China 08'

[raja_indy14 8]

lol, you'll find westerners just LOVE to intervene all over the world, they started at the end of the Middle Ages and they've been doing it ever since, it's a hard habit to beat

not that it's all been bad, but still, they have a record of international intervention that is far, far in excess of anyone else. good thing too that they finally - in the last century/half-century - became liberal champions of human rights and capitalism, well really that only happened since the end of the Cold War 20 years ago...

anyways, it's really only non-UK EU countries that have any right to castigate and boycott China - surely whatever they're doing is not as bad as invading a sovereign state under questionable pretenses at best and subjecting the population to unrelenting suffering and death. clearly major examples of western interventions around the world (Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq) or pointed non-interventions (Rwanda, East Timor) should serve as a blinding light of righteousness and selflessness that all should adopt. or perhaps it's alright if you do these things to people outside of your sovereign territory?

anyways, the point about China setting goals, targets and promises and then failing to meet them is hardly unique, and thus moot. indeed it seems a typical pastime of governments everywhere. to criticize China or India for carbon emissions is also rediculous, w/ certain western countries in the process of opening up new coal power plants, and still maintaining by far the highest per capita emissions (China's 3.8 tonnes per capita is far lower than the US' 20.4 tonnes), methinks it is further evidence of western hypocracy. where i live anyways, and i suspect in most western countries, carbon emission reductions have been all talk and little action...

[patriots_1228 51]

sunrise: Well, lets see. When a government recklessly pollutes the earth, sponsors a massive genocide, and opresses its citizens, everyone should be concerned. Going back to my first "offense", the US, as well as other countries, do that too. And i support anyone who protests our reckless pollution of the earth, so I am not being hypocritical here. Back on topic, Martin Luther King Jr. once said,"If America wants to become a first class nation, it can no longer have second class citizens". Well, if China wants to become a first class nation, as it does, it should probably stop treating its people like minions, because the US, Great Britain, and other first class nations will not allow that.

[SimFox 802]

Sunrise7:

that is just acceptable excuse to vent out sinophobia that is there for all so many reasons, and had been there for a long time. Now that just found "politically correct" reason to vocalize it.

[patriots_1228 51]

Originally posted by: raja_indy14 lol, you'll find westerners just LOVE to intervene all over the world, they started at the end of the Middle Ages and they've been doing it ever since, it's a hard habit to beat

not that it's all been bad, but still, they have a record of international intervention that is far, far in excess of anyone else. good thing too that they finally - in the last century/half-century - became liberal champions of human rights and capitalism, well really that only happened since the end of the Cold War 20 years ago...

anyways, it's really only non-UK EU countries that have any right to castigate and boycott China - surely whatever they're doing is not as bad as invading a sovereign state under questionable pretenses at best and subjecting the population to unrelenting suffering and death. clearly major examples of western interventions around the world (Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq) or pointed non-interventions (Rwanda, East Timor) should serve as a blinding light of righteousness and selflessness that all should adopt. or perhaps it's alright if you do these things to people outside of your sovereign territory?

anyways, the point about China setting goals, targets and promises and then failing to meet them is hardly unique, and thus moot. indeed it seems a typical pastime of governments everywhere. to criticize China or India for carbon emissions is also rediculous, w/ certain western countries in the process of opening up new coal power plants, and still maintaining by far the highest per capita emissions (China's 3.8 tonnes per capita is far lower than the US' 20.4 tonnes), methinks it is further evidence of western hypocracy. where i live anyways, and i suspect in most western countries, carbon emission reductions have been all talk and little action...quote>

It's not hypocracy if I am condemning both the US and China for their emissions

If China does not like western intervention, why don't we just take away the internet, TV, skyscrapers, cars, etc., and let them live like they did before we came along? Can we get a poll from the Chinese population to see how many would be in favor of that?

[Callbat 8]

Well if you don't like us British we'll be more than happy to take away your internet and your railways and everything else we invented.

[Meg 368]

Let's get back to the Olympics instead of playing "we'll take our ball and go home".

[belfastuniguy 18]

Well if you don't like us British we'll be more than happy to take away your internet and your railways and everything else we invented. quote>

Nice one Callbat. Lets also not forgot the telephone, jet engine and we pioneered the technique of cloning and lead the world in genetic research. So lets see......no internet, no jet engines (thus no planes), no telephones, no railways....hhhmmmm interesting world that would that would be living in.

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Well if you don't like us British we'll be more than happy to take away your internet and your railways and everything else we invented. quote>

Nice one Callbat. Lets also not forgot the telephone, jet engine and we pioneered the technique of cloning and lead the world in genetic research. So lets see......no internet, no jet engines (thus no planes), no telephones, no railways....hhhmmmm interesting world that would that would be living in.quote>

Remember this tidbit from all of twenty minutes ago?

Originally posted by: SkiGeek Let's get back to the Olympics instead of playing "we'll take our ball and go home".quote>

[belfastuniguy 18]

guys,before you talke about how horrible and how human rights abusing china was,have you ever been to china,and how much do you know about china? quote>

I've been.....does that make me more qualified than you to talk about it???

maybe you guys would like Soctland ,Walse to be independt countries,or you guys would like Hawaii to be a new member of the UN) quote>

Oh dear would seem someone needs to go and look at their history books and actually attempt to understand the situation with Wales and Scotland and while your at it look at a map and see that Northern Ireland is also part of the UK with a minority that actively sought independence from Britain. Please spare us ignorance, many of us have little time for it.

well,maybe you should do a survey in tibet to see whether most tibeten wants to be part of china or not.

Maybe soctland ,walse want to be part of the UK,however,there are still many people in scotland want to be indepedent,dose that account?how about northern ireland? quote>

Nice you finally mentioned Northern Ireland and yet again display ignorance. If you want a long reply in regard to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, their respective history and everything else relating to your point, Then just ask, I'd be happy to help you on that one.

(if boycotting olympic in china and making troble to the torch are your way of showing respect,then maybe you would like to see such kind of scene in 2012 to the london olympics)quote>

As far as I know the British government are not denying their people basic civil rights and freedom or sending armed troops into Scotland to break up and suppress an independence rally or indeed any protest whatsoever. I think you have completely and totally missed the point regarding the current protest aimed at China.

Let me state is. China PROMISED the ISC and the world it would improve its human rights record before the games and introduce freedoms. They have FAILED to delivery. Hence the protests.

ALSO

Final point..... Tibet is NOT I repeat IS NOT seeking independence but greater autonomy and the end to brutal and oppressive rule from Beijing.

[Callbat 8]

jet enginequote>

I thought that was the Germans

Maybe soctland ,walse want to be part of the UK,however,there are still many people in scotland want to be indepedent,dose that account?how about northern ireland?quote>

Seeing as how on the world's stage you seem to be the all knowing omniscient narrator, do take some time and elaborate to us the current situation within the United Kingdom.

And for the record I don't think I know everything

[belfastuniguy 18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_engine

The gas turbine was not an idea developed in the 1930s: the patent for a stationary turbine was granted to John Barber in England in 1791. The first gas turbine to successfully run self-sustaining was built in 1903 by Norwegian engineer

[patriots_1228 51]

let me try that a second time then: Being involved with the West is like SimCity 4. You have to buy the complete game. If you try and buy the game without pipelines, you end up with SCS. And what is SCS? A failure.

[thesimbug 0]

i have one question unanswered up to now.

would anyone tell me?

from the point of view of political strategy, why does the us not support tibet independence in 1950?

as long as i know, the us gives some support like, if im not mistaken, military support to proindependence elements in tibet.

but no significant, open, n all out support to the independence of tibet.

once again, from the point of view of political strategy, would anyone tell me why?

i already take some search on it on the internet but i fail so far.

before, thank you for your answers.

[belfastuniguy 18]

I think the world was somewhat pre-occupied in the 1950's.

The second world war was just finished, the worlds major nations were in total ruins, tens of millions dead, most of Europe looking like....well...a war zone and rationing continued and several European nations started to see their empires collapse and everything else in-between really.

Not really an excuse, just a reason to explain.

[ephorex_77 0]

If China does not like western intervention, why don't we just take away the internet, TV, skyscrapers, cars, etc., and let them live like they did before we came along? Can we get a poll from the Chinese population to see how many would be in favor of that? quote>

Well if you don't like us British we'll be more than happy to take away your internet and your railways and everything else we invented. quote>

Nice one Callbat. Lets also not forgot the telephone, jet engine and we pioneered the technique of cloning and lead the world in genetic research. So lets see......no internet, no jet engines (thus no planes), no telephones, no railways....hhhmmmm interesting world that would that would be living in. quote>

Haha, amazing crowd, this. Mutual support at its finest, eh??

I did say that I wouldn't be replying in this thread any more, but the laughable posts about taking away Western inventions from China are just begging for a reply. 

I wonder how the West would have fared without Paper, Printing, Gunpowder and the Compass, all four of them inventions of the Chinese. Indeed, all four of the above, if one thinks about it, have been pivotal in the development of the previously (comparatively) undeveloped Western world. Paper and printing: the dissemination of knowledge so crucial to the Renaissance; gunpowder: weapons used to colonise (read: commit gross abuses of human rights); the compass: used for navigation to those colonised (read: places where gross abuses of human rights were committed). 

And of course, that's not even considering the hundreds of other decidedly instrumental inventions the Chinese invented over the thousands of years during which the West were busy hacking off the local lords' or kings' heads just next door. 

And let's not forget that without those four inventions above, it's highly unlikely that the west would have advanced so far technologically so quickly. Perhaps the inventions the west have created (which are admittedly, crucial to modern life) would have been pushed back a few hundred years?

As ski said, this line of argument is pathetically facile. 

@ patriots: 

As for hypocrisy, yes, it certainly is hypocritical when other countries (of which I believe the US is one) condemn China for its pollution while its own pollution problems are far from being fixed. Perhaps you as an individual are not being hypocritical, but the US government and other countries' governments certainly are. The same situation applies to criticism of human rights. While you personally may never have filled an innocent person full of bullets, the same can't be said of governments who have sanctioned such actions. The point about hypocrisy still stands. 

[Callbat 8]

Oh I'm sorry for being white European.

I'm really sorry we had to colonise everyone else.

If you'll excuse me, I'll go back now and stop that from happening.

And I'm really sorry for offending you and your discoveries of Magneteism, Chemical Compounds, and paper. (that one wasn't sarcastic)

And lets remember, we each had our own dark and middle and renaissance ages................ No doubt in my mind if Europe had been the first agricultural society (instead of Asia) we would have invented some of these things ourselves.

Also remember that after the dark ages most of the knowledge elaborated by the Romans and brought from Asia was lost to societal collapse due to the collapse of the Roman Empire, we had to start from scratch.

And about the hypocrisy. China very well knows what it is doing, it isn't some dumb child, and yet they go ahead and create coal fire plants, turn rivers green, do virtually nothing to curb outrageous population growth (something which as humans, threatens us all, as we can see from the rising cost of food) and do nothing to promote more awareness for the rest of the planet. While in Europe, we're

working our [expletive] off to curb car usage, lower emissions and even create new sources of energy (CERN I think..no?). Now I perfectly well understand that China is a "industrialising" country but they should at least show some damned sense?!?

Not to mention change their policies concerning Tibet which obviously are doing nothing to help the matter and only making them look dumb.

Now I know I have might have said many incorrect, one-sided, biased statements but I can't go and do research on the spot and write Essay-length posts like most of you here. It also just depends on your point of view as an individual.

[Meg 368]

Yes, as Obi-wan says that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

But let's have this discussion without the snideness.  It's not very effective way to make a point.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: raja_indy14

anyways, it's really only non-UK EU countries that have any right to castigate and boycott China - surely whatever they're doing is not as bad as invading a sovereign state under questionable pretenses at best and subjecting the population to unrelenting suffering and death. clearly major examples of western interventions around the world (Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq) or pointed non-interventions (Rwanda, East Timor) should serve as a blinding light of righteousness and selflessness that all should adopt. or perhaps it's alright if you do these things to people outside of your sovereign territory?quote>

I'll give you that one. They're often prone to be bystanders when something bad happens. Just like China until recently just stood by and saw people in Darfur being slaughterd, so have many minor European nations done for a long time. A prime example might be Srebrencia, where general Ratko Mladic killed about 8 000 in what was supposed to be a secure UN camp guarded by the European country the Netherlands. However, they have not always made the right decisions. For example when they decided to intervene in the Korean War (or is War to Resist America and Aid Korea the proper name?), but this might be justified as China too though it was necessary to defend the nation on Korean soil?

This "non-intervention" doctrine is nothing but politics. It is of course not taught because they do not have a wish not to intervene, but because this is what is going to benefit them the most in the future, and, if everything goes well, they will have a reputation to offer both Western and African countries, that the rulers might do what they like, because the Chinese do not care how many that's killed in your prisons. And that is tempting for many countries, especially for those who cannot enter the EU or NATO (I am well aware that the people of some of this nations may be opposed to especially NATO, but we're following the Chinese way of appeasing the rulers).

Zimbabwe is a prime example of how "no interferece in internal affairs" works. China ships off aid to a country that clearly can't get its act together by themselves. Aid is in itself one way to create a dependent relationship. The Chinese have also made sure that Mugabe lives well, by building him a new house. There are good relations between Chinese and Zimbabwean leaders ever since the independence war wherethe Chinese armed the Zanu party. Are one to believe that China does not get anything back for all this, and that China competes on the same level as other nations for trade, et. al.?

And then of course there is this arms shipment that the Chinese sent to Zimbabwe  around election time, with a false cargo manifest so that the outside world wouldn't know what it was they had in their hold. Now, one might argue that the Chinese have no idea on how a democracy is run, but they have not been living in a vaccume since 1949; and there are plenty of cases to choose among. These kinds of descisions are usually left to the new government, when they come up so close to the election (wether the next government will be the current one, or a new one). But then again, Mugabe invented democracy in Zimbabwe—he might well have some other ideas than his neighbours.

Oh, and don't this "no boycott!" talk from the Chinese government sounds rather hollow when they actually starts one against Carrefour? What is worst, that a few politicians do some real work instead of watching athletes march, or that the governmetn tries to drive Carrefour out of the country? Or is that an entirly different matter, and boycotts not political inside China?

[thesimbug 0]

does the us not give an open and all out support for tibet independence merely because of the post world war II devastation?

if the us is really not being able to give an all out economic and military support for tibet independence in 1950, why then does it not at least in the diplomatic realm officially recognize the "world roof land" as an independent state from the very year of chinese occupation?

[krbe 193]

No countries are contesting the Chinese claim to Tibet, and that the PRC currently controls it. The issue is if it is justified to run the region as they do. One poster were asking a question about the Tibet discussion, using its Chinese name; and yes, would that perhaps be more approriate no, as the Hans are the majority group in Tibet today? Also, China as in the People's Republic of China isn't a state it's easy to have relations, as evidenced by their new (yet "old") visa regime, and especially in regards to the other China, which doesn't exists, according to Chinese Beijing.

[belfastuniguy 18]

I did say that I wouldn't be replying in this thread any more, but the laughable posts about taking away Western inventions from China are just begging for a reply.

I wonder how the West would have fared without Paper, Printing, Gunpowder and the Compass, all four of them inventions of the Chinese. Indeed, all four of the above, if one thinks about it, have been pivotal in the development of the previously (comparatively) undeveloped Western world. Paper and printing: the dissemination of knowledge so crucial to the Renaissance; gunpowder: weapons used to colonise (read: commit gross abuses of human rights); the compass: used for navigation to those colonised (read: places where gross abuses of human rights were committed). quote>

No one was actually saying that China did not make important discoveries. Callbat and I were simply making a reply to the view that the United Kingdom has done nothing good. No one is disregarding Chinese culture and history. We are looking at the current situation in China and seeing as no one was making reference to Chinese invention it was not mentioned. No need to get your back up about it.

As for the Big Bad European Empires.... cry me a river. Get over it, nothing in history can be changed unless you have discovered a time machine everyone is unaware of. Myself and others have already addressed that nothing was perfect and indeed the British empire was one of the better ones that existed.

[Meg 368]

Okay, now that we've established that everyone has a country that invented lots of cool things let's skip the part about playing "my empire was better than your empire".

[Callbat 8]

Sorry Skigeek, it just upsets me when people treat empires as current events.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Originally posted by: Callbat Sorry Skigeek, it just upsets me when people treat empires as current events.quote>

My thoughts exactly. This is not a thread to debate the past 'evils' (as some see it) of now defunct empires but the current situation in China.

[ephorex_77 0]

No one was actually saying that China did not make important discoveries. Callbat and I were simply making a reply to the view that the United Kingdom has done nothing good. No one is disregarding Chinese culture and history. We are looking at the current situation in China and seeing as no one was making reference to Chinese invention it was not mentioned. No need to get your back up about it. quote>

 

Haha, I must say I wasn't exactly in histrionics about your comment; "mildly bemused" would perhaps be closer to the mark. I'm used to seeing the world (as well as see the world see the world ) from a Eurocentric point of view. Heck, I'm guilty of perpetrating it sometimes. But really, there's no need for you to feel so affronted about my comment (if you weren't, then disregard it). It was patriot who brought it up in the first place, I believe.

As for the Big Bad European Empires.... cry me a river. Get over it, nothing in history can be changed unless you have discovered a time machine everyone is unaware of. Myself and others have already addressed that nothing was perfect and indeed the British empire was one of the better ones that existed.

quote>

 

Ahh, a comment unworthy of you, I think. 

If one goes by the same token, let's just shut this thread down and affix a large post at both the start and end of this thread saying "AS FOR BIG BAD CHINA IN TIBET...CRY ME A RIVER". Indeed, it's rather tempting; it'd certainly solve this débâcle wouldn't it?

A sophistic point, but would it be sporting to declare to all you "cry-me-a-river-ers", "GET OVER IT"? After all, nothing can be changed unless you have discovered (insert method here) that everyone is unaware of to get China to clean up its act in Tibet permanently.

And seeing as you've conveniently confessed that "nothing is/was perfect", can one likewise retort "China isn't perfect either"? Can we also say that China, at present, is one of the better of the developing countries, especially considering its long status as a pariah Communist country, a country with a huge, burgeoning population, a country ravaged by decades of war etc.? 

Can't we see this issue from the point of view that you've so presciently pointed out?

And just for the record, I have no blinded anti-British predilections. I admire many aspects of British culture and I certainly strive to emulate a great many things that they do (the old-fashioned ones, at least). What I certainly do not admire - and I'm sure you're so inclined as well - is their historical foreign policy. And yes, I believe that the British Empire, at least from a non-Indian point of view, was certainly one of the better ones out there.

EDIT: And also, come to think about it, the issue of history is arguably relevant to this discussion. It certainly is pertinent to discuss the "past evils" seeing as the past undeniably has great bearing on the present, same as the way that bringing up Tibet's far-from-tranquil state under the Dalai Lamas' reigns is rather important to this discussion.

Finally, just a random thought: If China hadn't been invaded by foreign powers, would it a stretch of the imagination to imagine that the seed of Communism would have fallen on barren land? That is to say, Communism was used by Mao as a panacea to the evils besetting China; if China had been stable (which they were, before outside "intervention"), would Mao's revolution have converted 1.3 billion people to its cause and thus earned it the ire of most of the West for a greater part of half a century (and some posters on a website)?

Interesting question, I thi

[thesimbug 0]

krbe previously says:

No countries are contesting the Chinese claim to Tibet, and that the PRC currently controls it. The issue is if it is justified to run the region as they do. One poster were asking a question about the Tibet discussion, using its Chinese name; and yes, would that perhaps be more approriate no, as the Hans are the majority group in Tibet today? Also, China as in the People's Republic of China isn't a state it's easy to have relations, as evidenced by their new (yet "old") visa regime, and especially in regards to the other China, which doesn't exists, according to Chinese Beijing.

the simbug then says:

is it a reply for me, krbe? thank you if its so.

but its perhaps because of my poor english that i fail to understand fully your sentences.

if im not mistaken, this is your core statements:

No countries are contesting the Chinese claim to Tibet, and that the PRC currently controls it. The issue is if it is justified to run the region as they do.

but the whole next sentences, im very sorry, i fail to understand, like:

and yes, would that perhaps be more approriate no, as the Hans are the majority group in Tibet today?

i already repeat n repeat reading this sentence but perhaps because of my poor english i still really fail to understand this sentence.

n again, this one sentence:

Also, China as in the People's Republic of China isn't a state it's easy to have relations

china is not a state?

i really hope you would like to reexplain all sentences after your "core statements", krbe.

n i would appreciate if you tell me more about the visa regime youre talking about.

ill wait for your reply, krbe!

[thesimbug 0]

   

i need your answers, everybody.
ephorex_77, would you answer this one question in your lengthy post?

let me rewrite my question:

in the point of view of political strategy, why does the us not support tibet independence since the very year of chinas occupation of 1950?

if the us does not give open n all out economic n military supports for tibet independence because of post world war II devastation then why does it not even give at least, in the diplomatic realm, formal recognition of tibet as an independent state?

let me remind us all that in 1949, in the same time of post world war II devastation as the chinas early occupation of tibet, the us gives not only diplomatic recognition but also open n all out political, economic, n military supports to another chinas region which is undisputably too chinas own, taiwan. in the midst of post world war II devastation, the us takes a huge risk by standing firmly behind taiwans back if we remember the 1st n 2nd taiwan strait crisis in which not only china which will be plunged into war with the us by its military manuvers against taiwan but also the soviet union which will be dragged into the war if its fellow communist is intimidated by the "the godfather of the capitalist world", a probable war between nuclear weaponed super powers of the communist n capitalist blocks or perhaps even larger (warsaw pact vs nato, for example, perhaps). but knowing the giant risk it faces, the us is even determined to bind its self further with taiwan relations act.

so let me restate my question:

from the angle of political strategy, why does the us not support tibet independence since the very year of chinas occupation of 1950?

belfastuniguy n krbe, thank you for your replies!
how about your replies, everybody?

   

[patriots_1228 51]

your question was already answered. The US had some more important buisness to attend to.

[thesimbug 0]

patriots_1228 previously says:

your question was already answered. The US had some more important buisness to attend to.

thesimbug then says:

then taiwan be an exception?

would you read my last post?

[Meg 368]

To put it another way:  after years of fighting wars in various parts of the world, people were not ready to start fighting another one at that time.