Successful Chinese Ballistic Missile Test

[Shroom Man 777]

They may call you a ruthless genocidal war monger, Shep, but at least you're honest. You're not a hypocrite.

[stormthebeaches]

This is a response to Pezook. Firstly, you tried to argue that the Soviet Union was lenient to Poland throughout its rule. You claimed the following:

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?

This is completely absurd because unlike Hungary or Afghanistan the Soviet friendly Polish government was never in danger of being toppled by a popular uprising throughout most of the cold war. It was only in 1989 where external geopolitics (nationalist uprisings all over Eastern Europe) combined with internal reforms lead to Poland being let go.

You then tried to draw a parallel between 1989 Poland and France leaving NATO and developing its own nukes. I argue that this comparison is flawed because unlike 1989 Eastern Europe, there were not mass uprisings in Western Europe that would make it impossible to hold on to France. Since France was surrounded by other NATO members it would not have been too hard to organize some kind of joint covert operation for either regime change or a strange "accident" happening to their nuclear weapons development.

Look, I am aware that the US has done some morally wrong things around the globe, I just resent the Poland/France comparison because the two are quite different. Okay?

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.

Oh, I don't deny that was wrong for the USA to do that. I just resent the idea that the US was solely responsible for what happened in Iran.

[LaCroix]

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

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

An 'murrican factory can do this, too.

And look, the same happens in LA - a city, not a remote industry where not many people live.

And what about the Androscoggin in the 60' or Illinois river pollution? Or is Mountaintop removal mining (MTR) in anybody's interest? Try Google for the results in the Appalachians. Or ask Broomstick.

Developing industry was and is a messy business.

[Shroom Man 777]

But LaCroix, that doesn't make it right, however, and of course the Americans 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 PLA, not so much.

EDIT:



Obligatory smiley.

[stormthebeaches]

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?

He was arguing against the point that because the US invaded Iraq they will invade every else and all other nations should fear this. His point is that Iraq under Saddam had a history of aggression. Pointing out the fact that the US had no problems with Iraq using chemical weapons in the Iraq/Iran war does not change this.

Look, I'm no Bush fan and I most certainly do not support the Iraq war but I agree with Kane when he says that the whole "America invaded Iraq, we could be next!" mentality being expressed on this board is silly.

[Shroom Man 777]

Everyone knows that America's not going to fucking invade "anyone else". The whole point of that argument is that America's behavior abroad, be it invading other people or propping regimes in people's countries or sending Rumsfool to shake hands with Saddam while he was gassing brown-skinned towel-headed Iranians, is that America's actions are NOT being viewed positively by the rest of the world, and that these actions that America has every "right" to are actually very fucking wrong because it has hurt and killed a lot of fucking people. It's wrong when America does it, it's wrong when China does it, it's just plain outright wrong no matter what kind of bullshit is spouted about "global hegemonic entropification" or whatever kind of fucked up rationalization the Ryans use to justify their "rights". American inability to wake up to this, to admit this, is fucking hypocritical and is the sole contention of this thread - with everyone, even those actually living in Asia near China or in China or in countries that have been victimized by American international immorality, pointing this out.

[Lusankya]

Look, I'm no Bush fan and I most certainly do not support the Iraq war but I agree with Kane when he says that the whole "America invaded Iraq, we could be next!" mentality being expressed on this board is silly.

Yes, it is quite silly*, but it is a whole lot less silly than the "OMG, if China becomes more powerful than it will destroy world order" mentality that is also being expressed on this board. Anyone claiming that China is a threat to their country is showing their prejudice, because America has proven itself to be much more of a threat to other countries than China has. Except for Taiwan.


*Though the "America might attempt to prop up dictators if they don't like our election results" mentality is quite well grounded, especially if one lives in South America. EDIT: Or the Philippines.

[Shroom Man 777]

I can't believe them. They're so willing to gloss over the things America has done in the past and present that have HURT PEOPLE, justifying it by saying that China runs people over with tanks or shit. As if that makes it right. Do I give a shit about Chinese student-roadkill in China when an American-backed regime in my country ended up with shitloads of people imprisoned or killed, with the dictator stealing billions of dollars and his wife buying thousands of shoes, and my whole country in shit? Can they honestly tell me that America has the "right" to do this, any of this?

Can they honestly believe that people will look up to them and see them as the "good guys"?

They're just as bad and as ugly as anyone else. Uglier, because they try to hide it with pretty words like "freedom" and "democracy" or "global hegemonic entropificationoiditrons". Not only are they as bad and ugly as anyone else, they're bad and ugly hypocrites with delusions of grandeur to boot!

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

*Though the "America might attempt to prop up dictators if they don't like our election results" mentality is quite well grounded, especially if one lives in South America. EDIT: Or the Philippines.

Well, they certainly are supporting the Afghan government, even though fraud was so wide spread that the election results might as well be tossed into the dustbin. Never mind dictators! Even illegally elected governments! So long as they support the US! (or are the only US supporters alive.)

[Shroom Man 777]

So long as Americans in America can have their cheezeburgers, iPhones, Micheal Bay movies, and aren't run over by tanks, it's all justified and "right" Fingolfin.

Pretty words like "freedom" and "democracy" and "global entropic hegemonopokemons" make it sound better and nicer, even though such hypocrisy is sickening.

[Lusankya]

You are forgetting, Shroomy: people imprisoned by dictators and run over by American tanks in Iraq or whatever don't count, because they don't have the vote. I mean, if they really wanted the vote, then they'd just throw all their tea overboard and then fight far-off Britain the people who are oppressing them and control the army and live in the same country and have no economic incentive to leave and prevail, because that's what true FREEDOM-lovers do.

[Shroom Man 777]

You mean it doesn't matter if people suffer from American actions if those suffering people aren't Americans, because the REAL Americans are all comfortable in their own homes growing into morbidly obese slugmens? Wow. I am shockeds.

So if China ran Iraqis over with tanks instead, it would be better than running Chinese people over with tanks? Or will it be no different, since none of them are Americans anyway?

[Lusankya]

I think it might depend.

In this hypothetical situation, is America paying China to run over Iraqis? Or are they running over Iraqis for their own purposes?

EDIT: I just had an amusing image of the American president going on tv saying that they'd outsourced all of their human rights abuses, so that they were now morally clean. Just like paying China to make factories for Happy Meal toys means that the Americans who eat at McDonalds aren't adding to pollution.

[Shroom Man 777]

I think it might depend.

In this hypothetical situation, is America paying China to run over Iraqis? Or are they running over Iraqis for their own purposes?

If it is the former, then they are glorious freedom-loving brothers in the war against terrer! If it is the latter, then the Americans will fund the Iraqis with missiles to blow the Yellow Perils away, and afterwards ditch the Iraqis and not give a single cent to them as they end up degenerating into squalor and tribalism and Iraqitalibanism. Then after a cat named Al-Quaeda bit America, shit goes down and Operation Middle Eastern Freedom gets on hardcore!

I just had an amusing image of the American president going on tv saying that they'd outsourced all of their human rights abuses, so that they were now morally clean. Just like paying China to make factories for Happy Meal toys means that the Americans who eat at McDonalds aren't adding to pollution.

That IS what they do! I mean, Ryan's rationalization is that America doesn't run its own citizens with tanks, so it's A-OKAY! Even when they're off fucking over people in the Philippines or in Uzbekistan or in Lithuania or something! It's not as if those sumbitches in Gitmo are American-citizens! If they replaced waterboarding with tankboarding, it'd still be A-OKAY! Yep!

[Ryan Thunder]

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?

1. Everybody, obviously. The difference, before you ask (because people suddenly become complete pedants any time I bring this up, because of course, the only sort of person who could ever want a global hegemony to exist must be some kind of racist or fascist or something, right? He can't possibly just want everybody to be well fed, housed, and educated with clean air, no, there must be some ulterior motive!) is that they have to choose a coordinating source of authority. With that in place, it will become much easier to avoid things like massive duplication of effort, and once something's been decided, its decided and enforced for the entire planet, which makes things like reducing emissions to adapt to climate change far easier.
2a. Because they're already the most powerful country in the world and a member of the most powerful alliance in the world, so they're a good starting point.
2b. If they treat their citizens well, then it follows that if everybody were a citizen then everybody would be treated well. Oops. I guess that means starting with China isn't such a good idea given their internal shenanigans. Unless its some kind of shining beacon of freedom and human rights over there and I just missed it under all the smog.
3. See 1.

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.

You're a fucking liar. I said they should not be allowed to industrialize because before they could afford to implement clean technology they'd destroy us all with the sheer volume of pollution they'd produce. The climate is fragile enough as it is with the West being the bloody idiots we are. The last thing we want is 1.3 billion more people producing even more pollution than they would already.

And hey, whaddayer know;

They're producing so much of it that you can't even see the ground from orbit any more, last I heard.

[Ace Pace]

I said they should not be allowed to industrialize because before they could afford to implement clean technology they'd destroy us all with the sheer volume of pollution they'd produce.

Uh...This makes me totally WTF. How do you intend for them to afford clean technology? Do you think the 1st world will magically donate the money?

What do you think clean industry is? Intel? Electronic fabrication is horribly pollution intensive. Your car? As well. At some point, chemicals have to be used. Dirty chemicals. You want cheap production, not toys that cost $100. So you buy from China, which does these things. With 1st world approval.

[Lusankya]

I know what China could do! The CCP could encourage people to start growing opium and then smuggle the opium into places like Britain and the US and then use the proceeds from that to fund their global empire development.

I mean, sure it might completely fuck over society in the places that are being swamped with cheap opium, but if I'm understanding Ryan's logic correctly, that's okay, so long as the proceeds go into improving the quality of life for the Chinese while using clean technology.

[Ryan Thunder]

I know what China could do! The CCP could encourage people to start growing opium and then smuggle the opium into places like Britain and the US and then use the proceeds from that to fund their global empire development.

I mean, sure it might completely fuck over society in the places that are being swamped with cheap opium, but if I'm understanding Ryan's logic correctly, that's okay, so long as the proceeds go into improving the quality of life for the Chinese while using clean technology.

Maybe if you're being intentionally dense. But that doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

[Shroom Man 777]

1. Everybody, obviously. The difference, before you ask (because people suddenly become complete pedants any time I bring this up, because of course, the only sort of person who could ever want a global hegemony to exist must be some kind of racist or fascist or something, right? He can't possibly just want everybody to be well fed, housed, and educated with clean air, no, there must be some ulterior motive!) is that they have to choose a coordinating source of authority. With that in place, it will become much easier to avoid things like massive duplication of effort, and once something's been decided, its decided and enforced for the entire planet, which makes things like reducing emissions to adapt to climate change far easier.

What if they don't choose you? What if other people don't WANT to be under YOUR hegemony? Will you impose yourself on them? Will you complain about their attempts at industrializing themselves? Will you say that their desire to defend themselves with ABMs is not "right"?

2a. Because they're already the most powerful country in the world and a member of the most powerful alliance in the world, so they're a good starting point.

You won't mind at all if the world changes over the course of decades and we end up with China or a stronger Europe, or Russia or Brazil or India, as growing up to becoming near-equals or nonetheless great and influential powers that have to be treated as equals with respect, and who won't necessarily kowtow to the will of America/*designated leader*?

Or is it just a case of might makes right, and because you are already the most powerful country in the world and in the most powerful alliance in the world, then this role of *designated leader* has been already decided and that anyone who disagrees can go fuck themselves?

2b. If they treat their citizens well, then it follows that if everybody were a citizen then everybody would be treated well. Oops. I guess that means starting with China isn't such a good idea given their internal shenanigans. Unless its some kind of shining beacon of freedom and human rights over there and I just missed it under all the smog.

You have evaded all my previous posts, where I have brought up numerous instances where America has mistreated the people of other countries. Or maybe you can't answer that point at all, huh?

Okay, you treat your own citizens good. That's nice. But you don't treat other people's citizens good. That's not nice. That's bad.

Or maybe you are unable to see how your country has hurt the people of other countries, because you're too busy fixating over Chinese industrialization.

You're a fucking liar. I said they should not be allowed to industrialize because before they could afford to implement clean technology they'd destroy us all with the sheer volume of pollution they'd produce. The climate is fragile enough as it is with the West being the bloody idiots we are.

You are bloody idiots. So why would we trust you and your hegemony? You have repeatedly mistreated the people of other countries and continue to do so. What gives you any right at all?

The last thing we want is 1.3 billion more people producing even more pollution than they would already.

Then treat these 1.3 billion people well. Have your country reduce its emissions to make space and accomodate these 1.3 billion people. Such a selfless and generous act would prove your worthiness to be the leader of the global hegemony. It would serve as a better example than a deceitful war of aggression and invasion, a better example than the multiple instances where your nation has funded dictatorships and regimes in Asia, Latin America and elsewhere.

[Shroom Man 777]

Ryan's only justifications for America/the West's manifest destiny of leading the rest of the world and shit is the fact that America "treats its own citizens well" and is powerful. He does not, at all, even attempt to answer the fact that America has historically mistreated the citizens of other countries, and continues to do so now.

His point hinges on the fact that America has power. His point of "treating its own citizens well" deliberately ignores the suffering in weaker nations that has been caused by America and the "West".

In light of this, I can't see how Ryan's position serves anyone's interest but his own. He doesn't even address the point of past, present and ongoing American abuses, Western abuses. How is this going to convince anyone of the West's "right" to lead the global hegemony?

The only argument he has is that America is powerful. That's no better than the argument of Chocolate Kiwii, regarding how America should lead because all the mud people from the Turd world shitnations can't do anything about it and should shut up and listen. It's so full of shit that I could probably post a Google Earth map showing how the shit has similarly obscured America and the West from orbit.

EDIT:

Any *designated leader* for a global hegemony must show that it can lead benevolently. Yes, America today treats its own citizens well. But America today also continues to mistreat the citizens of other nations.

How does this qualify America at all as a "benevolent" leader of anything? It doesn't.

HEY RYAN: What if we put "HOW WELL DOES YOUR NATION TREAT THE PEOPLE OF OTHER NATIONS?" as a category for determining who gets to be king of the world, huh? Do you think America's going to come out on top of this?

Oops. I guess that means starting with America isn't such a good idea given their international shenanigans. Unless its some kind of shining beacon of freedom and human rights over there and I just missed it under all the Iraqi WMDs and all the water that's being boarded in Gitmo.

[Lusankya]

Maybe if you're being intentionally dense. But that doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

Well, yeah. I'm not dense enough to actually think that anything would make you happy other than China continuing to be a shithole peasant economy with starving people. You are an idiot, but I don't think you're a big enough idiot to think that China has any way of making enough money to afford clean industries without first industrialising. I just think you're a big enough arsehole that you don't care whether or not they starve or freeze to death in winter.

2b. If they treat their citizens well, then it follows that if everybody were a citizen then everybody would be treated well. Oops. I guess that means starting with China isn't such a good idea given their internal shenanigans. Unless its some kind of shining beacon of freedom and human rights over there and I just missed it under all the smog.

Actually, I do want to address this point. In many ways, China treats its citizens better than the US does. It subsidies essential items like food and petrol, so that it's difficult to starve. It is making a proper attempt to give its citizens universal access to affordable healthcare, which is only being hampered by economic restraints (China is poor) rather than political ones. It has less than a quarter of the incarceration rate, and in most cases aims to reform criminals rather than punish them indefinitely. Sure, China has its downsides, but if everyone was treated the way China treated its people, then the world would be better off than it would be if everyone was treated the way America treats non-American people.

And why should people who are currently outside of the US - especially in those places where the US has interfered - think that it would follow that the US will treat them well if they become citizens? Especially when said country worships wealth and has a better than even chance of leaving the people in the poor areas to rot because they should practice "American self-reliance" or some other crap like that.

[ray245]

And hey, whaddayer know;

They're producing so much of it that you can't even see the ground from orbit any more, last I heard.

Fuck you Ryan. Let's ignore the fact that the majority of the good produced by China is going to end up in the US and various other western/developed states...

Seriously, did you forge the reason why you were given a "village idiot" title to begin with? It's due to you trying to be a huge hypocrite!

[Shroom Man 777]

He wants America to lead the world and he wants the world to follow what the "global hegemony" says. But.... China must first magically develop clean technology, before it can industrialize and develop the infrastructure to support its own people.

America should be the leader of the world because it treats its own citizens well. Non-Americans should like America and obey America because of how well America treats its own citizens and not because how how unwell America treats the citizens of other nations.

See? Ryan doesn't care about how America treats other people. Ryan cares about how America treats its OWN people, and that people should follow AMERICA'S global hegemony. It's a Western-centric view.

He just doesn't give a fuck about anyone else but his Americans and Westerners. They must be the ones who should lead. Nobody else's opinions count. All that matters is how America or the West treats its own people. How it treats other people, who aren't Americans, who are different DOESN'T MATTER!

Why? Because other people, who aren't Americans, who are different DON'T MATTER!

It's a wonderful look into his mindset. It's no different from someone like Chocolate Kwii, actually.

Fuck you Ryan. Let's ignore the fact that the majority of the good produced by China is going to end up in the US and various other western/developed states...

Seriously, did you forge the reason why you were given a "village idiot" title to begin with? It's due to you trying to be a huge hypocrite!

OH BUT REY! America treats its own people well, so well that they can buy all the CHEAP CHINESE SHIT they want! That means America is DESTINED TO LEAD THE WORLD!

It doesn't matter if China can't industrialize and can't develop the infrastructure to support its population. THEY MUST DEVELOP CLEAN ENERGY FIRST! SOMEHOW! SOMEWAY!

Whereas the well-treated people of America can buy MOAR CHINESE SHITZ!

Wang chang ching chong! *holds eyelids and makes them look slitted*


EDIT:

Man. As if Ryan's point of "America must lead the world" or shit hasn't been refuted by how he's pissed off almost every other non-American in this thread.

Way to go winning the hearts and minds, buddy.

[Ryan Thunder]

He wants America to lead the world and he wants the world to follow what the "global hegemony" says. But.... China must first magically develop clean technology, before it can industrialize and develop the infrastructure to support its own people.

America should be the leader of the world because it treats its own citizens well. Non-Americans should like America and obey America because of how well America treats its own citizens and not because how how unwell America treats the citizens of other nations.

And as I expected, you start asking lots of questions, and then interpret the individual answers in I give in the worst possible way you can in a desperate attempt to villify me. Well, fuck you too.

While we're at it, obviously, you would rather not benefit from the combined resources of the entire goddamn world trying to improve your country because you're just that much of an asshole.

[Simon_Jester]

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?

1. Everybody, obviously. The difference, before you ask (because people suddenly become complete pedants any time I bring this up, because of course, the only sort of person who could ever want a global hegemony to exist must be some kind of racist or fascist or something, right? He can't possibly just want everybody to be well fed, housed, and educated with clean air, no, there must be some ulterior motive!) is that they have to choose a coordinating source of authority. With that in place, it will become much easier to avoid things like massive duplication of effort, and once something's been decided, its decided and enforced for the entire planet, which makes things like reducing emissions to adapt to climate change far easier.

In this case, trying to build the whole thing up around an essentially American core is a really stupid idea. America already has loyalties, obligations, a bad history with much of the planet, a tradition of botching certain kinds of foreign affairs, that sort of thing.

Thus, any attempt to set up an honest global hegemon world government starting with the US is going to run into a hellish maze of conflicts of interest that stop anything from getting done. Witness climate change, on which the US refuses to lead, because we're still reluctant to make major sacrifices to fill that leadership role. Or the humanitarian crises the US has ignored in favor of garrisoning nations chosen at semi-random.

We're not qualified to run this thing, Ryan, because we have done too much shit to too many people. And we ought to have the balls to stand up and admit it. Because a half-assed world government run by someone who isn't qualified is going to be worse than none at all.

2a. Because they're already the most powerful country in the world and a member of the most powerful alliance in the world, so they're a good starting point.

See above.
_________

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.

A question:

Could you define "free world" for me, in positive terms rather than negative?

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

To be fair, if we could go back in time and insist that past-US clean up its act so we'd be left with fewer Superfund sites and less crap in the air today, I'd be all for it. Even if that meant having to live in a poorer country today, I like to think I'd still be for it. Unfortunately, this is not practical, so we can only put pollution controls on what we produce now.

Suggesting that China do the same, both for the health of its own citizens and for the health of the world at large, isn't hypocritical, as long as it isn't taken to the absurd Green Fundamentalist angle of "industrialism is bad, everyone should be a subsistence farmer!" which would be bullshit.

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?

And, you may notice, it's not even all the Americans who are doing this... it's embarassing to have to share a foreign policy with some of these people.

*Though the "America might attempt to prop up dictators if they don't like our election results" mentality is quite well grounded, especially if one lives in South America. EDIT: Or the Philippines.

From a sociological and political standpoint, I've heard it argued that the Philippines are actually a chunk of South (Latin) America that inexplicably got ripped off and dropped in the West Pacific. They have a lot in common with the countries of Latin America, more than they do with most of their own immediate neighbors.

Sort of the way that Australia is like a chunk of Europe that inexplicably got dropped in the South Pacific.