Should your country boycott the Olympics?

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Aeson
I learned in boyscouts... it's proper to burn the flag if it has been disrespected. Like being allowed to touch the ground...

So perhaps if it has been wrongfully flown upside down to make a political statement it would be best if it were set on fire ASAP.

Seems fitting.....

Speaking of the thread topic:

I grew up in Northern Maine during the 1950's, 1960's and part of the 1970's...

We went to Canada all the time.

They have different views than Americans.

I was stationed overseas in Germany latter part of the 1970's

I have twice been to Honduras to build churches for my Lord Jesus Christ.

One thing allways stands out is that in another country, things are very different than where one is used to in a home country.

I remember being trained that Russians were teh evile enemy but the many Russians i have known were very warm and sweet people.

I often wonder with the size of China, how life is in rural areas, do those Chinese folks have any idea how bad/good they have it?

Like the story of the Appalachian people, who during the sepression and also during the world wars, had limited exposure to the world events around them.

I wonder how bad those folks civil/human rights are?

Just sharing is all folks...a moment to pause and contemplate...

[germanos]

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll


Germanos, just asking, do you know why the flag is in that position?

No, I didn't.

And actually, I still don't get it even after your explanation. Are you flying the American flag upside down in support of China?

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by germanos


No, I didn't.

And actually, I still don't get it even after your explanation. Are you flying the American flag upside down in support of China?

Mine was an attempt at bringing attention to Political Statements, when and where they are appropriate.

In Flags being upside down for political duress then the answer is no it should not be flown that way.

Nor is perhaps boycotting the Olympics as a political statement to make a stand against what China is doing or not doing.

Mine was an introduction to those who may or may not know when and where political pressure should be exerted and how.

In the big scheme of things, would China change what they are doing just because say 12% of the countries dont participate in the Olympics?

Probably not....

Thanks for listening to an old Gramps wisdom for a moment.

Gramps

[DarkCloud]

Dear Ben,

A late reply here... But at least I respond at last

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It was a huge war, compared to anything in the west, but it was indigenous. I don't see how they can say otherwise. They were severe problems in Qing China that had nothing to do with the West.

For example, China has never been settled when ruled by a tribe that was not Han. Never. That was the biggest cause of the Revolt, that sought to destroy the Qing dynasty.

Of course many factors contribuited to the Taiping Rebellion- the influences of evil foreign religions on current policy makers' decisions must also be considered, especially in light of your latter statement that "China has never been settled when ruled by a tribe that was not Han."

In a sense when Catholic Bishops are appointed by a European pontiff, a fair amount of Chinese are being "ruled by non-Chinese"... the same concept applies to the sense of the Dalai Lama being selected by Tibetan Buddhists instead of the Central government.

The views are to a degree similar to the Chinese dislike of "imperialist foreign devils" and the desire to not let such "devils" ever have influence ever again.

To a regime that values intellectual conformity Christianity is destabilising. However, the most stable governments in the world have had Christian roots.

Liberation Theology, isn't Christian at all. The Crusades are an interesting case. Are you aware that all the areas involved were Christian, and were invaded by the Muslims? It's not an aggressive response, but a defensive attempt to free areas that were largely captured. It wasn't 'randomly' directed, you won't see folks Crusading just for the heck of it.

I'm not quite certain what you are saying here about the Crusades. From my understanding, the Moslems imposed a tax on foreigners coming into their country and the Crusaders decided to kill them because of it.

Also, the 5th crusade??? ended in the sacking of Constantinople, also thousands of Jews were killed on several crusades, etc. all in the name of "god."

It does not matter if the people committing the deeds were not godly- the crimes are, and rightly so, seen as originating from religious passions- the same reason many attibute terrorism to islam. Without the added impetus of religion, it is quite unlikely that there would be suicide bombers. If one believes in an afterlife- one values ones' life a whole lot less.

I'm not sure how you can pin the Rwandan genocide on us either. Christians were the ones being killed after all.

The Churches in Rwanda helped spread the hate-gospel against the Tutsi who were described as being cockroaches and not even really human beings. The Churches did not speak out against the hate-speech, and pastors and congregations turned on other Christians.

Admittedly, SOME pastors did not kill, and SOME brave people did good things, but institutionally, the Churches- Catholic and Protestant- deeply failed.

That's all international relations though. My question pertained more to how they would see their brothers in China. At least for the diaspora, a nationalist China would be far superior to the one we have now. There would also be greater freedoms in China associated with such.

Greater freedoms? Why would a nationalist government in China give greater freedoms? The main problems with the current government is that it brooks no opposition- people speaking out against it can be described as seditious and imprisoned.

There is no evidence that a nationalist government will not devolve into a similar authoritarian-style dictatorship, or even a semi-democratic dictatorship that elects leaders but repressesses the voice of some seditious un-patriotic people whilst pursuing an active, aggressive foreign policy role.

As a Suiseng Zhao article states: "popular nationalists have charged the Chinese government with being too soft in dealing with the foreign powers. They urge the government to abandon the passive low-profile policy and play the role of a "great power" (daguo)." The CCP has actually been quite restrained in its exercise of foreign policy. I has only vetoed 4 UN Resolutions since the 1970s- and two of those had to deal with Taiwan-related issues! The United States, in the same time, vetoed over 90... Russia and the UK and France all vetoed at least 20. China cast "present" votes in many cases when it did not agree with policy, because it did not want to be seen as being obstructionist.

The criticisms against the Chinese government by its people are not that the Government is being too soft toward neighboring countries, but that they are constantly bowing towards foreigners and letting them "humiliate China." Nationalists would like to see Taiwan, Singapore and other chinese-majority areas incorporated.

Chinese who go abroad in the West and live there of their own free will (for noneconomic reasons) are often not looked on happily, in general, since they have turned their backs on the homeland- in some respect.

Taking risks is a bad thing? I don't see how this differs from the status quo, where China is seeking regional hegemony right now. Communists haven't been particularly good at not provoking needless wars with their neighbours. The economic flourishing under a nationalist government alone would be worth the switch.

"not particularly good at provoking needless wars?"

really?

* China intervened when the US went too far north in the Korean War. I think they should not have gotten involved, but keep in mind the closeness of the two countries, the similarities in ideology, and US hatred of Communism and calls in the US for hard action against Mao. The Korean War was seen as defensive action in favor of an ally.
* India started the border war in 1962.
* Admittedly, China did provoke the Sino-Soviet border war in 1969. (Admittedly the United States provoked the Cuban Missile Crisis due to the Bay of Pigs)
* China gave military aid to its ally Vietnam during the Vietnam war.
* 1979 war with Vietnam... The Vietnamese invaded their ally Cambodia.

this of course, was their last war.
(In contrast, for perspective's sake- I believe the US has started quite a larger number of "wars" in this time...)

I don't see how China "provoked" any of these wars. They were done in reaction.

In terms of border settlements, Chinese nationalists are constantly upset that China has ceded the majority of all disputed territories to its neighbors. Admittedly, China usually got the better land, but it on average only took between 30-50% of claimed territory from nations such as Tajikistan, India, and Russia.

Once again though, the Chinese are not communist. I think there is a bit of cognitive dissonance when people hear they are ruled by the Communist Party, but after Jiang Zemin added the Three Represents to the party platform, businesspeople were added into the party, and it's developing along similar lines to Mexico's PRI- it's basically a benevolent one-party authoritarian dictatorship right now- whereas Taiwan is not nationalist- Taiwan is a Dual-Party Democratic state.

I just want to make certain here that we are using up-to-date terms rather than outdated mid 1990s terms. Since the 1990s China has changed a whole lot. I was very much surprised when I lived in the country- it really is NOT covered accurately in Western media reports.

Insularity? You just said they were making greater claims on their neighbourhood. I don't see the current situation as tenable. China is protectionist. China is insular in terms of trade. Changing both with improve the lives of the Chinese.

China implemented its WTO-agreements largely ahead of schedule. Also, its WTO requirements were more stringent than that of other developing countries- other countries complained that China set too high a bar for their acessions in many cases. China is much maligned for being protectionist when it really is not much worse than the United States in many ways.

Remember, the US forbid purchase of UNOCAL by Chinese, remember the Dubai Ports fiasco, remember the forbidden 3M purchases.

The Chinese were smart to regulate no more than 50% ownership of banking and investment opportunities when they made agreements with Clinton in 99/00. Interestingly, the Chinese were originally willing to agree to allow 51% foreign ownership , but Clinton completely screwed up the situation and humiliated Premier Zhu Rongji by releasing the information to the press. The Chinese people seized on this information and browbeat Zhu, who had to lower the requirement to 49%/50% foreign ownership because "never again will foreigners control and humiliate China" due to Imperialist Capitalism.

In that sense, in response to your earlier argument about nationalism being better for China's foreign relations-- I would have to say that example proves that a nationalist government would be inimically opposed to foreigners, and maybe more interested in Pride than in Economic Success.

Really? That's not what I see. India has had an excellent economy and one of the best militaries in that part of the world.

"in that part of the world...." Okay. It's not like there's much competition in Southeast Asia.

China had 2,643 fixed wing aircraft in 2007; India only had 849. China had 436 Navy fixed wing aircraft; india only had 34; China has over 17,000 artillery pieces; india has over 3,000. China has 7,500 Main Battle Tanks. India has 4,000. China has over 12,000 Armored Fighting Vehicles. India has less than 8,000. China has over 2.4 million people involved in its military- the US has 1.5 million, India has 1.3 Million. India Spends 22 billion on Defense spending in 2006, china spent over 140 billion US Dollars... Russia spent 90 billion dollars; The US spent 580 billion dollars.

I don't think China has any need to worry about India anytime soon.

Look at the IISS report "The Military Balance 2007); also look at information from the United States Pacific Command. For other information, check out the CSIS studies by Cordesman and Kleiber on Chinese Military Modernization.

Population will give it influence over China. India will be a bulwark against any 'expansion' they desire and the fact that India has made up the third smaller that they were then China is very significant.

Why does India have any reason to go into conflict with Chinia? It has largely pulled out of trying to influence Southeast Asia, from what I understand. India needs to deal with the large Moslem population and the growing conflicts between Hindus and Moslems. Its democratic society has its hands full in a way that an autocratic China does not. An autocratic society is more flexible in that it can make mandates from up top filter down. A democratic society relies far more on assent.

PPP GDP is only about a fifth smaller then China. In China, GDP per capita is about 7,590, whereas in India it is 6,737. That is a gap, but one that will be overcome.

Maybe. Not necessarily.
According to the WorldFactook. https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2004rank.html

China, NOT counting HK, Macao or Taiwan, had a GDP per capita of around 5,500... India had only 2,700 in 2007. And China URBAN and coastal province PPP is simply gigantic compared to rurual PPP. The pay rates are off the charts different.

China has a lot more to grow even internal as infrastructure is developed.

7 of the 10 largest shopping malls in the world are in China.

China's interstate system is second only the The United States' in terms of mileage covered.

What does India have? Tata motors? China doesn't need that, they've developed their own airplane- and stolen/developed technology for auto mfgers like Chery and others that will soon have their own cars competing on European roads.

>>>RE: Economic Freedom not translating into Political Freedom.

You asked where the two concepts were not interrelated. On the whole the two track nicely to some degree, as is evident by the imposition of the new 2007 property law which was a step forward in many aspects. In other concerns, it did not do anywhere near as much as people seem to think it did.

Another step forward is the rise of automobile driving- as Chinese people experience more freedom, they can choose their fate better. Another is the widening appeal of the stock market, allowing people to gloriously "get rich."

But what doesn't track is the belief that economic freedom is going to allow people to speak out against the government. You yourself complained about the people arrested by the Communist government for criticising the regime. The sentences have gotten much less harsh, but the arrests and ostracism of investigative journalists still continues.

Also, computer technology has made it very easy for the Government to track dissidents. And SIM cards in phones allow miscreants to be tracked down (as was evident in Myanmar's 2007 crackdown). (Also, if you are interested, I suggest reading "Wild Grass" by Alastair Iain Johnston- an excellent book about Law and Dissent in China.)

And to some degree, companies operating in China have to operate on the "thug" mentality of bribery. As the book "One Billion Customers", written by the Chair of AMCHAM (american chamber of Commerce in China) James McGregor stated in one of its chapters- it is recommended to find a "Chinese facilitator company" to manage business with local Chinese enterprises. This way no allegations of bribery can be tracked back to the Western corporation. The Chinese facilitator can give gifts and wine and dine people and charge the Westerners prices for "consultation"... in a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

In this sense, bribery and coercion are still big incentives to do business in China. Economic freedom didn't bring political rights to the people dislodged in Beijing Hutongs (Traditional neighborhoods) by property speculators condemning their properties (even those designated as national heritage sites and even those protected by UNESCO)

Charges can be brought in court about conflicts of interest, but the better connected generally win because frankly- economic development is better for society than the interests of only one person.

An individual doesn't matter. Stalin may have said that the death of one is a "tragedy" but in China, the death of one is more of a "statistic" than the disenfranchisement of thousands could ever be.

Keep in mind, even though Russia is experiencing arguable political repression, the people are richer and happier than they were in the 1990s... Same with the Chinese. In that sense, as political freedoms decrease, the people are actually getting happier.

Why hasn't China dealt with Burma? Burma has borders with both.

I was mentioning that India hadn't gotten involved in Myanmar- which was a bit of a surprise... You asked why China wasn't involved- quite simply because Myanmar is a Chinese Ally and Myanmarese unrest is an internal matter. China, unlike some western countries and politicians sees no need to criticise and insult allies.

Saddam was gassing kurds in his country. I don't see why he is different then say Hitler, except the fact that Hitler did it to white people.

Well, the Kurds were involved in an uprising and seperatist movement occuring during the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam's mistake was continuing his Anfal campaign after the war was finished.

When you try to bring that up in relation to a discussion of the war in Iraq also, you are about 10 years out of date. The Anfal campaign was over in 1991 (I believe). The US invaded Iraq in 2002 for a variety of reasons. At the time, Weapons of Mass Destruction was the number one cited reason. Others argue Oil was a reason, I don't agree with that. Others argue Humanitarian Reasons, I see that as a specious argument-the US only intervenes in humanitarian reasons when it sees political benefits to doing so (which makes sense- why waste american money and lives when there are no political benefits?), I frankly think it was because Bush wanted to "finish the job" his father started, and because Saddam was acting flagrantly and embarassingly toward the United States which was ruining US deterrent power.

But remember, the world community is vastly upset at the large amount of Iraqis that were killed by or as a result of the US aggressive invasion of Iraq. Launching missiles at troops is one thing, accidentally bombing a village of innocent Iraqis or staging an Abu Ghraib is quite another... And in that sense, a US nuclear strike at Chinese citizens in response to a Chinese nuclear strike at US military personnel, would be seen as far too disproportionate.

Russia sees it as in their sphere of interest, and Europe? Well they sell weapons to the other side, so their interests are threatened too by the estabilishment of a free democracy in the middle east with ties to the US.

To bring this conversation back on topic and relate it to a hypothetical US-China conflict---> What makes you believe that Russia and Europe wouldn't be more interested in a strong and vibrant China rather than a bullying and arrogant United States? They weren't supportive of the US invading Iraq... why would they be supportive of the US randomly deciding to kill a few million Chinese Citizens with nuclear warheads?

Strategically in a poor position? I honestly think you are overlooking them. Japan is the success that China is not in terms of both political freedoms and industrialisation.

Interestingly, in many senses China's economy is now almost more open than Japan's protectionist paradise. In terms of industrialization, Japan is getting gutted- its factories are all moving to China and Southeast Asia. Japan's rising sun has already been eclipsed by China's lunar new year moon.

~DC.