plawolfRE: How does the US counter the Iraqi WMD’s?
nice one ja, but i think it would be more ‘realistic’ if GW was in the basement of an airforce base, just like when the twin tawers were hit.
plawolfRE: China’s accelerating growth, implications?
sorry BC, but i’ll have to disagree with u a bit there.
even if germany had stopped af france, america would still have gotten involved after pearl. but if that was the case, it would have been much more likely that america only decleard war on japan and maybe send some troops into britain to ‘protect’ it.
there would not have been a D-day landing, the US would just occupy japan and call it quits. and the cold war might have been played with 3 parties instead of two, the outcome of which is very hard to say.
but i agree with you on the rest.
on the topic of china, i dont agree with what a few of u have said. china opening up to the world was as much a move to help build the ‘political ifastructure’ u were talking abt.
if you know china well, then u should now that coruption is one of our biggest problems, and even though the chinese lardership has more power then their western counterparts, they still find it difficult to institute change. so by opening up, it is hoped that western techniquics and standards will force change otherwise not possible. in other words, china is trying to use the regulating powers of the WTO to help it intitute reforms that will allow it to remain in power in the 21st century.
also, the logic behind ur ‘big brother, little brother’ example is not entirly solid. the world which we live in, the world u, america effectively created, is a place where every oginisation has to contiously grow in order to survive. so it is a little ironic that u would suggest that america has effectively stopped growing, and that every other country will too at some point in time.
ur point abt china’s growth being ‘natural’ is kind of right, but u also kind of missed the point that china has shown in the post few years in particlar, that its sustained growth is a little more then just ‘ a natural phnomanon’. just take the asia economic crisis of 96, the economies of s.korea, indinisia, philipins etc( coutries that also should grow by default) all serfered greatly, but china’s economy got through the whole thing reletively unscaved. that shows that china’s ‘economic mirical’ was as much a result of good policies as it was by ‘default’.
what most ppl miss when analysing china’s economy is the fact that china’s leaders stay in office for decades as oppose to years in the west.
if u know a bit abt economics, you should know that the biggest obstical to suatained economic growth in western countries is the reletively short ‘lifespan’ of governments. this means that pretty much all western governments are unwilling to invest in long term projects, which are vital to susatined growth, because they wont be there to reap the benefits in 10, 20 years time.
this means that china has an inheriant advantage over pretty much all it rivals in terms of economic planning and development. but that does not nesserily mean china will overtake the US. just like china having a long term planning advantage, america also has it inheritant advantages over the rest of the world, as do many other countries.
the state of the world economy in the not so distant future is by no means set, countries have to be able to fully untilise their specific advantages to try to get ahead. just because china and america has a reletivly bigger advanyage does not mean that they will be the most succesful two, full stop. both countries will also has to work hard to stay ahead of the competition, who knows, if the EU gets it act together, we may see a ‘tripolar’ economic world in 20, 30 years time. if the world hasnt been blown up by then that is.
plawolfRE: China’s accelerating growth, implications?
sorry BC, but i’ll have to disagree with u a bit there.
even if germany had stopped af france, america would still have gotten involved after pearl. but if that was the case, it would have been much more likely that america only decleard war on japan and maybe send some troops into britain to ‘protect’ it.
there would not have been a D-day landing, the US would just occupy japan and call it quits. and the cold war might have been played with 3 parties instead of two, the outcome of which is very hard to say.
but i agree with you on the rest.
on the topic of china, i dont agree with what a few of u have said. china opening up to the world was as much a move to help build the ‘political ifastructure’ u were talking abt.
if you know china well, then u should now that coruption is one of our biggest problems, and even though the chinese lardership has more power then their western counterparts, they still find it difficult to institute change. so by opening up, it is hoped that western techniquics and standards will force change otherwise not possible. in other words, china is trying to use the regulating powers of the WTO to help it intitute reforms that will allow it to remain in power in the 21st century.
also, the logic behind ur ‘big brother, little brother’ example is not entirly solid. the world which we live in, the world u, america effectively created, is a place where every oginisation has to contiously grow in order to survive. so it is a little ironic that u would suggest that america has effectively stopped growing, and that every other country will too at some point in time.
ur point abt china’s growth being ‘natural’ is kind of right, but u also kind of missed the point that china has shown in the post few years in particlar, that its sustained growth is a little more then just ‘ a natural phnomanon’. just take the asia economic crisis of 96, the economies of s.korea, indinisia, philipins etc( coutries that also should grow by default) all serfered greatly, but china’s economy got through the whole thing reletively unscaved. that shows that china’s ‘economic mirical’ was as much a result of good policies as it was by ‘default’.
what most ppl miss when analysing china’s economy is the fact that china’s leaders stay in office for decades as oppose to years in the west.
if u know a bit abt economics, you should know that the biggest obstical to suatained economic growth in western countries is the reletively short ‘lifespan’ of governments. this means that pretty much all western governments are unwilling to invest in long term projects, which are vital to susatined growth, because they wont be there to reap the benefits in 10, 20 years time.
this means that china has an inheriant advantage over pretty much all it rivals in terms of economic planning and development. but that does not nesserily mean china will overtake the US. just like china having a long term planning advantage, america also has it inheritant advantages over the rest of the world, as do many other countries.
the state of the world economy in the not so distant future is by no means set, countries have to be able to fully untilise their specific advantages to try to get ahead. just because china and america has a reletivly bigger advanyage does not mean that they will be the most succesful two, full stop. both countries will also has to work hard to stay ahead of the competition, who knows, if the EU gets it act together, we may see a ‘tripolar’ economic world in 20, 30 years time. if the world hasnt been blown up by then that is.
plawolfRE: Iraq; a question of oil.
sorry vortex, i ment to say chemical weapons. agent orange is a chemical weapons no matter how much the US denys it. we can fight abt this all day, so lets just leave it as that.
i do agree with the US droping the nuke on japan, they turely earned it. but the reason u gave is a very poor one. after all, japan only used conventional weapons on america. does that mean that iraq has the right to use a nuke against america if u drop a few bombs on bagdad?
as for the US promising a truelly democratic govement in iraq and afganistain. lol, whens the next elections going to take place in afgan? no one even hear of hamid carzy before the americans put him in power, he only had a hundred or so followers before the US came along, what made him so speciall except the fact that america could control him?
america promises alot of things, but u break so many promises that no one dare trust u anymore. u promised anti-castro cubains air support if they launched an attack, they were slaughtered because they got none; u promised iraqi kerds the same, and they too got crushed; u promised to help cut global greenouse gas emitions, but bush just passed bills that will greatly increase CO2 emitions. the list goes on and on.
im not judging the american ppl, all the americans i met left very good impressions, they are warm, kind, optmist and trust worthy. if GW is so hell bent on rageme change, then he should start with his own, he should change the way american ploitics works, and put forward a new set of rules that make the US more resoponsible to the world and itself, and trully represent the ppl for which that government stands for.
“16 UNSC resolutions, if Iraq can get away with it and so many people sympathize with Saddam, the US can get away with one non-resolution right? Afterall there was no UNSC resolution telling the US NOT to attack Iraq.”
well yes, but would that make u any better then iraq?
as for the UN resolution saying u cant attack iraq, well there is no specific resilution and there wont be one, but the idea that independent countries cant just attack each other is pretty much the founding ideal of the UN. countris can only use force if they are attacked and are defending themselves. who is bombing who here?
plawolfRE: Iraq; a question of oil.
sorry vortex, i ment to say chemical weapons. agent orange is a chemical weapons no matter how much the US denys it. we can fight abt this all day, so lets just leave it as that.
i do agree with the US droping the nuke on japan, they turely earned it. but the reason u gave is a very poor one. after all, japan only used conventional weapons on america. does that mean that iraq has the right to use a nuke against america if u drop a few bombs on bagdad?
as for the US promising a truelly democratic govement in iraq and afganistain. lol, whens the next elections going to take place in afgan? no one even hear of hamid carzy before the americans put him in power, he only had a hundred or so followers before the US came along, what made him so speciall except the fact that america could control him?
america promises alot of things, but u break so many promises that no one dare trust u anymore. u promised anti-castro cubains air support if they launched an attack, they were slaughtered because they got none; u promised iraqi kerds the same, and they too got crushed; u promised to help cut global greenouse gas emitions, but bush just passed bills that will greatly increase CO2 emitions. the list goes on and on.
im not judging the american ppl, all the americans i met left very good impressions, they are warm, kind, optmist and trust worthy. if GW is so hell bent on rageme change, then he should start with his own, he should change the way american ploitics works, and put forward a new set of rules that make the US more resoponsible to the world and itself, and trully represent the ppl for which that government stands for.
“16 UNSC resolutions, if Iraq can get away with it and so many people sympathize with Saddam, the US can get away with one non-resolution right? Afterall there was no UNSC resolution telling the US NOT to attack Iraq.”
well yes, but would that make u any better then iraq?
as for the UN resolution saying u cant attack iraq, well there is no specific resilution and there wont be one, but the idea that independent countries cant just attack each other is pretty much the founding ideal of the UN. countris can only use force if they are attacked and are defending themselves. who is bombing who here?
plawolfRE: UN security council
whats the matter cyrus? couldnt find any intellegent way of countering my last post so u just ignore it and change the subject? makes scence though, as u seem to be in denial abt quite a few other things.
another thing, im not a member of the communist party, and even if i were, i would only need to read the CCP handbook once,if there is such a thing. we are a few decades past Mao’s time, or did u block that out too. }>
keltic,
somehow i dont think that will be a very good idea, especially if the veto is to stay. its already hard enough to come up with proposals that is ok with all five members, if u throw in another dozen or so, the task will be practically impossible.
the only way the system u mentioned is to work is if the veto is abolished and a decomcaratic voting system is put in place instead. the UN will also need to have some serious military powers to be able to make its voice count. if that happens, then the UN will finally be a ture force for good in this world, instead of being just a showcase as it is now.
but we know thats not going to happen anytime soon. so i maintain my view that the UN is just a waste of time and money at the momnet, and in the forseeable future.
plawolfRE: UN security council
whats the matter cyrus? couldnt find any intellegent way of countering my last post so u just ignore it and change the subject? makes scence though, as u seem to be in denial abt quite a few other things.
another thing, im not a member of the communist party, and even if i were, i would only need to read the CCP handbook once,if there is such a thing. we are a few decades past Mao’s time, or did u block that out too. }>
keltic,
somehow i dont think that will be a very good idea, especially if the veto is to stay. its already hard enough to come up with proposals that is ok with all five members, if u throw in another dozen or so, the task will be practically impossible.
the only way the system u mentioned is to work is if the veto is abolished and a decomcaratic voting system is put in place instead. the UN will also need to have some serious military powers to be able to make its voice count. if that happens, then the UN will finally be a ture force for good in this world, instead of being just a showcase as it is now.
but we know thats not going to happen anytime soon. so i maintain my view that the UN is just a waste of time and money at the momnet, and in the forseeable future.
plawolfRE: Iraq; a question of oil.
>What further invasions? When has Iraq ever been invaded?
>Iraq under Saddam has instigated both Gulf Wars, the first
>by invading Iran, the second by invading Kuwait.
>Furthermore, Saddam has gased the Kurds, fired Scuds
>missiles at both Saudi Arabia and Israel, exports
>international terrorism and has killed thousands of his own
>citizens. This is a man that should be allowed to control
>nuclear weapons?
iraq started two wars, how many has the US started? the US used both nuclear and biological weapons, and u think the US is the only power that is responsible enough to have WMD?
saddam only cares abt one thing, that is to stay in power. he’s not going to invite certain death by being stupid enough to use his weapons aginst the US or it allies without provication.
and another thing, the US help saddam into power, u supported the taliban and bin ladern, CIA agents also help to tople the democratic govenment in chile and put in a por-US dectatorship in place instead. what hard evidence is there connecting saddam to terrism? from where im standing, the US has more to do with ‘terrism’ then iraq.
>
>But what you are suggesting is that one ingnores all
>the worlds’ problems. How is that better? Iraq is an
>immediate danger that should be dealt with as soon as
>possible. Other problems have to be solved too, but complete
>inactivity, a do-nothing policy, is not something that
>”anyone with brains” can seriously contemplate.
when did i say that? all im saying is that if ur going to use the ‘for the good of mankind’ banner, then u cant chose to sort out only the problem that is directly affeting u. u help sort out all the problems or u find another banner to use.
believe it or not, i do agree with u that the world would be a better place if saddam is gone. but i do NOT agree with the pitiful excuse the US has come up with to try and justify removing saddam by force, and the ture motives behind GWs willingness to attack iraq.
if the US can promise that once saddam is gone, they will install a turelly democratic govenment in iraq, that is not just a pupet of the US, then i would support military action. as would the world.
but thats just not going to happen in real life is it?
plawolfRE: Iraq; a question of oil.
>What further invasions? When has Iraq ever been invaded?
>Iraq under Saddam has instigated both Gulf Wars, the first
>by invading Iran, the second by invading Kuwait.
>Furthermore, Saddam has gased the Kurds, fired Scuds
>missiles at both Saudi Arabia and Israel, exports
>international terrorism and has killed thousands of his own
>citizens. This is a man that should be allowed to control
>nuclear weapons?
iraq started two wars, how many has the US started? the US used both nuclear and biological weapons, and u think the US is the only power that is responsible enough to have WMD?
saddam only cares abt one thing, that is to stay in power. he’s not going to invite certain death by being stupid enough to use his weapons aginst the US or it allies without provication.
and another thing, the US help saddam into power, u supported the taliban and bin ladern, CIA agents also help to tople the democratic govenment in chile and put in a por-US dectatorship in place instead. what hard evidence is there connecting saddam to terrism? from where im standing, the US has more to do with ‘terrism’ then iraq.
>
>But what you are suggesting is that one ingnores all
>the worlds’ problems. How is that better? Iraq is an
>immediate danger that should be dealt with as soon as
>possible. Other problems have to be solved too, but complete
>inactivity, a do-nothing policy, is not something that
>”anyone with brains” can seriously contemplate.
when did i say that? all im saying is that if ur going to use the ‘for the good of mankind’ banner, then u cant chose to sort out only the problem that is directly affeting u. u help sort out all the problems or u find another banner to use.
believe it or not, i do agree with u that the world would be a better place if saddam is gone. but i do NOT agree with the pitiful excuse the US has come up with to try and justify removing saddam by force, and the ture motives behind GWs willingness to attack iraq.
if the US can promise that once saddam is gone, they will install a turelly democratic govenment in iraq, that is not just a pupet of the US, then i would support military action. as would the world.
but thats just not going to happen in real life is it?
plawolfRE: Iraq; a question of oil.
and u say it not abt oil.
iraq should disarm cos BW cant sleep well at night thinking abt all that oil lying unused in iraq, and how hard it would be to get at it if saddam has a nuke.
let get real here, saddam is not seeking a nuke to fire it at the US the firts chance he gets, he only wants it as a nuclear deterent against futher invasions.
saddam is a power mad sh!thead, but would GW give a crap abt him if he was the leader of some poor african country? u cant just ignore the worlds problems in one place, and then wave the ‘for the good of mankind’ banner to achive ur own goals and expect everyone else to follow u and say, ‘god, what a brave and selfless country!’.
if the US really want to sort out the world’s problem for the good of the worlds ppl(not just the US ppl), then countries will que to follow u. but its never abt the good of the many is it? america should just drop the act, cos its not fooling anyone with brains.
plawolfRE: Iraq; a question of oil.
and u say it not abt oil.
iraq should disarm cos BW cant sleep well at night thinking abt all that oil lying unused in iraq, and how hard it would be to get at it if saddam has a nuke.
let get real here, saddam is not seeking a nuke to fire it at the US the firts chance he gets, he only wants it as a nuclear deterent against futher invasions.
saddam is a power mad sh!thead, but would GW give a crap abt him if he was the leader of some poor african country? u cant just ignore the worlds problems in one place, and then wave the ‘for the good of mankind’ banner to achive ur own goals and expect everyone else to follow u and say, ‘god, what a brave and selfless country!’.
if the US really want to sort out the world’s problem for the good of the worlds ppl(not just the US ppl), then countries will que to follow u. but its never abt the good of the many is it? america should just drop the act, cos its not fooling anyone with brains.
plawolfRE: god
boodly hell, are u even a yank cyrus? because even though the brits invented english, most americans use it to communicate, but u seem to be having a few problems with using english.
>”i would not be happy with u representing ‘my’ country”
>Neither would I, seeing how I’m American…NOT Chinese.
my original sentence was: “if i was an american, i would not be happy with u representing ‘my’ countery.”
if u still have problems understanding what i mean, go and ask ur daddy or sth, cos i dont have time to teach u english. }>
plawolfRE: god
boodly hell, are u even a yank cyrus? because even though the brits invented english, most americans use it to communicate, but u seem to be having a few problems with using english.
>”i would not be happy with u representing ‘my’ country”
>Neither would I, seeing how I’m American…NOT Chinese.
my original sentence was: “if i was an american, i would not be happy with u representing ‘my’ countery.”
if u still have problems understanding what i mean, go and ask ur daddy or sth, cos i dont have time to teach u english. }>
plawolfRE: Cyrus
there r ppl on this forum form all corners of the earth, and generally most have represented their respective countries very well, but u have not.
please remeber that when u speak on this forum, u r not just represneting urself, but also ur country. it may not be a fair or acurate system, but actions of members do, to some degree represent their countries as a whole. now if i was an american, i would not be happy with u representing ‘my’ country.
now if u disagree with someone over sth, fair enough, thats y there is a forum. but u talk to them and use facts, not mock them.
plawolfRE: Cyrus
there r ppl on this forum form all corners of the earth, and generally most have represented their respective countries very well, but u have not.
please remeber that when u speak on this forum, u r not just represneting urself, but also ur country. it may not be a fair or acurate system, but actions of members do, to some degree represent their countries as a whole. now if i was an american, i would not be happy with u representing ‘my’ country.
now if u disagree with someone over sth, fair enough, thats y there is a forum. but u talk to them and use facts, not mock them.
Sign In
