China tries again to get the EU to drop it's arms embargo and to increase it's authority in Europe. click here Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I figured Blayne would post this before you would.
There was just a story about this a month ago, Europe was planning on dropping the embargo before Bush somehow managed to threaten them enough to make them stop.
I see this going by the wayside soon. China is pouring billions of dollars into Europe (money we gave them through trade) and Europe wants to see that money continue to flow. It won't be hard for them to threaten to take their billions elsewhere if they don't get their weapons.
The US will throw the biggest hissy fit in the world, but won't get its way. I think it can be guaranteed that no US shared technology will be sold to China. Bush still has at least that much clout.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
What happened is that China passed a law saying that they would invade if Tawain formally declared independence. That put a hold on any lifting of the weapons embargo.
Part of the problem is that China has invested in ALOT of US Government bonds...basically buying up the huge US debt. What happens when/if China descides to attack Tawian? China threatens to pull it's financial backing of the US debt and we chicken out.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I've seen this issue argued time and again on other forums. I hink we need the opinion of an economist before argueing about whats economically feasible, the only thing I confirmed is that American can't pull out of its trade with China because American companies have grown too indpendant and globalized, China == money and will throw a "hissy fit" to an idea that even resembles hurting Sino-American trade.
As for the EU embargo I've heard that it might be getting harder not easily to budge the embargo due to a more conservative leadership coming into power in key EU countries, though I may be wrong and will check the link.
As for the actual arms trade does it matter? The EU and the USA sells billions of dollars in weapons every year (older equipment usually) and selling it to China while increasing their rate of modernization will not in reality effect how any future scenario turns out, considering the ever growing Sino Defence industry, and purchases off of Russia and Post Soviet republics and of course everyones favorite arms dealer, Israel.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If China doesn't need help to buy guns, tanks, and fighters...what possible reason could they have to be buying more on the international market, instead of keeping the money in the house, so to speak, by producing it domestically?
I mean it's not like they need more guns to further menace Taiwan.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
China doesn't need more guns yes, but they're old guns, and the EU has new guns, purchasing them, even in small numbers will allow the PLA to continue its force reduction and forrce structure change more easily and faster, allowing it to reach superpower level military alot faster, in comparrison to say its older 1970's 3 million man PLA to todays 1.8 million man PLA.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: we need the opinion of an economist
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ahhh. So this arms deal is being done to reach superpower status faster. Well, at least you're finally being honest and not weaseling around about it.
PRC wants a superpower military. Why? The only other nation on earth poses no threat to it on land, as has been said (by you) by many.
Posted by Eldrad (Member # 8578) on :
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: What happened is that China passed a law saying that they would invade if Tawain formally declared independence. That put a hold on any lifting of the weapons embargo.
Part of the problem is that China has invested in ALOT of US Government bonds...basically buying up the huge US debt. What happens when/if China descides to attack Tawian? China threatens to pull it's financial backing of the US debt and we chicken out.
China wouldn't dare to hurt the U.S. through our government bonds. Think about it; we have both the best military and the best economy in the world. Anything China does to hurt us would only hurt them more. Add to that the fact that our allies in Europe would be more willing to help us out in a war China began if they hurt our economy in that fashion (since it would damage the world economy pretty terribly), and you have China shooting itself in the foot. Besides, our economy is far more capable of bouncing back quickly from such a tactic than China's, by virtue of ours being stronger and trade ebbing away from China if they began an offensive war.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If China pulled support from our debt and the US economy collapsed, the world economy would collapse with it. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot at a bad time. Americans wouldn't be hurt as badly. It'd hurt us, sure, but a large part of our economy is self sustaining, and no one produces food like we do, we wouldn't starve.
China would hurt itself far more than we would be hurt by them.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Which is why we need an economist to give a properly formed opinion based on cold reserch not speculation. So I won't comment further and will just say and economic discussion of a China vs USA senario are useless and foolhardy.
Why do they need to modernize? You could also extend that to say... why does any nation need to modernize? Why does any nation at all even need an army?
The question is thus pointless, China wants to play catch up. To do so and to prove it has economically matched the west, it can prove it by maintaining a large yet well-equiped army.
Its a matter of national pride, not about a desire to invade another nation.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
At the turn of the 20th Century, the government of Japan went on a huge modernization jag. Industrial and then military in an effort to extend their regional influence and their presence on the world stage.
They proved what they could do in the Straights of Tsushima and rang the death knell of Czarist Russia. A few years later, well, yanno.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: Its a matter of national pride, not about a desire to invade another nation
And that is a matter of naive conjecture, not inside knowledge of the inner workings of the Chinese government. Or are you on Hu's mailing list?
Look at China's past, look at their writings, look at the national mentality of the leadership. They are an up and coming people who were once a great and dominant power. They want that dominance back, and the pride. They want the rebirth of a superior people in a new middle kingdom. It might no tbe the mentality of the majority of the people, but it is of the leadership, and the are the only ones who matter.
Cautious defensiveness isn't alarmist, it's prudent for a potential rival nation state.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Exactly I base this on history, few Chinese wars even in Imperial times left the borders of what they considered "Zhongguo" (joong-qwor), and even the people's that were occupied eventually became autonomus vassal states who owe a great deal of their traditional culture to China's influence. Just as say alot of todays modern culture derives from Roman's occupation and influence.
but not to detract from the original point you could count on one hand how many major offencive wars the Chinese have had, even if you cound the mongols as being Chinese as well (hey, there were absorbed into the culture afterall).
The Chinese history has been filled with mostly internal strife and few limited wars after reunification under the Qin, due to that fact that they were isolationists, and still are isolationists with a globalist touch to make money.
The Chinese has not liked the idea of conquering other peoples' being a center nation they believed that everyone already wanted ot be just like them, and to a certain extent still do, and esp and rural areas like Hunan province still somewhat xenophobic.
Thus conquest is limited also considering that modern history has shown that conquering people's with a culture sufficiently different from yours is a very hard thing to do, and especially keep that territory long-term.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Your comparison of China to ancient Rome is very apt. Rome thought it wise and good to be brutal, bloody-handed conquerors and enslavers, and thought little of keeping the masses under the boots of the few, including massive numbers of slaves. Rome also was convinced of its inherent superiority to anyone and everyone else.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Blayne, conquest in recent times is rarely about wanting to subjugate other peoples. It's more about access to resources.
Also, in the case of China, using historical China as a judging point for the PRC is a lot like judging Norway's politics by how the Vikings acted.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Mussolini used the ancient power of Rome as a pretext for aggressive warfare. It's a common thread that runs through ancient powers now dead that want their power back.
Nice comparison Sopwith.
Rome did much of its conquering for money and slaves. I don't see China entering the slave trade, but they will need resources in the next couple decades. And Siberia, the world's greatest untapped breadbasket it sitting on their doorstep.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
You both completely missed the point, the point was that the Chinese have had so few wars of aggression and even those wars were benefitial with the benefit of hindsight ei: Rome example.
using historical China I use as a precedent, historicall they have embarked on few wars becuase the Chinese were inheirently dissinterested in aggressive war outside their borders because of their 'centrist' attitudes.
Thus its safe to say that generally the Chinese were historically isolationists and generally still are, they didn't even press home their advantages in the Sino-Indian war.
Thus it can also be safe to say that using these precendents, the Chinese are still generally isolationists and still generally are dissinterested in war.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Also next, if you as America had an army with mostly Shermans and Pershings wouldn't you consider upgrading them?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh Blayne. It's like arguing with an eighth grader.
You're making arguments based on the premise that China in the 21st century is the same thing as China in the 3rd century. I wasn't aware that China was communist, and using up great quantities of natural resources back in the 200's, must have been tough.
You know, generally America was isolationist too before World War I. Before 1900, other than the Revolutionary War, America spent most of its time being attacked, not attacking.
And if I was settling in for a long Cold War against a hostile communist enemy, sure, I would consider upgrading, oh wait, we did! Now, where is China's great cold war enemy? Who are they expecting a war with?
Everytime America has upgraded its military, it has been as a response to some sort of agitation, usually followed by a war. Where's China's threat? What are they arming for?
And give up on the history lessons. You can't compare present day China to the Middle Kingdom, at least not successfully.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
quote:You know, generally America was isolationist too before World War I. Before 1900, other than the Revolutionary War, America spent most of its time being attacked, not attacking.
It should be noted that America declared war on Great Britain in 1812. Sure, it was in response to GB impressing our sailors, but if I recall, they had actually agreed to stop doing it before we declared war. Also, France was doing it, too.
You could argue that the Mexican-American war was manufactored by the president, and was a war of American aggression. Ulysses S. Grant saw it that way.
And in 1898, America declared war against Spain despite no evidence that the USS Maine exploded due to sabatoge. Strong evidence then and now points to it being an accident.
Now, I happen to feel that the War of 1812, and the Spanish-American War were justified, but they are hardly examples of America responding to attacks.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sorry, I was off by two years, I meant to include the Spanish American War as post 1900, even though it was obviously two years before it. Moving my date back two years eliminates it though.
And the British were still impressing merchant sailors from the French and American navies up to, and during the War of 1812, they also refused to abandon several forts in our territory that they had agreed to leave. The War of 1812 was in many the Revolutionary War, Part Two. I call that a defensive response to direct provocation, and in the case of impressment, a direct attack.
And I said we spent MOST of our time defending, not attacking. Until 1898, more than a hundred years of America existing, only 2 years for the War of 1812 were spend in war, and I call it defensive war. That's a fairly small fraction.
Thus, I believe my statement holds true.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Yet in all that time America still built up a faitly impressive armed force, their navy was pretty big in both wwi and wwii, they had a good reserve of grants and lee's in 1940.
The point is that even in peace time dispite congressional curbing of any kind of arms buildup america still trained and built up an army.
And no I am not argueing like 8th grader, and you also refused to awknoledge that you misinterpreted my original post.
Next, my arguement is valid; because I am argueing that cultural based off of historical evidence that the Chinese people have always been generally isolationists based off of the "Middle Kingdom"/"Mandate of Heaven" mentality.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The point is that even in peace time dispite congressional curbing of any kind of arms buildup america still trained and built up an army.
This is not remotely true. Only after WWII did we maintain our armed forces at anywhere near the level they had been at prior to the war and victory.
Also, I'm glad to see you're acknowledging that there is still a Middle Kingdom mentality going on in China. Refreshing. But that's just semantics, your way of disguising aggressive war by saying, "Well, they just took back what was theirs a long time ago."
What the people living in those territories may want be damned.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Tibet. Or what used to be Tibet.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, we've heard from BB that basically Tibet needed to be taken over, because of old territorial history, by the PRC. And really, it's been better for them.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Yet in all that time America still built up a faitly impressive armed force, their navy was pretty big in both wwi and wwii, they had a good reserve of grants and lee's in 1940.
The point is that even in peace time dispite congressional curbing of any kind of arms buildup america still trained and built up an army.
And no I am not argueing like 8th grader, and you also refused to awknoledge that you misinterpreted my original post.
Next, my arguement is valid; because I am argueing that cultural based off of historical evidence that the Chinese people have always been generally isolationists based off of the "Middle Kingdom"/"Mandate of Heaven" mentality.
Actually, we basically had no army before entering WWI. In the late '30s and very early '40s our troops were training with sticks for guns and cars as tanks.
It was only our industrial capacity that allowed us to gear up for war in massive numbers. And you might recall that our tank force was not nearly as advanced as the German or Russian forces. By the end of the war we were flying some of the best planes, but only by the end of the war.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Rakeesh, stop saying what is not true or misinterpreting facts or well put together arguements in the absence of said arguements, I argued sufficiently why China was justified in reclaiming Tibet and nothing can change that.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
No you didn't.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Yes I did, and proove me otherwise, under a internationally recognized legal prospective.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
And finally answer me honestly with the USA still had some 2000 Shermans and Pershings, and only about 5 Abrams, would you or would you not consider upgrading them if there were nations who have previously shown no hesitation in giving your enemies weapons and supplies when you were in a state of war with those enemies and has shown no hesitation in invading nations just because of their abundance of oil?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ha! Hail Blayne Bradley! He has spoken.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Rakeesh, take what you just said and please do us all a favor and stick it up a certain area of use for the spewing of waste.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: And finally answer me honestly with the USA still had some 2000 Shermans and Pershings, and only about 5 Abrams, would you or would you not consider upgrading them if there were nations who have previously shown no hesitation in giving your enemies weapons and supplies when you were in a state of war with those enemies and has shown no hesitation in invading nations just because of their abundance of oil?
Alright, this is somewhat unintelligable but I'll try to answer anyway. The reason the US stayed armed after WW II was in part to protect Europe from a possible Soviet invasion, and things spiraled upwards in an arms race as both sides tried to best the other. The wars that America fought after World War II were mostly fouhgt in response to aggressive actions from other nations, to halt the spread of communism.
Your comparison makes no sense. China doesn't have any more significant oil reserves in its territory than any of its neighbors. It has far less in fact. The only one who has anything to fear are China's neighbors when she starts to get thirsty for oil. Or are you suggesting that China needs to arm itself in preparation to invade someone for oil?
And what current enemies does China have that have been armed by a third party?
I don't mind debating with you, but it helps to smooth the process when you argue cogently.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I can hear him flipping through the pages of Little Red Book Quarterly.
Talk about an obscure thing to go fanboy over, the PRC. It takes all kinds I guess.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: I can hear him flipping through the pages of Little Red Book Quarterly.
Talk about an obscure thing to go fanboy over, the PRC. It takes all kinds I guess.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I read the CNN, People's Daily, and the CBC and the Discovery Channel, and the Learning Channel, as well as frequent several said forums. And I read about 200 books. Mostly Isaac Asimov science/politics articles.
What I mean is if America only had 2000 Shermans and Pershings when your rival (whether economically and diplomatic) had mostly T-90's and T-99's would you or would you not consider upgrading them?
Or an even better scenario, if it were 1990 and Germany had won the second world war without American involvment, and America had an obselete army and navy and airforce while Germany had all the advanced weapons they have managed to builds and produce, would you or would you not upgrade? Your evading the issue.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
So Blayne, just who is China's rival that they need to arm themselves against?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Anwser my question first and then I will answer yours.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I have a feeling Blayne is referring to Russia.
But I'll bite, becuase if he IS referring to Russia, I'm going to have a good time explaining why his comparison and theory is laughable.
Yes Blayne, If I felt threatened and my potential threatening enemy had weapons that were that much better than mine, I would consider upgrading. Now, let's hear who China's great big scary rival is.
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
quote:Well, we've heard from BB that basically Tibet needed to be taken over, because of old territorial history, by the PRC. And really, it's been better for them.
Tell that to the Dalai Lama, or any of the Tibetan exiles. And China may be liberalizing ecomically, but they are as authoritarian and repressive as they ever have been since the Much-Beloved Chairman Mao Zedong. We are talking about a country that will put a bullet in the back of your head for a word, and then turn around and *bill your family for the bullet*. It's insult added to injury taken to monstrous proportions.
Just because China is helping modernize Tibet doesn't mean they are doing them any favors. I would much sooner live in a hut and walk everywhere I go than live under an inhuman, oppressive regime like the PRC.
On a slightly different note, why don't we ever seem to hear the pro-choice lobby screaming bloody murder at China? They're certainly not about "choice" when every child after the first is simply aborted by state mandate. They'll let a woman "choose" to have as many abortions as she likes, but a choice with only one option ain't no choice, neh? Women in China don't own their bodies; the State does. I should think that both the Right and the Left would be united in such an atrocious affront to personal freedom and women's rights.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Excuse me, but America doesn't have 1.3 billion people. They do what they need to do to make sure they can keep as many Chinese as possible above the poverty line. Now the child is only aborted before birth if you manage to give birth to that Child then they won't kill the child. But it won't recieve the beenfits of a free education and healthcare.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
"I have a feeling Blayne is referring to Russia.
But I'll bite, becuase if he IS referring to Russia, I'm going to have a good time explaining why his comparison and theory is laughable.
Yes Blayne, If I felt threatened and my potential threatening enemy had weapons that were that much better than mine, I would consider upgrading. Now, let's hear who China's great big scary rival is."
Currently China's greatest economic and diplomatic rival yet also the most strategically interdepended with, is of course the United States. Why would you think Russia? Sino-Russian friend ship is growing and there aint much to fight over.
The Sino-American relationship on the other hand is full of complications.
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
quote:Excuse me, but America doesn't have 1.3 billion people. They do what they need to do to make sure they can keep as many Chinese as possible above the poverty line. Now the child is only aborted before birth if you manage to give birth to that Child then they won't kill the child. But it won't recieve the beenfits of a free education and healthcare.
They won't kill it if it's actually born? Well, kudos the PRC for not practicing actual infanticide. I've not killed anyone in the last week or so; can I have a cookie?
Are you honestly defending the PRC in their forced-abortion policies? The policy makes a sick sort of pragmatic sense, but heaven help the demos when their leadership adopt pragmatism as their byword. There is a great deal that a society could do that is both pragmatic and monstrously immoral, and this qualifies. From any pro-life standpoint, it is despicable. From any pro-choice standpoint that is actually, you know, pro-choice, it is despicable. From a personal freedom perspective, it is despicable. How is this substantially different than the old eugenicists' dream of sterilizing the genetically undesirable? That too made a sickly pragmatic sort of sense. It would improve the human gene pool, which one could argue is badly in need of a tune-up as natural selection increasingly fails to do its job in the face of rapidly advancing medical advances. The only difference I can think of is that the Chinese don't specifically *choose* who to prevent from reproducing, although the policy *is* having the effect of culling female births, creating a glut of males such as has never, to my knowledge, been seen before at any point in history. No one has any idea exactly what kind of effect this will have. How could they? It is without precedent.
This practice is morally WRONG. There must be a line drawn where we say, "We will not cross this, no matter how *practical* or even *necessary* it may seem. So they have 1.3 billion people? Why not just kill a few million, then? Mao certainly did his best at *that* brand of population control.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Then maybe they should spend less money on tanks and more money on raising their people above the poverty line
And your serious, that you think China needs to build up its arms because it should be worried about AMERICA invading? And earlier, you said they should be nervous becaue America is invading for oil. Certainly America isn't going to invade China for oil, or Pakistan, or India, or any of China's neighbors. Do you mean that China needs an army in order to repel an American attack on an Arab nation? They'd have to roll over Pakistan and Afghanistan or swing around the 'stans to get there. What do you think the chances of that happening are?
I don't buy your reasoning.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Okay Blayne, sure, but I get to play the US in this one.
All we've got is Sherman's and Pershings, up against T-72s and T-90s. Without taking an easy potshot about the poor quality of the later T-series tanks once they hit the battlefield (and the Chinese clones are much, much worse), let me say that we'd build better ones. Grow our own technology, if you will.
I assume that you're referencing China's inability to purchase F-16s on the secondary or tertiary markets right now, specifically the blocking of sales from Venezuela.
Let's look at it. It's a blatant attempt to get hardware and technology that China isn't capable of developing on its own. Without a long-standing allied relationship between the US and PRC (China before 1949 is a whole different kettle of fish), why should we allow them to make the purchases?
Simply put, we don't want them to have it, they can't make it and we're not going to let someone else sell it to them openly. Why? Because China could very well be a threat to some of its neighbors in the region. Or they could try to push the Taiwan issue again.
Sadly, the worst part of this is that they are trying their darnedest to get their hands on technology that, by our standards, is almost 30 years old. Sure, the F-16s still work, but the ones we still fly today are constantly upgraded and on their way out.
Okay Blayne, so who are the bad guys surrounding China from every side, brandishing great and scary weapons? I'd think that the PRC lost the real war on the day that Col. Sanders opened his first chicken restaurant in Beijing and Pepsi became The Choice of the Next Leap Forward. Chairman Mao's Little Red Book has been replaced by Sam Walton's lower every day prices.
And good riddance to Communist China. Mao's efforts led to millions and millions of deaths, sometimes due to purges, sometimes to empty ricebowls.
And some of those deaths came when Chinese tanks roared into Tianamen Square and ran down people who were speaking out for the right to live their lives in freedom. So to flip this argument right back to where it was before, why do they need new military gear when they can kill off their own people just fine with what they've got.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
"I assume that you're referencing China's inability to purchase F-16s on the secondary or tertiary markets right now, specifically the blocking of sales from Venezuela.
Let's look at it. It's a blatant attempt to get hardware and technology that China isn't capable of developing on its own. Without a long-standing allied relationship between the US and PRC (China before 1949 is a whole different kettle of fish), why should we allow them to make the purchases? "
China already has a F-16/22 varient, the J-12 I believe.
"And some of those deaths came when Chinese tanks roared into Tianamen Square and ran down people who were speaking out for the right to live their lives in freedom. So to flip this argument right back to where it was before, why do they need new military gear when they can kill off their own people just fine with what they've got."
And you do realize there have been no offical and commonly agreed apun figure for that?
"Are you honestly defending the PRC in their forced-abortion policies? The policy makes a sick sort of pragmatic sense, but heaven help the demos when their leadership adopt pragmatism as their byword. There is a great deal that a society could do that is both pragmatic and monstrously immoral, and this qualifies. From any pro-life standpoint, it is despicable. From any pro-choice standpoint that is actually, you know, pro-choice, it is despicable. From a personal freedom perspective, it is despicable. How is this substantially different than the old eugenicists' dream of sterilizing the genetically undesirable? That too made a sickly pragmatic sort of sense. It would improve the human gene pool, which one could argue is badly in need of a tune-up as natural selection increasingly fails to do its job in the face of rapidly advancing medical advances. The only difference I can think of is that the Chinese don't specifically *choose* who to prevent from reproducing, although the policy *is* having the effect of culling female births, creating a glut of males such as has never, to my knowledge, been seen before at any point in history. No one has any idea exactly what kind of effect this will have. How could they? It is without precedent.
This practice is morally WRONG. There must be a line drawn where we say, "We will not cross this, no matter how *practical* or even *necessary* it may seem. So they have 1.3 billion people? Why not just kill a few million, then? Mao certainly did his best at *that* brand of population control."
Ok wise guy tell me how would solve a population problem? Isn't it better to abort those who aren't even considered as full human beings yet then grown up human beings? Its one thing to complain its another thing to give a solution.
China has the ability to make their own weapons, they just prefer to buy newer stuff to make it go whirr faster.
"And good riddance to Communist China. Mao's efforts led to millions and millions of deaths, sometimes due to purges, sometimes to empty ricebowls."
You do realize that you've probably done 0 research on the subject, to be fair in the great leap forward he did resign the position of Chairman and took the blame for it, dispite the fact that in the 50's a series of some of the greatest natural disasters in history struck China.
In fact the F-16 is very easy to buy off of the open market, do some research. They already have vector thrust engines for their planes it won't be long until their F-22/35 varient.
"Okay Blayne, so who are the bad guys surrounding China from every side, brandishing great and scary weapons? I'd think that the PRC lost the real war on the day that Col. Sanders opened his first chicken restaurant in Beijing and Pepsi became The Choice of the Next Leap Forward. Chairman Mao's Little Red Book has been replaced by Sam Walton's lower every day prices."
What are you talking about?
The issue to me is this: Ignorant Americans are afraid of China armament program that to all witnesses is just them replacing 3 older tanks with 1 new one, and downsizing their army from 3-1.8 million men and reorganizing their force structure.
Something that any Modern Soveriergn nation has the right to do. They see America as a potentional rival yet also a potential ally, considering how close yet strained Sino-American relations are its unsurprising.
China has also been in various disputes doing its best to placate America without having to harm their own interests or the interests of the workers and farmers involved.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: And you do realize there have been no offical and commonly agreed apun figure for that?
More correctly, the commonly agreed upon figure is not the official figure. That's because the officials lie. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sure, every nation has the right to arm themselves to the teeth. Japan had that right, Soviet Russia had that right, North Korea had that right, Germany had that right, twice. Rome had that right, Carthage had that right, Persia had that right, Assyria had that right, so on.
What you're telling me, is that none of their neighbors should have worried, after all, all those peoples had the RIGHT to arm, so their neighbors should just sit down and shut up.
Which is, of course, irresponsible.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Forgot the US, Lyrhawn. Something like half the world's military budget? being spent to arm less than a twentieth of the world's population?
Commoners who make up those commonly agreed upon figures also lie, TomDavidson. Consider the "Kuwaiti babies killed in their incubators" of the GulfWar, or the WoMDs of the IraqWar. Just cuz PatRobertson and RushLimbaugh sez it's true don't make it so.
"Okay," Sopwith, "who are the bad guys surrounding" the US "from every side, brandishing great and scary weapons?" Cuz China shares common borders with two expansionary powers, India and Russia. Sits across a sea from another, Japan. And sits across the ocean from the greatest naval power of all time, the most powerful military of all time: which does make a habit of using its power to intimidate and/or replace the governments of other countries; which has been at war with three of China's bordering neighbors, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam; which is selling a nuclear delivery system to one state sponsor of terrorism, Pakistan, and offering sales of the same nuclear delivery system to another state sponsor of terrorism, India, who both incidentally have border disputes with China; and which is currently engaged in war in Iraq while occupying Afghanistan. Both countries farther away from and across more borders from that greatest military power than China.
Meanwhile, China has about a fifth of the world population and is spending less than a fifteenth of the world's military budget.
[ November 11, 2005, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Forgot the US, Lyrhawn. Something like half the world's military budget? being spent to arm less than a twentieth of the world's population?
Commoners who make up those commonly agreed upon figures also lie, TomDavidson. Consider the "Kuwaiti babies killed in their incubators" of the GulfWar, or the WoMDs of the IraqWar. Just cuz PatRobertson and RushLimbaugh sez it's true don't make it so.
"Okay," Sopwith, "who are the bad guys surrounding" the US "from every side, brandishing great and scary weapons?" Cuz China shares common borders with two expansionary powers, India and Russia. Sits across a sea from another, Japan. And sits across the ocean from the greatest naval power of all time, the most powerful military power of all time: which does make a habit of using its power to intimidate and/or replace the governments of other countries; which has been at war with three of China's close neighbors, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam; which isgiving a nuclear warhead delivery system to one state sponsor of terrorism, Pakistan, and offering to sell the same nuclear warhead delivery system to another state sponsor of terrorism, India, who both incidentally have border disputes with China; and which is currently engaged in war in Iraq while occupying Afghanistan. Both countries farther away from and across more borders from that greatest military power than China.
Meanwhile, China has about a fifth of the world population and is spending less than a fifteenth of the world's military budget.
[ November 11, 2005, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
THANK YOU! I was worried I was the only one. It gets lonely argueing something when your outnumbered argueing it.
Next, what I mean about those figures that official accounts from foreign witnesses are unconfirmed, a Spanish newsreporter estimated that the death toll was only around 200-300, The New York times estimated it at about 400-800, The Red cross around 2100, and a spattering of garbed accounts upwards of 8000, this is what I mean when they're aren't any agreed upon official figures and not even inside Tianamin Square. And when compared to the number of gun murders in the United States (11,000~) is really a small number.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Nah, BlayneBradley, I was slacking cuz I thought you were handling your end of the discussion more than adequately.
If "over 10billion sold" McDonalds were as dedicated to remaining ignorant of other folks' perceptions as most Americans are, they'd still be a long ways away from selling their first million burgers.
[ November 11, 2005, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If China wants to arm, ultimately we can't stop them.
My point, is that thinking they just want it for defensive purposes, and that they don't harbor ANY sort of aggressive tendencies is both irresponsible and ignorant of history.
And aspectre, Japan and Russia are hardly expansionary powers. Russia's armed forces are in shambles, and their economy is in such bad condition, they can barely bake bread, let alone prosecute what would be the greatest land war of all time. Japan doesn't even HAVE an army, or a real navy to move it anywhere.
As for India, they'll invade Indo-China before they try to tangle with China itself. It makes more sense. As far as America goes, the last time a major naval war was fought in the Pacific was after extreme provocation.
Using American military might as a pretext to arm themselves is a smokescreen. America won't be invading China anytime soon, or for that matter, probably ever.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
quote: You do realize that you've probably done 0 research on the subject, to be fair in the great leap forward he did resign the position of Chairman and took the blame for it, dispite the fact that in the 50's a series of some of the greatest natural disasters in history struck China.
Blayne, while you were still dribbling your juice boxes on your underoos, I was watching every moment of the Tianamen Square debacle. I was also finishing a minor in Asian Studies to go with a History Major that, strangely enough, centered greatly around Asian History.
I also spent years working with Chinese immigrants (both from Taiwan and the PRC). Over the years, I've kept some of those contacts and also paid attention to the news on the PRC.
But beyond that, you're right, I've done NO research or have ANY idea of what I'm talking about. Posted by Eldrad (Member # 8578) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: This practice is morally WRONG. There must be a line drawn where we say, "We will not cross this, no matter how *practical* or even *necessary* it may seem. So they have 1.3 billion people? Why not just kill a few million, then? Mao certainly did his best at *that* brand of population control."
Ok wise guy tell me how would solve a population problem? Isn't it better to abort those who aren't even considered as full human beings yet then grown up human beings? Its one thing to complain its another thing to give a solution.
Consider this for a moment: just because you have a solution doesn't mean it's the one that should be implemented. I mean, would you say that to solve world hunger, you should just kill all the people who are starving around the world? Of course not.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The PRC is doing what is the most efficient means of curbing a rising population and insuring living standards will go up not down, and you still haven't come up with a better solution, the only other REAL solution would be to invade Russia, but then again Hitler prooved that would be a bad idea.
Fine, Sopwith you know something about what you're talking about, but your still not giving me the respect I deserve and your not taking fully into account my side of the arguement. In Tianamen Square the most neutral account gave about 200-300 as the final figure for deaths and these didn't even happen in the damn square but outside when tanks crashed over roadblocks in the street.
"If China wants to arm, ultimately we can't stop them.
My point, is that thinking they just want it for defensive purposes, and that they don't harbor ANY sort of aggressive tendencies is both irresponsible and ignorant of history.
And aspectre, Japan and Russia are hardly expansionary powers. Russia's armed forces are in shambles, and their economy is in such bad condition, they can barely bake bread, let alone prosecute what would be the greatest land war of all time. Japan doesn't even HAVE an army, or a real navy to move it anywhere.
As for India, they'll invade Indo-China before they try to tangle with China itself. It makes more sense. As far as America goes, the last time a major naval war was fought in the Pacific was after extreme provocation.
Using American military might as a pretext to arm themselves is a smokescreen. America won't be invading China anytime soon, or for that matter, probably ever."
And I keep saying that China has rarely if ever invaded another country, they have attempted peace keeping when Vietnam invaded Cambodia but couldn't have been happier to go back home when it turned out disasterous.
Russia's economy/military isn't as in shambles as you'ld think, they repaid their debts and have developed some pretty awsome new stuff recently and are reorganizing.
The Japanese Self Defence force is alot more potent then you know as well dispite spending only 1-2% of their economy of it. Though true it can't do much offencively but they can still hard China and possible be used as a spring board.
If someone tried to beat you to death and almost succeeded even if he lost alot of his muscles you'ld still be nervous around him.
While their last major war in the pacific true was only at extreme provocation but remember tat their recent wars were with little provocation and evidence to support said war (cough Iraq) were fabricated. The there's the dozens of little interventions against peaceful elected governments in central amrica...
"Using American military might as a pretext to arm themselves is a smokescreen. America won't be invading China anytime soon, or for that matter, probably ever."
Just as you say I couldn't know China's real attentions how would you know America's? Everything I read point towards a country [China] that is pursueing a peaceful means of development and simultaniously doing some restructuring and upgrading for their armed forces.
They are not building UP their military only making it smaller, if you saw the PLA growing then you'ld be more plausible, but its not they're dismantling their older stuff and demobilizing troops.
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
quote:Consider this for a moment: just because you have a solution doesn't mean it's the one that should be implemented. I mean, would you say that to solve world hunger, you should just kill all the people who are starving around the world? Of course not.
Exactly. Note, also, that in China "abortion" can and often does mean "stab the baby in the head with a needle as it crowns". And we're not always talking about induced labor, but full-term pregnancy. Much, much cheaper that way, you see. When the line between "not even considered a full human being", as you put it, and a living human being is a few seconds and a breath of air, you are no longer on a moral slippery slope but in a full-out free-fall.
And besides, no government should EVER have the right to force a medically unnecessary surgery for "pragmatic" reasons or for "the greater good of future generations". I am pro-life; I am against abortion on any terms except when the mother's life is threatened, in cases of rape and incest, or when the fetus would not survive past birth. But at least in the States when the abortion is performed it is the mother of the child that makes the choice.
Give the State-any State-this sort of power, and they WILL abuse it. And hideously so.
The Beloved Wise Benevolent Chairman Mao Zedong was a monster, as bad as any other who ever lived so far as I'm aware, and the current PRC government is still the child of the twisted, hideous child he spawned that cut its teeth on the blood of millions in the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward. A few concessions to capitalism and some lessons learned in public relations has not changed that fact. This is not the Middle Kingdom. The Cultural Revolution, in fact, was Mao's attempt to *actively stamp out* much of what was good and noble and wise in ancient Chinese culture.
I also have met a good number of Chinese immigrants. These people are willing to come over in CARGO CONTAINERS, packed in like the slave ships of the 18th century. I know several who simply will not talk about their trip, or who begin to openly weep whenever their family in China is mentioned, and the latter, in Chinese culture, means more than I think a Westerner can even really comprehend.
China has no freedom of speech, precious little freedom of religion, not even the pretence of the right to vote, and although they are allowing more and more free enterprise under the old "it matters not whether the cat is white or black, so long as it catches mice", make no mistake; the State owns you, body and soul, property, children, womb, life, everything, and can give or take at its whim.
It is argued that their socialist system makes them more "secure" as there is "free health care and education" which often translates to "free infections and indoctrination". And no one whose life can be ended at any moment on the whim of a corrupt bureaucrat or military officer is really "secure" in any meaningful way.
Communism offers to trade freedom for security and ends up giving neither. It claims to perhaps "break a few eggs" for the greater good, but in the end cares only for the good of its ruling elite. The inherent and fatal flaw of socialism and its authoritarian cousins is this: no individual or group, no matter how smart or well-intentioned or educated or enlightened, can EVER be trusted with the amount of power over their fellow man that the creation of "social justice" inevitably requires. The genius of the Constitution is that it is designed to mitigate the inevitable mistakes and abuses that all leaders will inevitably commit, if not themselves then their successors.
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
quote:The PRC is doing what is the most efficient means of curbing a rising population and insuring living standards will go up not down, and you still haven't come up with a better solution, the only other REAL solution would be to invade Russia, but then again Hitler prooved that would be a bad idea.
Efficient, yes, the way the Germans or Japanese in WWII were efficient. Ruthlessly efficient.
Provide decent living standards? How about funneling less money to the military and more toward that goal? How about losing their deathgrip on the economy so people can freely trade and prosper? I'm not buying the population argument. Huge portions of China are relatively uninhabited, and Japan crams a much denser population into a much smaller space while maintaining a standard of living that is *exponentially* better than China's.
You want to keep the population under control? How about trying to CONVINCE your people? You know, reason with them, offer incentives besides the current "not getting shot in the back of the head" and "not having a needle jammed into your baby's head"? How about trying SOMETHING BESIDES FORCE? Japan has very effectively stabilized their population without resorting to such draconian measures. So has Europe. They convinced people that they would be better off with smaller families. Dialog with its people, however, is not something that the PRC's leaders are able to comprehend. They still use the Chinese word that corresponds to "peasant" for anyone who isn't one of the elite. Don't tell me nothing else will work. China's government hasn't TRIED anything else. They see the "peasants" as their own personal property and playthings. They take the measures they do because it's cheaper and more convenient for the ruling elite, and any kind of dialog with the people, any concession of autonomy, threatens their power and likely their lives in the event of a revolution. Remember, these people were installed through revolution, and they still fear it. He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. They have become more corrupt and uncaring than Chiang Kai-shek ever even dreamed of being, and having created an even worse regime than their old masters they fear sharing an even worse fate.
There are plenty of alternatives. They do what they do not out of some sort of desperate, absolute necessity unless that necessity is to maintain the power and privilege that they have built over the bodies of millions of Chinese. They will not hesitate to pile up more if that macabre foundation ever seems to weaken.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Yank reread some information on Mao's life and the circumstances in which he came about, retouch upon your history of the Chinese civil war. Do that and then I'll consider replying. Also reread about the China's geography and tell me if that "uninhabited area" can be habited.
And finally, this isn't even the topiv of discussion the discussion is about whether a sovereign nation that the oentagon doesn't like has the right to modernize its army or not.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Basically, I wrote up a whole rant about Blayne here, but honestly, it just isn't worth it.
It's like trying to explain to Beavis and Butthead that Evil is a bad thing while they are trying to watch a Slayer video.
Blayne, go on with your PRC fanboy deal, it's something that must, somehow, work for you. Rock on dude, score with the chicks, wave the Red Flag and Mao you're lil heart out.
You're probably right that forced abortions, the conquest and societal absorbtion of a neighboring state, the starvations of untold millions of rural people, the "re-education" of millions of urbanites, an oppressive society where protesting the government leads to your death, all are good things. We should laud and praise them.
Heck, maybe we should be like them more. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
::Concurs::
Aye.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
And by the way, the Pentagon isn't saying that the PRC can't modernize their army. They're just saying they can't do it with our stuff.
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
[quote}Yank reread some information on Mao's life and the circumstances in which he came about, retouch upon your history of the Chinese civil war. Do that and then I'll consider replying. Also reread about the China's geography and tell me if that "uninhabited area" can be habited.
And finally, this isn't even the topiv of discussion the discussion is about whether a sovereign nation that the oentagon doesn't like has the right to modernize its army or not. [/quote]
I sincerely hope you're not defending Mao Zedong.
If I have made historical errors I would be delighted to be enlightened. I have studied modern Chinese history at some length, and would love to know more. I also own a copy of The Little Red Book. More coherent than Mein Kampf, but no less despicable.
As to the the "topiv of discussion", the answer is no. A great deal of blood could have been spared had Germany and Japan not been allowed to "modernize" their armies. And Japan is still not allowed to completely do so.
As to China's lack of imperial ambition, they would dearly love some lebensraum in Russia. And would love nothing better than to turn the islands of Japan into sea-faring ash. They have some very good reasons for the latter sentiment, and Asian cultures tend to have long, long memories. Besides, no culture is likely to soon forget the sort of thing Japan inflicted on China during WWII.
And then there's Taiwan, the "rogue province." I think what really infuriates them about Taiwan is that even at a fraction of the mainland's population and natural resources they are *still* more prosperous by orders of magnitude. No one can pretend they don't have designs on Taiwan. Not even the *Chinese* pretend they don't have designs on Taiwan. The whole "rogue province" thing is essentially what they used for Tibet too: "Well, historically, it's ours."
Mind, I don't think they're about to try to invade California, but an invasion of Russia or an attempt on Japan at some point in the future wouldn't surprise me. They could gain enormous popularity points with their "peasants" simply by turning Japan into a radioactive mass. With Japan it's not invasion they want; it's revenge.
And then there's the simple principle that powerful weapons in the hands of an evil (yes, I'll gladly use that word for the PRC government) and totalitarian regime is a Bad Thing no matter what their current ambitions may or may not be.
Smiling on their military "modernization" is like watching blithely as the inmates of a maximum-security prison raid an Army Depot. We may or may not be the world's police but we really shouldn't be willfully reckless.
Posted by Eldrad (Member # 8578) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Yank reread some information on Mao's life and the circumstances in which he came about, retouch upon your history of the Chinese civil war. Do that and then I'll consider replying. Also reread about the China's geography and tell me if that "uninhabited area" can be habited.
And finally, this isn't even the topiv of discussion the discussion is about whether a sovereign nation that the oentagon doesn't like has the right to modernize its army or not.
Blayne, if you want to debate someone, you shouldn't condescend them and be so presumptuous in how you deal with the other people on this forum. You have no idea how much or how little the other people here know about China, and treating them in the manner that you have demonstrated here doesn't promote the idea that you want to have a hearty debate but that you're being a child who wants to be treated as such. I'm not saying you are a child, but you should approach this with more respect than you've demonstrated here.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Mao is a man who intented everything for the best and did so with the best intentions, to say he was a monster is just plain wrong, alot of what happened in the GLF and the GPCR was done voluntarily by MILLIONS of people, and it was mostly because of natural distasters that millions died in the GLP (assuming millions did die there is alot of doubt on that), and in the CR because of the dislocation of a large amount of transportation and other infastructure.
The purpose of the CR was to destory certain parts of Cunfucian thought the "3 Main Evils" that descirbed the wifes role to the husband, the peasants role to the minister, and a third one that I don't remember.
Mao sacrificed everything he had so he could Unify China and do his best to liberate the workers and peasants, in his youth he helped organized dozens of strikes that improved worker condictions and increased wages and effectively destroyed the role of the guilds.
As for Taiwan, puh-leez, as far as the rest of the world is concerned it is China's, they simply don't want China to go to war over it yet.
Yank, your post is based alot off of speculation and wihtout proper knowledge, your assuming that the CCP is as authoritan as you think it is, your assuming that everything was the fault of Mao or the CCP, your assuming things would worked out the other way.
Your also assuming that China will lob nukes at Japan, your assuming alot of things.
And geuss what, if most of those things were true it would've happend by now.
The government in China is a rational body that is planning out a peaceful development course for China's future, that is modernizing its Army is simply part of the process and is only involving alot of dual technology and less then 4% of its total economy.
Mao made mistakes and admited them, the CCP admited them and broke off from those policies as soon as it could restore order, and Deng Xiopeng did his best to improve China's economy.
They are doing something that to all rights and purposes works why should they not do something if it works?
As your momma use to say if it ain't broke don't fix it.
"And then there's the simple principle that powerful weapons in the hands of an evil (yes, I'll gladly use that word for the PRC government) and totalitarian regime is a Bad Thing no matter what their current ambitions may or may not be."
They have had said weapons for decades and have not once used nuclear weapons in war, have not once used any other WMD in war and in the few wars they had only used a small percentage of their armed strength and ended the engagement asap. In fact the Chinese have proven themselves so responcible with said weapons that the US government had brought them into the 6 Party talks to disarm North Korea.
China is a Market economy obeying consumer demand and is under limited controls from the CCP to make sure growth points in the right direction.
Economically a Chinese citizen can buy what he wants, own what he wants and sell what he wants, that is economic freedom as you can have in any other country. They even play MMO's like Eve and World of Warcraft. The only game I heard banned is Hearts of Iron 2 cuz' "it doesn't accurately dipict Chinese history" which does make a certain kind of sense from my experiances playing the game.
"Mind, I don't think they're about to try to invade California, but an invasion of Russia or an attempt on Japan at some point in the future wouldn't surprise me. They could gain enormous popularity points with their "peasants" simply by turning Japan into a radioactive mass. With Japan it's not invasion they want; it's revenge."
Really? If so then why did they allow Japanese soldiers to serve in the PLA and treated them well? Why did Manchurian born Japanese citizens enlist into the PLA? If so then why didn't China nuke Japan by now if they are as monsterous as you think they are?
The fact that the Japanese government is doing things that aren't really politically correct (visiting controversal war shrines, history text books that water down their war crimes in WWII etc) who can blame the Chinese PEOPLE when tens of thousands of students protested against the Japanese?
Currently any sabbre rattling vs the Japanese is just for show because the PRC makes billions every year off of trade and want to keep it that way, in fact Japanese investment have GROWN reaching some 31 billion $.
The Chinese won't invade California just as America doesn't wish (I hope) of invading Manchuria. American debt is being financed by China and China is making billions off of the trade deficit, reaching some 850 billion $ of foreign exchange.
In fact Hu Jintao and GWB seem to be doing their utmost to help improve relations dispite some comparable sabbre rattling from the Pentagon.
In fact Chinese PLA students from the Military Academy of Sience (Beijing) have even recently visited WestPoint.
80% of China's 1 Million villages are democratic with grass roots democracy being instituted upwards.
Liberties and freedoms have been increasing since 1978/1989 and dissent as long as it isn't directed against the CCP itself is tolerated esp if its constructive critism about economic and foreign policy.
No liberal western democracy could or would possibly reach the same kind of growth with the same kind of circumstances, Japan has a history of being small with a dense population, China has mostly known large space and the ability to expand into uninhabited territory.
"And by the way, the Pentagon isn't saying that the PRC can't modernize their army. They're just saying they can't do it with our stuff."
Who says their doing it with your stuff? They're developing their own hardware or buying it off of Russia or Israel, infact you are implicitely changing your story, before you didn't want them to even so much as modernize now your saying you just don't want to do it with your stuff.
Ranting about me, mocking my arguements, and mocking my sources and not listening or mislistening to my arguements won't convince me that I may or may not be wrong.
As for Germany and Japan, regardless of what they did they still did have a right to modernize and if the victorious entent had realized it 20 years earlier WWII may have been prevented, and even then in 1938/39 if England and France had listened to above all things SOVIET RUSSIA'S ADVICE! Most of the Facsit expansions could have been stopped.
In fact it eventually encouraged Russia to make a deal with Germany since all signs at the time pointed to the West trying to turn Germany eastwards, infact if even Poland or Czechoslavakia had agreed to allow Soviet troops to come to their aid when the USSR;s hearts was in it Nazi aggressoveness could have been prevented.
Then there's the cold shoulder Russia received again and again when suggestions of a defencive pact against Germany were suggested.
Japan's warpath may also have been prevented with some better diplomacy.
Now lets try to limit what we argue please I don't want to have to argue this again and again on 20 different threads esp if your the only people bothering to read it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Eldrad the point is if they don't know alot about China then why do they demonize it on shaky premises?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Don' know much about China, duz ya, Yank? If'n ya did, ya'd know that infanticide is an old old old Chinese method of birth control, which Maoism made illegal along with the comparatively new-fangled fad of footbinding. Any infanticide which occurred during China's "OneChild" phase was strictly an illegal re-adoption of an ancient rural custom.
Like I said: just cuz PatRobertson and RushLimbaugh sez so, don' make it true.
[ November 12, 2005, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Eldrad (Member # 8578) on :
Blayne, the point is that you don't know how much other people do or don't know about China, just as we don't know exactly how much you do; you haven't seen the other people on the thread refusing to listen to you based on some unsubstantiated idea that they know more about China than you do, and so it doesn't promote a good debate by doing that very thing yourself.
As for something that pertains to the topic at hand:
"80% of China's 1 Million villages are democratic with grass roots democracy being instituted upwards."
If this were true, why has the Chinese government banned, for example, internet searches on what they view as democratic ideals? They continue to do it to this day. If the Chinese government were as good as you're making it out to be, they would have nothing to fear by allowing their people to read about such things. So what is it that the Chinese government does fear by banning such topics?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Look at Hong Kong, Hong KOng politicans representing a prodemocracy movement have been visiting CCP leaders for some time now.
Posted by Eldrad (Member # 8578) on :
You forget that Hong Kong is the exception, not the rule; until five years ago, they were still under British rule, and China's been content to allow them to continue as if not much has happened because the people there are already used to having freedoms that most Chinese are not. If the Chinese government tried to impose the same restrictions on Hong Kong as they do across the rest of the country, one of their most profitable and technologically advanced territories would be up in arms, something few, if any, Chinese politicians are eager to see.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You have some screwy reasoning there Blayne.
"If it was going to happen it already would have happened" is just plain silly. Acts like that are all about timing. You don't do something like that just because you can, not in today's world. That's the kinda thing Rome or Carthage would have done.
Why didn't the US invade Baghdad during Desert Storm? It certainly could have, but we waited more than a decade to do it. That right there defies your premise, along with hundreds of other examples of nations waiting to do something until the time was right.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
No, thats not the it, you make it sound like that the CCP are some monsterous evil and insane cartoon villains, and if they wanted to nuke Japan they would have done so by now because such people would not care about the consequences.
Because the CCP does care about their actions because they do care about what happens to millions of China, and because they are a rational leadership that understands the rules they won't nuke Japan esp if Japan practically gives them a blank cheque each year.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I never said that.
I don't blame China for wanting to build up their navy. In all honesty, they probably should be. The Pacific is at their backdoor, and Japan will one day be a great naval power again, it's only a matter of time, they might as well have a blue water navy in the works. Besides, they'll need that much to protect the Straits of Malacca and other small channels their fuel supplies move through coming from the Middle East.
But I also think they are being a bit wreckless, and they are posturing just as much as anyone else is. They've built 12 new amphibious assault craft for moving tanks and troops short distances across water, and with Taiwan and Japan being the only real opponents separeated by water, you can imagine why this makes some people in the world nerbous.
Further, Iraq has more of a historical claim to Kuwait than China does to Taiwan, and Iraq didn't get away with trying to claim it.
China should be spending more time working on renewable energies and more than anything else, healthcare. They have plenty of room for their population, and for an expanded population. Maybe if they spent more time working on AIDS research, avian bird fly, SARS, and a dozen other diseases plaguing their people, less people would call them heartless. The population could be taught smarter ways of population control than abortion, which is brutal, and forced on their women. But it's easier to abort a baby than to embark on a massive education program and healthcare revamp.
They have bigger problems than their land based military that they should be focusing on. And that kind of carelessness makes me wonder why they are rushing to improve their military so fast, at the expense of the people.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
1a) India has already been engaged in a direct war with China. In fact, the Chinese would argue that they absorbed their traditional tributary state of Tibet because the Indians were intending to conquer it. The intent demonstrated by India's embargos against other independent principalities/etc along its borders and funding&arming of "communist guerillas" to destabilize their governments, then subsequently absorbing those formerly independent states since the British granted Independence. They armed the "communist"TamilTigers in SriLanka, and probably the "Maoist"guerillas in Nepal. Bhutan's insularity provided a shield against a similarly "native" terrorist "rebellion". India is a nuclear power. 1b) India has satellite launch capability -- ie InterContinentalBallisticMissile capability -- which is how the Soviets originally spooked the US into joining the SpaceRace.
2a) Russia's nuclear capability still outweighs China's by more than ten times in strategic warheads and ICBMs, more than a hundred when comparing tactical nukes.
2b) Russian warhead delivery capabilities had ~40years of lead-time over China's inregard to tested precision targeting. How much of that technological lead remains won't be known until the Chinese decide to release the landing coordinates for their astronauts before they land; which is a good measure inregard to ICBM accuracy. While the "civilian Man in Space program" made a great headline for public consumption, the US scared the snot out of the Soviet general staff when a Gemini capsule almost landed on top of the US aircraft carrier assigned to lead the astronaut recovery team; and that was with uncontrolled parachute drift. Russian submarines and SubmarineLaunchedBallisticMissiles are commercially used to launch satellites.
2c) Russian aircraft might even be able to go toe-to-toe with the US. Every time the US gets a newer Russian model, its capabilities surprise the heck out of friendlies during mock-combat at TopGun. While their electronics and software is behind the US, Russian aircraft tend to be more over-structured than a brick outhouse. Of the ones the US has acquired, a Russian fighter can survive target-acquisition and evasion maneuvers that would cause a comparable generation US fighter to either flameout, spinout, or fall apart.
2d) Russian missile intercept capabilities They've had an operational anti-ICBM system protecting Moscow for ~30years. As well as combat-theatre interceptors for nearly 50years.
2e) If there has been a decrease in the difference in quality between Russian and Chinese aerospace technology, a LOT of the decrease is because the Chinese bought Western technology -- including US technology -- from US allies such as France and Israel, or directly from the US itself.
2e) Russia's submarine fleet is second only to the US. And while their anti-ship weaponry may not be as reliable, the torpedos and missiles are faster. Which counts a bit in a quick-draw competition.
2f) However the US would probably trash the Russians in submarine combat, because US subs are a LOT quieter and a LOT stealthier. And because the US SOSUS network and SeaInt satellite system can pinpoint any submarine bigger than a large orca, medium-sized whale which is travelling walking-speed faster than current-drift speed. Except possibly US submarines: like I said, they are incredibly stealthy. I have my doubts about even drifting submarines and US submarines evading US detection due to the relatively newly-installed full-ocean active sonar used to ping submarines travelling under the thermocline. As for travel above above the thermocline, SeaInt probably watched that recent SeaWolf submarine collision with the Pacific seamount in real time, or close to. 2g) But the US naval brass either knows that it can protect aircraft carriers from submarine warfare, or they are being stupid. I prefer to think that the carrier fleets aren't vanity projects comparable to the postWWI battleships. I prefer to think that when a US carrier fleet has sailed into the Straits of Taiwan during China-Taiwan flareups, the sailors weren't being treated as fishbait.
2h) While it is true that the Russian submarines and the Russian naval battle groups mostly stay in their home ports, there really ain't much point to keeping the submarines on "secret" patrols when the US will know where they are. Might as well save money by keeping them where the US knows where they are.
2i) The above doesn't mean that the Chinese have an defensive&offensive advantage comparable to the US. Unless the Russian navy is a LOT worse off than reported by the intelligence news magazines such as Janes, and the Chinese navy is a LOT better than reported, the Russians would win in naval combat with China. Even considering China's advantage in shorebased aircraft, the Russians can take out the airfields with SLBMs, ship-to-shore ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles...for the short term, without going nuclear.
Next: Japan, Taiwan&HongKong, and the US
[ November 18, 2005, 06:39 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
So Blayne, what are your credentials? What makes you the expert you believe you are about this?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Having spoken to people from China both online and offline, read very many books from neutral unbiased sources, magazines, encylopedias.
Some of these sources include: Mao A Life
and China! Inside the People's Republic The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: 1500-2000 Politics and War from Philip the Second to Hitler.
quote: Yes, he [Philip Short] acknowledges, Mao was a tyrant, but then China always has been run by tyrants; it never has had a tradition of democracy. And Mao was also an idealist: the deaths of millions was, as he saw it, the price that his country had to pay for being dragged from a state of medieval servitude--perpetually on the brink of famine--to that of a modern, industrialized, self-sufficient nation, in the space of a single lifetime.
Publishers Weekly
quote: By Short's reckoning, Mao's megalomaniacal ambition led to such disasters as the Great Leap Forward (1958-1960), the collectivization and production drive that ended in apocalyptic failure as 20 million Chinese starved to death, and the chaos of the Cultural Revolution (1966-1969), during which hundreds of thousands were tortured, arrested or executed.
Oh, well, if he was an idealist. The ends do justify the means, right? What if the end leads right back to the beginning for large percantages of the population?
quote: Though Short describes Mao as a "visionary, statesman, political and military strategist of genius," he also points out that Mao's rule "brought about the deaths of more of his own people than any other leader in the history of any country in the world." And yet he concludes by distinguishing Mao's culpability from that of Stalin and Hitler, evoking the distinction in Western law "between murder, manslaughter, and death caused by negligence."
The tortures and executions were but negligence?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Yes, he [Philip Short] acknowledges, Mao was a tyrant, but then China always has been run by tyrants; it never has had a tradition of democracy. And Mao was also an idealist: the deaths of millions was, as he saw it, the price that his country had to pay for being dragged from a state of medieval servitude--perpetually on the brink of famine--to that of a modern, industrialized, self-sufficient nation, in the space of a single lifetime.
Publishers Weekly
quote: By Short's reckoning, Mao's megalomaniacal ambition led to such disasters as the Great Leap Forward (1958-1960), the collectivization and production drive that ended in apocalyptic failure as 20 million Chinese starved to death, and the chaos of the Cultural Revolution (1966-1969), during which hundreds of thousands were tortured, arrested or executed.
Oh, well, if he was an idealist. The ends do justify the means, right? What if the end leads right back to the beginning for large percantages of the population?
quote:Though Short describes Mao as a "visionary, statesman, political and military strategist of genius," he also points out that Mao's rule "brought about the deaths of more of his own people than any other leader in the history of any country in the world." And yet he concludes by distinguishing Mao's culpability from that of Stalin and Hitler, evoking the distinction in Western law "between murder, manslaughter, and death caused by negligence."
The tortures and executions were but negligence?
And finally also remember that in the great Leap Forward China was struck be a series of natural disaster the flooding of the yangzti river along killed more then 3 million.
And finally its a matter of perception, many will say that history will not forgive those who leave the state weak, how many old rulers, kings and governors have there been that historians savagely attack for weakening the state or not doing enough to make the state strong?
Those millions are dead, complaining about it does not bring them back, figure out a way how complaining can bring them back and then maybe they'll listen to you.
Posted by Eldrad (Member # 8578) on :
Saying that floods killed a lot of people doesn't rebut the fact that Mao was responsible for the deaths of millions. This isn't 'complaining,' Blayne; this is recognizing that China has had some pretty tyrannical leaders throughout its history and remembering this so that it might be prevented in the future.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
But you aren't recognizing what good did happen, you aren't recognizing his accomplishments, and you aren't acknowledging that Mao was the one primarily responsible for holding back the Japanese, Chiang by all accounts was planning to make a a peace treaty that would've left China weak.
And it wasn't just floods, there were many enviromental factors at work that all contributed to it, what Mao did was encourage the creation of tens of thousands of communes that were generally as far as I can tell formed voluntarily in a massive effort by most of agricultural China that had reduced the overal effort into agriculture, saying Mao was responsible it it is technically true yet theotecally false, he didn't cause the starvations, the weather did and played foul at a really bad time, infact even that overall death toll is in doubt, considering "The Rise and Fall..." by Paul Kennedy China's overal food imports increase by a vast amount of help ease the famines, compared to Russia which forced collectization and EXPORTED food inorder to pay for heavy machinery.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Folks, he's in full fanboy mode. He won't understand as long as he has the stars (red) in his eyes.
Blayne, someday, you'll understand.
(One quick note Blayne, about Mao's giving up what he had for the revolution, for the people... There's was this young Austrian fellow who gave up what might have been a modest career as a painter to rise to world prominence. He styled himself a great leader as well. Wrote a nice little book that inspired a generation as well. The similarities go on quite a bit.)
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Evil is a lot like the band Chicago, a lot of their greatest hits sound pretty similar...
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
There is a world of difference between Hitler and Mao, Mao was not in any way evil, and quite frankly I think this arguement is over when you result to a condenscending atitude and think it gets your point across.
Posted by Eldrad (Member # 8578) on :
You're not really one to talk there, Blayne, given the way you spoke earlier.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
While it's true that Blayne was pretty condescending earlier, that doesn't make the whole "you'll understand when your older" schtik any more palatable.
Blayne, on a somewhat related (to the general topic of discussion) note, have you ever read Maureen McHugh's China Mountain Zhang? I don't know how well you'd like the book as a whole, but I suspect that you'd find the world it's set in an interesting one.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Mao was not in any way evil
I wonder how you can make that argument. What is your definition of "evil?"
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Malice, making decisions based upon malice, hatred, prejudice.
Mao was never any of these, he never hated anyone, he was possibly angry with his father (but who isn't?), he probably hated Chiang for what he did to his family (tortured and killed his second wife, dug up the graves of Mao's parents).
But in general? His order weren't based on hate, but on traditional idealism and socialist thought that he had adapted for practicality within China.
As for my atitude earlier I am generally under the impression that people when they argue about China don't know and haven't researched what they're talking about, this applies in reverse as I have equal intolerence for people who argue in Defence of China but also don't know that they're talking about. (example; "China has enough people for a 300,000,000 man army!" when of course while they may have 300 mil capable of joining the armed forces they're are not enough Ak47's to arm all of them).
As for China Mountain Zhang no I have ot heard of it I'll google it up, if you say I'll find it interesting I'll look into it.
Posted by Eldrad (Member # 8578) on :
How isn't Mao evil? Even China admits that approximately 20 million people died due to policies that Mao tried to implement, and this is generally considered to be a lower-end estimate. Mao's 'practicality' ranks up there with some of the worst atrocities in human history; I would tell you to ask the dead, but dead men tell no tales. As for those who aren't angry with their fathers, I'm one of them. I consider my father to be the greatest man I will ever have had the honor of knowing.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Yes, failed policies that they admit but they will also day that Mao was a great man who made some great mistakes. You can have it both ways with politics.
Posted by Eldrad (Member # 8578) on :
Huh...Mao was a politician who made some mistakes with the best of intentions. Some would say the same of Hitler. After all, in his eyes he was doing what was best for mankind, so that makes it ok, right?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I would place much more faith in people within the PRC saying that Mao was a great, honorable man and they are satisfied with their government and wouldn't wish it replaced...
If they couldn't be locked up for saying so. But you'll deny that, explain that they need to make China strong, that "complaining about the millions of people Mao's (at best) negligent stupidity slaughtered won't bring them back, so quit whining", that they're getting better, ad naseum.
The People's Republic of China does not work to protect the civil and human rights that you yourself enjoy, Blayne Bradley. It treats its citizens in a way you would find horrifying were your government behave even mildly similar towards yourself. It enacts policies that are negligently stupid, and if you speak out too publicly against them, well then you're locked up. It runs over people in tanks for protesting. It forces its people to have abortions. It does not permit democratic elections. It does not permit a free press. It does not permit individuals free access to the Internet. It does not permit individuals to enter and exit the country as they desire. It routinely "disappears" individuals and tortures them. It routinely beats and imprisons people for practicing religion.
All of these things I've said-every one-are facts, they've been documented primarily in history books, news reports (not just American), and by organizations such as Human Rights Watch. Explain away, apologize, temporize, and marginalize the people of this nation you claim to love so much all you like, they are facts, Blayne Bradley.
You have the freedom to be publicly religious if you like. You have the freedom to speak out publicly against your government. You have the freedom to vote in open, free elections. They don't.
And you don't care.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So, Mao's policies that killed tens of millions are NOT evil.
The Japanese in Manchuria however, those policies also killed tens of millions, but I'm guessing you consider them evil.
There's a thin line between assigning evil to the act, and to the reasoning behind the act. Some acts are just evil, regardless of the thought or intention behind them. And some reasoning is evil, regardless of the outcomes it brings.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
There's no one so blind as one who will not see.
We're wasting our time here with him folks.
I'm washing my hands of it.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I take it back, I'm not washing my hands of this quite yet.
We can talk of millions dying, of the hopelessness of the people under a communist regime, of the lack of freedoms we consider to be the most basic of human rights. But Blayne won't understand. He can't put himself in the position of one of the workers or peasants, he can only see it from the position of a Communist party's elite.
But that's the problem with so many of those who espouse Communism -- they never see themselves as the person who works ten hour shifts seven days a week at a factory to keep the machinery running. They are never the ones who are moved from their family homes and placed to work at the collective farms. They never see themselves waiting in line for 12 hours to get a roll of toilet paper.
They speak of putting the workers to work and making the farms more efficient. They speak of the need for a unified political voice. They speak of giving up freedoms for the greater good. But they never think that they are the ones who will have to pay the bill.
They speak of peasants and workers, not as a different class, but as a different species -- like animals that need to be made to work. They eat the sausage but haven't the guts to see it made. It's just peasants that die and workers that toil for no reward.
It's a lack of empathy and the uplifting feel of commiting to an ideology. It's the work report of a person who has never truly bent their back to labor. It's a person who has never had those above them take away what they have worked hard for.
Communism appeals greatly to the disaffected lay about, a person to whom personal achievement and personal effort are happily traded for a stipend and an anonymity of self and spirit. If that stipend comes at the suffering of untold others, who cares? As long as the supporter isn't the one who has to suffer.
It's Karl Marx seeking warmth in the public library that others paid to have built. It's the well-fed Stalin while people in Leningrad starved to death. It's the military parades in Pyongyang while the poor starve and freeze in the Korean winter. It's Mao's smiling face on a poster plastered anew on the only wall left standing in a Yalu River village where the last person just starved to death.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Sopwith, I wonder, do you see the people who strongly espouse Capitalism or most of the leaders of U.S. companies as any different?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
There's a difference, Mr. Squicky. With capitalism-even pure, unadulterated capitalism-the thing that motivates those in power to succeed and be efficient (be they government or robber-barons) is greed and competition.
With those two motivators, progress is assured. It's guaranteed, because those who do not progress will be overwhelmed by those who do. Communism has no such guarantees. It competes against...well, not even against itself, really. It relies less on what works and more on what is politically acceptable.
This is not to say I'm a fan of unadulterated capitalism. I'm not. It rewards naked exploitation of both workers and consumers, and it seeks to place the individual a little too close to the jungle for my tastes. Nor is this to say that communism always must be inefficient and noncompetitive. I suppose it's possible that communism could be both things.
But it sure as hell hasn't been so yet.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Progress for whom? Right now, it seems like many of our companies are outsourcing their labor needs to workers in countries like China specifically because of results of the the oppression of the workers that you are complaining about. The progress that comes out of this, from my perspective, goes to the people who own capital in these companies (as per the capitalist system) and to the oppressive Chinese government. It's not, however, going to the workers, Chinese or American. And, if China enacted the democratic and workers' rights reforms that you seem to be saying that they should, many American companies would, following market capitalism, pull out of China in favor of countries that still heavily oppressed their workers.
edit: Or consider the U.S. government's and businesses' dealing in Central and South America. We've fought very vigorously against workers' rights even to the point of setting up the sort of brutal dictators you're decrying and training his minions in using terror and torture against those who oppose him. I don't know who you think that the U.S. created Banana Republics wre progress for, but I don't see how in the light of the initial criticism about worker's rights could see as different in a better way from China.
If you want to argue which system is more efficient, that's one thing, but I don't think that focusing on worker's rights and related topics or the moral nature of the people who run the system is going to show how Communism is much worse than other economic systems.
[ November 15, 2005, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The difference between Russian and Chinese Communism is the leadership, in Russia many leaders like Lenin were exiles or were out of touch and when revolution came about with the return of said intellectuals, these intlllectuals readily took power.
China is different, a good majority of the leadership are like Mao Zedong, a peasant to the roots and who have adapted Marxism and created a flair of it with Chinese characteristics, eventually becoming Maoism.
In fact Mao did in the early 30's a very deep study of the life of peasents of a few villages and its surounding areas in which could be applied to most of China, essentially a detailed study of one area with a more basic study of the rest to provide the clearist picture.
It was 60,000 words long and the plight of women and prostitutes got a good portion of it.
You talk about the suffering of the Chinese people, but you willingly forget about the even greater suffering they endured BEFORE Liberation pre-1949 which I had got into at length previously either in this thread or another one.
The CCP did these:
Unified Mainland China, restored Chinese pride by forcing the Americans to endure the longest retreat they have ever faced in the Korean war, universal sufferage at age 16-18, a secular education system that (post 1978) was free until college where competition between students was encouraged for greatest output of productivity.
China's emergance as a great power had been assured by the CCP with 20-50 years it will become a super power as it switches from an exporter to a more service based importer economy. Economically, militarily and politically China as the PRC is far stronger now then ever before since the Han and Qin Dynasties.
The "plight" of the people is shacky at best, they're lives are far greater and more prosperous now then ever before, and to th average person they see progress, and thats all they need, for as long as the lives of their ancestors was worse and the lives of the children and grand children they know will be better then they will continue to support the CCP which they see as the legitimate government of China.
I'm a realist in these matters, what good is complaining about someone who broke a cup if you don't suggest a means of fixing it? And also, wat good is complaining about someone to lose weight faster when doing so would do more harm then good?
Stop complaining about what a sovereign nation does behind its borders, if the lives of the people are unacceptable then its bad, but if said lives are the best that can be given possible given circumstances and the lives ARE improving then what are you complaining about?
Mao was not an evil man, he was an idealist, who hoped to create communism with Chinese characteristics, who spent his whole life fighting for the good of China, he made mistakes, he's not god or buddha but he still did great things. The Great Forward was encouraged by the CCP under Mao, but it was carried out by the enthusiastic will of hundreds of thousands to millions of people who did it voluntarily, and from there natural disasters struck at a time when the state of agriculture due to the Civil, Sino-Japanese, second civil, and Korean wars.
The Cultural Revolution was meant to transform chinese society on a scale never attmpted before or after in any other socialist nation, it was meant to be an excersize of political thought and revolutionary action by the students associations to critize local CCP leadership, corrupt bureaucrats and petty functionaries, and to attack and destroy traditional forms of Cunfucian and Buddhist thought that was felt to have imprisoning effect on the average chinese thought and unduly oppressed women and the average people.
But it is also true it went to far and spun out of control Deng Xiapeng later known as the "Last Emperor" after his death in 1999(?) (I was reading about it in the paper) and with the help of the PLA the party restored order and soon enough after Mao's death the CCP arrested and executed those who had wished to continue it, otherwise known as the "Gang of Four".
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Just to reiterate, I did say I was no fan of unadulterated capitalism.
That said...there's a reason workers in those countries take the jobs they're given by USA outsourcing, and that's because they're better than the jobs they've got. That means more money for the worker, and thus a better standard of living, and a chance at better educating their children.
Governments like the brutal tyranny of the PRC don't last forever under such pressures. They must make substantial changes or be replaced.
Yes, the most progress, the most money, the most efficiency, goes to the owner. But don't you realize that there's a reason that you stand a good chance of hearing an Indian on the phone trying to sell you something? Those jobs they're taking, being paid too little for, are better than what Communism (in the example of the PRC) offers them.
Morally speaking-and I didn't bring this up, you did-there is little difference in my opinion between the CEO who outsources jobs to people he'll pay pennies a day and knows they'll take because they're desperate, and the Politburo who decides, "You all are going to make steel in your homes and we'll pay you pennies for it." Of course, in the first case, the CEO at least is not compelling workers to work for him, he just knows it'll happen because they're desperate. If you don't make the steel for the Politburo, you get shot and your family pays for the bullet.
-----------
Societies that embrace capitalism do not always respect and protect the rights of the worker and the individual, it's true. But societies that embrace communism as a whole never do so, at least on a nation-state scale. At least it hasn't happened yet. That's why it's worse.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Unified Mainland China, restored Chinese pride by forcing the Americans to endure the longest retreat they have ever faced in the Korean war, universal sufferage at age 16-18, a secular education system that (post 1978) was free until college where competition between students was encouraged for greatest output of productivity.
Do you have any idea how many Chinese lives the PRC military was willing to piss away in pursuit of this pride you speak of? The PRC reports over one-hundred thousand KIA. Now of course you'll believe the trustworthy state-run media of the PRC that doesn't let its people vote in free elections, but others are free to doubt it. Other sources claim anywhere from five-hundred thousand to a million PRC KIA. The truth is somewhere probably in between, much higher than 100,000. and lower than 1,000,000.
Stack this up against approximately 54,000 KIA, with about 33,000 of them dead in battle in the Korean theater. That's including the dead in battle against North Korean soldiers, not PRC.
This demonstrates the PRC's policy on problems: throw lives at them. The most bitterly amusing part about this, BB, is that had you lived in China at the time (and I'll bet you're lined up at the border asking to be let in, right?), you probably would've been drafted and slaughtered in a human wave attack, or starved to death or died from disease.
quote:The "plight" of the people is shacky at best, they're lives are far greater and more prosperous now then ever before, and to th average person they see progress, and thats all they need, for as long as the lives of their ancestors was worse and the lives of the children and grand children they know will be better then they will continue to support the CCP which they see as the legitimate government of China.
I'm a realist in these matters, what good is complaining about someone who broke a cup if you don't suggest a means of fixing it? And also, wat good is complaining about someone to lose weight faster when doing so would do more harm then good?
Stop complaining about what a sovereign nation does behind its borders, if the lives of the people are unacceptable then its bad, but if said lives are the best that can be given possible given circumstances and the lives ARE improving then what are you complaining about?
You don't know anything about the oppression of the average Chinese citizen. You excuse it away because they're getting better. Well! That justifies any oppression, doesn't it? So long as it lessens slowly over time? What heartless idiocy. "Quit complaining because they're doing better."
As for your being a realist, nonsense. You're not a realist, you're an apologist. Every oppression the PRC engages in is acceptable because the lives of the "peasants"-you're aware that's a perjorative, right?-are better now than they were fifty years ago, or five thousand. Well! Hell, I guess you'll be voting (if you bother) for the status quo in your next election, right? After all, obviously had you lived one-hundred years ago, your life would be worse, right?
There are people who suggest methods of "fixing" these problems. If they don't live in the PRC, they're ignored. If they live in the PRC, they're shot or imprisoned. But that's OK, because in the Warring States period, things were ever so much worse. Don't pay attention to what happens now, think about what those rotten Japanese did to China fifty years ago! Is there a PRC Propaganda handbook you're reading from?
You're a liar when you say the lives of Chinese people are the best they could possibly be given the circumstances. How can anyone possibly say that? No one can say that with a straight face when contrary ideas about how to improve life are ignored or punished.
But that's what it boils down to, isn't it? "If you're not Chinese and you don't support the People's Republic of China, then shut your mouth. You've got nothing to say I'll listen to."
Well, it was obvious that's what you meant before-that's one reason I was prodding you with Hail China!-but it's a pleasant surprise to see you finally admit it.
Posted by Eldrad (Member # 8578) on :
*points above*
What he said.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The Politburo never ordered anyone without the ability to make Iron make iron, infact many millions of people in China voluntarily formed communes just so they could help industrialized China.
As for people getting arrested, people who openly critize the CCP as in say "They're evil!" would be arrested for causing disorder (which by the way the Nationalists did too), however those that critize a policy but have a solution for it aren't arrested, and this comes with the market oriented reforms, for example, if you critized the CCP for not making enough steel and said it was all their fault, then maybe you'ld get arrested, but if you said that a certain branch is doing enough and here's the reasons why, and here's how I think we can fix it, and OFFER your services to help fix it, then you will be listened too and your opinion (assuming your a proffesional) will be taken into consideration by whatever company or standing commitee you work for.
As for the causualties... whaaa? You could equally blame the GMD for being willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of people as well, people die in war and the people who die were all VALUNTEERS compared to Chiang Kai Shek who drafted them.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Next, they had no choice but to use mass wave attacks in Korea, if you knew anything about the Korean War and the doctrine of the Red Army from Jingxi province to Yan'an, you'ld know that Mao favored flexible geurrila/mobile warfare at all times, not inflexible strategies that cost the lives of your soldiers.
The Korean war was fought on a narrow front, and lacking adequate firepower and air suporiority they're was nothing the PLA could do to win victory with the tools availiable, the wave attacks were desparation in action pure and simple.
And as a matter of fact yes, I'm learning Mandarin and learning programming in computer science and alot of the chinese friends I have assent that they're is a high demand for IT professionals, so I consider it a possibility to move their and work there.
And whats with the Japanese reference? The current Japanese PM while doing many astute political and economic reforms (privetization of the postal service etc) however continues to visit a contraversal shrine and their recent text books down play their warcrimes during wwii, what can one expect if thousands of students decide to protest this?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Also, I resent the propoganda bit, EVERYTHING is propoganda, everything is biased, but even so the ONLY think I read that is PRC sponsered is the people's daily just so I can be informed of the Chinese politico-economic perspective in world events. Everything else is yes indeed, CNN, CBC, forums, books, statistical websites, and encyclopedias.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh! I didn't realize that it was acceptable for governments to arrest citizens for not criticizing their government in an acceptable method.
Tell me something, Blayne Bradley. If you were a Chinese citizen born and raised in China, and you one day decided to, say, hold a peaceful assembly in a public square criticizing the government and offering reforms without being violent, would you expect, oh, I don't know, a freaking tank to drive over you? Posted by Airguitarist (Member # 2647) on :
quote: Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh! I didn't realize that it was acceptable for governments to arrest citizens for not criticizing their government in an acceptable method.
So a guy in the PRC walks into the government office and says to the receptionist, "Hi, I'd like to criticize the government"
"Ok, did you fill out form 12.3a?"
"umm...no"
"Well, we can't accept your criticism unless you follow the approved procedure."
"Well, Ok, where can I get form 12.3a?"
"There is no form 12.3a."
"Well, that's stupid. If there is no form 12.3a, how can I criticize the government?"
At this point the guy is promptly arrested for criticizing the government without following the proper procedure.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Give me a proven example of when that happened, and thats not critisizing the government, thats the bureaucracy, everyone insults it, yes even in China.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Now you're really splitting hairs Blayne.
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
quote:Don' know much about China, duz ya, Yank? If'n ya did, ya'd know that infanticide is an old old old Chinese method of birth control, which Maoism made illegal along with the comparatively new-fangled fad of footbinding. Any infanticide which occurred during China's "OneChild" phase was strictly an illegal re-adoption of an ancient rural custom.
Like I said: just cuz PatRobertson and RushLimbaugh sez so, don' make it true.
While Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh make excellent straw men, the very use of straw men itself really ought to be avoided. First of all, I am not an evangelical Christian and have in fact made extremely critical comments on Robertson in another thread contemporary to this one. Second of all, I do not listen to talk radio and have heard Limbaugh's show exactly once. I was unimpressed. I realize that both these guys are squishy, juicy, inviting targets, but you really ought to resist the temptation, because in skewering them you miss the point, which is the real target.
I am well-aware of China's ancient practices re footbinding and infanticide.
quote:Don' know much about China, duz ya, Yank? If'n ya did, ya'd know that...
This is a classic rhetorical question, and a bad one. First of all, the use of non-standard English in the question implies that:
A) I am not worthy of enough respect to use proper English. Useful, because of course an explicit declaration of disrespect would render the assertion that you're trying to engage in any sort of productive discussion obviously false.
B) I am quite simply too stupid to understand complex English.
C) Use of this sort of language can be construed as friendly; but as your post is hostile, it can be construed as friendly only in an extremely condescending way. Once again, "I'm much smarter than you" is the message; indefensible when bluntly stated, deniable when only implied.
D) You are being flippant, meaning that you assert the right to simply ignore all my arguments because I "don't know much about China."
The second sentence in the quote clearly states that the first was never meant to be answered except in the negative because I don't know X. The fact that my post betrayed no actual ignorance of X is immaterial; again, implication and not argument is the weapon here. The *really* useful implication is that if I *did* have the superior knowledge that you possess, I would not disagree with you. The fact that my argument was on the morality and not the history of these practices is completely ignored.
Add this to the clear attempt to lump me in with the "know-nothing fundies" category with Robertson and Limbaugh, and we have an attack on me, not on my post. This doesn't show much interest in respectful discussion, but in the discrediting of the *people* who disagree with you, rather than their arguments. It's both offensive and pointless; offensive because personal attacks, unless backed up with very solid evidence and not just blithe insinuation, are in very poor taste; pointless because this method will require you to attack every single proponent of an idea rather than the idea itself, a rather impractical proposition. It also begs the question of whether you have any arguments against the idea itself; all told, it will not endear you to the audience I assume you're trying to convince. If the point is to somehow *win* by attacking those that disagree with you until they give up the discussion as a waste of time, you will have confined your "discussion" to those of the other side who have the same motivation and the whole thing will degenerate into a classic Internet forum shouting match, which is something most Hatrackers don't really want to see.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...A similar demonstration held in 1996 against human rights violations in China ended with many participating human rights activists arrested in an attempt to submit a similar petition to the embassy.
quote:Moreover, one of China’s foremost experts and commentators on the death penalty, Professor Zhao Bingzhi from People’s University in Beijing, states that 69% of capital crimes defined in China’s Criminal Law are non-violent.(19)
For criminal suspects, the actual process of being taken into police custody is often marked by extreme violence. Chinese police officers are known to carry electric shock batons.(31) Reports are common of people being detained in a violent manner to make the event a public spectacle, with the apparent intention of causing humiliation to the detainee, and presenting a ‘show of force’ to bystanders.
The use of torture and ill-treatment in China as a means to extort confessions and other incriminating evidence from suspects, defendants and witnesses is widely reported. Indeed torture is a theme running through all of the individual cases presented in this document.
Two police officers in Liaoning Province were jailed in December 2003 for one and two years, having tortured two people in separate incidents, both of whom died. One man died a month after he was released from being tied up inside an iron cage under hot lights for around two weeks, and another died after spending a night tied by his hands and feet to the inside of an iron cage.(35)
This list goes on and on and on and on, Blayne Bradley. Torture in the PRC is commonplace. Nearly three-quarters of the crimes punishable by death are non-violent. Being jailed and held incommunicado happens all the time.
And this is Amnesty bloody International here. And yes, I already know what you're going to say. "Yes, well, things were much worse under Chiang. And you're not offering a solution, are you? And besides, the people of China are happy with their government." You'll probably complain about words being put into your mouth, but the fact is that these are the near-entirety of your replies to any criticism of China.
So...I know they were worse fifty years ago. Big deal. The solution is self-evident: stop oppressing the Chinese people. And I submit that it's nearly impossible to know what the Chinese really feel about their government, because the few people you've met are hardly a sample of anything (frankly, I cannot imagine a Chinese national who wasn't satisfied) spending much time around you with your constant praise-singing of China). But speculation is possible, and since we know that the PRC does not permit free elections, a free press, or freedom of religion and since we know that it punishes execution of such things with, well, execution or imprisonment...well, do the math.
But you won't.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Incidentally, aspectre, Human Rights Watch claims that over half of the orphans in the PRC die within a year of being admitted to those institutions.
If'n ya knew dat, mebbe yaz wouldn'ta talked at Yank like dat.
"they had no choice but to use mass wave attacks in Korea, if you knew anything about the Korean War and the doctrine of the Red Army from Jingxi province to Yan'an, you'ld know that Mao favored flexible geurrila/mobile warfare at all times, not inflexible strategies that cost the lives of your soldiers."
But the PRC didn't send their people in mass wave attacks in Korea. They used those Nationalists that didn't escape to Taiwan and forced them into Korea en masse.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Aaaaaah nooooo, where's your souce? The PLA used old Nationalist soldiers yes but only those that joined the PLA after being captured. Most soldiers for the GMD who get captured were given the choice of either going back to Chiang or joining the Red Army/PLA, Mao started this with the first Red Base area in the late 20's and early 30's before the Long March in the Jiangsi Soviet Republic.
And AYC, that still doesn't make sense, your basically saying that you think that the PLA sent unmotivated soldiers in wave attacks? Excuse me, but that doesn't sound true to me. The PLA won the civil war through the strategy of gathering information from the masses, hiding within the masses like fish within water. They concentrated their forces only to eliminate the enemies weakpoints utilizing a combination of guerilla war and mobile warfare with captured Japanese, American and Soviet equipment.
These tactics won the civil war and only came wihtin a hair of driving the Americans back to sea, but only suporior positioning of firepower kept the PLA and its allies at bay. The Mass waves attacks were done in desparation.
Rakeesh why should I bother to keep argueing against you? You don't listen to what I have to say and your responces are increasingly patronizing and asinine.
You simply refuse to awknoledge that the world works in a certain way and that way is not what you want it to be. If the People in China truly wanted the CCP gone they would be gone by now, that is how things work there, it was the peasants that brought them into power and it will be the peasants that can bring them down from power.
The CCP had proof that excellerated attempts to open up and increase the democratization movement can and may very lead to ecnomic and political collapse, they saw this happen in Russia and can you blame them for wanting things to go along slowly and surely?
Sure some things are bad, but some things are good, infact HRW will have MANY little comments about America as well and American policy.
In fact this is supposed to be a thread about recent Chinese weapons purchase and EU relations now we just transfered the topic from the US government thread to here, this is quite the tangent. Simply put China has the RIGHT to modernize its forces, it's doing so for the purposes of National Defence, why should they remain a backwards peasant army if America/Russia/EU keeps getting more deadly toys each decade? They're not racing for it, they buy a design and from their reverse engineer it and improve upon it, developing dual technologies that practically work with the Civilian market and provides a boost to their economy.
Total PRC military spending is only a QUARTER of what American spends and only amounts to 3% of their total economy, 4.3% if you include dual technologies. They're army is getting smaller not bigger and said this a dozen times, what can you possibly be afraid of?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't buy the "if they didn't want them in power they wouldn't be there" argument.
Plenty of Germans didn't want Hitler and the Nazis in power, same in Russia with Stalin and a dozen other less well known examples of people in power despite the will of the people.
Abusive governments have a way of stifling complaints, especially in such a comparatively closed society as China.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
There seems to be an agenda between a few and a lot on whether China is a match for the US. I think in they are, just not in the same part of the world as America. The likes of Japan and China in the North and Australia in the south seem to have the balance of power in the Pacific. America, on the other hand seems to have little, if any, in the area, though do in the Atlantic. If they wanted to work more efficiently with the nations of the Pacific, they would use Alaska’s proximity to Russia, Japan and China, among other things, rather than just domineering their own ideologies over the rest of the world, threatening attacks on those who disagree with them.
They also have a better transport system for their citizens, in Maglev trains, and will hopefully succeed in helping establish the Silk Road railway across Eurasia. I don’t think they are a weak country; just their policies are aimed more at advancing the whole world rather than just its own interests like America seems to focus on.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Umm... China's economy is based alot on international trade, by improving their economy they help other economies, trade with S. Korea is up to 100 billion $ a year.
Posted by Eldrad (Member # 8578) on :
"Total PRC military spending is only a QUARTER of what American spends and only amounts to 3% of their total economy, 4.3% if you include dual technologies. They're army is getting smaller not bigger and said this a dozen times, what can you possibly be afraid of?"
China's military expenditures are a quarter of America's because we police the world. Without our navy, for example, maritime trade would come to a screeching halt; after all, 95% of the world's trade travels by ocean at some point, and our navy ensures that it travels safely. Our army is stationed all over the world, too, with about 12.5% of it in Iraq (about 150,000 members out of 1.2 million). We are everywhere; China is not. The amount of money that they're devoting to their military is not at all justified in the way that ours is. Cheiros, our navy's pretty influential in the Pacific as well, with bases in Japan and Hawaii, to name two.
[ November 17, 2005, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Eldrad ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Umm, if you mean police the world as in overthrowing any democratically elected government you don't like then sure!
Just because you have a navy does not mean its sulely responsible for international trade, England, France, Germany, Russia and dozens of smaller nations of navies capable of defending their maritime trade in PEACE TIME, wtf are you getting at? That the minute America scraps its navy Pirates will come out of nowhere and hijack trade?
C'mon America only recently started playing Team America World Police Tune, for centuries everysingle maritime power was perfectly capable of doing its own trade and trade prospered just as well then as it is now. (with of course obvious difference in capitol but in comparrison if you ge my drift), wih of course with the lsight exception of England's Navigation Act where all goods can only travel on English ships to English ports... but they fought they were world police too...
If America by your logic is only justified because they're world police what about every other nation with an armed forces? Then there's the fact that the Chinese army is GETTING SMALLER they're just making it more advance and demobilizing troops which all and all should be a good thing.
They had a much larger army in the 60's to defend from a possible American/Indian invasion should the Cold War Heat up, they had a large Army in the 70's should Russia attack, and now with the threat of Russia and Indian receeding their making their Army smaller and more efficient.
Also, you forget to mention nukes, America has thousands of nukes and China at most has around 80 ICBM's and about 1800~ tactical nukes, meant only as a deterrent, why does America need so many nukes? Why did you refuse to sign SALTII?
Then oh yes you cite Iraq..... omg, are you naive may I ask? As far as alot of World Opinion is concerned it was an UNJUSTIFIED invasion of a soveriegn nation, you said their were WMD's well geuss what they were none.
You cite that Saddam is a dangerous dictator, well geuss what so are another 20 nations with petty dictators and most of them were put their after American CIA sponsered coups, and in Iraq... you PUT SUDDAM THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Cheiros, our navy's pretty influential in the Pacific as well, with bases in Japan and Hawaii, to name two.
Hawaii is part of you own country. It's not exactly an economic powerhouse in the pacific anyway. Your entire east coast is in the Pacific so there was no point citing Hawaii. In Japans case, you may have milaristic sway, but that doesn't mean you hold any economic advantage. IMHO, Japan gains a lot more from the arrangement from you. The US military's station there won't gain them any advantage if a war broke out. Do you think Japan would side with the US over a Pacific nation?
quote:95% of the world's trade travels by ocean at some point
Exactly, and yet again you boat that the US's military might gives them an advantage tradewise? In WW2, Japan anticipated that the "Greater East Asian Prosperity Sphere" would make for an economic powerhouse, and they were right. The region is the most prosperous in the world. America, on the other hand, depends on other nations debts to them Just To Survive.
China is leading the world landwise with their vested interest in the Eurasian Land Bridge: http://www.eirna.com/html/reports/eurasiae.htm. China has the revolutionary government it needs for the current situation it's in.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Sure some things are bad, but some things are good, infact HRW will have MANY little comments about America as well and American policy.
Well, sometimes it's disappointing to be right.
Of course my responses are patronizing, you jackass! In a state that can execute you and bill your family for the bullet that built a new airhole in your head, how can you possibly be stupid enough to say, "If they didn't want that government in place, it wouldn't be there?"
That's "how things work" over there? What nonsense! Why, whatever do you have to say about Chinese government before Glorious Mao came and Roxxored? You've said many times that it was Just Plain Awful and that the people didn't want it...but they had it for thousands of years.
So...what, did they just decide to stop wanting it after thousands of years, finally, in the mid twentieth century? What about before Mao succeeded? Like, five years before? Did the people "want it" then?
You're using the exact same argument that Bean Counter used about Jews and the Holocaust, that really, ultimately, it was the fault of the Jews for being mass-murdered, because ultimately they let it happen.
When that was said, you rightly criticized him for it. But when it comes to the PRC, you throw sense out the window and start fawning like a lovestruck adolescent. You're not arguing at all, Blayne Bradley. Your stance is, "They like it this way," and, "Things were worse a long time ago, so don't complain." That's not an argument. That's a stupid dodge. That's avoiding an argument.
How about explaining even one of the factual links provided in this thread critical of China without saying that things were worse before Mao, and that this is how the People want it?
Which people? The ones who get arrested delivering a peaceful message to their government?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The US does have a considerable naval presence in the pacific, but true Japan gains much for the arrangement.
Now Japan is the USA's ally, so its conceivable that they'll side with the US but not likely, they do their best to remain neutral and negotiate it because of the 40+ billion$ of investments in China.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Japan has more money in and with the USA. FYI.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Nope, they don't. Where did you pull that from?
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
I have read this entire thread.
I would just like to add that Blayne Bradley needs to learn how to spell and use grammar properly.
That is all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ahh, my facts are a little old. China has about 2% more of Japanese trade than does America, my bad. That's quite a new trend, though, and it's a very small disparity right now. I do have to wonder if you knew that, given your other ludicrous statements about economics.
Given the massive trade imbalance between the USA and PRC, I wonder how anyone can seriously suggest that while the USA depends on debts from other nations "Just To Survive" (very clever capitalization, btw), while the PRC is interested in advancing the whole world, not just the selfish, myopic USA.
What kind of nonsense is that? Whether or not the USA is interested in advancing the world is arguable, but to suggest that the PRC is interested in advancing the whole world before its own interests is frankly stupid.
Also,
quote:America, on the other hand seems to have little, if any, in the area, though do in the Atlantic. If they wanted to work more efficiently with the nations of the Pacific, they would use Alaska’s proximity to Russia, Japan and China, among other things, rather than just domineering their own ideologies over the rest of the world, threatening attacks on those who disagree with them.
Is just plain stupid. I feel safe being so blunt, because it's so obvious. The USA does not routinely threaten attacks on those who disagree with them. It may have escaped your eagle eye, but lots of people disagree with the USA. Make a list of the people disagreeing with the USA, and then compare that to the number of people the USA is threatening to attack.
I believe there will be at least a slight disparity.
And I wonder what Taiwan or Tibet might think about your claim that the PRC is interested in advancing the whole world before their own interests.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Actually I think Kakeesh is correct in that regard, so its evena better reason for Japan to be neutral and safe gaurd is trade, infact since the 50's Japan has been practicing "omnidirectional diplomacy" where they try to remain neutral in all regards and focus on making money and trade, which made relations with the US very frustrating in the 70's.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
hmm my bad Rakeesh corrected himself, does it include the anime industry as well your figures?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Japan could try and remain neutral. But they'd side with America before they sided with China. Their trade might be worth more with China than America, but siding with China over America will cost them a lot more in the long run.
You also have to add in the BILLIONS in assets they have over here, including property and other businesses, the likes of which they do not have in China. Were they to side with China in any major engagement against us, it won't take long for that to be nationalized. I almost hope they do side against us.
As disastrous as it would be for our economy, it would also be a boon to it.
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
Japan and China might get together in some extremely weird alliance of convenience- stranger things have happened in history. But I very much doubt it. Their mutual enmity runs very deep and very old, perhaps too deep and old for a Westerner to really comprehend. If word got out in China that they were even considering such a thing, they'd be facing a popular revolt. Manchuria especially would simply erupt in rage. And you'd better believe they know it.
Japan, for its part, seems to apply its customary fanatical xenophobia with special zeal toward China, the country they borrowed almost all of their classical culture from. What they did to China in World War II made the Nazis look positively warm and fuzzy.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:What they did to China in World War II made the Nazis look positively warm and fuzzy.
And what about what America did to Japan in WW2? And why, because it's more humane to cause casulaty to millions of Japanese civilians than members of the US military. The US has a long history of acting callously towards those who disagree with them, not in general, but at an economic standpoint. Agent Orange is another good example.
Your reasoning that Japan would take America's side in such an engagement is based on what? Japan is certainly not a nation that has anything to fear from other nations, militarywise. Collectively, they have a technological adge and an unbelievable ability to work together in wartime. They were the first asian nation to beat a European nation in battle, America may have stopped them, finally, after Germany was no longer a problem, but that just goes to show the US can't handle too many enemies at once.
Lots of countries have assets in the US. But come an impending war between the US and China I think it'd be more likely assets would be drawn from America than more put in.
quote: I do have to wonder if you knew that, given your other ludicrous statements about economics.
Do you assume my statement regarding Alaska was ludicrous? I wasn't referring to military armament, by the way, but the Eurasian Land Bridge will be built and if America wants better trade with China they would have already stated building it in Alaska and talked to get Canada about brining it to the US border. Japan is well and truly ahead of America in arrangements of conenience with China, long-term not short, and would never find it more convenient to side with an Atlantic nation over a pacific one, if not now, then certainly when it has been built in Japan. They've already invested $/(Yen)10 billion in it, so it won't be long now.
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
quote:And what about what America did to Japan in WW2? And why, because it's more humane to cause casulaty to millions of Japanese civilians than members of the US military. The US has a long history of acting callously towards those who disagree with them, not in general, but at an economic standpoint. Agent Orange is another good example.
Ah, the wonders of moral relativism. The United States also killed civilians, ergo they are no better than the Japanese. There are well over 10 million Chinese in Manchuria who can't disagree with you, because their entire villages were killed, chopped into pieces, and dumped into mass graves. There are similar groups all through Asia, and the unlucky servicemen of Bataan.
War kills civlians. No getting around that. But the devil is in the details. When we conquered and occupied Japan and Germany, it was possibly the most benign and compassionate occupation in human history. We killed out of necessity. The Japanese killed for more power, and because they did not regard gaijin as human.
I suppose we could have avoided bombing Japan and invaded them instead; but they were counting on the fact that our soldiers wouldn't have the stomach to kill the women and children they were planning to line up on the beaches with Medieval polearms. And they would have fought to the last soul alive had the Emperor so commanded. Don't underestimate the insanity of a nihilistic culture. We may have lost a lot of men in the invasion, but it would have been nothing compared to the number of children and elderly that could have died still gripping their spears and katana. I suppose it could have been different, but we'll never know; it is, as they say, history. Easy to say they should have done differently; you will never, ever, as long as you live be called to account for the consequences of that choice, because you can't make it. It's what makes second-guessing history so very fun.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Mhmm. I agree it was neccessary, but my point is I could say the exact same thing about your comment: "What they did to China in World War II made the Nazis look positively warm and fuzzy."
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
Yes, the hyperbole there was perhaps a bit excessive; I apologize.
It does annoy me a bit that in many history classes Japanese atrocities are swept under the rug and the focus is on Hitler, everyone's favorite demon (for good reason, yes, but still) the bombing of Hiroshima, and the internment camps (which were a very sad black mark on our history, but in no way comparable to actual concentration camps). Soviet retribution against the citizens of East Germany also gets little to no coverage, as does French government collusion with the Nazis. I am often sad also that so many seem not to remember the heroic sacrifices of the Berlin Airlift and the unprecedented compassion of the Marshall plan. Even among the ashes of the worst war in human history there was hope and humanity.
I suppose history without an agenda is an impossible dream, but it won't stop me from grumbling. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Just to let you know Japanese only considered people who surrendered as less then human and dishonerable.
They treated foreign nationals pretty equally well, they even helped save the lives of thousands of jews by issueing passports to Jewish people fleeing Germany.
Umm.... the Marschall Plan was meant to prevent Socialist rebellions in Western Europe, not nessasarily out of compassion.
Posted by Airguitarist (Member # 2647) on :
quote: Just to let you know Japanese only considered people who surrendered as less then human and dishonerable.
So they expected the millions of untrained, mostly unarmed civilians in Manchuria to stand and fight against the well armed and organized Japanese military?
It's a catch-22, they either fight a hopeless battle and die, or surender and be executed.
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
quote:They treated foreign nationals pretty equally well, they even helped save the lives of thousands of jews by issueing passports to Jewish people fleeing Germany.
It was a single Japanese diplomat who was responsible for this, completely unsanctioned by his government. He was a very noble soul, but, as I recall, paid a heavy price for his out-of-order action.
The word gaijin, still in common use in Japan, means "Foreign Devil" although it is politely rarely translated as such. It is interesting to note that the ethnic Japanese are not by any means native to Japan. That distinction goes to the Ainu, who they have almost entirely wiped out, and to the Okinawans, who invented the most famous karate in order to effectively resist their oppressors. The iconic nunchaku are actually a common farm tool used for threshing grain.
In the mythology of state Shinto, they were the descendents of the Sun Godess herself, Ameterasu, and therefore inherently superior to all other races. Outsiders were either slaves (Filipino "comfort girls"), lab animals (the Nazis by no means had a corner on this one), tools (the portugeuse whose technologies they adapted, then crucified en masse, something they found a wonderfully and hilariously ironic thing to do to Christians), subjugated people without rights (the Ainu and the Okinawans), or simply convenient, sadistic entertainment (Chinese babies- I won't relate any of these stories; I don't want anyone getting nightmares).
It's certainly true that they regarded surrenderees as lower than low, but all this meant is that you had a choice between a quick death and a nice slow one.
I love Japanese food, am fascinated by their religion, am in awe of their martial accomplishments, and find their intelligence and ability to refine borrowed concepts inspiring. There is a great deal to admire about ancient, medieval, and modern Japan and their culture. Their attitudes toward outsiders are decidedly not among them.
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
This is a good link for Japanese wartime atrocities, and also illustrates Chinese feelings toward Japan. Not for the weak of stomach, though.
Most of my understanding of Chinese attitudes toward Japan has come from speaking with Chinese immigrants, who are invariably fascinating people.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Can someone please explain to me how this massive Chinese population overload occured in the first place? IMHO, this is by the far the most important issue in Chinese politics today, not anything to do with the government.
I can't see how preventing parents from having more than one baby is helping though. What has resulted, in the inevitable considering Chinese custom of wanting sons more than daughters, regarding the orphans can only compound the problem as poverty (ie the exorbitant number of orphans) breeds over-population and over-population breeds poverty.
Sure we have genetically mdified food now so we should soon be able to wipe out world povery with that, but is that really good enough?
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
quote:Can someone please explain to me how this massive Chinese population overload occured in the first place? IMHO, this is by the far the most important issue in Chinese politics today, not anything to do with the government.
In traditional Chinese culture, children, *especially* sons-well, *only* sons, really-were the most valuable asset you can have. They bring honor to the family, carry on the family name, bring in dowries, and support their parents in their old age. Daughers, on the other hand, become part of the family they marry into, and their dowries are quite expensive.
Historically, this meant that families that were relatively well off would have children until they had at least a handful of sons (mortality rates being what they were) and write the daughters off as an expensive. Poor families that could not afford a dowry often practiced infanticide to avoid paying a dowry, although this was not as much a problem as a)it was at a lower rate than seen in China today and b)wars and their overall inferior resistance to famine, disease and hardship killed off a lot of the excess males.
All this meant that people tended to have a lot of children. Children are the ultimate blessing in classic Chinese culture. Also, the technologically advanced and relatively peaceful Chinese empire had a much lower overall mortality rate than almost anywhere else in the world. This makes for a lot of people.
Chinese families now tend to consist of two parents and a single male child, usually referred to as "The Little Emperor", as the traditional attention given children in Chinese culture ends up focused on a single individual. The male-female gap is becoming huge; no one knows exactly what the consequences of this will be, but almost no one thinks they will be good.
The Chinese are nothing if not adaptable, which is why they've survived as a distinct culture for so many thousands of years. Given a democratic government I don't doubt they'd find their own solution to the problem. Japan has; so has Taiwan. People will voluntarily keep their birthrates low when it seems beneficial to do so; witness Western Europe, Japan, and, increasingly, the United States.
Given modern farming and housing technologies, China's "population crisis" wouldn't be nearly so dire. Unfortunately, Communism doesn't much lend itself to modern conveniences except in matters military; most of the farming is still done by peasants (Yes, they still call them that, and that's exactly what they are. Some are more equal than others.) working knee-deep in rice paddies. And even the desert and mountainous regions can be settled given sufficient determination. Ever been to Vegas? Switzerland?
My point is that a good chunk if not most of the problem is Communism's inability as a system to efficiently support a population of any size, large or small. The Chinese have mitigated this somewhat by allowing limited free enterprise, but are still not a model of efficiency. Japan manages with a population geometrically more dense, and doesn't have growth problems. So does England, their immigration population sometimes excepted.
Also, the aforementioned gender gap will slow population growth even further for obvious reasons.
I simply take issue with any person or group that has the kind of power of their fellow men that the Chinese government does. It will inevitably be abused, and I believe the history of the United States has shown that the *people* know better than self-appointed wisemen. Let the Chinese people make their own reproductive choices. I have a lot more faith in them than some dictatorial group that claims to know best.
Yes, this will mean they will sometimes make poor choices, and this is the very *heart* of the argument. You can have freedom, which will have to include the freedom to make the *wrong* choice if it's to be in any way meaningful, or you can have security, and make sure people don't make any bad choices. You can't have either without sacrificing some of the other. And you can't have an absolute of either; anarchy will quickly create tyrants and won't offer any meaningful choices after a very short while; tryanny will quickly destroy security as power *will* be abused. It is like Winston Churchhill's conundrum:
"Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonor. They chose dishonor.
They will have war." -Munich Conference, 1938
Communists see the choice between control and injustice; they choose control and,inevitably, shall have injustice.
I reject Communism so vehemently because it attempts to make a perfect world, the "Radiant Future," and in doing so ignores the most basic facts about human nature. The U.S. government is not the oldest in the world by any fluke, but because the founders planned it around human ambition, greed, corruption, selfishness, tribalism, cruelty, and powerlust. They were the original cynical idealists; they knew that any system that did not take these basic facts into account was doomed to fail. A democratic, regulated-capitalist system *assumes* that many people will be greedy and selfish and power-hungry, it is *based around* this eternal and unchanging fact.
Communism, on the other hand, assumes that people will be good and sharing and leaders responsible and compassionate; that the state will, in the words of Marx, "wither away."
This is stupid.
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
quote:I can't see how preventing parents from having more than one baby is helping though. What has resulted, in the inevitable considering Chinese custom of wanting sons more than daughters, regarding the orphans can only compound the problem as poverty (ie the exorbitant number of orphans) breeds over-population and over-population breeds poverty.
There is more than enough demand in the Western world for adoptions to take care of these orphans, but the Chinese government is willing to give them only to wealthy families able to make a very large cash donation.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
India also choose to let its peopel do as they wish, and they're poverty problems are several times worse then China's and had enjoyed a far greater time of relative stability.
Also China has more then just free enterprise, 80% of their 1 MIllion villages have direct elections for their mayors, the PRC Government are more then the Stalinist-Kruschevist-bureaucrats in the USSR they're are idealists still in their government, if it wasn't so why would they allow the population most known for popular rebellions to have direct say in their local affairs?
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
You place freedom at far too cheap a price for my taste, Blayne, and I think this is the heart of the thing. I would be willing to die for freedom; Washington, Ghandi, and millions of soldiers have felt the same way. You seem willing to sell it for a money and some population control. You also seem to persist in romanticizing the Party Elite in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Why do they allow villages to self-govern? Because they don't care about these villages. Because the decisions these "mayors" make don't matter, and they have no say in anything beyond their village. Because, in the end, they don't have anything the "more equal" class wants. As long as the villages produce, they don't care. There will be no revolt from some isolated village, and they know it. If there is, they will crush it.
Idealists? Idealists of what? Just about every idealist in China's elite with the courage to listen to and act on the conscience I believe every human being is born with long ago cost his family the price of a bullet. Perhaps there are idealists, but they are cowards. Or blind and deaf. But I doubt it.
The the Chinese have lasted longer than the Soviet Union because they are less ideologically rigid, more ruthlessly efficient at stifling dissent, and have twisted the noble traditions of Confucius to their own ends while the Soviets had to deal with Russian individualism. They also avoided the focused hostility of a superpower over a fifty-year period. But don't think for a moment it is because they are more "idealistic". Or any less evil.
While you sell freedom cheaply, you seem to be willing to pay a heavy price for "stability" and "population control." All those millions of lives in the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward, the students in Tianemen square, the dissidents, the tears of every child who lost a father, every wife who lost a husband and then paid for the bloody bullet; just how large a sacrifice are you willing to lay at the idol of the great gods Stability and Population Control? How wide and deep must the river of blood that feeds this so-called utopia be?
I have said many times that the Goddess of Liberty requires her own blood sacrifice. But at least it is made by the willing. The Party snatches its unwilling victims up without pity, without mercy, without remorse, and without opposition.
How much blood will it take to wash your illusions of an "idealistic" Chinese government away?
[ November 17, 2005, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: Yank ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I don’t think they are a weak country; just their policies are aimed more at advancing the whole world rather than just its own interests like America seems to focus on.
*blink* You know, that's a description of China I almost never hear, even from supporters of the regime: that China's interest is in advancing the whole world. Blayne just spent a thread arguing that China had almost no interest in the outside world at all.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Geuss what, Mao, Zhou Enlai, Zhu De, Chun Yi, and many other CCP leaders during the civil war fought for that same freedom as well, they fought for what they hoped would become a world of equality, they fought to overthrow the incompetant, corrupt, and ultimately impotent GMD Regime. Millions of Soldiers in the Chinese Red Army/People's Liberation Army had also fought for that same freedom, fought to rid China of Japan, fought later to rid China of the GMD, geuss what? Millions of GMD POW's joined and swelled the ranks of the PLA because they had hoped to fight for those same ideals, when Beijing surrendered hundreds of thousands went into the streets to cheer the PLA and Mao Zedong.
A British steam tramp captain upon coming into a harbour liberated by the PLA was stunned at how they're wasn't any "sqeeze" by the port authorities and how none of the PLA officers would accept and bribes, not even a cigarette.
The people were glad that with the Red victory came an end to the oppression by the GMD and were stunned and glad how the CCP cadres seemed to live simply, took no bribes and governered by hardwork and example.
Those 800,000 villages just also happen to make up the bulk of China's rural populace, and if you remembered your history on the Chinese civil war it was the rural populace the masses of peasants from the country side that brought the CCP into power and it is their collective will that triumpthed against against the numbers and suporior american weaponry in both the Civil War and in the Korean War.
You say that those villages don't mean anything or do anything important, I think that is both blindness and ignorance on your part, those villages are having an unprecended freedom that never existed throughout the history of China. Its a symbol for grass roots people's democracy that Mao had always strived for but economic circumstances prevented.
Your too obseesed with the idea of liberalistic freedoms that you think your society represents, nations have always grown on the expense of others, America grew at the expense of the Natives, Russia not on the cossacks and principalities, Rome upon the conquest of other people's just for a bloody buffer zone.
But America today is strong, Russia gave the pan-slavic peoples a unified culture for the first time and the Roman legacy gave birth to western civilization.
More to come later.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Folks, I think Blayne's ready to drink the Kool-Aid. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Geuss what, Mao, Zhou Enlai, Zhu De, Chun Yi, and many other CCP leaders during the civil war fought for that same freedom as well, they fought for what they hoped would become a world of equality...
Blayne, the word you're looking for here is "irony."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Blayne,
quote:Geuss what, Mao, Zhou Enlai, Zhu De, Chun Yi, and many other CCP leaders during the civil war fought for that same freedom as well, they fought for what they hoped would become a world of equality, they fought to overthrow the incompetant, corrupt, and ultimately impotent GMD Regime.
Italicization mine
If that was their goal, Blayne, they utterly failed. You have said yourself that the things that others decry in the PRC's brief history, such as the "Great Leap Forward", the "Cultural Revolution", and other "incidents", shall we call them, were accidental, unintentional, or affected by natural disasters.
It takes enormous incompetence and or corruption to fail so utterly. It's fun to blame things on the weather and nature, but the simple fact of the matter is that if Mao overthrew the previous government in hopes of installing one which was efficient, effective, and able to look after the welfare of its own people, then he failed. How many millions have died in failed efforts by Maoist governments to improve things, Blayne? How many? What's the magic number, for you, to admit that they screwed the pooch bigtime? Apparently, hitting seven digit figures isn't good enough for you. How many? A billion? A gazillion? Do we need to go into scientific notation?
quote:The people were glad that with the Red victory came an end to the oppression by the GMD and were stunned and glad how the CCP cadres seemed to live simply, took no bribes and governered by hardwork and example.
That's nice. You're relying on how people felt then to excuse away PRC atrocities and oppression. To explain how people feel today, well, you've got basically got three responses. One, your friends on the Internet. This is ridiculous for several reasons. Internet friends always tell the truth about everything, right? Internet friends don't represent a picture of rural life you're so blithely describing. The PRC monitors the freaking Internet, and you KNOW it. Two, you know a few Chinese people where you live now. Obviously that's a representative sample of...um...oh, yeah. That's a representative sample of the people from China you've made friends with.
And your last ridiculous reason is that if they didn't really love their government, well, hey! They'd overthrow it. I mean, obviously oppressive regimes don't last if the people don't want them, right? Who doesn't know that? If the people don't want it, they get rid of it, everytime, right? Well, I guess African slaves in the USA, Soviets, American Indians, old Roman slaves, Aborigines, oh, and billions of Chinese throughout freaking history didn't get that bloody memo, did they?
Claiming that ten- or twenty-to-one deaths in the Korean War was a victory for China is stupid. Well, not exactly. If you don't give a damn about protecting individual human lives, if you just don't care about spending them sparingly, if you worry about spilling blood in gallons like that, then it's stupid. If those sorts of things aren't on your agenda, though, then it's not so stupid, is it?
quote:Your too obseesed with the idea of liberalistic freedoms that you think your society represents, nations have always grown on the expense of others, America grew at the expense of the Natives, Russia not on the cossacks and principalities, Rome upon the conquest of other people's just for a bloody buffer zone.
Which freedoms are those? The right to peaceful assembly? The right to vote secretly in public, protected elections? The right to worship as one pleases? The right to criticize one's government openly without fear of imprisonment? The right to move about at will throughout one's country?
quote:But America today is strong, Russia gave the pan-slavic peoples a unified culture for the first time and the Roman legacy gave birth to western civilization.
What are you smoking? America today is strong because it rolled over and effectively destroyed the peoples whose land it stole. Russia didn't give pan-Slavic peoples a unified culture, it wiped out their pre-existing cultures (for all intents and purposes today), and replaced them with its own. The Roman legacy did the same. These were bad things.
See, most civilized people understand that the ends do not justify the means. Just because things turn out OK, doesn't mean that the method of doing those things was acceptable. Heck, if we'd left Africans in Africa, arguably they'd be groaning under constant oppression and civil warfare and brutality there today, instead of enjoying a much higher standard of living and level of freedom in America. So, by your reasoning, slavery equals acceptable! Yay!
I can't wait to here more. Hail China!
(Be a good Maoist. Report me )
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I know it's a moot point, but the history major in me refuses to ignore it.
Despite the bad things the Roman Empire did, the early to late Roman Republic's conquests were surprisingly good for Italy and the surrounding areas. Before Rome took over, they were constantly warring with each other. Rome brought stability, and not with an iron fist, they "imposed" fairness and democracy, not what we are used to today, but for back then it was an amazing jump forward. They also opened Italy up to trade, making everyone in the peninsula immensely more wealthy than they were before.
Blankly referring to "Rome" for western civ historical references is annoyingly vague. Rome was, and if you want to count present day Italy still is, a nation that has existed in some form for the past 2,700 years. It'd be a good idea to narrow down which part of Roman history you're referring to instead of just saying "Rome" like it's all the same. It's not.
(/rant)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I am unable to post due to family problems. Due to the poisonous manipulations of my sister and the appeasements of my compromising father who takes side in every F*ing arguement no matter how wrong she is, or childish. Like c'mon I ask she asks me permission before using MY Computer.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, if it is in fact your computer-you paid for it via jobs you worked yourself, or it was given specifically to you as a gift-then yeah, that's a major pain in the ass. Sisters (and siblings, I'm told-but sisters in particular ) can be like that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Put a lock on it, and refuse to budge.
My brother used to do the same thing, and it always ticked me off.
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
It's not difficult to password-protect a computer you own so that no one else can use it without your permission. I did it myself.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Blayne, if it's actually your computer, just put a password on it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wouldn't Mao want you to share with your sister?
Well, actually, Mao wouldn't want you to have a sister at all, but assuming he already knew that, wouldn't he want you to share?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Post deleted due to certain relative discovering said post.
[ November 21, 2005, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: Blayne Bradley ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Refer to my above reaction, this is not healthy, she has poisoned my family because she just won't go on the illusion of authority she thinks she has.
Blayne, I mean this in all seriousness: practice detachment.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Tell me is this fair, she talks to my dad infront of me talking about how I need to be disciplined and when I object to her talking behind (or in this case infront) of my back she says "I'm not talking to you".
Well she's back at her apartment now, I can calm down, but this is going to leave a scar that won't heal.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:When I try to offer a reasonable solution to a problem he tells me to sshut up and obey without question. Which to my mind is COUNTER PRODUCTIVE.
Perhaps you should put forth your criticisms by way of 'approved channels', eh? I'm sorry, but this is just totally ironic.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
To get this thread away from Blayne's petty family problems: Someone mentioned earlier about terraforming the desert, as done in Utah, Nevada, etc. in China in order to get the population to move inland more. Could someone please explain to me how this works? I know Utah did it centuries ago with nothing like the technologies we have today. Australia is still yet to do it for some reason, though we have the water resource at least. China supposed to be one of the most powerful countries in the world and they still havn't done it, even with MagLev trains covering the entire nation.
So yeah, I'm wondering how it works and also, can anyone justify why China and Australia havn't done so yet.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
That was highly disrespectful.
As for why China hasn't done it yet *shrug* why hasn't Mars been terraformed yet? We could get 4 astronauts there for 20 billion $ a drop in the bucket but no one has.
I'll google it and see what I get.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Umm, Utah was done by the Saints, with good organization, and much less technology. China has a highly efficently governed workforce of over a billion. How have the not?
There's not sufficient reason to spend $20 Billion to send astronauts to Mars, let alone to start terraforming it. China is way different. Even the Chinese govt. is trying to persuade people to move inland.
[ November 21, 2005, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: cheiros do ender ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: That was highly disrespectful.
You want respect, behave like an adult and be consistent. You have yet to explain why it's ok to criticise your father, but not China's government.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I do deserve respect, I argued with everything I had utilizing the evidence availiable. I do behave like an adult, but I'm faced with unfairness at home, only school relieves the pressure. As for my father is it fair for him to seamingly take my side of an arguement when my sister is not around but switch the minute my sister arrives? And yels and lecture me as if that was his stand all along?
And finally the point of this thread is supposed to be China's modernization program, not whether or not its government is a legitimate government.
GWB obviously sees it as the legitmate government of China, and is doing his best along with the Chinese best efforts to improve the lives of its citizens, to improve multilateral trade, to fight the war on terror, to combat avian flu, to help keep stability by taking leading roles in the talks with N. Korea.
And finally, China has proven itself to be one of the gaurdians of Asian stability beyond a doubt, ad subsequently no one can say they can't turn 6 T-62's into 1 T-98.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You have not argued very much at all. Your "arguments" have always boiled down to, "It used to be worse," or, "Chiang was worse," or, "It happens in a sovereign nation so don't complain," or, "You're not offering a solution so don't complain," or (here's my favorite), "The people of China are happy with their government else they would overthrow it."
Those aren't arguments, they're dodges. You routinely fail to address the links of other people that are critical of China, but demand that yours be given their weight in gold's worth of respect.
If you think that what an American president says about China while in office accurately reflects their real opinions about China, you're out of your freaking mind.
Usually people worthy of respect do not have to say, "I am worthy of respect," and then start complaining about how their parents are treating them bad. Do you realize how contradictory those two statements are? It is not worthy of respect to be complaining that Daddy is a big ole meanyhead.
----------
Do you have anything to say to the dozens of links provided other than the things I mentioned above?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Incidentally, I'm sure that Tibetans feel that China is a guardian of Asian stability.
Oh! Right, I forgot, they had their conquest coming because...umm...China used to own that land. Right.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The Dalai Lama recently said that Tibet needs China and should try for better autonomy rights but not to ever "separate" since the Tibetan people couldn't succeed even if they tried.
And yes Rakeesh China did previously own the land recently and the Lama's had acsented to it in the drafting of the Nanjing constitution. Succesion of States theory applies. (see UN international law).
But they ARE a soveriegn nation, they're people have been constantly improving their lives, they're government is slowly giving more freedoms as its economy and political situation matures, this is UNDENYABLE. You never admitted to or addressed the points I made that if the CCP were truly afraid why would they give democratic rights to the very social base most known for popular rebellions?
The point of your arguement ultimately boils down to "right/wrong" and "ethics" well WAKE UP!!! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ETHICS IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS! Even the USA which you seem to love so much for its "freedoms" grew on the backs of oppressing the Indians, wars with Mexico and Spain.
And in the last 100 years America has entered into dozens of wars and conflicts, and as I'll repeat myself again utilized its own brand of international terrorism to force weak nations (aka Nicagura) to submit to their will.
China has done far less to its neighbours, Russia was the instigator of the Soviet-Sino Border skirmishes in the 70's, Vietnam had invaded Cambodia and Tibet was land long since belonging de facto and de jure to China, whether People's Republic or the Republic of China, both had claimed it and I'ld bet you money that ROC would have in similar circumstances reclaimed Tibet as well and geuss what, they would've been the USA's grand old ally and NO ONE would be complaining, it'ld be another inseconsequencial bump in history and just as quickly forgotten.
I am worthy of enough respect to be ASKED politely for someone else to use my damn computer, I deserve enough respect not to be patronized and condescended to in a discussion, and I deserve enough respect not be argued to in an equal and even manner, if you want to argue points stick to the original topic, and to so manner of factly, don't lower the level of maturity of the thread just so you can dismiss my arguements.
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
quote:You never admitted to or addressed the points I made that if the CCP were truly afraid why would they give democratic rights to the very social base most known for popular rebellions?
Perhaps you missed this:
quote:Why do they allow villages to self-govern? Because they don't care about these villages. Because the decisions these "mayors" make don't matter, and they have no say in anything beyond their village. Because, in the end, they don't have anything the "more equal" class wants. As long as the villages produce, they don't care. There will be no revolt from some isolated village, and they know it. If there is, they will crush it.
You may not agree with the post, but I *did* address the question quite directly.
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
quote: Even the USA which you seem to love so much for its "freedoms" grew on the backs of oppressing the Indians, wars with Mexico and Spain.
The old hypocrisy objection? Can't criticize if you're not perfect? Well, you're right about one thing; every nation and people that now exists displaced someone else at some point. So? We're not discussing the States here; the point is moot. And, of course, it's vastly ironic that you put "freedoms" in classic skepticism quotes while exercising one of the most important of said freedoms simply by posting here. Because I guarantee it wouldn't be smiled on in China. If the United States *were* morally equivalent to China, you, Blayne, would be dead, and the family you're so upset at would be paying for a bullet. Or you'd be in a nice political prison, or maybe a "re-education camp". Forget about your sister using your computer without your permission. They'd be using YOU without your permission, for forced labor if you're lucky. Besides, the concept that it's somehow "your" computer would be very borgeouis one in their view. You don't even own YOU.
Granting more freedoms? Well, they've seen the financial advantages of allowing some free enterprise, but I see no evidence that this reflects anything more than simple greed for more money. Which still, I might add, mostly goes straight to the government. I am guardedly optimistic that this granting of economic freedom may lead to freedoms of other kinds, but the only way I see that happening is if the people get a taste of freedom and decide it's time to get rid of the profoundly corrupt and, yes, evil government they're currently under.
As for other freedoms, China's continued attempts to control the Internet (they just banned Wikipedia, for example) doesn't show any willingness to loosen the reins, whatever their lasseiz-faire attitude may be toward unprofitable backwater villages. The fact that these places have any kind democratic government simply means that the government isn't present there AT ALL. Not there shooting dissidents, not there enforcing Communism, not there providing health care, not there policing the community, just not there. There are plenty of peasants who really don't have any idea the PRC even *exists*, and if they do know it doesn't really affect their lives in any way as they scratch out their living with little in the way of modern technology. It's not benevolent permissiveness. It's neglect.
As for condescension, I suggest you examine the attitude toward those who disagree with you generally displayed in your posts in the same way you continually suggest the U.S. examine its own actions before criticizing other nations.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't need to lower the level of maturity here to dismiss your arguments; I can dismiss them quite nicely from a mature and reflected standpoint, thank you. You'll note that I didn't, in fact, address your argument at all, because others have done so quite well, and you saw fit to ignore them. Instead, I laughed at your utter hypocrisy and total lack of self-awareness, which I still find chortlingly funny. I am now also laughing at your self-righteousness and pathetic demand for respect, no doubt to be followed by teenaged whining about how nobody understands you. Quite frankly, if this is how you act with your family, then I'm not surprised your father takes your sister's side from sheer exasperation, never mind the rights and wrongs of it. Being a detached observer, I can just laugh instead.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Back to what this thread's actually about, I agree with Blayne that China, as well as the rest of the world, would benefit from China having a smaller, more organized arsenal and armed forces.
i didn't disrespect you, Blayne. What you said belongs in its own thread, if at all. If any thing you were being disrespectful for making this thread about yourself instead of the subject at hand.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ha! Really? The PRC has banned Wikipedia, eh? That's rich. The people of the PRC just aren't good enough to use the resource that you use with such regularity, Blayne Bradley.
I am not talking about international politics, I have been talking almost entirely about internal politics, the things the PRC does to its own citizens.
And you're entirely wrong about there being no system of ethics in international relations. That's just nonsense, unless you mean in the very general sense of, "The winner rights the history books."
As for "democratic rights"...what democratic rights? Maybe you mean 'democratic' as in mentioning the Democratic party, which would sorta be close to accuracy, in that they have the "democratic right" to vote for just a few people.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Alright then Ender, I'm sorry if I reacted harshly towards you.
Yank, those villages aren't "unprofitable backwater villages" there're 80% of China ONE MILLION Villages, imagine the average village is 600 people, that's 600,000,000 people! I would not consider a little more then 50% of the total population of China as "unprofitable backwaters", the CCP is also studying applying it to towns and popularizing it to said towns.
Of course the CCP doesn't like dissent, they are still a dictatorship I know that. but ultimately how else are they going to become a super power in the fastest possible time? You may not like it, there are plenty of people who may not like it, but investing in China makes certain people rich and those certain people have alot of sway. I'm content to know that dictatorships never last either they collapse or they peacefully give up power in the face of circumstances.
Oh and btw the Dalai Lama recently said in an article that Tibet "needs" China for ecnomic developement I can supply it to you if you wish.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Of course the CCP doesn't like dissent, they are still a dictatorship I know that. but ultimately how else are they going to become a super power in the fastest possible time? You may not like it, there are plenty of people who may not like it, but investing in China makes certain people rich and those certain people have alot of sway.
Here's the problem, Blayne: what if China becomes a superpower while it's still a dictatorship? At that point, it becomes the single biggest threat to the security and happiness of the world's population.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well at last we're finally on the same page. You've certainly been dancing around the "China is a dicatorship" issue for a very long time now.
Dictatorships are bad. They do not represent the will of the people, and do you know how we know that? Because if they government were doing the will of the people, it wouldn't need a dictatorship to do it! If the people really want a dictatorship, why is it illegal to speak out publicly against it?
You're finally admitting that, to you, the ends justify the means and in this case the end is the PRC's status as a "superpower". Thank you.
As for "dictatorships never last"...well, I'm afraid that there just isn't enough history on the issue to back up your point. Lately humanity's dictatorships have been rather crude, ineffective, or stupid (or all three). A dictatorship need not be those three things. Which is what many people are worried about.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Tom, thats what we're supposed ot be argueing, is it a threat to world security? Nixon/Kissinger never thought so, infact they believed that the USSR was the agressor in those skirmishes.
As for Tibet even the Dalai Lama now ascents that Tibet needs China and should strive for just better autonomy in internal affairs.
Vietnam was a peacekeeping mission and the PLA just wanted to go back home asap esp because they got a bloody nose in it.
Korea? Korea was a client state that had China abanedoned it would've been bad PR IN China, infact the Korean war did more to lift moral and unify Chinese nationalism then anything else before.
The Sino-Indian war... well lemme check my facts on it first.
Ok, Neither side as far as we can tell was the overt aggressor but the PRC did wish to continue negotiations while India was the one to first move in military units into the disputed territory.
"On October 20, 1962, the Chinese People's Liberation Army launched two coordinated attacks 1000 kilometers apart in the Chip Chap valley in Ladakh and the Namkachu river. After securing a substantial portion of the disputed territory, the Chinese made an offer to negotiate on October 24. The Indian government promptly rejected this offer, and tried to regroup during the lull in the fighting."
And here China once more offered to negotiate.
"The PLA withdrew to positions it occupied before the war and on which China had staked its diplomatic claim."
And didn't pursue the war any farther when it with determination could have.
And from here we can safely assume that given China's recent confirmation of peaceul development, and lack of any invasions of a foreign nation, we can say that China has never ever pursued aggressive war and quite possibly never will.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, really? Tell me, how did Korea become a client state in the first place? Sheer magnetic attraction to the superior glories of Chinese culture? That one might play well in Beijing, perhaps.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Tom, thats what we're supposed ot be argueing, is it a threat to world security? Nixon/Kissinger never thought so, infact they believed that the USSR was the agressor in those skirmishes.
*laugh* It couldn't be that visiting China was because we viewed the USSR as a BIGGER threat, right?
Posted by Eldrad (Member # 8578) on :
Am I only the only one that finds the name Chip Chap amusing?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
This was before either of them visited China. When they were considering improving relations.
The USSR stoped by request at the 38th parallel, they put Kim Il-Sung (who reluctantly) accepted the position. several years later he wished to reunify Korea, now remember two things, in S. Korea the Socalists were barred from elections and S. Korea was basically a police state supported by Japanese agents and American troops.
N. Korea is just as much a client state as S. Korea was a client state to America.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Blayne, you've got to be kidding. Your view on history appears to be culled directly from PRC and DPRK websites. And you believe it as wholecloth.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Blayne's definitely ready to drink the Kool-Aid.
Kid, it's your choice who to believe, something that so many people in the PRC don't have the right of. It's foolish to hold to the line you've been given. I can only hope one day you'll see that.
I've been trying to stay out of this, but I've got to ask: In the face of all of the opposition you've received here on this subject, haven't you even entertained the notion that you might be wrong or misled about the PRC?
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
They've had an operational anti-ICBM system protecting Moscow for ~30years. As well as combat-theatre interceptors for nearly 50years.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)