USA are Boyscouts Compared to the Peoples Republic of China and other Regimes

[dirtydan]

1- The reason for war in Iraq was to free the people from a dictatorship.

2- According to you, China is worse than Iraq.

3- Why doesn't Bush attack China to free people and instead tries to develop even more trade?

Good points JFK!

 

[dirtydan]

Why does the US consider Cuba so dangerous and evil that it has to maintain a total economic embargo against them? The PRC has nuclear weapons, exports missile technology and other weapons, but instead of an embargo America has decided to outsource as much manufacturing as they can to PRC.
Everthing at Wal-mart is made in China, could money have any influence on this?

Iraq: doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction

Saudi Arabia: does have weapons of mass destruction.

From who did the Saudis get them from? China.

 

[dirtydan]

Damn,

and who supported Saddam Hussein's regime??

Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

 

[Fudd]

Boycott China Clarification

How cum I can't get any support for this boycott?

Is it because you think I'm asking you to boycott this made in China product too?

No, just boycott the electronics, clothing etc..
Can't I convince just one person here?

 

[barrys]

You may want to check your sources. Since the Chinese so called "Liberated" the people of Tibet they have tried their best to exterminate the people and culture of Tibet. Over 1.2 million Tibetans have died with over 300,000 tortured or executed. They still engage in manditory sterizlation and population transfer. Today 1 in 4 in the TAR is Chinese. They have destroyed over 2000 temples. All of China's nuclear tests are conducted in Tibet. I could go on and on.

As far as the Dalai Lama goes, today in Tibet it is illegal to speak his name or have any printed reference to him. I was in Lhasa two years ago and the biggest building next to the Potala was a prison. Our guide, a local Tibetan told us displaying the Tibetan flag in public could lead to sumary exicution.

If the Americans killed 1.2 million Iraqis and destroyed 2000 mosques we would have world war 3. We've just learned to turn a blind eye to China.

What you're saying isn't really relevant respond to what I wrote. I was responding to the question of "occupation". And that Tibet has been part of China long before the US became a nation. I did not try to prove that the Chinese has been very nice to the Tibetan. Indeed, the current leader Wu was a credited by the party for using the military to suppress western China.

Dalai went away while invited to be part of the ruling party was his choice, no one forced him to leave. Seperating from China was not something that the CCP would allow. Tough penalties doesn't just apply exclusively and discriminately towards the Tibetans. If anyone practicing Falun Gong or burning chinese flag in any part of China they will probably get the the same punishment. That is the Chinese Law. Just like it is illegal to staff the Star and Stripes upside down(except you probably get fined instead of air- conditioned jail time?).

There's nothing the US could do to China really as far as human rights is concerned. The whole war in Iraq wasn't really about the freedom or welfare of the Iraqi. It was about removing an anti American regime. It was about finding a new way to use and produce more weapons using the taxpayers money, and it was also about the oil, and installing a pupet which will do what the American dictate. China provide a huge market opportunity for the US, lots of American company are making their products in China paying less in cost at the expense of exploiting chinese workers, with that in mind, American doesn't have much real power when they want to talk to China about Human Rights.

 

[2.5Ggtv6]

What I'm saying is that justifying American actions and excesses by pointing at another, worse offender, is something akin to Paul Bernardo claiming he's not so bad, because he only killed three people while Clifford Olson killed more than a dozen. By lowering our standards, we cheapen all those high ideals that we hold so dear. Also, it's hypocritical to make claims that the invasion of Iraq was justifiable because Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. If that's the case, why are brutal dictators of oil rich countries the only ones who need to be deposed? As for your idea that he needed to be deposed because he posed a threat to the USA, its allies, and his neighbours, that's a load of BS. His capabilities were reduced to almost nil. He could terrorise only parts of his own country, and could do nothing against his neighbours.

Reasons for Invasion of Generic Communist or otherwise Evil regime: Brutal to its citezens, pose threat to others, undemocratically elected.

Reasons for Invasion of Iraq: Same as above but they have oil and they also hate the united states.

Think of it another way. Assuming that you acknowledge that the United states, even with all its faults, is not inherently evil, and is generrally a pretty good country as countries go. Unfortunetly we are very dependant on oil, and America's supply of oil is quite small. Iraq controlls a lot of oil and its former government hated the Americans. This situation makes for a questionable supply of oil for our economy as well as that of the United states. If Iraq, under Saddam Hussein was allowed to freely export oil and continue to build their military forces, they would also be in a osition to destabalize the other oil producing countries in the region ie. Kuwait. Do you wish for the Americans' oil suply to run out? Do you wish for their economy to go down the shitter? Which option is better; A major decline in American power and a huge increase in Saddam Hussein's power or the removal of Saddam Hussein and his control over a vital resource? And I know that Iraq was not freely producing oil before the invasion. However, having little or no oil production in Iraq was not a good thing either as it lessens our supply. The political situation in Iraq was such that even with Saddam dead, a similar regime would take his place without outside help, and then it would have been the same situation again with an anti-american government in control of vast oil reserves that are needed by not only America but the rest of the developed world.

 

[yogi]

Next invasion: Saudi

"Reasons for Invasion of Generic Communist or otherwise Evil regime: Brutal to its citezens, pose threat to others, undemocratically elected.

"Reasons for Invasion of Iraq: Same as above but they have oil and they also hate the united states."

The US, especially the Bushies, have an extremely cozy relationship with the Saudi royal family. Saudi Arabia is a brutal repressive dictatorial regime. As a result, most of their people hate us. It's no coincidence that more 9-11 terrorists came from Saudi than any other. So if we were truly fighting the "war on terrorism" by toppling governments, Saudi should by rights be next on the list, if we're so hot on promoting "freedom".

 

[2.5Ggtv6]

"Reasons for Invasion of Generic Communist or otherwise Evil regime: Brutal to its citezens, pose threat to others, undemocratically elected.

"Reasons for Invasion of Iraq: Same as above but they have oil and they also hate the united states."

The US, especially the Bushies, have an extremely cozy relationship with the Saudi royal family. Saudi Arabia is a brutal repressive dictatorial regime. As a result, most of their people hate us. It's no coincidence that more 9-11 terrorists came from Saudi than any other. So if we were truly fighting the "war on terrorism" by toppling governments, Saudi should by rights be next on the list, if we're so hot on promoting "freedom".

Unfortunetly we need Saudi Oil. Therefore we need the Saudi royal family. Thats the way things have turned out. What would you have the Americans do? De-throne the Saudi Royals and just give all control to the Saudi people? That would not only cause a big civil war and destabalize a country that has nuclear weapons, but it would cut America and probably the rest of the Western nations off from the world largest source of oil.

Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship yes, but it is not in any way as brutal as Saddams former government, or of most other dictatorships in the world. This does not justify the Saudi royals regime, however it does put them far down on the list of major polital interferene for the united states.

 

[BushPilot]

2.5gtv6, you have clearly illustrated why most of the world hates the US. Whether or not your opinions are widely held by the American population, the fact is that much of the outside world believes that it is. In your two previous posts, you have made it clear that the good of the USA and the good of the world are, in your mind, inextricably linked. You also stated that since Iraq had something that you needed, you were justified in taking it by force. Give your head a shake, man.

 

[Fudd]

You've got to admire the man. Even when face with the brutality against his people he remains true to his peaceful ideology, and mutual respect even to the the Chinese students


The 1989 Nobel Peace Prize

The Norwegian Nobel Committee's decision to award the 1989 Peace Prize to His Holiness the Dalai Lama won worldwide praise and applause, with exception of China. The CommitteeÕs citation read, "The Committee wants to emphasize the fact that the Dalai Lama in his struggle for the liberation of Tibet consistently has opposed the use of violence. He has instead advocated peaceful solutions based upon tolerance and mutual respect in order to preserve the historical and cultural heritage of his people."

On 10 December 1989, His Holiness accepted the prize on the behalf of oppressed everywhere and all those who struggle for freedom and work for world peace and the people of Tibet. In his remarks he said, "The prize reaffirms our conviction that with truth, courage and determination as our weapons, Tibet will be liberated. Our struggle must remain nonviolent and free of hatred."

He also had a message of encouragement for the student-led democracy movement in China. "In China the popular movement for democracy was crushed by brutal force in June this year. But I do not believe the demonstrations were in vain, because the spirit of freedom was rekindled among the Chinese people and China cannot escape the impact of this spirit of freedom sweeping in many parts of the world. The brave students and their supporters showed the Chinese leadership and the world the human face of that great nations."

 

[2.5Ggtv6]

2.5gtv6, you have clearly illustrated why most of the world hates the US. Whether or not your opinions are widely held by the American population, the fact is that much of the outside world believes that it is. In your two previous posts, you have made it clear that the good of the USA and the good of the world are, in your mind, inextricably linked. You also stated that since Iraq had something that you needed, you were justified in taking it by force. Give your head a shake, man.

Sorry but that is how it works. When it comes down to it, would you rather saddam have the oil or America? What would you have done bushpilot? I have stated what I think to be more or less the right move by the United States, but I have not seen you give an alternative from you. If you have posted one in another thread then please link to it.

"you have clearly illustrated why most of the world hates the US."
Bushpilot, unfortunetly not everyone in the world is equal, Some are on top, some are on the bottom. For the most part, those on the bottom are usually the angry ones. Thats just the way it is, and the way it has always been since the dawn of civilisation. The U.S. is at the top of the pile right now, and like every other group that has filled that same spot, they will fight to stay there. Can you blame them? Can you say that you would give up and let another take your spot and dominate you?

 

[timec98]

Unfortunetly we need Saudi Oil. Therefore we need the Saudi royal family. Thats the way things have turned out. What would you have the Americans do? De-throne the Saudi Royals and just give all control to the Saudi people? That would not only cause a big civil war and destabalize a country that has nuclear weapons, but it would cut America and probably the rest of the Western nations off from the world largest source of oil.

Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship yes, but it is not in any way as brutal as Saddams former government, or of most other dictatorships in the world. This does not justify the Saudi royals regime, however it does put them far down on the list of major polital interferene for the united states.

Saudi Arabia a dictatorship Uhhh no, Saudi Arabia is a monarchy. Saudi Arabia has nuclear weapons Uhhh no, Saudi Arabia is not in the nuclear boys club. The content of the rest of your posts in this thread is equally confusing

.

 

[luckydog71]

You could rephrase the question as "When it comes down to it, would you rather those tree-hugging potheads in BC have the water, or the lawns of rich Californians". It is already being asked, actually.

woody, that is a softball question. I only want the "tree-hugging potheads in BC" to have sufficient water to drowned in.

If we continue with our current environmental policy I think we will cause sufficient global warming so the rain falling in BC will fall in California. Then the BC pot heads dying of thirst in the dark.

 

[luckydog71]

Sorry woody, I did not mean to make fun of a situation that you obviously take very seriously.

I just find it very difficult to understand why Canadians would sign an agreement that contained a clause they did not like unless they got something in return they wanted more.

Maybe the Auto Pact that was incorporated into the agreement. How many auto plants would be in Ontario and Quebec if the Auto Pact had not been signed years ago and then rolled into NAFTA? If it wasn’t the auto agreement then I am sure they traded BC water for something else.

If Ottawa needed to sell out BC water to get plants in Ont. and Que. They would have done it in a heart beat. BC has no political power at all. When was the last time anyone east of Winnipeg needed to stay up late to find out who won the federal election?

What surprises me even more is you would think it was the Californians fault because the Canadian government did not do a good job of negotiations.

Please don’t get me wrong, I would be the last person to jump to the defense of self centered, hypocritical Californians, just in this case your displeasure seems to be misdirected.

 

[wolverine]

With all these cattle and softwood lumber bans, I'm rather surprised that there still is a free trade agreement.

 

[Fudd]

Boy this thread really gone of topic.

 

[Fudd]

Demonstration in Dublin against Chinese premier Mr Zhu Rongji

Well at least the Irish are a with the Tibetians,