FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

World War Three: Inside the War Room

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

This World - World War Three: Inside the War Room

A committee of senior former British military and diplomatic figures comes together to war-game a hypothetical 'hot war' in eastern Europe.

Forget all your cheesy Hollywood 'horror'. THIS is the stuff of nightmares.

I used to consider myself lucky not to have been old enough to worry about the Cold War going hot back in the day, but now, with the situation in the Crimea, the Russian invasion of Georgia in the early 2000s, the possibility of war breaking out between NATO and Russia is at its highest since the end of the Cold War.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06zw32h/this-world-world-war-three-inside-the-war-room

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I highly doubt WW3 (if there ever is one) will be with Russia.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

My uncles clued up and thinks exactly the same loads of stuff goin on with russia at minute im with you on this one mate

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rishman75Man
over a year ago

Chessington/epsom

I think it will start in Israel and spread like wild fire and then we are all fecked !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I highly doubt WW3 (if there ever is one) will be with Russia."

Take a look at what's happening on Europe's Eastern borders. It isn't scaremongering. It isn't a Tom Clancy novel. It's a very real possibility. Both NATO and Russia have been organising vast military exercises on each side of the border. Both sides increasing defense spending. Putin has one of the highest popularity ratings of ANY world leader. He is viewed as a powerful father figure, almost like the old communist leaders were. The rise of nationalism in Russia is unprecedented. How can one nation get away with annexing another? Hitler did it to Austria in the 30s, and look what happened then. The West knows that Russia isn't the rusting hulk of outdated industry, military and society it was 20 years ago...

And if it isn't Putin rattling his sabre and flexing his annexing muscles, there's also China's military expansionism, creating illegal island bases in the South China Sea to think about. Read up on that, it truly is shocking.

I don't think the world has been as close to the sort of conflict that could break out right now, as it was back in the days of the Cold War tbh.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Posted the thread quite late last night, so giving it a bump, because it would be interesting to get people's opinions on both the documentary and the situation as a whole

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rightonsteveMan
over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

Maybe world war four will be fought with bows and arrows.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Einstein couldn't have been wrong...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Sounds like scaremongering to me.

Of course there will be another war at some point in the future. Of course. This obsession with "world wars" however, I don't quite understand. The world is not set up in the same way as it was in the early part of the 20th century. The great military powers are not the same as they once were. Quite frankly, Russia is not what it once was.

There are bigger things at work in the world. There are bigger and more important players than Russia. If you want to worry about something, worry about what is going to happen when China calls in its debts and the US (and other countries) don't have the money to pay.

Focusing on Russia is like looking at a mirage in the desert.

In my opinion, of course. If you want a better informed discussion, ask Marc.

-Courtney

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Sounds like scaremongering to me.

Of course there will be another war at some point in the future. Of course. This obsession with "world wars" however, I don't quite understand. The world is not set up in the same way as it was in the early part of the 20th century. The great military powers are not the same as they once were. Quite frankly, Russia is not what it once was.

There are bigger things at work in the world. There are bigger and more important players than Russia. If you want to worry about something, worry about what is going to happen when China calls in its debts and the US (and other countries) don't have the money to pay.

Focusing on Russia is like looking at a mirage in the desert.

In my opinion, of course. If you want a better informed discussion, ask Marc.

-Courtney"

I absolutely would not consider Russia to be a 'mirage in the desert'. Putin has increased defense spending exponentially for the past 10 years. New ICBMs, new strategic bombers, to name a couple of the assets being beefed up. These aren't assets used to fight small counter insurgency wars or defeat islamist terrorist organisations. These are oldskool nation destroying weapons.

You're right about China though, and that just adds to what I said about their alarming expansionist tendencies.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

Intra-state conflicts are the new black

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Sounds like scaremongering to me.

Of course there will be another war at some point in the future. Of course. This obsession with "world wars" however, I don't quite understand. The world is not set up in the same way as it was in the early part of the 20th century. The great military powers are not the same as they once were. Quite frankly, Russia is not what it once was.

There are bigger things at work in the world. There are bigger and more important players than Russia. If you want to worry about something, worry about what is going to happen when China calls in its debts and the US (and other countries) don't have the money to pay.

Focusing on Russia is like looking at a mirage in the desert.

In my opinion, of course. If you want a better informed discussion, ask Marc.

-Courtney

I absolutely would not consider Russia to be a 'mirage in the desert'. Putin has increased defense spending exponentially for the past 10 years. New ICBMs, new strategic bombers, to name a couple of the assets being beefed up. These aren't assets used to fight small counter insurgency wars or defeat islamist terrorist organisations. These are oldskool nation destroying weapons.

You're right about China though, and that just adds to what I said about their alarming expansionist tendencies."

"Oldskool" was the most relevant part of your reply. Because that is exactly what Russia is. Wars aren't fought like that anymore. Russia doesn't have the economy to support the type of war you are claiming it is getting ready for. And if they did fight, it would be with the US. There wouldn't be a comparison.

No. I think this is focusing on the wrong problem.

-Courtney

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *c-ukMan
over a year ago

Sevenoaks

Everything has a shelf life, even humanity.. With some of the sickness that reins in our "Humanitarian" World then an outsider may say that's all we deserve. Just think no more jealousy, greed, racism, religion, murder... should I go on!!

In the words of Morrissey.. Come Armageddon, Come Armageddon, Come Armageddon.. Come!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


""Oldskool" was the most relevant part of your reply. Because that is exactly what Russia is. Wars aren't fought like that anymore. Russia doesn't have the economy to support the type of war you are claiming it is getting ready for. And if they did fight, it would be with the US. There wouldn't be a comparison.

No. I think this is focusing on the wrong problem.

-Courtney"

Yes but we're heading back towards an 'oldskool', Cold War style situation here, hence using that term.

Russia currently has over 300 ICBMs (and rising, according to Putin himself), 180 strategic bombers, over 500 interceptors. These are strategic weapon systems.

The world is heading back to the way it was in the mid 80s. Forces being built up near the borders, 'puppet' states militaries being beefed up (Poland, the Baltics, Hungary), all these interceptions happening over the North Sea (even off the coast of sunny little Bournemouth, a few months ago haha).

Honestly, just give that documentary a watch. Even if it doesn't change your mind, it's a bloody interesting watch

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


""Oldskool" was the most relevant part of your reply. Because that is exactly what Russia is. Wars aren't fought like that anymore. Russia doesn't have the economy to support the type of war you are claiming it is getting ready for. And if they did fight, it would be with the US. There wouldn't be a comparison.

No. I think this is focusing on the wrong problem.

-Courtney

Yes but we're heading back towards an 'oldskool', Cold War style situation here, hence using that term.

Russia currently has over 300 ICBMs (and rising, according to Putin himself), 180 strategic bombers, over 500 interceptors. These are strategic weapon systems.

The world is heading back to the way it was in the mid 80s. Forces being built up near the borders, 'puppet' states militaries being beefed up (Poland, the Baltics, Hungary), all these interceptions happening over the North Sea (even off the coast of sunny little Bournemouth, a few months ago haha).

Honestly, just give that documentary a watch. Even if it doesn't change your mind, it's a bloody interesting watch "

Thanks for the tip. Maybe I will watch it with Marc later.

I still disagree with you, though. I think a lot of people who lived through the cold war see everything through that lens and then make documentaries...get into politics... start wars...based on old ideas and principles.

Many of the weapons you mention wouldn't be all that important in a modern war. That is exactly my point. Anyway, as I said, if you want a better informed discussion then I will direct you to Marc. He knows all about this nonsense. Maybe I'll direct him to this thread when we gets home from work.

-Courtney

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

On a side-note; my school was a 5min drive from NATO HQ in one direction, and all the main EU institutions in the other.

I would probably have been one of the first to be obliterated had WW3 broken out back in the day ha

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

WW3 has already started, although this is a religious war, whilst nazism is on the increase, mirroring ww2 on the uprising of hitlers party. For example, SD in Sweden is now the largest party which no one would ever believe.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *sianmale89Man
over a year ago

Stockport

I can some what understand the OP's point of view/concern but however since the beginning of the human race man kind has been fighting/killing one another in one form or the other for thousands off years..

if it's not going to be something as horrific as WW3 then it could be something else much much worser then we can ever imagine, might as well just embrace/make peace with the inevitable that sooner or later all hell is going to break loose and were going to be smack in the middle off it if were still alive and kicking.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ub_liminalTVTV/TS
over a year ago

Belfast

Hasn't Putin been outed as a child molester?

Litvinenko the..murdered Russian spy had evidence he had little Russian orphan boys brought to a flat in Moscow to molest and abuse?

That disturbing pic of him kissing that little boys naval and declaring he wanted to "stroke him like a kitten "..

Putin is Loonie tunes.. Who knows.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

I know BBC 3 is hardly a beacon of knowledge, but I found this documentary interesting, especially giving an insight into how popular Putin is at the moment:

'Reggie Yates' Extreme Russia: Far Right and Proud'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05r844j

Cult of personality, basically...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury


"Hasn't Putin been outed as a child molester?

Litvinenko the..murdered Russian spy had evidence he had little Russian orphan boys brought to a flat in Moscow to molest and abuse?

That disturbing pic of him kissing that little boys naval and declaring he wanted to "stroke him like a kitten "..

Putin is Loonie tunes.. Who knows. "

Rootin', tootin', tiger-shootin' Putin?

Lovely fella

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/18/chechen-leaders-closest-allies-issue-online-threats-to-liberal-opponents

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *sianmale89Man
over a year ago

Stockport


"I know BBC 3 is hardly a beacon of knowledge, but I found this documentary interesting, especially giving an insight into how popular Putin is at the moment:

'Reggie Yates' Extreme Russia: Far Right and Proud'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05r844j

Cult of personality, basically...

"

watched bits of it, seemed interesting will watch more later and reggie yates seemed to have done a decent job reporting on it. the way some off the far right marchers/neo nazis were being described to reggie as being killers and what they did with their victims was disturbing but expected to in a sense.

yes the political reach goes deep in there as shown, there are always two sides to things but this was giving an insight from one point of view.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

watched bits of it, seemed interesting will watch more later and reggie yates seemed to have done a decent job reporting on it. the way some off the far right marchers/neo nazis were being described to reggie as being killers and what they did with their victims was disturbing but expected to in a sense.

yes the political reach goes deep in there as shown, there are always two sides to things but this was giving an insight from one point of view."

Takes a certain variety of cojones, being the only black, foreign guy in a 5000 strong nationalist march

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *sianmale89Man
over a year ago

Stockport


"

Takes a certain variety of cojones, being the only black, foreign guy in a 5000 strong nationalist march "

Indeed it was, then again he was with a camera crew and in public view as well as having a police presence came in handy too.

I wonder if more documentaries like the one you shared with us will be made by the BBC. I better search the web for various documentaries I might come across like this as I find it interesting.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

OP, no offence but your analysis sounds like it comes from whatever the left wing version of the daily mail is.

War gaming is a routine part of military planning and there's nothing unusual about this one. Most large corporations have even borrowed the concept, it's that common.

China is expansionist now? Remind me of the last time they invaded and occupied another country?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

In about, what 20 years, according to reasonable assumptions on scientific data available... Well there's a good chance we won't be around to see a ww3 start!.

There's currently about 200 species a day going extinct which is about 6 to 7 times it's normal rate.... Six great die offs have occurred through history, I think most reasonable people looking at the facts would conclude the 7th is inevitable and really is about when not if!.

As strange as it may seem, a nuclear war could just be life's best chance at carrying on!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *opinovMan
over a year ago

Point Nemo, Cumbria


"China is expansionist now? Remind me of the last time they invaded and occupied another country? "

Oh, there's no doubt china has an axpansionist agenda, and has since the 1950s when it annexed Tibet - sure, that wasn't helped by Britain refusing to recognize (and encouraging others countries do likewise) Tibet for the sake of its own ambitions there, but that's another topic and doesn't alter what China did.

China continues to act on every opportunity to expand its sphere of interest, including threatening any Taiwan for moves towards full independence and building new islands and tactical bases in the South China Sea near the Philippines.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if, should North Korea step over the line (or 38th parallel), china will step in under the guise of keeping the regime under control - probably in the correct assumption that the US won't move to block them.

Then there's China's expanding interests in Africa, where huge infrastructure projects primarily to facilitate mineral extraction have been presented as 'aid' - a rather clever move, it must be said, in taking advantage of the US and European disinterest in the continent.

There's no doubt that China has expansionist ambitions.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rightonsteveMan
over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

I think the next world war will be an economic war fought in cyber space, manipulating share prices and withholding essential things like water supplies and energy.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think the next world war will be an economic war fought in cyber space, manipulating share prices and withholding essential things like water supplies and energy. "
.

We've been in a world currency war for twenty years already!

Markets are and have been manipulated for 20 years or more.

Resource wars, well were in the middle of them already!.

I really think the risk between Russia and the west is completely overblown!, we have a long history with them and very good protocols set in place to avert a nuclear war... And it would be a nuclear war, any other type is unthinkable.

The real troubled hotspots are the ones rarely getting attention like China/Japanese relations or the Iran/Saudi or more to the point and probably the one to kick off most is Pakistan/India

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ub_liminalTVTV/TS
over a year ago

Belfast


"Hasn't Putin been outed as a child molester?

Litvinenko the..murdered Russian spy had evidence he had little Russian orphan boys brought to a flat in Moscow to molest and abuse?

That disturbing pic of him kissing that little boys naval and declaring he wanted to "stroke him like a kitten "..

Putin is Loonie tunes.. Who knows.

Rootin', tootin', tiger-shootin' Putin?

Lovely fella

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/18/chechen-leaders-closest-allies-issue-online-threats-to-liberal-opponents"

https://youtu.be/gBzJGckMYO4

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"China is expansionist now? Remind me of the last time they invaded and occupied another country?

Oh, there's no doubt china has an axpansionist agenda, and has since the 1950s when it annexed Tibet - sure, that wasn't helped by Britain refusing to recognize (and encouraging others countries do likewise) Tibet for the sake of its own ambitions there, but that's another topic and doesn't alter what China did.

China continues to act on every opportunity to expand its sphere of interest, including threatening any Taiwan for moves towards full independence and building new islands and tactical bases in the South China Sea near the Philippines.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if, should North Korea step over the line (or 38th parallel), china will step in under the guise of keeping the regime under control - probably in the correct assumption that the US won't move to block them.

Then there's China's expanding interests in Africa, where huge infrastructure projects primarily to facilitate mineral extraction have been presented as 'aid' - a rather clever move, it must be said, in taking advantage of the US and European disinterest in the continent.

There's no doubt that China has expansionist ambitions."

Laughable analysis. Pick up a history book ffs.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Nothing laughable about the Chinese illegally creating artificial island airbases in international waters, threatening anything and anyone that comes within 10 miles of them with being blown out of the water/shot out of the sky.

What's that if it isn't military expansionism?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 04/02/16 19:36:31]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Look up the Spratly Islands (or Nansha as the Chinese have called them), Paracel Islands, South China Sea in general ffs

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Look up the Spratly Islands (or Nansha as the Chinese have called them), Paracel Islands, South China Sea in general ffs"

Oh the irony of someone from sicily calling China expansionist because of Tibet!

Look up the war in the Iraq, the British Empire, the rape of nanking, the opium wars, Guantanamo bay and why the league of nation's collapsed before you assume the moral high ground.

Double-think at its best. George Orwell would be proud of your achievement.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *sianmale89Man
over a year ago

Stockport


"Look up the Spratly Islands (or Nansha as the Chinese have called them), Paracel Islands, South China Sea in general ffs"
oooh I didn't know about that, I knew the Chinese have their own bases and shady techniques but I didn't really know much about the international waters thing. You learn something new everyday this I must look up

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Look up the Spratly Islands (or Nansha as the Chinese have called them), Paracel Islands, South China Sea in general ffs oooh I didn't know about that, I knew the Chinese have their own bases and shady techniques but I didn't really know much about the international waters thing. You learn something new everyday this I must look up "

OK well look up the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar while you're at it. Then read a little history and see which asian country has invaded and occupied more countries than all the other asian countries combined (here's a clue, it ain't China or India)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *sianmale89Man
over a year ago

Stockport


"

OK well look up the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar while you're at it. Then read a little history and see which asian country has invaded and occupied more countries than all the other asian countries combined (here's a clue, it ain't China or India) "
yeah erm here is the thing I do read up on history as I have always found it to be an interesting subject also secondly don't start thinking or talking to me like I'm taking sides or condemning china etc I was just interested by the ops revelation of the bases they have on those islands he mentioned.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think the point he's making is... Were throwing stones while we live in glass houses

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think the point he's making is... Were throwing stones while we live in glass houses"

That and China is just about the epitome of a defensive country. It's basically spent it's whole history fighting off invaders or pursing a policy of isolation. It's possibly the least expansionist country you could pick. It's foreign policy is basically designed to stop another mass rape from Japan, which is historically one of the most expansionist countries you could find. Old habits die hard.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

I'm at work so can't really get any more into this right now, but it wasn't me who mentioned Tibet.

Also, who are they 'defending' themselves against? The Philippines, which has less of a defense budget than the State of Alaska? Or Japan? A constitutionally pacifist nation (although that's about to change)? That powerhouse that is Vietnam perhaps? It sounds more and more by your posts that you're in denial. There is absolutely nothing defensive about creating and claiming land, thousands of miles away from China in the middle of the ocean.

P.S. It's no use giving me examples of British colonialism as a counter argument. I consider myself more European than British and have 'only' lived here 10 years...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'm at work so can't really get any more into this right now, but it wasn't me who mentioned Tibet.

Also, who are they 'defending' themselves against? The Philippines, which has less of a defense budget than the State of Alaska? Or Japan? A constitutionally pacifist nation (although that's about to change)? That powerhouse that is Vietnam perhaps? It sounds more and more by your posts that you're in denial. There is absolutely nothing defensive about creating and claiming land, thousands of miles away from China in the middle of the ocean.

P.S. It's no use giving me examples of British colonialism as a counter argument. I consider myself more European than British and have 'only' lived here 10 years..."

Well would you rather I rolled out the European and Italian examples too, I'm not short on them.

Yes it's defensive against Japan, as I say, read a little history...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'm at work so can't really get any more into this right now, but it wasn't me who mentioned Tibet.

Also, who are they 'defending' themselves against? The Philippines, which has less of a defense budget than the State of Alaska? Or Japan? A constitutionally pacifist nation (although that's about to change)? That powerhouse that is Vietnam perhaps? It sounds more and more by your posts that you're in denial. There is absolutely nothing defensive about creating and claiming land, thousands of miles away from China in the middle of the ocean.

P.S. It's no use giving me examples of British colonialism as a counter argument. I consider myself more European than British and have 'only' lived here 10 years..."

If you don't agree with Tibet then I'm still waiting for the example of who China has ever invaded?

It's like using Wales as an example of Britains desire to reclaim the empire.

By the way, Google 'list of countries occupied by japan' and tell me that China is the expansionist country in that region!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *opinovMan
over a year ago

Point Nemo, Cumbria


"I think the point he's making is... Were throwing stones while we live in glass houses

That and China is just about the epitome of a defensive country. It's basically spent it's whole history fighting off invaders or pursing a policy of isolation. It's possibly the least expansionist country you could pick. It's foreign policy is basically designed to stop another mass rape from Japan, which is historically one of the most expansionist countries you could find. Old habits die hard. "

If you think it is necessary to actually invade a country in order to have ambitions to expand a sphere of influence, then it is you who is in need of a history book.

There's nothing isolationist about modern China - just take a closer look at their trade policy... it's pretty agressive in the kinds of ways and places most western people fail to notice. I don't need to read a book to know about China's activity in Africa, for example, because I've seen it there for myself. If you'd spent as much time there as I have you'd know that, and you'd understand that military conquest is not the only method of expansionexpansion you might also learn how it's possible to be both protectionist and expansionist in this respect.

You might also want to have a closer look at the islands China are creating in waters near the Philippines which a most certainly not within their territory - and maybe look at some of the recent Australian footage of them. While you're at it, why not read a little about encroachment upon disputed islands near Japan.

As for any idea that I thought Britain was squeaky clean, I'd have though my comment about failing to recognize Tibet would have been a clue (but perhaps you missed that particular history lesson).

If you've stumbled across any of my other political posts you'll know I'm also pretty critical of many of the actions of the likes of the US, Saudi, Israel, Russia and the UK (amongst others). Believe it or not, being critical of one country does not preclude being equally (or more) critical of others... I imagine you might encounter that idea in a book too if you look hard enough.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

It's fine to create territory thousands of miles away from your own, in the middle of international waters, and within a 10 minute flight from a nation disputing sovereignty of a set of islands with you because "tough shit", apparently.

This is China and fuck your United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea.... Which they ratified

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think the point he's making is... Were throwing stones while we live in glass houses

That and China is just about the epitome of a defensive country. It's basically spent it's whole history fighting off invaders or pursing a policy of isolation. It's possibly the least expansionist country you could pick. It's foreign policy is basically designed to stop another mass rape from Japan, which is historically one of the most expansionist countries you could find. Old habits die hard.

If you think it is necessary to actually invade a country in order to have ambitions to expand a sphere of influence, then it is you who is in need of a history book.

There's nothing isolationist about modern China - just take a closer look at their trade policy... it's pretty agressive in the kinds of ways and places most western people fail to notice. I don't need to read a book to know about China's activity in Africa, for example, because I've seen it there for myself. If you'd spent as much time there as I have you'd know that, and you'd understand that military conquest is not the only method of expansionexpansion you might also learn how it's possible to be both protectionist and expansionist in this respect.

You might also want to have a closer look at the islands China are creating in waters near the Philippines which a most certainly not within their territory - and maybe look at some of the recent Australian footage of them. While you're at it, why not read a little about encroachment upon disputed islands near Japan.

As for any idea that I thought Britain was squeaky clean, I'd have though my comment about failing to recognize Tibet would have been a clue (but perhaps you missed that particular history lesson).

If you've stumbled across any of my other political posts you'll know I'm also pretty critical of many of the actions of the likes of the US, Saudi, Israel, Russia and the UK (amongst others). Believe it or not, being critical of one country does not preclude being equally (or more) critical of others... I imagine you might encounter that idea in a book too if you look hard enough.

"

Maybe it's terminology we disagree on. My point is that there's a pretty long list of countries you condemn, have you ever considered that this is just the way high politics works?

I subscribe to the realist view of international relations and I'm judging China relative to others, not by some absolute standard of "have they ever done anything naughty". I'm also talking specifically about military action and I consider economic examples to be pretty irrelevant. There are still countries that go around annexing places and invading other countries.

I think you turn a blind eye to history, geography and culture. All of which nudge countries towards certain persuasions. China has one of the oldest cultures on the planet so to judge it entirely on the last 60 years seems very odd to me. A country like Japan with absolutely fuck all resources inherently has to look outside it's borders just to survive. Those are factors that never go away. Just like Russia will never be happy with NATO on its border having been invaded from Europe twice.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's fine to create territory thousands of miles away from your own, in the middle of international waters, and within a 10 minute flight from a nation disputing sovereignty of a set of islands with you because "tough shit", apparently.

This is China and fuck your United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea.... Which they ratified "

Yes the Falklands Islands is tough shit on Argentina but they can have them once we've got all the oil around them.

And yes, fuck the United Nations who didn't do anything to stop the invasion of Iraq, who stood and watched 800,000 Rwandans under their protection get slaughtered and stand there idle doing absolutely nothing about 200,000 people living in holocaust concentration camps in North Korea today. But why expect anything from them? They are just a rehash of the league of nation's who did fuck all when Italy invaded fellow member Ethiopia.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

LOL

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Like I said, if you look in detail the India/Pakistan dispute is much more likely to kick off before anyone else's....

Millions of troops, both sides hold deeply held religious views of opposing ideology, both nuclear, both highly armed, both in dispute over land and neither willing to bend over!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Get "Arnie." on the case, with his "Mobile. Strike." download it from "app..." store, lol.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top