I'm not yelling about evil China, although I yell about 'enemy China' (somewhat different) and that Clinton allowed them to come into the possession of top-secret missile technology... which is a lot different than normalizing trade relations... we don't give secret microchips to our allies, either.
I'm of two minds about the China trade situation. I haven't decided.
If its true that normalizing economic relations will make China more democratic, we should go for it. But I wish someone would explain the concept to me, because I figure the chinese government would just keep all the money, like governments do in other dictatorships/oligarchies.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Oh come on. You really could care less about China's government or its population... what's important to you is the state of the American economy - which, of course, will surely benefit from a trade agreement of this magnitude. So drop the pretence, will ya?
If there is one thing I can't stand, it's the hypocritical attitude of the U.S. administration - if a foreign asset is threatened, all hell comes down with a vengeance; but when self-interest is served, anything goes.
I like pointing out double standards.
[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
There's no double standard.
Anybody who DOESN'T understand that any intelligent country will put its own self-interest ahead of everything else is hopelessly naive.
If its in your own self-interest to cooperate, you cooperate. If its in your own self-interest to go it alone, you go it alone.
Specious claims of 'enlightenment' aside, that's what ALL countries and governments do.
Since China is endlessly concerned about "contamination" from abroad, so much so that they censor the internet access of their people to extremes, isn't THEIR government being just as hypocritical by allowing the possibility of contamination in this way, just to bolster THEIR economy?
[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Surely that amounted to "But Billy doesn't have to share, so why should I?" Logical, but rather selfish and nasty.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
That the United States for years has been an advocate for civil and human rights all over the world is now tossed out the proverbial window for the sake of allowing Coke access to Nanjing China.
Why the heck should any other country in the world beleive the US when it argues against human rights abuses in Zambia when we're trading with China.
This really is a culmination of the movement away from the United States being commited to human rights in an international environment (or even in Texas). One can argue when that backward movement started, or even if there was a true commitment or a hypocritical front for the world to see.
On the other hand, the democracy through trade contingent should now be yelling at the top of their voices saying "Alright then, let's open up Cuba!" Or admit that special "business" interests have the United States by the balls and no one is ever going to go against them.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Jay raises an excellent point.
How can embargoing Cuba and trading with China be anything other than a double standard?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: On the other hand, the democracy through trade contingent should now be yelling at the top of their voices saying "Alright then, let's open up Cuba!"
Er, they have been, for quite some time.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
What happened to those harddrives that went missing at los alamos during that brush fire? i heard someone said that they contained confidential material and that someone stole them.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)