Users who are viewing this thread
Mage246
As I was perfectly well aware when I made that post.
The point was that the presence of troops does not imply an empire of any kind. Troops, like diplomats or NGOs, are sent to protect a certain interest or promote a certain agenda. There's nothing inherently imperialistic about it. It's all about why they are there, how they are deployed, and if they have the permission of the host government.
The point was that the presence of troops does not imply an empire of any kind. Troops, like diplomats or NGOs, are sent to protect a certain interest or promote a certain agenda. There's nothing inherently imperialistic about it. It's all about why they are there, how they are deployed, and if they have the permission of the host government.
The systematic and overarching concept that a state should remove the autonomy of its neighbors?
Mage246
In which case all states are imperialistic, in as much as they desire their neighbors to accede to their demands.
No, imperialism is not a matter of "shoulds" but of actions and intents. The intent is to control - not to influence or cajol or intimidate. The intent is to remove choice entirely, either by taking control of leadership outright or by making disobedience impose such horrific consequences that it becomes unimaginable. Anything less does not qualify as imperialism. Free and independent does not mean unaffected by the actions of others. Small and peaceful countries are as apt to try to influence neighbors as large ones, the only difference is in the variation of means of doing so.
No, imperialism is not a matter of "shoulds" but of actions and intents. The intent is to control - not to influence or cajol or intimidate. The intent is to remove choice entirely, either by taking control of leadership outright or by making disobedience impose such horrific consequences that it becomes unimaginable. Anything less does not qualify as imperialism. Free and independent does not mean unaffected by the actions of others. Small and peaceful countries are as apt to try to influence neighbors as large ones, the only difference is in the variation of means of doing so.
Besides, the thought of the Phillipines taking on China is laughable, to say the least.
Fenix_120
Sergeant
Eternal said:
True, but just one glory seeking fool or stressed out mental case firing his side arm is all it takes.
Also China cannot allow themselves to appear to be beaten by such a small dreg, they would declare war for nothing more than bragging rights.
Just saying it could get worse.
EDIT: But hopefully will not.
Mage246
Because China is stupid, and thinks that controlling a few barren islands is worth pissing off all of their neighbors. You realize this involves more than just the Phillipines, right? Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, India, Indonesia, basically anyone that is concerned about running up against an aggressive China.
Also, number 1 economy? Nah, they're number one in Investment, but not in economy.
Fenix_120 said:
Not really. It might be in the case for nukes, but conflicts on ship to ship scales don't necessarily draw up that level of a threat. Take the border incidents between N and S Korea for instance. North Korea has fired on South Korea before. They didn't go back to war even though they both were technically still in ceasefire. In most cases, hysterical people generally don't go very far up the command chain.
Titan Uranus
Veteran
You do realize that the Philippines are a U.S. client state, right? The scenario you posit would result in the Chinese fleet being sunk and probably a blockade on their ports at the very least. Quite possibly it could escalate to a much wider war.Fenix_120 said:
Those tiny islands are not worth it. Even if the island were siting on a slab of gold 1000ft deep and the size of Montana with straight crude oil for 10000ft below that, it would still likely not be worth the risk right now.
Not everyone is living well in China, but they will have an economy that is much better than the USA's economy. There money is really starting to have some real value in the world market now.MadocComadrin said:
As a off topic it looks like North Korea is at it again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU2a-QayACE
Mage246
Much better how? You're going to have to clarify that. Because it certainly wont be better standard of living.
And wow, you're missing some important info on that rocket launch. The rocket fell apart before reaching orbit.
And wow, you're missing some important info on that rocket launch. The rocket fell apart before reaching orbit.
Mage246
Least effective ignore ever. And apparently you prefer to ignore the truth, too?
Thank you for confirming my low opinion of you.
Thank you for confirming my low opinion of you.
thesneakster
Grandmaster Knight
Mage246 said:
Its a pretty bold claim to say that they will never ever have a better standard of living...
That's not the claim he made, boyo.
Define what you mean by "starting?" It always had some value, the Chinese government has been undervaluing it on purpose for ages now. Frankly, I don't think the Chinese economy will fare very well when they actually have to start paying people decent wages and aren't the targets of foreign outsourcing and manufacturing jobs. Like I said: they have a good I in their GDP, which is part of the reason why it has such great growth, but I don't think they have the economic infrastructure to keep it up when they actually pass the 1st world line.Computica said:
