Not to mention what Mao did on the Cultural Revolution, which was to virtually let jingoist punks to take over the country. It is the virtual equivalent of having the Bloods and the Crips take over the White House, and do whatever the please.

North Korea is more of a totalitarian dynasty. An authoritarian regime fits countries like Malaysia and Singapore. I’ve never seen a place that governs and restricts freedoms like Singapore—and the people there are proud of their Spartan system of strict discipline to boot.

Business likes freedom, but business also likes strictness and order. This is why business flourishes in strict countries like Singapore.

It’s hard to assign black and white on a topic that has so many greys. In the case of Malaysia, China, and Singapore, as well as S. Korea and Taiwan in the first three decades, is a case of what is called Pragmatic Authoritarianism, or even Neo-Confucianism. (Taiwan actually had a dynastic father to son power transfer, between Chiang Kai Sek to his son Chiang Ching Kuo. But CCK didn’t want leave a legacy of a dynasty, and brought the radical notion of democracy instead.) More or less, it’s cultural momentum that has its roots for centuries in Asian culture that colors the ideological -ism. In this case, an strong and strict authoritarian government supported by a wealthy mercantile class.

The kind of -ism, you see in Asia, won’t be duplicated anywhere because of their roots in culture. you won’t see a Singapore like regime in the Carribean, for example.

The truth is, Communism is a foreign idea for China. It is not part of its culture, and in the end, its own cultural inertia would overcome Communism like it is doing now. Eventually the “Communist” government will be taken over by a Singaporean style Confucianist authoritarian meritocracy.

Also in the case of Cuba, it’s one frying pan to another. If Cuba isn’t the Communist basketcase it is now, it would be another third world basketcase so deep in depth, the only thing it had more of would be drug lords growing cocaine. And the whole thing may be run by a generalissimo or military junta. If you are not a basketcase, you’re a banana republic.

Re: ..

Originally posted by Vortex
Tienamen square was not 20 years ago…how sad…a whole generation of bright Chinese students wiped out or left the country…

Oh puhleeze. The more you talk the more you look like an idiot.

That’s far from an entire generation of Chinese students. By the way, have you ever wondered where the Tianamem Square generation is now? They have become pretty anti-US, anti-Iraq War. They were the first to protest when the Chinese embassy got bombed in Kosovo. When once the VOA was a shining beacon, nowadays, very few Chinese even bother to listen to it. Nowadays, the kind of demonstrations the Chinese government didn’t particularly allow and tried to keep a lid on were anti-US, anti-war demonstrations, and there could have been plenty in most Chinese cities.

Originally posted by Sauron
Crobato

My my! Such juvenile language! However, it doesn’t advance your claim that the CIA had anything to do with the rise of the Ba ath party in Iraq. I thought my other comments about Iraq were quite reasonable.

As to the broader issue of US actions to thwart communist movements during the cold war… why would they have done otherwise? It was a means to an end. A quite satisfactory one given the nature of communism. Most of those issues have been sorted out as democratic government have evolved. Not such a bad result IMHO given the track record of communism.

I guess it’s easier to blame the US than to accept the truth about why those dictatorships existed in the first place.

So you yourself justify those governments. That pretty much suggests who provided tacit help in the military coups that led to such goverments.

Do these governments lead to democracies? No. They in fact, REPLACED democracies. The fact that some of these countries revert back to democracies has little to be thankful for the US. One big example is the Philippines, where Marcos fled to Hawaii, after he was toppled. The US certainly dragged its feet when the new democratic government in the Philippines tried to get back the money in US bank accounts that Marcos stole from the Philippine treasury (but the US was sure quick in closing accounts linked to drug cartels and terrorist organizations).

Those democratic governments that evolved from dictatorships say no thank you to the US. Case example was Chile. Look what happened to Allende just because the guy was as leftist as Bill Clinton.

Oh puhleeze. You can’t seem to shake the fact that the US aviation industry is headed towards a state of virtual non competition monopoly if trends continue.

So quit your whining. The Chinese industry has nothing to do with it.

yes, those UAVs in China, India and so on do fly, and it does not take much for them to do so. So having more UAV designs in the US does not impress. And those UCAVs you pointed out. There are more like tech demonstrators and it would nearly twenty years before they even get to service. So putting a model plane together and let it fly does not mean a thing.

You also mention variations and prototypes. Guess what? Many of them were made at a time when there are more companies around, like General Dynamics and McDonnell Douglas. And there are even a lot more back in the sixties.

If current trends go on in the decline of the civil air industry continue, Boeing may be next to go. Well they won’t go out completely, but the red ink will surely hurt. Check the newspaper will you? Read about how commercial airlines—Boeing’s biggest customers—-are failing.

And by the way, F-22 started well beyond 10 years ago.

Jumping up and down just over UAVs? You know how many UAVs India displayed the last show? Do you know how many UAVs the Chinese have shown (just about the same number)? Heck, even Pakistan has shown UAVs.
‘
The four fighter types in the US was designed at a time when there are a lot more aviation companies in the US today. In fact, Lockheed and Boeing didn’t design any of them.

F-14: Grumman
F-15: McDonnel Douglas
F-16: General Dynamics
F-18: Northrop

Boeing and LM only acquired these when the four companies above called it quits in the airplane business.

Let me add my experience about the third world.

There are a few things that kept them in massive poverty.

One of the things that hurt the most is Protectionism. Protectionism by that third world country, and protectionism in the developed countries where this third world country needs to sell its products too. Protectionism simply doesn;t work. It makes that country’s industry eventually uncompetitive and die out in the long run, although without protectionism, it may even die faster, but then there would have been a major incentive to improve.

Where developed countries like the West and Japan hurt the third world most is when they bar products.

And then there is corruption and the World Bank. Both actually work together. The IMF/World Bank lends money, corrupt officials pocket the money and place them in swiss bank accounts, and the poor people not only have to pay the loan, but also its interest. The interest alone can be as big as their yearly export. Then the IMF/WB imposes draconian measures that hurt the local economy more.

That’s not true in some cases. One example being pointed out is that there is only one manufacturer of rare earth magnets in the entire US, which is needed in the INS systems of weapons like JDAM and JSOW. Worst yet to find out that the umbrella corporation owning this factory turns out to be Chinese, and there was a bit of a commotion when the company (Magnaquench) was rumored to be closing due to high labor costs and shift their production base in China.

Another for example, was last October, during the massive port strike that paralyzed the entire West Coast. There was a ship, among others, that were carrying parts from Japan that were intended for Tomahawk cruise missiles. The ship cannot port and unload its cargo. Hence why Bush made a decree to end the port strike for national security reasons.

There was a time when the US aviation industry had choices. There was Grumman, Northrop, Lockheed, General Dynamics, North American, McDonnell Douglas and Boeing. These were the best years in creativity in the US aviation industry. Now, its been consolidated down to two firms. If the downturn in the travel industry continues (since 2001 there was not a single order of a Boeing 747), it’s only going to leave with only one. Boeing cannot survive without civilian plane orders, and so are a lot of defense contractors because they supply parts for these planes.

If you don’t have the civilian aircraft industry, you won’t have a military aviation industry for long. Many US defense contractors have to supplement their income with civilian sales or they will go under. (Or your prices for weapons and systems would rise dramatically). This is easy to see why the civil airplane industry has such high stakes that politicians are involved with the selling. For example, pressure on Taiwan to buy Boeing instead of Airbus.

Because of consolidation and the increasing cost of planes, less and less companies can afford it. The result would be inevitable monopoly, and therefore, in the end, there is no competition. Does not matter if you’re centrally planned or cmopletely free enterprise. There is no more competition. Then you will have government interference, in the form of antithrust, like what has been brought upon Microsoft, IBM and Intel.

It’s really no different around the world. I think SAAB has designed its last fighter, and if MiG didn’t get an order within the next few years, it will also keel.

I don’t take any satisfaction on 9/11 you ****ing *******.

And where have you been in the last two or three decades or so? The US wllingly supported countries with dictatorships (Marcos, Park Dae Jung, Suharto, Pinochet, Noriega) as a front against communist and leftist rebels. Remember Allende?

I guess the forum can see why the fate of the world should not be entrusted given the opinions of ****ing jingoist *******s like you.