News Stories

[Ithekro]

Vietnam might also get American support if it goes air-naval against China. A reversal of the situation of the 1960s.

[Fireminer]

@Ithekro: Maybe, but it would be more possible for they to act to help the Philippine than us.

[Ithekro]

The Philippines for sure. Old allies (and former territory). But I'm fairly sure the US Navy was looking at Cam Ranh Bay again.

[Hitenma]

Originally Posted by Fireminer

You guys just have no idea how powerful the Anti-Chinese wave is growing in Vietnam. Day by day, it's getting stronger together with a nationalist sense. Plus, should I remind you that the Chinese has a hand in the bloody Land Revolution in the 1950s?

And no, the next war with China, it won't be another People War, but a Naval-Air War. Don't you guys know that we just bought 2 Kilo-Class Submarines, as well as a batch of Su30MK2V?

There is no next war with China, there will never be one.
Both sides know that going to war with each other is plain stupid.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Hitenma

There is no next war with China, there will never be one.
Both sides know that going to war with each other is plain stupid.

Wars aren't always planned years in advance, sometime all it need is a minor fuckup at the wrong moment.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Hitenma

There is no next war with China, there will never be one.
Both sides know that going to war with each other is plain stupid.

Not an economic war though. Good for growth at the expense of others. *sarcastic*

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Wars aren't always planned years in advance, sometime all it need is a minor fuckup at the wrong moment.

It takes just a moment of madness indeed. For example, no one ever expected Argentina to cross the line with the Falklands before the government from back then decided to take the risk. After that, they ended up completely crippled a few months later. Would have Argentina done it if they knew what was coming from Britain? I'm not sure.

[Irenicus]

I'm not particularly a fan of the Economist, the liberal-capitalist establishment's favorite mouthpiece, but from time to time, they are the only sane voice around.

The European Union's changes to freedom-of-movement rules are coming into effect on January 1, 2014. Predictably, Britain's xenophobic media, every bit as shameless and scummy as America's own Fox News, is in hysteria, terrified by the thoughts of waves after waves of inferior stocks of Romanian and Bulgarian humanity flooding into its "hallowed" boroughs, council houses, whatever the hell they call a ghetto over there, and Birmingham. Worse yet, the likes of the Guardian -- a newspaper I otherwise deeply respect, if with some cultural bemusement -- is now sharing opinions with the Daily Mail.

All except the forward-looking, open-minded Economist.

Originally Posted by The Economist

You’re welcome
An open letter to the citizens of Bulgaria and Romania

BRITAIN’S newspapers are full of stories about your poverty, criminality and hunger for welfare. Its politicians rail against the European freedom-of-movement rules that will let you in and scramble to make it harder for you to claim benefits. Its population is more hostile than the Germans or the French: almost half of Britons believe their government should ban you from the country even if it is against the law to do so. You might just, as a result, have got the impression that you are not welcome.

But you are. On behalf of The Economist’s home country, we invite you to come and work here. Beginning on January 1st, you can go anywhere in the European Union. We hope lots of you choose Britain. Although our leaders seem to have forgotten, Britain pushed for your country to join the EU, knowing that you would one day turn up on our doorstep.

The going will be rough at first. But the history of many waves of immigration tells us that, before too long, you will be folded comfortably into British society.

More than we bargained for

It is not your fault that most of our countrymen don’t want you. Partly, the problem is the Poles. Ten years ago, when Britain was one of only three countries to open its doors to them, the government assured voters that just a few tens of thousands would come, and probably not for long. Instead more than half a million arrived. And, as well as being workers who cut cabbages and painted walls (displacing some British labourers by the simple expedient of turning up on time), they proved to be human beings who settled down and had children. We weren’t fully prepared for that.

But if our leaders were wrong a decade ago about the number of Poles and other east Europeans who would come to Britain, they are more wrong now about their effect on the country. Politicians claim they are a burden on public services already stretched thin by austerity. Nonsense: being young and able-bodied, they don’t use them much. And because they contribute more to the Treasury in taxes than they take out in benefits and services—about 35% more, according to a plausible estimate—they save our schools and hospitals from deeper cuts. They don’t depress wages much, and mostly among other immigrant workers. They make our economy bigger, lowering our debt-to-GDP ratio. If you are even remotely like them, you will be an economic boon.

Sadly, opinion polls do not lie. Few people want you here. Those of you who end up begging or stealing—and there will inevitably be some—will be featured on the front pages of our newspapers. But in an odd way, this could help you. So loathsome is the idea of Bulgarian and Romanian immigration to Britons that the reality can only seem pleasant by comparison. People will be nicely surprised when the great majority of you come to work rather than scrounge off the state.

Britain’s labour market is Europe’s most flexible. Its economy is at last growing strongly. Its people are not prejudiced in practice: the polls that show huge opposition to your arrival also suggest that most Britons would consider employing you to work on their houses. The country is used to immigrants. Particularly in London, you will discover all kinds of exotic folk, many of whom were similarly despised when they first arrived. If you are really worried about prejudice, just pretend to be Italian. Nobody will know.

I'm inclined to switch a few nouns around and throw the book at "my fellow" Americans.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

I'm not particularly a fan of the Economist, the liberal-capitalist establishment's favorite mouthpiece, but from time to time, they are the only sane voice around.

The European Union's changes to freedom-of-movement rules are coming into effect on January 1, 2014. Predictably, Britain's xenophobic media, every bit as shameless and scummy as America's own Fox News, is in hysteria, terrified by the thoughts of waves after waves of inferior stocks of Romanian and Bulgarian humanity flooding into its "hallowed" boroughs, council houses, whatever the hell they call a ghetto over there, and Birmingham. Worse yet, the likes of the Guardian -- a newspaper I otherwise deeply respect, if with some cultural bemusement -- is now sharing opinions with the Daily Mail.

All except the forward-looking, open-minded Economist.


I'm inclined to switch a few nouns around and throw the book at "my fellow" Americans.

1. The British hated the Italians and have no respect for them, simply they are the lousiest in the 3 major aspect of European history; namely WWII, government and of course, football.

2. Shouldn't be the entire Economist be liable for treason now? Off with their heads!

[Fireminer]

Originally Posted by Hitenma

There is no next war with China, there will never be one.
Both sides know that going to war with each other is plain stupid.

Big, full-scale war? No, but instead of that it would be clash and small conflict.

[JokerD]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Wars aren't always planned years in advance, sometime all it need is a minor fuckup at the wrong moment.

Actually yes it is. Most countries would have plans and strategies on lots of war scenarios. And the military drills reflect that.

Originally Posted by Fireminer

Big, full-scale war? No, but instead of that it would be clash and small conflict.

I'm thinking of something like proxy conflicts like during the cold war...

[SeijiSensei]

It seems inevitable to me that some type of skirmish will develop in the China Sea between the Chinese and one of their neighbors. Perhaps a plane will be shot down in one of the countries "identification area" or a minor sea battle will take place in or around Senkaku, Scarborough, or perhaps some place we have yet to hear about. Treaty obligations with any of Japan, South Korea, or the Philippines threaten to embroil the US.

In European history before World War I there were a succession of "crises" in Morocco and the Balkans which threatened to escalate into a broader war but ultimately did not. For that, a Serbian nationalist's bullet was needed.

[NoemiChan]

Originally Posted by Fireminer

Big, full-scale war? No, but instead of that it would be clash and small conflict.

It depends who starts. If Obama calls Kim fat, then NK will go to war without hesitation.

NK: "He's not fat!!! He's just chubby.!!!!!"

[ganbaru]

When the Right to Bear Arms Includes the Mentally Ill
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/22/us...tally-ill.html

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

When the Right to Bear Arms Includes the Mentally Ill
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/22/us...tally-ill.html

Gun rights advocates worry that seizure laws will ensnare law-abiding citizens who pose no threat. In Connecticut, with its imminent-risk standard for seizure, the law sometimes “reaches pretty normal people,” said Rachel Baird, a lawyer who has sued police departments over gun confiscations.

A letter from Mr. Colflesh’s doctor, stating that he was not dangerous, as long as he was on his medication.

“People make comments all the time when they’re angry or frustrated — ‘I’m going to come down there, and it won’t be pretty’ — but if you say that and you own a firearm, it immediately takes on a context that it otherwise wouldn’t,” said Ms. Baird, a former prosecutor.

At the same time, mental health professionals worry that new seizure laws might stigmatize many people who have no greater propensity for violence than the broader population. They also fear that the laws will discourage people who need help from seeking treatment, while doing little to deter gun violence.
Research has shown, however, that people with serious mental illnesses, like schizophrenia, major depression or bipolar disorder, do pose an increased risk of violence. In one widely citedstudy

, Jeffrey W. Swanson, now a psychiatry professor at Duke University, found that when substance abusers were excluded, 33 percent of people with a serious mental illness reported past violent behavior, compared with 15 percent of people without such a disorder. The study, based on epidemiological survey data from the 1980s, defined violent behavior as everything from taking part in more than one fistfight as an adult to using a weapon in a fight.

What these people need is someone to talk to, not their guns taken from them. Typical law writer goes over his head with sweeping justifications rather than approaching from a in-depth perspective.

A guy with a gun is still better than a guy with a 5kg home-made IED. Don't aggravate people unecessarily.

[Anh_Minh]

A guy with a gun is a lot more common than a guy who will sustain the dedication to research and make a five kg IED...

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

A guy with a gun is a lot more common than a guy who will sustain the dedication to research and make a five kg IED...

I cannot corroborate my opinion, however I think it is quite easy to mix petrol and fertiliser, then sealing it in a large bag after duct-taping an egg-timer wired out of it.

I agree both are as deadly, but taking away guns don't solve the problem unless you are going to lock them in a Class C ward too.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I cannot corroborate my opinion, however I think it is quite easy to mix petrol and fertiliser, then sealing it in a large bag after duct-taping an egg-timer wired out of it.

I agree both are as deadly, but taking away guns don't solve the problem unless you are going to lock them in a Class C ward too.

I can assure you that Americans would find the IED the far harder option than just go buy a gun. Proof; school kids shooting their classmates are far more common than school kids blowing up their classrooms.

When you want to commit mass murder in America, getting a gun is the easier option. Not making your own bombs.

p.s. If I want to commit mass murder in Australia, on the other hand, I WOULD consider the home made bomb option, as it is much less hassle than getting a gun licence. And yet there is still rarely any IEDs in Australia... AND we have less gun violence too.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

I can assure you that Americans would find the IED the far harder option than just go buy a gun. Proof; school kids shooting their classmates are far more common than school kids blowing up their classrooms.

When you want to commit mass murder in America, getting a gun is the easier option. Not making your own bombs.

p.s. If I want to commit mass murder in Australia, on the other hand, I WOULD consider the home made bomb option, as it is much less hassle than getting a gun licence. And yet there is still rarely any IEDs in Australia... AND we have less gun violence too.

That is because you Aussies are already fighting the animals trying to eat you; common interest.

[Kakashi]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

I'm not particularly a fan of the Economist, the liberal-capitalist establishment's favorite mouthpiece, but from time to time, they are the only sane voice around.

The European Union's changes to freedom-of-movement rules are coming into effect on January 1, 2014. Predictably, Britain's xenophobic media, every bit as shameless and scummy as America's own Fox News, is in hysteria, terrified by the thoughts of waves after waves of inferior stocks of Romanian and Bulgarian humanity flooding into its "hallowed" boroughs, council houses, whatever the hell they call a ghetto over there, and Birmingham. Worse yet, the likes of the Guardian -- a newspaper I otherwise deeply respect, if with some cultural bemusement -- is now sharing opinions with the Daily Mail.

All except the forward-looking, open-minded Economist.


I'm inclined to switch a few nouns around and throw the book at "my fellow" Americans.

I live in the UK. Official immigration statistics show the majority of foreign immigrants coming to the UK are from Africa and the Asian subcontinent. The British media focuses on those coming from Eastern Europe as a distraction and of course tries to fuel xenophobia and fear among the British working class of foreigners coming to steal their jobs, but our government (like any corrupt plutocracy) welcomes desperate foreign immigrants who will work for less and increase corporate profits. The whole "we're going to do something about immigration" is just a front to make it seem like they care about the UK working class but as is known corporations have no national allegiance. We are heading towards neo-feudalism at a slightly slower pace than the US, but we're heading there nonetheless.

We do still have some honest journalists working in the Guardian but it has mostly been infiltrated.