly in trying to accomplish anything through the UN. The United Nations is an agent for the emasculation and destruction of the USA. The UN exists to oppose and counterbalance the power of America in the world.

The dirty little secret in geopolitics however, is that we don't just trade with China, we depend on China. The entire world monetary system is balanced by the creditor/debtor relationship between the US/China. There is a symbiotic relationship that exists between the two nations as one declines and the other rises. It used to be China needed the US while we capitalized on China. Soon it will reverse and the US will depend on China and they will capitalize on us. At some point they will no longer need us and will become the agent of our demise. As China expands and matures, her own people will be the markets for her production. America will receive less, and consequently China will provide the cheap goods and the foreign investment money necessary for us to maintain our debt. Yes money trumps all else, when you are dependent on their goods to float your currency.
6 posted on 11/02/2006 6:46:45 AM PST by photodawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

"And we continue to trade with the Chicoms & Russkies?"

I realize this may come as a shock to you, but not every nation on Earth has the same interests as the United States and it's unrealistic to expect them to do everything the US commands.


7 posted on 11/02/2006 7:02:58 AM PST by Dr. Marten (http://thehorsesmouth.blog-city.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Marten
"I realize this may come as a shock to you, but not every nation on Earth has the same interests as the United States and it's unrealistic to expect them to do everything the US commands."

Hey, genius, don't pull some condescending Kerry BS on me.
If you spent half as much time in China as you spend on FR; you would KNOW about the Chicom atrocities occurring there to this day
And if you knew anything about international trade, economics and/or history; America has been negotiating it's geopolitical policies with other countries for decades. Does the word "embargo" ring a bell with you, genius? . While you were working on your doctorate I was killing Commies. And if not for "dummies" like me; "geniuses" like you would be speaking Japanese, German, Russian or Chinese today! But don't bother to thank me for my service..."doctor?" LMAO
8 posted on 11/02/2006 7:25:53 AM PST by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kellynla; Dr. Marten
Dr. Marten has spent more time in Red China than any of us (including his time on FR). Disagree with him if you want, but don't question his credentials. Since different countries have different interests and different values of course they will not always respond as the U.S. government might like. As we know the Clintons played footsie with these murderous thugs, and both Bushes have been pretty chummy with them (especially the Elder). Saying countries have different interests and won't always do what we want isn't Kerry-esque, it is a simple fact. The difference between Kerry, and say, a Buchaninite is how you respond to that fact. In most cases, you can attempt force (including threats and sanctions), disengage (the Buchanan approach) or capitulate to varying degrees.

If you would accept it, I would like to thank you for your service. (And I think Dr. Marten is just his brand of shoes, not an attempt to pull rank.)
9 posted on 11/02/2006 7:39:28 AM PST by sittnick (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sittnick; Dr. Marten
"Dr. Marten has spent more time in Red China than any of us?"

and how would you know that?

and whatever time your "doctor" spent in China;
your "doctor" apparently didn't learn much...but whatever your "doctor's" "credentials"; his/her first response to a post shouldn't be condensation.
The "doctor" should learn some manners!


Class dismissed!
10 posted on 11/02/2006 7:46:23 AM PST by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Maybe we took out Saddam Hussein too soon. It was Iraq that bombed earlier Iranian nuclear facilities in 1980. If my memory serves me right, I don't recall any talk of UN sanctions at the time, nor do I recall the USA, Britain, Russia, China, or France voicing objections to the bombings.
11 posted on 11/02/2006 10:21:42 AM PST by backtothestreets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

I beg to differ. Many know about the vast reliance on the PRC for outsourcing of manufacturing operations and low cost material sourcing. However, less well known is the extensive outsourcing of software development to Russia. Let's just say, I have been intimately involved in this.


12 posted on 11/02/2006 1:19:17 PM PST by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Take Back The GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: backtothestreets

When we bomb Iran's nuclear sites and oil pipelines, the first to complain will be the Democrats.


13 posted on 11/02/2006 1:21:31 PM PST by pleikumud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: pleikumud
When we bomb Iran's nuclear sites and oil pipelines, the first to complain will be the Democrats.

Not necessarily. You are probably very aware of efforts among Democrats and a growing number of Republicans in Congress to replace Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. While President Bush has stood firm on retaining Rumsfeld, there is another possibility that could work well in solidifying our nation, AND muting Democratic opposition.

Rumsfeld could tender a resignation (yet remain as an adviser). President Bush could then employ a strategy used successfully by FDR to quell political opposition by the opposing party. FDR accomplished it by naming the very conservative REPUBLICAN Henry Stimson as Secretary of War, a post he held throughout WWII.

Former Senator Sam Nunn could take the post of Secretary of Defense. Nunn, though a Democrat, is for a very strong military, is very strong on national defense, and is currently the co-chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the NTI (Nuclear Threat Initiative), a charitable organization working to reduce the global threats from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

Among his other attributes, Sam Nunn is very opposed to allowing homosexuals in the military (led the opposition against Clinton's plan), voted to allow prayer in public schools, limit death penalty appeals, and for a balanced budget. His presence could mute Democratic opposition. Nunn's knowledge of the issues surrounding the spread of nuclear weapons might also work well in how we address Iran and North Korea.
14 posted on 11/02/2006 1:59:30 PM PST by backtothestreets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kellynla; sittnick
kellynla wrote (8 of 14 ^)
Hey, genius, don't pull some condescending Kerry BS on me.
If you spent half as much time in China as you spend on FR; you would KNOW about the Chicom atrocities occurring there to this day
And if you knew anything about international trade, economics and/or history; America has been negotiating it's geopolitical policies with other countries for decades. Does the word "embargo" ring a bell with you, genius? . While you were working on your doctorate I was killing Commies.
 
Well, well, what do we have here, the Pot calling the Kettle black? uh-huh, I think so.
 
FYI, my comments were not meant to be condescending in nature; I was only stating what should be the obvious.
 
So many here on FR seem to believe that US hegemony will continue on for eternity and therefore they make statements such as, "Why are will still trading with them?" as well as other comments that basically amount to, "Well, we'll just take our ball and go home" and such outlooks just aren't realistic given the current state of world affairs and a shifting in the balance of power coupled with increasing economic interdependency.
 
You really should give more thought when formulating comments about someone whom you know nothing about. If the "commies" you were out killing are in reference to Northern Vietnamese, not only was I NOT pursuing my PhD, I wasn't even born yet. Now while you're up there on your high-horse, I'll thank you for your service to this country. I have a great deal of respect for those (their service) who have served before me, those who served WITH me and those who continue to serve this nation in our Armed Forces.  (hint..hint...you're not the only one to have served this great nation).
 
kellynla also wrote (8 of 14 ^)
And if not for "dummies" like me; "geniuses" like you would be speaking Japanese, German, Russian or Chinese today! But don't bother to thank me for my service..."doctor?" LMAO
 
I wasn't the one who called you a "dummy", those were your words.
 
I guess you just weren't fast enough, because as Sittnick mentioned, I have spent a great deal of time living in and out of China. I speak, read and write Chinese. I've studied Chinese Foreign and Security Policy and I've dedicated a fair amount of my time to studying Chinese History as well as internal political affairs. I am well aware of the atrocities that have taken place under the communist occupation of China and though I don't consider myself an expert on China, I'd venture to say that I'm far more informed on issues pertaining to that country and its relations with the United States than you are.
 
kellynla further wrote: (10 of 14 ^)
and whatever time your "doctor" spent in China;
your "doctor" apparently didn't learn much...but whatever your "doctor's" "credentials"; his/her first response to a post shouldn't be condensation.
The "doctor" should learn some manners!
Why don't you take a little of your own advise there, bitter baby. If you don't welcome such responses to your posts as the one I left, perhaps you'd do better to leave your knee-jerk comments out of the title and just post the article as it was written.
 
Good day.

15 posted on 11/02/2006 5:02:52 PM PST by Dr. Marten (http://thehorsesmouth.blog-city.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sittnick

Thanks for the comments, sittnick.

Oh, and as a matter of fact, it just so happens that I DO love Dr. Martenz. ;-)

They're my favorite shoes!


16 posted on 11/02/2006 5:03:57 PM PST by Dr. Marten (http://thehorsesmouth.blog-city.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Marten
"I'd venture to say that I'm far more informed on issues pertaining to that country and its relations with the United States than you are?"

think again


"bitter baby?"

more condescension
I am not a "baby" to you or anyone else on this planet. And I am certainly not "bitter."


"When all else fails, call people condescending names when you don't have any documentation to back up your position"(Leftist Playbook)

Learn some respect for your elders and some manners before you address me again.
17 posted on 11/02/2006 5:41:06 PM PST by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
kellynla wrote (8 of 16 ^):
If you spent half as much time in China as you spend on FR; you would KNOW about the Chicom atrocities occurring there to this day.
 
Ooops. I almost forgot.  You should have taken a look at the links in my profile before making that comment. Apparently, researching something or someone before commenting about them just isn't your cup of tea, eh?

18 posted on 11/02/2006 5:42:08 PM PST by Dr. Marten (http://thehorsesmouth.blog-city.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Marten

What part of "Learn some respect for your elders and some manners before you address me again" don't you comprehend.


19 posted on 11/02/2006 5:46:50 PM PST by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
kellynla wrote (17 of 18 ^):
"I'd venture to say that I'm far more informed on issues pertaining to that country and its relations with the United States than you are?"

think again
Oh, my. What a stunning comeback. I guess providing details to support your "arguments" aren't exactly your cup of tea either?
"bitter baby?"

more condescension
I am not a "baby" to you or anyone else on this planet. And I am certainly not "bitter."
 
Actually, the condescending remarks started with your response to my initial comments on this thread. As for not being a bitter baby, your comments seem to suggest otherwise.
"When all else fails, call people condescending names when you don't have any documentation to back up your position"(Leftist Playbook)
 
Again, I wasn't the one who initiated the petty name-calling (see your initial response) and still, the closest I've come yet is my reference to you as a "bitter baby".

Learn some respect for your elders and some manners before you address me again.
Here's a little something you obviously didn't pick up in basic training or anywhere else in life: Respect is not something you can demand; it's something that has to be earned.
If you want respect, you have to give it.

20 posted on 11/02/2006 5:58:24 PM PST by Dr. Marten (http://thehorsesmouth.blog-city.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

To: All

Without pointing fingers yet, this thread will return to rational discourse. Or else.

That is all.


22 posted on 11/02/2006 6:12:15 PM PST by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

With Wal-Mart now and selling 70% Chicom-made products, the chance that the gummint will mess with the Chicom UN situation are nil, zero, nada! The gummint will also fail to mess with the Ruskies, a "democratic nation" with confirmed commies still in charge who are reviving their past mistakes.


23 posted on 11/02/2006 6:21:08 PM PST by Paulus Invictus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOP_1900AD
However, less well known is the extensive outsourcing of software development to Russia. Let's just say, I have been intimately involved in this.

What matters is the total size of this. Your limited personal perspective is not very relevant. Do you have the relevant numbers? Of course not.

24 posted on 11/02/2006 7:02:31 PM PST by A. Pole (Saint Augustine: "The truth speaks from the bottom of the heart without the noise of words")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

Challenge back to you ... what do you know about the numbers?


25 posted on 11/06/2006 5:41:37 PM PST by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Take Back The GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Putin is heading Russia right back to the era of the USSR but this time it's corporate in addition to being military, with the use of proxies (Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc).


26 posted on 11/18/2006 12:11:44 AM PST by M. Espinola (Freedom is not free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson