Jackie Chan: Chinese people need to be controlled

[RickSp]

I find it rather remarkable that few debaters seem actually to care about Chan's opinion and to believe that it matters. Will they be ranting about Cher's views on foreign policy next? Lindsey Lohan's opinion of farm policy?

[grandpa]

I find it rather remarkable that few debaters seem actually
to care about Chan's opinion and to believe that it
matters.
Will they be ranting about Cher's views on foreign policy
next?

I get information from as many different sources as I can, but never has it crossed my mind to consult Jackie Chan on anything.

Grandpa h.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Hey I didn't purport to speak for all Chinese. Jackie did though.

…..speak for Americans ?

I. Containment

II. US to station troops in northern Australia as fears of China's Pacific presence grow

III. China uneasy over US troop deal in Australia

That's why I think he should relinquish all his public posts which put him forward as representing Hong Kong and/or China because he came for a lot of criticisms from Chinese all over the world after his comments.

….that individuals agree with and champion? Yet, why is it that these same individuals would have us believe that Mr. Chan is so {evil} for channeling or expressing that which they so believe to be the case?

IV. Global Military Alliance: Encircling Russia and China US sponsored military partnership in the Far East and the Pacific Rim


V. Containment-Lite

Extract = Article
Don’t believe everything you read in the paper. Take this headline that appeared a couple weeks ago, when I was in New Delhi, in The Hindustan Times: “U.S. Not Seeking to Contain China: Clinton.” It was referring to a statement made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton while on a swing through Asia. No, Washington is not trying to contain China the way we once did the Soviet Union, but President Obama didn’t just spend three days in India to improve his yoga. His visit was intended to let China know that America knows that India knows that Beijing’s recent “aggressiveness,” as one Indian minister put it to me, has China’s neighbors a bit on edge. None of China’s neighbors dare mention the C-word — containment — in public. Indeed, none of them want to go there at all or intend to promote such a policy. But there’s a new whiff of anxiety in the Asian air.


VI. China: Breaking Out of US Containment. Is a Deep-seated Confrontation Between Beijing and Washington Inevitable?

Extract = Article
Plenty of water has passed under the bridge for China and the US since President Obama took office. What started out warmly soon turned chilly, and many feel the Sino- US relationship is heading toward a dangerously uncertain era.Tensions have been building in recent weeks over events in the Yellow Sea and the South China Sea. Many Chinese observers wonder if the US is trying to contain China's peaceful growth. The US is even improving its relationships with China's neighbors that were once former US opponents.There are signs that the US is trying to meddle and dominate issues involving China.For decades, US policy toward China wavered between containment and engagement.The new policy initiatives of the Obama administration that stress US soft power and moral strength have not changed the traditional US way of dealing with China.Many Chinese scholars tend to agree that the closer China and the US get, the more deep-seated contradictions existing between the two countries will become apparent.If a deeper confrontation is inevitable, what can China do? The Chinese government has not sent a clear signal, though there is heated debate among the public as how to respond to the aggressive US policy. Ideas range from military action to leveraging China's financial holdings of US assets, to more diplomatic communication. Admittedly, China has fewer means to counter the US than the US can use against China.China won't follow a path to war like Japan did in World War II, but that does not mean that China will surrender to US strategic containment. China should on one hand speed up defensive modernization, and on the other hand, continue to rise peacefully using its economic power.


VII. US containment of China sets dangerous scene

Extract = Article
If there's anyone left to write the history of how World War III happened, they might well focus on June 28, 2005, as the date when the slide into global disaster became irreversible. That was the day India's Defence Minister, Pranab Mukherjee, and US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signed a 10-year agreement on military co-operation, joint weapons production, and missile defence - not quite a formal US-Indian military alliance, but close enough that China finally realised it was the target of a deliberate American strategy to encircle and "contain" it. Since then the rhetoric out of Beijing has been unprecedentedly harsh. In mid-July last year, for example, Major-General Zhu Chenghu warned in an official briefing that the Government may drop its policy of "no first use"of nuclear weapons in the event of a military conflict with the United States over Taiwan. "We have no capability to fight a conventional war against the United States," he said. "We can't win this kind of war." And so China would deliberately escalate to nuclear weapons: "We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds of their cities will be destroyed by the Chinese."In reality, China has no ability to destroy "hundreds of cities" in the United States - it might manage one or two, with luck - whereas the US could easily destroy every Chinese city east of Xian, and all the ones west of it, too. But no Chinese general has talked like this since Mao's time, and it isn't happening now because the crazies have taken over in Beijing. It's happening because the decision-makers in Beijing think that the crazies have taken over in Washington, and are trying to draw most of Asia into an anti-Chinese alliance. There is a good deal of evidence to suggest they are right.


VIII. Containing China

Extract = Article
Target: China
When first enunciated in 1992, the permanent-dominancy doctrine was non-specific as to the identity of the future challengers whose rise was to be prevented through coercive action. At that time, U.S. strategists worried about a medley of potential rivals, including Russia, Germany, India, Japan, and China; any of these, it was thought, might emerge in decades to come as would-be superpowers, and so all would have to be deterred from moving in this direction. By the time the second Bush administration came into office, however, the pool of potential rivals had been narrowed in elite thinking to just one: the People's Republic of China. Only China, it was claimed, possessed the economic and military capacity to challenge the United States as an aspiring superpower; and so perpetuating U.S. global predominance meant containing Chinese power. The imperative of containing China was first spelled out in a systematic way by Condoleezza Rice while serving as a foreign policy adviser to then Governor George W. Bush during the 2000 presidential campaign. In a much-cited article in Foreign Affairs, she suggested that the PRC, as an ambitious rising power, would inevitably challenge vital U.S. interests. "China is a great power with unresolved vital interests, particularly concerning Taiwan," she wrote. "China also resents the role of the United States in the Asia-Pacific region." For these reasons, she stated, "China is not a ‘status quo' power but one that would like to alter Asia's balance of power in its own favor. That alone makes it a strategic competitor, not the ‘strategic partner' the Clinton administration once called it." It was essential, she argued, to adopt a strategy that would prevent China's rise as regional power. In particular, "The United States must deepen its cooperation with Japan and South Korea and maintain its commitment to a robust military presence in the region." Washington should also "pay closer attention to India's role in the regional balance," and bring that country into an anti-Chinese alliance system.


So tell us Mrs. Tinybear, who should be deceived? Who should be lied to that is not already aware of this truth? Why should Mr. Chan be criticized for saying that which you and others think to be the case?

Secondly, is it so that these who attack Mr. Chan for what he has said are individuals who really have a problem with the Chinese people being controlled? Or is it not so that the problem that these have may be found in who is doing the controlling?

Thirdly, can you please tell us which one is {wrong} or {reprehensible:} Is it {wrong} or {reprehensible} for Mr. Chan to say those Things that others believe to be the case? Or is it {wrong} or {reprehensible} for others to act on those Things that they believe to be the case as they attack Mr. Chan for voicing that which is seen through those Actions to be the case?

Fourthly, if you would attack an individual for speaking to the clearly obvious, then should we even dare to imagine what would be done to the individual who spoke of that which is not seen quite as so?