Nuclear Deal Is Dead? Iran Distances Itself Further From ND, Alarming Russia And France

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 11/9/2019 at 1:51 AM, Zhong Lu said:

Korean war.  MacArthur and that whole Yalu thing.

If you put thousands of your troops on another countries' soil without permission, that means "invasion."  

America at its time had reasons for these invasions and bombings.  I'm not saying these invasions were wrong or unjustified.  But they were invasions according to the definition and meaning of the word.

North Korea invaded the South on 25 June 1950, and swiftly overran most of the country. In September 1950 United Nations force, led by the United States, intervened to defend the South, and following the Incheon Landing and breakout from the Busan Perimeter, rapidly advanced into North Korea. As they neared the border with China, Chinese forces intervened on behalf of North Korea, shifting the balance of the war again. Fighting ended on 27 July 1953, with an armistice that approximately restored the original boundaries between North and South Korea.^[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_conflict

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Yup.  First North Korea invaded South Korea.  Then the US and UN invaded North Korea in retaliation.  Then the Chinese intervened and invaded South Korea.  

Lots of invasions happened in that war.  

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Zhong Lhu, I guess you think that we were bad for South Korea, they should be under communist tyranny. 

Edited November 13, 2019 by ronwagn

[Zhong Lu + 845]

No, no, the US effort in South Korea was definitely justified.  Never said it was a "bad" war. 

Nonetheless, it was still an invasion when MacArthur crossed deep into NK.  He could have just stopped 100 miles into North Korea and called it a day.  Would have saved everyone a lot of effort.  

Edited November 13, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

On 11/12/2019 at 2:22 AM, remake it said:

The initial decisions to invade are what counts, as distinct from whom may later be drawn into conflicts to "legitimize" the transgression, because unless you use that approach the Axis nations can say they never used their own initiative but acted in concert, or that Finland were as bad as the Nazis in that they joined them to fight the Russians.

HOPELESS!!!!

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

On 11/9/2019 at 3:50 PM, Zhong Lu said:

My point is this: if a cruddy little day trader in the US can reach this conclusion, you can bet your mother many of the mullahs have reached this conclusion, too.  

It is currently in Iran's best interests to get a nuke.  The only question is: how.  

You are making the assumption that the “cruddy little day trader in the US” reached a realistic conclusion based on facts.

Since the US has never invaded ANY other sovereign nation, on it’s own accord, your conclusion lacks a factual foundation.

You can reach any conclusion you want if you manufacture the ‘facts’.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

1. The US has invaded Iraq.  Considered by most at the time as a sovereign nation.  

2.  Bombed Serbia and Libya.  Both sovereign nations.

3.  Invaded North Korea during the Korean war.  

4.  Tried to invade Cuba.

5.  And of course WWII.  

Make all the excuses that you want, but the US is very very warlike, just as warlike as Russia.  If I used  your Kafkaesque definition of "sovereign" and "invasion" I could just as easily argue Russia has never invaded a sovereign nation on its own accord, too.  

Edited November 13, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

24 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

1. The US has invaded Iraq.  Considered by most at the time as a sovereign nation.  

2.  Bombed Serbia and Libya.  Both sovereign nations.

3.  Invaded North Korea during the Korean war.  

4.  Tried to invade Cuba.

5.  And of course WWII.  

Make all the excuses that you want, but the US is very very warlike, just as warlike as Russia.  If I used  your Kafkaesque definition of "sovereign" and "invasion" I could just as easily argue Russia has never invaded a sovereign nation on its own accord, too.  

Your view of history and what qualifies as an invasion is skewed and does not fit the facts.

That is all I will say. Believe what you want and carry on.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

An invasion is a military offensive in which large numbers of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory owned by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering; liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory; forcing the partition of a country; altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government; or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, be a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself. Due to the large scale of the operations associated with invasions, they are usually strategic in planning and execution.^{[citation needed]}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

Your argument and your problem appears to be with wikipedia.  If you're so passionate about this, how about you go to the wiki page and change it? If you can convince enough people, I'm sure it'll stick.  

Edited November 13, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

On 11/12/2019 at 2:39 AM, Jan van Eck said:

@Douglas Buckland, you are talking to the handler of a Chinese AI Bot.   Just ignore the pest. 

Haha Douglas "Remake It" lured you in too!

The penny has finally dropped with me that the only way to respond to the bot and its handler is NOT to respond but to ignore.

If you respond regardless of how inane its message is then the bot has won!

It has taken the 2 wise sages on here Jan & Tom to finally wake me up and see this, thank you gentlemen!

Edited November 13, 2019 by Rob Plant

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

Haha Douglas "Remake It" lured you in too!

The penny has finally dropped with me that the only way to respond to the bot and its handler is NOT to respond but to ignore.

If you respond regardless of how inane its message is then the bot has won!

It has taken the 2 wise sages on here Jan & Tom to finally wake me up and see this, thank you gentlemen!

Sad but true.... I’m done with this.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

2 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

The penny has finally dropped with me that the only way to respond to the bot and its handler is NOT to respond but to ignore.

If you respond regardless of how inane its message is then the bot has won!

 

31 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Sad but true.... I’m done with this.

 

But Jello can be amusing to watch bounce and wiggle

[canadas canadas + 136]

Russia being alarmed at Iran going nuclear is probably no different than China being alarmed at a nuclear North Korea.  I don't really believe it. 

Sometimes we forget that Shiite Muslim Iran has a next door neighbor to its east that is nuclear armed and that is Sunni Muslim Pakistan. If I were Pakistan I would be concerned about being sandwiched between nuclear India to its east and nuclear China to its northeast and a potential nuclear Iran to its west.  Thus, this is quite a nuclear conflict potential area.

Edited November 13, 2019 by canadas canadas

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

56 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 

 

But Jello can be amusing to watch bounce and wiggle

I am guessing a low threshold for entertainment...😂

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

If you respond regardless of how inane its message is then the bot has won!

I'll give you 48 hours ... 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

3 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

I'll give you 48 hours ... 

Nope I'm done

Finally learned my lesson

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

2 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Nope I'm done

Finally learned my lesson

Don't worry, I believe you, even if DT doesn't.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

MI6 chief warns the world is at its most dangerous since the end of the Cold War

https://news.sky.com/story/mi6-chief-warns-the-world-is-at-its-most-dangerous-since-the-end-of-the-cold-war-11860125

26 minutes ago, canadas canadas said:

Sometimes we forget that Shiite Muslim Iran has a next door neighbor to its east that is nuclear armed and that is Sunni Muslim Pakistan. If I were Pakistan I would be concerned about being sandwiched between nuclear India to its east and nuclear China to its northeast and a potential nuclear Iran to its west.  Thus, this is quite a nuclear conflict potential area.

Couldnt agree more, its this area of the world we have to worry about as they are the true extremists.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

11 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

1. The US has invaded Iraq.  Considered by most at the time as a sovereign nation.  

2.  Bombed Serbia and Libya.  Both sovereign nations.

3.  Invaded North Korea during the Korean war.  

4.  Tried to invade Cuba.

5.  And of course WWII.  

Make all the excuses that you want, but the US is very very warlike, just as warlike as Russia.  If I used  your Kafkaesque definition of "sovereign" and "invasion" I could just as easily argue Russia has never invaded a sovereign nation on its own accord, too.  

America never invaded Canada or Mexico except in self defense. Both would have been very easy to overcome. We made the Gadsen Purchase and settled the Canadian American border peacefully. We purchased Alaska from Russia and made the New Orleans purchase. Texas may be up for debate but we had Texicans on our side. 

We never had anything like the Soviet Union which was ruled by Russia and included many individual and sovereign nations!

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Actually, America has invaded Mexico and Canada, but that was early on in its history so I'll give it a pass.  My main point is that Douglas's definition of "invasion" is so distorted that a Russianphile could use it to argue that Russia has never invaded anyone, either.  After all, when USSR sent its troops into Afghanistan, it was done as "part of a coalition" (the coalition of the Soviet Republics) and so according to Douglas's definition of "invasion" this means it is not an "invasion."  

Edited November 13, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Marcin + 519]

On 11/12/2019 at 10:56 AM, remake it said:

Isn't the issue that perhaps many here see that China is not equal - in fact "less than" - but China may see itself greater than, and this underlying reality has not escaped the many here?

This the big problem, nobody mentioned it here before.

Both Chinese and American people, have the same distinct feature that differentiates them from much or all of humanity.

They think that their countries are exceptional and it can lead to people themselves thinking about themselves as

Übermensch

Like they both read this delusional lunatic Nietsche.

Leaders of both countries are increasing nationalism: Xi Jinping with his Chinese Dream and China being the strongest country in 2049, and US Presidents often say something like " God bless America, the greatest country on Earth"

This feature is also caused by history and present day of both countries: both were (or are) the strongest countries for a very long time. China because of 3000 years of its written history ( during 2500 of them was largest economy) and recent, last 30 years sudden rise in power. USA because of recent 100 years of global hegemony.

Rising nationalism&"exceptionalism" of both China and USA is also dangerous from the other point of view.

Think if they will start co-operating in the future, dividing the world between them to the benefit of 2 countries and detriment of the rest of humanity. Nobody could say NO.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

11 hours ago, Marcin said:

This the big problem, nobody mentioned it here before.

Both Chinese and American people, have the same distinct feature that differentiates them from much or all of humanity.

They think that their countries are exceptional and it can lead to people themselves thinking about themselves as

Übermensch

Like they both read this delusional lunatic Nietsche.

Leaders of both countries are increasing nationalism: Xi Jinping with his Chinese Dream and China being the strongest country in 2049, and US Presidents often say something like " God bless America, the greatest country on Earth"

This feature is also caused by history and present day of both countries: both were (or are) the strongest countries for a very long time. China because of 3000 years of its written history ( during 2500 of them was largest economy) and recent, last 30 years sudden rise in power. USA because of recent 100 years of global hegemony.

Rising nationalism&"exceptionalism" of both China and USA is also dangerous from the other point of view.

Think if they will start co-operating in the future, dividing the world between them to the benefit of 2 countries and detriment of the rest of humanity. Nobody could say NO.

Precisely the reason we need a strong EU.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

11 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Precisely the reason we need a strong EU.

But it isnt and its extremely unlikey to be in the near future

11 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

dividing the world between them to the benefit of 2 countries and detriment of the rest of humanity. Nobody could say NO.

As Marcin says nobody could say no!

12 hours ago, Marcin said:

Leaders of both countries are increasing nationalism: Xi Jinping with his Chinese Dream and China being the strongest country in 2049, and US Presidents often say something like " God bless America, the greatest country on Earth"

Agreed but this would have applied pretty much throughout history. History shows that being the strongest country in the world is cyclical. Mongol Empire, Roman Empire , British Empire etc etc they all would have been Nationalistic and only concerned for their own interests and not the betterment of the world as a whole.

Show me an example where this wasn't the case???

In 50 years time we (not me I'll be dead so wont care) may be talking about the rise of Russia to be the dominant global power, who knows? They are also very Nationalistic and so is there current leader! All can be dangerous in my opinion if they enforce their ideologies on other countries.

[remake it + 288]

17 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

History shows that being the strongest country in the world is cyclical. Mongol Empire, Roman Empire , British Empire etc etc they all would have been Nationalistic and only concerned for their own interests and not the betterment of the world as a whole.

Show me an example where this wasn't the case???

This is a bit confusing as empires are not "nationalistic", nor are they necessarily driven by megalomania, however some definitely saw their their actions as bringing "civiliszation" to the rest of the world and in a fashion their "power" was not their driving force.

[Marcin + 519]

30 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Agreed but this would have applied pretty much throughout history. History shows that being the strongest country in the world is cyclical. Mongol Empire, Roman Empire , British Empire etc etc they all would have been Nationalistic and only concerned for their own interests and not the betterment of the world as a whole.

Show me an example where this wasn't the case???

In 50 years time we (not me I'll be dead so wont care) may be talking about the rise of Russia to be the dominant global power, who knows? They are also very Nationalistic and so is there current leader! All can be dangerous in my opinion if they enforce their ideologies on other countries.

Historical position of China is unique. Since the earliest population estimates available  (400 BC Wariring States Period) population of Chinese civilization was around 25% (with variations in -5%/+10% range). Chinese civilization meant as a group of people using common language, having common system of beliefs and centralized bureaucracy. No other example of such country, Chinese geography is simply unique.

In short no other example of civilization of that longevity and size.

Roman Empire with longevity of about 400 years, the most stable is still ephemeral by Chinese standards. It is the only example of Empire with common Roman soul. All other examples brought by you were loose, colonial structures lasting 200 years at best.

To be hegemonic country like US, China or Roman Empire you need decent population. US population is very small only 4.5% of global. So the population mark is around 5% at least, plus centralized country with common soul, sense of destiny.

Today only China, US have this characteristic. India is still loose association of nations and languages, with recent efforts to unify them around hindu nationalistic agenda.

Other countries (including Russia, Japan, Britain, Germany, Indonesia) are too small or bad geography.

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by Marcin
typo