|
On February 03 2010 08:36 fox[tail] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 08:08 .risingdragoon wrote:
Look, I know where you're going with that. I suggested BBC to laymen cus on average their reporting still contains traces of alternate perspectives, some actual interviewing at the source and with non-partial concerned, and a sense of skepticism like they've not made up their own minds themselves.
Yes they may spend 5 min at the end of a 45 min report on that, but it's still kinda sorta there, instead of this bullshit secret handshake thing where everyone in north american news is in on but nobody's directly verbalizing anything The sad fact is that they only do that to look like they are non-bias when in fact the way they present the news gives you the illusion that you can make up your mind about the matter without their influence, when in fact they give you only one option. The BBC is funded by the people, which means they have to listen to their government, they only care about being PC and 90% of the time report everything from a leftist angle, and we all know that the BBC is extremely biased towards china and uses every chance they get to connect them with negative things
haha well then it must be their news readers' docile british accent to my american ears
I don't doubt you though, personally I feel it's a matter of people on all levels of the news industry being semi-conspicuously complicit, rather than simple pressure from top down.
|
On February 03 2010 07:24 pioneer8 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 04:21 Dracid wrote:
pioneer8:
Okay. Explain why that's an essential freedom. I'm a very big fan of freedom of speech, but I do not see it as an essential aspect of life, because it's something I take for granted most of the time. Freedom of speech also is not, and should not, be absolute. You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded area, and for good reason. China takes it quite a few steps beyond that, but it's not like it would affect your life in any significant capacity.
As for internet sites: Use a VPN. Chinese people who care enough to access restricted internet content can do so.
Also, please stop explaining what life is like in China, because you really have no idea. People aren't jailed and tortured for making minor criticisms of the government, but it's clear I'm not going to convince you otherwise. You're wrong, and you have nothing to back up your claims, so I don't even know why I'm responding to you. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4326341.stm"For the past 16 years, she and a few others who lost sons and daughters during the 1989 Tiananmen massacre have been calling on the government to apologise. But in response, these women, known as the Tiananmen Mothers, have faced imprisonment, house-arrest, phone-tapping and constant surveillance." I believe that counts as "minor criticism". There are hundreds of other mainstream articles you can pull up yourself. If you are so sheltered and naive as to believe that the Chinese government doesn't do these things, im saddened for you. You are suggesting that the burden of proof is on me, while the mass tortures and imprisonments, heavy persecution of even the mildest dissidents, forced labor camps, secret arrests, police state control grid, etc etc do not exist, while in reality, it has been common knowledge for many years. On your other point you ask why freedom of speech is an "essential" freedom. You do not understand the term rights and freedom and you should learn more about it. Freedom, ie, political rights, are laws that are designed to protect you from government. There's the philisophical idea of inalienable god given rights that is the foundation of these laws. Your understanding of both these topics is lacking, though you attempt to pompously direct me. Your denial about the most obvious things reveals how sheltered you actually are and is just mind boggling...
I'm still looking for the part where China does something that doesn't happen in the USA. The Patriot Act makes every one of these things legal in the USA as well, you know. Sedition is considered a matter of national security in China. Same as how the USA considers it OK to tap phones, surveillance people, and arrest them on suspicions of national security risk.
|
Right now, I can't be arsed reading through everybody's arguments since it's late. So, sorry about that.
But here's what I think, in short. The US shouldn't bump their nose into every country's business in the world - it's not their job/duty, even if it seems right. In addition, the US aren't very nice either. They have dark sides as well, both in the past and in the present, you can't deny that fact (Hell, which country does not have that?). They're just more "sneaky" than China, if you know what I mean. There are actually quite a lot of similarities between China and US.
Just an unneccesary action by Obama if he meets with DL. Let China mind their own political business, and the US likewise.
|
United States43902 Posts
On February 02 2010 22:44 Smorrie wrote:
China warns EVERYONE to not meet with Dalai Lama. Sarkozi did it anyway. The Dutch prime-minister got the same warning, they picked the middle way and sent the minister of foreign affairs to meet with him instead. Etc etc.
Random drama. Most likely Obama will meet with him anyway, China will make some weird statement about it and life continues.
Blair refused to meet the Dalai Lama in his official capacity as Prime Minister but suggested the Dalai Lama meet with the Archbishop of Canterbury (I think :S) for completely innocent reasons and just happened to drop by in his role as a religious private citizen.
|
United States43902 Posts
On February 03 2010 08:36 fox[tail] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 08:08 .risingdragoon wrote:
Look, I know where you're going with that. I suggested BBC to laymen cus on average their reporting still contains traces of alternate perspectives, some actual interviewing at the source and with non-partial concerned, and a sense of skepticism like they've not made up their own minds themselves.
Yes they may spend 5 min at the end of a 45 min report on that, but it's still kinda sorta there, instead of this bullshit secret handshake thing where everyone in north american news is in on but nobody's directly verbalizing anything The sad fact is that they only do that to look like they are non-bias when in fact the way they present the news gives you the illusion that you can make up your mind about the matter without their influence, when in fact they give you only one option. The BBC is funded by the people, which means they have to listen to their government, they only care about being PC and 90% of the time report everything from a leftist angle, and we all know that the BBC is extremely biased towards china and uses every chance they get to connect them with negative things
I can't think of a nicer way to say this than "you don't know shit". So here goes. You don't know shit about shit. Yes, the BBC is publicly funded. However it does not recieve money from the Government, nor is it affiliated with the Government, nor are BBC appointments made by the Government nor does it come under the influence of the Government. The BBC was given the legal right to raise taxes through the license fee. That is a fee it charges people for the ownership of a television (one fee per household). The Government cannot adjust the fee and while it could in theory reverse the law in question that would mean the destruction of one of the most important British institutions. If they actually made it to the next election after suggesting such an idea they'd be voted out by such a huge majority it'd be the destruction of the political party stupid enough to try it.
The BBC is above the law in British politics. The Government cannot touch its funding and if the Government decided to go head to head against the BBC they'd find everyone in Britain knowing about it very quickly. The BBC is accountable only to its own internal watchdogs (which the Government also has no power over) which ensure balance, independence and accountable spending of public money.
I don't know what corrupt shit goes on in your country but when the British make an independent public media body they don't make it the tool of whichever politician is in power at the time.
For reference, a few years ago there was a leak about how Blair was making shit up in his Iraq dossier. The Gov leaked the name of the whistleblower, Dr David Kelly, who came under tremendous personal and public pressure and ended up committing suicide. The Government tried to gag everyone and the BBC refused.
|
|
|
On February 02 2010 21:09 love1another wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 20:33 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On February 02 2010 20:28 Chen wrote:
The political reason is that by meeting with the Dalai Llama the US officially recognizes them and its seen as a show of support for that nation, which undermines the Chinese position.
Can you imagine the outrage if the Chinese or Russian representatives met with Al Qaeda to broker a "peace"? extreme example obviously but that's partly what the Chinese government thinks. Al Qaeda -> 9/11, suicide bombs, extreme messages of murder, genocide etc Tibet/DL -> peaceful protests, extreme messages of independence, freedom and religious expression =same? I'd argue not. The tibetan independence movement is hardly peaceful. There's a shit-ton of anti-Han violence in Tibet, and the most recent military crackdown was the result of massive rioting, on the part of the tibetans. Of course, you don't hear about Beijing or Shanghai getting planes flown into them by the Tibetans, but I think you should acknowledge that the current situation in Tibet is a lot more complicated than "give peaceful monks their independence, yo." This article gives a somewhat more nuanced look at what's going down... The comparison to hypothetically rebellious Inuits in Alaska would probably a more apt analogy. If you have a workable solution, however, to this issue I'm sure everybody would like to hear it!
Well you could also point out that the llama and his people lived like kings over there and most of the Tibetan people lived like a surf. Ofc that was their choice :p either way china was a jerk for "liberating the Tibetan people" if they didn't want it they could always do it themselves it's not like it's some big brother that suppresses information and cracks down on people on wait...
|
On February 02 2010 20:33 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 20:28 Chen wrote:
The political reason is that by meeting with the Dalai Llama the US officially recognizes them and its seen as a show of support for that nation, which undermines the Chinese position.
Can you imagine the outrage if the Chinese or Russian representatives met with Al Qaeda to broker a "peace"? extreme example obviously but that's partly what the Chinese government thinks. Al Qaeda -> 9/11, suicide bombs, extreme messages of murder, genocide etc Tibet/DL -> peaceful protests, extreme messages of independence, freedom and religious expression =same? I'd argue not.
If by "peaceful protests" you mean acts of hatred towards Han Chinese in the tibetan area, then I would say you have your facts straight.
It's funny that CNN and most other news sites showed Nepalese police beating buddhist monks as an example of "shows of force from the Chinese military." The pictures with actual Chinese police only show them defending themselves against thrown rocks, and in some cases, gunfire.
|
On February 03 2010 10:45 synapse wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 20:33 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On February 02 2010 20:28 Chen wrote:
The political reason is that by meeting with the Dalai Llama the US officially recognizes them and its seen as a show of support for that nation, which undermines the Chinese position.
Can you imagine the outrage if the Chinese or Russian representatives met with Al Qaeda to broker a "peace"? extreme example obviously but that's partly what the Chinese government thinks. Al Qaeda -> 9/11, suicide bombs, extreme messages of murder, genocide etc Tibet/DL -> peaceful protests, extreme messages of independence, freedom and religious expression =same? I'd argue not. If by "peaceful protests" you mean acts of hatred towards Han Chinese in the tibetan area, then I would say you have your facts straight. It's funny that CNN and most other news sites showed Nepalese police beating buddhist monks as an example of "shows of force from the Chinese military." The pictures with actual Chinese police only show them defending themselves against thrown rocks, and in some cases, gunfire.
Yeah but china is never gonna live down in the west the Tiananmen Square protests which were peaceful for the vast majority of it until the Chinese military came in and start basically shooting up the place  people don't forget that as a strong impression of what china is like to person freedoms.
|
On February 03 2010 09:16 StorkHwaiting wrote:
You're missing the part where the USA defaulting on trillions of debt would make their credit be absolutely worthless on the int'l market, thus devaluing US currency by a ridiculous amount.
That or nobody does anything at all and therefore the int'l financial community is seen as fraudulent which would cause the collapse of international trade as everyone realizes they don't have to play by the rules.
If CHina decides to stop manufacturing US goods, they're well within their sovereign rights to do so. Defaulting on trillions in loans is not a matter of sovereignty, it's a matter of credibility. So, the USA would be screwed pretty hard.
That already happens. When a government is thrown out and a new governement is brought in, the new government claims no liability to the previous government's debt.
|
On February 03 2010 10:49 Virtue wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 10:45 synapse wrote:On February 02 2010 20:33 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On February 02 2010 20:28 Chen wrote:
The political reason is that by meeting with the Dalai Llama the US officially recognizes them and its seen as a show of support for that nation, which undermines the Chinese position.
Can you imagine the outrage if the Chinese or Russian representatives met with Al Qaeda to broker a "peace"? extreme example obviously but that's partly what the Chinese government thinks. Al Qaeda -> 9/11, suicide bombs, extreme messages of murder, genocide etc Tibet/DL -> peaceful protests, extreme messages of independence, freedom and religious expression =same? I'd argue not. If by "peaceful protests" you mean acts of hatred towards Han Chinese in the tibetan area, then I would say you have your facts straight. It's funny that CNN and most other news sites showed Nepalese police beating buddhist monks as an example of "shows of force from the Chinese military." The pictures with actual Chinese police only show them defending themselves against thrown rocks, and in some cases, gunfire. Yeah but china is never gonna live down in the west the Tiananmen Square protests which were peaceful for the vast majority of it until the Chinese military came in and start basically shooting up the place people don't forget that as a strong impression of what china is like to person freedoms.
That's complete bullshit btw. My cousin-in-law was actually in it. He told me like 1/4 of the people there were serious idealistic marchers. The rest were opportunistic power-grabbing hooligans, came out for a show and up to no good.
|
Wait...
What if Obama is walking along and sees DL. is he allowed to give him the *head nod* "hey man" look?
seriously, im Chinese living in Canada. I just feel like this shit is getting out of handdd
|
On February 03 2010 10:57 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 09:16 StorkHwaiting wrote:
You're missing the part where the USA defaulting on trillions of debt would make their credit be absolutely worthless on the int'l market, thus devaluing US currency by a ridiculous amount.
That or nobody does anything at all and therefore the int'l financial community is seen as fraudulent which would cause the collapse of international trade as everyone realizes they don't have to play by the rules.
If CHina decides to stop manufacturing US goods, they're well within their sovereign rights to do so. Defaulting on trillions in loans is not a matter of sovereignty, it's a matter of credibility. So, the USA would be screwed pretty hard. That already happens. When a government is thrown out and a new governement is brought in, the new government claims no liability to the previous government's debt.
Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but are you saying the USA getting their gov't thrown out and having to put in a totally new one would not be a serious consequence of not paying their debts? o_0
|
On February 03 2010 11:24 Mykill wrote:
Wait...
What if Obama is walking along and sees DL. is he allowed to give him the *head nod* "hey man" look?
seriously, im Chinese living in Canada. I just feel like this shit is getting out of handdd
Massive difference between saying hi to someone and having an official meeting of heads of state. Obama could call up Putin and chat about Jersey Shore and nobody would care. It's much different when it's a publicized and official meeting, which I think is what Obama intends to do.
|
On February 03 2010 11:26 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 11:24 Mykill wrote:
Wait...
What if Obama is walking along and sees DL. is he allowed to give him the *head nod* "hey man" look?
seriously, im Chinese living in Canada. I just feel like this shit is getting out of handdd Massive difference between saying hi to someone and having an official meeting of heads of state. Obama could call up Putin and chat about Jersey Shore and nobody would care. It's much different when it's a publicized and official meeting, which I think is what Obama intends to do.
hmmm maybe 
but seriously.
what do they do at these "official" meetings?
talk about fighting China? i highly doubt they'll plot something vs China...
this shit is just blown out of proportion
|
On February 03 2010 03:38 igotmyown wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_under_Japanese_ruleShow nested quote +There were some modernization efforts, however, and by the late 19th century, Seoul became the first city in East Asia to have electricity, trolley cars, water, telephone and telegraph systems all at the same time.[26] But Korea remained a largely backward agricultural economy at the turn of the century.[27] "Japan's initial colonial policy was to increase agricultural production in Korea to meet Japan's growing need for rice. Japan had also begun to build large-scale industries in Korea in the 1930s as part of the empire-wide program of economic self-sufficiency and war preparation." Here's a similar situation where the occupier invests infrastructure, and of course the biased occupiees probably didn't know what was good for them. http://en.allexperts.com/e/k/ko/korea_under_japanese_rule.htmShow nested quote +The average life expectancy rose from 26 years to 42 years (1945) and the population increased two-fold, despite widespread economic poverty and malnutrition caused by the annual confiscation of Korean rice by Japanese landlords.
How dare you justify the brutal occupation by any means. This is a classical case of an orientalist disease that Japan was infected by after coming into contact with the imperialists, US. Japan could and should have helped Korea but not by means of aggressive occupation and imperial rule, forcing them to use their language, the rape and pillage of their woman and general oppression of an entire peoples, they were already oppressed under their old regime, the only difference is that the new regime was just smarter, more powerful and less religious. (Though State Shintoism began vehemently kicking into play here I doubt anyone actually believed that rubbish deep down inside)
Korea was a piece of shit excuse of a country run by corrupt officials based off Buddhist and Confucian principles, that was obvious. The fault of that really goes back a few millennia due to Korea under heavy geographical from China. What's most ironic about it all is that Korea was in the exact situation that Japan was in back around 1880 but this time it was ~20 years later in 1900-1912. A great fleet showing the Japanese people how backward they were to the West by the US, Japan did the *exact* same thing to Korea.
The Japanese thought it was their right being the strongest nation in Asia at the time to 'help' their brother. That's all well and good depending on where one defines 'help'. You don't help your brother get back on his feet by bashing the shit out of him. Imagine how good relations with Japan and Korea would be had Japan not occupied Korea. Japan built railroads, factories and everything else in Korea but that will never, ever justify occupation.
How would you like it if we were playing a 2v2; but since you're an F- player you haven't a clue how to mine minerals or build an scv, so I destroy your CC, build my own one there and get your scv's to mine for my economy so I can 1v2 the other team. Aggression will never solve anything, it may be one way but it is certainly not the best way, Just ask Howard Zinn R.I.P. Me teaching you how to play SC would have wasted more of my time and minerals, but in the end we'd truly be friends instead of you being that F- player I build all my CC's and Facts in.
|
On February 02 2010 20:24 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
So this is what the post F91/TSL TL.net looks like
^________________________________________^
Agreed. A people are still hotly debating and flaming.
This doesn't get old does it?
|
fox[tail] wrote: (or pasted?)
+ Show Spoiler +What the Chinese are planing:
"Chinese President Hu Jintao and other senior leaders attending the fifth meeting on the work of Tibet, from January 18 to 20, agreed that more efforts must be made to greatly improve living standards of the people in Tibet, as well as ethnic unity and stability.
In his speech, Hu attached great importance to the work of Tibet, saying it was a pressing task in carrying out the Scientific Outlook on Development, building a well-off society in an all-round way, establishing a national ecological protective screen and realizing sustainable development.
The work was also vital to ethnic unity, social stability and national security, as well as a favorable international environment, he added.
Hu outlined the guidelines for social and economic development of Tibet in the next decade.
He said by 2020 the per capita net income of farmers and herds people in Tibet should be close to the national level.
Tibet's capacity to provide public service and infrastructure must also be comparable to the nation's average by 2020, through more government investment and better management.
Hu said greater emphasis must be put on the improvement of the livelihood of Tibetan farmers and herdsmen, a better coordination of social-economic development, Tibet's capacity of self development, and environmental protection.
"Leapfrog development of Tibet actually means the combination of economic growth, well-off life, a healthy eco-environment, and social stability and progress," he said.
He stressed Tibet's significance in ensuring China's national security, and efforts in building the region into a strategic reserve of natural resources, an agricultural production base, a land with unique culture and a world-class tourism destination.
Hu said agriculture, animal husbandry, tourism, handicraft industry, and resource development would enjoy more support.
In order to further improve the livelihood of Tibetan people, more government budget will go to public services, such as education, medical services, telecommunication, and social security network that covers both urban and rural residents.
Other senior leaders attending the meeting included Wu Bangguo, Wen Jiabao, Jia Qinglin, Li Changchun, Xi Jinping, Li Keqiang, He Guoqiang and Zhou Yongkang.
Premier Wen Jiabao said priorities should be given to people's livelihood, social services, infrastructure, industries with regional features and environmental protection.
Speaking of education, he said free education would be offered for all the children of farmers and herdsmen in primary schools and junior and senior high schools.
The central government would preserve the consistency and stability of favorable policies towards Tibet and further improve policy support and financial investment in the region.
Wen pledged more efforts to cultivate talents for the development of Tibet, and encouraged other parts of China to provide cadre, talents, technological and financial support for it."
The future of Tibet is bright
It's a gilded cage.
|
On February 03 2010 08:50 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 22:11 Manit0u wrote:They don't give a shit about their citizens there. It's the resources Tibet has that are on the line here and China (nor any other sane country) would let go of that easily. I wonder how one thing would play out though, if Obama went to meet DL and China in response would ban all American companies from having their manufacturing done for them there... Whole world would get a heart attack I believe that Congress would then say they won't pay back any debt incurred by our borrowing. China would have to write off trillions of dollars as bad debt. Things would become more expensive here, but with no national debt (or very little) taxes could be lowered by alot to help compensate. China's only possible reaction would be war and try to force us to pay them (lul) or seek out our enemies on friendly terms (in which case we can just kill our enemies). Unless I'm missing something China would be the one screwed in this ordeal.
rofl, i would like to elaborate that if china kicks out all the american companies, how the fuck would they earn their foreign currency to spend their money elsewhere (they sure as hell aren't buying from US companies)
it would actually be BETTER for the US to kick out all the companies out of china. maybe some of them will relocate in the US with obama supporting it with tax relief and what not and actually provide some BLUE COLLAR jobs in the fucking US again.
|
On February 03 2010 11:27 Mykill wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 11:26 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 03 2010 11:24 Mykill wrote:
Wait...
What if Obama is walking along and sees DL. is he allowed to give him the *head nod* "hey man" look?
seriously, im Chinese living in Canada. I just feel like this shit is getting out of handdd Massive difference between saying hi to someone and having an official meeting of heads of state. Obama could call up Putin and chat about Jersey Shore and nobody would care. It's much different when it's a publicized and official meeting, which I think is what Obama intends to do. hmmm maybe but seriously. what do they do at these "official" meetings? talk about fighting China? i highly doubt they'll plot something vs China... this shit is just blown out of proportion
Things are different for heads of state for obvious reasons. This is how politics works. Pomp and ceremony are their bread and butter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
