Tibet

[Ramen4ever]

Is anyone else keeping up with the riots in Tibet and around the world?
What are your thoughts on the matter?

[Joe Siegler]

Doubt it. That's too serious of a subject for most people here to care about unfortunately.

[hellchicken]

Even with the Olympic Games coming up analysts say the chances of protesters making a difference for Tibet are slim to non-existant. That's pretty sad considering the images of Tjananmen Square are still very present in people's minds.
The US seem to not give a shit, just like the EU, as there is no econmomic gain for any of them by interventing in this situation, unlike Taiwan, though there the conflict is stalled at best.

I think it just shows how far the human race has to go to reach utopia, if we're not wiped of the face of the earth before that.

[avatar_58]

Doubt it. That's too serious of a subject for most people here to care about unfortunately.

Thats a bit harsh isn't it? Most avoid talking about it simply because it's considered a political topic.

[Superczar]

Thats a bit harsh isn't it? Most avoid talking about it simply because it's considered a political topic.

Yep, I've been trying to avoid any and all such "discussions" since coming back, look how the tax thread got out of hand, and it was just about taxes, yeesh... :rolleyes:

[EDIT]Ah nevermind, was going to throw in my 2 cents to the whole situation but frankly I don't feel like being argued against by someone else who has no more expertise in world politics than I do (and yes, that isn't much).

[Hyperactive Slob]

Thats a bit harsh isn't it? Most avoid talking about it simply because it's considered a political topic.
Yep I was hesitant on posting my opinion at first because of the nature of the topic. I think the Chinese Government is extremely oppresive and if it wants to resolve the Unrest it sure as hell not going to be done with violence. Too bad they don't seem to understand that.

[thefly]

The US seem to not give a shit, just like the EU, as there is no econmomic gain for any of them by interventing in this situation, unlike Taiwan, though there the conflict is stalled at best.


I just finished reading an article talking about how big companies like McDonald's who are sponsors of the Olympics are trying to figure out how to skirt this issue while paying China a butt load of cash without looking bad. Yes, the best way to address this would be through economic means, but you're right. They don't give a shit. :(

[Joe Siegler]

Thats a bit harsh isn't it? Most avoid talking about it simply because it's considered a political topic.

I speak from experience. I know what causes problems and what doesn't.

[hellchicken]

I speak from experience. I know what causes problems and what doesn't.

This topic causing problems and people not caring are not the same thing.

I actually think this here forum is one of the very few select places on the net (at least concerning game-sites) where enough actually intelligent people care about such topics.

[Joe Siegler]

Fair point, I chose the wrong words on my first post. What I meant was that people don't care enough to put up with the mindless bullshit that usually shows up on topics like this when they go past the first or second page. SOMEONE comes in and trashes the topic, and it ends up as a mess.

Or someone comes in, derails the topic, and it ends up being something totally different.

[thefly]

BASSETERRE, St. Kitts (AP) - International Olympic Committee President Jacques Rogge poured cold water Saturday on calls for a boycott of the Summer Games in Beijing over China's crackdown in Tibet, saying it would only hurt athletes.

"We believe that the boycott doesn't solve anything," Rogge told reporters on this Caribbean island. "On the contrary, it is penalizing innocent athletes and it is stopping the organization from something that definitely is worthwhile organizing."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VE054O1&show_article=1

[Daveman]

I really wish the US would have announced a boycott as soon as it was announced that the games would be in China. Too bad it won't happen now. :(

[hiob]

I'm really worried by the recent developments, especially because neither the USA, nor the EU want to act. No matter how unified and strong the Tibetan people are, they will not be able to survive their fight for freedom and independence alone. And if they don't fight they will slowly dissapear.
It makes me sad, that I am powerless to do anything. :(

[Commando Nukem]

I'm really worried by the recent developments, especially because neither the USA, nor the EU want to act. No matter how unified and strong the Tibetan people are, they will not be able to survive their fight for freedom and independence alone. And if they don't fight they will slowly dissapear.
It makes me sad, that I am powerless to do anything. :(

China has been proliferating for years now. Tibet has also been slowly growing this movement. This was just a matter of time for this clash to come. China hasnt exactly been a mild mannered fair haired boy lately economically or otherwise. It seems as if many people have just been ignoring their agressive actions towards US naval ships. Theres something brewing thats a little bigger then the tibet situation.

I pray for the people of Tibet, and that perhaps our governement or the governments of Europe are just keeping hush hush about their plans for support. (economic, or whatever.)

Going up against China is a dangerous game however, they're a big beast with an agressive culture, if a war broke out I dont want to think about the kinds of hell we'd be facing in Taiwan, Tibet and possibly even Japan depending on the spill over.

Lets just hope someone steps up and gives some measure of support here, somewhere. Irregardless of the politics. It'd be nice to see some genuine convinction in this world again.

[Nessus]

Joe I can't decide decide if you're being a pessimist or a realist, maybe both.

As to whats going over there I've heard about the riots but I don't know what the root cause of the unrest is. Can anyone sum up what it is the monks want or why the are being oppressed?

As to what to do about what can we do? It it the place of the United States government or corporations based to here to fix this problem? Isn't that what we are chastised for trying to do in Iraq? And look what happened in Kosovo. We bombed the hell out of them and set the whole region back ten years and I'm not even sure we supported the right side. Maybe it's best the West stays out of these affairs regardless of who is in the right.

[Daveman]

As to what to do about what can we do? It it the place of the United States government or corporations based to here to fix this problem?Considering the fact that the Chinese government is being propped up with the support of American corporations, I'd say there needs to be something done. China is remarkable in the extreme amount of power corporations can have because of their influence on the government, so to say that they're not involved is misleading.
Isn't that what we are chastised for trying to do in Iraq?
I don't know what this is referring to. The influx of American businesses in Iraq is entirely different because the new Iraqi government is (in theory) inclusive of minority groups, and they're not such a huge part of the Iraqi government. I mean, the Iraqi government hardly has any power anyway, but it's not because of a lack of corporate support. The Chinese government couldn't survive without American corporations, and not doing anything is sort of an endorsement. To say that corporations don't care who they deal with in China is flat wrong. They love the current government because it gives them cheap labor and a huge (potential, at this point) market.

[Daveman]

Wow. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7302021.stm) I mean, I know the Chinese government is loaded with douchebags, but how can they seriously accuse the Dalai Lama of orchestrating violence? These guys are insane.

[shiranui]

The Dalai Lama is no saint; infact he is a bit of an arsehole.

The Chinese goverment is evil, but, like Saudi Arabia, the west needs them too much to censure them.

[mysteryperfecta]

Doubt it. That's too serious of a subject for most people here to care about unfortunately.

Anyone deliberately antagonizing other forum users by posting 'flame bait' type messages is not welcome.

[avatar_58]

Why do folks keep bringing up the goddamn Olympics? People are dying and fighting in the streets and the only thing the world can think about is "Will I be able to win my medal? / Watch it on TV?" Get real. This is far more important and needs to be taken care of before we start worrying about a silly thing like the Olympics.

It also saddens me this shit couldn't be done peacefully. The Chinese government is hard nut to crack. Though someone has to explain to me just what the hell the rest of the world is turning their backs on this. It's like all the other governments are turning their heads and hoping China will just "deal with it" regardless of the outcome. Thats really just horrible....

[Ramen4ever]

^
Agreed Avatar.
I'm sure if enough people start turning over cars around the world, the nations will have to do something.
A curious thing that no one on the news seems to want to mention. Why are there so many Chinese shops? Ever since the railway was completed the Chinese have just been flocking in. No doubt, to mine the uranium deposits, create nuclear power plants, and dump their waste on a population they care nothing about.
But lets get back to the shops, as we all know it's hard enough for major countries to compete with China economically, so how are Tibetan shop owners supposed to keep up? The Chinese are running them out of jobs. Ethnic and religious suppression and to top it off, the Tibetans are facing an economic crisis.

Bottom line for this whole issue is this. "People are being Forced against their will." No matter how China sugercoats it, that is the sad truth. If an entire population wishes to be left alone in isolation, people as human beings are morally obligated to comply. People are not animals and the Chinese Government needs to realize that fact.

[Daveman]

No! Free trade must reign throughout the world!

Seriously though, replace "China" with "US" and "Tibet" with "Mexico" or "Central America" in that post and it's the same thing over here, but with less overt violence.

[Nessus]

I'm not sure I like the idea of corporations getting involved in politics in this fashion. What if Honda decided they didn't like some aspect of the US position. Or how about the Basque separatists in Spain, would the worlds corporations be right in taking up their cause. I'm not against the Tibetans and it would be nice if China just left them alone but intervening in the affairs of China is no small thing. Plus lets not forget the law of unintended consequences, who knows what could happen after getting involved in this.

[evanazzo]

Personally I don't think corporations or governments (besides China's) should get involved.

[Daveman]

I'm not sure I like the idea of corporations getting involved in politics in this fashion. What if Honda decided they didn't like some aspect of the US position. Or how about the Basque separatists in Spain, would the worlds corporations be right in taking up their cause. I'm not against the Tibetans and it would be nice if China just left them alone but intervening in the affairs of China is no small thing. Plus lets not forget the law of unintended consequences, who knows what could happen after getting involved in this.
But not doing anything is getting involved. Without any action or lobbying against the Chinese government, corporations that are implicitly condoning the actions. The analogy to the US would apply in the worst parts of US foreign policy (which in some cases are no different than what China is doing right now), but a corporation saying that it "disagrees" with a policy is very different than condemning an indefensible policy like China's.

[Nessus]

So what actions do you think would be feasible for various global corporations to take against China in this instance?

[Daveman]

At the very least they could publicly condemn the actions, or help to negotiate some kind of an agreement. The most I could expect them to do would be to threaten to cut ties with the government. It's not just corporations that are silent on the issue, though, it's the US government and EU as well. They're not doing anything to pressure the corporations into any action because ultimately they don't care.

[Destructor]

The Dalai Lama needs to resign and a new great leader needs to take his place. The Tibetans are sick of the soft approach and with the Bejing Olympics this may be the last opportunity they get in restoring a free Tibet.

[Daveman]

The Dalai Lama can't "resign". He's not a political leader. He can't "resign" as the reincarnation of Buddha.

[Tetsuro]

Strangely enough, I just read yesterday an article of Dalai Lama threatening to resign...

As for the connection of the situation in Tibet and the Olympics, all I can say is...take the frikkin' Olympics away from the Chinese already. Seriously, there's a whole slew of standards the city/country must meet before the Committee can even consider them and I'm wondering how the hell China got them in the first place.

The Chinese government is helplessly outdated in this modern world. They still try to censor these things and assure all the foreigners everything's fine with their great country, but no amount of internet blockage and threatening citizens and journalists is going to stop this info from leaking to the outer world.

[evanazzo]

Can they take the Olympics away from a country? I think this will blow over by the time the Olympics come around.

[Nessus]

Maybe China shouldn't have gotten the Olympics in the first place, I don't know but I think there's no way they will be taken away now. They have spent a bloody fortune getting ready and the Olympics take some pretty serious preparation, I think they're going to go on unless there is wholesale slaughter which doesn't seem likely. If China was initially denied the Olympics I have a feeling people would have been screaming discrimination of some sort.

[HazMat]

Um guys the good old USA has a government that adores China. They want their government to be more like the Chinese government. If you think the Us armed forces are going to help out anyone in Tibet then you really don't know how the world works. Dose anyone know what I am talking about? The ideal government that government wants in the west is the Chinese government. Do you have any idea what the US government is preparing for right now? the prisons with massive furnaces located right next to railway lines that are being built? Wake up! And some of you think they will save people in Tibet. No way. The people in Tibet are considered terrorist because they live in the old world. it dosent matter if they are peaceful. What matters is that they are not with the neo cons who want nothing more then power. Acording to the US government they feel that China has been able to turn the corner into the new world and they feel that the Chinese government has enough power on its own people and now they can go about into the next phase of civilization without the headaches that the west have. The west has not turned the corner and are seeking ways to gain more power over its people. this is happening in slow motion right in front of you. You no longer own your property or any of your belongings. You may think you do but uncle sam has the right to take all of it away. Dont believe me? Check the patriot act again. I will say it again, the US government adores the power China has on its people and are going about their buisnes to achieve such power. that is what is happening.

[thefly]

Well, HazMat, I will agree to your underlying point, even if you did go a bit extreme there. I wish I knew what the next evolution form of government will be.

[ShakeItBaby]

Yes, as a few have said, you won't see George Bush locking and loading over China's genocidal treatment of its ethnic minorities, because unlike the situation with Iraq's genocidal treatment of its ethnic minorities, China has more value as a trading nation than as an oil stealing target.

[Kalki]

And they have nukes. Let's not forget the nukes.

[X-Vector]

So we're talking about a country with a neighbour harassing dictatorial leadership and in possession of intercontinental WMD's - let's invade already!

Shock and awe people, shock and awe.

[evanazzo]

Yeah that will go over well with the UN

[mysteryperfecta]

So we're talking about a country with a neighbour harassing dictatorial leadership and in possession of intercontinental WMD's - let's invade already!

Shock and awe people, shock and awe.

Have they violated the terms of a cease fire? :p

[HazMat]

Well, HazMat, I will agree to your underlying point, even if you did go a bit extreme there. I wish I knew what the next evolution form of government will be.

Absolute power. In 500 years there will physical differentials in the actual appearance of the masters and the slaves. They will continue the drugging of the populations until we totally succumb to them as servants. The aliens we are familiar with from pics on the net are probably cloned workers for the future masters. If you want to know who the masters will be google The Builderburg group. they are in for the full show now and nothing can stop them. I believe the technological miracles will even grant them immortality and there is no way they will share that with us. It is just evolution. We are now entering a stage 1 civilization. The part where all the tribes of the old waorld will be exterminated to clear the way for the new world order. In their eyes there is only one future and that is total domination of the planet. A stage 2 civilization will no longer be Dependant on the planet but instead will mine energy from the local star. Stage 2 is immortal and even the destruction of the entire planet wont kill them off. Stage 3 is universal and the real gods of our universe. All this is for real and billions of tax payers money goes into looking for a stage 3 civilization each year. Were only just now entering stage 1 where we will no longer be burning fossil fuels but rather harvesting the powers of the planetary forces. Although it is frightening for us civilians there is somewhat comfort in the fact the we as humans will be masters of the universe someday. Please watch this short video where the future of civilization is explained in a fascinating way.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=V7FVjATcqvc

[mysteryperfecta]

I think he's being serious.

[Daveman]

Okay, there's radical thinking, which is great, and there's insane, misinformed radicalism.

[Tetsuro]

Insane, misinformed radicalism?

That sounded more like "conspiracy nut" to me...

[Daveman]

Isn't it the same thing? I'm trying to make the distinction between reasoned, informed radicalism and what we seem to have stumbled upon.

[IwantMORE]

I really wish the US would have announced a boycott as soon as it was announced that the games would be in China. Too bad it won't happen now. :(


Do you realize how much of the worlds good come form China? A boycot won't work. Military options are well out of the question, even if the whole of the world ganged up on China there is a chance they could still win a war!

Even the Dalai Lama is saying boycotting the Olympics is not the right move. So what's the answer?

Without condoning what's happening in China, it's not that bad if you compare them to western countries like England, America, Gremany, France, Portugal and Spain. Although these countries are better now all have a recent history of invading and ruling other countries and causing atrocities equal to China.

China is not as bad as it was 15 years ago and is moving (all be it slowly) in the right direction. The Olympics has the opportunity to move China another step in the right direction.

Sustained pressure from the global community to urge China to change and as much help as possible is the best option, but if you look a Chinees labor (http://www.chinalaborwatch.org/) conditions it's just as bad if not worse than the Tibet problem, but big business, governments and the media are much more reluctant to talk about this as probably over 1/3 of what they own are made in these sweatshops.

All we can realistically hope for is that the spotlight being on China this year might help reform the country and that the transition is as peaceful as possible. The last thing we want is China to 'reform' like USSR did!

[thefly]

Here's a good reason not to go.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=3304115

[IwantMORE]

Here's a good reason not to go.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=3304115

Wow the same advice you would get if you were going to America from Europe, or Europe from America!

[clayasaurus]

Is HazMat's material so threatening that it takes a total of four posts, lacking content, to counter him? ;)

Anyways, my thought of the Tibet situation is that, while sad, I don't see much hope for Tibet. China seems determined to assimilate them even if it means war. China desperately needs access to more resources as its economy continues to prosper, and Tibet is an easy target.

[HazMat]

Hey guys sorry for the way out there posts that I have made. It is just when I see security forces swarm a peaceful group of people like we see happening in Tibet i get all overrun by emotion. So in a way my post back there was a reasoning within myself to make sense of where our world is heading with these over the top security forces. they will use terrorism as an excuse to basically terrorize poor people. the new world is here and for now we will see this sort of thing until anyone left alive will be in with the neo cons who own us.

For now enjoy life, enjoy the freedom that you have left and realize that we are lucky to be alive right now despite the ruthless paths world governments are taking to retain their grip.

[Superczar]

Heh, forget your tinfoil hat tonight there Hazmat? ;) :p

[Daveman]

Do you realize how much of the worlds good come form China? A boycot won't work.
Better than nothing though? The US government has said next to nothing on the issue because it doesn't give two shits.

Without condoning what's happening in China, it's not that bad if you compare them to western countries like England, America, Gremany, France, Portugal and Spain. Although these countries are better now all have a recent history of invading and ruling other countries and causing atrocities equal to China.
Absolutely. It's no different from what any other powerful, imperial nation ever does. The US has done similar things extremely recently, to the point where I don't have any doubt that it'll happen again. But aren't we supposed to feel urged to do something? What's the point of condemning slavery, colonialism, imperialism, and genocide if we're just going to say "oh well" when it happens again?

China is not as bad as it was 15 years ago and is moving (all be it slowly) in the right direction. The Olympics has the opportunity to move China another step in the right direction.
I get the impression that the Chinese government is using it as a show of "See? We're not so bad!". It's all money, and the Olympics won't change anything because the government of China doesn't care about human rights abuses any more than the governments in Europe or the US care.

[HazMat]

Yeah I cant argue with you there Daveman. The days of having good honest leaders are long gone. It truly is the saddest thing I have ever experienced, that is the fact that these slimy mega rich cheating ass holes control everything. Tibetan life as we know it is over now. They will be declared terrorist and then the Chinese neo cons will piss all over them until they drown. A great part of humanity is dieing right now.

[HazMat]

you know the west solution is to stage a terrorist attack and the blame it on the ones they wish to terminate. Hitler said "Put all of your enemies in one basket and then give them a name so then the people will get behind you in their destruction". Hitler said something like that anyways.

[Daveman]

Yeah I cant argue with you there Daveman. The days of having good honest leaders are long gone.
With a few exceptions, I don't think they were ever around.
They will be declared terrorist and then the Chinese neo cons will piss all over them until they drown.
Neo-con is not interchangeable with totalitarian. I agree with you that it's horrible the way Tibetan culture is being exterminated, though.

[Nessus]

Tibetan life as we know it is over now. They will be declared terrorist and then the Chinese neo cons will piss all over them until they drown.

There are no Chinese Neo Cons. You can't just use that term as a generic for oppressive power. The Neo Cons in America are a bunch of ex Marxists who decided that their aims could be better served if the posed as conservatives. Faux Conservatives would be a more accurate term for what they are.

The Chinese are just dictators who wrap themselves in the ideology of Marxism even though they pick and chose their stance as it suits them.

[Ramen4ever]

Theres only one thing that confuses me. Don't the rich *******s that control the world realize that if things keep on going the way they are going. There won't be a world for them to rule? It'll just be an empty ravaged planet. There won't be governments or companies, we'll be too busy learning how to make fire again, that is if there will even be one person left alive. A global dictatorship cannot sustain itself.
Instead of moving forward as a species, we are using up whats left of our planets resources in a brutal competition of quality of life. Instead of raising it collectively, people stand on the less fortunes shoulders. Like rats in a sinking ship.
Think about it, the planet will be here in a 1000 years.. will we?

[IwantMORE]

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/east/01/08/tibet.lama.01/map.china.tibet.gif

It is a rather large chunk of China!

[John]

Doubt it. That's too serious of a subject for most people here to care about unfortunately.

Abit ironic don't we think?

[HazMat]

Hey think about this, we are all smart enough today to know that the US only goes to war for profit not to help out unfortunate people right? What the hell was Vietnam for? Did the US want to set up their own puppet government there to trade in drugs? A little drug empire that would finance their black ops on other poor countries?

If the US won the Vietnam war we all would be heroin addicts right now! Thank f*ck they got there asses kicked hard.

[Scotty]

I thought the world got divided among WWII's allies (US, UK, France, USSR) into "spheres of influence" after WWII. As such, areas like East/West Berlin/Germany, North/South Korea/Vietnam were destined to be problematic.

[HazMat]

So do you think we were there to help out the poor south Vietnamese? Or to set up a state as a puppet government?

[Hudson]

So do you think we were there to help out the poor south Vietnamese? Or to set up a state as a puppet government?

They had WMDs

Hey think about this, we are all smart enough today to know that the US only goes to war for profit not to help out unfortunate people right? What the hell was Vietnam for? Did the US want to set up their own puppet government there to trade in drugs? A little drug empire that would finance their black ops on other poor countries?

If the US won the Vietnam war we all would be heroin addicts right now! Thank f*ck they got there asses kicked hard.

Can I borrow your tinfoil hat?

[Commando Nukem]

What the hell was Vietnam for? Did the US want to set up their own puppet government there to trade in drugs? A little drug empire that would finance their black ops on other poor countries?

Stop drinking soap. Vietnam was about spearheading the spread of communism. Which had declared itself the sworn enemy of capitalism. Two sides influencing a smaller nation with arms, and eventually very heavy military support from the US.

From a military stand point we inflicted HEAVY, HEAVY casualties on the NVA and VIET CONG forces, the problem was the political party play with the war back HERE. We never lost a battle in Vietnam. We merely left the war because our nose was bloodied. Low national morale brought America to its knees.

If we were so "greedy" in trying to conquer the world as you say we would not have stopped just because thousands of lives were lost. The NV "won" because it didnt quit and because we did. Our forces were not allowed to establish occupying bases in enemy territory. Time and again battles were fought over the same piece of land, because of political games.

Now, if there was truly a massive conspiracy to attack Vietnam and that was the same conspiracy at play with the lack of response against Chinese proliferation, do you really think Corporate America would care how many soldiers died so they could line their pockets? The answer is no, they wouldnt care, they wouldnt listen to public outcry, they'd do what they wanted to. Again, the VC and NVA did not "kick our asses" so much as we took losses, and gave them right back I might add, and the president realised that from a political standpoint it was made into an unwinnable quagmire by polititicians who couldnt be pissed about anything but their own partisanship. Sickening.


If the US won the Vietnam war we all would be heroin addicts right now! Thank f*ck they got there asses kicked hard.

Right, because nobody has any control over what they sniff,smoke,drink or shove up their rears right? Its all force fed into you. You poor pitiful slave.

Its easy to blame "Whitey" "Rich Corporate Elitists" "The Government" "Terrorists" "My Mom" or any other title for your own misfortunes. Truth be told most of the bad that happens in our lives is our personal responsibillity and we should hold ourselves at least to THAT. The idea that the government is just out to get you is cynism at its highest, and is the completely backwards and WRONG way to arrive at ANY conclusion. Let the facts in full, unedited, speak for themselves.


So do you think we were there to help out the poor south Vietnamese? Or to set up a state as a puppet government?

Same old song, different set of speakers. Evil USA out to torture, pillage,and murder.

Tell me Hazmat, how do you account for the lack of held territory by the US? We have held no land from Germany, Japan, France, or any other nation we have invaded or liberated from the clutches of a dictator. We have always given it back with the exception of some space to bury dead and an embassy for diplomatic relations.

You read about all the TRUE and powerful dictators of history and you see, they take land, they take the women and children as their own slaves and servants, they take all the natural resources... Now im not saying America is perfect, or that we do everything right, far from, we've made some pretty bad choices in recent decades in regards to world affairs, and scenes like 9/11, the cole, and others have been the price... But you cannot justify anger with terrorism, which is the major MAJOR point people like you dont see... Then again you dont see it anything like what I do, so thats moot.

As for the Tibet situation, America is not quite in a place to help right now, we're fighting two wars and the bulk of our military strength is committed to that fight. So we'd basically end up looking like a small yorkie barking at a great dane right now.

Any Economic push of any kind could quite possibly lead to World War 3. I think a more under handed method will work to keep China "bogged down". The right buys and sells here and there could easily kick China in the butt. Of course that would require the individual corporations to take risks. Some of corporate America, particularly energy corps are hearing the angered American crowd, wanting the US to be Independent again from foreign oil and the economic grapple with China "Buy American" is slowly growing into a more popular slogan... If we are successful, at least partially, we might be able to break the grip from symbiosis we are in with China. Of course the situation in Tibet requires more immediate action.

Its a shakey future, thats for damn sure. Any choice could be good or bad depending on the way it possibly backlashes.:(

[Delicieuxz]

For interest's sake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking

Alleged CIA Jet crashes with 4 tons of cocaine on board (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/12/19210/608/933/420107)

Third Cocaine Plane Surfaces and is Tied to Web of Government Connections (http://www.narconews.com/Issue49/article2989.html)

Russia accuses the U.S. military of involvement in drug trafficking out of Afghanistan (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8180)

[Delicieuxz]

Originally Posted by HazMat
If the US won the Vietnam war we all would be heroin addicts right now! Thank f*ck they got there asses kicked hard.


Right, because nobody has any control over what they sniff,smoke,drink or shove up their rears right? Its all force fed into you. You poor pitiful slave.

Its easy to blame "Whitey" "Rich Corporate Elitists" "The Government" "Terrorists" "My Mom" or any other title for your own misfortunes. Truth be told most of the bad that happens in our lives is our personal responsibillity and we should hold ourselves at least to THAT. The idea that the government is just out to get you is cynism at its highest, and is the completely backwards and WRONG way to arrive at ANY conclusion. Let the facts in full, unedited, speak for themselves.
His point wasn't as literal as you're making it out to be. He was being dramatic, but I don't think his point was hard to catch.

[Nessus]

His point wasn't as literal as you're making it out to be. He was being dramatic, but I don't think his point was hard to catch.


Well going by his posts in this thread he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt from me. If you're going to pop off on so many fringe conspiracy theories in the manner he does you have to make ti clear when you're just fooling around. And this is coming from me who gets told all of the time to get my own tinfoil hat for believing many of the same things Hazmat does.

[IwantMORE]

Why are we nowadays not fighting a war in Zimbabwe, Suda, North Korea?

Natural resources are an important factor in war as well as stopping expansion of alternative regimes. Yes the main aim of the war was to try and stop the spread of the 'red threat' but if it gives you a boost in resources too then that's good.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/heroin/historic.htm

And we are still doing it today.

"Taleban had cut Afghanistan's heroin production by about 95%" - Before the US invasion.

"The liberation of Afghanistan may have ended one evil, but unless it is stopped, it is creating a bigger evil - an 800% increase in heroin production" - Now!

Then again the US is only following Europes lead off the opium trade in the 1800's.

How's that saying go, if you don't learn from history you are condemned to repeat it!

[Destructor]

From a military stand point we inflicted HEAVY, HEAVY casualties on the NVA and VIET CONG forces, the problem was the political party play with the war back HERE. We never lost a battle in Vietnam. We merely left the war because our nose was bloodied. Low national morale brought America to its knees.

Never lost a battle? The Americans were slaughtered because of the advanced gurilla tactics the Vietnamese used. That's my understanding anyway. America was totally unprepared and fought in the conventional style.


Now, if there was truly a massive conspiracy to attack Vietnam and that was the same conspiracy at play with the lack of response against Chinese proliferation, do you really think Corporate America would care how many soldiers died so they could line their pockets? The answer is no, they wouldnt care, they wouldnt listen to public outcry, they'd do what they wanted to. Again, the VC and NVA did not "kick our asses" so much as we took losses, and gave them right back I might add, and the president realised that from a political standpoint it was made into an unwinnable quagmire by polititicians who couldnt be pissed about anything but their own partisanship. Sickening.


I think it's a good thing the US pulled out of Vietnam. Like Iraq, they shouldn't have invaded in the first place. The US should let nations develop the way they want to develop and hopefully after time, like Russia, they reform their governments to a more democratic affair.



Right, because nobody has any control over what they sniff,smoke,drink or shove up their rears right? Its all force fed into you. You poor pitiful slave.


Well, if everyone was smoking dope surely you would be more tempted to try it, whereas if nobody smoked the stuff you'd probably have a hard time just getting it, wouldn't you? :confused:


Same old song, different set of speakers. Evil USA out to torture, pillage,and murder.

No, naughty USA out to interfere with other country's governments, whilst also gathering resources for themselves.


As for the Tibet situation, America is not quite in a place to help right now, we're fighting two wars and the bulk of our military strength is committed to that fight. So we'd basically end up looking like a small yorkie barking at a great dane right now.


Why would you want the US to fight China? That would be insane! What we need is a worldwide boycott on the Bejing Olympics, and public pressure everywhere to make China release it's grip on Tibet. After all, as I read in an article somewhere, China doesn't really need Tibet, only the Communist Party does.

[HazMat]

For the record I can think of many ambushes in vietnam that left American casualties all over the jungle. The Vietnamese prepared for decades for the battle against the west and they dug in hard. They set up perfect ambush sites that they used again and again. Of coarse the invading military would lie about getting their asses kicked in certain ambushes and all that is coming out now on channels like the history channel and stuff. And the drug epidemic started by CIAs air America has probably effected all of us in one way or another. It is not like I hate the US or anything what I am trying to say is that the military industrial complex is the ugliest monster in recent history and now those that are bunkered in with the military industrial complex are involved with running the whole show. This most certainly spells out an eventual disaster for us civilians.


I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Chinese staged a terrorist attack at the Olympics just to gain world wide support in the elimination of its Tibetan neighbors and even a kick start in the "liberation" of Taiwan. This is something that governments have been known to do all throughout history, that is to stage an attack and lay the blame on the enemy and in this case the enemy is a peace loving society.

[Hudson]

SOMEONE comes in and trashes the topic, and it ends up as a mess.

Yeah, thanks HazMat.

[Nessus]

I'm against a boycott of the Olympics. It would be grossly unfair to athletes who have worked their whole lives to hit that 4 year window to compete. They would be the only ones punished, the Chinese aren't about to let some games affect matters of state and I don't think they will succumb to being dictated to in this manner.

As to Vietnam we lost about 57,000 men and killed well over a million. That's at least a 20 to one kill ratio, we slaughtered them by any objective measure. Yes we took losses but tactically we were always in control until political pressures brought us home.

And about the drug trade international dealing is done today by the same people that ran the East India company. It's the same crew of bankers and financiers that run the drug trade from within the intelligence agencies now that ran it 200 years ago. In that respect nothing has changed, they are dealing out of Afghanistan right now and have enough control of the press so that it's never mentioned outside of the internet or fringe books.

[Commando Nukem]

Never lost a battle? The Americans were slaughtered because of the advanced gurilla tactics the Vietnamese used. That's my understanding anyway. America was totally unprepared and fought in the conventional style.

You read my words, but you did not listen to the message. We never lost a battle. We didnt lose the tet offensive, and we didnt lose at hamburger hill. Losing men, even large numbers of men, does not mean you LOSE the fight, it means you have a lot of bodies to carry home when the wars over. You need to stop watching PLATOON and start actually watching the documentary footage and reading the actual reports from the era. They paint the picture with far more accuracy.

Yes, the NVA and VC were mighty good at killing soldiers and setting ambushes where 20 to 30 men could be blown into a million pieces, but there were many battles where America overpowered and defeated NVA insurgencies.

The war latested ten years because like I said, politics prevented our forces from doing their jobs This COUNTERS the assurtion that America went in strictly for some corporate drug ring. Like so many like to proclaim "Republican" and "Democrat" are actually all the same, and the anti-war/pro-war movements are just a joke... Yet somehow all that political chaos resulted in America withdrawing and leaving millions to die in the wake that followed.


I think it's a good thing the US pulled out of Vietnam. Like Iraq, they shouldn't have invaded in the first place. The US should let nations develop the way they want to develop and hopefully after time, like Russia, they reform their governments to a more democratic affair.

I think you need to take my advice and stop drinking the soap. You dont even know the full history of the events, we had dozens of Iraqies fleeing Saddams regime asking for military aid, and the invasion was something 12 years coming.

Nations are made up of millions of people, and when one large chunk wants to OPPRESS another large chunk, SOMEONE has to stand up and say "No." The North wanted to oppress the south, and just like in Korea their were many in the south who did not want to live under the regime that followed, and for many years after America left there was a level of brutality unheard of, 3 million. Three million dead that could have lived had we not screwed around with politics. Oppressive societies out for economic gain generally have their shit together. My prime example, the National Socialist party, aka the nazies, aka the third reich... They had their stuff together, their was no divide, any chance of divide was eliminated before it could take root. The only reason they fell was a combined alliance and a very brutal battle that eventually wore them out and pushes them all the way back to the source.



Well, if everyone was smoking dope surely you would be more tempted to try it, whereas if nobody smoked the stuff you'd probably have a hard time just getting it, wouldn't you? :confused:

Smoking dope is dense in some areas, and light in others, they crowd, i've known smokers of all things, and drinkers. My father was a big drinker, and a big time abuser. I dislike all drugs, because thats my choice. I hate the stuff, I dont care if its "cool and everyone has done it". I havent had sex yet either, and EVERYONE does that, right? IF 80 million people were drinking, smoking, and so forth right now, that would not compell me to shoot it, light it, or... do it. case in point. Pressure, societal or otherwise, only works on those who let it.



No, naughty USA out to interfere with other country's governments, whilst also gathering resources for themselves.

Yeah, how much is a barrel of oil right now again? Oh right, through the fbombing roof.

So much for supply and demand, those greedy corporate bastards... and to think we dont even GET most of our oil from the middle east... nor do we have any NEED to go to the middle east to get said oil, when we can kill the animals in our own backyard to get AMPLE supplies of oil... Which CHINA is now getting a piece of I might add.



Why would you want the US to fight China? That would be insane! What we need is a worldwide boycott on the Bejing Olympics, and public pressure everywhere to make China release it's grip on Tibet. After all, as I read in an article somewhere, China doesn't really need Tibet, only the Communist Party does.

The better question is why is CHINA proliferating against the US navy and been linked to new weapons shipments throughout Pakistan, syria and Iran to terrorist groups? The same reason that communist finger prints were found on hunreds of weapons supplied to the NVA and VC during Vietnam. The insane part would be to sit on our hands until we cant do anything. China is a growing beast and situations like Tibet are only going to become common place by 2020. Somewhere the twig is going to break. This emphasis on the olympics sickens me, its a dog and pony show at best, nobody cares about it. As someone pointed out, people are dying.

I wasnt suggesting a WAR with China, I was suggesting the implimentation of naval and aerial units in the area, as well as defensively placed ground forces in Tibet to assist in their defense from any Chinese aggression. I'd rather our forces fire the first shot at China when we see the storm coming, then waiting for the storm to come and having our levies break so to speak... You know, like Bush did in New Orleans to kill the black people, the racist SOB. They planted bombs down their y'know?

BTW Hazmat, im one of them Aliens you fear, yeah, My name is Gaf and im from Zeti Reticula 2 and i've got my slimey fingers in just about everything these days... My dads name is Ecaftihs, hes not really a drunk...Just a really pissed off seven foot lizard.(He hates our cloaking fields, they make him itch. :mryuck: ) :D

... In all seriousness, I honestly hope for the people of Tibet, for them to have a free, prosperous nation, and that China will back the hell off. In the end the one thing I am certain of is that good people will do something about it, one way or another.... Otherwise, well... Edmund Burke said it best I guess

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing..."

[Daveman]

Stop drinking soap. Vietnam was about spearheading the spread of communism. Which had declared itself the sworn enemy of capitalism.
It was about destroying the country's infrastructure so that if the Vietcong took power, the economy would never recover. That's been the US' policy with "communist" countries ever since WWII. It's not about the liberty of the people, it's about proving post-hoc that socialism can't succeed.

From a military stand point we inflicted HEAVY, HEAVY casualties on the NVA and VIET CONG forces, the problem was the political party play with the war back HERE. We never lost a battle in Vietnam.
No, but we also killed a shit ton of civilians. Agent Orange? The stuff killed well over a million civilians (some scientists estimate direct and indirect deaths number at 4 million, but all estimate over a million).

And your blame on political pressure for causing the defeat in Vietnam is ironic considering it's the same political pressure that messed us up in Iraq. The Bush administration insisted on handling the war from the top-down, with Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz making decisions without taking into consideration the expert opinions of people at ORHA, and then giving rebuilding jobs to political goons after the invasion.
We merely left the war because our nose was bloodied. Low national morale brought America to its knees.
No, Vietnam was a situation that tactically couldn't be won.

If we were so "greedy" in trying to conquer the world as you say we would not have stopped just because thousands of lives were lost.[quote]
Thousands? No, millions. If we were benevolent in trying to "liberate" the world, we'd take seriously into consideration the number of civilian casualties in wartime instead of just how many soldiers we lose. The US is not benevolent in its foreign policy. It's no worse than any other empire has ever been, and to suppose otherwise is foolish.

[quote]Now, if there was truly a massive conspiracy to attack Vietnam and that was the same conspiracy at play with the lack of response against Chinese proliferation, do you really think Corporate America would care how many soldiers died so they could line their pockets?
It doesn't take a conspiracy. The American media is "free", but that doesn't mean it's good. The media in the US has a bias, and it's sharply pro-America. There's nothing liberal about it, as there's a constant presupposition of benevolence in everything America does. It's simply not the case.



Same old song, different set of speakers. Evil USA out to torture, pillage,and murder.
So when Henry Kissinger tells his generals to send "Anything that flies on anything that moves" in Cambodia, it's military, but if a leader of another nation said it, it would would unquestionably seen as an order of genocide. The US is not benevolent. Far from it. Look at Cambodia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Colombia, Chile, Puerto Rico, Nicaragua, Iraq, or any of the countless other countries where the US has supported and installed repressive, sometimes genocidal regimes or military coups against democratically-elected governments because the people of the country chose leaders the US didn't like.

Tell me Hazmat, how do you account for the lack of held territory by the US? We have held no land from Germany, Japan, France, or any other nation we have invaded or liberated from the clutches of a dictator. We have always given it back with the exception of some space to bury dead and an embassy for diplomatic relations.
Just because there's no territory owned by the US in other countries doesn't mean it's not an empire. It's not a colonial empire, it's an economic empire. Until recently, the US controlled all of Latin America through economic measures. All of it. Politically, economically, and socially, the US had an empire all through Latin America. Leaders like Salvador Allende, Fidel Castro, the Somozas, Evo Morales, and Hugo Chavez get elected and the US demonizes them, with the full support of the media.

But you cannot justify anger with terrorism
Agreed, but how do you define terrorism? The US harbors quite a few terrorists because they support US interests.
As for the Tibet situation, America is not quite in a place to help right now, we're fighting two wars and the bulk of our military strength is committed to that fight. So we'd basically end up looking like a small yorkie barking at a great dane right now.
Who's talking about military intervention? It's the last thing we should be threatening at this point.

[Destructor]

I'm against a boycott of the Olympics. It would be grossly unfair to athletes who have worked their whole lives to hit that 4 year window to compete. They would be the only ones punished, the Chinese aren't about to let some games affect matters of state and I don't think they will succumb to being dictated to in this manner.

Think about it though. The Chinese, because of a government controlled media, have absolutely no idea about the chaos in Tibet. Heck, the ordinary Chinaman thinks it's some wonderful holiday destination. If there is a boycott of the Olympics then the Chinese people will be wondering why. Answers will be needed, and the Communists will lose face. Why do you think the Great Firewall of China exists? If enough people find out the truth of their government, the Communists will lose control.

Besides, athletes of countries part of a boycott can march under the Olympic flag if they really want to compete, unless their country bans them completely from participating.






I wasnt suggesting a WAR with China, I was suggesting the implimentation of naval and aerial units in the area, as well as defensively placed ground forces in Tibet to assist in their defense from any Chinese aggression. I'd rather our forces fire the first shot at China when we see the storm coming, then waiting for the storm to come and having our levies break so to speak...

That's still inciting war though. Wouldn't the first thing that would happen if the US did that is China launching it's nukes? :confused:

[Hyperactive Slob]

Just because there's no territory owned by the US in other countries doesn't mean it's not an empire. It's not a colonial empire, it's an economic empire.
For an economic empire the US economy sure doesn't look good.

[John]

We may not "own" any other territories, but there are some nations where our troops and influence will stay for years to come. (Japan, for instance.) But that's for strategic and distrustful reasons, really. :D (Gotta keep an eye on those damn Japanese!)

And Vietnam I thought was moreso about cutting off the Soviet Union rather than actually thinking North Vietnam would take over the world. :p If the true reason were to stomp out communism, then they did that themselves because we never really won much in any of communist wars except maybe the Afghan-Soviet war, and we moreso funded it than fought it. Hell, Korea sure did change for the better due to our invading. :D

Yes, the NVA and VC were mighty good at killing soldiers and setting ambushes where 20 to 30 men could be blown into a million pieces, but there were many battles where America overpowered and defeated NVA insurgencies.


Winning the battle and winning the war are two different things. :) Technically I guess you could say that we "won the war", but it was really due to the collapse of the USSR and communism as a whole that caused Vietnam to change, not our sheer strength and power, or military might/strategy.

stop watching PLATOON

The thing that always got me with Oliver Stone and that movie is that while I know he's a conspirator nut and loves taking liberties with his own facts, he actually *was* a Vietnam veteran and was wounded twice while staying there for over a year. While he may be the famous conspirator, there's also no denying that he's just as much a patriot as the rest of our soldiers.

[Daveman]

For an economic empire the US economy sure doesn't look good.
Empires aren't always in the best of shape. The US as a world power has been on its way down for the past ten years.
we never really won much in any of communist wars except maybe the Afghan-Soviet war, and we moreso funded it than fought it.
By the time the US got seriously involved there was no doubt that the Afghanis had already won the war on their own. The only serious impact the US had on the situation was to help the Taliban establish power.

[John]

Aye, Rome was still very much an empire before falling.

[hellchicken]

If just for the sake of proving Joe wrong ;), let's keep the discussion on topic please: Tibet and China.
Currently there's lot's of discussion about it on TV (and in other media), seems more and more people want to boycott the olympic games 2008, though I personally still doubt that it will make any difference for Tibet.

[EDIT]As there's seemingly lot's of demand to discuss conspiracy theories, american imperialism, wars, communism and capitalism maybe we should start our very own World Politics - Past, Present and Future thread?!

[EDIT2]Maybe I'll do that now.

[EDIT3]Nah, maybe I'm too tired right now.

[Daveman]

Fair enough. Sticking with Tibet:

I guess France is talking about boycotting the games. It would be great if other countries would join in.

[thefly]

I'm against a boycott of the Olympics. It would be grossly unfair to athletes who have worked their whole lives to hit that 4 year window to compete.


Well then, I guess it is the athletes choice to boycott the Olympics or not. No one is going to force a champion swimmer to swim at the Olympics if he/she wants to protest.

That would be a more powerful statement than a government decree to pull out of the Games.

[wayskobfssae]

Doubt it. That's too serious of a subject for most people here to care about unfortunately.

Did Joe just... TROLL a thread? :p

Do you realize how much of the worlds good come form China? A boycot won't work. Military options are well out of the question, even if the whole of the world ganged up on China there is a chance they could still win a war!

Yeah, the corporations of the world might have to pay factory workers in their own countries instead of relying on China to do everything at 2 cents an hour. Such a thing could result in higher employment rates, a better economy, and a lower poverty rate. Sounds like it could mean the end of humanity. :D

[Daveman]

Wow! wayskobfssae and I agree! :D

[IwantMORE]

Looks like the running (I know it's a bad pun) protests have started with the lighting of the torch in Greece. From now till August there are likely to be protest all along it's route. China needs to get ready for 4 months of Tibet being mentioned all the time...

[Little Conqueror]

Tibet today, Xinjiang tomorrow, then Taiwan, then Hong Kong, then Macau...

The PRC is one of the most corrupt, oppressive, and paranoid governments in the world. They make claims to land that they've never even set foot on (Taiwan), they force abortions and brutal sterilization procedures on women, they use excessive force to put down simple peaceful protests (the recent unrest in Tibet isn't peaceful - but it's a reaction to everything the PRC has been doing for years), they try to stifle dissent (Shi Tao and other journalists are often jailed for exposing corruption), they allow businesses to take advantage of their citizens, and they censor anything that's the least bit critical of them.

I don't care if they make our baby toys or not. No government of a civilized nation with such a rich, beautiful history should be able to oppress its own citizens so much. Know what would make me happy? If reformists overthrew the PRC and installed a free, democratic society. If they stick with calling themselves communist, then they need to represent the true communist ideals - equal distribution of wealth - rather than allowing this pseudo-1900's-capitalism that's ruining the environment, killing their citiizens, and keeping everyone under the oppressor's boot heel.

Down with the PRC, and up with China.

(Yes, I feel very strongly about this. Can you tell?)

[HazMat]

Just to clear my name...

I remember as a kid some smart ass bully was spinning me on the merry go round thingy. I threw up all over the place from being spun to much. As an adult the same damn thing is happening. I see everything that the leaders say as spin and am constantly on the look out for the truth. When I see bullshit reports about al quida recruiting white Caucasians I see spin on an eventually assault on normal Americans. People like me who get sick of all the spin. They have run out of real enemies and soon will target us. So watch for the spin on white Caucasians, I am. Have a lovely day.

[Daveman]

If they stick with calling themselves communist, then they need to represent the true communist ideals - equal distribution of wealth - rather than allowing this pseudo-1900's-capitalism that's ruining the environment, killing their citiizens, and keeping everyone under the oppressor's boot heel.
Communist governments not representing the ideals of Marxism? UNHEARD OF. :p Seriously, the way their economy is structured is more of a human rights issue than anything.

[Little Conqueror]

Absolutely.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080324/ap_on_re_as/china_human_rights

See this? China's government is full of power hungry, egotistical pieces of shit. As much as I dislike American politics, it's when I see things like this that I thank God I live in a mostly free society. I can petition the government and not be shocked and beaten by police.

[Daveman]

Absolutely. And for the record, thought like that has nothing to do with socialism or Marxism. Stalinist thought is the most disgusting political idea imaginable, and absolutely nobody seriously informed about it can believe in it.

[Little Conqueror]

Yep. I don't like communism, but I can see why other people would. Stalinism, on the other hand, is exactly as you described it.

[Daveman]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7315895.stm

I guess it turns out the protests in Lhasa were more violent than originally reported. Reporters going in there say it looks like the protests went on for a longer time than it was thought. That might explain why the Chinese government pulled out altogether before retaking the city.

[Destructor]

Even though Tibet was a peaceful country only devoted to the good of mankind, the Tibetans are not going without a fight. Long live Tibet! :)

[Little Conqueror]

Some Chinese are trying to hijack the issue and accuse the West of hypocrisy, citing Afghanistan and Iraq. The irony is, most Americans and Europeans oppose the war in Iraq, and the war in Afghanistan was, at least initially, against people who plotted the 9/11 terror attacks and those who aided them.

They also claim the Dalai Lama is an evil monster who owns thousands of underaged sex slaves and drinks the blood of the innocent, hardworking Han Chinese.

[Daveman]

I absolutely cannot grasp how people can blame the Dalai Lama for any kind of violence. He's the most harmless person on the planet.

[Little Conqueror]

A lot of Chinese people have a really strong sense of nationalism that, in America, you typically only see with the farthest section of the right wing. This brand of patriotism isn't a "love my country no matter what it does wrong" kind of patriotism, which is one thing, but a "love my country and continue to disbelieve that has ever done anything wrong" kind. The Chinese government spreads propaganda against the Dalai Lama on a regular basis. In the words of one Chinese person, "We view the Dalai Lama as you americans[sic] view Bin Larden[sic]."

Really? So when did the Dalai Lama mastermind a terrorist attack that resulted in the deaths of thousands of Chinese?

[Delicieuxz]

Article: Tibet coverage 'twisted, biased' (http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=46ce72d8-19a1-4408-bf2d-896800f4366e&k=16495)


Some Chinese are trying to hijack the issue and accuse the West of hypocrisy, citing Afghanistan and Iraq. The irony is, most Americans and Europeans oppose the war in Iraq
Yet the war in Iraq commenced in the first place only because of public support.

[Little Conqueror]

Yet the war in Iraq commenced in the first place only because of public support.

That's irrelevant. Fifty years on, and the Chinese people still support the unprovoked and continued occupation of Tibet.

[Mikko Sandt]

I don't know what propaganda you've been eating but this thing started when Tibetans started attacking innocent people. Ethnic Chinese were attacked spontaneously and their stores & homes were destroyed. Using their oppression as an excuse to attack people based on their ethnicity doesn't work any better here than it does in the case of Palestine.

If they stick with calling themselves communist, then they need to represent the true communist ideals - equal distribution of wealth

If this is the aim of communism then an oppressive government such as the Chinese government is a requirement. The idea of communism is based on suppressing the individual and only an authoritative government is up for such a task.

[Nessus]

I don't know what propaganda you've been eating but this thing started when Tibetans started attacking innocent people. Ethnic Chinese were attacked spontaneously and their stores & homes were destroyed.


This is an important point and I think we need some more clarity on this front to really understand whats going on. I had read that the Chinese were moving into Tibet in huge numbers and starting to have a real impact on the ethnic makeup. Kind of a conquest by colonization strategy. If that is indeed the case then the question becomes do the Tibetans have the right to keep their ethnicity and thus their culture or do the Chinese have the right to move wherever they want? An interesting debate in light of whats happening in the US and Europe.

[Mikko Sandt]

This is an important point and I think we need some more clarity on this front to really understand whats going on.

There was an article about this in The Economist a few weeks back by a journalist working for the magazine who happened to be in Lhasa when the riots broke out.

I had read that the Chinese were moving into Tibet in huge numbers and starting to have a real impact on the ethnic makeup. Kind of a conquest by colonization strategy. If that is indeed the case then the question becomes do the Tibetans have the right to keep their ethnicity and thus their culture or do the Chinese have the right to move wherever they want? An interesting debate in light of whats happening in the US and Europe.

You can't compare this to what's happening in the US or Europe. The Chinese immigrants are neither freeriders nor criminals. They're businessmen, they work hard and they behave well. The only argument the Tibetans have against the Chinese immigrants is a racist one. Besides, the one-child policy applies to Chinese only so the Tibetans are allowed to reproduce in larger numbers.

[Nessus]

What kind of numbers are we talking here? Are the Chinese now 1% of the population? 10%? 30%? I think that matters.

[The Stinger]

There's no way this is going to be solved before the olympics, or a while after. The people of Tibet will be free one day, aslong as this thing doesn't mount into a war. It'll go like with England occuping India, aslong as they keep struggling and not submitting to the Chinees goverment.

Edit: Ofcourse, outside influance will help too, disagreeing with China's actions in a non hostile way will help change things over time.

[Waiter]

The only argument the Tibetans have against the Chinese immigrants is a racist one.

And perhaps the minor issue that they are a part of and sent by the government that has occupied the tibetans' country and that forbids them to live and practice their religion and culture the way they want...

Racism has nothing to do with this. It doesn't matter that the chinese are nice people, if they move into occupied country living by their own rules and laws they have to be less than intelligent to think that they would get a warm and friendly welcome. You can't compare this to streams of imigrants or refugees in Europe or America. The only comparison I can think of is when Israeli people move into Palestine and build towns on occupied land held by military force and wonder why their neighbours don't welcome them.

[Sang]

The people of Tibet will be free one day, aslong as this thing doesn't mount into a war.

If it does, it'll be a short one.

[Little Conqueror]

The only argument the Tibetans have against the Chinese immigrants is a racist one.

I've been to China. I study Chinese language and culture as one of my two academic majors. I have experienced the Chinese government firsthand. I have spoken with actual Tibetans because I have been to Tibet. Don't tell me that I'm "eating propaganda." Eating propaganda would be eating the shit that the PRC government has crapped into the mouths of the world from day one through the calloused, festering sphincter that is Xinhua. Is that who you're believing?

Nowhere did I say that I support the actions of those who brutally and wantonly attacked Chinese in Tibet. In actuality, I condemn them, because they are making the situation worse and making the Tibetan cause appear illegitimate, much like how suicide bombers and militias only hurt the Palestinian cause. But the PRC has a long history of being heavy-handed towards even peaceful dissent, even if not at the national level.

How can anyone be for China's continued occupation of Tibet when they're against the US's occupation of Afghanistan? (Iraq's another mess altogether, and I won't even pretend to try to defend that invasion.) Tibet had never harmed Chinese interests or provided sanctuary to those who had. They were, quite simply, minding their own business. Yes, Tibet used to be part of China back during the Qing dynasty. Newsflash: Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, and Korea all used to be part of China too.

I would have no issue with China peacefully holding Tibet if not for the fact that the PRC has the worst human rights record in the world. Don't even bother complaining about Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib, because that's pretty much what every prison in China is like - except you probably will get beaten more often. If you're lucky, you'll die faster, too.

China didn't have any justification for invading Tibet in the first place except dynastic pride. Ask Tibetans if they really wanted to be "liberated" by the Chinese.

No, Tibetans should not resort to violence, and those who do are only undermining their own cause. But those who do resort to it are a minority.

[Mikko Sandt]

Don't tell me that I'm "eating propaganda."

The "you" was a plural. The general reaction has been against the Chinese government even though they were doing the right thing in dealing with the Tibetan scum that's been rioting, looting and beating innocent people.

How can anyone be for China's continued occupation of Tibet when they're against the US's occupation of Afghanistan?

Well who is (except the Chinese government)?

And perhaps the minor issue that they are a part of and sent by the government that has occupied the tibetans' country and that forbids them to live and practice their religion and culture the way they want...

Irrelevant. The Chinese people living in Tibet didn't get to choose their leaders or their policies.

You can't compare this to streams of imigrants or refugees in Europe or America.

I can't because the Chinese immigrants in Tibet are well behaving, hard working and civilized whileas Muslim refugees in Europe are not.

[Waiter]

Irrelevant. The Chinese people living in Tibet didn't get to choose their leaders or their policies.

How can the whole point be irrelevant? I'm not talking about what the chinese people in Tibet are like or not. As I said they might be all that you say they are. My point is that the anger of the tibetans is aimed against the chinese because of the fact that Tibet is occupied by China. They see the chinese as representatives of the chinese government. I'm not saying this is right or justified, and by no means does it justify violent actions against them, but I am saying that it has nothing to do with racism.

I can't because the Chinese immigrants in Tibet are well behaving, hard working and civilized whileas Muslim refugees in Europe are not.

See above. (...and get to know some muslims before generalizing)

[Sang]

They see the chinese as representatives of the chinese government. I'm not saying this is right or justified, and by no means does it justify violent actions against them, but I am saying that it has nothing to do with racism.

Hating an entire group of people just because of their government (something they can't do anything about that) seems quite racist to me.

[Little Conqueror]

Hating an entire group of people just because of their government (something they can't do anything about that) seems quite racist to me.

And likewise, blaming all Tibetans wanting independence for the actions of a few miscreants among their ranks is racist on behalf of the Chinese. The Han Chinese have a mentality that any ethnic minorities that they bring into the empire (yes, it's an empire, just like the US) owe them for the privilege. Being condescending towards ethnic minorities is what got China in this trouble in the first place. There is a lot of pent up anger in the non-Han parts of China. Tibetans are angry because they feel a lot of their culture is being eaten up by the no-holds-barred, ruthless capitalism that Chinese businesses exercise. Property owned by Tibetans is sometimes seized by the government and redistributed to the Han Chinese who move into the area.

This is akin to the seizure of Native American territory by America early in the country's history. It's akin to Crusaders invading and taking control of lands in the Middle East. If those aren't okay, why is it okay for China to continue to dominate Tibet?

[Sang]

Because China can potentially be a military threat. I'm pretty sure if China wasn't so powerful in a military sense (but it would be in an economic sense) Team America World Police would already be planning to hit the scene.

Unfortunately an intervention from the West is just not going to work in this situation - The Chinese aren't dumb gun-toting Middle-Eastern militants.

[The Stinger]

Because China can potentially be a military threat. I'm pretty sure if China wasn't so powerful in a military sense (but it would be in an economic sense) Team America World Police would already be planning to hit the scene.

If there was oil in China, lots and lots of oil.

[Sang]

Surely oil isn't the only valuable thing in the world? China has huge production capabilities which might explain why you'll find "Made In China" on almost every product ever made, so to speak. It would definitely be worth it to take control of that (if we would live in a world without morals and ethics) but, again, the strong military force prevents that from happening. Economic benefits kindof vaporate when you remember you're going to lose a huge amount of money and other resources in a war of which it's not even 100% sure that you'll win it.

[Mikko Sandt]

My point is that the anger of the tibetans is aimed against the chinese because of the fact that Tibet is occupied by China.

You presented that point as an argument against what I said. I know why the Tibetans are pissed off at the Chinese - everyone does. This oppression by the Chinese government is not a mitigating factor nor should it be presented as such. The Tibetan rioters need to be condemned for their savage behavior. If they want to protest against the Chinese government, they should attack the Chinese military or government property.

I'm not saying this is right or justified, and by no means does it justify violent actions against them, but I am saying that it has nothing to do with racism.

Then the Tibetans are just stupid. Even the most retarded Tibetan knows that the Chinese didn't get to choose their government.

(...and get to know some muslims before generalizing)

"Getting to know some Muslims" doesn't change the fact that they're overrepresented in crime statistics and that they're not net taxpayers.

China has huge production capabilities which might explain why you'll find "Made In China" on almost every product ever made, so to speak.

They have cheap labor (not for long though). Surely you wouldn't expect America to invade and use the Chinese as slave labor even if China had no military at all?

[Sang]

They have cheap labor (not for long though). Surely you wouldn't expect America to invade and use the Chinese as slave labor even if China had no military at all?

Of course not, hence "(if we would live in a world without morals and ethics)". 'Taking control' of those production capabilities would of course include taking control of labor.

[Destructor]

I don't know what propaganda you've been eating but this thing started when Tibetans started attacking innocent people. Ethnic Chinese were attacked spontaneously and their stores & homes were destroyed. Using their oppression as an excuse to attack people based on their ethnicity doesn't work any better here than it does in the case of Palestine.

Well, just think, if the Tibetans didn't cause such a ruckus they wouldn't have gained so much worldwide media attention. Sometimes force is justified. Another thing, is the Chinese media make the protesters sound more violent than they really are. Also, the Chinese government doesn't allow any foreign media into Tibetm so how do we know the truth? And when some restricted media is allowed, you get Tibetan monks crashing through to the displeasure of the Chinese crying and saying that what the Chinese are saying are lies. Besides, how can you believe the Chinese when they call the Dalia Lama a monster who orchestrated the violence? He's a peaceful man, in fact too peaceful I think. The Tibetans who were a bit rough were working independent of him.


You can't compare this to what's happening in the US or Europe. The Chinese immigrants are neither freeriders nor criminals. They're businessmen, they work hard and they behave well.

Actually, I believe the immigrants are sent to Tibet against their will. They hate the land and they hate the Tibetans.


Besides, the one-child policy applies to Chinese only so the Tibetans are allowed to reproduce in larger numbers.

Yeah, but then those children get whisked away to schools (away from their parents most likely) where they are taught to love everything Chinese, and to hate everything Tibetan. Also, at least in the earlier years of Chinese occupation, Chinese immigrants were forced to marry Tibetan women. So you'd get Tibetan half breeds which were immeidately taken away. Is that not both cultural and ethnic genocide?

[Waiter]

Hating an entire group of people just because of their government (something they can't do anything about that) seems quite racist to me.

No. You can call it stupid, ignorant, prejudging, generalising, arrogant and quite a few other words but it still has nothing to do with racism.

And likewise, blaming all Tibetans wanting independence for the actions of a few miscreants among their ranks is racist on behalf of the Chinese.

See above.

You presented that point as an argument against what I said.

Yes, as an argument against your claim that "The only argument the Tibetans have against the Chinese immigrants is a racist one". As said above, hating someone - rightly or wrongly - because you feel, or indeed are, opressed by them or their country has nothing to do with racism.

Then the Tibetans are just stupid.

No. They're people who have been living under chinese occupation for 50 years and see a glipse of what is probably their last real chance to fight and get the world's attention for their cause. Taking this out on the chinese people is a bad and unacceptable way of misdirecting their anger and desperation, and I completely agree with you about it not being right to attack the chinese.

[Daveman]

If this is the aim of communism then an oppressive government such as the Chinese government is a requirement. The idea of communism is based on suppressing the individual and only an authoritative government is up for such a task.
Bullshit. The only thing "communist" about the Chinese government is their concern over women's rights. "Authoritative government" and "Communism" are completely contradictory. You can't have communism if you have government, least of all an oppressive one.

[Mikko Sandt]

Sometimes force is justified.

Let me get this straight: it's okay to specifically target innocent human beings just to get attention? It's okay to destroy their livelihoods just because their government, which they didn't get to choose, is corrupt?

Also, the Chinese government doesn't allow any foreign media into Tibetm so how do we know the truth?

As I said, The Economist had a story (http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10875823) about this by a journalist who happened to be in Lhasa at the time.

Besides, how can you believe the Chinese when they call the Dalia Lama a monster who orchestrated the violence?

Who's said I believe the Chinese? You're attacking a strawman.

Actually, I believe the immigrants are sent to Tibet against their will.

Based on what? And even if so, how does that make them less innocent?

Yeah, but then those children get whisked away to schools (away from their parents most likely) where they are taught to love everything Chinese, and to hate everything Tibetan.

Again, you're fighting a strawman. The point was that the Chinese are not able to just "take over" the country. I know the Chinese are brainwashed to love the government.

As said above, hating someone - rightly or wrongly - because you feel, or indeed are, opressed by them or their country has nothing to do with racism.

Yes it has. Read the story in The Economist. Do you think these sick Tibetans would do the horrible things they are doing if they only had problems with the Chinese government? This is about irrational hatred based on people's ethnicity.

They're people who have been living under chinese occupation for 50 years and see a glipse of what is probably their last real chance to fight and get the world's attention for their cause.

Then send a few Buddhist monks to Beijing during the Olympics to set themselves on fire.

The only thing "communist" about the Chinese government is their concern over women's rights. "Authoritative government" and "Communism" are completely contradictory. You can't have communism if you have government, least of all an oppressive one.

The Communist party follows many communist doctrines. For example, there's no private property in the countryside which is why the people there are still poor and will remain poor even though the rest of the country is getting richer.

In practice, you won't get a communist system without an authoritative government. Consistent communists should advocate a government that has a right to initiate force on individuals who, for example, decide to build a factory for their own benefit.

Individuals are not going to willingly submit. Ask yourself why all commies who vote vote for the kind of politicians who, once in power, exercise their political power by forcing individuals to, for example, pay taxes.

[Daveman]

The Communist party follows many communist doctrines. For example, there's no private property in the countryside which is why the people there are still poor and will remain poor even though the rest of the country is getting richer.
It's more complicated than that though. China's economy relies on the agriculture and small labor in rural areas. And I don't know if you know anything about Shanghai, but it's hardly a model of wealth. Western corporations have come in and suddenly homelessness becomes a huge problem in the area. It's not "communism bad, capitalism good". As I've said, China's government is not Communist.

In practice, you won't get a communist system without an authoritative government.
That's a paradox. You can't have a communist system with an authoritative government. The two are entirely contradictory. If there's going to be anything "authoritative" about a communist society, it'll be popularly-organized unions and groups.

Consistent communists should advocate a government that has a right to initiate force on individuals who, for example, decide to build a factory for their own benefit.
What does "consistent communists" mean? There's nothing forceful about communism, it's about social pressure and understanding of the workings of the entire society.

Individuals are not going to willingly submit.
It's clear that you're cynical about utopian communism. That's fine. That doesn't mean that it can't work in any form ever, though.
Ask yourself why all commies who vote vote for the kind of politicians who, once in power, exercise their political power by forcing individuals to, for example, pay taxes.
Because they get lied to? :confused: It's not very complicated, really. Politicians tend to lie fairly often. The people who have kept true to socialist ideals have been demonized and forced out of power by the western world anyway. Fidel Castro managed to keep the Cuban Revolution alive for decades, but the trade embargo imposed by the US killed any chance of the system flourishing on its own merits.

[Klaus Kinski]

It's clear that you're cynical about utopian communism. That's fine. That doesn't mean that it can't work in any form ever, though.
Haha, that made me laugh. Caution, I must admit, I am a cynical person.
No political system will ever work. They will all fall apart or become inhuman at some point. You see, they all share the same serious flaw: humans. Human nature does not allow any political systems to work for long periods of time unless they involve behaviour that is labelled "inhuman" nowadays. That's why americas democracy is actually ruled by money and not its people and china's socialistic dictatorship of the few is mainly working for its own benefits. What is supposed to be for the good for us humans is sabotaged and abused by ourselves.
Talk is cheap and paper is patient, what counts is what one does.
Seems as if we're all masochists after all.

[Mikko Sandt]

China's economy relies on the agriculture and small labor in rural areas.

How is this an argument against privatization? People in the countryside rely on primitive agriculture because that's all the communist system allows them to have. Every piece of land in the countryside can and should be privatized.

And I don't know if you know anything about Shanghai, but it's hardly a model of wealth. Western corporations have come in and suddenly homelessness becomes a huge problem in the area.

Yes, many are moving from the communist countryside to relatively capitalist cities so it's not a surprise.

As I've said, China's government is not Communist.

Not fully, just as the Soviet Union was not fully communist, but it is still far more communist than any western democracy. The communist aspects have been failing for years and unless China liberalizes its economy further, its macroeconomic structure won't hold in the long run. The same could be said of Russia, India, etc. and even of some welfare states.

That's a paradox. You can't have a communist system with an authoritative government. The two are entirely contradictory.

I know what the theory says. My point is that in practice communism requires an authoritative government.

What does "consistent communists" mean? There's nothing forceful about communism, it's about social pressure and understanding of the workings of the entire society.

By consistent I mean that if you support a system that doesn't recognize private property you must also be willing to use force on individuals if they, for example, build a factory and start making a profit. In a communist system, someone would have to seize & nationalize private property and that someone would end up being a government of some sort whether you like to call it a collective or something else.

Simply put, communism is based on force. This is why left-wingies have no trouble voting for socialists (Democrats, socialist Republicans etc.) who then use their political power to tax people.

It's clear that you're cynical about utopian communism. That's fine. That doesn't mean that it can't work in any form ever, though.

I'm not cynical about. I hate it. Even if it'd work I'd never support it. Laissez-faire!

And yes, communism as an economic system cannot work. An economic system that doesn't rely on prices based on relative scarcity of resources is unable to take opportunity costs of production into account and will therefore end up generating waste, inefficiency and abysmally low living standards. No amount of brainwashing can change that.

but the trade embargo imposed by the US killed any chance of the system flourishing on its own merits.

If anything, the embargo killed any chance of getting rid of Cuban communism years ago. More open trade would have gradually destroyed Cuban communism. Castro has been able to use the embargo as a political tool to keep himself and his failing system in power.

[Daveman]

How is this an argument against privatization? People in the countryside rely on primitive agriculture because that's all the communist system allows them to have. Every piece of land in the countryside can and should be privatized.
It's an issue because if the countryside were privatized, the entire agrarian economy would collapse and the area would be taken over by factories like you've said. The Chinese government has been experimenting with private factories in rural areas but the results have been disastrous in terms of human rights because the Chinese government is controlled almost entirely by private corporations, so when they sign trade deals there's no wage or conditions standards.

I'm by no means an apologist for the Chinese government. Nine times out of ten their decisions are based on nationalism and greed, not socialism, but that doesn't mean the American model should be used in contrast.

Yes, many are moving from the communist countryside to relatively capitalist cities so it's not a surprise.
So if they had been moving from capitalist rural areas to capitalist urban areas there wouldn't be a homelessness problem? I didn't realize Western cities didn't have homeless people!

Not fully, just as the Soviet Union was not fully communist, but it is still far more communist than any western democracy.
There was so little about it that was "communist". Russia was attempting to make the transition from an agrarian, feudalistic society to a fully-socialized one. It's just not possible on a nation of that size. Lots of socialists and communists at the time were fully aware of this problem and knew that it was doomed from the start. By the time the leadership of the country became aware of the problem they had to develop infrastructure rapidly, so the hardline conservatives took power and turned the socialized country and turned it into a state-capitalist one.

I know what the theory says. My point is that in practice communism requires an authoritative government.
My point is that communism has never been practiced. Socialism has been attempted in various forms, sometimes disastrously and sometimes only in name, and with few exceptions it's been a failure thanks largely to deliberate efforts by the West to sabotage it.


Simply put, communism is based on force. This is why left-wingies have no trouble voting for socialists (Democrats, socialist Republicans etc.) who then use their political power to tax people.
How is this any different from any form of government? If it's true of "left-wingies", isn't it also true of right-wing politicians? It's all based on force. Doesn't the right (and the left, for that matter) in America support militarization? If that's not force I don't know what is.

If anything, the embargo killed any chance of getting rid of Cuban communism years ago. More open trade would have gradually destroyed Cuban communism. Castro has been able to use the embargo as a political tool to keep himself and his failing system in power.
Nonsense. The Cuban government doesn't want trade with US corporations because it's detrimental to their economy when deals are negotiated unilaterally. The Cuban socialist system enjoys healthy popularity at home and isn't demonized anywhere in the world the way it is in the US. The problem with the trade embargo is that it effectively stops any nation from trading with Cuba, not just the US.

[Sang]

So if they had been moving from capitalist rural areas to capitalist urban areas there wouldn't be a homelessness problem? I didn't realize Western cities didn't have homeless people!

If I understand things correctly the cause of homeless people in China is the entire economic system - Whereas in the Western world homelessness is really just a consequence of bad education (because having an insufficient certificate will lead to a badly paid, probably unsecure job and depending on the social security of a nation you can basically become homeless "overnight"). But Western states offer more than enough choices of being properly educated - so being homeless in the West is either out of laziness, or just plain good old bad luck.

[Daveman]

Oh come on, it's so much more complicated than that. There's the racial element where an entire culture of people feels entirely disaffected by the system and isn't given reason to work hard in school. There's the total lack of education for lots of people for reasons beyond their control. There's the lack of jobs in lots of areas. There's the low pay and high cost of housing in some areas. There's way more than this, but to list the reasons for homelessness would take forever, and I'd miss a lot of reasons.

There is bad luck, like you've said. There is laziness, like you've said. But it's so much more than that in most cases. Privatization causes homelessness much of the time. IMF and World Bank loans that demand privatization of land in Latin America lead to homelessness of millions of people, when they have no choice but to move to urban areas which aren't able to house them or provide them jobs. Go to Mexico City and see what NAFTA-forced privatization has done to help homelessness rates. Or Lima, Quito, or Santiago to see what privatization mandated by the IMF have done for the people who once held land of their own.

The lowest rates of homelessness are actually found in Cuba, where it's virtually nonexistent. Every Cuban citizen has a home of their own (a huge improvement from before Castro took power) and is fully literate (another huge improvement). Homelessness is definitely not a systemic flaw of Socialism. It's been around in the US and Europe since capitalism was adopted (and long before that, obviously).

[Nessus]

I've probably encountered more homeless people personally than anyone on these boards, there was a homeless shelter not far from my house and living in the city my whole life they're a constant presence. I think it's pretty safe to say 90% of all homeless are people with mental problems, drug problems or both. There are very few homeless for any amount of time that don't fit into those categories.

[Daveman]

But consider the cause of drug problems (or mental problems)...it's more than just a genetic predisposition or anything like that.

[Nessus]

True but whatever the causes it may be beyond any system of government to totally eradicate. It's kind of like the 5% unemployment figure that is accepted as a given and considered full employment because no matter what you do about 5% of the population just can't get it together to keep a job.

[Mikko Sandt]

It's an issue because if the countryside were privatized, the entire agrarian economy would collapse and the area would be taken over by factories like you've said.

It'd become more efficient if that's what you mean. Efficiency means that less scarce resources are wasted. Efficiency means higher living standards. The agrarian economy would become a lot more efficient in terms of production per head. As it is now it's such a lost potential, especially at a moment when agricultural products are becoming more expensive (one reason being, of course, the inefficient Chinese system). This should lead to bigger profits per farmer and investments into modern farm equipment but the lack of private ownership prevents this from happening.

so when they sign trade deals there's no wage or conditions standards.

Good.

but that doesn't mean the American model should be used in contrast.

Why not?

So if they had been moving from capitalist rural areas to capitalist urban areas there wouldn't be a homelessness problem? I didn't realize Western cities didn't have homeless people!

The amount of homeless people is considerably lower in the west than elsewhere. Also, unemployment (which leads to homelessness) is commonly caused by regulations such as rigid labor markets. Involuntary unemployment rarely exists in a market economy.

There was so little about it that was "communist".

My point is that communism has never been practiced. Socialism has been attempted in various forms, sometimes disastrously and sometimes only in name,

I don't get this.
The Soviet Union was far more socialist than any western country. All capitalist countries have been much better off than communist countries. Why you think more socialism would somehow magically make things better if considerable doses of it have already managed to cause so much destruction?

The Soviet economy was socialist to a large degree. It was centrally planned and as such was not able to allocate scarce resources efficiently. How are you planning on solving this economic calculation problem?

and with few exceptions it's been a failure thanks largely to deliberate efforts by the West to sabotage it.

If anything, the Cold War helped prolong the life of communism.

How is this any different from any form of government? If it's true of "left-wingies", isn't it also true of right-wing politicians? It's all based on force.

The right generally speaking advocates more individual liberties than the left does (at least in the US where the right is not so much associated with fascism). I'm not a right-wingie so I haven't got much interest defending them. But we were talking about political systems: despite some theocratic elements American conservatism is generally based on the idea that the government should be small whileas the left advocates more government control and use of force.

The Cuban government doesn't want trade with US corporations because it's detrimental to their economy when deals are negotiated unilaterally.

Based on what?

Besides, international trade shouldn't even be a responsibility of governments. If Cubans want to buy hamburgers from McDonalds that's their business, not Castro's.

The Cuban socialist system enjoys healthy popularity at home

So does the North Korean one. Neither Koreans nor Cubans have been asked if they really want socialism.

and isn't demonized anywhere in the world the way it is in the US.

And this is a good thing?

IMF and World Bank loans that demand privatization of land in Latin America lead to homelessness of millions of people

The IMF & WB demand privatizations so that they could function: governments that don't liberalize their economies are unable to pay back.

Btw, both the IMF & WB are semi-socialist institutions since they're managed by governments, rely on taxpayer money and act irrationally by loaning money to poor countries and brutal dictatorships. If global markets were free there would be no such institutions.

Go to Mexico City and see what NAFTA-forced privatization has done to help homelessness rates.

NAFTA has been a tremendous success in Mexico. It largely helped them get through the crisis of 1994 and has since then pushed millions out of poverty and helped modernize the economy.

No country has ever become well off without free trade.

The lowest rates of homelessness are actually found in Cuba, where it's virtually nonexistent. Every Cuban citizen has a home of their own (a huge improvement from before Castro took power) and is fully literate (another huge improvement).

Nearly all Cubans are suffering from low living standards and lack of many fundamental liberties. If this is the price one has to pay for removing homelessness and illiteracy, then don't ask me to contribute.

[Daveman]

It'd become more efficient if that's what you mean. Efficiency means that less scarce resources are wasted. Efficiency means higher living standards. The agrarian economy would become a lot more efficient in terms of production per head. As it is now it's such a lost potential, especially at a moment when agricultural products are becoming more expensive (one reason being, of course, the inefficient Chinese system). This should lead to bigger profits per farmer and investments into modern farm equipment but the lack of private ownership prevents this from happening.
What I'm getting at in China's case is that right now China doesn't need to import any food. Starvation and malnutrition aren't a problem in China like they are in many other underdeveloped nations. If China were to privatize its agriculture and open its borders to foreign investment, its land would get snatched up by foreign corporations interested in exporting the food for profit, not in feeding the Chinese people. True free trade would mean that the Chinese government would have no say in this, meaning they would be unable to prevent the corporations from taking all their food and sending it overseas. Sure, they could import some food, but then they run the risk of not being afford enough food to feed everyone, which isn't currently a problem. There's also the problem that corporations would be using Chinese laborers to work the fields for low wages (which would have to be spent on food, which is subject to fluctuating prices, rather than food being guaranteed) and with inevitable human rights violations which suddenly become the fault of American corporations, which the Chinese people are incapable of combating or influencing.



Good.
Human rights aren't a concern then? I find this quite troubling.



Why not?
Because it doesn't work? The American system has flourished because of its dominance over the rest of the world's markets. China can't adopt universal free trade with the US and expect to be able to compete economically.

The amount of homeless people is considerably lower in the west than elsewhere.
No. Wrong. The most rampant homelessness in the world is found in Latin America, which is supposedly a "market" region. Free-trade just doesn't work in Latin America because the region is inherently at the mercy of US corporations, with whom they can't compete or even demand wage standards.
Also, unemployment (which leads to homelessness) is commonly caused by regulations such as rigid labor markets. Involuntary unemployment rarely exists in a market economy.
In a developed nation, sure, but not in underdeveloped nations. Underdeveloped nations get hurt hard by privatization while the developed ones benefit. To put it simply, privatization in underdeveloped nations means privatization by foreign corporations, which means exploitation of a nation's wealth and resources with little to no benefit to the domestic infrastructure of the country, as well as a consolidation of wealth into an elite group of foreign business leaders and domestic government officials.

I don't get this.
The Soviet Union was far more socialist than any western country. All capitalist countries have been much better off than communist countries.
You're assuming that core countries have the same needs as periphery countries. It's not the case. The developed West has flourished economically at the expense of the underdeveloped world.
Why you think more socialism would somehow magically make things better if considerable doses of it have already managed to cause so much destruction?
Because Soviet socialism was doomed to fail from the start, and modern socialist movements aren't. See below.

The Soviet economy was socialist to a large degree. It was centrally planned and as such was not able to allocate scarce resources efficiently. How are you planning on solving this economic calculation problem?
The problem with the Soviet Union was that it had to balance the socialist revolution with the capitalist development necessary for a socialist country to survive. It was centrally planned, sure, but there's far more to socialism than central planning. The Soviets tried to set up a "contained capitalism" that hybridized with socialism, and it simply wasn't possible because of how undeveloped the country had been prior to the Russian Revolution. The Soviet model was doomed from the start, not because of an inherent flaw in socialism, but because of the flaw in the country's history.

[Daveman]

If anything, the Cold War helped prolong the life of communism.
Soviet communism? Arguably. Not the underdeveloped world's sovereign socialist movements, however. Socialist movements in Latin America have always been interested in domestic issues completely apart from the Cold War or any other large-scale conflict.

The right generally speaking advocates more individual liberties than the left does (at least in the US where the right is not so much associated with fascism). I'm not a right-wingie so I haven't got much interest defending them. But we were talking about political systems: despite some theocratic elements American conservatism is generally based on the idea that the government should be small whileas the left advocates more government control and use of force.
There's no "use of force" from the American left. It's government control, you're right, but you can't say "government control and use of force" when they're the same thing. The difference between the left and right in America is irrelevant anyway because in terms of foreign policy, they're both interested in American corporate dominance first and foremost. That's been the case for over half a century now. Either side will prefer the presence of a repressive right-wing government in a periphery country over a democratically-elected left-wing government. See Allende, Arbenz, Castro, Uribe, Chavez, or even Morales for examples.


Based on what?
You're looking for unilateral trade deals? It's any sort of free market deal between the core countries of the global market (the US in this case) and any periphery country forced to open its economy without precondition as a result of an IMF or World Bank loan, or as the result of an ill-advised or self-interested decision made by the periphery country's leaders. Look at what happened after the 1973 coup in Chile (US-backed) or the 1954 coup in Guatemala (US-backed), or the forced privatization of the Brazilian sugar industry. There's no competition between US corporations and Latin American ones because the US corporations have not only greater resources but the full (and I do mean full) support of the US government, which is fully capable (and has a track record) of running Latin American countries by proxy in order to gain favorable trade agreements for

Besides, international trade shouldn't even be a responsibility of governments.
This sounds great but it doesn't make any sense. Corporations have a huge influence on how governments are run. That's a fact. Allowing corporations to run countries hasn't worked well because corporations are about profit at any cost, and when it's international trade that's at issue, it's even more important to consider human rights because the United Fruit Company can exploit workers in Guatemala completely without the knowledge of the American consumer. If these were domestic corporations, the issue would be slightly different, but we're talking international trade.
If Cubans want to buy hamburgers from McDonalds that's their business, not Castro's.
What happens when McDonald's runs Cubans out of business? You'll say something along the lines of "that's fine, the Cubans can't compete", but Castro and much of the left in the underdeveloped world has decided to put national sovereignty and human rights first. It's very simple.

American corporations aren't interested in "selling" to Latin America anyway. Latin America is the most resource-rich region in the world, and trade with Latin American countries has always been about the extraction of resources and exploitation of labor pools at lower cost than can be found anywhere else. Maybe it makes me a "commie", but I tend to see low wages and despicable conditions in Latin American sweatshops as a bad thing. Since American corporations aren't going to do anything about it and neither are US-backed right-wing governments, it's up to leftist governments to try and improve conditions and, if necessary, close the country to foreign corporations. Poor countries deserve to have a say in what kind of effect foreign corporations have on their people.

So does the North Korean one. Neither Koreans nor Cubans have been asked if they really want socialism.
Oh please, Cuba is not as cloistered as North Korea. Not nearly. There's not a widespread campaign of disinformation being propagated by the government to keep the people "in the dark" the way it is in North Korea (another country calling iteself "Communist" that has nothing to do with communism). The views expressed by the Cuban government are no different than what you find throughout Latin America. They seem "radical" to us but that's because anything that far left is outside the realm of acceptable debate in the US. It isn't the same case in Europe or in Latin America.



And this is a good thing?

Absolutely. Healthy debate is always welcome, right? You don't have any sort of healthy debate about Cuba in the United States because it's unacceptable to think of them as anything but pure evil. It doesn't take a genius to look at the history of Cuba and see that Castro's government has made significant advances from Batista's extraordinarily repressive regime that it overthrew, despite the stranglehold the US government has tried to put on the country.

The IMF & WB demand privatizations so that they could function: governments that don't liberalize their economies are unable to pay back.
The alternative being that the privatization demands lead to consolidation of wealth and land and a cut in social programs needed for the lives of the country's population? I'll put human rights first. The problem is that corrupt governments (often US-backed) are able to profit off the IMF and World Bank loans so they take them without regard for the human rights of their citizenry.

Btw, both the IMF & WB are semi-socialist institutions since they're managed by governments, rely on taxpayer money and act irrationally by loaning money to poor countries and brutal dictatorships. If global markets were free there would be no such institutions.
None of that makes them "semi-socialist institutions. That's an absurd claim. The IMF and World Bank are run by the US government, and they've always been as inclined towards free market (as in pro-US) solutions as possible.

The dictatorships that the IMF and World Bank have been in favor of aiding have almost always been conservative dictatorships. It's been dictatorships in Chile, Colombia, Guatemala, Venezuela, Argentina, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Peru that the IMF and World Bank have been most eager to help out. And that's just the Western hemisphere. African politics is a whole other world of affairs with USAID, the IMF, and the World Bank propping up corrupt dictators to secure free markets for exploitation by US and European corporations. It's no different than overt military action in small countries by the US most of the time, but it's more subtle to be sure.



NAFTA has been a tremendous success in Mexico. It largely helped them get through the crisis of 1994 and has since then pushed millions out of poverty and helped modernize the economy.
It's caused huge polarization of wealth and the complete elimination of the small farmer and middle-class store owner because it doesn't allow the Mexican government to stop American corporations from running them out of business or to set wage standards comparable to what they were receiving before in relation to the shifting value of the dollar and peso. You want to know why so many Mexicans are flooding into the US? Look no further than NAFTA.


Nearly all Cubans are suffering from low living standards and lack of many fundamental liberties. If this is the price one has to pay for removing homelessness and illiteracy, then don't ask me to contribute.
You're looking for causation where there is none. Homelessness hasn't been eradicated in Cuba because of the low living conditions, it's been eradicated despite low living conditions. The US trade embargo on Cuba stops any country from trading with them. It's not just a ban for US corporations. The US' goal in dealing with socialist nations has never been to "free the people", it's been to stop it before it can flourish and provide a model for other countries to follow suit at the expense of US corporate interests.

[Destructor]

/me grabs popcorn

[Sang]

/me grabs popcorn

Heh yeah, I was interested in the debate for a while but now the posts have become too lengthy for me :D

Though I will say, Daveman, that you seem somewhat confused about the phrase "in the West". I suppose that when Mikko says that there are less homeless people in the West, he's talking about Western Europe and North America. So in that case the employment rate of Latin America is sortof a moot point.

[Daveman]

Well, Latin America has been considered part of the Western World for a long time in that it has adopted free market policies (that was the whole point of Bolivar's revolution) and it's a product of European culture just the same as the United States. Latin America resembles North America and Europe more than it does Africa or Asia.

Regardless, you can't talk about the economic prosperity of the developed West without bringing up the extreme poverty of the underdeveloped West. They're completely dependent on each other.

[Nessus]

Yeah but when someone says Western what they mean is Europe, Canada, the US, Australia, etc. It's almost used as a politically correct shorthand to say the white European countries.

[Daveman]

Well, then the second point from my last post stands. Homelessness rates in core countries will of course be lower than the rates in periphery countries.

[Sang]

If you ask me the high unemployment rate in those underdeveloped countries is because they were suppressed during the Colonial ages so they haven't had that much time yet to develop. The problem still persists because the Western corporations sell their stuff there for a really cheap price so that the local merchants can't possibly compete. That way the economy never really grows and you've got constant poverty. That's why, I think, free markets should definitely have boundaries. Things like that create unfair competition and problems for a lot of people so that should be forbidden or at least regulated (perhaps governments should demand for a minimum price, it does disrupt the market balance but it could help so many people) . I guess corruption and general stupidity among the "leaders" of those countries don't help much either.

But this is quite far away from China ;)

[Daveman]

The domestic economy in poor countries can't grow at all not just because of competition from Wal-Marts and other large retail stores, it's that the natural resources are controlled by corporations that have no interest in the country's economy. It's the reason the Venezuelan government decided to nationalize the oil industry there. The countries deserve to see some profit from the exploitation of their natural resources.

EDIT: Yeah, I guess this is fairly off-track. I should point out that I'm no Chinese government sympathizer. They're a bunch of douchebags. :D

[Mikko Sandt]

Daveman, generally speaking your arguments make little economic sense. You're like someone who's trying to explain to a mathematician that the derivative of 2X is not 2. Especially when it comes to free trade you don't seem to understand benefits caused by comparative advantage and division of labor even though economists have recognized these benefits for over two hundred years.

What I'm getting at in China's case is that right now China doesn't need to import any food.

So what? An inefficient agricultural sector is a drag and contributes to low living standards and rising food prices. Each resource that is wasted on argiculture cannot anymore be allocated to where it'd have been more efficiently used. This necessarily leads to a decrease in living standards yet you don't seem to care about it. Why should resources be allocated to sectors where they are not efficiently used?

If China were to privatize its agriculture and open its borders to foreign investment, its land would get snatched up by foreign corporations interested in exporting the food for profit, not in feeding the Chinese people.

Yes, corporations are interested in making a profit. How is this a bad thing?

True free trade would mean that the Chinese government would have no say in this, meaning they would be unable to prevent the corporations from taking all their food and sending it overseas.

So?

Sure, they could import some food, but then they run the risk of not being afford enough food to feed everyone, which isn't currently a problem.

Rising food prices are a problem at the moment especially to poor people all over the world (although some privately owned farms benefit from it).

And there is no risk. You still don't seem to get the fact that privatization leads to efficiency. Food production in China would increase dramatically as a result of this. It'd also make food more affordable for the Chinese. It'd also add to national income, making imported food relatively cheaper and just maybe it'd lower inflation.

There's also the problem that corporations would be using Chinese laborers to work the fields for low wages... which the Chinese people are incapable of combating or influencing.

Human rights aren't a concern then? I find this quite troubling.

Again, you don't understand fundamental economics. An increase in demand raises wages and improves working conditions. Wages are inreasing in China at an astounding rate because that cheap labor is needed more and more.

Because it doesn't work?

Where it hasn't worked?

The American system has flourished because of its dominance over the rest of the world's markets. China can't adopt universal free trade with the US and expect to be able to compete economically.

Ever heard of comparative advantage?

The most rampant homelessness in the world is found in Latin America, which is supposedly a "market" region. Free-trade just doesn't work in Latin America because the region is inherently at the mercy of US corporations, with whom they can't compete or even demand wage standards.

Latin America is not a part of the West.

There is only one country in Latin America that is economically (and pretty much socially for that matter) as free as most European nations and that is Chile which is the freest and most prosperous country south of the United States. Countries such as Argentine and Brazil are growing now after suffering from crises caused by irresponsible fiscal and monetary policies (although Argentine's monetary policy is still pretty damn loose). Also, there is considerably little free trade among South American countries (compared to the European Union or American states for example).

The fact that you see Latin America as some kind of a "market region" tells a lot. There are various rankings which rank countries according to economic freedom that you should see. See Index of Economic Freedom (http://www.heritage.org/Index/countries.cfm) and Doing Business (http://www.doingbusiness.org/economyrankings/).

Compare these countries then to, say, Human Development Index and you get the point.

In a developed nation, sure, but not in underdeveloped nations.

It's not really about whether a country is developed or underdeveloped but whether its markets are free or not.

To put it simply, privatization in underdeveloped nations means privatization by foreign corporations, which means exploitation of a nation's wealth and resources with little to no benefit to the domestic infrastructure of the country, as well as a consolidation of wealth into an elite group of foreign business leaders and domestic government officials.

There is nothing wrong with foreign factories pouring in and "exploiting" natural resources in poor countries. On the contrary, if local governments realize to keep their noses and dirty corrupt hands off it's a tremendous benefit for the local economy since it brings in the kind of capital, efficiency and knowhow the local population hasn't got.

Leaving natural resources to rotten governments (Russia, Venezuela etc.) only wrecks any future prospects these countries may have.

The problem with the Soviet Union was that it had to balance the socialist revolution with the capitalist development necessary for a socialist country to survive. It was centrally planned, sure, but there's far more to socialism than central planning. The Soviets tried to set up a "contained capitalism" that hybridized with socialism, and it simply wasn't possible because of how undeveloped the country had been prior to the Russian Revolution. The Soviet model was doomed from the start, not because of an inherent flaw in socialism, but because of the flaw in the country's history.

I didn't really get that. So now it's some fusion of capitalism and socialism that contributed to the failure of the Soviet Union? How much private property was there in the Soviet Union and how much the markets there were guided by actual prices?

And you still haven't explained how are you going to solve the economic calculation problem, i.e., how will you set up a centrally planned system so that it can efficiently allocate scarce resources and take opportunity costs of production into account? If you cannot answer this communism will fail.

It's the reason the Venezuelan government decided to nationalize the oil industry there.

And selling its precious oil below market price while driving all the evil corporations out is a nice way to make sure the country has no future once it runs out of oil.

[Daveman]

Daveman, generally speaking your arguments make little economic sense. You're like someone who's trying to explain to a mathematician that the derivative of 2X is not 2. Especially when it comes to free trade you don't seem to understand benefits caused by comparative advantage and division of labor even though economists have recognized these benefits for over two hundred years.
We're coming from two different schools of economic thought. You're a development theorist. I'm a dependency theorist.

I'm going to be really honest. I've really lost interest in this discussion. I could argue with all your points but I've stopped caring ever since I had to split my last post up because it broke the 10,000 character limit. :D

[Mikko Sandt]

We're coming from two different schools of economic thought. You're a development theorist. I'm a dependency theorist.

Marxism is to economics what creationism is to biology. It's worth nothing.

I'm going to be really honest. I've really lost interest in this discussion. I could argue with all your points but I've stopped caring ever since I had to split my last post up because it broke the 10,000 character limit. :D

So you're playing the I Don't Want to Play With You Anymore card even though this has so far been a civilized debate? Not that I'm surprised since Marxists are rarely even willing to debate with economists. Marxists prefer to live in a bubble where their theories are shielded from nasty economic realities.

[Daveman]

Marxism is to economics what creationism is to biology. It's worth nothing.
But Dependency theory is a widely accepted school of economics. It's not just Marxism. It's using a Marxist perspective in analyzing societal development, but it's not advocating violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie.



So you're playing the I Don't Want to Play With You Anymore card even though this has so far been a civilized debate? Not that I'm surprised since Marxists are rarely even willing to debate with economists. Marxists prefer to live in a bubble where their theories are shielded from nasty economic realities.
Okay, I've tried to back out civilly, but you're honestly being a real **** about it. I don't want to debate this anymore because it takes too goddamn long. It has nothing to do with it not being civil. We're also horribly off-topic, so I'm going to let it go.

[Nessus]

Mikko you have to admit the whole ten quote boxes in a post thing is hard to follow. I have a genuine interest in the subject and enjoy these kind of debates but when I see those posts it's just too much. I think the whole thing flows better making your point in a paragraph or two instead of rebutting sentence by sentence.

[Mikko Sandt]

But Dependency theory is a widely accepted school of economics.

It certainly is not, at least not in economics. Other social scientists know nothing about economics so whether they agree with the theory or not is irrelevant.

I think the whole thing flows better making your point in a paragraph or two instead of rebutting sentence by sentence.

Okay, but it all comes down to just two basic arguments: efficiency as a result of division of labor & comparative advantage and the economic calculation problem which refutes central planning. This is why capitalism works and socialism doesn't and never will. Since all of his arguments rely on it, I want to hear Daveman refute comparative advantage (i.e., to show that efficiency resulting from free trade and free markets is not good) and solve the calculation problem.

[Daveman]

It certainly is not, at least not in economics. Other social scientists know nothing about economics so whether they agree with the theory or not is irrelevant.
Dependency theorists are economists though. If you're claiming that they're all hacks that's a pretty audacious thing to say. Just because it's not the preferred theory in the developed world doesn't mean it's a sham.

[Mikko Sandt]

Dependency theorists are economists though.

Some creationists are biologists so what's the point?

If you're claiming that they're all hacks that's a pretty audacious thing to say. Just because it's not the preferred theory in the developed world doesn't mean it's a sham.

It's a sham because it's wrong and yes, they're all hacks. I have yet to hear how these dependency theorists and other Marxists are going to solve the calculation problem or how are they planning on refuting comparative advantage.

[Daveman]

Again, I can't be assed to continue the debate as I had been before because I'm really goddamn lazy right now, but how would you respond to something like this (chttp://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela_2008_04.pdf)?

[Mikko Sandt]

but how would you respond to something like this (chttp://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela_2008_04.pdf)?

I can't access chttp. Dunno why.

[The Stinger]

Change it to http. ;)
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela_2008_04.pdf

[Mikko Sandt]

I read it. There's absolutely nothing in the whole "study" that indicates any improvement in Venezuela's macroeconomic structure. In fact, the whole study seemed to deal with relatively irrelevant issues. I'm amazed that an economist would go and write something like that in defense of Hugo Chavez's disastrous policies.

First, the poverty reduction was merely due to the fact that there was a major recession (which demonstrated Venezuela's dependency on oil) in Venezuela which increased poverty quite radically. Once the shocks (caused by a strike and OPEC politics) had been dealt with, oil production was back online and things back to "normal". The increase in poverty was unusual in the first place.

Lowering the poverty rate by increasing income transfers is an artificial mean that sacrifices long-term stability especially when these income transfers are funded by selling oil below its market price.

Then there's the Gini coefficient. Well, quite frankly the whole coefficient is pretty irrelevant and I don't care about it: everyone can be better off even if your neighbour makes a hundred times more than you do. Besides, the Gini coefficient for Venezuela is still high and has barely moved. Ironically all capitalist countries have quite low Gini coefficients.

Third, there's some fuss about spending on education, health care and public housing. Well, since the economy is not any healthier (and won't be with the way things are going) public sector spending is not a good thing at all. Once again, Chavez is sacrificing long-term stability for short-term gains in order to get more votes.

As for Chavez's literacy program, it's inefficient and not working: http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10766504

So, as Chavez spends more and more time and money on trying to attract voters and rewarding his pals, foreign companies are taking their businesses elsewhere, oil is being sold below its market price and M2 growth is out of hands.