I'm not making anywhere near such a grandiose argument. I think the whole Mandate of Heaven thing is overblown. The bottom line is, Dictator A is smart; he enforces good policies, economics and what have you; and of course rules with an iron fist. Dictator B is an idiot; he enforces bad policies, economics and what have you. Country A through Dictator A prospers whereas Country B lingers. Despite the polar opposite results, the motivation of both dictators are exactly the same. Dictator B isn't out there saying let me screw my country just for the hell of it. After all, if Country B gets an extra dollar, Dictator B (along with the rest of the citizens of Country B) is a dollar richer. Of course, I'm applying the number 1 rule of economics here, which is "people are logical." Anyone who comes in and tells you that Freedom Lover C/God/idealist from Country C has more to gain or lose through the prosperity or destitution of Countries A or B than the citizens of those countries (including their respective dictators) is bullsh1ting.
MFW loves himself some Commie dictators. This is why China is the most powerful, wealthy nation the Earth has ever known... their smart, super efficient Communist dictatorships.
No I am talking about comparing what the PRC is doing in Africa to what the British did to China. Until the PRC forces Africans to allow Chinese merchants to sell drugs and forces an African country to hand over ports to PRC rule then those might be comparable.
Sorry I didn't mean to put words in your mouth but it sounded like that was what you were talking about. The problem though is that you are presuming that dictators will act in a rational manner when clearly most times they don't. Consider a Duvalier who deliberately looted his country or an Amin who deliberately massacred his own people. In history the exception is of dictators who have done well for the country rather than the norm. I think you are missing the point here. Obviously citizens of any country have as much to gain or lose from the prosperity of the country but only in a democracy does a citizen have a direct say in the leadership of the country.
It may not be completely analogous but it's far more imperialistic than anything the U.S. is doing the China. You have people here screaming "Imperialists" for the U.s. pushing civil rights and then look at what China is doing in Africa.
China's black eye in Africa is that they're apolitical with whom to patronize. War criminals, despots, and banana republics are fair game. We b**** about it because it runs counter to the West's paternalist "carrot and stick" sanctions policy, but both have its plusses and minuses. Those states gain because China pours billions into building infrastructure on undeveloped lands. They put poor natives to work and infuse money in their economies. For us, there's no direct proof that these sanctions actually work against the dictators it was designed to punish. The lowest rungs of society are usually the direct victims whereas China's actions does benefit their public to some extent even if it comes at the expense of more legitimacy and more stability for an oppressive regime. It's not a cut and dried issue. At that level of diplomacy, both sides are pretty much playing God to a poorer impoverished state.
For what? Because he won a freakin' Nobel Peace Prize? Because the Norwegian Parliament has sent a message to China? Or because the U.S. has said free Liu or else? The Nobel Peace Prize at it stands is a joke. What Alfred Nobel stated in his will is that the Peace Prize should be awarded to the person who "...shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Do you and does anybody see "democracy," "free speech," and all that good **** in this will? Pray tell what Liu has said and done fits the description or interpretation of Nobel's will? The Peace Prize at times has been controversial and dubious. Many people in the U.S. and around world thought last year's award was not a wise choice. For others, the Peace Prize was awarded to former slave owner/on-going separatist (Dalai Lama), terrorist (Arafat, ask Jews), war criminal (Kissinger, ask South Americans). But the joke isn't limited to the above. In recent declassified Japanese diplomatic documents, reported by none other than Japanese themselves, Prime Minister Eisaku Sato, who as the first Asian won the 1974 Nobel Peace Prize for working out Japan's three-point nonnuclear policy, asked the United States in 1965 to use its nuclear weapons against China in immediate retaliation should a war break about between that China and Japan. Well, maybe the Norwegians can give the award to the North Korean leader next year. Accepting fund from foreign organization (such as NED) hostile to China and calling for overturning PRC's constitution are darn good evidences to me. If you look at what Charlie Trie, Johnny Chung, John Huang, and Maria Hsia were punished for in the U.S., Liu's conviction and his 11-year sentence term in China are about right. Maybe he wanted to be a martyr? Wish granted. Why would KMT government punish Lu Xun for Ah Q? I don't see the parallel in this regard. But wait, who is showing a sense of moral victory now, PRC or "democracy activists"? You are not suggesting a government has no right to govern so long as it has its own problem? I don't need to be reminded that the rights of individuals are stripped if they are acting as de facto foreign agents which are prohibited by law. Bad mouthing PRC government doesn't necessarily land one in jail. Just recently, homes of antiwar activists in the U.S. were raided by FBI on suspicion of ties to some pro-Palestinian organization. Well, maybe the U.S. is not a good example for guaranteed personal freedom? If anything, Liu's assessment of PRC government is one-sided, his vision and approach of democracy and universal rights are naive, fanciful and impractical. Worse, the timing of Charter '08 is ill-advised.
You will make a freaking good CCP prosecutor. Too bad you are here. Peaceful calling for basic human rights on the internet, supported by 300 some prominent Chinese intellectuals, is overturning PRC's constitution. PRC is a paper tiger if it can be overturned that easily. Point me a PRC law that says getting funded by a foreign organization hostile to China, absent substantial conducts is a crime. Pure and simple blogging on the internet of a political speech is not a crime, no matter how you spin it.
Wow, I thought I would never see the day that MFW would criticize the Chinese government. MFW, what you have done makes me believe in miracles, man.
The Nobel Committee is independent of the Norwegian government. He encouraged students during Tiananmen to respond peacefully and convinced many to leave prior to the crackdown. He has consistently pushed for a peaceful and less confrontational stances towards the CCP. Something from what I gather has caused his standing to fall among some dissident groups. You might not agree with Liu but by all accounts he is a very peaceful guy.
The NED is a dispicable neo-con organization that could give a crap about "democracy" and uses it to push an imperialist agenda that is deeply incompatible with real democracy. However, the issue of democracy and human rights goes beyond those jerks. It does raise the issue of whether Liu is a tool, just seeking help from whereever without being too careful where he gets his money or what is going on.. I would tend to trust the Nobel Peace folks, though the issue of the bs NED is troubling.
It seems like a lot of people in this thread have an idea that the chinese government = bad or communism = evil. IMO freedom of speech is an important human right, but not the most important. To me the right to a stable society, growing economy, medical and education along with safety are more important. In this stage of time, China has bigger priorities than freedom of speech. For the past 200 years, for one reason or another, whether its the failure of the Qing dynasty or foreign invasion (both the opium war and sino-japan war) or even internal fighting has caused China to suffer in terms of social instability. Even after the Communist part came into power, China has experienced a significant amount of social instability. Only since about the 70s has China really began to stabilise and not until the 80s did china really start to develop. Is democracy good? Definitely. Freedom of Speech? Great. but pushing for it now and creating an instability in the country? no. For me everything have to come with time. Peace for china is more important than anything right now and I am not faulting the government for it. The MAIN purpose for any government, especially in a developing country, is to ensure economic growth. A few weeks ago, there was a thread about how china is not a world power. That is exactly correct. It is important for the average Chinese to be able to live life in high standards. Yes freedom of speech affects living standards, but isn't electricity, clean water, good education and medical care more important? There is still a significant amount of people in china who are still without basic necessities like power and a good education. how is pushing for 'human rights' in terms of speech and voting rights appropriate with the majority of the country is still living below the average living standards? The world may view his actions as worthy of the 'peace prize' but for the chinese who are still living in poverty, they don't care. Shouldn't the peace prize be based on a person's contributions to the peace keeping in his/her country than the world views? Why do you think China has taken so much crap in the past years (eg Diao Yu islands where japan has coast guards ships and china don't)? You really think china does not have the power to go to war? It is more important than anything to secure stability and economic growth. His actions are great, but no matter how good a thing is, it has to be done at the CORRECT time. IMO right now china is not there yet. 50 years later when the living standards of China has caught up with the rest of the world, maybe then China can become a democratic country. But right now, the Communist Party is doing a damn great job. with only 7% of arable land and about 20% of the world's population, the government has led the country to the fastest developing economy in the world. that is a damn hard job to do. Its not easy to lead that much people. Don't get me wrong, I love democracy. But why change something if its doing a great job? So for me, his actions came at a wrong time. Yes he wanted peaceful withdrawal from the protest in tiananmen square. IMO, he shouldn't have been there in the first place. again its the wrong time. His intent and purpose is good, but by promoting instability at that period of time, especially with the Russian diplomat coming during those few days, its the WRONG time to do it. I apologise for the long post :grin:
Aren't the "PRO-PRC" crowd brainwashed by the CCP and their minds stalled up with nationalistic bullshiit. This doesn't make any sense does it?
You know, I was thinking to myself that if CometsWin ever showed up, this WILL be the post. Heck, I even got couple of the keywords right. Commie, dictator, love, MFW, in various orders. In other words I expected CometsWin to make a complete ass out of himself. One of those days I'd like to be surprised. No apologies needed, but once again, my statement wasn't nearly that grandiose. As far as dictatorship and democracies go in the short-run, we've beaten that horse to death. In that regard the only thing I want to highlight is that the history of democracy is also dotted with atrocities against one's own people. Doesn't matter. My point was and remains, that even Duvalier had more skin in the game whereas the rest of us just didn't give a damn. But if it does bother you that much, alright, how about this: Probabilistically, even a tin-pot dictator is more LIKELY to have the best interest of his people in mind vis-a-vis a foreign power. Look, when it comes to free speech or democracy, I think both you and I have been around long enough to know my view on the subject. Furthermore, I think you do know that I perfectly understand your position, as well as that of the CCP. But that is not really the issue here now is it? The issue is the rule of law. If it is the view of the CCP that those rights as outlined in the Chinese Constitution is inconsistent with their vision for China and the interests of its people, it needn't promise them. But since it did, it must uphold them. I don't really get this position. Sorry, I really don't. Martyr for whom? Martyr for the NED for for China? Conceivably is it possible that Liu is a true patriot, however misguided? What's even more important is I didn't expect this sort of response from you. You are Chinese. You've dealt with morons such as Sweet Lou, Sammy Fisher, etc, who called you what, anywhere from brainwashed, to Borg drones to Chinese internet police? If there was anyone that should have understood the follies of blanket accusations, I thought it was you. If there was anyone that understood the need for a nuance argument, it was you. For example, I used Chai Ling as an example in my previous post. I for example, think that Wei Jingsheng is a scumbag, but I still hold him to a far higher esteem to Chai Ling. By the same token, I'd rather Liu didn't take money from the NED, but you know, realistically, it's a global world, some of funding is likely to come somewhere else in the world. If there were any improprieties in Liu's dealing with the NED, by all means, throw the book at him. My problem is that this whole "subverting the government" law, vaguely defined, is rapidly become a blanket gag law in the PRC. Democracy or not has nothing to do with it. Once again, I don't know Liu personally nor can I read his mind. Perhaps the Chinese court and you are right, but I'd rather see more evidence. You know and I know that I don't give a rats ass about moral victories. Upholding the rule of law in China benefits China and its citizens. There's no moral victory there. It's plain costs and benefits. Not at all. The CCP is the legitimate government of the People's Republic of China. Its legitimacy isn't in question. But as the the legitimate government of the People's Republic of China, they need to apply the Chinese Constitution, which is set out by themselves, as is their duty, as is stated in the Chinese Constitution that they need to apply, set out by themselves. This is me you're arguing with here. This is not some little twerp at HRW. I don't give a **** what some organization in Norway, or some prize in Switzerland or whomever think. You don't have to pull the US did that line. I'm not the US government, acting on faux moral superiority lecturing you on what to do as a political tool. Most of the activists in China with various issues anywhere from land rights to mining safety to the environment the majority of whom never gets hold, aren't around making moral double-standards. And yes, many of them are wrong, but the vast majority of them aren't being funded by foreign organization XYZ. The majority of them do have China and themselves', being its citizens, best interest in mind. That's what I'm telling you. I'm telling you I think there needs to be more rule of law in China and better transparency. It's got nothing to do really with democracy now or later or never. I'm not sure why you so casually dismiss such a notion, especially since the rule of law is so quintessentially Chinese up to until 1,000 CE or so, anywhere from the legalism during the Qin and Han Dynasties to the 刑赏者天下之刑赏,非陛下之刑赏也,岂得以喜怒专之 in the Tang and Song Dynasties. Where did the Chinese people lose their direction along the way? Do you not agree that the absence of rule of law (or at least the perception thereof) caused the exponential rise in vigilante justice over the past 30 years, which is rapidly becoming a problem? Yes, yes and yes. I'll go one step further. I'll agree that democracy, western style, isn't right for China in the short-term (you knew this). I'll also say that if China was to hold free elections tomorrow, the CCP will sweep to landslide victories that aside from finally shutting up idiots like Azadre, no self-respecting political party would dare challenge the CCP for years. But that's not the issue here. As guaranteed by law, Liu is allowed to make those however idiotic comments. After which you have to right to call him a moron.
I think you should hold off on that belief for now. It seems to me that generally the people defending PRC all admit that the PRC at times are evil. Much more so than those bashing the Chinese govt would admit the good things they do. The day you should start believing in miracles is when people start to see other countries in shades of gray rather than black and white. Generally people can see both the good and the bad in their own government, but other countries tend to be held in pretty strict views.
If you were any more full of crap it would be your name, literally. You routinely embarrass yourself on this board with your attitude and name calling, it's just become an accepted part of life... like the sun coming up every day.
No one says the Chinese gov't is evil, it's just a repressive regime that's power hungry and not operating in a humanistic way at all. That's what authoritative gov'ts do - because they have no one to answer to. The Chinese people are still living terribly impoverished lives. India just leaped frog past China in Quality of Life. China is run the way many Tea Party folks want to run America - without any regulation. So what happens is there's a massive amount of toxicity to the products they consume and to their water. Entire villages are decimated by cancer! All of this in the name of progress. Perhaps a gentler China will emerge, and at times they do seem to react to some of the more scandalous activities conducted by a sprawling and massive gov't. But you know what, a lot of that comes from criticism. If the U.S. doesn't put pressure on China about human rights, who will? If the world doesn't care and focus a spotlight on the failures of the PRC and more pointedly, the CCP, who will? It's not a matter of black or white vs. shades of gray, it's a question of some of the folks on here like MFW who just go ape-shiitake on anyone who criticizes the beloved motherland. That's the guy you need to preach to.
Show you're not one, provide evidence for otherwise. People will stop calling it. Crying like a little girl doesn't count.
That's rather funny, considering that I've b1tchslapped you so many times you'd pass as a 500 pounder. I don't call you names. I call you a moron. Little twerps such as yourself call names. I prove that you're a moron. That you hold any grasp or understanding of the real world only pass in your little circle jerk-off sessions.
