Azarkon
-
Posts
486 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Azarkon
-
-
Research secrets aren't going to get a country very far if it lacks basic things like fighter jets, cruisers, and aircraft carriers. All the more reason to believe that the Chinese aren't preparing for a military confrontation of any sort - at least, not if the leadership is at all cognizant of how important air superiority is in any major conflict.
-
What is most important about Tibet, from the Chinese perspective, is its geography. Look at the area on an elevation map. Notice anything? Yeah - it's the Himalayas. A natural wall.
That should remind you of something when thinking about Chinese history.
-
100,000 deaths is still pretty damn significant, and is incredibly hard to justify if Iraq does not emerge out of this better than it was before.
-
Sand, I think you should read the article. Our goals in Iraq weren't punitive. We went in partly to show the world that the US was still in control of events and partly because the neo-cons imagined a grand operatic campaign of "creative destruction." It wasn't even so much about oil, as it was about geo-politics. We wanted to instigate, like we believe we instigated, the same sort of chain reaction that crushed Communism and democratized Eastern Europe. Yes, showing that you shoudln't mess with the US was part of it, but as pointed out in the article, that would've been a pointless exercise if it was targetted at Hussein since the base of terrorist power was in Saudi Arabia & Iran, not Iraq. No matter how the neo-cons spin it, the bottomline is that they envisioned a stable, secular Iraq that would put pressures all across the Middle-East to follow our leadership. Israel would be safe, American geo-political interests would be secure, Bush would be remembered as the president who "brought democracy to the Middle-East," and the troops'll be home for Christmas.
Except for one little problem - that never happened. Things seem to indicate that a permanent US presence would be required in order for the Iraqi state to even function now that it's thoroughly divided along ethnic lines. The US, far from constructing a secular, united, pro-Western, and strong Iraq, has divided the nation in twine and brought it into a state of permanent dependence. There's your case study for what happens when the US intervenes - and you wonder why nobody wants the West to mess with their domestic ethnic problems anymore.
-
I haven't kept up with the Iraq War very studiously, as of late, and as such this article:
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC28Ak04.html
Came as a surprise. It paints a rather bleak picture of the situation, but given the latest surge in volence, that might be warranted. I was particular struck by the following summary, at the end:
So how, finally, do we "take stock of the war on terror"? Let me suggest three words:1. Fragmentation - brought about by "creative destabilization", as we see it not only in Iraq but in Lebanon, Palestine and elsewhere in the region.
2. Diminution - of American prestige, both military and political, and thus of American power.
3. Destruction - of the political consensus within the United States for a strong global role.
Gaze for a moment at those three words and marvel at how far the US has come in a half-dozen years.
In September 2001, the United States faced a grave threat. The attacks that have become synonymous with that date were unprecedented in their destructiveness, in their lethality, in the pure apocalyptic shock of their spectacle. But in their aftermath, American policymakers, partly through ideological blindness and preening exaggeration of American power, partly through blindness brought about by political opportunism, made decisions that led to a defeat only their own actions - that only American power itself - could have brought about.
A small coven of America's enemies, using the strategy of provocation so familiar in guerrilla warfare, had launched in spectacular fashion on that bright September morning a plan to use the superpower's strength against itself. To use a different metaphor, they were trying to make good on Archimedes' celebrated boast: having found the perfect lever and place to stand, they proposed to move the Earth. To an extent I am sure even they did not anticipate, in their choice of opponent - an evangelical, redemptive regime scornful of history and determined to remake the fallen world - lay the seeds of their success.
It made me think about what the Iraq War has truly done - that is, what it has done to the status of geo-politics and American interests. A worthy reflection to make before the elections.
-
Walkerguy, a quick browse through that book seems to indiciate that it goes up to about 1995. Alot has changed since then with regards to China-Japan relations, including the entire administration of Junichiro Koizumi
-
-
Well, I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure everybody values their human rights.
Here's the thing - that's not true. In fact, depending on your definition of human rights, most people in the world likely don't give a damn - because most people don't care about politics. As such, anything that has to do with politics (ie freedom of speech, which basically just means freedom of political speech) is likely to be pretty low on people's list of priorities, whereas anything to do with the quality of life (ie the economy) is likely to be very high. Any government that maximizes the things that people really care about is going to receive mass support. That's why the Chinese government has such a free hand to do as it pleases with political dissent - the Chinese people don't care so long as it doesn't affect their quality of life. That's the bottomline, and so far, the CCP has read its people well.
A successful democratic evolution in China requires that the CCP fails, somehow, to maintain its mandate of economic progress. Massive unemployment, reduction in the quality of life, economic depression, etc. - those are the signs that China is in trouble. Then the government will be forced to change, or face the prospects of having to repress 1.4 billion people. That's the benefit of a democracy - it gives you the option (or at least the illusion) that transitioning between one set of leaders and another set is easy; therefore, if one government screws up the economy, another can be brought in to fix it. I believe that the CCP is smart enough to recognize this, and that they will make the democratic plunge when necessary. That is not now, however, when China's economy is booming.
Again, why would they rock the boat?
-
China is both ass backwards and very evolved. I find it really strange that you should be able to get away with having a state controlled propaganda machine in this day and age. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that the Chinese at large are just indifferent about liberty and unaccustomed to challenging their own institutions.
Thing is, state controlled propaganda seems to be working pretty well for China. Why would they rock the boat?
You guys are still thinking about this in simplistic terms - free press GOOD, no free press BAD. But institutions don't exist in a vacuum. A free press has tremendous political power, especially if it also controls the flow of information (ie the TV stations, radio stations, newspapers, etc.), as it does in the West. In an authoritarian regime like China's, such a press can easily compete with the government for influence, and will also be subject to bribes from various forces, which will attempt to shape events in their favor. At the worst, such a press will become a mouthpiece for corporate and business interests, and that's no different than how China is now except it'll be even more indifferent to the desires of the poor.
In order for a free press to actually be to the benefit of China's people, it will need to remain objective, apolitical, and incorruptible. How do you create such an institution without any means of ensuring its accountability? Remember, in the US the free press grew out of our political culture. Chinese political culture is very different - it's not a constitutional democracy; it doesn't have such a tradition. If the government simply stopped censoring everything and allowed reporters free reign, various interest groups will scramble to fill the power vacuum and push out their own versions of events. Now, you might argue that this competition will ensure objectivity, but the truth is, most people in China don't have acess to anything beyond a television set, so in reality only the big reporting stations have any real clout. They will then basically shape Chinese perception, and thus its policy. Why would the government create such a rival to its power?
-
No doubt, and you're probably right in saying that the Chinese government could've handled the situation better. That said, the rioters were killing defenseless people, destroying property, and committing arsony. What should have been the response?
Let the foreign press have unlimited access. If the Tibetans are doing what you say, then give them enough rope to hang themselves (so to speak).
My impression is that the West will side with Tibet regardless of whether China's allegations are true. In fact, I've seen multiple sources that acquit the Tibetans because "when nothing else works, violence is the only answer for a desperate people." If foreign press was allowed unlimited access, this outlet will be given free reign, and it'd set a precedent for other groups to adopt similar tactics so that they could get similar coverage from Western press - bad news for China.
-
No doubt, and you're probably right in saying that the Chinese government could've handled the situation better. That said, the rioters were killing defenseless people, destroying property, and committing arsony. What should have been the response?
-
National history is the result of geo-politics. The identities of all people are formed and broken within that crucible. Even so, most people are not political, and simply do their best to live from day to day. This is the reason people prefer to discuss world issues through the lens of morality, which, after all, is the only real perspective that most of us have any real stake in. But it's still good to keep in mind that at the end of the day, whether a Tibetan is a Tibetan or a Chinese a Chinese depends not on some intrinsic notion of ethnic solidarity, but the geo-political history of that region. It is subject to interpretation, manipulation, and, ultimately, change. This is why I said earlier that it's not about whether the Tibetans "deserve" independence based on their cultural differences from "Han" Chinese (which, far from the homogeneous collective that Westerners seem to perceive it as, is in truth comprised of groups once just as distinct), but about how they (and the Chinese) play the geo-political game - that will be the determining factor (the same is true for Taiwan, and Xinjiang, and everywhere else). No anthropologist is ever surprised at the deaths of cultures and identities - half of the world's languages are predicted to become extinct by the turn of the century. If we assumed that ethnic identities are somehow static and pure, history would be incomprehensible.
Nations are not intrinsic. They are built and destroyed according to shared interests, social trends, and geo-political maneuverings. Most people would like to be left alone, it's true, but they are no less part of this process because of that desire. Ultimately, we all belong to some identity (or set of identities), and those identities are always changing. Only by accepting this, I think, can we even begin to imagine a post-ethnic society.
-
Modern Japan is very different from historical Japan. Modern Japan is essentially a US vassal. It doesn't tribute, but it can't say no when the US says yes, at least not on the important issues.
-
You've been studying Japan? You mean in Japan? Or the Japanese language? Or its culture?
My limited exposure to Japanese political history is not exactly a positive one. I'm not sure where you would pick up a dislike of China from it, unless you buy into extreme Japanese right-wing ideology (and they make some very ludicrous claims).
-
I don't know. The Germans seemed to like the Nazi regime up to the point where it lost the war.
-
There have been Olympic boycotts in the past which we can reference, btw. The US was the target of one of them
-
I'm not sure China would be even fazed by that. People assume that the Olympics is oh-so-important to the Chinese leadership, but in truth, I suspect that they're regretting ever applying to host the event. Public opinion in China has turned against the West, as of late, and as such boycotts from the West would do as much for China as it'd do for Russia - ie not a whole lot.
-
That's a brilliant idea, Sand. I assume you will be leading by example? (That is, not tuning in to the Olympics for its entire duration.)
-
Michael Felsberg, a researcher working on the first project, says that we probably won't see adult-level AI in our lifetime, so you guys don't have to be worried
-
Yay!
More seriously, though, I'm not defending the PRC as a government (no more than I would defend Bush). I just don't like how we keep getting only one side of the story.
-
How do we find Bin Laden, then?
What should we have done with Iraq?
How should I know? I'm not a Pentagon geo-strategist. My point is that your concept of the US choosing its policy based on "just trying to get along" is wrong. The US plays geo-politics just like everybody else.
Not the point that the US did it. The fact the China is still doing it.So? You think the Chinese want to destroy their forests and their rivers? You don't think they would rather preserve the environment and develop their industry at the same time, that they wouldn't rather have their cake and eat it too? Don't be ridiculous. The reason China is at all competitive economically (whereas places far poorer, like Myanmar, are not) is because of its "hands off" government policy towards the conduct of businesses - corporations are ruled by greed, and China plays into that greed. You don't have to like it - you just have to accept that it's the way the world works.
There is only one thing on your list of unsavory activities that is necessitated by the political nature of China, and that's dealing with other authoritarian states. If China was a democracy, it'd likely find better traction among the West and its allies (though the example of Russia seems to suggest otherwise). Even so, there are good reasons why China is not democratic, and not all of them have to do with the PRC's desire to maintain its stranglehold on Chinese politics. All in all, I'd support a democratic China, but the process needs to be slow to preserve stability and economic growth.
Oh and, as for the claim that the US is no longer doing it - last time I checked, we're still buddy-buddy with the Saudi Arabians.
-
Open your eyes.
You. To your own post.
Even the most naive pundit accepts that the Iraq War was at least for the sake of US national security, what with the whole link between Al Qaeda and Saddam (*cough*).Notice the *cough*. There is no proven link between Al Qaeda and Saddam, which is not surprising, given that Osama Bin Laden hated Saddam.
-
What does China does for oil? Long story short they kill forests, ocean life, trade with terrorist governments, etc, etc. Not opinions, facts.
Just had to respond to this.
You're suggesting that the US doesn't kill forests, ocean life, trade with terrorist governments, etc. etc. for oil? That's a laugh.
Take a look at US environmental history. Take a look at our relationship with Saudi Arabia. Take a look at our overfishing practices.
It's only after the fact that the US has decided to become "conscientious." You might argue that late is better than never, but considering the stage of China's industrial development, it's not at all surprising that they wouldn't take the US's "conscientious objection" over anything.
-
Iraq appeared to be the source of the problem as well as the fact they were threatening Iran with weapons of mass destruction. Just asking to be invaded.
Right. And if the US invades Iran, it'll be because they're threatening Israel with weapons of mass destruction. And if the Palestinians can't get their independence, it's only because they don't deserve to be a nation, whereas Kosovo (consisting of Albanian immigrants who basically took over Serbian land over a period of history) does. But the Mexicans declaring independence? Forget it! They can pack up and go back to Mexico!
It's all justified - from the Western perspective.
Open your eyes.
China geopolitics
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
Not according to the stats, I'm afraid. If China's gearing up for military expansion, at the current rate, it'll be ready to go in... Another hundred years or so. Of course, things may speed up once China fully modernizes, but that itself is more of a maybe than a guarantee.
I've argued it before, but China threat mongering is really overrated. We're talking about a country that's the third biggest economy in the world, with 20% of the population - but which has about 1/100th the military projection capabilities of the US, a standing army that's about half or one-third the US's size per capita (2.3 million / 1.3 billion vs. 1.4 million / 300 million), not to mention less than 20 functioning ICBMs. If that's "gearing up for war," then what the Russians and the Americans have been doing for the last fifty years must have been preparing for the apocalypse (well, I guess that's somewhat true). China has some short-range offensive tools, basic ocean lane-guarding capabilities, and solid defense against a maritime/land invasion, but that's about it. Its logistic chain ends there, and its air power is insignificant.
If China was really gearing up for war, you'd know it, because the Pentagon would be the first to flaunt the numbers. This current charade of "sticking it up to the US" is nothing more than saber rattling produced for domestic consumption and deterrence. It's straight out of the military wisdom - "if you're weak, make the enemy think that you're stronger than you are, to prevent attacks; if you're strong, make the enemy think that you're weaker than you are, to soften defenses." If China was really serious about aggression, it'd not publicize things like its ability to shoot down satellites, which simply feeds into US preparedness. No, the Chinese are playing a very different game.