Otto, you know I am agnostic. I was just listing the basis for ethical accountability. And yes, I can see how a national mantra of the 'greater good ' could actually be a state religion equally valid to any other. And one that results in about the same levels of corruption. I happen to be a big fan of nationalist propaganda poster art. (above) Also, I can see how assigning a segment of The Party with ethical oversight could manage corruption much as our GAO does. They might even develop a particular zeal for it. The only real lacking in the system though is the free flow of information from outside the system i.e. is anyone freely writing within China about the folly of building a 1000 coal fired generating plants a year. The national dialog might be " the people need power", "China is the Saudi Arabia of coal", "expanding the economy is our first goal" when the real story might be that China is threatening the very coastal cities that they have invested all their efforts in building. And I'm not just singling China out either, there is an insane effort to start up a new coal fired plant in Matagorda, just South of Houston. (but it's a 'clean' coal plant!)
Sorry. I kinda went off the rails, but it touched on a nerve. There are tons of religious people who absolutely refuse to believe that athiests can be moral, and "political Christianity" tries to reinforce it whenever possible, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.
My god, are you really comparing the two? Let's see, China telling the US to stop meeting a former Chinese citizen before the exile who was a separatist before his final recognition his words carry no weight and who is an alleged terrorist leader (see, I used alleged for your benefit) to Iran, a soverign nation. Similar with Taiwan, a legally recognized Chinese province, though not under the rule of the PRC. Do I really need to elaborate?
Only in the minds of morons like yourself Sammy. That picture merely recognized the fact that at the time, the province of Taiwan was under the rule of the Republic of CHINA (nice of you to note the correct name btw), but not the PRC, hence not yet "Communist." The only sham is your claim that you have a brain. Spoken like a true idiot. I've not seen any Chinese posters here question the immense benefits of learning advanced methods from the west for China. The only challenge I've seen is to your asinine insinuation that economic liberalization in China was due to American pressure.
I'm sure that had nothing to do with the American strategy to encircle the Soviet Union at the time right? I mean, in the international chess game at the time, China was maybe not a pawn, but a rook on the board. The problem the Americans have right now is the rook is threatening the its king. And given the months back and forth diplomacy prior to establishing relations, it's just a wee bit disingenuous to claim "the US normalized relations with the PRC" as supposed to "they normalized relations with each other." As is claiming the American motive was altruistic. Yada yada yada. Not really targeted at you, but I've always found it interesting how countries criticize others (including their allies, bonus points x2) on wrongdoings that do not harm their own self-interest. I'm sorry, but that is patently untrue. The American view of the PRC isn't necessarily more adverserial vis-a-vis some select countries, but it definitely is, and perhaps needlessly so, compared to others. Good thing China's leaders don't call for respect, because in the great big geopolitical game, it's worth as much as horsesh1t.
As I said before that relationship did benefit the US, it benefitted the PRC also, and of course it wasn't altruistic but few things in geopolitics are. If you are talking about showing respect that is how countries show respect to each other by maintaining normal relations and exchanging ambassadors. All this other talk about respect is just rhetoric. It depends though what the self-interests are. The US criticizing the EU in regard to Turkey could harm the US if those allies take it out on the US in regard to other issues. At the sametime the situation with Iraq and Iran means that the US has very vital interests in regard to helping Turkey out. To tie this to US relations with the PRC their are a variety of interests involved and as noted by the OP US criticism of the PRC does harm US interests as the PRC being a major creditor, trade partner and a major geopolitical player good relations are important. At the sametime there are many US interests, both domestic, and external, that would lead the US to in conflict with the PRC and vice versa. Compared to say Britian yes the American view of the PRC is more adverserial but again the US vision but again the American view of countries very widely and I don't think the US and PRC is necessarily exceptional. Heck many Americans have a more adversarial view of a traditional ally going back to the Revolutionary War, France, than they do of many other countries. I'm glad you agree that the call for respect is worth as much as horsesh1t which is my basic point. That said though there does seem to be alot of umbrage taken by the PRC and its supporters in regard to showing respect to the PRC.
I don't know what the Chinese education system is teaching but from what I understand of the scholarship is that the Chinese have never denied there were other nation states existing at the time of Xia, Shang or Zhou, in fact the later part of Zhou is called the "Warring States". My understanding is that those periods are called such to recognize the dominant state and / or, the one that there is most evidence of during that period. This would be like talking about Europe during the Roman period where while there were many other states at that time the Romans were the dominant political entity.
No disagreements there. Hardly. Make no mistake, there is no doubt when it comes to the US, China or any other country where its loyalties lie. Hence, any doubts and discussion a country has regarding its domestic or foreign policy isn't regarding whether or not it satisfies its self interest. Those doubts and discussion are regarding how to best safe guard and maximise its self interest, now and in the future, because the future is unknown. The US normalized relations with China not because it was looking after China's interest. It did so because it perceived at the time (and rightfully I might add) that it best served American interest. There are no permanent friends nor adverseries. The fact that America's view of France changed is not any proof whether or not America's view of China is needlessly adverserial. The only constant, once again, is self interest. During the period immediately post Revolution, the US was at best a fledgling power, no comparison in the eyes of the French (and no doubt everyone else) as much a threat as Great Britain, its traditional nemesis. Similarly, the US could have great relations with China during the 70's and 80's precisely because China was weak. But even if we do take your arguments literally, America's position towards China is far more adverserial even compared to its relations with France. I'm all for self interest, I don't think I've made any attempt to hide that opinion. I also understand if you are number 1 (aka USA), you do whatever you can to keep number 2 down. And as I've mentioned, I'm far too pragmatic to take calls for respect seriously. But believe it or not, if you say A but does B as the US does on a constant basis, there are always those that will hammer you for it. Those Chinese posters here are merely a small subset who actually take it literally and who actually gives a *****. Plenty don't and plenty wouldn't waste their time arguing it even if they did. So let's not categorize them as if the PRC and its supporters have nothing better to do than ask for respect.
My friend, the stamp clearly states that the "whole country" (全國 ) is red. The island of Formosa is NOT red, it is very clearly white. This quite literally contradicts the "One Country, Two Systems" that is commonly chanted by PRC Bad Elements today. If it were "One Country" - then Taiwan would be part of 全國 on the stamp, which very clearly shows it not to be - accordingly there are two countries. The PRC also obviously is forfeiting its claims to the Spratly Islands as well, which are not even shown. My theory is that the smashing of the Four Olds during the GPCR caused a rare moment of candor and self-realization among the PRC, probably as the result of lot of intense meetings and struggle sessions (文斗 ) which resulted in this very honest stamp.
That is a pretty funny and quite frankly, lousy argument Sammy, which unfortunate to say, it typical of what I've come to expect from you. Do you see any neighbouring countries in that picture Sammy? Like say, Russia, the Koreas? No? What about Vietnam? Myanmar? Kazakhstan? Mongolia? No? Want me to list all 14 countries China borders? You do know of course that in terms of geographical proximity, each of those countries are closer to the Mainland than Taiwan. So if the PRC relinquished its claims on the province, why have Taiwan alone on the map? Hell, why have Taiwan on the map at all. For all your worthless jingoism, I still doubt you will be able to mount any rebuttal. Well no matter, you never did any ways.
I don't think PRC forfeited sovereignty over Taiwan with that stamp. However, Taiwan is a de facto independent sovereign. As long as the people in Taiwan are happy, more power to them. Isn't happiness the end? Fxxk all the ideology , including democracy. If North Koreans are happy with their grass huts and fake rice, more power to them. By the way, if you can get hold of that stamp, I will pay you for it. I will pay you .... $500, yeah for a stamp . I only want the enlarged one.
There is a saying useful in uncovering rightists that comes to mind - The man who waves the red flag the most has the blackest heart.
Sam, no disrespect, don't pretend you know 文斗. WTF do you possibly know about 文斗 and/or 武斗？ :grin: An honest stamp got recalled after the first day of publication.
Or glorifying the founding fathers and the constitution. Sounds about right. There's another saying, crows in the world are equally black.
Hardly. I don't wave flags, preach the bible, cry over dolphins, show solidarity to terrorist separatists (I mean, ahem, freedom fighters) or any other kind of such pretenses. If need be, I'm perfectly comfortable being the perfect scum as supposed to the fake gentlemen the likes of Sammy and Deckard hold themselves to be.
