| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
12 Jun 2005 02:01:04 PM |
| Object: |
Shaping China's Future Power |
Shaping China's Future Power
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/12/weekinreview/12cohen.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1786.8493
By ROGER COHEN
It seems unlikely that China can be dissuaded from the notion that its
future involves a great-power destiny.
Losing the War of Opinion
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/10/AR2005061001708.html
http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1791.6487
By Jim Hoagland, Page B09
The Bush administration risks having more Americans ask, "What are we
doing in Iraq and Afghanistan?" than, "How are we doing in Iraq and
Afghanistan?"
The Road to Riches
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/5ba95f4634dec9cd
and thread
The Road to Riches
http://tinyurl.com/55nzo
China
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/d3294ecc38a6a57d
China / Meiguo
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/772524fe8bf033d4
Is the wakening giant a monster?
http://tinyurl.com/iws6
A Blueprint for the Future
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/59c28cd6dfe6f60f
.
|
|
| User: "Incident" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 02:02:41 PM |
|
|
Why would they want to bomb any country?
Because they would deem it necessary to advance their interests.
I'm hard-pressed to see how bombing the U.S. could possibly advance
Chinese interests. I'm also hard-pressed to see how the authoritarian
(but not deranged) PRC could possible delude itself into thinking
bombing the U.S. is in its interests.
Authoritarian does not necessarily equate to a lunatic foreign policy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Luke" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 06:31:39 PM |
|
|
"Incident" wrote:
Why would they want to bomb any country?
Because they would deem it necessary to advance their interests.
I'm hard-pressed to see how bombing the U.S. could possibly advance
Chinese interests. I'm also hard-pressed to see how the authoritarian
(but not deranged) PRC could possible delude itself into thinking
bombing the U.S. is in its interests.
As am I. That wasn't the question. The question was "Why would they
want to bomb any country?"
Authoritarian does not necessarily equate to a lunatic foreign policy.
We can always hope, even if history doesn't give us much reason to.
--
Dan
"Shut up! Shut up!"
- Bill O'Reilly
.
|
|
|
| User: "Incident" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 09:28:24 PM |
|
|
As am I. That wasn't the question. The question was "Why would
they want to bomb any country?"
Go back one step in the thread; the question arose out of the question
of China bombing San Franciso. No matter. The comment stands for any
other country. "Any country". Hard to see how the PRC bombing any
country (including Taiwan) could possibly advance Chinese interests.
We can always hope, even if history doesn't give us much reason to.
Au contraire. History, in fact, reveals that most authoritarian
regimes place self-preservation first, and are generally lucid enough
not to act in a totally destructive manner. There are exceptions, of
course. The Nazi regime in Germany. Galtieri's Argentinian junta.
But in general, the USSRs and the Iraqs and the Irans and the Cubas,
the vast majority of the countless African and Latin American and
European and Asian despotic regimes, while oppressing their people at
home, have generally engaged in foreigh policies that their neighbors,
and the Great Powers, could tolerate. Most authoritarian regimes
practice such self-preservation. This is why the U.S. and the UK chose
Stalin over Hitler in World War II. Hitler was the exception. Stalin
was the odious butcher who, raging psychopath at home though he was,
refrained from picking fights with the big kids on the block.
This doesn't make those regimes any nicer. It does make it possible to
coexist with them, and wait for their end. And China has shown not a
shred of lunatic foreign policy.
I know it's as fashionable to fear the Chinese boogeyman today, just as
12 years ago the Japanese boogeyman was all the rage. But the paranoia
of the masses rarely bears much semblance to reality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 11:55:03 PM |
|
|
Incident wrote:
As am I. That wasn't the question. The question was "Why would
they want to bomb any country?"
Go back one step in the thread; the question arose out of the question
of China bombing San Franciso. No matter. The comment stands for any
other country. "Any country". Hard to see how the PRC bombing any
country (including Taiwan) could possibly advance Chinese interests.
We can always hope, even if history doesn't give us much reason to.
Au contraire. History, in fact, reveals that most authoritarian
regimes place self-preservation first, and are generally lucid enough
not to act in a totally destructive manner. There are exceptions, of
course. The Nazi regime in Germany. Galtieri's Argentinian junta.
But in general, the USSRs and the Iraqs and the Irans and the Cubas,
the vast majority of the countless African and Latin American and
European and Asian despotic regimes, while oppressing their people at
home, have generally engaged in foreigh policies that their neighbors,
and the Great Powers, could tolerate. Most authoritarian regimes
practice such self-preservation. This is why the U.S. and the UK chose
Stalin over Hitler in World War II. Hitler was the exception. Stalin
was the odious butcher who, raging psychopath at home though he was,
refrained from picking fights with the big kids on the block.
This doesn't make those regimes any nicer. It does make it possible to
coexist with them, and wait for their end. And China has shown not a
shred of lunatic foreign policy.
I know it's as fashionable to fear the Chinese boogeyman today, just as
12 years ago the Japanese boogeyman was all the rage. But the paranoia
of the masses rarely bears much semblance to reality.
And China has just completed sixty years of drudgery so they now feel the
need for a taste of the good life. Getting involved with other world
superpowers is the last thing they need. It's going to be trade trade
trade for the next twenty years at least. After that?
Aaaah maybe then the trouble 'might' start.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
13 Jun 2005 05:01:43 PM |
|
|
Dan Luke wrote:
"maff" wrote:
Why would they want to bomb any country?
Because they would deem it necessary to advance their interests.
China's policy was always internal looking and is pretty much the same
way as it always was for 3000 years.
They even shut down Zheng He's expeditions for crying out loud. They
definitely shot themselves in the foot with that one.
It's stupid.
Yes. The greedy, ambitious men who rise to power are often stupid in this
peculiar way.
China's stable 3000 year old government had a way of placating overly
ambitious despots. Even the Mongols adapted themselves to China's
government even though they conquered the damn place.
Western and Middle Eastern civilizations on the other hand show little
example of this.
And no China will not attack the US in anyway. Too much money at stake
on both sides. Each side can make more money by being uneasy friends
with each other than by being enemies. And even a hardhead like Dubya
realizes that, as much as I hate to compliment the guy...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Luke" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
13 Jun 2005 05:46:25 PM |
|
|
<mvillanu@gmail.com> wrote:
And no China will not attack the US in anyway. Too much money at
stake
on both sides.
That is at least a plausible reason for hope. It does not change the
fact that war has ever been the ultimate expression of diplomacy.
Things may get ugly when China achieves the means to project tactical
force worldwide.
--
Dan
"These are exciting times for the Iraqi people!"
- George W. Bush
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
13 Jun 2005 09:09:02 PM |
|
|
Dan Luke wrote:
<mvillanu@gmail.com> wrote:
And no China will not attack the US in anyway. Too much money at
stake
on both sides.
That is at least a plausible reason for hope. It does not change the
fact that war has ever been the ultimate expression of diplomacy.
Things may get ugly when China achieves the means to project tactical
force worldwide.
For me the problim might, just might, arise when China becomes
economically so advanced it begins to cause serious depression in the
USA. THEN we might be facing a serious situation.
--
Dan
"These are exciting times for the Iraqi people!"
- George W. Bush
.
|
|
|
| User: "PaPaPeng" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 05:34:54 AM |
|
|
On 13 Jun 2005 21:09:02 -0500, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
wrote:
For me the problim might, just might, arise when China becomes
economically so advanced it begins to cause serious depression in the
USA. THEN we might be facing a serious situation.
Can you define "economically advanced?"
China cannot and must not strive to emulate the profligate wasteful
lifestyles of the West. That will be economically unsustainable and
ecologically disastrous for China and for the rest of the world.
But she can strive to be self sufficient, where people have enough to
eat, have shelter, clothing and hope for the future . She must
maintain the means to earn these for herself. These are modest yet
vital goals that are achievable.
The West has had a long run of the good life since the industrial
revolution. It is finding that it can no longer sustain that
consumption of resources to sustain that lifestyle. There will have
to be a realignment of expectations and lifestyles that the West and
the world is undergoing now. We cannot predict how it will go. But
meanwhile China is in a much better position than many countries to
weather these changes. Somehow a serious recession in the US doesn't
seem such a terrifying prospect. I don't think it will cause a
worldwide recession as did the last Depression in the 1920s. But its
only my gut feeling and I haven't come across any articles on this nor
have I given much thought to it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 07:12:19 AM |
|
|
PaPaPeng wrote:
Can you define "economically advanced?"
China cannot and must not strive to emulate the profligate wasteful
lifestyles of the West. That will be economically unsustainable and
ecologically disastrous for China and for the rest of the world.
China can and will. Once the Chinese got access to consumer goods, they
went bonkers. Only China's productivity will limit her consumption.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "PaPaPeng" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 01:24:54 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:12:19 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
PaPaPeng wrote:
Can you define "economically advanced?"
China cannot and must not strive to emulate the profligate wasteful
lifestyles of the West. That will be economically unsustainable and
ecologically disastrous for China and for the rest of the world.
China can and will. Once the Chinese got access to consumer goods, they
went bonkers. Only China's productivity will limit her consumption.
Bob Kolker
At this stage of development there is still plenty of room for
frivolities. Car ownership can for example be doubled from the current
23 millions to 50 millions a number in my opinion is about as big as
China will want.
But China will never seek to attain the level of car ownership
prevalant in the states.
http://www.worldwatch.org/live/discussion/83/ In 2002, the world's passenger car fleet hit 531 million.
A quarter of these cars were in the United States, a country with just five percent of the world's population,
and a long known love affair for the automobile. The average car in the US travels 10 percent more each year
than a car in the United Kingdom, about 50 percent more than one in Germany, and almost 200 percent more than a car in Japan.
China with 4 times the population of the US would have more than 500
million cars. That's the current number of cars in the world, already
a horrifying picture.
Car manufacturing brings with it a myriad of industrial skills that
any country seeking an industrial policy would want to pursue. A
natural consequence will be the desire to acquire the best and latest
technologies. And high end gas guzzlers comes with the territory. The
relative numbers of such vehicles in China is miniscule though not
insignificant in absolute numbers. So what you see as wannabe
Chuppies living it up to the best of conspicuous consumption is
somewhat of an illusion of the success of the American way in China.
But look into your own backyard. Chinese in America have adopted the
American Dream with gusto. Even if they got off the boat with just a
shirt on their back many achieved the American Dream in just one
generation. Ethnic Chinese Americans are perceived are generally
perceived as model citizens for a good reason. Moderation in
everything and that includes not fritting their money on conspicuous
consumption. If in the land of plenty ordinary Chinese can maintain
this trait so can mainlanders. Yes. There will be those who go
bonkers just as there will be those who stay the scum of society
(tongs, extortion, criminal behavoir). But by and large the people
will be quite content to accept government policy that will benefit
society as a whole.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 08:38:02 PM |
|
|
PaPaPeng wrote:
On 13 Jun 2005 21:09:02 -0500, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
wrote:
For me the problim might, just might, arise when China becomes
economically so advanced it begins to cause serious depression in the
USA. THEN we might be facing a serious situation.
Can you define "economically advanced?"
China cannot and must not strive to emulate the profligate wasteful
lifestyles of the West. That will be economically unsustainable and
ecologically disastrous for China and for the rest of the world.
Sitting here in hong kong which has had an advanced economy for years I
forecast that China will go a similar way, human being being what they
are.
But she can strive to be self sufficient, where people have enough to
eat, have shelter, clothing and hope for the future . She must
maintain the means to earn these for herself. These are modest yet
vital goals that are achievable.
The West has had a long run of the good life since the industrial
revolution. It is finding that it can no longer sustain that
consumption of resources to sustain that lifestyle. There will have
to be a realignment of expectations and lifestyles that the West and
the world is undergoing now. We cannot predict how it will go.
That is the problem and we must be careful to see that it does not cause
friction
But
meanwhile China is in a much better position than many countries to
weather these changes. Somehow a serious recession in the US doesn't
seem such a terrifying prospect. I don't think it will cause a
worldwide recession as did the last Depression in the 1920s. But its
only my gut feeling and I haven't come across any articles on this nor
have I given much thought to it.
Ten years from now we should have a better idea.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
13 Jun 2005 09:07:02 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Dan Luke wrote:
"maff" wrote:
Why would they want to bomb any country?
Because they would deem it necessary to advance their interests.
China's policy was always internal looking and is pretty much the same
way as it always was for 3000 years.
They even shut down Zheng He's expeditions for crying out loud. They
definitely shot themselves in the foot with that one.
It's stupid.
Yes. The greedy, ambitious men who rise to power are often stupid in this
peculiar way.
China's stable 3000 year old government had a way of placating overly
ambitious despots. Even the Mongols adapted themselves to China's
government even though they conquered the damn place.
Western and Middle Eastern civilizations on the other hand show little
example of this.
And no China will not attack the US in anyway. Too much money at stake
on both sides. Each side can make more money by being uneasy friends
with each other than by being enemies. And even a hardhead like Dubya
realizes that, as much as I hate to compliment the guy...
......pretty well 'spot on' IMO.
bob
humanist Brit.
Hong kong
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul J Gans" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
13 Jun 2005 07:57:19 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins wrote:
Dan Luke wrote:
"maff" wrote:
Why would they want to bomb any country?
Because they would deem it necessary to advance their interests.
China's policy was always internal looking and is pretty much the same
way as it always was for 3000 years.
They even shut down Zheng He's expeditions for crying out loud. They
definitely shot themselves in the foot with that one.
It's stupid.
Yes. The greedy, ambitious men who rise to power are often stupid in this
peculiar way.
China's stable 3000 year old government had a way of placating overly
ambitious despots. Even the Mongols adapted themselves to China's
government even though they conquered the damn place.
Western and Middle Eastern civilizations on the other hand show little
example of this.
And no China will not attack the US in anyway. Too much money at stake
on both sides. Each side can make more money by being uneasy friends
with each other than by being enemies. And even a hardhead like Dubya
realizes that, as much as I hate to compliment the guy...
Agreed. But Bush also knows that the Chinese have us by
the wabbly bits. If they simply stop buying US bonds,
the US economy collapses. Yes, the Chinese lose money
too, and that effects their economy, but ours gets hurt
worse.
So we go out of our way NOT to annoy the Chinese -- as some
here may have noticed. We do not call them part of the evil
empire, we have downplayed Tibet, we make an enormous fuss
over any civil rights violations, and we keep leaning on
Formosa not to make any trouble.
---- Paul J. Gans
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
13 Jun 2005 10:51:10 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:57:19 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins , Paul J
Gans <gans@panix.com> in <d8la1f$j17$2@reader1.panix.com> wrote:
[snip]
Agreed. But Bush also knows that the Chinese have us by
the wabbly bits. If they simply stop buying US bonds,
the US economy collapses. Yes, the Chinese lose money
too, and that effects their economy, but ours gets hurt
worse.
Theirs gets hurt worse, but their leaders probably don't care even as
much as ours do. Their rich are so very much richer than their poor. A
bit of putting the people in their place would not hurt (until things
fall apart, but no one ever expects that to happen).
So we go out of our way NOT to annoy the Chinese -- as some
here may have noticed. We do not call them part of the evil
empire, we have downplayed Tibet, we make an enormous fuss
over any civil rights violations, and we keep leaning on
Formosa not to make any trouble.
And we don't push them on Korea.
--
Matt Silberstein
All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
13 Jun 2005 09:10:02 PM |
|
|
Paul J Gans wrote:
In talk.origins wrote:
Dan Luke wrote:
"maff" wrote:
Why would they want to bomb any country?
Because they would deem it necessary to advance their interests.
China's policy was always internal looking and is pretty much the same
way as it always was for 3000 years.
They even shut down Zheng He's expeditions for crying out loud. They
definitely shot themselves in the foot with that one.
It's stupid.
Yes. The greedy, ambitious men who rise to power are often stupid in this
peculiar way.
China's stable 3000 year old government had a way of placating overly
ambitious despots. Even the Mongols adapted themselves to China's
government even though they conquered the damn place.
Western and Middle Eastern civilizations on the other hand show little
example of this.
And no China will not attack the US in anyway. Too much money at stake
on both sides. Each side can make more money by being uneasy friends
with each other than by being enemies. And even a hardhead like Dubya
realizes that, as much as I hate to compliment the guy...
Agreed. But Bush also knows that the Chinese have us by
the wabbly bits. If they simply stop buying US bonds,
the US economy collapses. Yes, the Chinese lose money
too, and that effects their economy, but ours gets hurt
worse.
So we go out of our way NOT to annoy the Chinese -- as some
here may have noticed. We do not call them part of the evil
empire, we have downplayed Tibet, we make an enormous fuss
over any civil rights violations, and we keep leaning on
Formosa not to make any trouble.
Taiwan will keep it's head down as it has done for the past fifty years
---- Paul J. Gans
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul J Gans" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 07:57:33 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:
In talk.origins wrote:
Dan Luke wrote:
"maff" wrote:
Why would they want to bomb any country?
Because they would deem it necessary to advance their interests.
China's policy was always internal looking and is pretty much the same
way as it always was for 3000 years.
They even shut down Zheng He's expeditions for crying out loud. They
definitely shot themselves in the foot with that one.
It's stupid.
Yes. The greedy, ambitious men who rise to power are often stupid in this
peculiar way.
China's stable 3000 year old government had a way of placating overly
ambitious despots. Even the Mongols adapted themselves to China's
government even though they conquered the damn place.
Western and Middle Eastern civilizations on the other hand show little
example of this.
And no China will not attack the US in anyway. Too much money at stake
on both sides. Each side can make more money by being uneasy friends
with each other than by being enemies. And even a hardhead like Dubya
realizes that, as much as I hate to compliment the guy...
Agreed. But Bush also knows that the Chinese have us by
the wabbly bits. If they simply stop buying US bonds,
the US economy collapses. Yes, the Chinese lose money
too, and that effects their economy, but ours gets hurt
worse.
So we go out of our way NOT to annoy the Chinese -- as some
here may have noticed. We do not call them part of the evil
empire, we have downplayed Tibet, we make an enormous fuss
over any civil rights violations, and we keep leaning on
Formosa not to make any trouble.
Taiwan will keep it's head down as it has done for the past fifty years
You don't read the papers much, do you?
They had to be sat upon three months ago.
---- Paul J. Gans
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Luke" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 08:18:10 AM |
|
|
"Paul J Gans" wrote:
Taiwan will keep it's head down as it has done for the past fifty years
You don't read the papers much, do you?
They had to be sat upon three months ago.
Weren't you just asking what tyrrany the mainland Chinese have imposed on the
world?
--
Dan
"There ought to be limits to freedom."
- George W. Bush
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul J Gans" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 09:16:10 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins Dan Luke <c172rg@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
"Paul J Gans" wrote:
Taiwan will keep it's head down as it has done for the past fifty years
You don't read the papers much, do you?
They had to be sat upon three months ago.
Weren't you just asking what tyrrany the mainland Chinese have imposed on the
world?
Mainland China claims Taiwan as an integral part of
China. The US recognizes that claim. The deal is
that Taiwan will remain independent in fact while
everyone recognizes that one day it will actually
be governed from the mainland.
A few months back there was a political bruhaha
in Taiwan in which one of the leading government
principles stated unequivocally that Taiwan would
never be part of China.
This ticked off Peking which started putting pressure
on Taiwan. We smoothed out the situation by telling
the Taiwanese to shut up and calm down.
I do not see any tyrrany in any of this. It is
the best possible compromise in this situation.
---- Paul J. Gans
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
15 Jun 2005 01:13:32 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 02:16:10 +0000 (UTC),
Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote:
In talk.origins Dan Luke <c172rg@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
"Paul J Gans" wrote:
Taiwan will keep it's head down as it has done for the past fifty years
You don't read the papers much, do you?
They had to be sat upon three months ago.
Weren't you just asking what tyrrany the mainland Chinese have imposed on the
world?
Mainland China claims Taiwan as an integral part of
China. The US recognizes that claim. The deal is
that Taiwan will remain independent in fact while
everyone recognizes that one day it will actually
be governed from the mainland.
A few months back there was a political bruhaha
in Taiwan in which one of the leading government
principles stated unequivocally that Taiwan would
never be part of China.
This ticked off Peking which started putting pressure
on Taiwan. We smoothed out the situation by telling
the Taiwanese to shut up and calm down.
I do not see any tyrrany in any of this. It is
the best possible compromise in this situation.
The problem is that with each year that passes, Taiwan moves steadily
further away from China in outlook, and that it is becoming increasingly
difficult to see any sort of unification without heavy armaments. The
Taiwanese have abandoned any notion of being Nationalists, and seem
genuinely to want to make their own path, and considering the sort of
interference Beijing has been responsible for in Hong Kong, I can't say I
blame them.
--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
13 Jun 2005 04:26:14 PM |
|
|
Dan Luke wrote:
"maff" wrote:
Why would they want to bomb any country?
Because they would deem it necessary to advance their interests.
So since when did you get the urge to speak for them?
"China's external behavior during the Maoist era was a contradictory
phenomenon. Despite its tendency toward using force, Mao's China was
not an expansionist power. It is essential to make a distinction
between the pursuit of centrality and the pursuit of dominance in
international affairs in terms of the fundamental goal of Chinese
foreign policy. While Mao and his comrades were never shy about using
force in pursuing China's foreign policy goals, what they hoped to
achieve was not the expansion of China's political and military control
of foreign territory or resources -- which was, for Mao and his
comrades, too inferior an aim -- but, rather, the spread of their
influence to other "hearts and minds" around the world. Mao fully
understood that only when China's superior moral position in the world
had been recognized by other peoples would the consolidation of his
continuous revolution's momentum at home be assured. "
http://www.ibiblio.org/uncpress/chapters/chen_maos.html
It's stupid.
Yes. The greedy, ambitious men who rise to power are often stupid in this
peculiar way.
--
Dan
"Mission accomplished!"
-- George W. Bush
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Luke" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
13 Jun 2005 04:56:18 PM |
|
|
"maff" wrote:
Why would they want to bomb any country?
Because they would deem it necessary to advance their interests.
So since when did you get the urge to speak for them?
Since when are they different from any other tyrants?
--
Dan
"These are exciting times for the Iraqi people!"
- George W. Bush
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 03:51:04 AM |
|
|
Dan Luke wrote:
"maff" wrote:
Why would they want to bomb any country?
Because they would deem it necessary to advance their interests.
So since when did you get the urge to speak for them?
Since when are they different from any other tyrants?
Have they started bombing other countries just like Bushie fascists?
--
Dan
"These are exciting times for the Iraqi people!"
- George W. Bush
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Luke" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 08:06:42 AM |
|
|
"maff" wrote:
Since when are they different from any other tyrants?
Have they started bombing other countries...
Actually, yes.
http://www.china-defense.com/history/sino-vn_1/sino-vn_1-1.html
...just like Bushie fascists?
Would you claim the current Chinese power elite isn't fascist? They may call
themselves communists, but they are practically indistinguishable from the
fascist dictatorships of history.
--
Dan
"These are exciting times for the Iraqi people!"
- George W. Bush
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 03:07:27 PM |
|
|
Dan Luke wrote:
"maff" wrote:
Since when are they different from any other tyrants?
Have they started bombing other countries...
Actually, yes.
http://www.china-defense.com/history/sino-vn_1/sino-vn_1-1.html
It was one of Deng Xiaoping's stupid moves. It was stupid to take on
battle hardened Vietnamese troops. It lasted just 2 weeks.
...just like Bushie fascists?
Would you claim the current Chinese power elite isn't fascist? They may call
themselves communists, but they are practically indistinguishable from the
fascist dictatorships of history.
I doubt they have any ideology at all at present.
--
Dan
"These are exciting times for the Iraqi people!"
- George W. Bush
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PaPaPeng" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 01:30:39 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:06:42 -0500, "Dan Luke"
<c172rg@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
Would you claim the current Chinese power elite isn't fascist? They may call
themselves communists, but they are practically indistinguishable from the
fascist dictatorships of history.
--
Dan
The use of buzzwords in an argument is a pretty weak argument. I am
pretty interested in why you describe the present CCP elite as
fascist. The Fascists and Commies of WWII killed each other with
gusto and it would be hard to imagine seeing them in the same bed.
The China CCP had declared in no uncertain terms that they are pinko
commies and the governments in the world refer to them as such.
Your ball.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Luke" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 06:26:56 PM |
|
|
"PaPaPeng" wrote:
Would you claim the current Chinese power elite isn't fascist? They
may call
themselves communists, but they are practically indistinguishable from
the
fascist dictatorships of history.
The use of buzzwords in an argument is a pretty weak argument. I am
pretty interested in why you describe the present CCP elite as
fascist. The Fascists and Commies of WWII killed each other with
gusto and it would be hard to imagine seeing them in the same bed.
The China CCP had declared in no uncertain terms that they are pinko
commies and the governments in the world refer to them as such.
Your ball.
What they call it is a sham, of course. What they actually are fits the
definition of fascism pretty closely:
"A totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and
nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national
life."
--
Dan
"Hell hath no fury like a noncombatant."
-Mitchell Coffey
.
|
|
|
| User: "PaPaPeng" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 09:04:20 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 18:26:56 -0500, "Dan Luke"
<c172rg@pantsbellsouth.net> wrote:
What they call it is a sham, of course. What they actually are fits the
definition of fascism pretty closely:
"A totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and
nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national
life."
You are welcome to believe anything you want. The fact remains what
can you do about it? And who believes your accusations? Shout the
same from your own neighbourhoiod street corner and you will be taken
as a kook or worse, be arrested for distrubing the peace. No one else
is losing any sleep over the CCP is fascist label.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Incident" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 02:04:40 PM |
|
|
The China CCP had declared in no uncertain terms that they are
pinko commies and the governments in the world refer to them
as such.
East Germany declared in no uncertain terms that they were
"Democratic".
Nazi Germany declared in no uncertain terms that they were "Socialist".
One notes that the declarations of authoritarian governments should be
taken with a grain of salt.
After a quarter century of market reforms, I'd hardly called the PRC
communist in anything but name. I surely wouldn't call them fascist,
either. They're just a typical authoritarian regime, one clinging to
the facade of communism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PaPaPeng" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 03:02:29 PM |
|
|
On 14 Jun 2005 12:04:40 -0700, "Incident"
<incident_at_twentymile@yahoo.com> wrote:
After a quarter century of market reforms, I'd hardly called the PRC
communist in anything but name. I surely wouldn't call them fascist,
either. They're just a typical authoritarian regime, one clinging to
the facade of communism.
Which has the popular support of the Chinese people both on the
mainland and in the diaspora.
"Dissidents" aside in all these years there had not been one high
level defector who could expose the whole "rotten" core of the CCP
leadership. In all these years there hasn't been even one Chinese
insider who could expose the corruption and shenanigans of some low
level commie apparatchik. Surely with all the things the commies must
have done to hundreds of millions under their control you should be
able to get thousands who have the goods on the corrupt and evil. Did
any high level commie leader die rich or disgraced posthumously from
corruption? Have any of the very rich and powerful rightwing special
interest groups in the West managed to document specific sins
committed by the CCP leadership? No. And common sense should tell
you that it would have been impossible for even the most oppressive
government to put a lid on hundreds of millions of disgruntled people.
You haven't got an idea what is really happening in China today. You
are fearful as to what this means and you cling to old Cold War labels
and rhetoric to comfort yourself. Developments in China have an
unstoppable momentum on its own. Nothing the US or anyone else does
will divert it from whatever path it choses. Of course China lives in
the same world as everyone else does and must take into consideration
how its actions will affect others. But on strategic matters China
works for Chinese goals.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Luke" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaping China's Future Power |
14 Jun 2005 06:16:30 PM |
|
|
"PaPaPeng" wrote:
After a quarter century of market reforms, I'd hardly called the PRC
communist in anything but name. I surely wouldn't call them fascist,
either. They're just a typical authoritarian regime, one clinging to
the facade of communism.
Which has the popular support of the Chinese people both on the
mainland and in the diaspora.
The German fascists could fairly make the same claim; so what?
"Dissidents" aside in all these years there had not been one high
level defector who could expose the whole "rotten" core of the CCP
leadership. In all these years there hasn't been even one Chinese
insider who could expose the corruption and shenanigans of some low
level commie apparatchik. Surely with all the things the commies must
have done to hundreds of millions under their control you should be
able to get thousands who have the goods on the corrupt and evil. Did
any high level commie leader die rich or disgraced posthumously from
corruption? Have any of the very rich and powerful rightwing special
interest groups in the West managed to document specific sins
committed by the CCP leadership? No. And common sense should tell
you that it would have been impossible for even the most oppressive
government to put a lid on hundreds of millions of disgruntled people.
What!? One of the most dismal features of the present world is the
ability of oppression regimes to endure for decades. That the current
fat cats running China are more canny about it than Kim Jong Il doesn't
change the fact that China is an oppressive dictatorship with no regard
for human rights.
You haven't got an idea what is really happening in China today. You
are fearful as to what this means and you cling to old Cold War labels
and rhetoric to comfort yourself.
A shrewd power elite is unleashing the economic power of the nation
while keeping the people under ruthless control. It's not very
mysterious.
Developments in China have an
unstoppable momentum on its own. Nothing the US or anyone else does
will divert it from whatever path it choses. Of course China lives in
the same world as everyone else does and must take into consideration
how its actions will affect others. But on strategic matters China
works for Chinese goals.
Of course. But who decides what those goals are? The free Chinese
people? No, a cabal of mostly faceless connivers answerable only to
their own secret power deals.
--
Dan
"These are exciting times for the Iraqi people!"
- George W. Bush
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
