While I certainly think Ghandi should have won the Nobel, heck, two Nobel Peace Prizes, what does that have to do with the gentleman sitting in prison in China, his wife apparently under house arrest, the suppression of the news in China's state controlled media, or Kashmir?
I suspect something serious is being lost in translation because the thread is definitely going bizzaro.
This had me rolling. Anyone else agree that dictators always have the best interests of their citizens in mind?
Do you have the balls to say although he did not win, we don't give a shiit and the peace prize is just a sham?
LMAO. Well I always knew this was too nuanced for simpletons like you to understand. A country is a collection of conflicting interests, which yes, interestingly enough includes the interest of that tin-pot dictator. Typically when a country benefits, so does that tin-pot dictator as well as all people in that country, to various extents. To state that the Chinese government is more likely to have the best interest of the Chinese people in mind vis-a-vis, ANY foreign power, is pretty much the statement of a fact. Put simply, the Chinese government (or any for that matter) has far more overlapping interests and priorities with its people than any other government. Quite frankly it's a very easy simple concept to comprehend. But for r****ds such as yourself, well, I suppose we'll always have some people that are just "special."
What on earth are you babbling about? My opinion regarding Ghandi was made clear. I deeply admire the man. I have a small, hand carved bronze pendant that I purchased in India 45 years ago with his image. Just because he didn't win doesn't make the prize a "sham." Calling the prize a sham only serves your purpose of denigrating Liu Xiaobo, who sits in prison, a political prisoner. You should consider leaving the alternate reality you have constructed for yourself. So now you are reduced to calling people "simpletons" and "r****ds?" Look in a mirror.
Still wrong. To say that dictators always have the interests of their citizens at heart is just laughable on its face, and I don't think we have to go back through the records of all dictators to prove that. It's hard to believe someone would actually type something so stupid with a straight face in this day and age. Your backtracking and comment that "dictators have overlapping interests with its people" doesn't change the utter stupidity of your original comment. But I appreciate your backtrack and take it as tacit admission that you were wrong initially. But keep throwing out insults and acting angry. I guess you think it makes you more convincing. But it doesn't. And stop acting so cocksure about everything. You sound like an arrogant douche.
Fair enough. Just curious. I will point out that while this may be bad politics under Citizens United this isn't illegal. Obama cannot jail the Chamber of Commerce if they are taking foreign money and using it for campaigning. Also Liu is technically not a politician running for office the most he can do is try to sway public opinion and foreign interests can advertise all sorts of things in PRC. In fact one could argue that the World Expo was a showcase of foreign money designed to sway Chinese public opinion. On the flip side it isn't a crime in the US for a foreign government to fund individuals or groups to advance US interests. Obviously the PRC's laws are different in this regard but I would say then those laws reflect an unwillingness and unease on the part of CCP in regard to political discourse.
I would also say that is a disservice to history. Do you mean the CCP? The fall of the PRC as a single political entity would be disastrous. Terrible economics played a role in the collapse of Russia but I think clearly a rushed and ill thought out political reform was primarily responsible. If you look at the collapse of the USSR it mostly had to do with political, republics splitting off for nationalistic reasons, palace intrigue in the Kremlin, and uncertainty about the state of government.
Well I'll stop at the point to say Gandhi was just a timid man to avoid iritating you because I would not share my opinions about him no more. It's a free world and we're entitled to have our opinions right? I wouldn't play the my- enemy's-enemy-is-my-friend card. I did not say anything about Liu's character(actually in a way I admire this guy's honesty, comparing to other guys in the same category). What I am against is somebody pontificating his/her opinions without any intellectual reasonings and facts to back up and letting their emotions get in the way, sometimes apparently paranoid and narrow-minded. My opinion on the peace prize persists. We can agree to disagree. I would not respect some prize simply because it's the HIGHEST nominal award you can get in the world. Minggling with too much politics will get you nowhere. Awarding to a man who were conducting two unjustified wars at the same time is a pure joke.
What it sounds like MFW is talking about is the Chinese principle of The Mandate of Heaven, that says that rulers can only rule as long as they do good for their people. On the surface this sounds like an argument for democracy but its not quite that but almost a Karmic argument that good things happen for wise rulers while bad things, wars, natural disasters and uprisings, happen to bad rulers. In turn the people are bound to follow the ruler and their fortunes are tied up with that of the rulers. In regard to modern China the CCP has tacitly made the deal with the people for them to put their trust and obedience in the rule of the CCP and the CCP will deliver prosperity.
It's more like they write themselves a blank check through the subversion law. That law can silence pretty much anybody with such broad wording. It's like the Republican signed into the law that any attempt they deem to be anti-republican is subverting the country. As for the argument that Liu is rightfully convicted b/c he was getting funded by NED. It's not even worth the time debating. Did what Liu did look like anything subverting the country? To sentence a guy with such harsh punishment, you have to show hard evidence. Even if he was funded by NED, is that a crime on it own? I see this hopeless vicious circle in which the more CCP silence the people the more they fear people.
Why wouldn't I group two ignorant groups of posters who never accomplish anything together? Of course many people don't like the PRC. Even more people hate the US, and for legit reasons too. What exactly are you even trying to prove to a bunch of bored NBA fans here? That the Chinese government is the greatest evil the world has ever seen, eclipsing the Nazi and even our own government? If you're fighting for change for the Chinese people, this isn't the most ideal place to do it. I'm just not really seeing anything aside than what appears to be nonstop internet whining about something far beyond you.
I assume you are talking about the Reagan era proxy army - the Contras which committed atrocities against the Sandinistas as a primary example. Keep in mind that this was a political support of a foreign army, not for economic gain. Reagan was convinced Nicaragua was turning into a communist state which would be controlled by Russia and Cuba and was a national security threat. That doesn't justify the atrocities, but it wasn't merchantilism. Yes that was really bad, but you know, history is repeating itself here. China has provided arms to some very bad gov'ts in exchange for resources, and their trade deals are highly exploitative. That doesn't make China unique by any means, but the arms being sent there aren't being used for peaceful purposes and probably are being leverages in the same king of atrocities that were conducted in Nicaragua. I might be exaggerating a bit but my point is that China could easily get into proxy wars in africa as well to protect it's investment. Yes, I meant CCP. I guess the country abbreviation confused with the party.
I thought that the restraint from among their military to interfere during the crisis was crucial. It would be interesting to know how the "actors' in that drama felt. Should they grab for the main chance, put themselves and the military firmly in control, the people willing and, or allow civil entities to try and work things out, staying in the background in the process.
Well as usual Deckard, you've left your argument at home. Oh wait, that's right, you've never actually had one. But if you did have a problem with the gist of my post, now wouldn't be a bad time presenting it, cause right now you are looking pretty r****ded. That's actually just an observation. Not at all. I called you a moron because you are one. Now I could be blowing sunshine up your ass, but at the end of the day, you're still a moron. Back tracking never had anything to do with it. When it comes to the REAL world, unlike your mommy's lil' fantasy camp, just about everything is relative, to degrees. To state that the Chinese government has its citizens interest in mind isn't a fallacy unless you're idiotic enough to believe that even the most democratic (or whatever power you believe) of governments ALWAYS have its citizens' interest in mind, which clearly isn't the case. I'm perfectly fine with defining it to such extremes so long as we're perfectly honest that NO GOVERNMENT always has its citizens' best interest in mind. Dictatorship or not then would be irrelevant. Which kinda makes your moronic rant just that. As for back tracking, I think the meaning of my initial post is perfectly clear. In case you missed it:
I always thought the U.S.S.R was more of an empire than legitimate state. A mix mash of ethnicities and regions that never felt a real sense of nationalism towards "mother Russia". Once the central power lost control from an economic standpoint it was over. China I think was smart to begin opening their economy 40 years ago and picked up the steam - they learned vicariously from what happened in the U.S.S.R. But I think China may suffer a similar fate although it will be 50 years or so. Unless it moves people around enough to erase regional homogeneity, eventually these areas will want to split. And it may be inevitable that a China that does not integrate minority regions into the national gov't will always create a divide that will perpetuate long enough to cause that split.
