What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

If China was the world's lone superpower (1 Viewer)

If China was the world's lone superpower...

  • the world would be better of

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • the world would be worse off

    Votes: 10 90.9%
  • the world would be about the same

    Votes: 1 9.1%

  • Total voters
    11
No we are not charge of those things but our goverment does not have the history of abuse that China does.
Our government might not be like China, but it's not like we have a sparkling record.
Compared to China it is virtually spotless.During the last revolution in China soldier would enter a home and if they found any books or writing material everyone in the house was killed. This was done to create a population devoid of any intellectuals making them easier to control and reeducate.

While our American revolution while far from being bloodless the killing of civilians was very limited comparatively.
Native Americans down?
The Chinese have a history of slaughtering people they disagree with.The Americans basically exterminated the native americans.

The English had their part to play in wiping out the native americans. They brutally crushed scottish culture after the uprising over Bonnie Prince Charlie.

So I agree there are similarities there.

It seems like most world powers have these sorts of histories. The question is, how does that world power choose to rule once they arise?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No we are not charge of those things but our goverment does not have the history of abuse that China does.
Our government might not be like China, but it's not like we have a sparkling record.
Compared to China it is virtually spotless.During the last revolution in China soldier would enter a home and if they found any books or writing material everyone in the house was killed. This was done to create a population devoid of any intellectuals making them easier to control and reeducate.

While our American revolution while far from being bloodless the killing of civilians was very limited comparatively.
Native Americans down?
The Chinese have a history of slaughtering people they disagree with.The Americans basically exterminated the native americans.

The English had their part to play in wiping out the native americans. They brutally crushed scottish culture after the uprising over Bonnie Prince Charlie.

So I agree there are similarities there.

It seems like most world powers have these sorts of histories. The question is, how does that world power choose to rule once they arise?
Being a superpower does not mean you get to rules the world.Just because you can kick the ### of any other country does not mean you could kick all their asses at once.

 
The difference between the U.S. and China in that role? When the U.S. starts a war, it wants to get out of the country as soon as possible. China would start a war and occupy that country either outright or setting up a puppet government. For historical reference see the Soviet dominance over the eastern bloc countries and China's similiar desire if not actual ability to do so in Asia.
:confused: Central America down?
There is a difference between puppet governments vs. setting up and supporting friendly governments. Not a huge difference but there is a difference. I have not been a fan of the acts of the U.S. in South America, Africa, and Asia in tearing down and setting up new governments. I think a lot of this was an evil that seemingly had to be done when faced with the Soviet threat. I think now we should be able to use positive influence diplomatically on most governments to get what we want and for those we seemingly can not (Venezala and Iran come to mind) we should be able to isolate them enough to get mostly what we need out of them. Iran may be a whole different ball of wax. Anyways, touche, however I do not think you won match on that.
"setting up and supporting friendly governments" <> puppet gov't :confused: you can't "set up" another gov't and claim to be a "democracy". at least not in the way the US has done it... asassination ("unofficially") and vote-rigging are not exactly OK.
Never said anything about 'democracy'. The difference is that historically the U.S. has done some dirty work to either get rid of or put in a new government that was more slanted to U.S. concerns. However, these governments, although more apt to take ques from Washington did not get their orders from Washington. Historically look at the Viche French government during WWII or the Eastern Bloc countries of the Cold War. These governments were truly puppet governments of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. For contrast to see a 'friendly government' look at Fascist Italy and China. These were friendly governments that took aid and support from their benefactor countries but were not puppets. Hopefully that exemplifies the difference.
 
No we are not charge of those things but our goverment does not have the history of abuse that China does.
Our government might not be like China, but it's not like we have a sparkling record.
Compared to China it is virtually spotless.During the last revolution in China soldier would enter a home and if they found any books or writing material everyone in the house was killed. This was done to create a population devoid of any intellectuals making them easier to control and reeducate.

While our American revolution while far from being bloodless the killing of civilians was very limited comparatively.
Native Americans down?
The Chinese have a history of slaughtering people they disagree with.The Americans basically exterminated the native americans.

The English had their part to play in wiping out the native americans. They brutally crushed scottish culture after the uprising over Bonnie Prince Charlie.

So I agree there are similarities there.

It seems like most world powers have these sorts of histories. The question is, how does that world power choose to rule once they arise?
Being a superpower does not mean you get to rules the world.Just because you can kick the ### of any other country does not mean you could kick all their asses at once.
I disagree to an extent.The United States is a benevolent world power.

We don't go around wiping out cities and then salting the fields so no civilization can ever arise there again like Rome did to Carthage. We don't march people into gas chambers like the Nazis did. But we, as the lone world power, very much dictate a lot of policy.

That does not mean America (or any future world power) couldn't do it if it wanted to. In fact, as technology becomes more advanced, its going to get easier to cause massive destruction and wipe out civilizations.

 
The thing to me is that any change in world powers is the unknown. We don't know if China would become a benevolent world power, or if would become something like the nazis. Its a roll of the dice.

 
Militarily speaking they are a full generation behind us. Our good buddies the Russians, NK's and a few other assorted allies are trying to change that though.

They have no blue water navy or the ability to significantly project force but they are coming on strong. They would have already made a play for Taiwan if they in any way thought they could get away with it.  They just know we would swat their entire contingent of Migs and Tupolevs out of the air in the first week and their crappy navy would be sitting at the bottom of the ocean very rapidly.

They are biding their time I guarantee it!!
Since 2000 they have updated their blue water fleet dramatically with increased amphibious capability(something like double/triple capacity) and using technology stolen while Clinton in power they have developed a fairly decent Aegis like system for their navy.
Doubling their amphib capability doesnt enable them to project power globally. It makes it easier for them to layeth the smack on Taiwan but does nothing except improve their capabilities regionally. A few upgraded diesel-electric subs and some cast off tubs from the Russkies doesnt make them a blue water navy at all. Yes they have upgraded and yes they are better. Until they have squadrons of tankers that could drag their squadrons of modern fighters and bombers across oceans to targets half a world way they are a regional threat. Extremely dangerous but regional. Until they can shadow all of our carrier battlegroups with an obscenely quiet hunter killer sub or battle group of their own they are a regional power.Notice im simply talking conventional forces here. If we start talking nukes we need to start a whole different thread.

Recent history should demonstrate that going toe to toe with us conventionally and technologically is only going to get you bloodied.

We are built for a scrap like that. Undermining/battling us Economically is the best way to go!! Besides why would they want to start an anti-Chinese backlash with their best market.

 
The difference between the U.S. and China in that role? When the U.S. starts a war, it wants to get out of the country as soon as possible. China would start a war and occupy that country either outright or setting up a puppet government. For historical reference see the Soviet dominance over the eastern bloc countries and China's similiar desire if not actual ability to do so in Asia.
Did not China once invade Korea and then withdraw? Did they not once do the same thing to India? I don't think China is interested in occupation, but that doesn't necessarily mean the world would be better off with China as the lone superpower.With great power comes great influenece (even for Bush's America). Would you rather that influenece be weilded by a less than perfect freedom-loving Republic, or by a totalitarianism regime?

Worse off.

 
The world may or may not be better off, it's really hard to say. There would be a positive or negative effect on each country, which would have to be quantified in some way. Obviously us Americans would be worse off, probably in a big way. Why?

We're assuming here that some kind of monopoly or event that not only makes China the most powerful country, but the only world power. That would have to be either some crazy technology that obsoletes our military, or they end up controlling the majority of the world's oil production, the latter obviously being far more likely. If they control the oil, the US as we know it is toast. Once oil becomes more scarce, it sucks equally for all countries not vying for top-dog status. Thus, I stick by what I said about it being hard to say whether the world would be better off with China as the lone superpower. Suck for us? Yes. Suck for a few other countries? Yes. But it would be good for other countries too.

 
The world may or may not be better off, it's really hard to say. There would be a positive or negative effect on each country, which would have to be quantified in some way. Obviously us Americans would be worse off, probably in a big way. Why?

We're assuming here that some kind of monopoly or event that not only makes China the most powerful country, but the only world power. That would have to be either some crazy technology that obsoletes our military, or they end up controlling the majority of the world's oil production, the latter obviously being far more likely. If they control the oil, the US as we know it is toast. Once oil becomes more scarce, it sucks equally for all countries not vying for top-dog status. Thus, I stick by what I said about it being hard to say whether the world would be better off with China as the lone superpower. Suck for us? Yes. Suck for a few other countries? Yes. But it would be good for other countries too.
Name three and give reasons.
 
For those who think the world would be a lot different, what in particular do you think would change?
Different <> Better.You would have concentration camps set up around the world to control the population. Censorship would be everywhere, the internet might not exist at all or maybe in some basterized form. The idea for personal rights would not be tolorated by the state. We would all be working 12 hour days barely making enough money to feed ourselves. State run schools would be moulding our youth to value the state over family, friends, and even themselves.

Read 1984 and you get the idea or Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead also.
What makes you think China would do that stuff to other countries?
They do it to their own people. What if they were in charge of the WORLD'S people or had the opportunity to control the world's people?
As the lone superpower are we in charge of those things?
No. We don't, but you see, communist governments have this need to spread communism. Read the Communist Manifesto.The US is a democracy and hasn't expanded in over 100 years. Democracies don't take over other countries. Communist/totalitarian governments do.

See Soviet Union circa 1948 for evidence.

 
1. We're a superpower but we're not in charge of the world.

2. There is MUCH capitalism in China.

3. Dog is delicious. It's also expensive - they don't sneak it into the meal.

4. Taiwan down?

5. Nukes, Space program, auto industry, financial markets rising.

 
Democracies don't take over other countries.
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
What's so funny?Unless you are talking about democracies in name only like the Soviet "Republic". When did the US last occupy a country for the sole purpose of imposing it's will on it forever or until we collapse? When did England last do it? France? Germany? Any democracy. It is said that democracies don't fight with other democracies. I believe that's true.

Sure, it was done before WWII, but the old era of imperialism is clearly over. Hasn't happened in, at least, half a century.

 
America most certainly impresses its will on other nations. That in itself isn't a bad thing. What is bad is the type of will that gets impressed.

America set up modern day europe. It would not exist if we didn't create it. Our will was that it should be free. We impressed that freedom upon them.

That is not a bad thing.

Now, someday a future world power may replace America. Undoubtedly it will impress its will upon other nations. But its really a roll of the dice what that will is.

I could see a future scenario, perhaps 100 years from now, where robots have replaced humans in so many jobs that a future world power simply decides to get rid of 90% of the population. It would never have happened before because people were always needed even by the most ruthless dictators. They had a use. But with computers and robots? Maybe not forever.

 
I just brought this topic up here at my job and one of the guys i work with compared whats happening right now in the US to the "Fall of the Roman Empire". If that is indeed the case and the Roman Empire lasted roughly 2000 yrs, then I look forward to about 1600 more yrs of asskicking US dominance. Unless of course Hillary wins the POTUS and Pelosi takes over.

We may only have a 1000 yrs of dominance then!!

 
I just brought this topic up here at my job and one of the guys i work with compared whats happening right now in the US to the "Fall of the Roman Empire". If that is indeed the case and the Roman Empire lasted roughly 2000 yrs, then I look forward to about 1600 more yrs of asskicking US dominance. Unless of course Hillary wins the POTUS and Pelosi takes over.

We may only have a 1000 yrs of dominance then!!
:lmao: Hate to break it to you, The Roman Empire lasted around 500 years, and for 200 years of that Rome was being sacked weekly by the Goths.

Though if we include the Byzantine Empire, then you could say it lasted for 1500 years, though again 300 years of that is the Eastern Emperor ruling Byzantium and a few miles of land around Byzantium.

 
Goths schmoths. We have WAY better border control than the Romans did and we would.......ummmmmm....ahhhhhhhhhhh.

OK lets include the Byzantine boys and call it good at 1000 yrs of US participation in the world community!!

 
Goths schmoths. We have WAY better border control than the Romans did and we would.......ummmmmm....ahhhhhhhhhhh.

OK lets include the Byzantine boys and call it good at 1000 yrs of US participation in the world community!!
I hope it doesnt end up being like the 1,000 year Reich.
 
The world would be better off. All the people living in poverty would have hope that things could change a little in their favor.

 
Maoists in China, Given New Life, Attack DissentHONG KONG — They pounce on bloggers who dare mock their beloved Chairman Mao. They scour the nation’s classrooms and newspapers for strains of Western-inspired liberal heresies. And they have taken down professors, journalists and others deemed disloyal to Communist Party orthodoxy.

China’s Maoist ideologues are resurgent after languishing in the political desert, buoyed by President Xi Jinping’s traditionalist tilt and emboldened by internal party decrees that have declared open season on Chinese academics, artists and party cadres seen as insufficiently red.

Ideological vigilantes have played a pivotal role in the downfall of Wang Congsheng, a law professor in Beijing who was detained and then suspended from teaching after posting online criticisms of the party. Another target was Wang Yaofeng, a newspaper columnist who voiced support for the recent pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong and then found himself without a job.

“Since Xi came to power, the pressure and control over freethinkers has become really tight,” said Qiao Mu, a Beijing journalism professor who was demoted this fall, in part for publicly espousing multiparty elections and free speech. “More and more of my friends and colleagues are experiencing fear and harassment.”

Two years into a sweeping offensive against dissent, Mr. Xi has been intensifying his focus on perceived ideological opponents, sending ripples through universities, publishing houses and the news media and emboldening hard-liners who have hailed him as a worthy successor to Mao Zedong.

In instructions published last week, Mr. Xi urged universities to “enhance guidance over thinking and keep a tight grip on leading ideological work in higher education,” Xinhua, the official news agency, reported.

In internal decrees, he has been blunter, attacking liberal thinking as a pernicious threat that has contaminated the Communist Party’s ranks, and calling on officials to purge the nation of ideas that run counter to modern China’s Marxist-Leninist foundations.

“Never allow singing to a tune contrary to the party center,” he wrote in comments that began to appear on party and university websites in October. “Never allow eating the Communist Party’s food and then smashing the Communist Party’s cooking pots.”

The latter-day Maoists, whose influence had faltered before Mr. Xi came to power, have also been encouraged by another internal document, Document No. 30, which reinforces warnings that Western-inspired notions of media independence, “universal values” and criticism of Mao threaten the party’s survival.

“It’s a golden period to be a leftist in China,” Zhang Hongliang, a prominent neo-Maoist, said in an interview. “Xi Jinping has ushered in a fundamental change to the status quo, shattering the sky.”

China’s old guard leftists are a loose network of officials and former officials, sons and daughters of party veterans, and ardently anti-Western academics and journalists. They look back to the precepts of Marx, Lenin and especially Mao to try to reverse the effects of China’s free-market policies and the spread of values anathema to party tradition. And while their direct influence on the party leadership has been circumscribed, they have served as the party’s eager ideological inquisitors.

Continue reading the main story
Their favorite enemies are almost always members of China’s beleaguered liberal circles: academics, journalists and rights activists who believe that liberal democracy, with its accompanying ideas of civil society and rule of law, offers the country the best way forward.

Mr. Xi’s recent orders and the accompanying surge of pressure on political foes further dispelled initial suspicions that his ideological hardening was a feint to establish his credibility with traditionalists as he settled into power. Instead, his continuing campaign against Western-inspired ideas has emboldened traditional party leftists.

“China watchers all need to stop saying this is all for show or that he’s turning left to turn right,” said Christopher K. Johnson, an expert on China at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who formerly worked as a senior China analyst at the C.I.A. “This is a core part of the guy’s personality. The leftists certainly feel he’s their guy.”

In November, after Mr. Wang, the newspaper columnist, was dismissed from his job, the nationalist tabloid Global Times celebrated his downfall in a commentary. “In the future, the system will take a harder line towards the ‘pot-smashing party’,” it said, referring obliquely to Mr. Xi’s remarks about those who live off the party and then criticize it. “They will have a choice: change their ways or get out of the system.”

The latest directive, Document No. 30, demands cleansing Western-inspired liberal ideas from universities and other cultural institutions, according to Song Fangmin, a retired major-general, who discussed it with dozens of veteran party officials and hard-left activists at a meeting in Beijing in November. The directive formed a sequel to Document No. 9, which Mr. Xi authorized in April 2013, launching an offensive against ideas such as “civil society,” General Song said.

“These two documents are extremely important, and both summarize speeches by the general secretary,” he said, referring to Mr. Xi by his party title. “They identify targets so we can train our eyes on the targets of struggle.”

Unlike Document No. 9, which was widely circulated online, to the consternation of party leaders, No. 30 has not been openly published. But some of Mr. Xi’s comments have appeared in party publications, and references to it have surfaced on the websites of universities, party organizations and leftist groups, illuminating how the directive has coursed through the government to amplify pressure on dissent.

One political scientist from a prestigious Beijing university said that senior leaders had tried to keep the document confidential by transmitting it orally through the ranks. “This time it’s being kept top secret,” he said, “because last time things were far too public.”

But its effects have been apparent. Newspapers have accused universities of serving as incubators for antiparty thought, and campus party committees have been ordered to sharpen ideological controls. In June, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences revealed that a party investigator had accused the academy of harboring ideological deviants. The investigator, Zhang Yingwei, said in a speech that the academy had been infiltrated by foreign subversion, and researchers were “wearing their scholarship as a disguise to create a smokescreen.”

Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story
The campaign has alarmed liberal academics, who fear that Mr. Xi is reviving the kind of incendiary denunciations of internal foes that have been rare since Chairman Mao convulsed the nation with his jeremiads against bourgeois thinking. Some, like Wu Si, a well-regarded liberal historian, take a longer view, and argue that realpolitik will eventually force Mr. Xi to adopt a more moderate position.

“It’s a self-defensive strategy against those who might try to call him a neoliberal,” Mr. Wu said in an interview.

Before Mr. Xi came to power in late 2012, few foresaw such a sharp and extended ideological turn. China’s leaders were then consumed with purging Bo Xilai, the ambitious politician who had courted party traditionalists by evoking Mao and the rhetoric of the revolutionary past. When Mr. Bo fell, his leftist followers came under official suspicion and some of their websites and publications were shut down.

Now, however, leftist voices are back in vogue. Analysts say it is unlikely Mr. Xi wants to take China back to Mao’s puritanical era, but doctrinaire Communists see him as a useful ally, and his directives as a license to attack liberal critics of the party.

“The leftists were under pressure for a while but now they are very active again,” said Chongyi Feng, an associate professor at the University of Technology, Sydney, who follows China’s intellectual and political developments. “Xi Jinping has used these people to attack.”

At a meeting in October, party secretaries of universities and colleges were summoned to discuss Mr. Xi’s instructions and urged to “enhance their sense of dangers and resolutely safeguard political security and ideological security.”

In November, The Liaoning Daily, a party newspaper in northeast China, drew nationwide attention with a report that said universities were troubled by ideological laxity. Chinese academics, it complained, were comparing Mao Zedong to an emperor, praising Western notions such as a separation of powers, and “believing that China should take the path of the West,” it said.

“It has become fashionable in university lecture halls to talk down China and malign this society,” said the report.

The ideological policing has sent a chill through China’s liberal intelligentsia. Several academics declined to be interviewed, saying they were lying low for the time being. Others said they had already experienced what they liken to an ideological purge.

Since October, Qiao Mu, the journalism professor and director of the Center for International Communications Studies at Beijing Foreign Studies University, has been relegated to clerical drudgery, summarizing English-language books in the school library, as retribution, he says, for his advocacy of Western-style journalism and a long affiliation with liberal civil society groups in China. In addition to barring him from the classroom, administrators slashed his salary by a third, he said, removed his name from the department’s website and forced his students to find other thesis advisers. “It’s meant to be a kind of humiliation,” he said, adding that he was told his demotion could last for years.

Officially, he is being punished for defying superiors who had withheld permission for him to travel abroad for conferences and other academic pursuits. But privately, school officials acknowledge growing pressure from above.

As he whiles away his days in the library, Mr. Qiao, 44, has become despondent. Some friends have suggested that he leave China, or at least compromise his values and do as he is told.

“I want to stay in my motherland,” he said, adding, “As I like to say, I have everything I need here in China, except freedom.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/05/world/chinas-maoists-are-revived-as-thought-police.html?_r=0

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As Trump stresses 'America First', China plays the world leader

"You have your 'America first', we have our 'community of common destiny for mankind'," Retired Major-General Luo Yuan, a widely read Chinese military figure best known for his normally hawkish tone, wrote on his blog this week.

"If anyone were to say China is playing a leadership role in the world I would say it's not China rushing to the front but rather the front runners have stepped back leaving the place to China," said Zhang Jun, director general of the Chinese Foreign Ministry's international economics department.

 
This was just posted in another thread:

China warns Donald Trump via US media to stay out of South China Sea dispute


China has sent its strongest message yet to US President Donald Trump that it will not back down on its claims in the South China Sea.

In a rare move, a senior Chinese official used an English-language interview to warn the new administration not to challenge Beijing over the territorial disputes.

"There might be a difference [of opinion] over the sovereignty of these islands but it's not for the United States," Lu Kang, China's most senior Foreign Ministry spokesman, told NBC News.

"That might be between China and some other countries in this region." ...
- China and Philippines might start cooperating militarily, that was a news item I saw a couple weeks ago or so.

- It's a short leap from 'stay out of our disputes in the SCS' to: 'Stay out of the South China Sea.'

- Just like WW2, it's not all about military. A LOT of commerce and resources flow through that channel.

- The WTO or maybe the UN recently decided that China did not have claim to those islands. Meanwhile since: It was little noticed but a Goper in Congress filed a bill for the US to leave the UN. And there is talk about the WTO, etc. There are some really foolish people who do not realize that a great deal of our wealth and influence is tied in with these global organizations. Even if we stay in and nullify them then we are just harming ourselves. China taking the military and economic lead in the Pacific would be some painful medicine, folks.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This was just posted in another thread:

- China and Philippines might start cooperating militarily, that was a news item I saw a couple weeks ago or so.

- It's a short leap from 'stay out of our disputes in the SCS' to: 'Stay out of the South China Sea.'

- Just like WW2, it's not all about military. A LOT of commerce and resources flow through that channel.

- The WTO or maybe the UN recently decided that China did not have claim to those islands. Meanwhile since: It was little noticed but a Goper in Congress filed a bill for the US to leave the UN. And there is talk about the WTO, etc. There are some really foolish people who do not realize that a great deal of our wealth and influence is tied in with these global organizations. Even if we stay in and nullify them then we are just harming ourselves. China taking the military and economic lead in the Pacific would be some painful medicine, folks.
Posted this in the other thread but maybe makes more sense here:

At one end of the spectrum maybe Trump is  being really smart about this with a goal to have closer ties with Russia as a counterbalance to China and tied with a much more aggressive containment/confrontational policy with China  Or maybe he is just an idiot doing whatever strikes his fancy.  Anyway you slice it trade with China is unbalanced and this South China Sea stuff they have been pulling is complete BS.  If he had kept TPP in place maybe it all would have made sense so I am going with the view he is just an idiot until proven otherwise.

 
Is this a serious topic?

I can't imagine even the most liberal, leftist on this board saying the world would be better off with China in charge.

Personally, about the same is a ridiculous answer also.
I think you are underestimating the board's representation at the political fringes.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top