Britain is to America as Greece is to Rome
US versus China for world position
-
Looks like you’d love enforcing restrictions to China to have a “fair” treatnent.
You enforce the restrictions by simply not buying their products, don’t need a military to not buy things.
Oh look you did! For around 100 years!
I’m not sure who you are referring to. The west in general?
As for Commodore Perry, that was in relation to Japan and he opened up Japan for trade but didn’t exploit Japan the same way China was….So not sure how that relates, if anything, it strengthened Japan.
It strenghten Japan?
Perry and his “black ships” were a nightmare to Japan. The projecting of power through technology destabilized the peaceful (at that times) government, everything went to hell, the Emperor rose to power and they started to get military and navy too, with a slow escalation, from Manchuria to Korea’s conquest in 1910, 'till when they had enough to stop the unfair trades. From that point on they kept arming themselves and then after second China war you had Singapore and Pearl Harbour.
That’s the consequences of Perry’s (US) actions. Probably you wouldnt had a Pearl Harbour without it.
-
Well if the comparison is that of a Japan that never ever faces the west or another country then perhaps the meeting with Perry was more negative. But Japan was never forced into the same sort of commercial agreements that China was forced into. By the 1900s Japan was able to stand up to imperial powers on its own (spell that Russia) and could chart its own destiny rather unlike China.
That’s the consequences of Perry’s (US) actions. Probably you wouldnt had a Pearl Harbour without it.
If a butterfly flapped its wings differently long enough ago then Pearl Harbour also probably wouldn’t have occurred. My point was Perry’s meeting forced Japan into the modern age. Japan made the choices it did on it’s own unlike China until 1949.
Based on the era, Commodore Perry and the United States treated Japan with kid gloves. Compare that to the opium wars……
When Perry arrived in Japan, there was a military-feudal form of government lead by an emperor. I checked the history of Japan and Perry, I think you ought to re-evaluate your premise that Japan was a pleasant peaceful nation at the time. Certainly if you got shipwrecked on Japan you might feel differently about the ‘peaceful folks of Japan’.
The black ships you refer to were what? Ships of a fleet that visited Japan and got a trade agreement but hardly pirate ships killing Japanese by the score. Not sure they ever fired a shot in anger or killed a person.
-
Black Ships is the way Japanese people refers ro this event (as the steam powered battleships where black and scared them).
At that time Japan’s emperor had no power. The Tokugawa shogunate in the last 2 centuries disarmed everyone and reduced the military power (hence why the ronin figure - a jobless samurai - was born on that era).
Tokugawa Japan was a confucianism based country. They had a war jn Korea with Hideyoshi (failing) before they really consolidated the new government. They even had a good relwtionship with Holland (they were trading ONLY with them).And yes China suffered a LOT MORE. The country was humiliated by the strongest west countries (not mine at least)
I also believe that China in communist hands is also a reaction to what they suffered. And they probably will claim revenge sooner or later. Can you blame them? -
Interesting…
I just read a poll of roughly 600,000 people worldwide, as to who they would choose for president.
Every country except 1 elected Obama, and Obama won 80% to 19%.
The only country that would have elected Romney? China
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/05/poll-most-of-the-world-would-vote-for-obama-except-china/
[admin]I don’t see any problem with this post.[/admin]
-
Obama annoyed China a lot during last years. Here’s why they don’t like him
-
Interesting article Garg. I wonder if his skin colour has anything to do with the Chinese slant towards Romney? Perhaps the Mormons are having covert success in China!
-
I’m serious. Chineses were annoyed by Obama, thats it.
Islands issues, Philippines issues, Rare metal issues etc…
-
My head has shaken too much. OK, I say the following as:
A. A US voter who didn’t support or vote for either choice
B. A moderator who understands the rules and will not be debating the politics of the poll, but rather it’s implications and relevance570,000 people voted who they would have preferred for president? This poll had several sketchy parameters:
A. It was not scientific. It was a polling of all the online readers of MSN. I don’t care if you support Obama, that’s not really being honest about wanting an intellectual answer to “Who does the world support? Which candidate?”
B. 36 Countries = The entire planet? Also, consider “the entire planet” is just the online readership of MSN. I could just as easily garner enough international supporters of “clean energy,” poll them, and then state I had found “The Entire Planet” supports one candidate or another. They all have something in common, it must be an accurate data collection! No.
C. Somehow, the “Middle East’s” support for Obama doesn’t bother anyone and China’s support for Romney does? And you can’t use the argument, “The people support us, the rulers do not.” I could use the same argument with China, and considering China’s development and broad access to the internet compared to the Middle East, I would probably have the better argument.
D. The “thoughts” of one MSN China affiliate represents the viewership of China? Did she poll these people, ask them questions? She doesn’t even say, it just says, “what she thought.”
There is no reason anyone should trust this poll as accurate in correctly predicting who the “world” supports (a terribly obtuse claim), and also explaining why the same “world” voted for one candidate or another. Remember, I am merely talking about the validity of this poll, not generalizations about how world politics are, etc.
GG
-
Another political thread. Perhaps a ban on threads with US somehow implicated in something…
-
GG, I would agree that nobody should trust the poll. MSN is left leaning, had the poll been that of Fox news readers it would carry more weight. I would posit that in general the world does seem to favour Obama. I think Canadians favour him which is surprising since he is against the keystone oil pipeline and Romney is for it. I suspect Obama will now be for it.
Another political thread. Perhaps a ban on threads with US somehow implicated in something…
As for this being a political thread, nobody is asserting one guy is/was better than the other or that one should have voted one way or the other. The statement seems hyperbolic, moreover, I wonder why it should apply to the US only?
This is the first time I have seen an administrator comment, is this treading too close to breaking the rules, if so, according to whom?
-
Because people deliberately bring up threads about the USA for the sole purpose of indirectly or directly ridiculing some aspect of US policy, the nation itself or it’s people. It is so obvious that is the only point of these threads, it shocks me that that was not understood by 99.99999999%.
-
GG, I would agree that nobody should trust the poll. MSN is left leaning, had the poll been that of Fox news readers it would carry more weight.
I wouldn’t think a FOX news poll would have anymore weight to it, if it was of FOX News viewership. My point is one of intellectual honesty, not of political opinion (remember, I don’t have a horse in this race). Both are unscientific, and choose a slanted audience as a majority audience. If they had done this at Gallop, their would be… well someone would get fired for sure.
I would posit that in general the world does seem to favour Obama. I think Canadians favour him which is surprising since he is against the keystone oil pipeline and Romney is for it. I suspect Obama will now be for it.
I probably would agree, about the world being more favorable for Obama. I am not sure if that has quite the desired affect on the electorate that the world wants, or that specific news outlets want. I would be interested to see if there is a US poll of voters to see what were the reasons for choosing who they elected, and add global affirmation as an option. I still would suspect the economy was the overwhelming reason.
GG
-
Probably if it’s true that other nations favors Obama, it might be that they didn’t like Bush’s foreign politics and they associate him with any other Republican.
This is just my opinion, there’s no fox polls for it.
-
The other countries wanted Obama for 2nd term because he 's too soft on foreign politics. MPO.
-
I know that this poll was bandy about the airwaves a bit:
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/10/31/surprise-obama-winning-90-of-northern-european-vote/
I don’t know that they give the reasons why, but it says here that Obama is considered right of center, or even right wing, when it comes to European politics. That said, it is likely that politically Europeans choose Obama because, while still too far to the right for them, he is more to the left than Mitt Romney. Similar to the situation that many conservative Americans would vote for Romney because while he is not conservative enough for many, he is much more conservative than the president. With only two choices it becomes the lesser of two evils mindset.
-
I am not sure if that has quite the desired affect on the electorate that the world wants
A subtle difference but I am not sure the world likes Obama in order to sway the US electorate.
Because people deliberately bring up threads about the USA for the sole purpose of indirectly or directly ridiculing some aspect of US policy, the nation itself or it’s people.
Please point out where in this thread this has occurred?
-
I am not saying it is true or not, only that the pattern again emerges where a thread about US “going down” and another nation rising…China is this case.
-
@Imperious:
I am not saying it is true or not, only that the pattern again emerges where a thread about US “going down” and another nation rising…China is this case.
Maybe this is due to reality. Unfortunate, but true.
-
Not debating that. Just that it is yet another thread to make USA look bad. From a Canadian.
-
Mr. Crunch,
You’re a hard one to figure out. You mention the “bullying of the US” against other nations while at the same time advocate the US, not the world or a coalition or something, enforcing environmental, labor and human rights rules upon China. I would like to see human rights recognized for everyone, but isn’t that just the sort of thing other nations would call bullying, when the US attempts to use its strength in one arena or another to force a policy on another nation?
I still believe the relatively benign policies of the US toward other nations given their relative strength is commendable. We’re not perfect but we do a pretty fair job.
Suggested Topics
