Posted on 04/07/2011 6:47:42 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Good relations between Britain and the US didn't happen over night. Afterall, Britain is the only country that marched onto US soil (and I'm not just talking about revolutionary war, but the also the War of 1812). During the Civil War, Britain built warships for the Confederacy. As far as turning facist, I believe China will become a democracy in the future.
You mean like movies and games switching the logical enemy from China to the laughable thought of invasion of the US by North Korea?
Ahhhh.....a differnce in perspective here. Here is a good test case. They switch to North Korea, a politically correct move. Now, here is the kicker in what I call reverse political correctness, where you call China the "logical choice". Why is China the logical choice in a movie where the former USSR and Cuba were the enemy in that movie. And when they changed to North Korea, why the outrage? I can understand that it is laughable in that North Korea doesn't have the ability to invade the US, but why the online venom that it should be China? Isn't that a form of political correctness. The original movie about the USSR with the underling Cuba invading the US. Why is there this reverse political correctness that China has to fit a movie role that was created specifically for the USSR and at a time of the USSR?
However, if say, 10-20 years from now, they recreate a movie like "Gung Ho", and put the Chinese in there, instead of the Japanese, then that would be a more accurate remake of a movie using Chinese businessmen instead of Japan businessmen. Much closer than replacing the USSR with the Chinese in Red Dawn.
When people become indignant at switching out China in Red Dawn, they are pushing their own political correctness.
Well, I firmly believe that test will come. I believe Mainland China will become a democracy someday. But here is the kicker, its easier to feel good about a "free China", when that free China is only 20 million strong. But when that free China is a developed nation of 1.4 billion people, I feel, by that time, people like yourselves (and I don't mean that with any malice) will still not feel any better about a rising China.
By that time, it won't be an issue of whether China has one aircraft carrier, but whether China will go beyond 10 or not. I believe you when you say you are not anti-Chinese. But many Americans, knowing the history of Western civilization, and how the West has positioned herself for the last 4-500 years, will never feel comfortable with a non-Western nation that they do not have the potential to contain. Democracy or not. And this attitude, I feel, is wrong.
America's healthy relationship with other countries, in particular the non-Western countries, is based, in small part, to the overwhelming resources we have over countries like Japan and South Korea, Taiwan, etc. And to a lessor degree, even towards Britain, Canada, Germany, Australia, etc.
I for one, feel that the US can have a healthy diplomatic relationship with a nation in which we do not have overwhelming power over.
Yawn, dude, you certainly sound worse than a Chinese government spokesperson. Heck they only deny stuff and don’t ask for proof. How PATHETIC-You want me to provide proof-do a google search as I said. Only someone who is deluded will deny China’s role as the world’s largest proliferator of WMD.
China has been convinced of the need for the NPT. Well how comforting. That’s why they still keep protecting and arming North Korea.
As far as turning facist, I believe China will become a democracy in the future.
Taiwan became democratic in the 1980s. And in some respects the CCP is closer to the pre-1948 Guomindang/KMT than the current iteration of the Chinese National People's Party. But even then, we are looking at a very nasty 2 generations. Ahhhh.....a differnce in perspective here. Here is a good test case. They switch to North Korea, a politically correct move. Now, here is the kicker in what I call reverse political correctness, where you call China the "logical choice". Why is China the logical choice in a movie where the former USSR and Cuba were the enemy in that movie. And when they changed to North Korea, why the outrage? I can understand that it is laughable in that North Korea doesn't have the ability to invade the US, but why the online venom that it should be China? Isn't that a form of political correctness. The original movie about the USSR with the underling Cuba invading the US. Why is there this reverse political correctness that China has to fit a movie role that was created specifically for the USSR and at a time of the USSR?
China is a brutal communist regime and the closest thing to a second superpower. It only speaks of invading Taiwan, and controlling the "First and Second Island Chain".
PRC military theorists conceive of two island "chains" as forming a geographic basis for China’s maritime defensive perimeter. The precise boundaries of these chains have never been officially defined by the Chinese government, and so are subject to some specualtion. By one account, China's "green water" extends eastward in the Pacific Ocean out to the first island chain, which is formed by the Aleutians, the Kuriles, Japan's archipelago, the Ryukyus, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Borneo. Further eastward is "blue water" extending to the second island chain running from the north at the Bonin Islands and moving southward through the Marianas, Guam, and the Caroline Islands.
By that time, it won't be an issue of whether China has one aircraft carrier, but whether China will go beyond 10 or not. I believe you when you say you are not anti-Chinese. But many Americans, knowing the history of Western civilization, and how the West has positioned herself for the last 4-500 years, will never feel comfortable with a non-Western nation that they do not have the potential to contain. Democracy or not. And this attitude, I feel, is wrong.
We've accepted Japan as a first world nation. It was arguably an equal to Western powers as early as 1905 and treated as such by World War 1. And it returned to that role in the 1980s. We will accept China, just as we have Japan and will India.
America's healthy relationship with other countries, in particular the non-Western countries, is based, in small part, to the overwhelming resources we have over countries like Japan and South Korea, Taiwan, etc. And to a lessor degree, even towards Britain, Canada, Germany, Australia, etc.
Shared values and alliances matter. There is a reason why we are much closer to a democratic India than with the PRC. Remember that 25 years ago, the reverse was true.
I for one, feel that the US can have a healthy diplomatic relationship with a nation in which we do not have overwhelming power over.
America has only been the undisputed single superpower since 1991.
As far as North Korea, China has been accused of dragging her feet, but not of arming her.
Umm, sometimes, a little common sense goes a long long way.
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/18223.pdf
http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2006hearings/transcripts/sept_14/06_09_14_trans.pdf
Both are official US government reports.
About North Korea, it wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for Chinese help. Take one look at their military.
I'm glad you brought that up. From 1846 to 1914, is only 68 years. Where Britain and the US went from rivals to allies. Why can't it be even shorter than that today for the US and China? The Korean War ended 58 years ago.
Taiwan became democratic in the 1980s. And in some respects the CCP is closer to the pre-1948 Guomindang/KMT than the current iteration of the Chinese National People's Party.
The KMT, kill tens of thousands of people when they retreated to Taiwan back in 1949. Are there reports today where the Chinese government does that?
What part of that don't you get?
The plan started out planning for a Soviet Invasion. But continues on today. What I don't get is, what is wrong with having a defensive strategy. It is not a strategy to invaded another country. And isn't the size of the US military built upon Cold War rivalry with the USSR? And continues today. Some military analysts even suggsts why the US still needs so many carriers.
I'm not entirely convinced, but at this point, I can't really project how people will feel in the future. I can only go by Japan as a historic example. Even during the 80's, there was animosity towards Japan. Not like China today, but still some animosity. And Japan was a democracy with small military budget (relative to her GDP). It wasn't until America went through the explosive stock growth of the 90's and the stagnation of the Japanese economy before Americans could feel good about Japan again.
There is a reason why we are much closer to a democratic India than with the PRC. Remember that 25 years ago, the reverse was true.
25 years ago, the USSR still loomed large and China did not. Steel production of USSR, 160 million tons vs China's 40 million tons. Today, of course, things are different. Back then, China was still very containable and no one could forsee it would continue to grow. And Chinese government executed many times more people back then than today. In fact, it was not uncommon, while we had good diplomatic relations with China back in the 1980's, where they rounded up thousands of young men at a time and executed them. China today, no longer does that. Yet Americans felt warmer towards China of the 1980's than the China of today.
America has only been the undisputed single superpower since 1991.
Once the USSR collapsed, relations with the US warmed back up again, and considerably at that. This is no different that when the Japanese economy economy stagnated before Americans felt good towards the Japanese. The same was true of Russia, once she lost her holdings, and her miltary began to wane, Russia slowly began to come off the radar of the evening news. And I'm not convinced its just because she is a democracy now. And not a very good democracy at that.
Overall, I would agree with you, that shared values and alliances matter. But I still contend, for many Americans, anything that puts at risk America's leverage in the world automatically brings about animosity.
One last note, Singapore is not a democracy. But it is a modern city nation with good relations with the US. But then again, how much challenge does a city with 3-4 million people pose?
But give me some time to read through it. As you can expect, I will look at the same facts as you, and will have a different perspective.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.