quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: Thank you Tom. not sure how to get the link, as my computer knowledge is pretty basic. One specific quote that comes to mind is in a speech to the SEIU in which he states that their mission is his mission. couple that with the fact that the head of the seiu has, according to the white houses on released information, visited the white house nearly 30 times. also, in my mind, it seems a little odd that EVERYTHING that he wants to do HAS to be done NOW. EVERYTHING is a CRISIS. I believe it was the TARP bill that we were told, pass it NOW, or else. and yet, once it was passed it took him 4 days to sign it? That seems strange to me.
TARP seems like a strange example, since it was passed under President Bush last October.
Posts: 739 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... The white's are #3 in income in America by race.
One of the races that has a higher median income is Asian. Whats the other one?
You failed to acknowledge the most discriminated demographic in America...Arabs. ...
Regardless of whether they're the most discriminated demographic, which Samprimary is handling, I'll just note that Arabs usually aren't classified as a race (insert usual caveats about how race is arbitrary anyways).
They're just White (for example thats how they're classified in the US census).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... Maybe the Communist/Socialist Chinese govt should pay their people more and let them eat something other than rice. They do have a fair society thought, equal misery and a wealthy government.
Ummm, China is one of the few major countries that is actually even more unequal than the United States. Also, employment by SOEs is probably at an all-time low so the government doesn't really pay all that many people. That said, government jobs like in the US are often quite well-paid. Also, food products is one of the few things that China imports from Canada and the US in very large quantities, not much of it rice.
So yeah I could have summed up by just saying you're wrong. And looking further, that sums up the rest of your "thoughts" on the topic.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Wrong again! Btw, last time I checked, opinion was based upon belief, though as a 14 year old(I'm 37) I could be mistaken. I am at least willing to admit that. [/QUOTE]
Yes, and yet there remains a *difference* between the two things. N'est-ce pas?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: - arabs are not the most discriminated (against) demographic in America
- china does not have 'equal misery' and actually demonstrates a massive degree of class disparity
- malanthrop is just talking now
When you go into an airport are you worried about the black guy? Are you suggesting that an Arab woman wearing a burka in America is less an object of objection than a black lady walking down the street?
If I didn't know for sure by now that you didn't genuinely think you know what you were talking about, I'd swear you were having me on. Regardless, arabs are not the most discriminated against demographic in the united states. Even openly gay guys have it worse than them, as well as transgendered people. Who I'm most worried about in an airport isn't a measure of that, it's just an anecdote. You just have no idea what you're talking about, as usual, and still feel yourself possessed of the need to talk as though you had anything resembling a worthwhile understanding of any of this.
Only because you define discrimination based upon outcomes. Since arabs are successful in America, you can't bring yourself to admit that they are discriminated against. The fact that they can overcome the hate that surrounds them in this post 911 country, undermines your whole economic justice mindset. They succeed despite the glaring and distrust that surrounds them. I am genuinely impressed that they can exist in a nation where they are viewed as the enemy....and succeed.
On another point...I stand corrected, China does not have slaves. They have free people who work for the government for a couple bucks a day and go home to houses without electricity and indoor plumbing. Before we ask China to pay for our universal healthcare we should demand that they give their people universal toilets and electricity. I'm sure they have universal health care already...any good commie country does.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Only because you define discrimination based upon outcomes. Since arabs are successful in America, you can't bring yourself to admit that they are discriminated against.
You are a massive failure when it comes to reading comprehension. I have never claimed that arabs are not discriminated against. I've never claimed anything close to that. It's impressively irrelevant to anything I actually said to you.
You can't even figure out what my point is. I could lay it out for you with excruciating simplicity, as though I were talking to a child, and you still wouldn't get it. You'd just continue babbling about circumstantial subjects and presuming new arguments to imply on the part of the people who argue with you.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
At least as of 2003, the median income in a number of Chinese provinces was only a few dollars a day. Most of those people didn't work for the government.
More relevantly, it isn't the case that if China were to suddenly double or triple their incomes through some sort of government fiat, their incomes would actually double or triple. The income distribution problems in China aren't because the poorer people are being cruelly cheated out of deserved wages, they are because the poorer people haven't become productive enough to command higher wages, yet.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
P.S., since I can see what road this is going down: locking the thread is not the answer to the behavior contained therein and only empowers the wrong people.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Blayne, you can disagree without the name-calling.
But he is racist, there's no reason to answer his arguments.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: Thank you Tom. not sure how to get the link, as my computer knowledge is pretty basic. One specific quote that comes to mind is in a speech to the SEIU in which he states that their mission is his mission. couple that with the fact that the head of the seiu has, according to the white houses on released information, visited the white house nearly 30 times. also, in my mind, it seems a little odd that EVERYTHING that he wants to do HAS to be done NOW. EVERYTHING is a CRISIS. I believe it was the TARP bill that we were told, pass it NOW, or else. and yet, once it was passed it took him 4 days to sign it? That seems strange to me.
TARP seems like a strange example, since it was passed under President Bush last October.
Thank you St. yogi As I stated, I may be wrong, and am willing to admit when I am. Let me just say that it seems as though every thing has to be done NOW. Why? Is the world going to end tomorrow if we take a little time to read the proposed bills? How many people would walk into a car dealership and just sign a contract to buy a car without reading it first? Does that seem like a wise thing to do? And I personally think that the future of this nation is a little more important than a car.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Blayne, you can disagree without the name-calling.
But he is racist, there's no reason to answer his arguments.
So ignore them.
That'll be the day, when Blayne ignores a negative comment about China.
quote:Let me just say that it seems as though every thing has to be done NOW. Why? Is the world going to end tomorrow if we take a little time to read the proposed bills?
This meme befuddles me. Do you think no one thought about the proper way to respond to an economic recession or bank collapse before one actually happened? That emergent situations are addressed with emergency responses doesn't strike me as inappropriate. The planning should have been happening for months/years ahead of any actual action. Don't assume that just because a bill passed quickly that it's not informed by significant forethought.
If I see fire and pull the fire alarm, it's not because I'm flailing wildly at anything in reach. A lot of consideration went into the development of that fire alarm and I have a reasonable expectation about how it's going to behave and the appropriateness of taking that action at this time, even though I've only taken a moment to contemplate the actual decision.
Of course financial markets are a bit less predictably deterministic, but that doesn't mean quick action is necessarily rash action.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
But it is not just the bank bailout. it seems like everything is a crisis, from the banks, to the auto industry, to health care. And the solution is the same no matter what. If Bush had done the exact same thing, the left would have been livid.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: But it is not just the bank bailout. it seems like everything is a crisis, from the banks, to the auto industry, to health care. And the solution is the same no matter what. If Bush had done the exact same thing, the left would have been livid.
Oh, you mean like how WMD in Iraq were a crisis?
Yeah, I'm still hot about that one. I resent every single penny our government has spent on that stupid war. That money could have been spent on infrastructure here, or developing green tech, or many other useful projects. It's hard to hate the people who voted for Bush, though. They're too catastrophically STUPID to hate. It's like hating chairs and lamps.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't The Daily Show do a montage of Bush telling us there was no time to think and reason, but we must act immediately (and on a variety of issues)? I know we got that line from Bush more then us.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:But it is not just the bank bailout. it seems like everything is a crisis, from the banks, to the auto industry, to health care.
Let's look at health care. It's been a major political issue going back at least as far as the Clinton administration. It's been debated and discussed for years and even this particular bill has been formulated over a period of many months and still isn't done. There's nothing rushed about it other than the fact that Republicans don't want it to move forward at all and Democrats won't let them kill it.
And yes, these are all crises. The result of non-action in every case is predictably pretty grave. There may be an argument that the response was inappropriate, but I think you'd be hard pressed to suggest that these aren't crises.
quote:If Bush had done the exact same thing, the left would have been livid.
Iraq invasion. Patriot Act. Medicare Prescription Drug bill. Or better yet, how about just unilaterally creating secret new policy without even pretending to follow a democratic process - warrantless wiretaps.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:If Bush had done the exact same thing, the left would have been livid.
Iraq invasion. Patriot Act. Medicare Prescription Drug bill. Or better yet, how about just unilaterally creating secret new policy without even pretending to follow a democratic process - warrantless wiretaps.
If memory serves, haste was also the reason for the award of no-bid contracts to Halliburton.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kanelock1: But it is not just the bank bailout. it seems like everything is a crisis, from the banks, to the auto industry, to health care. And the solution is the same no matter what. If Bush had done the exact same thing, the left would have been livid.
Ignoring the fact that we really were in full-on crisis mode when we approached the presidential election (the commercial paper market was in a state that could very easily have caused the market to lock down even on otherwise fully solvent operations) the TARP bill passage scenario acts as a really strenuous counterargument to what you are saying.
The reason why 'everything seems like a crisis' is because we were in full-on failure cascade mode. A wide-ranging macroeconomic disaster that threatened to reverse over twenty years of economic and infrastructural development.
The only exception is health care, which hadn't suddenly become a crisis. It's been in crisis for years. If the republicans had done anything to confront that at the expense of our cherished private/actuarial model, I would have been ecstatic.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What happened to the: Save-Tibet, Sweat Shop, Tiananmen Square protesters???? Maybe they're hanging out with the "Bush War for Oil" protesters and Code Pink. Can't protest Obama or the communist nation bankrolling our health care goals.
posted
Remember when I said that you would just continue babbling about circumstantial crap? Well, thanks for promptly doing exactly that.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: What happened to the: Save-Tibet, Sweat Shop, Tiananmen Square protesters???? Maybe they're hanging out with the "Bush War for Oil" protesters and Code Pink. Can't protest Obama or the communist nation bankrolling our health care goals.
Tibet is a integral part of Chinese sovereignty and has been historically a part of China longer then the lifespan of the United States by a factor of possibly three. I could just as well yell out "FREE THE SOUTH" with the same level of legitimacy.
Sweat shops are a undeniable fact of life for developing nations as a PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE to agriculture and sustainence farming at least in any open market economy and they go away once the GDP rises to our standards.
May I remind you of the Kent State massacre?
Next China is bankrolling your low interests rates, if they weren't your country wouldn't be able to go nearly in debt as you are able to and wouldn't have the standard of living you currently have.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Blayne, you only make yourself look silly when you defend China, you know.
Its still the truth. The above are recognized facts of the international community.
Didn't something like a couple million Tibetans die when the Chinese took over?
Pretty much... Not to mention that Tibetan language and culture is entirely different from Chinese language and culture and that Tibetans and Navajo are said to be related. A friend of mine knows more about this issue, but yeah, China's takeover of Tibet has been... rather unhealthy for Tibet.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Incorrect even the Black Book of Communism expresses doubt on the '1 million or more' figures.
Next Chinese rule has actually been for the overall best for Tibet, Tibet prior to Chinese liberation was a caste society divided between serfs and the theocratic aristocrat class where the worth of a single tibetan serf was less then that off a piece of string.
Penn & Teller for example explain how the Dalai Lhama is actually a asshole who recieved CIA funding.
The PRC claims that: From 1951 to 2007, the Tibetan population in Lhasa administered Tibet has increased from 1.2 million to almost 3 million. The GDP of the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) today is thirty times that of before 1950. Workers in Tibet have the second highest wages in China. The TAR has 22,500 km of highways, as opposed to none in 1950. All secular education in the TAR was created after the revolution. The TAR now has 25 scientific research institutes as opposed to none in 1950. Infant mortality has dropped from 43% in 1950 to 0.661% in 2000. (The United Nations reports an infant mortality rate of 35.3 per thousand in 2000.) Life expectancy has risen from 35.5 years in 1950 to 67 in 2000.
In 2008 the Chinese government "launched a 570-million-yuan (81.43 million U.S. dollars) project to preserve 22 historical and cultural heritage sites in Tibet, including the Zhaxi Lhunbo Lamasery, the Jokhang, Ramogia, Sanyai and Samgya-Goutog monasteries."
posted
Blayne, nobody is disputing the problems with Tibetan society prior to Chinese rule. What we are disputing is that the loss of so many Tibetan lives was necessary. It's like the Iraq war. Over 500,000 Iraqis have died since the US invaded. Yes, we topped a cruel dictator, but...at what cost? Was it worth all those lives? It's a similar question.
On another note, dude, be skeptical about any news source that makes the Chinese government of the 1960s look good. Remember, this is the same government that killed tens of millions of native Chinese.
I have a friend who has been on 4 or 5 trips to China in the last 7 or 8 years. He visits Taoist holy mountains quite often. He said that in 1966, the Red Guard, with the knowledge of the Communist government, stormed many of the remote caves on these mountains, found various meditators sitting deep in meditative states, and doused them with fuel and burned them alive. This is common knowledge among the long-time mountain Taoists, of which there are a few still left.
The Chinese government of the 1960s was not known for...well, anything good in the area of human rights. Dude, really, your credibility is suffering.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
1) The Chinese gov't was not sovereign in Tibet for most of that period, they were suzerain, a very different legal state.
2) At the time when all the places that were suzerain were being divided up into sovereign/not sovereign (because suzerainty was ceasing to be recognized), China was not suzerain of Tibet.
3) The Chinese government acknowledged Tibet's independence and ability to conduct an independent foreign policy a number of years prior to invading them.
4) Tibetans did not identify as "Chinese", and did not want to be ruled by Chinese authorities. That would be why China had to fight a rather bloody war when it invaded the place, even though the central government was ineffective and fell immediately.
International legal precedent is remarkably clear about the right to self-determination by a region, when that region has an independent political existence and is subject to brutal oppression by those who attempt to control it from outside (see: the whole Balkan region).
Blayne is also confused about what the international legal community recognizes. They recognize that it makes no sense to try to separate Tibet legally from China, and so they acknowledge China's de facto sovereignty in the present day (as do I). This does not mean believing China had a legal right to invade, and this does not mean buying into China's "just so" stories about why their invasion was legal.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Blayne leaves out a few notable facts:
1) The Chinese gov't was not sovereign in Tibet for most of that period, they were suzerain, a very different legal state.
2) At the time when all the places that were suzerain were being divided up into sovereign/not sovereign (because suzerainty was ceasing to be recognized), China was not suzerain of Tibet.
3) The Chinese government acknowledged Tibet's independence and ability to conduct an independent foreign policy a number of years prior to invading them.
4) Tibetans did not identify as "Chinese", and did not want to be ruled by Chinese authorities. That would be why China had to fight a rather bloody war when it invaded the place, even though the central government was ineffective and fell immediately.
International legal precedent is remarkably clear about the right to self-determination by a region, when that region has an independent political existence and is subject to brutal oppression by those who attempt to control it from outside (see: the whole Balkan region).
Blayne is also confused about what the international legal community recognizes. They recognize that it makes no sense to try to separate Tibet legally from China, and so they acknowledge China's de facto sovereignty in the present day (as do I). This does not mean believing China had a legal right to invade, and this does not mean buying into China's "just so" stories about why their invasion was legal.
Incorrect at no point did China recognize Tibetan independance at any point, neither the Qing, ROC or PRC in anyway shape or form.
Inability to de facto control the region doesn't negate de jure control.
Also at no point did China give up suzerainty over Tibet at best it would be the transitional period with the changeover from the Qing to ROC in which Tibet had sent dignitaries to sign the new ROC constitution and no great power had recognized tibet during this period of de facto independence.
Proof of this in pretty much any US map of China during WWII.
Also there's significant skepticism over the number of supposed deaths of Tibetans using wildly inaccurate figures and false claims.
And I am not confused about anything, the International community doesn't decide "well we can't do anything so yeah" its "We recognize that there can only be and will only be One China which encompasses the follow regions..." Whichs includes Tibet a positive affirmation of Tibet as a part of Chinese sovereignty.
IP: Logged |
posted
The quotation you give only recognizes present sovereignty, as I specifically state was the case. You asserted the international community viewed China's invasion of Tibet as legal, an acknowledgement which is not in that statement.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Next China is bankrolling your low interests rates, if they weren't your country wouldn't be able to go nearly in debt as you are able to and wouldn't have the standard of living you currently have.
Blayne, you talk constantly as though the PRC didn't get as much or more out of the bargain than the USA does.
Sure, our financial dealings with China have been very beneficial to the United States. But that goes both ways.
quote:Tibet is a integral part of Chinese sovereignty and has been historically a part of China longer then the lifespan of the United States by a factor of possibly three. I could just as well yell out "FREE THE SOUTH" with the same level of legitimacy.
Well, the relevant parts of this are really only true because the PRC has lots and lots of guns and a willingness to use them. 'Historically a part of China'? If that were true, the conquest would not have been necessary.
'They've always been a part of China, that's why China had to conquer them.' I refuse to believe you're not smart enough to recognize the incredible dissonance in that idea, Blayne.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well the Southern States are a 'historical part of the United States' but still required military conquest to enforce, political sciences recognize that the state is the sole actor who can possess a legitimate use of force, having to use force to maintain your authority.
Also every modern state came to its current borders through armed conflict, Russia expanded against the Lithunain Commonwealth and the Kingdom of Sweden the the central asian khanates, United States had Manifest Destiny, Rome conquored over a million square miles that became the foundation of modern European states military conquest and the use of force is a political prerequisite to the formation of nation-states.
quote: Blayne, you talk constantly as though the PRC didn't get as much or more out of the bargain than the USA does.
I never said they didn't get an equally advantages part of the deal but was explaining to Misanthrope that US-Sino trade relations are extremely important to present US economy, I did not say that China did not get a good deal from this as well and frankly didn't have to its implied which begs the question of why you would bring it up.
quote: 'They've always been a part of China, that's why China had to conquer them.' I refuse to believe you're not smart enough to recognize the incredible dissonance in that idea, Blayne.
You are over simplyfing a complex diplomatic argument that doesn't abide by your liberalistic principles inregards to state relations and underestimating my ability to use doublethink. However since the Yuan dynasty they have been a part of Zhongguo and since its already established that military conquest in the past makes those territories acceptable parts of your territorial sovereignty, sovereignty that was never given up since then it makes the PRC's military action in 1950's simply that of an internal matter of a nation securing its borders against a hostile anarchic international system.
And yes the international system does recognize it, any country that has official relations with China has to recognize that there is only One China which includes Tibet and thus a de facto and de jure recognition of China's claims and authority over the region and thus legitimate there is no doubt or grey area over this and inconsequential naysayings of "nah huh" from you won't convince me overwise, find me a diplomat who says otherwise [u]recently[/u] that isn't coloured by Cold War politics of the time.
I could bet you ANYTHING that if hypothetically had it been the ROC instead no one would have said a word unless the ROC had sides with the USSR.
IP: Logged |
quote:You are over simplyfing a complex diplomatic argument
And you aren't, by trying to compare tibet and china to the american civil war? It's the most convoluted analogue I've heard yet.
quote:And yes the international system does recognize it, any country that has official relations with China has to recognize that there is only One China which includes Tibet and thus a de facto and de jure recognition of China's claims and authority over the region and thus legitimate there is no doubt or grey area over this and inconsequential naysayings of "nah huh" from you won't convince me overwise, find me a diplomat who says otherwise [u]recently[/u] that isn't coloured by Cold War politics of the time.
This is not international recognition. This is China's internal claim. In reality, countries that have official relations with China are under no realistic obligation to recognize China's own internal "One China" argument. A perfect example is the Taiwan issue. Most of china's 'official relations' have made absolutely no recognition of their claim over Taiwan, yet trade and diplomacy continue.
It's a remarkably empty supposition. There is no 'international recognition' justification.
quote: Also every modern state came to its current borders through armed conflict, Russia expanded against the Lithunain Commonwealth and the Kingdom of Sweden the the central asian khanates, United States had Manifest Destiny, Rome conquored over a million square miles that became the foundation of modern European states military conquest and the use of force is a political prerequisite to the formation of nation-states.
Oh, I see. And because other nations and empires have done it in the past makes it acceptable in the present?
Nonsense.
quote: quote: Blayne, you talk constantly as though the PRC didn't get as much or more out of the bargain than the USA does.
I never said they didn't get an equally advantages part of the deal but was explaining to Misanthrope that US-Sino trade relations are extremely important to present US economy, I did not say that China did not get a good deal from this as well and frankly didn't have to its implied which begs the question of why you would bring it up.
I brought it up because you have a habit of leaning enormously towards the PRC in any conversation where the PRC is even tangentially mentioned.
quote:You are over simplyfing a complex diplomatic argument that doesn't abide by your liberalistic principles inregards to state relations and underestimating my ability to use doublethink. However since the Yuan dynasty they have been a part of Zhongguo and since its already established that military conquest in the past makes those territories acceptable parts of your territorial sovereignty, sovereignty that was never given up since then it makes the PRC's military action in 1950's simply that of an internal matter of a nation securing its borders against a hostile anarchic international system.
Yes, well Samprimary deals handily with the nonsense of your accusing someone else of oversimplifying this, particularly since your argument can be boiled down to, "Previously Tibet was bad, and every country conquers anyway so it's OK now."
Here's what I know, Blayne: in order to make its claim of sovereignty over Tibet reality, they had to use military force to do it, and have had since then to continue using military force to uphold it, along with a heaping helping of tyranny. Just because other nations have done it in the past doesn't make it OK. Just because the PRC extorts nations that do business with it into not protesting more loudly doesn't make it OK. Just because Tibet before the conquest was bad doesn't make it OK.
quote:I could bet you ANYTHING that if hypothetically had it been the ROC instead no one would have said a word unless the ROC had sides with the USSR.
I don't know what you're asking. Are you asking that if the PRC were instead the ROC, and the ROC conquered and dominated Tibet for half a century, nobody would complain? Don't be foolish, Blayne, you know that's not true either, even if you don't admit it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:You are over simplyfing a complex diplomatic argument
And you aren't, by trying to compare tibet and china to the american civil war? It's the most convoluted analogue I've heard yet.
quote:And yes the international system does recognize it, any country that has official relations with China has to recognize that there is only One China which includes Tibet and thus a de facto and de jure recognition of China's claims and authority over the region and thus legitimate there is no doubt or grey area over this and inconsequential naysayings of "nah huh" from you won't convince me overwise, find me a diplomat who says otherwise [u]recently[/u] that isn't coloured by Cold War politics of the time.
This is not international recognition. This is China's internal claim. In reality, countries that have official relations with China are under no realistic obligation to recognize China's own internal "One China" argument. A perfect example is the Taiwan issue. Most of china's 'official relations' have made absolutely no recognition of their claim over Taiwan, yet trade and diplomacy continue.
It's a remarkably empty supposition. There is no 'international recognition' justification.
This is silly.
This is factually incorrect and will leave it at this, in Susan Shirks "China Fragile Superpower" she states that the US in gact does recognize the PRC's official claim over Taiwan (de jure) and Tibet (de facto and de jure) but have the Taiwan Relations Act to to prevent the de facto Unification of Taiwan through armed force at this stage.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Oh, I see. And because other nations and empires have done it in the past makes it acceptable in the present?
Nonsense.
Misrepresenation of the argument.
quote:I brought it up because you have a habit of leaning enormously towards the PRC in any conversation where the PRC is even tangentially mentioned.
It doesn't even make sense in context of trade relations, I to Misanthrope said X, you assume I was saying Y when I did not say Y or imply Y, it makes no sense.
quote: Here's what I know, Blayne: in order to make its claim of sovereignty over Tibet reality, they had to use military force to do it, and have had since then to continue using military force to uphold it, along with a heaping helping of tyranny. Just because other nations have done it in the past doesn't make it OK. Just because the PRC extorts nations that do business with it into not protesting more loudly doesn't make it OK. Just because Tibet before the conquest was bad doesn't make it OK.
They use military force the same way Canadians send military patrols into the Northwest passage to maintain our sovereignty, maintaining sovereignty requires the presence of a military force. Tibet was led by a corrupt incompetent landed class who were resisting change that would force them to be equal with the serfs and slaves they oppressed for millennia of course they resisted and of course the PRC had to use military force.
it is the sovereign right and thus by definition OK for a nation to use military force to protect its sovereignty, Tibet was a matter internal to Chinese politics.
It is integral to state-society relations that the state is the singular legitimate owner of force in society.
Tibet before liberation wasn't just bad it was terrible you just don't get it, anything by comparison is better and should point out that there are plenty of Tibetans who don't want independence, for example I can name one female Tibetan PLA army officer.
IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, say it with me. China is not TEH AWESOM. China is just a country. It's people are just people. It's leaders are just people.
What's funny is that you take one of the lamer things about China, the Communist government, and act like it's somehow great. It's not great. Tienanmen Square would never have happened otherwise, broseph. It's a very average, human, and imperfect government. You know, like a lot of others.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: This is silly.
This is factually incorrect and will leave it at this, in Susan Shirks "China Fragile Superpower" she states that the US in gact does recognize the PRC's official claim over Taiwan (de jure) and Tibet (de facto and de jure) but have the Taiwan Relations Act to to prevent the de facto Unification of Taiwan through armed force at this stage. [/QB][/QUOTE]
... that's not a fully correct interpretation of relations between the countries, but even what you are claiming, if it were true, would prove what was said.
I really don't even think you know why?? I mean, you keep using de facto/de jure and stuff like that but it seems kind of like putting a facade over a blatant revisionism without a real understanding of the international scene unmarred by your blatant hard-on for China.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Good job saying unsubstantiated crap asshole.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by steven: Blayne, say it with me. China is not TEH AWESOM. China is just a country. It's people are just people. It's leaders are just people.
What's funny is that you take one of the lamer things about China, the Communist government, and act like it's somehow great. It's not great. Tienanmen Square would never have happened otherwise, broseph. It's a very average, human, and imperfect government. You know, like a lot of others.
*shrug* Your opinion is your opinion but my facts are my facts, your assertions and assumptions are also yours to make and mine to destroy.
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
