Yeah, if it's true (and it's at least plausible), then bush has done us no favors by leaving us in a state of military weakness and financial depletion. Oh, did I mention who was buying our debts in war bonds lately?
Erm ... it might be scary if it were at least slightly plausible. Dontcha think that if the Chinese wanted more "living space" they might consider invading their immediate neighbor to the north, which has three times the land mass of the US and a military that can't even rescue its own sailors from downed submarines?? Steve
well, achieving the 500m figure would involve killing off more than half their OWN people, so I doubt it. the 20% quote obviously refers to the fact that almost exactly 20% of the human race is - you guessed it - chinese.
China wants the Us for two reasons. Once, our land is the most plentiful. Now at 300 million, I am sure it has the capiacity to support many more. Most of Russua north of China is Siberia, a land that won't support that many more people. Also, the US is the world leader right now. It was stated that there isn't room for two tigers. In another words, the US must be done away with in order for China to become the new world leader. This is alarming. We are fighting a poor country that had no designs on the US. Meanwhile, North Korea and China are planning a future military attack on us and we just look the other way. The only thing that can save us is for Dick Chenny to "think" that there are lots of oil wells or oil fields in North Korea and China. WE would be at war in a matter of months. Bush?? He doesn't know. Cheney and associates have been running this country ever since Bush got elected the first time.
Imagine if you possibly can....a nation's leadership desperate to stay in power uses belligerent rhetoric to unite people in a common, yet ridiculous, cause. Hardliners say and do ridiculous things that their constituents like, while the rest of the country mostly ignores them. Sound familiar? China is not in a position to dictate war terms to the United States. As for the aforementioned debt that China is amassing on the United States: China's leaders are acting exactly like every other country's do, in their own self-interest. While it may appear that China is buying up U.S. bonds to put us over a barrel, they're actually doing it for economic reasons. Keeping the yuan artificially low against the dollar maintains China's export-driven economy. Every year millions of impoverished Chinese leave the countryside for jobs in the cities, and only the export boom makes them available. China's leaders worry greatly that if the economy slows down, social unrest will threaten them. Obviously, at some point it will become counterproductive for them to keep investing in American debt. Whether they change their mind for economic or political reasons, that move would hurt their economy at least as much as ours and probably a lot more.
Aloofman, I agree that their primary motivation is economic, certainly. I just don't think it's much of a stretch of the imagination to see this as a potential "bargaining chip" in the future. I don't blame any government for being self-interested, that's their supposed purpose. I just wish ours was- on behalf of the people instead of on behalf of the politicians.
I'd never heard of him before, but yep, it was pretty clear to me that he's a xenophobic scaremonger. Steve
And would you be in the 80% or the 20%??[post=337459]Quoted post[/post][/b][/quote] does it really matter?
does it really matter? [post=337462]Quoted post[/post][/b][/quote] The most humane way to bring our population under control is to limited the number of births. The population will then be reduced over time. I am not sure that we need to reduce the world population by 80 percent in every country. I would think that each country has its own needs. Canada the second largest nation in land size has only 35 million people. Their needs are different from China, India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Those nations are seriously overcrowded.
I think the question of how many people each nation should ideally contain is very much secondary to the question of HOW MANY HUMANS CAN I EXTERMINATE
God, I hope you are trying to be funny! Because if you are for real, that would male you intrincally evil, worse than Hitler. To favor the murder of four billion people is absolutely horrendous.
At least in the U.S., I think the most humane way would be to limit immigration, which is the main source of population growth here. If we limited immigration to a few hundred thousand per year, the nation's total population would level off about 50 years later and stay fairly stable. Of course, then there'd be a real Social Security crisis instead of the current fake one. As far as limiting births goes, it's already been a surprisingly successful campaign worldwide. Mexico's birthrate has been cut in half in less than 50 years, for example. There are really only a handful of places around the world that are projected to get much more overcrowded than they are now. (Unfortunately, all those places are poor.) Birthrates are dropping everywhere already, to the point where many demographers are worrying that many poor countries will get old before they get rich. China is starting to already, although that's an extreme case, since it's population control policy was enforced through harassment and terrorism.
God, I hope you are trying to be funny! Because if you are for real, that would male you intrincally evil, worse than Hitler. To favor the murder of four billion people is absolutely horrendous. [post=337500]Quoted post[/post][/b][/quote] um, well no, not really. it would be far better to humanely purge the species than to sit back and wait for war, famine and pandemic disease on an unprecedented scale, which is precisely what will happen if we don't get a serious and effective handle on human overpopulation very soon. I would far rather 4 billion people died quickly and without prolonged suffering tomorrow, than 40 billion in despair, agony and squalor over the next century or so. there's also the fact that the number of worthwhile people on this planet is considerably lower than 1 in 5 anyhow, so it's not only a humanitarian concern.
Of course, who will decide who is useful? Anyway, the countries with the highest populations are also the ones that every western country outsources to, so nuking their population will result in more expensive goods and actually PAYING for services. Can't see that happening. Also, countries with highest birth rates are in extreme poverty. Guess Bono may have a point somewhere, oh well. Anyway, the US attack a country that 1) it outsources cheap labour to 2) spends lots of money on 3) has an army better than a rag tag piece of shit that the Swiss army could have dominated? Nah.
