PRC tries to reign in Taiwan

By the way, PRC's "invasion" was bad for the high-rank Tibetan
monks and officers. But for the average Joes, that was a positive
influence. Before PRC, Tibet had a peasant-servant system, sort
of the black slaves before the American Civil War. Monks and
landlords owned large properties and bunch of farm slaves.
They had all kinds of torturing tools to "train" their servants, for
example, a device to chop the eyeballs. After the PRC, servants
become free. The government distributed land to them so they
could earn their own living. Unfortunately, they believe the monks
so much and donate a large portion of their income to temples.

 

I guess you should read more about the history of PLA
and PRC. My grandpa was a PLA soldier. Whenever they occupied
a place, they shot the "evil" landlords and distributed the land to
poor peasants. Those who tramped the property of poor people
would receive severe penalty, and solidiers and officers were all
encouraged to help poor people with housework and farm work.
That was why they gained wide-range support from poor
peasants. Of course, they were evil to capitalists and landlords.

 

You know Sam, your extreme tunnel vision is simply astounding.

As for Aquitaine & Normandy, I recall making no comment on it. Why? As I said, it doesn't make one goddam difference what Britain thinks, unless you associate Britain with international law, which actually in your case, I wouldn't be surprised.

You've never met a Tibetan that felt the way of liberation? Well, you've never seen a million dollars either. Yet it didn't prevent you from discounting the liberation line altogether. Somehow without a referendum, I can't be sure, you are absolutely right on that. Yet in reverse, you dismiss your even less valid theory as if a referendum had already occurred.

As for the Native Americans, I don't see you waiving flags that they are only entitled to the meagre land as supposed to all that's owed to them. How benevolent of you to shove all Tibetans to some tiny plot of land, with no resources, giving them no prospect and no future. Not to mention Americans (as well as Canadians) routinely whine and b**** about Native fishing rights, or claim that they are smuggling anything from beer to pot and any other thing from infesting their land to the weather.

But OK. I think that can be arranged. Suppose all China has to do is just that, I'll leave you personally in charge of rounding up Tibetans and forcing them to the foot of the Himalaya Mountains. Mind you, that is still Chinese territory, but they can do whatever the hell they want on it for the foreseeable future. Somehow I don't think it will shut you up though.

I admit to forgetting to the ICJ (doesn't it stand for International Commision for Justice?) ruling, but in the end it doesn't matter one bit. Because later international law reverse that ruling. If anything, that argues in favour of the Chinese. International law later found the Chinese version more convincing (or they just paid more money).

Once again I ask you, what gives what the 13th Dalai Lama said legal force, when he isn't the head of state? If you want to resort to flip flop tactics, then OK. But didn't the current Dalai Lama say two weeks ago that Tibet is part of China? And don't bother using the he isn't the head of state argument.

And once again, invasion assumes independence, which is not the case. Did the Commies invade China?

You know what's funny Sam, you easily assume. You assume "oh, had this happened, history would have been different" and then comes out to challenge when somebody with more valid points based upon those assumptions. You do know that the past is the best predictor of future behaviour don't you? And there is nothing more accurate then what was happening in Tibet in the 1950's. If anything, I think you are the one drinking too much red Kool-Aid.

Certainly the Tibetans could have cleaned up their act and prospered (did I say they could not). Certainly they could have achieved the level that they are today. And certainly they can do both. But the odds are stacked against them. If they managed to become say, a democratic country and prosper to the level they are now, all in a span of under 50 years, boy I'd be really impressed.

And the good ole Chicom propaganda is no match for the far superior Tibetan propaganda. The Chicoms got China, line hook and sinker. The Tibetans got the rest of the world.

You could certainly make a point that China isn't doing enough to preserve Tibetan culture and should do more (I agreed to that didn't I), but nooooooo, why do that when you can instead suggest that they are purposefully destroying it.

 

I don't know all the facts and background of your claim. But I do know that immigrants and capital (mind you) are moving in not only in Tibet, but also most of the Western regions, where it's underdeveloped compared to the earstern regions. It's part of the new "western deleopment" strategy of PRC. And I know I would get any job in an American company if I don't speak English, so I don't know why you bring that up?

Actually, CCP vs KMT would be a good start. The Original ROC has Tibet as one of its region as ROC was funded. Tibet was in official ROC maps until recently when DDP drop the regulation of showing boundaries of ROC that it doesn't have control.

If you consider all the facts, Tibet was in large part, a secluded, largely self governing, semi-autonamous region, but it never gain full status of an independant soverign states. No major country recognized then either. China did not relinquish sovereign jurisdiction even after 1911 revolution.

I am no historian. Even if I am, I'm not going to list all the revolts & dissidents in SC and the putdowns by PRC.

In reality, although it's fun and all to debate whether Tibet was actually fully "independant" - you can always chop your slice of facts; or to cheer on RG for "free Tibet" on a BBS, no country officially challenge China's sovereignty over Tibet.

The real issue should be how do we develop Tibet while keeping its tradition alive. The CCP has made blunders, for sure. It tends assume it knows what people want, stipulate what should or should not be done rather than let people decide--as it did in other regions.

But some of the innuendo here is plain silly.
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1072173608.jpg

 

Why? the "case" for reinstituting the opium treaties is the exact same case that you made in Tibet:

"That is equivalent of saying that, if you sell your car legally to me and wants it back, I am obligated to give it back to you at a time of your choosing. The ruling Ching dynasty gave up something that was theirs. The PRC wanted back something it doesn't own."

Sound familiar MFW? It should - because those are your exact words, used in the same way. One of them you seek to dismiss as a "case", but the other you worship as an absolute legal justification.

I see it for what it is, a flimsy pretext, just like the opium treaties would be a flimsy pretext today.

Uhh, what? Britain is outside "international law" (which is apparently whatever you unilaterally decide it is depending on the post)?

Please, I wouldn't care if we gave the Natives huge ass plots of plains where they used to live. In fact we should. Hell Canada basically did do it when they established the Nunavut province a few years ago.

Actually it probably would shut me up. Aside from the Tsangpo valley, Tibet's a pretty harsh land all around anyway, it's not as if one rocky desolate arid region is that much worse than the rest. And I don't theink the Tibetans would mind it much either, even the "loudmouths" in India and the Dalai Lama would probably go for that. Of course the CCP will never do such a thing.

What later international law? Be specific.

OK so who was the head of state in 1911? Certainly not the Qin dynasty. What about the 40 years of independence Tibet enjoyed after that? Man, I didn't know that all it takes is some soldiers to be quartered for some place to become yours forever regardless of what anybody else wants. In that case Germany, Kuwait, Scotland, Okinawa, and many other regions are now part of the good old USA

It was independent for hundreds of years, we have discussed this. I know even contemporaneous Chinese history likes to characterize it differently like they try to characterize the relationship with Uighurs as "little nephews" when the Tang were living in fear of the Uighurs ransacking their cities and the Tibetans seizing their trade routes - but saying something over and over again doesn't make it true.

Well Bhutan has certainly made it fine - the Mongolians are not prospering but are doing fine even though they were basically a bunch of feudal tribes up until last century. Since we are both speculating I guess you can presume that hte Tibetans would remain ass-backwards but I doubt that would have been possible this century.

You know if I'm going to blame anybody it would be the British for not holding on to their gains in Tibet in 1906. Granted their invasion was uncalled for but had they remained in Tibet and respected the agreement they signed afterwards it would have guaranteed them a bit more autonomy further on down the line (and, under the weight of the old white man's burden, I doubt serfdom would have been tolerated)

Well it would be an exaggeration to say they are purposefully destroying it now in the way that they used to. Purposeful destruction would be what the Chinese did in the 60's and 70's during the good old GPCR, when they blew up and bombed many of the monasteries like Rongbuk and Gandan among others.

However to say that the dilution of Tibetan culture in order to neutralize it is not a purpose of the last 10 years of PRC policy on Tibet is silly.

 

Damn, some of the arguments here are incredibly naive.

Sam, China's claim about Tibet is not more ridiculous than US' claim about
Texas and California. At least Tibet volunteered to be part of the Qing
Dynasty (Dalai and Pangchen sought support from ShunZhi to establish
their control over Tibet). What China has done to Tibet is far more lenient
than what Americans have done to Indians.

Talk about international laws and treaties. I dont remember that the UN
security council endorsed US' military actions against Iraq, Yugo and a few
other countries. Late 1800s and early 1900s, US was one of the major
Western countries that colonized several big provinces in China. US also
joined the force to invade Beijing, burn the gorgeous Yuanming Yuan, and
ask for huge compensations.

Before you crtisize this and that about China, make sure you don't look
self-righteous.

 

You know Sam, once again you show your stupidity. I ask you again, what LEGAL justifications do you have. You know what the problem is with your manipulation of the car example? When you sell a car in any almost any country, there is paper work involved. Whether it is registration, insurance or the Zimbabwe government just wants its cut, they provide legal protection that a transaction took place. In this case the legal framework was already implied. I mean, yeah why wouldn't I imply that it's already in place. But if you insist, alright, next time I'll be very careful for you.

You are showing your true neo-con colours, Dubya. Saying Britain is the international law is like saying my way or the highway. Last time I check, the international law that backed the Chinese claim was supported by not only the British, but also US, France, Germany... the last but not the least being the UN, WTO, WHO and a whole slew of organizations. If Britain alone tries to set the law, everybody else would just give them the middle finger.

Quite frankly I find your ways to be appalling and that's understating it. On one hand you claim the attrocities against the Tibetans, on the other hand you suggest putting them on tiny reserves. Wow.

The Qing was the head of state to Tibet for part of 1911, the KMT was the head for the remaining of it. The Commies are the head of state now.

Oh and Sam, once again you ignore the legal justifications. How convenient. When did Scotland, Germany, Kuwait and Japan give up claim to their territory? And on top of that, didn't the US "give" them back?

And you know Sam, it's quite amusing that western historians (and you are not even qualified to even be among them), who studied Chinese history for at most 400 years come in and lecture the Chinese historians who have studied it for at least 5000 years. It's hilarious actually. I guess you'd have much more of a point if they haven't been proven wrong again and again.

And for the Uighers, as I recall the Hans did a number on them during late Han dynasty, which effectively booted them out of much of where modern day China is today. The Tibetans have met similar fate. I don't know what you try to prove by that.

And I love how you neglected to mention that neither group were capable to threaten the Han existence other than when the hack Emperor Tang Ming Huang ****ed up. You know the Hans thought of the raids? Annoying little bits of realities by barbarians. Nothing more. In retrospect that view is ignorant and stupid, but I don't see any Chinese historians citing it. But it does give you an idea of the realities of the situation.

And the only problem with the Uighers were that they are nomadic. The Hans go over with the army, win, and the Uighers just leave until the army leaves to come back. Though expensive, it proved to be nothing more than minor annoyances. Nothing more nothing less.

As for Bhutan, did you bother its size of it is only 47,000 sq km. And I know you just didn't say they and the Mongolians are doing well, economy wise. Both countries are getting better, but I really question your motives to overstate the benefits.

Arguing that Tibet could have been this, would have done that exists only in your twisted little mind. But then everybody can talk when they actually never do anything about it can't they? And yeah, the infamous white mans' burden argument. Weren't the white men trading slaves all over the world? Weren't they in fact putting down rebellions throughout the Middle East? And when they left wasn't the way they carved up the region completely stupid, just so they can further assert influence over the region? But hey, I guess the Chinamen have no desire to free the slaves. Oh wait, they did. In the 50's.

OK, so you just filed a lawsuit against the CCP for purposefully diluting Tibetan culture. The CCP pleads not guilty. Your move. Prove it.

Oh and Sam, talk is cheap. Feel free to donate the non-partisan Tibetan relief fund of your choice.

 

MFW, I like it when you lecture me about what is "LEGAL", in fact get a huge kick out of it. Let me give you a little lesson in the art of "LEGAL" argument which I learned a long time ago - don't announce an overarching "LEGAL" principle in case you are not prepared to live by it. Which tends to get to rule of law a bit(hey, I know a place that has some trouble with that concept...)

That's why your silly little "once you give it up you can't get it back" example keeps exploding in your face. You construct a principle ex post facto and then throw a tantrum when it doesn't work out - sound familiar, Jeff Foster? Anyway though if you're insisting on paperwork, I have the Opium war treaties. What do you have? Some 17th c. request for aid in a civil war - followed by a withdrawal and then the Chinese amban getting tossed out on his ass? That's not too much I'm afraid. Anyway, I want you to prepare my port space.

Here's another example:

Here you are, triumphantly crowing that might makes right and how the Hans whooped the Uighurs. Yeah, and the Tibetans kicked the Chinese out of Tibet in 1911. But oh no, we must go back to some absurd "LEGAL" principle - and cite it as a pretext for this invasion.

Likewise, I don't understand why you think "International Law", due to a bunch of hundred year old feudal claims based on marriage, occupation, and alliance, justifies the 1950 invasion of Tibet - while you refuse to acknowledge that the same "International Law", based on equally strong (if not stronger) history of marriag & inheritance, occupation and alliance would have justified a British invasion of Aquitaine. Britain exercised equal if not more suzerainty over them than the Chinese over the Tibetans. You know I've taken a few "international law" classes in my time and I've never learned of this aspect.

Anyway, I take it by the end of your argument the problem is now that I'm not doing enough about the problem and I shut put up or shut up? LOL. Yeah, maybe I should do more unfortunately the PRC has a tendency to get rid of petty annoyances such as myself who recognize their invasion and occupation for what it is, like the 6 year old Panchen Lama back in 95. Although to say they've imprisoned him would be inaccurate - he's been "disappeared".

snowmt: I don't recall ever supporthing the US invasion of Iraq - and I don't believe the US annexed Bosnia, Kosovo, or even Iraq, so I don't know why you're yelling at me about that.

 

We agree. I don't know why the concept is that hard to understand.

As far as Tibet goes, it's been argued before. There is a lively discussion of it here:
http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74513&highlight=tibet+independance

Heck, there is a lot of discussion there.



Keep D&D Civil!!

 

Gee Sam, if you don't obey the law, why bother having it. So if by any chance some idiot running a light runs you over with his car, don't bother meeting him in court. Because you have no basis to file a claim against him.

And Sam, you tries to bait me not knowing that it doesn't work. I'm still owning your ass. Wasn't it you that first brought up that Tangs were afraid of the Uighers and the Tibetans ransacking their cities, then you turn around and say I'm telling you the Hans whooped their asses. You try to have the argument both ways, too bad it ain't workin'.

As for 1911, the Qings weren't putting up much of a fight anywhere (actually they weren't putting up much of a fight much earlier than that). In case you haven't noticed, that's when they lost the country.

Hey, if the British are allowed to claim Aquitaine, why not have anybody claim everything against everybody? I'm sure the Germans, Poles, Yugoslavians all want something back. And Russia should have half of Europe back (and don't bother arguing the Red scare either), because after, they owned it didn't they? Which proves even more just how stupid you are. If international laws don't exist, everybody would be claiming everything about anybody. Yet on one hand you want to claim the lack of validity of international law.

Funny isn't it, that I didn't portray the CCP as anything other than a corrupt and oppresive regime. But I'm sure if the NPC knows all they have to do is move all dissenters to a tiny plot of land as you suggest, giving them no chance to survive, I'm sure China would have a pristine human rights record. I'd tend to think that's rather cruel and the Tibetans will never agree to it, but who are they to challenge the white superiority right?

Why? Because of white men's burden. White men have a monopoly on moral ethics. If they think Tibetans should be pushed to tiny reserves and the CCP are not responsible for their economic conditions after, let it be done. Hell, do it for the Uighers and the 53 other minority groups too. Oh but wait, I want it in writing. In other words, the white men have to give their words not to bash China ever after if this is allowed to happen, whatever the consequence. I know the white men's words aren't worth ****... oh wait, what am I saying, they are gentlemen?

You are running out of lines Sam, every one of your points get even more pathetic, as you squeal for credibility, completely ignoring that you already lost it all when you proved yourself a prick.

Yet somehow I am called the racist here.

Funny how the previous champions of racial equality fall silent here (Cohen, Deckard, I'm looking at you).

 

MFW, you seem to have a very difficult time differentiating advocacy from me showing you the absurd consequences that result from your theories.

I DON'T want to have it both ways. I am NOT the one who is saying that China can invade Tibet but the US can't invoke the opium treaties, or that China can't invade Tibet but Britain can re-take the Dordogne region. I am NOT the one who blathers on and on about "International Law! International Law! International Law!" and then dismisses the ICJ by saying they are maningles.

That person, MFW, is YOU. You're the one with the inferiority complex about the whole Chinese invasion. I'm calling it what it was - it was an invasion of a neighboring state, which had historically been independent, called itself independent at the time, and which was never ever really part of China to any significant degree, and certainly not to the extent that you have been indoctrinated.

Unfortunately, by virtue of the NBA draft lottery a few years back, you now find yourself confronted with people who don't belive that kind of thing, (about Tibet, and Taiwan, and anything else) and your reaction, is to just type and type and type and type to reassure yourself that you're right, you dredge up Princess Wengchen, and rant and rant. You get mad, you start flinging insults around - it's pretty predictable by now.

I don't think a neutral observer would think you're helping your cause, but I guess it makes you feel less guilty about the tens of thousands that are dead and are not coming back, the people who were massacred in Lhasa in 1993, the Panchen lama, who your government kidnapped and and is dead or exiled or imprisoned.

None of this is going to change by you and me arguing about it on the internet of course, those people are dead and not coming back, and the Chinese invasion of Tibet can't be undone. But to pretend like it didn't happen - you're basically committing the exact same sin that you castigate people here when you scream bloody murder about the "Japs" and their not properly acknowledging their war crimes. You don't see me defending US occupations of the Phillipines, or Vietnanam. Hell if you were American, you'd probably be crowing about how the Indians deserved what they got after Little Big Horn.

I hope one day you get the chance I had to go to Tibet or Xinjiang and see them for yourself so you can broaden your horizon beyond the party line. Good luck.

 

It's been interesting reading (or skimming) through this stuff.

How about this? Tibetans may have a gripe about the Chinese occupation but there is some historical evidence that China may have a "legal" claim. I'm sure there is a lot of evidence to support both your arguments.

Isn't it all a moot point anyways? The Old Confederacy may have a legal claim to secession. The Native American Indians can claim that there land was stolen. The cymric were the victims during the Saxon conquests.

Fact is, Tibet belongs to China now and nothing will change that.

About the white man's burden-
I'm very sure Sam is against the US garrison in Iraq. Just because he's a white American (I think) doesn't mean he advocates every aspect of US history (including the subjugation of the indegenous people that were already here).

 

Gee Sam, how convenient that you ignore international law to your advantage. I wasn't aware that we make conditions when to accept it. How I wonder that under what conditions of international law did China invade itself (being Tibet). As for the ICJ, as I noted, it's decision was reversed. You know how I repeatedly chided you to file your grievance, yet you didn't take it up. If you are stupid enough not to, who's fault is that?

I have no inferiority complex about the Uighers and Tibetans at all. Why would I? Not like they ever threatened the Hans. I have no superiority complex either. So we can beat them in a war, so what? I don't bring it up, why do you? Was your point that we can beat them in wars?

Funny thing Sam, you assume I find myself suddenly coming into contact with people I might not agree with. Yet I guess if you actually know me you could have avoided the trouble of making yourself look like an uninformed idiot. Because had you known me, you would have known that I traveled the world two times over and lived in about 8 different countries in my life.

Although I do not claim to know everything about their culture, I definitely know something about them. And I also happen to know that they may not share my opinions. Nevertheless, it made you assume that I am ignorant of the world. Yeah, I suppose that I am a brainwashed Commie right? I mean, you know so much more than me when you have never even left your own backyard.

I have maintained my points throughout. Why shouldn't I? They are facts which are owning your ass and which you have no means to challenge. But suppose I had cited other reasons, I'm sure you'd accuse me of pulling evidence out of thin air, as you have done in the past. I repeat my points because they are true, not because if I repeat them and they'll become true. Only a moron like you would think that way.

Where were those neutral observers in the 50's? Where were all the human rights activists protesting Britain trampling Hong Kong citizens' rights before 1985? It's funny that those benevolent white men didn't give a rat's ass about Tibet or Hong Kong or lash out at the KMT until the CCP supposedly invaded. Opportune timing don't you think?

I'd rather not agree with you on Panchen Lama, but I'm sure some hardcore Commies no doubtedly would. Hell, why imprison him when you could murder him and 95% of his population? When they all die who's gonna dissent right?

Did I argue that China didn't commit attrocities in Tibet? I don't recall making that claim. But I'd certainly appreciate if you can cite a "neutral observer's" numbers, based on sightly more than guesswork. Mass graves like the ones found in China after WWII would help.

I'm not the one that suggested squeezing the Tibetans onto little reserves. You did that. Don't try to bait me and hang it on me. I argued for getting Tibetans more rights, you ignored that. I said the CCP needs to do more to preserve their culture, you ignored that. You didn't do anything other than whine and b**** about how China isn't doing enough. I don't see you coming up with plans how to do things better. Then you said you'd rather have them on reserves. Somehow I don't think they'd agree with you. And you said how the white men can somehow miraculously transform a difficult situation into a miracle, whereas the yellow men can't. What's the reason? They are too stupid, they have squinty eyes, they aren't Christians?

And what makes you think I haven't been to Tibet. Your line is far more party line than mine, but you're too stupid to know it. You showed your true colours, a racist white supremicist.

 

If you don't want Japan to get a seat on U.N., Please visit

http://www.gainfo.org/Petition-Campaign/petition.asp

Hope this is not against the rule of Clutchfans.net.

Thanks

 

Ha ha ha, the last resort! I take this as a positive sign.

end of thread.

 

But how about before Tibet belonged to China? I would argue that China's legitimacy in Tibet has grown as they have exercised control over it. Now that the situation has been stable for so long, I think there is legitimacy. Yugoslavia was one state, there was flux, and now there are many states. The longer they exist the more they will be legitimate, IMHO.

I would argue the same for Taiwanese independence. I understand that Chinese people (and American people too, railing on about Tibet) feel differently, but IMHO one standard should apply across the board.

I'm not a lawyer, but the whole concept of "International law" seems to mostly reduce itself to the history of what you can get away with without causing a sizeable enough powerbase to get mad enough that they will do something about it. If that was accomplished before, it's legal. If not, you can essentially try to write your own law if you think you can get away with it.

Of course, quite a bit is codified as a result of failed attempts to perform one of these re-writes, but often the results quickly become antiquated. Among the Geneva conventions, for instance, is both an insistence that prisoners of war be provided with cigarettes and a means to purchase them. The convention also contains numerous clauses about maintaining that prisoner health be maintained in line with a country's standards. If a conflict here doesn't already exist somewhere in the world, it is developing somewhere rapidly.

MFW2310

Thank you for your eloquent response and I understand completely. In fact, your written English is probably better than mine, as I have to run every post I make through a spellchecker in order to ensure it can be understood. I am reminded of a story on the BBC of a British lady married to a Chinese man. While in China, she had difficulty dealing in letting her children slurp their noodles from bowls directly in front of their faces, whereas she couldn't understand why her unorthodox but effective chopstick technique was considered such a transgression by her husband's family. When in China, she eventually determined, they could slurp away and she would fix her chopstick technique, whereas in Britain, slurping was strictly forbidden.

Of course, the difficulty which has always faced people with regards to the internet is the question that when you're there, where are you, really? I don't think anybody really has the answer.

Getting back to the initial point which caused this war of words, I would suggest that if you are roaming the streets of the US you not refer to anybody as a half-Jap b*stard. I, on he other hand, will refrain from discussing the Country of Taiwan if I'm ever roaming the streets in China.

There is a reason for the traditional truism, "In polite company, never discuss religion or politics." I generally enjoy these D&D discussions, as occasionally a subject will get people with unclear or uninformed positions (mostly me ) to alter their thinking, but I think in this thread that point has been crossed and any further debate becomes the verbal equivalent of trench warfare.

 

Last resort Sam? Funny you say that after I owned your ass.

When I mentioned the Native Americans, I fully expected you to say "oh that happened hundreds of years ago" so that it would have made it hard for me to say anything. But no, you try to justify putting them on tiny little reserves.

When I ask you how you can improve the situation in Tibet, instead of coming up with plans, or even donating, you claim the white men's burden, because somehow the white men are morally and ethically superior. You didn't even bother giving routine "because the British were a democracy" line to cite their "superority." Heck no, you went direct and to the point. At least nobody can fault you for being honest.

But hey, when you put your own foot in your own mouth, you deserve to get your ass owned.

 

Ottomaton, thank you for your complements. In regards to Tibet, I think too many mistakes have been made already. Too many arguments over form and little substance. I would actually think the next step is actually to decide what to do to fix the situation. And quite frankly, I don't think the Commies are doing a very nice job of preserving their culture and hope they improve on that in the future.

However, I feel that I should point out that the Commies are really caught in a catch 22 situation. On one hand, whatever they do negatively is amplified; on the other hand whatever they do positively gets no attention. Like them or not (and I certainly don't like them), I don't think that's fair to anybody. And it's not just when it comes to Tibet either.

This past Sunday I was logging online, I opened up my browser and saw some interesting news. I have a Dell laptop and my homepage was set by them to dell.myway.com, which I never bothered to change. I saw Condi Rice (in China btw) saying that the EU shouldn't life the Arms Embargo (which I have no opinion on the subject) because China was a backward nation, oppressive regime, etc and went on and on about human rights.

Then two hours later, I logged on again and I saw another news about China. At first I assumed that it's just the old news that I saw already. But then I realized it's different. This time she said China should aid the US in talks with North Korea because it is a responsible world citizen.

OK, fast forward another three hours, on the exact same website (not even a news one at that), I saw her doing a hack job on China over the new Anti-Sucession (sp?) law. And I remember thinking to myself, how many times can this women flip flop, in the span of within I guess 2 days.

On the other hand, the Commies have done their share. I don't think I can take another one of those "village xyz, a poor village before the liberation, went on a path of reform, opening the country, becoming self reliant, grow strong and never rest, going the bright path of socialism, became rich and prosperous, taking people out of poverty, etc" typical of CCTV news. Terrible translation I know, but I think you get the point. Worst part of it is that, of the 70 or so cable channels, at 7pm, 65 of them will be showing that. I can understand that for the government mouthpiece, but I just simply don't get why the (relatively) independent stations show that. It's not like anybody actually watches that.

And this is the point I'd note to you, most of the urban Chinese don't actually believe that. Under my observation, they watch the TV when they are eating dinner at 7 (the Commies conveniently arranged for this time I guess). I have to admit that when it comes to international news, CCTV is actually quite objective. But when domestic news come up, that's the cue to go to the bathroom or do whatever you have to do.

So in other words, I'm saying that the Chinese aren't actually mindless and brainwashed drones. While on the other hand, I hope that you don't underestimate the potential effects of brainwashing under democracies either. Neither side is a prize pig.

As for China, I'll say that it's a work in progress. I think most Chinese people's opinion more realistic; that they don't expect it to improve overnight. I think that the US/Britain/whoever doing their number on human rights actually hurts the cause. The Chinese already suspect them of using it for political purposes rather than freedom purposes. And then you have the US pull one of those double standards. Believe it or not, it can really hurt their case.

As for those TIers, let me say I think those supporting the Japanese hardliners actually account for a minority (at least I hope so). However, often those minority have the loudest mouth, as in Lee Tenghui, Chen Shuibian and Annett Lu. It also doesn't help that some of them (or their ancestors) aided Japan in the invasion of China. So when they come up with one of their rhetorics, it sickens the Chinese, as well as many other Asians. I hope that gives you a better understanding of the situation.

As for being polite, I agree 100%. However, I think there is a point, and to certain people, that you simply can't be polite towards. It isn't that I am confrontational. It's just some of those people just sicken me (and I believe many of our peers as well).