JimO: "Chinese space advances benefit everyone"

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:34:11 GMT, lid
(John Savard) wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 04:07:38 GMT, "James Oberg"
wrote, in part:

Fears about China in space should not sidetrack people. This isn't the Cold
War of U.S.-Soviet confrontation, so a new high-budget "space race" isn't in
the cards. China is not racing us to establish a manned military station on
the moon. Nor is it assembling an orbiting battle fleet to neutralize
American space-based military tools. To imagine such threats is to fear
shadows. To respond as if they were real would be folly.

China is not a democracy.

It doesn't have a free press or free elections.

The Chinese people don't have the right of free assembly or the free
exercise of religion.

It is entirely appropriate to react with fear (or perhaps more
accurately trepidation, or a non-emotional recognition of the presence
of a potential threat) whenever any non-democratic country is found in
possession of any technology more advanced than bows and arrows. Of
course, we hardly needed China's launch of a manned space rocket to
cause us fear on that account, and you are indeed correct that in
_itself_ the peaceful exploration of space is not too frightening.

However, it wasn't too long ago that people were saying that Chinese
nuclear missiles "might" be able to reach the extreme East and West
coasts of the U.S.; obviously, if you can launch an orbital satellite
of any kind, you can reach any part of the earth with an ICBM... just
as Sputnik told us about the Russians.

Isn't it comforting to know that American paranoia is still alive and
well.


Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:16:58 GMT, (Christopher)
wrote, in part:

Isn't it comforting to know that American paranoia is still alive and
well.

You're not paranoid if you really have enemies.

That some people who don't share America's democratic values are its
enemies is borne out by September 11, 2001.

That China doesn't share America's democratic values is borne out by
the fate of Tibet. (That is, the democratic values of the America of
today and at least as far back as Woodrow Wilson, before anyone makes
wisecracks about the fate of Native Americans...)

If China were weak and helpless, Tibet would have been liberated long
ago. Therefore, for China not to be weak and helpless is bad, because
China's not being weak and helpless is contributing to innocent people
getting hurt.

Where is the flaw in that logic?

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html

*follow-ups trimmed*

"John Savard" wrote ...
If China were weak and helpless, Tibet would have been liberated long
ago. Therefore, for China not to be weak and helpless is bad, because
China's not being weak and helpless is contributing to innocent people
getting hurt.

Where is the flaw in that logic?

About four lines up from your question. If China was weak and helpless
(relative to current state anyway) it does not follow that Tibet would have
been liberated.

Whether relatively weak countries, regardless of their mistreatment of those
within their (current) borders are interferred with is dependent on the whims
of the external governments involved and the politics of the moment.

Balkans style informal civil war and ethinic cleansing would be a distinct
possibility, and not necessarilly an improvement from Tibet's point of view.

In sci.space.station John Savard wrote:

: Where is the flaw in that logic?

You make the observation that there is a small group of anti-american
hot-heads (the Taliban), and conclude that all China falls into the same
category. That´s the flaw. Hope this helps.


-Tapio-

In article ,
lid (John Savard) wrote:

If China were weak and helpless, Tibet would have been liberated long
ago. Therefore, for China not to be weak and helpless is bad, because
China's not being weak and helpless is contributing to innocent people
getting hurt.

Where is the flaw in that logic?

How about the Basques? Spain being should hurts them.

US being strong hurts (or terminates) the Native Americans.

....

--
Tao Tong

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 01:20:11 -0400, (Tao Tong)
wrote:

In article ,
(John Savard) wrote:

If China were weak and helpless, Tibet would have been liberated long
ago. Therefore, for China not to be weak and helpless is bad, because
China's not being weak and helpless is contributing to innocent people
getting hurt.

Where is the flaw in that logic?

How about the Basques? Spain being should hurts them.

Are you comparing the situation of Tibet with that of the
Basque Country? Uh, oh, your ignorance is showing here.

Greetings.
--
Jose M. Arnesto

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:40:17 GMT, lid
(John Savard) wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:16:58 GMT, (Christopher)
wrote, in part:

Isn't it comforting to know that American paranoia is still alive and
well.

You're not paranoid if you really have enemies.

That some people who don't share America's democratic values are its
enemies is borne out by September 11, 2001.

That China doesn't share America's democratic values is borne out by
the fate of Tibet. (That is, the democratic values of the America of
today and at least as far back as Woodrow Wilson, before anyone makes
wisecracks about the fate of Native Americans...)

If China were weak and helpless, Tibet would have been liberated long
ago. Therefore, for China not to be weak and helpless is bad, because
China's not being weak and helpless is contributing to innocent people
getting hurt.

Where is the flaw in that logic?

You'll be looking for reds under the bed next. One away day in space
and China is now public enemy one in the American administration mind
set, it seems were back to the same mind set as it was on 1 October
1958.




Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

lid (John Savard) wrote in
:

That China doesn't share America's democratic values is borne out by
the fate of Tibet. (That is, the democratic values of the America of
today and at least as far back as Woodrow Wilson, before anyone makes
wisecracks about the fate of Native Americans...)

If Quebec had won the referendum years ago... do you think Ottawa would
have let them become independent?

Somehow I doubt it.
--
Lucas Tam )
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/

If Quebec had won the referendum years ago... do you think Ottawa would
have let them become independent?

Somehow I doubt it.

Would they have fought a civil war to keep PQ in the confederation? I doubt
*that*.