RE: China

RE: China (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Stephann -> RE: China (3/3/2007 3:27:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY If it's not Western Civ, then their excesses are both understandable and forgiveable (and most likely caused by the evil Westerns!). Actually, this was the argument the communist used routinely in establishing their power China. It wasn't the fault of the Chinese that they were a starving, ignorant, backwards nation; it was the evil West. *quote:* In other words .... you could say that Ghengis Khan was Chinese. FirmKY Firm, Exactly what I was trying to illustrate. Thank you. John Warren, caitlyn, FirmKY, I'm grateful. I was starting to wonder if I'd been misreading the history texts or something. Many of us believe in basic human rights but the US only seems to worry about them when its in their interest. China doesn't appear to follow international law, it does follow international law which is something many of the US's allies don't do but they don't seem to cultivate US hysteria. No, they cultivate Chinese hysteria. Now, when you demonstrate anything remotely resembling a global court with the teeth and will to enforce anything against the United States, I will agree such a thing as International Law exists. Until that day, International Law is just a pretty concept to pretend that nations don't line up with nuclear and conventional missiles to enforce their will. Or are you willing to be the first to volunteer your paycheck to the poor nations of Africa where England enslaved their own hundreds of thousands, at a time when the sun never set on your empire. Russia had no right to a buffer zone but it had one because it was invaded and it won the ensuing war. The US and Britain had no right to be in Iraq so what is your point? Technically, the US conquered France and Western Germany back during WWII. Perhaps an argument could be made that they should have kept these territories as a buffer against Germany and the Soviet Union as well? It wasn't 'The West' who invaded the USSR, it was Stalin's buddy and former ally - Hitler. Stephan

mnottertail -> RE: China (3/3/2007 3:43:38 PM)
quote: nd, a study of Chinese history would show you that the Mongols - after their conquest of what is historically known as China - intermarried and intermingled, so there is really a good point to saying that Ghengis Khan and the mongols actually become the "founders" of the current Chinese population. In other words .... you could say that Ghengis Khan was Chinese. FirmKY l am sure I will floor every motherfukcer here including Kain tuck, but I can't ind any fault with this observation---- nevertheless, this is abaft the beam, our watching south korea and saving their ass from the mongol hordes is on the order of saving the asian cultures by putting american whiz rings (made in china) in a cracker jack box. Now, you all can wipe it around your ass all you want, but; what will happen is exactly what I say, and that is that will simply overwhelm you by dint of your pocketbook, lets face it, we dont do steel, we dont do railroad, we dont do heavy industry (and caitlyn, heavy and light industry is not supported by wealthy benefactors because they suck from the economy like vampires, but by your 50 dollar savings bond and some kid working at mcdonalds and putting the hurt to the bank at .37 percent interest with his 1000 in savings, and grandma whos old man has died and she has a couple hundred thou in the 20 year cds) older folks can look and see, when we bought cheap shit for real money, at the five and dime it was made out of our throw away 7up cans and we paid cash. now, japan has graduated to the paper economy--- china has never and will probably never buy into it. This is a little esoteric for the best part of you, and it don't matter what Mao did, it matters that they survived, and if you can think beyond that, this is the world you inheirit, and you will own it so I am not gonna worry too much over it. but you should contemplate your future.

meatcleaver -> RE: China (3/3/2007 3:51:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren quote: China has invaded no one. No matter how much you try to muddy the water that fact still stands, China has invaded no one, repeat, no one! To somehow to consider China an international threat because they have invaded no one is either belly laughing hilarious or freakily paranoid. Tibet and Vietnam might beg to differ. I did mention Tibet in the thread. I forgot that consistency isn't a strong point in your arguments. Sorry. The main thrust of the argument being that China are no bigger threat to world peace than the USA or the west in general and let's face it, Vietnam would probably agree.

meatcleaver -> RE: China (3/3/2007 3:56:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn[image]http://www.collarchat.com/rteimages/bold.gif[/image] All you are doing is spinning here, to support your own agenda. I can do the same thing. I could say that the United States has never invaded anyone, only supported their allies, protected their own back yard, and in the case of Iraq, served as a tool to enforce UN resolutions. Of course, if I said this, it would be bullshit ... just like what you are throwing out, in reference to China. LOL Now even you know that is total bullshit. If the US really believed in UN resolutions they would be invading Israel and not Iraq. The US's backyard stretches an awful long way, like right roooooooooooound the world!

mnottertail -> RE: China (3/3/2007 3:58:27 PM)
OH, I buy that too, they are not a threat to peace as it is generally understood in apolitical sense but they are a threat in that we will have to take thier view in consideration regardless if any armchair asshole thinks it is beneath them or not. THEY HAVE INFLUENCE--------Do I got that right KY?

meatcleaver -> RE: China (3/3/2007 4:01:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail OH, I buy that too, they are not a threat to peace as it is generally understood in apolitical sense but they are a threat in that we will have to take thier view in consideration regardless if any armchair asshole thinks it is beneath them or not. THEY HAVE INFLUENCE--------Do I got that right KY? You've got it in a nutshell mnottertail.

meatcleaver -> RE: China (3/3/2007 4:05:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann Russia had no right to a buffer zone but it had one because it was invaded and it won the ensuing war. The US and Britain had no right to be in Iraq so what is your point? Technically, the US conquered France and Western Germany back during WWII. Perhaps an argument could be made that they should have kept these territories as a buffer against Germany and the Soviet Union as well? It wasn't 'The West' who invaded the USSR, it was Stalin's buddy and former ally - Hitler. Stephan You were on the winning side. You can split hairs, Russia had been invaded from the west on several occasions, it is irrelevent whether you class Germany as western or central or whatever, it is a western country.

caitlyn -> RE: China (3/3/2007 4:05:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver The main thrust of the argument being that China are no bigger threat to world peace than the USA or the west in general and let's face it, Vietnam would probably agree. Speaking only for myself, I guess I just don't think this point has any merit. Judging someone as not a threat, when they are militarily not a threat ... what the fuck does that mean? China has it easy right now ... the up and comer, maker of crap and the world's worst designer jeans, and all the low tech high tech stuff the west could ever want. What happens when things get a little more difficult, like when they form alliances, and have committments. Right now, the poor are happy, because for the first time in many lifetimes, they aren't starving ... but do you think that will always be enough? Bottom line ... it's easy to judge China favorably now. One can imagine that some day on Collarme, little Meatcleaver III will be making endless griping posts about losing the good old days, when America ruled the waves. [;)]

meatcleaver -> RE: China (3/3/2007 4:10:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann No, they cultivate Chinese hysteria. Now, when you demonstrate anything remotely resembling a global court with the teeth and will to enforce anything against the United States, I will agree such a thing as International Law exists. Until that day, International Law is just a pretty concept to pretend that nations don't line up with nuclear and conventional missiles to enforce their will. Or are you willing to be the first to volunteer your paycheck to the poor nations of Africa where England enslaved their own hundreds of thousands, at a time when the sun never set on your empire. The English bought the African slaves from Africans and sold them to you lot. Britain did abolish slavery 60 years before you did however, not that that is a big deal but its pointless trying to insult someone when you are knee deep in the same shit.

mnottertail -> RE: China (3/3/2007 4:11:13 PM)
well, meat , i was drunk, i didnt mean it, as someone said out here, we aint guatemala....... So I am sure we can shuffle them of them little chink bastards......... Here is the news, asia , while it is an oversimplification to say that these gooks dont count has been tried many times, and for some reason they see themselves as equals on the world stage and will pick and choose thru the garbage exactly as they please just like thier gai jin brothers.......... Oh, we may throttle the hell out of one or another like we did korea, or vietnam, but them gooks stick together---------- LOLOLOOLOLOOLOLOOLOOLOO, whatever, some of you should have been there before you run your mouth. Ron

meatcleaver -> RE: China (3/3/2007 4:12:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn Bottom line ... it's easy to judge China favorably now. One can imagine that some day on Collarme, little Meatcleaver III will be making endless griping posts about losing the good old days, when America ruled the waves. [;)] I doubt it but I never said that China being a world power would be better for the west, I said it would be better for some countries, particularly African and middle eastern countries who feel victims of western imperialism and exploitation.

caitlyn -> RE: China (3/3/2007 4:15:48 PM)
Well, lets at least agree that little Meatcleaver III will gripe about something. [;)]

mnottertail -> RE: China (3/3/2007 4:20:31 PM)
nope, I dont care about your perky little tits cait, in terms of the political scenery, with reservations, I agree with FirmHand, in terms of apolitical (which in the end is really political) meat has it about right. How will you act when a country does nothing belligerent but overwhelms you any way, just because? Mohandas Ghandi won a separate peace for his country by defying the law, China obeys world law implicity insofar as I am aware, and it was the united states that pulled out of the world court. perhaps I am drunk and stupid but I believe I got that part right. Ron

meatcleaver -> RE: China (3/3/2007 4:27:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn Well, lets at least agree that little Meatcleaver III will gripe about something. [;)] Hopefully Meatcleaver II will be anti-war and appears to be turning out that way and hopefully her little sister will too, as for the generation after that they'll both pass on the family trait of bitching about corrupt politicians and there willing to fight wars for special interest groups. As my great uncle used to say, its not those in front of me I should have been killing but the bastards behind me.

Sanity -> RE: China (3/3/2007 4:27:21 PM)
So, Kuwait feels like the United States exploited it? And the Kurds resent us too, I suppose. And all the aid we send to Africa is imperialis and exploitation... but CHINA only wants what's best for the downtrodden people in all of these places. Tell me some more jokes quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver I doubt it but I never said that China being a world power would be better for the west, I said it would be better for some countries, particularly African and middle eastern countries who feel victims of western imperialism and exploitation.

meatcleaver -> RE: China (3/3/2007 4:34:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity So, Kuwait feels like the United States exploited it? And the Kurds resent us too, I suppose. And all the aid we send to Africa is imperialis and exploitation... but CHINA only wants what's best for the downtrodden people in all of these places. Tell me some more jokes If you listen to the Africans they prefer dealing with China than with western countries. The US is not big on giving unconditional aid, you don't give something for nothing. Iraq had some legitimacy in its claim of Kuwait, Kuwait was set up as a weak country by the Brits because it had oil but let's be honest, if Kuwait didn't have oil it would still be part of Iraq now so let's not stick our idealistic chest out too much, Kuwait wasn't so much liberated as its oil was liberated. The Iraqi Kurds struck it lucky being part of Iraq ootherwise they would have been allowed to go and fuck themselves. Give me a break on the altruism.

mnottertail -> RE: China (3/3/2007 4:39:35 PM)
I missed the kuwait thing in what you said that towel haired faggot of a meatclever said, butI kinda been sniping this little meatcleaver faggot, and I am pretty sure you missed a quote or two, but are you fucking retarded or something more profound. what in the fuck are you even here for? and the Kurds resent us too I suppose? are you one of the bush girls you ----- I probably already got a kick-- enough

FirmhandKY -> RE: China (3/3/2007 5:22:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail OH, I buy that too, they are not a threat to peace as it is generally understood in apolitical sense but they are a threat in that we will have to take thier view in consideration regardless if any armchair asshole thinks it is beneath them or not. THEY HAVE INFLUENCE--------Do I got that right KY? Full agreement here, Ron. FirmKY

mnottertail -> RE: China (3/3/2007 5:35:34 PM)
my point was that kuwait and iran and iraq was once persia and cut up long about world war one and falling apart, mostly by our intervention, and our latest interventions are not going to correct it.

meatcleaver -> RE: China (3/3/2007 5:50:46 PM)
Wars are rarely about any country being a real threat in the sense they place someone's country in mortal danger, most wars are started because one country treads on the toes of the political and financial interests of the powerful of another country. e.g. Saddam got hung for treading on the toes of corporate America, not for placing ordinary Americans at risk. Then a country sends their ordinary citizens to fight the war for the rich who incidently, keep their sons and daughters out of harms way. The real problem is that ordinary people buy into this patriotic shite and prefer to die than think.

Page: << < prev 7 8 9 [10] 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125