News Stories

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

We need to look at what China's interests would be in such a conflict. Specifically, they want North Korea as a buffer state. As such, they would want an independent, unoccupied North Korea at the end of such a conflict. If it looks like the US and South Korea are content to reach a new peace accord with the North leaving the nation unoccupied, China is very unlikely to intervene.

If it looks like The US and South Korea are intend on forcing regime change and occupy the North though, China would have to intervene to maintain their goal of having a buffer state. Still, there are several ways that can go. If China thinks their troops can turn the tide of the war, it's possible they intervene on the North's behalf. However, if they come the the conclusion that it wouldn't help and they'd take unacceptable losses in the process, China might decide to instead sweep in and capture Pyongyang, joining the US and South Korea. This would put China in a strong position, as they can demand to be part of the occupation and that North Korea remains independent, while in essence putting a loyal puppet government in place.

Not that I think either of the two are likely. Odds are China would just supply the North with as much as they can while retaining deniability of official support. Openly supporting North Korea would invite an embargo, which could severely damage the already shaky Chinese economy.

you are forgetting something here.

1. china has repeatably criticize the US for its foreign adventurism and cite its own doctrine of non-interference. Sending troops to occupy NK and capture Pyongyang is completely out of character.

2. if NK was stupid enough to shoot first, i seriously doubt China would risk it is economy to save it.

3. occupying any part of NK would make China responsibly for feeding and managing millions of starving farmers as welling as former soldiers with guns and not much skill. You are talking billions of dollars worth of responsibility, China has enough problems of its own without taking on that kind of responsibility.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

you are forgetting something here.

1. china has repeatably criticize the US for its foreign adventurism and cite its own doctrine of non-interference. Sending troops to occupy NK and capture Pyongyang is compelteyl out of character.

2. if NK was stupid enough to shoot first, i seriously doubt China would risk it is economy to save it.

3. occupying any part of NK would make China responsibly for feeding and managing millions of starving farmers as welling as former soldiers with guns and not much skill. You are talking billions of dollars worth of responsibility, China has enough problems of its own without taking on that kind of responsibility.

This. Not to mention that China historically supported North Korea considering both were Communist countries. That may not entirely be the case now, but at any rate, China doesn't want US influence anywhere close, and if North Korea were to enter conflict with the South, the US would intervene to help the South. As someone already mentioned (sorry if I can't remember who^^) the North would make a good muppet state and the US also has a history of trying to force its regime on other countries.

As you said, Xellos, China criticized the US for sticking its nose in other people's problems, and not without reason. The US has done it a million times before, so much that I would suggest for you non Americans to go visit the US, before the US visits you On top of that, China's had some more recent problems with the US, so I don't doubt they'd latch on to any pretex for opposing America if it tries to spread its influence close to them, and North Korea would be just such a place the US would try.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

This. Not to mention that China historically supported North Korea considering both were Communist countries. That may not entirely be the case now, but at any rate, China doesn't want US influence anywhere close, and if North Korea were to enter conflict with the South, the US would intervene to help the South. As someone already mentioned (sorry if I can't remember who^^) the North would make a good muppet state and the US also has a history of trying to force its regime on other countries.

As you said, Xellos, China criticized the US for sticking its nose in other people's problems, and not without reason. The US has done it a million times before, so much that I would suggest for you non Americans to go visit the US, before the US visits you On top of that, China's had some more recent problems with the US, so I don't doubt they'd latch on to any pretex for opposing America if it tries to spread its influence close to them, and North Korea would be just such a place the US would try.

opposing influence and spiking the American wheel when they can get away with it. But opposing military is completely different then in the UN. and as the US is China biggest trade partner, there is no way China would risk its economy over NK.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Shaky Chinese economy? Compared to the global economy China is not shaky at all since they surfed the downturn with controlled debt management. Embargo would cripple the Chinese economy due to lack of consumer demand in the mainland, but not due to China's shaky economy.

They didn't completely get over that, and they have a real estate issue similar to Japan in the 90s and the US in 2008 that's waiting to burst.

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

Given the lack of any statements from the Chinese defending or supporting the North, I find it extremely doubtful that the Chinese will be willing to back North Korea up if they launch an offensive to the south. At least not on a scale that matters.

I find it unlikely as well, except for under the counter weapons sales, as I said in my post.

Getting the transfer of modern weapon systems/equipment done quickly and in the scale that the North would need while still maintaining some secrecy is going to be difficult. The effectiveness of those systems will also be debatable, given the lack of high tech sophistication personell in the North Korean army and the lack of time to properly familiarize with those systems.

Then there's the simple fact that if the North Koreans start to use high end Chinese weapon systems all of the sudden in the conflict, there really isn't going to be any ambivalence or plausible deniability about where they got them. It'd be like Thailand attacking the Philippines with F22's. It's pretty obvious to everyone where they got the stuff from. They could ship their lower tech inventory...but the North Koreans already have tons of that and it's questionable how useful they'd be in a war against the South Koreans and their American allies.

Who's talking about their higher tech stuff? Even a type 59 tank is better than no tank at all. Sure it's not going to stand up to a US or South Korean tank 1on1, but it'll still be threat to lighter forces, and thus need to be taken out. Though I was more referring to ammunition and small arms, inclusing manportable anti tank weapons there.

You also need to consider that in order for the Chinese to want to support North Korea as a buffer state is reliant on two things. That they feel a strong need for a buffer state, and that their buffer state can be reliably expected to do what is good for Chinese foreign policy. If you feel like you need to be buffered from your enemies less, and the buffer state is picking fights rather than quitely holding the line, then how much you wanna support that buffer state comes into question.

Which is why most likely nothing will come of this. China will likely talk to the north koreans and get them to back down.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

you are forgetting something here.

1. china has repeatably criticize the US for its foreign adventurism and cite its own doctrine of non-interference. Sending troops to occupy NK and capture Pyongyang is completely out of character.

Is it? It wasn't that long ago China invaded Vietnam. Plus it's not going to take much on their part. Most likely the North Korean military would be somewhat occupied, and any token forces they encounter would probably assume the Chinese were there to help them. Since it puts them in position to put a friendly puppet regime that actually listens in, maintain a buffer state, and look like the good guys in the international media, it's a good move on their part.

2. if NK was stupid enough to shoot first, i seriously doubt China would risk it is economy to save it

.
North Korea's already shot first though, so that isn't an if.

3. occupying any part of NK would make China responsibly for feeding and managing millions of starving farmers as welling as former soldiers with guns and not much skill. You are talking billions of dollars worth of responsibility, China has enough problems of its own without taking on that kind of responsibility.

True, but they might very well consider it a worthwhile investment to not have a US army group sitting on their border.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

They didn't completely get over that, and they have a real estate issue similar to Japan in the 90s and the US in 2008 that's waiting to burst.






Is it? It wasn't that long ago China invaded Vietnam. Plus it's not going to take much on their part. Most likely the North Korean military would be somewhat occupied, and any token forces they encounter would probably assume the Chinese were there to help them. Since it puts them in position to put a friendly puppet regime that actually listens in, maintain a buffer state, and look like the good guys in the international media, it's a good move on their part.

Vietnam was almost 40 yrs ago, in International politics that was the ice age and China today is in a very different situation then almost 40yrs ago.

.

North Korea's already shot first though, so that isn't an if.

sure they did but there is enough plausible deniability there. I am talking about when NK is stupid enough shoot first in way that can't be deny

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Vietnam was almost 40 yrs ago, in International politics that was the ice age and China today is in a very different situation then almost 40yrs ago.

Although politics today are more dialogue inclined due to the multi-polarising of the world and discharge of power in US, the fact that most bureaucrats are idiots and most politicians are crooked stays the same.

So yeah, put N.K in a state of desperation and it drops nukes on the southern peninsula.

sure they did but there is enough plausible deniability there. I am talking about when NK is stupid enough shoot first in way that can't be deny.

If you look at the torpedo case, there's already "proof" that the torpedo is from the North. They can deny as much as they want, its whether they want to do it or not.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Who's talking about their higher tech stuff? Even a type 59 tank is better than no tank at all. Sure it's not going to stand up to a US or South Korean tank 1on1, but it'll still be threat to lighter forces, and thus need to be taken out. Though I was more referring to ammunition and small arms, inclusing manportable anti tank weapons there.

The North Koreans already have tons of early cold war tanks. Many of them newer than type 59's. They have thousands of these. I'm not sure sending the North Koreans more outdated tanks will help all that much. And tanks aren't exactly something you can ship inconspicuously. Though the real problem is how much actual experiance the North Koreans have with operating their own tanks, considering that fuel shortages undoubtedly have seriously restricted actual field exercises.

Small arms sorta fall under the same category, since the North Koreans are literally swimming in Cold war infantry ordnance. The North Koreans will appreciate more of that, but it's questionable how useful another pile of Cold War small arms will really be to them. And all that extra ordinance in warehouses won't be much use when the Americans blow up all the trucks that could move it up to the front.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Which is why most likely nothing will come of this. China will likely talk to the north koreans and get them to back down.

I certainly hope so. Though it's obvious the Chinese probably would have preferred for the North Koreans to not go about and raise fusses like this. It does nothing but bring trouble for them. So when North Korea does go ahead and do this kind of thing, it brings into question how much reign the Chinese still retain over them.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Is it? It wasn't that long ago China invaded Vietnam. Plus it's not going to take much on their part. Most likely the North Korean military would be somewhat occupied, and any token forces they encounter would probably assume the Chinese were there to help them. Since it puts them in position to put a friendly puppet regime that actually listens in, maintain a buffer state, and look like the good guys in the international media, it's a good move on their part.

Thirty years isn't that short a time period.

[killer3000ad]

Bullfighter gored through mouth

Spoiler for gory image... use discretion:

Way to grab a bull by it's horns.

A Spanish bullfighter gored through the throat during a fight is in intensive care, hospital officials said.

The 41-year-old Julio Aparicio was taken from the Madrid bullring to hospital in life-threatening condition Friday night after a bull's horn pierced through his jaw and lower neck, under his chin and back out of his mouth.

The half-ton bull skewered Aparicio after he slipped and stumbled to his knees while executing a pass before a crowd of thousands packing Las Ventas bullring in the Spanish capital.

Doctors at Madrid's October 12 Hospital performed two operations to to reconstruct his jaw, tongue and the roof of his mouth.

"He remains in the intensive care unit of the hospital, has regained consciousness and his vital signs are stable," a hospital spokesman said.

The bullfighter's agent said he expected him to make a full recovery, but said mentally it would be hard for him to fight again after his terrifying brush with death.

Nicknamed "Julito", Aparicio comes from a famed bullfighting family and was one of the stars of the San Isidro festival, Spain's biggest annual bullfighting event which draws tens of the thousands to the capital each year.

"It was a serious goring. Almost his entire mouth was destroyed," his father, a retired matador also called Julio Aparicio, told reporters.

Pictures of his spectacular injury were plastered across Spanish front pages on Saturday prompting complaints on the papers' message boards from some readers who thought the image was too graphic

The bloody accident was set to inflame the Spanish debate about bullfighting, a deep-rooted national tradition which is under increasing scrutiny from animal rights campaigners.

Spain's northeastern Catalonia region has moved to ban the sport, while the conservative authorities in Madrid have announced plans to enshrine it as part of its cultural heritage, sparking mass anti-bullfighting rallies.

Spoiler for Vid:

[Zu Ra]

Weirdos and there fake machismo , had it coming prolly deserved it .

I seem to have zero sympathy when it comes to such events

What you reap What you sow ?

[Woopzilla]

Holy... I couldn't look at the picture too long, gives me a horrible feeling. Don't think I'll watch the video.

Incredibly lucky there, glad that he's set to make a full recovery.

I suppose they didn't 'destroy' the bull as seems to be the case in any other incident where an animal nearly kills a human... I mean, it's not massively surprising that such a thing could happen here.

[killer3000ad]

Originally Posted by Woopzilla

Holy... I couldn't look at the picture too long, gives me a horrible feeling. Don't think I'll watch the video.

Incredibly lucky there, glad that he's set to make a full recovery.

I suppose they didn't 'destroy' the bull as seems to be the case in any other incident where an animal nearly kills a human... I mean, it's not massively surprising that such a thing could happen here.

If you watched the video link, you'll see that another matador later finished off the poor bovine.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Zu Ra

Weirdos and there fake machismo , had it coming prolly deserved it .

I seem to have zero sympathy when it comes to such events

What you reap What you sow ?

It is their CULTURE....bullfighting has been around for over a few hundred years since the 1700s in Portugal and Spain, and probably even more since the times of Rome where man-vs-animal are part of the goreplay in Colosseum.

Certain hazardous cultures are kept as part of their identifiers as globalisation and modernism has taken away most of the colour that made each culture different from each other : bullfighting* is one of the more dangerous unique aspects of Latin American culture, just like how tiger hunts/sacrifice are once part of the Asian village culture.

* - Interestingly, post-industrial age US has its own kind of "bullfighting", the stock market technique of rapidly picking up stocks to short-sell later when it downturns : it's a "Wall Street" pseudoculture, but equally risky.

[JokerD]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

We need to look at what China's interests would be in such a conflict. Specifically, they want North Korea as a buffer state. As such, they would want an independent, unoccupied North Korea at the end of such a conflict. If it looks like the US and South Korea are content to reach a new peace accord with the North leaving the nation unoccupied, China is very unlikely to intervene.

If it looks like The US and South Korea are intend on forcing regime change and occupy the North though, China would have to intervene to maintain their goal of having a buffer state. Still, there are several ways that can go. If China thinks their troops can turn the tide of the war, it's possible they intervene on the North's behalf. However, if they come the the conclusion that it wouldn't help and they'd take unacceptable losses in the process, China might decide to instead sweep in and capture Pyongyang, joining the US and South Korea. This would put China in a strong position, as they can demand to be part of the occupation and that North Korea remains independent, while in essence putting a loyal puppet government in place.

Not that I think either of the two are likely. Odds are China would just supply the North with as much as they can while retaining deniability of official support. Openly supporting North Korea would invite an embargo, which could severely damage the already shaky Chinese economy.

What would China think, if the US military could conduct surveillance missions right up to the boarder through Korea if NK falls. It's no wonder China wants a buffer.

On another note, I suspect that if North Korea falls to the south, the need for SK to have a US base on site would be gone. Sure in the short term SK would need US funds (or China money, whichever the case may be) to help defer the cost of integrating the north but in the long term no threat = no need for base, leading to US losing another staging area. Unless they count China as an aggressive threat on par with NK.

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

It is their CULTURE....bullfighting has been around for over a few hundred years since the 1700s in Portugal and Spain, and probably even more since the times of Rome where man-vs-animal are part of the goreplay in Colosseum.

Certain hazardous cultures are kept as part of their identifiers as globalisation and modernism has taken away most of the colour that made each culture different from each other : bullfighting* is one of the more dangerous unique aspects of Latin American culture, just like how tiger hunts/sacrifice are once part of the Asian village culture.

* - Interestingly, post-industrial age US has its own kind of "bullfighting", the stock market technique of rapidly picking up stocks to short-sell later when it downturns : it's a "Wall Street" pseudoculture, but equally risky.

Culture is not an excuse for animal abuse. I don't have sympathy for the matador either. He voluntarily chose to engage in a risky activity, and failed despite the odds being thrown in his favor (bulls are regularly drugged or wounded before the battle, and the matador has mounted spearmen assisting him). This is not a competition of man vs animal, but of many men vs one wounded animal being taunted and slowly killed with debilitating but not individually fatal attacks.

Risky money transactions on Wall Street are not comparable to prolonging an animal's death for the sake of human amusement.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

It is their CULTURE....bullfighting has been around for over a few hundred years since the 1700s in Portugal and Spain, and probably even more since the times of Rome where man-vs-animal are part of the goreplay in Colosseum.

Certain hazardous cultures are kept as part of their identifiers as globalisation and modernism has taken away most of the colour that made each culture different from each other : bullfighting* is one of the more dangerous unique aspects of Latin American culture, just like how tiger hunts/sacrifice are once part of the Asian village culture.

* - Interestingly, post-industrial age US has its own kind of "bullfighting", the stock market technique of rapidly picking up stocks to short-sell later when it downturns : it's a "Wall Street" pseudoculture, but equally risky.

this isn't even close to being Man-vs-animal

a day before the fight the bull is denied food and is force to run around sapping it of energy. And the night before the actual fight, needles are inserted into the bulling bleeding it all the while it is kept in a enclosure with no light.

What the matador is facing isn't a animal at full strength but a weaken and disorient animal that was strave, bleed and keep in a dark room. The only advantage the matador didn't have was someone to hold the bull while he killed it.

looking at the pic, i say thumbs up for the bull.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

Culture is not an excuse for animal abuse. I don't have sympathy for the matador either. He voluntarily chose to engage in a risky activity, and failed despite the odds being thrown in his favor (bulls are regularly drugged or wounded before the battle, and the matador has mounted spearmen assisting him). This is not a competition of man vs animal, but of many men vs one wounded animal being taunted and slowly killed with debilitating but not individually fatal attacks.

Then you should hate hunting and the industrial farm model that grow our food in. To complain about bullfighting and calling it abuse is to just be blind and niave to the way we treat our animals that are up for slaughter. Honestly at least these bulls don't live their lives with their feet need deep in their feces forced fed ground up corn shavings and other cows.

@xellos
even if it was a fair fight, I don't see why it's big news when someone gets gored. You take the risk, suffer the consequence and don't act suprised when people don't feel sympathy for you. I just don't find what they do to the bull that appalling compared to some non traditional things we do to animals up here in the states.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Then you should hate hunting and the industrial farm model that grow our food in. To complain about bullfighting and calling it abuse is to just be blind and niave to the way we treat our animals that are up for slaughter. Honestly at least these bulls don't live their lives with their feet need deep in their feces forced fed ground up corn shavings and other cows.

@xellos
even if it was a fair fight, I don't see why it's big news when someone gets gored. You take the risk, suffer the consequence and don't act suprised when people don't feel sympathy for you. I just don't find what they do to the bull that appalling compared to some non traditional things we do to animals up here in the states.

it is not what is done to the bull that gets it is justification by the bull fighter and portrayal as sort of courageous act.

[Arbitres]

even if it was a fair fight, I don't see why it's big news when someone gets gored. You take the risk, suffer the consequence and don't act suprised when people don't feel sympathy for you.

True enough I'm afraid. You signed up, thus you take the risks as a result. You are expected to be harmed by the bull.

looking at the pic, i say thumbs up for the bull.

Brutal aren't you? Well I guess it's a two way street then.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

this isn't even close to being Man-vs-animal

a day before the fight the bull is denied food and is force to run around sapping it of energy. And the night before the actual fight, needles are inserted into the bulling bleeding it all the while it is kept in a enclosure with no light.

What the matador is facing isn't a animal at full strength but a weaken and disorient animal that was strave, bleed and keep in a dark room. The only advantage the matador didn't have was someone to hold the bull while he killed it.

looking at the pic, i say thumbs up for the bull.

Well a picture only says that much.....he came from a family of bullfighters so he's just continuing his family tradition (I wish I did the same for mine though, a generation of my ancestors were imperial executioners in pre-revolution China ).

Anyway, back on the topic, he made the choice to bullfight and I am sure he's ready for the consequences. Animal abuse or stupidity or whatever, there isn't much we can group up and decide on since this is a rather long running type of event that has been through centuries, and that considering what we practice (bystander effect) in the face of belligerent animal abuse in our respective societies, who are we actually to criticise?

[Mr. DJ]

RIP Gary Coleman