|
LINK
From the article, "Zhu Weiqun, the head of the department in charge of talks with the Dalai Lama, told a news conference Tuesday that if Mr. Obama meets with the Dalai Lama, it would threaten trust and cooperation between China and the United States."
At first glance this seemed totally silly to me. But, does this demand make any kind of sense? Is there a plausible argument behind the Chinese government's demand that Obama not meet with the DL?
Although I am willing to consider such an argument, I don't know if such an argument is possible. Even if it was granted that Tibet shouldn't be the concern of outside nations, that is is a renegade province bent on destabilizing Chinese rule, surely the leader of that province should be able to meet with Obama to voice his perspective, right? If the concerns of the DL are not allowed to be heard -- that is, if the Chinese government can strong arm leaders from even hearing the concerns of the DL -- then how can any sort of informed opinion on the matter come about? And isn't getting as many facts as possible before coming to a decision an important principle for leaders from around the world?
|
oh, this sounds interesting
|
Fuck that, he shouldn't really be thwarted by that. It's so bad that the chineese are being like that, noone can see Dalai Lama public anymore because he doesnt like China (or because he escaped Tibet before China invaded it...  )
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
So this is what the post F91/TSL TL.net looks like
^________________________________________^
|
every time the US meets with the DL, China should start meeting with a representative of the United Indian Tribes of the northwest who are still considered independent entities, but who have been thoroughly fucked up the ass by the American political system.
That ought to make things interesting, and indirectly bring out the truth of things.
Considering how we are having such a hard time with our own shit, I don't understand why we are poking our nose in other people's shit.
Do you people realize that we still have troops actively stationed in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Persian Gulf, and !@#$!!$# CUBA. What are we doing spending all our money like this.
The 2005-2015 generation is becoming known as US's lost generation because any students popping out of school during these years are basically prevented from getting a job, and eventually, put years behind compared to other students graduating just a few years earlier or later. And all this time, who the fuck cares about some celebrity Dalai Llama.
|
On February 02 2010 20:17 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:LINKFrom the article, "Zhu Weiqun, the head of the department in charge of talks with the Dalai Lama, told a news conference Tuesday that if Mr. Obama meets with the Dalai Lama, it would threaten trust and cooperation between China and the United States." At first glance this seemed totally silly to me. But, does this demand make any kind of sense? Is there a plausible argument behind the Chinese government's demand that Obama not meet with the DL? Although I am willing to consider such an argument, I don't know if such an argument is possible. Even if it was granted that Tibet shouldn't be the concern of outside nations, that is is a renegade province bent on destabilizing Chinese rule, surely the leader of that province should be able to meet with Obama to voice his perspective, right? If the concerns of the DL are not allowed to be heard -- that is, if the Chinese government can strong arm leaders from even hearing the concerns of the DL -- then how can any sort of informed opinion on the matter come about? And isn't getting as many facts as possible before coming to a decision an important principle for leaders from around the world?
Not that I don't like Dalai Lama but Chinese have made the right move from a political perspective. According to them, Tibet is in fact a rebel province and Dalai Lama is seen as leader of the revolution. Obama meeting with DL would mean that he recognizes him and that he supports his cause and that is something Chinese would not want.
Consider it Obama saying "Oh hai! I'm in the neighbourhood so I thought I'd drop by and have a tea with your enemies." to the Chinese government if he would go through with meeting DL.
|
why Obama have to meet Dalai Lama?
|
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.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
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.
|
incontrol, you're amazing. <3
but out of inc's butt I will go
coz now I'm about to show
why china went so low
nope, can't explain it.
|
On February 02 2010 20:27 emucxg wrote:
why Obama have to meet Dalai Lama?
childish maneuver on Obama's part to show the chinese the dominance of American influence in their domain, how Obama has been provoking the chinese with the arms deal with taiwan and now this after the chinese refused to play along with the copenhagen climate plan and the iran sanction.
Obama is hustling the chinese who is getting out of line on how the American government wants them to play along.
|
It's typical move from Chinese diplomacy. Protest and warn every time something don't go your way.
Maybe back up by trade sanctions and at the extreme cases go to war.
Obama will just think fuck you China, I will do what I please now that you've mentioned it. Obama can not afford to be seen stepping down against anther country especially China.
|
On February 02 2010 20:35 XsebT wrote:
incontrol, you're amazing. <3
but out of inc's butt I will go
coz now I'm about to show
why china went so low
nope, can't explain it.
Ahaha what?
|
On February 02 2010 20:39 haduken wrote:
It's typical move from Chinese diplomacy. Protest and warn every time something don't go your way.
Maybe back up by trade sanctions and at the extreme cases go to war.
Obama will just think fuck you China, I will do what I please now that you've mentioned it. Obama can not afford to be seen stepping down against anther country especially China.
definitely. just because things don't go their way, the chinese government begins to bitch. after that arms deal to taiwan, obama isn't going to skip this meeting. Their government can choke on it.
|
China does this to everyone who talks to the Dalai Lama, it's no big deal.
Obama just needs to ignore the Chinese government, say nothing, and everyone will forget this.
|
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.
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!
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
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."
Yeah you are right. They are totally similar to the al qaeda. The DL actually just wants to stir shit. His cause is pretty baseless and evil too when you get right down to it.
lol
|
It looks like America is just jumping around in front of China saying "PLEASE KILL ME"
|
Zurich15328 Posts
On February 02 2010 21:13 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 21:09 love1another 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. 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." Yeah you are right. They are totally similar to the al qaeda. The DL actually just wants to stir shit. His cause is pretty baseless and evil too when you get right down to it.
WTF Inc as if that is even remotely what he just said.
'... but I think you should acknowledge that the current situation in Tibet is a lot more complicated than "give peaceful monks their independence, yo."'
But I guess moderating is completely in vain here anyway, China thread #546 GO!
|
On February 02 2010 21:13 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 21:09 love1another 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. 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." Yeah you are right. They are totally similar to the al qaeda. The DL actually just wants to stir shit. His cause is pretty baseless and evil too when you get right down to it. lol
I'm not saying anything about the Dalai Lama being violent, see my edited post. Whether or not he's a great guy, which he probably is, is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. China sees Tibet as a hopeless quagmire, only in a contested border region with South Asian powers that they are militarily obligated to hold. Furthermore, the presence of so many Han Chinese in the Tibetan territories makes it even more difficult for Beijing to say "Fuck it. You can go." And since the Dalai Lama is the head of the Tibetan independence movement, diplomatic talks with him would, as previous posters pointed out, be seen as the legitimization of a domestic rogue state.
Rapid, unplanned independence of a partially integrated society, is never a good idea... see Yugoslavia post-Tito. Therefore, given China's lingering post-colonial paranoia, and the ethnic volatility in Tibet, any hopes at a stable, independent, Tibetan state are for the distant future.
|
I think people have a faulty view on tibet and the people living there. I don't think there are just peaceful (male) monks going around praying peaceful living all day long. Most likely there is alot of dissent and non-compliance with China in general. I'm not saying that's wrong, just saying.
What's good about Buddhism really? They believe you can become a bodhisattva and enter nirvana. They spend their days meditating for hours and walking around being careful not to accidentally squash ants under their feet. C'mon, while buddhism is a peaceful "religion" it's still a pretty retarded one.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On February 02 2010 21:17 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 21:13 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On February 02 2010 21:09 love1another 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. 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." Yeah you are right. They are totally similar to the al qaeda. The DL actually just wants to stir shit. His cause is pretty baseless and evil too when you get right down to it. WTF Inc as if that is even remotely what he just said. '... but I think you should acknowledge that the current situation in Tibet is a lot more complicated than "give peaceful monks their independence, yo."' But I guess moderating is completely in vain here anyway, China thread #546 GO!
No.
The post I was responding to was comparing al qaeda to DL (he admits it is extreme, but the comparison remains) I discuss why that is absurd. This guy says "it is more complicated than Tibet = awesome" and I respond saying "yeah I rescind what I was saying, Tibet blows and is the same as al qaeda."
SO TECHNICALLY I was never responding to "what he said" I was blasting a bad comparison. He complicates that by saying "it isn't all good" (no shit) but that was never my point. My point was on "moral high ground" Tibet/DL come WAY over the top on China's political stance regarding them and comparisons to al qaeda are completely retarded
GOOD DAY SIR
|
hohoho and China's grip on America's balls finally shows up... well played China, well played.
|
On February 02 2010 21:21 Amber[LighT] wrote:
hohoho and China's grip on America's balls finally shows up... well played China, well played.
Again... I don't think this has anything to do with the fact that America owes China a lot of money... If Texas declared independence tomorrow, it wouldn't be short of a declaration of war for China to open a diplomatic channel with Texas.
On February 02 2010 21:20 Foucault wrote:
I think people have a faulty view on tibet and the people living there. I don't think there are just peaceful (male) monks going around praying peaceful living all day long. Most likely there is alot of dissent and non-compliance with China in general. I'm not saying that's wrong, just saying.
What's good about Buddhism really? They believe you can become a bodhisattva and enter nirvana. They spend their days meditating for hours and walking around being careful not to accidentally squash ants under their feet. C'mon, while buddhism is a peaceful "religion" it's still a pretty retarded one.
The religion is far from retarded. It has justified historical roots and can be seen as a liberal reinterpretation of the ideologically more stringent Hinduism, in much the same way as the monotheistic religions, historically, have been periodically reinterpreted and spllt... Judaism > Christianity > Islam, not including the several branches of each of those 3 religions. (Ideologically, the best comparison would be Lutheranism to Catholicism, is Buddhism to Hinduism)
If the argument is against their not wanting to crush bugs, I think that's sort of, well, stupid. In terms of core principles, however, I believe that Buddhism is one of the religions most conducive to orderly society because it, at its very essence, disowns the notion of extremism.
Anyway, just my take... I have some Buddhist family members and a buddhist roommate and they're all hardcore cool.
|
On February 02 2010 21:18 love1another wrote:
Furthermore, the presence of so many Han Chinese in the Tibetan territories makes it even more difficult for Beijing to say "Fuck it. You can go."
isn't that convenient
|
China could kill Dalai Lama if they wanted to, as to a countermessure that goverment leaders should not meet with Dalai - or put him in a prison, isolate him.
How would the world react to that? They would be passive.
The Americans must accept that in China they dont have democratic leadership and americans should be more careful when they deal with foreign affairs. Not to mention China owns all the US $$$ and they could just destroy the american eco ez
ez
ez
ez
|
On February 02 2010 21:27 exeexe wrote:
China could kill Dalai Lama if they wanted to, as to a countermessure that goverment leaders should not meet with Dalai - or put him in a prison, isolate him.
How would the world react to that? They would be passive.
The Americans must accept that in China they dont have democratic leadership and americans should be more careful when they deal with foreign affairs. Not to mention China owns all the US $$$ and they could just destroy the american eco ez
ez
ez
ez
T_T So much ignorance. I can't comment on the first part but the part about China owning all the US $$$ is absurd. If China were to say "No more moneyz Mr. America! > " they would essentially be shooting themselves in the foot as so much of their foreign reserves is in dollars. Any crumbling of the US currency will, at least in the short term, have HUGE repercussions in China as well. And given the relative size of the GDPs of the two countries, any such suicidal measures would be ineffective as a means for a sustained economic attack. It would be like scourging carriers only when scourge cost more gas than carriers.
Why can't these discussions be more about "How can we all be friends and find a peaceable solution to Tibet that gives them as much autonomy as they desire without sparking Chinese fears about National Security or without leading to broader persecution of the significant Han minority in the region?" and less about "LOL. CHINA SUCKS THEY HAVE US $$$$, LOL AL QAEDA"
|
At first glance this seemed totally silly to me. But, does this demand make any kind of sense? Is there a plausible argument behind the Chinese government's demand that Obama not meet with the DL?
Obama is a president. Dalai Lama is not. A country's (especially one of the most powerful) president only meets the similar position of other countries. So that does "signal" something, it's not as silly as you think seen from china's position.
|
On February 02 2010 21:27 exeexe wrote:
China could kill Dalai Lama if they wanted to, as to a countermessure that goverment leaders should not meet with Dalai - or put him in a prison, isolate him.
How would the world react to that? They would be passive.
The Americans must accept that in China they dont have democratic leadership and americans should be more careful when they deal with foreign affairs. Not to mention China owns all the US $$$ and they could just destroy the american eco ez
ez
ez
ez
not yet, not until they dumped all the american teabills they have, but yea the chinese are gaining foothold in global influence with them hoarding up all the natural resources in the world slowly...
then again, america is like a maxed out fully upgraded terran mech army but almost mined out all available expos, while the chinese are like a starting zergs army expanding all over the place with fresh expos almost ready to explode with tonnes of zergling and hydras.
|
Would you please stop using the term "China" to refer to a part of their government.
|
On February 02 2010 21:41 TeWy wrote:
Would you please stop using the term "China" to refer to a part of their government.
Would you prefer the terms "Beijing," and "Lhasa" for disambiguation?
|
On February 02 2010 21:35 love1another wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 21:27 exeexe wrote:
China could kill Dalai Lama if they wanted to, as to a countermessure that goverment leaders should not meet with Dalai - or put him in a prison, isolate him.
How would the world react to that? They would be passive.
The Americans must accept that in China they dont have democratic leadership and americans should be more careful when they deal with foreign affairs. Not to mention China owns all the US $$$ and they could just destroy the american eco ez
ez
ez
ez T_T So much ignorance. I can't comment on the first part but the part about China owning all the US $$$ is absurd. If China were to say "No more moneyz Mr. America! > " they would essentially be shooting themselves in the foot as so much of their foreign reserves is in dollars. Any crumbling of the US currency will, at least in the short term, have HUGE repercussions in China as well. And given the relative size of the GDPs of the two countries, any such suicidal measures would be ineffective as a means for a sustained economic attack.QAEDA"
sure both China and US would suffer from this but in China ppl work to buy stuff. In The US, like, they just burrow money from those who work so the americans can buy stuff. So after the first eco collision and after all the dust has settled China will come out on top because they work.
|
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.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 02 2010 21:47 exeexe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 21:35 love1another wrote:On February 02 2010 21:27 exeexe wrote:
China could kill Dalai Lama if they wanted to, as to a countermessure that goverment leaders should not meet with Dalai - or put him in a prison, isolate him.
How would the world react to that? They would be passive.
The Americans must accept that in China they dont have democratic leadership and americans should be more careful when they deal with foreign affairs. Not to mention China owns all the US $$$ and they could just destroy the american eco ez
ez
ez
ez T_T So much ignorance. I can't comment on the first part but the part about China owning all the US $$$ is absurd. If China were to say "No more moneyz Mr. America! > " they would essentially be shooting themselves in the foot as so much of their foreign reserves is in dollars. Any crumbling of the US currency will, at least in the short term, have HUGE repercussions in China as well. And given the relative size of the GDPs of the two countries, any such suicidal measures would be ineffective as a means for a sustained economic attack.QAEDA" sure both China and US would suffer from this but in China ppl work to buy stuff. In The US, like, they just burrow money from those who work so the americans can buy stuff. So after the first eco collision and after all the dust has settled China will come out on top because they work.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0121/China-the-world-s-next-great-economic-crash
Food for thought. It's an export economy, in a decreasing export market.
|
First, we will have the people speaking of great injustices
and then we will have people telling us that China can do no wrong
and then the trolls will come.
Look alive my children, and be warned.
For another china thread has been released.
|
On February 02 2010 21:57 ghermination wrote:
First, we will have the people speaking of great injustices
and then we will have people telling us that China can do no wrong
and then the trolls will come.
Look alive my children, and be warned.
For another china thread has been released.
amen...
i wonder if they had internetz + forum back in the days of the cold war would a soviet thread back then would look like a china thread today?
|
anything that goes against China is a problem anyway. China wants to eliminate Tibet, so that's it, it's just political. It's the same with Taiwan. If you support Taiwan and make arrangement with them then China will go baby cry.
|
Dalai Lama isn't actually the kind, spiritual vagabond he is portrayed as. The Lama class was a ruling priest class living in utter luxury, with the rest of the country living in poverty and serving them because they claimed themselves to be basically gods. Dalai Lama is a tyrant who wants his slaves back.
Not that China is that much better; it's just stupid to go around supporting this guy just because the west likes to perceive China as the enemy.
|
On February 02 2010 22:05 paulinepain wrote:
anything that goes against China is a problem anyway. China wants to eliminate Tibet, so that's it, it's just political. It's the same with Taiwan. If you support Taiwan and make arrangement with them then China will go baby cry.
to be fair, it is a Chinese domestic political problems with tibet and taiwan... should we really be butting into other peeps family issues?
|
On February 02 2010 21:56 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 21:47 exeexe wrote:On February 02 2010 21:35 love1another wrote:On February 02 2010 21:27 exeexe wrote:
China could kill Dalai Lama if they wanted to, as to a countermessure that goverment leaders should not meet with Dalai - or put him in a prison, isolate him.
How would the world react to that? They would be passive.
The Americans must accept that in China they dont have democratic leadership and americans should be more careful when they deal with foreign affairs. Not to mention China owns all the US $$$ and they could just destroy the american eco ez
ez
ez
ez T_T So much ignorance. I can't comment on the first part but the part about China owning all the US $$$ is absurd. If China were to say "No more moneyz Mr. America! > " they would essentially be shooting themselves in the foot as so much of their foreign reserves is in dollars. Any crumbling of the US currency will, at least in the short term, have HUGE repercussions in China as well. And given the relative size of the GDPs of the two countries, any such suicidal measures would be ineffective as a means for a sustained economic attack.QAEDA" sure both China and US would suffer from this but in China ppl work to buy stuff. In The US, like, they just burrow money from those who work so the americans can buy stuff. So after the first eco collision and after all the dust has settled China will come out on top because they work. http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0121/China-the-world-s-next-great-economic-crashFood for thought. It's an export economy, in a decreasing export market.
China has been exploring ways to increase domestic consumption for a while now and their measures have been effective. While world trade pummeled in early 2009, China experienced just a blip in its growth.
While Dubai's growth hinges on the soaring property prices and its prospect of developing its financial sector, China's growth is the result of thousands of rural villagers finding more productive work in the cities.
|
On February 02 2010 21:27 MamiyaOtaru wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 21:18 love1another wrote:
Furthermore, the presence of so many Han Chinese in the Tibetan territories makes it even more difficult for Beijing to say "Fuck it. You can go." isn't that convenient
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 Buddhism is one of the religions most conducive to orderly society because it, at its very essence, disowns the notion of extremism.
Anyway, just my take... I have some Buddhist family members and a buddhist roommate and they're all hardcore cool.
Japanese and Korean history as well as a general understanding of religion as a whole speaks otherwise (not so sure on Chinese). Buddhism just like any other religion was used to gather the masses, create an autocracy for the elite and have them rule. It may be pleasant to look at, believe, and follow for your every day layman etc, but it is still a piece of shit excuse for rule and government. Every religion is beautiful in the sense you think of but when one walks over the line of secularity is when religion gets ugly, this goes without saying for Islam, Christianity and Judaism.
I can easily take your statement and say "I have some Christian family members and Muslim and Jewish family members, and they're hardcore cool" Its the person you see who is cool, not the religion they follow that makes them so.
That being said, the only reason DL has a voice is because US tend to be generally anti-China. If China were a much closer ally to the US than it is now, Tibet would just be another Palestine. So yes, sympathetic attitudes towards Tibet is not an American altruistic desire (which is an oxymoron by definition), but rather a means to meet a totally different end.
|
On February 02 2010 21:18 love1another wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 21:13 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On February 02 2010 21:09 love1another 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. 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." Yeah you are right. They are totally similar to the al qaeda. The DL actually just wants to stir shit. His cause is pretty baseless and evil too when you get right down to it. lol I'm not saying anything about the Dalai Lama being violent, see my edited post. Whether or not he's a great guy, which he probably is, is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. China sees Tibet as a hopeless quagmire, only in a contested border region with South Asian powers that they are militarily obligated to hold. Furthermore, the presence of so many Han Chinese in the Tibetan territories makes it even more difficult for Beijing to say "Fuck it. You can go." And since the Dalai Lama is the head of the Tibetan independence movement, diplomatic talks with him would, as previous posters pointed out, be seen as the legitimization of a domestic rogue state. Rapid, unplanned independence of a partially integrated society, is never a good idea... see Yugoslavia post-Tito. Therefore, given China's lingering post-colonial paranoia, and the ethnic volatility in Tibet, any hopes at a stable, independent, Tibetan state are for the distant future.
I'm guessing you're deriving your knowledge from news stories about Tibet. Tibetans obviously don't like the Chinese, but there's no widespread violence. There's a very large military presence in every major settlement in Tibet in addition to the police force. You're arrested for having a picture of the Dalai Lama, let alone hurting a Han. The recent monk "revolt" was sort of a last ditch desperation protest, in an attempt to disrupt China's attempt to make Tibet appear as a well integrated territory for the Olympics.
+ Show Spoiler [shootings] +
Here's a video of Chinese soldiers gunning down a group of Tibetans trying to escape into India over a mountain pass. This is a lot more representative than this alleged widespread violence against Han.
It's not a hopeless quagmire like Iraq, it's a very securely controlled region that has 0 chance of revolting. It's not a colony, it's an "Autonomous Region" held for historical/strategical purposes, and only recently did they encourage Han immigration. And it's better for them due to problems with integration is facetious. There's a government in exile in India, there's no integration, the Tibetans would be more than happy to just kick out all the Chinese and at least temporarily go back to a religious state. Infrastructure would suffer, but consider a good portion of the country are farmers, yak herders, monks, or small merchants. Crime would rise, but not enough for them to say, boy I long for the days of occupation.
|
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.
What natural resources, lol? I mean yeah. It's got tons of lithium and a decent amount of chromite, boron, and copper... but none of that is big-ticket stuff... like oil. I can see that argument working in some capacity, but in terms of accessibility, I don't think Tibet ranks high on any list. It's known as the world's "Third Pole" for a reason.
|
All that economic growth has gotten into the Chinese leadership's heads. They have begun thinking that they're a global power comparable to the USA. The only reason they have any diplomatic power at all is because they bribe stupid Third World countries to follow their agenda. The Chinese government is all bark and no bite.
|
On February 02 2010 22:17 liosama wrote:
Japanese and Korean history as well as a general understanding of religion as a whole speaks otherwise (not so sure on Chinese). Buddhism just like any other religion was used to gather the masses, create an autocracy for the elite and have them rule.
When and where was Buddhism used to legitimize any autocratic rule?
|
|
|
On February 02 2010 22:28 J1.au wrote:
All that economic growth has gotten into the Chinese leadership's heads. They have begun thinking that they're a global power comparable to the USA. The only reason they have any diplomatic power at all is because they bribe stupid Third World countries to follow their agenda. The Chinese government is all bark and no bite.
You can't really do more than bark at this (at least not for a few decades):
|
On February 02 2010 22:29 magicbullet wrote:
When and where was Buddhism used to legitimize any autocratic rule?
Kamakura
Muromachi
Edo
|
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.
|
Yeah China just doesn't want anyone meeting with the Dalai Lama, Obama will do it anyway and China will do nothing about it.
On February 02 2010 22:39 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 22:28 J1.au wrote:
All that economic growth has gotten into the Chinese leadership's heads. They have begun thinking that they're a global power comparable to the USA. The only reason they have any diplomatic power at all is because they bribe stupid Third World countries to follow their agenda. The Chinese government is all bark and no bite. You can't really do more than bark at this (at least not for a few decades):
Especially when you consider that the 1st, 2nd and 4th largest military budgets are all closely allied as well.
|
Why the hell is the DL going to meet the president of a country that is currently fighting two wars, have been accused of countless atrocities in the past, and at the present time is creating a colony out of Haiti. Absolutely no good can come of this, if all these Tibetans want is to pray all day and live in the stone age, why can't they live in the stone age within China.
And Al-Qaeda has never committed genocide, in the end all separatists are the same...
|
|
|
On February 02 2010 21:07 Loanshark wrote:
China does this to everyone who talks to the Dalai Lama, it's no big deal.
Obama just needs to ignore the Chinese government, say nothing, and everyone will forget this.
Maybe China feels like being buddies with the president of Iran. Exchange military intel ant the like.
|
On February 02 2010 22:41 liosama wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 22:29 magicbullet wrote:
When and where was Buddhism used to legitimize any autocratic rule? Kamakura Muromachi Edo
The pwn post of the month!
The US may spend a hugemongus amount of money on military spending but it is China and Japan which is funding it:
Foreign owners of US Treasury Securities (September 2009)
Nation | billions of dollars | percentage
People's Republic of China | 798.9 | 23.35%
Japan | 751.5 | 21.13%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
|
On February 02 2010 21:13 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 21:09 love1another 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. 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." Yeah you are right. They are totally similar to the al qaeda. The DL actually just wants to stir shit. His cause is pretty baseless and evil too when you get right down to it. lol
You are so woefully ignorant of the matter it hurts.
On February 02 2010 23:21 Emon_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 21:07 Loanshark wrote:
China does this to everyone who talks to the Dalai Lama, it's no big deal.
Obama just needs to ignore the Chinese government, say nothing, and everyone will forget this. Maybe China feels like being buddies with the president of Iran. Exchange military intel ant the like.
But ... they're already doing that. Welcome to international politics >.<!
|
On February 02 2010 22:48 fox[tail] wrote:
Why the hell is the DL going to meet the president of a country that is currently fighting two wars, have been accused of countless atrocities in the past, and at the present time is creating a colony out of Haiti. Absolutely no good can come of this, if all these Tibetans want is to pray all day and live in the stone age, why can't they live in the stone age within China.
And Al-Qaeda has never committed genocide, in the end all separatists are the same...
Stop being a useless troll.
|
On February 02 2010 23:44 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 22:48 fox[tail] wrote:
Why the hell is the DL going to meet the president of a country that is currently fighting two wars, have been accused of countless atrocities in the past, and at the present time is creating a colony out of Haiti. Absolutely no good can come of this, if all these Tibetans want is to pray all day and live in the stone age, why can't they live in the stone age within China.
And Al-Qaeda has never committed genocide, in the end all separatists are the same... Stop being a useless troll.
How the hell am I trolling, the United States is not a bastion of peace is all I said, at least contribute something and say why it is instead of just labeling me a troll...
Why was my post trolling?
|
On February 02 2010 20:24 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
So this is what the post F91/TSL TL.net looks like
^________________________________________^
Weren't you banned for derailing and trolling threads like this not too long ago? Adding smileys and lols to the end of every post doesn't make them witty either.
I'm mostly neutral (out of ignorance) on the Tibet issue, but as that Penn and Teller video shows, I don't believe it's quite as simple as a bunch of peaceful monks wanting their freedom. China warning Obama not to meet with the Dalai Lama isn't surprising, nor would it be surprising if Obama goes and meets him anyway. China might act indignant about it, but things will probably go on as usual.
|
On February 02 2010 21:44 love1another wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 21:41 TeWy wrote:
Would you please stop using the term "China" to refer to a part of their government. Would you prefer the terms "Beijing," and "Lhasa" for disambiguation?
I was going to argue your post towards me but you made me laugh, thanks 
|
On February 02 2010 20:27 emucxg wrote:
why Obama have to meet Dalai Lama?
Because the Dalai Lama is friends with Richard Gere:
Richard Gere was in Pretty Woman (1990) with Julia Roberts
Julia Roberts was in Flatliners (1990) with Kevin Bacon
The Dalai Lama's Bacon number is 3.
What you need more?
Maybe the President should meet with the leader of a unique culture, which is systematically being cleansed from the face of the Earth by a brutal regime, to focus the world's attention back on the plight of its people.
If you think the Chinese have a right to take the land of their neighbor or are merely enforcing their property rights; the facts are that the Tibetans are being brutalized and marginalized. It's no different than what is happening to the poor and disenfranchised in New Orleans and the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Power" is defined as the ability to achieve your goals even as others stand in opposition to those goals. Powerful nations are run by powerful people. Powerful people can only wield the power ceded to them by others. (That's why a handful of people, right or wrong, with small arms and improvised explosive devices, can force the United States to declare a false victory and leave Iraq (and eventually Afghanistan)).
China will only be able to keep the leaders of the world from meeting with the Dalai Lama if they cede that power to them.
You can either stand up to protect those who can't protect themselves or you can put your jackboot on their neck.
|
On February 02 2010 20:27 emucxg wrote:
why Obama have to meet Dalai Lama?
Wondering this as well, there's a lot more important shit he should be occupying his time with.
|
Dalai Lama is like the nicest person on the planet, this is pretty lolz
|
Didn't Obama specifically say: “we recognize that Tibet is part of the People’s Republic of China”, during his first visit to China? He isn't going to go back on what he said, especially if that means pissing off China, they are already in the shits after US firms shipped arms to Taiwan
|
God I fucking hate ignorant foreigners discussing about Tibet.
As someone who lived in China for years and have traveled to Tibet twice, let me say this:
Tibet is FUCKED without China, structurally and economically. Period.
Stop all this "free Tibet" bullshit and China bashing. Get to know the facts and opinions from the other perspective, aka none of the major English news sites, and you'll think much differently.
|
On February 02 2010 22:48 fox[tail] wrote:
Why the hell is the DL going to meet the president of a country that is currently fighting two wars, have been accused of countless atrocities in the past, and at the present time is creating a colony out of Haiti. Absolutely no good can come of this, if all these Tibetans want is to pray all day and live in the stone age, why can't they live in the stone age within China.
And Al-Qaeda has never committed genocide, in the end all separatists are the same...
That's a good question, i don't think your trolling.
Plain and simple, nobody of any faith should want to meet with our government, we've brutalized and humiliated Iraq (killing over 1 million civilians) and are allowing Afghanistan to become the opium hub of the world.
While the US is based on very good principles of freedom and individual rights, it clearly no longer represents those values.
---
As for China and Tibet, it's pretty obvious that the policy over there is 'dissent = treason' It's really horrible, as far as citizen's rights go, secret arrests, political prisoners, massive amount of executions etc... In view of Tibet, even small religious dissent is against the government and the party, and thus, by perverted socialistic reasoning, the people.
Anyone ever read about the "Mobile Death Vans" now being imlemented? It is frightening stuff.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1165416/Chinas-hi-tech-death-van-criminals-executed-organs-sold-black-market.html
Anyway,as an Amercan, i can try to focus on fixing the mess here, and pray for them as well.
(this is in no way a disrespect to chinese people or a flame, just my opinions about the governement)
|
On February 02 2010 22:48 fox[tail] wrote:
Why the hell is the DL going to meet the president of a country that is currently fighting two wars, have been accused of countless atrocities in the past, and at the present time is creating a colony out of Haiti. Absolutely no good can come of this, if all these Tibetans want is to pray all day and live in the stone age, why can't they live in the stone age within China.
And Al-Qaeda has never committed genocide, in the end all separatists are the same...
In the end all separatists are the same ...
Just like your national heroes of the past? Why isn't Serbia still under Ottoman rule? You are just saying that now, because Serbia sits on the other side of the table regarding Kosovo.
|
|
|
On February 02 2010 23:54 Dracid wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 20:24 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
So this is what the post F91/TSL TL.net looks like
^________________________________________^ Weren't you banned for derailing and trolling threads like this not too long ago? Adding smileys and lols to the end of every post doesn't make them witty either. I'm mostly neutral (out of ignorance) on the Tibet issue, but as that Penn and Teller video shows, I don't believe it's quite as simple as a bunch of peaceful monks wanting their freedom. China warning Obama not to meet with the Dalai Lama isn't surprising, nor would it be surprising if Obama goes and meets him anyway. China might act indignant about it, but things will probably go on as usual.
He has a well deserved reputation as an unrepentant troll on this site. It's best to ignore posts such as that from him.
As for Tibet, it's only natural that China would oppose the meeting between any official foreign dignitary and the Dalai Lama. China considers Tibet to be a part of its territory, and as with nearly all other nations, it rates territorial integrity as a high priority at any time. Acquiescing to what amounts to official recognition of the area's previous owners would obviously go against that. Factors such as "right" or "wrong", highly ambiguous and interpretative moral standards, and whether or not Tibet holds significant resources are largely irrelevant. The point is that China has acquired the area and considers it its own, and until such time that a successful revolution or direct foreign intervention changes the area's ownership, this entire discussion serves little purpose.
|
Yes, the Chinese government believes Tibet is part of the country, but the Chinese government is also brutally authoritarian, anti-free speech, and uses mobile execution vans.
|
On February 03 2010 00:28 Maenander wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 22:48 fox[tail] wrote:
Why the hell is the DL going to meet the president of a country that is currently fighting two wars, have been accused of countless atrocities in the past, and at the present time is creating a colony out of Haiti. Absolutely no good can come of this, if all these Tibetans want is to pray all day and live in the stone age, why can't they live in the stone age within China.
And Al-Qaeda has never committed genocide, in the end all separatists are the same... In the end all separatists are the same ... Just like your national heroes of the past? Why isn't Serbia still under Ottoman rule? You are just saying that now, because Serbia sits on the other side of the table regarding Kosovo.
Well... yes... almost every nation was born from war, 400-500 years of oppression, then a bloody separatist rebellion, and we overthrew the Ottomans. We were fucked in 1941, same thing, a resistance movement and through violence we freed ourselves.
America was born the same way, through violence, look at Africa, Asia, South America, all separatist movements
OK maybe not the Commonwealth....
EDIT: Tibet won't die as long as their are people who call themselves Tibetans, maybe in 200-300 years China will be vulnerable and these people can win their war of independence. But because of globalism there won't be any 'countries' anyway so whats the point, they will have autonomy within the United states of Asia and Oceania at best
|
On February 03 2010 00:34 pioneer8 wrote:
Yes, the Chinese government believes Tibet is part of the country, but the Chinese government is also brutally authoritarian, anti-free speech, and uses mobile execution vans.
Their belief is the one that matters. Unless, of course, you care to contest it with them directly?
|
in my opinion this has to do with america, or the ppl in power, trying to fk their own people up so the rich get richer by destroying america's economy and bringing their people into more of a deficit by forcing china to act
poor americans... country being used for the dirty work of the rich
obama is nothing but a puppet and in the coming years we will see globalization and world taxes become an everyday thing
i haven't been following all too closely with these issues but yes you could call me a pro conspiracy theorist
|
On February 03 2010 00:36 Draconizard wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 00:34 pioneer8 wrote:
Yes, the Chinese government believes Tibet is part of the country, but the Chinese government is also brutally authoritarian, anti-free speech, and uses mobile execution vans. Their belief is the one that matters. Unless, of course, you care to contest it with them directly?
Lol, Draconizard, the point i was trying to make is that there is an obvious moral perspective. It's something everyone needs to think about before making conclusions, and not falling into the lazy spell that "everything is Okay in China," that many want to believe, but in reality is very far from the truth.
Read about the execution vans They quote a figure of 1715 executions last year. I'd be willing to bet that it is easily 10x that, perhaps even 100x. All the people that die at the work camps and prisons i'm sure arent included in that figure as well. (Yes, China has forced work camps)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1165416/Chinas-hi-tech-death-van-criminals-executed-organs-sold-black-market.html
|
On February 03 2010 00:45 pioneer8 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 00:36 Draconizard wrote:On February 03 2010 00:34 pioneer8 wrote:
Yes, the Chinese government believes Tibet is part of the country, but the Chinese government is also brutally authoritarian, anti-free speech, and uses mobile execution vans. Their belief is the one that matters. Unless, of course, you care to contest it with them directly? Lol, Draconizard, the point i was trying to make is that there is an obvious moral perspective. It's something everyone needs to think about before making conclusions, and not falling into the lazy spell that "everything is Okay in China," that many want to believe, but in reality is very far from the truth. Read about the execution vans They quote a figure of 1715 executions last year. I'd be willing to bet that it is easily 10x that, perhaps even 100x. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1165416/Chinas-hi-tech-death-van-criminals-executed-organs-sold-black-market.html
Really, an argument from morality? How quaint...
Moral standards have little applicability to entities such as nations. You could perhaps make an argument that such a standard exists for individuals, but I'd strongly contest that as well. You could say that you oppose the acts in which China indulges as a nation and that they offend you for whatever reason, but then to say that either they or you are right or wrong is completely meaningless. They partake in activity X; you oppose X. That's really all there is.
|
There doesn't seem to be much of a moral aspect here to me. As mentioned earlier, if Texas decided it wanted its independence, the US wouldn't be happy with other countries talking with the leader of Texas either.
Not to mention how skewed your understanding of morality regarding China is if you only read the story from a western perspective.
|
On February 03 2010 00:53 Draconizard wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 00:45 pioneer8 wrote:On February 03 2010 00:36 Draconizard wrote:On February 03 2010 00:34 pioneer8 wrote:
Yes, the Chinese government believes Tibet is part of the country, but the Chinese government is also brutally authoritarian, anti-free speech, and uses mobile execution vans. Their belief is the one that matters. Unless, of course, you care to contest it with them directly? Lol, Draconizard, the point i was trying to make is that there is an obvious moral perspective. It's something everyone needs to think about before making conclusions, and not falling into the lazy spell that "everything is Okay in China," that many want to believe, but in reality is very far from the truth. Read about the execution vans They quote a figure of 1715 executions last year. I'd be willing to bet that it is easily 10x that, perhaps even 100x. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1165416/Chinas-hi-tech-death-van-criminals-executed-organs-sold-black-market.html Really, an argument from morality? How quaint... Moral standards have little applicability to entities such as nations. You could perhaps make an argument that such a standard exists for individuals, but I'd strongly contest that as well. You could say that you oppose the acts in which China indulges as a nation and that they offend you for whatever reason, but then to say that either they or you are right or wrong is completely meaningless. They partake in activity X; you oppose X. That's really all there is.
Unsure whether you're roleplaying or are seriously stating your opinion, which is ignorant at many levels and just all around arrogant.
Yes, killing people for believing something differently than i do is wrong.
Perhaps it's meaningless to you now, but i know you'll change your tune when the rifles are pointed at you.
----
The moral aspect in relation to Tibet is that the peaceful Tibetan Buddhists are being persecuted for very mild dissent against the government. It sets the precedent, if it hadn't already been set, that mild dissent = treason. This is in addition to the controversial annexation of Tibet by China, which happened in the 1950's.
|
China: "You stop dat or we dunt cooperate with yooooz anymore"
Obama: "I'm doing this because you were going out of your way to be antogonistic and uncooperative anyways."
China: "You stop dat rite nao or we dunt cooperate with yooooz for realz"
|
|
|
the dalai lama met with both bush and clinton
we haven't gone to war yet
we'll be fine
|
DL rubbish, haha.
hope you people all realize that the DL is funded by the Center for Democracy to the tune of $150,000 per year. Center for Democracy is a CIA funded organization that has existed since the Cold War, and its written objectives is to "fight communism, especially Russia and China". Flying around the world and traveling in style, where do you think he gets the money to do any of this? Not from his loyal brainwashed religious slaves in Tibet obviously.
|
On February 03 2010 00:59 pioneer8 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 00:53 Draconizard wrote:On February 03 2010 00:45 pioneer8 wrote:On February 03 2010 00:36 Draconizard wrote:On February 03 2010 00:34 pioneer8 wrote:
Yes, the Chinese government believes Tibet is part of the country, but the Chinese government is also brutally authoritarian, anti-free speech, and uses mobile execution vans. Their belief is the one that matters. Unless, of course, you care to contest it with them directly? Lol, Draconizard, the point i was trying to make is that there is an obvious moral perspective. It's something everyone needs to think about before making conclusions, and not falling into the lazy spell that "everything is Okay in China," that many want to believe, but in reality is very far from the truth. Read about the execution vans They quote a figure of 1715 executions last year. I'd be willing to bet that it is easily 10x that, perhaps even 100x. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1165416/Chinas-hi-tech-death-van-criminals-executed-organs-sold-black-market.html Really, an argument from morality? How quaint... Moral standards have little applicability to entities such as nations. You could perhaps make an argument that such a standard exists for individuals, but I'd strongly contest that as well. You could say that you oppose the acts in which China indulges as a nation and that they offend you for whatever reason, but then to say that either they or you are right or wrong is completely meaningless. They partake in activity X; you oppose X. That's really all there is. Unsure whether you're roleplaying or are seriously stating your opinion, which is ignorant at many levels and just all around arrogant. Yes, killing people for believing something differently than i do is wrong. Perhaps it's meaningless to you now, but i know you'll change your tune when the rifles are pointed at you. ---- The moral aspect in relation to Tibet is that the peaceful Tibetan Buddhists are being persecuted for very mild dissent against the government. It sets the precedent, if it hadn't already been set, that mild dissent = treason. This is in addition to the controversial annexation of Tibet by China, which happened in the 1950's.
It takes a much more complete argument then that to state that killing other people for believing something different than you is wrong, or that morals exist at all. For you to simply dismiss that school of thought entirely is "ignorant at many levels and just all around arrogant", and I would avoid doing so.
|
Your disbelief in morals does not mean that they do not exist. Such things are self-evident.
These things are mainly based on empathy and sympathy, natural and healthy human emotions. A psychopath is someone incapable of empathy, and it is known as a real mental condition. The simplest of human emotions dont need to be explained.
The lack of sympathy for those suffering is the source of arrogance.
It didn't take me very long to explain...
|
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.
peaceful protests my ass LOL. It has ALWAYS been violence, slavery, and theocracy.
|
On February 03 2010 00:59 pioneer8 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 00:53 Draconizard wrote:On February 03 2010 00:45 pioneer8 wrote:On February 03 2010 00:36 Draconizard wrote:On February 03 2010 00:34 pioneer8 wrote:
Yes, the Chinese government believes Tibet is part of the country, but the Chinese government is also brutally authoritarian, anti-free speech, and uses mobile execution vans. Their belief is the one that matters. Unless, of course, you care to contest it with them directly? Lol, Draconizard, the point i was trying to make is that there is an obvious moral perspective. It's something everyone needs to think about before making conclusions, and not falling into the lazy spell that "everything is Okay in China," that many want to believe, but in reality is very far from the truth. Read about the execution vans They quote a figure of 1715 executions last year. I'd be willing to bet that it is easily 10x that, perhaps even 100x. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1165416/Chinas-hi-tech-death-van-criminals-executed-organs-sold-black-market.html Really, an argument from morality? How quaint... Moral standards have little applicability to entities such as nations. You could perhaps make an argument that such a standard exists for individuals, but I'd strongly contest that as well. You could say that you oppose the acts in which China indulges as a nation and that they offend you for whatever reason, but then to say that either they or you are right or wrong is completely meaningless. They partake in activity X; you oppose X. That's really all there is. Unsure whether you're roleplaying or are seriously stating your opinion, which is ignorant at many levels and just all around arrogant. Yes, killing people for believing something differently than i do is wrong. Perhaps it's meaningless to you now, but i know you'll change your tune when the rifles are pointed at you. ---- The moral aspect in relation to Tibet is that the peaceful Tibetan Buddhists are being persecuted for very mild dissent against the government. It sets the precedent, if it hadn't already been set, that mild dissent = treason. This is in addition to the controversial annexation of Tibet by China, which happened in the 1950's.
Well killing people for believing the same things as you is wrong too, it's much easier to say that killing people in general is wrong.
In the end we just keep going in circles, we tend to believe what we (our nation or people) do is right and the other guy (nation or people) is wrong... and we keep saying the same things over and over and over...
|
The DL has nothing to do with any sort of violent or harmful protest. Anyone who thinks otherwise obviously does not understand what the DL is.
|
On February 03 2010 00:26 WheelOfTime wrote:
God I fucking hate ignorant foreigners discussing about Tibet.
As someone who lived in China for years and have traveled to Tibet twice, let me say this:
Tibet is FUCKED without China, structurally and economically. Period.
Stop all this "free Tibet" bullshit and China bashing. Get to know the facts and opinions from the other perspective, aka none of the major English news sites, and you'll think much differently.
How many Tibetans have you discussed this with? Assuming you're not ethnically Chinese and that you didn't speak to them in Chinese.
|
On February 03 2010 02:18 pioneer8 wrote:
Your disbelief in morals does not mean that they do not exist. Such things are self-evident.
These things are mainly based on empathy and sympathy, natural and healthy human emotions. A psychopath is someone incapable of empathy, and it is known as a real mental condition. The simplest of human emotions dont need to be explained.
The lack of sympathy for those suffering is the source of arrogance.
It didn't take me very long to explain...
And your belief in morals does not mean that they do...
And to define something as healthy? According to who? Health is simply the average. The most common condition. Nothing other then that makes psychopaths unhealthy and you healthy, and it could easily be the other way around.
|
United States3824 Posts
I was just watching this on the West Wing where they just accidentally run into the dude. Like, "Oh, D.L., didn't know you were in the mural room!"
ezpz
|
In relation to Starcraft and E-sports, i wonder if any western pro's now or in the future boycott Chinese tournaments. It would send a strong message to the Chinese people and young people everywhere that the Communist party in China that has killed more people ever, than any government or entity in the history of the world, is unacceptable, as are the crimes against free speech, imprisonment, and forced labor of mostly peaceful people.
I know that most WC3 tournaments are now in China, and that is dissapointing, and i doubt any gamers to lose their livlihood, but it may be interesting as SC2 comes up with more international tournaments. I wouldn't compete there, not out of any disrespect for the Chinese people, but to send a message to the people. Something like this could actually do alot of good.
|
On February 03 2010 02:39 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 02:18 pioneer8 wrote:
Your disbelief in morals does not mean that they do not exist. Such things are self-evident.
These things are mainly based on empathy and sympathy, natural and healthy human emotions. A psychopath is someone incapable of empathy, and it is known as a real mental condition. The simplest of human emotions dont need to be explained.
The lack of sympathy for those suffering is the source of arrogance.
It didn't take me very long to explain...
And your belief in morals does not mean that they do... And to define something as healthy? According to who? Health is simply the average. The most common condition. Nothing other then that makes psychopaths unhealthy and you healthy, and it could easily be the other way around.
It's true that things are relative, but you are taking things to too far an extreme. A healthy mind is a rational and functional mind. Health is clearly and accurately defined in a dictionary. It has nothing to do with an average.
|
On February 03 2010 02:34 igotmyown wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 00:26 WheelOfTime wrote:
God I fucking hate ignorant foreigners discussing about Tibet.
As someone who lived in China for years and have traveled to Tibet twice, let me say this:
Tibet is FUCKED without China, structurally and economically. Period.
Stop all this "free Tibet" bullshit and China bashing. Get to know the facts and opinions from the other perspective, aka none of the major English news sites, and you'll think much differently. How many Tibetans have you discussed this with? Assuming you're not ethnically Chinese and that you didn't speak to them in Chinese.
What someone believes is good for them at what in reality is good for them are two different things, you can't expect that talking with a separatist will get you a non-biased view. I'm not saying the Chinese way is better but in the end it's a problem that China and the exiled government of Tibet have to work out on their own. Me and you won't be living in Tibet, I will certainly never go to Tibet, and Tibet is better off with China.
|
On February 03 2010 02:47 fox[tail] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 02:34 igotmyown wrote:On February 03 2010 00:26 WheelOfTime wrote:
God I fucking hate ignorant foreigners discussing about Tibet.
As someone who lived in China for years and have traveled to Tibet twice, let me say this:
Tibet is FUCKED without China, structurally and economically. Period.
Stop all this "free Tibet" bullshit and China bashing. Get to know the facts and opinions from the other perspective, aka none of the major English news sites, and you'll think much differently. How many Tibetans have you discussed this with? Assuming you're not ethnically Chinese and that you didn't speak to them in Chinese. What someone believes is good for them at what in reality is good for them are two different things, you can't expect that talking with a separatist will get you a non-biased view. I'm not saying the Chinese way is better but in the end it's a problem that China and the exiled government of Tibet have to work out on their own. Me and you won't be living in Tibet, I will certainly never go to Tibet, and Tibet is better off with China.
How can you say definitively that Tibet is better off with China? Was there mass starvation or sickness in Tibet that I was unaware of before China decided to invade?
|
On February 03 2010 02:45 pioneer8 wrote:
In relation to Starcraft and E-sports, i wonder if any western pro's now or in the future boycott Chinese tournaments. It would send a strong message to the Chinese people and young people everywhere that the Communist party in China that has killed more people ever, than any government or entity in the history of the world, is unacceptable, as are the crimes against free speech, imprisonment, and forced labor of mostly peaceful people.
I know that most WC3 tournaments are now in China, and that is dissapointing, and i doubt any gamers to lose their livlihood, but it may be interesting as SC2 comes up with more international tournaments. I wouldn't compete there, not out of any disrespect for the Chinese people, but to send a message to the people. Something like this could actually do alot of good.
WTF!!!!! 'has killed more people ever, than any government or entity in the history of the world'
Ever heard of Genghis Khan... The Timurid Empire... The Qing dynasty
|
...this is absolutely retarted
and HOW would this threaten US / China relations?
|
On February 03 2010 02:51 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 02:47 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 02:34 igotmyown wrote:On February 03 2010 00:26 WheelOfTime wrote:
God I fucking hate ignorant foreigners discussing about Tibet.
As someone who lived in China for years and have traveled to Tibet twice, let me say this:
Tibet is FUCKED without China, structurally and economically. Period.
Stop all this "free Tibet" bullshit and China bashing. Get to know the facts and opinions from the other perspective, aka none of the major English news sites, and you'll think much differently. How many Tibetans have you discussed this with? Assuming you're not ethnically Chinese and that you didn't speak to them in Chinese. What someone believes is good for them at what in reality is good for them are two different things, you can't expect that talking with a separatist will get you a non-biased view. I'm not saying the Chinese way is better but in the end it's a problem that China and the exiled government of Tibet have to work out on their own. Me and you won't be living in Tibet, I will certainly never go to Tibet, and Tibet is better off with China. How can you say definitively that Tibet is better off with China? Was there mass starvation or sickness in Tibet that I was unaware of before China decided to invade?
http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=68073&postdays=0&postorder=asc&topic_view=&start=0&sid=88252ea448cc9ea54cd87de633c21bbe
|
ok no, this is taking too long, it needs to get to the point.
if you are going to tell me you have any sort of definitive evidence tibet is "better off with china", then please sum it up. because I got about 4 paragraphs down and I hadn't seen anything whatsoever.
|
Pioneer8:
...You really buy into what the western media feeds you don't you?
Look, there are problems with China, but if you'd bother to learn even the slightest bit about what life is like in China, you'd realize that the western depiction of China is severely flawed and biased. The Chinese government does not exist solely to make its people miserable, and it'd be really nice if people understood that once in a while.
Not to mention that a pro gamer's boycott would seriously accomplish nothing. A significant amount of athletes boycotting the Beijing Olympics might have gotten a message across, but not pro gamers.
|
On February 03 2010 02:51 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 02:47 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 02:34 igotmyown wrote:On February 03 2010 00:26 WheelOfTime wrote:
God I fucking hate ignorant foreigners discussing about Tibet.
As someone who lived in China for years and have traveled to Tibet twice, let me say this:
Tibet is FUCKED without China, structurally and economically. Period.
Stop all this "free Tibet" bullshit and China bashing. Get to know the facts and opinions from the other perspective, aka none of the major English news sites, and you'll think much differently. How many Tibetans have you discussed this with? Assuming you're not ethnically Chinese and that you didn't speak to them in Chinese. What someone believes is good for them at what in reality is good for them are two different things, you can't expect that talking with a separatist will get you a non-biased view. I'm not saying the Chinese way is better but in the end it's a problem that China and the exiled government of Tibet have to work out on their own. Me and you won't be living in Tibet, I will certainly never go to Tibet, and Tibet is better off with China. How can you say definitively that Tibet is better off with China? Was there mass starvation or sickness in Tibet that I was unaware of before China decided to invade?
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
|
China won't do a damn thing if Obama goes and sees him. They need us as much as we need them.
Obama will see him, there will be some rhetoric thrown at the media, and a week later everyone will have forgotten (China included).
|
On February 03 2010 02:52 fox[tail] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 02:45 pioneer8 wrote:
In relation to Starcraft and E-sports, i wonder if any western pro's now or in the future boycott Chinese tournaments. It would send a strong message to the Chinese people and young people everywhere that the Communist party in China that has killed more people ever, than any government or entity in the history of the world, is unacceptable, as are the crimes against free speech, imprisonment, and forced labor of mostly peaceful people.
I know that most WC3 tournaments are now in China, and that is dissapointing, and i doubt any gamers to lose their livlihood, but it may be interesting as SC2 comes up with more international tournaments. I wouldn't compete there, not out of any disrespect for the Chinese people, but to send a message to the people. Something like this could actually do alot of good. WTF!!!!! 'has killed more people ever, than any government or entity in the history of the world' Ever heard of Genghis Khan... The Timurid Empire... The Qing dynasty
Probably triple all those 3 eras combined. Mao Ze Dong's era was over 40 million people killed.
---
Dream:
I don't think it's retarded. It's to help the people realize that things could be alot better and freer. It's not to cause any conflict. If i were to do this, i would explain it to the other gamers and the public that it's not to disrespect Chinese people, but to bring awareness to the issue, which could actually do alot of good. Imagine if Grubby stopped playing in China. Sure alot of fans would close-mindedly hate him, but alot would also understand and appreciate it, shedding light on the issue to alot of people.
|
The discussion I posted pretty much sums up the West conception about DL and Tibet and to what extent they are inconsistent with the reality in Tibet. Yes Tibet was much worse before China's invasion, yes Tibet needs China.
|
(to fox)
sum it up please, stop copying and pasting shit it's dreadful to read I want your opinions I am talking to you not a news article
|
How does Tibet need China? That is like saying the United States needed Great Britian before the revolution. If people aren't happy with the government, that's called oppression.
|
their argument does not have to make sense, they got all our money
|
On February 03 2010 02:45 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 02:39 seppolevne wrote:On February 03 2010 02:18 pioneer8 wrote:
Your disbelief in morals does not mean that they do not exist. Such things are self-evident.
These things are mainly based on empathy and sympathy, natural and healthy human emotions. A psychopath is someone incapable of empathy, and it is known as a real mental condition. The simplest of human emotions dont need to be explained.
The lack of sympathy for those suffering is the source of arrogance.
It didn't take me very long to explain...
And your belief in morals does not mean that they do... And to define something as healthy? According to who? Health is simply the average. The most common condition. Nothing other then that makes psychopaths unhealthy and you healthy, and it could easily be the other way around. It's true that things are relative, but you are taking things to too far an extreme. A healthy mind is a rational and functional mind. Health is clearly and accurately defined in a dictionary. It has nothing to do with an average.
Health is defined as such:
"The general condition of the body or mind with reference to soundness and vigor."
I wanted to see what they meant by "soundness", so here that is:
"free from injury, damage, defect, disease, etc.; in good condition; healthy"
Of which mental illness would fall under "defect". The only reason it's a defect is because it is a deviation from the norm. Someone has a birth defect if they are born with 3 arms, but if everyone had 3 arms, the baby born with 2 would be.
Or we could use the WHO definition:
"Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity."
"Well-being"? According to who?(lol) Since no one has been named supreme definer of a state of well-being, we define it by what should normally happen. The average. It is healthy to have two arms and two legs and 10 fingers and 10 toes because most everyone else has that many. It's healthy to have a sex drive because most people do. Losing your high-frequency hearing as you age is certainly not a good thing, but is considered healthy because heck, it happens to everybody. Health is simply the average parameters of a body. Sure, some things such as blood pressure can be considered "healthy" or "unhealthy" as the chance of death decreases/increases at different levels, but to consider "healthy" as clearly defined is false.
|
On February 03 2010 02:59 Dracid wrote:
Pioneer8:
...You really buy into what the western media feeds you don't you?
Look, there are problems with China, but if you'd bother to learn even the slightest bit about what life is like in China, you'd realize that the western depiction of China is severely flawed and biased. The Chinese government does not exist solely to make its people miserable, and it'd be really nice if people understood that once in a while.
Not to mention that a pro gamer's boycott would seriously accomplish nothing. A significant amount of athletes boycotting the Beijing Olympics might have gotten a message across, but not pro gamers.
I'm pretty sure he's just trolling. That or choosing to be deliberately misinformed considering some of his posts and links.
On February 03 2010 03:03 travis wrote:
(to fox)
sum it up please, stop copying and pasting shit it's dreadful to read I want your opinions I am talking to you not a news article
What in the world? Just because you've been spouting opinions somehow invalidates someone linking facts?? Some of your posts show you literally have NO IDEA what you're speaking of (which I suppose is ok since it's your /opinion/)
I mean let's just look at a random statement by you to demonstrate.
On February 03 2010 02:25 travis wrote:
The DL has nothing to do with any sort of violent or harmful protest. Anyone who thinks otherwise obviously does not understand what the DL is.
I suppose you're not aware of the fact that the DL in exile was the one who organized a revolt in the province that triggered the initial backlash from Chinese troops?
Or ..
On February 03 2010 02:51 travis wrote:
How can you say definitively that Tibet is better off with China? Was there mass starvation or sickness in Tibet that I was unaware of before China decided to invade?
^This? Considering Tibet was operating in a feudal system where slavery was allowed? Or the fact that the area alone has little natural resources or trade routes?
|
On February 03 2010 03:04 pioneer8 wrote:
How does Tibet need China? That is like saying the United States needed Great Britian before the revolution. If people aren't happy with the government, that's called oppression.
Well Britain built a decent enough country for it to become independent, Tibet is fucked and relies on Chinese help, that's the difference.
|
On February 02 2010 21:27 exeexe wrote:
China could kill Dalai Lama if they wanted to, as to a countermessure that goverment leaders should not meet with Dalai - or put him in a prison, isolate him.
How would the world react to that? They would be passive.
The Americans must accept that in China they dont have democratic leadership and americans should be more careful when they deal with foreign affairs. Not to mention China owns all the US $$$ and they could just destroy the american eco ez
ez
ez
ez
can you imagine if the US decides to ban doing business with china and move their import market to the rest of southeast asia? american si the biggest market, china needs us more than we need them.
|
On February 03 2010 03:04 pioneer8 wrote:
How does Tibet need China? That is like saying the United States needed Great Britian before the revolution. If people aren't happy with the government, that's called oppression.
I'm not happy with my government, or any government in the world actually. We must be all oppressed?
Tibet needs China because of its geographical location. It is pretty much the most isolated place in the world. China gives Tibet schools, roads, infrastructures, cities, food, pretty much everything you can imagine. The population is now both tibetan and han, but I guess at this rate even the tibetan people does not want independence. They had much worse under DL's rule in the past.
|
On February 03 2010 03:03 travis wrote:
(to fox)
sum it up please, stop copying and pasting shit it's dreadful to read I want your opinions I am talking to you not a news article
Right you are:
In short China has made huge plans to 'force' Tibet into civilization by 2020, they will have all the rest of China has, and more. There will be prosperity and economic and academic security. All Tibet has to do is stick with the plan
|
On February 03 2010 03:02 iloahz wrote:
The discussion I posted pretty much sums up the West conception about DL and Tibet and to what extent they are inconsistent with the reality in Tibet. Yes Tibet was much worse before China's invasion, yes Tibet needs China.
ok, but where is the evidence that they were worse off?
I think the argument that they are better off centers around a certain type of view of the world. The view that progress comes in the form of better technology, better infastructure, stronger military, stronger economy, etc.
I think there is definitely a tradeoff.
Also, the article you linked to mentions some sort of history of slavery/serfdom in tibet, which china is supposed to have put a stop to. This does indeed sound like a good thing, but I have heard nothing about problems with slavery in tibet, and certainly not within the buddhist community there. I have no doubts Tibet was "backwards" in many ways, but Tibet also was ahead of everywhere else in many ways.... I think it's very complicated.
I think it's hearsay, I am sure there is plenty of made up or exaggerated shit on both sides, and frankly I don't believe any of that crap without a ton of evidence.
I don't think China's invasion is all negative, nor all positive.... but I also don't think I know how much there is of either.
|
Gamers boycotting China would send a message to young people just as did the boycott of the Olympics. There are a ton of gamers in China and alot of tournaments, mostly Wc3 afaik, and their numbers grow expodentially. Did you see VODs of the WCG? I used the example of Grubby, a white Dutchman, well loved in China with many many fans. If he, for example, were to do this, many of his fans would definately be effected by it, and as i said, a lot will close-mindedly hate him, but the good has been done, and maybe one day play there again when things change there.
You have to understand, if i were writing this post in China, i would be arrested and thrown in jail. Possibly even tortured under suspicion of conspiracy. That is the serioussness of this.
|
On February 03 2010 03:08 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 02:45 travis wrote:On February 03 2010 02:39 seppolevne wrote:On February 03 2010 02:18 pioneer8 wrote:
Your disbelief in morals does not mean that they do not exist. Such things are self-evident.
These things are mainly based on empathy and sympathy, natural and healthy human emotions. A psychopath is someone incapable of empathy, and it is known as a real mental condition. The simplest of human emotions dont need to be explained.
The lack of sympathy for those suffering is the source of arrogance.
It didn't take me very long to explain...
And your belief in morals does not mean that they do... And to define something as healthy? According to who? Health is simply the average. The most common condition. Nothing other then that makes psychopaths unhealthy and you healthy, and it could easily be the other way around. It's true that things are relative, but you are taking things to too far an extreme. A healthy mind is a rational and functional mind. Health is clearly and accurately defined in a dictionary. It has nothing to do with an average. Health is defined as such: "The general condition of the body or mind with reference to soundness and vigor." I wanted to see what they meant by "soundness", so here that is: "free from injury, damage, defect, disease, etc.; in good condition; healthy" Of which mental illness would fall under "defect". The only reason it's a defect is because it is a deviation from the norm. Someone has a birth defect if they are born with 3 arms, but if everyone had 3 arms, the baby born with 2 would be. Or we could use the WHO definition: "Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity." "Well-being"? According to who?(lol) Since no one has been named supreme definer of a state of well-being, we define it by what should normally happen. The average. It is healthy to have two arms and two legs and 10 fingers and 10 toes because most everyone else has that many. It's healthy to have a sex drive because most people do. Losing your high-frequency hearing as you age is certainly not a good thing, but is considered healthy because heck, it happens to everybody. Health is simply the average parameters of a body. Sure, some things such as blood pressure can be considered "healthy" or "unhealthy" as the chance of death decreases/increases at different levels, but to consider "healthy" as clearly defined is false.
Normal is not the same as average. But if that's what you meant, then I agree.
|
On February 03 2010 03:19 pioneer8 wrote:
Gamers boycotting China would send a message to young people just as did the boycott of the Olympics. There are a ton of gamers in China and alot of tournaments, mostly Wc3 afaik, and there numbers grow expodentially. Did you see VODs of the WCG? I used the example of Grubby, a white Dutchman, well loved in China with many many fans. If he, for example, were to do this, many of his fans would definately be effected by it, and as i said, a lot will close-mindedly hate him, but the good has been done, and maybe one day play there again when things change there.
You have to understand, if i were writing this post in China, i would be arrested and thrown in jail. Possibly even tortured under suspicion of conspiracy. That is the serioussness of this.
Actually if you made this post in China, you'd be made fun of, laughed at, mocked and flamed in so many ways. Nothing will happen to you politically because in China no one will give a shit about what you are saying since you are not important.
|
Freer... now that's a strange sentiment. Explain how your life is necessarily more free from somebody who's Chinese, without making use of American rights which you don't actually take advantage of.
As for bringing awareness to the issue(which is vague as well), do you mean Chinese reactions or western? In terms of western reactions, nothing would really change, since most people already know the western half of the story, not to mention you're overestimating Grubby's fanbase.
As for Chinese reactions, you're simply wrong. People would hate him, yes, but not close-mindedly, and very, very, few would appreciate the gesture. The thing is, the Chinese for the most part know to take what the government tells them with a grain of salt. What the Chinese also realize is that their improved living standards (allowing them to play computer games instead of tilling fields, for instance) is owed largely in part to efforts by the government, meaning a good many people support the government despite its flaws. Finally, many Chinese are aware of how China is portrayed by western media, and see it as highly unjust. A boycott of Chinese tournaments for the reasons given would be reinforcing the notion that the western media is correct in its sentiments, and further proof that the west does not understand China.
|
On February 03 2010 02:56 iloahz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 02:51 travis wrote:On February 03 2010 02:47 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 02:34 igotmyown wrote:On February 03 2010 00:26 WheelOfTime wrote:
God I fucking hate ignorant foreigners discussing about Tibet.
As someone who lived in China for years and have traveled to Tibet twice, let me say this:
Tibet is FUCKED without China, structurally and economically. Period.
Stop all this "free Tibet" bullshit and China bashing. Get to know the facts and opinions from the other perspective, aka none of the major English news sites, and you'll think much differently. How many Tibetans have you discussed this with? Assuming you're not ethnically Chinese and that you didn't speak to them in Chinese. What someone believes is good for them at what in reality is good for them are two different things, you can't expect that talking with a separatist will get you a non-biased view. I'm not saying the Chinese way is better but in the end it's a problem that China and the exiled government of Tibet have to work out on their own. Me and you won't be living in Tibet, I will certainly never go to Tibet, and Tibet is better off with China. How can you say definitively that Tibet is better off with China? Was there mass starvation or sickness in Tibet that I was unaware of before China decided to invade? http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=68073&postdays=0&postorder=asc&topic_view=&start=0&sid=88252ea448cc9ea54cd87de633c21bbe
Are you familiar with the contexts of his arguments? Or do you read directly into what he is saying? There's a lot left unsaid on both sides, largely because audiences aren't that interested in learning the specifics. A lot of the poster in that url's arguments are based on assuming Tibet will continue to be occupied, do Tibetans want development? It's a bait and switch from a theoretical occupation vs independence to a realistic resignation vs resistance argument.
If anyone is more interested in a point of view of someone who's experienced first hand the vices of the Tibetan and Chinese governments, check out Tashi Tsering's autobiography, The Struggle for Modern Tibet
+ Show Spoiler +
This captivating autobiography by a Tibetan educator and former political prisoner is full of twists and turns. Born in 1929 in a Tibetan village, Tsering developed a strong dislike of his country's theocratic ruling elite. As a 13-year-old member of the Dalai Lama's personal dance troupe, he was frequently whipped or beaten by teachers for minor infractions. A heterosexual, he escaped by becoming a drombo, or homosexual passive partner and sex-toy, for a well-connected monk. After studying at the University of Washington, he returned to Chinese-occupied Tibet in 1964, convinced that Tibet could become a modernized society based on socialist, egalitarian principles only through cooperation with the Chinese. Denounced as a "counterrevolutionary" during Mao's Cultural Revolution, he was arrested in 1967 and spent six years in prison or doing forced labor in China. Officially exonerated in 1978, Tsering became a professor of English at Tibet University in Lhasa. He now raises funds to build schools in Tibet's villages, emphasizing Tibetan language and culture. Written with Goldstein, head of Case Western Reserve's anthropology department, and Siebenschuh, a Case English professor, this unusual autobiography valiantly suggests a middle way between authoritarian Chinese rule and a return to Tibet's old order.
|
On February 03 2010 03:08 KissBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 03:03 travis wrote:
(to fox)
sum it up please, stop copying and pasting shit it's dreadful to read I want your opinions I am talking to you not a news article What in the world? Just because you've been spouting opinions somehow invalidates someone linking facts?? Some of your posts show you literally have NO IDEA what you're speaking of (which I suppose is ok since it's your /opinion/) I mean let's just look at a random statement by you to demonstrate. Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 02:25 travis wrote:
The DL has nothing to do with any sort of violent or harmful protest. Anyone who thinks otherwise obviously does not understand what the DL is. I suppose you're not aware of the fact that the DL in exile was the one who organized a revolt in the province that triggered the initial backlash from Chinese troops?
You don't have any idea what you are talking about. Show me any substantial evidence that the DL promoted violence.
Or ..
Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 02:51 travis wrote:
How can you say definitively that Tibet is better off with China? Was there mass starvation or sickness in Tibet that I was unaware of before China decided to invade? ^This? Considering Tibet was operating in a feudal system where slavery was allowed? Or the fact that the area alone has little natural resources or trade routes?
You're just repeating things you have read. Show me examples of the horrors that went on in Tibet before China arrived. You're equating wellbeing to "socio-economic development", and the 2 are not the same.
|
Mao's China is quite a ways different than the current. You'd be hard pressed to find many who still hold onto the God Mao status of the old.
|
On February 03 2010 03:14 fox[tail] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 03:03 travis wrote:
(to fox)
sum it up please, stop copying and pasting shit it's dreadful to read I want your opinions I am talking to you not a news article Right you are: In short China has made huge plans to 'force' Tibet into civilization by 2020, they will have all the rest of China has, and more. There will be prosperity and economic and academic security. All Tibet has to do is stick with the plan
Well, my opinion is that it is a good thing, but the way it's gone down is very bad. And I have no doubt that is the fault of both sides(but mostly the aggressor). The buddhist community in tibet was basically annihilated.
|
On February 03 2010 03:18 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 03:02 iloahz wrote:
The discussion I posted pretty much sums up the West conception about DL and Tibet and to what extent they are inconsistent with the reality in Tibet. Yes Tibet was much worse before China's invasion, yes Tibet needs China. ok, but where is the evidence that they were worse off? I think the argument that they are better off centers around a certain type of view of the world. The view that progress comes in the form of better technology, better infastructure, stronger military, stronger economy, etc. I think there is definitely a tradeoff. Also, the article you linked to mentions some sort of history of slavery/serfdom in tibet, which china is supposed to have put a stop to. This does indeed sound like a good thing, but I have heard nothing about problems with slavery in Tibet, and certainly not within the buddhist community there. I have no doubts Tibet was "backwards" in many ways, but Tibet also was ahead of everywhere else in many ways.... I think it's very complicated. I think it's hearsay, I am sure there is plenty of made up or exaggerated shit on both sides, and frankly I don't believe any of that crap without a ton of evidence. I don't think China's invasion is all negative, nor all positive.... but I also don't think I know how much there is of either.
Well if you gave the Native Americans in the US independence, I seriously doubt they would go back to living in tee pee's or whatever. I just know that Tibet would not be a democracy, it would be a theocracy, and that they technologically speaking would go back to the Dark Ages, the people would topple the DL within a short period
(OK, I think that if you gave the Aborigines in Australia freedom or gave it to some African tribes they would go back to living in the bush, but then again don't have a country or nation)
|
On February 03 2010 03:21 Dracid wrote:
Freer... now that's a strange sentiment. Explain how your life is necessarily more free from somebody who's Chinese, without making use of American rights which you don't actually take advantage of.
As for bringing awareness to the issue(which is vague as well), do you mean Chinese reactions or western? In terms of western reactions, nothing would really change, since most people already know the western half of the story, not to mention you're overestimating Grubby's fanbase.
As for Chinese reactions, you're simply wrong. People would hate him, yes, but not close-mindedly, and very, very, few would appreciate the gesture. The thing is, the Chinese for the most part know to take what the government tells them with a grain of salt. What the Chinese also realize is that their improved living standards (allowing them to play computer games instead of tilling fields, for instance) is owed largely in part to efforts by the government, meaning a good many people support the government despite its flaws. Finally, many Chinese are aware of how China is portrayed by western media, and see it as highly unjust. A boycott of Chinese tournaments for the reasons given would be reinforcing the notion that the western media is correct in its sentiments, and further proof that the west does not understand China.
I can go out onto the the street and say, boy, our government sucks. I hate communism. The party is run by a bunch of parasitic murderers.
Or to compare, i could say, Obama is an idiot and a stooge, the American government is a terrible socialistic mess and a warmongering parasite.
This freedom is very important and to me, is almost like an essentail bodily function. I'm not saying that our system is all that better than China's, because it's not and it's heading in that direction anyway, but the fact that we have the FREEDOM to speak our mind on any topic is something im thankful for and very important, something i desperately hope we can maintain in the US.
|
Did you miss the part where I stated that you could do the same thing in the China?
|
No, you cannot. At least not in the city. Police will arrest you and take you to jail.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_under_Japanese_rule
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.htm
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.
|
On February 03 2010 03:38 pioneer8 wrote:
No, you cannot. At least not in the city. Police will arrest you and take you to jail.
... Yeah you're totally right. Because the people really care about what some random no namer does or thinks. Your Grubby comment alone shows how offbased and misguided your comments are.
|
On February 03 2010 03:31 pioneer8 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 03:21 Dracid wrote:
Freer... now that's a strange sentiment. Explain how your life is necessarily more free from somebody who's Chinese, without making use of American rights which you don't actually take advantage of.
As for bringing awareness to the issue(which is vague as well), do you mean Chinese reactions or western? In terms of western reactions, nothing would really change, since most people already know the western half of the story, not to mention you're overestimating Grubby's fanbase.
As for Chinese reactions, you're simply wrong. People would hate him, yes, but not close-mindedly, and very, very, few would appreciate the gesture. The thing is, the Chinese for the most part know to take what the government tells them with a grain of salt. What the Chinese also realize is that their improved living standards (allowing them to play computer games instead of tilling fields, for instance) is owed largely in part to efforts by the government, meaning a good many people support the government despite its flaws. Finally, many Chinese are aware of how China is portrayed by western media, and see it as highly unjust. A boycott of Chinese tournaments for the reasons given would be reinforcing the notion that the western media is correct in its sentiments, and further proof that the west does not understand China. I can go out onto the the street and say, boy, our government sucks. I hate communism. The party is run by a bunch of parasitic murderers. Or to compare, i could say, Obama is an idiot and a stooge, the American government is a terrible socialistic mess and a warmongering parasite. This freedom is very important and to me, is almost like an essentail bodily function. I'm not saying that our system is all that better than China's, because it's not and it's heading in that direction anyway, but the fact that we have the FREEDOM to speak our mind on any topic is something im thankful for and very important, something i desperately hope we can maintain in the US.
Not to be rude, but have you ever been to China and tried to say these things and seen what happens? I was in Xi'An about half a year ago and watched a fat guy walk half naked with a bandana around his forehead in front of the city hall, waving a flag and screaming political epithets. Nobody even came out to stop him. A few tourists took pictures, but that was about it.
I'm just wondering where your sources of information are from.
|
The laws are "criminal-defamation" “inciting subversion,” “use of rumor, slander, or other means to incite subversion of state power or overthrow of the socialist system” - A 5 year jail sentence.
You can believe whatever you want, i know about the law there.
|
On February 03 2010 03:19 pioneer8 wrote:
Gamers boycotting China would send a message to young people just as did the boycott of the Olympics. There are a ton of gamers in China and alot of tournaments, mostly Wc3 afaik, and their numbers grow expodentially. Did you see VODs of the WCG? I used the example of Grubby, a white Dutchman, well loved in China with many many fans. If he, for example, were to do this, many of his fans would definately be effected by it, and as i said, a lot will close-mindedly hate him, but the good has been done, and maybe one day play there again when things change there.
You have to understand, if i were writing this post in China, i would be arrested and thrown in jail. Possibly even tortured under suspicion of conspiracy. That is the serioussness of this.
You're wrong. I've spent the past five months in China, and I can write posts criticizing the government without worrying about being tortured to death. I'm a student, not an insurgent, plus my words don't carry weight as I'm not anybody important or influential. I'm not a threat to stability, so they simply wouldn't care. You might think that the police would jail you or whatever, but you're wrong, plain and simple.
You can talk ill of the government in China, people do it all the time, poking jokes at China's censorship efforts and such. The only difference is that you can't actively try to undermine the government. Not to mention I told you to give examples of rights you don't take for granted. Unless you have a habit of making baseless public criticisms on the government, those don't count. My point here is that unless you're a political activist, your day-to-day life is not necessarily more "free" than a Chinese citizen's. People like to talk about freedom, I've yet to hear somebody explain how this "freedom" you enjoy makes a significant difference in your daily lives.
|
On February 03 2010 03:44 pioneer8 wrote:
The laws are "criminal-defamation" “inciting subversion,” “use of rumor, slander, or other means to incite subversion of state power or overthrow of the socialist system” - A 5 year jail sentence.
You can believe whatever you want, i know about the law there.
Yeah but they're only gonna be used against someone important who speaks out against the government to many people, not some random person spewing bullshit in the street.
|
I'm against meeting with the DL, not because it's not any of our business, not because it would be like China "recognizing" one of the US states as a sovereign nation, not because China is a culture thousands of years old (the US being not even 300 years old) and we have no place interfering with their agenda, not because relations with China / Russia are already strained...
But because it would cost too much money, and as an American, I don't care to see my taxes sent to Tibet. We already have enough financial problems.
|
On February 03 2010 03:44 pioneer8 wrote:
The laws are "criminal-defamation" “inciting subversion,” “use of rumor, slander, or other means to incite subversion of state power or overthrow of the socialist system”
You can believe whatever you want, i know about the law there.
I'd be hardpressed to name any country where "inciting subversion of government" or "criminal-defamation" doesn't get you in trouble with the law. In fact, HEY WASN'T THIS WHAT THE CIVIL WAR WAS FOUGHT OVER?!
|
On February 03 2010 03:48 gjg.instinct wrote:
I'm against meeting with the DL, not because it's not any of our business, not because it would be like China "recognizing" one of the US states as a sovereign nation, not because China is a culture thousands of years old (the US being not even 300 years old) and we have no place interfering with their agenda, not because relations with China / Russia are already strained...
But because it would cost too much money, and as an American, I don't care to see my taxes sent to Tibet. We already have enough financial problems.
All it is is a meeting between two people, nothing will actually come of it, your taxes will not be sent to Tibet as a result of this...
|
On February 03 2010 03:44 pioneer8 wrote:
The laws are "criminal-defamation" “inciting subversion,” “use of rumor, slander, or other means to incite subversion of state power or overthrow of the socialist system” - A 5 year jail sentence.
You can believe whatever you want, i know about the law there.
Defamation is a crime in the USA. And again, I have to ask, where are your sources of info coming from? You seem to hold a view of life in China that is very different from what I've seen. I'm sure a very distorted picture of any country could arise if I were to just look at their laws and make a conjecture about what life there must be like.
For instance, there's a law in Texas that it's illegal to have pigs fornicating on a runway. That could create a very weird impression of what the USA is like if I looked at its laws. I just think you're taking a very roundabout and convoluted approach to try to justify your view of China.
|
On February 03 2010 03:50 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 03:48 gjg.instinct wrote:
I'm against meeting with the DL, not because it's not any of our business, not because it would be like China "recognizing" one of the US states as a sovereign nation, not because China is a culture thousands of years old (the US being not even 300 years old) and we have no place interfering with their agenda, not because relations with China / Russia are already strained...
But because it would cost too much money, and as an American, I don't care to see my taxes sent to Tibet. We already have enough financial problems. All it is is a meeting between two people, nothing will actually come of it, your taxes will not be sent to Tibet as a result of this...
US taxes are already sent to Tibet -__-. The State Department and CIA are very active in Tibet.
|
On February 03 2010 03:47 Dracid wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 03:19 pioneer8 wrote:
Gamers boycotting China would send a message to young people just as did the boycott of the Olympics. There are a ton of gamers in China and alot of tournaments, mostly Wc3 afaik, and their numbers grow expodentially. Did you see VODs of the WCG? I used the example of Grubby, a white Dutchman, well loved in China with many many fans. If he, for example, were to do this, many of his fans would definately be effected by it, and as i said, a lot will close-mindedly hate him, but the good has been done, and maybe one day play there again when things change there.
You have to understand, if i were writing this post in China, i would be arrested and thrown in jail. Possibly even tortured under suspicion of conspiracy. That is the serioussness of this.
You're wrong. I've spent the past five months in China, and I can write posts criticizing the government without worrying about being tortured to death. I'm a student, not an insurgent, plus my words don't carry weight as I'm not anybody important or influential. I'm not a threat to stability, so they simply wouldn't care. You might think that the police would jail you or whatever, but you're wrong, plain and simple. You can talk ill of the government in China, people do it all the time, poking jokes at China's censorship efforts and such. The only difference is that you can't actively try to undermine the government. Not to mention I told you to give examples of rights you don't take for granted. Unless you have a habit of making baseless public criticisms on the government, those don't count. My point here is that unless you're a political activist, your day-to-day life is not necessarily more "free" than a Chinese citizen's. People like to talk about freedom, I've yet to hear somebody explain how this "freedom" you enjoy makes a significant difference in your daily lives.
What you're doing is undermining the importance of free speech, which margianalizing the lack of free speech for citizens. Yes, you can poke fun, a la, the era of King George, where you would speak in bated breath, but say an insult about dear leader to a police officer and you're going to jail.
Whether you think it's important or not, it is an essential freedom to be able to go up to a police officer, or soldier, and say, 'hey, our president is a lazy parasite who is very bad for our country. The entire party are worthless'. Try that in China.
As i said, you can try to downplay it, but it's signifigant. Also, there are internet regulations for the same things, as well as the gigantic block list of sites deemed objectionable to the Party.
---
Storkhwaiting:
It's just common knowledge among the cities of these things and i have family that visits there. I haven't been there but know about the subject in very much detail, particularly about socialism.
|
On February 03 2010 03:57 pioneer8 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 03:47 Dracid wrote:On February 03 2010 03:19 pioneer8 wrote:
Gamers boycotting China would send a message to young people just as did the boycott of the Olympics. There are a ton of gamers in China and alot of tournaments, mostly Wc3 afaik, and their numbers grow expodentially. Did you see VODs of the WCG? I used the example of Grubby, a white Dutchman, well loved in China with many many fans. If he, for example, were to do this, many of his fans would definately be effected by it, and as i said, a lot will close-mindedly hate him, but the good has been done, and maybe one day play there again when things change there.
You have to understand, if i were writing this post in China, i would be arrested and thrown in jail. Possibly even tortured under suspicion of conspiracy. That is the serioussness of this.
You're wrong. I've spent the past five months in China, and I can write posts criticizing the government without worrying about being tortured to death. I'm a student, not an insurgent, plus my words don't carry weight as I'm not anybody important or influential. I'm not a threat to stability, so they simply wouldn't care. You might think that the police would jail you or whatever, but you're wrong, plain and simple. You can talk ill of the government in China, people do it all the time, poking jokes at China's censorship efforts and such. The only difference is that you can't actively try to undermine the government. Not to mention I told you to give examples of rights you don't take for granted. Unless you have a habit of making baseless public criticisms on the government, those don't count. My point here is that unless you're a political activist, your day-to-day life is not necessarily more "free" than a Chinese citizen's. People like to talk about freedom, I've yet to hear somebody explain how this "freedom" you enjoy makes a significant difference in your daily lives. Whether you think it's important or not, it is an essential freedom to be able to go up to a police officer, or soldier, and say, 'hey, our president is a lazy parasite who is very bad for our country. The entire party are worthless'. Try that in China.
Why don't you try that in the US first and let me know how that turns out ... =\
Also I like how you are trying to ignore what actual experience is by spouting pure conjecture.
I mean, at this point, it's obvious you're just making random statements up.
|
On February 03 2010 03:44 pioneer8 wrote:
The laws are "criminal-defamation" “inciting subversion,” “use of rumor, slander, or other means to incite subversion of state power or overthrow of the socialist system” - A 5 year jail sentence.
You can believe whatever you want, i know about the law there.
Well look at the Patriot act under Bush in the US:
SECTION 501 (Expatriation of Terrorists) expands the Bush administration's "enemy combatant" definition to all American citizens who "may" have violated any provision of Section 802 of the first Patriot Act. (Section 802 is the new defifnition of domestic terrorism, and the definition is "any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law.")
Under Section 501 a US citizen engaging in lawful activities can be grabbed off the street and thrown into a van never to be seen again. The Justice Department states that they can do this because the person "had inferred from conduct" that they were not a US citizen. Remember Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act states that any violation of Federal or State law can result in the "enemy combatant" terrorist designation.
|
Care to create another thread on Chinese censorship and discuss that there?
|
The fact of the matter is, the Western Media tend to censor more than the Chinese do and use that censorship to belittle China and defend the Tibetans when really it should be the other way.
|
Tibet was feudal and a theocracy prior to the Chinese takeover so let's not argue on how crap it is because you need to put things in perspective when you consider at that time, much of China and Asia is probably NOT that much better.
I don't think we need any evidence that Tibet is better off when you consider the rising literacy, infant survival, infrastructure and other shits that a RESPONSIBLE government should provide.
So let's take a step back. What is the alternative? Really, the best we can hope for is that it will turn into another Nepal, at worse another crappy borderland which in either case is unacceptable for Chinese foreign policy.
I personally think that Tibetans should assimilate but I will probably get called names for saying this
|
Yes, the US government is bad as well and has it's own tyrannical laws.
I've said on multiple occasions that the government is bad to police officers.
It's something you can't do in China. If your life gets in the way of the Party, who gets pushed away?
|
On February 03 2010 04:03 Prozen wrote:
The fact of the matter is, the Western Media tend to censor more than the Chinese do and use that censorship to belittle China and defend the Tibetans when really it should be the other way.
I think that it is more biased than censored imo. It's way easier to tell people China is wrong than explain whats really happening
|
On February 03 2010 04:04 haduken wrote:Tibet was feudal and a theocracy prior to the Chinese takeover so let's not argue on how crap it is because you need to put things in perspective when you consider at that time, much of China and Asia is probably NOT that much better. I don't think we need any evidence that Tibet is better off when you consider the rising literacy, infant survival, infrastructure and other shits that a RESPONSIBLE government should provide. So let's take a step back. What is the alternative? Really, the best we can hope for is that it will turn into another Nepal, at worse another crappy borderland which in either case is unacceptable for Chinese foreign policy. I personally think that Tibetans should assimilate but I will probably get called names for saying this
Nah, they want to be a struggling third world (can they even be considered 3rd world without oil?) country that is "free" (how many theocracies can you point out that is free?).
I am more curious to see how many of the protesters for Tibetan independence would actually live in Tibet should the region ever become fully autonomous again.
|
yeah, the whole perception of tibet is wrong in the US
|
On February 03 2010 04:04 haduken wrote:Tibet was feudal and a theocracy prior to the Chinese takeover so let's not argue on how crap it is because you need to put things in perspective when you consider at that time, much of China and Asia is probably NOT that much better. I don't think we need any evidence that Tibet is better off when you consider the rising literacy, infant survival, infrastructure and other shits that a RESPONSIBLE government should provide. So let's take a step back. What is the alternative? Really, the best we can hope for is that it will turn into another Nepal, at worse another crappy borderland which in either case is unacceptable for Chinese foreign policy. I personally think that Tibetans should assimilate but I will probably get called names for saying this
They would fall apart faster than you could say lama... Then the UN (NATO) would 'intervene' to 'stop' a humanitarian catastrophe, and in the end our tax-dollars will go into sustaining that black-hole of an economy, instead of Chinese money. Oh yeah and after that UN (NATO) will suck Tibet dry of all its resources instead of China
|
On February 03 2010 04:10 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 04:04 haduken wrote:Tibet was feudal and a theocracy prior to the Chinese takeover so let's not argue on how crap it is because you need to put things in perspective when you consider at that time, much of China and Asia is probably NOT that much better. I don't think we need any evidence that Tibet is better off when you consider the rising literacy, infant survival, infrastructure and other shits that a RESPONSIBLE government should provide. So let's take a step back. What is the alternative? Really, the best we can hope for is that it will turn into another Nepal, at worse another crappy borderland which in either case is unacceptable for Chinese foreign policy. I personally think that Tibetans should assimilate but I will probably get called names for saying this Nah, they want to be a struggling third world (can they even be considered 3rd world without oil?) country that is "free" (how many theocracies can you point out that is free?). I am more curious to see how many of the protesters for Tibetan independence would actually live in Tibet should the region ever become fully autonomous again.
It's hard to describe a more dysfunctional state than Tibet before it became part of China.
Let's see: Agrarian, theocratic, feudalist, welfare state should sum it up about right. This along with the vast majority of Tibet being illiterate, due to there being zero education system outside the monastic society.
|
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.
|
I just found out the other day that Australia despite being a modern democracy do not have a bill of rights so free speech can be taken away at any time LOL.
|
Bah - do you guys assume that the Chinese political leaders who make these sorts of policies don't know what sort of effect they have? Do consider that what people say could be different than what they intend to get you to do. It's could just be a test on how far China can affect another country's leaders by public statements, rather than a desire to actually stop the meeting.
But yeah, China thread on TL. The same ol' arguments.
|
To me it just feels... obligatory really. Of course China's going to tell Obama not to meet with the Dalai Lama, they tell it to everyone else, and from their standpoint it's perfectly understandable that they should.
Obama may or may not pretend to care, but I don't think it matters all too much either way.
|
On February 03 2010 04:27 haduken wrote:
I just found out the other day that Australia despite being a modern democracy do not have a bill of rights so free speech can be taken away at any time LOL.
There may not be an explicit Australian law about it but the right is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights so it is there.
|
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...
|
See, this would be a good opportunity to discuss world events, on how the world is really like
if more people weren't woefully FUCKING IGNORANT ![[image loading]](http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/3817/kruemelmonsteryn0.gif)
Why da fuck you in here writing a bunch of stuff if you DON'T KNOW SHIT except what you heard on fox or cnn? Why you think you can understand (you're not understanding jack) a foreign culture by casting yourself in the adversarial role? That's what I wanna know.
At the very least switch to BBC where they still do this thing called journalism, and where they provide the opinion of actual Chinese people, you know, in China.
|
On February 03 2010 07:28 .risingdragoon wrote:See, this would be a good opportunity to discuss world events, on how the world is really like if more people weren't woefully FUCKING IGNORANT Why da fuck you in here writing a bunch of stuff if you DON'T KNOW SHIT except what you heard on fox or cnn? Why you think you can understand (you're not understanding jack) a foreign culture by casting yourself in the adversarial role? That's what I wanna know. At the very least switch to BBC where they still do this thing called journalism, and where they provide the opinion of actual Chinese people, you know, in China.
The BBC is CNN's bitch, which means that objective journalism is not a term in their dictionary, all (mainstream) western media are the same. If you want relatively non-biased news watch Al Jazeera English, at least they try to report the truth and not NATO propaganda (except when talking about the middle-east)
|
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. I don't doubt that they've their own political economic stake in all this. Even among the western media there are lesser evils. Call it a gateway if you want.
|
Lol at the cookie monster.
|
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
|
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.
|
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.
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.
|
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 States42691 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 States42691 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.
|
On February 03 2010 09:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 08:36 fox[tail] wrote: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.
lol @ suicide
Well I guess we'll find out with the autopsy and it's accompanying report... oh wait they've been sealed for 70 years by government order.
|
Isn't the Dalai Lama the leader of a certain sect of Buddhism? So why shouldn't Obama meet with him? I even read the Dalai Lama will probably be in the U.S. when he visits Obama so who gives a shit? China wouldn't hesitate to greet the Pope if he stopped by in Beijing, and the Catholic Church's track record isn't stellar either.
I realize there are politcal issues surrounding the Dalai Lama but China has freely used it veto power in the UN security council to go against U.S. interests before, so fuck them.
|
On February 03 2010 13:04 Masamune wrote:
Isn't the Dalai Lama the leader of a certain sect of Buddhism? So why shouldn't Obama meet with him? I even read the Dalai Lama will probably be in the U.S. when he visits Obama so who gives a shit? China wouldn't hesitate to greet the Pope if he stopped by in Beijing, and the Catholic Church's track record isn't stellar either.
I realize there are politcal issues surrounding the Dalai Lama but China has freely used it veto power in the UN security council to go against U.S. interests before, so fuck them.
Do you have no idea what's going on in Tibet, like none at all?
|
On February 03 2010 11:21 .risingdragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 10:49 Virtue wrote: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.
I wouldn't say opportunistic power grabbing hooligans as much as very active in the political world. In fact, most people in the West would be surprised that MUCH of the Tiananmen student protesters would eventually become party members in their future. So in a way, it's quite ironic to both bash Chinese government yet support the protesters so much.
PS. I do admire the Tiananmen square students simply for taking a stand and being interested in the political future of China. here everyone just bitches but no one does anything.
|
The Dalai Lama is a bastion of peace. I think it's good that any leader of a nation involved in mutiple wars meets someone like that.
As for issues regarding tibet. If it were the 60's I'd be all for "Free tibet". Back then the culture of the place would've still been partly intact. These days however I think that would do more harm then good. Think about it. Around 70% (random ballpark figure from my head) of tibetans wouldn't have been alive before chinese rule. If the chinese were to suddenly withdraw this would have huge social and economic consequences for the region. The occupation has simply been going on too long for a change to the previous system to be desired. Sure there could be a revolution there and let's just say for argument sake that they could somehow hold the chinese military at bay. The culture of the previous tibet simply won't exist there so it would likely turn into a third system. Particularly if china has been suppressing religious freedoms
|
On February 03 2010 13:11 King K. Rool wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 13:04 Masamune wrote:
Isn't the Dalai Lama the leader of a certain sect of Buddhism? So why shouldn't Obama meet with him? I even read the Dalai Lama will probably be in the U.S. when he visits Obama so who gives a shit? China wouldn't hesitate to greet the Pope if he stopped by in Beijing, and the Catholic Church's track record isn't stellar either.
I realize there are politcal issues surrounding the Dalai Lama but China has freely used it veto power in the UN security council to go against U.S. interests before, so fuck them.
Do you have no idea what's going on in Tibet, like none at all?
I realize there are politcal issues surrounding the Dalai Lama but China has freely used it veto power in the UN security council to go against U.S. interests before, so fuck them.
|
On February 03 2010 13:24 Masamune wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 13:11 King K. Rool wrote:On February 03 2010 13:04 Masamune wrote:
Isn't the Dalai Lama the leader of a certain sect of Buddhism? So why shouldn't Obama meet with him? I even read the Dalai Lama will probably be in the U.S. when he visits Obama so who gives a shit? China wouldn't hesitate to greet the Pope if he stopped by in Beijing, and the Catholic Church's track record isn't stellar either.
I realize there are politcal issues surrounding the Dalai Lama but China has freely used it veto power in the UN security council to go against U.S. interests before, so fuck them.
Do you have no idea what's going on in Tibet, like none at all? I realize there are politcal issues surrounding the Dalai Lama but China has freely used it veto power in the UN security council to go against U.S. interests before, so fuck them.
Because China will nuke you. Something people should probably worry about.
|
Worldwide apocalypse aside, the U.S. and even the E.U. are much more fearsome than China.
|
One thing I want to add, China has a history of being exploited by foreign imperialist countries ever since the Opium War (including the US). It lost territories and sovereignty left and right for the few decades afterward, causing the unrest in the 1920s that led to the formation of the Chinese Communist Party. The fact that the CCP set expelling imperialist countries as its basis for existence back then probably contributes to why China is so against Tibetan independence.
|
On February 03 2010 13:42 Masamune wrote:
Worldwide apocalypse aside, the U.S. and even the E.U. are much more fearsome than China.
Masamune, please don't turn this thread into a pissing concept. That's an incredibly pointless argument to try to have. And in general, having this "fuck them" attitude in politics is rather impractical. Bringing schoolyard mentalities onto an international forum would not work for any nation, so suggesting to do so doesn't really add anything meaningful.
And I think it's interesting Obama would take this route when he was all about multilateralism and smart diplomacy as a supposed contrast to Bush. Poking China in the eye for the sake of nothing more than rhetoric is stupidity in my opinion and I don't think it serves the USA's interests at all. Although, I'm from the school of thought that thinks cooperation with China would serve the country more than antagonism. There's a significant minority of America's leaders that thinks the opposite route should be taken.
|
On February 03 2010 15:15 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 13:42 Masamune wrote:
Worldwide apocalypse aside, the U.S. and even the E.U. are much more fearsome than China. Masamune, please don't turn this thread into a pissing concept. That's an incredibly pointless argument to try to have. And in general, having this "fuck them" attitude in politics is rather impractical. Bringing schoolyard mentalities onto an international forum would not work for any nation, so suggesting to do so doesn't really add anything meaningful.
Masamune didn't, it was Synapse who suggested that China would initiate nuclear holocaust.
|
On February 03 2010 09:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 08:36 fox[tail] wrote: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.
Maybe I misworded my earlier post, when I say government I mean that the people of Britain put that government in power, which means that the majority of British citizens support/believe what their government is doing is right (Torrie and Labor government have the same foreign policy when it comes to China). The BBC like any other network these days only cares about making money. Reporting what the public does not want to hear (the truth) = said public switching to Sky News or whatever which in turn = less moneys for their directors and producers to spend on golden yachts
@mangomango
Yes I pasted it (and I only know see that i should have spoilered it)
|
United States42691 Posts
On February 03 2010 16:26 fox[tail] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 09:31 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 08:36 fox[tail] wrote: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. Maybe I misworded my earlier post, when I say government I mean that the people of Britain put that government in power, which means that the majority of British citizens support/believe what their government is doing is right (Torrie and Labor government have the same foreign policy when it comes to China). The BBC like any other network these days only cares about making money. Reporting what the public does not want to hear (the truth) = said public switching to Sky News or whatever which in turn = less moneys for their directors and producers to spend on golden yachts @mangomango Yes I pasted it (and I only know see that i should have spoilered it)
No, you still don't know shit about shit.
The BBC does not only care about making money. Know why I can be so sure about that?
Because it doesn't fucking make money. It's a publicly funded institution. It's free. It doesn't charge anything. They don't lose any ad revenue if I don't like the BBC news and switch over to Sky. Guess why? NO FUCKING ADS.
Seriously, I don't make up shit about Serbia, quit making up shit about Britain. You don't know anything and every Brit would find your posts amusingly nonsensical but someone who isn't familiar with the system might accidentally confuse you with a person who doesn't have their mouth and anus miswired.
|
On February 02 2010 20:27 emucxg wrote:
why Obama have to meet Dalai Lama?
Cuz Obama jacked his nobel peace prize.
|
On February 03 2010 15:15 StorkHwaiting wrote:
And I think it's interesting Obama would take this route when he was all about multilateralism and smart diplomacy as a supposed contrast to Bush. Poking China in the eye for the sake of nothing more than rhetoric is stupidity in my opinion and I don't think it serves the USA's interests at all. Although, I'm from the school of thought that thinks cooperation with China would serve the country more than antagonism. There's a significant minority of America's leaders that thinks the opposite route should be taken.
Actually it is political maneuvering. What most people aren't taking into account is how closely this followed the US arms deal with Taiwan. While Western media paints the picture that US isn't consenting to Chinese demands on the matter, it mentions little on the fact that actually MOST of the requests made by Taiwan in the negotiated deal was actually later reneged by the US after Chinese demands including several key components such as the Raptors. Meeting with the Dalai Lama is essentially the US's way of "saving face" themselves hence why I wasn't very surprised at the decision at all.
|
On February 03 2010 16:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 16:26 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 09:31 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 08:36 fox[tail] wrote: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. Maybe I misworded my earlier post, when I say government I mean that the people of Britain put that government in power, which means that the majority of British citizens support/believe what their government is doing is right (Torrie and Labor government have the same foreign policy when it comes to China). The BBC like any other network these days only cares about making money. Reporting what the public does not want to hear (the truth) = said public switching to Sky News or whatever which in turn = less moneys for their directors and producers to spend on golden yachts @mangomango Yes I pasted it (and I only know see that i should have spoilered it) No, you still don't know shit about shit. The BBC does not only care about making money. Know why I can be so sure about that? Because it doesn't fucking make money. It's a publicly funded institution. It's free. It doesn't charge anything. They don't lose any ad revenue if I don't like the BBC news and switch over to Sky. Guess why? NO FUCKING ADS. Seriously, I don't make up shit about Serbia, quit making up shit about Britain. You don't know anything and every Brit would find your posts amusingly nonsensical but someone who isn't familiar with the system might accidentally confuse you with a person who doesn't have their mouth and anus miswired.
I'm curious about this. If the BBC makes no money, how does it pay it's workers? The very idea that it's a publicly funded institution dictates that the funds have to come from somewhere ...?
Edit: In fact, after wondering this, I looked up BBC funding and there's quite a few articles supporting foxtail's claims.
|
United States42691 Posts
On February 03 2010 16:37 KissBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 16:32 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 16:26 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 09:31 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 08:36 fox[tail] wrote: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. Maybe I misworded my earlier post, when I say government I mean that the people of Britain put that government in power, which means that the majority of British citizens support/believe what their government is doing is right (Torrie and Labor government have the same foreign policy when it comes to China). The BBC like any other network these days only cares about making money. Reporting what the public does not want to hear (the truth) = said public switching to Sky News or whatever which in turn = less moneys for their directors and producers to spend on golden yachts @mangomango Yes I pasted it (and I only know see that i should have spoilered it) No, you still don't know shit about shit. The BBC does not only care about making money. Know why I can be so sure about that? Because it doesn't fucking make money. It's a publicly funded institution. It's free. It doesn't charge anything. They don't lose any ad revenue if I don't like the BBC news and switch over to Sky. Guess why? NO FUCKING ADS. Seriously, I don't make up shit about Serbia, quit making up shit about Britain. You don't know anything and every Brit would find your posts amusingly nonsensical but someone who isn't familiar with the system might accidentally confuse you with a person who doesn't have their mouth and anus miswired. I'm curious about this. If the BBC makes no money, how does it pay it's workers? The very idea that it's a publicly funded institution dictates that the funds have to come from somewhere ...?
It has the power to levy a private tax on all British tv owning households called the License Fee. This tax is independent of the Government.
The BBC dates back to when Britain was the foremost world power and was designed with idealistic notions of an impartial voice serving the public. It has it's own charter, internal checks and balances, financial accountability (to it's own watchdog) and absolute independence. It can and has clashed publicly with the Government. It's a well crafted legacy of a more idealistic age and it makes me angry to see a foreigner with no idea how it works making up lies about it.
|
On February 03 2010 16:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 16:37 KissBlade wrote:On February 03 2010 16:32 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 16:26 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 09:31 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 08:36 fox[tail] wrote: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. Maybe I misworded my earlier post, when I say government I mean that the people of Britain put that government in power, which means that the majority of British citizens support/believe what their government is doing is right (Torrie and Labor government have the same foreign policy when it comes to China). The BBC like any other network these days only cares about making money. Reporting what the public does not want to hear (the truth) = said public switching to Sky News or whatever which in turn = less moneys for their directors and producers to spend on golden yachts @mangomango Yes I pasted it (and I only know see that i should have spoilered it) No, you still don't know shit about shit. The BBC does not only care about making money. Know why I can be so sure about that? Because it doesn't fucking make money. It's a publicly funded institution. It's free. It doesn't charge anything. They don't lose any ad revenue if I don't like the BBC news and switch over to Sky. Guess why? NO FUCKING ADS. Seriously, I don't make up shit about Serbia, quit making up shit about Britain. You don't know anything and every Brit would find your posts amusingly nonsensical but someone who isn't familiar with the system might accidentally confuse you with a person who doesn't have their mouth and anus miswired. I'm curious about this. If the BBC makes no money, how does it pay it's workers? The very idea that it's a publicly funded institution dictates that the funds have to come from somewhere ...? It has the power to levy a private tax on all British tv owning households called the License Fee. This tax is independent of the Government.
Correct me if I'm wrong (which I may very well be, I only just started looking things up about BBC) but isn't BBC's operations overseen by governors appointed by the Crown?
Also I should point out, Fox News clashes with the government too (especially current regime). However, you can hardly claim it is an unbiased or reliable source ... And I say this as a Republican!
|
On February 03 2010 16:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 16:26 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 09:31 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 08:36 fox[tail] wrote: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. Maybe I misworded my earlier post, when I say government I mean that the people of Britain put that government in power, which means that the majority of British citizens support/believe what their government is doing is right (Torrie and Labor government have the same foreign policy when it comes to China). The BBC like any other network these days only cares about making money. Reporting what the public does not want to hear (the truth) = said public switching to Sky News or whatever which in turn = less moneys for their directors and producers to spend on golden yachts @mangomango Yes I pasted it (and I only know see that i should have spoilered it) No, you still don't know shit about shit. The BBC does not only care about making money. Know why I can be so sure about that? Because it doesn't fucking make money. It's a publicly funded institution. It's free. It doesn't charge anything. They don't lose any ad revenue if I don't like the BBC news and switch over to Sky. Guess why? NO FUCKING ADS. Seriously, I don't make up shit about Serbia, quit making up shit about Britain. You don't know anything and every Brit would find your posts amusingly nonsensical but someone who isn't familiar with the system might accidentally confuse you with a person who doesn't have their mouth and anus miswired.
I meant that they make that money from their paychecks, i mean ok, it's not enough for golden yachts but you get what I'm trying to say, Serbia also has a publicly funded state tv and they are government lapdogs. If the majority of Britain is paying £150 a year to listen to what they don't want to hear it creates problems and jobs are lost within the BBC
|
On February 03 2010 13:24 Masamune wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 13:11 King K. Rool wrote:On February 03 2010 13:04 Masamune wrote:
Isn't the Dalai Lama the leader of a certain sect of Buddhism? So why shouldn't Obama meet with him? I even read the Dalai Lama will probably be in the U.S. when he visits Obama so who gives a shit? China wouldn't hesitate to greet the Pope if he stopped by in Beijing, and the Catholic Church's track record isn't stellar either.
I realize there are politcal issues surrounding the Dalai Lama but China has freely used it veto power in the UN security council to go against U.S. interests before, so fuck them.
Do you have no idea what's going on in Tibet, like none at all? I realize there are politcal issues surrounding the Dalai Lama but China has freely used it veto power in the UN security council to go against U.S. interests before, so fuck them.
So which part are you talking about? The fact that China used the veto no more than 6 times during all say 50 years in UN? while United States used it no less than 40?
If you look even more closely, All China's vetoes are purely reactionary. They abstain most of their votes.
You and the west are conjuring an adversary relationship when historically there were none.
Like it or not, China has a voice. Deal with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power
|
United States42691 Posts
On February 03 2010 16:45 fox[tail] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 16:32 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 16:26 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 09:31 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 08:36 fox[tail] wrote: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. Maybe I misworded my earlier post, when I say government I mean that the people of Britain put that government in power, which means that the majority of British citizens support/believe what their government is doing is right (Torrie and Labor government have the same foreign policy when it comes to China). The BBC like any other network these days only cares about making money. Reporting what the public does not want to hear (the truth) = said public switching to Sky News or whatever which in turn = less moneys for their directors and producers to spend on golden yachts @mangomango Yes I pasted it (and I only know see that i should have spoilered it) No, you still don't know shit about shit. The BBC does not only care about making money. Know why I can be so sure about that? Because it doesn't fucking make money. It's a publicly funded institution. It's free. It doesn't charge anything. They don't lose any ad revenue if I don't like the BBC news and switch over to Sky. Guess why? NO FUCKING ADS. Seriously, I don't make up shit about Serbia, quit making up shit about Britain. You don't know anything and every Brit would find your posts amusingly nonsensical but someone who isn't familiar with the system might accidentally confuse you with a person who doesn't have their mouth and anus miswired. I meant that they make that money from their paychecks, i mean ok, it's not enough for golden yachts but you get what I'm trying to say, Serbia also has a publicly funded state tv and they are government lapdogs. If the majority of Britain is paying £150 a year to listen to what they don't want to hear it creates problems and jobs are lost within the BBC
The fact that Serbia can't manage to create a functioning public institution doesn't surprise me given you're only just starting to get the hang of democracy. Please don't judge real countries by your own failures to achieve.
|
Obama should meet with the Dalai Lama anyway cuz I want to see what happens.
|
On February 03 2010 16:45 fox[tail] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 16:32 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 16:26 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 09:31 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 08:36 fox[tail] wrote: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. Maybe I misworded my earlier post, when I say government I mean that the people of Britain put that government in power, which means that the majority of British citizens support/believe what their government is doing is right (Torrie and Labor government have the same foreign policy when it comes to China). The BBC like any other network these days only cares about making money. Reporting what the public does not want to hear (the truth) = said public switching to Sky News or whatever which in turn = less moneys for their directors and producers to spend on golden yachts @mangomango Yes I pasted it (and I only know see that i should have spoilered it) No, you still don't know shit about shit. The BBC does not only care about making money. Know why I can be so sure about that? Because it doesn't fucking make money. It's a publicly funded institution. It's free. It doesn't charge anything. They don't lose any ad revenue if I don't like the BBC news and switch over to Sky. Guess why? NO FUCKING ADS. Seriously, I don't make up shit about Serbia, quit making up shit about Britain. You don't know anything and every Brit would find your posts amusingly nonsensical but someone who isn't familiar with the system might accidentally confuse you with a person who doesn't have their mouth and anus miswired. I meant that they make that money from their paychecks, i mean ok, it's not enough for golden yachts but you get what I'm trying to say, Serbia also has a publicly funded state tv and they are government lapdogs. If the majority of Britain is paying £150 a year to listen to what they don't want to hear it creates problems and jobs are lost within the BBC
No, this is what you said.
On February 03 2010 07:57 fox[tail] wrote:
The BBC is CNN's bitch, which means that objective journalism is not a term in their dictionary, all (mainstream) western media are the same.
These are slightly different.
|
On February 03 2010 16:35 KissBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 15:15 StorkHwaiting wrote:
And I think it's interesting Obama would take this route when he was all about multilateralism and smart diplomacy as a supposed contrast to Bush. Poking China in the eye for the sake of nothing more than rhetoric is stupidity in my opinion and I don't think it serves the USA's interests at all. Although, I'm from the school of thought that thinks cooperation with China would serve the country more than antagonism. There's a significant minority of America's leaders that thinks the opposite route should be taken. Actually it is political maneuvering. What most people aren't taking into account is how closely this followed the US arms deal with Taiwan. While Western media paints the picture that US isn't consenting to Chinese demands on the matter, it mentions little on the fact that actually MOST of the requests made by Taiwan in the negotiated deal was actually later reneged by the US after Chinese demands including several key components such as the Raptors. Meeting with the Dalai Lama is essentially the US's way of "saving face" themselves hence why I wasn't very surprised at the decision at all.
America needs a show of force against strong states. Meeting DLLM accomplish nothing substantially but it provokes a reaction.
The west is naturally suspicious of an emerging China.
|
United States42691 Posts
On February 03 2010 16:40 KissBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 16:38 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 16:37 KissBlade wrote:On February 03 2010 16:32 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 16:26 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 09:31 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 08:36 fox[tail] wrote: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. Maybe I misworded my earlier post, when I say government I mean that the people of Britain put that government in power, which means that the majority of British citizens support/believe what their government is doing is right (Torrie and Labor government have the same foreign policy when it comes to China). The BBC like any other network these days only cares about making money. Reporting what the public does not want to hear (the truth) = said public switching to Sky News or whatever which in turn = less moneys for their directors and producers to spend on golden yachts @mangomango Yes I pasted it (and I only know see that i should have spoilered it) No, you still don't know shit about shit. The BBC does not only care about making money. Know why I can be so sure about that? Because it doesn't fucking make money. It's a publicly funded institution. It's free. It doesn't charge anything. They don't lose any ad revenue if I don't like the BBC news and switch over to Sky. Guess why? NO FUCKING ADS. Seriously, I don't make up shit about Serbia, quit making up shit about Britain. You don't know anything and every Brit would find your posts amusingly nonsensical but someone who isn't familiar with the system might accidentally confuse you with a person who doesn't have their mouth and anus miswired. I'm curious about this. If the BBC makes no money, how does it pay it's workers? The very idea that it's a publicly funded institution dictates that the funds have to come from somewhere ...? It has the power to levy a private tax on all British tv owning households called the License Fee. This tax is independent of the Government. Correct me if I'm wrong (which I may very well be, I only just started looking things up about BBC) but isn't BBC's operations overseen by governors appointed by the Crown? Also I should point out, Fox News clashes with the government too (especially current regime). However, you can hardly claim it is an unbiased or reliable source ... And I say this as a Republican!
Obviously not but American politics (and society) is far more partizan than British. Whether you're for something or against you're going to have a lot of popular support. The BBC is constitutionally impartial (ie their royal charter requires it of them). Fox clashes with Democratic governments but is less likely to clash with Republican ones whereas both Labour and Conservative governments in Britain insist the BBC is biased against them.
Oh, and the Crown is required to be politically neutral by tradition (like a constitution only more British). Obviously Elizabeth Windsor holds political views but The Crown, ie her public role, does not. She can say what she likes in private but her job is to be neutral.
|
On February 03 2010 07:24 pioneer8 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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...
See, the thing is, I asked you how your life is necessarily more free than someone in China, and for some reason you still haven't. If you're going to say that people get jailed for saying anything against the government in public, then you're going to need something to back it up, otherwise you're just pulling conjecture out of your ass.
Freedom of speech is far from an inalienable god given right. You say that I don't understand rights and freedom, yet you do nothing to explain them. Here's the thing: Freedom is never absolute, otherwise you'd be living in an anarchy. There are always limits to your freedom, so the whole China has no freedom rhetoric demonstrates a good amount of ignorance on what China is like as well as what freedom actually means.
Honestly, it seems like your understanding of freedom is rather juvenile, since it only seems to extend to being able to criticize the president in a public forum. Arguing for freedom of speech should be easy, you're fed all the reasons in school. It's necessary for a democratic government, because you need an educated populace. China however, is not a democracy, but I'm not going to argue with you about why it should or should not become democratic.
Anyhow, freedoms are nice, and they sound nice, but until you can explain to me how the freedoms you enjoy as an American significantly change your life from that of the Chinese, the freedoms you espouse as being necessary to life are simply ideals that you take for granted.You think it'd be easy, if you have freedom whereas the Chinese do not, but in reality, life in China isn't radically different from life in America, at least not because of "freedom."
Edit: I don't really know anything about how the BBC works, but from what I've read the BBC doesn't seem to be exactly impartial with regards to news involving China.
|
On February 03 2010 16:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 16:45 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 16:32 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 16:26 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 09:31 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 08:36 fox[tail] wrote: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. Maybe I misworded my earlier post, when I say government I mean that the people of Britain put that government in power, which means that the majority of British citizens support/believe what their government is doing is right (Torrie and Labor government have the same foreign policy when it comes to China). The BBC like any other network these days only cares about making money. Reporting what the public does not want to hear (the truth) = said public switching to Sky News or whatever which in turn = less moneys for their directors and producers to spend on golden yachts @mangomango Yes I pasted it (and I only know see that i should have spoilered it) No, you still don't know shit about shit. The BBC does not only care about making money. Know why I can be so sure about that? Because it doesn't fucking make money. It's a publicly funded institution. It's free. It doesn't charge anything. They don't lose any ad revenue if I don't like the BBC news and switch over to Sky. Guess why? NO FUCKING ADS. Seriously, I don't make up shit about Serbia, quit making up shit about Britain. You don't know anything and every Brit would find your posts amusingly nonsensical but someone who isn't familiar with the system might accidentally confuse you with a person who doesn't have their mouth and anus miswired. I meant that they make that money from their paychecks, i mean ok, it's not enough for golden yachts but you get what I'm trying to say, Serbia also has a publicly funded state tv and they are government lapdogs. If the majority of Britain is paying £150 a year to listen to what they don't want to hear it creates problems and jobs are lost within the BBC The fact that Serbia can't manage to create a functioning public institution doesn't surprise me given you're only just starting to get the hang of democracy. Please don't judge real countries by your own failures to achieve.
Don't talk about countries you know nothing about, I was born in Australia so I know a bit more about your country than you think, I really like Britain, and I'm not attacking the people of Britain, just the polices of a fallen corporation. The UN was created on certain ideals that it no longer represents, NATO was defensive, now it's offensive, and BBC is now biased towards China. What something is meant to do and what it does are two different things
|
On February 03 2010 16:54 EmeraldSparks wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 16:45 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 16:32 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 16:26 fox[tail] wrote:On February 03 2010 09:31 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 08:36 fox[tail] wrote: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. Maybe I misworded my earlier post, when I say government I mean that the people of Britain put that government in power, which means that the majority of British citizens support/believe what their government is doing is right (Torrie and Labor government have the same foreign policy when it comes to China). The BBC like any other network these days only cares about making money. Reporting what the public does not want to hear (the truth) = said public switching to Sky News or whatever which in turn = less moneys for their directors and producers to spend on golden yachts @mangomango Yes I pasted it (and I only know see that i should have spoilered it) No, you still don't know shit about shit. The BBC does not only care about making money. Know why I can be so sure about that? Because it doesn't fucking make money. It's a publicly funded institution. It's free. It doesn't charge anything. They don't lose any ad revenue if I don't like the BBC news and switch over to Sky. Guess why? NO FUCKING ADS. Seriously, I don't make up shit about Serbia, quit making up shit about Britain. You don't know anything and every Brit would find your posts amusingly nonsensical but someone who isn't familiar with the system might accidentally confuse you with a person who doesn't have their mouth and anus miswired. I meant that they make that money from their paychecks, i mean ok, it's not enough for golden yachts but you get what I'm trying to say, Serbia also has a publicly funded state tv and they are government lapdogs. If the majority of Britain is paying £150 a year to listen to what they don't want to hear it creates problems and jobs are lost within the BBC No, this is what you said. Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 07:57 fox[tail] wrote:
The BBC is CNN's bitch, which means that objective journalism is not a term in their dictionary, all (mainstream) western media are the same. These are slightly different.
By saying BBC News is CNN's bitch i meant that they follow CNN's lead on who if right and who is wrong, all mainstream media in NATO countries follow the same 'rules'
|
United States42691 Posts
And yet you thought the BBC was a Government puppet simply because it had public funding. Evidently being born in Australia is insufficient as a qualification for commenting on British institutions. Fortunately your repeated ignorance in this topic should have cleared that up for anyone in any doubt.
I'm not entirely sure why you're trying to salvage this. You were bullshitting about something you knew nothing about and were called out on it. Unless you're going to prove me wrong and yourself right by demonstrating that the existence of the License Fee (their public funding) somehow puts the BBC under the thumb of the Government you're not going to redeem yourself.
What you said wasn't true and that discredits you. No amount of being born in Australia is going to undo that.
|
On February 03 2010 17:11 KwarK wrote:
And yet you thought the BBC was a Government puppet simply because it had public funding. Evidently being born in Australia is insufficient as a qualification for commenting on British institutions. Fortunately your repeated ignorance in this topic should have cleared that up for anyone in any doubt.
I'm not entirely sure why you're trying to salvage this. You were bullshitting about something you knew nothing about and were called out on it. Unless you're going to prove me wrong and yourself right by demonstrating that the existence of the License Fee (their public funding) somehow puts the BBC under the thumb of the Government you're not going to redeem yourself.
What you said wasn't true and that discredits you. No amount of being born in Australia is going to undo that.
The moment the BBC made a 24h news channel, journalism had to go out the window. Objective journalism takes time, by the time a responsible person does the investigation (about chemical weapons in Iraq) and makes a report ITV, Channel 4, CNN etc. have already broken the story, the government has said it was true and the public has already reacted, and by that time it's useless to run that story because the BBC will have already lost credibility for not being there first. If they lose credibility than why should the public pay?
Thats why now we have 'fast' journalism which doesn't really care about the facts but only how to fill a time slot with something 80% of people believe.
I already explained that when I said government I didn't mean Gordon Brown, but Torrie and Labor together... They have the same views on China, which they propagate, a very large percent of the UK voted for Torrie/Labor, so it would be foolish to go against 80% of Britain, because it would take time to prove them wrong. It would be logistically impossible for BBC to do (non-biased) investigative journalism for every minute of a 24h news channel, and at the same time ITV, Channal 4 ect. are telling the people what they want to hear, and people would rather listen to what they want to hear than the truth.
EDIT: Who put that government into power? The people, and the people want to know that their system is way better than anyone else's (read China). On the domestic front the BBC is way less biased than when they talk about foreign affairs
|
United States42691 Posts
I could reply to that post but it's all theorycrafted nonsense about how when forced to come up with news on demand journalists resort to making it up. The easiest reply would be that they don't because the unicorns verify their stories instantly.
It still doesn't change the fact that you made repeated criticisms which turned out to be completely untrue. You have been discredited. I have no inclination to discuss the BBC with someone who is simply using me to learn about it. You demonstrated the depths of your knowledge with that nonsense about public funding. It doesn't add to your case that you can't seem to spell Tory or Labour and that Tory is simply a nickname for the Conservative Party. Especially given I have already mentioned both with the correct spellings earlier in this thread.
I'm not going to argue with somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about and refuses to bring up any facts. Show me some evidence and I'll take a look at it. Quote some sources and I'll read them. Tell me what you think and I'll do my best to ensure that everyone else in the topic knows how qualified your opinions are.
|
On February 03 2010 18:08 KwarK wrote:
I could reply to that post but it's all theorycrafted nonsense about how when forced to come up with news on demand journalists resort to making it up. The easiest reply would be that they don't because the unicorns verify their stories instantly.
It still doesn't change the fact that you made repeated criticisms which turned out to be completely untrue. You have been discredited. I have no inclination to discuss the BBC with someone who is simply using me to learn about it. You demonstrated the depths of your knowledge with that nonsense about public funding. It doesn't add to your case that you can't seem to spell Tory or Labour and that Tory is simply a nickname for the Conservative Party. Especially given I have already mentioned both with the correct spellings earlier in this thread.
I'm not going to argue with somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about and refuses to bring up any facts. Show me some evidence and I'll take a look at it. Quote some sources and I'll read them. Tell me what you think and I'll do my best to ensure that everyone else in the topic knows how qualified your opinions are.
Haha right you are, I guess i spelled Tory wrong because I've always seen them as Tories, but it's a shit load easier to write than the Conservative Party....
If you want evidence than go to these guys: http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
Even though I think they just hate the BBC, there are some real gems in there...
EDIT: And I can't be bothered to write anymore about this because you are blatantly refusing to read into what i write. I said that the BBC is very biased when talking about the rest of the world, on domestic issues they are as non-biased as they can be.
|
United States42691 Posts
If you'd bothered to click your link (although a blog is hardly evidence) you'd see the top post was criticizing the anti Israel bias. Given NATO is generally pro Israel and your point is that the BBC follows the NATO line that'd seem to be evidence against your case.
But yeah, I'm going to continue to ignore you because you're just repeating your "the BBC is biased" without qualifying it after having demonstrated beyond any doubt you don't know anything about the BBC.
|
On February 03 2010 18:26 KwarK wrote:
If you'd bothered to click your link (although a blog is hardly evidence) you'd see the top post was criticizing the anti Israel bias. Given NATO is generally pro Israel and your point is that the BBC follows the NATO line that'd seem to be evidence against your case.
But yeah, I'm going to continue to ignore you because you're just repeating your "the BBC is biased" without qualifying it after having demonstrated beyond any doubt you don't know anything about the BBC.
Look in the forum under examples of bias, and if you think that by repeating something like 'you don't know anything about the BBC', that i am somehow discredited for giving a logical view on the western media(!?!?!), and my thoroughly adequate response's to your questions make you right and me wrong than by all means please ignore...
Just because someone says they are something doesn't mean they are: The UN no longer stands for what it once did, NATO is no longer a defensive alliance etc.
Now back to China and Tibet...
|
On February 03 2010 11:42 liosama wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 03:38 igotmyown wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_under_Japanese_ruleThere 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.htmThe 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.
Exactly my point. If you read the url where love1whatever is getting his information, they make the exact same argument about Tibetan quality of life and life expectancy. And people are less inclined to tell Koreans they're biased and don't know what was good for them.
|
On February 03 2010 18:48 igotmyown wrote:
Exactly my point. If you read the url where love1whatever is getting his information, they make the exact same argument about Tibetan quality of life and life expectancy. And people are less inclined to tell Koreans they're biased and don't know what was good for them.
Oh sorry I wasn't following the full argument. But yeah it's typical disgusting sort of arguments like that that make me puke.
|
On February 03 2010 15:15 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 13:42 Masamune wrote:
Worldwide apocalypse aside, the U.S. and even the E.U. are much more fearsome than China. Masamune, please don't turn this thread into a pissing concept. That's an incredibly pointless argument to try to have. And in general, having this "fuck them" attitude in politics is rather impractical. Bringing schoolyard mentalities onto an international forum would not work for any nation, so suggesting to do so doesn't really add anything meaningful. And I think it's interesting Obama would take this route when he was all about multilateralism and smart diplomacy as a supposed contrast to Bush. Poking China in the eye for the sake of nothing more than rhetoric is stupidity in my opinion and I don't think it serves the USA's interests at all. Although, I'm from the school of thought that thinks cooperation with China would serve the country more than antagonism. There's a significant minority of America's leaders that thinks the opposite route should be taken.
I’m not trying to turn this thread into a pissing contest, because if anyone really thinks that China rivals the U.S. in military capabilities, then they are delusional. There is no contest at all.
And this “fuck them” attitude refers to the Chinese government. Maybe in China, silencing your critics and opponents using any means possible flies there, but why shouldn’t Obama talk to the Dalai Lama? What next? Should we agree that our internet be censored of anything that rubs China the wrong way, too? If anything, I’d call China’s attitude of making threats in the face of potential diplomacy more schoolyard and pathetic than anything I’ve said.
Furthermore, China’s attitude of “either you’re with us or against us” is more comparable to a route Bush would take than Obama’s willingness to speak with a world-known religious leader and face of a government in exile. If anything, the latter is more diplomatic than siding with the stronger side and ignoring the whole issue altogether.
On February 03 2010 16:50 haduken wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 13:24 Masamune wrote:On February 03 2010 13:11 King K. Rool wrote:On February 03 2010 13:04 Masamune wrote:
Isn't the Dalai Lama the leader of a certain sect of Buddhism? So why shouldn't Obama meet with him? I even read the Dalai Lama will probably be in the U.S. when he visits Obama so who gives a shit? China wouldn't hesitate to greet the Pope if he stopped by in Beijing, and the Catholic Church's track record isn't stellar either.
I realize there are politcal issues surrounding the Dalai Lama but China has freely used it veto power in the UN security council to go against U.S. interests before, so fuck them.
Do you have no idea what's going on in Tibet, like none at all? I realize there are politcal issues surrounding the Dalai Lama but China has freely used it veto power in the UN security council to go against U.S. interests before, so fuck them. So which part are you talking about? The fact that China used the veto no more than 6 times during all say 50 years in UN? while United States used it no less than 40? If you look even more closely, All China's vetoes are purely reactionary. They abstain most of their votes. You and the west are conjuring an adversary relationship when historically there were none. Like it or not, China has a voice. Deal with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power
The U.S. has obviously used its veto more times than China because ever since the inception of the UN, it has been a world power while China has only risen to power recently...so I don’t know what you’re getting at.
But for clarification, I’m talking about these parts:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-5775752.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN11364578
So 2/6 vetos against U.S.-backed drafts?
And yes, China has abstained many times, but they have usually done so because they would rather not upset the U.S., while still pursuing their own interests. They did this in 2000 by abstaining against sanctions being imposed on the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan because relations between the two were strengthening, in 2004 by abstaining on resolutions of the withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon because of favourable relations with the former, and many times on the issue of Darfur because of favourable relations with Sudan’s Mugabe.
So yes, China has gone against U.S. interests before, either with their veto (1/3 of the time...) or with their lack of support (a.k.a. abstaining). This is not even factoring in their favourable relations with Iran and North Korea, either.
And no, I’m not trying to conjure up anything; I’m just defending my view that the U.S. should do what it wants without having to deal with China’s bs.
Why do you and so many other Chinese posters have this baseless, unobjective reasoning in your head where you always think it's "us against them"? Yeah the West has its motives, bus so does China.
|
On February 03 2010 19:19 Masamune wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 15:15 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 03 2010 13:42 Masamune wrote:
Worldwide apocalypse aside, the U.S. and even the E.U. are much more fearsome than China. Masamune, please don't turn this thread into a pissing concept. That's an incredibly pointless argument to try to have. And in general, having this "fuck them" attitude in politics is rather impractical. Bringing schoolyard mentalities onto an international forum would not work for any nation, so suggesting to do so doesn't really add anything meaningful. And I think it's interesting Obama would take this route when he was all about multilateralism and smart diplomacy as a supposed contrast to Bush. Poking China in the eye for the sake of nothing more than rhetoric is stupidity in my opinion and I don't think it serves the USA's interests at all. Although, I'm from the school of thought that thinks cooperation with China would serve the country more than antagonism. There's a significant minority of America's leaders that thinks the opposite route should be taken. I’m not trying to turn this thread into a pissing contest, because if anyone really thinks that China rivals the U.S. in military capabilities, then they are delusional. There is no contest at all.And this “fuck them” attitude refers to the Chinese government. Maybe in China, silencing your critics and opponents using any means possible flies there, but why shouldn’t Obama talk to the Dalai Lama? What next? Should we agree that our internet be censored of anything that rubs China the wrong way, too? If anything, I’d call China’s attitude of making threats in the face of potential diplomacy more schoolyard and pathetic than anything I’ve said. Furthermore, China’s attitude of “either you’re with us or against us” is more comparable to a route Bush would take than Obama’s willingness to speak with a world-known religious leader and face of a government in exile. If anything, the latter is more diplomatic than siding with the stronger side and ignoring the whole issue altogether. Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 16:50 haduken wrote:On February 03 2010 13:24 Masamune wrote:On February 03 2010 13:11 King K. Rool wrote:On February 03 2010 13:04 Masamune wrote:
Isn't the Dalai Lama the leader of a certain sect of Buddhism? So why shouldn't Obama meet with him? I even read the Dalai Lama will probably be in the U.S. when he visits Obama so who gives a shit? China wouldn't hesitate to greet the Pope if he stopped by in Beijing, and the Catholic Church's track record isn't stellar either.
I realize there are politcal issues surrounding the Dalai Lama but China has freely used it veto power in the UN security council to go against U.S. interests before, so fuck them.
Do you have no idea what's going on in Tibet, like none at all? I realize there are politcal issues surrounding the Dalai Lama but China has freely used it veto power in the UN security council to go against U.S. interests before, so fuck them. So which part are you talking about? The fact that China used the veto no more than 6 times during all say 50 years in UN? while United States used it no less than 40? If you look even more closely, All China's vetoes are purely reactionary. They abstain most of their votes. You and the west are conjuring an adversary relationship when historically there were none. Like it or not, China has a voice. Deal with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power The U.S. has obviously used its veto more times than China because ever since the inception of the UN, it has been a world power while China has only risen to power recently...so I don’t know what you’re getting at. But for clarification, I’m talking about these parts: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-5775752.html http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN11364578So 2/6 vetos against U.S.-backed drafts? And yes, China has abstained many times, but they have usually done so because they would rather not upset the U.S., while still pursuing their own interests. They did this in 2000 by abstaining against sanctions being imposed on the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan because relations between the two were strengthening, in 2004 by abstaining on resolutions of the withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon because of favourable relations with the former, and many times on the issue of Darfur because of favourable relations with Sudan’s Mugabe. So yes, China has gone against U.S. interests before, either with their veto (1/3 of the time...) or with their lack of support (a.k.a. abstaining). This is not even factoring in their favourable relations with Iran and North Korea, either. And no, I’m not trying to conjure up anything; I’m just defending my view that the U.S. should do what it wants without having to deal with China’s bs. Why do you and so many other Chinese posters have this baseless, unobjective reasoning in your head where you always think it's "us against them"? Yeah the West has its motives, bus so does China.
About USA veto's, I did not make this list:
+ Show Spoiler +US Versus World at the United Nations
The US has repeatedly acted to undermine peace and human rights initiatives
at the United Nations, routinely voting against hundreds of UN resolutions
and treaties. The US easily has the worst record of any nation on not
supporting UN treaties. In almost all of its hundreds of "no" votes, the US
was the "sole" nation to vote no (among the 100-130 nations that usually
vote), and among only 1 or 2 other nations voting no the rest of the time.
Here's a representative sample of US votes from 1978-1987:
US Is the Sole "No" Vote on Resolutions or Treaties
For aid to underdeveloped nations
For the promotion of developing nation exports
For UN promotion of human rights
For protecting developing nations in trade agreements
For New International Economic Order for underdeveloped nations
For development as a human right
Versus multinational corporate operations in South Africa
For cooperative models in developing nations
For right of nations to economic system of their choice
Versus chemical and biological weapons (at least 3 times)
Versus Namibian apartheid
For economic/standard of living rights as human rights
Versus apartheid South African aggression vs. neighboring states (2 times)
Versus foreign investments in apartheid South Africa
For world charter to protect ecology
For anti-apartheid convention
For anti-apartheid convention in international sports
For nuclear test ban treaty (at least 2 times)
For prevention of arms race in outer space
For UNESCO-sponsored new world information order (at least 2 times)
For international law to protect economic rights
For Transport & Communications Decade in Africa
Versus manufacture of new types of weapons of mass destruction
Versus naval arms race
For Independent Commission on Disarmament & Security Issues
For UN response mechanism for natural disasters
For the Right to Food
For Report of Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination
For UN study on military development
For Commemoration of 25th anniversary of Independence for Colonial Countries
For Industrial Development Decade in Africa
For interdependence of economic and political rights
For improved UN response to human rights abuses
For protection of rights of migrant workers
For protection against products harmful to health and the environment
For a Convention on the Rights of the Child
For training journalists in the developing world
For international cooperation on third world debt
For a UN Conference on Trade & Development
US Is 1 of Only 2 "No" Votes on Resolutions or Treaties
For Palestinian living conditions/rights (at least 8 times)
Versus foreign intervention into other nations
For a UN Conference on Women
Versus nuclear test explosions (at least 2 times)
For the non-use of nuclear weapons vs. non-nuclear states
For a Middle East nuclear free zone
Versus Israeli nuclear weapons (at least 2 times)
For a new world international economic order
For a trade union conference on sanctions vs. South Africa
For the Law of the Sea Treaty
For economic assistance to Palestinians
For UN measures against fascist activities and groups
For international cooperation on money/finance/debt/trade/development
For a Zone of Peace in the South Atlantic
For compliance with Intl Court of Justice decision for Nicaragua vs. US.
**For a conference and measures to prevent international terrorism
(including its underlying causes)
For ending the trade embargo vs. Nicaragua
US Is 1 of Only 3 "No" Votes on Resolutions and Treaties
Versus Israeli human rights abuses (at least 6 times)
Versus South African apartheid (at least 4 times)
Versus return of refugees to Israel
For ending nuclear arms race (at least 2 times)
For an embargo on apartheid South Africa
For South African liberation from apartheid (at least 3 times)
For the independence of colonial nations
For the UN Decade for Women
Versus harmful foreign economic practices in colonial territories
For a Middle East Peace Conference
For ending the embargo of Cuba (at least 10 times)
In addition, the US has:
Repeatedly withheld its dues from the UN
Twice left UNESCO because of its human rights initiatives
Twice left the International Labor Organization for its workers rights
initiatives
Refused to renew the Antiballistic Missile Treaty
Refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty on global warming
Refused to back the World Health Organization's ban on infant formula abuses
Refused to sign the Anti-Biological Weapons Convention
Refused to sign the Convention against the use of land mines
Refused to participate in the UN Conference Against Racism in Durban
Been one of the last nations in the world to sign the UN Covenant on
Political &
Civil Rights (30 years after its creation)
Refused to sign the UN Covenant on Economic & Social Rights
Opposed the emerging new UN Covenant on the Rights to Peace, Development &
Environmental Protection
|
Regarding this thread:
Look at this thing I have created..!!
|
On February 03 2010 19:05 liosama wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 18:48 igotmyown wrote:
Exactly my point. If you read the url where love1whatever is getting his information, they make the exact same argument about Tibetan quality of life and life expectancy. And people are less inclined to tell Koreans they're biased and don't know what was good for them. Oh sorry I wasn't following the full argument. But yeah it's typical disgusting sort of arguments like that that make me puke.
liosama, your entire theory about Japan being tainted by Western imperialism falls apart if you actually know the history between these two countries. Japan has a long history of trying to conquer Korea. Lol Admiral Perry didn't somehow inspire these people to have dreams of conquest with his evul Western thoughts. That's a rather far-fetched idea imo, and I'm not sure where you got it.
Japan has had the ambition to conquer the mainland for half a millennium. Peep Hideyoshi's invasion in 1592.
Invasion of Korea
Asiatic people were already empire building when Euros were nothing but a gleam in Vercingetorix's eye. Much as I enjoy post-colonialist thought, I have to say this one is probably not correct.
|
On February 03 2010 22:28 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 19:05 liosama wrote:On February 03 2010 18:48 igotmyown wrote:
Exactly my point. If you read the url where love1whatever is getting his information, they make the exact same argument about Tibetan quality of life and life expectancy. And people are less inclined to tell Koreans they're biased and don't know what was good for them. Oh sorry I wasn't following the full argument. But yeah it's typical disgusting sort of arguments like that that make me puke. liosama, your entire theory about Japan being tainted by Western imperialism falls apart if you actually know the history between these two countries. Japan has a long history of trying to conquer Korea. Lol Admiral Perry didn't somehow inspire these people to have dreams of conquest with his evul Western thoughts. That's a rather far-fetched idea imo, and I'm not sure where you got it. Japan has had the ambition to conquer the mainland for half a millennium. Peep Hideyoshi's invasion in 1592. Invasion of KoreaAsiatic people were already empire building when Euros were nothing but a gleam in Vercingetorix's eye. Much as I enjoy post-colonialist thought, I have to say this one is probably not correct.
Yes you are correct, Japan already wanted to get an empire on the go before contact with the west but Japan was unique among Asian countries in that it embraced western technology where others such as China had refused to do so and as a result they became very powerful in their part of the world enabling them to create the empire they did.
|
On February 03 2010 22:28 StorkHwaiting wrote:liosama, your entire theory about Japan being tainted by Western imperialism falls apart if you actually know the history between these two countries. Japan has a long history of trying to conquer Korea. Lol Admiral Perry didn't somehow inspire these people to have dreams of conquest with his evul Western thoughts. That's a rather far-fetched idea imo, and I'm not sure where you got it. Japan has had the ambition to conquer the mainland for half a millennium. Peep Hideyoshi's invasion in 1592. Invasion of KoreaAsiatic people were already empire building when Euros were nothing but a gleam in Vercingetorix's eye. Much as I enjoy post-colonialist thought, I have to say this one is probably not correct.
I got it from reason, but there are plenty of academic journals written on such a topic.
Yes again even in the late Tokugawa/Early Meiji era there were huge plans to go to war with Korea and colonize it, but that was only really due to a now-useless samurai class. But if you're to tell me that ravishing around in a newly created fleet in Korea to 'make it better' and 'teach them' and 'help them become good like us' wasn't a recipe taken from the western books then I don't know what to tell you.
If you actually read the journals by many early Japanese academics and what they say about the need to conquer Korea (later reasons) as opposed to the earlier reasons as you brought up Hideyoshi, and my bringing up of the late Tokugawa samurai i.e Saigou Takamori et al. You'll find that what I said is surprisingly accurate and true. As it is for nearly every single case of pan-nationalism. Because of the intense display of aggression and fear that was put into the hearts of many 'uncivilized' there was a huge consensus that they ought to get on the wagon before they're the ones pushing the wagon of their master.
I don't know how much more obvious it could be. The fact that Japan followed the same footsteps as unto them by the West despite all the things I mentioned above, is to me, enough evidence that Japanese colonialism and aggressive expansion was inspired by that of the West.
|
United States42691 Posts
On February 03 2010 22:49 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 22:28 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 03 2010 19:05 liosama wrote:On February 03 2010 18:48 igotmyown wrote:
Exactly my point. If you read the url where love1whatever is getting his information, they make the exact same argument about Tibetan quality of life and life expectancy. And people are less inclined to tell Koreans they're biased and don't know what was good for them. Oh sorry I wasn't following the full argument. But yeah it's typical disgusting sort of arguments like that that make me puke. liosama, your entire theory about Japan being tainted by Western imperialism falls apart if you actually know the history between these two countries. Japan has a long history of trying to conquer Korea. Lol Admiral Perry didn't somehow inspire these people to have dreams of conquest with his evul Western thoughts. That's a rather far-fetched idea imo, and I'm not sure where you got it. Japan has had the ambition to conquer the mainland for half a millennium. Peep Hideyoshi's invasion in 1592. Invasion of KoreaAsiatic people were already empire building when Euros were nothing but a gleam in Vercingetorix's eye. Much as I enjoy post-colonialist thought, I have to say this one is probably not correct. Yes you are correct, Japan already wanted to get an empire on the go before contact with the west but Japan was unique among Asian countries in that it embraced western technology where others such as China had refused to do so and as a result they became very powerful in their part of the world enabling them to create the empire they did.
And become the most immoral empire the world has ever known and hopefully will ever know. Japan did some shit Hitler would be ashamed of. Japanese imperialism wasn't anything like most western imperialism, even mad King Leopold's regime in the Congo looks sane in comparison and he was irrelevant.
What the Japanese did to the rest of Asia can't be blamed on the west. If they'd copied the European empires they'd have bought into all the civilising crap Europe made up to convince themselves they weren't exploiting the rest of the world. Europe's behavior was about as moral as robbing a convenience store with a gun. Japan's, about as moral was a mass school shooting, then raping the corpses. Same tools, both evil and yet not really similar.
|
I am not "blaming" the West in the sense you think. I am just saying the main provoker for Japan into the Pan-Asian nation it became was without a doubt set into motion in Japans early years of modernization as a result of the West
Edit: And also I'm talking specifically about the colonization of Korea, later Japanese endeavours were of course inexcusable and had no 'cause' so to speak.
|
This kind of goes without saying, but could the Chinese be any more Communist? All they want to do is point their crappy 3rd generation weaponry at everyone around them and bully the little guy looking for freedom. I hope Tibet and Taiwan get out of this mess someday without conflict. Unfortunately I don't think that will ever happen.
|
On February 03 2010 22:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 22:49 jello_biafra wrote:On February 03 2010 22:28 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 03 2010 19:05 liosama wrote:On February 03 2010 18:48 igotmyown wrote:
Exactly my point. If you read the url where love1whatever is getting his information, they make the exact same argument about Tibetan quality of life and life expectancy. And people are less inclined to tell Koreans they're biased and don't know what was good for them. Oh sorry I wasn't following the full argument. But yeah it's typical disgusting sort of arguments like that that make me puke. liosama, your entire theory about Japan being tainted by Western imperialism falls apart if you actually know the history between these two countries. Japan has a long history of trying to conquer Korea. Lol Admiral Perry didn't somehow inspire these people to have dreams of conquest with his evul Western thoughts. That's a rather far-fetched idea imo, and I'm not sure where you got it. Japan has had the ambition to conquer the mainland for half a millennium. Peep Hideyoshi's invasion in 1592. Invasion of KoreaAsiatic people were already empire building when Euros were nothing but a gleam in Vercingetorix's eye. Much as I enjoy post-colonialist thought, I have to say this one is probably not correct. Yes you are correct, Japan already wanted to get an empire on the go before contact with the west but Japan was unique among Asian countries in that it embraced western technology where others such as China had refused to do so and as a result they became very powerful in their part of the world enabling them to create the empire they did. And become the most immoral empire the world has ever known and hopefully will ever know. Japan did some shit Hitler would be ashamed of. Japanese imperialism wasn't anything like most western imperialism, even mad King Leopold's regime in the Congo looks sane in comparison and he was irrelevant. What the Japanese did to the rest of Asia can't be blamed on the west. If they'd copied the European empires they'd have bought into all the civilising crap Europe made up to convince themselves they weren't exploiting the rest of the world. Europe's behavior was about as moral as robbing a convenience store with a gun. Japan's, about as moral was a mass school shooting, then raping the corpses. Same tools, both evil and yet not really similar.
I know how bad they were and I'm not saying that they were directly influenced by the west to do this, I'm just saying that on the whole they used their newly found western technology to do it.
|
Trying to say that China is a communist country is a pretty bad route to go. Best communist starbucks/mcd's/kfc I've ever tasted. Then again, I haven't tried North Korean starbucks yet.
|
I always love to read the first page of a thread, then skip to the last and see how much of a unrelated shit storm it had become.
Obama will meet the Dalai Lama, China will forget about it because it depends economically on the united states (and vice versa), and shit will go on as usual.
|
On February 02 2010 20:24 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
So this is what the post F91/TSL TL.net looks like
^________________________________________^
LOL
|
United States42691 Posts
On February 03 2010 23:13 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 22:58 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 22:49 jello_biafra wrote:On February 03 2010 22:28 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 03 2010 19:05 liosama wrote:On February 03 2010 18:48 igotmyown wrote:
Exactly my point. If you read the url where love1whatever is getting his information, they make the exact same argument about Tibetan quality of life and life expectancy. And people are less inclined to tell Koreans they're biased and don't know what was good for them. Oh sorry I wasn't following the full argument. But yeah it's typical disgusting sort of arguments like that that make me puke. liosama, your entire theory about Japan being tainted by Western imperialism falls apart if you actually know the history between these two countries. Japan has a long history of trying to conquer Korea. Lol Admiral Perry didn't somehow inspire these people to have dreams of conquest with his evul Western thoughts. That's a rather far-fetched idea imo, and I'm not sure where you got it. Japan has had the ambition to conquer the mainland for half a millennium. Peep Hideyoshi's invasion in 1592. Invasion of KoreaAsiatic people were already empire building when Euros were nothing but a gleam in Vercingetorix's eye. Much as I enjoy post-colonialist thought, I have to say this one is probably not correct. Yes you are correct, Japan already wanted to get an empire on the go before contact with the west but Japan was unique among Asian countries in that it embraced western technology where others such as China had refused to do so and as a result they became very powerful in their part of the world enabling them to create the empire they did. And become the most immoral empire the world has ever known and hopefully will ever know. Japan did some shit Hitler would be ashamed of. Japanese imperialism wasn't anything like most western imperialism, even mad King Leopold's regime in the Congo looks sane in comparison and he was irrelevant. What the Japanese did to the rest of Asia can't be blamed on the west. If they'd copied the European empires they'd have bought into all the civilising crap Europe made up to convince themselves they weren't exploiting the rest of the world. Europe's behavior was about as moral as robbing a convenience store with a gun. Japan's, about as moral was a mass school shooting, then raping the corpses. Same tools, both evil and yet not really similar. I know how bad they were and I'm not saying that they were directly influenced by the west to do this, I'm just saying that on the whole they used their newly found western technology to do it.
Then we agree
|
Pretty sure this is just China just trying to bully US a little. There is no reason that America should not be able to see who we want. I think more and more that China is just looking for a reason to bully us.
|
On February 03 2010 23:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 23:13 jello_biafra wrote:On February 03 2010 22:58 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 22:49 jello_biafra wrote:On February 03 2010 22:28 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 03 2010 19:05 liosama wrote:On February 03 2010 18:48 igotmyown wrote:
Exactly my point. If you read the url where love1whatever is getting his information, they make the exact same argument about Tibetan quality of life and life expectancy. And people are less inclined to tell Koreans they're biased and don't know what was good for them. Oh sorry I wasn't following the full argument. But yeah it's typical disgusting sort of arguments like that that make me puke. liosama, your entire theory about Japan being tainted by Western imperialism falls apart if you actually know the history between these two countries. Japan has a long history of trying to conquer Korea. Lol Admiral Perry didn't somehow inspire these people to have dreams of conquest with his evul Western thoughts. That's a rather far-fetched idea imo, and I'm not sure where you got it. Japan has had the ambition to conquer the mainland for half a millennium. Peep Hideyoshi's invasion in 1592. Invasion of KoreaAsiatic people were already empire building when Euros were nothing but a gleam in Vercingetorix's eye. Much as I enjoy post-colonialist thought, I have to say this one is probably not correct. Yes you are correct, Japan already wanted to get an empire on the go before contact with the west but Japan was unique among Asian countries in that it embraced western technology where others such as China had refused to do so and as a result they became very powerful in their part of the world enabling them to create the empire they did. And become the most immoral empire the world has ever known and hopefully will ever know. Japan did some shit Hitler would be ashamed of. Japanese imperialism wasn't anything like most western imperialism, even mad King Leopold's regime in the Congo looks sane in comparison and he was irrelevant. What the Japanese did to the rest of Asia can't be blamed on the west. If they'd copied the European empires they'd have bought into all the civilising crap Europe made up to convince themselves they weren't exploiting the rest of the world. Europe's behavior was about as moral as robbing a convenience store with a gun. Japan's, about as moral was a mass school shooting, then raping the corpses. Same tools, both evil and yet not really similar. I know how bad they were and I'm not saying that they were directly influenced by the west to do this, I'm just saying that on the whole they used their newly found western technology to do it. Then we agree
Indeed!
|
On February 03 2010 23:16 Butigroove wrote:
I always love to read the first page of a thread, then skip to the last and see how much of a unrelated shit storm it had become.
Obama will meet the Dalai Lama, China will forget about it because it depends economically on the united states (and vice versa), and shit will go on as usual.
There are some interesting worthwhile posts in this thread. In fact, if the language was kept a bit civil, it isn't all that bad.
|
On February 03 2010 22:49 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 22:28 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 03 2010 19:05 liosama wrote:On February 03 2010 18:48 igotmyown wrote:
Exactly my point. If you read the url where love1whatever is getting his information, they make the exact same argument about Tibetan quality of life and life expectancy. And people are less inclined to tell Koreans they're biased and don't know what was good for them. Oh sorry I wasn't following the full argument. But yeah it's typical disgusting sort of arguments like that that make me puke. liosama, your entire theory about Japan being tainted by Western imperialism falls apart if you actually know the history between these two countries. Japan has a long history of trying to conquer Korea. Lol Admiral Perry didn't somehow inspire these people to have dreams of conquest with his evul Western thoughts. That's a rather far-fetched idea imo, and I'm not sure where you got it. Japan has had the ambition to conquer the mainland for half a millennium. Peep Hideyoshi's invasion in 1592. Invasion of KoreaAsiatic people were already empire building when Euros were nothing but a gleam in Vercingetorix's eye. Much as I enjoy post-colonialist thought, I have to say this one is probably not correct. Yes you are correct, Japan already wanted to get an empire on the go before contact with the west but Japan was unique among Asian countries in that it embraced western technology where others such as China had refused to do so and as a result they became very powerful in their part of the world enabling them to create the empire they did.
I don't think liosama was talking about embracing Western technology. I thought he was talking about embracing Western imperialist ideology. And it wasn't so much embracing technology as it was embracing industrialization as a society. China had the technology just fine. They were just corrupt as hell and decided to build gardens instead of navies LOL.
|
On February 04 2010 00:23 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 22:49 jello_biafra wrote:On February 03 2010 22:28 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 03 2010 19:05 liosama wrote:On February 03 2010 18:48 igotmyown wrote:
Exactly my point. If you read the url where love1whatever is getting his information, they make the exact same argument about Tibetan quality of life and life expectancy. And people are less inclined to tell Koreans they're biased and don't know what was good for them. Oh sorry I wasn't following the full argument. But yeah it's typical disgusting sort of arguments like that that make me puke. liosama, your entire theory about Japan being tainted by Western imperialism falls apart if you actually know the history between these two countries. Japan has a long history of trying to conquer Korea. Lol Admiral Perry didn't somehow inspire these people to have dreams of conquest with his evul Western thoughts. That's a rather far-fetched idea imo, and I'm not sure where you got it. Japan has had the ambition to conquer the mainland for half a millennium. Peep Hideyoshi's invasion in 1592. Invasion of KoreaAsiatic people were already empire building when Euros were nothing but a gleam in Vercingetorix's eye. Much as I enjoy post-colonialist thought, I have to say this one is probably not correct. Yes you are correct, Japan already wanted to get an empire on the go before contact with the west but Japan was unique among Asian countries in that it embraced western technology where others such as China had refused to do so and as a result they became very powerful in their part of the world enabling them to create the empire they did. I don't think liosama was talking about embracing Western technology. I thought he was talking about embracing Western imperialist ideology. And it wasn't so much embracing technology as it was embracing industrialization as a society. China had the technology just fine. They were just corrupt as hell and decided to build gardens instead of navies LOL.
Actually China had an incredibly strong navy (it was easily the most powerful in the world during it's time) up until the point where the emperor decided to burn it down. Sigh Qing dynasty was so fucking fail.
|
On February 03 2010 22:52 liosama wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 22:28 StorkHwaiting wrote:liosama, your entire theory about Japan being tainted by Western imperialism falls apart if you actually know the history between these two countries. Japan has a long history of trying to conquer Korea. Lol Admiral Perry didn't somehow inspire these people to have dreams of conquest with his evul Western thoughts. That's a rather far-fetched idea imo, and I'm not sure where you got it. Japan has had the ambition to conquer the mainland for half a millennium. Peep Hideyoshi's invasion in 1592. Invasion of KoreaAsiatic people were already empire building when Euros were nothing but a gleam in Vercingetorix's eye. Much as I enjoy post-colonialist thought, I have to say this one is probably not correct. I got it from reason, but there are plenty of academic journals written on such a topic. Yes again even in the late Tokugawa/Early Meiji era there were huge plans to go to war with Korea and colonize it, but that was only really due to a now-useless samurai class. But if you're to tell me that ravishing around in a newly created fleet in Korea to 'make it better' and 'teach them' and 'help them become good like us' wasn't a recipe taken from the western books then I don't know what to tell you. If you actually read the journals by many early Japanese academics and what they say about the need to conquer Korea (later reasons) as opposed to the earlier reasons as you brought up Hideyoshi, and my bringing up of the late Tokugawa samurai i.e Saigou Takamori et al. You'll find that what I said is surprisingly accurate and true. As it is for nearly every single case of pan-nationalism. Because of the intense display of aggression and fear that was put into the hearts of many 'uncivilized' there was a huge consensus that they ought to get on the wagon before they're the ones pushing the wagon of their master. I don't know how much more obvious it could be. The fact that Japan followed the same footsteps as unto them by the West despite all the things I mentioned above, is to me, enough evidence that Japanese colonialism and aggressive expansion was inspired by that of the West.
It's just rhetoric. Every invasion needs rhetoric. Saying the invasion was spurred by the West, because they took on the same rhetoric as the West just doesn't make sense to me. Empire building is inherent in militaristic nations. I'm very skeptical about the idea that the West taught the Japanese to be militaristic and want to conquer others. The Japanese were pretty good at being violent and warmongering all on their own. I don't understand why you would refer to the samurai class as "now-useless," during Hideyoshi's reign but whatever. Suffice to say, I completely disagree with you. There are no reasons needed to rationalize empire-building other than the obvious reasons any nation would seek to build an empire. Trying to say the rhetoric they imitated from the West is what enabled their thinking seems naive at best.
|
On February 03 2010 23:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 23:13 jello_biafra wrote:On February 03 2010 22:58 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2010 22:49 jello_biafra wrote:On February 03 2010 22:28 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 03 2010 19:05 liosama wrote:On February 03 2010 18:48 igotmyown wrote:
Exactly my point. If you read the url where love1whatever is getting his information, they make the exact same argument about Tibetan quality of life and life expectancy. And people are less inclined to tell Koreans they're biased and don't know what was good for them. Oh sorry I wasn't following the full argument. But yeah it's typical disgusting sort of arguments like that that make me puke. liosama, your entire theory about Japan being tainted by Western imperialism falls apart if you actually know the history between these two countries. Japan has a long history of trying to conquer Korea. Lol Admiral Perry didn't somehow inspire these people to have dreams of conquest with his evul Western thoughts. That's a rather far-fetched idea imo, and I'm not sure where you got it. Japan has had the ambition to conquer the mainland for half a millennium. Peep Hideyoshi's invasion in 1592. Invasion of KoreaAsiatic people were already empire building when Euros were nothing but a gleam in Vercingetorix's eye. Much as I enjoy post-colonialist thought, I have to say this one is probably not correct. Yes you are correct, Japan already wanted to get an empire on the go before contact with the west but Japan was unique among Asian countries in that it embraced western technology where others such as China had refused to do so and as a result they became very powerful in their part of the world enabling them to create the empire they did. And become the most immoral empire the world has ever known and hopefully will ever know. Japan did some shit Hitler would be ashamed of. Japanese imperialism wasn't anything like most western imperialism, even mad King Leopold's regime in the Congo looks sane in comparison and he was irrelevant. What the Japanese did to the rest of Asia can't be blamed on the west. If they'd copied the European empires they'd have bought into all the civilising crap Europe made up to convince themselves they weren't exploiting the rest of the world. Europe's behavior was about as moral as robbing a convenience store with a gun. Japan's, about as moral was a mass school shooting, then raping the corpses. Same tools, both evil and yet not really similar. I know how bad they were and I'm not saying that they were directly influenced by the west to do this, I'm just saying that on the whole they used their newly found western technology to do it. Then we agree
I'd agree with this statement as well.
|
On February 03 2010 23:07 251 wrote:
This kind of goes without saying, but could the Chinese be any more Communist? All they want to do is point their crappy 3rd generation weaponry at everyone around them and bully the little guy looking for freedom. I hope Tibet and Taiwan get out of this mess someday without conflict. Unfortunately I don't think that will ever happen.
Bully the little guy? Tibetans had an empire for centuries and invaded China several times, most notably during the Tang Dynasty when they took the capital twice. Not to sound like a nutty historian but this depiction of Tibetans as "the little guy" is kind of misguided. They were a serious military power back in the day and it wasn't until the Mongols flattened them did they scale things back militarily.
Also, rather amusing that you kicked off your start in the debate by saying China's aggression is "Communist." I can point to innumerable examples of the USA "bullying the little guy" with much more legitimacy than China's annexation of Tibet. For instance, the entire Western hemisphere. I don't think political systems/ideology has anything to do with it.
|
When you talk about the Japanese invading Korea, it has absolutely nothing to do with Western influence whatsoever wtf.
The Japanese were a (fairly) isolated culture that developed very differently from most others, putting much less value on the life of a person. Their social values were entirely alien to us and i think studying them is a good indicator of just how wierd the culture of actual aliens will be when we finally come into contact with them.
Obviously the Japanese were aware of the mainland for a long time. They invaded Korea multiple times, not only because of their rediculous racism (which was fairly normal for a culture at the time) but also because of their thirst for power. They probably would have succeeded in taking over Korea at some point if they hadn't been fairly outnumbered, considering their minor technological advantage. However their organized and ritualized fighting style wasn't matched very well by the way the Koreans fought, charging into battle en masse, using fairly crude steel weapons and bows, with women and children pelting the enemies with stones and rocks.
Back on the subject of China, US is too economically important for them to start a war or something. They practically own our country and if they were to dump the dollar we would be in a war in about 3 seconds - one which would either devestate both countries (and probably half the rest of the world), or would cause another cold war/a nuclear war and destroy humans forever.
|
The Japanese have always borrowed ideas from other countries, including heavy Chinese influences. In fact, Japanese princes used to study in China before returning back home. The invasion of Korea was in effect, Japan trying to be the "new China". It was also the ideal "land bridge" to the main land. Korea was a tribute state to China for a long long long time.
|
On February 04 2010 00:30 StorkHwaiting wrote:
It's just rhetoric. Every invasion needs rhetoric. Saying the invasion was spurred by the West, because they took on the same rhetoric as the West just doesn't make sense to me. Empire building is inherent in militaristic nations. I'm very skeptical about the idea that the West taught the Japanese to be militaristic and want to conquer others. The Japanese were pretty good at being violent and warmongering all on their own. I don't understand why you would refer to the samurai class as "now-useless," during Hideyoshi's reign but whatever. Suffice to say, I completely disagree with you. There are no reasons needed to rationalize empire-building other than the obvious reasons any nation would seek to build an empire. Trying to say the rhetoric they imitated from the West is what enabled their thinking seems naive at best.
I'm not saying they were 'taught' by the West were on earth in any of my posts have I mentioned that? Also I meant now useless as in the fall of Tokugawa, I was merely bringing another example of context in a desire for conquest of Korea completely and utterly different from the later 20th century context which is the reason I brought up this on top of what you raised in order to try show you that the contexts for conquest were different and you cannot compare 16/17th/19th century Japan to 20th century Japan, they are totally different things.
Anyway I've had enough, I'll leave the discussion here for someone else should they want to pick it up.
|
On February 03 2010 23:07 251 wrote:
This kind of goes without saying, but could the Chinese be any more Communist? All they want to do is point their crappy 3rd generation weaponry at everyone around them and bully the little guy looking for freedom. I hope Tibet and Taiwan get out of this mess someday without conflict. Unfortunately I don't think that will ever happen.
In every discussion with China involved, there is always someone who just has to mention that they're communists. It doesn't matter if it's relevant or not, some random dude (like you) just has to mention it. In this case, it's not even a bit relevant...
And by pointing out that "all they want to do is point their crappy 3rd generation weaponry at everyone around them", are you actually comparing China's weaponry with something? The US weaponry perhaps? I thought we were supposed to not turn this thread into some kind of childish contest between nations...
|
On February 04 2010 03:22 Zexion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 23:07 251 wrote:
This kind of goes without saying, but could the Chinese be any more Communist? All they want to do is point their crappy 3rd generation weaponry at everyone around them and bully the little guy looking for freedom. I hope Tibet and Taiwan get out of this mess someday without conflict. Unfortunately I don't think that will ever happen. In every discussion with China involved, there is always someone who just has to mention that they're communists. It doesn't matter if it's relevant or not, some random dude (like you) just has to mention it. In this case, it's not even a bit relevant... And by pointing out that "all they want to do is point their crappy 3rd generation weaponry at everyone around them", are you actually comparing China's weaponry with something? The US weaponry perhaps? I thought we were supposed to not turn this thread into some kind of childish contest between nations...
True. All threads involving China = instant derail. Plus, loose terms such as "communism" doesn't exactly help. Are we discussing Maoism/Stalinism/Hoxhaism? It's a naive blanket term used by those who don't grasp the bigger picture.
|
On February 04 2010 00:54 ghermination wrote:
When you talk about the Japanese invading Korea, it has absolutely nothing to do with Western influence whatsoever wtf.
The Japanese were a (fairly) isolated culture that developed very differently from most others, putting much less value on the life of a person. Their social values were entirely alien to us and i think studying them is a good indicator of just how wierd the culture of actual aliens will be when we finally come into contact with them.
Obviously the Japanese were aware of the mainland for a long time. They invaded Korea multiple times, not only because of their rediculous racism (which was fairly normal for a culture at the time) but also because of their thirst for power. They probably would have succeeded in taking over Korea at some point if they hadn't been fairly outnumbered, considering their minor technological advantage. However their organized and ritualized fighting style wasn't matched very well by the way the Koreans fought, charging into battle en masse, using fairly crude steel weapons and bows, with women and children pelting the enemies with stones and rocks.
Back on the subject of China, US is too economically important for them to start a war or something. They practically own our country and if they were to dump the dollar we would be in a war in about 3 seconds - one which would either devestate both countries (and probably half the rest of the world), or would cause another cold war/a nuclear war and destroy humans forever.
Korea was only defended because Ming China sent their armies. The Korean armies were completely hopeless in battle. easily encircled and destroyed by the Japanese.
Let's be brutally honest, despite all the pride crap you see on b.net and here, Korea as a country was and still is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.
The Chinese did not match the Japanese in combat but bought with them massive number of cannons and cavalry from Manchuria. The Japanese had better armor and hand guns but ultimately they could not last in Korea.
The reason for Korea was a gateway to China then to the world. This thinking existed for centuries and pretty much any time China fucks itself over, the Japanese would try to pull this shit.
|
On February 04 2010 05:55 haduken wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2010 00:54 ghermination wrote:
When you talk about the Japanese invading Korea, it has absolutely nothing to do with Western influence whatsoever wtf.
The Japanese were a (fairly) isolated culture that developed very differently from most others, putting much less value on the life of a person. Their social values were entirely alien to us and i think studying them is a good indicator of just how wierd the culture of actual aliens will be when we finally come into contact with them.
Obviously the Japanese were aware of the mainland for a long time. They invaded Korea multiple times, not only because of their rediculous racism (which was fairly normal for a culture at the time) but also because of their thirst for power. They probably would have succeeded in taking over Korea at some point if they hadn't been fairly outnumbered, considering their minor technological advantage. However their organized and ritualized fighting style wasn't matched very well by the way the Koreans fought, charging into battle en masse, using fairly crude steel weapons and bows, with women and children pelting the enemies with stones and rocks.
Back on the subject of China, US is too economically important for them to start a war or something. They practically own our country and if they were to dump the dollar we would be in a war in about 3 seconds - one which would either devestate both countries (and probably half the rest of the world), or would cause another cold war/a nuclear war and destroy humans forever. Korea was only defended because Ming China sent their armies. The Korean armies were completely hopeless in battle. easily encircled and destroyed by the Japanese. Let's be brutally honest, despite all the pride crap you see on b.net and here, Korea as a country was and still is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. The Chinese did not match the Japanese in combat but bought with them massive number of cannons and cavalry from Manchuria. The Japanese had better armor and hand guns but ultimately they could not last in Korea. The reason for Korea was a gateway to China then to the world. This thinking existed for centuries and pretty much any time China fucks itself over, the Japanese would try to pull this shit.
Yup that's what I was trying to say. Japan invading the mainland is nothing new. They've been wanting to do that ever since the first Japanese person got a peek at how rich the mainland was. This is not say all Japanese are bloodthirsty demons. They're not. But expansion-wise, Japan has always looked to China as their natural expo
On Korea vs Japan though... I don't think it was as simple as Ming owned Japan. Admiral Yi Sun Sin was pretty instrumental in cutting the supply lines for Japan, which is crucial in a war. That more than anything else is what ended the war. Although, of course the Ming troops are what stopped the advance and allowed Admiral Yi time to win those naval battles. So, I'd probably say Japan was defeated by Korea and China together, rather than solely Ming or Korea.
|
The reason Japan was able to own Korea during the Imjin War is because the Chosun government was corrupt as fuck and totally useless. They totally ignored the advice from the few officials with a goddamned head on their shoulders saying that they should improve their defenses and that Japan seemed a bit fishy. Their castles were worth shit all, their military was inferior to the Japanese, and most of their generals were fucking useless. It was a miracle that Yi Sun Shin existed during the time because he was seriously the only Korean that really did a lot of shit.
The Chosun dynasty was so useless for most of its existence.
|
|
|
Vatican City State1650 Posts
Wow the rampant chinese nationalism in TL came really early this time. 8th post, a record!
|
On February 05 2010 06:52 igotmyown wrote:Don't care about these red herring china vs west posts. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35239542/ns/politics-white_house/And it looks like Obama's seeing the Dalai Lama. Maybe he realized it would hard to be bipartisan and encourage open dialogue if you only talk to one side.
There's nothing to be bipartisan about, though. The Dalai Lama isn't the head of any country. There aren't two sides here. Nor did Obama ever say he was going to be internationally neutral. When he said bipartisan he was talking about Dems and Repubs.
|
On February 05 2010 07:20 StorkHwaiting wrote:There's nothing to be bipartisan about, though. The Dalai Lama isn't the head of any country. There aren't two sides here. Nor did Obama ever say he was going to be internationally neutral. When he said bipartisan he was talking about Dems and Repubs.
My my aren't you the polemicist.
Kudos to Obama for not backing down to China's verbal threats and attempts at intimidation. Always good to see someone willing to listen. Maybe if China bothered to do so instead of warping the other side's words in order to further their own agenda, they might discover that communication was meant to understand each other.
|
After all the mess with Google i think that the Chinese officials should shut up.
They can always invite an Indian tribe chief if they want.
|
|
|
On February 05 2010 08:35 igotmyown wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 07:20 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 05 2010 06:52 igotmyown wrote:Don't care about these red herring china vs west posts. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35239542/ns/politics-white_house/And it looks like Obama's seeing the Dalai Lama. Maybe he realized it would hard to be bipartisan and encourage open dialogue if you only talk to one side. There's nothing to be bipartisan about, though. The Dalai Lama isn't the head of any country. There aren't two sides here. Nor did Obama ever say he was going to be internationally neutral. When he said bipartisan he was talking about Dems and Repubs. My my aren't you the polemicist. Kudos to Obama for not backing down to China's verbal threats and attempts at intimidation. Always good to see someone willing to listen. Maybe if China bothered to do so instead of warping the other side's words in order to further their own agenda, they might discover that communication was meant to understand each other.
You assume that China has something to gain from recognizing the Dalai Lama and talking to them. In this case they do not. Dalai Lama's ultimate interest is in promoting Tibetan independence (he avoids directly calling for independence but come on, you think all he wants is a few more rights for an "autonomous" Tibet that China would still control).
China will under no circumstances even move in that direction, because even small concessions will result in less control, and less control means less stability (I don't agree 100% with this assumption but it is an understandable and logical position).
China will only recognize the Dalai Lama's influence if they are able to control him and make him a puppet, and I think it is clear that they cannot. Otherwise, talking to Dalai Lama will only further legitimize his power and galvanize the Tibetan independence movement.
|
china is pretty up tight about everything, from my experience talking with them on omegle.
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
How can you talk to a country?
|
I think it's sad that the USA is trying the same old trick. Escalating tensions with China and trying to sucker them into an arms race is pretty low, IMO. Always with the same rhetoric about democracy as well. There are a million and one "leaders" in Africa and the Middle East who are fighting for their people's liberty, but I don't see Obama shaking their hands. Political circus acts, all to keep money funneling to the military-industrial complex. We've screwed up our economy really badly, so our solution is to draw the rising power China into mutual economic suicide, in which we hope they die first.
Would be refreshing if Obama spent more time talking about how to reform our own government here at home, which has had at least a decade to show how inept and inefficient it is, rather than focusing on China's domestic issues which quite frankly we have no business getting involved in.
I regret voting for Obama. He really is more of the same. I think a lot of Americans are sick of this bullshit. There are no decent political platforms to vote for. Democrats and Republicans are like pick your own poison. Fuck it. I'm back to being apathetic. Add another one to the powerful bloc of Americans who choose not to vote.
|
Lol@people who think communism is bad and that the U.S. Is actually a country of "freedom"
|
I didn't bother reading the thread since by now all the "China" threads are pretty much full of the same thing. Honestly, this sort of thing isn't even "news". China HAS to warn the US not to act. Why? Because it's international face. Similarly Obama MUST meet with DL for the same exact reasons. Can you even imagine what would happen if Obama were to brush off the meeting? The Republicans will fucking lynch him. Remember the amount of flak Nixon got for his visit to China, despite the benefits foreseeable. Meh, whatever.
edit: Skimmed up the thread. Pretty nifty stuff about the Sino-Kor-Japanese military history. It's sad that the tangents are more worth reading than the "on topic" posts h ere.
|
On February 19 2010 11:43 StorkHwaiting wrote:I think it's sad that the USA is trying the same old trick. Escalating tensions with China and trying to sucker them into an arms race is pretty low, IMO. Always with the same rhetoric about democracy as well. There are a million and one "leaders" in Africa and the Middle East who are fighting for their people's liberty, but I don't see Obama shaking their hands. Political circus acts, all to keep money funneling to the military-industrial complex. We've screwed up our economy really badly, so our solution is to draw the rising power China into mutual economic suicide, in which we hope they die first. Would be refreshing if Obama spent more time talking about how to reform our own government here at home, which has had at least a decade to show how inept and inefficient it is, rather than focusing on China's domestic issues which quite frankly we have no business getting involved in. I regret voting for Obama. He really is more of the same. I think a lot of Americans are sick of this bullshit. There are no decent political platforms to vote for. Democrats and Republicans are like pick your own poison. Fuck it. I'm back to being apathetic. Add another one to the powerful bloc of Americans who choose not to vote.
Can you explain how the meeting with the Dalai Lama can result in an arms race? The only reason I can think of is the US threatening military action on behalf of Tibet, which I can't see happening. In addition, I don't think China needs to engage in an arms race under any military pressure when they already have nuclear weapons.
On February 19 2010 12:06 KissBlade wrote:
I didn't bother reading the thread since by now all the "China" threads are pretty much full of the same thing. Honestly, this sort of thing isn't even "news". China HAS to warn the US not to act. Why? Because it's international face. Similarly Obama MUST meet with DL for the same exact reasons. Can you even imagine what would happen if Obama were to brush off the meeting? The Republicans will fucking lynch him. Remember the amount of flak Nixon got for his visit to China, despite the benefits foreseeable. Meh, whatever.
I think this is the real reason why the political situation is the way it is. Nicely put.
|
On February 03 2010 23:16 Butigroove wrote:
I always love to read the first page of a thread, then skip to the last and see how much of a unrelated shit storm it had become.
Obama will meet the Dalai Lama, China will forget about it because it depends economically on the united states (and vice versa), and shit will go on as usual.
Ever wondered how that happened? How the Us and China could be so different on paper yet we depend entirely on each other now. Maybe someday the same will happen between Tibet and China.
|
On February 19 2010 12:46 Tomer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 23:16 Butigroove wrote:
I always love to read the first page of a thread, then skip to the last and see how much of a unrelated shit storm it had become.
Obama will meet the Dalai Lama, China will forget about it because it depends economically on the united states (and vice versa), and shit will go on as usual. Ever wondered how that happened? How the Us and China could be so different on paper yet we depend entirely on each other now. Maybe someday the same will happen between Tibet and China.
cause China is a huge exporter and the U.S is a big importer? doesnt matter a shit what each nation thinks, money is a great equalizer. Tibet is probably never going to be that relevant, they arnt big/rich enough for most people to care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/defense.png)
![[image loading]](http://jamie-online.com/random-jamz/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/facepalm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.onceafrog.com/CastFire.jpg)
