And there is still quite a bit of debate as to who really financed and/or organized the 9-11 attacks. AQ, PRC or both?

The PRC loves the war on terror because it distracts and drains the US, makes us look like super-asses on the world stage and allows China to do as it pleases to its minorities and plan for Taiwan-Japan-Korea as well as study the US war machine.

July 6, 2007 @ 8:48 am | Comment

On a random note, I’ve just looked up the price of gold over the past 6 months and it only grew at 2%. Richard, you owe me a dinner.

July 6, 2007 @ 8:55 am | Comment

Nice article, and it does bring to light that possibility. Cheney is a warmonger, I thouroughly believe he is the overweight white modern version of Genghis Kahn (although not nearly as intelligent as the original). Yes I know it was his wife speaking, but the two are one and the same.

July 6, 2007 @ 10:00 am | Comment

This just sounds too crazy, even for them.

Also, yes, here’s a debate on whether or not China financed 9/11:

Moderator: “Who financed September 11? Was it al Qaeda? China? Both? Mr. A, you begin.”

A: “There’s a well documented, thoroughly researched trail showing that al Qaeda was responsible for September 11, which it financed with donations raised largely after earlier terrorist attacks in Africa and Yemen. China had nothing to do with it.”

Moderator: “Now, to present the opposing viewpoint, Mr. B.”

B: “BEES! BEES! OH MY GOD I’M COVERED IN BEES!”

July 6, 2007 @ 12:18 pm | Comment

Oh, god, the neocons would LOVE the Chinese Super-Villain enemy.

Such bullshit. Sensible people understand that the US and China are totally interdependent and cannot afford this kind of nonsense.

BTW, there was a great article, that if I’d been blogging, I would have blogged here – and I still might. About who profits from the iPod.

The bottom line is, although much of the device is manufactured in the PRC, the main portion of the profits still goes to Cuerpatino CA.

Lost in the frenzied debates over the trade imbalance between China and the US is how much of the profit is actually made by US companies, who are using the PRC as a gigantic maquilladora – a manufacturing plant. China isn’t making as much of the money as is commonly assumed.

July 6, 2007 @ 4:30 pm | Comment

Lisa, there are a surprising number of Chinese who also think war with the US is inevitable, whether it’s because of Taiwan or something else.

Though those that support a first-strike because of this are few, many more believe that China should increase its military at the fast pace it is precisely because of that “ineviable” conflict.

You talk about China potentially being a “super-villain” in the US – that is already often the case for the US in China.

July 6, 2007 @ 8:49 pm | Comment

I’m appalled at the strength of anti-American feeling in China, nurtured, of course, by the darling CCP. This is manifesting itself as a sort of cold-war paranoia. The USA, quite simply, are regarded as the enemy of the motherland and the only country standing between China and, God help us, global domination.

NHYRH’s comment about China revelling in American disaster, self-inflicted or otherwise, is pertinent. As long as America is tied up in Iraq China becomes comparatively more powerful with leaders who grow increasingly arrogant about their position on the world stage. And I have no doubt that they will unleash their army on some unsuspecting ‘strategic’ victim sooner or later.

With this in mind, China’s stated “non first-strike policy”, should be viewed for what it is – a deception taken straight from the ‘Art of War’ in order to gain the element of surprise. Utter bollocks. I seriously hope no-one is taken in by this.

For all the criticism that can justifiably be levelled at the current administration, we’d better hope that America remains strong and continues to stand up to China, economically and militarily. Imagine for a second that China and America swapped military capabilities; does anyone honestly believe that this would make the world a safer place?

July 7, 2007 @ 12:01 am | Comment

“With this in mind, China’s stated “non first-strike policy”,”

And when you read other statements from senior chinese military officials, if the US so much as shoots at a PLAAF fighter in any conflict, that can be considered a “first strike” on the motherland, allowing the PLA second artillery to respond with nukes, etc.

Beijing also does not consider using nukes on naval assets to be an actual “first strike” with nukes on another country.

So they can shoot whatever they want at us but we cannot shoot at them without risk of being nuked.

Why would anyone hope for China to take a lead in global affairs, look at how things are run in China.

July 7, 2007 @ 12:50 am | Comment

Stuart
— Imagine for a second that China and America swapped military capabilities; does anyone honestly believe that this would make the world a safer place? —

Honestly I cannt think anything worse than the way USA abuses it military power.
When can americans learn not to use military power to preach its value?
When will the next Terrorist attack happen in American soil?

July 7, 2007 @ 12:56 am | Comment

And I thought ‘the yellow peril’ was passé.

July 7, 2007 @ 1:28 am | Comment

I loathe Darth Cheney as much as the next guy, but I think it is a bit of stretch to go from “Lynne Cheney thinks China is a growing threat” to “If it weren’t for 9/11 the US would be at war with China right now!”

If it weren’t for 9/11 it is much more likely that we would still be in Iraq right now. Saddam was on their hit list long before 9/11. 9/11 just made it easier to sell.

July 7, 2007 @ 1:39 am | Comment

Raj–I would beg to differ. Please provide evidence (polls, for example) to show that Chinese people believe that military conflict is an inevitability.

Stuart–the CCP does not nurture this sort of stuff at all, or else it would be pumping out loads of domestic propaganda about the direct impingement of Chinese interests that goes on every time the U.S. screams about Darfur and Sudan. Indeed, the Chinese I know are all would rather send their kids to school in the U.S. rather than send their kids to fight the U.S.

NHYRC–Beijing’s nuclear policy prohibits it from using nuclear arms first in a conflict. That is what a non-first-strike policy means. Indeed, among the major nuclear states, the only country who believes in preemptive or tactical nuclear strikes is the U.S.

July 7, 2007 @ 3:51 am | Comment

As the threat is closed where we discussed the basic cause for the islamic terror I will post an interesting article about this topic here.
It’s the text of a you british muslim who was himself member of a radical group in Britan.
He staits it clear. Their motivation was not british foreign policy but to creat an Ismalic state and a war against all infidels. Read it here.

July 7, 2007 @ 4:06 am | Comment

t_co:

Like most of what China says, the “no first strike” policy is all window dressing. The PLA 2nd Artillery Division (the guys who work with nukes) must keep the nuke warheads and missiles seperate NOT because of some peace and safety concern but because China has a long history of generals and high gov’t officials using their influence and control of army units to dictate terms to the emporer or to help/allow foreign powers to invade and depose the emporer.

I’ll point to the downfall of the Ming and Qing dynasties, the capture of Beijing by the foreign armies during the Boxer Rebellion, and the Taiping Rebellion as recent examples. The emporer is only as powerful as his level of support from the military and bureaucracy.

Additionally, more than one PLA general and senior CCP official have been quoted by Pentagon officials as stating that a shot fired at a PLA, PLAAF or PLAN asset in the act of “regaining lost territory” is considered a direct attack on the Chinese homeland and possibly subject to a nuclear response. China also does not consider a nuclear strike on US naval or air assets international waters or airspace to be an attack on US soil. These are matters of PLA and CCP military policy and even if they are simply “hollow words” are designed to create an atmosphere of apprehension and some fear among senior US military officials and US politicians.

July 7, 2007 @ 5:19 am | Comment

“Honestly I cannt think anything worse than the way USA abuses it military power.”

Then you’re not thinking hard enough. If the United States were a genuinely expansionist Fascist or Communist dictatorship and had an equivalent military budget to what it has today (I think more than every other country in the world combined?), do you really think they would stop in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The United States is kept in check because it is, whatever our gripes, still a democratic country. If the President should feel it necessary to invade and annex Canada, then that’s too bad for the President because it isn’t going to happen.

I definitely would not feel quite so secure if the present-day Chinese government had the same kind of uncontested military power at it’s disposal.

July 7, 2007 @ 7:20 am | Comment

US concerns over China weapons in Iraq

July 7, 2007 @ 9:11 am | Comment

I second 88’s post. Wasn’t Cheney’s name one of the signatures on that “attack Iraq” letter to Clinton while he was in the Oval Office?

July 7, 2007 @ 11:20 am | Comment

Yes, Cheney was a signatory to the Project of a New American Century open letter to the Clinton Administration regarding Iraq circa 1998. As were Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and several others who later assumed prominent roles in the Bush Administration. As 88 says, Iraq was well within their sights prior to 9/11 and only the terrorist attacks made domestic support for the war feasible. In fact, Rumsfeld and others wanted immediate blame placed on Saddam Hussein and had to be talked into going after the Taliban first.

July 7, 2007 @ 1:56 pm | Comment

I will point to a map of all US military bases in the world.

http://respectsacredland.org/no-us-bases/draft3.jpg

Now, can you tell me why Middle-Easterners hate us, and how big you think US military influence is. I don’t think any historical empires ever come close to us today no matter how you see it.

Btw, if China and US ever involved in a war, it will be over in 1 day max, and we will probably all going to see our maker.

July 7, 2007 @ 2:02 pm | Comment

@ t_co

“Stuart–the CCP does not nurture this sort of stuff at all, or else it would be pumping out loads of domestic propaganda about the direct impingement of Chinese interests that goes on every time the U.S. screams about Darfur and Sudan.”

Of course it does. America is constantly shown in a bad light and this is reflected in the attitudes of the people. Darfur and Sudan don’t get coverage because China doesn’t want the discussion.

“Indeed, the Chinese I know are all would rather send their kids to school in the U.S. rather than send their kids to fight the U.S.”

I never said the CCP are promoting war with America, just that they are demonizing them as a nation and using every trick in the book to weaken their influence and power. Part of that process is to get as many students over there as possible to pilfer what technology and information they can for the greater glory of the motherland.

@tddn

“When can americans learn not to use military power to preach its value?”

On balance, Iraq notwithstanding, there is still no contest between American values and those of the CCP when it comes to abusing power. Thus, my opinion is that, given a reversal of the two nations’ military capabilities, we would see a global bully of unprecedented self-interest.

shulan wrote: “Their motivation was not british foreign policy but to creat an Ismalic state and a war against all infidels.”

Interesting. Surely all Communist Party members are infidels as well.

July 7, 2007 @ 2:05 pm | Comment

> Of course it does. America is constantly shown in a bad light and this is reflected in the attitudes of the people.

Stuart,

Please provide some evidences here; for example, go to some chinese new websites and provide some links here.

Americans have fairly good reputation in China. But many of them, just like many people in the world, don’t like some aspects of US government’s foreign policy. There were recently a few polls on this from people of the world. You are probably aware of this if you read news.

July 7, 2007 @ 2:39 pm | Comment

having difficulties posting – will split this up. apologies

@t_co and z

i don’t know what planet you are on saying that the CCP doesn’t support a strong anti-american line in its textbooks. i presume you have never read any chinese textbooks. what the chinese government does is simply to never portray american in anything other than a bad light. so for example, in a chapter about war we naturally focus on the iraq war. later on we mention the normandy landings, but we say 14 countries attacked germany, and don’t mention the enormous us contribution.

July 7, 2007 @ 6:43 pm | Comment

http://www.pep.com.cn/pdysh/jszx/pdysh6x/dzkb/200607/t20060726_260595.htm

the atomic bomb, the cuban missile crisis, vietnam, a section on us aid (oh no, sorry, i made that last bit up)

http://www.pep.com.cn/lsysh/jszx/9/dzkb/200601/t20060123_241114.htm

July 7, 2007 @ 6:45 pm | Comment

here is an entirely fictious account of the Korean War. It doesn’t make the us look too good.

http://www.pep.com.cn/lsysh/jszx/9/dzkb/200601/t20060123_241118.htm

you may argue that the chinese may not believe this, you may argue that the chinese may not hate the us, but it is simply not possible to argue that the ccp portrays the us as anything other than a dirty, violent country.

I can find more examples if this isn’t persuasive, but I am sure you can take a look at the books yourself. i’d be interested in reading the evidence you will provide showing that the chinese govt portrays the us in a good light.

apologies

July 7, 2007 @ 6:46 pm | Comment

As soon I read the opening phrase “I believe…,” I knew whose username would appear at the bottom of a long, peculiar, twisting essay and quickly scrolled down the way one might scurry past a scruffy fellow reeking of booze and talking to himself while sitting on a bench.

“Now, can you tell me why Middle-Easterners hate us, and how big you think US military influence is. “

Problem with your analogy is that the “us” includes Western Europe, which has been the prime target of major Islamist terrorist bombings since 9/11.

July 8, 2007 @ 3:14 am | Comment

Si,

We are talking about the current affairs. Why did you selectively bring up the ugly past between the two countries when China was very different at that time?

At the present time, the views of the Chinese people and government on the US are not substantially different from other people and governments of the world.

July 8, 2007 @ 5:45 am | Comment

Anyway, China is not a country, its a state of free reigning gansters and brainwashed tools.

I dont want to be offensive, but objectively speaking, thats how it is. Whats the point of going to war with China? They are destroying themselves.

I hope the people will kick out the party so that they can have a real country with leadership that amounts to more than a paranoid lyar and briber

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/07/02/china16329.htm

HRW: Beijing’s Rule of Law Retreat

Published in The Wall Street Journal

By Nicholas Bequelin

The recent discovery of hundreds of slave laborers working in feudal conditions
in brick kilns prompted a national outcry in China — and an unusually forceful
reaction from the central government. The Communist Party immediately
dispatched tens of thousands of police to break up the ring, arrested hundreds,
and inspired strongly worded editorials in such state organs as the People’s
Daily denouncing local officials’ lapses. President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen
Jiabao also weighed in, giving highly publicized orders to launch a “nationwide
campaign” to eradicate slave labor.

But this campaign mostly misses the point. Chinese officials and editorial
writers may rail about local corruption and the evils of forced labor, but the
root of the problem is something they are unlikely to do anything about: a
woefully inadequate legal system that lacks true independence from the
government, cannot address citizen concerns and exacerbates rather than
alleviates local corruption.

Over the past two decades, China’s Communist Party has progressively embraced
the rule of law as its principal method to rule the country. Importing entire
chunks of Western-style legal institutions, the party established a modern
court system, enacted thousands of laws and regulations, and formed hundreds of
law schools to train legal professionals. It publicized through constant
propaganda campaigns the idea that common citizens have basic rights, and
elevated the concept of the “rule of law” to constitutional prominence in the
mid-1990s.

In a one-party system hostile to carrying out the slightest political reforms
— and in the absence of other checks on power such as a free press or an
independent civil society — this formidable legal effort was meant to provide
some stability and predictability to a rapidly modernizing society, as well as
to impart legitimacy to the ruling order.

Yet huge numbers of Chinese citizens are still unable to use the system to seek
justice. Predatory officials rob farmers of their land, forcibly evict
residents from their homes, and cover up extravagant abuses of power —
typically embezzlement, but also rape and murder. These officials close their
eyes to labor exploitation and condone or profit from criminal rackets, human
trafficking and illegal mining. There is even a term in Chinese for local
officials’ collusion with criminal gangs: “black umbrellas,” which refers to
officials who give protection to illegal activities in exchange for bribes.

With no avenues to seek redress, China’s citizens are abused and exploited on a
shocking scale. The problems are not confined to small towns or rural areas:
Recent prominent corruption cases include the police chief of Shenyang in
Liaoning province, the party secretary of Shanghai and the head of the national
food and drug administration.

The critical obstacle to reform remains the judicial system’s enslavement by
the party. At every level, China’s key legal institutions — the police and the
courts — are under the authority of the party’s political and legal
committees. Through these institutions, local power holders can easily instruct
the police to abandon investigations, foreclose legal challenges, dictate the
outcome of particular cases to judges, or frame protesters and activists on
vague charges of threatening state security and social stability. Granted, when
the party’s interests and justice align, China’s courts function reasonably
well. But the overwhelming powers of party officials over the judiciary are an
open invitation to abuse them.

The growing “mafia-ization” of local governments and spiraling social unrest
attest to the urgent need for a functioning legal system. Reports of riots and
other episodes of disorder are increasingly frequent. Last month, no less than
eight riots and large-scale demonstrations were reported in different parts of
the country, arising from issues as diverse as Guangxi’s family planning
policies, the construction of a Xiamen chemical factory, the beating of a
Chongqing street hawker, impunity for a police-connected murderer in Sichuan,
and even a protest by retired Guangzhou soldiers for their pensions. The
government’s recent claim that social unrest was on the decline now has to be
called into question.

Unfortunately, there are no signs that Beijing intends to empower the legal
system to operate in an effective and independent manner. In fact under
President Hu, the party has abandoned its rule-of-law rhetoric to talk more
about a “socialist” rule of law — implying that the party, not the law itself,
remains supreme.

Top law officials like Luo Gan, head of the Political and Legal Committee of
the Central Committee, have recently issued an order to purge the legal system
of “negative Western legal concepts,” including fundamentals such as judicial
independence. But nowhere is the authorities’ attitude towards an autonomous
legal system clearer than in the wave of repression it has unleashed since last
year on China’s nascent civil-rights movement, sentencing for subversion the
country’s top human-rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng, jailing countless rights
activists, using house arrest to silence many critics, and tightening control
over the legal profession.

The brick kiln case is emblematic of these wider problems. Legal reforms take
time, and it would be unreasonable to expect China’s courts to solve every
social ill faced by such a large, developing country. But it is a mistake to
think that the Chinese legal system can heal itself while the party refuses to
relinquish any power.

It’s an even greater mistake to think that China can remain stable if it denies
access to justice to its citizens, and continues to hide from the cleansing
sunlight of a free press. Until it does, social unrest, slave labor and the
shadow of black umbrellas will continue to grow.

July 8, 2007 @ 6:10 am | Comment

“””””””Si,

We are talking about the current affairs. Why did you selectively bring up the ugly past between the two countries when China was very different at that time?

At the present time, the views of the Chinese people and government on the US are not substantially different from other people and governments of the world.””””””

z,

how is Chian different now? Have you become free minded and free from propaganda brainwashing? have you changed back the textbooks to be more objective and admitted the error of such hate incitement?

I dont think so. The CCP wont admit to the unscrupulous tactics that has gotten it to where it is. Communist countriesd need to have any enemy to build up in the peoples mins so that they can make the people believe the party is needed to save them from that fabricated enemy..

“anti China forces” Z, will the CCP ever admit to fabricating this enemy in order to gain the support of the people? Heck no, they need to incite hatred so they can be the saviour and pretend to restore the society to stability by killing the people they have built up as enemy.

Even if they say they are buddy buddy with America now, they are brainwashed still from years of vilification.

En plus, they will transfer that hate incitement on a whim to whichever other group that they find tactful to stir up the right mix of propaganda, hate and persecution in order to carefully control the populations mentality of need for the party.

July 8, 2007 @ 6:19 am | Comment

WB Yeats wrote:

“And God stands winding his lonely horn,
And time and the world are ever in flight,
And love is less dear than the grey twilight,
And hope is less dear than the dew of the morn.”

What does that have to do with this thread? Almost nothing. But I’m just submitting it here as a reminder of what TPD discussions used to be like. 😉

July 8, 2007 @ 6:31 am | Comment

snow,

Saying the same things everything time with a kind of hate, you have already convinced the people whom you can convince; and you are not going to convince those people whom you can’t convince.

July 8, 2007 @ 6:34 am | Comment

“here is an entirely fictious account of the Korean War. It doesn’t make the us look too good…”

An American colleague of mine was stunned when, during a class discussion that touched on the Korean war, he was asked why he and his countrymen do not have knowledge of their own history.

Then the students became very animated when my friend gave his own acount of what happened. They clearly didn’t believe any deviation from their text books, instead seeing it as further proof of American efforts to hide the truth about their shameful past. How ironic is that?

I’m amazed that the US government doesn’t make this more of an issue with Hu and his cronies. The CCP, in turn, would no doubt voice objections to the truth written about Tiananmen, Tibet, CR etc in American books.

Btw, I’m a bit in the dark, who DID start the Korean war?

July 8, 2007 @ 12:22 pm | Comment

It was Kim Jong Il’s father that started it with full Soviet and minor Chinese support, the Russian airforce was fully engaged with the USAF, once in a while some PLAAF pilots would get in on the action.

China’s full participation is up in the air. It is known that McAurthur didn’t really care much about not crossing China’s borders because the NK army was receiving supplies and sending wounded into China when the UN was really stomping them. The USSR did not send troops because that would start a nuclear war.

It is also well known that Mao would not tolerate a US friendly Korea on its border and perhaps by a combination of those two elements the PLA crossed into NK with 300,000 to 500,000 troops to counter the roughly 300,000 UN troops (mostly US and SK).

The PLA moved by night to avoid aerial reconaissance and performed a non-stop series of punch-counterpunch moves that kept the UN on its heels all the way to SK’s southern coast before aerial bombardment and lack of supplies took their toll.

The PLA did do very well overall but reveal a weakness that not many talk about: the marines at the Chosun resevior held out all winter against the PLA simply by digging in an fighting back hard. The US/UN army generals tried to retreat/counterattack, which is what the PLA expected.
So while the PLA punch is fast and tricky, it is not particularly strong.

July 8, 2007 @ 3:26 pm | Comment

Thomas Barnett, in the Pentagon’s New Map and his own blog has made this point many times, that 9/11 saved the Pentagon from itself (actual title of subchapter 8 in his book) by focusing American foreign policy on the terrorist threat and moving us away from the neo-con search for a near peer competitor, i.e. China. The section on the disarray at the Pentagon during the 1990’s and leading to the Bush administration’s focus on China begins on page 96. However, you would do well to look at page 101 for a brief history of how, what he calls the Cold Worriers, fell in love with China as the next big threat.

According to Barnett, though there was a push by the administration to focus more on China as near peer (as exemplified by the early crises in 2001) the real push came from an institutional break within the Pentagon between those who wanted to focus on high tech war and those who were stuck in what Barnett calls the lesser includeds (i.e. Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, etc.).

July 8, 2007 @ 4:18 pm | Comment

Z,

So presumably you don’t think what children are taught now about the past has any bearing on how they see the countries?

Anyway, where is your evidence of the Sino-American love-in?

July 8, 2007 @ 6:06 pm | Comment

t_co

When was a poll last conducted in China on that question? If you can find one, kudos to you. But we all know polling is generally blocked in China, especially on subjects like politics – why are you asking for something you know probably doesn’t exist?

July 8, 2007 @ 9:50 pm | Comment

According to Andrew Bacevich’s book – The New American Militarism, the US military has deployed in nine major military interventions since the Cold War ended. From 1989 to 2003, the military has intervened or invaded in Panama, Iraq (twice), Kurdistan, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. This does not include the constant bombing of Iraq until the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Bill Clinton’s cruise missile attacks against faraway targets, and obscure deployments of troops to Colombia, and the Philippines.

Keep in mind that Iraq was only a stepping stone to bigger and better invasions. Days after the Iraqi campaign was over, the Neo Cons were talking about how the next target would by Iran and Syria. After that, the next target probably would be Saudi Arabia to weed out the Islamic militants. The only thing stopping them was the insurgency in Iraq.

In the last two years, the Americans have supplied and trained the Ethiopian army to invade Somalia to overthrow the Islamic courts. In January 2007, the Americans launched an air strike into Somalia with AC-130 gunships to strike Islamic targets. I guess this could count as a major intervention. Not surprisingly, this has drawn little attention or criticism in Western media. I believe there has been other air strikes in Ethiopia and Somalia but it has been under reported. I read that the Pentagon is going to create a new African Command (AFRICOM) for all of Africa. This is in response to China’s growing involvement in Africa.

The Americans have the most powerful military on the planet. But throughout history, powerful countries had invaded others believing military force is a tool to be used. I have little doubt if the Chinese had a powerful a military as the Americans, they would be using it to advance their own interests. The real difference is the Americans will always justified their fighting it terms of ideals and helping others.

July 8, 2007 @ 11:56 pm | Comment

“The real difference is the Americans will always justified their fighting it terms of ideals and helping others.”

And China would claim it was using force to bring “peace, prosperity and stability to the people of the world”.

July 9, 2007 @ 12:42 am | Comment

“”””And China would claim it was using force to bring “peace, prosperity and stability to the people of the world”.”””””

Totally exactly, beware CCP opposite speak, It ‘ll catch you off guard if you assume people use language as the representation of fixed ideas, well the CCP counts on that and uses our assumption of that to string us along thinking that maybe Chinese have different understanding of peace and harmony.

Communism and at least Mao says that stability comes from the barrel of a gun, hah, yeah, that’ll keep the people from whinning for rights and causing all sorts of chaotic thinking and discussing!

Anyway sorry if I seemed cranky before, I was angrier and I should have resolved it before posting, so, live and learn…

What does this have to do with impending war? Well, darn well somethings gonna happen with all of this, so heads up on the opposite speak, know your enemy people. (the enemy is of course the CCP and not the Chinese people who have been victimized themselves, sucked into the mind warp of the party)

July 9, 2007 @ 3:55 am | Comment

Richard, for the sake of your blog please ban NHYRC and snow. Or set a 5 replies/blog post for any single avatar–the redundant shouting matches here are hurting my eyes.

July 9, 2007 @ 6:31 am | Comment

t_co:

Being repeatedly shot down in debates probably isn’t doing much for your self-esteem either.

July 9, 2007 @ 7:09 am | Comment

@Raj, Stuart

Well just because nobody has made a poll does not give you carte blanche to assert a majority of Chinese believe that their country will inevitably go to war with America.

I do agree, however, that the Chinese government has intent to promote anti-American feeling amongst its populace. However, I don’t believe that such feeling translates itself into believing that the U.S. will go to war with China because the CCP itself doesn’t want to fight the U.S. (And this I know because I know.) Therefore the CCP, even if it inflames anti-American sentiment, wouldn’t want the populace to want to go to war with America.

@ NHYRC, Snow, wkl

China would justify in terms of bringing peace and stability, probably not less hypocritically than the U.S. justifies it with democracy and freedom. That’s why it’s dangerous for the world to have a unipolar moment or have a nation with anything CLOSE to the supremacy the U.S. has–empires will promote their interests via whatever inhumane, hypocritical methods they can whenever they can.

I do not wish for China to be a lone superpower–because I believe my beloved country would then be tempted to dirty itself in the same way the U.S. has.

I would prefer a world where China has reached parity with the U.S., therefore locking down both giants rather than for one country to have universal freedom of action.

(Sorry if I shattered some neocon wet dreams with that statement.)

July 9, 2007 @ 3:08 pm | Comment

t_co

No one is going to be banned because they post a lot or have heated debates.

July 9, 2007 @ 5:07 pm | Comment

i> I do not wish for China to be a lone superpower–because I believe my beloved country would then be tempted to dirty itself in the same way the U.S. has.

Well, too late for that. China is already well into the muck.

I would prefer a world where China has reached parity with the U.S., therefore locking down both giants rather than for one country to have universal freedom of action.

The dominant presence of the U.S. in the Asia-Pacific is pretty much the only thing currently keeping the peace in the region, in my opinion. I think a China (as it is – not some idealized, normative version) with superpower status would do more harm than good, frankly.

Because in the end, balance-of-power theory (and realist hermeneutics in general) only go so far. Don’t rely too much on it.

I do agree, however, that the Chinese government has intent to promote anti-American feeling amongst its populace. However, I don’t believe that such feeling translates itself into believing that the U.S. will go to war with China because the CCP itself doesn’t want to fight the U.S. (And this I know because I know.) Therefore the CCP, even if it inflames anti-American sentiment, wouldn’t want the populace to want to go to war with America.

I understand what you’re saying, and even agree with it to an extent…but jeezus.

Finally, at Ivan:

That is high praise indeed. I hope Richard is reading the comments. Have you decided to let bygones be bygones, or have you simply mellowed out since leaving China? 🙂

July 9, 2007 @ 6:35 pm | Comment

Vanya — come back! Come back!

July 9, 2007 @ 11:36 pm | Comment

t_co:

The US neocons have messed everything up w/regards to US superiority for the benefit of religious nut jobs and corporations.

But China’s superiority is also ethnicity based…”almighty Han” ruling the middle kingdom and such.

As for a multipolar world, when you have a few big powers, they will balance each other out but use proxies to leverage against each other, especially in the case of China vs US. It is China that is funneling arms to Iraq and Afganistan and increasing the bloodshed there.

July 10, 2007 @ 12:23 am | Comment

Environmental destruction
Rampant social unrest
Gov’t inability to provide clean water or food for its population.
Totally worthless health care system.
Gov’t needs to rely on an internet barrier and a huge police force to mantain order.

Is China approaching failed state status?

July 10, 2007 @ 1:06 am | Comment

“””””But China’s superiority is also ethnicity based…”almighty Han” ruling the middle kingdom and such.””””””

Nanhey,

I know the Chinese arent perfect as there is no perfect race… But do you really blame the “almighty Han” mentality for what problem China is in right now?

Do you know some great things about Chinese or do you only know the bad stuff? Cause Chinese are cool …

So if you ask me, apart from the “regular amount of corruption”, its not that the Chinese are super bad guys, its the CCP that has brainwashed them to be evil psychos, .Of course the CCP would want them to think that all people are evil psychos or that the Chinese were always like that, thats why they always want them to believe America is so evil, so they can justify their own evil and claim that without the CCP, the peoples evil would be somehow worse then the evil of the CCP

Anyway, just wondering what you think.

T_o,

“””””China would justify in terms of bringing peace and stability, probably not less hypocritically than the U.S. justifies it with democracy and freedom. That’s why it’s dangerous for the world to have a unipolar moment or have a nation with anything CLOSE to the supremacy the U.S. has–empires will promote their interests via whatever inhumane, hypocritical methods they can whenever they can.””””””

This is the perfect example of what I was just saying.

Dare to think about it though, USA is full of corrupt individuals, all people are good and bad, so alot of what the USA has done is not all good or all bad, they seem to try to abide by their ideals, and others just want money and stuff… All countries are like that pretty much (of course that does not make it acceptable). But as corrupt as US policies may be and have been, they are not heinous lying feinds whos hearts have turned to hell poo,

How many innocent people has the US killed for the fickle reason of nipping subversive elements in the bud? Does the US dare to stoop so low as to disregard human mind and life so much that it would annihilate and turn people feindish in order to scare people into obedience? Does the US promote cannibalism, organ harvesting, making people wear “im a bag bad element” signs around their necks, so on and on and on?

Did you know that the CCP has caused the deaths of 60 to 80 million of its own people, for what? To make sure it keeps in power. And then it talks like the only thin in the world that is stabler and good is it, and that all people should not dare subvert it, as though it stood for any ideal HAH.

So just cause the US si not all pure and great does not mean that the CCP has ANY excuses for its base tactics (as if an excuse could make anything better anyway, the party is still leading the country to environmental degradation, killing and breaking people and their minds) Will defending the party help to make China cleaner and better? Do you really think the thing that will help China is having this group stay in power longer?

July 10, 2007 @ 5:42 am | Comment

What does my previous post have to do with war with China?

Well, Seeing as Chinese peoples mentalities are semi within the scope of CCP propaganda (as admitted by T-o under raj, stuart… If the Americans realized that the CCP is running on propaganda against them, all the US has to do to avoid a war is to have the Chinese people understand actual history. let the Chinese people know that they are being led along by the party and its interests for power.

I think if The Chinese people had a clearer perspective on the US morals and ideals (which admittedly are not absolutely abided by) as well as on the tactics of the CCP, there would be some kind of peace.

July 10, 2007 @ 5:50 am | Comment

Anyway, what a messy stupid war it would be,

But I think now with the 1/5 Chinese products being substandard alert, The US might be feel a lot more free to criticize the CCP, hopefully people will ween themselves off their perceived interests in sucking up to the CCP.

July 10, 2007 @ 5:54 am | Comment

I see the comments are becoming increasingly bizarre.

Ivan, good to see you.

Kenzhu – send me an email.

Everyone else, sorry for the chaos.

July 10, 2007 @ 9:42 am | Comment

Both Laurie’s and my comments were deleted. Why?? I may not necessarily agree with what he had to say, but we both sure as heck have the right to say it, according to all the “we won’t ban you or censor you” comments from Raj, Sina (who??) et al. Thus, why were both of our (totally harmless) comments deleted, please?

July 10, 2007 @ 4:04 pm | Comment

nanhey-

China nearing failed state status? Have you ignored that in the past twenty-five years tens if not hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty? Or that the economy here grows by, what, 10% a year?

China does have its problems, and I hold no brief for the CCP or communism in general. But if China is nearing failed state status then I’m sure some countries (Somalia, Haiti, Iraq) wouldn’t mind going along for that ride.

Your inability to grant any concessions toward China is really quite bizarre, and frankly undercuts most of your arguments.

July 10, 2007 @ 4:07 pm | Comment

“Welcome to Peking Duck–where censorship in the guise of open debate [sic] has reached new levels.”

There are plenty of people here who disagree with Richard. This is just typical brainwashed communist bullshit. Take one of the most open and tolerant forums on the internet and call it censored because CCP thugs tend to get their asses banned for behaving like thugs. Then forget to mention that the CCP maintains 30,000 internet cops to censor and otherwise stymie free debate.

engage in repression, call it freedom, lie, call it truth. SinaSource is a living example of What George Orwell warned us about.
Party thug and troll. Just ignore him.

July 10, 2007 @ 5:43 pm | Comment

Buddah, SinaSource was banned long ago, always promises never to comment again, then reappears to get really personal and rude. I am resigned to the fact that he is obsessed – he has even gone onto other blogs’ comments to write about me, in the tradition of another well known troll – and there’s no sense in debating him. I let everyone here express their view. Once they get obsessive and personal, I ask them to stop and if they refuse I exercise my right as the one who pays for this site to ask them (or force them) to leave. He always equates this with the CCP’s censorship, as if he pays taxes to me and thus I owe him representation on my personal blog, in which comments are a courtesy and not open to anyone who wants to say anything. At least not necessarily – as this thread shows, I’m pretty tolerant.

July 10, 2007 @ 6:30 pm | Comment

Nausicaa wrote:

“Have you decided to let bygones be bygones, or have you simply mellowed out since leaving China? :-)”

The flipside of my hot temper is that I never bear grudges except against people who continue to wish me harm. Richard has never been one of them, and neither have you ever been. But as for my “mellowing out” after leaving China, I can say I’m in far better spirits now that I’m back in the West, but my friends who know me well, all know that I tend to be more aggressive when sober than when drunk (the opposite of what many of our readers have often assumed), and similarly I fight hardest when in good spirits. So no, actually I’ve done the opposite of mellowing out. 🙂

That said, I’m going to continue to be sparing and reserved whenever I rarely comment here, unless and until I see this blog returning to its older and better spirits. But I think that might actually happen. We’ll see.

But there’s no harm in a bit of fun. Thus, as Richard wrote:

“Everyone else, sorry for the chaos”…

…it reminds me of THIS! KAOS!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AYpCQEeBsS0

July 10, 2007 @ 8:14 pm | Comment

Can I just reiterate that blog entries are not the place to complain or even joke about having people banned. If people have a serious problem, contact Richard.

Otherwise please focus on the topic/discussion. Off-topic comments are not valid.

July 11, 2007 @ 12:52 am | Comment

Ivan, what do we need to do to get you back?

I hope you’ll reply to the email I sent you a few days ago.

July 11, 2007 @ 2:17 am | Comment

Richard:

1. Sorry I didn’t get your email but I’ll email you back;

2. I’ve had a few GOOD lagers brewed in this WESTERN country – the kind (unlike Chinese formaldehyde brews) which don’t require 12 or more before I feel any effect – so please don’t anyone take advantage of my vulnerability as I’m now in a PROPERLY drunken state, which is almost impossible to achieve in China except from
rot-gut concoctions made from reptiles’ guts or else from imported vodka – but even the putative “imported Russian vodka” in China cannot be trusted, as it’s usually just rot-gut brewed in some illegal distillery in Hunan and then has a fake “Russian” label pasted onto it;

3. “what do we need to do to get you back?”
Here are my demands:

a. All TPD readers are requested (but not required) to download every single youtube clip that I post of Monty Python or of miscellaneous cartoons and at least PRETEND to laugh at them.
(This is negotiable; as I said, it’s a request, not a requirement);
But then, this next demand IS a requirement, a real demand:

b. I want Nausicaa to make a public declaration here, to agree that in the abstract, hypothetical “best of all possible worlds”, she and I would reincarnate for two minutes and eleven seconds, as Rita Moreno and Animal on the Muppets, and then in the following ten seconds she and I would marry and divorce six times like Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. But that incarnation will only last for two minutes and 21 seconds, so I think Nausicaa can handle it – just to “take one for the team”, you see.
cf: http://youtube.com/watch?v=0yvHWyvexZA
(and, well, this is also negotiable… 😉

c. Keep Math. Do not ever ban Math. Recently I was watching one of my Monty Python DVDs about the “Village Idiot”, and they said, “the Village Idiot performs an essential social function, to be a scapegoat and to defuse tensions” etc etc. That’s Math. TPD is nothing, without Math.

d. Slightly more seriously, empower (not just allow, but EMPOWER) me and/or all other commenters to post anything and everything (as long as it’s written intelligently) which opposes and/or offends the US Democratic Party and its current icons and superstitions – such as, eg, Nancy Pelosi, “Feminism”, etc (and in the future I will bash Barak Obama too) – without such comments leading to our being cyber-lynched OR, perhaps more importantly, having our personal characters slandered behind our backs. And you know exactly what, and who, I am talking about there. (Not you personally, Richard – I want to make that clear to all readers, that Richard never did that to me. Richard is a man of honour, and Richard has never tried to harm me, and he never slandered me, and he never said bad things about me behind my back.)

e. Please, no more guest-posts from any self-identified “cyber-nannies” who presume the authority to tell us the meaning of courtesy. If you have good monitors on this blog, then no such school-marm, Nurse-Ratched style remonstrations will be necessary. If someone is being a dick, then there’s a simple solution: just delete the comment, or in the extreme, ban him.
But please, please, no more remonstrations or lectures about “courtesy” from any self-described
“cyber-nannies.” Please. Good God, please, no
more of that.

And on that note, QED, hasn’t the declining quality of the comments in recent months, proved that no such cyber-nanny remonstrations about “courtesy” have ever made any difference or any improvement here? Hmmm?…. 😉

f. (now continuing with my demands): I demand at least good faith ATTEMPTS by all commenters, to be funny. At least sometimes.
I’m serious about that. I don’t expect them all to succeed, but at the very least, I want all commenters to ATTEMPT to have a sense of humour. (Actually, Math is very good at this, intentionally or not.)
During my many long travels all over the world, I have often told non-British people (and you know I’m American, but I have strong ties with Britain), my theory that: “The English resisted Hitler because Hitler was just NOT FUNNY! Humour is Liberty’s first line of defense against tyranny. And Humour is the cardinal virtue of the English, and of the English-speaking peoples, and our liberties depend on our sense of humour.”
Here endeth the lesson. Oh, but one more demand:

g. Download and enjoy this paradoxically joyful, life-affirming song (and ignore any ignorant nationalists who might stupidly find it “offensive”):

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ofhDF9ltv0M

July 11, 2007 @ 4:28 am | Comment

Sinasource:

You say you’re a she, not a he?

Alright. Drop your pants.

July 11, 2007 @ 4:08 pm | Comment

I wonder why some would think the Chinese government needs to “nurture” hatred toward the US. Aside from Japan for all the history, is there another country better deserving hatred from the Chinese, when you look at world events of the past few years? Bomb your embassy, kill your reporter, knock down your plane near your border … what’s there to hate about such a peace loving and spreading country.

July 11, 2007 @ 5:35 pm | Comment

@pmw:

i am not sure i should dignify your post with an answer, but with the aim of spreading a little knowledge….

the embassy bombing was claimed as a mistake, and if it wasn’t it is because china was aiding a genocide. the us apologised immediately, but the ccp delayed telling the chinese.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,2763,203214,00.html

the plane collision, again, was an accident. you may not like the us being in international airspace near chinese borders, but they have the right to be there. a large slow plane would find it somewhat difficult to deliberately ram a smaller, faster one. the chinese guy got too close and lost control.

the idea that a country should deliberately, through its education system, inspire hatred of another country is galling enough. when added to the fact that china is happy to point the finger, whilst not mentioning the ugly things of its past, the invasions of north korea, india and vietnam spring to mind, as well as the great leap forward and the cultural revolution. the moral redundancy and hypocrisy of this is nothing less than astonishing.

@ivan: nice to see you back. i second you about math – clearly a comedy genius!

July 11, 2007 @ 6:44 pm | Comment

@pmw:

The chinese embassy in Yugoslavia was actively engaged in collected signal intelligence in a war zone using the embassy as a cover. That is a hostile act. And that the Chinese had the wreckage of the F-117 in their basement as well was more than enough justification. You can’t claim peace and act hostile.

And for the past 20 years, the PLA has been pumping AK-47s and heroin into the US through LA. Last year the FBI caught PLA members in LA trying to deliver a shipment of anti-aircraft missiles to some drug gangs with the name of a prominent PLA general on the shipping papers.

And we are all getting poisoned by China’s pollution and exports.

July 12, 2007 @ 1:07 am | Comment

@Si,
That is exactly the kind of answer I was expecting. For those who “educate” me that way, my impression is that they are ready to buy whatever the Pentagon sells them “Oops, didn’t mean to do that”, or “Yeah we did it and you deserved it”, outdated map, correct map but misIDed target, pilot error… the Pentagon and NATO didn’t even bother with any consistency. In the end how you spin it really doesn’t matter, coz your action will always be justified, no?
And then a great piece from the UK, who has no conflict of interest and is always liable to tell an unbiased story. They don’t twist things to fit their needs, right?

I do not hate the US, the UK, or whatever you’ll call the West, per se, but find it amusing the display of incredulity towards anti-american sentiment from the Chinese or any other country. Honestly, if China bombed a US embassy, offered apology and whatever “they claim” to be the explanation, you think there’s gonna be any less Chinese hatred from the American public? If Chinese spy planes routinely fly by the Oregon or Florida coast, you think the US is gonna respect their “right” to “international airspace”?

And just for the sake of “spreading a little knowledge”, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution are recognized as great blunders of the party and its leadership, both in official historical record and in textbooks. They are still spinning it somehow and not taking up the full responsibility, but if you pick up any Chinese history book, “not mentioning” those would not be among the conclusions you arrive at. Even if you look at your own linked source, which you may have recognized is a “experimental” version of NOT-exactly-history-class textbook and oversimplifies and over-condenses everything, they are still mentioned there.

As for “invasions” of NK, India and VietNam, I wouldn’t laugh so hard at the “moral redundancy and hypocrisy” had it not been coming from the one country which has sponsored and perpetrated far more wars and invasions and terrorist groups (Taliban included) than any other in the last 60 years. Now you are gonna argue: How could you equal the total oblivion of the invasions by the Chinese to the way US textbooks acknowledge all the wars US has waged and mongered? Well, first of all, wars Chinese were involved in weren’t neglected. Even in the little textbook you linked to, Korean war was there, just not the way you want it to be told. Second, no way the wars China or US were involved in could be called equal. If the US doesn’t want to be “portrayed” in a negative light, here’s an idea: don’t start as many wars.

July 12, 2007 @ 4:13 am | Comment

@pmw:

The Russian navy worked our Atlantic coast for 40 years with fishing boats, light warships and subs. The PLAAF pilot over Hainan was ordered to deliberately rammed the US plane so that the PLA could salvage the eavesdropping gear and make it look like an “accident”.

“As for “invasions” of NK, India and VietNam, I wouldn’t laugh so hard at the “moral redundancy and hypocrisy” had it not been coming from the one country which has sponsored and perpetrated far more wars and invasions and terrorist groups (Taliban included)…blah blah”

Add to that southern Mongolia, unflinching support of the mass murdering Kim family, Pol Pot, Nepalese and Indian Maoists, Myanmar’s junta, nuke proliferation to Pakistan, NK and Iran as well as supporting the Iraqi civil war and Taliban not to bring peace but just to cause problems for the US.

Oh yeah, Darfur.

July 12, 2007 @ 6:25 am | Comment

@nanheyangrouchuan,
I have learned better than to respond to your kind, but in case I was wrong, let’s have another shot at letting you change my mind, about the credibility of what comes out of your mouth:

For all the allegations you throw out there, do you actually have any sources to back them up? If what you said as-a-matter-of-factly about the PLAAF pilot taking orders to ram your spy plane, I could imagine only a PLA insider, high-ranking officer no less, can have access to such highly classified information. How did you get a sniff of that and wield it as truth? I have a theory, which is that you are just pulling it out of your arse. But I’m open to your interpretation.

Russian trawlers (which actually bothered to disguise their spy mission)?

Inner Mongolia? You know what, if it were a different person without the kind of track record like your own, I would have attempted to venture a different POV. But I deem that pointless if all the other party has to do is to make stuff up. Until then.

July 12, 2007 @ 7:14 am | Comment

I have presented plenty of evidence on this board before regarding a big war between the PRC and the USSR in the 60s over Mongolia. 500,000 soldiers died, mostly PRC, because their weaving, big wave attacks did not work on open fields were Russian armor and air cut the PLA to pieces.

July 12, 2007 @ 8:32 am | Comment

“””””””And just for the sake of “spreading a little knowledge”, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution are recognized as great blunders of the party and its leadership, both in official historical record and in textbooks.”””””” PMW, Blunder? BLUNDER??? Looks like YOU bin spun. Yeah they mention it and they try to pass it off as a “blunder” of sorts, HAH! And I se it has really worked, sigh, oh boy… Lets say the Nazis killed like 6 million Jews as some kind of odd scape goat ideal. Now multiply that by a whole bunch and you’ll will have a clue as to how many and on what scale of sick devilish brutality the CCP has the CCP has killed and tortured. Nazis did all of one sicko campaign in their time, as far as I know. The CCP has carried out campaign after psycho “In the name of the nation” self serving paranoid campaigns against the rights of Chinese people, m’k.. Now, lets say the nazi party was still in power and was humming along with a 9% GDP growth,,, would you sit back and lap up tales of the holocaust being some kind of Ooops, BLUNDER??? Oh ooops I went insane and lied to the people of the biggest nation and convinced them that killing was the way to paradise, oh oops Im an evil propagandist, so I can keep my job right? Pardon the sarcasm PMW, but it seems you have no idea. If CR and GLF etc were “blunders” then how come they are doing it over and over again this time against FgAoLnUgN? Did you not know that the CCP philosophy propagates the necessity for repeated cycles of violence against certain groups in order to fabricate some terror induced “harmony” All in the pursuit of molding a society that the party can suck and control.

July 12, 2007 @ 10:28 am | Comment

“””””””And just for the sake of “spreading a little knowledge”, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution are recognized as great blunders of the party and its leadership, both in official historical record and in textbooks.””””””

PMW,

Blunder? BLUNDER??? Looks like YOU bin spun.

Yeah they mention it and they try to pass it off as a “blunder” of sorts, HAH! And I se it has really worked, sigh, oh boy…

Lets say the Nazis killed like 6 million Jews as some kind of odd scape goat ideal. Now multiply that by a whole bunch and you’ll will have a clue as to how many and on what scale of sick devilish brutality the CCP has the CCP has killed and tortured.

Nazis did all of one sicko campaign in their time, as far as I know. The CCP has carried out campaign after psycho “In the name of the nation” self serving paranoid campaigns against the rights of Chinese people, m’k..

Now, lets say the nazi party was still in power and was humming along with a 9% GDP growth,,, would you sit back and lap up tales of the holocaust being some kind of Ooops, BLUNDER??? Oh ooops I went insane and lied to the people of the biggest nation and convinced them that killing was the way to paradise, oh oops Im an evil propagandist, so I can keep my job right?

Pardon the sarcasm PMW, but it seems you have no idea.

If CR and GLF etc were “blunders” then how come they are doing it over and over again this time against FgAoLnUgN? Did you not know that the CCP philosophy propagates the necessity for repeated cycles of violence against certain groups in order to fabricate some terror induced “harmony” All in the pursuit of molding a society that the party can suck and control.

July 12, 2007 @ 10:33 am | Comment

snow:
which part of “They are still spinning it somehow and not taking up the full responsibility” did you miss?

I’m not trying to excuse either the great leap forward or the cultural revolution, nor to tone down the severity. If the word “blunder” threw you off, my bad. I assume you know Chinese and you know what’s said officially. Blunder, mistake, whatever. It IS recognized. As to how they’ve compensated for those mistakes or how they’ve tried to avert such events in terms of reforming the system, they did a pretty shitty job at it. But does that mean twisting facts about CCP’s history education/propaganda is justified? That’s what I’ve been contending with. I don’t mind the CCP bashing at all. Thing is, when you get people thinking the CCP has to “nurture” hatred toward the Americans, you are getting it wrong! And my personal view is that people delude themselves into that kind of thinking just because blaming the CCP is a more convenient alternative to actual thinking and fact checking. Wouldn’t it serve you better, even just for the sake of CCP bashing, if you get your facts straight?

I’m not gonna get into FLG with you, as I can see that is your sweet spot on which I clearly have different views and don’t consider FLG to be of much similarity with the past political movements. Unless you want a separate debate on that, I’ll refrain from commenting on anything FLG related.

July 12, 2007 @ 11:29 am | Comment

“Thing is, when you get people thinking the CCP has to “nurture” hatred toward the Americans, you are getting it wrong!”

Really? I’ve lived in America and I’ve lived in China. I’m not American and I’m not Chinese. In America you can hear, read, and reflect on opinions across the whole spectrum from panda-huggers to China bashers. Viewpoints are balanced.

No such balance exists in the minds of China’s population; there is a virtually wall-to-wall, blinkered, unquestioning view of America based on the nationalistic posturing of the state media and an education system that ostracises any attempt to introduce alternative ideas to those presented in laughable ‘history’ textbooks.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, pmw (Party Member Wannabee?)

July 12, 2007 @ 1:13 pm | Comment

“That is exactly the kind of answer I was expecting. For those who “educate” me that way, my impression is that they are ready to buy whatever the Pentagon sells them”

As opposed to what? What the always truthful never self-serving CCP claims? In the west, there is a free press that can investigate and publish news without having to parrot a party line. They are far more reliable than ANYTHING coming out of China.

“And then a great piece from the UK, who has no conflict of interest and is always liable to tell an unbiased story. They don’t twist things to fit their needs, right?”

While you may find the occassional exception, generally, no.

“Honestly, if China bombed a US embassy, offered apology and whatever “they claim” to be the explanation, you think there’s gonna be any less Chinese hatred from the American public?”

Yes. I am absolutetly certain of it. Throughout the Cold war the US was involved in hot and cold, large and small military action around the world and, despite the occassional nutbag with a rock, people did not come out in huge mobs vandalize the embassys of our adversaries. We consider it uncivilized.

“If Chinese spy planes routinely fly by the Oregon or Florida coast, you think the US is gonna respect their “right” to “international airspace”?”

Yes. There are plenty of pictures of American planes keeping watch over Soviet spy planes just outside of US airspace. I don’t have a lot of time right now. Do your own research and look them up yourself.

” (Even in the little textbook you linked to, Korean war was there, just not the way you want it to be told. ”

DUH! That way it’s told matters! And the Chinese don’t tell the truth about it at all. They don’t even attempt to. One trip to the Korean War exhibit in the military museum in Beijing will tell you that! The sasme could be said of every military act the Chinese have written into their history since 1949.

“Second, no way the wars China or US were involved in could be called equal. ”

I agree. Our support for South Korea ultimately yielded a prosperous democracy while Chinese support for the North has yielded one of the most wretched barbaric regimes in history. While mainland Chinese were starving and murdering each other during the GLF and CR, Taiwan industrialized under American protection from the mainland. And let’s not get into WWII. Does the US have a bad track record in Latin America and Southeast Asia? Yeah. But it’s so much better than the Soviet and Chinese track record worldwide. Even now, every human rights abusing dictator in the world from North KOrea to Zimbabwe can count on Chinese support and aid. There is no way that China could match the good the US has done in the world.

If the US doesn’t want to be “portrayed” in a negative light, here’s an idea: don’t start as many wars.

Here, I might agree with you.

July 12, 2007 @ 1:16 pm | Comment

Sinasource asked Richard:

“Are you one of those foreign men…trolling for a young Chinese lass…”

No. No he isn’t. (Ivan falls over laughing hysterically….)

July 12, 2007 @ 1:27 pm | Comment

I second 88’s post. Wasn’t Cheney’s name one of the signatures on that “attack Iraq” letter to Clinton while he was in the Oval Office?

I think so, Sonagi. And even if Cheney wasn’t one of the PNAC sigantories, it’s still quite a stretch for Fallows to go from “Lynne Cheney considered China a threat” to ” “Only 9/11 prevented a Sino-US war”. I mean, talk about leaps of logic!

@Sinosource: Richard is one of the nicest and most tolerant political forum moderators around. And no need for the pearl-clutching – Ivan is probably the last man to be afflicted by Yellow Fever.

@Ivan: I’m thankful you’ve made the Burton-Taylor part of the reincarnation mercifully short. You’re pretty fucking wierd, you know that? But I guess all the best ones are. I’m glad you’re back.

Please bash away at Obama! The hagiography from fawning reporters is getting to be nauseating. He’s practically become the Dem version of Fred Thompson, only prettier. (Well, to be fair, A LOT prettier.)

I still don’t get why you insist on spitting out the word “feminism” with such vitriol, though. Feminism itself is not the problem. The problem is with the ideas that both mainstream feminists and so-called radical feminists (although, is there any different between the two nowadays?) have fed to the public and to the students.

But nevermind. I’m going to stop now lest Raj smacks me with the moderator mallet.

July 12, 2007 @ 1:31 pm | Comment

P.S. I think this would be a fun drinking game: Every time a thread descends into a frenzy of “tu quoque” arguments (btw, why is the example always America and not, say, Switzerland, as if America is the world’s lone arbiter of morality?) everyone takes a drink. We’d be plastered in no time and all the better for it.

July 12, 2007 @ 1:42 pm | Comment

@Matt Schiavenza

nanheyangrouchuan is associated with Xinjiang Uyghur Islamic extremist organization and is a descendent of Indian Dalits father and Uyghur mother. His parents had been persecuted by CCP. That is why he is on a mission 24×7 to bash China.

@nanheyangrouchuan
Chinalawblog and PekingDuck are really balanced blog sites on issues related to China. Why don?t you spend your time at blogs dedicated to China like http://www.saynotochina.org and http://www.notmadeinchina.org rather than making static noise at this serious blogs site.

July 12, 2007 @ 3:02 pm | Comment

@Sinosource: And now that you’ve said your piece, kindly fuck off, you nasty little bitch.

(And don’t you dare protest my rudeness, after you’ve basically called Richard a pederast.)

July 12, 2007 @ 3:56 pm | Comment

Nausicaa, Ivan et. al., thanks for the support, but I had to delete SinaSource’s incredibly personal and slanderous comments. I think everyone can see why I don’t want him here. With that last comment he revealed his true self, and it’s pretty sickening. Of course, he will be back every day as usual to pursue his obsession.

I’m in Taipei now, will get back to active blogging after the weekend.

July 12, 2007 @ 4:26 pm | Comment

@stuart:
Did you see me denying CCP’s propaganda? No I didn’t. Do I like China’s current state of media and press control? No! Would I prefer American’s current system to China’s? You bet I would. Do I think American’s system is producing an unbiased or balanced narrative, especially regarding international politics? Not at all. -Maybe more on that later.

I’ve lived in America and I’ve lived in China. I’m not American but I am Chinese. On the other hand I have plenty of friends who are ethnic Chinese but hold either American citizenship or green cards. In America THEY too can hear, read, and reflect on opinions across the whole spectrum from panda-huggers to China bashers. Yet most of them were extremely outraged at the embassy bombing, as was evidenced by the numerous protests of overseas Chinese throughout the world, both before and after Clinton apologized. And not a small fraction of them were actually quite supportive of the student’s action in Beijing.

So what are we suggesting, that the CCP’s anti-American propaganda is a) long-lasting even after you leave the country b) far-reaching no matter where you are? Or c) the Chinese simply can’t form another opinion except for the one fed by their government? Or d) if your country (even for those Chinese American citizens) gets constantly bullied, you naturally develop dislike toward the bully?

You are giving the CCP too much credit for a) and b). If your choice is c), what is the point of trying to install a wider freedom of speech and press in China? Where is the hope of a democratic China if the immediate outlook is someone like Hitler gets voted on with 95% of the votes?(Yeah, if you think the Chinese feed on hatred or state propaganda, more than likely they’ll turn into the third Reich once the country is semi-democratized).

I for one, as a Chinese, would love to see a faster pace of political reform and less media control. Hey– are you already thinking a Chinese guy just tossed that out before he makes an excuse for his government next?
Well, here’s to not disappoint you:

One, I still maintain that Chinese people in general harbor resentment toward the US, not because of CCP’s propaganda, but more because of what the US does to China. It’s really has more to do with us being Chinese and being human than us being communists or being ruled by communists.

Two, off my original point, the only way (more precisely the most practical way) I see China change toward greater freedom of speech and democracy, save for bloodshed or extreme social upheaval, is through the economic push and from the party within. A confrontational approach most likely is not gonna work, unless we don’t mind war. The last time in China a ruling figure gave up power voluntarily was Sun Yat San, and he immediately resorted to military after things didn’t go as he planned. So expecting the CCP to abolish itself just isn’t gonna happen any time soon. Could there be a Chinese Gorbachov? Maybe, but I think the Chinese already heeded what happened to the fallen Soviet. However there’s a lot of possibility with different factions(or interest groups) jostling for more power within the party. You can already see improvements just by listening to the party propaganda. The right to private property is incorporated in the constitution. Capitalists are no longer excluded from the ‘party’ (which you might consider a regress but I deem it a progress). Social disparity and environment problem are pushed higher on the priority list. It’s painfully slow I know, but I fail to see a good alternative.

And, please, save the ad hominem.

July 12, 2007 @ 4:30 pm | Comment

Hey, The Iron Buddha,

you have some good points and I’d love to respond now, but I desperately need a good night’s sleep after a long day. Hope you don’t mind me getting back to you later.

July 12, 2007 @ 4:37 pm | Comment

@pmw

my point wasn’t that the us behaves brilliantly, but that china also commits atrocities and then lies about it. my point wasn’t that the chinese people all hate the us, but that the govt encourages this and lies in its textbooks. criticising others for things you yourself have done, whilst pretending you haven’t (my key point) and repressing the truth then teaching these lies to children in order that they hate is totally hypocritical and morally redundant.

i was surprised by your attack on the guardian given that it is (a) extremely reputable and (b) supported your argument

i also feel your attack on the textbook is irrelevant as (a) they are not experimental, they are now being put out nationwide and (b) i never said they were history books. i put them up as an example of anti-us propaganda as supported by the govt and challenged z to find examples that supported his/her argument. he/she has not replied.

i agree with your point about the us should avoid starting wars in order to improve their reputation. nevertheless, it is irrelevant to the point i was trying to make.

July 12, 2007 @ 4:57 pm | Comment

You are giving the CCP too much credit for a) and b).

And you are underestimating the effects of good propaganda.

One, I still maintain that Chinese people in general harbor resentment toward the US, not because of CCP’s propaganda, but more because of what the US does to China.

Besides the embassy bombing, what HAS the U.S. done to China in recent years that is so atrocious and deserving of acrimony? (Unless you’re reaching back to Yuanmingyuan and that tale of woe.)

the only way (more precisely the most practical way) I see China change toward greater freedom of speech and democracy, save for bloodshed or extreme social upheaval, is through the economic push and from the party within

The theory of democratization through economic liberalization has already been disproven. But yes, I agree that change in China will likely occur from the top down.

I think the Chinese already heeded what happened to the fallen Soviet.

False dilemma here.

The right to private property is incorporated in the constitution.

Sure, but you’re not going to win any argument by bringing up the Chinese constitution. China has a constitution, but so did the Soviet Union, and the bottom line is that that a Constitution is not a constitution if it is not constitutionalist.

Capitalists are no longer excluded from the ‘party’.

They never were. Most of the Party nomenklatura were kleptocrats, and the kleptocrat is the worst kind of capitalist.

It’s painfully slow I know, but I fail to see a good alternative.

Please, never let others accuse the Chinese of a lack of imagination.

July 12, 2007 @ 5:50 pm | Comment

Maybe it’s too late but since Sinasource is into personal attacks I”d like relay the following messages about Sinasource’s mom to him:

Yo mama so fat when her beeper goes off, people thought she was backing up

Yo mama so fat she went to the movies and sat next to everyone

Yo mama so fat she was floating in the ocean and Zheng He thought he discovered America

Yo mama so fat when she wears a yellow raincoat, people said “Taxi!”

Yo mama so fat when she tripped over on 4th Ave, she landed on 12th

pmw,

no sweat. sleep well.

July 12, 2007 @ 6:02 pm | Comment

edited

July 12, 2007 @ 9:19 pm | Comment

SinaSource, stop playing your gender game. It doesn’t work and you’re so boring …. YAWN … bedtime …

July 13, 2007 @ 2:06 am | Comment

I think that what you said below applies to what you said, only I think that as a Chinese, a business person and anyone who wants to fit in it’s WAAAY easier and WAAAY more convenient to follow the party line without searching for the truth, cause as you would have to admit, calling the CCP on its crimes will get you into a lot of pain and suffering, its just terrible.

“””””” Unless you want a separate debate on that, I’ll refrain from commenting on anything FLG related.”””””””

“””””””And my personal view is that people delude themselves into that kind of thinking just because blaming the CCP is a ???more??? convenient alternative to actual thinking and fact checking. Wouldn’t it serve you better, even just for the sake of CCP bashing, if you get your facts straight?””””””””

What does this have to do with War with China? Well whats convenient and provides immediate gratification like ignoring FgAoLnUgN and all sorts of CCP but kissing blindfold moves will ease ones conscience for awhile but its worthless, ignorance is no excuse and a country who sells its conscience will not be strong in a fight.

July 13, 2007 @ 2:29 am | Comment

“As opposed to what? What the always truthful never self-serving CCP claims? In the west, there is a free press that can investigate and publish news without having to parrot a party line. They are far more reliable than ANYTHING coming out of China.”

Nobody’s asking you to buy CCP’s claims. But the Pentagon’s ‘explanation’ is clearly wrong in this case. Why do you have to defend that? What gets me even more is that for some people, whether “outdated map” or “by deliberation”, it makes no difference to them, and they feel it should make no difference to the Chinese either — How can they get angry? We only bombed one of your diplomatic facilities and killed 3 of your country men, chill out, shit happens.

“Yes. I am absolutetly certain of it. Throughout the Cold war the US was involved in hot and cold, large and small military action around the world and, despite the occassional nutbag with a rock, people did not come out in huge mobs vandalize the embassys of our adversaries. We consider it uncivilized.”
I’ll give you that.

“Yes. There are plenty of pictures of American planes keeping watch over Soviet spy planes just outside of US airspace. I don’t have a lot of time right now. Do your own research and look them up yourself.”
I tend to give you that too. I looked but couldn’t find anything. Maybe you could point me where.
Either way, have you considered the context? You were in the freaking cold war! As you said, the Soviet was your adversary. The US was doing the exact same things to the Soviets as they were to you. What the heck has the Chinese done to you? Last time I checked, no Chinese military plane has ever flown even remotely close to US borders, or fire missles.

The ‘large and small military action around the world’, how much of that was started by the US? What’s to get pissed about if your military targets get hit in wars (which we shall call military actions) you are involved in? Why would you equal what happened to the Chinese embassy bombing? When the US embassies or a US navy ship were attacked, you call them terrorists. The last time 3 US buildings were attacked, you guys waged TWO wars. Granted nobody knew if your government were really in it to revenge the attack, but the American public supported the wars. When the US does it though, it’s either ‘oops’ or ‘you deserved it’.

Come to think of it, if I were American, I probably won’t get really ‘uncivilized’ at an attack ON the US if there are enough nutbags in the white house and the pentagon to turn whichever country lauched the attack into a hell hole. I don’t condone the violence of the Beijing students, but I thought it might have occurred to people that throwing rocks at windows is way more civilized than bombing the hell out of a country. Between your broken window panes and the loss of Chinese lives and bombed embassy, yeah, the Americans had it pretty ‘civil’.

And the nice little ‘repeated’ apology Clinton made? Please excuse the Chinese if they don’t appreciate your sincerity. Even in a traffic accident you get manslaughter for that. EVEN IF the bombing was a mistake, was it ever mentioned to find out the culprit and dole out whatever proper punishment? Some apology.

Once again, back to my original point. I thought it’s pretty obvious but now I have to rephrase. Now I can only TRY to raise your awareness, that maybe, just maybe, the doings of the US government were enough reason for the Chinese to hate America. Were all the anti-US protests and riots in Korea and Japan all products of their government’s ‘nurturing’ of anti-US sentiment? The CCP propaganda has little to do with it. On the other hand, they’ve been quite apt at covering up some acts of the Americans. Not many people knew the US has been flying routine reconn missions near our border until April 2001. The government also gets a lot of criticism for kissing up to the US and making huge concessions to the US during the WTO negotiations. There were a lot of ‘fair trade with the US’ shit spewed on TV and papers to soothe people’s concern about possible crushing of domestic industry and agriculture after foreign companies entry.

July 13, 2007 @ 8:29 am | Comment

It doesn’t matter what you say to China, what you do China that doesn’t make it rich or powerful is “evil” and what they do to you is “what you deserve”.

Let China wallow in its self-victimization, self-pity and self-disallusionment.

July 13, 2007 @ 8:43 am | Comment

One last piece of advice for Sinasource and then I’m done:

The next time you choose to whine about sexism, make sure you aren’t being a, you know, homophobic ass.

P.S. Double X chromosomes don’t make you a beautiful unique snowflake. More than a few posters here are card-carrying members of the Estrogen Brigade.

July 13, 2007 @ 11:10 am | Comment

The post earlier was addressed
@The Iron Buddha,
and it continues below.

“DUH! That way it’s told matters! And the Chinese don’t tell the truth about it at all. They don’t even attempt to. One trip to the Korean War exhibit in the military museum in Beijing will tell you that! The sasme could be said of every military act the Chinese have written into their history since 1949.”
I would believe you’ve seen many cases of CCP not telling the truth, but you aren’t showing any evidences. And in the case of Si, the links he provided are just bad examples. Take the ‘entirely fictitious account of the Korean war’ for instance, what’s so fictitious about it? Was it that NK asked for Chinese intervention, or is it that US had bombed the Chinese side of the border, or was it the presence of the 7th fleet in the Taiwan strait? Most of the stuff in that link was acknowledged by both sides.

“Second, no way the wars China or US were involved in could be called equal. ”
I thought we were on waging wars and then you got into occupations.
“I agree. Our support for South Korea ultimately yielded a prosperous democracy while Chinese support for the North has yielded one of the most wretched barbaric regimes in history. While mainland Chinese were starving and murdering each other during the GLF and CR, Taiwan industrialized under American protection from the mainland.”
I think the Americans are just too full of themselves. The economic miracles of SK and Taiwan were achieved under authoratarian rule. Their ‘prosperous democracy’ wasn’t in place until after their econony boom. In the case of Taiwan, it actually started by Chiang Kaishek copying the CCP’s land policy. Does the credit go to CCP? Of course not. But do you really think it goes to the US protection/support? The NK regime sure is wretched barbaric, but is your ally Saudi any less so? How did the support go there? It’s not like the Chinese or the Soviet stationed army in NK to be responsible for the fuckup jobs the Kims have done. Same way the Chinese should be responsible for their own fuckups and the Soviets theirs.

” And let’s not get into WWII.”
And why the heck not? US remained neutral until Pearl Harbor, 10 years after Japan took Manchuria from China, 4 years after their full scale invasion of China, 2 years after Hitler was brutalizing Europe. The US-Japan trade of strategic materials didn’t stop until a few months before Pearl Harbor. While I greatly appreciate the US participation in WWII and facilitation to the eventual defeat of Japan and Germany, and most Chinese deem the US army the greatest force in the WWII, forgive me if I point out that your participation was to protect and promote your own interest, and not because of the Holocaust or the kind of horrible acts committed by the Japanese. Your involvement helped lots of people, that doesn’t mean your war machine is a good will ambassador and certainly doesn’t justify the wars you wage later on.

“Does the US have a bad track record in Latin America and Southeast Asia? Yeah. But it’s so much better than the Soviet and Chinese track record worldwide.” Why don’t we leave the Soviet out of it, and count how many wars/military acts the Chinese have been involved in since WWII?

“Even now, every human rights abusing dictator in the world from North KOrea to Zimbabwe can count on Chinese support and aid.”
Is it a coincidence that every ‘human rights abusing dictator’ is hostile toward the US and by and by everyone hostile toward the US is labeled a ‘human rights abusing dictator’? Did it stop the US from selling weapons to both sides of the Iran-Iraq war or was the human rights condition much better in the 80s there than now? Was Saddam a human rights abusing dictator before he soured on US? Did the Saudi royal family’s abusing of human rights stop the US from befriending it?
Were Chiang Kaishek, Rhee Syngman, Park Chung Hee, Chun Doo-hwan not human rights abusing dictators? Pinochet? Allende? Chavez? Let’s face it, it’s never about human rights, it’s about whether it fit’s the US need or not. When the US see it fit, they could install parties like Saddam’s Baath into power. What’s Gitmo and the arbitrary interpretation of Geneva convention, human rights observing?

“There is no way that China could match the good the US has done in the world. ”
I never argued that with you. I was merely saying, there’s no way China could match the wars and the bad the US has brought upon the rest of the world. And that’s not even the point. I’ve been saying, the US action itself is enough material for hatred toward your country.

July 13, 2007 @ 11:15 am | Comment

@nausicca

“Besides the embassy bombing, what HAS the U.S. done to China in recent years that is so atrocious and deserving of acrimony? (Unless you’re reaching back to Yuanmingyuan and that tale of woe.)”
You mean besides arming Taiwan, funding and training the militants of Tibetan separatists, funding the Xinjiang separatists, installing TMD around China, blocking China’s entry into WTO, blocking Beijing’s 2000 Olympic bid, the Yinhe ship incident, bombing the embassy, the constant display of military might and blatant spy planes on Chinese border, and knocking down Chinese plane? No, not much I can think of.

Besides, why isn’t the loss of lives alone enough reason for outrage? The same thing happens to America, and it would already have been called an act of terrorism.

“The theory of democratization through economic liberalization has already been disproven. But yes, I agree that change in China will likely occur from the top down.”
Korea, Taiwan.

“Sure, but you’re not going to win any argument by bringing up the Chinese constitution. China has a constitution, but so did the Soviet Union, and the bottom line is that that a Constitution is not a constitution if it is not constitutionalist.”
Thanks for the encouragement. Much appreciated.
And what exactly constitutes a constitutionalist’s constitution? Does a country suffice where the vice president convinces you he’s not part of the executive branch?

“It’s painfully slow I know, but I fail to see a good alternative.
Please, never let others accuse the Chinese of a lack of imagination.”
It’s never about the imagination, or the lack thereof, is it?

July 13, 2007 @ 11:46 am | Comment

I had no idea we blocked China’s entry into the WTO and funded Xinjiang terrorists. I could have sworn China belonged to the WTO, and that the US rather idiotically agreed with China post-911 that the Uigher activists are “terrorists.”

July 13, 2007 @ 12:03 pm | Comment

China’s effort to enter the WTO began in the 1980’s, when it was in the form of GATT. So you are right, US didn’t block China’s entry for like 20 years.

US didn’t fund them? 9-11 indeed changed everything.
And what’s wrong with calling the ‘activists’ terrorists who would blow up buses loaded with people in Beijing?

July 13, 2007 @ 12:15 pm | Comment

“While I greatly appreciate the US participation in WWII and facilitation to the eventual defeat of Japan and Germany…”

Participation? You are developing a naughty sense of humour – Ivan will be pleased.

Without American intervention there would have been no victory over Germany in Europe or Japan in Asia. The Chinese view that the brave resistance had a smidgen of outside support is infuriating.

China was getting shafted and the communists were holding back while the Kuomintang bravely did what they could against a superior force. Valiant though this effort was, no America, no victory. Period.

And don’t respond with all that “self-interest” crap. Take a good look at Germany and Japan today: successful developed economies that have retained their sense of national identity. Oh yes, and they present a threat to no-one.

July 13, 2007 @ 12:17 pm | Comment

“… ‘activists’ terrorists who would blow up buses loaded with people in Beijing?”

Have they done that? Did I miss something? Are they terrorists because of the things propaganda tells you they might be capable of doing but have not carried out?

More nonsense.

July 13, 2007 @ 12:22 pm | Comment

What convinced you that Japan poses no threat to anyone, their history, or the 2nd largest navy in the world, the 2nd largest military budget in the world, or the largest per capita military?

Did you notice even when at the height of the Pacific warfare more than half of Japan’s Army were still in China? I’m not saying the Chinese were definitely going to win, neither that the US and Soviet didn’t help greatly. But I beg to differ if you think they are destined to lose.

And say what you will about the shit job CCP did in the late 50’s to 70’s, but if you are talking about their holding back against the Japanese, did the Japanese just let them? You could go and check records from the Japanese side, since 1939 never less than half of the Japanese military operations and personnel were invested in areas where there’s no KMT presence. The number was as high as 70% after the pacific war started. OK, whatever the communists say are lies, but go and check how the Japanese documented it. It can only be the Chinese people swindled by the communists propaganda, but the free West has no such thing as propaganda and/or you are just immune to that.

July 13, 2007 @ 12:49 pm | Comment

@stuart,

1997, Beijing.
And a lot more such incidents in Xinjiang.

The ‘propaganda’ actually tries to hide all such kind of incidents, because of the ‘stability’ bullshit.

But no, that can’t have happened. All Tibetan and Uigher ‘activists’ are peace loving non-violent decent human beings. There’s no such thing as a West propaganda.

July 13, 2007 @ 12:54 pm | Comment

pmw-

That was a response straight out of the party handbook. I think we touched a nerve, which is not very difficult with the super-fragile sensitivities invoked by Chinese nationalism.

When will we ever hear an honest, objective, self-critical view of Chinese history from the Chinese themselves? I long for the day; it would be the greatest sign of civilisation for 5000 years, at which point, ironically, the 5000 years myth would necessarily get debunked.

July 13, 2007 @ 1:01 pm | Comment

“I could have sworn China belonged to the WTO, and that the US rather idiotically agreed with China post-911 that the Uigher activists are “terrorists.”

And Corporate George still holds that line despite the LAPD catching the PLA smuggling anti-aircraft missiles into the port of LA, among other nefarious deeds.

Maybe Uyghur freedom fighters wouldn’t have the need to blow up buses if the PLA wouldn’t commit atrocities like the Gulja massacre.

biting my lip….

July 13, 2007 @ 1:07 pm | Comment

To go off-topic for just a moment:

Without American intervention there would have been no victory over Germany in Europe or Japan in Asia.

Japan, certainly. But Europe, very debatable. The Soviets were far more instrumental in the European theater.

July 13, 2007 @ 1:36 pm | Comment

Nausicaa, I don’t entirely agree. Yes, the Russians would have won without us, but the Normandy invasion forced Germany to fight a suicidal war on two massive fronts, greatly accelerating the collapse of the world’s most evil empire ever. So the US role in Europe was of huge significance. Declaring war on the US is often referred to as the worst blunder Hitler ever made, along with the decision to sacrifice the Sixth Army in Stalingrad.

July 13, 2007 @ 2:56 pm | Comment

@stuart,

Sorry I wasn’t aware the Japanese historical records were part of the almighty party handbook.

“When will we ever hear an honest, objective, self-critical view of Chinese history from the Chinese themselves? I long for the day”
Guess that won’t happen before their ‘view’ matches yours.
You really long for that day? How about you start treating the Chinese people with just a tiny bit of respect?
I wonder this, what about those so called “Chinese dissidents” that the West in general think so highly of? Did any of them ever give you “an honest, objective, self-critical view of Chinese history”? Or is it only when they speak lines that fit into your rhetoric that they have a functioning free-thinking brain, otherwise they are just infected with the Communist propaganda?

July 13, 2007 @ 4:23 pm | Comment

edited

July 13, 2007 @ 4:25 pm | Comment

Oh dear. Do I have to spell it out? When I said, “drop your pants”, it was a reminder of how you can’t ever be sure about someone’s gender over the internet. And some prior trolls here have lied about their gender and their identities, over and over again, to the point of obsessive pyschosis.

Not to mention that one of them really did have a habit of dropping his pants.

July 13, 2007 @ 4:31 pm | Comment

Sinasource, I urge you to read the legend on my homepage. Here’s what it says:

“A peculiar hybrid of personal journal, dilettantish punditry, pseudo-philosophy and much more, from an Accidental Expat…”

You see, I have never, ever called myself a “China expert.” To the contrary, I admit to being strictly an amateur and a dilettante. I write about what interests me, with no pretenses and no claims of being anything more than an ignorant blogger. Why you continually come here day after day to taunt me for being something I am not (a self-declared China expert) is baffling, but as I’ve said, I know that obsessed people don’t have control over their compulsions and obsessions. I’ve seen it before.

Anyway, I hope this has given you some perspective on who I am and what this site is about. Oh, and just one more thing: Go fuck yourself.

Richard

July 13, 2007 @ 4:39 pm | Comment

Sorry Ivan, I had to edit our friend’s comment. He really brings back memories…

July 13, 2007 @ 4:49 pm | Comment

Yeah, Richard, I guess I really hit a nerve when I asked him to drop his pants… 🙂 And his immediate assumption that the main reason for Western men to go to China is to exploit young Chinese girls, also looks like “protesting too much”, if you see what I mean…

July 13, 2007 @ 5:22 pm | Comment

pmw,

Japanese historical records also quoted significantly less number of murders during the Nanjing Massacre. I suppose you don’t have any objection to their account of this part of WWII history either.

In any case, what makes you think that the Japanese account of WWII is more trustworthy than that of independent scholars trained in the Western academic tradition? Is it because these scholars’ versions do not fit into your propaganda induced free-thinking mind?

July 13, 2007 @ 5:25 pm | Comment

Yes, SinaSource. I am a fraud, it’s true. I am an idiot and a liar. All true. When did I ever say otherwise?

Richard

July 13, 2007 @ 7:26 pm | Comment

SinaSource, as far as I know, all you’re doing is accusing Richard of posting uninformed opinion on China. But you failed to convince me HOW uninformed Richard is? What is wrong with his posting?

Why do I have to trust your assessment? Is it because you call yourself “SinaSource”?

If you want to cast racist dispersion just for the fun of doing it, then you have come to the wrong place. Why don’t you move over to Times China Blog and you can have real fun with some like-minded trolls.

By the way, just to remind you and other readers that there are some real native-speakers of Chinese here who geniunely respect Richard for the quality of his postings.

July 13, 2007 @ 8:04 pm | Comment

Wow. Sinasource’s obsession is beginning to remind me of this old classic from 1985:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=A5C1Eq4dPnE

July 13, 2007 @ 8:36 pm | Comment

@Fat Cat,
I thought it’s a commonly known rule of thumb, but maybe not. Anyone is liable to lie, but their degree of motivation, the cost and benefit of lying, may differ. Would a larger number of civilian killing, or the 731 unit make the Japanese look bad? Yes and absolutely yes, and that’s their motivation for lying toward a smaller number, so you take a larger grain of salt with their account in this regard. Would lying about their war effort and resource distribution in different parts of China benefit them in anyway? Not that obvious to me, so I take their account in this regard with a smaller grain of salt.

Another example, would the Chinese lie about the Chinese/US casualty in the Korean war? Exaggerating the US loss and minimizing their own would demonstrate their military power and boost morale, but minimizing your own too much probably can’t show how bad the US is (I have no doubt they were very willing to paint the capitalist/imperialist US in a unfavorable light), so it’s kind of a mixed bag, but I think the first factor wins out by a lot, so when taking the CCP’s number, you have a pretty good idea which side they could err on. Same thing applies to the number from the US. When numbers from the two sides roughly agree, they are more likely to be true, when they differ, you know it has to be somewhere in between. It’s an oversimplified description, but you get the gist.

Regarding ‘independent’ scholars. You made it sound like the CCP’s or the Japanese narratives are entirely different from theirs. The CCP rarely fought large scale battles against the Japanese. (Pingxingguan and 100 Regiment were kind of large scale). , but not exactly the kind of positional war KMT is famous for fighting and losing). The CCP worked mostly guerrilla warfare. They mostly operated outside the presence of KMT troops. Their large scale ops weren’t as successful as the guerrilla wars, which should be obvious given their quality and quantity (or lacking) of weapons. The KMT ambushed and almost wiped out the entire unit of the New Fourth Army, outside the Japanese occupation area. They expanded their forces and territory through the war (the numbers weren’t monotonically increasing, btw). And as much as the communist military had grown, their number and equipment were still far inferior to the KMT army when the Japanese surrendered. Their troop didn’t exceed one quarter of KMT’s until a year after….
All these are pretty much facts recognized by all sides and later historians.

What isn’t researched a lot (by the west) is how much force the Japanese devoted into their occupation area, and the small patches of communist guerrilla areas within. The CCP has huge incentive to promote such research and even exaggerate the number. But their claim is largely corroborated by the Japanese record, and most of the (though limited) research by western “independent scholars”. If the Japanese had motivation to give more than fair credit to the guerrilla warfare and the CCP, then it’s absolutely reasonable to doubt their record. But I haven’t seen any half plausible theory as to why the Japanese would do that, so my commie propaganda infested mind tends to accept their numbers with a healthy level of confidence.

July 14, 2007 @ 12:09 pm | Comment

Fat Cat, I can’t tell you how happy I am to see you back here. We really missed you.

July 14, 2007 @ 12:32 pm | Comment

“The CCP … mostly operated outside the presence of KMT troops.”

Correction: they mostly operated outside the presence of Japanese troops.

http://sdcc17.ucsd.edu/~twan/Military%20Resistance.htm

July 14, 2007 @ 2:22 pm | Comment

stuart,

I didn’t see that piece before, it’s a good read. The Japanese effort he quoted(40%) is quite low compared to some others I’ve read, but it’s a well-referenced piece.

However, I fail to see how that discredits my claim (mostly outside KMT presence) and supports yours (outside Japanese presence) in any way. If anything, it points out the main strategy of the Communists to fight the resistance by infiltrating the Japanese occupation area and distrupting/sabotaging their communication/transportation to effectively weaken the Japanese control. The linked article also strongly argues against the notion that CCP were holding back against the Japanese (as if they had any more effective and capable alternative), and certainly not with the primary purpose of waiting out the war with Japan to win a subsequent a civil war.

July 14, 2007 @ 5:36 pm | Comment

pmw asked, “Did you notice even when at the height of the Pacific warfare more than half of Japan’s Army were still in China?”

Well now that you mention it, that’s a good point, as evidence that the Chinese of both parties were doing a piss-poor job of fighting the Japanese. The presence of a large army on your own soil is evidence of losing a war, not winning one – all the more so when your own population outnumbers the enemy country’s population several times over.

Of course the Russians also had a large enemy Army on their soil for a while, but they pushed the Germans back very rapidly – at a time when, UNLIKE Japan, the enemy was not facing much of a second front – and the relative populations of Germany and Russia were much closer than China and Japan. And, the Germans were far better armed and trained than the Russians. Yet
the Russians had a Stalingrad as early as 1942, before the second front opened in the West.

So why the hell didn’t the Chinese have their Stalingrad? (That’s a rhetorical question.) The Chinese were losing the war and would have become just another colony of the Japanese Empire, if it hadn’t been for the superior fighting skills of the Americans.

July 14, 2007 @ 6:44 pm | Comment

The Chinese were losing the war –true. That’s an acutely insightful observation.

But a high troop number of Japanese army certainly isn’t an indication that the Chinese had lost the war, or that the Japanese would invest LESS troop and resource in China if the resistance were more successful. It would be the exact opposite.

Comparing China to Soviet? One, China didn’t have much of an industry. Manchuria, where most of the heavy industry and over half of the weaponry production capabilities were based, was handed to the Japanese on a silver platter by the KMT, along with the limited number of planes, tanks and heavy artillery. The disparity in industrial and military might was such that by the time Japan had its preparation for a full-scale invasion largely in place, the plan was to take Shanghai in 3 days and the whole China in 3 months.

Two, Chiang Kaishek wasn’t half the strategist, military commander or leader of a nation that Stalin was, nor had he the firm control or legitimacy of control Stalin enjoyed. It doesn’t help that Chiang never had a clear plan of actively fighting the Japanese, which he didn’t put as a top priority until forced by a military coup. It’s evidenced by his various policy changes, such as “Internal Pacification First, External Aggression Second”, “Time for Space”, “Space for Time”, etc. He kept high hopes of diplomatic intervention by the League of Nations. He promoted development of economy and defense between losing Manchuria and Marco Polo Bridge, when the japanese were clearly ramming up their war prep machine at a faster pace. And part of his idea of developing economy? Mining iron and selling them to the japanese, who were short on raw materials for the war. He was also very intolerant of any expansion of other political/military power in China, be it the CCP or warlords who pledged allegiance to Chiang himself, encouraged and forced them into combating each other, even amongst the warlords and during the Japanese invasion. Maintaining and enhancing the legitimacy and superiority of his own faction turned out to be his top priority all along.

Three, the distribution of war resources. True the Chinese never lacked people, but what were the enormous number of Chinese people supposed to fight with? The militia was using blades, spears, some handmade explosives and rifles, and even their homemade farming tools. This is even true for a portion of the communist troops, who later saw an increase of Japan/Manchuria made weapons through guerilla wars. Chiang had some of his army equipped with German or US weapons, and almost all US and Soviet aids went to him.

Also, China had its own Stalingrad. It was Shanghai, where the battle lasted over 3 months and involved a million troops, two thirds of which were Chinese troops. But they lost the battle despite advantage in numbers. It showed the resolve of resistance of the Chinese, and the amount of sacrifice they were willing to make. It also showed fighting an entire frontal war with Japan wasn’t the best of ideas. The very nature of the Chinese society and economy at that time determined the way they could fight, and that the only possible hope of defeating Japan would be to mire them into a prolonged warfare (which both the KMT and CCP realized early in and even before the war) and to turn it into a “people’s war” (which Chiang was reluctant to do since that means a spread of military power and more difficulties for him to maintain control).

I apologize if this turns out a diatribe of Chiang and KMT, but that’s the way I see it. It is not to say they didn’t shoulder the majority of military campaigns and losses.

July 15, 2007 @ 4:26 am | Comment

“… ‘activists’ terrorists who would blow up buses loaded with people in Beijing?”

Have they done that? Did I miss something? Are they terrorists because of the things propaganda tells you they might be capable of doing but have not carried out?

More nonsense.

Posted by: stuart at July 13, 2007 12:22 PM

Stuart,

How about replace “they” with “Osama”? need more?

Have “Osama” done something wrong? Did I miss something? Are they terrorists because of the things propaganda tells you they might be capable of doing but have not carried out?

July 15, 2007 @ 7:46 am | Comment

the embassy bombing was claimed as a mistake, and if it wasn’t it is because china was aiding a genocide.

the plane collision, again, was an accident. you may not like the us being in international airspace near chinese borders, but they have the right to be there. a large slow plane would find it somewhat difficult to deliberately ram a smaller, faster one. the chinese guy got too close and lost control.

…

Posted by: Si at July 11, 2007 06:44 PM

Si,

embassy bombing, a mistake? and what?
“if it wasn’t it is because china was aiding a genocide.”

Maybe Osama also made a mistake, or wait, if it wasn’t it is because us was aiding who know what, who care?

July 15, 2007 @ 8:12 am | Comment

uf65ca, I’m not sure where you’re coming from, but I am sure you are out of your element. Your “arguments” are irrational and your tone snide and snippy. Please try to articulate your claims with more evidence and less snark. Thanks.

July 15, 2007 @ 9:39 am | Comment

pmw, first of all thank you for your detailed reply. I accept your explanation about a less unlikely scenario of the Japanese lying about their war effort and resource distribution. But I am not at all convinced that Chinese troops engaged in guerrilla warfare in WWII were fighting exclusively for the CCP. Historical record indicates that KMT and CCP had jointly trained a significant number of guerrilla fighting forces from 1937 – 1940.

What IS recognised by most independent scholars are the followings: (1) the military value of guerrilla warfare undertaken by the Chinese troops during WWII was limited. (2) But the Chinese communists’ publicizing of these operations had greatly heightened a misleading popular perception that the Communists were at the vanguard of the fight against the Japanese. (3) Both CCP and KMT were more interested in vying for territorial advantage than fighting the Japanese troops. (4) The reluctance of both Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong to confront the Japanese head-on made it possible for the Japanese occupation of China to continue despite the USA had great success in containing Japanese military expansion in the Pacific region.

So, I tend to agree with Ivan’s view that both KMT and CCP were “doing a piss-poor job of fighting the Japanese”. I find it amazing, pmw, that you still find it necessary to engage in a pissing contest, just to find out whether Chiang Kai-shek was more guilty than Mao Zedong in failing to defend China against Japanese invasion.

By the way, in answering Ivan’s question about why Chinese didn’t have their Stalingrad, you said, “China had its own Stalingrad. It was Shanghai …” I frowned when I read that. I’m wondering whether you actually understand his question. Or perhaps you’re so eager to discredit Chiang Kai-shek that you’ve totally missed the point.

July 16, 2007 @ 2:30 am | Comment

uf65ca, I’m not sure where you’re coming from, but I am sure you are out of your element. Your “arguments” are irrational and your tone snide and snippy. Please try to articulate your claims with more evidence and less snark. Thanks.

Posted by: richard at July 15, 2007 09:39 AM

Richard, Where I come from is not important, I merely used Stuart and Si’s “logic”, if there was one.

July 16, 2007 @ 1:06 pm | Comment