Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Jeff Head
All this really means is that the Communists have adapted to augment their income with trade from the west ... so they can continue indefinitely.

They are still a communist led, one party nation. A totalitarian government.

Bump!

The current CCP is no different than the old feudalistic powers of old. "Communist" is only part of it.

The CCP has its realm, and it started by telling everyone how great communism was. Then the people got sick of their great ideas. Then the CCP, in a bid to save their own necks, started a new ideology.

Emperors of old told the people that they had tian ming, communist started their reign under the guise of a communist powerhouse. Now they are trying to gain world superpower status through economics while maintaining their hold on power. The fundamentals of "zhong guo" thinking have yet to change. Its a huge lust for power with an emperial power of some sorts at the center with an ideology propping him/it up.

In the end it all boils down to controlling the mind, and having an ideological reason to support the party. The system has not changed in 2,000 years. It is fundamentally the same now, as it was in any other time in history. A dynasty is what they are. A dynasty that will mow down any competition that gets in the way.

The US threatens their power because our system provides a strong second opinion about theirs...not to mention that we 'step on their sphere of influence'.

I believe that our current "engagement" policy with the PRC will prolong their totalitarianism rather than end it.

While I agree, I have to say, it depends on who is running the engagement, and what kind of engagement there is. In other words, strategic engagement, if it is aggressive enough, is far better than 'China is our old buddy so lets go play ping pong while we buy your cheap exports'...

Aggressive engagement stands a far FAR better chance, while still an extreme long shot, of actually changing the system

Patty caking around only does exactly what you said it does... extends the length of time of the problem.

7 posted on 05/24/2002 10:13:38 PM PDT by maui_hawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: maui_hawaii
Exactly, that's why I used the word "current" when speaking of the engagement policy.

What we need is an aggressive policy similr to what Reagan used on the Soviet Union. ... "Change, or we do no business with you, and the change must be substanative and verifiable ... or, we'll let you bankrupt yourself trying to keep up with us."

What we are doing now is selling out a major portion of our own production capablility in so many areas ... hoping that somehow translates into "liberty" for the masses hile making a neat profit off the cheap labor. It will not turn into "liberty" and the profits will be fleating IMHO. I have been to that part of the world on numerous occassions as an engineeering consultant and what it is translating into is more power, influence and more fuel to the ambitions of those who hold abject power. One day we will wake up and all of that will be theirs and unavailable to us. And unless we change, it will occdur on a timetable completely of their chosing and totally to their benefit.

FRegards.

8 posted on 05/25/2002 8:49:12 AM PDT by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson