What's new

The Great Game Changer: Belt and Road Intiative (BRI; OBOR)

This is a 30 year project, not a 5 year project



I think the decisive factor is going to be UK, their decline is so dramatic that they'll e a chicken-shit power in 15 years. Imagine if Norway/ Sri Lanka was a P5 member, it would be just lame.

It is quite amazing to see some members enjoyment in here like end of the world.
Like I said .They will resist now .But how long ? Currently we are already a 2.3 trillion$ economy.
And our new gen politician and bureacrats are good in strategic thinking .
Some experts like this passed same comments when we talks about NSG waiver during 1990s .Now what?

You have a point in there.UK is declining .France and Russia also cant put up a performance like ours at any case.
All I can say is that these morons can resist us for maximum two decades.After that we will play our own assertive role .At that time our domestic politics wont be an issue.
 
It is quite amazing to see some members enjoyment in here like end of the world.
Like I said .They will resist now .But how long ? Currently we are already a 2.3 trillion$ economy.
And our new gen politician and bureacrats are good in strategic thinking .
Some experts like this passed same comments when we talks about NSG waiver during 1990s .Now what?

You have a point in there.UK is declining .France and Russia also cant put up a performance like ours at any case.
All I can say is that these morons can resist us for maximum two decades.After that we will play our own assertive role .At that time our domestic politics wont be an issue.

And India is like 1/6 th of the world population, without our security paramount, the UNSC will just become a joke organization.

Yes sir, Just look at what's Mike 2000 is back said in here, we'll know one day ,There will be no Uk but India in the P5 club!


Maybe Mike should eat more Fish and chips for saving Briton where 300 days out of 365 are rainning!
Britai is growing old, in 1947 its colonial empire was still significant. It's showing there is a broad decline across sport, culture and military strength. They're retracting what is the truly logical level for a 60 million people island- like Scandinivan countries- great wealth, great health care, but probably not a big military player. It's inevitable.
 
And India is like 1/6 th of the world population, without our security paramount, the UNSC will just become a joke organization.

UNSC is already a joke .
One of it UK .Our leaders always show a lack of interest in visiting that nation.
Except US and China others cant compete with us in equal terms for long.
And after 1 decade we will have stabilised 1.6 billion population .Virtually ,if India force to take action against any other nation for its own interet ,UNSC will sit in sidewalk for watching.
 
1.USA doesn't allow CHina to have more votes of IMF and World bank, China just set up AIIB and Silk Road FUND to marginalize WB and IMF.
And now, WB/IMF are more eager to give CHinese more Vetos than China itself ,Otherwise, bouth would be replaced by AIIB/Silk Road FUnd sooner or later and got diabled like "the league of Nation".

2.if India were able to set up a Parallel or alternative of UN ,just as CHina does with WB/IMF, India would be offered a Veto of UN .

Thus, India had better spend its energy and money on developing its economy, instead of wasting money/time appealing Veto of UN now before its might deseves a veto.

India and China, what a comparison!
 
It has much less to do with R&D or industry/infustrialization etc if it did then germany and Japan will be part of P5 OBVIOUSLY. China also didnt have a large industry(it was an agrarian society when the UNSC was formed) or R&D.

The UNSC simply came about after the second world war. The large major INDEPENDENT countries/powers who fought and emerged victorious automatically got access to the P5. OUT of these five just three actually got to write the rules of the post war world order, i.e U.K U.S,and U.S.S.R. These three powers were all industrial giants and world powers with interests and influence spanning the entire globe(Germany and Japan as well,but they lost the war), and Most of all THEY WERE THE VICTORS OF THE WAR. So winner take it all applied in this case and they wrote the rules which the world followed.
The other two powers i.e China and France got included in P5 as they were pary of the major independent countries who also took part in the war. but werent major stakeholders in the post war high tables/rule writers for different reasons.

For France even though it was an advanced european industrial world power with colonies and influence spanning from africa to indo china, it lost surprisingly fast to Germany and was occupied and ruled by the Nazis and its government had to cooperate with the nazis which greatly reduced its own influence/image.
CHINA on the other hand was an impoverished country/power with a little to no industry and made of warlords who ruled over their own territory, though it had a central governement. The governemnt KMT was also facing a rebelion by communist CCP supported by U.S.S.R and thus couldnt use all its resources to fully focus on the fight against JAPAN as it was fighting a civil war with communist rebels at the same time. So China after WWII still had to continue its civil war, which greatly affected the country from making full use if being a victor in the great war as the KMT was busy fighting the empowered CCP , so had little focus on negotiating/being at the high tables of writing the post world war rules. Had there been no civil war , then China would have got far more atter the war than it did e.g senkakus, taiwan, SCS ,maybe even mongolia etc.

So UNSC permanent seat was just as a result of the victors of the war. They were all INDEPENDENT powers at the time, though the power/industrial might/influence level varied.

In short there wont obviously be any change whatsoever in the P5+1 arrangement.

“Had there been no civil war , then China would have got far more atter the war than it did e.g senkakus, taiwan, SCS ,maybe even mongolia etc.”

Not be childish. Had there been no civil war, the America still could find out a lot of excuses to reap most victorious fruits. Check how Britain, France's sphere disappeared in South, South-East Asia.
 
This is a 30 year project, not a 5 year project



I think the decisive factor is going to be UK, their decline is so dramatic that they'll e a chicken-shit power in 15 years. Imagine if Norway/ Sri Lanka was a P5 member, it would be just lame.

Keep dreaming. Its not illegal yet. :coffee:
 
Sigh.. Always knew about, Always said so.. Some Indians here got over excited as usual when ever Americans say something to the Indian media just to pacify their ego.. And threw hissy fits when ever some of us tried to talk sense in to it and tried to talk them in to reality.. Oh well.. :coffee:

Only democratic country should be part of UNSC. India is not in hurry to get permanent seat in SC. India is maintaining peace in the region and in the world without getting any seat. It is time to improve our economy , right now India don't want to interfere in other countries affairs. So no need such power.

Well thats not exactly what your government thinks.. They're basically begging to be included in appealing in every global fora possible.. Humiliating
 
Sigh.. Always knew about, Always said so.. Some Indians here got over excited as usual when ever Americans say something to the Indian media just to pacify their ego.. And threw hissy fits when ever some of us tried to talk sense in to it and tried to talk them in to reality.. Oh well.. :coffee:



Well thats not exactly what your government thinks.. They're basically begging to be included in appealing in every global fora possible.. Humiliating

Check the "similar threads" section at the bottom of the thread, they've been saying that "China supports India for a permanent seat" since 2008, lol!
 
Sigh.. Always knew about, Always said so.. Some Indians here got over excited as usual when ever Americans say something to the Indian media just to pacify their ego.. And threw hissy fits when ever some of us tried to talk sense in to it and tried to talk them in to reality.. Oh well.. :coffee:



Well thats not exactly what your government thinks.. They're basically begging to be included in appealing in every global fora possible.. Humiliating

We are not going anywhere .:D
They can resist for around 2 decades ,maximum.
We should check their response of these guys when we pass 5 trillion$ mark.
Manufacturing and own defence is already in full throttle .We dont have to waste money for these Seat .Just concentrate on our economy ,technology and military.That is all we need.

You can 'sigh' for now.
But we will continue our effort .'Wait and See'.
 
“Had there been no civil war , then China would have got far more atter the war than it did e.g senkakus, taiwan, SCS ,maybe even mongolia etc.”

Not be childish. Had there been no civil war, the America still could find out a lot of excuses to reap most victorious fruits. Check how Britain, France's sphere disappeared in South, South-East Asia.

Lool The two are completely different things/scenarios. The U.S was fighting for its own independence and ability to decide its own fate and be a power in its own right, not merely an extension of our empire/territory, and there was not much at stake as it was not a world war.

China on the other hand had never really been colonised(though it had some of its territory taken away/forcely leased by western powers and Russia), it was almost always independent hence no need to fight a war for independence as it was already independent/self ruled. So you cant compare the two. So yes i stand by my point, China would have fared far more better during WWII agaibst Japan had there been no civil war/rebellions internally prior to japan invading the country, that no secret, just common sense. Do you think the PRC could have even fared so well during the korean war after the civil war ended, if she was still fighting a full scale bloody civil war back home against an embolden rebel group? It wouldnt have even entered the war in that situation(as its focus would have been onndefeating its most dangerous ennemy back home). Its like syrian governemnt deciding to go a foreign expedition in say iraq or fighting israel while fighting rebels in its territory. Little chance of success giving these circumstances.

So yes, things would have been much different in that case, as a united/internally peaceful large country would have much more power/focus on negotiating a better deal for itself(after a bloody world war) than a chaotic civil war weaken country can ever do.:)
 
Last edited:
And India is like 1/6 th of the world population, without our security paramount, the UNSC will just become a joke organization.


Britai is growing old, in 1947 its colonial empire was still significant. It's showing there is a broad decline across sport, culture and military strength. They're retracting what is the truly logical level for a 60 million people island- like Scandinivan countries- great wealth, great health care, but probably not a big military player. It's inevitable.

India is not even a proper country. It's questionable whether it will remain a union for the remainder of the century.

UK is very strong in sports and was 3rd in the Olympics last time. British culture is still influential and the British military-industrial complex is world class.

India is beyond a joke in economics, technology, military, culture, etc.

Britain taught India everything, they gave you a country, they gave you infrastructure, they gave a language so you can communicate between your British-created country.
 
We are not going anywhere .:D
They can resist for around 2 decades ,maximum.
We should check their response of these guys when we pass 5 trillion$ mark.
Manufacturing and own defence is already in full throttle .We dont have to waste money for these Seat .Just concentrate on our economy ,technology and military.That is all we need.

You can 'sigh' for now.
But we will continue our effort .'Wait and See'.

Yeah, Yeah mate, recycled rhetoric.. Surprised your usual broken record of "Who are you to question us ?" Wasn't thrown today.. :azn:
 
We are not going anywhere .:D
They can resist for around 2 decades ,maximum.
We should check their response of these guys when we pass 5 trillion$ mark.
Manufacturing and own defence is already in full throttle .We dont have to waste money for these Seat .Just concentrate on our economy ,technology and military.That is all we need.

You can 'sigh' for now.
But we will continue our effort .'Wait and See'.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda :lol:

Typical Indian. Never achieved anything but day dreaming about world domination.
 
Coulda, woulda, shoulda :lol:

Typical Indian. Never achieved anything but day dreaming about world domination.

Never achieved anything???
Really??
We Indians knows our the difference between the condition prevailed in India in 1947 and now this 2015.
Of Course we have problems of poverty .But was also successfull in lifting 300 million in to middle class.
We have satisfaction about that performance.
Yeah, Yeah mate, recycled rhetoric.. Surprised your usual broken record of "Who are you to question us ?" Wasn't thrown today.. :azn:
So ??
Guys like you repeated same shit like a parrot about NSG waiver during 1990s .But what about now .
Similar thing will also happen in future .We are confident.
 
Lool the two are completely different things/scenarios. The U.S was fighting for its own independence and ability to decide its own fate and be a power in its own right, not merely an extentsion of our empire/territory, and there was not much at stake as it was not a world war.
China on the other hand had nevrr been colonised(though it had some of its territory taken away/forcely leased by western powers and Russia), it was always independent hence no need to fight a war for independence as itbwas alredy independent/self ruled. So uou cant compare the two. So yes i stand by my point, China would have fared far more better had there been no civil war/rebellions internally prior to japan invading the country, that no secret, just common sense. Do you think the PRC could have even fared so well dring the korean war after the civil war ended, if she was still fighting a full scale bloody civil war back home against an embolden rebel group? It wouldnt have even entered thebwar in that situation. its like syrian governemnt deciding to go a foreign expedition in say iraq or fighting israel while fighting rebels in its territory. Little chance of success giving these circumstances.

You misunderstood my post. There were international laws keeping China's rights on Taiwan, SCS, but no laws indicated China still had rights on Ryukyu, Mongolia. China had already confessed their independence, under the Cairo, Potsdam rules.
 
Back
Top Bottom