From: physfitfreak@gmail.com   
      
   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   
   asked and never got it directly from them. It was Libya which lent 8   
   Scuds to Iran, 6 of which Iran used immediately to hit Baghdad with,   
   which contributed very much in Saddam's stopping to hit Tehran with   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)