China > All other nations.

[ShaiGar]

Yesterday Hu Jintao (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) opened a new wing on The Peoples University of Beijing. He was awarded an honorary Doctorate of Political Science.

He is now Dr Hu.

No other nation is ruled by a time lord.

[Jgib5328]

US> Japan > China

Actually, I don't like Japan that much. England, Germany, & France are probably better. I hate China though, I think with its current state of government, it's living in disgrace. It needs to go back to its old ideals.

[Vortex]

US> Japan > China

Actually, I don't like Japan that much. England, Germany, & France are probably better. I hate China though, I think with its current state of government, it's living in disgrace. It needs to go back to its old ideals.

Those ideals being hundreds, if not thousands, of years of war and despotic dictatorship through an emperor?

[Antares]

He is now Dr Hu.

Of course. He's Dr Who? Jokings aside, it makes me reconsider my potential enrollment at that university (it's not on my priority's list, but giving a doctorate degree to a politician for nothing and adding to propaganda? I'm not down with that.)

US> Japan > China

Actually, I don't like Japan that much. England, Germany, & France are probably better. I hate China though, I think with its current state of government, it's living in disgrace. It needs to go back to its old ideals.

I don't like US and Japan that much, either. Japan is the king of denial (Rape of Nanking, Korean Comfort Women, rewriting history etc) and US, as it seems, keeps interfering with everything. In eight years, how many wars have been declared by the US? Two. Taiwan's at odds with China? US to the rescue! How is that any of its business? Before you say I'm unfair in my judgment and that it was really the Bush administration, if China did the same you'd probably say what I've said.

[SeaCzar]

Japan is the king of denial (Rape of Nanking, Korean Comfort Women, rewriting history etc)


China indeed suffered terribly at the hands of the Japanese during the Second World War. There is a new book you may be interested in Antares, Retribution, by Max Hastings. It was just released in the United States on 18Mar08.

On a lighter note, I do love The Doctor (Doctor Who).

[Jgib5328]

I don't like US and Japan that much, either. Japan is the king of denial (Rape of Nanking, Korean Comfort Women, rewriting history etc)

You have to admit though, that China plays the Rape of Nanking card all of the time and China is wrong for blocking Japan's bid to become a permanent UN member, why shouldn't Japan be a part? I don't think Japan should have to apologize all of the time for things the members of their society did in the past, that most of them had no part of. Japan has apologized several times about it. What else do you want them to do? I think I've been influenced by Japanese Nationalist writings, please tell me your argument against this Antares, I'm really interest in it.

I'm actually writing a paper on the Rise of China & the Rise of Japanese Nationalism, so I'm very interested in this topic. I'd really like to hear your point of view on the matter Antares, since you are an actual person living in the situation.

[ShaiGar]

Therefore is not objective. Study the facts, not the opinions.

[Jgib5328]

Therefore is not objective. Study the facts, not the opinions.

And your response is to whom?

[ShaiGar]

You. Remember that the Chinese, being a highly censored nation are not going to have access to all the facts. I am constantly hearing this complaint from chinese people.

Also, my Dr Hu thing is a joke.

[Colette]

US> Japan > China

Actually, I don't like Japan that much. England, Germany, & France are probably better. I hate China though, I think with its current state of government, it's living in disgrace. It needs to go back to its old ideals.

Yes. The situation in Tibet (the latest crackdown on dissidents and followers of the Dalai Lama) is especially worrying, imo. I was very saddened to read about the suicide attempt of 2 monks (both of whom have ended up in a serious condition in hospital) I'm really not sure that I see a good outcome to the Tibetan unrest.

Then there's the rural farmers/land expropriation issue, in mainland China...

[eternaltriangle]

You have to admit though, that China plays the Rape of Nanking card all of the time and China is wrong for blocking Japan's bid to become a permanent UN member, why shouldn't Japan be a part?

1. Sailor moon
2. scantily clad nerds
3. Sushi (sushi isn't bad, but it is practically tasteless - I hypothesize that all North Americans that claim to like it just don't want to seem like philistines).
4. Yoko Ono destroyed the Beatles.
5. The Japanese defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese war weakened Russia, and the tsarist regime, therefore making Russia perform badly in the First World War, go Communist, have Stalin take power, and through de-kulakization kill over ten million people.

[Jgib5328]

1. Sailor moon
2. scantily clad nerds
3. Sushi (sushi isn't bad, but it is practically tasteless - I hypothesize that all North Americans that claim to like it just don't want to seem like philistines).
4. Yoko Ono destroyed the Beatles.
5. The Japanese defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese war weakened Russia, and the tsarist regime, therefore making Russia perform badly in the First World War, go Communist, have Stalin take power, and through de-kulakization kill over ten million people.

I'll always think of Japan as being bad ass for Samurai & WWII.

[eternaltriangle]

On the other hand, their former Prime Minister is pretty cool (this is him in Graceland):
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Jgib5328]

On the other hand, their former Prime Minister is pretty cool (this is him in Graceland):
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Koizumi was so awesome.

[ShaiGar]

Koizumi for Emperor

[Colette]

I'll always think of Japan as being bad ass for Samurai & WWII.

Not to mention Hari-Kari (sp??) and whaling..

[Antares]

You have to admit though, that China plays the Rape of Nanking card all of the time and China is wrong for blocking Japan's bid to become a permanent UN member, why shouldn't Japan be a part? I don't think Japan should have to apologize all of the time for things the members of their society did in the past, that most of them had no part of. Japan has apologized several times about it. What else do you want them to do? I think I've been influenced by Japanese Nationalist writings, please tell me your argument against this Antares, I'm really interest in it.


They've apologized? All they said (that I'm aware of) is: "WWII is certainly regrettable." They might call that an apology, but come on. I think this sentiment shared by everyone. America would say WWII is regrettable; China would say WWII is regrettable; so would Germany. Can't detect a hint of apology in it. It's like the celebs who say: "If I offended anyone, then I apologize." IF they offended anyone. They don't sound like they're willing to say: "I did this, my bad, sorry." Also, they distorted the figure. Their lowest estimate was 4000 or so, and their highest was about 40,000. We all know it's more than that. China might have exaggerated, but a foreign visitor claimed that he saw about 5 people in Nanking after the ordeal; it was very populated before.

I was told this by my history teacher (who's American, btw). Germany certainly did apologize, but what Japan said don't pass for an apology at all. What about 'comfort women'? They aren't even acknowledging it! Some of the most gruesome and cruel parts of WWII was conveniently omitted from the textbooks.

3. Sushi (sushi isn't bad, but it is practically tasteless - I hypothesize that all North Americans that claim to like it just don't want to seem like philistines).

Do you use wasabi and soy sauce? If not, do. Sushi is nothing without them. In fact, it's one of my favorite foods.

[eternaltriangle]

Why not just eat wasabi and soy sauce (I like horseradish type heat, and also like showing off how much wasabi I can eat on its own)?

[Antares]

Why not just eat wasabi and soy sauce (I like horseradish type heat, and also like showing off how much wasabi I can eat on its own)?

I can't stand wasabi alone. I need soy sauce to dilute it somewhat (my seasoning dish is very well-mixed. No solid wasabi visible). With sushi, it's just awesomeness. Soy sauce alone is too salty. My cousin once stuffed a spoonful of wasabi down his throat just to show how 'brave' he was. Let's just say it wasn't pretty.

[thod]

China seems to be developing an attitude that is going to hurt it. To seek revenge on Japanese for Nanking or the British for the opium wars is just insane. It need to forget the grudges of the past and look at the now. The people alive today are not responsible for these acts.

When I read the discussions on the China Daily website I come away with the idea that an awful lot of Chinese are seeking revenge for things in the past. Its the other countries fault for every problem in China. When you are dealing with financial markets anything that clouds your judgment is bad. If they sell Japanese yen when they are rising because they don't like Japan they will only hurt themselves.

I understand how the Chinese education system would want to instill this idea. China has been invaded, humiliated, forced into bad deals etc. All the good inventions and ideas have come from outside China. There must be a reason, the nasty foreigners are the reason. There can be no fault here, after all China is the greatest nation on Earth and there are only ghosts outside China. The truth is China is just a place and the other countries treat it like Brazil, South Africa or Russia. They are cold and rational in decisions, China is emotional in seeking revenge and this can played on and used against it.

[Jgib5328]

All of the great ideas came out of China? and China is the greatest nation on Earth?





Jgib5328 added to this post, 7 minutes and 40 seconds later...

Why should the Japanese feel sorry for you guys now though? For the most part the WWII generation is gone, none of these people and none of you people really have much to do with what happened.

[Nausved]

I don't feel that an apology is necessary on Japan's part.

But I DO think it is necessary that they teach their own children the facts. At least in the U.S., schoolchildren are taught about the forced relocation of the Cherokee, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the enslavement of West African prisoners, etc.

Why is that so hard for Japan?

[TheLastMohican]

I can't stand wasabi alone. I need soy sauce to dilute it somewhat (my seasoning dish is very well-mixed. No solid wasabi visible). With sushi, it's just awesomeness. Soy sauce alone is too salty. My cousin once stuffed a spoonful of wasabi down his throat just to show how 'brave' he was. Let's just say it wasn't pretty.

It's not that bad. I've downed a spoonful before.
(Not that I would do so regularly... :p)

[AgentofGaming]

Yes. The situation in Tibet (the latest crackdown on dissidents and followers of the Dalai Lama) is especially worrying, imo. I was very saddened to read about the suicide attempt of 2 monks (both of whom have ended up in a serious condition in hospital) I'm really not sure that I see a good outcome to the Tibetan unrest.

Then there's the rural farmers/land expropriation issue, in mainland China...
I doubt any of the dissenters will get much out of it. More so if they use violence (ie. arson, looting, swords) it only justifies China's crackdowns as protecting the people.
Considering China has 3rd most powerful military and the largest along with the fact they have no qualms against taking hardline stances, I don't think the dissenters will accomplish much.

Why not just eat wasabi and soy sauce (I like horseradish type heat, and also like showing off how much wasabi I can eat on its own)?
The goal is to have taste stimulation, not to cry.

I don't feel that an apology is necessary on Japan's part.

But I DO think it is necessary that they teach their own children the facts. At least in the U.S., schoolchildren are taught about the forced relocation of the Cherokee, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the enslavement of West African prisoners, etc.

Why is that so hard for Japan?

Pride makes everything hard and perhaps the people of Japan don't will it. Not to mention how will the government be viewed in the eyes of the people if they yield to external powers.

Taiwan's at odds with China? US to the rescue! How is that any of its business? Before you say I'm unfair in my judgment and that it was really the Bush administration, if China did the same you'd probably say what I've said.
The US intervening in Taiwan isn't particularly the fault of the Bush administration, the US does have a treaty to protect the Republic of China.
I do agree that they intervened where they shouldn't, the Republic of China would have been finished by the PRC long ago if the US didn't intervene in the 1950's. However there was the cold war back then and any opponent of Communism was a welcome ally to the US.

[TheLastMohican]

Some of the most gruesome and cruel parts of WWII was conveniently omitted from the textbooks.

That is very true. During WWII, the Japanese had very little humility or sense of reality, and they thought they were just the greatest. Their period of imperialism contained some of the worst atrocities commited. They plundered and tortured and raped their way through southeast Asia.

The Nazis...well, I don't think I need to say any more about them.

But even the Americans...We dropped two atomic bombs on Japanese civilians. Based on my knowledge of the circumstances, I believe there was no atrocity there. The Japanese were looking to do exactly the same thing to us, and they did not draw any line between military and civilian. Thus always to tyrants.

However, the atrocity that we did commit was the destruction of Dresden. The Allies knew that the Soviets would reach Dresden first, and we wanted to show off to them. So we bombarded Dresden, long after there was no military resistance, and completely flattened the place, along with its residents. We left it a burning hulk of demolished buildings, even though it was for all practical purposes surrendered. It was just making an example out of those who were unlucky enough to be farther south and east than Berlin.

It served its purpose, though. When the Soviets arrived on the scene, they were intimidated.

That was during WWII. Since then, the communist countries haven arisen in greater numbers, and have continued the tradition of atrocities. The Soviet Union did away with countless numbers of its own citizens. China is doing the same at this moment. Of course the government-controlled media does not report these things, but there are other sources. For some relatively up-to-date news on the latest in Christian persecution (a lot of which is going on in Beijing to clear the area of anything contrary to communist ideals before the Olympics), go to:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.





TheLastMohican added to this post, 0 minutes and 57 seconds later...

Oh, and I forgot to mention Tibet.
China has done and is doing a lot of scummy things.

[meanlittlechimp]

I think you're missing a few besides Dresden. Let me list some here.. We firebombed the shit out of the civilian population of Japan, which was much, much, more intense than what we did to the Germans (also much more civilian casualties and horror, than both the atomic bombs).

Not saying they didn't have it coming, but this historical fact is often overlooked when discussing atrocities to defenseless civilians. LeMay and McNamara were the ones in command during the bombing. McNamara also picked up the pace when he was at the state Dept, bombing the Cambodians, Laotians and Vietnamese during the '60s and '70s

McNamara's comment on the bombing was this: "LeMay said that "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." "And I think he's right," says McNamara. "He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals." .

First column (Name of Japanese city firebombed)
Second column (Percentage of the city destroyed)
Third column (Equivalent in size to the following American city)

Yokohama 58 Cleveland
Tokyo 51 New York
Toyama 99 Chattanooga
Nagoya 40 Los Angeles
Osaka 35.1 Chicago
Nishinomiya 11.9 Cambridge
Siumonoseki 37.6 San Diego
Kure 41.9 Toledo
Kobe 55.7 Baltimore
Omuta 35.8 Miami
Wakayama 50 Salt Lake City
Kawasaki 36.2 Portland
Okayama 68.9 Long Beach
Yawata 21.2 San Antonio
Kagoshima 63.4 Richmond
Amagasaki 18.9 Jacksonville
Sasebo 41.4 Nashville
Moh 23.3 Spokane
Miyakonoio 26.5 Greensboro
Nobeoka 25.2 Augusta
Miyazaki 26.1 Davenport
Hbe 20.7 Utica
Saga 44.2 Waterloo
Imabari 63.9 Stockton
Matsuyama 64 Duluth
Fukui 86 Evansville
Tokushima 85.2 Ft. Wayne
Sakai 48.2 Forth Worth
Hachioji 65 Galveston
Kumamoto 31.2 Grand Rapids
Isezaki 56.7 Sioux Falls
Takamatsu 67.5 Knoxville
Akashi 50.2 Lexington
Fukuyama 80.9 Macon
Aomori 30 Montgomery
Okazaki 32.2 Lincoln
Oita 28.2 Saint Joseph
Hiratsuka 48.4 Battle Creek
Tokuyama 48.3 Butte
Yokkichi 33.6 Charlotte
Uhyamada 41.3 Columbus
Ogaki 39.5 Corpus Christi
Gifu 63.6 Des Moines
Shizuoka 66.1 Oklahoma City
Himeji 49.4 Peoria
Fukuoka 24.1 Rochester
Kochi 55.2 Sacramento
Shimizu 42 San Jose
Omura 33.1 Sante Fe
Chiba 41 Savannah
Ichinomiya 56.3 Sprinfield
Nara 69.3 Boston
Tsu 69.3 Topeka
Kuwana 75 Tucson
Toyohashi 61.9 Tulsa
Numazu 42.3 Waco
Chosi 44.2 Wheeling
Kofu 78.6 South Bend
Utsunomiya 43.7 Sioux City
Mito 68.9 Pontiac
Sendai 21.9 Omaha
Tsuruga 65.1 Middleton
Nagaoka 64.9 Madison
Hitachi 72 Little Rock
Kumagaya 55.1 Kenosha
Hamamatsu 60.3 Hartford
Maebashi 64.2 Wheeling

[TheLastMohican]

I think you're missing a few besides Dresden. Let me list some here.. We firebombed the s*** out of the civilian population of Japan, which was much, much, more intense than what we did to the Germans (also much more civilian casualties and horror, than both the atomic bombs).

Sure, I know Dresden wasn't the only placed we bombed. I just posted extra about Dresden because it is far too ignored (as is history in general), and it really had no justification. I have not read about most of these Japanese cities you list (it's an impressive list), but I will look some of them up.
As for the intensity, I don't know about that. Overall we didn't firebomb Germany that badly, but I was speaking of Dresden in particular, and Dresden was leveled.

Not saying they didn't have it coming, but this historical fact is often overlooked when discussing atrocities to defenseless civilians. LeMay and McNamara were the ones in command during the bombing. McNamara also picked up the pace when he was at the state Dept, bombing the Cambodians, Laotians and Vietnamese during the '60s and '70s

McNamara's comment on the bombing was this: "LeMay said that "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." "And I think he's right," says McNamara. "He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals." .


That's some pretty heavy guilt to carry around. It might or might not be justified, but even rational people have serious emotional issues after inflicting the kind of horrific results that they saw.
Which bombing was he referring to? Japanese bombings or the bombings in the '60s and '70s?

[meanlittlechimp]

That's some pretty heavy guilt to carry around. It might or might not be justified, but even rational people have serious emotional issues after inflicting the kind of horrific results that they saw.
Which bombing was he referring to? Japanese bombings or the bombings in the '60s and '70s?

WWII, Lemay was an Air Force General and Mcnamara was his subordinate. McNamara did the more recent bombings as secretary of state.

[xanodel]

I'm actually writing a paper on the Rise of China & the Rise of Japanese Nationalism, so I'm very interested in this topic. I'd really like to hear your point of view on the matter Antares, since you are an actual person living in the situation.


If you really LOVE Japan, and especially the Japanese government, I'd suggest you to stay far far away from really learning about Japan. I did study it during college, wrote quite a couple of papers on Japanese nationalism (state nationalism, not cultural nationalism) and the more I learned the more I got disgusted by the country.

But in case you still feel up to it: japanfocus.org, "The Logic of Japanese Politics" by Gerald L. Curtis, "Japan Unbound" by John Nathan, and "Beyond the Rising Sun Nationalism in Contemporary Japan" by Bruce Stronach. If you don't mind old books, try "The Sword and the Chrysanthemum"-a cultural anthropology book that still holds true.

And seriously, the biggest problem is this: the Chinese look down upon the Koreans and the Japanese because both countries borrowed and heavily depended on China historically; Korea looks down upon Japanese and Chinese because of history; and the Japanese look down on Koreans and Chinese (especially Koreans) because it managed to invade both countries and hold Korea as a colony during WWII. That's the problem-all three are out there for revenge. Period.

[eternaltriangle]

Lemay didn't seem all that choked up about it - in his vice presidential run (as the running mate of segregationist independent Alabama governor, George Wallace, the last 3rd party candidate to win any electoral college votes, apart from the Libertarians by a fluke in 1972*) he mused about using nuclear weapons in Vietnam. McNamara, by contrast, was deathly afraid of nuclear war, and his experiences earlier may have shaped him in this. As a cabinet member during the Cuban missile crisis (he was secretary of defence), he was adamantly opposed to anything that might provoke the Russians.


*A Nixon elector from Virginia cast his ballot for the Libertarians instead, even though they had not run in Virginia.

[Antares]

The US intervening in Taiwan isn't particularly the fault of the Bush administration, the US does have a treaty to protect the Republic of China.
I do agree that they intervened where they shouldn't, the Republic of China would have been finished by the PRC long ago if the US didn't intervene in the 1950's. However there was the cold war back then and any opponent of Communism was a welcome ally to the US.

I didn't say it was the Bush Administration's fault that US is poking her nose where she shouldn't. I'm saying that many of those faults today can be traced back to the Bush administration, but some people seem to have the problem with people saying: "US is like that." when they're saying "China is like that". Maybe they should be saying 'China's Leaders' instead.

Why should the Japanese feel sorry for you guys now though? For the most part the WWII generation is gone, none of these people and none of you people really have much to do with what happened.

You're right. They shouldn't. Those crummy war criminals who got away shouldn't either (the ones still alive). Neither should the Australian government (Kevin Rudd) to the aborigines or the US government to the native Americans (did they?). It may be redundant, but a simple line of apology could have potentially improved the relations between the two countries. It's just a phrase on the Japanese's part; easily done, I suppose. I don't know why they wouldn't. Pride, maybe? For the 'big picture's sake, I'd say it's more rational for them to do so, seeing the rewards.

That was during WWII. Since then, the communist countries haven arisen in greater numbers, and have continued the tradition of atrocities. The Soviet Union did away with countless numbers of its own citizens. China is doing the same at this moment. Of course the government-controlled media does not report these things, but there are other sources.

Quite true. After discussing the banned religions in China with you, I talked with my father and as predicted, he made up excuses for the Chinese government. Pathetic ones, at that. I called them totalitarian and inhumane, and here's our conversation.

"Well, every country have a different say of dealing with things."
"Nothing will justify the taking of innocent human lives, especially demonstrators!"
"Don't you think they have another purpose, protesting right before the Olympics?"
"That's not a point. I already told you, it isn't justified! Aren't you making the same argument as: The end justifies the means?"
"You'd think the American government was all noble and all. Let me tell you this, every government brainwashes its citizens!"
"And that is right?"
"I'm saying that is inevitable. You are brainwashed by those Western ideals, and guess what? Earth to you! It doesn't apply to anyone!"
"Those aren't Western ideals. Nor are they capitalist. Those are my personal moral judgments. If I'm as stubborn as you say I am, then I won't be swayed by some biased Capitalist History teachers. You know me better than that!"
"How many times do I have to tell you, it doesn't apply to everyone? Have you seen the size of this country? Or the number of its inhabitants? Don't you know protests would bring this nation on the brink of civil war?" You are being brainwashed by your American education! Are you seriously going to believe what they say? Don't you think they have agendas themselves by teaching this version of history?"
"So, selon ta logique, I shouldn't learn history? Because guess what, reality check, there will be biases and I must learn and apply history. YOU enrolled me to this school. If everything should be taken as false because an American told it to me, then maybe they should remove the course all together from the curriculum, since obviously nothing is going to be taken seriously. Or used, for that matter. I'm just wasting my time then."

And the circle begins. As predicted, he would defend the CCP. He said tradition should be respected and kept for tradition's sake, and it's within the Chinese nature and custom to be controlled!

[thod]

A big problem is you cant get a neutral view from inside China. The media is controlled and puts a slant on everything to favor the administration.

Take todays China Daily To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Riot reports show media bias in West".
Are all the countries biased even the youtube vids taken by people using their cellphones?

But its not all bad,
"Nations voice support for China's handling of Lhasa riot"
is the next headline. So who are these nations,

"Pakistani and Mauritania foreign ministries issued statements on Tuesday and Wednesday respectively applauding Beijing's commitment to host the Olympic event".

But they said they Olympics, nothing about Lhasa. And look at the countries, Mauritania? now come on you are bound to get someone to agree, there is some lucrative contract that needs signing. They will role out anyone.

"On the same day, Lesotho Foreign Minister Mohlabi Kenneth Tsekoa said in his meeting with Chinese ambassador that Lesotho will back China's efforts to safeguard national sovereignty "

"Cote d'Ivoire's Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohlabi Kenneth Tsekoa and the Republic of Congo (ROC) Foreign Affairs Minister Basile Ikouebe all expressed their firm supports for China "

Lesotho? The landlocked South African puppet state? I am supposed to think this shows broad support? Where are the big and important countries. All they have got supporting them is a few African countries who are big recipients of Chinese trade.

I read the english Chinese press, I also read Al Jazeera, New York times, BBC, etc. I want to get an unbiased view and I can only do that by seeing it from both sides. China trys to block that access to control its peoples minds.

[Antares]

Are all the countries biased even the youtube vids taken by people using their cellphones?

Of course they are. How dare you question authority? *slams head on table*


"Pakistani and Mauritania foreign ministries issued statements on Tuesday and Wednesday respectively applauding Beijing's commitment to host the Olympic event".

Everything for a competitive sports event.

"Cote d'Ivoire's Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohlabi Kenneth Tsekoa and the Republic of Congo (ROC) Foreign Affairs Minister Basile Ikouebe all expressed their firm supports for China "

Argumentum ad Populum. Enough said.

Chinese netizens have been angered by biased and sometimes dishonest reports about the riots in Tibet by some Western media.

Of course they would be, seeing the government is 'good' and the Tibetans are 'evil', so are the ungrateful and depraved Capitalists (really! I have subscriptions to the Chinese morning post, and their slogan was: "The battle between Good and Evil" It's obvious who the 'good' are). You'd think that value judgments are taboos of the press. Quite apparently not.

Apparently, according to the site you linked, English newspapers such as Shanghai and China Daily are biased also. I might want to consider Time (which I already have weekly deliveries from) and USA Today (They are available in China, but I don't know how much censorship they went through).

[xanodel]

I think the problem with any singular Asian country being uber alles is the fundamental values system. Under most of Asian culture, group identity is prized over personal identity; individualism is to a degree discouraged, and I would suggest you look beyond the flashy weird fashion statements, because on the political and social grounds, we don't differ much. Likewise the prize of stability over radical change; you are listened to only, and only if you offer a moderate, gradual change solution, not a radical reform or general criticism. Since anyone can criticize, few can actually solve.

Politically it translates into another form that could undermine a truly democratic system. To Asians, politicians have a difficult task, and it's specialized-and since the daily normal average individual is not specialized in that task, the normal average individual is hard pressed to really criticize, and each criticism can be easily shoved aside with comments like "You don't do that job, how do you know all the problems faced? It's more complex." Or a certain degree of cynicism coupled with "let them do their job." Hence I'm very reluctant to call any East Asian democracy a real democracy, because the civil social basis for a democracy does not exist.

[ShaiGar]

And any of our nations governments have moderate christian values?

[Rei]

Forgive me if I'm now off topic...
but I think the whole Tibet issue should not be viewed as who is "good" and who is "bad", but what's right.

I frankly don't see any reason Tibet should be allowed to separate from China. Tibet has always been a part of China, and native peoples are "oppressed" everywhere in the world. Most importantly, Tibet is not economically sound enough to separate from China.
However biased this video may seem, the facts are all true:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

But you're right, censorship in China is pretty prominent. Watching TV was rather frustrating when I stayed for a few days. I really wonder if they're ever going to stop doing that.

And frankly, however much I love Japan's uber cool inventions... They're an extremely eff-ing scary nation. The general population follow instructions like robots even today.

Sushi is only tasteless because you've killed your tastebuds with eating overly flavoured foods too often. That or the sushi you ate sucked...


As for US>China?
Maybe 10 years ago. But 10 years from now, that won't be so easily said. For such a "great nation"... I won't even begin to talk about how many things the U.S. FAILS in doing. Bush and his administration really screwed everyone over.

[eternaltriangle]

Politically it translates into another form that could undermine a truly democratic system. To Asians, politicians have a difficult task, and it's specialized-and since the daily normal average individual is not specialized in that task, the normal average individual is hard pressed to really criticize, and each criticism can be easily shoved aside with comments like "You don't do that job, how do you know all the problems faced? It's more complex." Or a certain degree of cynicism coupled with "let them do their job." Hence I'm very reluctant to call any East Asian democracy a real democracy, because the civil social basis for a democracy does not exist.

Is that a problem though? I have always felt that democracy is not an ideal form of government, rather, it is a good way of addressing heterogenous preferences within a country. For instance, in Canada or Belgium, democracy ensures that even if minorities are not represented in government, they have a voice. If the preferences of most citizens in a country were similar, however, the costs of democracy (political obstacles to getting real action on problems) may outweigh the benefits.

[TheLastMohican]

I frankly don't see any reason Tibet should be allowed to separate from China. Tibet has always been a part of China, and native peoples are "oppressed" everywhere in the world.

No it has not.

The "People Liberation Army" of China invaded Tibet in 1950, and imposed the Seventeen Point Agreement on the Tibetan government, making Tibet part of China.

[Rei]

No it has not.

The "People Liberation Army" of China invaded Tibet in 1950, and imposed the Seventeen Point Agreement on the Tibetan government, making Tibet part of China.

In the territorial sense, Tibet was a part of China WAY before that. As early as 1300's AD. The "invasion" only made it part of "China" as we know it today; to unify the way of ruling.

[TheLastMohican]

In the territorial sense, Tibet was a part of China WAY before that. As early as 1300's AD. The "invasion" only made it part of "China" as we know it today; to unify the way of ruling.

The territorial sense does not define it being part of China. It was a separate nation for a time until the Chinese invaded it.

I think North America is a bit messy, having all those countries clustered in the southern part. Shall I unify the way of ruling and consolidate the countries as one big province for Spain to rule over once again?

[Rei]

The territorial sense does not define it being part of China. It was a separate nation for a time until the Chinese invaded it.

I think North America is a bit messy, having all those countries clustered in the southern part. Shall I unify the way of ruling and consolidate the countries as one big province for Spain to rule over once again?

Alright. Territorial sense does not define it being a part of China.
1) Why was nothing done when this invasion happened?
2) China has already invaded it, and it is now part of China. China is treating it as a part of China, and has been funding the development of the area.
3) Perhaps they deserve a separate governing system (like for Taiwan and Hong Kong). But if you're going to 'liberate' Tibet, you might as well do it for every other province of China too.

I don't see why they should have so much more attention that Aboriginal protesters in Canada.


NB: My current standing is that I don't support these protests. But I'm genuinely asking as I admit I probably don't know as much as I should.

[eternaltriangle]

In the territorial sense, Tibet was a part of China WAY before that. As early as 1300's AD. The "invasion" only made it part of "China" as we know it today; to unify the way of ruling.

Why is territoriality a valid or rational standard? The fact that some people conquered some other people does not sound like the best social contract story.

Coming from a country with a perpetual secession crisis, I see both sides to some degree. The compromise I have made in my head (largely borrowed from a UN decision regarding Quebec) is this:

Sovereignty, in the modern era, should be based on individual self-determination. States are nothing but a sum of people that live within them. When a state does not maximize the freedom and utility of the people within that state, it is illegitimate. Territoriality, divine right of kings, etc. are irrational standards.

Secession from a liberal democracy is always illegitimate, without due process (eg. a referendum, guarantees to minorities in the new state and so on). When you secede and form a new country you are violating the constitution of the old one - often on the basis of the will of a simple majority of the people (constitutional changes tend to require 2/3rds majorities in legislatures for a reason). Moreover, there is no guarantee that secessionist minorities will be less oppressive than the regime preceding them. For instance, if Northern Ireland seceded from Britain (which wouldn't happen because protestants are the majority), it is likely that abortion would become illegal, possibly divorce. Individuals would have fewer rights - and the secession movement is based on the notion of "collective rights" (which are not real rights, but rather claims of a majority on some minority). Similarly I roll my eyes when people in Quebec claim to be oppressed by the English - they would like nothing better than to have their own country, so that they could ban English altogether, and forcibly integrate new immigrants.

Tibet, on the other hand, is ruled by a government they never chose, that gives them no say in its affairs. If China rules Tibet by force, then surely Tibetans are legitimate in using force to resist that rule. The real kicker of it all is how moderate the demands of Tibetans are - they aren't pushing for independence, they are pushing for autonomy. The Dalai Lama is a pretty reasonable guy* who realizes why China fears independence. The Chinese do not want to unleash the kind of forces that toppled the Soviet Union.

*He stopped here in Bloomington, Indiana in between Washington DC and Ottawa, because he has a brother here, who runs the worst Tibetan restaurant in town (there are two Tibetan restaurants). It was strange to see monks in red robes running around this quaint midwestern town.

[TheLastMohican]

Alright. Territorial sense does not define it being a part of China.
1) Why was nothing done when this invasion happened?


The Tibetans did what they could. They were not a militant culture, and their makeshift army was easily routed and disbanded by the PLA. When resistance proved futile, the Tibetan government agreed to the Seventeen Point Agreement.

Other nations did little but talk. That is unfortunate, but it was soon pointless to pursue military action, since they waited too long. Once the deed was done, Tibet was quickly assimilated into the socialist culture, with the PLA seeking the citizens' favor even as they invaded. India sent a stern message saying that they would not negotiate with the Chinese due to the invasion. The U.S. and U.K. concurred, but that was all.

As for the other points, I do not have a clearly formed position on those yet. It might very well be too late for any rectification. Note that I did not bring up those points at all. I simply noticed your false statement in your post, bolded it, and stated that it was false.

[Rei]

Sovereignty, in the modern era, should be based on individual self-determination. States are nothing but a sum of people that live within them. When a state does not maximize the freedom and utility of the people within that state, it is illegitimate. Territoriality, divine right of kings, etc. are irrational standards.


From what you're saying... Alberta can say right now, "I have lots of oil and money, so I refused to be ruled by the Canadian government." And they should be allowed to separate? That would seem pretty chaotic to me. What about all those years of wars between the Welsh, Irish and the English? Should the Welsh and the Irish have been allowed to separate from the UK when they in the 1920's?

Well I think the problem here is you're thinking about sovereignty in a democratic country. Which obviously doesn't apply in China. Perhaps everyone means to tell China it should be a democratic country? That would be an interesting thing to see, but it's not likely happening any time soon.


The Tibetans did what they could. They were not a militant culture, and their makeshift army was easily routed and disbanded by the PLA. When resistance proved futile, the Tibetan government agreed to the Seventeen Point Agreement.

Other nations did little but talk. That is unfortunate, but it was soon pointless to pursue military action, since they waited too long. Once the deed was done, Tibet was quickly assimilated into the socialist culture, with the PLA seeking the citizens' favor even as they invaded. India sent a stern message saying that they would not negotiate with the Chinese due to the invasion. The U.S. and U.K. concurred, but that was all.

As for the other points, I do not have a clearly formed position on those yet. It might very well be too late for any rectification. Note that I did not bring up those points at all. I simply noticed your false statement in your post, bolded it, and stated that it was false.

I would say then Tibet was rightfully won, especially when nothing was done about it at the time. (Just like when Hong Kong was rightfully taken over by the Japanese in WWII. The only thing that liberated Hong Kong was that the Japanese lost the war.) I think they should think of a way to work with the current government rather than what they're doing now.

And you're right, I don't mind correction.

[TheLastMohican]

I would say then Tibet was rightfully won, especially when nothing was done about it at the time. (Just like when Hong Kong was rightfully taken over by the Japanese in WWII. The only thing that liberated Hong Kong was that the Japanese lost the war.) I think they should think of a way to work with the current government rather than what they're doing now.

And you're right, I don't mind correction.

I think the invasion was rightfully successful, but wrongfully initiated. There is no disputing that the PLA easily crushed the Tibetan forces, but they had no justification for seeking to crush them in the first place.

I was just thinking that my replies sounded a bit harsh over that one sentence fragment...so I'm glad I didn't upset you. ;)

[eternaltriangle]

From what you're saying... Alberta can say right now, "I have lots of oil and money, so I refused to be ruled by the Canadian government." And they should be allowed to separate? That would seem pretty chaotic to me. What about all those years of wars between the Welsh, Irish and the English? Should the Welsh and the Irish have been allowed to separate from the UK when they in the 1920's?


No, I am saying Alberta, Quebec, Walloons, the Basques and Northern Ireland can't (without the consent of the nation they are/were seceding from), at least without a lot of due process. I would also not recognize Kosovo, were I the United States government.

Tibet definitely can separate unilaterally because it is the oppressed province of a repressive dictatorship.

Kurdistan (either in Iraq or Turkey), the United States in 1776 (which had a high degree of autonomy, and was clearly benefiting from the public goods: ie. imperial defence, they were paying for) and Palestine presently are hard cases that would be difficult to sort out.

The distinction I would draw is whether unilateral secession, as opposed to negotiated secession is legitimate. The latter is almost always fair game, whereas the former is not.

[Rei]

I think the invasion was rightfully successful, but wrongfully initiated. There is no disputing that the PLA easily crushed the Tibetan forces, but they had no justification for seeking to crush them in the first place.

I was just thinking that my replies sounded a bit harsh over that one sentence fragment...so I'm glad I didn't upset you. ;)

One must always remember that they have funny justifications... It's hardly something I could relate to if I stayed firmly in my Canada-raised views.

I think if I had been sure I knew all the facts, I would not have been so forgiving. But I can understand the nitpicking since I do it myself.

No, I am saying Alberta, Quebec, Walloons, the Basques and Northern Ireland can't (without the consent of the nation they are/were seceding from), at least without a lot of due process. I would also not recognize Kosovo, were I the United States government.

Tibet definitely can separate unilaterally because it is the oppressed province of a repressive dictatorship.

Kurdistan (either in Iraq or Turkey), the United States in 1776 (which had a high degree of autonomy, and was clearly benefiting from the public goods: ie. imperial defence, they were paying for) and Palestine presently are hard cases that would be difficult to sort out.

The distinction I would draw is whether unilateral secession, as opposed to negotiated secession is legitimate. The latter is almost always fair game, whereas the former is not.

Well if that's what you think I really can't convince you otherwise.

[eternaltriangle]

Well, Rei, you could convince me, but you have to understand the underlying logic to my argument.

Liberal constitutions, because they grant people individual autonomy are utility-maximizing (I know more about what I want to do than a government), and a superior form of organization. Secession cannot improve upon that result, because liberties are already maximized, although it can make it worse. Quebec secession is an illegitimate movement because it is premised on the idea that popular sovereignty should be enough for Quebec to form its own country and, in doing so, abrogate the rights of minorities in Quebec (immigrants, anglos and natives). Individuals would be less free. Does Quebec chafe under the yoke of English Canadian imperialism? No, because all Quebecois have individual rights to do as they please. All they lack is what they want: the right to screw minorities.

In Tibet, however, individuals are not free. They are governed primarily by force, and have no say in their government. If you are governed by force, then I fail to see how it is illegitimate for individuals to take up arms against that force. Who rules in China? Power comes at the end of the barrel of a gun (the PLA, of course, happens to have quite a lot of guns). If force and military control is the basis of the Chinese claim over Tibet, then Tibetan rebels are operating within those very bounds in rebelling. If they can succeed in demonstrating that China does not have control over the area, then I fail to see how China's claims are just. If Chinese rule is based on past conquest, and Tibetans conquer back their own land, aren't they the just owners of it? Moreover, from a utilitarian standpoint, whether Tibet becomes a democracy or not, it is hard to imagine that they would be less free on their own.

A side-point, I rather hope the Tibetan conflict continues, and saps China's strength. I shudder to think of the impending reality of China as the world's greatest superpower.

[thod]

I cant say I agree with the assertion that a region should not be allowed to succeed without consent from the greater region. It seems undemocratic to prevent a region from pursuing their own future if that is what they desire. If Albertans feel that their objectives and outlook differ from wider Canada they should be allowed to go it alone. As with a divorce it only takes one party to feel they are better off apart to bring it about. The rest of Canada may be effected by the separation and this can be taken into account. Yet ultimately it is the Albertans choosing self determination. If you disagree with self determination then you must extend it to cover your personal life. This means you as a person lose the right to choose your course in life.

An interesting case is provided by Kosovo. It has historically been Serbian. Yet down the centuries the populace has been replaced by Albanians. So know we have a region where the people there want to be closer to Albania but the the other group dislikes losing land claims. The EU and US has backed independence with the desire of the people but against the wishes of the Serb rulers.

If we accept that 2 regions may vote to join to form a greater region, such as the EU, then we must also have some rules for the opposite case. Without it we end up with ever larger superstates. Perhaps you would like to propose some conditions to allow this?

[Rei]

Well, Rei, you could convince me, but you have to understand the underlying logic to my argument.

Liberal constitutions, because they grant people individual autonomy are utility-maximizing (I know more about what I want to do than a government), and a superior form of organization. Secession cannot improve upon that result, because liberties are already maximized, although it can make it worse. Quebec secession is an illegitimate movement because it is premised on the idea that popular sovereignty should be enough for Quebec to form its own country and, in doing so, abrogate the rights of minorities in Quebec (immigrants, anglos and natives). Individuals would be less free. Does Quebec chafe under the yoke of English Canadian imperialism? No, because all Quebecois have individual rights to do as they please. All they lack is what they want: the right to screw minorities.

In Tibet, however, individuals are not free. They are governed primarily by force, and have no say in their government. If you are governed by force, then I fail to see how it is illegitimate for individuals to take up arms against that force. Who rules in China? Power comes at the end of the barrel of a gun (the PLA, of course, happens to have quite a lot of guns). If force and military control is the basis of the Chinese claim over Tibet, then Tibetan rebels are operating within those very bounds in rebelling. If they can succeed in demonstrating that China does not have control over the area, then I fail to see how China's claims are just. If Chinese rule is based on past conquest, and Tibetans conquer back their own land, aren't they the just owners of it? Moreover, from a utilitarian standpoint, whether Tibet becomes a democracy or not, it is hard to imagine that they would be less free on their own.

A side-point, I rather hope the Tibetan conflict continues, and saps China's strength. I shudder to think of the impending reality of China as the world's greatest superpower.

I understand what you're saying. I simply don't agree on the latter part. What I'm saying is that individuals are not free in China in general. So should you liberate the whole of China from it's government?
Also, the point is Tibetans are NOT able to conquer back their own land. They're using publicity to pressure China into giving them freedom. China is trying to maintain control over the area, but everyone seems to be saying it shouldn't even try to do that and let the Tibetans separate. Tibet would not be, say, less free. But I think their (economic) stability would be in trouble without China's support.

What exactly is making you shudder about China as the world's greatest superpower? Frankly, I quite disgusted by the US as the world's greatest superpower right now.

[ShaiGar]

hell, china has enough nukes to destroy the earth, and not once have they threatened to use them "if they feel like it"

[AgentofGaming]

I cant say I agree with the assertion that a region should not be allowed to succeed without consent from the greater region. It seems undemocratic to prevent a region from pursuing their own future if that is what they desire. If Albertans feel that their objectives and outlook differ from wider Canada they should be allowed to go it alone. As with a divorce it only takes one party to feel they are better off apart to bring it about. The rest of Canada may be effected by the separation and this can be taken into account. Yet ultimately it is the Albertans choosing self determination. If you disagree with self determination then you must extend it to cover your personal life. This means you as a person lose the right to choose your course in life.

If we accept that 2 regions may vote to join to form a greater region, such as the EU, then we must also have some rules for the opposite case. Without it we end up with ever larger superstates. Perhaps you would like to propose some conditions to allow this?
It's not that Alberta's outlook is different from the rest of Canada it's a conflict about how much they want to contribute to Canada. Before the oil industry became developed in Alberta they didn't have much complaints as the same national funds were distributed. Now that their economy is doing well they don't want to contribute back.
When it comes to fairness and sharing everything gets ugly.
With the royalties and the environmental issues, whats fair? should the place where the resource is get all? should the country who provided for them before they were prosperous get a share? should they pay for the GHG emissions from their oil sand operations? subjective like these issues seem to provoke divisiveness.

Superstates are becoming more evident. European Union is an example of trying to remain globally competitive;they have to join forces and share resources and infrastructure. Borders and boundaries make things a bit more inefficient as they hinder flow. I don't know if it's a rumour but I heard George Bush signed something called a North American Union.

hell, china has enough nukes to destroy the earth, and not once have they threatened to use them "if they feel like it"
With mutually assured destruction I don't think people put their finger on the red button if they feel like it.
China likes to play things quietly yet occasionally show they aren't sitting there idle. The US and USSR had to play the game "hey look at our nukes", N. Korea tried that but wasn't as successful.

The US overthrows governments at a whim, now that's a problem.
I really don't like when they overthrow secularist governments.

Added some time later:
Actually I have to wonder, not many people had problems with Western Imperialism and now that they've got all their "territory" they start complaining about other countries trying to keep their land.

[Antares]

Maybe 10 years ago. But 10 years from now, that won't be so easily said. For such a "great nation"... I won't even begin to talk about how many things the U.S. FAILS in doing. Bush and his administration really screwed everyone over.


I noticed that too; Bush fought two useless wars, plunged the US into deep debt and caused the US dollar to depreciate. Not only did he not bring Bin Laden to justice, he failed to find any 'weapons' in Iraq, knowing that he probably wouldn't, he invaded anyway (there was intelligence before the war that there are no weapons of mass destruction)

Other nations did little but talk. That is unfortunate, but it was soon pointless to pursue military action, since they waited too long. Once the deed was done, Tibet was quickly assimilated into the socialist culture, with the PLA seeking the citizens' favor even as they invaded. India sent a stern message saying that they would not negotiate with the Chinese due to the invasion. The U.S. and U.K. concurred, but that was all.

PLA, in short, was People's Liberation Army (They quite lived up to their name) for quite a while, or so it seems. They were instructed to give back what was taken, pay for what was broken, treat people with respect etc. I think we all know why they did that.

[xanodel]

The most basic solution to Tibet is simply democracy in China itself. Even if China were to grant Tibet autonomy right now, there will be next to no change-if nothing else due to the fact most of the people in Tibet are not Tibetan. And I think we can all agree that asking all the Han to get out of Tibet raises its own problems-not only an issue of population, but a question of infrastructure since many of the businesses there are owned by Han, and there are people who lived there before 1950, generations might need to leave.

The original date main China invaded Tibet was far before 1950- it was during the Qing dynasty of the 1600s. The brief respite of independence for Tibet came when the British managed to take over parts of Tibet, and demand the Chinese to give away that part of the territory-and the 1950's invasion was viewed as simply taking back what was taken. The same can be said of the treaty agreement of giving back Hong Kong and Macau.

Quite frankly, I'm not so much scared of what may happen if China becomes a superpower-I'm more worried that the reaction to and against China doing that may cause unnecessary conflict. Historically China's main concern, democratic or not, were regional. The land is large enough with enough problems on its own-the idea of China extending its reach internationally militarily is quite unlikely. Historically China had plenty of military opportunity to do so-the Yuan dynasty itself was more an exception, and even then it collapsed. It was also largely an isolated event, done by a government that itself was not of the majority ethnic group of China. China's main concern global power or not are economic viability and border stability-because unlike US, China's border countries are not stable (majority of them are facing secession problems and economic deprivation), and once it and Taiwan are secure and stable, I don't think China has much need to turn its military focus internationally. Rather, a non-interventionist economic policy might do much more good than harm.

[Antares]

The most basic solution to Tibet is simply democracy in China itself.

The problem belies on whether the CCP is willing to relinquish power to the people. Besides, the North Koreans have a 'democracy', if you could call it that. You just have to vote for the 'right' person. Democracy would lead to multiple political parties; I think we can all agree on that. Whether CCP is down with that is a major deciding factor in the introduction of democracy in China. China has been a one-party sovereign for decades now, and absolute monarchy before that. For now, I don't see it; but your guess is as good as mine, I suppose. If democracy is indeed instilled, then it would be wise for China to have a multiple-branch system like that of the US. Not saying that it stopped everyone from abusing their power, it certainly did help.

[Rei]

The US overthrows governments at a whim, now that's a problem.
I really don't like when they overthrow secularist governments.

Added some time later:
Actually I have to wonder, not many people had problems with Western Imperialism and now that they've got all their "territory" they start complaining about other countries trying to keep their land.

My point precisely.

The original date main China invaded Tibet was far before 1950- it was during the Qing dynasty of the 1600s.

Thanks for filling in the facts. The bit about the brief occupation of the British really put the pieces of the puzzle back together.

The problem belies on whether the CCP is willing to relinquish power to the people. Besides, the North Koreans have a 'democracy', if you could call it that. You just have to vote for the 'right' person. Democracy would lead to multiple political parties; I think we can all agree on that. Whether CCP is down with that is a major deciding factor in the introduction of democracy in China. China has been a one-party sovereign for decades now, and absolute monarchy before that. For now, I don't see it; but your guess is as good as mine, I suppose. If democracy is indeed instilled, then it would be wise for China to have a multiple-branch system like that of the US. Not saying that it stopped everyone from abusing their power, it certainly did help.

Indeed, I think the problem with China becoming a democracy is whether the people of China are ready for it. Because of the problems xanodel mentioned, there are places in China that barely recognize the existence of a government. Even if China became a democracy now, those in the far reaches of the country won't even be capable of participating.

I don't think it's just (nor realistic) to judge China with the same set of regulations that would apply in North America or anywhere else. It just doesn't work the same way.

[eternaltriangle]

hell, china has enough nukes to destroy the earth, and not once have they threatened to use them "if they feel like it"

That is a considerable exaggeration. Here is a rundown of China's nuclear arsenal:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

For reference, it is 10,000 kilometers from Beijing to Los Angeles - only one of China's ICBM's can make it that far. By contrast, the US has far more nukes, and, even those weapons which cannot reach China directly, can be delivered by bombers extending their range through the use of America's aircraft carriers (China has no aircraft carriers).

[Rei]

That is a considerable exaggeration. Here is a rundown of China's nuclear arsenal:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

For reference, it is 10,000 kilometers from Beijing to Los Angeles - only one of China's ICBM's can make it that far. By contrast, the US has far more nukes, and, even those weapons which cannot reach China directly, can be delivered by bombers extending their range through the use of America's aircraft carriers (China has no aircraft carriers).

Even if it's an exaggeration, I think his point is quite clear.
There are other countries just as, if not more likely to abuse it's power than China. (Not to mention countries that already do. *cough*)

Just because China is run on a system you are unfamiliar with, it doesn't mean it is a bad thing. China has been, and is continuing to closing the gap between itself and everyone else on many fronts. There are many human rights and other such movements rising in China. There is also a rising generation of Chinese citizens who have had more exposure to the rest of the world and have new views.

I would think that learning about China's social structure so that one knows what to expect would be more useful than hoping China never becomes a superpower.

[ShaiGar]

I hope that China and Russia become Militiary Allies... If not Idealological allies

[thod]

The argument about nukes is silly. If you use nukes you create a nuclear winter, your crops fail in the perpetual night and you kill far more of your own people than die to blasts. The CCP may be authoritarian and self serving but it not insane.

China is introverted and inward looking. It has no ambitions to extend territory by armed invasion. It will extend its resource base by population movement. Tibet is overrun by Han Chinese. The same will happen to Eastern Siberia. These regions will eventually be so Chinese that they become part of China. The US and Europe need have no fears of Chinese invasion.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[eternaltriangle]

Just because China is run on a system you are unfamiliar with, it doesn't mean it is a bad thing. China has been, and is continuing to closing the gap between itself and everyone else on many fronts. There are many human rights and other such movements rising in China. There is also a rising generation of Chinese citizens who have had more exposure to the rest of the world and have new views.


I am pretty okay with the internal policies of a country - dictatorship and rule by force is fine by me (but you have to accept that if you rule by force, and people resist by force, you don't have much of a claim for legitimacy).

My fear of the rise of China is very practical. Peace and prosperity are best safeguarded by the domination of the world by a single power. Trade and development doesn't just happen it requires public goods. Somebody has to maintain freedom of the seas, somebody has to provide international financial governance at some level - providing bailouts and technical assistance, as the US (and other countries do) through various international institutions. Why does the US do this? It isn't for warm and fuzzy reasons, it is because US trade is so preponderant, and US power is so preponderant, that the US has enough of an interest in the welfare of the entire system that they will provide governance. The beneficiaries of that governance lie in every other country.

In a two-power world there is much less of an incentive to provide those kind of institutions. Think about WHEN the Great Depression happened - after Britain had declined, while the US lacked the willpower or ability to take its place. Financial cooperation (as existed in the 19th century, and in the present) could have prevented the trade war, and competitive devaluation of currency that shriveled world trade into nothing. However, you generally don't seek to provide public goods when it will cost you, while benefiting another country that is coming close to surpassing you.

I don't really care at all about fairness. eg. the argument that "the US does bad things, so it should be okay for other countries to do bad things." I am not a moralist, and the international system is anarchic (ie. ungoverned). The US should pursue its own national interests. Of course, doing so is also in the interest of the world, because hegemony is in the interest of the world.

Sure there are some abuses of US hegemony, and the US extracts a payoff (for instance because its currency is essentially the currency of international trade - this means that American monetary policy has international effects). Those abuses pale into the horrific prospect of superpower war - something that has always happened in periods of multi-polarity in the international system.





eternaltriangle added to this post, 11 minutes and 5 seconds later...

I hope that China and Russia become Militiary Allies... If not Idealological allies

This is another stupid idea that is not likely to pan out, beyond a Molotov-Ribbentrop pact sort of deal. Russia's central aim, given that Eastern Europe has been swallowed by the EU (apart from possibly the Ukraine, which could still be absorbed into the Russian sphere) is to dominate the states of central Asia (particularly oil-rich Kazakhstan, with its large Russian population). China also has a commanding interest in dominating that region, especially given its enormous resource needs. When the interests of two territorial powers are in direct conflict, an alliance cannot be viewed as anything more than a truce.

Moreover, your desire for some power to balance against the United States, for the reasons I have listed above, are counterproductive. The self-hate westerners teach themselves has led to a culture that almost relishes the idea of its own destruction, without considering the alternative. What does a Chinese-dominated world look like?

1. As China surpasses the US in greenhouse gas emissions, one dangerous aspect of the rise of China is its effect on the environment. While the fiasco in Iraq surely affected oil prices, the doubling and trebling of the Chinese economy over the past few decades has taken its toll as well.
2. China, with no navy, nor a history of naval activity, nor dominance in lead industries is unlikely to have either the will or the power to provide the public goods necessary for international trade.
3. As a dictatorship, China would be less likely to be constrained by public opinion than the US, and thus free to make a pig's breakfast of things - invading other countries with NO qualms whatsoever. At least in the US politicians realize that unpopular, peripheral wars are not likely to get them reelected.

You don't need to "understand the Chinese system" to dislike it. You rather need to understand the INTERNATIONAL system, to realize that the status quo is not bad at all.

[thod]

Empires rise and fall. Up until WW2 Britain was that power, with a destroyed Europe the US and USSR competed for the role. With the fall of the USSR the US was left alone.

Now we have a rising China and a uniting Europe. The US will not maintain its hegemony. Its popular in the US to believe that it is something about America that is special. Something they do right that others don't. The fact is that the US was simply far larger than other countries with vast natural resources still intact. The new order will be a tripartite system. Europe has a larger economy and populace than the US. Its geographical location better places it to exploit the resources of Africa and Asia whilst China will do the same on its side of the land mass. The US spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined. This is like the USSR which was broken by it military spending compared to the size of its economy. The US will be pushed to merge with Canada and Mexico to obtain the size need to compete.

This is the coming world order, we cannot stop it. The question is how America will react. Upon seeing its waning influence, its populace could elect a president who promises to make America great again and goes to war. There can be no winners of such a war. The planets atmosphere would be destroyed in a nuclear exchange. None of the powers has the manpower and logistics to wage a conventional land war on the others continent.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[eternaltriangle]

"Now we have a rising China and a uniting Europe."

And a rising India, but the fact that Europe is uniting today, and China is rising does not mean that they will continue to do so. In the 80's everybody thought the German or Japanese economy would dominate. In the 60's they thought it would be the Soviet Union (which had a larger population than the US). Eventually China will reach a point at which rising wages and increased competition from other countries place pressure on its manufacturing exports. Moreover, I doubt that China can make the transition to a knowledge-based economy. That poses a problem for China's economic future - they will hit a plateau, in which they need autonomous creative class workers, but cannot allow that for fear of the country breaking apart. The Soviet Union faced the very same dilemma before it collapsed.

When China peaks, that is when the danger will be greatest. If China comes to fear the future, it will act quickly to take advantage of its present strength, unless the United States, India and Europe are sufficiently strong and united to deter it from doing so.

As for a united Europe, you are again assuming a trend simply because of what has happened in the past. The EU has had a lot of trouble uniting on defense and is nowhere near where people would have thought it would be in the 1960's (in that it is behind).
"None of the powers has the manpower and logistics to wage a conventional land war on the others continent."

Firstly, power is relative. Secondly, India, Russia and China are on the same continent. The EU is on the same supercontinent - that certainly makes for a good land war.

"The fact is that the US was simply far larger than other countries with vast natural resources still intact."

The dominant power of the 17th century was Holland. It was able to field large mercenary armies, dominate the seas, conquer England in a coup, and prevent France from obtaining hegemony on land. England was the dominant power of the 18th and 19th centuries (the second run of which had little to do with England's empire, and much to do with its virtual monopoly on industrial goods). Population matters, but so does technology and wealth. If the US can maintain its edge in those categories it can retain its lead. How can you say that US decline is inevitable, without proposing a mechanism by which decline happens (there are many, but the honus is on you to explain why).

"The US spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined. This is like the USSR which was broken by it military spending compared to the size of its economy."

The US spends 3-4% of its GDP on the military. The Soviet Union spend about 50. Historically, the US spends a lower proportion of its GDP on the military than at any time during the cold war.

"Europe has a larger economy and populace than the US. Its geographical location better places it to exploit the resources of Africa and Asia whilst China will do the same on its side of the land mass."

Resource costs are a minor concern in a modern economy. As for oil, one exception to that, the US has domestic sources of oil (unlike Europe), and is situated near Canada and its oil sands (Canada is projected to be among the top 5 oil producers in the next decade). Moreover, lower transport costs mean that geographic position is nothing. While the EU has a larger population (but not a larger economy, based on purchasing power parity), it faces low growth, both economically and demographically. Moreover, it is not united, and one of the two members (Britain) with a decent military (Germany has military potential but also a constitution that limits it from doing anything) has long had a special relationship with the United States. Just look at how the EU failed to deal with the balkans, and can't even field much of a force in Afghanistan without severe political resistance.

"This is the coming world order, we cannot stop it."

Empires have reversed decline on many occasions through history. The Roman Empire multiple periods of growth, followed by conflict and plateau. The modern era is more dynamic, because technology is constantly altering the balance of power, but with the right instititutions the US can remain the world's most advanced economy. The British were the dominant power of the 18th century but, with the rise of France under Napoleon, faced relative decline. However, they managed to defeat France in war, and capitalize on the industrial revolution, giving them a second run at the top.

"The question is how America will react. Upon seeing its waning influence, its populace could elect a president who promises to make America great again and goes to war."

"There can be no winners of such a war. The planets atmosphere would be destroyed in a nuclear exchange."

More pugwash propaganda. The Chinese would not use nuclear weapons because the US could retaliate many times over. Nuclear weapons, if anything, would reduce the tensions of a world war by preventing a total victory. China has 20 missiles capable of reaching the continental US. The US has over 800 ICBM's, not to mention the prospect of other carrier-launched weapons.

Obviously a war wouldn't be a good thing, and it is a major risk (albeit not the risk you suggest). The best remedy for a war is to strengthen India as a counter-weight to China within Asia. This will enable the US to play a game of triangular diplomacy, keeping India and China at peace by threatening to intervene against aggression by either.

[thod]

I cant even be bothered to refute all those 'arguments' and 'facts'.

Take read of this NY times article to get a more realistic view To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You hurt only yourself by delusions, what is coming will come.

[Rei]

I am pretty okay with the internal policies of a country - dictatorship and rule by force is fine by me (but you have to accept that if you rule by force, and people resist by force, you don't have much of a claim for legitimacy).

My fear of the rise of China is very practical. Peace and prosperity are best safeguarded by the domination of the world by a single power. Trade and development doesn't just happen it requires public goods. Somebody has to maintain freedom of the seas, somebody has to provide international financial governance at some level - providing bailouts and technical assistance, as the US (and other countries do) through various international institutions. Why does the US do this? It isn't for warm and fuzzy reasons, it is because US trade is so preponderant, and US power is so preponderant, that the US has enough of an interest in the welfare of the entire system that they will provide governance. The beneficiaries of that governance lie in every other country.

In a two-power world there is much less of an incentive to provide those kind of institutions. Think about WHEN the Great Depression happened - after Britain had declined, while the US lacked the willpower or ability to take its place. Financial cooperation (as existed in the 19th century, and in the present) could have prevented the trade war, and competitive devaluation of currency that shriveled world trade into nothing. However, you generally don't seek to provide public goods when it will cost you, while benefiting another country that is coming close to surpassing you.

I don't really care at all about fairness. eg. the argument that "the US does bad things, so it should be okay for other countries to do bad things." I am not a moralist, and the international system is anarchic (ie. ungoverned). The US should pursue its own national interests. Of course, doing so is also in the interest of the world, because hegemony is in the interest of the world.

Sure there are some abuses of US hegemony, and the US extracts a payoff (for instance because its currency is essentially the currency of international trade - this means that American monetary policy has international effects). Those abuses pale into the horrific prospect of superpower war - something that has always happened in periods of multi-polarity in the international system.

China is accepting that people are resisting by force. It just seems that no one else (all these protesters) is accepting that China is trying to silence the resistance by force.

Of course the US, as a business driven country, has enough interest in the entire system to do "all this."

History needn't necessarily repeat itself. The circumstances are different, the outcome is not definite. Even if it comes to pass, humanity survived the first great depression didn't it?

What I'm getting from this though, is that it doesn't matter essentially who should take over as the world's superpower... we will launch into another worldwide economic collapse if it happens. If that is the case, we all better hope the US will pick itself up ASAP. Because currently, it looks like a "failing power", and no other country is quite ready to pick up the slack yet.


I personally don't mean so much that "because the US does bad stuff, other countries can do it too." I meant more to say that at least they wouldn't be making the same mistakes.

Also I'm a firm follower of the "mind your own damn business" rule. And it seems that the US is the exact opposite. I understand the desire to keep everything under control, but most times I think they go to far. Even if their intentions are good, they are ruined by their self-centered attitude. All I keep seeing is the US trying to forcibly make everything "right" by THEIR standards. It doesn't seem to matter to them that their standards are not always desirable.

P.S. IMO, nuclear weapons should have ceased to exist after WWII. Even considering ever using them again is insane. And so using nuclear weapons to threaten other countries is comparable to a children's game of "My toy pwns your toy!"

[Antares]

Also I'm a firm follower of the "mind your own damn business" rule. And it seems that the US is the exact opposite. I understand the desire to keep everything under control, but most times I think they go to far. Even if their intentions are good, they are ruined by their self-centered attitude. All I keep seeing is the US trying to forcibly make everything "right" by THEIR standards. It doesn't seem to matter to them that their standards are not always desirable.

This I noticed. US took it upon herself to poke her elongated nose everywhere, and nobody is liking it much; bumping oil price (indirectly), crashing her own economy and killing thousands for the nonexistent weapon of mass destruction.

Even considering ever using them again is insane.

Haha. MacArthur considered dropping what? 50? 200? Anyway. A large amount of atom bombs on China, North Korea and Russia. Good going. Good thing he didn't. We'd see WWIII if he did.

I cant even be bothered to refute all those 'arguments' and 'facts'.

Take read of this NY times article to get a more realistic view To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You hurt only yourself by delusions, what is coming will come.

So basically, the whole eight pages is about how European Union and China will destroy American's stronghold in the world both politically and economically? I read a page and this is the impression I'm getting. Lookout, folks, 1984 is coming.

Speak of the devil. I just finished typing this and saw, in the first sentence of the second page, the mention of the book.

[thod]

So basically, the whole eight pages is about how European Union and China will destroy American's stronghold in the world both politically and economically?

Everyone knows that America is the best at everything.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Rei]

Haha. MacArthur considered dropping what? 50? 200? Anyway. A large amount of atom bombs on China, North Korea and Russia. Good going. Good thing he didn't. We'd see WWIII if he did.

I don't know... I wonder who would be left to fight against had he done that. If somehow, someone decides to fight then, it would be in a sense, a bit of an apocalypse.
The Earth's natural systems are screwed over, vast stretches of land inhabitable for decades. To add to that, the future generation (young men and women) dying in wars. That would mean a HUGE depletion of resources both human and natural.
This may be extreme, but I'm envisioning wastelands and humans living in biodome cities similar to the slums as I say this. :blank:

[thod]

Its not the irradiated land that would cause the problems, its the soot thrown into the air. The 2007 study on global nuclear war states:

A global average surface cooling of –7°C to –8°C persists for years, and after a decade the cooling is still –4°C (Fig. 2). Considering that the global average cooling at the depth of the last ice age 18,000 yr ago was about –5°C, this would be a climate change unprecedented in speed and amplitude in the history of the human race. The temperature changes are largest over land ... Cooling of more than –20°C occurs over large areas of North America and of more than –30°C over much of Eurasia, including all agricultural regions

So much of N America and Europe would be covered in ice sheets and all crops would fail. Not only do temperatures fall but there is little sunlight getting through to any crops that may survive in tropical regions. We would walk around freezing in a perpetual night until we die of starvation. Very few humans would survive this.

[Antares]

I don't know... I wonder who would be left to fight against had he done that. If somehow, someone decides to fight then, it would be in a sense, a bit of an apocalypse.

I've heard that by then the Soviets had acquired nuclear weapons, and he had originally planned only the cities near Korea and Port Arthur, so Moscow wouldn't even be touched. Plenty of time for the Commies to detonate their own toys, and we can imagine what that would lead to.


Its not the irradiated land that would cause the problems, its the soot thrown into the air. The 2007 study on global nuclear war states:

So much of N America and Europe would be covered in ice sheets and all crops would fail. Not only do temperatures fall but there is little sunlight getting through to any crops that may survive in tropical regions. We would walk around freezing in a perpetual night until we die of starvation. Very few humans would survive this.

To summarize this in one sentence: Nuclear war would mean the end of mankind.

[thod]

To summarize this in one sentence: Nuclear war would mean the end of mankind

Well you could survive. You be able to grow mushrooms on the wood from the dead forests for many years since this is a form of stored energy. You could supplement you diet with intruder meat from those who would take your shrooms.

[Antares]

Well you could survive. You be able to grow mushrooms on the wood from the dead forests for many years since this is a form of stored energy. You could supplement you diet with intruder meat from those who would take your shrooms.

Heh. Some solution this would be, since I flee at the very sight of mushrooms. But I would have to eat them, I suppose. Survival's important.

[Rei]

Well you could survive. You be able to grow mushrooms on the wood from the dead forests for many years since this is a form of stored energy. You could supplement you diet with intruder meat from those who would take your shrooms.

Then again... I wonder if such mushrooms would be safe to eat. Them being fungi doesn't render them immune to the effects of radiation poisoning.

[thod]

Then again... I wonder if such mushrooms would be safe to eat. Them being fungi doesn't render them immune to the effects of radiation poisoning.

Perhaps near blast centers. However most of the forest death is down to reduced temperature and lack of sunlight not contamination.

[Theodoric]

"The US spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined. This is like the USSR which was broken by it military spending compared to the size of its economy."

The US spends 3-4% of its GDP on the military. The Soviet Union spend about 50. Historically, the US spends a lower proportion of its GDP on the military than at any time during the cold war.

"Europe has a larger economy and populace than the US. Its geographical location better places it to exploit the resources of Africa and Asia whilst China will do the same on its side of the land mass."

Resource costs are a minor concern in a modern economy. As for oil, one exception to that, the US has domestic sources of oil (unlike Europe), and is situated near Canada and its oil sands (Canada is projected to be among the top 5 oil producers in the next decade). Moreover, lower transport costs mean that geographic position is nothing. While the EU has a larger population (but not a larger economy, based on purchasing power parity), it faces low growth, both economically and demographically. Moreover, it is not united, and one of the two members (Britain) with a decent military (Germany has military potential but also a constitution that limits it from doing anything) has long had a special relationship with the United States. Just look at how the EU failed to deal with the balkans, and can't even field much of a force in Afghanistan without severe political resistance.


Militarily, the question arises that what is going to happen should the US withdrawal all of its worldwide forces home? This is a likely scenario should the US decline as much as some people think it will.

There are military bases and forces stationed all over Europe, the Middle East, Japan, Korea, etc etc etc. The majority of these countries depend on the US for national security purposes. These countries have had the luxury of not having to focus on their military, being able to pour more money into socialist programs and the economy. Should the US adopt a Nationalist policy and withdrawal its forces these countries would be forced to either slash their economic and social policies or face being annexed by their much more aggressive neighbors.

The economy of the United States has been the world's largest national economy since the early 1870s; its gross domestic product (GDP) was estimated as $13.8 trillion in 2007. The economy of the European Union combines the economies of 27 member states and is generating an estimated nominal GDP of US$17,6 trillion in 2008. So in pure terms of GDP, the EU does beat out the US (slightly). The per capita GDP is much lower in the EU though, only $29,900 USD compared to the $46,000 per capita GDP in the US. Also, the EU has 7% unemployment and 17% of the population is below poverty. The US on the other hand has only an unemployment rate of 4.5% and only 12% of the population is below the poverty level. Meaning the US population is still richer and better off than the EU population even though the Euro is making gains and the US dollar is dropping. However, this could actually be a potential boon to the US economy, prompting foreign investors and manufacturing to return to the US. This has already started to occur with US exports growing over the past year. The EU also consistently engages in poor economic policies such as trade protectionism which has a tendency to weaken the economy. Most of the member countries also rely heavily on tourism from wealthier countries (the US) accounting for nearly 70% of their entire GDP. Should the US falter, the EU will be struck a heavy blow, not to mention China which has depended on the devaluation of its currency and the export of its manufactured products to the US and Europe for decades.

Natural resources are becoming less and less important as well. Even oil, which everyone seems to think is so important, will be superseded in the US by the use of hydrogen, solar, nuclear, and other renewable energy sources. This will not only fuel an economic rebound for the US but will also cause economic collapse for those countries that depended solely on the export of oil for their economies.

Its going to take a little more than a small recession, declining world opinion, and the arguments that the "US does bad things" and that "Bush is a bad person." to convince me that the US is doomed to fail. Bush might have been a terrible person, engaging in disastrous foreign policy relations, but by no means will his decisions last into the subsequent administrations.

[alien383]

Japan's defeat in WWII was probably one of the greatest beginnings that took place for that country.
It's the New Japan (Post WW2) that iv'e come to love. However, with that said; the backbone of their economical foundation all came from their looting and zurg rushes over asia (Nanjing being one of the most notable). In that respect, they're evil bastards - to no surprise why my chinese friend's granpa cowers everytime he sees one, babbling: "Demons! Demons!" in cantonese lol.

I'm actually going to stay in Tokyo for 3 week @ the end of this year.
Has anyone been before? If so, are there any good places you reccomend?

[thod]

There are military bases and forces stationed all over Europe, the Middle East, Japan, Korea, etc etc etc. The majority of these countries depend on the US for national security purposes. These countries have had the luxury of not having to focus on their military, being able to pour more money into socialist programs and the economy. Should the US adopt a Nationalist policy and withdrawal its forces these countries would be forced to either slash their economic and social policies or face being annexed by their much more aggressive neighbors.


Oddly enough I don't think they do fear being annexed in some sort of Roman conquest. I think Cuba would be quite happy to see the US pull out. I don't see the European countries invading each other. Places such as Midway island are for strategic control of the pacific rather than protection of a piece of land.

If the US pulls out they will have more money to spend at home, a good thing.

The per capita GDP is much lower in the EU though, only $29,900 USD compared to the $46,000 per capita GDP in the US. Also, the EU has 7% unemployment and 17% of the population is below poverty. The US on the other hand has only an unemployment rate of 4.5% and only 12% of the population is below the poverty level.

You will doubtless be aware of the recent acquisitions to the EU in eastern Europe. There is much work to be done there building them into modern economies explaining your numbers. A great opportunity for growth unavailable in the US. Don't get me started on measuring unemployment in the US with how long you can claim to be unemployed. I recently saw an article that says under current measurement rules the US only had 7% unemployment in the great depression.

The EU also consistently engages in poor economic policies such as trade protectionism which has a tendency to weaken the economy.

Agricultural subsidies are about the same in each region. They may be given in many ways and the WTO has criticized both. But you get to hear how the the other guy is using 'protectionist' policies but our own farmers are downtrodden. Your poor economic practices seem to ignore US trade deficits and an ever rising public and private debt. Is always been sound economics to not spend more than you earn over the cycle.

Most of the member countries also rely heavily on tourism from wealthier countries (the US) accounting for nearly 70% of their entire GDP

This is laughable. You cant seriously think that Europe generates so much income from US tourists. The place would have to be full of Americans spending their savings. The world is not exactly full of wealthy countries for these tourists to originate. Most Americans have never been to Europe at all.

China which has depended on the devaluation of its currency and the export of its manufactured products to the US and Europe for decades

China was pegged to the dollar for ages. Only recently has it allowed its currency to appreciate against the dollar (not depreciate). This is done by buying dollars keeping the dollar up and the yuan low.

Its going to take a little more than a small recession, declining world opinion, and the arguments that the "US does bad things" and that "Bush is a bad person." to convince me that the US is doomed to fail.

The US will not fail. It has huge natural resources, and a hard working, inventive, and resourceful set of people. It is not going to become some third world banana republic. It will still be a great power. I do not believe it will be the only one. The other regions will not stop in their efforts to better themselves. It is their rise rather than a US fall that bring about the multi power world.

[Theodoric]

Oddly enough I don't think they do fear being annexed in some sort of Roman conquest. I think Cuba would be quite happy to see the US pull out. I don't see the European countries invading each other. Places such as Midway island are for strategic control of the pacific rather than protection of a piece of land.

The Europeans have historically been unable to get along. With the advent of the EU, the majority of the European countries will probably keep the current trend of mutual cooperation, but that was mainly helped along by the fact that most have no armies to speak of anymore. The real issue for Europe is not the other European countries, but from increasingly aggressive Russia which wants to reclaim the old glory days and the antagonistic and vengeful Middle Eastern and North African countries that are looking to Europe for wealth and resources. Then there are still the old Soviet Bloc countries and the Balkan states which have been in perpetual turmoil.


You will doubtless be aware of the recent acquisitions to the EU in eastern Europe. There is much work to be done there building them into modern economies explaining your numbers. A great opportunity for growth unavailable in the US. Don't get me started on measuring unemployment in the US with how long you can claim to be unemployed. I recently saw an article that says under current measurement rules the US only had 7% unemployment in the great depression.

Yet in America we don't see people relying on federal housing and rioting in the streets due to high unemployment (France), the well educated wealthy leaving their countries for better opportunities (Denmark), and the elderly population becoming larger than the younger population which they rely on to take care of them (Italy). And these are the modern Western European countries, not the eastern ones that you pointed to. I wonder why the UK still refuses to become part of the EU?


Agricultural subsidies are about the same in each region. They may be given in many ways and the WTO has criticized both. But you get to hear how the the other guy is using 'protectionist' policies but our own farmers are downtrodden. Your poor economic practices seem to ignore US trade deficits and an ever rising public and private debt. Is always been sound economics to not spend more than you earn over the cycle.

Right, because engaging in protectionist trade practices which help to shut world markets to your goods and services thus lowering your ability to export goods is a good idea.

The US does engage in these same practices as well, however opinion in some circles is starting to shift. There are increasing talks of creating new free trade agreements and an end to protectionist practices. The US could do much better if politicians would stop pandering to Unions and special interests and start adopting more modern trade practices like those adopted by Hong Kong and Finland.


This is laughable. You cant seriously think that Europe generates so much income from US tourists. The place would have to be full of Americans spending their savings. The world is not exactly full of wealthy countries for these tourists to originate. Most Americans have never been to Europe at all.


Actually, yes, I do. The tourism trade is the most important industry in Europe, far outweighing agriculture and manufacturing. The bulk of those tourists come form wealthy, modern countries (the US, Japan). Other than the very few wealthy Middle Eastern businessmen and royalty, few others venture to Europe.

From Wiki:

The services sector is by far the most important sector in the European Union, making up 69.4% of GDP, compared to the manufacturing industry with 28.4% of GDP and agriculture with only 2.3% of GDP.

And much of the service sector is in some way associated with tourism. Back in 2003 there was a massive fall off of American tourists in Europe.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Which caused some economic downturn. Imagine what a full fledged drop in US tourism would do to the European economy.


China was pegged to the dollar for ages. Only recently has it allowed its currency to appreciate against the dollar (not depreciate). This is done by buying dollars keeping the dollar up and the yuan low.


Only time will tell if this is good or bad for China and good or bad for the US. It is possible that the Chinese economy will lag. This is due to the fact that 21% of Chinese exports go directly to the US, while 16% are destined to Hong Kong where they are filtered into other markets.


The US will not fail. It has huge natural resources, and a hard working, inventive, and resourceful set of people. It is not going to become some third world banana republic. It will still be a great power. I do not believe it will be the only one. The other regions will not stop in their efforts to better themselves. It is their rise rather than a US fall that bring about the multi power world.

This is more in tune with what I believe will happen. Some people on this thread seem to think (and some revel in the idea) that the US is destined to turn into some third world country, stripped of its military, political, and economic power. The issue that we need to really address is should Russia and China rise up to be superpowers, will they adopt anti-western rhetoric and cause us to be thrown into another Cold War or will they become increasingly democratic and open and decide to share in mutual cooperation politically and economically?

What many people need to realize is that all countries rely on each other for economic support and stability. Increasingly antagonistic practices and engagements in imperialist practices are far more detrimental than any perceived benefits.

[Rei]

I'm actually going to stay in Tokyo for 3 week @ the end of this year.
Has anyone been before? If so, are there any good places you reccomend?

No real place to recommend... I'm sure you've heard of the typical shopping/sightseeing districts. I must encourage you to be sure to try the ramen though!

The US will not fail. It has huge natural resources, and a hard working, inventive, and resourceful set of people. It is not going to become some third world banana republic. It will still be a great power. I do not believe it will be the only one. The other regions will not stop in their efforts to better themselves. It is their rise rather than a US fall that bring about the multi power world.

Yet in America we don't see people relying on federal housing and rioting in the streets due to high unemployment (France), the well educated wealthy leaving their countries for better opportunities (Denmark), and the elderly population becoming larger than the younger population which they rely on to take care of them (Italy). And these are the modern Western European countries, not the eastern ones that you pointed to. I wonder why the UK still refuses to become part of the EU?

Actually, yes, I do. The tourism trade is the most important industry in Europe, far outweighing agriculture and manufacturing. The bulk of those tourists come form wealthy, modern countries (the US, Japan). Other than the very few wealthy Middle Eastern businessmen and royalty, few others venture to Europe.
...
Which caused some economic downturn. Imagine what a full fledged drop in US tourism would do to the European economy.

Only time will tell if this is good or bad for China and good or bad for the US. It is possible that the Chinese economy will lag. This is due to the fact that 21% of Chinese exports go directly to the US, while 16% are destined to Hong Kong where they are filtered into other markets.

This is more in tune with what I believe will happen. Some people on this thread seem to think (and some revel in the idea) that the US is destined to turn into some third world country, stripped of its military, political, and economic power. The issue that we need to really address is should Russia and China rise up to be superpowers, will they adopt anti-western rhetoric and cause us to be thrown into another Cold War or will they become increasingly democratic and open and decide to share in mutual cooperation politically and economically?

What many people need to realize is that all countries rely on each other for economic support and stability. Increasingly antagonistic practices and engagements in imperialist practices are far more detrimental than any perceived benefits.


There is no doubt that Europe relies heavily on tourism in comparison to agriculture and manufactoring. They have no space for that, all they can offer are human resources (and their long histories and culture). It's not actually so surprising. They get tourists year round from North America and the wealthier parts of Asia. I hear about people I know going different parts of Europe ALL the time. It's not quite accurate to say most Americans haven't been to Europe. It really depends what area you're in. Most people I know have been to at least one country in Europe, and the bulk of my network is in their early twenties.

The US has been seen as a place of great opportunity for decades. The steady flow of young ambitious people moving into the country is partly what keeps it's population growing rather than declining. Not to mention they have everything. Technological developments, lots of agricultural land in different climates to grow almost anything naturally. The US will not become an Old World like the European countries any time soon, not to mention a third world country.

It's more likely that another country (China/Russia) will draw level with the US. I'm not entirely sure about Russia, but I think Theodoric is right... most people know that countries rely on each other for support and stability. This may sound corny, but different resources are balanced throughout the world. As of now, there is no way any country can be entirely self sufficient. Therefore, it is not in anyone's best interest to create conflict. Like someone mentioned before, China works within it's own circle... they dislike to be told what they should do, and likewise they will not seek to disturb "world peace."