home

China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights

Does something seem askew with this picture? China is criticizing the U.S. for its human rights policy.

China accused the United States on Thursday of using a double standard to judge human rights in other countries, adding to a list of nations suggesting that the government that produced the Abu Ghraib prison abuses has no business commenting on what happens elsewhere.

"No country should exclude itself from the international human rights development process or view itself as the incarnation of human rights that can reign over other countries and give orders to the others," Premier Wen Jiabao's cabinet declared, three days after the State Department criticized China in its annual human rights report.

China isn't the only country expressing its criticism of the U.S.

A number of other countries criticized in the U.S. report expressed a similar view, that the Bush administration has compromised on human rights and has no standing to chastise others. Such responses often follow Washington's annual report, but the reaction has become more intense and more readily voiced since U.S. abuses of Iraqi and other prisoners were publicized around the world last year.

"Unfortunately, [the report] once again gives us reason to say that double standards are a characteristic of the American approach to such an important theme," the Russian Foreign Ministry declared after reviewing the report. "Characteristically off-screen is the ambiguous record of the United States itself."

It's getting difficult to remember the days when America was viewed as a beacon of liberty in the world. Between the way we treat immigrants, refugees seeking aslyum, detainees and our own prison population, it does seem that we've lost our guiding light.

You don't see this yet? Check out UnFogged and his post on the CIA, the sandpit and the prisoners. And Ezra Klein's response to the incident:

What the f*ck has happened to our country? The man we stripped naked, beat the hell out of, and let freeze to death was "probably associated with people who were associated with al Qaeda"? Did we really build this city on a hill so we could throw innocents off the ramparts?

Read Digby on this too.

The damage they have done to this country's sense of itself as a moral force for good, however, cannot be papered over with soaring speeches about freedom and liberty. Leaving that naked prisoner (so many naked prisoners!) to die of the cold that night is just one of the many ways in which these puerile egotists sold this country down the river one simple minded atrocity at a time.

[comments now closed]

< Empowering Cops With a Needle | Friday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 03:00:44 AM EST
    This is political posturing in an ongoing attempt to broaden China's influence in the world by saying things to sound like a world power and reduce US influence. Frankly, it's laughable coming from the country that brought us Tianenmen square and which enforces the "one child" policy with some rather draconian methods. I could go on, but it'd be shooting fish in a barrel. Mark my words -- China's a country to watch. Their military has been growing at double-digit rates for the past few years. They've invested in ballistic missile technology to develop ICBMs capable of reaching the US. They're investing heavily in anti-satellite and naval warfare technology in anticipation of confronting the US. They're expanding their influence in the Western Pacific. They're sinking their hooks deep into our economy (but hey, we're the ones setting the hook -- love that WalMart!). You just watch. Within the next few years they're going to make a move on Taiwan. They're posturing themselves well, especially with efforts to demonstrate that they've treated Hong Kong and Shanghai differently from the main. In the end, they'll move on Taiwan and bank on a benevolent image they're creating to make it seem non-threatening. But they'll also have an iron fist ready to make it look extremely costly for the US to interfere -- both economically and militarily. China's said for years that they're going to get Taiwan back. They're very patient, and this type of posturing is just part of ongoing effort to achieve long-term goals.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#2)
    by soccerdad on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 04:23:22 AM EST
    Of course dismissing China's views, which are shared by other counties, issimply a way of trying to paper over the truth about the activities of the US in Iraq, Gitmo, Afghanistan as well as rendition. To be clear that also doesn't absolve China of its own problems. Focusing on China's military and supposed aspirations while at the same time ignoring our aggression into Iraq is one of the more hypocritical views that is commonly taken. If China decides it time to take Taiwan, the only practical thing the US can do is send a house warming card. Now the wing nuts will start calling for B52's, missile attacks, etc. and starting a major war means nothing to them. In addition whining about China's spending on its military is also hypocritical given the US's increased spending, its opting out of nuclear treaties and its attempted expansion of its own nuclear program. Telling other countries they can't do what we are doing just isn't going to fly. Anyway, all this truly ignores China's real source of power and that is its economy. It is expanding at double digit rates. Even more important is that it supports approximately 40% of our debt by the purchase of bonds etc by its central bank. To quickly bring the US to its economic knees, all China has to do is not show up to the next 2-3 treasuary auctions. Yes there will be repercussions for its own economy, but if faced with a significant enough challange from the US it might be a price they are willing to pay. The other area to do a comparison of the US and China is the approach each country is taking towards securing its energy future. While the US invades Iraq, threatens Iran, rigs elections in Ukraine under the banner of democracy, supports dictators in other parts of the region with no regard to democracy, and attempts a coup against Chavez, China is running all over the world signing major development and mutally beneficial contracts. Is it a coinincidence that both Russia and China had signed major contracts with Iraq to refurbish the country's oil infrastructure, which if allowed would have removed another potential source of oil from the US. It should also be noted that the contracts were never fully engaged because Iraq needed the sanctions lifted. That is ultimately the reason Saddam destroyed its WMDs and why the US would never allow the sanctions to be eliminated. So you can whine and moan about China all you want the fact is that their central bank has the US's economic balls in a vise. As long as the US doesn't up the ante far enough the fact that the two countries are tied at the hip will prevent major problems. If we were to do more than whine then China could decide to do more. They finance our debt and hold vast amounts of US paper. If the stakes became great enough they could just dump it all. Economic armgedon. Empires really should be able to finance their own adventures. The fact that they can't and depend on the "kindness of strangers" means that the US does not have ultimate control

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 04:47:43 AM EST
    I have been amazed at the hypocrisy of Dubya lecturing Putin on democracy. This from the leader of the neocons who might be willing to do anything to diminish democracy in this country. This group has mastered Orwell's doublespeak.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 05:41:10 AM EST
    CA - Uh, Putin is Russian. Last week Google's news service was shut down in China. Abortions are forced if you exceed the state's limits. And, right on cue, here comes SD talking about the evil US. And now, siding with Putin in the.... "While the US invades Iraq, threatens Iran, rigs elections in Ukraine under the banner of democracy, supports dictators in other parts of the..." You know SD, you really do agree with OBL. It wasn't done just for shock, and it wasn't just about the ME.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 05:47:31 AM EST
    Indeed, something is amiss when a country in the process of eradicating an entire culture and people has the nerve to even breathe the words "human rights". Ask the Tibetans about the chinese view of human rights and see what you get in the way of a reply. We definitely have some problems here, but China's are far worse on nearly every account. What is going on in Guantanamo is nowhere near as bad as what is being done to the Falun Gong followers, who really are being beaten and tortured to death on a daily basis. We need to clean our own act up some, but we don't need help from China in doing it.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#6)
    by soccerdad on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 06:05:27 AM EST
    Of course you guys purposely miss the point, the US no longer has the moral authority to tell anyone to clean up its act. The old well "they are worse than us" is BS and is seen as such. When this is all you have as an argument, you are in bad shape. And note before shooting yourself in the foot again I said that our wrongs in no way absolve China. And right on cue PPJ has absolutely no facts no argumnent so all he can do is do character assassination. A pathetic demostration as usual.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#7)
    by soccerdad on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 06:09:42 AM EST
    We need to clean our own act up some, but we don't need help from China in doing it.
    we need help from someone because this admin has no intention of doing it. Ok ignore China, what should be done? Oh I know lets punish the few bad apples, yeh thats the ticket. pathetic

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#8)
    by BigTex on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 06:23:40 AM EST
    Soc - you make a good point about China and their economic strength, no disagreement here. However, if you look at their economic strength, though, it comes at th' expense o' human rights, which validates trueblue's point. If you were t' end th 'forced abortion policy then their population would be significantly higher, which in turn would cause a significant drag on their economy. They don't have a minimum wage. Let's also look at pollution. They fight tooth and nail t' be exempt from pollution control measures. Why do they support Koyoto? Because they're exempt. Exempt despite th' fact that their pollution is so concentrated that plumes will cross the Pacific and be detected in th' US, and then is counted as pollution from th' US. What's worse, is what they're doin' t' th' ozone layer, only Brazil is bigger culprit in th' destruction o' ozone. You see, China, in a push t' introduce refrigeration across th' entire country is usin' CFCs. We've already got a sufficient supply o' CFCs in th' atmosphere t' hole th' ozone layer for th' next 25-25 years. CFC's only stay in th' atmosphere fer 50 years or so. Any problems with th' ozone layere would o' ended by 2035 or so. Yet China is addin' CFC's t' th' atmosphere, which will perputuate th' problem beyond th' 2035 endpoint when most o' th' CFCs would be out o' th' atmosphere, and th' ozone layer would no longer be in danger. That means another 50 years o' increased cancer rates. Increased cataracts rates. Increased photo aging rates. Not because o' th' US's actions, but because China wants t' hold a double standard fer themselves. So yes, Soc, you are right that China does have a reason t' complain about th' US's human rights actions as o' late, and to yer credit you did mention that they have problems o' their own, but trueblue is right, this is simply posturein' by China.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 06:25:28 AM EST
    SD - I have posted my response on the "Open Friday Thread" because this is rapidly going to get off subject. Join me at your leisure.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 06:40:45 AM EST
    China certainly knows about "double standards", I'll give them that.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#11)
    by pigwiggle on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 07:00:01 AM EST
    SD- “Even more important is that it supports approximately 40% of our debt by the purchase of bonds etc by its central bank.” As of December 2004 the PBOC held $514 billion in foreign reserves, mostly US, while the holding of US denominated assets by all foreign central banks was $2.3 trillion. Assuming all of Chinas holdings were US this only amounts to ~23%. What am I missing? Anyway, China does not support US debt but rather is INVESTING in the US economy (economics isn’t zero sum gain). The US treasury backs the bonds, which is in turn is backed (fully) by US assets. China has been unwilling to release the value of the yuan to market exchange values and has little choice but to prop it up with foreign reserves. The soft dollar has led to inflation of the yuan and the PBOC has compensated by increasing holdings of the dollar, an increase of 47% over the last 18 months (~$350 billion to ~$514 billion). Further, since US bonds are the most stable in the world we have been paying extremely low interest on the debt. Not that I think this excuses liberal spending; you should know by know how I feel about federal spending. “To quickly bring the US to its economic knees, all China has to do is not show up to the next 2-3 treasuary auctions.” Explain this if you would, it doesn’t make much sense. If China sold its US bond the Chinese economy would immediately fail. The US would simply be forced to cover next year’s deficit; I think a simple matter. What will likely happen is China will either widen the fix between the dollar and the yuan or slowly liberalize the yuan to the currency market altogether.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#12)
    by soccerdad on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 07:20:07 AM EST
    My understanding is that their purchases over the last year have been closer to 40%. If you had bother to read carefully what I wrote I noted that the US and China were closely linked economically. The point is that given enough motivation combined with a rapid expansion of non-US markets if the US were to push China too far they may be willing to take the hit if the political stakes were high enough. The immediate impact would be as follows if China stopped buying treasuroes, There would be a drastic fall in money available to pay for the US debt. Every day that the US spend more than it takes in it has to obtain the money from somewhere, and that somewhere has been Asia central banks. If china pullsout, then theother countries would have a decision to make jump in to make up the difference. The fact that bonds already purchased may still be good does not give you the money to continue to deficit spend. If the dollar continues to fall those who hold large amounts of dollars will either have to intervent to keep the fall orerly or get out fast and minimize their loses. The real point of all this is that it puts the economic health of our country at the mercy of others, with an admin that seems intent on pissing off most of the rest of the world and China whi is rapidly expanding its market beyound the US into SA, the ME etc. Wht would be the US's oprions in face of reduced international funding of its deficit spending? large increase in interest rates to attract investors which would crush the housing market and put the people with adj. rate mortgages into bankruptcy. I guess they could print more money. Its funny to me that the same people who champion the stand that the US can do whatever it wants does not see a problem with our economy so dependent on the good nature of foreigners that this admin s**ts on.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 07:21:04 AM EST
    Hey justpaul, While defending China makes me feel like I need a shower, I am pretty sure I've never seen a picture of a Falun Gong follower with electrodes attached to their genitals while Chinese soldiers smiled and gave the thumbs-up. To say that America needs to clean up its act some is an understatement.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 07:30:25 AM EST
    China criticizing the US over human rights is like a child criticizing a parent over their work habits. Get out there and do it for a while and then come back to me with suggestions. Heck, it's like the Germans lecturing the Americans on armed conflict. Of, if you like, the Americans lecturing the French on cheese. Like the UN slagging off Enron over accounting issues. Like a serial rapist going after the UN, no, wait, never mind that last. -C

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#15)
    by pigwiggle on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 07:51:51 AM EST
    SD- “if China stopped buying treasuroes, There would be a drastic fall in money available to pay for the US debt.” We only pay interest on the debt. In the immediate term the feds would be forced to cut items in the amount of the deficit; a good thing. We don’t need more folks loaning us cash; we have more investment capital than we need. I’m sure you will agree there is plenty of pork to cut. “The fact that bonds already purchased may still be good does not give you the money to continue to deficit spend.” But this isn’t necessarily bad, right? At most we should be borrowing investment capital, not money for superfluous crap. “The real point of all this is that it puts the economic health of our country at the mercy of others” Well, I disagree with this entirely. I think it is a symptom of the current poor economic health, i.e. deficits. If we borrow money to grow the economy there is benefit for us; investment capital that pays off in assets and returns money. And benefit for the investor; a share of the returned money. If we are borrowing money against next year’s paycheck simply for consumables, i.e. SS or Medicaid, we are just digging a hole. “Its funny to me that the same people who champion the stand that the US can do whatever it wants does not see a problem with our economy so dependent on the good nature of foreigners that this admin s**ts on.” You can’t have it both ways. Either we engage in free trade, which necessitates extracting ourselves from others internal affairs, or we have a policy of intervention and accept the consequences of this. However, it isn’t new. Many formulations of US policy has sought to link trade with intervention. China is a prime example of this; every time our trade status comes before congress there is a push to link it to China’s internal affairs, i.e. human rights, etc. Somehow I doubt you are championing liberal trade though.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 07:54:04 AM EST
    Canuck, Could it be that you haven't seen such photos because China is run by a communist regime that lets nothing out of the country that it can stop? If you read some of the reports coming out via the U.N. and the international media, you will find people who describe going to pick up their mothers after they were "detained" for involvement in Falun Gong, only to be given a corpse so badly beaten that it had to take days to do. Naturally, the Chinese government lists these deaths as due to natural causes. The little old lady's heart gaveout after three days of rond the clock torture. I'm not at all defending what has been done at Abu Graib or Quantanamo: Those pictures are disgusting and the behavior they depict is depraved. Everyone involved in the torture of these peopel should be prosecuted. All I'm saying is that China has no more business lecturing us on human rights than Adolf Hitler would have lecturing us on how to treat jewish people humanely. Chinese history over the last 50 years is replete with wholescale slaughter of political opponents, intelligentsia, and anyone else deemed "undesirable" (such as several hundred million baby girls). And that doesn't even touch on Tibet, where the Chinese are exterminating an ancient culture that poses no threat to them at all for the most dubious of reasons. As I said above, the chinese know all about "double standards"; they've been using their own for the last several thousand years. That doesn't mean we don't need to improve our behavior, it just means that we don't need their help in doing so.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 08:07:11 AM EST
    Canuck, In case you are interested in what is available on the subject: 11 Falun Gong members arrested for posting torture photos on Internet Re-inactment of one man's torture Could this kind of prosecution be why more photos are not available?

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#18)
    by soccerdad on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 08:08:32 AM EST
    Pig - you are just flat out wrong. The other problem is that there is almost no US savings from which the govt can use. My advice to you is to go to morgan stanley and read Stephen Roache'w 2x a week column on the global economic forum over the last year. There are also some good reports out of the economists at NYU, also see angry bear, brad delong etc. You seem to be uncharacteristically uniformed about this particular issue.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 08:11:52 AM EST
    'All I'm saying is that China has no more business lecturing us on human rights than Adolf Hitler would have lecturing us on how to treat jewish people humanely.' And what Im saying is that the US has no business criticizing anyone's human rights record right now. Get your own house in order first.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 08:23:39 AM EST
    Canuck, Unless I missed something, such as a presidential appointment as U.S. ambassador to the world, the U.S. isn't saying anything about China's record. I am. The Chinese government is, however, speaking about the U.S. Should not they get their house in order before they do so? Or is this another double standard thing?

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#21)
    by Pete Guither on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 09:37:42 AM EST
    justpaul, China was responding to the U.S. Human Rights report, which criticized China. So Canuck had it right. We issue this report every year, as the "leader" in human rights. Well, when you are a leader and want to whip everybody else into shape you have to be prepared to be not just better, but a shining example. The U.S. has always presented itself as the shepherd of the flock in human rights. Just like with a spiritual leader -- if your minister gets into several drunken brawls, you don't say (well, at least he's not as bad as Bob). No, you expect a higher standard. We should expect a higher standard of ourselves and not wait for abusers like China to throw it back in our faces.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 09:43:45 AM EST
    justpaul, China's criticisms are in response to a human rights report tendered by the US State Department

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 09:59:15 AM EST
    Canuck et al. Fair enough. I misunderstood Canuck's response to be in direct response to what I had said. My mistake. But does the double standard still hold? Is China free to criticize other countries on their civil rights practices while torturing its own citizens? I would hope not.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#24)
    by pigwiggle on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 10:01:48 AM EST
    “Pig - you are just flat out wrong…. You seem to be uncharacteristically uniformed about this particular issue. ” About what? Simply stating I am wrong is trivial and uninformative. Here is an example of what you could do, that is if you are genuine and not just trying to get over. For example, you say ‘My understanding is that their purchases over the last year have been closer to 40%.’ Well, if you look at the PBOC holdings you will see that it is ~$567.4 billion as of 12/20004, their last report. So, from the 12/2004 treasury bulletin , federal debt to private investors was ~$4.3 trillion; the total national debt as of 12/2004 was ~$7.4 trillion. So they either account for 13% of private debt or 8% of total debt. I understand where you might have been confused, it was widely reported that foreign holdings of US debt was approaching 40%. I think we have been here before. You call me ignorant or wrong, don’t bother to say why, and then refer me to some blog or other. Look, if I am ‘just flat wrong’ you should have no problem posting some evidence that supports that along with the source, just like I have done. OK?

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 10:21:32 AM EST
    china lecturing the u.s. is like cliff lecturing einstein on intelligence

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 11:27:35 AM EST
    ricky - I know you are but what am I? Child. -C

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 11:58:50 AM EST
    Posted by: BigTex on March 4, 2005 07:23 AM [snip] Let's also look at pollution. They fight tooth and nail t' be exempt from pollution control measures. Why do they support Koyoto? Because they're exempt. Exempt despite th' fact that their pollution is so concentrated that plumes will cross the Pacific and be detected in th' US, and then is counted as pollution from th' US. Who else has refused to sign the Kyoto protocols again? Would that be the godd ol' U.S. of A., perhaps? And you have the unmitigated gall to point to China's refusal to abide by the treaty when America can't be bothered to either? Have you no shame, sir? The main point being made in this post is that America has lost the moral authority to criticize other nations about human rights abuses. Why is it that Putsch defenders will ignore, rationalize, or deflect any arguments about how bad America has become in terms of not respecting human rights? What has the fact that both countries refuse to control how much pollution they poison the earth with have anything to do with the fact that they both torture people? China calling out the United States for human rights abuses is like Mussolini chiding Hitler for being a fascist. Neither one of them has the right to lecture others on the subject. That's the problem.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 01:49:36 PM EST
    "This is political posturing in an ongoing attempt to broaden China's influence in the world by saying things to sound like a world power and reduce US influence." And a human rights analysis report produced by a country that assumes for itself the mantle of moral arbiter is, of course, completely objective and free of political influence or motivation itself. Right.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 02:07:29 PM EST
    (:Tom:) I'm sorry I wasn't able to make that point as well as you. Cheers

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 02:11:37 PM EST
    ricky, cliff- I didn't realize this forum was popular with the elementary school set; if you want to make those kinds of arguments, I would suggest you arrange to meet for recess somewhere.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 02:47:36 PM EST
    China calling out the United States for human rights abuses is like Mussolini chiding Hitler for being a fascist. No, it wouldn't. A more apt analogy is me telling you to clean your garbage-dump of a lawn, and you telling me "not to lecture" because you found a spec of dirt in my otherwise immmaculate lawn! There is no equivalence between what happened at Abu Ghraib and the grand-scale government-sponsered atrocities that have been committed by China. And don't let any murderous Communist Regime (or sympathiser) tell you otherwise! ;)

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 02:51:14 PM EST
    China calling out the United States for human rights abuses is like Mussolini chiding Hitler for being a fascist. No, its not even close. To imply that we could commit the same grand-scale moral atrocities as China and still be in no worse of a position to tell them to clean up their act, is ridiculous.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 03:08:23 PM EST
    Do you know that I like to eat my own fecal matter? -C

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 03:19:30 PM EST
    "Posted by soccerdad: "The immediate impact would be as follows if China stopped buying treasuroes," Dunno if you'll see this, soccer, but one main counterweight to China disrupting the US economy is that China imports huge amounts of food from the US. -- The hypernationalists want it to be us vs. them, but it is not. Falun Gong is not comparable to the US prison population, the enormous number of people in prison for minor crimes, exposed to true depravities. As for Tibet, have a look at Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. We bombed the sh*t out of those places, and committed far graver crimes against sovereign people than China could ever against the Tibetans. The one child policy is not perfect, but overpopulation kills plenty of children all over the world. 50% of Iraq's population is children, and we have killed something like 50,000 of them, on top of the 1/2 million killed by the sanctions and the US-installed and abetted puppet Hussein. We have nothing to sneer at China about. WE are Chinese, German, Iraqi, Russian, Australian, etc. I guess you guys hate JFK, but the world loved him, and hates Bush for some very good reasons.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 03:46:16 PM EST
    Yeah it's pretty amusing when a country whose record on human right's is as bad as China's (I note that right and left wingers can agree on the heinousness of their record) can make disparaging remarks about the US regarding human right's. The sad thing as we all know is that the current administration's record on human right's is abhorant and abberant, and they invite cries of hypocrite. For the fellah who thinks no comparison is valid - please note that the US has killes over 100,000 Iraqi civillians - what does it take before you realize you're no longer the guys wearing the white hat? Also note that the Bush regime openly supports human right's abusers Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, to name two - let freedom reign?

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#36)
    by soccerdad on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 05:24:05 PM EST
    Pig Let me apologize I didn't make myself very clear besides having a bad day. In my 2nd post I wasn't referring to the amt. held by China, I still haven't had a chance to double check that. rather i was talking about the effects of China not buying securities. I'm really cruched for time andcan't make a long post. let me give you a link or two and I'll try to give you a better reply probably tomorrow. Link Link2 Link3 here is one Steven Roach column he has at least one every week.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 05:54:49 PM EST
    Soccerdad: Sometimes you come up with things that really blow me away. "If China decides it's time to take Taiwan, then the only practical thing for the US to do is to send a housewarming card." Sure -- just let a country of 22 million people get invaded and overtaken by force because it's not worth it. I believe Neville Chamberlain once said the same thing -- Hitler just wants a little ground; let him have it so he'll be happy. The cost just isn't worth it. It's called appeasement, Soc -- a policy that has never worked as a means to deter aggression. I encourage you of the strategic ramifications of standing by and letting a country like China being able to forcibly annex a piece of territory that big with that many people. Thus encouraged by apparent world indifference, you can bet they'd go after the Spratley Islands next. You probably wouldn't care about that, either, despite the fact that Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines all have claims there. At just what point would you consider it worthwhile to stop aggression? Would you have allowed Germany to have Europe? Would you have stopped Japan, or just let it rule Asia? I've got a different how the a "housewarming card" could be delivered. I suppose that makes me a "wingnut", but then again, I actually support the idea of standing up to bullies. And please, spare me the "US as bully" argument -- it's tired. Exactly what is your definition of a "just" war, and what would be required to meet that definition?

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#38)
    by soccerdad on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 06:01:33 PM EST
    trueblue, your usual post all criticism - OK what are you proposing we do about it? How are you going to do it? and what will be the rammifications of what you propose?

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#39)
    by soccerdad on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 06:07:03 PM EST
    BTW - maybe they have a good reason to invade maybe they are looking for weapons of mass destruction

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 08:05:31 PM EST
    You answer my question, Soc, and I'll answer yours. I gave you my position in response to your stated position. I ended with a question, which you haven't answered. What, in your mind, would constitute a "just" war, and what conditions would need to be met to justify the use of military force? Taiwan broke away from China over 50 years ago to escape communism and maintain a democratic government. China's stated purpose for its aims toward Taiwan are based on its belief that Taiwan is part of China and therefore must be brought back into the fold. That's their reason -- no need to speculate. That's the same reason Saddam used when he invaded Kuwait, and the same reason Hitler used when he annexed the Sudatenland. It's the same reason Argentina invaded the Falklands. How much lunch money are you willing to let a bully steal before you say "enough"? We learned the hard way in WWII that early engagement is better than denial and wishful thinking.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 09:23:05 PM EST
    "Posted by trueblue: "Sure -- just let a country of 22 million people get invaded and overtaken by force because it's not worth it." Taiwan is a part of China. It is populated by Chinese, speaking Mandarin, who have lots of ties with the mainland. Normalization and even eventual reunification is not necessarily 'invasion and takeover.' "I believe Neville Chamberlain once said the same thing -- Hitler just wants a little ground; let him have it so he'll be happy. The cost just isn't worth it." Baldwin is the PM who oversaw the takeover of the Ruhr (and Austria), which had been a part of Germany. But that's about the only comparison to Taiwan. Bush has muddied the situation between these two parts of China as best as he could. He flew a spy plane over China to try to start an incident. Then he said that the US supported a two-nation policy. Then he said the US would not interfere with reunification. Then he offered to sell arms to Taiwan. And then he reneged on the promise. That might not be entirely accurate, but it's close to that kind of overt flipflopping. "What, in your mind, would constitute a "just" war, and what conditions would need to be met to justify the use of military force?" Why would opinion be needed? The laws of just war are quite clearly laid out in the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter. "Taiwan broke away from China over 50 years ago to escape communism and maintain a democratic government." A cat named Jiang had something to do with it. He wanted to maintain his power. When the (so-called Taiwanese) China's stated purpose for its aims toward Taiwan are based on its belief that Taiwan is part of China and therefore must be brought back into the fold. That's their reason -- no need to speculate. That's the same reason Saddam used when he invaded Kuwait, and the same reason Hitler used when he annexed the Sudatenland. It's the same reason Argentina invaded the Falklands. How much lunch money are you willing to let a bully steal before you say "enough"? We learned the hard way in WWII that early engagement is better than denial and wishful thinking.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 09:39:25 PM EST
    (sorry, Haloscan inadvertent button push) "Taiwan broke away from China over 50 years ago to escape communism and maintain a democratic government." A cat named Jiang had something to do with it. He wanted to maintain his power. When his (so-called Taiwanese) took over the island, they drove the inhabitants to the mountains, and many ('aborigines') died. It's not exactly the white hat scenario you paint. "China's stated purpose for its aims toward Taiwan are based on its belief that Taiwan is part of China" Taiwan has been a part of China for over 1,000 years. The ROC speaks Mandarin, they have many ties with the mainland, and China has accepted capitalism and the eastern seaboard is actively engaged in high-tech and other trade with Taiwan at a GIGANTIC rate. Normalization and even reunification need not be an abusive process. "That's the same reason Saddam used when he invaded Kuwait," No, Hussein was arguing the disputed ownership of an oil field, and the Kuwaiti 'slant-drilling,' which he said was stealing Iraqi oil. GHWB's gov't told him he was free to take the disputed land, they didn't care. Then they lied to the world about the action of Iraqi troops (the fake incubator story, cooked up by a NY ad firm), and about the intention of Hussein (that he intended to attack SA, which was proven untrue by a Russian spy sat photo). " and the same reason Hitler used when he annexed the Sudatenland." No, Hitler annexed the Sudentenland claiming that the Poles were castrating Germans there. "It's the same reason Argentina invaded the Falklands." "We learned the hard way in WWII that early engagement is better than denial and wishful thinking." 'Early engagement' is what Hitler did to Austria, the Ruhr, Poland, France, etc. In every case he justified his illegal actions, and Britain abetted his actions not just out of appeasement, but out of RACISM. For instance, I believe it was Baldwin who said that the Checkos weren't worth defending (even though it was a treaty responsibility, not a matter of opinion). The close ties of Britain with Germany (in the royal family, and among the population), and the idea that Hitler would be a bulwark against communism were definite reasons for slow action on the Nazi threat. No such comparison with China is possible.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 10:06:43 PM EST
    Paul: Baldwin was the guy who looked the other way when Germany embarked on a massive arms buildup in violation of treaties. Chamberlain was PM when Hitler was emboldened by Baldwin's lack of action and went into Austria. It was also Chamberlain who sold out Czechosloviakia at Munich in 1938 for "peace in our time." Actually Bush didn't fly a spy plane over China. I forget the guy's name, but he's a Navy guy. Bush was ANG. And the plane didn't fly over China -- it was in international airspace off the coast. It's an old game countries play -- fly near their airspace in international airspace. They send up fighters to escort you and make sure you don't cross the line, and then you leave when you're done collecting info. We and the Russians played the game for years, and other countries do the same thing. The problem in this case was an aggressive Chinese pilot who got too close and tagged our plane. We flew into Chinese airspace because it was the closest place to land. You say the term "spy plane" like it's a dirty word. Do you honestly think we're the only country that collects intelligence on others? And oh, by the way you rolled in on Soc's question but still avoided answering it yourself. I don't want to know what Geneva thinks. What do YOU think? What, in your opinion, is cause for a "just" war, and what are the conditions that you feel must be met for the application of military force? It's a legitimate question that bears discussion if we're going to debate each other's positions. Doesn't it make sense to know where the other person stands?

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 10:34:18 PM EST
    "Posted by trueblue: "Baldwin was the guy who looked the other way when Germany embarked on a massive arms buildup in violation of treaties." Far worse than that: he allowed Hitler to seize the Rhineland. "Chamberlain was PM when Hitler was emboldened by Baldwin's lack of action and went into Austria." Hitler, emboldened? Like Bush, the little dictator didn't need no emboldening. Rash, violent acts just come natural. "It was also Chamberlain who sold out Czechosloviakia at Munich in 1938 for "peace in our time." Right. "Actually Bush didn't fly a spy plane over China. I forget the guy's name, but he's a Navy guy." You're just being coy. "Bush was ANG. And the plane didn't fly over China -- it was in international airspace off the coast." No, it was not. The collision may have taken place in international waters, but the plane was certainly over Chinese airspace, and intentionally. "It's an old game countries play -- fly near their airspace in international airspace." No, this was a violation of Chinese airspace, just as the Gulf of Tonkin incident didn't happen in international waters (well, didn't happen goes far enough). "The problem in this case was an aggressive Chinese pilot who got too close and tagged our plane." And you know this how? The fighter pilot brought down the spy plane. He got killed doing it, but it was hardly 'aggressive' to protect Chinese airspace. "We flew into Chinese airspace because it was the closest place to land." Back into Chinese airspace. The whole ploy was an early attempt by Bush & his coup to cause an international incident, to support the StarWars boondoggle. Then the joyriding Halliburton reps flew the submarine into the Japanese kids. And then Bush cut open the pristine Na'Pali coastline, and put in silos. "And oh, by the way you rolled in on Soc's question but still avoided answering it yourself. I don't want to know what Geneva thinks. What do YOU think?" It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of longstanding US law.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 11:08:22 PM EST
    Paul, you crack me up. If the P-3 was over international waters, it was in international airspace. I'm curious how you seem to know with such a surety that the P-3 was in Chinese airspace. Is the source of that claim the same source that would have us believe our P-3 chased down and ate a Chinese fighter? My statement about the Chinese pilot tagging our plane was based on the damage on the FRONT of the P-3. It's called "bumping" -- you go under a jet, fly up abruptly, and cause the victim to fly through your jet wash -- like on Top Gun. It's a harrassment technique. Mind you, the fighter was armed -- if he wanted to bring the jet down he could've easily done so without using the tail of his plane to do it. Now, I suppose you may buy the Chinese line that the P-3 chased down and rammed the little guy. I don't know how much you know about aircraft, but we're talking the aeronautical version of a school bus vs a ferrari. A P-3 isn't that maneuverable, not to mention the fact that it doesn't have the speed to catch a fighter. The only way a fighter can wind up on the nose of a P-3 is for him to be there on purpose. Thank you for expounding on Baldwin and supporting my point about the futility of appeasing aggressors. Now as far as the P-3 incident being used to justify Star Wars, when we started crewing submarines with Halliburton employees, or when we started putting missile silos on the Na'pali coast...you lost me there. And once again my question goes unanswered. I'm asking you to think for yourself and give me an opinion on "just" war and justifiable use of military force. I believe you've accused people on the Right of not thinking for themselves -- all I'm asking is that you show how it's done.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#46)
    by yank in london on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 03:37:50 AM EST
    There is certainly a great deal of irony in China's criticism. However it is certain that the US no longer has, if indeed it ever had, the moral high ground. Indeed it is not only China that has expressed criticism. The UK recently signed a new and extremely one-sided extradition arrangement with the US which no longer requires the US to present prima facie evidence when requesting extradition. (The UK however must still present such evidence when extraditing US citizens to the UK!) In a current British case the US is seeking extradition of one Babar Ahmad on various terrorism charges. His solicitors are contesting this request on human rights grounds among other concerns. They suggest that there is nothing to prohibit his transfer to military jurisdiction (where the death penalty could apply) or to a third state. Extradition from the UK to face the death penalty is still barred. The judge in the case has said that there is a case to answer and that these issues must be resolved. more here...

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#47)
    by soccerdad on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 04:39:00 AM EST
    trueblue, it easy to sit and pontificatabout "just" war. people have spent tons of paper and hours having that philospohical debate. However, as an example WWII was a war worth fighting. The philosophical debate about a war being just many times ignores the costs and consequences. Yes one can rail on about aggression etc, but at the end of the day the decision to go to war is a political one and a practical one in addition to it being "just". Men will be killed resources expended etc, so the question of "is it worth it" is also a valid one. My question was a simple practical one. What are you proposing to do? How you going to do it? and what are the consequences?

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 04:41:17 AM EST
    "Posted by trueblue: "Paul, you crack me up." No, you just don't read very well. "If the P-3 was over international waters, it was in international airspace." At what point? "I'm curious how you seem to know with such a surety that the P-3 was in Chinese airspace." No one who relies on news reports knows for sure, including you. "Now, I suppose you may buy the Chinese line that the P-3 chased down and rammed the little guy." Why would you suppose that? I suppose that the spy plane was over Chinese airspace, though the incident took place over the ocean. And I suppose that specifically because before they decided to squash the Korean negotiation that Clinton had begun, they apparently decided that an incident with the OTHER NUCLEAR POWER in the area would do the trick. Getting the country to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in a missile defense, in an era when the clearcut danger is an H-bomb in a shipping container requires some of Bush's patented conspiracy. Especially when, like Bush, you intend not to spend a cent on protecting the ports. Bush also gave the green light to allowing Mexican trucks across the entire US. They plan on inspecting THREE PERCENT of those trucks. So Starwars might even work, and Denver could disappear from the map because terrorists loaded a truck in the mountains of Mexico, and just tooled across the border. Thanks, George! "Thank you for expounding on Baldwin and supporting my point about the futility of appeasing aggressors." If that's how you read contradiction, that's your problem. Appeasement is NORMAL to democracy. But the British did far more than appease Hitler. They actually considered him to be a bulwark against Stalin. That's equivalent to the US thinking that, say, Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban would make a good bulwark against the Russians. "Now as far as the P-3 incident being used to justify Star Wars, when we started crewing submarines with Halliburton employees, or when we started putting missile silos on the Na'pali coast...you lost me there." There are missile silos for the Starwars boondoggle on the precious and previously pristine Na'Pali coast of Kauai. And the joyriding Starwars contractors who put them there killed 25 or so Japanese students by sinking their boat by ramming it during a spectacularly illegal manuever. "And once again my question goes unanswered. I'm asking you to think for yourself and give me an opinion on "just" war" You just don't get that you're on a law site, do you? The definition of just war is a matter of law. If you want to collect opinions about just war, why don't you start a club, or find a thread in any way about that. Bush's invasion was ILLEGAL. It was certainly not in conformity with any law, other than the law of the jungle.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 05:42:20 AM EST
    Paul: Dude, international airspace exists over international waters. The two aren't staggered. As far as an elaborate scheme to derail Korean talks, I can only say, "What?" That's quite a reach, especially when considering how often North Korea walks out on talks on its own. You still didn't answer why the Chinese pilot attempted to "bring down" the P-3 by dragging his tail in a suicidal manner across the P-3s nose and engines -- especially when he and his wingman were carrying live missiles. I, for one, believe it was international airspace. How much do you know about airborne surveillance doctrine and procedures? I'm not being sarcastic, because it's an area I'm pretty familiar with. I'm trying to get an idea of your education in this area so I can explain it. Our clearcut danger is an H-bomb in a shipping container? How can that be if none of our enemies have WMD programs? Trust me, appeasement is NOT normal to democracy. If it were, we'd be having this discussion in German, or perhaps Japanese, or even Russian. As far as the missile silos on the Na Pali coast of Kauai, how is that possible when the missiles are still in development? Besides, grab a globe and piece of string and plot trajectories to North America from China or North Korea -- they go nowhere near Hawaii and defensive missiles based there would be ineffective. Oh, and the Navy still hasn't outsourced its submarines to Halliburton. They're still crewed by Navy sailors. And as I recall, the sailor that directed that maneuver (which was legal by the way) was fired in a big way for not clearing traffic properly beforehand. And also, We're not on a law site. This is a site for political discussion. And so, as usual, we're back to the just war discussion. Just war is not a universal legal definition -- it's an ethical and moral debate that's gone on since at least the time of Thomas Aquinas. I've asked your opinion, and you've spent more time explaining why you don't answer than if you had actually related an opinion. I'm starting to wonder if you're capable of analyzing this and coming up with something on your own.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 05:56:55 AM EST
    Soccerdad: Thanks for voicing your opinion on the just war concept. Personally, I feel war MAY be justified when critical national interests are at stake and all other means (i.e. diplomatic, economic, and informational) have failed. Even then, one must consider the cost in blood and treasure against the gains to be achieved. Karl Von Clausewitz stated that war is an extension of politics by other means. I'm not advocating war with China. But I am advocating being aware of China's stated goals and not burying our heads in the sand about it. China, IMO, firmly believes they have a right to Taiwan, and I don't think they'll be easily disuaded. The question is what to do about it. I believe we should offer incentives and political pressure to help push China and Taiwan toward peaceful resolution. This could perhaps be done by convincing China to grant Taiwan a certain degree of economic and political autonomy while still bringing it into the fold -- similar to Hong Kong. More joint trade agreements, travel arrangements, between the two would also thaw things. There are a lot of carrots that can be put out there to help make peaceful solutions worthwhile. However, there are sticks to consider as well. For example, selling Taiwan technology to counter China's military buildup. The biggest trump card we could throw, and the most aggressive, would be to grant Taiwan diplomatic recognition. That's a big hammer, though. Just having Bush have dinner with Taiwan's president would send enormous shockwaves. If everything fails and China decides to use military force to invade Taiwan, we'll have a hard decision to make: go to Taiwan's aid or turn the other way, let them fall, and deal with a China that may look at the West the way Germany did in early 1939. That would be an incredibly tough call to make.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#51)
    by soccerdad on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 10:51:31 AM EST
    Justpaul, I agree with you on the substance of your reply. Well stated. It has to be a slow cautious, well thought out approach. Like you said in the end their will be hard decisions. I think in the end, the long term interest of the US will be served by developing and maintaining a mutualy beneficial relationship. One would hope that its possible.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 01:07:52 PM EST
    Trueblue, tell me what has been said by the US administration for the last 3 years regarding Taiwan, especially what was said when Taiwan was considering complete annexation from the mainland. The US did not support Taiwanese independence and cautioned them to move the referendum off of the ballot. China poses a threat, Iran, Iraq, Syria, hell the entire middle east does not pose a threat hence our strong involvement. I am with you, China needs to let go of Taiwan but they will not as this and past administrations FEAR China.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 05:51:17 PM EST
    Jlvngstn: We've been dancing on the Taiwan issue for years, as have the Taiwanese. My opinion certainly doesn't reflect administration policy. IMO, what we've seen to date on the issue has been a policy of using the Taiwan issue to extract concessions on other issues. That's why there's no apparent consistency to our policy. I think that in a perfect world, the Taiwanese would like to be reunited with the mainland, because cultural ties go just too deep. But they look across the strait at what's going on in China, and it terrifies them. Yet they dare not say the word "independence" too loudly because China has stated that would mean war. I don't think we fear China so much as the cost. Our military still outclasses theirs by magnitudes, but there's thousands of miles of ocean between us and China's an enormous country. It's unreasonable to assume we could launch an amphibious invasion without an enormous national effort. So we'd be left with trying to use air and sea assets to help keep Chinese forces off the island. Personally, I suspect a lot of the anti-US sentiment around bases in Korea, Japan, and the Philippines (old issue) may be underwritten by China to try to reduce our strategic capabilities in the region. But that's just a suspicion. On the other hand, if China took Taiwan by force I don't know if we could afford NOT to engage. It's reasonable to expect that Japan would remilitarize. 60 years of pacifism is just a coat of paint over hundreds of years of bushido. Japan is pacifist because it can be, but there's a split in its conscience -- if it felt threatened, there's not a doubt in my mind that they'd revert to a culture that's deeply ingrained, and they'd be a force to be reckoned with. We're already seeing discussion of that over Korea's nuclear and missile programs. If China forcibly annexed a country of 22 million people, it'd be far worse. It's a real porcupine. So we all just live with the status quo hoping it won't change. But China doesn't think that way.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 07:02:30 PM EST
    and Paul - Note that you are in LA, which, despite its internal politics, is sure to be a high priority target.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 07:35:17 PM EST
    Paul The Aegis ballistic missile defense system is 5/6 in testing right now (look it up). Thats pretty damn good. Would you rather have a 5/6 chance of surviving a nuclear holocaust, or not?

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 08:16:16 PM EST
    Paul: Sorry you lost your job as the Iraqi Information Minister. But the "disarmed" Iraqi Army put up a heck of a fight when we crossed the border. I asked you for a reference for the Johns Hopkins study: nada. I asked you for an opinion on what you considered just war and justifiable use of military force: couldn't do it. I didn't ask you to explain why you felt the Chinese pilot attempted to bring down the plane. I asked you why he attempted to bring down the plane by dragging his tail across its nose and engines rather than using his missiles. You can't even repeat a statement correctly. You didn't answer the question, either. I say again, you seem incapable of original thought or even simply re-typing a quote that's right in front of you. All you can do is regurgitate extremist rhetoric. I admired your performance during the war when you were on Al Jazeera, because it was truly entertaining. But if you're going to try to be a political analyst in this country, you're going to have to learn how to answer questions, form your own opinions, quote people verbatim, and form arguments that at least follow the principles of deductive logic.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 08:20:11 PM EST
    Pot meet kettle

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 10:32:32 PM EST
    BTW, folks, US and Japanese officials met in Washington last month, and afterward they issued a statement listing "a peaceful resolution" to the Taiwan problem as a strategic objective. China has since come out and condemned the statement, and warned the US and Japan not to consider Taiwan in their security concerns because Taiwan belongs to China and it's an internal matter. China then went on and restated its "indisputable" historic claim on the uninhabited Daioyu islands in the East China Sea -- which are Japanese territory. Does anyone else see the strategic dangers here? Chinese action against Taiwan would create an immediate security dilemma for Japan -- especially if China is laying claim to Japanese territory. It's not unreasonable to foresee Japan tipping to the right and rearming. It has already renamed the "Japanese Self Defense Forces" as the "Japanese Military." It has deployed warships to the ME, where they've been spotted flying the rising sun battle flag -- the same one they flew in WWII. Symbolism is a HUGE issue over there. If the Japanese Prime Minister visits the Yasukuni Shrine to Japan's war dead, it sends enormous political shockwaves through both Japan and China. If Japan looked to its security and started rearming, you can imagine China would use that as an excuse to accelerate their already double-digit arms buildup. An Asian arms race between the world's 2nd largest economy and the world's most populated nation would have serious implications for all of us.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 10:38:08 PM EST
    Forgot to mention the pacifists in Japan have been losing ground because they've always argued that pacifism keeps them safe. Emerging threats to Japan from Korea and China are suggesting to the Japanese population that threats will arise regardless of how pacifist you are, and after a point pacifism starts to look like surrender.

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 10:42:15 PM EST
    Paul: If you're going to log in as one of your other personalities (i.e. "la") to try to make it sound like you have more support for your position, at least try to make it sound like it's someone else. Aside from the fact that "Paul in LA" and "la" are eerily similar, you used those exact same words to me in another thread over a similar issue. [Ed. That wasn't Paul.]

    Re: China Blasts U.S. Over Human Rights (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 10:46:16 PM EST
    "osted by trueblue: "Dude, international airspace exists over international waters. The two aren't staggered." Never said they were. "As far as an elaborate scheme to derail Korean talks, I can only say, "What?" That's quite a reach, especially when considering how often North Korea walks out on talks on its own." The funding of Starwars, and the LACK of funding of port security tells you all you need to know about Bush's priorities. $300 Billion in Iraq...oil companies posting 400% profits...gas about to jump forty cents at the pump. Ken Lay still walking around. You don't do the analysis, you just do the politics. "You still didn't answer why the Chinese pilot attempted to "bring down" the P-3" Yes, I did. Because the spy plane had been flying over Chinese airspace. I don't believe the Chinese pilot intended to crash his plane. [remainder deleted due to length]