|
If I were in charge ...
OK, we've got some real-world politicos here. So what would you do if YOU were in charge? By "in charge" I mean legally so, not like an SEIV despot. For instance, if you were the President and your party controlled the Senate and the House. (You can comment about other countries also; just be clear which one you're talking about.) So you can't give wacko answers like "I'd make all women my love-slaves."
OK, I'll start: US Energy Policy: 1. No way would I have bailed out the airlines. There is too much unnecessary air travel as it is. We need to do much more business, including meetings, remotely. 2. I would tax the life out of those gas-guzzling SUVs, muscle cars, and pickups. Same with powerboats and ATVs. 3. I would put a moratorium on building new roads or widening existing ones. However, I would keep the ones we've got in tip-top shape. US Foreign Policy: 1. I would undermine and isolate the central dictatorship in China at every turn. It is the one country that could easily rise up and contend with us for world power, yet it has no freedom of religion, no freedom of the press, no freedom of speech -- in short, no freedom at all, and no history of freedom. As a counterbalance, I would strengthen the countries in Asia that are democratic or at least trying to get there. 2. I would immediately stop putting up with crappy little terrorist dictatorships like Libya. The military would be sent in to take anything of value as reparations and to destroy anything built since 1900, then would be pulled out. Larger terrorist dictatorships like Iraq would be given notice that they are on our "to do" list, and would be wise to get themselves off of it ASAP. OK, that's enough of a rant for now. What about you? What if YOU were in charge? |
Re: If I were in charge ...
I disagree with you on practically everything you have said. First of all, making every woman my love slave is the only worthwhile goal you stated! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Airlines: Well, ok, I agree with you to an extent on this one. Did you know that every time we (the US) has instituted legistation forcing the auto industry to reduce fuel consumption per vehicle, the total fuel consumption has continued to increase unabbated? All such legistation does is help with emmissions. I don't mind this kind of legistation, per say, but I'm not fond of the side affect: Some lines are dropped due to fuel consumption, but they aren't consumer vehicle. The ones that get dropped are your heavy-duty pickups and the like, which are marketed more towards small construction firms and farm operations. New roads: ummmm, why would you want to do that???? Foreign policy 1: Ummm, ok. That's awfully heavy handed of you. I'd prefer to let citizens decide their own form of government, not have some outside country decide what government they should have. Now you can argue that without freedoms, they don't decide their own government. Wrong. Through inaction, they allow the current government to continue. If all the citizens of a country rise up, hell if even a majority of the citizens rise up and demand reforms and changes, there is no power (short of weapons of mass destruction, who's use carries it's own unique sets of serious consequences) that the current government can wield to stop those changes. The only reason government has any authority over people is when those people allow it to. People have absolute authority over their lives. However, it would be total anarchy if everyone did exactly as they pleased. The only way to counteract this is for people to give some of their personal authority to a government. There are many, quite varied forms of government. The people of China chose this form of government when they instituted it. If they chose incorrectly, it is up to their children, or their children's children, to correct the mistake, for it is their authority which the current government wields. Therefore, it is their responsibility. Not ours. We have no right to tell them which form of government is best for them. It is their lives, their authority at stake here, not ours. Foreign policy 2. This is really just foreign policy 1 taken to military extremes. The above arguement still applies. However, Crimes against humanity should not be tolerated (but they usually are anyway, a whole other discussion we won't get into here). Military force, however, should always be a Last resort. Although my definition of "Last resort" is a little more leniant than the one used by those currently in power. I follow the "fool me once, fool me twice" philosophy. Fool me once, shame on you. You said you would stop doing what I asked you to do, and you didn't. Shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I asked you again to stop doing that, and you again agreed to stop; and you again failed to stop. Shame on me for believing you. You are now completely untrustworthy to me; if I want your actions to stop, I will have to stop them myself. |
Re: If I were in charge ...
In regards to China DMM, you offer a very realist perspective on your policies. I'm not saying i agree or disagree, but just to play the devil's advocate, why not take a more liberal approach and try to democratize them every chance you get. It is a commonly held liberal beleif(in IR theory) that democracies don't go to war with eachother. If we can further their interdependence on other nations (especially economically) through trade and such and involove them more in world organizations like the WTO then that would reduce the probability of conflict with them on their road to becoming a democracy where there should be a state of confident peace. Again I'm not saying I advocate this approach, I just want to stir the pot a little.
|
Re: If I were in charge ...
SUV policy - classify as trucks, so they have to obey the truck speed limits, and don't let them park in "economy" sized parking spots. Add a license surcharge to large tall vehicles that block vision, and don't let them park near corners.
Anti-stupid-law policy - create an office for the eradication of stupid and bad laws. Demand public referrendums to abolish automatic traffic fee camera systems, laws that require seatbelt use, and pointlessly low speed limits that don't take into account vehicle type or conditions. Hold public referendums on the right to refuse drug tests without descrimination. Foreign policy - apply strong pressure to nations that abuse/destroy world ecosystems. |
Re: If I were in charge ...
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by PvK:
laws that require seatbelt use, and pointlessly low speed limits that don't take into account vehicle type or conditions.<hr></blockquote> You might reconsider that. I have seen to many accidents were the "belted" person exited the vehicle nearly unharmed whereas the "unbelted" person bleed to death despite your best efforts. DOA in hospital and a mess in the ambulance even the "best" splatter films do not imagine. |
Re: If I were in charge ...
I would carefully apply force where necessary to undermine the public support of the populace of other nations formenting revolution. I wouldn't support any single group however I would support multiple Groups so that once the existing system is out no one can agree on a new system. I would then move forward as the only nation still stable in the world and give everyone a hand up. Those that refused would be destroyed. I would make sure to cause enough public outcry within my own nation and give it enough publicity that everyone knows that many people in my own nation are again my harsh policies but I would continue with them slowly organizing and grouping together world nations in such a way that each view myself and my group as their eventual enemy and coming together with common beliefs to squelch me. I would fund a massive space program and harness resources from the world over in harsh method. Eventually I would attempt to leave on a deep space colonization mission on a ship capable of supporting a population of 10k to 20k people indefinetly and journey to other stars. Hopefully once I was gone with the carefully laid vision that I had been routed from power by the united world people they would all see that they had more in common then not and proceed to demonize myself and those under me and eventually unite in a more peaceful and united and democratic form.
Then maybe someday the Earth people could meet my own removed colonizers and start a great stellar war with each other. Something like that in an attempt to unite the world. History shows that people unite best when they have a scape goat. Thus I would attempt to make myself the scape goat since I don't have the stomache for the massive genocide that would be required to make someone else a scapegoat. By removing myself I would hope to do so in such a way that sets my despotic rule up as the scapegoat thus ensuring democratic form of government on a more world wide scale. Not necessarily western democracy. But the form that would work best for each geographic region with something like the UN cept with actual powers and no security council. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif |
Re: If I were in charge ...
For an actual policy though in the US... hrmmm
Better education. Free education upto university level. Secondary such as medical would not be payed for by gov however. Paying down of national debt. Stop aid to other nations in need. This one may sound harsh. But here is my view. If you keep sending the food aid to a starving country for example, what are you really doing? Are you really alleviating the hardships? Or are you making it possible for worse hardships in the long run and wasting your own resources that could possibly be better used elsewhere for your own people? If you keep sending them food and they live in an area that simply can't support that population level anymore and then you stop sending them food at some point, you wind up with greater starvation as in the intervening time they have reproduced more heavily. Thus you get greater hardship. That is one reason out of many. Reduction of conventional military forces, and increased emphasis on special forces type units. Increased development of aerial stealth and drone power and smart weapons technology. Policy on foreign aggression would be to answer with smart weapons delivered by air using special ground forces to track down, harrass, corner, and target enemy ground locations and forces for smart weapon destruction. Bunker busters for those caves and other hard to reach places. No compromises for those hostile. No invasion forces. Funding of friendly resistance Groups already in existence that are already popular with a wider grouping of those in the nation. Emphasis on a stronger and democratic world leadership than the existing UN and it's near powerless state and the allpowerful security council. Emphasis on trade, economic, and internal pressure methods on those countries that pose serious threats without being outright hostile (such as China) to encourage governments and policies more in line with modern times. I would not attempt to start a new cold war with China or even worse a hot one. However do put things such as human rights etc on the table with trade agreements. They DO want these. If they don't give the rights agreements then remove the trade. It might hurt us some but it would hurt them more. Develop alternative fuels and power sources. Oil is going away fast. Coal not quite as fast but it is still going to go away. Even nuclear fuels. Power sources such as fusion need to be developed despite costs. That in mind I would get the US back into ITER ( www.iter.org ). Push for global environmental regulation with some leeway for developing nations or alternalty aid programs that fund their usage of new less polluting technologies from the more developed nations. Maintain a nuclear arsenal capable of destroying the world once or twice over. Helps keep down hostile wars. Defense systems... that is iffy. Continue research into area but do not implement anything unless it is reasonably succesful and not to expensive. Enact policies and restriction on US based corporations that would hold them responsible for own pollution and have strictly enforced national standards, especially for power plants. Increase "sensitivity" to foreign cultures and views in global trade and expansion. Remove the assumption that western is best for everyone. Along with better education have foreign education that attempts to better educate on world cultures and policies and history. Only by understanding the past can you more fully understand the present. That is what I would like to do as person in charge of the US... if congress would pass it. Which I tend to doubt. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif |
Re: If I were in charge ...
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by [K126]Mephisto:
You might reconsider that. I have seen to many accidents were the "belted" person exited the vehicle nearly unharmed whereas the "unbelted" person bleed to death despite your best efforts. DOA in hospital and a mess in the ambulance even the "best" splatter films do not imagine.<hr></blockquote> Oh, I wear a seatbelt, and recommend others do too. I just believe that here in the "land of liberty", I should have the right to take my life in my own hands. If the police are so concerned for my safety that they want to pull me over and suggest I wear a belt, well ok. However, if it's really local governments looking for more excuses to fine its people for cash, and insurance companies looking to increase their profit margins, and even well-meaning folks trying to reduce the amount of death on the highways, then I think those are incorrect reasons to legislate away public freedom. If I want to risk my own life, that's my own business, it seems to me. PvK |
Re: If I were in charge ...
dumbluck:
First of all, thanks for your comments. Re energy policy: I agree with you about average fuel economy laws. What a crock! But that isn't at all what I would do. I would simply put a big penalty tax on gas guzzling vehicles. If the consumer wants to pay that, so be it. Probably I would also grant rebates to businesses that legitimately need things like pickups, and maybe also to large families. (But maybe not; maybe that should just be the cost of doing business or having a large family.) Or maybe I would just have a huge fuel tax. This would encourage conservation in all forms, such as living in smaller houses, keeping your house energy-efficient, buying fuel-efficient vehicles, living close to work, carpooling, etc. Refusing to build new roads is for the same reason -- to make it inconvenient and expensive for people to waste energy and pollute the environment by living far from work and taking unnecessary trips. This is not a matter of personal preference, like I hate rich suburbanites or something. It is a matter of making people pay the true cost of the lifestyle they are choosing. The true cost includes pollution, increased infrastructure, ecosystem destruction, wars over resources, etc. It simply is unfair to force urbanites to pay equally for such things. Re foreign policy: It seems to me that some countries already fall into the Category of "fool me twice, shame on you." The only remaining questions are "how much would it cost us to punish them for what they've done" and "are we willing to pay that price." (Totally irrelevant aside: how does one properly punctuate a sentence like that???) As far as allowing people to choose their own government, I agree with you. I don't care if the Swedes want to be socialist; that's their business. But I disagree that the Chinese people are free to choose. They are living in continual fear. People routinely are sent away to slave camps without even a show trial for "crimes against the people" like worshiping God, earning too much profit, accessing the net without permission, or suggesting that the official way of doing things might not be the best way. I thought we learned during the civil rights struggles that "everyone is free, or no one is free." How can the world be free when 1/3 of its people are in bondage to the handful of people running the Chinese Communist Party? But even so, perhaps you would be right, that we should keep our noses out of it, if it were not for this other troubling fact: the govt of China is expansionist. Not content with despotically ruling their own people, they are intent on asserting their "rights" as the "natural and historical leader and protector" of all Asians. Lastly, they are bigots. They cause their people to be indoctrinated with the idea that Orientals are the superior race. Since the Chinese are mostly cut off from the rest of the world and have never met other races, and human nature being what it is, this idea has rooted itself pretty firmly in their national psyche. Can anyone say "Nazi Germany" or "Imperial Japan?" Except that China has manpower and resources far beyond those tyrant regimes. It lacks only widespread industrialization and modernization. People talk of "engaging" China and of making them part of the world economy. They said the same things about the fascists prior to WWII. I am amazed that the Last decade has given such ample proof of the success of a cold war strategy, yet now people say it won't work with China. |
Re: If I were in charge ...
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Probably I would also grant rebates to businesses that legitimately need things like pickups, and maybe also to large families. (But maybe not; maybe that should just be the cost of doing business or having a large family.)
<hr></blockquote> I disagree that businesses and large families should pay an extra tax for owning vehicles (which cost more anyway) which are necessary for their operation. For that matter, I disagree with the whole proposition of a fossil fuel tax. It would be far better to grant tax incentives to those who develop/utilize alternate fuel sources. This won't happen, though, since it would mean politicos giving back some of their daily diet of pork. Face it--fossil fuels are here to stay unless someone can develop a cheaper, more efficient energy source (as nuclear is for electricity) as an alternative. Taxing the snot out of everybody just leaves them with less money with which to develop those sources and Congress with more of our money to play with. Both of which most people would agree are bad things. |
Re: If I were in charge ...
Krsqk: I partly agree with you about not giving govt more tax dollars. So I'd use the fuel tax exclusively to fund the research, development, and early adoption of conservation measures and alternative energy systems. Or else I'd use it to offset lowering of other taxes.
At present, federal gasoline taxes are put into a "transportation trust fund" which is supposed to keep the highways and bridges in pristine shape, but instead is used to build new highways (often unnecessary ones in the districts of powerful legislators), and to hide the size of the budget deficit. Those things wouldn't happen, if I were in charge. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif |
Re: If I were in charge ...
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by PvK:
If I want to risk my own life, that's my own business, it seems to me.PvK<hr></blockquote> Yea, it is. But at least in Germany the Government is bound by our Constitution to protect the live of its citizen (to a certain degree that is). Not all people have the insights to why they should use a safety belt so there is a very small fee if you are caught not wearing one while driving. IMHO it is a good think as it protects the live of thousands of people each year. Many of us have taken much more serious reductions of our freedom for a whole lot less of a gain... |
Re: If I were in charge ...
Well, that's one part of why I'm glad there are different countries with different laws (and in the USA, different states with different laws). Some people might like getting observed, stopped, and fined for forgetting their seat belts. Some people might not mind having to report where they live to the government, and state their official religion, etc (I hear these are also required in Germany). Personally, I don't want my police doing these things to me. This is also why I said I'd call for a public referrendum - that means asking for a vote to make sure that the people really want to be policed in these ways, and that it's not just something being imposed upon them.
PvK |
Re: If I were in charge ...
Keep in mind that there are costs to society when a person is seriously injured in a car accident. Nobody pays those kind of medical bills on his own; we all collectively pay. And if a person is permanently disabled, again, we all collectively pay. Unless you are the kind of libertarian who advocates leaving injured poor people to die in the street like roadkill, you can't complain about stuff like seatbelt laws while maintaining logical consistency.
Same with stuff like "no smoking for minors," "no drinking for minors," "no cocaine for anyone," "babies must be in carseats," etc. Either we're all in this together, or we're not. Having said all that, I must admit that I don't like the seatbelt law. I was once struck from behind by someone doing 50 mph who didn't see the red light. A hard-shell suitcase in the rear seat was shoved into my back. I think that if I HAD been wearing my seatbelt, my spine would have been crushed and I would be dead or crippled. |
Re: If I were in charge ...
The use of SUV is a mixed blessing.
As I live in Calgary Canada, there is a lot of emphasis on Getting out and Living it up, and with the weather conditions here changing dramatically (ie. Sunny day to thunderstorm) within at least 5 minutes, SUVs are very useful here, as their power makes the tough weather just a bump in the road, unless it's at the seasonal extremities. But SUVs do guzzle lots of gallons of Oil, they do clog up the road with unnecessary power, and they do take to much darn space. That's why I think that SUV should be only limited to Law enforcement, Emergency services, and Social Services in Urban areas, but remote areas such as Eastern BC, Alberta, and Montana, SUVs should be allowed as a family vehicle. Of course, there might be some people who need to traverse these places, or already own a SUV and doesnt have enough resources to get a new car, they could purchase a Special Vehicle Permit for 5% the price of the car. The Automotive Industry, even though right now going under extreme pressure from foreign powers, Such as Honda, Kia, Toyota, Volkswagon, still should be issued 50% tax for every SUV sold, but while give 25% of those collected taxe to the factories for every Compact, Planet loving Car produced. On the Airlines, I wouldn't have bailed them out unless they show signs of refitting old planes and installing new security measures. This way, they will actually invest some money into making their planes safer or face bankruptcy. This will probably cause a domino effect that will cause the major Aerospace companies to also uprate their products in order to actually make the Companies buy them. In order to do that, They will probably need to hire more jobs in order to meet the production of the new planes. Road spending are fine the way it is now. The foreign policy is unstable as it is now. Your changes to the policies would probably Put it to death. DMM: Those Crappy little dictatorships are thorn in the world bush. The USA can't attack them for the fear of: Islamic ties: 9/11 has already put the country on edge, and many countries are putting their civilian targets at extreme risk by invading Afghanistan and Helping Israel. Also, Even though the USA controls the World's largest Oil reserves, Other countries are not so fortunate and buy their oil from OPEC largely, and if they cut oil to the rest of the world, and USA refuses to budge, they will lose support as USA can crawl into a hole and die if they can't get energy. Fear of the Unknown: The CIA isn't what it used to be. The Intelligence agencies of the world doesn't know and they have only scratched the bare surface of the Al Qaeda. They still don't know their Maximum capabilities, they have no idea where their beloved leader(s) are and most branches that have been uncovered are through very hostile interrogations that your Foreign policy would have to get rid of. Chinese Problems: History has shown that coins flip, trees wither and grass grows. The dictatorship in China will get overthrown, and since China is right now not doing anything to endanger US targets and letting them do business in Chinese soil, It's fine to the bureacrats. But Lets say China does Turn sides against USA. All US and Allied Targets within Asia is under extreme danger, the North Koreans will get extra boost in their agendas, and forget about Taiwan. So far it's a win win strategy. Let International Agencies worry about Falun Gong and others; so far, it's your *** that you should be worried about. Stopping aid to nation may seem the solution to many problems but it really isnt. Many states within the Middle east are indifferent to strike Israel because of the foreign aid. Especially Egypt and Jordan. Both nations would get their forces absolutley (?) destroyed by Israeli forces and without foreign aid, there would be widespread lawlessness and corruption. Also, without foreign support, the public see no reason to consider the US side anymore; and that means more fervor to the Intifadeh, the Hamas and Hizballah. Also it dramatically increases the chances of worse dictatorships being installed that won't care about OPEC or UN. And Foreign Aid ( I really don't know if you just meant $ but here goes ) isn't just Money, as it is military bases around the world. That means no more anti-US feeling in Japan and Korea, Europe and maybe some places on South America, but Let me remind you, Korea and Japan are 11th and 2nd largest economies in the world, that just loves to buy American Goods. Europe has european union, but it's international strength is only in words. And Narco-Terrorism is the only thing that helps to keep Terrorists in the air and if US military spending in South America falls, no more Narcotic limits and more money to Terrorists. Heh. Heh. Heh. Nuclear arsenal helps to keep down wars... In Korean war and the Gulf war, the use of nuclear weapons were very widely mentioned among the top cabinets of the US. Both wars ended quickly enough that those talks turned into Heresy. If nuclear military arsenals increase, it widens the chance of Nuclear buildup of rogue nations, who view that nuclear development is the only thing they have in order to beat the Monopolizing USA. A Bar of Uranium was found in Spain I believe, that had the potential to be a dirty bomb, a conventional detonation device that has uranium on it. It doesn't create a Nuclear Explosion, but a wide area will be contaminated. To terrorists: Preferrebably in Urban Areas. But I do Believe that some Nuclear arsenal should be kept; just for the sake that responsible scientists can actually develop fusion power. 100% agreement on the Education system that Cyrien wants to pull off; although you do have to know that some civil problems will occur as not everybody has the potential to be world citizens. The National debt of the USA should be paid. It's really hypocritic as Foreign aid is trying to help others pay debt and be better but in small increments. Large sums should not be considered except in some Large Supluses as cuts will have to be made http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif WEAR A SEATBELT! Yeesh! You should see some of the things they show in Austrailia in order to increase seat belt wearers. It is not pretty. The Unpronouncable Krsqk: Fossil Fuels are becoming Too cheap. Coal Mines around the Appalachian are becoming abandoned and Oil prices, although rising again, is still cheap. That is one great insight. ... I think that's one rant I would have done without. Thank you for listening, and Please Flame, for it stirs knowledge. And I wish I could have legions of supermodels at my disposal http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif |
Re: If I were in charge ...
Again, seatbelts are a very good idea, usually, and people should be encouraged to wear them in reasonable ways. That does not mean that there should be fines and laws against not wearing a seatbelt. Just because something is a really good idea does not mean there should be a law against not doing it. It seems to me the correct solution is to impress upon people that they should through information, and not through legal threats. I wear a seatbelt because I was impressed by information given me at school about it, not because I'm afraid some officer will harrass my *** about it.
Also, if some communities are lame enough (IMO) to actually themselves vote to live under such laws, then OK. However, I'd like such laws to be decided by public vote rather than by the insurance-lobbied legislature. This can be done in the current US system, but it takes a lot of effort to work up a referrendum. PvK Edit/PS: If there has to be a seatbelt law to protect those poor insurance companies that have to pay for extra medical care for someone not wearing a seat belt, then it seems pretty clear to me that the correct law to address this should say, essentially: "Those shunning seatbelts get to pay for their own treatment, and void insurance that doesn't specifically cover extra injury from foolishly not using safety equipment." The law for this should not, it seems to me, be "The police get to pull people over and fine them for not wearing seat belts." <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by dmm: Keep in mind that there are costs to society when a person is seriously injured in a car accident. Nobody pays those kind of medical bills on his own; we all collectively pay. And if a person is permanently disabled, again, we all collectively pay. Unless you are the kind of libertarian who advocates leaving injured poor people to die in the street like roadkill, you can't complain about stuff like seatbelt laws while maintaining logical consistency. Same with stuff like "no smoking for minors," "no drinking for minors," "no cocaine for anyone," "babies must be in carseats," etc. Either we're all in this together, or we're not. Having said all that, I must admit that I don't like the seatbelt law. I was once struck from behind by someone doing 50 mph who didn't see the red light. A hard-shell suitcase in the rear seat was shoved into my back. I think that if I HAD been wearing my seatbelt, my spine would have been crushed and I would be dead or crippled.<hr></blockquote> [ 10 April 2002: Message edited by: PvK ]</p> |
Re: If I were in charge ...
"But I do Believe that some Nuclear arsenal should be kept; just for the sake that responsible scientists can actually develop fusion power."
Huh? Just a point, but generally you dont need nuclear weapons to build fusion power. On that point, I would rather have nuclear arms than not. The unholy triad of megadeath weapons is too widespread. Fear of retaliation prevents attack. Biochemical attack must therefore equal nuclear retaliation. As for the armed forces, I would maintain them, if not slightly augment them. SpecFor is good, but they're only good in certain situations. China, for example, has an army of millions (literally), so we need to at least maintain a decent armored, cavalry, infantry, air, and other forces, even though a war with China is not very likely. And on China, they're becoming a little more democratic, but Mao's word is still too much stridently adhered to. |
Re: If I were in charge ...
The clusmy 'push buttons and see what happens' approach in which I live my own life precludes any thoughts of 'making the world a better place because I'm in charge' for myself. (I certainly hope other can do better, since they're going to have to anyway...) I just live my own life, and vote.
In other news, lay off Muammar al-Qaddafi. He's funny, has some maturity and growth in his changing-with-years, and is my Favorites fruit-cake-world-leader. [ 10 April 2002: Message edited by: Loser ]</p> |
Re: If I were in charge ...
Re: Seatbelts
The only problem with saying "Stick it to the insurance companies" is that we all pay for the insurance companies. There is no business which will not pass its costs along to its customers. That's how business works. If insurance no longer has to pay for seatbelt-abstainers (which is not in their best interest), then it seems to me that current culture would support a vast array of lawsuits against the car manufacturers to collect damages. Those who are irresponsible enough not to wear seatbelts usually aren't prepared to fork out major amounts of cash to pay for their medical bills. Then what do you do? Let them die on the road, or treat them and never get the money? Insurance is the industry responsible for financially backing the medical "industry." Maybe it's not the best setup, but I'd rather have insurance companies doing it than the government (which we also fund). @dmm: Yes, and for every example for not wearing seatbelts, there are hundreds (thousands?) for wearing them. I, for one, would rather err on the 99.9% side of caution. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: If I were in charge ...
"Those who are irresponsible enough not to wear seatbelts usually aren't prepared to fork out major amounts of cash to pay for their medical bills. Then what do you do? Let them die on the road, or treat them and never get the money?"
Let their family deal with the bills, the immediate ones anyway. The ones after that too, if they go there. I'm not a big fan of protecting people from their own bad choices by laws. Phoenix-D |
Re: If I were in charge ...
Ooo...so many ideas.
1. I would take the Union Jack out of our flag (Australian). 2. I would make the Queen of England work for her title as our Head of State. I'de have her sitting in our parliament trying to administer our pit-fighting style system of political debate ("Would the member for Bankstown stop calling the member for Bendigo a skumbag"). If she refuses to work I'de put her on unemployment benefits and make her live in Bondi, then let the Head of State be chosen from an annual "Chook" raffle. 3. I'de set up a joint currency with New Zealnd and Fiji and call it the Trans-Tasman Peso. I would mint the coins using opium extract to give them a real worth on the international market (well at least in the USA). 4. I'de instigate an "eat your own dogfood" policy for all politicians. This means that if your a politician you must use public services for everything. For example. a) You must travel exclusively on the public transport system b) Send your kids to public schools (for you UK types these are what we call the government schools in the colonies) c) Use public hospitals d) Invest all you money in a typical 0.01% interest rate savings account at your local bank branch (which has probabaly been closed down...but don't worry, there is another a mere 150km away!) 5. I would ban the use of "sensitive" phrases to describe anything. Things like "humanitarian intervention" (first coined by Hitler I believe) would have to be described as "Yes we are invading that damn country for our own reasons so just shut up". "Downsizing" would have to be changed to "We're sacking lots of people so our directors can get fatter" "Surgical Strike" would have to be changed to "We're gonna bomb that building +/- 15km/miles" (Anyone remember that "smart bomb" that hit Hungary during the "humanitarian intervention" in Serbia) "Experimenting with drugs" would have to be changed to "he is a crackfiend" I could go the phrases for days so I'll shut up on those ones. Maybe that would be another cool topic? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif 6. I'de reappoint Steve Waugh as the captain of the one-day cricket team. As for some of the raging debates going on. Seat-belts are compulsory by law here. It has always been so in my lifetime. I feel naked if I'm in a car without a seatbelt...go figure. Taxes on fuel guzzling cars is very European, where everything is close. I drive 400km to go away for a weekend, screw the big car tax. USA doesn't need to give military aide to the South Americans to solve drug problems. If the USA just stopped being such a big consumer of drugs then no market and no problem. There's nothing wrong with a national debt. Every good investor knows that debt maximises your returns. Stop picking on China. Cheers all, Askan |
Re: If I were in charge ...
Askan,
I would take the Union Jack out of our flag (Australian We wish you would, we would love to be rid but there are so many antipodeans over here in Blighty... need I say more? . I would make the Queen of England work for her title as our Head of State. She does, do you not realise the stigma she carries over being the head of state of a nation of people whose parliamentary procedure allows the representative for say Wallamalloo to be called a skumbag???? Your point 4 I agree with completely |
Re: If I were in charge ...
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Growltigga:
I would take the Union Jack out of our flag (Australian We wish you would, we would love to be rid but there are so many antipodeans over here in Blighty... need I say more? . I would make the Queen of England work for her title as our Head of State. She does, do you not realise the stigma she carries over being the head of state of a nation of people whose parliamentary procedure allows the representative for say Wallamalloo to be called a skumbag???? Your point 4 I agree with completely<hr></blockquote> You worry bout the antipodeans over there? Should see my street...its like a mecca for british backpackers. And the singing...what's with the singing? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif During the queen's Last visit here I've hypothesised an arrangement that would work well for both countries and put her to good use. Apparently elections in Britian won't be held if the queen is out of the country. Also true is that if the queen is in Australia we will not hold elections (something about upsetting her with the name calling that goes on during our elections). If we could lock her up in one of our illegal immigrant detention centres (putting the things to good use) then no Australian or British citizen would ever have to hear pre-election prattle ever again. Surely a cause worth fighting for. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Askan [ 10 April 2002: Message edited by: askan ]</p> |
Re: If I were in charge ...
Askan, I will swop you the Brits yodelling in your street for Earls Court and Kings Cross anyday - I here you can even get a good meat pie floater in Earls Court now
Well the singing is because of an phenomena called excess drinking - it is not just restricted to British Backpackers, lots of nations indulge and I myself have seen hordes of 'Westies' indulging in the same in Kuta |
Re: If I were in charge ...
Grmpf, my DSL was down.
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Phoenix-D: "Those who are irresponsible enough not to wear seatbelts usually aren't prepared to fork out major amounts of cash to pay for their medical bills. Then what do you do? Let them die on the road, or treat them and never get the money?" Let their family deal with the bills, the immediate ones anyway. The ones after that too, if they go there. I'm not a big fan of protecting people from their own bad choices by laws. Phoenix-D<hr></blockquote> Problem in Germany is, you cannot do this. Our constitution forces the state to care for your health (free hospitals, EMS). Of course it is not “free”, you give a certain amount of the cash you earn in a insurance. However, EVERYBODY has to pay into this so if you go out and do something most stupid we all have to pay the bill. I know, you want to say that everybody has to care for his own and your are right, to a certain degree at least. But this system has its benefits: We don’t have poor people that are in very bad health or die because they cannot afford to get treatment. Re: Safety belts. Dmm, you said it all. I was thinking about the anti-drug-law reference myself but you already posted it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Regarding Germany: We do have states in Germany, too, you know? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif You have to report where your lat/house/something is to the community you live in as it they get taxes from you. You don't report this to the police. How do you do this in the US with IRS anyway? I’m curious. There are two situations you have to report your religion to the IRS. You are either a member of the catholic church or of the protestant church. Why? Because these two big churches collect their fees over the German IRS. If you are a Jew, Moslem or Hindu or not a member of a church at all for example you are not required to report anything about your faith to the Government. Some people in the US (some Hollywood people, I remember Dustin Hoffman) called us “religious intolerant” because one faith did not have to report membership to it to the IRS. This faith made not very friendly statements in magazines throughout the US about it. The background was (but of course they never told it this way) that this faith wanted to be recognized as a church in the way the big two churches are so the IRS would collect their money for them. German courts denied that for several reasons but not because they were not a church in the sense of a religion. Everyone is free to believe (or not believe) what he wants. But not everybody can have the state collect money for him. <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by PvK: This is also why I said I'd call for a public referendum - that means asking for a vote to make sure that the people really want to be policed in these ways, and that it's not just something being imposed upon them.<hr></blockquote> Yea, but this insight isn't that popular in the world after 11th of September around the world anymore. Every community has to defend itself against terrorism but I sometimes ask myself if not to many of our liberties as citizen are going down the hill. At least here in Germany many politicians where very eager to bring up laws that they could not pass before the 11th September. |
Re: If I were in charge ...
"Let their family deal with the bills, the immediate ones anyway. The ones after that too, if they go there.
"I'm not a big fan of protecting people from their own bad choices by laws." No, I'm not either. I'm just saying there are three choices
Currently, there is no way to make people totally responsible for their own injuries--at least not as long as you can default on medical bills and not be affected (they don't go on your credit history). [ 10 April 2002: Message edited by: Krsqk ]</p> |
Re: If I were in charge ...
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Growltigga:
Askan, I will swop you the Brits yodelling in your street for Earls Court and Kings Cross anyday - I here you can even get a good meat pie floater in Earls Court now Well the singing is because of an phenomena called excess drinking - it is not just restricted to British Backpackers, lots of nations indulge and I myself have seen hordes of 'Westies' indulging in the same in Kuta<hr></blockquote> Oh come on, what's wrong with Earl's Court? I especially like that Walkabout Pub with all that iconic Australian stuff, mainly coz we don't get iconic Australian stuff down here. Nothing better than a pie floater when your drunk too, the pea soup helps soak up all the alcohol making you less prone to singing outbursts. And I can't imagine westies singing to anything, except maybe ACDC. What's a Brit doing in Kuta anyhows? Shouldn't you be in Ibiza scoring with some Essex girs? And not to get too off topic. 1. Religious intolerance. If it prevents Mormons and Scientologists then I'm all for some. 2. Health Insurance. Government health care all the way. If a government doesn't provide for the health, education and general well being of all its citizens then what's the point of it. I understand that as a younger member of this society that the the medicare levy (government tax for health insurance) I pay is much higher than the cost of the medical treatment I receive (which amounts to around none), but one day when I'm older I'm gonna need a hip replacement or be committed to an institute for the criminally insane and it will all even out in the end. Thats the beauty of a non-profit system. Cheers all, Askan |
Re: If I were in charge ...
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Instar:
"But I do Believe that some Nuclear arsenal should be kept; just for the sake that responsible scientists can actually develop fusion power." Huh? Just a point, but generally you dont need nuclear weapons to build fusion power.<hr></blockquote> just check the site www.iter.org for current fusion research. The science has been worked out. Now they are working on building the first test plant. (A project which the US feels isn't worth major investing so after years of being part of ITER they withdrew because $350mil is too much to pay for fusion power apparantly) <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>On that point, I would rather have nuclear arms than not. The unholy triad of megadeath weapons is too widespread. Fear of retaliation prevents attack. Biochemical attack must therefore equal nuclear retaliation.<hr></blockquote> This point can be argued, though I tend to agree with you. By keeping a stockpile of weaps of mass destruction you ensure that other countries won't use them against you because then you would use them against them. On the other hand it also makes it easier for smaller non nation organizations (read terrorists) to get their hands on one or the materials to make one. If a terrorist uses a weap of mass destruction they probably won't leave a return address that can be hit back with another weap of mass destruction. Also what happens if a nation like Iraq (not to focus on Iraq to much or anything) etc... gets a nuke and goes ahead and invades Kuwait or other again and says if you intervene we nuke you? <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>As for the armed forces, I would maintain them, if not slightly augment them. SpecFor is good, but they're only good in certain situations. China, for example, has an army of millions (literally), so we need to at least maintain a decent armored, cavalry, infantry, air, and other forces, even though a war with China is not very likely.<hr></blockquote> US Pop 288 mil Europe Pop 727 mil (all European Coutries) Added together = A little over 1 billion China Pop 1.386 billion Standing Army about 300mil So... ermm... there is no way here a conventional army could defeat those numbers if the US stood alone. Standing Army larger than whole US population and all. IF you throw in ALL of Europe... then there would be a chance utilizing modern technology that is better than Chinas to offset numerical superiority. And of course... ask yourself how long the US and modern Europe democracies would be willing to take in the mass of casualties in such a conflict. In short I am saying short of weaps of mass destruction the US + Europe would have slim chances of actually winning a conventional engagement against China. There is no point in even looking at China as a guideline for military size. For China Nukes are the only line of defense. For other forms of conflict we already know that the US and other European power countries have militaries that can in conventional warfare win. Easily. The problem is these countries know that as well. They don't fight conventional warfares against these nations anymore. They do Guerrilla ops etc. How do you counter this? Vietnam and Russias Afgan shows it isn't with massive conventional forces. That just leads to massive conventional losses. The US had the right idea this time around. Support native dissident military forces while using your own specforces to find and lock in targets for modern smart weapons. It isn't perfect. But it is better than having say 100k in losses for your country and then pulling out and really changing nothing. For future military engagement you have to realize that western democracies Dislike War and HATE wartime casualties. Especially with Mass Media covering it live right into our living rooms. We don't even like the enemies casualties, but that can be tolerated for short periods of time. Conventional forces should be kept in some number but not on the scale of refighting WW2, which is generally what we are looking at. There are only two types of modern wars anymore. All out wars, which will eventually lead to Nukes as one side or another realizes it can't win any other way and both sides realize this so avoid these wars, or specops and guerrilla wars. That is the thinking behind my military policy of maintaining military arsenal of weaps of mass destruction and reduction of conventional military forces while expanding air and specops forces. Keep in mind I don't want to disband the conventional forces. Sometimes you need them. For the crazies that think they can challenge in conventional warfare like Sadam. But you don't need the massive sizes currently held by the US. Right now it is just a military industrial complex thing for supporting the economy. Gee... I think Nazi Germany used the same thing to support its economy. |
Re: If I were in charge ...
You seem to have a stutter there Tigga http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
|
Re: If I were in charge ...
Oh come on, what's wrong with Earl's Court? I especially like that Walkabout Pub with all that iconic Australian stuff,
Well, you would like Earl's Court as you are Australian - we think it is full of load mouth yobs and brash Aussie girls Nothing better than a pie floater when your drunk too Well maybe, but I am never sure if I have eaten it already or are eating it again the pea soup helps soak up all the alcohol making you less prone to singing outbursts. and more prone to throwing up violently in the gutter - hmmmm, would I prefer a crowd of drunk Englishmen singing rugby songs or a crowd of drunk antipodeans being ill in the gutter and pretending to be Russell Crowe?? And I can't imagine westies singing to anything, except maybe ACDC that is a bit harsh isn't it? we always understood Westies to be the cornerstone of your popular culture What's a Brit doing in Kuta anyhows? Shouldn't you be in Ibiza scoring with some Essex girs? done that, I was in Kuta hoping that all Australian lasses would look like Ella and/or Kylie - however, on getting to the Sari Club, it was more a case of Madge from Neighbours and Angry Andersen - no wonder so many of you are over here!! - much more fun on Lombok anyhow [ 10 April 2002: Message edited by: Growltigga ]</p> |
Re: If I were in charge ...
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by askan:
You seem to have a stutter there Tigga http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <hr></blockquote> no I don't, what stutter?? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif |
Re: If I were in charge ...
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Growltigga:
[QBWhat's a Brit doing in Kuta anyhows? Shouldn't you be in Ibiza scoring with some Essex girs? done that, I was in Kuta hoping that all Australian lasses would look like Ella and/or Kylie - however, on getting to the Sari Club, it was more a case of Madge from Neighbours and Angry Andersen - no wonder so many of you are over here!![/QB]<hr></blockquote> We export the ugly ones, sorta like Fosters. Serves yourself right going to the Sari Club anyway, when you should have been at Club 66 speaking to Balinese girls of "negotiable" virtue. And why's everyone picking on China? Is this some sort of nuclear arms race chest beating that I don't understand coz we don't have the bomb. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif Askan 2:15 am, just sobered up and must get to work tomorrow. |
Re: If I were in charge ...
Growltigga: Why do you keep quoting Askan and then not saying anything? Please do not post to my topics when drunk! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
[edit: oh okay, you fixed it. sorry for the slander.] [ 10 April 2002: Message edited by: dmm ]</p> |
Re: If I were in charge ...
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by askan:
We export the ugly ones, sorta like Fosters. Serves yourself right going to the Sari Club anyway, when you should have been at Club 66 speaking to Balinese girls of "negotiable" virtue. <hr></blockquote> No you dont, I have been to Sydney, Perth, Melbourne, Adelaide and Brisbane and didn't see any difference - infact, I will stop there just in case you are a girl Club 66?? I might have gone to the Bounty but I am shocked that would spend your time discussing the commercial negotiability of their virtue with young Balinese girls - are you a lawyer? |
Re: If I were in charge ...
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by dmm:
Growltigga: Why do you keep quoting Askan and then not saying anything? Please do not post to my topics when drunk! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif [edit: oh okay, you fixed it. sorry for the slander.] [ 10 April 2002: Message edited by: dmm ]<hr></blockquote> hmmm, the mark of chap is that he knows how to correct his mistakes Anyhow, what makes you think I am drunk? hic... |
Re: If I were in charge ...
If I was in charge of the U.S.
1. Decentralize the Food industry 2. FDA would take over all food and beverage related tasks and the approprate funding for inspections and punishments would be granted. 3. Limit all government donations to 800 $ and under by people. And zero donations from companies in a calander year. 4. Limit election time to 6 months from the call of an election to day the new party takes over. 5. Force states to equalize the tax spending for each county. No more poor area's get shafted. 6. Declare that U.S. laws are only for U.S. and not force them down the rest of the worlds throats. 7. Repeal the U.S.A. Pat bill. 8. Stop santions on Iraq and Cuba 9. Uphold the constitution for a change 10. Make corperations responsible for their actions. 11. Make politicians responsible for their actions. 12. Ban hand guns 13. Save the whales. |
Re: If I were in charge ...
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tesco samoa:
1. Decentralize the Food industry 2. FDA would take over all food and beverage related tasks and the approprate funding for inspections and punishments would be granted. <hr></blockquote> These are not quite opposite, but seem to represent opposite idealogical positions. I take it you mean, "Decentralize food production" and "Centralize food inspection." That will get expensive. Of course, if you were in charge then you could do that, but can you explain why? <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr> 3. Limit all government donations to 800 $ and under by people. And zero donations from companies in a calander year. 4. Limit election time to 6 months from the call of an election to day the new party takes over. 5. Force states to equalize the tax spending for each county. No more poor area's get shafted. 9. Uphold the constitution for a change <hr></blockquote> #3, #4, & #5 appear to be incompatible with #9. But I guess if you were in charge then you could modify things a bit. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr> 7. Repeal the U.S.A. Pat bill. <hr></blockquote> What is that? <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr> 8. Stop santions on Iraq and Cuba <hr></blockquote> Cuban sanctions will be ending soon. Castro won't be cold in the grave before Cuba becomes a free-wheeling democratic capitalist tourist attraction, with a bit of a socialist bent. Unfortunately for Iraq, Saddam appears to be in fine fettle. <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr> 10. Make corperations responsible for their actions. 11. Make politicians responsible for their actions. <hr></blockquote> Including you? You're in charge remember! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr> 12. Ban hand guns <hr></blockquote> http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif You'll get mine out of my cold dead fist. That kind of policy leads to dictators like yourself. <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr> 13. Save the whales. <hr></blockquote> Yeah, but how? Nuke the Japanese and Scandinavians? |
Re: If I were in charge ...
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Cyrien:
US Pop 288 mil Europe Pop 727 mil (all European Coutries) Added together = A little over 1 billion China Pop 1.386 billion Standing Army about 300mil <hr></blockquote> Can those asking us to lay off China, please explain why China has a standing army of 300 million? As for me, Cyrien's further point about nukes being the only way to stop such an army goes far to explain China's current interest in expanding their stock of ICBMs at a time when Russia and US are both cutting their nukes way back. |
Re: If I were in charge ...
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by dmm:
Can those asking us to lay off China, please explain why China has a standing army of 300 million?<hr></blockquote> Probably to keep the other 1 billion of their population in line. Just a guess though. I don't think anyone has really asked them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr> As for me, Cyrien's further point about nukes being the only way to stop such an army goes far to explain China's current interest in expanding their stock of ICBMs at a time when Russia and US are both cutting their nukes way back.<hr></blockquote> Well the Chinese still have WAY less nukes than either of these nations. About as many as an SDI defense system could stop. Which if implemented has brought a promise from the Chinese to increase their own nuclear arsenal to a point where our SDI system couldn't stop it. Such an action would probably prompt many Chinese neighbors to increase or create their own nuclear arms. Specially Pakistan and India. Gee... some of the people I most want to see have large stockpiles of nukes (even ones declared to be for peaceful civilian construction projects). Well. Perhaps if they do have large stockpiles it would stop military conflicts in those regions. No one wants to be nuked after all... |
Re: If I were in charge ...
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Cyrien:
Perhaps if they do have large stockpiles it would stop military conflicts in those regions. No one wants to be nuked after all...<hr></blockquote> I appreciate the sarcasm, especially when you consider how many people died in Western India after that mosque was demolished and a trainful of Hindus were set on fire as retaliation. "Here's a blowtorch kid. Go play in that dynamite factory next to the munitions dump!" |
Re: If I were in charge ...
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>originally posted by Cyrien:
Well the Chinese still have WAY less nukes than either of these nations. About as many as an SDI defense system could stop. Which if implemented has brought a promise from the Chinese to increase their own nuclear arsenal to a point where our SDI system couldn't stop it. <hr></blockquote> That's about the only promise I'd trust them to keep. They'll also increase their nuclear arsenal if we keep ours the same, or if we cut it back, or if we dance in circles on a pile of banana peels. (I seem to remember that their nukes weren't able to reach the U.S. until sometime during the Last administration. Hmmm...) I trust the Chinese government exactly as much as "I-speak-peace-in-English-but-I-say-kill-the-Jews-in-Arabic" Arafat. Both say whatever they need to in order to get the proper response from the mass media in this country, while going right ahead with their own plans. |
Re: If I were in charge ...
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by dmm:
Can those asking us to lay off China, please explain why China has a standing army of 300 million? <hr></blockquote> Now I'm going to be quite frank on this statement. Where the hell did you hear that toss? Is that what George W is spouting to justify US military expenditure to about a gizzillion times the rest of the world? Doing some hasty research on the internet (always a reliable source of information *cough*) I see the size of their army is more like 3 million, but may have been reduced to 2.5 million in 2000. (And even then that number comes from biased western web sites trying to make a point about the threat China poses) Although this seems like a mind boggling large number (coming from someone in a country less that 20 mil) to do a truthful analysis of the threat I would need to know 1) The standing armies from US, Indonesia and any other countries with lots of troops. 2) Are the police services considered part of the Chinese military? The CIA website seems to think they are. 3) What's military expediture? % of GDP? We all know who "wins" that one. 4) What are Chinese goals? They don't seem to be particularly aggresive in foreign policy (expect Taiwan...which they don't really consider foreign). Imagine what would have happened if a Chinese spy plane was caught moving along the Atlantic coast. 5) Will China really go head to head against USA? Russia never did...the cold war always seemed to have had "agreed" theatres of war. Did russian troops ever really fight american ones? The chinese are fine, they just want what most people want and thats to live in peace. Askan PS. tigga, I think your perception of australian girls has more to do with jealousy or maybe they all just refused your advances. or maybe its that whinging pom syndrome http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: If I were in charge ...
Ahh yes. Thanks for correcting me. The site I got it from most obviously had a couple of misplaced zeros.
As for Russian and American troops facing each other. Yes they did. In Korea... in the air. American Jet Fighters and Soviet jet fighters sent to help train the Chinese in the new migs they had just recieved. As for the comparing USSR with China... well the two systems they run under are actually quite different. As to whether a cold war would work on China. Possibly. Possibly not. Hard to tell without trying. Shall we go for another 50 years and find out? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I think this has more accurate information on Chinese military size. http://www.chinatoday.com/arm/ And this has some data on US military. http://www.observer.co.uk/internatio...665049,00.html [ 11 April 2002: Message edited by: Cyrien ] [ 11 April 2002: Message edited by: Cyrien ]</p> |
Re: If I were in charge ...
So is China still a threat then?
And if so why? Askan |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.