amadeus
Serenity now
China executes people for having their pictures of Mao Zedong off-balance.
Will it ever come to war between the United States and China?
- Thread starter nixon
- Start date
ozscott75
Groper of Sand
Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
4. 'A great nation is NOT the one that is on best terms with the United States.'
Again, what in heaven's name do you base this on? A Mark Latham view of world history?
If I read this correctly, a nation need not be on the best of terms with the US in order to be acknowledged a great nation. In that Sabotage is 100% correct.
A great nation is great regardless of it's friends and allies, if you have to rely on the biggest kid in the sandbox to be able to play, maybe you should stay home.
Ouch, whilst I agree that many of the things provided to our indigenous brethren since colonisation have been improvements, there were many atrocities committed against them. I don't think any rational Australian can honestly say that the massacres committed in our past were all justified.
Graeme the mad
Certified Maniac
'1.23 billion '
Not going to get into this argument except to say I think simon is far too confident but 1.23 billion as the pop of China?
Now I have been led to believe that half the worlds population or theree abouts was chinese making the pop 3 billion - am I wrong or is he?
Not going to get into this argument except to say I think simon is far too confident but 1.23 billion as the pop of China?
Now I have been led to believe that half the worlds population or theree abouts was chinese making the pop 3 billion - am I wrong or is he?
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
1.) Well, I read this in the context of the rest of the rant about various groups 'sucking up' and being 'idiotic', and thus took it in the other way, which is that a nation MUST be against the evil imperialists...
2.)To begin with, they ain't no brethren of mine. The 'atrocities' were minor in historical context, and mattered not. I, and many other rational, extreme right wing Australians can honestly say that conduct was justified.
Graeme - Why do you think that one is far to confident? Do the facts lie?
Are the ChiComms hiding a massive, ultra-modern military capability under the rice paddies? Based upon the balance of forces, and a realistic assessment of where bothe militaries, and nations, are at the moment, the conclusion is clear.
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
1.23 Billion is the nearest, certainly. I think even that may be a tiny bit over the probable actual figure.
God knows who told you that half the world's population was Chinese.
It's more near about one in seven or one in six, as far as I'm aware.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
There might be a war is a few decades but it will most likely be over resources and not Taiwan.
So you are...opposing the idea of China expanding into Tiawan, retaking land that they are entitled to anyway, yet you support the idea that the English can take over an entire land whom they had no rights to?
If that is not what you meant, then please clarify.
Your thoughts on "Conqure them for their own good" is, IMO, stupid. Very stupid. Should it really matter that a society is living in the stone ages? If they are happy, prosperous and free, then you have no right to barge in, kill them with guns and bayonets, while letting the rest rot away due to alcohole and diseses.
You probably said that because you are just so defensive about Australia that you try and justify all the awful things the Australian government has done. You remind me of a certain spineless little goblin with the initials JH, and his self righteous religious zealot buddy, initials GWB Jr. Their connection? They are so thick and stubborn that they refuse to see the whole picture.
Now for my replies for your little comments, SDS.
1) No, they weren't the ones that defeated the Japanese, but they played a large part of it. Ofcourse they needed US and Soviet help, China at the time was not industrialised and was pretty backwards, it did not have the ability to produce guns and vehicles. Also think of the USA in Vietnam, or more recently, Afghanistan. Sure the USA played a big part in the conflicts, but forces from nearly EVERY nation in the world were on their side helping them. Did any of them get any credit? the only ones I heard mentioned were Great Britain and Germany. Australia, Japan, Italy, Russia, China, New Zealand..they got little to no mention whatsoever on American TV stations. On CNN, Australia got a 2 minute segment during Enduring Freedom.
2) I don't really know who the KMT are. Would you care to give me some background on them? When you do, I'll give a reply, but if the KMT are the ones in power in China before the commies, then why don't you read my previous post again, I explained how the Communists are better. Ask any Chinese person who they prefere, the Communists or Nationalists, 9 out of 10 would say Communist. By all means ask people in your local community, those Chinese people don't have to fear the secret police, but they'll still vouche for the communists. I have even read several books (written and published in the UNITED STATES) by Chinese authors that says how the Communists initially made everything very hard, but eventually improved things.
3) I don't think ANY government in the world would want to wreck the very economy that supports them and their people. The communists cut off trade and communications to the west, but can you really blame their distrust of America? Here was their greatest ally in WW2, consorting, even giving money and protecting their enemy, Japan. I don't want to go off on another rant here, but I would like to remind everyone that the reason Japanese war criminals are still free to this day is due to America's self interest.
4) So you seem to disagree with the fact that to be a great nation you do not have to suck up to America? If it weren't for the fact that these forums are what entertains me at night, I'd fill the screen up with explicitives and insults so quickly, by the end of the post, hell would be empty and the demons online. What kind of logic are YOU implying? Australia sucking up to America is like a stupid kid buying nothing but Nike clothes and shoes. Both want to project a positive image of themselves, not by who they are, but what they have. BTW, did you see John Coward's visit to the USA? F*cking pathetic. His head was up GWB's ass so high, it was hard to distinguish where GWB ended and John Coward began.
5) I explained this above. Maybe you are ignorant or just plain blind, because the way the English treated the Aboriginies, I see ALOT of things wrong with that. Have you ever met or spoken to an aboriginal in your life? Why not crawl out from under that rock of yours and ask people from the very countries that you criticise or defend how they feel about their governments ect. instead of just basing all your "facts" from what you read from CNN and other Pro-American media channels.
addiv
Hero of our time
starlifter, who are you, the reincarnation of 'good guy' senator McCarthey?
addiv
Hero of our time
btw, china's population is about 1/5 of the world's population
(1.23/6)
(1.23/6)
knowltok2
Deity
I am shocked that you think 120 million people would risk their lives like that.
ranskaldan
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2002
- Messages
- 21
I don't understand some of the Americans here: if who the Chinese prefer are the Communists, then shouldn't the Communists stay?
Perhaps you should check your sources. I'm sitting in Beijing right now and there isn't a single Mao Zedong picture anywhere, let alone "off-balance".
We're talking China 2002 here, not China 1966.
Perhaps you should check your sources. I'm sitting in Beijing right now and there isn't a single Mao Zedong picture anywhere, let alone "off-balance".
We're talking China 2002 here, not China 1966.
knowltok2
Deity
I believe that it was a jest.
You are right of course....IF who the Chinese prefer are the Communists, then the Communists should stay.
BTW I am not too current on recent events in China. Could you tell me what percentage of the vote the opposition party got in the last election? Thanks.
ranskaldan
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2002
- Messages
- 21
The reason why the Communists are supported is because they have ceased most of their past evils, and are now providing political stability during phenomenal economic growth.
Barely 20 years ago, China was absolutely dirt-poor. With the rapid, incredible economic growth that has followed, most people are unwilling to risk losing the golden opportunity by changing anything in the equation.
Which is why the communists are being supported.
Regarding that bold IF: I'm Chinese and, except for some Americanized Chinese that I've met, pretty much everyone is vehemently against changing the current leadership. That considering that the "everyone" I mentioned includes people who had had their lives destroyed by pre-1976 Maoist rule.
If you think that my information sources are warped, I live in Toronto for ten months every year.
Any more questions?
knowltok2
Deity
No, just the original one about percentage of the vote the opposition party got in the last election? Also, what year was that? Thanks.
ranskaldan
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2002
- Messages
- 21
Did you even read my post?!
as for the percentage of the vote, the answer is simple: China has been under autocratic rule since 1700 BC. And guess what? Most Chinese people want it to stay that way, at least until after the economy has finished its growth spurt.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
My golly. It seems someone drank too much red cordial. One will address your uncouth ramblings in order, my dear little boy.
1.) There is a definite difference in the two situations - Taiwan belongs to the modern democratic nation of the Republic of China, and not to the mainland. That is the way things are. Australia was unoccupied, terra nulius, save for some wandering native tribes. Britain had every right to colonise this territory, and did so, winning it by right of conquest.
They had a right to, and the ChiComms do not.
2.) It is your opinion, and a minor one at that. But you are still young, and have time to change it through learning and experience.
If the benevolent British had not colonized Australia, and treated the native populace comparitively mildly, then they would have been colonized by another power, with far fewer compunctions. Simple, and not as you label it "very stupid" (Do try to add some substance to your rebuttal more that shallow, callow and craven abuse. It does add more weight to your argument.)
It should matter, and does matter that societies, and continents, should not be allowed to dwell in the Stone Ages, or Dark Ages, or whatever else than the best possible conditions. The twisted view of history that perpetuates the 'happy, prosperous and free' steroetype is most tiresome, and based upon the whole Victorian notion of the 'noble savage.' It does fall down when things were not quite so utopian as the apologists and the revisionists would have them appear...
Britain had every right under the standards of the day to conquer the empty land, and your dramatic and vastly exaggerated depiction of its circumstances emphasizes your lack of knowledge on the actual occurences of colonization, and what went on.
3.) No, I did not say that for those reasons, and can see little reason other than teenage ranting to that type of statement. I am most certainly not defensive, and do not consider any of the acts committed as 'awful'
Then we jump from the 18th century to the 21st with your lovely little tangent on the current Australian government.
It may upset your argument, my blessed cherub, but I am not a supporter of them. They are far too left wing, soft, and insidiously pusillanimous in regards to common sense issues to attract my support. I concur with some of the steps they have taken lately, for their own merit. I am sorry, but you will not find me a blustering Liberal trying to justify his support for things which grate with his own conscience. Quite the contrary.
I must say, and everyone else here, and in the rest of the world with a skerrick of knowledge about the issue, that I am most certainly not reminiscent of the Australian Prime Minister, or the President of the United States. Your need to resort to insults, and silly, pointless flaming highlights that you feel the need to hide the lack of anything worthwhile. Why are the PM and POTUS so allegedly 'thick and stubborn'?
What is 'the big picture'? You accuse others of being ignorant, and sticking steadfastly to their own worldview, yet the blinkers are firmly on in your case as well, convinced of your own righteousness.
4.) Yes, onto my 'little replies'.
i.) I think you will find that I argued that they were but one cog in many that defeated the Japanese. I did not deny that they were a major cog, but not to the extent that you rant on about. The Communist style of war, for the majority of the conflict against the Japanese, was a guerrilla campaign, and thus not one which threatened pitched decisive defeat, but rather death by a thousand cuts. The Soviet help came mainly at the end of the war, whereas American support, flown over 'The Hump' was far more protracted.
And now we once more shift from one period in history to another: And the answer - so what? What do you expect from American media sources? Of course they will report on their forces more heavily, just as there has been more coverage of the ADF components here, than in America. Just as the headlines in the Times, and the New York Times are different now, and were different throughout WW2. How does this reinforce your point though? That history is written with an American bias, just like the media? Not quite. History is written from many viewpoints, and a good historian examines a number of different view points in the course of their research.
ii.) You comment on WW2 in China with a confident air, yet know not who the KMT, or Kuomintang were. Well. They were the nationalist government. Asking local community members, or reading several books is not the basis for the universal judgement that you make, however. That is similar to basing a judgement on the United States by asking a few dozen or hundred immigrants, and reading a few books by David Duke. The fact remains, the Communists have not been rosy and nice for China. The alternative back then, the warlords and the like, was not nice. When you say 'eventually', the process is only now coming to fruition, in the 1990s and today...
iii.) One can certainly blame their distrust of America, as they were communists, and then-Soviet pawns in the international power game.
Japan was being protected from being partitioned like Germany, after being utterly defeated. I do agree that their war criminals got off easy, and they should have hanged/impaled the Imperial family, and exacted a more bloody vengeance, but events got in the way.
And certainly the ChiComms did not WANT to wreak their economy; they just turned out to have a twisted version of the Midas touch, and everything they laid hands on turned to dung.
iv.) Good. Back to the uncalled for abuse and behaving like a child having a tantrum.
I disagree that a nation has to NOT have good relations with America. There, I have said it again. Openly scorning and defying them is not a necessary precondition for greatness. Yours is the logic that is twisted. One is stating that it is in the best interests of a state which is a regional power to be on decent terms with the global hegemon, and a very major trading partner. Why you feel the need to respond to realpolitik with spluttering and cursing is something that one cannot quite comprehend.
What was Howard supposed to do on his US trip, that you and the likes of Latham desired? Attempt to stab the President? Roar at Congress?
Such efforts would be manifestly unproductive, to put it mildly.
International diplomacy is very much akin to a meeting of a mutual admiration society, especially in the public appearences. Any hardball discussions occur in private, and between underlings. Such is the way of the world; an overall good working relationship between heads of government is seen to be more important than playing up for the cameras. One does concur that Howard display's were quite the model of his chasm-like depths of sycophancy, but there is no need to resort to crude language, and act like an ill-bred scoundrel.
v.)) I explained this above. Maybe you are ignorant or just plain blind, because the way the English treated the Aboriginies, I see ALOT of things wrong with that. Have you ever met or spoken to an aboriginal in your life? Why not crawl out from under that rock of yours and ask people from the very countries that you criticise or defend how they feel about their governments ect. instead of just basing all your "facts" from what you read from CNN and other Pro-American media channels.
Again, more nice abuse and utterly baseless teenage mewling. To be expected, though.
One is certainly not ignorant, nor blind. One has been to many, many places in one's time, and done many things, some of which would doubtless make your milk teeth drop out in incredulity. This is part of what one bases one's views on the matter on. I maintain my stance nonetheless. What happened was better than the alternative, and nothing to spend time weeping in shame about, apologizing left right and centre
I have met and spoken to, and worked with many, many Aboriginals in my life. At one stage for several years when one was younger, one's best friend was Aboriginal. I have travelled, and seen both those in the city, and in the country. Sorry if this spoils your image of me as some semi-literate redneck racist who goes out shooting blacks from the back of his utility of a weekend.
I would not describe myself as semi-literate.
One does not live under a rock, boy, but in a house. Thanks for asking, though.
Asking people is but one of many ways of determining a view on a government, or its policies. If you were to have asked a selection of average Germans off the street in 1937 what they thought of the government, and got positive replies, does this validate the Hitlerite regime? Is something good just because it is popular?
One bases one's facts upon many sources, and not just easy to find websites. Those are some of the skills you find through completing secondary school, university degrees with several majors including Politics and History, post graduate studies, and practical experience teaching and tutoring. One reads far more than CNN, my dear little chap.
Now run along then, and get into bed.
knowltok2
Deity
Yes I read your post. It didn't answer my question. (It was informative though). It sounds like what you are telling me is that most Chinese prefer autocracy. It does not sound as if there has been any formal method of gauging the accuracy of this opinion. Perhaps the ruling government has conducted a 'study' and determined that everyone likes the current government.
Am I wrong in deducing from your posts that there has not been any election, and that your notion of what the Chinese people want is based solely on personal experience and government information? Is there reliable imperical data that backs up your claim? It seems odd to me that you can speak for the minds of over 1 billion people. Without some form of statistical data to back me up, I hardly feel capable of speaking for more than 10 or 20 million.
ZultanofZex
Emperor
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2002
- Messages
- 1,031
Yes, mommy tought you well about those evil yellow people! May I add that they also eat dogs, worship Satan at an anti American shrine on Tuesdays and sing the Republican hymn backwards.
Now you can scurry back and play with your toy soldiers again.
Similar threads
