Taiwan/China/US (1 Viewer)

[Xayma]

Yeah, I have heard about the news over Australian Special Forces were rate the best in the world. But I thought it was the Delta Force, not the SAS..... (or did memory serve me wrong?)

Australia's special force's unit is the SASR (Special Air Service Regiment), SAS is the British Special Air Service, Delta Force is one of the US's special forces.

 

[Frigid]

leetom: while the ideals of 'democracy' sound great in theory, how would they be applied in practice? let us hypothetically assume that china becomes a democracy as of tomorrow: the few rich will use their influence and power to bribe the poor. the poor, in their masses, will lean on the rich in return for votes to them. in essence, this will defeat the purpose of a democracy and reduce china into feudalism. that is the problem with establishing a democracy in a nation which does not have adequate social welfare support (not that china is able to provide a decent level of support, given the numerous amounts of poor).

but also realise corruption, to an extent, is now controlled by very severe penalties (jail terms, capital punishment, government liquidation of assets). no doubt those who were exposed as corrupt in the olympic scandal would have faced these penalties. perhaps corruption will never truly be rid of in a country so large (for reasons similar to the concept of social-loafing) and also because of chinese beliefs of establishing good relations through guanxi and reciprocation of favours.

in short, regards the growth/development/future of china, i am optimistic that all she needs is time.

 

[berry580]

Frigid, I do not think that needing to maintain stability amongst China's large population is reason enough for the one-party system. I think that if the Chinese people were allowed to vote for a second or third party, services and facilities would arrive for impoverished Chinese more quickly than the current government promises. The Chinese are an ordely people, I do not think Chinese society would be destablised if the people were allowed to vote for their preferred government.

I don't know if you know it or not, but China definately isn't the only country with a 'one-party' system. In fact, even Japan pretty much is in that category in reality.

Do not think Chinese society would be destablised if the people were allowed to vote for their preferred government?
Well just look at Hong Kong, they had the prority to vote, to critisize the government, etc, and now you see people shouting on the street literally routinely. But the funny thing is, the group always has the same leader (NOT a politician), he doesn't have a job, raising anti-government campagns is what he seemly all has to do. (guess who supports him?)

The people would vote for a party that promised to attend to China's poverty problem. (Well, such a party would at least win an election as poor peasants are the overwhelming majority). Then, to retain power, a party will have to prove that they are indeed doing something to resolve the problem. The people will choose to remove a government that neglects their needs and award a government that attempts to help them.

As a result, the major parties would be doing their very best to please the peasants which would greatly hasten the effort to aid poor Chinese. The one party system results in waves of currupt officials because they know that there's no risk of them being ousted from office, no matter how disgrunteld the people are. (I think the guys who were stuffing their pockets from money set aside for the olympics best represents this).

You have a point there, I knew this point long ago. It sound to be an great solution, and it is! But unfortunately, theory and reality doesn't always match well.

Unfortunately, many former leaders are corrupted, and because of that fact, they're scared to let go of their power. They do know what is best for their country, so as you can see, they're slowly letting go of their power, and a new group of leaders has been appointed to lead China. I won't say this new group is 100% non-courrupted garanteed, and are as good as democratic politicians, but they're certainly an upgrade. They're changing China gradually, the process is slow, but it is for the 'good' side thankfully.

Either way, it is far better to be in the current state than to cut China into a few countries so there would be a new civil war. (To the guy who aims to 'Benefits the Chinese')

To the guy with breasts in his avatar, I hope you learned something from this post.

Nice essay, but can you learn how to fight a war by reading books? (Ask a Chinese friend to explain what it means, if by any chance you don't get it)

I critisise Frigid's post in a civilised manner and I think he will respond in an equally civilised manner. I do not claim Frigid isn't any good at trig just because I don't agree with what he has posted. I do not enjoy being told I wouldn't stand a chance with trig after the hours I have put into my Mathematics course (preliminary).

Do you know whats a metaphor?
Well regardless of your answer, you don't seem to atleast.

Also, I doubt girls are attracted to a guy with a pic of tits in his avater. I would suggest replacing it. Would you be attracted to a chick if she had a picture of a dick in her avater?

If a guy is to a girl, then a pair of breast is to a dick, then my @$$ is to what? Your brain?

If a girl judges me by my avatar, then you can have this 'intelligent' girl.

Australia's special force's unit is the SASR (Special Air Service Regiment), SAS is the British Special Air Service, Delta Force is one of the US's special forces.

That makes sense, because I googled a bit, and didn't find Australians to have any relation to SAS and the Delta Force. Instead, all these stuff about the US and UK came out although I didn't search for them.

But either way, I did hear about Australian Special Forces to be rated on top of the Americans.

 

[scoff]

leetom: while the ideals of 'democracy' sound great in theory, how would they be applied in practice? let us hypothetically assume that

Ah guys, democracy is not about economic adjustment of wealth. Democracy is abotu transparency. I should be allowed to call the leader of my country an idiot. I should be allowed to vote him otu of power if I believe that someone else is better. I should have confidence that the law is applied in the same way to everyone, or at least be able to detect if it is not.

Communism does not allow that. Democracy, although imperfect, is always an improvement. Having someone on the street criticising the government, no matter who he is funded by, or whether he just beliefs in what he is doing, gives the government some incentive to improve. If they can throw him in jail, then the ability to speak up is useless.

It's not about economics. It's about governance. Remember that communism is the opposite of democracy - it is not the opposite of free markets. My visits in the PRC have convinced me that, economically, the PRC is more capitalist than the USA. The only difference is that the PRC has exploitation, bribery and corruption. Democracy can reduce these evils.

What is so socialist about a country that doesn't even have a social welfare safety net?

Scoff

 

[Generator]

'leetom: while the ideals of 'democracy' sound great in theory, how would they be applied in practice? let us hypothetically assume that china becomes a democracy as of tomorrow: the few rich will use their influence and power to bribe the poor. the poor, in their masses, will lean on the rich in return for votes to them. in essence, this will defeat the purpose of a democracy and reduce china into feudalism. that is the problem with establishing a democracy in a nation which does not have adequate social welfare support (not that china is able to provide a decent level of support, given the numerous amounts of poor).'

India is going along quite well for such a large democracy (re. the rural backlash)...

 

[jm1234567890]

'leetom: while the ideals of 'democracy' sound great in theory, how would they be applied in practice? let us hypothetically assume that china becomes a democracy as of tomorrow: the few rich will use their influence and power to bribe the poor. the poor, in their masses, will lean on the rich in return for votes to them. in essence, this will defeat the purpose of a democracy and reduce china into feudalism. that is the problem with establishing a democracy in a nation which does not have adequate social welfare support (not that china is able to provide a decent level of support, given the numerous amounts of poor).'

India is going along quite well for such a large democracy (re. the rural backlash)...

The question is would the ppl care if the govenment ended up corrupted. I think the chinese population have alot more to worry about than the govenment.

If the corporate sponsorship of government in Australia got out of hand, i'm sure ppl would protest. However, in china would this be effective? Would it achieve anything or will they just get run over by tanks?

 

[berry580]

Ah guys, democracy is not about economic adjustment of wealth. Democracy is abotu transparency. I should be allowed to call the leader of my country an idiot. I should be allowed to vote him otu of power if I believe that someone else is better. I should have confidence that the law is applied in the same way to everyone, or at least be able to detect if it is not.

Communism does not allow that. Democracy, although imperfect, is always an improvement. Having someone on the street criticising the government, no matter who he is funded by, or whether he just beliefs in what he is doing, gives the government some incentive to improve. If they can throw him in jail, then the ability to speak up is useless.

You won't have a clue how many people has had been jail in America for been 'suspected' as a 'terrorist'. No charges has been laid for months, not allowed to find a laywer or anyone for 3 months.
In the end, some are released, and the reply was- suspected to be a terrorist.
Also, do you see news like these on CNN? I certainly don't.

What has happened in America are minor cases, what happens in Guantanamo Bay is even more alarming (people detained for no reason with no evidence with no charges for months, people would manage to come out claims the Americans tortures the detainees, etc), but because its outside out America, the Americans can do whatever they want, and laws apply to Americans does NOT apply to people in Guantanamo Bay.

Is this what we called 'transparency', aye?
For cases in Guantanamo Bay, you can see the tip of the iceburg, but 'wow', thats helping Jack......

It's not about economics. It's about governance. Remember that communism is the opposite of democracy - it is not the opposite of free markets. My visits in the PRC have convinced me that, economically, the PRC is more capitalist than the USA. The only difference is that the PRC has exploitation, bribery and corruption. Democracy can reduce these evils.

What is so socialist about a country that doesn't even have a social welfare safety net?.

Well I agree a democratic governming system is superior to other governing systems, but can you explain to me and everyone else- if China has such a bad governing policy, then what had kept the world's oldest surviving civilisation alive?
So what is it? 'Help' from the Europeans and Americans throughout the 1800's and 1900's? (e.g Those tasty opiums?)

India is going along quite well for such a large democracy (re. the rural backlash)...

India is going well?! :S
Is it just me or something? Because I don't find India going all that well.

The question is would the ppl care if the govenment ended up corrupted. I think the chinese population have alot more to worry about than the govenment.

If the corporate sponsorship of government in Australia got out of hand, i'm sure ppl would protest. However, in china would this be effective? Would it achieve anything or will they just get run over by tanks?

I can tell you there is alot more to the Tinannmen Square incident than you have heard.

Those protesting students were far from 'peaceful' according to witnesses.
In fact, there were over 100 police casaulties before any tanks were called in. According to witnesses, an IFV was PUSHED OVER by students and enlightened and all the soldiers inside were killed, some soldier were even poured with chemicals on their face by students. This all had happened before tanks was called in, and ample warning were give to the students about the deadline and they didn't give a shxt, so the government when to its last resort.
Also, there had been rumors about the protests were started by unnamed foreign countries with propagandas.

So what did the western media say? Evil Chinese government rolled in tanks without warning to kill harmless peaceful protesting students because the PRC felt like it?

Say if Chinese launched some propaganda and all these Chinese students in Australia and when to Sydney and blocked the Harbour Bridge, M5 motor way, etc for months, and kills police who tries to pull them out of the road, guess what would the Australian government do?
I don't think the Australian government would roll tanks in, but only shoot rubber bullets. If there's any death, its not the government's fault, right?

 

[Panda Bear]

i need to read up on evidence to see where studetns overturned the IFV and the soldiers inside killed e.t.c.

 

[Generator]

India is going well?! :S
Is it just me or something? Because I don't find India going all that well.

Thanksfor missing the 'quite well for such a large democracy' point. I was merely pointing out to Frigid that the Chinese system is not the only form that may work.

 

[berry580]

i need to read up on evidence to see where studetns overturned the IFV and the soldiers inside killed e.t.c.

Sorry, but I couldn't find it on the net anymore. I originally saw the claims from a forum, then later I saw it in a newspaper article.

Thanksfor missing the 'quite well for such a large democracy' point. I was merely pointing out to Frigid that the Chinese system is not the only form that may work.

Well, quite well.
Wow, I can see a bit difference there!! 5 characters difference!! :O

Obviously the Chinese system isn't the only form that may work, as we can see, Australia's system is working (relatively) well.

 

[scoff]

You won't have a clue how many people has had been jail in America for been 'suspected' as a 'terrorist'. No charges has been laid for months, not allowed to find a laywer or anyone for 3 months.
In the end, some are released, and the reply was- suspected to be a terrorist.
Also, do you see news like these on CNN? I certainly don't.

Ah yes, but did I ever say I supported the American system,e specially under Bush? Don't think so. Give me parliamentary democracy over presidential democracy any day (and even that's nowehere near perfect, but it's better than a dictatorship).

RobC

 

[berry580]

Ah yes, but did I ever say I supported the American system,e specially under Bush? Don't think so. Give me parliamentary democracy over presidential democracy any day (and even that's nowehere near perfect, but it's better than a dictatorship).

RobC

Well according to what I hear, American's current government led by George W. Bush is pretty much doing what dictator does. In fact not only America's current government, but past governments too.

 

[berry580]

Ah yes, but did I ever say I supported the American system,e specially under Bush? Don't think so. Give me parliamentary democracy over presidential democracy any day (and even that's nowehere near perfect, but it's better than a dictatorship).

RobC

Well according to what I hear, American's current government led by George W. Bush is pretty much doing what dictator does. In fact not only America's current government, but past governments too.
(e.g Panama, the president of a country is drug trafficking, so you can invade the country and jail him?)
Well one president has invaded a country and jail the leader of that country because they possess something that the agressor had sold them decades ago. Does that mean the agressor deserves to be nuked if a president of a country that YOU claim to be drug trafficking deserves to be jailed?

 

[aim54x]

exaggerating China's air force and naval force's power (e.g By calling them 'advanced', but in fact their overall power is still technologically inferior to the Americans by atleast a generation).

i would say it will soon be 3-4 generations. china is still flying hotted up Mig 19s the Americans will soon b flyin F22s

China has no Blue Water Navy, US will blockade seas, Chinas economy will b crippled, nukes wont b used as both are all talk, both know d consequences. if it looked like china would use nukes, us will launch pre-emptive strike on known stockpiles. Like in Brown's "Fatal Terrain"

 

[aim54x]

Plus China could not possilby hit all US stockpiles as the routinely have several hundred nukes at sea in subs and on ships. china on the other hand only has the 2-3 nuke missile subs.

 

[leetom]

Oh jesus, I havn't posted on this thread for ages. It's a good thread though, I think it's one of the best going around. Going through all the posts, there are some very good ones and some I'm very skeptical of ( the most notable of these being Berry's saying that the students of Tiannanmen smashed up a PLA tank or something and threw chemicals in soldiers eyes, but we'll get to that later)-

 

[leetom]

Do not think Chinese society would be destablised if the people were allowed to vote for their preferred government?
Well just look at Hong Kong, they had the prority to vote, to critisize the government, etc, and now you see people shouting on the street literally routinely. But the funny thing is, the group always has the same leader (NOT a politician), he doesn't have a job, raising anti-government campagns is what he seemly all has to do. (guess who supports him?)

Just because the people of Hong Kong are very passionate about how much influence Beijing can have on regional elections, and that they're protests draw alot of public attention doesn't mean that they don't have the right to express their point of view. The CCP can't suppress democracy amongst regular Chinese.

 

[leetom]

The question is would the ppl care if the govenment ended up corrupted. I think the chinese population have alot more to worry about than the govenment.

If the corporate sponsorship of government in Australia got out of hand, i'm sure ppl would protest. However, in china would this be effective? Would it achieve anything or will they just get run over by tanks?

I think the Chinese people would very much be concerned if the Chinese government was to succumb to corruption. The worrys of the Chinese population can largely be traced back to poor government and in particular, corruption.

The CCP doesn't need corporate sponsorhip, because there isn't anybody to challenge them.

 

[leetom]

Well I agree a democratic governming system is superior to other governing systems, but can you explain to me and everyone else- if China has such a bad governing policy, then what had kept the world's oldest surviving civilisation alive?
So what is it? 'Help' from the Europeans and Americans throughout the 1800's and 1900's? (e.g Those tasty opiums?)

I think Scoff was referring to the governing ability of the CCP, not the CCP along with everything that went before it as well. Jesus, you'd be killed if you classed the CCP in the same stratum as previous rulers of China (eg, Kuomintang, the Dynasties).

The CCP does have a bad governing ability. They do manage to keep the population from revolt, but it is not apart of the Chinese nature to rebel against their leaders, despite their leadership abilities. Just because they can cow the population into obedience doesn't mean they're good at governing.

The CCP holds onto power by deporting dissidents and will not stop short of gunning down their own people down when things get out of hand (Tiananmen). I think senior Communist party officials have nightmares of a nationwide democracy movement in China.