Why China might be a better superpower

[That Guy]

There lies the failure of your argument: Hope.

What if one country decided not to respect its neighbor? Iraq came to mind? What if one country decides to do something that another country determined that such action constitute a violation/threat? Iraq determined that Kuwait 'lateral drilling' constitute theft of national resources.

Iraq Accuses Kuwait Again - CBS News

So even after Saddam Hussein gone, Iraq and Kuwait are still at each other's throats.

What if Kuwait is innocent?

You may not like the current global situation with the US as the unofficial policeman or diplomat peacemaker, but without US willing to do what others cannot, your China would probably be at constant war considering you do not know your leadership as well as you think you know ours.

There is a problem with your claim, you're assuming that the US playing policeman and diplomat has done the world good, as it's too late to pick the other choice, we can safely assume that your reasoning is based on nothing more than assumptions. There is literally no evidence that the US has directly stopped wars from occurring through diplomatic means, and there is literally no evidence to suggest that every military action the US has taken in other nations has been for the benefit of the world.

On the contrary, there is evidence that US actions, both diplomatic and military, have done tremendous damage, for example, pre-Iraq war of 2003, the US imposed sanctions on Iraq are known to have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, with US diplomates defending the decision, likewise, direct and indirect US military actions in Iraq have also caused over a million Iraqi deaths have left a nation even more sectarian than it previously was. It's given a safe haven to Al-Qaeda, when Al-Qaeda didn't exist in the nation.

That's just one example out of many.

 

[gambit]

Yes, whenever it comes to the job of "Global policing", it should be multilateral. Not done by one superpower and their friends/subordinates.

Maybe something like the UN.

Though the world could do with a little more minding our own business, and less invasions of countries halfway around the globe.

Another failed argument. Militarily speaking, the UN is like a spoon. Dull and round. UN military forces depends completely on contributions from member states and those states will contribute to any UN led military adventure only if they feel such an adventure is either in their national interests or have no effects on the same.

A more powerful UN would mean a requirement for the UN to have its own military independent of allegiances to anyone else. It would mean this UN to have its own land, effectively its own country with its own citizenry. And then there is the hope that this UN would have an absolutely benevolent leadership.

Yeah...

 

[jhungary]

There is a problem with your claim, you're assuming that the US playing policeman and diplomat has done the world good, as it's too late to pick the other choice, we can safely assume that your reasoning is based on nothing more than assumptions. There is literally no evidence that the US has directly stopped wars from occurring through diplomatic means, and there is literally no evidence to suggest that every military action the US has taken in other nations has been for the benefit of the world.

On the contrary, there is evidence that US actions, both diplomatic and military, have done tremendous damage, for example, pre-Iraq war of 2003, the US imposed sanctions on Iraq are known to have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, with US diplomates defending the decision, likewise, direct and indirect US military actions in Iraq have also caused over a million Iraqi deaths have left a nation even more sectarian than it previously was. It's given a safe haven to Al-Qaeda, when Al-Qaeda didn't exist in the nation.

so, essentially what you are saying is, since we cannot see any Good US did to the world, then it's war, it's policy must be doing the world bad??

I can tell you this, you are wrong. With every angle you look at things, you will see the supposed good side and supposed bad side from the same incident, there are always 2 sides of the looking glass here.

Say for example. what have the US done to Iraq before 2003 Iraqi war. Of course you will always find the bad side of an event when you solely look at Iraq. However, when you ask the king of Kuwait, will he agree with you?? 1st Iraq war and followed on sanction save thousand if not hundred of thousand Kuwaiti and Saudi Arabian. Coming from what if US does not intervene and Iraq keep fighting Kuwait and Saudi Arabia years after years? Ever heard of Iraq-Iran war?? How many people died in there.

How you see a specific incident is depending on how you WANT TO see it, not how exactly it goes down.

Well, but if your point you are talking is specifically designed to look at only one side of the looking glass, then don't bother replying my post.

 

[gambit]

There is a problem with your claim, you're assuming that the US playing policeman and diplomat has done the world good, as it's too late to pick the other choice, we can safely assume that your reasoning is based on nothing more than assumptions. There is literally no evidence that the US has directly stopped wars from occurring through diplomatic means, and there is literally no evidence to suggest that every military action the US has taken in other nations has been for the benefit of the world.

On the contrary, there is evidence that US actions, both diplomatic and military, have done tremendous damage, for example, pre-Iraq war of 2003, the US imposed sanctions on Iraq are known to have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, with US diplomates defending the decision, likewise, direct and indirect US military actions in Iraq have also caused over a million Iraqi deaths have left a nation even more sectarian than it previously was. It's given a safe haven to Al-Qaeda, when Al-Qaeda didn't exist in the nation.

That's just one example out of many.

Did you think that B41 got up one morning and decided to attack Iraq for no reasons? Let us see if you can answer that question in a RATIONAL MANNER.

 

[jhungary]

Another failed argument. Militarily speaking, the UN is like a spoon. Dull and round. UN military forces depends completely on contributions from member states and those states will contribute to any UN led military adventure only if they feel such an adventure is either in their national interests or have no effects on the same.

A more powerful UN would mean a requirement for the UN to have its own military independent of allegiances to anyone else. It would mean this UN to have its own land, effectively its own country with its own citizenry. And then there is the hope that this UN would have an absolutely benevolent leadership.

Yeah...

People always fail to see what UN is as of their function.

I will say it out lout and clear in the open now. UN IS USELESS

When you look at the UN and it's Organisation, you see there are 2 distinct power, with equal power to veto one another. That will always make things not get done. The principle behind it's "So that you can make deal" but the reality of said word become so that you can try to out throat each other and waste your veto in petty vote.

When an organisation have 2 ore more equal power in opposite direction, you literally take the power broker out of the equation.

However, what happened if we have a strong and unified UN? Well, ironically, that would mean the Purpose of Organisation like UN disappear, then WE WILL NOT NEED UN ANYMORE. The only reason why UN is formed is because we wanted a more unifed world and less conflict, if we have already achieve that, we literally won't need UN anymore, for either, UN is now the king of the world (Like you said, have their own Army and absolute benevolent leadership) Which mean no dispute. Or the concept of "Dispute" is the things of the past now that everyone is unified......

 

[That Guy]

so, essentially what you are saying is, since we cannot see any Good US did to the world, then it's war, it's policy must be doing the world bad??

I can tell you this, you are wrong. With every angle you look at things, you will see the supposed good side and supposed bad side from the same incident, there are always 2 sides of the looking glass here.

Say for example. what have the US done to Iraq before 2003 Iraqi war. Of course you will always find the bad side of an event when you solely look at Iraq. However, when you ask the king of Kuwait, will he agree with you?? 1st Iraq war and followed on sanction save thousand if not hundred of thousand Kuwaiti and Saudi Arabian. Coming from what if US does not intervene and Iraq keep fighting Kuwait and Saudi Arabia years after years? Ever heard of Iraq-Iran war?? How many people died in there.

How you see a specific incident is depending on how you WANT TO see it, not how exactly it goes down.

Well, but if your point you are talking is specifically designed to look at only one side of the looking glass, then don't bother replying my post.

Actually no, I'm simply presenting the other side of the argument. I'm not suggesting anything.

The US has done a lot of good, I'm actually one of the few who thinks that the US has done more good as a superpower than any other in the past. I'm simply saying that there is no physical evidence to say that US diplomacy and military actions have directly resulted in any good being done.

There is no evidence that the first gulf war resulted in Kuwaiti and Saudi lives being saved, in fact, we know for a fact that US politicians, along with Kuwaiti diplomates directly lied about civilian casualties to drag the US into war with Iraq.

I don't look at conflicts the way I want to see them, if I did, then I would see that the US have won in Afghanistan and saved Pakistan the trouble of cleaning up the mess. I'm a realist, not an optimist, nor am I a pessimist.

 

[That Guy]

Did you think that B41 got up one morning and decided to attack Iraq for no reasons? Let us see if you can answer that question in a RATIONAL MANNER.

No, the Second gulf war was simmering since the first. Any historian can tell you that the second war was bound to happen sooner rather than later.

Bush claimed Saddam was a threat and was afraid that Saddam would support Al-Qaeda against the US, and if the US is to be believed, then also WMDs. While Iraq had a grudge because of the first gulf war, and from the subsequent sanctions that followed.

Though, now we know for a fact that all of the concerns turned out to be unfounded.

 

[jhungary]

Actually no, I'm simply presenting the other side of the argument. I'm not suggesting anything.

The US has done a lot of good, I'm actually one of the few who thinks that the US has done more good as a superpower than any other in the past. I'm simply saying that there is no physical evidence to say that US diplomacy and military actions have directly resulted in any good being done.

There is no evidence that the first gulf war resulted in Kuwaiti and Saudi lives being saved, in fact, we know for a fact that US politicians, along with Kuwaiti diplomates directly lied about civilian casualties to drag the US into war with Iraq.

I don't look at conflicts the way I want to see them, if I did, then I would see that the US have won in Afghanistan and saved Pakistan the trouble of cleaning up the mess. I'm a realist, not an optimist, nor am I a pessimist.

so, by saying the bolded part, you are essentially saying without US intervention, the war with Iraq and Kuwait or Saudi Arabia would stop and/or the Iraqi Occupation of Kuwait is a "BLOODLESS" act?

If there is action and war and invasion involve, the action of stopping said invasion will MOST DEFINITELY, save life. So, with all due respect, you are wrong.

 

[That Guy]

so, by saying the bolded part, you are essentially saying without US intervention, the war with Iraq and Kuwait or Saudi Arabia would stop and/or the Iraqi Occupation of Kuwait is a "BLOODLESS" act?

If there is action and war and invasion involve, the action of stopping said invasion will MOST DEFINITELY, save life. So, with all due respect, you are wrong.

I'm not suggesting any of that, why do you insist on putting words into my mouth? I'm simply saying that your claim has no basis in facts, as you're only running on assumptions.

Stopping an invasion also costs lives because you need people to fight, so saying that it saved lives is a contradiction on itself. You literally cannot prove that the US invasion saved lives. Show me one piece of evidence that is indisputable where it shows that the US intervention against Iraq's invasion of Kuwait saved lives.

If you can show me one innocent life that was saved as a direct result of US military intervention, then I'll be more than happy to take back my statement.

You're also forgetting that because of the war, we do know is that over 500,000 Iraqi CHILDREN may have been killed.

Again, instead of basing your argument on assumptions, show me something tangible.

 

[jhungary]

I'm not suggesting any of that, why do you insist on putting words into my mouth? I'm simply saying that your claim has no basis in facts, as you're only running on assumptions.

Stopping an invasion also costs lives because you need people to fight, so saying that it saved lives is a contradiction on itself. You literally cannot prove that the US invasion saved lives. Show me one piece of evidence that is indisputable where it shows that the US intervention against Iraq's invasion of Kuwait saved lives.

If you can show me one innocent life that was saved as a direct result of US military intervention, then I'll be more than happy to take back my statement.

You're also forgetting that because of the war, we do know is that over 500,000 Iraqi CHILDREN may have been killed.

Again, instead of basing your argument on assumptions, show me something tangible.

lol. I really love your argument 'It takes live to save live so they are contradicting each other", funny at best, insulting to people who actually did lose their life over.

well, that remind me of a very popular phase in the movie "When trumpet fade"

Tell ya what Dave. You find yourself out there in the middle of a fire fight, with your guts hanging out, screaming for a medic, if I can help you without endangering my own life, I won't hesitate.

When Trumpets Fade (TV 1998) - Quotes - IMDb

maybe we should recall every Forward Medical Personnel as they all face risk and SOME DO DIE trying to save someone. And Maybe we should no longer need Fire fighter as going into a burning building trying to save someone is "A CONTRIDICTION" in term. Dude, you do just realise you have insulted all Frontline Medical Personnel and Front Line Emergency Service personnel??

Can I proof US actually save any life in Iraqi war 1? No. But stopping a war that have casualty record and there are high chance that there will CONTINUE to be casualty, I will say it's saving life.

For every land mine/IED the US Soldier stepped on in Iraq, one less will trigger a death or maim of a civilian, can you NOT justified it is NOT SAVING LIFE?? You can argue that landmine may or may not be stepped on by a civilian, but if you have to resort to this kind of logic, you are REALLY just kidding yourselves??

So, by NOT seeing something actually happened, does that mean something actually DOES NOT happen? I cannot feel the world is moving, does that mean the world is simply, NOT MOVING??

So, for the same reason, I can argue, you are saying the War in Iraq have not a single good deed, then you must have been in Iraq back then and seen everything, I MEANT EVERYTHING. Every incident unfold in front of your eyes and checked EVERY CORNER of everywhere in the battlefield then you made sure there are NO ONE TINY STINT of good coming out of it. If you can say that, then you are god. Because you actually, hear all and know all, maybe you are the true messiah?? I reckon??

If you can proof that, I will gladly shut my mouth and offer my sincere apologies

 

[Psyops]

The US has done nothing good, only killed millions of innocent people. It's a despotic regime. Only we can do good for the world, we will bring peace not constant wars year after year for 200 years like the west.

We are the good guys, the US are the bad guys.

 

[jhungary]

The US has done nothing good, only killed millions of innocent people. It's a despotic regime. Only we can do good for the world, we will bring peace not constant wars year after year for 200 years like the west.

We are the good guys, the US are the bad guys.

it will be another 200 years for American to kill as many as a single man in China kill, Chairman Mao. Even with 2 world war, we only manage to kill about 30 millions(Not all of them are US actually), Mao alone kills 50-200 millions in 10 years, we need to tips our head to the greatest Mao, who lead the body count, BY A WILD MARGIN

In case people ask me where is my figure coming from.

graph from CUHK

Chinese population dropped about 10% from 1960-1970 given the starting population of China is 550 millions in 1950, 10% of 550 millions ~ 55 millions. Depend on where you get your figure from, may be a lot more

http://www.geohive.com/earth/his_hisfut50.aspx
http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/soc/socionexus/resources/chisoc/stat/population/pop increase rate_total.gif

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

it will be another 200 years for American to kill as many as a single man in China kill, Chairman Mao. Even with 2 world war, we only manage to kill about 30 millions, Mao alone kills 200 millions in 10 years, we need to tips our head to the greatest Mao, who lead the body count, BY A WILD MARGIN

Nobody in the world thinks Mao killed 200 million, not even his harshest critics.

America did kill 100 million Native Americans though, and even today Americans are still living on the land they stole by genocide.

 

[jhungary]

Nobody in the world thinks Mao killed 200 million, not even his harshest critics.

America did kill 100 million Native Americans though, and even today Americans are still living on the land they stole by genocide.

well, that's really depend on how you get your figure....

And not the American who murder the 100 millions American Indian, you are looking at a combine British, Spanish, French and American Effort, oh, don't forget Indian kill other Indian during the time. We may still be sitting on their ground but no way we alone can murder 100 millions of them, I would say British get the max as they used to hand out small pox inflected blanket to Indian when they settle.

We did not colonize the American Indian, British Did, we fought a war, they may lose millions or a few millions in the process, but no way we kill more than the Brits. Whom actually colonize American Indian.

 

[gambit]

No, the Second gulf war was simmering since the first. Any historian can tell you that the second war was bound to happen sooner rather than later.

Bush claimed Saddam was a threat and was afraid that Saddam would support Al-Qaeda against the US, and if the US is to be believed, then also WMDs. While Iraq had a grudge because of the first gulf war, and from the subsequent sanctions that followed.

Though, now we know for a fact that all of the concerns turned out to be unfounded.

B41 is Bush Sr., as in Desert Storm. B43 is Bush Jr., as in Iraqi Freedom. Do not bring on 'any historian' unless you can keep history straight. Now answer the question: Did B41 attacked Iraq for no reasons?