China Ultimatum to US? 'Any Attack on Pakistan is Attack on China'

Submitted for the tearing apart that will no doubt take place on a story such as this. From a report in the Economic Times:

China has "warned in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China", The News daily quoted diplomatic sources as saying.

The warning was formally conveyed by the Chinese foreign minister at last week's China-US strategic dialogue and economic talks in Washington, it said.

For his part, Gilani reiterated Pakistan's support for its policy of 'One China' and said his country fully supports China on the issues of Taiwan and Tibet.

During her briefing today Jiang skirted questions about Pakistan-China signing new defence agreements. Asked about assertions by Pakistan's Ambassador to China Masood Khan before Gilani's arrival that new defence deals would be signed, she said the two sides signed agreements in economy, technology, finance and energy resources.

"As to specific cooperation, please refer to relevant companies," she said, adding that China is actively implementing pledges to help pro-disaster reconstruction and exerting utmost to help tide over difficulties."

articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com...

Political posturing or serious intent to prevent any further attacks in the country? And if serious, then why didn't China retaliate for all the US drone attacks in Pakistan and the attack on the "Bin Laden" compound?

Or is China upset over recent warnings from Ron Paul that the US could attempt to invade Pakistan?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well here Webster Tarpley freaks out on the situation in this radio broadcast on May 21:


He says when super powers issue ultimatums against other super powers, the time is drawing near to war- citing several historical examples.

Some have said that the US has only 10% of its projection force extended at this time- implying that a ground invasion of Pakistan would be possible.

But the US has other war problems at the moment- in that the UK has been talking about a withdraw of forces in the middle east. So could the US go it alone or with few NATO backers on such an assault?

And what about US public support for such an action? Slim to non existent? Considering the "change" that was supposed to happen with Obama promising on his campaign trail to end the war the day he took office- and the brutal fact that US soldiers are still being killed everyday- I just don't see it. But could our leaders be so bold, flat out stupid, and so full of themselves that they would dare attack two nuclear powers under the guise of fighting terrorism?

I think we already know the answer to that question. The supposed Bin Laden killing may have just been the false flag, setting up a supposed reason to attack Pakistan- in that they were again, supposedly "harboring and protecting Bin Laden." The rumors are already swirling that US high command is pissed about that, and wants further retribution.

Ron Paul may not have been so far off the mark after all. Then again, he never usually is.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Scary times indeed. Our leaders need to come to terms with the fact we the people are tired of war. Our allies and their citizens are tired of this perpetual cycle we seem to be stuck in. People are talking openly about the constant sword rattling going on in Washington. This administration needs to wake up to the fact they are inciting Americans on a daily basis, and the outcome will be dire for our nation.

China has drawn a line in the sand, and I feel we should not cross it. It seems our elected officials are ignoring the real concerns of the people, and maintaining the course toward disaster for our nation. How in God's name do we stop this madness? I don't have an answer, but I pray each day that people will come together and find the solution.

Thank you for your work and effort on this most important post. God Bless America!

This is simply just China throwing a little bit of their weight around, with no real backing.

If we attacked Pakistan, fortunately China wouldn't do a damn thing. Just like we need China, China needs us even more. Secondly, our military is still far superior and nuclear war.. well we both know both governments are too wise to breach that anytime soon.

Even simpler, we wouldn't attack Pakistan. Pakistan is indeed a threat, but it will not be attacked with force. If we want to take Pakistan off the map, it will be an operation from the inside out (via CIA replacing the gov't or something along those lines). We can't come close to risking war with a nuclear country like Pakistan.

There is a thread somewhere on ats about this I think, not trying to be the "thread here" person. Just sayin there is some info from our fellow ats'rs here. But I am half drunk, heading to bed (cuz I missed the rapture and all) so I will let you guys/gals search

Well with that Chinese general stating how China couldn't beat the U.S, I wonder if that was true? Maybe he was told to say that, the Chinese would never outright state they could be beat, let alone the country that is in debt to them.

Go China!

reply to post by _WC2_


I think that many countries including the USA should be concerned about the tidal wave of soldiers that would roll over any aggressor. A conventional war would result in massive loss on both sides regardless of technology, it is the mindset of the Chinese, similar to the Russians in WW2.

Number of Chinese people involved in the military in 2008

Active Military Personnel: 2,255,000
Active Military Reserve: 800,000
Active Paramilitary Units: 3,969,000

Most of the paramilitaries would be poorly armed but they do what they are told to do regardless of the outcome.

reply to post by _WC2_


Don't think China would make empty threats - I really don't, as they are all about saving face.

As for dropping 'Hiroshimas' They won't - it will be HUGE Earthquakes they'll be sending - it's already started.

You don't need a Tin Hat mate - you need a BUNKER - God help us all - it gets more evident every day.

Its yet again Indian newspaper creating the havoc. I really dont buy it since I've seen a number of similar false reports flooded by the Indian media after the Osama episode.

reply to post by Seekeye2



US and China have huge economic interests to avoid any potential conflicts. The real question is who desparately needs who ?
China has two major strengths. It being the factory house for the West as well as the huge dollar reserve holdings.

Now any move by China to damage US/West through either of these will result in huge losses to China as well.
The victor would be the one emerging with the least losses. I think China would have better chances of coming out less hurt.

A double salvo of dumping the dollar reserves and cutting off all chinese goods (from Walmart supplies to iPads, iPhones, all laptops, electronics) would potentially bring the West to its knees. This would cause social unrest throughout the world.
If China can control its internal situation tightly, then it doesnt have to really worry about any short term economic damage. But this is a big risk for China of course.
We are living in interesting times.

reply to post by saycheese


Which is exactly why the Chinese would never attack the US unless they were directly threatened.

Are you really going to try to prove that China is militarily superior to the US? Don't go down that road.. lol.

Seekeye-
As for China 'sending earthquakes'.. snap back into reality buddy. Do yourself a favor and grab a meaningful publication that explains exactly what goes on in China and Asia (maybe the Economist?), instead of reading all this conspiracy flap that will never come to fruition.

Double.

[color=dodgerblue]Politics and international affairs are reminding more and more of children on the playground.

'Did too!'

'Did not!'

'Mess with Billy and you are messing with me!'

'He hit me!'

'She hit me first!'

The U.S. needs to back the hell off of everyone and mind their own business. If another country is having a problem, let them figure it out.

I am all for disaster relief though.

reply to post by Timetraveller


Makes you wonder doesn't it? I can't see how the US could ever win a conventional war of attrition with China. Over 3 million active and reserve troops alone. Which side do you believe would escalate a war like that first to tactical nukes, or even strategic nukes?

I think the US probably would, knowing they couldn't beat those sheer numbers.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by Timetraveller

 

Makes you wonder doesn't it? I can't see how the US could ever win a conventional war of attrition with China. Over 3 million active and reserve troops alone. Which side do you believe would escalate a war like that first to tactical nukes, or even strategic nukes?

I think the US probably would, knowing they couldn't beat those sheer numbers.

TA, it ain't about the numbers. The first persian gulf war the Iraqis outnumbered us and it was over in 48 hrs. Strictly conventional warfare between US and China= not much of a contest. Of course if it is in Pakistan then we do have the logistical supply chain slowing us down, but it's still a win for the US. Our military is much more technologically advanced compared to theirs.

Of course with the stupidity that we have in D.C., TPTB think that also and feel like they should just sacrifice some soldiers for their own gains.

I read a fascinating article about kissingers views on china this week, he believes a hot war between the 2 powers is possible. I can't think of a single human better qualified to speak on the subject.

I have to think the US won't risk provoking china over terorrists now that they have the guy they wanted.


on the other hand, if you feel war is inevitable, you need to be able to demonize your enemy and inspire patriotism, so using pakistan to those ends is plausible, and china is only getting stronger by the year

oy

reply to post by TrueAmerican


True American this has nothing to do with fighting terrorism this has everything to do with oil, the life blood of an industrial economy. Oil production has been basically flat since 2005 and with China's massive population and economic boom they are now the largest energy user on the planet. To continue growth and bring better life styles to their poor laboring citizens they will rely on the oil from Iran. If they do not receive this oil from Iran, China's massive energy problem would become so big it would result in the economic collapse of that country, causing 1.2 billion Chinese to get pretty angry at their government.

Now we know China needs Iran's oil but how will they get it? They use pipelines through Pakistan, if the U.S military successfully cuts China off from this oil it will basically be a economic preemptive strike against China. So China will do everything possible in my opinion; to stop the U.S from invading Pakistan and threatening their energy supply.

This article is ridiculous. Has anyone actually read it? It's a propaganda threat started by that webster tarpley blogger who thinks he has inside knowledge and blatantly gets his own facts wrong. I'm sorry but stories like this are only created to incite fear. He is a pure mimic of Alex Jones.

reply to post by retiredTxn


I think our leaders are only interested in "what we think" during the critical weeks before an election. They will tell the public anything to get a vote. Once elected, they do as they please.. often flipping us off, figuring (and history shows correctly) the public will forget, and re-elect them after they again tell the voters "what they want to hear".

This political "theater" has been in place for a number of years now.. with TV and other media as the vehicle for the con game. I don't see any change coming as the Kinderdigi are more easily deceived today. To be sure there are some bright kids around, but just a few. Most are consumed by pop culture and the current POTUS is an Idol.

reply to post by TrueAmerican

lets all just get along with each other why war after all we are all human