I was thinking about his work in the Pacific theater, which indirectly leads to major offensives in the SEA region. A couple of biographies I read about him gave him alot more credit than Nimitz.
Which has nothing at all to do with Midway. That was a Japanese offensive that the US halted.
ChainLegacy
2010-11-24 20:28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ganbaru
(Post 3361042)
I don't know about this one; don't they tend to make tourist-trap with the only goal to get the money of them at the expence of local population.
Yes it can end up like that, but it can also be used as a springboard for employment and real wages from which an economy can grow. Not perfect by any means, but better than what they've got now.
SaintessHeart
2010-11-24 20:50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy
(Post 3361187)
Yes it can end up like that, but it can also be used as a springboard for employment and real wages from which an economy can grow. Not perfect by any means, but better than what they've got now.
Well I would say that they should set up a tourism board. Since their ideals are militaristic in nature, the incentive for them to set up one would be that it yields plenty of reliable HUMINT. ;)
EDIT :
We have two pieces of bad news early in the morning. Reuters usually don't write two-page articles unless it is a really big shit, and when they write so, it usually affects the world as a whole. However, people don't read them because they are too long.
(Reuters) - Major powers expressed concern or alarm at North Korea's shelling of a South Korean island on Monday.
Among North Korea's neighbors, Russia said it saw a "colossal danger" of an escalation in fighting on the Korean peninsula and China said it was imperative to resume six-party talks aimed at ending the north's nuclear weapons program.
Following South Korean firing exercises near disputed waters, North Korea fired dozens of artillery shells at the island of Yeonpyeong. Two soldiers were killed and houses set ablaze in one of the heaviest bombardments of the South since the Korean War ended in 1953.
The United States urged North Korea to "halt its belligerent action," saying that it was "firmly committed to the defense of our ally, the Republic of Korea, and to the maintenance of regional peace and stability."
Japan's top government spokesman said that North Korea's action was "unforgiveable." Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshito Sengoku told a news conference in Tokyo that Japan "strongly condemns" the strike.
A French diplomatic source said the U.N. Security Council could hold an emergency meeting in the next day or two.
"It is necessary to immediately end all strikes," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters during a visit to the Belarusian capital Minsk. "There is a colossal danger which must be avoided. Tensions in the region are growing."
China, the impoverished North's only powerful ally, was careful to avoid taking sides, calling on both Koreas to "do more to contribute to peace.
It is imperative now to resume the six-party talks," a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry told reporters.
China's economic and diplomatic support have been important to shoring up its otherwise isolated neighbor, whose leader Kim Jong-il has visited China twice this year to strengthen ties.
The NATO alliance, the European Union and Britain all condemned the North Korean attack, and Germany joined them in expressing concern and calling for restraint.
TACTIC
Analysts saw North Korea's action as a calculated tactic.
They said it could be aimed either at boosting its leverage in international talks -- a tactic it has used in the past -- or at reinforcing the domestic standing of the young heir apparent anointed by Kim Jong-il, his son Kim Jong-un.
"The shelling is likely succession-related in that the DPRK (North Korea) is seeking to build political capital for Kim Jong-un by attempting to enhance the perception of Jong-un's power base," said Brittany Damora, analyst at the risk advisory firm AKE.
"In the North's view, Yeonpyeong is a great target in that it can strengthen the perception of its position without a real risk of counter-attack."
Alastair Newton, political analyst at Nomura in London, said the South had made clear that it wanted to avoid an escalation, and that the sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan in March, although denied by the North, had arguably been more serious because of the 46 lives lost.
"Bottom line: together with possible preparations for a third nuclear test and the revelation at the weekend of the uranium enrichment facility, this looks like it could be North Korea playing hardball in anticipation of coming back to the negotiating table," Newton said.
One European diplomat said it was conceivable that the attack could be an attempt by a faction in North Korea's secretive leadership to sabotage attempts at rapprochement with the outside world.
The political risk consultancy Stratforsaid the attack was at odds with other recent North Korean actions, noting that Pyongyang had sent a list of delegates to Seoul for Red Cross talks due to take place on Thursday.
"With the ongoing leadership transition in North Korea, there have been rumors of discontent within the military, and the current actions may reflect miscommunications or worse within the North's command-and-control structure, or disagreements within the North Korean leadership," it said.
After the last 2 decades smouldering in the "ash heap of the century" (or so says Reagan), Orussia is right about this. The next misfire of a bullet or shell by either side will erupt into a conflict.
As one of my waifus say, "Third time is a charm". Sorry kitty, this is a curse for us - the possible WWI of the 21st Century.
(Reuters) - Cyber warfare techniques might be leaping forward and nations ramping up spending on digital defenses and new electronic weapons, but the policy frameworks and philosophy for their use lag well behind.
The Stuxnet computer worm -- widely believed to be an attack on Iran's nuclear program through reprogramming industrial control systems to create damage -- is seen as the latest sign of the increasing militarization of cyberspace.
The United States and Britain have openly increased focus in the area. Emerging nations such as China and Russia are believed to see it as an arena in which they can challenge conventional U.S. military dominance.
Nonstate actors such as militant groups are also seen keen to take advantage.
But the rules and conventions which govern how cyber weapons might be used, who they should be used by and how that might be authorized are still far from clear.
"In most areas, the relevant policies, roles and responsibilities have not kept pace with the technology -- although this is changing," said Prescott Winter, former chief information officer and chief technical officer at the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and now a senior official at computer security firm Arcsight Inc.
The United States has launched its own military cyber command in part to bring offensive capabilities under the preserve of the military rather than secretive intelligence agencies such as the NSA, which handles electronic surveillance. Senior officials in Britain, the US and elsewhere increasingly make speeches on the topic.
But the field still raises a host of moral, legal, ethical and practical questions so far largely unaddressed.
How could nations retaliate if it is not possible to trace the national origin of an attacker who is using only a laptop?
Who should pay to protect critical national systems such as power grids owned by the private sector?
Should nations acknowledge publicly they have an offensive cyber attack capability to deter aggressors, or keep it secret -- particularly as they can never know for certain if it will work until they unleash it on a target?
BEYOND MATURE POLITICAL DISCOURSE?
"The pace of change can be so abrupt as to render the action/reaction cycle of traditional strategy out of date before it has begun," wrote authors from British think tank Chatham House in a report this month, describing cyberspace as "currently beyond the reach of mature political discourse."
Some compare the situation to that in the early years of nuclear weapons, when countries were still working out how they might use them and before the realization of mutually assured destruction between the Soviet Union and the United States bought some level of policy consensus.
"There was no real scope for ambiguity when it comes to nuclear weapons," said Nigel Inkster, a former senior British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) official now head of transnational threats and will political at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies,"With cyber, of course, there is. I don't think anybody quite knows what the consequences of an extended exchange in the cyber domain would actually be. It's an area where we probably don't want to find out how bad it would be."
Experts say major powers have long been developing systems to attack or hijack the software increasingly used to run essential industrial infrastructure, from traffic and supermarket supply control systems to nuclear power plants and telecommunications hubs.
Richard Clarke, former cyber security adviser to the White House under both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, compares the situation to that before World War One where nations mechanized for war with railways, ironclads, gas, aircraft and airships.
"There may be parallels in the early years of the last century... a world similarly diverted from the realization its various militaries were preparing devastating forces without contemplating the horrific consequences of their use," he wrote in his 2010 book "Cyber War." "As in the period 100 years ago, these plans have received little public scrutiny."
It is not quite a legal desert. Established sections of the law of armed conflict apply -- so an unprovoked attack that killed civilians for example through triggering air or train crashes or turning off hospital systems would be illegal.
WHO TO BLAME?
The key problem remains that of attribution. While some experts blame Russian authorities for 2007 cyber attacks on Estonia and 2008 attacks on Georgia, others point to "patriotic hackers" not directly linked to the government.
Similarly, while some blame Chinese state authorities for hacking into western firms to steal technology and corporate secrets, others suggest reality may be more complicated.
"NSA and (British equivalent) GCHQ by deploying their best resources might be able to make a case for the origin of a particular cyber attack in several months, but that would not be very useful," said former MI6 official Inkster. "But what you can do is say "we think this came from you and if it didn't, you need to investigate.""
The key question then would be whether to retaliate. Speaking to Reuters earlier this month, British Armed Forces Minister Nick Harvey said the UK needed an offensive cyber capability to act as a deterrent.
"I don't think other countries who know anything about this are in any doubt that we have considerable capabilities in this field," he said -- a rare comment on the issue .
Alastair Newton, a former policy lead on cyber warfare for Britain's foreign office and now political analyst for Japanese bank Nomura, said genuine widespread international agreement on cyber weaponry would remain a distant dream.
"On a national level, there may well have been a lot of policy work done and there will have been discussion among allies -- within NATO, for example," he said "But in terms of an international legal framework along the lines of the... treaties for nuclear weapons, there's really nothing at all. I wouldn't expect to see one either (over the next 10 years). Passing international treaties is if anything getting more difficult, not easier."
I would advise people to put less personal information on their social networking accounts now. Even their personal photos - limit them to photoshopped ones, those with lots of people or random avatars. Lest you want to be a scapegoat in the future.
Xellos-_^
2010-11-24 21:36
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart
(Post 3361220)
I would advise people to put less personal information on their social networking accounts now. Even their personal photos - limit them to photoshopped ones, those with lots of people or random avatars. Lest you want to be a scapegoat in the future.
i have absolutely nothing but a simple business website
only idiots put anything more then necessary online.
Sumeragi
2010-11-24 22:04
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart
(Post 3361220)
After the last 2 decades smouldering in the "ash heap of the century" (or so says Reagan), Orussia is right about this. The next misfire of a bullet or shell by either side will erupt into a conflict.
As one of my waifus say, "Third time is a charm". Sorry kitty, this is a curse for us - the possible WWI of the 21st Century.
*Sighs*
Again, the world thinks of DPRK as a "normal" country. It isn't, and it knows the mentalities of the average ROK citizen to not push it beyond the breaking point.
Mind you, I live in Seoul.
Roger Rambo
2010-11-24 23:11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi
(Post 3361316)
*Sighs*
Again, the world thinks of DPRK as a "normal" country. It isn't, and it knows the mentalities of the average ROK citizen to not push it beyond the breaking point.
SEOUL - Young South Koreans, born decades after the Korean War and enjoying the peace and riches of the most wired country in the world, urged their government on Wednesday to respond strongly to North Korea's artillery attack.
North Korea fired dozens of artillery shells at the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong on Tuesday, killing two South Korean soldiers and setting houses ablaze in the heaviest attack on its neighbour since the Korean War ended in 1953.
South Korea warned of "massive retaliation" but was careful to avoid suggestion of any imminent action.
"Compared with the Korean War, we are no more lagging behind North Korea in military capacity," said Kang Chun-mo, 36, an office worker at a top business group near Seoul, one of several interviewed by Reuters.
"But our government looks like responding too timidly. They have been talking of 'retaliation', but looking back on the Cheonan incident in March, I feel heavy about our government's response."
Tension between the two Koreas has been high for months after the sinking of the Cheonan, a South Korean warship, in March with the death of 46 sailors. The United States and South Korea blamed North for the attack, but Pyongyang denies responsibility.
"I think it is unfair that we keep being attacked by the North, and us not doing much about it," said Min Kyung-ock, 30, a researcher with a government think tank. "I think our country has the right to retaliate and protect our people."
Office worker Kim Eung-soo, 33, said being a wired country helped defuse the tension.
"In the past we could not see pictures or footage of any attacks or military conflicts," he said. "But now I can see them almost on a real-time basis through Twitter or other web services. Yet the technology has also helped ease worries about the North as I can quickly get experts' views that yesterday's attack will not have big impact on the economy."
Kim Hyun-jeong, a 23-year-old university student, said she first learnt of the attack by Twitter.
"I think it is unfair that we keep being attacked by the North, and us not doing much about it," she said. "Previously, I was not threatened by North Korea, but after the incident, I realise the Korean War is not over. I think the government should take a tough stance on the North."
North and South Korea are still technically still at war, the 1950-53 conflict ending in a mere truce, not a peace treaty.
Yang Yeong-hwan, 82, lives in Seoul, the South Korean capital that was razed during the war.
"North Korea is the bad guy to attack South Korean civilians," he said. "Our government should take more stern measures against the North. But what can we do? We have little power. China and the U.S. have the sway."
Chung Doo-sun, born in 1955 and whose daughter and three grandchildren still live on Yeonpyeong, asked why the South didn't return fire "immediately they took the covers off their artillery".
"I mean this is the age of cutting age technology and we talk about how we're looking at everything they do from satellites," he said. "We should have started returning fire the minute they cranked up their artillery. I just don't get it."
Is this the kind of attitude you're getting from allot of people in Seoul? I'd imagine that people would be reacting rather sharply to having actual South Korean territory attacked...especially with all the unresolved tension following the Cheonan's sinking.
If the Korean youth start developing these kind of attitudes, then it's hard to imagine Korean reunification happening in the next few decades. By then all the old people who directly knew someone on the other side of the 38th will all be dead, and the new leadership will be people who grew up viewing North Korea as this other entity threatening their way of life. I have a hard time seeing there being much drive for reunification by then.
Sumeragi
2010-11-24 23:39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Rambo
(Post 3361425)
Is this the kind of attitude you're getting from allot of people in Seoul? I'd imagine that people would be reacting rather sharply to having actual South Korean territory attacked...especially with all the unresolved tension following the Cheonan's sinking.
If the Korean youth start developing these kind of attitudes, then it's hard to imagine Korean reunification happening in the next few decades. By then all the old people who directly knew someone on the other side of the 38th will all be dead, and the new leadership will be people who grew up viewing North Korea as this other entity threatening their way of life. I have a hard time seeing there being much drive for reunification by then.
There are two types of nationalism in Korea today: "Daehan" nationalism (nationalism for ROK) and pan-Korean nationalism. Those two are combined for a lot of people, and in a recent survey, over 60% advocated reunification. However, the catch was that it would be a complete ROK hegemony instead of an equal reunification.
Basically, Daehan nationalism has swallowed pan-Korean nationalism for most people: Any reunification must be to the benefit of the Republic of Korea. Otherwise, it can be delayed until the conditions are met.
On my personal view: I'm a pan-Buyeo nationalist, advocating a union between Japan and Korea in a EU format.
Roger Rambo
2010-11-25 00:24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi
(Post 3361468)
There are two types of nationalism in Korea today: "Daehan" nationalism (nationalism for ROK) and pan-Korean nationalism. Those two are combined for a lot of people, and in a recent survey, over 60% advocated reunification. However, the catch was that it would be a complete ROK hegemony instead of an equal reunification.
Basically, Daehan nationalism has swallowed pan-Korean nationalism for most people: Any reunification must be to the benefit of the Republic of Korea. Otherwise, it can be delayed until the conditions are met.
Which really only makes it pan nationalism in the very loosest sense. It's less about the two Korea's coming together, but the North becoming subservient to the South...not that there would be any way this could be avoided if you tried to bring the two systems into the fold. Not with the economic disparity. That's a major block against reunification right there. I don't think the high level North Korean elite is particularly keen giving over all the power to the North and dismantling themselves.
Some people talk about gradually building up the North to the point where it can join the South...but that doesn't seem realistic either. Namely because it requires the Northern regime to stay in power. Many of the tools the Northern regime uses to stay in power, are also the same things that cause their economic issues (Lack of free flow of information for instance). Reform the Northern regime for economic prosperity, and you weaken the regime's ability to keep itself standing, and thus the South's ability to not have to directly run a failed state. It's a nasty little catch 22.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi
(Post 3361468)
On my personal view: I'm a pan-Buyeo nationalist, advocating a union between Japan and Korea in a EU format.
Well now that's different.
Sumeragi
2010-11-25 00:33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Rambo
(Post 3361530)
Which really only makes it pan nationalism in the very loosest sense. It's less about the two Korea's coming together, but the North becoming subservient to the South...not that there would be any way this could be avoided if you tried to bring the two systems into the fold. Not with the economic disparity. That's a major block against reunification right there. I don't think the high level North Korean elite is particularly keen giving over all the power to the North and dismantling themselves.
"Subservient" in the sense that the political-economic values of ROK becomes the sole legitimate ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Rambo
(Post 3361530)
Some people talk about gradually building up the North to the point where it can join the South...but that doesn't seem realistic either. Namely because it requires the Northern regime to stay in power. Many of the tools the Northern regime uses to stay in power, are also the same things that cause their economic issues (Lack of free flow of information for instance). Reform the Northern regime for economic prosperity, and you weaken the regime's ability to keep itself standing, and thus the South's ability to not have to directly run a failed state. It's a nasty little catch 22.
That's not really a problem: ROK already has a organized plan running the north as a separate administrive region, to be ruled separately until it is fit for complete reunification. Both sides knows that the German-style reunification will doom everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Rambo
(Post 3361530)
Well now that's different.
I'm a Japanese/Korean. What do you expect?
Basically, Japan will keep on being the stagnant sinking state, and it needs Korea to survive.
I was wondering how that last bit of part actually made any sense :
Quote:
"I mean this is the age of cutting age technology and we talk about how we're looking at everything they do from satellites," he said. "We should have started returning fire the minute they cranked up their artillery. I just don't get it."
If a satellite from orbital height can see an artilleryman adjust the azimuth from that distance, it would have been not from this age. Cutting edge technology doesn't mean neuromancer age, even the much bragged about HIMARs system in my country has to be pinpointed by a commando recon team.
And to return fire would be to restart a war. Satellite imagery still needs to be scrubbed and double-confirmed with the more reliable Humint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi
(Post 3361316)
*Sighs*
Again, the world thinks of DPRK as a "normal" country. It isn't, and it knows the mentalities of the average ROK citizen to not push it beyond the breaking point.
Mind you, I live in Seoul.
Now it is junior, who is a total noob to politics, taking charge. Who knows if he might suddenly come up with a stunt and start a skirmish?
Then again, he still has to see to the immediate affairs of the state to maintain the Kim dynasty. A random "show of force" might be latent enough to remind the world that NK is not to be invaded, and might not stand up to a full-scale invasion or counteract against it.
However, in this new century, if Un decides to open up NK for mining and investing, it is going to be a huge potential economic rival for SK. Lower costs, plenty of onsite available resources in the country, and with China supplying it with technology to build itself up, SK might have to be the subservient one to NK.
Though this may only happen in the next 30 years. By then we would be all 50-60 years and too old to care about world politics. :heh:
Tsuyoshi
2010-11-25 04:08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi
(Post 3361542)
"Subservient" in the sense that the political-economic values of ROK becomes the sole legitimate ones.
If some sort of compromise is reached between the two sides rather than the North becoming completely subservient to the South, I have to wonder how that would affect Korea as a whole. Perhaps you know more about this but if I had to guess, quite a lot of South Korea's allies would become at least a little skeptical considering they're now allies with a country they were enemies with until recently (what with the Northern regime united with the South without being subservient to it). Either way, I don't see a peaceful and equal unification between the two sides happening even if they wanted it to. The two sides are much too different in terms of ideology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi
(Post 3361542)
That's not really a problem: ROK already has a organized plan running the north as a separate administrive region, to be ruled separately until it is fit for complete reunification. Both sides knows that the German-style reunification will doom everyone.
Indeed, it does remind me of the way Germany was split up among the allies after WW2
Sumeragi
2010-11-25 06:31
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart
(Post 3361709)
If a satellite from orbital height can see an artilleryman adjust the azimuth from that distance, it would have been not from this age. Cutting edge technology doesn't mean neuromancer age, even the much bragged about HIMARs system in my country has to be pinpointed by a commando recon team.
And to return fire would be to restart a war. Satellite imagery still needs to be scrubbed and double-confirmed with the more reliable Humint.
Actually, since those artilleries are being monitored almost 24 hours a day, that wouldn't be too impossible. Also, I think things were lost in translation. The person probably meant "being prepared to fire", which would take about 15 minutes, enough time to be spotted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart
(Post 3361709)
However, in this new century, if Un decides to open up NK for mining and investing, it is going to be a huge potential economic rival for SK. Lower costs, plenty of onsite available resources in the country, and with China supplying it with technology to build itself up, SK might have to be the subservient one to NK.
If China doesn't fail by then. It'll be tough for China to overcome Korea in technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart
(Post 3361709)
Though this may only happen in the next 30 years. By then we would be all 50-60 years and too old to care about world politics. :heh:
I intend on going into politics (currently a ROK citizen).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi
(Post 3361759)
If some sort of compromise is reached between the two sides rather than the North becoming completely subservient to the South, I have to wonder how that would affect Korea as a whole. Perhaps you know more about this but if I had to guess, quite a lot of South Korea's allies would become at least a little skeptical considering they're now allies with a country they were enemies with until recently (what with the Northern regime united with the South without being subservient to it). Either way, I don't see a peaceful and equal unification between the two sides happening even if they wanted it to. The two sides are much too different in terms of ideology.
We'll see. It'll be China that'll be worried of a nuclear reunified Korea, possibily the worst case scenario for peace of Northeast Asia.
With the way things are going, it's only a matter of time before either Portugal or Italia fall the way Greece did. I'm especially concerned for Italia. Despite how bad Berlusconi is, he's done a decent job of keeping Italy on its feet just by keeping the government stable for so long. If we go back to the way it was before, with countless referendums and government changes every few months, I'll be surprised if we can shoulder all the problems.
Roger Rambo
2010-11-25 08:06
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi
(Post 3361542)
"Subservient" in the sense that the political-economic values of ROK becomes the sole legitimate ones.
That sounds pretty subservient to me. :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi
(Post 3361542)
That's not really a problem: ROK already has a organized plan running the north as a separate administrive region, to be ruled separately until it is fit for complete reunification. Both sides knows that the German-style reunification will doom everyone.
Still seems dicey from over on my side of the pacific. It seems that those millions of North Koreans probably won't want to stay in the North waiting while the regional administration try's their hardest to bassically build the country up from nothing. They'll probably try to head South to find work. A tide of millions of starving refugee's is probably the last thing South Korea wants.
The worry I have in this scenario, is the risk of the North becoming a ghetto, with the preoccupation of the administration running the region becoming predominantly to keep the population confined to the region. This would have the potential to brew into an enormous range of social problems. Namely civil unrest.
Azumanga Davo
2010-11-25 09:11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi
(Post 3361867)
With the way things are going, it's only a matter of time before either Portugal or Italia fall the way Greece did. I'm especially concerned for Italia. Despite how bad Berlusconi is, he's done a decent job of keeping Italy on its feet just by keeping the government stable for so long. If we go back to the way it was before, with countless referendums and government changes every few months, I'll be surprised if we can shoulder all the problems.
It's good Italy has had a bit of stability in the subject of presidencies, as it hasn't done very well since WWII in having a long term leader. I'm just amazed it happens to be old pervy at the steering wheel still. :heh:
I'm still scratching my head as to how Portugal can be saved from this sort of crisis. The only thing that comes into mind is a very large seaport and transport hub to make use of it's position on the Atlantic Ocean. Although one problem there is having the break-of-gauge for trains between Spain and France limits this ideology (although Spain are working on this). Anyone else have any ideas on what Portugal could try and do in the future?
yezhanquan
2010-11-25 09:19
I think I've written on the Korean Question before, but I'll repeat myself:
China is supporting NK mainly for two reasons.
1) It doesn't trust SK to keep US troops far away from the Yalu once the North goes down.
2) The refugee issue.
The US-SK delegation basically need to go to Beijing and say,"Look. The US won't station troops across the Yalu, and you guys will have your interests in the North protected. All we ask is for you to seal the border with NK." The Chinese are also vexed with NK, so once this can be secured, the next step will be war. What kind of war it will be depends on what the South wants after the smoke clears.
Let's face it: NK has already reached the step of shelling a civilian island. They will push their luck further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hey Missus
(Post 3361964)
It's good Italy has had a bit of stability in the subject of presidencies, as it hasn't done very well since WWII in having a long term leader. I'm just amazed it happens to be old pervy at the steering wheel still. :heh:
I'm still scratching my head as to how Portugal can be saved from this sort of crisis. The only thing that comes into mind is a very large seaport and transport hub to make use of it's position on the Atlantic Ocean. Although one problem there is having the break-of-gauge for trains between Spain and France limits this ideology (although Spain are working on this). Anyone else have any ideas on what Portugal could try and do in the future?
My old history prof puts it nicely: What does Portugal produce which the world wants? Not a whole lot of stuff.
Tsuyoshi
2010-11-25 09:19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hey Missus
(Post 3361964)
It's good Italy has had a bit of stability in the subject of presidencies, as it hasn't done very well since WWII in having a long term leader. I'm just amazed it happens to be old pervy at the steering wheel still. :heh:
It's quite unfortunate indeed that it had to be an old perv but he has admittedly done a better job than most people would've if they had stayed in power for as long as Berlusconi (although I very much doubt anything like that could've happened and Romano Prodi is proof). I really don't know if anyone else who is in the political spectrum in Italy right now will last for very long. Fini is looking strong but only because he practically betrayed Berlusconi by breaking ties with him and changing the name of his own party to cast away any semblance he used to have to fascist ideals. He's not gonna last long if he stays in power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hey Missus
(Post 3361964)
I'm still scratching my head as to how Portugal can be saved from this sort of crisis. The only thing that comes into mind is a very large seaport and transport hub to make use of it's position on the Atlantic Ocean. Although one problem there is having the break-of-gauge for trains between Spain and France limits this ideology (although Spain are working on this). Anyone else have any ideas on what Portugal could try and do in the future?
A remote idea would be to strengthen ties with Brazil. I've noticed how a lot of companies are taking an interest in emerging markets and considering Portugal and Brazil speak the same language, I imagine that developing business ties between the two would benfit them both, especially with Brazil showing a bit of promise in the emerging markets. If this is done along with your idea, I think Portugal could do much better but mine is very remote and I admit some ignorance on my part with regards to the specifics of Portugal's situation.
Julian Assange is a clown. His "leaks" so far had been just a consolidation of what has already been known, but to a much smaller audience. If he wants a better reaction, this next round of leaks better be news to all of us.