Well first of all, I myself don't like how the Chinese government treats the citizens abusively as inferior people, while acting humbly (or even softly) before other countries. But that's the Chinese way of life for thousands of years, to improve it they need time.

However, despite the domestic human rights issues, China never treated other countries harshly. Even though one may blame China for not taking the responsibility of a powerful country in various conflicts around the world, but it's only protecting itself from the consequences of enraging certain parties (America as a good example). Historically, yes China used to be a communist country, but only for 30 years before they shifted the economy to capitalism. Nowadays, the teaching of communism is only struggling to survive in slogans and textbooks, though noone really believes in it any more. Moreover, down to personal levels, I agree that Chinese culture might seem awkward to westerners, but it's where many popular oriental cultures rooted from, which are quite celebrated in western societies.

I don't see any logical reasons why westerners would hate China. But it has constantly been devilized by medias and is under double standard under many issues, such as taking down satellites, the inaction in Darfur, or the lack of protection of worker's rights. Why should the western society criticize China intensely while they are having or have had similar problems? My perception is that many well developed western societies have fear for the rise of a new powerful competitor, who would consume enormous amount of natural resource during its future development. I don't know whether that is justified, because the developed countries all have gone through similar stages where not everything is efficient, and they were too exploring the "right way" by taking lots of failtures and consuming lots of resource. It is not fair playing, though the well known whiner-muting phrase "life is not fair".

That being said, I hope to hear the insignts of everyone reading the topic. I'm Chinese and I love every culture I have had contact with. I have gone through, for quite a long time, the frustration of defining myself when the two countries I love are in conflict, and of being treated constantly as an outlander, even though most people have been nice to me. It wasn't easy time.

2/20/2008 2:34:03 PM

You realize that many territories that have been taken over post-WWII by China were by force, correct? Manchuria, Tibet namely, were taken over via manifest destiny without regards to the people who lived there. Taiwan is in a similar situation, yet has staved off the Chinese government until now. Hong Kong was ceded to China, but many citizens disagreed with the transfer of power.


The main difference I've noticed when speaking with Chinese people is that they see Tibet and Taiwan as 'historic' china and therefore see no problem with taking the country 'back' into the fold. Western thought generally teaches us that this is wrong, unless the people ask for it.

2/20/2008 2:41:06 PM

The conflict between Tibet and China, and between Taiwan and China has been going on for centuries. I read that at the beginning of Qing dynasty Tibet was in war with the Chinese, and during peace times, the relationship was often like between kings and dukes, where the king gives the "duke" sovereignty and title while receiving payments each year. So I'd say taking Tibet as part of China historically is not justified. Hongkong, on the other hand, was "rented" by UK for 100 years with a contract. Their suffering in economy and freedom is more like domestic issues. Taiwan is even more different, it has to do with America's strategy in Asia, and China's desire/competition of resources in west Pacific with Japan. It has nothing to do with sovereignty or freedom. To be honest, Taiwan's political system is quite broken already.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 3:00 PM. Reason : a]

2/20/2008 2:59:24 PM

Quote :

"Well first of all, I myself don't like how the Chinese government treats the citizens abusively as inferior people, while acting humbly (or even softly) before other countries."

First, all governments treat their citizens as inferior people. That is the nature of Power, it goes to your head. I accept the possibility that Chinese officials may have pushed this tendency further than others, but I doubt it.

However, I consider myself fairly well read when it comes to current events, and I do not see China acting humbly (much less softly) before other countries. China is seemingly on the brink of starting World War III in the Taiwan Strait. China is also building a new age of colonialism in the third world in its persuit of resources. While I suspect some of the third world would benefit from a return to colonialism, I also believe China will inevitably go too far (it is what Governments do).

So, while surely some Westerners do hate China, rest assured they have their reasons and will happily explain them to you.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 3:01 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/20/2008 2:59:53 PM

The only thing China don't make

is job for American worker

2/20/2008 3:01:47 PM

Quote :

"It has nothing to do with sovereignty or freedom."

Tell that to the people that have the missiles pointed at them.

As far as HK, I don't have an issue with it as long as the takeover is peaceful. I wouldn't even have issue with Taiwan being taken over if the Taiwanese people voted for it. I'm against the use of force in general.

China has been trying to improve and you have to give them props for that, but they still have a ways to go (as do most countries including the US).

2/20/2008 3:05:56 PM

I agree that China would become agressive for the sake of resource, just as any hungry men will do. However I don't see how most third world countries would present as desirable resources to China, besides the potential for expanded markets, but their purchasing ability is quite in doubt.

As far as WW3 goes, if global energy crysis takes place, it's inevitable, no matter who starts it.

2/20/2008 3:06:39 PM

They were told to by old men wearing red ties on their television sets.

2/20/2008 3:07:37 PM

Quote :

"You realize that many territories that have been taken over.....were by force, correct?...taken over via manifest destiny without regards to the people who lived there."

hmmm....

2/20/2008 3:14:00 PM

Quote :

"I agree that China would become agressive for the sake of resource, just as any hungry men will do. However I don't see how most third world countries would present as desirable resources to China, besides the potential for expanded markets, but their purchasing ability is quite in doubt."

China is not interested in the third world for its purchasing power. China is interested in their poverty, which makes them easy to dominate politically. China is acquiring colonies in the 21st century for the same reason European powers acquired colonies in the 19th century. They are easy to acquire and they provide playgrounds for political elites.

2/20/2008 3:19:16 PM

If you didn't know, eastern people hate china too...

... the Japanese are, to this day, still struggling against the Chinese in areas dealing with oil, military, and just plain bitterness from a sour history together. I don't think Africans appreciate China much either, for their hand in the Sudan/Darfur conflicts. Besides, "hate" is such a strong word to use in this context. People don't hate China, they just don't like them as much.

Also, I wouldn't say their national image is any worse off than say... America? Maybe your next thread should be titled, "Why do many eastern people hate United States?".

2/20/2008 4:08:36 PM

Quote :

"However, despite the domestic human rights issues, China never treated other countries harshly. Even though one may blame China for not taking the responsibility of a powerful country in various conflicts around the world, but it's only protecting itself from the consequences of enraging certain parties (America as a good example). Historically, yes China used to be a communist country, but only for 30 years before they shifted the economy to capitalism. Nowadays, the teaching of communism is only struggling to survive in slogans and textbooks, though noone really believes in it any more. Moreover, down to personal levels, I agree that Chinese culture might seem awkward to westerners, but it's where many popular oriental cultures rooted from, which are quite celebrated in western societies. "

hey buddy you are using too much intelligence; please take your logical reasoning back to asia. All we know here in USA is that china is communist; slap on the label to help fuel people's hate and fear. Stop trying to fuck up this perception. We are freedom loving democracy thriving good guys while china are evil commies exploiting the 3rd world for its resources. We would NEVER exploit the 3rd world for resources

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 4:16 PM. Reason : l]

2/20/2008 4:14:54 PM

I don't hate China. How much anti-China stuff do you see around here, anyway?

2/20/2008 4:28:10 PM

I don't hate China, but I am intelligent enough to realize that in the coming future they will be a rival and/or adversary to the United States on the global power stage.

I think the people that don't like China are probably for the following reasons:

-communist, authoritarian government
-human rights abuses
-cheap labor and lax labor laws which results in them getting industries from U.S. and taking American jobs (more of an anti-free trade gripe than anti-China though)

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 4:42 PM. Reason : /]

2/20/2008 4:38:53 PM

I'll be honest.

I dislike a lot about China.

There, I feel better now that I've put it into print.

Now, just to clarify.

What I tend to dislike about China, I also tend to dislike about the United States:

1) Nationalism.
2) Interventionalism.
3) Authoritarianism.
4) Censorship.
5) Human rights abuses.
6) Ecological irresponsibility.

But on the real deal Holyfield, why does the Democratic adversary imprison the greater ratio of its citizenry in this relationship?

2/20/2008 4:52:02 PM

well, the reason I say China is not communist is because they can't really adopt any new political paradygm appeared in 19 and 20th century, due to the fact that the Chinese people are so used to totalitarian leadership, to the point that even if they try to adopt communism or democracy, a special "hero" will always become the center of attention, and many people will seek him for leading. Those who don't will be under pressure, not only from the government but also from fellowmen. And those who hold a neutral ground will stay silent due to the ubiquitous "stay out of trouble" philosophy in Chinese culture.

Thus, when considering China's various issues including human rights, authoritarianism and such, one should take into account China's history, tradition and philosophies, because they play an important role in determining the form of society. This applies to many other countries as well, and blatantly saying either democracy or communism or totalitarism is the best political system per se is not valid.

However I can see how the Chinese culture is changing with the Internet. In China, the Internet provides a space for free speech, though somehow censored, they can always get by by using abreviations. Recently, since many decades the government's media started to look bad (and stupid) in front of Chinese people, and ever since the old school political leaders died out there has been subtle changes in people's beliefs and values, in other words, their mind is getting more and more freed.

2/20/2008 5:45:23 PM

I really hate that they don't have a floating currency and that they peg their currency to a basket of different currencies which they won't reveal so that no one knows what their money is really worth.

If they were to float like the other major economies of the world, in theory, it would be of great help to our economy.

2/20/2008 5:51:01 PM

i don't like their devilish slanty eyes.

2/20/2008 6:07:06 PM

sputter, why should a country do things to benefit your country? from an objective point of view.

2/20/2008 7:43:12 PM

Quote :

"The conflict between [...] Taiwan and China has been going on for centuries."

wrong.
Before the 20th century China paid little attention to Formosa (future: Taiwan). It was occupied at times by various European countries (indeed Formosa is Portuguese), but it was largely populated by Austronesian people, and ethnic chinese starting, the latter around the 1700s -- Chinese people migrated there to work for the Dutch.

It was not until the late 1800s (like aound 1885) that China tried to claim formosa as part of their territory. But shortly thereafter, at the conclusion of the Sino-Japanese war, China ceded Formosa to Japan in PERPETUITY (not 99 years as in HK).

Making a very long story short...

The Japanese occupied Taiwan until the end of WWII when they renounced sovereignty over Taiwan in the San Fransisco peace treaty. However, and this is a BIG however, there was NO receiving country mentioned. Every other territory Japan ceeded in SFPT mentioned a specific receiving country.

So what was Taiwan's fate?

Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek was the commander of the Allied Forces in the Asia Theatre and his troops were sent to taiwan to accept the surrender of the Japanese (this was supposed to be a temporary movement of troops). However, as fate would have it, the communist led by Mao took advantage of a weakened Nationalist Government, and Chiang Kai-shek was forced to retreat the rest of his troops to Taiwan. There his goal was only to mass an army and re-conqure China.

Well that never happened and Chiang Kai-shek ruled Taiwan with an iron fist, beginning with martial law in 1949 and ending in 1987. Tens of thousands of "Taiwanese" were slaughtered at the hand of the Chinese Nationalist dictator.

It was not until the year 2000, that the transition to democracy took place and an actual transfer of power happened -- the Nationalist lost the election.

Quote :

"It has nothing to do with sovereignty or freedom. To be honest, Taiwan's political system is quite broken already."

You say it is already broken. But in fact it is in it's infancy!

How many countries can you name that have switched to a thriving democracy over a 10 year period without bloodshed at almost every election.

Now, is corruption present?
yes, the well-oiled KMT machine is hard to defeat.

Is the constitution ass-backwards?
Yes, because it was written to rule China -- not Taiwan. They actually have "representatives" that are supposed to represent provinces in China AND Mongolia!

Is that why Taiwan wants to have a referendum and change the constitution?
Yes.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 8:01 PM. Reason : .]

Quote :

"It has nothing to do with sovereignty or freedom."

It has EVERYTHING to do with sovereignty AND freedom. The Taiwanese are a peace loving democratic country they have NO desire to be ruled under an authoritative dictatorship again. They just "won" their freedom, and are in the process of re-inventing their identity. Essentially they were sino-cised during martial law and want to have an identity of their own. The "Taiwanese", and I refer to the chinese that came to taiwan 300 years ago, do not consider themselves "Chinese" even though they shared a common background centuries ago.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 8:09 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 8:12 PM. Reason : 20th century not 19th...]

2/20/2008 8:00:45 PM

China is obviously growing quite quickly, but at what price? You make a valid point that developed Western nations went through growing pains and exploited natural resources (and continue to do so in some cases). However, what was done in the past should not give China a free pass to do the same given what is now known about environmental and social impacts. China is polluting its land and its people. This is not responsible or respectable. China is quickly getting rich off of Western consumerism and they should be held to Western environmental standards. I feel guilty buying Chinese goods because I think about the environmental and ethical compromises that likely went into the production of that product, but often there is no alternate. I buy American goods whenever possible, even though they are almost always more costly. Western consumers need to wise up and demand better accountability and transparency from foreign manufacturers. Just look at the ongoing lead paint fiasco.

2/20/2008 9:37:06 PM

There was already rivals in Taiwan against the mainland government since the 1600's when the previous dynasty (Ming)'s remaining forces took refugee in Taiwan from the new Qing dynasty. The history of Taiwan has made it an important strategic point, which is an ideal asylum for defeated and bannished people from the mainland, and also a danger zone for China if occupied by enemies. Think about Hawaii, if Hawaii was occupied by Japan or Russia during WW2 or cold war, America would be in big trouble. A cheap and huge aircraft carrier and naval base, isn't it? The reason I say the Taiwan issue has nothing to do with sovereignty or freedom (or the integrity of China) is that neither parties involved in the conflict, be it Japan, America, China, or the government of Taiwan, really care about what the Taiwanese people want. Of course, supporting democracy, or keeping China's integrity was the presented by the governments as propaganda, but their real interest is to take hold or control of millitary strategic point.

2/20/2008 10:04:44 PM

Quote :

"Well first of all, I myself don't like how the Chinese government treats the citizens abusively as inferior people, while acting humbly (or even softly) before other countries. But that's the Chinese way of life for thousands of years, to improve it they need time."

I disagree with that statement. Other ancient civilizations, Confucian nations at that, were on the abusive side and have managed to shift in a relatively short amount of time. That is not an accuse for the PRC. You have nations such as Japan, Korea, and even Chinese examples such as Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong (though the last is a bit grayer given that it was under British rule). These nations, while not perfect, certainly are leagues ahead of China in building free, and in most cases, Democratic societies in really short periods of time.

Quote :

"However, despite the domestic human rights issues, China never treated other countries harshly. Even though one may blame China for not taking the responsibility of a powerful country in various conflicts around the world, but it's only protecting itself from the consequences of enraging certain parties (America as a good example)."

This is a bit simplistic as well. The Chinese haven't been able to do much because of constraining forces (Soviet and American pressure) or lack of means to project force.

Quote :

"Moreover, down to personal levels, I agree that Chinese culture might seem awkward to westerners, but it's where many popular oriental cultures rooted from, which are quite celebrated in western societies."

I don't see it much as a distaste for Chinese culture more than a distaste for the modern Chinese state. America was pretty friendly with China in previous incarnations (as were a general fascination by Europeans of China back in the late 19th century), but its the entire Communist thing that's created the stigma. Don't forget that the Communists weren't exactly supportive of traditional Chinese culture until recently as well.

Quote :

"I don't see any logical reasons why westerners would hate China. But it has constantly been devilized by medias and is under double standard under many issues, such as taking down satellites, the inaction in Darfur, or the lack of protection of worker's rights. Why should the western society criticize China intensely while they are having or have had similar problems?"

I agree with others that it's partially a fear driven by China's rapid emergence as a true challenger to American influence overseas, particularly in Asia. It's similar to the sort of anti-Japanese hysteria that gripped the United States back in the 70s and 80s. Much of it is probably just fear of the unknown: if China were a democratic state, then it may have taken the edge off of the threat, but since China is still under a one-party dictatorship that still clings to many of the trappings of a traditional enemy (even if its jettisoned the actual theory), it only aggravates things.

It's also true that the West's hands are stained with just as much blood and "sin" as the Chinese are today, but that's hardly an excuse to justify China carrying out many of those same practices. Also, if you believe NGO's, there is a lot of really shady stuff that's going on outside in the periphery within China's own borders.

Overall though, I say give it time, and if the United States and China don't end up battling over Taiwan or North Korea, I think that things will gradually change, especially if China continues to demonstrate that it intends not to conquer the entire region or some nonsense. The other factor will be if China is truly attempting to boot the Americans out of Eastern Asia or if it doesn't mind sharing influence in the region.

My two cents.

2/20/2008 10:06:23 PM

I'm not very sure if China will ever invade other non-neighboring countries, they might have conflicts with neighboring countries due to border disputes, but in a long run, I'd be pretty proud if China ever has the balls to tackle another country.

Historically, China has one of the biggest and most fertile land in the world. For thousands of years China's soil produced everything it needed to sustain. It's got farms and pastures, timber, iron, oil and coal, and recently discovered natural gas. Even when Europe ran out of resource and had to colonize and industrialize, China was still living on everything produced by itself without trouble. Throughout history China has never the need to invade another countries, and quite the contrary, it was the neighboring states who was lack of resource constantly trying to invade China. As a result, China has developed a defensive culture that makes it hostile to foreign countries and yet unwilling to initiate attacks. This culture caused China to fall back in scientific and technological developments before 20th century, and nurtured somewhat feminine people. Not something to be proud of.

2/20/2008 10:21:00 PM

Quote :

"Throughout history China has never the need to invade another countries, and quite the contrary, it was the neighboring states who was lack of resource constantly trying to invade China. As a result, China has developed a defensive culture that makes it hostile to foreign countries and yet unwilling to initiate attacks."

This is also a misconception however. Historically, China has always been quite militarily aggressive. Alistair Johnston actually write a whole book on this, stating that while on the surface, China appears to have a passive Confucian society, its foreign policy has operated on a more realpolitik style similar to Western nations usually using force to impose its will and only falling back to defensive and appeasement tactics when it lacked the resources to mount a campaign.

I always thought that the reasons China has not bothered to further annex its neighbors is because for most of its history, it's either struggled to maintain the already massive empire they hold or simply had everyone pacified as tributary states. Or in the case of the north, territory was simply impossible to hold due to the nature of its inhabitants. Nations such as Vietnam, Korea, Tibet, and countless other states that no longer exist have been attacked and invaded several times by Middle Kingdom by different Han Chinese dynasties, ranging from the Han to the Ming. Outside of conflicts directly related to the Chinese Civil War, the PRC has waged war with India and Vietnam (I leave out Korea because its a bit more ambiguous).

I'm not trying to knock China; the fact that such a nation has survived for so long and has such a rich culture and tremendous impact on the world should be highly respected. I've always considered it the Rome of Eastern Asia in terms of its influence and impact except unlike Rome, China still exists in whole to this day. I also find Chinese culture fascinating with the rich layers of history, poetry, and literature. However, I never considered China to be some sort of pacifistic victim; maybe I'm just cynical, but a nation the size and age of China doesn't survive as long as it does without playing hardball.

2/20/2008 11:46:29 PM

Quote :

" or the government of Taiwan, really care about what the Taiwanese people want."

I disagree with the last part of that comment. When you speak of "the government of taiwan", you must include the current administration, who really does care about freedom and sovereignty. Many people who follow the situation fail to realize the paradigm shift that has taken place in their cultural identity. The current president is indeed "Taiwanese" and he is proud of the fact. This is why he, on most occasions, only speaks Taiwanese -- not chinese (Beijinghua or guoyu as they would call it). In fact have you noticed his wife is in a wheel chair, I mean the KMT even tried to kill her? This is how the KMT used to deal with political adversaries.

I suggest you read about the "white terror" and the 228 incident as well as the history of martial law there. There is no love for the 15% "mainlanders" who imprisoned their family members and executed their doctors, lawyers, and political activist.

The situation is very dynamic and there is indeed a real social awakening and a re-vitalization of their cultural identity. As a note, I have even seen the current KMT presidential candidate (Ma Ying-jeuo) speaking "Taiwanese". Now think about this, at one point in time the KMT would through people in jail or levy fines if people spoke Taiwanese.

Now rewind at least 10 years and I would completely agree with your comment. There was no mistaking the fact that the KMT wanted to "re-unite" the mainland, this is of course the basis for our "one-china" policy ("we acknowledge that both sides recognize that ..."). And to this end, the military regime that is the KMT considered Taiwan as a strategic military base only.

Quote :

"There was already rivals in Taiwan against the mainland government since the 1600's when the previous dynasty (Ming)'s remaining forces took refugee in Taiwan from the new Qing dynasty. The history of Taiwan has made it an important strategic point, which is an ideal asylum for defeated and bannished people from the mainland, and also a danger zone for China if occupied by enemies. "

I acknowledge this point but the thrust of my point was to say that "China", never claimed sovereignty of Taiwan till late 1800s. But yes it was a military/trading outpost for many different countries.

Quote :

"I'd be pretty proud if China ever has the balls to tackle another country. "

you show your bias.

Quote :

"they might have conflicts with neighboring countries due to border disputes"

is that what they call it now...

Quote :

"Throughout history China has never the need to invade another countries, and quite the contrary, it was the neighboring states who was lack of resource constantly trying to invade China. As a result, China has developed a defensive culture that makes it hostile to foreign countries and yet unwilling to initiate attacks. This culture caused China to fall back in scientific and technological developments before 20th century, and nurtured somewhat feminine people. Not something to be proud of."

again China's "soils" did one hell of a lot of expansion during those years.
China loves to play up the "we are the victims" strategy. It's their tool to fuel nationalism and incite hatred of their neighbors.






^ Agree. China's hegemony is pretty well understood.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 11:53 PM. Reason : .]

Quote :

"Don't forget that the Communists weren't exactly supportive of traditional Chinese culture until recently as well. "

Again hitting the nail on it's head, but in a really big understated sarcastic sort of way. but they still aren't supportive of all things traditional anyhow, I feel it's another tactic to fuel nationalism. (talking up and showcasing the rich history of China that is)
As the late Deng xaioping said that nationalism is the glue that maintains the CCP grip on power.


[Edited on February 21, 2008 at 12:07 AM. Reason : .]

2/20/2008 11:49:42 PM

I don't know whether Alistair Johnston's book was based on current Chinese foreign policies or historic ones, but despite what he finds, any powerful country would use power to enforce its will on neighboring weaker countries, which is not my point. I was talking about the type of invasions done by the mongolians in Europe, the Mongolians were very short of resource and always needed to expand and move on to better pastures. The native Chinese has never done that. The relationship between China and neighboring countries are like tributary states. China did get payments from those countries but did not go as far as taking over their territory and sending its own officials to rule the population. Most importantly, since the unification of China, the borders has always kept between the Great Wall and North Vietnam, and between the East Sea and Czechuan. There was one point in 112BC the Han dynasty took over Vietnam (by a king who was famed to be martial), but soon they gained independence. In 668AC China invaded and took over North Korea. Today's northern China (north of the Greate Wall) was acquired when the people there took over China and began the Qing dynasty, and later in early 20th century handed over entirely to the pre-KMT party. So, despite what the European scholars had to say, China has always kept their feet in their doors most of times, and to be scrupulous with the small invasions is simply exaggerating - comparing with Europe's massive colonization in Africa, Asia and America, China's purpose of wars was mostly securing the border instead of colonization. If the recent PRC has been more aggressive than before, it's only because it has realized the importance to hold a powerful national image to avoid the shameful events happened in late 19th century. After all, it is nothing comparing with US's level of agressiveness. Of course, we are not celebrating the less evil, but I do think everyone should step into each other's shoes and stop accusing. All powerful countries have come to the point of success with some evil deeds.

I also think the medias in China and in western countries should be more objective and less controlled by the governments - which is not possible, but at least the people from two sides should communicate more and help finding out what's really going on.

2/21/2008 12:58:05 AM

Quote :

"the Mongolians were very short of resource and always needed to expand and move on to better pastures. The native Chinese has never done that."

Yes, the Chinese are less militaristic than the mongolians. That is not saying anything: Nazi Germany was less militaristic than the friggin' mongolians!

Quote :

"to be scrupulous with the small invasions is simply exaggerating - comparing with Europe's massive colonization in Africa, Asia and America, China's purpose of wars was mostly securing the border instead of colonization."

Are we talking about today or anchient history? Today, Europe has no colonies; China does. Since WW2, China is one of the few nations on this planet that has launched a military campaign of territorial expansion (tibet, etc). Which is also a distinction, China and India are the only large countries that have waged open warfare with another large country since WW2. Similarly, China and America waged open warfare in Korea. Even our arch enemies, the Soviets, never sent armies against us.

2/21/2008 9:31:04 AM

I like Japan better; they got all the cool gadgets, cars, and sushi.

2/21/2008 9:33:26 AM

because the media tells them to

2/21/2008 3:31:38 PM

3Com Impasse Raises Tensions With China

Quote :

"The apparent collapse of a Chinese company's effort to buy a stake in 3Com shows the growing role of the the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or Cfius, in vetting cross-border deals. It is also likely to aggravate tensions between the United States and China. The activities of Cfius, a little-known federal panel, have multiplied in the last two years, The New York Times wrote Thursday. While American officials and specialists in the field said it was too early to conclude that the United States is cracking down on foreign investments, others were not so sure. The Financial Times said the blocking of the deal 'highlights rising protectionist sentiment in the U.S.'"

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/dealbook/21134

2/21/2008 4:40:43 PM

^^^ I agree. I don't dislike China I don't think, but the couple people I have known were assholes, and Japanese girls seem hotter and sluttier. And they make anime. By comparison it may seem like hatred, but it's just that Japan seems so much cooler. Ok, I'm out of soap box now, sorry.

2/21/2008 11:08:59 PM

I don't know bout yall, but this video displays some questionable Chinese morals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54Z92Qur1fM

2/21/2008 11:10:01 PM

Quote :

"sputter, why should a country do things to benefit your country? from an objective point of view."

well, they wouldn't most likely, but the strongly benefit from our open trade policy with them and there have been rumblings in the past of tightening that down until they unpeg their currency or at least let the world know what they are pegging to so that we can properly evaluate the currency.

They can't sustain the over-valuation of their currency forever and the longer they procratinate the harder the fall. Of course, if they keep tapping into major oil fields while the world is pointing its collective finger at the evil US, then it won't ever matter.

2/21/2008 11:36:19 PM

China calls on US to provide data on satellite shootdown

Quote :

"China called on the United States Thursday to provide information about its shooting down of a defunct US spy satellite and voiced caution about the potential international consequences. 'China is continuing to closely follow the possible harm caused by the US action to outer space security and relevant countries,' foreign ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said when asked for a reaction to the shootdown. 'China further requests that the US fulfil its international obligations in earnest and promptly provide to the international community the necessary information and relevant data... so that relevant countries can take precautions.'"

http://news.sg.msn.com/regional/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1255160

2/22/2008 1:40:26 AM

I'd say NO CHINA

2/22/2008 9:50:10 AM

at least we had a good reason to shoot down our satellite. we also shot one down in a decaying orbit where the debris would be limited.

fucking china.

2/22/2008 10:09:50 AM

Pentagon confident satellite's toxic fuel destroyed

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Pentagon officials said they think a Navy missile scored a direct hit on the fuel tank of an errant spy satellite late Wednesday, eliminating a toxic threat to people on Earth. 'We have a high degree of confidence we got the tank,' Marine Gen. James Cartwright said at a Pentagon briefing Thursday morning. A fireball and a vapor cloud seen after the strike appeared to indicate the toxic hydrazine fuel had been destroyed, he said. The missile that struck the satellite did not carry an explosive warhead."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/02/21/satellite.shootdown/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Wow. I guess this throws a bit of a monkey wrench in the argument by some that we can't hit anything with our weapons.

2/22/2008 12:29:38 PM

hitting a satellite in a predictable orbit is no where near as hard as hitting an object falling through the atmosphere.

2/22/2008 1:26:24 PM

^ You underestimate the total mission--hitting the satellite was fairly straightforward. Much of the complexity came from calculating a window to hit the target and have any remaining debris fall through the atmosphere as quickly as possible.

2/22/2008 1:49:19 PM

this is why: because for the past 20 years, the media has made it sound like China is actively or already has taken over the US as the dominant world economic power. They have americans more scared of the Chineese than they are of Mexicans because they'll "tuk ur jobs".

the fact remains, though, that while China is growing at a tremendous rate, and they do have 3 times the population as the US, we're still far and away the world's biggest economic power

Quote :

"Another poll question on the economic power of nations, this time from Gallup (via Greg Mankiw): "Which one of the following do you think is the leading economic power in the world today?" China: 40 percent The United States: 33 percent Japan: 13 percent The European Union: 7 percent India: 2 percent Russia: 2 percent This is even worse than the Pew poll result that Barbara Kiviat blogged about here a few days ago. I was shocked by Pew's finding that 30% of Americans thought China was the world's leading economic power, but at least they got a larger number (41%) putting America No. 1. Just to refresh, here's Barbara's chart of the actual global economic standings: Now I don't want to discount the importance of China's rise and its wrenching effect on some American industries. But I find it really worrying that most Americans don't understand that the U.S. remains far and away the richest and most powerful nation on earth. Because if our politicians listen to voters who think the Chinese have it better than we do, they're going to enact some really crazy trade laws. "

http://time-blog.com/curious_capitalist/2008/02/chinas_economy_continues_to_do.html

2/25/2008 8:11:01 PM

Quote :

"Why do many western people hate China"

for starters:

(1) ethelyne glycol in children's toothpaste.

(2) lead paint on babies toys.

(3) eating dogs.

(4) rolling over students with tanks

(5) that whole putting pee-pee in my coke thing






[Edited on February 25, 2008 at 8:19 PM. Reason : ]

2/25/2008 8:15:54 PM

Quote :

"he fact remains, though, that while China is growing at a tremendous rate, and they do have 3 times the population as the US, we're still far and away the world's biggest economic power"

per person we have one of the highest productivity rates in the world as well.

china produces more CO2 than any other country and refuses to do anything substantial about it.

china controls its currency far too much giving them a economic importance greater than they really are

i'm just glad they are a pacific ocean away, and would not want to be in the country when it goes through another of it's periodic collapses...

2/26/2008 6:46:05 PM

China is like Texas but without the good BBQ and with a shitload of bicycles.

2/26/2008 7:37:46 PM