| Click here to go to the original topic View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
soldierofsoul
Joined: 19 Nov 2006
Posts: 256
Location: Fl
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well China was behind us by 30 years in nuclear technology, but after Clinton gave them our secrets they are now only down by 10 years. Read the book "Red Dragon Rising" very enlightening. |
|
| Back to top |
|
californian conservative
Joined: 08 Jul 2006
Posts: 6042
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Boondoggle wrote: Sure, China may be rising in power, but unlike the Soviet Union, it's largely based on international trade with countries such as the US. If China wanted to get into a confrontation with the US, let's see how long they'd remain powerful if the US cut off that trade. By the same token, it'd hurt the US somewhat if China dumped its investment in US debt. This kind of economic interdependence is what people like Thomas Barnett and Henry Kissinger argue is the way to create real global security, and it's a pretty good argument in my opinion.
I whole heartly agree that globalization is the way to greater security in the world. Much more important than the UN imho. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kumar
Joined: 21 Jul 2004
Posts: 15036
Location: Zürich
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
thefranzkafkafront wrote:
Lovely, teleological reasoning at its best, but this isunt what this debate is about, want to get into it make a thread in the philosophy forum and i'll be happy to oblidge.
Good try, but it is directly related to the discussion.
Quote:
Im sure foriegn markets feel that way too. trade deficite, weeee!
Please tell your uppity attitude to go elsewhere. How irritating.
Fair trade > "free" trade. |
|
| Back to top |
|
thefranzkafkafront
Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 19426
Location: Edinburgh University.
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kumar wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:
Lovely, teleological reasoning at its best, but this isunt what this debate is about, want to get into it make a thread in the philosophy forum and i'll be happy to oblidge.
Good try, but it is directly related to the discussion.
Well fine then, dose your argument on the nature of the statenot rest soley on teleological reasoning? And thus fall prey to all the failings of teleological reasoning in general namely the lack of a casual link between the intendend measures of cause and the wanted effect, and then the actual effect?
Quote:
Im sure foriegn markets feel that way too. trade deficite, weeee!
Please tell your uppity attitude to go elsewhere. How irritating.
Fair trade > "free" trade.[/quote]
Ok kewl.
Fair trade economically can never success, its a simple fundamental principle of economics that efficenecy will allways succseed over intervention. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Click here to go to the original topic |
|
