to the people who thinks sci-fi is a total waste of time

[kimba1]

then why is a rival nation pushing for it..hmmm

http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-chinese-government-is-setting-up-its-own-major-scie-1780570782?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebook&utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

[kimba1]

here`s an article americans will believe is completely untrue and will ignore


http://writerunderground.com/2013/10/16/neil-gaiman-talks-creativity-sci-fi-future-libraries-guardian/

[Xavier_Onassis]

Sci-Fi is mostly entertainment, but it can be philosopical and predictive of the future as well.

Sumner Redstone seems to be a bit like Heinlein's character  Lazarus Long. Or at least he is closer than anyone else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumner_Redstone

[Plane]

It is hard to imagine Lazarus Long supporting John Kerry.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Sumner Redstone's main concern is staying in charge of a huge empire forever.
I don't think his political views have a thing to do with this.
He knows how to avoid taxes, he has the best lobbyists that hepl him with Congress and the FCC

[Plane]

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/special/chinesedream/

China has a rosy optimistic future.

Yep, I understand Manifest Destiny.

[Xavier_Onassis]

China has never been expansionist, except for Tibet.
China has claimed sovereignty over Tibet for hundreds of years.

The idea that they should be able to build an island and occupy it, as they have in the South China Sea, seems entirely rational.
The US has claimed many  unoccupied islands on far flimsier pretexts.

I do not understand why the US is making such a big deal of this.

[Plane]

China has never been expansionist, except for Tibet.
China has claimed sovereignty over Tibet for hundreds of years.

Fiction. on two counts, China got big by being expansionist , but when they built the great wall it did not enclose Tibet within it. The Chinese claim on Tibet is not ancient, it is recent expansionism.

The idea that they should be able to build an island and occupy it, as they have in the South China Sea, seems entirely rational.

No, these have been the fishing grounds of Japan and the Philippines for centuries they were not dry land for anyone before a lot of sand was piled upon these reefs. The Ecological damage alone is a very good reason to never do this.

The US has claimed many  unoccupied islands on far flimsier pretexts.

I do not understand why the US is making such a big deal of this.

Should the entire Gulf Of Mexico be US territory?

Should we cut Cuba and Haiti and Mexico off from seas in which they have fished for many years?

  We have killed Libyans who tried to drive us out of international waters closer to their mainland than this.

[Xavier_Onassis]

You are ignorant of Chinese Imperial history. Tibet paid some sort of tribute to many Chinese emperors. Chaing Kai-Shek tried to exact a tribute but he did not have the muscle.The Great Wall was to protect Northern China from Mongolians, not Tibetans. China has four times the population of the US, so it has a better justification to expand.

Apart from the monks, most Tibetans are at least as well off under China as under all the previous Dali Lamas. China has brought roads and modernity to Tibet. China could easily have conquered Mongolia and Siberia, but did not attempt to do this. The Russians moved in rather easily.

The US has dominated the Caribbean forever, except for Cuba from 1959. Navassa, Mona, and several other islands were grabbed because the US had the better navy. The sane is true of many Pacific atolls.

 It seems to me that the Chinese turning barren reefs into actual islands entitles them to put a base there. Certainly if the US can hold Guantanamo against the will of the Cubans and shell Vieques for sixty years against the wishes of the people of Vieques. Vieques is essentially a part of the Virgin Island group, but it was seized from Spain along with Puerto Rico.

[Plane]

If we were doing what China is doing , we would be taking the oil fields off the cost of Cuba for ourselves.

The Cuban marine oil fields by the way , are being exploited with Chinese help.

Which is more within the law?

Taking the oil fields that Viet Nam has some claim on , the fishing areas that used to be international and the reefs that need to be destroyed to the extinction of many fish for the sake of military bases.


    So we are fools to respect the law of the seas when we could be more like China?

     Why does Mexico have any right to fish?
     Why does Cuba have any right to exploit oil found just as far from them as us?(almost)

       Why should there be any fish, where there could be sand instead?

[kimba1]

Tibet is doing well but that does not means they are happy about it. Note any mention of the the word tibet will strain your relationship with china. Thiers are factors we simply do not know is going on and definitely not what we see.

But on the flipside mant countries are begging for china help. The carribean is getting funding right now. Globally china's aid is prefered over America. We tend to put alot of clauses with our money that makes it not useable at times. China tends to give unrestricted funding

[Xavier_Onassis]

Cuba has yet to find oil that they can exploit.
The US has no reason to take sides in the South China Sea.

The US has refused to even sign the Law of the Sea.

I do not think that Chinese naval operations will have to prevent Vietnamese from fishing.
It is a very, very large ocean.

[kimba1]

China always had a land shortage problem so it should be understandable why they will kerp expanding. Chaing kai-shek seriously screwed up he had a chance to allied with china to fight the japanese but rather keep fighting china and ended up leaving.

[Xavier_Onassis]

China always had a land shortage problem so it should be understandable why they will kerp expanding. Chaing kai-shek seriously screwed up he had a chance to allied with china to fight the japanese but rather keep fighting china and ended up leaving.


Chaing Kai Shek was the defacto leader of the Kuomintang government. He fought the Japanese who were invading the country. Mao simply went off to hide in the NW of the country ( on his Long March) and did not fight the Japanese. He rightly assumed that eventually the Japanese would have to leave and when they did, Chaing would be so weak that the People's Red Army would be easily able to defeat him. Mao refused to ally himself with Chaing,

Mao was a very, very clever military leader. He was absolutely awful as a political leader: the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were disasters. But Deng used Mao's horrible mistakes as well as his triumphs as object lessons about how to rule China successfully.

In the end Deng and those who followed him have proven to be far smarter than Chaing and Mao.

[kimba1]

Hmm. On my end chiang refused to ally and kept fighting the red army.