food service can be a rewarding job. not fast food mindless repetetion, but working a real resturant. i've managed and head chefed enough to do it well and be rewarded intellectually. even a sous chef can have a good, rewarding job.
Hmmnnn...interesting take. In that case, its then the battle over education and information which may play the key role in underiming Chinese communism. But as long as the state controls the schools - and the doctrine - they may be able to stretch their system a bit longer than we in the west might expect.
But in bringing up the issue of the closed society - "not caring what the rest of the world thinks" - I think this also has a greater historical/cultural component in China that in the former USSR. I think one has to consider that as well. I agree - the creation of a large middle class could raise expectations, but I thought that was one of the basic aims of the system - to level the population economically. In that sense, the populus may just consider the goal achieved...though I don't really believe that human nature would allow for such in continuum. I do still think the difference in culture, custom, and history have large parts to play.
Yes...from some of what I hear...
But what you forget doesn't matter. What they forget does.
Hence the vehement opposition to our missile defense initiatives. You can draw some conclusions on strategic planning from that, I'd gather.
Not specifically, but there is eveidence that they are activly interested in building one, or at the very least that
12-mile-off-the-eastern-shore force I mentioned. You'll have to do your own research...I didn't say you did. I implied that they are more capable than you seem to think.
I believe differently.
Anyone who doesn't know, belittles, or fails to respect an enemy.
Yes, in a way. Given some of the tenacity and tactics afoot in the world of guerilla warfare, I'm becomming of the increasing opinion that in a battle between high tech and the stone age, the advantage in a long term conflict will go to the lowest-tech denominator. Mainly because of the complexity of high tech C3 and the dependence upon it. The more complex a system is, the easier is gets to break...after a certain point. Low tech option, which slower, are more robust and therefore favor a long, drawn out conflict to maxamize effectiveness. And I get the impression lately that I'm not the only one that realizes this...
Maybe, but again - the motivations and politics in the region have changed. And our objective is different.
I don't know about that either...they worked, but we had some very specific objectives to destroy. And we weren't attempting to secure and hold the region, and I don't think we are at present. Just to maintain a presence and mop up. That's a completely different mission from what the Russians attempted.
Even though I'm ashamed to have to say it (because I respect the service of Viet Nam vets), that's a bit of a cop-out. I don't really think one can compare the campain in Viet Nam to any other conflict - it was a pivotal point in the history of warfare. But our guys still died over there, and yet unlike Korea (or Afghanistan) we maintain no notable military presence in the region. Zip. I'm not sure what the outcome of the Viet Nam war was...
You got it.
More like until the schools change - if the system is able to continue to generate it's own zelots, it will self sustain. You only have to look at the terrorist mills for the latest implementation of the model.
mostly it was a lesson in how warfare can change, even while you're fighting. an old lesson that seems to be repeated frequently by everyone.
Well that's another issue entirely, for another day. The point in question was in regards to a shooting war between the Chicoms and the US. My point remains, it's already happened once - while the info is dated it is still informative on what a confrontation between the US and China might shape up like - for the benefit of those staking out positions on imminent Chinese hegemony and US supremacy, waxing and/or waning as the case may be.
Geography for instance hasn't changed much. The US faced a formidable challenge in fielding a stopgap defense force on the Korean peninsula. Given what these firebreak troops accomplished in fighting the well honed commie juggernaut to a standstill, it is encouraging to note that a modern brush fire should be met with a drastically more reflexive modern US military. Of course, that's just how the French felt about the Maginot line in its day. :-(
Politics is the dark horse of course in a future confrontation, where after WWII there were few uncertainties. Today, many of America's former allies are not willing to fight beside the US, in any war outside of one that protects their own immediate borders. According to some polls, there are even those in some of these countries that aren't even willing to do so even then. That's not so troubling to me, because the US truly can get along without paper allies. The big lesson I got out of the recent Iraq war was that the American solidarity enjoyed during and after the 1990-91 Gulf War and into the 1990s is dead and gone. It reappeared briefly at the end of
2001 but was quickly snuffed out - I'll save us all my political opinion of what happened there with that.Suffice it to say the US has returned to the days of a house divided, as was the scene in the 1960s - only it's worse now and nastier. Future Chinese historians may very well mark this division as the critical fault line upon which a decidedly un-united, United States - was disected and summarily defeated.
My bet... my hope, for all parties... is that Chinese aggression will be offset by emerging Chinese capitalism and with it, good old fashioned Gordon Gekko *GREED*. Our best weapon may be to Jones the consumer spending spigot on our end from time to time the way the OPEC'kers frig around with our oil. Yes beatniks and tree huggers, commercialism just may be the best hope to save the world from nuclear annihilation. Bet you'll never hear that from your Ivy League lecturers.
Either way it shakes loose, make no mistake about it - I'm not giving up sweet and sour pork for nobody! ;-)
WmB
I dunno, heard he was kind of... ahem... thin skinned. ;-)
WmB
You are correct. An armistice ended the Korean War, not a surrender, capitulation, or treaty. Technically, a state of war does still exist between North Korea and the United States. That is why, even after the cessation of hostilities, military members pulling a tour in Korea were still eligible for membership in the Korean War Veteran's Association, American Legion, VFW, etc, etc.
So far, the Chinese Navy hasn't been able to project enough blue-water Naval power even to even dissuade the Vietnamese, Thais, etc, from exerting claims over them.
That kinda' sounds like "democracy" to me.
i agree, we must get the chinese addicted to capatalism. we must sell them pop culture and the desire to live a consumer life style. after the mao austerity, (and the attendant repression and death) i believe the chinese citizen wants la dolce vita. our advertising companies should ramp up every piece of faddy pop culture and useless "in" shlock and convince the chinese they can't live without them. we've done it to the japanese, but not in a strong enough way to own their markets...that should be a lesson for the conquest of china. we need to macdonald and disney them to us so tightly they would hurt themselves to hurt us. it's what we do best and can save civilization. let our trip to the stars be on the backs of consumers wanting to be cool. worldwide.
perhaps, but people don't need elections or even pols to have it. jefferson thought we need enough government to run trade, the post offic, and protect our borders....i like jefferson.
Let's see; is that the personal freedom, adequate life support, or ability to better oneself part?
that was flakey.
Just my own .02 worth.
1) The Chinese have lived for centuries under one form of fuedalism or another. It seems to me that the present Chinese seems a lot loke fuedalism with a psuedo modern face. I tend to agree that the rising middle class is perhaps the greatest danger, in the economic sense.2) There is a larger, much deeper problem the likes of which I have not seen discussed widely. One of unintended consequences of the one baby rule has been the aborting or infanticide of females. It's been a while since I've seen the numbers but IIRC it seems that in time you are going to have large numbers of men who will never find a female companion be it wife, girlfriend, etc. First I expect this to be extremely corrosive to thier society. Second thier birth rate is gonna fall through the floor without females to bear them children.
Now boys, I will freely admit that even though are women can be such girls, such a pains in the ass, so much trouble I wouldn't wnat to live without thier more postive charms. No to mention the civilizing effect women have on men.
100 year plan? They ain't gonna make it. They've already set into motion the destruct of this particular dynasty. A war even if immediately successful will simply hasten the downfall. The worst thing they could do at this is destroy Taiwan as it is likely they will lead the mainland Chinese out of thier coming Dark Ages.PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.