Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Asia Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (8752)	6/16/1999 8:24:00 PM
From: Frodo Baxter	Respond to of 9980

Fellow apologist, bravo!

To: Dayuhan who wrote (8752)	6/17/1999 8:06:00 AM
From: Liatris Spicata	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 9980

Steven- <<What are you saying we should do? Nuke Them Because They Are Bad? Are you suggesting that what happened at Tiananmen justifies blowing up the Chinese embassy?>> Oh, come now, Steven. Your suggestions are simply an absurd extension of anything I have said. A distinctly puerile reaction. BTW, when did you stop beating your wife? <<The point that those of us you call apologists are trying to make - which you have not responded to in any coherent form - is that US policy toward China is not and should not be based on classifying the Chinese Government as "good" or "bad". >> I don't believe I have avoided issues on this thread- what makes you say I have avoided addressing issues?. You go on to raise a reasonable- and debatable- point. It depends on what you mean by "classifying". I happen to believe that morality does have a role to play in international diplomacy, and that my country should stand for Good and oppose Sin. And if, in the short run, that may make us materially poorer, we should accept that cost. We as a nation also should recognize that dictatorships are a Bad Thing, and we should treat such governments and societies differently than we treat liberal democracies. Our actions should discriminate between those who oppress fundamental human rights such as freedom of expression, association, and religion (all of which China today does), and those societies that do not. To fail to do so is to abet and encourage the oppressors, to the detriment of those I consider my friends. I for one simply do not buy the argument that such matters are "internal". I find that people like you refuse to identify the basic evil that inheres in the current Chinese system- I'd be delighted to be proven wrong. <<It is a question of encouraging a transition which is already in progress, and maneuvering to strengthen the hand of the more moderate elements within the Chinese system.>> I'm inclined to agree with that statement see, we may have some common ground. Now, as part of encouraging the "good guys" (not always an easy identification), what is wrong with the idea of making it clear- not necessarily public- that if you engage in certain kinds of behavior, that there is a cost in terms of your relations with us? That approach may very well strengthen the hands of the "moderates". BTW, that was an approach we used with some success toward the Bad Old Soviet Union. <<Economic liberalization inevitably leads to political liberalization>> A dubious proposition stated as fact. But yes, I agree China has liberalized its economy a great deal in the past decade. Current leadership appears to want the benefits of the capitalist road without yielding their dictatorial powers. <<t is convenient and fun to blame everything on a deservedly unpopular President>> Clinton lied about when he was informed of Chinese spying in our weapons labs. For his own political agenda, he conducted a foreign policy toward China that imposed no price on China espionage to obtain WMD. If you think that should be tolerated by the US gov. and the American people, well you and I have nothing more to say to one another. Larry P.S. I am not running for political office. So I shall continue to feel free to comment on the Clinton administration, thank you. P.P.S. The FBI is part of the Executive branch of government. Perhaps you would like to ruminate on the implications of that fact.