The clock is ticking for USA....

[CardSharp]

It might become super power economically. There is more to super power than economics. It also involves soft power like coca cola, Microsoft, apple, Ford generates for US.

Also who knows about what happens in China, but we all know when the highly anticipated hollywood movie is releasing. So super power or no, China wouldn't have the same clout as US. And chinese are not even trying for it. So there you go.

You are pretty quick to use the naive label but everything you've said thus far points to your own naivety. There's probably a group of Iranian teenagers now wearing designer american labels, drinking a coca cola while on their way to an anti-american sermon at the mosque.

There's a difference between consuming American products and the inflationary currency of American soft-power.


Believe what you like about China's doom and imminent collapse to make yourself feel better, I care not.

 

[sunny001]

You are pretty quick to use the naive label but everything you've said thus far points to your own naivety. There's probably a group of Iranian teenagers now wearing designer american labels, drinking a coca cola while on their way to an anti-american sermon at the mosque.

There's a difference between consuming American products and the inflationary currency of American soft-power.


Believe what you like about China's doom and imminent collapse to make yourself feel better, I care not.

Who said anything about China's doom? I even said China will be larger economically than US. I just meant China will not have the same influence just yet on other countries like America have. Language is still an issue. Soft power that so many american companies built for america over the years will give an advantage in diplomacy.

When you having a party in any country even in china there is a chance they'd prefer to listen to american music. Nobody listen to Chinese, for one thing they don't understand what being said. Don't come up with a pejorative argument that how listening to american songs give america influence. It doesn't, it just gives an edge in diplomacy.

Also, america is a democracy. Countries will definitely be more comfortable with it than an authoritarian state. if you gullible enough to believe that China will wield same level of influence that America do, then your living in a la la land.

I don't think China is even trying to get that kind of influence. You conveniently came up Iran's case, why not take any democratic country and tell me who has more influence. Which country they would be more comfortable dealing with.

 

[CardSharp]

Who said anything about China's doom? I even said China will be larger economically than US. I just meant China will not have the same influence just yet on other countries like America have. Language is still an issue. Soft power that so many american companies built for america over the years will give an advantage in diplomacy.

When you having a party in any country even in china there is a chance they'd prefer to listen to american music. Nobody listen to Chinese, for one thing they don't understand what being said. Don't come up with a pejorative argument that how listening to american songs give america influence. It doesn't, it just gives an edge in diplomacy.

Also, america is a democracy. Countries will definitely be more comfortable with it than an authoritarian state. if you gullible enough to believe that China will wield same level of influence that America do, then your living in a la la land.

I don't think China is even trying to get that kind of influence. You conveniently came up Iran's case, why not take any democratic country and tell me who has more influence. Which country they would be more comfortable dealing with.

Conjectures, I'd be surprised if you can prove any of it seeing as they are just your own optimistic opinions.

if you gullible enough to believe that China will wield same level of influence that America do, then your living in a la la land.

Find the post where I said that. You think they'd have taught you reading comprehension at Harvard.

All I see, India got plutonium from canadian reactor in India. It's not as if it proliferated. It just took advantage of naive canadians for national security.

This is no less despicable than deliberate proliferation, it undermines the fundamental trust in trade, but because it's Indians doing it, I guess it's ok for you. We Canadians don't appreciate being called suckers.

 

[sunny001]

Conjectures, I'd be surprised if you can prove any of it seeing as they are just your own optimistic opinions.


Find the post where I said that. You think they'd have taught you reading comprehension at Harvard.




This is no less despicable than deliberate proliferation, it undermines the fundamental trust in trade, but because it's Indians doing it, I guess it's ok for you. We Canadians don't appreciate being called suckers.

How many of countries in your neighborhood are really comfortable of rising China. Japan, south korea, singapore, India, US, UK, i can go on, all democracies are vary of its rising. Just don't give BS like China is non threatening. We do business with all these countries. It's different. Countries see America and China differently.

Oh you are talking about my comment towards Canadians. I am sorry 'naive' was wrong word to use, i meant 'trusting'. And by the by, we didn't proliferate, we just developed a bomb for ourselves. It's not as if we helped another country to build it. We weren't even an NPT state, there is no binding on us. It's not like Canada was trading their nuclear technology with us. It was just a research reactor. But, We are sorry on behalf of all Indians for taking our trusting Canadians friends for a ride. It was necessary as US threatened to nuke us during 1971 war.

You are talking about my reading comprehension abilities, then what about yours? Where did I say China is doomed and is going to collapse in my previous posts? I don't even believe that to say such a thing.

 

[CardSharp]

Oh you are talking about my comment towards Canadians. I am sorry 'naive' was wrong word to use, i meant 'trusting'. And by the by, we didn't proliferate, we just developed a bomb for ourselves. It's not as if we helped another country to build it. We weren't even an NPT state, there is no binding on us. It's not like Canada was trading their nuclear technology with us. It was just a research reactor. But, We are sorry on behalf of all Indians for taking our trusting Canadians friends for a ride. It was necessary as US threatened to nuke us during 1971 war.

You are talking my reading comprehension abilities, then what about yours? Where did I say China is doomed and is going to collapse in previous posts? I don't even believe that to say such a thing.

Fine I admit hast in posting that statement but "taking advantage of naive canadians" got me seeing red.

but I still disbelieve the western conceit of think seeing democracy as the only acceptable form of government. My way or the highway is a rather closed minded way of thinking about governance.

 

[sunny001]

Fine I admit hast in posting that statement but "taking advantage of naive canadians" got me seeing red.

but I still disbelieve the western conceit of think seeing democracy as the only acceptable form of government. My way or the highway is a rather closed minded way of thinking about governance.

In history of civilization, successful authoritarian states have always tried to expand from their bases. All had hegemonic designs towards its neighbors. There's not even a single case to suggest otherwise. So obviously other countries in the neighborhood will be vary about china's rise.

But with democracy, people are content with what they have. They have never tried to expand in region, take over other countries.

So, you see its not western propaganda. It's just the lesson that history taught us. It'll take at least 50 years of peaceful living to dissipate those fears.

 

[CardSharp]

In history of civilization, successful authoritarian states have always tried to expand from their bases. All had hegemonic designs towards its neighbors. There's not even a single case to suggest otherwise. So obviously other countries in the neighborhood will be vary about china's rise.

But with democracy, people are content with what they have. They have never tried to expand in region, take over other countries.

So, you see its not western propaganda. It's just the lesson that history taught us. It'll take at least 50 years of peaceful living to dissipate those fears.

Conjectures again. You are being deliberately vague with sweeping generalizations which hasn't been backed up with statistics, expert opinions, journal publications and other evidence.

What do you mean by the following?

successful authoritarian states
expand from their bases
hegemonic designs
with democracy, people are content with what they have
They have never tried to expand in region, take over other countries


Surely you've written a persuasive/argumentative essay before. Does your profs let you get away with making vague and unsupported statements like this?

 

[sunny001]

Conjectures again. You are being deliberately vague with sweeping generalizations which hasn't been backed up with statistics, expert opinions, journal publications and other evidence.

What do you mean by the following?

successful authoritarian states
expand from their bases
hegemonic designs
with democracy, people are content with what they have
They have never tried to expand in region, take over other countries


Surely you've written an persuasive/argumentative essay before. Does your profs let you get away with making vague and unsupported statements like this?

Sorry I was replying to multiple posts, so pardon me for not putting forward a persuasive argument for you. I thought you would grasp the gist of my post. let me give you then.

successful authoritarian states - USSR, Imperial japan, Ottaman empire, Hitler's Nazi empire

expand from their bases - trying to take over central asia, China, central asia, europe respectively.

hegemonic designs - read above.

with democracy, people are content with what they have - political parties have to worry more about next elections than about invading another country. Surely, authoritarian states doesn't have to worry about this.

So if it still seems vague, that is all I can come up in 2 minutes. You keep attacking my education. I wouldn't have brought that up if I knew I'll be made hostage to that.

 

[CardSharp]

Sorry I am replying to multiple posts, so pardon me for not putting forward a persuasive argument for you. I thought you would grasp the meaning of those. let me give you then.

successful authoritarian states - USSR, Japan Imperial, Ottaman empire

expand from their bases - Taking over central asia, China, central asia respectively.

hegemonic designs - read above.

with democracy, people are content with what they have - political parties have to worry more about next elections than about invading another country. Surely, authoritarian states doesn't have to worry about this.

So if it still seems vague, that is all I can come up in 2 minutes. You keep attacking my education. I wouldn't have brought that up if I knew I'll be made hostage to that.

Play the victim, fine. I am not attacking your education (despite the hideous name drop), but rather the poor form in which your arguments are presented. I am not a polisci or English major but if I can make the effort to back up my arguments with specific details, stats and links to articles in order to make them convincing to others, so can you. If you choose not to, I then have a right to object to what you've said in a public forum.

Fair?

successful authoritarian states - USSR, Japan Imperial, Ottaman empire

What is the commonalty that link these states and defines them as authoritarian.

expand from their bases - Taking over central asia, China, central asia respectively.

hegemonic designs - read above.

What is the context in which these conflicts are launched? How does the motivations for these conflicts satisfy the criteria for hegemonic aspiration?

with democracy, people are content with what they have - political parties have to worry more about next elections than about invading another country. Surely, authoritarian states doesn't have to worry about this.

Demonstrate how political pre-occupation with elections preclude the invasion of another country, especially considering the electoral benefits to be gained by engaging in war. (see the satirical movie Wag the Dog and not to mention the Iraq, Afghanistan war by the greatest democracy on earth)

 

[gambit]

Demonstrate how political pre-occupation with elections preclude the invasion of another country, especially considering the electoral benefits to be gained by engaging in war. (see the satirical movie Wag the Dog and not to mention the Iraq, Afghanistan war by the greatest democracy on earth)

So all of the 20th century wars have been caused by democratic societies and not by authoritarian regimes. Most enlightening.

 

[sunny001]

Play the victim, fine. I am not attacking your education (despite the hideous name drop), but rather the poor form in which your arguments are presented. I am not a polisci or English major but if I can make the effort to back up my arguments with specific details, stats and links to articles in order to make them convincing to others, so can you. If you choose not to, I then have a right to object to what you've said in a public forum.

Fair?



What is the commonalty that link these states and defines them as authoritarian.


What is the context in which these conflicts are launched? How does the motivations for these conflicts satisfy the criteria for hegemonic aspiration?




Demonstrate how political pre-occupation with elections preclude the invasion of another country, especially considering the electoral benefits to be gained by engaging in war. (see the satirical movie Wag the Dog and not to mention the Iraq, Afghanistan war by the greatest democracy on earth)

I am not saying that I am the authority here or What I say must be true. I am putting forward my own thoughts, not some researched paper. You can definitely choose to ignore it. I think you are being way too critical to my posts because of my education. I could be very wrong, there could many other reasons why countries are vary about china's rise. I haven't researched on this, nor I read any papers on this.

Obviously I can put forward my opinion in this forum. Can't I? I cannot research for every post I make.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Sorry I was replying to multiple posts, so pardon me for not putting forward a persuasive argument for you. I thought you would grasp the gist of my post. let me give you then.

successful authoritarian states - USSR, Imperial japan, Ottaman empire, Hitler's Nazi empire

expand from their bases - trying to take over central asia, China, central asia, europe respectively.

hegemonic designs - read above.

with democracy, people are content with what they have - political parties have to worry more about next elections than about invading another country. Surely, authoritarian states doesn't have to worry about this.

So if it still seems vague, that is all I can come up in 2 minutes. You keep attacking my education. I wouldn't have brought that up if I knew I'll be made hostage to that.

It's a good theory.

The problem is that "one-person one-vote" Democracy has only been around for a short period of time. It's a relatively new system of Government in historical terms, so it's hard to weigh it up as a form of government in such a short time.

China and India for example... have co-existed peacefully for thousands of years. During that time, neither one was "democratic" in the modern sense of the word. So authoritarianism does not necessarily result in war.

All things considered, I think that Democracy is better than Authoritarianism.

The caveat is that a country "should" be developed before it can properly reap the benefits of Democracy, look at Democracies in the developed world vs. the democracies in the developing world.

In that context, I think it will take a few decades before true democratic reforms show up in China. As another example, India is actually doing really well for a democracy in a developing country so we'll see how that works, I think there is a lot of potential in that model of government.

 

[CardSharp]

I am really not trying to antagonize you here, but when you take what you admit as opinions and state them as facts like this

In history of civilization, successful authoritarian states have always tried to expand from their bases. All had hegemonic designs towards its neighbors. There's not even a single case to suggest otherwise. So obviously other countries in the neighborhood will be vary about china's rise.
But with democracy, people are content with what they have. They have never tried to expand in region, take over other countries.

It is difficult not to voice my reservations. Anyways, I think I understand your underlying point and will take it as is. I am sorry for what seems like ad hominem attacks and wish for more peaceful discussion in the future.

 

[sunny001]

I am really not trying to antagonize you here, but when you take what you admit as opinions and state them as facts like this



It is difficult not to voice my reservations. Anyways, I think I understand your underlying point and will take it as is. I am sorry for what seems like ad hominem attacks and wish for more peaceful discussion in the future.

Well obviously I am bad at presenting my opinion in writings. But, in my defense, I didn't expect such a heated attacks for something that I write. But, to clarify, it is an opinion, sorry if I made it look like something written in stone.

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

US and China are made for each others (opposite Attract ) both need each other. Weak $ hurts China the most and With poor China who will buy US Credit .