"Beloved Leader" Kim Jong-II upset on losing position of most evil tyrant
-
It is extremely unlikely China would go to war with the US today over NK. War against the UN, even more unlikely.
Cheers, Vıkram.
Carpe Diem.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
It is extremely unlikely China would go to war with the US today over NK. War against the UN, even more unlikely.
That's the way I feel about India going after Pakistan. I'm sure China wouldn't defend her ally.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
It is extremely unlikely China would go to war with the US today over NK. War against the UN, even more unlikely.
That's the way I feel about India going after Pakistan. I'm sure China wouldn't defend her ally.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
China is way stronger than India. She isn't as strong as the US. Still, doesn't necessarily mean China will enter the war if India attacks Pakistan. Good try though.
Cheers, Vıkram.
Carpe Diem.
-
China is way stronger than India. She isn't as strong as the US. Still, doesn't necessarily mean China will enter the war if India attacks Pakistan. Good try though.
Cheers, Vıkram.
Carpe Diem.
-
But we had already done that once at the behest of the UN, and the chinese helped NK nearly kick our ass. Given that the Chinese still seem more likely to help NK than us, we will never likely do that.
Rob Graham wrote:
But we had already done that once at the behest of the UN
The UN Security Council at that time being the USA, UK, France, Republic of China (Formosa - now Taiwan), and the USSR. The USSR was sulking and not attending Security Council meetings. Effectively, then, the USA defended South Korea at the behest of the USA.
Bob Emmett
-
Rob Graham wrote:
But we had already done that once at the behest of the UN
The UN Security Council at that time being the USA, UK, France, Republic of China (Formosa - now Taiwan), and the USSR. The USSR was sulking and not attending Security Council meetings. Effectively, then, the USA defended South Korea at the behest of the USA.
Bob Emmett
and how is that different from today UN Security Council? Except you have extra 10 mannequins sitting around the table.
Yusuf Oh didn't you notice, analogous to square roots, they recently introduced rectangular, circular, and diamond roots to determine the size of the corresponding shapes when given the area. Luc Pattyn[^]
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
A political pundit was quoted as saying ...
No name against which to authenticate the quote? Hell, everyone who posts here is a political pundit, and I don't believe any of you. :-D
Bob Emmett
Bob Emmett wrote:
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote: A political pundit was quoted as saying ... No name against which to authenticate the quote?
what difference it makes. Name by it self does not mean anything. Any one can make any name.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Hell, everyone who posts here is a political pundit, and I don't believe any of you
Even Kim Jong-II :-D
Yusuf Oh didn't you notice, analogous to square roots, they recently introduced rectangular, circular, and diamond roots to determine the size of the corresponding shapes when given the area. Luc Pattyn[^]
-
and how is that different from today UN Security Council? Except you have extra 10 mannequins sitting around the table.
Yusuf Oh didn't you notice, analogous to square roots, they recently introduced rectangular, circular, and diamond roots to determine the size of the corresponding shapes when given the area. Luc Pattyn[^]
-
Yusuf.A wrote:
and how is that different from today UN Security Council?
Um, not much?
Bob Emmett
-
Rob Graham wrote:
But we had already done that once at the behest of the UN
The UN Security Council at that time being the USA, UK, France, Republic of China (Formosa - now Taiwan), and the USSR. The USSR was sulking and not attending Security Council meetings. Effectively, then, the USA defended South Korea at the behest of the USA.
Bob Emmett
Hey, we had to get France to agree, never an easy challenge. Then of course NK had nothing of interest to France, so the French didn't care what happened to NK much.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote: A political pundit was quoted as saying ... No name against which to authenticate the quote?
what difference it makes. Name by it self does not mean anything. Any one can make any name.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Hell, everyone who posts here is a political pundit, and I don't believe any of you
Even Kim Jong-II :-D
Yusuf Oh didn't you notice, analogous to square roots, they recently introduced rectangular, circular, and diamond roots to determine the size of the corresponding shapes when given the area. Luc Pattyn[^]
Yusuf.A wrote:
Name by it self does not mean anything. Any one can make any name.
True. But if the article attributed names to the pollsters and the pundit, I could investigate the validity of the poll and the merit of the pundit. As the article is in the Daily Star, my immediate assumption is that there was no such poll, and that the pundit was someone with no more knowledge of Kim Jong-II's state of mind than I have, i.e. none other than the guy writing the article.
Yusuf.A wrote:
Even Kim Jong-II
He posts here? :(
Bob Emmett
-
Hey, we had to get France to agree, never an easy challenge. Then of course NK had nothing of interest to France, so the French didn't care what happened to NK much.
Rob Graham wrote:
so the French didn't care what happened to NK much.
The French were fighting the Viet Minh (communists and nationalists) trying to hang on to French Indochina. As the USSR and China recognised the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, the French needed the USA. The UK and USA had their 'special relationship'. The Republic of China would not have existed without the USA. All sewn up then.
Bob Emmett
-
North Korea's supreme leader Kim Jong-II has expressed his agitation on being overthrown in an annual poll that names the world's worst dictators [...] A political pundit was quoted as saying, "He (Jong-II) genuinely craves notoriety on the world stage and is privately seething he is no longer regarded as the most evil leader."[^]
:omg: Dictators in our backyard like Musharraf had some pretence of ruling-in-the-interest-of-what's-good-for-the-country. This guy is *upset* he's not considered the most evil any more? :eek:
Cheers, Vıkram.
Carpe Diem.
I don't think the article is serious. It doesn't name a source, and both article and quote misspell the Korean leader's name (it should be Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong Il, or maybe Li'l Kim :)).