• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

China 'to overtake US on science' in two years

If you lived in Taiwan or any number of other regional states that feel threatened by China's rising military, you may feel differently. Of course, once again leave it to you to take the side of a totalitarian dictatorship...

Other states e.g., some of China's neighbors, are in a much different position than the U.S. vis-a-vis China. I believe DOL was referring to some attitudes in the U.S.
 
A "think small" approach or status quo orientation will lead to reduced strategic energy flexibility and greater vulnerability to supply shocks. Utilizing one's own resources (when possible) and developing alternatives are essential to mitigating or overcoming those risks. With insufficient domestic energy resources, China is aggressively pursuing the latter course. The BBC reported:.

Excellent post as usual Don.

But this particular section donned my interest.

How has it come to be this way in the United States is being left behind in such a big way in this department?

Politically, trying to invest in green energy is often seen as bad here.
 
Economically, China is more neo-mercantilist today. Their basic economic goal is to store up as much foreign reserve currency as possible through manipulating their own currency, using non-tarriff barriers to make it difficult for foreign competitors to compete in China, and the most insidious is that they require most foreign enterprises operating inside China to share technology with Chinese companies through joint ventures or other cooperative agreements. Western companies have been GIVING China the technology over the past 15 years and everyone has just stood there letting them do it...

I'm not sure that narrative fully explains things. To be sure, China is, in fact, pursuing the export-driven growth model that brought rapid development to other countries in Asia before China launched its economic reforms. That other countries used that model to great success has been appealing to China's leadership. Of course, China's overall footprint is magnitudes of order larger than some of those other countries, hence there is risk that such an approach can lead to some global imbalances. At the same time, it has been expanding its gross domestic private investment (now running in the neighborhood of 40% of GDP). Finally, China's huge trade surpluses are largely a U.S.-China phenomenon. If one examines recent trade data, that bilateral aspect stands out.

The U.S. monthly trade imbalance with China was $23.2 billion in January 2011 vs. $18.3 billion with China in January 2010. Yet, China's monthly trade surpluses were $6.5 billion in January 2011 and $14.17 billion in January 2010. Put another way, the world (excluding the U.S.) ran a trade surplus of $16.7 billion with China in January 2011 vs. 4.13 billion in January 2010.
 
Other states e.g., some of China's neighbors, are in a much different position than the U.S. vis-a-vis China. I believe DOL was referring to some attitudes in the U.S.

If only DOL and others knew what the Chinese REALLY thought of the U.S., Japan and other states...
 
Excellent post as usual Don.

But this particular section donned my interest.

How has it come to be this way in the United States is being left behind in such a big way in this department?

Politically, trying to invest in green energy is often seen as bad here.

Thanks Jetboogieman.

I believe the reasons are fairly complex, as even if one puts aside environmental/climate issues, there are very strong geopolitical reasons to pursuing energy supply diversification efforts. I suspect that a short-term orientation is at play. As a result, future risks/problems are left to be addressed when they manifest themselves. One sees that mentality at play in fiscal policy, corporate R&D (falling relative to such investment in numerous other OECD countries, not to mention China), and public investment e.g., a dollar of savings in cutting education expenditures is seen as equal to a dollar of savings from cutting purchases of, let's say, consumable goods. Yet, in the former case, long-term benefits are sacrificed, making the net lifetime savings from the decision much less, if not negative. In the latter case, few future benefits exist, so a dollar of savings there is actually close to a dollar of lifetime savings.

The U.S. is also increasingly--at least it appears that way--resigning itself to maintaining the status quo. With each energy crisis having receded and prices having returned to less costly levels, not to mention U.S. access to conventional energy resources still well-established, there is a sort of inertia that discourages making investments that could undermine that familiar and comfortable status quo. Today, the U.S. is very much acting as a status quo power. It is becoming increasingly risk averse (short-term risks) even as that approach could erode its future strategic flexibility (range of choices) and lead to much greater long-term risk exposure. In the absence of the kind of acute resource challenges facing China that would make energy supply diversity a near-immediate necessity, the U.S. has even less incentive to be bolder on that front.

Today, those decisions are still largely matters of choice. However, should the long-term trends in educational attainment in the U.S. (especially in critical science, math, technology areas, etc.) not be remedied, the latitude for choice will shrink. An undereducated workforce can only do so much. Then, structural barriers that are no longer matters of choice could undermine the nation's capacity for innovation with broad adverse economic, fiscal, social, and geopolitical implications.

Under such a scenario, national renewal would be required, and that would be a long, difficult, and uncertain process. Fortunately, that outcome is not assured. In general, democratic systems have far greater capacity for recovery and renewal in the face of changing environments than non-democratic ones do. The U.S. still has a reservoir of innovative firms and people. But today's choices will shape tomorrow's opportunities and risks. If the current political atmosphere characterized by excessive short-sightedness prevails, the probability of bad choices leading to reduced future strategic flexibility would increase.
 
Thanks Jetboogieman.

I believe the reasons are fairly complex, as even if one puts aside environmental/climate issues, there are very strong geopolitical reasons to pursuing energy supply diversification efforts. I suspect that a short-term orientation is at play. As a result, future risks/problems are left to be addressed when they manifest themselves. One sees that mentality at play in fiscal policy, corporate R&D (falling relative to such investment in numerous other OECD countries, not to mention China), and public investment e.g., a dollar of savings in cutting education expenditures is seen as equal to a dollar of savings from cutting purchases of, let's say, consumable goods. Yet, in the former case, long-term benefits are sacrificed, making the net lifetime savings from the decision much less, if not negative. In the latter case, few future benefits exist, so a dollar of savings there is actually close to a dollar of lifetime savings.

The U.S. is also increasingly--at least it appears that way--resigning itself to maintaining the status quo. With each energy crisis having receded and prices having returned to less costly levels, not to mention U.S. access to conventional energy resources still well-established, there is a sort of inertia that discourages making investments that could undermine that familiar and comfortable status quo. Today, the U.S. is very much acting as a status quo power. It is becoming increasingly risk averse (short-term risks) even as that approach could erode its future strategic flexibility (range of choices) and lead to much greater long-term risk exposure. In the absence of the kind of acute resource challenges facing China that would make energy supply diversity a near-immediate necessity, the U.S. has even less incentive to be bolder on that front.

Today, those decisions are still largely matters of choice. However, should the long-term trends in educational attainment in the U.S. (especially in critical science, math, technology areas, etc.) not be remedied, the latitude for choice will shrink. An undereducated workforce can only do so much. Then, structural barriers that are no longer matters of choice could undermine the nation's capacity for innovation with broad adverse economic, fiscal, social, and geopolitical implications.

Under such a scenario, national renewal would be required, and that would be a long, difficult, and uncertain process. Fortunately, that outcome is not assured. In general, democratic systems have far greater capacity for recovery and renewal in the face of changing environments than non-democratic ones do. The U.S. still has a reservoir of innovative firms and people. But today's choices will shape tomorrow's opportunities and risks. If the current political atmosphere characterized by excessive short-sightedness prevails, the probability of bad choices leading to reduced future strategic flexibility would increase.

So you're essentially saying if the two parties don't stop their partisan squabbling and start to address your long term concerns... you're ****ed?

Quite frankly I think the electorate needs to do the same thing too.

For the national renewal you speak of, the country would have to go through hard times. And people don't seem to want to give up what they have for any period of time.
 
China has not yet reached the technological level of the U.S. or even South Korea. While they have made astounding progress and dominate many fields, they still import crucial technical knowledge from abroad. China has yet to even export a Chinese designed car competitive in the western or Japanese markets. At present rates China is rapidly gaining, but we have more than 2 years before they catch up.

Yeah, this.

There are a number of high-tech businesses in my area still alive and kicking simply because they can manufacture things that are physically or financially impossible to manufacture in China.

Right now they're going in for high-volume-cheap-****, and around here we're doing low-to-mid-volume-weird-****.
 
If only DOL and others knew what the Chinese REALLY thought of the U.S., Japan and other states...

Having been to China on numerous occasions, I'm well aware of the actual and perceived grievances (for lack of a better term) and latent nationalism that exist in some sectors of Chinese society. Bad management of the bilateral relationship can well tap those more negative perceptions and nurture a more hostile bilateral trajectory. That is not the only outcome nor is it the assured outcome. Broad shared interests can, if they are focused on to mutual benefit, avoid that course. The ultimate outcome will depend on the choices made by the Chinese and U.S. leaders today and tomorrow.

Efforts to rein in or contain China as some pundits recommend or to otherwise humiliate China will be very destructive to the bilateral relationship, not to mention very likely unsuccessful. That's a course the U.S. should avoid, as it is that course that creates perhaps the greatest prospect of a hostile China even as China's power is growing both in absolute and relative terms. Differences should be handled carefully through diplomatic channels, but both parties will need to be cognizant of one another's critical interests and constraints. Some careful balancing will be required.
 
So you're essentially saying if the two parties don't stop their partisan squabbling and start to address your long term concerns... you're ****ed?

Quite frankly I think the electorate needs to do the same thing too.

The risk of such an outcome would increase beyond the medium-term, but at this point in time that outcome is not assured. Much latitude for choice still exists. There also remains a prospect that a transformational leader could be elected at some point down the road, make some very difficult choices, and shift the nation's overall trajectory.

Furthermore, as the political leadership largely reflects the attitudes of the public that elects it, I agree with you that the electorate is a big part of the problem or solution, depending on how things play out. The electorate is not some helpless group of bystanders who have no influence or voice. Whether the electorate choose that role is a different matter, but ultimate responsibility still resides in the electorate even if the electorate chooses to neglect its obligations.

For the national renewal you speak of, the country would have to go through hard times. And people don't seem to want to give up what they have for any period of time.

Right now, I don't believe the U.S. needs true national renewal (a kind of internal revolution that shatters existing institutions/norms and fashions new ones), though difficult choices are needed in some areas. Some of those choices will entail a measure of sacrifice and pain. When the country's fate is much less a matter of choice e.g., an undereducated workforce has resulted in its having lost competitiveness, degrading living standards (relative to many other countries), and loss of economic/military capacity due to technology gaps, then such renewal will be needed. The pain during that period would be much greater than what is required if the nation tackles some of its difficult choices in the near-term and medium-term. Moreover, prospects for success would be much less certain than if the U.S. addresses its great problems prior to the onset of such a situation.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure that narrative fully explains things. To be sure, China is, in fact, pursuing the export-driven growth model that brought rapid development to other countries in Asia before China launched its economic reforms. That other countries used that model to great success has been appealing to China's leadership. Of course, China's overall footprint is magnitudes of order larger than some of those other countries, hence there is risk that such an approach can lead to some global imbalances. At the same time, it has been expanding its gross domestic private investment (now running in the neighborhood of 40% of GDP). Finally, China's huge trade surpluses are largely a U.S.-China phenomenon. If one examines recent trade data, that bilateral aspect stands out.

The U.S. monthly trade imbalance with China was $23.2 billion in January 2011 vs. $18.3 billion with China in January 2010. Yet, China's monthly trade surpluses were $6.5 billion in January 2011 and $14.17 billion in January 2010. Put another way, the world (excluding the U.S.) ran a trade surplus of $16.7 billion with China in January 2011 vs. 4.13 billion in January 2010.

It could be the way these trade numbers are calculated. For example when the Chinese assemble an ipod, trade numbers count the whole value of the ipod as an import. In fact China may have only added the labor content maybe 1-2% of total value. The components come from across the world.

Many say that is the calculation was corrected to show only the value add of China on products shipped here the number would be much smaller. My sense is that it is better politcally to be able to blame the Chinese.
 
Have you even read one news story in the past year? Here's a google search with the string cut+to+education. Good luck, you've got a lot of reading to do:

Google

And throwing money at education has worked so very well.

Spending money on a bunch of derelict kids with single parents and absent fathers who don't give a crap about education in the first place.......................

Oh, never mind.
 
And throwing money at education has worked so very well.

Spending money on a bunch of derelict kids with single parents and absent fathers who don't give a crap about education in the first place.......................

Oh, never mind.

Haha - coming from you that's highly ironic
 
College attendance isn't really the problem in the U.S. College completion is. A look at 1995 and 2008 OECD statistics shows that college graduation rates have flattened in the U.S. even as those in other OECD countries have pushed higher than the U.S. In 1995, the U.S. ranked 1st in the OECD. In 2008, it had fallen to 14th.
This is one of the reasons I don't buy into the "make college available to everyone" argument. College *isn't* for everyone. At the risk of being excoriated by those who have embraced the "college is necessary" myth, the truth of the matter is that many people have wonderful, successful, happy lives having never learned calculus, pondered Plato, or memorized the Krebs cycle. I have many such friends who are doing wonderfully in sales or business, and who received their "education" working their way up the ranks [to clarify, I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing our best to encourage students to seek intellectual fulfillment in areas like math and science].

My home state is one that has certainly seen an increase in enrollment and a decrease in rate of completion. We brought the lottery in to "make college available to everyone." Got a B average? Consider it paid. It maybe sounds like a good way to bring education to poorer students, but the real outcome has been that most of these students drop out. The end result is a highly regressive "tax" that "takes" money from the poorer, less educated segment of our population (those most likely to spend significant portions of income on the lottery) to subsidize the education of middle and upper middle class students.

We need to stop attacking the "throngs of capable students who really want to go to college but just can't pay for it" problem and attend to the "throngs of students who aren't capable of college level work or who have no intellectual desire to pursue learning" problem.
 
Last edited:
The Unipolar paradigm is a myth. The last attempt at it was by PNAC, when they reasoned that the US could become the world's only superpower, now that a power vacuum existed (at that time). Needless to say, it didn't work out. China has a sphere of power, so do the South American nations, and so do a couple of other areas of the world. True, the US is still the most powerful nation in the world, but it does not have the power to influence the entire world, as PNAC had hoped. In fact, the US is now experiencing a decline of it's influence in the world.

Actually, the U.S. has been the sole superpower since World War II. Certainly the Soviet Union had been a challenge, but they had nowhere near the level of power and influence as the United States. The Soviets were spending exorbitant amounts compared to the U.S. just trying to keep a slight edge in space travel firsts, while we consistently had the edge in the more strategic aspects of space power like spy satellites. What the Soviets always lacked was power projection. For the United States power projection has not been an issue since the 1940's. Our naval assets far outclassed anything the Soviets brought to bear.

Rather, at present we are actually seeing the U.S. status as sole superpower become challenged. China, the European Union, and Russia are making global plays while other countries like Iran and Venezuela make regional plays that also serve to erode American power. To a great extent the collapse of the Soviet Union has actually increased Russia's potential as a rival power.

If you lived in Taiwan or any number of other regional states that feel threatened by China's rising military, you may feel differently. Of course, once again leave it to you to take the side of a totalitarian dictatorship...

It is only natural for Taiwan to feel threatened by the mainland's increasing military power. The limitations of Chinese military power have always been linked with Taiwan's de-facto independence. So long as the local power dynamic allows for some determined resistance there is always the chance of deflecting a forceful assertion of China's sovereignty over the territory. However, in my opinion, that dynamic has already shifted in China's favor as at its present state they have enough offensive power to overwhelm Taiwan's defenses and methodically decimate its military capabilities. For Taiwan it is just a matter of years before any prospect of U.S. intervention can be definitively discounted. Certainly the majority of Taiwanese who favor the present state of affairs and undoubtedly those who want de jure independence fret at the idea of their fate being entirely at the mercy of China.

Beyond that I can think of no country that would be particularly fearful of China. Any rising power is likely to create reservations just as several countries in the region become apprehensive over talk of Japanese militarization. Still, from what I can tell those countries most concerned about China have an obvious investment in a matter directly impacted by that changing power dynamic or a history of hostility with China. Japan and Vietnam both certainly have that history of hostility and so their reservations are to be expected. The same goes for India.

Aside from those countries I cannot think of many that have serious reservations. Even South Korea is more receptive of China's rise.

If only DOL and others knew what the Chinese REALLY thought of the U.S., Japan and other states...

While I have not met someone from mainland China in person I have talked to enough people from there online to understand that attitudes in China are not really that hostile. Given the history of U.S. relations with China or Japanese relations with China it would be unreasonable to expect there to not be some ill will.

In general, democratic systems have far greater capacity for recovery and renewal in the face of changing environments than non-democratic ones do.

I agreed with you up to this point. My opinion is that democratic systems mainly serve the purpose of ameliorating abuses by authority. While shaping policy does represent an integral part of such a purpose this does not mean a democratic system will be inherently more capable of responding to dynamic situations. That has everything to do with the structure of the system itself. Here in the U.S. our political system does provide key democratic checks on power, but it also inhibits the responsiveness of government at times to both external and internal forces including popular opinion. We can see in Europe that its democratic system, though allowing it to make certain decisive gains in areas like energy and the environment, inhibit its ability to respond to financial pressures and regional concerns.

Rather the main element that determines a government's ability to respond is its ideological openness and ability to arrive at consensus measures. This is actually where China excels and, in my opinion, constitute democratic aspects of its system that are in some ways better than those of Western-style democratic systems. Of course, I presume when you say democratic systems you are specifically referring to the Western-style system.

Having been to China on numerous occasions, I'm well aware of the actual and perceived grievances (for lack of a better term) and latent nationalism that exist in some sectors of Chinese society. Bad management of the bilateral relationship can well tap those more negative perceptions and nurture a more hostile bilateral trajectory. That is not the only outcome nor is it the assured outcome. Broad shared interests can, if they are focused on to mutual benefit, avoid that course. The ultimate outcome will depend on the choices made by the Chinese and U.S. leaders today and tomorrow.

Efforts to rein in or contain China as some pundits recommend or to otherwise humiliate China will be very destructive to the bilateral relationship, not to mention very likely unsuccessful. That's a course the U.S. should avoid, as it is that course that creates perhaps the greatest prospect of a hostile China even as China's power is growing both in absolute and relative terms. Differences should be handled carefully through diplomatic channels, but both parties will need to be cognizant of one another's critical interests and constraints. Some careful balancing will be required.

My opinion is that the U.S. likely will pursue containment of China, but that it will not be enough to override our convergent interests. I mean, the U.S. is actually trying to contain the EU yet it still manages to work with it when there are common goals. With China our mutual interests are so numerous as to provide a disincentive for any direct hostility.

The risk of such an outcome would increase beyond the medium-term, but at this point in time that outcome is not assured. Much latitude for choice still exists. There also remains a prospect that a transformational leader could be elected at some point down the road, make some very difficult choices, and shift the nation's overall trajectory.

Furthermore, as the political leadership largely reflects the attitudes of the public that elects it, I agree with you that the electorate is a big part of the problem or solution, depending on how things play out. The electorate is not some helpless group of bystanders who have no influence or voice. Whether the electorate choose that role is a different matter, but ultimate responsibility still resides in the electorate even if the electorate chooses to neglect its obligations.

While the people are certainly responsible for how government behaves to an extent you cannot neglect the levels to which those in power will resort to in order to keep the people from exercising their authority in a way detrimental to entrenched interests. The current state of affairs is beneficial to many people in the unaccountable bureaucratic and corporate world and they will use whatever levers are available to them in order to impede popular opposition to that state of affairs. Most of the sources of information people consult on matters of public interest are under the control of those people and so ultimately the authorities instruct the people in such a manner as to provide a beneficial solution for them no matter the outcome of the election,

Right now, I don't believe the U.S. needs true national renewal (a kind of internal revolution that shatters existing institutions/norms and fashions new ones), though difficult choices are needed in some areas. Some of those choices will entail a measure of sacrifice and pain. When the country's fate is much less a matter of choice e.g., an undereducated workforce has resulted in its having lost competitiveness, degrading living standards (relative to many other countries), and loss of economic/military capacity due to technology gaps, then such renewal will be needed. The pain during that period would be much greater than what is required if the nation tackles some of its difficult choices in the near-term and medium-term. Moreover, prospects for success would be much less certain than if the U.S. addresses its great problems prior to the onset of such a situation.

I think a sort of revolution like you described is needed in this country. Most people would not see it because most people are simply not confronted with the inherent problems in our system. The masses are indoctrinated with so many ideas by the system that they cannot even begin to understand what should be done to resolve these problems.
 
Having been to China on numerous occasions, I'm well aware of the actual and perceived grievances (for lack of a better term) and latent nationalism that exist in some sectors of Chinese society. Bad management of the bilateral relationship can well tap those more negative perceptions and nurture a more hostile bilateral trajectory. That is not the only outcome nor is it the assured outcome. Broad shared interests can, if they are focused on to mutual benefit, avoid that course. The ultimate outcome will depend on the choices made by the Chinese and U.S. leaders today and tomorrow.

The old "having been to China" speal again... How well do you UNDERSTAND China? How well do you know the language? How much have you travelled there and lived there and been off the beaten path. Have you only seen what the government wants you to see or have you seen other elements of the country. I have lived there, speak the language as well as can read it. If you know what was being taught in their classrooms about the rest of us, you would have more reason for concern. If you knew what was being taught about their own history and how it relates to their destiny today, you would have more reason for concern. However, most people don't want to hear that and by the time they figure it out, it will be too late.

Efforts to rein in or contain China as some pundits recommend or to otherwise humiliate China will be very destructive to the bilateral relationship, not to mention very likely unsuccessful. That's a course the U.S. should avoid, as it is that course that creates perhaps the greatest prospect of a hostile China even as China's power is growing both in absolute and relative terms. Differences should be handled carefully through diplomatic channels, but both parties will need to be cognizant of one another's critical interests and constraints. Some careful balancing will be required.

I don't think "humiliating" China is a good idea. However, we need to be MUCh tougher with China in terms of respect for international law and the sovereignty of its neighbors, its responsibilities under various trade deals as well as being a responsible trading partner who opens its markets as it expects others to open their markets to them. The massive transfer of technology to China by Western businesses is already done and that is a terrible thing. However, we need leaders who will be TOUGH on China, not to humiliate, but to make sure the leaders of China realize that we will not be pushovers and expect them to be a responsible member of the international community.

And how much longer are we going to put up with crap like this from China?
 
Last edited:
It is only natural for Taiwan to feel threatened by the mainland's increasing military power. The limitations of Chinese military power have always been linked with Taiwan's de-facto independence. So long as the local power dynamic allows for some determined resistance there is always the chance of deflecting a forceful assertion of China's sovereignty over the territory. However, in my opinion, that dynamic has already shifted in China's favor as at its present state they have enough offensive power to overwhelm Taiwan's defenses and methodically decimate its military capabilities. For Taiwan it is just a matter of years before any prospect of U.S. intervention can be definitively discounted. Certainly the majority of Taiwanese who favor the present state of affairs and undoubtedly those who want de jure independence fret at the idea of their fate being entirely at the mercy of China.

And we are supposed to believe in this "peaceful rise" of China when they constantly threaten the 23 million people of the free island country of Taiwan?

Beyond that I can think of no country that would be particularly fearful of China. Any rising power is likely to create reservations just as several countries in the region become apprehensive over talk of Japanese militarization. Still, from what I can tell those countries most concerned about China have an obvious investment in a matter directly impacted by that changing power dynamic or a history of hostility with China. Japan and Vietnam both certainly have that history of hostility and so their reservations are to be expected. The same goes for India.

Viet Nam is VERY concerned. China has been encoraching on their EEZ and claims a significant amount of maritime territory that rightfully belongs to Viet Nam. Similarly, there have been encroachments by China on the territorial waters of South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines and even Indonesia. All of these states are concerned with the prospect of China's rise militarily and what it means for their own security.

Aside from those countries I cannot think of many that have serious reservations. Even South Korea is more receptive of China's rise.

All of them have serious reservations, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. South Korea was the one holdout for a while, but events over the past year (the sinking of a South Korean naval vessel by the PRCs satellite in North Korea and multiple encroachments on ROK territorial waters by PRC vessels among them) as well as the dispute over the historical kingdom of Goguryo and Balhae have caused considerable concern in South Korea.

While I have not met someone from mainland China in person I have talked to enough people from there online to understand that attitudes in China are not really that hostile. Given the history of U.S. relations with China or Japanese relations with China it would be unreasonable to expect there to not be some ill will.

You haven't met anyone from China in person yet you claim to understand them so well... Let me remember this fact when you try to convince us that you understand the Chinese so well. You have no basis for knowledge in this area. I have heard college lectures (that I was not supposed to hear) regarding China's relations with other countries. I have seen their response to every little slight. I have seen their lies regarding the U.S. when the U.S. accidently bombed their embassy and saw first hand the anti-U.S. demonstrations. I remember the anti-Japan demonstrations a few years ago after China lost the Asian Cup Final to China. You really do NOT understand what is going on over there. You have no credibility on this WHATSOEVER!!!
 
Beyond that I can think of no country that would be particularly fearful of China. Any rising power is likely to create reservations just as several countries in the region become apprehensive over talk of Japanese militarization. Still, from what I can tell those countries most concerned about China have an obvious investment in a matter directly impacted by that changing power dynamic or a history of hostility with China. Japan and Vietnam both certainly have that history of hostility and so their reservations are to be expected. The same goes for India.

Aside from those countries I cannot think of many that have serious reservations. Even South Korea is more receptive of China's rise.

Do you realize...China will have two carriers by 2015.

China is looking at power projection. With 2 carriers, they'll be able to have one deployed continuously (almost), and in an emergency, maybe both. I see their advantage as mainly political. Once they have them in service, expect to see them in the Indian Ocean, Persian Gulf and operating around Africa. The goal is to show third world nations that the US isn't the only one with carriers and capable aircraft.

Against a US carrier, they don't add up to much, but against a nation without much in the way of aircraft, they provide a striking force. Try the Spratly Islands. Major oil field and they are claimed by China, Vietnam, Philippines and Indonesia. Having a carrier around helps with keeping them when you move in the occupation forces and start drilling a well head and a pipeline to China.
 
Uhh, here are some places that are currently cutting or proposing cuts to education:

Mississippi (how could you not have heard about this?): Governor, R
Colorado : Governor, D
Rochester, NY: Mayor, R
Pennsylvania: Governor, R

There's literally tons more, but I'd say that shoots your idea that Obama is making all the education cuts pretty null and void.

Nice generalities, so where are the cuts coming from? Is it the federal govt?
 
Ludahai,

I have regular contact with people in China (and not just virtual contact), have been there on numerous occasions, and will be there again on numerous occasions. I've seen some of the things that could well disturb you. I've seen others that are more hopeful. The picture is mixed. There are both opportunities and risks. Therefore, I'm not going to view things either solely from the vantage point of fear or only from the perspective of idealistic optimism.

Of course, it is important to qualify that I am talking from the perspective of bilateral U.S.-China relations. I don't seek to minimize the very real and legitimate concerns many people in Taiwan have. Taiwan's margin for error is much smaller than that of the U.S. The U.S. has to worry about the region's stability and its balance of power. Many people in Taiwan have existential worries, as China still views Taiwan as a part of China, albeit a part that is temporarily separated.

I am also well aware of the almost mortal fears that the CCP has about loss of control of key pillars of power (including information, something that Google did not understand when it chose to issue an ultimatum on filtering of its search engine to China's government--a confrontation it could not expect to win--departed the country, and then returned after making concessions to the Chinese government), the role doctrine plays in shaping the CCP's worldview, the perceptions concerning foreign exploitation during periods of China's weakness, past episodes of fragmentation when central power waned, past revolutionary episodes, latent nationalism, etc. All those elements color the overall outlook and are likely to do so well into the future.

But things are far from hopeless, at least from a U.S. perspective. There are broad shared interests and that's one foundation on which a constructive partnership can be forged, even while recognizing that there are also areas of difference. Consequently, there are genuine risks, too. But at this point in time, a Cold War-type confrontation (between the U.S. and China) need not be a foregone conclusion. Various paths along which the relationship can proceed exist. Today's choices by China's and the American leaders will shape the evolution of that relationship. Circumstances will, too.

Having said all that, the "surprise" that some express that China is building its hard power commensurate with its growing economic power can only exist from a position of naivete. China was once a great power. Aspirations for a return to such stature are not unexpected, if not the norm when the opportunity presents itself. Furthermore, China is proceeding along the typical path of states that are on a rising power trajectory. Its pursuit of hard power and expanded regional influence is not an exception. There should be no surprises concerning those developments.

I don't think "humiliating" China is a good idea. However, we need to be MUCh tougher with China in terms of respect for international law and the sovereignty of its neighbors...

It appears that you are assuming that I do not believe the U.S. should be tough where its interests and allies are concerned. If so, that is a fundamental misread of my position.

The U.S. absolutely should be prepared to safeguard its critical regional interests and allies politically, and if necessary, militarily. It should continue to assure a regional balance of power that promotes stability and security, especially as significant historic rivalries and multinational maritime disputes exist (and could be exacerbated by resource scarcity, among other possible triggers). My point is that U.S. firmness should be expressed privately and directly. At all times messages of such firmness should be made credible by appropriate actions, otherwise one is doing nothing more than engaging in hollow posturing. In short, advocating the pursuit of cooperation where opportunities and shared interests permit it does not require the United States to sacrifice or ignore its critical interests or allies.
 
Last edited:
I agreed with you up to this point. My opinion is that democratic systems mainly serve the purpose of ameliorating abuses by authority. While shaping policy does represent an integral part of such a purpose this does not mean a democratic system will be inherently more capable of responding to dynamic situations. That has everything to do with the structure of the system itself. Here in the U.S. our political system does provide key democratic checks on power, but it also inhibits the responsiveness of government at times to both external and internal forces including popular opinion. We can see in Europe that its democratic system, though allowing it to make certain decisive gains in areas like energy and the environment, inhibit its ability to respond to financial pressures and regional concerns.

Rather the main element that determines a government's ability to respond is its ideological openness and ability to arrive at consensus measures. This is actually where China excels and, in my opinion, constitute democratic aspects of its system that are in some ways better than those of Western-style democratic systems. Of course, I presume when you say democratic systems you are specifically referring to the Western-style system.

Several quick points:

By "democratic systems" I do not accept the narrow definition that a system that merely holds regular freely-contested elections is by itself democratic. There needs to be appropriate checks in place to avoid the "tyranny by the majority" or all-powerful executive problems, legal/institutional framework in which the people have a voice e.g., through representative organs, etc. Ideological openness and a capacity to form consensus are important elements of an effective democratic system. When a system becomes increasingly polarized ideologically and the ability to form consensus dissipates, it is no longer effective in the democratic sense. It becomes rigid and loses the flexibility inherent in an effective democratic system. The U.S. risks evolving down that path.

Also, I don't mean to limit myself to Western-style democratic systems. I do not wish to preclude the possibility that representative systems cannot evolve along other lines.

My point about adapting to change is that democratic systems, because they are broadly representative, can be inherently more flexible. They are more flexible when effective, because they are responsive to the needs of the people they represent. In contrast, authoritarian systems are much more rigid. However, when it comes to certain crises that require rapid and revolutionary changes, that's an area where an authoritarian system might have somewhat of an advantage e.g., tough choices can quickly be made even when deeply unpopular, as there is no need to form a consensus, which can take time, require effort, and entail compromises. But that's a unique situation. Transformational leaders along the lines of a Winston Churchill or Franklin Roosevelt, can perform similar functions within democratic systems, but such leaders are quite rare.
 
The old "having been to China" speal again... How well do you UNDERSTAND China? How well do you know the language? How much have you travelled there and lived there and been off the beaten path. Have you only seen what the government wants you to see or have you seen other elements of the country. I have lived there, speak the language as well as can read it. If you know what was being taught in their classrooms about the rest of us, you would have more reason for concern. If you knew what was being taught about their own history and how it relates to their destiny today, you would have more reason for concern. However, most people don't want to hear that and by the time they figure it out, it will be too late.

You know so many people can criticize China's government without fear-mongering about the Chinese people in general. Despite constantly insisting that you are only criticizing the government you say things clearly indicating you see the Chinese people in general as a problem.

And how much longer are we going to put up with crap like this from China?

The problem I have with these Western news articles is they never seem to tell the whole story. So many times a news article will say a person was arrested "by China" for "calling for reform and democracy" only to find one or both of those claims are blatantly misleading. In this case going off those individuals I have looked at, it appears this was about people calling for the overthrow of the government. What I have never seen is a case where someone is arrested just for calling for reform and democracy. Hell, things like that will even be published in major news outlets.

And we are supposed to believe in this "peaceful rise" of China when they constantly threaten the 23 million people of the free island country of Taiwan?

Taiwan is Chinese territory so it is only natural for them to threaten force to retake it. However, China has not threatened the people of Taiwan anymore than the threat of war threatens them.

Viet Nam is VERY concerned. China has been encoraching on their EEZ and claims a significant amount of maritime territory that rightfully belongs to Viet Nam.

I find you willing to defend any country's claim over China's even when you should have just as much of a problem, in fact sometimes more, with their politics. As far as Vietnam being concerned, they have been hostile towards China for some time so it makes perfect sense.

Similarly, there have been encroachments by China on the territorial waters of South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines and even Indonesia. All of these states are concerned with the prospect of China's rise militarily and what it means for their own security.

Taiwan has no basis to claim an encroachment on its territorial waters because it remains legally a province of China even by its own laws. Aside from that what you are talking about from what I can tell is basically disputed waters.

All of them have serious reservations, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. South Korea was the one holdout for a while, but events over the past year (the sinking of a South Korean naval vessel by the PRCs satellite in North Korea and multiple encroachments on ROK territorial waters by PRC vessels among them) as well as the dispute over the historical kingdom of Goguryo and Balhae have caused considerable concern in South Korea.

What you are talking about, especially the garbage about North Korea, does not present a serious problem for ties between South Korean and China nor do I think it has any significant influence over public attitudes. While certainly most countries in the region have reservations about another country becoming more powerful militarily from what I can tell their attitude is not serious in most cases.

You haven't met anyone from China in person yet you claim to understand them so well... Let me remember this fact when you try to convince us that you understand the Chinese so well. You have no basis for knowledge in this area. I have heard college lectures (that I was not supposed to hear) regarding China's relations with other countries. I have seen their response to every little slight. I have seen their lies regarding the U.S. when the U.S. accidently bombed their embassy and saw first hand the anti-U.S. demonstrations. I remember the anti-Japan demonstrations a few years ago after China lost the Asian Cup Final to China. You really do NOT understand what is going on over there. You have no credibility on this WHATSOEVER!!!

The person who claims on one hand to only be criticizing the government but then clearly attacks the Chinese people as a whole has a lot less credibility. I am at least being honest about where I stand. What I am saying is that I have seen no indication of the kind of picture you are painting. Certainly there are some negative attitudes towards some countries, particularly towards their governments, but the way you talk about it is just obvious hyperbole from what I have seen. You can say as much as you like that it is because I am uneducated, but I think the real intellectual failing here is with you as you seem to only be capable of seeing things through a Sinophobic spectrum while disregarding all evidence suggesting your fears are inflated.

One can hardly expect attitudes to be entirely positive between any two countries. Look at how the European members of this forum interact with American members. You will find there is plenty of hostility there even though it would seem to be without any serious basis.

Do you realize...China will have two carriers by 2015.

China is looking at power projection. With 2 carriers, they'll be able to have one deployed continuously (almost), and in an emergency, maybe both. I see their advantage as mainly political. Once they have them in service, expect to see them in the Indian Ocean, Persian Gulf and operating around Africa. The goal is to show third world nations that the US isn't the only one with carriers and capable aircraft.

Oh no! Two carriers! Why, whatever shall we do with those two 65,000 ton carriers threatening our ten 100,000 ton carriers!? We are so screwed!

Against a US carrier, they don't add up to much, but against a nation without much in the way of aircraft, they provide a striking force. Try the Spratly Islands. Major oil field and they are claimed by China, Vietnam, Philippines and Indonesia. Having a carrier around helps with keeping them when you move in the occupation forces and start drilling a well head and a pipeline to China.

China isn't going to start a war to take control of the islands. Of course, any situation where military power is being increased in a region creates the potential for conflict so the probability of war will increase.
 
You know so many people can criticize China's government without fear-mongering about the Chinese people in general. Despite constantly insisting that you are only criticizing the government you say things clearly indicating you see the Chinese people in general as a problem.

If you would read my post more clearly, I was not criticizing the people. However, because I know the language and have gone off the beaten path, seen what is in the media and heard what is taught in their classrooms, I have a bit of a better understanding of exactly how their government sees us than most others do...

The problem I have with these Western news articles is they never seem to tell the whole story. So many times a news article will say a person was arrested "by China" for "calling for reform and democracy" only to find one or both of those claims are blatantly misleading. In this case going off those individuals I have looked at, it appears this was about people calling for the overthrow of the government. What I have never seen is a case where someone is arrested just for calling for reform and democracy. Hell, things like that will even be published in major news outlets.

You always seem to take the side of the dictators in Beijing. What is it about freedom that you hate so much?

Taiwan is Chinese territory so it is only natural for them to threaten force to retake it. However, China has not threatened the people of Taiwan anymore than the threat of war threatens them.

No, Taiwan is NOT Chinese territory. Once again, you don't understand international law. I have already tried to teach you some of the basics of it, but you aren't very receptical to education. The PRC has never signed a treaty by which it gained sovereign right and title to Taiwan. Taiwan belongs to the 23 million people of the island, NOT the dictators in Beijing. Furthermore, have you ever heard other "anti-secession (sic) Act)

I find you willing to defend any country's claim over China's even when you should have just as much of a problem, in fact sometimes more, with their politics. As far as Vietnam being concerned, they have been hostile towards China for some time so it makes perfect sense.

Do you know WHY Viet Nam has been hostile towards China for some time?

Taiwan has no basis to claim an encroachment on its territorial waters because it remains legally a province of China even by its own laws. Aside from that what you are talking about from what I can tell is basically disputed waters.

You mean the law of the R.O.C., which was also imposed on the people of Taiwan illegally by Chiang Kai shek... you mean THAT law? Just FYI, the vast majority of people in Taiwan take that 'law' with a grain of salt.

What you are talking about, especially the garbage about North Korea, does not present a serious problem for ties between South Korean and China nor do I think it has any significant influence over public attitudes. While certainly most countries in the region have reservations about another country becoming more powerful militarily from what I can tell their attitude is not serious in most cases.

You haven't heard about the recent encorachments of South Korean territorial waters by PRC vessels? You don't know about the controversies over the history of Goguryo and Balhae? And you are supposed to be an authority in the region? And the attitude of many people in this region is concern about China's growing military... this is true in Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Viet Nam and many other states in the region...

The person who claims on one hand to only be criticizing the government but then clearly attacks the Chinese people as a whole has a lot less credibility. I am at least being honest about where I stand. What I am saying is that I have seen no indication of the kind of picture you are painting. Certainly there are some negative attitudes towards some countries, particularly towards their governments, but the way you talk about it is just obvious hyperbole from what I have seen. You can say as much as you like that it is because I am uneducated, but I think the real intellectual failing here is with you as you seem to only be capable of seeing things through a Sinophobic spectrum while disregarding all evidence suggesting your fears are inflated.

Again, I am not anti-Chinese, but I call it as I see it. I have a much longer history in this region and thus have a much better understanding of the region than you clearly do. I speak and read three of the most important languages of the Pacific-Asia region, so it enables me to get a better sense of what is happening here than you do? What credibility do you have? You don't speak the language and you haven't immersed yourself into the region. I am also not Sino-phobic. I spent two years living in the country and have travelled extensively in it. I speak Mandarin and can read traditional and simplified Chinese and have married an ethnic-Han/Taiwanese wife. You pull out the "sino-phobe" card on me? You are on VERY thin ice on this one boy...

One can hardly expect attitudes to be entirely positive between any two countries. Look at how the European members of this forum interact with American members. You will find there is plenty of hostility there even though it would seem to be without any serious basis.

Oh,we have fun with PeteEu and Aquablue and others. They also come from a completely different mindset than the Chinese. Their basic values, despite our differences of opinion, are different from China. They come from open, democratic traditions. Not the Chinese. Do you even know what the Chinese name for China means? It actually is pretty important in their traditional mindset,something that still exists to some extent today. Their traditional methods of handling international relations are also very different from the West. They do NOT have a tradition of equality of states as we do in the West. It is simply amazing that people here who do not understand China's history and culture can come on here and present themselves as sages and experts on the topic... Simply incredible...


Oh no! Two carriers! Why, whatever shall we do with those two 65,000 ton carriers threatening our ten 100,000 ton carriers!? We are so screwed!



China isn't going to start a war to take control of the islands. Of course, any situation where military power is being increased in a region creates the potential for conflict so the probability of war will increase.[/QUOTE]
 
Oh no! Two carriers! Why, whatever shall we do with those two 65,000 ton carriers threatening our ten 100,000 ton carriers!? We are so screwed!



China isn't going to start a war to take control of the islands. Of course, any situation where military power is being increased in a region creates the potential for conflict so the probability of war will increase.

You are way over your head, dude....

Getting back to basics

China won't have any territorial ambitions vs. the US. What they do want to do is bring Taiwan back into the fold and establish themselves as the head honcho in Asia. The leading economy who calls the shots.

China still thinks of itself as "The Middle Kingdom". Their rightful place is the center of the world as the first civilization and the center of culture. Everyone else is a barbarian and some are worse than others. Racism in this country, real and imagined, doesn't come close to racism in China. Asiatic people first, then Caucasians and finally Africans. Caucasians/Europeans only get the middle spot by default because they put Africans last.

China has long felt humiliated and angered by western economic domination and their goal is to reverse that. Think the Japanese Greater-East-Asia-Co Prosperity-Sphere, but with China on the throne. They also have long memories and still maintain a deep antipathy to the Japanese for WWII atrocities.....You really can't blame them for that one.

The Chinese have a long sense of history and they are working full steam to keep themselves from the position Japan found themselves in just before WWII, i.e. vulnerable to a blockade of vital resources. Their economy is going strong and they are now major users of oil, making them very vulnerable to interdiction of the sea lanes since most of the oil comes in by tanker.

Consequently, count on China using whatever political, economic or military means they find available to limit our influence in the area, expand theirs and secure their resources. That is why, the Spratleys will become a major hotspot sooner than later.

China is/will seek to weaken our willpower and ability to protect Taiwan. Their buildup of amphibious forces is aimed directly at Taiwan. Their theater missiles, cruise missiles and a large part of their aviation assets are geared to defeating naval and air forces that would prevent them from successfully invading Taiwan.

The economic destruction of Taiwan is only of minor concern to the Chinese leadership. If Taiwan was eliminated as an economic rival it certainly wouldn't hurt their industry. First they work on our will and political fortitude. Will we be willing to sacrifice ships, men and aircraft to defend Taiwan? Especially if China first offers them status similar to Hong Kong? If they offered Taiwan a choice of war or peaceful inclusion into the greater China, limited self-government, etc., would the American people be willing to go to war with China because Taiwan said no? Not if it meant the loss of/or major damage to the 7th Fleet.
 
Last edited:
If you would read my post more clearly, I was not criticizing the people. However, because I know the language and have gone off the beaten path, seen what is in the media and heard what is taught in their classrooms, I have a bit of a better understanding of exactly how their government sees us than most others do...

Except you were clearly doing more than criticizing the government and when you make comments like this:

They also come from a completely different mindset than the Chinese. Their basic values, despite our differences of opinion, are different from China. They come from open, democratic traditions. Not the Chinese. Do you even know what the Chinese name for China means? It actually is pretty important in their traditional mindset,something that still exists to some extent today.

You remove any doubt about that.

You always seem to take the side of the dictators in Beijing. What is it about freedom that you hate so much?

What I do is take the side of reason and honesty. Calling them dictators is an example of a statement that is lacking in reason and honesty. Saying people are arrested for "promoting democracy" in China is also dishonest. Explaining what the real issue is does not amount to taking sides.

No, Taiwan is NOT Chinese territory. Once again, you don't understand international law. I have already tried to teach you some of the basics of it, but you aren't very receptical to education. The PRC has never signed a treaty by which it gained sovereign right and title to Taiwan. Taiwan belongs to the 23 million people of the island, NOT the dictators in Beijing. Furthermore, have you ever heard other "anti-secession (sic) Act)

Actually, I have given you a pretty basic argument in international law indicating that China did in fact sign a treaty that acknowledged Taiwan as Chinese territory. You just refuse to acknowledge it as such because it would destroy your entire argument.

Do you know WHY Viet Nam has been hostile towards China for some time?

How about you tell me what you think is the reason?

You mean the law of the R.O.C., which was also imposed on the people of Taiwan illegally by Chiang Kai shek... you mean THAT law? Just FYI, the vast majority of people in Taiwan take that 'law' with a grain of salt.

There was nothing illegal about it. Say as much as you like that the people of Taiwan do not like the law, it does not make a damn bit of difference with regards to what the law says.

You haven't heard about the recent encorachments of South Korean territorial waters by PRC vessels? You don't know about the controversies over the history of Goguryo and Balhae? And you are supposed to be an authority in the region?

Where did you get that I do not know about these issues? I said I do not see any indication that it has caused any serious change in attitudes.

And the attitude of many people in this region is concern about China's growing military... this is true in Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Viet Nam and many other states in the region..
.

I never said there was not concern. Like I said, any country becoming more powerful creates concern.

Again, I am not anti-Chinese, but I call it as I see it. I have a much longer history in this region and thus have a much better understanding of the region than you clearly do. I speak and read three of the most important languages of the Pacific-Asia region, so it enables me to get a better sense of what is happening here than you do? What credibility do you have? You don't speak the language and you haven't immersed yourself into the region. I am also not Sino-phobic. I spent two years living in the country and have travelled extensively in it. I speak Mandarin and can read traditional and simplified Chinese and have married an ethnic-Han/Taiwanese wife. You pull out the "sino-phobe" card on me? You are on VERY thin ice on this one boy...

I pull it out because it applies. No amount of "I married a yellow woman!" and "I can speak Chinese!" is going to take away from the comments you have made that are clearly about invoking fear with regards to the Chinese people in general. Just because you consider certain Chinese people exceptions (read: people who are more like your fellow white folk) does not mean anything.

Their traditional methods of handling international relations are also very different from the West. They do NOT have a tradition of equality of states as we do in the West.

We have a tradition of "equality of states" in the West? This is news to me!

You are way over your head, dude....

Getting back to basics

China won't have any territorial ambitions vs. the US. What they do want to do is bring Taiwan back into the fold and establish themselves as the head honcho in Asia. The leading economy who calls the shots.

China still thinks of itself as "The Middle Kingdom". Their rightful place is the center of the world as the first civilization and the center of culture. Everyone else is a barbarian and some are worse than others. Racism in this country, real and imagined, doesn't come close to racism in China. Asiatic people first, then Caucasians and finally Africans. Caucasians/Europeans only get the middle spot by default because they put Africans last.

China has long felt humiliated and angered by western economic domination and their goal is to reverse that. Think the Japanese Greater-East-Asia-Co Prosperity-Sphere, but with China on the throne. They also have long memories and still maintain a deep antipathy to the Japanese for WWII atrocities.....You really can't blame them for that one.

The Chinese have a long sense of history and they are working full steam to keep themselves from the position Japan found themselves in just before WWII, i.e. vulnerable to a blockade of vital resources. Their economy is going strong and they are now major users of oil, making them very vulnerable to interdiction of the sea lanes since most of the oil comes in by tanker.

Consequently, count on China using whatever political, economic or military means they find available to limit our influence in the area, expand theirs and secure their resources. That is why, the Spratleys will become a major hotspot sooner than later.

China is/will seek to weaken our willpower and ability to protect Taiwan. Their buildup of amphibious forces is aimed directly at Taiwan. Their theater missiles, cruise missiles and a large part of their aviation assets are geared to defeating naval and air forces that would prevent them from successfully invading Taiwan.

The economic destruction of Taiwan is only of minor concern to the Chinese leadership. If Taiwan was eliminated as an economic rival it certainly wouldn't hurt their industry. First they work on our will and political fortitude. Will we be willing to sacrifice ships, men and aircraft to defend Taiwan? Especially if China first offers them status similar to Hong Kong? If they offered Taiwan a choice of war or peaceful inclusion into the greater China, limited self-government, etc., would the American people be willing to go to war with China because Taiwan said no? Not if it meant the loss of/or major damage to the 7th Fleet.

Countries typically pursue power to whatever extent they can pursue it. I am not exactly sure what you are trying to say here, though. China is not building up its military simply to retake Taiwan. In fact, claims that their military power is in any significant disproportionate manner geared towards Taiwan just amounts to Sinophobic propaganda. Why shouldn't China build up its military given the buildup of other countries in the region and powers like the United States? India could have as many as three aircraft carriers by 2015 so wouldn't China be remiss to not build up its military forces as well?

Were Japan to modify its constitution to allow a major build-up then China would have yet another reason to increase its power. U.S. containment actions like its efforts to bring Australia, India, and Japan together with it against China only provide more incentive for a military buildup. There are countless reasons for China to build up its military strength, including the growing presence of Chinese citizens and businesses in Africa, so your fixation on Taiwan is a bit misplaced.
 
Except you were clearly doing more than criticizing the government and when you make comments like this:
You remove any doubt about that.

You evidently don't know me very well...

What I do is take the side of reason and honesty. Calling them dictators is an example of a statement that is lacking in reason and honesty. Saying people are arrested for "promoting democracy" in China is also dishonest. Explaining what the real issue is does not amount to taking sides.

"Reason" doesn't mean very much when you don't know the facts and understand what you are talking about. People have been arrested for promoting democracy and human rights in China. People have been arrested for exercising their religious faith feacefully and in accordance with the Chinese constitution and for advocating its free practice. You seem to ignore these facts because they are inconvenient to you.

Actually, I have given you a pretty basic argument in international law indicating that China did in fact sign a treaty that acknowledged Taiwan as Chinese territory. You just refuse to acknowledge it as such because it would destroy your entire argument.

Something you don't understand very well as you showed several times that you don't understand the difference between an armistice and a treaty. Take a basic course in international law sometime and come back to me. You have shown repeatedly that you don't know under which mechanisms in international law territory may be transferred from one state to another state. I explained it to you. You are not very open to instruction.

How about you tell me what you think is the reason?

I know what the reason is. Obviously you don't know why the Vietnamese hate the Chinese so much.

There was nothing illegal about it. Say as much as you like that the people of Taiwan do not like the law, it does not make a damn bit of difference with regards to what the law says.

There was nothing legal about the ROC annexation of Taiwan. Actually, if you look at the KMTs own laws, they never passed a law changing the borders of the ROC in accordance with their own Constitition. As you can't read Chinese, I don't suspect you know very much about that. Obviously, you don't know the difference between occupation and sovereignty.

Where did you get that I do not know about these issues? I said I do not see any indication that it has caused any serious change in attitudes.

I would say there is a problem with your vision if that is the case.

I never said there was not concern. Like I said, any country becoming more powerful creates concern.

Especially when that nation claims territory and territorial waters of a large number of its neighboring states and has used its military to encorach on the territorial waters of several of its neighbors, as has already been referenced.

I pull it out because it applies. No amount of "I married a yellow woman!" and "I can speak Chinese!" is going to take away from the comments you have made that are clearly about invoking fear with regards to the Chinese people in general. Just because you consider certain Chinese people exceptions (read: people who are more like your fellow white folk) does not mean anything.

Ohh... your race card again. Shove it before you embarass yourself further...

We have a tradition of "equality of states" in the West? This is news to me!

If you had taken basic classes in international relations, you would understand the severe difference in the evolution of international relations in the West and in the East. But go on, embarass yourself further. Perhaps you would even understand why the Emperor Qianlong-Long MacCartney incident turned out the way it did?

Countries typically pursue power to whatever extent they can pursue it. I am not exactly sure what you are trying to say here, though. China is not building up its military simply to retake Taiwan. In fact, claims that their military power is in any significant disproportionate manner geared towards Taiwan just amounts to Sinophobic propaganda. Why shouldn't China build up its military given the buildup of other countries in the region and powers like the United States? India could have as many as three aircraft carriers by 2015 so wouldn't China be remiss to not build up its military forces as well?

Ohh... Sinophobic again... Ummm, the Chinese have more than 1000 missiles pointed at us. They conduct military drills designed for a campaign against Taiwan. They draw up military plans for the purpose of countering assets that may come in to defend Taiwan. They pass an anti-secession law against Taiwan. They constantly use rhetoric essentially saying if Taiwan strays, they will use their miltary to take us over. But in your world, pointing out those FACTS is Sinophobia. India's buildup has legitimate defensive purposes. You don't see India claiming territory that belongs to multiple neighbors. Nor does India use its weight against its neighbors, but rather seeks to counter another rather large rival, Pakistan, one who recived significant Chinese aid and assistance.

Were Japan to modify its constitution to allow a major build-up then China would have yet another reason to increase its power. U.S. containment actions like its efforts to bring Australia, India, and Japan together with it against China only provide more incentive for a military buildup. There are countless reasons for China to build up its military strength, including the growing presence of Chinese citizens and businesses in Africa, so your fixation on Taiwan is a bit misplaced.

Why does China have the 'right' to build up its military to protect its business interests in Africa. And if you hadn't noted, the actions of the US to work with other DEMOCRACIES in the region regarding China is a RESPONSE to Chinese actions. The desire of many in Japan to amend its Constitution is in RESPONSE to China's buildup. And again, as refers to Taiwan, you obviously don't know what they are saying... oh, that's right... you can't understand the language....

learn the language, learn some history, learn some basic international law and then come back to play, ok???
 
Back
Top Bottom