From: physfitfreak@gmail.com

On 7/15/25 9:00 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 7/15/25 11:57 AM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> SCO was created for countries who are not on the Nazis' side to
>> discuss their issues and find ways to _cooperate_ to solve them. That
>> "C" in the middle of the acronym stands for Cooperation.
>>
>> It is being held in Shanghai right now, and Araghchi is attending to
>> ask the big paper tigers why they're so inactive against Nazis and
>> minding their own businesses as long as selling and buying stuff to
>> and from Nazis and paying not too much tariffs are concerned. This
>> will come up, but is not the main reason for his participation of course.
>>
>> I've done it before here, but even I cannot find it anymore in the sea
>> of stuff I'm blogged here. So let me briefly go over a few features of
>> SCO once more.
>>
>> Just like BRICS, I think and believe that, the significance of SCO is
>> only in coming together of little countries around the world for such
>> discussions, and not in China's and/or Russia's or India's presence
>> there. These huge entities feel safe and are greedy enough to keep
>> things as it is for little countries while they are profiting from
>> Nazis. They're totally useless, to be honest.
>>
>> Well, the three mentioned nations describe their own disloyalty to SCO
>> and fickleness by insisting that one of the foundation principles of
>> SCO is "balance", and by that word they mean maintaining relations
>> with Nazis. This is their excuse. So they admit what they are, and
>> what they're doing is not helping SCO, but have an excuse for it.
>>
>> Useless. That's what they are.
>>
>> I say it for the nth time since it got created around the turn of the
>> century, that the big guys there are insignificant. The significance
>> of SCO is in little countries participating in it ONLY.
>>
>> These smaller countries are the ones who help each other under SCO's
>> principles, and that includes counter-terrorism assistance, regional
>> stability, some degree of intelligence sharing, providing economic
>> connectivity, and, if you can believe it, _using_ the big fat paper
>> tigers in creating a safe zone against Nazis.
>>
>> THAT's the significance of SCO, not the big fat useless members
>> presence in there.
>>
>> And I repeat (I've said it at least 5 or 6 times before) that SCO does
>> not have direct military assistance in its nature. It is no "NATO", so
>> to speak.
>>
>> But it goes a long way just the way it is. And only for the little
>> countries in there. For the big fat useless ones it is as good as
>> nothing.
>>
>> Another unique feature of SCO is that it "leaves no child behind", so
>> to speak. In voting for a decision for some directive, even one
>> negative vote from any member country will veto that decision and
>> directive. So it is no "UN" that's so ridiculously at the disposal of
>> only 5 or 6 countries in the world.
>>
>> UN is an abomination against human's dignity. Switzerland, as long as
>> it could still maintain a spirit of self-reliance and dignity, avoided
>> membership in UN. But by early this century Switzerland had fallen and
>> had lost that spirit (read that as: it became Bitch of USA) and joined
>> UN.
>>
>> So this unique feature in SCO means that the "C", the Cooperation, is
>> limited to only what can be done for every and all member's benefit.
>> It does not sacrifice some to benefit others. It is no UN, so to speak.
>>
>>
>> A lot is included in what I described in SCO. A lot can be done, and
>> is being done! But again, almost entirely by the little member
>> nations. Just to give instances of that, look at:
>>
>> - trading oil and gas
>> - sharing and creating markets (e.g. Central Asia, Silk Road, ..)
>> - providing bank services
>> - exchanges in science
>> - exchanges in education
>> - exchanges in tourism
>> - networking the member countries' universities
>> - ...
>>
>>
>> Even in Shah's time, some degree of cooperation between Iran and other
>> little countries were ongoing, cause it just made a lot of sense. I
>> still remember the absolute best teacher of Persian grammar we had in
>> our top high school. He was a very well-dressed, very quiet, tall, and
>> dark-skinned Pakestani :-)
>>
>> We _learned_ our own language's grammar perfectly well only because of
>> that Pakestani guy (and a superb text by a team of famous Iranian
>> Persian experts). He had some accent, and he pronounced some words in
>> its correct Persian form (and not in the strange Tehrani way of saying
>> them) but knew the subject like nobody I've seen after. Persian has
>> amazingly deep features that can be used to describe anything that
>> needs description very closely and accurately. We Iranians do not take
>> this feature for granted. That's why Iran is so advanced in quality
>> literature. World-class, really.
>>
>> Result? In the university entrance exams held in 1972, some 5 years
>> later, I could still score 100/100 in its definitive Persian language
>> test. "The hardest test" among all other tests in those exams. I was
>> one in five persons only, in those who ended up in Tehran University,
>> who got 100% of the subtle and difficult questions correctly!.. (in
>> Physics test of it I got the 4th place in those who got into Tehran
>> University - not nationally). And I owe my score in Persian to nobody
>> but that Pakestani teacher.
>>
>> He (unfortunately I have forgotten his name) was part of an
>> educational exchange program with Pakestan in 1960s :-)
>>
>> Pakestanis love Iran, mainly because they understand Persian and have
>> the exact same history that they share, and they can appreciate good
>> Persian literature. Pakestan _was_ Iran till 1872, when the British
>> took her away from Iran.
>>
>> So SCO is effective, believe me. But really only to little nations.
>> The big ones don't need anything at all. If they say otherwise,
>> they're speaking out of their asses. They're fine as things are today
>> and their heads are indeed up their own asses.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> World is getting smaller.
>
> North Korea said today that next attack on Iran will be considered by
> North Korea a security threat to Asia and will trigger response from
> North Korea.
>
> They also said that the era of creating "local wars" doesn't exist anymore.
>
> They mean what they're saying. They sent troops to fight alongside
> Russians against Ukraine. In the case of Israel and Iran, though, troops
> might not be the best choice of cooperation with Iran.
>
> I think Korea has come a long way since 1980s to help Russia in that way
> now. Back then they wouldn't supply Iran with missiles (Scud). Iran

[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)