mixtec

“Plawolf- Mainland china has threatened to attack/invade Taiwan openly many times to bring it back under its control. “

this claim illatrstes my point abt the deficiencies of the wester ‘free media’ perfectly. the PRC has only threated military action IF taiwan makes moves to permanately compramise the terretorial integraty of china,ie declare independence. i guess CNN forgot to tell u that.

with no disrespect intended to the ppl of taiwan, but if we were as blood thresty and warlike as CNN and FOX have u believe, the PRC flag would be flying over taiwan, and much of the world already. we CHOSE to use deplomacy, it is not a compramise solution but our primary and most preferd choice of resolving this dispute.

“As for the US selling missiles for Taiwan to attack mainland China….really, PRC afraid of being invaded and taken over by Taiwan??? I really feel sorry for you, you must be shaking in your boots at the thought of Taiwan controling your billion or so people.”

i dont think cuba is likely to conquare the US, would that make it ok for china to sell them our best missiles, fighters and warships?

the weapons u sold to taiwan are not toys, they kill ppl, and currently, they are pointed at us (civilains and all, taiwan threaterned to devaste hong kong if the PRC attacked). the point is not wheather or not these weapons will allow taiwan to take over the mainland, the point is that every time a US weapons sale is confirmed, the taiwanese ‘president’ gets more bold and would make another step towards independence and in turn, WAR.

the uneasy pease between the straits is not kept by taiwan’s miliatry supremicy but the mainland’s. every US weapons sale deminishes the PRC’s edge, and if/when chen sui bian (the taiwanese ‘president’) feels that he can fight off the innevatable miliatry action from the mainland following his declaeration of independence, then he will declare independence and that will bring war.

we are against US weapons sales because with every dilivery, we are pushed another step towards war, and the cost in terms of lives and resources of the war is also raised with every weapons sale.

“The US is not selling Taiwan nukes, and a baffoon like Castro is not someone who should ever be in possesion of nukes, nor should any halfass thirdworld dictatorship.”

so in ur view, the US is the only country that ‘deserves’ to have nukes is it? might i remind u that not only was the US the only nation to use a nuke on civilain targets(or nay military target for that matter), the only reason it did not nuke more cities was because it was afraid of reprisale nuclear attacks.

NO nation on earth can be trusted to be the sole owner of weapons like the nuke, not the american, the russians, the chinese, the french, the british, NOBODY, to think other wise is foolish. so is the thought that any single nation can be trusted have the power to dictact who can or cant be trusted with what.

TTP:

“You are correct that some news agencies express certain attitudes or lean towards one side of the political spectrum, for instance in the US Fox news has a more conservative/republican slant to their news reporting, CNN on the other hand leans heavily towards the left/democrat side, the diference that you fail to realize is their are literally dozens of news outlets in the US and the West, such as rueters, BBC, SKY, as well as CBS,NBC,ABC, not to mention Al Jesera….and the list goes on, FREE people have free and EASY access to all these media sources, and therefore can see all sides to a story. and decide for oneself. “

i never disagreed with u that there is alot of choice in the kinds of news one can get in the west that is unmatched by the chinese media. but my point of the western news agencies misleading the public by putting different emphasis on the way it reports different facts still stands.

just take the iraqi war for example. each day, every one of those news agencies u listed and many others might get hundreds of different reports, but how will we the public know what proportion is for and against the war effort? if the reports for and against the war are roughly 50/50, but 8 pro-war and only 2 anti-war reports are chosen to be shown on the TV, the puplic would get the wrong impression of how the war is progressing.

the current iraq war may not be the best example, because it is easy to tell the truth when things are going ur way, just set ur minds back to the last gulf war. thee US president Bush SR when on TV and said that the patriot missles were getting 41/42 kills against scuds when most now believe that not a single scud was ever intercepted; in the same conflict the US claimed to have made no less the 300 mobile scud launcher kills while in fact not one single launcher had been destroyed……

in the palastinian/isreali conflicts, every suicied attack gets prime time couverage, with shacky video footage, interviews and all while palastinian deaths were just read out as numbers and statistics. ‘today 15 palastinas were killed in isreali raid, 4 of them chindren. now a look at today’s sporting action!’

a daming documentry showing how palastinians were treated like sub-humans and how the isrealis effectively sabotaged the peace talks in camp davide by continuing to build settlements on occupied land was shown at 1 in morning, when few ppl were watching.

these are all examples of how ur ‘free media’ have misled or even blatently misreported the news.

all of this shows that one CANNOT get a truely rounded and accurate picture of the truth by reading just one paper, or watching just one news channel, but how many ppl read all the news papers and watch all the news channels? most ppl just buy the newspaper that tells things the way they like to hear it, or watch the news channel that takes their point of view.

this is why the opinions and conclusion many ppl reach on forums like this one are often greatly different from those shown be opion polls. ppl like us have a chance to see the whole truth, but there are very few ppl like us. this is y i firmly believe that it is the duty of every single news agency to do all in their power to ensure that their news reports are made as close to the whole truth as humanly possible, and not edited for the sake of higher sales and profit, because there are things that we must see and know.

my conclusions are based on my own personal experience, i am currently living in the UK and have plenty of experience with the so called ‘free medai’, but i have also seen the news from within china itself. by having this usual prespective, i was able to see deficencies in both news structures, but also their respective advantages. chinese stage news may not be as ‘exciting’ as that of the ‘free media’, it usually has less ‘packaging’ and often is more accurate.

please dont get me wrong, im not bitter or angry that ppl think that the western media is superior to china’s, in many ways it is, but it is still far from perfect. what gets on my nerves is how some ppl seem to think that their way is perfect and that nothing else counld compair.

TTP:

“My question about China is simple, and I mean no disrespect, but like mixtec said before why is the existance of Taiwan such a sore point with the mainland Chinese? surely it is no military threat, and it seems like a proponderance of Chinese foriegn policy concerns itself with Taiwan, wouldn’t it be easier to just sign some non-aggression pact with eachother and get on with life, or is Taiwan a deep rooted issue with the PRC?”

sorry if i have not been as polite to u as usual in my privious posts, but u touched on some sensitive issues.

concrening taiwan, well first from a pruely military point of view: taiwan pretty much has the second most powerful miliatry in the asiapasific area. it will also be alomst a certainty that should taiwan gain independence, US forces will quickly estabilsh bases and move in considerable assest.

it would simply be far too dangerous and so unacceptable for the PRC to allow US forces to be based only a few hundred miles from our economical and industrial heartland. especially since it is an open secret that the US is deeply distrustful of the PRC, even hostle, and that the US is currently busy setting up a ‘containment’ strategy to keep us boxed in.

loosing taiwan would also mean that the PRC would effectively loose control on the east china sea and may also be seriously threatened in the south china sea as it would be extremely difficult to safely move our naval forces from north to south, even along our own coast! this would finish america’s ‘containment’ strategy, and would ensure that the PRC could never bargain on equal terms with the US. a situation that would leave us at a significant disadvantge when dealing with international affarirs and protecting our interests abroad. this is simpley unacceptable.

from a strategic point of view, the PRC CANNOT back down from its current position of zero tollerace for those seeking to divide and weaken china. just as the US has made it known that it does not negotiate with terriosts.

if the PRC backs down on this matter, then there would be a massive surge in the number of militaint pro-depependence groups, as any tom, **** and harry would think he might have a chance to get his own little kindom if he caused enough trouble. we will never see an end to this and china will be broken up into dozands if not hundreds of tinny little states, as has happend to the USSR. this possiblity is simply unaceptable, and we WILL go to war over taiwan or any other part of china if we must.

finaly, from a historic point of view, as u might know, china was rewaged by forgein invaders for over a century. they swollowed up areas totaling to between 20~40% of the china we know of today because we were unwilling to make a stand until we were too weak to do anything abt it.

it has take us decades to get back on our feet again, and while most of us have given up all asperations of reclaiming these lost territories, the nation as a whole will never repeat our past mistakes, and we would be willing to loose a million men in battle before relinquishing 1 square centermeter of our land to anyone. ‘the line has been drawn, cross it at ur own peral.’

just one of the three reasons given above is reason enough for any country to take the same stance as china if they were faced with a similar situation, never mind all three of them, as well as many others i have not touched upon.

the simple fact is taiwan is a part of china, and it has been for over a thousand years. the ppl living on both sides of the strait are of the same blood and of the same culture. if taiwan does not belong to china, then the americans should go back to england. there can be, and will be no compramise on this matter. if the US or any other nation is hell-bent on taring taiwan from the mainland, then there can only be war.

Garry:

“I am not so sure.
I really don’t think the US has ever or will ever care whether the new Iraqi regime is oppressive or nice to its people. All it really cares about is the price of oil. With enough damage due to the war and the need for a reasonable income and the complete rebuilding of its military any regime in Iraq will need to keep the oil flowing at quite a reasonable rate to attain such goals… which is all the US really needs. “

yes, i agree with u that the US is not really bothered wheather the new iraqi government is going to be nice or bad to its citizens as long as the oil keeps pumping. but after all the trouble they when through to take iraq, it would be very unlikely that they would install a governing systems that might aloow iraq to legitimately slip out of US hands again.

remember that while few in iraq truely supports saddam and many are greatful to the americans for driving him out of power, far more ppl will have plenty of reason to dislike or even hate the US. all those thousands of iraqi soilders the americans claimed to have killed would all have families who would most likely not appreciate the americans efforts in this war; nor would the thousands of civilan ‘colatral damage’ and their familiers look kindly at the US; finally, as time goes by and the iraqi population become better off and servival is not top of their priority list, nationlism will grow, and the ppl will like the US to stop dictating their country’s future (as is the case in all areas of former US influence, japan, philapians, Europe etc).

if the US installs a truely democratic government, then there is a substancial chance that an anti-US leader and government may take power. in which case the US would be absolutly powerless to stop iraq from slipping out of their grasp. after all, there is more need then supply of oil in the world, a country like a democratic iraq could sell its oil to other customers besides the US(UK, china, france, germany etc) and get everything it will ever need, from fresh water and grain to truely state of the art weapons.

apart from the stated risk of fighting a war only to have others reap the benefits, the US economy is not exactly the energiser bunny it used to be, and would benefit massively from a ‘gratitude price’ for their oil from iraq. (a few $s less per barrow then what everyone else is getting would give US products a significant edge when competing again those of other nations paying the full price for their oil). also, im sure the americans would not want to see many contracts going to french and russian companies to ‘punish’ them. only by keeping to tight leash on the new iraqi regeme could the US hope to achieve all this but the US just cant control a democraticly elected government as it can a ‘semi-democracy’.

TTP:

“” Wasn’t the missiles shot into Kuwait chinese silkworms?” So I guess China is selling weapons to dictators as well.”

well every coutry that can sells weapons will sell them, so what?anyway, those silkworms were sold before 91, at which time many of ur buddies like britain and france were also arming saddam.

the US also send a great many deligations to iraq and prased it for being an ‘example’ the arab states, at the same time as saddam was gassing kurds and iranians as i recall it.

anyway, at least we only sell weapons to lagitimate nations. i always found it intersting how america openly accepts that taiwan is a part of china on one hand, while still finding it alright to sell multibillion $ weapons to it. weapins that are aimed at china i might add. i wonder how the US would react if we sold cuba some silkwarms tommorrow.

“Unfortunatley there is no crystal ball out there for foreign policies. “

i’ll agree with that, but when u set such vastly different standards of what is ‘acceptable’ behaviour, how could anyone else ever trust u to make a fair decision? if u cant make a fair decision, then what right do u have to play judge, jury and exacutioner in the world? how could u treat most of the world’s population as second rate citizens and expect them to like u?

“Unlike China we have a free press, and we can learn about different sides to every story,”

i always find it funny when ppl seem to think that their so called ‘free press’ is the best thing since cooked foods. u forget that the first rule of mass media in ur ‘free media’ is ‘give the ppl what they want’, ie the news is not reported as how it happens, but as how the ppl would like to see it happen. u dont need to lie to do that, just by putting different emphaisis on different stories is enough to create an elution that would fool the vast majority of ppl.

just take iraq for example. the americans are coming down the road, a few gather to wave and the commentators say this is ‘evidence’ that iraq is now ‘liberated’ and the ppl are welcoming the american ‘liberaters’. while on the other side of the city, a few thousand protestors gather to protes to the american’s presence. a quick flash at the edge of the crowed, a few words and we’re off to another story.

in each case, the truth was told, just not the whole truth, but the facts are completely disdorted, and the truth changed.

its ironic that while u are so proad of ur ‘free media’ i got a better picture of what the truth was like from the chinese tate control media.

the simple fact is, at the momnet, every single news agency in exsitance is a propaganda tool of some kind or another, and are either controled directly or indirectly to varying degrees by the worlds governments. the only difference is the western ‘free media’ is more skilled in the art of ‘misinormation’ and ‘disinformation’ then the chinese media. u must be very proad.

and finally, happy Easter to u too.

well said Garry.

i personally dont think iraq will ever be allowed to have a truely democratic government (well maybe if the oil runs out and its no longer worth america’s while to stay) simply because the US would not risk an anti-US government from forming in iraq.

as for isreal, well, no president hoping for re-elcetion will ever hang it out to dry. while isreal does have the finest miliatry in the area, they are out numbered about 100 to 1, and i wouldnt fancy their chances if the arabs were confident that the US would not get invalved no matter what.

anyway, isreal is still very valuable to the US as it presents the arabs with a much more present and dangerous opponed then the US, and well keep them occupied and distracted while the US gets what it wants-oil.

TTP

since Garry already filled u in on the finner details of european history, i’ll bring u up to day with chinese history.

“while the peoples republic of China did not start any World Wars, There are probably more deaths attributed to Moa’s Purges than in a world war”

er…wrong. while it is true that Mao got a little paranoied in his final years, there were never any large scale ‘purges’. Mao did try to get rid of a few who threatened him, but only a few of those targeted actually died, and none were exicuted as u seem to imply. many,many times more chinese died to through out the pupet government the US set up in china, but i guess they forgot to tell u that on Fox.

that reminds me of another reason why the US is actually hated in many parts of the world-u overthrough governments and set up pupet regemes, often at the cost of many thousands of local lives. and when the ppl objects and tries to through the trators out, u sell the dictators sophisicated weapons to oppress the masses and call those fighting for they freedom ‘terriorsts’ to justify ur actions..

just imagine how u would feel if it had been the russians or chinese that assasinated kennedy and that nixson was a soviet or chinese ‘sympifiser’, then u might get an idea of y ppl dont like u.

u just dont get it do u sauron?

i didnt just pick any US president off the top of my head mate, by going way back to the birth of the USA, i was pointing out that not one single US president EVER came from a poor background. so much for ‘anyone can become president’.

“The office of US president is open to all US born.Were do you get your facts from that 99% of Americans are excluded?”

well, how much do u think it would cost to run for president? unless u have a few million bucks lying around, u have no chance in hell of even becoming a senitor, never mind the president. while the US is richest country in the world, it isnt communist, so the wealth is not exactly spread around. while ‘99%’ may not be an exact figure, the vast majority of US citizens dont have anywhere near the amount of money needed to go for president, so they are effectively excluded from the race. its not written in the consitution, but its true.

“I find your view that Russia and China, both of which murdered millions of their own citizens, “didnt do much wrong” rather interesting.”

get ur history book out mate, when and in which alternative uninverse did china or russia ‘murder’ millions of our own? get real.

TTP:

“Just remember when Germany, France Russia, Red Chinese, were the worlds powers, the world was enveloped in HUGE WORLD WARS, with MILLIONS KILLED.. Entire continents were colonized and exploited, countries were cobbled together with little or no thought to the peoples wishes (Mid-East).”

i c the japanese are not the only ones re-writting history. im not sure which alternative universe u get ur history from, but in this reality Russia, france and ‘red chinese’:rolleyes: (i truely hope english is ur second language) never started no world wars kid.

if u were refering to the old slave trade times, well, america’s bestest buddy britan was the one doing most of the colanising and exploiting. sure france also had a go, but only did as well as the US of A.

for all our ‘effort’, i guess we ‘evil red commy chinese’ still couldnt master the mind washing and re-programming trick as good as the yanks. well, we know when we’ve been beaten.

:p

well said

well said ink, my thoughts exactly!

no offence intended, but i disagree with u completely sauron.

“Clinton was and is a man of little characture much more suitable to the Saturday night comedy shows than as a leader. “

that is only ur personal opinon, mine is that a true leader must show restrant as well as force.

its easy to go in gon-ho and threaten or bomb ppl at will when you have the worlds best military behind you. but being mature enough to choose not to use force and being willing to talk and compramise is the sign of a great leader. im just sorry few of ur countrymen seem to realise that.

“The US has elected Presidents from many different backgrounds during the last 200+ years. “

hmm, how many US presidents ever came from a poor background? even george washington and tommus jefferson came from middle/upper clase backgrounds. this is more so now then ever, how much money does it take to give a person even a chance to be president? unless your a mulit-millionare, then you can kiss off any chance of becoming a president. that rules out about 99% of the american population, and out of the 1% that is left, 99% of them is ruled out cause they dont know the right ppl or have the right connections. no wonder u ppl are always spoilt for choice for new presidents.

“Unpopular in the world for its record of misdeads (real and imagined)? Comparied to who? The USSR/Russia, China, Germany, Japan??? For standing by it’s friends?”

im not sure which part to start on.

firstly, i dont see why russia and china should be put together with germany and japan, the first two didnt start a world war mate. actaully, they didnt do much wrong at all except for not allowing themselves to be controled like pupets by the US. God! how awlfull! the leaders of those countries should be tried at the Hage.

as for germany, well at least they paid for their past crimes and showed true remorse over the decades, and so should not have to be reminded of their past shame every five minutes. with that said, how many countires could claim to be as examplury as germany in dealing with international affears in the 58 years since the end of WWII?

as for japan, well, in the years after WWII, they have not been as ‘busy’ as the US, but is still hated more by its neighbours then the US. but that is of different reasons to ppl disliking the US, so i’d have to say its a pretty poor choice of comparisons. might this be because no one else is disliked as much as the is US when its comes to international relations?

as for being disliked or even hated for supporting ur allies, well dont sound so suprised abt it man. of course ppl are going to dislike u when u are providing weapons to a nation that is using those weapons to oppress a virtually defenceless ppl. on their own land i might add too.

a nation should treat its allies as a person would his friends. being a good friend is not abt supporting ur mate no matter what he does. yes, u need to support them when they are in trouble, but u also need to put ur foot down and tell them when they are making the wrong choices, and i dont see the US doing that alot.

“As far as US democracy and election practicies and results are concerned, they are for Americans to determine and are no one elses business. “

hmm, i dont c americans having much of a problem sticking their noses into the internal ffairs of other nations. given how much ‘equality’ is emphysised in ur consitution, its only fair for the rest of the world to show the US the same ‘cirticies’ u have shown us.

but going back to the original question, i dont think ppl just dislike GWB or the american government or the american ppl. what ppl really dislike is american attitudes towardds others.

as i see it, many americans dispise being treated equally as everyone else and expects the rest of the world to bend over backwards and take it up the backside just to make sure that we dont inconvenience them.

George B is popular in america because he promotes this belief, what with his ‘bully boy’ attitude and ‘we r the finnest nation on earth speaches’ etc. ppl from other contries dislike GWB because of that; ppl dislike the american administration because its policies are based on those principles and ppl dislike some american because they really believe that somehow they are ‘superior’ and so should be treated better then everyone else.

please dont get me wrong, im not saying that i or the world as a whole dislike the american ppl. i personally find most americans that i met to be very pleasent and decent ppl, but its just that self-supremicy attitude that really gets on my nerves.

humm, did anyone notice how the ppl that are so happy to see US/UK troops coming down the road are also the ppl that are carring other ppl’s TV’s, water and food? sure, these ppl were happy to see the americans and brits, but i wonder if it is because they are happy that saddam is gone and that they (along with their oil) have now been ‘liberated’ by the US and UK, or because the american and british soilders either killed or drove away all the police. you guy know what tony b is going to do to restor order in irq? he’s going to send in TWO of his special miliaty police offices! wow!

of the very few interviews we get to see of whole families, the vast majority of the time the message being sent out is that they are affraid. affraid to go out even though they are running out of food and water; afraid to even open their doors. now i know that saddam was probabaly even worse then hitler, but i dont think there was even this level of fear in so many people under his rule.

what i find most suprising is how nieve (no offence intended) so many ppl are. the americans said right from the offset that this is going to be a media war! ie, they are going to use the media to manipulate the truth, so why do so many ppl still take news reports as if they are the truth, the whole truth and noting but the truth?

remember how at the begining and during the first 21 days of the war, the presenters always said that their reporters were reporting under military restrictions? did ppl think they were just adding that on to kill time? of course news reports coming from bagdad and other areas under iraqi control also had ‘restriction’ and this was stated.

but now that the miliatry cant control what is being reported, the US just tries to shrug off negative reports. just a while ago i was amazed at the sher cheeck of donald r in his latest news report.
complaining that the picture of the same varse being looted was being shown time and time again, and how he was ‘amazed’ to find out there was more then 1 varse in iraq!

well donald, there were alot more then just varses that were being carried around in the cities mate, get better glasses and maybe you well see what a big pile of **** you made out there.