24-02-2005 15:13									#301
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: You're on crack if you think Tiananmen had anything to do with the fall of the wall. That has got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever seen a supposedly intelligent person post, ever.

Those who made the wall fall explicitly acknowledged it. West German TV broadcast the Tiananmen events and some people on the other side picked it up. Word got out.

They became aware that civil disobedience had very nearly succeeded in a communist country and correctly divined that their own authorities lacked the gumption to slaughter their own citizens. In fact they were proved absolutely right as Honecker wanted to suppress them but was ousted because the rest of them couldn't face doing it.

I've seen people involved in the Mauerfall say this in interviews. It's kind of obvious when you think about it - the East German thing only picks up steam after that. I imagine the Chinese were also influenced by earlier events in Europe.

Tiananmen was itself influenced by the "people power" revolution in the Phillipines a few years earlier, and that was influenced by the failed Kwanju uprising a few years before that.

	24-02-2005 15:16									#302
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Invasion of Nicaragua to depose Noriega is perhaps the sole exception (but note that it wasn't for conquest, either).

I might take you seriously if you actually got the facts right.

	24-02-2005 15:39									#303
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Agathon quote: You're on crack if you think Tiananmen had anything to do with the fall of the wall. That has got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever seen a supposedly intelligent person post, ever. Those who made the wall fall explicitly acknowledged it. West German TV broadcast the Tiananmen events and some people on the other side picked it up. Word got out. They became aware that civil disobedience had very nearly succeeded in a communist country and correctly divined that their own authorities lacked the gumption to slaughter their own citizens. In fact they were proved absolutely right as Honecker wanted to suppress them but was ousted because the rest of them couldn't face doing it. I've seen people involved in the Mauerfall say this in interviews. It's kind of obvious when you think about it - the East German thing only picks up steam after that. I imagine the Chinese were also influenced by earlier events in Europe. Tiananmen was itself influenced by the "people power" revolution in the Phillipines a few years earlier, and that was influenced by the failed Kwanju uprising a few years before that.

The **** was hitting the fan well before Tiananmen, Aggy.

Atre you going to say now that glasnost caused people power in the Phillipines?

	24-02-2005 18:45									#304
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Agathon The Chinese do not have a history of manic aggression. They want Taiwan back, because its part of China (which even the Taiwanese admit, but they think they should be in charge of China) and they invaded Tibet because it was a weak state between them and India, a country with which they have hostile relations.

There's also the little matter that Tibet was a Qing vassal. The Chinese have been extremely reluctant to see any bit of the Qing empire go away. Taiwan has, last I heard, still not formally accepted Mongolia's independence, and the commies only did it because the alternative was a breach with Stalin.

About a year ago, a Manchurian politicitian suggested, apparently in all seriousness, that China should buy the Maritime Province back from Russia.

	24-02-2005 19:02									#305
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc I'm kind of curious what Spiffor and mindseye's feelings on the matter are.

In a nutshell, I'd rather no one sold arms to China.

I'm dismayed but not the least surprised if Europeans scramble for Chinese arms sales. It's a highly lucrative business, and given the scale (and customer base) of the US arms trading industry, I'm not sure Americans have much room to criticize Euros on this score without being mighty hypocritical.

China should be expected to modernize its military and have a force commensurate with its economic power, just like any other major power. However, I'm not terribly worried about it being an international military threat.

The guys running the game in Beijing (along with their families and friends) are becoming so astoundingly rich from economic development, that it's hard to imagine them doing anything that might imperil their gravy train. And that includes taking up arms against Taiwan. The leaders of the CCP have become quite enamored with MBZs, villas, concubines and international gambling vacations.

I'm more concerned about China as a cultural threat, specifically its business culture. Find the worst sweatshop factory in any corner of the globe, and chances are it's owned by Chinese (including Taiwanese).

	24-02-2005 19:58									#306
	Nepal Tired of ads?

In Nepal the king has launched a coup, dismissing the civilian govt and attempting to rule directly. IIUC India has protested vigourously, cutting off military sales. China, OTOH, has said nothing. Is China working with the king? Is this an attempt to exert dominance over another buffer state, this time on the Indian side of the Himalyan ridge?

	24-02-2005 20:08									#307
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Nepal being an Indian client, one might've expected China to be sympathetic to the Maoists. But I don't know anything for sure.

	24-02-2005 20:11									#308
	Re: Nepal Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark In Nepal the king has launched a coup, dismissing the civilian govt and attempting to rule directly. IIUC India has protested vigourously, cutting off military sales. China, OTOH, has said nothing. Is China working with the king? Is this an attempt to exert dominance over another buffer state, this time on the Indian side of the Himalyan ridge?

Or maybe China does not give a damn about the Nepalese king overthrowing democracy, since democracy is not high on their agenda? Plus India, with its own large Maosit revolts, has far more at stake in Nepal to begin with.

You know, I have heard nothing from Thailand either, nor even Bhuttan! Those damned Bhuttanese!

This is the sort of paranoia that is endemic.

As for Straybows long winded but not particulalrly interesting remarks- there are time for valid Hitler comparisons- you haven't pointed out any worth a damn. And all conflicts have two sides- even aggressors have a reason for their actions-that is a side. Too bad to see that in your limited monochrome existance that obvious reality is lost.

And as for the notion of some grand allience of western nation- won't happen, period. NOr will there really be some grand anti-Chinese allience in Asia, and all of this for a variety of reasons:

1. Europe and the US have increasingly divergent values when it comes to international relations as I said earlier-with the US staucnhly for its hegemony and sovereignty to enforce that hegemony, while the Europeans are slowly moving or trying to change the basis of sovereignty to more international and supranational notions. The two are in conflict. Russia is more enclined the the US position, in so far as it wants to get back its power and probably corectly sees the European approach as negating this.

2. When neocons like Krauthammer go around calling Europe "decadent", you can see where this supposed western allience falls apart- unless there is a tectonic shift in values in either Europe or the US, while still being capitalist democracies their values will not be particulalry alligned

3. IN Asia, besides China you have India growing, and many Asian states have not forgiven Japan, and Muslim Asian states have increasings rifts with the US as long as US public diplomacy continues to be crap. Why then should Indonesia decide to take a stand vs China, as aopposed, say, coming to an agreement with China and siding with them? Dittop for plenty of toehr states. Never do we see all states decidng which power is the bigger threat- Japan may have a pacifist history, but it has a past that is much darker for most asians than China. If and when China can dole out cash like Japan has, it has a good chance of being very popular.

	24-02-2005 20:35									#309
	Nepal Got spare money?

In January the govt of Nepal closed the Tibetan welfare office in Katmandu.

	24-02-2005 20:40									#310
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: None of it means that they want to invade Japan. Who said anything about invading Japan? Cutting off Japan's oil supplies is enough to bring the country to its knees, something that will be hard to prevent if China gets a thoroughly modern military and control of Taiwan...

For the time being, it would be suicidal for China to go to war with Japan, and that's likely to be remain the case for the effective lifetime of the system the Chinese want to buy.

	24-02-2005 20:40									#311
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

pardon my error, china DID say something

" China respects the choice of Nepalese in developing their own country and sincerely wishes the nation to realize social security, economic development and ethnic pacification."

	24-02-2005 20:45									#312
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I'm not entirely sure what the Nepal tangent has to do with the rest of this thread. Maybe start a separate thread for it?

	24-02-2005 20:47									#313
	Tired of ads?

the US is still willing to work through international institutions, and the Europeans have not forfeited all notions of sovereignty (both of individual states vs the EU, and of the EU vs the UN and other global bodies) While we have different approaches on HOW to achieve many things, these are capable of being compromised, and are dwarfed by our common goals and interests.

In fact the Europeans (those who werent already part of the coalition of the willing) are now making at least a token contribution to training Iraqi security forces, the US and Europe are both support Abu Mazen and the mideast peace process, the US and the EU led by France are working together on the situation in Lebanon, the US and EU worked together on the Ukraine, we are working together on issues of trade, international development, etc.

	24-02-2005 20:48									#314
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I think the idea is to show that China's leaders do have a desire to spread their influence and are not above using military might to achieve their ends. The fact they have not done too much in the past is more a matter of ability than desire. With increasing ability, we should expecgt to see more military adventurism from China.

	24-02-2005 20:51									#315
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Last Conformist I'm not entirely sure what the Nepal tangent has to do with the rest of this thread. Maybe start a separate thread for it?

It to put the "china threatens no one but Taiwan, theyre only interested in selling stuff, the notion that they might have geopolitical goals is just paranoid blustering of neocons stuck in the militaristic past" in perspective.

Again, I dont see this as 1933, or China as Germany. But the notion that we KNOW for certain that there is no threat from China, and that we should not be at ALL concerned about the growth of Chinese power strikes as leaning to far the other way.

	24-02-2005 20:57									#316
	more on Nepal Increase the size of your Attachments

its a couple of years old, but provides background

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=23149

	24-02-2005 20:58									#317
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark It to put the "china threatens no one but Taiwan, theyre only interested in selling stuff, the notion that they might have geopolitical goals is just paranoid blustering of neocons stuck in the militaristic past" in perspective.

Obviously, China has geopolitical goals. I'd be worry if they didn't - it would suggest they'd be crazy.

But I don't see how their comments on Nepal supports the case they're pursuing such goals in a harmful way. Are you suggesting they're trying to pull Nepal out of the Indian orbit?

	24-02-2005 21:10									#318
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I find it somewhat strange that many seem to think China would be the next superpower, or at least a biiig player - but at the same time they seem to think we should treat it like some third class dictatorship. I can understand many of the fears regarding China, I even would share some of them, but when we all agree that the country will become increasingly important on the international stage (hyperpower or not) I think we should not wonder that, if we behave increasingly hostile to them, they will do the same.

That re LOTM's question if I think an arms embargo is the same as starting isolation or a cold war - no, this step alone probably isn't. But we should be careful not starting a chain of events which would turn out damaging our own position. That doesn't mean we should accept everything China does however.....I just think that many in this thread do not realize that our current behaviour could backfire once China is in the position to act more agressively.

	24-02-2005 21:16									#319
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by BeBro I find it somewhat strange that many seem to think China would be the next superpower, or at least a biiig player - but at the same time they seem to think we should treat it like some third class dictatorship. I can understand many of the fears regarding China, I even would share some of them, but when we all agree that the country will become increasingly important on the international stage (hyperpower or not) I think we should not wonder that, if we behave increasingly hostile to them, they will do the same. That re LOTM's question if I think an arms embargo is the same as starting isolation or a cold war - no, this step alone probably isn't. But we should be careful not starting a chain of events which would turn out damaging our own position. That doesn't mean we should accept everything China does however.....I just think that many in this thread do not realize that our current behaviour could backfire once China is in the position to act more agressively.

fine. But of course the EU arms embargo isnt a NEW policy, its one thats been in place for 15 years. Its hard to see how keeping that old policy in place, while at the same time we integrate China into the WTO, etc could start a chain of events. Im not sure where the initiative for change came from - I read somewhere that it was the PRC that approached the EU - perhaps seeking to drive a wedge between the US and the EU.

	24-02-2005 21:19									#320
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I don't know who brought the issue to the table, but there's long been discontent about the embargo in certain political and defense circles in Europe. That China has never been happy about it goes without saying.

	24-02-2005 23:22									#321
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by pchang I think the idea is to show that China's leaders do have a desire to spread their influence and are not above using military might to achieve their ends. The fact they have not done too much in the past is more a matter of ability than desire. With increasing ability, we should expecgt to see more military adventurism from China.

So then China will act like the US has, or European powers before them? Damn those perfidious Chinese for acting like the white people

Of course China will HAVE to spread is influence- as its share of the global economy grows its share of tarde will grow, and the share of foreign resources it will need- Drake for example speaks about how easy it is to cut of Japan's oil. Well, China does not have enough oil, and it is as vulnerable to a disruption of its gorwing consumption of ME oil as anyone else is-and this vulnerability will simply grow. Ditto as China sucks up the world's iron, scrap steel, copper, and countless other items.

The bigger issue is if the sort of military adventurism Europe and the US engaged in over the last 150 years around the globe, as well as japan in the last 100, remains a viable strategy- and thus, whether the screams about how we have to form some grand allience to counter the perfidious Chinese is wrong, just because its basically the wrong arguement.

Its like the French and British Generals arguing about the best form of infantry suicide attack in 1915 as opposed to seeing that the whjole debate was mindless.

I personally don;t want anyone I know or myself to suffer from people stuck in 1850 thinking in 2005.

	24-02-2005 23:31									#322
	Re: more on Nepal Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark its a couple of years old, but provides background http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=23149

Yup, the Nepalese king, head of a Hindu mountain kingdom whose main tarde partner, diplomatic connection, fountain of aid, so forth and so on is India wants himself to be less reliant on India, and thus is using his other big neighbor as the tool.

from the article:

quote: Although Nepalese rulers traditionally have been leery of India, seeing it as an overbearing "big brother," the late King Birendra had begun to tilt toward India during the past decade. At the same time, Birendra gradually relaxed the monarchy's near-absolute power. However, these policies often took a backseat to concerns about the Maoist insurgency that has steadily grown over the past five years. Gyanendra opposed these policies. An ardent nationalist, Gyanendra is said to tacitly support a cadre of elites calling themselves "Save the Nation," according to The Hindustan Times.

The very article posted put the innitiative with Gyanendra, a local nationalist wary of India and chosing to try to play China of India in order to gain a greater measure of nationalist independence....

Yup, those vil, aggresively minded Chinese Its not like the Nepalese nationalist who dislike India having anything to do with it- clearly its all an evil Chinese plot....

Come ON! The very article posted (as far as I can tell, it is correct) puts the whole onus on the King! It does not even mention any Chinese actions.

Are the Chinese saying no the king? No, but then, why should they? Someone is offering to be more friendly to them...unless they have some complete agreement with India, it makes perfect sense to take the king up on his offers.

	24-02-2005 23:36									#323
	Full PM-box? Change here!

all rising great powers will expand their influence. We dont know whether they will be benign or not. They might be.

Is it no longer possible for an expansionist strategy to work, due to trade patterns? I dont know. I do know that the UK, Germany and France were intense trading nations prior to 1914. I know that Japan was heavily dependent on trade.

Does anyone recall the name of the guy who wrote a book saying war was impossible because of trade and financial interdependcies - in 1911, I think it was? Norm something?

I dont see that the EUs EXISTING policy of a high tech weapons embargo on China has harmed world peace. I dont see why maintaining it would hurt, and I see several ways it would help.

	24-02-2005 23:43									#324
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

BTW, is the EU going to lift its arms embargoes on Burma and Zimbabwe?

	24-02-2005 23:54									#325
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Is it no longer possible for an expansionist strategy to work, due to trade patterns? I dont know. I do know that the UK, Germany and France were intense trading nations prior to 1914. I know that Japan was heavily dependent on trade. Does anyone recall the name of the guy who wrote a book saying war was impossible because of trade and financial interdependcies - in 1911, I think it was? Norm something?

No, the expansionist policy is no longer viable due to cost. In 1922 the UK, after a horribly long war, was able to take and subjugate Iraq and make it a puppet. Today, the US, at the height of its power keeps a third of its army there and is unable to do so. In 1941 the Soviets and the UK in a few months overthrew the Shah and split the country- anyoen today think that two great powers could just walk into Iran and do the same?

MIlitary technology has changed- individual expectations have changed-the world is different from 1905 or 1945. Maybe in 1911 it was foolish to say global war was impossible- anyone think in a day n which great powers have the ability to, for costs all of them can afford, to within 30 minutes hit any place in the world with enough power to decimate even the biggest cities in the world that a true great power war is possible?

In a day were automatic rifles and cheap ammo is available smoetimes more easily than food that an army of occupation, which uses far more supplies today than ever before, can just hold it against true popular opposition? We, the worlds supperpower, can hold Iraq ONLY because the oppositon to us is only by a small section of the populace and is NOT trully popular-imagine real popular opposition? It would be impossible to hold. This holds true of even the most miniscule state- heck, Syria has decide to pull out of Lebanon- even just ten years ago the army is out on the field, crushes the opposition, DONE.

Nation states were and still are able to carry out long and expensive wars-but this ability has spread globally-and the really rich powers can now wield power so terrible only suicidal fools would try. IN 1905 Japan could invade China. IN 1945 the Soviets could invade China. Could anyone today invade China? NO, not without risking nuclear annahilation.

So were exactly, can any state carry out aggressive wars of conquest? The LAST time any state tried to annex space from another by militry force was in the late 90's, between Ethiopia and Eritrea, and that was really a two sided disupte, so the last example was 1990.

The world has changed- wars of conquest are going out- wars of influence remain a possibiluty, but even serious ones show themselves to be costly.

quote: I dont see that the EUs EXISTING policy of a high tech weapons embargo on China has harmed world peace. I dont see why maintaining it would hurt, and I see several ways it would help.

No one has ever said the current policy was a problem, but obviosuly many European governments feel thier ability to maintain independent military industries is important enough to seek out the markets that will allow their companies to avoid being swallowed by US conglomerates or disppear from competition.

	24-02-2005 23:57									#326
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark BTW, is the EU going to lift its arms embargoes on Burma and Zimbabwe?

Why would they? neither state is a big enough customer to allow commercial concerns to overrule other concerns.

Has it yet not entered your consciousness that driving this is MONEY?

There is no money in selling to Burma, or Zimbabwe, or Israel (the US and local companies have that cornered) or Taiwan (US dominance, makes selling to China impossible)

	25-02-2005 00:11									#327
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by GePap So then China will act like the US has, or European powers before them? Damn those perfidious Chinese for acting like the white people

You seem to take the position that if white people do or have done something, it's OK.

	25-02-2005 00:13									#328
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by GePap Why would they? neither state is a big enough customer to allow commercial concerns to overrule other concerns.

Moreover, Zimbabwe goes out of its way to annoy us in a way China hasn't for decades.

	25-02-2005 00:30									#329
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Last Conformist You seem to take the position that if white people do or have done something, it's OK.

no, if you read my last posts, people here are acting as if China for some reason will be invariably aggressive- so first there is a bit of hypocrasy, since it would take much for China to be even as aggressive as the model democracies were during similar periods of economic expansion and capitalist expansio.

BUt as I point out, these sorts of aggresive policies are no longer cost effective- war has become too expansive and too hard.

	25-02-2005 01:46									#330
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Straybow Thank you, GePap, for showing that you are both ideologically obtuse and don't understand the principle of peace through strength. quote: Originally posted by GePap quote: Originally posted by Straybow ...How they were too weak just 5 years later to oppose Hitler, the Brits and French turning their backs as Hungary was forced to surrender the Sudatenland. OH, invoking Godwin already! Good for you, first Nazi reference! ... Ah, invoking Godwin so that you can ignore valid comparisons to Hitler! Good for you, awarding yourself internet nebbish brownie points instead of actually making a point in debate! quote: But lets take your little rant- lets say China became "fascist"- how does that directly threaten Europe? Answer, it does not. First, China already has become "fascist" (or at least the twisted misinterpretation that the term has come to mean). The language of China talking about the need to include the ethnic Chinese living on the island of Formosa into One China is exactly parallel to Hitler "uniting" the German peoples in Austria and in Polish and Hungarian border regions with the Fatherland. Second, some people have this grand idea about opposing oppression on principle, rather than waiting until an oppressor's tanks are rolling in our own streets to do something about it. We thought our allies in Europe agreed, but the last decade has proven their agreement to be more academic than practical. quote: quote: If you are weak, your enemies are encouraged to take advantage of that weakness. There was no WW3 against the Soviets because we never let down our guard. There will be no WW3 with the Chinese if we continue to keep our guard up. You realize that this goes ditto for the other side? Unless you assume some basic aggresive intent on only one side, and assume the other side is made up fo sugar, spice and everything nice? Yes, the US kept its guard up - AND SO DID THE SOVIETS. Do you think that is the US had seen a window of opportunity to destroy the Soviets because of Soviet military weakness, the US would not have taken it? This means that China has a huge incentive to build itself up, to prevent any possible hostile US intent- I know you will haw about how that is insane, and other crap, but you know what? The US has as good a record of foreign aggression as China, heck, in the last 50 years a much bigger one. I know this is hard to comprehend, contradicting Hollywood/New England leftism and all, but please try. First, the US does not want to rule over our neighbors Canada and Mexico, or Europe, Russia, etc. That goes for the red states as well as the blue states. We've pretty much got what we want here. Before WW2 we tried, really hard, to live in isolation from the political and military strife outside our fair continent. We had a small army and navy sufficient for our own border security. The Soviets were not satisfied with what they had. At the first opportunity they casually divided Poland with Germany and invaded Finland. In the wake of WW2 they conquered and maintained a de facto empire in Eastern Europe. As much as the French and Germans would be better off under our enlightened rule ( ) we did not make ourselves an empire. Second, the USSR and PRC were founded on, and deeply held, the Marxist doctrine that capitalist societies had to be overthrown by force and capitalist property owners killed off or turned into chattel. The USA is founded on, and deeply holds, that self-determination is a fundamental virtue and is generally sought by all peoples to whom the idea has ever been introduced. Third, the USSR and PRC acted internationally on their doctrine by funding and training terrorists and revolutionaries in nearly every country in the world. I suppose a few countries like New Zealand and Leichtenstein escaped their attention. Fourth, US aggression during the period was almost exclusively directed to countering Soviet/PRC supported activity against legitimate governments. Y'know, the whole self-determination thing. Invasion of Nicaragua to depose Noriega is perhaps the sole exception (but note that it wasn't for conquest, either). Fifth, there was never, at any time, military planning or political posturing to invade (much less conquer and rule) the USSR. Kick the damn Commies all the way back to Russia, as Patton desired? Perhaps in response to an initial move by the Eastern Bloc. Only in twisted Hollywood visions of warmongery were limited nuclear exchanges "acceptible risk." In fact, the Soviets did falter, yet we never made a move to exploit that weakness militarily. We didn't move against China either, with their love-hate neighbor USSR on the ropes and PLA still 40 years out of date. The Soviets, by contrast, had Cyrillic street signs for every major city in Western Europe prepared and warehoused for the day their opportunity came. Please allow a moment for this to sink in. Refrain from swimming or operating heavy machinery until your equilibrium returns by either a) reconciling your thinking to the real world or b) resuming your ingrained political beliefs as though nothing happened. quote: So do pray tell why, when you have people going on and on about the grave Chinese threat in the US, should the Chinese not say : these people are ideologicall nutters, and lets be armed to the teeth to make them think twice. Once more, please educate yourself before opening your virtual mouth. The threat we perceive is primarily not to us but to our allies whom we'd rather not see under a Chinese empire. Y'know, that whole self determination/anti-oppression thing again. quote: quote: Is this principle something you honestly don't understand, or are you merely ideologically obtuse? "If we all just laid down our guns there'd be no more war." NO, in fact, unlike you, I realize all conflicts have two sides. It works better when you see this, instead of living in some fantasy charicature world were your side is eminetly good and pure, and evryone who does not see that must be some satan spawn. Or is that too hard for you to understand? Incorrect. Not all conflicts have two sides. Some are decidedly unilateral, like Hitler wanting to conquer Europe when nobody had the least interest in conquering Germany. And then there's that whole Marxist "overthrow the capitalists and murder the bourgeoise landowners" thing. Russia has relinquished the Baltic, Slavic, Caucasus, and central Asian republics. Yet China still holds Tibet. If Mao and his heirs had been content to enslave his own people instead of preaching murderous revolution abroad there would be little conflict except for that sticky bit about Taiwan, Tibet, and maybe a couple other border regions. If the Chicomms weren't oppressing their own people (and Tibet, and ethnic minorities, etc) there wouldn't be any conflict at all.

Alot has happened since World War 2 and every conflict afterwards does not have a direct parallel to that time.

Also Manuel Noriega was in Panama, not Nicaragua.

thanks