Was Napoleon Right About China?

Illusive

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
3,674
Likes
7,310
Country flag
Again and again u guys label those countries China befriends as "failed states", "oppressive regime" or rogues.
Isn't it obvious what US rejects China accepts or rather befriends. You should understand that since you want to challenge US. Enemy of US is a friend of yours, but sadly they all happened to be failed states in reality.
 

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,882
Likes
8,125
Country flag
If it's not a failed state then why are millions of Bangladeshis coming to India for jobs?

India is still a developing country, and is not exactly a top destination for immigrants. Most immigrants tend to go to developed countries. So if Bangladeshis are willing to come here, it should say something about the state of affairs in their country.
The economic conditions may be dismal. But they're not a nation controlled by feudals, which is getting bombed to oblivion by a foreign power on a daily basis ;)
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
The economic conditions may be dismal. But they're not a nation controlled by feudals, which is getting bombed to oblivion by a foreign power on a daily basis ;)
That's true. Bangladesh has a decent tradition of civilian government and certainly has more potential than Pakistan.

If they can keep Islamic radicals out of power and proceed with a socially progressive outlook and economic development, I'd say they have a fair future ahead of them.
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
If it's not a failed state then why are millions of Bangladeshis coming to India for jobs?
India is still a developing country, and is not exactly a top destination for immigrants. Most immigrants tend to go to developed countries. So if Bangladeshis are so desperate to leave their country to go to a country as poor as India, it should say something about the state of affairs in their own country.
Right, but aren't we confusing a little between a poor country and a failed system here? Reasons of migration in these times are no longer simpler. It could be for money or better law & order or attraction towards different culture-lifestyle, weather etc

Regards,
Virendra
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
Right, but aren't we confusing a little between a poor country and a failed system here? Reasons of migration in these times are no longer simpler. It could be for money or better law & order or attraction towards different culture-lifestyle, weather etc

Regards,
Virendra
Mate, I don't think these Bangladeshis are coming to India for the weather, lol.

This isn't my own opinion, Bangladesh is in the Top 25 Failed States, right up there with North Korea and Myanmar.

List of countries by Failed States Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
I applaud you for your slave mentality.
History has taught me prudence and a little foresight. The same lessons were learned by the Japanese and the Europeans. It's not surprising therefore that these countries are not contesting US' dominance. Instead the World's nouveau riche are itching to be on top of the World (and the necks of their neighbors. Slave mentality.. Yeah, wait until the World's major powers have to mobilize again...
 

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,080
Likes
40,077
Country flag
If it's not a failed state then why are millions of Bangladeshis coming to India for jobs?
For the same reason millions from West Bengal go to other states for jobs. One thing common between West Bengal and East Bengal (Bangladesh), is people's mad obsession with agriculture to an extant where farmers aren't willing to give up their farmlands for industries that will employ them, and in some cases, pay them more than what they'd make from their farmlands. The laws on both sides of the border advocate strong property rights. Hence on both sides of the border, Bangla people are the least industrialised in South Asia.
 

tony4562

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
836
Likes
49
With global warming, energy crisis, water shortage, population explosion, deteriorating environment and terrorism becoming increasingly active and widespread, the world is heading towards perillous waters. The prospect is really not looking too good, for all of us, China included. China of course, is in somewhat better position than India, but still no reasons to be joyful.
 

AprilLyrics

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2011
Messages
380
Likes
54
maybe u see china has become a important power in the world.

but i dont like this china.

in history,we also have been a centre of the world.

but we werent famous for our millitary,but for our culture.and tenchology in some area.

we can deal wtih our neighbours peacefully,friendly in most time.thats why we stretch our cultures to korea and japan,and vietnam and other countries around us.if ancient china respect for millitary powers,maybe we wont see korea and japan now...we also trade with west merchants very well.

when we talk about that china,can it remind u any of bad impression?i think not.

i dream that kind of china,that kind of power.

but,that's not for this world....made of western rules.

even now,china doesnt adapt to this world.like what?china both want the reputation and the profits.some times they cant be get together,then we lose them together.in ancient times,china will just chose reputation undoubtfully(like ZHENGHE in MING dynasty),which the people of china and other coutries today think is a stupid thing.and for westerners,maybe they would chose profits(i dont mean the person,i mean the country).

back to the topic.china wakes up.but he is still struggling with the world rules.it's not a china way,but a western way.china is not good at it....
 

ace009

Freakin' Fighter fan
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
1,662
Likes
526
For the same reason millions from West Bengal go to other states for jobs. One thing common between West Bengal and East Bengal (Bangladesh), is people's mad obsession with agriculture to an extant where farmers aren't willing to give up their farmlands for industries that will employ them, and in some cases, pay them more than what they'd make from their farmlands. The laws on both sides of the border advocate strong property rights. Hence on both sides of the border, Bangla people are the least industrialised in South Asia.
Dude - stop hitting out on Bengalis. The biggest immigrants in India are from Bihar, Orissa, UP, WB and Andhra. All because of poverty, lack of industrial development, mostly due to bad local and central government policies.
As for Bangladesh - it is still too early to call it a failed state - it became a country only 40 years ago. Give it a couple more decades. At least it is doing better than Pakistan in terms of Social and political problems.
Iran is a falied state because it went from being a progressive state to a islamic fundamentalist state. With all the enormous oil riches, it's people have very little freedom and very little future.
Same way Saudi Arabia is a failed state too.
India may have trade going on with Iran, but no military partnership or political support. That's the difference between India and China.
 

huaxia rox

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
1,401
Likes
103
Again and again u guys label those countries China befriends as "failed states", "oppressive regime" or rogues. Ironically India trades hugely with Sudan and Iran among them. Some posts even boast Iran provides a gateway to Afghan for India. Some other posts tell of agony over how India settled oil bills with Iran who's under sanction. Typical doublespeak at best. Get used to a multipolar world please. That "unipolar" is not altruistic either, and could be worse, without check n balance.
1 some nations r indeed problemitic....if they r laballed as "oppressive regime" or rogues i will not opposite....

2 but natral resorces r in these nations.......what else r we supposed to do? topple those govs???let resources rot natrally there??heck.......we buy resources from them........evidence suggests people there can also benifit from PRC.

3 can any1 name 1 country that doesnt do business with rogues??? vatican??
 

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,080
Likes
40,077
Country flag
1 some nations r indeed problemitic....if they r laballed as "oppressive regime" or rogues i will not opposite....

2 but natral resorces r in these nations.......what else r we supposed to do? topple those govs???let resources rot natrally there??heck.......we buy resources from them........evidence suggests people there can also benifit from PRC.

3 can any1 name 1 country that doesnt do business with rogues??? vatican??
One exception to that argument is that regimes are made problematic, so the natural resources could be had for cheap, or could be had in the first place. Imagine if the entire Muslim world (middle-east and north-Africa) had liberal democracies instead of autocratic regimes: USA and Europe could never have been able to sustain their economic growth in the 20th century, or would have had to deplete their own oil reserves to do that. So one can argue that Some countries are affiliated with oppressive regimes so they can keep the regimes in power, and exploit the country's resources for cheap, if not free.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
One exception to that argument is that regimes are made problematic, so the natural resources could be had for cheap, or could be had in the first place. Imagine if the entire Muslim world (middle-east and north-Africa) had liberal democracies instead of autocratic regimes: USA and Europe could never have been able to sustain their economic growth in the 20th century, or would have had to deplete their own oil reserves to do that. So one can argue that Some countries are affiliated with oppressive regimes so they can keep the regimes in power, and exploit the country's resources for cheap, if not free.
Why. if these Arab countries were democratic then they are no longer affected by the laws of supply and demand? A lot of Arabs are really pathetic. They whine everyday about Western exploitation of their Allah-given oil but if the West did not tap into this bountiful natural resource would they have earned incredibly from it? For all I care they would still be tending camels and setting up camps in the desert until now for they are a bunch of warfreaks, lazy, unreasonable idiots! Exploitation my a@se!

They just have to admit it that whining is programmed into their genes. They should be killing each other, that would be better.

BTW, what would the World be now had the West not exprienced sustained economic growth starting from the dawn of the 20th century? The West has been instrumental in the Worldwide explosion of growth we are expriencing now. Even Malaysia has international trade to thank for its remarkable post-60s growth.
If India only stuck to its insular post-colonialism policies, a most of Indians would still be dirth poor by now (although a lot still are).
 

Godless-Kafir

DFI Buddha
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
5,842
Likes
1,837
Country flag
1 some nations r indeed problemitic....if they r laballed as "oppressive regime" or rogues i will not opposite....

2 but natral resorces r in these nations.......what else r we supposed to do? topple those govs???let resources rot natrally there??heck.......we buy resources from them........evidence suggests people there can also benifit from PRC.

3 can any1 name 1 country that doesnt do business with rogues??? vatican??
What natural resource Pakistan has!!! :laugh:

If stupidity is an national resource pakistan has plenty!
 

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,080
Likes
40,077
Country flag
Why. if these Arab countries were democratic then they are no longer affected by the laws of supply and demand?
No, they would have treated their natural resources in the same way America does. America plugged most of its terrestrial and offshore oil reserves after WWII, so it could conserve it on its side, even if it means importing it from half-way across the globe. The cost of transporting it is more or less overcome by the price at which it is bought (compared to the price of oil tapped out of its own reserves).

It is a rule of the thumb that natural resources in an autocratic or failing state is cheap. If you can destabilize a state enough, you can give whatever you want to for its resources. Even if the liberal democratic Muslim world did see a golden market for its oil, it would not sell it for the price it does. In democracies, policies are intensely debated, with the very power of the ruling party at stake. The Muslim world would have used oil as a much greater leverage against whoever it's selling to.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
No, they would have treated their natural resources in the same way America does. America plugged most of its terrestrial and offshore oil reserves after WWII, so it could conserve it on its side, even if it means importing it from half-way across the globe. The cost of transporting it is more or less overcome by the price at which it is bought (compared to the price of oil tapped out of its own reserves).

It is a rule of the thumb that natural resources in an autocratic or failing state is cheap. If you can destabilize a state enough, you can give whatever you want to for its resources. Even if the liberal democratic Muslim world did see a golden market for its oil, it would not sell it for the price it does. In democracies, policies are intensely debated, with the very power of the ruling party at stake. The Muslim world would have used oil as a much greater leverage against whoever it's selling to.

Your wonderful idea of natural resources conservation is a recipe for stagnation, hunger, irrelevance, for abject poverty really accross the whole region. If not for these oil resources, what have the Arabs got to offer? Camel dung?

Don't apologize for these bunch of lucky but lazy desert warfreaks. They really are natural whiners. That's the only thing they can competntly do without foreign intervention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AOE

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
It is a rule of the thumb that natural resources in an autocratic or failing state is cheap. If you can destabilize a state enough, you can give whatever you want to for its resources. Even if the liberal democratic Muslim world did see a golden market for its oil, it would not sell it for the price it does. In democracies, policies are intensely debated, with the very power of the ruling party at stake. The Muslim world would have used oil as a much greater leverage against whoever it's selling to.
You're too naive at best. Do you think the World will be chasing oil producers that don't want to sell at market prices, or would only sell them ate their "not selling" prices? You're opinions are sorely lacking in a good dose of economic reality my friend. If these oil producers price their oil too high then the consumers would just look for a cheaper alternative. This is how market works, unless of course you're still stuck in the collective Soviet economy.

Even now that the prices are still relatively cheap the population of the entire Western World and Asia are already clamoring for more government investments in alternative fuels. This is thanks largely to shocks in oil prices. It's no big surpise therefore that the Saudis, who almost always have the clearest minds on oil market natural laws, are going to great lengths to pump more oil to cover the slack in production due to disruptions or idiotic policies by other oil producers. These Saudis know that if the price of oil is allowed to spiral out of control as what some quarters of oil producers want, then not only will the World economy go into tailspin, the relevance of oil also will go down with it. This is the sort of economic conflagration that will finally tip the debate of alternative energy sources against oil. And the Saudis knows it.

The fact is that most oil producing countries are not prepared to transition to an oil-less economy right now. The Americans, Europeans, Japanese, Arabs, Venezuelans, know it. An abrupt cutting off of demand on oil will immediately send these countries to bankrupcy.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Clarification: "these" in last paragraph above refers only to oil producers.
 

Godless-Kafir

DFI Buddha
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
5,842
Likes
1,837
Country flag
We just focus on enriching our citizens under the relative peace brought by a unipolar world. Egos should be held in check.
What does this uni-polar super power do when millions where killed in Dawfur, Congo or millions struggle in Burma? Apparently it only cares for the freedom of countries rich in natural resources, mainly oil. When majority of the world is in poverty and the few countries dam the flow of resources and money to all parts of the world and greedily consume for themselves what belongs to all of mankind, then there is problem, banks are nothing more than dam for stopping the flow of money and money controls the resources. They allow the deforestation of Africa and pay a cheap price for the wood which in turn is pushing these people to leave the dependance on forest and end up having nothing to sustain them and suffer in poverty, once they lived a noble life under the forest but now they have cut off the forests for money! You will see that the west does not care for the end of poverty, violation of human rights or dignity of man.

They may say the noblest words but if only words meant anything real, so i refuse to live under a sweet sounding tyrant who cares only for hoarding more for his own country while pushing others to despair.
 
Last edited:

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
What does this uni-polar super power do when millions where killed in Dawfur, Congo or millions struggle in Burma? Apparently it only cares for the freedom of countries rich in natural resources, mainly oil. When majority of the world is in poverty and the few countries dam the flow of resources and money to all parts of the world and greedily consume for themselves what belongs to all of mankind, then there is problem, banks are nothing more than dam for stopping the flow of money and money controls the resources. They allow the deforestation of Africa and pay a cheap price for the wood which in turn is pushing these people to leave the dependance on forest and end up having nothing to sustain them and suffer in poverty, once they lived a noble life under the forest but now they have cut off the forests for money! You will see that the west does not care for the end of poverty, violation of human rights or dignity of man.


They may say the noblest words but if only words meant anything real, so i refuse to live under a sweet sounding tyrant who cares only for hoarding more for his own country while pushing others to despair.


The deaths in these conflicts, though tragic, pales in comparison to the deaths during the last century's multipolarism:

1. Congo Free State (1886-1908): 8,000,000 est. deaths

The Congo Free State, controlled by King Leo of Belgium (Belgium was a major power then) for 21 years, earned infamy by the brutal mistreatment of the local peoples and plunder of natural resources.

2. First World War (1914-18): 15,000,000 deaths

3. Russian Civil War (1917-22): 9,000,000 deaths

4. Second World War (1939-45): 66,000,000 deaths

5. Soviet Union, Stalin's purges (1924-53): 20,000,000 deaths

The first four major incidents happened exclusively during the last multipolar era while the fufth incident (or series) partly happened during the multipolar era until the early bipolar era (Cold War).
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top