Chinese Luxo Clones

[giant_mtb]

Why the hell do they need to build up their army?    They're planning a massive invasion, I know it.

I believe they are building it up for an invasion of Taiwan, and so do many other people.

Oh No!  Sounds like WWIII in the making to me...if they do that I'm sure Bush will want to get involved as always...  <_<  :ph34r:

That isnt necessarily a bad thing...you cant let oppresive dictators just roll over countries.  If your logic prevailed Europe would be in Nazi hands now.

That's true...

On a sidenote, my brother got a shirt at Warped Tour that has a guy throwing the Nazi symbol into a trash can and the shirt says "Please Keep Your Country Clean"...it's great.  

I've seen that shirt before.  What band is it for?  Anti-flag?

It's not for a band.  It was at an anti-racism tent where they had a lot of shirts like it against forms of racism.

[BMWDave]

Try to look at it without thinking about what the United States and China believe in, and whether or not you agree with that.

If China was a friendly nation, not harming anybody, and Taiwan was a nation that imposed brutality on some of its members, then I would agree that is the same situation the north and south were in the Civil War.  

But as that is not the case, and you have a rogue nation trying to impose its rogue ideals on another freedom seeking nation, then I fully am against that.  

To try to compare the two is incredibly stupid; without looking at the ideals that wrought such conflicts, the parties involved are just blank non entities.  

[Raza]

I don't know--I don't like communists.

[ifcar]

Try to look at it without thinking about what the United States and China believe in, and whether or not you agree with that.

If China was a friendly nation, not harming anybody, and Taiwan was a nation that imposed brutality on some of its members, then I would agree that is the same situation the north and south were in the Civil War.  

But as that is not the case, and you have a rogue nation trying to impose its rogue ideals on another freedom seeking nation, then I fully am against that.  

To try to compare the two is incredibly stupid; without looking at the ideals that wrought such conflicts, the parties involved are just blank non entities.

All right, you won't look at this without going into the details (another thread in itself, the true reasons for the Civil War; it wasn't about the noble abolitionists) so I'll take a different route.

The United States has a terrible history of acting not out of concern for people and to spread democracy, but rather out of policies of Containment, especially during the Cold War. There were many little-publicized little wars in Asia and in South America in which the United States overthrew democratically-elected leaders to install their own dictators, many of whom were ruthless killers, particularly in Indonesia and in Chile. This was not to protect the people, who had already made their decision, it was to make sure that no country's voting public chose Socialist-leaning leaders to represent them. When they go that far, it becomes clear that the country has historically favored capitalism in any form over any form of communism/socialism. And when our government discusses protecting Taiwan, it's only a continuation of the Cold War, not "defense of freedoms" or whatever they plan to call it. If the protection of the nations' people happened to be a priority, we'd be involved in any of the many African genocidal wars, rather than dickering over one country re-absorbing a piece of its former territory.

Try to look at it that way, it's still a stretch from what you've probably been taught.

[BMWDave]

Try to look at it without thinking about what the United States and China believe in, and whether or not you agree with that.

If China was a friendly nation, not harming anybody, and Taiwan was a nation that imposed brutality on some of its members, then I would agree that is the same situation the north and south were in the Civil War.  

But as that is not the case, and you have a rogue nation trying to impose its rogue ideals on another freedom seeking nation, then I fully am against that.  

To try to compare the two is incredibly stupid; without looking at the ideals that wrought such conflicts, the parties involved are just blank non entities.

All right, you won't look at this without going into the details (another thread in itself, the true reasons for the Civil War; it wasn't about the noble abolitionists) so I'll take a different route.

The United States has a terrible history of acting not out of concern for people and to spread democracy, but rather out of policies of Containment, especially during the Cold War. There were many little-publicized little wars in Asia and in South America in which the United States overthrew democratically-elected leaders to install their own dictators, many of whom were ruthless killers, particularly in Indonesia and in Chile. This was not to protect the people, who had already made their decision, it was to make sure that no country's voting public chose Socialist-leaning leaders to represent them. When they go that far, it becomes clear that the country has historically favored capitalism in any form over any form of communism/socialism. And when our government discusses protecting Taiwan, it's only a continuation of the Cold War, not "defense of freedoms" or whatever they plan to call it. If the protection of the nations' people happened to be a priority, we'd be involved in any of the many African genocidal wars, rather than dickering over one country re-absorbing a piece of its former territory.

Try to look at it that way, it's still a stretch from what you've probably been taught.

I am not protecting the actions of the US when they installed ruthless killers.  You seem to have gotten that from my information.  Thats not my point.

You keep bringing in old facts about regime changes in Chile, etc, and the Cold War era.  

Whatever the reason, I do support the US preventing an invasion of Taiwan, and that is what we are arguing about, or should be.   I think its a good idea from a freedom standpoint.

Would you agree with that^?

(In todays day and age, would you support a prevention of an invasion of Taiwan, whatever the reasons).  That was what the argument was about, until we got sidetracked about other wars.

[ifcar]

Of course I support a prevention of an invasion. I support world peace too, but that's not happening either.

If China decides to invade, they will. They'll probably have Russia on their side if we try to stop them. Based on the liklihood of our succeeding in causing anything but another world war (possibly nuclear), and considering where there are bigger problems in the world than one nation's re-annexation of a fairly small island, I don't think the US should go in there.


BTW, what I was trying to get across with the dictator examples was the lengths that the US has gone in the past to prevent nations from having socialist/communist leaders, and I believe that if the US decides to act in China/Taiwan, the motivation will be the same, and the cost will be insignificant to the goal.  

[BMWDave]

Of course I support a prevention of an invasion. I support world peace too, but that's not happening either.

If China decides to invade, they will. They'll probably have Russia on their side if we try to stop them. Based on the liklihood of our succeeding in causing anything but another world war (possibly nuclear), and considering where there are bigger problems in the world than one nation's re-annexation of a fairly small island, I don't think the US should go in there.


BTW, what I was trying to get across with the dictator examples was the lengths that the US has gone in the past to prevent nations from having socialist/communist leaders, and I believe that if the US decides to act in China/Taiwan, the motivation will be the same, and the cost will be insignificant to the goal.

Either way, we're in one hell of a pickle.  And world peace, sadly, wont be happening anytime soon.

[ifcar]

World peace is never going to happen. Our entire social and political structure is geared towards conflict, I could even go so far as to call it human nature.

[BMWDave]

World peace is never going to happen. Our entire social and political structure is geared towards conflict, I could even go so far as to call it human nature.

I agree there.  Cultures will always be warring with each other.

[ifcar]

Not just cultures, individuals as well. If a nuclear holocaust killed all but two people on the planet, there's a very good chance one would kill the other.

I find "world peace" not only an extremely vague term, but physically impossible with any two or more humans alive. So forgive me for ranting whenever it is mentioned.

[Submariner]

Why the hell do they need to build up their army?    They're planning a massive invasion, I know it.

I believe they are building it up for an invasion of Taiwan, and so do many other people.

Why do you think we are moving 7 nuclear subs to guam?

[Submariner]

Why the hell do they need to build up their army?    They're planning a massive invasion, I know it.

I believe they are building it up for an invasion of Taiwan, and so do many other people.

Oh No!  Sounds like WWIII in the making to me...if they do that I'm sure Bush will want to get involved as always...  <_<  :ph34r:

That isnt necessarily a bad thing...you cant let oppresive dictators just roll over countries.  If your logic prevailed Europe would be in Nazi hands now.

Which "oppressive dictator" is planning to take over Taiwan?  

2 weeks ago a Chinese general commented that they (China) would not rule out first strike (Nuclear) on the U.S. if we intervened between China and Tiawan.  \

We either need to form better relations with them.  And stop giving them over three quarters of a trillion dollars a year of our money.  It's slowly killing us!

[oilfilter]

They're far the dictatorships on the level of those found in Africa. And do you not agree that China is at the same level as Russia currently is in dealing with whoever disagrees with Putin?

The Dictatorships in Africa are not, at the moment, capable of being hostile to the US, and are not threatening to take over neighboring democracies.

And Russia has a very long way to go on the path to democracy, just like China.

Russia has a 'far way to go'?
Russia is comparable to China?
On what are factors are you basing these assumptions?


Lay off the crack guys.

[BMWDave]

They're far the dictatorships on the level of those found in Africa. And do you not agree that China is at the same level as Russia currently is in dealing with whoever disagrees with Putin?

The Dictatorships in Africa are not, at the moment, capable of being hostile to the US, and are not threatening to take over neighboring democracies.

And Russia has a very long way to go on the path to democracy, just like China.

Russia has a 'far way to go'?
Russia is comparable to China?
On what are factors are you basing these assumptions?


Lay off the crack guys.

Russia, under Vladimir Putin, brought back many remnants of Communist, Coldwar era, Russia.  They definitely arent a full democracy.

[ifcar]

They're far the dictatorships on the level of those found in Africa. And do you not agree that China is at the same level as Russia currently is in dealing with whoever disagrees with Putin?

The Dictatorships in Africa are not, at the moment, capable of being hostile to the US, and are not threatening to take over neighboring democracies.

And Russia has a very long way to go on the path to democracy, just like China.

Russia has a 'far way to go'?
Russia is comparable to China?
On what are factors are you basing these assumptions?


Lay off the crack guys.

Journalists have been assassinated there, the media is back under state control, elected officials have been dismissed en masse, and Putin has fired advisors who he feared might represent political opposition.

Yes, Russia is comparable to China.

[R33 GT-R]

Putin is defenitely rocking the cashba

[Raza]

Of course I support a prevention of an invasion. I support world peace too, but that's not happening either.

If China decides to invade, they will. They'll probably have Russia on their side if we try to stop them. Based on the liklihood of our succeeding in causing anything but another world war (possibly nuclear), and considering where there are bigger problems in the world than one nation's re-annexation of a fairly small island, I don't think the US should go in there.


BTW, what I was trying to get across with the dictator examples was the lengths that the US has gone in the past to prevent nations from having socialist/communist leaders, and I believe that if the US decides to act in China/Taiwan, the motivation will be the same, and the cost will be insignificant to the goal.

Either way, we're in one hell of a pickle.  And world peace, sadly, wont be happening anytime soon.

More like ever.  There will be world peace, though, when everyone dies in a nuclear war.  

[giant_mtb]

So sad, but so true.  

[dave998]

I don't believe that they have a legal case in China. There just aren't laws against that.

The rule is in eastern cultures like China is that if you dont get caught its ok, but if you do its a strike against your honor. You cant look at it through a judeo-christian view.

[oilfilter]

What rubbish!  

Putin is not trying to impose a communist totalitarian rule. He is only trying to clear up the mess created by the moron Yeltsin. During the 90s, russia slipped into a period of lawlessness and economic ruin, during which the mafia and unscrupulous 'tycoons' put their finger into every aspect of Russian society, particularly politics. As long as you had money, you were politically powerful and you were above the law.

Now Putin is trying to bring back some semblance of order and stability to russia. And he is doing a pretty damn good job, I'd say, given the rise of Russia's economy. He enjoys popular support among the people, who elected him. There is a legistaltive assembly, elected by the people and responsible to them. Russia has many political parties, and there are elections, there is freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc...totally incomparable to china.

So, you think restoring law and order, and cleaning up crime is 'undemocratic'? WTF!!!

Do you realise that Russia is not like the US, which has no hostile neighbours. Russia has lots of whacko states on its borders, and many of these are puppet govts, subverted by western nations (Georgia, Ukraine etc), and not exactly very friendly to Russia. And again, Russia has large and diverse populations of ethnic minorites. If you were in their position, you would take strong steps to secure your borders too.

And then there is Chechnya.  I am not even touching that one.

Let me tell you something: if the United States ever faced (god forbid) a situation like Chechnya within its borders, and had nutjobs like georgia, Afghanistan and N.Korea on its borders, your freedoms and democracy would vanish faster than you can say "The Bill of Rights".

You are in an enviable position where your neighbours are (relatively) prosperous and stable states (Canada/Mexico), who bear no ill-intention towards your nation. Dont imagine for a moment that Russia, (or most nations) are as lucky as you and are capable of/willing to copy your system 100%. Sometimes its just not possible, and sometimes its just downright stupid.

What is a 'full democracy'? (Whatever that means). Is the United States where the political process is controlled top to bottom and left to right totally by just 2 parties, a full democracy? Can you say Oligarchy?

And why are you complaining anyway, Putin is totally pro-US and pro-Bush in particular.:P

Stop regurgitating soundbites from CNN without even thinking through what you are typing. Russia is not comparable to China. Not even close. :P  

[ifcar]

Putin "restored order"? Bullshit. Over the last few years, Putin systematically elliminated anyone whom he thought could possibly be a political contender, (typically through dismissing them from government positions rather than killing them, what an improvement!), brought the media under state control, had several journalists assassinated, the list goes on.

If you call that "increasing stability", then he stabilized the country. But he is effectively cancelling all forms of democracy in that country, little by little.  

[GMPenguin]

Putin "restored order"? Bullshit.

:o That's the first time I've seen iffy curse (of course I don't pay that much attention, so... ^_^)

[ifcar]

Putin "restored order"? Bullshit.

:o That's the first time I've seen iffy curse (of course I don't pay that much attention, so... ^_^)

I don't usually consider the topic at hand invigorating to that point. But Russian politics can excite emotions.    

[BMWDave]

Putin "restored order"? Bullshit.

:o That's the first time I've seen iffy curse (of course I don't pay that much attention, so... ^_^)

I don't usually consider the topic at hand invigorating to that point. But Russian politics can excite emotions.  

   

[oilfilter]

Putin "restored order"? Bullshit. Over the last few years, Putin systematically elliminated anyone whom he thought could possibly be a political contender, (typically through dismissing them from government positions rather than killing them, what an improvement!), brought the media under state control, had several journalists assassinated, the list goes on.

If you call that "increasing stability", then he stabilized the country. But he is effectively cancelling all forms of democracy in that country, little by little.

'Assassinated journalists'? Where the heck are you getting your info from? :P

These twats he had 'removed' from govt positions were criminal elements who had infected the government from top to bottom during Yeltsin's time. What, you think it  is wrong?

What he did was target politicians with criminal connections, and tax evaders. WTF is wrong with that? Do you think Bush is also a dictator for prosecuting the morons @ Tyco, Enron etc??

You dont seem to understand how bad Russia was until the 2000-2001 timeframe. I had friends who were studying in St Petersburg and Moscow, and they told me that it was horrible. Moscow was one of the most dangerous cities on earth until recently. Under Putin, Russia is getting back on its feet, and almost every single person from Russia who I've spoken to say that he is by far, the best of the choices. Good job, Putin, I say.

How come he enjoys so much popular support, then, eh, if he is such a great dictator?

You still didnt address the rest of my points about 'democracy' in the US, and the difference in conditions between it and Russia. The Democrats and Republicans eliminate all sorts of competition (witness what happened to Nader or any independent,in the last elections,), although not violently. You have only two choices. Does that make the US non-democratic.

I dont know for a fact, but I am willing to bet that there are more active political parties in the Russian Federation than there are in the US.  

BTW, are you from Russia? You seem to get very excited about this issue. :D  

[ifcar]

Journalists have been assassinated there, with evidence of government activity. I'm afraid I don't remember much more than that, perhaps someone can add to this.

IIRC, there was a sudden dissipation of the local level of government, I highly doubt that everyone involved had to be a criminal. Another one of the fired people was one of Putin's closest advisors, if he were a criminal why was he hired in the first place and trusted for so long?

So you think that Putin made Moscow safe? Unless I'm misunderstanding you, that would be like basing the Bush administration's performance on the DC murder rate.

And dictators do not have to be in power without popular support, despite the word's negative connotation. Also, I don't believe I ever called Putin a dictator.

In the US, third-party candidates HAVE been elected to political office, if never to the presidency.

And there are a lot of political parties in Russia? So what? As in the US, most are fringe groups with no support.

And no, I'm not Russian.

BTW, you never answered what I said about the state control of the media under Putin. Pretty nice way to ensure popular support, if you ask me.

[Speed_Racer]

[rant]

Ugh...threads like this is why I don't spend too much time at C&D anymore. Four pages of this thread dedicated to bickering about other country's problems?

Take the political argument crap somewhere else!

[/rant]

[BMWDave]

[rant]

Ugh...threads like this is why I don't spend too much time at C&D anymore. Four pages of this thread dedicated to bickering about other country's problems?

Take the political argument crap somewhere else!

[/rant]

Youre right, political discussions like these shouldnt be in any automotive section.  I'll see if I can prune the topic to get all the political discussions out.

[BMWDave]

I'm going to lock this topic, as the talk of Chinese luxo clones is long dead, and it only serves to be a place for political discussion.

[ifcar]

Oilfilter, if you want to continue, you can PM me.