Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

mook · Oct 26, 2003, 11:54 pm

China is playing an ever-increasing role in global politics. Their economic growth is astounding; here's an excerpt from the most recent Foreign Affairs (from an excerpt that appeared on their webpage) that goes into detail on that:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The world's most populous nation has radically liberalized its economy and gone from producing low-quality and simple exports to sophisticated high-technology goods, while nurturing a vibrant private sector and attracting nearly $500 billion in foreign direct investment (FDI). The country has turned into a formidable exporting machine: China's total exports grew eightfold -- to over $380 billion -- between 1990 and 2003; and its exports in the electronics industry now account for 30 percent of Asia's total in that sector. China's share of global exports will reach 6 percent in 2003, compared to 3.9 percent in 2000. Last year, China accounted for 16 percent of the growth in the world economy, ranking second only to the United States.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The jumps in numbers over such incredibly short lengths of time is a large indicator of one thing: China's becoming more and more important to the global economic front.

On top of that, China's also becoming more relevant regarding politics. The recent North Korean situation, with China helping significantly with the discussions over how to handle the crisis, are just one example of this. They are also tremendous militarily, with the world's second-largest army and huge amounts of money poured into military spending.

China's basically becoming extraordinary powerful in terms of global politics. What effect, if any, do you think this has had/will have on the world as a whole?

RebelWithanAK · Oct 26, 2003, 11:57 pm

Hopefully it means there's somebody keeping the US in check.

G. Adams · Oct 27, 2003, 07:25 am

If the neo-cons are knocked out of the oval office, I see China's growth being a good thing. However, considering that PNAC has stated it's goal to be 'total military dominance of the world by 2020' and 'the US should never allow another nation to aspire to be a superpower, and use force if neccesary to prevent such thing happening', I thing we could have one huge fucking war on our hands if the the PNAC group keeps getting its people into power, like the bushes, cheneys and rumsfeld.

castille · Oct 27, 2003, 08:12 am

China has a superpower mentality - for the last 4000 years.

The defeats by the West during the 1800s and early 1900s has in fact fueled that drive to become a superpower. Mao could not achieve that dream, but Deng managed to drive China into economic strength.

China's military, in contrast to what many Americans suggest, is in fact quite peaceful. Their aims is to prepare for short-scale border conflicts, as opposed to full-scale war. Japan in fact spends more money than China does on the armed forces.

Yet China remains internally and regionally focused, barely paying attention to the events that don't involve the words "economy" or "Asia". There has been no indication of an outward expansion beyond Asia, nor has China even bothered with world events beyond their region. I would say Mao was the last person to try to dominate anyplace beyond Asia (Africa and Communist states). Deng's leadership laid the foundations for an internal and regional focus.

Even the United States is recognising that attempting to stop China from becoming a regional superpower is not possible - pressure from American hardliners have not given even the Republicans incentive to reduce trade with China, irregardless of humanitarian crisis. The 1989 Tiananmen Incident in fact barely affected state-controlled trade; only military coorperation and personal trade were affected.

G. Adams · Oct 27, 2003, 04:43 pm

I wouldn't class that attitude you describe as a superpower attitude. Although China has always had a vast potential to be a superpower, it has never really taken up that role.

Then again, I've only been politically aware under the reign of one superpower, and its attitude is imperialistic, which China isn't (if we ignore Tibet).

eXploiTeD · Oct 27, 2003, 06:22 pm

China is the Celestial Empire; the center of the Universe, the be-all and end-all of culture, politics and religion - at least in their eyes. They're the most racist people on earth, but for all that, they're driven as hell to succeed.

It is also run by the only other government I tend to dislike more on a regular basis than that of the United States. Their disregard for human rights, the extended illegal occupation of Tibet and the arrogance they project sickens me.

RebelWithanAK · Oct 27, 2003, 08:27 pm

eXploiTeD, castille:

If we took the impressions of the leaders of our world powers as they were 200 years ago (which is essentially what you're doing), we'd find that Japan was racist, America was racist, Great Britain was racist, Germany was racist, Russia was racist, Spain was racist; hell, we'd be hard-pressed to find a decent human in power in all the world. That said, this isn't 200 years ago. China may have been the middle kingdom with control over their part of the world in the 1700's, but their hold has already been broken long ago and they still have to deal with a multilateral approach to the region. Unlike us.

The Chinese will be just as racist as the Japanese and the Americans today.

castille · Nov 1, 2003, 09:59 pm

Its not "racism" as the standard phrase, but rather is it simply about regaining past glory.

A lot of Westerners have a hard time trying to understand Asia and its "attitude", so they put it down to racism or "arrogance". I recall meeting a group of Japanese businessmen with a one American and Australian. The American was loud, blunt, often disregarded common rules for politeness, then told me how he thought the Japanese were so stubborn and frustrating. The Japanese in contrast were polite, yet too quiet I suppose (in Western views).

Fortunately the Australian was more cooperative, and we helped rescue the situation. In a sense the japanese kind of understood the attitude of the American, so they didn't seem to mind. But if they wanted, they could've left us in the mud and got somebody else's business. Talked softly, but carried a huge stick.

I don't mind the occupation of Tibet, mainly because Tibetians have always lived under a feudal dictatorship. Just read about Tibetian history (from unbiased books, not "FREE TIBET NOW!" websites). Their Dalai Lama and monk lords weren't always the greatest humanitarians. Its only now that the Dalai Lama preaches peace, because he is in no position of power to impose his will.

RebelWithanAK · Nov 2, 2003, 12:48 am

Where to begin, where to begin.

Australians are White westerners, plain and simple; they have a particularly similar history to us, having been borne from the same people and having done committed the same atrocities to the natives in true English fashion.

The Japanese are a Chinese offshoot (unless you count the local Ainu), and were justifiably headstrong (and extremely racist) until the end of WWII, as they never were invaded nor defeated before then. Obviously, Hirohito does not ring a bell to you.

China, basically, was whomped by the British and Japanese, and has spent most of its time having internal problems in either trying to emulate us or rebuff us. Hence, Taiwan. Hence, Mao. However, if it wants to truly bloom, it knows it has to do things multilaterally (as compared to going the way of Russia), and empire-building does not equate into that. Hence, Hong Kong; hence Shanghai.

They're a lot calmer now mainly because of their respective defeats. You don't see any upstarts in Europe after WWII because they all quickly learned how devastating a foreign invasion was.

However, America has yet to be humbled. In our 200 years, we've never been invaded. In that way, we're closer to the Australians than the British, and it's no wonder both the US and Australia are quite racist.

---

Now, the reason the Japanese man was "quiet," is because America's meddling in the 19-teens has catapulted Japan from a medieval society to a modern one, essentially skipping the all-important renaissance, which essentially shifts a culture from honorifics to rationalism. Of course, rationalism brings its own problems, as reported on my bullshit-o-tron, but it's a fundamental divide. The muslim world, for instance, has not gone through such a change. As such, the most important aspect to the Japanese man is his honor. You simply will not get him to admit fault, or that he is wrong. Hence, negotiating takes a bit of tact. So, going up against a headstrong American is a just a lesson in the faux pas.

G. Adams · Nov 2, 2003, 09:56 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
I don't mind the occupation of Tibet, mainly because Tibetians have always lived under a feudal dictatorship. Just read about Tibetian history (from unbiased books, not "FREE TIBET NOW!" websites). Their Dalai Lama and monk lords weren't always the greatest humanitarians. Its only now that the Dalai Lama preaches peace, because he is in no position of power to impose his will.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Are we ignoring the 3 million tibetans killed since their occupation?

Not to mention sovereignty and culture being crushed.

castille · Nov 2, 2003, 11:46 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
Are we ignoring the 3 million tibetans killed since their occupation?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

3 million dead? Prove it. From an unbiased source. Not the Socialist Human Rights Watch or the I Hate China site.

Ironically, the majority of Tibetians attacked or homes destroyed were due to the efforts of the Red Guards and a Communist legacy.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Not to mention sovereignty and culture being crushed.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Thats funny...what defines sovereignty? I could say Guangzhou should be a sovereign state, since their culture is different from Beijing or Shanghai. Dif language too. We could divide the world into trillions of countries if we want.

East Prussia, Chechnya, portions of Texas, South Denmark....a few known examples of sovereignty being crushed.

G. Adams · Nov 2, 2003, 12:30 pm

Tibet was a sovereign nation roughly 50 years ago. It isn't now. 50 years is someones lifetime.

East Prussia has been consolidated for 130 years now. Not someones lifetime.

Simple eh? And I don't know how many east prussians or southern dutch are demanding freedom for their nation.

As for facts, well your right, I couldn't find a none biased source that hit the three million mark.

However I did find at the University of Virginia a piece stating that more than 1.5 million have been killed. http://www.virginia.edu/nobel/laureates/bi...ailama_bio.html

Maybe not 3 million, but 1.5 million isn't exactley a handful now is it?

castille · Nov 10, 2003, 09:13 am

Your "evidence" of "1.5 million" Tibetians being killed comes from a site worshipping the Dalai Lama....unbiased? Doubtful.

So where did your original 3 million estimate come from? You made it up. Proves your "statements" are exactly true.

I find it funny just because the Dalai Lama is a persuasive individual, the world has to pick on Tibet. What about the ETA rebels in Spain demanding their freedom? What about Kurds demanding their freedom in Turkey? What about Chechnya? And the...wait, Stalin actually exterminated the East Prussians. Nobody cares about them. Why? Because they don't have a leader like the Dalai Lama and his ability to rally up crowds.

Most information from Tibet comes from American sources...I thought leftists say American media is a government propaganda device or something.

Ultimately, if the Tibetians truely want their freedom....they would be free by now. But most of them happen to be watching Chinese television, eating Chinese delivered rice, working at Chinese provided jobs, and taking Chinese yen. Not to mention grabbing more Chinese money to build more temples laced with gold and glittering gems and silver....(the monks lived very luxurious lives for Buddhists, wonder if they're really true to their cause?).

Maybe the Tibetian monks should give their gold and diamonds to the hungry and poor, like their religion says so? And anyone noticed the Dalai Lama actually wears silk clothing?

G. Adams · Nov 10, 2003, 11:15 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
Your "evidence" of "1.5 million" Tibetians being killed comes from a site worshipping the Dalai Lama....unbiased? Doubtful.

So where did your original 3 million estimate come from? You made it up. Proves your "statements" are exactly true.

I find it funny just because the Dalai Lama is a persuasive individual, the world has to pick on Tibet. What about the ETA rebels in Spain demanding their freedom? What about Kurds demanding their freedom in Turkey? What about Chechnya? And the...wait, Stalin actually exterminated the East Prussians. Nobody cares about them. Why? Because they don't have a leader like the Dalai Lama and his ability to rally up crowds.

Most information from Tibet comes from American sources...I thought leftists say American media is a government propaganda device or something.

Ultimately, if the Tibetians truely want their freedom....they would be free by now. But most of them happen to be watching Chinese television, eating Chinese delivered rice, working at Chinese provided jobs, and taking Chinese yen. Not to mention grabbing more Chinese money to build more temples laced with gold and glittering gems and silver....(the monks lived very luxurious lives for Buddhists, wonder if they're really true to their cause?).

Maybe the Tibetian monks should give their gold and diamonds to the hungry and poor, like their religion says so? And anyone noticed the Dalai Lama actually wears silk clothing?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I didn't make up the 3 million quote, the source I read it from may have. The 1.5 million however comes from a more respectable source. So it's up to you to disprove it now.

Your changing the argument here. Yes their hypocracy in Tibet. But thats not what we were talking about. China has invaded another sovereign nation. In doing so, and maintaining its authority, its has killed 1.5 million people. It is the occupation I object to. You havn't been able to give a good reason for China to occupy a foreign country. its not like Tibet was about to invade, is it?

Sodfather · Nov 10, 2003, 04:06 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (mook,)
They are also tremendous militarily, with the world's second-largest army<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Second? I thought it was first...

Anyway, the most noticeable result of China's rise is our (America's) obligation to please the Chinese due to China's ability to kick our ass. I mean, all those people could overthrow us with caveman clubs, nevermind AK's. :P

RebelWithanAK · Nov 10, 2003, 05:40 pm

They are the second largest, we are the first. They have the second largest standing army, but we outspend them and 8 other nations combined on military hardware. However, if it comes to a fight, my money's on moving to Mexico...

**Pooeypants** · Nov 16, 2003, 06:41 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
Tibet was a sovereign nation roughly 50 years ago. It isn't now. 50 years is someones lifetime.

East Prussia has been consolidated for 130 years now. Not someones lifetime.

Simple eh? And I don't know how many east prussians or southern dutch are demanding freedom for their nation.

As for facts, well your right, I couldn't find a none biased source that hit the three million mark.

However I did find at the University of Virginia a piece stating that more than 1.5 million have been killed. http://www.virginia.edu/nobel/laureates/bi...ailama_bio.html

Maybe not 3 million, but 1.5 million isn't exactley a handful now is it?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Is that more or less than the amount of Vietnamese killed during the Vietcong war?

**Pooeypants** · Nov 16, 2003, 06:46 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
They are the second largest, we are the first. They have the second largest standing army, but we outspend them and 8 other nations combined on military hardware. However, if it comes to a fight, my money's on moving to Mexico...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
heh, but if percentage wise all nations enlisted the same number...it'd be an interesting fight :p

G. Adams · Nov 16, 2003, 11:06 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
Tibet was a sovereign nation roughly 50 years ago. It isn't now. 50 years is someones lifetime.

East Prussia has been consolidated for 130 years now. Not someones lifetime.

Simple eh? And I don't know how many east prussians or southern dutch are demanding freedom for their nation.

As for facts, well your right, I couldn't find a none biased source that hit the three million mark.

However I did find at the University of Virginia a piece stating that more than 1.5 million have been killed. http://www.virginia.edu/nobel/laureates/bi...ailama_bio.html

Maybe not 3 million, but 1.5 million isn't exactley a handful now is it?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Is that more or less than the amount of Vietnamese killed during the Vietcong war?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Four million Vietnamese dead I think.

RebelWithanAK · Nov 16, 2003, 12:04 pm

The number varies based on who spins what, but the total Vietnamese dead (North and South) totals somewhere between 1.5 and 3 million. God bless Napalm and Agent Orange.

Oct 26, 2003, 11:54 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
mook Molten Ash Posts: 32	China is playing an ever-increasing role in global politics. Their economic growth is astounding; here's an excerpt from the most recent Foreign Affairs (from an excerpt that appeared on their webpage) that goes into detail on that: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by The world's most populous nation has radically liberalized its economy and gone from producing low-quality and simple exports to sophisticated high-technology goods, while nurturing a vibrant private sector and attracting nearly $500 billion in foreign direct investment (FDI). The country has turned into a formidable exporting machine: China's total exports grew eightfold -- to over $380 billion -- between 1990 and 2003; and its exports in the electronics industry now account for 30 percent of Asia's total in that sector. China's share of global exports will reach 6 percent in 2003, compared to 3.9 percent in 2000. Last year, China accounted for 16 percent of the growth in the world economy, ranking second only to the United States. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The jumps in numbers over such incredibly short lengths of time is a large indicator of one thing: China's becoming more and more important to the global economic front. On top of that, China's also becoming more relevant regarding politics. The recent North Korean situation, with China helping significantly with the discussions over how to handle the crisis, are just one example of this. They are also tremendous militarily, with the world's second-largest army and huge amounts of money poured into military spending. China's basically becoming extraordinary powerful in terms of global politics. What effect, if any, do you think this has had/will have on the world as a whole? history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes.

Oct 26, 2003, 11:57 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Hopefully it means there's somebody keeping the US in check. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 27, 2003, 07:25 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	If the neo-cons are knocked out of the oval office, I see China's growth being a good thing. However, considering that PNAC has stated it's goal to be 'total military dominance of the world by 2020' and 'the US should never allow another nation to aspire to be a superpower, and use force if neccesary to prevent such thing happening', I thing we could have one huge fucking war on our hands if the the PNAC group keeps getting its people into power, like the bushes, cheneys and rumsfeld. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 27, 2003, 08:12 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	China has a superpower mentality - for the last 4000 years. The defeats by the West during the 1800s and early 1900s has in fact fueled that drive to become a superpower. Mao could not achieve that dream, but Deng managed to drive China into economic strength. China's military, in contrast to what many Americans suggest, is in fact quite peaceful. Their aims is to prepare for short-scale border conflicts, as opposed to full-scale war. Japan in fact spends more money than China does on the armed forces. Yet China remains internally and regionally focused, barely paying attention to the events that don't involve the words "economy" or "Asia". There has been no indication of an outward expansion beyond Asia, nor has China even bothered with world events beyond their region. I would say Mao was the last person to try to dominate anyplace beyond Asia (Africa and Communist states). Deng's leadership laid the foundations for an internal and regional focus. Even the United States is recognising that attempting to stop China from becoming a regional superpower is not possible - pressure from American hardliners have not given even the Republicans incentive to reduce trade with China, irregardless of humanitarian crisis. The 1989 Tiananmen Incident in fact barely affected state-controlled trade; only military coorperation and personal trade were affected. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Oct 27, 2003, 04:43 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	I wouldn't class that attitude you describe as a superpower attitude. Although China has always had a vast potential to be a superpower, it has never really taken up that role. Then again, I've only been politically aware under the reign of one superpower, and its attitude is imperialistic, which China isn't (if we ignore Tibet). Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 27, 2003, 06:22 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
eXploiTeD Molten Ash Posts: 32	China is the Celestial Empire; the center of the Universe, the be-all and end-all of culture, politics and religion - at least in their eyes. They're the most racist people on earth, but for all that, they're driven as hell to succeed. It is also run by the only other government I tend to dislike more on a regular basis than that of the United States. Their disregard for human rights, the extended illegal occupation of Tibet and the arrogance they project sickens me.

Oct 27, 2003, 08:27 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	eXploiTeD, castille: If we took the impressions of the leaders of our world powers as they were 200 years ago (which is essentially what you're doing), we'd find that Japan was racist, America was racist, Great Britain was racist, Germany was racist, Russia was racist, Spain was racist; hell, we'd be hard-pressed to find a decent human in power in all the world. That said, this isn't 200 years ago. China may have been the middle kingdom with control over their part of the world in the 1700's, but their hold has already been broken long ago and they still have to deal with a multilateral approach to the region. Unlike us. The Chinese will be just as racist as the Japanese and the Americans today. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Nov 1, 2003, 09:59 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Its not "racism" as the standard phrase, but rather is it simply about regaining past glory. A lot of Westerners have a hard time trying to understand Asia and its "attitude", so they put it down to racism or "arrogance". I recall meeting a group of Japanese businessmen with a one American and Australian. The American was loud, blunt, often disregarded common rules for politeness, then told me how he thought the Japanese were so stubborn and frustrating. The Japanese in contrast were polite, yet too quiet I suppose (in Western views). Fortunately the Australian was more cooperative, and we helped rescue the situation. In a sense the japanese kind of understood the attitude of the American, so they didn't seem to mind. But if they wanted, they could've left us in the mud and got somebody else's business. Talked softly, but carried a huge stick. I don't mind the occupation of Tibet, mainly because Tibetians have always lived under a feudal dictatorship. Just read about Tibetian history (from unbiased books, not "FREE TIBET NOW!" websites). Their Dalai Lama and monk lords weren't always the greatest humanitarians. Its only now that the Dalai Lama preaches peace, because he is in no position of power to impose his will. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Nov 2, 2003, 12:48 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Where to begin, where to begin. Australians are White westerners, plain and simple; they have a particularly similar history to us, having been borne from the same people and having done committed the same atrocities to the natives in true English fashion. The Japanese are a Chinese offshoot (unless you count the local Ainu), and were justifiably headstrong (and extremely racist) until the end of WWII, as they never were invaded nor defeated before then. Obviously, Hirohito does not ring a bell to you. China, basically, was whomped by the British and Japanese, and has spent most of its time having internal problems in either trying to emulate us or rebuff us. Hence, Taiwan. Hence, Mao. However, if it wants to truly bloom, it knows it has to do things multilaterally (as compared to going the way of Russia), and empire-building does not equate into that. Hence, Hong Kong; hence Shanghai. They're a lot calmer now mainly because of their respective defeats. You don't see any upstarts in Europe after WWII because they all quickly learned how devastating a foreign invasion was. However, America has yet to be humbled. In our 200 years, we've never been invaded. In that way, we're closer to the Australians than the British, and it's no wonder both the US and Australia are quite racist. --- Now, the reason the Japanese man was "quiet," is because America's meddling in the 19-teens has catapulted Japan from a medieval society to a modern one, essentially skipping the all-important renaissance, which essentially shifts a culture from honorifics to rationalism. Of course, rationalism brings its own problems, as reported on my bullshit-o-tron, but it's a fundamental divide. The muslim world, for instance, has not gone through such a change. As such, the most important aspect to the Japanese man is his honor. You simply will not get him to admit fault, or that he is wrong. Hence, negotiating takes a bit of tact. So, going up against a headstrong American is a just a lesson in the faux pas. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Nov 2, 2003, 09:56 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,) I don't mind the occupation of Tibet, mainly because Tibetians have always lived under a feudal dictatorship. Just read about Tibetian history (from unbiased books, not "FREE TIBET NOW!" websites). Their Dalai Lama and monk lords weren't always the greatest humanitarians. Its only now that the Dalai Lama preaches peace, because he is in no position of power to impose his will.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Are we ignoring the 3 million tibetans killed since their occupation? Not to mention sovereignty and culture being crushed. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 2, 2003, 11:46 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) Are we ignoring the 3 million tibetans killed since their occupation?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> 3 million dead? Prove it. From an unbiased source. Not the Socialist Human Rights Watch or the I Hate China site. Ironically, the majority of Tibetians attacked or homes destroyed were due to the efforts of the Red Guards and a Communist legacy. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Not to mention sovereignty and culture being crushed.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Thats funny...what defines sovereignty? I could say Guangzhou should be a sovereign state, since their culture is different from Beijing or Shanghai. Dif language too. We could divide the world into trillions of countries if we want. East Prussia, Chechnya, portions of Texas, South Denmark....a few known examples of sovereignty being crushed. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Nov 2, 2003, 12:30 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	Tibet was a sovereign nation roughly 50 years ago. It isn't now. 50 years is someones lifetime. East Prussia has been consolidated for 130 years now. Not someones lifetime. Simple eh? And I don't know how many east prussians or southern dutch are demanding freedom for their nation. As for facts, well your right, I couldn't find a none biased source that hit the three million mark. However I did find at the University of Virginia a piece stating that more than 1.5 million have been killed. http://www.virginia.edu/nobel/laureates/bi...ailama_bio.html Maybe not 3 million, but 1.5 million isn't exactley a handful now is it? Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 10, 2003, 09:13 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Your "evidence" of "1.5 million" Tibetians being killed comes from a site worshipping the Dalai Lama....unbiased? Doubtful. So where did your original 3 million estimate come from? You made it up. Proves your "statements" are exactly true. I find it funny just because the Dalai Lama is a persuasive individual, the world has to pick on Tibet. What about the ETA rebels in Spain demanding their freedom? What about Kurds demanding their freedom in Turkey? What about Chechnya? And the...wait, Stalin actually exterminated the East Prussians. Nobody cares about them. Why? Because they don't have a leader like the Dalai Lama and his ability to rally up crowds. Most information from Tibet comes from American sources...I thought leftists say American media is a government propaganda device or something. Ultimately, if the Tibetians truely want their freedom....they would be free by now. But most of them happen to be watching Chinese television, eating Chinese delivered rice, working at Chinese provided jobs, and taking Chinese yen. Not to mention grabbing more Chinese money to build more temples laced with gold and glittering gems and silver....(the monks lived very luxurious lives for Buddhists, wonder if they're really true to their cause?). Maybe the Tibetian monks should give their gold and diamonds to the hungry and poor, like their religion says so? And anyone noticed the Dalai Lama actually wears silk clothing? Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Nov 10, 2003, 11:15 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,) Your "evidence" of "1.5 million" Tibetians being killed comes from a site worshipping the Dalai Lama....unbiased? Doubtful. So where did your original 3 million estimate come from? You made it up. Proves your "statements" are exactly true. I find it funny just because the Dalai Lama is a persuasive individual, the world has to pick on Tibet. What about the ETA rebels in Spain demanding their freedom? What about Kurds demanding their freedom in Turkey? What about Chechnya? And the...wait, Stalin actually exterminated the East Prussians. Nobody cares about them. Why? Because they don't have a leader like the Dalai Lama and his ability to rally up crowds. Most information from Tibet comes from American sources...I thought leftists say American media is a government propaganda device or something. Ultimately, if the Tibetians truely want their freedom....they would be free by now. But most of them happen to be watching Chinese television, eating Chinese delivered rice, working at Chinese provided jobs, and taking Chinese yen. Not to mention grabbing more Chinese money to build more temples laced with gold and glittering gems and silver....(the monks lived very luxurious lives for Buddhists, wonder if they're really true to their cause?). Maybe the Tibetian monks should give their gold and diamonds to the hungry and poor, like their religion says so? And anyone noticed the Dalai Lama actually wears silk clothing?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I didn't make up the 3 million quote, the source I read it from may have. The 1.5 million however comes from a more respectable source. So it's up to you to disprove it now. Your changing the argument here. Yes their hypocracy in Tibet. But thats not what we were talking about. China has invaded another sovereign nation. In doing so, and maintaining its authority, its has killed 1.5 million people. It is the occupation I object to. You havn't been able to give a good reason for China to occupy a foreign country. its not like Tibet was about to invade, is it? Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 10, 2003, 04:06 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
Sodfather Igneous Magma Posts: 327	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (mook,) They are also tremendous militarily, with the world's second-largest army<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Second? I thought it was first... Anyway, the most noticeable result of China's rise is our (America's) obligation to please the Chinese due to China's ability to kick our ass. I mean, all those people could overthrow us with caveman clubs, nevermind AK's. :P

Nov 10, 2003, 05:40 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	They are the second largest, we are the first. They have the second largest standing army, but we outspend them and 8 other nations combined on military hardware. However, if it comes to a fight, my money's on moving to Mexico... . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Nov 16, 2003, 06:41 am	#17 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,468	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) Tibet was a sovereign nation roughly 50 years ago. It isn't now. 50 years is someones lifetime. East Prussia has been consolidated for 130 years now. Not someones lifetime. Simple eh? And I don't know how many east prussians or southern dutch are demanding freedom for their nation. As for facts, well your right, I couldn't find a none biased source that hit the three million mark. However I did find at the University of Virginia a piece stating that more than 1.5 million have been killed. http://www.virginia.edu/nobel/laureates/bi...ailama_bio.html Maybe not 3 million, but 1.5 million isn't exactley a handful now is it?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Is that more or less than the amount of Vietnamese killed during the Vietcong war? War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Nov 16, 2003, 06:46 am	#18 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,468	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,) They are the second largest, we are the first. They have the second largest standing army, but we outspend them and 8 other nations combined on military hardware. However, if it comes to a fight, my money's on moving to Mexico...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> heh, but if percentage wise all nations enlisted the same number...it'd be an interesting fight :p War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Nov 16, 2003, 11:06 am	#19 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) Tibet was a sovereign nation roughly 50 years ago. It isn't now. 50 years is someones lifetime. East Prussia has been consolidated for 130 years now. Not someones lifetime. Simple eh? And I don't know how many east prussians or southern dutch are demanding freedom for their nation. As for facts, well your right, I couldn't find a none biased source that hit the three million mark. However I did find at the University of Virginia a piece stating that more than 1.5 million have been killed. http://www.virginia.edu/nobel/laureates/bi...ailama_bio.html Maybe not 3 million, but 1.5 million isn't exactley a handful now is it?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Is that more or less than the amount of Vietnamese killed during the Vietcong war?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Four million Vietnamese dead I think. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 16, 2003, 12:04 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	The number varies based on who spins what, but the total Vietnamese dead (North and South) totals somewhere between 1.5 and 3 million. God bless Napalm and Agent Orange. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.