China: Political solution best for Syria

China: Political solution best for Syria

There are 76 comments on the CNN story from Oct 31, 2012, titled China: Political solution best for Syria. In it, CNN reports that:

An international envoy working to forge peace in Syria huddled with China's foreign minister on Wednesday over the Arab nation's long-running civil war.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CNN.

Syrian

Waterford, CT

#25 Nov 3, 2012
AZN wrote:
<quoted text>You post mostly nonsense, just for the sake of posting.
I stick by my argument about the F-22.
And when did I say the taliban was secular.
The west could have cared less about the Taliban's atrocities and dictatorial rule. Had 9/11 not stung America in the rear end.
I was pointing out the west's hypocrisy.
Why does the west not put similar pressure on Saudi Arabia?
Which does not have any democracy at all. It is a dark age theorocratic state where the ruling elite govern with autocratic powers.
Why no calls for freedom and democracy here?
And what about that wonderful "Democracy" in Qatar?
AZN

Toronto, Canada

#26 Nov 3, 2012
I can read wrote:
<quoted text>
You still claim the f22 is a less effective aircraft than one which doesn't even exist?
Wow.
Also:
<quoted text>
That's where you claimed the taliban are secular.
Are you related to RIF? He's a moron too..........
Are you braindead?

Or do you have the habit of deliberately misconstruing any argument you disagree with?

The Taliban was not secular in any way. But the west would never have touched the Taliban, regardless of their human rights violations. Had they not played some role in executing 9/11.

The west only took action against the taliban, because they had threatened the west. Otherwise they would still be in power today. And the west could give a toss if the taliban went on an endless murder spree.

I can't make any valid comment on the J-20 and J-31. As these two aircraft are still in the experimental stage and undergoing tests.

Their actual capabilities will be known, once the first combat ready prototypes are rolled out.

But the F-22 is a piece of junk. It is not yet combat operational, despite being officially inducted into the US military several years ago.
AZN

Toronto, Canada

#27 Nov 3, 2012
Syrian wrote:
<quoted text> And what about that wonderful "Democracy" in Qatar?
Yes Qatar as well.

And all the other oil rich sheikdoms of the gulf region.

I believe they are all related to the ruling Al-Saud family of Saudi Arabia.
I can read

Edinburgh, UK

#28 Nov 3, 2012
AZN wrote:
<quoted text>Are you braindead?
Or do you have the habit of deliberately misconstruing any argument you disagree with?
The Taliban was not secular in any way. But the west would never have touched the Taliban, regardless of their human rights violations. Had they not played some role in executing 9/11.
The west only took action against the taliban, because they had threatened the west. Otherwise they would still be in power today. And the west could give a toss if the taliban went on an endless murder spree.
I can't make any valid comment on the J-20 and J-31. As these two aircraft are still in the experimental stage and undergoing tests.
Their actual capabilities will be known, once the first combat ready prototypes are rolled out.
But the F-22 is a piece of junk. It is not yet combat operational, despite being officially inducted into the US military several years ago.
Like most western weapons technology the F-22 is massively overpriced and thus for the money is massively undereffective.

You can buy 10 F-16's for the price of one F-22 and if you sent 10 F-16 up against 1 F-22 the falcons would win, every single time.

Having said that, the f-22 is clearly the best fighter aircraft on earth and the US enjoys a good advantage in aviation techonolgy. It is this advantage that China is trying to minimise by making the J-31 in the first place.

Traditionally China overcomes any technological weakness on the battlefield with sheer numbers. In the J-31 it is trying something new.

If the F-22 was so useless, why is China going against their traditional doctrine in order to attempt to build a similar weapon?

“China Seas Pirate Gangs”

Since: Jul 12

Taizhou, Jiangsu, China

#29 Nov 3, 2012
China Communist can not even select the best solution for Tibet Land.

Immolation were the answers for now.
Toronto Obeserver

Canada

#30 Nov 3, 2012
old china wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me see, China promotes the idea of a political solution whereas the USA and their lapdogs are foaming at the mouth because they can't come up with a excuse to join in the slaughter but are happily backing foreign terrorists with weapons and safe havens.
Syria is a trap man better stay out of it . China should be concentrating more on Africa where it has vital interests.
Toronto Obeserver

Canada

#31 Nov 3, 2012
I can read wrote:
<quoted text>
Like most western weapons technology the F-22 is massively overpriced and thus for the money is massively undereffective.
You can buy 10 F-16's for the price of one F-22 and if you sent 10 F-16 up against 1 F-22 the falcons would win, every single time.
Having said that, the f-22 is clearly the best fighter aircraft on earth and the US enjoys a good advantage in aviation techonolgy. It is this advantage that China is trying to minimise by making the J-31 in the first place.
Traditionally China overcomes any technological weakness on the battlefield with sheer numbers. In the J-31 it is trying something new.
If the F-22 was so useless, why is China going against their traditional doctrine in order to attempt to build a similar weapon?
I dont think the USA has any edge over china with some new planes, you dont really know the Chinese capability in addition to their strategic location .

China Today is the largest trading partner of Africa , Middle east and Central Asia where more than 60% of the worlds energy resources exist .
Toronto Obeserver

Canada

#32 Nov 3, 2012
AZN wrote:
<quoted text>Are you braindead?
Or do you have the habit of deliberately misconstruing any argument you disagree with?
The Taliban was not secular in any way. But the west would never have touched the Taliban, regardless of their human rights violations. Had they not played some role in executing 9/11.
The west only took action against the taliban, because they had threatened the west. Otherwise they would still be in power today. And the west could give a toss if the taliban went on an endless murder spree.
I can't make any valid comment on the J-20 and J-31. As these two aircraft are still in the experimental stage and undergoing tests.
Their actual capabilities will be known, once the first combat ready prototypes are rolled out.
But the F-22 is a piece of junk. It is not yet combat operational, despite being officially inducted into the US military several years ago.
You should not be saying the West , it was the united states first that placed the Taliban in Afghanistan and replaced a secular afhgan government there in the 1980s during Reagan administration .

If the USA had not supported Taliban back in the 1980s then 9/11 would have not happened and we could have saved much effort and time in not dealing with Radical Islam Today .
Toronto Obeserver

Canada

#33 Nov 3, 2012
RayH wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait, let me get this straight...West is backing al-Qaeda terrorist to overthrow the Syrian government, so they can see up another Taliban-style Afghanistan? Remember bin Laden?
Not all the Syrian government and Rebels are that bad , both sides have moderates . The only way is to form a joint coalition between syrian regime moderates and secular rebels while removing the radical islamist elements out .

Both sides need to compromise and I am sure the secular rebels would rather deal with seculars of the current syrian regime rather than the fucked up radical islamists.

You know syria is a corrupted country with high unemployment rate , it does not have an efficient leadership like China .

Anyway I respect the Chinese government proposal and hope it will work out , as for the united states , I certainly condone their support for islamist rebels in Syria .
Avenger

Waterloo, Canada

#35 Nov 3, 2012
Toronto Obeserver wrote:
<quoted text>
You should not be saying the West , it was the united states first that placed the Taliban in Afghanistan and replaced a secular afhgan government there in the 1980s during Reagan administration .
If the USA had not supported Taliban back in the 1980s then 9/11 would have not happened and we could have saved much effort and time in not dealing with Radical Islam Today .
There was no Taliban in the the 1980's.

The movement originating from Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-run religious schools for Afghan refugees in Pakistan also developed in Afghanistan as a politico-religious force in 1991.
The Taliban's first major military activity was in 1994.
AZN

Toronto, Canada

#36 Nov 3, 2012
Toronto Obeserver wrote:
<quoted text>
You should not be saying the West , it was the united states first that placed the Taliban in Afghanistan and replaced a secular afhgan government there in the 1980s during Reagan administration .
If the USA had not supported Taliban back in the 1980s then 9/11 would have not happened and we could have saved much effort and time in not dealing with Radical Islam Today .
Exactly the point I was trying to make. Which <I can read> just doesn't want to get into his cranium.

America and buddy Britain are repeating the same shit in Syria today. Which they did in Afghanistan during the 1980s.
old china

Chengdu, China

#37 Nov 3, 2012
Syrian wrote:
<quoted text> LOL! If it wasn't so pathetic it would be laughable! Western style "foreign policy" is a joke.
I'm sure it isn't funny to those who are on the receiving end of 'humanitarian' assistance.
old china

Chengdu, China

#38 Nov 3, 2012
Syrian wrote:
China wants the West to stay the hell out of Syria and the Middle East as well!
I think China wants the West to stop the never ending slaughter by promoting dialogue and reason rather than force political solutions onto a country simply because they won't become lap dogs.

Dictators are seemingly acceptable if they are lap dogs and the sanctity of national sovereignty has been rendered an illusion which is why the world breeds an unending supply of terrorists along with WMDs. It seems as if a stalemate has been reached so perhaps a return to reason and common sense is the only way forward.
Toronto Obeserver

Canada

#39 Nov 3, 2012
Avenger wrote:
<quoted text>
There was no Taliban in the the 1980's.
The movement originating from Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-run religious schools for Afghan refugees in Pakistan also developed in Afghanistan as a politico-religious force in 1991.
The Taliban's first major military activity was in 1994.
What was biladen doing there during that time ? playing card ?
Toronto Obeserver

Canada

#40 Nov 3, 2012
AZN wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly the point I was trying to make. Which <I can read> just doesn't want to get into his cranium.
America and buddy Britain are repeating the same shit in Syria today. Which they did in Afghanistan during the 1980s.
Assad is not either a proper leader , he has destroyed syria economically which lead today to the uprising your seeing there now. There is no solution to this civil war unless Assad leaves and a coalition is formed between seculars from opposition and syrian regime .

Either both sides work together or simply divide syria into a sunni and alawi states.

You cant blame the USA for whats happening in Syria now , it all started from within syria then the USA jumped in when Assad failed to finish up the civil war there.
Avenger

Waterloo, Canada

#41 Nov 3, 2012
Toronto Obeserver wrote:
<quoted text>
What was biladen doing there during that time ? playing card ?
Did i embarrass you by your lack of knowledge?
lct

Beijing, China

#42 Nov 3, 2012
George wrote:
<quoted text>
NOPE, but all should remember China is not Hong Kong, big difference.
so how much money you wish to lost in Hong kong?

HK dallor is now half peged with US dollar, half peged with yaun, BTW.

You don't have enough money to lose.:)

that is why they hate CCP so much.:)
Toronto Obeserver

Canada

#43 Nov 3, 2012
old china wrote:
<quoted text>
I think China wants the West to stop the never ending slaughter by promoting dialogue and reason rather than force political solutions onto a country simply because they won't become lap dogs.
Dictators are seemingly acceptable if they are lap dogs and the sanctity of national sovereignty has been rendered an illusion which is why the world breeds an unending supply of terrorists along with WMDs. It seems as if a stalemate has been reached so perhaps a return to reason and common sense is the only way forward.
The west is not really interested in Syria , its only the USA playing games over there .

I think the best way is having the current syrian vice president running the country in a 2 year transition period with a coalition government between moderates of Syrian regime and secular rebels .

Assad really must leave syria , he will never be able to rule it anymore , large factions of the syrian nation are against him .
Toronto Obeserver

Canada

#44 Nov 3, 2012
Avenger wrote:
<quoted text>
Did i embarrass you by your lack of knowledge?
The mugahideens of the 1980s were the ones who made up Taliban , have you never heard of operation cyclone ?

United States has always been in alliance with Radical Islam starting with Saudi Arabia .
Syrian

Waterford, CT

#45 Nov 4, 2012
I can read wrote:
<quoted text>
Like most western weapons technology the F-22 is massively overpriced and thus for the money is massively undereffective.
You can buy 10 F-16's for the price of one F-22 and if you sent 10 F-16 up against 1 F-22 the falcons would win, every single time.
Having said that, the f-22 is clearly the best fighter aircraft on earth and the US enjoys a good advantage in aviation techonolgy. It is this advantage that China is trying to minimise by making the J-31 in the first place.
Traditionally China overcomes any technological weakness on the battlefield with sheer numbers. In the J-31 it is trying something new.
If the F-22 was so useless, why is China going against their traditional doctrine in order to attempt to build a similar weapon?
China just wants to show off its technological prowess. These weapons are basically obsolete when dealing with a nuclear power like China. It would be suicidal for any nation to attack China.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories - Syria Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News After deal, IS allowed to leave Syria-Lebanon b... Aug '17 Jeff Brightone 1
News Haley says warning to Syria also aimed at Russi... Jun '17 Ms Sassy 1
News Israeli minister reportedly says it is time to ... (May '17) May '17 James 1
News Syria after the war: What an effective, inclusi... (May '17) May '17 James 1
News Syria's chemical program: Rubio 'gravely concer... (Apr '17) Apr '17 Death on 2 Legs 3
News US, Russia trade claims on chemical weapons in ... (Apr '17) Apr '17 Frogmouth Trump 46
News Tillerson in Moscow, getting in line with Haley... (Apr '17) Apr '17 Bryan Fischer s H... 1
More from around the web