| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
Well I would if I could actually read Chinese (just curious, Cantonese and Mandarin uses the same alphabet right?).[/QUOTE] Cantonese and mandarin use the same writting system (the han characters, we dont use alphabet) although mainland chinese use a simplfield version of han characters. But Taiwan use the tradition system, same as in hongkong. | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On April 24 2004 08:50 haduken wrote: Were you there? Im sure you weren't there either but hey since where on that train of thought why don't I be just as blind as you and say all those pictures wewantpeace posted were just other chinese posing as japanese cause they have some strange hatred towards the japanese and are just trying to frame them. You obviously weren't there so I can believe you. Now you might say there are chinese who were alive at the time and say differently just as easily as I could say there are tibetans who remember the "absorbtion" of tibet and how it really went.DV8... were u there when it happened? did u see with ur own eyes how chinese use their rifels to shoot millions of tibetans? no, u saw a movie and read a few books.. the fact of matter is... u do not kno wat really happened... u believe wat the media feed u... | ||
|
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On April 24 2004 08:56 haduken wrote: Cantonese and mandarin use the same writting system (the han characters, we dont use alphabet) although mainland chinese use a simplfield version of han characters. But Taiwan use the tradition system, same as in hongkong. Ok thanks, I meant characters not alphabet >_< | ||
|
LastRomance
21 Posts
On April 24 2004 08:50 DV8 wrote: They're not being ruled completely independently it's just that manchurians are better equiped to govern themselves than say the hans in the south. If you live in the south why are you telling them how to live up north? Here is example State A and State B are controlled by GOVT C now lets say C is located in state B, So C passes a law to impose heavy tariffs on grain imports because it competes heavily with the grain industry in state B, But in State A they need to purchase their grain and it would be easier to import it from a neighboring country than have it brought up from the south. So State A loses because of lawmakers in state B hence why it would be better for A to decide whether they need to put a tariff or not on imported goods. what you are saying is exactly the reason for the need for central government. Bcause it ensures the profits stay within the country. If State A don't purchase from State B then State B loses out, and the money used to purchase leavesthe country. A ood example is New Zealand and Australia, for many Est Coast States, it would probably cost less to import from New Zealand then from Western Australia, but if they do that, then they are givin profit away to other countries. And that the thing with not only economic but social and political factors is well. If you let States rule independently then they might develope difernt political aims with the rest of the country. Therefore threatening the whole nation. | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On April 24 2004 08:50 LastRomance wrote: This story sounds more feasible than what haduken was spitting out. I just don't understand one thing, Who did you need defense from? tibet shared a border with kazakhistan which was probably part of the USSR at the time mongolia which no longer had genghis khan, afghanistan, pakistan, india, and nepal all of which are no threat to china. Maybe missle defense? But than again russia was far better equiped to do that.on the issue of Tibet, many of you don't have a clue what realy was behind the whole event. It was certainly a use of violence, but considering that Tibet was a strategically sensative region that if fell into hands of other nations would seriously threat the national security of China. considering the tensions of the Cold War and the increasing conflict of interest between Russia and China, Tibet was the region that posed an immediate threat to China. I condemn the violence, but i dont condemn the military manouvre coming from a strategic perspective on behalf of China. | ||
|
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
| ||
|
LastRomance
21 Posts
On April 24 2004 08:49 FrozenArbiter wrote: What do you base the 'a lot of the population' statement on? I agreed with your post until that part. Based upon the sources regarding the education system of Japan where they re-write history of Japan and antagonise the Chinese. Plus not accepting the wrongs they did in world war two. Rather focusing on themselves being teh victim of atomic bombing. All countries do it to some extent, but that does not change history. There is no point trying denying the Holocuast, just like there you cant't not condemn the actions of Japan. Japan has the highest percentage of education rate, and education influences alot of how a person thinks, almost like braiwashing. So from the the sources on the anti-chinese connotions within the educaiont system, its a fair conclusion to say that most japanese peopel are anti-chinese and still feel that they are a superior race. | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On April 24 2004 09:00 LastRomance wrote: maybe I should have included this into the example, State A never actually imported from State B. Since this is hypothetical what if State A was 2000 miles away from B and the country they imported from was sharing a border with A, A would have to pay an insane amount more to get the grain one state loses and the other gains. Now if there were local govt for the states than B would be happy with its tariff and A would be happy because they can still import at a reasonable price thats democracy thats looking out for the best interest of everyone.what you are saying is exactly the reason for the need for central government. Bcause it ensures the profits stay within the country. If State A don't purchase from State B then State B loses out, and the money used to purchase leavesthe country. A ood example is New Zealand and Australia, for many Est Coast States, it would probably cost less to import from New Zealand then from Western Australia, but if they do that, then they are givin profit away to other countries. And that the thing with not only economic but social and political factors is well. If you let States rule independently then they might develope difernt political aims with the rest of the country. Therefore threatening the whole nation. | ||
|
scrapperdog
United States779 Posts
You dont seem to have a basic grasp on how civilized countried do diplomatic relations but you do seem to have a grasp on your countries rhetoric and mindless nationalism. You think modern day japan in gonna attack china? Because they want to trade the skyscrapers in japan for the rice patties in china? Because they want to go to war with a country with 50 times the population and that has nuclear weapons? Give me a break... | ||
|
LastRomance
21 Posts
On April 24 2004 08:48 FrozenArbiter wrote: Nothing is perfect, however, I do have more control than you do. I have more freedoms so to speak, also - there is a greater political diversity in sweden than in China I believe.. More options. more options maybe, but political freedom is relative to population. How do u give 1 billion people 'political freedom'. If u measure the total amount of 'political freedom' exists within China then China probably has the bigest amount of 'political freedom' in the whole world. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
And I'm not sure what you mean ' If u measure the total amount of 'political freedom' exists within China then China probably has the bigest amount of 'political freedom' in the whole world. ' ? Could you elaborate maybe? | ||
|
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
On April 24 2004 09:16 FrozenArbiter wrote: Um well, as far as I'm aware China has never been a democracy.. Shouldn't you at least have tried that before discarding it? And I'm not sure what you mean ' If u measure the total amount of 'political freedom' exists within China then China probably has the bigest amount of 'political freedom' in the whole world. ' ? Could you elaborate maybe? dude, this isnt starcraft... when u switch from muta - ling to hydra - lurk... ppl die and stay dead... | ||
|
we want peace
China202 Posts
You should have the opinion of youself about China. Only your opinion but not other's that count On April 24 2004 09:16 FrozenArbiter wrote: Um well, as far as I'm aware China has never been a democracy.. Shouldn't you at least have tried that before discarding it? And I'm not sure what you mean ' If u measure the total amount of 'political freedom' exists within China then China probably has the bigest amount of 'political freedom' in the whole world. ' ? Could you elaborate maybe? | ||
|
longer_23
China299 Posts
Man o man, this thread is still alive. | ||
|
LastRomance
21 Posts
On April 24 2004 09:04 DV8 wrote: This story sounds more feasible than what haduken was spitting out. I just don't understand one thing, Who did you need defense from? tibet shared a border with kazakhistan which was probably part of the USSR at the time mongolia which no longer had genghis khan, afghanistan, pakistan, india, and nepal all of which are no threat to china. Maybe missle defense? But than again russia was far better equiped to do that.[/QUOTE]Russia was trying to get its power into domestic China, and Manchuria was becomin a problem as it was very close to U.S. bases in Japan, any movenment through Manchuria would stir up U.S. involvement which would expose the split between china and U.S.S.R, causing the potential danger of U.S. - china co-opretaion against Soviets. The Soviet already gained control over Mongolia, but due the desert, military mobilisation was highly inefficient. Tibet was strategically close to Moscow as compared to Beijing and it opened up the door to Middle East. China had to defend it because there were too many other powers in the region eyeing for the defenseless plateau. Soviet invaded Afghanistan as an alternative, after China secured Tibet, and disputes in Tibet-India border are cosntant and frequent. But because it was by nature military, therefore violence was unaviodable. And the military only knows one way to secure its power in a region and that is the use of excessive violence against the population. It's probably even stated in the consitution of many countries. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On April 24 2004 09:20 haduken wrote: Dude... ur making this sound like buying a car !... yeah try it if u dont like it then dont buy it... before u kno, u will have revolutions, tortues, civil wars, blahblah and million will be dead... gg Say what? | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
[QUOTE]On April 24 2004 09:04 DV8 wrote: [QUOTE] This story sounds more feasible than what haduken was spitting out. I just don't understand one thing, Who did you need defense from? tibet shared a border with kazakhistan which was probably part of the USSR at the time mongolia which no longer had genghis khan, afghanistan, pakistan, india, and nepal all of which are no threat to china. Maybe missle defense? But than again russia was far better equiped to do that.[/QUOTE] Russia was trying to get its power into domestic China, and Manchuria was becomin a problem as it was very close to U.S. bases in Japan, any movenment through Manchuria would stir up U.S. involvement which would expose the split between china and U.S.S.R, causing the potential danger of U.S. - china co-opretaion against Soviets. The Soviet already gained control over Mongolia, but due the desert, military mobilisation was highly inefficient. Tibet was strategically close to Moscow as compared to Beijing and it opened up the door to Middle East. China had to defend it because there were too many other powers in the region eyeing for the defenseless plateau. Soviet invaded Afghanistan as an alternative, after China secured Tibet, and disputes in Tibet-India border are cosntant and frequent. But because it was by nature military, therefore violence was unaviodable. And the military only knows one way to secure its power in a region and that is the use of excessive violence against the population. It's probably even stated in the consitution of many countries. [/QUOTE] Good post I think  Oh and the command for quote is [ QUOTE] (without a space) and then [ /QUOTE] | ||
|
DV8
United States1623 Posts
On April 24 2004 09:24 LastRomance wrote: This story sounds more feasible than what haduken was spitting out. I just don't understand one thing, Who did you need defense from? tibet shared a border with kazakhistan which was probably part of the USSR at the time mongolia which no longer had genghis khan, afghanistan, pakistan, india, and nepal all of which are no threat to china. Maybe missle defense? But than again russia was far better equiped to do that. Russia was trying to get its power into domestic China, and Manchuria was becomin a problem as it was very close to U.S. bases in Japan, any movenment through Manchuria would stir up U.S. involvement which would expose the split between china and U.S.S.R, causing the potential danger of U.S. - china co-opretaion against Soviets. The Soviet already gained control over Mongolia, but due the desert, military mobilisation was highly inefficient. Tibet was strategically close to Moscow as compared to Beijing and it opened up the door to Middle East. China had to defend it because there were too many other powers in the region eyeing for the defenseless plateau. Soviet invaded Afghanistan as an alternative, after China secured Tibet, and disputes in Tibet-India border are cosntant and frequent. But because it was by nature military, therefore violence was unaviodable. And the military only knows one way to secure its power in a region and that is the use of excessive violence against the population. It's probably even stated in the consitution of many countries. [/QUOTE] Ok so you don't have a soviet russia anymore to worry about why does china still have control over tibet? | ||
|
LastRomance
21 Posts
On April 24 2004 09:09 DV8 wrote: maybe I should have included this into the example, State A never actually imported from State B. Since this is hypothetical what if State A was 2000 miles away from B and the country they imported from was sharing a border with A, A would have to pay an insane amount more to get the grain one state loses and the other gains. Now if there were local govt for the states than B would be happy with its tariff and A would be happy because they can still import at a reasonable price thats democracy thats looking out for the best interest of everyone. look man, why do countries have protectionism, its exactly because of this factor. it's not in the national interest of certain nations like China to allow states to trade with neighbouring countries even if it is mor profitable then doing so with other states of china. The welfare of the nation comes before the welfare of the states | ||
| ||
|
|
Patches Events
BSL Open Qualifier
BSL Open Qualifier
OSC
OSC
WardiTV Weekly
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Online Event
Korean StarCraft League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
