Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    04 Jun '18 02:402 edits
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    Can you show me exactly where I said China was going to attack the Philippines militarily? I SAID the Philippines expressed worry about the artificial islands nothing more.

    The fact they are building air strips there is intimidation by itself, they don't need to have a thousand missiles pointed at anyone to intimidate.

    They want something there, most ...[text shortened]... ers' would imagine China wanting to build a military base out there but that would be nonsense.
    I consider it an affront you consider me to be anti-Asian..."
    --Sonhouse

    I don't regard Sonhouse as an anti-Asian racist. I regard him as too gullible and easily influenced by US media.

    By the way, I know this is not what Sonhouse's saying, but I don't accept the self-serving
    argument made by some (often racist) white men of "I really enjoy sleeping with many
    Asian women, so therefore I cannot have any prejudice against any Asian people."

    "Let's see, Philippines population 100 million. China 1 BILLION.
    No reason for those in Manila to be worried, right?"
    --Sonhouse

    Sonhouse implied there was a threat of general war between China and the Philippines,
    in which the Filipinos would be outnumbered 10 to 1. Why else would Sonhouse cite
    inaccurate (China's population is around 1.4 billion) figures of total national population?

    It was clear that Sonhouse was referring to something much bigger than a potential clash
    between a few Chinese and a few Filipino combatants over a disputed island. And when
    Sonhouse implied that people in Manila should be very worried about a military threat from
    China, the most plausible way to interpret it was that China allegedly would attempt to
    invade or at least to bomb Manila.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/09/asia/duterte-xi-jinping-boao-forum-intl/index.html

    "Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte says he needs China, 'loves' Xi Jinping."
    --CNN (9 April 2018)

    The Philippines President seems much less afraid than Sonhouse is of China.
  2. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    04 Jun '18 02:491 edit
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    Can you show me exactly where I said China was going to attack the Philippines militarily? I SAID the Philippines expressed worry about the artificial islands nothing more.

    The fact they are building air strips there is intimidation by itself, they don't need to have a thousand missiles pointed at anyone to intimidate.

    They want something there, most ...[text shortened]... think no matter what and I admire that but surely there must be SOMETHING about the US you like.
    "... there must be SOMETHING about the US you like."
    --Sonhouse

    In more than a few earlier posts, I have expressed my admiration of some aspects of the USA.
    Sonhouse may have forgotten it because what I write tends to get drowned out by my
    hateful trolls reiterating their lies that I must hate everyone or everything American.

    The USA still has many of the world's best universities, though I expect more fine universities
    to emerge in developing societies. I may often disagree with how these American universities
    are run, including their admission policies (which may have much class or racial bias).
    Still, many scholars from around the world have been drawn to the USA because of the
    large number of academic jobs there. This may change, given that the USA's political
    climate seems increasingly anti-intellectual, anti-immigrant, xenophobic, and/or racist.
  3. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    04 Jun '18 02:56
    But do all of China's neighbours feel as (militarily) 'intimidated' as the USA says they should?

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/09/asia/duterte-xi-jinping-boao-forum-intl/index.html

    "Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte says he needs China, 'loves' Xi Jinping."
    --CNN (9 April 2018)

    "I need China. More than anybody else at this point, I need China. I simply love Xi Jinping.
    He understood, he understands my problem and is willing to help, so I would say thank you China."
    --Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte
  4. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52866
    04 Jun '18 03:52
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    But do all of China's neighbours feel as (militarily) 'intimidated' as the USA says they should?

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/09/asia/duterte-xi-jinping-boao-forum-intl/index.html

    "Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte says he needs China, 'loves' Xi Jinping."
    --CNN (9 April 2018)

    "I need China. More than anybody else at this point, I need Ch ...[text shortened]... d is willing to help, so I would say thank you China."
    --Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte
    What problem is that? Having to kill drug dealers by the thousands? Do you seriously think President Duterte admires the building of military bases on artificial islands relatively close to them? You only assumed I meant they thought it was an immediate military threat. I see this as much longer range goals.

    So a few islands today, what would you think if 10 years from now there are 50 such artificial Islands each one with a couple of regiments? The Mafia doesn't have to have overt violence to be intimidating and neither do the Chinese.

    I WORK with Chinese engineers as well as engineers from India and Korea and they show great intelligence every day I work with them, and they value my input also, I am very good at what I do.

    But what I am doing at the moment is writing more tunes on guitar, and a plan to collaborate with a couple other guitarists based as I am, on Soundcloud where I have 62 tracks, three hours of recordings and 40 originals, just saying I have other interests besides science and politics.
  5. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    04 Jun '18 04:202 edits
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    What problem is that? Having to kill drug dealers by the thousands? Do you seriously think President Duterte admires the building of military bases on artificial islands relatively close to them? You only assumed I meant they thought it was an immediate military threat. I see this as much longer range goals.

    So a few islands today, what would you think ...[text shortened]... of recordings and 40 originals, just saying I have other interests besides science and politics.
    "Having to kill drug dealers by the thousands?"
    --Sonhouse

    President Duterte's domestic record in the Philippines is irrelevant.

    "What would you think if 10 years from now there are 50 such artificial Islands each one
    with a couple of regiments?"
    --Sonhouse

    I am not worried about such extremely unlikely hypotheticals (or paranoid fantasies).
    If that appears to be happening in the future, then I may reconsider it.
    Sonhouse's fear-mongering has ample precedent in US politics.

    Racist white American politicians have successfully whipped up hysteria by telling white
    Americans to be afraid of a future in which almost no white American can find a job
    because there will be a horde of non-white immigrants wiling to work for much less pay.

    I have NOT criticized Sonhouse's competence within his technical field.
    I have pointed out that Sonhouse tends to be extremely ignorant or misinformed outside it
  6. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    57068
    04 Jun '18 04:27
    The only answer you need in this thread is: how many countries has the US invaded, incited regime change, sanctioned and covertly influenced with aggressive measures or support for non-government forces?

    The answer is staggering.

    And suggesting that number alone isn’t an aggressive attitude towards the world, and neighbours near and far, is not understanding what aggression is or what diplomacy is.
  7. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    04 Jun '18 04:41
    Originally posted by @athousandyoung
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-venezuela-military-idUSKBN1AR2GR
    Ok., I'll accept that, although the article doesn't say much about what Trump actually said. Is there any indication of whether this is just Trump making random tough sounding statements in answer to a journalist's question, or is it representative of actual policy?
  8. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    04 Jun '18 04:441 edit
    China and the Philippines have never fought each other in a war, apart from the Philippines
    sending a force (5 battalions) to fight under US command in the Korean War.

    In contrast, the USA fought a long extremely bitter war of conquest (which some historians
    have described as nearly genocidal in some regions) against the Philippines.
    US history textbooks typically deny that the USA ever fought a war against the Philippines,
    dismissing it as an 'insurrection' by benighted Filipinos who were ungrateful to the USA.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War

    Hundreds of thousands (conservative estimate) of Filipino civilians perished.
    The racist Americans tended to regard their Asian enemies as subhuman.
    The Americans massacred entire villages and 'used food as a weapon', blockading
    regions in attempting to starve the resisting Filipinos into surrender.

    The US media prefers to interview the Filipinos who are the most sycophantic toward the USA.
    But not everyone in the Philippines has forgotten the USA's terrible record of brutality there.

    Dutch GM Hans Ree has a hypothesis that Bobby Fischer became 'anti-American' after
    some of his Filipino friends told him about the USA's record of war crimes in the Philippines.
    I doubt his hypothesis, but it shows that a European can know more than most Americans
    about the USA's bloody history in the Philippines.
  9. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    04 Jun '18 04:492 edits
    Originally posted by @deepthought to AThousandYoung
    Ok., I'll accept that, although the article doesn't say much about what Trump actually said.
    Is there any indication of whether this is just Trump making random tough sounding
    statements in answer to a journalist's question, or is it representative of actual policy?
    Did the USA apply the "Maybe he does not really mean it?" excuse to Kim Jong-un's
    bluster apparently threatening the USA?

    DeepThought seems to be doing his utmost to deny that the USA ever has threatened
    or even attacked countries that did not pose any realistic threat to the USA.
  10. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    04 Jun '18 05:04
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    China and the Philippines have never fought each other in a war, apart from the Philippines
    sending a force (5 battalions) to fight under US command in the Korean War.

    In contrast, the USA fought a long extremely bitter war of conquest (which some historians
    have described as nearly genocidal in some regions) against the Philippines.
    US history text ...[text shortened]... a European can know more than most Americans
    about the USA's bloody history in the Philippines.
    This happened over a century ago, at a time of different standards for warfare (Britain was busily using starvation as a weapon against the Boers around then). I was ignoring the invasion of Tibet, as that started before I was born. However, since you are determined to rake over history I may as well. The Chinese haven't withdrawn from Tibet. I don't know of anywhere the US has maintained overtly coercive forces for so long since the Second World War.
  11. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    04 Jun '18 06:192 edits
    Originally posted by @deepthought
    This happened over a century ago, at a time of different standards for warfare (Britain was busily using starvation as a weapon against the Boers around then). I was ignoring the invasion of Tibet, as that started before I was born. However, since you are determined to rake over history I may as well. The Chinese haven't withdrawn from Tibet. I don't ...[text shortened]... f anywhere the US has maintained overtly coercive forces for so long since the Second World War.
    So the hypocritical DeepThought finds it easy to condone American racism and near genocide
    against Filipinos. Contrary to his historical ignorance, even around 1900 there were a
    significant of white people (including Mark Twain) who recognized that what the USA
    was doing in the Philippines was criminal and immoral. So even around 1900 there
    were some white people who seem more enlightened than DeepThought is today.

    DeepThought shows common Western extreme ignorance or bias regarding Tibetan history.
    Tibet has not been recognized as a sovereign country at any time in the 20th century.

    (Note to the ignorant: The Republic of China refers to the pre-Communist China before 1949.)
    The question of "Is Tibet under China's sovereignty" came up in the context of a dispute
    between the Republic of China (then led by Chiang Kai-shek) and the UK, with the USA
    as the referee. The UK apparently hoped to detach Tibet from China and add it as a
    'protectorate' to the British Empire. (The British had long had imperialistic designs on Tibet.)
    Given China's military weakness at the time, the UK presumably would have succeeded
    if the UK had been able to persuade the USA to go along with it. But the USA decided
    to support China's position (vexing the UK) that Tibet fell under China's sovereignty.
    Given that the UK had much more influence than China upon the US government, one
    would conclude that the USA made that decision on principle rather than on expedience.

    As the successor state to the Republic of China, the People's Republic of China claims
    to have inherited sovereignty over Tibet. It would be inconsistent for the USA to recognize
    the Republic of China's sovereignty over Tibet in 1949 and deny that the People's Republic
    of China (though the USA refused to recognize it until the 1970s) has such sovereignty in 1950.

    For some historical context, the Republic of China and the UK had extremely hostile relations
    long before and even during the Second World War. The Chinese loathed the British for
    their racist arrogance and sometimes brutality in Hong Kong, Shanghai, and other places.
    The UK had been allied with Japan until the early 1920s, and some Britons tended to
    sympathize with Japan during its practically genocidal invasion of China. (I know of a
    right-wing British historian who argues that the UK should have joined Japan in conquering
    and dividing China between themselves.) In particular, the British feared and hated
    Chinese sympathy for Indian nationalists (who wanted to free India from British rule).
    The British wanted the Republic of China to become weak and fail because, if it did not,
    then it would encourage Indian nationalists to believe that India could become strong
    while free of British 'protection'.

    During the Second World War itself, Tibetan nationalists formed an informal alliance with
    Japan against their common enemy China. The Japanese sent agents to Tibet to make
    contact with Tibetan leaders there. As I recall, the Dalai Lama wrote that, as a youth
    he sincerely believed that Japan and Germany were morally right, the innocent victims
    of unprovoked aggression by the Allies (including China). The wartime alliance of
    Tibetan nationalists with Japan tends to make many Chinese feel toward Tibetan
    nationalists much like Russians feel toward Ukrainian nationalists who allied with the Nazis.

    Given that China was preoccupied with defending itself against a nearly genocidal invasion
    by Japan (the ally of Tibetan nationalists), China was practically unable to assert its sovereignty
    over Tibet. That does not mean, however, that China forfeited its sovereignty over Tibet.
    During the US Civil War, the US government was unable to assert its sovereignty over
    many states, but President Lincoln would have objected strongly if the UK had claimed
    that therefore the USA no longer had sovereignty over, say, Texas.

    My main point is that China has a reasonable claim to sovereignty over Tibet.
    And that claim has been recognized internationally, including by the USA.

    Now, as an independent scholar, I don't endorse everything that China has said about or done in Tibet.
    The Free Tibet movement (whose propaganda seems eagerly lapped by gullible Westerners)
    has a shameless record of falsehoods too. Neither China's government nor the Free Tibet
    movement can be trusted to give unbiased factually accurate information about Tibet.

    I would add that, for many years, the USA and India strongly supported a Tibetan guerrilla
    war against China. The USA and India trained, armed, and even led Tibetan guerrillas into battle.
    (Some American officers were killed or captured while leading Tibetans fighting against the PLA.)
    In theory, the Tibetan guerrillas had many advantages (including rugged terrain, regular
    supplies of modern weapons and equipment, professional training in safe camps abroad).
    So why did the Tibetan nationalist fighters lose? One reason was (as the CIA soon
    discovered to its dismay) that the Tibetan guerrillas did not get enough popular support.
    The CIA began to warn its Tibetan operatives to be extremely wary of trusting Tibetans
    because too many of them would quickly inform the Chinese about the Tibetan resistance.
    And there were Tibetans (such as members of the Muslim minority who feared persecution
    under a Buddhist theocracy) who volunteered to bear arms and fight alongside the PLA.
    My point is that the Tibetan nationalist guerrilla war never became a "people's war" in
    the sense that Free Tibet propaganda would make it appear to gullible Westerners.

    Some, though not all, of China's harshness toward Tibetans in this period may be excused
    by the reality that the PLA was fighting to defend a sovereign part of China from foreign
    invasion planned and supported by the USA and India. Let's suppose that the USSR
    had spent years training Mexican guerrillas to infiltrate into the USA and fight for a free
    Hispanic homeland in the southwestern USA. Would anyone be shocked if the USA
    enacted harsh measures against members of its ethnic Mexican minority?

    What of the future? There are Tibetans who yearn for Tibet to become a Buddhist theocracy
    (perhaps 'cleansed' of its Muslim minority), nominally independent though in reality most
    likely a poor ward of India. There are other Tibetans, however, who would embrace their future
    as equal citizens of the People's Republic of China. And China's government has been
    encouraging them, with the media celebrating Tibetans ranging from the first one to earn
    a PhD at a Chinese university (and be immediately hired) to volunteers who join mountain
    warfare units in the PLA. China has no laws discriminating against Tibetans because of
    their ethnicity. Most Chinese respect and welcome all Tibetans who make efforts to learn
    Chinese and pursue lives as Chinese citizens.

    I hope that an honest accounting can be made of the tragic past, with apologies or reparations
    when called for. (My position goes beyond what China's government is ready for today.)
    I also hope that Tibetan people can join many other diverse peoples in leading fulfilling
    lives as equal citizens of China, with appropriate freedom of cultural autonomy.
    I see no reason why a nominally independent Buddhist theocracy in Tibet should be the
    only good outcome. I expect that it will be extremely painful for Free Tibet nationalists and
    their Western supporters to concede that reality's not what their propaganda has long claimed.
  12. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    04 Jun '18 06:31
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    So the hypocritical DeepThought finds it easy to condone American racism and near genocide
    against Filipinos. Contrary to his historical ignorance, even around 1900 there were a
    significant of white people (including Mark Twain) who recognized that what the USA
    was doing in the Philippines was criminal and immoral. So even around 1900 there
    were s ...[text shortened]...
    their Western supporters to concede that reality's not what their propaganda has long claimed.
    I did not condone anything, I just pointed out the difference in standards at the time. You on the other hand have just produced a lengthy justification for the occupation of Tibet. I note particularly the sentence: "Most Chinese respect and welcome all Tibetans who make efforts to learn
    Chinese and pursue lives as Chinese citizens.". In other words they will receive good treatment provided they surrender their identity.
  13. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    04 Jun '18 06:572 edits
    Originally posted by @deepthought
    I did not condone anything, I just pointed out the difference in standards at the time. You on the other hand have just produced a lengthy justification for the occupation of Tibet. I note particularly the sentence: "Most Chinese respect and welcome all Tibetans who make efforts to learn
    Chinese and pursue lives as Chinese citizens.". In other words they will receive good treatment provided they surrender their identity.
    DeepThought, an evident apologist for US or UK imperialism, keeps being disingenuous.
    (Of course, it will be easy for DeepThought to appeal to anti-Chinese racism here.)

    DeepThought seems addicted to historically ignorant 'Free Tibet' propaganda.
    How exactly can a country 'occupy' its own sovereign territory?
    Would DeepThought condemn the British Army for occupying Wales?
    In fact, Wales was independent of England, and there's a Welsh independence movement today.

    Most Chinese could not care less if some Tibetans never learn Chinese, but the practical
    point is that it would limit their opportunities if they cannot understand the main language.
    If a Tibetan wants to earn a PhD at a Chinese university, then he or she cannot write a
    dissertation in Tibetan because too few people will be able to read it. How many people
    anywhere in the world could read a PhD dissertation in Tibetan?

    Would DeepThought condemn Cherokees who learn English rather than insist on using only Cherokee?
    Would DeepThought demand that the American universities accept dissertations written in Cherokee?

    How exactly is learning another language supposed to be "surrendering one's identity"?
    If so, then I must have "surrendered my identity" at least several times because I have
    learned several languages. I am writing now in a language (English) that's very different from
    my native language and was used by some of our historical imperialist enemies (the British).
    I don't have as immature a concept of identity that DeepThought seems to embrace for Tibetans.
  14. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    04 Jun '18 08:48
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    DeepThought, an evident apologist for US or UK imperialism, keeps being disingenuous.
    (Of course, it will be easy for DeepThought to appeal to anti-Chinese racism here.)

    DeepThought seems addicted to historically ignorant 'Free Tibet' propaganda.
    How exactly can a country 'occupy' its own sovereign territory?
    Would DeepThought condemn the British Ar ...[text shortened]...
    I don't have as immature a concept of identity that DeepThought seems to embrace for Tibetans.
    "our historical imperialist enemies" - I wonder who the "we" that "our" refers to. I understood that you are an ethnically Chinese US citizen, rather than a Chinese citizen. That would explain your continuous support of their national policies. Are you a PLA cyberwarfare operative? I'm sure you'll correct my identification if I am mistaken about that.
  15. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y3ngvdp2
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    04 Jun '18 16:08
    Originally posted by @deepthought
    Ok., I'll accept that, although the article doesn't say much about what Trump actually said. Is there any indication of whether this is just Trump making random tough sounding statements in answer to a journalist's question, or is it representative of actual policy?
    Don’t know
Back to Top