Jump to content


Photo

China's Peaceful Rise

wink wink nudge nudge

  • Please log in to reply
2399 replies to this topic

#41 X-Files

X-Files

    1211st Desantsofter Legion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,308 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 August 2014 - 1657 PM

 

To go into a list of US bad deeds vs China bad deeds would be pedantic but you will find that the US keep getting away with murder, compared to China. Over and over again.

 

Right. Have to break some eggs to make that omelet of progress.

 

 

Mao Zedong, founder of the People's Republic of China, qualifies as the greatest mass murderer in world history, an expert who had unprecedented access to official Communist Party archives said yesterday.

 

Speaking at The Independent Woodstock Literary Festival, Frank Dikötter, a Hong Kong-based historian, said he found that during the time that Mao was enforcing the Great Leap Forward in 1958, in an effort to catch up with the economy of the Western world, he was responsible for overseeing "one of the worst catastrophes the world has ever known".

Mr Dikötter, who has been studying Chinese rural history from 1958 to 1962, when the nation was facing a famine, compared the systematic torture, brutality, starvation and killing of Chinese peasants to the Second World War in its magnitude. At least 45 million people were worked, starved or beaten to death in China over these four years; the worldwide death toll of the Second World War was 55 million.

 

http://www.independe...rs-2081630.html


  • 0

#42 swerve

swerve

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,779 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Reading, Berkshire
  • Interests:Too many to list all, but include military, economic &technological history. And cycling.

Posted 07 August 2014 - 1709 PM

Dikötter's also had a look at what happened between the Communist takeover & the Great Leap Forward. Not as lethal, but millions killed. Successful peasant farmer? Get beaten to death, or dismembered, or buried alive in front of the whole village for being a capitalist. The killers were often rewarded with the possessions of the victims, & before collectivisation, his land. Oh yes, & sometimes they murdered the whole family, children & all. And so on.

 

And then there was the Cultural Revolution.


  • 0

#43 X-Files

X-Files

    1211st Desantsofter Legion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,308 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 August 2014 - 2029 PM

I've read estimates as high as 60 million, during Mao's entire regime span.


  • 0

#44 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nemui

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,726 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko da?!
  • Interests:Sleeping

Posted 08 August 2014 - 0001 AM

Deng Xiaping had great admiration for Mao during WW2 and the Chinese civil war. Deng was the "practical implementer" while Mao was the idealogist. After communist victory, Deng carried out many operations in solidifying communist control throughout the land. He wasn't shy of ordering the deaths of those suspect of being anti-communist. During the Great Leap Forward, Deng had to work overtime for months to repair the communist party's image with the peasants. By then Deng completely lost confidence in Mao.
  • 0

#45 firefly1

firefly1

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 285 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 August 2014 - 0453 AM

.

 

I think that going back to Mao's days shows how weak the propaganda is.

 

( I DO think that China has disgraceful policies and attitudes to minorities, HOWEVER, it is improving and as its infrastructure improves and the wealth of state capitalism spreads things will improve.  Just this year the minimum wage has almost doubled and pension rights vastly improved [much to the disgust of Western consumers as export costs rise]).  

 

However, their military spending has not vastly risen over the last couple of decades.

 

The Chinese state historically (over millenia, not just decades) has been overly concerned with public order  -  this is tied up with basic Chinese society and such things as Confucianism.  That does not excuse poor/barbaric behaviours, but the West should understand Chinese attitudes, not impose Western attitudes.

 

What is hilarious, however, is the continued US scare mongering regarding Chinese "expansionism"  -  something that has been going on for two decades-plus, despite NO evidence.

 

.


  • 0

#46 Mikel2

Mikel2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,338 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 1049 AM

.

  Just this year the minimum wage has almost doubled and pension rights vastly improved [much to the disgust of Western consumers as export costs rise]).  

 

 

 

I work in manufacturing. Rising Chinese labor costs do not discust me.


  • 0

#47 X-Files

X-Files

    1211st Desantsofter Legion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,308 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 August 2014 - 1102 AM

.

 

However, their military spending has not vastly risen over the last couple of decades.

 

.

yyibvn.jpg

 

 

(Reuters) - China's military spending exceeded $145 billion last year as it advanced a program modernizing an arsenal of drones, warships, jets, missiles and cyber weapons, the Pentagon said on Thursday, offering a far higher figure than Beijing's official tally.

The Pentagon's estimate, using 2013 prices and exchange rates, was 21 percent above the $119.5 billion figure announced by China. It was detailed in an annual report to Congress that cited steady progress in Chinese defense capabilities.

 

http://www.reuters.c...N0EG2XK20140606
 

 

ON THE first day of the annual session of the National People’s Congress last week, China announced a defence budget for 2014 of $132 billion, a generous increase of 12.2% on the year before. That was the official figure, though the real one may be 40% higher still.

 

http://www.economist...rend-its-favour

 

In 2000, the official budget figure was approximately 14.6 billion, or 121 billion yuan. China increased its defense spending for the year by 17.7 percent. In early 2001, China's publicly-acknowledged defense budget of over $17 billion for 2001 was higher than the defense budgets of neighboring countries India, Taiwan, and South Korea. Beijing explained this increase as a response to "drastic changes" in the military situation around the world, a reference to the US-led war in Kosovo in 1999. In 2002, China increased military spending in 2002 by 17.6 percent, or $3 billion, bringing the publicly reported total to $20 billion.

 

China again increased its budget to $22 billion in 2003 (about 185.3 billion RMB). China's defense budget continued to grow in 2004. Chinese Finance Minister Jin Renqing proposed an increase of 11.6 percent [$2.6 billion] in military expenditures. The government forecast total revenue for the central budget at $157 billion, up 7 percent [$10.9 billion] from 2003, with a 7 percent boost in overall spending from 2003. The country's $38.7 billion deficit was the same as 2003. Adding off-budget funding for foreign weapons system imports, total defense-related expenditures for 2004 were estimated at between $50 and $70 billion dollars by Richard Lawless, the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense.

 

http://www.globalsec...hina/budget.htm


  • 0

#48 firefly1

firefly1

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 285 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 August 2014 - 1207 PM

.

 

Ah, the Pentagon gives a VASTLY exaggerated estimate (which neatly ties into its "lets all panic about the Chinese" rubbish) and also ignore the relative population sizes when comparing with other countries, as well as the VAST internal security expenditure contained within the defence spending.

 

I would like some figures for the supposed huge increase in aircraft, AFVs and ships  -  but that would be difficult as such huge increases just haven't happened.

 

If you willing swallow the Pentagon's idiocies about China then you deserve to pay all the tax that they want.

 

.


  • 0

#49 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nemui

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,726 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko da?!
  • Interests:Sleeping

Posted 08 August 2014 - 1220 PM

China announced 130 billion for 2014. 2013 it was 119 billion. The official Chinese released budget for 2000 was still over 100 billion? How about two decades ago.. 1994, around 90 billion?

Anyway, even by just maintaining the same ratio with the GDP growth, the military budget will grow fast.
  • 0

#50 Heirophant

Heirophant

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,157 posts

Posted 09 August 2014 - 0454 AM

China announced 130 billion for 2014. 2013 it was 119 billion. The official Chinese released budget for 2000 was still over 100 billion? How about two decades ago.. 1994, around 90 billion?

Anyway, even by just maintaining the same ratio with the GDP growth, the military budget will grow fast.

 

A country is like a family, according to the Asian view of states.

 

As a family grows more prosperous, they have more that needs protecting, and more money to do it. Simple as that.

 

If you used to live in a trailer park, maybe you had say a shotgun.

If you ever move into a large house, you're gonna have bullet-proofed vehicles, computerized security systems, and a panic room, plus a small collection of firearms. (Well, at least in America, you would.)


  • 0

#51 chino

chino

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,181 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Now in Macau
  • Interests:S2 Branch & Rifle Platoon Runner

Posted 09 August 2014 - 0512 AM

 

 

To go into a list of US bad deeds vs China bad deeds would be pedantic but you will find that the US keep getting away with murder, compared to China. Over and over again.

 

Right. Have to break some eggs to make that omelet of progress.

 

But you misread me.

 

I never said China is a saint nor its hands are clean. I am saying that US always come out smelling of roses, no matter what bad deeds they commit, whereas China - because of its inability to understand PR - never gets away with anything.


  • 0

#52 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nemui

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,726 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko da?!
  • Interests:Sleeping

Posted 09 August 2014 - 0535 AM

 

China announced 130 billion for 2014. 2013 it was 119 billion. The official Chinese released budget for 2000 was still over 100 billion? How about two decades ago.. 1994, around 90 billion?

Anyway, even by just maintaining the same ratio with the GDP growth, the military budget will grow fast.

 

A country is like a family, according to the Asian view of states.

 

As a family grows more prosperous, they have more that needs protecting, and more money to do it. Simple as that.

 

If you used to live in a trailer park, maybe you had say a shotgun.

If you ever move into a large house, you're gonna have bullet-proofed vehicles, computerized security systems, and a panic room, plus a small collection of firearms. (Well, at least in America, you would.)

 

 

Yep :P

 

I think my name is being interpreted as Mr. anti-China.

 

I responding to below:

 

.

 

I think that going back to Mao's days shows how weak the propaganda is.

 

( I DO think that China has disgraceful policies and attitudes to minorities, HOWEVER, it is improving and as its infrastructure improves and the wealth of state capitalism spreads things will improve.  Just this year the minimum wage has almost doubled and pension rights vastly improved [much to the disgust of Western consumers as export costs rise]).  

 

However, their military spending has not vastly risen over the last couple of decades.

 

The Chinese state historically (over millenia, not just decades) has been overly concerned with public order  -  this is tied up with basic Chinese society and such things as Confucianism.  That does not excuse poor/barbaric behaviours, but the West should understand Chinese attitudes, not impose Western attitudes.

 

What is hilarious, however, is the continued US scare mongering regarding Chinese "expansionism"  -  something that has been going on for two decades-plus, despite NO evidence.

 

.

 

That is simply not true. Statistically speaking, and ignoreing any implications of saying this, as the GDP skyrocketed, so too did military budget

 

Now is it entirely ok for China to be increasing is military budget for the latest high tech stuff? General yes, entirely ok. I'm cool with it  3 or 4 large aircraft carriers, stealth fighters, latest tanks, nuclear arsenal...sure go for it.

 

But...

 

SCS claim, Senkaku claim, secretive government, steals lots of intellectual property, cracks down on democracy, limits free speech, causes suspicion in exactly how peaceful China's raise will be and thus precautionary measures have to be taken.

 

If China wants to rid itself of the critical western eye, it needs to drop the SCS claim, or at the very least, cut it in half to just the northern half so that it at least geographically speaking, doesn't look so outrageous, and cut back a little from the eastern side so that the Philippines is cool. And then drop the Senkaku claim. If China lacks the flexibility to make those changes, then they are the cause of the critical western eye.

 

The anti-democracy, human rights violations, limited speech points can be countered with the need to control the population and as more money flows in and spreads out, the government will be able to relax a little more control accordingly. Ok, that's fine.

 

Raising military budget can be countered with natural desire improve the military like anything else within the country as the GDP grows. Ok, that's fine.

 

Senkaku and SCS claim? I haven't heard of a good reason in how these are perfectly fine and dandy. So when the improved military becomes a factor, then these intentions gain capability. That raises tensions. Literally screwed the whole region with a security issue.


  • 0

#53 chino

chino

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,181 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Now in Macau
  • Interests:S2 Branch & Rifle Platoon Runner

Posted 09 August 2014 - 0547 AM

Dikötter's also had a look at what happened between the Communist takeover & the Great Leap Forward. Not as lethal, but millions killed. Successful peasant farmer? Get beaten to death, or dismembered, or buried alive in front of the whole village for being a capitalist. The killers were often rewarded with the possessions of the victims, & before collectivisation, his land. Oh yes, & sometimes they murdered the whole family, children & all. And so on.

 

And then there was the Cultural Revolution.

 

Do you really want to talk about human rights and of whole families being murdered, robbed etc? How about this very moment, when the entire families are murdered either by US-sponsored puppets or USAF bombings in support in its occupations of various territories? Guantanamo? Abu Ghraib etc?

 

C'mon, let's not go there since I did NOT ever say China hands are clean vs the US.

 

If you really want to go point-by-point of who did what to whom and when, let's talk about recent history that you and I can relate to directly. My question is simply:

 

"Which country has caused more deaths and human sufferings in the last 30 years? China or USA?"

 

If your answer is China, damn, man, you must really really be hardcore.

 

With due respects.


  • 0

#54 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nemui

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,726 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko da?!
  • Interests:Sleeping

Posted 09 August 2014 - 0603 AM

The US developed a dependency on assets all over the world. So as something happens outside, the US faces a decision whether to use military force or not. China is mostly internal. But as the dependency grows more on foreign areas, China too will face decisions on whether or not to use military force. I wouldn't be surprised if China finds itself deploying its military in Africa within the next 10-20 years.


  • 0

#55 chino

chino

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,181 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Now in Macau
  • Interests:S2 Branch & Rifle Platoon Runner

Posted 09 August 2014 - 0615 AM


Jason J:

 

"If China wants to rid itself of the critical western eye, it needs to drop the SCS claim"

 


 

China's SCS claim is regrettable for me personally.

 

But let me ask you your frank opinion:

 

Which would you say is more pressing problem: US continued interference in the Middle East which directly and indirectly causes the deaths and sufferings of innocent civilians daily? Or China's claim of SCS which has so far caused... let's see: ZERO civilian death? In fact the ones who died recently are presumably Chinese citizens killed by irate Viet mobs.

 

Both US and China are doing these things in the pursuit of energy. Make no mistake.

 

To me, it is very ironic that the one you - and the rest of the world -  chose to spend effort condemning is the one that has so far involved no civilians, death or otherwise.


Edited by chino, 09 August 2014 - 0626 AM.

  • 0

#56 chino

chino

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,181 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Now in Macau
  • Interests:S2 Branch & Rifle Platoon Runner

Posted 09 August 2014 - 0639 AM

The US developed a dependency on assets all over the world. So as something happens outside, the US faces a decision whether to use military force or not. China is mostly internal. But as the dependency grows more on foreign areas, China too will face decisions on whether or not to use military force. I wouldn't be surprised if China finds itself deploying its military in Africa within the next 10-20 years.

 

You are right they might if say Sudan or any other of China oil supply is threatened with US-sponsored invasion.


  • 0

#57 firefly1

firefly1

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 285 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 August 2014 - 0656 AM

 

 

....................     If China wants to rid itself of the critical western eye, it needs to drop the SCS claim, or at the very least, cut it in half to just the northern half so that it at least geographically speaking, doesn't look so outrageous, and cut back a little from the eastern side so that the Philippines is cool. And then drop the Senkaku claim. If China lacks the flexibility to make those changes, then they are the cause of the critical western eye.  ..............

 

.

 

But it is o.k. for the USA to claim the western hemi-sphere ("Monroe Doctrine") and interfere for its own purposes anywhere else i the World that it wants ?

 

I dislike hypocriscy.

 

(  I am still awaiting for the list of huge numbers of aircraft, AFVs and ships added to the Chinese armed forces over the last two decades that the US has been warning of the huge Chinese threat. )

 

( I also dislike the constant "crying of wolf" merely as a way of trying to increase defence spending. )

 

.


Edited by firefly1, 09 August 2014 - 0656 AM.

  • 0

#58 X-Files

X-Files

    1211st Desantsofter Legion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,308 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 August 2014 - 0744 AM


If you willing swallow the Pentagon's idiocies about China then you deserve to pay all the tax that they want.

 

.

 

The posting included what the Chinese admit as well as the Pentagon. If you want to swallow Beijing's coy gyrations, you deserve the consequences. Either way you cut it, Beijing is increasing it's budget.


  • 0

#59 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nemui

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,726 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko da?!
  • Interests:Sleeping

Posted 09 August 2014 - 0800 AM

 

 

China's SCS claim is regrettable for me personally.

 

But let me ask you your frank opinion:

 

Which would you say is more pressing problem: US continued interference in the Middle East which directly and indirectly causes the deaths and sufferings of innocent civilians daily? Or China's claim of SCS which has so far caused... let's see: ZERO civilian death? In fact the ones who died recently are presumably Chinese citizens killed by irate Viet mobs.

 

Both US and China are doing these things in the pursuit of energy. Make no mistake.

 

To me, it is very ironic that the one you - and the rest of the world -  chose to spend effort condemning is the one that has so far involved no civilians, death or otherwise.

 

 

It is not really a fair question. Again, the US has developed a dependency on assets all over the world which leaves them with decisions to make about using military force or not. And from general reading on Tank-Net, I would say a lot of members feel the US generally screwed up with its foreign policy. So it is not a case where the US is always peppered with roses. The reason why US assets ended up all over the world is for two things, business enterprise and the cold war with the Soviet Union. China has been for the most part internal. It has few assets all over so it doesn't face decision on whether or not use military force, yet.

 

Its too simple to say whether or not the US should stop its "interference" in the Middle East. For example, help fighting the Islamic State would be good policy IMO. The Iraq invasion of 2003 was a mistake IMO. At the time of its start, I didn't know enough to be for or against it but I felt something odd about it. Generally speaking I would prefer less US involvement. CIA in Iran or the US supporting Saddam against Iran and then quickly turning on Saddam. Purely on temporary interest and no principles. 1991 Iraq war I would agree with.

 

But that's besides the point. When I am talking in regards to the Asia Pacific, the SCS and Senkaku claims are causing the raise in tensions. Supposing the US causes more trouble in the ME than the SCS claim does in the Asia Pacific doesn't change the fact that the SCS is causing the raise in tensions in the Pacific. Its setting the region up for possible bad things. For why I put fourth my so much of my energy into SCS is that my thing is Asia. More specifically East Asia. It is an important region, economically, culturally, historically, and for me personally, far more interesting. It is my focus. And I think about how East Asia can pull out ahead of all the tensions and really became an outstanding region. I have said it before. That is me personally. That is where my interest lies. I leave it to others to focus on the Middle East.

 

The Middle East is such a mess. Even with zero US influence, the place would still be a mess. Religion plays too big a role over there for people and that is what makes them go nuts. Religion gets radicalized and either pushes itself into power or religion is hijacked and dragged into power as a tool. As a non-religious person, the place just turns me off. It only interest me because of its importance. If I was offered a free trip to vist some of the places there, I would take it. But I still rather pay money to have the chance to visit Asia places. So far, outside of Japan, I have been to Seoul, South Korea (about 6-7 days), Singapore (3 days), and a short stop a Shanghai. The flight layover was something like 22 hours long. So I stayed at the hotel at the airport. Americans need a visa to enter the country but to be able to get to the airport hotel, I needed a pass. And they gave me a 24 entry pass. So after airport and hotel sleeping time, I had about 6 free hours to spare. So I took the train into the city. With so little time, I just looked at the map for any distinguishable feature. There was the Oriental Pearl Tower icon so that is where I went. As short as it was, I enjoyed my little visit and thought it was a crime that I couldn't explore the city anymore after getting a small taste of it.

 

East Asian countries (except the Norks) are much more rational and can really do well if they can get over a few more hurdles I think. So I want to see the last remaining hurdles overcome. The SCS and Senkaku claims are steps backwards. I spend a lot of my energy learning about Japan's recognition of its atrocities as well. And I have a long list of things I want to read and learn still about Japan, South Korea, and China. But time is limited. I have to work and maintain my relationship, and do the god damn laundry :lol: So to label me as purely focusing on China's seemingly bad aspects is unfair and incorrect. I am not intellectually gifted with limited time and I except the risk that I might not be able to do as much as I want in regards to East Asia in my lifetime, but I figure it is worth the attempt. There is no way I can fit in the ME in depth. However I do recognize its importance and devote some time into it, enough to keep me up to speed on it.

 

 

The US developed a dependency on assets all over the world. So as something happens outside, the US faces a decision whether to use military force or not. China is mostly internal. But as the dependency grows more on foreign areas, China too will face decisions on whether or not to use military force. I wouldn't be surprised if China finds itself deploying its military in Africa within the next 10-20 years.

 

You are right they might if say Sudan or any other of China oil supply is threatened with US-sponsored invasion.

 

 

I was thinking something more like, if going with Sudan, the Sudanese getting fed up with a Chinese presence and start violently protesting or committing terrorist attacks which provoke a Chinese military dispatch in the name of peace and security so that China can continue extracting resources. Xinjiang and Tibet sort of serve as a prelude to it. I am only saying I wouldn't be surprised, not saying it will happen. US provocation not needed. CIA might jump in to make things worse for China in Sudan.


  • 0

#60 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nemui

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,726 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko da?!
  • Interests:Sleeping

Posted 09 August 2014 - 0815 AM

 

 

 

....................     If China wants to rid itself of the critical western eye, it needs to drop the SCS claim, or at the very least, cut it in half to just the northern half so that it at least geographically speaking, doesn't look so outrageous, and cut back a little from the eastern side so that the Philippines is cool. And then drop the Senkaku claim. If China lacks the flexibility to make those changes, then they are the cause of the critical western eye.  ..............

 

.

 

But it is o.k. for the USA to claim the western hemi-sphere ("Monroe Doctrine") and interfere for its own purposes anywhere else i the World that it wants ?

 

 

Monroe Doctrine style policy was a legacy from European colonization and the Cold War. In more recent times, I hear of things once in a while in Central America with CIA activity. Don't know how much the US is interfering with Latin America. Venezuela probably could use some interference. Post cold-war, American policy under Clinton was not so good. Prevention of genocide in Balkans was probably a good thing though. I never said going anywhere in the world for its interest was ok. 2003 Iraq invasion IMO was a mistake. Afghanistan was a must IMO.
 

I dislike hypocriscy.

 

 

Me too.
 

 

(  I am still awaiting for the list of huge numbers of aircraft, AFVs and ships added to the Chinese armed forces over the last two decades that the US has been warning of the huge Chinese threat. )

 

( I also dislike the constant "crying of wolf" merely as a way of trying to increase defence spending. )

 

 

China is currently building two aircraft carriers. How big? How many aircraft per carrier? Its not disclosed. Type 95 nuclear power subs. Exactly how many? what capabilities? It's not disclosed. AFV's? Wiki says 700 Type 99 tanks. Type 99A2 is supposedly quite a nice tank. J-20, J-31? Tech demonstrators? True capabilities? Production plans? Its not disclosed. How am I supposed to give you a list? But that again is besides what I have been saying. Just the military build is perfectly fine with me. But combined with the SCS claim and Senkaku claim, it causes the need for precautionary planning.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users