Successful Chinese Ballistic Missile Test

[Shroom Man 777]

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.

I doubt the legitimacy of the American government, which is so corrupt/negligent that entire cities experience drowning because some shmuck whose previous administrative experience was administering camel races in Saudi Arabia was put in charge of FEMA in the name of cronyism.

Oh, and they engage in torturing of illegally detained prisoners. They hand out executions like candy. Their mercenaries and deathsquads kill innocent civilians abroad and they can't even be tried. They invaded a country and led other western nations to a phony war founded on lies and deceit and defiance of the UN. Among other things that I don't recall off the top of my head.

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.

The American support of murderous terroristic torture-happy assholes Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in the 80s, both led to multiple wars and invasions and bloody occupations that rage on from the 90s to this day. The American support of assholes like Ferdinand Marcos in my own country, in the Philippines, which led to the declaration of years-long martial law and the illegal incarceration and torture of many Filipinos, as well as the greatest theft in history with the dictator embezzling billions of dollars from the country and turning the Philippines from one of the Asian Tigers to the Sick Man of Asia. The support and funding of Nicaraguan Contras and other death squads in Latin America. The creation of the School of the Americas (please do read it) which taught right-wing murderers and torturers in South America the tools of their trade. The use of Guantanomo Bay as a torture center.

I find it amusing that you almost invariably shut your eyes to these multiple, repeated, historically recurring examples and counterpoints. That's not to say your other points aren't illegitimate, but it is kind of funny to watch you scramble for them.

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 you? China abuses its own citizens, but compared to the USA it has not engaged in such broad-spanning feats of assholery in other people's countries - I mean, China never propped up a dictator in my country, China never propped up a Shah in Iran, China never funded death squads in Latin America.

The USA might not be abusing its own citizens, but from my point of view it looks like your country likes to do things that end up abusing other countries' citizens. In shitholes no one cares about (like my country, and the countries of many other people), political dissidents are getting their throat slits while their wives, children and families are chopped up and fed to pigs by these American-funded murderers, but while that is happening, you play your video games, listen to your iPhones, eat your McDonalds and watch reality TV. It is good that America does not abuse its own citizens.

= ^________________^ =

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?

Perhaps we should declare actions done by those in power that harm or bully or take advantage of lesser countries to be unequivocally wrong, whether or not it's China or America or Lithuania or Tajikistan that's the perpetrator?

The mindset that "it's okay if I do it, but it's not okay if you do it, even though 'it' is something bad" has led to human suffering throughout history. Yes, it's impossible to make it stop. Yes, people have been killed and butchered, they are being killed and butchered, and they will be killed and butchered. But don't you think it would be best for us to realize that it is wrong, and to say out loud that it is wrong no matter whether its China or America or Slovakia or Burkina Faso that's doing it?

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, Ryan's point about "singular examples" when one of the key things noted about the USA was the routine invasion of other nations and intervention in the affairs of other nations is fun.

Other nations have direct reason to fear the US.

Meanwhile, they do not have such a direct reason to fear any nation that abuses it's own citizens, but behaves sensibly in foreign relations - just because while these nations are subject to a threat from the USA, the other nation, no matter how dickish it might be to it's peoples, hardly poses a threat to them.

So he actually drove a point home with his comparisons - while the US may be relatively benigh towards it's own citizens, it is a dick of colossal proportions when it comes to international affairs. And here is where the question arises, why would one trust a nation that is a dick in foreign affairs, versus one that is a dick in internal affairs? The former one clearly poses more danger.

[Shroom Man 777]

One can trust the dick nation because it has a lot of money and makes nice movies and TV shows. But when America is poor and we're all trading in yuans and watching Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, the situation will change drastically.

Then Ryan will be the one complaining that the Chinese are funding Democrat abortionsquads in Minnesota, and we will say that America has no "right" to put ABMs because it has nothing to fear from China. If the USA builds ABMs, then it means that the USA is "going to do that would deserve that response, or else they wouldn't have put the site there."

Well of course they're going to want to do it if they can. That doesn't make it right, however, and of course the Chinese are going to want to destroy it or get rid of it however they can before it becomes operational. They'll have every right to as far as I'm concerned.

The USA, not so much.



Double standards and hypocrisy is bad when you end up becoming the receiving end of it. So... don't have double standards, and don't be a hypocrite. Or else some day in the future, you might end up getting a taste of your own medicine. You should hope that other people are better than you and don't have double standards and aren't hypocrites, or else they'll pay you back with interest.

[thejester]

How can we trust you? China abuses its own citizens, but compared to the USA it has not engaged in such broad-spanning feats of assholery in other people's countries - I mean, China never propped up a dictator in my country, China never propped up a Shah in Iran, China never funded death squads in Latin America.

Nah. China just directly supported the Khmer Rouge throughout their rise, reign and fall in Cambodia (even invading Vietnam in 1979 in response to the former's attempts to depose the KR), fought a war against UN forces for two years, continues to support brutal dictatorships in places like North Korea, Burma and Sudan, imprisons business executives it doesn't like, and is just as culpable as the US in the failure to address climate change.

The pattern of Chinese behaviour is no difference to that of the US, they just have less power and consequently less reach.

[Kane Starkiller]

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.

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?

First let's not confuse the possible incompetent moves of a government after a major disaster with deliberate government suppression like sending tanks to drive over your own students. The difference is that, due to freedom of US press, Katrina disaster and the response to it is the subject of a much greater scrutiny than, say, Chinese competence after Sichuan earthquake.
While in US even singular incidents like beating of Rodney King get press coverage that lasts for decades in China the news of ethnic unrest doesn't reach the world until there are huge clashes involving deaths of hundreds of Tibetans and Uighurs.
Secondly there is pollution and then there is pollution.
Thirdly let's not pretend that Iraq is Madagascar just strolling down the street minding it's own business when all of a sudden attacked by US without rhyme or reason. Iraq was not Nice People, they used chemical weapons on Iran, invaded Kuwait and used chemical weapons on it's own people. It's not like WMD accusation fell from the sky, they had them and used them 15 years before the invasion. US might have lied that it has definitive proof but it wasn't exactly a false flag operations and invasion of Iraq doesn't somehow mean Paraguay could be next or something.
Finally, while internal matters aren't directly connected to external policy the fact that China has no compunction about running tanks over it's own students does give us a clue what they consider to be morally acceptable behavior when dealing with other countries.

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?

Of course it's just symbolic, to claim that US will actually invade Netherlands to extract a couple of their soldiers is ridiculous. The point of the law was to make US position on trying it's members clear. US commitment to the security of Netherlands was demonstrated during the Cold War with the Nuclear Sharing which continues to this day.

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

You look and see which one does a better job. Which one is, for all it's flaws, at the end more benevolent. Looking at US treatment of Western Europe vs Soviet treatment of Eastern Europe or even US treatment of Latin America vs Soviet treatment of Eastern Europe US comes out as more preferable. Looking at a would be superpower China which is largely unknown other than it likes to use military to crush any internal dissent in blood again it looks to me as if US is more preferable.

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.

As I said internal policies show us self-constraints a country has. If it's willing to exterminate its own Jewish population it will probably be willing to exterminate other populations. If it's willing to use chemical weapons on its own citizens it will be willing to use them on other countries. If, like China, it's willing to use tanks on its own citizens that doesn't bode well for countries in its sights if and when China becomes a superpower.
And again, while we can debate on whether US should've invaded Iraq that doesn't mean Iraq was just like any other country and that by invading Iraq US shows Finland could be next.
US, on the whole was largely benevolent, allowing for example France to leave NATO and developing its own nuclear weapons. Can you imagine Soviet Union allowing that to Poland?
You can point to various arms deals and dictator support US made and I could point to similar incidents by Russia and China but on a global scale US has been far more benevolent.

[mr friendly guy]

China like the US and Western powers also donate to various third world nations, particular African nations have received coverage over the years. They seem to be popular because they have a no strings attached (or perhaps more accurately what the Chinese want in return is different from the West and African nations find it more easier to swallow - ie the West wants to lecture human rights while the Chinese just want trade deals). In any event if you throw enough money at something with some idea of what you are trying to do, it works and its been previously posted on this board about the infrastructure being built for African nations.

In several respects China behaves internationally like some Western powers. Thus they should receive the same criticisms (both positive and negative) as other powers. In Ryan Thunder's case that would equate to a free pass.

[stormthebeaches]

The American support of murderous terroristic torture-happy assholes Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in the 80s, both led to multiple wars and invasions and bloody occupations that rage on from the 90s to this day.

Please show me some evidence that the US backed Osama bin Laden. Not the Mujahadeen, Osama himself. As for Saddam, its funny you bring him up considering how Soviet and Chinese support for Saddam dwarfed American support for him during the Iraq/Iran war.

[PeZook]

Can you imagine Soviet Union allowing that to Poland?

I hate to nitpick, and I won't add to the dogpile by adressing the rest of today's arguments, but I just have to observe that this, actually, is exactly what happened in 1989. The USSR's response to Warsaw Pact countries trying to reform varied wildly depending on the period: in 1956, you got an outright invasion of Hungary complete with urban combat and burning tanks on the streets, in 1968 you got the invasion of Czechoslovakia. On the other hand, Poland was allowed to run several reforms under various first secretaries and survived several crises without an intervention (or much of a protest) at all.

Hell, the USSR armed all Warsaw Pact countries heavily with all manner of weapons, from fighters through tanks to SAM systems, so it's not like it kept the Warsaw Pact entirely dependent on the Union for defence.

Seeing that, you could easily draw parallels to the US invading countries which looked like they may be taken over by communist sympathizers (even if they were on the other side of the fucking globe), sponsoring dictatorships as long as they were anti-communist, embargoing Cuba for the terrible crime of stationing missiles on its own sovereign territorry (despite SAC having a MASSIVE superiority that would allow the US to wipe out the USSR at will with minimal damage), etc.

Both superpowers were much more alike than most Americans would like to admit. Comparing France to Poland was rather poor, seeing as one is a fully industrialized country with an army big enough to turn an attempt at "police action" into a slaughter that would make Vietnam look like a Sunday walk in the park, while Poland was much weaker than the USSR: and despite that, the Union was still selective in shoving around Warsaw Pact countries which did something it didn't like. Why wasn't Poland invaded even once, despite our clockwork massive social unrest every decade, dealing with dirty capitalists from FIAT, borrowing money from the West, opposing full farming collectivization and permitting private business in open defiance of Party doctrine?

Finally, while internal matters aren't directly connected to external policy the fact that China has no compunction about running tanks over it's own students does give us a clue what they consider to be morally acceptable behavior when dealing with other countries.

The US never ran their students over with tanks, but nevertheless had its own share of really goddamn immoral behavior. Sorry, but past conduct is the best judge of what another country might want to do in foreign relations, and it doesn't really look pretty for the US.

[mr friendly guy]

The difference is that, due to freedom of US press, Katrina disaster and the response to it is the subject of a much greater scrutiny than, say, Chinese competence after Sichuan earthquake.

You know, if you are going to insinuate that Chinese competence was at the same level and its only poorer media coverage that hides it, the onus is on you to show it. Evidence please.

While in US even singular incidents like beating of Rodney King get press coverage that lasts for decades in China the news of ethnic unrest doesn't reach the world until there are huge clashes involving deaths of hundreds of Tibetans and Uighurs.

Keep in mind though, America makes the news even outside of itself. That is the same of all countries, but countries like US and China will get more media coverage than say minnows like Nauru. I don't know about how it is in Europe, but in general people are more interested in news about America than about China.

This lack of media coverage also works both ways. Using your example the pathetic sentences King's assailants receive gets coverage while China executing and jailing those who murdered those Uighur workers which sparked the riots in the first place gets limited coverage. This clearly works both ways as well.

Thirdly let's not pretend that Iraq is Madagascar just strolling down the street minding it's own business when all of a sudden attacked by US without rhyme or reason.

Any one can manufacture a rationale to try and justify any action. The fact you have a rationale means jack shit. What matters is how well that rationale can be defended.
The only people who is using this "Iraq was just minding its own business" strawman is you and most probably the former Iraqi propaganda department.

Iraq was not Nice People, they used chemical weapons on Iran, invaded Kuwait and used chemical weapons on it's own people.

Unless American justified the invasion of Iraq because "Iraq was not nice people" what does this show except a pathetic attempt to poison the well?

It's not like WMD accusation fell from the sky, they had them and used them 15 years before the invasion.

This has been covered before in previous threads by people more knowledgeable than me. However in short those who argue against the invasion point out that the UN managed to destroy and document said destruction of large chunks of Saddam's stockpile even as he toyed with letting them, not letting them inspect. Guess which version of reality the post war evidence supports?

US might have lied that it has definitive proof but it wasn't exactly a false flag operations and invasion of Iraq doesn't somehow mean Paraguay could be next or something.

Might have lied?

Finally, while internal matters aren't directly connected to external policy the fact that China has no compunction about running tanks over it's own students does give us a clue what they consider to be morally acceptable behavior when dealing with other countries.

Unless their external policy involves taking over other countries and imposing Chinese law on said conquered territory I am not exactly quivering in fear. I don't need to repeat what Stas Bush has already said that not all countries behaves the same internally and externally, and the fact you agreed and then try to slip in a Vicky Pollard "yeah but, no but" line.

[Ryan Thunder]

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.

No, because not all administrations are equal. It's a Bad Thing for the PRC to establish an anti-missile base because it strengthens their position, and the last thing I want is for a regime that denies more than a billion people freedom of speech and so on to become stronger. Plus it gives them more to throw in our way if we (the free world, etc) try to fix them. Why would it be a good thing to make it even harder than it already is?

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?

Nope. My ethical system is much more nuanced than you give me credit for. I want a global hegemony because geopolitical entropy results in duplication of effort, atrocity, and is totally not conducive to allocating resources where they're needed most, because there is no single source of authority. Nobody answers to anybody at that level. As long as the world stays that way, as long as enforcement of worldwide policies amounts to "ask nicely and hope they actually do it", nothing will ever get done about <insert pressing issue x>, and even if it does get done it probably won't get done right, or it will go halfway through and then somebody will back out on it (like the Americans and Kyoto, for example.)

[Lusankya]

No, because not all administrations are equal. It's a Bad Thing for the PRC to establish an anti-missile base because it strengthens their position, and the last thing I want is for a regime that denies more than a billion people freedom of speech and so on to become stronger. Plus it gives them more to throw in our way if we (the free world, etc) try to fix them. Why would it be a good thing to make it even harder than it already is?

And how is it a "worse thing" than a country with a history of dicking around in South America and the middle east and propping up corrupt (but anti-communist - can't forget that!) dictators strengthening their position by planting anti-missile bases wherever they feel like?

Also, lol at wanting to "fix" China. It's almost as though you think they aren't introducing reforms of their own volition. Seriously, the way to "fix" China is to show them how things are done differently, and if they like it, they'll adopt it and if they don't like it they won't. What won't influence Chinese reforms is ignorant Canadian dipshits pissing around on the internet and wanting to "fix" them.

[Ryan Thunder]

Seriously, the way to "fix" China is to show them how things are done differently, and if they like it, they'll adopt it and if they don't like it they won't. What won't influence Chinese reforms is ignorant Canadian dipshits pissing around on the internet and wanting to "fix" them.

The PRC is an authoritarian state. The Chinese don't get to decide whether they do it or not. The dipshits way the fuck up at the top do, and their personal power is dependent on a large portion of 1.3 billion Chinese being either too afraid or too deluded to band together in sufficient numbers to do anything about their abusers. So, we can "show them how things are done differently" until we're blue in the face, and nothing will change, because its not in the interests of the ones who make the decisions.

[ray245]

Seriously, the way to "fix" China is to show them how things are done differently, and if they like it, they'll adopt it and if they don't like it they won't. What won't influence Chinese reforms is ignorant Canadian dipshits pissing around on the internet and wanting to "fix" them.

The PRC is an authoritarian state. The Chinese don't get to decide whether they do it or not. The dipshits way the fuck up at the top do, and their personal power is dependent on a large portion of 1.3 billion Chinese being either too afraid or too deluded to band together in sufficient numbers to do anything about their abusers. So, we can "show them how things are done differently" until we're blue in the face, and nothing will change, because its not in the interests of the ones who make the decisions.

Except that you are totally ignoring the fact that there has been a large amount of reforms that has happened since the end of the cold war. The Chinese already saw the value of opening up their economy to foreign investors, and adopting many aspects of Captialism.

Additionally, the notion that the only reason the PRC is holding on to power because of the fear of the government is not an accurate assessment of how the Chinese view their government. Sure, the people are pissed with the government in many areas, such as corruption for instance, but many people do feel thankful that the CCP is actively trying to lift people out of poverty, improving their living standards and etc.

Yeah, blanket statement about China being bad for being a authoritarian states is dumb, especially when a democratic nation such as the US is eagerly supported by its people to take a even more proactive approach in regards to messing other countries up.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

A lot of people seem to have forgotten that China has long had a very very strong mercantile class, and even with Communism, you could never grind it down to dust. It is a fact of life of a society that worshiped money, and even had a money god.

[AniThyng]

Seriously, the way to "fix" China is to show them how things are done differently, and if they like it, they'll adopt it and if they don't like it they won't. What won't influence Chinese reforms is ignorant Canadian dipshits pissing around on the internet and wanting to "fix" them.

The PRC is an authoritarian state. The Chinese don't get to decide whether they do it or not. The dipshits way the fuck up at the top do, and their personal power is dependent on a large portion of 1.3 billion Chinese being either too afraid or too deluded to band together in sufficient numbers to do anything about their abusers. So, we can "show them how things are done differently" until we're blue in the face, and nothing will change, because its not in the interests of the ones who make the decisions.

I hear the United States is doing a splendid job "fixing" Iraq and Afghanistan .

American support for "reforms" tends to come with strings attached, nevermind the history of the US underminding democratic governments if they don't toe the American line. Chinese reformers would do well to make sure that if and when they do overturn the existing order, they manage to do so without being in debt to the United States in this way.

[Lusankya]

The PRC is an authoritarian state. The Chinese don't get to decide whether they do it or not. The dipshits way the fuck up at the top do, and their personal power is dependent on a large portion of 1.3 billion Chinese being either too afraid or too deluded to band together in sufficient numbers to do anything about their abusers. So, we can "show them how things are done differently" until we're blue in the face, and nothing will change, because its not in the interests of the ones who make the decisions.

First of all, calling the CCP "abusers" is not actually making you sound knowledgeable about the situation at all. I suppose you could see it like that if you choose to interpret things like the CCP increasing options to voice opinions on local and province-level leaders and the introduction of a new appeals system for capital offences are all a part of the secret communist plot to abuse the Chinese people. As is their expansion of the electrical grid, construction of railways, subsidisation of essentials, reform of the healthcare system, construction of hospitals and the increased freedom of movement given to Chinese. The CCP is not perfect, and the people are not 100% happy with them, but the reason they are putting up with this is not because they're afraid or deluded, but rather because corruption aside, the CCP is actually working in the Chinese people's interests.

See, the way you think things work in China and the way things actually work in China are quite different. See, CCP power is currently dependent on Chinese quality of life improving. They cannot do that without improving the economy, and they cannot improve the economy without borrowing expertise and ideas from the west.

And using your logic, Americans get to decide whether or not to piss around in South America and prop up corrupt dictatorships in the name of capitalism. Why should I care about people who decide to do horrible things like that? Why should I let those people make decisions? At least the CCP's actions in regards to freedom of speech, etc. are consistent with their dialogue. Why should I trust people who trumpet democracy and then democratically decide as a people to prop up corrupt dictators in the Philippines?

[AniThyng]

I suppose one must ask Americans if they can honestly say they truly are "responsible" for how their government acts - by their own admission the "chinese people" have no say in their government and presumably should not be held accountable, but does it follow then that I can hold the american electorate "responsible" for CIA abuses of power?

[stormthebeaches]

I suppose one must ask Americans if they can honestly say they truly are "responsible" for how their government acts - by their own admission the "chinese people" have no say in their government and presumably should not be held accountable, but does it follow then that I can hold the american electorate "responsible" for CIA abuses of power?

Most CIA actions are usually kept secret until decades after they have been done. In some occasions, even members of the US government and congress don't know about them (the Iran/Contra scandal comes to mind).

[Lusankya]

Well, to be honest, I don't think that one can hold the citizens of democracies 100% responsible for the way their government acts. Partly responsible, yes, but not 100% responsible.

But if Ryan Thunder's going to run around pretending that the Chinese people have absolutely no influence over their government, then I'm just going to throw that black and white fallacy back in his fat, ugly, bearded face.


Actually, on democracy, certain reforms - especially in women's rights - were only really possible on the scale that occurred in China due to the authoritarian system. The idea that doing what the majority wants is a good idea is ridiculous when the majority is poor and ill-educated. Once a decent education system is in place, the situation changes, but insisting on democracy before there is an adequately educated population is putting the cart before the horse.

Most CIA actions are usually kept secret until decades after they have been done. In some occasions, even members of the US government and congress don't know about them (the Iran/Contra scandal comes to mind).

But plenty of morally repugnant things, such as lying to get into wars (at the expense of fulfilling actual legitimate objectives in another war, no less) and torture in Guantanamo were not kept so secret. If the voters continue to vote for the people who authorise such things even after they come to light, then they should be considered complicit in said actions.

[Ryan Thunder]

The CCP is not perfect, and the people are not 100% happy with them, but the reason they are putting up with this is not because they're afraid or deluded, but rather because corruption aside, the CCP is actually working in the Chinese people's interests.

the CCP is actually working in the Chinese people's interests

*head explodes*

[AniThyng]

I suppose one must ask Americans if they can honestly say they truly are "responsible" for how their government acts - by their own admission the "chinese people" have no say in their government and presumably should not be held accountable, but does it follow then that I can hold the american electorate "responsible" for CIA abuses of power?

Most CIA actions are usually kept secret until decades after they have been done. In some occasions, even members of the US government and congress don't know about them (the Iran/Contra scandal comes to mind).

And justifiably so - it would be pretty hard for the CIA to do what it needs to do if it was open to immediate public scrutiny. Nonetheless, what the CIA does it does to further publicly accountable American policy. Perhaps I should say "abuse of power" from the point of view of another nation.

[Lusankya]

the CCP is actually working in the Chinese people's interests

*head explodes*

Is it somehow surprising for you to hear that the organisation that has lifted over 200 million people out of poverty in the last 30 years is working in the interests of the people it governs?

[AniThyng]

The CCP is not perfect, and the people are not 100% happy with them, but the reason they are putting up with this is not because they're afraid or deluded, but rather because corruption aside, the CCP is actually working in the Chinese people's interests.

the CCP is actually working in the Chinese people's interests

*head explodes*

At the very minimum, it *is* working in the interests of party members and for the millions who are today managing to live a middle class or higher westernized consumer lifestyle. For the downtrodden peasant farmer or the mine worker, perhaps not so much - but I defy you to tell me how a democratic government would handle it differently? Or do we have to drag out yet again the point that it was pretty horrible to work in those fields in the west when *it* was industrializing as well?

[Ryan Thunder]

the CCP is actually working in the Chinese people's interests

*head explodes*

Is it somehow surprising for you to hear that the organisation that has lifted over 200 million people out of poverty in the last 30 years is working in the interests of the people it governs?

No, its incredible that they would do so whilst retaining an authoritarian regime.

I mean they'd have to be doing it because they're feeling charitable. That's not a very good quality of humanity to depend on...

I mean is this sort of thing really in anybody's interests?

[AniThyng]

I mean they'd be doing it because they're feeling charitable. That's not a very good quality of a person to depend on.

Even authoritarian regimes fear the mob. Besides, I hear that the ruling class of the democracies do it because they want to win votes. They acomplish this by use of honeyed half-truths, lies, and promises that everyone knows will be broken. Doesn't sound very trustworthy to me either

Re: pic of horrible pollution

Presumably it is in the interests of whatever heavy industry needs that. I'm sure China would love to be able to play by Western rules and simply place the disgusting factory in some *other* country, but that takes time and economic development, no?

Please take a look at all the things you use and tell me that none of it at some point involves a polluting factory, a factory that is very likely in a 3rd world "shithole" - at the very very minium, the computer you are using is built on the back of an electronics industry that only looks clean because it doesn't involve smokestacks, but instead involves toxic heavy metals.