Will USA Be able to Stem China's growing influence and power?
- Thread starter Zoglog
- Start date
I hate to say it, but I think Taiwan is screwed. If you go back to when the PRC took over at the UN as "sole legitimate government of China", it became obvious that countries (including the United States) were more willing to appease China than stick up for Taiwan. The ROC was granted permanent veto-wielding rights and you see how easily that was taken from them.
Look at how marginalized Taiwan is, they can't use their flag or name at the Olympics, they have no representation at the UN... despite their obvious greater respect for human rights and better government management they continue to be pushed aside. I expect that at some later date, when the US is either busy with other matters or has a coward for a President, China will decide to invade Taiwan and as long as the US and its allies sit by Taiwan will probably give way to the might of China.
I think the international world dropped the ball on China long ago. I suppose going back to Nixon kissing China's ass. From the international world putting little pressure on China to relinquish Tibet, to the UK letting Hong Kong revert back to Chinese rule. If the UK had put any thought into the matter, they should have given Hong Kong autonomy much earlier allowing them to decide their fate. I imagine if given complete choice in the matter they would have had serious negotiations with the ROC and I seriously doubt they would have reverted to mainland Chinese rule of any sort. In either case, at least it would have been their choice. Given the fact that many Chinese fled their in 1949, it is pretty obvious that they would have preffered autonomy if given the choice.
As it stands now, the ROC was kicked out of the UN, Tibet is still occupied and Hong Kong and Taiwan appears increasingly vulnerable. While China continues to grow in power and international prowess. The international world had chances aplenty to marginalize China after 1949 and plenty of chance as well but they have dropped the ball on almost every occasion.
Look at how marginalized Taiwan is, they can't use their flag or name at the Olympics, they have no representation at the UN... despite their obvious greater respect for human rights and better government management they continue to be pushed aside. I expect that at some later date, when the US is either busy with other matters or has a coward for a President, China will decide to invade Taiwan and as long as the US and its allies sit by Taiwan will probably give way to the might of China.
I think the international world dropped the ball on China long ago. I suppose going back to Nixon kissing China's ass. From the international world putting little pressure on China to relinquish Tibet, to the UK letting Hong Kong revert back to Chinese rule. If the UK had put any thought into the matter, they should have given Hong Kong autonomy much earlier allowing them to decide their fate. I imagine if given complete choice in the matter they would have had serious negotiations with the ROC and I seriously doubt they would have reverted to mainland Chinese rule of any sort. In either case, at least it would have been their choice. Given the fact that many Chinese fled their in 1949, it is pretty obvious that they would have preffered autonomy if given the choice.
As it stands now, the ROC was kicked out of the UN, Tibet is still occupied and Hong Kong and Taiwan appears increasingly vulnerable. While China continues to grow in power and international prowess. The international world had chances aplenty to marginalize China after 1949 and plenty of chance as well but they have dropped the ball on almost every occasion.
Indeed, and it seems now China is obtaining not only many of our jobs but now our IT as well. Free trade is killing us because China has the ability to fuel cheap labor through a restrictive government. I like how China puts on this innocent PR face tho =). While everyone's all concerned about Terrorists, WMDs and the Middle east..... China poses the greatest threat in my opinion. But being Chinese myself.......... I can understand it
E-Z-B
CAGiversary!
As krazy3 alluded to, every president has had double standards when dealing with China vs. Cuba. Though I can't explain that logic, I believe presidents for the last 15 years or so are hedging their bets that China will move from the Communist side of the political spectrum into the Democracy side. Indeed, we see signs that this is slowly occuring. People are free to market and sell products there today. Though freedom of speech and political expression are severly squashed, perhaps its only a matter of time until those restrictions loosen too. I believe the government that came into power a few years ago had a more "pro-business" stance than the old "communist" one, and the U.S. is hoping that they can avoid conflict altogether. We shall see...
They are artifically lowering the value of yuan, which is giving them a edge in "free trade" and in doing so are violating free-trade rules. This is one reason they have such a advantage and is indicative of how they conduct themselves. You can't have "fair" dealings with them and you can't have "free-trade" because they will do whatt they can to manipulate the system which isn't free-trade at all. In short they want all the benefits without any of the disadvantages.
As far as the threat they pose, I have long said I would sign up to the military if we ever went to war with China (but by then I'd probablt be too old). China is the greatest threat because as of yet they haven't loosened up on human rights and while they are becoming more greedy, the greed is not tempered with other western values.
As far as moving towards democracy, one can hope it happens but I fear they will become more restrictive while exercising more sensible economic policies. One thing that has kept down the communist countries is that the economic system is built on stupidity (look at East Germany or North Korea or China as compared to Hong Kong or Taiwan if you want examples). The real fear I have here is for China to become increasingly strong without become more Democratic, the worst of both worlds. That is why I would have preffered to marginalize them more, if they decide to clamp down on Hong Kong and invade Taiwan, who will stop them? They would no doubt, as I said earlier wait until America will not/can not act. After all, this is the country that has been keeping the North Korean government alive just to screw with the rest of the world, kind of like you would starve a pitbull in the backyard. Their government is really screwed up and as of yet they are showing nothing but ill intentions, and even companies like Google and Yahoo are bowing to and even cooperating with them.
As far as the threat they pose, I have long said I would sign up to the military if we ever went to war with China (but by then I'd probablt be too old). China is the greatest threat because as of yet they haven't loosened up on human rights and while they are becoming more greedy, the greed is not tempered with other western values.
As far as moving towards democracy, one can hope it happens but I fear they will become more restrictive while exercising more sensible economic policies. One thing that has kept down the communist countries is that the economic system is built on stupidity (look at East Germany or North Korea or China as compared to Hong Kong or Taiwan if you want examples). The real fear I have here is for China to become increasingly strong without become more Democratic, the worst of both worlds. That is why I would have preffered to marginalize them more, if they decide to clamp down on Hong Kong and invade Taiwan, who will stop them? They would no doubt, as I said earlier wait until America will not/can not act. After all, this is the country that has been keeping the North Korean government alive just to screw with the rest of the world, kind of like you would starve a pitbull in the backyard. Their government is really screwed up and as of yet they are showing nothing but ill intentions, and even companies like Google and Yahoo are bowing to and even cooperating with them.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
I think if you always look at "western values" as the ideal result you're going to find the majority of the world to be your enemy. Belief and value systems are always cultural, ours just as much as theirs. Your opinions and behaviors are greatly influenced by that.
But China must be careful, a quick change is of no benefit to anyone if it leads to the collapse of the country. That was part of the problem with the soviet union. China has tremendous difficulty in controlling the provincial and particularly local governments. And, because of that, many of the freedoms people in beijing, shanghai etc. have aren't present in many of the rural areas. There is a dramatic difference between rural and urban areas simply in terms of human rights, and that's mainly due to the difficulty in controlling local governments. Problem is if they clamp down too hard there is fear that the entire system may come crashing down. We don't want a repeated of the Soviet Unions collapse.
Also, krazy, I thought you meant they were increasing totalitarian control in hong kong before but your last comment makes me think you don't even know that hong kong is part of china. Taiwan isn't at risk unless they try to formerly declare independence, and both countries have, at times and to varying degrees, been receptive to reunification. The previous taiwanese government much more so than the current one.
Also I'm not sure how you can state that china's economic system is based on stupidity. In fact, looking around the world, I see capitalist nations all over africa, the middle east and asia that do much worse, and many of the most capitalist nations are at the bottom. While china is arguably capitalist, there are still many restrictions on it. They perform much, much better than other countries in the developing world. The best comparison is with India, and they're doing far better than India. Indians situation with its poor is atrocious, they haven't benefited from India's economic success. You can argue China's poor haven't benefited enough, but the fact that they have benefited is indisputable.
The human rights situation in China has also improved, slowly, but it clearly has improved. From reading news reports from china, and talking to people who have lived in china as little as 2 years ago, the image many americans hold of china isn't accurate. I'm not trying to say china is a good example of human rights, or is a great country (in the moral sense), but that's not to say that it's as horrible as many claim it is.
But China must be careful, a quick change is of no benefit to anyone if it leads to the collapse of the country. That was part of the problem with the soviet union. China has tremendous difficulty in controlling the provincial and particularly local governments. And, because of that, many of the freedoms people in beijing, shanghai etc. have aren't present in many of the rural areas. There is a dramatic difference between rural and urban areas simply in terms of human rights, and that's mainly due to the difficulty in controlling local governments. Problem is if they clamp down too hard there is fear that the entire system may come crashing down. We don't want a repeated of the Soviet Unions collapse.
Also, krazy, I thought you meant they were increasing totalitarian control in hong kong before but your last comment makes me think you don't even know that hong kong is part of china. Taiwan isn't at risk unless they try to formerly declare independence, and both countries have, at times and to varying degrees, been receptive to reunification. The previous taiwanese government much more so than the current one.
Also I'm not sure how you can state that china's economic system is based on stupidity. In fact, looking around the world, I see capitalist nations all over africa, the middle east and asia that do much worse, and many of the most capitalist nations are at the bottom. While china is arguably capitalist, there are still many restrictions on it. They perform much, much better than other countries in the developing world. The best comparison is with India, and they're doing far better than India. Indians situation with its poor is atrocious, they haven't benefited from India's economic success. You can argue China's poor haven't benefited enough, but the fact that they have benefited is indisputable.
The human rights situation in China has also improved, slowly, but it clearly has improved. From reading news reports from china, and talking to people who have lived in china as little as 2 years ago, the image many americans hold of china isn't accurate. I'm not trying to say china is a good example of human rights, or is a great country (in the moral sense), but that's not to say that it's as horrible as many claim it is.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Also, krazy, I thought you meant they were increasing totalitarian control in hong kong before but your last comment makes me think you don't even know that hong kong is part of china. Taiwan isn't at risk unless they try to formerly declare independence, and both countries have, at times and to varying degrees, been receptive to reunification. The previous taiwanese government much more so than the current one.
Also I'm not sure how you can state that china's economic system is based on stupidity. In fact, looking around the world, I see capitalist nations all over africa, the middle east and asia that do much worse, and many of the most capitalist nations are at the bottom. While china is arguably capitalist, there are still many restrictions on it. .[/QUOTE]
I suppose you completely missed what I said or my point.
The British could have established a autonomous government in Hong Kong, they did not. Yes, we tend to define countries by geography but that is obviously fluid. Letting the people of Hong Kong choose in the matter would have been no different than many other situations across the world. Considering the fact that many of them fled China, as I alluded to they would no doubt have chosen either to be part of the ROC or to have strong relations with them. It was stupid to just hand Hong Kong over without letting the people have a say in the matter. But I suppose your argument is that since they were part of China they should forever remain that way no matter how they feel on that matter.
As far as Taiwan goes, China makes it no secret that they want Taiwan under their control. Considering the fact that Taiwan was shaped by people that didn't want to have anything to do with communist China I would say their intentions are not the same. And yes, China will act sooner or later. They got the ROC out of the UN, they got Hong Kong back and sooner or later they'll get Taiwan unless someone stops them.
Their previous economic system was indeed based on stupidity. It doesn't take a genius to contrast how things were there, say 20 years ago compared to Hong Kong and Taiwan. In fact only a idiot would compare the three and decide that China had the better economic policy. Obviously, as they become more capitalistic and in turn more prosperous the difference becomes less. And, yes communism is economic stupidity. Compare Cuba to Miami, North Korea to South Korea, East Germany to West Germany, etc... In each case you can/could see prosperity mere miles away from hardship.
Anyway, in each of these examples a clear contrast could be drawn. But ok, sure you give me a example in Asia or Africa of a communist country next to a capitalists country (China is excluded now because as I tried to make clear they are changing their backwards economic policies) in which the communist country is doing much better.
Also, krazy, I thought you meant they were increasing totalitarian control in hong kong before but your last comment makes me think you don't even know that hong kong is part of china. Taiwan isn't at risk unless they try to formerly declare independence, and both countries have, at times and to varying degrees, been receptive to reunification. The previous taiwanese government much more so than the current one.
Also I'm not sure how you can state that china's economic system is based on stupidity. In fact, looking around the world, I see capitalist nations all over africa, the middle east and asia that do much worse, and many of the most capitalist nations are at the bottom. While china is arguably capitalist, there are still many restrictions on it. .[/QUOTE]
I suppose you completely missed what I said or my point.
The British could have established a autonomous government in Hong Kong, they did not. Yes, we tend to define countries by geography but that is obviously fluid. Letting the people of Hong Kong choose in the matter would have been no different than many other situations across the world. Considering the fact that many of them fled China, as I alluded to they would no doubt have chosen either to be part of the ROC or to have strong relations with them. It was stupid to just hand Hong Kong over without letting the people have a say in the matter. But I suppose your argument is that since they were part of China they should forever remain that way no matter how they feel on that matter.
As far as Taiwan goes, China makes it no secret that they want Taiwan under their control. Considering the fact that Taiwan was shaped by people that didn't want to have anything to do with communist China I would say their intentions are not the same. And yes, China will act sooner or later. They got the ROC out of the UN, they got Hong Kong back and sooner or later they'll get Taiwan unless someone stops them.
Their previous economic system was indeed based on stupidity. It doesn't take a genius to contrast how things were there, say 20 years ago compared to Hong Kong and Taiwan. In fact only a idiot would compare the three and decide that China had the better economic policy. Obviously, as they become more capitalistic and in turn more prosperous the difference becomes less. And, yes communism is economic stupidity. Compare Cuba to Miami, North Korea to South Korea, East Germany to West Germany, etc... In each case you can/could see prosperity mere miles away from hardship.
Anyway, in each of these examples a clear contrast could be drawn. But ok, sure you give me a example in Asia or Africa of a communist country next to a capitalists country (China is excluded now because as I tried to make clear they are changing their backwards economic policies) in which the communist country is doing much better.
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
The attrociteis we will commit in exchange for slave labor and tax evasion...
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='KrAzY3']I suppose you completely missed what I said or my point.
The British could have established a autonomous government in Hong Kong, they did not. Yes, we tend to define countries by geography but that is obviously fluid. Letting the people of Hong Kong choose in the matter would have been no different than many other situations across the world. Considering the fact that many of them fled China, as I alluded to they would no doubt have chosen either to be part of the ROC or to have strong relations with them. It was stupid to just hand Hong Kong over without letting the people have a say in the matter. But I suppose your argument is that since they were part of China they should forever remain that way no matter how they feel on that matter.
As far as Taiwan goes, China makes it no secret that they want Taiwan under their control. Considering the fact that Taiwan was shaped by people that didn't want to have anything to do with communist China I would say their intentions are not the same. And yes, China will act sooner or later. They got the ROC out of the UN, they got Hong Kong back and sooner or later they'll get Taiwan unless someone stops them.[/quote]
Well my argument is that the wests colonial possessions are by their very nature illegitimate claims. Though I'm not sure if you're saying they should have decided who their country was a part of, or whether we shouldn't have allowed that. You seem to have posted contradictory statements.
Though hong kong still is largely autonomous, as the conditions stated. Also, only in the last decade or so had the british started giving such rights to the people of hong kong anyway.
Chiang Kai Shek was a ruthless dictator, it wasn't a case of him being the good guy, it's just that mao was the worst guy. Up to 18 million deaths are credited during his regime, many due to famine and war, but at least 4 or 5 million directly the result of his regime. Upon overrunning Taiwan he set up an repressive, authoritarian state. There was a significant amount of killings of the indigenous taiwanese populations when his chinese government overran the island, aside from doing it's best to repress their cultures, such as banning taiwanese from public use. And he also imprisoned communists and (most important for this debate) those wanting taiwanese independence. That's essential here. Taiwan was the remnants of the former chinese government and Chiang Kai Shek would have loved to take back china, he just wasn't able. That's why Taiwan held china's seat on the u.n., because they were internationally recognized as the legitimate chinese government. China did not kick out taiwan in the way you suggest. The small island of Taiwan was representing mainland china on the u.n. all those years. It's only sensible that mainland china would represent china on the u.n.
Chiang Kai Shek did not willingly flee china to set up an independent state, he was forced out and followed the path of least resistance.
Let's deal with cuba. Cuba vs. Mexico will depend on where you look. Sure mexico is richer, but cuba has far superior education and health care (they're preventative health care is better than either the u.s. or canada, canada's is also better than the u.s.). And the poor live in much better conditions, in parts of mexico severe malnutrition is rampant. Cuba, on the other hand, is the only country in Latin America to have almost eliminated malnutrition. They're also done away with illiteracy.
Compare cuba with haiti and jamaica (which has the highest homicide rate on earth)? Well, cuba is an extremely safe country. And then we go back to all advantages cuba has against mexico, except cuba just has an even greater edge against countries such as haiti and jamaica, which don't have anywhere near the wealth of mexico.
Look I'm not saying cuba's a great country, just that things aren't so black and white.
Look at the relative wealth and economic growth of Vietnam compared to east timor, laos, myanmar and cambodia. In fact Vietnam is growing at a very fast rate. And, with the possible exception of Cambodia, Vietnam has every reason to be lagging behind. They fought massive wars with france and america, and a very deadly border war when China invaded vietnam in 1979. It's astonishing that a country can face 30 years of war, especially with the absolute destruction, in terms of industry and population, that took place, and only one decade later become the worlds second fastest growing economy, which it was throughout the 90's, and which it was until 2002. It sits as the 4th fastest growing currently.
Also Vietnam deserves note for removing pol pots regime. Sure there were legitimate non humanitarian reasons (which are the main reasons), but it's worth noting especially when the u.s. had funded pol pot (not quite as bad as it sounds, but not exactly a good thing either) and opposed vietnams actions.
And it must be remembered that Vietnam was essentially cut off from everyone. They refused to let foreign influences hold power (unlike north korea and the ussr for instance), and they both paid the price (lack of assistance and had to rebuild on their own), and benefited from it (they could do what they want). Vietnams growth is something that is the result of their own policies.
The British could have established a autonomous government in Hong Kong, they did not. Yes, we tend to define countries by geography but that is obviously fluid. Letting the people of Hong Kong choose in the matter would have been no different than many other situations across the world. Considering the fact that many of them fled China, as I alluded to they would no doubt have chosen either to be part of the ROC or to have strong relations with them. It was stupid to just hand Hong Kong over without letting the people have a say in the matter. But I suppose your argument is that since they were part of China they should forever remain that way no matter how they feel on that matter.
As far as Taiwan goes, China makes it no secret that they want Taiwan under their control. Considering the fact that Taiwan was shaped by people that didn't want to have anything to do with communist China I would say their intentions are not the same. And yes, China will act sooner or later. They got the ROC out of the UN, they got Hong Kong back and sooner or later they'll get Taiwan unless someone stops them.[/quote]
Well my argument is that the wests colonial possessions are by their very nature illegitimate claims. Though I'm not sure if you're saying they should have decided who their country was a part of, or whether we shouldn't have allowed that. You seem to have posted contradictory statements.
Though hong kong still is largely autonomous, as the conditions stated. Also, only in the last decade or so had the british started giving such rights to the people of hong kong anyway.
Chiang Kai Shek was a ruthless dictator, it wasn't a case of him being the good guy, it's just that mao was the worst guy. Up to 18 million deaths are credited during his regime, many due to famine and war, but at least 4 or 5 million directly the result of his regime. Upon overrunning Taiwan he set up an repressive, authoritarian state. There was a significant amount of killings of the indigenous taiwanese populations when his chinese government overran the island, aside from doing it's best to repress their cultures, such as banning taiwanese from public use. And he also imprisoned communists and (most important for this debate) those wanting taiwanese independence. That's essential here. Taiwan was the remnants of the former chinese government and Chiang Kai Shek would have loved to take back china, he just wasn't able. That's why Taiwan held china's seat on the u.n., because they were internationally recognized as the legitimate chinese government. China did not kick out taiwan in the way you suggest. The small island of Taiwan was representing mainland china on the u.n. all those years. It's only sensible that mainland china would represent china on the u.n.
Chiang Kai Shek did not willingly flee china to set up an independent state, he was forced out and followed the path of least resistance.
Let's deal with cuba. Cuba vs. Mexico will depend on where you look. Sure mexico is richer, but cuba has far superior education and health care (they're preventative health care is better than either the u.s. or canada, canada's is also better than the u.s.). And the poor live in much better conditions, in parts of mexico severe malnutrition is rampant. Cuba, on the other hand, is the only country in Latin America to have almost eliminated malnutrition. They're also done away with illiteracy.
Compare cuba with haiti and jamaica (which has the highest homicide rate on earth)? Well, cuba is an extremely safe country. And then we go back to all advantages cuba has against mexico, except cuba just has an even greater edge against countries such as haiti and jamaica, which don't have anywhere near the wealth of mexico.
Look I'm not saying cuba's a great country, just that things aren't so black and white.
Look at the relative wealth and economic growth of Vietnam compared to east timor, laos, myanmar and cambodia. In fact Vietnam is growing at a very fast rate. And, with the possible exception of Cambodia, Vietnam has every reason to be lagging behind. They fought massive wars with france and america, and a very deadly border war when China invaded vietnam in 1979. It's astonishing that a country can face 30 years of war, especially with the absolute destruction, in terms of industry and population, that took place, and only one decade later become the worlds second fastest growing economy, which it was throughout the 90's, and which it was until 2002. It sits as the 4th fastest growing currently.
Also Vietnam deserves note for removing pol pots regime. Sure there were legitimate non humanitarian reasons (which are the main reasons), but it's worth noting especially when the u.s. had funded pol pot (not quite as bad as it sounds, but not exactly a good thing either) and opposed vietnams actions.
And it must be remembered that Vietnam was essentially cut off from everyone. They refused to let foreign influences hold power (unlike north korea and the ussr for instance), and they both paid the price (lack of assistance and had to rebuild on their own), and benefited from it (they could do what they want). Vietnams growth is something that is the result of their own policies.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Though I'm not sure if you're saying they should have decided who their country was a part of, or whether we shouldn't have allowed that. You seem to have posted contradictory statements.[/QUOTE]
Your confusion is no fault of my own. What I said, a few times and in easy to understand terms is that the UK should have allowed the citizens of Hong Kong to decide their fate rather than just handing them back to mainland China. The people of Hong Kong never had any real say in the matter and when I use the word "autonomous" I refer to it as it is defined: "Not controlled by others or by outside forces". In this case Hong Kong was just handed from one controlling power to another without letting them have say. They should have been granted autonomy. As I said, if given a choice they certainly would not have chosen to be part of mainland China. While they retain some freedoms they do not have autonomy as it is defined, they just have more freedoms than some in mainland China. They are no more autonomous than the 13 colonies were under British rule.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']The small island of Taiwan was representing mainland china on the u.n. all those years. It's only sensible that mainland china would represent china on the u.n.[/quote]
Did you figure that out all by yourself? Because I went over that in my first post. The problem was not that the PRC was given a seat in the UN, in my mind, it was that they took the ROC's and now Taiwan has no representation and red China got a veto vote never intended for them. The mistake was to bow completely to China and give them the veto vote along with kicking out Taiwan. It was the first signifigant step in a trend to do what ever China wants. The trick is China isn't returning the favor, what are they doing, really? Freeing Tibet? Free trade? More human rights? Not really, you can say oh well sure before you'd get killed for that and now they just send you to prison, but screwed up is screwed up and they are still all kinds of screwed up.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Let's deal with cuba. Cuba vs. Mexico will depend on where you look. Sure mexico is richer, but cuba has far superior education and health care (they're preventative health care is better than either the u.s. or canada, canada's is also better than the u.s.). And the poor live in much better conditions, in parts of mexico severe malnutrition is rampant. Cuba, on the other hand, is the only country in Latin America to have almost eliminated malnutrition. They're also done away with illiteracy.[/QUOTE]
I should just stop now. They have eliminated malnutrition and illiteracy. Dude, do you know what a idiot you sound like? The country has great health care? What?
http://www.dinkum.nl/travel/cuba/streets/calle_j.jpg
Dude, that's
ing Cuba. I thought you were a reasonable person but you're a ing nut job. Sure, a bunch of well fed, well taken care of people. That's why they risk their lives all the time to come live in a better place. I know several (former) Cubans, not a damned one of them told me any of this crap about great health care and lack of illiteracy. I could understand you saying shit isn't as bad as some people think and making points, but claiming they have done away with illiteracy, they offer any kind of superior health care than the US and they've almost done away with malnutrition is just you reading the Leftist propaganda handbook. I suppose next you're going to preach the virtues of North Korea. I'm done with you. Go join the Hugo Chavez fan club or something, go wear a Che™ t-shirt and protest wars and capitalism. You're just another one of those guys who fails to see the irony and idiocy in your words and actions. You're just a caricature of a political view...
Your confusion is no fault of my own. What I said, a few times and in easy to understand terms is that the UK should have allowed the citizens of Hong Kong to decide their fate rather than just handing them back to mainland China. The people of Hong Kong never had any real say in the matter and when I use the word "autonomous" I refer to it as it is defined: "Not controlled by others or by outside forces". In this case Hong Kong was just handed from one controlling power to another without letting them have say. They should have been granted autonomy. As I said, if given a choice they certainly would not have chosen to be part of mainland China. While they retain some freedoms they do not have autonomy as it is defined, they just have more freedoms than some in mainland China. They are no more autonomous than the 13 colonies were under British rule.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']The small island of Taiwan was representing mainland china on the u.n. all those years. It's only sensible that mainland china would represent china on the u.n.[/quote]
Did you figure that out all by yourself? Because I went over that in my first post. The problem was not that the PRC was given a seat in the UN, in my mind, it was that they took the ROC's and now Taiwan has no representation and red China got a veto vote never intended for them. The mistake was to bow completely to China and give them the veto vote along with kicking out Taiwan. It was the first signifigant step in a trend to do what ever China wants. The trick is China isn't returning the favor, what are they doing, really? Freeing Tibet? Free trade? More human rights? Not really, you can say oh well sure before you'd get killed for that and now they just send you to prison, but screwed up is screwed up and they are still all kinds of screwed up.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Let's deal with cuba. Cuba vs. Mexico will depend on where you look. Sure mexico is richer, but cuba has far superior education and health care (they're preventative health care is better than either the u.s. or canada, canada's is also better than the u.s.). And the poor live in much better conditions, in parts of mexico severe malnutrition is rampant. Cuba, on the other hand, is the only country in Latin America to have almost eliminated malnutrition. They're also done away with illiteracy.[/QUOTE]
I should just stop now. They have eliminated malnutrition and illiteracy. Dude, do you know what a idiot you sound like? The country has great health care? What?
http://www.dinkum.nl/travel/cuba/streets/calle_j.jpg
Dude, that's
ing Cuba. I thought you were a reasonable person but you're a ing nut job. Sure, a bunch of well fed, well taken care of people. That's why they risk their lives all the time to come live in a better place. I know several (former) Cubans, not a damned one of them told me any of this crap about great health care and lack of illiteracy. I could understand you saying shit isn't as bad as some people think and making points, but claiming they have done away with illiteracy, they offer any kind of superior health care than the US and they've almost done away with malnutrition is just you reading the Leftist propaganda handbook. I suppose next you're going to preach the virtues of North Korea. I'm done with you. Go join the Hugo Chavez fan club or something, go wear a Che™ t-shirt and protest wars and capitalism. You're just another one of those guys who fails to see the irony and idiocy in your words and actions. You're just a caricature of a political view...
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='KrAzY3']Your confusion is no fault of my own. What I said, a few times and in easy to understand terms is that the UK should have allowed the citizens of Hong Kong to decide their fate rather than just handing them back to mainland China. The people of Hong Kong never had any real say in the matter and when I use the word "autonomous" I refer to it as it is defined: "Not controlled by others or by outside forces". In this case Hong Kong was just handed from one controlling power to another without letting them have say. They should have been granted autonomy. As I said, if given a choice they certainly would not have chosen to be part of mainland China. While they retain some freedoms they do not have autonomy as it is defined, they just have more freedoms than some in mainland China. They are no more autonomous than the 13 colonies were under British rule. [/quote]
I can't find confirmation of their opinion one way or another at the time of handover. No opinion polls or anything, though I'm sure they're out there somewhere, if you know where to look.
Well, they have increased economic freedom and improved human rights since the 80's. It may not be to a level you find acceptable, but it's improved somewhat. Tibet is no different than the ruthless colonialism we ourself engaged in as far as I'm concerned.
But my point is Taiwan is not recognized as an independent country. Taiwan had previously represented all of china, both taiwan and mainland china, on the u.n.
Oh yes, pictures. The second totally and completely irrelevant to what I said, and the first about as important as pictures taking by operation rescue of womens health clinics.
Oh come on, why must you make this so easy?
Infant Mortality
Cuba- 6.33
U.S.- 6.5
Haiti- 73.45
Jamaica- 12.36
Mexico- 20.91
Literacy
Cuba- 97%
U.S.- 97%
Haiti- 52.9
Jamaica- 87.9
Mexico- 92.2
Life Expectancy
Cuba- 77.23
U.S.- 77.71
Haiti- 52.92
Jamaica- 73.3
Mexico- 75.19
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
http://www.worldmarketsanalysis.com/InFocus2002/articles/americas_Cuba_health.html
http://www.fao.org/ag/agn/nutrition/cub-e.stm
Malnourishment in Cuba is consistent throughout regions. But not in places like mexico, such as in the state of Chiapas:
http://www.drop-in-the-ocean.org/microfinance_partners.htm
Maybe you'd listen to Former U.S. Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders:
http://www.uams.edu/today/112001/elders.htm
Oh and, while I didn't mention it, I might as well point out the quality of their biotechnology research as well:
http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=511&sid=6461694&cKey=1139829649000
And probably the most important discovery cuba has made? A Meningitis B vaccine.:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/medical_notes/275804.stm
Your response consisted of images and the words few cuban friends, mine consisted of statistics, and health professionals. If one of us is a nutjob here, it's not me. I backed up every one of the points you challenged with actual evidence, not the emotional response you used.
I can't find confirmation of their opinion one way or another at the time of handover. No opinion polls or anything, though I'm sure they're out there somewhere, if you know where to look.
Well, they have increased economic freedom and improved human rights since the 80's. It may not be to a level you find acceptable, but it's improved somewhat. Tibet is no different than the ruthless colonialism we ourself engaged in as far as I'm concerned.
But my point is Taiwan is not recognized as an independent country. Taiwan had previously represented all of china, both taiwan and mainland china, on the u.n.
Oh yes, pictures. The second totally and completely irrelevant to what I said, and the first about as important as pictures taking by operation rescue of womens health clinics.
Dude, that'sing Cuba. I thought you were a reasonable person but you're a
ing nut job. Sure, a bunch of well fed, well taken care of people. That's why they risk their lives all the time to come live in a better place. I know several (former) Cubans, not a damned one of them told me any of this crap about great health care and lack of illiteracy. I could understand you saying shit isn't as bad as some people think and making points, but claiming they have done away with illiteracy, they offer any kind of superior health care than the US and they've almost done away with malnutrition is just you reading the Leftist propaganda handbook. I suppose next you're going to preach the virtues of North Korea. I'm done with you. Go join the Hugo Chavez fan club or something, go wear a Che™ t-shirt and protest wars and capitalism. You're just another one of those guys who fails to see the irony and idiocy in your words and actions. You're just a caricature of a political view...
Oh come on, why must you make this so easy?
Infant Mortality
Cuba- 6.33
U.S.- 6.5
Haiti- 73.45
Jamaica- 12.36
Mexico- 20.91
Literacy
Cuba- 97%
U.S.- 97%
Haiti- 52.9
Jamaica- 87.9
Mexico- 92.2
Life Expectancy
Cuba- 77.23
U.S.- 77.71
Haiti- 52.92
Jamaica- 73.3
Mexico- 75.19
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
http://www.worldmarketsanalysis.com/InFocus2002/articles/americas_Cuba_health.html
http://www.fao.org/ag/agn/nutrition/cub-e.stm
Malnourishment in Cuba is consistent throughout regions. But not in places like mexico, such as in the state of Chiapas:
http://www.drop-in-the-ocean.org/microfinance_partners.htm
Maybe you'd listen to Former U.S. Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders:
http://www.uams.edu/today/112001/elders.htm
Oh and, while I didn't mention it, I might as well point out the quality of their biotechnology research as well:
http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=511&sid=6461694&cKey=1139829649000
And probably the most important discovery cuba has made? A Meningitis B vaccine.:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/medical_notes/275804.stm
Your response consisted of images and the words few cuban friends, mine consisted of statistics, and health professionals. If one of us is a nutjob here, it's not me. I backed up every one of the points you challenged with actual evidence, not the emotional response you used.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
Well, what a beautiful defense of totalitarian Cuba, alonzo.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='elprincipe']Well, what a beautiful defense of totalitarian Cuba, alonzo.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't defending cuba, I originally responded to this statement
He made a blanket statement that was extremely easy to attack. So I did just what he asked, I compared cuba to the surrounding countries, such as mexico, haiti and jamaica. I said that the poor in cuba live in better conditions than the poor in mexico, that cuba has excellent education, health care and essentially eliminated illiteracy. I even added:
"Look I'm not saying cuba's a great country, just that things aren't so black and white. "
To which he responded:
He clearly had no idea what he was talking about, it's like he put a giant bullseye on his back and said "shoot me". The fact that he thought my comments were so absurd and ridiculous just made it even better. Much of his response was arguing against hard facts.
It wasn't defending cuba, it was attacking an argument riddled with holes.
I wasn't defending cuba, I originally responded to this statement
He made a blanket statement that was extremely easy to attack. So I did just what he asked, I compared cuba to the surrounding countries, such as mexico, haiti and jamaica. I said that the poor in cuba live in better conditions than the poor in mexico, that cuba has excellent education, health care and essentially eliminated illiteracy. I even added:
"Look I'm not saying cuba's a great country, just that things aren't so black and white. "
To which he responded:
They have eliminated malnutrition and illiteracy. Dude, do you know what a idiot you sound like? The country has great health care? What?.......I thought you were a reasonable person but you're a
He clearly had no idea what he was talking about, it's like he put a giant bullseye on his back and said "shoot me". The fact that he thought my comments were so absurd and ridiculous just made it even better. Much of his response was arguing against hard facts.
It wasn't defending cuba, it was attacking an argument riddled with holes.
If you once again didn't get my point here it is (I've used some bold and italics just so it is easier for you to follow).
If you are going to buy into the communist party line on shit, I'm not going to bother to engage in discussions with you. I won't argue with the contention that their medical care is better than some places (they spend massively on it, it should be adequate), but one vaccine and they have better preventative health care? How many vaccines has America made? The instant you claimed their preventative care was better than American and even Canada's (a shining example for liberals like you) you showed how off base you are. Yes, relatively to other shitty countries their health care is good and making that argument is fine. But no, it isn't that friggin' great. Sure, for people from the Ukraine it might be nice but only hard line leftists can look to it as a shining example because it only shines in relation to their other horrible examples of healthcare throughout the world. And for the record, I never said "show me the leftist country with the best healthcare" I said show me one that is doing better in relation to a capitalistic neighbor. You didn't even address that (Mexico isn't even capitalistic), you just started singing the praises of Fidel like his lapdog or something.
The fact is that Cubans have had to give up almost everything to have health care that even can be compared by liberal nut jobs like you, to United States health care. Even the Cuban government boasts that basic needs are not met in order to provide their level of health care. You're just doing anything you can to defend communism and yes, you are the one sounding like a idiot.
But, to dismiss your comparison completely let's go over what I said again:
[quote name='KrAzY3']But ok, sure you give me a example in Asia or Africa of a communist country next to a capitalists country (China is excluded now because as I tried to make clear they are changing their backwards economic policies) in which the communist country is doing much better.[/QUOTE]
I specified Asia and Africa and CAPITALIST and you bring me Mexico? Not only that but you bring in such absurdity as claiming Cuban healthcare compares favorably to Canada and the United States. Hell, if I was being really charitable I might so ok, sure they're close to that level but better? Even the numbers you dug up showed that America has longer life spans. Yet, according to you we rank third on your short list, in preventative healthcare, behind Cuba and then Canada. Sorry, but even your numbers do not back that assertion up. At best they could make a claim for providing a similar level of care.
Anyway, Mexico is at best occasionally neo-capitalist. The PRI held the presidency for 50 years. In case you don't know the PRI is a member of Socialist International should you want to debate if they are socialist or not: http://www.socialistinternational.org/maps/english/southa.htm
You will note that another of the top 3 political parties in Mexico is also a member. It also worth noting that the PRD is the remnants of the communist movement in Mexico. So, here you have a country who's political landscape over the past century was dominated by socialists and yet you bring them to me as a example of capitalism? Of course avoiding the more relevant and pertinent Cuba vs. Miami example.
How am I supposed to even engage in discussion with you? Mexico takes the occasional stab at capitalism but their roots lie in socialism. Yet they are your example of capitalism? What? Then you make the absolutely absurd insinuation that Cuban healthcare (despite no numbers to back it up) offers better preventative care. I can discuss things reasonably with people that have at least a moderate grasp on reality. You sir, do not appear to have that.
I ask you for capitalism in Africa and Asia and you bring me socialism in the Americas. How am I to respond? Is that the best you can do? Just grasp at straws that don't even pertain to what I said?
If you are going to buy into the communist party line on shit, I'm not going to bother to engage in discussions with you. I won't argue with the contention that their medical care is better than some places (they spend massively on it, it should be adequate), but one vaccine and they have better preventative health care? How many vaccines has America made? The instant you claimed their preventative care was better than American and even Canada's (a shining example for liberals like you) you showed how off base you are. Yes, relatively to other shitty countries their health care is good and making that argument is fine. But no, it isn't that friggin' great. Sure, for people from the Ukraine it might be nice but only hard line leftists can look to it as a shining example because it only shines in relation to their other horrible examples of healthcare throughout the world. And for the record, I never said "show me the leftist country with the best healthcare" I said show me one that is doing better in relation to a capitalistic neighbor. You didn't even address that (Mexico isn't even capitalistic), you just started singing the praises of Fidel like his lapdog or something.
The fact is that Cubans have had to give up almost everything to have health care that even can be compared by liberal nut jobs like you, to United States health care. Even the Cuban government boasts that basic needs are not met in order to provide their level of health care. You're just doing anything you can to defend communism and yes, you are the one sounding like a idiot.
But, to dismiss your comparison completely let's go over what I said again:
[quote name='KrAzY3']But ok, sure you give me a example in Asia or Africa of a communist country next to a capitalists country (China is excluded now because as I tried to make clear they are changing their backwards economic policies) in which the communist country is doing much better.[/QUOTE]
I specified Asia and Africa and CAPITALIST and you bring me Mexico? Not only that but you bring in such absurdity as claiming Cuban healthcare compares favorably to Canada and the United States. Hell, if I was being really charitable I might so ok, sure they're close to that level but better? Even the numbers you dug up showed that America has longer life spans. Yet, according to you we rank third on your short list, in preventative healthcare, behind Cuba and then Canada. Sorry, but even your numbers do not back that assertion up. At best they could make a claim for providing a similar level of care.
Anyway, Mexico is at best occasionally neo-capitalist. The PRI held the presidency for 50 years. In case you don't know the PRI is a member of Socialist International should you want to debate if they are socialist or not: http://www.socialistinternational.org/maps/english/southa.htm
You will note that another of the top 3 political parties in Mexico is also a member. It also worth noting that the PRD is the remnants of the communist movement in Mexico. So, here you have a country who's political landscape over the past century was dominated by socialists and yet you bring them to me as a example of capitalism? Of course avoiding the more relevant and pertinent Cuba vs. Miami example.
How am I supposed to even engage in discussion with you? Mexico takes the occasional stab at capitalism but their roots lie in socialism. Yet they are your example of capitalism? What? Then you make the absolutely absurd insinuation that Cuban healthcare (despite no numbers to back it up) offers better preventative care. I can discuss things reasonably with people that have at least a moderate grasp on reality. You sir, do not appear to have that.
I ask you for capitalism in Africa and Asia and you bring me socialism in the Americas. How am I to respond? Is that the best you can do? Just grasp at straws that don't even pertain to what I said?
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
You're allowing your emotions to get the better of you and the results aren't pretty. I'm not one to claim victory or any other form of chest thumping, and this is probably the most arrogant I've ever been. But you keep presenting easily refutable, paper thin claims shrouded in anger and emotion. You know nothing about health care, education etc. in cuba and your argument is reflecting that.
Wrong, cuba spends a large amount of the GDP on it, but they are a poor country (their main source of income is tourism from canada and europe), a significant factor in that is the american embargo. But spending a large percentage of GDP is not even close to spending massively:
http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php
The next closest to cuba in the top 31 (probably more, but the list stops there) is Malta, which spends about $750 per person. On spending alone cuba's health care should be horrid, indistinguishable from many of the poorest nations. But its health care is respectable for the developed world, something it is in no way a part of.
That was an example of the biotechnology field. It reflects somewhat on education and health care though, but it was added to show one of the reasons that nations such as switzerland were interested in cuba. But you again rely on flawed assumption by suggesting canada's health care is a shining example of what liberals like me want. It's preferable to the u.s. system, but by no means the model in which I would implement universal health care on.
Wrong, cuba spends a large amount of the GDP on it, but they are a poor country (their main source of income is tourism from canada and europe), a significant factor in that is the american embargo. But spending a large percentage of GDP is not even close to spending massively:
http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php
The next closest to cuba in the top 31 (probably more, but the list stops there) is Malta, which spends about $750 per person. On spending alone cuba's health care should be horrid, indistinguishable from many of the poorest nations. But its health care is respectable for the developed world, something it is in no way a part of.
That was an example of the biotechnology field. It reflects somewhat on education and health care though, but it was added to show one of the reasons that nations such as switzerland were interested in cuba. But you again rely on flawed assumption by suggesting canada's health care is a shining example of what liberals like me want. It's preferable to the u.s. system, but by no means the model in which I would implement universal health care on.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
You're allowing your emotions to get the better of you and the results aren't pretty. I'm not one to claim victory or any other form of chest thumping, and this is probably the most arrogant I've ever been. But you keep presenting easily refutable, paper thin claims shrouded in anger and emotion. You know nothing about health care, education etc. in cuba and your argument is reflecting that.
Wrong, cuba spends a large amount of the GDP on it, but they are a poor country (their main source of income is tourism from canada and europe), a significant factor in that is the american embargo. But spending a large percentage of their GDP is not even close to spending massively:
http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php
The next closest to cuba in the top 31 (probably more, but the list stops there) is Malta, which spends about $750 per person. On spending alone cuba's health care should be horrid, indistinguishable from many of the poorest nations. But its health care is respectable for the developed world, something it is in no way a part of. The U.S. is ranked 27th in life expectancy and spends $4,500 per person a year ($1,200 more than switzerland, which spends the second most in the world), and cuba comes in at 28th while spending only $186 (118th in the world, according to the WHO article I linked to later in my response).
That was an example of the biotechnology field. It reflects somewhat on education and health care though, but it was added to show one of the reasons that nations such as switzerland were interested in cuba. But you again rely on flawed assumption by suggesting canada's health care is a shining example of what liberals like me want. It's preferable to the u.s. system, but by no means the model in which I would implement universal health care on.
And here's some info on cuba's biotechnology:
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Cuba/Biological/3487_3516.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4583668.stm
And the vaccination program in relation to citizens:
And their prenatal care:
http://www.aegis.com/news/afp/2001/AF010353.html
It's funny, cuba manages to do things such as virtually equaling the u.s. in life expectancy, and have a lower infant mortality rate, a comprehensive vaccination program, make prenatal care available to everyone, basically everything what a quality preventive care based health care system should do, but yet you claim they don't have quality health care. And I also think a former u.s. surgeon general looking at cuba's preventive health care as inspiration for what we should do also carries weight.
Cuba cannot afford to run a health care system like we have, that is why there is so much emphasis on preventive care.
I would argue that honor belongs to sweden.
Haiti, Jamaica, the dominican republic, and mexico are all neighbors with inferior health care systems, and inferior living conditions for the poor. Many of cuba's economic issues stem directly from the u.s. embargo. You cannot compare the u.s. and cuba overall, they exist in completely separate worlds. If you look at similar countries to cuba, essentially all of latin america (which is what cuba should be compared to), they come out ahead of all of them in terms of health care. Any non u.s. neighbor cuba beats in that field. The u.s. is the richest country in the world, with massive resources and military strength. No other country in latin america comes close, and cuba should be compared with similar latin american countries, which it is, and not with the u.s. That being said, the results of its health care (life expectancy, infant mortality, vaccinations etc.) are comparable.
As for mexico not being capitalist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Mexico
And this is reflected where? Certainly not in malnutrition rates or water quality.
Ya, america has longer life spans, .48 years longer, but america has .18 higher infant mortality rates. This is essentially a wash, and that's the whole point. Also preventive health care is one aspect of health care. On what they are capable of providing u.s. has better health care, but Cuba makes up the capability difference with an emphasis on preventive health care. The u.s. is capable of far exceeding cuba, but it is not run effectively enough.
And according to the WHO, the rankings for overall health care, based on population health, rank cuba at 36 and u.s. at 72, overall health care system performance puts cuba at 39 and the u.s. at 37.
But you are even ignorant of your own questions. I answered that question a while ago, here was my answer:
You asked this question:
Which is where cuba came in. It's odd, I seem to even know more about what you've said than you do.
Posted above why mexico is capitalist, and I provided statistics for jamaica and haiti as well, capitalist nations that are in the vicinity of cuba. It's laughable that you suggest I provided no statistics to back up my argument, as I've provided plenty. You don't have long life expectencies, low infant mortality, high vaccination rates, extensive health and prenatal programs etc. without quality health care. You've provided zero statistics to back up anything you've said. I have consistently backed up my statements with statistics and similar info. If I didn't it was simply because I accidentally missed it due to the sheer amount of information I have posted.
You have provided virtually zero info to back up any claims, and continuously state false ones.
You are either blind or you simply fail to realize that you asked 2 different questions, the one you mention here, which I answered and you made no further comment on, and the one mentioning cuba.
Wrong, cuba spends a large amount of the GDP on it, but they are a poor country (their main source of income is tourism from canada and europe), a significant factor in that is the american embargo. But spending a large percentage of their GDP is not even close to spending massively:
http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php
The next closest to cuba in the top 31 (probably more, but the list stops there) is Malta, which spends about $750 per person. On spending alone cuba's health care should be horrid, indistinguishable from many of the poorest nations. But its health care is respectable for the developed world, something it is in no way a part of. The U.S. is ranked 27th in life expectancy and spends $4,500 per person a year ($1,200 more than switzerland, which spends the second most in the world), and cuba comes in at 28th while spending only $186 (118th in the world, according to the WHO article I linked to later in my response).
That was an example of the biotechnology field. It reflects somewhat on education and health care though, but it was added to show one of the reasons that nations such as switzerland were interested in cuba. But you again rely on flawed assumption by suggesting canada's health care is a shining example of what liberals like me want. It's preferable to the u.s. system, but by no means the model in which I would implement universal health care on.
And here's some info on cuba's biotechnology:
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Cuba/Biological/3487_3516.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4583668.stm
And the vaccination program in relation to citizens:
And their prenatal care:
http://www.aegis.com/news/afp/2001/AF010353.html
It's funny, cuba manages to do things such as virtually equaling the u.s. in life expectancy, and have a lower infant mortality rate, a comprehensive vaccination program, make prenatal care available to everyone, basically everything what a quality preventive care based health care system should do, but yet you claim they don't have quality health care. And I also think a former u.s. surgeon general looking at cuba's preventive health care as inspiration for what we should do also carries weight.
Cuba cannot afford to run a health care system like we have, that is why there is so much emphasis on preventive care.
I would argue that honor belongs to sweden.
Haiti, Jamaica, the dominican republic, and mexico are all neighbors with inferior health care systems, and inferior living conditions for the poor. Many of cuba's economic issues stem directly from the u.s. embargo. You cannot compare the u.s. and cuba overall, they exist in completely separate worlds. If you look at similar countries to cuba, essentially all of latin america (which is what cuba should be compared to), they come out ahead of all of them in terms of health care. Any non u.s. neighbor cuba beats in that field. The u.s. is the richest country in the world, with massive resources and military strength. No other country in latin america comes close, and cuba should be compared with similar latin american countries, which it is, and not with the u.s. That being said, the results of its health care (life expectancy, infant mortality, vaccinations etc.) are comparable.
As for mexico not being capitalist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Mexico
And this is reflected where? Certainly not in malnutrition rates or water quality.
Ya, america has longer life spans, .48 years longer, but america has .18 higher infant mortality rates. This is essentially a wash, and that's the whole point. Also preventive health care is one aspect of health care. On what they are capable of providing u.s. has better health care, but Cuba makes up the capability difference with an emphasis on preventive health care. The u.s. is capable of far exceeding cuba, but it is not run effectively enough.
And according to the WHO, the rankings for overall health care, based on population health, rank cuba at 36 and u.s. at 72, overall health care system performance puts cuba at 39 and the u.s. at 37.
But you are even ignorant of your own questions. I answered that question a while ago, here was my answer:
You asked this question:
Which is where cuba came in. It's odd, I seem to even know more about what you've said than you do.
Posted above why mexico is capitalist, and I provided statistics for jamaica and haiti as well, capitalist nations that are in the vicinity of cuba. It's laughable that you suggest I provided no statistics to back up my argument, as I've provided plenty. You don't have long life expectencies, low infant mortality, high vaccination rates, extensive health and prenatal programs etc. without quality health care. You've provided zero statistics to back up anything you've said. I have consistently backed up my statements with statistics and similar info. If I didn't it was simply because I accidentally missed it due to the sheer amount of information I have posted.
You have provided virtually zero info to back up any claims, and continuously state false ones.
You are either blind or you simply fail to realize that you asked 2 different questions, the one you mention here, which I answered and you made no further comment on, and the one mentioning cuba.
Words and more words and yet nothing to show that Cuba has better preventative health care, merely that one such as yourself could argue that it is comparable. I wonder why I engage in exchanging excessive amounts of rhetoric with someone who seems to automatically credit any leftist entity with being better without anything to back that up. Bear in mind you said:
[quote name='alonzomourning23']cuba has far superior education and health care (they're preventative health care is better than either the u.s. or canada, canada's is also better than the u.s.).[/QUOTE]
Then have gone on to do no more than try to argue that Cuba has a comparable level of care. As you, yourself said the life spans and infant morality rates are close (of course they are estimates and Castro is not as forthcoming as the US so I do question them). You said that Cuba's preventative care was better and yet you provide nothing to back that up.
As a matter of fact what you said would seem contrary. You say 45 million Americans have no health care, you also say that Cuba has a higher doctor to patient ratio and yet you can't find a single statistic that translates that into better care, you can only find things that create negligible differences.
Now, having said all that, I continue to reject your assertions because you can not and have not proven that Cuba's preventative health care is better than the United States, much less Canada's, which after all works on a model that you no doubt would praise.
Cuba's revolution was focused heavily on healthcare. I am sure you know that, Che after all was a physician. While other communistic countries focused on other areas this became the focal point of the Cuban government. This, no doubt is why Castro remains in power. However, I can not and will not buy into the party line that their care is so great anymore than I will buy into the "world" Castro builds for tourists to try and convince others of how nice things are in Cuba. Things are not nice, and once again I know Cubans and I have discussed the matter with them. I won't even completely concede that Cuba (despite all their focus on it) has comparable preventative care, because Castro has every reason to lead people to believe he does whether or not he does in fact do that. If I am to believe that, I am to believe a lot of other party line bullshit, so I must take it with a grain of salt lest I start believing the words of other communist leaders, who are notorious for misleading.
The fact that you buy into this so willingly, and without evidence is exactly why even typing this is a waste of my time. You have no proof, no facts to back up your assertion that their preventative care is "better" and you dodge the issue of life there sucking giant dicks and people coming over in handmade rafts to get away.
As far as Mexico, like I said they play at capitalism sometimes but they haven't fully implemented it yet. The aforementioned socialist PRI dominated their political landscape (the "official" party) and Vicente Fox was the first opposition President elected since 1910. The fact is that the mess we see in Mexico was the result of century long political domination by a socialist party. Mexico was not a beautiful well run country up until the 1980s, don't give me that bullshit. So, not only are they a bad example they are in truth a example of a poorly run leftist country which is exactly my point in the first place!
[quote name='alonzomourning23']cuba has far superior education and health care (they're preventative health care is better than either the u.s. or canada, canada's is also better than the u.s.).[/QUOTE]
Then have gone on to do no more than try to argue that Cuba has a comparable level of care. As you, yourself said the life spans and infant morality rates are close (of course they are estimates and Castro is not as forthcoming as the US so I do question them). You said that Cuba's preventative care was better and yet you provide nothing to back that up.
As a matter of fact what you said would seem contrary. You say 45 million Americans have no health care, you also say that Cuba has a higher doctor to patient ratio and yet you can't find a single statistic that translates that into better care, you can only find things that create negligible differences.
Now, having said all that, I continue to reject your assertions because you can not and have not proven that Cuba's preventative health care is better than the United States, much less Canada's, which after all works on a model that you no doubt would praise.
Cuba's revolution was focused heavily on healthcare. I am sure you know that, Che after all was a physician. While other communistic countries focused on other areas this became the focal point of the Cuban government. This, no doubt is why Castro remains in power. However, I can not and will not buy into the party line that their care is so great anymore than I will buy into the "world" Castro builds for tourists to try and convince others of how nice things are in Cuba. Things are not nice, and once again I know Cubans and I have discussed the matter with them. I won't even completely concede that Cuba (despite all their focus on it) has comparable preventative care, because Castro has every reason to lead people to believe he does whether or not he does in fact do that. If I am to believe that, I am to believe a lot of other party line bullshit, so I must take it with a grain of salt lest I start believing the words of other communist leaders, who are notorious for misleading.
The fact that you buy into this so willingly, and without evidence is exactly why even typing this is a waste of my time. You have no proof, no facts to back up your assertion that their preventative care is "better" and you dodge the issue of life there sucking giant dicks and people coming over in handmade rafts to get away.
As far as Mexico, like I said they play at capitalism sometimes but they haven't fully implemented it yet. The aforementioned socialist PRI dominated their political landscape (the "official" party) and Vicente Fox was the first opposition President elected since 1910. The fact is that the mess we see in Mexico was the result of century long political domination by a socialist party. Mexico was not a beautiful well run country up until the 1980s, don't give me that bullshit. So, not only are they a bad example they are in truth a example of a poorly run leftist country which is exactly my point in the first place!
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
Alonzo, if Cuba is a communist paradise where poverty has been virtually eliminated, why does this happen?
http://www.radio.cz/en/article/75411
http://www.radio.cz/en/article/75411
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='KrAzY3']Words and more words and yet nothing to show that Cuba has better preventative health care, merely that one such as yourself could argue that it is comparable. I wonder why I engage in exchanging excessive amounts of rhetoric with someone who seems to automatically credit any leftist entity with being better without anything to back that up. Bear in mind you said:[/quote]
My comment that cuba's preventive care was better than the u.s. was based on comments made by former u.s. surgeon general jocelyn elders:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/castro/timeline/timeline2.html
My comment about canada is based on an article I used for a developing world economics class, but I can no longer find it.
If you're going to claim cuban statistics are not accurate, something knowledgable groups like the WHO appear to dispute, then you need to back that up.
If you show up at a cuban hospital sick and you show up at an american hospital sick, you will get better care (assuming you have health insurance, or are dying) in the u.s. hospital. But, cuba relies on preventing you from getting to that point. That's why statistics are usually in the same vicinity, they have different strengths and excel in different areas. Neonatal care and vaccinations are two methods of preventive care, as well as stressing proper diet, checkups etc., the latter 2 do not lend themselves to statistics very well.
Here's some statistics compiled by the WHO
Probability of dying (per 1000)
Before 5
Cuba- 7
U.S.- 7
Canada- 6
15-60
Cuba- males 137, females 87
U.S.- males- 139, females- 82
Canada- males- 93, females- 57
Women recieving antanatal care (ANC, prenatal care)
Cuba- 4+ visits- 100%
U.S.- no statistics
Canada- no statistics
Births Attended by skilled professional
Cuba- 100%
U.S.- 99
Canada- 98%
Immunization-
BGC
Cuba- 99%
U.S.- not offered
Canada- not offered
DTP
Cuba- 71%
U.S.- 96%
Canada- 91%
Measles
Cuba- 99
U.S.- 93
Canada- 95
Hepatitis B
Cuba- 99
U.S.- 92
Canada- no data
Hib
Cuba- 99
U.S.- 92
Canada- 83
Districts achieving 80% DTP 3 coverage
Cuba- 43%
U.S.- no data
Canada- no date
http://www.who.int/whr/2005/annex/indicators_country_a-f.pdf
http://www.who.int/whr/2005/annex/indicators_country_p-z.pdf
Cuba also vaccinates every child against meningitis B, which canada and the u.s. do not offer.
That and education.
Well, all countries do their best to set up picturesque tourist areas. But a tourist can travel anywhere they want in cuba. It's kind of like jamaica (a capitalist nation). Tourists and residents have two totally different views of the island (though jamaica blocks off reality much more than cuba, lack of safety and not wanting the severe poverty to ruin the majestic getaway perception, being a major reason). I've known multiple canadians who have vacationed in cuba, or went there for various conferences. Now, that's different than cuba attempting to minimize communication with locals, which they do in most circumstances.
Well, again, you want to back up the claim that cuba produces misleading statistics? WHO and other reputable health organizations and professionals don't seem to agree with you there.
First off I compared cuba with haiti, jamaica, mexico and (to some extent) the u.s. Jamaica and haiti are capitalist countries that significantly lag behind cuba in the areas we have been discussing, yet you've conveniently ignored such comparison. Cuba is a latin american country and needs to be compared with similar countries. If capitalist it would not suddenly function like a north american nation, but likely would be a developing nation (which it currently is) comparable to other latin american countries. Haiti and jamaica are two neighbors that cuba holds a significant advantage over, in these areas.
But the pri had rapidly increasing privitization throught the 80's and into the 90's. Free market reforms were also occuring. But you referred earlier to china essentially becoming more capitalist (stating the previous system, communism, was based on stupidity), yet mexico is much more capitalistic than china. But mexico is not a beautifully well run country now, yet you'd be hard pressed to argue that it is not a capitalist country. You keep saying the pri was in power, ignoring all the capitalist reforms they were bringing in, simply focusing on the name.
My comment that cuba's preventive care was better than the u.s. was based on comments made by former u.s. surgeon general jocelyn elders:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/castro/timeline/timeline2.html
My comment about canada is based on an article I used for a developing world economics class, but I can no longer find it.
If you're going to claim cuban statistics are not accurate, something knowledgable groups like the WHO appear to dispute, then you need to back that up.
If you show up at a cuban hospital sick and you show up at an american hospital sick, you will get better care (assuming you have health insurance, or are dying) in the u.s. hospital. But, cuba relies on preventing you from getting to that point. That's why statistics are usually in the same vicinity, they have different strengths and excel in different areas. Neonatal care and vaccinations are two methods of preventive care, as well as stressing proper diet, checkups etc., the latter 2 do not lend themselves to statistics very well.
Here's some statistics compiled by the WHO
Probability of dying (per 1000)
Before 5
Cuba- 7
U.S.- 7
Canada- 6
15-60
Cuba- males 137, females 87
U.S.- males- 139, females- 82
Canada- males- 93, females- 57
Women recieving antanatal care (ANC, prenatal care)
Cuba- 4+ visits- 100%
U.S.- no statistics
Canada- no statistics
Births Attended by skilled professional
Cuba- 100%
U.S.- 99
Canada- 98%
Immunization-
BGC
Cuba- 99%
U.S.- not offered
Canada- not offered
DTP
Cuba- 71%
U.S.- 96%
Canada- 91%
Measles
Cuba- 99
U.S.- 93
Canada- 95
Hepatitis B
Cuba- 99
U.S.- 92
Canada- no data
Hib
Cuba- 99
U.S.- 92
Canada- 83
Districts achieving 80% DTP 3 coverage
Cuba- 43%
U.S.- no data
Canada- no date
http://www.who.int/whr/2005/annex/indicators_country_a-f.pdf
http://www.who.int/whr/2005/annex/indicators_country_p-z.pdf
Cuba also vaccinates every child against meningitis B, which canada and the u.s. do not offer.
That and education.
Well, all countries do their best to set up picturesque tourist areas. But a tourist can travel anywhere they want in cuba. It's kind of like jamaica (a capitalist nation). Tourists and residents have two totally different views of the island (though jamaica blocks off reality much more than cuba, lack of safety and not wanting the severe poverty to ruin the majestic getaway perception, being a major reason). I've known multiple canadians who have vacationed in cuba, or went there for various conferences. Now, that's different than cuba attempting to minimize communication with locals, which they do in most circumstances.
Well, again, you want to back up the claim that cuba produces misleading statistics? WHO and other reputable health organizations and professionals don't seem to agree with you there.
First off I compared cuba with haiti, jamaica, mexico and (to some extent) the u.s. Jamaica and haiti are capitalist countries that significantly lag behind cuba in the areas we have been discussing, yet you've conveniently ignored such comparison. Cuba is a latin american country and needs to be compared with similar countries. If capitalist it would not suddenly function like a north american nation, but likely would be a developing nation (which it currently is) comparable to other latin american countries. Haiti and jamaica are two neighbors that cuba holds a significant advantage over, in these areas.
But the pri had rapidly increasing privitization throught the 80's and into the 90's. Free market reforms were also occuring. But you referred earlier to china essentially becoming more capitalist (stating the previous system, communism, was based on stupidity), yet mexico is much more capitalistic than china. But mexico is not a beautifully well run country now, yet you'd be hard pressed to argue that it is not a capitalist country. You keep saying the pri was in power, ignoring all the capitalist reforms they were bringing in, simply focusing on the name.
Dude, you love to argue more than me. But, rhetoric does not a good argument make. This is becoming tiresome and it is my fault because I took your bait. I'll try to make this as simple as possible.
A: You quoting Jocelyn Elders to make a point is like me quoting John Ashcroft to my a point. That shit won't fly, you'd call me on it and I'm calling you on it.
B: I let you take a conversation about China and a point about China's former economic stupidity and turn it into a debate about Cuba's health care. Way to go leftist, if you can't win one argument just bait me into another and pretend you did.
C: I then let you respond to a question about comparing communist and capitalist countries in Asia and Africa with comparing socialist Mexico to Cuba's health care. Once again, I took the bait so yeah you win again because I feel into your misdirection ploy.
D: For the record, the best examples you could bring me happen to be Cuba and Vietnam. Vietnam has a per capita GDP of $3,000 which ranks them at 159th and Cuba has a per capita GDP of $3,300 which ranks them at 157. Yet, these are your best examples of "successful" communist countries. It is nice to know what you, if people like you had your way, would like to reduce America to.
E: Cuba is all kinds ofed up. Bottom line. I know people from Cuba, I've followed the situation there from years and their medical program is part functionality part PR built to feed leftists like you bullshit. I won't say it is inadequate, but I will say they do all they can to make it look better than it is. Yet, short of a Elders quote you still can't show me a damned thing proving their preventative care is actually better. Heck, to anyone reading this I pose the question of which place you would prefer to get medical care in? America or Cuba?
F: I'm so done with this. Type out some long-ass bullshit singing the praises of communism, I don't care. You're not winning a argument you're just trying to take a argument into territory that you can win. I'm done falling for it.
A: You quoting Jocelyn Elders to make a point is like me quoting John Ashcroft to my a point. That shit won't fly, you'd call me on it and I'm calling you on it.
B: I let you take a conversation about China and a point about China's former economic stupidity and turn it into a debate about Cuba's health care. Way to go leftist, if you can't win one argument just bait me into another and pretend you did.
C: I then let you respond to a question about comparing communist and capitalist countries in Asia and Africa with comparing socialist Mexico to Cuba's health care. Once again, I took the bait so yeah you win again because I feel into your misdirection ploy.
D: For the record, the best examples you could bring me happen to be Cuba and Vietnam. Vietnam has a per capita GDP of $3,000 which ranks them at 159th and Cuba has a per capita GDP of $3,300 which ranks them at 157. Yet, these are your best examples of "successful" communist countries. It is nice to know what you, if people like you had your way, would like to reduce America to.
E: Cuba is all kinds of
ed up. Bottom line. I know people from Cuba, I've followed the situation there from years and their medical program is part functionality part PR built to feed leftists like you bullshit. I won't say it is inadequate, but I will say they do all they can to make it look better than it is. Yet, short of a Elders quote you still can't show me a damned thing proving their preventative care is actually better. Heck, to anyone reading this I pose the question of which place you would prefer to get medical care in? America or Cuba?F: I'm so done with this. Type out some long-ass bullshit singing the praises of communism, I don't care. You're not winning a argument you're just trying to take a argument into territory that you can win. I'm done falling for it.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='KrAzY3']Dude, you love to argue more than me. But, rhetoric does not a good argument make. This is becoming tiresome and it is my fault because I took your bait. I'll try to make this as simple as possible.[/quote]
You're right, but mine has been heavy in statistics and such, it wasn't the one based on rheteric.
I'm quoting a former u.s. surgeon general, whose expertise is in medical and health care, stating that another country has better preventive health care than the u.s.. I would think she would be considered a reputable authority on such issues, and she does not have to deal with the political implications of such statements, since she is no longer in that position.
You brought up cuba (as well as east germany, and north korea), and compared them to capitalist neighbors. So I compared them to the surrounding nations. You had a hissy fit when I did that.
No, you compared communist countries with their surrounding nations, I answered that question. You also asked about communist nations in asia and africa, and my comparison of vietnam with capitalist nations answered that question as well. I answered your questions, and you chose to respond to my cuba response and ignored my response concerning asian countries.
Funny, nowhere do I say they're succesfull countries as a whole, nowhere do I say I want the u.s. to be like them.
But, according to the cia fact book, Cuba's GDP is 157, but one of its capitalist neighbors I mentioned, haiti, comes in at 193. As for vietnam, it comes in at 159. Well many nearby nations are lower, laos is 183, cambodia is 176, burma is 187, bangladesh is 175. And their economies are growing like vietnams.
Vaccinations, emphasis on health and checkups, prenatal care etc. are some of the things I mentioned backing up the quality of preventive care in cuba. Life expectancy, infant mortality etc. are also evidence in support of that, especially since the actual treatment of issues that arise aren't as good as other countries with similar statistics, they focus on ways to ensure they don't arise.
And once again your reading comprehension is horrendous. I said that when you actually have a problem the u.s. is better, but it doesn't do as good of a job at preventing that from happening.
You also are a long way off from your original statements, essentially calling me a nutcase for daring to suggest cuba had any halfway respectable health care system, had basically eliminated illiteracy etc., anyone who had followed cuba for years would know that. The most you've done, with all the claims I've made and all the claims you've challenged, is to say I can't prove one of them, one that makes no actual difference on the ground in cuba. But you haven't disputed it, just claimed I can't actually prove it.
Find me where I praised communism.
You're right, but mine has been heavy in statistics and such, it wasn't the one based on rheteric.
I'm quoting a former u.s. surgeon general, whose expertise is in medical and health care, stating that another country has better preventive health care than the u.s.. I would think she would be considered a reputable authority on such issues, and she does not have to deal with the political implications of such statements, since she is no longer in that position.
You brought up cuba (as well as east germany, and north korea), and compared them to capitalist neighbors. So I compared them to the surrounding nations. You had a hissy fit when I did that.
No, you compared communist countries with their surrounding nations, I answered that question. You also asked about communist nations in asia and africa, and my comparison of vietnam with capitalist nations answered that question as well. I answered your questions, and you chose to respond to my cuba response and ignored my response concerning asian countries.
Funny, nowhere do I say they're succesfull countries as a whole, nowhere do I say I want the u.s. to be like them.
But, according to the cia fact book, Cuba's GDP is 157, but one of its capitalist neighbors I mentioned, haiti, comes in at 193. As for vietnam, it comes in at 159. Well many nearby nations are lower, laos is 183, cambodia is 176, burma is 187, bangladesh is 175. And their economies are growing like vietnams.
E: Cuba is all kinds of
Vaccinations, emphasis on health and checkups, prenatal care etc. are some of the things I mentioned backing up the quality of preventive care in cuba. Life expectancy, infant mortality etc. are also evidence in support of that, especially since the actual treatment of issues that arise aren't as good as other countries with similar statistics, they focus on ways to ensure they don't arise.
And once again your reading comprehension is horrendous. I said that when you actually have a problem the u.s. is better, but it doesn't do as good of a job at preventing that from happening.
You also are a long way off from your original statements, essentially calling me a nutcase for daring to suggest cuba had any halfway respectable health care system, had basically eliminated illiteracy etc., anyone who had followed cuba for years would know that. The most you've done, with all the claims I've made and all the claims you've challenged, is to say I can't prove one of them, one that makes no actual difference on the ground in cuba. But you haven't disputed it, just claimed I can't actually prove it.
Find me where I praised communism.
[quote name='Msut77']Crazy, im not a fan of Castro or Cuba or Communism but they have been embargoed for decades, that explains their economic situation about as much as their system of government.[/QUOTE]
If Cuba was the exception that argument would be hold a lot of weight. The problem is that one can provide many communist countries as examples and none demonstrated a excellent economy. As this topic started and I was led astray I was contrasting neighboring communist countries.
West and East Germany. I've been to Germany and you still see the lingering effects. East Germans are as a whole still trying to catch up. My wife was in East Germany a few times before the wall fell and the difference was astounding. Two countries no different other than the system in place and yet we see a massive difference.
China (the contrast isn't as great since China became less communistic in their economic practice) contrasted with Taiwan and Hong Kong also provided a stark contrast.
North and South Korea are quite literally night and day.
Cuba contrasted to Miami is a stark contrast as well but I will be charitable and say Castro seems to have done as "good" a job as any communist dictator.
So, one can see example after example of communism proving to be a very poor system, one which requires walls to keep people in and the support of a oppressive government. It is far from a leap to arrive at the conclusion that communism is indeed a very poor system.
If Cuba was the exception that argument would be hold a lot of weight. The problem is that one can provide many communist countries as examples and none demonstrated a excellent economy. As this topic started and I was led astray I was contrasting neighboring communist countries.
West and East Germany. I've been to Germany and you still see the lingering effects. East Germans are as a whole still trying to catch up. My wife was in East Germany a few times before the wall fell and the difference was astounding. Two countries no different other than the system in place and yet we see a massive difference.
China (the contrast isn't as great since China became less communistic in their economic practice) contrasted with Taiwan and Hong Kong also provided a stark contrast.
North and South Korea are quite literally night and day.
Cuba contrasted to Miami is a stark contrast as well but I will be charitable and say Castro seems to have done as "good" a job as any communist dictator.
So, one can see example after example of communism proving to be a very poor system, one which requires walls to keep people in and the support of a oppressive government. It is far from a leap to arrive at the conclusion that communism is indeed a very poor system.
bread's done