South China Sea Confrontation, Chinese Netizen Reactions

240 Comments

Leave a Comment Click here to cancel reply.

Name (required)

Email (required, but never shared)

Web

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

• Some HTML can be used to format your comment.
• Add a picture to your comments with Gravatar.
• Our Comment Policy.

Tweet

1. Yan Xishan

   Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 12:13 am

   This should be fun, let me grab some popcorn.

   Reply
2. DingDing

   Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 12:21 am

   LOL! At least I know if China and US go to war, there’ll be plenty of Chinese enlisting to fight. To this effect, I might reconsider my pledge of allegiance. I am going to have to move to the North Pole and live out the rest of my life with my Eskimo cousins.

   Reply
3. anotherteacher

   Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 12:42 am

   These reactions seriously bother me. Normally I sit back and “thumb up” comments that defend Chinese netizens and good debate… but the blind call for violence this time is gross.

   I followed comments on digg about this, and so many of those users were far from getting emotional. I realize digg might have a more peaceful, nerdy userbase, but tom.com only having “two people defend the United States” is unsettling.

   I just have to remember that the internet is a different place. My students have shown me that China is a great country.

   Reply
   • anotherteacher

     Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 12:50 am

     Sorry. I just looked at that comments on digg again. They weren’t as good as I remember, but do notice that the horrible things said are burried (Thumbed down) quickly on that site.

     Here’s the link for some Western comments.

     http://digg.com/world_news/U_S_says_Chinese_vessels_harassed_Navy_ship

     I will admit though, a more mainstream website in the West would probably have more offensive comments comparable to the Chinese netizen’s.

     Reply
     • Kai

       Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 11:17 am

       Yeah, you’re right. Digg is pretty nerdy and should be slightly better than the mainstream masses.

       Reply
   • Kai

     Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 11:16 am

     Maybe Chris can chime in but what I’ve noticed with most chinaSMACK pieces is that they don’t actually go through all of the comments since there are often hundreds sometimes thousands of them. They typically browse the first few pages and make some selections. As such, it may not be accurate to say there were “only two people” on tom.com entirely who said something for the United States.

     I think the spin of territorial waters is a bad one. The best spin is simply what Americans would do if the Chinese were doing something similar in reverse: An unarmed “civilian” surveilance ship manned by 1/2 military personnel 75km off the coast of America hunting for American nuclear subs.

     I think America would have a cow. I don’t begrudge the Chinese for feeling likewise.

     Reply
     • ST

       Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 11:21 am

       “I think America would have a cow.” Might be just what the doctor ordered. Let the U.S. eat its own dogfood, so to speak.

       Reply
     • anotherteacher

       Sunday, March 22, 2009 at 10:36 pm

       I read this website for an impression of what some Chinese are thinking. And I agree, “Two people doesn’t make sense. There are thousands of posts. Maybe a few changes could be made on chinasmack to make information on this site give a more accurate portrayal of netizens.

       1. I would love to see a section of this website profile the forums they translate. What are the demographics?

       2. It would also be nice to see more information about the comments selected. Out of 100 comments, how many were thoughtful. How many angry? How many made sex jokes? etc. (I realize this is hard to do, but a good estimate would be highly appreciated. Especially for the controversial topics)

       3. Translations from less visited corners of the web would be interesting. Espeically from a group that loves good discussions and avoids the popular crowded forums.

       I love this site, but for the users like me, this stuff could be really interesting.

       Reply
     • Fike2308

       Thursday, August 27, 2009 at 6:48 am

       “I think America would have a cow.”

       Totally.

       Reply
     • 覃伟忠

       Wednesday, November 2, 2011 at 6:41 pm

       Last year a Chinese sub snuck right up to Los Angeles and fired a long range ballistic missile. They were demonstrating that they can indeed play the same game. The missile flew harmlessly away to the northwest, but it was a nice shock. The US government denied it but you can see pictures and posts on the internet. It happened at sunset and the launch was visible to everyone in LA. That is WAY more aggressive than our boat sailing around a couple hundred miles off their coast.

       Reply
   • Peteryang

     Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 10:49 pm

     They should entertain you, because they entertain me, nothing like ignorant dumbus getting nerdraged on intardnet.

     And since you mentioned Shigg, these American supremacists’ elegant warmongering sounds a lot more disturbing than mindless rants, and from recent development I am getting more inclined to believe that it’s exactly the same attitude indoctrinating the US military.

     On one hand the world praises China for its resilience in the crisis but on the other hand they know China has immense interal struggles and that she has shifted enforcement resources to the domestic sector, so everybody is now ganging up on China, if the Tibet riot was a preamble, the whole south see conflict with five participants and one behind-the-scene boss is the first chapter.

     And this book is long.

     As a side note, judging from the timing, I suspect this particular incident was deliberately initiated to divert media attention from Tibet.

     Reply
4. John

   Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 12:53 am

   Well, I only have a few things to say about the US/China navy indecent. In response to some of the incompetent above bloggers: Firstly, it was not a war ship it was an unarmed surveillance ship, get your facts straight.
   The whole of the South China sea is not all Chinese territory it is international waters, which every nation has the right to navigate and preform peaceful operations. And, as a side note: this area is disputed by at least 4 other nations. Anyway, lets be practical, China probably does missle drills off the California coast, and I have no problem with that. It is just the way of international affairs, so get use to it…countries do it (spy/saber rattle) to each other all the time.

   Those bloggers who advocated immediate war with the United States: 1. Your military tech is so out dated that you could not even reach the States before being destroyed, the most obvious example; the fishing boats, and right now, aside from training with antiquated military methods and equipment, farming is seems like the way to go. It is one thing to have pride in ones country, and I respect the Chinese for there courage and dedication, but to have blind arrogance is dangerous and you are diluting yourself if you think you could win…besides what would Confucius say!

   As for the “Paper Tiger” remark you are half right, but you have the wrong country…at this point it is China who is the Paper Tiger. With a military force who is more train in agriculture than combat; who would come out on top? Remember, China has not seen a war or major engagement in 20+ years since you invaded North Vietnam, and American solders are already battle hardened. (Also, not to digress, but it was N. Korean who started the Korean war, not America…go find an accurate history book.)

   And as for the “Barbaric westerners who cannot be reasoned with”…all I can say is, “Hypocrite!” Darfur, Tibet, Xin Jian, the black jails in southern Beijing, and all the corruption that goes on in this country. As we say in the West, fix your own problems before you criticize others.

   Lastly, it was not 12.1 nautical miles…more like 65.1 nautical miles, kinda hard to be credible when you can’t even get your facts straight.

   Ok, now I know my little rant was pretty critical…I just get frustrated with insipid comments like the above. I have many Chinese friends and they are all good, reasonable people, and except for a few 250 most of the Chinese people I have meet here are kind hearted that go out of their way to help. So, this comment is not an attack on China, the Chinese people as a whole, or even the government (I have no problem with a little saber rattling)…just the ignorant few with big mouths and little…well, we’ll leave it at that.

   Reply
   • matt

     Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 2:17 am

     I was working in china and had an argument with a fellow employee about the Korean war. His version of events was so twisted, it was obvious that he had been spoon fed lies since grade school. I worked at an American firm that used a dedicated pipeline to Japan for voice and data. This meant no censorship. It took five minutes to prove to this guy his government issued textbook was full of crap.

     Reply
     • ST

       Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 2:36 am

       Did you prove this using a U.S. text book? Has it occurred to you that you might also have been fed some propaganda on the issue? The Chinese position on what actually happened during the Korean War is pretty far off from the accepted truth but what we hear in the U.S. is more biased and laden with propaganda than many American’s realize.

       Reply
       • Celkian

         Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 6:29 am

         I heard the Korea war (in terms of why we were supporting SK as part of the Cold War period. As for China’s involvement i heard in school that China had warned us not to push the war ____ close to their border. Then with the war almost finished our main General (with a note of hubris) passed that point and China entered the war. Is that what you mean some schools don’t cover? To be honest i never felt that lesson attacked China in any way. Does the Chinese lesson attack America?

         Reply
         • Teacher in China

           Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 9:05 am

           For real unbiassed reading on the subject, go to North Korea and pick up the book “The American Imperialists Started the Korean War”.
         • Kai

           Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 11:26 am

           In America, we have access to good academic work on almost any subject. Unfortuntely, not everyone encounters that information and are content to accept oversimplified versions usually drawn along “we’re good, they’re evil” lines.

           Most college educated people who have taken any course involving the Korean war should have a reasonable understanding of the Korean War and why America got involved due to Cold War implications (aka, going to war for geo-political reasons).

           However, not many people are college educated, and even more people tend to forget what they’ve learned and settle down to half-truths.

           I thought the Peking Duck had a good link about this issue:

           http://www.pekingduck.org/2009/03/china-the-next-big-enemy/
         • ST

           Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 11:48 am

           China’s account of how that war came about is extremely biased and inaccurate. They basically lay the blame at the feet of the Americans. The truth, of course, is that with tensions inflamed by Russia and the U.S. in the area the two Koreas on a head on collision. North Korea blew it out and attacked when they thought they had the strongest advantage. This gave them great gains and pushed the Americans into a tiny pocket that was very close to being crushed. The U.S. did gain a toehold and then the fighting began for real. After Gen. MacArthur made his landing at Incheon the DPRK flank was cut and they had to retreat, The U.S. pursued them ever further north. and went well beyond the original starting lines indeed pushing all the way to the Yalu River on the border with China. Macarthur did this push against the orders of the president as the president feared doing anything to draw the chinese in. After it became clear that China wasn’t just there to trade potshots, they were there to utterly crush the U.S. presence on their border (understandable… park a soviet army led by a belligerently aggressive general on the Rio Grande and what would have been our reaction? I’d say China even showed rather great restraint in holding back until the U.S. was literally in their faces.

           After China got in it the shit really hit the fan and the U.S. forces were quickly pushed back to around the original line. This eventually stabilized into the 38th Parallel that we have today.

           As much as I hate it when people start whipping out their e-penis’ and screaming their various tribal allegiances I am comforted by a couple of men I met 5 years ago. 1 was an American who spend several years in a Chinese POW camp, the other was a chinese guard at that camp. Honestly they both liked each other. The American learned mandarin while there and he played chess with the guard. Most of his time was spent planting or harvesting crops but on the whole he said is was a fascinating experience and he left with a much more favorable opinion of the Chinese (he didn’t like the Koreans so much… said they were meaner (both north and south)). Those men are the ones we should be trying to emulate… not all this screaming and fury. That can only end up in a few ways and non of then are good.
         • ST

           Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 3:51 am

           @USTCr – That is interesting to hear (about how the Korean War is taught). I am basing what I know on what I’ve heard from my wife (who is Chinese). She is from a little older generation though so she probably got a more biased version of events than is presented now. She basically told me that when she was a student they were taught that the US invaded North Korea. When I wrote “China’s account of how that war came about is extremely biased and inaccurate” that is specifically what I was referring to. I’m interested to see what it is now.

           And I wish I could read that book you linked to. My spoken Chinese is… adequate but my written is atrocious. I basically can’t read more than a few hundred symbols and am functionally 文盲.
       • matt

         Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 1:06 am

         ST, what history texts have you been reading? You are talking out of your ass. North Korea attacked South Korea, claiming they were attacked first. That is the widely accepted version of events, and the same one I was given. The US sent aid, and finally sent a substantial number of troops to protect what territory was still held by the South Koreans.

         Reply
         • matt

           Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 1:07 am

           very little bias or propaganda.
         • ST

           Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 1:42 am

           Matt, did you not read what I wrote? You said “North Korea attacked South Korea” I said exactly the same thing. Where are we different on that?

           “The U.S. sent aid and finally a substantial number of troops” Yes, this is true but I don’t think I claim otherwise. Perhaps you don’t know the details of the situation but what I wrote is not only accurate, it fits with the U.S. view of what happened. Where am I talking out of my ass?

           A short history lesson for you:
           1. North Korea invaded South Korea.

           2. The North Koreans pushed the South and the United States (Technically under United Nations command but most of the troops were American) all the way south into a small pocket around Pusan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pusan_Perimeter.jpg

           3. The U.S./U.N. forces and South Koreans held on by their fingernails and stopped the North Koreans.

           4. The U.S./U.N. (I’m just going to say U.S. from here on) sent troops and material to reinforce this Pusan perimeter.

           5. In an effort to relieve pressure on Pusan, the landing at Inchon was ordered. This was successful and cut North Korean supply lines, releasing Pusan and finally turning the tide of the war.

           6. The U.S. begins rolling back the North Korean advances and pushing ever further north in an effort to defeat them.

           7. As the North Koreans collapse and the U.S. moves further north, China begins to get concerned that the U.S. is getting too close to their border on the Yalu. This is understandable as Gen. MacAurthur has stated that he felt continuing into China would be the best way to solve the “problem”.

           8. China attacks pushing the U.S. far back below the 38th parallel and the advance only ends when China reaches the limits of their supply lines. At this point MacArthur suggests dropping nukes on China in order to turn things around

           9. The U.S. recovers and counterattacks and this sets the tone for much of the rest of the war. A back and forth seesaw series of attacks and counterattacks until a truce is reached.

           A graphic that shows the flow of the war:
           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Korean_war_1950-1953.gif

           This all fits with what I wrote earlier, that you say was “talking out of my ass”, I will do you the courtesy of not suggesting the same of you but you really should be more careful with your comments.
         • matt

           Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 12:05 pm

           you say “Did you prove this using a U.S. text book? Has it occurred to you that you might also have been fed some propaganda on the issue?… the U.S. is more biased and laden with propaganda than many American’s realize.”

           it sounds to me like you suggest we should compare the chinese and american versions, and come up with a version that fits somewhere in the middle. i think that is complete crap.

           the chinese government should write fiction for a living… it could make more than selling women into prostitution. you ever watch the ‘great march forward’ on cctv?!?! wowzers!

           these chinese net-nerds are seriously f*ked in the head. spoiled brats should never be able to use the net. kai included.

           i would love to beat the snot out of you kai. it would give me great pleasure.
         • Kai

           Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 2:23 pm

           I see, matt, frustrated with making and defending your arguments, you’re now resorting to racism and violence. Tragic.
5. ST

   Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 1:09 am

   Outside of 12km China has no right to harrass the American ship even if it was spying. China is welcome to come do the same around the U.S. coast at any time. Stay outside 12km and no law has been broken.

   For all of the aggressive talk… everyone should be very afraid of war. It would be a disaster for both China and the U.S. Talking aggressive like that just makes the commenters sound like they suffer from small man syndrome. Don’t stoop to that level. China has nothing to be ashamed of and nothing to prove so talking like a country bumpkin that got beat up too many times only makes the commenters sound weak. Walk tall, act normal and confident and save your violence for when it is really called for.

   Reply
   • Billy Joe

     Saturday, March 21, 2009 at 4:27 pm

     It’s politics. No one is right or wrong.
     China has every right to chase the American surveillance ship away — to protect her naval base and subs, and America has every right to spy — to harness intelligence of foreign millitaries.

     Imagine the outrage that will flare up in America if a Chinese surveillance ship appeared off the coast of LA (they do not have this capability).

     This isn’t an uncommon incident. The pentagon deciding to release this specific time in the middle of this eocnomic meltdown shows a lot.

     Reply
     • Fike2308

       Thursday, August 27, 2009 at 6:56 am

       I’d be impressed if a Chinese surveillance ship appeared off the coast of LA…in fact, I’d wave to it from the beach shouting, “NI HAO! NI HAO! HELLO!”

       Reply
6. ChinaGeeks

   Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 1:16 am

   Yeah, those comments are sort of terrifying. Honestly, who really cares? An American ship came near China (What? Countries spy on each other? Really?), got caught, and got mooned by some guys on fishing boats…..fenqing really are idiots.

   Reply
   • matt

     Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 2:09 am

     transparency is what keeps nations at peace… spying is actually a means of non proliferation.

     these comments display a lack of understanding of national security policy by the chinese people. they should really brush up on their foreign policy…

     Reply
     • omg

       Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 4:39 am

       The threat of nuclear holocaust, MAD is what keeps nations at peace. I suggest you look up the intricacies of the cold war.

       Reply
   • Kai

     Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 11:39 am

     You guys are idiots. Are you SERIOUSLY trying to rationalize that no one should be bothered by spying? Spying as a means of “non-proliferation?” Are you serious?

     Have you all forgetten the media coverage Los Alamos Labs Chinese scientist Wen Ho Lee got when he was accused of stealing secrets for the Chinese government? Americans were PISSED!

     Ironically, the guy was completely innocent and the government was forced to drop their case in the end after making the poor guy’s life hell for several years. But don’t delude yourselves into thinking Americans wouldn’t give a shit. They’d shit a cow! Americans would NEVER stand for the Chinese doing missle drills or surveillance work off the coast of California.

     Go read the above Peking Duck link.

     Reply
     • ChinaGeeks

       Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 11:54 am

       Kai:

       There’s a difference between a supposedly-cleared, undercover scientist stealing nuclear secrets and selling them to the Chinese government and a surveillance ship trying to track submarines (probably) in international waters. To suggest that they’re comparable is really sort of ridiculous.

       It’s not like the Impeccable was posing as a fishing boat. Look at the thing for Christ’s sake!

       Of course people are going to be bothered by spying, but an OBVIOUSLY military ship doing reconnaissance work on the movement of other military ships in international waters? That’s a far cry from a supposed-citizen who obtained US gov’t clearances turning around and selling secrets to China. Military surveillance happens all the time, I’m sure China has boats out there watching our submarines too.

       Granted, if the same thing happened in reverse, I’m sure some Americans would react similarly to the fenqing, and I would call them idiots, too.

       Reply
       • Kai

         Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 1:08 pm

         I brought up Wen Ho Lee to prove the point that Americans respond negatively to perceived spying by the Chinese just as the Chinese do to perceived spying by the Americans.

         It is not about which is “worse” or trying to split hairs because it is about the nature of the matter, and how willfully ignorant it is to argue that spying shouldn’t bother the Chinese or anyone for that matter.

         BTW, you have to admit it is kinda funny and ironic that you come out and say this ship is “OBVIOUSLY” a military ship when the United States went to lengths to claim it was a civilian (not military) ship and even tried to avoid owning up to its surveillance/spying actions.

         Look, there are two main arguments on the Chinese side:

         1) The ship is in its special economic area, carrying out activities that are harmful to China’s military interests.

         2) The ship is too close for comfort, carrying out activities regarding China’s military capabilities that China doesn’t want America to know.

         You can make a big fuss over international law and definitions with #1, but how are you really going to argue against #2?

         Several people here have ASSUMED or CLAIMED that China does the same thing to America, including you. U.S. surveillance and spying in the South China Seas is a known fact. Few people hide it, and for the most part, China has been tolerating it up to now. Has anyone here offered a documented example of a Chinese military ship (er, excuse me, a “civilian” ship with 50% military crew) operating that close to the American coast looking for American nuclear subs?

         However improbable it is in my opinion given my understanding of Chinese military sophistication vis a vis America’s, I’m not even skeptical of its possibility. However, it would be great if someone would actually offer all of us a documented example instead of just claiming or presuming there to be one.

         Anyone?

         Reply
         • ChinaGeeks

           Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 5:48 pm

           Of course people respond negatively. My point was, is it really worth it? In the overall scheme of things, is this event really even relevant?

           I’ll admit I can’t provide proof the Chinese government conducts similar recon on the US military (or at least, I’ll admit I don’t care enough to look into it at all), but do you really doubt it happens? I doubt there are Chinese spy ships operating near the American coast, but China most certainly spies on the US military in a variety of other ways. That’s tough to document, I’m sure, because if they’re doing it right it should be a secret, but come on, do you really think China doesn’t spy on the US, too?

           As for the argument against #2, I think it would be: Tough luck. We’re not violating any laws, we’re not in Chinese territorial waters, deal with it.
         • Kai

           Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 12:38 am

           ChinaGeeks, please don’t take this the wrong way or too personally but…you’re not reading what I’m writing.

           I’ll admit I can’t provide proof the Chinese government conducts similar recon on the US military…but do you really doubt it happens?

           do you really think China doesn’t spy on the US, too?

           No, I never once doubted that China does recon on the US or thought that China doesn’t spy on the US. I never even hinted that I felt that way.

           For the third time, I think it is astonishing that people are remotely surprised that China is upset, cares, or (as you say) think this event is relevant to them and their interests.

           As for the argument against #2, I think it would be: Tough luck. We’re not violating any laws, we’re not in Chinese territorial waters, deal with it.

           They have dealt with it. They sent 5 dinky ships to moon the Impeccable, then lodged complaints, and had Wen Jia Bao scare the shit out of the Obama administration by hinting that they may not be so keen to continue investing in American debt. If you’re expecting OR suggesting that they just sit back and tolerate it, don’t get your hopes up. As diplomatically stunted as China is in so many ways, China is learning how to throw its weight around. In many ways, it learned from the best, a country that hasn’t let international law get in the way of their interests: the United States.
       • cephaloless

         Tuesday, March 24, 2009 at 10:49 am

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

         Reply
     • matt

       Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 1:13 am

       KAI YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

       Transparency is a means to prevent arms proliferation. Go read a fucking book on the subject before you post some stupid post as long as the great wall and expect people to read it.

       The ship is EASILY detectable. Why on earth would that be?

       The fact is the US and China both spy on each other. Maybe this is another instance of the Chinese government saber rattling its people against the west for political purposes? You sure fell for it.

       Reply
       • ChinaGeeks

         Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 10:39 am

         @ Kai, right, and all that’s fine. The “deal with it” is addressed at the quoted commenters above. Honestly, I think sending fisherman to moon the boat is an awesome way for the government to deal with it, if only the fenqing had that much of a sense of humor!

         Reply
       • Kai

         Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 11:07 am

         matt, you’re a moron who is responding to something that only exists in your head. I never made any comments about the Impeccable’s detectability and I questioned your comment about non-proliferation insofar as you were offering it as some panacea for the Chinese being bothered by US spying. The fact that both sides spy on each other doesn’t change either side prefering that the other side doesn’t. Get it?

         Reply
         • matt

           Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 11:43 am

           kai, espionage is the name of the game.

           your inability to see the purpose of the american ship and the actions taken by the chinese government prove how truly shallow your thinking on this matter is.

           the ship was visible because it was meant to be seen. i said this because the same ship was probably observing actions of the chinese military for quite some time. is it a coincidence that this event coincided with China’s recent public outcry doubting the stability of the US treasury? this is a dubious attempt by the chinese government to create tension, erode transparency agreements, and to bolster its claim to the fertile fishing and drilling areas in region.

           public remarks expressing doubt and subtle threats towards us economy–>accuse US of ‘spying’–>US cannot retaliate publicly. you can almost see how it is going to play out. what can the US do now?

           you are a smart guy, but your ego is bringing you down. I could give a shit about what the chinese people think. they have absolutely no say in the decision making of their government anyway, why bother?
     • 覃伟忠

       Wednesday, November 2, 2011 at 7:00 pm

       dude, i commented earlier, the Chinese did have a sub sneak up to within sight of LA and fire a long range missile last year as a demonstration. the US government denied it but you can see tons of stuff (including pics) on the net. the launch was visible to everyone in LA at rush hour. what big stink did the US make about that? As i said, the govt denied it and most people dont even know about it. there are spies on both sides of course. i just dont really think that ship is doing anything wrong by being there. if china does have the capability, they certainly will not restrain themselves from using it. and i would say they would be well within their rights if they did.

       Reply
   • Fike2308

     Thursday, August 27, 2009 at 6:57 am

     Maybe the Americans just wanted to go fishing.

     That’s plausible, right?

     Reply
7. Bubba

   Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 1:19 am

   Big wars are so 20th Century. Who needs big wars when we can fight little wars by proxy in the third world (and by third world I mean you Africa!)

   Reply
   • Kai

     Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 11:41 am

     LoL. That deserves a +1 for comic relief.

     Reply
8. JWhoa

   Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 1:25 am

   The US Navy definitely came too close for comfort, but what can China do besides protest? The US Navy is, by no small margin, by the most powerful navy in the world. China wouldn’t even be able to handle one carrier group, and the US has something like seven roaming the oceans at any given time. Meanwhile, Chinese navy consists of rusty old Russian ships.

   Reply
   • Kai

     Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 11:50 am

     They protest with fishing boats and then have Wen Jian Bao threaten to stop purchasing American debt.

     Theoretically, China has America’s economy by the balls. If China were to offload its dollar-denominated American debt, it could possibly single-handedly sink America’s economy. Of course, China and the rest of the world would be severely fucked too, but America has become reliant upon and does, to a large degree, need China to help fund its consumption. No one wants to see an economically devastated (think MUCH worse than now) world where America is number one by sole virtue of having the world’s most formidable military. That’s not the world people want to live in.

     For the record, short of nuclear annihilation, I don’t think the Americans would necessary trounce the Chinese in conventional warfare for similar reasons as why the Americans couldn’t win Vietnam or Korea and to this day struggle with maintaining peace in Iraq or Afghanistan.

     Guys, the “let’s go to war!” comments by the Chinese aren’t really representative of the Chinese as a whole, just like the war-mongering rednecks in America screaming “Let’s nuke Afghanistan and make Lake America in the Middle East!” aren’t representative of Americans. Geez, don’t get so nervous. You should get nervous when they start showing up at your apartment door with torches and pitchforks.

     Reply
     • Mike Fish

       Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 5:54 pm

       The voice of reason.

       Reply
       • Xezlec

         Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 3:36 am

         I’m not sure Kai has quite the most reasonable take, actually. The whole reason this is scary is that *almost all* of the comments on this were of the “let’s kill them all” variety.

         If you look at discussions of these sorts of things in America, you find a few idiot rednecks screaming for blood, but you find a lot of people on the other side asking for calm. It genuinely is frightening if China’s blogosphere doesn’t have very many people in the second category. If China is like a whole country of Republicans, then I think we’re right to be worried!

         Reply
         • Xezlec

           Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 3:47 am

           Oh, and also, I agree that the US wouldn’t “trounce” China in a military battle, that’s pretty obvious. China is much larger than us, has much less dissent to worry about, and has all kinds of leverage over us. China could flatten the USA with its hands tied behind its back! Yet another reason for us to be worried by this stuff.

           Clearly, China has also done a better job of keeping their recon boats out of sight than we have. From the news, it sounds like they’ve also done a better job spying on us than we have on them. That, combined with the seemingly near-perfect ideological consistency of its population and their leaders’ burning desire to spread their political system (as evidenced in Taiwan, Tibet, Bhutan, etc.), tells me that if I were to build a time machine and travel to the USA 500 years in the future, I had better be sure to brush up on my Mao sayings first!
         • Kai

           Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 1:17 pm

           Xezlec, I don’t think China could flatten the US with its hands tied behind its back.

           There’s a certain underestimation of the United States and overestimation of China in some of these comments that I find inconsistent with the facts.

           Instead of conspiracy theorizing that China has done a better job of keeping their recon boats out of sight than the United States has, how about considering that they may not actually have done that sort of spying? By most accounts in the United States military and intelligence leadership, China IS worth watching but it REALLY isn’t NEARLY as sophisticated or capable as the United States is. China may very well WANT to spy in many of the same ways the United States does, but it is very probable at this point that they just DON’T have the capability to do so.

           You’re also making silly comments about “near-perfect ideological consistency” of China’s population. You’ve veered from hypothesizing about a military matchup to making oversimplified and unsupported implications of Chinese brainwashing. I’m sure you’ve read enough translated comments on this website to know that there is a large amount of ideological inconsistency in China despite what you’d like to believe to dismiss the Chinese as a whole as brainless automatons. Moreover, Chinese leaders spend more time worrying about maintaining the legitimacy of their political system domestically than spreading it to other nations.

           Honestly, I suggest you worry less about traveling 500 years in the future and work on getting out of the Red Scare McCarthy era. Communism as an ideological global threat has been dead for decades. China is Communist in name only. Put down the anti-Red haterade and get with the times. The world is not so simple but trying to view it with such simplified glasses only tends to make things worse when we need to learn how to coexist better.
         • Xezlec

           Friday, March 20, 2009 at 12:09 am

           I sure hope you’re right about China not having the capability, but as far as I know, your claim is no more supported than mine is.

           As for the issue of ideological consistency, I again point out that I was reacting to the consistency of responses to the above topic. I’ve seen a lot of Chinese comments here, and though they differ in many respects, they do seem pretty consistent on some of these kinds of subjects. If you need another example, look at the comments for this recent story:
           http://www.chinasmack.com/stories/yasukuni-shrine-website-hacked-by-chinese/
           How many of those comments said that hacking into a foreign country is wrong or bad? Exactly zero. Some even felt it was done by Americans to frame China!

           Regarding the idea that China isn’t interested in spreading its political system, I would point out that they recently muscled Microsoft into labeling the Bhutanese language as “Tibetan” in its software, despite the lack of a relationship between these two very separate languages. That was shortly before they made a suspicious and frightening military movement a little bit into Bhutan, effectively redefining the border. You think I’m being paranoid? Make a counterargument.

           I sure do hope you’re right about these comments somehow not being representative, but I dispute your implication that I am some kind of crazy, right-wing, McCarthyist, anti-red, anti-Chinese bigot for being concerned by their tone. That’s the point I’ve been trying to make. You know damn well I didn’t say anything about “brainless automatons” or even Communism. FWIW, I would not likely refer to China as “Communist,” nor would I be inclined to use Communism as an epithet, so you’re going to need to use a different “ugly American” stereotype if you want to continue the ad hominem.
         • Kai

           Friday, March 20, 2009 at 12:03 pm

           Xezlec:

           I’m going to respond to you a little backwards and it may jump around a bit but I trust you’ll understand why in the end.

           First, I don’t think you’re “some kind of crazy, right-wing, McCarthyist, anti-red, anti-Chinese bigotfor being concerned by their tone”, I get the impression you’re “some kind of crazy, right-wing, McCarthyist, anti-red, anti-Chinese bigot” for writing stuff like:

           Clearly, China has also done a better job of keeping their recon boats out of sight than we have. From the news, it sounds like they’ve also done a better job spying on us than we have on them. That, combined with the seemingly near-perfect ideological consistency of its population and their leaders’ burning desire to spread their political system (as evidenced in Taiwan, Tibet, Bhutan, etc.),

           …that fails the Occam’s Razor test. You may genuinely believe these things but they’re just not supported by the information that is available to us (and freely accessible on the internet which means there’s no excuse for laziness). If you say things that run contrary to the information we have, it veers on conspiracy thinking and sensationalist fear-mongering.

           “[C]razy, right-wing, McCarthyist, anti-red, anti-Chinese bigot[s]” do sensationalist fear-mongering very well.

           You know damn well I didn’t say anything about “brainless automatons” or even Communism.

           No, instead you said:

           …has much less dissent to worry about,…

           That, combined with the seemingly near-perfect ideological consistency of its population…

           …which I took artistic license to and shortened to “brainless automatons” because that’s a common characterization that often accompanies statements like your’s. But yes, you didn’t say those exact words.

           Take issue with my artistic license, but be honest, was my interpretation really unwarranted?

           I’ve seen a lot of Chinese comments here, and though they differ in many respects, they do seem pretty consistent on some of these kinds of subjects.

           I know it is tempting but as an intelligent person, you should not have assumed that the comments on chinaSMACK are in any way scientifically rigorous or statistically representative of the Chinese “population.” I do believe you used the word “population” without qualifiers, right?

           While these comments reveal something about Chinese netizens, they first only reveal something about SOME Chinese netizens and, second, are piss poor for revealing something about the Chinese population as a whole. You should be familiar with the concept of disproportionate voice. Extremists tend to be “louder” than moderates. This is generally true not only in their output but also in the perception of those listening. Listeners or observers are more apt to note and remember the extremes even if there is actually more moderates.

           You’re taking the fenqing too seriously and, worse, you’re judging the Chinese population based on your reactions to these fenqing. I’m not saying the fenqing are irrelevant, I’m saying you’re going too far and in doing so, being unfair.

           Regarding the Bhutan issue, I’m going to offer some context:

           1. The Ngalop ethnic group dominates the government. This ethnic group originated from Tibet and brought the Buddhism that 3/4th of Bhutanese practice. However, I too think forcing Microsoft to change Bhutanese to Tibetan is stupid.

           2. The “suspicious and frightening military movement a little bit into Bhutan, effectively redefining the border” is part of an long-standing border-dispute. I noted that you didn’t bother to actually examine the underlying claims over this land and presented this piece of information as if Bhutan’s alleged border was established fact (when it is not internationally) and it was China was “redefining” the border. For the parties involved, both have claims, and China did what they believe they are entitled to do, secure their land and their border. If you want to use biased evidence like this, at least make sure you support them and not make it so easy for me to call them into question.

           3. The “incursion” into Bhutan was also widely seen as a tactical move involving India. As anyone familiar with the geo-politics of Asia (including the Indian subcontinent) knows, China and India aren’t bed buddies and their interests often conflict with each other, not least of which includes matters relating to Tibet (oh, what a can of worms that one is). If you want to talk about the Bhutan issue, you’re going to have to do more research about China-India relations.

           4. Once you actually understand what the Bhutan “incursion” was actually about and what players it involved, you wouldn’t use it as evidence for your argument that China’s leaders have a “burning desire to spread their political system.” The Bhutan issue had NOTHING to do with spreading political ideology or systems. This was your mistake.

           Now, just to be thorough, I want to nip you in the bud by pre-emptively responding to your other unelaborated “evidence” of China’s “leaders’ burning desire to spread their political system.”

           1. You mentioned Taiwan. There is no serious academic or diplomat worth their salt who actually entertains the idea that China’s leaders are trying to spread their pseudo-Communist authoritarian political ideology or system to Taiwan. China’s leaders today concern themselves with maintaining the status quo regarding Taiwan’s statehood status and improving Cross-Strait relations through economic ties.

           2. You mentioned Tibet. This one is fun. China spread its “political system” over FIFTY FUCKING YEARS AGO, at the HEIGHT of the rise of communist ideology and political theory, when Mao Zedong and his zealous communists was in power and not Hu Jintao and the current crop of authoritarian technocrats. During that Soviet-inspired era, it REALLY WAS two political ideologies competing on the world stage. That competition gave rise to the McCarthyism and anti-red fear-mongering that unfortunately still persists to this day DESPITE the fall of communism as a viable political ideology and system and how MUCH the world has changed! The “Communists” brought Tibet into its fold at a time and in an environment when it was their self-professed mission to bring worker’s rights to the enslaved proletariats of the world! Is that the case now? No. You’re not thinking in context. You still think there is a Red Scare, a concerted “Communist” movement threatening to change your way of life, or at least your comments suggests so. As I said before, if China’s leaders have a burning desire, it is not to spread its political system, it is to maintain its domestic political system.

           3. You mentioned etc. Sorry, please provide something more concrete than “etc.”

           I do think you’re being paranoid, amongst other things. You wanted counterarguments, there they are. I’ll be happy to read your attempts to refute them.

           FWIW, I would not likely refer to China as “Communist,” nor would I be inclined to use Communism as an epithet,

           Okay, if you insist, I’ll grant I simply lumped you into that label because your statements are usually associated with that label. My bad. I’ll try to use “person who fears the Chinese leaders have a burning desire to spread their political system” in the future or something equally accurate.

           Finally…

           I sure hope you’re right about China not having the capability, but as far as I know, your claim is no more supported than mine is.

           Which claim are you referring to? I actually know most of my claims are quite well supported. If you’re referring to my statement that I don’t think China could flatten the US with its hands tied behind its back, do you really need me to find DoD intelligence reports and commentary from military strategists and academics to support this claim of mine?
         • Xezlec

           Saturday, March 21, 2009 at 12:10 am

           I don’t know how to do blockquotes on this forum, so I’ll use regular quote marks.

           “‘Clearly, China has also done a better job of keeping their recon boats out of sight than we have. From the news, it sounds like they’ve also done a better job spying on us than we have on them. That, combined with the seemingly near-perfect ideological consistency of its population and their leaders’ burning desire to spread their political system (as evidenced in Taiwan, Tibet, Bhutan, etc.),’

           …that fails the Occam’s Razor test. You may genuinely believe these things but they’re just not supported by the information that is available to us (and freely accessible on the internet which means there’s no excuse for laziness).”

           You have yet to demonstrate that the contrary is any better supported (and that was what I meant when I said your claim is no better supported than mine). Let me spell that out for you: you’re speaking to me pretty harshly. That demands a pretty strong position on your part. If you’re going to call me “crazy” for saying that it sounds like they’re doing a better job with the spying than we are, then yes, I certainly would expect you to offer some evidence that they aren’t. And it had better be obvious evidence that I’d have to be “crazy” not to be aware of. Otherwise, I’m not crazy, I just disagree with your opinion, and yours is no more “sane” than mine, regardless of who is right. Saying “I don’t agree” is different from saying “go back where you came from, you fear-mongering, conspiracy-theorist lunatic,” which is closer to what I’m hearing.

           “If you say things that run contrary to the information we have, it veers on conspiracy thinking and sensationalist fear-mongering.”

           Saying that I haven’t proven my point (which is actually all you’ve said — go back and read your own message if you don’t believe me) is a far cry from saying that you’ve actually shown my opinions to be contrary to the information we have (i.e. false). I see no evidence you’ve given that China isn’t able to spy on us well, or that they aren’t interested in spreading, or that their population isn’t ideologically consistent on this issue. Instead, you’ve just rebutted some of my original arguments that those things were true.

           “…which I took artistic license to and shortened to ‘brainless automatons’ because that’s a common characterization that often accompanies statements like your’s. But yes, you didn’t say those exact words.

           Take issue with my artistic license, but be honest, was my interpretation really unwarranted?”

           Are you serious? I made a comment about ideological consistency in response to the consistency of the comments on the article — something also noted by others here — and you think that merits turning it into some kind of slur about Chinese people’s intelligence? It’s hard to believe you are being sincere.

           Well then, for the record, yes, it was unwarranted. No, I don’t feel that Chinese people are brainless. I don’t feel that consistency is a sign of brainlessness. Iceland is also very ideologically consistent. What worries me is consistency on issues of conflict with other countries.

           “While these comments reveal something about Chinese netizens, they first only reveal something about SOME Chinese netizens and, second, are piss poor for revealing something about the Chinese population as a whole. You should be familiar with the concept of disproportionate voice. Extremists tend to be ‘louder’ than moderates. This is generally true not only in their output but also in the perception of those listening. Listeners or observers are more apt to note and remember the extremes even if there is actually more moderates.”

           I already explained to you that the observation that worried me most was a comparison of the comments here to comments on American message boards on the same subjects. I don’t see why the effect to which you refer would be stronger in China than in the US. As for claims that my opinions are not “scientific,” that’s just fine. I’ve made no claim to scientific certainty of anything. I (and others) just stated an opinion of concern on an INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD for Chirst’s sake, in response to an observation made by the translator. You pounced on my (at least) fairly reasonable comment as if I’d said “LOL Jews did WTC”.

           If you think Chinese opinions are actually inconsistent on this issue, I’d appreciate it if you’d either:
           1. show evidence of that, or
           2. admit that my opinion isn’t unreasonable (even if you disagree with it), since you can find any evidence to oppose it any more than I can to support it.

           “2. The ‘suspicious and frightening military movement a little bit into Bhutan, effectively redefining the border’ is part of an long-standing border-dispute. I noted that you didn’t bother to actually examine the underlying claims over this land and presented this piece of information as if Bhutan’s alleged border was established fact…”

           Jesus. I honestly didn’t expect this. I kind of assumed you’d be with me on this one. I disagree with your interpretation of the Bhutan incident. I don’t feel like arguing about it, since it’s a whole other issue, but I’ll be happy if you’ll just agree that there is room for differing opinions on it, and feeling that China is trying to move in to Bhutan is not a “crazy” or “fear-mongering” reason to be worried, even if it is, in your opinion, false.

           “1. You mentioned Taiwan. There is no serious academic or diplomat worth their salt who actually entertains the idea that China’s leaders are trying to spread their pseudo-Communist authoritarian political ideology or system to Taiwan.”

           O_O

           I must be misunderstanding you. As far as I know, it is the official policy of the PRC government that unification, under the PRC government, *must* occur, and that a military option will be pursued as soon as diplomacy is considered to have failed. I have never heard any serious academic or diplomat, on any side of the conflict, offer the opinion that China is not trying to obtain political control over Taiwan. This is even an issue in Taiwan politics: one party wants the unification, the other wants to assert independence. Everybody is afraid a conflict will erupt at some point. Even my Chinese friends are afraid that will happen. This is the reason that those American ships we’re talking about patrol the South China Sea in the first place!

           If I understand right, you feel that the very existence of this page:
           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan
           conflicts with what any “serious academic or diplomat worth their salt” would say, since that page is all about the possibility that unification may occur and seems to imply that at least some diplomats and officials think that could happen.

           “You still think there is a Red Scare, a concerted ‘Communist’ movement threatening to change your way of life, or at least your comments suggests so.”

           OK, look, you need to cut this out. You’re just trying to make me angry at this point. You know better. I’ve already corrected you enough on this issue. I’ll say it just once more, and I don’t want to hear any of this BS again: China is not Communist. I am not afraid of Communism. I don’t even dislike Communism. I don’t consider Communism an epithet. I’m a socialist. FWIW, I feel that Chinese Communism was a big improvement over both the previous government of China and the previous system in Tibet. Will you shut up with this now?

           As for the point about Tibet, yes it was *annexed* 50 years ago, but there has been an independence movement ever since, and it just keeps picking up steam, and China show no sign of relenting. If you want to call that a weak point, fine. But once again, I’ll thank you not to call it “crazy” “fear-mongering”.

           “If you’re referring to my statement that I don’t think China could flatten the US with its hands tied behind its back, do you really need me to find DoD intelligence reports and commentary from military strategists and academics to support this claim of mine?”

           Again, if it takes that much work, I guess I’m not such a lunatic for being “mistaken” on the issue, now am I?
         • Kai

           Saturday, March 21, 2009 at 6:03 am

           Xezlec:

           I’m kinda bummed that I’m stuck home late Friday night hoping to finish a project before the week ends instead of out partying or something. I’m even a bit embarrassed that responding to you will be the “break” I’m taking from my work tonight. Oh well, what can I do, right?

           You have yet to demonstrate that the contrary is any better supported

           I don’t have to. I just need to point out that you haven’t supported what you’ve claimed. Since you’re the person making the first claim, the burden is upon you.

           You’re supposed to make a claim, support it with premises that, when true, suggest your claim is true or likely true. Your claim becomes your conclusion if the premises you considered support it. If I disagree with your conclusion, I can challenge your premises or the reasoning you used to show how your premises prove your claim and validate your claim as a true conclusion.

           However, you’re skipping some steps.

           You’re asking me to offer premises to prove that your conclusion and thus claim is false…when you haven’t even proven your claim yet to make it a true conclusion. All you’ve done is make a claim and assert it as a true conclusion. That’s not a valid argument.

           I feel your arguments suffer sometimes from a complete absence of premises and, at other times, errors in reasoning (fallacies).

           Let me deconstruct your argument:

           Clearly, China has also done a better job of keeping their recon boats out of sight than we have.

           Your claim is in bold. The closest thing to a premise is in italics. I disagree with your premise, if it can even be called that. Therefore, I don’t find your claim to be true.

           Remixed, your above statement is actually: “We have not seen or caught any Chinese recon boats. Therefore, the Chinese have done a better job of keeping their recon boats hidden.”

           If we agree that your premise is true, it still doesn’t prove that your conclusion is true. That is a fallacy. Just because you have not seen them doesn’t mean they are well hidden. In fact, them being hidden is just one possible explanation for why you haven’t seen them. Moreover, this possible explanation is no more likely or plausible than other explanations.

           Other explanations include:

           1. There are no Chinese recon boats.

           2. There are Chinese recon boats but unlike the Impeccable, they’re not operating so close to American shores or in areas the Americans are regularly monitoring so as to be easily seen/caught.

           3. There are Chinese recon boats but there are far less Chinese recon boats compared the the number of American recon boats, thus the probability of seeing a Chinese recon boat is proportionally less than that of seeing an American recon boat.

           And so on.

           Yet you didn’t consider any of this. Instead, you just presumed that they exist and the reason you can’t prove that they exist is because the Chinese have done such a great job keeping them hidden from you. There’s a jump in your logic. You need to look up Occam’s Razor.

           I don’t have to demonstrate that the contrary is better supported if all I need to do is demonstrate that what you said isn’t a sound argument.

           Consider the example of a murder trial:

           You accuse Bob of being the murderer. I don’t have to prove that Billy is the murderer to demonstrate that Bob is innocent. I CAN, of course, but I can also just simply prove that your arguments of Bob’s guilt are not convincing or even logical, or that you even have an argument!

           From the news, it sounds like they’ve also done a better job spying on us than we have on them.

           Again, your conclusion in bold, your “premise” italicized.

           This is a bad pseudo-argument as well. “From the news?” What news? Cite it, don’t just claim it. Then remind yourself that from where I’m sitting, there’s plenty of news to suggest that the Americans have done a better job spying on the Chinese than the Chinese have on the Americans. Then what?

           Your premise: My news says China spies on the US more than the US spies on China.
           Your conclusion: Therefore, China spies on the US more than the US spies on China.

           My conclusion: Your argument is invalid.
           My premise: Your premise is limited and contradicted by
           other news.

           I don’t have to demonstrate that other news shows that the US spies more on China than vice versa. All I need to do is point out how your premise is insufficient to warrant your claim. You’re making bad presumptions and expecting everyone to take them as unquestionable fact.

           Except they’re not.

           If you’re going to call me “crazy” for saying that it sounds like they’re doing a better job with the spying than we are, then yes, I certainly would expect you to offer some evidence that they aren’t.

           Uh, no. I’m expressing my incredulous disagreement with what you’re saying and asking you what you’re listening to that “sounds” like the Chinese are doing a better job spying then the Americans are.

           Instead of telling me what makes you say what you’re saying, you’re demanding that I prove that the Chinese aren’t doing a better job spying? Huh?

           Why should I disprove what you haven’t proven?

           The reason you’re demanding that I prove you wrong is because you actually have assumed you’re right and that your position is solid and proven, yet without offering any proof or support whatsoever other than: “it sounds like so.”

           Remember, you made a claim first “the Chinese spy better/more than the US.” Therefore, the burden of substantiating that claim is up to you. It is not yet my turn to prove you wrong.

           Let’s use the murder example again:

           You: Bob is the murderer! That’s what I heard!
           Me: Uh, wtf?
           You: Prove me wrong!
           Me: …

           And it had better be obvious evidence that I’d have to be “crazy” not to be aware of

           I thought it was obvious that you’d consider the “news” the other side probably hears before asserting that “the news” supports your conclusion that China spies more on the US. I thought it was obvious that you’d consider the other side’s perspective.

           No, you’re not “crazy” to have failed to consider the other side or the other side’s information, but it DOES mean you’ve made a critical mistake in making such confident black and white statements.

           Xezlec, you made arguments based upon presumed evidence/premises instead of actual evidence/premises. That’s what “clearly” and “from the news” amounts to: presumed evidence/premises.

           What happens when it ISN’T “clearly” to the other party? What happens when the other party says “well, I heard from MY news that…”?

           Saying that I haven’t proven my point (which is actually all you’ve said — go back and read your own message if you don’t believe me) is a far cry from saying that you’ve actually shown my opinions to be contrary to the information we have (i.e. false).

           No, I’ve actually done both. I’ve said (and proven) that you haven’t proven your point AND I’ve actually shown how your opinions (i.e. relating to Bhutan, Tibet, Taiwan) are contrary to the information we have (and for Taiwan, I’ll show how your opinion is even contrary to the wikipedia link you’re citing)

           I see no evidence you’ve given that China isn’t able to spy on us well, or that they aren’t interested in spreading, or that their population isn’t ideologically consistent on this issue.

           1. Why would I give evidence of China not being able to spy on the US when I never claimed they aren’t able to?

           Seriously, where did I say China wasn’t able to spy on the US? In fact, I’ve repeated made statements to the contrary, that China CAN and DOES.

           2. Why would I give evidence of China not being interested in spreading…when you haven’t proven that they have a “burning desire to spread their political system?”

           I was generous with this. I took your “evidence” of Bhutan, Tibet, and Taiwan at face value, entertaining the notion that you really DO think they prove the “burning desire” of China’s leaders, and then provided you with refutations and proper context showing how these “evidence” of your’s DO NOT do not prove your argument.

           Bhutan is a border-dispute, NOT about China spreading its political system.

           Tibet was a product of Mao and the early Chinese communist’s desire to spread their political system and has nothing to do with China’s present leaders who, as I’ve said, are more concerned with maintaining their political system’s domestic stability and legitimacy than trying to impose it on ever more other countries.

           Taiwan is an issue of China trying to prevent de-jure Taiwanese independence to maintain the de-facto status quo, trying to improve Cross-Strait relations and NOT trying to impose its political system upon a de-facto independent and self-governing island nation. More on this later.

           3. Why would I give evidence of China not being ideologically consistent on this issue…when it should be obvious how silly it is use some anonymous internet comments to paint the entire Chinese “population”?

           You’ve already admitted that your opinion is not scientifically accurate. That’s enough for me. I understand why you find these comments worrisome, and my point is that you needn’t be so worried if you had more information, more context with which to evaluate he value of these fenqing comments.

           Well then, for the record, yes, it was unwarranted. No, I don’t feel that Chinese people are brainless

           Okay, I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and acknowledge that I may have read too much into your comments about ideological consistency and then jumped to labeling you based on what your comments are associated with in my mind/experience. I shouldn’t have been so quick to do so.

           I already explained to you that the observation that worried me most was a comparison of the comments here to comments on American message boards on the same subjects.

           The comments here are not necessarily representative of all Chinese. The comments on whatever American message boards you looked at are not necessarily representative of all Americans. You’re taking two imperfect representations to make an imperfect comparison. GIGO = Garbage In Garbage Out.

           As I said above, I understand that you feel worried after reading these things. I’m still telling you you really needn’t be. You fear what you don’t understand. In explaining to you that these are likely fenqing and reminidng you that there’s no mass war movement or lynching of Americans in China, I’m trying to assuage your anxiety. You’re taking these comments at face value when you should be intelligent enough to consider context.

           At the very least, the concentration of any sentiment is dependent upon where you look. Consider at least that you may have been looking at a predominantly moderate American forum and comparing it to what happened to be a predominantly extremist fenqing Chinese forum.

           After you do that, remember what I said about the absence of any war movement or lynching of Americans in China. You should be worried when the Chinese start doing the latter. Worrying beforehand is taking their off-the-cuff comments too seriously.

           You pounced on my (at least) fairly reasonable comment

           I’m not going to let this one go by. I pounced on you because I felt many of your comments were far from being fairly reasonable. I’ve explained why. You insist the comments in question are reasonable. I’ll continue to insist they are not.

           If you think Chinese opinions are actually inconsistent on this issue, I’d appreciate it if you’d either:
           1. show evidence of that, or
           2. admit that my opinion isn’t unreasonable (even if you disagree with it), since you can find any evidence to oppose it any more than I can to support it.

           3. Remind you that it is ultimately silly for you to take a few comments on chinaSMACK as being representative of all of China on any issue in any statistically meaningful way.

           I’m too lazy to go find you links from GVO or ESWN or go on message boards and translate the Chinese for you. However, chinaSMACK does provide you the links to their sources but I’m guessing you probably don’t know Chinese to be able to sift through more comments. So, I think Option 3 is a good solid one. It neither contradicts what you’re reading above with your own eyes, but it does bring the perspective and context I’m begging of you.

           Jesus. I honestly didn’t expect this. I kind of assumed you’d be with me on this one. I disagree with your interpretation of the Bhutan incident. I don’t feel like arguing about it, since it’s a whole other issue, but I’ll be happy if you’ll just agree that there is room for differing opinions on it, and feeling that China is trying to move in to Bhutan is not a “crazy” or “fear-mongering” reason to be worried, even if it is, in your opinion, false.

           You’re free to disagree with my interpretation of the Bhutan incident. LoL, the incident itself is all about disagreement of interpretation! But you merely disagreeing doesn’t help make Bhutan “evidence” of China’s leaders’ “burning desire to spread their political system” as you were using Bhutan for in the first place.

           I don’t see any information about the Bhutan “incursion” suggesting it was ever about spreading China’s political system. It was a border dispute, not nation-building. Your claim “burning desire to spread political system” was not supported by your premise “Bhutan border dispute.”

           Are you willing to concede this? That the Bhutan incident doesn’t prove your claim?

           I must be misunderstanding you.

           Yes, you are. What you said is not at odds with what I said. China does want eventual reunification, but it is not pushing an agenda for political reunification at this point. In fact, it hasn’t done so for decades. The agenda is status quo, increase economic ties, improve Cross-Strait relations.

           This is even an issue in Taiwan politics: one party wants the unification, the other wants to assert independence.

           Wrong. Way oversimplified understanding of the Taiwan issue. The DPP is indeed generally regarded as pro-independence, but the KMT has long been pro-status quo, not reunification (despite the DPP’s attempts to scare everyone into thinking that’s what the KMT is for — Taiwan politics, they fight dirty). The KMT gave up reunification when they realized they couldn’t retake China (when the US officially recognized China), and for the most part, has since been keen on maintaining their de facto independence while improving economic ties with China so everyone can get more of what they ultimtely want: more money, a nicer life, etc.

           Like the Chinese leadership, the KMT is content to let the issue of reunification be decided by future generations. Implicit in that understanding is the acknowledgement that the people in Taiwan are unlikely to give up their de facto independence until it clearly benefits them to do so. At this point, both China and Taiwan knows that Taiwan is not remotely ready to entertain reunification.

           Everybody is afraid a conflict will erupt at some point. Even my Chinese friends are afraid that will happen.

           And I have Chinese, Taiwanese, American, etc. friends who aren’t afraid of such a thing happening. Who are you going to believe except those you want to believe?

           Refer to your own wikipedia link:

           Although the situation is confusing, most observers believe that it is stable with enough understandings and gentlemen’s agreements to keep things from breaking out into open warfare…

           …the PRC stated on many occasions that there is no explicit timetable for reunification.

           Occassionally, there are disagreements and conflicts between China and Taiwan over this or that, all very normal. The Chinese saber-rattling that follows is pretty normal too, as is the United States making a show by sending in some backup.

           At the end of the day, there’s political drama and then there’s reality. The reality is that China has more to lose and very little to gain from forced reunification than going with the status quo. It knows that. Taiwan knows that. The United States knows that. Your wikipedia article knows that. The serious acadmics and diplomats I refer to know that. I want you to know that now too.

           This is the reason that those American ships we’re talking about patrol the South China Sea in the first place!

           No, not really. The Americans HAVE sent ships to the Straits before when China was being a baby and whining over Chen Shui Bian running for re-election. However, China realized that their “missle testing” (saber rattling) only helped Chen Shui Bian get reelected. China behaved better during the last election.

           The United States navy has been operating in the Pacific for decades all for strategic reasons pertaining to any number of the countries it has to protect, assist, or spy on. Taiwan was never the first reason.

           If I understand right, you feel that the very existence of this page:
           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan
           conflicts with what any “serious academic or diplomat worth their salt” would say, since that page is all about the possibility that unification may occur and seems to imply that at least some diplomats and officials think that could happen.

           You’re changing what I said. I said “no serious academic or diplomat worth their salt actually entertains the idea that China’s leaders are trying to spread their pseudo-Communist authoritarian political ideology or system to Taiwan.” The wikipedia page is not in conflict with my statement.

           The wikipedia page describes the history and arguments of the issue (you really should read it). My statement reflects the current situation, which is not at odds with any portrayal of the current situation in the wikipedia article.

           You used Taiwan as “evidence” that China’s leaders have a burning desire to spread their political system to other countries, such as Taiwan. How is a wikipedia article that repeatedly mentions the PRC’s acceptance of the status quo proving your claim whatsoever?

           There is a desire for reunification. There is no burning desire to spread their political system at this point or for the foreseeable future. The desire for eventual reunification has more to do with Chinese identity than it does with any desire to spread a political system.

           You’ve made a bad claim and have repeatedly used the wrong premises as evidence. Can you see that?

           OK, look, you need to cut this out. You’re just trying to make me angry at this point. You know better.

           No, I’m not trying to make you angry. I genuinely got that impression from your comments.

           As for the point about Tibet, yes it was *annexed* 50 years ago, but there has been an independence movement ever since,

           Still doesn’t make Tibet evidence that China’s current leaders have a burning desire to spread their political system. That was the argument you were trying to prove with Tibet, Taiwan, and Bhutan, right?

           If you’re willing to admit that none of these three instances actually “evidence” China’s leaders’ “burning desire to spread their political system” as you previously claimed, we can move on from them. I’ve been willing to own up to mistaking your comments as being that of a McCarthyist. Are you willing to own up to having made a poor argument that I’ve refuted?

           I’ll thank you not to call it “crazy” “fear-mongering”.

           The crazy, fear-mongering was in reference to these quotes of your’s:

           China could flatten the USA with its hands tied behind its back!…

           Clearly, China has also done a better job of keeping their recon boats out of sight than we have. From the news, it sounds like they’ve also done a better job spying on us than we have on them….

           That, combined with the seemingly near-perfect ideological consistency of its population and their leaders’ burning desire to spread their political system (as evidenced in Taiwan, Tibet, Bhutan, etc.), tells me that if I were to build a time machine and travel to the USA 500 years in the future, I had better be sure to brush up on my Mao sayings first!

           I dunno about you, but going around suggesting that China’s going to take over the USA is fear-mongering. Going around claiming China’s spies on the US more than vice versa (without proof) and that they’re so good that the US hasn’t caught them yet is fear mongering.

           It reminds me of the same fear-mongering Chinese fenqing do when they declare anyone who disagrees with them of being foreign agents sent to destablize China from within.

           Again, if it takes that much work, I guess I’m not such a lunatic for being “mistaken” on the issue, now am I?

           True, I shouldn’t expect the average joe to be well-versed in all these things. While I was studying history, they may have been studying science. It wasn’t fair of me.

           I suppose I simply hoped that people wouldn’t make such strong statements as you have on matters that you’re not well-versed in. Actually, it wasn’t even the strong statements, it was the poor arguments. You may take offense to that, but I think I’ve more than adequately explained why they are bad arguments.

           Really, Xezlec, please tell me you can see how your “clearly” and “from the news” statements were incredibly poorly made? Please tell me you can see how your “evidence” of Bhutan, Tibet, and Taiwan haven’t convincingly or even relevantly supported your claim that China’s leader’s have a burning esire to spread their political system?

           Xezlec, I have been emphatic with responding to you, and that I actually DO see you trying to be emphatically cordial back at me. I don’t just strongly disagree with many of the things you’ve tried to argue, I’ve found your arguments to be really bad. I’m sorry if that’s mean, I’m not trying to hurt your feelings, I just don’t know how else to make it any clearer why I’ve responded so strongly.

           You made strong black and white claims but supported with very weak and even nonexistent evidence that was further often coupled with erroneous reasoning. I mean, for crying out loud, look at the above fear-mongering quotes of your’s. Then, in me pointing those out, you’ve demanded that I prove alternative or other contrary claims…which simply isn’t necessary. A weak claim is a weak claim. There needn’t be a stronger claim offered to replace it. There is value in showing a weak claim for what it is. That’s what I was doing.

           If anything, the lesson here is to avoid making strong black and white claims unless you’re absolutely certain you’ve got all your bases covered. You never know when you’re going to run into someone like me who will give you hell for it.

           I’m certain you’re a good guy and I really respect the measure of civility you’ve tried to maintain in your latest response, but I still believe you’ll eventually realize that a lot of the “fears” or “worries” evident in your comments about China are largely unnecessary once you learn more about the issues, approach it from a different angle, or figure out the context.

           P.S. – You can use HTML blockquote tags on WordPress comments.
         • Xezlec

           Monday, March 23, 2009 at 12:04 am

           Well, I figured we’d reach this point eventually. From your post count on this forum it is obvious you can pump out a lot more words per day than I am able to, so I guess I’ve lost this argument no matter what. I just don’t have any way to respond to everything you’ve typed. I’ll just have to summarize.

           1. I did not attempt to “prove” anything. I didn’t even attempt to offer “evidence” of anything. I thought I explained pretty clearly in my last post that I was not interested in doing so and didn’t see why I should have to.

           I wasn’t making a “claim,” or at least didn’t intend to, beyond “I claim that I feel concerned.” Brief notes of courtesy aside, you keep flaming the hell out of me for making “strong black-and-white statements” and “fear-mongering,” making claims without evidence, yadda yadda. But lets take a look at what I actually said (emphasis added):

           I’m not sure Kai has quite the most reasonable take, actually. The whole reason this is scary is that *almost all* of the comments on this were of the “let’s kill them all” variety.

           If you look at discussions of these sorts of things in America, you find a few idiot rednecks screaming for blood, but you find a lot of people on the other side asking for calm. It genuinely is frightening if China’s blogosphere doesn’t have very many people in the second category. If China is like a whole country of Republicans, then I think we’re right to be worried!

           Oh, and also, I agree that the US wouldn’t “trounce” China in a military battle, that’s pretty obvious. China is much larger than us, has much less dissent to worry about, and has all kinds of leverage over us. China could flatten the USA with its hands tied behind its back! Yet another reason for us to be worried by this stuff.

           Clearly, China has also done a better job of keeping their recon boats out of sight than we have. From the news, it sounds like they’ve also done a better job spying on us than we have on them. That, combined with the seemingly near-perfect ideological consistency of its population and their leaders’ burning desire to spread their political system (as evidenced in Taiwan, Tibet, Bhutan, etc.), tells me that if I were to build a time machine and travel to the USA 500 years in the future, I had better be sure to brush up on my Mao sayings first!

           You see, there aren’t a whole lot of “absolute statements” in there at all. There are only a couple of sentences that were phrased (accidentally) as absolute claims, and that you seem to disagree with. Here is one:

           China could flatten the USA with its hands tied behind its back!

           Sorry, that was meant to have “To me, it seems like” prepended. I didn’t intend to imply that I had some evidence that I could post here.

           And I can only find two others:

           Clearly, China has also done a better job of keeping their recon boats out of sight than we have.
           …
           and their leaders’ burning desire to spread their political system (as evidenced in Taiwan, Tibet, Bhutan, etc.)

           The first of those I didn’t expect any disagreement with based on an earlier statement by you on another sub-thread where you agreed they probably did spy on us too. Hence the “clearly.” But fine, if it makes me less of a lunatic to you, I’ll moderate that and replace “clearly” with “if they spy on us”. Maybe, like you say, they have fewer of them, and that’s how they’ve kept them out of sight.

           In the second remark above, I again foolishly assumed there would be common ground between us in those 3 issues, and no further need to elaborate. If it bothers you, insert an “apparently” in there.

           I don’t at all understand your reasons for your positions on those 3 issues, but I will say that your implication that I have never read a word on the subject is just plain wrong. I have (obviously) read the page I linked to. In fact I’ve spent many hours reading about China, mostly on Wikipedia, news sites, and blogs. I thought I understood the issues pretty well. Maybe you’re right that your perspective is the obvious one, and I would see it if I just read whatever it is you’re reading. Maybe I’m just a dense fool. But you shouldn’t expect me to concede that, and I feel like I shouldn’t have to offer evidence to prove it.

           If that’s all you’re upset about, then you’ve overreacted a lot in characterizing me as a fear-mongerer, etc. The whole gist of what I typed was “I’m still concerned by this, despite Kai’s reassurances,” not “I have scientifically discovered the following facts and wish to debate them.” Notice that I was actually responding to the comment “The voice of reason,” and it was that comment that prompted me to get myself into this mess. And for the record, I am still concerned, and your attack on me has not managed to assuage any of my fears.

           I’ll say it again: I posted a message conveying some thoughts, hypotheses, and worries on an internet message board. No, I am not required to give evidence or “prove” my feelings, and you’re confused if you think I am.

           I shouldn’t have challenged you to make a counterargument in another of my posts. I meant that I thought my reasons for concern were as great as your reasons for lacking concern, but the way I phrased it sounded like I was accusing you of exactly what you are accusing me of right now, namely making claims without basis.

           2. Honestly, I don’t even care about the issue at this point in the argument as much as your response. Guess I’m just emotional that way.

           I get the impression you’re “some kind of crazy, right-wing, McCarthyist, anti-red, anti-Chinese bigot” for…

           I do think you’re being paranoid, amongst other things.

           Dare I speculate as to what those “other things” are? Hard not to.

           The reason you’re demanding that I prove you wrong is because you actually have assumed you’re right and that your position is solid and proven, yet without offering any proof or support whatsoever other than: “it sounds like so.”

           No. The reason I’m demanding you prove me wrong is that I feel that you’re acting like I’m a crazy fool for feeling the way I do. If someone is a crazy fool, it is easy to prove them wrong. If it is difficult to prove them wrong, then they still may be wrong, but they are not necessarily crazy fools. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. I have a problem with you acting like your opinion is the only “obvious” one.

           I’m not going to let this one go by. I pounced on you because I felt many of your comments were far from being fairly reasonable. I’ve explained why. You insist the comments in question are reasonable. I’ll continue to insist they are not.

           Well then I guess we’re done here. I’m not going to try any further to prove that I, and those who feel the same way I do, are not dingbats, and I’m already weary from trying. The people whose opinions I’m sticking up for don’t seem willing to show themselves and help out, anyway, so I probably shouldn’t care so much.
         • Xezlec

           Monday, March 23, 2009 at 1:46 am

           After posting the above, I’ve noticed something else that changes my outlook.

           I’m kinda bummed that I’m stuck home late Friday night hoping to finish a project before the week ends instead of out partying or something.

           For the love of all that’s holy, please tell me the above doesn’t mean you’re a college student!

           If anything, the lesson here is to avoid making strong black and white claims unless you’re absolutely certain you’ve got all your bases covered. You never know when you’re going to run into someone like me who will give you hell for it.

           I don’t need you to teach me lessons about making strong claims. I learned that lesson back when I was in school myself, which was why (I thought) I made my initial post in such a delicate and qualified way. Aside from the modifications made in my above response, I don’t know what I could have done to temper my remarks any further, short of lying about my real feelings on the subject, which I try to avoid doing, or just keeping my mouth shut and my feelings to myself.

           I have spent years trying to learn enough about these political subjects that I’d be able to discuss them without coming off as foolish. I’ve forced myself to read a lot of uncomfortable things, and wasted a lot of perfectly good evenings clicking through boring geopolitical analyses.

           I refuse to agree with you that I and others who voice any concern are “fear-mongerers” just for expressing our feelings. I also refuse to concede that you have to be a right-winger or weirdo of some kind to be worried. But, if after all I’ve tried, I still come off as a damned indefensible ignoramus to any random college kid on an internet message board, I guess it is time to go ahead and concede that I’m a dense fool with no aptitude for politics. I’ll tell you what: in the future, I will try to avoid talking about these subjects, or acting based on opinions I’ve formed, except to directly defend people who I think are being spoken down to.

           So, in some sense, you win. I’d love it if you’d agree to temper any future remarks toward people who have an honest concern about something that you feel is mistaken, but I don’t demand or expect you to. Now please, please leave me alone.
         • Kai

           Monday, March 23, 2009 at 3:58 am

           Xezlec:

           No, I’m not a college student, but thanks for the compliment?

           Its almost 4am right now and I’m still hacking away at my project. I managed to do myself a productive favor by not checking in on the comments here last night but I have tonight.

           Fortunately, for my work, I actually don’t have much to say because the points I disagree with you on have already been said very clearly before, with quotations and my explanations.

           I understand your latest response and various explanation. I also do feel the consternation in your voice. You feel what you said was completely innocent, with no specific ill-intent, or at least you were just being honest about your feelings. And ruthless me jumped all over you for it all.

           You say you didn’t make any claims. Fine, I won’t argue semantics with you. You say you expressed your feelings. Fine. The point is that I disagreed with your feelings and expressed my disagreement, just as you disagreed (claim) with Mike Fish’s comment, and then you explained your disagreement (premises).

           I then expressed my own disagreement (claim) with your explanation of disagreement (your premises), and offered my explanation (my premises).

           That’s how our conversation, debate, or argument came about and unfolded. Minus the parentheses, I hope it was clear. I simply felt you made some strong claims that weren’t warranted by the information available. In retrospect, the fact is that you’ve made strong claims based upon the information available to you. I’m familiar with that information, and given what I know, I know that information to be lacking, inaccurate, biased, or incomplete. While I think it is possible for you to know what I know, I shouldn’t have come across as impatient, frustrated, or shocked that you didn’t. As I said in my last reply, I shouldn’t expect that of most people.

           It is indeed worrisome to me that you find it incredibly difficult to understand the different perspectives and context I’ve given you on the issues of Bhutan, Tibet, and Taiwan or China vs. American spying, especially when I know such perspectives are not inaccessible to you. They may not be mainstream perspectives, but the mainstream perspectives are precisely the problematic ones, the ones that are used to rally people to superficial knee-jerk emotional reactions rather than encouraging people to actually seek a deeper understanding of the issues at hand. .

           But I can’t expect you to take my word for it. That’s one reason why I actually explicitly asked you to read the Wikipedia page you offered me, because I found it odd that you were offering me a Wikipedia page that was more in line with what I was saying than with what you were saying. I felt you weren’t even reading what you were offering me as proof of your perspective.

           Coming full-circle, you expressed your thoughts and feelings. I disagreed, you offered evidence and explanations (yes, you did), and I responded. That’s all there is to it. I felt you said some questionable things, and you felt I flamed you unfairly. You insist I misunderstood you, and I insist it was fair game.

           For the record, the people who usually think I’m talking “down” to them are those who like to express whatever they feel but don’t like anyone holding them accountable to whatever their feelings say. I believe if someone is going to say something, they should be willing to stand behind it. I can understand an honest person, but I respect an accountable person.

           I didn’t argue with you because I look down on you, Xezlec. I argued with you because I think you’re mature enough to have an argument and because maybe I’ll end up learning something from you.
         • Xezlec

           Monday, March 23, 2009 at 5:57 am

           But I can’t expect you to take my word for it. That’s one reason why I actually explicitly asked you to read the Wikipedia page you offered me, because I found it odd that you were offering me a Wikipedia page that was more in line with what I was saying than with what you were saying. I felt you weren’t even reading what you were offering me as proof of your perspective.

           My point was, reading that page, and other things, I got the opposite impression. That’s why I surrendered and said I don’t have an aptitude for the subject. If I did, presumably I’d be able to interpret these things the way other people do. Apparently, I haven’t. I don’t see how your perspective comes out of that article (OK, fine, maybe it does, I’m not saying it doesn’t), and when my friend says something about the subject and I respond “I don’t know anymore,” and he asks me to back it up, all I will have left to say at this point is “people on the internet who seem smarter than me don’t agree.” (It isn’t just this conversation. I’m actually losing several different arguments on several different websites at the moment.)

           Coming full-circle, you expressed your thoughts and feelings. I disagreed, you offered evidence and explanations (yes, you did), and I responded. That’s all there is to it. I felt you said some questionable things, and you felt I flamed you unfairly. You insist I misunderstood you, and I insist it was fair game.

           OK, my emotions are fair game, I should have to offer rigorous proof for all of them, and I am a bad person for having them if I don’t have scientific proof, but what does it mean if my reasons are bad or wrong? What am I to do? I don’t have control over my feelings. I can’t just turn it off because some guy on the internet disagrees. I could try to list each of the individual events that have shaped my opinions, but you would just offer alternative explanations for them that you find plausible, which in and of itself isn’t very reassuring to someone who isn’t you.

           For the record, the people who usually think I’m talking “down” to them are those who like to express whatever they feel but don’t like anyone holding them accountable to whatever their feelings say.

           Feelings “say” things? What does that even mean? Is it the liking to express what I feel that is wrong? Should I stop expressing things? Or is it just that it’s OK as long as I accept whatever it is that they “say”? What are you saying that my feelings say? Is it that my actual feelings themselves make me a “fear-mongerer” or lunatic, and not my reasoning? Do I have no choice in the world but to accept this label and live with it?

           I believe if someone is going to say something, they should be willing to stand behind it. I can understand an honest person, but I respect an accountable person.

           Again, I don’t think I see what you mean. I feel I’ve been tried and found guilty of something, and sentenced to punishment, but I don’t completely understand the crime I’ve been accused of, the trial itself, or the punishment.

           So I’m to be disrespected because I tried to discuss things calmly and rationally instead of just pigheadedly standing behind what I said like a troll? Are you actually saying I’m worse than a troll? (I’ve gotten exactly that sentiment in another argument I’m having right now.)

           Just tell me what I’m supposed to do. I just don’t want to be wrong anymore. I’m tired of being admonished.
         • Xezlec

           Monday, March 23, 2009 at 6:15 am

           Oh, and also, speaking of your “project,” whatever it is, you’re not the only one experiencing discomfort. I despise arguing too, and with the rate at which I’m consuming alcohol, I plan to be passing out soon…
         • Xezlec

           Monday, March 23, 2009 at 8:27 am

           OK… captain’s log… supplemental… A wise man once said “how far must you go to gain respect? ummm…. well it’s fairly simple just remain your own or you’ll be crazy sad and alone.” That dude was an idiot. Screw TCQ. Honesty is for losers. Whatever. Respect I have to be “accountable”. OK, fine then, if it gets me respect, then yeah I’m a fear-mongerer. Just tell me how to not be a fear-mongerer. I’m tired of fear-mongering. I hate it. I hate everything. My whole life is retarded. All my choices since birth have been the wrong ones. I want a new life with a new direction. I want a new job too. I want a new ideology, one that doesn’t suck cock. The stupid military sucks anyway and I don’t know how much longer this ridiculous country is going to keep going. I just don’t know what else to do, what am I supposed to get a job growing fing organic spinach and become a vegetarian and move out into the burbs and pretend I like girls and get married and settle down and smoke a pipe and buy whatever it’s c onsidered “liberal cool” to buy and not to buy this week? And whatever? You know what, screw it. Screw you and your happy life and your smug certainty and your holier than thou. Screw all of you. Screw being a good person, screw honesty and respecting the other side, screw you and your rules and your prison for us. I hope you go on vacation to North Korea, accidentally foul a statue of Kim Il Sung, and get shot.
         • Kai

           Monday, March 23, 2009 at 1:20 pm

           My point was, reading that page, and other things, I got the opposite impression. That’s why I surrendered and said I don’t have an aptitude for the subject.

           No, come on now, don’t be that hard on yourself. You don’t really think that about yourself anyway.

           Look, the more likely reason is that people in general are predisposed to seeing what they want to see or what they expect to see. We can see the same things but naturally zone in only on the parts that seemingly support what our position is and zone out on what doesn’t. Being open to rising above this and acknowledging opposing points when they are highlighted for us is the point.

           For example: News reports of the Bhutan “incursion” were almost all coupled with explanations of it being a long-standing border dispute. You saw the “incursion” as evidence of China’s leader’s burning desire to spread their political system. I, on the other hand, saw it as a border dispute that had nothing to do with spreading political systems. I can see how you jumped to your conclusion, especially if you were predisposed to looking for any example that showed Chinese “invading” or “spreading.” However, your original claim was about a motivation, not a phenomenon. I didn’t argue that China doesn’t invade other countries (in the absolute sense), I argued that China doesn’t do so as a manifestation of its currrent leaders’ “burning desire” to spread its political system. See the difference?

           I don’t see how your perspective comes out of that article (OK, fine, maybe it does, I’m not saying it doesn’t),

           If you genuinely want to understand my perspective, just ask more questions. Quote what I’ve said that you feel isn’t supported and ask me to show you how it is supported in the article. A conversation, discussion, debate, or argument is about an exchange of ideas. Don’t be afraid to disagree and offer the other side the chance to explain or prove their point, and don’t be afraid to reconcile that new information with your position when it is reasonable and warranted to do so.

           (It isn’t just this conversation. I’m actually losing several different arguments on several different websites at the moment.)

           LoL, try not to look at these things in terms of “winning” or “losing.” Look at them as an opportunity to validate your position on any topic. Test what you know against what information or perspectives are out there that you haven’t yet met before, and if you discover that your position is not as solid as you thought, improve on it. Factor in the new information, and adapt as appropriate so your position will account for more and be more solid for next time. There’s a difference between having a position and being confident in one’s position, right?

           I should have to offer rigorous proof for all of them, and I am a bad person for having them if I don’t have scientific proof,

           No, you don’t have to offer rigorous proof for every expression of your emotions and you’re not necessarily a “bad” person when you don’t. In the context of reasoned discourse, you should be prepared to offer explanations or proofs for your emotions/positions when you declare them and others challenge you. Either that, or be prepared to admit or concede that you don’t have good explanations or proofs to defend what you feel but cannot help feeling what you do. THAT’S honesty. That’s knowing what you know and what you don’t, knowing your limitations and being honest if not admirably humble about them.

           Don’t treat others’ disagreement with you in a debate as reflecting upon your worth as a person. Treat it as reflecting the worth of the position you were using, holding, or expressing. If other’s are winning, then it means it’s time for you, as a worthy person, to modify or discard that position for a better one. The only thing that reflects upon your worth as a person, whether you are “good” or “bad” is your ability to do that, to absorb new even contrary information and reconcile your position to them. If you can’t, then maybe you’re a stubborn or willfully ignorant person, but you’re not, right?

           I can’t just turn it off because some guy on the internet disagrees. I could try to list each of the individual events that have shaped my opinions, but you would just offer alternative explanations for them that you find plausible, which in and of itself isn’t very reassuring to someone who isn’t you.

           Heh, yes, that’s possible. That’s the extreme relativist argument and I concede it is understandable. However, my experience in real life suggests that exchange of ideas (and alternate explanations) have reassuringly helped people reshape the opinions they had that were previously shaped by other exchange of other ideas and explanations. I know what you believe has been shaped by a long list of individual events, and this one event with me may be disquietingly different from what you were conditioned to. But therein lies the opportunity for you to test whether your previous opinion holds up because it has merit or only held up because the people around you happened to all agree on it. It’s an opportunity to see if you believe something because A) all the information you’ve encountered supports it, or B) you just haven’t encountered information that refutes it.

           Feelings “say” things?

           Yes, feelings “say” things when they are expressed. When you express a feeling, you’re saying something that others can react to.

           Is it the liking to express what I feel that is wrong? Should I stop expressing things? Or is it just that it’s OK as long as I accept whatever it is that they “say”?

           As I said above, expressing your feelings is not wrong it of itself. Expressing your feelings and then refusing to be held accountable to them is wrong in the context of reasoned discourse, because it boils down to you wanting others to listen but not willing to listen to others. You can’t have reasoned discourse that way. You should be wary of expressing things you’re not willing to be held accountable to.

           Is it that my actual feelings themselves make me a “fear-mongerer” or lunatic, and not my reasoning?

           A combination of both.

           Again, I don’t think I see what you mean. I feel I’ve been tried and found guilty of something, and sentenced to punishment, but I don’t completely understand the crime I’ve been accused of, the trial itself, or the punishment.

           Wow, come on, man, you’re exaggerating, right? Don’t play the victim card or claim persecution. For the record, yes, I’ve found you guilty of making statements that are inflammatory and, when challenged, you offered evidence that ultimately failed to support your previous inflammatory statements. This is the umpteenth time I’ve said as much and if you still don’t understand (or refuse to), I won’t bother explaining yet again.

           So I’m to be disrespected because I tried to discuss things calmly and rationally instead of just pigheadedly standing behind what I said like a troll?

           Whoa, I disagree with your self-evaluation, and maybe the other people you’re arguing with feel the same way. Of course, this is inherently subjective, but bear with me. I think you discussed things far more calmly than many other people do, but you weren’t completely calm. I DON’T think the meat of your sttements or arguments were rational either. If they were (or if they were to me), I would have agreed with them. It is precisely because I found your discussion to be irrational that I disagreed with you and argued with you.

           If I think my position is rational and you think your position is rational, but our positions are in conflict with each other, what does that mean?

           To be generous, I DO think your position is reasonable with regard to what you know but is NOT rational with regard to the information available. Unfortunately for me, you probably don’t think my position is either reasonable or rational. There’s not much I can do about that. It is up to you to personally determine if you think I am unreasonable or irrational because of what I say or because what I say isn’t what you want to hear or believe.

           Just tell me what I’m supposed to do. I just don’t want to be wrong anymore. I’m tired of being admonished.

           LoL, come on now, knock it off with the self-pity. What you’re supposed to do is not be afraid of being wrong. There’s no shame in being wrong, there’s only shame in refusing to correct or improve yourself when you are. The hard part is that there aren’t any completely objective arbiters of who is right and who is wrong (or who is rational/irrational), so it is a subjective decision in us all.

           I feel like I’m giving a pep talk.
         • Kai

           Monday, March 23, 2009 at 1:24 pm

           Re: your other two replies

           with the rate at which I’m consuming alcohol, I plan to be passing out soon…

           Sounds like you’re having more fun than I am.

           OK… captain’s log… supplemental…

           Heh, alright, time for you to relax, buddy. Take it easy, man. Cheers.
         • Xezlec

           Monday, March 23, 2009 at 10:41 pm

           Sorry. Too much liquor. Well, all I can do is apologize.

           Anyway, I think you’ve helped me make a decision in my life, so I should thank you for that.
         • Xezlec

           Tuesday, March 24, 2009 at 12:43 am

           For example: News reports of the Bhutan “incursion” were almost all coupled with explanations of it being a long-standing border dispute. You saw the “incursion” as evidence of China’s leader’s burning desire to spread their political system. I, on the other hand, saw it as a border dispute that had nothing to do with spreading political systems. I can see how you jumped to your conclusion, especially if you were predisposed to looking for any example that showed Chinese “invading” or “spreading.”

           No, that is not the way I think. I’ll say it again: not an anti-Communist red scare bigot. Not raised that way. Not surrounded by that attitude. Don’t feel that way. Never have. Would be laughed out of my very liberal circle of acquaintances if I did. The concept of China invading and spreading was an observation that came to me after having read news about Tibet, Bhutan, and Taiwan all around the same time, then reading about China’s history on Wikipedia, then following up some other places, and (stupidly) connecting those dots. The reason I saw it that way was because of the context of China making Microsoft change “Bhutanese” to “Tibetan” around the same time, and because the troops first entered on a different premise before raising the “border dispute” issue when their original premise was challenged, and stuff like that. Also, I was already defeated (soundly) in another argument about that subject (I was taking your position at the time, ironically enough), and pretty much had to admit that it did look that way. So here we are.

           There’s a difference between having a position and being confident in one’s position, right?

           Either that, or be prepared to admit or concede that you don’t have good explanations or proofs to defend what you feel but cannot help feeling what you do.

           What? These two remarks are exactly what I said at the beginning that started all this. I said I should be able to feel that way without necessarily having evidence for it, and that didn’t make me a fear-mongerer. Remember? Now you’re agreeing? LOL, I don’t even care anymore.

           Unfortunately for me, you probably don’t think my position is either reasonable or rational.

           Are you kidding? I already conceded! Yes, your position is the rational one. You freaking win already. How many times do I need to say that? Now I’m just trying to reconcile the emotions and ethics of how and why I took my position the way I did and what it says about me, and what I should do now.

           There’s not much I can do about that. It is up to you to personally determine if you think I am unreasonable or irrational because of what I say or because what I say isn’t what you want to hear or believe.

           What I want is irrelevant. What I want is to agree with the people around me. But I never seem to, and they disagree with each other on some things too, so I gave up hope a long time ago and decided to just try and be right, even if that made me a pariah (it did). I can see now that I can’t even be right, because it requires more time than I have and more insight than I have (yes, it really does, and no, I’m not exaggerating. I can see clearly now how my mind distorts socio-political things and finds spurious connections, just like my mom does, whether you think I’m overreacting or not).

           What you’re supposed to do is not be afraid of being wrong. There’s no shame in being wrong, there’s only shame in refusing to correct or improve yourself when you are.

           Don’t underestimate the power of words like “fear-mongerer” and “troll”. “Fear-mongerer” is what Bush was, what Hitler was. It’s the absolute worst thing there is on this Earth. Yes, there is shame in that. Quite a lot, in fact. Still ashamed, still trying to work out exactly what I should do to correct that and not be that anymore.

           I feel like I’m giving a pep talk.

           Don’t worry, you aren’t.
         • Xezlec

           Tuesday, March 24, 2009 at 3:52 am

           OK, analyzing the flow of feelings and thoughts through this thread more carefully, I think this is one of the things that was tripping me up:

           Your opinion was:

           Guys, the “let’s go to war!” comments by the Chinese aren’t really representative of the Chinese as a whole, just like the war-mongering rednecks in America screaming “Let’s nuke Afghanistan and make Lake America in the Middle East!” aren’t representative of Americans.

           My opinion was:

           I’m not sure Kai has quite the most reasonable take, actually.

           (plus some idiotic nonsense in a now-embarrassing attempt to “back that up”)

           Neither of us proved our claim. You said:

           I don’t have to. I just need to point out that you haven’t supported what you’ve claimed. Since you’re the person making the first claim, the burden is upon you.

           And

           Why should I disprove what you haven’t proven?

           And I said:

           I sure hope you’re right about China not having the capability, but as far as I know, your claim is no more supported than mine is.

           And

           If you think Chinese opinions are actually inconsistent on this issue, I’d appreciate it if you’d either:
           1. show evidence of that, or
           2. admit that my opinion isn’t unreasonable (even if you disagree with it), since you can find any evidence to oppose it any more than I can to support it.

           So, at that point, it looked symmetrical to me. We each had a claim and we each had claimed we didn’t need to prove ours and the other person had to prove theirs. But the burden of proof was on me. What I didn’t understand was why the burden of proof was on me and not you. All I can figure is that it’s because my claim was “inflammatory”.
         • Kai

           Tuesday, March 24, 2009 at 9:19 am

           The concept of China invading and spreading was an observation that came to me after having read news about Tibet, Bhutan, and Taiwan all around the same time, then reading about China’s history on Wikipedia, then following up some other places, and (stupidly) connecting those dots.

           …is the same as what I said…

           …if you were predisposed to looking for any example that showed Chinese “invading” or “spreading.”

           You may not realize it, but your American education predisposes you to interpret information you see in a specific way, just as the Chinese are predisposed to interpret the information they see in another way. To speak broadly, there’s always an “us” vs. “them” that underlies a lot of things and, in general, American perceptions of China have long been clouded by Cold War rhetoric. You don’t have to be an anti-Communist red scare bigot, and I’m no longer even accusing you of it, for this to be true. It’s just the nature of socialization.

           You’re trying to say you arrived at your conclusions completely independently. I’m trying to explain to you that you didn’t, and that your social context invariably influenced how you think and perceive things such as this. It doesn’t matter if your circle of friends profess to be liberals or conservatives. Both sides have people who don’t understand China and don’t care to. Your socialization is much larger than arbitrary “political leaning.”

           I was already defeated (soundly) in another argument about that subject (I was taking your position at the time, ironically enough), and pretty much had to admit that it did look that way.

           That’s interesting. I’d be interested in hearing what that other person said.

           What? These two remarks are exactly what I said at the beginning that started all this. I said I should be able to feel that way without necessarily having evidence for it, and that didn’t make me a fear-mongerer. Remember? Now you’re agreeing?

           Nope, not agreeing and what we’re saying is different. You can feel without having evidence, but the moment you express your feelings, you’re opening your feelings up to the judgement of others. If they opt to challenge you and you fail to back up your feelings, you may be labeled by them. Whether they label you or not is not something you can control. You being labeled a fear-mongerer is their interpretation of your act of expressing what feelings you did.

           Hence, I accued you of fear-mongering based on the feelings I saw you express. You were a fear-mongerer, in my eyes, just as you felt China’s leaders’ had a burning desire to spread their political system, in your eyes. I explained my accusation of you with reference to what you said, and you explained your accusation of China’s leaders with reference to Bhutan, Tibet, and Taiwan. Claims and premises.

           What I want is to agree with the people around me. But I never seem to, and they disagree with each other on some things too, so I gave up hope a long time ago and decided to just try and be right, even if that made me a pariah (it did).

           Harmonious guy, aren’t you? Personally, I like disagreement. It makes people think.

           I can see clearly now how my mind distorts socio-political things and finds spurious connections

           Good, doubting yourself is a solid step towards self-awareness, opening one’s mind to more information, and improving one’s rationality. Just don’t lose confidence in yourself. You have to use doubt to better yourself, not let doubt control you.

           So, at that point, it looked symmetrical to me. We each had a claim and we each had claimed we didn’t need to prove ours and the other person had to prove theirs. But the burden of proof was on me. What I didn’t understand was why the burden of proof was on me and not you. All I can figure is that it’s because my claim was “inflammatory”.

           LoL, you’re looking for a win on technicality but I’ll entertain it. First, “inflammatory” is one way to put it. The more accurate way is tht you said something that elicited a disagreement, whereas what I said did not.

           The claim you said I made but didn’t back up was equating fenqing Chinese with war-mongering American red-necks. You’re right, I didn’t offer any evidence that 1. American red-necks exist, 2. American red-necks are war-mongering, and 3. Chinese fenqing are similar to those American red-necks. I guess I didn’t have to because no one genuinely disagreed with that statement of mine.

           However, I was one person who disagreed with the statements you made, hence burdening you with backing up your statements. You obliged and we had our debate.

           I want to share an interesting article I read this morning on the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-tucker/surprise-global-financial_b_177894.html

           Take a read. It isn’t directly related to anything we were or are talking about, but I found it interesting in general. BTW, if we’re all good and dandy with understanding each other now. It’d be cool if we stopped responding to this thread. It takes me forever to find the “Reply” link. ;)
         • Xezlec

           Tuesday, March 24, 2009 at 10:48 am

           Harmonious guy, aren’t you?

           Oh, ha ha. Boy, once you’ve got someone by the balls, you really don’t quit.

           The more accurate way is tht you said something that elicited a disagreement, whereas what I said did not.

           Huh? What do you mean you didn’t elicit any disagreement? What I said was a disagreement. I was specifically disagreeing with you. But you didn’t have to prove your point, instead I had to prove that my point (which was that you were wrong) was right. And I couldn’t. But when your point became that I was wrong, then you didn’t have to prove that, I still had to prove that I was right.

           The claim you said I made but didn’t back up was equating fenqing Chinese with war-mongering American red-necks.

           No, the claim I thought you made but didn’t back up (and the thing I was talking about in my very first sentence of my very first post, hardly a technicality) was that those comments were not representative of the opinions of the Chinese population as a whole.

           I thought it wasn’t obvious that they weren’t. I couldn’t prove it though.
9. ST

   Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 1:45 am

   “The US Navy definitely came too close for comfort,” They did not break international law so 1 inch or 100 miles… it is the same.

   What can China do? Lodge a protest with the UN (though what would they protest as no law was broken?), send their own vessels to monitor the area of the U.S. coast, maybe send a naval fleet (China does have naval ships that travel internationally… the “rusty, old Russian ships” comment is not accurate) into the Gulf of Mexico just to prove a point.

   Reply
10. VeerLeft

    Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 1:46 am

    I laugh when I hear these ordinary citizens of PRC talk of fighting. I have felt their wrath in large numbers… it was pathetic. The real warriors in this country are usually much more balanced with their opinions… these are net-nerds with way too much angst to see anything clear anyway. So, hate away… your country needs a scapegoat.

    Reply
11. John

    Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 1:50 am

    If anyone is interested, here is the UN charter that China keeps mentioning; the first link pretaining to “Economic Zones”, and the second is Full text of the whole treaty.

    http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part5.htm

    http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm

    Reply
    • Celkian

      Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 6:35 am

      Just scanning through that i didn’t see any reference to military matters. It seemed economic, ecological, ect. If anyone sees anything different tell me. Here is a webpage with a small graphic of the incident (it also has some info on Thailand for the article that follows it.
      http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13279348

      Reply
12. Janman

    Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 2:14 am

    Remember Opium War I, remember Opium War II. Always remember that Might is Right. It’s time to take offensive stand on the West’s hypocrisy.

    Reply
    • matt

      Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 2:22 am

      go ahead. just remember who supplied your resistance when the japanese were raping your women and killing your men.

      Reply
    • ST

      Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 2:33 am

      If Might is Right then the Opium Wars were the right thing to do and the Rape of Nanking was “right” as well. Obviously they were NOT right so your argument is invalid.

      Taking a stand against the West’s hypocrisy is absolutely needed. Maybe even a firm, rough, aggressive stand is needed (in spite of how unfortunate such a thing would be) but might most certainly does not make right. That is the sort of thinking that leads to atrocities and the worst sort of crimes.

      Reply
      • Coppice

        Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 4:39 am

        “Taking a stand against the West’s hypocrisy is absolutely needed. Maybe even a firm, rough, aggressive stand is needed (in spite of how unfortunate such a thing would be)”
        Wait, are you suggesting some form of military engagement? ‘The west’ needs to be punished for ‘hypocrisy’? What?

        This is quite an interesting article looking at ‘who is right’( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7941425.stm ) and actually, concerning hypocrisy, it states China has done similarly questionable activities within Vietnam’s and Japan’s EEZ. Interesting is the map at the end. Does China really claim such an absurdly wide area as its territory?

        Reply
        • ST

          Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 5:04 am

          The U.S. has been a rather blatant hypocrite for some time. Surely you see it? The Vietnam war, our support of Sadaam Hussein before we killed him, our various invasions and interventions… it is a pretty long list and I think anyone rationally considering the issue would agree that the United States has committed some egregiously hypocritical things.

          I’m not defending China. China has it’s own set of hypocrisies, bad moves, horrible actions, etc. and I’m not saying that they are even equivalent… What I AM saying is that the U.S. has a bad track record with regards to talking one way and acting another. When you sit on top of the heap as the U.S. does, these hypocrisies are magnified and look even worse.

          I was suggesting that someone needs to stand up to the U.S. That does not need to mean war or violence.

          Reply
          • Coppice

            Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 6:28 am

            Couldn’t America claim this hypocrisy is merely a change in policy, which isn’t exactly condemnable in itself, or uniquely American.

            Or you might simply be saying you disagree with the content of that policy, and surely America has made some less than universally admired decisions in the past, but shouldn’t we take each new move as it comes?

            Don’t get me wrong, I’m not sticking up for a perfect America here, it’s just that to say one ought to ‘stand-up to the US’ as a principle, strikes me as nonsensical. It’s More like a piece of anti-US rhetoric than anything meaningful.

            (Your statement struck me as even more absurd when you said ‘the west’, which, I hope you know, encompasses more nations than just the US)
          • Joe #2

            Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 6:46 am

            > The U.S. has been a rather blatant hypocrite for some time.

            Can you name a country which has NOT been a hypocrite for some time? Allegations of hypocrisy are the easiest to make, because almost everyone is hypocritical on some level. But most of the people making those allegations are also hypocrites, so I think of it as a wash.
          • ST

            Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 6:53 am

            @Joe#2 – Every nation is at some time. I didn’t claim otherwise. It’s just that with the U.S. being the most powerful for so long, we get stared at the hardest. We also probably have more opportunity than others to be hypocritical because of this. That said, given the magnitude of things like the Vietnam War, the current Iraq situation and some others, we are left with the greater blame. Of the larger, more powerful countries no one else has caused such destruction in the last quarter century.
          • ST

            Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 6:58 am

            @coppice. This is a problem with online “debating” People take things out of context or assume too much. Did I say anyone stand up to the U.S. “as a principle”? No. I didn’t. America needs to own up to its mistakes before pointing out other countries problems. It is a recurring problem that America and Americans have.

            By “the West” I was thinking about the issue of the Opium Wars which, as you are aware I am sure, involved most of the major Western powers at the time.
          • Interested Party

            Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 7:29 am

            世界上没有永远的敌人，也没有永远的朋友 (Apologies for any corruption).

            ‘Hypocrisy’ / ‘pragmatic dealings with other countries’ is acknowledged in China & is par for the course globally too. Granted sometimes it feels a bit like children on a playground (Child crying & says “he/ Zimbabwe is not my friend anymore…55″), but this is the way the world works.

            America, as a democracy, will always have massive policy changes; in many cases (or perhaps, always) the opposition will contrast themselves with the government, Obama’s ‘Change’ theme being a prime example. In the nineteenth century America even had a concession in China (天津) and later acquired de facto colonies in other locales, but policy changes meant that these were given back.

            To say that a country should maintain one position or condemn that country for hypocrisy is unfair, or at worst simply ignores how the world is (画饼充饥).
          • ST

            Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 8:27 am

            My problem with the hypocrisy issue is that people tend to take sides and then throw stones at the opponent for negative things that they are willing to excuse or overlook in themselves. This is wrong. It should not be simply that hypocrisy is wrong… it should be that people can look fairly and openly at the hypocrisy of their “side” and ignore it while shouting down the other.

            Look at some of the comments right here on chinaSMACK (one of my favorite China blogs btw). It is all to frequently people making unreasonable attacks on the other position. I think that if you can point the finger at someone else you must first point it at yourself.
          • ST

            Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 8:30 am

            Ack! I wrote that wrong. I didn’t mean “it should be that people can look fairly and openly at the hypocrisy of their “side” and ignore it while shouting down the other.” I meant that people should look honestly at themselves rather than simply shout the other side down.
          • Coppice

            Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 11:51 am

            I haven’t taken anything out of context, I’ve merely commented on the words I’ve read, and “Taking a stand against the West’s hypocrisy is absolutely needed” sounds exactly like a blind principle because there is no substance to back up, or indeed clarify, that rather peculiar claim.

            From your last two posts it seems you really wanted to express the wish that the US engage in some self-criticism before they proceed to criticise others.

            This ideal itself is ‘wrong’ on so many levels, but concerning the ‘context’ of your words, it has no relation with the above quotation. How does this wish translate into ‘standing up to the west’? It doesn’t.

            If you don’t want to be ‘misunderstood’, perhaps you should look to your own faults rather than instantly assume it is I that have made wrong assumptions or taken your words out of context. In fact, by your own definition (“people making unreasonable attacks on the other position”), aren’t you being hypocritical???

            *sigh*
          • Kai

            Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 11:56 am

            Cool comments ST. I agree with a lot of it.
    • Mike Fish

      Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 8:39 pm

      America and the West are evil. Ignorant fools with so much information at the click of a few keys and mouse yet you can’t learn any history? Japan wasn’t “the West” and the US, “the West” volunteered to help China via the Flying Tigers and major material support for the Kuomingdang, which was representative of much China and Chinese people at the time. Many if not most Chinese people neither recognize the US contribution to the anti-Japanese war nor give the US the credit it deserves for freeing China by defeating Japan. Only a few provinces in the south and southwest, such as Gunagxi and Yunnan, really ever recognize the HUGE American contribution that was made and the American lives and resources that went towards saving China. Granted, Chinese citizens have helped in Western war efforts as soldiers and that certainly was appreciated, but here, right now, hundreds of millions of Chinese neglect that part of history.

      Also, no matter which side one might be inclined to support, American military might, training, resources, and attitude also helped save the Imperials during the Qing Dynasty. I only mention that cause so many people on here so whole heartedly wanted those Qing Dynasty bronze heads back that I assumed they all recognized the Imperial government as the official legitimate “China”.

      I ramble…

      Reply
13. ST

    Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 2:15 am

    From a quick glance at those links it looks like the issue is sort of unclear. Any countries ships are allowed to operate in the area of China’s maritime economic zone but the bit about “…and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State…” confuses things.

    Sounds like the best thing would be to either clarify the issue of espionage in that zone or China should start conducting their own espionage surveys around the U.S. Certainly if we can go to their back yard and spy they can come to ours, yes?

    Reply
14. alex

    Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 5:33 am

    Imagine all the people
    Living for today…
    Imagine there’s no countries
    It isn’t hard to do
    Nothing to kill or die for
    And no religion too
    Imagine all the people
    Living life in peace…

    Reply
15. krdr

    Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 5:36 am

    It is funny how spying China is OK, but spying US ship that spies China (or making fun) is harassment. Chinese even show their butts! As danwei.org noted: One my question himself of what this sailors are made.

    BTW, this ship has 50 men staff, 25 of them are military one. Maybe ship are unarmed, but staff are.

    Reply
16. Lucas

    Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 10:09 am

    The incident should not be a big deal between US and China and is hardly new. Both sides seemed to have already played it down. To me the only amusing part was the use of “harassment” by the DOD. Come on, the idea of a small boat harassing a big ship like the Impeccable is like a kid lifting the skirt of an adult woman.
    With regard to the legal issue, I talked to a friend who studied the law of the sea at both Chinese and US law schools. He told me it is simply a tricky issue from the perspective of international law. It is said that the area where the accident happened is part of China’s exclusive economic zone. Actually this is not undisputed since several neighbouring countries claim the same with regard to that region but let’s just say it belongs to China. Even if it is part of China’s exclusive economic zone, China still only has limited economic rights in it(e.g. fishing) and foreign civilian ships definitely have the freedom to do whatever they want as long as they do not violate China’s limited economic rights. The tricky part is that international law is not well settled about what foreign military ships can do in another country’s exclusive economic zones. The issue was considered when the sea convention was drafted by the UN but eventually they left it out. Different countries can have different views and quite often out of pure conveniency for themselves. US claimed that the Impeccable was a civilian ship but that was really just a cheap argument, probably authored by some guy who also believed that waterboarding was not torture.

    Reply
17. sink shinks

    Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 10:14 am

    First of all there are very many chink ships around Norfolk and other US and american nuclear bases. many of them are spy-ships. should i remind you pieces of shit how many spys were got last 5 years only in USA? and that only whose action vere discovered officialy. most of chinese spyships are covered illigaly and against international laws. noone is going to hunt them like monkey pirats from Disney films.

    Until now i see only that US did nothing wrong 75 miles away from chinese borders. neither has China right to atack forign ships in that area.
    aside that all of you forget that only days later chinese declarated claims about Vietnamese and Phillipines territories. where is your fucking shame you piece of yellow shit?

    Reply
    • Creepy

      Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 10:55 am

      First, can you imagine how two fishing boats “attack” a giant ship like “impeccable”? Acctually it was impeccable which used firehose first to “attack” the fishing boats. Second, the area is called “south china sea” for a reason. China owns that sea long before you western colonizers occupied southeast Asia, and even longer before you western countries established the pro-western-interest international law system. But don’t you worry, the world will play under China’s rule again in the near future.

      Reply
      • Mike Fish

        Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 5:48 pm

        Creepy,

        Please explain, Who calls it the South China Sea? In Chinese it’s not even called the South China Sea it’s just called the South Sea. Many other countries call it something else and Chinese were certainly not the first people to navigate or explore it. What are these Chinese rules you allude to and when did the world ever previously play by them? Many of us here would be surprised to learn China plays by any rules(no offense to Kai and his volumous legal knowledge). What would be your enlightened alternative to the modern pro-West centered system of international law?

        I’d be surprised if you could answer even one of these questions!

        Reply
        • creepy

          Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 8:35 pm

          the first question
          en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_China_Sea
          check it out by yourself pls

          and for the second question, let me educate you about what is china’s rule. if you happens to know anything about confucianism, you should know that chinese people believe rule of humanity rather than rule of laws, i.e. by setting up models for other countries to catch up instead of setting up laws to enforce. just see how deep and wide are asian coutries influenced by chinese culture and you will understand. and this tradition was broken by western warships and guns. just look at WWI and WWII, look at how you western savages bite each other and bite innocent people for your ridiculous ambitions of world supremacy. if you count major wars in the past decade, you will see usa is still doing that shit today. i am not belittling usa. its pursuit for freedom and equality is great, which sets up models for other countries to catch up. but when usa imposes these values (and, especially upkeeps its supremacy by harming other people’s interest) by setting up rules and enforecing it with brutal force, justice becomes tyrant. why do you think we should play by your rule when the rule itself is a tyrant one?
          when it comes to the chinese rule, you should understand what china pursues now and always is 和而不同, which means keeping peace while respect the difference. we know that there are disputes on the south china sea issue, and we would like to settle it in a peaceful way. but hell, what’s americans doing here? could you just open your eyes to see the fact that the south china sea is an ocean away from usa?

          Reply
          • Mike Fish

            Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 8:44 pm

            If the US should leave the South China Sea, then China should stay out of the tens of thousands of square kilometers of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, Caribbean Sea, Bering Strait, Gulf of Mexico that are clearly US EEZ… both are ridiculous requests.
          • creepy

            Sunday, March 22, 2009 at 5:55 pm

            your reply just reveals your american hypocrisy…you just blamed china for claiming surrounding territories , but your reply seems to imply that americans could claim all these land and seas you named?
          • matt

            Monday, March 23, 2009 at 10:14 am

            china is attempting to expand its eez and claim what is not theirs… the US is not.
          • Mike Fish

            Thursday, March 26, 2009 at 12:44 pm

            Creepy… please, using quotes, outline my hypocrisy.

            I didn’t blame China I suggested your logic of using the Western name while attacking the “Western colonizers” was weak and hypocritical since in China it’s not even called the South China Sea and China has NEVER owned it.

            We are talking here about the South China Sea which has numerous conflicting claims, that are considered unsettled by every nation involved, China included. Though there are certainly EEZ disputes involving the United States, the vast majority of those thousands and thousands of square kilometers of US EEZ are undisputed, it is irrelevent to my point. My point, if you reread, is that it is ridiculous to threaten to kick the US out of China’s disputed EEZ when Chinese vessels, by the hundreds and thousands, are in US EEZ (disputed and non) everyday. And threatening vessels like that would be damaging and counter-productive for both sides, but mainly China since it has a greater stake in exploiting US EEZs than the US has in exploiting Chinas EEZ.

            Also, finally, how did you figure out I’m an American? Because I talked about its EEZ?
          • Tuấn Nguyễn

            Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at 11:04 pm

            We Vietnamese call the sea Biển Đông wich means The East Sea. I’m sure people in Singapore, Phillipines, Indonesia call it something else. South China Sea is a name that is correct to Chinese but has been wrongly spread out just because the Western thinks about China more than other countries nearby. For the same reason most Westerners usually look at people from Cambodia, Korea, Vietnam,… and think that they are Chinese. It’s a big mistake if you adopt that as the meaning of ownership.

            And let me say this thing about China’s rules. When you say the Western rules are imposed by wars, the may I remind you that the Kungfucism was “exported” to us by invasion – which is, IMHO, much worse than war. I’m not criticizing Kungfucism itself, just to make the situation clear and fair to Mike. And when you say about the victims of the Western supremacy addiction, may I remind you that the Kungfucism led to many many wars in which Chinese people killed themselves to get the power.

            I know China’s been talking about solving the dispute in peace but I don’t see the way they’re DOING supports that. The Chinese navy attack many Vietnamese fishing boats, snatch their equipment and fish, then run away. The navy also capture fishermen, prison them and ask for money – this is no more than what the pirates in Africa is doing. A dozen of our fishermen has been being kept for several months now.

            This is what you say to Mike: “Could you just open your eyes to see the fact that the south china sea is an ocean away from usa?”. May I ask you a similar question: Why the hell did China attack us in 1979, as your Deng said, to teach us a lesson (sic), just because we defended ourselves from the Khmer Rouge who attacked us?

            No, China talks in peace with those whom it cannot bully, but bullies the other in one or the other ways.
          • Fike2308

            Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at 11:37 pm

            Tuấn Nguyễn’s post is amazing! Well done!
    • ST

      Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 11:07 am

      People like you are the source of many of the world’s problems. Seriously, without your sort this world would be a much better place for everyone. You should be ashamed of yourself for talking like that.

      Reply
    • Lucas

      Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 11:35 am

      Well, you can have whatever view you want, no matter how unfounded and unreasonable your view is. And the good news is, nobody cares.

      Reply
18. so...

    Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 10:54 am

    Well, the American navy are encouraging some trouble by veering to near the Chinese coastline and the Chinese over-react. Basically, two kids fighting in a sand pit.

    Reply
19. ST

    Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 11:53 am

    By the way, I will be in Shanghai and Hangzhou from mid-May through mid-July if any Smackers want to meet up for anything (beer, wine, tea, food, etc.) We could sit around and try to figure out who fauna really is ;)

    Reply
    • Kai

      Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 12:01 pm

      LoL, a chinaSMACK get-together? How cute. I’m in Shanghai and I’m down for it.

      Reply
      • ST

        Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 12:10 pm

        Cool. I fly in to Pu Dong in mid-May and will be busy right away but sometime in later May or even June I would be up for doing something. I don’t know Shanghai too well so it would have to be put together by one of you local folks or we could do something in Hangzhou if there are people there (I’m actually living in an apartment in Hangzhou while traveling occasionally to Shanghai (and Beijing in early June) I’ll mention this again closer to “the time” but I think it might be kind of cool! Se how weird we all look. LOL.

        Are there many other in the Shanghai area?

        Reply
    • Interested Party

      Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 12:14 pm

      Sounds good, but unfortunately won’t be around.

      Reply
20. fireworks

    Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 12:10 pm

    The United States is like a nosy parker checking out over the neighbor’s fence. The United States likes to show off its military might everywhere and stick its nose in China’s exclusive economic zone.

    The US will be crying like a baby if a Chinese “civilian” surveillance ship was sniffing out their defense installations in Hawaii or along the coast of California.

    The world is changing, the US is threatened by China’s rise and they are doing all their spying they can before its too late. Once China has a blue water navy, the US is going to hide in their little batman cave called Guam.

    Reply
    • Mike Fish

      Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 5:07 pm

      The Russians are always just off-shore watching what we do, even now. It’s normal in Florida, during rocket and shuttle launches, right off of Cape Canaveral and the Kennedy Space Center for there to be Russian “weather ships”, “research vessels”, and “fishing boats”. The US military knows Russia and knows how to deal with it. It doesn’t know right now how to deal with quickly changing China.

      Reply
21. Capt.Absurdity

    Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 12:49 pm

    Once again… same shit different day…

    The world still sucks.

    You all still sucks.

    Life sucks.

    Reply
    • Capt.Absurdity

      Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 12:53 pm

      No shit!

      One World One Dream!

      Towards a nuclear grand finale!

      Reply
      • Capt.Absurdity

        Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 2:13 pm

        well, 99.9% of you don’t suck that bad.

        Life is just life, like I said, same shit different day.

        Reply
22. Interested Party

    Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 12:58 pm

    This might be slightly off tack & potentially rather sensitive, but I’ve always been confused as to why China claimed/ annexed what it did in 1949 and thereafter. Specifically why just Xinjiang, Tibet, Taiwan & the south China sea, when they also had claims to Mongolia, other areas of SE Asia & possibly even Korea.

    I guess there was an agreement reached with the USSR for Mongolia (perhaps trading for Machuria/ DongBei?), the French were still (just about) in Indo-China, & Korea was occupied by both American & USSR troops after WW2 (meeting on the 38th parallel) so it would have been difficult to dislodge them. Had the British not left India in 1947 or had actually been in Tibet (just a little mission there), would the Tibet issue have turned out differently?

    Obviously China over the years has lots of dealings with various areas, I’ve assumed that they were all about the same, thus it was the specific conditions in about 1949 that resulted in what new China could realistically claim (& have tenaciously done so). I guess that most people in China would argue that some relationships were of a different nature specifically Tibet was/is an indivisible part of China because of the historical ties etc.

    Any thoughts? (Fauna is this ok? 敏感/跑题?)

    In an effort to put my chunterings back on topic: Vietnam, historically (pre c.950CE) was part of China & am fairly sure that prior to the French turning up there was some sort of Chinese suzerainty there. Although Vietnam’s relationship with the USSR & the invasion of Cambodia were the big reasons for the Sino-Vietnamese war (1979), I wonder if it was the Vietnamese occupation of the Spratly Islands (the islands in the middle of the south China sea) that really touched it off. This was one of the official reasons for the war given by the Chinese (who state that the islands have been Chinese for 2000 years).

    The American boat got between these islands & Hainan island which is where the main south China naval base is hence the resentment. Oddly, this key naval installation is opposite the 5 star resorts on Yalong Bay (you’ve got a pretty good view of it from the Holiday Inn). There have been cases of holiday makers being arrested (including a jet skier who got too close & had to be bailed out by his embassy), but on the whole security doesn’t seem that tight.

    Reply
    • Tuấn Nguyễn

      Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at 11:12 pm

      In an effort to put my chunterings back on topic: Vietnam, historically (pre c.950CE) was part of China.

      Vietnam was a part of China in the sense that China WAS a part of Mongolia. You should know what the invasion is!

      Reply
23. Phobe Lexx

    Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 12:58 pm

    I hate the American Gov’t (not too mention governments in general). Just blast the American fools out of the water. I doubt they can afford a war in the Middle East and in Asia at the same time.

    Reply
    • fcuk da lu ren

      Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 4:52 pm

      You are retarded Chimatron, You guys are the biggest pussies in the world. 杀鸡给猴看 Guess what, you are the Chicken and the monkeys hahahaha

      Reply
24. VeerLeft

    Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 1:12 pm

    Guys, at one point most of Asia was Chinese… afterall this was the most powerful empire of the region for a LONG time. This has no bearing on the STATUS of territorial LAW in 2009.

    Reply
    • Samael

      Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 2:30 pm

      at no point was most of asia ‘chinese’. however being the dominant power it had hegemony over the region, just like how the US is a hegemonic power over the western world (or even over the world some might argue)

      Reply
25. Lewceein

    Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 2:29 pm

    I live in Shanghai too, and I’d be down. I never really post here, but I like reading most of the comments. Would definitely have a beer with Kai and ST

    Reply
    • matt

      Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 11:47 am

      i hope that beer is actually piss

      Reply
      • Matt

        Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 8:47 pm

        Sorry I’m a sore looser and potty mouth who can’t have an argument without insulting others and shouting.

        Reply
        • matt

          Monday, March 23, 2009 at 10:15 am

          no, i am not chinese MATT.

          Reply
26. 555

    Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 3:02 pm

    ChinaGeeks:
    “Yeah, those comments are sort of terrifying.”

    A few comments and you’re terrified are you for real? I hope you never visit 4chan or god forbid look through the youtube comment section… :(

    Reply
    • ChinaGeeks

      Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 5:55 pm

      I mean the attitude is terrifying, although I was obviously being a bit hyperbolic. I’ll admit I do sometimes find Youtube comments literally terrifying though.

      Reply
27. VeerLeft

    Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 4:19 pm

    Bingo…the net persona that 90% of people take on is not really their own in the flesh.

    Reply
28. fcuk da lu ren

    Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 4:45 pm

    Enter the FCUK:

    First of all, Chinese set up spy networks in the various countries, they don’t bother floating in boats in international waters (see the Australian Chinese embassy worker who defected and broadcast that Australia alone has a network of over 1000 spies). This can also be demonstrated in the organization of Chinese “students” accross European and American cities by the GOVERNMENT.

    Second, to all the war mongering Chinese. Let’s not quible about the Korean War, (read Ha Jin’s War Trash 900K in casualties etc..) Let’s look at the differences in the econonmic and political situations of North and South Korea is and ask who the real winner is. Take it a step step back and realize that despite just coming off a five year civil war and being battle hardened you could not push past a contingent of 60K + UN (not just American) forces past the 38th parallel. Now imagine what would happen to you today.

    Its funny to me how China is always rattling on about protecting her “sovereignty” which continues to daily expand. They cry about the iniquities that the “barbarians” have created against them whilst blocking the sales of local juice companies to Coke for “protection” and limiting foreigners to one house etc…

    Meanwhile, you poison your own people, make up history as you go along (non mention of a certain western region) and support people who make money out the back end of your sweat.

    China is a country full of liars and derranged people with an inferiority complex. The truth of the matter is, maybe its time to play with them with their rules. I suggest we:

    1. Instigate a tip for tap law with Chinese concerning all Chinese abroad:
    a. Make them register and check on them periodically
    b. Limit them to one home
    c. Do not let them have jobs in sectors that are govt related or any sensative areas they cant understand (we can make those up as we go along) This includes their children even if they are born in our country
    d. Make them pay more for anything that they buy than we do

    2. RE Arm Japan: This will be a great deterrant to the Chimatron arrogance. They may act like they have balls but we all know if japan throws a faint, the Chimates will be running accross the river in Nanjing like girls opening the flood dykes killing the masses to protect their sorry asses

    3. Park the Hawaiian fleet back in the southern philippines and do some runs through the straight.

    4. Build a large scale air and “defense” base in Afganistan near a certain unamed country’s border.

    Let’s see how they react to that one

    Reply
    • Fike2308

      Thursday, August 27, 2009 at 7:12 am

      “Let’s look at the differences in the econonmic and political situations of North and South Korea is and ask who the real winner is.”

      SO TRUE!

      Reply
29. fcuk da lu ren

    Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 4:53 pm

    And another thing, if the US ever does go to war with China. I will fucking definitely sign up!!!! bye bye chimagtrons!!!

    Reply
    • Fike2308

      Thursday, August 27, 2009 at 7:13 am

      I hope America and China don’t go to war….both have more to gain through cooperation.

      Reply
30. fcuk da lu ren

    Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 4:54 pm

    And one more thing haha,

    If the basketball games in the Olympics are any indication how china does in physical agressive team play. I suggest you bitches stay home ;)

    Reply
    • matt

      Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 1:28 am

      haha,

      fcuk… right on!

      Reply
    • Mike Fish

      Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 11:50 pm

      It’s always funny when people who have nothing and can do nothing start getting behind their “teams” as if those teams give a flip. I’m sure NBA dudes find far more in common with most Chinese basketball players than they would with some of the antagonistic simpletons on this board.

      In case you didn’t catch that… FDLR… I mean you.

      Reply
31. Mike Fish

    Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 5:16 pm

    Which would be a bigger deal and for which side… if US boats could no longer operate in China’s EEZ or if Chinese boats could no longer operate in the US’s EEZ?

    Let’s see, China’s coastal fishing stocks are so depleted as to be utterly useless, where as the US EEZ includes how many tens of thousands of square kilometers of excellent to pristine water along the N. American coast or in Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, the Marianas, etc. Chinese commentators who want to start some tit-for-tat exclusion game should really think again. However, I’m ALL for Chinese fishing boats not being allowed anywhere near US EEZs. They, along with the Taiwanese and Japanese fishing fleets have raped the oceans.

    Reply
32. California Guy

    Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 9:33 pm

    Wow, what a heated conversation this has become. I guess it’s kind of a microcosm of how our governments are feeling about this situation. Actually, I like the China Smack community because there always seems to be a good balance of reason. So here’s my perspective.

    Even though fcuk da lu ren is a little extreme, ha ha, it makes me laugh. It’s good to see someone represent for the USA once in awhile. You see, it’s fashionable to denounce the US even by our own citizens. We are constantly talking down about our colonialism and various policing of the world because we feel guilty to be the most powerful nation in the world.

    I wonder what would happen if we didn’t… Let’s see. Well, The French would be speaking German, right? Haha, and the Chinese, um… Konichiwa? Haha, alright I’m just being an ass but think about it. There is a philosophy that America follows, a Christian philosophy (although I’m sure common in other cultures): To whom much is given, much is required. As opposed to China where it’s better to climb over an old person who fell on the bus or watch your wife drown in a car, Americans feel a call to do something. We are heroes. It’s in our blood. That is why we always feel the need to respond, to stand up for the weak, etc. We actually have laws that if you witness a person being assaulted and do not help them, you can be criminally charged.

    Another interesting thing is that China has been talking about “China’s Rise” a lot lately. What is their plan? Pretty clear. They want to become economically the strongest, then reinvest in their military to stand up against the west. They are already trying to initiate Asian alliances that circumvent the West. There’s not much of a point to it really. They would fare much better as friends. You see, we got more nukes. We will always have more nukes. Good debt, bad debt, no debt, America knows the rules. Military superiority. We could have nuked Vietnam and North Korea. We only lose sometimes because we are trying to be nice, trying to use reasonable force, avoiding “civilian casualties”. God, even war is politically correct.

    While I’m used to seeing anti-American comments in the media all the time, the original posts from the story were a bit surprising. “I’ll sign up for the WAR!!!! Here’s my cellphone number!!!” Haha, would love to call that cell. “Hey there, um, this is your local Chinese official calling. We saw your enlistment request on Chinasmack… Thanks! Boy, have we got a job for you! Here’s a rifle. Get on that fishing boat and Go get em’!” Hahaha.

    As much as the world opines American imperialsm and policing, What if we weren’t so democratic and politically correct? What if we decided to be “America rising”? Maybe America should become the next dictatoship. You know, like Stalin. We don’t have to be nice guys. Nice guys finish last anyway. Do you think the bad debt that China bought would really make a difference? Do you think Iraq and the other backwoods Middle Eastern countries would matter if we really took the gloves off?
    Of course we’d put those places on hold and devote 100% to the next WORLD WAR.

    What if America really decided, “You know, being the hero sucks. Being the police of the world sucks, no body appreciates it anyway? Fuck it, let’s go to war!” Do you think that Mr. cellphone guy from the post above would teach America a lesson? My guess is no. Do you think America could bitch slap anyone who stands up to her if we decided “fuck it, fuck our whining left wing democrats and feminists, no more nice America”? Wait, let me ask that question to Obama… Ok, got his answer, “Yes We Can”. :)

    Reply
    • koma

      Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 9:55 pm

      SO, you think USA is ALWAYS a good guy?

      Nah, you are able to send torpedo’s on your on passenger ship. Or send some false “intelligence” information about plans to attack Japanese Imperial troupes somewhere on Pacific.

      Talking about USA being a hero, sending bombs on Serbia was very heroic. Especially, ’cause that action was financed by heroin money.

      If you think that world would be worse place if USA didn’t got involved in WWII, you are absolutely wrong. Actually, real question is how USA didn’t ally with Germany, regarding number of fans Germany had in USA at that time.

      Maybe, number of saved Nazi war criminals is heroic act? Did you know that CIA saved more than 2000 war criminals from former Yugoslavia.

      And, um, Chile? Cup-de-etat against guy elected on democratic election?
      There is a philosophy that America follows, a Christian philosophy (although I’m sure common in other cultures): To whom much is given, much is required

      Ha! Mujahedin’s were financed by USA. Bosnian Muslims were financed by USA. Albanians were financed by USA. Now, there’s never ending war in Afghanistan, non functional state in Bosnia that serves as boot camp for Muslim terrorists (9/11 anyone) and mafia state and drug hub on Kosovo.

      In Georgia, you financed lunatic.

      Next time, get a Burger King instead writing such stupidities.

      Luckily, we have enough nuclear warheads to keep you from distance.

      Reply
    • Capt.Absurdity

      Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 11:19 pm

      Christian values huh?

      How can you blatantly generalize about “running over old people on bus” in China due to lack of “Christian values” or just “values.” I had to stop reading there. I’m glad someone is getting all their info from FDLR.

      As for “Christian values” in America… try to be open to all the ugliness; instead of steadily forward with tunnel vision, stop, and think once in awhile, reflect.

      Of course, conversely I shall do the same. There are a lot of good about America, no one can deny that.

      Reply
    • Capt.Absurdity

      Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 11:26 pm

      U.S has an invisible empire that stretches around the globe, all in the service on the military industrial complex and the corps. See Confessions of an Ecnomic Hitman, for example.

      I find your description of this “American Rising” intriguing… is it similar to China’s so called “Peaceful Rise?” As opposed to a none peaceful rise? Do you really think China is bend on taking over the world? Oh that’s right,the earth is only 6000 years old… hmmm.

      You are more absurd than Cpt. Absurdity.

      Reply
      • Capt.Absurdity

        Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 11:31 pm

        Now I’m not claiming that China all that either. But the whole America — shinning example of .. hmm shinning, the NWO — of pure good versus evil is a dellusion.

        It’s Reality^tm and real politks at play. And the U.S will and has milked all antagonizing angles to further the real politks. It’s real politks, not left/right agenda b.s.; that’s just preaching to the sheeples.

        Reply
    • Kai

      Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 12:50 am

      Wow. That’s twisted.

      Yes, FDLR is actually quite funny so long as you always remember not to take him seriously. However, here’s the difference between FDLR and you, California Guy:

      FDLR: “Hey, why shouldn’t I screw you over if it benefits me?!”

      You: “Hey, I’m not screwing you over, I’m trying to rescue you! Don’t you know that we Americans are Christian heroes by nature, put on this earth by God to do good and only good?!”

      Reply
      • ST

        Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 12:58 am

        Good point re: California guy’s comment (except I find FDLR more offensive than anything).

        Reply
    • fcuk da lu ren

      Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 10:40 am

      Bro, I am right there with you. I am not in favor of war for the most part. But I think the biggest mistake we have made in all recent wars but including Iraq and Afganistan is that we just don’t go in there and KICK ASS and TAKE OVER. You know what, there wouldn’t be suicide bombers if they knew their entire families would be decimated by the military if they did it. We should take the oil establish bases and invite any person who wants a piece to come and get some.

      Our problem is that America culture is controlled by 40+ year old fat women who were hippies as teenagers and are now mad because no man would ever sleep with them, including their husbands.

      I say we play by the rest of the world’s rules and demonstrate our power through the barrel of a gun if we are going to play this game. I gaurantee you all of these countries that are “oppressed” by the US would beg us to come back if China were the ruling party.

      Count on it.

      Reply
      • ST

        Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 12:15 pm

        Hitler would be proud of you.

        Reply
      • baijiansi

        Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 12:49 pm

        “Our problem is that America culture is controlled by 40+ year old fat women who were hippies as teenagers and are now mad because no man would ever sleep with them, including their husbands.”

        Hahaha good one, you made my day.

        Reply
      • Kai

        Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 1:42 pm

        LoL, FDLR has his moments.

        However, I think it is a little silly believing or suggesting that China would necessarily oppress the world to any quantifiably larger degree than the United States. I certainly think there would be a different ideological imperialism, but it would be a sort of imperialism either way. Ideological imperialism is also oversimplified as a concept anyway.

        The reason I say this is because he’s overlooking that, historically and especially in the modern age, blatant Machiavelian ruthlessness is a strategy usually only employed by the underdogs or weak. Those who have climbed to the top shift towards more open-handed (as opposed to tight-fisted) policies of governance. Why? Because once you’re at the top, you have more to lose and the consent of those you rule over becomes that much more difficult to manage and maintain. You are no longer fearing external competitors but your own internal consituency. The last thing you want to do is face an internal uprising, coup, or revolt. Your policy then become more benign and tolerant as you seek to keep those you rule complacent.

        It is, in many ways, similar to people becoming philanthropists and “generous” after they become rich. There’s a subconscious desire to protect and earn other’s acceptance of their wealth/power/position.

        I believe FDLR is actually smart enough to know him presenting “it’s either the United States or China, and the United States is obviously the lesser of two evils” as a “choice” for the world a misleading one. In fact, it is classic fear-mongering, if not neo-con fear mongering.

        Reply
      • Mike Fish

        Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 11:38 pm

        You’ve obviously never been in the military. Arm chair general’s are funny when theyre not completely pathetic and ignorant.

        Reply
    • Billy Joe

      Saturday, March 21, 2009 at 4:38 pm

      America wanted to make Money in Nam and Iraq/Afghanistan.
      You can’t make money from a nuclear wasteland.

      MR of soldier > MC of Soldier

      Reply
    • Fike2308

      Thursday, August 27, 2009 at 7:15 am

      @ California Guy….Dude, I totally want to buy you a beer right now, that was BEAUTIFUL.

      Reply
33. keep it up

    Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 10:01 pm

    From what is happening here, I think the war has started already….

    Reply
34. ONoBilly

    Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 10:29 pm

    China is a Communist nation run by gangsters.

    They would lose a war with free nations just like Japan and Germany did. Fogeddaboudit!

    Reply
35. ST

    Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 12:29 am

    Wow, this topic degenerated fast. It reminds me of why my online commenting comes and goes. Sometimes I am quite active but after a while the screaming and crying gets to me and I give up. If only there was a way that we could talk like normal people sitting around a café table would. There would be a lot less “fcuk you” and a lot more actual discussion. That would be so much more interesting.

    The web is great but the lack of a context to impose some sort of societal restraint on behavior can suck at times (you know… the restraint that keeps us from threatening or insulting people so easily).

    Reply
36. matt

    Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 1:25 am

    @Kai

    http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2007/11/More-on-China%27s-military-transparency.aspx

    http://www.nr.titech.ac.jp/coe21/eng/events/Ines-2/pdf/3C2/163_Hamada.pdf

    http://www.prio.no/NISAT/Publications/Transparency-in-the-Legal-Small-Arms-Trade/

    Reply
    • Kai

      Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 11:59 am

      matt, as I said above, you’re responding to something that only exists in your head. Maybe I shouldn’t have written so little before, in case that’s the reason you’re actually trying to argue with me about this issue.

      I’m going to use your own linked “evidence” to refocus you on the point I was making in response to your comment about spying as non-proliferation:

      The day may even come when China tries to turn the tables with high-sounding demands for more military transparency by the US, much as it has done with annual human rights reports. The fact that the US armed forces are already too transparent for their own good is beside the point. Like every self-respecting military since the fall of Troy, they still have plenty to hide.

      The United States military, like China’s, does not actually want to be transparent to others. However, it has done so to a limited degree for diplomatic reasons. Why? Because 1) The United States KNOWS it is largely unrivaled. 2) With that security comes the opportunity to use transparency as deterrence.

      I’m not an armchair general or anything, but even a cursory interest in geo-political education and strategy should’ve made this obvious to you.

      Next, (and this should be #3 above) the United States demands other nation’s transparency (such as China’s) for its self-interest (which is completely logical). To be blunt, the United States is blackmailing China to do so. The rise of China has been positioned as a potential destabalizing threat to the rest of the world, this much you should be familiar with. The United States calls for and demands transparency to force China to “prove” that China is indeed planning to be peaceful.

      There are some questions here:

      1. Why is China accountable to the United States in the first place?

      2. When did the United States become the world’s military nanny and police officer, so that every country must reveal and be transparent about its military capabilities to the United States?

      The fact is that the United States enjoys a position of dominance that allows it to “make the rules” (so to speak) that everyone else has to begrudgingly play by. It does so because its position of dominance involves both military might, diplomatic influence, and economic strength. We live in an economically interconnected world and the United States has immense power to influence how others play in it.

      The United States naturally wants information on China’s capabilities since China is fast becoming a competitor to itself. It wants this information so it can maintain its position of dominance (again, entirely logical). There are various ways of getting that information. Spying is one, making “high sounding demands for more military transparency” is another. The United States uses both tools (and others).

      To be exact, spying itself can be interpreted as a tool for non-proliferation AND as a tool of proliferation. It just depends on what aspect you’re referring to. It is easy to frame it in either moral context. Spying may not in of itself lead to military proliferation, but military proliferation could be a by-product of spying. Nations build up their militaries for a variety of reasons, few of which are with the intent to go invade other countries for fun. Spying is a means to ensure that one’s proliferation or non-proliferation is in accordance with the proliferation or non-proliferation of others. If others do not build up, one doesn’t need to. If others do, one needs to in order to maintain at least the status quo. Then there’s a whole subcategory of proliferation in spying technologies and tactics itself. Consider the amount of military investment the United States has put into spy technology. That is proliferation itself.

      No matter what, my central point was that spying is never perceived as benign or harmless. By its very nature it infringes upon the interests of the party being spied upon. That party is bothered, annoyed, indignant, upset, and if they’re China, they’re could threaten to offload American debt and “FUCK YOU UP.”

      So please, don’t patronize me about what I know regarding issues of geo-politics and military non-proliferation. I very emphatically was astonished that anyone here is trying to suggest that the Chinese should accept or tolerate American spying, especially since “oh, its for non-proliferation and peace!”

      That is FAR from the first thing on the minds of the Chinese, or on the minds of Americans when they encounter news of Chinese spying on them. More importantly, that spin is fundamentally dubious.

      BTW, your link to the Transparency In The Legal Small Arms Trade is completely irrelevant to this post topic and about the issue I was disagreeing with you on. I’m going to go have lunch now but if you want to have a conversation about your third link, just ask and I’ll oblige you later.

      Reply
      • ST

        Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 12:20 pm

        Don’t waste your breath on this guy.

        “even a cursory interest in geo-political education and strategy” I doubt he has any interest in things like this at all. Too much thinking and not enough reacting for his taste. People like this guy should just be ignored. He’s probably some overweight, pasty dude hiding out in his parent’s basement angry at the world for his own shortcomings.

        Reply
      • matt

        Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 1:03 pm

        Kai,

        The object of SPYING is not to get caught. This ship was CLEARLY not performing a super secretive mission, and is an easy target for the Chinese government. You are obviously not getting this important piece of information through your head. This is such LOW LEVEL bullshit that it should be a non-issue.

        As to your questions, China is not accountable to the United States, but the world community because it wishes to be a player in the new global economy. The US, for all intense and purposes, is the leader of this global economy (as you so eloquently put it) and is one of few nations with the resources to gather sensitive information on China, a historically closed natured society who for years has attempted to juxtapose its military might against that of the U.S. in quazi-Soviet fashion.

        The fact that China has been caught on numerous occasions violating international law on open seas makes your point invalid. Does the US not have reason to spy on Chinese submarines in open waters used by ourselves and our allies for shipping, fishing, and military maneuvers? Please explain.

        I would like to hear your opinion on the Chinese government’s spy program on American citizens and their government through the use of computer chips implanted into Lenovo computers and sent to America. Should I throw away my Lenovo right now because I am so mad at the Chinese government for spying on me? What about the Chinese governments hacking of the US government computers. China can sure dish it out, but it can’t take it. Spying is GOOD not BAD. It prevents arms proliferation by providing transparency which allows each side to determine if agreements are being adhered to, if weapons being created are offensive vs. defensive in nature, and if one country is planning to “FUCK UP” the other. If China wants to play with the big boys, it will have to play a lot smarter than it is now. Threaten to offload our debt. We, along with every other sane nation will pull our investments out of China so fast, Mao will feel it.

        And don’t be so sure that China’s economy is a bed of roses. Judging by recent performance, growth (which isn’t that hard to come by in a land of peasant farmers) has slowed to a snails pace.

        Finally, I am glad that you finally admitted the fact that transparency leads to non-proliferation. The links I provided were only meant to give you a basic definition after reading your post asking “what are you talking about?” blah blah blah.

        BTW I am through talking with you on this issue.

        Reply
        • Kai

          Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 3:06 pm

          matt, this is where I now accuse you of having a shallow understanding of this issue in addition to not following the conversation. Why?

          1. You’re now resorting to “uh, spying means not to get caught!” Arguing that your surveillance ship is a civilian ship and unarmed is one way of trying to hide the military nature of your mission. “I’m not here to do anything bad! See, I’m unarmed!”

          2. You completely failed to comprehend everything I laid out above regarding American dominance and hegemony.

          Remember how I said American surveillance (just another name for “spying”) in this area is a known fact? That’s because the United States is secure enough in its position to not bother hiding everything it does because it can get away with it. This partly feeds the whole “American arrogance” complaint that many countries have. The Americans say the ship is just towing underwater sonar mapping equipment. Others say “yeah, but that same equipment is used to spy on other country’s submarines.” American’s say “well, naw, it’s just to help our own submarines navigate better…” Other’s say “yeah, bullshit.” But the bottom line for Americans is “yeah, so what’re you going to do about it?”

          For most countries, there’s not much they CAN do about it. So, the accusation of American arrogance crops up yet again.

          Your current whiny insistence that China can’t be angry about the Impeccable incident because it really isn’t spying because spying must be super-secretive is…well, one-dimensionally stupid.

          China, a historically closed natured society who for years has attempted to juxtapose its military might against that of the U.S. in quazi-Soviet fashion.

          LOL! Dude, where do you get your information? The Chinese have NEVER once thought their military might was EVER on par with the Americans! The closest thing to it are Chinese jokes that the Chinese could wage a good fight just by the sheer volumne of people they could throw at the Americans. You’re just being silly now.

          The fact that China has been caught on numerous occasions violating international law on open seas makes your point invalid. Does the US not have reason to spy on Chinese submarines in open waters used by ourselves and our allies for shipping, fishing, and military maneuvers? Please explain.

          You’re kidding me, right? The whole idea behind submarines is for them to operate undetected around the world necessarily in “international waters.”

          Please show us some occassions of Chinese violating international laws on open seas that haven’t been done by Americans before. I already said both countries will act in their self-interest and engage in whatever spying or surveillance they can get away with.

          Since when did “international waters” become reserved for only Americans and their “allies” to fish, ship, and conduct military maneuvers?

          And what point were you trying to invalidate with this again?

          I would like to hear your opinion on the Chinese government’s spy program on American citizens and their government through the use of computer chips implanted into Lenovo computers and sent to America.

          Your tin foil hat is crooked.

          What about the Chinese governments hacking of the US government computers. China can sure dish it out, but it can’t take it.

          LoL. Wow, are you really pretending to be oblivious to the cyber-warfare and cyber-intelligence the United States itself engages in? What makes you think the Chinese can’t take it? They’ve BEEN taking it and there’s really nothing surprising about them complaining about it occassionally just as Americans complain when they find the Chinese spying on them. Cause and effect. Action and reaction. What’s so hard to understand, matt?

          Spying is GOOD not BAD. It prevents arms proliferation by providing transparency which allows each side to determine if agreements are being adhered to, if weapons being created are offensive vs. defensive in nature, and if one country is planning to “FUCK UP” the other.

          It is amazing that you still don’t get it. Whether any instance of spying is good or bad is based upon who is doing it and who it affects. The Chinese don’t think it is good because it negatively affects their interests. You, in this case, are trying to argue that it is good because it keeps China transparent and accountable which is in America’s interest. The problem is, you’re demanding that everyone, including the Chinese, agree with you. Why would they agree with you when it’s against their interests? What is so difficult to understand about this? You are truly an astonishing and curious person seeimingly unable to put yourself in other people’s shoes or comprehend any interests besides those that match your own.

          As I have said before, you lack a cursory understanding of geo-politics. This diatribe of your’s only reinforces that impression I have of you.

          And don’t be so sure that China’s economy is a bed of roses. Judging by recent performance, growth (which isn’t that hard to come by in a land of peasant farmers) has slowed to a snails pace.

          Never said that.

          Finally, I am glad that you finally admitted the fact that transparency leads to non-proliferation.

          Uh, selective reading FTW? It’s cute how you’ve resorted to cherry picking words inside statements apparently and regretably too complex for you to grasp.

          BTW I am through talking with you on this issue.

          Wait, don’t gather your toys and leave, I thought you wanted to hear my opinion on spy chips in Lenovo computers?!?

          Reply
          • matt

            Friday, March 20, 2009 at 12:19 am

            Kai,
            You are clearly not getting the point. Lets look at the facts. The spy ship was unarmed, it was monitoring activities in international waters, and posed no offensive military threat to Chinese vessels. Any statement made by you deviating from these basic facts is flat out wrong, and your attempt to cloud this issue with allegations of Americans hegemonic activity is unsound.
            In fact, since the early 1990s, it has been China who continuously bullied its neighbors, and staked expansionist claims to nearly all of the region in question, all in an attempt to gain control over the SCS, extend its empire, and drive perfectly legitimate activity away from the disputed region.
            http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Strforum/SF_60/forum60.html
            I never stated the ship is a civilian ship. Again, it was monitoring activity of the Chinese military in international waters to send a message to the Chinese government that says “hey, were here, we can see you, this is not yours yet.” It violated no rule of law. Why do you continually play the victim card? “The big bad US keeps spying on us, wah wah.”
            Your whiny insistence that the Chinese should not be spied upon because the US is too powerful is asinine. The fact that China, over the past few years, has increased military spending, staked claim to surrounding regions which do not belong to them, and continued to resist transparency on weapons manufacturing is faintly reminiscent of Soviet actions during the Cold war.
            “Since when did “international waters” become reserved for only Americans and their “allies” to fish, ship, and conduct military maneuvers?”
            You are so hypocritical. The waters in question ARE NOT CHINESE. You complain that the US is spying on the Chinese and overstepping its bounds, yet the Chinese pull the same crap, and what? You have no point.
            “Your tin foil hat is crooked.”
            http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/28/us-govt-to-launch-investigation-into-lenovo-spy-pcs/
            “It is amazing that you still don’t get it. Whether any instance of spying is good or bad is based upon who is doing it and who it affects. The Chinese don’t think it is good because it negatively affects their interests.”
            You are saying that in this case, spying is bad for China because it is staking a hegemonic claim to a region that does not belong to it, and doesn’t want anyone to know exactly what it is doing. Well, at least we are being honest. 
            I would think it is in the interest of the Phillipines, Vietnam, Japan, Korea, etc. etc. You know, maybe to keep tensions in the area low and prevent WWIII?
          • California Guy

            Friday, March 20, 2009 at 9:54 am

            “Your tin foil hat is crooked” – Hahaha!!! Bump just for that! Thanks Kai, I really did laugh out loud. Good points. I think that Matt is trying to say that spying is good because “it’s good for us, and we’re the good guys, so… it’s good for everyone!” Ha, ha, even as an American I can see how this is biased. Regardless if it is for the better good, and America is a good guy (sometimes, lol), to expect someone to like their national security being compromised by said “good guy” is ridiculous. Imagine the conversation within The Party. “Hey, saw something interesting today, Hu…” “Really? Do tell… A New Mercedes model for 2009?” “No… actually US ships were spying off the coast and downloaded our missle command codes, feeling a little nervous about that, what you think Hu?” “Nervous? What for?! America is a good country! There only spying on us for our own good and the good of the world community. Relax, you can trust the Good ‘Ol Boys! Now let’s go get a beer and unwind for the day.” HAHAHA!!! :D
          • Kai

            Friday, March 20, 2009 at 1:22 pm

            matt, I thought you were through talking with me about this issue? What happened?

            matt, you’ve forgotten what we’re arguing about. I’m going to go back to your first comment, the one I disagreed with:

            transparency is what keeps nations at peace… spying is actually a means of non proliferation.

            these comments display a lack of understanding of national security policy by the chinese people. they should really brush up on their foreign policy…

            You’re accusing the Chinese people of displaying “a lack of understanding of national security policy.” Nevermind that you’re using something like 20 anonymous Chinese interent comments to paint a nation of 1.3 billion people AND its military/political leaders, this is what you are accusing.

            My disagreement with you is:

            1. I fail to see how this shows a lack of understanding whatsoever. The Chinese have their secrets they want to keep secret and will defend to keep secret including complaining about American surveillance ships coming too close for their comfort. Go read the BBC link provided by “John” elsewhere in these comments.

            2. Chinese transparency and surveilance activities meant to gather information on Chinese military capabilities is in the interests of AMERICA’s national security policy, not CHINA’s. Any military worth its salt always wants an advantage and always wants to make sure its potential enemies are unaware of that advantage or, in the absence of advantage, of their capabilities.

            3. If the surveillance ship’s activities are NOT in China’s interests, why should China tolerate it? Why SHOULDN’T China object, complain, make a fuss? Just because they’re hypocrites? Naw, hypocrisy never stopped other countries from complaining about these things, why should China be any different?

            4. And so you offer that China should tolerate it because you think Chinese transparency will ensure peace and non-proliferation. Well, I think you’re an idiot who up to now still hasn’t found a way to put yourself in another person’s shoes and genuinely consider their own interests, much less military defense interests.

            Lets look at the facts. The spy ship was unarmed, it was monitoring activities in international waters, and posed no offensive military threat to Chinese vessels. Any statement made by you deviating from these basic facts is flat out wrong,

            1. Surveilance, spying, intelligence gathering is an offensive military activity. You can call it pre-emptive if you want, but its still offensive. You are depriving the target of the privacy it wishes to retain.

            The Chinese interpreted the proximity of the Impeccable using sonar equipment to find Chinese nuclear subs to be too close for their comfort.

            2. Aside from the above correction to your “facts,” I haven’t made any statement deviating from any other “basic facts.” Please cite me in context if you believe I have.

            your attempt to cloud this issue with allegations of Americans hegemonic activity is unsound.

            Uh, no, American hegemonic activity is the necessary context in which this event and issue exists. You cannot excise American hegemonic activity and have an honest understanding or discussion of geo-political matters. I can’t believe you’re trying to make something so intrinsically relevant “irrelevant.” It isn’t.

            In fact, since the early 1990s, it has been China who continuously bullied its neighbors, and staked expansionist claims to nearly all of the region in question, all in an attempt to gain control over the SCS,

            What are you saying here that I haven’t already said with less biased language (“bullied”)? I’ve already said China has its own interests and pursues its own interests, just as the United States does. It’s a no-brainer, surprise, that’s how the world works.

            extend its empire, and drive perfectly legitimate activity away from the disputed region.

            Okay, that’s just silly. No serious diplomat or academic refers to China as having an “empire.” If anything, that label has been lodged against Americans far more frequently than the Chinese in modern history.

            Driving legitimate activity away? Sure, but its in the eye of the beholder. Your NDU link (of an article from 1996!) is intelligent enough to acknowledge that there are “claimants” to the South China Seas (SCS) and therein lies the potential for disputes over the use of the SCS. What one side says is legitimate may not be so in the eyes of another (Given that you have difficulty looking at things from your opposition’s perspective, I suspect that sentence fell on deaf ears).

            Your NDU link also explicitly echoes what I’ve already said about America’s interest in the area:

            The United States has significant economic and strategic interests in South East Asia…

            The official U.S. policy on the South China Sea is that it takes no position as to the legal merits of competing claims of sovereignty. However, freedom of navigation is a fundamental interest of the United States,

            The fundamental interest of the United States, if you haven’t been willing to acknowledge by now, is to maintain its “strategic” interests which require the “freedom of navigation” in the South China Seas.

            Surprise, China has fundamental strategic interests in the area too! Inconceivable?! No, not really. This entire confrontation with the Impeccable boils down to two countries pursuing their strategic interests in a disputable area. The fact that the area is disputable is even arguably irrelevant. Why? Because it is really about the Americans want to gather intel on the Chinese and the Chinese not wanting the Americans to do so.

            How DIFFICULT is this to understand for you, matt? High-sounding entreaties of transparency and “non-proliferation” are not only easily torn apart but just plain unrealistic. The only thing more unrealistic is you expecting the Chinese to actually buy these entreaties that, I can’t emphasize this enough, benefit American national security at the detriment of Chinese national security.

            I never stated the ship is a civilian ship.

            I never said you did. I said the United States did.

            Again, it was monitoring activity of the Chinese military in international waters to send a message to the Chinese government that says “hey, were here, we can see you, this is not yours yet.”

            Oh really? Is THAT what they were doing? Sending a message that said all that? I’m willing to see where this goes. Please give me a reference or citation, some evidence that this is what the Impeccable’s mission was.

            It violated no rule of law.

            As I said above, I think this is irrelevant with regard to this kind of geo-political situation, but the easy counter to this is: “It violated no rule of law…in who’s eyes?

            Why do you continually play the victim card? “The big bad US keeps spying on us, wah wah.”

            Uh, straw man argument? I haven’t played the victim card. I quite fairly and objectively said that both the United States and China will do what is in their interests and will spy on each other to whatever extent they can get away with. It’s how the world works.

            If I recall, I haven’t “wah wah’d” at all. I do recall you posting random comments consisting only of “Kai’s a moron” in this thread. I also suspect you went around giving +1 to your own comments. I think I win the “less immature” contest so far.

            Your whiny insistence…

            Aw, how cute, you used my line! I’m flattered!

            …that the Chinese should not be spied upon because the US is too powerful is asinine.

            LOL, I never insisted that the Chinese not be spied upon because the US is too powerful. Please show me where I said anything remotely close to that.

            The fact that China, over the past few years, has increased military spending, staked claim to surrounding regions which do not belong to them, and continued to resist transparency on weapons manufacturing is faintly reminiscent of Soviet actions during the Cold war.

            Countries that become more economically powerful tend to increase defense spending. Pretty much every country has done this, not least of which includes the United States. The more you have to lose, the more you have to protect and defend. America is strong not by its economy alone, but by a trifecta of economic strength, diplomatic influence, and military might.

            Why shouldn’t China aspire for the same security?

            Ah, the evil Soviets. LoL, matt, you finally come out and say it, don’t you? You want to cast China as the new Soviet menace, the new “enemy” of the freedom-loving and righteous United States! Yes, let’s have a call to arms and rally the GIs to fight the evil Chinese empire who dares to resist, challenge, or even complain about America’s altruistic spyi–er–policing of the world!

            You are so hypocritical.

            Wait, I’m confused, how am I being hypocritical by pointing out how hypocritical you were? Remember, you wrote:

            Does the US not have reason to spy on Chinese submarines in open waters used by ourselves and our allies for shipping, fishing, and military maneuvers?

            I was pointing out the absurdity of allowing the US and its allies to use these open waters for military maneuvers but damning the Chinese for operating subs there.

            Moreover and actually, the Impeccable wasn’t spying on subs in the open waters. It was spying on or looking for the subs near China’s naval base. Again, you’re not reading and you’re not following the conversation.

            The waters in question ARE NOT CHINESE.

            You’re going to flip over my response (but only because you still don’t get it): Says who? Both sides disagree.

            You complain that the US is spying on the Chinese and overstepping its bounds,

            Uh, no, I said the Chinese are complaining that the US was too close for their comfort while spying on them.

            yet the Chinese pull the same crap, and what? You have no point.

            Christ, see above, and previous comments, and then reread them all. In short and for the umpteenth time: My point is that you’re a moron for finding the Chinese reaction to US spying to be so astonishing and having the idiocy to suggest the Chinese should agree/tolerate the spying because it is all in the name of “non-proliferation” and peace-keeping transparency.

            http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/28/us-govt-to-launch-investigation-into-lenovo-spy-pcs/

            LOL, OMFG, you’ve got to be kidding me. From Engadget:

            As you may recall, way back over a year ago when Lenovo announced its intentions to buy IBM, congress stepped in to call for an investigation to make sure the Commies Chinese megacorp wasn’t going to be getting access to anything sensitive or secret in IBM’s labs or R&D facilities. Well, obviously everything passed over kosher, but now the US State Department’s placing an order for 15,000 Lenovo PCs, and the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission wants a thorough look through the machines to ensure they’re not rigged with bugs and spyware. Outside dismantling every single PC and freshly installing the OS themselves, we’re not sure how they would guarantee they’d be clean, which just goes to show you’ve really got to trust your PC manufacturer, especially if you’re the government. In all reality they’re probably more likely to find a Sony backdoor than a Lenovo one, anyway.

            Emphases mine.

            Are you a moron? NO SHIT THE US GOVERNMENT would bug-check 15,000 laptops its ordering from a foreign manufacturer!!! IT IS BASIC FUCKING SECURITY PROTOCOL!

            OMFG, you’re unbelievable.

            And yes, “Your tin foil hat is crooked.”

            You are saying that in this case, spying is bad for China because it is staking a hegemonic claim to a region that does not belong to it, and doesn’t want anyone to know exactly what it is doing. Well, at least we are being honest.

            Uh, no, that is not what I said. I said no one, including China, likes being spied upon.

            Nice try mischaracterizing my argument though. Better luck next time.

            I would think it is in the interest of the Phillipines, Vietnam, Japan, Korea, etc. etc. You know, maybe to keep tensions in the area low and prevent WWIII?

            From your own NDU link:

            It is unlikely that China will attempt to seize the entire Spratly Islands by force of arms in the immediate future…Moreover, any resort to force would seem to be against China’s interest in maintaining close trade and economic ties with the more prosperous nations of the region.

            That you’re even entertaining the notion of WW3 igniting over the South China Sea shows me just how hopelessly ignorant and disconnect with reality you are.

            See you next time.
          • koma

            Friday, March 20, 2009 at 5:05 pm

            @matt
            Again, it was monitoring activity of the Chinese military in international waters to send a message to the Chinese government that says “hey, were here, we can see you, this is not yours yet.”

            Chinese fishermen said to USA navy: “We are watching you too, and you can kiss our a*s”. Then, they tried to drive beneath “(Non)Impeccable”, ’cause they like extreme sport.
          • matt

            Saturday, March 21, 2009 at 1:28 am

            Kai, you are really wrong here, yet you refuse to admit it. Spying is in no way an offensive military tactic. You are pulling that out of thin air. In this situation it is the Chinese who are the aggressors, and here you are claiming the Chinese have a right to be angry about the fact that the US was in international waters performing perfectly legal activities. Am I missing something?
            I think it is quite obvious that the Chinese posters above clearly lack any common sense on issues of national security policy, seeing as they are calling for WAR because a US ship was patrolling in an area that it should be allowed to patrol.
            I thought I had mentioned the fact that this outburst was connected to China’s recent threat towards the US treasury. The two events are connected. The Chinese government has started down the path of hegemony, and now uses its economic and military clout to expand the size of its empire. China is NO different than the Soviet Union in that regard, albeit they are moving at a much slower pace.
            “My disagreement with you is:
            1. I fail to see how this shows a lack of understanding whatsoever. The Chinese have their secrets they want to keep secret and will defend to keep secret including complaining about American surveillance ships coming too close for their comfort. Go read the BBC link provided by “John” elsewhere in these comments.”
            *Please define “too close for comfort.” That is such a weak argument I don’t know why you would bother writing it. Chinese government seems to be expanding in the region in question, and the “too close for comfort” is a completely meaningless term. The Chinese clearly overstepped their bounds here, and harassment of US vessels in International water will not be tolerated.
            2. Chinese transparency and surveilance activities meant to gather information on Chinese military capabilities is in the interests of AMERICA’s national security policy, not CHINA’s. Any military worth its salt always wants an advantage and always wants to make sure its potential enemies are unaware of that advantage or, in the absence of advantage, of their capabilities.
            *Again, this incident was an attempt by the Chinese to legitimize the illegal expansion of their territory in the SCS. The US does not claim the SCS, but merely operates in international waters that are to be shared by all.
            3. If the surveillance ship’s activities are NOT in China’s interests, why should China tolerate it? Why SHOULDN’T China object, complain, make a fuss? Just because they’re hypocrites? Naw, hypocrisy never stopped other countries from complaining about these things, why should China be any different?
            *The ship should be tolerated because it was doing nothing WRONG. No international law was broken. The hypocrisy in this situation is the fact that China is complaining that the US presents a threat to China’s national interests, and China’s territory is being infringed upon, while at the very SAME TIME China is attempted to EXPAND its territory by STEALING. They are now so powerful and have such great economic clout, they simply need to CLAIM a region that does not belong to them, and there is not much a smaller neighbor can do about it. That is a picture perfect definition of hegemony.
            Remember that whole schpiel you gave on the Pig Head article? You claimed that things that are stolen should be returned. Well, GO AHEAD CHINA! Return our nuclear secrets! Return the islands you stole back to the Philippine government!
            4. And so you offer that China should tolerate it because you think Chinese transparency will ensure peace and non-proliferation. Well, I think you’re an idiot who up to now still hasn’t found a way to put yourself in another person’s shoes and genuinely consider their own interests, much less military defense interests.
            *I do think the Chinese should tolerate THIS ship. The mission of the US ship was NON INTRUSIVE as they were observing expansionist activities of the Chinese military in the hotly contested SCS.
            Lets look at the facts. The spy ship was unarmed, it was monitoring activities in international waters, and posed no offensive military threat to Chinese vessels. Any statement made by you deviating from these basic facts is flat out wrong,
            1. Surveilance, spying, intelligence gathering is an offensive military activity. You can call it pre-emptive if you want, but its still offensive. You are depriving the target of the privacy it wishes to retain.
            *“6.3. Military intelligence gathering activities
            “Traditionally, intelligence gathering activities have been regarded as part of the exercise of freedom of the high seas and therefore, through Article 58(1), lawful in the EEZ as well. All major maritime powers have been routinely conducting such activities without protest from the coastal State concerned, unless they became excessively provocative. The US Navy expressly takes the view that such activities are part of high seas freedoms.46…
            Can these new activities be categorized as “other internationally lawful uses of the sea” related to the freedom of navigation and overflight? It appears that provisions of the 1982 UNCLOS are not adequate to regulate the use of these new EW and IW technologies by military vessels and aircraft. Thus, it would be highly desirable that the question be studied in depth with a view to working out a common understanding or agreement before another serious incident like that involving the EP-3 flight of April 2001.”
            (http://www.southchinasea.org/docs/ScienceDirect%20-%20Marine%20Policy%20%20Military%20and%20intelligence%20gat.htm)
            AS OF RIGHT NOW… LEGAL ACTIVITY, DOUCHEBAG
            In fact, there is no point in going on because the rest of your post was fluff. You claim the US hegemonic activity is relevant to debate, but not China’s? You are WRONG. You can write all you want, but China has no right to be upset about the US conducting intelligence gathering activities in ‘its’ EEZ… WHOSE EEZ IS IT BTW?… but that is besides the point.
          • Kai

            Saturday, March 21, 2009 at 6:16 am

            matt:

            Am I missing something?

            Yes.
37. the peasant

    Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 1:27 am

    comments and posts here in China smack always has the same flavor.. someone trashing China and someone protecting it or vice versa. honestly its getting boring and redundant.

    my take on this incident…. nobody wants to be spied with. who the fck cares if the other party is doing the same thing… its like someone sleeping with your wife would it be ok with you if your sleeping with the guys wife as well?

    but then the chinese reactions and comments are just too…. *whats the word im looking for…. unsophisticated! they couldve expressed their disappointment buy using less “uneducated” words.

    were now in the age everyone needs everyone. you fck the US and we all go down like Kai mentioned.. you fck China and the US will go down… and we all go down. we just need to accept the fact that we all need each other now.

    Reply
    • matt

      Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 1:37 am

      that is why we have to be aware of what each side is doing — to a certain degree. This boat issue is small pittance compared with the technological secrets china has stolen from the US.

      Its funny to read the comments of Chinese people complaining about spying. What the f*ck do you think your government does to you every day? Granted, the US government is becoming more and more like big brother everyday, but just a short while ago, you could be ‘disappeared’ (as the locals say) if you mentioned Mao’s name in a negative context.

      Reply
      • Lucas

        Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 4:08 am

        Disappeared for mentioning Mao’s name in a negative context? That is so thirty years ago. Nowadays you can joke about the former president having a mistress on the game show of national TV.

        Reply
        • matt

          Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 11:45 am

          less than 30 years bro.

          and that is all you have? weak, man.

          Reply
38. Sushi

    Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 3:44 am

    I think it is interesting that the US is using “spy ships.” I guess it is a function of China being a relatively “closed” country. For China to spy on America, they don’t need a ship. Just fly someone over and send them to school. Most military research happens in Universities in the US and is poorly protected.

    Something else I thought funny was the Chinese respondents thought they would be able to choose to be in the army if a war started. Ha ha … how naive. They, like their American counterparts, would be drafted in a second without an choice.

    Reply
    • Xezlec

      Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 4:56 am

      Yep, you got it. Sucks to be Chinese, sucks to be American. *sigh*

      Reply
39. California Guy

    Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 6:29 am

    Just wanted to take a moment to follow up on my comment above. I was going to add this at the end, but it was already to classic with the yes we can thing. Haha, I guess I was playing devil’s advocate there for a moment.

    Wanted to see the token “Yeah America!” comment, like the token black guy in the scary movies, ha ha. I think you can get more interesting perspective from people if you throw out a comment opposing popular view. Actually, believe it or not, I’m very pro China. I love US too, but I’m very excited about China. I debate with one of my friends about it all the time. He’s convinced that China is an “evil dictatorship” and that the cultural revolution is still going on. I think he is just an older guy, so he can’t open his mind to new things. He’s kind of like an old guy I new back in New York. He had a baseball cap I saw him wear when I was a kid. It said, “Toyota, from the wonderful people who brought you Pearl Harbor” Ha, ha.

    My comment about the Christian value of “To whom much is given…” wasn’t to say that America is a Christian nation just trying to spread the Gospel and accidentally killing people, ha ha. I was just talking about a root ideal underlying a particular point of public view. Anyway, good things are on the horizon. I think “the peasant” said it well above. We all need eachother.

    Reply
    • fcuk da lu ren

      Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 10:51 am

      Dude, your comments are so typical of Chinese that has gone abroad now posing as an American. First of all, we aren’t that stupid, we dont think China is still in the cultural revolution you fucking chimatron.

      However, the mindset of the space monkeys has not changed that much. It is still agressively anti- Amer… wait anyone not Chinese. I LIVE HERE, I SEE IT EVERY DAY.

      There are far more recent events in Chinese modern history that demonstrate to us that not much has changed i.e. a certain gathering of students in the late 80′s, western provincial crackdowns, SLAVES, muther fucking SLAVES in 2007, milk, you name it.

      Second, please do not confuse the Christian ethos with war related events. Most Americans are professing DEISTS, who have no conformity to the religious practices or beliefs of Christianity. That being said we as a country have given more to the world then any other nation in the history of the world.

      Regardless of your thoughts on the current situation, if America was such an aweful place, then why are, hmmm I dont know CHINESE dying in cargo boats trying to get minimum wage jobs there? You dont see Americans floating over on cardboard to get to China.

      Agree we all need each other, but sometimes you have to slap your little cousin if he gets out of line. I think its time for a little Chimatron smackdown.

      Reply
      • FangYao

        Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 12:34 pm

        talk about US, you know every country has their owner culture, American culture it is really boring. but as long as American culture stay in American, it is totally fine for me.
        i am just very worried: one day there are many KFC, STARBUCKS….all over the world. at that time the world would being so boring…. please stop making any Hollywood crap, beside money and big size what can you show to me…..please give the world a break

        Reply
        • matt

          Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 1:09 pm

          democracy?

          Reply
          • Kai

            Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 1:51 pm

            Oh Jesus Christ, matt…

            Are you yet another self-styled “democracy” activist who thinks democracy is the cure to all of the world’s ills? So self-righteous that you don’t think it is even worth your time to pause for a moment to consider the very real hurdles to its implementation and successful maintenance in drastically different situations?

            I really should’ve known…

            Team America, Angels of Democracy, Fuck Yeah!
          • matt

            Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 2:09 pm

            Kai,

            /s

            moron
          • matt

            Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 2:17 pm

            Kai,

            /s
        • Teacher in China

          Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 10:31 pm

          Aw man c’mon – American culture is about more than just big chain stores and Hollywood.
          One of the best things about American culture is the sub-culture, the “underground” as they call it. Check out good American underground music of all types, and movies that fly under the radar (things by Lynch, Kubrick, and the guy that did Being John Malcovich). There’s a lot to hate about the big stuff in US culture, but when you add up all the small stuff it’s a pretty culturally vibrant place.

          Reply
        • Fike2308

          Thursday, August 27, 2009 at 7:22 am

          It’s kind of funny when people bitch about American franchises like KFC and Starbucks….I mean, it’s not like the American government forces people in other countries to purchase American franchises and open them in their own countries.

          Some American movies suck but some rock.

          Reply
40. Capt.Absurdity

    Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 10:11 am

    Look man. I don’t mean to make generalizations about Christians. Almost all Christians I’ve met are really nice and good people and does not deserve generalizations. So that’s enuff Christendom.. no need to jump any more on my dead body.

    Reply
41. mathis

    Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 11:02 am

    After hating the French people now the American people, do the Chinese like someone except themselves?
    Answer : yes , the North Korean

    Reply
    • matt

      Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 11:55 am

      lolol

      good 1

      Reply
    • FangYao

      Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 12:44 pm

      i dont think it is fair word to say Chinese hate the other country’s people. who is the one get more salary here, who is the one get more welcome in china.
      the Chinese government brainwash so good, make the people think no logic,acting unreasonable. besides these reasons i can see a lot of great hearts deeply inside the Chinese people.

      Reply
      • matt

        Friday, March 20, 2009 at 12:53 am

        I agree Fang.

        Reply
      • Billy Joe

        Saturday, March 21, 2009 at 4:42 pm

        oh god,
        will peopel stop the “omfg teh CCP is teh brainwasHORS”
        It’s simply a difference in culture and perspectives.

        You grew up in the west, you think like a westman, they grow up in teh chinaland, they think like a chinaman.

        Liberalism and democracies are not the cures for all the world’s problems.

        Reply
        • matt

          Monday, March 23, 2009 at 10:20 am

          how about rampant poverty and poisoned baby formula?

          Reply
      • Fike2308

        Thursday, August 27, 2009 at 7:24 am

        Fang – I have heard MANY Chinese people say, “I HATE JAPAN!”….”I HATE FRANCE!”….”I HATE AMERICA” so it does seem that way sometimes….and look at the 2008 protests of Carrefour…that was LAME.

        Reply
42. Capt.Absurdity

    Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 11:11 am

    Look man, I don’t understand why people cannot be a little bit more objective regarding the Chinese comments above.

    This is the internet, and all kinds of crazy shit are said on it. It’s like only looking at negativity, for example, like looking at stormfront.org and then making claims about whatever, based on your experiences there, and only there.

    Reply
    • matt

      Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 12:06 pm

      you have a point, i wish my chinese was better. i want to get a sense of the general opinion…

      like digg for instance. it is the biggest piece of bullshit on the net. full of nutcases who hate israel and hope the US turns into stalin’s russia.

      Reply
      • ST

        Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 12:22 pm

        I think we he said “all kinds of crazy shit” he was specifically referring to you, Matt.

        Reply
        • matt

          Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 1:13 pm

          ST,

          My opinion on the matter is one of reason. Clearly you must not be reading what I post. Are you a follower of the all mighty Kai?

          He is the worst of all. He is obviously an american-chinese who moved back to China, discovered his roots, and dropped his pants for the chinese government in the process.

          Reply
43. Matt

    Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 12:27 pm

    oh man, now there are 2 matts. For those of us who don’t know. Im the cool one.

    Reply
    • matt

      Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 1:10 pm

      your a bitch.

      Reply
      • matt

        Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 1:13 pm

        you’re*

        ooops

        Reply
        • Kai

          Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 3:11 pm

          Dude, matt, are you going around voting up your own comments in a juvenile attempt to lend support to yourself?

          Reply
          • matt

            Friday, March 20, 2009 at 12:56 am

            of course. kai, in all honesty, i would probably like you. why? because you are a great thinker. we disagree, so what. in reality, i am a good natured person who likes people.
44. California Guy

    Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 3:50 pm

    fcuk da lu ren, you think I sound Chinese? Haha, cool. I’m going to move there soon. Actually though, my friend unfortunately is that stupid. He’s 61 years old. A very strange guy. He’s very opinionated and a pathological liar. First real pathological liar I ever met. But, he is creative and an interesting person to bounce ideas off of. Problem is, he’s from a generation that was more xenophobic, so he’s not changing his mind anytime soon.

    No, I am the real deal California guy. I lost a shit load of money last year in business, etc. So I want to try some new things in China. Plus I got the Asian fever big time. Chinese girls are so F-ing hot. I tried all the others here in LA – Japanese, Korean, Filipeno, Chinese… I’m hooked on the Chinese ones. Don’t know if it’s enough to make me settle down, but man, I have met some serious hotties. I digress, sorry.

    What it comes down to is this for me. I’ve been a player in LA for a few years now. People here are so fucking materialistic and shallow. When I met the Chinese girls, of course there are some also like that, but many more are still sweet. They remind me of American girls of the 1950′s. They are a little baby crazy but still… F-ing hot! I think that is the way to solve all these tensions. Each country send their hottest girls to the other countries leaders and all will be fine. No war, just sweet 阴道 and good times!

    Reply
    • matt

      Friday, March 20, 2009 at 11:55 am

      you sound like a moron.

      Reply
      • California Guy

        Saturday, March 21, 2009 at 5:27 am

        Hmmm, are you Matt #1 the jackass or Matt #2 the other jackass that’s pretending not to be Matt #1 the jackass? Haha, either way… Just sayin…

        Reply
45. peter

    Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 4:51 pm

    When I lived in Shanghai, I had a girlfriend whose father was a General in the PLA. Now retired, one of his last assignments was to set up the spy ring in the Chinese shipping fleet, COSCO, so these “civilian” ships cpuld spy on, not just the USA, but any country they visited.

    Reply
    • fcuk da lu ren

      Friday, March 20, 2009 at 9:10 am

      Exactly, that is why they are so paranoid about having us here. You always think your girl is cheating when you are the cheater

      Reply
    • Billy Joe

      Saturday, March 21, 2009 at 4:44 pm

      Lol peter, you know so much,
      you must work for the CIA.

      Reply
46. Charles

    Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 5:36 pm

    Hey California guy, I agree that Chinese girls are hot… ^^

    I wonder how long they will maintain the 1950′s charm that I find so attractive.

    I look forward to re-visiting Shanghai again this year. Kai, were u born and raised there? The way you construct your sentences reminds me of a guy I met many years ago.

    Reply
47. Diu La Sing

    Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 8:06 pm

    The chinese don’t do their own fighting, but rather send the North Korean / Iran / to do their dirty jobs.

    Reply
48. Mike Fish

    Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 9:01 pm

    If you think your country is the best and don’t have a critical thing to say about it, you are an idiot. If you think other countries are completely evil, to blame for your country’s woes, and have no redeeming qualities, you are an idiot. The arguments by many posters here show they are shallow, ignorant, petty, and did I mention ignorant. 100% bashing or ass kissing China, the US, or any other country is utterly boring!

    Also though Wikipedia is a great source for quick and easy info, I highly recommend other sources for actually learning about some of these issues.

    Reply
49. John

    Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 11:11 pm

    Hey Kai,
    This is a response to your question of whether or not China conducts similar military operations on other countries. In closed is a list of news links. I hope this answers your question.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7941425.stm

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,329067,00.html

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-11/27/content_7155563.htm

    Here are at least 3 different articles documenting China doing the same thing to other countries. I hope this was informative.

    Reply
    • Kai

      Friday, March 20, 2009 at 11:02 am

      John, I believe you’re referring to me saying:

      Please show us some occassions of Chinese violating international laws on open seas that haven’t been done by Americans before.

      However, it appears that you failed to read my immediate next sentence and therefore misunderstood my disagreement:

      I already said both countries will act in their self-interest and engage in whatever spying or surveillance they can get away with.

      I wasn’t questioning whether or not China conducts similar miltary operations on other countries, I was challenging those who take on airs of “I’m sure they also…” to stop using assumptions in their arguments and actually know what the hell they’re talking about.

      Don’t assume, prove. There’s a difference between knowing your shit and being a lucky guesser.

      It is even more silly when trying to use an argument that China also spies on others against someone like myself who neither disagrees nor denies it. I wasn’t arguing that China isn’t a hypocrite, my disagreement centered around how ludicrous it was for some people here to think China should NOT be bothered or upset with the United States spying on them. They even went so far as to argue that the Chinese should somehow be happy that the Americans are spying on them because it enforces transparency and prevents non-proliferation, which, apparently, is some objective ideal that the Chinese should unquestionably accept even when it infringes upon whatever their self-interest may be.

      I know China does similar things. I just find it astonishing that some people think it is unbelievable for China to make a fuss about it even if it is hypocritical. Does these same people find it astonishing for the United States or any other country to make a fuss when they suspect Chinese spying on them? Do they start making arguments of transparency and non-proliferation?

      I think you know the answer already.

      Now, let me repost what I said for emphasis:

      Please show us some occassions of Chinese violating international laws on open seas that haven’t been done by Americans before. I already said both countries will act in their self-interest and engage in whatever spying or surveillance they can get away with.

      I’m not sure how clear I can get. The first sentence implies that I’m well aware that China spies with: “that haven’t been done by Americans before.” The second sentence is even more explicitly clear that I know China will do whatever they can get away with.

      So John, at best, you genuinely didn’t follow the conversation or failed to read carefully what I have been disagreeing with matt. At worst, you’re intentionally mischaracterizing my position and then masking your condescension with a false air of trying to gently “educate” me.

      If you had read what I’ve written, you wouldn’t have seen the need.

      Here’s an excerpt from your BBC article that echoes what I’ve already said here:

      Jockeying for position

      This is where maps defined by law distort into maps defined by the larger political realities – where geography becomes geopolitics.

      The US has long had the seas around Asia to themselves, able to extend their considerable (often nuclear-powered) naval power in and out of Asian states’ waters.

      President Obama on Thursday
      Mr Obama has tried to resolve the dispute in talks with Chinese officials
      Depending what they do there, many of these states have no problem with that.

      But China is not alone in its irritation at the assumption of freedom across the high seas.

      Indonesia, a key player in talks shaping the Law of the Sea, has been irritated by the US navy sailing ships through its straits at will.

      So too has Vietnam, which has also protested against Chinese military exercises in its waters.

      But only China has made its irritation so public.

      Analysts say voluntary codes of conduct across Asia’s seas need to be strengthened into enforceable guidelines to avoid future conflicts.

      Underlying the recent US-China spat is a fear in some South East Asian states, as well as in the West, of China’s growing military might.

      “While there may even be some sympathy for China’s robust actions given more widespread concerns about how the US collects intelligence, China challenging the US creates instability and is therefore generally not in the interest of other Asian countries,” says Dr Haacke.

      China has protested before – when a Chinese frigate confronted the USNS Bowitch in the Yellow Sea in March 2001.

      The next month, a Chinese jet fighter collided with a US surveillance plane over Hainan, rupturing US-China defence contacts for a while.

      Neither the US nor China can claim to be wholly right. “It’s not a slam dunk on either side,” says Dr Valencia.

      There is a jockeying for position afoot across Asia’s rich and contested seas. So long as the US refuses to ratify the UN Convention “it’s going to get worse”, he says.

      I wish you had noted that before posting 3 links and (possibly snidely) writing “I hope this was informative.”

      Reply
50. Shenzhener

    Friday, March 20, 2009 at 1:04 am

    i’ll admit i don’t know much about this issue, but the chinese responses are pretty scary

    Reply