News What are Your Thoughts on the Rise of China?

[Synaptic]

When we think about first world nations and world leaders in politics, ethics, economics, and science, we think of Western nations that are built on democracy, human rights, and freedom. But now we are facing a new situation where the prospective new world leader will spread its influence while standing on a foundation based on political authoritarianism/monarchism, coercive population control (forced abortions, forced sterilizations, one-child policy, state-sponsored eugenics), ethnic nationalism (racial exclusion for immigration and citizenship, complete rejection of multiculturalism, persecution of gays, etc.), a complete rejection of human rights (denial of religious freedom/gay rights/political expression, media censorship and criminalizing possession and viewing of Western television shows, criminalization of sexual self-determination/pornography, etc.), and political alliances with other evil nations such as Iran, North Korea, and Russia.

What are your thoughts about the possibility of having your whole lives turned upside down by a realigning of world power based on ideologies you have your whole lives rejected?

 

[Tenshou]

China might try to politically influence parts of Africa, I am not sure for what, but it is a possibility. China has America beat in sciences and patriotism lol. But I do think China is in for a change, a more "democratic" way of living for the people of China. Although, the west thinks of China as the bad guys the Chinese are actually pretty multicultural, well enough for them to send their children over here to learn. I have met Chinese people and befriended many of them. The people you should be afraid of is your own government, our own government, Europe and its government. Also, lots of the Chinese I have met are very intellectual, albeit they were a little bit apolitical they had strong belief in their country. So, I don't think we should call other nations evil just their culture is a bit different than ours. In addition, America wouldn't have any political rivals like North Korea if we would have won the Korean war, we didn't need nukes we needed peace negotiations and talks of political support, I bet that N. Korea is sitting on a gold mine of oil.

 

[Haborix]

China might try to politically influence parts of Africa, I am not sure for what, but it is a possibility. China has America beat in sciences and patriotism lol. But I do think China is in for a change, a more "democratic" way of living for the people of China. Although, the west thinks of China as the bad guys the Chinese are actually pretty multicultural, well enough for them to send their children over here to learn. I have met Chinese people and befriended many of them. The people you should be afraid of is your own government, our own government, Europe and its government. Also, lots of the Chinese I have met are very intellectual, albeit they were a little bit apolitical they had strong belief in their country. So, I don't think we should call other nations evil just their culture is a bit different than ours. In addition, America wouldn't have any political rivals like North Korea if we would have won the Korean war, we didn't need nukes we needed peace negotiations and talks of political support, I bet that N. Korea is sitting on a gold mine of oil.

I'm not sure how you square your comment about attaining a more democratic way of living with the people being apolitical. Also, multicultural isn't usually used to refer to the willingness to go be apart of another culture. Chinese people could hate the culture of the US but still send their children here for the higher education opportunities. Multiculturalism refers to the existence of multiple cultures coexisting in the same region. In that respect, I don't see how China could be ever be considered multicultural. I do agree with you about dealing with our own governments; prosperity and relatively long peacetime has made people belonging to Western nations complacent.

In general, I've begun to feel that a case for Chinese takeover is usually overstated. Even if China were to become THE economic power I don't think they would also export their ideas about governance to the rest of the world.

 

[Synaptic]

China has America beat in science and patriotism lol.

Most Westerners don't support extreme ethnic nationalism.

Also, China's economy is completely based on intellectual property theft: stealing Western science and technology. Not something to be proud of.

But I do think China is in for a change, a more "democratic" way of living for the people of China.

Most Western political commentators don't see economic success in China transforming into democracy: their views are that we should just accept the fact that China will always be a "monarchist" system.

I have met Chinese people and befriended many of them.

That is very touching; but I am talking about the government of China. People in China would love democracy and would love to vote for their way of life, but they have not had their violent democratic revolution as yet leading to democracy, as many other nations underwent.

Also, lots of the Chinese I have met are very intellectual.

Fascinating. But I am talking about China's government, not whether individual Chinese people are intellectual.

So, I don't think we should call other nations evil

Yes: I meant that their government is evil, not the oppressed citizens themselves.

So, are you looking forward to the sterilization of people China's government considers "inferior," forcing women to get abortions against their will, and imprisoning gay rights activists? Are you in favor of the Chinese government providing economic support to Iran, a nation that wants to destroy the West and wipe Israel off the face of the Earth? Are you in support of China's government eradicating the culture of the Tibetans? Do you support them telling people how many children they can have? Because you have just now defended all these things.

 

[Tenshou]

I'm not sure how you square your comment about attaining a more democratic way of living with the people being apolitical. Also, multicultural isn't usually used to refer to the willingness to go be apart of another culture. Chinese people could hate the culture of the US but still send their children here for the higher education opportunities. Multiculturalism refers to the existence of multiple cultures coexisting in the same region. In that respect, I don't see how China could be ever be considered multicultural. I do agree with you about dealing with our own governments; prosperity and relatively long peacetime has made people belonging to Western nations complacent.

In general, I've begun to feel that a case for Chinese takeover is usually overstated. Even if China were to become THE economic power I don't think they would also export their ideas about governance to the rest of the world.

Well, I mean you may be right about the multiculturalism part, but there is a large number of people there in china I am pretty sure they aren't all Atheist, like most communist nations. I mean what would you rather have, people forcing you into their beliefs, or your old style of belief systems.

Most Westerners don't support extreme ethnic nationalism.

Also, China's economy is completely based on intellectual property theft: stealing Western science and technology. Not something to be proud of.

Most Western political commentators don't see economic success in China transforming into democracy: their views are that we should just accept the fact that China will always be a "monarchist" system.

Yes: I meant that their government is evil, not the oppressed citizens themselves.

So, are you looking forward to the sterilization of people China's government considers "inferior," forcing women to get abortions against their will, and imprisoning gay rights activists? Are you in favor of the Chinese government providing economic support to Iran, a nation that wants to destroy the West and wipe Israel off the face of the Earth? Are you in support of China's government eradicating the culture of the Tibetans? Do you support them telling people how many children they can have? Because you have just now defended all these things.

What the heck? Who support ethnic nationalism unless you are a Nazi... Oh yeah, like the west builds everything. You can't just take things and call them your own. lots of trade happened between the west and china(I mean back in ancient history, but still...). Well of course, political commentators, but who can look into the future? China could become a "democracy" over night... notice I am using quotes because it isn't a democracy,but like a republic "democracy" of sorts. What about the government is evil? the way the oppress their citizens? or is it the way they hide their corruptions? Because America does both, and we aren't even aware of it. Why would I be in favor of that, what, should I have a bias? Did you mind about America providing them support back in the 80's(I think it was), or was that Iraq... to fight off the Russians, and then only ~20 year later have them fight us back for their Jihad? I mean if it ends up happening to China, they just might not be as nice as Americans they have nukes and they don't like to be picked on. dude, I love those monks! Two children, it is a good number to replace each parent, but no I do not support that, because they can't have more children once their only son or daughter die, have you heard of Ai Wei Wei, a Chinese artist check him out, he did a piece on an Earth quake that happened in 四川（Si Chuan） it is pretty sad. I don't like the actions of china, they cloak youtube, but I was watching a documentary and a person in the documentary said "This great fire wall of China is like a melting ice ream, and if each citizen of china takes a lick at it, this wall will be gone." or something like that, but if you think about what the "great fire wall of china" resembles, is China's unwillingness to allow the west in, and their culture out.

 

[Tosh5457]

I don't think all those things the Chinese government does will stand. Once more and more Chinese start getting educated and get out of poorness, things will change, like they did in European countries, and Japan. And European Western Nations aren't built on democracy, human rights and freedom. Almost all developed as monarchies, always engaging in wars through history; democracy, human rights and freedom came only in the last century.
Look at the situation of 1st World War (1914): European monarchies and dictatorships and Imperial Japan going against each other, having battles on their colonies as well. Western history isn't as pretty as you're describing it. At that time, European countries had roughly the GDP/capita China had a few years ago, which means the relative wealth was similar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

What worries me is the foreign debt from Europe and US that China owns, and the industry from the West shifting to China. But that's bad management by politicians here, the Chinese government is just taking the ride.

 

[Haborix]

I'm not sure if you're responding to me, Tosh, but I was speaking in the context of the past 50-60 years. To talk about people being complacent over longer periods of time is pointless because of the radical changes the world has seen as recent as the beginning of the 20th century.

 

[Tosh5457]

I'm not sure if you're responding to me, Tosh, but I was speaking in the context of the past 50-60 years. To talk about people being complacent over longer periods of time is pointless because of the radical changes the world has seen as recent as the beginning of the 20th century.

I was replying to the OP, I agree

 

[Mute]

When we think about first world nations and world leaders in politics, ethics, economics, and science, we think of Western nations that are built on democracy, human rights, and freedom.

Well, given recent events, we may need to rethink some of those assumptions.

But now we are facing a new situation where the prospective new world leader will spread its influence while standing on a foundation based on political authoritarianism/monarchism, coercive population control (forced abortions, forced sterilizations, one-child policy, state-sponsored eugenics), ethnic nationalism (racial exclusion for immigration and citizenship, complete rejection of multiculturalism, persecution of gays, etc.), a complete rejection of human rights (denial of religious freedom/gay rights/political expression, media censorship and criminalizing possession and viewing of Western television shows, criminalization of sexual self-determination/pornography, etc.), and political alliances with other evil nations such as Iran, North Korea, and Russia.

The situation isn't really new. China has already been spreading its influence. So far, it doesn't seem to be trying to undermine democracy around the world. The Communist party seems to be primarily interested in maintaining its authoritarian regime as a means of self-preservation. Though it still has a long way to go in terms of its human rights record, China is much more open than it used to be, and I think that the Communist Party's grip on information and other sorts of freedoms the West enjoys will likely continue to weaken with time.

What are your thoughts about the possibility of having your whole lives turned upside down by a realigning of world power based on ideologies you have your whole lives rejected?

Unless China adopts the West's policy of going around to other countries and "freeing" them, I doubt it would be any more world-shaking if China displaces the US as the world's superpower or if some other country did. The US has been the dominant superpower for decades; no matter who takes the #1 spot from them, adjusting will not be easy.

I'm not sure how you square your comment about attaining a more democratic way of living with the people being apolitical. Also, multicultural isn't usually used to refer to the willingness to go be apart of another culture. Chinese people could hate the culture of the US but still send their children here for the higher education opportunities. Multiculturalism refers to the existence of multiple cultures coexisting in the same region. In that respect, I don't see how China could be ever be considered multicultural.

That's because, based on your comments, you probably live in a Western society which likely has such large variations in ethnicity that you don't realize there are variations in ethnic groups you would consider a single category. There are 55 officially recognized minority groups in China - and they don't all have the same culture.

Also, China's economy is completely based on intellectual property theft: stealing Western science and technology. Not something to be proud of.

And the US's economy takes advantage of the fact that it can have peasants in Chinese factories assemble all that Western technology for dirt cheap and sell them at a ridiculous profit. Is that something to be proud of?

Most Western political commentators don't see economic success in China transforming into democracy: their views are that we should just accept the fact that China will always be a "monarchist" system.

I don't think any Western political commentators foresaw the Berlin Wall coming down either, but it happened.

That is very touching; but I am talking about the government of China. People in China would love democracy and would love to vote for their way of life, but they have not had their violent democratic revolution as yet leading to democracy, as many other nations underwent.

Really? How do you know that? How do you know most or many of the Chinese aren't just fine with the ways things currently are? I've seen documentaries where Chinese citizens in rural villages get to vote for the mayor, yet still openly state that they think China is too big and diverse to elect the president. It seems that most of the Chinese who don't like the government are the ones who stand to make lots of money and don't want the government to get its hand on it. Most of the poorer citizens are possibly so used to their way of life that they don't even think the issue of not being able to elect the government is an issue. (That's not to say that they don't have issues with the government - for example, I'm sure owners of nail houses aren't too happy with the government).

Yes: I meant that their government is evil, not the oppressed citizens themselves.

I don't think it's accurate to call all of the citizens of China oppressed. Some are. Some feel fine with the way things are. Just because you or I would feel oppressed under the Communist party's regime doesn't mean that those who do live under it are oppressed.

So, are you looking forward to the sterilization of people China's government considers "inferior," forcing women to get abortions against their will, and imprisoning gay rights activists? Are you in favor of the Chinese government providing economic support to Iran, a nation that wants to destroy the West and wipe Israel off the face of the Earth? Are you in support of China's government eradicating the culture of the Tibetans? Do you support them telling people how many children they can have? Because you have just now defended all these things.

At this point you are dangerously close (if not already guilty) of committing the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion, so I am going to have to ask you to start citing some form of reasonably impartial sources of information to back up your arguments. If you just started this thread to express your views about China, then you've done so and the thread can be closed. If you want to have an actual debate and discussion, then you cannot accuse people of supporting forced abortions because they take issue with you calling China, Iran or Russia evil when many, if not all, Western countries have also done a great many things that fly in the face of freedom and human rights.

You are not just trying to paint a picture of China as a morally-void entity; you are at the same time trying to cast the West as a morally superior entity, and while there are a great many terrible things that I think the Chinese government has done, and while I very much enjoy and cherish the freedoms offered to me as a Westerner, the West has not always taken the moral high ground, and you cannot paint this picture of world politics using only black and white.

What worries me is the foreign debt from Europe and US that China owns, and the industry from the West shifting to China. But that's bad management by politicians here, the Chinese government is just taking the ride.

At the risk of setting off debates about Krugman, I hear the foreign-held-debt issue is not as big as is believed.

 

[pascal12]

What are your thoughts about the possibility of having your whole lives turned upside down by a realigning of world power based on ideologies you have your whole lives rejected?

I don't understand how the rise of China would induce a complete revolution in our lives. Western Europe still hold on to their cultures despite having fallen from economic dominance in the 20th century. Economies cycle, and world powers come and go. China was already the world leader in economy and technology before the 15th-ish century.

I would tend to agree with some of Tenshou's points. There is no black and white, and defending China does not mean that I support everything they do. Just because China may support some things you do not agree with, does not make them evil. How about the U.S.'s recent NSA PRISM scandal? They are not only violating the Constitution, one of the single most powerful documents governing the U.S. government, but they are also violating numerous international treaties by basically spying on internet activity of other countries. Additionally, as has been alluded to, the U.S. has been oppressing women's rights, minority rights, and gay rights now too long ago. In fact, these are fights that are still not over.

That is very touching; but I am talking about the government of China. People in China would love democracy and would love to vote for their way of life, but they have not had their violent democratic revolution as yet leading to democracy, as many other nations underwent.

This is a very strong comment that I would disagree with. You assume that everybody in the world shares your ideals, which is false. Speaking with a lot of Chinese, the mindset is often that although they do not support everything the government does (censorship, for example), it is seen as necessary for the good of society and the country. This stems from a culture deeply rooted in Confucianism, stressing the collective, or the society. This can be contrasted to the U.S.'s strong individualistic culture, stressing the good of each person.
Additionally, this kind of mindset can be dangerous, as we have already made numerous mistakes in the Middle East, staying too long in countries convinced that we can build them a Democracy.

Now, with this said, this is not to completely defend China's actions. I do think that they need to pay more attention to human rights, international intellectual property laws, and abuse of international market control. It just seems that a lot of your arguments are needless/false generalizations and fear-inducing statements. The U.S. is not perfect either, and China has definitely been improving significantly in the last few decades.

Edit: Also agree with a lot of Mute's points.

 

[Synaptic]

If China becomes more powerful than the West, I wonder what that would mean for the power of China's allies, such as Iran and Russia. Would this mean that Iran can then fulfill its plan to wipe out Israel with the backing of China? Does it mean that Russia can once again rebuilt its former USSR? Would it also mean China itself can invade all the islands of the South Multi-National Sea and capture foreign assets held by our allies like Japan and the Philippines?

I am not worried about the debt issue though: who ever said we have to pay it back to China? Consider the money payment for all the technology China "borrowed" from us.

 

[Synaptic]

How about the U.S.'s recent NSA PRISM the last few decades.

NSA is a crime and terrorism fighting agency of the USA: a noble arm of the government. They play a very important task in screening electronic communications, such as internet postings, for individuals showing support for nations involved in human-rights abuses, espionage, and facilitating social, economic, and political harm to the USA and her allies. NSA is a monument to quintessential ethics and virtue.

 

[SteamKing]

I don't know what plans China has for Africa, but I do know that China is very much active in Central America and the Caribbean. China is not only paying to widen the Panama Canal, but they have also signed an agreement with Nicaragua to build a second canal across that country.

More troublesome is that it appears that China and Russia have entered a period of detente and may be moving towards a more amicable relationship. This is bad news for the US, since it complicates a whole host of foreign policy issues which must be dealt with in Europe and Asia.

 

[Astronuc]

What goes up eventually comes down, and all great societies have collapsed from within.

 

[aquitaine]

I think the China story is too often distorted, especially by the relativists.

The reality of China's rise is that it's built on bubbles that are, relative to the size of their economy, far larger than anything we managed to concoct. It's banks are loaded with NPLs from wasteful infrastructure projects and from propping up loss inducing SOE's. The SOE problem in particular is a rather sticky because that's a critically important part of the regime's ability to hold onto power. The vast majority of managers, especially in the upper echelons are direct appointees of the Communist Party. The economy as it is structured now is a giant patronage machine for the Party to buy support. Not surprisingly, as a result of having so much government in the economy there's a tremendous amount of rent seeking. That makes critically important reforms very difficult because there's so many vested interests. How you know the current leadership is serious about reform is whether or not they conduct wholesale across the board privatization of all the SOEs. To make matters worse they're going to end up doing it at the worst time, as this wave of globalization comes to an end it's the great surplus countries that are among the hardest hit.

The geopolitical situation in East Asia doesn't get nearly the attention it deserves. There has been an arms race going on for the past few years, with India, China and Vietnam all loading up. If that were not enough, as a direct result of China's bullying and increasingly aggressive foreign policy there has been something of an anti-China power bloc forming around Vietnam, the Philippines and Japan. This a hugely important development because they have a history of not getting along and was completely unthinkable just a few years ago. Indeed, China is following the same militaristic path Germany took during Wilhelm II's reign. This is a powder keg and it's only a matter of time before it blows.

There is no black and white, and defending China does not mean that I support everything they do. Just because China may support some things you do not agree with, does not make them evil. How about the U.S.'s recent NSA PRISM scandal?

Have you read about China's Goldenshield project? PRISM is nothing compared to what they have. In China foreign websites run very slow, and many blocked at the whim of the Party officials. Individual users are tracked as the Public Security Bureau's do have their own Internet Surveillance Divisions. In Shenzhen they even have mascots. Meet JingJing and ChaCha:

Additionally, as has been alluded to, the U.S. has been oppressing women's rights, minority rights, and gay rights now too long ago. In fact, these are fights that are still not over.

These fights are not over yes, but are you really going to say that we have made no progress at all? I'm constantly impressed by the relativists willingness to put down the efforts of the women's rights, gay rights and civil rights movement to satisfy some ridiculous need for equality.

 

[Mute]

NSA is a crime and terrorism fighting agency of the USA: a noble arm of the government. They play a very important task in screening electronic communications, such as internet postings, for individuals showing support for nations involved in human-rights abuses, espionage, and facilitating social, economic, and political harm to the USA and her allies. NSA is a monument to quintessential ethics and virtue.

Many Americans disagree with you.

Many Chinese might feel the same way about the Communist Party's control over China.

One might claim those Chinese citizens have been brainwashed by propaganda into feeling that way, but how can you prove that you have not similarly been brainwashed?

 

[aquitaine]

Many Americans disagree with you.

Many Chinese might feel the same way about the Communist Party's control over China.

One might claim those Chinese citizens have been brainwashed by propaganda into feeling that way, but how can you prove that you have not similarly been brainwashed?

Does the NSA have textbooks and classes that talk about how great they are? Does the NSA have total control over the education system that only allows NSA friendly material to be published? No? Does the NSA have posters like this?

(Approx. translation of poster: The Chinese Communist Party always represents the development requirements of advanced social productivity.)

People who try and make this kind of false equivalency know not of what they're talking about. While it's not North Korea (anymore), the Party goes to great lengths to make itself appear as the only legitimate source of governance.

 

[Cthugha]

If China becomes more powerful than the West, I wonder what that would mean for the power of China's allies, such as Iran and Russia. Would this mean that Iran can then fulfill its plan to wipe out Israel with the backing of China?

Ehm...you are aware that the US is allied with Saudi Arabia - one of the most authoritarian regimes in the world, also not accepting the existence of Israel and even behind Iran in terms of the democracy index?

It is quite naive to believe that alliances mean that every country will support each interest of each other ally completely. It is all about mutual interests and some compromises here and there.

Also, especially after the invasion of Iraq, I would have expected Americans to become a bit more humble when it comes to the "good guy position" of the US. Over the course of the last 10 years, there have been times when the influence of China on the world has been considered as more positive than the influence of the US (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6421597.stm).

NSA is a crime and terrorism fighting agency of the USA: a noble arm of the government. They play a very important task in screening electronic communications, such as internet postings, for individuals showing support for nations involved in human-rights abuses, espionage, and facilitating social, economic, and political harm to the USA and her allies. NSA is a monument to quintessential ethics and virtue.

Is this the reason, why they bugged the official offices of the European Union? Are the people from Sweden, Belgium, France, Germany and Luxembourg all terrorists from 'evil' countries?

edit: Just to emphasize: I do not talk about occasionally listening in on phone calls , but about bugging official diplomatic offices of allies (at least considered that officially) systematically.

 

[Mute]

Does the NSA have textbooks and classes that talk about how great they are? Does the NSA have total control over the education system that only allows NSA friendly material to be published? No? Does the NSA have posters like this?

<snipped for space>(Approx. translation of poster: The Chinese Communist Party always represents the development requirements of advanced social productivity.)

People who try and make this kind of false equivalency know not of what they're talking about. While it's not North Korea (anymore), the Party goes to great lengths to make itself appear as the only legitimate source of governance.

American media does talk about how great the US is. American textbooks are accused of being or found to be inaccurate all the time, often portraying a very US-centric view of history and justification of the US's actions. The government does control which information comes out to the public about many of their intelligence and security activities, as recent events have shown. Not all propaganda takes the form of tacky posters (though the US has certainly had its fair share in the past.)

Just because pro-US propaganda is not as extensive or intrusive as Chinese propaganda does not mean that it doesn't exist.

 

[WannabeNewton]

American media does talk about how great the US is. American textbooks are accused of being or found to be inaccurate all the time, often portraying a very US-centric view of history and justification of the US's actions. The government does control which information comes out to the public about many of their intelligence and security activities, as recent events have shown. Not all propaganda takes the form of tacky posters (though the US has certainly had its fair share in the past.

Just because pro-US propaganda is not as extensive or intrusive as Chinese propaganda does not mean that it doesn't exist.

+1 that was a beautiful post.

 

[DiracPool]

media censorship and criminalizing possession and viewing of Western television shows, criminalization of sexual self-determination/pornography, etc.)

WHAT?! Unacceptable. Barbarians. I will paraphrase Ronald Reagan's gaff about the Soviet Union in 1983..."I have just passed legislation outlawing China forever. We begin bombing in 5 minutes."

 

[jbunniii]

What are your thoughts about the possibility of having your whole lives turned upside down by a realigning of world power based on ideologies you have your whole lives rejected?

When I was in college in the 1980s, we were told that we had better learn to speak Japanese because Japan was going to rule the world.

 

[DiracPool]

Not all propaganda takes the form of tacky posters.

I like this tacky US propaganda poster. My kind of woman, cute, confident and tough.

 

[Bacle2]

Most Westerners don't support extreme ethnic nationalism.

Also, China's economy is completely based on intellectual property theft: stealing Western science and technology. Not something to be proud of.
Fascinating. But I am talking about China's government, not whether individual Chinese people are intellectual.
Yes: I meant that their government is evil, not the oppressed citizens themselves.

So, are you looking forward to the sterilization of people China's government considers "inferior," forcing women to get abortions against their will, and imprisoning gay rights activists? Are you in favor of the Chinese government providing economic support to Iran, a nation that wants to destroy the West and wipe Israel off the face of the Earth? Are you in support of China's government eradicating the culture of the Tibetans? Do you support them telling people how many children they can have? Because you have just now defended all these things.

I think the West (nor, any country, really)can hardly claim any ethical high ground; the opium
wars alone were enough to disgrace the West for a very long time. And it is not as if we've become ethical supermen recently either. And don't make me laugh with the " I can have as many nuclear weapons as I want, but you cannot have a single one yourself", after having invaded a country (Irak) for no real reason, and , arguably, going against the UN.

And, re intellectual property theft, most Western countries did not respect intellectual property in their inception. Many rich countries today expect developping nations to follow rules the rich countries never followed themselves in their respective beginnings. The absurdity of asking poor countries to eliminate all barriers to competition is a good example; when you're weak and underdevelopped, it makes sense to protect your industries until they're strong-enough to compete.
Do you think countries in the West never protected their own nascent industries? For details, see the book "Bad Samaritans" . So I think it makes sense, up to a point, to be lenient with these countries re intellectual property and competition until they're strong-enough to compete on an equal footing.

 

[DiracPool]

And don't make me laugh with the " I can have as many nuclear weapons as I want, but you cannot have a single one yourself.

Is that laughable, really? Perhaps we just give every country a cache of nuclear weapons just to be fair and politically correct? What a lot of people don't realize is that, just because we've made it 60 years without an accidental or not so accidental nuclear catastrophe, doesn't mean it's never going to happen. People like to delude themselves with this fallacious absurdity.

The reality is that all this political correctness and "fairness" is going to lead to an ever increasing overpopulation and the resulting strain on resources. Now, because we're "fair," we're going to make sure every country has a loaded nuke so they don't feel like they're lesser than anyone else. Meanwhile, the crop harvest can't keep up with the population growth and all of a sudden there's drought on a third of a planet where there wasn't enough fresh water to begin with. Now what happens?

Camera cut to the old west where we got 6 cowboys with 6-shooters sitting around a deserted saloon and the only food within a 12-day ride is one can of Spam. Who's going to get it? I don't know, but the guy who's the hungriest is going to probably start shooting first. Should have taken those guns away from those desperado's, democratically elected one sherriff, give him the only gun, and had him cut up the spam equally. Then everyone would have lived to see sunrise.

 

[russ_watters]

People who try and make this kind of false equivalency know not of what they're talking about.

...pro-US propaganda is not as extensive or intrusive as Chinese propaganda...

Huh, I guess aquatane was wrong: you do know Chinese propaganda/government is more extensive and intrusive than US propaganda!

But just to make sure we're clear, you are aware that for all the issues you listed, the US and china are very far apart, right? And that the US and other western nations are similar right? Because it did sound like you were trying to make the US and China sound more similar than they really are.

 

[Mute]

But just to make sure we're clear, you are aware that for all the issues you listed, the US and china are very far apart, right? And that the US and other western nations are similar right? Because it did sound like you were trying to make the US and China sound more similar than they really are.

Of course. But the tone of the discussion thus far is that China is the epitome of EVIL and the US is a shining example of virtue and ethics, which it's not.

The US has a much, much better domestic human rights record than China; I certainly don't argue against that.

However, the topic of the thread is about how and the world will be turned upside down if China becomes the dominant power due to their utter lack of regard for human rights, and I think in such a discussion it's relevant to remember that there are many countries who feel that the US's commitment to human rights doesn't extend far beyond Americans, and that the government at times too aggressively pursues its own interests in the rest of the world, at the expense of other peoples.

My arguments are mainly meant to point out that these people may not feel there is much of a difference between China interfering in their countries vs. the US interfering in their countries. What China does at home may not be reflective of what it does abroad.

[Also, for the record, I have many qualms about the Chinese government. But, the discussion started off as anti-China, and it would be a less interesting discussion if it was just full of people ranting about China.]

 

[russ_watters]

Now, we've had this thread before, so just a real quick $.02:

What people most fear about a rising China is a China that has the power to shape the world in its image. Because I think most people recognize that to the extent the US has tried to shape the world in its image, that image is far superior to how China would do things and far more similar to how the rest of the West would do things. No, the US isn't perfect, but we're not comparing the US to [a false standard of] perfection, we're comparing the US to China.

However:
There isn't much risk here. What we are speculating about is certainly at least many decades away if it ever becomes possible at all. People make more of the US vs China GDP than they should because China's domestic commitments are far greater than the US's due to the much larger population. So China's economy needs to be much, much bigger than the US's in order for China to exert more global influence than the US.

 

[russ_watters]

Of course. But the tone of the discussion thus far is that China is the epitome of EVIL and the US is a shining example of virtue and ethics, which it's not.

Saying China is evil does not imply the US is a shining example of virtue and ethics. You read and responded to something that wasn't there and in a way that painted a misleading picture of reality.

My arguments are mainly meant to point out that these people may not feel there is much of a difference between China interfering in their countries vs. the US interfering in their countries.

So? The existence of wrong ideas doesn't make those wrong ideas right.

What China does at home may not be reflective of what it does abroad.

That would at best be naive wishful thinking if not for the fact that we already have a good idea of what China would do abroad based on what it DOES abroad!

[Also, for the record, I have many qualms about the Chinese government. But, the discussion started off as anti-China, and it would be a less interesting discussion if it was just full of people ranting about China.]

The fact that arguments are more interesting than agreements doesn't make it OK to generate arguments for no reason. Especially not inaccurate/misleading ones.

 

[Bacle2]

Is that laughable, really? Perhaps we just give every country a cache of nuclear weapons just to be fair and politically correct? What a lot of people don't realize is that, just because we've made it 60 years without an accidental or not so accidental nuclear catastrophe, doesn't mean it's never going to happen. People like to delude themselves with this fallacious absurdity.

The reality is that all this political correctness and "fairness" is going to lead to an ever increasing overpopulation and the resulting strain on resources. Now, because we're "fair," we're going to make sure every country has a loaded nuke so they don't feel like they're lesser than anyone else. Meanwhile, the crop harvest can't keep up with the population growth and all of a sudden there's drought on a third of a planet where there wasn't enough fresh water to begin with. Now what happens?

Camera cut to the old west where we got 6 cowboys with 6-shooters sitting around a deserted saloon and the only food within a 12-day ride is one can of Spam. Who's going to get it? I don't know, but the guy who's the hungriest is going to probably start shooting first. Should have taken those guns away from those desperado's, democratically elected one sherriff, give him the only gun, and had him cut up the spam equally. Then everyone would have lived to see sunrise.

The scenario you depict and the motivation you attribute to me are just part of your imagination.

Yes,it is an issue of basic fairness, but it also does not pass the laugh test to tell others to lower their guards while building a gigantic arsenal. I see this from a real-politik perspective: why would any country agree to such thing? Answer: they will not agree to it, and will never disarm, unless everyone does. It is unrealistic , and will not work, because no one will accept those terms.
And, yes, I am willing to take risks in order to work towards some level of fairness, which is the real way to obtain long-term peace.
And the fact that many had nuclear weapons that has served as a deterrent to the use of nuclear weapons over the years, i.e., MAD. Unlike what many believe , the heads of these countries are not suicidal and act rationally in their own self-interest, so their not likely to use these weapons carelessly.

And the scenario you depict precisely shows why no one will willingly go along with disarmament: if water runs out in the world, the people with the nuclear weapons will come in and threaten to use their bombs to get a holdof the water. Yes, let's disarm ourselves so that can happen. Right.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes,it is an issue of basic fairness, but it also does not pass the laugh test to tell others to lower their guards while building a gigantic arsenal. I see this from a real-politik perspective: why would any country agree to such thing? Answer: they will not agree to it, and will never disarm, unless everyone does. It is unrealistic , and will not work, because no one will accept those terms.

1. The US has already started to nuclear disarm, some of it unilaterally.
2. Most of the West has conventionally disarmed because it has the US to protect it.

So yes, disarmament happens and it has nothing to do with "fairness".

And, yes, I am willing to take risks in order to work towards some level of fairness, which is the real way to obtain long-term peace.

Absurd. Fairness just makes for more, longer and bloodier wars. People don't start wars they know they will get crushed in. The fact that the landscape is so unfair (that the US dominates) is a big part of the reason the world is currently by far the most stable/peaceful it has ever been.

 

[Mute]

Saying China is evil does not imply the US is a shining example of virtue and ethics. You read and responded to something that wasn't there and in a way that painted a misleading picture of reality.

Perhaps you missed Synaptic say

NSA is a crime and terrorism fighting agency of the USA: a noble arm of the government. They play a very important task in screening electronic communications, such as internet postings, for individuals showing support for nations involved in human-rights abuses, espionage, and facilitating social, economic, and political harm to the USA and her allies. NSA is a monument to quintessential ethics and virtue.

(Emphasis mine). So, what exactly wasn't there that I read and responded to? Synaptic has been arguing that China's government is evil and the US, by contrast, is a "a monument to quintessential ethics and virtue". While I still agree that the US has a much better human rights record than China, I disagree that it is such a monument of ethics and virtue.

So? The existence of wrong ideas doesn't make those wrong ideas right.

Could you clarify your meaning? I'm not sure what you're getting at here - do you mean the existence of some set of wrong ideas doesn't make other wrong ideas right?

That would at best be naive wishful thinking if not for the fact that we already have a good idea of what China would do abroad based on what it DOES abroad!

The fact that arguments are more interesting than agreements doesn't make it OK to generate arguments for no reason. Especially not inaccurate/misleading ones.

I am not generating arguments for no reason, nor are they intentionally inaccurate or misleading.

Synaptic argued the NSA and the US government are monuments to "to quintessential ethics and virtue"; I pointed out that not all Americans (let alone other countries) feel that way. I also said that many Chinese would make the same arguments about the Communist party's control over China. Synaptic also made claims about how the Chinese would love democracy, and I pointed out that that's not necessarily true - in some, perhaps many, cases it is, but other Chinese are just fine with the way things are. "Chinese brainwashing" is a common argument as to why the Chinese would feel this way, so I pre-addressed it by noting that one might claim the same thing about Americans - to be more precise, in that post I was referring to Americans who fully believe the US is spying on its citizens and allies for the sake of our/their safety. These were legitimate arguments I had. Perhaps the statement about Americans being similarly brainwashed gave the impression that I think Americans are as 'brainwashed' as the Chinese; I don't.

aquitaine then suggested that the NSA doesn't have propaganda textbooks or control over the media. I pointed out that that's not entirely true, while stating explicitly that China is still much worse than the US. Again, a legitimate argument.

I like the American government better than the Chinese government, but I do take issue with the suggestion that the US is perfect and without its transgressions, and I will argue against it. I think this also factors into the discussion at hand - not every country may be as upset if the US is displaced from the #1 superpower spot. Understanding the grievances other countries feel towards the US is important for making guesses on how thing will change should China take top spot.

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps you missed Synaptic say

(Emphasis mine). So, what exactly wasn't there that I read and responded to?

A reference to the USA. The NSA is not the USA and most of your complaints about the USA have nothing whatsoever to do with the NSA. The NSA is a passive surveillance organization, which by budget is only half a percent of the US government. Just to be clear, I think it is overly charitable to refer to the NSA in such glowing terms, but that is nowhere close to the same as saying the entire US government is "perfect".

Could you clarify your meaning? I'm not sure what you're getting at here - do you mean the existence of some set of wrong ideas doesn't make other wrong ideas right?

You said "...these people may not feel there is much of a difference Between China...vs the US." The fact that some people feel that there isn't a difference does not change the fact that there actually are major differences. Their feelings are not facts and you should not state them as if they are facts.

I am not generating arguments for no reason, nor are they intentionally inaccurate or misleading.

Well...

I also said that many Chinese would make the same arguments about the Communist party's control over China.

It may be true that they would say it, but if they did it would be inaccurate - and that doesn't make it ok for you to cite it as if it is accurate. You cannot shift responsibility for accuracy and the buffer doesn't make it any less misleading.

aquitaine then suggested that the NSA doesn't have propaganda textbooks or control over the media. I pointed out that that's not entirely true, while stating explicitly that China is still much worse than the US. Again, a legitimate argument.

No, the NSA does not write or control the content of textbooks or control the content of the media (much less to maintain the power of a ruling party). That's simply false. Your references in that post to media/textbook bias was a non sequiturs: the media's bias is generated by the media (and textbook writers), not forced on it by the government (any government agency, not just the NSA*)! So no, it is not a legitimate argument, it is a very false argument bordering on intentional misinformation.

*There isn't much federal-level influence over education at all - it is mostly a state issue.

...not every country may be as upset if the US is displaced from the #1 superpower spot. Understanding the grievances other countries feel towards the US is important for making guesses on how thing will change should China take top spot.

That part is mostly just opinion, but I still strongly disagree. When people make judgements based on false starting premises, odds are that those judgements will be wrong. So a prediction about how things might change if China took over world leadership from the US based on false information about what the US does and what China does will almost certainly be inaccurate.

For example, foreiners were initially very happy about Obama replacing Bush, but that perception has been soured by the reality that he hasn't been all that much different. So similarly, if people have wrong ideas about what China might do, they may not be initially upset if China replaces the US, but after seeing what China does, they may become very upset.

 

[Cthugha]

So yes, disarmament happens and it has nothing to do with "fairness".
Absurd. Fairness just makes for more, longer and bloodier wars. People don't start wars they know they will get crushed in. The fact that the landscape is so unfair (that the US dominates) is a big part of the reason the world is currently by far the most stable/peaceful it has ever been.

This is simply incorrect. The number of hot wars has significantly increased since the end of the cold war. Sure, a deadlock or balance of power as in cold war times is definitely not the same as fairness, but US domination has not made the world a more peaceful place. It has maybe become a more stable place depending on the definition of stability used. It probably made the western hemisphere a more peaceful place, though.

 

[DiracPool]

This is simply incorrect. The number of hot wars has significantly increased since the end of the cold war.

russ_watters is talking about nuclear armeggedon or global conflict on par with WW2, not the minor border skirmishes, small-country civil disputes, or various (lame) policing activities initiated by (mostly) the USA. These type of "lukewarm" conventional actions are always going to be with us. They're not even remotely comparable to what a "hot" war we could really face if every country was "packing" nuclear weapons.

 

[Cthugha]

russ_watters is talking about nuclear armeggedon or global conflict on par with WW2, not the minor border skirmishes, small-country civil disputes, or various (lame) policing activities initiated by (mostly) the USA.

I do not see your point.

I strongly agree with:

People don't start wars they know they will get crushed in.

But I wanted to point out the logical fallacy arising from:

The fact that the landscape is so unfair (that the US dominates) is a big part of the reason the world is currently by far the most stable/peaceful it has ever been.

All I wanted to express is that single party domination is not leading to stability or peace (considering the first quote above), but the fact that there is no country/alliance which can consider itself safe from the threat of getting totally crushed - not even the dominating one - is.

 

[DiracPool]

I do not see your point.

Look harder. I'll help you below.

All I wanted to express is that single party domination is not leading to stability or peace

Yes it is. That is exactly the point. Per capita and per our capability to annihilate one another, the world hasn't been this peaceful since the time of the Romans.

@russ waters
The fact that the landscape is so unfair (that the US dominates) is a big part of the reason the world is currently by far the most stable/peaceful it has ever been.

And that is exactly the reason why.

I wanted to point out the logical fallacy

Hence, it's not a logical fallacy.

but the fact that there is no country/alliance which can consider itself safe from the threat of getting totally crushed - not even the dominating one - is.

You got that one right, but the reason for that is that there is more than one country that has nukes, that is the only reason for any instability, not the other way around, as you seem to imply

 

[Bacle2]

russ_watters is talking about nuclear armeggedon or global conflict on par with WW2, not the minor border skirmishes, small-country civil disputes, or various (lame) policing activities initiated by (mostly) the USA. These type of "lukewarm" conventional actions are always going to be with us. They're not even remotely comparable to what a "hot" war we could really face if every country was "packing" nuclear weapons.

I'm not so sure of that; maybe you can argue that there are no wars, because if there was one there is a risk that it will be the last one if anyone uses nuclear weapons. So cuntries' leaders are less willing to risk going to war. One may disagree with what the leaders of many countries do, but I doubt these leaders are irrational and are willing to risk a nuclear exchange. It is MAD--mutually-assured destruction.

 

[Bacle2]

1. The US has already started to nuclear disarm, some of it unilaterally.
2. Most of the West has conventionally disarmed because it has the US to protect it.

So yes, disarmament happens and it has nothing to do with "fairness".
Absurd. Fairness just makes for more, longer and bloodier wars. People don't start wars they know they will get crushed in. The fact that the landscape is so unfair (that the US dominates) is a big part of the reason the world is currently by far the most stable/peaceful it has ever been.

So I guess you believe that the leaders of individual countries do not factor issues of fairness into their decisions on whether to build weapons? Do you believe that if they see that others (specially their enemies) are arming theirselves to the teeth they are willing to disarm themselves? I only said this is a contributing factor and not the determining one.

And, yes, I do believe that at a general, abstract level one can reasonably talk about "fairness" , tho there is a great difference in the specifics: practice what you preach, keep your word, pick on someone your own size, have their grievances addressed in ways they consider acceptable, etc., I believe are tenets most would consider to be fair, but at a general level, with differences in the specifics of the context of each country/culture.

But, now, since you're criticizing my use of "fairness" , as being too vague, maybe undefinable or meaningless, it may be a good idea for you to define your own terms more specifically: by what standards/measure is the world more peaceful now than before , and maybe offer some evidence to support other contributing factors.

And, as to the" fairness of wars", I was referring to an international order that would be considered acceptable to the majority.or at least a sincere effort in that direction, I was not referring to the fairness of war itself, tho you may want to contact your congressperson and suggest we do away with the Geneva convention, and restrictions on Bio- and Chemical weapons, etc.

 

[Cthugha]

Yes it is. That is exactly the point. Per capita and per our capability to annihilate one another, the world hasn't been this peaceful since the time of the Romans.

Sorry, I still absolutely do not get your point. What does the capability to annihilate one other have to do with peace? I am much more interested in how much we actually annihilate each other in reality than about how much we could potentially annihilate each other. It is just a guess, but I suppose the people actually getting annihilated would think the same way. If there was some country/culture in the world which had developed some agenda of collective martyrdom, I would understand your point, but even cultures which consider suicide attacks on the individual level still strive for survival as a collective.

The one point where I agree with you is the risk of a society having nuclear weapons going into decline and finally chaos. The risk of nuclear weapons vanishing under such circumstances is indeed a real one. However, this is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the international community should try to keep potentially unstable countries from building nuclear weapons to prevent exactly this scenario. On the other hand, this will motivate some countries which are potential targets for military interventions even further to develop nuclear warfare because as soon as they have nuclear weapons the international community will have some immediate interest in keeping these countries stable.

Also, whether the overkill factor is 10, 50 or 1000 does not really matter. Just being able to eradicate mankind 10 times instead of 100 times is not something to measure peace with in my opinion. Turning away from the overkill agenda and having real disarmament to the point that it is not possible to eradicate a potential enemy country anymore, would be a completely different thing. However, it is kind of naive and unrealistic to expect some country to give up such a huge amount of power.

Taking this capability to eradicate each other as a measure, stone age has been as peaceful as it gets. This really should not be the standard we should compare to.

Going full circle back to China, it obviously has a horrible track record when it comes to domestic politics. In terms of foreign affairs, this is not really the case and it has a much better foreign affairs track record than the US. However, I am not really sure whether one should extrapolate that. Politics is usually not that easy.

 

[Monsterboy]

A reference to the USA. The NSA is not the USA and most of your complaints about the USA have nothing whatsoever to do with the NSA. The NSA is a passive surveillance organization, which by budget is only half a percent of the US government. Just to be clear, I think it is overly charitable to refer to the NSA in such glowing terms,

That's a stupid thing to say, you are saying that USA is not responsible for what NSA does , NSA comes under the USA , if Mute tells anything about the NSA's doings , it applies to the USA too,NSA is not something outside the USA and doesn't take completely independent decisions , you think NSA took the decision to spy on other countries' and their internet activities (including the EU) without the knowledge of the US government?

My arguments are mainly meant to point out that these people may not feel there is much of a difference between China interfering in their countries vs. the US interfering in their countries.

You said "...these people may not feel there is much of a difference Between China...vs the US." The fact that some people feel that there isn't a difference does not change the fact that there actually are major differences. Their feelings are not facts and you should not state them as if they are facts.

Mute did not talk about absolute differences between China and the USA (everybody knows that there are), it was about interfering in other countries,you have taken it out of context, so what the "some people" might have thought, is not completely wrong after what we came to know from the Snowden-leaks .

 

[Tenshou]

What about china's people being oppressed? And what did I say, things could happen over night(Although, that may have been an over statement.)

 

[russ_watters]

This is simply incorrect. The number of hot wars has significantly increased since the end of the cold war.

I wasn't specifically referring to the end of the cold war, but no, sorry, that is wrong too (unless you have an odd way of measuring it:

In fact, the last decade has seen fewer war deaths than any decade in the past 100 years, based on data compiled by researchers Bethany Lacina and Nils Petter Gleditsch of the Peace Research Institute Oslo. Worldwide, deaths caused directly by war-related violence in the new century have averaged about 55,000 per year, just over half of what they were in the 1990s (100,000 a year), a third of what they were during the Cold War (180,000 a year from 1950 to 1989), and a hundredth of what they were in World War II. If you factor in the growing global population, which has nearly quadrupled in the last century, the decrease is even sharper.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/think_again_war

Another source: http://www.systemicpeace.org/conflict.htm

Going full circle back to China, it obviously has a horrible track record when it comes to domestic politics. In terms of foreign affairs, this is not really the case and it has a much better foreign affairs track record than the US. However, I am not really sure whether one should extrapolate that. Politics is usually not that easy.

Really?
1. What foreign policy actions by China are you referring to? Support of North Korea's government? Support of Syria's government? China's ongoing border disputes with India? There are certainly legitimate criticisms of the US's foreign policy, particularly wrt Iraq and our conduct during the cold war (which ended more than 20 years ago). China's actions are at least as bad going back that far and in the past 20 years with the exception of Iraq 2003 the US comes off pretty good by comparison - better if we include Iraq 1991.

2. On what basis do you believe that if China's influence grew they would not export their "horrible" domestic policy track record?

 

[russ_watters]

So I guess you believe that the leaders of individual countries do not factor issues of fairness into their decisions on whether to build weapons?

Of course not!

Do you believe that if they see that others (specially their enemies) are arming theirselves to the teeth they are willing to disarm themselves?

The whole point of an "arms race" is winning, not parity!

Beyond that, again, if your idea is correct, you're going to have to find another way of explaining the actions of the US and Europe wrt the level of armament.

But, now, since you're criticizing my use of "fairness" , as being too vague, maybe undefinable or meaningless, it may be a good idea for you to define your own terms more specifically: by what standards/measure is the world more peaceful now than before , and maybe offer some evidence to support other contributing factors.

Provided in my previous post, but to put a finer point on it (and this was also said by someone else), the number of deaths in war is a better indicator because wars vary in size. For example, if someone says that US was engaged in one major war in 1947 but two in 2005, that wouldn't give a clear picture of the difference.

And, as to the" fairness of wars", I was referring to an international order that would be considered acceptable to the majority.

I'm not sure what you mean. Is Europe interested in fairness WRT their armament levels vs the US? Frankly I wish they would be, that way we wouldn't have to do so much of the dirty-work!

...I was not referring to the fairness of war itself, tho you may want to contact your congressperson and suggest we do away with the Geneva convention, and restrictions on Bio- and Chemical weapons, etc.

The Geneva Conventions have little to do with fairness. They are about civility.

 

[russ_watters]

One may disagree with what the leaders of many countries do, but I doubt these leaders are irrational and are willing to risk a nuclear exchange. It is MAD--mutually-assured destruction.

North Korea's government is perfectly happy watching their citizens die of starvation by the millions in order to maintain control. What makes you think they would have any more problem killing South Koreans by the millions if they felt threatened?

 

[Cthugha]

I wasn't specifically referring to the end of the cold war, but no, sorry, that is wrong too (unless you have an odd way of measuring it:

The way of measuring the number of wars is pretty simple: counting.

1945-1989: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1945–89

1990-2002: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1990–2002

2003-2010: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_2003–10

Taking roughly 1990 as the end of the cold war and comparing a similar time span, we arrive at:
1970 -1980: 30
1980 - 1990: 27

1990 - 2002: 57
2003-2010:32
This gives a rough comparison of 57 to 89.

I agree that it might seem tempting to use the number of deaths as an indicator, as the number of wars does not necessarily say something about the extent of the war, but I think using these also has some drawbacks. The number of deaths measures only "deaths caused directly by war-related violence". On the one hand such statistics are always a bit fishy and it is difficult to find out what is exactly included (casualties? collateral damage?) and how exact these numbers are.

However, that is still the smaller problem I see. Just counting the number of victims does not include all the other effects of war on e.g. economy of the countries at war. If the access to water or basic food goes away in some country in the middle of nowhere in Africa, a lot of people will die from that, too, although it is not directly war-related violence. Other non-lethal, but still negative consequences of war are also not included. Also, the number of deaths has been reduced significantly by the availability of more modern weapon technology which reduces collateral damage. However, the economic impact of war has not really decreased in a similar manner. Maybe instead of the number of wars or the total number of deaths in wars, the total number of people involved in wars might be a more accurate measure. But I doubt there are really significant statistics on that.

During the cold war era, there was at least some interest of the two blocks in African countries. At least everybody tried to keep them from joining the other block. Nowadays, the international community just does not really care anymore about what is happening there, maybe with few exceptions like Nigeria or Sao Tome which have reasonable amounts of natural resources which may become interesting in the future.

North Korea's government is perfectly happy watching their citizens die of starvation by the millions in order to maintain control. What makes you think they would have any more problem killing South Koreans by the millions if they felt threatened?

Because that would be a sure-fire method to lose control. I am quite sure that North Korea is very aware of this.

 

[aquitaine]

American media does talk about how great the US is. American textbooks are accused of being or found to be inaccurate all the time, often portraying a very US-centric view of history and justification of the US's actions. The government does control which information comes out to the public about many of their intelligence and security activities, as recent events have shown. Not all propaganda takes the form of tacky posters (though the US has certainly had its fair share in the past.)

Just because pro-US propaganda is not as extensive or intrusive as Chinese propaganda does not mean that it doesn't exist.

1.) Some of the US media does, but not all. Even the ones that are like that do so out of their own CHOICE. In China there is no such choice, everything you see has been "edited" or deemed safe by government censors.

2.) I really don't know what school you went to, but the whole time I was in American schools we were taught to hate ourselves. We were taught out civilization was destroying the Earth and we were taught everything that's wrong with the world is because of us. We were taught that the colonized people were just innocent people being crushed by the evil white man, which conveniently forgets that many of those subjugated people were themselves imperial powers. There is propaganda in the US school system, but from what I've seen it sure isn't pro-American by any stretch of the imagination.

3.) The government in the US does not have nearly as much control as you are portraying. There's leaks all the time and we have a press that is independent of the government.

I think the West (nor, any country, really)can hardly claim any ethical high ground; the opium
wars alone were enough to disgrace the West for a very long time.

You do realize that China at the time was running perhaps the biggest protection racket in history, right?

[Also, for the record, I have many qualms about the Chinese government. But, the discussion started off as anti-China, and it would be a less interesting discussion if it was just full of people ranting about China.]

So telling the truth about the regime, what it does and what its intentions are is "anti-China"?

And, yes, I am willing to take risks in order to work towards some level of fairness, which is the real way to obtain long-term peace.

Here's what's really going to happen: They'll pay lip service to any sort of upper cap but secretly built as many nukes as they can. They'll do so to gain an edge and they'll do it because they'll assume their rivals are already doing it in secret for the same reason. Suddenly we'll end up with another nuclear arms race. Goody.

Unlike what many believe , the heads of these countries are not suicidal and act rationally in their own self-interest, so their not likely to use these weapons carelessly.

Granted this was in a more conventional war but McNamara assumed exactly that about the Vietnamese. He assumed their leadership was rational and wouldn't sacrifice millions of their own people to conquer the south. Obviously that assertion was hugely incorrect because that's exactly what they ended up doing.

I also said that many Chinese would make the same arguments about the Communist party's control over China. Synaptic also made claims about how the Chinese would love democracy, and I pointed out that that's not necessarily true - in some, perhaps many, cases it is, but other Chinese are just fine with the way things are. "Chinese brainwashing" is a common argument as to why the Chinese would feel this way, so I pre-addressed it by noting that one might claim the same thing about Americans - to be more precise, in that post I was referring to Americans who fully believe the US is spying on its citizens and allies for the sake of our/their safety. These were legitimate arguments I had. Perhaps the statement about Americans being similarly brainwashed gave the impression that I think Americans are as 'brainwashed' as the Chinese; I don't.

Except that most Chinese are not. One of the reasons the regime tries so hard to drum up militaristic nationalism is to maintain its control over the country. It's not very popular, but people will put up with it so long as the economy grows, enough influential people are bought off with patronage (see my first post about the real role of SOE's) and the Party continues to be the stalwart defender of the China.

But this tactic also makes it almost impossible for them to back down in the face of a potential conflict. They can't be seen as weak or conciliatory. That makes the likelihood of a major war in that region much greater than it otherwise would be.

I'm not so sure of that; maybe you can argue that there are no wars, because if there was one there is a risk that it will be the last one if anyone uses nuclear weapons. So cuntries' leaders are less willing to risk going to war. One may disagree with what the leaders of many countries do, but I doubt these leaders are irrational and are willing to risk a nuclear exchange. It is MAD--mutually-assured destruction.

Here was the Soviet nuclear strategy: If war broke out with NATO for any reason they would conduct an immediate full scale nuclear bombardment of the US. Of course they knew we would do the same as soon as their launch was detected, but they were prepared for that. They spent a lot of effort building and stocking public bomb shelters for this reason. Consider that we almost went to war with them many times despite the stakes being so high. Don't assume that they wouldn't have gone for it eventually, especially if they felt any of their key interests were threatened.

Today because their conventional forces have deteriorated so much they revised their nuclear policy to use them against almost anyone with a real army.

Going full circle back to China, it obviously has a horrible track record when it comes to domestic politics. In terms of foreign affairs, this is not really the case and it has a much better foreign affairs track record than the US. However, I am not really sure whether one should extrapolate that. Politics is usually not that easy.

I don't see how you can view their foreign affairs as being better than ours, especially in light of their recent gunboat diplomacy. As I mentioned in my first post on this thread, East Asia has become a powder keg and China has been the biggest reason for the instability. They only want one thing: To dominate and control their neighbors, like they had done historically.

Because that would be a sure-fire method to lose control. I am quite sure that North Korea is very aware of this.

And what if they think they have nothing to lose?

 

[Cthugha]

I don't see how you can view their foreign affairs as being better than ours, especially in light of their recent gunboat diplomacy. As I mentioned in my first post on this thread, East Asia has become a powder keg and China has been the biggest reason for the instability. They only want one thing: To dominate and control their neighbors, like they had done historically.

China has been pretty isolationist since about 1980 and did not really engage in hot wars. Indeed they are definitely more aggressive with respect to their direct neighbors in recent times. However, it would be kind of naive to expect that they would not try to influence them. I am definitely not a friend of China's foreign affairs, but since the Iraq war, it is hard to "outperform" the US. Invading a country on wrong assumptions without the consent of the United Nations is pretty much unmatched in recent history. At least in the democratic world. So is "less bad" instead of "better" a better matching description?

And what if they think they have nothing to lose?

Well, on the one hand they know that China wants them as a buffer layer, but the more important point is: It is unwise to bring them into a situation where they have nothing to lose. It is also part of rational politics to ensure that North Korea does not end up in such a situation. In my opinion, this is the main appeal of having nuclear weapons. Others need to be careful. Nuclear weapons are a life insurance for the regime. I do not think North Korea would use nuclear weapons if they are simply threatened. They might, however, when actually being invaded. Do you see any better strategy for North Korea to avoid being invaded?

 

[aquitaine]

China has been pretty isolationist since about 1980 and did not really engage in hot wars. Indeed they are definitely more aggressive with respect to their direct neighbors in recent times. However, it would be kind of naive to expect that they would not try to influence them. I am definitely not a friend of China's foreign affairs, but since the Iraq war, it is hard to "outperform" the US. Invading a country on wrong assumptions without the consent of the United Nations is pretty much unmatched in recent history. At least in the democratic world. So is "less bad" instead of "better" a better matching description?

Throughout the '80's China engaged in a number of skirmishes with India and Vietnam, plus as late as '95 they provoked another Taiwan Straight Crisis. Isolationist indeed.

You know you could have said much the same thing about Germany prior to World War 1 and also prior to it's annexation of Czechoslovakia in '38. Doesn't change the fact they wanted war and would do anything to win, including smashing and pillaging neutral nations. China today is in much the same position, with much the same attitude and is going about it in much the same manner. Relationships with China are pretty one sided, so much so that even Burma got sick of them.

Well, on the one hand they know that China wants them as a buffer layer, but the more important point is: It is unwise to bring them into a situation where they have nothing to lose. It is also part of rational politics to ensure that North Korea does not end up in such a situation. In my opinion, this is the main appeal of having nuclear weapons. Others need to be careful. Nuclear weapons are a life insurance for the regime. I do not think North Korea would use nuclear weapons if they are simply threatened. They might, however, when actually being invaded. Do you see any better strategy for North Korea to avoid being invaded?

So we should bow in the face of nuclear blackmail? Boy is that a Pandora's Box. But you know, you cannot assume these people are rational. As I mentioned in my previous post, McNamara made the same mistake about the North Vietnamese. A regime like this would be perfectly willing to allow millions of their own people to die if they think it will accomplish their goal. The Kim regime won't last forever, sooner or later, whether it be through internal revolution or external intervention. I'd much rather when that day comes that nuclear weapons not be in the equation.

 

[Cthugha]

Throughout the '80's China engaged in a number of skirmishes with India and Vietnam, plus as late as '95 they provoked another Taiwan Straight Crisis. Isolationist indeed.

The Taiwan crisis consisted of missile tests which were of course a sign to demonstrate power and send a signal and threaten Taiwan. However, if interventionalist countries now use missile test as their ultima ratio, the world is a happy place.

You know you could have said much the same thing about Germany prior to World War 1 and also prior to it's annexation of Czechoslovakia in '38. Doesn't change the fact they wanted war and would do anything to win, including smashing and pillaging neutral nations. China today is in much the same position, with much the same attitude and is going about it in much the same manner.

That is constructing parallels where there are none. You could say the same about pretty much every country in the world and justify war with any country that way. Maybe with the exception of the "coalition of the willing". They would not only smash neutral nations. They already did.

Relationships with China are pretty one sided, so much so that even Burma got sick of them.

Yes, relationships as the weaker partner tend to be one sided. That is also true pretty much elsewhere. Why do you think the European countries more or less accept the US having bugged embassies of European countries and the central offices of the European Union? Certainly not because they think it is a great idea.

So we should bow in the face of nuclear blackmail? Boy is that a Pandora's Box. But you know, you cannot assume these people are rational. As I mentioned in my previous post, McNamara made the same mistake about the North Vietnamese. A regime like this would be perfectly willing to allow millions of their own people to die if they think it will accomplish their goal. The Kim regime won't last forever, sooner or later, whether it be through internal revolution or external intervention. I'd much rather when that day comes that nuclear weapons not be in the equation.

I am certainly not in any position to recommend anything. Of course you cannot assume that North Korea is rational and there should be a plan ready for the case they are not. However, you also cannot simply assume the opposite. I just do not understand what you expect. Do you expect North Korea to be fair (to follow the terminology used earlier in this thread) and say "Hey, nuclear weapons are bad. We will stop thinking about that. You will not invade us, will you?" That would indeed be irrational. Sure, I would prefer North Korea not having nuclear weapons, too, but I cannot think of many realistic scenarios, where that happens. The most realistic one seems to be China getting tired of the Kim dynasty and installing a more predictable system. External intervention rarely works well. The people of the invaded country rarely develop a more positive view of the invaders afterwards. It worked in Germany and Italy (and I think also Grenada), but rarely elsewhere. Thus, supporting revolutionary tendencies in that country from abroad always seems like a better option to me unless there is really a huge immediate thread involved.

On the other hand, I am not quite sure Kim is as dumb as the media portraits him(*). He is a pretty young leader and needs to demonstrate strength in order to avoid old elites and high ranked military officers starting a coup. What he says might be show or it might be honest. He might be rational or he might do insane actions. I have been to the DMZ between South and North Korea once (from the southern side obviously). It is still more or less the largest tourist attraction in Korea and all soldiers on both sides are more or less decoration. Kaesong Industrial Complex, where North Korean workers provide pretty cheap work for South Korean companies has also worked quite well for some time and is going to reopen soon.http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/n-and-s-korea-meet-for-talks-on-industrial-park/2013/07/06/9ec59220-e641-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html. Escalation looks different.

(*)The image the rest of the world has on what the US thinks of the world is (during the last few years) widely based on Sarah Palin. Simply because some of the things were just so odd that people remembered them and they also were placed prominently in the news all over the world (First and foremost: "They're our next-door neighbours and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."). I think (and hope) that is not really representative of the US way of foreign politics and that the media image emphasizes the most "interesting" statements instead of the most relevant ones.