The clock is ticking for USA....

[chauism]

That's why I said NPT is hypocritical. There couldn't be any worse treaty than that, considering these countries which have nuclear weapons are called super powers. I too doubt they would ever give up their nuclear weapons.

But it has to start somewhere. That's why I said, China could do something about it. We cannot resent to the fact that they would never give up and we give up our efforts.

Not, it is still useful as it prevents other countries to get nuclear weapon from its signatories, and guess who are not its signatories.
You think NPT is hypocritical because it doesn't allow India to have nuclear weapon under the treaty.

How do you know if Obama was serious or not. He was actually criticized by american media for thinking he could persuade all to give up their nuclear weapons. But at least he is trying.

If he is indeed serious, then he could start by disarming US nuclear weapon unilaterally or at least cut its size down to the other's comparable size which 600 will be enough. Those criticism does not overweight the benefits of positive image he got from the public as a man of peace, and the plan will never get pass the congress or senate or UNSC anyways.

Even India said, if every one gives up, it'll too. But, Pakistan which is conventionally inferior to India to wage a war against it, is opposing it. It is understandable. China could definitely help in this regard.

As I said before nuclear free South Asia is China's interest, the question is whether India will disarm its nuclear weapon. Don't forget that India tested its first nuclear devices 24 years earlier than Pakistan. Of course it is threatened. Don't drag China into this disarmament also, since China's nuclear weapon is not pointed toward India. If once India agree to drop its nuclear power status, then China will definitely be able to convince Pakistan to do the same.

 

[sunny001]

Not, it is still useful as it prevents other countries to get nuclear weapon from its signatories, and guess who are not its signatories.
You think NPT is hypocritical because it doesn't allow India to have nuclear weapon under the treaty.


If he is indeed serious, then he could start by disarming US nuclear weapon unilaterally or at least cut its size down to the other's comparable size which 600 will be enough. Those criticism does not overweight the benefits of positive image he got from the public as a man of peace, and the plan will never get pass the congress or senate or UNSC anyways.


As I said before nuclear free South Asia is China's interest, the question is whether India will disarm its nuclear weapon. Don't forget that India tested its first nuclear devices 24 years earlier than Pakistan. Of course it is threatened. Don't drag China into this disarmament also, since China's nuclear weapon is not pointed toward India. If once India agree to drop its nuclear power status, then China will definitely be able to convince Pakistan to do the same.

In all of this, you never said China should disarm too. Again, my question is why would India give up nuclear weapons when China have them?

For China being such a responsible country, why not she unilaterally reduce the stock pile, causing national security issue? At least Obama is trying to get every one to the table. Who is opposing China, at least it's people can't do it. Obama even said that once every country agrees, he'll clean up entire stock pile. Pakistan opposed it.

In 24 years, did India ever use nuclear weapon against Pakistan?

It almost seems like you have already given up hope or you wan't few countries to have nuclear weapons to run hegemonic designs.

I tell you if China and Pakistan gives up, India will give up. Are you ready for that?

 

[chauism]

Man I pity Chinese who think authoritarian is better form of governance. They are willing to give up freedom, rights, voice for it.

I hope they'll realize what a wrong path they are taking. For when they realize, there is a bloody path for them.

Personally I have nothing against India or its political system, but here I have to say that India is doing hell of a job proving to Chinese that its government is wrong.

People are not totally lack of freedom, rights and voice in the society if you really know how everything works in China. These things improve gradually with its economical progress without causing any social instability which will be a disaster for China's overall progress. To me those freedom, rights and voice should be earned rather than be given for free.

Anyways authoritarian is not the best way to describe the system China has. Technocracy is what the best description for China's system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,165453,00.html

 

[sunny001]

Not, it is still useful as it prevents other countries to get nuclear weapon from its signatories, and guess who are not its signatories.
You think NPT is hypocritical because it doesn't allow India to have nuclear weapon under the treaty.


If he is indeed serious, then he could start by disarming US nuclear weapon unilaterally or at least cut its size down to the other's comparable size which 600 will be enough. Those criticism does not overweight the benefits of positive image he got from the public as a man of peace, and the plan will never get pass the congress or senate or UNSC anyways.


As I said before nuclear free South Asia is China's interest, the question is whether India will disarm its nuclear weapon. Don't forget that India tested its first nuclear devices 24 years earlier than Pakistan. Of course it is threatened. Don't drag China into this disarmament also, since China's nuclear weapon is not pointed toward India. If once India agree to drop its nuclear power status, then China will definitely be able to convince Pakistan to do the same.

Why not? Is China is somehow superior to India. How do we know if there not pointed at us? Do we have to take your word for it. Have I not earned that freedom to say that to you?

If India disarm, so should China and every other country. You should be living in a dream to think that India will disarm without china giving up it's nuclear weapons.

 

[whocares]

Personally I have nothing against India or its political system, but here I have to say that India is doing hell of a job proving to Chinese that its government is wrong.

Why exactly? Your leaders had the GDP at any cost brainwave 20 years earlier, thats it. There is nothing more to your advantage.

Western democracies and Japan are far more advanced than China on a per capita basis.

 

[sunny001]

Not, it is still useful as it prevents other countries to get nuclear weapon from its signatories, and guess who are not its signatories.
You think NPT is hypocritical because it doesn't allow India to have nuclear weapon under the treaty.


If he is indeed serious, then he could start by disarming US nuclear weapon unilaterally or at least cut its size down to the other's comparable size which 600 will be enough. Those criticism does not overweight the benefits of positive image he got from the public as a man of peace, and the plan will never get pass the congress or senate or UNSC anyways.


As I said before nuclear free South Asia is China's interest, the question is whether India will disarm its nuclear weapon. Don't forget that India tested its first nuclear devices 24 years earlier than Pakistan. Of course it is threatened. Don't drag China into this disarmament also, since China's nuclear weapon is not pointed toward India. If once India agree to drop its nuclear power status, then China will definitely be able to convince Pakistan to do the same.

Personally I have nothing against India or its political system, but here I have to say that India is doing hell of a job proving to Chinese that its government is wrong.

People are not totally lack of freedom, rights and voice in the society if you really know how everything works in China. These things improve gradually with its economical progress without causing any social instability which will be a disaster for China's overall progress. To me those freedom, rights and voice should be earned rather than be given for free.

Anyways authoritarian is not the best way to describe the system China has. Technocracy is what the best description for China's system.
Technocracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Made in China: The Revenge of the Nerds - TIME

In 2000, China's GDP was 1.08 trillion. India's GDP currently 1.3 trillion, considering we opened our economy fully 12 years after you did, I think we are on right track. And expectations for future are good. So I wouldn't worry about India that much. But it's all because of China, Indian politicians are just chasing China while also taking people's voice into consideration.

Infrastructure is not a measure of GDP. Good luck with your Technocracy. But, it can turn to authoritarianism anytime it wants. That's my point.

Also, people dont earn freedom. They are born into freedom. Who are you dictate what one has to do? Pretty lame excuse to authoritarianism.

 

[whocares]

In 2000, China's GDP was 1.08 trillion. India's GDP currently 1.3 trillion, considering we opened our economy fully 12 years after you did, I think we are on right track. And expectations for future are good. So I wouldn't worry about India that much. But it's all because of China, Indian politicians are just chasing China while also taking people's voice into consideration.

Infrastructure is not a measure of GDP. Good luck with your Technocracy. But, it can turn to authoritarianism anytime it wants. That's my point.

Also, people dont earn freedom. They are born into freedom. Who are you dictate what one has to do? Pretty lame excuse to authoritarianism.

Well, i am worried about the bimaar states in India. The other states compete for investment and job creation but the bimaar ones have such basic law and order problems that their growth is likely to be very sluggish.

I don't think we'll take off the way china did due to these structural problems. But some parts of the country will do very well.

 

[chauism]

Why exactly? Your leaders had the GDP at any cost brainwave 20 years earlier, thats it. There is nothing more to your advantage.

Western democracies and Japan are far more advanced than China on a per capita basis.

China's true reform did not start until early 1990's, if you look any history regarding Chinese economic reform. Before that all the reforms was not only limited in its scope, but also limited to handful cities like Shenzhen.

Again, I have to emphasis that it is not about the economic performance, but it was government's ability to get things done here.

For Japan, it was a de facto one party political platform until 1993. Look at Asian 4 tigers, during the golden age of their economical developments, they all had non-democratic authoritarian government system implemented. After two of them became democratic, they lost their paces with the other two for its economical gross.

 

[sunny001]

You can think what you like but what me and Chauism posts runs pretty close to what the vast majority of chinese people think.

Americans and their media suffers from the inability to recognize not everyone want what they want, and not everyone in a democracy will automatically love Americans or American values.

They keep hoping for democracy in China but they may find that a democratic China to be more difficult to deal with.

If you don't believe me, believe the pew poll

China’s Optimism | Pew Global Attitudes Project

People's satisfaction for the government has only grown in the last 5 years with the 2008 Olympics, skillful handling of the financial crisis and the 2010 world expo.

People are obviously satisfied according to pew pole. Did they ask if they want democratic government in authoritarian states and authoritarian government in democratic states. I could almost say it with certainty that they would have said democracy.

It's not the right pole, obviously people do not know how it would be like to live in other form of governance. I wouldn't take this as a measure to say authoritarianism is somehow good or better for its people. Who knows china could have developed equally under democracy?

 

[chauism]

In 2000, China's GDP was 1.08 trillion. India's GDP currently 1.3 trillion, considering we opened our economy fully 12 years after you did, I think we are on right track. And expectations for future are good. So I wouldn't worry about India that much. But it's all because of China, Indian politicians are just chasing China while also taking people's voice into consideration.

Infrastructure is not a measure of GDP. Good luck with your Technocracy. But, it can turn to authoritarianism anytime it wants. That's my point.

You really need to learn something about China's economical reforms.

Yes, Deng did start reform initiatives in the late 70's after crushed Gang of Four. However this reform was only limited in a very few couple small places as a trial for its reform. Shenzheng was one of them and the most special one as well. For the rest of China, the level of reform was very limited and very slow. This reform was not met without objections. The protest of Tiananmen Square was aim at many social problem caused by the reform. There were many conservatives within the party who tried to stop those reforms. The full reform did not take root in China until Deng's southern tour in 1992. For example Shanghai almost had nothing new to be built before 1992, and after it become big construction site, after 5 years Pudong become a financial center from just pure farmland.

Also, people dont earn freedom. They are born into freedom. Who are you dictate what one has to do? Pretty lame excuse to authoritarianism.

People don't dictate who should have what, system of meritocracy does.

 

[Chinaownseverything]

Man I pity Chinese who think authoritarian is better form of governance. They are willing to give up freedom, rights, voice for it.

I hope they'll realize what a wrong path they are taking. For when they realize, there is a bloody path for them.

I live in the USA, democracy is overrated

 

[whocares]

China's true reform did not start until early 1990's, if you look any history regarding Chinese economic reform. Before that all the reforms was not only limited in its scope, but also limited to handful cities like Shenzhen.

Again, I have to emphasis that it is not about the economic performance, but it was government's ability to get things done here.

For Japan, it was a de facto one party political platform until 1993. Look at Asian 4 tigers, during the golden age of their economical developments, they all had non-democratic authoritarian government system implemented. After two of them became democratic, they lost their paces with the other two for its economical gross.

india was a one party state too for the first 30 years, but that party had all the policies wrong. its about the policies of the government, not about it doing things.

 

[sunny001]

You really need to learn something about China's economical reforms.

People don't dictate who should have what, system of meritocracy does.

I am sorry, what was it you're trying to show with that figure. I couldn't understand. China's GDP was in fact 1.08 trillion in 2000. It was only 2.4 trillion until 2007. It was because of appreciation of Yuan and depreciation of dollar that lead to almost doubling of GDP in 3 years to 4.9 trillion in 2010.

India is still on track. India still has not opened completely to the outside market. You can say that India is open to certain section right now. GOI is trying to open all the sectors. Once they do it, it will develop similar to China.

I abhor your thinking that somehow life of a person with merit is more important than the other people. Is a person from rural China is given the same opportunities as a person from urban China. I mean same educational facilities, health, opportunities to decide his merit.

 

[sunny001]

China's true reform did not start until early 1990's, if you look any history regarding Chinese economic reform. Before that all the reforms was not only limited in its scope, but also limited to handful cities like Shenzhen.

Again, I have to emphasis that it is not about the economic performance, but it was government's ability to get things done here.

For Japan, it was a de facto one party political platform until 1993. Look at Asian 4 tigers, during the golden age of their economical developments, they all had non-democratic authoritarian government system implemented. After two of them became democratic, they lost their paces with the other two for its economical gross.

Then India didn't start until 1998 as the reforms were approved only in 1996 through parliament.

I am not saying authoritarian government is not good for China, it has been but at a cost of several lives.

And one's life is not greater than others. We are all born equal. We all move ahead only when everyone given the voice but majority decides.

 

[sunny001]

I live in the USA, democracy is overrated

I have resigned. It's your choice, it can't be everyone else's too.