China was probably the world’s single most powerful country through much of history so this is absolutely false. And its not hard to imagine what China would be as a global superpower comparing their systems of government and their freedoms.
The United States’ foreign policy is selfish obviously-that is necessary for national survival. However we are within reasonable bounds far more generous and benign than Alexander the Great, the Romans, Tsarist Russia, the USSR, or any of the old colonial empires of Europe. Few countries would be willing to spend billions of dollars in reconstructing the infrastructure of their enemies.
Similarly some Indians during World War II who hated the British joined the “Indian Legion” of the Third Reich. We have the benefits of being more objective
Adolf Hitler and the Founding Fathers are not remotely comparable-you might as well compare Pol Pot and Obama. They were not genocidal-they did not want every Amerindian dead and gone from the face of the earth-and most of them opposed slavery in theory and they took measures to kill it such as banning the slave trade and personally freeing their slaves and believed it would die out in time.
A hegemon offers global stability. I find it amusing that leftists would like some sort of a lovey-dovey world government yet oppose all the methods than will logically lead to a world government (globalization, free trade, hegemonic superpowers, military interventions, etc.). And what’s so wrong with exporting American ideology-it works and it is one of the best-working around.
Again, nonsense; that’s domestic policy, not foreign policy.
Please; we funneled billions of dollars into American corporations and didn’t build much of anything usable in Iraq outside of military bases. And we forbade them from rebuilding it themselves for years; the magic Free Market was going to take care of that, not the evil, evil government.
“Objective” compared to what, a guy in a rubber room?
They were genocidal slaveholders who put measures to protect slavery into the Constitution; the infamous three fifths compromise. The did want to kill all the Native Americans, but didn’t have the power to do so int heir lifetimes. And they were at least as bad as Hitler; Hitler became infamous for doing the sorts of atrocities that our wonderful Founding Fathers committed for a far longer period, and because he lost. Monsters, all of them.
America is a warmonger and rogue state. Not a source of stability.
To clarify, The poster ‘Qin Shi Huangdi’ is [Korean] American not Chinese.
Quoted For Truth. You are right, and doubly right when you thidnk how bad China could get without any foreign pressure. The USA acts at least semi-honourably, even though it is effectively uninvadable, and potentially independant of the rest of the world.
You are right, but couldn’t that be more a factor of it being the only wealthy and modern superpower. I’m sure if things went differently, a superpower based on Indian or Brazilian values would be similarly benevolent.
Even after the Brtish Empire forcefully imported food from starvation-rife Bengal to feed its troops, the vast majority of Indians still fought with the British and not the Axis. Your example doesn’t stand.
I agree and disagree. Whilst the late 18th century was a time of great barbarity and savagery, especially for a new nation beset by enemies and troubles, and Washington did many things that are brutal/unethical by the values of today. it does not follow that were Washington would have been as bad as Hitler and Mao in the 20th century. He cared for his free subjects very well by the standards of today(no intentional mass starvations), he didn’t imprison his detractors or their families. he genocided the Indians because they were at least a minor threat, and not because they kept him out of Art school. He was not an evil man for his times, Mao+Hitler were.
There is no such thing as domestic and foreign. The Tibetans were foreign before the Chinese invasion, and now China considers their supression part of its “sacrosant internal affairs”. If China/India/Sweden had the power projection capacity of the US, then they’d have similar incidents to what the Americans have.
The question isn’t which country you’d prefer to live in, it’s which country do you want interfering in your own, from halfway around the globe. In which case, I could give a shit what their form of government is.
Cuba and the USSR did more good for my own country than the USA ever did, and I still find their forms of government abhorrent.
:rolleyes: They don’t have the power projection ability of America because they don’t want it. If they had any intention of doing the sorts of things America has done, they’d have built that capability long ago. But they haven’t, because what America has been doing is as stupid as it is evil.
China is not as aggressive, not para-expansionist, and far less hypocritical about its foreign policy.
But having spent a lot of time in both countries, I’d still pick the US. You have due process (for citizens at least), and that counts for a hell of a lot.
The Tibetans are so happy to be ruled by the Chinese that they are setting themselves on fire and killings themselves: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-04-02/tibet-immolations/53952746/1
“Dozens of Tibetans have set themselves on fire over the past year to protest Chinese rule, sometimes drinking kerosene to make the flames explode from within, in one of the biggest waves of political self-immolations in recent history.
But the stunning protests are going largely unnoticed in the wider world — due in part to a smothering Chinese security crackdown in the region that prevents journalists from covering them.”
I would also argue that the Chinese ARE committing genocide in Tibet because of the fact that China is flooding Tibet with Han Chinese people in an effort to crowd out and diminish the Tibetans and their culture. The violent killings, imprisonment, and forced sterilizations of the Tibetan people is genocide, in my humble opinion.
Tibetans are still speaking Tibetan, and Tibetans (unlike the Han) are legally exempt from the one child policy, so if the Chinese are attempting genocide, actual or cultural, I can think of a couple of holes that need plugging.
There’s no impassable barrier between foreign and domestic policy-the two are related.
Nonsense. Most of the money still went to Iraq and those guilty of corruption are being prosecution. And I don’t mean just Iraq: I mean Afghanistan, Germany, and Japan also.
Cite for wanting to kill all Amerindians? :rolleyes: The Three-Fifths compromise actually was an attempt to minimize the political power of the slave states who needeed to be on board for national unity-if the slave states had been separate countries slavery would merely have been retained far, far longer.
There has been no war between great powers (other than briefly between India and Pakistan) since 1945.
That’s why I said some. I was citing an extreme example because the poster I was quoting was being similarly extreme in his examples.
No but it does provide ample precedent and a guide to what the Chinese will do.
As I’ve said those two are related.
Only because they don’t have as many things to be concerned about internationally. If they really were under threat or if their interests were they’d act differently.
That is because collateral damage is largely unavoidable in modern conflict.
The world is closer to a de facto world government than in 1945-the world is far more economically integrated (such as the EU for example) and a threat of a Third World War is practically nil.
You are right, they have no One-Child policy for the Tibetans, but they do have a strict Two-Child policy for Tibetans in Tibetan cities (The limit’s only one if you are employed by the government), and forced sterilisation/big fines if they go over it. The Han Chinese are also legally restricted to two children, but their higher wages and better guanxi with officials make it easier for them to ignore the limit.
There is no official policy restricting the birth rate in rural areas of Tibet, but predetory officials sometimes pretend there is to extort money.
As for the Tibetan language, no independant Tibetan schools are permitted.
I wouldn’t go as far as to call this genocide, but it seems to be a delibarate attempt to marginalise the Tibetan people.
That is absolutely who you want in charge. The evil heartless badasses. Because whey the alien invasion comes, and you can be sure it is coming, you don’t want a weaponless utopia completely unprepared. You want the saber rattling dystopia. Full of internal strife with weapons caches scattered across the globe.
So if that means America is the best bet, then I say we should really show all those godless pinko commies who is boss!
So those weren’t Chinese troops directly fighting American ones in the Korean war, then?
No it doesn’t, any more than the Conquest of the Inca serves as a guide to what modern Spain would be like as a world superpower.
No, it really isn’t. Unless you can cite how China is burning monastaries in the Sudan or enforcing a one-child policy in Angola or somesuch?
Your psychic powers notwithstanding, got any evidence to back that up?
“Collateral damage” is weasel words for “we didn’t care enough to not shoot at civilians” and hey, there wouldn’t be any civilian bykill at all if your warmongering asses didn’t start the wars in the first place.
Bullshit. In 1945, the USSR was one state, for instance. Ditto most of Africa and Asia being colonies not independent states.
Economic integration is not a government (and how’s the EU doing economically these days, anyway?)
