will Victoria be banned in China?

[unmerged(25053)]

Since we are kinda discussing modern China ....

Can ANYONE really REALLY think that any other government type, other than the current Communist government, could run China? And feed all those people? And deal with such a HUGE population and MASSIVE infrastructure? Think about how much it would cost to modernize the electrical or water or communications in ALL of China.

Personally, I believe the current Chinese government is the best thing for its people. Not that I am a communist, but Socialism and totally free Democracy or even a Republic (USA is a Republic, not a true Democracy), these government types would not work in China. Other government types might end up worse than Germany 1920/30's or Central America 1980's.

Just a thought.

Anyway, I think China is missing out on a very good historical representation if they ban the game. I mean, the Outsiders had NO RIGHT to take Chinese land (Hong Kong, Macao, Boxer Rebellion resolution, etc.) NOR do Westerners have any right, then and now, in dictating to Chinese people (or Korean, or Vietnamese, or Iraqi, etc) how to lead themselves. (Unless a government is outworldly evil and conquering en masse they should be sovereign. Iraq under Hussein and Germany under Hitler kinda messed with others so action was taken.) Anyway, I do not think any other government type would work well in China. Taking the history of the region and the maturity that Chinese people have towards others, other governments would not work well. I mean, in the USA, it is everyone's right, nay - everyone's DUTY - to poke their darn noses into other countries' problems - it is kinda the opposite in many Oriental governments, that they don't go around the world telling everyone else what to do... strange, but true, American's do that far too often.

 

[unmerged(25454)]

I think that is an excellent interpretation of modern China. Though communism clamps down on some things, it is better than the Nationalist Chinese, who were essentially facists, much like the German "socialists" (aka Nazis) and the "nationalists" that took over Spain in the civil war. The nationalists were truly corrupt, while the communists looked out for the people, and though they do rule with a tight fist, they don't let the people wither away, and instead build China into an economic powerhouse.

 

[unmerged(14386)]

I think that is an excellent interpretation of modern China. Though communism clamps down on some things, it is better than the Nationalist Chinese, who were essentially facists, much like the German "socialists" (aka Nazis) and the "nationalists" that took over Spain in the civil war. The nationalists were truly corrupt, while the communists looked out for the people, and though they do rule with a tight fist, they don't let the people wither away, and instead build China into an economic powerhouse.

China certainly has become an economic powerhouse, but to say that the communist look(ed) out for the people is just...(and im not triyng to sound haughty in saying this, thus trying to word what I say carefully) wrong. The 30 million who died in the Great Leap Forward withered away quite nicely. The two MILLION 'class enemies' who died when Mao gained power withered away quite nicely. One million Tibetan and Turkenstani Muslims who were 'liquidated' in a 25 year period withered away quite nicely. And the estimated two million who died in the Cultural Revolution also...withered away..quite...nicely. So yes, China has become an economic powerhouse....a powerhouse built on top of its 35 million enemies of the state.

I'm not trying to say that one government was better then the next, but as a person who has close friends born and raised in China and Taiwan, I would ask that we not minimalize the negative impact of communist government of China.

Regards,

 

[KaiserChicken]

Wolf Hawken: I fully disagree with you. You say that outsider haven't got the right to tell the Chinese out to lead themselves, but the fact is that China isn't ruled by the Chineses, but rather by an oppressive corrupt oligarchy, composed by some type of soviet nomenklatura: the members of the Chinese Communist Party.

Besides, we have to note that China isn't ruled by a communist government. Communism never existed nor will ever exist. China is ruled by a pseudo-socialist dictatorship, which was forced to adopt an almost extreme-capitalism in the last decades, due to economic stagnation.

About what Jodo Yodo says, I totally disagree. Although the Guomindang (or Kuomintang or whatever) styled themselves "nationalists", they were very different from Spanish Nationalists and didn't adopt the western concept of nationalism. When the KMT was created in 1911, by Sun Yat-Sen, it was a left-center party, calling for moderate socialism. During the 20's and 30's it even had help from Soviet Military advisors! During the civil war, most of the KMT airforce was composed of soviet airplanes, like the TB-2 or the famous Chato.
The breakdown between the KMT and the USSR and the turning of the KMT to the right-wing only occured when Chiang Kai-Shek came to power. But still the KMT was very different from what we accept as being nationalists and was in no way extreme-right. It was more a center-right, which pleaded for a benevolent dictatorship. And we can see the effects of the KMT governation in modern Taiwan. Taiwan was ruled during 40 years by the KMT and is one of the modern economic powerhouses in the Far-East.

 

[unmerged(4277)]

Since we are kinda discussing modern China ....

Can ANYONE really REALLY think that any other government type, other than the current Communist government, could run China? And feed all those people? And deal with such a HUGE population and MASSIVE infrastructure? Think about how much it would cost to modernize the electrical or water or communications in ALL of China.

Personally, I believe the current Chinese government is the best thing for its people. Not that I am a communist, but Socialism and totally free Democracy or even a Republic (USA is a Republic, not a true Democracy), these government types would not work in China. Other government types might end up worse than Germany 1920/30's or Central America 1980's.

Just a thought.

Anyway, I think China is missing out on a very good historical representation if they ban the game. I mean, the Outsiders had NO RIGHT to take Chinese land (Hong Kong, Macao, Boxer Rebellion resolution, etc.) NOR do Westerners have any right, then and now, in dictating to Chinese people (or Korean, or Vietnamese, or Iraqi, etc) how to lead themselves. (Unless a government is outworldly evil and conquering en masse they should be sovereign. Iraq under Hussein and Germany under Hitler kinda messed with others so action was taken.) Anyway, I do not think any other government type would work well in China. Taking the history of the region and the maturity that Chinese people have towards others, other governments would not work well. I mean, in the USA, it is everyone's right, nay - everyone's DUTY - to poke their darn noses into other countries' problems - it is kinda the opposite in many Oriental governments, that they don't go around the world telling everyone else what to do... strange, but true, American's do that far too often.

I think you may be right about communism in China right now. I don't believe that socialism is the answer. (Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to see socialism die within the next 100 years. As people live longer, it just fails to work.) I don't think the Chinese people are ready yet for a Republic (true democracy would NEVER work with even 300,000,000 in the US, much less 1.2 billion in China). I think with the proper training and education, though, it could work just fine. They just need to get used to it just like everyone else. Although, China is technically a democracy. It's just that the government decides who will win and then has a sort of referendum for the people. ("ja" or "nein" in Hitler's Germany) The outcome is already decided, though.

I do have a question, though; but it will probably get us booted to the OT thread. Why do you say that Westerners had no right to the land? They fought for it and won it. When they had it, they didn't just exploit it. In fact, many areas became very profitable. (Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.) In your opinion, why is colonialism wrong? (If we're going to have a discussion like this, we have to define why we use certain terms like that. Probably what we should have done when arguing over civilization. ) I'm more apt to agree with you about everyone staying out of another's internal business. We can't do that now, though, because we have a universal declaration of human rights and it's what most of the world has decided is "right," so we have to enforce it. (Though the world does so very selectively.)

 

[unmerged(14683)]

(...)Although, China is technically a democracy. It's just that the government decides who will win and then has a sort of referendum for the people. ("ja" or "nein" in Hitler's Germany) The outcome is already decided, though.(...)

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

It was actually called "people democracy" (in Soviet satelite Central Europe states) you know. Reminds me old polish political joke:

Q: What is the difference between democracy and "people democracy"?
A: Exactly the same as between chair and electric chair.

 

[unmerged(25053)]

Colonialism tended to make the local population into second-rate citizens, at best. And, in some cases, it annihilated the indigenious people (NA Indians).

 

[unmerged(4277)]

Colonialism tended to make the local population into second-rate citizens, at best. And, in some cases, it annihilated the indigenious people (NA Indians).

You're right, it did that in SOME places. (annihilation) But what about the good that colonialism brought to the colonized areas? Riches. Roads. Stability. Education. Foundations for modern nations. Etc. Is the fact that SOME people were killed by some colonial powers enough to condemn all colonialism? Is the fact that I had a bad experience with some people of a certain race enough to condemn all people of that race?


Yeah. I know China's a "people's republic." So is North Korea. The moral of the story -- When you hear "people's republic," RUN! :rofl:

 

[KaiserChicken]

Portuguese colonialism was based on equality between colonizers and natives, in order to mantain stability and peace in the colonies and avoid independentist movements.

In the 50's the city of Luanda (capital of Angola) was called "the Paris of Africa". Nowadays, Angola is fustigated by a civil war, is one of the poorest countries in the world and is ruled by a ruthless dictatorwho happens to be one of the richest men in the world.

Now you can see why I do believe in colonialism..

 

[unmerged(14386)]

Colonialism tended to make the local population into second-rate citizens, at best. And, in some cases, it annihilated the indigenious people (NA Indians).

Accurate, more or less. Just to through the way I see things out there:

I long ago decided that every nation...every people..has the right to do what they feel is best for them. After all, a right is merely something permitted by law. So whose law states that nation X cant oppress its people or that nation Y cant conquer 3/4 of Europe (yeah...I'm looking at you ALBANIA ). The UN? Well...assuming nations X and Y agreed to the laws of the UN (chuckle) than maybe. But otherwise, I would say that if they want to do something, than that is there choice. AT THE SAME TIME (and this is critical here people) I would say that ANY and EVERY nation has a right to react HOWEVER they see fit to the actions of another nation. If Saddam wants to invade Kuwait...than he can. If the US/UN (chuckle) decide they arnt too keen on that, then they can kick him as far north as Mosul.

Does that mean that most of us see evil acts of tyrants as good things? I should hope not. But the fact remains, nations are there to do what they feel is in their best interest. That is frankly what the concept of the modern nation is. An organization formed to provide for the common benefit of a group of people. We are all free to pass judgement on the actions of others. We are all free to take action in responce to the actions of others. But to say that other nations to not have the right to do what they feel they need to do is simply a judgment none of us should make.

Regards,

 

[unmerged(4277)]

Accurate, more or less. Just to through the way I see things out there:

I long ago decided that every nation...every people..has the right to do what they feel is best for them. After all, a right is merely something permitted by law. So whose law states that nation X cant oppress its people or that nation Y cant conquer 3/4 of Europe (yeah...I'm looking at you ALBANIA ). The UN? Well...assuming nations X and Y agreed to the laws of the UN (chuckle) than maybe. But otherwise, I would say that if they want to do something, than that is there choice. AT THE SAME TIME (and this is critical here people) I would say that ANY and EVERY nation has a right to react HOWEVER they see fit to the actions of another nation. If Saddam wants to invade Kuwait...than he can. If the US/UN (chuckle) decide they arnt too keen on that, then they can kick him as far north as Mosul.

Does that mean that most of us see evil acts of tyrants as good things? I should hope not. But the fact remains, nations are there to do what they feel is in their best interest. That is frankly what the concept of the modern nation is. An organization formed to provide for the common benefit of a group of people. We are all free to pass judgement on the actions of others. We are all free to take action in responce to the actions of others. But to say that other nations to not have the right to do what they feel they need to do is simply a judgment none of us should make.

Regards,

I just agree with John Locke here. The governments that are created are created to protect their citizens from one another and from foreigners. The primary function of every government is this protection. Thus, when they get too involved into their citizen's lives, they are overstepping their bounds and must be brought back into line by their citizens. If they aren't brought back into line, the citizen's must create a new government.

Additionally, I believe that Locke was right when he said that liberty exists in being subjected only to the legislative and political process of the government created by your compact with your fellow citizens. Thus, any entity that tries to pass laws that you must follow and is not your government (UN) is not just.

 

[unmerged(4277)]

Sorry if that got a little muddled. My puppy was anxious to go outside.

 

[unmerged(14386)]

I just agree with John Locke here. The governments that are created are created to protect their citizens from one another and from foreigners. The primary function of every government is this protection. Thus, when they get too involved into their citizen's lives, they are overstepping their bounds and must be brought back into line by their citizens. If they aren't brought back into line, the citizen's must create a new government.

Additionally, I believe that Locke was right when he said that liberty exists in being subjected only to the legislative and political process of the government created by your compact with your fellow citizens. Thus, any entity that tries to pass laws that you must follow and is not your government (UN) is not just.

PERFECTLY said, JoshWeber.

I personally do not believe in subjecting myself or my nation to the rullings and judgements of an unelected international body that puts Libya as the chair of the Commission on Human Rights. But hey, that's me.

Regards,

 

[unmerged(4277)]

What's wrong with Libya's human rights record?

P.S.
I can't take credit for that. Remember, it was Locke.

 

[John Poole]

PERFECTLY said, JoshWeber.

I personally do not believe in subjecting myself or my nation to the rullings and judgements of an unelected international body that puts Libya as the chair of the Commission on Human Rights. But hey, that's me.

Regards,

Of course our representative to the UN is selected by our elected officials so by that logic you should not believe in subjecting yourself or your nation to the rulings of the Supreme Court either.

Libya as the chair of the Commission on Human Rights...as far as I know those positoins rotate and the chair merely heads the meetings and has no real power...every country will have that postion at one point or another. Seems to me you think the rule on rotating chairs and rotating positions in the commisions and councils is a bad thing...if so what alternative do you propose?

And finally how on earth is the United States subject to the UN? LOL they cant do a damn thing without our permission. Anyway the UN isn't a governing agency it is mearly a place for nations to police the international scene and work together when they see fit, it is a tool of international cooperation and nothing more. So please explain to me how we could ever be subject to the UN?

 

[John Poole]

Thus, any entity that tries to pass laws that you must follow and is not your government (UN) is not just.

What laws has the UN passed that the US has had to follow? Um...lets see...um....er...nothing thats right. Participation in the UN is voluntary and that decision to do or not to do what the UN decides is up to our elected officials..therefore it is just.

 

[unmerged(4277)]

What laws has the UN passed that the US has had to follow? Um...lets see...um....er...nothing thats right. Participation in the UN is voluntary and that decision to do or not to do what the UN decides is up to our elected officials..therefore it is just.

You're right. They never passed any legislation telling Iraq where they could or couldn't fly their planes in their own country. They never passed legislation telling Iraq how much oil they could sell in exchange for food. They've never tried to regulate international waters. They never passed any resolutions calling for every control tower in the world to speak English. How in the world could I possibly have thought they passed any resolutions that regulated the United State's behavior?

 

[Raen]

You're right. They never passed any legislation telling Iraq where they could or couldn't fly their planes in their own country. They never passed legislation telling Iraq how much oil they could sell in exchange for food. They've never tried to regulate international waters. They never passed any resolutions calling for every control tower in the world to speak English. How in the world could I possibly have thought they passed any resolutions that regulated the United State's behavior?

Total non sequitur, as you very well know.

You were complaining about passing laws, not failure to pass laws. Quite a different thing.

 

[unmerged(4277)]

Total non sequitur, as you very well know.

You were complaining about passing laws, not failure to pass laws. Quite a different thing.

Ummm . . . that was called sarcasm on my part. They did every one of those things that I described above.

 

[Raen]

Ummm . . . that was called sarcasm on my part. They did every one of those things that I described above.

Fine, be as sarcastic as you like.

Fact remains, this contention:

Additionally, I believe that Locke was right when he said that liberty exists in being subjected only to the legislative and political process of the government created by your compact with your fellow citizens. Thus, any entity that tries to pass laws that you must follow and is not your government (UN) is not just.

has been challenged and you have not yet provided any refutation.