NationStates

Genivaria wrote:

Roski wrote:
One bomb and the bubble China has pops!

Thermonuclear War is not fun in real life.

That's a bit further than it should go.

Genivaria wrote:

Roski wrote:
One bomb and the bubble China has pops!

Thermonuclear War is not fun in real life.

It sure is in the game DEFCON. And WarGames, I love that movie.

Roski wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Thermonuclear War is not fun in real life.

That's a bit further than it should go.

One bomb and that's how far it WILL go.

The US controlled the Philippines but did not help turn them into a regional power before or after they left. Some say that island nations navy is a joke.

Roski wrote:

Northwest Slobovia wrote:I assume you mean "could" in the sense that "yes, it is hypothetically possible for the US to put soldiers in China by force" and not in the sense of "...and keep them their for any length of time, much less achieve any plausible military-political objective".

One bomb and the bubble China has pops!

a) probably not; it's not like the Chinese economy is that brittle.
b) one bomb and the US has a lot more problems on its hands than stroking off about mythical damage to China's economy
c) one bomb is not an invasion, it's an act of pique.

All of which are rather my point, which you seem to have missed.

Roski wrote:

Thafoo wrote:Don't do this to my country, thank you very much. We/they generally aren't fond of our/their fatigues, for somewhat obvious reasons.

Well.
We could just invade China.

The US is not in a position to invade, grow up and get real.

Genivaria wrote:

Roski wrote:That's a bit further than it should go.

One bomb and that's how far it WILL go.

China has too many people to fire nuclear missiles (Idk. Someone will use that excuse later)

Genivaria wrote:

Roski wrote:
One bomb and the bubble China has pops!

Thermonuclear War is not fun in real life.

Nah, the Chinese aren't stupid. Unless the US was fool enough to use nukes first (see: doesn't achieve any plausible military-political objective), the Chinese will find a more clever way to respond.

Oaledonia wrote:

Roski wrote:
Well.
We could just invade China.

The US is not in a position to invade, grow up and get real.

I have already said that it was a horrid idea and not to take it seriously.

And everyone did the opposite.

Genivaria wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
cause of democracy?

And Human Rights , they're kind of an important thing.

and the USA is such a good posterboard for both right?

I'm sure China wishes it had overseas facilities to torture its prisoners instead of domestic ones (like Guantanamo) because apparently that would put it on such higher moral ground...

and also wishes that it too also had a building of its own (where dozens of Senators and Congressmen can bicker, wheel and deal away and ''represent the people.'')

''Human rights'' and ''democracy'' are too often just a smoke screen for self-interested interventionism.

Its a ridiculous reason for trying to cause instability in the world in rallying countries against China (as you seem to be arguing).

I've visited China many many times and nothing's ever happened to me and I've never seen any human rights violations. I'm not saying they don't exist but the way some people talk about the country, its as if they think it is some kind of Stalinist police state.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Genivaria wrote:And Human Rights , they're kind of an important thing.

and the USA is such a good posterboard for both right?

I'm sure China wishes it had overseas facilities to torture its prisoners instead of domestic ones (like Guantanamo) because apparently that would put it on such higher moral ground...

and also wishes that it too also had a building of its own (where dozens of Senators and Congressmen can bicker, wheel and deal away and ''represent the people.'')

''Human rights'' and ''democracy'' are too often just a smoke screen for self-interested interventionism.

Its a ridiculous reason for trying to cause instability in the world in rallying countries against China (as you seem to be arguing).

I've visited China many many times and nothing's ever happened to me and I've never seen any human rights violations. I'm not saying they don't exist but the way some people talk about the country, its as if they think it is some kind of Stalinist police state.

Human rights exist somewhat here in the states though.

Roski wrote:

Oaledonia wrote:The US is not in a position to invade, grow up and get real.

I have already said that it was a horrid idea and not to take it seriously.

And everyone did the opposite.

Such generally happens when you don't make it utterly clear from the start that you're being facetious.

Thafoo wrote:

Roski wrote:
I have already said that it was a horrid idea and not to take it seriously.

And everyone did the opposite.

Such generally happens when you don't make it utterly clear from the start that you're being facetious.

I made it clear before a response was made to it.

Roski wrote:

Thafoo wrote:Such generally happens when you don't make it utterly clear from the start that you're being facetious.

I made it clear before a response was made to it.

Because people were busy writing replies when you had posted the response. It's best to make it at least somewhat clear from the get-go.

Roski wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
and the USA is such a good posterboard for both right?

I'm sure China wishes it had overseas facilities to torture its prisoners instead of domestic ones (like Guantanamo) because apparently that would put it on such higher moral ground...

and also wishes that it too also had a building of its own (where dozens of Senators and Congressmen can bicker, wheel and deal away and ''represent the people.'')

''Human rights'' and ''democracy'' are too often just a smoke screen for self-interested interventionism.

Its a ridiculous reason for trying to cause instability in the world in rallying countries against China (as you seem to be arguing).

I've visited China many many times and nothing's ever happened to me and I've never seen any human rights violations. I'm not saying they don't exist but the way some people talk about the country, its as if they think it is some kind of Stalinist police state.

Human rights exist somewhat here in the states though.

yeah but even in the US I am sure the government has ways to make you disappear if you cause too much trouble.

isn't it just the same in China? Except its easier for their government to do it because their legal system is less advanced and their system a bit less transparent?

Why is this line drawn where human rights ''exist'' in the US but not in China, when it is the case in both societies that most of the time your rights are respected unless in the extraordinary situation where you cause some kind of serious trouble against the government (ex terrorist suspicions in the US or anti-CPC sympathies in China)?

You think the NSA can't find a way to make you disappear if it decides your a serious threat?

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Genivaria wrote:And Human Rights , they're kind of an important thing.

and the USA is such a good posterboard for both right?

I'm sure China wishes it had overseas facilities to torture its prisoners instead of domestic ones (like Guantanamo) because apparently that would put it on such higher moral ground...

and also wishes that it too also had a building of its own (where dozens of Senators and Congressmen can bicker, wheel and deal away and ''represent the people.'')

''Human rights'' and ''democracy'' are too often just a smoke screen for self-interested interventionism.

Its a ridiculous reason for trying to cause instability in the world in rallying countries against China (as you seem to be arguing).

I've visited China many many times and nothing's ever happened to me and I've never seen any human rights violations. I'm not saying they don't exist but the way some people talk about the country, its as if they think it is some kind of Stalinist police state.

1. Compared to Russia and China? Yes, yes it is.
2. It says alot when the one torture we have causes a national scandal and the everyday torture there is considered no big deal.
3. .....Yeah? It's called a government building, I don't get the point you're trying to make here.
4. Irrelevant as noone is calling for intervention.
5. Anecdotal.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Roski wrote:
Human rights exist somewhat here in the states though.

yeah but even in the US I am sure the government has ways to make you disappear if you cause too much trouble.

isn't it just the same in China? Except its easier for their government to do it because their legal system is less advanced and their system a bit less transparent?

Why is this line drawn where human rights ''exist'' in the US but not in China, when it is the case in both societies that most of the time your rights are respected unless in the extraordinary situation where you cause some kind of serious trouble against the government (ex terrorist suspicions in the US or anti-CPC sympathies in China)?

No and if you think it is then you know very little about either country.
I love it when authoritarian apologists try and look at freer countires and see a few faults and say "SEE! SEE! THEY'RE JUST THE SAME!"

Genivaria wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
and the USA is such a good posterboard for both right?

I'm sure China wishes it had overseas facilities to torture its prisoners instead of domestic ones (like Guantanamo) because apparently that would put it on such higher moral ground...

and also wishes that it too also had a building of its own (where dozens of Senators and Congressmen can bicker, wheel and deal away and ''represent the people.'')

''Human rights'' and ''democracy'' are too often just a smoke screen for self-interested interventionism.

Its a ridiculous reason for trying to cause instability in the world in rallying countries against China (as you seem to be arguing).

I've visited China many many times and nothing's ever happened to me and I've never seen any human rights violations. I'm not saying they don't exist but the way some people talk about the country, its as if they think it is some kind of Stalinist police state.

1. Compared to Russia and China? Yes, yes it is.
2. It says alot when the one torture we have causes a national scandal and the everyday torture there is considered no big deal.
3. .....Yeah? It's called a government building, I don't get the point you're trying to make here.
4. Irrelevant as noone is calling for intervention.
5. Anecdotal.

1. Maybe but I think the difference is really overstated. For example, even the language that is casually thrown around. For example, saying human rights ''exist'' in the US but ''don't exist'' in China as opposed to saying they simply exist in varying degrees with less of it in China... Its just extremely misleading.

i thought you said somewhere you wanted the US to support an anti-China coalition of Asian states or something?

or was that someone else?

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Genivaria wrote:1. Compared to Russia and China? Yes, yes it is.
2. It says alot when the one torture we have causes a national scandal and the everyday torture there is considered no big deal.
3. .....Yeah? It's called a government building, I don't get the point you're trying to make here.
4. Irrelevant as noone is calling for intervention.
5. Anecdotal.

1. Maybe but I think the difference is really overstated. For example, even the language that is casually thrown around. For example, saying human rights ''exist'' in the US but ''don't exist'' in China as opposed to saying they simply exist in varying degrees with less of it in China... Its just extremely misleading.

i thought you said somewhere you wanted the US to support an anti-China coalition of Asian states or something?

or was that someone else?

Yes I did, and it's not the same thing as calling for an intervention.
Calling for local countries to band together to pressure a country that has been threatening them isn't the same as invading, it IS however very smart.

Imperial Nilfgaard wrote:Riots and Violence against Chinese citizens is spiraling in Vietnam. Reports of factories being burned and ethnic Chinese businessmen fleeing is the unfortunate byproduct of this situation.
20 people have been killed thus far in the past day.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/m ... in-vietnam

It is sad to see such hostility against the People's Republic of China. I feel like the West is purposefully trying to stoke tension in the region by pitting China's neighbors against Beijing in a thinly veiled containment policy.
"Pivot to Asia" as they like to call it.
Obama's Sino-phobic Asia tour last month as a good example of this policy.

Vietnam must immediately work to contain this nationalist outburst, or bad things may come.

China has tried numerous times in history to invade Vietnam, probably trying to either massacre the population or integrate it into the Han population (either way though, they failed). Now China is trying to demand water territory that either belongs to Vietnam or is international water. Is America trying to "contain" China? Yeah, I would say they are, but that's only because China is trying to expand, and the only way that is possible is to essentially invade, conquer, or annex places that did not belong to them before.

In other words, the US is rightfully trying to keep China from acting imperialistically and taking over land and water that don't belong to them. Also, Obama is desperately trying to mend the friction in Asia right now that is being caused by China. What is going on in Vietnam right now is a response to China trying to essentially invade the sovereign territory of Vietnam. Though I don't agree with the riots or attacks, this is Vietnam simply responding to China's own ultra-nationalistic outburst which (frighteningly) is being created by the government. It certainly isn't civilian ships that are bullying non-Chinese vessels all across the South China Sea.

China declares war on Vietnam, then the Soviet Union prepares to launch attack on China but China attacks first, Anyone get it?

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Roski wrote:
Human rights exist somewhat here in the states though.

yeah but even in the US I am sure the government has ways to make you disappear if you cause too much trouble.

Hardly. Go look up "habeas corpus". In fact, the Supreme Court ruled (in Boumediene v. Bush) that habeas applies to non-citizens as well: no part of the government of the US can simply detain people without cause.

I agree with Genivaria here: you apparently don't know much about either country.

Northwest Slobovia wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
yeah but even in the US I am sure the government has ways to make you disappear if you cause too much trouble.

Hardly. Go look up "habeas corpus". In fact, the Supreme Court ruled (in Boumediene v. Bush) that habeas applies to non-citizens as well: no part of the government of the US can simply detain people without cause.

I agree with Genivaria here: you apparently don't know much about either country.

Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus before, so I am sure others could.

Cyyro wrote:

Northwest Slobovia wrote:Hardly. Go look up "habeas corpus". In fact, the Supreme Court ruled (in Boumediene v. Bush) that habeas applies to non-citizens as well: no part of the government of the US can simply detain people without cause.

I agree with Genivaria here: you apparently don't know much about either country.

Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus before, so I am sure others could.

Still not even close to the same thing.

The Rhomaion wrote:I mean, it failed in every key objective.

In other words, it was defeated.