China -- the next superpower?

[r1dermon]

also, you can't say come to fight us, because you're in canada...

[Guest yang_du]

'Nobody wants war' You invited me to come to China and fight a war against you. You have argued that countries are like animals which must fight and kill each other. Or were these simply comments made in anger at the mistaken idea that i hate China and the Chinese?

 

I agree that sometimes war is the only war to defend yourself' date=' my qualms are with the aggressive and unnecessary wars the current Chinese regime has indulged in.

 

The invasion and occupation of Tibet and the invasion of Vietnam were not required for defence, they were acts of aggression. My arguments are with the current regime in China which acts in a barbarous, aggressive fashion.

 

Wanting China to be strong is good, but using that as an excuse for the regimes brutality and needless aggression is mistaken.[/quote']

 

 

 

i might say to occupy Tibet is because of history reasons. let's imagine you are chinese and ur ancestor occupy a territory, do u want to give it up because a few people say they want to form an independent country? If Germany didn't fail in World War 2, i guess most of Europe is still under German control. they won't let any country to get independent as long as they have the power to control.

 

well.. i should say China become bigger and bigger through these 3000 years. do we need to split China to let some people independent?

 

I know it's kind of brute to invade vietnam, i'm sure we wouldn't do that if there are other choices to make.

[Guest yang_du]

Yang_du, if you're such a loyal supporter of the Chinese government, then why are you posting here from a computer in Canada?

 

yes, i'm in Canada. I'm here to study. i just don't feel comfortable to see some people attack Chinese and its government.

[john5746]

yang du:

 

I understand where your coming from, most people, when pressed will defend their country, even if they have many complaints about it. When I defend the US, I do not imply that the PEOPLE are better, or even the curre nt administration is better.

 

I feel that the US system of government is better, because it at least allows the people to have a say in their government. If you are happy with yours, you can have the same opinion, and I am glad you are happy with it.

 

But, If any government silences critics through jail, or death - that I cannot support.

[Guest yang_du]

I'm arriving mid-argument and haven't read all the posts' date=' so if I go over old ground my apologies.

Yang du, you commented that what the US is doing now is barbarous. I presume you are talking mainly about Iraq. There are many in the US who would agree with you. There are many other posters on this board who would agree with you. Some might feel, as I do, that under its present regime the US is further from its ideals than it has been for a long time. That does not make its ideals wrong, it means that some of them have, apparently, been temporarily abandoned.

Aardvark has been critical of the present government in China. I sense in that criticism a genuine love of China, its history and culture and people.

I also sense that all of you have been making your case a little more strongly than you actually feel it.

Yang du, you say that a western style democracy is not right for China today. Do you feel that there will ever be right time? How can you ensure that an undemocratic government does not ignore the needs of the people? Would you agree that this [i']has[/i] occured on occasions since the revolution?

 

democracy is not simply someone says i'm democracy. democracy means a way of life. China has improved a lot. i mean by means of living standard. do u expect china to become democracy even though its people are hungray everyday? China wants to develop, to feed its people, and to be stronger so that no one would invade China again. How HongKong was separated from China? it's because British seize control of it in 19 Century.

[Guest yang_du]

also' date=' you completely just contradicted yourself.... "nobody wants war, but sometimes it's the only way to defend yourself."

 

this quote shows that you're agreeing with me that war is a last resort, and only necessary when you need to defend yourself. however..... "only the stronger nations have the rights to live. the weaker ones, they will disappear sooner or later." it doesnt really matter does it, because you believe in natural sele.....oops, no you dont...you said only the stronger nations have the RIGHTS to live?? well, who are you? are you the governing counsil of the world? do you dictate which countries have rights? that was a pretty arrogant and unintelligent comment, but there's more to your contradiction. "no matter where u come from, come to fight us. i mean to wage a war." now lets put that and your first quote together....we can see that you're a contradiction machine, and you really have no idea as to what you're talking about. history is to be learned from, not duplicated. if you stay in the past, there is no future for you or your country.

 

also, there is no country on earth with the military capabilities of the US, i'd say if china wanted a fight, then the US would be happy to oblige. so would bush, it would take the focus off of all the stupidity in iraq.[/quote']

 

I admit my English was bad, some grammar mistakes made u misunderstand my meaning. I said "no matter where u come from, come to fight us.", i didn't mean all the people. i was talking to Aardvark. I'm sorry i didn't quote his words.

[Guest yang_du]

yang du:

 

I understand where your coming from' date=' most people, when pressed will defend their country, even if they have many complaints about it. When I defend the US, I do not imply that the PEOPLE are better, or even the curre nt administration is better.

 

I feel that the US system of government is better, because it at least allows the people to have a say in their government. If you are happy with yours, you can have the same opinion, and I am glad you are happy with it.

 

But, If any government silences critics through jail, or death - that I cannot support.[/quote']

 

 

yes, you are right. but you didn't realize how many people there in China. if some people say this government is bad, let's stand up to fight them. then at least some people would answer his call. say 1/10000 of the population. then it would be more than 100 thousands people. do u think China can be stable afterwards? chinese government knows if China wants to develop, its has to be stable.

[Guest yang_du]

yang du:

 

I understand where your coming from' date=' most people, when pressed will defend their country, even if they have many complaints about it. When I defend the US, I do not imply that the PEOPLE are better, or even the curre nt administration is better.

 

I feel that the US system of government is better, because it at least allows the people to have a say in their government. If you are happy with yours, you can have the same opinion, and I am glad you are happy with it.

 

But, If any government silences critics through jail, or death - that I cannot support.[/quote']

 

did i imply the current administation is better than others? i just said the way Chinese government doing to China is on the right path. every country's government knows how to manage their people. i know how ridiculous to see how chinese government manage their people based on an American's view. but it's the way it has to be. i'm sure the situation will be better in the future.

[Aardvark]

i might say to occupy Tibet is because of history reasons. let's imagine you are chinese and ur ancestor occupy a territory' date=' do u want to give it up because a few people say they want to form an independent country? If Germany didn't fail in World War 2, i guess most of Europe is still under German control. they won't let any country to get independent as long as they have the power to control.

 

well.. i should say China become bigger and bigger through these 3000 years. do we need to split China to let some people independent? [/quote']

 

yang_du, i think China is better than Nazi Germany, that is why China should allow Tibet to be independent. If Germany had won WW2 then most of Europe would probably be under Germany control. But that is not a good example to follow. Following that reasoning the British should not have returned Hong Kong to China, i am sure that is not something you would have wished for.

 

The Tibetan population do not make up a 'few people'. They make up an entire national people. Yes, China has become bigger and bigger over the years, but how is that a justification for continuing the occupation of Tibet? China is not threatened by Tibet, an independent Tibet would not challenge China at all. As long as China continues to occupy Tibet all Chinas neighbours will see China as an aggressive and dangerous power. How is this good for China?

 

I imagine that if i was Chinese i would want my country to behave with honour towards neighbours and deal with them on a basis of mutual respect rather than force and threats. As such the mistreatment of Tibet should be ended. This would not weaken China but make China more secure.

[Guest yang_du]

yang_du' date=' i think China is better than Nazi Germany, that is why China should allow Tibet to be independent. If Germany had won WW2 then most of Europe would probably be under Germany control. But that is not a good example to follow. Following that reasoning the British should not have returned Hong Kong to China, i am sure that is not something you would have wished for.

 

The Tibetan population do not make up a 'few people'. They make up an entire national people. Yes, China has become bigger and bigger over the years, but how is that a justification for continuing the occupation of Tibet? China is not threatened by Tibet, an independent Tibet would not challenge China at all. As long as China continues to occupy Tibet all Chinas neighbours will see China as an aggressive and dangerous power. How is this good for China?

 

I imagine that if i was Chinese i would want my country to behave with honour towards neighbours and deal with them on a basis of mutual respect rather than force and threats. As such the mistreatment of Tibet should be ended. This would not weaken China but make China more secure.[/quote']

 

 

Good point! it's something need to carefully think about. yes, i shouldn't give an example of Germany, but i just want to show you how world order works. Tibet was taken my Qing dynasty, which wasn't a truly chinese government. Qing dynasty actully was a foreign occupation by manchus. they were enemies of China throughout history, but i guess the current chinese government would not rather say that. they were really a brutal race, they made chinese people to follow their culture which failed. now they adopted chinese culture, language, and nearly everything and lost their own culture and language. chinese shouldn't view their occupation is good for china. anyhow, during Qing dynasty, we occupies Tibet and XinJiang(in chinese, it means new territory), which we didn't do throughout the entire history. Now, following these 300 years, they are all chinese territory, and no one would ever want them to get independent. and i also guess no one won't. maybe that's why the current chinese government view Qing dynasty is good (at least they help China to expand borders). But, Tibet has been taken by around 300 years, if China return it and let it independent, would it be worth? and Tibet was not taken by current chinese government, if so i would follow your idea, we take control of it just because it's our territory already.

If we let Tibet independent, others will follow the example. Xinjiang will try to get independent, as well as Taiwan, or maybe manchus will say they want manchuria to get independent. and that time China will split into serveral small countries which no one would want it to happen.

For HongKong, Britain signed a contract with Qing dynasty which says will rent HongKong for 99 years. and British return it just becuase it's the end of contract. it's a different case compared with Tibet.

[Ophiolite]

For HongKong, Britain signed a contract with Qing dynasty which says will rent HongKong for 99 years. and British return it just becuase it's the end of contract. it's a different case compared with Tibet.

I am not sure that is strictly true. This is a detail, but it is my understanding that Hong Kong island and Kowloon were granted to the British for ever, or for 999 years. It was the rest of Hong Kong which was on the shorter lease, ending in 1999. Britain returned both, because it would not have been practical to do otherwise. (And perhaps in recognition of the fact that the original agreement was signed under duress.)

[Guest yang_du]

I am not sure that is strictly true. This is a detail, but it is my understanding that Hong Kong island and Kowloon were granted to the British for ever, or for 999 years. It was the rest of Hong Kong which was on the shorter lease, ending in 1999. Britain returned both, because it would not have been practical to do otherwise. (And perhaps in recognition of the fact that the original agreement was signed under duress.)

 

I think u were right. I'm sorry for my lack of knowledge.

[Aardvark]

If we let Tibet independent' date=' others will follow the example. Xinjiang will try to get independent, as well as Taiwan, or maybe manchus will say they want manchuria to get independent. and that time China will split into serveral small countries which no one would want it to happen.

[/quote']

 

I can understand that concern, you are worried that if one part of China became independent then pressure would increase for other parts to leave. However that does not justify the current regimes policies towards Tibet. Repression of the native culture and a deliberate influx of Han people to result in the Tibetans becoming outnumbered in their own country.

 

If China feels it is absolutely necessary to retain Tibet it shold still change policy. The Dali Lama has offered to accept Chinese soveriegnty in return for internal freedoms. The Chinese government offically calls Tibet an 'autonomous zone'. Yet it does not treat it like one.

 

If China wishs to reduce calls for independence in places like Tibet it would do better to allow genuine freedoms, allow the Tibetan people to more freely follow their traditional culture and religion and to manage their local affairs without interference. For Chinas own sake it would do well to behave with greater tolerance and respect towards Tibet, otherwise the calls for independence will just continue.

 

After all, it is easier to catch a fly with honey than vinegar.

[Guest yang_du]

I can understand that concern' date=' you are worried that if one part of China became independent then pressure would increase for other parts to leave. However that does not justify the current regimes policies towards Tibet. Repression of the native culture and a deliberate influx of Han people to result in the Tibetans becoming outnumbered in their own country.

 

If China feels it is absolutely necessary to retain Tibet it shold still change policy. The Dali Lama has offered to accept Chinese soveriegnty in return for internal freedoms. The Chinese government offically calls Tibet an 'autonomous zone'. Yet it does not treat it like one.

 

If China wishs to reduce calls for independence in places like Tibet it would do better to allow genuine freedoms, allow the Tibetan people to more freely follow their traditional culture and religion and to manage their local affairs without interference. For Chinas own sake it would do well to behave with greater tolerance and respect towards Tibet, otherwise the calls for independence will just continue.

 

After all, it is easier to catch a fly with honey than vinegar.[/quote']

 

I heard something about Dali Lama. yes he has offered to accept Chinese soveriegnty in return for internal freedoms, but it's the first step for him to make Tibet independent. Then he will do something else. As far as i know, Tibet has its own government, and during these 20 years, Tibet has progressed a lot. more and more Han people going there just for the development of Tibet, it's also good for Tibet and its people. and i'm sure no one forbid them to follow their own culture as well as religion. i don't konw how chinese government interfere their local affairs. maybe you can give me some information to follow. I rarelly read information about Tibet. if u can give me a good website about them, that would be great.

[SuperThread]

only the stronger nations have the rights to live. the weaker ones, they will disappear sooner or later.

 

Ah, yes, of course.

 

The US military aircraft will get to China in a couple of hours.

 

Please. Are you really so self- and nation-centered that you'll destroy other countries simply because China's more powerful?

 

As Aardvark has said a number of times, this is *civilization*, not free-for-all anarchy.

 

let's imagine you are chinese and ur ancestor occupy a territory, do u want to give it up because a few people say they want to form an independent country?

 

No. But you do anyway, because it's the right thing to do, while suppressing those few people might be called the "cruel, imperialistic, overly nationalistic thing to do".

 

If Germany didn't fail in World War 2, i guess most of Europe is still under German control. they won't let any country to get independent as long as they have the power to control.

 

How long has Nazi Germany been China's role model?

[Guest yang_du]

Ah' date=' yes, of course.

 

The US military aircraft will get to China in a couple of hours.

 

Please. Are you really so self- and nation-centered that you'll destroy other countries simply because China's more powerful?

 

As Aardvark has said a number of times, this is *civilization*, not free-for-all anarchy.

 

 

 

No. But you do anyway, because it's the right thing to do, while suppressing those few people might be called the "cruel, imperialistic, overly nationalistic thing to do".

 

 

 

How long has Nazi Germany been China's role model?[/quote']

 

All I said here is based on my own opinion, it doesn't stand for chinese government or any other chinese people. I'm here just for discussion and share my opinions.

[Guest yang_du]

Ah' date=' yes, of course.

 

The US military aircraft will get to China in a couple of hours.

 

Please. Are you really so self- and nation-centered that you'll destroy other countries simply because China's more powerful?

 

As Aardvark has said a number of times, this is *civilization*, not free-for-all anarchy.

 

 

 

No. But you do anyway, because it's the right thing to do, while suppressing those few people might be called the "cruel, imperialistic, overly nationalistic thing to do".

 

 

 

How long has Nazi Germany been China's role model?[/quote']

 

 

And please, find out the main point i was talking about, don't simply quote a sentence and assume it's my point. maybe i didn't say something clear. but should I put my main point in quotation marks next time and says "this is my point."?

[Deathby]

I would like to add one thing yang. Did you get all your information out of that one book you were talking about earlier? Read both sides of the argument.

 

I think both America and China use their media to brainwash their populance. many Americans believe it is unpatriotic to question the actions of their president, as do many chinese. The Chinese government cracks down very heavily on media who do not conform. Whilst the same cannot be said of the American government, I think it is suffice to say that there is silent pressure against the media, considering the terrible job they've done of uncovering various scandals. (At least according to Michael Moore, dunno how far I'd trust him)

[Guest yang_du]

I would like to add one thing yang. Did you get all your information out of that one book you were talking about earlier? Read both sides of the argument.

 

I think both America and China use their media to brainwash their populance. many Americans believe it is unpatriotic to question the actions of their president' date=' as do many chinese. The Chinese government cracks down very heavily on media who do not conform. Whilst the same cannot be said of the American government, I think it is suffice to say that there is silent pressure against the media, considering the terrible job they've done of uncovering various scandals. (At least according to Michael Moore, dunno how far I'd trust him)[/quote']

 

that's what i'm doing here, trying let both sides know each other more clearly.

I have been to Canada for almost 3 years, I didn't get all my information from one side or out of that one book. thanks for the advice.

you are right, both America and China trying use their media to manipulate people.but this is the way it has to be. there will be disagreement forever as long as there are culture difference, country difference, religion difference, or even race difference existed. each country fight their way to become stronger, or let their people prosper. it has been recorded through human history. Maybe i said something exaggerated before, such as " only the stronger ones have the rights to live". but i was trying to make that point. So, democracy is a way of culture, so as any other political idea. I guess chinese government still using communism is because the idea of centralized.

As a ruler,Sun ZhongShan tried democracy in China during Kuo Ming Tang period. And it failed because of that. As a result communism red army led by Mao Zedong, defeated Kuo Ming Tang and ruled China. as i said before China has been centralized throughout history. other people would try to take power as long as the emperor was wake, or the dynasty was wake. i know it's different from european history. Democracy was invented by Greeks, and spread around Mediterranean. It works in europe, but not in China. So as been a chinese, I say the current chinese government is doing the right thing for China.

[Coral Rhedd]

Hi yang_du,

 

I arrive late to this discussion with much curiosity and little knowledge of China. Why do you think a strong central goverment is necessary to your country's survival?

 

Do you see all countries that are largely populated by people of Chinese origin eventually being "taken" under the umbrella of China?

 

Regards,

Coral Rhedd

[Guest yang_du]

Hi yang_du' date='

 

I arrive late to this discussion with much curiosity and little knowledge of China. Why do you think a strong central goverment is necessary to your country's survival?

 

Do you see all countries that are largely populated by people of Chinese origin eventually being "taken" under the umbrella of China?

 

Regards,

Coral Rhedd[/quote']

 

the reason for the necessary of a strong central government in China is its history. I always believe people can find truth by reading the history. any current government may lie about something due to political reasons, but history never lies. history teachs your what it really is. over 4 thousands years of chinese history, many people had fought for the supreme power in China - to become the emperor. I can say it's like nearly everybody wants to be an emperor, but there is only one emperor at certain time. So people fought their way to become one. they used tricks, war, or something else for their goal. and for emperors, their only way to survive or to keep his regime longer is to become stronger. by stronger, i mean he must be smarter than most of people, know how to employ people, and know how to make him in a position that nobody can compete. In this way, country can be stable, and people can be prosper. In chinese history, we became stronger because of a strong central government, and became weaker because of a weak central government. I think there are many similarities with France. This website explain something.http://www.bjreview.com.cn/200403/World-200403(B).htm

people can say if we change our political system, it might good for the people. people can have more freedom than before, and can live 'happier'. but something i found out in chinese history is chinese people have the spirit or the desire to become the strongest on every aspect. we wouldn't be happy when our country is weak, when China is not a strong county. I think this may be a culture thing. people can change how they think but it's very hard to change their culture, plus there are 1.3 billion chinese people in China. That's why when Manchu people conquered China they can't make chinese people to change, and finally they changed themselves.

 

what countries are largely populated by Chinese? only singapore right? Chinese in some countries like Canada is still minority. China won't take singapore just because of there are many chinese there. China never occupied there before, and people in singapore don't say they are chinese, they say they only have chinese roots. It's still different from Taiwan. For Taiwan, we occupied there before, and now China just want to do what every great dynasty did, to unify the whole country. it's just the first step towards becoming stronger. I can see countries like Korea or Vietnam are afraid of seeing China become stronger because of history reasons. But for european countries or even U.S. I think they should treat China rising as a win-win situation. afterall, there won't be a stable situation is Asia when China is weak.

[Coral Rhedd]

For Taiwan, we occupied there before, and now China just want to do what every great dynasty did, to unify the whole country. it's just the first step towards becoming stronger.

 

Thank you for your detailed reply.

 

No doubt a country that has been occupied before by another country may occupied again. This is possibility but not justification. What if Great Britain were to decide to restore former territory that they had occupied? Assuming they had the power to do so, would you think this justified merely by the desire to be strong?

 

Let us say, improbably, that Great Britain decided to reoccupy India. Would they be justified on the grounds that they had been there before?

[Deathby]

And you say history never lies. I can say for one thing that history is a very dubious thing. Ramses the Great is portrayed as one of the greatest pharoahs Egypt had. In truth he built monuments only because he was insecure about his own power and constantly feared rebellion. The Holocaust is a fact of history isn't it? Many Palestinians believe otherwise.

 

My specific knowledge of Chinese history isn't spectacular, but couldn't the same be true of China being a province of Mongolia or Manchu? I mean both conquered China at some point or another.

 

Edit: And I don't believe that a system of government should be suited to a person simply because of their culture and history. The hatred of communism is not inborn in American, nor is democracy. The same applies for the Chinese. Either could revert to the other, if they were not indoctrinated in a thousand different ways as they grew up (not just by the government and the media, but also by relatives and friends).

 

You might say that the Greeks should be the most democratic of all considering their history. Or the Romans should be the most imperialistic. That is not true. The system of government must suit the nature of the country, not its people.

 

In a country like China, with many minorities concentrated in little corners of the country, I believe a three-tiered democracy (federal, province and local government system) would work well. As opposed to a dictatorship which would cater only for the majorities.

[Guest yang_du]

Thank you for your detailed reply.

 

No doubt a country that has been occupied before by another country may occupied again. This is possibility but not justification. What if Great Britain were to decide to restore former territory that they had occupied? Assuming they had the power to do so' date=' would you think this justified merely by the desire to be strong?

 

Let us say, improbably, that Great Britain decided to reoccupy India. Would they be justified on the grounds that they had been there before?[/quote']

 

I can only say, as far as i found out by reading the history, I think the Great Britain would be justified if they have the power to do so.

[Coral Rhedd]

The will to power centered around powerful figures has shaped many a movement: Nazism, Stalinism, Falun Gong. Perhaps you can think of a few other such instances in the great history of your own country? I do not believe all Chinese people believe that strength justifies conquest or that conquest solidifies strength. Perhaps you are satisfied that you will always be among the powerful?

 

So far, however, you seem to me to be admirably consistent in your viewpoint. May I ask, have you ever been to war?