Multani's Political Corner 5: Bush's International Policy

[Multani]

Sorry, even in an accident, someone CAUSES the accident. It might be unintentional, but that person is still at fault.

Okay...I'll give you this one...

Can prove? So have they done it? I've read that the US has released a minute-by-minute transcript of what happened and China hasn't...

When two objects collide, there will always be some marks behind. From those marks, you can determine how the crash happened, and exactly what happened. Video footage, and trnascripts can be falsified. Paint marks that look legitimate are much harder to fake. And don't ask me where this source came from. (If you must know, my father relayed the information...don't ask me. And if you even dare suggest he's a liar in even the most remote way...you will answer to me.)

And I asked where did you get this information?

My father knows about international law more than I do. He has sources.
As for your comment about China lying..no it is not out of my imagination that China can lie. But I ask you why? What purpose would it serve? Okay. Suppose the accident is China's fault. What's the U.S. gonna do? Cut trade, go to war, apply sanctions, all for one plane?

Um, yeah, because we want our PEOPLE back. Once they're back, then we can play hardball (which is what China was doing all along)

Really. You think China was playing hardball? China asked the U.S. to apologize because the EP-3 landed in Chinese territory WITHOUT permission.

"Civilized" country? It probably is, but since you raised the point, according to what? What's the definition of civilized? I can think of one reason: hoping the plane would crash and remove all witnesses that in fact, it WAS China's fault in the collision...

Again, I answered that above. Okay. So it's the Chinese pilot's fault. So what? It was an accident. I don't think China would not let the plane not land. You know, if China would've wanted it to crash, they could've just shot a missile, and let the wreckage sink. And there was no way you could prove China shot that missile later on.

So what sources DO you trust?

I don't really trust any source 100%. But when it comes to international issues, I assign zero credibility to U.S. sources. I probably would trust the English more if I had more access to their news medias....

As for which things I heard on the U.S. were lies..well, let's just say I'm not a big fan of them calling China an excessive human rights violator, and overall, the media was simply belittling and villianizing China. Also, there was talk on how unstable China's leadership was, and talk about how the military was conflicting with the civilian government. Then, there are the racial slurs such as 'Red Chinese', and 'Communist Regime', and even goes into saying how the UN has done this, done that against China. The media speaks as if though everything China does will get trade sanctions, loss of diplomatic friendliness. In addition, on Chinese networks, I have seen civilians saying how the U.S. was wrong in the EP-3 Incident. A little bias granted, but it is 'the other side of the story'. Also, there was talk about what would happen to the 24 pilots, and not a single word, was mentioned for the caution and safety of the Chinese pilot. As a matter of fact, the pilot's wife wrote a letter to President Bush in which one excerpt said, "You Americans are always talking about human rights. Well, on the news, all you mention, are your 24 pilots. How come the pilots have human rights, and my husband doesn't!" Also, on some of the news shows, I hear only calls come in that favor the U.S. position on the issue. Gee, how come the other side doesn't come through there. I guess you would conveniently dismiss that as the fact that 'we're out of time. Join us next time....."

That's probably true, I won't disagree although I haven't seen any of that coverage. I WILL daresay that China has the exact attitude towards the US, and it's not even FREE SPEECH.

Don't give me the free speech BS Spidey. We all know that all freedom, whatsoever is relative. Ok, you wanna play the freedom of speech game. Fine I'll play. Hmm...how should I start...oh yes! Everyday, in school, my right to talk is constantly being violated by teachers. My right to speak about certain subjects, is violated. My right to talk about profainity is violated. And Spidey, you've never been to China. How would you know! I have. Hell, I could diss Mao Zedong in Beijing, and no one would care. However, in the U.S., I certainly can't call Bush an a**hole on White House grounds, or any public grounds for that matter. Really, in China, as far as free speech goes, it's pretty much the same. As for your assumption on saying China has that same attitude, trust me, they don't. As a matter of fact, most Chinese admire the United States. And China has never assumed the position it's superior to the U.S., not even on news shows.


Also, you have a near pitiful understanding about how the UN works. In order for anything to get passed in the UN, all the standing members have to be in agreement. The 2/3 thing is absoulutely not true, and trust me, Russia probably won't go with the U.S. on such matters.

Now, you seem to be trying to nail me via Tiananmen Square. Okay, about 95% of all people in China think that how the dealt the leaders dealt with the student rebellion was correct, granted they could've executed things a little better. Keep in mind, Chinese leaders back then didn't know how to deal with public riots. They didn't know how to use rubber bullets, and fire hoses. However, had the students succeeded, China would be in an economical slump like Russia...but that's what the U.S. wanted because, then, there would be no major country to challenge it. There would be no balance of power. Also, there have been talk that the CIA partly aided the students in the uprising. I will admit, the loss of the students were tragic, and that opening fire on the students was wrong.

As for your comment about death penalties, I find nothing wrong with that. In China, instead of 100 years in prison, you die. Which is essentially the same thing...except the American prisoner has to live in prison. But that has nothing to do with the issues discussed.

Now, you speak of Free speech. Well, let's face facts. In America, there are only American sources. Thus, you have to read the opposing nation's side to get the other side of the story. And during the crisis, I saw no other side on CNN, or any other media. It was simply U.S. is right, China is wrong. Sure there are variations, but that was what just about every thing I saw on TV, read in the paper, heard people talking said. Also, there is the strange fact that not a single other nation (with possible exception to Britain) stood up for the U.S.

Ok, you want to talk about China's atrocities...go ahead.
I'll name some crimes the U.S. has made right now.

ABM treaty
Promising to stop NATO expansion after Warsaw Pact broke apart
Selling weapons to Taiwan
Aiding and training troops in Tibet to attempt to takeover Tibet, or military operations in Tibet
Thoughts about conquering Cuba
Invasion of Panama
Repeated attacks that were unprovoked on Iraq
Attack on Yugoslavia without UN approval

And those are only the ones I can name off the top of my head...
And one I can't forget...

The Indians. What the U.S. did to the Indians, makes Tiananmen Square look like an accidental shooting...

I await your reply.

P.S. some interesting food for though. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/048.html and http://iraqwar.org/

"Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence."

 

[Hawaiian mage]

Hori curapu... This is exactly like the religeon debates...

Don't go there, people! No one ever wins!

 

[Cateran Emperor]

Okay, this is getting a bit one-sided. I guess it's time to come back into all this.

1. The UN
For the UN to pass anything, a 2/3 majority is NOT required, only simple majority (50% + 1) China and Russia cannot simply stop the UN from condemning China as this is not the Security Council's jurisdiction, it would go to the General Assembly. The General Assembly has no vetoes, not even for the United States.

2. The entire thing about sources
I'll be blunt Multani, from what I've read you have probably the most ignorant of all opinions about sources - blind disbelief. You say the American press is completely untrustworthy, and I can accept that even though I can't even begin to understand why it is impossible for U.S. media to tell any truth at all.
So who do you trust? You say the English media, which is also understandable. Simply put however, why? What does the English media have going for it that makes it more trustworthy?
What stops the English media from lying? They could be the "puppets of the United States" just like you say the U.N. is. If you scrutinize the media too closely, you can miss much of the factual information strictly because you think it is biased. Biases go in many directions.
So your father has sources about international law? So does mine. So do I. And mine disagree with yours. As such, who is correct? Do you immediately dismiss one becuase you've grown to believe everything it tells you is a lie? What if you have it backwards, and they've been telling the truth?

Think about all that. I'll wait for you to respond before I go on. And please don't curse, even bleeped out. I know quite well that you have enough intelligence to not have to substitute in curse words Tree-boy

 

[Hawaiian mage]

Why is no one listening to me!?! No one is going to be able to convince the other that they are wrong! There is no way that is EVER going to happen!

Let's all just accept the fact that we will probably never know what really happened. It's human nature to lie, human nature to stand up for what you have grown up believing true, human nature to hate those who are different. But what has human nature done for us the past 2000 years? Exactly what I thought...

 

[Spiderman]

Hawaiian Mage: What exactly about my post sounded like a religious debate?

I agree this is kinda like one, except somewhere the answers to this topic are out there and will probably be found quicker (at least by the next 30-50 years, when this stuff becomes declassified )

Multani:

When two objects collide, there will always be some marks behind. From those marks, you can determine how the crash happened, and exactly what happened. Video footage, and trnascripts can be falsified. Paint marks that look legitimate are much harder to fake. And don't ask me where this source came from. (If you must know, my father relayed the information...don't ask me. And if you even dare suggest he's a liar in even the most remote way...you will answer to me.)

I'm assuming you're talking about marks on the plane. That's all well and good, but to my knowledge the Chinese have not allowed the US to inspect the plane. In police work, that's called "compromising the evidence/scene". If the Chinese can produce a verifiable authentic "something" that shows the plane hasn't been tampered with, that would be better.

And you're telling me you're getting this from your dad and not even looking/getting this information on your own? So do you consider your father to be an "unfallible" source?

My father knows about international law more than I do. He has sources.

Again, if it's law, it's somewhere written down. Perhaps your dad knows where to find it?

As for your comment about China lying..no it is not out of my imagination that China can lie. But I ask you why? What purpose would it serve? Okay. Suppose the accident is China's fault. What's the U.S. gonna do? Cut trade, go to war, apply sanctions, all for one plane?

As far as I know, if the accident WAS China's fault, all they had to do was return the airmen without making a fuss. The US might have asked for an apology (which they were asking anyway) but it didn't have to blow up like it did.

As for the plane, I don't think the US is or was going to make a fuss out of returning the plane. I don't think they expected the plane to be returned anyway, since we and other countries have kept "spy" planes/vehicles in the past. IMHO, that was just rhetoric.

Really. You think China was playing hardball? China asked the U.S. to apologize because the EP-3 landed in Chinese territory WITHOUT permission.

No, I think China asked the US to apologize because they said we COLLIDED with their fighter plane.

Again, I answered that above. Okay. So it's the Chinese pilot's fault. So what? It was an accident. I don't think China would not let the plane not land. You know, if China would've wanted it to crash, they could've just shot a missile, and let the wreckage sink. And there was no way you could prove China shot that missile later on.

I don't think they would have prevented the plane from landing either, but they COULD deny they heard the mayday calls to provide more "evidence" that they were in the right 9and which apparently you are believing).

I don't really trust any source 100%. But when it comes to international issues, I assign zero credibility to U.S. sources. I probably would trust the English more if I had more access to their news medias....

From the above, I'm assuming you consider your dad a source. Shouldn't you be looking at this stuff independently? And frankly, I consider the Chinese media a non-source, if that's where you're getting other information. I don't know what you mean by English sources, you mean England? There isn't any of their sources on the Net?

If you don't trust US sources, whatever you question, you have to find out the FACTS for themselves and let the conclusions fall where they may, despite whomever is putting the spin on it.

As for which things I heard on the U.S. were lies..well, let's just say I'm not a big fan of them calling China an excessive human rights violator, and overall, the media was simply belittling and villianizing China. Also, there was talk on how unstable China's leadership was, and talk about how the military was conflicting with the civilian government. Then, there are the racial slurs such as 'Red Chinese', and 'Communist Regime', and even goes into saying how the UN has done this, done that against China. The media speaks as if though everything China does will get trade sanctions, loss of diplomatic friendliness. In addition, on Chinese networks, I have seen civilians saying how the U.S. was wrong in the EP-3 Incident. A little bias granted, but it is 'the other side of the story'. Also, there was talk about what would happen to the 24 pilots, and not a single word, was mentioned for the caution and safety of the Chinese pilot. As a matter of fact, the pilot's wife wrote a letter to President Bush in which one excerpt said, "You Americans are always talking about human rights. Well, on the news, all you mention, are your 24 pilots. How come the pilots have human rights, and my husband doesn't!" Also, on some of the news shows, I hear only calls come in that favor the U.S. position on the issue. Gee, how come the other side doesn't come through there. I guess you would conveniently dismiss that as the fact that 'we're out of time. Join us next time....."

Uh huh. Are you a big fan of China doing the same to us? "Belittling and villianizing" the US?

How is "Red China" and "Communist Regime" rascist? The term "Red" has ALWAYS gone with Communist, whether it be Chinese or Russian or whatever.

Maybe it's because China DOES have such a bad record that they are threatened with sanctions and whatnot. Obviously YOU don't think that's justified, so look at the facts to see if it's warranted.

I, too, have heard Chinese civilians say the US was wrong. But how did THEY hear about the story? From the Chinese press (real trustworthy source THAT is ) I have heard US citizens say the US is wrong. So what? At least here the government is not telling the people what they should hear...

Oh yeah, the Chinese pilot. It is indeed tragic he apparently lost his life but from most accounts it was from HIS OWN ACTIONS. He apparently has a past record of "hotdogging" planes. It's kinda like middle-age smokers who have smoked for all their life yet are now suing the tobacco companies for their lung cancer. PLEASE! You have to take responsibility for your own actions.

Don't give me the free speech BS Spidey. We all know that all freedom, whatsoever is relative. Ok, you wanna play the freedom of speech game. Fine I'll play. Hmm...how should I start...oh yes! Everyday, in school, my right to talk is constantly being violated by teachers. My right to speak about certain subjects, is violated. My right to talk about profainity is violated. And Spidey, you've never been to China. How would you know! I have. Hell, I could diss Mao Zedong in Beijing, and no one would care. However, in the U.S., I certainly can't call Bush an a**hole on White House grounds, or any public grounds for that matter. Really, in China, as far as free speech goes, it's pretty much the same. As for your assumption on saying China has that same attitude, trust me, they don't. As a matter of fact, most Chinese admire the United States. And China has never assumed the position it's superior to the U.S., not even on news shows.

Sorry, now you have my ire up. I WILL give you the free speech crap, because it's true here as opposed to China. You can't criticize the Chinese government; as I said in my last post, a SENIOR party member was imprisoned for that in the T. Square debacle and now there are US citizens/scholars imprisoned for saying what they think! Can you find a Chinese citizen imprisoned HERE for criticizing the US government? I don't think so...

Contrary to what you believe, school is NOT subject to free speech and there have been a bunch of rulings on that explaining why. So that frankly has no water and no relevance.

No profanity (and I assume you're talking about here)? Again, Ed has CLEARLY explained time and time again why there cannot be profanity here.

I DEFINITELY would like to see you "diss" Zedong (he IS the current head of China I hope) in Bejing. Please, TRY to get your views known and published there.

And to take your analogy, yes, I believe you can call Bush an a**hole in DC. Lots of people do it already. It's if you threaten his LIFE that you have concern (and gee, um, who wouldn't?)

Trust you that China doesn't? Sorry, I'd like to see some sources or independent verification. And it seems you're mixing "China" with "Chinese citizens". I would venture to guess that a lot of American citizens don't mind China or frankly, DON'T CARE. And China hasn't assumed it's superior? What news shows are you talking about?

Sorry if that last rebuttal is slightly harsh and sarcastic, but I'm merely replying to the perceived tone of yours in the quote.

Also, you have a near pitiful understanding about how the UN works. In order for anything to get passed in the UN, all the standing members have to be in agreement. The 2/3 thing is absoulutely not true, and trust me, Russia probably won't go with the U.S. on such matters.

Apparently, according to CE, you are joining me in my "near pitiful" knowledge of the UN. Here's another verifiable piece of knowledge that you can prove to me. Do it.

[quote[Now, you seem to be trying to nail me via Tiananmen Square. Okay, about 95% of all people in China think that how the dealt the leaders dealt with the student rebellion was correct, granted they could've executed things a little better. Keep in mind, Chinese leaders back then didn't know how to deal with public riots. They didn't know how to use rubber bullets, and fire hoses. However, had the students succeeded, China would be in an economical slump like Russia...but that's what the U.S. wanted because, then, there would be no major country to challenge it. There would be no balance of power. Also, there have been talk that the CIA partly aided the students in the uprising. I will admit, the loss of the students were tragic, and that opening fire on the students was wrong. [/quote]

Again, where did this 95% of people in China get their news? I daresay FROM THE CHINESE MEDIA.

They didn't know how to deal with public riots? So that's an excuse to use force? They just didn't want to LOSE POWER. And how do you come to the conclusion that the Chinese economy would be in a slump? And China's not challenging us on hardly anything, only Asian affairs (unless that's what you're talking about).

As for your comment about death penalties, I find nothing wrong with that. In China, instead of 100 years in prison, you die. Which is essentially the same thing...except the American prisoner has to live in prison. But that has nothing to do with the issues discussed.

Except the possibility that they're executing people for the "wrong" crimes or that they're not getting a sufficient trial. This is a good opportunity to delve deeper and find out what's going on instead of taking things at "face value".

Now, you speak of Free speech. Well, let's face facts. In America, there are only American sources. Thus, you have to read the opposing nation's side to get the other side of the story. And during the crisis, I saw no other side on CNN, or any other media. It was simply U.S. is right, China is wrong. Sure there are variations, but that was what just about every thing I saw on TV, read in the paper, heard people talking said. Also, there is the strange fact that not a single other nation (with possible exception to Britain) stood up for the U.S.

The difference is that the US GOVERNMENT IS NOT TELLING THE US MEDIA WHAT TO PRINT. And no, you don't have to read the opposing nation to get the other story; as facts or more information comes out, the US media prints it, whether it's good OR bad. Does China print the opposing side?

Let's take the Japanese trawler incident. Almost immediately there were inquiries and suspicions that it was the US' fault, NOT the trawler. Everyone asked why the sub couldn't see the ship. They didn't ask why the hell didn't the trawler get out of the way. No one is claiming the US was right in this case, not even the "esteemed" US media.

Another case: Tuesday's Washington Post has BOTH sides of the Peru missionary shooting, both the US and Peru's.

Ok, you want to talk about China's atrocities...go ahead.
I'll name some crimes the U.S. has made right now.

ABM treaty
Promising to stop NATO expansion after Warsaw Pact broke apart
Selling weapons to Taiwan
Aiding and training troops in Tibet to attempt to takeover Tibet, or military operations in Tibet
Thoughts about conquering Cuba
Invasion of Panama
Repeated attacks that were unprovoked on Iraq
Attack on Yugoslavia without UN approval

What about the ABM treaty that's a crime?
The "promise" is a crime?
Selling weapons to Taiwan is a crime?
Don't know about Tibet
Cuba was bad, I'll admit.
Not sure about Panama, but probably wasn't necessary (or the right means)
What repeated attacks are we talking about on Iraq?
What attack on Yugoslavia?

We could go on about listing China's crimes too:

Suppressing ALL religions and "occupying Tibet"
Selling weapons to known terrorist-sponsoring nations
Thoughts about conquering Taiwan
Killing unarmed civilians who were merely protesting exorbiant tax rates

It will get us nowhere.

The Indians. What the U.S. did to the Indians, makes Tiananmen Square look like an accidental shooting...

Yeah, it was a dark chapter in US history. Why don't you bring slavery while you're at it? Too bad I don't know much about the 5000 years of Chinese history, otherwise I might be able to name a comparable incident (and maybe someone will be nice and help me out )

 

[Mundungu]

Well I have read this thread with some interest and didnt want to intervene at first.

I also aknowledge skipping a paragraph here or there of the most heated arguments.

Yes it will be very hard to convince each other party.
There is no right or wrong. I just want to give FACTS that I have collected.

It might be arrogant to pretend knowing all the facts but let me explain how I came to my informations.

I am european, french, and working for a german company here in the US. My wife is Chinese and was in china during the incident, whereas I was here in the US.

Hence I had for sources the chinese media, the american media, both parties involved, plus the french, german and british which are more objective.

1) No media can be trusted.
Where the chinese media sometimes lies about some facts, the US media lies by omission, not relating all facts or providing only one sided arguments.

2) The whole thing was the perfect example on how PROPAGANDA is still at work in all countries.

3) It was an incident resulting of "muscle flexing" on both parts. All Bush administrations have been having a harder line against china than the Clinton administration. It was international gaming.

4) Bush's only mistake was to get involved AT ALL. This is what forced the chinese highest instances to react to and escalated the situation. Everything would have gone much smoother without his intervention, but he wanted to make a point being new in office. After that he handled quite well, at least as far as his opinion within the US public is concerned.

5) FACT : the US is not going to get the plane back apparently and even GW says the most important was that we got the men back. A complete change of tone since 2 weeks ago.

6) FACT : instead of delivering the most advanced AEGIS crusers and Patriot missiles to Taiwan (which China was of course against) the US is going to deliver some old decomissionned "conventional" ships, some diesel submarines and some ground troops equipment.

7) Both those facts are treated by the international press as a loss from the US administration in the standoff with China.

8) Just out of curiosity, what would have happened if a chinese spyplane had had to land on long Island ?
Or a russian submarine to set dock in Boston ?

- personal opinion - I think the US would have had a stronger reaction/demand as the chinese have had.

Now after all these facts, I want to give my personal opinion.

No Country has the right to intervene into another countries internal politics. I dont agree with some of the chinese government dealings, but after having lived for 1/2 year in China, it is nowhere near the "communist" country which is depicted here in the US.

The chinese can be dangerous but they have NEVER been expansionist. One can argue about taiwan but it is a different matter more like Cuba and the US.
They just want to be left alone and HATE people interfering about there business.

The US on the other hand is present everywhere.

(BTW The chinese population admires the US because of its economy.)

I think that the US military NEEDS an "arch enemy" to justify the spendings and China is the only one available.

Also, a population attentive to such matters will not look into the current situation at home (and God is the US in deep s**t at the moment).

As a conclusion, this was something purely politcal, both internationally as at home. Bush rallied the public opinion and was a winner internally, while loosing internationally.

All is business as usual and there will be other opportunities to get all "hot about".

The real Powder Keg and - Giz is right about that - is what is happening in the middle east.


One last advise, DO NOT TRUST THE MEDIA. They do not lie, but misinform or misrepresent. They tell what the people want to hear, or what they want the people to hear.

To get a broader picture, check the media of other countries, say a european amd also asian one. You might be surprised.

If you are really interested in what happens in the world, I recommend reading "the economist", which is one of the best and most objective english language magazine. TIME, or LIFE is a "tabloid" compared to it.

Geez that post was much longer than I expected.

Thanks for reading.

PS isnt it nice that we have Magic to unite the nations in disregatd of stupid politics and crazy zealotism ?

 

[Spiderman]

We need more people like you in debates like this because it usually comes down to Multani and I.

The only thing I have to say is regarding #8, assuming it was a collision that caused a foreign vehicle to dock or land on US soil, I would say the US too would keep the vehicle. I honestly don't know about crew members, although of course I'd like to think we'd return them to their country.

Is the Economist online?

I think the US's desire to be the "world's policeman" partly comes from history (aside from the wanting to muscle flex). The US was also "a superpower" at the end of WWI but retreated into isolationism afterwards and "let" Germany have its power rise and subsequent grabs for land. The pre-UN body (forgot what's it was called now) also failed (and I think to large consensus) because the US did not join.

I'm not saying this is a justification (if it needs to be) for current US "general" policy and thinking, just what happened in the past. Of course we've caused our own share of problems getting involved in world affairs.

 

[nodnarb24]

Incase people still not sure about the UN voting policy here are direct quotes form the UN website.


First the General Assembly

The General Assembly

All UN Member States are represented in the General Assembly - a kind of parliament of nations which meets to consider the world's most pressing problems. Each Member State has one vote. Decisions on "important matters," such as international peace and security, admitting new members, the UN budget and the budget for peacekeeping, are decided by two-thirds majority. Other matters are decided by simple majority. In recent years, a special effort has been made to reach decisions through consensus, rather than by taking a formal vote.
At its 2000/2001 session, the Assembly is considering more than 170 different topics, including globalization, nuclear disarmament, development, protection of the environment and consolidation of new democracies. The Assembly cannot force action by any State, but its recommendations are an important indication of world opinion and represent the moral authority of the community of nations.

The Assembly holds its annual regular session from September to December. When necessary, it may resume its session, or hold a special or emergency session on subjects of particular concern. When the Assembly is not meeting, its work is carried out by its six main committees, other subsidiary bodies and the UN Secretariat.

Now the Security Council

The Security Council
The UN Charter gives the Security Council primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. The Council may convene at any time, day or night, whenever peace is threatened. Under the Charter, all Member States are obligated to carry out the Council's decisions.
There are 15 Council members. Five of these - China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States - are permanent members. The other 10 are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms. Member States have discussed making changes in Council membership to reflect today's political and economic realities.

I'm pretty sure this situation would fall under the general assembly in which a simple majority is required.

And Spiderman

Originally posted by Spiderman
The pre-UN body (forgot what's it was called now) also failed (and I think to large consensus) because the US did not join.

It was called the League of Nations

 

[Mundungu]

www.economist.com

 

[Spiderman]

nodnarb: Thanks. You da man.

Mundungu: Thanks. It seems kinda obvious now at myself

Multani: I don't know if you haven't gotten on yet or just wasn't able to reply, but about the US treatment of Indians: The only thing I could come up with that might be comparable (and only because it's semi-recent) is China's Cultural Revolution. I don't know how many died though; is it in the millions? And hey, it wasn't even to another "race", it was to their own people...

 

[Multani]

Spidey:

I'm assuming you're talking about marks on the plane. That's all well and good, but to my knowledge the Chinese have not allowed the US to inspect the plane. In police work, that's called "compromising the evidence/scene". If the Chinese can produce a verifiable authentic "something" that shows the plane hasn't been tampered with, that would be better. And you're telling me you're getting this from your dad and not even looking/getting this information on your own? So do you consider your father to be an "unfallible" source?

Okay, let's reverse the situation. If the Chinese had a semi-advanced military aircraft in U.S. hands, and it fell due to an accident, do you truly believe the U.S. would let Chinese officials "investigate" it? To China, the EP-3 is valuable technology, and they don't want to take the chance that some U.S. investigator might tamper with what is left of the plane.
[digression]
As for the thing with my Dad telling me all this, there are two reasons:
a.) He simply has more time to look up stuff like this. At work, when he has nothing to do, he looks up different newsgroups on the internet. I simply can't dig up the amount of material he sifts through each week.
b.) I can't read Chinese worth a damn. I can speak it well enough to pass for a native, but I can't really read it. That means I'm cut off from all the Chinese newsgroups.
Besides, I don't consider his sources 100% infallible. At least intellecutually, I know all media sources are biased. But we're all biased to a certain extent.
[/digression]

As far as I know, if the accident WAS China's fault, all they had to do was return the airmen without making a fuss. The US might have asked for an apology (which they were asking anyway) but it didn't have to blow up like it did.

You're right it didn't. As for whose fault the accident is, I don't think both sides will truly know whose fault it was. Even if the truth surfaces, one side will just dismiss it as a lie. Let's face it, there is a deep vein of distrust between China and the U.S., and besides, I don't consider the accident a major issue.

I don't think they would have prevented the plane from landing either, but they COULD deny they heard the mayday calls to provide more "evidence" that they were in the right 9and which apparently you are believing).

I doubt it. Again, I think this one of those things that can't be truly solved.

From the above, I'm assuming you consider your dad a source. Shouldn't you be looking at this stuff independently? And frankly, I consider the Chinese media a non-source, if that's where you're getting other information. I don't know what you mean by English sources, you mean England? There isn't any of their sources on the Net? If you don't trust US sources, whatever you question, you have to find out the FACTS for themselves and let the conclusions fall where they may, despite whomever is putting the spin on it.

Actually, if you must know, I consider him a middleman with information. (Albeit, a very trustworthy one.) As for finding British sources on the net, well, how would I know the source was British? Again, I simply am not able to surf the net for a long enough time to get a large amount of information. Besides, I have other things that need to be done. (Like replying to your pitiful replies...j/k ) I agree, that I should find the FACTS, and it would be best to find a neutral source. Unfortunately, this 'neutral' source isn't always available. Rather, I have to research both sides, and try to form my own opinion. I know, easier said than done, and more oftenthannot, I find myself leaning to one side or the other. I'll take your advice on that part....

Uh huh. Are you a big fan of China doing the same to us? "Belittling and villianizing" the US?

How is "Red China" and "Communist Regime" rascist? The term "Red" has ALWAYS gone with Communist, whether it be Chinese or Russian or whatever.

Maybe it's because China DOES have such a bad record that they are threatened with sanctions and whatnot. Obviously YOU don't think that's justified, so look at the facts to see if it's warranted.

I, too, have heard Chinese civilians say the US was wrong. But how did THEY hear about the story? From the Chinese press (real trustworthy source THAT is :rolleyes ) I have heard US citizens say the US is wrong. So what? At least here the government is not telling the people what they should hear...

Oh yeah, the Chinese pilot. It is indeed tragic he apparently lost his life but from most accounts it was from HIS OWN ACTIONS. He apparently has a past record of "hotdogging" planes. It's kinda like middle-age smokers who have smoked for all their life yet are now suing the tobacco companies for their lung cancer. PLEASE! You have to take responsibility for your own actions.

I've heard and listened to the Chinese Media. I have seen absolutely none of the so-called belittling you speak of.
Also, how is calling a Japanese a Jap, or an African American, Negro racist? All these, including Red Chinese, are racist because usually, they are said with a certain amount of hate and resentment toward a particular race. I'm surprised you didn't find it offensive and racist the moment you saw it. As for, Communist Regime, it makes China look like an Evil Empire, which it isn't. As far as I know, China's goverment is actually run rather like a Corporation. I could just as easily call the Bush Administration, the Bush Regime. It's simply the word is used to create a false, and evil image that ticks me off.

Sorry, now you have my ire up. I WILL give you the free speech crap, because it's true here as opposed to China. You can't criticize the Chinese government; as I said in my last post, a SENIOR party member was imprisoned for that in the T. Square debacle and now there are US citizens/scholars imprisoned for saying what they think! Can you find a Chinese citizen imprisoned HERE for criticizing the US government? I don't think so...

Contrary to what you believe, school is NOT subject to free speech and there have been a bunch of rulings on that explaining why. So that frankly has no water and no relevance.

No profanity (and I assume you're talking about here)? Again, Ed has CLEARLY explained time and time again why there cannot be profanity here.

I DEFINITELY would like to see you "diss" Zedong (he IS the current head of China I hope) in Bejing. Please, TRY to get your views known and published there.

And to take your analogy, yes, I believe you can call Bush an a**hole in DC. Lots of people do it already. It's if you threaten his LIFE that you have concern (and gee, um, who wouldn't?)

Trust you that China doesn't? Sorry, I'd like to see some sources or independent verification. And it seems you're mixing "China" with "Chinese citizens". I would venture to guess that a lot of American citizens don't mind China or frankly, DON'T CARE. And China hasn't assumed it's superior? What news shows are you talking about?

Sorry if that last rebuttal is slightly harsh and sarcastic, but I'm merely replying to the perceived tone of yours in the quote.

I am currently gritting tooth and nail not to simply lash out and call you an arrogant pig on the spot, but I think you know, I'm more sensible that that.

Hmmm...how am I gonna tear this one apart, and do it in a polite, and calm manner...well, I love a good challenge.

Well, Spidey, all this time, we've been arguing over sources and who is credible, but this argument takes the cake. I, am a first hand source, while all your other sources, are secondhand. So I should think I know whether or not I have freedom of speech. I will admit, China does not have freedom of the press, which I think needs to be reformed. However, personally, I don't think this is a great loss. I'll explain this later on down in my rebuttal.
As for Chinese citizens imprisoned here, I can't do that....but, I do know that here, there are Chinese students here that have been arrested and imprisoned for "allegedly" spying. Now, I know that whether or not they were spying is anyone's guess. Also, don't forget Li Wenhe. He was a scientist at Los Alamos, and he was imprisoned for allegedly handing classifed data to China. However, in a later report, it was determined that all the evidence against him was completely false. What he did was no different from what his American collegues did, and they were not arrested.

Also, I brought up the School thing for a purpose. It was to show that Freedom of Speech is RELATIVE. I've looked in the constitution. It does not say that Freedom of Speech is limited to school. And frankly, all the rulings in the world wouldn't convince me that having no freedom of speech in school is right. The only thing it would convince me of, is that it's necessary nonetheless.

As for the profanity,
[digression]
I've restricted it to astericks, and BS. Also, I added them in there for a point. Personally, I don't think the profanity rule should be enforced so harshly. And I think a good number of CPA members agree that it should be more losely interpreted.
[/digression]

As for dissing Zedong, he's dead. Yep, Mao's been dead for a good number of years. (Show's how current you're information is.. oops...was that a diss? My bad.) And I think you're stretching the issue. I think we both know that there is a fine line between freedom of speech, and getting your views known. And as for my analogy, yes, I wouldn't be arrested, but the FBI would harrass me to no end for even the smallest mistake I make. (As a matter of fact, simply voicing my disagreements on the United States, I bet the FBI are monitering this. They would track it down, and find I'm Chinese. They would then, in the future track me down, and harass me. (Legal harassment of course, you know, interrogation, making things difficult for me, etc.)

Yes. China has never said it's superior. I guarentee you that. Either take my word, or take a trip to China, or remain ignorant. Your choice.

Sorry if that last rebuttal is slightly harsh and sarcastic, but I'm merely replying to the perceived tone of yours in the quote.

Nah. I think it's rather mild compared to standards. I KNOW you're capable of more flamboyant firebreathing than that.

Again, where did this 95% of people in China get their news? I daresay FROM THE CHINESE MEDIA.

They didn't know how to deal with public riots? So that's an excuse to use force? They just didn't want to LOSE POWER. And how do you come to the conclusion that the Chinese economy would be in a slump? And China's not challenging us on hardly anything, only Asian affairs (unless that's what you're talking about).

Just every Chinese knows that a lot of students were killed at Tiananmen for demonstrating their interests in Democracy. They also know that those students cause havoc in Tiananment Square and disrupted the normal day-to-day routine of the city. Now, are there any more facts you think China's citizens should know?

As for the lose power thing, I don't know, maybe. But then again, the U.S. has used force to further it's own interests, so what are you complaining about?

And I specifically stated that the use of force on the students was wrong. The government panicked, and it caused the death of innocent students. For that, the Chinese government was wrong, but ONLY for that.

The difference is that the US GOVERNMENT IS NOT TELLING THE US MEDIA WHAT TO PRINT. And no, you don't have to read the opposing nation to get the other story; as facts or more information comes out, the US media prints it, whether it's good OR bad. Does China print the opposing side?

Let's take the Japanese trawler incident. Almost immediately there were inquiries and suspicions that it was the US' fault, NOT the trawler. Everyone asked why the sub couldn't see the ship. They didn't ask why the hell didn't the trawler get out of the way. No one is claiming the US was right in this case, not even the "esteemed" US media.

Another case: Tuesday's Washington Post has BOTH sides of the Peru missionary shooting, both the US and Peru's.

I'll sum that up in a single sentence... They are U.S. allies. Hmm...I don't hear any shouts of protests against Saudi Arabia's human right issue, or the despotism of Indonesia.

Okay...so maybe that was 2 sentences, but hey, we're not all born Serran Angles...

What about the ABM treaty that's a crime?
The "promise" is a crime?
Selling weapons to Taiwan is a crime?
Don't know about Tibet
Cuba was bad, I'll admit.
Not sure about Panama, but probably wasn't necessary (or the right means)
What repeated attacks are we talking about on Iraq?
What attack on Yugoslavia?

We could go on about listing China's crimes too:

Suppressing ALL religions and "occupying Tibet"
Selling weapons to known terrorist-sponsoring nations
Thoughts about conquering Taiwan
Killing unarmed civilians who were merely protesting exorbiant tax rates

It will get us nowhere.

Hmmm...maybe I should elaborate more.

ABM treaty: U.S. violates it by starting TMD, and NMD programs.
NATO Promise: Gee..NATO is still expanding isn't it? It's Sphere of influence goes all the way from the Persian Gulf, to Moscow's front door.
Iraq: Are you blind? Clinton hits Iraq during Monica Lewinsky scandal, Bush hits it later on, and all the time in between, the U.S. has conducted precision strikes against Iraq to take out supposed "Weapons storage areas".
Yugoslavia: (Must resist temptation to ask whether Spidey is blind, or plain ignorant...) The ethnic cleansing was an excuse for excercising U.S. military force. It was an entirely unprovoked attack.

Suppressing ALL religions and "occupying Tibet": I'll substitute all for Falun Gong, and add that Tibet has been part of China for about 100 years. According to this statement, The U.S. would lose it's Southwest portion, and Hawaii.
Selling weapons to known terrorist-sponsoring nations: Hey, you guys sell weapons to Taiwan.
Thoughts about conquering Taiwan: Except for the minor fact that Taiwan is a province of China. (Should I mention your civil war?)
Killing unarmed civilians who were merely protesting exorbiant tax rates: I'm sure the Chinese government deeply regrets that decision judging from all the flak, BS, and lies that have sprung up from it....

On a final note to you about the Media, the fact that you consider it a non-source disturbs me. I haven't completely dismissed the U.S. Media. I find it reliable for domestic issues. Besides, I know it's side of the story inside, and out. China is naturally the other side of the story in this case.

The difference is that the US GOVERNMENT IS NOT TELLING THE US MEDIA WHAT TO PRINT. And no, you don't have to read
the opposing nation to get the other story; as facts or more information comes out, the US media prints it, whether it's good OR bad. Does China print the opposing side?

I think we're getting a little nationalist here. In this excerpt, you clearly state that the U.S. is always honest, and always right. I would call you naive, but that would go against my policy of being polite for this post.
Also, I would like to point out that it doesn't matter who controlls the media. In America, the media has to rely on it's moral code to tell the truth. Unfortunately, it's not doing that entirely, and there is nothing to check that. In China, the problem is nearly the same, but it's government owned, instead of private. But in China, some of the reports, aren't as...bold. In the U.S., it's because most of it's citizens are only exposed to the U.S. media. They have nothing to compare what the media says with. Also, because it's not government owned, they assume it always tells the truth. In a way, it's very effective brain-washing...


I think Mundungu has summed up a lot of things about the U.S. media.

Oh, and another note on Tiananmen Square.

Multani: I don't know if you haven't gotten on yet or just wasn't able to reply, but about the US treatment of Indians: The only thing I could come up with that might be comparable (and only because it's semi-recent) is China's Cultural Revolution. I don't know how many died though; is it in the millions? And hey, it wasn't even to another "race", it was to their own people...

Not to bust your bubble, but Beijing's entire population has only a few million. Use your common sense. I say about 10,000 at most. And that's probably a gross overestimate. I don't even think there were that many people protesting....

Other than the above billion pages in which I analyzed, and nitpicked...you're logic is just fine, and is runs parallel to mine.

Well, I think on the Politness, I deserve at least a 90. Not bad for a supposedly fiery rebuttal....

CE:

Okay, I grant that my knowledge of the UN is as pitiful as Spidey's. BUT, I searched the UN homepage, and I found nothing regarding the UN condemning China for anything. One of my adult buddies said that the the U.S. has to file a proposal to debate about human rights in China, unfortunately, this proposal has never passed for the last 8 years. So, they said that it's impossible to for the proposal to condemn China to pass. In addition, I didn't see anything of the sort on the agenda, and China currently has a lot of allies in the UN... I don't know. Until, I learn more about the UN, I'm out of that game....

Now, as for the media...you're right. I don't trust the U.S. Media on international issues, nor would I like to think I trust China's. So, I have to find a neutral source. (If only I could read Swedish.) However, it's not always possible. That's why I chose the British media. They speak English, and they are a 3rd party. And if the U.S. has been telling the truth, well, I need something to convince me. It's like God. What if he does exist? I'll need good proof. However, there is the ultimate possibility, that I have become so cynical on the matter that it is no longer possible for me to accept that they could be telling the truth. In that case, there is little anyone can do. All I can do is try to be objective. I'm not perfect, but I will try...

Mundungu: Thank you...those 2 words are embody all the appreciation I have toward you, and for being a near psychic on my values and thoughts.. Nice to see a true third party in here.

...

...

Wow! This is probably my longest post to date. I am sorry for taking up so much time and space...

Well, I guess I'll wait for Ed to begin yelling at us for bandwidth space....

Hmmm...maybe I'll need a less controversial issue for May....

 

[Cateran Emperor]

[holds up an Ed ward] No, leave our debate and begone Ed!

Notice that I never said that the U.N. did condemn China, but rather that the procedure mentioned was wrong. I personally have heard nothing out of the U.N. about any condemnations.

While I still do not fully understand your stance on the media, I realize that trying to convince you otherwise under such circumstances (large time delays and all) simply won't happen, so I'll simply back away. Let's not use the whole God analogy, it never helps.

As for Bush's actual productivity, it's been about a 0 on a scale of -10 (President Hoover) to 10 (President Johnson) He hasn't done anything really useful, but at least he hasn't blown everyone up yet. That's a start. If you every watch the Daily Show (God help you if you don't, it's easily the greatest non-animated show on TV), they had a great segment on Bush's First 100 Days last night. Try to find it somewhere if you can, it's very much worth your while.

 

[Spiderman]

Multani: I'm glad you read my post for what it was and did not escalate the "rhetoric". I have to admit I was a bit apprehensive at what your reaction might be and was thinking about going back and editing it.

Okay, let's reverse the situation. If the Chinese had a semi-advanced military aircraft in U.S. hands, and it fell due to an accident, do you truly believe the U.S. would let Chinese officials "investigate" it? To China, the EP-3 is valuable technology, and they don't want to take the chance that some U.S. investigator might tamper with what is left of the plane.

No one says the US investigators have to go and inspect it ALONE. They can have Chinese supervision... and the same in your reverse situation.

[digression]
As for the thing with my Dad telling me all this, there are two reasons:
a.) He simply has more time to look up stuff like this. At work, when he has nothing to do, he looks up different newsgroups on the internet. I simply can't dig up the amount of material he sifts through each week.
b.) I can't read Chinese worth a damn. I can speak it well enough to pass for a native, but I can't really read it. That means I'm cut off from all the Chinese newsgroups.
Besides, I don't consider his sources 100% infallible. At least intellecutually, I know all media sources are biased. But we're all biased to a certain extent.
[/digression]

I agree with the time thing, I don't have much of it myself, but for important stuff like this you might want to ask your dad to make a note of the web addressess/sources so you can refer to them. And if they're in Chinese... surely there's translator programs on the Net? I mean, if there's something to translate the CPA site into "redneck speak", surely there's something for more serious stuff. But I don't know... I also just found there's an English version of the China Daily on the Internet... but from a newspaper that didn't give an address.

You're right it didn't. As for whose fault the accident is, I don't think both sides will truly know whose fault it was. Even if the truth surfaces, one side will just dismiss it as a lie. Let's face it, there is a deep vein of distrust between China and the U.S., and besides, I don't consider the accident a major issue.

This is true.

I doubt it. Again, I think this one of those things that can't be truly solved.

I guess I doubt why you doubt it. So this really isn't getting us anywhere. But I'd still like to see the International Distress Laws (nodnarb, can you help us out? )

Actually, if you must know, I consider him a middleman with information. (Albeit, a very trustworthy one.) As for finding British sources on the net, well, how would I know the source was British? Again, I simply am not able to surf the net for a long enough time to get a large amount of information. Besides, I have other things that need to be done. (Like replying to your pitiful replies...j/k ) I agree, that I should find the FACTS, and it would be best to find a neutral source. Unfortunately, this 'neutral' source isn't always available. Rather, I have to research both sides, and try to form my own opinion. I know, easier said than done, and more oftenthannot, I find myself leaning to one side or the other. I'll take your advice on that part....

Well, how do you know a source is American? I was assuming you'd just look at British news media type things.

I've heard and listened to the Chinese Media. I have seen absolutely none of the so-called belittling you speak of.

Okay, perhaps I got a bit inflammatory there. But I would like to see you point out a "respected" American news source that belittles China.

Also, how is calling a Japanese a Jap, or an African American, Negro racist? All these, including Red Chinese, are racist because usually, they are said with a certain amount of hate and resentment toward a particular race. I'm surprised you didn't find it offensive and racist the moment you saw it. As for, Communist Regime, it makes China look like an Evil Empire, which it isn't. As far as I know, China's goverment is actually run rather like a Corporation. I could just as easily call the Bush Administration, the Bush Regime. It's simply the word is used to create a false, and evil image that ticks me off.

I'm not sure if we're misunderstanding each other or you're not getting what I'm trying to say. If the term was "Yellow China" or "Yellow Jap" (like it usually is), THEN I would call it racist because it's based on their skin color. But since it "Red China" and "Red Communist", it has more to do with the economic association with "Communist" rather than "China" (which is why "Red Communists" was also used for the USSR).

I am currently gritting tooth and nail not to simply lash out and call you an arrogant pig on the spot, but I think you know, I'm more sensible that that.

Heh, I was biting my lip trying to not call you misinformed and totally naive

Hmmm...how am I gonna tear this one apart, and do it in a polite, and calm manner...well, I love a good challenge.

Well, Spidey, all this time, we've been arguing over sources and who is credible, but this argument takes the cake. I, am a first hand source, while all your other sources, are secondhand. So I should think I know whether or not I have freedom of speech. I will admit, China does not have freedom of the press, which I think needs to be reformed. However, personally, I don't think this is a great loss. I'll explain this later on down in my rebuttal.
As for Chinese citizens imprisoned here, I can't do that....but, I do know that here, there are Chinese students here that have been arrested and imprisoned for "allegedly" spying. Now, I know that whether or not they were spying is anyone's guess. Also, don't forget Li Wenhe. He was a scientist at Los Alamos, and he was imprisoned for allegedly handing classifed data to China. However, in a later report, it was determined that all the evidence against him was completely false. What he did was no different from what his American collegues did, and they were not arrested.

First, what is your "first-hand source"? Second, "alleged spying" is totally different from (darn it, I can't remember what I was talking about) "worship"? "Belonging to a supposed cult"? Whatever it was.

The Los Alamo incident was unfortunate.

Also, I brought up the School thing for a purpose. It was to show that Freedom of Speech is RELATIVE. I've looked in the constitution. It does not say that Freedom of Speech is limited to school. And frankly, all the rulings in the world wouldn't convince me that having no freedom of speech in school is right. The only thing it would convince me of, is that it's necessary nonetheless.

The purpose of the courts is to INTERPRET the Constitution. I don't recall the specific rulings also, but it goes along the same lines as "Unreasonable search and seizure", which students are subject to but "in the real world" you aren't. I'm not sure what makes the school different though; where's nodnarb the researcher?

As for the profanity,
[digression]
I've restricted it to astericks, and BS. Also, I added them in there for a point. Personally, I don't think the profanity rule should be enforced so harshly. And I think a good number of CPA members agree that it should be more losely interpreted.
[/digression]

And we thank you (and others) for the restraint. But personally, there is absolutely NO NEED to use profanity, in ANY situation. You can always find other words and if you need to use profanity to express yourself, you need to increase your vocabulary. Sorry, this is not personal, just my views (especially when you have the luxury to write your thoughts and review them, not necessary in real life where it might come out instaneously).

As for dissing Zedong, he's dead. Yep, Mao's been dead for a good number of years. (Show's how current you're information is.. oops...was that a diss? My bad.) And I think you're stretching the issue. I think we both know that there is a fine line between freedom of speech, and getting your views known. And as for my analogy, yes, I wouldn't be arrested, but the FBI would harrass me to no end for even the smallest mistake I make. (As a matter of fact, simply voicing my disagreements on the United States, I bet the FBI are monitering this. They would track it down, and find I'm Chinese. They would then, in the future track me down, and harass me. (Legal harassment of course, you know, interrogation, making things difficult for me, etc.)

Good. You just confirmed my point that your analogy was a TERRIBLE one. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt so you could corrent yourself. What you should have said was "I could diss Zedong while you couldn't diss George Washington" or another DEAD US leader, not a current one

I don't think I'm stretching the issue at all. What I'm saying is that a mere expression of dislike will bring you worse consequences in China than here. Take the Doonesbury cartoon which is nationally syndicated in the US. It makes fun of Bush (and most all US leaders) ALL THE TIME, but you don't see the creator getting imprisoned. Meanwhile, you probably don't see any such critical cartoons in ANY Chinese media, because they wouldn't be printed in the first place.

And I seriously doubt the FBI is monitoring this. You haven't actually THREATENED anyone, which is usually what they look for, and you're not famous. I'm pretty sure the FBI and others realize that "the everyday person" will have critical remarks regarding the US government. In CHINA I could see where you would be worried...

Yes. China has never said it's superior. I guarentee you that. Either take my word, or take a trip to China, or remain ignorant. Your choice.

I'm not taking any guarantees, but neither can I prove mine so I'll lay off that for now.

Just every Chinese knows that a lot of students were killed at Tiananmen for demonstrating their interests in Democracy. They also know that those students cause havoc in Tiananment Square and disrupted the normal day-to-day routine of the city. Now, are there any more facts you think China's citizens should know?

Those other citizens must be pretty happy with the status quo if they think demonstrating for democracy is not so important that it "disrupts" everyday routines. The fact I'd like to know is HOW they know those two things; where did they find it out?

As for the lose power thing, I don't know, maybe. But then again, the U.S. has used force to further it's own interests, so what are you complaining about?

I'm not complaining about anything; I think I've already said that (depending on the case) the US is wrong too. I just haven't really heard YOU say the Chinese is wrong.

And I specifically stated that the use of force on the students was wrong. The government panicked, and it caused the death of innocent students. For that, the Chinese government was wrong, but ONLY for that.

Oops, maybe this is it.

I'll sum that up in a single sentence... They are U.S. allies. Hmm...I don't hear any shouts of protests against Saudi Arabia's human right issue, or the despotism of Indonesia.

What does being allies have to do with anything? It's still the same basic case of country vs country in ACCIDENTS. Human rights and despotism are entirely DIFFERENT situations.

Hmmm...maybe I should elaborate more.

ABM treaty: U.S. violates it by starting TMD, and NMD programs.
NATO Promise: Gee..NATO is still expanding isn't it? It's Sphere of influence goes all the way from the Persian Gulf, to Moscow's front door.
Iraq: Are you blind? Clinton hits Iraq during Monica Lewinsky scandal, Bush hits it later on, and all the time in between, the U.S. has conducted precision strikes against Iraq to take out supposed "Weapons storage areas".
Yugoslavia: (Must resist temptation to ask whether Spidey is blind, or plain ignorant...) The ethnic cleansing was an excuse for excercising U.S. military force. It was an entirely unprovoked attack.

ABM treaty: As far as I know all the talk is about STARTING it, not actually doing it. Until you show me otherwise OR we start, there's no violation.
NATO: Where and when was the promise that NATO would stop expanding? And again, as I recall those new member nations ASKED to join. Again, prove my "pitiful" knowledge wrong.
Iraq: How do you know they WEREN'T "supposed Weapons storage areas"? And can you show me that Clinton's and Bush's attacks WERE unprovoked from other sources than Iraq?
Yugoslavia: (must resist temptation to ask if Multani actually reads the paper or reads his thoughts to prevent misunderstanding like this) Are you saying the US was BEHIND and ENCOURAGED and STARTED the conflict between the Serbs, Muslims, and whoever else (Albanians?) Oh yeah, YOU'RE brainwashed...

If that's NOT what you meant, PLEASE clarify...

Suppressing ALL religions and "occupying Tibet": I'll substitute all for Falun Gong, and add that Tibet has been part of China for about 100 years. According to this statement, The U.S. would lose it's Southwest portion, and Hawaii.

No, let's substitute back ALL religions, seeing how a Chinese CATHOLIC bishop was just arrested thsi past week for just WORSHIPPING and people can't worship the Christian faith freely (and probably others, I don't know about them). I thought Tibet was occupied right after WWII? And the US has had it's Southwest portion since before the Civil War, so actually that would NOT apply.

Selling weapons to known terrorist-sponsoring nations: Hey, you guys sell weapons to Taiwan.

Really. I didn't know Taiwan trains and sponsors terrorist groups. Can you name them please and correct my misinformation?

Thoughts about conquering Taiwan: Except for the minor fact that Taiwan is a province of China. (Should I mention your civil war?)

According to... China, and who else again? Oops, I found also Germany and Netherlands also... And yeah, you can mention the Civil War, although I believe the differences there was more "government meddling in state affairs", rather than "China is Communist and Taiwan is not" type differences. But let's just say I don't know enough about this other than it would be a shame for China to take over Taiwan and impose its values on it, if that's what it plans to do (don't know how Hong Kong is going).

Killing unarmed civilians who were merely protesting exorbiant tax rates: I'm sure the Chinese government deeply regrets that decision judging from all the flak, BS, and lies that have sprung up from it....

Funny they haven't publicly expressed it, and any opinions AT ALL have come 10 days after the incident...

On a final note to you about the Media, the fact that you consider it a non-source disturbs me. I haven't completely dismissed the U.S. Media. I find it reliable for domestic issues. Besides, I know it's side of the story inside, and out. China is naturally the other side of the story in this case.

I consider it a non-source BECAUSE it is state-controlled and just parrots the government. The only thing it's good for is like in the example above, the time frame of reactions and the "offical" stance. I maintain that the US media DOES report on both sides and is a better source. And maybe the Economist is a good one too. It sounds like you've already developed a bias and closed mind to what the US media has to say, since you "know its story inside and out".

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The difference is that the US GOVERNMENT IS NOT TELLING THE US MEDIA WHAT TO PRINT. And no, you don't have to read
the opposing nation to get the other story; as facts or more information comes out, the US media prints it, whether it's good OR bad. Does China print the opposing side?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I think we're getting a little nationalist here. In this excerpt, you clearly state that the U.S. is always honest, and always right. I would call you naive, but that would go against my policy of being polite for this post.
Also, I would like to point out that it doesn't matter who controlls the media. In America, the media has to rely on it's moral code to tell the truth. Unfortunately, it's not doing that entirely, and there is nothing to check that. In China, the problem is nearly the same, but it's government owned, instead of private. But in China, some of the reports, aren't as...bold. In the U.S., it's because most of it's citizens are only exposed to the U.S. media. They have nothing to compare what the media says with. Also, because it's not government owned, they assume it always tells the truth. In a way, it's very effective brain-washing...

No, I did NOT clearly state the US is always honest and always right. I even included my quote. Please read it again.

Yes, it DOES matter who controls the media because in the US, they're free to print WHATEVER they want (barring libelous stuff and that sort, I think). What they're supposed to do is report the FACTS and what people say. In China, the press is TOLD what to print and apparently CANNOT talk to everyone (back to the tax case, I believe they sealed off the village and even imprisoned someone suspected of talking to the foreign media. You don't see that happening here now...)

I'm sure some people see the news as truth (heck, they pass along urban legends that you get on the Internet as truth) but to the person who is truly interested in the issues, you know different places have their different "spin" on things and you can get different information. A paper might be Democratically biased while another might be Republican. Same with CNN and other news programs; you can always get a different side. I believe with China that is not the case, but that's a feeling, not any factual knowledge.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Multani: I don't know if you haven't gotten on yet or just wasn't able to reply, but about the US treatment of Indians: The only thing I could come up with that might be comparable (and only because it's semi-recent) is China's Cultural Revolution. I don't know how many died though; is it in the millions? And hey, it wasn't even to another "race", it was to their own people...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Not to bust your bubble, but Beijing's entire population has only a few million. Use your common sense. I say about 10,000 at most. And that's probably a gross overestimate. I don't even think there were that many people protesting....

Umm, can I ask who's ignorant now? I believe the Cultural Revolution affected the WHOLE COUNTRY, not just Beijing, and so we're talking 1 Billion people here. Either you misunderstood my question, because I was talking about your comparion to the Treatment of Indians in US history, which T. Square is not comparable to.

CE:

Okay, I grant that my knowledge of the UN is as pitiful as Spidey's. BUT, I searched the UN homepage, and I found nothing regarding the UN condemning China for anything. One of my adult buddies said that the the U.S. has to file a proposal to debate about human rights in China, unfortunately, this proposal has never passed for the last 8 years. So, they said that it's impossible to for the proposal to condemn China to pass. In addition, I didn't see anything of the sort on the agenda, and China currently has a lot of allies in the UN... I don't know. Until, I learn more about the UN, I'm out of that game....

Actually, apparently my knowledge of the UN wasn't that pitiful at all, as that was what I said in the beginning . Perhaps the proposal to condemn doesn't need the proposal to debate? Who knows.

 

[Mundungu]

Taiwan
------
I am not sure if the people involved in this discussion know all the subtilities of the Taiwan / Mainland China situtaion.

What happened is the following. The Guo min tang, led by Chan Kai Chek lost the civil war to the Communists, led by Mao Zedong.

The Guo min tang fled to Taiwan and the mainland was not in an position of invading Taiwan at the time.

Anyway, officially, Taiwan and China are still at war.
BOTH parties agree on one Fact. There is only one China.

Only the taiwanese say they are the legitimate rulers of the whole china, while the Beijing government are usurpers.

The Beijing Government considers Taiwan as a rebelous province.

So at this stage, even the two have evolved as separate countries over the last 50 years, is still considered as a civil war problem.

To stand behind Taiwan at this stage, is going against the Beijing government. Many Taiwanese do not want to become a country opf their own BECAUSE they also do not want to give up the notion that they are the rightful leaders of all China.

Now if Taiwan decided to become independent and their own country, the matter would be very different.

Freedom of religion.
--------------------
There is freedom of religion in Mainland China at the moment, but the religions are not allowed to take part in political matters. Pretty much like it is officially in the US. The matter of Falun Gong is more like the problem of the Solar temple and the Waco affair. It is a group who -apparently- conducts illegal activitiesn, and treated as such.

Media
-----
Yes in China the media is controlled by the government, and not as free as the US media.
However, the "western Media" is freely accessible by the chinese population, through magazines, internet and such.
BTW : the China Daily is reachable here: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/

Cultural Revolution
-------------------
The subject of the cultural revolution is "tabou" for most of the chinese. In the many encounters with chinese of all levels (and I have been living and conducting business in China for over a year) I never covered the subject.
It was a time of chaos and atrocities where the new China was born. To get an insight I recommend reading the book
"Wild swans" which is really excellent.
In short, the cultural revolution cannot be compared with anything else in human history, and I would recommend not mentioning it if you do not know what you are talking about.

China evolution
---------------
China is evolving faster than you might realise.
Yes the cultural revolution was only 30 years ago, and Tien An Men over ten, but Today's China cannot be compared with what it was even in the early 90s. It is not even officially "communist" anymore but "socialist".

Yes there are still hardliners and many of the people who went through the revolution are now the generation in power.

Biased opinion
--------------
Now this is my personal opinion and hence deviating from my "objectivity".
In the 2 years I have been living in the US, I have yet to see ONE report of something good hapening in China.
All reports or "specials" I have seen always have a negative tone, even if sometimes well hidden.
That is not the case in Europe, where although China gets criticed for its negative points, gets recognised when moving toward the right direction.
I tend to say more favourable things about china than the US to counterbalance this fact.

Money rules
-----------
Behind politicians and government lie wealthy corporations.
One day look at all the items you manipulate and count how many are made in china. And how many are not.
Hey you probably already know the answer.
The bitching on political level is a game played for the viewers, you and me. Truth is that international trade between China and the US can not and will not be severed.
Both Nations would have too much to loose in the game, and the Multinational corporations wont let anything of the sort happen.

 

[Spiderman]

Mundungu:

Taiwan
------
I am not sure if the people involved in this discussion know all the subtilities of the Taiwan / Mainland China situtaion.

What happened is the following. The Guo min tang, led by Chan Kai Chek lost the civil war to the Communists, led by Mao Zedong.

The Guo min tang fled to Taiwan and the mainland was not in an position of invading Taiwan at the time.

Anyway, officially, Taiwan and China are still at war.
BOTH parties agree on one Fact. There is only one China.

Only the taiwanese say they are the legitimate rulers of the whole china, while the Beijing government are usurpers.

The Beijing Government considers Taiwan as a rebelous province.

So at this stage, even the two have evolved as separate countries over the last 50 years, is still considered as a civil war problem.

To stand behind Taiwan at this stage, is going against the Beijing government. Many Taiwanese do not want to become a country opf their own BECAUSE they also do not want to give up the notion that they are the rightful leaders of all China.

Now if Taiwan decided to become independent and their own country, the matter would be very different.

I am in knowledge of this. However, WHY is it "to stand behind Taiwan at this stage is going against the Beiking government"? Is it because the US recognizes Beijing as the government of China, back in the 70's (which would make sense)? So why is the US so heck-bent on "defending Taiwan"? Is it because they're a democracy?

Freedom of religion.
--------------------
There is freedom of religion in Mainland China at the moment, but the religions are not allowed to take part in political matters. Pretty much like it is officially in the US. The matter of Falun Gong is more like the problem of the Solar temple and the Waco affair. It is a group who -apparently- conducts illegal activitiesn, and treated as such.

I read in the Post that "officially" there is freedom of religion but in practicality it is "suppressed"? Something... I'll see if I can find the article...

Media
-----
Yes in China the media is controlled by the government, and not as free as the US media.
However, the "western Media" is freely accessible by the chinese population, through magazines, internet and such.
BTW : the China Daily is reachable here: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/

Not sure what you're trying to say. And China's media is or is not freely accessible by the West?

Cultural Revolution
-------------------
The subject of the cultural revolution is "tabou" for most of the chinese. In the many encounters with chinese of all levels (and I have been living and conducting business in China for over a year) I never covered the subject.
It was a time of chaos and atrocities where the new China was born. To get an insight I recommend reading the book
"Wild swans" which is really excellent.
In short, the cultural revolution cannot be compared with anything else in human history, and I would recommend not mentioning it if you do not know what you are talking about.

Why would you recommend not mentioning it if you don't know about it? The best way to learn is to ask...

Biased opinion
--------------
Now this is my personal opinion and hence deviating from my "objectivity".
In the 2 years I have been living in the US, I have yet to see ONE report of something good hapening in China.
All reports or "specials" I have seen always have a negative tone, even if sometimes well hidden.
That is not the case in Europe, where although China gets criticed for its negative points, gets recognised when moving toward the right direction.
I tend to say more favourable things about china than the US to counterbalance this fact.

Okay, so what good IS happening in China? Of international importance mainly, I guess... I probably don't want to know if the local village caught the person stealing chickens. And does China print good reports of "happenings" in the US? (what those might be, I have no idea... US media tends to focus on the negative too)

 

[Mundungu]

On the subject of the media I wanted to say that I agree with you spidey that the Chinese media is in fact controlled by the goverment, but that it doesnt mean that the chinese know only the "truth" of Beijing.
They can inform themselves by other sources.

Cultural revolution.
Well the manners in china are much more "subtle than here in the US". You cant just go around and "ask people".
That is a bridge wich overall is very hard to cross between Aericans and Chinese. Amis can be very blunt, direct forward and are easily speaking about very personal stuff.

Well that is not the case there, nor is it in Europe.

As far as good things about the US, mainly as far as the economy is concerned, the Chinese take example on the US.
They have a channel 100% in english, they have english language courses on TV as well and you have of course access to most of the US "culture": Mc Dos, Jeans, sitcoms, movies, games etc...

On this english speaking channel you get mixes of History, Biography and discovery channels, all of those made either by americans or the BBC.

Lastly on the Taiwan - Beijing position, being pro-Taiwan is partially accepting that the Beijing goverment is not legitimate. How could they like that ?

Side note
As far as democracy in Taiwan is concerned they had their first "free election" only very recently - only a few years ago I believe, and were a "dictatorship" -though a mild one- until then.

 

[Spiderman]

Originally posted by Mundungu
On the subject of the media I wanted to say that I agree with you spidey that the Chinese media is in fact controlled by the goverment, but that it doesnt mean that the chinese know only the "truth" of Beijing.
They can inform themselves by other sources.

Hmm, I don't know if it's worse or the same in both countries; having to go to more than "one" source to find the "truth" (or "facts", really).

Cultural revolution.
Well the manners in china are much more "subtle than here in the US". You cant just go around and "ask people".
That is a bridge wich overall is very hard to cross between Aericans and Chinese. Amis can be very blunt, direct forward and are easily speaking about very personal stuff.

Well that is not the case there, nor is it in Europe.

So this reluctance to speak encompasses research about the subject? I suppose I can see the hesitation on the part of the people, but there's gotta be SOMEONE in the masses who want the story to be told.

As far as good things about the US, mainly as far as the economy is concerned, the Chinese take example on the US.
They have a channel 100% in english, they have english language courses on TV as well and you have of course access to most of the US "culture": Mc Dos, Jeans, sitcoms, movies, games etc...

On this english speaking channel you get mixes of History, Biography and discovery channels, all of those made either by americans or the BBC.

I'm not sure if this is what we're talking about when we say "good stuff". I mean, you're saying they HAVE this stuff but what good things are they TALKING about? I mean, we have stuff "made in China" too... I was thinking we were talking about news type items.

Lastly on the Taiwan - Beijing position, being pro-Taiwan is partially accepting that the Beijing goverment is not legitimate. How could they like that ?

I see the point, but they didn't like it when we recognized Taiwan's government as legit between WWII and the 70's, no?

Side note
As far as democracy in Taiwan is concerned they had their first "free election" only very recently - only a few years ago I believe, and were a "dictatorship" -though a mild one- until then.

This is also true. Maybe it's the economic system... have they always been capitalists?

The religious article I was referring to can be found here

 

[Multani]

No one says the US investigators have to go and inspect it ALONE. They can have Chinese supervision... and the same in your reverse situation.

Don't know. You're guess is as good as mine. I would still say it runs along distrust. Besides, government officials on both sides tend to be a bit paranoid....

I agree with the time thing, I don't have much of it myself, but for important stuff like this you might want to ask your dad to make a note of the web addressess/sources so you can refer to them. And if they're in Chinese... surely there's translator programs on the Net? I mean, if there's something to translate the CPA site into "redneck speak", surely there's something for more serious stuff. But I don't know... I also just found there's an English version of the China Daily on the Internet... but from a newspaper that didn't give an address.

I'll do that. One thing on the translator program though. I'm sure there is one, but I wouldn't know how to use it, and finding one is a bit of a hassle, unless you have any particular idea. I'll look into it of course, but I'm not optimistic on finding a translation matrix anytime soon...

But I would like to see you point out a "respected" American news source that belittles China.

Specifically, NBC,Fox, and to a lesser extent, CNN and CSPAN. Normally it's usually the debate shows with the belittling, but it pokes it's ugly head in some news stories too.

First, what is your "first-hand source"?

Wouldn't you think actually visiting China would make you a first hand source? To an extent, Mundungu is also a first-hand source, but once he relays the info to us, we become second-hand sources, and the amount of credibility someone gives the info we tell them decreases significantly.

Good. You just confirmed my point that your analogy was a TERRIBLE one. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt so you could corrent yourself. What you should have said was "I could diss Zedong while you couldn't diss George Washington" or another DEAD US leader, not a current one

I don't think I'm stretching the issue at all. What I'm saying is that a mere expression of dislike will bring you worse consequences in China than here. Take the Doonesbury cartoon which is nationally syndicated in the US. It makes fun of Bush (and most all US leaders) ALL THE TIME, but you don't see the creator getting imprisoned. Meanwhile, you probably don't see any such critical cartoons in ANY Chinese media, because they wouldn't be printed in the first place.

And I seriously doubt the FBI is monitoring this. You haven't actually THREATENED anyone, which is usually what they look for, and you're not famous. I'm pretty sure the FBI and others realize that "the everyday person" will have critical remarks regarding the US government. In CHINA I could see where you would be worried...

I brought up the Mao analogy because a mere 5 years ago, dissing Mao in public WOULD get you imprisoned. But even then, the idea was dying. True, the media is controlled, but I don't think even if you did make such a cartoon, you would get imprisoned.
Look, the goal of the current Chinese government, is not only to retain power, but to keep the government stable.

As for the FBI thing, you're probably old enough to remember the days of the McCarthy era. I think there is still a sense of McCathyism, in the U.S. Besides, to the FBI, I'm not just an ordinary person. To the FBI, I'm a Chinese communist that's probably spying for the Chinese government. Nevermind the fact that I'm only 14. Also, if I were to go out and publically proclaim I'm a Communist, guess what the FBI would do? I've even heard rumors that in Texas, there is a long that is almost in a sense "Hatred against Communism". I don't know the specifics, but if such a bill were passed, I'd be greatly troubled.

Those other citizens must be pretty happy with the status quo if they think demonstrating for democracy is not so important that it "disrupts" everyday routines. The fact I'd like to know is HOW they know those two things; where did they find it out?

Oh, believe me, at the time, they were quite angry with the government at the time of the incident. But looking in hindsight, most Chinese citizens now believe that the student rebellion had to be crushed...

What does being allies have to do with anything? It's still the same basic case of country vs country in ACCIDENTS. Human rights and despotism are entirely DIFFERENT situations.

It has everything to do with it. You don't want to alienate your allies. And Human Rights has a lot to do with a despotism. A despoitc government is bound to have human rights issues....

Really. I didn't know Taiwan trains and sponsors terrorist groups. Can you name them please and correct my misinformation?

You misinterpreted my statement. If the United States can sell weapons to another province of a soverign country, then I see no problem with sponsoring terrorist groups...

According to... China, and who else again? Oops, I found also Germany and Netherlands also... And yeah, you can mention the Civil War, although I believe the differences there was more "government meddling in state affairs", rather than "China is Communist and Taiwan is not" type differences. But let's just say I don't know enough about this other than it would be a shame for China to take over Taiwan and impose its values on it, if that's what it plans to do (don't know how Hong Kong is going).

Currently, I think China is simply asking Taiwan to reunify politically. It would let Taiwan opperate like Hong Kong (1 country, 2 systems.)

Umm, can I ask who's ignorant now? I believe the Cultural Revolution affected the WHOLE COUNTRY, not just Beijing, and so we're talking 1 Billion people here. Either you misunderstood my question, because I was talking about your comparion to the Treatment of Indians in US history, which T. Square is not comparable to.

Cultural Revolution?!...(Multani scrolls up the page...) Ahem...my bad...


On the following, I am simply offering a different opinion...

Not sure what you're trying to say. And China's media is or is not freely accessible by the West?

Oh it's accessible alright. Trust me, it's not accessibility that will stop you. You'll probably take a year just to translate all those little pictographs...

So why is the US so heck-bent on "defending Taiwan"? Is it because they're a democracy?

Well, Taiwan is an annoyance, both militarily, and psychologically. The U.S. can't topple the Chinese government, so they have to settle on finding ways to annoy the Chinese government....no evidence, just opinion...

I should probably savor this calm discussion while it lasts before the next round of firebreathing...

 

[Ura]

well lets see, this thread has blossomed quite nicely I see.

To begin,

The media:
Both american and Chinese media sources are biased, the chinese from government control, the american from blind patriotism. Theres nothing particularly wrong with either, but for true objectivness and getting the solid facts down, they both kinda lack.
I have problems watching american news programs because they try to dramatise things far too much, its like watching a bad episode of General Hospital or Days of Our Lives. While I can't say the Canadian news sources here are perfect either, they do at least get a better glimpse on things I find. They frequently talk about the good things and major incidents that are performed or happen in the US and China, whether its incredible medical research or the little plane incident. The BBC also does an excellent job of telling the news around the globe, at least as far as "quality" goes.
Fault?:
There are actual ways to find out whos fault it was, (if its truely anyones fault) and to verify things if they really really wanted too. We don't have all those multi million dollar comunication satalites in orbit for nothing and its supposed to be standard procedure for all military aircraft and naval vessles to keep an open line of communication while performing non-combative manuvers. Plus the supposed distress calls regardless of the laws around them would have been picked up by other nations such as Japan or the Philipines or even Hawaii. Pearl Harbour has some incredible communications equipment and most large aircraft have fairly powerful radio transmitters on them, I would think that a state of the art "spy" plane would be even more so.
Religious freedom?:
Actually, there is a great level of religion freedom in China as far as it goes. Amongst some of the religions there are:
Confucianism
Buddism
Shintoism (they got it from japan)
Christianity
Cathlocism
Some of these religions are also non-exclusive which means they combine with each other such as in a person who is both buddist and a shintoist. The biggest difference is that in China religion is a much more personal thing then in western life, the only religion there that actually has all out temples is the official country religion which is Buddism if I remember right. There are missions there for all the other groups and smaller places of worship. China allows quite enough freedom of religion. Its no worse there than in the US. Try going to places in the southern US and say your a wiccan, you'll have people giving you dirty looks and get harassed by some like nothing else, real great freedom there. The Catholic preist you mentioned Spidey must have been arrested for something more then simply being catholic and worshipping. What did they do, kick down his down his door and beat him into cuffs, or is there more to it then that, was he publicly preaching perhaps, maybe he was involved with something he shouldn't have been. Do you have any info on this beside the washington post article? The only thing I can read in it is that Beijing is paranoid of orginized religions because they can destabalize the government. Wow, a country that actually does keep the church and state seperate, good for them. While they're methods aren't the best at times they certainly have the right idea. Look at many of the other governments in the world that have heavy amounts of religious influence in them. Most of the middle east is in chaos because of "holy wars" or jihads, and even the US suffers the burden of religious influence in its government regardless of whether they admit it or not. Some of the senators from down there are really nasty about promoting "the word of god" to people, they should be priests insted of politicians. Even now there are talks amongst the US government from the bottom to Bush himself to teach religion based science in public schools instead of what they have been doing for years, a change from evolutionary science (darwinism) to creationism. Simply because of a bunch of upset church goers and senators who need something to do.
Atrocities smoshities:
Ok, so the Tianamen square incident was a horrible loss of life. The chinese offcials have expressed remorse for the incident publicly, though they've only done so once to my knowledge. You have to understand that in many eastern cultures things such as losing face is a horrible dishonor, and while it wouldn't be so to us in north america, to express a great amount of open regret about errors such as the square would cause not only the individual in power to lose face but also the people of the government at the time, its considered very disrespectful, so it simply is not done. Beyond that though, the US can't say anything about how nasty China is anymore then China could say the US is. Both have shed far to much blood in the past and hopefully such things will teach them what not to do in the future. Tianamen was a protest for democracy someone was saying, but who says democracy is so perfect, its only our biased western views on the subject that make it so. If a group of people in the US had a huge rally like the one in Tianamen to say protest for communism in the middle of washington, say right in front of congress, you can bet there would be alot of people arrested. Communism is like a curse word in the states to many people because of years of propaganda streching back to the cold war between the US and the USSR. Also, many countries have had revolutions of sorts. The US, China, Russian, France, and Germany are just to name a few, so no one has the right to judge a country thats having a revolution, its part of growth, albiet, a very painful and often bloody one.
The Chinese government cracked down on the students in tianamen because they were disrupting the function of the city. Can't be that horrible, look how Seattle police and national gaurd cracked down on protestors during the last WTO meeting held there, or how the RCMP and other police groups cracked down on protests at the sumit of the america's in Quebec just recently. Just because we didn't kill anyone here means we're better then China? I think not, tear gas and rubber bullets are no better then tanks in my opinion as they both can be lethal and they were both used to crack down on the freedom of speech that you Spidey so highly value. Kinda odd isn't it that if they do it its evil and horrid and "communist" but if we do it its perfectly ok cause no one got killed.
Terrorist groups or mercs?:
The US and China have both been known to sponsor them in history so neither can claim innocence there either. The only difference is that the US does it through its own military and CIA to find the "just right" people and train them, while china doesn't waste time with that and just hires someone. Both countries have sold arms to questionable buyers simply to further their own political ends. Its a simple rule of government to get plausable denyibility for any shady deals you may be doing.
The little plane that wasn't:
The spy plane being held by the chinese is basically worthless as far as it goes as both sides have said that the flight crew fried all the surveilance equipment on board to prevent it from falling into Chinese hands, (standard procedure when making emergency landing in non-allied country). Its basically just a big partially melted paper weight now that the governments are using as a tug of war object to bitch at each other for larger purposes.

 

[Spiderman]

In reference to Multani's last line...

Multani:

Don't know. You're guess is as good as mine. I would still say it runs along distrust. Besides, government officials on both sides tend to be a bit paranoid....

I'm not sure why you said this, my original reply had to do with your question on why the Chinese were afraid to let the US inspect the plane for fear of "tampering" and I was saying the US didn't have to go in there alone.

I'll do that. One thing on the translator program though. I'm sure there is one, but I wouldn't know how to use it, and finding one is a bit of a hassle, unless you have any particular idea. I'll look into it of course, but I'm not optimistic on finding a translation matrix anytime soon...

Hey, again, this is only if you have time. I was just mentioning the possibility so you can look stuff up on your own rather than relying on your dad.

Specifically, NBC,Fox, and to a lesser extent, CNN and CSPAN. Normally it's usually the debate shows with the belittling, but it pokes it's ugly head in some news stories too.

Debate shows are expected to belittle, that's why they're called debate shows (or opinion shows). For actual news stories, it would help to know the exact story/link/quote/whatever (and to make sure that's also not an on-air editorial).

Wouldn't you think actually visiting China would make you a first hand source? To an extent, Mundungu is also a first-hand source, but once he relays the info to us, we become second-hand sources, and the amount of credibility someone gives the info we tell them decreases significantly.

My question here would then be how long did you visit China, where did you visit, and who did you talk to, if anyone?

I brought up the Mao analogy because a mere 5 years ago, dissing Mao in public WOULD get you imprisoned. But even then, the idea was dying. True, the media is controlled, but I don't think even if you did make such a cartoon, you would get imprisoned.
Look, the goal of the current Chinese government, is not only to retain power, but to keep the government stable.

A mere five years ago, dissing Clinton would NOT get you imprisoned. I think I forgot the point of why you brought of the analogy but it was a BAD one

I don't have example of anyone being imprisoned for a cartoon, but there is the matter of the US scholars being imprisoned for THEIR "dissident" views...

As for the FBI thing, you're probably old enough to remember the days of the McCarthy era. I think there is still a sense of McCathyism, in the U.S. Besides, to the FBI, I'm not just an ordinary person. To the FBI, I'm a Chinese communist that's probably spying for the Chinese government. Nevermind the fact that I'm only 14. Also, if I were to go out and publically proclaim I'm a Communist, guess what the FBI would do? I've even heard rumors that in Texas, there is a long that is almost in a sense "Hatred against Communism". I don't know the specifics, but if such a bill were passed, I'd be greatly troubled.

Actually, I'm not. However, I think the FBI has more important matters than to keep track of a 14 year old "Chinese communist". 50 years ago, I might agree with you but unless you go out and DO something to put you on their "radar", I think you're safe.

Oh, believe me, at the time, they were quite angry with the government at the time of the incident. But looking in hindsight, most Chinese citizens now believe that the student rebellion had to be crushed...

Is this from talking to them from your visit or another source?

It has everything to do with it. You don't want to alienate your allies. And Human Rights has a lot to do with a despotism. A despoitc government is bound to have human rights issues....

So what you're saying is that the US glosses over incidents involving our "allies" but not our "antagonists"? I disagree... the Japan trawler was a pretty big deal and I think the Peru one is too. I agree that they might not get a lot of press (at least from what I'm reading) but maybe it's because they're allies that the situations are more able to be resolved satisfactorily and without fuss.

You misinterpreted my statement. If the United States can sell weapons to another province of a soverign country, then I see no problem with sponsoring terrorist groups...

Okay, so why doesn't China take a bigger stand on this, such as cutting off economic ties since militaristicly, that option is probably not viable? Why is it always the US who threatens the "economic status" of China? Is the Taiwan issue not THAT important to China?

Ura:

The media:
They frequently talk about the good things and major incidents that are performed or happen in the US and China, whether its incredible medical research or the little plane incident. The BBC also does an excellent job of telling the news around the globe, at least as far as "quality" goes.

Those Canadian sources might be good in regarding my question to Mundungu about who reports the "good" in China.

Fault?:
There are actual ways to find out whos fault it was, (if its truely anyones fault) and to verify things if they really really wanted too. We don't have all those multi million dollar comunication satalites in orbit for nothing and its supposed to be standard procedure for all military aircraft and naval vessles to keep an open line of communication while performing non-combative manuvers. Plus the supposed distress calls regardless of the laws around them would have been picked up by other nations such as Japan or the Philipines or even Hawaii. Pearl Harbour has some incredible communications equipment and most large aircraft have fairly powerful radio transmitters on them, I would think that a state of the art "spy" plane would be even more so.

The problem with satellites is that they would probably have to have been focused specifically on the area to get the details needed to determine "fault. And apparently the spy plane was "badly damaged", so who knows what antennas were operating and at what strength.

Religious freedom?:
Actually, there is a great level of religion freedom in China as far as it goes. Amongst some of the religions there are:
Confucianism
Buddism
Shintoism (they got it from japan)
Christianity
Cathlocism
Some of these religions are also non-exclusive which means they combine with each other such as in a person who is both buddist and a shintoist. The biggest difference is that in China religion is a much more personal thing then in western life, the only religion there that actually has all out temples is the official country religion which is Buddism if I remember right. There are missions there for all the other groups and smaller places of worship. China allows quite enough freedom of religion.

I have to ask you the same question: Do you have first-hand knowledge or some source that says this? From the article I read, state-run religion is not really "freedom of religion".

Its no worse there than in the US. Try going to places in the southern US and say your a wiccan, you'll have people giving you dirty looks and get harassed by some like nothing else, real great freedom there.

I think I specifically stated "religions that other countries observe" (other being a good many). I have no opinion on whether wiccan is a religion or not, but "people giving you dirty looks and harassing" is different from the federal government locking you up. One's a local attitude, the other is the offical government's stance.

The Catholic preist you mentioned Spidey must have been arrested for something more then simply being catholic and worshipping. What did they do, kick down his down his door and beat him into cuffs, or is there more to it then that, was he publicly preaching perhaps, maybe he was involved with something he shouldn't have been. Do you have any info on this beside the washington post article?

Why must he have done something more? And what, you can't preach in public? No, I don't have another source; any more information would be welcomed.

The only thing I can read in it is that Beijing is paranoid of orginized religions because they can destabalize the government. Wow, a country that actually does keep the church and state seperate, good for them. While they're methods aren't the best at times they certainly have the right idea. Look at many of the other governments in the world that have heavy amounts of religious influence in them. Most of the middle east is in chaos because of "holy wars" or jihads, and even the US suffers the burden of religious influence in its government regardless of whether they admit it or not. Some of the senators from down there are really nasty about promoting "the word of god" to people, they should be priests insted of politicians. Even now there are talks amongst the US government from the bottom to Bush himself to teach religion based science in public schools instead of what they have been doing for years, a change from evolutionary science (darwinism) to creationism. Simply because of a bunch of upset church goers and senators who need something to do.

You didn't read the article closely enough to see that China has a STATE-RUN Catholic church, which is NOT the separation of the state and religion. And of course, it depends on how many senators espouse the idea and how many actually needed to get the law to pass, etc.

Atrocities smoshities:
Ok, so the Tianamen square incident was a horrible loss of life. The chinese offcials have expressed remorse for the incident publicly, though they've only done so once to my knowledge. You have to understand that in many eastern cultures things such as losing face is a horrible dishonor, and while it wouldn't be so to us in north america, to express a great amount of open regret about errors such as the square would cause not only the individual in power to lose face but also the people of the government at the time, its considered very disrespectful, so it simply is not done. Beyond that though, the US can't say anything about how nasty China is anymore then China could say the US is. Both have shed far to much blood in the past and hopefully such things will teach them what not to do in the future. Tianamen was a protest for democracy someone was saying, but who says democracy is so perfect, its only our biased western views on the subject that make it so. If a group of people in the US had a huge rally like the one in Tianamen to say protest for communism in the middle of washington, say right in front of congress, you can bet there would be alot of people arrested. Communism is like a curse word in the states to many people because of years of propaganda streching back to the cold war between the US and the USSR. Also, many countries have had revolutions of sorts. The US, China, Russian, France, and Germany are just to name a few, so no one has the right to judge a country thats having a revolution, its part of growth, albiet, a very painful and often bloody one.

No one is saying democracy is perfect and the cureall for everyone. I WILL say, IMHO, that democracy is preferable to what the Chinese have right now (no evidence, just opinion).

The Chinese government cracked down on the students in tianamen because they were disrupting the function of the city. Can't be that horrible, look how Seattle police and national gaurd cracked down on protestors during the last WTO meeting held there, or how the RCMP and other police groups cracked down on protests at the sumit of the america's in Quebec just recently. Just because we didn't kill anyone here means we're better then China? I think not, tear gas and rubber bullets are no better then tanks in my opinion as they both can be lethal and they were both used to crack down on the freedom of speech that you Spidey so highly value. Kinda odd isn't it that if they do it its evil and horrid and "communist" but if we do it its perfectly ok cause no one got killed.

As far as I know, the T. Square demonstrators were PEACEFUL. Some of the WTO demonstrators WERE NOT. And that is the difference.

Terrorist groups or mercs?:
The US and China have both been known to sponsor them in history so neither can claim innocence there either. The only difference is that the US does it through its own military and CIA to find the "just right" people and train them, while china doesn't waste time with that and just hires someone. Both countries have sold arms to questionable buyers simply to further their own political ends. Its a simple rule of government to get plausable denyibility for any shady deals you may be doing.

This is true, I agree with this.

The little plane that wasn't:
The spy plane being held by the chinese is basically worthless as far as it goes as both sides have said that the flight crew fried all the surveilance equipment on board to prevent it from falling into Chinese hands, (standard procedure when making emergency landing in non-allied country). Its basically just a big partially melted paper weight now that the governments are using as a tug of war object to bitch at each other for larger purposes.

Recent news reports have said the crew admitted NOT being able to completely destroy all the spy equipment on the plane. It is presumed the Chinese have gotten something useful out of it.