It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can China Invade Taiwan?

page: 112
1
<< 109  110  111    113  114  115 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by AtheiX

Are you accusing us Westerners of being armchair generals?


you.

Sorry buddy, I cannot join the military. I am 17, and my heart grows too slowly. I can't run for more than 1 kilometer without becoming exhausted.




posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 04:08 AM
link   
i wouldn't care if you could or not. you asked if i think you/westerners are armchair generals and i said yes.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
i wouldn't care if you could or not. you asked if i think you/westerners are armchair generals and i said yes.

You can say that someone is an armchair general while this person is talking about fighting a country but doesn't join the military.
But you cannot say that someone is an armchair general while this person is talking about fighting a country but is not fit for military service.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by LemonAide

Originally posted by blue cell
communist government (in least to my knowledge) everybody earns the same amount of money. That is not good for the economy, you have to have

That's definitely not true. Communism only ensures a basic level of quality of life. Property is shared. Imagine what happens if everyone in the USA worked for the US government.

Incorrect. People keep getting the wrong idea about communism, lumping it together with Stalinism or Maoism or some other crap. We'll have to thank US propaganda for that...


Communism is meant for a time (far in the future) when production exceeds demand and perferrably has little to no dependency on labour (automated production), and by then, products are to be distributed instead of being sold. Products are only sold now (as they are in capitalism) because production is less than demand, so only those with money can get the limited products. When production exceeds demand, there's no point for that anymore, that's why the products are distributed. This also eliminates monopoly, money-related corruption, and uneven distribution of material wealth. Elitism is also not allowed in communism, therefore a true communist society MUST be democratic.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taishyou
Incorrect. People keep getting the wrong idea about communism, lumping it together with Stalinism or Maoism or some other crap. We'll have to thank US propaganda for that...


Communism is meant for a time (far in the future) when production exceeds demand and perferrably has little to no dependency on labour (automated


I'm not quoting US propaganda. Just life experience.

As for the future, you watch too much Startrek. Societies are formed through the formation of various equilibriums. It's doubtful that any social philosophy can accurately describe it all entirely.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by LemonAide
I'm not quoting US propaganda. Just life experience.

Then you are describing Stalinism, authoritarian socialism, maoism, or some other society that call themselves communist. The definition of communism is constant, it will always describe a democratic society where products are evenly distributed to the citizens. Societies that do not meet this are not communist, communism has never existed beyond paper. Next time when you describe a certain society, use its proper name, not what they claim to be or what the US claims it to be (e.g. communist) or you'll be talking about something completely different. China for example is not communist but a mixed capitalist-socialist with single party authoritarianism and to some limited extent it does follow your definition of "communism" (the DPRK fits this definition better) though you would be wrong if you consider China or DPRK to be communist.


As for the future, you watch too much Startrek.

The philosophy of communism assumes that the rate of increase in production rate at current trends as a result of increase in technology would one day exceed demand. IF that happens, then communist would be the ideal form of society. If that doesn't happen, the it won't work. And I don't watch Startrek.

[edit on 13-8-2005 by Taishyou]



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taishyou
Then you are describing Stalinism, authoritarian socialism, maoism, or some other society that call themselves communist. The definition of communism is constant, it will always describe a democratic society where products are


You still haven't pointed out where what I've said is incorrect.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by LemonAide
Communism only ensures a basic level of quality of life.

It can go beyond.

Imagine what happens if everyone in the USA worked for the US government.

That is for certain forms of socialism, China used to be like that but now some jobs are from private companies and some are from government. In Communism, people work for people, their goods are not sold or given to the government but directly distributed to everyone, while all other products are distributed to them. If technology advances to the point where nearly all means of production is automated (we're already halfway there), then nobody works at all.
Whether or not that will ever happen is a different story, I won't comment on that, but you don't work for the government in communism.

btw sorry if I sound grumpy but I'm just pissed off at what propaganda from various parties did to mess up the meaning of communism and now nearly everybody gets it wrong, mixing it up with socialism, stalinism, etc

[edit on 13-8-2005 by Taishyou]



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   
perhaps the people go from extreme to extreme, a socio-economic system must be balanced , the USA isnt a pure capitalist system, the SU was a extreme "communism" system -that was turn in a coromped dictadure- so it colapsed

you need differences in the economy, even in the nature, if you put all the resources distributed in the same level, there wont be any dynamic factor, so the nation "machine" wont work, simple thermodynamics


but the same works in the other way, if you isolate the resorces only to few, again the machine wont work

remember you need competition to progress, but also that competition could destroy you

but always the technologic revolutions induce new politic/economic systems, perhaps the next is the communism or socialism, the problem in this evolution is presented when the nation or society "jump" the capitalism -like the SU or Chine /but they are fixing that/-

but yes there is a missinterpretation about the communism from some "patriots" and nationalists -from all sides-

so is a problem of balance


[edit on 13-8-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taishyou

Originally posted by LemonAide
Communism only ensures a basic level of quality of life.

It can go beyond.


And that's about all we can say about it, isn't it. I've never read Marx, but I don't believe Communism has any built in mechanism to ensure different levels of pay. Unlike capitalism, there is no material incentive built into the philosophy to "advance" oneself (if money equalled advancement and it being a worthwhile thing to do not being a material thing). So there's nothing really stopping communists from flatlining everyone's salaries.

Luckily that really won't work. Beyond a basic level of health and well-being, different jobs require different lifestyles. For instance, in one aspect, an engineer may only have a few people in the country who will even understand what he's talking about. Therefore, he needs to travel, own suitcases, to have access to telephones, faxes, etc. Either the company he works for pays for all of that, or he receives a higher salary. Either way, the cost of keeping him alive is different than that of a floor sweaper. If you are to implement communism, you must take that into account.




Imagine what happens if everyone in the USA worked for the US government.

That is for certain forms of socialism, China used to be like that but now some jobs are from private companies and some are from government. In


My personal opinion is that China isn't socialist anymore. There's no popular name for what it is currently, but it isn't socialist.

Perhaps, I was too quick to give this example. If I remember the old Chinese laws correctly. There was a cap on how many people you are able to employ as an individual. Only the government was exempt. That means you can own your own corner store (and many people did), but you were not able to build a supermarket chain due to the lack of manpower. Which essentially meant that everyone who didn't want to run their own small business worked for the government or an entity owned by the government. The government, any government, is there under the assumption that the people want it there, and it is acting on behave of the people. Communism, I don't believe, again I never read Marx so correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't specify exactly how the goods are distributed other than it is direct. A board of directors overseeing the distribution of goods would work just as well.



means of production is automated (we're already halfway there), then nobody works at all.
Whether or not that will ever happen is a different story, I won't comment on that, but you don't work for the government in communism.


Not everyone works to produce material goods. Doctors, teachers, and engineers for instance. The advancement of technology won't put those people out of a job.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX

You can say that someone is an armchair general while this person is talking about fighting a country but doesn't join the military.
But you cannot say that someone is an armchair general while this person is talking about fighting a country but is not fit for military service.


no. both are armchair generals.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 10:05 PM
link   
So... is China evil or not?


Honestly, what I like about this discussion is how it has highlighted the root of the U.S.-China issue. Basically, it's a "this town ain't big enough for the two of us" situation, and it's a situation that is rare, since it happens usually in fixed environments. Basically, the Americans fear China will become powerful like America, or even stronger and the Chinese fear the Americans want to annihilate them.

This is a huge difference from World War II and War On Terror, which held and hold a great sense of urgency and transcend the normal situation of rivalry into more of a "fate of the world," good vs. evil type situation.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 01:53 AM
link   
The US fears authoritarian systems w/ too much power, that resist calls to involve their populations in the decision process and I don't blame the gov't.


This same situ was the cause of WWII.








[edit on 8/14/2005 by bodebliss]



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Parris Chang says the US, Japan will defend Taiwan


CNA , TAIPEI
Sunday, Aug 14, 2005,Page 3
The US and Japan are sure to come to Taiwan's defense if the island is attacked by China because Taiwan's security is their common objective, a security official said yesterday in Chiayi, southern Taiwan.

Parris Chang (張旭成), deputy secretary-general of the National Security Council, told a group of civil leaders who attended a training program organized by the Ketagalan Institute that war with China is the last thing that Taiwan wants. However, he said that Taiwan would be able to put up significant resistance and inflict substantial damage on China in such a conflict.

Citing a joint statement issued by the US and Japan on Feb. 19, which said the peaceful resolution of issues concerning the Taiwan Strait is one of their common strategic objectives, Chang claimed this is a promise to defend Taiwan from an attack by China.

The strong international disapproval of the use of force to settle disputes between states is also a deterrent against Beijing pursuing any such military adventures, Chang said.

He said that China has therefore tried to isolate Taiwan in the international community, while at the same time engaging in a charm offensive to win the hearts of Taiwan's people through moves like offering duty-free access for the nation's fruit exports.

However, Chang said, this preferential treatment could carry a high price tag for Taiwan, as China might ask for similar treatment under the framework of the World Trade Organization, of which both Taiwan and China are members.

Chang also raised doubts about China's capability for using force against Taiwan in light of the fact that China is plagued by domestic problems, such as poverty, unequal distribution of wealth and social unrest, prompted by a lack of freedom and democracy.

The security official said Taiwan can turn the tables on Beijing by encouraging the Chinese people to push their government to move on the path toward democracy.


Parris Chang speaks

To all in general:

If you want to know what is going on in Taiwan, instead of throwing out half-baked assumptions read the the Taipei Times daily and grow smarts about the situ on the ground.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss
Parris Chang says the US, Japan will defend Taiwan


haha.

parris chang not US offical or japanese offical



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by LemonAide
And that's about all we can say about it, isn't it. I've never read Marx, but I don't believe Communism has any built in mechanism to ensure different levels of pay. Unlike capitalism, there is no material incentive built into the philosophy to "advance" oneself (if money equalled advancement and it being a worthwhile thing to do not being a material thing). So there's nothing really stopping communists from flatlining everyone's salaries.

There is no salary. Money is not used as incentive work. Directly received products are. All products are distributed to the whole country because it is in excess of demand. So while you don't get $50000 a year for working, you instead get anything you want for free if you work.
That's just how communism is supposed to work, whether or not it will actually work in reality is a totally different story, and that I wouldn't know.

My personal opinion is that China isn't socialist anymore. There's no popular name for what it is currently, but it isn't socialist.

It's Deng Xiao Ping's "socialism with Chinese characteristics"

Perhaps, I was too quick to give this example. If I remember the old Chinese laws correctly. There was a cap on how many people you are able to employ as an individual. Only the government was exempt. That means you can own your own corner store (and many people did), but you were not able to build a supermarket chain due to the lack of manpower. Which essentially meant that everyone who didn't want to run their own small business worked for the government or an entity owned by the government. The government, any government, is there under the assumption that the people want it there, and it is acting on behave of the people. Communism, I don't believe, again I never read Marx so correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't specify exactly how the goods are distributed other than it is direct. A board of directors overseeing the distribution of goods would work just as well.

Well back then you are assigned a job directly by the government right after you come out of high school or college, to a government owned business. There can be some small private business like corner stands but they never grow big. Now it's different, there are big private businesses alongside government businesses, and you can work for either.

But anyway, China is no communist country. Maybe later on it will but who knows.


Not everyone works to produce material goods. Doctors, teachers, and engineers for instance. The advancement of technology won't put those people out of a job.

There can be robot doctors, teachers, or engineers. Maybe that won't happen for another 200 years but it isn't impossible to do.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss
The US fears authoritarian systems w/ too much power, that resist calls to involve their populations in the decision process and I don't blame the gov't.


This same situ was the cause of WWII.








[edit on 8/14/2005 by bodebliss]


Incorrect. The cause of World War II was a frightening monolith of overwhelming power known as Nazi Germany that threatened to dissolve the entire world into it's terrifying ideology. It's by far the most critical threat humanity has faced from OTHER humans.

Next.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
you see. i even said no US airforce. and you change the whole subject

Yes it is my error, I apologise and can make no exscuse of the matter.
I have looked over what units can reach it at a moments notice and only the philipenes can do so.
If however they where given 24 hours the situation will be diffrent.




how long does a treaty get organized.
. the war will be already over

Depends.



well we weren't talking about bombers in the first place. we were talking about western/european airforces. do they have B-2s or B-52s

As I said, my mistake.
Quite shockingly I havent found any B-52's in forign posetion, I am still looking up european "bombers" but there isnt really any I can see that match the B-52.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite


no. both are armchair generals.


And you are not?



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

And you are not?


i never said i wasn't. he said he wasn't one and i pointed out that he was



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 109  110  111    113  114  115 >>

log in

join