is there racism in china ? i know that there are more than 50 etnicities there and the most crowd of them is han people so do han people do racism to other etnicities?
for example i know that uyghur turks being treated badly there they dont like the government or chinese people tibetians same too so is this racism or the government treats all the people inclıuding han people badly there??

so what?
anyhow, it is not us start the WW2.
and i know many same activities of mimic WW2 take place in euro and US,
by fans. so what?

i think Arnold must from Deutschland, that lamed care-taker country.

yes,there is racism in china.all the things u heard are true.there are many ethnicties suffering from this,especially uyghur turks.

What do you mean neo-nazis, and nationalists. Yeah, but no one listens to them. And they are the minorities.

cause they aren't human, they are just towel-head sand monkeys.

so it's easy to explain why they kill our people, and loot shops, and doing suicide attacks.

people who do genocide are the real motherfuckers..one day everyone will see the real power.

Good tabloid topic title
It's really weird to see this Chinese people playing the nazis.
Obviously there are just doing it for (a kind of) fun, doesn't seem there is any ideological background to all of that. Not sure they know too much about history of this war...
The report is weird mixing real nationalism with mindless youth amusement.

Yeah, but communism is no better. Who do you think is worse, Hitler and his killings of under 10 million people or stalins and his killing of over 30 million.

Actually stalin wasn't communist. Communism hasn't truely happened yet as their need to be two revolutions in a communist revolution to achieve true communism.

yes, i 100% agree with you, theturk.

turks are quiet peace loving people, they never did genocide against Armenian, never kidnapped innocent people in Afganistan, never lanched suicide attacks in west china and other place of the world, never kill han chinese, or steal from them.
there exists an evil international group called "the company", includes major powers like Armenian, America, China, and so on. they are quiet scared of the GREAT turks' mighty. so they did what ever they can to distort what really happened in history and now.

Minderbinder, i believe every country and peoples have had the past covered in blood and gore. China especially with the amount of wars and fights over land.

A little Nationalism is not so bad but some Chinese take it WAY too far. For example the Chinese girl in Berkley who was trying to get both sides of the Tibet issue to sit down and talk, she wasn't supporting the Free Tibet people, she was just saying everyone needed to stop screaming and start talking, and than the Chinese back in China found out and they vandalized her house and terrorized her family till they went into hiding, and all because she didn't follow the party line of Scream and Yell at anyone who disagrees... sick..

China Needs Nationalism!

Given the current financial crises and the challenges facing China both internally and externally, China needs to redefine its own form of nationalism. As evidenced from the Tibetan riots and Olympics in 2008, nationalist sentiments are ready to blossom fruit. Hence, if would behoove the current government in China to rid itself of all of its corruption and redefine itself through the neo-nationalist fervor seen in China.

The Peoples Republic of China could easily transition into a successful socialist structure much like Canada. Considering the assistance (rebuilding new homes.._) I've seen on the news recently regarding the victims of last years earthquakes, it would seem the Chinese government is genuinely concerned for the well-being of their citizens.

Cha1n5aw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Peoples Republic of China could easily
> transition into a successful socialist structure
> much like Canada. Considering the assistance
> (rebuilding new homes.._) I've seen on the news
> recently regarding the victims of last years
> earthquakes, it would seem the Chinese government
> is genuinely concerned for the well-being of their
> citizens.

No it couldn't. China has a population that is too large for any true form of Socialism or Communism to work. How do you give 1.3 Billion people free health Care? You don't. How do you supply viable Welfare to those without jobs? You don't. China needs a strong central government that cares very little for the needs of the poor and that's what they have. I hope they start to care a little more for the Migrant workers and such but they can't provide for that many people without having no money for improving their country's infrastructure.

The quake rebuilding and outpouring of care is not a common sight. that's why it was so amazing. Not to mention they've done nothing about the problems that were brought to light, the bad quality of construction, the corruption that led to it and more.

To Uberch:

You are absolutely right in your examples stating that China should not engage in any attempts in establishing nationwide healthcare and welfare. Such a move would be a disaster at this moment in time. However, I would disagree you in the fact that such socialistic goals are attainable, if China had certain tax policies in place.

You also shared a view that China needs a strong central government, albeit, one that does not necessarily have the poor peoples interest in heart. In this point, I agree with you that China needs a strong central government. However, this is precisely what is necessary to bring about those changes in tax policies that could lead to nationwide healthcare and welfare.

In essence, should the government take a serious step in creating nationwide healthcare and welfare; then its supreme power over the country can easily enact progressive taxes that would subsidize those programs.

Question: What kind of progressive taxes am I talking about?
Answer: Income and business taxes that increase for those with higher income.

Questions: What if those individuals/businesses decide to avoid paying their taxes.
Answer: Assuming the supreme power by the China's central government, no individual/business will be able to escape their reach.

Question: If China's currency becomes globally tradable, how does China ensure that its currency (yuan) does not be manipulated by global currency manipulators, which could be made to crash and sink China's healthcare/welfare system?
Answer: Taxes paid to the state that fund all State programs can be paid for by specially-printed yuan solely used by Chinese citizens and businesses to pay taxes and are directly distributed by the Central Bank of China. This currency is only convertible to the normal yuan though a internal fixed exchange rate set by the government. That is, the exchange rate can appreciate and depreciate as China deems necessary to maintain a favorable value to maintain all of its its societal programs, despite any international attempts to manipulate the yuan.

to OBC (interesting name, lol)
I only have data from 2003 at my fingertips. Then, China's GDP (gross domestic product) was 11.7 trillion Yuan (US$ 1.4 trillion) which translates to a GDP per capita of only 9000 Yuan, or US$ 1,100. There's the rub! However, Western Europe managed to create universal health care and social security back in the fifties when it was still poor and cleaning up the rubble from WW II. And yes, it's all paid for by taxes. Canada finances its universal health care by taxes as well but it does so with the regressive sales tax.

You said: "Assuming the supreme power by the China's central government, no individual/business will be able to escape their reach. "

Don't underestimate the ability and willingness of the rich and powerful to "vote with their feet," i.e. setting up shop in other countries, plowing their profits back there and investing part of their net assets in overseas tax havens. Whenever there are laws on the books, there are clever people who will find loopholes to circumvent such laws.

It's depressingly true that the US during Bush had a laissez-faire and deregulation attitude toward big business. But the US did have a number of regulatory laws. What big banks, such as J.P. Morgan, did was to set up their investing arms that handle derivatives in London where a much more relaxed attitude reigned. Credit default swaps were actually insurance, which is highly regulated here, so issuers called them anything but insurance and made them so complicated that no one would understand them. Likewise, the securitization of sub-prime mortgages was another innovative product that no one understood but generated tremendous profits in the short-run and few sophisticated investors anywhere in the world could resist their lure.

Btw, China played a role in the financial debacle because it looked to invest US$ 2 trillion and wanted a better return than the 1% that US Treasuries were yielding in the early part of this decade. So, it started flooding the world with cheap money. The world got very greedy and went berserk.

During the last G-20 meeting there was talk, and a degree of consensus, that the global economy exercises a far-reaching influence on the entire world and hence badly needs global regulation but how far this will go remains to be seen. Obama wants to get rid of the tax havens (All countries that thrive by encouraging their customers to engage in criminal activity. Cynical, huh?) Again, it will be interesting to see how far he will be allowed to go. The financial sector wields enormous power and i just could not imagine that your "supreme power of China's central government" is/will be entirely immune from the power of money. I promised myself not to make any more political comments at this site, so i stop here.

As George Orwell said in Animal Farm: "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2009 05:39PM by Tangerine.

To Tangerine:

Great Analysis.

China does need to take a lot of blame for the current crises.

I have a few points.

You correctly point out that rich people and businesses traditionally avoid their fair share of taxes by offshore banking, taking their businesses elsewhere, and etc. as what happens commonly in the US. In China's case, it seems reasonable that the same class of people and businesses will do the same.

However, although I know the current Chinese government has their flaws, this is where I would put my faith in state power. Assuming the most of the corrupted elements of China's government are purged, the state can enforce the tax laws I mentioned in my previous post. For example, any business that takes flight from China's market will risk loosing their fixed assets, accounts frozen, or some other penalty. For those corporations who have taken flight and try to return under a new guise, China's government can require all new entrants to disclose all of their owners/shareholders in order to gain entry to China's markets.

Of course, much easier said than done.

Quote:
Assuming the most of the corrupted elements of China's government are purged, the state can enforce the tax laws I mentioned in my previous post.

Which is where your argument, unfortunately, falls apart. What element of the government isn't corrupted? Chinese politics and business is run by guanxi and bribes. If you want to do anything in this country and deal with the Elite or the government you are going to need to bribe your way in.

I hope one day they can purge the corruption but without a MAJOR change in government it sadly wont happen.

I readily admit that the Chinese Government has better controls to prevent businesses and capital from leaving the country. Still, the rich has infinitely better opportunities to dodge taxes. The $5 million penthouse you bought for your mistress you label as a corporate retreat and deduct from your taxable income. The $ 2 million you spend every year on her to keep her happy, you can finagle as raw materials, consulting fees or whatnot. You have the means to hire top-notch tax experts to interpret the tax laws creatively in your favor. Besides, if you ever get audited you can bribe the Gov't auditor and everyone else in the Gov't to see things your way. Joe Paycheck doesn't have such options: his salary, dividends, and everything else he makes, are habitually reported to the Gov't. That's how it's here and i suspect it's the same over there.

The tax-evasion by the rich isn't limited to the US; it's done everywhere and probably on a larger scale because the top tax rates here aren't quite as steep as in many other countries. I had a good laugh last year when reading about a disgruntled employee at a Liechtenstein bank who put every account on a CD before he left the bank (don't recall whether he was fired or not). Then he shopped his CD to a number of countries and Germany bought it for $5 million. This turned out to be an excellent investment and shocking names materialized on the CD, like the guy who runs Germany's Federal Reserve or something like that. Lesson for tax havens: keep your employees happy!

To Uberche and Tangerine:

Since corruption and taxes are the only two social constants in any society, the goal then is to find a way to contain and/or manipulate them in a way that maximizes societal welfare.

There has and will always be corruption in China. However, if history is our guide, we also know that corruption in China itself had periods of dominance and relative absence. Acknowledging that I am no authority in Chinese history, what I do know is corruption has always seemed to flourish during times of peace. Hence, perhaps China needs to get into some kind on war to purge itself from its own corrupt elements.

One thing is for certain, corrupt people always like a stable environment to work in the long-run, since it is during times of revolution or war when common people find the courage to remove the corrupt from their power bases by force. Once their presence is removed from government and the irresponsible within the wealthy classes, the government can then enact those tax laws that even the rich will respect, since the government would have regained its moral legitimacy once again.

Overseas.Born.Chinese Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Hence, perhaps
> China needs to get into some kind on war to purge
> itself from its own corrupt elements.
>
>it is during times of revolution or war when
> common people find the courage to remove the
> corrupt from their power bases by force. Once
> their presence is removed from government and the
> irresponsible within the wealthy classes, the
> government can then enact those tax laws that even
> the rich will respect, since the government would
> have regained its moral legitimacy once again.

Your solution to fight corrupting by embarking on a war sounds a tad scary and, besides, the taxes levied would be used to finance the war effort instead of societal programs.

How about instead introducing transparency into the system? In the US we know pretty much what every official makes at Federal, State and Local level and for the President, Vice-President and members of Congress we also know their net worth.

We're not experiencing a revolution but the current economic crisis could be a good opportunity to clean up some of the existing excesses: CEO compensation and perks, bonus packages to Wall Street, tax havens. The media definitely has reached the stage of shaming the worst offenders and now we need to follow through.

Believe me, I'm not saying that the US is perfect. What i'd like to see here is campaign finance reform, financial limits to presidential campaigns and controls to keep blatant lies out and some sort of general intelligence/knowledge test as a prerequisite before citizens are allowed to vote.

As well, War is not a time of low corruption. The Massive building and construction projects that go on during war are actually usually part of massive corruption. Most projects go to friends of the leaders and money almost always disappears. The reason it seems like there is low corruption is no one is looking for it because they are too focused on war. Look at the USA's war in Iraq recently, it didn't make corruption disappear, instead they had no bid contracts given to friends of Bush and Cheney and Billions of dollars have went missing in Iraq and no one knows where they went.

War hides corruption. It doesn't get rid of it. (unless we're talking about war against the corrupt elements, revolution)

To Uberche and Tangerine:

Transparent government and an end to corruption are the goals every nation tries to achieve. As both of you pointed out, even the US could benefit by having more transparent government (i.e., campaign financing, voter fraud, & etc.) and corruption. In addition, Uberche is correct that other than revolution not all wars eliminate corruption as in the case of the US-Iraq War.

However, as I pointed out in my previous post, such goals still could be achieved by China, if she partakes in a regional or global war and not the type of limited war as in the case of Iraq, where all of corporate USA was not playing a large role in the war effort. I know this prospect is very scary indeed as Tangerine said; however, such a war would require all of China's factories, including the corrupt ones, to be committed to the war effort.

If China gets into such a war, all manufacturing and personnel actions could then be standardized and closely monitored by the State. Any attempts of cheating the war effort by any government official or business would only contribute to the nation's defeat and, hence, the guilty government official or business could convicted of treason and punished by death. Hence, during the long running of the war, the government and corporate China can then effectively purge itself of most of its corruption and lay out government and business anti-corruption laws similarly as in the US as well as eliminate mass unemployment. :-)

The only requirements other than winning the war is that China must fight a war against a formidable enemy and ideally last 5 years or more, which would require all Corporate China undivided participation.

Of course very radical, but due the chaotic nature of war and a very awake public mass, very possible, since it would be very difficult for corrupt individuals to show their presence in a truly global war.

So you are advocating a World War (more than 5 years would require world war) which would result in Millions if not 10's or 100's of millions of deaths as a way to get rid of Chinese corruption.... Murdering Millions of innocent people so that you can get free health care?

Seriously... what the fuck... Why not just buck up and take out the corrupt government you currently have yourself....

To Ubershe:

First of all, I do not condone any type of killing or murder.

However, as I remember, we were having a discussion on how to maximize societal welfare and minimize corruption. Having said that, our previous posts to each other illustrated the various examples on how this could be accomplished. As such, my most recent post was meant to suggest one way of attaining better social justice and the elimination of corruption in China.

In your reponse to my latest post, you convey your disdain for my theoretical suggestion of China getting herself in a mid to long term major war to gain the societal goals listed above. I am not at all surprised, as anyone would naturally express their disapproval of any war.

My response to your apparent rejection to my theoretical suggestion for China's problems is to remind you that the institution of war can be the means to a better end. Sun Tsu is quoted to have said, "warfare is providence." More recently, the great Prussian military theorist Clausewitz said, "war is the continuation of political policy by other means." As a painful result, war is way to bring about geopolitical, economic, and societal change, whether for the better or worse, whether for the good, bad, or indifferent.

Moreover, as an informed person as I am sure you are, the US practices the same policy. In looking at the US's policy regarding the war on terror, what are the current results? The last time I checked, the US-Iraq war that has claimed over a million Iraqi lives still rages on, the illegal wars in Afganistan and Pakistan are escalating, the US constitution is still shredded with the unconstitutional repeal of magna charta that indirectly allows for domestic spying, Guantanamo, the continued institution of rendition and torture, the potential war with Iran, and less we forget - the current global economic/financial crisis.

Was the US wrong to proceed with their political aims regarding the war on terror that has led to the horrors the whole World now faces?

Maybe.

However, as I inferred in the beginning of this post, the decision to go to war is made for geopolitical, economic, and societal aims regardless of its moral implications. Hence, based on this premise, the US decision to go to war was not based on the sheer desire to kill millions of people, although that well may be the final outcome, but for a policy that was perhaps the only viable option open to its leadership at that time it was made.

As a result, using the US case as I illistrated above, China's decison to enter a global war to achieve its own geopolitical, economic, and societal goals is definately a viable option to achieve her national aims regardless of the lives it may take.

Of course, if those goals could be achieved without the use of force then so be it. But as the US has shown for the most part in the 21st century, force might be the only thing that can effectively be used get things done.

Very unfortunate indeed. :-(

I'm new here, so i didn't bear to read everything so far, i from now on, i read every response lol

I personally think nationalism is bad stuff: it's not "patrotism", since it has some shade of agressivity towards foreign people...

I've noticed a few examples of nationalism in China, which afraids me: for example, on CCTV 1 or 4, i remember there used to be the Chinese anthem sung every 5 minutes, before adverts, with a PRC soldier hoisting heroically the red flag, and so on...

I remember having read on magazines some excerps of History school books in China,(i'm translating from the French version i've got): "Since the world came to be, Hong Kong has always been a Chinese territory. In 1840, Hong Kong was occupied, by force, by British Imperialism, HK has suffered its yoke for the last 156 years. The British ruled HK with violence, and three unfair treaties..." and it goes on, and on, and on, and on...

According to what i've seen and read, the History taught to Chinese children in the Mainland is utterly biased.As an illustration, every time someone makes a crtic about China on the French forum, the Chinese just don't accept it, and take great offence of it, and get angry, upset, and everything

In the media those days, they use to describe the Westerners as if they were plotting against China, trying to make it a weak country again, and so forth... A few months before the Olympics, I saw picx of demonstrations in China with people burning a french flag on which they had drawn the Svastika, saying Jeanne d'Arc was a Nazi, and so on...

But if such demonstrations take place, it's only because the Party has allowed them to do so. The Party rarely allows people to demonstrate, but it allows them that time, to burn foreign flags: that's maybe because it wants people to rise against the West, without telling them explicitly to do so, because they need our technologies, our investments, our cash,etc


NOW IM NOT SAYING ALL CHINESE ARE LIKE THIS, I VE NEVER THOUGHT SO, BUT THIS IS A TREND I VE NOTICED SINCE A FEW YEARS

most of the Chinese i've met and talked to love Europe and espescially France (so romantic according them), and don't feel anything negative about the foreign world.

but i think it's shameful to see the Communist Party trying to fool their own people, and try to turn them against other people.

now, i've been wondering about why they are trying to set that load of shit in people's minds:maybe because the Communist Party of China is an empty institution: it has abandonned what made its own core, Marxism. So it has to find something else to remain in power: they replaced communist ideology with some kind of a nationalistic ideology of which they are the center= they are trying to save China from the nasty Western Countries, that want to eat China up and swallow it. I've noticed as well, that they always try to
make people (in PRC as in the Wider World) confuse China and the Party, as if China was the Party, and the Party was China itself as a whole, and it works! = Every time I criticize the CPC in front of a PRC Chinese, i get told that i hate China (which i don't, otherwise i wouldn't be here)...

it works even with europeans= i know one guy who loves china so much (as much as i do myself:-)), that he ALWAYS argues in favour of the CPC, even on Tian an men square, Tibet, and other issues, Mao,...

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/16/2009 05:40PM by Wei Minghua.

Overseas.Born.Chinese Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To Ubershe:
>
> First of all, I do not condone any type of killing
> or murder.

> Moreover, as an informed person as I am sure you
> are, the US practices the same policy. In looking
> at the US's policy regarding the war on terror,
> what are the current results? The last time I
> checked, the US-Iraq war that has claimed over a
> million Iraqi lives still rages on, the illegal
> wars in Afganistan and Pakistan are escalating,
> the US constitution is still shredded with the
> unconstitutional repeal of magna charta that
> indirectly allows for domestic spying, Guantanamo,
> the continued institution of rendition and
> torture, the potential war with Iran, and less we
> forget - the current global economic/financial
> crisis.
>
> Was the US wrong to proceed with their political
> aims regarding the war on terror that has led to
> the horrors the whole World now faces?
>
> Maybe.
>
> However, as I inferred in the beginning of this
> post, the decision to go to war is made for
> geopolitical, economic, and societal aims
> regardless of its moral implications. Hence,
> based on this premise, the US decision to go to
> war was not based on the sheer desire to kill
> millions of people, although that well may be the
> final outcome, but for a policy that was perhaps
> the only viable option open to its leadership at
> that time it was made.

Obama committed himself on the first day he was in office to close Guantanamo within a year (he inherited a huge mess and it will take some time to find satisfactory solutions). The Justice Department announced some time ago that waterboarding is torture and hence illegal. Could you provide links to reputable websites wrt the 1 million Iraqi lives claimed by the current Iraq war? That's a number i haven't heard yet. See my post above (it may be my first post in this thread) about the current economic crisis. Lots of players, including China!, to assign blame for this debacle. Iceland went bankrupt, Ireland's and Spain's economies are in the doldrums through no fault of the US. How about a little perspective?

I find it tiresome that it is always the US who comes under attack. Why is that so? Because the US has free speech, articles and books are published about any sensitive subject that are freely debated on television and the internet without anyone running the risk of being jailed. I wish we could speak as freely here about North Korea, Myanmar (Burma), Darfur, just to name a few places on the globe. Know what i'm saying?

Even after 9/11, the US is still allowing legal immigration to the tune of 1 million a year, plus many work permits--often to foreigners who obtained advanced degrees in the US and occupy well-paying positions--plus another 12-14 million people who are here illegally. It seems reasonable to conclude therefore that the US can't be all bad. How many people are allowed to emigrate to China and obtain citizenship there in order to "seek the good life?"

What percentage of China's economic progress over the last two decades is attributable to exports to the US? When will China stop manipulating its currency to make their exports more attractive overseas? What do you think would happen to China if the US would turn protectionist (i'm not advocating this nor is the US contemplating such action)?

I'm at this forum because i'm drawn to China, its history, culture and its people (and its food, too). This doesn't mean that i should accept without questioning any policy and action instituted by the Chinese Government. And neither should you, if you were half-smart. In any society, nuanced thinking will promote the general well-being of its citizenry and reduce the risk of wars.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2009 09:38AM by Tangerine.

OBC, in an attempt to lighten up your mood i'm going to tell an old Soviet Union joke. The Soviet Union is no more but this joke is still relevant:

A Russian dog went to Paris and strolled along the Champs Elysées where he encountered two French dogs. The usual canine formalities followed: frantic tail wagging, exchanging kisses and sniffing each other's behinds.

Then one of the two French dogs said, "I know why you came to France! It's for our fabulous food!"
The Russian dog said, "Nope. We have pretty decent food in Russia."
The other French dog said, "Oh, but i know why you came to Paris. It's for our oh la la females."
The Russian dog said, "Nah, we have good and beautiful women in Russia."

The two French dogs were flabbergasted and finally they said, "But why in the world then did you come all the way to France?"
The Russian dog said, "To bark."

Overseas.Born.Chinese Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My response to your apparent rejection to my
> theoretical suggestion for China's problems is to
> remind you that the institution of war can be the
> means to a better end. Sun Tsu is quoted to have
> said, "warfare is providence." More recently, the
> great Prussian military theorist Clausewitz said,
> "war is the continuation of political policy by
> other means." As a painful result, war is way to
> bring about geopolitical, economic, and societal
> change, whether for the better or worse, whether
> for the good, bad, or indifferent.

War with purpose can be good. War because you are too lazy to deal with your country's corruption is just insane.

> Moreover, as an informed person as I am sure you
> are, the US practices the same policy.

I don't like the US's policy's but it is not the same. The US does not fight wars because it doesn't like corruption at home. It fights wars to ensure it's political policies are kept in place. Iraq was about securing oil, securing a Middle East strong hold and also Iraq was pushing to drop the US Dollar as the Oil trading currency which would have seriously hurt the US economy.

War because you don't want to fix your problems is very different from war for a strategic political aim.

> In looking
> at the US's policy regarding the war on terror,
> what are the current results? The last time I
> checked, the US-Iraq war that has claimed over a
> million Iraqi lives still rages on, the illegal
> wars in Afganistan and Pakistan are escalating,
> the US constitution is still shredded with the
> unconstitutional repeal of magna charta that
> indirectly allows for domestic spying, Guantanamo,
> the continued institution of rendition and
> torture, the potential war with Iran, and less we
> forget - the current global economic/financial
> crisis.

None of this has anything to do with what we were talking about. Now you're just trying to say "the US is bad so we can be too!" The US's actions are the cause of many huge problems all around the world and which are leading to the continued fall of the US's economy, So how is following their lead going to help China exactly?

> However, as I inferred in the beginning of this
> post, the decision to go to war is made for
> geopolitical, economic, and societal aims
> regardless of its moral implications. Hence,
> based on this premise, the US decision to go to
> war was not based on the sheer desire to kill
> millions of people, although that well may be the
> final outcome, but for a policy that was perhaps
> the only viable option open to its leadership at
> that time it was made.

You are comparing a war with a specific goal and purpose (removing Saddam and installing a friendly government) to one with no goal, no end and no reason. If you want to advocate killing people to get rid of corruption you should be talking about a revolution in China, not the random killing of strangers who have nothing to do with the problem.

> As a result, using the US case as I illistrated
> above, China's decison to enter a global war to
> achieve its own geopolitical, economic, and
> societal goals is definately a viable option to
> achieve her national aims regardless of the lives
> it may take.

You're not talking about a war with a goal. You're talking about killing innocent people because China is too lazy to deal with it's own corruption.

It's like if I have a loud dog that wont stop barking and I go to you, my neighbour, and say I'm going to torture and kill you, very slowly. Why am i going to do it? because I'm tired of the dog's barking and your screams of pain will cover the noise. Sure when I am finished the problem will still be there but for a little while it will go away! Sound good?

When the war ends the corruption wont be gone, it'll just come back and you'll need more killing, it's a cycle of violence.

> Of course, if those goals could be achieved
> without the use of force then so be it. But as
> the US has shown for the most part in the 21st
> century, force might be the only thing that can
> effectively be used get things done.

No it hasn't. The US has shown that when you constantly use force to solve problems that don't need force (many of it's wars have been needless) all it does is create HUGE amounts of enemies who hate you and will do anything they can to kill you. Why do you think so much of the world hates the US government? Why do you think 9/11 happened? Why do you think Hugo Chavez can go in front of the United Nations and call George Bush Jr. Satan and Evil and have most people applaud him?

The US is on the verge of collapsing BECAUSE of it's use of force, if China follows it's path it will end up the same

Tangerine,

I am very happy to hear your love for China and I too share a strong affinity for our Motherland.

First of all, I will cover the points you raised regarding the causes of the current global financial crisis at another time. Such a topic would require me an entire website to cover all the issues.

I will offer a rebuttal though to your views regarding the US. In the past, the US did have much to brag about when it came to personal freedoms and rights. However, since the Patriot Act passed under the Bush administration, many of those rights have been suspended most notably that of habeas corpus. As it currently stands, the US government needs to just declare you an enemy combatant and they can arrest you without any charges. This, of course, indirectly threatens free speech and assembly. Moreover, President Obama never has or does intend to repeal the Patriot Act anytime soon.

You also mentioned how great the immigration policy is in the US. You stated how the US allows many unskilled, skilled, as well as illegal foreign workers into their country as proof of their open door policy in trying to share the American Dream to everyone in the World.

However, who was this policy good for? Today, if you asked any US citizens whether if this policy was a good one. You will probably have many former middle class and the remaining working classes disagree with you and wish the US kept all its borders closed to foreigners and no immigration that stole jobs for US citizens at the beginning. In contrast, the remaining wealthy classes would say it was good because it exploited cheap legal and illegal foreign labor and used foreign brain power work to make their companies rich, instead of the companies from those immigrants home nation.

Finally, you touched on how China has benefited from having the US buy its exports. This is true, but remember, the US always benefited from the lower prices China had to offer. The US did not do China a favor in regards to this matter; it simply bought things from China because of its low prices.

Having said the above, the US remains a good historical model, whose laws and policies are worth studying. However, one must remember that the US is no dummy; it does things for its own benefit.