I haven’t got a copy of the book, but Pomfret’s review seems to suggest it has some rather disgraceful suggestions. Don’t criticise China because it might implode/cause a war? That is actually quite short-sighted, because if China is able to do as it pleases then over an issue like Taiwan one day it might think “the US will never dare oppose us, as they’re so tame now – let’s settle this once and for all and take the island over.”

If she wants to compare China to pre-war Germany or Japan, let’s remember that Hitler invaded Poland because he thought the UK and France wouldn’t stop him. They’d been weak enough to let him stroll into the Rhineland, Sudetenland and the rest of Czechoslovakia – why were they going to stop him over Poland? China may take a similar view if the US backs off criticising it when it acts improperly.

Needlessly antagonising a country isn’t productive, but appeasement is even worse.

September 30, 2007 @ 2:01 am | Comment

Some Common Myths Regarding A War with Taiwan

This post wants to discuss some common “myth” about China attacking Taiwan. Of course it does not mean that China will attack Taiwan for sure, in fact, it’s entirely possible that there could be a peaceful reunification within the next 15 years.

First Myth: “If China wants to attack Taiwan, it will have no problem winning militarily.”

In fact, it’s totally possible that China may lose to Taiwan, and may lose very shamefully. But winning and losing are both common in warfare, even if you lose, you should continue to fight. When the North fought the South in America’s Civil War, the North kept losing in the beginning, but Lincoln did not care and continued the war, and eventually the North won. In China’s Qing Dynasty, they lost the Opium War largely because they chose to give up when they lost some battles, instead of keep fighting and keep fighting until the other side gets tired. Even if the Western powers sunk every single one of China’s ships, it still should not surrender and sign a treaty, it should keep fighting with. As long as you refuse to surrender, then even if you lose all your battles, the other side will eventually have no choice but to give up.

Therefore, China should not avoid fighting Taiwan simply because it may lose. In fact, fighting a war with Taiwan is simply a way to accumulate real battle experiences for the Chinese army, and only when you have real battle experiences can you improve yourself. So even if China’s fleets and airplanes were all destroyed by the Taiwanese military, it should keep sending more fleets and more airplanes and keep making more fleets and more airplanes. I remember that there’s a “100-year-war” between England and France in ancient times, well I very much like the concept of “100-year-war”, and perhaps China should make it a “200-year-war” with Taiwan. That is, for the next 200 years, China should stay in military mode, keep making new airplanes, new ships, new missiles, and ask the entire Chinese population to become an army and encourage people to have 5 or 6 babies, so that every single day there’ll be waves and waves of attacks on Taiwan for 200 years, until Taiwan cannot take it anymore.

Second Myth: A War Will Make China’s Economy Fall Behind 20 Years.

How do we check if a country is “advanced” or “behind”? Well, all you need to look at is what “things” can this country make? Can it only make radios? Or can it make TV’s as well? Can it only make regular TV’s, or can it make HDTV’s too, can it only make 720p HDTV’s or can I make 1080p HDTV’s too. Can it only make car engines, or can it make airplane engines as well? Can it make mainframe computers, or can it make supercomputers as well? The more advanced stuff a country can make, the more advanced that country is.

Now you may say “Math, you are wrong!, we should look at GDP per capita!”. Well, I think GDP is totally meaningless. Some country has high GDP per capita because it has natural resources, like the Oil-rich nations in Middle East, can you say that those nations are advanced? I certainly do not think so.

The only measure for a nation’s advancedness is the technological productive force of that nation. If a nation can extract 300 tons of wheat from a square kilometer of land, and another nation can extract 1000 tons from the same land, then the second nation is more advanced. Even if the second nation is bombed into ruins, but as long as it has that technological productive capability, it can quickly recover, and still be considered a modern nation. When WW2 ended, Germany and Japan and China are all in ruins. But those ruins are different. Even though Germany and Japan were in ruins, they had the knowledge of building advanced ships and weaponry and industrial infrastructure, so they quickly rose from the ruins and are still first-class nations today. But China back then could not even build a nail properly, not to mention any advanced stuff. So China was unable to catch up as quickly, and is still considered a “developing nation” today. So can you say that WW2 made Germany and Japan fall behind 20 years? Of course you cannot.

Third Myth: “War will cause deaths, and deaths are bad”

We know that if you want to achieve things, you need to make sacrifices, and deaths are common occurrences. The reason we think that deaths are bad is a result of Western thoughts. Westerners have difficulties breeding massively, and their populations are almost “shrinking”, so of course one dead person means one less person for them. But Asians and Blacks and Muslims can breed as massively as pigs, and population shrinking is not a concern. If you have 100 children every day, do you care if you lose a few, of course you do not. And sometimes there’s even population explosion, so from the perspective of the earth, famine and wars are good ways to prevent population explosions.

Chinese, especially, have large breeding powers, so death is not too big a deal.

If you look at ancient Civilizations, most of them have died, or almost died off. And the Chinese civilization is also slowly declining in the last hundreds of years. Why is that? Well, I think that as any civilization develops to a certain degree, there’ll exist a phenomenon of “gentleness and kindness”, and excessive kindness and gentleness will only cause that civilization be devoured by another less advanced civilization. In fact, almost all ancient civilizations died at the hands of a more ferocious and less developed civilization. When Christopher Columbus was writing his diary about Native Indians, he wrote “They were the most kind and gentle people on earth, and that is the reason they were so easily defeated.”

So if China wants to rise, it must not emphasize gentleness and kindness too much, but should instead always calculate its own interests, and to advance its interests, massive deaths is not a big deal at all.

Now you may ask, “What if everyone in China dies”? That of course is impossible. In fact, it’s more likely that wars may make everyone in the West die, because Caucasians’ breeding powers are very limited compared to the Chinese. Even if USA drops a nuclear bomb on China, China will still have many survivors. Even if they don’t survive, there’ll be Chinese descent from neighboring countries like Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc, and those people will continue the civilization. The worst that can happen is that 99% of the people on earth will die, and 1% will survive. Given the breeding powers and population of Chinese on this earth, that 1% will contain many Chinese people, so they can start the human civilization on earth once again. It is like when I’m playing chess and I feel that I’m losing, I would often violently flip the whole board onto the ground, and force the opponent to start over, and maybe in the new game, I’ll win. If I’m losing again in the new game, I’ll flip the board again and wipe every piece to the ground again, and force him to start over the game again…

September 30, 2007 @ 4:16 am | Comment

Raj,

I guess you are referring to the US government’s position on Taiwan’s UN bid recently. It is not an appeasement unless you consider China your enemy. In that case, the US government is doing the right thing. If Taiwan goes too far in the direction of independence (most people would also think the Taiwan president was petty and behaved childish on his trip to South America), US needs to put a stop to it. Independence means war, that’s very clear, and that’s not good for the three parties involved.

September 30, 2007 @ 4:23 am | Comment

Taiwan is already de facto independent, what the DPP wants to do is provoke a war with China out of stupidity.

September 30, 2007 @ 8:07 am | Comment

I agree with Raj that the book seems off the wall in that respect, and I am glad he – Pomfret – says so.

I also partly agree with Ferins Chen’s campaing for independence is about as cynical as Bush’s push for a gay marriage amendment. I don’t think Chen wants war, but he should know that he is playing with dynamite.

September 30, 2007 @ 10:02 am | Comment

I think the lady has a problem distinguishing what Chinese people want and what the communist party wants people to want.

Taiwan would come back to China if the CCP weren’t a big evil junk heap.

If the people of China want Taiwan to return, why don’t they listen to their differences and demands? How can two systems so different come together? The Taiwanese are used to some form of democracy and human rights, so how can they assimilate with the opposite so easily? The Chinese people, if they respect Taiwan as a part of their motherland, should ask thenselves which way is better and should realize that Taiwan is not separate out of spite but out of good sense.

I think if the Chinese people had the freedom to think on this, they would not promote any violence against these people who just want basic human rights.

So I think what that lady said about the people of China wanting war with Taiwan is stupid.

September 30, 2007 @ 10:52 am | Comment

z

“I guess you are referring to the US government’s position on Taiwan’s UN bid recently.”

No, I was talking generally – Pomfret seems to imply the author is suggesting the US not say anything bad about China, even when it is in the wrong.

“Independence means war”

Only because China has that position. The Chinese people are not hard-wired into some celestial law that commands them to declare war on Taiwan.

It’s like saying Saddam Hussein should have stepped down because staying in power meant war with the US.

———

ferins

“what the DPP wants to do is provoke a war with China out of stupidity”

No, the DPP wants to secure the island’s future. De-facto can be changed more quickly than you think if China wants to find an excuse to start a war – certainly people like Math think it’s a price worth paying.

More importantly, why should Taiwan be the only bit of the world that doesn’t have internal recognition? Even tiny island states with less than 1 million citizens do – why does a technologically advanced state like Taiwan have to play a giant game of “the Emperor’s new clothes” and bullying from Beijing because the rest of the world is too cowardly/greedy to tell China to grow up?

September 30, 2007 @ 6:57 pm | Comment

Snow,

You miss the point. I won’t blame you as so many do the same in the west.

What the vast majority people on the mainland cannot tolerate is not a democratic or free Taiwan or whatever it is. As it stands, the island is self-ruled for decades. However, the bottom line is there is still hope for an Eventual unification between the mainland and Taiwan. So long this hope still lingers around no matter how remote it is, there is few people on the mainland would like to unifiy the nation by force, at least in the foreseeable future.

“If the people of China want Taiwan to return, why don’t they listen to their differences and demands?”
The people on the mainland have listened and they recognise the difference and realise that the differences cannot be resolved at the moment. So let’s wait until some day we can reach some agreement, so they say, but don’t dash the last hope of mine.

“How can two systems so different come together?”
This is why the status quo in in place, isn’t it?

“The Taiwanese are used to some form of democracy and human rights, so how can they assimilate with the opposite so easily?”
Used to for a couple of decades.

“The Chinese people, if they respect Taiwan as a part of their motherland, should ask thenselves which way is better and should realize that Taiwan is not separate out of spite but out of good sense.”
This is again Hollywood goody vs baddy analogy, as soon as you bring this kind of statement on the table, the discussion will go nowhere. Tainwan is separated from the mainland because of the civil war. This has nothing to do with you good or bad sense. What you are arguing just don’t make any sense.

September 30, 2007 @ 9:10 pm | Comment

Math is his usual delightful, whimsical self.

October 1, 2007 @ 12:25 am | Comment

sfds

And what will happen when Chinese people get their heads out of the sand and realise unification will be impossible, or at least on the terms Beijing seems to want? The danger is they will become very angry (partly at themselves for not realising what the reality was) and become more aggressive towards Taiwan.

Chinese, as you say, don’t favour war now because they think unification is achievable. If or when they realise that Taiwanese will not give up their independence and let Beijing exercise real control over their home, things could get very nasty. Which is why it is important that the US try to resolve the differences between China and Taiwan by pushing for direct talks without caveats (as well as opening direct talks with Taiwan), rather than complain about Taiwan trying to assert itself because that’s the easier thing to do.

October 1, 2007 @ 12:56 am | Comment

Raj,

I don’t remember a time that China lacks criticisms from the US when China is in the wrong. In fact, China is under almost constant attack from a small segment of US political establishment.

China and US have become a sort of economic partner, and political partner in some limited but increasing areas, for examples, in North Korea and more recently in Taiwan :-). It is not an appeasement if both countries work on their common interests unless you belongs to that small political establishment and consider it a zero-sum relationship.

In the case of Taiwan, if the US is not willing to sacrifice ten of thousands of American lifes if a war breaks out because of provocation from Taiwan, it is irresponsible to pretend to Taiwan that you will defend it against China under whatever circumstance.

October 1, 2007 @ 2:27 am | Comment

Math,

Aren’t Chinese are part of the ‘Mongoloid race’ and not actually a ‘race’ but in reality an ethnic group? You mentioned Caucasians, which are considered a ‘race’, and compared them to Chinese (breeding) which are an ethnic group. Do you mean Han?

October 1, 2007 @ 3:27 am | Comment

Ok I know were talking about Taiwan or whatever but its wrapped up with China obviously,

I just wanted to mention that The Chinese communist party is able to hold leverage in mutiple global circumstances because it has been able to make deals with certain powerful forces

1. It controls the minds and freedoms of a billion people; minus intelligent dissidents

2. It hoards the peoples money and steels from the people so it has been able to bribe an army of CCP members into support

3. It has spent the peoples money and made use of brainwashing in order to form a large and frightening army

So China has massive mind control, bribery leverage, and a huge army, BUT my point is that if it didnt have these simple tools for global coercion, would it have any leverage?

I mean, theres always legitimate leverage which is a different story,

but my suggestion is that if the Chinese people wake up and think freely, the state of leverage and the nasty character of its leverage would be totally different.

If people are free to think normally in China would they spend all the money on arms to threaten everyone? Would they use fear and deprivation threats to coerce people? Hopefully, without the CCP, the Chinese people would value real respect and earnings rather that such pitiful terrorism and superficial gains for the few.

Just some ideas, actually I’m glad to have thought about this because it becomes more clear to me how without the CCP people would not have to succumb to such an evil regime just to protect their interests. Under CCP you have to choose between your rights and your money/your life, rediculous.

October 1, 2007 @ 4:31 am | Comment

Raj,

>>let Beijing exercise real control over their home, things could get very nasty.

You sound like a alarmist. Even for Hong Kong, the implementation of one-country-two-system has been quite successful and better than most people’s expectation.

>>the US try to resolve the differences between China and Taiwan by pushing for direct talks without caveats.

That’s what China want to see. Do you really believe the current government in Taiwan is sincere and interested in such a talk?

October 1, 2007 @ 6:20 am | Comment

z

“I don’t remember a time that China lacks criticisms from the US when China is in the wrong.”

Oh, sure – so you think it’s ok to beat up blind men who are campaigning on abuse of power by local officials and imprison him/his relations in their own houses, cutting them off from using the internet, etc without being charged? Yeah, the US is so wrong for calling China out over that…..

“It is not an appeasement if both countries work on their common interests”

It’s not in the US’ interest to bully a democratic island because China’s got a big chip on its shoulder.

“if the US is not willing to sacrifice ten of thousands of American lifes if a war breaks out because of provocation from Taiwan”

Geez, you really don’t know anything about a potential war over Taiwan, do you? The US wouldn’t even commit that many personnel because there would be no point in sending in ground troops. American support would be naval and air-based, which is what Taiwan would need – they’ve got plenty of troops themselves.

“Even for Hong Kong, the implementation of one-country-two-system has been quite successful and better than most people’s expectation.”

Except that Hong Kongers aren’t happy with the current level of democracy and want more. Taiwanese see the manipulation that Beijing exerts over the city and don’t want their home to go the same way. That’s why even the KMT reject the 1C2S method of government – that’s a fact.

“That’s what China want to see.”

ROFL! It’s China that says all talks must happen under the one China principle – that is a caveat! Whereas in the past the DPP has said that there could be talks without China having to recognise Taiwan as an independent country.

I think you could do with reading some independent, non-Chinese media that doesn’t spurt out propagandist bullshit about human rights abuses and Taiwanese independence – at the moment you seem to be regurgitating the usual nonsense that comes from the CCP itself.

No offence.

October 1, 2007 @ 6:56 am | Comment

Garbage can discuss the build up of “country”?

Those green garbage will never achieve the so-called “independence”. There’s no such a treaty or lease that allows the independence of Taiwan from China.

You silly bitch!

October 1, 2007 @ 7:24 am | Comment

Fuck you US!

October 1, 2007 @ 7:25 am | Comment

Raj,

You talk like one of those people who consider China an enemy and should be squeezed as much as possible and whenever possible. Please tell me when the US bullied Taiwan in recent year. It is fairly obvious from your posts here that you have problem with the US government’s gentle warning on Taiwan recently. Before you try to suggest the US on how to handle China-Taiwan conflict, think about your own government’s position on the issue, it is actually dead quiet.

October 1, 2007 @ 9:08 am | Comment

You talk like one of those people who consider China an enemy and should be squeezed as much as possible and whenever possible.

Please point out to us what UNJUST critisism has been of China (by the way I do in fact find it unjust when people call the rgimes doings the doings of China the country.)

Would you like to point out an instance where people have “squeezed” China UNJUSTLY?

I’ll say that I dont believe in “squeezing” (ha ha) anyone UNJUSTLY. It is very wrong to punisg someone for having commited no crime. The CCP should never be punished for something it didnt do, and all people should be treated fairly according to their behaviour.

That said, please point out where the CCP has been UNJUSTLY criticised.

Can you deny that they have their hands in the Darfur genocide?, that they supress the rights and physically harm the Tibetan people, anyway I wont go on a long list of the CCP’s crimes okay, I think we all know a long enough list to figure something out, the question is, Z, what are you denying and hence supporting?

October 1, 2007 @ 9:50 am | Comment

your dad, hey grow up and pretend you happen to be living in Taiwan (or whatever you wanna call it) and ask yourself if you would want to return to a country infested by brainwashed hate mongerers such as YOU.

I mean like, if you value the motherland so much how is it that you treat your so called county men like garbage. When people like you are safely imprisoned, I’m sure the Taiwanese will return ( :, so dont worry, ha ha ha, was that rude? Okay, maybe Im not in such a good mood today ) :. sorry.

peace,

snow

October 1, 2007 @ 9:55 am | Comment

z,

I don’t think that Raj considers China as an enemy. He (like some of us including myself) is not optimistic about the prospect of a peaceful talk between China and Taiwan without a third-party mediation.

Raj did not suggest that the US is bullying Taiwan. He was only pointing out that it’s ineffective for the US to simply ask Chen Shui-bian to shut up. Something more constructive needs to be done. But I don’t think that the US can do anything constructive until and unless the US government can sort out a workable policy in handling her relation with China. As it stands, the US government is, shall we say, too occupied at the moment.

It is also not true that countries such as Britain, Canada, Australia and major European countries are very quiet on this issue. There are plenty of talks at diplomatic levels, which is the way that the Chinese government prefers issues like that to be handled.

October 1, 2007 @ 10:04 am | Comment

Yes, the communist party is laughing its arse off when it sees people not taking themselves and their values seriously. It is laughing when Australia for example holds human rights talks for years on end behind closed doors and nothing ever materialises.

A little chutzpah ( + bribery and terrorism) goes a long way when you are a sick violent criminal and you want to appear acceptable. Look at what the CCP is responsible for, can you believe we actually negotiate world matters considering their terms as though they could be separated from evil crimes against humanity?!

October 1, 2007 @ 10:31 am | Comment

Cat,

Fair enough. I am not one of those who advocate unification under the current goverment in China. The problem with Chen Sjui-bian is that he often does not act like a president; and he has lost all his credibility with the US. He promised this and that to the US but couldn’t keep them.

Raj,

A war between the Us and China over Taiwan will be very urgly and won’t be a cakewalk as in your imagination. You are the same Raj who declared the Surge a success in Iraq in your post not long ago. You clearly define victory in an unconventional way. China is often considered as a typical third-class miltary power. Its success to shut down a n flying object in high-orbiting space should put people in notice.

October 1, 2007 @ 10:46 am | Comment

“we, basically, need to be nice to China to keep the nightmare at bay.”

I disagree with this assessment wholeheartedly. Taiwan knows, and we all know, that the longer we wait for China to get its political and military act together, the worse things will be for all of us. Once China feels confident and strong enough, she won’t need a provocation to go to war, only the “mandate of heaven” to retake all that she wants. If there is going to be a conflict over Taiwan (or any other contested territory), it is better to do it now.

And I have the master plan for deconstructing China after the war shatters it.

October 1, 2007 @ 2:58 pm | Comment

z

“A war between the Us and China over Taiwan will be very urgly and won’t be a cakewalk as in your imagination.”

BUZZ! Wrong answer. I never said it would be a cakewalk. I said that the US would never DEPLOY tens of thousands of personnel to the conflict zone in the first place, so it would be impossible to have those sorts of casualties.

“You are the same Raj who declared the Surge a success in Iraq in your post not long ago.”

BUZZ! Geez, you’re not very good at these, are you? I never declared anything. I posted news from an article on the surge.

I think it’s about time you read what people wrote and considered them carefully rather than reacting without accessing your few remaining brain cells.

October 1, 2007 @ 3:42 pm | Comment

After reading math and other war mongers’ comments, it would be appropriate to name them as horrible, blood-thirsty fascists.

Taiwan belongs to the Republic of China, period. And the Republic of China is a sovereign, independent country. No matter what the Pan-Green and Beijing say, they cannot deny the existence of the Republic of China.

In 9 days time, it will be the 96th anniversary of the 1911 revolution.

Happy Double Tenth Day! Long live the Three People’s Principles! Long live the Republic of China! May God forever and ever bless the Republic of China!

October 1, 2007 @ 4:45 pm | Comment

After reading math and other war mongers’ comments, it would be appropriate to name them as horrible, blood-thirsty fascists.

Taiwan belongs to the Republic of China, period. And the Republic of China is a sovereign, independent country. No matter what the Pan-Green and Beijing say, they cannot deny the existence of the Republic of China.

In 9 days time, it will be the 96th anniversary of the 1911 revolution.

Happy Double Tenth Day! Long live the Three People’s Principles! Long live the Republic of China! May God forever and ever bless the Republic of China!

October 1, 2007 @ 4:46 pm | Comment

After reading math and other war mongers’ comments, it would be appropriate to name them as horrible, blood-thirsty fascists.

Taiwan belongs to the Republic of China, period. And the Republic of China is a sovereign, independent country. No matter what the Pan-Green and Beijing say, they cannot deny the existence of the Republic of China.

In 9 days time, it will be the 96th anniversary of the 1911 revolution.

Happy Double Tenth Day! Long live the Three People’s Principles! Long live the Republic of China! May God forever and ever bless the Republic of China!

October 1, 2007 @ 4:47 pm | Comment

Raj

The following two points illustrate nicely why you lose my respect with each new post you make.
“Geez, you really don’t know anything about a potential war over Taiwan, do you? The US wouldn’t even commit that many personnel because there would be no point in sending in ground troops. American support would be naval and air-based, which is what Taiwan would need – they’ve got plenty of troops themselves.”

Oh really, Raj? You do realize that American Carrier Battle Groups have around 10,000 sailors each, right? And all it would take is five or six supersonic cruise missiles to sink a Nimitz-class and a few more to sink the rest of the ships. China currently has around 220 of these missiles.

And don’t tell me the United States would go nuclear on China after that.

Interference by the U.S., even naval and air support, would actually lower the U.S.’s power standing in East Asia due to the massive infrastructural damage America’s bases there would suffer. I highly doubt the Okinawans would allow the U.S. to rebuild their naval and airbases after they’ve been hit by Chinese ballistic missiles.

“BUZZ! Geez, you’re not very good at these, are you? I never declared anything. I posted news from an article on the surge.”

Actually, Raj, we’ve got you with your pants down here.

http://www.pekingduck.org/archives/004698.php

“What I do think is that Bush’s surge has not been a failure yet”

I think I’m going to do to you what I did to Ivan: affix the latter statement to each of my responses to yours.

October 1, 2007 @ 5:27 pm | Comment

“I think I’m going to do to you what I did to Ivan: affix the latter statement to each of my responses to yours.”

Oh no, t-co, now you’re going to make TWO of us cry in our pillows all night?

You remind me of the “Knights who say, NI!” in Monty Python’s Holy Grail.

“Oh no, not the Knights who say NI!”

“The same! And we will continue to say, NI to you, until you satisfy our demands!”

“No! No! Anything but that! Have mercy, oh Knights who say Ni!”

October 1, 2007 @ 7:08 pm | Comment

t_co

I’m not sure you’ve ever shown you respected me.

1. You really do know squat about defence matters. Yes, a half-dozen Chinese missiles could sink an aircraft carrier – if no one tried to shoot them down. The USN has some very potent anti-missile capabilities stationed on their escorts and now the carrier themselves – the latest refits have given the latter the RIM-116 missile system, which was specifically designed to deal with supersonic missiles. USN destroyers carry the SM-2 and newer ones also the ESSM, both of which are capable against fast-moving missiles.

More importantly, Chinese anti-ship missiles do not have unlimited range. They either have to be launched from shore-batteries or PLAN vessels. Now the USN would not be so moronic to station its ships off the Chinese coast, so the former is out. That leaves the PLAN. A number of submarines have reportedly been fitted to fire anti-ship missiles, but these would have a tough time avoiding air patrols from carrier-launched Vikings and attack from patrolling SSNs. Surface ships would be worse off because carrier-launched Hawkeyes would pick them up long before they got into firing range – they’d then be destroyed by F-18s at ranges as far away as 220 km with their Harpoons.

Now this doesn’t mean it would be a cakewalk, but it would be very difficult for China to successfully take on the USN for the foreseeable future.

2. As for Okinawa, they don’t control defence policy – Tokyo does. Besides, Okinawa has received/is receiving four Patriot-3 batteries, which should be able to handle most conventional missiles thrown their way.

Also attacking Okinawa would be moronic, as it would bring Japan into the conflict.

3. BUZZ! Nice try, but that isn’t what z claimed. He said I had called it a SUCCESS – you showed that I thought it was not yet a failure. There is a huge difference. Surely even you will acknowledge that something is not necessarily a success because it has not yet failed.

October 1, 2007 @ 8:03 pm | Comment

Ivan,

T_co’s futile attempts to make offensive gestures at you reminds me of another character from Monty Python’s Holy Grail: the Black Knight. He guards a tiny bridge for unknown reasons. His unchecked overconfidence and a staunch refusal to ever accept failure frustrate King Arthur so much that the King eventually amputated his 4 limbs.

Here is a YouTube clip of the scene in question: http://tinyurl.com/247ny3.

When I read your last comment about the Knight Who Said Ni, I can almost hear King Arthur screaming: “What are you going to do, bleed on me?”

By the way, you asked me to find the YouTube clip for the Knight Who Said Ni. Well, here it is. Enjoy it: http://tinyurl.com/3b22js

October 2, 2007 @ 12:13 am | Comment

Raj,

Your fantasy is based on your imagination. China is not powerful enough to challenge the US, but it is strong enough to pull it down. If you were an American and talked about war with China like the way you did, I would respect you more.

Given the inter-dependency between the US and China, a war over Taiwan is too costly and unnecessary. Of course, Chen Sjui-bian can ignore the opposition from the US and goes it along; but without the support and recognition from the US, whatever he does will have no effect.

By the way, I still would like to hear your explanation on your claim that the US bullied Taiwan for gently warning Taiwan not to go too far in the direction of independence.

October 2, 2007 @ 2:37 am | Comment

z

“Given the inter-dependency between the US and China, a war over Taiwan is too costly and unnecessary.”

In that case it makes it less likely China will attack Taiwan if it knows the US would intervene. Or are you suggesting that China could invade any US ally with impunity because the US would lose out if it tried to stop Beijing?

“I still would like to hear your explanation on your claim that the US bullied Taiwan for gently warning Taiwan not to go too far in the direction of independence.”

If you view meddling in Taiwanese domestic politics by saying the people should not be allowed to hold referenda that China doesn’t like as a “gentle warning” then you really are off your rocker.

Maybe if Taiwan saw the US rebuking China as strongly every year when it did its best to block Taiwan’s entry to an organisation like the WHO, steal its allies, increase the number of missiles pointed at the island, generally threaten Taiwan for not doing as the CCP wants, etc maybe it would feel better. But as Taiwan is concerned (and any honest person can see) the criticism is completely disproportionately one-sided.

October 2, 2007 @ 4:09 am | Comment

“…saying the people should not be allowed to hold referenda ”

Raj, a Lie or you are lying. Quote when and where the US said the above statement alleged by you?

October 2, 2007 @ 4:38 am | Comment

sdf

Don’t be so ridiculous – I never said that was a quote from the US government. Its my own view of the situation.

The US has made its opposition to the UN referendum quite clear. Why? Because China is sulking in a corner and the spineless whimps in the State Department feel they need to bend over backwards because of the North Korean talks – which ironically are only needed now because China dragged its feet for years whilst Pyongyang was creating its nuclear arsenal.

October 2, 2007 @ 4:45 am | Comment

Spineless? They are working for the interests of American people not for Taiwanese. Those guys on the island pushing for the referendum had the cost-benefit analysis for themselves, why the State Department in the US has to dance in their tune?

October 2, 2007 @ 4:54 am | Comment

“They are working for the interests of American people not for Taiwanese.”

And it’s in Americans’ best interests to have their Asian foreign policy set by Beijing?

“why the State Department in the US has to dance in their tune?”

LOL, what parallel universe are you living in? Taiwan doesn’t expect the US to dance to its tune. All it wants is for the US to not dance to CHINA’s TUNE and allow it to exercise its democratic rights.

Now if the US is unhappy because it feels the referendum is upsetting the so-called “status-quo”, as I’ve pointed out in the past it could berate China just as much when it upsets things. Otherwise Taiwanese aren’t going to take seriously the US’ desire to keep the “status-quo” going.

—-

On a separate note, what part of US foreign policy is up for grabs that the UK could have – Europe, South America, Africa? Would you prefer cash or electronic bank transfer? We also have Mastercard, but I know the US prefers VISA…..

October 2, 2007 @ 5:03 am | Comment

>And it’s in Americans’ best interests to have their Asian foreign policy set by Beijing?

Raj,

See, you are at it, again; and that’s the problem with your reasoning that you keep using.

US and China have some common interests. On the issue of Taiwan, both countries do not to see Taiwan move toward independent. If Taiwan declares independent, it loose the usefulness to the US. So the US has to put a stop to it. Remember the US has always have very good relationship with Taiwan, so, where do your one-sideness and appeasement come from?

Unless you consider China your #1 enemy that must be destroyed, otherwise, you would not think any policy must be bad if your enemy China has no problem with it.

October 2, 2007 @ 5:42 am | Comment

>Now if the US is unhappy because it feels the referendum is upsetting the so-called “status-quo”, as I’ve pointed out in the past it could berate China just as much when it upsets things. Otherwise Taiwanese aren’t going to take seriously the US’ desire to keep the “status-quo” going.

Raj,

I think you are just naive on the political reality here. The reason for it is that the US is able to manipulate Taiwan at will but it does not have much control over China and can not tell China what to do.

October 2, 2007 @ 6:27 am | Comment

z

Yes, I use reasoning – you could do with a little yourself.

“If Taiwan declares independent, it loose the usefulness to the US.”

Why?

“where do your one-sideness and appeasement come from?”

Eh? I’m not appeasing anyone.

“you would not think any policy must be bad if your enemy China has no problem with it”

What’s wrong with you? Why make such a black & white comment? It isn’t because China says it’s annoyed, it’s that the US is letting China’s intolerance make it criticise Taiwan for trying to assert itself in the face of Chinese bullying.

“The reason for it is that the US is able to manipulate Taiwan at will but it does not have much control over China and can not tell China what to do.”

I don’t see Taiwan dropping the UN referendum, so by your logic it shouldn’t criticise Taiwan either.

October 2, 2007 @ 6:50 am | Comment

Raj,

“”If Taiwan declares independent, it loose the usefulness to the US.”

Why?”

Because the US can use the issue of Taiwan to annoy China, not clear?

“Eh? I’m not appeasing anyone.”

You kept saying the US appeased China, do I need to remind you what you said?

“What’s wrong with you? Why make such a black & white comment? It isn’t because China says it’s annoyed, it’s that the US is letting China’s intolerance make it criticise Taiwan for trying to assert itself in the face of Chinese bullying.”

Then, why did you have to scream over US’s warning to Chen Sjui-bian?

“I don’t see Taiwan dropping the UN referendum, so by your logic it shouldn’t criticise Taiwan either.”

We’ll have to wait and see how far Chen Sjui-bian can go.

October 2, 2007 @ 7:31 am | Comment

@Z

You said, “Because the US can use the issue of Taiwan to annoy China, not clear?”

In other words, are you suggesting that the US DOES NOT actually has a workable policy for handling the Taiwan issue? Just “using Taiwan to annoy China” is not too much of a policy at all. Don’t you agree?

You asked, “Then, why did you have to scream over US’s warning to Chen Sjui-bian?”

I honestly don’t see why you are picking on Raj, except perhap you’re trying to discredit him by painting him as an “anti-Chinese” blogger. I’ll repeat again, Raj, and some of us here including myself, all agree that the US could have done much better for REGIONAL SECURITY than warning Chen. What the US should have done is to work towards bringing China and Taiwan to the negotiation table. That may not be to the interest of the US, if the US only considers “using Taiwan to annoy China” as her sole national interest. But it is definitely to the interest of the Asia-Pacific region. This is my concern. And I believe this is Raj’s concern too.

If you insist on twisting Raj’s words, then I can only conclude that you are either a neocon defending a disfunctional US policy on Taiwan, or you’re a Chinese nationalist who is using the Taiwan issue as a ground for fermenting nationalist sentiment against the West. As you’ve frankly admitted, both the US and China share “common interest” in the Taiwan issue. But this “common interest” is not good for the world in the long run. Chen Shui-bian and his behaviour is a direct outcome of this unrealistic “common interest”.

October 2, 2007 @ 10:58 am | Comment

P.S.

Z, if you’re a pan-blue supporter, you have to remember the HK experience. Don’t leave your future to the hands of a third party and the CCP, as HK people had done. No “common law” on behalf of Taiwan people but without the participation of Taiwan people will ever protect your rights and freedom. Chen may have acted like a maniac. But he is fighting for a right that all residents in Taiwan (and everyone who calls Taiwan home) are entitled to and should not be asked to give up.

October 2, 2007 @ 11:15 am | Comment

Cat,

You are having so many points to make, so why did you have to resort to labels like neocon or nationlist?

If you believe the current US government policy on Taiwan is disfunctional, then, I think people like you better get used to it. The current policy is supported by the mainstream political establishment. of both parties. On the US’s rebuke to Taiwan, I didn’t see any outcry in the US.

Stop trying to pretend that what Chen did is for democracy or people’s rights in Taiwan. He just tries to stir things up and plays election plotics; only fools are not able to see this. If China attacks Taiwan over it democracy, then it is a very different matter.

October 2, 2007 @ 12:05 pm | Comment

@ Z

You said, “If you believe the current US government policy on Taiwan is disfunctional, then, I think people like you better get used to it. ”

No, I don’t have to get used to it. I’m not an American and I don’t believe in the supremacy of Uncle Sam. I’ll play my part in my home country and as an independent researcher / advocate. I don’t answer to the whims of the US government and its disfunctional policy.

You continued, “Stop trying to pretend that what Chen did is for democracy or people’s rights in Taiwan ..”

I’m never a Chen Shui-bian defender. I’m just pointing out (1) Chen is a symptom, not a cause, of disfunctional policy, and (2) it’s important for people in Taiwan to work towards protecting their rights and freedom.

October 2, 2007 @ 12:25 pm | Comment

cat,

If a war breaks out due to provacation from Chen Sjui-bian, no countries in Asia will come to the help for Taiwan. US ally Singapore and some other asian counries spelled this out clearly in the past. Japan is probably the only exception; but it will likely to provide verbal support only.

October 2, 2007 @ 12:27 pm | Comment

z

“Because the US can use the issue of Taiwan to annoy China, not clear?”

Jesus wept. You’re saying the US wants to use Taiwan to annoy China? You really are a nut-case. The US wants the Taiwan matter peacefully resolved, not dragging on forever.

“You kept saying the US appeased China, do I need to remind you what you said?”

But I’m not the American government, so I’m not appeasing anyone.

“Then, why did you have to scream over US’s warning to Chen Sjui-bian?”

Don’t be such a drama queen – criticism of the US’ lack of balance in addressing the actions of both China and Taiwan is hardly screaming.

“If a war breaks out due to provacation from Chen Sjui-bian, no countries in Asia will come to the help for Taiwan.”

And if war breaks out because China DECIDES to BE PROVOKED by something that Taiwan does, there is no guarantee anyone will buy China’s lies – in which case the US would intervene.

October 2, 2007 @ 6:45 pm | Comment

The threads here become more and mroe irrelavant

October 3, 2007 @ 2:12 am | Comment

Yeah I’m really left wondering about the relevance of threads such as this….Imean what if Raj is right or what if cat is right? What is the significance in either case and will their being right about it change anything or inspire any action? You know what I mean. What does this issue mean to you,to me, to the world, to math! ?

October 3, 2007 @ 4:17 am | Comment

“Yeah I’m really left wondering about the relevance of threads such as this….”

Welcome to the world of blogging. 🙂

October 3, 2007 @ 6:56 am | Comment

Raj

Precisely because it is not a cakewalk, I believe the U.S. won’t intervene. And furthermore, even without severe loss of life, any action by the Chinese on the international debt markets could eviscerate the ability of the U.S. acquire enough capital inflows to sustain its own economy.

And that’s the killer, Raj. To attack Taiwan, China needs to 1) liberate itself from the 1 trillion dollars of U.S. treasuries through the China Investment Corp. vehicle, which was launched a few days ago, thereby liberating itself from U.S. monetary policy, and 2) develop a large domestic consumer market independent of the United States. Analysts at our bank, and several other investment banks including Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Lehman Brothers anticipate something like that occuring within ten to fifteen years with a near certain probability. And in that time, if the United States continues to remain a debtor nation (which again is maintained with near certain probability, if you look at debt markets) the Chinese can simply say to the U.S.: “Mess with us in Taiwan, and we’ll make you default on your debt. Taiwan or your financial system? It’s your choice.”

So in the short term, the costs are lives and materiel; in the long term, the United States might very well be forced to sacrifice its position of financial leadership for Taiwan. And the beauty of it is that China will, by then, suffer less damage than the U.S. from the shakeout because of its substantial savings, holdings of natural resources across the globe, and well-developed consumer market.

Taiwan? It’s a speck in a puddle that sits astride a geostrategic strait leading to China’s asian rival, Japan. All that remains is for China to bide her time and force a weakened United States and her vassals from East Asia.

October 3, 2007 @ 7:51 am | Comment

“Precisely because it is not a cakewalk, I believe the U.S. won’t intervene.”

That’s complete drivel. If the US felt the situation was so dire that it needed to intervene, the threat of loss of life wouldn’t deter it.

Additionally, the public pressure that would be put on the White House for letting China stroll into Taiwan would seriously damage any administration. Americans may not dwell on the island’s fate much, but when presented with authoritarian China invading democratic Taiwan and the subsequent media coverage, that would switch them on.

Moreover, as you somewhat suggest, leaving Taiwan to its fate would doom the US itself in East Asia. If it doesn’t take a stand on that it would never be able to take a stand on anything against China. Other countries would take it as a sign of weakness, further damaging US interests around the world. America would be shown to be a paper tiger.

So it wouldn’t be an issue of “Taiwan or the US financial system”, more an issue of what the President at the time would see to be the bigger threat – potential damage to the US economy or its foreign policy. One thing that would play upon his/her mind is that foreign policy can often aid or hinder the economy. A US shown to be weak and ineffectual would find it more difficult to secure energy supplies, sign treaties, etc as the other countries would say “well, if we get in trouble you’ll probably back out, won’t you? so we’ll look for a partner that would help us out.”

October 3, 2007 @ 8:54 pm | Comment

Having actually read the book I have to disagree with the assertion that it says “Don’t criticise China because it might implode/cause a war?” What the book says, imho, is that the US needs to bear in mind CHinese perspectives and think of trying to give them a way out that does involve war

October 3, 2007 @ 8:55 pm | Comment

Raj,

Your bravado is based assumptions of the past that are not longer valid. Just because of consequence from a war with China over Taiwan is huge, the US government is putting a stop to Chen Sjui-bian’s move toward independence. If you don’t like, that’s your problem.

To the contrary of what you said, the current US policy is not weakening its standing and influence in Asia. Please name me a few countries that have a problem with the recent US rebuke on Chen Sjui-bian. Asians want to see stable relationship between the US and China in Asia.

A few recent polls show most American people don’t want to get involved with China in a war over Taiwan. There is also a shift among the elite class. Don’t you notice that the front-runners of Presidential candidates of both parties have been fairly circumspect on China, and avoid unnecessary rhetorics that he or she has to deal with when comes to office. China has become a sort of partner in many areas.

By the way, Raj, we can debate who the winner will be in case of a war over Taiwan. If Taiwan declares independence and the US doesn’t stop it, I am sure China will stop it, China is working with the assumption of the involvement from the US.

October 4, 2007 @ 2:08 am | Comment

“”””””””China has become a sort of partner in many areas.””””””””

Or more accurately, China has become a sort of evil overlord, big brother, terrorist in many areas.

Hello, a partnership is not what you call it when one party constantly threatens the other with scarry weapons.

China may be feared (woohoo congratulations (not)) but it is not respected and there are no real partnerships that are not based on subverting and corrupting the interests of the people while making deals with filthy money and forcing people to comply.

Just check out the way the CCP says it is so sad that the German Chacellor met with Dalai Lama. Oh boo hoo, are they so unstable that a meeting with the Dalai Lama threatens such a regime (yes) And they are insisting that the Chancellor, make up for her mistake or else china will punish the countries trade realtionship.

So you see, China does not have partners, it threatens with its carrot on a stick+scary weapons, or it does scoundrel deals with other corrupt and filthy regimes like in Africa and middle east. Not exactly partnerships to be proud of eh?

Thats why under the circumstances the great solution is for the CCP to fall from within, let the Chinese people get a reality check and run the country better.

October 4, 2007 @ 2:19 am | Comment

snow, say it louder if doing so will make you feel better.

October 4, 2007 @ 4:23 am | Comment

snow, you have got to be kidding me:

“Hello, a partnership is not what you call it when one party constantly threatens the other with scarry weapons.”

Are you referring to the US? Who has the most nuclear warheads? Who has military bases scattering around the world? Who has just invaded two sovereign countries? Not China. Talk about threat!

“China may be feared (woohoo congratulations (not)) but it is not respected and there are no real partnerships that are not based on subverting and corrupting the interests of the people while making deals with filthy money and forcing people to comply.”

One can’t describe the US better than what you just did above. Does the US have genuine partners? Make no mistake, Britain and Japan are just little poodles that do whatever America tells them to do, they are not true partners. America will never accept partnership with any country on an equal footing because it will continue to seek to protect, prolong and maintain its supremacy over any other country and possible and potential competitor. Be it China, Russia or any country. No, we (the US) are No.1 forever and we are here to stay.

Snow, you need to get out once in a while and listen to what people are saying about the US.

October 4, 2007 @ 6:17 am | Comment

Like most western expats in China whose experience only turned them against China and the Chinese, John Pomfret is championing “getting tough with China”, but he offers nothing new other than what scores of American China-bashers have advocated for in the past, which is preparing for the inevitable war with China so America, the God-chosen country that embodies justice, freedom and everything good you can think of, will once for all destroy China, the God-forsaken country that stands for evil and everything bad you can think of.

The Chinese always blame the other guy in a crisis? I will need more evidence to be convinced, other than a stereotypical statement from Pomfret.

“Patriotic Education Campaign” for all college students in China? How is it different from the allegiance to the flag required of every young school kid or the over-the-top July 4th celebrations in the US?

“Accidental” bombing of the Chinese Embassy? Is it really accidental? How would the Americans react if the US embassy in Nairobi is “accidentally” bombed by the Chinese and three Americans were killed as a result? Laughing it off?

The spy plane incident? Americans were concerned and upset recently because Russian long-range bombers got as close as 60 miles off the coast of Alaska, and you expect the Chinese to be OK when the American spy plane was some 20 miles away from Chinese coast? Hypocrisy really knows no bound.

October 4, 2007 @ 6:38 am | Comment

@ All

Apologies for the above(got my gusto). The “super power”(wife) dragged me away for “talks” (domestic chores) and I have come back re-invigorated(tamed).

October 4, 2007 @ 6:42 am | Comment

I’m online for just a minute, so let me just say Pfeffer doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Pomfret is not anti-Chinese or anti-China and never has been. Your belligerence and stridency indicate you’re a fanatic; I think Pomfret’s comments about out-of-control nationalism really struck home with you so you’ve got to lash out. Do you happen to keep a web site chronicling the evils of the Japanese?

About the US being No. 1 forever, I’m afraid that’s probably true, at least for several generations to come, so get used to it. It’s not being replaced by China anytime soon and (perhaps unfortunately) there’s no power on earth that can even begin to stand up to it. I despise what this power has done to the minds of America’s present leadership, but to deny this power and to think it might be overshadowed by China is self-delusional. China is still one of the world’s poorer countries, for all its greatness and progress. I hope it moves up and that its success continues, but don’t fool yourself about it.

October 4, 2007 @ 9:54 am | Comment

Richard,

Before Pfeffer joined in, most of the discussion is about the recent US goverment polciy on Taiwan; it is not about a debate on who the strongest is.

October 4, 2007 @ 10:20 am | Comment

Z, please provide hard evidence to support your conclusions. You’ve said:

“Just because of consequence from a war with China over Taiwan is huge, the US government is putting a stop to Chen Sjui-bian’s move toward independence. If you don’t like, that’s your problem.”

The US government is putting a stop to it because it does not have the resources to fight another war at the moment. The mess in Iraq is consuming them all. Planes are even being diverted from Okinawa to go to the Middle East at the moment, and the American Air Force is starting to complain about it, so I read in the SCMP today. Loss of life is a factor, but get real. Americans, whether they are in government, the military, or just simple citizens, are far more preoccupied with loss of life in Iraq at the moment than the prospect of an eventual loss of life in a hypothetical Chinese war. I don’t like openly criticizing irrational posts, but your whole post shows a general ignorance of the American public and government (besides Bush) and what they find important.

“A few recent polls show most American people don’t want to get involved with China in a war over Taiwan. There is also a shift among the elite class.”

Um…. duh…. what RATIONAL country’s citizens wants its soldiers to get involved in any war. Nevertheless, support for Taiwan has not waned in the US. The House of Representatives has passed two resolutions supporting Taiwan in the last few months, one urging Bush and State Dept to approve a sale of F-16s to the island, and another urging Bush and State to drop restrictions on Taiwanese government officials who wish to visit the US. It is Bush who is lacking in support, not Congress. As for the American people, Zogby conducted a poll a few weeks ago that indicated strong support for Taiwan’s UN vote among average citizens from both sides of the political aisle.

Presidential candidates have been circumspect? That is a no brainer. That’s because AMBIGUITY IS THE STATED US POLICY when it comes to Taiwan and it has been for decades. The one who has departed from US policy in recent years is…. can you guess?…. Bush and his administration. Thankfully he will only be around for another two years.

Z, if you want to maintain your reputation as being qualified to discuss this issue, you had better start citing hard facts to prove your points. And you had better stop talking as if you understand the political temperature of the US. I hate ad-hominum attacks, but it is clear that you have no idea about the things you claim to know.

October 4, 2007 @ 11:55 am | Comment

“””””””””Snow, you need to get out once in a while and listen to what people are saying about the US.””””””””””

“”””””””‘scores of American China-bashers have advocated for in the past, which is preparing for the inevitable war with China so America, the God-chosen country that embodies justice, freedom and everything good you can think of, will once for all destroy China, the God-forsaken country that stands for evil and everything bad you can think of.”””””””””””

What are you on about cheif? Actually I prefer to look at the facts then what “people are saying about the US” As for what you are on about people China bashing, it’s bull. I have never heard in my lifetime ANYONE criticise China unjustly. I know a lot of people who dispise the communist party but that is totally different from calling China evil, dont make that mistake about me. And (I live in Canada by the way…) I have NEVER heard ANYONE talk about America as though it was perfexct in anyway. Actually THE TRUTH IS that what I hear ALOT is people calling America sooo bad and totally snoozing over China’s evils. The days of people using terms like yellow teror or some weirdness and calling AMerica perfect are long over so stop usiing these cliches as excuses.

Do you think that people would criticise China unjustly, show me the instances please, if not, stop defending the CCP from just criticism.

October 4, 2007 @ 11:56 am | Comment

Sorry, what were we talking about? Taiwan right, seems like the CCP is using this issue to form the minds of the Chinese people and to test the waters of the international community. I really don’t think it’s about getting back Taiwan for some cultural reason (can you imagine the CCP actually having cultural values, what a sick joke) . It will try to see if it can maintain a high level of blindness within China and see how corrupt it can cause the rest of the world to be, and therefore be powerless. Same with the Dalai Lama stuff, keep the people under mind control as well as bribe and threaten the international community in their hopes of harnessing global control.

October 4, 2007 @ 12:32 pm | Comment

Thomas,

“The US government is putting a stop to it because it does not have the resources to fight another war at the moment. The mess in Iraq is consuming them all.”

It is often said that the US is able to flight two major wars at the same time. So, it is not true. If flighting the small number of Iraqi insurgents is consuming them all and stretching the US forces to the breaking point, the cost will be huge for the US to flight the lagest army of the world with modern weapons, the US will also have financial difficuty to flight a war with China. Remember that it is flight the war in Iraq with debt credit partially from China. A war with China may just pull US down from the superpower status. The cost for China will be at least as big as that for the US, but Taiwan is the life-and-death issue for Chinese government, it is determined to flight if Taiwan goes indepedence.

“The American Air Force is starting to complain about it, so I read in the SCMP today”

I read that interview too. He is asking for money for new weapons, making the execute that Chinese weapons have now become better than the US weapons for the US troops in Okinawa. That’s a typical tactic.

“As for the American people, Zogby conducted a poll a few weeks ago that indicated strong support for Taiwan’s UN vote among average citizens from both sides of the political aisle.”

I believe that. The result is different if the question is whether the US should flight a war with China due to provocation from Taiwan. See poll result from Pew Research a few months, it is 70% vs 30%. People will hesitate if they learn their monthly montage will go up.

October 4, 2007 @ 1:37 pm | Comment

Thank you, Z. You have admitted that Iraq is the main reason the US does not give more support to Taiwan, rather than the fear of the cost of a war with China. Thanks for the backstep.

You have also failed to support the point that Americans do not support Taiwan. You have cited a poll that asks if the US will send troops to Country A in a war with Country B that Country A starts. You could insert any two countries into such a poll and get the same conclusion as Pew did. As I recall, this was the main critique of that poll at the time it was conducted. Can you actually cite a poll that says that Americans have little support for Taiwan? Remember, you are claiming that the tides of public opinion in the US are shifting against the island. Where is the evidence for this shift?

Sorry, your arguments are still unconvincing.

October 4, 2007 @ 2:32 pm | Comment

Thomas,

“Thank you, Z. You have admitted that Iraq is the main reason the US does not give more support to Taiwan, rather than the fear of the cost of a war with China. Thanks for the backstep”

Wait a second, I didn’t admit anything, and I actually think I am winning the arguments. But I have to say that so far, I found that you are not ideological person.

I still think it is too costly and unnecessary. I have already said why it is too costly in my previous reply to you. It is unnecessary because it is not about democracy and people’s right in Taiwan. Of course, some people will always say it is.

“You have also failed to support the point that Americans do not support Taiwan.”

I didn’t say Americans do not support Taiwan. Please point it out to me if I did. To the contrary, I had problem with Raj’s assertion that the US bullied Taiwan, I also said “please remember that the US has always have very good relationship with Taiwan.”.

What I said on this is very clear: the US support for Taiwan is not unconditional. And if Taiwan does something that is not in the US interest, it may be rebuked, and there is absolutely no need for people to feel sad and consider it an appeasement to China.

“Can you actually cite a poll that says that Americans have little support for Taiwan?”

Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say Americans have little support for Taiwan.

“You have cited a poll that asks if the US will send troops to Country A in a war with Country B that Country A starts. You could insert any two countries into such a poll and get the same conclusion as Pew did.”

Maybe you are right on this one.

“Remember, you are claiming that the tides of public opinion in the US are shifting against the island. Where is the evidence for this shift?”

I don’t see any outcry over the US rebuke to Taiwan in the mainstream media (I didn’t know there was resolutions passed in the House supporting Taiwan; but I guess it was symbolic gesture and doesn’t carry much teeth. Some Taiwan friends in the do-nothing Congress do this all the time). Twenty year ago, it would have been considered as a huge issue. Today, more and more people, companies have their interest linked to China.

October 4, 2007 @ 5:30 pm | Comment

“Presidential candidates have been circumspect? That is a no brainer. That’s because AMBIGUITY IS THE STATED US POLICY when it comes to Taiwan and it has been for decades. ”

Thomas, very well said. I can quote a paper by a former US diplomat Harvey Feldman to support this point that you have correctly raised. As mentioned before, I’m not familiar with US politics. So I did a search after my last dialogue with z. And I came across this interesting and informative paper that Feldman penned for the Heritage Foundation. The paper traced various changes in US official policy towards Taiwan since the Reagan Administration signed a communiqué ·ith China in August 1982.

According to Feldman, the framework that guides US policy over Taiwan has remained practically the same in spite of closer economic ties with China. This framework, based on the Taiwan Relation Act and Reagan’s Six Assurances has been deliberately made ambiguous, as it states that the U.S. will take no position on the ultimate goal, whether independence, unification with China, or some other status. However, it is also comprehensive enough so that the U.S. can maintain a keen interest in the process, to make sure that it would be peaceful, it must not involve coercion, and it must have the consent of the parties on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.

One can disagree with this policy, or describe it as insufficient, or suggest ways of improving it (just like what Raj and I had been doing). But it is rather uninformed to suggest that the US will suddenly change her policy because of a fear of war with China.

This is the link to the paper: http://tinyurl.com/36ycdu

October 4, 2007 @ 5:40 pm | Comment

Cat,

“That’s because AMBIGUITY IS THE STATED US POLICY when it comes to Taiwan and it has been for decades. “.

I missed this one in my reply to Thomas, so I am glad you brought this up.

The policy ambiguity has its beauty. It works well if both sides at the Strait don’t go too far. But, now, Chen Sjui-bian is pushing it too hard, and the US government is struggling to maintain this ambiguity. So the US government and some high-profile politicians are giving out subtle messages on defensing Taiwan. It was recently reported, in a private interview, senator Clinton questioned the possibility of the US direct involvement in a war with China over Taiwan.

October 5, 2007 @ 1:00 am | Comment

Raj

U.S. credibility in Asia is based on its hard power expressed through military force and bilateral commitments, but recently the entire direction of its Asia policy has become muddled to the point where it has permanently lost the strategic initiative. American diplomats constantly speak of regaining that initiative in Asia, but by the 2008 Beijing Olympics, it will be extremely difficult for that to happen because of Fukuda’s ascenscion in Japan and continued stability in Korea. Indeed, America’s peacekeepers in the region are now more resented than welcomed; and I doubt that the residents of Okinawa would appreciate having a giant bulls-eye for Chinese ballistic missiles in their backyard–especially when that military base does not serve their interests at all (come on, does China really want to invade Japan?….)

Furthermore, you have to realize that increasing protectionism in the United States puts a further break on U.S. economic diplomacy in Asia, which makes any sort of strategic hedge against Chinese diplomacy that much more difficult.

So while Pomfret may have a point in saying that the Chinese elite is not as unified as it seems, he is incorrect in implying that U.S. pressure through Taiwan, Japan, India, and Australia could cause China to somehow “crack”. Why? Because while America could exert pressure, it would be counterproductive as China’s elite would simply rally around their current government if that happened–because any sort of levers that might pry them apart (such as target economic sanctions or energy resource denial) are not possible given America’s current diplomatic situation in Asia.

Raj, the U.S. was shown to be a paper tiger when it got its own elite fragmented over a low-level insurgency in Iraq.

One question for all the commenters here: is it in the interests of the United States to check, hedge against, or contain China? And why?

October 5, 2007 @ 4:38 am | Comment

It’s not in the U.S’s interests at all to be obnoxious, but the self-deluded imbecile with a missionary complex might believe their asinine meddling in international affairs is for the “greater good” and for freedom and democracy ™.

October 5, 2007 @ 5:35 am | Comment

Richard, is it really that I don’t know what I am talking about, or you simply don’t like what I am talking about? I have followed Pomfret’s stuff for a while and I can tell you he is no friend of the Chinese. Myabe staying in China for too long made him this way, I don’t know. I was once told, if you stay in another country for long, you will grow to hate it, I think it is quite true, a phenomenon confirmed by people like Pomfret and many other foreign expats.

I am a fanatic, by saying or doing what? Why don’t you refute what I wrote, point by point, can you? Show me how the Chinese have always blamed the other guy in a crisis; why the “Patriotic Education” in China is wrong; why the Chinese shouldn’t have reacted the way they did after the bombing of their embassy; why the Chinese shouldn’t have reacted the way they did when the American spyplane was closely spying on China, just 20 miles off the Chinese coast. Can you??

It’s true nationalism in China was encouraged by the government and the blind hatred toward Japan displayed by many young Chinese Fen Qing is simply astonishing, to say the least. It ‘s true the nationalism is getting kind of out of control in China. But what distinguishes China from other countries? In countries like the US, Japan, South Korea etc., you don’t have fanatics like those fanatics you have in China?

Richard, it is funny, the Chinese themselves would agree with you 100% on your second point, but American and other western “scholars” just wouldn’t give “China Threat” a rest. According to the Chinese government, China will become a “moderately developed country” by year 2080. They know they have a long way to go. They know they are not going to catch up with the US and the rest of the west any time soon. It’s the westerners who came up with this stupid notion that somehow China is the emerging superpower who is going to replace the US soon. With people like Bill Gertz, Steve Mosher, Ross Munroe and Peter Navarro telling us how evil and ambitious China is; that China is out to take over and destroy America, China is being painted and seen as your typical evil dragon. The Chinese themselves just want to have a decent life, develop their economy and raise their standard of living. Who cares who is going to be No.1? The US can keep the No.1 crown forever for all the Chinese care. I am sure you have heard of “Men Sheng Fa Da Cai”, have you?

October 5, 2007 @ 6:20 am | Comment

Snow,

Then you haven’t heard about folks like Bill Gertz, Steven Mosher, Ross Munroe and Peter Navarro, I guess. They made no distinction, at least making no effort to do so, between the CCP and the nation known as China.

Of course China is not beyond criticism and you can criticize it all you want. But to label it “evil overlord” and “terrorist” (in your own words) is not excessive, to say the least? Anybody telling me that the US is “evil” or “terrorist”, I would just brush it off and not take that person seriously. The same with China. Many Chinese frequently and vehemently lash out at the CCP for particular things it does, you can do the same. Labeling it “evil” does not help. You can try telling your Chinese friends (if you have any) that you think China is “evil” and is a “terrorist”, I doubt that you will find any Chinese, even among the most anti-CCP crowd, to agree with you.

Also, China is often subject to double standard and western hypocrisy when it is accused of doing certain things by those western countries (especially the US) who are doing the same thing. If this is not hypocrisy, I don’t know what is.

I just don’t get it: What is it about the west that makes them believe that it is their given duty to lecture other countries and people what they should do and how they should go about doing their business?

October 5, 2007 @ 6:32 am | Comment

pfeffer,

I agree with you that a lot of people who criticise “China” make the very stupid and unprogressive mistake of not looking into the matter very deeply and lumping together the communist party with China. I think most Westerners cannot understand that the party is soooo insidious that it crreps into every aspect of peoples live making it seem like it and the nation are one and the same. On that, you have a point.

“””””””””””Of course China is not beyond criticism and you can criticize it all you want. But to label it “evil overlord” and “terrorist” (in your own words) is not excessive, to say the least?”””””””””

I understand your point of view but I disagree with it. I do believe their is a very sinister reason why the CCP is obsessed with so called saving face ei, changing the facts to favour itself to the point of severe cersorship and brainwashing.

I believe the result of their campaigns includes you saying that to me. you know what I mean?

As for the US contending with the CCP in terms of evilness, youd have to show me some examples. You mentioned hypocrisy and I dont deny that it exists BUT, the crimes which I most despise the CCP for, the US has not committed. Thats not to say I believe the US to be some kind of innocent, just to say I wouldnt categorize it as evil since it hasnt done what the CCP has done….

What is it about “the West” that makes people criticise people…..? IT”S CALLED A CONSCIENCE. The CCP says for example that it’s crimes against Falun Gong practitioners are its ” internal affairs” What would the victims say? HEP, I’m sure. So if the CCP wants to do whatever it wants to innocent people, we should all kowtow to the golden slogan ‘internal affairs’?!

Also the rise of China is important to the whole world, do I have to tell you that? Hello, globalization, hello, communist parties have agenda’s and they are already carried out through this united front and that united front, these fronts for the CCP exist all over the world, hello, thousands of spies through north America and Australia….

Do you think we are maybe a little interested in whether the next “superpower” will consider most of the things we think, say and do subversive? I sure am. I know they wont quit pressuring human rights and slamming people for their spirituality etc. They just can’t friggin stop, look the Olympics was their chance to clean up and have everyone say “wow, you cleaned up, yay China” But instead out of their constant fear, they just cracked down harder.

Thanks for the interesting comments.

October 5, 2007 @ 8:58 am | Comment

As for the US contending with the CCP in terms of evilness, youd have to show me some examples.

Try reading up from the crackdown and butchery of Filipinos up until Iraq. Killing people is fair game as long as it lowers the prices on commodities like oil and sugar. America has been good at treating whoever it considers human well. That’s why they dance and sing all over the corpses of Native Americans, who were 100% of the population down to 2%. This is what Free Tibet imbeciles would call “genocide of the pure Tibetan/Amerind race”. Oh but I forgot, we have special rules for China. Only China can be bad and everything is China’s fault. Let’s boycott Chinese goods since they deal with Sudan! Hey, I have another bright idea, lets boycott Fair Trade products because African countries deal with the CCP! Wow, I’m a savvy, progressive, hip American liberal in his twenties! My $tarbuck$ was made from coffee beans picked by disadvantaged brown people, what did you do for the world today?

IT”S CALLED A CONSCIENCE.

lol, “the West” with a conscience. Good one. Can it.

October 5, 2007 @ 9:15 am | Comment

>>

>>

Out of curiosity, if China is so evil and bad, why did you come to China? Why do you stay in China? People with conscience, aka “the westerners” should all boycott the evil China and leave, I guess. Am I wrong?

October 5, 2007 @ 9:38 am | Comment

Sorry snow, for some reason the paragraphs taken from your post that were quoted did not show. You get the idea what I am trying to say. Thanks.

October 5, 2007 @ 9:58 am | Comment

Ok, thats lots of stuff… Would you consider going and checking back within this site and noting what I have already said? (I’ve been through this so many times although I usually dont get into the details cause we have a code of staying on topic to stick to ( ;)I want to answer all of your comments of course… There’s so much all at once…

Lemme just take a look see at the first two paragraphs for the moment.

I think you made a mistake, cause I have already agreed with you that a lot of people make the stupid mistake of lumping together the stupid party with the nation of China. I do not make that mistake. So then further on when you keep saying that I consider China a terrorist state and all that is based in your misunderstanding.

I certainly do not dislike China. But I do consider the CCP to be a terrorist organization. Above (or below) that though is the issue of whether the CCP is evil. First off, define evil, heres a good definition I got from wiki:

In ethics, evil refers to violations of an empathetic ideal which manifests as morally or ethically objectionable thought, speech, or action; behavior or thought which is hateful, cruel, violent, or devoid of conscience. Evil is sometimes defined as the opposite of good, or anything that opposes the force of life, for instance.

Yeah I think all people and all groups/nations or whatever have some degree of this bad thing, but I’d say compared to the CCP, everyone else is looking pretty good (and that means the CCP looks REALLY bad)

Okay man, I feel like Im gonna really start scaring people here if I keep talking like this.

By the way, I find that clean your own backyard thing is a big excuse to be a gimp and not care about anyone but whatever you choose to consider ‘your own backyard’. I learned in church ‘yu have more love if yu give it way’ ie, you dont have a limited supply of caring that you have to save for certain this or that occasion. Yeah there might be some poor people in ‘my backyard’ but that doesnt mean I should use that as an excuse to neglect the poor suffering opressed tortured innocent people being treated like shit in China. Also, to help out it’s not like you really have to do much, you just have to have a good heart and spread the love er whatever yu no.

Just my opinion, talk to you again then,

snow

October 5, 2007 @ 10:54 am | Comment

Ferins, stop goin off your rocker, by the way, no one said all Western people are good or different from Eastern people. I think Chinese people and singaporean etc, all people should have a conscience. It’s not about me or him or they or comparing and being defensive. i think you getting feisty and emotional is not progressive, what is it you wish for?

October 5, 2007 @ 12:14 pm | Comment

I certainly do not dislike China. But I do consider the CCP to be a terrorist organization.

What is your criteria? When it comes to death tolls, there are more “terrorist organizations” out there.

what is it you wish for?

Steady reform, no revolutionary spouting. That can’t be scaled back.

October 5, 2007 @ 2:48 pm | Comment

Snow, thanks for the response. Still you have not told us why you think the CCP is evil, a “terrorist organization”, and why everyone looks pretty good compared to the evil CCP. Do you think the Nazis were better than the CCP? How about Al-Qaeda?

You continued to argue that you don’t consider China and the CCP the same thing, yet how do you explain this “Or more accurately, China has become a sort of evil overlord, big brother, terrorist in many areas.”? China=the CCP, in your own words.

Again, why come to an evil country ruled by the worst of the worst, the CCP, a terrorist organization? Are you here in China to secretly organize anti-CCP rebellion? 🙂 Do you work for the CIA, NSA, the White House or the Australian security agency? 🙂 Just kidding.

October 7, 2007 @ 2:29 am | Comment

pfeffer:

Wow, you are really fired up about defending China at all costs. I was absolutely right that China is you’ve got left in life.

We are all in China to organize rebellion, mwooohahahahahahahhaaaaaaaaaaa!

October 7, 2007 @ 7:31 am | Comment

You got that right, nh. I am just as passionate about defending China as you are about bashing it.

Capiche?

October 7, 2007 @ 9:44 am | Comment

“Or more accurately, China has become a sort of evil overlord, big brother, terrorist in many areas.”? China=the CCP, in your own words.””””””””””

Right, yeah, thanks, I guess when it comes to “politics” in the world I also call the CCP China, cause in the world political stage China is indeed represented by the CCP, I can’t go so far as to say there is absolutely no relationship of course, but yeah in some cases as this the CCP is representing the country, if they were only claiming to represent themselves, I would care at all, they can go to heck, but the way they claim to and officially represent such a large and cool people is so freakin evil since they are evil sickos.

How are they evil sickos? I simply dont have any minutes for that right now, its not an answer that if I say simply that you will understand.

Do you understand the concept of evil? If you understand the concept of evil, then we can talk, but if you dont, then you could put evil itslef right next to the essence of goodness and you still wouldn’t know whats what.

If you want to compare to al-qaeda or Nazi party, we do that but if we don’t have the same understanding of the definition of evil, it might not be very good discussion.

Do you know the CCPs history of killing, brainwashing, torture, ruination of culture, overall corruption and scumminess all that kind of stuff?

Maybe you think they have just changed since you want to believe that they are good now, do you know about Falun Gong and recent evil stuff likek that.

So if you know the subject well, and you know what is evil , then we can discuss, or actually, if those things were in place, we wouldnt need to discuss cause you would already agree with me hah. ( :

Nanhey is against China as a whole but I’m not sure why. is that right Nanhey? Maybe he/you dont know that there are many people in China who despise the stupid party and that its supporters have been brainwashed and are unknowingly used as tools for the party. A lot of them unfortunatel also have no conscience and sell their souls to the party knowingly (of course not literally knowingly, who would do that knowingly!)

October 7, 2007 @ 12:24 pm | Comment

We are all in China to organize rebellion, mwooohahahahahahahhaaaaaaaaaaa!

Just to piss and moan and try to shape it in your corpulent images, of course.

October 7, 2007 @ 3:36 pm | Comment

history of killing

Every single country in the planet

October 7, 2007 @ 3:37 pm | Comment

“In ethics, evil refers to violations of an empathetic ideal which manifests as morally or ethically objectionable thought, speech, or action; behavior or thought which is hateful, cruel, violent, or devoid of conscience. Evil is sometimes defined as the opposite of good, or anything that opposes the force of life, for instance. ”

Snow, I suppose this is the definition of “evil” that you approve of? OK then, my question is, how does the CCP fit the criteria that others, including the Nazis and Al-Qaeda don’t? Also, do you think the self-proclaimed “champion of freedom and beacon of democracy” is not evil, if we stick to this definition?

Are you religious, by the way?

“Do you know the CCPs history of killing, brainwashing, torture, ruination of culture, overall corruption and scumminess all that kind of stuff?”

Yes the CCP has done a great deal of all of the above, no question about it. Do I think it is evil? No, I don’t because intentions matter. For example, the Brits were out to kill and subjugate people found in their various “colonies” and exploit everything they could get their dirty hands on. The Nazis were out to kill the Jews and enslave those countries it conquered. Al-Qaeda is out to murder civilians to terrorize. I don’t see the CCP in the same light. They have certainly screwed up many times and are responsible for the death of millions of Chinese, however it is not their intention to kill these people in the first place.

Also, everything you have mentioned above, the CCP has done it, so has the Brits, the Americans, the Japanese, the Mongols and everyone else. You still HAVE NOT EXPLAINED WHY THE CCP IS THE WORST OF THEM ALL.

Killing and ruination of culture? I’d argue the Mongols and the west (especially the British, the French, the Spaniards) were the worst so far in terms of numbers of people killed and culture ruined. Hands down they were the champions.

Brainwashing? Yes the CCP has been trying to brainwash the Chinese for more than 50 years and I have to say they are not very good at it. The west, on the other hand, is the true master, it has been churning out propaganda to brainwash people in the west without failure so far. If you believe only commies do propaganda, you are “too simple, too naive”.

Torture? What the CCP did to the Falun Gong people was not right, no question about it. But tell me, which country does not torture? Why is the CCP is the worst?

Corruption and scumminess? If having corruption makes a country evil, I must say every single country in this world is evil. Of course you can enlighten me by listing some countries where no corruption exists. Scumminess is a subjective term which could different things to different people.

Selling their souls to the party? Again I bring it to you attention that according to recent survey done by PEW, close to 80% of the Chinese are satisfied with the current situation and the direction in which China is heading. Are you saying these people were lying? Since you are in China (so you claimed), can you tell us what your impression is, are most people satisifed or not? Are most people feeling positive toward their future or negative?

And why, why do you stay in China if you can’t stand the CCP, if you believe this is the all-time worst, the evil terrorist country known as China? Maybe you are here to give the Chinese hope? You are a missionary?

October 8, 2007 @ 3:03 am | Comment

@Pffefer
“Yes the CCP has done a great deal of all of the above, no question about it. Do I think it is evil? No, I don’t because intentions matter. For example, the Brits were out to kill and subjugate people found in their various “colonies” and exploit everything they could get their dirty hands on. The Nazis were out to kill the Jews and enslave those countries it conquered. Al-Qaeda is out to murder civilians to terrorize. I don’t see the CCP in the same light. They have certainly screwed up many times and are responsible for the death of millions of Chinese, however it is not their intention to kill these people in the first place.”

I think your defence of the CCP is here is very biased. How do you know about whether there is “intention”? From the facts, it was very clear that Mao started the Cultural Revolution with the intention to keep himself in power, having been discredited by the massive failure of the Great Leap Forward. From 1966 onwards, violence by the Red Guards brought China to the brink of collapse and civil war. Did Mao stop it? No. That’s because the leftist violence was devouring his “rightist” opponents in control of the party. Never mind that millions of lives were ruined and lost. Your so-called “unintentional” shows that you are just a paid agent to whitewash and distort history.

And your comparison with the British imperialists, Nazis and Al-Qaeda. If you used them as standards for comparison, then it was really unfortunate. The CCP is a Chinese party-state, it is supposed to look after the welfare of the Chinese people. Imperialists, Nazis and terrorists are not your domestic leaders. It is disgusting when a government used state terror against its own people, the very same people it is supposed to protect. It’s like rape is already a disgusting crime, it’s more disgusting when a biological father rape his own daughter. Get it?

Pls think twice before you used this type of fallacious argument. Its disgraceful and irksome.

October 8, 2007 @ 6:53 pm | Comment

@Pffefer
“Yes the CCP has done a great deal of all of the above, no question about it. Do I think it is evil? No, I don’t because intentions matter. For example, the Brits were out to kill and subjugate people found in their various “colonies” and exploit everything they could get their dirty hands on. The Nazis were out to kill the Jews and enslave those countries it conquered. Al-Qaeda is out to murder civilians to terrorize. I don’t see the CCP in the same light. They have certainly screwed up many times and are responsible for the death of millions of Chinese, however it is not their intention to kill these people in the first place.”

I think your defence of the CCP is here is very biased. How do you know about whether there is “intention”? From the facts, it was very clear that Mao started the Cultural Revolution with the intention to keep himself in power, having been discredited by the massive failure of the Great Leap Forward. From 1966 onwards, violence by the Red Guards brought China to the brink of collapse and civil war. Did Mao stop it? No. That’s because the leftist violence was devouring his “rightist” opponents in control of the party. Never mind that millions of lives were ruined and lost. Your so-called “unintentional” shows that you are just a paid agent to whitewash and distort history.

And your comparison with the British imperialists, Nazis and Al-Qaeda. If you used them as standards for comparison, then it was really unfortunate. The CCP is a Chinese party-state, it is supposed to look after the welfare of the Chinese people. Imperialists, Nazis and terrorists are not your domestic leaders. It is disgusting when a government used state terror against its own people, the very same people it is supposed to protect. It’s like rape is already a disgusting crime, it’s more disgusting when a biological father rape his own daughter. Get it?

Pls think twice before you used this type of fallacious argument. Its disgraceful and irksome.

October 8, 2007 @ 6:53 pm | Comment

@Pffefer
“Brainwashing? Yes the CCP has been trying to brainwash the Chinese for more than 50 years and I have to say they are not very good at it. The west, on the other hand, is the true master, it has been churning out propaganda to brainwash people in the west without failure so far. If you believe only commies do propaganda, you are “too simple, too naive”.

It’s clear that you are into the knee-jerk “BUT the West did it too!” type of protest. Let me tell you the difference. The CCP indoctrinated the people systematically through censorship, propaganda, Internet, arrests and blocking alternative avenues of news and information. Someone who expresses different views is at the mercy of arrest by the Ministry of Public Security and the principle of habeas corpus and freedom of expression is alien in Communist China. In the West, the Hollywood may be seem as propaganda, and let’s assume that the West does brainwash people too. But the difference is, you are free as an individual to express dissenting views and repudiate and protest against the view of the government. Political pluralism in the West ensures that there is nothing the government can do to brainwash the people. In China, if you challenge official propaganda, you probably find yourself behind the fences.

Those comments are what i called “pure imbecility”.

October 8, 2007 @ 7:04 pm | Comment

@Pffefer
“Killing and ruination of culture? I’d argue the Mongols and the west (especially the British, the French, the Spaniards) were the worst so far in terms of numbers of people killed and culture ruined. Hands down they were the champions.”

Those invaders destroyed other people’s culture and were of course evil. BUT the CCP, especially during the Cultural Revolution, destroyed its OWN people’s culture and heritage. The key word here is “OWN”. What can be worse than doing harm to your own civilization and heritage? The city walls of Beijing were gone because the Red Guards deemed it as “the Four Olds”. And destroying the “Four Olds” was a war declared by the communists against its very own Chinese culture and heritage. Chinese people destroying their very own heritage. What can be more foolish than that?

October 8, 2007 @ 7:12 pm | Comment

“I think your defence of the CCP is here is very biased. How do you know about whether there is “intention”? From the facts, it was very clear that Mao started the Cultural Revolution with the intention to keep himself in power, having been discredited by the massive failure of the Great Leap Forward. From 1966 onwards, violence by the Red Guards brought China to the brink of collapse and civil war. Did Mao stop it? No. That’s because the leftist violence was devouring his “rightist” opponents in control of the party. Never mind that millions of lives were ruined and lost. Your so-called “unintentional” shows that you are just a paid agent to whitewash and distort history.”

OK, during what period did most of the Chinese that were allegedly killed by the CCP died? GLF or CR? Even you admitted that GLF was a “failure”. Yes one can argue that CR was started in a way to preserve his power, but can you say it was started with a purpose of terrorizing the population and killing as many people as possible? If you say so, I demand to see some proof.

Your single-mindedness and hysterical accusation (that I am a paid agent) really say a lot about where you are coming from. You are just as brainwashed as I am.

“And your comparison with the British imperialists, Nazis and Al-Qaeda. If you used them as standards for comparison, then it was really unfortunate. The CCP is a Chinese party-state, it is supposed to look after the welfare of the Chinese people. Imperialists, Nazis and terrorists are not your domestic leaders. It is disgusting when a government used state terror against its own people, the very same people it is supposed to protect. It’s like rape is already a disgusting crime, it’s more disgusting when a biological father rape his own daughter. Get it?”

No, I don’t get it. What are you saying here? You’d rather see foreigners invade your country, kill and enslave your people than witness your own government mistreating your people? If that’s what you are saying, I absolutely can’t agree. In my opinion, mentioning the CCP in the same line with the Brits, the Nazis and Al-Qaeda is a great insult to the CCP. Again you have to look at their intentions. How is it ever possible for anyone, anyone to believe that the CCP is actually worse than the British, the Nazis and Al-Qaeda?? Following your line of thinking, I am starting to think you are a paid agent working for XXX.

I am not defending the CCP here, the CCP has done many bad things as well as many good things. Let history be the judge. Let the Chinese themselves be the judge. I am having a problem with snow saying the CCP is the evil and furthermore it is the worst of them all. Who are you, some foreign expat to make such an hasty and ridiculous conclusion? Again, if you are right, then the Chinese people must be wrong and they have to be the stupidest, most ignorant people in the world. Go slap them and slap them hard.

“It’s clear that you are into the knee-jerk “BUT the West did it too!” type of protest. Let me tell you the difference. The CCP indoctrinated the people systematically through censorship, propaganda, Internet, arrests and blocking alternative avenues of news and information. Someone who expresses different views is at the mercy of arrest by the Ministry of Public Security and the principle of habeas corpus and freedom of expression is alien in Communist China. In the West, the Hollywood may be seem as propaganda, and let’s assume that the West does brainwash people too. But the difference is, you are free as an individual to express dissenting views and repudiate and protest against the view of the government. Political pluralism in the West ensures that there is nothing the government can do to brainwash the people. In China, if you challenge official propaganda, you probably find yourself behind the fences.
Those comments are what i called “pure imbecility”.”

Call it whatever you want. Hollywood? Did anybody mention Hollywood? Did I? This is the typical defense a westerner or a pro-western person comes up with, that the west allows different views to be expressed. Sure it is true. But the mainstream western media, how pluralistic are they really? I mean I can start a blog or a newspaper or a magazine expressing the fringe, not-so-popular views, what are my chances of survival? And how many people will actually read my stuff and be influenced by it? The mainstream media, supported by corporate America, churn out the same old stuff all the time, which only reinforce people’s predisposed opinions about certain things. China? Oh, the big bad wolf who is trying to poison our babies. When are you bombarded with the same old @#$% all the time, you think you will be smart enough to think independently? In this regard, people in the west are not that different from the people in China. Actually I believe they are more prone to believe the stuff carried by the (mainstream) media because many of them naively believe that they are telling the truth since they are not controlled by the government.

And please (I assume you have been to China), don’t give the CCP too much credit, they are not that powerful, they don’t and can’t control anybody. Like I said before, many Chinese are so fed up with the CCP propaganda that they developed this knee-jerk reaction of rejecting and dismissing everything coming from the official media outlets, such as Xinhua. “Xinhua and others always say the party is great, China is doing well. I don’t think so. I don’t trust them.” is a typical reaction I get from people. Gosh, you must believe the Chinese are indeed the stupidest people in the world.

I am not even mentioning pure propaganda outlets such as VOA, RFA and RFE etc. If you don’t know what American or western propaganda is, go find out yourself.

“Those invaders destroyed other people’s culture and were of course evil. BUT the CCP, especially during the Cultural Revolution, destroyed its OWN people’s culture and heritage. The key word here is “OWN”. What can be worse than doing harm to your own civilization and heritage? The city walls of Beijing were gone because the Red Guards deemed it as “the Four Olds”. And destroying the “Four Olds” was a war declared by the communists against its very own Chinese culture and heritage. Chinese people destroying their very own heritage. What can be more foolish than that? ”

It was indeed foolish, very stupid and tragic. But I wouldn’t call the CCP evil just because of that. You need to see the bigger picture: The communists were not alone in believing that the Chinese had to part with the old, their traditions and culture and everything in order to be modern and strong. Dr. Sun and many Chinese revolutionaries that walked before and after him had similar belief, that is, China is weak, China is being taken advantage of by foreigners because China holds onto its traditions and can’t adopt and adapt, something like that. Everybody thought westernization was the way (look at Japan). Now, not just the CCP, but average Chinese starts to realize what a big mistake it was to ditch their traditions and cultures, you know those things that made them Chinese. Some people argue that the revival of traditional culture and Confucianism etc. is done and supported by the CCP only to strengthen its power and control. I don’t think so. I see genuine interest in old, traditional Chinese culture, literature and other things in the average joes.

October 9, 2007 @ 6:47 am | Comment

Pffefer, why dont you read the nine commentaries on the communist party. if you have heard such and such about it and you dont want to read it because of hearsay, that means you are for sure brainwashed. Just read it and let me know what you think.

October 9, 2007 @ 9:04 am | Comment

Snow, of course I have heard about it, the infamous book coming out of FLG’s propaganda department, known as “Jiu Ping” in Mandarin. Why should I bother to read pure propaganda? Like how I dissed Jiang’s “four represents”, I don’t need to waste my time on something this stupid.

If you are with the FLG, then I will have nothing else to say. By the way, I did read “Master Li”‘s crappy book “Zhuan Fa Lun”, it is a load of @#$%.

October 9, 2007 @ 9:27 am | Comment

Snow, just to be clear:

Torture is bad. Despite the fact that I detest “Master Li” and his garbage, I think what the Chinese government did to FLG practitioners was horrible and completely inexcusable.

Ask your non-FLG Chinese friends (if you have any) or Chinese around you how they view FLG, “Jiu Ping” and the CCP. Come back and tell me what the majority view is.

October 9, 2007 @ 9:34 am | Comment