Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JB88 on April 07, 2005, 08:37:26 PM
-
Chinese begin to worry U.S. militarily
New Feature
By Jim Yardley and Thom Shanker The New York Times Friday, April 8, 2005
Officials say equation has shifted in event of a Taiwan crisis
ZHANJIANG, China When the flagship of the U.S. Navy's 7th Fleet came into view on a recent Monday afternoon, a Chinese naval band onshore quickly began playing as two rows of Chinese sailors snapped into formation and workers hurriedly finished tacking down a red carpet.
.
The command ship, the Blue Ridge, answered with music from its own band and raised a Chinese flag below Old Glory.
.
But the most apt symbolism in the stagecraft of the ceremonial visit came when the two navies staged a tug-of-war - evoking their emerging competition in East Asia.
.
While the American military is consumed with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, global terrorism, and the threat of nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran, China is presenting a new and strategically different security concern to America in the western Pacific, as well as to Japan and Taiwan, Pentagon and military officials say.
.
China, these officials say, has smartly analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of the American military and focused its growing defense spending on weapons systems that could exploit the perceived weaknesses in case the United States ever needs to respond to fighting in Taiwan.
.
This rapid military modernization is the major reason President George W. Bush has warned the European Union not to lift its arms embargo against China.
.
A decade ago, U.S. military planners dismissed the threat of a Chinese attack against Taiwan as a 160-kilometer infantry swim. Now, the Pentagon believes that China has purchased or built enough amphibious assault ships, submarines, fighter jets and short-range missiles to pose an immediate threat to Taiwan and to any American force that might come to Taiwan's aid.
.
Even the most hawkish officials at the Pentagon do not believe China is preparing for an imminent invasion of Taiwan. Nor do analysts believe China is any match for the United States military.
.
But as neighboring North Korea is erratically trying to play the nuclear card, China is quietly challenging America's reach in the western Pacific by concentrating strategically on conventional forces.
.
"They are building their force to deter and delay our ability to intervene in a Taiwan crisis," said Eric McVadon, a former military attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing. "What they have done is cleverly develop some capabilities that have the prospect of attacking our niche vulnerabilities."
.
Japan, America's closest ally in East Asia, and China's rival for regional dominance, is also watching China's buildup. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi echoed Bush by warning Europe against removing the arms embargo. A think tank affiliated with Japan's Defense Ministry criticized China's increased military spending and warned it was rushing to prepare for possible conflict with Taiwan - an assertion China sharply denied.
.
The growing friction between Japan and China, fueled by rising nationalism in both countries, is just one of the political developments exacerbating tensions in East Asia.
.
In March, China passed a controversial new "anti-secession" law authorizing a military attack if top leaders believe Taiwan moves too far toward independence - a move that brought hundreds of thousands of people in Taiwan out in protest last month.
.
China's most recent military white paper also alarmed U.S. policymakers because it mentioned the United States by name for the first time since 1998. It stated that the American presence in the region "complicated security factors."
.
China, meanwhile, blamed the United States and Japan for meddling in a domestic Chinese matter when those two countries recently issued a security statement that listed peace in Taiwan as a "common strategic objective."
.
"The potential for a miscalculation or an incident here has actually increased, just based on the rhetoric over the past six months to a year," one U.S. intelligence analyst in Washington said.
.
At the welcoming ceremony for the Blue Ridge here at the hometown of China's South Sea Fleet, the American commanding officer, Captain J. Stephen Maynard, and his Chinese counterpart, Senior Captain Wen Rulang, sidestepped questions about the anti-secession law and military tensions.
.
Wen, Asked about China's military buildup and how America should view it, praised the U.S. Navy as the most modern in the world.
.
"As for China," he said, "our desire is to upgrade China's self-defense capabilities."
.
But in China's view, self-defense involves Taiwan, which it regards as a breakaway province and which the United States has, by treaty, suggested it would help defend. In 1996, when China fired missiles in warning over the Taiwan Strait prior to Taiwanese elections, President Bill Clinton responded by sending a battle group to a position near Taiwan. Then, China could do nothing about it. Now, analysts say, it can.
.
In fact, U.S. carriers responding to a crisis would now initially have to operate at least 800 kilometers, or 500 miles, from Taiwan, which would reduce the number of jet fighter sorties they could launch and cut their loiter time in international airspace near Taiwan.
.
This is because China now has a modernizing fleet of submarines, including new Russian-made nuclear subs that can fire antiship missiles from a submerged position. America would first need to subdue these submarines before moving ships close to Taiwan.
.
China launched 13 attack submarines between 2002 and 2004, a period when it also built 23 ships that can ferry armored vehicles and troops across the 160-kilometer-wide strip of water to Taiwan.
.
"Their amphibious assault ship building alone equals the entire U.S. navy shipbuilding since 2002," said an intelligence official in Washington. "It definitely represents a significant increase in overall capacity."
.
In the worse-case scenario for a Taiwan crisis, any delay in U.S. carriers reaching the island would mean that the United States would initially depend on fighter jets and bombers stationed on Guam and Okinawa, while Chinese forces could use their amphibious ships to traverse the narrow Strait. Some U.S. military analysts believe China could now defeat Taiwan before America could arrive at the scene.
.
.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/07/news/china.html
-
Is it starting to get cold in here...maybe Cold War II?
-
I give it up to 10 yrs or less, before ***** hits the fan. But i garuntee, that if we do go to war with china, its gonna be like WWII all over again. Factories will change over to building weapons instead of bread makeers. There will be a draft. I predict that if we do go to war with china, both sides will loose such a great number of human life, that wwII will look like the invasion of panama. I pray to God that nothing like this will happen though. But be sure enough, that i would gladly fight to protect this great country of ours!
USA!~ USA!~USA!~USA!~USA!
Egle31st
-
Originally posted by EagleEyes
But be sure enough, that i would gladly fight to protect this great country of ours!
USA!~ USA!~USA!~USA!~USA!
Egle31st
Taiwan?
Taiwan is "this great country of ours"??
-
Well ****, I surrender.
-
You can't do that, Funked!
I mean, the very fate of the nation has been resting on the shoulders of you and people like yourself!
You have fought hard, Funked.... and good Americans like yourself have toiled the land, done like yer daddy did, and have made incredible sacrifices in the name of freedom french fries.
Please don't throw in the towel.
-
Im not worried about the Chinese. Chinese people want to live. There will come a day when the Chinese are attacked for the same reason Americans are today. We will find them tremendous allies someday if we are still around.
-
"War what is it good for?
Absolutely nothin......"
Apart from online flight sims that is!:D
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Im not worried about the Chinese. Chinese people want to live. There will come a day when the Chinese are attacked for the same reason Americans are today. We will find them tremendous allies someday if we are still around.
I think it means absolutely nothing what the Chinese people want. What can they do about anything?
I view souring relations between the US and China as heartening news - especially at this early stage of Chinese ownership of the US. I hope relations go positively rancid, and the sooner the better. Maybe US manufacturers will see some wisdom in retaining some capability within our own borders.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Im not worried about the Chinese. Chinese people want to live. There will come a day when the Chinese are attacked for the same reason Americans are today. We will find them tremendous allies someday if we are still around.
an interesting way of viewing it. here's to hoping you are correct.
:)
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Im not worried about the Chinese. Chinese people want to live. There will come a day when the Chinese are attacked for the same reason Americans are today. We will find them tremendous allies someday if we are still around.
But....but....but Yeager, they are awful nasty commies!!!! Where are you morals, man?
-
I'm with Funky.
My new policy is to surrender, sign a treaty and ask the victors for billions to rebuild my shattered economy whenever I read a scary news report.
-
Originally posted by Seeker
Taiwan?
Taiwan is "this great country of ours"??
Now is not the time to get picky!!
-
China will take taiwan back. It is not an if it is a when. There military build-up could be either for this purpose or to try to just scare Taiwan back into the fold. But unfortunately that is one of those bluffs that could end up just destroying the world. Hope whoever is in charge when it happens has their poker face ready.
-
Since most of our non-US posters and some of the US posters seem to think that NK and Iran having nukes is either no big deal or a good deal, I think we should just give Taiwan a decent nuclear arsenal.
That way, when push comes to shove, the Taiwanese themselves can make the decision about how badly they don't want to be part of China.
Also, the Chinese can make the decision on how badly they want to bring Taiwan back into the fold.
Problem solved. What's a little nuke tossing between mother country and renegade province anyway?
It's GOOD for everyone to have nukes.... or so I've been told.
-
hmmm. the taiwan missle crisis...sounds fun.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Since most of our non-US posters and some of the US posters seem to think that NK and Iran having nukes is either no big deal or a good deal, I think we should just give Taiwan a decent nuclear arsenal.
That way, when push comes to shove, the Taiwanese themselves can make the decision about how badly they don't want to be part of China.
Also, the Chinese can make the decision on how badly they want to bring Taiwan back into the fold.
Problem solved. What's a little nuke tossing between mother country and renegade province anyway?
It's GOOD for everyone to have nukes.... or so I've been told.
That's a great idea Toad. It would solve the problem in Taiwan overnight.
And you are right. A lot of people here say that countries like Iran have a right to nukes, so they should have no problem with Taiwan having them......unless they are just racists or something.
-
Just curious, does it ever occur to anyone to simply consider whether it is right to allow a small state that desperately wants to remain free, democratic, and independent to be absorbed, annexed, or conquered by a large totalitarian state? All I hear are utilitarian discussions of whether or not we wish to engage the aggressive totalitarian state or simply, "hey, its not my country." Applying the same logic, the world shouldn't have intervened to stop Germany gobbling up Czechoslovakia or even Poland.
We are actually discussing the fate of 22 million people, who, having finally gained the ability to vote in democratic elections are in grave danger of never being allowed to do it again. In one fell swoop, they will lose freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and all of the various assorted rights and freedoms that members of this board hold so dear and complain bitterly over when they are infringed.
Will we never again take an action, not because we are assured of success, or because it will be popular, or maintain our prosperity, but because it is simply right, noble, and good?
If a loss of willingness to confront and resist obvious evil is the price of prosperity and peace, than that price is too high to my mind.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
If a loss of willingness to confront and resist obvious evil is the price of prosperity and peace, than that price is too high to my mind.
- SEAGOON
I can help you.
Other than the US and everything it does or tries to do, there is no "obvious evil".
There. That should clear things up for you.
;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Since most of our non-US posters and some of the US posters seem to think that NK and Iran having nukes is either no big deal or a good deal, I think we should just give Taiwan a decent nuclear arsenal.
That way, when push comes to shove, the Taiwanese themselves can make the decision about how badly they don't want to be part of China.
Also, the Chinese can make the decision on how badly they want to bring Taiwan back into the fold.
Problem solved. What's a little nuke tossing between mother country and renegade province anyway?
It's GOOD for everyone to have nukes.... or so I've been told.
How many nukes would it take to get to the liquid gooey center of Taiwan.
BOOM - One
BOOM - Two
BOOM - Three
How many to knock out China, or even put a dent in its population?
I'm not disagreeing with the concept...but fundamentally this solution is flawed because of the relative size of each country.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Just curious, does it ever occur to anyone to simply consider whether it is right to allow a small state that desperately wants to remain free, democratic, and independent to be absorbed, annexed, or conquered by a large totalitarian state? All I hear are utilitarian discussions of whether or not we wish to engage the aggressive totalitarian state or simply, "hey, its not my country." Applying the same logic, the world shouldn't have intervened to stop Germany gobbling up Czechoslovakia or even Poland.
We are actually discussing the fate of 22 million people, who, having finally gained the ability to vote in democratic elections are in grave danger of never being allowed to do it again. In one fell swoop, they will lose freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and all of the various assorted rights and freedoms that members of this board hold so dear and complain bitterly over when they are infringed.
Will we never again take an action, not because we are assured of success, or because it will be popular, or maintain our prosperity, but because it is simply right, noble, and good?
If a loss of willingness to confront and resist obvious evil is the price of prosperity and peace, than that price is too high to my mind.
- SEAGOON
I think the debate on the righteousness of it is already settled. Of course it is the right thing to do but it does matter at what it would cost (deaths). Are the deaths of every person on the planet (worst case scenario - nuclear war) worth us defending the rights of the Taiwanese? With so many unknown variables about how such a war would occur or cause I would say no. They have weapons and 22 million people you say? Sounds like they ought to defend themselves and leave us out of it.
Sorry but you cannot compare a military conflict with China with one with Germany. Nukes put a different spin on things when you are talking about war.
-
Originally posted by Curval
I'm not disagreeing with the concept...but fundamentally this solution is flawed because of the relative size of each country.
Not really. It's not a question of size, it's a question of the vulnerablility of the political system and population.
Clearly, the political system and population of Taiwan are at greater risk. They could be totally eliminated by China's nuclear weapons.
OTOH, can China's political system and population afford to risk their major cities to bring Taiwan back into the fold?
Imagine Taiwan targeting the parts of China that have the most population. Wouldn't take that many nukes and it would destroy China just as effectively as China could destroy Taiwan.
It's the old "MAD" concept. Neither would win, both would perish as political entities on the world stage.
As I said, you don't have to give Taiwan that many nukes to create a viable counterbalance to China's military.
(http://depts.washington.edu/chinaciv/geo/1zgzpopu.jpg)
-
Dunno man...the concept of MAD worked well in the US Soviet case but I still don't think it is valid in this case.
I suppose it "could" work if you guys gave/lent Taiwan some nuclear subs that could strike AFTER Taiwan itself had been hit. I think China could be just crazy enough to try and eliminate Taiwans capability to respond to a massive first strike. Taiwan is a real sore spot for the Chinese.
-
Curval.. c'mon. That's not how you do things.
What we do is give Taiwan tons o' bucks in some obscure agricultural package and let them buy the latest tech subs and weaponry from the Soviets.
Even better, we encourage them to trade with NK and get some heavy duty nukes. ;)
Because, after all, it's OK for all Euro nations to sell cutting edge military stuff to mainland China. In fact, it's a good thing.
So, we just surreptitiously match (or double - whatever, it's better than sending US troops to fight for them) any funds they use to buy the very best Europe has to offer in the way of missiles, subs, nukes, etc.
Then, when both China and Taiwan are armed to the teeth with the very latest Euro weapons they can either go at it or assume a MAD stance.
It's simple, it's elegant and it complies with the current suggestions on the BBS. :rofl
BTW... just think how hesitant people would be to laugh at pink shorts if you guys bought a few nukes yourself. Just a thought.
-
i happen to think the pink shorts look good on you toad. you dont need nukes to stop me from laughing.
whatever floats yer boat bro.
:D
<------ searching for nearest fallout shelter.
-
maybe skuzzy would consider trying your theory on the BBS level as an experiment and give EVERYBODY irreversable lock priveledges.
sounds fun!
:aok
-
I wish I could claim the "everybody who wants some should be able to have all the nukes they want" theory as my own.
Alas, it is not. I merely joined the bandwagon that started across the ocean.
-
oooohhhh....your with "THE BAND".
cooooool
:aok
-
Originally posted by NUKE
That's a great idea Toad. It would solve the problem in Taiwan overnight.
And you are right. A lot of people here say that countries like Iran have a right to nukes, so they should have no problem with Taiwan having them......unless they are just racists or something.
Great idea - after all, it really worked out well for the Russians in Cuba.
"It will be the policy of this nation, to regard any nuclear missile, launched from Taiwan against any nation in the Eastern hemisphere, as an attack by the United States on the People's Republic of China, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the United States."
Only the PRC would see this as much more provocative and inflammatory than the Cuba crisis, as the US would be basing missiles targetted on Chinese cities on Chinese sovereign soil. So as soon as the missile plan got started, the PRC would invade. So the Taiwan problem would certainly be solved, but I think the Taiwanese wouldn't be that happy about the solution.
-
Nah, just let the Taiwanese buy stuff on the open market and lie about what they're buying. They can say they're buying subs with conventional warheads from the Russians but of course they'd be getting nuke warheads.
The lying goes on all the time, it's going on right now. Everyone smiles and pretends it's the truth.
The Chinese wouldn't know for sure if the Taiwanese had nukes or not.
As for a Chinese threat to the US, we'd merely assure them that we have nothing to do with Taiwan anymore. Further, we assure them that if the Chinese shoot at us, they will receive our full nuclear arsenal in return. Only in reply, of course.
MAD all over again.
It'll get us by the next 50 years or so. We can think up something different then.
-
Originally posted by JB88
oooohhhh....your with "THE BAND".
cooooool
:aok
Yep, Virgil Caine is the name.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
I think the debate on the righteousness of it is already settled. Of course it is the right thing to do but it does matter at what it would cost (deaths). Are the deaths of every person on the planet (worst case scenario - nuclear war) worth us defending the rights of the Taiwanese? With so many unknown variables about how such a war would occur or cause I would say no. They have weapons and 22 million people you say? Sounds like they ought to defend themselves and leave us out of it.
Sorry but you cannot compare a military conflict with China with one with Germany. Nukes put a different spin on things when you are talking about war.
Raider,
At the time of the Munich crisis, papers in France and Britain were carrying hysterical pieces opining that the populations of the major cities would be gassed to death if the allies went to war with Germany over the Sudetenland. The theory was, that as soon as the balloon went up, unstoppable bomber fleets carrying Mustard Gas bombs would wipe us all out, and as a result Londoners were issued gas masks against the doomsday threat. Obviously these threatened mass gassings of civilian populations never materialized during WW2 as the great powers realized the consequences of such an action, and as providence directed the course of the war.
But the important thing was that fear of anihilation and an unwillingness to sacrifice our lives for people in another country (in this case 13 million Czechoslovakians) lead to us caving in, in the face of an unmitigated evil. As a result, that evil grew stronger and when the confrontation became inevitable, more lives were lost than would have been if that evil had been confronted earlier.
Obviously 22 Million Taiwanese, armed with 3rd rate weapons because of the ongoing defacto arms embargo have no possibility of stopping 4 billion Chinese by themselves from taking over their island if they want to.
But Raider, if we sit back and allow this monstrous evil to occur, if we feed this crocodile do we really think they'll say "thanks, that's enough for me, I'm full?" I'd say that if they are allowed to wade in and consume Taiwan the Chinese crocodile will be made even more ravenous and even more dangerous, especially because of the fresh injection of capital and technology such a conquest would produce (just as the Germans where made much stronger by "inheriting" the Skoda armament works). Aggresive and expansive totalitarian states are never pacified by appeasement and non-resistance China will not be the first.
Either we pay a little now, or we will pay massively later.
[As an aside: as someone who doesn't believe that the course of world affairs is directed by chance, I don't personally have any fear of a nuclear doomsday scenario. Its worth noting that the great powers have never ultimately suffered catastrophic consequences for doing the right thing but they have frequently suffered terrible consequences for doing the wrong thing or doing the right thing in an equivocal manner.]
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Great idea - after all, it really worked out well for the Russians in Cuba.
"It will be the policy of this nation, to regard any nuclear missile, launched from Taiwan against any nation in the Eastern hemisphere, as an attack by the United States on the People's Republic of China, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the United States."
Only the PRC would see this as much more provocative and inflammatory than the Cuba crisis, as the US would be basing missiles targetted on Chinese cities on Chinese sovereign soil. So as soon as the missile plan got started, the PRC would invade. So the Taiwan problem would certainly be solved, but I think the Taiwanese wouldn't be that happy about the solution.
What makes you think the missiles aren't already in Taiwan and the Subs already in the water?
Just a thought...
Mox
-
'cause MAD only works if the other side knows they are there.
Didn'tcha ever see Dr. Strangelove? ;)
- SEAGOON
-
I don't think they have to know, I think they just have to have a strong reasonable doubt.
Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines.
-
Why? Bush administration knew Iraq had WMD but still invaded, heck used it as pretext to invade.
-
anyone made a good joke about takeout or dry cleaning yet?
-
edit, quote didnt work properly
-
The US has a one China policy. The ROC doesn't even exist, so I guess the US wouldn't be breaking the nuclear non-proliferation treaty by supply virtual nukes to a virtual island.
"An infallible method of conciliating a tiger is to allow oneself to be devoured." -- Konrad Adenauer
Now, you probably think that this quotation applies to China, but if you were Chinese, you would likely think it applies to the US.
The people of China and the US do have some common traits. Neither lack world-class confidence that theirs is a superior society ordained to shape and lead the world. And neither are shy about telling those who disagree to STFU and stay out of their business. And both are willing to use the power of force to achieve their goals. Both have world-class pride.
China had an extraordinary culture hundreds of years before the US even existed. If you've stood on the Great Wall or walked through the Forbidden City, you've felt the scale of China.
To Chinese, the continued separation of Taiwan is one of the greatest shames in their history. The colonization of Taiwan by Japan and support today by the US (and Japan, considered to be acting simply as a US proxy) is considered no less than a Confederate state in the US still being independent.
Imagine for a moment that Texas were still independent and received support from England, France and China? ( :) ) How would the US view those countries? That is the same emotion Chinese feel about Taiwan.
The leader in power at the time China brings Taiwan back into the fold will be regarded in China no less than Abraham Lincoln is regarded today in the US. Lincoln did use force. More Americans were killed in the Civil War than all the wars of the 20th century.
It is the stated doctrine of the US that it will thwart any nation attempting to challenge US military dominance. The US official diplomatic policy is that alliances are temporary and can be reversed instantly to serve the doctrine.
It is the goal of China to retain its past glory and take what it feels is its rightful place as a leader in world affairs.
Two strong willed, strong-headed adversaries.
There is an interesting parallel to this situation. China is working on creating a PC OS to erase Microsoft's dominance in China. China considers Microsoft's business practices in the ramp up to global dominance, and the fight to remain a virtual monopoly, to be the same as US foreign policy.
Anyway, having a little insight into the mind of an adversary is not a bad thing.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
" Applying the same logic, the world shouldn't have intervened to stop Germany gobbling up Czechoslovakia or even Poland.
- SEAGOON
The "world" didn't intervene; Britain did.
For which, apparently; the Poles think we should apologise; an irony which I think should have Toad giggling into his Glenfiddich.
-
Originally posted by Seeker
The "world" didn't intervene; Britain did.
[/b]
As did France.
For which, apparently; the Poles think we should apologise; an irony which I think should have Toad giggling into his Glenfiddich.
Hadn't seen that from the Poles.
I giggle into MacAllan anymore. ;)
-
Rolex,
Yes, the Chinese have played the national "loss of face" card successfully in the past to take control over Hong Kong and Macao. This was despite the fact that the majority of the population of both provinces did not wish to "rejoin" the mainland, with good reason and have since been forced to watch as their rights even under the SAR agreement are gradually stripped away.
Now, ongoing unendurable loss of face is being enthusiastically promoted as a reason for allowing China to take over an independent state that has as much right to exist as a sovereign nation as Israel, Bosnia, Bangladesh, Eritriea and any other number of sovereign states formed in the 20th century from land previously controlled by other countries.
Well, one wonders what unendurable loss of face caused the Chinese to invade and occupy Tibet, which had never been part of China, or Inner Mongolia (getting their own back on the Khans perhaps?). One might sympathize over their invasion and continued occupation of Manchuria, especially since most of that country was at least ethnically Chinese, but Turkistan? Rolex, the fact is that the Chinese are imperialists in classical sense, they invade and conquer other weaker neighbors, replace the indigenous culture with their own, and then begin colonizing the conquered territory - and they never leave. And the conquered are in no way better off under their rule.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Mox
What makes you think the missiles aren't already in Taiwan and the Subs already in the water?
Just a thought...
Mox
Because the whole point of having a nuclear deterrent is that the other side has to know you have them - keeping nukes secret is counter-productive.
-
Unless you are keeping it secret until you have sufficient forces.
-
Holy Fk Toad, you have me laughing my arse off, what a beautifully, brilliant, devilish plan.
Toad 2008!!!!!
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Rolex,
Yes, the Chinese have played the national "loss of face" card successfully in the past to take control over Hong Kong and Macao. This was despite the fact that the majority of the population of both provinces did not wish to "rejoin" the mainland, with good reason and have since been forced to watch as their rights even under the SAR agreement are gradually stripped away.
Going to have stop you there and call BS. Hong Kong people have never had more rights than under the SAR. We can now vote for the Legislative Council, and their government heads even speak the same language as them now. And with the election of the Chief Executive supposedly being phased in later, we're actually getting more rights.
I know everyone thinks that under the British it was some sort of democracy or something, but I'm afraid not: it was a colony, with the people given zero say in their own governance. Let's go over that point again; it can be a little confusing at first ;) : That's right! Under the British, Hong Kong people had no say in their government at all. Nada. No vote, nothing. Only after the handover was agreed was any semblance of democracy installed.
Some people were scared about the handover, but the majority either didn't care much or were rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of better ties with the mainland: the fruit of which is in CEPA, and the PRD road link up. You also have to remember than a large number of Hong Kong people have lots of family in the mainland - I know I do.
As to the handover itself - it was inevitable: the vast majority of the territory's land mass was only on loan to the British and due to be handed back in 1997. Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon peninsula were unsustainable without the New Territories, so the British handed it all over. Nothing to do with loss of face, just a business deal - the lease was up. The government never asked the Hong Kong people what they thought about it, but that's life under the British for you.
Now, ongoing unendurable loss of face is being enthusiastically promoted as a reason for allowing China to take over an independent state that has as much right to exist as a sovereign nation as Israel, Bosnia, Bangladesh, Eritriea and any other number of sovereign states formed in the 20th century from land previously controlled by other countries.
Well, one wonders what unendurable loss of face caused the Chinese to invade and occupy Tibet, which had never been part of China, or Inner Mongolia (getting their own back on the Khans perhaps?). One might sympathize over their invasion and continued occupation of Manchuria, especially since most of that country was at least ethnically Chinese, but Turkistan? Rolex, the fact is that the Chinese are imperialists in classical sense, they invade and conquer other weaker neighbors, replace the indigenous culture with their own, and then begin colonizing the conquered territory - and they never leave. And the conquered are in no way better off under their rule.
- SEAGOON
Tibet was mostly about resuming Chinese control over the region that had been ongoing since the 18th Century but had lapsed somewhat after 1911 - it was also partly a strategic move, securing the Western border of China. Afetr all, the Tibetans haven't always been buddhist hippies, and I'm sure their historical viking-style raiding parties were uppermost in the minds of the PRC leaders - especially given CIA involvement in Tibet. And an interesting time for the PLA too, but that's another story.
Manchuria was part of China (although in a surprise result, they aren't ethnically Han Chinese) - indeed the Qing Dynasty were Manchurians. The only reason there was a Manchuria was because the Japanese invaded and annexed it in the 30s. And interestingly enough, it was the Manchurians that annexed Inner Mongolia, before they took over the rest of China (including Tibet and Xinjiang - or Turkistan as you call it) back in the 1700s.
And the thing about Taiwan, that most of you guys seem to miss, is that for most of its modern history (as a fascist dictatorship and during its first steps to democracy in the 1990s), the Taiwanese government have also asserted that Taiwan is a just a province of China: however their aim of taking back the rest of China has always seemed rather more of a pipe dream. It is only with the advent of the oily Ah Bian that any movement towards true independence has started. A move that is certainly not popular with the Kuomintang, or business interests. Indeed, Ah Bian should probably tread lightly: he may not be in charge of the next assassination attempt on him.
So clasic imperialists? I don't think so. They're basically restoring the borders to 1911 ones - which given the turbulent post-1911 history, makes sense, really.
A classic imperialist would spend a lot more time invading places, I would think. Name me five Chinese invasions of foreign countries in the last twenty years. I can name you five American ones...
-
Hey Dead, just wait till you are under 100% Chinese rule. Say goodbye to any free speech over the internet like you enjoy now.
I'm glad you are happy about your future.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Because the whole point of having a nuclear deterrent is that the other side has to know you have them - keeping nukes secret is counter-productive.
Like Israel?
-
Communist China, home of the world's freest economy
:lol
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Communist China, home of the world's freest economy
:lol
Every year after handover, according to the Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm).
-
in case anyone has not noticed, joowenn is nuke.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Like Israel?
Well Israel has to keep it secret partly because they stole the technology from the US, who just happens to be about their only friend in the world. And partly because Israel's a bit small and crowded to be testing them in, so there's no guarantee theirs is a credible deterrent. Hence they prefer the mystery.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Every year after handover, according to the Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm).
LOL! The list does not say Hong Kong is number one, it just lists all countries in a big groups.
But, even if Hong Kong was number one, take a look at China. Hong Kong is now a part of China and there is nothing you can do about it. You are now going to have less human rights as the Chinese close their grip on you.
-
Originally posted by JB88
in case anyone has not noticed, joowenn is nuke.
JB88, your mind is so lacking of intellect it's almost sad. You post about 306 times a day, and it's all a pile of pig chit. :D
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Well Israel has to keep it secret partly because they stole the technology from the US, who just happens to be about their only friend in the world. And partly because Israel's a bit small and crowded to be testing them in, so there's no guarantee theirs is a credible deterrent. Hence they prefer the mystery.
I thought you said the whole point of having a nuclear deterant was that the other side knows you have them? Keeping nukes a secret is counter-productive you said. Now you change your entire premise??? Why does it matter how Isreal got it's nukes? I thought keeping them secret was "counter-productive" ?
Because the whole point of having a nuclear deterrent is that the other side has to know you have them - keeping nukes secret is counter-productive.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Raider,
At the time of the Munich crisis, papers in France and Britain were carrying hysterical pieces opining that the populations of the major cities would be gassed to death if the allies went to war with Germany over the Sudetenland. The theory was, that as soon as the balloon went up, unstoppable bomber fleets carrying Mustard Gas bombs would wipe us all out, and as a result Londoners were issued gas masks against the doomsday threat. Obviously these threatened mass gassings of civilian populations never materialized during WW2 as the great powers realized the consequences of such an action, and as providence directed the course of the war.
But the important thing was that fear of anihilation and an unwillingness to sacrifice our lives for people in another country (in this case 13 million Czechoslovakians) lead to us caving in, in the face of an unmitigated evil. As a result, that evil grew stronger and when the confrontation became inevitable, more lives were lost than would have been if that evil had been confronted earlier.
Obviously 22 Million Taiwanese, armed with 3rd rate weapons because of the ongoing defacto arms embargo have no possibility of stopping 4 billion Chinese by themselves from taking over their island if they want to.
But Raider, if we sit back and allow this monstrous evil to occur, if we feed this crocodile do we really think they'll say "thanks, that's enough for me, I'm full?" I'd say that if they are allowed to wade in and consume Taiwan the Chinese crocodile will be made even more ravenous and even more dangerous, especially because of the fresh injection of capital and technology such a conquest would produce (just as the Germans where made much stronger by "inheriting" the Skoda armament works). Aggresive and expansive totalitarian states are never pacified by appeasement and non-resistance China will not be the first.
Either we pay a little now, or we will pay massively later.
[As an aside: as someone who doesn't believe that the course of world affairs is directed by chance, I don't personally have any fear of a nuclear doomsday scenario. Its worth noting that the great powers have never ultimately suffered catastrophic consequences for doing the right thing but they have frequently suffered terrible consequences for doing the wrong thing or doing the right thing in an equivocal manner.]
- SEAGOON
SG, regards still say none of chemical weapons compare to a nuclear retaliation. I understand completely what you mean by pay a little now, but I don't think you grasp how easy it could turn nuclear. China starts losing and they might let a few go and then some of our boys get caught in it and you know we would let a few loose. Gotta say I am surprised that you would believe that violence is the answer in this case. I would like to hear more on your rational behind it. I know you are not advocating violence but you are saying defend Taiwan if they are attacked correct? They are not 3rd rate weapons by the way. We have given them plenty to work with. f-16s, aegis, i think the even have patriots if I remember right. Anyhow your views are always a reason to rethink mine. Raider
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Well Israel has to keep it secret partly because they stole the technology from the US, who just happens to be about their only friend in the world. And partly because Israel's a bit small and crowded to be testing them in, so there's no guarantee theirs is a credible deterrent. Hence they prefer the mystery.
Isreal's nuclear capability is no secret. They just dont admit it. They use underground testing which is detectable on lots of seismic detectors which is how they got found out. I have said this in an earlier thread but it bears repeating.
I trust certain countries to not distribute their nukes to "terrorists" be it any form of the word. I don't see Isreal giving it away to any group which I wish could be said for other countries.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
JB88, your mind is so lacking of intellect it's almost sad. You post about 306 times a day, and it's all a pile of pig chit. :D
ya, i know nuke... i mean look at this page.
ive posted the living hell out of it, whereas you have been so wonderfully restrained.
note. the joowenn post mysteriously vanished after i posted that.
lol.
hit it on the mark i'd say. good for me.
:)
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Isreal's nuclear capability is no secret. They just dont admit it. They use underground testing which is detectable on lots of seismic detectors which is how they got found out. I have said this in an earlier thread but it bears repeating.
I trust certain countries to not distribute their nukes to "terrorists" be it any form of the word. I don't see Isreal giving it away to any group which I wish could be said for other countries.
Thanks Raider, I'm not very knowledgable on Israel.
There ya go then, Nuke: a much better answer than my wrong one: It isn't secret. Although they kept it secret until they tested it, and they won't officially admit it because they stole the tech.
The point remains that if no one knows you have them, they're not a deterrent.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Unless you are keeping it secret until you have sufficient forces.
I think it could be a mistake to assume that everybody else's intelligence services are as flawed on the WMD issue as your own. ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nah, just let the Taiwanese buy stuff on the open market and lie about what they're buying. They can say they're buying subs with conventional warheads from the Russians but of course they'd be getting nuke warheads.
The lying goes on all the time, it's going on right now. Everyone smiles and pretends it's the truth.
The Chinese wouldn't know for sure if the Taiwanese had nukes or not.
As for a Chinese threat to the US, we'd merely assure them that we have nothing to do with Taiwan anymore. Further, we assure them that if the Chinese shoot at us, they will receive our full nuclear arsenal in return. Only in reply, of course.
MAD all over again.
It'll get us by the next 50 years or so. We can think up something different then.
Remember the other bit of the Cuban thing? The trade embargo, the blockade? Taiwan might not enjoy 40% of its trade suddenly stopping. And little Islands are always open to being blockaded. Of course, on the international law front - there's really nothing wrong with blockading your own territory. Indeed, you could get away with selling it as a clamp-down on smuggling, as Taiwan doesn't pay the PRC customs duties.
-
When was the last time you were in China, NUKE or Seagoon? Just curious.
-
"Communist China, home of the world's freest economy"
Thanks to the Cowperthwaite, not Communist China. But don't bother to mention that eh?
-
Originally posted by -dead-
.
The point remains that if no one knows you have them, they're not a deterrent.
Actually thats not quite true. Not knowing whether a country has them or not is quite the deterrent. North Korea?
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Remember the other bit of the Cuban thing? The trade embargo, the blockade? Taiwan might not enjoy 40% of its trade suddenly stopping. And little Islands are always open to being blockaded. Of course, on the international law front - there's really nothing wrong with blockading your own territory. Indeed, you could get away with selling it as a clamp-down on smuggling, as Taiwan doesn't pay the PRC customs duties.
Don't think it would work. Its either gonna be a full scale war or its not gonna be anything. Taiwan and China are both armed to the teeth.
-
i would like to ask could Taiwan win such a war with the US giving full support such as some Carrier Groups?
-
There were rumors way back when about Israel, South Africa and Taiwan all being in on the test in the Southern Indian Ocean back in '79.
;) Have your intel agency check that out.
As for a blockade, I'm sure that'd be one way to get the question decide in the short term. Both sides could see if they really want to fight over it.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
When was the last time you were in China, NUKE or Seagoon? Just curious.
Hi Rolex,
Wish I had more time to respond to this thread but Saturday is the next to busiest day of my week.
In answer to your question as far as mainland China, never. Closest I've come was a visit to Hong Kong in the late 80s. My father's company does trade rep. work for the PRC (search on "Marston Webb" and "Victor Webb" on the web) most recently handling the Chinese "name brands" launch here in the US, so he is over to Beijing and back frequently. Admittedly, while I get oportunities to discuss China issues with him we don't agree much on politics and are a diameter removed on worldview/religion issues, but as is the case with the members of this board I appreciate his input.
I also keep in touch with missionaries in the PRC and HK and have had several chances to discuss conditions in both places, especially as far as religious freedom is concerned. Therefore, I must with all due respect reply that Dead's contention that freedoms have grown since the takeover is hooey. Everyone I've spoken to agrees that operating in Hong Kong (which used to be the "gateway" to China as far as Bibles and other banned materials are concerned) is becoming more difficult everyday.
In March, a friend of mine from seminary, Chinese Pastor Bob Fu (who fled to the US with his wife to escape persecution in China) was quoted at length on the ongoing decline by the Christian Post: Religious Liberty in China Deteriorating (http://www.persecution.org/newsite/storydetail.php?storycode=561)
This is confirmed by the reports of secular human rights groups monitoring HK & China. For instance check out Forum 18 on China sometime.
Anyway Rolex, I cannot and will not claim to be any great authority on China, I only have what I have read and anecdotal reports to go on rather than a lot of first hand experience. But to say that what I have gleaned to date is alarming would be a major understatement. Let's just say, I thank God that I pastor a church here and not in the PRC. If I pastored a church in Taiwan, I'd be preparing for quite a storm...
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by JB88
ya, i know nuke... i mean look at this page.
note. the joowenn post mysteriously vanished after i posted that.
lol.
hit it on the mark i'd say. good for me.
:)
The funny thing is that I didn't even know what you were talking about when you said joowenn until just now. I just figured it was another of your off topic, off the wall statements.
-
Rolex, never been to China.
-
Seagoon,
Reading your views here leads me to believe that you might believe Britain and France should've intervened in the Amercian Civil War to protect the Confederacy? It had as much right to exist as Taiwan, did it not?
-
We should have let Doug McArthur do the job in '51... sooner or later we are gonna have to do it anyway.
Sad though that we arent selling sophisticated weapons to a country that has been a steadfast ally to us in all of these years. Chang-Kai-Shek was no prince among men... TRUE but the freedom-loving people of The Republic of China have been the genuine best friends of the U.S. since they set up government there.
The Communist Chinese on the other hand have actively participated in wars against the US, conducted massive political and cultural purges in their countries and rolled tanks over its' own people!
The communists under stalin LITERALLY killed double the number of people in political or cultural purges than hitler killed jews, gays and gypsies! Stalin was the greatest human rights violator and criminal in the history of the world! No telling how many MILLIONS were killed by the communist Chinese during their purges... Those of you who are gullable enough to believe Red China or any other Communist regime is a friend really needs to dig into the history books...
No-one likes war, it is a dirty, painful business but here again the failure of our forefathers to complete a job is coming home to haunt us yet again.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Seagoon,
Reading your views here leads me to believe that you might believe Britain and France should've intervened in the Amercian Civil War to protect the Confederacy? It had as much right to exist as Taiwan, did it not?
That would have been awful nice of them! :D
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The funny thing is that I didn't even know what you were talking about when you said joowenn until just now. I just figured it was another of your off topic, off the wall statements.
yep. there it is.
bright boy.
;)
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Actually thats not quite true. Not knowing whether a country has them or not is quite the deterrent. North Korea?
You're sort of arguing against yourself there — the DPRK have openly claimed to have nuclear weapons. Whether they do or not, they are still capitalising on the declaration, and using it as a deterrent. Although in North Korea's case the real deterrent is more likely their enormous amount of conventional artillery, coupled with the close proximity of Seoul to said artillery.
-
Originally posted by Toad
There were rumors way back when about Israel, South Africa and Taiwan all being in on the test in the Southern Indian Ocean back in '79.
;) Have your intel agency check that out.
As for a blockade, I'm sure that'd be one way to get the question decide in the short term. Both sides could see if they really want to fight over it.
Rumours leaking out about Taiwan testing nuclear weapons tests, eh? Surely it would have been a rather secret affair... I wonder how the world got to hear about that? You seem to be making my case for me. ;)
-
It must have been a well kept secret; no one really knows for sure. Just the satellite data which is not definitive.
Even the countries involved are a matter of speculation.
So, reasonable doubt seems to suffice.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Hey Dead, just wait till you are under 100% Chinese rule. Say goodbye to any free speech over the internet like you enjoy now.
I'm glad you are happy about your future.
I've been under 100% Chinese rule for eight years now. Aside from the increased safety derived from the lack of drunken British squaddies, and being able to vote, I must say I haven't noticed any change in free speech.
I suspect you may be referring to the vague spectre of what may happen in 2047: by then I'll be so old, I doubt I could make it to a polling booth, or see a computer screen so frankly it makes little odds to me, although a serious socialist healthcare system would appeal more then. ;) But 2047 is a long way off — as the Mullah Nasrudin would tell you: "Who knows? Maybe the horse will sing."
-
Originally posted by -dead-
You're sort of arguing against yourself there — the DPRK have openly claimed to have nuclear weapons. Whether they do or not, they are still capitalising on the declaration, and using it as a deterrent. Although in North Korea's case the real deterrent is more likely their enormous amount of conventional artillery, coupled with the close proximity of Seoul to said artillery.
A deterrent from what? Neither the U.S. or South Korea has any thing to gain by an invasion of the North. What pray tell would we do with it? Hell we have enough on our hands in Iraq,and they have oil. PRNK has what ? A couple Million starving Koreans.
-
Originally posted by simshell
i would like to ask could Taiwan win such a war with the US giving full support such as some Carrier Groups?
Economic endurance has always been the key to warfare. The Chinese Navy can't stand up to ours.. at all, so a blockade would go into place relatively quick. A country with 2 billion mouths to feed... I think they'd get in trouble pretty fast. We'd never be able to invade them and conquer.. but we could starve them to death.
Now, if they pick up a few of those South African built stealth destroyers, things may change over time.. but I don't know if their high tech construction capacity could handle it... hell, they can't make cheap rubber goods that don't break.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
A deterrent from what? Neither the U.S. or South Korea has any thing to gain by an invasion of the North. What pray tell would we do with it? Hell we have enough on our hands in Iraq,and they have oil. PRNK has what ? A couple Million starving Koreans.
A deterrent to US invasion, of course. Remember: having a deterrent doesn't particularly need to make sense to the people being deterred, just to the people doing the deterring. To the DPRK it makes fairly good sense, but nobody here would accuse the DPRK of being the most rational of governments.
-
Originally posted by indy007
Economic endurance has always been the key to warfare. The Chinese Navy can't stand up to ours.. at all, so a blockade would go into place relatively quick. A country with 2 billion mouths to feed... I think they'd get in trouble pretty fast. We'd never be able to invade them and conquer.. but we could starve them to death.
Naval blockade of China? Might as well try that on Switzerland while your at it. That's one of the dumbest thing's I've ever read. How on earth can you blockade China when it has such large boarders spreading in every other direction? This isn't Cuba.
And as for the 2 billion mouths to feed it's pretty much independent as far as feeding itself anyway.
Some of you should actually visit China or atleast take some time to understand it and it's people a little more before comenting. I wonder with your blockading idea if you actually even know where it is on the map.
...-Gixer
-
I think the US currently borrows billions daily from China just to keep the government afloat.
Not sure what the exact figure is, but some one here might be able to supply it.
I doubt the US is going to war with China anytime soon.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
SG, regards still say none of chemical weapons compare to a nuclear retaliation. I understand completely what you mean by pay a little now, but I don't think you grasp how easy it could turn nuclear. China starts losing and they might let a few go and then some of our boys get caught in it and you know we would let a few loose. Gotta say I am surprised that you would believe that violence is the answer in this case. I would like to hear more on your rational behind it. I know you are not advocating violence but you are saying defend Taiwan if they are attacked correct? They are not 3rd rate weapons by the way. We have given them plenty to work with. f-16s, aegis, i think the even have patriots if I remember right. Anyhow your views are always a reason to rethink mine. Raider
Hi Raider,
As always, I appreciate your willingness to "reason together" (Isa. 1:18). I want to make it clear that I am not defending deliberate aggession, a first strike against China or the like. Generally, as far as China is concerned, I believe the policy of the West must be containment, combined with concerted attempts to change the government from within (and this process is advancing, China currently has 240 Million plus Christians and the church continues to grow despite persecution). I believe however, that China must be made to realize that we will confront them if they invade Taiwan (and we must make it clear that we would regard crossing the straits to be an invasion). Making it clear that we will confront them if they invade is merely an outworking of the Romans 13 mandate that good civil magistrates have to use the sword to execute wrath on those practicing evil. So, in essence I believe it is high time we applied the same containment + threat of confrontation equation that was applied to the USSR.
I am fairly confident that an actual confrontation with China would not go Nuclear, as neither Chinese nor American contingency plans (several have already been discussed in public) concerning a conflict over the straits call for a Nuclear exchange. Both sides would be content to slug this one out with conventional weapons. A Nuclear exchange only becomes a viable option for a country when they firmly believe they are going to be utterly overrun otherwise, something that neither China nor America have any fear of in a fight over Taiwan. The only wildcard that would enter into this scenario would be if Taiwan had nukes, because they would be in grave danger of being overrun which is why I disagree with some of the members of this board; Taiwan should have access to first rate conventional weapons, but not nukes.
Oboe: The CSA was a rather different kettle of fish. With Taiwan we are talking about a state that has been free and self-governing for over 50 years, and which has developed into a flourishing democracy. Also in regards to Taiwan we are talking about protecting a democracy from being conquered by a totalitarian communist regime. I really don't want to get into a Civil War discussion, but the south was not about to lose fundamental god-given human freedoms by remaining part of the USA. There I would say that intervention was a far more ambiguous issue, in this case however, I think that at least most of us agree that free Taiwan has a right to both existence and self-determination. We are however split on whether we are actually willing to die to defend them.
- SEAGOON
-
Japan and China are financing 80% of the $2 billion/day.
-
dead, any particular reason you blithely pass by my post about Cowperthwaite. Or does it just not fit in you agenda?
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Raider,
As always, I appreciate your willingness to "reason together" (Isa. 1:18).
"I am one of those who are very willing to be refuted if I say anything which is not true, and very willing to refute any one else who says what is not true, and quite as ready to be refuted as to refute-I for I hold that this is the greater gain of the two, just as the gain is greater of being cured of a very great evil than of curing another. For I imagine that there is no evil which a man can endure so great as an erroneous opinion about the matters of which we are speaking and if you claim to be one of my sort, let us have the discussion out, but if you would rather have done, no matter-let us make an end of it. "
-Gorgias, Plato
Although not a Christian, I agree with William of Ockham et al, one is foolish to try and build ladders to your God through reason. But by the same token you are equally foolish to use the ladder given to you to try to reason all things temporal.
-
That's good stuff Thrawn.
-
The chinese are just beginning to worry the US military? Is this 1952?
Taiwan will be reassimilated by the empire of china. Any intervention of the USA will just delay the inevitable, and seriously hamper our relations with china, as well as retard china's re-entry to civilization.
Better to stay our current course of helping china appreciate the benefits of modern civility.
I think 10-15 years from now, China will view north korea as a much more dangerous enemy than the USA.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
"I am one of those who are very willing to be refuted if I say anything which is not true, and very willing to refute any one else who says what is not true, and quite as ready to be refuted as to refute-I for I hold that this is the greater gain of the two, just as the gain is greater of being cured of a very great evil than of curing another. For I imagine that there is no evil which a man can endure so great as an erroneous opinion about the matters of which we are speaking and if you claim to be one of my sort, let us have the discussion out, but if you would rather have done, no matter-let us make an end of it. "
-Gorgias, Plato
Although not a Christian, I agree with William of Ockham et al, one is foolish to try and build ladders to your God through reason. But by the same token you are equally foolish to use the ladder given to you to try to reason all things temporal.
[My sincere apologies for going way off topic in answering the above...]
Thrawn,
I do not have a lot of time to go into a long discussion of epistemology tonight, so this may not be as clear a reply as I might like to give - but suffice it to say that the idea that in order to discuss events that occur within the universe I must first abandon everything I know to be true about that universe - its order, its Creator, its ends - is simply untenable. Even Plato, pagan that he was, acknowledged that knowledge would be impossible if there was no unifying order in the universe. Socrates, in the very book you quoted from says: "this universe is therefore called Cosmos or order, not disorder or misrule, my friend."
I will freely admit that my worldview presupposes that history is the stage on which redemption is being played out, that there is a God, that the Bible is the way in which that God has revealed Himself and His will to man. I also believe what that revelation teaches me about human nature, but I do not believe these things against what common sense tells me. If 8 years of counseling have taught me anything, they have taught me that everything the bible teaches about anthropology is absolutely true.
So if I am talking about China and Taiwan, of course I need to attempt to discern and understand the "historical facts" but in interpreting those facts, I would be both insincere and foolish if I attempted to do so from a point of view I long ago abandoned as false. I have enjoyed reading Hume, Hegel, Russell and even Sartre but I cannot and will not adopt their presuppositions about the universe in order to discuss international politics, any more than I would require that in order to even begin a discussion you abandon your anti-theistic worldview.
Anyway, here's a quick overview of my starting presuppositions as laid out by another Christian in regards to reality and epistemology. I apologize again if this is a big yawner...
"1. Reality
Both Christians and non-Christians make presuppositions about the nature of reality.
a. The Christian presupposes the self-contained God and his plan for the universe as back of all things and therewith the absolute distinction between Creator and creation.
b. The non-Christian presupposes “Chaos and Old Night,” or the self-existence of matter in some sense.
2. Epistemology
Neither Christian nor non-Christian can, as finite beings, by means of logic, legislate what reality should be.
a. Knowing this, the Christian observes facts and arranges them logically in self-conscious subjection to the plan of God revealed in Scripture, i.e., he listens to God’s explanation of his relation to the world and man, both in Adam and in Christ, before he “listens” to, and during his observation of, the “facts.” He knows that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Assuming the plan of God, the Christian knows that the facts have a divine order. The Christian’s task in science is to uncover the God-ordained structure of the world. For the Christian, man and the world are made for one another so that the rational abilities of man are applicable to the world as man seeks to “subdue the earth.”
b. Knowing this, the non-Christian, nonetheless, constantly attempts the impossible by demanding a coherence that originates with himself.
(1) Negatively, he must assume that reality is not divinely created and controlled in accordance with God’s plan at all, and that the Christian story therefore cannot be true. The world of “facts” springs from “Chaos and Old Night”—ultimate Chance.
(2) Positively, he must assume that reality is after all rationally constituted and answers exhaustively to his logical manipulations. If the world were not rational or “uniform,” then there could be no science. Any “cosmic mind,” or God, must therefore be able to be manipulated by man-made categories. Any God not reducible to logical or empirical categories, and therefore completely understandable, is a false God." - Cornelius Van Til
Anyway, you are of course free to call me a fool, tell me I'm wrong, contradict my assertions, point out the flaws in my logic, and so on - but I simply can't comply with a request to abandon my worldview in order to discuss the world. Have I ever made that request of you? What point would there be in that?
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
b. The non-Christian presupposes “Chaos and Old Night,” or the self-existence of matter in some sense.- SEAGOON
That's not correct Seagoon, my friend.
86% of the world's population are religious. 33% are Christian.
Meaning that, other than the 14% of the world's population who believe in nothing, there are more non-Christians that believe in God than there are Christians.
Hence, many more "non-Christians" do not presuppose "chaos and old night" compared to Christians.
Does your not recognizing this suggest that they're irrelevant because the brand of religion is not your own?
-
to 6GunUSMC
>>The communists under stalin LITERALLY killed double the number of people in political or cultural purges than hitler killed jews, gays and gypsies!
Stalin rule costs USSR less then 2.000.000 lives. According to opened archives. ~600.000 were shot (and ~90% were shoted by court decission, not by Stalin order). Others dies in prisons/camps. Mostly during 41-43 when there were not enough food, all goes for front.
All this numbers (20.000.000, 40.000.000, 60.000.000) were BEFORE archives were opened. Now all of this so-called "historians" keep silence.
>>No telling how many MILLIONS were killed by the communist Chinese during their purges...
Umm. "Cultural revolution" when all peoples with higher education were killed and all universities/schools were closed for 3 years was a grim time, I think.
I wonder: how many chinese emmigrants we have now in Russia/Europe/USA if there were no purges, borders were opened and there were no birth control? Maybe, whole world already became A Big China Republic in this case?
>>Those of you who are gullable enough to believe Red China or any other Communist regime is a friend really needs to dig into the history books...
History books are differ from country to country as we already find out into that >1000 posts thread :-) None of them are objective.
BTW, american posters, think about Tegeran-Moscow-Pekin axis (and maybe Berlin-Tegeran-Moscow-Pekin-Tokyo axis if our diplomats would working really good). Still belive that nuclear weapons or NATO bases can defend you from losing in such scenario? After joint Iran/Russia/China nuclear bombarding USA would look like a moon surface :-) No offence, just guess how things can evolve.
-
After joint Iran/Russia/China nuclear bombarding USA would look like a moon surface :-) No offence, just guess how things can evolve. [/B]
lol!
-
You have to excuse Raven; he lives in an alternate universe.
-
to Toad
>>You have to excuse Raven; he lives in an alternate universe.
Well, I should shatter your dreams :-) I live on the same planet you do and guys like me have second place (by number of sits) in russian parliament :-) And on next ellection we can be first. So-o-o.... :-)
Toad, this post about "moon surface" was a joke, noone would be so stupid to start nuclear war, even Iran/China/Russia government. And maybe (who knows?) even Bush. But his stupidity is go so far for now, so I don`t sure on this :-)
To talk serious, China-Russia and Russia-Iran alliances are possible in near future. And this would be a very undesirable thing for USA. Cause this would mean end of USA world hegemony (and USA ecconomic collapse as well, at least short-term, cause China now is whole-world factory).
Imagine now that Japan ask USA to leave Okinawa and Germany became national state again (i.e. search for it`s own prosperity, not for EU-economic-engine/USA-forces-base role) and you have a very ticklish situation. And with USA really stupid foreign policy you now get USA-haters trought whole world, so this scenario is possible.
-
Originally posted by Raven_2
to Toad
guys like me have second place (by number of sits) in russian parliament :-) And on next ellection we can be first. So-o-o.... :-)
Now that's the first thing you've posted that is really scary.
I guess we better get ready for another Cold War with a bunch of delusional Stalinists from an alternate universe.
It saddens me on this lovely day.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
dead, any particular reason you blithely pass by my post about Cowperthwaite. Or does it just not fit in you agenda?
Well partly because he hasn't had any say on the economy for 34 years: one might just as well ascribe the whole thing to Opium and tea, as that's the real root cause behind the Hong Kong economy. But also because whatever influence he had is irrelevant to the statement: The fact remains Communist China is home to the World's freest economy, Cowperthwaite or no. I make no claims as to who may or may not be behind this fact. Also it was kinda an off-topic digression: the thread's about the PLA & Cross Straits - not the HK economy in the 60's.
But you're right: it doesn't fit into my agenda of annoying the frothier republican with the awkward fact that communists own the world's freest economy. ;) Come to that, it doesn't fit into the space allocated for location in vbulletin either. ;)
-
Originally posted by -dead-
The fact remains Communist China is home to the World's freest economy, Cowperthwaite or no. I make no claims as to who may or may not be behind this fact.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm
If it's so free, why is China listed as "mostly unfree" in economic freedom in the link you provided? In fact, China is listed as the 112th most "free"
So, you are pretty much ignoring your own source for your statement that China is the most free economy. China is not even close.
-
Personally I miss the good old cold war. You knew who your enemies were and you knew who you allies were. This bunch of junk going on these days is rough on everyone. Now allies turn on you and enemies are your friends. China I say we let them fight Taiwan 1 on 1.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Oboe: The CSA was a rather different kettle of fish. With Taiwan we are talking about a state that has been free and self-governing for over 50 years, and which has developed into a flourishing democracy. Also in regards to Taiwan we are talking about protecting a democracy from being conquered by a totalitarian communist regime. I really don't want to get into a Civil War discussion, but the south was not about to lose fundamental god-given human freedoms by remaining part of the USA. There I would say that intervention was a far more ambiguous issue, in this case however, I think that at least most of us agree that free Taiwan has a right to both existence and self-determination. We are however split on whether we are actually willing to die to defend them.
- SEAGOON
Define free and self-governing.
If your definition of free and self-governing is being under martial law most of the time, with no elections and any opposition oppressed, then you're fine:
Taiwan was under martial law from April 1948 until July 1987.
Opposition parties were legalised in 1989.
It held its first election with opposition parties allowed 14 years ago, its first presidential election 9 years ago.
Let alone the rather more thorny problem of the Taiwanese and the aborigines being repressed by the KMT (Taiwan's ruling party 1945-1996). When Taiwanese protestors called for self governance in 1947, the KMT killed between 18,000-28,000 (depending on accounts) Taiwanese protestors.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm
If it's so free, why is China listed as "mostly unfree" in economic freedom in the link you provided? In fact, China is listed as the 112th most "free"
So, you are pretty much ignoring your own source for your statement that China is the most free economy. China is not even close.
Is Hong Kong listed as the first most free? Is Hong Kong in China? Start again: think carefully.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Is Hong Kong listed as the first most free? Is Hong Kong in China? Start again: think carefully.
Is China listed seperatey on that list? Think carefully.
China is in fact listed as mostly unfree.
-
Here is what the site has to say about China and it's mostly unfree economy. China is listed as 112th.
Mostly unfree China (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=China)
And China is not the reason Hong Kong is a free market. Hong Kong is free because they were able to develope without Chinese control and restrictions.
To say that communist China is home to the worlds most free economy is a complete farse and you know it.
Wow, look at China's scores. Not very free if you ask me. They don't even ensure private property rights.
Trade Policy4.0
Fiscal Burden4.1
Government Intervention3.0
Monetary Policy1.0
Foreign Investment4.0
Banking and Finance4.0
Wages and Prices3.0
Property Rights4.0
Regulation4.0
Informal Market 3.5
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Is China listed seperatey on that list? Think carefully.
China is in fact listed as mostly unfree.
And do I make any claims about the freeness or otherwise of the Chinese economy? Start again: think carefully.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Is China listed seperatey on that list? Think carefully.
China is in fact listed as mostly unfree.
china has and china is
difference: that man HAS a popsicle, that man IS a popsicle. that mans popsicle is the coldest object on earth, that man HAS the coldest popsicle on earth, that man IS the coldest popsicle on earth.
hope that cleared it up.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Here is what the site has to say about China and it's mostly unfree economy. China is listed as 112th.
Mostly unfree China (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=China)
And China is not the reason Hong Kong is a free market. Hong Kong is free because they were able to develope without Chinese control and restrictions.
To say that communist China is home to the worlds most free economy is a complete farse and you know it.
So is communist China home to Hong Kong or not?
-
Originally posted by -dead-
So is communist China home to Hong Kong or not?
Yes it is.
But guess what? China's economic freedom ranking was not blended with Hong Kongs in those statistics, was it?
Why is Hong Kong listed seperately than China for economic freedom? Why not just list China's overall ranking and include Hong Kong?
Trade Policy4.0
Fiscal Burden4.1
Government Intervention3.0
Monetary Policy1.0
Foreign Investment4.0
Banking and Finance4.0
Wages and Prices3.0
Property Rights4.0
Regulation4.0
Informal Market 3.5
Either way you slice it, China is not even close to the world's most free economy. You want to have it both ways by saying Hong Kong's market represents all of China, yet refuse to acknowledge China's rankings as near the bottom in freedom.
How many billion people does Hong Kong have?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Yes it is.
But guess what? China's economic freedom was not blended with Hong Kongs in those statistics, was it?
Why is Hong Kong listed seperately than China for economic freedom? Why not just list China's overall ranking and include Hing Kong?
Trade Policy4.0
Fiscal Burden4.1
Government Intervention3.0
Monetary Policy1.0
Foreign Investment4.0
Banking and Finance4.0
Wages and Prices3.0
Property Rights4.0
Regulation4.0
Informal Market 3.5
Either way you slice it, China is not even close to the world's most free economy. You want to have it both ways by saying Hong Kong's market represents all of China, yet refuse to acknowledge China's rankings as near the bottom in freedom.
How many billion people does Hong Kong have?
So communist China is home to the world's freest economy.
Why are they listed separately? Probably because it's one country, two systems.
Them's the breaks: I don't make the list - direct all complaints of this nature to the Heritage Foundation.
HK has about 7 million people.
Thrawn - there's the agenda. :D
-
Originally posted by -dead-
So communist China is home to the world's freest economy.
Why are they listed separately? Probably because it's one country, two systems.
So I am correct, China's economy is mostly unfree while the entirely seperate economy of Hong Kong is free.
Therefore communist China is not home to the worlds most free economy, because it is listed near the bottom according to the very statistics you are sighting. Hey, I don't make the rules
Thanks for playing.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
So I am correct, China's economy is mostly unfree while the entirely seperate economy of Hong Kong is free.
Therefore communist China is not home to the worlds most free economy, because it is listed near the bottom according to the very statistics you are sighting. Hey, I don't make the rules
Thanks for playing.
Ahh so Communist China is now not home to Hong Kong?
You better let Mr Hu & Mr Tsang know. Won't they have egg on their faces? Good thing you cleared it for us.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Ahh so Communist China is now not home to Hong Kong?
Is communist China not the home of the economy listed as "mostly unfree"? Pretty easy to answer if you just look at your link. Oh, you have to scroll way down the list to find China, so just be patient.
I think China is listed somewhere below Zambia, Azerbaijan, Lesotho, Mozambique, Gabon, Chad, Tanzania, Honduras, Paraguay and a BUNCH of the other more well known free economies.
Hope this info helps.
-
So communist China is home to the world's freest economy.
No, Hong Kong is. Communist China as a whole is listed separately for a very good reason. Your statement implies that China herself is the world's freest economy.
For some reason I have serious doubts that Hong Kong's economy would be rated this highly is Hong Kong had been under communist rule as long as the rest of China has been.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
No, Hong Kong is. Communist China as a whole is listed separately for a very good reason. Your statement implies that China herself is the world's freest economy.
For some reason I have serious doubts that Hong Kong's economy would be rated this highly is Hong Kong had been under communist rule as long as the rest of China has been.
However it may have happened, the fact remains that Communist China is the home of Hong Kong, the world's freest economy. And has been for 8 straight years.
The separate listing reflects the "two systems" aspect. My statement reflects the "one country" aspect: If I wanted to imply that China was the world's freest economy, I'd simply say "Communist China: the world's freest economy".
Your reading of the statement as implying that China is the world's freest economy is entirely your own perception. It's akin to getting upset about the fact that the average American has only one testicle.
You have to pay attention to the wording, and think about it a bit, and if you got upset at first glance, perhaps wonder what aspect of you made you read the statement as something to get upset about.
If you still have trouble grasping the whole "One country, two systems" concept, you're most likely going to be in over your head on the whole Cross-Straits "One China policy" conundrum. That's far stranger.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
If you still have trouble grasping the whole "One country, two systems" concept, you're most likely going to be in over your head on the whole Cross-Straits "One China policy" conundrum. That's far stranger.
Yeah, one country with two completely different sets of laws is completely reasonable..... :lol
Basically, a communist and oppressive government was able to aquire a free Hong Kong, and decided not to screw it up for now because they know that they would wrek Hong Kong if they imposed Chinese laws.
Communist China has nothing to do with the success of Hong Kong. If China were to place it's controls on Hong Kong, then say goodbye to Hong Kong's free economy.
In a nutshell, China is one of the most oppressive governments one earth......they suppress the human rights of more people than any other nation in the history of the world.
-
Upset? Not hardly. Maybe you should choose your wording more carefully so as not to imply things you dont mean to. :p
Nuke pretty much covered the rest :)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Yeah, one country with two completely different sets of laws is completely reasonable..... :lol
Whereas you seem to have no problem with one country with 50 completely different sets of laws.
Basically, a communist and oppressive government was able to aquire a free Hong Kong, and decided not to screw it up for now because they know that they would wrek Hong Kong if they imposed Chinese laws.
And this is relevant to my original statement because...?
Communist China has nothing to do with the success of Hong Kong. If China were to place it's controls on Hong Kong, then say goodbye to Hong Kong's free economy.
And this is relevant to my original statement because...?
In a nutshell, China is one of the most oppressive governments one earth......they suppress the human rights of more people than any other nation in the history of the world.
And this is relevant to my original statement because...?
Post all you like, Communist China has been the home of the world's freest economy for 8 straight years. And all the anti-communist rhetoric in the world isn't going to change that.
What bugs you about it so much? Let's get back to the topic in hand - Taiwan, China the PLA and the US.
-
Dead, move to China if it's so great :lol
Soon Hong Kong will be just like your beloved China. I wish you well.
-
I used to not believe that I was in the upper 2% of intellects, but after seeing the percentage of dipchits who post on this BBS, I am now reconsidering my stance.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Dead, move to China if it's so great :lol
Soon Hong Kong will be just like your beloved China. I wish you well.
I didn't have to move - China came to me. ;)
-
Whereas you seem to have no problem with one country with 50 completely different sets of laws.
The 50 different states are not listed separately in that report are they? To make this comparison Hong Kong and China should be listed as one economy, but they arent so the comparison is invalid :P
-
Originally posted by Raider179
China will take taiwan back.
When exactly did china lost Taiwan ?
-
Originally posted by lada
When exactly did china lost Taiwan ?
Not sure if any western nations tried to settle it, the Dutch named it Formosa in the 1600s. I do know in 1895 China signed a treaty ceding the rights to Taiwan to the Japanese. After Chiang Kai-shek's troops lost to the Communist takeover, they retreated to Taiwan. Killed alot of the locals too. AFAIK, its stayed separate ever since. Most of the Democratic reforms that have come along recently were a result of a riot in 79 (cant remember what they called it right offhand). It took them a long time to get to where they are now, I dont blame them in the least for not wanting to go back under Chinese rule.
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Not sure if any western nations tried to settle it, the Dutch named it Formosa in the 1600s. I do know in 1895 China signed a treaty ceding the rights to Taiwan to the Japanese. After Chiang Kai-shek's troops lost to the Communist takeover, they retreated to Taiwan. Killed alot of the locals too. AFAIK, its stayed separate ever since. Most of the Democratic reforms that have come along recently were a result of a riot in 79 (cant remember what they called it right offhand). It took them a long time to get to where they are now, I dont blame them in the least for not wanting to go back under Chinese rule.
ummm and what about Gou ming dang ?
you somehow excluded them from your fairytail
-
Originally posted by lada
ummm and what about Gou ming dang ?
you somehow excluded them from your fairytail
lada I dont know. My interests mainly have been in WWII era China. What little I know of modern issues there are a result of being interested in Japanese/Chinese relations (since my wife and her family are Japanese), and has come from what I find to read (mostly on economic issues) and a few friends I have here who happen to be Chinese-Americans. I've never heard of what you are speaking of. I also wasnt trying to make it sound like my knowledge was all-encompassing. You asked a question, I gave you what I know. Its not a fairy tale, its just the extent of my knowledge. If it's wrong, I'll be happy to be educated.
-
Nuke,
Your completely wrong about China, and your opinions are a typical sterotype of China as it was 30 years ago. It's a completely different country today and you should take the time to update your ideals and make your own opinion on personal interaction and experience. Rather then anti communist and political propergander.
...-Gixer
-
Gixer, what am I wrong about? I am saying that China does not have a free economy and I was referencing the source that Dead provided.
I don't need to interact with the Chinese to know about their government and it's oppression of the people.
Just like any other country, I have nothing against the Chinese people.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Gixer, what am I wrong about? I am saying that China does not have a free economy and I was referencing the source that Dead provided.
I don't need to interact with the Chinese to know about their government and it's oppression of the people.
Just like any other country, I have nothing against the Chinese people.
Nuke,
Well I'm not going to get into the free economy debate as I don't have the time. But you keep on saying that they are an oppressed people. In my visits to China and experience with Chinese here and in other countries I've yet to see how they are an oppressed people. They all seem as happy as anyone else to me especially the current generation and enjoying the economical boom and opportunities in China and overseas like here in NZ.
True you don't have to visit the country or interact with the people, but your opinion is certinly that of someone that hasn't and it shows in every one of your posts on China. It's not China that's oppressed and dated, it's your opinion.
...-Gixer
-
Gixer, you honesty believe that the Chinese government does not oppress it's people?
Why don't you ask one of your Chinese friends to start a website based in China with the topic of freedom of religion or democracy or something similar and see how long he's around.
Maybe stage a protest against the government like what happened in 1989 and see how long he lives.
-
Nuke,
Like I said, every post.
Anyway, I have to go drawl over a friends new ride. Have a good day.
...-Gixer
-
to NUKE
>>Maybe stage a protest against the government like what happened in 1989 and see how long he lives.
I wonder: how long non sanctioned anti-Bush demonstartion would lives in USA?
BTW, in 14.000.000 people being arrested every year USA and 5.000.000 were in jail in 1996. Top record. Chinese still have something to learn from you.
And again: China`s borders are open, but still there is not so much emmigrants. Why? Masochism? They like to be oppressed?
-
" wonder: how long non sanctioned anti-Bush demonstartion would lives in USA? "
until someone threw a rock, just like in every demostration against anything.
-
I wonder: how long non sanctioned anti-Bush demonstartion would lives in USA?
As long as the demonstration is peaceful, the people can protest all they want. It's when they start throwing rocks, tipping cars over, starting fires etc that the riot police show up with tear gas.
-
Sounds like Ohio
-
Holy crap... I can't believe you guys. Nuke... you might be teh $m@r+3$+ EVAR!!! but your English comprehension sucks the root.
Saying Communist China is the home of the world's freest economy != saying Communist China IS the world's freest economy.
See the popsicle example above. No, read it again. One more time, no wait, better make it two... we are talking about you here.
-
Welcome to the O'Club, where all discussion transforms into argument. It really is pathetic.
This place should be called the Enlisted Club not the Officers' Club.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Holy crap... I can't believe you guys. Nuke... you might be teh $m@r+3$+ EVAR!!! but your English comprehension sucks the root.
Saying Communist China is the home of the world's freest economy != saying Communist China IS the world's freest economy.
Urchin, I knew what he was getting at....
his problem was that he listed a source that has Hong Kong listed seperately than China. I was pointing out China's ranking.
He could have cleared it up, but he wanted to play both sides.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Urchin, I knew what he was getting at....
his problem was that he listed a source that has Hong Kong listed seperately than China. I was pointing out China's ranking.
He could have cleared it up, but he wanted to play both sides.
China's economic freedom ranking is irrelevant to my statement that Communist China is the home of the world's freest economy. if you disagree with the listing separating the two - take it up with the Heritage Foundation, or perhaps the PRC NPCC, who came up with the One Country, Two Systems idea. There was nothing to clear up: HKSAR is in Communist China.
-
so dead... what you are saying is that commie countries can have areas that thrive and have free economies but...
only if they butt out and have no influence on said areas?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Elfie
As long as the demonstration is peaceful, the people can protest all they want. It's when they start throwing rocks, tipping cars over, starting fires etc that the riot police show up with tear gas.
You mean like the guy standing in d.c yeaterday, that was tackled and his suitcase set on fire? For protesting....
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Nuke,
Well I'm not going to get into the free economy debate as I don't have the time. But you keep on saying that they are an oppressed people. In my visits to China and experience with Chinese here and in other countries I've yet to see how they are an oppressed people. They all seem as happy as anyone else to me especially the current generation and enjoying the economical boom and opportunities in China and overseas like here in NZ.
True you don't have to visit the country or interact with the people, but your opinion is certinly that of someone that hasn't and it shows in every one of your posts on China. It's not China that's oppressed and dated, it's your opinion.
...-Gixer
Gixer,
As someone who has met people from China who were tortured merely for worshipping outside of the official "Three Self Patriotic Movement" churches, who have relatives who are serving hard labor for distributing bibles, and who had to flee to avoid imprisonment and forced abortion for getting pregnant without official permission (which permit they were denied on account of being politically undesirable) I am unfamiliar with the unoppressive utopia you seem to be describing.
Is it really necessary to post some pictures and commentary from a few survivors of the Tianamen square massacre, whose only crime was desiring the same kind of democratic freedoms you take for granted? Or if '89 is already ancient history how about the following:
“Torture and ill-treatment continued to be widespread and was reported in many state institutions as well as in workplaces and homes,” Amnesty International noted in its report on China. “The victims included people detained on suspicion of criminal and political offences, bystanders at protests, migrant workers, vagrants and women suspected of prostitution. Common methods of torture included kicking, beating, electric shocks, suspension by the arms, shackling in painful positions, and sleep and food deprivation.” (2003)
Try the following link and some of the photos included:
Chinese Police Torture Christians (http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=228)
- SEAGOON
-
"Common methods of torture included kicking, beating, electric shocks, suspension by the arms, shackling in painful positions, and sleep and food deprivation.”
That from Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, Seagoon?
-
Originally posted by Urchin
"Common methods of torture included kicking, beating, electric shocks, suspension by the arms, shackling in painful positions, and sleep and food deprivation.”
That from Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, Seagoon?
Hi Urchin,
I was unfortunately expecting the "so's your old man" argument with references to that.
A couple of points:
1) Two wrongs don't make a right, and the humiliation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib (although no one in that case is alleging electric shock or any physical torture that resulted in the victim being permanently scarred, disabled or killed as is the case with the Chinese police) has been jumped on with both feet by the US media and has resulted in trials/prison sentences etc. In China however, attempting to report on government torture will quickly lead to you being the next guest of the state. In fact, the state does all it can to make it impossible to even visit web sites carrying those pictures and stories.
Saying "the Germans shot Polish prisoners too" isn't actually a valid defense of the Russian massacre at Katyn.
2) At Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo we are talking about military prisons occupied by foriegn insurgents taken in the course of war. The quote you referenced referred to methods employed by the Chinese police in dealing with their own citizens and often simply because they are suspected of expressing unpopular political views or worshipping in an unauthorized church.
Are you really suggesting that mistreatment of captured enemy combatants is the moral equivalent of beating little old ladies and pastors to death for attending a bible study or rolling tanks over college students for holding banners calling for democratic reforms or shooting Tibetan monks for protesting the demolition of a monastery?
I know that there is a passionate hatred for America burning out there and that this results in rooting for her opposition. But does that really mean we have to blur the established fact that people have greater freedoms in the USA, the UK, and even Taiwan?
For heaven's sake, the quote I reference was from Amnesty international - not exactly a right-wing or pro-US organization. For that matter there isn't a human rights group out there that gives China many stars. Lets not bury our heads in the sand merely for the sake of anti-American animus.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Urchin,
I was unfortunately expecting the "so's your old man" argument with references to that.
A couple of points:
1) Two wrongs don't make a right, and the humiliation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib (although no one in that case is alleging electric shock or any physical torture that resulted in the victim being permanently scarred, disabled or killed
"Published on Thursday, February 17, 2005 by the Associated Press
Iraqi Died While Hung From Wrists
by Seth Hettena
SAN DIEGO - An Iraqi whose corpse was photographed with grinning U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib died under CIA interrogation while suspended by his wrists, which had been handcuffed behind his back, according to investigative reports reviewed by The Associated Press.
The death of the prisoner, Manadel al-Jamadi, became known last year when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke. The U.S. military said back then that it had been ruled a homicide. But the exact circumstances of the death were not disclosed at the time."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0217-09.htm
"Amputations and murder at Abu Ghraib: report
February 7, 2005 - 8:28AM
Email to a friend Printer format
Unqualified US military medics stationed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison carried out amputations, recycled used chest tubes and lacked medical supplies to treat the overcrowded jail's inmates after the fall of Baghdad, according to a Time magazine report.
The report, to hit newsstands tomorrow, also said a medic was ordered, by one account, to cover up a homicide inside the jail."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Saddam/Amputations-and-murder-at-Abu-Ghraib-report/2005/02/07/1107625091049.html?oneclick=true
-
Hi Thrawn,
I stand corrected, people are definitely alleging that someone died in custody as a result of torture. Thank you for pointing that out, I was quite wrong to overstate the case.
The case you reference (and the "covered-up homicide" referred to in the other article) is that of Manadil Al-Jamadi, believed to have been part of the bombing of the Red Cross offices in Baghdad that killed 12. Jamadi was captured by US Navy SEALs in a raid. He was subdued only after a violent struggle, and there are allegations that he was kicked, punched, and hit with rifles by the SEAL team on the way to Abu Ghraib. The LT. in charge of the team is currently being court-martialed in connection with Al-Jamadi's death.
However, as I stated before, 2 wrongs do not make a right. How do these abuses, justify China's systematic and ongoing persecution and torture of her own citizens merely for doing the same things you and I regard to be fundamental rights and do on a daily basis? I'm not going to attempt to justify killing a prisoner in custody however it happened, and every member of the military I know despises the actions of the "Night Crew" at Abu Ghraib.
But lets cut to the heart of the matter regarding China; are you going to somehow say that torturing ordinary people to death for attending a house church is justified, that killing people rallying for democratic reforms isn't evil, or that a policy of forced abortion is moral?
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
But lets cut to the heart of the matter regarding China; are you going to somehow say that torturing ordinary people to death for attending a house church is justified, that killing people rallying for democratic reforms isn't evil, or that a policy of forced abortion is moral?
- SEAGOON
Absolutely not. The whole Abu Ghraib issue is straw man agruement that has nothing to do with the point of this thread. I only wished to point out an error in fact and probably should have stated so in my post.
-
Originally posted by Trell
You mean like the guy standing in d.c yeaterday, that was tackled and his suitcase set on fire? For protesting....
He wasnt protesting. He was sight seeing I believe. I do not agree with the over reaction of the police in this case. I heard nothing about his suitcase being set on fire either. The article I read stated quite clearly that the police tackled the man, handcuffed him and took him away while leaving his suitcases behind.
Leaving the suitcases behind was incredibly stupid imo since the police were allegedly afraid of him having a bomb.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Gixer,
As someone who has met people from China who were tortured merely for worshipping outside of the official "Three Self Patriotic Movement" churches, who have relatives who are serving hard labor for distributing bibles, and who had to flee to avoid imprisonment and forced abortion for getting pregnant without official permission (which permit they were denied on account of being politically undesirable) I am unfamiliar with the unoppressive utopia you seem to be describing. - SEAGOON
Well my girlfriend is Chinese and I've been to China twice and she just laughed at your comments. Sorry not even worth the time to reply if your that easily convinced otherwise.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Well my girlfriend is Chinese and I've been to China twice and she just laughed at your comments. Sorry not even worth the time to reply if your that easily convinced otherwise.
...-Gixer
Gixer,
Pardon? I must admit to being somewhat speechless. Your girlfriend laughing nullifies the pictures taken by Chinese police of ordinary Christians being tortured (need more?), it nullifies report after report from international organizations like Amnesty International on Chinese torture, imprisonment, and execution for political and religious beliefs, it nullifies books written by Chinese women chronicling their own experience with the forced abortion policy? Gixer, I went to seminary with a man who has gone on to become the President of the China Aid Mission who himself fled persecution and sends weekly updates on imprisoned Church members, I'm in email contact with other missionaries who keep in touch with persecuted church and get prayer requests that way as well. Gixer, there are literally millions of people in that country suffering merely for believing, who desperately need our prayers and support. Frankly, the only people I've ever heard denying that people are tortured and oppressed for their faith and political beliefs in China are representives of the Chinese government.
I'm not normally a fan of being so direct, but see if your girlfriend gets a laugh out of these, they are photos smuggled out of China taken by Chinese police of Chinese Christians arrested during a house church worship services being tortured:
(http://www.atopic.us/images/torture6.gif)
(http://www.atopic.us/images/Tortur1.jpg)
(http://www.atopic.us/images/torture5.gif)
(http://www.atopic.us/images/Tortur2.jpg)
(http://www.falungong.org.uk/images/Clearwisdom_net_21-03-03_files/2003-3-17-torture4--ss.jpg)
If you really need the full descriptions of what is going on in the photos:
Commentary (http://www.grandtrial.org/English/5_Christians%20Persecuted%5Bf%5D.pdf)
Or try the following links:
http://www.persecution.org/newsite/countryinfodetail.php?countrycode=16#Articles
http://www.persecution.com/china/
http://www.persecution.com/news/index.cfm?action=fullstory&newsid=299
-
Glad you came back and posted Seagoon. I really had no idea what to say or how to respond to the stupidity and outright ignorance in this statement:
Well my girlfriend is Chinese and I've been to China twice and she just laughed at your comments. Sorry not even worth the time to reply if your that easily convinced otherwise.
Rest assured Seagoon, that according to Gixer those pics will mean nothing. After all, his wife is Chinese, and he himself has been to China twice.
-
You want to know about China? Just ask me... I eat in a Chinese restaurant about twice a month. That's how you get the inside scoop, btw.
-
No Seagoon, that was just a one-liner.
I actually don't have a position on the China-Taiwan thing. Communism in Red China is evolving (or devolving I guess, depending on your stance) into a free-market economy. While I doubt it will become as capitalist as our country, I don't doubt that the U.S. and China will reach a common ground as "allies". As that happens, and as the U.S. fades from international importance, China will pretty much do whatever it damn well pleases. And you know what? They'll be right. You know why? Because in spite of your feel good Christian outlook on life, in this life might makes right. Just look at out beloved country's actions on the world stage.
While I do find it regrettable that Christians cannot practice openly in Red China now, that will change in the near future. You don't have to be a messiah to see that... as state control over the economy loosens, state control over everything else will loosen too.
By the time China is ready to absord Taiwan, the U.S. won't be in any position to do anything about it. Whoever is President at that time will be faced with the same choice as Chamberlain was at Munich. Will China be satisfied absorbing territory that was "historically Chinese" or will they take the world's reluctance to go to war for a far off people they know nothing about as carte blance to absorb the rest of Asia? I'm not smart enough to know, to be honest. Don't really care much either, since barring a complete economic collapse the U.S. will be strong enough to check China's ambitions during my lifetime.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You want to know about China? Just ask me... I eat in a Chinese restaurant about twice a month. That's how you get the inside scoop, btw.
Toad you crack me up man. :rofl :rofl
-
LMFAO
Haven't been able to show her yet, (shes a cop here in NZ by the way, probably beating up NZ christians right now) but I'm sure she will get a laugh out of the pics as I did. You never thought the look pretty sharp and obviously taken with something more then a polaroid or DSLR with a flash or two. I couldn't get pics that good unless I had studio lighting. Fantastic shots from a cop with a polaroid and a flash don't you think? He's obviously in the wrong profession. :lol
Far better quality then these pics. Wonder if the guy taking the photo was a Chrisitan?
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iraq/images/abu-ghurayb-prison-abuse08.jpg)
But of course chrisitans have never harmed anyone,discrimnated or opressed anyone through history of other relgions, have they now?
I don't mind discussing chinese christians I think theres some 80 million of them so obviously the torture and beatings isn't working very well. But if your going to preach about it with propergander and discrimination it's not worth my time.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Gixer,
Pardon? I must admit to being somewhat speechless. Your girlfriend laughing nullifies the pictures taken by Chinese police of ordinary Christians being tortured (need more?), it nullifies report after report from international organizations like Amnesty International on Chinese torture, imprisonment, and execution for political and religious beliefs, it nullifies books written by Chinese women chronicling their own experience with the forced abortion policy?
Its only torture if you make them play naked twister
-
You never thought the look pretty sharp and obviously taken with something more then a polaroid or DSLR with a flash or two. I couldn't get pics that good unless I had studio lighting. Fantastic shots from a cop with a polaroid and a flash don't you think?
I can take pictures that clear in my home, with a $150 digital camera. As usual you are blind to anything that doesnt fit your view of the world, or in this case, China :P
-
Gixer, does your girlfriend live in China? I guess not, since you say she is a cop in NZ.
When did she last live in China and for how long did she live in China?
-
Gixer, you don't have to talk if you don't want to. Nuke is sniffin' around and may in fact press charges soon. In the meantime, I'd contact your lawyer if I were you.
-
lol Nash, I turned in my badge like you suggested.
Anyway, Gixer is saying he knows China doesn't oppress it's people because he's been to China twice and his girfriend is Chinese.... and she laughs at us.
I assumed he meant she lived in China, so now that I see she does not, I was wondering if she did live in China and if so, for how long.
Nash, how do you feel about the claims that the Chinese may oppress it's people?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Nash, how do you feel about the claims that the Chinese may oppress it's people?
Well, I'm not an expert on China or anything.... but that's certainly the word on the street.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Gixer, does your girlfriend live in China? I guess not, since you say she is a cop in NZ.
When did she last live in China and for how long did she live in China?
Nuke,
She was born in China and is 27 she's been in NZ for 2 years but has also spent time (work,study & travel) in most of Europe,Middle East,US and Australia before coming here.
....-Gixer
-
That's cool Gixer. I'm not trying to pick a fight you, so bear with me.
When was the last time your girlfriend lived in China? How long total did she live in China.
If she went to China, would she enjoy and agree with the restrictions the authorities have placed on the internet?
What does she have to say about the masacre in Tiananmen Square in 1989? It's no small thing what those bastards did to inocent people.
The Chinese communists do not have bounds to the brutality they can inflict on the people of China. You are kidding yourself if you think everything is all roses for the people of China.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Gixer, you don't have to talk if you don't want to. Nuke is sniffin' around and may in fact press charges soon. In the meantime, I'd contact your lawyer if I were you.
:rofl :rofl
-
Gixer,
Right, these photos were all staged, along with the video of the bulldozer taking out the housechurch while the congregation watched helplessly, and the videos of the massacre in Tianamen were Western propaganda, and the people I've met only fantasized about being arrested and tortured, and pastors who missionary friends knew to be once alive died of natural causes or perhaps in skiing accidents (which would explain the multiple contusions etc.) and the Holocaust never happened, and Solzenitsyn dreamed up the gulag archipelego.
You know its funny, in all of my time discussing the plight of dissidents in China I've encountered one or two communists who've maintained that the oppression of Christians and Democracy activists in China is regretable but necessary for "the greater good of the people" but you are the first person I've encountered who has simply taken the tack of denying it outright in the face of massive evidence to the contrary from both sides of the political spectrum and even the UN. Well all I can say is that I sincerely hope you and your girlfriend never have to endure what those dissidents are enduring and that if you do, that people who will pray for you and advocate on your behalf, rather than simply denying you exist.
Incidently, is this kind of thing (http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/15852.shtml) also a fabrication of the same massive international conspiracy?
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Far better quality then these pics. Wonder if the guy taking the photo was a Chrisitan?
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iraq/images/abu-ghurayb-prison-abuse08.jpg)
Wow, what insane torture! I can't believe anyone survived that extreme torture.
The pic is so grainy, it's obviously faked.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so dead... what you are saying is that commie countries can have areas that thrive and have free economies but...
only if they butt out and have no influence on said areas?
lazs
Well of course. Indeed intervention by any type of government, no matter what system, will generally not help an economy be freer.
But it's interesting that Communist China owns the freest economy in the world, nonetheless - why doesn't the "free world" lead the way? Why hasn't it stopped being free now the Communists have taken it over? Isn't that what Communists are supposed to do?
At the same time, it's best not to confuse economic freedom and success with political freedom as Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore all show.
What I'm really getting at is that for the most part the Western world tends to hold a lot more misconceptions about Communist China than is healthy for understanding it properly. How many here would have picked Communist China had they been asked a straight (no looking it up), "where is the world's freest economy" question, even on a multiple choice?
-
dead, how come you are even allowed to visit this BBS?
aren't you getting corrupted by the imperialistic Americans and overly liberal Europeans on this BBS?
if you really are from China, I'm sorry to say but your days here are probably numbered.
I think the US should encourage the intelectuals of China to revolt, start a civil war and then support them until the scum called the Chinese government is replaced by a true democracry, or, better, by a multitude of free countries. I mean, the dialects in various provinces are so different they can't even understand eachother.
I don't think China should exist as a country.
-
ahhhh, well look what teh cat dragged in.
where ya been troll?
:)
-
lacking internet access at home, and this site being blocked at work(have no ****ing clue why), I spent my time flying jabos in IL2 and reviewing porn saved on the hard drive.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
How many here would have picked Communist China had they been asked a straight (no looking it up), "where is the world's freest economy" question, even on a multiple choice?
LOL!
Hong Kong is owned by China now, and that's about it. Communist China had nothing to do with Hong Kong's free economy.....other than taking ownership of it as it existed and deciding not to screw it up, for now.
-
Originally posted by spitfiremkv
dead, how come you are even allowed to visit this BBS?
Hate to disappoint your paranoid fantasies, but the AH BBS isn't blocked in China.
Besides I live in Hong Kong. The only trouble I have had with sites being blocked is - you'll love this - from the US side. For example http://www.georgewbush.com was blocked for me (which made Eagler's posts mercifully brief)- although a quick proxy search and a cut & paste later and all was revealed. The US Army block out Johnny Communist occasionally too. ;)
aren't you getting corrupted by the imperialistic Americans and overly liberal Europeans on this BBS?
if you really are from China, I'm sorry to say but your days here are probably numbered.
Well I would have, but you all seemed so paranoid I decided not to bother...
I think the US should encourage the intelectuals of China to revolt, start a civil war and then support them until the scum called the Chinese government is replaced by a true democracry, or, better, by a multitude of free countries. I mean, the dialects in various provinces are so different they can't even understand eachother.
I don't think China should exist as a country.
OK you've not heard of putonghua then. Not to worry. I'd concentrate on getting your own scum government replaced by a true democracy if I was you: baby steps, dear boy, baby steps. ;)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
LOL!
Hong Kong is owned by China now, and that's about it. Communist China had nothing to do with Hong Kong's free economy.....other than taking ownership of it as it existed and deciding not to screw it up, for now.
And that would change the answer because...?
-
Well, if you put "communist China" as an anwser to the question of "where is the world's most free economy?" , nobody would pick that as an answer......because communist China is not even close to a free economy.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Well, if you put "communist China" as an anwser to the question of "where is the world's most free economy?" , nobody would pick that as an answer......because communist China is not even close to a free economy.
My point precisely - not many would get it right, yet the answer is indeed Communist China. Misperceptions.
-
(http://www.historywiz.com/images/china/tanks.gif)
Ah yes.. true democracy.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
My point precisely - not many would get it right, yet the answer is indeed Communist China. Misperceptions.
no, the answer is not communsist China. Communist China does not have a free economy.
Maybe if you asked: "what un-free communist country took ownership of the world's most free economy?" everyone would understand the question .
Communist China has a mostly unfree economy.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
no, the answer is not communsist China. Communist China does not have a free economy.
Maybe if you asked: "what un-free communist country took ownership of the world's most free economy?" everyone would understand the question .
Communist China has a mostly unfree economy.
Unfortunately for your argument, I posted "where is the world's freest economy?", not "which is the world's freest economy?" And the answer is (and has been for the last 8 years): Communist China. If you can't understand questions in English, perhaps you ought to switch BBS - English is basically the lingua franca here.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Unfortunately for your argument, I posted "where is the world's freest economy?", not "which is the world's freest economy?" And the answer is (and has been for the last 8 years): Communist China. If you can't understand questions in English, perhaps you ought to switch BBS - English is basically the lingua franca here.
:lol
The "where" part is funny too me. The location of the freest economy in not anywhere in "communist" China.
-
Originally posted by Toad
(http://www.historywiz.com/images/china/tanks.gif)
Ah yes.. true democracy.
No, true democracy :
(http://www.vietnamwar.com/KentStateMay41970.jpg)
-
dead knows that he is lucky ( for now) that he doesn't live under true Chinese law and communism. He's not fooling anyone, nor himself.
-
No kidding Nuke. Wonder how long he before he moves to the mainland to enjoy the fruits of his labors. ;)
-
can't wait for Boroda to come back.
You'll see him and Dead patting eachother on the fanny while wearing red matching underwear, one with the hammer and the sickle, the other one with gold stars.
-
Originally posted by Toad
No kidding Nuke. Wonder how long he before he moves to the mainland to enjoy the fruits of his labors. ;)
*sigh* I wish: if I got a serious offer of work in Shanghai, I'd be there in a heartbeat.
-
Good, hope you get to go.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
:lol
The "where" part is funny too me. The location of the freest economy in not anywhere in "communist" China.
Well you'd better tell your government: they're supposedly labouring under the idea that there's only one China.
My government will be a rather harder sell for you: still, feel free to address all complaints to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China in Beijing. They're in charge of interpreting the Basic Law. (Of which Article One reads: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China.")
I'll warn you now, though: the chairman, Wu Bangguo is a bit of card-carrying communist, what with him being on the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China's Central Committee.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
No, true democracy :
(http://www.vietnamwar.com/KentStateMay41970.jpg)
So your'e saying that that tank crew was tried and relieved of duty? Ahh, ok I hadn't realized chicom had made such steps toward humanity.
The closer that china steps toward free market and citizen self rule, the more america gains a sibling. That bothers some resentful creatures.
I do not underestimate the great chinese civilization. They will triumph over the emeny of truth and individual liberty. Too long have they suffered the indignity of this religion of subserviance and ignorance.
-
Well, I've just got back from 3 days away off roading and fishing and I see this conversation has fallen ever deeper into the gutter with so many poor missconceptions about China and it's people.
So I'm not bothered answering some of the questions posted let alone drawing my girlfriends attention to them.
Around the world one of the many missconceptions about Americans is that they are extremely arrogrant, especially when it comes to other nations. Spending too much time on this BBS and I can see how some people might believe this is true.
Night all.
...-Gixer
-
Americans are arrogarnt, but not completely unduly. Imagine if the french or italians were the proprioters of the best country on earth. We'd never hear the end of it. :)
As much as my countrymen don't like to hear it. Americans come off as very arrogant. As one of my former commanders used to say while chewing on his toothpick. "Don't be the arrogant american."
Why is the ordinary american arrogant? Because the ordinary american is an ordinary human being. Don't kid yourself and think that your countymen would be any different.
-
dead... I would agree with you... If I lived under a communist government that had absolutely no control over me then it would be better than the one I am under.
lazs
-
"Why is the ordinary american arrogant? Because the ordinary american is an ordinary human being. Don't kid yourself and think that your countymen would be any different."
Yep the only difference is we know where it got us. You guys have yet to learn. Arrogance and Empire don't make you too popular in this world.
-
What you don't realize is that you are equally as overbearing and arrogant.
You'll figure it out eventually.
-
Originally posted by Suave
So your'e saying that that tank crew was tried and relieved of duty? Ahh, ok I hadn't realized chicom had made such steps toward humanity.
If you'll recall, the evil Chicom tank crew didn't do anything to the guy - so they score on the tired and relieved of duty National Guard in the humanity stakes. That's not to say that they didn't then drive off and kill loads of people: who knows? Most likely they did. I studied at one of the more radical Beijing universities the year after, so you can save yourself the trouble of educating me on that.
Actually I was just illustrating that all governments, regardless of their system, will repress people they feel are a threat to the system of government, with extreme prejudice as the more euphamistic killers would have it. Try setting up an Al Qaida group if you don't believe me.
The closer that china steps toward free market and citizen self rule, the more america gains a sibling. That bothers some resentful creatures.
You're right there: it certainly bothers NUKE and spitfiremkv.
I do not underestimate the great chinese civilization. They will triumph over the emeny of truth and individual liberty. Too long have they suffered the indignity of this religion of subserviance and ignorance.
Not sure how we got on to Christianity, here but I'm with you on being down on it, although I take the view that is more down to being gullible and in need of reassurance, really.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
So I'm not bothered answering some of the questions posted let alone drawing my girlfriends attention to them.
Around the world one of the many missconceptions about Americans is that they are extremely arrogrant, especially when it comes to other nations. Spending too much time on this BBS and I can see how some people might believe this is true.
Night all.
...-Gixer
Arrogant? I don't see anyone being arrogant in this thread. Nobody really has said anything bad about the Chinese people that I recall.
I have nothing against the Chinese people......just their oppressive government.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
You're right there: it certainly bothers NUKE and spitfiremkv.
That's were you are wrong. I want the Chinese people to be successful and free. People don't like the US government and hate Bush.......yet they are not labeled as arrogant.
I do not like the Chinese communist government and I do not like it when people try to tell me that people are perfectly free in communist China.
Beats the hell out of me why that seems arrogant to some.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
You're right there: it certainly bothers NUKE and spitfiremkv.
to say that the existence of communism bothers me is an understatement!
-
"I want the Chinese people to be successful and free"
As long as that freedom conforms to the current US administrations definition of the term?
This kind of freedom?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/21/200px-AbuGhraibAbuse12.jpg)
And Our troops doing it too !!!
(http://www.unison.ie/images_papers/news/41/11965/pictures/329586.jpg)
:( :( Not a very good moral standpoint to come from realy!
We'd better check out ourselves before telling others how to be free and fair!
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Not sure how we got on to Christianity, here but I'm with you on being down on it, although I take the view that is more down to being gullible and in need of reassurance, really.
I don't know if you're being snide, or if you seriously think I was talking about christianity.
-
Oh, yes Skydancer!
You are SO right.
Both the US and Britain are simply too EEEEEVVVVILLL for words.
You make a very valid comparison. All US and UK troops are simply unmentionable bassards! Both the US and UK have a history of oppressing their own people and other peoples mightily ever since WW2 ended.
Chowderhead.