Quote:
Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Jun 13 2005, 10:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Jun 13 2005, 10:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-HOZ@Jun 13 2005, 10:09 AM
FA: Which neighbour has China not invaded? Korea, Russia, Vietnam, India/Pakistan. Working on Taiwan now. Not sure what you are saying other than you hope a commie country wins# 
|
You'll have to explain that comment to me. Obviously you are misunderstanding my point.
All I said is that I prefer China to be contained in their little sphere of influence than becoming a global military power like the U.S. If they became more free and therefore, more influential, it doesn't mean they would be less aggressive. It DOES however mean that they would have a lot more resources to assert their power over others. I would much prefer that they do not explore U.S. style economic freedom and that they stay in a pseudo-dark age. With India, they at least have a history of being less aggressive.
If they became more powerful, it is quite likely that they would want to project power all over the globe to protect their interests; not just Vietnam, Taiwan, Korea, etc..., but everywhere like the U.S. does. Who wants that? Do we want Chinese bases in the Middle East, Africa, and South America? If shunning totalitarianism means becoming more powerful, then I hope they stay totalitarian.
What would you prefer:
An aggressive, communist, totalitarian China with limited ability to project its power, or an aggressive, capitalist, democratic China with limitless resources to project its power? Like I said, if they were to be free does not mean they would be more friendly.
On Tibet: Would they really want independence? I read in National Geographic that well of 50% of the population of Tibet are not even Tibetan anymore. They are people who moved from the east. [/b][/quote]
So what gives the U.S. the similar right?
That's why people hate Imperial America all over the world. It sounds so hypocritical for the U.S. to somehow know and dictate what is "BEST" for everyone and how THEY should be the global policers, enforcers, and protectors, while obviously serving their own interests. I trust Chinese leaders to be more rational than to abuse those powers, but if they start to expand, you know the U.S. will be there to oppose it.
But isn't it hateful and hypocritical to openly argue to keep people (the largest population on earth) in the dark, depriving them of the benefits of modernity and the chance to liberalize? I can't believe you are actually arguing it is better for people to suffer under totalitarianism if it keeps them in their corner of the world, versus being allowed to grow into a democracy which could empower them? Man...