Is China a threat?

[Player 0]

Originally Posted by SunWuKong

sure. independent press isn't perfect. but it's better than state controlled press because like i said before, it is a powerful tool to curb government abuse of power.



or maybe many if not most Hawaiians think that they are better off as part of the US than as an independent island nation.

Independent press is a privately owned business, and like the ones in America will become cynical and stop caring about the truth and just wants to make money off the public, state funded media doesn't this problem.

Media in America=privately owned business, goal of a privately owned business=make money, if it's not profitable, it isn't reported, this story therefore isn't profitable.

[Player 0]

Originally Posted by Martino

Oh, you're pro-Imperialism too.

No i just thought that would be a relevant example.

[Player 0]

Originally Posted by Martino

Yes, you would only want to look at good examples of autocratic dictatorial government, wouldn't you?

Shame almost all autocracies are like 30's Germany and modern Zimbabwe.



You'll get all that in heaps with your 'ideal' government.



All the autoctratic countries I can think of are economically struggling, unless they enjoy very strong ties with the US. What economies they do have pretty much exist merely to support the luxury lifestyles of their autocratic rulers.

Always about this century as if these are the only autocracies in existence, what about Meiji era Japan, Bismark's Germany, Victoria's Britain, Napoleon's France, Russia of Peter the Great, Russia of Katherine the Great, Han dynasty of China, Tang dynasty of China, Song dynasty of China, Ming dynasty of China, Caeser's Rome, the Ottomen Turk empire, ancient Persia, do you see where i'm going with this?

And yet you still see it in capitalist democracies like India and Russia.

Whether or not a nation succeeds economically has nothing to do with its style of government, it all depends on the economic skills and policies of its leaders.

[Martino]

Originally Posted by Player 0

Always about this century as if these are the only autocracies in existence, what about Meiji era Japan, Bismark's Germany, Victoria's Britain, Napoleon's France, Russia of Peter the Great, Russia of Katherine the Great, Han dynasty of China, Tang dynasty of China, Song dynasty of China, Ming dynasty of China, Caeser's Rome, the Ottomen Turk empire, ancient Persia, do you see where i'm going with this?

Yes, you want to undo progress and take away the rights of the people.

Originally Posted by Player 0

Whether or not a nation succeeds economically has nothing to do with its style of government, it all depends on the economic skills and policies of its leaders.

Leaders who intend to stay in power for the spans of their lives tends not to be economic dynamos. Fidel Castro ran his country into the ground. Robert Mugabe has single-handedly destroyed what was once one of the most vibrant economies of Africa, Ferdinand Marcos diverted an entire country's wealth into his personal bank account ... yeah, they're really inspiring.

[Martino]

Originally Posted by Player 0

No i just thought that would be a relevant example.

If you think the British Empire is a good example, then you cannot then say you're not pro-Imperialism. You've just held an imperial non-galactic empire up as an example of a system you like.

[SunWuKong]

Originally Posted by Martino

All the autoctratic countries I can think of are economically struggling, unless they enjoy very strong ties with the US. What economies they do have pretty much exist merely to support the luxury lifestyles of their autocratic rulers.

nowadays you can add China to the list of countries that autocratic rulers should ally with. Zimbabwe, anyone?

[SunWuKong]

Originally Posted by Player 0

Independent press is a privately owned business, and like the ones in America will become cynical and stop caring about the truth and just wants to make money off the public, state funded media doesn't this problem.

Media in America=privately owned business, goal of a privately owned business=make money, if it's not profitable, it isn't reported, this story therefore isn't profitable.

i absolutely agree. i'm only saying that this is still a better alternative to state-controlled press.

[SunWuKong]

Originally Posted by Player 0

Always about this century as if these are the only autocracies in existence, what about Meiji era Japan, Bismark's Germany, Victoria's Britain, Napoleon's France, Russia of Peter the Great, Russia of Katherine the Great, Han dynasty of China, Tang dynasty of China, Song dynasty of China, Ming dynasty of China, Caeser's Rome, the Ottomen Turk empire, ancient Persia, do you see where i'm going with this?

technically you have to look at specific periods of those Chinese dynasties. the later periods of Han, Tang, and Ming were all decadent and exploitative of the people, and all their glory days came before that. it's part of the reason why their rulers were overthrown - yes, even for Ming dynasty. i'm not sure about Song, but i think there were uprisings in the south.

[yoMAMA]

as long as china doesnt lose tibet and xinjiang, I could care less if the communist/nationalist/anarchist or whoever is in power in china.

although i believe in the principle that in general democracy is better than dictatorship.

[Player 0]

Originally Posted by Martino

Yes, you want to undo progress and take away the rights of the people.



Leaders who intend to stay in power for the spans of their lives tends not to be economic dynamos. Fidel Castro ran his country into the ground. Robert Mugabe has single-handedly destroyed what was once one of the most vibrant economies of Africa, Ferdinand Marcos diverted an entire country's wealth into his personal bank account ... yeah, they're really inspiring.

Only if that progress comes too fast, Russia is a very good example of this.

Stalin spent a lot of his life in office and he revitalized the Russian economy.

[Player 0]

Originally Posted by Martino

If you think the British Empire is a good example, then you cannot then say you're not pro-Imperialism. You've just held an imperial non-galactic empire up as an example of a system you like.

And that's bad? empires are usually successful nations, and nations are successful because of leadership of the government.

[Martino]

Originally Posted by Player 0

Stalin spent a lot of his life in office and he revitalized the Russian economy.

Stalin? Murdered millions. His agricultural policy was a failure that caused the deaths of millions more. His forced pace of industrialisation was almost entirely for the benefit of his military. The lives of ordinary Russians were no different than they were under the Czars.

As your examples go, that's your worst so far.

[Martino]

Originally Posted by Player 0

And that's bad? empires are usually successful nations, and nations are successful because of leadership of the government.

I doubt you'd have that point of view if Japan had won the Pacific War.

[Player 0]

Originally Posted by Martino

Stalin? Murdered millions. His agricultural policy was a failure that caused the deaths of millions more. His forced pace of industrialisation was almost entirely for the benefit of his military. The lives of ordinary Russians were no different than they were under the Czars.

As your examples go, that's your worst so far.

Mods, can we split this thread? It's way off topic.

And yet thanks to his policies Russia was able to quickly industrialize and become a modern economic power that was able to rival the western world, with little to no seed capital, and improved Russia's living standard by providing greater healthcare, employment and education to the common Russian, very impressive when at one point Russia was the least industrialized and poorest nation in Europe.

Face facts STALIN ROCKS!!!!

[Player 0]

Originally Posted by Martino

I doubt you'd have that point of view if Japan had won the Pacific War.

Meh, what Japan did was no different then any western empire, this doesn't change the fact that during this period Japan was successful.