posted
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Blankly referring to "Rome" for western civ historical references is annoyingly vague.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.
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1631 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Post deleted due to certain relative discovering said post.
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
posted
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 ]
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1631 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1631 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Am I only the only one that finds the name Chip Chap amusing?
Posts: 143 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) can be like that.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
