...where women, video games, and penis size are kept at a minimum.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/26/china_game_ban/
Why ban The Sims2?

edit: also, check out the "topless teen game ban" link at the bottom. WTF? who would create and sell, or ever play such a game? that deserves the ban.

uhh...FIFA 2005? why in the holy hell would that be banned?

Because there are subliminal/sympathetic/insidious gay/Satanic/politically-unsavory characters/overtones/suggestions in it that will corrupt/confuse/molest the children and inevitably lead to a wholesale subversion of family values/lawfulness/national security.

Propoganda at its worse.

How can football harm you? I can understand RPGs and MMORPGS because people get addicted and you have to pay monthly, could with sims 2 I suppose but football?

Because the FIFA recognizes Taiwan and others as sovereign countries.

Because FIFA is shit. They wont ban PES.

[ QUOTE ]
Because the FIFA recognizes Taiwan and others as sovereign countries.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't FIFA; It's the Football Association

FIFA= Fédération Internationale de Football Association.

Same thing.
And yes, it's stupid.

Well... yeah. China. It'll be interesting watching them getting dragged kicking and screaming into the new millenium as they try and make their play as a world economic power.

But hey, imagine living in Myanmar, a country completely isolated from the rest of creation, where it's illegal to own a modem!

/jzero

I really hope you are joking jzero, pick up the nearest electronic item to you , and there’s a good chance it was made in china. a lot of electronics are , as apposed to the us and the uk where work forces cost too much.

china is probly the biggest super power in the world ... it certainly has the largest army and economic abilities.

And it's economy had grown 9,5% last year...at a time when they where trying to keep it at 7% due to the effect such growth has on it's currency (and all the shit that brings with it). Bear in mind that those are 'official' chinese gov'ment figures, so you can bet they're off by quite a bit.

Fact is, the chinese have a huge amount of manpower which is slowly but surely working it's way up to 'totally developed, with nukes up in space, not-even-second-world' status; those shit poor villages are dwindling. Sure, you get a 5-to-1 ratio of people waiting on you in stores, but these people do have jobs and disposable income...which they're spending on chinese products, thereby keeping all the wealth created in their own country, all the while exporting consumer electronics to their heart's content.

Just too bad they have to live with a mayorly repressive regime. OTOH, not having the Sims 2 available isn't such a bad thing [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I wonder what would happen if somebody hijacked an airplane and crashed it in a chinese government building...

well , there was the time afew years ago when the USA accidently missiled the chinese embasy in or around afganistan i cant remember where ) ... i seem to remember they demanded a big appoligy , but thats about it ...

funny , i sorta enjoyed playing the sims 2 ... its the only one on that list i think ive played.

I was thinking more of terrorism to bring the chinese government down. Their defense relies mostly on nukes, nukes are of no use with a location-less threat such as terrorism. Hell, the US wasn't capable of fighting terror, how would China do that?

Did not someone like Hawken post some link how happy they all are in China? Scratches head........

it would have to be one hell of a terrorist attack to bring down a government ...
as for how happy they are in china , im sure they have all the same sorta problems we have , but in different ratios, plus , you can only judge how happy you are , compared to how happy you have been , so while we may think that china sounds crap , im sure the general population just gets on with there lives ... some happy , some not.

[ QUOTE ]

Their defense relies mostly on nukes


[/ QUOTE ]

Not true China has the largest standing army on earth. Aswell, the number has 'almost' doubled within the 10 years. That says soemting about their economy. Training and feeding an army the size of a small country is no small feat.

-Ground Force (Army) (1.9 million men; 14,000 tanks; 14,500 artillery pieces & 453 helicopters)

-Air Force (470,000 airmen; 2,556 jet fighters; 400 ground attack jets.)

-Navy (250,000 sailors; 63 submarines; 18 destroyers; 35 frigates)

Source

[ QUOTE ]
well , there was the time afew years ago when the USA accidently missiled the chinese embasy in or around afganistan i cant remember where ) ... i seem to remember they demanded a big appoligy , but thats about it ...

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't the United States, it was NATO. It wasn't a missile, it was a bomb. And, it wasn't Afghanistan, it was the city of Belgrade in Yugoslavia. Otherwise, you remember it exactly as it happened [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
I was thinking more of terrorism to bring the chinese government down. Their defense relies mostly on nukes, nukes are of no use with a location-less threat such as terrorism. Hell, the US wasn't capable of fighting terror, how would China do that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that it proves anything, per se, but there haven't been any successful terrorist attacks in America since the 'War on Terror' campaign began. It has been three years and four months since the September 11th incidents.

Also, to follow PaK's point, China is probably less reliant on the threat of nuclear weapons as a defense policy than the Unites States is. The world's largest population, occupying the world's second largest national boundary, to go with the largest standing army and air force. Their technology isn't nearly as good as American tech is, but they can win with attrition like no one else, a point they proved in 1950-51. The PRC might not have the capacity to launch a remote attack the way the US can (which is partly why Taiwan is still free), but if it came down to putting boots on the ground in Afghanistan or Iraq, I'm certain they could find a way and do a hell of a lot better job occupying the place. It doesn't matter how powerful your weapons are, there's no substitute for boots on the ground when occupying territory, and the Chinese have more of those than anyone.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Their defense relies mostly on nukes


[/ QUOTE ]

Not true China has the largest standing army on earth. Aswell, the number has 'almost' doubled within the 10 years. That says soemting about their economy. Training and feeding an army the size of a small country is no small feat.

-Ground Force (Army) (1.9 million men; 14,000 tanks; 14,500 artillery pieces & 453 helicopters)

-Air Force (470,000 airmen; 2,556 jet fighters; 400 ground attack jets.)

-Navy (250,000 sailors; 63 submarines; 18 destroyers; 35 frigates)

Source

[/ QUOTE ]

largest standing army, yes. however, how well are their soldiers trained and equipped? im quite sure that, if it came to it, we could destroy them in battle with our airforce alone.

Thermidor, et al: I wasn't joking, and I didn't mean to sound as though I thought China wasn't a major global player. It is.. sort of. Did you know that the Chinese government is still artificially propping up its currency? If market forces were allowed to 'find equilibrium' with the Chinese currency, they wouldn't be making half of what they are off of us now.

What I was referring to was the backwards 'legislated morality' of the Chinese authorities, and how they are so very Victorian, while at the same time they help manufacture the technology that allows us in the West to produce so much objectionable material. They won't be able to have it both ways, even though they think they will.

/jzero

I think your right Vermillion , i couldnt remember the details ...
i did hear that china are actually quite well trained ... but there general foot soldiers arnt as well equiped as americas i think ...

[ QUOTE ]
largest standing army, yes. however, how well are their soldiers trained and equipped? im quite sure that, if it came to it, we could destroy them in battle with our airforce alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've no idea what you're talking about. The United States military couldn't even defeat Iraq with air power alone - that's why 100,000+ Army and Marine soldiers moved in after the initial air campaign. The failure of 'shock & awe' in Iraq should make this abundantly clear. It is absolutely impossible to defeat or even dislodge a trained, well-equipped and entrenched army purely with air power. Look at every major international conflict since the dawn of air warfare - no armed force has ever been defeated solely by his opponent's conventional air power.

[ QUOTE ]
Thermidor, et al: I wasn't joking, and I didn't mean to sound as though I thought China wasn't a major global player. It is.. sort of. Did you know that the Chinese government is still artificially propping up its currency? If market forces were allowed to 'find equilibrium' with the Chinese currency, they wouldn't be making half of what they are off of us now.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the Federal Reserve trying to do when it's tinkering with interest rates if not 'propping up' the value of the American dollar? That said, China just has a static system of currency, one that doesn't take part of the usual global speculative currency market. It's a different system, but their money is phony paper money just as everyone else's is. Why is a dollar worth anything? Because the government says so. China just has a fixed market, which really isn't a surprise in a (supposedly) socialist system.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
largest standing army, yes. however, how well are their soldiers trained and equipped? im quite sure that, if it came to it, we could destroy them in battle with our airforce alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've no idea what you're talking about. The United States military couldn't even defeat Iraq with air power alone - that's why 100,000+ Army and Marine soldiers moved in after the initial air campaign. The failure of 'shock & awe' in Iraq should make this abundantly clear. It is absolutely impossible to defeat or even dislodge a trained, well-equipped and entrenched army purely with air power. Look at every major international conflict since the dawn of air warfare - no armed force has ever been defeated solely by his opponent's conventional air power.

[/ QUOTE ]

no im saying we could. we've got nukes you know.

im not suggesting using them, i was just saying we could.