or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › China iPad 2 frenzy causes Apple Store scuffle in Beijing
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

China iPad 2 frenzy causes Apple Store scuffle in Beijing - Page 4

post #121 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

You will never win this argument with a true believer such as Peter. He will never accept that people must not be protected from ideas--that only through completely free and open discussion can truth be approached. This is where the U.S. and China really differ. Freedom of speech means nothing if only what the government or the majority deem acceptable is made available. Free speech means that even the most ugly, immoral, and reprehensible content are allowed. We are free to speak out against it, debate it, and let the marketplace of ideas decide what deserves our attention and respect, or our condemnation.

The notion that China will ipso facto reform with economic maturity is by no means assured. China is living proof that you don't need democracy in order for capitalism to flourish. Mussolini's definition of fascism was a society where government embraces corporations--that they sit down together to govern. In China, corporations act in concert with the one-party government if they want to exist. Call it oligarchy, call it fascism, but whatever you call it there is no reason why it can't continue to flourish socially and economically as long as enough people like Peter are willing to exchange their freedom of speech for it.

As for me, as long as China doesn't adopt that other aspect of fascism, expansionism, I'm okay with them living the way they want.

Talking about expansionism, it is the US that is expansionist.
The US didn't even exist 200 yrs ago.
Also, look at how many countries the US invaded, after the WWII.
post #122 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter236 View Post

Talking about expansionism, it is the US that is expansionist.
The US didn't even exist 200 yrs ago.
Also, look at how many countries the US invaded, after the WWII.

Have you no defense for anything else I said besides my last sentence? Oh well, let's deal with that small part then.

When I said expansionism I was referring to annexation by force--expanding ones borders. I will not defend every instance of U.S. military being used in foreign countries. Some of our "invasions" have been wrong in my opinion. Panama and Grenada and Iraq for instance. See what I did there? I actually criticized U.S. policy and government with no fear of some government censor turning me in for arrest. Let's see you do the same vis-a-vis China's actions in Korea or Tibet.

But you will notice that even in the instances I have noted that the U.S. got out as quickly as possible and didn't annex the countries and declare them part of the U.S.

If you are referring to Afghanistan, I think the U.S. had every right to defend itself from another 9/11 type attack launched by the terrorists that the government of that country was sheltering. We asked the Taliban to expel them, and they refused. If China had some idiots fly four of its commercial jetliners filled with civilians into some of its skyscrapers and defense ministry, I doubt China would be content to simply file a protest and walk away. Maybe 20 years ago, but not now.

The U.S. did go through an expansionist period in the 19th century, taking territory by force against Mexico, by purchase from France and Russia, to establish its current borders. But for over 100 years, every time the U.S. has fought a war, it did not result in our expanding our borders.

I hope that the Chinese will be as restrained as we have been in that regard in the modern era.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #123 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Have you no defense for anything else I said besides my last sentence? Oh well, let's deal with that small part then.

When I said expansionism I was referring to annexation by force--expanding ones borders. I will not defend every instance of U.S. military being used in foreign countries. Some of our "invasions" have been wrong in my opinion. Panama and Grenada and Iraq for instance. See what I did there? I actually criticized U.S. policy and government with no fear of some government censor turning me in for arrest. Let's see you do the same vis-a-vis China's actions in Korea or Tibet.

But you will notice that even in the instances I have noted that the U.S. got out as quickly as possible and didn't annex the countries and declare them part of the U.S.

If you are referring to Afghanistan, I think the U.S. had every right to defend itself from another 9/11 type attack launched by the terrorists that the government of that country was sheltering. We asked the Taliban to expel them, and they refused. If China had some idiots fly four of its commercial jetliners filled with civilians into some of its skyscrapers and defense ministry, I doubt China would be content to simply file a protest and walk away. Maybe 20 years ago, but not now.

The U.S. did go through an expansionist period in the 19th century, taking territory by force against Mexico, by purchase from France and Russia, to establish its current borders. But for over 100 years, every time the U.S. has fought a war, it did not result in our expanding our borders.

I hope that the Chinese will be as restrained as we have been in that regard in the modern era.

Like I said before, to summarize, the Chinese do not need US political propaganda crap, rumors and imperialistic ideals found on US websites.

China will carry out its reforms on its own terms, at its own pace.

As China's economy matures, more political reforms will come. Political reforms in China are necessary, but no US imperialism will be accepted.
Personally, I believe that a more mature economy and a more highly educated workforce, will greatly increase the chance of success of political reforms in any country.

As for Tibet, it joined China even before the European colonies were established on the native Indians lands in North America.

Looking back at history, it was the US that invaded the Korean peninsular.
post #124 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter236 View Post

As China's economy matures, more political reforms will come. Political reforms in China are necessary, but no US imperialism will be accepted.
Personally, I believe that a more mature economy and a more highly educated workforce, will greatly increase the chance of success of political reforms in any country.

. . .

Looking back at history, it was the US that invaded the Korean peninsular.

About the former, I surely hope you are right.

About the latter, both China and the United Nations (primarily U.S. forces) invaded the peninsula. It was a proxy war if we are being honest.

Also, could you please define what you mean by US Imperialism? This is a sincere question. It's one of those words that is hurled against us so often by people who don't like us that it has become virtually meaningless to me. [When one wishes to stereotype or do a cartoon of communists, they would yell "U.S. Imperialists" at us.] I would sincerely like to know what it means to you, in the name of mutual understanding. To us, Imperial means a country ruled by an emperor. That's why we, having never had an emperor, wonder at being called Imperialist by a country who had emperors for 99% of its existence.

Finally, it seems as though you are trying to have it both ways. On the one hand you say China has no need to have full access to all the information the world has to offer, and on the other hand seem to say that reforms will come someday to bring the very thing you say you don't need or want.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #125 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

words

If you haven't noticed already Mr Huber, it's a troll;
There is no point in arguing.

Regarding expansionism,
I venture to say that the PRC foreign policy is less intrusive in comparison to that of the US, albeit the reality is that the US plays a rather unique, necessary role in international politics.

To be specific, the US has repeatedly fiddled with the politics of many nations in order to form strategic alliances where there is a need for the US.
Take for example the CIA and Mujahideen, where our under-the-cover involvement ousted the Soviet presence in the area. Another example would be, rather obviously, Iraq, which holds by far the largest oil resources out of any country on the globe. We invaded for motives other than mere counterterrorism, and instead aimed for something we labeled "active defense", where the primary objective was to acquire a secured, large income of oil for the sake of national defense (and economy).

If you would look at a list of major petroleum exporting countries, you would start to see a trend. What are we doing in Libya today? Why? Why are we not doing that in Syria? Why are we maintaining an alliance with a government whose operatives (see ISI) have aided the activities of Kashmiri and Afghani terrorists, allegedly consulted the Mumbai attack terrorists, and perhaps even knew of the whereabouts of UBL?

Imperialist nations expanded borders and found colonies for the sake of acquiring resources and economic wealth. We were less interested in the well-being of the indigenous peoples we were colonizing, as compared to the benefits we reaped from slavery / oil / cheap labor / textiles / etc.
Today, NATO / ISAF / Team Amurica are executing operations throughout the world for motives relatively unbeknownst to us, but probably continued along the lines of what Bush Junior was thinking post-9/11 (see above paragraph "active defense"). We are less interested in the well-being of the indigenous peoples we are occupying, and focused on establishing democracies whose political orientation is favorable to our interests.

Bottom line? For the past few centuries we have been deploying our militaries overseas for power and profit. We have always been less concerned with the well-being of the locals.
(China does the same thing, but since they look different we like to poke fun at them.)

Imperialism may not be the proper word to express the current phenomenon, but it most certainly is not out of context.
post #126 of 127
Wait, did I just...NO WAY!

I'll just STFU
post #127 of 127
was jacky chan involved?
Don't judge me if you're not a judge
Reply
Don't judge me if you're not a judge
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › China iPad 2 frenzy causes Apple Store scuffle in Beijing