[Wash Times] Beijing devoted to weakening 'enemy' U.S., defector says

You missed my quotation marks on colonization, didn't you?

I was merely borrowing the term from SC, but I don't think there was colonialism in the case of the Seven Voyages by Cheng Ho, for reasons I cited from Wikipedia. There were colonizations by other Chinese Empires more than a few centuries ago. This one was not.

 

What was so bad about the Cold War rhetoric? It was right on the money. Thanks to the US winning, much of Eastern Europe is living independently and progressively rather than under the despotic rule of Communist USSR.

 

Isn't the point that US "aggressiveness" leads to more prosperity and independence to the nations we "conquer" rather than what China might to do countries like Taiwan? If China conquers Taiwan, I seriously doubt we'd see democratic elections and an interest to leave ASAP like you see with the US in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

It's not purely economic, it is purely security driven. The US is driven to protect itself, sometimes in ways that have not worked out too well, as in Latin America.

 

Yes and that's why many other countries might feel we are undermining them by giving aid to countries who they consider their opponents or for groups they feel are working against them.

 

Sorry to disagree with Wikipedia but I know some Peranakan who consider themselves descendents of colonists from Cheng Ho's voyages. Also in addition to the tributes that the city states paid they were sometimes required to allow Chinese to emigrate and set up communities. Sort of like how the English colonized India initially.

As for the Han they forcibly subjugated many other people. Historically the Han heartland has never been anything like Modern China or even China during any of the greater dynasties. The Han themselves during the Han, T'ang and Ming Dynasties conquered and colonized other peoples. How do you think they became the majority in most of what is considered China.

 

I would say that had more to do with inherent weaknesses of the Communists economic system. Anyway the type of Coldwar Yellow Menace rhetoric is flat out racists and to my knowledge has yet to liberate anyone.

Anyway my main point is that if we are really driven by our dedication to freedom and democracy which is why we hate the Red Chinese why are we doing so much to enrich the CCP by trading with them and even mortgaging our future to them by selling them our bonds?

 

Calling the Communist system weak was one of the main talking points of Cold War rhetoric.

I never said we hate the Red Chinese. We are trading with them because it is a good idea to have them economically prosper. If they become more prosperous then they have a better chance of reforming their political and legal systems.

 

Yes and talking about the "Yellow Hordes" was another major feature of Cold War rhetoric too. So I suppose you feel we should bring that back too.

Anyway Dubious' post made the PRC out as the most despotic tyrannical regime out there. I seem to recall many arguing that its right to invade regimes for that or at the minimum, like Cuba and NK not trade with them. Yet we trade with the PRC and even let them finance our debt. If anything we're undermining our own government by putting us in a weaker longterm economic position vis a vis the PRC rather than the other way around. The CCP is now more powerful than its ever been and at the sametime has greater support among rank and file Chinese than it did years ago because it is delivering on prosperity. If our trade is supposed to bring them down its having the opposite affect so far.

 

That first statement is bizarre. I didn't know supporting the Cold War to make a strong stand against the brutal oppression of communsim meant I had to also be a racist. But, ok.

I think you misread my post, judging from your 2nd graph. I never said we should bring them down. I am saying we should support free trade with them so they develop economically, but at the same time take a strong stand militarily and politically so they are pushed to reform the less proggressive elements of their government. We should certainly not let them invade Taiwan, for example.

 

I think you misread his post. Sishir_Chang rightfully points out that trading with China strengthens their political structure by establishing prosperity throughout China and thus legitamizing their agenda. You stated that trading with China would force a change to democracy. Instead, trading with China has strengthened the largest Communistic state in the world.

As for taking "a strong stand militarily and politically" to reform the government. Are you talking about the overused rhetoric that US constantly uses, all the while investing hundreds of billions of dollars into the Chinese economy? Actions speak louder than words, my friend. Face it, USA doesn't give a d*mn about China's politics as long as they make money. It's the classic Rich vs. Average Joe. The rich says anything and everything as long as they make their money.

 

Of course Taiwan wouldn't have elections. China feels Taiwan is PART OF CHINA. It's like if Hawaii left the US, then 50 years later is reunited with US. Hawaii would just participate in the US elections. Hawaii wouldn't have separate elections nor would the US leave Hawaii.

I mean, really, there are very few parallels between China/Taiwan and US/Iraq.

 

Territorily China experienced expansions as well as contractions, but population wise Han nationals never suffered serious reduction. Ever since Xia Dynasty - dated back to 2000 BC and the first one on record, Han nationals have been the majority in the ever-changing China's history.

 

Hopefully that approach won't be used to handle China. Our decision to deploy midrange nukes in Turkey preceded the Cuban Missle Crisis.

 

True but Hans are the majority in nearly every part of modern China including areas that for most of history were the traditionally the homes of distinctly non-Han people. This isn't a matter that other ethnicities have suffered natural population declines while the Hans have not because otherwise most of modern Chinese territory would be populated sparsely by non-Hans and the traditional Han homeland between the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers would contain almost all of China's population. The Han's have historically expanded and colonized territory of other peoples. They did it under the Han, T'ang, Ming and even now are doing it by settling vast amounts of Han's into Tibet and traditionally Uighar territory.

 

Well your point was defending Cold War rhetoric and the statement "Yellow Hordes" was used quite a bit during the Cold War.

Thanks Martian Man that was exactly what I meant.

 

Big surprise, that article.

Pretty much what we're aiming to do with China. We were all set to make China the next Big Enemy....make no mistake (and don't count out the possibility). We always need an enemy; keeps military appropriations high.

Then Osama came along and gave us the Middle East as a place for us to slap around.

The Project for the Next American Century (or something like that) as written by neo-cons almost a decade ago actually espouses setting up military bases throughout Southeast Asia so that we can keep closer tabs on China and have a much closer jumping-off point should we ever (God forbid) go to war.

I just hope that the reactionaries on either side don't provoke something in the future ("you started it!" "did not!" "did too!" "nyah nyah nyah!")

 

I think using CIA coups has been pretty much a failure, which is why we don't do them much anymore.

 

I don't think economic prosperity necessarily means their political structure will remain the way it is. We really need to trade with China whether we like it or not, they are a developing and opening economy. It doesn't make any sense to try smash them economically. Better to help them become wealthier as a whole. Wealth can often lead to stability and peace.

As we know, embargos on Iraq and Cuba have had mixed results. Sure, it isolates the dictators but it doesn't foster progress.

Your second paragraph is just wrong. Just because we trade with then you think we don't care about politics? Where on earth did you come up with that conclusion? Actually, I would argue that we have MORE influence with them because of trade. The US would oppose China invading Tawian, PERIOD. That is all the evidence you need. Security comes first.

 

Who are you, Dr. Phil? Why are you so worried about what China feels? We need to support Taiwan as a democracy, if we don't, then we take several steps back in the goal to improve China's politics and government.