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.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rolla Coasta who wrote (567)	1/15/2001 5:53:57 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23908

QPK, Don't you think that mainland China's leadership basically has a very pragmatic agenda? I mean I don't think that Jiang Zemin, Zhu Rongji and the others are fundamentally against Western democracy; instead, what Chinese leaders are forcefully opposed to is the wholesale splintering of their great country: Chinese belong to an old civilization after all.... they just can't be fooled by "Western barnstormers" who want to sell them the "100%-Anglo-Saxon Democracy" package! 'Cause they know that, in the Chinese case, it'd merely be a proxy for breakaway politics. Indeed, that is --and always has been-- the way the Capitalist steamroller proceeds: on the premise that every country has its "profit centers" alongside "basket cases", that is, regions without profitable manpower and/or resources.... Hence Capitalism's carve-up strategy --let's dub it the Brunei Gerrymander: using power politics and the whole boodle with local politicos, foreign capitalists target the best parcels (Hong Kong, Shangai, and most of China's seashore) and then they slice them off --like they did with Kuwait/Irak or Brunei/Malaysia or Russia/Uzbekistan or... you name it! It's obvious that it's not difficult for foreign companies to bribe the locals into their turfing scheme: it's just a matter of financing "democratic" parties that call for secessionism, independence, self-rule, and whatnot! Later on, western corporations and their breakaway stooges can calmly share out the loot (oil, real estate, manpower, whatever) among themselves, leaving the bulk of unproductive people out in the cold.... Gus.

To: Rolla Coasta who wrote (567)	1/15/2001 3:08:19 PM
From: Andy Thomas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

--How would you feel if someone steal a valuable relic of yours and later on auction back to you ? -- the mainlanders still had valuable relics.. until the cultural revolution. if the islanders hadn't 'stolen' some of that stuff, it would have _all_ been destroyed in the cultural revolution. in light of that, it seems odd that the mainlanders are complaining about this. andy

To: Rolla Coasta who wrote (567)	1/15/2001 3:47:18 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

But I guess you are pretty old and experiencd. :O) It's not the age, it's the mileage... <VBG> But the point I was trying to make is that young people in authoritarian societies don't make the ultimate decision whether or not to wage war on a neighboring country. But in a democratic society, either directly, or by the proxy of their concerned parents, young people ultimately decide whether their nation goes to war simply because they are the ones who have to fight it. And that's why I held so much promise with the Tianamen Square demonstrations. It was a sign that young people were going to assert themselves in opposing a leadership that seemingly has had little regard for their individual rights. We have many accounts of how young Chinese boys were thrown into human wave assaults and massacred by better armed defenders. but just don't like to hear it is about the legacy of someone and glorifying the ugly facts of the past and what they did to other people But don't point out the oppression or imperialism of one particular nation without acknowleging its presence in another. During that period of time EVERY nation was either imperialistic, or engaged in revolution against what they considered their oppressors. The US also fought a war against an imperialistic power, if you'll recall. That was just how the world worked at that time. And if it wasn't western nations conquering and colonizing other nations, there were campaigns of conquest AMONGST the power-brokers IN THESE COUNTRIES. In fact, one of the greatest strategies of imperialism was to encourage these powers to war with one another to the point of exhaustion, at which point they were ALL conquered. So you can blame the British for all kinds of "ugly facts", but you must acknowledge that the Chinese system of warlords ALSO were responsible for their own "ugly facts". I think the current leaders or would-be leaders are pretty much loyal to Deng's ideology. Don't be so naieve.. The current leadership in China is all for enriching themselves and maintain ULTIMATE control over the political destiny of China. Totalitarian regimes are like a political mafia. They may see the benefit of economic reforms in order to prevent their international power being diminished (ability to buy weapons and influence regional power alliances), but they certainly will not be willing to EVER relinquish their power until the people FORCE them to. They are sitting up there in Bejing like some group of self-proclaimed "paternal elders" hoping that the people don't realize that "the emperor has no clothes". If the people choose to assert their rights enmasse, the government will ultimately follow. Right now power is derived from position and internal politicking. However, to truly succeed, that power MUST BE derived from the people. China is a false democracy and the Chinese octogenarian leadership realizes that they are toeing an increasingly fine line. The foundations of their own power bases are being undermined by a yearning for freedom, individuality, and access to information other than state produced propaganda. And that is the ultimate difference between Taiwan and China. In Taiwan, the government is still beholding to the people. They have to answer to the people at election time. And if they really screw up, they will face a vote of no-confidence in the government. Any corruption that exists on that island nation has to work within the parameters of the system and out of sight of the press. In China, however, there is no real accountability to the people. Leadership can grant freedom, or take it away in the name of social order, preying on the historical conformity and submissiveness of the Chinese people. Corruption in China exists at all levels. But any investigation of alleged corruption has to be viewed as public manipulations and power plays between the elites, where one powerful individual seeks to embarrass an opponent, although quite likely guilty of the same corruption himself. The bottom line is that until I see signs of governmental power in China being derived from the people and not the elite, I'm more than willing to support Taiwan. Regards, Ron