PDA

View Full Version : Why so easy on China?



SYRIANKID
03-20-2007, 01:38 AM
During the Korean War, China aided North Korea against American troops.

During the Vietnam war, China aided the Vietcong against American troops.

And yet the Cold War was against Russia, a country that hadn't done anything but help the U.S. up to that point. What's happening?

ArchAngel'73
03-20-2007, 02:08 AM
The cold war was against communism, not Russia. Previous to WW2 England and Russia were about to go at it before the Germans and Japanese acted up.

During the end of WW2 Stalin demanded many territories be placed under communust rule and his wishes were granted, screwing over millions of people.

China is a sleeping giant, capable of fielding more troops on the battlefield then the U.S has able bodied men, has possession of nuclear, bio, and chemical weapons, and so far hasn't invaded any one.
In the referance to Korea...
When the Chinese were about to cross the Yalu river, General Macarthur threatened to use tactical nuclear weapons on the Chinese troops. In response, the Chinese PM stated "So...we lose a million or two".

What country can afford to be hard on China with an underlying will like that?

DanielBell
03-20-2007, 02:11 AM
The cold war was against communism, not Russia. Previous to WW2 England and Russia were about to go at it before the Germans and Japanese acted up.

During the end of WW2 Stalin demanded many territories be placed under communust rule and his wishes were granted, screwing over millions of people.

China is a sleeping giant, capable of fielding more troops on the battlefield then the U.S has able bodied men, has possession of nuclear, bio, and chemical weapons, and so far hasn't invaded any one.
In the referance to Korea...
When the Chinese were about to cross the Yalu river, General Macarthur threatened to use tactical nuclear weapons on the Chinese troops. In response, the Chinese PM stated "So...we lose a million or two".

What country can afford to be hard on China with an underlying will like that?

You got a source for that? Sounds badass. I wanna read on it

SYRIANKID
03-20-2007, 02:12 AM
You got a source for that? Sounds badass. I wanna read on it

Well it's easy to be smooth like that when you're donating a million of other people's lives to the cause.

I don't think the Chinese soldiers got to hear that glib line.

DanielBell
03-20-2007, 02:16 AM
Well it's easy to be smooth like that when you're donating a million of other people's lives to the cause.

I don't think the Chinese soldiers got to hear that glib line.

Of course but still can you imagine what would have run through a top US generals mind when he heard that?

newz-
03-20-2007, 02:18 AM
trade + theyre too much a threat to put the spotlight on, get the bleeding heart public wanting change then the UN will have to do something

Alfz
03-20-2007, 02:18 AM
Of course but still can you imagine what would have run through a top US generals mind when he heard that?

pure pwnage.

SYRIANKID
03-20-2007, 02:21 AM
Of course but still can you imagine what would have run through a top US generals mind when he heard that?

"That guy would make an awesome neo-con"

If the U.S. needed to use nukes, it would have nuked them. I think the quote is more foolhardy than macho.

Weightaholic
03-20-2007, 02:29 AM
China is a sleeping giant, capable of fielding more troops on the battlefield then the U.S has able bodied men, has possession of nuclear, bio, and chemical weapons, and so far hasn't invaded any one.


Bingo.

JPunisher
03-20-2007, 02:31 AM
im guessing that we are easy on China because most of our overlooked necessities are made there like clothes, plastics, etc. its almost as if they have us by the balls already. So im thinking economic reasons along with the fear of everybody here in the western hemisphere speaking chinese as well. Just too many people to fight against. but thats my opinion

Alfz
03-20-2007, 02:33 AM
Bingo.

x2

NuggzTheNinja
03-20-2007, 02:35 AM
It's not the Chinese military that keeps our relationship relatively peaceful, it's trade. Plain and simple.

They need our money, and we need their cheap Walmart crap.

Red_Dragon
03-20-2007, 02:39 AM
During the Korean War, China aided North Korea against American troops.

During the Vietnam war, China aided the Vietcong against American troops.

And yet the Cold War was against Russia, a country that hadn't done anything but help the U.S. up to that point. What's happening?

That was 50 years ago.

SYRIANKID
03-20-2007, 02:39 AM
It's not the Chinese military that keeps our relationship relatively peaceful, it's trade. Plain and simple.

They need our money, and we need their cheap Walmart crap.

I don't know why people think China just makes the cheap Walmart crap. They literally make EVERYTHING.

Check the yarmulke on your head, it probably says "Made in China".

SYRIANKID
03-20-2007, 02:41 AM
That was 50 years ago.

That's what I was saying. The U.S. wasn't tough on China then, when it had reason to be. It certainly isn't now.

NuggzTheNinja
03-20-2007, 02:41 AM
I don't know why people think China just makes the cheap Walmart crap. They literally make EVERYTHING.

Check the yarmulke on your head, it probably says "Made in China".

Sure, but the reason we buy it is because it is cheap.

Red_Dragon
03-20-2007, 02:49 AM
That's what I was saying. The U.S. wasn't tough on China then, when it had reason to be. It certainly isn't now.

Because there was no strategic value, especially over a small peninsula like korea. Furthermore the white house didn't want to escalate the war against a nuclear superpower. Instead they knew relations between China and the Soviet Union was poor and they wanted to take advantage on that. A war against China would have solidified the bond between the SU and China. Thats the last thing they wanted. Also America had enough problems fighting the Vietcongs, they didn't want to make another enemy. Its like the US going to war agaisnt Iran. The US already has enough trouble dealing with Iraq it would be stupid or extremely ambitious to fight a war against Iran.

bubba g
03-20-2007, 02:50 AM
I don't know why people think China just makes the cheap Walmart crap. They literally make EVERYTHING.

Check the yarmulke on your head, it probably says "Made in China".


Because the quality of their products is substandard to most other countries products.

Sure they make everything, but thir goal is to make things cheap, and fast. THe quality of their products are not a high priority.

I have plenty of clothing items made in China, and the stitching comes apart in certain areas in no time.. especialy where the seam that is on the shoulder meets the neck band, or collar.

In contrast I have shirts that were made in Italy, and the USA that I have had, and worn for years without the same problems.

bubba g
03-20-2007, 02:53 AM
That's what I was saying. The U.S. wasn't tough on China then, when it had reason to be. It certainly isn't now.

It is because the US hates muslims, and there weren't enough of them in China...

Now if China had a high muslim population, you can bet we would have oppressed them, and been very tough on them.

SYRIANKID
03-20-2007, 03:08 AM
It is because the US hates muslims, and there weren't enough of them in China...

Now if China had a high muslim population, you can bet we would have oppressed them, and been very tough on them.

Wow, I never even thought of that but that was the right answer!

russell7165
03-20-2007, 03:11 AM
During the Korean War, China aided North Korea against American troops.

During the Vietnam war, China aided the Vietcong against American troops.

And yet the Cold War was against Russia, a country that hadn't done anything but help the U.S. up to that point. What's happening?

Why is China aiding North Korea wrong? Why is the USA's involvement in that war right? Just cause of your location? WTF man? The USA was involved in that war for it's own self gain..

Jatt_builder
03-20-2007, 03:11 AM
Demonization of Muslims, and bloating fanatics into the biggest threat for US---these are just current political fads. Politics, diplomacy and a little bit of arm-twisting using US's armed strength can solve the problems created by Bin Ladens. Mid-eastern countries can be provided with an opportunity to turn their societies into fair, equal, democratic societies, yet holding themselves true to Islam. Even is US administration continues its misguided policies as evidenced by Iraq, our mid-east problems won't remain a major threat within a decade(most likely, not definitely). My personal opinion is that terrorism inspired by mid-eastern politics, and religious terror based on fanatics' version of Islam--these two aren't a catastrophic threat to US power network. they are just small time bad boys, who have been turned into monsters due to political interests. On top of that your average bigot, racist in west has found a new beacon of hate. I think, within 10 years their hate will get directed against something else, Mexicans, maybe other brownies, or who knows Europeans.

China is most likely a long-term challenge, and the biggest challenge for US's future. Unless the world politics all of a sudden turns into a Hollywood drama about peace and love, China is going to be a major competition and therefore a threat to US in near future. If you really try to extrapolate the current trends, China will easily overtake US economically, and since its also run by humans, they would want a bigger share in political and military domination of the world too. I do hope there are planners in the higher echelons, who are right now thinking beyond AL-Qaida, abortion, gun control, immigration...
China will provide a challenge mirroring the 'Cold war' pretty soon, and steps taken now will either prevent that, or make it easy for US, when the real competition starts.

Jatt_builder
03-20-2007, 03:14 AM
All personal opinions btw. Its hard to act like an expert on human nature, and foreign policy in spite of Harvard degress. For people like you and me, internet, TV news are our major source of knowledge. But I do hope, those with experience and knowledge, and in positions of power here in US, have planned thigns for next 50 years, and have some sort of vision in place. I have seen neo-cons version of this vision, but I do hope there is something betetr, mroe practical in the offing.

BILAL_S
03-20-2007, 03:18 AM
It is because the US hates muslims, and there weren't enough of them in China...

Now if China had a high muslim population, you can bet we would have oppressed them, and been very tough on them.

There are 48,104,240 Muslims in China. Not a small # in my opinion.

http://www.islamicpopulation.com/china_muslim.html

SYRIANKID
03-20-2007, 03:19 AM
Why is China aiding North Korea wrong? Why is the USA's involvement in that war right? Just cause of your location? WTF man? The USA was involved in that war for it's own self gain..

I'm not saying either of them was right or wrong. I'm just saying that ordinarily you would get angry at the guy who's helping the enemy.

bubba g
03-20-2007, 03:44 AM
There are 48,104,240 Muslims in China. Not a small # in my opinion.

http://www.islamicpopulation.com/china_muslim.html


It is too small of a percentage of their population. 48 million is a drop in the bucket of the nearly 1.4 billion population. it's less than 5% of their population.

I mean if they had more muslims it would be like Iraq.. the US would go in there and say "look muslims, you are going to pick your own leaders, and have a say about how you live your lives instead of being told what to do by a dictator who runs your country like a mafia boss."

You know really oppress the **** out of them...

Not like that pussy Sadam who afforded them threir freedom. unless one of his sons wanted to rape them, of he thought they might have a different political view than him, or they were Shia muslim instead of sunni...

SYRIANKID
03-20-2007, 03:53 AM
It is too small of a percentage of their population. 48 million is a drop in the bucket of the nearly 1.4 billion population. it's less than 5% of their population.

I mean if they had more muslims it would be like Iraq.. the US would go in there and say "look muslims, you are going to pick your own leaders, and have a say about how you live your lives instead of being told what to do by a dictator who runs your country like a mafia boss."

You know really oppress the **** out of them...

Not like that pussy Sadam who afforded them threir freedom. unless one of his sons wanted to rape them, of he thought they might have a different political view than him, or they were Shia muslim instead of sunni...

More like "Choose your own leaders, but if you pick a practicing Muslim we're going to either kill you or boycott the government until we kill you"

bubba g
03-20-2007, 04:05 AM
More like "Choose your own leaders, but if you pick a practicing Muslim we're going to either kill you or boycott the government until we kill you"

Source? Are you saying none of the leadership in Iraq are practicing muslims?

Or are you saying if they don't follow your brand of extreemism, than they are not true muslims?

SYRIANKID
03-20-2007, 04:12 AM
Source? Are you saying none of the leadership in Iraq are practicing muslims?

Or are you saying if they don't follow your brand of extreemism, than they are not true muslims?

How exactly am I an extremist? What's my brand?

bubba g
03-20-2007, 04:22 AM
How exactly am I an extremist? What's my brand?

First you would have to answer, my question about the new Iraqi leadership being practicing muslims.

Why did you suggest that they are not practicing muslims?

Guardian
03-20-2007, 08:18 AM
China needs our dollars to buy oil (which is traded in dollars) and we need china for cheap low end good nobody here wants to slave away to make. This is in reality why we have a "presence" in the middle east and went to Iraq, to preserve the dominance of the dollar as the Petrodollar. If the world started trading in Euros then China would suddenly need a lot less of us and therefore start thinking of other avenues.

AJbuilder
03-20-2007, 08:31 AM
For clarification, China doesn't just manufacture material products. That's globalization 2.0. We're current stepping into globalization 3.0; a flattened world . Read Thomas Friedman's "The World is Flat". The idea that China makes shirts cheap, fast, and easy using laogai prisoners and sweatshops is outdated. They make shirts but that's not all. They are now a major player in the supply chain industry(Computer manufacture and design, Walmart ). They are starting to innovate themselves with inshoring, offshoring, and outsourcing to several Latin American countries and the EU.

It's not as simple as free trade that is preventing war between countries. Read up on the Dell-Conflict Theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell_Theory_of_Conflict_Prevention

bubba g
03-20-2007, 08:50 AM
China has a bubble economy, and we all know what happens to bubbles when they get too big.

Not to mention their huge environmental issues. The smog in LA is nothing compared to Hong Kong. Most of the people who are responsible for turning the Chinese economy around, and leaving China, because they don't want their children growing up in such a toxic environment.

tabloid
03-20-2007, 09:07 AM
The China issue is very complex. I do business w/ a Chinese company. On one hand you have a small poulation of very wealthy people. On the other you have a enormous poulation of poor oppressed people. There is no middle ground. It's very much a class system. If the Chinese ever backed off the dollar we would have no chose but to declare war on them. If the Chinese dumped all of the US Treasury bonds they own, it would send this country into ultra inflation, and in turn a great depression. As long as we overlook their human rights violation we will have no problem w/ china.

wanttobearnold
03-20-2007, 09:16 AM
The China issue is very complex. I do business w/ a Chinese company. On one hand you have a small poulation of very wealthy people. On the other you have a enormous poulation of poor oppressed people. There is no middle ground. It's very much a class system. If the Chinese ever backed off the dollar we would have no chose but to declare war on them. If the Chinese dumped all of the US Treasury bonds they own, it would send this country into ultra inflation, and in turn a great depression. As long as we overlook their human rights violation we will have no problem w/ china.

Though the US has been telling China to start getting rid of the amount of US dollars they are holding. Nobody wants as big of a trade deficit as the US has.

hiod
03-20-2007, 09:34 AM
You got a source for that? Sounds badass. I wanna read on it

This is the best I could find online:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=20423&p=1

http://library.thinkquest.org/17120/data/empires/communist/background/backg8.html

The Experiment
03-20-2007, 10:08 AM
You got a source for that? Sounds badass. I wanna read on it

Chairman Mao was eager for the United States to nuke China. When Eisenhower said they might be used, he was excited. He wanted a nuke program of his own to start launching at various targets. If the nuclear threat was great enough, the USSR would send materials and technicians to get the program running. Sure enough, the threat was considered high enough so one was built.

When doing the testing, the fuel needed to make all kinds of projects was made with alcohol from grain. The Great Leap Forward resulted in about 35 million deaths from famine. The reason was all these tests. One test used enough grain alcohol to feed one million people for an entire year.

His response was that half of China may very well have to die.

China has a large Muslim population but they keep that **** tightly controlled. Mao basically slaughtered any opposition. Same goes for Tibet.

Cuchulainn
03-20-2007, 10:58 AM
Why do we go so easy on England? I mean they only burnt down the Capital.

During the cold war we divided China and the USSR. After Stalin died Mao assumed he would be the figurehead of the Party. Khruschev had other thoughts. Khruschev reformed the soviet union and moved away from Stalinism and even began to denounce Stalin. Mao was deeply insulted by what he saw as trechery to Stalin. The USA noticed this and played the two off of each other.

EDC
03-20-2007, 11:15 AM
During the Korean War, China aided North Korea against American troops.

During the Vietnam war, China aided the Vietcong against American troops.

And yet the Cold War was against Russia, a country that hadn't done anything but help the U.S. up to that point. What's happening?

1. Expanding the war to China would have been a bad idea.

2. See number one.

3. The USSR didn't altrusitically help the US. The USSR got invaded and the US supplied them with much of the resources they needed to keep fighting. The USSR then seized half of Europe.

The Experiment
03-20-2007, 11:34 AM
Why do we go so easy on England? I mean they only burnt down the Capital.

During the cold war we divided China and the USSR. After Stalin died Mao assumed he would be the figurehead of the Party. Khruschev had other thoughts. Khruschev reformed the soviet union and moved away from Stalinism and even began to denounce Stalin. Mao was deeply insulted by what he saw as trechery to Stalin. The USA noticed this and played the two off of each other.

The USA and China didn't even utter a word to each other until 1971. Not anything on official terms.

The Sino-Soviet split had more to do with Mao's demands. Mao wanted hydrogen bombs, a massive navy, and wanted to rule the world. Khrushchev wanted to move away from agitation so he moved away from Mao's demands. Mao then supplied grain to any socialist nation that started to move away from the USSR. This only made things worse.

Mao didn't give a **** about Stalin. He only liked Stalin because Stalin was willing to give him whatever Mao wanted. With other leaders, he had less leverage.

The USA had nothing to do with this. Mao and Nixon turned out to be friends and visited Mao a second time in 1976, shortly before the Chairman's death.

EDC
03-20-2007, 11:39 AM
The USA and China didn't even utter a word to each other until 1971. Not anything on official terms.

The Sino-Soviet split had more to do with Mao's demands. Mao wanted hydrogen bombs, a massive navy, and wanted to rule the world. Khrushchev wanted to move away from agitation so he moved away from Mao's demands. Mao then supplied grain to any socialist nation that started to move away from the USSR. This only made things worse.

Mao didn't give a **** about Stalin. He only liked Stalin because Stalin was willing to give him whatever Mao wanted. With other leaders, he had less leverage.

The USA had nothing to do with this. Mao and Nixon turned out to be friends and visited Mao a second time in 1976, shortly before the Chairman's death.

Yeah the Soviets realized Mao was nuts. There were even secret talks between the US and USSR over cooperating to take out China's nuclear program.

Cosmonaut
03-20-2007, 11:45 AM
Previous to WW2 England and Russia were about to go at it before the Germans and Japanese acted up.

Plz give me the source for this.

To the op, too much business tied up in China these days, imagine if you went to war who controlls so much of Western corporate labor force.

Nukes are a big one as well. And yeah, they have not invaded anything, 'cept kill their own people offcourse.

Lloyd Braun
03-20-2007, 11:59 AM
When the Chinese were about to cross the Yalu river, General Macarthur threatened to use tactical nuclear weapons on the Chinese troops. In response, the Chinese PM stated "So...we lose a million or two".

What country can afford to be hard on China with an underlying will like that?

Lethal Weapon 4....

Uncle Benny: One dead Chinese? Billion more where they came from!

Riggs: Life's cheap eh?

Jatt_builder
03-20-2007, 03:20 PM
Never been to China, but from what I have seen and read about it, it seems to have come a long way from Mao's regime. It is a beautiful country. Over-population was their biggest problem. They have temporarily solved this problem, and have made huge modern cities out of nothing in a a decade or so. Just go to skyscraper.com, and search for threads related to china. But they are gonna need a permanent solution to keep and improve upon their levels of prosperity. If they don't openly bring in capitalism, they may have to find other solutions. Both options will provide a challenge to US domination. Chinese have every moral right to be the most dominant super-power, and US has every right to prevent that, and maintain their own hegemony.

AJbuilder
03-20-2007, 04:11 PM
The China issue is very complex. I do business w/ a Chinese company. On one hand you have a small poulation of very wealthy people. On the other you have a enormous poulation of poor oppressed people. There is no middle ground. It's very much a class system. If the Chinese ever backed off the dollar we would have no chose but to declare war on them. If the Chinese dumped all of the US Treasury bonds they own, it would send this country into ultra inflation, and in turn a great depression. As long as we overlook their human rights violation we will have no problem w/ china.

About half of the middle class are concentrated in the medium sized provinces like Donggoon, places that you've never heard of from the media. Those are the places that are starting to become the suburbs, similar to what we have here in the US. The media only reports middle classmen from larger cities like Shanghai, Beijing, and Shenzen. You never hear about the other half of the middle in southeastern China.

amt87
03-20-2007, 04:14 PM
There also as a country the US's largest single creditor.....

Jatt_builder
03-20-2007, 06:11 PM
The China issue is very complex. I do business w/ a Chinese company. On one hand you have a small poulation of very wealthy people. On the other you have a enormous poulation of poor oppressed people. There is no middle ground. It's very much a class system. If the Chinese ever backed off the dollar we would have no chose but to declare war on them. If the Chinese dumped all of the US Treasury bonds they own, it would send this country into ultra inflation, and in turn a great depression. As long as we overlook their human rights violation we will have no problem w/ china.

China's human rights violations are another of those political fads. They are basically a communist dictatorship, with no room for government opposition, but not too different form major powers today. Their prison system, custody deaths aren't as horrible as most of the world, except Europe. But this propaganda has to be kept for American interests. Some day this very propaganda will provide us the support we may need to deal militarily with Chinese ambitions. Chinese middle class is huge, and their living standards are pretty good too. Middle class is the real strength of China as well as India.

Jatt_builder
03-20-2007, 06:13 PM
Though I have doubts about the effectiveness of China's millions in an armed conflict. India has more then a billion, yet they use only few particular ethnicities for defense at their border with Pakistan. Pakistan has been able to fight India with a high morale, in spite of having 1/6th the population of India.

RIKTER
03-20-2007, 06:51 PM
Demonization of Muslims, and bloating fanatics into the biggest threat for US---these are just current political fads. Politics, diplomacy and a little bit of arm-twisting using US's armed strength can solve the problems created by Bin Ladens. Mid-eastern countries can be provided with an opportunity to turn their societies into fair, equal, democratic societies, yet holding themselves true to Islam. Even is US administration continues its misguided policies as evidenced by Iraq, our mid-east problems won't remain a major threat within a decade(most likely, not definitely). My personal opinion is that terrorism inspired by mid-eastern politics, and religious terror based on fanatics' version of Islam--these two aren't a catastrophic threat to US power network. they are just small time bad boys, who have been turned into monsters due to political interests. On top of that your average bigot, racist in west has found a new beacon of hate. I think, within 10 years their hate will get directed against something else, Mexicans, maybe other brownies, or who knows Europeans.

China is most likely a long-term challenge, and the biggest challenge for US's future. Unless the world politics all of a sudden turns into a Hollywood drama about peace and love, China is going to be a major competition and therefore a threat to US in near future. If you really try to extrapolate the current trends, China will easily overtake US economically, and since its also run by humans, they would want a bigger share in political and military domination of the world too. I do hope there are planners in the higher echelons, who are right now thinking beyond AL-Qaida, abortion, gun control, immigration...
China will provide a challenge mirroring the 'Cold war' pretty soon, and steps taken now will either prevent that, or make it easy for US, when the real competition starts.

This is pretty much spot on as well as your other posts in this thread. Make no mistakes about it, China is actively preparing for a future conflict with the U.S. The thing is, most Americans dont realise the extent of Chinas growing econimc/miliatry threat to America. China has the ability to wreak havoc on our economy without firing a single shot. Many in the west who bow down to the almighty $$$ believe that we have a co-dependent relationship with China, which is wrong IMO. Chinas goals are decades long, ours are as long as the next political cycle. As long as American corporations pen our foreign policy with China things will only get worse, they view Chinas huge "untapped" middel class as huge econimic boom for their profits, Chinas gov. view us as the ones standing in their way...and remember, if anything comes to fruition, we willingly supplied them with the capitol.

Edit: Watch Loe Dobbs on CNN he usually has good reporting on China...and believe it or not he still accuratly refers to them as communist China...*gasps*

devire1
03-21-2007, 08:10 AM
Demonization of Muslims, and bloating fanatics into the biggest threat for US---these are just current political fads. Politics, diplomacy and a little bit of arm-twisting using US's armed strength can solve the problems created by Bin Ladens. Mid-eastern countries can be provided with an opportunity to turn their societies into fair, equal, democratic societies, yet holding themselves true to Islam. Even is US administration continues its misguided policies as evidenced by Iraq, our mid-east problems won't remain a major threat within a decade(most likely, not definitely). My personal opinion is that terrorism inspired by mid-eastern politics, and religious terror based on fanatics' version of Islam--these two aren't a catastrophic threat to US power network. they are just small time bad boys, who have been turned into monsters due to political interests. On top of that your average bigot, racist in west has found a new beacon of hate. I think, within 10 years their hate will get directed against something else, Mexicans, maybe other brownies, or who knows Europeans.

China is most likely a long-term challenge, and the biggest challenge for US's future. Unless the world politics all of a sudden turns into a Hollywood drama about peace and love, China is going to be a major competition and therefore a threat to US in near future. If you really try to extrapolate the current trends, China will easily overtake US economically, and since its also run by humans, they would want a bigger share in political and military domination of the world too. I do hope there are planners in the higher echelons, who are right now thinking beyond AL-Qaida, abortion, gun control, immigration...
China will provide a challenge mirroring the 'Cold war' pretty soon, and steps taken now will either prevent that, or make it easy for US, when the real competition starts.

The idea that China will overtake the US economically is flawed. Unless more chinese start to make their own businesses the situation will stay largely the same, that is, US businesses make cheap goods in china, and sell them for much more in the US. With this current situation the US goverment benefits far more than the Chinese goverment because of sales tax. Right now the US spends more money on its military than the next top 10 countries combined. Also, we may depend on china for cheap good, but they depend on us to actually LIVE.

The Experiment
03-21-2007, 11:22 AM
The idea that China will overtake the US economically is flawed. Unless more chinese start to make their own businesses the situation will stay largely the same, that is, US businesses make cheap goods in china, and sell them for much more in the US. With this current situation the US goverment benefits far more than the Chinese goverment because of sales tax. Right now the US spends more money on its military than the next top 10 countries combined. Also, we may depend on china for cheap good, but they depend on us to actually LIVE.

I agree.

A lot of people think that economic growth for China will be linear or exponential. Its not a very stable foundation, as evidence with that stock market plunge that took place recently. Hu Jintao is trying to spread the wealth throughout China as a whole.

At the same time, he is trying to establish a stronger military. They are also taking big risks by investing their money in Africa. Risky gambles that could either pay off amazingly well or blow up in their faces. The loans that Chinese are handing out are high interest.

China has about 1000 problems to overcome with its infrastructure before it even becomes a superpower.

Jatt_builder
03-21-2007, 03:49 PM
The idea that China will overtake the US economically is flawed. Unless more chinese start to make their own businesses the situation will stay largely the same, that is, US businesses make cheap goods in china, and sell them for much more in the US. With this current situation the US goverment benefits far more than the Chinese goverment because of sales tax. Right now the US spends more money on its military than the next top 10 countries combined. Also, we may depend on china for cheap good, but they depend on us to actually LIVE.

I somewhat agree, maybe it was a hyperbole on my part. I should have used more clear wording. But to be a challenge to us, they don't need to overtake us, but get close enough. As long as our economy is dependent on them to a considerable extent, they are a challenge. And as the only super-power, even if they are to a threat, their being a challenge would suffice to provide a possibility of economic or military fights in future. World is a dynamic place though, who knows Chinese growth will peter out in couple of decades; who knows they will stabilize and be a friendly super-power; who knows they will get an unstable leadership, and start trouble in spite of being 100 times weaker then us; who knows they will get an intelligent, visionary leadership, and challenge us for the #1 spot. In the last two options they will be a big a challenge as cold war, maybe even more, though I do hope for the second option, and hope that US planners have a long vision for all of those.

MatthewM
03-21-2007, 04:49 PM
The USA and China didn't even utter a word to each other until 1971. Not anything on official terms.

The Sino-Soviet split had more to do with Mao's demands. Mao wanted hydrogen bombs, a massive navy, and wanted to rule the world. Khrushchev wanted to move away from agitation so he moved away from Mao's demands. Mao then supplied grain to any socialist nation that started to move away from the USSR. This only made things worse.

Mao didn't give a **** about Stalin. He only liked Stalin because Stalin was willing to give him whatever Mao wanted. With other leaders, he had less leverage.

The USA had nothing to do with this. Mao and Nixon turned out to be friends and visited Mao a second time in 1976, shortly before the Chairman's death.


This is pretty much correct. Nixon saw a chance to solidify the Sino-Soviet split by reopening relations and trade with China and giving them a chance to advance their economy.

It was actually quite forward thinking because, think about it, China's government is really Communist only in the governmental aspect. Its essentially a Western style economy. Give the people access to Western style commodities and lifestyle, and human rights and gov't reform will soon follow (the beginnings of which are stirring).

The Cold War was against the spread of communism not Russia itself, as said earlier, and what better a way to undermine the USSR than by taking away its largest ally (which Nixon effectively did).

Boxman
03-22-2007, 08:05 AM
Many in the west who bow down to the almighty $$$ believe that we have a co-dependent relationship with China, which is wrong IMO.

Trade is always going to be a "co-dependent" relationship, indeed that's the very definition of trade. What you said above, could be said about any trade relationship between countries.

We're "co-dependent" with Mexico, Malaysia, Taiwan, S. Korea, and countless other nations as well.

As for China's military threat... come now. Be realistic. We outspend them by a factor of 7 to 1. Although China gets more for their defense dollar, the difference is not that profound - there's huge waste and inefficiency in China's military budget just like ours.