Register on the forum now to remove ALL ads + popups + get access to tons of hidden content for members only!
vintage erotica forum vintage erotica forum vintage erotica forum
vintage erotica forum
Home
Go Back   Vintage Erotica Forums > Discussion & Talk Forum > General Discussion & News
Best Porn Sites Live Sex Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Notices
General Discussion & News Want to speak your mind about something ... do it here.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 31st, 2014, 06:28 PM   #61
savage560
Banned!
 
savage560's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: the south US near the west from Chicagoland born in the USA,just like the song says!
Posts: 3,719
Thanks: 13,008
Thanked 24,480 Times in 3,630 Posts
savage560 100000+savage560 100000+savage560 100000+savage560 100000+savage560 100000+savage560 100000+savage560 100000+savage560 100000+savage560 100000+savage560 100000+savage560 100000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody1 View Post
Why should they use an obsolete technology that has never worked ? Each passive radar makes stealth completely ineffective. The Chinese know that.
[/URL]

From what I have read it states they are "working" on that premise.Any proof for certain they have attained that goal?
savage560 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1st, 2014, 12:57 AM   #62
Nobody1
Veteran Member
 
Nobody1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,119
Thanks: 16,786
Thanked 22,139 Times in 2,127 Posts
Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SanteeFats View Post
Please be so kind as to support this opinion with some facts.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/...-peace-treaty/

http://www.endthekoreanwar.org/index...th-north-korea

You can easily find more on this topic if you want.
Nobody1 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Nobody1 For This Useful Post:
Old June 1st, 2014, 01:53 AM   #63
seany65
Vintage Member
 
seany65's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,625
Thanks: 79,977
Thanked 32,525 Times in 3,503 Posts
seany65 100000+seany65 100000+seany65 100000+seany65 100000+seany65 100000+seany65 100000+seany65 100000+seany65 100000+seany65 100000+seany65 100000+seany65 100000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody1 View Post
Edit : One more thing. Stealth is a first strike weapon concept and China has no first strike doctrine. They never had one.

Wikipedia :

'Of the nuclear powers, only the People's Republic of China and the Republic of India have declarative, unqualified, unconditional no-first-use policies. In 1982, at a special session of General Assembly of United Nations, the USSR pledged not to use nuclear weapons first, regardless of whether its opponents possessed nuclear weapons or not.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-emptive_nuclear_strike
They may have had a no first strike policy then (if you believe it, why would they tell anyone their military strategy?) but no-one can gaurantee that the policy won't change later, or hasn't already changed.
__________________
<-- That's Emer Kenny and I want to be stuck in her front bottom.
Quote from electrofreak : I'd rather have questions that can't be answered, than answers that can't be questioned.
seany65 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to seany65 For This Useful Post:
Old June 1st, 2014, 02:24 AM   #64
dethtongue
Vintage Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 596
Thanks: 1,896
Thanked 5,569 Times in 590 Posts
dethtongue 25000+dethtongue 25000+dethtongue 25000+dethtongue 25000+dethtongue 25000+dethtongue 25000+dethtongue 25000+dethtongue 25000+dethtongue 25000+dethtongue 25000+dethtongue 25000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody1 View Post
The news article mentioned points towards SOUTH Korea wanting to sign a peace treaty. Not North Korea, and according to the article the basic gist of the US unwillingness to discuss it stems from the North's nuclear program...which is a recent development. Not something that has hindered a peace treaty since 1953.
dethtongue is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to dethtongue For This Useful Post:
Old June 1st, 2014, 02:57 AM   #65
Nobody1
Veteran Member
 
Nobody1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,119
Thanks: 16,786
Thanked 22,139 Times in 2,127 Posts
Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seany65 View Post
They may have had a no first strike policy then (if you believe it, why would they tell anyone their military strategy?) but no-one can gaurantee that the policy won't change later, or hasn't already changed.
A nuclear first strike does not make any sense. These plans are really just a sure sign of paranoid madness.

I think the Chinese have understood this.

http://thediplomat.com/2013/05/china...r-disarmament/
Nobody1 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Nobody1 For This Useful Post:
Old June 1st, 2014, 03:10 AM   #66
Nobody1
Veteran Member
 
Nobody1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,119
Thanks: 16,786
Thanked 22,139 Times in 2,127 Posts
Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+Nobody1 100000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dethtongue View Post
The news article mentioned points towards SOUTH Korea wanting to sign a peace treaty. Not North Korea, and according to the article the basic gist of the US unwillingness to discuss it stems from the North's nuclear program...which is a recent development. Not something that has hindered a peace treaty since 1953.
'Since the end of the Korean War 60 years ago, the Worker’s Party government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea) has repeatedly put forward virtually the same four proposals to the United States. They are:

1. A peace treaty to end the Korean War. 2. The reunification of Korea, which has been “temporarily” divided into North and South since 1945. 3. An end to the U.S. occupation of South Korea and a discontinuation of annual month-long U.S-South Korean war games. 4. Bilateral talks between Washington and Pyongyang to end tensions on the Korean peninsula.

The U.S. and its South Korean protectorate have rejected each proposal over the years. As a consequence, the peninsula has remained extremely unstable since the 1950s.'

http://original.antiwar.com/jack-a-s...orean-bluster/
Nobody1 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Nobody1 For This Useful Post:
Old June 2nd, 2014, 10:19 AM   #67
nckgmd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 325
Thanks: 736
Thanked 2,358 Times in 295 Posts
nckgmd 10000+nckgmd 10000+nckgmd 10000+nckgmd 10000+nckgmd 10000+nckgmd 10000+nckgmd 10000+nckgmd 10000+nckgmd 10000+nckgmd 10000+nckgmd 10000+
Default

Please bring it on... My life's shit. It would be great to know when I go down the likes of the Murdoch's, the Packer's, the Hilton's, the Rothschild's etc. will all suffer. Your money won't save you. Some of these rich people may help bring it on by encouraging globalisation and free trade. Creating a Chinese monster and ruining the free world countries... They can all go below ground but as it say's in the Midnight Oil song Power and the Passion "It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees".......
nckgmd is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to nckgmd For This Useful Post:
Old June 2nd, 2014, 03:21 PM   #68
SanteeFats
Super Moderator
 
SanteeFats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Santee, Ca
Posts: 60,514
Thanks: 280,934
Thanked 809,570 Times in 60,560 Posts
SanteeFats 2500000+SanteeFats 2500000+SanteeFats 2500000+SanteeFats 2500000+SanteeFats 2500000+SanteeFats 2500000+SanteeFats 2500000+SanteeFats 2500000+SanteeFats 2500000+SanteeFats 2500000+SanteeFats 2500000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody1 View Post
Thank you for the links. To go way back and quote Arte Johnson of Laugh In- "Veerrryyy Interesting".
SanteeFats is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to SanteeFats For This Useful Post:
Old June 2nd, 2014, 06:55 PM   #69
knobby109
Vintage Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,736
Thanks: 144
Thanked 14,337 Times in 1,702 Posts
knobby109 50000+knobby109 50000+knobby109 50000+knobby109 50000+knobby109 50000+knobby109 50000+knobby109 50000+knobby109 50000+knobby109 50000+knobby109 50000+knobby109 50000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nckgmd View Post
Please bring it on... My life's shit. It would be great to know when I go down the likes of the Murdoch's, the Packer's, the Hilton's, the Rothschild's etc. will all suffer. Your money won't save you. Some of these rich people may help bring it on by encouraging globalisation and free trade. Creating a Chinese monster and ruining the free world countries... They can all go below ground but as it say's in the Midnight Oil song Power and the Passion "It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees".......
The Chinese monster doesn't need to be created; it's the world's most populous country and it is inevitable that it will eventually become the #1 economic power.
As for ruining the free world countries , where is the evidence for that? Certainly much of the manufacturing is now done there but that hasn't left us in abject poverty. Up till the banking collapse our economies and individual wealth were rising rapidly and the nailing of prices of consumer goods by China has played a major part in this.
The economy shifts through time, industries grow and collapse again and new ways of earning a living come along.
knobby109 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to knobby109 For This Useful Post:
Old June 2nd, 2014, 07:39 PM   #70
SanteeFats
Super Moderator
 
SanteeFats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Santee, Ca
Posts: 60,514
Thanks: 280,934
Thanked 809,570 Times in 60,560 Posts
SanteeFats 2500000+SanteeFats 2500000+SanteeFats 2500000+SanteeFats 2500000+SanteeFats 2500000+SanteeFats 2500000+SanteeFats 2500000+SanteeFats 2500000+SanteeFats 2500000+SanteeFats 2500000+SanteeFats 2500000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody1 View Post
'
1. A peace treaty to end the Korean War. 2. The reunification of Korea, which has been “temporarily” divided into North and South since 1945. 3. An end to the U.S. occupation of South Korea and a discontinuation of annual month-long U.S-South Korean war games. 4. Bilateral talks between Washington and Pyongyang to end tensions on the Korean peninsula.
The U.S. and its South Korean protectorate have rejected each proposal over the years. As a consequence, the peninsula has remained extremely unstable since the 1950s.'
I went to the anti-war.com link you posted. Decent enough. The questions I would have are 1. IF Korea were to be reunited what kind of government would there be?? 2. IF NK said they would go for democratic elections I would find it extremely hard to believe they really mean it. Especially in their own territory. 3. What happens to both sides rather large military? Integrated after 60 years of almost conflict? Who gets to be the military leader of the combined forces and who would trust whoever it was.
I can't see the Korea conundrum being settled unless the North is overthrown and becomes a lot less aggressive and, from time to time, not so confrontational.

Last edited by SanteeFats; June 2nd, 2014 at 09:13 PM.. Reason: Spelling
SanteeFats is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to SanteeFats For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:57 AM.






vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise v2.6.1 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.