Why not China Contribute Efforts for Anti-Terrorism

[qinglong-china]

I think, the best way to against terrorism is to help them to develop the economy instead of fighting，to help them communicate instead of make trouble. China has been doing so. But wars interrupted the process always.
The Iraq war, the Libya war, the Syria war etc

 

[Zsari]

Actually, if Saddam Hussein had stayed inside Iraq, the current mess in the ME would not be. So blame Iraq.

The 1st Gulf War was over Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and Bush Sr. has the wisdom to keep Saddam in power. The 2nd Gulf War however has nothing to do with Iraq's aggression as it was no longer a threat to any of its neighbor. Do not justify the stupidity of removing Saddam with the so call Iraqi threat, as just like the trumped up charges of WMD and terrorism, are but excuses to fool the public.

 

[gambit]

The 1st Gulf War was over Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and Bush Sr. has the wisdom to keep Saddam in power. The 2nd Gulf War however has nothing to do with Iraq's aggression as it was no longer a threat to any of its neighbor. Do not justify the stupidity of removing Saddam with the so call Iraqi threat, as just like the trumped up charges of WMD and terrorism, are but excuses to fool the public.

Please...

The larger issue, which no surprise that you missed, is that had Saddam Hussein remained inside Iraq's borders, then perhaps none of the mess the in the ME we see today would occur. Had Saddam Hussein remained a dictator inside Iraq's borders, we would have no cause to try to remove him and would deal with him in the same ways we have been dealing with other ME dictatorships. One could also argue that perhaps had we removed Saddam Hussein from power in the first Gulf War, none of the current mess in the ME would occur.

 

[black-hawk_101]

China should give PAA for local assembly FREE of COST:
30-50 Z-10
50-70 Z-9 Attack Versions

Some on Cost to Cost Basis:
110-120 Z-15s
110-120 Z-XX similar to Puma or Mi-17s

 

[Edison Chen]

Like NATO and ME, why not China also put it efforts against terrorism. Like they can easily give away some equipment new and old ones to countries that are fighting terrorism. Like 30-50 Z-10s to PAA. Also to other Muslim and non-Muslim countries.

Unless they have the most direct threat to China's core national interest, China will stay out of trouble.

 

[black-hawk_101]

Unless they have the most direct threat to China's core national interest, China will stay out of trouble.

Terrorism has a direct impact on China too.

 

[Pulsar]

I am talking free to countries like Yemen-Lebanon.

There are no freebies in this world.

For example, Saudi Arabia gifted $1.5 billion to Pakistan. But it wasn't a gift after all. They are now extracting their pound of flesh by asking Pakistan to send their troops and aircraft to fight the Houthis on their behalf in Yemen!

 

[gambit]

Unless they have the most direct threat to China's core national interest, China will stay out of trouble.

Please spare US the self righteousness...

China to send 700 combat troops to South Sudan | World news | The Guardian

China is to send 700 combat troops to South Sudan in what analysts describe as a significant shift from its stated policy of non-interference in African conflicts.

It does not matter if China's involvement is in Africa or in the ME, the moment China stepped out of isolation and that false front of non-interventionist policy, China will be asked to get involved. The world's eyes will be upon China and the hard question of how could China do nothing to protect the current system, no matter how flawed it is, that benefited China in so many ways.

 

[大汉奸柳传志]

Yeah maybe we should.. for girls like Malala and her school
but I Think we are already fighting them by giving them jobs,which might be better in the long run,since killing them by drones seems to be getting nowhere

 

[Akasa]

Please spare US the self righteousness...

China to send 700 combat troops to South Sudan | World news | The Guardian

It does not matter if China's involvement is in Africa or in the ME, the moment China stepped out of isolation and that false front of non-interventionist policy, China will be asked to get involved. The world's eyes will be upon China and the hard question of how could China do nothing to protect the current system, no matter how flawed it is, that benefited China in so many ways.

I don't see how the aforementioned commitment is in any way different from Beijing's previous peacekeeping missions. The troops will not take sides or partake in combat missions, and hence the only difference this time is that infantry units rather than peacekeepers are deployed, the rationale behind which could be attributed to many technical rather than political factors.

 

[Edison Chen]

Please spare US the self righteousness...

China to send 700 combat troops to South Sudan | World news | The Guardian

It does not matter if China's involvement is in Africa or in the ME, the moment China stepped out of isolation and that false front of non-interventionist policy, China will be asked to get involved. The world's eyes will be upon China and the hard question of how could China do nothing to protect the current system, no matter how flawed it is, that benefited China in so many ways.

China is indeed doing something, as a permanent member of UNSC, China surely have the responsibility to keep regional peace. But it is still different from the way if we have strong intervention on their own government's policy making body, China prefers business only. Moderation is the best policy to China, we can't do nothing or get involved too much.

 

[black-hawk_101]

There are no freebies in this world.

For example, Saudi Arabia gifted $1.5 billion to Pakistan. But it wasn't a gift after all. They are now extracting their pound of flesh by asking Pakistan to send their troops and aircraft to fight the Houthis on their behalf in Yemen!

I think $1.5 Billion will be the estimated cost to fight in Yemen for 30-70 days from PA, PAF and PN side; being calculated by GCC.

 

[gambit]

I don't see how the aforementioned commitment is in any way different from Beijing's previous peacekeeping missions. The troops will not take sides or partake in combat missions, and hence the only difference this time is that infantry units rather than peacekeepers are deployed, the rationale behind which could be attributed to many technical rather than political factors.

WRONG...!!! Seriously wrong.

Even old timers in the UN knew -- FOR YEARS -- that peacekeeping missions are about taking sides, even when the governments involved publicly stated they do not. Violence is one way of effecting change and in politically charged conflicts, the denial of violence to one side pretty much mean those who made such denial possible took the side of those who do not want violence or who want violence to counter the wanted change and to make other changes.

The UN is a voluntary organization and as such, it depends on members to contribute all methods of waging armed conflicts, of which peacekeeping is not possible unless there is a credible armed response standing by, and those methods consists of troops and even heavy artillery. The contributing troops wears the colors of their contributing countries, who would not send troops unless those government feels some compelling reasons, usually self interests, to send troops.

Please...

 

[BigDaddyWatch]

If Americans are so stupid to fight other people's wars on the otherside of the world why would China or any other country follow ? Just look at the wars and the mess that America has created in the past 14 years.

America is like a person standing on the edge of a bridge about to jump down and is angrily asking why others are not following.

 

[Akasa]

WRONG...!!! Seriously wrong.

Even old timers in the UN knew -- FOR YEARS -- that peacekeeping missions are about taking sides, even when the governments involved publicly stated they do not. Violence is one way of effecting change and in politically charged conflicts, the denial of violence to one side pretty much mean those who made such denial possible took the side of those who do not want violence or who want violence to counter the wanted change and to make other changes.

In peacekeeping missions much like the ones the Chinese have undertaken, the denial of violence applies to both sides of the conflict, not simply whomever the peacekeepers are at odds with. The military force involved is simply not allowed to choose which side to "deny violence" to, as per the UN mandate.

The UN is a voluntary organization and as such, it depends on members to contribute all methods of waging armed conflicts, of which peacekeeping is not possible unless there is a credible armed response standing by, and those methods consists of troops and even heavy artillery. The contributing troops wears the colors of their contributing countries, who would not send troops unless those government feels some compelling reasons, usually self interests, to send troops.

Please...

Countries like China do set up peacekeeping operations in light of their own interests, but the method by which they chose to do so is drastically different from the approaches taken by, let's say, Saudi Arabia in Yemen. Beijing needs to make sure that its investments in South Sudan's oil fields are unscathed by the war in that country, so it is natural and expected of them to use their military for that purpose. That isn't implicit, however, of any "non-peaceful" undertones that such missions might bring. Their troops do not involve themselves with the businesses of either side of the conflict, a hallmark of the operation that cannot be said of other interventions like the Libyan one.