Successful Chinese Ballistic Missile Test

[Lusankya]

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?

They are doing a bit to help rural people. Not as much as for the urban population, but that's in part due to logistics more than anything else. Off the top of my head, I can think of the current plan to have 90% of the population with good access to medical clinics by the end of this year (100% coverage by 2020), water provision measures in Gansu province and the provision of electricity to tens of thousands of people in Tibet as things that the Party has done to improve the lives of the rural population. Oh, there has also been some land reform, so now peasants (who get their land allotment based off of the number of people in their family) can choose to either work their land or sell their land rights to someone else.

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...

As AniThyng said: the CCP has to keep the mob happy. If there is not enough progress, or the people feel like they're not getting enough of the wealth, then there will be riots. That's what happened in Xinjiang and Tibet, and if the CCP doesn't look after it's people, it will happen in central and eastern China too.

Looks like the people who live there aren't subsistence-level farmers any more. I guess there will be a mess to clean up afterwards, but at least they're getting money and skills that are useful in an industrialised society.

[Kane Starkiller]

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.

Yes when they went bankrupt and could no longer afford either the arms race or keeping the Eastern Europe in line they withdrew. The fact that they armed various countries doesn't change the fact they they held those countries under an iron fist until they could no longer afford to do so.

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.

US invasion of Vietnam is paralleled by Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and I don't see how the proximity of a country somehow makes the invasion more moral.
Soviet 50 year domination over Eastern Europe isn't paralleled by anything the United States did during the Cold War or after.
Cuba decided to host weapons that could decimate US cities and US responded by an embargo. I don't see how economic embargo is a disproportionate response to hosting nuclear weapons directed against you regardless of how awesome SAC was.

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?

US and USSR were more alike than an average American is aware of that is true. But they were not as similar as many people on this board claim.
France did not have a strong army back in 1944 and would never get a strong army if US decided to be as heavy handed as USSR towards Poland.
Dealing with Fiat is not the same as exiting the unified NATO command and developing its own nuclear weapons nor is it the same as trying actual political reform as attempted but crushed in Czechoslovakia and Hungary.

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.

China's foreign track record is better than US simply because they didn't have the capability. Again since China is far more ruthless against it's own citizenry I don't see why I should give them the benefit of the doubt.

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.

We can't know when they do shit like paying parents not to protest over the 7000 shitty schools that collapsed during the quake and jailing human rights activists.

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.

Are you saying that beating up a single man deserves the same punishment as killing someone and starting massive riots? Not to mention that this was just a show trial, the violence of the riots shows that the hatred between Han and Uyghurs runs far deeper than a simple factory killing. How many of Rodney King type beatings goes on in China every year and it's not reported?

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.

This was a response to people claiming that Iraq invasion came out of the blue. I demonstrated that it didn't; that there was a history of Iraq stirring trouble in the region and that this was more of a continuation of a 1990 Gulf War. The point is invasion of Iraq doesn't mean US is in the business of invading random countries at whim.

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?

Again the response was to people claiming that US invades sovereign countries "at whim". There was a history there and the invasion did not come out of the blue.

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.

I never agreed that China and US are the same. Secondly China doesn't have the capability to impose it's will yet. They had no problem in invading Tibet and imposing communist rule and communist laws there in 1950. Seeing the ruthless manner in which they deal with internal dissent and freedom of expression and information claiming that somehow China as a superpower will be nicer than US is either naively optimistic or outright dishonest.

[Lusankya]

We can't know when they do shit like paying parents not to protest over the 7000 shitty schools that collapsed during the quake and jailing human rights activists.

Giving monetary compensation to people when one is at fault for harm caused to members of their family is actually common place in China. Pretty much every trial for road death includes some such compensation. Seeing something similar in the wake of the earthquake is not really that surprising.

I never agreed that China and US are the same. Secondly China doesn't have the capability to impose it's will yet. They had no problem in invading Tibet and imposing communist rule and communist laws there in 1950.

That is because Tibet is considered to be a part of China. Countries that aren't Taiwan are not in anywhere near an analogous position to Tibet.

[Kane Starkiller]

Giving monetary compensation to people when one is at fault for harm caused to members of their family is actually common place in China. Pretty much every trial for road death includes some such compensation. Seeing something similar in the wake of the earthquake is not really that surprising.

Yes but asking them to sign an agreement they will not protest against shoddy work on the schools which resulted in the death of their children in return for the money is not standard procedure.

That is because Tibet is considered to be a part of China. Countries that aren't Taiwan are not in anywhere near an analogous position to Tibet.

Considered by whom? Tibet was de facto independent from 1912 and were never under control of the new communist government. The same goes for Taiwan, a country de facto independent for 50 years and PRC keeps piling on the missiles while at the same time expressing their wish for "talks". Did US threaten military action during Puerto Rican status referendums on 1967, 1993 and 1998 the way China does? That's the difference between a free democratic society and Chinese authoritarianism.

[AniThyng]

That is because Tibet is considered to be a part of China. Countries that aren't Taiwan are not in anywhere near an analogous position to Tibet.

Considered by whom? Tibet was de facto independent from 1912 and were never under control of the new communist government. The same goes for Taiwan, a country de facto independent for 50 years and PRC keeps piling on the missiles while at the same time expressing their wish for "talks". Did US threaten military action during Puerto Rican status referendums on 1967, 1993 and 1998 the way China does? That's the difference between a free democratic society and Chinese authoritarianism.

This has been pointed out before, but aside from Tibet and Taiwan (and even Taiwan is not solidly anti-China), most Asia Pacific nations around China don't fear China in this way - certainly not as much as they fear Japan, which has a proven history of Imperialist aggression in living memory and has never quite managed to get forgiven. I'm not sure if Cambodia and Vietnam are entirely without some grudges against China, but given what happened the last time around, I don't see the PRC eager to bloody it's nose with Vietnam again. Vietnam-China wars seem more the providence of Right-Wing American Chinese Hegemony fearmonger fiction then not.

Besides, the United States once fought a civil war so bloody and definitive that the very term The Civil War without qualification refers to it. Now admittedly that civil war had a very strong moral backing behind it, but it's still an apt demonstration that regions simply can not secede and expect to get away with it. And that's how China sees Taiwan.

[stormthebeaches]

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.

But the voters aren't continuing to vote for these things. Last time I checked, the voters voted for a guy who promised to stop torture and the war in Iraq.

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.

Asked if American voters should be held responsible for CIA abuses of power. I am responding by saying that most of the CIA's power abuses happen in secrecy and they aren't made public for years if not decades. Because of this you cannot hold the average American voter accountable for CIA power abuses as they do not know about such events until long after they have happened. It took decades for the re-installation of the Shah to come to light, for example.

In some cases, CIA power abuse is unknown even to most branches of the US government. An example of this would be the Iran-Contra scandal, which was done against the wishes of the American congress.

[AniThyng]

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.

But the voters aren't continuing to vote for these things. Last time I checked, the voters voted for a guy who promised to stop torture and the war in Iraq.

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.

Asked if American voters should be held responsible for CIA abuses of power. I am responding by saying that most of the CIA's power abuses happen in secrecy and they aren't made public for years if not decades. Because of this you cannot hold the average American voter accountable for CIA power abuses as they do not know about such events until long after they have happened. It took decades for the re-installation of the Shah to come to light, for example.

In some cases, CIA power abuse is unknown even to most branches of the US government. An example of this would be the Iran-Contra scandal, which was done against the wishes of the American congress.

Not before voting in Bush jr. for a second term though. But not to focus too much on the minutue of what the CIA does or does not do without proper oversight, the point being made was that as a voter in a ostensibly democratic nation, is one therefore accountable for what said democratically elected government does? Is "BUT I VOTED FOR THE OTHER GUY" a valid excuse if called to account on it?

[Simon_Jester]

(Retractions are at the bottom of the post)

Not before voting in Bush jr. for a second term though. But not to focus too much on the minutue of what the CIA does or does not do without proper oversight, the point being made was that as a voter in a ostensibly democratic nation, is one therefore accountable for what said democratically elected government does? Is "BUT I VOTED FOR THE OTHER GUY" a valid excuse if called to account on it?

I would say yes, unless you expect governments to be routinely overthrown by internal force every time they do something dirty in foreign affairs. Which would make for very unstable governments in most of the world.

Asked if American voters should be held responsible for CIA abuses of power. I am responding by saying that most of the CIA's power abuses happen in secrecy and they aren't made public for years if not decades. Because of this you cannot hold the average American voter accountable for CIA power abuses as they do not know about such events until long after they have happened. It took decades for the re-installation of the Shah to come to light, for example.

In some cases, CIA power abuse is unknown even to most branches of the US government. An example of this would be the Iran-Contra scandal, which was done against the wishes of the American congress.

Though what you can reasonably hold us accountable for is the fact that we tolerate this kind of thing, that we're willing to put up with a spy agency that gets practically blank checks to act in foreign countries and mess up the situation across entire continents without even having to tell anyone that they've done it. Without even telling us they've done it, and we're nominally the ones in charge!

Seriously, I think this is a major strategic flaw in the way the US approaches foreign affairs: too much of the reality of the situation is kept classified. Which means that the influence of the democratic process on American foreign policy is practically random, because voters have to operate in an information vacuum when it comes time to decide whether it's being handled properly.

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?

Oh, it's fine to complain, as long as you complain consistently. If it's wrong to do Y in Z, it should be wrong to do Y' in Z', unless there is a difference in the specific situation (for instance, the difference between sending troops for flood relief and sending them to support a coup attempt). It should never be wrong for my country to do something because it is us doing it.

This is moral absolutism as applied to nations.

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.

Now, now. Incompetence doesn't make a government illegitimate. It just makes it suck.
___________

Mea Culpa:

At the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest George Bush called for Georgia to be allowed to join NATO's Membership Action Plan.

OK. I was wrong, and Bush acted even more foolishly than I thought. I would ask what he was thinking in trying to make Georgia part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, except I'm pretty sure that this is similar to asking "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" because he wasn't.

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.

Excuse me. You're right. The program was ended for related reasons: lack of money that was needed to do other things. The versions of the story I'd heard mostly revolved around the domestic political jockeying and less on the state of the treasury.

That said, the key point remains: China didn't have time to become an imperialist power before giving up on the whole business of long range seafaring, much as if Portugal had (for some truly improbable reason) decided to stop sending ships around Africa right after da Gama. While the potential for Evil Overseas Imperialism would still exist in Portugal's nature, they wouldn't actually have done anything to show that they had it.

[stormthebeaches]

Not before voting in Bush jr. for a second term though. But not to focus too much on the minutue of what the CIA does or does not do without proper oversight, the point being made was that as a voter in a ostensibly democratic nation, is one therefore accountable for what said democratically elected government does? Is "BUT I VOTED FOR THE OTHER GUY" a valid excuse if called to account on it?

The criminal stuff that Bush did wasn't as obvious back in 2004 as it was now. And yes, "I voted for the other guy" or "I was too young to vote" are perfectly valid excuses. What do you expect? As mass uprising?

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.

Entire cities? It was one city where things went badly. Not to mention, that administration is out of power now.

[PeZook]

Yes when they went bankrupt and could no longer afford either the arms race or keeping the Eastern Europe in line they withdrew. The fact that they armed various countries doesn't change the fact they they held those countries under an iron fist until they could no longer afford to do so.

They could still crush Poland with ease in 1989, but they'd be getting into a rather messy situation, possibly even a repeat of Afghanistan, more international sanctions, etc.

In other words, they did not intervene not out of the goodness of their heart, but because of wider geopolitical reasons. The US did exactly the same: when a country could be propped in the correct direction without too much effort, they meddled without concern. If the country was large, decently powerful and costs of intervention would outdo the benefits, they didn't.

US invasion of Vietnam is paralleled by Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and I don't see how the proximity of a country somehow makes the invasion more moral.

I never claimed the USSR was more moral than the US, I claimed they acted about the same.

Soviet 50 year domination over Eastern Europe isn't paralleled by anything the United States did during the Cold War or after.

Probably not, granted, but only because every state surrounding the US was already friendly. What would happen if Canada went communist in the final stages of WWII?

Cuba decided to host weapons that could decimate US cities and US responded by an embargo. I don't see how economic embargo is a disproportionate response to hosting nuclear weapons directed against you regardless of how awesome SAC was.

That's not what happened. What happened was a total blockade of all shipping (a totally illegal action that's pretty much a declaration of war) to Cuba and pushing the world to the brink of nuclear war over the exact same damn thing the US did later on in Turkey, just in the name of a different ideology.

US and USSR were more alike than an average American is aware of that is true. But they were not as similar as many people on this board claim.
France did not have a strong army back in 1944 and would never get a strong army if US decided to be as heavy handed as USSR towards Poland.

If the US decided to be heavy handed towards France they'd get slammed with political consequences and involve themselves in a costly occupation of a country full of hostile locals.

If the USSR got heavy handed towards Poland in 1989 they'd get slammed with political consequences and invole themselves in a costly occupation of a country full of hostile locals.

So neither of them did it.

Dealing with Fiat is not the same as exiting the unified NATO command and developing its own nuclear weapons nor is it the same as trying actual political reform as attempted but crushed in Czechoslovakia and Hungary.

Yeah, what Poland did was milder, and the costs of forcing the PRL to do what the USSR wanted would be too high. When that cost was lower, like with Hungary or Czechoslovakia or Afghanistan, intervention happened.

The costs of forcing France back into NATO and denying them nukes were too high, yet when it was lower, like in Vietnam or Iran, intervention happened.

China's foreign track record is better than US simply because they didn't have the capability. Again since China is far more ruthless against it's own citizenry I don't see why I should give them the benefit of the doubt.

Oh, they have plenty of capability because of their massive land borders with many other states, including capitalists like South Korea (well, they don't have a direct border, but it's not like it's much further away). So far, the track record is similar to other large world powers.

[stormthebeaches]

They could still crush Poland with ease in 1989, but they'd be getting into a rather messy situation, possibly even a repeat of Afghanistan, more international sanctions, etc.

By 1989 nationalist uprisings where everywhere. It's not like Poland was a special case here. Also, Gorby's reforms, mainly abandoning the Brezhnev doctrine of never letting a Communist state revert to pre-revolutionary status, played a significant role in the Soviet Union letting Eastern Europe go.

If the US decided to be heavy handed towards France they'd get slammed with political consequences and involve themselves in a costly occupation of a country full of hostile locals.

If the USSR got heavy handed towards Poland in 1989 they'd get slammed with political consequences and invole themselves in a costly occupation of a country full of hostile locals.

Please show me how the situation in France was anything like Poland in 1989. Poland occurred at a time when nationalist uprisings were going on all over Eastern Europe. France on the other hand was a surrounded by NATO members which could have easily pushed for regime change. Also, Poland was trying to get independence whilst France was not only leaving NATO but developing nukes as well.

Yeah, what Poland did was milder, and the costs of forcing the PRL to do what the USSR wanted would be too high. When that cost was lower, like with Hungary or Czechoslovakia or Afghanistan, intervention happened.

The costs of forcing France back into NATO and denying them nukes were too high, yet when it was lower, like in Vietnam or Iran, intervention happened.

First of all, what was going on in Poland was nothing compared to what was going on in Hungary, Czechoslovakia or Afghanistan. You are comparing limited trading with the West to populist uprisings that threatened the Soviet friendly regimes (with the exception of Czechoslovakia). Please show evidence for the USSR not intervening in Afghanistan because the cost was too high, as opposed to the USSR simply not caring.

Also, the only reason the USA got involved in Iran was due to heavy British pressure.

Oh, they have plenty of capability because of their massive land borders with many other states, including capitalists like South Korea (well, they don't have a direct border, but it's not like it's much further away). So far, the track record is similar to other large world powers.

He was saying that China does not have the power projection abilities to have a global influence the same way the USA does. Then again, I suppose China could invade nuclear armed Russia. Or India, which is almost the same size and has nukes. Or Afghanistan or South Korea, both of which house US military bases. Or maybe Taiwan, even though China lacks the transportation abilities. Maybe China could have another go at Vietnam.

[K. A. Pital]

No, because not all administrations are equal.

In international law, you can't just do that. Nations have equal rights, or they have none. You can't cherry-pick in a might-makes-right fashion or "I think this nation is more benevolent". Who the fuck cares? I think Scandinavia is super-benevolent and I vote them replacing the US as world superpower now. Here, I just made a choice which denies the US the "right" to place anything, anywhere, at any time.

Your position is that of a hypocrite, Ryan.

As for Kane's position, I don't see any logic here - instead of actually trying to defend the statement that what is wrong for one nation, is RIGHT for the other, he went on to say that the USSR's behaviour as a large power was prone to foreign pressure far more strong than that of the US. Sorry, but how does this justify the US? How does this justify anything? Have I said that the US should be replaced by USSR as the superpower?

The USSR meddled in the affairs of it's satellite states stronger than the US did. So what?

Like I said, there should not be a dilemma. It's not "one superpower or the other". If it's wrong for one nation, it's also wrong for the other nation. Period. I don't even see a common ground for debate here.

[Pelranius]

Considered by whom? Tibet was de facto independent from 1912 and were never under control of the new communist government. The same goes for Taiwan, a country de facto independent for 50 years and PRC keeps piling on the missiles while at the same time expressing their wish for "talks". Did US threaten military action during Puerto Rican status referendums on 1967, 1993 and 1998 the way China does? That's the difference between a free democratic society and Chinese authoritarianism.

De Facto independence doesn't mean anything on the international stage unless other people recognize it, you know. And Tibet has been under control of "the new communist government" for nearly sixty years already.

[K. A. Pital]

South Ossetia and Abkhazia had been de-facto independent from Georgia since the end of civil war 1993.

Since they are recognized (now), only by a few nations including Russia, their de-facto independence means jack and shit. As does Tibet's, for the same reason that international law doesn't give a crap about "de-facto" something.

Did US threaten military action during Puerto Rican status referendums on 1967, 1993 and 1998 the way China does?

1) The US has not fought a civil war with Puerto Rico.
2) Puerto Rico is not a powerful industrialized nation next door.
3) The US did not exist in a state of mutual unrecognition with Puerto Rico for 60 years.

If Puerto Rico was a seat of government in exile which was overthrown during a Civil War, I think the US would have maintained a trade embargo and sabre-rattled in the direction of Puerto Rico every time it can.

[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.

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?

You know, my reply would be exactly the same text you quoted, because your same argument has already been dealt with.

Nope. My ethical system is much more nuanced than you give me credit for.

Methinks you doth protest too much.

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.)

Ah, so the problems of the Nazi's, Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy weren't actually dealt with it rightly.

But I will bite, although I most probably will lose several brain cells in reading your reply.
1. Who will run this global hegemony?
2. How does helping the US aid in the creation of this hegemony?
3. Who gets a say in this allocation of resources?

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*

I find this interesting considering you stated in previous threads that poor Chinese should not be allowed to industrialised (hence will not improve their standard of living) because they will compete with you for resources. Ignoring the morality of this for a minute because it was debated to death in those threads, why isn't this position contradictory to the statement you just made that the CCP is NOT working in the Chinese people's interests. Would you like me to join the dots with neon signs for you?

1. Chinese citizens improve standard of living as they become more industrialised.
2. CCP doesn't act in its citizens interest.
3. Unless you think the industry just fell out of the sky (in which case I can't help you) in which case why are you worried about them industrialising since according to you the CCP isn't helping their interests.

Don't worry, when you head explodes I am sure there isn't much between the bones of the skull so it wouldn't inconvenience you too much.

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

There you go. The CCP just showed you can improve someones life by throwing money at the problem with some type of plan. Who would have thought that?

[mr friendly guy]

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.

We can't know when they do shit like paying parents not to protest over the 7000 shitty schools that collapsed during the quake and jailing human rights activists.

In other words you have suspicion but not proof.

Are you saying that beating up a single man deserves the same punishment as killing someone and starting massive riots?

Where did this strawman come from. Oh I know, the same area the my opponents say "Iraq was just minding its own business" came from.

The point is not so much whether Rodney King's assailants got off lightly or Chinese murderer isn't guilty (given there is actually video recordings of the beatings shouting out show trial is kind of weak), its that if you play the lack of news card = bad news not getting out of China, it also means good news may not get the same recognition as well.

This was a response to people claiming that Iraq invasion came out of the blue. I demonstrated that it didn't; that there was a history of Iraq stirring trouble in the region and that this was more of a continuation of a 1990 Gulf War. The point is invasion of Iraq doesn't mean US is in the business of invading random countries at whim.

Again the response was to people claiming that US invades sovereign countries "at whim". There was a history there and the invasion did not come out of the blue.

In other words you don't even try to justify the US reason for going into Iraq. As long as its better than no reason its ok. So why do you not apply this standard to China? Lets channel you for a minute.

Tibet's ruling class were not Nice People, they horded wealth while their people were nothing more than indentured serfs, took young Tibetan boys from their families into temples to be bonded for life and used torture including eye gouging and amputation on runaway serfs. It's not like China just up and decided to invade Tibet one day, no Chinese government signed away Chinese sovereignty over it despite pressure from the British Empire. The CCP aren't exactly democratic rulers but it wasn't exactly aristocracy under another name and retaining control of Tibet doesn't somehow mean Paraguay could be next or something.

I never agreed that China and US are the same.

I never said you did. Read my post again. You agreed that an internal policy doesn't reflect its external one. Where are these strawmen coming from?

Considered by whom?

The US. Europe. Africa. Australia. TAIWAN. Heck even the Dalai Lama these days acknowledges their sovereignty, at least publicly even as Beijing accuses him of being a splitist in secret. Yes thats right, the Dalai Lama wants to settle for autonomy over "Greater Tibet" and at least publicly isn't crying out for independence.

Now find me a nation, any nation even a shithole one which disputes this.

Tibet was de facto independent from 1912 and were never under control of the new communist government.

Iraq was even better at the time of the invasion. It had de jure independence. I don't see you criticising the US for that.
And the CCP was formed in 1920 and only came to power in 1949, so its pretty silly to claim they never had control at a time they weren't even form or the ruling power of China. Regardless its been under their control for more than half a century and in (and out) of the control of various Chinese dynasties of which the PRC is the likely successor state (unless you consider the ROC).

That's the difference between a free democratic society and Chinese authoritarianism.

The US behaves relatively well at home, yet can come up with the Gitmo and other crap. The USSR behaved poorly at home, yet also came up with crap. Scandinavian nations behave well at home and well internationally. Behaviour at home isn't a predictor of how they behave internationally despite your numerous attempts to crystal ball you way to the conclusion you want.

[Thanas]

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.

Germany would beg to differ. Google the Schwedentrunk.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

You could always trust Kane Starkiller to come on the side of the US in any debate on geopolitics, interestingly enough.

[PeZook]

By 1989 nationalist uprisings where everywhere. It's not like Poland was a special case here. Also, Gorby's reforms, mainly abandoning the Brezhnev doctrine of never letting a Communist state revert to pre-revolutionary status, played a significant role in the Soviet Union letting Eastern Europe go.

They did let it go, though, which means that despite being autocratic, they could still do that if pressured by geopolitics. The original argument was that you can predict how a country will act on the international arena if you look at what they do at home: 1989 USSR was far from a democracy and still quite powerful militarily, yet they let Eastern Europe split with them. They also stomped their boots hard on countries that tried to do that earlier, as long as they thought they could get away with it/not cause too much trouble.

The US treated (some) of its citizens well, yet they still caused shit all around the globe. They stomped some countries flat if they tried to run away from their ideology, but not others when geopolitics made it undesirable.

That's the gist of it. Despite having radically different internal policies, both the US and USSR acted very similarly on the international arena, and neither did things out of the goodness/badness of their heart.

Please show me how the situation in France was anything like Poland in 1989. Poland occurred at a time when nationalist uprisings were going on all over Eastern Europe. France on the other hand was a surrounded by NATO members which could have easily pushed for regime change. Also, Poland was trying to get independence whilst France was not only leaving NATO but developing nukes as well.

]

The situations are obviously not identical, but that's not the point. I used them to illustrate that both states - the US and the USSR - historically chose to let certain important countries go and do their own thing when it was unfeasible or not desireable to do anything about it, while choosing to stomp others flat when the situation was completely opposite.

First of all, what was going on in Poland was nothing compared to what was going on in Hungary, Czechoslovakia or Afghanistan. You are comparing limited trading with the West to populist uprisings that threatened the Soviet friendly regimes (with the exception of Czechoslovakia).

By 1989 the situation in Poland was every bit as bad as 1956 Hungary or 1968 Czechoslovakia, with the government entering talks with the opposition in order to end a wave of popular strikes, and agreeing to democratic reforms, free elections and liberalization of the economy. Yet, for various geopolitical reasons, the USSR did not intervene despite still being an autocracy.

Please show evidence for the USSR not intervening in Afghanistan because the cost was too high, as opposed to the USSR simply not caring.

Could you clarify? The Soviets intervened in Afghanistan because their puppet regime was threatened by civil war. The forces comitted were decently large, so obviously they felt they could pull this off and fully comitted to the intervention.

They pulled out when rising casualties and financial costs became unbearable, despite the fact they still had immense reserves of manpower and equipment they could've potentially comitted (at the cost of weakening their main military districts in Europe and added financial strain, which was obviously unacceptable)

Also, the only reason the USA got involved in Iran was due to heavy British pressure.

So? They bowed to this pressure and propped up a monarch via sly and underhanded means, despite being a paragon of freedom domestically. Obviously, a democratic country is perfectly able to accept such measures.

He was saying that China does not have the power projection abilities to have a global influence the same way the USA does. Then again, I suppose China could invade nuclear armed Russia. Or India, which is almost the same size and has nukes. Or Afghanistan or South Korea, both of which house US military bases. Or maybe Taiwan, even though China lacks the transportation abilities. Maybe China could have another go at Vietnam.

Invasion isn't the only way they can meddle and mess up neighbors. They have immense economic power, they have land borders with many countries (allowing them to transfer men, materiel and other support to groups of their chosing), prop up North Korea, sponsor terror groups, etc.

That is, they could've done all that if they were an Evil Empire and the theory about countries that are nasty domestically being nasty in the international arena held. Why aren't they arming their pet African factions in exchange for raw minerals, choosing to invest in infrastructure instead? Could it be they consider their options and weigh them carefully just as much as any other country?

[Shroom Man 777]

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.

So Chinese geopolitical behavior abroad is similar or the same as the USA, and both their morally abhorrent behaviors abroad are not "right"?

Good.

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?

The FREE WORLD? Your government funded a decades-long dictatorship in my fucking country. You have no fucking right to claim that your country, or that "you" are part of the free-fucking-world. Not when you're paying petro-dollars to fucking Saudi Arabians, not when you're paying South American deathsquads, not when when you've done all of these morally abhorrent things and yet claim, hypocritically, that you are "the free world" and that your shit doesn't stink. Just because you can live comfortably in your first world living standards doesn't mean your country or government has washed its hands from all that fucking blood.

At least the Chinese don't claim they're representing freedom and democracy, so they don't look like a bunch of fucking hypocrites to the rest of the world.

"Not all administrations are equal" my ass. So, does that mean your government is "right" to engage in all the deplorable shit it does in the name of the "free world"? Because you're saying that all those morally reprehensible actions are "right", that all those dictatorships and murderers and killers and torturers you've supported and continue to support are "right"?

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.)

Your global hegemony, your American global hegemony, is the result of people getting killed and maimed in all sorts of shitholes and all sorts of shit being done by people who are funded and supported by your government. But so long as you have your iPods, shitty fastfood and cheap shit you're content.

Oh, it doesn't matter if your shit is just as bad as the Chinese's shit, because you have the "right" while other people don't have that right.

What do I know, right? I'm just some fucking brown person from some third world shithole, and it doesn't matter if your government supports regimes in my country, or in other people's countries. Just so you can have your "global hegemony" because "global entropy" and all the other fucking bullshit buzzwords from that full of shit paragraph you just wrote.

Your actions are no different than the Chinese. For those people living in the countries your government has exploited, your hypocritical bullshit has no fucking value except for fucking fertilizer.

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

http://keetsa.com/blog/wp-content/uploa ... /smog2.jpg

So it's okay for America to have developed to its present level by polluting industrialization, but it's wrong for China?

Tell me, Ryan. Is there anything America does that's actually WRONG, that is just as WRONG as when other countries doing it?

Or is it RIGHT when it just advances your own country, even when it is at the expense of others.

None of that shit excuses the morally reprehensible actions your country has done. You can pretend that your country's shit doesn't stink, that it hasn't done horrible things like support regimes in other people's countries (like mine). Go on, keep on pretending. Go on and talk about how your country is "right" and how it's all for the "free" fucking "world" and for the good of your miserable shitcocked "global hegemony" and prattle on some bullshit about "global entropy" if that makes you feel better. Shit eater.

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.

The American government had no problem when Iraq was using chemical weapons on Iranians. Because those were just brown people killing each other.

Most crucially, the US and UK blocked condemnation of Iraq's known chemical weapons attacks at the UN Security Council. No resolution was passed during the war that specifically criticised Iraq's use of chemical weapons, despite the wishes of the majority to condemn this use. The only criticism of Iraq from the Security Council came in the form of non-binding Presidential statements (over which no country has a veto). The 21 March 1986 statement recognised that "chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian forces"; this statement was opposed by the United States, the sole country to vote against it in the Security Council (the UK abstained).
- source, US support for Iraq, Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988

I guess it's also "right" for the US to do this too?

Go eat shit.

[Lusankya]

Looking at the thread, I notice that everyone who actually lives in Asia is defending China's right to missile defence, and even while the people in Asia disagree on whether or not China has a history of expansionism, the predominant view is that China isn't a threat to the other countries in the region, with the obvious exception of Taiwan which is, according to the Chinese view, an internal matter.

In fact, it seems to be only America-wankers who think that China having missile defence is somehow a threat to the world order, which makes me think that it's not really a threat to the world order, but rather a threat to America. How come America is the only country that's so weak that Chinese missile defence can put such a significant hole in its national security that it's worth bitching about unscrupulous commie bastards for five pages?

[Shroom Man 777]

America is world order, Lusy-chan.

Or, at least that's how these Americanocentrics see it. They really can't fathom their country being in the wrong, or being just as wrong as anyone else's, and they seem to think they're special or exempt from the judgment they apply to others... and they can't even face up to the fact that their nation did bad things to other people's nations. Like my nation, the Philippines.

How come America is the only country that's so weak that Chinese missile defence can put such a significant hole in its national security that it's worth bitching about unscrupulous commie bastards for five pages?

It must be pretty piss-weak, Lusy-chan. Morally piss-weak. Like, completely bankrupt after the moral bubble burst. Weak like American beer. Or American piss.

[MKSheppard]

America is world order, Lusy-chan.

Or, at least that's how these Americanocentrics see it.

Good to see you coming over to my point of view. In fact, you should check out my signature.

"If this is what our enemies do -- if this is what America must fight -- Then we are always right! And anything we do is right!" -- The Unknown Soldier

Of course, he was saying that as he was machine gunning SS Death Camp Guards at Auschwitz....

[Shroom Man 777]

Good to see you coming over to my point of view. In fact, you should check out my signature.

"If this is what our enemies do -- if this is what America must fight -- Then we are always right! And anything we do is right!" -- The Unknown Soldier

Of course, he was saying that as he was machine gunning SS Death Camp Guards at Auschwitz....

I like you, Shep. Because you don't have any pretensions of "right" or "wrong" when it comes down to mass killing. You don't hide the moral deplorabilities of making the Middle East glow in the dark, or making new pistols so that the American colonials can kill Filipinos easier. With you, it's not about the betterment of humanity or some global hegemonic entropoid or some shit. With you, it's just about killing people.

You are a good and honest man, Shep.

[MKSheppard]

With you, it's not about the betterment of humanity or some global hegemonic entropoid or some shit. With you, it's just about killing people.

Hey now!

The best way to better humanity is to invent new ways of killing your fellow man!

Imagine if someone invented a particle disruptor that blew people apart like overripe pumpkins! Think of the non military applications! Blow that cancer cell apart like a ripe tomato!

What? I'm being too humanitarian? Okay fine.

In this case, we make the assumption far more likely to be correct, that the Alert Force gets off. About 50 per cent of the SAC bombers are on ground alert. They can begin take-off within five minutes of an alarm, and at each base, bombers can take-off at twenty second intervals until about 735 Alert Bombers are launched.

The military consequences in this case are fairly clear cut. The Soviet Union loses the military exchange. The surviving Alert Force would be able to destroy 185 million Russians. The initial Soviet attack on SAC might produce as few as 3 million mortalities in the U. S. If the Soviets were trying to minimize civil damage. But a successful Soviet follow-up attack against the U. S. population could kill 95-115 million Americans. However, in this case, the U. S. would have a much better chance of preventing the launch of follow-up attacks.

Happy now Shroomypoo?