<p>i just noticed somebody loved my username enough to copy it :D</p>
<p>Razorsharp, no offense, but do you read ANYTHING you use as sources?</p>
<p>The website (Devvy) you posted is anti-Republican, and is trying to use the China article as a mockery of the Republican party. My God!</p>
<p>"Razor, look up what happened on May 4th, 1970 at Kent State. Look at what happened to some people who were organized a protest"</p>
<p>I really cant beleive you just compared kent state to tiananmen square. The shooters at Kent State were national guard members, barely kids who were just mobilized the day before untrained in crowd control. Compare that to tiananmen square where a full scale military operation, with regular troops, tanks and full authorization of the national government. Kent State was sad, and a travesty but compareing what happened there to Tianenmen square is like comparing the speed of a little league pitcher to someone in the pros.</p>
<p>I do think that cheering for 9-11 was a bit much though. It think I would have to call BS on that one.</p>
<p>Razorsharp:</p>
<p>First of all, I'd like to thank you for your cessation of extreme attacks by replacing them with supported arguments. By the way, My car is clean now =)</p>
<p>OK. After reading ur info, I have to say that the site <a href="http://www.devvy.com/200408111738.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.devvy.com/200408111738.html</a> and the info it contains is definitely not neutral.</p>
<p>"These vicious attacks are aimed at Americans who are going to vote a "third party." A large number of states have far more than three registered political parties, so use of the term "third party" is inaccurate - throw it away! Why does there have to be this type of label for any party other than the Democratic-Republican Party? I'll tell you why: because repetition of the term 'third party' makes people think that any party other than the Democrat or Republican Party isn't a real political party, but rather some fringe organization. It's all a mind game.
I left the Republican party in 1996 for good and have had no party affiliation ever since. Having run on the Republican ticket for Congress, I got a first hand look into the machine and it sickened me. The central committee honchos weren't the least bit interested in the law, the Constitution or what was right, only "win at all costs." A pernicious course that is hastening the death of this Republic. As the years have passed with a Republican controlled Congress (1995-2004), I have watched them take America closer and closer to a totalitarian government."</p>
<p>The second and third paragraphs of that article gives evidence that the writer is either a naturally emotional person or was emotional at the time. Such people make logical fallacies and feed their rhetoric with pathos rather than logos and ethos. The third paragraph especially gives evidence of strong emotion.</p>
<p>Here's some evidence of his bias and aversion for the Chinese:</p>
<p>"Chew on that the next time you want to buy some cheap shirt or tennis shoes Made in China."</p>
<p>"The same dictator who allowed one of their F-8 fighter jets to collide with one of our U.S. Navy EP-3E Aries II surveillance planes on April 1, 2001."</p>
<p>First, he calls China's products "cheap." Well, since Chinese products seem to be everywhere, I wouldn't be surprised if he owned several "cheap" products.</p>
<p>Second, what the heck was a U.S. spy plane doing in China anyway? The U.S. would have done something similar if a Chinese spy plane had crashed in the U.S. It's the national defense and intelligence business.</p>
<p>OK, the entire article from Devvy is filled with too much strong feeling and not enough clear thinking. Now onto the other article.</p>
<p>Onto your question on why China is rapidly building its military forces. China is currently undergoing its own industrial revolution right now, as there have been huge improvements in technology. With a rapidly improving industry comes a rapidly improving military. China isn't necessarily adding another 100,000 troops to its army, it's improving its military technology.</p>
<p>This exact same thing happened to American during its Industrial revolution. The most profound military innovation that came as a direct result of America's industrial revolution were the grooved rifles, which made guns much more accurate. Also came the primitive assault rifle/machine gun, in the 7-shot repeater rifles and the 16-shot breechloaders. All of those weapons were used during the Civil War, but the ideas and innovations surrounding those inventions originated from the Industrial Revolution.</p>
<p>I'll get back to you on the intellectual theft later when I have more time.</p>
<p>By the way, how do you put the words in the gray boxes?</p>
<p>[ quote] [ /quote] without the spaces</p>
<p>{quote}{/quote} if {} = []</p>
<p>[Is quoting like this??]
Hopefully I got it right</p>
<p>lol, lemme try it again.</p>
<p>
[quote]
blah blah blah blah
[/quote]
</p>
<p>tlaktan, I posted the devvy article because College incorrectly said I was subject to "conservative propaganda". The devvy article is very cricial of conservatives while also exposing China's self appointed leader for his true intentions. If I had posted merely a conservative Republican article saying this, then College would have said "Ah, Ha -- there is conservative progaganda" thereby confirming his opinion. Thus, I offered an article from someone who is neither conservative or liberal.</p>
<p>No offense taken.</p>
<p>College, glad your car is clean. You should be a hit with folks of the opposite sex.</p>
<p>If you don't think China is American's enemy, then check out this article originally from the Washington Times.
[quote]
China is building its military forces faster than U.S. intelligence and military analysts expected, prompting fears that Beijing will attack Taiwan in the next two years, according to Pentagon officials.</p>
<p>U.S. defense and intelligence officials say all the signs point in one troubling direction: Beijing then will be forced to go to war with the United States, which has vowed to defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack.
[/quote]
Regarding Chinese spying in America:
[quote]
"It's pervasive," Mr. Szady said. "It's a massive presence, 150,000 students, 300,000 delegations in the New York area. That's not counting the rest of the United States, probably 700,000 visitors a year. They're very good at exchanges and business deals, and they're persistent."</p>
<p>Chinese intelligence and business spies will go after a certain technology, and they eventually get what they want, even after being thwarted, he said.
[/quote]
Regarding technology and the military:
[quote]
The real danger to the United States is the loss of the high-technology edge, which can impair U.S. competitiveness but more importantly can boost China's military.</p>
<p>Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a part of the Department of Homeland Security, is concerned because the number of high-profile cases of illegal Chinese technology acquisition is growing.
[/quote]
<p>
[quote]
Chinese media see attack on U.S. as price for bullying -
`Attack America' video is top seller
The Washington Times
November 4, 2001
Author: Damien McElroy; THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH</p>
<p>BEIJING - The Chinese state-run propaganda machine is cashing in on the terror attacks in New York and Washington, producing books, films and video games glorifying the strikes as a humbling blow against an arrogant nation.</p>
<p>Video discs filled with lurid images have flooded markets across the nation in the wake of the attacks. Disc after disc bear the imprimatur of the Communist Party-controlled media.</p>
<p>The most notable and popular DVDs have been produced by the Xinhua information agency, Beijing Television and China Central Television.</p>
<p>Communist Party officials say President Jiang Zemin has obsessively watched and re-watched pictures of the aircraft crashing into the World Trade Center.</p>
<p>In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, workers at Beijing Television worked round-the-clock to produce a documentary they called "Attack America." Scenes from Hollywood films have been spliced between shots of the events of September 11, including footage from the 1998 remake of Godzilla, in which a monster destroys buildings in New York.</p>
<p>As rescue workers pick through the rubble of the twin towers, the commentator proclaims that the city had reaped the consequences of decades of American bullying of weaker nations.</p>
<p>"This is the America the whole world has wanted to see," he said. "Blood debts have been repaid in blood.</p>
<p>America has bombed other countries and used its hegemony to deny the natural rights of others without paying the price. Who until now has dared to avenge the hurts inflicted by unaccountable Americans."</p>
<p>Officials at Beijing Television defended the video as an educational film that will meet market demand. A producer said: "There's this need for more information on world terrorism in the market, so we've got to meet it."</p>
<p>At the country's most respected bookstore, Xinhua Book Shop on Beijing's busiest shopping street, Wanfujing, crowds jockeyed around a table to buy discs.</p>
<p>According to the staff at the store, thousands of copies of the video have been sold in the past month.
[/quote]
I deleted the end of the article so the mods won't get mad.</p>
<p>As the end of the article claims, there is a high consumer demand for the DVDs. All they are doing is advocating the video. It's the consumers who relish the footage.</p>
<p>I'm not going to try to wade to deep into this argument but College your explanation of China's military build-up is laughable.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Onto your question on why China is rapidly building its military forces. China is currently undergoing its own industrial revolution right now, as there have been huge improvements in technology. With a rapidly improving industry comes a rapidly improving military. China isn't necessarily adding another 100,000 troops to its army, it's improving its military technology.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You did not address at all WHY China is building up it's military, instead you make some absurd claim as to the fact that China is undergoing a industrial revolution with the result that the military would naturally upgrade.</p>
<p>China is busy buying existing military technology from primarily European and Russian sources in an attempt to raise their force levels to those equal of the United States. Many of their purchases have gone towards weapon systems that are intended to counter the United States ability to protect Taiwan in case of a cross-strait invasion. In addition, China has embarked on an expansion of it's Navy in a direct effort to produce a capability to strike across the Taiwan Straight.</p>
<p>So don't try to sell me any nonsense about an industrial revolution.</p>
<p>Razorsharp: Well, I can't exactly hook up with chicks in the car I usually drive (2005 Toyota Camry, 4 cylinder). I'd probably have to steal my mom's Volvo S80 T6, or if I was really desperate, I'd steal my buddy's Mustang GT (V8 4.6 L engine woohoo!).</p>
<p>tomadog2: well, you did wade pretty deep into this debate (keep in mind that a debate is civilized and sophosticated, you are borderline into arguing). If you want to prove my points absurd, there is no need to directly call them absurd. I have never directly attacked anyone's arguments and called them "nonsense," I have only offered contrary evidence.</p>
<p>First, it is true that China is undergoing an "industrial revolution" of its own (it's now in the later phases) as seen by its increases in factory production and manufacturing. Also, it has increased production of more modern technologies such as cars and computers.</p>
<p>During the Western Industrial Revolution in the 1800s and early 1900s, countries that industrialized later purchased, and in some cases, stole more modern goods from those that have already industrialized (Great Britain was the first to industrialize, but their info leaked to other countries). This also goes back to razorsharp's argument claiming that Chinese companies have been stealing, it is generally the case in a global capitalist economy (as has happened in the past). Don't confuse China's not-quite-into-the-capitalist economy system yet with global economy. The global economy is capitalist. Razorsharp: start a minor celebration, I yield that some Chinese companies are guilty of intellectual theft.</p>
<p>You also want me to tell you why China is expanding its military. It's because they feel threatened by America. It's China's point of view, Taiwan is theirs (as China has controlled that island for a long time), and since the communist party defeated the nationalist party for control of China, they believe Taiwan is theirs, even if the Nationalists have fled there. China feels threatened because America has made it clear that they will (in China's point of view) stand in their way should they try to reclaim what is theirs (again, in China's point of view).</p>
<p>Think about this scenario: For the sake of argument let's pretend that American third parties like the American Marijuana Party, Nazi party, Communist Party, etc. decides to wage a civil war on the majority parties. We fight, and the Democratic/Republican party beats the crap out of them. The third parties then flee to Hawaii and claim independence. How would America feel about losing an island just like that?</p>
<p>Razorsharp: I did not and do not deny that China and America aren't exactly the best of friends (I have dreams occasionally where Hu Jintao and our man Dubya shake hands, and both people have thought bubbles over their head that say the same thing: "You B**tard...")</p>
<p>Another thing to everyone: keep in mind that we are arguing from perspective. I've been brought up in a Chinese family, and my parents have always told me that Taiwan was part of China. [Almost] every Taiwanese kid will think the direct opposite of me, and a lot of kids reared in American families will support their country's stance on Taiwan. </p>
<p>Any neutral parties out there willing to come into this?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Any neutral parties out there willing to come into this?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That excludes Americans, Chinese, and Taiwanese, I assume?</p>