News Stories

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

150+ dead in Massacre in Xinjiang area of China

Wow. This is some pretty nasty stuff going on. The protest was only a couple thousands but already so many people were killed.

My Aunt lives in Xinjiang, She is my dads only sister still living. We try calling last night but the phone lines were all busy.

Originally Posted by mg1942

Unfortunately in the US and the west there's no outrage. We're saturated with michael jackson news and the future of his assets and 3 children.

judging form the recent articles in NYTimes and Wash Post there would be more outrage in the west if it a 156 Uighurs that was kill by a Han mob

[dec4rhapsody]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

150+ dead in Massacre in Xinjiang area of China

Wow. This is some pretty nasty stuff going on. The protest was only a couple thousands but already so many people were killed.

Wait...
I find the wording here quite weird.
It seems that the coverage I've read so far wants to give out the message that the deaths are mainly Uighurs.
According to ifeng, at least 140 of them are Han Chinese.
Ironically, there is nothing such as "peaceful demonstrations" here in China (in these days), since we are not a country used to protesting and other "peaceful" appeals.

Violence in Xinjiang is nothing new, and it's also quite usual that in Xinjiang, an ordinary Han Chinese may be cornered and bullied by Uighur gangs. Shortly after the incident (riot or demonstration? you decide), bloody pictures were circulated around the internet showing girls and little kids with their throats cut. Now most of them are deleted. You may only find those by xinhuanet and other state media.

Policies in Xinjiang Autonomous Region have been sickingly weird.
Uighur criminals are generally under-punished. Yet Uighurs don't have equal opportunities in jobs and education. Money and other resources are mainly taken by the Han Chinese, thus Uighurs feel marginalised even in their own region.

It's also notable that whenever similar group events occur in China, the government *always* labels them as "being used by those who have ulterior motives", which is, IMO, nothing less than neglecting their own responsibilities and fasten the blame on others.
Rebiya is used as such kind of target.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Because you can't supply a modern army that way. Even if you take care of food, they'll quickly run out of bullets, shells, and everything else without a supply line.

I believe their troops have foreign weapons training.

And what exactly with North Korea land those troops with? And how will they keep them supplied? The North Korean Navy can't even sail around the Korean Penninsula to reinforce the other coast let alone cross the sea of Japan.

They have got submarines. Covert insertion of troops, but with the Pacific Fleet around they should pretty much have a problem.

Except that "fighting spirit" doesn't last long when you're starving, out of ammo, and being bombed without any way of fighting back.

Scavenging weapons and ammo is pretty much the way they fight I think. They should last long enough to cause major damage.

Now see, those are all reasons why a North Korean invasion of Japan would fail miserable, not reasons for North Korea to invade.

When overt warfare doesn't work, covert warfare should.

Alright I got something to do, be right back with an edited post later.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I believe their troops have foreign weapons training.

So relying on what they can steal? That doesn't seem like a plan for success to me, especially when you're trying to invade a country.

They have got submarines. Covert insertion of troops, but with the Pacific Fleet around they should pretty much have a problem.

They have 1940s and 50s era desiel subs and a horde of mini subs. These aren't exactly big enough to do carry many troops.

Scavenging weapons and ammo is pretty much the way they fight I think. They should last long enough to cause major damage.

Once again, not a plan for success.

When overt warfare doesn't work, covert warfare should.

If North Korea is very lucky, they might get a few hundred special forces ashore. Theymigth be able to carry out some damaging terrorists attacks, but conquer the country or even signifigantly disrupt them? Not so much. It's take a miracle for North Korea. Since they're basicly relying on divine intervention with a plan like that, they might as well roll big and try it against the US. They'll fail either way, but at least they could say they've done what no nation has tried since the war of 1812, invading the US.

[428]

Originally Posted by mg1942

With all this M.J. and Palin stuff, I must have missed the news that California has started to issue IOUs, and that some banks will not accept them as of Friday.

http://247wallst.com/2009/06/30/cali...-other-states/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124692354575702881.html
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,3106808.story

Is this news only limited to Californians? I had to dig pretty deep to run across it. Is this a big deal over there? I would be pretty pissed if I received an IOU for something....I'm surprised there isn't a shitload of recalls going on over there, or are people just taking it up the ass and say 'thank you'?

It's only California for now. But I believe some others, like Tennessee are waiting forDC to dole out the dough.

And for those on the DPRK issue, remember the (US-)Vietnam War. The Viet won due to the terrain and environment... And there's the likelihood of DPRK losing if it fought on foreign soil, yet so will the US if they went to NK. It's like fighting in Siberia.

[Shadow Kira01]

On the issue of North Korea, I don't think a military conflict will break out anytime soon as that such a idea is absolutely out of the question under the leadership of Obama. Considering that Iran was a bigger threat towards to the United States yet Obama went on a tour of apologies, I doubt he will do anything about North Korea since their recently improved missile technology can at most hit Hawaii and none of the US mainland.

Although the Japanese government will be meeting Obama very soon to discuss on North Korea's missile and nuclear threats, as well as China's military buildup, I believe nothing much will come out of it with the exception of a few pretty words.

Originally Posted by iLney

But... that means a sure defeat. Even those NK's d---heads in NK's HQ should know that. They will be fighting the US, not Japan. Plus, to invade Japan on large scale, it needs a strong navy, which is almost non-existent in NK. Chinese Navy is a joke comparing to any powerhouse in NATO, let alone the US. Even Japanese force in WWII could squash NK now like a bug using navy alone.

I wouldn't underestimate the strength of the Chinese navy if I am you. When was the last time you see a military conflict involving the Chinese navy? Even if there was a time in which they were deployed and that it wasn't a full-scale war, you can only guess that they aren't showing their full potential and for that matter, it is definitely a mistake to assume they are weak.

[Thingle]

Originally Posted by 428

And for those on the DPRK issue, remember the (US-)Vietnam War. The Viet won due to the terrain and environment... And there's the likelihood of DPRK losing if it fought on foreign soil, yet so will the US if they went to NK. It's like fighting in Siberia.

The DPRK will lose EVERY war it enters into. Its soldiers will drop dead after a week or so when their UN food aid supplies run out. 1 week is long enough to do serious damage, so a bit of "fireworks" to make the war much shorter is helpful, and always welcome.

Most probably though, NK's own troops might embarrass the regime with mass defections. Imagine an army of starving men waving their hands up and surrendering en masse... after all that propaganda and shows of "strength".

All the more reason for Nutjob Kim to not use the "military option".


The Chinese? Paper tigers. Aside from numbers, what do they have? Their troops don't have quality nor experience in actual warfare. That's something the Americans (and to a lesser extent, Russians) have

[iLney]

Originally Posted by Shadow Kira01

I wouldn't underestimate the strength of the Chinese navy if I am you. When was the last time you see a military conflict involving the Chinese navy? Even if there was a time in which they were deployed and that it wasn't a full-scale war, you can only guess that they aren't showing their full potential and for that matter, it is definitely a mistake to assume they are weak.

That's the problem. They have no experience, and moreover, no tradition at all. Whatever the Chinese Army does, it always relies on big numbers. That is not gonna work very well on the high sea because... the Chinese doesn't have big number there unless they decide to mass produce subpar ships which pretty much has fail written all of over it. So there you have it: an navy with neither quantity nor quality, what can be expected.

And if history means anything, it says navy has always been the game of the West and that Chinese navy history (and its military in general) is pretty much pathetic saved some instance of showmanship.

[yezhanquan]

Well, the Chinese were very good at fighting among themselves. Its modern military history is indeed unremarkable, but the reversal of fortunes for the Red Army is something to be reckoned with. As for Chinese warfare B.C., oh boy...

[iLney]

Indeed, a very glorious history of fighting among themselves.

[Terrestrial Dream]

Originally Posted by 428

It's only California for now. But I believe some others, like Tennessee are waiting forDC to dole out the dough.

And for those on the DPRK issue, remember the (US-)Vietnam War. The Viet won due to the terrain and environment... And there's the likelihood of DPRK losing if it fought on foreign soil, yet so will the US if they went to NK. It's like fighting in Siberia.

From my view Viet won because of the american media and the american public going against the war. The Americans killed lot more Viet compare to the their loss but the war being unpopular as a result of the horrifying images and report forced them to withdraw if it lasted longer the North would have lost.

[Thingle]

The Americans lost because they failed the mission they came to Vietnam for, which is to contain the North. It's that simple.

If their goal was to kill as many of them (PAVN), then it's another story.

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by Thingle

The Americans lost because they failed the mission they came to Vietnam for, which is to contain the North. It's that simple.

If their goal was to kill as many of them (PAVN), then it's another story.

Well, they thought that containing the North was their mission. Very soon, they had no idea why that had been the mission. It made no sense then, and it didn't make sense when we look back at it.

Originally Posted by iLney

Indeed, a very glorious history of fighting among themselves.

And along the way came the Art of War, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, and many Tang poems.

[Terrestrial Dream]

Originally Posted by Thingle

The Americans lost because they failed the mission they came to Vietnam for, which is to contain the North. It's that simple.

If their goal was to kill as many of them (PAVN), then it's another story.

Not really, the North used guerrilla tactic and if you are losing tons of men while killing only few enemies then that tactic pretty much failed. So eventually the communist would have lost imo.

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by Terrestrial Dream

Not really, the North used guerrilla tactic and if you are losing tons of men while killing only few enemies then that tactic pretty much failed. So eventually the communist would have lost imo.

That would mean prolonging a war which the US should have never gotten into in the first place. Ho Chi Minh understand this all too well. Remember: he did not live to see the fall of Saigon, but he predicted that his side would win. Well, they did, but at a very high cost. Wonder why you see mostly young Vietnamese these days? This is the reason. Their casualties were high, but their morale did not break.

[dahl_moon]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

My Aunt lives in Xinjiang, She is my dads only sister still living. We try calling last night but the phone lines were all busy.

Ouch, wish the best of luck for her.

On NK, I've been curious. What makes people think that Dear Leader(TM) is a megalomaniac hell bent on conquering the world? If anything my impression of him is a brilliant, but shrewd and ruthless politician who can run circles around SK, Japan and US's foreign policy makers. I don't really see anything that points to him wanting to invade other countries (SK being "illegitimate"). If anything, I see their conventional force deteriorating.

No, NK doesn't speak power, NK speaks coercion, lies and propaganda. IMO, the nukes and advanced rocketry are there to threaten Japan and the US into letting NK wreck havoc in the South (not to mention some extra cash on the side).

Originally Posted by iLney

Indeed, a very glorious history of fighting among themselves.

"Themselves" being former foreign nations. All this infighting wasn't purely among the Han Chinese, remember.

[Terrestrial Dream]

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

That would mean prolonging a war which the US should have never gotten into in the first place. Ho Chi Minh understand this all too well. Remember: he did not live to see the fall of Saigon, but he predicted that his side would win. Well, they did, but at a very high cost. Wonder why you see mostly young Vietnamese these days? This is the reason. Their casualties were high, but their morale did not break.

True but prolonging the war could have lead to different consequences but then again this is only a speculation by my part.

[LynnieS]

Originally Posted by mg1942

With all this M.J. and Palin stuff, I must have missed the news that California has started to issue IOUs, and that some banks will not accept them as of Friday. [...]

Is this news only limited to Californians? I had to dig pretty deep to run across it. Is this a big deal over there? I would be pretty pissed if I received an IOU for something....I'm surprised there isn't a shitload of recalls going on over there, or are people just taking it up the ass and say 'thank you'?

There are groups that are not getting IOUs during this period as well, though. http://www.sco.ca.gov/5917.html

Yesterday's news from The NY Times:

But across California on Tuesday, many vendors who had been told they would receive the i.o.u.’s instead of actual money said they had not yet received them. And if they do not arrive soon, they may be hard to turn into cash.

Have people now been getting these? For the banks, the large ones may not take them, but if so, it would mean bad PR for one. Although how banks are supposed to manage these, risk-wise, would be interesting.

They are also trying to get a bill passed to allow people to use these IOUs to pay for taxes and services' bills. http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/2007369.html

State vendors and contractors could use their government-issued IOUs to pay state taxes, fees and liens under a bill approved by an Assembly committee.

[mg1942]

I heard that CA IOU's carry a 3.7% TAX FREE interest rate.
Somebody with a pocketful of cash will make a killing on these things.
They'll buy them at 90 cents on the dollar and then cash them in for the profit AND save tax money.

[Shadow Kira01]

Originally Posted by Terrestrial Dream

Not really, the North used guerrilla tactic and if you are losing tons of men while killing only few enemies then that tactic pretty much failed. So eventually the communist would have lost imo.

Not necessarily true as that North Vietnam considers their people as expandable and worthless while that Americans do consider their soldiers as non-expandable. For that matter, their strategy is quite effective. No matter how many people they lose in the battle, it means little to them whereas the death of fewer American soldiers caused outrage in the United States. The media and the people criticizes the government, the Americans withdrew from battle and thus, North Vietnam claims the victory. In other words, their guerrilla tactic was a success!

Originally Posted by Thingle

The Chinese? Paper tigers. Aside from numbers, what do they have? Their troops don't have quality nor experience in actual warfare. That's something the Americans (and to a lesser extent, Russians) have

Reminds me of the extra mission in Gundam Battle Chronicle, "Their Strength Is In Numbers". With their current military power, not mentioning that they are continuing to invest more and more money into their translucent military budget while their civilians suffer famine and poverty, they will most likely fare much better than the Americans in a full-scale war anytime.

Yes, the Chinese lacks military technology that rivals the Americans but this is only what we perceive through obtainable information and the media, not that it is entirely true since China is a communist country known to be hiding their true military capabilities while that it is almost an established fact that Americans tend to show off their military capabilities, even when it is still in the process of development. This is a plus on China's side. Secondly, China's military might and technology isn't as weak as unreasonable assumption based on hatred as that they had recruited a large number of Russian scientists during the disbandment of the Soviet Union using a large amount of cash flow. For that matter, China's capabilities should actually be close to that of the former Soviets at the time of its disbandment while currently, they are most likely improved as that they are also working closely with the Russians. I wouldn't underestimate their military capacity. The image in which China gives that their strength is in numbers could most likely be a "false image" as that it is not uncommon for nations to adopt such a tactic in the global affairs stage for various reasons.

Another strength and weakness between the Chinese army and the American army would be the same concept adopted from the Vietnam War. China considers its people as expandable and are willing to sacrifice them for whatever purposes necessary, whereas if an American dies on foreign soil due to some military operation, the people in American will become outraged in which the American government in-charge of the military operation will fall to constant blows of criticism which drags down their overall approval rate and in the long-run, the government will collapse before the end of the military conflict itself.

Taking just these 2-3 points into consideration, I wouldn't say that the American military has any advantage in a military conflict against North Korea if China provides military support to the Kim Jong-Il just like what had previously occurred in the Korean War. The US is actually at a disadvantage. South Korea who despise war and conflicts with North Korea will no doubt not get involved in any possible military conflicts even if 2MB agrees, their people would protest about it. As for Japan, without the revision of Article 9.. It is actually illegal for the SDF to aid allies outside Japanese waters and airspace, even if allies are in grieve danger. It can't be helped..