Brink on World War 3. Finally

Discussion in 'Politics' started by bearice, May 22, 2011.

  1. China has "warned in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China", The News daily quoted diplomatic sources as saying.

    The warning was formally conveyed by the Chinese foreign minister at last week's China-US strategic dialogue and economic talks in Washington, it said.

    For his part, Gilani reiterated Pakistan's support for its policy of 'One China' and said his country fully supports China on the issues of Taiwan and Tibet.

    During her briefing today Jiang skirted questions about Pakistan-China signing new defence agreements. Asked about assertions by Pakistan's Ambassador to China Masood Khan before Gilani's arrival that new defence deals would be signed, she said the two sides signed agreements in economy, technology, finance and energy resources.

    "As to specific cooperation, please refer to relevant companies," she said, adding that China is actively implementing pledges to help pro-disaster reconstruction and exerting utmost to help tide over difficulties."

    China on Thursday said the international community "must respect" Pakistan's sovereignty, tacitly confirming reports that it has asked the US not to violate Islamabad's territorial integrity, following the killing of Osama bin Laden.

    Asked about reports that China has asked US during its recently concluded strategic dialogue with Washington to respect Pakistan's sovereignty as Islamabad came under heavy pressure after bin Laden's killing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Jiang Yu told media here that "sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan must be respected."

    "We believe that Pakistan has made great contribution to international counter-terrorism efforts, as well as huge sacrifices. The international community should understand and support Pakistan's efforts to restore national stability and develop its economy," she said.

    Obama would raid Pakistan again if militant found

    Sun May 22, 7:07 am ET

    LONDON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama would approve a new incursion into Pakistan if the United States found another leading militant there, he said in a BBC interview broadcast on Sunday.

    U.S. Navy SEALs killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the September 11 attacks on U.S. cities in 2001, in a raid on his fortified compound in Pakistan on May 2, ending a manhunt for the world's most-wanted militant.

    Asked if Obama would do the same again if the United States discovered another "high-value target" in Pakistan or another country, such as a senior al Qaeda member or Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar, he said he would "take the shot."

    "We are very respectful of the sovereignty of Pakistan. But we cannot allow someone who is actively planning to kill our people or our allies' people, we can't allow those kind of active plans to come to fruition without us taking some action," Obama told the BBC.

    "I had made no secret. I had said this when I was running for the presidency, that if I had a clear shot at bin Laden, that we'd take it."

    A spokesman for Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari, Farhatullah Babar, said in response to Obama's remarks: "We need to move away from unilateral actions and should focus on cooperation in countering terrorism." He declined to comment further.

    Obama's comments echoed those of U.S. Senator John Kerry, a Democrat close to his administration and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

    Asked this month if the United States would conduct a similar raid in Pakistan to kill Omar if they knew his whereabouts, he said Washington would consider all its options.

    U.S. officials have long maintained Omar fled to Pakistan after the Taliban government was overthrown in late 2001 by U.S.-backed Afghan forces and is still in hiding there. Islamabad has denied reports he is in Pakistan.

    Obama arrives in Britain on Tuesday for a three-day state visit -- the first state visit by a U.S. president since 2003.

    He will hold talks with British Prime Minister David Cameron and address the parliament to hail the two countries' special relationship and stress the importance of transatlantic ties.
  3. China can field an army of 200 million men.

    Chinese have an unlimited surplus of young fighting age men with no wives to be able to send anywhere in the world it is fact that they have boasted that they can field an army of 200 million men. China has had a long history of being the economic trading superpower of the world, perhaps they are attempting to rule the world economically again. Can we stop it? We do have a large army but we are already sick of these resource wars.
  4. USA government has to choose; obey Israel and go confiscate the Pakistan nukes; thus starting a war with China, or back off and have Israel's disfavor. It looks like WWIII, because Israel will get its way on this one. Everything I am reading is that Israel is paranoid about the Pakistan nukes. They want those nukes under U.S. control, and that Iran at this moment is not an immediate threat. Iran doesn't have a bomb; Pakistan has 110 nukes. The Jews aren't worried this moment about Iran, they are literally freaked out about Pakistan's nukes.

    War with China? Why that would be the mother of all stimulus packages; we could stick it to our competitors and default on what we owe them without guilt. Whats more, we get a "WWIII" to get us out of the depression! What establishment type could ever fault this idea.

    Ignorance armed with monopoly = evil.

    So lets get this straight, one of our allies, China, banker and trade partner, is warning us not to bomb and invade another one of our allies, Pakistan. If this does not show how screwed up our foreign policy is nothing will.

    I don't think China has much to worry about. Where would the United States get the money from to invade Pakistan without China's foreign aid?

    China is willing to risk war with a super power over Pakistan? Must be strong Pakistani lobby in China.
  5. Going into Pakistan for a terrorist is one thing, confiscating or trying to confiscate their nukes is another matter all together

    I see your season has changed from ''protect the animals mode'' to World War 111 now.
  6. Larson

    Larson Guest

    US has the most to lose in this scenario, no question. China is paranoid about their borders and Pakistan is too close to home and has absolutely no fear of striking. But, as you say, foreign policy is being run by total incompetents in US today.
  7. China gets most of its oil by sea delivery,US Navy can block all their oil shipments.

    Chinas economy depends on US buying their shit,US stops buying their shit

    US owes China money,US does not pay if they go to war

    China does not want war with The US imo and they would lose
  8. World War 3 will save and protect World Trees, animals and good people.
  9. Bearice is bringing the world on the brink of World War 3 after that if world prostitutes & their clients, pornography people and homosexuals are not killed and destroyed by world Army and world police then Bearice will start World War 3.

    You have to decide whether useless sex maniacs people (people who think of sex all the time) are killed/dead or innocent women/men and children are killed (from world war 3). Somebody has to be sacrificed to save world Trees and animals. Make your own decision.

    Do not blame Bearice for his decisions and actions. Bearice is seriously tired and exhausted of idiotic world leaders and people who cannot make right decisions. When Bearice is exhausted, terrible things happen.

    Bearice had posted some 20 days back, "Final Warning for World War 3 has been sent".

    Bearice can do anything he wants. Nobody can stop Bearice. Not even the Russian army and USA army.

    This is God's rule/law.

    Everybody please forward my message to world people and those idiot world leaders otherwise you will have to face World War 3 (I am sorry, I have to do it. I do not have any other opinions/way).
  10. I will write a simple example. When Bearice was a 1 year old baby, he was sleeping in cloth cage (protection from mosquitos). A big lizard entered the cloth cage. My Mother pulled me out and killed the big lizard. My mother never thinks of killing animals because she is 100% devoted to God but that day she had to kill the lizard to save her 1 year old son (Bearice).

    My Mother is the most dangerous person in the world. Next comes Bearice. Massive crocodiles are scared of my Mother and they do not attack.

    Bearice only wants world sex people to die/killed immediately. Bearice does not want innocent women/men and children to die. Bearice feels like crying and saddened when good peole die but Bearice will have make the ultimate decision if those idiot world leaders do not make right decisions.

    Honestly speaking, big Bearice is terrified of lizards but Bearice is not scared of Lions, Tigers, Bears. Surprising. Isn't it.
    #10     May 22, 2011