Quote:
Originally Posted by orange dave
The rise of China I'm referring to isn't just economic. Though of course that plays a major part of it, they also have ways of threatening the US even beyond proportionately to their economic prowess.
|
If not economics then what are you talking about with rise? It can't fund an army unless it has liberal economic policies. All other types of growths in China are dependent on economic growth. No wonder you couldn't precise any of this in your post like a normal argument.
Quote:
|
Not waging war, but certainly forging alliances. When Afghanistan harbors OBL, it is taken as an act of war against the US. So when China allies itself with Afghanistan and other states that harbor terrorists, it is an agressive move.
|
Yes, but that had nothing to do with economic growth in China or "the Rise of China" whatever in the blue hell that's supposed to mean. China allied itself with the Taliban and harbored terrorists now?
Quote:
|
Nowadays of course one doesn't need to wage war on one's enemies directly - 9/11 proved that non-state proxies can do the job perfectly well.
|
So China was behind 9/11 hey? Is that what you are trying to say? Bwhahaha.
You'll resort to anything to save this monster of an error you created.
Quote:
|
Yes, partly. Their political stability is something that is lacking in someplace like India. With China, several decades of gradually relaxing economic policies give investors some degree of confidence that things will continue that way in the future. India, on the other hand, has opened up what in the last few years? Nobody really has that much confidence that things will continue this way very far into the future.
|
The military does not provide stability anymore. The structure of the Chinese state does not at all rely on the PLA. When an investor comes to a country, he doesn't really care about its army unless it's directly attacking businesses. Economic stability is provided by policies, and even then, it's nothing constant.
Quote:
|
Fine, but Sun Zi does not belong to this well-defined platform, having lived thousands of years before it was developed.
|
Yes he does. It's not because he lived thousands of years ago that he wouldn't fall into that category. He puts the military and state foremost as the principle actor in international relations. You can't be much more a pupil of realism with a view like that. Most peddlers and merchants in ancient China were liberalists without knowing it, why wouldn't a general be a realist?
Quote:
|
When there isn't even the political will to end domestic subsidies for oil consumption?
|
What domestic subsidies for oil consumption? 40+% of gas prices are taxes
Quote:
|
A region where politics is heavily intertwined with religion...
|
Virtually all states within the middle East are secular. Alqueida opposes most of them. Wow, it is true, you don't know much of anything about the region.
Quote:
As true as that is, we live in a democracy, and Bush isn't the one in charge. Any president would have had to take a similar course given the political demands of the time.
Exactly. People were looking for blood...Muslim blood.
|
Islam was not responsible for 9/11, extremists were. This is a war on these people, not on the whole of Islam.
Quote:
Indonesia is the biggest Muslim country in the world in terms of size, but not fundamentalism - or at least the extent to which they mix their religion with their government.
I agree though, it doesn't make any sense. I think it goes into the general category of not having the will to finish the job completely - and also having been manipulated into going there in the first place.
|
I think you were just way off when you called this a religious war and now are trying to come up with any half ass theory to save face.