Do you Think We Should Start A War with China?

Post Reply New Topic

Well, I am just throwing a scenario out there. I am not for war. But it is a "what if" exercise, see. A political game, like I use play in college. See, I don't think any country would ever use nuclear weapons unless they were used on them first. China does have a few nuclear bombs, but they would not be effective because we can knock most of them down and the few that did hit would not fundamentally change the direction of the war, and would result in 10 times as many weapons of equal or greater destruction on them. So it would not be like a useful tactic of China and would result in the world turning against them in greater numbers where they might have otherwise had world favor.


And I think the Chinese government will eventually fall because the only reason it stands and is tolerated is because it has been providing a growing economy. As the economy falls, so will fall the government.

I don't think all wars are unethical. But I think starting a war, if there is an alternative to it, would be. The question is, is it ethical to allow an oppressive evil communist dictatorship to continue to exist? Or are we ethically bound to do nothing?

I also don't think that Russia would get involved, it is more concerned with its falling market. As long as Russia was promised a piece of the economic pie in China when the dust settles, it would not risk its wealth and industry, it would just bark a lot, as would France and Sweden.

I think China commits great sins against their own people. Starving them, oppressing them, and forcing abortions, denying freedom or religion, and the freedom to vote. I think it is only a matter of short time people this government is toppled. Please watch. Ten years of less there will be major changes in China on a political level.

If you're so intent on massacring people for a cause Sudan or Zimbabwe would be a lot easier than China. Especially if you volunteer to run out there with a rifle and lead the pack.

Out of interest how much do you know of Einstein' views on wars and militarism, you do after all have him as your avatar

"And voting is a PRIVILEGE. Even in the states. It is not a right. federal convicts cannot vote, people who are in the process of naturalization, and several other situations, such as being of unsound mind. Repeat after me: voting is a privilege, not a right."

I am afraid you are incorrect. It is a constitutional right of US citizens to vote, provided they have not lost that right through a conviction of a felony. No, we don't let citizens of another country vote in this one because they are not members of the community. We only let members of a community vote on the rules of that community in which they belong.

Once you become a member of the group, you get to vote on the rules for the group. If your aren't a member of that group, a citizen, you don't get to decide the rules of the group you don't belong to. I vote on what's for dinner in my house, not my neighbors, and vice verse.

We don't let certain criminals vote because we don't want murderers and child rapists deciding tie votes for issues of morality in the community.

I believe if you are forced to live in a society, you should be allowed to vote and help decide your own fate.

No but we could start one good to see you back on PPR LKL

I say we do it but only if Lelouch Lamperouge is in charge of everything and everyone follows his orders

Ive said it before and I'll say it again(w*ker): TV was NOT invented in Idaho! BTW, you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Russia and its motivations. The failing market is hitting the US economy MUCH HARDER than theirs! Futhermore, you do realize that China has been upgrading an expanding its military for the EXACT reason that some dogf*cker like you would try to start WWIII by trying to attack them!!

Rights, by their nature are immutable. That is, they cannot be lost. Regardless of the wording of your constitution, it is a privilege granted.

"we only let members of a community"
"provided they have not lost that right"
"we dont let certain criminals"
"we dont want murderers and child rapists deciding"

Let let let let. One does not 'let' a right. It is granted by the act of citizenship and/or birth.

Let: v.tr. To give permission or opportunity to; allow

right: n. A freedom or power that is morally or legally due to a person

privilege: n. A benefit or advantage granted only to certain people

So you see, regardless of the wording of your constitution, voting is not a right, it a privilege.

The following people cannot vote. They have lost or not gained the privilege. Convicted felons and minors under the age of 21. And even many ex convicts. A very sizable portion of the population. Most, but not all.

Lets(take opportunity to) look at your 14th amendment.



And there you have it. people who commit crimes lose the "right" to vote. Note that it doesnt even say they lose their citizenship for rebelling. Citizenship is closer to a true right.

In fact, I dont know of any situation were an American was stripped of citizenship. It would cause no end of hell and chaos. Its possible that a naturalized citizen could have it revoked, in the case of fraud, but the nations of the world are loathe to open this pandoras box. Can you say 'refugee from America?'

Read what the washington post has to say on the matter. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Aug17.html

A good example of a privilege that is denied even to naturalized citizens is the ability to become president of the united states.

The fallout would potentially drift into Eastern Russia and the Russians DO have a vested interest in preventing the United States from gaining a firm military foothold in Asia and unlike China they have a massive land based arsenal that could potentially DESTROY our country if they chose to unleash it upon us. The US did not get involved covertly in the internal war between Moscow and Chechnya because that would be interpreted by the Kremlin as an indirect attack on their country. Russia is very eager to prove to the world that they are a powerful country and right now seem to be slightly MORE willing than China to militarily confront the US. After all, Putin is threatning to retarget Europe with Nuclear Missiles in response to the missile defense shield and might ALSO install missiles in Kamchatka aimed at a Japan.

The USA has been deeply involved in Afghanistan and Iraq for longer than it took to defeat the Germans in WWII. The Germans were highly technically equipped. Iraq and Afghanistan are, by comparison, primitive. Yet there is no end in clear sight in these current conflicts who have no nuclear armaments. Attacking China is, as has been remarked, and aside from the moral issues, totally insane.

Why do you say it is insane? You don't think the people of China would rise up against their oppressors? I think they would.

China could not use Nuclear weapons because it would be frowned upon by the world if they bombed innocent people in a US city for the US miitary protecting civilians in a public uprising against the Chinese government.

I think some people choose to be ignorant as to what the Chinese government is doing.

Whatever their concern about personal freedoms the Chinese have recently enjoyed a spectacular growth of wealth of the general population. If you are not aware of that you are completely unaware of world conditions. There is absolutely no indication of a general revolt.

When the Chinese government sent in troops to crush Tibet they did not give a rat's patootie about being frowned upon by the world. As Mao said, power comes from the barrel of a gun. The current government of China is a thugocracy which has enough sense to permit enough freedom for the Chinese people to prosper. Give the public bread (or let them produce enough bread) and they won't care about anyone's rights but their own.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 21 Feb 2009, 1:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If they were attack their use of Nuclear Weapons would be perfectly rational and justified and the rest of the worlds opinion would be irrelevant. The United States would do the SAME THING if our country were attacked with nuclear weapons, even if the attackers were terrorists.

Why do you say it is insane? You don't think the people of China would rise up against their oppressors? I think they would.

China could not use Nuclear weapons because it would be frowned upon by the world if they bombed innocent people in a US city for the US miitary protecting civilians in a public uprising against the Chinese government.

I think some people choose to be ignorant as to what the Chinese government is doing.

China wouldn't care what the rest of the world thought if they were attacked (would the US?), they would strike back with nuclear weapons at American cities - probably with broad popular domestic support. It would take only a few nuclear weapons reaching their target to take out the US (is US intelligence on Chinese nukes as good as on Saddam's imaginary WMDs?) - how many cities wiped off the face of the Earth could the country take? The size of the US arsenal is irrelevant; when JFK boasted to the then Soviet premier Khrushchev that the US could wipe out the Soviet Union 17 times but Moscow could only wipe out the US once, Khrushchev replied 'Once is quite enough.' The same applies here. Ten bombs - a tiny fraction of China's arsenal (even Pakistan has more than 10 bombs): DC gone, NYC gone, LA gone, Houston gone, Chicago gone, etc; immediate death toll in the tens of millions (and then there's all that nuclear fallout, a little famine-inducing nuclear winter for good measure, etc). According to the Pentagon, China already has the world's second largest total military spending - larger than Russia's and larger than any US ally - and remember China's growing technological sophistication. Think about that. Even North Korea's tiny nuclear arsenal has deterred serious US attempts at regime change.
Recent cases of US-backed regime change in many places have not been exactly gleaming successes of late (Afghanistan, Iraq - both infinitely weaker countries than China). What, exactly, makes you think the US even has the capacity to start a civil war in China?






Obviously you know nothing about the Third World. Where people's basic, immediate material needs (food, drinking water, some sort of shelter, clothes of some sorts) are met for just about everyone pretty much no matter what you do, as happens in the First World, then people start to worry about things other than bare necessities (such as voting). When people are poor (I mean in the Third World sense, not in the welfare mom sense), they don't care what kind of government is in place, they care about feeding themselves and their children. So if the economy is improving (as has been the case in China in recent years) these people are going to back the government, not rise against it in the name of the freedom to starve (China and India's economic booms have lifted more people out of poverty than anything else in the history of humanity). It is very easy for petulant First Worlders, from the safety and comfort of the West they were born into, scold Third Worlders for not going 'give me liberty or give me death' - personally I think the ones that do this do it to hide their own cowardice by calling on others to risk their lives for a cause and renounce earthly riches (such as enough food); alternatively, it's a case of 'Tragedy is when I have to pay a little more to fill my tank; comedy is when funny foreigners somewhere I couldn't find on a map die in horrible (but suitably folkloric) ways followed by all that wailing on tv.'



Rest assured that if the world saw the US reduce its debts that way, everybody would stop lending to the US (and any new Chinese government would still demand the US pay back the debt). Since the US is thoroughly addicted to foreign credit, that would bankrupt the country overnight, possibly with hyperinflation and Zimbabwe-style collapse. The reason the US imports things from China in the first place is that it's not cost effective or practical to produce them domestically - so you'd just import them from somewhere else, probably at a higher price. And of course, who would lend you the money to even wage the war? The Japanese, who owe even the underpants they're wearing? Britain, which is as solid as a Northern Rock? Quarreling with your banker when you desperately need credit is not generally regarded as a wise move.




The Chinese pollute because... they make the things you buy (they make them because they need to eat, your excuse is?). Since, per person the Chinese pollute a tiny fraction of what Americans do, we could do the same service to the environment by killing off a much, much smaller number of Americans. Since you are so concerned about the issue (point 4 hints at genocide as a solution, as a neat coup wouldn't kill many people - so much for helping the Chinese people in any case), are you volunteering to be of that number? You could even, as Sand suggests, head off to Zimbabwe to fight Mugabe. I thought not. Perhaps to help the environment you could give up central heating or driving or something - but that would be harder than calling for genocide (one in which only people you've never met, in a faraway country would die).





A country that supported at some point just about every right-wing dictatorship in the world since 1945, and that continues to support and arm, for example, the medieval, theocratic absolute monarchy of Saudi Arabia (how many lashings for driving a car while female?) is not the most credible of promoters of human rights. The Chinese at least tend to stay out of other people's business.