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.

 

China for World super power in next 40 years

page: 23
0
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
No i did not imply anything. I responed to the comment about the US having no policy of invasions i did not state wether it was major or not.

Well thats the message being transmited...
[quiote]
The UN invaded north korea . THe resolution was to protect south koreas intergity but when they crossed the 38th parallel they broke international law.

Even when NK invaded SK?


The US invaded north vietnam when they entered their land though commando raids and airstrikes.

So that means the UN invaded iraq then?
Since afterall UN forces destroyed iraqi forces on both sides of the iraqi border.


No not every country has pyhiscal hostilities with each other. The US actually takes action

So?
The UK usually takes action to, does that mean we are invaders?


No the british asked the americans to come through a treaty. the US in the other situations invaded without permission or legal obligation

Uh no, as I remeber it SK and SV asked the US and the UN for help.




posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Well thats the message being transmited...


Maybe you should reset your sarcasm meter a little higher


Even when NK invaded SK?


Yes, the resolution was for the dispostion of north korean soldiers form the 38th parallel not for the attack across the 38th parallel



So that means the UN invaded iraq then?
Since afterall UN forces destroyed iraqi forces on both sides of the iraqi border.


Didn't you get the point of the dictionary meanings.? .



So?
The UK usually takes action to, does that mean we are invaders?


Yes

Invader
"To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage."

conquer
"To defeat or subdue by force, especially by force of arms." .

These meanings of these words should be looked into carefully


Uh no, as I remeber it SK and SV asked the US and the UN for help.


Yes that is true but their were no resolutions or help to invade another country.

You cannot legally ask a country to invade another country.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
Maybe you should reset your sarcasm meter a little higher

Whos being sarcastic, that WAS the message I recieved.



Yes, the resolution was for the dispostion of north korean soldiers form the 38th parallel not for the attack across the 38th parallel

So let me get this straight, the UN is allowed to fight the enemy but only until they get to the enemise border even though the enemy broke the law....
So they should have called in interpol to deal with NK?



Didn't you get the point of the dictionary meanings.? .

Didnt you?
An intervension, the UN intervened in the iraqi attacks on kuwait and thereforce "invaded" that war and those countries by attacking the iraqies in both.
Explain what point I am "missing"?



Yes

Invader
"To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage."

conquer
"To defeat or subdue by force, especially by force of arms." .

These meanings of these words should be looked into carefully

So that means the UK was "pilllaging" the argentinian air base in SA with the SAS during the falklands war then?
Even though the argentinians invaded first ?
And in WW2 the UK was also the "invader" during 1940-43 right?
Since they where "pillaging" or "conquering" the germans in FRANCE....



Yes that is true but their were no resolutions or help to invade another country.

Even if the so named country was invading you...?


You cannot legally ask a country to invade another country.

.....So you can ask to defend yourself but that must stop as soon as they leave your personal space right?



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   
LoL


You find meanings hard to understand



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
LoL


You find meanings hard to understand

I define my own meanings, otherwise whos to define what is and whats not.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
I define my own meanings, otherwise whos to define what is and whats not.


LoL no wonder you always get confused



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
LoL no wonder you always get confused

I take it you let others define things then?
Guess you dont decide whats right and wrong....I wonder if thats what the majority of china is like....



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
I take it you let others define things then?


Yup...I dont make the english language up. If invade means to conquer then it means to conquer. It doesn't mean whatever i want it to mean.


Guess you dont decide whats right and wrong....I wonder if thats what the majority of china is like....


Didn't i just call you out?



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
Yup...I dont make the english language up. If invade means to conquer then it means to conquer. It doesn't mean whatever i want it to mean.

So you let others decide what is what then?



Didn't i just call you out?

Not to my knowledge.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Back to where we began...

Actually the fall of China, i think, is quite similar to other countries. china gets a few hits here and there and panics and hands it over to someone else, and it just collapses.

America actually seems to be experiencing this right now. they get a hit here and panic and hand it to this guy who "say" that he will "protect" them.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Teph2112
Actually the fall of China, i think, is quite similar to other countries. china gets a few hits here and there and panics and hands it over to someone else, and it just collapses.


Remember Teph2112 that the countries that fell were what the west like to call "free" nations, but China is under a fairly firm dictatorship right now (not saying the west isn't, its just China are a little more honest about it
). So what have they got to "fall" to?

In responce to the thread, "China for World super power in next 40 years"...?! I believe China will be able to challenge US power within the next 10-15 years! And if it came to war, could very well prove victorious...

But I don't think we should start building our bunkers yet - I think China would rather trade with the US rather than wage war, because it would not be economically beneficial for China do so, after all it is becoming ever more capitalist.

[edit on 4/2/06 by eternally_damaged]



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 08:34 AM
link   
This is in response to tgandrew. Unlike most posts I have had read which hold no substance nor an ounce of fact, yours seemed to have been researched to some degree. My response, well here it is.

America is a business and the entire global market is buying, insuring that in the long run that she will stay in business. I am confident that you are well aware that the worlds biggest trading partner is the United States of America. Thus insuring a very long and some what prosperous future as the world's economic giant. I am not by any stretch undermining China's significance on the worlds economic stage, but simply reminding you that it may not be fruitful to undermine America's.

I must say again it is very refreshing to read a post that is researched and strays from nonsense rhetoric.

[edit on 9-2-2006 by parisbishop]



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 01:51 AM
link   
I agree that China is already a Super Power in this World.

They have a history going back thousands of years of which they are very proud.

Tibet I think is an internal Chinese problem and should be left up to them to resolve.


The flashpoint could be Taiwan whom the US supports as an independant State and which the Chinese regard as part of China.

Economically they are on a roll.

I hope the West retain good relations with China because a War with them could well result in them winning purely based on the size of their polulation and Army.

The Gurkas come from Nepal and not Tibet if my memory serves me correct.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 06:29 AM
link   
well reading some replys i really can't understand why 'some' americans seem completly jealous on how china are progressing!!

ive also found from this site (and many other forums around the net) americans have this jealousy towards the brits aswell, which i don't understand.

yes america is the only global superpower at present but 10 years ago russia was there also, theres one thing you've got to understand its now the 21 century, and nations are getting richer and life is getting easyer.

china are tipped to be the next global superpower (and when a say superpower) it doesn't always mean in a military sence. If we are talking a military sence china would beat any country in a war right now.

but china has the fastest growing economy in the world, their fate as a global superpower is inevitable, are they ready for that 'superpower' status? who knows!! - but who's to say america are? they are not exactly the best country in handling/solving global issues!!

but as said, all countrys are getting richer and world poverty is SLOWLY becoming a thing of the past!! - so in 50/100 years time there might be a world with numerious ^so called^ global superpowers, with the favioutes being the current g8 countrys (US, UK, France, Russia, Canada, China, Japan etc).

but in the 21 century there will NEVER be another 'empire' again if a country starts invading other countrys (like they did in the past) it would be WW3 straight away and with todays strength of nuclear weapons and the atomic bomb, its a scary thought.



[edit on 15-2-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Agree with upstairs opinion.
3 Chinese engineers were killed by terrorist in pakistan today and when i looked the replies on a Chinese news site nearly 40% of Chinese thinks ben laden did that, another 40% think is american behind this, another 20% demand the government send troops out to protect Chinese investment overseas...
China and American's relation is uncertain so far, if it goes well everybody lives happy and no war happen. If anything goes wrong it will be an all out war Chinese and Americans both don't want to see.

What if China starts to establish military base around the world like U.S? It can soon over taken U.S's power in Asia considering China and most Asia countries has more deep relations traced to it's tang danysty.

For me, the result of how America and China get on with each other is half controlled by China, half controlled by U.S as well



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Actually my opinion of these "military bases" are that so the US can sorta conquer that country, except the people in the country think that the US is protecting them.
They are I guess, but with their junk.

I have a friend who's like this, he's an absolute war freak.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   
All the talk about China not being able to catch up to US militarily is really unpredictable. Many of you probably have never been to China, or truly understand how fast it's growing. Did China invent the elevator? or the PC or basically anything that runs on electricity? But look at the label on every item you own. It will most likely say MADE IN CHINA. Now the EU has just imposed measures against Chinese leather goods.

However, little do “made in italy” junkies know that approx three fourths of the leather shoe manufacturing plants in italy are owned by Chinese (In italy, they are buying up many factories and manufacturing process technologies). (many of these Chinese are from wenzhou province. They are the Jews of china.) What they do is they contract out Chinese workers and ship them to factories in italy. The big brands…like those you frequently see in Highend boutiques will place orders from these production channels. Some more prestigious brands may have exclusive contracts and long term production deals.

What they tell you is advertising and mass marketing propaganda. Capitalizing on the “Made in Italy” image. What is happening in the production lines is completely different from what you think. Just like when you buy Phillips, RCA, or most things that run by electricity (made from one oem manufacturer). It’s just the brand.


So my point is that the US lives in a capitalistic regime and to survive, it thrives on competition. China is able to provide that. The US just raised it's debt limit to $9 trillion. And plan to raise it more (do your research). We are in no position to be fighting a war as a nation. But too bad the country is controlled by a few elite power groups.

China, doesn't need to catch up. Have you heard of the technological leap? time gets shortened when you can just buy technology and experience from others who have toiled w/ development and research. Just like how the cellphone revolution impacted china. In a short number of years, now even farmers and villagers are able to make calls on cell phones. No need to go through the invetion of telephone lines.

China is growing way too fast for any prediction that it cannot reach a certain goal.

10 years ago there were 100 skyscrapers taller than 20 stories in shanghai, china. Now there are more than 4000. Twice the number of new york. With 1000 more by 2010.
In america it take 5 years just to build one building. Let's see how long it will take them to finish the twintowers site.

Don't be pessimistic about china's growth, accept it. Because it is reality. I've seen it with my own eyes.

[edit on 26-3-2006 by senupi]



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by poirot
The fact is that China IS a isolationist and defensive nation. Why the Admiral Zhang He that discovered the Americas BEFORE Columbus didn't colonized them? If the Chinese were aggressive like the Europeans, you Americans would be speaking Chinese!


[edit on 13-11-2004 by poirot]


This is not true. China fought as many, if not more wars than other civilizations. Among the strongest, the Han (you missed this one) fought many campaigns against the XiongNong (the Hun's?) empire to the north, finally drove their entire people off their lands (whom migrated to modern Hungary and funded the nation we know it today, as some historians believe), in the process they also conquered or made puppets out of minor nations in the region, the Empire only stopped expanding when logistics no longer allowed it and there seemed to be too little gains from taking deserts and nomad tribes. By this time, however, the farthest reach of the Chinese Han Empire almost reached that of Pathia (sp).

The Tang was also very much war like in its first hundred years or so, conquering what is now South Korea, it also fought tibetans, an independent state at that time, and very far into the north against a turkish people. The Tang only came to a peaceful kingdom after it had exhausted resources for all these war campaigns.

AFTER the Tang however, your argument became true. China was no longer interested in war to expand her borders, only to keep what she already has (Notice by this time China has already conquered ALL the good, rich lands in the region, the rest were probably not worth taking). The evidence of this development in the culture is very evident. Military generals and professional soliders, once honorable positions in society gradually became the lowest, Armies of late Tang and later periods were often led by civic government officials, traditional saying still in use to day such as 'A good man will not become a solider, good iron will not be forged into nails' also came form the late Tang Dynasty. Needless to say, the once mighty Han and Tang expedition armies that destroyed empires were soon no more.

I'm an artist, part of my interest is in traditional chinese art. Up until the early tang period, most of the chinese paintings were portraits of people, their daily affairs, and most importantly, the paintings were all full of energy and movements. Then during the course of the Tang landscape paintings started to develop and by the Song dyansty it was the dominant art form. Nature became the interest, people appeared rarely in them. It was like everyone was on pot, the dreamy landscape paintings gave me that feeling. This is, to me, another evidence of how the culture changed course. Perhaps the people all suddenly got tired of war, which they had for 4000 years continuously.

It's only ironic, though, that only after China found peace, it became weaker and finally conquered first by the Mongols (Jin Dyansty), then the Manchus (Qin Dynasty), and the colonization wars and japanese invasion of the modern times. Becoming a pacifist nation also slowed scientific developmen. China was advanced when it was militaristic, it became backward starting with the Song Dynasty.

This became pretty long, my point being, China has not ALWAYS being a defensive/peace loving nation like the current government and some people claim it to be. It has been a pacifist empire for the last thousand years until the CCP took over, but notice that 1000 years is only 1/5 of Chinese history. I understand why the goverment wants everyone to believe the Chinese has always been peace-loving, but it just isn't true if you learned history.

And being a Chinese myself, I certainly hope we won't go back to our peace loving ways so soon because, like communism, it's ideal but just won't work in the real world that we live in.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by taobo33
Agree with upstairs opinion.
3 Chinese engineers were killed by terrorist in pakistan today and when i looked the replies on a Chinese news site nearly 40% of Chinese thinks ben laden did that, another 40% think is american behind this, another 20% demand the government send troops out to protect Chinese investment overseas...


Maybe the Indians did it(maybe in cahoots with the Russians).It seems the chinese are oblivious of that possibility. There is much more to Asia than China and the US. Wake up and smell the coffee. The Bush Administration has.
Also the thought of a large of Chinese troops in Pakistan would be repulsive to many nations including Pakistan itself.


What if China starts to establish military base around the world like U.S? It can soon over taken U.S's power in Asia considering China and most Asia countries has more deep relations traced to it's tang danysty.


Not really, again there's much more to Asia than you describe.
You have South Asia, the Central Asian Republics(CARs) and ASEAN. Except for ASEAN, none of these regions have any dominant chinese influence.
Even ASEAN is a blend of polynesian, South Asian and oriental cultures.

About the bases bit: Again countries other than the US wouldnt want this to happen. India and the US wouldn't China to get a military foothold in ASEAN.
India wouldn't want this to happen in South Asia(although it IS happening to a certain low-intesity extent). India and Russia wouldn't want this to happen in the CARs. China's pretty much boxed in.



[edit on 21-4-2006 by Daedalus3]



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   
No, I don't see China being a Super Power, or number one.
The World needs America right now, with all the chaos going on,
face it, America is the only one that can keep everything stable.
But for how long? We'll see. Hopefully one day someone will
unite, or try to, all Nations on this Earth. The we can start to
focus on the biggest questions and head on into Space.
Ask yourself why are your here. I find it funny that one man
can decide the fate of the world. E.g. a world leader.


-Thanks
Stop talking about Tibet...




top topics



 
0
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join