FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » China on the move (Page 3)

  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: China on the move
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Unified Mainland China, restored Chinese pride by forcing the Americans to endure the longest retreat they have ever faced in the Korean war, universal sufferage at age 16-18, a secular education system that (post 1978) was free until college where competition between students was encouraged for greatest output of productivity.
Do you have any idea how many Chinese lives the PRC military was willing to piss away in pursuit of this pride you speak of? The PRC reports over one-hundred thousand KIA. Now of course you'll believe the trustworthy state-run media of the PRC that doesn't let its people vote in free elections, but others are free to doubt it. Other sources claim anywhere from five-hundred thousand to a million PRC KIA. The truth is somewhere probably in between, much higher than 100,000. and lower than 1,000,000.

Stack this up against approximately 54,000 KIA, with about 33,000 of them dead in battle in the Korean theater. That's including the dead in battle against North Korean soldiers, not PRC.

This demonstrates the PRC's policy on problems: throw lives at them. The most bitterly amusing part about this, BB, is that had you lived in China at the time (and I'll bet you're lined up at the border asking to be let in, right?), you probably would've been drafted and slaughtered in a human wave attack, or starved to death or died from disease.

quote:
The "plight" of the people is shacky at best, they're lives are far greater and more prosperous now then ever before, and to th average person they see progress, and thats all they need, for as long as the lives of their ancestors was worse and the lives of the children and grand children they know will be better then they will continue to support the CCP which they see as the legitimate government of China.

I'm a realist in these matters, what good is complaining about someone who broke a cup if you don't suggest a means of fixing it? And also, wat good is complaining about someone to lose weight faster when doing so would do more harm then good?

Stop complaining about what a sovereign nation does behind its borders, if the lives of the people are unacceptable then its bad, but if said lives are the best that can be given possible given circumstances and the lives ARE improving then what are you complaining about?

You don't know anything about the oppression of the average Chinese citizen. You excuse it away because they're getting better. Well! That justifies any oppression, doesn't it? So long as it lessens slowly over time? What heartless idiocy. "Quit complaining because they're doing better."

As for your being a realist, nonsense. You're not a realist, you're an apologist. Every oppression the PRC engages in is acceptable because the lives of the "peasants"-you're aware that's a perjorative, right?-are better now than they were fifty years ago, or five thousand. Well! Hell, I guess you'll be voting (if you bother) for the status quo in your next election, right? After all, obviously had you lived one-hundred years ago, your life would be worse, right?

There are people who suggest methods of "fixing" these problems. If they don't live in the PRC, they're ignored. If they live in the PRC, they're shot or imprisoned. But that's OK, because in the Warring States period, things were ever so much worse. Don't pay attention to what happens now, think about what those rotten Japanese did to China fifty years ago! Is there a PRC Propaganda handbook you're reading from?

You're a liar when you say the lives of Chinese people are the best they could possibly be given the circumstances. How can anyone possibly say that? No one can say that with a straight face when contrary ideas about how to improve life are ignored or punished.

But that's what it boils down to, isn't it? "If you're not Chinese and you don't support the People's Republic of China, then shut your mouth. You've got nothing to say I'll listen to."

Well, it was obvious that's what you meant before-that's one reason I was prodding you with Hail China!-but it's a pleasant surprise to see you finally admit it.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eldrad
Member
Member # 8578

 - posted      Profile for Eldrad           Edit/Delete Post 
*points above*

What he said.

Posts: 143 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
The Politburo never ordered anyone without the ability to make Iron make iron, infact many millions of people in China voluntarily formed communes just so they could help industrialized China.

As for people getting arrested, people who openly critize the CCP as in say "They're evil!" would be arrested for causing disorder (which by the way the Nationalists did too), however those that critize a policy but have a solution for it aren't arrested, and this comes with the market oriented reforms, for example, if you critized the CCP for not making enough steel and said it was all their fault, then maybe you'ld get arrested, but if you said that a certain branch is doing enough and here's the reasons why, and here's how I think we can fix it, and OFFER your services to help fix it, then you will be listened too and your opinion (assuming your a proffesional) will be taken into consideration by whatever company or standing commitee you work for.

As for the causualties... whaaa? You could equally blame the GMD for being willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of people as well, people die in war and the people who die were all VALUNTEERS compared to Chiang Kai Shek who drafted them.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Next, they had no choice but to use mass wave attacks in Korea, if you knew anything about the Korean War and the doctrine of the Red Army from Jingxi province to Yan'an, you'ld know that Mao favored flexible geurrila/mobile warfare at all times, not inflexible strategies that cost the lives of your soldiers.

The Korean war was fought on a narrow front, and lacking adequate firepower and air suporiority they're was nothing the PLA could do to win victory with the tools availiable, the wave attacks were desparation in action pure and simple.

And as a matter of fact yes, I'm learning Mandarin and learning programming in computer science and alot of the chinese friends I have assent that they're is a high demand for IT professionals, so I consider it a possibility to move their and work there.

And whats with the Japanese reference? The current Japanese PM while doing many astute political and economic reforms (privetization of the postal service etc) however continues to visit a contraversal shrine and their recent text books down play their warcrimes during wwii, what can one expect if thousands of students decide to protest this?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Also, I resent the propoganda bit, EVERYTHING is propoganda, everything is biased, but even so the ONLY think I read that is PRC sponsered is the people's daily just so I can be informed of the Chinese politico-economic perspective in world events. Everything else is yes indeed, CNN, CBC, forums, books, statistical websites, and encyclopedias.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh! I didn't realize that it was acceptable for governments to arrest citizens for not criticizing their government in an acceptable method.

Tell me something, Blayne Bradley. If you were a Chinese citizen born and raised in China, and you one day decided to, say, hold a peaceful assembly in a public square criticizing the government and offering reforms without being violent, would you expect, oh, I don't know, a freaking tank to drive over you?

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Airguitarist
Member
Member # 2647

 - posted      Profile for Airguitarist           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh! I didn't realize that it was acceptable for governments to arrest citizens for not criticizing their government in an acceptable method.
So a guy in the PRC walks into the government office and says to the receptionist,
"Hi, I'd like to criticize the government"

"Ok, did you fill out form 12.3a?"

"umm...no"

"Well, we can't accept your criticism unless you follow the approved procedure."

"Well, Ok, where can I get form 12.3a?"

"There is no form 12.3a."

"Well, that's stupid. If there is no form 12.3a, how can I criticize the government?"

At this point the guy is promptly arrested for criticizing the government without following the proper procedure.

Posts: 43 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Give me a proven example of when that happened, and thats not critisizing the government, thats the bureaucracy, everyone insults it, yes even in China.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Now you're really splitting hairs Blayne.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yank
Member
Member # 2514

 - posted      Profile for Yank   Email Yank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Don' know much about China, duz ya, Yank? If'n ya did, ya'd know that infanticide is an old old old Chinese method of birth control, which Maoism made illegal along with the comparatively new-fangled fad of footbinding.
Any infanticide which occurred during China's "OneChild" phase was strictly an illegal re-adoption of an ancient rural custom.

Like I said: just cuz PatRobertson and RushLimbaugh sez so, don' make it true.

While Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh make excellent straw men, the very use of straw men itself really ought to be avoided. First of all, I am not an evangelical Christian and have in fact made extremely critical comments on Robertson in another thread contemporary to this one. Second of all, I do not listen to talk radio and have heard Limbaugh's show exactly once. I was unimpressed. I realize that both these guys are squishy, juicy, inviting targets, but you really ought to resist the temptation, because in skewering them you miss the point, which is the real target.

I am well-aware of China's ancient practices re footbinding and infanticide.

quote:
Don' know much about China, duz ya, Yank? If'n ya did, ya'd know that...
This is a classic rhetorical question, and a bad one. First of all, the use of non-standard English in the question implies that:

A) I am not worthy of enough respect to use proper English. Useful, because of course an explicit declaration of disrespect would render the assertion that you're trying to engage in any sort of productive discussion obviously false.

B) I am quite simply too stupid to understand complex English.

C) Use of this sort of language can be construed as friendly; but as your post is hostile, it can be construed as friendly only in an extremely condescending way. Once again, "I'm much smarter than you" is the message; indefensible when bluntly stated, deniable when only implied.

D) You are being flippant, meaning that you assert the right to simply ignore all my arguments because I "don't know much about China."

The second sentence in the quote clearly states that the first was never meant to be answered except in the negative because I don't know X. The fact that my post betrayed no actual ignorance of X is immaterial; again, implication and not argument is the weapon here. The *really* useful implication is that if I *did* have the superior knowledge that you possess, I would not disagree with you. The fact that my argument was on the morality and not the history of these practices is completely ignored.

Add this to the clear attempt to lump me in with the "know-nothing fundies" category with Robertson and Limbaugh, and we have an attack on me, not on my post. This doesn't show much interest in respectful discussion, but in the discrediting of the *people* who disagree with you, rather than their arguments. It's both offensive and pointless; offensive because personal attacks, unless backed up with very solid evidence and not just blithe insinuation, are in very poor taste; pointless because this method will require you to attack every single proponent of an idea rather than the idea itself, a rather impractical proposition. It also begs the question of whether you have any arguments against the idea itself; all told, it will not endear you to the audience I assume you're trying to convince. If the point is to somehow *win* by attacking those that disagree with you until they give up the discussion as a waste of time, you will have confined your "discussion" to those of the other side who have the same motivation and the whole thing will degenerate into a classic Internet forum shouting match, which is something most Hatrackers don't really want to see.

Posts: 1631 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
...A similar demonstration held in 1996 against human rights violations in China ended with many participating human rights activists arrested in an attempt to submit a similar petition to the embassy.
http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/nepal_uighurs

quote:
Moreover, one of China’s foremost experts and commentators on the death penalty, Professor Zhao Bingzhi from People’s University in Beijing, states that 69% of capital crimes defined in China’s Criminal Law are non-violent.(19)

For criminal suspects, the actual process of being taken into police custody is often marked by extreme violence. Chinese police officers are known to carry electric shock batons.(31) Reports are common of people being detained in a violent manner to make the event a public spectacle, with the apparent intention of causing humiliation to the detainee, and presenting a ‘show of force’ to bystanders.

The use of torture and ill-treatment in China as a means to extort confessions and other incriminating evidence from suspects, defendants and witnesses is widely reported. Indeed torture is a theme running through all of the individual cases presented in this document.

Two police officers in Liaoning Province were jailed in December 2003 for one and two years, having tortured two people in separate incidents, both of whom died. One man died a month after he was released from being tied up inside an iron cage under hot lights for around two weeks, and another died after spending a night tied by his hands and feet to the inside of an iron cage.(35)

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA170032004?open&of=ENG-CHN

This list goes on and on and on and on, Blayne Bradley. Torture in the PRC is commonplace. Nearly three-quarters of the crimes punishable by death are non-violent. Being jailed and held incommunicado happens all the time.

And this is Amnesty bloody International here. And yes, I already know what you're going to say. "Yes, well, things were much worse under Chiang. And you're not offering a solution, are you? And besides, the people of China are happy with their government." You'll probably complain about words being put into your mouth, but the fact is that these are the near-entirety of your replies to any criticism of China.

So...I know they were worse fifty years ago. Big deal. The solution is self-evident: stop oppressing the Chinese people. And I submit that it's nearly impossible to know what the Chinese really feel about their government, because the few people you've met are hardly a sample of anything (frankly, I cannot imagine a Chinese national who wasn't satisfied) spending much time around you with your constant praise-singing of China). But speculation is possible, and since we know that the PRC does not permit free elections, a free press, or freedom of religion and since we know that it punishes execution of such things with, well, execution or imprisonment...well, do the math.

But you won't.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Incidentally, aspectre, Human Rights Watch claims that over half of the orphans in the PRC die within a year of being admitted to those institutions.

If'n ya knew dat, mebbe yaz wouldn'ta talked at Yank like dat.

http://www.hrw.org/summaries/s.china963.2.html#US

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AYC
Member
Member # 8859

 - posted      Profile for AYC   Email AYC         Edit/Delete Post 
"they had no choice but to use mass wave attacks in Korea, if you knew anything about the Korean War and the doctrine of the Red Army from Jingxi province to Yan'an, you'ld know that Mao favored flexible geurrila/mobile warfare at all times, not inflexible strategies that cost the lives of your soldiers."

But the PRC didn't send their people in mass wave attacks in Korea. They used those Nationalists that didn't escape to Taiwan and forced them into Korea en masse.

Posts: 17 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Aaaaaah nooooo, where's your souce? The PLA used old Nationalist soldiers yes but only those that joined the PLA after being captured. Most soldiers for the GMD who get captured were given the choice of either going back to Chiang or joining the Red Army/PLA, Mao started this with the first Red Base area in the late 20's and early 30's before the Long March in the Jiangsi Soviet Republic.

And AYC, that still doesn't make sense, your basically saying that you think that the PLA sent unmotivated soldiers in wave attacks? Excuse me, but that doesn't sound true to me. The PLA won the civil war through the strategy of gathering information from the masses, hiding within the masses like fish within water. They concentrated their forces only to eliminate the enemies weakpoints utilizing a combination of guerilla war and mobile warfare with captured Japanese, American and Soviet equipment.

These tactics won the civil war and only came wihtin a hair of driving the Americans back to sea, but only suporior positioning of firepower kept the PLA and its allies at bay. The Mass waves attacks were done in desparation.

Rakeesh why should I bother to keep argueing against you? You don't listen to what I have to say and your responces are increasingly patronizing and asinine.

You simply refuse to awknoledge that the world works in a certain way and that way is not what you want it to be. If the People in China truly wanted the CCP gone they would be gone by now, that is how things work there, it was the peasants that brought them into power and it will be the peasants that can bring them down from power.

The CCP had proof that excellerated attempts to open up and increase the democratization movement can and may very lead to ecnomic and political collapse, they saw this happen in Russia and can you blame them for wanting things to go along slowly and surely?

Sure some things are bad, but some things are good, infact HRW will have MANY little comments about America as well and American policy.

In fact this is supposed to be a thread about recent Chinese weapons purchase and EU relations now we just transfered the topic from the US government thread to here, this is quite the tangent. Simply put China has the RIGHT to modernize its forces, it's doing so for the purposes of National Defence, why should they remain a backwards peasant army if America/Russia/EU keeps getting more deadly toys each decade? They're not racing for it, they buy a design and from their reverse engineer it and improve upon it, developing dual technologies that practically work with the Civilian market and provides a boost to their economy.

Total PRC military spending is only a QUARTER of what American spends and only amounts to 3% of their total economy, 4.3% if you include dual technologies. They're army is getting smaller not bigger and said this a dozen times, what can you possibly be afraid of?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sopwith
Member
Member # 4640

 - posted      Profile for Sopwith   Email Sopwith         Edit/Delete Post 
[ROFL]
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't buy the "if they didn't want them in power they wouldn't be there" argument.

Plenty of Germans didn't want Hitler and the Nazis in power, same in Russia with Stalin and a dozen other less well known examples of people in power despite the will of the people.

Abusive governments have a way of stifling complaints, especially in such a comparatively closed society as China.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cheiros do ender
Member
Member # 8849

 - posted      Profile for cheiros do ender   Email cheiros do ender         Edit/Delete Post 
There seems to be an agenda between a few and a lot on whether China is a match for the US. I think in they are, just not in the same part of the world as America. The likes of Japan and China in the North and Australia in the south seem to have the balance of power in the Pacific. America, on the other hand seems to have little, if any, in the area, though do in the Atlantic. If they wanted to work more efficiently with the nations of the Pacific, they would use Alaska’s proximity to Russia, Japan and China, among other things, rather than just domineering their own ideologies over the rest of the world, threatening attacks on those who disagree with them.

They also have a better transport system for their citizens, in Maglev trains, and will hopefully succeed in helping establish the Silk Road railway across Eurasia. I don’t think they are a weak country; just their policies are aimed more at advancing the whole world rather than just its own interests like America seems to focus on.

Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Umm... China's economy is based alot on international trade, by improving their economy they help other economies, trade with S. Korea is up to 100 billion $ a year.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eldrad
Member
Member # 8578

 - posted      Profile for Eldrad           Edit/Delete Post 
"Total PRC military spending is only a QUARTER of what American spends and only amounts to 3% of their total economy, 4.3% if you include dual technologies. They're army is getting smaller not bigger and said this a dozen times, what can you possibly be afraid of?"

China's military expenditures are a quarter of America's because we police the world. Without our navy, for example, maritime trade would come to a screeching halt; after all, 95% of the world's trade travels by ocean at some point, and our navy ensures that it travels safely. Our army is stationed all over the world, too, with about 12.5% of it in Iraq (about 150,000 members out of 1.2 million). We are everywhere; China is not. The amount of money that they're devoting to their military is not at all justified in the way that ours is.
Cheiros, our navy's pretty influential in the Pacific as well, with bases in Japan and Hawaii, to name two.

[ November 17, 2005, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Eldrad ]

Posts: 143 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Umm, if you mean police the world as in overthrowing any democratically elected government you don't like then sure!

Just because you have a navy does not mean its sulely responsible for international trade, England, France, Germany, Russia and dozens of smaller nations of navies capable of defending their maritime trade in PEACE TIME, wtf are you getting at? That the minute America scraps its navy Pirates will come out of nowhere and hijack trade?

C'mon America only recently started playing Team America World Police Tune, for centuries everysingle maritime power was perfectly capable of doing its own trade and trade prospered just as well then as it is now. (with of course obvious difference in capitol but in comparrison if you ge my drift), wih of course with the lsight exception of England's Navigation Act where all goods can only travel on English ships to English ports... but they fought they were world police too...

If America by your logic is only justified because they're world police what about every other nation with an armed forces? Then there's the fact that the Chinese army is GETTING SMALLER they're just making it more advance and demobilizing troops which all and all should be a good thing.

They had a much larger army in the 60's to defend from a possible American/Indian invasion should the Cold War Heat up, they had a large Army in the 70's should Russia attack, and now with the threat of Russia and Indian receeding their making their Army smaller and more efficient.

Also, you forget to mention nukes, America has thousands of nukes and China at most has around 80 ICBM's and about 1800~ tactical nukes, meant only as a deterrent, why does America need so many nukes? Why did you refuse to sign SALTII?

Then oh yes you cite Iraq..... omg, are you naive may I ask? As far as alot of World Opinion is concerned it was an UNJUSTIFIED invasion of a soveriegn nation, you said their were WMD's well geuss what they were none.

You cite that Saddam is a dangerous dictator, well geuss what so are another 20 nations with petty dictators and most of them were put their after American CIA sponsered coups, and in Iraq... you PUT SUDDAM THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cheiros do ender
Member
Member # 8849

 - posted      Profile for cheiros do ender   Email cheiros do ender         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Cheiros, our navy's pretty influential in the Pacific as well, with bases in Japan and Hawaii, to name two.
Hawaii is part of you own country. It's not exactly an economic powerhouse in the pacific anyway. Your entire east coast is in the Pacific so there was no point citing Hawaii. In Japans case, you may have milaristic sway, but that doesn't mean you hold any economic advantage. IMHO, Japan gains a lot more from the arrangement from you. The US military's station there won't gain them any advantage if a war broke out. Do you think Japan would side with the US over a Pacific nation?

quote:
95% of the world's trade travels by ocean at some point
Exactly, and yet again you boat that the US's military might gives them an advantage tradewise? In WW2, Japan anticipated that the "Greater East Asian Prosperity Sphere" would make for an economic powerhouse, and they were right. The region is the most prosperous in the world. America, on the other hand, depends on other nations debts to them Just To Survive.

China is leading the world landwise with their vested interest in the Eurasian Land Bridge: http://www.eirna.com/html/reports/eurasiae.htm. China has the revolutionary government it needs for the current situation it's in.

Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Sure some things are bad, but some things are good, infact HRW will have MANY little comments about America as well and American policy.
Well, sometimes it's disappointing to be right.

Of course my responses are patronizing, you jackass! In a state that can execute you and bill your family for the bullet that built a new airhole in your head, how can you possibly be stupid enough to say, "If they didn't want that government in place, it wouldn't be there?"

That's "how things work" over there? What nonsense! Why, whatever do you have to say about Chinese government before Glorious Mao came and Roxxored? You've said many times that it was Just Plain Awful and that the people didn't want it...but they had it for thousands of years.

So...what, did they just decide to stop wanting it after thousands of years, finally, in the mid twentieth century? What about before Mao succeeded? Like, five years before? Did the people "want it" then?

You're using the exact same argument that Bean Counter used about Jews and the Holocaust, that really, ultimately, it was the fault of the Jews for being mass-murdered, because ultimately they let it happen.

When that was said, you rightly criticized him for it. But when it comes to the PRC, you throw sense out the window and start fawning like a lovestruck adolescent. You're not arguing at all, Blayne Bradley. Your stance is, "They like it this way," and, "Things were worse a long time ago, so don't complain." That's not an argument. That's a stupid dodge. That's avoiding an argument.

How about explaining even one of the factual links provided in this thread critical of China without saying that things were worse before Mao, and that this is how the People want it?

Which people? The ones who get arrested delivering a peaceful message to their government?

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
The US does have a considerable naval presence in the pacific, but true Japan gains much for the arrangement.

Now Japan is the USA's ally, so its conceivable that they'll side with the US but not likely, they do their best to remain neutral and negotiate it because of the 40+ billion$ of investments in China.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Japan has more money in and with the USA. FYI.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cheiros do ender
Member
Member # 8849

 - posted      Profile for cheiros do ender   Email cheiros do ender         Edit/Delete Post 
Nope, they don't. Where did you pull that from?
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gecko
Member
Member # 8160

 - posted      Profile for Gecko           Edit/Delete Post 
I have read this entire thread.

I would just like to add that Blayne Bradley needs to learn how to spell and use grammar properly.

That is all.

Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Ahh, my facts are a little old. China has about 2% more of Japanese trade than does America, my bad. That's quite a new trend, though, and it's a very small disparity right now. I do have to wonder if you knew that, given your other ludicrous statements about economics.

Given the massive trade imbalance between the USA and PRC, I wonder how anyone can seriously suggest that while the USA depends on debts from other nations "Just To Survive" (very clever capitalization, btw), while the PRC is interested in advancing the whole world, not just the selfish, myopic USA.

What kind of nonsense is that? Whether or not the USA is interested in advancing the world is arguable, but to suggest that the PRC is interested in advancing the whole world before its own interests is frankly stupid.

Also,
quote:
America, on the other hand seems to have little, if any, in the area, though do in the Atlantic. If they wanted to work more efficiently with the nations of the Pacific, they would use Alaska’s proximity to Russia, Japan and China, among other things, rather than just domineering their own ideologies over the rest of the world, threatening attacks on those who disagree with them.
Is just plain stupid. I feel safe being so blunt, because it's so obvious. The USA does not routinely threaten attacks on those who disagree with them. It may have escaped your eagle eye, but lots of people disagree with the USA. Make a list of the people disagreeing with the USA, and then compare that to the number of people the USA is threatening to attack.

I believe there will be at least a slight disparity.

And I wonder what Taiwan or Tibet might think about your claim that the PRC is interested in advancing the whole world before their own interests.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Actually I think Kakeesh is correct in that regard, so its evena better reason for Japan to be neutral and safe gaurd is trade, infact since the 50's Japan has been practicing "omnidirectional diplomacy" where they try to remain neutral in all regards and focus on making money and trade, which made relations with the US very frustrating in the 70's.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
http://www.rieti.go.jp/en/china/05021801.html is the newest information I've been able to find.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
hmm my bad Rakeesh corrected himself, does it include the anime industry as well your figures?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Japan could try and remain neutral. But they'd side with America before they sided with China. Their trade might be worth more with China than America, but siding with China over America will cost them a lot more in the long run.

You also have to add in the BILLIONS in assets they have over here, including property and other businesses, the likes of which they do not have in China. Were they to side with China in any major engagement against us, it won't take long for that to be nationalized. I almost hope they do side against us.

As disastrous as it would be for our economy, it would also be a boon to it.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yank
Member
Member # 2514

 - posted      Profile for Yank   Email Yank         Edit/Delete Post 
Japan and China might get together in some extremely weird alliance of convenience- stranger things have happened in history. But I very much doubt it. Their mutual enmity runs very deep and very old, perhaps too deep and old for a Westerner to really comprehend. If word got out in China that they were even considering such a thing, they'd be facing a popular revolt. Manchuria especially would simply erupt in rage. And you'd better believe they know it.

Japan, for its part, seems to apply its customary fanatical xenophobia with special zeal toward China, the country they borrowed almost all of their classical culture from. What they did to China in World War II made the Nazis look positively warm and fuzzy.

Posts: 1631 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cheiros do ender
Member
Member # 8849

 - posted      Profile for cheiros do ender   Email cheiros do ender         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
What they did to China in World War II made the Nazis look positively warm and fuzzy.
And what about what America did to Japan in WW2? And why, because it's more humane to cause casulaty to millions of Japanese civilians than members of the US military. The US has a long history of acting callously towards those who disagree with them, not in general, but at an economic standpoint. Agent Orange is another good example.

Your reasoning that Japan would take America's side in such an engagement is based on what? Japan is certainly not a nation that has anything to fear from other nations, militarywise. Collectively, they have a technological adge and an unbelievable ability to work together in wartime. They were the first asian nation to beat a European nation in battle, America may have stopped them, finally, after Germany was no longer a problem, but that just goes to show the US can't handle too many enemies at once.

japan has a lot more to gain from economic alliance with China, and Eurasia: http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01/fid_landbridge_map.html .

Lots of countries have assets in the US. But come an impending war between the US and China I think it'd be more likely assets would be drawn from America than more put in.

quote:
I do have to wonder if you knew that, given your other ludicrous statements about economics.
Do you assume my statement regarding Alaska was ludicrous? I wasn't referring to military armament, by the way, but the Eurasian Land Bridge will be built and if America wants better trade with China they would have already stated building it in Alaska and talked to get Canada about brining it to the US border. Japan is well and truly ahead of America in arrangements of conenience with China, long-term not short, and would never find it more convenient to side with an Atlantic nation over a pacific one, if not now, then certainly when it has been built in Japan. They've already invested $/(Yen)10 billion in it, so it won't be long now.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yank
Member
Member # 2514

 - posted      Profile for Yank   Email Yank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And what about what America did to Japan in WW2? And why, because it's more humane to cause casulaty to millions of Japanese civilians than members of the US military. The US has a long history of acting callously towards those who disagree with them, not in general, but at an economic standpoint. Agent Orange is another good example.
Ah, the wonders of moral relativism. The United States also killed civilians, ergo they are no better than the Japanese. There are well over 10 million Chinese in Manchuria who can't disagree with you, because their entire villages were killed, chopped into pieces, and dumped into mass graves. There are similar groups all through Asia, and the unlucky servicemen of Bataan.

War kills civlians. No getting around that. But the devil is in the details. When we conquered and occupied Japan and Germany, it was possibly the most benign and compassionate occupation in human history. We killed out of necessity. The Japanese killed for more power, and because they did not regard gaijin as human.

I suppose we could have avoided bombing Japan and invaded them instead; but they were counting on the fact that our soldiers wouldn't have the stomach to kill the women and children they were planning to line up on the beaches with Medieval polearms. And they would have fought to the last soul alive had the Emperor so commanded. Don't underestimate the insanity of a nihilistic culture. We may have lost a lot of men in the invasion, but it would have been nothing compared to the number of children and elderly that could have died still gripping their spears and katana. I suppose it could have been different, but we'll never know; it is, as they say, history. Easy to say they should have done differently; you will never, ever, as long as you live be called to account for the consequences of that choice, because you can't make it. It's what makes second-guessing history so very fun.

Posts: 1631 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cheiros do ender
Member
Member # 8849

 - posted      Profile for cheiros do ender   Email cheiros do ender         Edit/Delete Post 
Mhmm. I agree it was neccessary, but my point is I could say the exact same thing about your comment: "What they did to China in World War II made the Nazis look positively warm and fuzzy."
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yank
Member
Member # 2514

 - posted      Profile for Yank   Email Yank         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, the hyperbole there was perhaps a bit excessive; I apologize.

It does annoy me a bit that in many history classes Japanese atrocities are swept under the rug and the focus is on Hitler, everyone's favorite demon (for good reason, yes, but still) the bombing of Hiroshima, and the internment camps (which were a very sad black mark on our history, but in no way comparable to actual concentration camps). Soviet retribution against the citizens of East Germany also gets little to no coverage, as does French government collusion with the Nazis. I am often sad also that so many seem not to remember the heroic sacrifices of the Berlin Airlift and the unprecedented compassion of the Marshall plan. Even among the ashes of the worst war in human history there was hope and humanity.

I suppose history without an agenda is an impossible dream, but it won't stop me from grumbling. [Smile]

Posts: 1631 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Just to let you know Japanese only considered people who surrendered as less then human and dishonerable.

They treated foreign nationals pretty equally well, they even helped save the lives of thousands of jews by issueing passports to Jewish people fleeing Germany.

Umm.... the Marschall Plan was meant to prevent Socialist rebellions in Western Europe, not nessasarily out of compassion.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Airguitarist
Member
Member # 2647

 - posted      Profile for Airguitarist           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Just to let you know Japanese only considered people who surrendered as less then human and dishonerable.
So they expected the millions of untrained, mostly unarmed civilians in Manchuria to stand and fight against the well armed and organized Japanese military?

It's a catch-22, they either fight a hopeless battle and die, or surender and be executed.

Posts: 43 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yank
Member
Member # 2514

 - posted      Profile for Yank   Email Yank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
They treated foreign nationals pretty equally well, they even helped save the lives of thousands of jews by issueing passports to Jewish people fleeing Germany.
It was a single Japanese diplomat who was responsible for this, completely unsanctioned by his government. He was a very noble soul, but, as I recall, paid a heavy price for his out-of-order action.

The word gaijin, still in common use in Japan, means "Foreign Devil" although it is politely rarely translated as such. It is interesting to note that the ethnic Japanese are not by any means native to Japan. That distinction goes to the Ainu, who they have almost entirely wiped out, and to the Okinawans, who invented the most famous karate in order to effectively resist their oppressors. The iconic nunchaku are actually a common farm tool used for threshing grain.

In the mythology of state Shinto, they were the descendents of the Sun Godess herself, Ameterasu, and therefore inherently superior to all other races. Outsiders were either slaves (Filipino "comfort girls"), lab animals (the Nazis by no means had a corner on this one), tools (the portugeuse whose technologies they adapted, then crucified en masse, something they found a wonderfully and hilariously ironic thing to do to Christians), subjugated people without rights (the Ainu and the Okinawans), or simply convenient, sadistic entertainment (Chinese babies- I won't relate any of these stories; I don't want anyone getting nightmares).

It's certainly true that they regarded surrenderees as lower than low, but all this meant is that you had a choice between a quick death and a nice slow one.

I love Japanese food, am fascinated by their religion, am in awe of their martial accomplishments, and find their intelligence and ability to refine borrowed concepts inspiring. There is a great deal to admire about ancient, medieval, and modern Japan and their culture. Their attitudes toward outsiders are decidedly not among them.

Posts: 1631 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yank
Member
Member # 2514

 - posted      Profile for Yank   Email Yank         Edit/Delete Post 
This is a good link for Japanese wartime atrocities, and also illustrates Chinese feelings toward Japan. Not for the weak of stomach, though.

Most of my understanding of Chinese attitudes toward Japan has come from speaking with Chinese immigrants, who are invariably fascinating people.

Posts: 1631 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cheiros do ender
Member
Member # 8849

 - posted      Profile for cheiros do ender   Email cheiros do ender         Edit/Delete Post 
Can someone please explain to me how this massive Chinese population overload occured in the first place? IMHO, this is by the far the most important issue in Chinese politics today, not anything to do with the government.

I can't see how preventing parents from having more than one baby is helping though. What has resulted, in the inevitable considering Chinese custom of wanting sons more than daughters, regarding the orphans can only compound the problem as poverty (ie the exorbitant number of orphans) breeds over-population and over-population breeds poverty.

Sure we have genetically mdified food now so we should soon be able to wipe out world povery with that, but is that really good enough?

Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yank
Member
Member # 2514

 - posted      Profile for Yank   Email Yank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Can someone please explain to me how this massive Chinese population overload occured in the first place? IMHO, this is by the far the most important issue in Chinese politics today, not anything to do with the government.
In traditional Chinese culture, children, *especially* sons-well, *only* sons, really-were the most valuable asset you can have. They bring honor to the family, carry on the family name, bring in dowries, and support their parents in their old age. Daughers, on the other hand, become part of the family they marry into, and their dowries are quite expensive.

Historically, this meant that families that were relatively well off would have children until they had at least a handful of sons (mortality rates being what they were) and write the daughters off as an expensive. Poor families that could not afford a dowry often practiced infanticide to avoid paying a dowry, although this was not as much a problem as a)it was at a lower rate than seen in China today and b)wars and their overall inferior resistance to famine, disease and hardship killed off a lot of the excess males.

All this meant that people tended to have a lot of children. Children are the ultimate blessing in classic Chinese culture. Also, the technologically advanced and relatively peaceful Chinese empire had a much lower overall mortality rate than almost anywhere else in the world. This makes for a lot of people.

Chinese families now tend to consist of two parents and a single male child, usually referred to as "The Little Emperor", as the traditional attention given children in Chinese culture ends up focused on a single individual. The male-female gap is becoming huge; no one knows exactly what the consequences of this will be, but almost no one thinks they will be good.

The Chinese are nothing if not adaptable, which is why they've survived as a distinct culture for so many thousands of years. Given a democratic government I don't doubt they'd find their own solution to the problem. Japan has; so has Taiwan. People will voluntarily keep their birthrates low when it seems beneficial to do so; witness Western Europe, Japan, and, increasingly, the United States.

Given modern farming and housing technologies, China's "population crisis" wouldn't be nearly so dire. Unfortunately, Communism doesn't much lend itself to modern conveniences except in matters military; most of the farming is still done by peasants (Yes, they still call them that, and that's exactly what they are. Some are more equal than others.) working knee-deep in rice paddies. And even the desert and mountainous regions can be settled given sufficient determination. Ever been to Vegas? Switzerland?

My point is that a good chunk if not most of the problem is Communism's inability as a system to efficiently support a population of any size, large or small. The Chinese have mitigated this somewhat by allowing limited free enterprise, but are still not a model of efficiency. Japan manages with a population geometrically more dense, and doesn't have growth problems. So does England, their immigration population sometimes excepted.

Also, the aforementioned gender gap will slow population growth even further for obvious reasons.

I simply take issue with any person or group that has the kind of power of their fellow men that the Chinese government does. It will inevitably be abused, and I believe the history of the United States has shown that the *people* know better than self-appointed wisemen. Let the Chinese people make their own reproductive choices. I have a lot more faith in them than some dictatorial group that claims to know best.

Yes, this will mean they will sometimes make poor choices, and this is the very *heart* of the argument. You can have freedom, which will have to include the freedom to make the *wrong* choice if it's to be in any way meaningful, or you can have security, and make sure people don't make any bad choices. You can't have either without sacrificing some of the other. And you can't have an absolute of either; anarchy will quickly create tyrants and won't offer any meaningful choices after a very short while; tryanny will quickly destroy security as power *will* be abused. It is like Winston Churchhill's conundrum:

"Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonor. They chose dishonor.

They will have war."
-Munich Conference, 1938

Communists see the choice between control and injustice; they choose control and,inevitably, shall have injustice.

I reject Communism so vehemently because it attempts to make a perfect world, the "Radiant Future," and in doing so ignores the most basic facts about human nature. The U.S. government is not the oldest in the world by any fluke, but because the founders planned it around human ambition, greed, corruption, selfishness, tribalism, cruelty, and powerlust. They were the original cynical idealists; they knew that any system that did not take these basic facts into account was doomed to fail. A democratic, regulated-capitalist system *assumes* that many people will be greedy and selfish and power-hungry, it is *based around* this eternal and unchanging fact.

Communism, on the other hand, assumes that people will be good and sharing and leaders responsible and compassionate; that the state will, in the words of Marx, "wither away."

This is stupid.

Posts: 1631 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yank
Member
Member # 2514

 - posted      Profile for Yank   Email Yank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I can't see how preventing parents from having more than one baby is helping though. What has resulted, in the inevitable considering Chinese custom of wanting sons more than daughters, regarding the orphans can only compound the problem as poverty (ie the exorbitant number of orphans) breeds over-population and over-population breeds poverty.

There is more than enough demand in the Western world for adoptions to take care of these orphans, but the Chinese government is willing to give them only to wealthy families able to make a very large cash donation.
Posts: 1631 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
India also choose to let its peopel do as they wish, and they're poverty problems are several times worse then China's and had enjoyed a far greater time of relative stability.

Also China has more then just free enterprise, 80% of their 1 MIllion villages have direct elections for their mayors, the PRC Government are more then the Stalinist-Kruschevist-bureaucrats in the USSR they're are idealists still in their government, if it wasn't so why would they allow the population most known for popular rebellions to have direct say in their local affairs?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yank
Member
Member # 2514

 - posted      Profile for Yank   Email Yank         Edit/Delete Post 
You place freedom at far too cheap a price for my taste, Blayne, and I think this is the heart of the thing. I would be willing to die for freedom; Washington, Ghandi, and millions of soldiers have felt the same way. You seem willing to sell it for a money and some population control. You also seem to persist in romanticizing the Party Elite in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Why do they allow villages to self-govern? Because they don't care about these villages. Because the decisions these "mayors" make don't matter, and they have no say in anything beyond their village. Because, in the end, they don't have anything the "more equal" class wants. As long as the villages produce, they don't care. There will be no revolt from some isolated village, and they know it. If there is, they will crush it.

Idealists? Idealists of what? Just about every idealist in China's elite with the courage to listen to and act on the conscience I believe every human being is born with long ago cost his family the price of a bullet. Perhaps there are idealists, but they are cowards. Or blind and deaf. But I doubt it.

The the Chinese have lasted longer than the Soviet Union because they are less ideologically rigid, more ruthlessly efficient at stifling dissent, and have twisted the noble traditions of Confucius to their own ends while the Soviets had to deal with Russian individualism. They also avoided the focused hostility of a superpower over a fifty-year period. But don't think for a moment it is because they are more "idealistic". Or any less evil.

While you sell freedom cheaply, you seem to be willing to pay a heavy price for "stability" and "population control." All those millions of lives in the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward, the students in Tianemen square, the dissidents, the tears of every child who lost a father, every wife who lost a husband and then paid for the bloody bullet; just how large a sacrifice are you willing to lay at the idol of the great gods Stability and Population Control? How wide and deep must the river of blood that feeds this so-called utopia be?

I have said many times that the Goddess of Liberty requires her own blood sacrifice. But at least it is made by the willing. The Party snatches its unwilling victims up without pity, without mercy, without remorse, and without opposition.

How much blood will it take to wash your illusions of an "idealistic" Chinese government away?

[ November 17, 2005, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: Yank ]

Posts: 1631 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

I don’t think they are a weak country; just their policies are aimed more at advancing the whole world rather than just its own interests like America seems to focus on.

*blink* You know, that's a description of China I almost never hear, even from supporters of the regime: that China's interest is in advancing the whole world. Blayne just spent a thread arguing that China had almost no interest in the outside world at all.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Geuss what, Mao, Zhou Enlai, Zhu De, Chun Yi, and many other CCP leaders during the civil war fought for that same freedom as well, they fought for what they hoped would become a world of equality, they fought to overthrow the incompetant, corrupt, and ultimately impotent GMD Regime. Millions of Soldiers in the Chinese Red Army/People's Liberation Army had also fought for that same freedom, fought to rid China of Japan, fought later to rid China of the GMD, geuss what? Millions of GMD POW's joined and swelled the ranks of the PLA because they had hoped to fight for those same ideals, when Beijing surrendered hundreds of thousands went into the streets to cheer the PLA and Mao Zedong.

A British steam tramp captain upon coming into a harbour liberated by the PLA was stunned at how they're wasn't any "sqeeze" by the port authorities and how none of the PLA officers would accept and bribes, not even a cigarette.

The people were glad that with the Red victory came an end to the oppression by the GMD and were stunned and glad how the CCP cadres seemed to live simply, took no bribes and governered by hardwork and example.

Those 800,000 villages just also happen to make up the bulk of China's rural populace, and if you remembered your history on the Chinese civil war it was the rural populace the masses of peasants from the country side that brought the CCP into power and it is their collective will that triumpthed against against the numbers and suporior american weaponry in both the Civil War and in the Korean War.

You say that those villages don't mean anything or do anything important, I think that is both blindness and ignorance on your part, those villages are having an unprecended freedom that never existed throughout the history of China. Its a symbol for grass roots people's democracy that Mao had always strived for but economic circumstances prevented.

Your too obseesed with the idea of liberalistic freedoms that you think your society represents, nations have always grown on the expense of others, America grew at the expense of the Natives, Russia not on the cossacks and principalities, Rome upon the conquest of other people's just for a bloody buffer zone.

But America today is strong, Russia gave the pan-slavic peoples a unified culture for the first time and the Roman legacy gave birth to western civilization.

More to come later.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sopwith
Member
Member # 4640

 - posted      Profile for Sopwith   Email Sopwith         Edit/Delete Post 
Folks, I think Blayne's ready to drink the Kool-Aid. [Wink]
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

Geuss what, Mao, Zhou Enlai, Zhu De, Chun Yi, and many other CCP leaders during the civil war fought for that same freedom as well, they fought for what they hoped would become a world of equality...

Blayne, the word you're looking for here is "irony."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Blayne,

quote:
Geuss what, Mao, Zhou Enlai, Zhu De, Chun Yi, and many other CCP leaders during the civil war fought for that same freedom as well, they fought for what they hoped would become a world of equality, they fought to overthrow the incompetant, corrupt, and ultimately impotent GMD Regime.

Italicization mine

If that was their goal, Blayne, they utterly failed. You have said yourself that the things that others decry in the PRC's brief history, such as the "Great Leap Forward", the "Cultural Revolution", and other "incidents", shall we call them, were accidental, unintentional, or affected by natural disasters.

It takes enormous incompetence and or corruption to fail so utterly. It's fun to blame things on the weather and nature, but the simple fact of the matter is that if Mao overthrew the previous government in hopes of installing one which was efficient, effective, and able to look after the welfare of its own people, then he failed. How many millions have died in failed efforts by Maoist governments to improve things, Blayne? How many? What's the magic number, for you, to admit that they screwed the pooch bigtime? Apparently, hitting seven digit figures isn't good enough for you. How many? A billion? A gazillion? Do we need to go into scientific notation?

quote:
The people were glad that with the Red victory came an end to the oppression by the GMD and were stunned and glad how the CCP cadres seemed to live simply, took no bribes and governered by hardwork and example.
That's nice. You're relying on how people felt then to excuse away PRC atrocities and oppression. To explain how people feel today, well, you've got basically got three responses. One, your friends on the Internet. This is ridiculous for several reasons. Internet friends always tell the truth about everything, right? Internet friends don't represent a picture of rural life you're so blithely describing. The PRC monitors the freaking Internet, and you KNOW it. Two, you know a few Chinese people where you live now. Obviously that's a representative sample of...um...oh, yeah. That's a representative sample of the people from China you've made friends with.

And your last ridiculous reason is that if they didn't really love their government, well, hey! They'd overthrow it. I mean, obviously oppressive regimes don't last if the people don't want them, right? Who doesn't know that? If the people don't want it, they get rid of it, everytime, right? Well, I guess African slaves in the USA, Soviets, American Indians, old Roman slaves, Aborigines, oh, and billions of Chinese throughout freaking history didn't get that bloody memo, did they?

Claiming that ten- or twenty-to-one deaths in the Korean War was a victory for China is stupid. Well, not exactly. If you don't give a damn about protecting individual human lives, if you just don't care about spending them sparingly, if you worry about spilling blood in gallons like that, then it's stupid. If those sorts of things aren't on your agenda, though, then it's not so stupid, is it?

quote:
Your too obseesed with the idea of liberalistic freedoms that you think your society represents, nations have always grown on the expense of others, America grew at the expense of the Natives, Russia not on the cossacks and principalities, Rome upon the conquest of other people's just for a bloody buffer zone.
Which freedoms are those? The right to peaceful assembly? The right to vote secretly in public, protected elections? The right to worship as one pleases? The right to criticize one's government openly without fear of imprisonment? The right to move about at will throughout one's country?

quote:
But America today is strong, Russia gave the pan-slavic peoples a unified culture for the first time and the Roman legacy gave birth to western civilization.
What are you smoking? America today is strong because it rolled over and effectively destroyed the peoples whose land it stole. Russia didn't give pan-Slavic peoples a unified culture, it wiped out their pre-existing cultures (for all intents and purposes today), and replaced them with its own. The Roman legacy did the same. These were bad things.

See, most civilized people understand that the ends do not justify the means. Just because things turn out OK, doesn't mean that the method of doing those things was acceptable. Heck, if we'd left Africans in Africa, arguably they'd be groaning under constant oppression and civil warfare and brutality there today, instead of enjoying a much higher standard of living and level of freedom in America. So, by your reasoning, slavery equals acceptable! Yay!

I can't wait to here more. Hail China!

(Be a good Maoist. Report me [Smile] )

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2