2 million Japanese WMD still in China (1 Viewer)

[lawforever]

Do u really think democracy works and applies to every country?

Democracy isn't an applicable solution for china. Thousands of research paper has proved that socialism is relatively the best system china should take. The KEY reason of western ppl's biased criticisms (I m only talking about biased criticisms here) is that the china's economic status and difference of political systems, plus a bit western's arrogance.

A good resolution is that China should keep strong development in its economy and military force. That z how simple it is. The world only gives sympathy to strong and rich ones, no matter it z democracy or communism.

 

[supercharged]

Democracy isn't an applicable solution for china. Thousands of research paper has proved that socialism is relatively the best system china should take. The KEY reason of western ppl's biased criticisms (I m only talking about biased criticisms here) is that the china's economic status and difference of political systems, plus a bit western's arrogance.

A good resolution is that China should keep strong development in its economy and military force. That z how simple it is. The world only gives sympathy to strong and rich ones, no matter it z democracy or communism.

True that, just look at America's treatment of Iraq Vs North Korea. One gets bombed and invaded, the other agreements and aid. Only those who can defend themselves get respect and treated in a civilised manner.

 

[Calculon]

How very naive and out of touch with reality. Why not ask wahhabi islamists what their ideal society would look like?

Because their 'ideal' society does not give people what they want, it merely imposes a certain set of beliefs upon the people without their consent.

That quote from Lee Kwan Yew assumes that racial barriers will exist into perpetuity, when in reality if someone is brought up in a truly multicultural society they will in essence view all races around them as one and the same.

Freedom looks pretty on paper.
Then it gets scrunched up and thrown out the window..

Freedom gets scrunched up and thrown out the window when too much power is vested in a central body.

un huh its good to see ur so politically right, but do u really think that a democracy could really solve all of chinas problems?

Not immediately, but in the long term it would solve a fuckload more than the current government.

Democracy isn't an applicable solution for china. Thousands of research paper has proved that socialism is relatively the best system china should take. The KEY reason of western ppl's biased criticisms (I m only talking about biased criticisms here) is that the china's economic status and difference of political systems, plus a bit western's arrogance.

A good resolution is that China should keep strong development in its economy and military force. That z how simple it is. The world only gives sympathy to strong and rich ones, no matter it z democracy or communism.

And what does China need its military for right now? They have nukes, should they not be enough to defend the mainland? Or do they have interests in expanding their borders?

In general you can draw a direct link between the extent to which an economy is deregulated and its overall strength. If someone would give me specific reasons why China could never become a free society I'd like to hear them, so please post.

True that, just look at America's treatment of Iraq Vs North Korea. One gets bombed and invaded, the other agreements and aid. Only those who can defend themselves get respect and treated in a civilised manner.

America needs to take the most effective course of action to defend themselves in every situation. It was clear that diplomacy would not work with Saddam (remember that after the original Gulf War he said he had destroyed all chemical weapons, but refused to tell the UN where they were destroyed and let weapons inspectors near them), and that the risks of unilateral action were slight compared to those of inaction. The US is merely being pragmatic in its treatment. If you were the US, and you thought there was a good chance Saddam was developing WMD's, but knew that they could not reach America yet, and knew that there was a 99% chance that he would not respond to diplomatic negotiations, would you invade or sit on your arse and wait for him to come to you? The difference in this situation is that NK has a good chance to have already developed the launching systems necessary to nuke the US.

Any country which is seen as an ally and conforms reasonably to non-proliferation treaties will be treated in a diplomatic manner.

 

[supercharged]

That quote from Lee Kwan Yew assumes that racial barriers will exist into perpetuity, when in reality if someone is brought up in a truly multicultural society they will in essence view all races around them as one and the same.


And what does China need its military for right now? They have nukes, should they not be enough to defend the mainland? Or do they have interests in expanding their borders?

And how many years have the various groups lived in Singapore and Malaysia? Try for over 300 hundred years. They ain't gonna give up their identities, much like people in Northern Ireland ain't gonna start thinking they are 'Irish' instead of 'British,' and therefore a part of Republic of Ireland not UK despite the many generations they have lived there.

And hell yeah China needs better military, nukes aren't gonna do shit when America deploys its TMD system. The peaceful stalemate of MAD goes out the window when one side has a missile shield. And also the current airforce and navy is mostly comprised of vast numbers of crappy muesum pieces, so more modern equiptment is needed asap.

 

[Calculon]

And how many years have the various groups lived in Singapore and Malaysia? Try for over 300 hundred years. They ain't gonna give up their identities, much like people in Northern Ireland ain't gonna start thinking they are 'Irish' instead of 'British,' and therefore a part of Republic of Ireland not UK despite the many generations they have lived there.

And hell yeah China needs better military, nukes aren't gonna do shit when America deploys its TMD system. The peaceful stalemate of MAD goes out the window when one side has a missile shield. And also the current airforce and navy is mostly comprised of vast numbers of crappy muesum pieces, so more modern equiptment is needed asap.

That's because the Irish and English live on different islands.

 

[supercharged]

America needs to take the most effective course of action to defend themselves in every situation. It was clear that diplomacy would not work with Saddam (remember that after the original Gulf War he said he had destroyed all chemical weapons, but refused to tell the UN where they were destroyed and let weapons inspectors near them), and that the risks of unilateral action were slight compared to those of inaction. The US is merely being pragmatic in its treatment. If you were the US, and you thought there was a good chance Saddam was developing WMD's, but knew that they could not reach America yet, and knew that there was a 99% chance that he would not respond to diplomatic negotiations, would you invade or sit on your arse and wait for him to come to you? The difference in this situation is that NK has a good chance to have already developed the launching systems necessary to nuke the US.

Any country which is seen as an ally and conforms reasonably to non-proliferation treaties will be treated in a diplomatic manner.

Everyone know those WMD intelligence reports were 'sexed up' for public consumption before the war. The war was not because of WMD since there was little evidence that Saddam had an active program anyway. Even the UN inspections just before the war found nothing.

 

[supercharged]

That's because the Irish and English live on different islands.

Northern Ireland. Identities don't change so easily.

 

[Calculon]

Everyone know those WMD intelligence reports were 'sexed up' for public consumption before the war. The war was not because of WMD since there was little evidence that Saddam had an active program anyway. Even the UN inspections just before the war found nothing.

And I suppose WMD's are usually just left lying around waiting to be found? If Saddam had no active program it would have seemed LOGICAL to any outsider that he should show the UN where he destoryed his weapons from the first Gulf War, but he did not.
2 countries on the security council with veto power were bribed by Saddam. Both France and Russia were offered complete control of several rich oil fields on the condition they removed sanctions from Iraq. If the US were going into it for oil they would have done the same.

And Northern Ireland was split into groups based on political views, namely between those who wanted home rule, and those who wanted English rule. It would seem valid, therefore, that this division is acceptable because it just accents a trend that would already exist on the ballot paper.

 

[lawforever]

And what does China need its military for right now? They have nukes, should they not be enough to defend the mainland? Or do they have interests in expanding their borders?

In general you can draw a direct link between the extent to which an economy is deregulated and its overall strength. If someone would give me specific reasons why China could never become a free society I'd like to hear them, so please post.
.

1.Nuke is the power to defend. But this doesn't mean such power is going to be used even when there is some little conflict. According to your standard, Nuke is everything and why the hell US didn't nuke Afghani or Iraqi ?

2.Chinese have not much interest in expanding the borders. It only has interest to get back those places which should belong to it.

3. the existence of free society? If someone can prove to me that there is or will be a perfectly free society in any part of the world I d like to hear them.

4. I admit China's market is not as deregulated as lot of developed countries. But please look at how many years China has developed for. After cultural revolution til now there are only abt 40 years. No other country can have built nuclear bomb, basically solved the problem of starvation for the whole population, been ranked top 10 GDP countries in the world, got the population growth under control, achieved spacecraft mission two times etc etc, given the fact that 40 years ago, the country start developing from almost blank.

 

[lawforever]

And I suppose WMD's are usually just left lying around waiting to be found? If Saddam had no active program it would have seemed LOGICAL to any outsider that he should show the UN where he destoryed his weapons from the first Gulf War, but he did not.
2 countries on the security council with veto power were bribed by Saddam. Both France and Russia were offered complete control of several rich oil fields on the condition they removed sanctions from Iraq. If the US were going into it for oil they would have done the same..

Please wake up. If you go to US and ask Americans on the street why they bombed the Iraqi, they just simply pointed to the fuel tank on your car. Statement "There are WMDs in Iraq" has won the premium award of bullshit and I m surprised you are still not awake

 

[supercharged]

And I suppose WMD's are usually just left lying around waiting to be found? If Saddam had no active program it would have seemed LOGICAL to any outsider that he should show the UN where he destoryed his weapons from the first Gulf War, but he did not.
2 countries on the security council with veto power were bribed by Saddam. Both France and Russia were offered complete control of several rich oil fields on the condition they removed sanctions from Iraq. If the US were going into it for oil they would have done the same.

And Northern Ireland was split into groups based on political views, namely between those who wanted home rule, and those who wanted English rule. It would seem valid, therefore, that this division is acceptable because it just accents a trend that would already exist on the ballot paper.

No, it is NOT LOGICAL for Saddam to show that he had no WMD. why? Because how can he do that?

The only way would be to allow top to bottom weapons inspections of every inch of Iraq from his royal palaces, underground military bunkers to the dog house at the end of the road. And why would he be reluctant to do that? Because the UN inspection teams would inevitably be crewed by US/UK inspectors who would inspect every military site in Iraq and record its functions and locations and also any hidden safe houses or tunnels which Saddam might use to escape in the event of a war.

If he let full access of any part of Iraq to weapons inspectors including his little hidey holes, he would be finished either by CIA assasins or by military invasion because there would be no security secrets left in Iraq. He would be dead pretty soon if he did that.

And why is N Ireland split into two political camps? Because those 'locals' who were born in N Ireland and have lived their for generations, IDENTIFY themselves as British nationals, NOT as Irish despite living in Ireland for yonks.

Shit, they even parade annually into the Irish native or 'catholic' areas to 'celebrate' the historical British 'protestant' conquest of Ireland, and wave the union jack to the fury of the locals.

Any country which is seen as an ally and conforms reasonably to non-proliferation treaties will be treated in a diplomatic manner.

Non-proliferation treaty my arse, America objects neither to Israeli nor Indian nuclear activities despite their non-proliferation treaty absense.

America attacks other countries for international treaty non-compliance, yet it ignores these very same treaties when it suits American geo-politics.

"Washington also promised to help New Delhi -- a nuclear power which has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty -- be treated as a permanent exception at the 44-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), which bars nuclear cooperation with non-NPT members."

 

[breaking]

ogmz lyke jorje w bush is lyk gay he lied about iraqs weaponz of mass destructoin jus so he culd invade iraq i kno dis cause michael moore sed it wuz true da election wuz rigged n bush iz a liar da pplz who lyk him shuld watch farenheit 9/11 2 find out da real truth dat he is a phoney! he is lyk so dum i seen dis pic of him on da interweb n he wuz talkn on a fone upside down! n in anutha pic he wuz readin a book 2 a lil kid upside down 2! n also he hates blak ppl!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Calculon]

Please wake up. If you go to US and ask Americans on the street why they bombed the Iraqi, they just simply pointed to the fuel tank on your car. Statement "There are WMDs in Iraq" has won the premium award of bullshit and I m surprised you are still not awake

They could have gotten oil going directly to America if they had just lifted sanctions from Iraq. At the present stage any oil from Iraq still has to go through OPEC, and the US has spent huge amounts of money on the war, it is costing them money, not making them rich. It is not about oil, and if you think it is you've obviously been watching too much Michael Moore.

There are no WMD's in Iraq, but before the war people from both sides of US politics all thought there was, and it is not hard to see how they reached this conclusion.

1.Nuke is the power to defend. But this doesn't mean such power is going to be used even when there is some little conflict. According to your standard, Nuke is everything and why the hell US didn't nuke Afghani or Iraqi ?

Huh? That sentence made no sense.

2.Chinese have not much interest in expanding the borders. It only has interest to get back those places which should belong to it.

"Should belong to it". I love how you guys accuse the US of imperialism and then rationalise the Chinese invasion of nations whose people don't want to be part of China as taking back what is rightfully theirs.

3. the existence of free society? If someone can prove to me that there is or will be a perfectly free society in any part of the world I d like to hear them.

Not perfectly free, but free in the sense that all but the bare neccessities (hospitals, schools, emergency services, welfare) are free from government control, and in particular there are minimal restrictions placed on the population's civil liberties. Society in general is becoming more right-wing and therefore more economically free, you just have to look at the shifts of the major parties in Australia, Britain and presumably America to see that.

4. I admit China's market is not as deregulated as lot of developed countries. But please look at how many years China has developed for. After cultural revolution til now there are only abt 40 years. No other country can have built nuclear bomb, basically solved the problem of starvation for the whole population, been ranked top 10 GDP countries in the world, got the population growth under control, achieved spacecraft mission two times etc etc, given the fact that 40 years ago, the country start developing from almost blank.

The country developed from blank because the government seized control of everything in the typical gung-ho socialist fashion.

No, it is NOT LOGICAL for Saddam to show that he had no WMD. why? Because how can he do that?

He could show the sites where the WMD's from the Gulf War were destroyed.

The only way would be to allow top to bottom weapons inspections of every inch of Iraq from his royal palaces, underground military bunkers to the dog house at the end of the road. And why would he be reluctant to do that? Because the UN inspection teams would inevitably be crewed by US/UK inspectors who would inspect every military site in Iraq and record its functions and locations and also any hidden safe houses or tunnels which Saddam might use to escape in the event of a war.

If he let full access of any part of Iraq to weapons inspectors including his little hidey holes, he would be finished either by CIA assasins or by military invasion because there would be no security secrets left in Iraq. He would be dead pretty soon if he did that.

READ AS: There is no way of inspecting every inch of Iraq and so there is absolutely no way the UN weapons inspectors could be sure that he had no WMD's.
Thanks for reinforcing my argument.

And why is N Ireland split into two political camps? Because those 'locals' who were born in N Ireland and have lived their for generations, IDENTIFY themselves as British nationals, NOT as Irish despite living in Ireland for yonks.

Shit, they even parade annually into the Irish native or 'catholic' areas to 'celebrate' the historical British 'protestant' conquest of Ireland, and wave the union jack to the fury of the locals.

Northern Ireland is part of Great Britain. It is not part of the Republic of Ireland.

Non-proliferation treaty my arse, America objects neither to Israeli nor Indian nuclear activities despite their non-proliferation treaty absense.

America attacks other countries for international treaty non-compliance, yet it ignores these very same treaties when it suits American geo-politics.

American attacks nations when a treaty non-compliance is a direct threat to them, as the use of force is only legitimised under international law if it is in self defence. India is not hostile towards the US, and please tell me where you source your evidence for Israel having nukes.

 

[forceblade]

And if it was India in the same situation I would be saying the same thing. We only have limited resources, the world population needs thinning out, and one of the best places to start is China.

you are so going to burn in hell for that comment...

 

[lawforever]

There are no WMD's in Iraq, but before the war people from both sides of US politics all thought there was, and it is not hard to see how they reached this conclusion..

The cost is so high in order to reach this conclusion to any rational people

"Should belong to it". I love how you guys accuse the US of imperialism and then rationalise the Chinese invasion of nations whose people don't want to be part of China as taking back what is rightfully theirs...

speak after you do some reading about history. If a car was taken awary from his owner, of course it z right for the owner to claim it back.

Not perfectly free, but free in the sense that all but the bare neccessities (hospitals, schools, emergency services, welfare) are free from government control, and in particular there are minimal restrictions placed on the population's civil liberties. Society in general is becoming more right-wing and therefore more economically free, you just have to look at the shifts of the major parties in Australia, Britain and presumably America to see that.

These are totally different system. You realli need to do some research of why capitalism doesn't suit China. So plz keep in mind there is no comparability between china and australia/ britian etc

Plus the fact china is trying to privatise lota of domestic institutions such as hospitals / schools etc . you really need some new information.

The country developed from blank because the government seized control of everything in the typical gung-ho socialist fashion..

This is the reason why it was almost blank in 1960s. But this didn't negate my point in any sense that 40 years' achievement is commendable

American attacks nations when a treaty non-compliance is a direct threat to them, as the use of force is only legitimised under international law if it is in self defence. India is not hostile towards the US, and please tell me where you source your evidence for Israel having nukes.

international law means shit. It s just formality they have to bring out as excuses when they attack others. The real "international law" i already mentioned is that international parties only give respect to strong/rich countries.

 

[Calculon]

The cost is so high in order to reach this conclusion to any rational people

What?

speak after you do some reading about history. If a car was taken awary from his owner, of course it z right for the owner to claim it back.

Correct, but this is more a case of someone's child growing up and leaving home against their parents' wishes. The parent has no right to take the child back.

These are totally different system. You realli need to do some research of why capitalism doesn't suit China. So plz keep in mind there is no comparability between china and australia/ britian etc

I want to do this research. This is why I asked you for sources which you have not produced.

Plus the fact china is trying to privatise lota of domestic institutions such as hospitals / schools etc . you really need some new information.

You say capitalism doesn't suit China then commend them for privatising things. I don't get it.

This is the reason why it was almost blank in 1960s. But this didn't negate my point in any sense that 40 years' achievement is commendable

But it does prove the point that without communism China would be 100x better off.

international law means shit. It s just formality they have to bring out as excuses when they attack others. The real "international law" i already mentioned is that international parties only give respect to strong/rich countries.

If that's the case then why doesn't the US invade every weak/poor country on earth without needing an excuse?


And once again you've skimmed over 90% of my points without offering any response to them whatsoever.

 

[supercharged]

American attacks nations when a treaty non-compliance is a direct threat to them, as the use of force is only legitimised under international law if it is in self defence. India is not hostile towards the US, and please tell me where you source your evidence for Israel having nukes.

Right, so the international treaties only apply when America wants to, and not according to what the treaty itself says. Why bother even have a treaty at all? May as well say America is the one unilaterally forcing its will on nations not multilateral agreements.

And are you serious? ffs sakes go look it up on wiki or something, asking for evidence on Israel's nuke weapons is like asking for evidence that the world is round

 

[Calculon]

Right, so the international treaties only apply when America wants to, and not according to what the treaty itself says. Why bother even have a treaty at all? May as well say America is the one unilaterally forcing its will on nations not multilateral agreements.

And are you serious? ffs sakes go look it up on wiki or something, asking for evidence on Israel's nuke weapons is like asking for evidence that the world is round

The treaty allows for unilateral action in self defence. If a nation which is hostile to the US is stockpiling wmd's then such action would be in self defence. If there is 100% certain evidence then you won't mind finding it for me.

 

[supercharged]

Correct, but this is more a case of someone's child growing up and leaving home against their parents' wishes. The parent has no right to take the child back.

You say capitalism doesn't suit China then commend them for privatising things. I don't get it.

But it does prove the point that without communism China would be 100x better off.

If that's the case then why doesn't the US invade every weak/poor country on earth without needing an excuse?


And once again you've skimmed over 90% of my points without offering any response to them whatsoever.

No country allows seperation of its own territory which is why Thailand battles the seperatist south, same deal in the Philipines, and Indonesia fights Aceh. Also land or islands taken by force with unequal treaties such as (Diaoyutai) will eventually go back to the owner much like HK and Macau.

Who the fuck thinks capitalism doesn't suit China? Capitalism is great. Liberal democracy doesn't suit China. However I am in favour of parlimentary democracy such as the Singapore model.

Of course China is better off without communism, which why there is nothing 'communist' about China's current economic and social policies. The only thing 'communist' is the name of the government and this is due to historical reasons, not policy directions.

US does not invade every weak/poor country unless it stands to gain something from doing so. Also there is a limit on how many theatres of war it can fight at the same time. It can't go over the top otherwise they would need to bring out the draft, which would be unpopular with most voters.

 

[supercharged]

The treaty allows for unilateral action in self defence. If a nation which is hostile to the US is stockpiling wmd's then such action would be in self defence. If there is 100% certain evidence then you won't mind finding it for me.

I was referring to the NPT.