China bans The Sims... R U Surprised?

re

Jokes are jokes but some jokes are in bad taste.

 

Communism in itself is a good system, imho, and a good alternative to the waste and equality caused by capitalism, IF DONE RIGHT. The problem is indeed that it has never been implemented as such, in all cases The Party or the army top brass replaced the traiditional Bourgeoisie and leadership "classes" which kept the "pyramid-shaped" society as opposed to one of total leadership. IIRC, the "mensjewist" (sp) branch of communism did not have a very strong position in mind for The Party unlike the "bolsjewist" (sp) branch which, led by Lenin, eventually succeeded in gaining power in Russia.

And I don't agree that Iraq would have a "communist economy". The oil didn't exactly belong to the people.

 

AntiPasta:

if you spell wrong i will just think it is danish ;-)

 

Communism could work if done right. However it is easy to become corrupted in that form of government and thats how you get massive revolts.

 

communism doesnt work. Sure, you gave examples of why it should, but much like evolution and gravity..communism is a theory.

 

Communism is just lip service. A great idea on paper, it is fundamentally impossible to achieve in real life because of. as assembler and some others mentioned, human nature. Famous 'Communist' governments like red China or Cold-War Russia have only made sure that all or nearly all the population shares equally in starvation, suffering, and general misery - the true Communist way. :smt043

But seriously, China needs to go. I've been in complete disagreement over recent military actions in the past few years, but if there ever was a country that needed a forceful regime change, it would be China. Rampant censorship, the invasion of Tibet, the constant bullying of Taiwan - the current Chinese leaders are mad with power in their unchallenged reign of terror. If you ever think civil liberties are being threatened here, you should see it there - that's the true 1984. :smt009

 

I swear we are going into another World War here. This time it will be US against China and Middle east coalition. A lot like how Battlefield 2 is set up. I cry both coincidence and possible peak into the future if everything bad does happen. I mean heck, the EU wants to lift the ban on selling top of the line european weapons to China. US doesn't want because that will give China a fair chance against us but will be equally as powerful as Europe as far as conventional weapons go. And China has over 1billion people and due to their government being very controllive they can easily employ almost 20% of their population into the military service.

 

Giving weapons to 1 billion starving oppressed people does not an army make. ;-) :smt043

(Yes, I exaggerate a little. There IS a good deal of poverty, however. But I wasn't joking on the oppression part.)

 

re

I find it interesting that you consider regime change in another country, I mean regime change is the 'nice term' for it, the real meaning being invasion. If you installed a puppet regime who is to say that they will also not commit human rights abuses? More than likely they will, but against people fighting 'forceful regime change' or invasion, but since you are at that time on the side of the new puppet government (favourful to your country) these people fighting invasion would now be labelled insurgents or 'terrorists.'

I agree that some of the things China does are wrong, there are human rights abuses, the media is far from free. But I don't feel comfortable discussing invasion of other lands.

Cultures and peoples are different, should any land opposed to the US be invaded? I am just saying, plenty of Governments have been toppled in the past due to the West installing puppet regimes sympathetic to their economic and territorial whims. But it was more hush hush then now, Iraq today, China tomorrow, what's next? I know the reasons you mentioned this, and China is the biggest threat to the US in the near future, but who is to say who will be next after China?

This can't be the right road to embark on IMHO, and if that's what the future entails then it sucks again IMHO. It's 2005 and I still haven't got my flying skateboard.

 

Again, I repeat: most things deemed as communism were not communism at all. Communism is a theory or an idea; a terribly unplausible and nigh-impossible idea.

Communism has never existed. *

*Pure communism.

And neither China or the USSR (two classic examples, I suppose) were communism in any semblance of the word.

 

Animal Farm is a pretty good read about this topic...communism that is.

 

For Christ's sakes watcher, you're making me out to sound like some sort of warmonger. :angry

For one thing, I have been strongly opposed to both of the 'regime-change' operations you refer to that have happened recently - not that the old governments going was a bad thing, but the wake of problems that have been left. How you can call a nation's first free elections in decades a 'puppet government' is another matter, and I shant get into it here.

Aside from the purely academic nature of my musings, I never once stated that I thought that the US needed to invade China - I specifically mentioned the name for a regime change, which is just that - a change in the psuedo-communist dictatorial regime.

I honestly don't know what to write now. Message boards and anonymous people on the internet usually don't get me angry, but your assinine, ignorant insinuation that because I'm American and talking about regime change means I'm one of the warmongers we're so commonly portrayed as really got to me. You had no idea what you were talking about, had you been around longer or read up on the back topics, you would see exactly where I stand on the issue, and I can't believe I was just likened to some of the rednecks in this nation that truely think the way you described!! That was just... it was a very stupid post! :angry :angry

 

re

Well I suppose I should apologise, I didn't mean to attack you in anyway or equate you to something you're not.

I read your post and didn't think you were a warmonger or anything, just the term regime change is a hot topic right now. I was just trying to expand on the discussion and I am sorry if a post I quickly typed caused you some offense.

BTW whether or not they were the first free elections for however long, Allawi was a former MI5 (UK) and CIA informant and agent so the current regime is a puppet govt and so will whoever wins the election. Allawi also has ties to the Bush circle of friends. The person they put in charge in Afghanistan is a very dodgy figure also with a history of helping western spy agencies.

I realise now what your idea of regime change meant and I guess I did slightly misinterpret your post. However regime change whether through invasion or other means is still meddling in another countires affairs. I understand your viewpoint on China though and potential conflict in the future though.

Changes of foreign govts in the past have always caused bloodshed much later down the line since the people usually realise that their new leader has been installed by outside forces and however down the line that causes turmoil for the countries involved.

 

Its not like the US will want to invade. Its our "freedom" that will influence their citizens to revolt. THat almost happened to Iraq after the Gulf War. Sadam was almost toppled by the Shiites and Kurds but the US didn't do nothing to help the rebels. Its not like the US or UK will barge in on the shores of China with their boats and start invading. Its not that type of regime change.

 

I guess regime change is a bit of a misconstrued word nowadays - I basically meant just that - a change in the government. Obviously, it is going to be an outside force of some sort, as corrupt governments rarely find it in their hearts to change their ways. However, regime change by war is something I don't agree with unless it's absolutely certain that things won't get better on their own or the regime poses a clear and present threat to other civilized nations. Instead, I favor 'regime change' by the people - history is full of examples of where a population is oppressed enough, they almost always will take back their country, and that is the sort of thing I support. Sorry if I blew my top, but I'm in no way a supporter of the current war efforts, and was horrified that something I said had allowed me to be seen as such.

 

You're cool with me no matter what you say. Don't worry what they think even if they think about you is wrong.

Edited it. Its late.

 

Uh-oh, people arguing about politics again...

*runs away*

 

Oh, how many times I have thought about that. I doubt any "Middle East coalition" will be formed anytime soon, the governments are all too corrupt, secular or careful to form a coalition, and so even more to wage war on the US, but China seems more probable. And by the way, just the fact that China has that many people does not mean their odds are significantly improved (as shown by Japan invading China numerous times, Djengis Khan conquering half the world, the Vietnam war, etc.) - for one, there is no way they could quickly come up with enough equipment, training and supplies... last time I checked, the Chinese military relied mainly on railroad for transportation, which is rather easily taken out. Then there is the factor of air superiority, I am pretty sure it will take decades for anyone to catch up with the US in terms of that.

As you can see, these "what-if" scenarios carry me away sometimes

 

True but with Europe lifting the ban on selling top of the line weapons to China. In about 5 years, and if China has the money; we will see a big improvement in their mobilization of troops, etc.

These "what-if" scenarios is one way I excersice my mind. Looking it up and researching it makes it more fun.