OnPoint: Google to Embargo China
221 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 9 Newer→ Last
-
Perhaps we should get back OT:
From the Guardian:
Google moved quickly to announce that it would stop censoring its Chinese service after realising dissidents were at risk from attempts to use the company's technology for political surveillance, according to a source with direct knowledge of the internet giant's most senior management.
As the US intervened in Google's challenge to Beijing, the source told the Guardian the company's decision was largely influenced by the experiences of Sergey Brin's Russian refugee background.
The Google co-founder "felt this very personally", the source said. "The notion that somebody would try to turn Google's tools into tools of political surveillance was something he found deeply offensive."
Canny PR founded in some sort of truth, I think.
-
EDIT: Post redundant. What Keith says below...
-
Re: War with China
First, second and third off: Why?
1) What would they gain?
You can't just take the past models of wars and assume that they'll be the same in the future – especially not World War II. It was a unique mix of ideology, geopolitics, technologies, economics that created a global war of annihilation. It was not a normal war.What kind of war would the next one be? Would it be a border skirmish? Naval interdictions? A proxy war? Cyber war? What would the goal be? Trade advantage? Military suppression? Regime change? Ethnic cleansing? Nuclear annihilation?
Why do you assume that a “conventional” war of occupation would be the default setting for a future war?
To answer that question, you'd have to explain why they'd want to occupy New Zealand, or any other country, given the tremendous costs it would entail. Neither war nor occupation is an end in itself. Just ask America.
While you're at it, consider how difficult it is for America to occupy Iraq. How difficult to you think it would be to occupy the world? How much manpower and resources would it require? How many bodybags would get shipped home? How long could they maintain that for?
2) What are they after, anyway?
The second part of that argument is what you believe the Chinese leadership to be. Are they evil? Are they stupid? Are they batshit-Hitler-insane? Would they care about killing tens of millions of foreigners? Would they care about losing tens of millions of Chinese? Would they care about the trillions and trillions of dollars it would cost?They are driven by maintaining the prosperity, stability, security and territorial integrity of China. You can trace a clear line from cracking down on dissidents and human rights abuses to these goals. To assume that “war” aligns with these goals, you'd either have to have a fantasy notion of what the cost and gains of war are, or you'd have to believe that the Chinese leadership is some kind of batshit insane.
Nor is their kind of nationalism particularly interested in taking over the world. China is China. Sure, they also believe that Tibet is China, but it's ideologically incoherent for them to be part of the same empire as, say, India or New Zealand.
3) Who do you think “they” are?
Have you met any Chinese people lately? The key ingredient in any war (well, conventional war anyway) is a population of disenfranchised and disgruntled young men. Maybe they are the norm in the rural areas – but not in the cities. When you have job, a future and a WoW character, you don't tend to be very keen to jump in a trench. Nobody – for the same reasons as the West – wants a war.I'm not saying there'll be peace on earth, just that you're trying to apply really simplistic models of World War II onto a very different China, in a very different world.
([Troll voice]: Much like Battlestar Galactica, in fact. Manned carrier-battles with projectile weapons in space? 1942 in space = Stupid.)
-
Are they evil? Are they stupid? Are they batshit-Hitler-insane? Would they care about killing tens of millions of foreigners? Would they care about losing tens of millions of Chinese? Would they care about the trillions and trillions of dollars it would cost?
In other words, does Mao Zedong still run the country? Is it still 1965?
China is very concerned with prosperity-with-stability, which is what these attacks on dissidents represent. Not its opposite.
-
Yeah, my bad. I thought maybe invading peoples countries, locking people up in countries that don't adhere to the west's concept of basic human rights just to torture them, imposing their concept of "Democracy" (read corporate larceny) on countries trying to escape the fear of death squads run by tyrants in the pay of multinational greed heads?
None of which the US has generally done to their own citizens or their allies. So if we're looking to be dictated to by a superpower I'll take the one that at least mostly looks after it's own citizens, thanks.
I can't believe you're seriously suggesting that China has a better recent human rights record than the US. I doubt we'd feel safe even having this debate in public in China.
-
Much like Battlestar Galactica, in fact. Manned carrier-battles with projectile weapons in space? 1942 in space = Stupid.
Yeah, that bugged me a fair bit too. OTOH, the Adama Maneuver = Awesome!
-
Or aren't ridicolous, crude, stupid and racist, yes.
In Tom's defence. I don't think it's unreasonable or racist ask the question of whether China is a military threat. I disagree with his assertions, but I don't think he should be slammed for asking the question in the first place.
-
Ng glorious basterd.
:-) -
None of which the US has generally done to their own citizens or their allies.
We had state sponsored terrorism in my country with the external aid of the CIA, actually. Not to mention the Italian nationals killed while at school or hiking in the mountains, or on board planes, or outside of Bagdad by members of the US military, both known and unknown, but never prosecuted.
Also, have you tried being liberated by the US recently? Those new allies are having a terrific time of it I hear.
-
In Tom's defence. I don't think it's unreasonable or racist ask the question of whether China is a military threat. I disagree with his assertions, but I don't think he should be slammed for asking the question in the first place.
Fair enough. I think mine and a lot of others' hackles were raised by Tom's post not actually being posed as a question for discussion, but rather as a literal call to arms including the vague suggestion that "disloyal" overseas Chinese populations were somehow part of the military threat.
-
I disagree with his assertions, but I don't think he should be slammed for asking the question in the first place.
Aw come on! He suggested one of China's weapons in this war are the immigrants that have entered the country in recent years, didn't he?
-
None of which the US has generally done to their own citizens or their allies.
[citation bloody needed]
I don't want to accuse you of being a troll but that statement is covered in great dollops of wrong.
The Homeland Security act has the US tapping Citizens phones as we speak let alone <GASP> looking at their eMails. Many American Muslims find themselves on the wrong side of the American dream, or don't they count?So if we're looking to be dictated to by a superpower I'll take the one that at least mostly looks after it's own citizens, thanks.
Love the way they are going about health care reform. You can judge a society by the way it treats its vulnerable citizens.
-
I'm a fool and I believe...
-
The Homeland Security act has the US tapping Citizens phones as we speak let alone <GASP> looking at their eMails.
It's worse than that. Every single internet packet that passes into the United States is intercepted and filtered. As switchboard to the world, it is able to do this with impunity, and has been doing so for some time.
-
The Reverse Maui?
That's a fishing cast, and also, a knot. The one hooks what you dont yet know, and t'other tethers it to the waka...to person upstream mentioning Chinese tuna-boats, just remember that as Te Waka a Maui is towed north, you fellas come long for the ride-
-
to person upstream mentioning Chinese tuna-boats, just remember that as Te Waka a Maui is towed north, you fellas come long for the ride-
Of course. Ties that bind and all that.
-
I don't want to accuse you of being a troll but that statement is covered in great dollops of wrong.
The Homeland Security act has the US tapping Citizens phones as we speak let alone <GASP> looking at their eMails. Many American Muslims find themselves on the wrong side of the American dream, or don't they count?Nicely taken out of context. The bit I replied to was this:
Yeah, my bad. I thought maybe invading peoples countries, locking people up in countries that don't adhere to the west's concept of basic human rights just to torture them, imposing their concept of "Democracy" (read corporate larceny) on countries trying to escape the fear of death squads run by tyrants in the pay of multinational greed heads?
If you're claiming any of that has been done by the US to their own citizens on any sort of organised scale than I think you're the one who should be supplying citations.
Once again, are you claiming that China has a better recent human rights record than the US? Because that is what it sounds like you are claiming and that is patently ridiculous. Want a citation? http://www.guardian.co.uk/Tables/4_col_tables/0,,258330,00.html
[edit: Sigh, that's 10 years out of date. Will you accept Amnesty International's 2009 report on China? http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/china/report-2009]Love the way they are going about health care reform. You can judge a society by the way it treats its vulnerable citizens.
Yet you still want to side with the Chinese?
-
If you're claiming any of that has been done by the US to their own citizens on any sort of organised scale than I think you're the one who should be supplying citations.
Quite apart from the various forms of oppression they have perpretated on their own citizenry (genocide, slavery, institutional racism, the war on drugs), they have and are doing plenty to other people, including their allies. And we are other people. So what's your point again?
-
the 'Reverse Maui'
or does it mirror a classic by our own
)artist formely known as) Colon Meccano
the only thing missing is "U"...
(the cryptically titled -
Victory Over Death Star!)...or reflect on a deeper subtext
the very Zen MAUI - I (U) AM! -
This is terribly interesting to me, largely because to me the replies show how quickly any person attempting to start a rational discussion is shouted by an virtual lynch mob of people who have little idea what they are talking about beyond a kneejerk dislike of guns.
but rather as a literal call to arms including the vague suggestion that "disloyal" overseas Chinese populations were somehow part of the military threat.
So... saying we need a national security about China, its goals and ambitions and whether or not we should think about rearming is a call to arms? Don't be stupid.
Kieth - what form would such a conflict take? Paul Buchanan noted in 2007 that Chinese ambitions clash directly with the United States' outer two defence perimeters in the Pacific. We are therefore likely to see much greater proxy clashes in this region. A scenario might be a military intervention to topple the Suva dictatorship if Washington got wind of a deal to allow China to build a Naval base at Nandi. Currently we don't have the military power to make the forcible removal of Bainimarama an option. Should we? Should we use military force to prevent the establishment of Chinese military outposts in the South West Pacific? Or how would we defend our fisheries from aggressive Chinese fishing fleets?
Second point - I think China is an unreformed corrupt one party state run by people whose thinking about realpolitik is still in the mid-twentieth century. China has big problems that it leadership seems to think it can assuage through economic growth. At the moment that is progressing peacefully, but that growth cannot be infinte, especially for 1.3 billion people, and given China's growing power we have to ask ourselves if the Chinese regime won't resort to simply taking what it needs if it is powerful enough to do so.
3) Who do you think “they” are?
From what I read, the Chinese government can turn a shrill nationalism on and off like a tap. A common view of Chinese seems to think freedom of expression mean "never criticise China". It often seems to be never very far from the surface. Given China's intolerance of dissent that shrill nationalism is rightly a cause of concern to smaller powers like New Zealand.
I have no doubt no one in China wants a war, but to quote Admiral Fisher - "all nations want peace, as long as it is a peace that suits them."
-
Is the Guardian a particular bastion of STTP? Just checking, cause while reading that recent paper on Copenhagen, the slant put on it was so great I nearly fell over readin git.
-
Well, Pat Buchanan... you can't really argue with somebody like that.
You still aren't answering the basic question. Why would China want to go to war with us? They are sitting on the largest pile of money in the world. If it's our resources they want, we are perfectly capable of privatising them and selling them to them. Read the 2025 Taskforce report, it's exactly what Brash is advocating: total privatisation and no barrier to foreign capital. Once you've ceded all your assets, who needs sovereignty?
-
Second point - I think China is an unreformed corrupt one party state run by people whose thinking about realpolitik is still in the mid-twentieth century.
Reference?
Second point - I think China is an unreformed corrupt one party state run by people whose thinking about realpolitik is still in the mid-twentieth century.
Troll.
From what I read...
We're all waiting for what you read, cause it ain't coming out in any Google search I can think of.
-
Quite apart from the various forms of oppression they have perpretated on their own citizenry (genocide, slavery, institutional racism, the war on drugs), they have and are doing plenty to other people, including their allies.
But the point is that the US's spectacular and ongoing failure to live up to its own ideals doesn't give us any insight into how China will behave when it's the sole remaining superpower.
Who knows how the China leadership of the future will decide is the best way to maintain their prosperity, stability, security and territorial integrity when they become the unchallengeable, biggest kid on the block.
I'm not suggesting they will go on a global rampage of military conquest, but China's track record of happily supporting the worst regimes in the world when it's in their interest easily rivals the US's. And to get back on topic, at least the US has the decency to be covert in how it monitors its citizens and controls the flow of information ;)
-
Yet you still want to side with the Chinese?
I suppose if it came to taking sides then I would, that is my prerogative. We live in a part of the world that is geographicaly tied to Asia, China is our neighbour rather than the United States. I have American Family and Chinese friends I have no enemies and...
Why am I bothering defending myself against... WTF?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.