This post is in response to the thread "20 Years Ago Today"


In 1980, in South Korea (just nine years before Tiananmen Square) tens of thousands of students took to the streets to protest for democracy. As a result about two thousand South Korean students were massacred by the military whilst trying to overthrow the ruling dictatorship!! the South Korean military at that time was controlled by the US govt, the US govt also supported the ruling dictatorship in South Korea. So the US govt not only did not gave support to the Korean students in their struggle for democracy but also gave approval for the South Korean military to brutally quell the student protests!!

So the question is, is the west (especially the US) more concerned about self interests than human rights and democracy??

Don't forget, the Kwangju massacre has been largely forgotten in the west, unlike Tiananmen which still has massive explosure in the western media.




http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4557315.stm

Lingering legacy of Korean massacre
By Becky Branford
BBC News


A quarter of a century on, Koreans are remembering one of the ugliest episodes in their history.
In May 1980, hundreds of civilians were massacred by soldiers in the south-western city of Kwangju after rising up against military rule.

Although it was brutally put down, the Kwangju Uprising is now seen by many as a pivotal moment in the South Korean struggle for democracy in the long period of dictatorship following the Korean war.

And some contend the uprising had important ramifications which are still being felt now, both inside Korea and beyond its borders.

There is a sombre monument and museum dedicated to the massacre in Kwangju, and the anniversary of the beginning of the siege on 18 May is now a public holiday in Korea.

Batons and bayonets

The protests in Kwangju in the spring of 1980 were not unusual.

The country was being swept by a tide of demonstrations, mainly by students, in the wake of the assassination of the dictator Park Chung Hee and the military coup which brought General Chun Doo-hwan to power in his place.

It was the sheer, open brutality of the response of Korean paratroops which proved decisive.
The paratroops charged crowds with batons and bayonets, stripped students and other citizens down to their underwear in the streets before beating them, and fired indiscriminately into crowds.

This brutality drew outraged ordinary citizens into the struggle, creating a mass movement of resistance which forced the military to retreat from the city for five days, leaving the city in full control of the residents.

The military retook the city on 27 May, crushing the citizens' resistance in an overwhelming show of force.

The final toll of those who lost their lives is still unknown, as it is believed the military dumped bodies in mass graves or lakes. Estimates today range from 500 to 2,000.

'No-one left'

Hwang Sok-yong is one of Korea's best-known novelists, and was a leading young dissident who lived in Kwangju at the time of the uprising.

He was away at the time the siege began, and then went into hiding while authorities rounded up thousands of people they suspected of dissident activities.
"Six months later, I went back to my home in Kwangju," Mr Hwang told the BBC News website, "and nobody was there. Everybody was in prison, or had died, or had run away.

"My young friends, many of them died."

Many of those who escaped or survived say they still bear physical and psychological scars from the massacre, or feel guilty they lived when friends and family died.

Around the country, military reprisals against perceived agitators followed in the immediate aftermath of the massacre.

Dawn of democracy

But commentators are agreed that in the longer term the Kwangju massacre played a hugely important role in forcing Korean authorities finally to begin adopting democratic reforms in 1987.

"What started in 1980 ended in 1987," says Mr Hwang.

"The Kwangju Uprising lit the fuse of the dynamite stick of democracy."

The uprising, he explains, mobilised ordinary citizens to join a struggle which until then had been mostly confined to students and dissidents.

"It was the birth of citizenship. It was the beginning of a western-style civil society - and Korean modernity," he said.

All three Korean presidents selected in the country's fully democratic elections have been aligned with the pro-democracy movements of which Kwangju became emblematic.

The election of Kim Dae-jung in 1998 seemed particularly symbolic. From a town in the same Cholla province as Kwangju, Mr Kim was arrested on charges of sedition in May 1980 - an additional spur to those who participated in the uprising.

American antipathy

The experience in Kwangju also firmly yoked Koreans' struggle for liberation from dictatorship with a conviction they must also distance themselves from US control, commentators say.

Since the Korean war, tens of thousands of US troops have been stationed in the South and at the time of the Kwangju uprising, a US general retained ultimate operational control over combined US and South Korean forces.

"The US had been supporting Park Chung Hee since [he took power] in 1961, and it did nothing as Chun Doo-hwan seized power," Bruce Cumings, professor of history at the University of Chicago and a prominent Korea expert, told the BBC News website.
"It was as plain as the nose on anyone's face that the US was supporting Park Chung Hee and then his protege, and it was much more worried about stability and North Korea than it was about democracy in the South.

"Kwangju just poisoned relations with the US."

He says that while authorities in South Korea have gone to extensive lengths to document what happened in Kwangju, Washington has never conducted "a serious investigation" into the US role in the massacre.

Northern warming

While Koreans were questioning the US role in Korean affairs, they were also challenging national hostility to North Korea, says Mr Hwang.

"It started people thinking about 'us and them'. Who are we? Who are they? The Korean special troops were part of the US military, people started thinking, but North Korea is part of us.

"Their attitude changed. It encouraged negotiation and co-operation with North Korea."

This softer approach would eventually result in Kim Dae-jung's "sunshine policy" of engagement with the North.

Twenty-five years on, some Koreans express fear that Korean schoolchildren are beginning to forget the sacrifice of those who died in Kwangju.

But it seems clear the uprising's cultural and political legacy remains strong.





Heres some more articles on this subject:


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002337286_na16art.html

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/55a/182.html

http://baltimorechronicle.com/jun03_barfield.html

LOL.

Those students give their lives for a worthy cause, just as in Tiananmen.

Today, South Korea is a democracy. Could you call the same for China?

No, but we are not bankrupt like whale-shagging icelanders....in fact, we are the biggest creditor to the world's only superpower....lo1l1o1l1o1l1ol

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

Its a bit of both. Just so happens spreading democracy and human rights is a point of self interest of the West..

Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."


"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

US has to "forget" it since S Korea is not an independent country. It is occupied by US today. Don't believe it? S Korea does not have command rights even today, let alone 30 years ago.


The S. Korean students were killed by S. Korean troops, but maybe under command from their US boss.

I can't believe anybody would be as naively alturistic as to say the West is exclusively concerned about human rights and democracy. Just like any other nation in the world, what governs foreign policy is self-interest. Always.

But as Rzec has said, sometimes democracy and all that it entails is beneficial to Western aims and geo-strategic goals.

damn, not all westerners are brainwashed like the whale shaggers.....l11o1l1o1l1o1l1o1l1l

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

If we are talking about the populace rather than the Governments I would say the opposite is true.

There are far too many people happy to sacrifice Western values, security and way of life in order to feed their consciences.

Fortunately most Governments take a more sensible view.

oh pleaase,,, i cant even believe this question is asked


there has never been a race of people so self centred that it aint funny,
global native genocides and the killing onm an epic never before seen scale includung spices of all kinds and then there is theat littlr problem of the planet and whos to blame for the poor sick state its in, need more said?

you westerners will be the ones left behind in the hell called earth should God and son make an apperance

greed greed greed and more greed in all sectors of western society


foolish is the man/woman who has to ponder on this question for moe than a few minutes,
then again they are brain washed gits so i'll give em an hour or two to realize



The Turks can, they just can!

LOL.

Those students give their lives for a worthy cause, just as in Tiananmen.

Today, South Korea is a democracy. Could you call the same for China?



Yes, but with NO help but hinderance from the USA. The Korean students gave their lives for democracy, that I do not doubt, but WHERES THE SUPPORT FROM THE WEST??

Unlike you, I'm glad some western posters here like Rzecz and Pax Britannica are smart enough to realise despite all the talk in the west about democracy and human rights, underneath the veil, self interests is still king!!

Lets examine what happened in South Korea a little closer, firstly the USA often regards itself as the beacon of democracy in the west, they are often the first to attack and criticise China for what happened in Tiananmen Square, yet the similarities between what happened at Tiananmen Square in China and the Kwangju massacre in South Korea were in many ways undeniable.

In both instances you have students wanting democracy and trying to overthrow authoritarian rule, however in the case of the Kwangju massacre in South Korea the US govt had immense influence over the South Korean dictatorship and control over the South Korean military, So isn't it surprising given all the rhetoric from the US govt and the west about its unwavering support for democracy and human rights, that in 1980 in South Korea, the US govt refused to support the Korean students in their struggle and fight for democracy, and the US govt also gave approval for the use of military force that ultimately led to the deaths and the massacre of two thousand Korean students!!

I mean doesn't what happened in the Kwangju massacre make the rethoric of the US and the west's support for democracy and human rights around the world ring hollower??

I agree with the Brits.


Mobile airpower

"The enemy dies relaxed," observed a Lockheed Martin manager.

"Is the west more concerned about self interest than human rights and democracy??"


answer: YES

westrns are hypocrite nudity faggetry two faced duplicitous threesome orgieds upskirts fellation incestuous drunkard drugged bestiality dildos up arse anali skinnydippings topless bestiality lewdity porno smuts its jungle culture?


===========================================
I am old Christiankiller
Sorry for offensive to our good religion christian brothers
I am not hating christians

Let me reiterate why I think what happened at the Kwangju massacre is important to the discussion on the events of Tiananmen Square.



At Kwangju in South Korea in 1980 (similar to Tiananmen) we have thousands of Korean students protesting for democracy and the end of the dictatorial rule!! the US govt chose NOT to support the students for democratic change, but instead THE US GOVT GAVE IT'S SUPPORT FOR THE RULING DICTATORSHIP!!


The US govt and military also had control of the South Korean military at that time. The US govt could have prevented much of the bloodshed and the massacre of the Korean students, but instead the US GOVT GAVE IT'S APPROVAL FOR THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN ON THE STUDENTS PROTESTS!!


This shows despite the constant rhetoric about democracy and human rights regarding Tiananmen square, the US and the west actually regard self interests as absolutely paramount when it comes to foreign policy, which makes their criticisms and demands for democracy elsewhere in the world pretty hollow!!

Every country on earth is only concerned with its own national interests.

If we all truly cared about human rights and democracy then we would all have freed this world from human right violations and everyone would be living in a democracy.

Every nation wants its cut. It can be in the form of wealth, power, influence or knowledge.

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

The Muslims believe that Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him) was not crucified on the cross. They believe that he was raised to the heavens by the Lord and the Lord put someone (the Lord made him look like Jesus) in Jesus spot. There will be a day when Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him) will return to this world. He will return not as a prophet but as a follower of Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him). Upon his arrival all the world's Christians will become Muslims. After some time the whole world will become Muslim for the Lord has said the whole world will taste Islam. I can't wait for that day. Indeed only someone so great can bring something so beautiful.

Long live the great Muslim people.
Long live the great Muslim nations.

sorry wasim bro, compare switzerlands with belgiums history for instance

belgiums tiny useless country of faggetry makings chocolateds and colonizeds lootings and resourceds of congo causings milliongs deaths and even after leavings causings havoc in congo

tiny belgium?

comparings to switzerland? couldn'ts swiss also havings done worse than this? did they doings this?

===========================================
I am old Christiankiller
Sorry for offensive to our good religion christian brothers
I am not hating christians

Whitie gave the Indonesia government lists of people to murder in the massacre during the 1960s.

Same as when hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, Iraqi and Afghan civilians were killed in air strikes to protect US troops (I've no problem with it, all nations should protect its own peeps) but b!tch and moan when Sri Lanka does similar things (I do have a problem with this hypocrisy.)

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

I feed my blonde lots of char sue.

Tron:

Have you ever considered that perhaps China was led poorly?

Imagine, if in the US (since everyone here seems to like to talk so much about the US whenever we try to talk about China) the Bush administration took away real voting rights and ensconced themselves into the presidency forever? So the US people are forced to keep the same idiot that got Americans into all sorts of crap around the world, collapsed the US economy, and worse, don't want to admit that it made any mistakes?

Well, this is what has happened in China. Who suffers from this? Certainly not any Americans or westerners, no matter how "hypocritical" you think the west is. The bottom line is, Chinese people suffer at the hands of the CCP. They suffer from CCP corruption, CCP cover ups, CCP policies that prove disastrous, and by CCP insistence that the Chinese people serve ONLY the CCP. If you want another US comparison, it would be like saying that all Americans have been made to serve Bush and the republican party. It's a damned good thing that we in western nations can vote out poor politicians. Why can't Chinese people have the same voice? Answer? The CCP won't allow it.

Have you ever considered that perhaps China was led poorly?

Imagine, if in the US (since everyone here seems to like to talk so much about the US whenever we try to talk about China) the Bush administration took away real voting rights and ensconced themselves into the presidency forever? So the US people are forced to keep the same idiot that got Americans into all sorts of crap around the world, collapsed the US economy, and worse, don't want to admit that it made any mistakes?

Well, this is what has happened in China. Who suffers from this? Certainly not any Americans or westerners, no matter how "hypocritical" you think the west is. The bottom line is, Chinese people suffer at the hands of the CCP. They suffer from CCP corruption, CCP cover ups, CCP policies that prove disastrous, and by CCP insistence that the Chinese people serve ONLY the CCP. If you want another US comparison, it would be like saying that all Americans have been made to serve Bush and the republican party. It's a damned good thing that we in western nations can vote out poor politicians. Why can't Chinese people have the same voice? Answer? The CCP won't allow it.



The reason I started this thread about the Kwangju massacre in South Korea, is to show how hypocritical the US and the west is. The US and the west is always criticising and wagging their finger at China and other nations about human rights and democracy, and yet in South Korea we have a situation that was nearly identical to Tiananmen square and the US does everything thats CONTRADICT WHAT IT PREACHES!!

So wheres the CONSISTANCY?? And what gives the US and the west the moral ground to lecture others??


Now to your query on the CCP, firstly if you want to criticise communism and the CCP, I'll join you, because I'm a advocate for democracy, and I hope one day China does become democratic. However the difference between myself and westerners like you is I prefer the transition to a democracy to be as smooth and stable as possible and that can only be achieved over a period of time (remember it took the British centuries to wrestle with the concept of democracy) but what the west wants is for China to become a democracy literally OVERNIGHT!! regardless of the consequences! eg. if the economy collapsed and widespread chaos ensured. All the west is concerned about is getting rid of another communist state, not necessarily the welfare of the country and its people.

I mean look at what happened to Russia? (Soviet Union) in 1990s when it became a democracy overnight? The country and economy collapsed and the Russian people starved, many had to queue for hours for scraps of bread to eat!! I can assure you many Russians remembered what happened in the nineties and they never want it repeated again. The only thing that saved the Russians in the end is their massive reserves of oil and gas, CHINA HAS NO SUCH LUXURIES especially in 1989, it was a very poor country back then!! Also isn't it strange how power in Russia today is becoming more centralised and the leadership becoming more of a dictatorship and less of a democracy with each passing day? with the full support of the Russian people?? Look how the Russians adore Putin even though he is practically a dictator!! just goes to show if you force democracy upon a nation regardless of whether it is ready for it or not, it can have negative effects!! and democracy isn't necessarily the panacea for all the ills in this world.

Also remember nearly all third world countries have corruption, cover ups, bribery and other forms of bad governance etc (China is still a third world country) these are NOT exclusive to China. Remember the prosperity the Chinese people are experiencing right now is probably better than any other time in our history, and in some areas of China, people are actually having problems of obesity!! all this in a country with 1.3 billion people, thats why the majority of mainland Chinese do not want to rock the boat and bring down the leadership.

When the west criticises China on human rights it focuses narrowly on the facet of "the right to criticise the government" but what about the right to have a job so you can have food on the table each day? so your children don't have to starve or die of malnutrition? What about the right to afford decent clothes for your family?? What about the right to have proper education for your kids? What about the right to housing and decent transport services? What about healthcare for your children so they don't die in the millions before the age of two like in India? etc THESE ARE ALL HUMAN RIGHTS AS WELL!! and for the majority of Chinese the CCP have ticked these boxes!

Yes, for those Chinese who openly challenge the CCP they will get punished and get locked away but these people are a minority!! Yes, I believe there should be a change, the CCP have done some things right but they have also done wrong, and a more open and freer society is the better option in the long run, but like I said the transition should be smooth with a strong emphasis on stability because you want democracy to improve people's lives not ruin their lives like what nearly happened in Russia.


Lastly like I said, if the west is consistant in what they do compared to what they preach, maybe other people might listen to them.

Saudi Arabia isn't much different than a medieval kingdom -women aren't allowed to even drive cars there- but we don't see that much pressure on them. Why? Just because they're westerns' "allies". Americans greatly critize China cause China's the greatest threat coming, for the west. Possible to give some other examples...

Iran, Russia, Belarus, Syria...

And the country that's responsible for Guantanamo base and one million dead people in Iraq is judging the others over human rights...Not only by preparing reports about those countries but also by movies, books, using every kind of media tool for psychological warfare.

What a just world (!)

But I acknowledge it has never been just. The aims never changed but only methods. That's what we should all be aware of...

In general, speaking for individual citizens living in "the west" I'd say they're more concerned with human rights and freedom; the freedom to vote in our representatives.

Government in general doesn't give a !#%$ about individual human rights. Of course there will always be exceptions to every rule, but I believe that a majority of politicians become politicians solely for the power which comes with being in the government. They solely join for THEIR self-interests, and that just spills over into how they run the government domestically and foreign policy.

Oh sure, they (the politicians) will openly say that they're for freedom and etc., but that's simply to deceive the voters into voting for him/her. Sweet talking their way to the top. He/she knows damn well if they do not openly say they're for freedom and etc., then it's a definite they'll not be voted into power. Very deceptive.

It's always mixed up. Politicians BS their way into power, then they play on the emotions of their voters to get them to follow the politicians' game. Politicians are among the most smartest of criminals. Politics is a safe way to commit crimes and easily get away with them. So, as you can imagine, this attracts many criminal-minded people to become politicians.

As you can see, saying "the west" is pretty stupid. You cannot bunch all of us into one basket. There's a mixture of many different opinions in "the west" on many issues. Politicians are usually the ones screwing the @#%$ up, anyway. Then they get into the schoolsystem and brainwash kids to think government control is "good" for them. Like disgusting socialism.

We have Marxist professors in colleges over here in the U.S., believe it or not. Even Obama himself said in his book that he specifically became friends with Marxist professors in college. Truly amazing, yet the sheep still vote these tools into office.

---

"We should not forget that the spark which ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the firearms of the colonists."
- Patrick Henry -

Ron Paul Library <-=+=+=+=-> Ron Paul Archives

"Gun control has cleared the way for seven major genocides since 1915, in which governments gone bad murdered 56,000,000 persons, including millions of children."
- Aaron Zelman of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership -

"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
- Virginia Bill of Rights -

=================
The reason I started this thread about the Kwangju massacre in South Korea, is to show how hypocritical the US and the west is. The US and the west is always criticising and wagging their finger at China and other nations about human rights and democracy, and yet in South Korea we have a situation that was nearly identical to Tiananmen square and the US does everything thats CONTRADICT WHAT IT PREACHES!!

So wheres the CONSISTANCY?? And what gives the US and the west the moral ground to lecture others??
==

Is that so? So why then are Chinese people in Hong Kong protesting? No matter how much you try to whitewash the blood bath, the PRC was the one that killed Chinese people. Talking about Korea massacres doesn't change that.

I was from Hong Kong by the way.

==================
Now to your query on the CCP, firstly if you want to criticise communism and the CCP, I'll join you, because I'm a advocate for democracy, and I hope one day China does become democratic. However the difference between myself and westerners like you is I prefer the transition to a democracy to be as smooth and stable as possible and that can only be achieved over a period of time (remember it took the British centuries to wrestle with the concept of democracy) but what the west wants is for China to become a democracy literally OVERNIGHT!!
==

Yes, I understand that democracy can be synonymous with anarchy, just like a democratically elect government in Iraq can freely choose to be hostile to the US or China or whoever. Democracy itself is not a panacea, but it is a better choice than being ruled by lies and liars. Personally, I could give two ****s what "the west" or the US "wants" for China; the bottom line is, everyone in the world has an opinion about how they want you to be. You have to do what is in the best interest for your people. What do the Chinese people want? That is the only question that matters. China doesn't even need to be a democracy in the sense of a US style democracy. There is plenty of room for democracy under the Chinese Communist Party.

Yes, you heard right; me, who has been railing about the Party now saying that there is room for the Party?

And why not? If Bush et al can exist in the US, for all the vaunted talk about fairness, I can easily understand how it's not the system but the people involved. It's not that republicans are bad per se, but Bush et al were, and they happened to be republicans. They could have just as easily been democrats, or heavens no, ...Communist. Just like China in Imperial times, there were plenty of good laws, except for the bastards that only used them to suppress others for their advantage. China has good laws; except that it does not implement them or ever use them against the people that it should. It is exactly the same way as it was in imperial times; a criminal is guilty, but if he's connected, nothing will ever happen to him. Why do you think people riot? In the US there is a mantra for these types of social injustices,

"No Justice, No Peace"

There are billions of yuan a year being wasted on corruption. What exactly do you think people in China 89 was fighting for in Tiananmen? Why, just why, did nearly the entire country join in protests? Were they all students clarmoring for some barely understood romantic idea of democracy? And some people's rather pedestrian understanding of the entire affair was distilled into a manga like script of "Red Guard Commies" versus the "Capitalist Commies?" Where did they read that? In a comic book?

No... They were all average men on the street that wanted to get rid of the nepotism, the corruption, the rip offs of the average guy. The only way that you could get ahead in China then wasn't from hard work; but by how much you paid to someone who was a connected party member. This was why people marched. This was why rural folks hopped on trains to go into the cities to join the protests. I watched news reports every day as it was happening and remember it as if it was yesterday. The Chinese people weren't fed up with the party, they were fed up with the party's corruption; just like they were with the corruption of the Qing, the corruption of the Koumintang, and now, the corruption of the CCP.

Until the CCP is able to look itself in the mirror and say that China is more important than the party (and not the other way round), it has no place in China.

Just because a nosy neighbor tells you that your shxt stinks, doesn't mean that it doesn't. You may not like it that a nosy neighbor is pointing it out, but your shxt stinks nonetheless. In this case, the CCP murdered hundreds of innocent Chinese who were really asking for the things that the party itself had promised them; honesty and fairness in governence, a government that really is "serve all citizens"(it didn't displayed the Chinese characters), and not the other way around. THAT was the root cause of the protests; people saw their government as a lie.

This is from wiki, but it's apt:
quote: "..The novel addresses not only the corruption of the revolution by its leaders but also how wickedness, indifference, ignorance, greed and myopia destroy any possibility of a Utopia. While this novel portrays corrupt leadership as the flaw in revolution (and not the act of revolution itself), it also shows how potential ignorance and indifference to problems within a revolution could allow horrors to happen if smooth transition to a people's government isn't satisfied."

That was from Animal Fhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm ) . For the Chinese, the Orwellian lament of some pigs being more equal than others remains the biggest problem. If you get rid of that, all the other problems would just go away as if by magic.

And your comment of "...However the difference between myself and westerners like you is I prefer the transition to a democracy to be as smooth and stable as possible..." Are you suggesting that the "west" doesn't want that? Please, even the most unreasonable pundit (like Rush windbag Limbaugh) understands that it's in the world's best interest to have a stable China. In fact, if there were less corruption, China would become even MORE stable because there would be less protests, riots, and people coming to Beijing to seek audiences with the party and making a show for reporters from foreign nations. Again who's fault is this? The evil west? LOL...

Is that so? So why then are Chinese people in Hong Kong protesting? No matter how much you try to whitewash the blood bath, the PRC was the one that killed Chinese people. Talking about Korea massacres doesn't change that.


Dude show me where I have tried to whitewash what happened at Tiananmen square? What I tried to do was to make a comparison between what happened at Kwangju in South Korea with what happened at Tiananmen square, to expose how empty and hypocritical the west's rhetoric about human rights and democracy were!! In other words if the US's actions in Kwangju was NO different than the CCP's actions in Tiananmen, then on what moral ground has the US govt got to lecture China on what happened at Tiananmen?? Its a simple question!



I was from Hong Kong by the way.


Just to give me a clearer idea about who I'm debating with, are you a HK Chinese? or are you a westerner who had spend some time in HK?


Yes, I understand that democracy can be synonymous with anarchy, just like a democratically elect government in Iraq can freely choose to be hostile to the US or China or whoever. Democracy itself is not a panacea, but it is a better choice than being ruled by lies and liars. Personally, I could give two ****s what "the west" or the US "wants" for China; the bottom line is, everyone in the world has an opinion about how they want you to be. You have to do what is in the best interest for your people. What do the Chinese people want? That is the only question that matters. China doesn't even need to be a democracy in the sense of a US style democracy. There is plenty of room for democracy under the Chinese Communist Party.

Yes, you heard right; me, who has been railing about the Party now saying that there is room for the Party?

And why not? If Bush et al can exist in the US, for all the vaunted talk about fairness, I can easily understand how it's not the system but the people involved. It's not that republicans are bad per se, but Bush et al were, and they happened to be republicans. They could have just as easily been democrats, or heavens no, ...Communist. Just like China in Imperial times, there were plenty of good laws, except for the bastards that only used them to suppress others for their advantage. China has good laws; except that it does not implement them or ever use them against the people that it should. It is exactly the same way as it was in imperial times; a criminal is guilty, but if he's connected, nothing will ever happen to him. Why do you think people riot? In the US there is a mantra for these types of social injustices,


So now your saying its not really the CCP's fault but the fault of some Chinese politicans!! geeze make up your mind please!


There are billions of yuan a year being wasted on corruption. What exactly do you think people in China 89 was fighting for in Tiananmen? Why, just why, did nearly the entire country join in protests? Were they all students clarmoring for some barely understood romantic idea of democracy? And some people's rather pedestrian understanding of the entire affair was distilled into a manga like script of "Red Guard Commies" versus the "Capitalist Commies?" Where did they read that? In a comic book?


NO, not everyone in China in 1989 supported the student's protests, if they did, the CCP would have been overthrown from power.


No... They were all average men on the street that wanted to get rid of the nepotism, the corruption, the rip offs of the average guy. The only way that you could get ahead in China then wasn't from hard work; but by how much you paid to someone who was a connected party member. This was why people marched. This was why rural folks hopped on trains to go into the cities to join the protests. I watched news reports every day as it was happening and remember it as if it was yesterday. The Chinese people weren't fed up with the party, they were fed up with the party's corruption; just like they were with the corruption of the Qing, the corruption of the Koumintang, and now, the corruption of the CCP.


Dude before you point fingers at China, nepotism and corruption and bribery etc is pretty endemic in third world countries, I mean can you give me examples of some third world countries who are free from them??


Just because a nosy neighbor tells you that your shxt stinks, doesn't mean that it doesn't. You may not like it that a nosy neighbor is pointing it out, but your shxt stinks nonetheless. In this case, the CCP murdered hundreds of innocent Chinese who were really asking for the things that the party itself had promised them; honesty and fairness in governence, a government that really is "serve all citizens"(it didn't displayed the Chinese characters), and not the other way around. THAT was the root cause of the protests; people saw their government as a lie.


Dude I hate to break it to you, but all governments lie!! In the west you had the Iraq war, where the US and British govts insisted there were WMDs in Iraq and bamboozled their public into believing them. The cost of the war is astronomical and future generations will probably still be repaying the cost of it.


This is from wiki, but it's apt:
quote: "..The novel addresses not only the corruption of the revolution by its leaders but also how wickedness, indifference, ignorance, greed and myopia destroy any possibility of a Utopia. While this novel portrays corrupt leadership as the flaw in revolution (and not the act of revolution itself), it also shows how potential ignorance and indifference to problems within a revolution could allow horrors to happen if smooth transition to a people's government isn't satisfied."

That was from Animal . For the Chinese, the Orwellian lament of some pigs being more equal than others remains the biggest problem. If you get rid of that, all the other problems would just go away as if by magic.


Yeah I remember Animal Farm by George Orwell, I remember reading it when I was a teenager. I have to give credit to Orwell for depicting what happened in Russia after the fall of the Czar and the onset of Communism so cleverly in a book about pigs in a farm lol.

One of the main reasons Communism has failed is because it actually believes in the creation of a utopian society is possible, unfortunately human beings are too flawed for such a lofty ideal. NO, greed and self interests (common human traits) is what makes this world go around!!


And your comment of "...However the difference between myself and westerners like you is I prefer the transition to a democracy to be as smooth and stable as possible..." Are you suggesting that the "west" doesn't want that? Please, even the most unreasonable pundit (like Rush windbag Limbaugh) understands that it's in the world's best interest to have a stable China. In fact, if there were less corruption, China would become even MORE stable because there would be less protests, riots, and people coming to Beijing to seek audiences with the party and making a show for reporters from foreign nations. Again who's fault is this? The evil west? LOL...


Firstly let me ask you this, if the student protests in Tiananmen square in 1989 was successful would it had led to a smooth transition to democracy? or a tumultuous one?? And why did the Russians got so little help from the west when it became democratic??

Now to your question, does the west want a stable China?? presently the answer is yes, because of SELF INTERESTS!! because China's economy is strong and has a big impact on the world's economy, and China is a creditor nation and gives loans to western countries like the USA, but what would happen if China's economy was to suffer a disaster and the economy shrinks? and China becomes a debtor nation?? would the west still want commie China to be stable?? Don't forget the west regard China as a threat!!

At the end of the day the only people who want the best for China is THE CHINESE PEOPLE!! westerners can preach all they want, because ultimately westerners regard China as a threat, and its an oxymoron to believe anyone who regard you as a threat to have your best interests at heart.

Lastly theres no guarantee that if China becomes a democracy then corruption will disappear. I mean look at India for example, it has been a democracy for 60 years, yet it has a massive problem with corruption!!

BobCat is some white cvnt or some self-hating yellow man who kisses white arse.

And no, the West doesn't want a slow transition to a democracy. They wanted a revolution and chaos in China.

I fooking hate the commies because I could see that they are retarding the potential of the Chinese race.

But I rather have this than a fooking bloody revolution.

China isn't up to its potential but it is still growing at incredible rate.

China isn't adverse to revolution, if benefits of a revolution outweighed the costs then the people would revolt. With the world fastest growing economy, there is no great benefit to a bloody revolution -- except for fooking whitie.

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

I feed my blonde lots of char sue.

I am 100% HK Chinese, but race and nationality should not even matter when we're discussing right versus wrong.
==
============
So now your saying its not really the CCP's fault but the fault of some Chinese politicans!! geeze make up your mind please!
==

If you looked at what Zhao Ziyang tried to do as an agent of moderation and negotiation, this could have ended much differently. Moreover, look at the national congress and how the votes are carried out; it is more of a routine rubber stamp than an actual vote. That is where a lot of the problem lie. The only western analogy to this would be the electoral college, which is another pretty ****ty system where voters are expected to vote as they are told. The only differenece here is, it is expected that they vote the will of the people, from reflection of the popular vote. In the PRC the expectation is that national congress announce the will of the party. This is the fatal flaw in the system, because the people serve the party and not the other way around. However, if there were benovolent leaders at the very top, even those that totally control the reins of power can effect positive changes, ...or not. Hence the fault of Tiananmen lies completely with the individual politicians at the top the Chinese government apparatus; with their individual actions and decisions.

=============
NO, not everyone in China in 1989 supported the student's protests, if they did, the CCP would have been overthrown from power.
==

This is exactly what the hardliners feared, that the party was about to be ousted. They looked around the country and saw the anger and dissatisfaction of the Chinese people. But instead of listening to the people and look into the grievances (which was all the people wanted and the CCP could have easily done) they decided to send in troops. If you look back and actually read about the entire slew of complaints that were being offered from the people, there was NOT any sign or demand for the party to step down, only to address issues that the people wanted and airing of. Overthrow was not what the protesters were trying to do. Much like a child treated badly by his father, the child just wanted the father to listen to him; instead this father pulled out a gun and shot the child to shut him up. That is what Tiananmen represents to many Chinese. Most Chinese don't really care about western styled democracy; they just want to live with fairness in their lives and it could be under any political system. The word democracy simply represents an ideal for that fairness. Under the present system within the PRC, it could just as easily be delivered. It isn't because of the rampant corruption.

=============
Dude before you point fingers at China, nepotism and corruption and bribery etc is pretty endemic in third world countries, I mean can you give me examples of some third world countries who are free from them??
==

I agree, however unbridled corruption would lead to political states like Zimbabwe. Should the people there keep silent because Mugabe is keeping the nation together while blocking 'western' influences out? He may be doing it but at what costs to the people? There comes a point of diminishing returns with everything and with military subjugation, that point is generally very easily broached.

============
Dude I hate to break it to you, but all governments lie!! In the west you had the Iraq war, where the US and British govts insisted there were WMDs in Iraq and bamboozled their public into believing them. The cost of the war is astronomical and future generations will probably still be repaying the cost of it.
==

Break it to me? I've had my heart broken by liar politicians since the 1960's. I bet your parents probably weren't even out of diapers yet. And you're right, that "WMD" turned out to be Words of Mass Deception and not the doomsday weapons that the US military was sent in to seek. But look at main difference here; the US government is being put to task for it. It has to publicly answer for many things and admit that it chose the wrong path. Does the CCP have the same courage? Even if it lacks the same courage, can the Chinese people really insist (like the US does with it's vote) that their government answer for the things that it does? The answer is is no. THAT's why Chinese people, esp those in Hong Kong, are marching and protesting. And let me ask you; how much is it costing the Chinese people to keep them suppressed? The guns and monitors pointed without, as well as within?

===========
Yeah I remember Animal Farm by George Orwell, I remember reading it when I was a teenager. I have to give credit to Orwell for depicting what happened in Russia after the fall of the Czar and the onset of Communism so cleverly in a book about pigs in a farm lol. One of the main reasons Communism has failed is because it actually believes in the creation of a utopian society is possible, unfortunately human beings are too flawed for such a lofty ideal. NO, greed and self interests (common human traits) is what makes this world go around!!
==

Where human beings are flawed but must be placed into positions of great public trust, there must be systems set up that recognize and mitigate such flaws. Else, we have only the inherent strengths and weaknesses of whoever happens to monarch, in the oligarch, or central committee. This is why certain Chinese emperors were recognized for the things they did and why others were loathed. It is a matter of human character that is the question. A modern US example would be the fatal flaw of the US justice system in the election of supreme court justices for life. This obviously renders the system to intense reliance on the wills of each individual jurist. Suppose someone like Mao or Deng sat on the US supreme court, what do you think would happen in the US? I shudder to think of it. Scalia and Thomas were bad enough. That is why Bush was able to win the election in the first place, a politically corrupt man was in the right legal place to rule in evil's favor (the final outcome of the Florida count that allowed Bush to gain the White House). This was what brought Bush to power. If this never happened, would the war in Iraq ever need occur? I'd seriously doubt that Gore would have even spend one thought on it.

Animal farm is instructive here and Orwell was amazingly prescient and insightful of the minds of political men.

==================
Firstly let me ask you this, if the student protests in Tiananmen square in 1989 was successful would it had led to a smooth transition to democracy? or a tumultuous one?? And why did the Russians got so little help from the west when it became democratic?? Now to your question, does the west want a stable China?? presently the answer is yes, because of SELF INTERESTS!! because China's economy is strong and has a big impact on the world's economy, and China is a creditor nation and gives loans to western countries like the USA, but what would happen if China's economy was to suffer a disaster and the economy shrinks? and China becomes a debtor nation?? would the west still want commie China to be stable?? Don't forget the west regard China as a threat!!
===

You've just answer your former question with the latter. For an economically stable China any political transition must be smooth, be it to democracy or anything else. Heck, China may one day recognize a monarchy again. As for the US considering China a threat? Why do you suppose that is? But what kind of threat can mitigate a mutual economic codependence? If the PRC launched a missile at the US, that's real threat. Everything else takes a back seat to economic negotiations, period. Anyone that fails to understand that is being less than honest with himself.

=================
At the end of the day the only people who want the best for China is THE CHINESE PEOPLE!! westerners can preach all they want, because ultimately westerners regard China as a threat, and its an oxymoron to believe anyone who regard you as a threat to have your best interests at heart.
==

I'm in 100% agreement here. So, ...why then were Chinese people being shot by the CCP in Tiananmen Square? It seems to me that the Chinese people have spoken, and the only ones that listened was the west. The CCP has not only turned a deaf ear, but pointed a gun at its own people.

=================
Lastly theres no guarantee that if China becomes a democracy then corruption will disappear. I mean look at India for example, it has been a democracy for 60 years, yet it has a massive problem with corruption!! Don't forget to answer all my questions otherwise we won't get anywhere with this debate. The best way is to reply paragraph for paragrpah, the way I did it. Thx.
==

The US had been a democracy and its still corrupt. Corruption never goes away. However, if you let it impact the daily lives of the people in an open fashion, then you incur the wrath of the people to whom you promised otherwise. In the US and other places, politicians get voted out. In some places of the world, politicians get shouted out; and in still other places of the world politicians get blown out.

How do you want to see it happen in China? And look at the comment BigFatPandaBear made to me.

Suppose now I demand an apology from him? What would he say? Here we're having a constructive dialog without the flame baiting. This is what happened in Tiananmen. The Chinese people wanted a dialog with its leaders. But their leaders called them a bunch of name and then shot them instead. Did the CCP need to do that in the name of 'preserving' China? No, just like he didn't need to call me names to disagree with me. The people are now demanding an apology. Does the CCP have the moral courage to apologize to its people for what it did? Does BigFatPandaBear have the moral courage to apologize to me for his flaming? LOL... It's all about character. Some people or governments have it, and while others don't. And some wouldn't know it even if it bit them on their behinds.

The bottom line here is, who is hurting the Chinese people the most?

HK Chinese


Hmmm so if you are a Chinese then why did you join the UK group?? Is this where your loyalty lie?? If you didn't wanted to join the China group, you could have at least joined one of the non aligned groups like "members" or "aviators" groups. So why did you join the UK group??


If you looked at what Zhao Ziyang tried to do as an agent of moderation and negotiation, this could have ended much differently. Moreover, look at the national congress and how the votes are carried out; it is more of a routine rubber stamp than an actual vote. That is where a lot of the problem lie. The only western analogy to this would be the electoral college, which is another pretty ****ty system where voters are expected to vote as they are told. The only differenece here is, it is expected that they vote the will of the people, from reflection of the popular vote. In the PRC the expectation is that national congress announce the will of the party. This is the fatal flaw in the system, because the people serve the party and not the other way around. However, if there were benovolent leaders at the very top, even those that totally control the reins of power can effect positive changes, ...or not. Hence the fault of Tiananmen lies completely with the individual politicians at the top the Chinese government apparatus; with their individual actions and decisions.


The reason why the proposals are rubber stamped at the congress is because the CCP is non democratic!! And if the CCP as a whole is not at fault (as you claim) and the fault lies with a few individual politicians then why do Chinese dissidents and western correspondents attack the CCP and not certain individuals??


This is exactly what the hardliners feared, that the party was about to be ousted. They looked around the country and saw the anger and dissatisfaction of the Chinese people. But instead of listening to the people and look into the grievances (which was all the people wanted and the CCP could have easily done) they decided to send in troops. If you look back and actually read about the entire slew of complaints that were being offered from the people, there was NOT any sign or demand for the party to step down, only to address issues that the people wanted and airing of. Overthrow was not what the protesters were trying to do. Much like a child treated badly by his father, the child just wanted the father to listen to him; instead this father pulled out a gun and shot the child to shut him up. That is what Tiananmen represents to many Chinese. Most Chinese don't really care about western styled democracy; they just want to live with fairness in their lives and it could be under any political system. The word democracy simply represents an ideal for that fairness. Under the present system within the PRC, it could just as easily be delivered. It isn't because of the rampant corruption.


The students were at Tiananmen Square for EIGHT WEEKS its not like the CCP sent the military to crush them the next day!! Now tell me has there been another instance in another country where students were allowed to occupy the capital city's central square for protests for eight weeks without taking any action?? Also martial law was declared before any action was taken against the students, so there was prior warning! and the students did have meetings and negotiated with the CCP unofficially.

Also the students at Tiananmen were disorganised, they did not have a unified leadership, a common cause or voice, they were made up of all and sundry eg. disallusioned communists, other communist factions like trotskyists, anti-capitalists, pro-democrats, free market reformists etc (note: non of these groups necessarily agree with each others central aims or views, they were just united against a preceived common enemy) infact anyone who had a greviance against the CCP. Imagine if they had overthrown the govt what a mess the China will be in today!!

You talk about fairness and addressing greviances, but many of the students and Chinese workers who took part in the protests were unhappy with the "capitalist" economic reforms implemented by Deng Xiao Ping a decade earlier in 1979, they said it created "inequalities" yet as we can see with hindsight, Deng's economic reforms is probably the single most important reason why China has a strong economy today and the Chinese people is enjoying greater prosperity!! Its also important to remember that when these students were demanding that CCP address the greviances and issues of the people, China at that time was a poor country in 1989, apart from the political issues, China did not have the resources to fully address many social issues eg. employment, inflation, poverty etc. It was like demanding a man with ten dollars in his pocket who fathered one hundred kids to get all the necessary things the kids needed!!


I agree, however unbridled corruption would lead to political states like Zimbabwe. Should the people there keep silent because Mugabe is keeping the nation together while blocking 'western' influences out? He may be doing it but at what costs to the people? There comes a point of diminishing returns with everything and with military subjugation, that point is generally very easily broached.


LOL, dude, China is nothing like Zimbabwe, inflation isn't going through the roof and people aren't starving everywhere. Anyway why don't you tell me about India like I ask you to?? Here we have a country with a billion people and have been a democracy for over 60 years, so why does it still have massive problem with corruption??


Break it to me? I've had my heart broken by liar politicians since the 1960's. I bet your parents probably weren't even out of diapers yet. And you're right, that "WMD" turned out to be Words of Mass Deception and not the doomsday weapons that the US military was sent in to seek. But look at main difference here; the US government is being put to task for it. It has to publicly answer for many things and admit that it chose the wrong path. Does the CCP have the same courage? Even if it lacks the same courage, can the Chinese people really insist (like the US does with it's vote) that their government answer for the things that it does? The answer is is no. THAT's why Chinese people, esp those in Hong Kong, are marching and protesting. And let me ask you; how much is it costing the Chinese people to keep them suppressed? The guns and monitors pointed without, as well as within?


Dude you know nothing about me, or how old I am, so cut the disparaging remark about my parents. You said the US admitted its mistake about the WMD and the Iraq war and they were "put to task for it" (your words). So why has NO ONE BEEN CHARGED FOR THE MISTAKE?? Why has no one in the US adminisration ever been prosecuted for it?? Wheres the accountability your talking about?? Remember thousands of innocent people lost their lives over the plunder of the Iraq war, YET NOT ONE PERSON FROM THE US GOVT WAS EVER PROSECUTED FOR IT, is that what you call accountability??


Where human beings are flawed but must be placed into positions of great public trust, there must be systems set up that recognize and mitigate such flaws. Else, we have only the inherent strengths and weaknesses of whoever happens to monarch, in the oligarch, or central committee. This is why certain Chinese emperors were recognized for the things they did and why others were loathed. It is a matter of human character that is the question. A modern US example would be the fatal flaw of the US justice system in the election of supreme court justices for life. This obviously renders the system to intense reliance on the wills of each individual jurist. Suppose someone like Mao or Deng sat on the US supreme court, what do you think would happen in the US? I shudder to think of it. Scalia and Thomas were bad enough. That is why Bush was able to win the election in the first place, a politically corrupt man was in the right legal place to rule in evil's favor (the final outcome of the Florida count that allowed Bush to gain the White House). This was what brought Bush to power. If this never happened, would the war in Iraq ever need occur? I'd seriously doubt that Gore would have even spend one thought on it.


Since bush was illegally installed as president of the US (as you claimed) then why was there no remedial action to rectified it?? Why was there no offical enquiry into the matter?? I mean we're talking about a western democracy here not a communist country right? So wheres the transparency??


You've just answer your former question with the latter. For an economically stable China any political transition must be smooth, be it to democracy or anything else. Heck, China may one day recognize a monarchy again. As for the US considering China a threat? Why do you suppose that is? But what kind of threat can mitigate a mutual economic codependence? If the PRC launched a missile at the US, that's real threat. Everything else takes a back seat to economic negotiations, period. Anyone that fails to understand that is being less than honest with himself.


I like the way you totally dodged my questions lol, now try to answer them please!! Here they are again:


1) If the student protests in Tiananmen square in 1989 was successful would it had led to a smooth transition to democracy? or a tumultuous one??

2) If China's economy becomes weak and theres no longer a co-dependence from the US and the west, would the west still care about the stability of China??

3) Does the west regard China as a threat or not??



I'm in 100% agreement here. So, ...why then were Chinese people being shot by the CCP in Tiananmen Square? It seems to me that the Chinese people have spoken, and the only ones that listened was the west. The CCP has not only turned a deaf ear, but pointed a gun at its own people


I've already told you, the students did not have the full support of all the people in China!! Now if you have evidence to show that the students had the full backing of everyone in China then please show it to me!! otherwise stop making references to that effect. As to the question of why CCP gave the order to quell the students protests? I can ask you a similar question of why did the US govt gave it's approval for the South Korean military to quell the student protests in Kwangju??


The US had been a democracy and its still corrupt. Corruption never goes away. However, if you let it impact the daily lives of the people in an open fashion, then you incur the wrath of the people to whom you promised otherwise. In the US and other places, politicians get voted out. In some places of the world, politicians get shouted out; and in still other places of the world politicians get blown out.

How do you want to see it happen in China?


So are you saying as long as the corruption is disguised or hidden ie. "not in an open fashion" then it is acceptable??

And don't forget if you decide to vote out a "corrupt" politician, you need to make sure you replace him with a "clean" politician, else your back to square one, because even for many initially "clean politicians" especially in poor third world countries, the temptation of someone waving a wad load of cash whilst asking him to do "a little favor" will often prove irresistable!!

So can you vote out a politician in China you asked?? the answer is no, China is a communist country!! Thats why it needs change and I am all for that change as long as it done in a smooth and responsible manner.


And look at the comment BigFatPandaBear made to me. Suppose now I demand an apology from him? What would he say?

Dude, address your complaint to Panda himself or WAFF, I'm not here to regulate what other people write about.


This is what happened in Tiananmen. The Chinese people wanted a dialog with its leaders. But their leaders called them a bunch of name and then shot them instead. Did the CCP need to do that in the name of 'preserving' China? No, just like he didn't need to call me names to disagree with me. The people are now demanding an apology. Does the CCP have the moral courage to apologize to its people for what it did? Does BigFatPandaBear have the moral courage to apologize to me for his flaming? LOL... It's all about character. Some people or governments have it, and while others don't. And some wouldn't know it even if it bit them on their behinds.

The bottom line here is, who is hurting the Chinese people the most?


Dude we've talked alot of about Tiananmen, lets talk a little about Kwangju (which is the topic of this thread).

So let me turn your question around and ask you, why didn't the US govt support the Korean students in their fight for democracy at Kwangju?? Also why did the US govt gave it's approval for the South Korean military to brutally crush the students?? and if the US govt's actions at Kwangju were NO different than the CCP's actions at Tiananmen Square, then what moral authority has the US got to lecture China??

You talk about moral courage, has the US govt got the moral courage to gave an apology for what happened at the Kwangju massacre?? and has the USA and UK govts got the moral courage to give an offical apology for the Iraq war??

And dude you have repeatedly dodged my questions on the Kwangju massacre, so will you please answer them now??


Lastly, let me say, what happened at Tiananmen was wrong, and there should be an apology from the CCP, I think most reasonable Chinese will agree with me on this.

=========
Dude we've talked alot of about Tiananmen, lets talk a little about Kwangju (which is the topic of this thread).
===

The problem with your style of argument is that it fails to really address the issue based on its merits. In a courtroom, this would be known as distraction. Talking about things that are important in another docket or another case, but having nothing to do with this one is a distraction. Or, if we were using a grade school example, it would be: "Yes, other children were cheating but the one I caught was you." So let's separate the two on different threads and stick with each issue separately. A thread for Tianamen Square and a thread for Kwangju. If you seriously want to discuss Tianamen Square or Kwangjui, I'll join in there.

The problem with your style of argument is that it fails to really address the issue based on its merits. In a courtroom, this would be known as distraction. Talking about things that are important in another docket or another case, but having nothing to do with this one is a distraction. Or, if we were using a grade school example, it would be: "Yes, other children were cheating but the one I caught was you." So let's separate the two on different threads and stick with each issue separately. A thread for Tianamen Square and a thread for Kwangju. If you seriously want to discuss Tianamen Square or Kwangjui, I'll join in there.




LOL, dude you're a joke, this thread's topic is about THE KWANGJU MASSACRE understand?? So how am I diverting from the topic??

Remember I started this thread ABOUT THIS TOPIC which you RESPONDED!! nobody forced you to participate!!

Throughout this thread you have been avoiding my questions on the Kwangju massacre like the plaque! lol

I know when someone stops debating and starts whining, its time for me to move on.

Next time dude, try to debate like an adult.

And dude just in case you thought I had deliberately avoided your questions on Tiananmen in your last paragraph in your reply, let me tell you, if you had been astute enough to answer my questions on the Kwangju massacre, you would have got your answers about Tiananmen, because the two are RELATED!!


Let me show you what I mean, you asked:

"This is what happened in Tiananmen. The Chinese people wanted a dialog with its leaders. But their leaders called them a bunch of name and then shot them instead. Did the CCP need to do that in the name of 'preserving' China? No, just like he didn't need to call me names to disagree with me. The people are now demanding an apology. Does the CCP have the moral courage to apologize to its people for what it did? Does BigFatPandaBear have the moral courage to apologize to me for his flaming? LOL... It's all about character. Some people or governments have it, and while others don't. And some wouldn't know it even if it bit them on their behinds.

The bottom line here is, who is hurting the Chinese people the most?"


Well heres the answer:


Firstly the South Korean students in Kwangju wanted be heared (like the Chinese students at Tiananmen), but they were denied this because ultimately the US govt did not supported them, the US supported the South Korean dictatorship.

Secondly, the US govt gave its approval for the South Korean military to quell the student protests to "preserve" South Korea. Just like the CCP send the military to quell the student protests at Tiananmen to "preserve" China.

Now the question is WHY?? Well the answer is simple it is SELF INTERESTS!! The CCP decided to curb the student protests at Tiananmen because it believed that it was doing it not only in the party's interest but in the perceived self interest of China (the CCP thought the students were trying start a uprising which threatened national security). Just like the US govt decided to gave it's approval for the South Korean military to curb the student protests in Kwangju because it believe it was in the interest of it's foreign policy (the US govt also thought the Korean students were starting a uprising which threatened the national security of South Korea) and hence the perceived self interests of the United States!! understand??


Now tell me, can you honestly say one is better than the other morally?

And lastly will the US have the "moral courage" to offically apologise for what happened at Kwangju??

No sh*t... of cause...


__________________________________________
No Matter Who Wins, our troops are always in Good Hands!

No sh*t... of cause...



lol, Oki unfortunately some people here on this thread can only see things in black and white and need a thorough explanation!

As pointed out already, every country is concerned about self interest than someone else's humans rights. I'd much prefer my leaders to focus on improving my own country than give handouts to or police another country.


------------------------------------
#1 way to ascertain that you've lost an argument: Resorting to personal attacks.

This is a nice thread....here's my perspective...

To answer this thread's TITLE, excuse me, self-interest IS A HUMAN RIGHT. There is no perfect plan because ideals must stay ideals--the US's concerns about our self-interest but at the same time wishes to emphasize human rights on a global scale. Democracy cannot be inserted after human rights with an "and" because it is completely separate from consideration--the US's ultimate ideal is leading other countries to adopt democracy because no two democratic countries have yet fought.

Hitler was democratically elected.

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

That is correct, so this self interest is nothing more than to turn all these country into economic colonies or buffer states so that the west can exploit them.

LOL.........Chinese trying to compare Kwangju to not caring about human right?

They should look at their good friends the Burma junta and Sudanese genoiciders.

Is West perfect? No one ever said so. Yes we cares more for self-interest than human rights.

But at least for 3rd world human rights is still a high concerns for us. And for WEST's OWN human rights and democracy its 1st priority.


Not for Chinese though, they can give a sh!t not just about others human rights and democracy but also their own.

And the worst part?
- West sacrificed others' human right and democracy process for Western self-interest.
- Chinese sacrifice their own, plus others human right and democracy not for their own self-interst but for CCP interest.

Shame you are such idiots you couldn't see it.

Is the west more concerned about self interest than human rights and democracy??

 

Yes. Any country on earth puts its own interests above anything else. But the mere fact that the west gives any consideration to Human Rights / Democracy puts it in a league above all other nations.

Does causing 3000 civilian death a month in iraq puts the west one level above the rest?

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

Its either that or it is more easier to control people using these methods. Oh and if the west is so concern about democracy and human rights, than why did the west continue to prop up right wing dictator ships around the world and warlords in Africa while getting cheap resources and letting the Africans live in absolute poverty.

At least Sudan's people are now well off with better living standards, as for North Korea and Myanmar China doesn't do coups and install 'friendly' government .

why did the west continue to prop up right wing dictator ships around the world

Which one since the year 2000?

Iraq, Afghanistan and Georgia....

//"Does causing 3000 civilian death a month in iraq puts the west one level above the rest? "//



Not the deaths, but the wests conduct during an occupation is far more than one level above the rest. Can you imagine the carnage in Iraq, had it been occupied by China?

If hypocritical whites really gave a sh!t about the interests of other peoples then they would give back the continent they've stolen, Australia, North and South America.

They only care about the "rights" of people in nations that pose a challenge like China.

Jews had financed the murder and slavery of people around the world through colonialism. They're committing murders in the Middle East TODAY.

Yet, you see sh!t from the West about this.

The one white race that punished other whites like the Jews and the Brits are the Germans. But the Germans got overwhelmed by the other more evil whites under the thumb of the Jew.

These are the hypocritical Jew-controlled whites who are making these accusations about "human rights." You can fook off now.

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

I feed my blonde lots of char sue.

"Can you imagine the carnage in Iraq, had it been occupied by China?"


I can't because we don't do that....Why don't you try "can you imagine as if the WWII germans occupied Isreal in the 1940s"????

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

//"can't because we don't do that....Why don't you try "can you imagine as if the WWII germans occupied Isreal in the 1940s"???? "//


Looking at the occupation of Tibet, I would imagine the Iraqi's would have faced far harsher treatment than under the US. And yes, I can imagine how Israel would have looked under German occupation in WWII.

What's with the occupation of Tibet? Why don't you enlighten me? Maybe you should look at your occupation of Palestine first...

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

"Not the deaths, but the wests conduct during an occupation is far more than one level above the rest"


How does causing 3000 civilian death per month at some point make the occupation one level above the rest???? Is that what your media tells you??? WOW....

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

@ Yoad

""""""Can you imagine the carnage in Iraq, had it been occupied by China?""""""

Or israel for that matter

__________________________________________________

"Being defeated makes victory taste ever more sweet" - Chinawhite

"If God gives you lemons, eat those lemons" - Chinawhite

@ Yoad

""""""""And yes, I can imagine how Israel would have looked under German occupation in WWII.
"""""""


No different to what germany would look like if it was occupied by Israel.

__________________________________________________

"Being defeated makes victory taste ever more sweet" - Chinawhite

"If God gives you lemons, eat those lemons" - Chinawhite

//"How does causing 3000 civilian death per month at some point make the occupation one level above the rest???? Is that what your media tells you??? WOW...."//



Mostly due to the astonishing amount of secretarian violance. The difference between the west and its counterparts, is that the west, while occupying Iraq, did a great deal of effort to avoid civilian casualties and improve the economy. Non-western nations who occupy foreign lands tend to wipe out whole villeges, completely cleanse the population, or at worst, conduct wholesale genocide. That's the difference.



//"Maybe you should look at your occupation of Palestine first..."//




Let's look at Israel:

In 8 years of violant intefadah, roughly 3000 Palestinian civilians have been killed. One Arab dictator named Hafz Assad killed 20-30,000 civilians in two weeks. Another Arab dictator, King Hussain, killed 15,000 civilians in 3 weeks. Pakistan killed close to a million civilians in Bangaladesh, and Sudan killed 250,000 people in 4 years.

That's the difference between an occupation by a western country to an occupation by a non-western country. Its the difference between 'bad' and 'far worse'.

@ Yoad

"""""""Non-western nations who occupy foreign lands tend to wipe out whole villeges, completely cleanse the population, or at worst, conduct wholesale genocide. That's the difference."""""""

Or so the west would like us to believe.

The ruskis did basically the same thing in afganistan as the US did in Vietnam, yet they were protrayed as the "evil" ones.


Oh wait,

The US gased them as well

__________________________________________________

"Being defeated makes victory taste ever more sweet" - Chinawhite

"If God gives you lemons, eat those lemons" - Chinawhite

We've really yet to see how China deals with modern War. But if you take a look at the way they are prepared to treat their own people to get their own way, I can't imagine how they would treat their enemies.

And as for the US and Iraq, the casualities come from terrorists, not Americans. The terrorist themselves prevented the US from leaving and enflamed the problems in Iraq.

right, are you "righteous" westerners denying the huge civilian death directly as a result of the total collapse of security apparatus around the country as a result of your invasion? wow, the jew-controlled media is really that good......

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

//"right, are you "righteous" westerners denying the huge civilian death directly as a result of the total collapse of security apparatus around the country as a result of your invasion? wow, the jew-controlled media is really that good......"//



No one said the west is righteous. Indeed, like all countries, it will put its national interests before anything else, but unlike non-western countries, it will put a certain effort into human rights and humanitarian issues which occur outside its home nations.

yeah, pretending to put human rights above some other issues still doesn't change the fact 3000 iraqies died a month at some point directly as a result of the invasion which totally destroied its social and security fabric....lol you jews are in a league of its own when it comes to lying....

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

//"yeah, pretending to put human rights above some other issues still doesn't change the fact 3000 iraqies died a month at some point directly as a result of the invasion which totally destroied its social and security fabric....lol you jews are in a league of its own when it comes to lying...."//




Killed in secretarian violance, not by Americans. And it doesnt change the fact that the worst form of western occupation (or military confrontation) is more humane than the best form of its non-western counterpart.

why was there so much sectarian violance all of sudden? the invasion destroied everything there was to keep them in check... the invaders never had that part planned, did they? Or did they actually encourage sectarian violence????

No, the west has absolutely zero moral high ground whatsoever....the west has killed more in the name of liberty and freedom....too much for a jew to realize because you are the same den of theives....

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

//"why was there so much sectarian violance all of sudden? the invasion destroied everything there was to keep them in check... the invaders never had that part planned, did they? Or did they actually encourage sectarian violence????"//



I would attribute it to lack of foresite rather than an attempt to encourage secratarian violance. Indeed, the coalition, after a series of mistakes, spent years trying to curb it, and mostly succeeded. Remember, the killing rampage was conducted by non-westerners, with westerners trying to stop it.

dude, you are the thickest jew I have met (I met quite a few in my work).... Read this again and try to understand before coming back again: THE INVASION DESTROIED ANY SOCIAL AND SECURITY FABRIC THERE WAS TO KEEP SECTARIAN VIOLENCE IN CHECK AND LED DIRECTLY TO THESE HUMONGOUS DEATH TOLL....



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

You know dude, you sound just like this

1) we didn't kill the native americans; yeah, we killed a few tens of thousands, but the millions was wiped out by the diseases we brought to the new world.... so we were not guilty because we didn't perform the physical acts of killing

2) we didn't kill all the jews; yeah, millions died in the gas chamber, but millions more died on their way to the gas chambers on the trains....you see, we didn't intend to kill them in the trains (of course, we packed them like sardines and didn't give them anything to drink or eat)....so were were not guilty because we didn't intend them to die in the train...


wow, you jews are good....

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

//", you are the thickest jew I have met (I met quite a few in my work).... Read this again and try to understand before coming back again: THE INVASION DESTROIED ANY SOCIAL AND SECURITY FABRIC THERE WAS TO KEEP SECTARIAN VIOLENCE IN CHECK AND LED DIRECTLY TO THESE HUMONGOUS DEATH TOLL.... "//



The invasion toppled a regime that, upheld order by using extreme and brutal methods. The coalition did not aspire to secretarian violance, and it was a result of short-sightedness, not direct intent. Indeed, the main killers in Iraq were 'non-western'.




//"1) we didn't kill the native americans; yeah, we killed a few tens of thousands, but the millions was wiped out by the diseases we brought to the new world.... so we were not guilty because we didn't perform the physical acts of killing

2) we didn't kill all the jews; yeah, millions died in the gas chamber, but millions more died on their way to the gas chambers on the trains....you see, we didn't intend to kill them in the trains (of course, we packed them like sardines and didn't give them anything to drink or eat)....so were were not guilty because we didn't intend them to die in the train..."//



We are speaking of modern times. Naturally the west was no better in the past, but post WWII things looked quite different. Remember, the whole modern concept of human rights was invented by the west, and not really emulated by most non-western countries.

The fact we are talking about the modern world makes the iraqi occupation and the high civilian fatality as a direct result of the invasion even more hideous and your explanation and defence even more woefully inadequate....

Read those two analogies again and try to get the similarity you could....

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

just so the message can get through to your apparent thick skull, here are the two analogies again:


1) we didn't kill the native americans; yeah, we killed a few tens of thousands, but the millions was wiped out by the diseases we brought to the new world.... so we were not guilty because we didn't perform the physical acts of killing

2) we didn't kill all the jews; yeah, millions died in the gas chamber, but millions more died on their way to the gas chambers on the trains....you see, we didn't intend to kill them in the trains (of course, we packed them like sardines and didn't give them anything to drink or eat)....so were were not guilty because we didn't intend them to die in the train...

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

//"The fact we are talking about the modern world makes the iraqi occupation and the high civilian fatality as a direct result of the invasion even more hideous and your explanation and defence even more woefully inadequate...."//



It's not an explanation, it's a fact. The civil war in Iraq may have been an indirect result of the occupation, but the west did its best to prevent secretarian violance. Thus, while non-western countries tend to conduct such genocides themselves, the west does its best to prevent them and does not aspire to them. Do you get the difference?




//"just so the message can get through to your apparent thick skull, here are the two analogies again: "//



And I've allready debunked them:

We are speaking of modern times. Naturally the west was no better in the past, but post WWII things looked quite different. Remember, the whole modern concept of human rights was invented by the west, and not really emulated by most non-western countries.

I have been busy with work lately so haven't been on WAFF much, but I can't help noticed this thread being restarted again.


Comrade Hawkssss is absolutely correct in his argument about the US's role in Iraq.

Since westerners love to bash China lets draw a comparison between what happened in the Iraq war and the Great Leap Forward in China.

The West blames Chairman Mao for what happened in the Great Leap Forward, they say Mao killed millions of Chinese because of his incompetence and failed policies in GLF, hence the blame and responsibility lies squarely on Mao's shoulders. Now, its important to note that Mao was NOT directly involved in these deaths ie. he gave NO orders to kill the millions of peasants, however his INCOMPETENCE AND FAILED POLICIES is what INDIRECTLY led to the deaths of those Chinese people! So was Mao to blame for the deaths in GLF?


Now, lets look at what happened in the Iraq war, firstly lets leave aside the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians killed in the actual invasion and concentrate on the aftermath of the war. The US govt was repeatedly warned prior to the start of the war by knowledgeable people with experience in the region that there were glaring sectarian factions among the Iraqi population, which if not managed properly in the post war period could lead to a massive death toll of civilians. The US administration ignored these warnings and went ahead with the war and invasion of Iraq. They destroyed and dismantled the Iraqi army and police, essentially the whole security apparatus in the country which led to massive carnage and terrible sectarian bloodletting from the Sunni and Shiite communities , and some of it were exploited by outside terrorist groups like Al Qeada.

The US govt also wanted to fight the war "on the cheap" the US did NOT send enough soldiers to maintain law and order and peace inside the country. People in the US govt like Donald Rumsfeld proposed sending a "minimum" amount of troops to fight the war and maintain Iraq. I think the number of the US troops sent were something like approx between 150,000 and 180,000, while in realty the US needed to send THREE TIMES that amount to actually stand any chance of properly maintaining law and order in Iraq. So whose to blame for what happened in Iraq??

Like Mao, the US govt may not have been directly involved in many of deaths of Iraqis in the post war period, but like Mao, the US govt's INCOMPETENCE AND FAILED POLICIES in the aftermath of the Iraq war indirectly led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi people!! So like Mao, isn't the US govt to blame for the deaths of innocent Iraqis?? (remember some estimates put the civilian deaths at over a million).

//"Comrade Hawkssss is absolutely correct in his argument about the US's role in Iraq.

Since westerners love to bash China lets draw a comparison between what happened in the Iraq war and the Great Leap Forward in China. "//


Didn't see anyone comparing them in this thread. The GLF was a blunder which caused the mass starvation of millions. Kindoff incomparable.

Didn't see anyone comparing them in this thread. The GLF was a blunder which caused the mass starvation of millions. Kindoff incomparable.



Why are they incomparable dude??

What happened in the Iraq war and GLF were both blunders that INDIRECTLY led to the deaths of a massive number of innocent civilians. yes, you can argue that more people may had died in GLF (don't forget some estimates put the civilian deaths in Iraq at over one million!) but the fundamental principal remains the same ie. Like Mao, the US govt's INCOMPETENCE AND FAILED POLICIES in the aftermath of the Iraq war INDIRECTLY led to the deaths of a huge number of innocent people.


The question is, why is one excusable and the other is reprehensible to westerners like you??

LOL...........funny here.

Chinese condemned Western leader for causing others death, but defence their own leader for causing Chines death.

Seriously.........you guys are not chinese really.............right?

You could accuse West of not respecting Other's human right........but they always care 1st and foremost about West's own human right. No Western leader has brutal slaughter their own citizens since Hitler (unless you considered Russia "Western"). The others did and still does, including Chinese.

Please note that the west help murdered these millions in Mao time by refusing to supply food.

^^If chinese overthrow CCP and become democratic west will 100% supply food aid. Too bad you guy miss your chance to become a better nation.

No reason to supply a hostile nation with food.

Same reason we are not entertained Zimbabwe, or N Korea with any request. If, on other hand, Japan or Singapore has famine or food crisis, I think you will see food aid from the West.

In fact, after WW2, US airlift food to Berlin to ex-nazis.

//"Why are they incomparable dude??

What happened in the Iraq war and GLF were both blunders that INDIRECTLY led to the deaths of a massive number of innocent civilians. "//



True, but the difference lies in the fact that the coalition did not try to hide it, and actually spent billions and shed blood trying to stop it. Mao was more concerned with hiding his mistakes, than alleviating the suffering of his countryment.

//"Please note that the west help murdered these millions in Mao time by refusing to supply food. "//



Well, Kennedy publically offered to, but Mao refused.

""Comrade Hawkssss is absolutely correct in his argument about the US's role in Iraq.

Since westerners love to bash China lets draw a comparison between what happened in the Iraq war and the Great Leap Forward in China.

The West blames Chairman Mao for what happened in the Great Leap Forward, they say Mao killed millions of Chinese because of his incompetence and failed policies in GLF, hence the blame and responsibility lies squarely on Mao's shoulders. Now, its important to note that Mao was NOT directly involved in these deaths ie. he gave NO orders to kill the millions of peasants, however his INCOMPETENCE AND FAILED POLICIES is what INDIRECTLY led to the deaths of those Chinese people! So was Mao to blame for the deaths in GLF?


Now, lets look at what happened in the Iraq war, firstly lets leave aside the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians killed in the actual invasion and concentrate on the aftermath of the war. The US govt was repeatedly warned prior to the start of the war by knowledgeable people with experience in the region that there were glaring sectarian factions among the Iraqi population, which if not managed properly in the post war period could lead to a massive death toll of civilians. The US administration ignored these warnings and went ahead with the war and invasion of Iraq. They destroyed and dismantled the Iraqi army and police, essentially the whole security apparatus in the country which led to massive carnage and terrible sectarian bloodletting from the Sunni and Shiite communities , and some of it were exploited by outside terrorist groups like Al Qeada.

The US govt also wanted to fight the war "on the cheap" the US did NOT send enough soldiers to maintain law and order and peace inside the country. People in the US govt like Donald Rumsfeld proposed sending a "minimum" amount of troops to fight the war and maintain Iraq. I think the number of the US troops sent were something like approx between 150,000 and 180,000, while in realty the US needed to send THREE TIMES that amount to actually stand any chance of properly maintaining law and order in Iraq. So whose to blame for what happened in Iraq??

Like Mao, the US govt may not have been directly involved in many of deaths of Iraqis in the post war period, but like Mao, the US govt's INCOMPETENCE AND FAILED POLICIES in the aftermath of the Iraq war indirectly led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi people!! So like Mao, isn't the US govt to blame for the deaths of innocent Iraqis?? (remember some estimates put the civilian deaths at over a million).""




If one were really serious about reviewing Mao's legacy and what he did for and to the Chinese people, just a simple look at the literature, written by Chinese; finds ample documentation of just what kind of leader and man Mao was. So is this then to be labeled China Bashing? Chinese nationalists' fail to realize that, by their own inability or unwillingness to realistically critique their leaders, they themselves become the primary cause of continued flawed China leadership. The only victim here again, would be the Chinese people.


Breakdown of a BIG Book: 5 Things You'll Learn from Mao: "The Unknown Story"

1. Mao became a Communist at the age of 27 for purely pragmatic reasons: a job and income from the Russians.

2. Far from organizing the Long March in 1934, Mao was nearly left behind by his colleagues who could not stand him and had tried to oust him several times. The aim of the March was to link up with Russia to get arms. The Reds survived the March because Chiang Kai-shek let them, in a secret horse-trade for his son and heir, whom Stalin was holding hostage in Russia.

3. Mao grew opium on a large scale.

4. After he conquered China, Mao's over-riding goal was to become a superpower and dominate the world: "Control the Earth," as he put it.

5. Mao caused the greatest famine in history by exporting food to Russia to buy nuclear and arms industries: 38 million people were starved and slave-driven to death in 1958-61. Mao knew exactly what was happening, saying: "half of China may well have to die."

http://www.amazon.com/Mao-Story-Jung-Chang/dp/0679422714

"The Long March" - the 8,000-mile trek by 200,000 Communist soldiers in 1934 while fleeing the Nationalistsis still legendary in Chinese Communist Party lore, but there are a lot of myths surrounding it, as the Chinese-born author discovers when she retraces the march's steps. Meeting wizened march veterans, the author, raised on the heroism of the march, is shocked to discover the reality: stories of starvation and desertion, violence against women and unnecessary deaths. For years afterward, some of the veterans didn't receive full pensions. A filmmaker and television producer who divides her time between London and Beijing, she also finds that Mao made strategic mistakes attributed to others, and used the march ruthlessly to defeat his rivals and cement his hold on Communist power. Her interviews with veterans are among the book's highlights, but just as fascinating as the interviews and archival research is her travel through China. She colorfully describes the countryside, which in her eyes maintains its ancient beauty even amid creeping 21st-century modernity. Some readers may need to do a little background reading on 20th-century Chinese history, but the rewards make it worthwhile.

From The New Yorker - In 1934, surrounded by Chiang Kai-sheks forces in the south, Maos Red Army marched more than eight thousand miles to a new base, in the northwest. The march, completed by only a fifth of the original army, was a defeat in all ways but one: it returned Mao from the political wilderness to power. Mao transformed the march into the founding myth of modern China and, in doing so, created a new narrative around victories that never happened. Shuyun, a Chinese-born BBC documentary producer, retraces the route and interviews the few remaining survivors, in an account that shows the human cost of Maos revisionism; along the way are huge memorials to spurious victories and countless unmarked graves of those who died in defeats that Mao later denied.

http://www.amazon.com/Long-March-History-Communist-Founding/dp/030727831X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246540261&sr=1-1


Written by Mao's personal doctor, who attended him for 22 years, from 1954 until his death in 1976

http://www.amazon.com/Private-Life-Chairman-Mao/dp/0679764437/ref=pd_sim_b_2

"...The picture of Mao is of a cruel, totally inwardly focused, selfish, controlling person who could charm anyone straight into an inferno. What Mao really believed is opened to question in the book, although much of his thinking comes through in Dr. Li's reporting of his discussions. On one hand Mao was a simple peasant; on the other he seemed to have an incredibly complex grasp of Chinese history and of human nature. His lack of grasp of economics resulted in the starvation of tens of millions of Chinese people, about which Dr. Li indicates Mao didn't care a whit."

"The author's role was to keep Mao alive and to fend of disease. This was not easy. Mao for instance refused to clean his teeth. As a result his teeth were covered in a sort of green coating. Although Mao liked to swim and (his residences) he never liked to wash. Mao was sexually predatory and large numbers of young women went through his bed. He picked up a number of sexual diseases and refused to be treated for them and thus spread them to his companions."

"...As far as historical testimony goes, the confessions and remembrances of Mao's physician, Dr. Li, add immeasurably to our estimation of who precisely "The Great Helmsman" was. The saying, "no man is a hero to his valet," does not begin to describe the disdain with which an old school gentleman like Dr. Li felt in regards to the harem mastering Mao; a man who made use of whatever and whoever was put before him. The doctor's realistic view of Mao was in striking contrast to the one held by the masses..."

The above are examples of books that I have personally read. I wonder how much literature on China some of these other purported China lovers have in their own personal library? So read for yourself, from literature written by Chinese authors, of the real Mao. If anything, it is readily apparent to me at least, that Mao was the greatest Chinese Basher of all time. He probably single handedly caused the deaths of more Chinese people than any other man in history and then tried to foist the blame on others. Contrary to some Chinese nationalistic disbelief, he did it all without western help.

These Chinese are burying their head in the sand they mistakenly think that they're helping China but leave Chinese open and vulnerable to being politically blindsided. Every time a serious discussion starts over problems in China, their knee jerk defense reflex is to point the finger of blame elsewhere; thus, end of serious discussion. In effect, the problems of China (and more importantly, how to solve them), are never given any opportunity to be voiced. That is why the Chinese nationalist remains one of the greatest dangers to China and Chinese problem solving. A true Chinese patriot has at least the good sense of lifting his head up out of the sand and facing reality, however painful, for the good of his nation and people.

Its ironic that the question has been asked by a Chinaman when the Chinese are currently amongst the worst offenders.

By comparison the West is full of saintly figures performing miracles for the 3rd world.

True, but the difference lies in the fact that the coalition did not try to hide it, and actually spent billions and shed blood trying to stop it. Mao was more concerned with hiding his mistakes, than alleviating the suffering of his countryment.



Dude are you sure the US govt didn't try to hide certain aspects of the war in Iraq?? The US govt imposed certain media restrictions during the invasion of Iraq!! the press and media did not have the freedom to report on what they wanted. The US govt also imposed news blackouts in certain events like the retaking of the city of Fallujah, where the entire city was turned into rubble and levelled to the ground!! Also the blanket ban of any pictures of dead or injured US soldiers returning back to the US from Iraq or Afghanistan! The US govt even made sure the planes that were taking the dead or injured US soldiers back home retured in the MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT away from prying eyes and cameras this was the ridiculous extent the US govt tried to hide the sight and spectacle of these "fallen" US soldiers from the public. The ban on these pictures have only been lifted recently, which rather convienently coincides with most of the US military leaving Iraq!! Also why did the US govt not keep a official count of the civilian casualties in Iraq??


However yes I do agree that a democratic country has more media freedom than a communist country, hence thats why I said that China needs to change thoughout this thread.


And dude you still haven't answered my fundamental question which is:

What happened in the Iraq war and GLF were both blunders that INDIRECTLY led to the deaths of a massive number of innocent civilians. yes, you can argue that more people may had died in GLF (don't forget some estimates put the civilian deaths in Iraq at over one million!) but the fundamental principal remains the same ie. Like Mao, the US govt's INCOMPETENCE AND FAILED POLICIES in the aftermath of the Iraq war INDIRECTLY led to the deaths of a huge number of innocent people.


So the question is, why is one excusable while the other is reprehensible to westerners like you??

LOL...........funny here.

Chinese condemned Western leader for causing others death, but defence their own leader for causing Chines death.


Show me where I've defended what Mao did in the Great Leap Forward idiot? I explicited said Mao was incompetent and his policies were disastrous.

I simply made a comparison between the disastrous failed policies of Mao's in GLF and the US's in post war Iraq which both INDIRECTLY cause the huge death tolls of civilians understand?? Now please grow a brain cell


Seriously.........you guys are not chinese really.............right?

You could accuse West of not respecting Other's human right........but they always care 1st and foremost about West's own human right. No Western leader has brutal slaughter their own citizens since Hitler (unless you considered Russia "Western"). The others did and still does, including Chinese.


Listen, the term "human rights" is ALL ENCOMPASSING understand?? ie. it applies to ALL HUMANS!! else it would be called "American rights" or "Western rights" get it??

So according to you is one human's rights worth more than another human's rights? irrespective where they live in the world?? So is the "rights" of a American who lives in Texas be worth more than a Iraqi who lives in Baghdad?? or Vietnamese who was bombed with Agent Orange in the 70s??


I mean if the West wants to be noble and rightious and lectures others about the notion of human rights, then aren't ALL HUMANS ARE EQUAL?? in the eyes of the West?

Because we are the strongest nation in the world, and besides, what can the rest of world do about it? lol



LOL, now thats what I like, a truely honest statement!! Just shows the West don't really give a damn about human rights, especially if it does not coincide with it's self interests!!

FTsoldier



Dude it seems you edited your reply before I noticed it.



Firstly dude all your sources are linked to books at Amazon LOL

And regarding your primary source of Jung Chang and Halliday's book "Mao The Unknown Story", well their book have been widely criticise for inaccuracy!! lol

Heres a couple of links from the western press about this:


From the Sidney Morning Herald:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/a-swans-little-book-of-ire/2005/10/07/1128563003642.html
excerpt
But many people agree with Thomas Bernstein, of Columbia University in New York, that "the book is a major disaster for the contemporary China field .Because of its stupendous research apparatus, its claims will be accepted widely," he said this week. "Yet their scholarship is put at the service of thoroughly destroying Mao's reputation. The result is an equally stupendous number of quotations out of context, distortion of facts and omission of much of what makes Mao a complex, contradictory, and multi-sided leader."

As well as factual errors and dubious use of sources - which even favourable reviewers such as Princeton's Perry Link (an editor of The Tiananmen Papers) have felt compelled to criticise, many scholars point out that much of what Chang and Halliday present as a previously "unknown story" had in fact been exposed long ago. But no credit is given to earlier writers.



From The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/dec/04/china.books
excerpt
But now the authors find themselves in a bitter battle with some of the world's leading China experts, who have united to unleash a barrage of criticism of the book in general, and, in particular, of its sourcing - the subject of a ten-point reply from the authors in the forthcoming edition of the London Review of Books.




And dude I'm not a big fan of Mao, although I do recognise some of the positive things he had done like uniting the country together, fighting against foreign imperialism and getting rid of the cruel fudal class sysytem in China etc. He did undo all this by the disastrous mistakes like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution etc

===
Since westerners love to bash China lets draw a comparison between what happened in the Iraq war and the Great Leap Forward in China.
==========

LOL, No, Let's NOT. The above is a classic use of an Ad Hominem Tu Quoque argument, which means:

"Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation."

"Tu quoque (pronounced /tukwokwi/, from Latin for "You, too" or "You, also") is a Latin term that describes a kind of logical fallacy. A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions."

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

To sum up this thread: Both western and non-western countries put self-interest above all else, and have had records of occupation, civilian killings, you name it. The difference is that the west does attempt to limit civilian casualties, even help the civilian population out. Non-western countries that occupy other countries do not attempt to limit civilian casualties, do not try aiding/defending the population, dont spend money in infastructure, medicine, hospitals, and do not employ courts to which the occupied civilians can apply to. This is why the number of civilians directly killed by non-western forces is allmost allways FAR higher than its western counterparts, in similar situations ofcourse. That's a fact.

^^ A baby killer remains a baby killer no matter how much beautifull made up thoughts you produce in you're perfect little brain you remain the toddler killers. Plus dive into history and check out other wars and see how many good other countries did to their potentional enemies befor you act like the noble knight on the white horse

Israel even jails its own citizens who refuse to join the army which is a very optional decision in real 'democratic' countries

//"A baby killer remains a baby killer no matter how much beautifull made up thoughts you produce in you're perfect little brain you remain the toddler killers."//




I don't remember killing any babies recently.. though you're the expect so Ill take your word on that .





//" Plus dive into history and check out other wars and see how many good other countries did to their potentional enemies befor you act like the noble knight on the white horse "//




Had you read my posts instead of focusing on childish verbal abuse, you would see that I've admitted that the west is miles away from a 'white sheet record'. What I did say is that in modern times, its still far more humane
than its non western counterparts. Im sure this assertion is simple enough even for you to understand.




//"even jails its own citizens who refuse to join the army which is a very optional decision in real 'democratic' countries"//




The draft is common practice in numerous western countries. That does not negate from a country's 'democracy'. A swed who avoids the draft would allso be jailed since his actions would constitute a breaking of state law.

Maybe Israel is such a police state that refusing army service is seen as traitory,maybe....
But that doesnt fit my ideal goal of being a democratic country persee,i dont know but the idea of pushing youngsters in sniping little kids in Gaza bothers me...

Israel is a pain in NATOs ass also when it doesnt get what it wants and for me that is something to worry about.

It is time to get Real with Israel and push it for a two state solution and start caring for both sides instead of favouriting Israel the whole time

And if Israel doesnt like the new approach(which i can guess...) than we will have to take some harder actions with Israel

Its either getting real stop killing civilians and being open for a two-state solution or totally boycotting Israel

We´ll see how it goes from there

//"Maybe Israel is such a police state that refusing army service is seen as traitory,maybe....
But that doesnt fit my ideal goal of being a democratic country persee."//



Your idea of a democratic country is irrelevant. Draft is common practice in some of the worlds most liberal democracies, and avoiding it will allways, in any country, lead to jailtime.


And now that you've finished with your quasi-intellectual teenage drivel, would you mind sticking to the topic?

It sure is, but there is a difference between military service in real democractic countries and the ones the Israelis have
From my understanding military service is appropriate at certain age at certain time
unlike the Israelis who pack young males and females in military trucks and send them near settlements or whatever and continue what the previous toddler killing countrymen did.

And The Israeli youth who condemn these actions and refuse to kill children or female being jailed for it seems pretty nonsense in my mind

So just to clear it out for you: There is a difference between real military duty than plain toddler killing near some settlement or Gaza

Hope you can see the differences i pointed it for you;

The hutu's also had military service killing others but you dont see me comparing them with proclaimed democracy countries

To sum up this thread: Both western and non-western countries put self-interest above all else, and have had records of occupation, civilian killings, you name it. The difference is that the west does attempt to limit civilian casualties, even help the civilian population out. Non-western countries that occupy other countries do not attempt to limit civilian casualties, do not try aiding/defending the population, dont spend money in infastructure, medicine, hospitals, and do not employ courts to which the occupied civilians can apply to. This is why the number of civilians directly killed by non-western forces is allmost allways FAR higher than its western counterparts, in similar situations ofcourse. That's a fact.



Dude before you boast any more about how great the West is and how much the West cares about human life, maybe you should reflect that both of the WORLD WARS were started by western countries where millions of people were killed as a result. The art of aerial bombing where tons of bombs were dropped by planes on urban cities almost indiscriminately were also invented by Western countries. Also Weapons Of Mass Destruction aka nuclear bombs were also invented by the caring West for the benefit of humanity.

And as to your assertion that the West cares about civilians and attempts to limited civilian casualties, well maybe you should put that question to the millions of North Vietnamese people who were bombed almost daily throughout the Vietnam war, especially to those Vietnamese civilians who suffered terribly when the US planes generously dropped tons of Agent Orange on them. Many Vietnamese kids were born deformed with extra limbs etc as a result.

Dude no matter what you say about us Chinese, China is our homeland, we didn't stole it from some native people and committed genocide on them and nearly wiped them out from the face of the earth!!


Lastly dude, please stop the "West is better" than the "non West" nonsense, because at the end of the day NO human group can claim they are better than another. Humans regardless of race or ethncity are capable of good deeds as well as the most terrible misdeeds! history is testament to that fact!! So please get off that high horse of yours!

LOL, No, Let's NOT. The above is a classic use of an Ad Hominem Tu Quoque argument, which means:



LOL, dude its called "making a comparison" or "drawing a parallel" understand? If you ever watch current affairs programs or political discussions shows you will notice people using them in their debates quite frequently!! lol


So please stop whining and debate like a adult!! lol

I am pretty sure, more than half of the world's population wont vote Isreal as a democratic country....

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

I mean if the West wants to be noble and rightious and lectures others about the notion of human rights, then aren't ALL HUMANS ARE EQUAL?? in the eyes of the West?

Of course all are equal, some more than others naturally.

Citizens are always priority over non-citizen - same goes for any country.

//"It sure is, but there is a difference between military service in real democractic countries and the ones the Israelis have
From my understanding military service is appropriate at certain age at certain time"//



Draft is initiated in most countries at the age of 18, and the individual serves a certain amount of years. This is common practice in Israel and is no different in other western countries which initiate a draft.
The fact that there are Israeli draft-dodgers does not change this, since there are draft dodgers in any and every country in which this law is enacted.

Tron:


//"Dude before you boast any more about how great the West is and how much the West cares about human life, maybe you should reflect that both of the WORLD WARS were started by western countries where millions of people were killed as a result. The art of aerial bombing where tons of bombs were dropped by planes on urban cities almost indiscriminately were also invented by Western countries. Also Weapons Of Mass Destruction aka nuclear bombs were also invented by the caring West for the benefit of humanity."//



I've never claimed the west was great or glorious. I did state, though, that it cares more about human rights than its non-western counterparts. It can still be pretty brutal in wars though. In addition, I was speaking of the west in its current status, not WW2.




//"And as to your assertion that the West cares about civilians and attempts to limited civilian casualties, well maybe you should put that question to the millions of North Vietnamese people who were bombed almost daily throughout the Vietnam war, especially to those Vietnamese civilians who suffered terribly when the US planes generously dropped tons of Agent Orange on them. Many Vietnamese kids were born deformed with extra limbs etc as a result."//



I did, and Vietnam is probably the worst form of conduct of a western country since WW2. It's still better than its non-western counterpart, conduct wise.




//"Dude no matter what you say about us Chinese, China is our homeland, we didn't stole it from some native people and committed genocide on them and nearly wiped them out from the face of the earth!!"//




Who says I disagree with that? You do have a glorious nation with a glorious history, and you deserve your 'place under the sun'. Hell, Im currently studying Chinese .




//"Lastly dude, please stop the "West is better" than the "non West" nonsense, because at the end of the day NO human group can claim they are better than another."//




I didn't. In the specific field of human rights, though, it is better.

//"I am pretty sure, more than half of the world's population wont vote Isreal as a democratic country...."//



Again, irrelevant, since 99.9% of the world's population doesnt have an inkling as to the specifics of government types, democracy and rule of law. By any standard, Israel is a democracy, probably a Liberal democracy at that.

Is the west more concerned about self interest than human rights and democracy??

Name one state where this doesn't hold true.

Peace comes not from the absence of trouble but from presence of god........

javascript:FTxt('')

I've never claimed the west was great or glorious. I did state, though, that it cares more about human rights than its non-western counterparts. It can still be pretty brutal in wars though. In addition, I was speaking of the west in its current status, not WW2.

current status??

Dude Mao's "mistakes" and "crimes" are still dug up and used by westerners as evidence to attack China even though most of those events happened in the 50s just after WW2.


I did, and Vietnam is probably the worst form of conduct of a western country since WW2. It's still better than its non-western counterpart, conduct wise.


Heck I'm not aware of a 'non western' country dropping tonnes of bombs and chemical weapons with impunity on civilians in another country in the 1970s perhaps you can enlighten me?? Remember there were more bombs dropped on Vietnam than in the entire WW2.


Who says I disagree with that? You do have a glorious nation with a glorious history, and you deserve your 'place under the sun'. Hell, Im currently studying Chinese


Ok thanks for that, yeah I have respect for Jewish people too, they are intelligent and entrepreneurial, and to be honest when I was a teenager I use to feel sympathy for what happened to them in WW2, however later on when I learnt about what was happening in Palestine, that sympathy embed away. Anyway thats a discussion for another time, I want to stay on topic.


I didn't. In the specific field of human rights, though, it is better.


I do have issue with this line of yours, let me explain:

Firstly it is the western nations who criticise and lecture non western nations on the subject of human rights correct? and not the other way around right? but the problem is, if your going to point your finger accusingly and rebuke others, you need to make sure you have the moral ground and credibility to reinforce your position so your views are respected by others understand? Unfortunately in many cases the western nations have perpetrated the same "crimes" in the recent past as they accuse the non western nations of, and that exposes them to the charge of HYPOCRISY and hence their accusations aren't respected and taken seriously.

Yes, western nations can argue that in their "crimes" there were less people killed or it happened decades ago but the analogy of that would be like one murder accusing another murder of being wicked because in comparison he had only killed 3 people ten years ago whilst the other murder had killed 5 people a year ago!!

So in essence, a murder is a murder! no matter if he killed less people or if the crime happened some years ago, likewise a human rights violator is a human rights violator, no matter if there were less victims and the events happened decades ago!!

Like I said earlier in this thread, if the west is consistant in what they do compared to what they preach, maybe other people might take them seriously and listen to them.

Of course all are equal, some more than others naturally.

Citizens are always priority over non-citizen - same goes for any country.



lol, hence what your saying is all humans are NOT equal right? else why should the "needs" of one group of people (citizens) get priority over another group of people (non citizens) right??

So according to you, based on national boundaries, a particular group of humans "needs" are MORE IMPORTANT AND OVERRIDE the needs of other humans correct?? That my friend is the precise description of SELF INTERESTS based on nationality!!


Thankyou for proving my point that self interests is more important than human rights in this thread!! LOL

Tron:



//"current status??

Dude Mao's "mistakes" and "crimes" are still dug up and used by westerners as evidence to attack China even though most of those events happened in the 50s just after WW2."//




I don't speak for those westerners. Im looking at how things look currently, meaning in the last 15-20 years.





//"Heck I'm not aware of a 'non western' country dropping tonnes of bombs and chemical weapons with impunity on civilians in another country in the 1970s perhaps you can enlighten me?? "//




Not many non-western countries had the means to do it. But they did worse, like taking out whole villeges, using Gas on civilians, killing tens-of-thousands in one operation.




//"Firstly it is the western nations who criticise and lecture non western nations on the subject of human rights correct? and not the other way around right? but the problem is, if your going to point your finger accusingly and rebuke others, you need to make sure you have the moral ground and credibility to reinforce your position so your views are respected by others understand? Unfortunately in many cases the western nations have perpetrated the same "crimes" in the recent past as they accuse the non western nations of, and that exposes them to the charge of HYPOCRISY and hence their accusations aren't respected and taken seriously."//



It's true that the west criticises other nations on the field of human rights, and it is allso true that the west is far from perfect in that area. On the other hand, that does not negate from the fact that the west is a level above the west human rights wise (though not perfect by a long shot). Lastly, let's not forget that the non-western world has been criticising the west quite alot lately on human rights issues, so its a two-way street.

I dont believe that it is fair or right to view west as one entity and judge every country by the actions of others simply because of geographic localization.

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


http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for
people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

-Noam Chomsky

"Firstly dude all your sources are linked to books at Amazon LOL "

So linking to Amazon is a crime now? I use those links to provide examples of the books. Do you mean to say any books listed on Amazon are of less scholarly status than other sources? That's rather narrow and I don't agree with that view.

I don't speak for those westerners. Im looking at how things look currently, meaning in the last 15-20 years.


Dude why do you request a "cut off" point of 15-20 years in our discussion on the West's human rights?? I mean, I didn't request any time restriction on our discussion on China's human rights!! Are you afraid or feel uncomfortable about discussing the West's involvement in events like the Vietnam war??


Not many non-western countries had the means to do it. But they did worse, like taking out whole villeges, using Gas on civilians, killing tens-of-thousands in one operation.


Is it on the same scale as in Vietnam?? Please show me a source??


It's true that the west criticises other nations on the field of human rights, and it is allso true that the west is far from perfect in that area. On the other hand, that does not negate from the fact that the west is a level above the west human rights wise (though not perfect by a long shot). Lastly, let's not forget that the non-western world has been criticising the west quite alot lately on human rights issues, so its a two-way street.


At the end of the day, a human rights violator has little moral authority to lecture another human rights violator!! and arguments over the number of casualty figures involved and the "timeline" of events speaks more about nitpicking than moral vindication!!

So linking to Amazon is a crime now? I use those links to provide examples of the books. Do you mean to say any books listed on Amazon are of less scholarly status than other sources? That's rather narrow and I don't agree with that view.


Dude theres nothing wrong with linking your sources to Amazon, except nobody can verify what you have stated is the truth without READING THE BOOKS FIRST understand? lol

==
And regarding your primary source of Jung Chang and Halliday's book "Mao The Unknown Story", well their book have been widely criticise for inaccuracy!! lol

Heres a couple of links from the western press about this:


From the Sidney Morning Herald:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/a-swans-little-book-of-ire/2005/10/07/1128563003642.html
excerpt
But many people agree with Thomas Bernstein, of Columbia University in New York, that "the book is a major disaster for the contemporary China field .Because of its stupendous research apparatus, its claims will be accepted widely," he said this week. "Yet their scholarship is put at the service of thoroughly destroying Mao's reputation. The result is an equally stupendous number of quotations out of context, distortion of facts and omission of much of what makes Mao a complex, contradictory, and multi-sided leader."

As well as factual errors and dubious use of sources - which even favourable reviewers such as Princeton's Perry Link (an editor of The Tiananmen Papers) have felt compelled to criticise, many scholars point out that much of what Chang and Halliday present as a previously "unknown story" had in fact been exposed long ago. But no credit is given to earlier writers.



From The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/dec/04/china.books
excerpt
But now the authors find themselves in a bitter battle with some of the world's leading China experts, who have united to unleash a barrage of criticism of the book in general, and, in particular, of its sourcing - the subject of a ten-point reply from the authors in the forthcoming edition of the London Review of Books.




And dude I'm not a big fan of Mao, although I do recognise some of the positive things he had done like uniting the country together, fighting against foreign imperialism and getting rid of the cruel fudal class sysytem in China etc. He did undo all this by the disastrous mistakes like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution etc
===========

Well, you see that wasn't so hard was it? You're finally talking about Mao vis a vis Mao and not Mao via Bush.If I were debating the pros and con about the American presidency, would comparing what an American leader did, to misdeeds of one foreign country to another, really be a fair critique; say, American leadership compared to what happened in Tibet vis a vis China? Most people would consider the comparison unrelated and moot.

Like the historic Qin's bloody uniting of China; there were obviously some silver linings to having a singular system (like wheel base widths and measure of scale), but does that mean that we should wholeheartedly support bloody conquests and ruthless suppression of a populace as a proper method of national unification? While some admire the Legalist period for its regimentation, I certainly don't regard it as all that good.

Allow me to expound on the preamble of your quoted first excerpt if you don't mind:

"...Few are disputing that the subject, the late Chinese Communist Party chairman Mao Zedong, was a monster as a human being and a leader who put his country through hell. Or that the book, written by Chang and her British historian husband, Jon Halliday, who live in great comfort in London's plush Notting Hill on the proceeds of Wild Swans, is powerful and destined to be highly influential. But many people agree with Thomas Bernstein, of Columbia University in New York, that "the book is a major disaster for the contemporary China field..."

And this from article of your second excerpt:

"...There are elements in the story on which there is general agreement. Nor do the book's critics deny that Mao was a monster..."

While I agree that the overall tone of the The Unknown Story was unnecessarily strident and loose with some facts, the general body of the work seemed plainly dead on in terms of Mao's self serving character. If you really want to compare and contrast, maybe you should consider Amin of Uganda or Sar of Democratic Kampuchea; both like Mao, killed a substantial amount of their own countrymen in their bid for political advantage under the guise of national advancement. I know that comparing Mao to the US military adventurism in Iraq appeals to many Chinese here simply because the US position is wholly indefensible. It was national folly wrought by one party similar to what extremist Japanese did in their political process antecedent to their initiation of the Showa war. So, I certainly know and recognize what a comparison argument is; your's wasn't.

To make a post with "Since westerners love to bash China (by your tone, the preceding was stated as a matter already established as solid fact) lets draw a comparison between what happened in the Iraq war and the Great Leap Forward in China." distinctly has the air of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque rather than any real comparison of the failed national leadership that Mao has been historically charged with. So it seems to me at least that you're attempting to defend Mao by comparing his failures to examples of US failures in leadership. But if the US had a leader that starved millions of Americans, ie, his own people, then please, by all means, compare him to Mao. Recalling Mao as the ruthless opportunist that he was, is reading and recognizing history. You may narrowly consider it as China Bashing. I certainly don't. My opinion of him remains as is; he was one of the worst leaders that China ever had, and millions of Chinese died for his political avarice.

As for your histrionics to debate like an adult? No, I would rather debate like an intellectual because some "adults" here can argue as immaturely as children.

Im cutting off the history of both sides. I did not include the occupation of Tibet or the Great Leap Forward, untill you brought it up. The reason is that governments change, doctrines change, you cannot compare countries by the standards of WW2 to today. That's why I was speaking of the west in its current form.



Firstly comparing Western countries with non-western countries is not a fair comparison, because there are ALOT MORE non-western countries than western countries (not to mention alot more people).

but I don't understand your reason for wanting to impose a very restrictive time frame of 15-20 years in our discussion on human rights (I've never been ask that before in debates) The only thing I can deduct from that, is the omission of the events before the 1990 will make your argument easier!!




There's a short list at the bottom.


It's important to note from your list that the genocide in Algeria was done by France (western nation), Suharto of Indonesia had the support of the USA at the time. Also Sadam Hussian had the support of the West during the Iran vs Iraq war. Also Afghanistan was the "rope" used by the USA and the Soviets in their tug of war, the divisions created by the superpowers in Afghanistan persists to this day with terrible consequences. Also aren't Russians considered "western" by some people?

Nevertheless, all this does not excuse what happened in the Vietnam war, or make the US's human rights abuses in Vietnam more acceptable.


The non-western world criticises the west on human rights as-well. Both sides are guilty of hypocricy in that area. Simply put, the west does care more about human rights, and wether it is hypocritical or not is irrelevant


Dude, HYPOCRISY can cause distrust and suspicion and questions of neutrality in international peace talks and international relations eg. Questions of impartiality have blightered the USA brokered negotiations regarding the Israeli-Palestine conflict for example. So how can you say hypocrisy is irrelevant?


Lastly can you give me your opinion on the Kwangju massacre?

Well, you see that wasn't so hard was it? You're finally talking about Mao vis a vis Mao and not Mao via Bush.If I were debating the pros and con about the American presidency, would comparing what an American leader did, to misdeeds of one foreign country to another, really be a fair critique; say, American leadership compared to what happened in Tibet vis a vis China? Most people would consider the comparison unrelated and moot.


People like you love to point at the faults of others, but cry and protests when your own faults are revealed!! lol

Look, if the USA is so righteous and moral compared to bad commie China, why would a few comparisons bother you?? Wouldn't these comparison hightlight how morally superior the USA is to commie China?? LOL


Like the historic Qin's bloody uniting of China; there were obviously some silver linings to having a singular system (like wheel base widths and measure of scale), but does that mean that we should wholeheartedly support bloody conquests and ruthless suppression of a populace as a proper method of national unification? While some admire the Legalist period for its regimentation, I certainly don't regard it as all that good.


Dude, nearly all the countries in existence today in the world is the result of bloody wars and conquests!! So please read some history books!


While I agree that the overall tone of the The Unknown Story was unnecessarily strident and loose with some facts, the general body of the work seemed plainly dead on in terms of Mao's self serving character. If you really want to compare and contrast, maybe you should consider Amin of Uganda or Sar of Democratic Kampuchea; both like Mao, killed a substantial amount of their own countrymen in their bid for political advantage under the guise of national advancement. I know that comparing Mao to the US military adventurism in Iraq appeals to many Chinese here simply because the US position is wholly indefensible. It was national folly wrought by one party similar to what extremist Japanese did in their political process antecedent to their initiation of the Showa war. So, I certainly know and recognize what a comparison argument is; your's wasn't.


Dude show me where in this thread I have defended Mao's mistakes and crimes??


To make a post with "Since westerners love to bash China (by your tone, the preceding was stated as a matter already established as solid fact) lets draw a comparison between what happened in the Iraq war and the Great Leap Forward in China." distinctly has the air of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque rather than any real comparison of the failed national leadership that Mao has been historically charged with. So it seems to me at least that you're attempting to defend Mao by comparing his failures to examples of US failures in leadership.


So using your logic, if I was to use the USA's failed policies in Iraq as a comparison to Mao's failed policies in the Great Leap Forward, I am DEFENDING THE USA POLICIES IN IRAQ?? LOL

Geeze what a joke


But if the US had a leader that starved millions of Americans, ie, his own people, then please, by all means, compare him to Mao. Recalling Mao as the ruthless opportunist that he was, is reading and recognizing history. You may narrowly consider it as China Bashing. I certainly don't. My opinion of him remains as is; he was one of the worst leaders that China ever had, and millions of Chinese died for his political avarice.


But a US leader did starved and killed millions of true Americans!! And the few true native Americans that are alive today are forced to live in reservations!!

//"Firstly comparing Western countries with non-western countries is not a fair comparison, because there are ALOT MORE non-western countries than western countries (not to mention alot more people)."//



Im not comparing the 'number' of atrocities, but rather the common conduct per atrocity




//"but I don't understand your reason for wanting to impose a very restrictive time frame of 15-20 years in our discussion on human rights (I've never been ask that before in debates) The only thing I can deduct from that, is the omission of the events before the 1990 will make your argument easier!!"//



Because the only relevant timeline in our discussion is modern times, ie, the latest generation. If not, we can go back to the mongol hordes, but that wont be relevant, now would it?





//"It's important to note from your list that the genocide in Algeria was done by France (western nation), Suharto of Indonesia had the support of the USA at the time. Also Sadam Hussian had the support of the West during the Iran vs Iraq war. Also Afghanistan was the "rope" used by the USA and the Soviets in their tug of war, the divisions created by the superpowers in Afghanistan persists to this day with terrible consequences. Also aren't Russians considered "western" by some people?"//


Algeria - More people died there at the hands of Algerians. Remember, close to half a million died in the civil war alone, the VAST majority civilians.
Saddam- The west may have supported him, but it hardly supported his atrocities. As I've said before, both western and non-western countries put their national self-interest beyond all else, thus they supported Saddam against what they saw as 'the greater evil', but they would never have acted the way he did, or agreed with his conduct, thus, yet again, we witness a non-westener acting as no western country would.
Afghanistan - Both superpowers may have had a stake in Afghanistan, but the vast majority of the killings were conducted by non-westerners. The most brutal killings.
Russians - Generally not considered as part of the west (not sure how I feel about it though).




//"Nevertheless, all this does not excuse what happened in the Vietnam war, or make the US's human rights abuses in Vietnam more acceptable."//



Well, I've said before, Vietnam represents the worst a western nation can sink to, yet the conduct of the US army when dealing with civilians was better than the best a non-western occupier can and did do.




//"Dude, HYPOCRISY can cause distrust and suspicion and questions of neutrality in international peace talks and international relations eg. Questions of impartiality have blightered the USA brokered negotiations regarding the Israeli-Palestine conflict for example. So how can you say hypocrisy is irrelevant?"//



Its irrelevant because both the west and the non-western nations are guilty of hypocricy, BOTH of them, thus it's irrelevant to the question of who is mroe moral with regards to human rights.



//"Lastly can you give me your opinion on the Kwangju massacre? "//



Awfull, 120 civilians dead in a south korean attack on an uprising. Now lets compare it to an uprising in a non-western country... Syria: 30,000 civilians killed in 2 weeks, that's... 260 times more civilians. See the difference?

Im not comparing the 'number' of atrocities, but rather the common conduct per atrocity


Ok if its about "worst conduct" give me some examples then? and I'll see if I can find comparable western ones?


Because the only relevant timeline in our discussion is modern times, ie, the latest generation. If not, we can go back to the mongol hordes, but that wont be relevant, now would it?


Dude I'm sure you've heard of the old adage 'history is what makes us who we are today' So why isn't history important? and why should we only regard the last 20 years as relevant? Your not making any sense!!

We can't sweep most of our history under the carpet and pretend its irrelevant dude, regardless of whether it is good or bad!!


Algeria - More people died there at the hands of Algerians. Remember, close to half a million died in the civil war alone, the VAST majority civilians.


I suggest you read your source again heres what it saids in bold at the end of the passage:

"Algeria summary: 500,000 to 1 million in the war of independence;
100,000 in the civil war in the 90s."


In other words the French killed "500,000 to 1 million" in the war of independence in Algeria!! The casualties for the civil war was "10,000" according to YOUR OWN SOURCE!!


Saddam- The west may have supported him, but it hardly supported his atrocities. As I've said before, both western and non-western countries put their national self-interest beyond all else, thus they supported Saddam against what they saw as 'the greater evil', but they would never have acted the way he did, or agreed with his conduct, thus, yet again, we witness a non-westener acting as no western country would.



Regarding your claim that the West "wouldn't have acted the the way Saddam did" well the US were bombing and spraying chemical weapons in Vietnam a few years earlier!! and the US helped Saddam's regime diplomatically, financially and militarily (intelligence wise) during the Iran- Iraq war

And you said "both western and non-western countries put their national self-interest beyond all else"

Thankyou for agreeing with the title of this topic!! lol


heres an article about the US's support for Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82



Afghanistan - Both superpowers may have had a stake in Afghanistan, but the vast majority of the killings were conducted by non-westerners. The most brutal killings.


According to your source, the soviet invasion caused up to 1.5 million deaths while the civil war caused up to 1 million deaths, but what is a "most brutal" killing according to you? Blown up by explosives? Shot by a bullet? stabbed by a knife??


Well, I've said before, Vietnam represents the worst a western nation can sink to, yet the conduct of the US army when dealing with civilians was better than the best a non-western occupier can and did do.


If the US's conduct with civilians in Vietnam war was so good according to you, then I'm sure you can provide me with plenty of examples of non western occupations that were much worstthan Vietnam right?? (links and credible sources please).


Its irrelevant because both the west and the non-western nations are guilty of hypocricy, BOTH of them, thus it's irrelevant to the question of who is mroe moral with regards to human rights.


Hmmm...So your saying since both West and non-west nations are guilty of hypocrisy hence its irrelevant as to who is MORE MORAL with regards to human rights correct?? Then what have you been arguing with me about then previously?? Throughout this thread you have been arguing with me that the West is MORALLY BETTER than non western nations!!

Heres some of your statements:


"It's true that the west criticises other nations on the field of human rights, and it is allso true that the west is far from perfect in that area. On the other hand, that does not negate from the fact that the west is a level above the non west human rights wise (though not perfect by a long shot). Lastly, let's not forget that the non-western world has been criticising the west quite alot lately on human rights issues, so its a two-way street."


"I didn't. In the specific field of human rights, though, it is better."


Btw, I insert the word "non" in your first statement because I think you mistakenly left it out (I've highlighted in bold letters). Now didn't you tried to persuade me that the West is MORE MORAL or morally better than the non west in the field of human rights??


Awfull, 120 civilians dead in a south korean attack on an uprising. Now lets compare it to an uprising in a non-western country... Syria: 30,000 civilians killed in 2 weeks, that's... 260 times more civilians. See the difference?


Ok my mistake, let me put my question another way and make it more clear:

Whats your opinion on the Kwangju massacre in comparison to Tianamen square?? (btw there were approx 2000 civilians killed in South Korea not 120)

The Genocide in Bangaladesh, the Genocide in Ruanda, Ethyopia, the Egyptian gassing of Yemeni civilians, the massacre at Hama, Black september, the Khmer Rougue in Cambodia. There are dozens of other examples, like Turkey's occupation of Northern Cyprus.


Dude the key word you used was "common conduct" implying that there were differences in methodology between West and non west attrocities and that was what I was asking you for? So tell me the differences??

I mean if we're only going to make lists or talk numbers, well heres my list of Western genocides in the 20th century: Genocide in the Congo by the Belgians, US's genocide in the Philipines, German genocide in west Africa, Holocaust in WW2, Nazis in Poland, Nazi genocide on the Romany people, the bombing of Desden, the nuclear bombs on Japan, Spanish civil war, French in Algeria, US in Vietnam war, US bombing of Laos, Serb-Bosnian war


Because regimes change, national mindsets change. That's why the mongol hordes are as irrelvant as the Crusades or the Muslim Conquests.


Now your just being ridiculous, regime change happen in the West every 4 or 5 years (general elections) and national mindsets can change overnight depending on circumstances eg. 9/11 change people's views on Muslims, and the war in Iraq changed people views on Bush and the USA, HIV Aids changed people's view on sex etc

And if only the last 20 years of history is relevant according to you, then why does the Jewish media and the Jewish people keep bringing up the subject of the Holocaust? which happened nearly 70 years ago?? Why does world renouned directors like Steven Spielberg make movies like Schindler's List if its NOT RELEVANT??

I'm not asking you to go as far back as the time of the Mongols, but at least include the last century in our discussion!


There were two civil wars, one in the 90's and one during the fight against French occupation, in which close to half the dead were at the hands of Algerians. The sum is close to half a million I believe.


Please read your source again, here's what it says:

http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/483/521.html
excerpt
"Algeria: A few years after the establishment of the State of Israel, there began another war of independence. This time it was Algeria against France, between the years 1954-1962. The number of victims on the Muslim side is a subject for controversy. According to official sources in Algeria it is over a million. There are research institutes in the west that tend to accept that number. French sources have tried in the past to claim that it is only a quarter of a million Muslims, with an additional 100,000 Muslim collaborators with the French. But these estimates are regarded as tendentious and low. Today there is no question that the French killed nearly 600,000 Muslims. And these are the French, who do not stop preaching to Israel, the Israel that in the whole history of its conflict with the Arabs failed to reach even one tenth of that number, and even then, according to the more severe assessments."


Thats 600,000 Muslims killed by the French, remember this is from YOUR ARTICLE!


And China support's Sudan's regime today, but that is hardly as bad as if China conducted the genocide Sudan conducts itself.


And China didn't carpet bomb and sprayed chemical weapons in Vietnam either!


1.5 million deaths were caused during the soviet occupation, not nesseceraly by Soviet troops. You would need to check how many civilians were directly killed by Soviet forces.


Ok, I don't have time to research that today, so I'll get back to you on that later.


No, Im saying that both sides are guilty of hypocricy, but in that prism, the west still, regardless, applies more effort in the humanitarian and human rights fields.


NO this is what you said:

"Its irrelevant because both the west and the non-western nations are guilty of hypocricy, BOTH of them, thus it's irrelevant to the question of who is mroe moral with regards to human rights."


So dude please stand by what you said and don't backtrack!


I wouldnt know enough about Kwangju to comment on that, mate, sorry.


Theres info at the beginning of the thread, but if you don't want to talk about it, I won't force you.

"People like you love to point at the faults of others, but cry and protests when your own faults are revealed!! lol

Look, if the USA is so righteous and moral compared to bad commie China, why would a few comparisons bother you?? Wouldn't these comparison hightlight how morally superior the USA is to commie China?? LOL "

I never stated that the USA is righteous or moral. In fact it probably has a heck of a lot to answer for. I don't know why you feel you must always compare China to the US. Do you mean that China's existence can only be judged against a standard as set forth by the US? It isn't that the US is morally superior, but many Chinese nationalists somehow feel morally inferior, and they force themselves to seek out examples of US moral repugnance to make themselves feel better. Since you seem to fall into that school of thought perhaps you can explain why that is.

You may think I'm here to defend the US. Far from it. I'm here to talk about China, it's people, it's problems and what can or should be done to better the situation for Chinese. Hint: not all Chinese problems are US related.



"Dude, nearly all the countries in existence today in the world is the result of bloody wars and conquests!! So please read some history books!"

I know that the absurd dichotomy of the two statements above somehow makes perfect sense to you. I won't even bother to try to understand your self opposing rationale.



"Dude show me where in this thread I have defended Mao's mistakes and crimes?? "

I already did. Your OP is otherwise known as an Ad Hominem Tu Quoque argument.



"So using your logic, if I was to use the USA's failed policies in Iraq as a comparison to Mao's failed policies in the Great Leap Forward, I am DEFENDING THE USA POLICIES IN IRAQ?? LOL "

No, using my logic, you were defending Mao's failed policies in the GLF by an illogical comparison to the failed USA policies in Iraq, using a red herring tactic known as Ad Hominem Tu Quoque.


"Geeze what a joke "

Yes, it was, and it's getting more stale by the minute. No matter how many ways you try to tell it, the punchline is still Ad Hominem Tu Quoque


"But a US leader did starved and killed millions of true Americans!! And the few true native Americans that are alive today are forced to live in reservations!!"

Oh? What US leader was that? And if you're talking about the US subjugation of native American sovereign nations, and the subsuming of their lands and resources; it would be more comparable to Mao's military force occupation and subjugation of Tibet, and certainly not of the GLF. Further, the rapid decline in indigenous American population had more to do with their immunologic inability to cope with the introduction of European and African diseases, rather than directed US government policy (which by all means, was of no help to the natives either).

As for the Native American Reservations; you're mistaken. No native American is "forced" to live there. The reservations are now areas that are used to preserve tribal lands from further encroachment and to protect the interests of indigenous tribal descendants. They are rather like a state within a state. While still subject to federal laws, most civil and criminal misdemeanor remains under the purview and adjudication of tribal law. This is similar to the legal system that was used in the New Territories of Hong Kong when it was still under the British Crown. Crown law dealt with most criminal cases, while civil complaints (rights of property, succession, marriage ties, et cetera, remained under the rule of each individual village clan law or tradition). Alternatively, it is akin to the Special Administrative Regions of the PRC; whereas the PRC at large will govern overall, the SAR each has their own laws and legislation. Again, no native American is now required to live on any reservation. Since reservations are not subjected to state gambling laws, many have taken to opening lucrative casinos and becoming gambling meccas in otherwise no gaming states.

Perhaps if you were to follow your own advice and actually read a few more history books (like you're so eager to tell me to, but don't seem to have any personal scholarly ambition or stomach for), your appreciation of the world would broaden beyond your presently narrow and presumptuously mistaken views.

I never stated that the USA is righteous or moral. In fact it probably has a heck of a lot to answer for. I don't know why you feel you must always compare China to the US. Do you mean that China's existence can only be judged against a standard as set forth by the US? It isn't that the US is morally superior, but many Chinese nationalists somehow feel morally inferior, and they force themselves to seek out examples of US moral repugnance to make themselves feel better. Since you seem to fall into that school of thought perhaps you can explain why that is.


Dude, like I said to you before, people make comparisons all the time, whether its about military, politics, current affairs, fashion, food and drink, girlfriends etc the list is endless ITS NOT A NEW CONCEPT!!

So stop whining! LOL


You may think I'm here to defend the US. Far from it. I'm here to talk about China, it's people, it's problems and what can or should be done to better the situation for Chinese. Hint: not all Chinese problems are US related.


Dude you can talk about China as much as you want, thats your prerogative!! Just like I can talk about the USA or Germany or Singapore or Narnia!! Understand? lol


I know that the absurd dichotomy of the two statements above somehow makes perfect sense to you. I won't even bother to try to understand your self opposing rationale.


Yawwnnn, only neanderthals who walks around dragging their knuckles on the ground would find your statements intellectually stimulating!! lol


I already did. Your OP is otherwise known as an Ad Hominem Tu Quoque argument.


And your OP is known as IVe LostaDebate WantToWhine argument. LOL


No, using my logic, you were defending Mao's failed policies in the GLF by an illogical comparison to the failed USA policies in Iraq, using a red herring tactic known as Ad Hominem Tu Quoque


Like I said, your red herring tactic is known as "IVe LostaDebate WantToWhine" LOL


Oh? What US leader was that? And if you're talking about the US subjugation of native American sovereign nations, and the subsuming of their lands and resources; it would be more comparable to Mao's military force occupation and subjugation of Tibet, and certainly not of the GLF. Further, the rapid decline in indigenous American population had more to do with their immunologic inability to cope with the introduction of European and African diseases, rather than directed US government policy (which by all means, was of no help to the natives either).


Oh look who is making comparisons now? tsk tsk LOL


As for the Native American Reservations; you're mistaken. No native American is "forced" to live there. The reservations are now areas that are used to preserve tribal lands from further encroachment and to protect the interests of indigenous tribal descendants. They are rather like a state within a state. While still subject to federal laws, most civil and criminal misdemeanor remains under the purview and adjudication of tribal law. This is similar to the legal system that was used in the New Territories of Hong Kong when it was still under the British Crown. Crown law dealt with most criminal cases, while civil complaints (rights of property, succession, marriage ties, et cetera, remained under the rule of each individual village clan law or tradition). Alternatively, it is akin to the Special Administrative Regions of the PRC; whereas the PRC at large will govern overall, the SAR each has their own laws and legislation. Again, no native American is now required to live on any reservation. Since reservations are not subjected to state gambling laws, many have taken to opening lucrative casinos and becoming gambling meccas in otherwise no gaming states.


Damn, your right, I so stupid!! All those native Indian deaths died of diseases!! The white settlers didn't wanted any land in the New World, It was those nasty Indians fault for making the land so rich and fertile for crops that the white settlers were forced to set up farms!! And every time a Indian was shot dead by a white settler it was the nasty Indian's fault for standing in the way of the bullet!! and all those books and sources on the internet are all wrong!! Whilst a nerd on the internet who calls himself "bobcat" is COMPLETELY RIGHT!! LOL


And dude the reason I said the native American Indians are "Forced" to live in reservations, is because these reservations is whats left of their ANCESTRAL LAND (most of it have been stolen) and its their most important connection and identity to their past and culture. So when I said "forced" I did not mean they were compelled by law, instead I meant they were compelled to clung on to whats left of their ancestral land for cultural and historic reasons, understand??


Perhaps if you were to follow your own advice and actually read a few more history books (like you're so eager to tell me to, but don't seem to have any personal scholarly ambition or stomach for), your appreciation of the world would broaden beyond your presently narrow and presumptuously mistaken views.


Saids the frog in the well LOL

"...Damn, your (sic) right, I so stupid...!!"

You certainly said it.

"...Damn, your (sic) right, I so stupid...!!"

You certainly said it.



Ever heard of sarcasm idiot??


Geeze if your brain grew another cell it will double in size LOL

Dude the key word you used was "common conduct" implying that there were differences in methodology between West and non west attrocities and that was what I was asking you for? So tell me the differences??

The differences?

- The non-western world does not give any humanitarian considerations when planning a military campeign. The west does, to some minimal extent.

- The non-western world tends to target civilians itself on a massive scale. The west does have a record of bombing what you would call "mixed" targets, but tends to do what it can to avoid the latter.

- The non-western world has a strong record, in this last generation, of massive ethnic cleansing programs, or cultural cleansing. It hasnt happened, as far as I recall, in the western world.

Now your just being ridiculous, regime change happen in the West every 4 or 5 years (general elections) and national mindsets can change overnight depending on circumstances eg. 9/11 change people's views on Muslims, and the war in Iraq changed people views on Bush and the USA, HIV Aids changed people's view on sex etc

 

But the whole generation changes in 20 years, which is why Vietnam is as irrelevant as the Mongol hordes. Both do not represent modern policy.

 

And if only the last 20 years of history is relevant according to you, then why does the Jewish media and the Jewish people keep bringing up the subject of the Holocaust? which happened nearly 70 years ago??

 

I never said history is irrelevant. What I said was that when judging the world's current humanitarian conduct, the only thing relevant is the 'current' form of conduct.

Please read your source again, here's what it says:

And I told you before, the sum of those killed is irrelevant. What's relevant is how many were actually killed by the french (which you provided from my source, thank's ), and how many of them were civilians.



And China didn't carpet bomb and sprayed chemical weapons in Vietnam either!

 

We will get to that, but you agree that the US's support for Saddam is hardly as bad as Saddam's own actions, right?

So dude please stand by what you said and don't backtrack!

 

How exactly did I backtrack? I told you that both the western and non-western world are hypocritical. Both have a history of human rights abuse. Despite that, the west is still more humane than its counterpart. What's so hard to understand?

Theres info at the beginning of the thread, but if you don't want to talk about it, I won't force you.

 

Supply me with some info on it and Ill take a look at it.

The differences?

- The non-western world does not give any humanitarian considerations when planning a military campeign. The west does, to some minimal extent.

- The non-western world tends to target civilians itself on a massive scale. The west does have a record of bombing what you would call "mixed" targets, but tends to do what it can to avoid the latter.

- The non-western world has a strong record, in this last generation, of massive ethnic cleansing programs, or cultural cleansing. It hasnt happened, as far as I recall, in the western world.



In the last century (which is very relevant as far as I'm concerned) the West has indiscriminately targetted civilians with not a care in the world!! eg. Nazi progroms against the Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, Allied bombing of Dresden, Nuclear bombs on Japan (Although as a Chinese I don't feel too much sympathy for the nukes on Japan, but that doesn't change the fact that nuclear weapons are the most terrible indiscriminate weapons known to man designed to wipe out everything in its path). The massive US carpet bombing campaigns in North Vietnam and Laos!!

Now please tell me in the above examples wheres the "humanitarian considerations" you boast about??


But the whole generation changes in 20 years, which is why Vietnam is as irrelevant as the Mongol hordes. Both do not represent modern policy.

I never said history is irrelevant. What I said was that when judging the world's current humanitarian conduct, the only thing relevant is the 'current' form of conduct


Firstly please note I did NOT use the word "CURRENT" in the title of this thread!! So I did NOT place a TIME SCALE on our discussion on human rights. So stop trying to twist the subject!!

And your talking absolute rubbish, Are you saying that human rights is only applicable for the last 20 years?? lol. Please show me one prominent historian that share your views? lol. In fact thats my challenge to you. Care to show me other credible and respectable historians and intellectuals who share your view that human rights is only relevant and applicable in the last 20 years?? (credible links please)

As I said before, if only the last 20 years of history is relevant according to you, then why does the Jewish media and the Jewish people keep bringing up the subject of the Holocaust in WW2? which happened nearly 70 years ago if its NOT RELEVANT?? (and please don't dodge this question).

I mean heres an article with an opinion poll which shows 83 percent of Jewish students think the Holocaust is still very relevant today:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3742471,00.html


And I told you before, the sum of those killed is irrelevant. What's relevant is how many were actually killed by the french (which you provided from my source, thank's ), and how many of them were civilians.


Yes, and your source saids the French killed 600,000 Algerians!!


We will get to that, but you agree that the US's support for Saddam is hardly as bad as Saddam's own actions, right?


Yes, but your previous contention was that the US would never do the same things that Saddam did in the Iran-Iraq war right?? And I replied that the US did do similiar things in another country (Vietnam) like using Chemical weapons and indiscriminate bombing on civilians!


How exactly did I backtrack? I told you that both the western and non-western world are hypocritical. Both have a history of human rights abuse. Despite that, the west is still more humane than its counterpart. What's so hard to understand?


Look dude throughout our conversation on this thread you have been arguing that the West was "morally better" than the non west with regards to human rights with statements like this one:

"I didn't. In the specific field of human rights, though, it is better."


However in your recent reply you contradicted yourself with this statement:

"Its irrelevant because both the west and the non-western nations are guilty of hypocricy, BOTH of them, thus it's irrelevant to the question of who is mroe moral with regards to human rights."


So haven't you contradicted yourself?? and your subsequent remarks seem to me like attempts to backtrack and cover up.


Supply me with some info on it and Ill take a look at it.


Just read the beginning of this thread.

In the last century (which is very relevant as far as I'm concerned) the West has indiscriminately targetted civilians with not a care in the world!! eg. Nazi progroms against the Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, Allied bombing of Dresden, Nuclear bombs on Japan (Although as a Chinese I don't feel too much sympathy for the nukes on Japan, but that doesn't change the fact that nuclear weapons are the most terrible indiscriminate weapons known to man designed to wipe out everything in its path). The massive US carpet bombing campaigns in North Vietnam and Laos!!

 

Indeed, the west, in the past was far from moral. But we are speaking of current times, or the latest generation. Since WW2, the west has completely revemped itself, created the UN, sponsored Human Rights, democracy, etc.. It has changed (though its far from perfect), regardless if you believe it or not.

Firstly please note I did NOT use the word "CURRENT" in the title of this thread!! So I did NOT place a TIME SCALE on our discussion on human rights. So stop trying to twist the subject!!

 

Actually I was refering to my own statements, not yours, thus no one put words in your mouth .

 

And your talking absolute rubbish, Are you saying that human rights is only applicable for the last 20 years??

 

No. Im not saying that. Im saying that when we judge countries actions, what's relevant is how they act in modern times, and not in the past. Human Rights issues from 20 and 30 years ago are very relevant, to historians.

 

As I said before, if only the last 20 years of history is relevant according to you, then why does the Jewish media and the Jewish people keep bringing up the subject of the Holocaust in WW2? which happened nearly 70 years ago if its NOT RELEVANT?? (and please don't dodge this question).

I mean heres an article with an opinion poll which shows 83 percent of Jewish students think the Holocaust is still very relevant today:

 

Indeed, the Holocaust IS relevant for us, as a means to remember our past, but NOT as a means to judge modern Germany. Germany, like all of the west, has changed since then, and when you judge the current morality level of its army, people and government, you don't judge it according to WW2, but rather current times. Do you get that?

 

Yes, and your source saids the French killed 600,000 Algerians!!

 

Indeed. And Ill repeat, how many of them were civilians?

 

Yes, but your previous contention was that the US would never do the same things that Saddam did in the Iran-Iraq war right?? And I replied that the US did do similiar things in another country (Vietnam) like using Chemical weapons and indiscriminate bombing on civilians!

It used chemical weapons, not as a means to kill civilians, but to clear tropical forests. There's a very big difference here.

So haven't you contradicted yourself?? and your subsequent remarks seem to me like attempts to backtrack and cover up.

No. I've stated a number of things things:

- The west and the non western world are hypocritical.

- The west and the non-western world care for their own interests beyond all else.

However, despite this, I allso claimed that:

The west does give more weight to human rights issues than its non-western counterpart.

Simply put, the fact that the west is as hypocritical as the non-western world does not negate from the fact that it is more moral. You seem to claim that I've contradicted myself, since, on the one hand, I've stated that the west is as hypocritical as its non-western counterpart, and yet more moral. I fail to see how one claim negates the other.

Indeed, the west, in the past was far from moral. But we are speaking of current times, or the latest generation. Since WW2, the west has completely revemped itself, created the UN, sponsored Human Rights, democracy, etc.. It has changed (though its far from perfect), regardless if you believe it or not.


LOL, dude this thread was started by ME, and the title and topic for the discussion does not include the word "CURRENT" understand?? and the commonly accepted rule in forums is we discuss the topic created by the thread starter (ie. myself) comprehend?? So stop trying to change and twist the topic.


Actually I was refering to my own statements, not yours, thus no one put words in your mouth


Read the title of this thread and tell me where does it say "current" or "last 20 years only"??


No. Im not saying that. Im saying that when we judge countries actions, what's relevant is how they act in modern times, and not in the past. Human Rights issues from 20 and 30 years ago are very relevant, to historians.


Ok lets try something more applicable then, I challenge you to show me any credible and respectable human rights organisations, campaigners or intellectuals who share your view that human rights is only relevant and applicable in the last 20 years?? (credible links please)


Indeed, the Holocaust IS relevant for us, as a means to remember our past, but NOT as a means to judge modern Germany. Germany, like all of the west, has changed since then, and when you judge the current morality level of its army, people and government, you don't judge it according to WW2, but rather current times. Do you get that?


NO, history is not just about remembering!! history can also teach us important lessons some are applicable today!! Also using your logic, if 20 years is the time limit where human rights abuses are relevant and applicable, then why do Jewish groups still today try to seek and bring to justice former Nazis who fled Germany in WW2 to places like Latin America?? I mean using your logic aren't all human rights abuses older than 20 years are IRRELEVANT??


Indeed. And Ill repeat, how many of them were civilians?


Why don't you tell me? (links please from credible sources)


It used chemical weapons, not as a means to kill civilians, but to clear tropical forests. There's a very big difference here.


You mean to tell me the US didn't know Agent Orange was harmful to humans?? lol


No. I've stated a number of things things:

- The west and the non western world are hypocritical.

- The west and the non-western world care for their own interests beyond all else.

However, despite this, I allso claimed that:

The west does give more weight to human rights issues than its non-western counterpart.

Simply put, the fact that the west is as hypocritical as the non-western world does not negate from the fact that it is more moral. You seem to claim that I've contradicted myself, since, on the one hand, I've stated that the west is as hypocritical as its non-western counterpart, and yet more moral. I fail to see how one claim negates the other.


Dude this is what you said:

"Its irrelevant because both the west and the non-western nations are guilty of hypocricy, BOTH of them, thus it's irrelevant to the question of who is mroe moral with regards to human rights."


You clearly contradicted yourself here by saying the question of who is MORE MORAL on human rights is IRRELEVANT!!

Now, you can deny and refute all you want, it written here in BLACK AND WHITE!!

LOL, dude this thread was started by ME, and the title and topic for the discussion does not include the word "CURRENT" understand?? and the commonly accepted rule in forums is we discuss the topic created by the thread starter (ie. myself) comprehend?? So stop trying to change and twist the topic.

 

Read your topic: "Is the west more concerned about..." Present tense, not past tense.

Ok lets try something more applicable then, I challenge you to show me any credible and respectable human rights organisations, campaigners or intellectuals who share your view that human rights is only relevant and applicable in the last 20 years?? (credible links please)

 

Only current Human rights are relevant, from the standpoint of our argument. No one denies that historical human rights violations are important to research and remember, but they are not releavnt to our discussion of the modern equivalence (or lack of) in the morality of the west and its non-western counterparts.

By the way, speaking of human rights organizations, guess what they focus on exclusively: current human rights violations, not historic human rights violations. Those organizations do not focus on the US's role in Vietnam or even Tianamen, but rather the conflicts that are active today, which are the only thing relevant for them.

then why do Jewish groups still today try to seek and bring to justice former Nazis who fled Germany in WW2 to places like Latin America?? I mean using your logic aren't all human rights abuses older than 20 years are IRRELEVANT??

 

Because those Nazi's represent a long dead regime (Nazi Germany), and they seek to bring them to justice. But those Nazi's are in no way representing modern Germany, right? According to your logic, we should be judging Germany's current moral standards by Nazi Germany's actions, which is preposterous. Germany is a whole different country. Thus, what is relevant to our discussion about morality, is the current german government, not the long dead Nazi government, whos criminals may be relevant to the holocaust survivors, but not to our argument about a nations morality.

Why don't you tell me? (links please from credible sources)
    No idea, which is why that conflict is a tad hard to judge, now isnt it?  



You mean to tell me the US didn't know Agent Orange was harmful to humans?? lol

 

It probably did, but there's a big difference between clearing forests and not giving enough attention to preventing civilian fatalities, to directly targetting civilians with chemical weapons.

Dude this is what you said:

"Its irrelevant because both the west and the non-western nations are guilty of hypocricy, BOTH of them, thus it's irrelevant to the question of who is mroe moral with regards to human rights."

You clearly contradicted yourself here by saying the question of who is MORE MORAL on human rights is IRRELEVANT!!

 

Read my sentence again. I've stated that the hypocricy of the west/non-west is irrelevant to our argument about a nations morality. I never stated that a nations morality is not important.

"Dude before you boast any more about how great the West is and how much the West cares about human life, maybe you should reflect that both of the WORLD WARS were started by western countries where millions of people were killed as a result. The art of aerial bombing where tons of bombs were dropped by planes on urban cities almost indiscriminately were also invented by Western countries. Also Weapons Of Mass Destruction aka nuclear bombs were also invented by the caring West for the benefit of humanity.

And as to your assertion that the West cares about civilians and attempts to limited civilian casualties, well maybe you should put that question to the millions of North Vietnamese people who were bombed almost daily throughout the Vietnam war, especially to those Vietnamese civilians who suffered terribly when the US planes generously dropped tons of Agent Orange on them. Many Vietnamese kids were born deformed with extra limbs etc as a result.


Lastly dude, please stop the "West is better" than the "non West" nonsense, because at the end of the day NO human group can claim they are better than another. Humans regardless of race or ethncity are capable of good deeds as well as the most terrible misdeeds! history is testament to that fact!! So please get off that high horse of yours!
"

You should read up on the history of the 442nd Infantry Regiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Infantry_Regiment_%28United_States%29

If anything, I would fight and die for the Chinese people just to get rid of the CCP.



"Dude no matter what you say about us Chinese, China is our homeland, we didn't stole it from some native people and committed genocide on them and nearly wiped them out from the face of the earth!!"

Cough "Tibet" cough LOL

OR... Let's put it another way...

How many here would have the moral courage to speak up or defend another country against China, if that country is being victimized or bullied by China, despite the fact that you yourself being ethnic Chinese?


And on the other thread "Over 140 killed in ethnic unrest in China. Part 2." you said
"Xinjang has been a part of China for thousands of years and it will remain that way.". To save you a trip, I hope you don't mind me rebutting you here.

"Thousands," with the ess, meaning plural as in more than one (so at least two) thousand years, right?

No. Xinjiang wasn't recognized as a part of China until the Manchu (1644-1911), which then nominally referred to it as East Turkestan or aka Chinese Turkestan.

http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Myth/prehistory.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Xinjiang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_East_Turkistan_Republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_East_Turkistan_Republic

One of the major fallacies used by arguers as an adjunct to contemporary Chinese politic debate (especially for the definition of national borders) is the false perception that Chinese national history extends backwards for thousands of years; it doesn't. Whilst Chinese culture can be traced to about 5000 years, the whole of what is known as China today did not geographically exist until recent history. One has to remember that after the Tang broke apart, the land area we know as China today was balkanized into a series of disparate warring kingdoms for approximately 300 years (five dynasties, then the ten states, Song, Liao, Jin, Western Xia). Only when the entire land mass was collectively defeated and fully conquered by the invading Mongols in 1206, did it become one entity again, under the yoke of the Khans, which then referred to itself as the Yuan dynasty. They then were pushed out by a successful rebellion that resulted in the Ming. The Ming themselves also lasted about 300 years, and China again fell to outside invaders once more, Manchus who ensconced themselves under the name of the Qing.

China finally removed that yoke in 1911 when it nominally became a republic, which was then overthrown in 1949, resulting in the People's Republic of China, or what we know today. Hence, the PRC only existed thus far for about 60 years.

The Xinjiang area in question was rather a crossroads of hotly contested land that shifted in possession for literally thousands of years. To say that Xinjiang "..has been a part of China for thousands of years and it will remain that way." blatantly ignores history. The only thing that Chinese culture can claim for "thousands" of years, is a long line of rebellions, shifting borders and changing rulers. Perhaps the next one would be a successful uprising in the Xinjiang province, resulting in a Third East Turkistan Republic? LOL...

***Sidebar*** One of the misconceptions about Chinese history is the enduring belief that Qin Shi Huang Di (aka the first emperor) united a series of individual kingdoms and called it China, and that China has existed since then. No; while the Qin dynasty did consolidate a tremendous amount of land mass, it soon fell apart again back into a series of individual kingdoms (Han, Xin, Three Kingdoms, Barbarian States, et cetera) and was not consolidated again until the Mongols conquered the whole land mass again.

Continued here...

http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1247085200/last-1247085200/Is+the+west+more+concerned+about+self+interest+than+human+rights+and+democracy--.+Part+2.


Locked.

Continued here...

http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1247085200/last-1247085200/Is+the+west+more+concerned+about+self+interest+than+human+rights+and+democracy--.+Part+2.


Locked.