 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - North Korea's got Nukes.....and I care, why? |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Koryo Keese                  Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| So the Chinese and USSR didn't agree on things. So what? It wasn't at all likely that the two would agree on everything. But the "issues" it caused were relatively minor, especially when compared with the geopolitical and ideological battle that took place between the US and USSR. If China was a "third pole", it was a house cat compared with two tigers. | |||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES   Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6278 days Last view: 6278 days |
| ||
| Read:
Nixon in China by MacMillan. Read: Any text book on the Eastern Front of the Cold War. China was an unbelivably important player. It was the third pole of the Cold War and was the generally accepted point of conflict between the Eastern powers and a war that the West couldn't have stayed out of. Your obsession with democractic imperial power doesn't negate that a polar power needs not to be a "super" power. The Cold War was an assymetric ideological conflict. Mao introduced a completely seperate ideological drive to the Soviet Union. They created a fully different power structure after Kruschev's Secret Speech. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| House cats and tigers, my friend. How many countries around the world were influenced by Chinese ideology during the cold war? Now compare that with the number influenced by USSR and US ideologies. | |||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6278 days Last view: 6278 days |
| ||
| Now, compare the amount of changes that it caused within geo-politics.
A pole doesn't have to be a light-sabre. It just has to be a pole and pull things toward it. Which is what China did. It caused the rest of the world a head ache throughout the 60s, 70s, and well into the 80s with its anti-Soviet rhetoric and was almost the flash point of global war. As for the ideology it influenced. Albania, Indonesia, and Cambodia were small potatoes. But the fact that it caused a permanent split within the Communist movement that still exists to this day. That is a pretty powerful thing to have done. Creating a challenge to Leninism and Stalinism. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| I hate to be the one to point this out again, but the communist ideology is never truly applied to what we call "communist countries." Now, China was successful in making a very successful export economy, as opposed to most other "communist nations." That is a more recent development, though, and has little to do with communist ideologies. | |||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6278 days Last view: 6278 days |
| ||
| So, yeah. I hate to be the one to point this out again.
china was a third pole in world politics during the 1970s when the US tried to play them off against the Soviets. They tried to play Communism off of itself due to the influence that Maoism had within the world-wide movement. Interestingly, Mao was denounced pretty heavily during this whole time. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| Perhaps we're getting caught up with the term "third pole." Just because China was a third aspect in some negotiations and theories, I don't think China (back then) should be compared with the US and USSR, considering the vast difference in power. I'm reminded of France's claim to the the "third nuclear power." Technically, France did have the world's third largest nuclear arsenal, for a time. However, the US and USSR had so many more bombs than France, there was almost no comparison. | |||
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
I'm just entertained that we're somehow discussing a globally ascendant China declaring war on a Bolivarian Union as though this is a serious possibility and not a god-damn alt-history fantasy game scenario. (edited by Arwon on 12-29-06 11:01 PM) |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6278 days Last view: 6278 days |
| ||
| I think you think in too blunt of terms without any regard to nuance. It doesn't matter how many bombs you have. France was the third nuclear power because it could easily export its technology, quickly produce the weapons, and had the ability to test them openly. Not to mention those abilities to project its power. Du Gaule had some interesting anecdotes about 800 million Russians and however many million Frenchmen and the bombs.
It isn't being compared to the US and USSR. It was simply another pole around which world events swirrled. After the End of History in 1991 the world only had one pole around which to orbit. Now, there are a vast deal more than one. Arwon, I thought we were talking about alt-history. That's all that these threads seem to be capable of when Lev's ghost keeps on dropping in on my right hand side (edited by Ziff on 12-29-06 11:02 PM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| I didn't say China would "declare war" and invade with troops in the South America jungle. There are much more subtle ways to break up a loose alliance. Why is it wrong to speculate about China breaking up a South American union, when the existence of that South American union is also speculation? Finally, if you are suggesting that China's "Communist" ideology will prevent it from conflict with another "communist" group, then you are dreaming. | |||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6278 days Last view: 6278 days |
| ||
| Ummm, I don't think anyone was talking about China taking on another Communist power directly in the interim.
As for the SAU being speculation, it is warranted specul;ation given the leftish swing of the region and the pull towards trading blocs that the world is going through right now. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| And equally feasible is the prospect of China going to almost any lengths to get their hands on Venezuelan oil. They might not even have to demand it, and Venezuela is quite willing to sell China oil right now. Without the threat of the US, though, Venezuela might decide that it doesn't like China either. In this case, who has more power? A loose alliance of South American countries, or China? If China wants the oil, and if Venezuela denies it to them, there is no reason to think China won't take slightly aggressive measures to get it back. | |||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| I'm suggesting it's reflective of your general tendency to see the world in terms of a Cold-War computer strategy game or something. Just because China will soon have the theoretical hardware capacity to be a more assertive regional and eventually global player in a multipolar world doesn't mean they're going to become the fucking Evil Empire. | |||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6278 days Last view: 6278 days |
| ||
| Who has relevant power?
China has more power, yes. But there is nothing China can really do. It can put some pressure on its allies to do this, that or the other thing...but China still needs to play by the market rules like everyone else. Besides, China has geographically closer Africa and Central Asia for more fuel quicker.  |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| Considering Chinas actions already, and considering the biological theory about powerful nations acting similar to each other, I see no reason why China won't become an empire. Remember, I'm not saying that there is anything inherently evil about China. If Russia, China, Germany, Great Britain, or probably even some small country like Belgium had the power to affect world events, they most likely will. The temptation to use such power is too great to resist. | |||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| Yeah but there's still severe limits to what the great powers can actually do. Even the US, in its unipolar hegemony at present, can't change the basic realities of global politics. It's hamstrung in Iraq, unable to do anything in North Korea, powerless to stop political events in Latin America from unfolding as they do, and so forth. During the Cold War things were no different, at best the powers were reduced to expending vast resources to nudge countries' indigenous politics in certain directions. Direct coersion never worked, as shown in Vietnam and Afghanistan. The Cold War was not a testament to the power of global superpowers, but to their limitations in actually controlling events in the world. (edited by Arwon on 12-29-06 11:39 PM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| The US is not loosing in Iraq because we don't have the power. It's because we're holding back, and because we're sympathetic people, as I already said. We could "win" in Iraq if winning was simply defined as removing Saddam. We could also "win" in Iraq if we didn't care about inflicting tens of thousands of civilian casualties. The same is true in North Korea. We could "win" in North Korea if our only goal was removing KJI. We could also "win" in North Korea if we didn't care about how many South Koreans KJI killed during the war. It is our more benevolent qualities that weakens us as a global power. | |||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| Bollocks. That directly contradicts your argument that the US is more benevolent than other past empires... if they were so powerful and ruthless they'd still be here, no? China failed to subdue tiny Vietnam, the Soviets couldn't get their own way with Afghanistan, Britain failed in India, etc. It matters not a jot how global powers justify their dominance, the fact remains that it's not complete and they're quite limited in their ability to control and shape the world. The Cold War, as I say, was a clear testament to that, what with the global empires trying desperately to maneuver and manipulate little local client politicians who often-as-not didn't do what they were told.
No, past great powers ran afoul of their own limitations just as surely as any current and future global powers are doing and will do. Iraq was, at its core, an attempt to remake a country into something more pleasing to the attacker, and that would've failed just as surely if it was a ruthless authoritarian state trying to impose its will. Global powers are not omnipontent, they have limited power to shape world events. And it's quite substantially more limited than they're usually willing to acknowledge or accept, that's why we have over-reach and countries getting burned by ambitious adventures, and that's why stuff gets out of their control so often, as a consequence of local conditions and events. So to will China, especially as one power among several, be limited in its ability to shape the world in any real or lasting way. (edited by Arwon on 12-30-06 12:00 AM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| It's not bollocks, nor is it a contradiction. Those other Empires fell out of power for various different reasons, and all of them held on to power for much longer than the US has. The Roman Empire and the Muslim Empires held on to power for centuries. The Spanish and French Empires were also powerful for some time, but were eventually overtaken by the British Empire, which continued on for quite a while. Then came the Germany Empire, whose reign was cut short almost as soon as it began by a coalition of other empires. The British Empire lost most of its imperial lands during and shortly after WW2. The US then became the reigning super power in part because it survived WW2 without sustaining much damage, and also because we simply had more people than the older empires. America today has a population of 300 million. Though some of the more developed countries have a similar per capita level of wealth, the US simply has more people. Only China and India have more people than the US, which is why they are the only two countries that I could conceivably see overshadowing us in the near future. Of the two, China worries me more. People create wealth. Wealth translates into power, military and otherwise. | |||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6278 days Last view: 6278 days |
| ||
| "House cats and tigers, my friend. How many countries around the world were influenced by Chinese ideology during the cold war? Now compare that with the number influenced by USSR and US ideologies."
I don't know why, but an interesting quote came to mind. "Dictators ride to and fro upon tigers which they dare not dismount" -Winston Churchill |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - North Korea's got Nukes.....and I care, why? |
| |
