Home
by Zuper Mon Feb 25, 2019 11:13 amSta ovo Tramp odlozi novo povecanje tarifa?
Vrlo sam iznenadjen.
Vrlo sam iznenadjen.
Ћина-Средње Краљевство
- Posts : 10694
Join date : 2016-06-25
- Posts : 40213
Join date : 2012-02-12
Location : квантни физикалац
Каквих тарифа? За струју, таксије, друмарине, проституцију? :паће: 
_____
commented, fermented, demented, mementoed, cemented, lamented.
анархеологистика: оно кад не знаш где си га затурио, и кад.
- Posts : 10694
Join date : 2016-06-25
Zhuhai Hengqin International Financial Center under construction and Hengqin new area financial island in south China's Guangdong Province
World's largest planetarium takes shape
The main structure of the Shanghai Planetarium was completed on Wednesday. The facility is expected to be ready by the end of 2020.
Senzen, kineski tehnoloski centar, sto bi se reklo hub
Shenzhen: The Tech Capital of the World
https://medium.com/wonk-bridge/shenzhen-the-tech-capital-of-the-world-7b1a0469c39f
Mislim da u ovom centru vec ima vise tehnoloskih kompanija nego li "Silicujmska dolna" u Kaliforniji.
Tencent HQ, Shenzhen
World's largest planetarium takes shape
The main structure of the Shanghai Planetarium was completed on Wednesday. The facility is expected to be ready by the end of 2020.
Senzen, kineski tehnoloski centar, sto bi se reklo hub
Shenzhen: The Tech Capital of the World
https://medium.com/wonk-bridge/shenzhen-the-tech-capital-of-the-world-7b1a0469c39f
Mislim da u ovom centru vec ima vise tehnoloskih kompanija nego li "Silicujmska dolna" u Kaliforniji.
Tencent HQ, Shenzhen
Last edited by Zuper on Mon Feb 25, 2019 1:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
- Korisnik
- Posts : 4670
Join date : 2015-02-17
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bt4xYJhBofY/?utm_source=ig_embed
China and India, two countries often criticized for polluting #environment, are leaders in enhancing global tree cover, a new study based on #NASA satellite data revealed.
- Posts : 10694
Join date : 2016-06-25
Inace Kina ce ove ili naredne godine presitici SAD po ulaganjima u razvoj i istrazivanje(R&D) u oblastima tenike i nauke...
Koliko moras biti glup da otvaras Kinu na ustrb SSSR?!
Pad SSSR nije bila nikakva pobeda SAD vec pocatka smrti celog zapada...
Debili sa zapada sada pokusavaju da razviju Indiju koja vise mrzi zapad od Kine.
Dobrodosli u nekoliko vekova Azije.
Koliko moras biti glup da otvaras Kinu na ustrb SSSR?!
Pad SSSR nije bila nikakva pobeda SAD vec pocatka smrti celog zapada...
Debili sa zapada sada pokusavaju da razviju Indiju koja vise mrzi zapad od Kine.
Dobrodosli u nekoliko vekova Azije.
- Guest
Nije ti ovo netačno, po mom mišljenju.
Dok se Zapad usredsredio i favorizovao kriminalce kao Goldman Sachs, Kina je išla u nauku i inženjerstvo.
Indija mrzi Kinu kao crnog đavola, i obrnuto. Imali su i oružane sukobe u ne davnoj prošlosti.
Indija sa 1.2 milijarde stanovnika, koju svet ne zanima, ima diplomata isti broj kao Novi Zeland (5 miliona stanovnika).
Mislim, tu je Kina u velikom vođstvu.
Dok se Zapad usredsredio i favorizovao kriminalce kao Goldman Sachs, Kina je išla u nauku i inženjerstvo.
Indija mrzi Kinu kao crnog đavola, i obrnuto. Imali su i oružane sukobe u ne davnoj prošlosti.
Indija sa 1.2 milijarde stanovnika, koju svet ne zanima, ima diplomata isti broj kao Novi Zeland (5 miliona stanovnika).
Mislim, tu je Kina u velikom vođstvu.
- Posts : 10694
Join date : 2016-06-25
Hindu nacionalisti kopiraju dalekoistocni model razvoja.
U tome im pomazu debili sa zapada koji misle da ce tako ogranicti Kinu.
Nece.
Jedino ce hindu nacionalizam da eskplodira njima u lice.
A Kina i Indija sve vise trguju. I bice sigurno najveci trgovacki partneri u buducnosti i pored napetosti u Himalajima.
Uostalom, cak i da zapad ne bude vise umesan u razvoj Azije, tamo je sakupljeno dovoljno sredstava i tehnolosko-naucnog znanja da mogu sami sada da jedni druge guraju kroz takmicenje, ono sto je izgubljeno u zabokrecini Evropi...
Indija ce u narednih 10 godina prestici Kinu po broju stanovnika.
Idu oni na 1.6-1.7 milijardi do 2050-2100.
U tome im pomazu debili sa zapada koji misle da ce tako ogranicti Kinu.
Nece.
Jedino ce hindu nacionalizam da eskplodira njima u lice.
A Kina i Indija sve vise trguju. I bice sigurno najveci trgovacki partneri u buducnosti i pored napetosti u Himalajima.
Uostalom, cak i da zapad ne bude vise umesan u razvoj Azije, tamo je sakupljeno dovoljno sredstava i tehnolosko-naucnog znanja da mogu sami sada da jedni druge guraju kroz takmicenje, ono sto je izgubljeno u zabokrecini Evropi...
Indija ce u narednih 10 godina prestici Kinu po broju stanovnika.
Idu oni na 1.6-1.7 milijardi do 2050-2100.
- Posts : 10694
Join date : 2016-06-25
Sky Bridge: China’s horizontal skyscraper nears completion
A staggering 1.12-million-square-meter megastructure is expected to open in the Chinese city of Chongqing later this year. It will consist of eight skyscrapers connected by a gigantic sky bridge.
Known as Raffles City Chongqing’s ninth ‘horizontal skyscraper’, the sky bridge, or ‘The Crystal’, is said to be one of the world’s highest. It is 300 meters in length, 32.5 meters wide, and 26.5 meters high. The construction is nestled above four of the 250-meter skyscrapers and links two adjacent towers by cantilevered bridges.
A staggering 1.12-million-square-meter megastructure is expected to open in the Chinese city of Chongqing later this year. It will consist of eight skyscrapers connected by a gigantic sky bridge.
Known as Raffles City Chongqing’s ninth ‘horizontal skyscraper’, the sky bridge, or ‘The Crystal’, is said to be one of the world’s highest. It is 300 meters in length, 32.5 meters wide, and 26.5 meters high. The construction is nestled above four of the 250-meter skyscrapers and links two adjacent towers by cantilevered bridges.
- Posts : 10694
Join date : 2016-06-25
The US attacks on Huawei betrays its fear of being left behind
Proliferation of our technology hampers American efforts to spy on whomever it wants
Guo Ping
As a top Huawei executive, I’m often asked why the US has launched a full-scale assault on us. The Americans have charged us with stealing technology and violating trade sanctions, and largely blocked us from doing business there. Mike Pence, US vice-president, recently told Nato of “the threat posed by Huawei”, and Mike Pompeo, secretary of state, warned allies that using our telecommunications equipment would make it harder for the US to “partner alongside them.”
On Tuesday at the Mobile World Congress, the industry’s largest trade show, a US delegation led by Ajit Pai, Federal Communications Commission chair, repeated the call to keep Huawei out of global 5G networks.
Washington has cast aspersions on Huawei for years. A 2012 report by the House Intelligence Committee labelled us a threat. But, until recently, these attacks were relatively muted. Now that the US has brought out the heavy artillery and portrayed Huawei as a threat to western civilisation, we must ask why.
I believe the answer is in the top secret US National Security Agency documents leaked by Edward Snowden in 2013. Formed in 1952, the NSA monitors electronic communications, such as email and phone calls, for intelligence and counter-intelligence purposes.
The Snowden leaks shone a light on how the NSA’s leaders were seeking to “collect it all” — every electronic communication sent, or phone call made, by everyone in the world, every day. Those documents also showed that the NSA maintains “corporate partnerships” with particular US technology and telecom companies that allow the agency to “gain access to high-capacity international fibre-optic cables, switches and/or routers throughout the world”.
Huawei operates in more than 170 countries and earns half of its revenue abroad but its headquarters are in China. This significantly reduces the odds of a “corporate partnership”. If the NSA wants to modify routers or switches in order to eavesdrop, a Chinese company will be unlikely to co-operate. This is one reason why the NSA hacked into Huawei’s servers. “Many of our targets communicate over Huawei-produced products,” a 2010 NSA document states. “We want to make sure that we know how to exploit these products.”
Clearly, the more Huawei gear is installed in the world’s telecommunications networks, the harder it becomes for the NSA to “collect it all”. Huawei, in other words, hampers US efforts to spy on whomever it wants. This is the first reason for the campaign against us.
The second reason has to do with 5G. This latest generation of mobile technology will provide data connections for everything from smart factories to electric power grids. Huawei has invested heavily in 5G research for the past 10 years, putting us roughly a year ahead of our competitors. That makes us attractive to countries that are preparing to upgrade to 5G in the next few months.
If the US can keep Huawei out of the world’s 5G networks by portraying us as a security threat, it can retain its ability to spy on whomever it wants. America also directly benefits if it can quash a company that curtails its digital dominance. Hobbling a leader in 5G technology would erode the economic and social benefits that would otherwise accrue to the countries that roll it out early. Meanwhile, a range of US laws, including most recently the Cloud Act, empowers the US government to compel telecom companies to assist America’s programme of global surveillance, as long as the order is framed as an investigation involving counter-intelligence or counter-terrorism.
The fusillade being directed at Huawei is the direct result of Washington’s realisation that the US has fallen behind in developing a strategically important technology. The global campaign against Huawei has little to do with security, and everything to do with America’s desire to suppress a rising technological competitor.
https://www.ft.com/content/b8307ce8-36b3-11e9-bb0c-42459962a812
Proliferation of our technology hampers American efforts to spy on whomever it wants
Guo Ping
As a top Huawei executive, I’m often asked why the US has launched a full-scale assault on us. The Americans have charged us with stealing technology and violating trade sanctions, and largely blocked us from doing business there. Mike Pence, US vice-president, recently told Nato of “the threat posed by Huawei”, and Mike Pompeo, secretary of state, warned allies that using our telecommunications equipment would make it harder for the US to “partner alongside them.”
On Tuesday at the Mobile World Congress, the industry’s largest trade show, a US delegation led by Ajit Pai, Federal Communications Commission chair, repeated the call to keep Huawei out of global 5G networks.
Washington has cast aspersions on Huawei for years. A 2012 report by the House Intelligence Committee labelled us a threat. But, until recently, these attacks were relatively muted. Now that the US has brought out the heavy artillery and portrayed Huawei as a threat to western civilisation, we must ask why.
I believe the answer is in the top secret US National Security Agency documents leaked by Edward Snowden in 2013. Formed in 1952, the NSA monitors electronic communications, such as email and phone calls, for intelligence and counter-intelligence purposes.
The Snowden leaks shone a light on how the NSA’s leaders were seeking to “collect it all” — every electronic communication sent, or phone call made, by everyone in the world, every day. Those documents also showed that the NSA maintains “corporate partnerships” with particular US technology and telecom companies that allow the agency to “gain access to high-capacity international fibre-optic cables, switches and/or routers throughout the world”.
Huawei operates in more than 170 countries and earns half of its revenue abroad but its headquarters are in China. This significantly reduces the odds of a “corporate partnership”. If the NSA wants to modify routers or switches in order to eavesdrop, a Chinese company will be unlikely to co-operate. This is one reason why the NSA hacked into Huawei’s servers. “Many of our targets communicate over Huawei-produced products,” a 2010 NSA document states. “We want to make sure that we know how to exploit these products.”
Clearly, the more Huawei gear is installed in the world’s telecommunications networks, the harder it becomes for the NSA to “collect it all”. Huawei, in other words, hampers US efforts to spy on whomever it wants. This is the first reason for the campaign against us.
The second reason has to do with 5G. This latest generation of mobile technology will provide data connections for everything from smart factories to electric power grids. Huawei has invested heavily in 5G research for the past 10 years, putting us roughly a year ahead of our competitors. That makes us attractive to countries that are preparing to upgrade to 5G in the next few months.
If the US can keep Huawei out of the world’s 5G networks by portraying us as a security threat, it can retain its ability to spy on whomever it wants. America also directly benefits if it can quash a company that curtails its digital dominance. Hobbling a leader in 5G technology would erode the economic and social benefits that would otherwise accrue to the countries that roll it out early. Meanwhile, a range of US laws, including most recently the Cloud Act, empowers the US government to compel telecom companies to assist America’s programme of global surveillance, as long as the order is framed as an investigation involving counter-intelligence or counter-terrorism.
The fusillade being directed at Huawei is the direct result of Washington’s realisation that the US has fallen behind in developing a strategically important technology. The global campaign against Huawei has little to do with security, and everything to do with America’s desire to suppress a rising technological competitor.
https://www.ft.com/content/b8307ce8-36b3-11e9-bb0c-42459962a812
- Guest
Can the US win the new cold war with China? Not without risking a nuclear war
America is using flimsy means to confront the strongest adversary it has ever faced, and needs to ask itself if it is willing to fight a hot war to maintain its position in Asia
Hugh White
Updated: Wednesday, 6 Mar, 2019 2:24pm
Declaring a new cold war against China is easy, but working out how to fight it and win it is much harder. While almost everyone in Washington these days seems to agree that resisting China’s seemingly insatiable ambition is now America’s highest strategic priority, the nature and scale of the task is still enveloped in uncertainty.
No one seems too worried about this, however, because they assume that a new cold war with China is going to be easy to win.
The few attempts we have seen to formulate a strategy to against China, from think-tankers’ policy papers to Congress’ recent Asia Reassurance Initiative Act (ARIA), radiate confidence that America can defeat China’s challenge by doing just a little bit more of the things it has been doing in Asia for decades.
The talk is of closer links to allies, more active partnerships with friends, more military deployments and increased economic and people-to-people links. But this is just what America has been saying and doing for years, and none of it has worked to stop China’s growing influence.
By expecting to win this way, today’s new cold warriors massively underestimate China. That is a huge mistake, reflecting major misunderstandings of China’s power, ambitions and resolve.
When these are properly understood, it becomes clear that America faces a huge and daunting task if it is really serious about confronting and containing China’s ambitions in East Asia. The new cold war could be just as hard and dangerous and costly as the old cold war was.
Let’s start by being clear what the contest is really about. US officials – like Vice-President Mike Pence in Munich recently – often talk as if America’s problem with China concerns specific Chinese policies, like its expansive maritime claims and predatory economic policies.
If so, success would simply mean convincing Beijing to abandon these policies, and then all will be well again.
But these specific issues are no more the real driver of US-China rivalry than the status of Danzig was the cause of the second world war. They are just the symptoms of a far bigger dispute with much greater stakes for both sides, over which of them dominates East Asia.
Very simply, America wants to remain East Asia’s preponderant power, and China wants to take its place.
This is a contest, then, between the world’s two most powerful states over the leadership of the world’s most prosperous and dynamic region. Compared to that, the disputes over maritime law or intellectual property dwindle to insignificance.
The second thing to understand is the strength of the Chinese resolve to win this contest. It springs from their deep sense of the kind of country China is. Americans tend still to see China as a poor, weak country – albeit one which has unexpectedly and temporarily struck it rich.
But the Chinese have never stopped thinking of themselves as a great power, and see their recent rise as the natural restoration of their traditional place at the apex of wealth and power. So while Americans see a US preponderance in Asia as natural and proper, the Chinese see it as unnatural, anachronistic – and insufferable.
To see how insufferable, recall Henry Kissinger’s acute observation many years ago that the US-China relationship is driven less by the two counties’ differences than by their similarities – especially their similar images of themselves as international actors.
Imagine how Americans would feel if China dominated the western hemisphere the way America has dominated East Asia. That gives some idea of how determined the Chinese are to push America out of its region and take its place.
The third thing to understand is China’s power. It is the strongest adversary America has ever faced, and getting steadily stronger. Like any country, the foundations of its power is its economy, which is already far bigger, relative to America’s, than the Soviet Union was at its height. Before long, it will almost certainly overtake America altogether.
Of course China has serious economic, political and social problems, but to assume that they will stop, let alone reverse, its rise to power is pure wishful thinking.
So is the assumption that China’s economic weight – and its fast-growing technological expertise – will not translate into formidable diplomatic weight and military power. Indeed they already have.
None of this means that China will soon “rule the world”. But it does make China a truly formidable adversary, and it raises deep questions about whether America can credibly expect to succeed in preserving the old US-led order in Asia in the face of China’s determination to overturn it.
Certainly nothing Washington has done even begins to look like a serious effort on the scale that will be required.
Congress’ ARIA, hailed by some as a powerful statement of US resolve, committed just US$1.5 billion a year to shoring up America’s position in Asia. By comparison, the war on terror is now estimated to have cost around US$1 billion a day since the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Nor is it just a matter of money. Like the old cold war, a contest with China over Asia will soon become, above all, a military contest. America need not go to war with China to defeat its challenge, but it must convince Beijing that it is willing and able to do so – just as it had to convince the Soviets of the same thing.
And that raises the ultimate question: is America so determined to contain China’s challenge and preserve its leadership in Asia that it is willing to fight a major war – quite possibly a nuclear war – to do so?
Because if it isn’t willing to do that, and if it can’t convince China of its willingness, then America will not win this new cold war. And if it is not going to win this contest, then it might be better not to begin it.
https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/united-states/article/2188648/can-us-win-new-cold-war-china-not-without
- Posts : 2412
Join date : 2014-10-31
kad je to amerika stavila sovjetima do znanja da je spremna na nuklearni rat s njima?
_____
I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic fucking hatreds.
- Posts : 10694
Join date : 2016-06-25
Na pocetku, 1945, kada su bacili atomske bombe na Hirosimu i Nagasaki.
A onda po osnivanju nato jer je doktrina odbrane od mocne kopnene Crvene armije bila upotreba nuklearki.
Ali to je samo zato sto Sovjeti nisu imali atomku 1945 tj. kasnili i to je jedini razlog Hladnog rata koji se nece ponoviti.
A sto se tice rata Kineza i Amera, on se desio u mnogo povoljnim vremenima za SAD, u Koreji i tada je SAD vojska bezala kao zecevi. Jedno od najsramnih povlacenja a Kinezi su uzeli i Seul za par meseci...tadasnja Kina je bila siromanija od 90% Afrike, tek izasla iz visedecenijskog gradjanskog rata i japanske okupacije. To je toliko bilo ponizavajuce za SAD bilo da su neki generali u SAD zahtevali da se baci atomka na Kinu.
Nikada zapadna civilizacija ne moze da se nosi sa istocnom spremnoscu na zrtovavanje, sto su SAD osetile ne samo u Koreji vec i U Vijetnamu, Afghanistanu, Iraku i ne dao im Alah da krenu na Iran.
Nikada!
Zapadne, narocito anglo civilizacija, individualisticka zeljne uzivanja, nepojmivo za njih na ono sto su Kinezi spremni.
Razicit pogleda na svet i zivot.
Kinu nije trebalo razviti, tj. izvristi tehnoloski i naucni transfer. Jer je to bio jedini razlog prednosti zapada i nista drugo.
Sto se tice ekonomije, ogroman mehanizam Kine su pokrenuli sada ga je jako tesko zaustaviti jer se radi o 1.4 milijardi ljudi kojima danasnji poredak odgovara.
Nije uopste za poredjenje sa SSSR gde su nakon Staljina dolazili klovnovi na vlast sa jakim secam na Drugi svetski rat sa potpuno drugacijim ekonomskim sistemom od kineskog.
Ja jedino vidim da SAD sve vise ekonomski kopiraju Kineze a ne obrnuto.
A onda po osnivanju nato jer je doktrina odbrane od mocne kopnene Crvene armije bila upotreba nuklearki.
Ali to je samo zato sto Sovjeti nisu imali atomku 1945 tj. kasnili i to je jedini razlog Hladnog rata koji se nece ponoviti.
A sto se tice rata Kineza i Amera, on se desio u mnogo povoljnim vremenima za SAD, u Koreji i tada je SAD vojska bezala kao zecevi. Jedno od najsramnih povlacenja a Kinezi su uzeli i Seul za par meseci...tadasnja Kina je bila siromanija od 90% Afrike, tek izasla iz visedecenijskog gradjanskog rata i japanske okupacije. To je toliko bilo ponizavajuce za SAD bilo da su neki generali u SAD zahtevali da se baci atomka na Kinu.
Nikada zapadna civilizacija ne moze da se nosi sa istocnom spremnoscu na zrtovavanje, sto su SAD osetile ne samo u Koreji vec i U Vijetnamu, Afghanistanu, Iraku i ne dao im Alah da krenu na Iran.
Nikada!
Zapadne, narocito anglo civilizacija, individualisticka zeljne uzivanja, nepojmivo za njih na ono sto su Kinezi spremni.
Razicit pogleda na svet i zivot.
Kinu nije trebalo razviti, tj. izvristi tehnoloski i naucni transfer. Jer je to bio jedini razlog prednosti zapada i nista drugo.
Sto se tice ekonomije, ogroman mehanizam Kine su pokrenuli sada ga je jako tesko zaustaviti jer se radi o 1.4 milijardi ljudi kojima danasnji poredak odgovara.
Nije uopste za poredjenje sa SSSR gde su nakon Staljina dolazili klovnovi na vlast sa jakim secam na Drugi svetski rat sa potpuno drugacijim ekonomskim sistemom od kineskog.
Ja jedino vidim da SAD sve vise ekonomski kopiraju Kineze a ne obrnuto.
Last edited by Zuper on Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:53 pm; edited 1 time in total
- Posts : 50246
Join date : 2017-11-16
Prvo što nisu smeli da urade je da izađu iz TPP-ija
- Posts : 50246
Join date : 2017-11-16
Ali, ako se pogleda malo bolje mapa, lako se da shvatiti zašto su bacili oko na Iran. Ako bi držali Iran, drže sve u šaci i Kinu i čak dobrano i Rusiju i čak Tursku na neki način. Bio sam ubeđen da je iranska priča samo pro-Israeli ludovanje, ali (iako je i dalje ludovanje), sad mislim da je stvar komplikovanija. I time opasnija. Sve sam više ubeđen da će to tog rata doći u nekom momentu.
- Posts : 10694
Join date : 2016-06-25
TPP nije ni bio formiran kada su odustali od njega.
To jeste bio plan SAD da ogranice ekonomski Kinu ali je pitanje koliko uspesno.
Kina je suvise velika ekonomski postala, od nje danas zavisi cela Tihookeanska oblast, cak i Evropa, sto Nemacka sada oseca.
SAD su napravili katastrofalnu procenu, tipicno americki, da ce otvaranjem Kine srusiti SSSR a onda ce se Kina urusiti iznutra.
Kada se to nije desilo u pvoj polovini devedesetih onda je pohlepa i slepilo americkih bogatasa doslo na naplatu pa bombardovanje kineske ambasade u Beogradu, o da, pa onda Osama bin Laden...Kinezi ne da su kupili skoro 30 godina nego su dobili ogroman transfer tehnologije.
To jeste bio plan SAD da ogranice ekonomski Kinu ali je pitanje koliko uspesno.
Kina je suvise velika ekonomski postala, od nje danas zavisi cela Tihookeanska oblast, cak i Evropa, sto Nemacka sada oseca.
SAD su napravili katastrofalnu procenu, tipicno americki, da ce otvaranjem Kine srusiti SSSR a onda ce se Kina urusiti iznutra.
Kada se to nije desilo u pvoj polovini devedesetih onda je pohlepa i slepilo americkih bogatasa doslo na naplatu pa bombardovanje kineske ambasade u Beogradu, o da, pa onda Osama bin Laden...Kinezi ne da su kupili skoro 30 godina nego su dobili ogroman transfer tehnologije.
Last edited by Zuper on Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
- Posts : 2412
Join date : 2014-10-31
Zuper wrote:Na pocetku, 1945, kada su bacili atomske bombe na Hirosimu i Nagasaki.
A onda po osnivanju nato jer je doktrina odbrane od mocne kopnene Crvene armije bila upotreba nuklearki.
Ali to je samo zato sto Sovjeti nisu imali atomku 1945 tj. kasnili i to je jedini razlog Hladnog rata koji se nece ponoviti.
valjda to i pitam. kad su im stavili do znanja da su spremni na nuklearni rat, ne na bacanje atomki po njima dok nisu imali cime da uzvrate.
_____
I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic fucking hatreds.
- Posts : 50246
Join date : 2017-11-16
Zuper wrote:TPP nije ni bio formiran kada su odustali od njega.
To jeste bio plan SAD da ogranice ekonomski Kinu ali je pitanje koliko uspesno.
Kina je suvise velika ekonomski postala, od nje danas zavisi cela Tihookeanska oblast, cak i Evropa, sto Nemacka sada oseca.
Oni su napravili katastrofalnu procnu, tipicno americki sa uvek preoptimistickim pogledom i planovima, da ce otvaranjem Kine srusiti SSSR a onda ce se Kina urusiti iznutra.
Kada se to nije desilo u pvoj polovini devedesetih onda je pohlepa i slepilo americkih bogatasa doslo na naplatu pa bombardovanje kineske ambasade u Beogradu, o da, pa onda Osama bin Laden...Kinezi ne da su kupili skoro 30 godina nego su dobili ogroman transfer tehnologije.
Mislim da je sve to njima jasno
- Posts : 2412
Join date : 2014-10-31
KinderLad wrote:Ali, ako se pogleda malo bolje mapa, lako se da shvatiti zašto su bacili oko na Iran. Ako bi držali Iran, drže sve u šaci i Kinu i čak dobrano i Rusiju i čak Tursku na neki način.
voleo bih da ja umem ovako da gledam mape.
ne stvarno, u cemu je kvaka sa iranom?_____
I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic fucking hatreds.
- Posts : 10694
Join date : 2016-06-25
KinderLad wrote:Ali, ako se pogleda malo bolje mapa, lako se da shvatiti zašto su bacili oko na Iran. Ako bi držali Iran, drže sve u šaci i Kinu i čak dobrano i Rusiju i čak Tursku na neki način. Bio sam ubeđen da je iranska priča samo pro-Israeli ludovanje, ali (iako je i dalje ludovanje), sad mislim da je stvar komplikovanija. I time opasnija. Sve sam više ubeđen da će to tog rata doći u nekom momentu.
Ne bi se povlacili iz Afganistana ako nesto ozbiljno planiraju u Iranu.
Mogu da roknu neki objekat ili tako nesto ali ozbiljna invazaija-jako tesko.
Sto se tice znacaja Irana, on je znacajan zbog nafte i gasa, isto kao Venecuela.
Ali treba da znas da Saudijci i Emirati ne zele da se to desi u Iranu...
- Posts : 50246
Join date : 2017-11-16
Santino wrote:KinderLad wrote:Ali, ako se pogleda malo bolje mapa, lako se da shvatiti zašto su bacili oko na Iran. Ako bi držali Iran, drže sve u šaci i Kinu i čak dobrano i Rusiju i čak Tursku na neki način.
voleo bih da ja umem ovako da gledam mape.
"The single most important spot" na svetu je Ormuski moreuz. Ne postoji nijedna "tačka", samo jedna tačka, koja je važnija
- Posts : 2412
Join date : 2014-10-31
dzabe mi to pricas kad ne razumem zasto.
_____
I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic fucking hatreds.
- Posts : 50246
Join date : 2017-11-16
Zuper wrote:KinderLad wrote:Ali, ako se pogleda malo bolje mapa, lako se da shvatiti zašto su bacili oko na Iran. Ako bi držali Iran, drže sve u šaci i Kinu i čak dobrano i Rusiju i čak Tursku na neki način. Bio sam ubeđen da je iranska priča samo pro-Israeli ludovanje, ali (iako je i dalje ludovanje), sad mislim da je stvar komplikovanija. I time opasnija. Sve sam više ubeđen da će to tog rata doći u nekom momentu.
Ne bi se povlacili iz Afganistana ako nesto ozbiljno planiraju u Iranu.
Mogu da roknu neki objekat ili tako nesto ali ozbiljna invazaija-jako tesko.
Sto se tice znacaja Irana, on je znacajan zbog nafte i gasa, isto kao Venecuela.
Ali treba da znas da Saudijci i Emirati ne zele da se to desi u Iranu...
Ne to, mislim na promenu režima, ali, naravno, uz eventualno neka (iz vazduha ili sa mora) vojna dejstva. Invazija bi "porazila svrhu", upropastila zemlju koja im treba jedino ako je funkcionalna, pa i prosperitetna. Ruševina na tom mestu im ne treba. Zato je i komplikovano.
- Posts : 50246
Join date : 2017-11-16
Santino wrote:dzabe mi to pricas kad ne razumem zasto.
Kako bre ne razumeš zašto?
Pa tankeri.- Posts : 10694
Join date : 2016-06-25
Postoji vaznija tacka od Ormuza i to mnogo vaznija zove se Malezijski moreuz.
Sa promenom rezima u Iranu nastao bi haos. Mada je on pokusan nekoliko puta ozbiljno.
Poslednji put Obama 2009 i pokazalo se da je Iran mnogo tvrdji od Arapa 2011.
Sa promenom rezima u Iranu nastao bi haos. Mada je on pokusan nekoliko puta ozbiljno.
Poslednji put Obama 2009 i pokazalo se da je Iran mnogo tvrdji od Arapa 2011.
- Posts : 2412
Join date : 2014-10-31
KinderLad wrote:Santino wrote:dzabe mi to pricas kad ne razumem zasto.
Kako bre ne razumeš zašto?
lepo, ne znam nista o tome pa i ne razumem.
_____
I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic fucking hatreds.
Similar topics
|
|
|