China the sleeping dragon? (Page 4) Comrade_: Maybe you should take this moment to re-read what he says and spot the differences yourself?..good  StuckInTheSixties: Jeezus, this is getting all tangled up. I'll try to untangle it (and in the process, probably f*x# things up even worse) ... Caveman said: "Maybe you should take this moment to re-read what he says and spot the differences yourself?..good" That question contains two pronouns. I'm unsure of what user either of those pronouns refers to ... "Maybe YOU [Who?] should take this moment to re-read what HE [Who?] says and spot the differences yourself? (I'm pretty sure that he's referring to Fog and Paulo, but can't tell which one is "you" and which one is "he".)  FogofWar: more than likely he is referring to me SITS; as it seems caveman has a thing for posting after me and trying to slew things. Comrade_: ahman why do you feel so special? are you still holding feelings over the football vs soccer thing? jeez and even in that thread I believe it was you who was 'following' me. C'mon don't bring anger from another thread into a new one. FogofWar: Bring anger? ha ha; okay. No; it's not the football thread; it's every single thread I have posted since I got back on here a few months ago has had caveman posts directly under mine trying to work me up. Let him try. It still doesn't answer the question I wasn't even asking him. Comrade_: it's just amazing that you think I'm out to get you. Please post any links to all those threads that you've posted on. I never knew you felt this way Comrade_: ahman... Fog, don't feel special. I object to everything I'm passionate about, so what if you were caught in the crossfire a couple of times, get over it and move on, man. In each of the post, search and see if I ever "attacked" YOU or if I was really "attacking" what you were saying. There is a difference, tis what debating is. FogofWar: I never said you attacked me pal. Like I said; you object to get a rise. It's not debating; it's you trying to get a rise out of people. How about we just get back to the topic? I still would like to know what exactly Paulo views differently. Comrade_: Some things that Paulo pointed out already: These are part of articles from BBC News last year. -The growth of China's military is shrouded in secrecy which could give rise to "misunderstanding and miscalculation", a US defence department report says. -The report confirms US concerns about the rapid growth of China's military. -China has 1,150 short-range ballistic missiles and an unknown number of medium-range missiles, the report says. -The billions of dollars in expenditure has been conducted largely out of the public eye, the report alleges. -"The limited transparency in China's military and security affairs enhances uncertainty and increases the potential for misunderstanding and miscalculation," it says. -In March this year (2010), China said it would increase its defence budget by 7.5% to 532bn yuan ($77.9bn, £50bn), less than the usual double-digit increases. The US annual military budget is about $700bn (£448bn). *******-*******-*******-*******-*******-*******-*******- Winning the 'arms race' will not be a problem for China, US are in a debt. But a thing to note is that the US are not alone they are strong partners with the UK. You can't say that because China gains by keeping things peaceable that things will remain peaceable. Not in these times, I'm not saying that China is going to attack but if any disagreements with the US should occur then you can bet that China will be ready. You can look at the culture of the US, and the culture of China. An economically growing Communist country and the declining US who holds their views as being the best way. If US decides that they should intervene and try to muscle China who's to say that "economic stability" will be on China's mind? In Hiroshima (I'm not saying that nuclear war will happen) but look at what happened in Hiroshima, no common sense was used. This is what happens in wars, no reasoning. This is what I get from Paulo's arguments. Comrade_: If US and the media were to report that "China is dictating their neighbours over oil" or that "China is controlling the South Sea and civilians might be in danger." something along those lines. Don't you think that the US.UK will get the support of its citizens to intervene? and appear as a savior. This is the reality of two cultures clashing, and tension that already exist. Simple things such as the media can put pressure on a tense relationship. Yan26: China supports Pakistan and NKorea. It was the only country which protects Iran in the UNSC. It has supported the Maoist movement in Nepal, offered to build nuclear reactors in Bangladesh, and supplied weapons to Sri Lanka when everyone else were criticizing them. They usually end up supporting( military/economic) countries which are against either India,Russia,the US. What do you make of that? Indirect confrontation ? FogofWar: Confrontation is what drives our societies. It is what excels certain nations. It is competition. Of course because there is a state of peace between China and the US that doesn't mean it will always be so. There was war between France and England; yet they are now friends. So too was Germany an enemy; yet now they are one of the best friends to Canada; and supply us with most of our weapons and vehicles that are not manufactured in Canada. Times do change; but at the moment; war would not benefit either side. And sorry caveman; but there is much reasoning involved in war. Nuclear war is not an option to any nation that wishes to survive. WWII was an experiment; and no one outside the US had any; so there was no rival. Again, times have changed. If the US nuked China; you can be assured China would do the same back. If China nuked the US; you can be assured that half the world would do it back...except Canada; we have always been; and always will be, nuclear arms free...and proud of that.  davidk14: . The "west" put it's foot down on Taiwan in the past. Will the US defend Taiwan. That will be the first real test of Western resolve to "contain" China (if that is even possible). . Comrade_: Yes David, there's plenty tension Fog, you are free to disagree but I don't believe that there is reasoning behind wars. Something you'd find interesting: -"the first on August 6, 1945 and the second on August 9, 1945." -"The U.S. expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October." One bomb would've been an experiment, two isn't. And what was the reasoning behind that? ...I only brought up Hiroshima to show that in war anything can happen. "If China nuked the US; you can be assured that half the world would do it back...except Canada"..how are you so sure that those with nuclear weapons will use it if US/China decides to use theirs? I see that if nuclear weapons are used, then it'll only be to show 'Power', not to eliminate a target. StuckInTheSixties: One shouldn't be surprised that there were many considerations in the decision to use those bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But one shouldn't overlook the primary consideration, or pretend it didn't exist. Those bombs were primarily used to bring fulfill the ultimate goal of the Allies in World War II: the destruction of the Japanese Empire's ability to wage war, and an unconditional surrender. *waits for the inevitable popular but historically incorrect rhetoric* | Politics Chat Room 77 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
