And where have I predicted or prophesied that Brazil, Russia, India, and China will never come to an alliance. The best that I see from you here is 'can'. Is that it? Simply 'can'? What I only said was the initials BRIC made up a merely economic label and that the current military capabilities of the four render such a military-centric alliance unlikely. Only a delusional mind will believe that despite a certain incapability a country can still enter an alliance that will require that missing capability.
I see you failed to see the talks was about the future. If you are reading properly and not inbetween the lines, then you would have picked up that my whole emphasis of their cooporation may one day become a military one was based in the future. Only a delusioned being can come out and firmly rubbish the possibility of such an alliance. Needless to say, India, Russia and China have the geological advantage to form such alliance. The advantage would be greater than the one of America and the EU. It makes sense why NATO has to go around the long way for oil and not tear Russia apart doesn't it?
A retreat into the abstract is a clear sign of having no argument. The BRIC countries have only a slight better odds of being in a NATO-like alliance than Albania, Timbuktu, Zimbabwe, and Luxembourg.
It is called 'staying within the topic' and I am not obliged to talk about such an alliance although they can form one if they wish to (according to you). And BRIC alone has enough power to disable dismantle NATO. Why would America settle with a partitioned Korea if its alliance was indeed as strong as it was 'claimed' to be?
Why not? A 'cold war' can exist any time and anywhere when two or more countries are hostile to each other but unable to militarily defeat each other.
I see your mind was left in the 50's.
How about, there will be no cold war between the West and the East because the West 'cannot afford it'?
The 'need' is for a different topic. The capability to spank China like a naughty schoolboy is already here since the US is a member of NATO.
Actually China is waiting to be spanked but America and his friends are too scared come forward because strong countries such as India and Russia alone are too much for them.
The issue here is not whether China can buy oil elsewhere. The issue is whether currently China can militarily support a long distance ally. You ridiculously brought on BRIC as an alliance when they are nothing more than a convenient economic label. So if China cannot transport a credible military force to the ME, what make you think China can bring the same force to the Western Hemisphere?
The convenience economic label has the potential to become a military one. America isn't even a part of Europe, they are oceans apart, yet they tag along with the other countries. So what makes you think the others can't? Economically speaking, BRIC nations have more muscle to flex than NATO, it makes perfect sense for them to be allies with one another. So yes if America wants to lose its footing around the world then they can feel free to attack Brazil when its cooperation becomes a military one..LOL
Besides China and other nuclear powers in Asia has the advantages needed to thwart NATO and America like tiny little flies should they try to come and invade.
So why worry ourselves over incompetent little flies?
The fact that NATO 'cannot' invade Asia makes the alliance look silly. They are better off invading little countries.
No need to invade a country in order to render its military ineffective or incapable of offensive operations. With the US, NATO can spank China silly.
Oh so why haven't they done so? Is it because the incompetent little flies are too scared of India, Russia and China? Talk about being childish
If there is a war between the US and China, all bets and debts are off the table. And there is no need for US to invade China to render the PLA toothless.
Yes then America will render itself toothless in the process. China already has America in the balls. Hence they can't do s*hit but to have people like you bark at China instead
.
They like to throw the word 'invade', but the American invasion has no meaning in Asia. Only small countries in ME would buy into that. It goes to show how incompetent they really are as an alliance.
Sure and back to you.
Again...What 'prediction' have I made?[/B]
Predictions which enabled you to come up and make crazy wild meaningless statements about other big countries?
No shortage here on how much the US spend on our military versus how much for the rest of the world. The US economy is far from collapse as many has hoped for. The US is a member of NATO. The US and NATO members have proven combat experience. Good luck in trying to find a betting office downtown London to take your offer.
Yes and America should carry on with its military spending. No one is objecting it, infact we are very happy for them to spend its money so wisely.
Yes America is a part of NATO (renowned for bullying little small countries), and its combat experience on fighting skirmishes with sandal wearing fighters means much to the otherside of the world.
Yes the betting office would be delighted if I place my bets on America and its allies invading China, because they know it will never happen.
You should find a betting office in sunny California to place your life saving on America invading China too. Don't expect any money returning in your lifetime though.
Hence I still rate India and Russia above Israel and dismiss NATO here.
