quote:Originally posted by First of Two: China / US will be the preeminent 'superpower' rivals of at least the 1st half of the 21st Century.
Knowing that, it is intelligent to prepare for the fact.
China has no aircraft carriers (although I think I did see they bought an ex-Soviet one) Their airforce is, to put it mildly, crap. They have no plane with performance comparable to western aircraft; most are just rip offs of MIGs and we all know how well they faired in Desert Storm and Allied Force. The only military aspect to really worry about is the army, and even then it's mainly human wave attacks we have to worry about. I'm sure a few well placed Daisy Cutters should do the trick.
Anyway, most of the country is desperately poor and the Chinese government gets much of it's money from Western investment anyway. Do you really think they'll risk it?
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Thank you, oh perspicacity incarnate, for that ever-useful post.
quote: perspicacity
n 1: intelligence manifested by being astute (as in business dealings) [syn: shrewdness, astuteness, perspicaciousness] 2: the capacity to assess situations or circumstances shrewdly and to draw sound conclusions [syn: judgment, judgement, sound judgment, sound judgement]
You're welcome.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Sarcasm fails when its target cannot perceive it, Omega.
However, Omega's example IS valid.
We can name a government which HAD the al-encompassing power to do whatever it chose, and the resources to do it with, and nevertheless manifestly failed to feed its people, and whose policies actually DID make the situation worse.
Or have the Friends of Marx now so completely rewritten history that the numerous famines of the former USSR (for which the US supplied them grain, even in the midst of the Cold War) never happened?
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It was the capitalism of the leaders which failed communism. By capitalism I mean their need to grasp objects and power and to buy and sell things in the rest of the world without returning the wealth evenly to the rest of the people. Communism would work except for one thing, it just doesn't take into account human nature. It is not natural for us to share evenly everything we get, we like to own things. The few areas where communism has worked were all voluntary situations.
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Right, and Russia was a garden paradise before the revolution. Communism came along, and all became evil. Even a child wouldn't believe such a simple cause and effect relationship. People don't up and have a revolution just because they wake up one day thinking, "Hey, my life is comfortable...lets have a revolution just for the hell of it."
But back to the topic, we're talking about the "defence" policies of the US that has (meddled/invaded/tossed Tomahawk missles at to distract the media from an intern) more South American, Balkan, Caribbean, and Middle Eastern countries than most people can comfortably name.
Compared to China that has.... uh ....well....there's Korea. Ooouu major cowboy military adventurism there. Better put a lid on them before they start contemplating invading Cuba....just because. Wait, someone's already thought of that.
PS: Don't give me that Tibet crap, it pretty much belonged to China before the British started meddling in the region...then they pulled out because it was too much trouble, and left Tibet independent. Kinda like me taking over your living room, leaving because the TV was acting up, and leaving your cat in control of it.
Not that it matters anymore, there are more Chinese in Tibet now than ethnic Tibetans, and I'm sure a democratic vote would leave Tibet in China.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Wait....on second thought I think I can predict the next few posts:
Other: But the Chinese mass-immigrated into Tibet!
Me: Kinda like Israel (you know...that US backed country in the Middle East that no one's heard of) and their policy of planting settlements in the midst of Palestinians as human land markers?
Other: But when the Chinese do it, thats evil! Communism and mp3s are evil!
*** Yes, I realise this is treading close to a straw-man argument, but I'm sure "someone's" going to bring it up, so I just saved us all some time.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I didn't say Communism CAUSED the famines. I said Communism made them WORSE than they were.
There were famines in Russia and China before, but never as bad as there were under the Communists. Check the statistics for yourself. And let's not forget recent events in North Korea.
It wasn't intended as a criticism of Communism, (although your explanation of why Communism can't work is pretty much identical to mine) it was a criticism of the cloud-minded belief that a big enough, powerful enough government can magically make everything better.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:I didn't say Communism CAUSED the famines. I said Communism made them WORSE than they were.
Doesn't mesh with this argument:
quote:We can name a government which HAD the al-encompassing power to do whatever it chose, and the resources to do it with...
If they didn't have the resources in the first place then your argument fails. The USSR was not a country that had the resources to do with as it pleased.
That Stalin and his Five-Year Plans tried to, but didn't, make the USSR self-sufficient is no huge surprise if Russia was not self-sufficient agriculturally before.
Oh, and Robespierre, I adjudged the sarcasm and met same with same.
[ May 09, 2002, 15:02: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
You don't have to be self-sufficient to be able to deal with a problem, even when you lack resources. There's a little thing called TRADE.
And there's also the accusations that the USSR did cause 'artificial' famines. For instance, it is said that during the Ukranian famine, the USSR was exporting grain while around 7 million of its own people starved.
Perhaps they were trying to present a different face to the outside world... wasn't there a Pulitzer winner who wrote articles that we now know covered-up the situation?
And yes, Jaymesjones, I know you were dealing with the sarcasm that way.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
quote:Sarcasm fails when its target cannot perceive it, Omega.
Arrogance and condescension, on the other hand, never fail to come across.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I might add once more, nobody's bothered to tell us why America's hundreds of ICBMS with H-bomb warheads that managed just fine to satify the Republican hawks in dealing with "the Red menace" aren't good enough to deal with emerging "threats" that are still decades behind the USSR of 1990 in terms of technology.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, for one thing, the "space bombers'" bombs aren't nuclear, they're conventional and kinetic.
I know, I know. Your mindset doesn't allow you to even consider the possibility that the current administration might NOT want to use nukes at every opportunity, despite the fact that a kinetic bomb would be far less far-reaching in its effects.
[ May 09, 2002, 17:30: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
If we are to make a 'defensive shield' against hostile first strikes, and can retaliate in a manner that is, say, more ecological friendly, then should it be persued???
To make the things called an ICBM obsolete would be a terrible thing......
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
