Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Cringing Negativism Network
Lol accurate, and pretty much sums the issue up accurately.

Well, I'm not a communist. Show me, in my postings where I promotie communisn?

It seems truly to be advancing the politboro talking points 100%.

Well....what are the poliburo's talking points? From my perspective, I don't see anything wrong, with a nation of China, moving forward. And that includes developing a peace time military that is COMMENSURATE WITH A NATION FOR ITS SIZE IN POPULATION.

Only the mods I suppose, know if it's posting from Beijing.

I'm posting from the US and have nothing to be ashamed of. Nothing I've posted for the last 10 years and maybe a thousand or two postings later have ever been anti American or pro Communist.

160 posted on 08/13/2011 6:45:11 PM PDT by ponder life
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies ]


To: ponder life

Whatever.


161 posted on 08/13/2011 6:53:40 PM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network ("Cut the Crap and Balance!" -- Governor Sarah Palin , Friday August 12 2011, Iowa State Fair)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies ]

To: ponder life

I take it back, you are not a commie lover. No you are just a commie.


174 posted on 08/14/2011 3:17:32 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies ]

To: ponder life; Cringing Negativism Network; Tainan; central_va
ponder life: "Well, I'm not a communist. Show me, in my postings where I promotie communisn?"

You have an odd way of expressing yourself, that often does not sit well with American conservatives.
Remember, if you express sympathy for the struggles of ordinary Chinese to overcome the shackles of their oppressive central government and achieve a more prosperous future -- then we agree entirely.

But if you express sympathy for the totalitarian Chi-Com government's efforts to more thoroughly control its people, or expand its power to Taiwan or any other foreign territory, then you will get blasted here -- and rightly so.

So I noted this quote:
ponder life from post #133: "If China was a developed nation (which she likely will achieve in about 30 years), a commensurate number of carriers with Britain would be 44 (forty four) Queen Elizabeth class carriers.
China, of course, doesn't need that many to defend herself.
But I feel China has a right to build, say 8-10."

"a right"? What does that mean, "a right"?
As a sovereign state, China has "a right" to build thousands of aircraft carriers, if that's what it wants.
The proper question is: when do those carriers, and the programs to build them, become threats to China's neighbors, and what is the necessary response to such threats?

So, ponder life, for you to insist on a "right" for China to build 8 to 10 carriers (why not 80 to 100?), is to suggest something deeply wrong with your way of thinking.

In what sense does China need any carriers?
Is China today seriously threatened by some powerful new military force?
Has some other nation asked China to protect them? If so, from whom?
Obviously, the answers are "no and no."
So China's new carriers are simply exercises in self-glorification and intimidation of her neighbors, who can only respond by building more carriers of their own.

And who benefits from all these new carriers?
Certainly not the Chinese people who, like Americans, should be fully focused on reducing the size, cost and authority of their bloated and oppressive central government.

175 posted on 08/14/2011 7:08:09 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson