|
On September 17 2012 04:00 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 03:54 Arcanis wrote:Reading pages of uninformed opinions about who would win in a war between China and the US... people talking about China military being strong that only the US military can surpass it. This is a joke, everyone forgets about nukes? Sure the Cold War is over, but the balance of military powers (or better said who can annihilate faster the enemy) hasnt changed. America is still number one, followed by Russia and then the European block of nations, for god sake even Israel has the same number of nukes as China and surely a better payload delivery system. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weaponsA modern all out war wouldnt be fought by fishing ships full of explosives swarming supercarriers, but it would be won in a few days based on who has the better first-strike and second-strike capability and payload delivery system. Right now China pales in comparison to America, Russia and the EU. But feel free to ignore the importance of nukes in today geopolitical balance of powers and continue fantasizing about a World War 2 like scenario with Marines storming islands on the pacific and whatnot.... Nukes won't be launched for land grabs. Nukes won't be fired against any nation that can fire back. Nukes are a deterrent, and are more likely to be used by terrorist, if anyone ever uses one again. if anyone is out-out-touch it would be you thinking about a MAD (mutually assured destruction) scenario. Might want to look into escalation policies before you spout off against people trying to have a legitimate discussion.
to be honest, you sound like a 14 year old boy with too much of an imagination.
this thread was supposed to be about anti-japan movement in China. perhaps a discussion about the disputed territories and historical fallouts could have taken place. instead, we get this fictional scenarios like a naval armada consisting of fishing boats (with explosives!). which are fun to read, but are derailing the thread heavily.
for god sakes, you started the whole discussion with "the day when they take over is coming", and the first reply you got was somebody calling you out as a racist. i don't know how you got anyone to take you serious after that, but well played
could you leave the thread to others now and perhaps write a blog about ww3? you are very interesting to read...
|
On September 17 2012 04:24 snailz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 02:09 Ventris wrote:On September 17 2012 02:02 sephiria wrote:On September 17 2012 01:58 Ventris wrote:On September 17 2012 01:51 sephiria wrote:On September 17 2012 01:39 Ventris wrote:Europe, esp the EU needs to step up soon. America can't hold forever. I agree, but it will depend on how the unification process continues. The current nation states are to small to finance an efficient military able to operate on a global scale and don't really need it for their political agenda. thats plain wrong. If germany would stop pumping money into israel's military or into the infamous 'kampf gegen rechts' the economic strength of germany and a few other key states (UK and France) would enable the EU to build an incredibly strong army. The problem ist that the german population tends to think that military strength is bad. the prestige of being in the army is extremly low. soldiers are mostly regarded as primitive thugs (not my opinion, just what I observed) Without giving up freedom to the EU (which, if done, will in the end give birth to widespread discontent. You cant just break nation states. Sooner or later they will re-emerge) I also think EUstates need to step up and side with Japan and US to balance out the rising power of China. I'm to much german to think you could build a central state in the french modell and centralize all power in Brussels. But some kind of federation could manage the military far more efficient than it is currently done. ok, I guess I misunderstood you. a unified joint chief of staffs board for joined operations (not joined armys) would be a good idea. efficiency during the syrian crisis was quite low. The whole matter was extremley embarrassing for europe I feel. It's been like this since Yugoslavia collapsed and the EU was unable to stop the massacres in the civil war. I'm proud on Europe in many ways, but military affairs are always a shameful thing to watch <.< there was a civil war in yugoslavia? do tell me more, please.
For Croatia it was a war of independence ofc. I'm referring to the breakup of Yugoslavia, poor choice of words from my side 
|
To be honest, if you wanted to have that discussion, you (and not just you, but me and most of the rest) would shut the heck up. Because no one of us really has an insight in whats going on in the people in japan and china. All we know is spread through news, not "first hand experience" - so we can discuss alot, but sooner or later you need to widen the borders of the discussion, including war as a theme. Maybe not nukes, or "war-tactics" like fishingboats, agreed - but for example the global impact of such a war etc.
Edit: @snailz
|
to be honest, you sound like a 14 year old boy with too much of an imagination.
this thread was supposed to be about anti-japan movement in China. perhaps a discussion about the disputed territories and historical fallouts could have taken place. instead, we get this fictional scenarios like a naval armada consisting of fishing boats (with explosives!). which are fun to read, but are derailing the thread heavily.
for god sakes, you started the whole discussion with "the day when they take over is coming", and the first reply you got was somebody calling you out as a racist. i don't know how you got anyone to take you serious after that, but well played
could you leave the thread to others now and perhaps write a blog about ww3? you are very interesting to read...
Sources were cited, these arn't fictional scenerios.
Rather actual recored statements from both American and Chinese Naval commanders.
I also said I don'th think WW3 would happen. I did ask some question- about how the power vacuum would play out as American has a lower place on the superpower totem pole.
I never said China is going to take over the world- I said I honestly think they are ambitious enough to try.
Way to put words in my mouth and distort the truth
Hey look up a word for me.
"Ad Hominem"
|
What I find incredibly interesing: Everybody is judging the situation by western standards: You shall not kill civilians.
Something tells me China would not care about western moral standards if they thought they are strong enough, however, just because western countries have generally agreed upon demanding acts of atonement from 'sinning' (read: losing) countries does not mean that the same mentality dominates in other regions as well. It is also not set in stone. We currently have a high level of ideology stuff in the world aimed at individualism and human rights, but if (hypothetically) the hegemony of the west would stop (or just be weakened), and chinas or russias or someone else's values would prevail we dont know what would happen. I dont think morality is a development (in terms of progress) but a point of view.
It MIGHT be better for japan not to mess with their textbooks and be nicer to neighbors in this matter, but I feel it would be arrogant to tell them what to do.
On a sidenote: people rarely complain about isael's crimes in the past 60 years, because they are the western base in the ME, they can do whatever they want, human rights dont matter or rather dont apply.
Stating that it is the duty or the obligation, even the 'right thing to do' for japan feels arrogant to me.
What are your thoughts on this?
|
On September 17 2012 04:43 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +to be honest, you sound like a 14 year old boy with too much of an imagination.
this thread was supposed to be about anti-japan movement in China. perhaps a discussion about the disputed territories and historical fallouts could have taken place. instead, we get this fictional scenarios like a naval armada consisting of fishing boats (with explosives!). which are fun to read, but are derailing the thread heavily.
for god sakes, you started the whole discussion with "the day when they take over is coming", and the first reply you got was somebody calling you out as a racist. i don't know how you got anyone to take you serious after that, but well played
could you leave the thread to others now and perhaps write a blog about ww3? you are very interesting to read... Sources were cited, these arn't fictional scenerios. Rather actual recored statements from both American and Chinese Naval commanders. I also said I don'th think WW3 would happen. I did ask some question- about how the power vacuum would play out as American has a lower place on the superpower totem pole. I never said China is going to take over the world- I said I honestly think they are ambitious enough to try. Way to put words in my mouth and distort the truth Hey look up a word for me. "Ad Hominem"
Its a phrase. Not a word.
Also, of course its fictional. It could happen, if xxx. It didnt happen yet. Maybe its not fictional that they said that, but the scenario they described certainly is.
Edit:
On a sidenote: people rarely complain about isael's crimes in the past 60 years, because they are the western base in the ME, they can do whatever they want, human rights dont matter or rather dont apply.
Stating that it is the duty or the obligation, even the 'right thing to do' for japan feels arrogant to me.
What are your thoughts on this?
Coming from germany, i can tell you that you will never hear harsh criticism from a german politician against israel. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago, a pretty prominent guy in germany wrote a critical lyric about israel, and a huge shitstorm started - calling him antisemit etc. In that way, germany did not evolve. Sadly.
|
On September 17 2012 04:43 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +to be honest, you sound like a 14 year old boy with too much of an imagination.
this thread was supposed to be about anti-japan movement in China. perhaps a discussion about the disputed territories and historical fallouts could have taken place. instead, we get this fictional scenarios like a naval armada consisting of fishing boats (with explosives!). which are fun to read, but are derailing the thread heavily.
for god sakes, you started the whole discussion with "the day when they take over is coming", and the first reply you got was somebody calling you out as a racist. i don't know how you got anyone to take you serious after that, but well played
could you leave the thread to others now and perhaps write a blog about ww3? you are very interesting to read... Sources were cited, these arn't fictional scenerios. Rather actual recored statements from both American and Chinese Naval commanders. I also said I don'th think WW3 would happen. I did ask some question- about how the power vacuum would play out as American has a lower place on the superpower totem pole. I never said China is going to take over the world- I said I honestly think they are ambitious enough to try. Way to put words in my mouth and distort the truth Hey look up a word for me. "Ad Hominem"
Out of interest, why do you think China is "ambitious enough to try" to take over the world?
|
On September 17 2012 04:25 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 04:17 m4inbrain wrote:On September 17 2012 04:00 SayGen wrote:On September 17 2012 03:54 Arcanis wrote:Reading pages of uninformed opinions about who would win in a war between China and the US... people talking about China military being strong that only the US military can surpass it. This is a joke, everyone forgets about nukes? Sure the Cold War is over, but the balance of military powers (or better said who can annihilate faster the enemy) hasnt changed. America is still number one, followed by Russia and then the European block of nations, for god sake even Israel has the same number of nukes as China and surely a better payload delivery system. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weaponsA modern all out war wouldnt be fought by fishing ships full of explosives swarming supercarriers, but it would be won in a few days based on who has the better first-strike and second-strike capability and payload delivery system. Right now China pales in comparison to America, Russia and the EU. But feel free to ignore the importance of nukes in today geopolitical balance of powers and continue fantasizing about a World War 2 like scenario with Marines storming islands on the pacific and whatnot.... Nukes won't be launched for land grabs. Nukes won't be fired against any nation that can fire back. Nukes are a deterrent, and are more likely to be used by terrorist, if anyone ever uses one again. if anyone is out-out-touch it would be you thinking about a MAD (mutually assured destruction) scenario. Might want to look into escalation policies before you spout off against people trying to have a legitimate discussion. You may be right for some part, but you forget one tiny thing. Remember what happenend in WW2? Japanese soldiers who suicide themselves in huge numbers to prevent "losing"? Hitler, throwing old men and children, even woman into battles which was like a death sentence? On the verge (maybe spelled wrong) of losing, they wont care anymore. Tell me one thing. Do you think that Hitler would not have used a nuke if he had one? They wont give a fuck about a nuclear war if US/NATO-Troops land on their coast. The only nukes ever fired were a warcrime commited against an already beaten japan, because they could not fire back. When a war folds out in which the US etc are winning, as soon as they dont see a way to win anymore, they will launch. You know why? Because the US could not fire back. Why? Because it would be a warcrime again. You would not hit the guys that launched the nuke, but only civilians. And that shit should lay behind every western country after seeing Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Edit: of course, if there was a war starting. Which i dont believe. Once total war starts there is no such thing as a war crime. Nukes are a total war weapon. This part of the discussion is pointless. A nuke won't ever be used, even if US or China got hit in their respective homelands. Now can we move on from Nukes. The whole ideology is flawed.
Extremely flawed reasoning. This is known as brinksmanship, and it's an ideology that encourages nations to be as aggressive as they think they can be without sparking a nuclear war. Unfortunately not everyone's aim is perfect. Someone will eventually push too far.
Put another way - are you really willing to gamble all of humanity on the notion that the us, china, Japan, and whoever else can have a nice gentlemanly not-total war in spite of the constant incentives to escalate? To see if they can fight just a tad bit closer to that apocalypse threshold and further their chances of winning?
You really think Japan couldn't and wouldn't get and use nukes if it felt threatened enough?
|
On September 17 2012 04:30 Orek wrote:
The way I see it, once you become a sufficiently developed country, basically there are 3 options:
1. No potential enemy/rival in the region
2. Have nukes
3. Ally with a country with nukes
China is 2, Japan is 3 with US being its ally. As long as Japan is not stupid, Japan has to keep US-Japan alliance at all cost. When US-Japan alliance ever ends in, say, 50-100 years time, then I wouldn't be surprised to see China-Japan alliance no matter how difficult it seems from today's situation. I don't see Japan having nukes in the near future because there is no way China accepts it. Therefore, Japan needs either US or China as their partner. Losing US almost automatically means needing China whether they like it or not.
You are way overestimating the difficulty of getting nukes as a sufficiently developed country.
|
On September 17 2012 04:48 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 04:43 SayGen wrote:to be honest, you sound like a 14 year old boy with too much of an imagination.
this thread was supposed to be about anti-japan movement in China. perhaps a discussion about the disputed territories and historical fallouts could have taken place. instead, we get this fictional scenarios like a naval armada consisting of fishing boats (with explosives!). which are fun to read, but are derailing the thread heavily.
for god sakes, you started the whole discussion with "the day when they take over is coming", and the first reply you got was somebody calling you out as a racist. i don't know how you got anyone to take you serious after that, but well played
could you leave the thread to others now and perhaps write a blog about ww3? you are very interesting to read... Sources were cited, these arn't fictional scenerios. Rather actual recored statements from both American and Chinese Naval commanders. I also said I don'th think WW3 would happen. I did ask some question- about how the power vacuum would play out as American has a lower place on the superpower totem pole. I never said China is going to take over the world- I said I honestly think they are ambitious enough to try. Way to put words in my mouth and distort the truth Hey look up a word for me. "Ad Hominem" Its a phrase. Not a word. Also, of course its fictional. It could happen, if xxx. It didnt happen yet. Maybe its not fictional that they said that, but the scenario they described certainly is.
I think hypothetical describes it better, rather than fictional.
|
On September 17 2012 04:43 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +to be honest, you sound like a 14 year old boy with too much of an imagination.
this thread was supposed to be about anti-japan movement in China. perhaps a discussion about the disputed territories and historical fallouts could have taken place. instead, we get this fictional scenarios like a naval armada consisting of fishing boats (with explosives!). which are fun to read, but are derailing the thread heavily.
for god sakes, you started the whole discussion with "the day when they take over is coming", and the first reply you got was somebody calling you out as a racist. i don't know how you got anyone to take you serious after that, but well played
could you leave the thread to others now and perhaps write a blog about ww3? you are very interesting to read... Sources were cited, these arn't fictional scenerios. Rather actual recored statements from both American and Chinese Naval commanders. I also said I don'th think WW3 would happen. I did ask some question- about how the power vacuum would play out as American has a lower place on the superpower totem pole. I never said China is going to take over the world- I said I honestly think they are ambitious enough to try. Way to put words in my mouth and distort the truth Hey look up a word for me. "Ad Hominem"
Jesus christ his post went over your head. His point was that this is a cultural, historical, and social issue. Anything military-related is tangential at best. All these war and Armageddon scenarios are so out there and ridiculous not to mention unrelated. It's easy to bring up random military pissing contests but hard power means little now, it's all about soft power. Seriously, you should make a blog post about your vision for chinese-american conflict, it might be interesting and definitely better placed there.
|
On September 17 2012 04:50 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 04:48 m4inbrain wrote:On September 17 2012 04:43 SayGen wrote:to be honest, you sound like a 14 year old boy with too much of an imagination.
this thread was supposed to be about anti-japan movement in China. perhaps a discussion about the disputed territories and historical fallouts could have taken place. instead, we get this fictional scenarios like a naval armada consisting of fishing boats (with explosives!). which are fun to read, but are derailing the thread heavily.
for god sakes, you started the whole discussion with "the day when they take over is coming", and the first reply you got was somebody calling you out as a racist. i don't know how you got anyone to take you serious after that, but well played
could you leave the thread to others now and perhaps write a blog about ww3? you are very interesting to read... Sources were cited, these arn't fictional scenerios. Rather actual recored statements from both American and Chinese Naval commanders. I also said I don'th think WW3 would happen. I did ask some question- about how the power vacuum would play out as American has a lower place on the superpower totem pole. I never said China is going to take over the world- I said I honestly think they are ambitious enough to try. Way to put words in my mouth and distort the truth Hey look up a word for me. "Ad Hominem" Its a phrase. Not a word. Also, of course its fictional. It could happen, if xxx. It didnt happen yet. Maybe its not fictional that they said that, but the scenario they described certainly is. I think hypothetical describes it better, rather than fictional.
Hm, maybe. In german "fiktiv" (fictional) also means "hypothetisch". So either way, i guess we mean the same.
|
Not saying that these things are irrelevant, but the WW3, nukes, and military topics are derailing the thread...make a seperate one to talk about that stuff.
What I find incredibly interesing: Everybody is judging the situation by western standards: You shall not kill civilians.
Something tells me China would not care about western moral standards if they thought they are strong enough, however, just because western countries have generally agreed upon demanding acts of atonement from 'sinning' (read: losing) countries does not mean that the same mentality dominates in other regions as well. It is also not set in stone. We currently have a high level of ideology stuff in the world aimed at individualism and human rights, but if (hypothetically) the hegemony of the west would stop (or just be weakened), and chinas or russias or someone else's values would prevail we dont know what would happen. I dont think morality is a development (in terms of progress) but a point of view.
Morality unto itself is also an entirely different thread (I think we had one in the past). Our opinions on moral towards biased history books and anti-Japanese protests that are borderline dangerous aren't things that a 3rd party bystander can judge. Same goes for anything in Israel or any other part of the world. I do not question that part of the protests, because things happen for different reasons, and the reasons and the history that caused these protests in the first place cannot be changed in the blink of an eye. Therefore, it would be best just to acknowledge that there is bad blood between the two nations rather than to justify whose history is morally upright and whose is morally evil.
That being said, why is the chinese government allowing these protests to go so far when all the other ones basically get shut down without the rest of the world ever knowing the other protests existed? From a PR point of view, this is basically prodding Japan to make the first military or political move and having the rest of the world point their guns and eyes at Japan rather than China.
From a military point of view, this is even dumber cause you don't want to harass a nation that has US backing. Even if the Chinese military is stronger, a war between the strongest militaries would just open up the door for other nations to become the next global superpowers. Lose-lose for China either way.
And if this is truly just a nationalistic statement, China sure has one hell of a way of showing it.
|
On September 17 2012 04:46 sephiria wrote:
What I find incredibly interesing: Everybody is judging the situation by western standards: You shall not kill civilians.
Something tells me China would not care about western moral standards if they thought they are strong enough, however, just because western countries have generally agreed upon demanding acts of atonement from 'sinning' (read: losing) countries does not mean that the same mentality dominates in other regions as well. It is also not set in stone. We currently have a high level of ideology stuff in the world aimed at individualism and human rights, but if (hypothetically) the hegemony of the west would stop (or just be weakened), and chinas or russias or someone else's values would prevail we dont know what would happen. I dont think morality is a development (in terms of progress) but a point of view.
It MIGHT be better for japan not to mess with their textbooks and be nicer to neighbors in this matter, but I feel it would be arrogant to tell them what to do.
On a sidenote: people rarely complain about isael's crimes in the past 60 years, because they are the western base in the ME, they can do whatever they want, human rights dont matter or rather dont apply.
Stating that it is the duty or the obligation, even the 'right thing to do' for japan feels arrogant to me.
What are your thoughts on this?
I complain about Israel's crimes all the time. I don't think its all that rare either, particularly outside the US.
|
On September 17 2012 05:05 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 04:46 sephiria wrote:
What I find incredibly interesing: Everybody is judging the situation by western standards: You shall not kill civilians.
Something tells me China would not care about western moral standards if they thought they are strong enough, however, just because western countries have generally agreed upon demanding acts of atonement from 'sinning' (read: losing) countries does not mean that the same mentality dominates in other regions as well. It is also not set in stone. We currently have a high level of ideology stuff in the world aimed at individualism and human rights, but if (hypothetically) the hegemony of the west would stop (or just be weakened), and chinas or russias or someone else's values would prevail we dont know what would happen. I dont think morality is a development (in terms of progress) but a point of view.
It MIGHT be better for japan not to mess with their textbooks and be nicer to neighbors in this matter, but I feel it would be arrogant to tell them what to do.
On a sidenote: people rarely complain about isael's crimes in the past 60 years, because they are the western base in the ME, they can do whatever they want, human rights dont matter or rather dont apply.
Stating that it is the duty or the obligation, even the 'right thing to do' for japan feels arrogant to me.
What are your thoughts on this? I complain about Israel's crimes all the time. I don't think its all that rare either, particularly outside the US.
I am German, you cant say anything not-nice about anyone who is remotely connected to israel or judaism (even if the matter is unconnected) here
in the case of the US: might be because they dont want to be dragged into a war against iran? I dunno
|
Political correctness has to be the worst of plagues of the 21st century. Forcing opinions unto other people is wrong, no matter how "moral" your view is. What's ironic is the fact that some people that are from past colonial powers are coming from their high horses and explaining how imperialism is bad, but also how their country's imperialism was better.
I am assuming that this political correctness thing developed most in Western-like civilization countries that have had a shady past, and have quite some things to atone for. Ok, you've had a revelation, repentance is your solution for dealing with your past - don't force it upon others.
Japan probably won't repeat its errors anytime soon, but not because of the nagging coming from the "moral" crowd, but probably because they realize that there's no benefit in them.
|
Japan is , unsurprisingly, not the most popular country with its asian neighbours. riots like this really are not that uncommon , even in Korea or the Phillipin islands. I wouldnt lose sleep over it.
|
On September 17 2012 04:46 sephiria wrote:
What I find incredibly interesing: Everybody is judging the situation by western standards: You shall not kill civilians.
Something tells me China would not care about western moral standards if they thought they are strong enough, however, just because western countries have generally agreed upon demanding acts of atonement from 'sinning' (read: losing) countries does not mean that the same mentality dominates in other regions as well. It is also not set in stone. We currently have a high level of ideology stuff in the world aimed at individualism and human rights, but if (hypothetically) the hegemony of the west would stop (or just be weakened), and chinas or russias or someone else's values would prevail we dont know what would happen. I dont think morality is a development (in terms of progress) but a point of view.
It MIGHT be better for japan not to mess with their textbooks and be nicer to neighbors in this matter, but I feel it would be arrogant to tell them what to do.
On a sidenote: people rarely complain about isael's crimes in the past 60 years, because they are the western base in the ME, they can do whatever they want, human rights dont matter or rather dont apply.
Stating that it is the duty or the obligation, even the 'right thing to do' for japan feels arrogant to me.
What are your thoughts on this?
I mentioned this a little bit eariler when I was making a call to action to the EU. As America continues to decline, either EU will step up or China will. China has what the "west" considers horrible treatment of the masses. China has been condemned over and over for it's lack of humanitiarian efforts.
It really comes down to, would you want to live under more westernized values or Eastern.
for me it's easy, I want more human treatment for all. My values would be good for the East as well, but they may not see it that way.
Out of interest, why do you think China is "ambitious enough to try" to take over the world?
Short version, History repeats itself. China has a huge history of aggression--now that may be simply because it is so old, esp compared to only a small lowly 200 year existance of America.
I however, again keeping it to the point, find that historically China is the most imperialistic nation in the East. That combined with Darwinism, is how I draw my conclusion. The slightly longer version, still short is this:
China is prospering under a largly American run world, why are they building up arms? How is America in any way-economically, militaristiclly, etc messing with China. China is cheating on our Chinese-American trade deals and we say nothing. We grow their economy buy taking loans from them. Why is China who is prospering from our relations trying to get a military power equal (maybe superior) than ours? They arn't threatened by anyone- so what's the deal?
Extremely flawed reasoning. This is known as brinksmanship, and it's an ideology that encourages nations to be as aggressive as they think they can be without sparking a nuclear war. Unfortunately not everyone's aim is perfect. Someone will eventually push too far.
Put another way - are you really willing to gamble all of humanity on the notion that the us, china, Japan, and whoever else can have a nice gentlemanly not-total war in spite of the constant incentives to escalate? To see if they can fight just a tad bit closer to that apocalypse threshold and further their chances of winning?
You really think Japan couldn't and wouldn't get and use nukes if it felt threatened enough?
No, the line has already been drawn in the sand. You launch a nuke, we launch. That's the line of brinkmanship.(never heard that term before) Again this all goes back to MAD. Also in Modern Warfare there arn't back and forth swings, wars are incredibly one sided. I'm not sure if we will ever see a non-total war engagement that takes more than 6 months to conclude.
|
Why is China who is prospering from our relations trying to get a military power equal (maybe superior) than ours? They arn't threatened by anyone- so what's the deal?
Coming from a soldier working for the largest/strongest combat force in the world by several magnitudes. Maybe ever thought about the fact that you are considered a threat?
|
On September 17 2012 05:39 SayGen wrote:
I however, again keeping it to the point, find that historically China is the most imperialistic nation in the East.
No, just the most successful.
Japan, Korea, Vietnam, etc. were all just as imperialistic when things favored them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
