China Violating UN Embargo, Providing Arms & Training to Sudan Army

I was in Tanzania as part of a Chinese medical team in the late 1970s/early 1980's. That was kind of my gateway out of China. The Chinese intervention in Africa started as part of Mao's Thrid World Front policy in the 1950's. It pretty much stopped during the 1980's when the Chinese reform started. Deng Xiaoping pulled most of the Chinese assistance programs to Africa, including my medical team. I would like to think that the Chinese did some good things in Africa, even though it was for political gains and they never got anything out of it. I know that my team was the only medical team in a poor rural area where most Western medical personnels would never go.

The recent Chinese intervention in Africa, though, is much different. It's for one thing and one thing only: money. China is seeking raw materials from sources that are not blocked by the West, namely, the so-called rogue states in Africa/South America, etc. The power of capitlism is wonderful, after all.

 

Really Sammy? You know, that is comically ironic in so many ways, not the least of which was the Opinion-Central.com pop up that appears when I clicked on the link.

Let's see, an op-ed is "abbreviated from opposite editorial due to the tradition of newspapers placing such materials on the page opposite the editorial page, is similar in form and content to an editorial, but represents the opinion of an individual writer, who is sometimes but not always affiliated with the publication."

Similar opinion to the editorial? Check. Represents the opinion of an individual writer? Check. Not always affiliated with the publication? Check. Sure looks like an op ed except to your moronic ass.

You know what else is interesting about op eds? It's actually stated quite clearly above, that it is an "OPINION," not to be confused with FACTS, which are irrefutable.

Picking apart your silly little anti-China rant of an article would be so easy, but why would I bother when you would just turn tail and run, as always?

But then of course, you don't think this is an op ed piece because you just happen to get your "information" from your buddies at phayul.com and the likes, which quite frequently pass op eds for facts, along with a bunch of lies, exaggeration, distortions and misleading statements.

Therefore, I'm hardly surprised that you can't separate op eds from facts, or a hole in your head for that matter.

 

By the way Sammy, I'm trying to hit your moving target here. Are you conceding that you ran out of moronic rants on the Sudan arms embargo situation and moved on Zambia?

Just making sure so I can keep up.

 

Dude, MFW, calm down with the insults. Constantly calling Sam a "moronic ass" does not help anybody sway to whatever side you're on.

 

You know what man, normally I'd totally agree with you. But you see the thing is, if you know Sammy's history, there really isn't any reasoning with him. There is a deeply ingrained bias that simply won't be changed. He's not the only one either.

So all that you have left to do is call him a moron so he'll go away, even if just for a short while.

Look on the bright side, at least I always show why he's a moron instead of just calling him one.

 

You are always the one who starts the name calling in a D&D thread. Why are you so low?

 

Actually, that is what is known as a metaphor.

A good example of name calling would be:

And what you display is known as selective attention.

 

Aren't you the guy who claimed that "it's a known fact that people from China are racists", multiple times? I am wondering what metaphor would that be. Just want to clarify this.

Quite frankly, after a few years, the kind of "discussion" regarding China brought up by the likes of you and Sammy are no longer interesting. Feel free to carry on with your whining China getting resources or exporting super dangerous trucks.

Have a nice day!

 

Anyone with half a brain knows I was talking about the name callings to the other posters in an internet forum debate. Are you capable of winning a debate without throwing out insults and calling names? If yes, why are you so low to have been using this tactic?

 

The idea that anybody 'wins' anything here and that there is any sort of honest debate here specifically when anybody raises the hackles of the China Internet Defense Force is absurd. The silliness of MFW's and wnes' rationalizations and the fact that they undoubtedly believe them is enough to prove that point.

And I'll answer your question after you tell me when you quit beating your wife.

 

Oh happy day! The SamFisher - wnes ****-flinging contests about China are second to none. It's the most fun on this board since the picture thread got shut down.

 

Why should I care?

 

You know what Sammy, I'll give you the definition, free of charge:

Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-ed

Answers.com
http://www.answers.com/topic/op-ed

Encarta
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861635066/op-ed.html

Merriam-Webster
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/op-ed

Yourdictionary.com
http://www.yourdictionary.com/op-ed

Funny thing Sammy, nobody other than your moronic ass seem to make any mention of the length of the article. In other words, nobody seem to agree with you. Now why ain't I surprised?

All of them however, do mention that op ed pieces express PERSONAL OPINION, which your pathetic little article does nothing more than. Then the writer tried to find "evidence" to tailor fit his opinion.

Ratchet up the intensity Sammy? That's a good one. Boy I'm feelin' the heat. I am totally silence by your response to my simple question whether you are dropping Sudan in favour of Zambia.

Oh wait, you didn't respond. That's hardly a surprise either.

 

Let's cut the crap Ottomaton, I'm wondering if you have any legitimate arguments other than your moronic "China Internet Defense Force" line, which you repeat at every convenience.

You've always been given the full chance to express your arguments. And yet other than argue that trucks are arms, the whole silliness of which makes one roll on the floor with laughter, I've yet to see you express any.

Either myself or wnes rationalized anything. Want to know why? Because a truck and a weapon serve two completely different primary purpose. Where a truck's primary roles is to transport goods, a weapon's primary role is intended to harm.

But if we are to use your pathetic definition, I've already demonstrated quite clearly that just about everything would be classified as a weapon/arms.

So hardly any rationalization on my part. You are just too stupid to know the difference.

 

Well, now who is the one calling names?

12 Years ago if I tried to sell heavy trucks to Iraq? Embargoed military goods.

10 Years ago to Yugoslavia? Embargoed military goods.

5 Years ago to Rwanda? Embargoed military goods.

North Korea? Embargoed military goods.

Non-governmental forces in Lebanon? Embargoed military goods.

Democratic Republic of the Congo? Embargoed military goods.

Taliban? Embargoed military goods.

In every instance that has come before, trucks were embargoed military goods, all the way back to when the British tried to prevent the sale of Opel Blitz trucks to the Germans.

In each and every one of those instances forks were not embargoed military goods. So there is a longtime understanding that heavy trucks are embargoed military goods. But you don’t even bother to consider such things. Clearly, this 75 years of embargoing heavy trucks is all a super-secret plot by the white man to enslave and denigrate China.

I should think that would be clear enough even for a moron like you. Before deciding if something is unfair to China, look around and see what happens in other instances of the same circumstances involving countries that aren't China. Is it really that hard?

See motorized infantry. I assume you simply aren't familiar with the history there, but rather than familiarize yourself with the facts and the history, you freak out and assume everybody is out to get China. This is a pattern which repeats itself over and over. Not sure about something, or don't like how something relating to China and the rest of the world sounds to you? Assume everybody is out to get China. Flip out with paranoid rantings and ravings. Accuse everybody of rampant racism. Wash, rinse, and repeat.

It is a rationalization because all you do is make up what you assume to be a fair standard (keeping in mind that it applies to your beloved China, first) then assume anybody who doesn't agree with your made-up-on-the-spot rules is being unfair. In fact, fair is using the same universal rules that apply to everybody else on yourself.

Since I've never used that phrase before, and made it up on the spot, I find that kind of hard to believe. So that would make this yet another instance of you not bothering to check your facts before blindly charging forward in defense of China. I see a pattern emerging...

 

Your statement will make just as much sense if you replace 'MFW' or 'wnes' ther with 'SamFisher' and then replace the "China Internet Defense Force" with whatever absurd names that your tiny brain can think of.

The fact that you only try to see one side of the debate and keep a blind eye to the other side of it has served nothing to prove that you are just a devious hypocrite.

 

You think Ottomaton is "devious?" Really? How so?




Impeach Bush/Nixon... I mean Cheney.