So far no official response.
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
LMFAO, this is the perfect example of when one lie leads to another and things get bigger and bigger like someone falling down the stairs of covering up previous lies.
Did India lose any Rafales to Pakistan?
No.
That means it's really good and you're happy with it, right?
Right.
So if it's really good and the IAF is super happy with them, you should buy more, right?
R-right...
OK, here's a contract for $40 billion worth more in Rafales. If everything you said is true, then you'll sign it, right? Let's go, prove your honesty.
O...ok...
Literally 100% exactly what you and some more of us predicted.
If they do follow through with a massive procurement of Rafales and not find a way to weasel their way out of it, this means China can consider selling Pakistan more J-10CE rather than risk opsec with any J-35 sale to Pakistan.
Pakistan cannot afford the J-35 in meaningful numbers and loan programs are just to China's loss. J-10CE they can afford but China needs to extract some reward from Pakistan for constantly propping up its defenses for little to no profit. If it weren't for Chinese equipment, India would absolutely curb stomp Pakistan with its ridiculous quantitative edge. Guizhou (or whoever is currently building J-10CE) will have more orders from Pakistan.
India found only one semi-destroyed PL-15 on the ground. If there were more fired, there should be atleast many more fragments across the battlefield.
______
@Africablack
If Qatar is serious, it must kick out the 850,000 indian workers over there or risk getting clapped like Iran.
Without subsidy is about $0.13 for local gas which constitutes 85% of all consumption. Still dirt cheap.
Depends on the society. The Chinese system is effective for the Chinese but it would be a disaster for many countries, the Chinese have the culture to make that one party meritocratic system work for them, many societies do not. I agree that western style democracy is just chaos but the world has been so brainwashed to believe it's the only system that can deliver results blatantly ignoring the authoritarian methods used by these same western countries to get them where they are now in the first place.
I've said before that people get too hung up over systems when the truth of the matter is that the quality of leadership matters more. There are no magic systems every country can automatically adopt to create a path towards development, they just have to design a form of government that works for them. However, this doesn't mean they can't learn a thing or two from China. For me, the best course of action for a country for their leadership to study different states that have done well, glean best practices, and apply them in ways that will suit their societies. This is pragmatism and I believe this approach will serve them well.
Every society used monarchy for 1000s of years and it more or less worked. Monarchy only started to go out of fashion in the 1920's or so. Chinese culture isn't special. It was a monarchy for 1000s of years too before reforming to a republic.
I believe this Charlie Kirk is the moment the right wing or rather the west need to go authoritarian facism. There will be no more pretending about free speech or human rights. Either you're on our side or you're our enemy.
But didn't they do this after 9/11? I guess this time the internet is fully around so say goodbye to your privacy and a lot more stuff.
But didn't they do this after 9/11? I guess this time the internet is fully around so say goodbye to your privacy and a lot more stuff.
It's always been authoritarian fascist, hiding under the cloak of democracy. More specifically, it is a game of musical chairs between alternating feudal lords who have common interests. Authoritarian fuedal fascist oligarchy. The old monarch was just a higher ranked feudal lord who outcompeted a previously higher ranked feudal lord.
Social mobility among plebs is nonexistent or severely restricted (i.e. you can move up to a certain limit). If the plebs collectively are moving up then situations are created to push them down again. Can't wield power if everyone is equal.
Monarchy is too broad, every society had different cultures and systems that underpinned the entire structure. For example, in what is now Nigeria, the Hausa-Fulani from the north had strong rulers (Emirs) whose orders were absolute. In the Southwest, the Yoruba king (Oba) was absolute but could be legally overthrown by the council that served under him if two thirds voted to oust him but with the caveat that they will have to be buried alive with him if he were to die. This served as a check on unnecessary objection to the Oba's orders. The Igbos from across the river, in the Southeastern part of what's now Nigeria didn't have absolute rulers and was one of the many societies in the world who never evolved monarchies. They were republican as could be in ancient times, they had communities (Umunna) and major decisions were discussed by male heads of household within the Ummuna and decisions were put to vote. They only started having kings when the British came and because there was no clear leader to negotiate with they just appointed people (warrant chiefs), those chiefs and their descendants later became Ezes (kings). All these societies had 'monarchs' at one point or another but operated under different systems.
No society is 'special' but every society is unique. There may be surface level commonalities but under the surface there are enough differences. South Korea started it's developmental journey under military rule, they were led by a competent leader who created a competent bureaucracy. Nigeria was also under military rule from the 1960s until 1999 but the military rulers completely destroyed every working institution in the country. Same system (military dictatorship) but different in terms of quality of leadership, culture, and operations created two different outcomes for both countries.