Successful Chinese Ballistic Missile Test

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I don't really see China being anywhere near as expansionist as Taisho era Japan, though. Assuming greater Chinese dominance, the only country that really has to worry is Taiwan. Other countries are either strong enough to look after themselves, or really no more likely to be randomly invaded than they are right now with the US dominant. It's not as though China has much of a history of invading places that aren't parts of China already.

Eh? China reached its largest extent under the Tang and Han dynasty, and was at war with say Korea and other neighbouring countries over the course many centuries. They even fought with some Caliphate at one point. My memory is murky.

However, China was subjected to a number of external pressures, particularly from Mongols or whatever random tribe from the Steppes. That probably forced them into a defensive stance a number of times in history.

[AniThyng]

I don't really see China being anywhere near as expansionist as Taisho era Japan, though. Assuming greater Chinese dominance, the only country that really has to worry is Taiwan. Other countries are either strong enough to look after themselves, or really no more likely to be randomly invaded than they are right now with the US dominant. It's not as though China has much of a history of invading places that aren't parts of China already.

Eh? China reached its largest extent under the Tang and Han dynasty, and was at war with say Korea and other neighbouring countries over the course many centuries. They even fought with some Caliphate at one point. My memory is murky.

However, China was subjected to a number of external pressures, particularly from Mongols or whatever random tribe from the Steppes. That probably forced them into a defensive stance a number of times in history.

People tend to point out that when China did have the capacity for overseas expansion under the Mings, they did not actually indulge in the sort of Imperialism the British, Spanish and Portugese did, and gloss over the territorial expansion of the Han and Tang as necessity to defend against the steppe tribes. Nor is the Chinese-Vietnamese war of 1979 (?) held up as an example that China is not to be trusted vis-a-vis the United States. If anything, if we follow through on the "rights" of the US Global Hegemon to meddle for its self-interest, one is hard pressed to deny China the "right" to be the Asian Hegemon.

Besides, even by that sort of historical comparision, holding the PRC reponsible for the wars of the Han, then it looks even worse for the West since we would be holding them to account for the Opium wars and such, rather than merely Iraq and Vietnam. (That being said, I can include the Opium wars under both uses since last I checked, government of the United Kingdom has not actually changed between the Opium wars and today, while China's arguably has)

[Lusankya]

Yeah. I was just commenting that there's not really any historical precedent for China going out on foreign adventures, so the idea that China will be just like the US, but not on "our" side is completely without basis in history and shows a great amount of ignorance regarding Han culture.

It seems likely to me that any Chinese efforts at self-defence would be aimed first at domestic security, with global dominance and dick-waving being a secondary concern.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

People tend to point out that when China did have the capacity for overseas expansion under the Mings, they did not actually indulge in the sort of Imperialism the British, Spanish and Portugese did, and gloss over the territorial expansion of the Han and Tang as necessity to defend against the steppe tribes. Nor is the Chinese-Vietnamese war of 1979 (?) held up as an example that China is not to be trusted vis-a-vis the United States. If anything, if we follow through on the "rights" of the US Global Hegemon to meddle for its self-interest, one is hard pressed to deny China the "right" to be the Asian Hegemon.

China has largely been a land power, and never got around to build the huge enough navy to enforce its rule. Heck, they mostly ignored Taiwan for the most part of their history.

If there's example of expansionism, I'd cite the on and off times the Chinese tried to conquer Korea, only to be beaten back.

Yeah. I was just commenting that there's not really any historical precedent for China going out on foreign adventures, so the idea that China will be just like the US, but not on "our" side is completely without basis in history and shows a great amount of ignorance regarding Han culture.

It seems likely to me that any Chinese efforts at self-defence would be aimed first at domestic security, with global dominance and dick-waving being a secondary concern.

Probably largely due to their propensity for plunging into chaos in between dynasties, which doesn't happen as much in the West. That bit left a deep mark in the Chinese psyche till this day.

[stormthebeaches]

It wasn't "spurred" by America, but the US gave Georgia, an impoverished and fractured frozen civil war state, money to remilitarize, direct supply of weapons, as well as sent there PMCs to consult Georgian military and help plan the operation of invasion into South Ossetia. The US might have even tried to hold the war on the last second, but it shouldn't have massively re-armed Georgia and given the tie-muncher a sense of support if it really wanted to avoid the war.

Now, you can say PMCs are crap proof of involvement, and they are private companies and all that, but it's a long-standing trend to use paramilitaries for dirty tasks in local and proxy wars. They can be convenient because their presence does not provoke a scandal; yet their function and political purpose is no different from ordinary military advisors.

Whilst it is true that the USA gave Georgia money and weapons, there is still no evidence that the USA wanted Georgia to attack South Ossetia. It is more likely that the US gave Georgia weapons as a counter to Russia, not because it wanted Georgia to go on the warpath. Just look at the surprised reaction of the Bush administration. This is of course, pure speculation but I can't see any reason why the US would want Georgia to attack South Ossetia.

As for the PMC's, were they sent by the US government or did the Georgian government hire out their services?

[AniThyng]

People tend to point out that when China did have the capacity for overseas expansion under the Mings, they did not actually indulge in the sort of Imperialism the British, Spanish and Portugese did, and gloss over the territorial expansion of the Han and Tang as necessity to defend against the steppe tribes. Nor is the Chinese-Vietnamese war of 1979 (?) held up as an example that China is not to be trusted vis-a-vis the United States. If anything, if we follow through on the "rights" of the US Global Hegemon to meddle for its self-interest, one is hard pressed to deny China the "right" to be the Asian Hegemon.

China has largely been a land power, and never got around to build the huge enough navy to enforce its rule. Heck, they mostly ignored Taiwan for the most part of their history.

If there's example of expansionism, I'd cite the on and off times the Chinese tried to conquer Korea, only to be beaten back.

One wonders if the Koreans would hate the Chinese as much as they hate the Japanese had China succeeded. I don't disagree with you, mind, but it is much much harder to equate the PRC with the Han and the Tang then it is to equate the United States with itself or the UK with the British Empire.

...That being said, I think the PRC itself uses precedent dating from the time of the Han to justify Tibet being "part of China", so...

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

One wonders if the Koreans would hate the Chinese as much as they hate the Japanese had China succeeded. I don't disagree with you, mind, but it is much much harder to equate the PRC with the Han and the Tang then it is to equate the United States with itself or the UK with the British Empire.

That depends on how one looks at it doesn't it? As it is, China is using its rich stock of cash to buy favours, and reward allies in its quest for both resources, and to ensure the stability of resouces, in terms of security of trade routes etc. All of which they are doing now. The case in point would be Sri Lanka, where China has secured the rights to develop a port, as well as giving aid to the Sri Lankan government, allowing the latter to shrug off Western pressure with regards to human rights. One might even say that the Tamil Tigers were defeated with Chinese aid.

...That being said, I think the PRC itself uses precedent dating from the time of the Han to justify Tibet being "part of China", so...

PRC fought a border war against India decades ago. That incident soured ties, and the sour taste still lingers.

[ray245]

I don't really see China being anywhere near as expansionist as Taisho era Japan, though. Assuming greater Chinese dominance, the only country that really has to worry is Taiwan. Other countries are either strong enough to look after themselves, or really no more likely to be randomly invaded than they are right now with the US dominant. It's not as though China has much of a history of invading places that aren't parts of China already.

Eh? China reached its largest extent under the Tang and Han dynasty, and was at war with say Korea and other neighbouring countries over the course many centuries. They even fought with some Caliphate at one point. My memory is murky.

The Tang dynasty maybe?

However, China was subjected to a number of external pressures, particularly from Mongols or whatever random tribe from the Steppes. That probably forced them into a defensive stance a number of times in history.

I think the only time that could be qualified as being defensive is during the mid Qing to late Qing dynasty. Hell, during the early Qing dynasty, the Chinese are still attempting to expand their lands into Tibet and Xinjiang.

[AniThyng]

One wonders if the Koreans would hate the Chinese as much as they hate the Japanese had China succeeded. I don't disagree with you, mind, but it is much much harder to equate the PRC with the Han and the Tang then it is to equate the United States with itself or the UK with the British Empire.

That depends on how one looks at it doesn't it? As it is, China is using its rich stock of cash to buy favours, and reward allies in its quest for both resources, and to ensure the stability of resouces, in terms of security of trade routes etc. All of which they are doing now. The case in point would be Sri Lanka, where China has secured the rights to develop a port, as well as giving aid to the Sri Lankan government, allowing the latter to shrug off Western pressure with regards to human rights. One might even say that the Tamil Tigers were defeated with Chinese aid.

...That being said, I think the PRC itself uses precedent dating from the time of the Han to justify Tibet being "part of China", so...

PRC fought a border war against India decades ago. That incident soured ties, and the sour taste still lingers.

Yeah - well, the key point there is that China doesn't give two shits about the internal affairs of those countries when it does so, and they most definitely do not outright invade under flimsy pretexts built with lies at the United Nations.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Yeah - well, the key point there is that China doesn't give two shits about the internal affairs of those countries when it does so, and they most definitely do not outright invade under flimsy pretexts built with lies at the United Nations.

You are forgetting the necessary bribes doled out just to get these officials to be friendly towards China, aren't you? Sure they don't give a shit about internal affairs, but all these bribes are screwing the country over. They certainly don't give a shit if the local people rot in the dust and bring in mostly their own people to run local operations.

I think the only time that could be qualified as being defensive is during the mid Qing to late Qing dynasty. Hell, during the early Qing dynasty, the Chinese are still attempting to expand their lands into Tibet and Xinjiang.

You might want to try the Song dynasty.

[Lusankya]

China has largely been a land power, and never got around to build the huge enough navy to enforce its rule. Heck, they mostly ignored Taiwan for the most part of their history.

They were quite capable of creating large navies. During the early 15th century, the main Chinese expedition fleet contained over 20,000 men, and that was largely for propaganda purposes. If they'd had any interest in expanding, they would have been quite capable of doing so. The will just wasn't there.

If there's example of expansionism, I'd cite the on and off times the Chinese tried to conquer Korea, only to be beaten back.

I seem to recall that they were mostly happy to leave Korea as vassal states, though they were happy to assist some kingdoms when they were having difficulties with other kingdoms in the peninsula.

Probably largely due to their propensity for plunging into chaos in between dynasties, which doesn't happen as much in the West.

Yeah. They're really good at that, and they seem to take their sweet time sorting it out when it does happen too. Though one could argue that the West was just engaged in near-constant turmoil, at least until the last 50 years.

PRC fought a border war against India decades ago. That incident soured ties, and the sour taste still lingers.

I think that if you're going to define expansionism/imperialism as "border skirmishes", and I'm defining expansionism/imperialism as "starting wars in places that have nothing to do with you", we'll both end up talking past each other. Skirmishes against people on your border can be rationalised as attempts to prevent an assault on the integrity of your nation. Running off to the Middle East and killing brown people because the pope/God/George Bush says so, on the other hand is a bit more difficult to justify.

...That being said, I think the PRC itself uses precedent dating from the time of the Han to justify Tibet being "part of China", so...

That seems very strange, since the Tibetan plateau is noticeably absent from Han dynasty maps of China. I thought they used precedent from the latter Qing dynasty to Justify the Tibet claim. IIRC, the "it was part of China during the Han dynasty" is the argument they plan on using to take over large swathes of North Korea in the event of a complete breakdown of the political situation there, at which point they can ride in gallantly and save the people who have every right to be Chinese (and get a port on the other side of the Korean peninsula while they're at it).

Hell, during the early Qing dynasty, the Chinese are still attempting to expand their lands into Tibet and Xinjiang.

The Qing weren't Han, though. If the largest periods of expansion after the Han dynasty were during Mongolian and Manchu rule during periods when the Han were marginalised citizens, that doesn't really invalidate the claim that the Han aren't expansionist.

[AniThyng]

Yeah - well, the key point there is that China doesn't give two shits about the internal affairs of those countries when it does so, and they most definitely do not outright invade under flimsy pretexts built with lies at the United Nations.

You are forgetting the necessary bribes doled out just to get these officials to be friendly towards China, aren't you? Sure they don't give a shit about internal affairs, but all these bribes are screwing the country over. They certainly don't give a shit if the local people rot in the dust and bring in mostly their own people to run local operations.

Of course, as we all know, the United States and MNCs do not indulge in so crass an activity as bribery and manipulation of local officials (not for nothing is Anwar Ibrahim tainted with acusations of being an American agent, rightly or otherwise)

At worst, China is playing the same game as the US. At best, they are playing it in a way that does not include bullying via military force (unless you are Taiwan).

Still, if this leads to anti-chinese riots in African nations, it would be amusing to see the knots anti-west commentators like Mahathir tie themselves into

@Lusyanka; I might not be remembering which Dynasty actually incorparated tibet in the first place, but it's still essentially "ancient" history and doesn't really change the point, which was that the PRC is not above using past dynasties to justify the present status quo, while I was before that noting that it's not reasonable to hold the PRC accountable for the sins of past dynasties since it is a totally different government, while say, the UK still has the same royal family and government today as it did during the OOpium wars.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Of course, as we all know, the United States and MNCs do not indulge in so crass an activity as bribery and manipulation of local officials (not for nothing is Anwar Ibrahim tainted with acusations of being an American agent, rightly or otherwise)

At worst, China is playing the same game as the US. At best, they are playing it in a way that does not include bullying via military force (unless you are Taiwan).

Still, if this leads to anti-chinese riots in African nations, it would be amusing to see the knots anti-west commentators like Mahathir tie themselves into

No need to go too far, Vietnam has its own share of rumblings too.

[AniThyng]

Of course, as we all know, the United States and MNCs do not indulge in so crass an activity as bribery and manipulation of local officials (not for nothing is Anwar Ibrahim tainted with acusations of being an American agent, rightly or otherwise)

At worst, China is playing the same game as the US. At best, they are playing it in a way that does not include bullying via military force (unless you are Taiwan).

Still, if this leads to anti-chinese riots in African nations, it would be amusing to see the knots anti-west commentators like Mahathir tie themselves into

No need to go too far, Vietnam has its own share of rumblings too.

You don't say...

I know I've been playing defense for China vis-a-vis the US in this thread, but privately it would greatly amuse me if countries like Vietnam stand up against China in the same way they stand up against the US. (but not Japan, for this purposes Japan doesn't work, being a first world stooge of the US and for being in living memory an atrocious monster of a nation).

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

You don't say...

I know I've been playing defense for China vis-a-vis the US in this thread, but privately it would amuse me *greatly* if the people of countries like Vietnam and S. Korea decide to stand up against China in the same way they stand up against the US. (but not Japan, for this purposes Japan doesn't work, being a first world stooge of the US and for being in living memory an atrocious monster of a nation)

Well, the Philippines runs to the US when they need a spine, with respect to the Spratlys. ASEAN can't be counted on to act collectively for the most part.

The Spratlys is a common issue for many many nations in the region, except Singapore, and maybe Indonesia, which probably spends more time counting missing islands than anything else.

[AniThyng]

You don't say...

I know I've been playing defense for China vis-a-vis the US in this thread, but privately it would amuse me *greatly* if the people of countries like Vietnam and S. Korea decide to stand up against China in the same way they stand up against the US. (but not Japan, for this purposes Japan doesn't work, being a first world stooge of the US and for being in living memory an atrocious monster of a nation)

Well, the Philippines runs to the US when they need a spine, with respect to the Spratlys. ASEAN can't be counted on to act collectively for the most part.

The Spratlys is a common issue for many many nations in the region, except Singapore, and maybe Indonesia, which probably spends more time counting missing islands than anything else.

That Manila would still look to the US for help would surprise no one, I think. But for a country like Vietnam to tell China to "stop right there, we won't have you acting like an Imperialist bully" would get some attention

[Ryan Thunder]

Yes, that's exactly what happens. The Ryans are afraid and angry if other nations do to them what America does to everyone else. Hypocrisy.

Only if you entertain the notion that all superpowers are equally legitimate no matter what they do.

Or maybe, just maybe, I just don't trust the goddamn US government, which is so corrupt/neglient that entire cities are washed away by hurricanes with extreme death tolls, corporate assholes poisoning entire regions are not punshied and entire nations are invaded and crushed at the whim of this government.

I find it amusing that people almost inevitably have to resort to cherry-picking singular, unrepeated examples as counterpoints. That's not to say your other points aren't legitimate, but it is kind of funny to watch you scramble for them.

Um... what else? Oh yes - your distrust doesn't give any nation a right, or withdraw a right from any nation. Sorry.

Can't add much to what Siege said - internal issue are relevant to national defences, including ABM, how? Any other arguments which are not a joke, Ryan?

My point was; how can we trust them to not to fuck us over the instant it becomes both possible and convenient if they abuse their own citizens to the degree that they do?

[Siege]

Only if you entertain the notion that all superpowers are equally legitimate no matter what they do.

By "legitimate" I take it you mean "acting benevolently and/or in good faith". Because I've no idea what else you could possibly be talking about, and you seem to insist on pretending the United States acts benevolently all the time. It does not. Plenty examples have been given of US misbehaviour in this thread already: the support of Ferdinand Marcos, the support of brutal dictatorships and juntas in Latin America, the interference in Iran, the meddling in Iraq for reasons that were later found to be utter fabrications. It's been said already but it bears repeating: when you're not in the Happy White Club of first world countries, that "legitimacy" suddenly isn't looking so legit anymore. You might want to stop pretending the USA is an unequivocal force of good in the world, it'd do your world-view quite a bit of good.

My point was; how can we trust them to not to fuck us over the instant it becomes both possible and convenient if they abuse their own citizens to the degree that they do?

How can we trust the USA not to fuck us over the instant it becomes convenient to do so? That bastion of moral fortitude you're defending in recent memory invaded nations with overwhelming force on the flimsiest of pretences -- something I haven't seen China do. Hell, they even passed such marbles of benevolent legislation as the 'Invasion of The Hague act'. Seriously, these upstanding members of the international community passed a law enabling United States forces to unilaterally invade an ally of over fifty years. And when we protested they said "oh don't worry, it's just symbolic". I do beg your pardon? I mean, compared to some of the other shit they've pulled that's downright benign, but the sheer gall should clue you in that here's a nation in dire need of some god-damn attitude adjustment.

My point then is this: why would anyone, let alone China, trust the USA of all nations not to fuck them over the instant it becomes both possible and convenient if they treat their allies the way they do?

[Simon_Jester]

Only if you entertain the notion that all superpowers are equally legitimate no matter what they do.

That depends on what you mean by "legitimate," as Siege said.

If by "legitimate" you mean "I like what they do," then yes, it's absurd to say that all superpowers are equally "legitimate" in anyone's eyes. But that's a stupid definition. If by "legitimate" you mean what everyone else means, then yes, all the superpowers that exist have "legitimate" governments (recognized by the international community, operating according to a set of well defined rules). A government does not have to be democratic to be legitimate, nor does it have to sign any particular UN treaty, nor does it have to do only things I approve of, even if I'd like all those things to be true about the country.

My point was; how can we trust them to not to fuck us over the instant it becomes both possible and convenient if they abuse their own citizens to the degree that they do?

Why are they under an obligation to be trustworthy in the eyes of foreigners? If they feel they can't trust us, does that give them veto power over our actions too?

===============

Anyway. In general:
What I will say for the US (look, I live here, OK?) is that at least some of the incarnations of our country have been a relatively decent major power to have to live with. The Bush years have completely obscured this in the eyes of the global public, naturally, but I seem to recall us behaving fairly well during the '90s. Not perfectly, but not horribly.

Of course, quite a few other nations can say the same; I'm not maintaining otherwise. There may well be countries with a history as major powers that can say better, though I cannot think of an obvious example off the top of my head. I get the feeling, though, that many could not say better; sometimes it seems to be in the nature of all large nations, in every time or place, that they will take a cavalier attitude to the rights of weaker ones. The US isn't really all that exceptional as far as that goes, I think.

People tend to point out that when China did have the capacity for overseas expansion under the Mings, they did not actually indulge in the sort of Imperialism the British, Spanish and Portugese did...

Of course, they didn't really have time to do so; by the time they got their network built up to the point where they could act imperialist the palace eunuchs had already effectively brought an end to the overseas expansion program for largely unrelated reasons.

Since China no longer has a policy of ignoring all foreigners as irrelevant barbarians, its behavior back in the days when it did so doesn't prove much to me.

Okay, I'll level with you. I'm using bullshit American rhetoric and "logic" used to justify "American foreign interests", except in this case I'm having the Non-Americans use it on the Americans.

I don't really believe in any of the shit I've just spouted, but I posted what I posted so that guys like Ryan can get a "taste of their own medicine". For years and years America has talked and acted like this towards the rest of the world without giving a fuck about how the rest of the world feels about it.

So, this is an interesting reversal. What would America feel like if the rest of the world acted like America towards America?

It would set up a sort of resonance, a standing wave of bullshit that would cause the entire North American continent to slide into the sea like Atlantis before it. And before you say "Good riddance!" remember that Canada is on the same plate we are; you'd be sinking them with us.

What, you didn't know that's what happened to Atlantis?

Seriously, though...

They supported the tie-chewer that went into South Ossetia. They wanted to put him in friggin NATO! I'll defer to Stas for more on the matter.

While we definitely supported the guy, I do not remember whether we actually wanted him in NATO or not. I can think of good reasons not to want him in, even if we support him, because it's always risky to incorporate a loose cannon into your mutual defense pact. Especially if he's on the shit list of a nuclear power.

It's like how placing an ABM in frickin' Poland will protect against nukes from Iran or North Korea. Which is diddlysquat, I know. Besides, replace ABM with any other strong action or military-geopolitical maneuver and the USA's Ryans will still be up in arms.

To be fair, Poland is more or less on a direct path between Iran and Europe, so it's a reasonable place to put ABM batteries designed to intercept missiles fired from Iran. Sort of. Greece or Austria might have been smarter choices, for a number of reasons; I don't know and am not privy to the math. Maybe I just suck at spherical geometry.

Well, the Philippines runs to the US when they need a spine, with respect to the Spratlys. ASEAN can't be counted on to act collectively for the most part.

The Spratlys is a common issue for many many nations in the region, except Singapore, and maybe Indonesia, which probably spends more time counting missing islands than anything else.

I can see it now:

"What, you're having an argument over the ownership of some islands and you want us to join in? Nah, we just found about 600 new islands rummaging around under the sofa cushions; we're good."

[ray245]

People tend to point out that when China did have the capacity for overseas expansion under the Mings, they did not actually indulge in the sort of Imperialism the British, Spanish and Portugese did...

Of course, they didn't really have time to do so; by the time they got their network built up to the point where they could act imperialist the palace eunuchs had already effectively brought an end to the overseas expansion program for largely unrelated reasons.

Err not really. Consider that the treasure fleets is essentially soaking up the Imperial treasury with insignificant returns, as well the the threats faced by the nomads in the North and the massive rebellion in vietnam essentially means that the chinese could not afford to spend their time sending fleets all the way to North Africa.

Then that is also bearing in mind that until the 18th and 19th century, westerners are the ones buying products from the east and not the other way round, which means this gives the Chinese even less reason to expand towards the west.

Sure in hindsight the Chinese should not have given up its treasure fleets, but always 20/20.

[mr friendly guy]

A few points, since I don't feel like quoting everyone.

1. IIRC Korea was much bigger in those days and they would also incur into Manchuria which China saw as their own. The Tang dynasty finally dealt with the Korean kingdom of Gorygeo ? sp when they allied with another Korean kingdom and launched simultaneous attacks from 2 different directions.

2. The PRC claims Tibet from as early as the Tang dynasty, not the earlier Han IIRC. Certainly over the years it has been under Chinese influence on and off. British historians dispute the Chinese claim and say its only together for about 200 years, putting it at the Qing dynasty when IIRC Qianlong took control. Even if you accept the British claim it would put the two regions as one political entity about the same length as Australia has been a country.

3. I don't know about how expansionary the Song dynasty was, except in the sense they tried to reclaim Chinese territory lost during the last time the Chinese state broke up. Conflicts arose with the Khitan Liao dynasty about provinces which the Khitans subsumed. Later on they allied with the Jurchen Jin (gold) dynasty to defeat the Khitans. Unfortunately the Jin invaded China, forcing the Chinese to move their capital South, and hence ends the Northern Song dynasty and begins the Southern Song dynasty. So I don't think they were doing much expanding after a while as much as regaining what was lost and fighting for survival against the Jin, then later Mongols.

4. The Qing conquest of Taiwan was because Han Chinese insurrectionists had set foot there and launching attacks against the mainland. Of course, the Qing themselves were foreign Manchus who had attacked and later subsubmed the Han Chinese Ming dynasty (to be more accurate the launched raids, but it the Ming was brought low by rebellion among the Chinese population, while the Qing moved in to deal with the rebellion and set up shop).

5. Depending on how you look at it, China would be larger under the Yuan dynasty where it was part of the great mongol empire. If you don't like that, then next maybe comes the Qing or Tang (both of which are larger than modern china), depending on whether vassal states gets counted as part of the country. The Qing would be counted as foreign rule, although Han Chinese were no doubt the majority in this multiethnic state, so one could argue its not Chinese or you could say two chinese dynasties were ruled by foreigners in a multiethnic country.

However whats the betting the PRC paints itself as the successor state of the ROC which in turn successor to the Qing, so it lays claims to its territories including the disputed border with India, Tibet and Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia (they long ago accepted Outer Mongolia would be lost of them and is now an independent country while so called outer manchuria is now a part of the Russia Federation, with Tsarist Russia coming back in the 19th century for round 2 and taking it from the weaken Qing after previous treaties awarded it to China). Certainly no country disputes their sovereignity over these areas in the modern day.

6. While the Qing especially under Qianlong was expansionary (the Qing themselves expanded from Manchuria into China by conquering the Han Chinese) they did however engage in "defensive" punitive expeditions against various Mongol tribes who would raid China. Only under Qianlong were they finally defeated. British historian Peter Perdue ? sp believed it was due to a treaty with Russia, so that Russia secured its borders and prevented the Mongols from simply retreating until the Qing army ran out of food. Nevertheless Qianlong was brutal and depending on your novel, he is usually not potrayed in a good light in Chinese stories.

Moreover the Qing (namely Qianlong) had to deal with several invasions from Burma. I believe the burmese eventually gave up because they couldn't fight China and Thailand at the same time.

7. Aside from the reasons for invading Taiwan, I don't recall another Chinese dynasty trying to expand overseas by the sea unlike how Western European powers have done. Unless you count the Mongols invasion of Japan (since they were ruling China at the time).

8. Modern China seems content to secure trade / diplomatic links even if they deal with corrupt regimes. As contrast to the US tendency to help overthrow a regime or to do it themselves (including to democratically elected ones) and put one they like in charge, with the one in charge pretty corrupt themselves. While neither is ideal, one can see which one is more warped.

[Ryan Thunder]

Fine, let's pretend they're all the same. Everybody does whatever the fuck they want and anybody who complains about anything anybody else does that's not to their advantage is just a blithering nationalist.

Now who am I supposed to side with without being a self-serving prick?

[Siege]

While we definitely supported the guy, I do not remember whether we actually wanted him in NATO or not. I can think of good reasons not to want him in, even if we support him, because it's always risky to incorporate a loose cannon into your mutual defense pact. Especially if he's on the shit list of a nuclear power.

At the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest George Bush called for Georgia to be allowed to join NATO's Membership Action Plan. It ultimately wasn't allowed to though, mainly because Germany and France recognized instantly that a massive Russian shitstorm would be headed their way if they agreed to this silly plan. NATO still sent out a communique promising eventual membership; Vlad Putin predictably did a spit-take, flipped out and promised in no uncertain terms that he'd support and protect Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and half a year later Georgia and Russia were at war. I won't blame the entire affair on Bush because that would be quite unfair and ignoring the troubled history of the region, but he damned well should've known better than to ignore his European allies (who were practically yelling at him not to be an idiot, but hey, that was "old Europe", right?) and so brazenly provoke a Russia that wasn't as ailing and defenceless as it was during the '90's.

[K. A. Pital]

Now who am I supposed to side with without being a self-serving prick?

Why should you side with anyone? *shrugs* You're making it into a dilemma - if not one superpower, than another. Why?

My point was; how can we trust them to not to fuck us over the instant it becomes both possible and convenient if they abuse their own citizens to the degree that they do?

But how can I (or you for that matter) trust the US, then? Perhaps then harmless, socially just (more or less) and well-off Scandinavian nations should be made world superpowers - after all, they don't have much of a history of fucking over their own citizens, neither the citizens of other nations.

You are profoundly confusing internal and foreign politics, as well as capabilities and intent. In foreign policy, most nations, regardless of their internal policies, behave more than sensibly when it comes to serious matters (and nuclear war is a serious matter). Moreover, the matter of nuclear war is almost entirely a matter of foreign policy for any nation that is well in control of it's nuclear weapons. It's not a matter of internal policy. The US foreign policy experience provides sufficient evidence that the US is a threat to other nations which do not conform to the current US geopolitical interests, or actively oppose them. That is an objective fact, no matter how well the US treats it's own citizens.

[mr friendly guy]

Fine, let's pretend they're all the same.

No one is all the same, however they should be entitled to the same rights. If its ok for one country to do it, it follows that its ok for another. This concept has continuously flew over your head.

Now who am I supposed to side with without being a self-serving prick?

I don't look at all the threads you participate in, but in those that I have - your ethical system strikes me as either "might makes right" or "me, me, me" (when might isn't on your side). Why the hell are you worried about being a self-serving prick at this point?