Why China might be a better superpower

[That Guy]

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"



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

BEFORE I begin, I'd like to say that I'm being a devils advocate. I'm presenting the other side of the argument, don't feel so insulted by my words.

I'm merely presenting facts, it's not my job to make sure that no one is offended. No matter what I say, someone will be offended, so it's really a moot point for you to make.

Moving on...

You're grasping at straws and making more assumptions, and once again, adding words to my statements. There is no evidence to suggest that a civilian would be the one to step on a landmine, it could just as easily be an animal, or a rock that's thrown. You're connecting dots that hardly connect and correlating things that cannot be proven.

Your examples make no sense, we as humanity can see the world move, we have the technology for that and even before technology, it was already proven that the earth moves around the sun, so, again, ridicules analogy. This situation is completely different.

I have not seen Iraq, I have not been to Iraq, and I certainly don't know personally that's lost someone in Iraq, BUT that still does not invalidate my points. Really, all you're trying to do now is character assassinate me, I thought you'd actually make a valid point.

I don't think you understand how burden of proof works. The claimant is the one that must prove the claim, not the judge nor the jury.

You claimed that the US military action has done tremendous good, I'd like to hear what that is. If you don't have the answer for this, I'm more than willing to make your argument for you. Really, I am.

 

[That Guy]

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?

Ah, I apologize, of course he had a reason, but he was lied to by the Kuwaitis that claimed Saddam was killing babies and committing violent acts against humanity. See Nayirah testimony, he acted on good conscience, but we all know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. With the death of over half a million Iraqi children, directly because of the subsequent sanctions put into place, was it justified? That's really the question though, isn't it? Does a foreign nation have the right to intervene in a conflict which it has nothing to do with? Acting on your conscience is good, but a good leader needs to get facts before acting.

 

[gambit]

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......

I have been believing that the US should withdraw from the UN since the day I saw the Berlin Wall collapsed. I was still on active duty then. We talked about it in the squadron the next day after everyone had time to see the Wall being danced upon and hammered away on CNN. I still remembered what I and my CO said that day: 'Good, we should now leave the f*&%#$ UN. It will be useless and will hate US from now on.' My CO, a light colonel, who was a declared liberal and had no problem saying so, looked at me and said: 'Are you f&^#@ nuts?' Things were less politically correct and more casual between commanders and subordinates back then, as long as everyone know their places.

Here is what I think the US and allies should do...

Concert of Democracies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Concert of Democracies or League of Democracies is an alternative international organization proposed by Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay in a May 2004 Washington Post op-ed. The concept is broader than a military organization, hence “concert” instead of “alliance.” In a subsequent article in The American Interest,[1] they affirm that roughly 60 countries would qualify for membership under these criteria. G. John Ikenberry and Anne-Marie Slaughter have also called for the creation of a “Concert of Democracies” in the final report of the Princeton Project on National Security, Forging a World Under Liberty and Law: U.S. National Security in the 21st Century (September 2006). Most recently the concept has been supported by former United States Presidential candidate John McCain.

If these roughly 60 functional democracies leave the UN, that body would collapse. Just as spectacularly and ignobly as the Soviet Union. We democracies are not perfect, but we are far better than the mass of petty dictatorships that made up the bulk of the UN. We should make an economic alliance that favors each other over others outside this clique. And I say we make no bones about being elitist about it. We had an official military alliance of it during the Cold War in the form of NATO. We had an unofficial economic alliance of it in the same era. Now let us make both official. Japan and South Korea would be with us and would be our eyes and ears in Asia. If people of the world do not like the disparity of wealth now, they have seen nothing yet if these 60 democracies favors each other. If the rest of the world want to create their own alliances, let them and we will see who will outlast who.

Ah, I apologize, of course he had a reason, but he was lied to by the Kuwaitis that claimed Saddam was killing babies and committing violent acts against humanity. See Nayirah testimony, he acted on good conscience, but we all know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. With the death of over half a million Iraqi children, directly because of the subsequent sanctions put into place, was it justified? That's really the question though, isn't it? Does a foreign nation have the right to intervene in a conflict which it has nothing to do with? Acting on your conscience is good, but a good leader needs to get facts before acting.

You are wrong. We did not oust Iraq from Kuwait because of what the Kuwaitis said. Yours is a gross distortion of history. It sounds immature.

 

[Wholegrain]

South Korea and Japan's care for their own internal affairs does not extend to the political system of other countries they have relations with. The Japanese especially do not give a flying crap, neither does India. India the worlds "biggest democracy" was allied to the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Only America (pretends) to care about other countries political system (to advance its own interests). The Japanese are willing to deal with third world dictators in Africa and not give a damn about human rights.

The right wing in Japan also does not want to be subservient to America. Ishihara wrote an entire book about it, they see themselves as a superior race and all non Japanese as inferior, including Americans. They want to kick the American military bases out and dominate other asian countries with their own military.

I have been believing that the US should withdraw from the UN since the day I saw the Berlin Wall collapsed. I was still on active duty then. We talked about it in the squadron the next day after everyone had time to see the Wall being danced upon and hammered away on CNN. I still remembered what I and my CO said that day: 'Good, we should now leave the f*&%#$ UN. It will be useless and will hate US from now on.' My CO, a light colonel, who was a declared liberal and had no problem saying so, looked at me and said: 'Are you f&^#@ nuts?' Things were less politically correct and more casual between commanders and subordinates back then, as long as everyone know their places.

Here is what I think the US and allies should do...

Concert of Democracies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If these roughly 60 functional democracies leave the UN, that body would collapse. Just as spectacularly and ignobly as the Soviet Union. We democracies are not perfect, but we are far better than the mass of petty dictatorships that made up the bulk of the UN. We should make an economic alliance that favors each other over others outside this clique. And I say we make no bones about being elitist about it. We had an official military alliance of it during the Cold War in the form of NATO. We had an unofficial economic alliance of it in the same era. Now let us make both official. Japan and South Korea would be with us and would be our eyes and ears in Asia. If people of the world do not like the disparity of wealth now, they have seen nothing yet if these 60 democracies favors each other. If the rest of the world want to create their own alliances, let them and we will see who will outlast who.


You are wrong. We did not oust Iraq from Kuwait because of what the Kuwaitis said. Yours is a gross distortion of history. It sounds immature.

 

[Wholegrain]

There is no war in the South China Sea.

Everything there is diplomatic posturing. No beheadings of soldiers or anything like that.

Also nobody has taken into account that the Philippines claim is illegitimate or that the Republic of China/Taiwan clearly stated that the spratly and paracel islands were part of its territory in the 1930s, and that China did not make its claims out of thin air recently just because resources were discovered. (A common lie promoted by American media.) China has not disputed any additional territory beyond the former borders of the Qing dynasty. The American media falsely portrays it as though China is arbitrarily claiming random islands and land.

The Philippines claims were entirely made up AFTER the Republic of China and French Indochina occupied and claims the spratlys. The American administration in the Philippines never claimed the spratlys. Only after the Philippines became independent in 1945 did they claim the already former French and Chinese occupied Spratly islands. Vietnam's claim is from French Indochina, the Philippines claim is entirely fake and illegitimate.

See here for explanation

http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...med-fisherman-philippines-57.html#post4393238

 

[OrionHunter]

Why China might be a better superpower
Unlike the US, China does not have a substantial history of invading and subjugating the inhabitants of far-flung lands.

Huh? China does have a substantial history of claiming and subjugating the inhabitants of far-flung islands and territories especially bordering the South China Sea and claiming Taiwan and Arunachal in India as part of the Han dynasty while illegally occupying parts of Aksai Chin. And needless to say, invading and claiming Tibet as their own!

There's really nothing to choose between the Yanks and the Hans. The former does it for oil and natural resources for fattening their already fat corporations whilst the latter has this perpetual addiction of claiming lands that never belonged to them.

 

[GDan]

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

Historical estimates put the population of the peoples indigenous to the continental United States at the time of country's founding at about 18 million. 100 million is closer to the combined indigenous population of both North and South America at that time.

 

[Wholegrain]

Huh? China does have a substantial history of claiming and subjugating the inhabitants of far-flung islands and territories especially bordering the South China Sea and claiming Taiwan and Arunachal in India as part of the Han dynasty while illegally occupying parts of Aksai Chin. And needless to say, invading and claiming Tibet as their own!

There's really nothing to choose between the Yanks and the Hans. The former does it for oil and natural resources for fattening their already fat corporations whilst the latter has this perpetual addiction of claiming lands that never belonged to them.

Every single country in the world recognized Tibet as part of China from 1912-1949 when it was de facto "independent". Even britain at the 1914 Simla Accords said that Tibet was under China's suzerainty.

Another thing - 98% of the population of Taiwan is Han Chinese. the official name of Taiwan is the Republic of China and we never dropped our claims to Tibet, including arunachal pradesh.

The entire Tibetan Khamba community on Taiwan OPPOSES Tibetan independence and the Dalai Lama. The Mongolian and Tibetan affairs commission on Taiwan worked with Khamba Tibetan guerillas NOT to fight for Tibetan indepence, but to reestablish the Republic of China government on mainland China. The Dalai Lama was forced to make his followers cut off all ties with Taiwan's MTAC because the Khambas refused to recognize his government and supported the one China policy.

Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://repository.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2261/8135/1/ioc152014.pdf

Taiwan claims the entire spratly and paracel island chain in the South China sea and does not recognize Vietnam or the Philippines claims. Taiwan also claims Tibet and we even blocked outer Mongolia from entering the UN with America's help up to the 1960s because we claimed outer mongolia too.

UNITED NATIONS: New Members Day - TIME

United Nations: Package Deal - TIME

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_divisions_of_the_Republic_of_China#Territorial_Disputes

This was produced by the American government - note that BOTH Mongolia and Tibet are depicted by the Americans as part of the Republic of China.

(01) Why We Fight: "Battle of China (ca. 1944) 1/5 - YouTube

 

[acid rain]

There are a lot of contradictions in the title itself.

As for china being a global power - they will be a great power no doubt but just that, their hunt for resources is to sustain their one and half billion population and it factories.

Their second quest is for land and vast portions of sea, land and sea that has resources, they also have a huge chip on their shoulders in the form of the humiliation they went through for a couple of centuuries and want to get back at their chief tormentors.

As a nation they are a monogenous, single cultured, single identity, noon religious atheistic, single ideological entity consisting of a population thats riddled with an inferiority complex brought up on a staple controlled diet of knowledge, information and history strictly monitored and administrated by the CCP.

Their monogenous identity,culture, ideology, non religion etc has nothing of interest to anyone who isnt yellow skinned, or who isnt a commie.

So, for a multiethnic, multicultured world the chinese have nothing to offer other than their factory earned dollars and their fried rice and jackie chan who btw has become too old.

Their military strength is a bane for the region and every country is apprehensive about it, they also probably have more enemies than anyone else.

At best they will be a bit ahead in a multipolar world.

 

[Wholegrain]

There are a lot of contradictions in the title itself.

As for china being a global power - they will be a great power no doubt but just that, their hunt for resources is to sustain their one and half billion population and it factories.

Their second quest is for land and vast portions of sea, land and sea that has resources, they also have a huge chip on their shoulders in the form of the humiliation they went through for a couple of centuuries and want to get back at their chief tormentors.

As a nation they are a monogenous, single cultured, single identity, noon religious atheistic, single ideological entity consisting of a population thats riddled with an inferiority complex brought up on a staple controlled diet of knowledge, information and history strictly monitored and administrated by the CCP.

Their monogenous identity,culture, ideology, non religion etc has nothing of interest to anyone who isnt yellow skinned, or who isnt a commie.

So, for a multiethnic, multicultured world the chinese have nothing to offer other than their factory earned dollars and their fried rice and jackie chan who btw has become too old.

Their military strength is a bane for the region and every country is apprehensive about it, they also probably have more enemies than anyone else.

At best they will be a bit ahead in a multipolar world.

This poster from the country that was humiliated for 1,000 years and ruled over by foreign Muslim dynasties and the British.

Delhi Sultanate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mughal Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

British Raj - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This poster is also from the country that has problems with almost every one of its neighbors.



The Taj Mahal, Red Fort, Agra Fort, Qutub Minar, Charminar, Golkonda were all built by Muslim non Indians ruling over India. Nobody goes to India to see Hindu temples, they go see the monuments built by the masters, not the slaves

 

[Wholegrain]

The same posters are writing the same false accusations so here is one of my old posts.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...chinas-declining-world-image.html#post4402983

The ignorance lf an Indian who knows nothing about his own continent is mind boggling-

The most right wing, Malay nationalist leader said China is not a threat to Malaysia.

Malaysia's Mahathir says China is no threat - AJW by The Asahi Shimbun

Mahathir: China no threat to Malaysia

Koleksi Arkib Ucapan Ketua Eksekutif

Mahathir Mohamad

The country of China and Malaysian Chinese are viewed differently by the Malays. Malay nationalists don't view the country of China as an enemy or a threat, and in the Philippines one the current president's grandfathers was a Chinese.

You also forget, while the Philippines and Vietnam may work together in ASEAN and only claim parts of the spratly islands, Taiwan claims the entire island chain like China and refuses to recognize or work with Vietnam and the Philippines. Most Vietnamese and Filipino women in Taiwan are mail order brides and are looked down upon.

Vietnam Demands Taiwan Cancel Spratly Island Live Fire Drill - Bloomberg

Cambodia and Malaysia have both rejected demands to turn ASEAN into an anti China alliance. Mahathir told the Americans to go screw themselves when they ask Malaysia to adopt an anti China stance, and America's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have made it unpopular. Cambodia rejected all initiatives by Vietnam and the Philippines to bring up the south China sea dispute at ASEAN.

Some Ethnic minorities in Myanmar hate the Burmese government and love China and Chinese things instead. In Wa state the Wa people use Chinese language, currency, telecommunications and love Chinese culture while they hate everything Burmese. Their United Wa state army is backed by China. The Kachin, Karen and other minorities also hate the Burmese.

Other asian countries hate each other than with China and some don't even have a problem with China like Laos and Cambodia. The Philippine Suluks who invaded Malaysia because the Philippines claims to Sabah, a single temple of a religion nobody in Cambodia or Thailand practices has led to bloodshed between the two countries, and Laos construction fo the Xayaburi Dam threatens Cambodia and Vietnam.

Preah Vihear Temple - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't delude yourselves into thinking that everyone sees the same China the same way as you. China and Taiwan both reject the illegal claims of Vietnam and the Philippines in the Spratlys and view them as intruders and illegal thieves. Taiwan holds live fire drills on Taiping and ignores Vietnam's whining. The issue of the spratlys is viewed as bilateral in China and Taiwan with regards to the one China issue and all third parties like Vietnam and the Philippines are viewed as INVADERS.

 

[acid rain]

double post

 

[acid rain]

This poster from the country that was humiliated for 1,000 years and ruled over by foreign Muslim dynasties and the British.



:omgha

The topic's about China dumb@ss, so stick to it, My post was for the Non Chinese because I dont expect a mature discussion from you lot. You CCP bots dont need to jump at every post thats being posted and reply with off topic rants. So calm down and let the saner minds discuss the topic at hand without you jumping like monkeys at everything.

 

[Seaman]

yeah. its no doubts that china is superpower and india too but the thing is that pakistanis.are more existed from this kind of topics they don't have anything to underestimate and to compare with india except creating indo chinese argument.

 

[gambit]

South Korea and Japan's care for their own internal affairs does not extend to the political system of other countries they have relations with. The Japanese especially do not give a flying crap, neither does India. India the worlds "biggest democracy" was allied to the Soviet Union in the Cold War.

Who is forcing anyone to join this new and better alliance? Do you even know why people, let alone countries, join associations, clubs, and organizations in the first place?

Only America (pretends) to care about other countries political system (to advance its own interests).

And you think other countries do not know this? Alliances are voluntary and if interests coincides, then why not join?

What I see is typical knee-jerk response to any proposal by the US as something forcible by US and nefarious in intent. If the US is so evil in your estimation, then what are you doing in the US?