 |
| 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 |
|
| | ||
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Koryo |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| User | Post | ||
Koryo Keese                  Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6331 days Last view: 6331 days |
| ||
The sarcasm should have been apparent.  No need to bring history in to this. We're talking about biology here. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6331 days Last view: 6331 days |
| ||
| Japan is looking into the bomb because of China and North Korea, not because of us. Brazil and Egypt have been looking into the bomb for quite some time (long before Bush) and I doubt they'll get very far. Germany could build a bomb, and I wouldn't really care. They're about as peaceful as France and England, but again, I seriously doubt they will build one. I've not heard of any plans for the UAE to build a bomb, but I doubt they will have any success. The UAE is the least likely Arab country to become a subject of US Regime Changing. They have no reason to fear us, though they do have a reason to fear Iran.
In conclusion, not one of those countries is a serious nuclear threat, or a result of Bush's Cowboy Diplomacy. While we're on the subject of small and insignificant countries and their nuclear projects of lack thereof, let's talk about Libya. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese  Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6331 days Last view: 6331 days |
| ||
| So let's look at this according to your logic.
A tin pot dictatorship regime is going to build nuclear weapons anyway, but they happen by pure coincidence to build the bomb during Bush's administration, then it's Bush's fault. But, if a tin pot dictatorship regime is going to give up their nuclear weapons anyway, and they do it during the Bush administration, it's not a success for Bush? Clearly, your view is entirely biased and not at all based in fact. You point at any nation that even looks sideways at uranium and claim that they are about to become the next great proliferators. You also cannot see any possible reason for a country to want nuclear weapons other than to deter an invasion from the US. Is the US going to invade Germany? That's just absurd. Is the US going to invade the UAE? They're so far down on the list of non democratic nations they can't even see who is on the top, and they're practically a western tourist nation as it is. Is the US going to invade Saudi Arabia? The US already has troops in Saudi Arabia, and we have had them for years. Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship, but they just want to sell us oil. The Saudis would not benefit in the least from bombing or threatening to bomb the US. It's far more likely that Saudi Arabia fears Iran because Iran is a Shiite theocracy and Saudi Arabia is a Sunni country (Wahhabis, more specifically). There are many Muslims who are not pleased with the Saudi Government's control over the holy cities. You have pretty much named every nation that the US is least likely to invade and suggested that they are building nuclear weapons because they fear us invading. Absurd. (edited by Koryo on 12-26-06 11:49 PM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6331 days Last view: 6331 days |
| ||
| OK. As long as we agree. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6331 days Last view: 6331 days |
| ||
| Australia does indeed have the world's largest natural supply of uranium, according to this image, though I can no longer remember where I picked it up. I wouldn't say that the sky is falling just because Australia ships uranium to China, though I would say that Australia will probably be very unhappy if China becomes the hegemon of the Pacific ocean. How would Australia feel about having to pay taxes to ship in "Chinese controlled waters" (read: half the pacific ocean)? It's not that bad, though. The US economy is fueling China's growth far more than Australian uranium ever will. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese  Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6331 days Last view: 6331 days |
| ||
| Don't get me started. I'm a scifi fan and could give a completely frank discussion about alien invasions. :p | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6331 days Last view: 6331 days |
| ||
| King Louis XIV was king 300 years ago, while WW2 was only 60 years ago. There's a bit of a difference there.
As Arwon said, (though I hate to be agreeing with him) few countries in the history of the world have actually been worthy of the fascist label. It is a fairly new political system, and equally as rare. You might say that the US has supported some "dictators", but then, communist dictators are just as dictatorial as fascist dictators. A few pages back, PSA seemed unwilling to accept my claim that modern day Russia was backsliding away from democracy. Now you claim that Stalin wasn't at all a socialist (Socialism, unlike fascism, is a broad term). I wonder why it is that people single out Russia (or the USSR) as the country that they think I know nothing about. :p |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6331 days Last view: 6331 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Plus Sign Abomination I didn't dodge the question because I couldn't provide an answer, but because it was a completely ridiculous question. When I call China and North Korea dictatorships, you don't question that. But when I mention Putin's attempts to reverse many of the democratic institutions that Russia does have, you have no idea what I'm talking about. I'm not sure you really understand Russia. Even after Arwon has gone into the details twice, your responses don't seem to follow. Russia is... "wacky beyond all belief"? I don't think so. Russia isn't the most authoritarian country in the world right now, and it's a far cry from what the USSR was during the days of Stalin, but Russia is no democracy like Great Britain, Canada, the US, etc. I could give you a list of the anti democratic things Putin has been doing recently, but that is unnecessary. Information on Russia is readily available on the internet and in print, especially to a student of biology such as yourself. Originally posted by PSA Technically, that was in reference to Arwon, not you. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6331 days Last view: 6331 days |
| ||
| Indeed, Russia is not the world power it once was. I never claimed it was. I'm only taking issue with PSA's questioning Russia's political state. You're right, Russia isn't a global power or a true rival to the US like it was during the cold war. It does still have the world's second largest nuclear arsenal, though. Even though many of those weapons are rapidly aging, Russia still has more usable nuclear missiles than most other countries in the world (especially considering there are only 9 nuclear countries total). I seriously doubt Russia is willing to engage in nuclear war (or any war, for that mater) over any geopolitical issues anymore. Russia is now a former world power that has accepted its lack of power. None the less, it is still a major world player. Recent activity (assassinations) have proven that elements of the USSR's old intelligence organizations are still active. Russia is also becoming a significant oil exporter, which will give them a nice supply of cash. Still, I'm not suggesting that Russia is a major threat to world peace. I think China is a bigger threat at the moment, as is Islamic extremism. Russia deciding to sell (or just dump) a few of its nuclear weapons is probably a bigger threat than the small chance that Russia will even use them aggressively. But feel free to send PSA a private message and explain to him all about Russia. His inquiring mind needs to know.
Cheers Alkis. Edit: I am curious about your avatar. What does it represent? (edited by Koryo on 12-28-06 02:38 AM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6331 days Last view: 6331 days |
| ||
| There are a lot of false statements here.
1: China is not the most powerful country in the world. The Chinese military has less of the most state of the art pieces of equipment than the US does. The Chinese air force is also inferior to the US airforce. Just because the US military is failing to win the "hearts and minds" in Iraq doesn't in any way suggest that the US military is weak. We're holding back. We could carpet bomb vast city blocks every time there is a terrorist attack. We might kill 100 civilians for every 1 terrorist, but we would kill the terrorists. I'm not suggesting or even considering that option, but it is physically possible, and it is what a less benevolent empire (such as the Nazis) would do in our position. Ultimately, though, our nuclear arsenal is larger than Chinas. We could end the Iraq war right now by turning every square inch of Iraqi soil into an irradiated wasteland. We could do the same to China. I can see you getting all indignant, puffing up your chest, and spitting at your monitor, but don't say anything rash. I'm not suggesting we nuke Iraq, or China. I'm just saying that it's possible. If the US appears weaker, its because we hold back. We don't use every military option available to us as a true evil empire would. China may eclipse us within some decades, but they haven't yet. 2: Russia is less democratic than the US. Global power has nothing to do with democracy vs dictatorship. Just because Bush is more powerful on a world scale than Putin doesn't make him less democratic. It's power within your own country that matters. Bush will be held in place with very little power over the next two years because of a democratic congress. Putin, on the other hand, is replacing elected Russian offices with appointed offices, stuffing corporate headquarters full of his own loyalists, and possibly even assassinating his opposition. If the people decided they wanted Putin out of office tomorrow, would it happen? Of course not. I doubt Putin will be the next Hitler, or even the next Castro. I'm sure he will be out of office within 10 years, but he is none the less far less democratic than the US. 3: I don't see anything wrong with people paying more attention to the largest, most important political developments than to the small ones. The coup in Thailand may indeed be interesting (and don't get me wrong, it is), but which even is more likely to affect me directly, or to affect the largest number of people in the world: a coup in Thailand, or Chinese imperialism? |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6331 days Last view: 6331 days |
| ||
| Arwon, don't be silly. Everyone notices the things that affect them more directly. I don't think the other things are unimportant, they just aren't on my mind as often. If you want to start a thread about Thailand, or East Timor, or the average income of a coffee bean farmer in Columbia, then by all means, do it.
Alkis: you're arguing a point that has already been discussed in this thread. Please read the previous 4 pages before posting. You're also completely ignoring the US' nuclear supremacy. Analogies of men with knives is just wasting words and webspace. I think we all freely acknowledge that China will eventually surpass the US, but that hasn't happened yet. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6331 days Last view: 6331 days |
| ||
| Firstly, the system of the US Senate is not too dissimilar from most other democratic countries (such as those with parliamentary systems).
Second, the Republican-Halliburton conspiracy is a childish myth. The US government contracts with many, many companies, some of them through no bid contracts. Halliburton has only become a common name that everyone knows, so they repeat it every chance they get. Halliburton is also a many faceted corporation. Some parts of Halliburton are profitable. Others, such as the subsidiaries that are currently being used to feed US troops in Iraq, are not. Lastly, Halliburton was used by the government long before Bush came into office. Third, why would you want the democrats to stay in power for a long time? Any party that maintains power without significant opposition becomes corrupt. Any problems you may have with the republican party (the real ones, not the imagined ones) will simply migrate to the democratic party. There is nothing inherent in the democratic or republican party that makes one substantially better than the other. Both have fielded very good candidates at different times in history. The answer is not to give power to a different party, but to ensure that both parties have to compete for power. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6331 days Last view: 6331 days |
| ||
| Alkis: the distinction between democracy and republic is, in this case, mostly irrelevant. Just as there are no "communist" nations (where the factory and field laborers work equally and share equally in the profits, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, with no leaders at all), there are also no truly democratic countries where the people have final and constant power over every aspect of life. Just as we refer to the USSR, Cuba, and China as "communist nations", we may as well refer to the US, Great Britain, France, Germany, etc at democratic nations. Don't think that you're proving your intelligence by pointing out our lack of understanding of the basic political terms.
And you are also confused about separation of church and state. Religious ideals finding their way into laws is not illegal, and also common. Why is there no work on Sunday? Why is Christmas a federal holiday? What does it say on our money? Even our most basic laws against murder could be considered "religious" (most world religions, not just Christianity, define and condemn murder). |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6331 days Last view: 6331 days |
| ||
| It's true that China has many internal problems (which I can only hope will one day lead to a democratic revolution), but remember that China only needs about 1/4 as much per capita wealth as the US has in order to equal the US' total wealth, because China has 4x our population. True, China's population will decline a bit in the near future because of their one child rule, but I still don't see China ever having less than 3x the US population in the foreseeable future. Also, if China puts a system of satellite based lasers into space, they could cancel out much of the US' power in a single day. This technology (which could be used to shoot down missiles, planes, ships, and even other satellites) isn't feasible at this very moment, but is coming very soon. I think the US will probably be capable of deploying such a system a few years before the Chinese will (and it may be one of the last inventions that we make before the Chinese). But my fear is that the US will be sluggish about deploying such a system because of the "militarization of space" stigma, whereas China may rush the system into orbit as soon as it is competed. I think that is the most likely scenario of China replacing the US as the world's hegemon. The second most likely scenario behind that one IMHO would be a very slow weakening of US economy, military, and influence over many decades along with a slow increase in the Chinese economy, military, and influence. | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6331 days Last view: 6331 days |
| ||
| I believe China will indeed be a world hegemon. China needs oil just as much as the US does (or will soon). I don't see China developing any alternatives to oil in the near future. The way I see it, there are two incentives to develop an oil alternative. The first is simple economics, and the second is environmentalist pressure groups. The economics part is simple. Oil is an incredibly cheap energy supply in terms of what it costs to get crude oil out of the ground and turn it into refined products. However, the price of crude oil is also influenced by a very small number of people (and more than a few third world dictators). Still, oil is cheap. China (and America) will continue to use oil as long as it is still cheaper than the alternative. Converting an oil based economy to one based on ethanol, hydrogen, or something else will cost quite a bit of money up front, even if it does pay off in the long run. People don't always think in the long run. So I would say that both the US and China will be equally beholden to oil as long as it remains cheaper than the alternatives. The environmentalist pressure groups are different, though. A side affect of oil is CO2 emissions, which matters to environmentalist groups, but not so much to economic minded world leaders (such as the leaders of the US and China). These environmentalists groups do have a small bit of power, though, and they are far more prevalent in the US than in China. Therefore, I believe China will be slightly less likely to convert away from an oil based economy than the US (though neither will do it as fast as we might like).
So, China will continue to slurp up oil and will one day surpass our own demand for it. China is going to need the ability to project its military around the world (as the US can today) to secure this oil. If a significant portion of our oil suppliers suddenly stopped exporting, you can bet that the US would be bombing somebody until we got our oil back. This isn't as bad as it sounds. No modern economy can function without oil. So, in 50 years, with two or three times the oil demand as the US currently has, China will not tolerate any hiccups in their oil supply. China will not allow some coup or rebellion in some third world country to hinder their economy because of decreased oil exports. I'm not accusing China of anything sinister here. This is what any country with such a massive thirst for oil would do. Therefore, I can easily see China putting military bases in Iran, Venezuela, and other Middle Eastern and African oil exporting countries. Because of this reason alone (and there are others), China will need the ability to project power in the form of troops and missiles all around the world. This means they will have long range airplanes, complete with flying fuel tankers, aircraft carriers, and strategically placed air bases in foreign countries. Basically, everything the US has today. I doubt China will have some of the same problems the US has had, too. If China wanted to invade Iraq for oil, for instance, and assuming a scenario in which they have all the resources that America has today, I think they would have been much more efficient. They wouldn't have bothered with any "nonsens" (as they would see it) about building a democratic Iraq. They would have secured the oil fields, and installed a strong enough Iraqi leader (a military dictator, if need be) who could exert enough control over Iraq so as to keep it from total civil war, while still being friendly toward the Chinese. For that matter, I doubt the Chinese would have evicted Saddam, as long as he was willing to sell them oil. I think we will see plenty of instances of Chinese covert (and overt) support for dictators in oil rich countries, as long as that dictator is willing to sell them oil. Again, I'm not accusing the Chinese of anything outlandish here. Just imagine the US with two or three times as disparate a thirst for oil. That will be China in a few decades. This is just one reason why the Chinese will become an imperialist world power. And satellite based lasers are not a fantasy. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6331 days Last view: 6331 days |
| ||
| I agree, I find it rather funny that China's exposition of a few hydrogen powered buses proves anything.
As for American Imperialism: I'm sure a studious person like you has heard of the biological theory which suggests that countries/nations/empires/whatever else often behave the same if given the same conditions and the same situation. This is clearly not 100% true, as the US would never put 6 million Jews in concentration camps as the Nazis did, no mater what the circumstances. But the theory holds in most other cases. A country whose economy is based on oil cannot survive without said oil. Whether that country is a fascist dictatorship, a communist dictatorship, a constitutional monarchy, or a democratic republic, the country will try to get access to oil again. That's just life. Point to a country that will sit idly by and do nothing while its economy falls apart. I can't think of many. In order to qualify for this category, the country in question must actually have the ability to regain its lost oil. If, for instance, Belgium was being denied oil by Iraq, there's not much Belgium could do about it. But if you're hoping to get me to sputter and cough and act as if you caught me admitting some dark fact that I was hoping to keep hidden, you'll be disappointed. There are obviously some similarities between America and some of the old empires (the British Empire, the Roman Empire, etc). I still consider America to be the most benevolent of empires that we have yet seen. I firmly maintain that American influence in the world has caused far more good than bad. Just as you won't upset me by calling me a neocon, you can't upset me by calling America an empire, especially when there are many other empires to which I can compare the US, all of which are more oppressive and have a higher death toll (Nazi Germany, the USSR, the British Empire, the Spanish Empire, the French Empire, the Roman Empire, etc). |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6331 days Last view: 6331 days |
| ||
| I find your simplified view of American politics funny. Really, I'm giggling over hear. I encourage you to learn a bit more about... well everything really, before you continue to comment on American party politics. | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6331 days Last view: 6331 days |
| ||
| But never forget that people don't think in the long term. China is concerned with what will benefit it now. Like a kid with a credit card who doesn't stop to think about what happens when the card is maxed out and he has to start paying back interest, China (and the rest of the world, most likely) will continue to use oil until it is scarce enough that drilling for oil is more expensive than developing alternative fuels.
And as for China "having the money", the US has more money than China, and we also have the environmentalist groups pressuring us to move away from oil. I doubt China will change over any time soon, and probably not before the US does. If anything, the US might finally be forced to develop alternative fuel sources when we China starts importing so much oil that there is no longer enough for us. Edit: Alkis, knock it off. I don't know what it is, (perhaps you gain sexual pleasure from the idea that the US will one day be removed from its pedestal) but your claims of China's power are just false. I find it very interesting that I am forced to both argue for and against the strength of China in this thread. Any factories and universities that China has, the US has more of them. The US is the most likely and the most capable nation right now of leading the way toward a non oil based economy. (edited by Koryo on 12-29-06 03:15 AM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6331 days Last view: 6331 days |
| ||
| As if the Chinese government of today is anything like the old Chin dynasty. As was mentioned earlier, you can't judge France by Louis the XIV.
China is already setting themselves up for this. Iran and Venezuela already sell plenty of oil to China, and both worry about the US military, to some extent. It wouldn't be too difficult or inconceivable within the next 20 years for China to convince those countries (and others) that allowing Chinese air force bases on their soil is the only way to protect against "American expansion." China is also making friends with African oil producing nations. The cost of a world wide military will not deter China from building one, and will also not factor into the "price" of keeping an oil based economy in any way, as this military has many other applications. It would allow them to control oil prices, to an extent. It would allow them to control a great deal of other economic things, such as taxing ships that go through the straight of Hormuz, the Panama Canal, and the straight of Malaka. It will allow China to ensure that no threats to Chinese hegemony will arise quickly and unnoticed. Just look at the US military presence in Europe. Are any of those European nations in which we have basses hostile toward us? No. But those basses serve several purposes. If the USSR had ever invaded West Germany, the troops would have been much closer to the front line, rather than having to move them in from the US. But this was only a vary small part of the purpose of those European military bases. As long as there are US military bases in European countries, those countries will never become a true enemy. If a country started to develop into something like Nazi Germany, the troops would be right there to, dare I say it, Regime Change them. And if the US had been a bit more aggressive, like a true evil empire would have been, then there would be no threats to US global power. A true evil empire would have nipped China in the bud before they became so powerful. A true evil empire would have destroyed North Korea before allowing it to build nuclear weapons. But Chinese military basses will serve the same function. As long as there are Chinese military basses in, say, Iran and Venezuela, the oil will keep flowing. And China will also want to put military bases in other, more powerful countries, to keep those countries from becoming a military threat. I assure you that China is not concerned with global warming, and will soon be the world's largest contributer of greenhouse gases. Come on. You people are treat the Chinese government like a benevolent force that will not carry on America's "evil" legacy of oppression and imperialism. China will set itself up as a (the) world power, and it will do everything the US has done, and then some. China will be more heavy handed in its occupations, China will back the dictators over the democrats, China will be less careful about civilian collateral damage, and China will not care about environmental consequences. China already has plenty of cities that are suffering from massive amounts of pollution (as in rivers running red with dye poured out of nearby factories), and Chinese factories put out more pollution per unit of production that American or European factories. And the world is not changing to that extreme. Empires have behaved the same way for thousands of years. The tools of maintaining power have changed, but the methods remain the same. Most of those changes you mention, such as an emphasis on corporations at the expense of state sovereignty, the rise of non state (terrorist) actors, and the decline of conventional warfare, is precisely because the US is the world's hegemon, not in spite of it. Many of the modern day terrorist tactics will not work on China, because the US is too soft. Would China use racial discrimination to find terrorists on airplanes? Of course they would. Would China kill hundreds of civilians (collateral damage) to kill a single anti Chinese terrorist? Of course they would. Would China bomb Iran if that an Iranian nuclear bomb was a threat to them? Of course they would (and even if Iran hid their nuclear research under heavily populated cities, which would deter the US). Would China constantly show demoralizing images like the beheading of captured Chinese troops on Chinese owned news stations? of course not. America looses to the terrorists because we are not cold hearted killers. Every image of an American soldier being decapitated or strung up in the street demoralizes us. Every image of an Iraqi child accidentally killed by an American bomb demoralizes us. We would not bomb Iranian nuclear research sites if they were build under large cities. And we spend thousands of American lives and billions and billions of dollars on Iraq pursuing this "foolish" goal of a stable, democratic government when we could have just installed a military strongman to keep the country in line and keep the oil flowing. For that matter, we didn't even need to remove Saddam, if all we wanted was oil. Saddam gave us oil. The terrorists win against America because we care about human lives, and we're not willing to stoop to the lowest levels and respond to the terrorists in kind. These tactics will not work against China, especially if the Chinese government uses the vast censorship powers already available to them to keep that information from the Chinese people. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6331 days Last view: 6331 days |
| ||
| Well here we are just hours from Saddam's death (most likely).
Edit: I believe its official now. He's dead. Comments? (edited by Koryo on 12-29-06 10:14 PM) |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Koryo |
