Sino-Vietnamese War Veteran Finally Finds Friend’s Grave

From NetEase:

Photo Story: Brother, I wait for you on at the border.

In 1979, before heading to the front lines of the Counterattack Against Vietnam In Self-Defense [Sino-Vietnamese War], two new recruits made an agreement: Whoever survives must bring the other’s bones back to China. Thirty years later, as people gradually forget this war, the surviving veterans have embarked upon the difficult journey to find their comrade-in-arms’ remains.

Sino-Vietnamese War veteran Guo Yimin cries on his knees before the gravestone of his comrade-in-arms.

January 15, Guangxi Ningming, Guo Yimin faces Li Baoliang’s grave, no longer able to control his emotions, fallen on the floor crying painfully. This Counterattack Against Vietnam in Self Defense veteran had spent 30 years searching, performing a real-life version of the “Ji Jie Hao” [“Assembly“] story.

Chinese war veteran Guo Yimin holds a portrait of his old Sino-Vietnamese War buddy

December 24, Henan Jiyuan, Guo Yimin holds comrade-in-arms Li Baoliang’s funeral portrait. 1978 November, Guo Yimin and Li Baoliang entered the military, and were assigned to the same company. Both new recruits, and from the same hometown, the two of them looked after each other, their friendship gradually become thick. In 1979 March, the Counterattack Against Vietnam in Self Defense broke out, and the two brothers mutually agreed, “No matter who is sacrificed/lost on the battlefield, the one who lives on must bring the other back home”. Not long after, deputy marksman Li Baoliang, while covering the main army’s withdrawal, was injured by artillery, and unfortunately died. Only after withdrawing from the battlefield did Guo Yimin learn that Li Baoliang had been lost. Because of this promise, Li Baoliang began 30 years of searching.

Guo Yimin embracing fellow veterans and making calls searching for clues to the whereabouts of his friend's remains

Beginning in 2009, Old Guo began the search plan he had long prepared—-He hung “Searching for the remains of martyrs” banners on the streets of many cities, as well as got in contact with soldiers and comrade-in-arms who had participated in the war. Through many inquiries and searches, he finally confirmed that the body was near the border of Guangxi Aidian town. At the beginning of 2010, he embarked on his journey to Guangxi, walking down the road towards finding the remains of his comrade-in-arms. Left photo: Hunan Yueyang, at the bus station, comrade-in-arms and Guo Yimin passionately hug each other. Right photo: January 14, on the train towards Guangxi, Guo Yimin continues calling close-friends late into the night searching for clues.

To save money, Guo Yimin eats the cheapest 'zongzi' on the side of the road

January 16, Guangxi Aidian, with local prices being more expensive, Guo Yimin purchased the cheapest zongzi [he could find] on the side of the road to save on expenses, to be his lunch. To search for relevant clues, he has passed through Xuchang, Wuhan, Changsha, and other places, simultaneously working jobs and searching for people who might know what had happened at the time. And while on this journey, many ex-servicemen and border inhabitants warmly helped Old Guo, providing him clues and donations.

Guo Yimin finally finds the tombstone of his fallen comrade at a 30-year-old martyrs cemetary in Guangxi, China

January 16, Guangxi Zhilang, after climbing over many thickets, Guo Yimin found the martyrs cemetery from thirty years ago, and upon seeing that his comrade-in-arms’ gravestone had been covered in grass, Old Guo howled and wailed like a child.

Guo Yimin salutes a small memorial for his old war friend, whom he promised to bring his remains back home

January 15, Guangxi Ningming, after thirty years, Guo Yimin in a martyrs cemetery finds Li Baoliang’s gravestone for the first time. This is only Li Baoliang’s tomb, his bones are still within Vietnam. Despite the difficulties, Old Guo still wants to honor his promise and bring back his comrade-in-arms’ remains.

Guo Yimin stands meters away from the Vietnamese border, staring into the distance

January 18, Guangxi Aidian, down this small road in front of Guo Yimin’s eyes, no more than 10 meters is Vietnamese territory. However, due to various reason, Old Guo can only stand there and gaze into the distance. Luckily, in Guangxi Aidian, Guo Yimin met Old Tang who had also been in the Self-Defense Counterattack War. Old Tang’s coordinated efforts have already helped Guo Yimin work out detailed plans, with hopes of helping Guo find Li Baoliang’s remains.

Guo Yimin embraces and cries with another war veteran at the Guangxi martyrs cemetary

2010 January 15, Guangxi Ningming, Guo Yimin at the martyrs tomb coincidentally encounters Du Wenjie who after thirty years has found his older brother’s tombstone for the first time, the two brothers hugging each other and crying. According to China’s official statistics, about 7000 people were killed in action on the Chinese side during the Counterattack Against Vietnam in Self Defense. Today, the smoke of gunpowder has gradually faded from the memories of the people living on the borders. To the advancing world, they are just ordinary rank and file soldiers, but these martyrs, to their relatives and comrades-in-arms, are still their entire world.

Guo Yimin holds a handful of red dirt he dug from the border of China and Vietnam

January 16, Guangxi Aidian, Guo Yimin digs a handful of red earth on the border,  entrusting this reporter to hand it over to Li Baoliang’s family.

Comments from Tiexue:

baifabaizhong:

To the heroes who have given their lives for the country, I salute! Heroes will forever live in the hearts of the people! A nation that upholds its heroes is a great people, but I hope that those of us enjoying times of peace and comfort will not forget that the heroes of yesterday gave their blood and flesh in exchange for the good fortune we have today…

guoban:

One face already old, one face forever 30 years ago. A very touching comrade-in-arms friendship.

红色911:

History will not forget heroes.

长度185:

Thinking that the ground underneath the pretty grass near America’s dog fart independent and freedom memorial grounds, that the American devils who died for America’s dog fart principles can be buried in such nice places, such clean places, my heart is truly upset!!! Motherfucking Americans! NMLGB!

ddsfqsp:

Only one thing can be said, this is too unfair to the dead veterans/soldiers.

kgb1125:

I somewhat wanted to cry, and I thought of a line from Rambo in First Blood: “On the battlefield * * use machines worth several hundreds of dollars, but here I cannot even find a job to wash cars” [Translated Chinese. The English quote is: “Back there I could fly a gunship, I could drive a tank, I was in charge of million dollar equipment, back here I can’t even hold a job washin’ cars.”]. Looks like everything under the sky is mostly the same. Those heroes have all faded from our memories with the passage of time.

吉瓜:

My tears are brimming in my eyes, I really want to cry.

Salute.

gonjin:

I am man who has also been in the military. After reading this, I shed tears. This is what true comrade-in-arms friendship looks like. True brotherhood.

步兵99:

Simply a tragedy. I hope our motherland can pay more attention to retired veterans’ work and lives.

343531411:

I will tell what I know to my child and grandchild that the this is how the People’s Republic of China came to be!!!

红黑小兵:

If veterans do not die, they will only slowly fade away in history. But if we cannot even give veterans a place to cherish/remember their comrade-in-arms, how are we supposed to face them?

Happy Chinese New Year. chinaSMACK personals.

Help us maintain a vibrant and dynamic discussion section that is accessible and enjoyable to the majority of our readers. Please review our Comment Policy »
  • http://imgur.com/gGpso.png PUSAN PLAYA

    What a tragic war, it reminds me of the Counterattack Against Poland In Self-Defense that happened 70 years ago

    • Lang

      pusan playa,
      well said!

    • http://tinyurl.com/y8o9b9b TAKESHIMA

      My favorite is the Counterattack Against Korea In Self-Defense that happened 90 years ago.

    • Para

      It also reminds me of the Counterattack Against Korea In Self-Defense that happened 100 years ago.

    • Jimmy

      It more reminded me of the Counterattack Against Iraq in Self-Defense.

    • http://HidekiTōjō Willy Horton

      This is from a Korean.. the Asian version of the French Surrender Monkeys.

      • WTF

        To be fair, unlike the French, being another country’s bitch is a long standing Korean tradition. They’re like the bicycle of asia, everyone gets a ride.

        • Ben

          You fucking hawks. I’d rather be alongside France or Korea fighting for national freedom than alongside China and America going out and decimating other nations.

    • WTF

      Totally wrong analogy because Poland didn’t do anything but vietnam invaded cambodia which was allied to china. Also the aim and scale of the two conflicts where completely different. China wouldn’t have only sent 200K troops if it wanted to take over Vietnam. Even the Americans sent way more troops.

      • ungentrified

        Hmm, yes. Vietnam unjustly invaded a country that was not just launching border incursions into its territory, but was also killing tens of millions of its own citizens. Guess that’s a completely valid reason for China to invade Vietnam to “punish” it (and get thoroughly embarrassed in the process).

        • S

          so vietnam should invade cambodia then? and its totally justified?

          • sinceyouasked

            Totally. Justified.

            Since you asked…

        • beowulf

          Vietnam did not invade cambodia because of human rights. The Vietnamese themselves were killing and prosecuting Chinese in Vietnam. There were no good guys in this conflict. But this applies to almost every war. But you can not compare this with WW2.

      • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

        Yeah, the PRC is a pretty classy country. The only one of the truly infamous mass-murderers (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler) who they were never allied with/governed by was the one who died before it was formed, although the ROC was allied with Hitler for a time so I guess they’ve got that one covered as well.

        Meantime the PRC government makes it plain that it doesn’t give a shit about the soldiers who died fighting for it, allows their graves to become overgrown, does nothing to recover their bodies, does not mark the anniversary of the war or celebrate the sacrifice of its soldiers during that war – and who does the brain-washed Fenqing attack?

        America. Unbelievable.

        • WTF

          Right. Saying america sent more troops to vietnam is an attack on america. Defensive much? Or is it reflexive from your own brand of brainwashing?

          Unbelievable. Also have no idea what Fenqing means but go ahead and believe it if it suits your own biases.

        • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

          No, retard, despite what you might think, this blog does not revolve around you. No, I was talking about the commenter who blahed on about how neat and tidy American war cemeteries are, although this has nothing to do with China’s treatment of its own soldiers.

          • WTF

            “No, retard, despite what you might think, this blog does not revolve around you. No, I was talking about the commenter who blahed on about how neat and tidy American war cemeteries are, although this has nothing to do with China’s treatment of its own soldiers.”

            No jackass, learn how to reply properly then. Or explain how your reply to someone else ended up under mine you retard.

          • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

            The comment was one translated by Fauna, idiot. Maybe you should actually try reading the original post before cutting into your blame-America-for-everything spiel.

          • WTF

            Of course the comment was someone else’s. Who you’re replying to doesn’t explain why it was placed under mine comment you fucktard.

        • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

          Man, you know Kai’s visited this thread when every pro-CCP comment picks up a +1 and everyone who disagrees picks up a -1.

          • http://cnreviews.com Kai

            Don’t be a dick, FOARP. You know I’m not pro-CCP and you know the comments that have a +1 aren’t either, nor are those who have a -1 simply because they disagree with pro-CCP comments. That’s a fucked-up misrepresentation and you’re a jackass for it.

      • http://imgur.com/gGpso.png PUSAN PLAYA

        You’re right, I’m being unfair in comparing the actions of Deng Xiaoping to Hitler.

        Attacking Poland to get Danzig back is actually easier to justify than attacking Vietnam to save Pol Pot.

        • WTF

          Exactly. Which is why the US condoned China’s decision to attack Vietnam whereas Hitler’s actions were decried worldwide.

          Oh wait…

          • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

            Oh wait what? unless Jimmy Carter is commenting on this thread you don’t really have much of a point, do you?

    • han nonyme

      very good Pusan Playa

      for people who don’t know : there’re no internet in Xinjiang since august 2009.

      …. maybe for self-defence ???

    • VeerLeft

      Bravo! Lol…this counter attack self defense shit stuck in my mind immediately.

    • Captain Nemo

      The Korean peninsula had been ruled by Japan for so long time that you don’t know the meaning of counterattack.

  • bluah

    will not forget that the heroes of yesterday gave their blood and flesh in exchange for the good fortune we have today…

    *facepalm* Is he really talking about the sino-vietnamese war? The war without outcome (except for the dead)?

    • Para

      Pretty much same for Americans who believes that their soldiers died abroad to defend their freedom.

      • Observer

        Yes. Thank you Fox News.

  • FYIADragoon

    长度185:
    ”Thinking that the ground underneath the pretty grass near America’s dog fart independent and freedom memorial grounds, that the American devils who died for America’s dog fart principles can be buried in such nice places, such clean places, my heart is truly upset!!! Motherfucking Americans! NMLGB!“

    Some people deserve to be killed under the principles of Eugenics. Goddamnit, I raged at the inherent stupidity.

    • 苏联人

      Indeed, can’t blame Al-Qæda for practicing eugenics.

  • http://www.ajani.ca Ajani

    This is a truly touching story.

    :(

  • Annoy

    People got brainwashed, honestly, that wat happen with communist countries. Infor got hidden and changed by the govts, fun fun. And the citizens, many of them, believe watever the govts thru at them without thinking much.

    • WTF

      “Infor got hidden and changed by the govts, fun fun. And the citizens, many of them, believe watever the govts thru at them without thinking much.”

      You can say the same thing about america, where people still believe that Iraq had nukes and ties to al qaeda.

    • Jimmy

      Oh yeah, people in Capitalist countries never follow their government blindly and are educated and active in the political process…

      PFFT LOL

    • LOLZ

      “And the citizens, many of them, believe watever the govts thru at them without thinking much.”

      That would describe most citizens for most nations.

      A lot of the people on this forum for example, are brainwashed into thinking they know what is the best for China when it’s fucking obvious their knowledge about China are usually limited and they don’t fucking represent the Chinese people any more than your average Chinese person representing the world.

      I would say most of the people who are bashing China don’t give a fuck about China. They are bashing to make themselves feel good.

  • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

    Thinking that the ground underneath the pretty grass near America’s dog fart independent and freedom memorial grounds, that the American devils who died for America’s dog fart principles can be buried in such nice places, such clean places, my heart is truly upset!!! Motherfucking Americans! NMLGB!

    This is literally the most stupid thing I have ever read on ChinaSMACK, and I follow Kai’s comments religiously! Just how exactly is it America’s fault that the Chinese government apparently doesn’t give a shit about its dead soldiers? That it apparently could not even be bothered to mark the anniversary of the war it fought for pretty much no reason and to pretty much no result?

    • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

      I mean, seriously, it’s like some kind of Pavlov’s Dogs-style conditioned response, the commenter is so brain-washed that he cannot blame the Chinese government for something so obviously wrong as not looking after the graves of its soldiers, so he has to find some way, any way, that this can be blamed on America.

    • http://cnreviews.com Kai

      Like Capt. WED, I think you and FYIADragoon are both mistaken. I’m betting the commenter was being sarcastic, using hyperbole to mock the more hyper-nationalistic elements of Tiexue’s community, which it is known for (and military shit). He’s parodying the anti-American hyper-nationalists who always curse America, using their language, but utimately showing how the Americans treat their veterans and dead soldiers far better than China does in this case.

      FOARP, you follow quite a few China blogs. I’m surprised that after all this time, of observing China, that you jumped to such a conclusion. Maybe this too is some kind of Pavlov Dogs-styled conditioned response? You should’ve known better, FOARP, especially if you follow my comments religiously.

      • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

        Dude, I did consider this, but there’s just no way you can interpret these words that way – apart from anything else it’s just not funny either in English or in Chinese. No, he’s just hacking away at the yanks for no reason.

        • http://cnreviews.com Kai

          I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you considered it. However, how can there be “no way” to interpret these words that way when I and Capt. WED already have?

          I feel I have a more accurate interpretation given that I read the Chinese and I seem to be more familiar with the Tiexue forum than you. Whether or not it is funny is irrelevant because that’s subjective. People make jokes that some find funny and other’s don’t all the time. Do you read TechCrunch? Check out the post on Sarah Silverman on the word “retarded” at the TED conference.

          I think you’re misreading his intent. If you don’t believe me, you can go private message the guy on Tiexue and see if he’ll clarify for you. Till then, I could definitely be wrong and he’s a whackjob but I’m pretty damn confident of my reading having followed Chinese netizen comments myself. What do you think?

        • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

          “I seem to be more familiar with the Tiexue forum than you”,

          That I’ll give you. I’ve read it a few times but I guess my laowai brain just can’t handle the raw power of untamed truth on that particular site.

          “What do you think?”

          What I think is that you are rather more liable to give the benefit of the doubt to Chinese commenters than the majority of Chinese people are. And yes, the lack of obvious humour does militate against it being a joke.

      • LOLZ

        LOL what did you expect from a guy who runs a blog titled “fear of a red planet”, a balanced view?

  • Jay K

    1. pusan playa once again right on target with his comment, and good he commented first.

    2. that def has balls to call it the self defense war<–Jones, you def get props from me

    3. some are complaining "well what about the 2003 war/conflict in iraq…its the same thing" im not going to stand here and deny that the the u.s. didnt attack iraq for one of the main reasons for oil and make some excuses of WMD's as a basis of attacking iraq.<–it did happen however i'd like to look at the case objectively that in future history books or current ones and things we see in news today no one is calling it "The Great Regime Change for the Better of the Iraqi People" if anything people will criticize it and point fingers blaming the bush admin for mistakes
    WHEREAS
    4. in this Sino-Vietnam War the CCP actually had the balls and audacity to name it and put it in their text and in media as the "Counterattack in Vietnam as Self Defense"
    can you imagine calling it this war in front of a vietnamese person or better yet having a japanese going to a chinese person and saying you know the "Counterattack of China as Self Defense" in the 1930s was a reasonable advice at the time since we did not want China to fall victims and be persuaded by Communist factions from the Soviets…im sure the chinese would want to pour hot boiling oil at the japanese person.

    5. this common soldier i commend for what he did

    6. was this a publicity stunt again by the ccp/50 cent party to stir emotions for the chinese new year or some type of other upcoming activity?<–perhaps working overtime to stir national emotions and get people to curse the evil devils known as america since obama is going to meet the llama dude

    7. the countless amounts of food i ate last night for spring festival was amazing, and having it come out while reading this article and others argue was a reliever also. i had to flush the toilet 3 times.

    8. happy chinese new year everyone hope all is good for everyone

    9. fauna is there a thread in the future u could do with relationships/sex/etc but from a perspective of like interracial dating. i.e. what cn girls have said about their dates/relationships/sex life with foreign men cn guys with foreign girls etc. i thinkt his would be a great thread and everyone would be definitely fapping to it while reading it..you dear are a good softcore erotica writer afterall from previous topics

    10.i like to beat the airplane

    • http://cnreviews.com Kai

      Jay K, you really should read at least the Wikipedia entry linked above.

      We all laugh at the awkward name China domestically attributes to this war, but how surprising is it for them to skew it towards their perspective? It’s the difference between “invaders” and “liberators”. This was a great example of geo-politics, of each country aggressively pursuing and defending their own interests. Vietnam invaded Cambodia for a reason just as China invaded Vietnam for a reason. You can’t really understand why mainland China calls the Sino-Vietnamese war what it does without understanding the entire course of events. They’re of course going to claim it was a “counter-attack” in “self-defense”. As far as they were concerned, they were responding to an actualized threat to their ally and interests.

      • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

        Kai, it may not be surprising that the government called it this at the time, what is surprising is that these terms have never been revisited light of later events and analysis, and that these names continue to be used without apparent irony despite anyone with even an ounce of intellect knowing them to be baloney.

        • http://cnreviews.com Kai

          FOARP,

          The lack of apparent irony amongst some Chinese people using that name isn’t necessarily because they don’t have an ounce of intellect. It may be because they don’t benefit from the same pool of information or education you have enjoyed OR they may just see things differently from you, that they genuinely did see Vietnam’s invasion of a Chinese ally to be a threat they defended against.

          Look, you need to avoid seeing Chinese people as being brainwashed or idiots for what they believe and seriously consider that they may genuinely disagree with you for genuine reasons you can actually understand if you tried. You don’t have to ultimately agree with them, but it doesn’t help if you dismiss them like you do. If they feel you’re going to belittle them and what they genuinely think anyway, why should they even bother listening to you?

          What’s your goal? To express contempt or to increase mutual understanding and “intellect”?

          • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

            Did it occur to you that I might, you know, have been exposed to the same pool of education that most Chinese people have in this are – that being being brief mention in text books, newspapers and museum displays, always without any serious attempt to justify the phrase?

          • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

            And no, I do this to ask if anyone has a good explanation for why people use terminology which many of them know to be wrong. Most Chinese people I know who I have discussed the Korean war with do not believe that the Chinese army was made up of ‘volunteers’, yet they still use this term. Many Chinese people I know do not think of 1949 as a ‘liberation’, yet they use this term. Most Chinese people do not really believe that China is ‘socialist’, or that ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’ is a meaningful term, yet they still find themselves using this term.

            So, look, you need to avoid seeing expats as simple robots or lines of code which produce automated responses based on simple factors all of which you are already aware of. You quite obviously are not, nor is your oh-so-predictable line of argument (“you are a hypocrite who doesn’t understand China”) effective.

          • http://cnreviews.com Kai

            FOARP,

            Did it occur to you that I might, you know, have been exposed to the same pool of education that most Chinese people have in this are – that being being brief mention in text books, newspapers and museum displays, always without any serious attempt to justify the phrase?

            No. The reason is because it is irrelevant to my disagreement with you: That you’re expressing unfair contempt and getting angry at those who would take offense to you doing so. You’re calling Chinese people idiots for simply agreeing with a name you disagree with.

            despite anyone with even an ounce of intellect knowing them to be baloney.

            I do this to ask if anyone has a good explanation for why people use terminology which many of them know to be wrong.

            Which people are using terminology they know to be wrong? How do you know they know it to be wrong? whichone and WTF both offered you explanations for why they use this terminology.

            Most Chinese people I know who I have discussed the Korean war with do not believe that the Chinese army was made up of ‘volunteers’, yet they still use this term.

            Because it has passed into convention, like Kleenex (the convention part, not the genericide part). You never encountered misnomers remaining in widespread use?

            Many Chinese people I know do not think of 1949 as a ‘liberation’, yet they use this term. Most Chinese people do not really believe that China is ’socialist’, or that ’socialism with Chinese characteristics’ is a meaningful term, yet they still find themselves using this term.

            See above. Many Americans know America is not a democracy yet they still find themselves using this term, right?

            So, look, you need to avoid seeing expats as simple robots or lines of code which produce automated responses based on simple factors all of which you are already aware of. You quite obviously are not, nor is your oh-so-predictable line of argument (“you are a hypocrite who doesn’t understand China”) effective.

            I’m sorry you see me that way and that you reduce my arguments to “you are a hypocrite who doesn’t understand China”. Clearly you know very little about me and/or you’re quite selective in absorbing and remembering the comments I write. If you’re not going to be mature enough to genuinely discuss our disagreement, I’m going to ask you to kindly refrain from making childish insults about me in the future. We can agree to disagree with each other’s person without indulging in immaturity.

      • Jay K

        thank you kai thank you very much for assuming i did not read this on wiki before. i did not finely read everything as i had skimmed parts of it, as your way to put me down in these boards. its times like these that i still wish you and pusan playa would set up a boxing match as i had envisioned many topics before,

        im not the only one here talking about the names of the war events

        i’ll leave it up to you. i have my views you have yours even though i have never cared much for your viewpoints or holier than thou antics.. and at times i wish pusan playa would have given you the people’s elbow The Rock style<–i wiki this just in case i made a mistake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_people%27s_elbow)

        but i shall not say anymore of negative things, rather i bid you a good chinese new year. and ate plenty!

        • http://cnreviews.com Kai

          If you’re following my other comments (as you apparently do for you to have built up such a strong bitterness towards me), I’m not suggesting you’re the only one here talking about the names of war events.

          Furthermore, I’m still waiting for you to articulate why you think I’m “holier than thou”, any more than yourself or many of the other people here who express and defend their opinions.

          I don’t go out of the way to dick with you, Jay K. If you stop dicking with me on random comments, we can keep it about the actual subject. In this case, you expressed disbelief that China would have the balls to refer to the war as self-defense. If you had read the Wikipedia entry, you shouldn’t understood why they felt that way. It was very clearly and extensively covered. Is it surprising for me to suggest you read it so you wouldn’t have such a incredulous response?

          We agree on many things, Jay K. It’s okay if we disagree on some. That of course includes what you think of me, and what I think of you for what you think of me.

  • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

    I will tell what I know to my child and grandchild that the this is how the People’s Republic of China came to be!!!

    Errr . . . once again, yeah. The PRC had been around for 30 blood-soaked years by the time that its little foray into Vietnam occurred. The war did nothing for China except expose for all the world to see exactly how decrepit its armed forces had become during the Cultural Revolution.

    This is yet another example of people just mouthing empty slogans instead of thinking. I’m beginning to think that the commenter above is correct when he says that this must be part of some kind of Wu Mao Dang publicity offensive. It is hard to believe that commentary that is this stupid could come about otherwise.

    • http://cnreviews.com Kai

      I’m not so sure the Chinese commenter is literally saying the Sino-Vietnamese War is how the People’s Republic of China was founded. If you read the Chinese, it could easily be interpreted that long-suffering, self-sacrificing soldiers and individuals is how the PRC came to be, that what they have today is a result of what others have gone through before.

      While I understand the colored lenses through which you view things, Fear Of A Red Planet, I do think you’re missing a lot.

      • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

        Kai, I really don’t think you do understand the coloured lenses which I see things through. The name comes from an album by Public Enemy and I’ve used it for a long time, but beyond that, it just seems like you are automatically trying to put forward an interpretation of this comment for which there is no actual grounding – unless you can point one out that is – because you don’t like the most natural and reasonable interpretation.

        • http://cnreviews.com Kai

          FOARP, the interpretation is based on context. Context of the Chinese, of the post the commenter is responding to, and the context of the membership of the Tiexue forum.

          Your interpretation is based upon a literal reading of the ENGLISH translation divorced from all the context I mention and consider above. I think it is natural and reasonable to consider context. Do you?

        • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

          Kai, I read the Chinese one as well. And the context in this case is the Sino-Vietnamese war – which happened in 1979. So no, you don’t really have a point.

          • http://cnreviews.com Kai

            FOARP,

            The context is also about a veteran spending 30 years of his life moving for city to city in search of the remains of his war buddy whom he made a promise to. The context is also about commenters above commenting about China not taking care of its veterans despite the costs they’ve bore for their nation. I don’t think the alternative interpretation (to your’s) is remotely unreasonable given such context.

  • Joe Banks

    First……

    Don’t fuck with Vietnam. That nation will fight anyone, anytime and there is no way to beat them. They will just dig holes and tunnels and hide in and go back to conducting guerrilla warfare.

    Second…………..

    I don’t like the Vietnamese political system. However, they did liberate (even though this was not the intent) the poor Cambodian people from a regime that murdered up to 30% of the population. China supported this murdering regime and felt that there must be “punishment” since Vietnam invaded an ally. The Chinese started that war and got their asses handed to them.

    Third………….

    China supports evil regimes. Khmer Rouge, North Korea, Myanmar.

    • beowulf

      You know who also backed the Cambodian Regime? The USA

  • http://没有.cn.com kedafu

    “McNamara, didn’t you know that? Don’t you understand that we have been fighting the Chinese for 1000 years?”
    -Comrade Thach

    one of the best quotes I have ever heard…

    anyone see ji jie hao?

    pretty cool movie,

    puts confucius to shame…

  • http://没有.cn.com kedafu

    I heard the quote from “Fog of War” Mcnamara memoirs

    nice…. the Trung sisters, those were some bad ass women,

    thanks for bringing that up, I forgot about thoses two.

  • Yin

    Let’s be honest, guys. China invaded because it was on a roll. Defeating the Nationalists, drawing the Americans in Korea, feuding with the Soviets for leadership of a movement that looked to swallow all of Asia… It was on a power trip. LOOK AT ME I’M THE MIDDLE KINGDOM WE’RE BACK BITCHES TIME TO TEACH THOSE JUNGLE ASIANS A LESSON!1!

    Then of course battle-hardened Vietnam whooped China’s ass and humiliated the PLA so much they began to “modernize.”

    More seriously, look at the time frame. It was 1979, three years after Mao’s death. There was a power vacuum within the CCP and everybody was trying to looking for ways to increase their own political prestige. The PLA had not fought a major conflict since the Korean War, and its combat capability was in decline. The Sino-Soviet split was in full motion and Vietnam threw in with the Soviets. China felt that it needed a victory to bump its image as a credible great power and a viable alternative to Soviet leadership. Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia came at a time when China felt the need to throw its weight around in regional affairs, and it had no diplomatic stakes – besides losing – to speak of, since it was still isolated on the international stage. To not respond to their Cambodian ally, at this time, was to show that China was a paper tiger. And let’s face it, the CCP didn’t give a shit about whether Pol Pot killed millions because, well, they never did.

    Strategically, it was a terrible mistake. Vietnam came out of the Vietnam War with a veteran army and militia that knew guerilla warfare like the back of their hand. China has always had trouble invading Vietnam since the Vietnamese gained their independence a thousand years ago, and this was no exception. Never mind the casualty figures that can’t be verified – the way you tell who won the war is to see who got what they wanted. Thus, though the Americans probably killed far more Vietcong than the other way around, you could tell that they lost the Vietnam War because Vietnam is still Communist. Just the same, you could tell that the Chinese lost the Sino-Vietnamese War because the Vietnamese didn’t leave Cambodia.

    China calling the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979 the Counter-Attack Against Vietnam in Self-Defense is like Japan calling the Sino-Japanese War the Great War For Liberating China. But unlike Japan, which has been defeated and occupied, the same party is basically still in charge of China, so you’re not going to hear Hu Jintao apologizing to the Vietnamese any time soon. Still, my guess is that most people who fought in the war, on both sides, were indoctrinated to believe that their cause was just. So, it wasn’t really their fault, and people could do worse than honor the soldiers who gave their lives for the country, even if the leaders of that country didn’t give a shit about it themselves.

    • Yin

      Just to clarify, “they never did” => “they never cared too much about this kind of thing.”

    • Tins of sardines

      Nice work Yin.

      Well written and moderately convincing.

  • Jimmy

    If many of you would stop suckling on Uncle Sam’s teet and wake up to the world that actually exists instead of the fantasy that Americans and the West like to play make believe in, you would that a statement such as “China supports evil regimes” is laughable because it’s completely oblivious to actual facts and history.

    It might shock you to know, but it is the United States who is the number one supporter of “evil regimes” in the world. The USA has trained (google “School of the Americas”), armed and installed dictators (often overthrowing legitimate governments and killing thousands of civilians to do so) countless dictators across Asia, Africa and Latin America in the name of “democracy” and “human rights”.

    Infamous leaders such as Pinochet in Chile, General Mobutu of Zaire, Saddam Hussein, The Taliban/Al Qaida and dozens more like them were hand picked and supported by the US government and the CIA; I could go much further, but I’ll stay on topic and focus on Cambodia.

    During its war with Vietnam, three decades of U.S. carpet bombing in Vietnam and Cambodia killed more people than Pol Pot ever could on his best day.

    However, the point of this post is to point out that the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot were brought to power in Cambodia as a direct result of actions by the United States and later were supported and sustained by the United States, Britain, Thailand and China during the Vietnamese-Cambodian conflict. (For those less keen on history, I point out that this was NOT Maoist China. By the time the Cambodian-Viet conflict popped off, Mao had been long dead. Deng Xiaoping was in power at the time who had long been reversing Mao’s political and economic policies and getting into bed with the Western imperialists.)

    The USA overthrew Norodom Sihanouk in a CIA coup and installed the puppet leader Lon Nol who was friendly to the United States. Cambodia was so wrecked from years of bombings, plagued with Lon Nol’s poltical policies, disease and famine which lead to public support of the Khmer Rouge guerillas and their take over in 1975.

    Next, let’s dismantle another lie about Cambodia. Neither the Khmer Rouge nor Pol Pot were communist and NEVER claimed to be.

    “We are not communists … we are revolutionaries” who do not ‘belong to the commonly accepted grouping of communist Indochina.”–Ieng Sary (Second in Command of the Khmer Rouge), 1977.

    [Source: Vickery, Michael. “Cambodia: 1975-1983.” Washington University Press 2000. pg. 288]

    Even after getting taken to school in Vietnam, the United States was still salivating at any and every chance to spurn Communism in South East Asia. Which is why after the Vietnamese victory over the Khmer Rouge, when Pol Pot and his forces were fleeing from Cambodia to exile, the United States and her supporters then began to support Pol Pot financially, militarily and politically.

    In fact, the United States even refused to recognize the new government that came to power after Pol Pot had been ousted.

    “Although the Khmer Rouge government ceased to exist in January 1979, when the Vietnamese army drove it out, its representatives continued to occupy Cambodia’s UN seat. Their right to do so was defended and promoted by Washington as an extension of the Cold War, as a mechanism for US revenge on Vietnam, and as a part of its new alliance with China.” (1)

    Why would the U.S. refuse to acknowledge a government that was replacing a genocidal maniac like Pol Pot? You might argue that it was because it was a government backed by the Vietnamese and by extension, the Soviet Union; but surely any type of government was better than the mass terror caused by the Khmer Rouge…that is, unless, the U.S. imperialists didn’t give a shit about Cambodia’s killing fields until much later when it served a propaganda purpose and were much more concerned about maintaining their world imperial power structure.

    Many dimwitted Laowai on this web site have been too far forward in condemning China for their actions against Vietnam for displacing the Khmer Rouge when the United States and Britain supported them ever more so.

    “In November 1980, the just elected Reagan administration and the Khmer Rouge made direct contact when Dr. Ray Cline, a former deputy director of the CIA, secretly visited a Khmer Rouge operational headquarters in Cambodia” (2)

    “The US not only helped to create conditions that brought Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge to power in 1975, but actively supported the genocidal force, politically and financially. By January 1980, the US was secretly funding Pol Pot’s exiled forces on the Thai border. The extent of this support — $85 million from 1980-86 — was revealed 6 years later in correspondence between congressional lawyer Jonathan Winer, then counsel to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation.” (3)

    “During his reign as National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brezenski played an important role in determining how the U.S. would support the Pol Pot guerillas. Elizabeth Becker, an expert on Cambodia wrote, “Brezenski himself claims that he concocted the idea of persuading Thailand to fully co-operate with China to rebuild the Khmer Rouge…Brezenski said “I encouraged China to support Pol Pot, I encouraged the Thai to support the Democratic Kampuchea. The question was how the help the Cambodian People. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could.”” (4)

    So you see? This quote reveals how the U.S. wanted to support the Khmer Rouge through China. They couldn’t openly show support because if they did they would be exposed as the liars and hypocrites that they were.

    “In 1980, under US pressure, the World Food Program handed over food worth $12 million to the Thai Army to pass on to the KR. According to former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke,’20,000 to 40,000 Pol Pot guerrillas benefited. This aid helped restore the KR to a fighting force, based in Thailand, from which it destabilized Cambodia for more than a decade.'” (5)

    “In 1982, the US and China, supported by Singapore, invented the Coalition of the Democratic Government of Kampuchea, which was, as Ben Kiernan pointed out, neither a coalition, nor democratic, nor a government, not in Kampuchea. Rather, it was what the CIA calls a ‘master illusion.’ … Cambodia’s former ruler, Prince Norodom Sihanouk, was appointed its head; otherwise little changed. The KR dominated the two “non-communist” members, the Sihanoukists and the Khmer Peoples’ National Liberation Front (KPNLF). From his office at the UN, Pol Pot’s ambassador, the urbane Thereon Parish, continued to speak for Cambodia. A close associate of Pol Pot, he had in 1975 called on Khmer expatriates to return home, whereupon many of them disappeared.” (6)

    [Sources: “On the side of Pol Pot: the U.S. supports the Khmer Rouge”

    “The Long Secret Alliance: Uncle Sam and Pol Pot”

    ]

    So there you have it, the United States, again, in an effort to spread their so called freedom have once again raised up and supported a dictator and and even genocide, as long as it fits into their political agenda.

    The U.S. support of Pol Pot is easily known to anyone who actually spends time learning about history for themselves instead of sitting at home stuffing their face with Big Macs, watching American Idol and letting the corporate media spoon fed them with any type of bullshit dribble they can come up with.

    • Jimmy

      Blah, unfortunately, China Smack has no edit button.

      The two sources I provided are articles in .pdf format, I tried to link them but they didn’t go through.

      Google the names and you can read them for yourself.

    • http://cnreviews.com Kai

      FOARP may be British so not too sure about the Big Macs and American Idol (it would be Pop Idol if so).

      The irony of this entire situation is how many people who are quick to judge China’s self-selected name representating the Sino-Vietnamese War based upon their own self-selected perceptions of what nation or cause they identify with.

      I don’t think there’s anything wrong with supporting or being against something or another, but not recognizing the underlying geo-political realities and insisting on moralizing everything black and white, “us” vs. “them” is really tiresome.

      • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

        ““us” vs. “them” is really tiresome.”

        Kai, why don’t you ever apply this analysis to the OP or the pro-CCP commenters, but only to the expat posters? You literally surf these pages giving +1 to almost every pro-CCP voice and -1 to every dissenter, and this is fine since it fits in with your beliefs. However, then turning round and saying “you guys see all this as us-and-them” when most of us have lived in China, have Chinese friends, have learned the Chinese language, and certainly do not harbour any thoughts about China being irrevocably evil and our home countries as being paragons of virtue. Please, most of us know what we are saying and require no analysis of our opinions beyond what our words declare us to believe. Only those whose immediate response to anything is a statement lacking any meaningful logical link to the original proposition, whose statements seem more a symptom of pathology rather than logic, who are simply trying to change the subject, only these people are in need of such advice – but you’d do much better to point out the illogicality of their position than engage in psycho-analysis.

        • http://cnreviews.com Kai

          FOARP,

          why don’t you ever apply this analysis to the OP or the pro-CCP commenters, but only to the expat posters?

          Because that’s the population that dominates here, FOARP. Why would I apply this analysis to the OP when the OP doesn’t visit chinaSMACK?

          The other commenters are not necessarily pro-CCP and it is childish for you to misrepresent their disagreement and arguments as such. That’s such a dick move and the worse thing is I know you know it is.

          I don’t always take the “Chinese” side to task when they’re here on chinaSMACK but I don’t always take the “foreigner” side to task either.

          The fact is, you know absolutely nothing about my discussions and interactions with Chinese people, especially on Chinese discussion forums. As for my reputation on chinaSMACK, I can’t help but react with a consideration to my time, interest, and percpetion of the psychographic makeup of this community on this blog. I do prefer to challenge prevailing misconceptions, but they’re naturally limited to what prevailing misconceptions are, well, prevailing at any particular place. On chinaSMACK, it’s the China “bashers”. They make up the majority here, so is it really surprising that I end up calling for them to calm down more than the few Chinese nationalists that occassionally pop up? When it’s “bashing”, it’s not well-reasoned qualified critiques about China, it’s about all the ignorant, trite, pithy rants and judgements of China and its people. I think the insecurity behind a lot (not all) of them is deplorable.

          In general, I think this blog has the potential to increase humility understanding between Chinese and foreigners. The stories are occassionally salacious but there are also a lot of really good posts too. The key thing is that I think the vast majority of what I see of Chinese netizens here can be found in foreign netizens as well. This alone should help us understand that we’re more alike than different and thus deserving a bit more understanding, compassion, and benefit of the doubt.

          But I also understand how easy it is for this blog to be a lightning rod for ignorance, intolerance, and categorical idiocy. After all, chinaSMACK doesn’t hide the ignorance, intolerance, and categorical idiocy of Chinese netizens either in the selection of comments they translate. As a result, this blog is arguably infested with attitudes much like and worse than your own, preoccupied with expressing contempt than any genuine interest to better understand things. I’m sorry, that’s the way I feel about you, especially with the dick things you’ve been saying about me.

          But that’s life. I have no delusions about my ability to change the grand scheme of things, but I’ll react to what annoys me as much as the next person. It just so happens to I’m reacting against you and your attitudes today.

          Don’t make this about “why are you always on their side and not our’s?” This isn’t and shouldn’t be about “sides”. It should be about pursuing what is reasonable, right, and — ideally — constructive.

          You literally surf these pages giving +1 to almost every pro-CCP voice and -1 to every dissenter, and this is fine since it fits in with your beliefs.

          Can you actually explain how those voices are “pro-CCP” and how the others are merely “dissenters”? How would my characterization of the comments as “pro-reason” vs. “pro-contempt” make you feel? A lot of good and bad points were made in these comments. Reducing it down to it being “pro-CCP” and “dissent” is incredibly stupid. WTF already said this before.

          However, then turning round and saying “you guys see all this as us-and-them” when most of us have lived in China, have Chinese friends, have learned the Chinese language, and certainly do not harbour any thoughts about China being irrevocably evil and our home countries as being paragons of virtue.

          FOARP, many expats and foreigners share my opinion of attitudes like your’s. I’ll be less critical of your comments when they actually evidence you possessing some sort of tempered rationality when it comes to discussing contentious issues relating to China and the Chinese.

          I know and accept that I rub people the wrong way. Congratulations, you do too.

          Please, most of us know what we are saying and require no analysis of our opinions beyond what our words declare us to believe.

          Right, which only makes me want to call you guys out all the more.

          Only those whose immediate response to anything is a statement lacking any meaningful logical link to the original proposition, whose statements seem more a symptom of pathology rather than logic, who are simply trying to change the subject, only these people are in need of such advice.

          Sorry, I’ll dispene my advice according to whom I think deserves it. I happen to think you meet the criteria you yourself list.

          but you’d do much better to point out the illogicality of their position than engage in psycho-analysis.

          Psycho-analysis. Hm. Maybe. For now, I’ll be content not to automatically label those who disagree with me as being “pro-CCP”.

          But you’re really making this too much about me when it is really about you unfairly moralizing complex geo-political conflicts to condemn a preferred target.

          • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

            As you yourself often say, mmmmm. Why do I label people ‘pro-CCP’? Could it posibly be cause they are supporting the CCP? What an unfair label to give them . . . .

          • http://cnreviews.com Kai

            FOARP,

            How am I supporting the CCP here? Simply by disagreeing with you or other people on issues you’re ignoring in your haste to label me “pro-CCP”?

        • LOLZ

          Just how thin skinned do you have to be to even care about the fucking voting up/down +1/-1 system?

          That said, it’s great at least someone took their time to figure out how to get this damned feature to work.

    • LOLZ

      The bottom line is that Chinese should stop feeling like they have to the “good guys”. Industrialized Democractic nations always do what’s in their national interest against the “freedom” bullshit which they spew all day long, and then make up some illogical reasons to justify what they did. The fact that most of their citizens suffers from cognitive dissonance is just a sign that the people have gotten accustomed to the hypocrisy.

      There is no reason for China to be bashful. It acted totally selfish and it should. Calling out Americans for acting like hypocrites doesn’t help the Chinese cause. It only implies that China wants to be a hypocrite too, but is whining because everyone else doesn’t allow China to get away with it.

  • Sanny

    “Against Vietnam In Self-Defense”

    So China is actually saying that Cambodia is part of the muddle kingdom with that statement. They are a vindictive lot and I can understand the Vietnamese student comments about China being a threat.

    China is a very dangerous and vindictive menace that will cause many future conflicts in Asia if it doesn’t end up in one huge one with the rest of the planet beforehand.

    Okay, nobody doubts that America has done some very evil things but the the word will need redefining in the dictionary if China gets it’s way.

    • http://cnreviews.com Kai

      Sanny,

      So China is actually saying that Cambodia is part of the muddle kingdom with that statement.

      No, it’s not actually saying that. It’s saying Vietnam’s invasion into Cambodia threatened China’s interests. They “counterattacked” to “defend” their own interests.

      • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

        Except China continues to maintain that it was attacked by Vietnam first, so whilst Sanny is off-base, you are too. Try learning some history.

        • Jean

          From my understanding of the Sino-Vietnamese War, the reason they attacked Vietnam, was to prove that the USSR was a paper Tiger. Back then, the USSR was supporting Vietnam’s regime and their invation against Cambodia. It was thought that, if China invaded Vietnam, they would help Vietnam by invading China. The PLA’s elite forces were stationed in the Chinese Russian border.

        • http://cnreviews.com Kai

          FOARP, I don’t think:

          So China is actually saying that Cambodia is part of the muddle kingdom with that statement.

          …is merely “off-base”.

          How is me saying that Vietnam’s invasion into Cambodia was seen by China as threatening its interests “off-base” at all?

          How would learning some history change the fact of what I said?

          Try learning some reading comprehension.

          • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

            Yes that’s “off base” as in “wrong”, Kai. And you were too. Try learning English.

          • http://cnreviews.com Kai

            FOARP, how is me saying Vietnam’s invasion into Cambodia was seen by China as threatening its interests “wrong”?

        • Zhegezhege

          Gentlemen, if I may…

          1) Yin summed up the history pretty well, but the Party People didn’t like that and after what looked like a ‘let’s leave it there’ response, Kai came in with his comment about pig wrestling. Also, I am making the risky assumption that Kai, roflcopter and so on aren’t all the same very busy virgin who felt disrespected while studying abroad without taking an honest look at himself.

          2) Chinese are free to talk with as much venom as they like about foreigners, like the frothing insanity of 中国不高兴. However, unless they’re ass-kissing or self-congratulating, Chinese have to be very careful when talking about their own country. If you think this is OK, then here’s some happy news: you’re brainwashed!

          3) You can talk about history of censorship, culture of deference to authority, 和谐 and so on but everyone knows that being able to say what you like is better than the alternative.

          4) Yes, even if it’s going to be difficult to impossible to change a system which allows free money for billionaires, wars and unlimited political donations from the same guys who are busy organising fake grassroots activity, it’s still better.

          5) So I’m saying that there’s not much point in arguing with these guys once they start giving us the party line, and no point at all in getting in to finicky details with them. This is because their goal, as most conveniently illustrated by the aforementioned pig wrestling comment is not to find common ground, conciliate, agree to disagree nor even win the argument – but to start and then prolong it.

          6) That said, even though it’s a bit like arguing with an obese redneck telling you that Obama wants to turn America in to a Muslim version of Russia, it can be fun to own them.

          7) Hope you all had a fun Chinese New Year and were appropriately 酩酊大醉!

          • Tins of sardines

            Does this mean we aren’t going to skip stones this weekend?

            Capt. Wed, you really know how to hurt a man.

  • Sanny

    “but the the word will” should read “the word ‘evil’ will”

  • opensights

    I’v spent ages and read all the posts here and indeed learned something; I have started to respect the Vietnamese and I want to go there on a camping holiday with Capt.Wed!

  • Alikese

    There should either be no voting on comments, or voting for everyone.

    There are some idiotic comments up there getting +1 and good comments getting -1. It’s nothing short of infuriating.

  • Xav

    Raining again.
    9:24
    Good waves on Sunday. Head high range and nice offshore.

  • Xav

    Well, she should.

  • http://没有.cn.com kedafu

    哈哈哈 “charlie doesnt surf”

    nice quote REAGGE man!

    I gotta see that movie again been too long, redux version.

    seriously anyone see Assembly, Ji Jie Hao, like the article mentioned

    great movie,

    one good scene is when the protagonist calls in an artillery strike on an American held bridge….

    Fantastic!

    Listening to “the end” by the Doors and dedicating it to Cap. Cock and Helicoptor Girl!

    until next time…

  • http://yourshinebox.blogspot.com/ JM

    This is a article about a man looking for a friend he lost 30 years ago, not about Pol Pot or Iraq.

    Happy New Year everyone.

    • http://没有.cn.com kedafu

      ITS ABOUT LIFE!!!

  • beowulf

    It´s funny how many US Commentaries are mocking the Chinese name of the war and call the chinese brainwashed.
    Why is it so funny? Because the US are giving their wars names like “Operation Just Cause”, “Operation Iraqi Freedom” or “Operation Enduring Freedom”

    lol

    • Tins of sardines

      Well in all honesty the OP did only mention the Chinese Counter “Attack against Vietnam” which is why it is commented on and ridiculed.

      I am from Laowailand and I think the Laowai wars are as unjust as the Chinese invasion of Laowai-nam was.

      Don’t worry about giving me the 5 mao you earned with your last post. You can keep it.

  • tisme

    The Chinese invasion of Vietnam was to teach a lesson to the Soviet Union about it pledge to protect it member if attack. When China attack Vietnam for 3 weeks and saw no retaliatory attack from the Soviet Union, it won the diplomatic victory.

    This diplomatic victory was important to show that the Soviet Union could not protect it member so any country who are willing to join the Soviet Union will not be garanty to have protection.

    • Harribo

      Chairman Mao used to eat babies, I was told that, by someone, and I think its true cos I want to and it makes me feel good about myself, plus I have just left China after being there for many years doing terrible things to disrupt the harmonious society and no longer fear the repurcussions of your powerful sexy, hard, government

  • Harribo

    ok ive heard both sides of the argument and ive decided KAI you are a dick, the rest of em are just wankers, especially that jones guy who spends far too much time sticking his nose in and cringingly justifying his presence…but where was I yes Kai you are a dick and I refuse to back this up with any evidence as 1. whats the point and 2. you are a dick……….and yes come on, you are taking sides, and you’re reason you are protecting the minority of visitors here, jesus come on they’re chinese and they are hardly in the minority, and there is no doubting that many chinese netizens hold dangerously stupid opinions, as do our own netizens from where ever we are, difference is at least we can call them out without fear of being accused of misinterpreting what is really being said. Kai 2+2 = 5 you make me sick, grow a spine and call a spade a spade you mother!

  • Itisme

    China does not support the Khmer Rouge in their purge in Cambodia.

    The Khmer Rouge did not only target Vietnamese during their purge. Their target was broad and include Buddhist monks, Muslims, Western-educated intellectuals, educated people in general, people who had contact with Western countries or with Vietnam, disabled people, and the ethnic Chinese, Laotians and Vietnamese.

    China support Cambodia King Norodom Sihanouk because he chose non alignment. The king wanted Cambodia to be independence from any foreign rule. China wanted all parties in Cambodia to form a coalition government to rebuild Cambodia with the King as head of state. Except the parties did not listen to this advice and choose their own way. The infighting between the parties in Cambodia led to the victory of Saloth Sar aka Pol Pot. When Pol Pot form his own government, the prince Sihahouk was put under house arrest. Then Pol Pot started the evacuation of the city by force, many Cambodian started to suffer. Pol Pot policy was extreme and cause many suffering.

    The conflict between Vietnam and Cambodia was about influence. Vietnam wanted a Cambodia under Vietnam supervision. Pol Pot was against it. Even if Pol Pot cause harm to Cambodian, he was not a traitor to the Cambodian. He fought against any outsider who try to control Cambodia. Pol Pot side with China because China did not interfere with Cambodia unlike the Soviet Union, American or Vietnam. China wanted Pol Pot to accept the King Sihanouk as the head of state and a chance of policy so Cambodia can once again be united between the different social status of Cambodian and ethnic group. China wanted Pol Pot to chance his way and adopt a more pragmatic policy in Cambodia.

    The Vietnamese government did not share the same view as China government, because they wanted to control Cambodia with the support of the Soviet Union. So the war between Vietnamese and Cambodian started.

    China invasion of Vietnam have one goal. That goal is to send a political message that a encircle of China in South East Asia will be meet by hostility. Chinese government could not let Vietnam control Cambodia and Laos and used it to close Chinese trade route. It wanted to show what will happen to Vietnam if it try with the Soviet Union to put a embargo around China. China was quick to send military troop into Vietnam and capture the cities close to Vietnam capitol. When this was done, China evacuate the troop. Whether the message was understood by the leaders of Vietnam, Vietnam did not implement a embargo to China. Cambodia and Laos was able to trade with China.

  • GG (aka Sanny)

    Its a really laughable topic, the Chinese openly lie to their own people about history by renaming their defeats then those people want to convince the every other country that obvious history never happened.

    China attacked Vietnam and Vietnam defended themselves.

    [Note from Fauna: Please do not use multiple names.]

    • Daphie

      THere is no point to argue with someone with deep-rooted misunderstanding.
      Where did you get the truth about this war? Were you there and did you fight the war?
      Otherwise it is hard for me to believe your story is true.

  • Hongjian

    Facepalming with the rage of a thousands of white burning, hate filled suns here.

    People who are seriously believing in ‘morality’ or ideals, and are argueing over who is wrong and right on the merciless battlefield of geopolitics, is just plainly retarded and is wasting precious time he could have used to laught about it all.

    There is no right and wrong in geopolitics.
    Every father, mother and child your country killed, every village, town and city your country burned,
    every country and nation your country destroyed,
    all it done for YOUR SAKE.
    Because YOU are your countries people. YOU are the elements your country consists of.
    And to achieve your ‘happiness’, your ‘wealth’ and your ‘pride’, is what propells your country’s government – also consisting of your people – to kill, burn and destroy others.

    Now imagine that every country acts like this; furthering their agandas mercilessly against all others in a giant zero-sum game, that is the battlefield of geopolitics: Now you have the real world of the adults – far away from all the naiive and childish fairy-tales about moral superiority, liberation and rightousness, in which lots of you sheeps are still believing in.

    After realizing this; tell me: Who is right and who is wrong in a brutal and uncaring world, where the survival of his own kin is the most important thing above all?
    My guess: My own kinsmen are right and my enemies are wrong, since they say the same about themselves vice-versa. Simple.

    So you sheeps, stop pretending about caring for the millions of dead people of your competitors in the struggle for survival and get real. Be happy that your government is willing to commit murder on your behalf, so that you can continue to enjoy the luxurious life of abundance and consumption you have, only BECAUSE you are sitting on the rotting bones of those you have slaughtered.

    Ideology, ideals, dreams, utopia, religion and morality are all the same kind of shit. The same kind of opium for the masses. The same kind of naiivety for the sheeps to believe in, to feel better while knowing the fact that for every second they themselves live in wealth, others will be murdered for it.

    And guess what? Even knowing this, I’m completely in the ‘feels good man’ mode. Since this is just how mother nature works. Winners gonna win, haters gonna hate, and weak people gonna die.

    Solution: Forget morality, never be weak instead.

    • Harribo

      Hile Hitler Amen and fuck off

      • Hongjian

        Haribo makes little children wet themselves. And also adults, by the way.

    • LOLZ

      “There is no right and wrong in geopolitics.”

      The “right side” are the winners because only winners get to rewrite the history books.

      • Hongjian

        luckily, in the multipolar world, the chances for a absolute ‘winner’ of the zero-sum game, are pretty weak.
        There are far too many factors and powers who are in competition with each other and all spreading their definition of right and wrong, for the ‘people’ to chose from. Actually, this is the ideal dream world of marxist dialectics – Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis.
        In this sense, the multipolar world with the warring powers and their versions of ‘thruth’ can actually be regarded as the pinnacle of humanity’s democratic development – even when it’s a blooddied one. As always.

  • opensights

    War from ground level
    It has been an interesting and informative read here. I have certainly learned from it. Mainly that the Chinese soldier feels for his mates as do the Brits, Germans, French and others. It is only national governments that can really ‘regret and forget’

    The Vietnamese must have been riding a ‘high’ in 79 and wanted to continue on a war footing, having defeated the most powerful nation on earth they must have felt invulnerable. China must have felt the vibes from that. Just like the West’s fear of Russia at the end of WW2.

    I have seen some of the ‘clips’ live from the Chinese attacking Vietnamese hill positions in the 79 war. I was impressed by the tactics at Chinese infantry company level, the infantry artillery liason and encircling tactics was good, also the camouflage. There was no evidence of the Korea ‘mass attack’ tactics.
    I got the impression the the Vietnam Border action was a ‘punative punch’ The best form of defense has often been to ‘attack! None of those soldiers would give a damn what its government was thinking at the time.

    I am now about to place my head above the parapet. I expect to get some flak!
    I fought in five wars, small wars, but they are big when you are in the middle of them, I didn’t give a stuff for my government either, bt I cared deeply for my friends about me.

    I am probably the only one on these posts that has actually fought against the Chinese, the jungle war in Malaya 1955-56. At that time I loathed all things Chinese. The red star on enemy hats and equipment brought out a burning hatred in me, their voices at night stayed with me for many years! I was only a kid of eighteen. My feelings are entirely different now.

    Now older and in solitude from military thinking I do not loath the Chinese. For twelve years I have worked with them and see them as people the same as us all. I really get wound up when someone who knows nothing about the world decries other nations. The more uneducated they are the louder they shout! The same goes for a few Chinese that I have met that have this same uneducated ‘anti’ attitude.

  • Richard

    That’s a pretty moving story. What struck me particularly in a profound way was the photo and idea of him standing at the border looking into Vietnam. Whatever our political differences with the actions of the countries of that era, I don’t think it should be that hard to feel for the common soldier.

    @kedafu
    Assembly was definitely a cool movie. As a war movie about the actual soldiers, it was as good as many Hollywood films.

    @Capt WED
    If it is possible, I could do without your haphazard multiple personality disorder comments. You can be silly but frankly you’re spamming incoherent nonsense most of the time. From the few lucid comments you do post, you seem like an okay guy in real life. Maybe you can try to cut back on the spam? Your spam makes it hard for anyone to take your serious comments seriously. And your serious comments are okay.

    The meta-discussion on the comments for this post is outrageous. To the guilty:

    @Kai
    Why do you bother? Learn from Yin, stop after your first post. Don’t write 20 more replies repeating yourself to people who refuse to listen the first time. You can’t change that. You don’t need to.

    @FOARP
    You can’t seem to hold an honest argument if your life depended on it. Here on this blog or elsewhere.

    @Jones
    I can’t decide if you’re playing stupid or if you’re really just stupid but I’m now leaning towards the latter.

  • http://wdbox2003.typepad.com/yishilaoshanyang w.d.box

    Behave guys! Check this out – chinaSMACK, MAKES THE BIGTIME.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100218/tc_afp/lifestylechinainternet

  • Octavian

    Self-Defense – what a crock of shit. Chinese is and has always wanted to be an imperialist nation. The Chinese soldier does not care for his “brothers” in arms. The Chinese soldiers has been used as cannon fodder for the Politburo for years.

  • Mongoloid

    Lol. A bunch of two-bit English teachers pretending to be experts about military affairs. Amazing repository of stupidity we have here in this topic.

  • Daphie

    What really make me feel bad is how deep the misunderstanding and prejudice people from Europe and America has for Chinese people. Communists, brainwashed, killers of Tibetans…The list goes on.
    Honestly dont every government do propoganda, lie about facts, ignore human rights? In some aspects the west is even more master than CCP. The TV programmes in the west are all quite political, making up all types of one-sided story about evil China.

    Switzerland did so many years of money landrary and Greek faked their fanancial record to join Eurozone but a lot people do not know it coz media dont show them. I take this example simply because CHina is always under microscope and whatever we do or whatever happens in CHina, the west will automatically think it is the fault of CHinese people instead of even try to get the story from our side – and anyway even if we say the truth nobody would not believe it, because it must be another proganda from the government.

    If I say Tibatans told me they would want a rich and comfortable life just like normal people thus want more Chinese tourists to go there,build railway etc for them and do not agree with Dalai, Europeans or Americans will not believe it.If I say a lot Chinese people are being killed by Xinjiang locals West will not believe it either. Nor if I say China is not imperialist country but we dont want to be controlled by others.

    They already had a prematured steroetype against Chinese people.

    So why argue anyway?

    • Tins of sardines

      Yeah Daphie, you are really not helping your arguement by writing.

      • Daphie

        And you are not helping my argument by writing either…

  • Pingback: Borrowed Culture()

  • opensights

    Daphie
    You have complained of other’s generalisation and anti Chinese sentiment, yet you have packed more bigoted and anti western/ Anti Australian comments into your post above than any other anti Chinese post shown here.

    • Daphie

      I am very surprised that you have read a lot hate from my comment. I dont really think I hate west that much like you said. I also complain about CHina all the time, does that make me a anti-CHinese or say, traitor (haha)? Or maybe it is like Buddism says: you see hate when you are filled with hate and you see love when you are filled with love. Or maybe I shall rephrase.
      I dont think you have been very fair. This forum is full of haters, sometimes nasty ones, and why I get critised for saying what I think?

  • opensights

    For real taste and sheer delicacy you cannot beat the British naming of World War One; ‘THE GREAT WAR FOR CIVILISATION’ Then twenty million soldiers, British French and Germans proceded to bomb, shoot and bayonet, and gas each other to death for five long weary years!

  • TT

    Hahahaha, It’s funny how shameless China is in writing it’s own history. History is biased no matter where you go, but I never knew China was to this level.

    Counterattack is an attack that in response to an attack on YOURSELF. It does not mean an attack in response to an ally being attacked. What china did was an initial attack. Furthermore, China was an attacker, not a defender. If Cambodia attacked Vietnam back, THAT would have been a counterattack. When Pol Pot fought back, THAT was defence. China simply attacked from the North, which is an initial attack, not a defence. Name it however you want, but you only make it a laughing matter to the rest of the world if you can’t even attemt to make your history “seem” correct.

    There are many theories why China attacked, but it cannot be denied that China had a massive human loss in the endeavour and only ran out after that was made clear. It’s easy to make excuses afterwards, like “teaching them a lesson” or “showing them that the USSR won’t support them so they don’t get too rowdy later on” AFTER you already pull out. But to anyone else in the world, China looks like an agressor. You have your perspective, and to third party members of the rest of the world, China seems like the agressor.

    Tell your history how you want to, teach it the way you want to, and we will just laugh at you. HAHAHAHA

    I really wonder what China names the rest of their wars now. Obviously they will have an EXTREME biased bend of some sort. At least we just call it the Sino-Vietnamese war, which is pretty neutral. Man, this is like a joke column.

  • TT

    Patriots believe what is written in Chinese textbooks to the letter, and often only from one source. I guess I’m not surprised now that I think about it. A couple years ago China tried to rename Koguryo, a Korean historical state (predecessor to N. Korea), an ancient Chinese kingdom. Obviously, the Koreans protested this, seeing it as another attempt by China to bias history. Basically China has a thing about changing history so that they have the best claim for everything. So long as the Chinese people think Koguryo is apart of ancient China, if China was to attack and take N. Korea, it would just be reunification. So I guess the same theory here. If China was “counterattacking” and was doing things in “self-defence” then if they attack, they can take all of Vietnam and feel justified, and if they pull out, they “taught a lesson to them mean people down south.” China never loses, at least not in their history book.

    Since this is China, I know some Chinese official will eventually read this somehow. You can censor or edit your history however you want, and no one in your country will think twice about it. But in doing so, you WILL lose the respect of others.

  • opensights

    There is an aspect of Chinese Government or national Character to be considerd also, I noticed this when I once spent a very interesting afternoon in the Government military museum in Qingdao, of all the attacking or defensive actions on photographs and all the American British or Japanese weapons and equipment shown at the museum. None of the captured military hardware nor the enemy personel shown were given a nationality.

    All the images for example states; ‘Enemy attacking our comrades’ Or ‘Enemy aircraft attacking our positions’ Hundreds of these images with just one type of expression: I just wondered if this was done so as not to offend ‘us foreigners’ because it was really very obvious that the enemy concerened were American and some British, also some Japanese. This just struck me as being ‘unusual’

  • opensights

    Daphie

    You can’t “chase with the cowboys and run with the Indians”

    You are right to stand for your country,most of us do!
    Don’t take so much notice of bad posts. Don’t judge the post, judge the writer, then you will find a ‘shoulder shrug’ is more befitting that an answer! Also less stressful!

    • Daphie

      I dont really like this forum (full of cat killers, human tortures – I have special taste, but these topics are just sick), but sometimes my masochism side wins and here I am again.
      I can not just not notice the bad posts, they are all around here. It does not feel good to hear so much negative stuff (Being god is really no easy job, haha).

    • Daphie

      Why you can not “chase with the cowboys and run with the Indians”, too sad you can not have both the wild and the exotic (sorry cant help)

  • http://www.163.com Zhang Zhijun

    I am from Jieyang City. Early on a February morning in 1979, I saw off the servicemen advancing towards the Guangxi Frontier. At that time, it was said these servicemen would go to Guangxi for drill. Later, I read the ‘China Juvenile Daily’ and learned that China had launched the world-famous ‘Counterattack Against Vietnam In Self-Defense’. Zeng Chunhua, who was from my county, died after killing one Vietnamese soldier and became a hero.
    Salute to all the martyrs and all those who ever participated in the war!

  • Dante1155

    This is reply to the commentee talking about the Americans. This story resonates with me being an American. I know his pain of losing a brother to service for your country And I cheered at his dedacation to his fallen brother. This is a great man.

  • whichone

    About as much balls as Stop the stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction to destroy the supposed links to terrorist organizations bring peace and stability to the region It’s okay, previous administration’s fault.

  • WTF

    If you look at wikipedia (not saying it’s true), both sides claim the other lost more soldiers. Vietnam never even released their own casualty estimates, so you can hardly say they “won”. It’s about as “kick-ass” as a draw can get. It’s not even a war really, consider the number of troops involved were a tiny fraction of other major conflicts in Aisa, like the Vietnam and Korean wars previously. And yeah I agree, China invading Vietnam for Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia is about as “defensive” as America’s actions in the first gulf war.

  • Joe

    Seeing that Vietnam is pulling some serious muscle in south Asian invading Cambodia and installing friendly regimes left and right as well as working with the Soviets and India to enclose China does seem like a pretty real threat.

  • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

    Errr . . . yeah. The Chinese launched a ‘counterattack’ which started on the border and ended inside (but not very far inside) Vietnam. The Vietnamese, of course, had invaded Cambodia to remove Pol Pot – the Chinese-backed ruler who conducted genocide against his own people, killing something like 10-20% of them, weeding out ‘intellectuals’ on tough-but-fair principals like “if he wears glasses and can read he must be starved to death”.

  • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

    Well, China’s hardly short on Orwellianisms like this, every time I hear someone refer to 1949 as ‘the liberation’ it still weirds me out, but even people who oppose the government and would have preferred a KMT victory call it that.

  • Joe

    China’s interests are more at stake during this war than America’s interests during “Operation Iraqi Freedom” since Vietnamese is expanding influence along China’s southern border and is working with USSR to contain China.

    On the other hand, Saddam’s Iraq is piss poor after the Gulf War and the Iran-Iraq war, lost enough of his backbone to let UN inspectors in, and was buttsecks surprised that US decided to invade no matter what despite posing almost negative threat to the US, being more progressive and secular than virtually all of its neighbours, and actually was a US ally all those years back.

  • whichone

    I don’t care what you personally call the Iraq War, since not everyone calls Sin-Vietnamese War “Self-Defense” in China. But the revolving door of official names/excuses for the invasion of Iraq under false premises is the reason why I struck out all the old names employed by the previous administration, and whom the current one is all too happy to blame.
    George’s fault, bam, America is back to the land of freedom and moral authority because Mr Charm-n-Disarm is in the White House.

    If the official Chinese name rubs you the wrong way, perhaps you should remember ridiculous names like “Operation Iraqi Freedom”, this is the way these things are named in general to give the pretense of justified casus belli.

    It probably would have worked better without the strikeout, I agree with you on that.

    Happy Chinese New Year to everyone~

  • too yellow

    No it’s simply a “police action”

  • WTF

    Two things tubby:

    1. Number of chinese forces were pretty well documented. 600K mobilized, only 200k deployed and took action in the conflict. The airforce was only minimally involved and the navy not at all. Perspective: 1 million chinese soldiers were involved in the Korean War. Not something you’d do if you were planning an invasion. This was more like the Sino-Indian war, about making a point and enforcing borders.

    2. 10K viet casualties does not include civilians. The viet government claims 100k civilian casualties.

  • Jean

    After 1979 action against Vietnam, China instead of modernising their army, they were cutting budget on the military. What they were focusing was more on the economy.

    If China was a paper tiger, as you claimed, they wouldn’t have repel the US led UN troops in the Korean War.

  • WTF

    Yeah keep on believing the reason the Viets invaded was to “Liberate” Cambodia. Go ahead and ignore the history and traditions of these two countries and construct a history that fits your own preferences.

  • WTF

    Reducing large scale geopolitical decisions down to “We’re good, they’re evil” is just stupid. No, america didn’t go to war with Germany because they were killing jews. No, Vietnam didn’t go to war with Cambodia because of genocide. And no, America didn’t invade Iraq for humanitarian purposes, or else it would have done something for North Korea too.

    Alliances and wars are much more complicated, which is why America gets into situations like the CIA backing of atrocity committing Nicaraguan contras.

  • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

    Did I say that they did it to liberate Cambodia? No I didn’t, but although the government installed by the Viets was a dictatorship, it was still better than Pol Pot’s insane regime.

    However, I guess the Chinese analysis is that, since Pol Pot modelled his government on Mao’s equally insane regime, then it’s all fine and dandy because Mao was only 30% wrong, or whatever the ridiculous formula is.

  • WTF

    Also, if you’re going to go with the lower end of casualty estimates, you might as well believe the 7k official Chinese casualty count. In any case, 10k viet casualties and significant loss of industry and agriculture is hardly a resounding victory by any standards.

  • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

    Blah, blah, blah. Okay – if China did this to get the Vietnamese out of Cambodia they failed utterly, because the Viets stayed for more than ten years after the war. If they did this to ‘punish’ Vietnam for the invasion, that also failed since they caused as much harm to themselves. If China did this to obtain a favourable re-drawing of the border, or to assert its rule over the islands of the South China sea, that also failed.

    So let me put it like this – a thief runs into a shop, punches the shop keeper, gets given a black eye in return, and then runs away – does this sound like a successful robbery to you?

  • WTF

    Blah Blah Blah, this has nothing to do with what objectives were accomplished. And no, they didn’t cause as much harm to themselves because you’re ignoring all the collateral damage of war fought on vietnamese turf. Don’t jump into the middle of a conversation and change what’s being discussed with your irrelevant input.

  • WTF

    My bad. The sentence order got messed up a bit. I’m trying to say is that if China sent 1 million troops to Korea, it wouldn’t send 200k troops with no airforce or navy to stage an invasion of Vietnam. Like the Sino-Indian war and the Sino-Vietnam war, invasion was never an option due to the expected reprisals of the US and the Soviet Union respectively. It was to go in, do some damage, and pull out. That’s about it.

    And yes, war sucks, and Asia has seen enough of it, but the future looks good as it seems most governments are quite keen to avoid future conflicts.

  • http://cnreviews.com Kai

    Guys, this is a case where the Wikipedia entry is reasonably accurate.

    Both sides claimed victory in the last of the Indochina Wars of the twentieth century; practically speaking, though, since Vietnamese troops remained in Cambodia until 1989 it can be said that the PRC failed to achieve their goal of dissuading Vietnam from involvement in Cambodia.

  • WTF

    You insisted that the Viets were there to remove Pol Pot. Vietnam was there to occupy Cambodia, like it has done many times before throughout history. Vietnamese attitude towards Vietnam did not change when pol pot took over. Here’s a link from the library of congress:
    http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+
    How Pol Pot ran his regime does not factor at all in the conflict between Vietnam and Cambodia, and doesn’t help your case at all.

  • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

    Except I didn’t say that the Vietnamese weren’t there to occupy the country, and yes, removing the Pol Pot government was the objective of their invasion. Had a more pliant government been in place (as is the case now) they wouldn’t have invaded.

  • WTF

    Read the link and learn the history of conflict between Vietnam-Cambodia. You can’t ignore thousands of years of history andbring up imaginary scenarios saying there would have been no conflict if Pol Pot wasn’t in charge, or that another Cambodian government would have been more pliable to Vietnam under contemporary tensions.

  • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

    . . .. except that Vietnam and Cambodia are not currently at war, and weren’t at war before the rise of Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge genocidaires.

  • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

    The Sino-Soviet conflict is referred to as the “Zhenbao self-defence counter-attack war”, but for some reason the Sino-Indian conflict is simply called the “Sino-Indian border war”.

    “The War to Resist America and Aid Korea” is also a favourite.

  • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

    You know, that’s so outrageous that it could be a joke, no?

  • Jimmy

    Jones! You’re always one of the more rational posters here.

    It was Joe Banks who said the “evil regimes thing”, this story got popular really quick. When I wrote my response it jumped from 45 or so responses to 91!

    Well, of course, I am generalizing when I say that “All American watch American Idol and eat Big Macs” but I am doing it to make a point.

    Far too many foreigners here like to mouth off abut how horrible the CCP is and criticize the Chinese about blindly following the government, with no sense of irony, being that they come from countries who are experts in the same thing they accuse China of doing…their just hide it better and have more world wide support.

    Perhaps if more people took time to learn about their own country’s history and politics they would speak so long windily about China?

  • http://cnreviews.com Kai

    Jones, WTF’s point is that this is ultimately about geo-politics, about cold, hard, selfish national interests. Both sides are going to dress it up with morality, with “greater causes”, usually to mobilize support. He’s reacting to FOARP judging the situation with some sort of presupposed objective morality when it doesn’t exist except in subjective judgments.

    So, I mean, sure maybe they didn’t go purely to “save the Cambodians from Pol Pot” but they were saving people nonetheless.

    Similar arguments are advanced for China’s position on Tibet. This is a bad premise to make and you’re chasing the white rabbit down the wrong hole.

    China, in effect, got mad at Vietnam for saving Vietnamese people.

    No. Chinese people certainly aren’t going to get mad at Vietnam for saving Vietnamese people. In even saying such, you’re disrespecting the geo-political motivations and history behind this entire conflict.

  • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

    Yeah, comparing one dictatorship which killed relatively few of its citizens to one which murdered 20-30% of the population is “some sort of presupposed objective morality”. Kai, like another mass-murderer said, quantity has a quality all of its own.

  • http://cnreviews.com Kai

    Jones, as I said:

    WTF’s point is that this is ultimately about geo-politics, about cold, hard, selfish national interests. Both sides are going to dress it up with morality, with “greater causes”, usually to mobilize support.

    You didn’t seem to recognize this. Personally, I think you were in a hurry to accuse him of invoking America again.

  • http://cnreviews.com Kai

    FOARP,

    No, I’m echoing what WTF said in response to your initial comment:

    Reducing large scale geopolitical decisions down to “We’re good, they’re evil” is just stupid.

    That’s what you were doing. You’re smart enough to know that the conflict wasn’t as simple as you presented it, as if the Vietnamese were altruistically rescuing the Cambodians from genocide. Yet you insisted on portraying the conflict as such to make a moral judgement against China.

    I don’t support genocide or Pol Pot or the Khmer Rouge, FOARP. But I don’t support you misrepresenting China’s motivations for doing what they did either. It’s childish and intellectually dishonest. As Yin said below, China obviously has utilitarian perspectives when it comes to the sanctity of human life, but misrepresenting them doesn’t help anyone except your sense of prejudice.

    I also forgot:

    but although the government installed by the Viets was a dictatorship, it was still better than Pol Pot’s insane regime.

    Similar arguments are heard for the CCP taking over the KMT. “It was still better”. Better according to whom, right? The aggravating thing about your comments, FOARP (beyond your need to troll me), is that you moralize them without recognizing that there are more objective ways to understand, interpret, and represent a situation. Of course, if you’re only out to cast judgment (on presupposed objective morality) and not foster greater understanding, there’s no reason why you’d care about this.

  • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

    “Better according to whom, right?”

    Yeah, I guess if you ask the remaining 70% of the population who managed to survive the genocide they would be dead split down the middle as to whether Pol Pot was a good leader or not. Really.

    Kai, I guess going from defending Mao to defending Pol Pot isn’t that much of a step, so where next? I guess Adolf Hitler doesn’t have enough people speaking up for him, maybe you could try that?

  • http://cnreviews.com Kai

    FOARP,

    I’m not defending Pol Pot, nor Mao. I’m explaining geo-political interests and subjectivity and why your moralizing doesn’t help anyone understand what happened better.

  • http://cnreviews.com Kai

    Jones, this is a tangent to the topic you’re discussing with whichone.

    America is a common example invoked when responding to an unfair argument or judgement precisely because it is well-known enough around the world, well-known enough that the “Vietnam War” and “Iraq War” doesn’t even require “America” to be explicitly mentioned.

    I think you consistently see people invoking America (or the Iraq War in this particular case) as them trying to sully America in response to China being sullied here. That’s not the case. The point they’re making is that it is unfair and difficult to point fingers at China for reasons that are true for others, such as well-known America.

    I really want you to get over this hump. There are better responses to what these people are arguing than “oh, you’re going to point your finger at America again”. They’re not pointing their finger at America just to point their finger at America, Jones. Stop missing the point.

  • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

    Kai, baby, that point just makes no sense. You seem to be saying that people point to America to point out an example, but you don’t say why they point out an example. You have to admit, it is extremely common on China blogs to see criticism of the CCP answered with criticism of the American government even though this is usually irrelevant. Especially as a non-American, this kind of thing always leaves me especially non-plussed.

  • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

    Yes, because I personally have led a failed invasion of a country and then made millions of people refer to it as a war of self-defence.

  • http://cnreviews.com Kai

    FOARP,

    You seem to be saying that people point to America to point out an example, but you don’t say why they point out an example. You have to admit, it is extremely common on China blogs to see criticism of the CCP answered with criticism of the American government even though this is usually irrelevant.

    It’s usually a response to perceived unfair judgement, to self-righteous hypocrisy.

    Mind you, not always. In my experience, however, that is more often than not the case. I myself have taken Chinese fenqing to task for invoking America when I see it as purely deflection. But, most of the time, there’s usually some guy spouting some tired canned moralizing judgement before.

    I’m really hoping you’ll “have to admit” this point as well. The fact of the matter is that invoking America is done to make legitimate points as well as irrelevant distractions. The key is to determine which is which. Jones, I feel, has a history and penchant for accusing the latter whereas each time I’ve seen the person he’s responding to doing so to make a larger point.

    I feel you feeling non-plussed is a bad sign because you’re missing the real point the person is making, that the self-righteous hypocrisy is annoying. Instead, you see it as some “likely Chinese” guy slapping “the yanks” back, divorcing yourself from the ultimate point that the conversation isn’t going to go anywhere with the attitudes present. “Oh, its Chinese vs. Americans, not me, the Brit.” It IS about you too, FOARP. It’s about how we communicate and whether we communicate to express contempt or to foster constructive dialogue.

  • http://cnreviews.com Kai

    Jones,

    I don’t see it so much as a way to sully the US, but more of a way to take attention off of something else they care about.

    I’m asking you to consider whether its a response to attention or if its a response to UNFAIR attention. As I stated above and before, people are usually reacting to others unfairly condemning or judging them or something they identify with. It isn’t purely just to shift attention away, it’s meant to point out how they feel about that attention, that it isn’t “fair” to them in some way.

    As I said to FOARP, of course there are times and wily bastards who use this entirely to shift attention away just to shift attention away, but I think we need to evaluate the record, the progression of the conversation.

    Imagine if someone said something like “I know other countries have done some pretty similar and questionable things, but I think this is particularly bad of China”, do you think a Chinese person (or really just any reasonable person trying to be fair) is going to be so quick to lash back “well, what about America?!?”

    There are always some whackjobs, wingnuts, but no, usually that’s not going to happen, because the person is already explicitly acknowledging the basic fact that China or the state of being China or Chinese isn’t the root cause of what is being condemned.

    It’s tiresome, I know, to have to be so careful, but contentious intercultural and international issues are always touchy. You made a big deal about PCness before, right, Jones? This isn’t really even about being PC as it is about being respectful of others.

    My brother, for example, is bad about this. Once, he got in trouble for having alcohol stashed in his closet. Mom was pissed at him. His defense? “Well, Regan (sister) got a tattoo!” It’s an attempt to get the heat off his ass. This is generally what I see.

    Your sister is named Regan? :|

    I think a more accurate analogy is your brother saying “Well, you had alcohol stashed away as a kid too” or “Well, other kids do the same thing”. And in this case, that’s true. More importantly, no one is going to like someone taking on the parent role, right?

    The reason I point this out to you is because I do think you genuinely want to be fair and “correct” in how you deal with these issues. Unfortunately, I don’t think you’re evaluating and judging these instances of America being brought up fairly. I don’t think WTF or whichone were invoking America for no reason here. See Jimmy’s comment below. I think if you asked them before accusing them, they’d explicitly explain why too.

    I think what’s going on is that you are consistently seeing me commenting about other’s comments about the US as me just getting upset that they mention the US. If the comment about the US is legit, connected to the topic, or at least explained in a way that will show how it would be an actual rebuttal instead of just “oh yeah, but THEY did this”, then ok.

    The problem is that I DO see how it is legit and connected to the topic. The reason I address you is because I know you DON’T and I try explaining the legitimacy or connection to you.

    Most of the time, you’ll see people respond to some Australian with an angry “Oh yeah? Well AMERICA did _______”.

    King Tubby?

    To the extent that it’s because they mistakenly assume the person they’re responding to is American, that’s their bad. However, I actually think that should be a big clue to you that it’s not about saying who and who is bad or good, but about proving that something being condemned is unfairly being or seen as being limited to China and the Chinese by the condemner (if that’s a word).

    Again, that’s not ALWAYS the case, but each situation needs to be evaluated carefully and I happen to think you’re wrong on a lot of them.

    So…yeah…right back at you. Stop missing the point.

    I’m willing to listen to you explain what point I’m missing here. I don’t think I’ve said anything to suggest I don’t get the irony of invoking America in response to an Australian. Rather, the point you’re missing is that the invoker is not trying to insult the Australian, he’s just trying to show that its not unique to China. Any example, including easy well-known American examples, would suffice. It doesn’t have to be an “Australian” example.

  • http://cnreviews.com Kai

    Jones,

    I’m asking you to consider whether its a response to attention or if its a response to UNFAIR attention.

    Half the time, the comparisons and whatnot made aren’t really accurate at all, or completely unrelated. I mentioned this already.

    I’m asking you to consider whether its a response to attention of if its a response to UNFAIR attention. It doesn’t matter that half the time in previous instances, you felt the comparisons “aren’t really accurate at all, or completely unrelated”. Evaluate the newest instance you’re about to respond to by its own merits. Don’t prejudge it.

    Look at your comment to WTF, Jones:

    Every response WTF makes, no matter what it’s about, is “Oh yeah? Well AMERICA TOO!” It doesn’t matter where the other person is from or what they’re talking about. That’s seriously this guy’s one defense.

    Check the time stamps. I already went over the King Tubby one. Look at what Annoy wrote and what WTF is quoting and responding to:

    Infor got hidden and changed by the govts, fun fun. And the citizens, many of them, believe watever the govts thru at them without thinking much.

    You can say the same thing about america, where people still believe that Iraq had nukes and ties to al qaeda.

    Annoy led off with “People got brainwashed, honestly, that wat happen with communist countries.” So communism countries like China result in brainwashed people who believe whatever the government tells them to” and that’s why Chinese people use the “Counterattack Against Vietnam In Self Defense” name. It’s because they’re communist and they’re all brainwashed.

    Maybe WTF doesn’t agree? Maybe he feels communism has little to do with it just people in other countries like America also believe reasons and lingo promoted by the government? Maybe he feels Chinese people have a reason other than brainwashing for seeing the conflict as one of self-defense, self-defense against an attacking force that threatens its ally and interests?

    Annoy accuses communist countries of hiding and changing information, and people believe what the government tells them. How is WTF out of line for saying “wait a second, you can say the same thing about other countries like America too”? The point is that the things Annoy is associating specifically with communist countries, as if the state of being communist is the cause of such things, is FALSE. Those things happen not BECAUSE a country is communist. It happens in non-communist countries like America as well. Is America not a damn good example of not being communist or associated with communism?

    It’s damn poignant example. Take the one super-power that fought and prevailed against the “communist” super-power and show how the same thing happens in each. That instantly dispells the notion that hidden or changed information with citizens readily believing what the government tells them is uniquely related to the state of being communist (even in name).

    So, again, automatically bringing up something about the US that’s irrational and out of place, constitutes something that shouldn’t be considered “irrational” or “out of place”? Just because the person takes their nationality way too seriously?

    Please explain how it was “automatic” and “irrational” and “out of place”. I’ve been waiting for you to do it instead of just claiming it.

    You also don’t know WTF’s nationality and what makes you think he takes it “way too” seriously? Quote.

    So…you’re defending someone who throws out “unfair attention” to the US because they felt their nation got “unfair attention”? Amazing logic. Well, actually it’s not that surprising anymore.

    No, I’m explaining to you how him mentioning the US is not “unfair attention” when you think it is. Can you explain to me how it is unfair attention?

    Er, it’s not about them being Chinese, dude. I didn’t say “those Chinese only have the ‘Oh yeah? Well American TOO!” defense. I said WTF does.

    So what was…

    Just because the person takes their nationality way too seriously?

    …about? You assumed WTF is Chinese. You’ve made repeated accusations that him bringing up America is because his feelings are hurt, that he takes his “nationality way too seriously”. Why would you think his feelings are hurt or refernce his nationality unless you automatically associated his response with the state of being Chinese?

    Either way, the only reason to avoid this is to tip-toe around the actual subject at hand and every time you mention China (even when China is the topic) you have to use “there are other nations, too” at the beginning? Or else irrational screaming about unrelated things is justified? Hmmm

    No, the exampe I gave you was to contrast with what WTF was responding to. Please go back and look at what WTF is responding to and what he might take issue with. Put yourself in his shoes. Don’t automatically assume Annoy said something that couldn’t possibly be disagreed with. Is it because you readily accept that the state of being communist results in brainwashing? That brainwashing arises from communism? That’s not actually logical, Jones. Communism does not beget brainwashing. You readily accept it because it’s what you’ve heard and what a lot of people around you also believe. WTF was dispelling that popularized association of “communism = brainwasing”.

    It would take a really sensitive, nationalistic person to associate themselves to the point of feeling they are a part of the government or military back in 1984…unless they actually were.

    How could WTF be “nationalistic” if you don’t know what nationality he is and haven’t made assumptions about his nationaity? What has he said that suggests he’s associating himself to the point of feeling he is part of the goverment or military back in 1984?

    Furthermore, did you actually understand what I wrote? I was explaining how most people wouldn’t take offense to the example statement I made UNLESS they were whackjobs or wingnuts. They wouldn’t take offense to that example statement because it is an example of a fair and reasonable statement that is difficult to misinterpret as an unfair condemnation and judgment of a nation or people where the wrong is associated with merely being that nation or people.

    I can’t have an opinion about the CCP or China’s history if I want to be respectful of others? Hmmmm…

    Where did I say that? I said being mindful of your language is smart and respectful to others when you’re discussing contentious intercultural and international issues. Again, look at what WTF was responding to.

    Yeah? And?

    What, we can’t make asides in our long discussions anymore? Oh, you have a bitchin’ beard btw.

    No, it was an actual event that really happened. My version was more accurate anyway.

    I wasn’t saying my version was accurate to what happened to your brother and mother, I was saying my version of the analogy was more accurate to the issue we’re discussing.

    Kai, look at it. Whichone brought up the US saying that they carry the same naming scheme by suggesting that the name of the Iraq war shares the same words used in the excuse the government made to invade Iraq. However, that’s false, because it’s simply called “The Iraq War”. Not “invading Iraq to get rid of nuclear weapons and” so on and so forth. Therefore, my comment about the name they gave the Sino-Vietnamese War and his rebuttal where he compared the US to it…his rebuttal was obviously not talking about the name given to the Iraq War.

    You can’t recognize the point he’s making about governments giving their actions names that sound advantageous to them?

    If the official Chinese name rubs you the wrong way, perhaps you should remember ridiculous names like “Operation Iraqi Freedom”, this is the way these things are named in general to give the pretense of justified casus belli.

    You’re splitting hairs. whichone is not saying the name for the government name for the Iraq War overall is similar the name the Chinese government gave the Sino-Vietnamese War. He’s saying governments give names to things that make them look justified, good, etc.

    I don’t think you misunderstood whichone. I think you’re sticking your head in the sand.

    I shouldn’t have to ask them. Generally you explain the points you make.

    They didn’t think people like you wouldn’t understand. Since you didn’t, and they may not know you don’t, is it illogical to think you’d ask them to explain what you don’t understand about what they said? They’re not psychic. “Oh shit, I sense that Jones didn’t understand what I just said. Better go back and explain it.”

    Come on, man, you’re being stubborn just to be stubborn here. You know its unreasonable for people to explain, UNPROMPTED, everything they say especially when they not unreasonably expected people to understand. There’s also no shame in asking for clarification or explanation either when you don’t understand or want to be sure you have cause to disagree.

    You addressed me earlier because you said I needed to get over a “hump” where I got upset because people mentioned the US. Not because you feel you need to clarify anything to me. You were just trolling.

    I said “address”. I address you (instead of others) because I want to explain to “the legitimacy or connection” to YOU. How is this trolling? How was my comment, which you refer to, lacking in explanation? Am I trolling just because I blntly told you to “stop missing the point” after I’ve explained the point to you many times before?

    Jones, yes, I’m frustrated with you STILL not seeing the larger points being made by people mentioning America in the cases you’ve reacted to them and I’ve tried explaining to you. Sorry, but I can’t help feel frustrated. I explain to you because I think you are mentally capable of seeing it. There are far better targets for trolling, if I were given to trolling, than you.

    King Tubby?

    What about King Tubby?

    And if they do, then it’s pretty obvious that they’re jumping to conclusions rather than making an educated comment.

    No, your mistake is in thinking they’re trying to comment about the nationality of the person they’re responding to. That’s not always the case, and that isn’t the case here. Neither WTF or whichone were trying to comment on King Tubby or Annoy’s nationality. WTF was expressing agreement to King Tubby. WTF was proving how Annoy’s comment is false. whichone was explaining why China might use a name for the Sino-Vietnamese War that you find ridiculous but they might consider useful or even justified.

    All of them were educated comments. WTF assumed King Tubby understands the similarities with the first Gulf War. WTF assumes Annoy (and others like you) recognize that hidden or manipulated/changed information and people believing what the government tells them isn’t a feature of only communist countries. whichone assumes you can look up casus belli. The all require a minimum level of intellect to understand.

    So, I am America? I mean, like, I can’t have a personal opinion about China because I am personally responsible for everything in America’s history? Cool.

    How am I saying this? How am I at all saying this, Jones? Quote me.

    I’m not suggesting it’s just “ironic”, but more so that it’s indicative of the commentators intentions, as in not to make a thought-out comparison.

    Jones, I keep saying this. I think those are thought-out comparisons! I think they’re apt and appropriate responses to what they are meant to respond to.

    Look at what they’re responding to, Jonese. Stop projecting “intentions” into them. Or at least offer evidence of what you think are their “intentions”. Are you sure you’re not just making assumptions about who they are, what nationality they are, and what they’re trying to do? Like FOARP assuming (or just intentionally trying to mislead everyone) that I’m pro-CCP? Read the comments that WTF and whichone were responding to.

    Just to try to do what they think is “fighting fire with fire”. And who cares if it’s unique to China or not? What if the person never claims that it’s not unique to China? Because the situation I saw didn’t involve anyone saying it was unique to China.

    If you think them mentioning America is to tarnish America AND you think they’re “fighting fire with fire”, then aren’t you acknowledging that the original person was trying to tarnish China?

    Look, they’re not fighting fire with fire. Yes, there are cases where that IS the case, but not here and not with what I’m specifically disagreeing with you on. Stop assuming the mentioning the US is like other people elsewhere that you’ve encountered mentioning the US. Judging these instances and these people by themselves and without your preconceptions.

    Again, WTF responding to King Tubby was not about smearing the US. WTF responding to Annoy was a great example of showing the things Annoy associated with communist countries are clearly not limited to communist countries. Do I need to explain whichone’s comment to you or are you getting it?

  • http://cnreviews.com Kai

    Actually, Yin is smarter because Yin says what others don’t say: something reasonable, intelligent, educated.

    Yin also doesn’t wrestle with pigs.

  • http://cnreviews.com Kai

    Agreed, the Chinese guy may be joking. A lot of Chinese netizens talk about “Chinese characteristics” in self-mockery. Believe it or not, not all Chinese people are actually “brainwashed” as many people prefer to think of them. They do have the capacity to recognize where they’re lacking and even laugh at themselves. Give them the benefit of the doubt sometimes. They make jokes too.

  • bobiscool

    Know what I find extremely ironic? That the westerners are brainwashed into believeing that all Chinese people are brainwashed. Hypocrits ftw.

    Oh btw, my parents are anti-communist, and I came to Canada when I was 7, so I hope I’ve not been brainwashed by China into thinking thus. And no, I don’t support the CCP.

  • http://cnreviews.com Kai

    Jones, what Jimmy wrote above is why people invoke America when responding to what some people say about China. It’s them reacting against what they feel to be a certain hypocritical self-righteousness, not in all people, but in many of those they’re responding to.

    America is invoked in hypocrisy defenses precisely because America has done such a good job convincing much of the world and themselves that despite the morally questionable things they’ve done, America represents freedom, democracy, and all that is good and ideal. So when people invoke America, when they say “what about America…” or “but America also…”, they’re really begging people to be more fair. The moment people judge, they beg to be judged in return. Invoking America, the “beacon”, and quickly showing it too to be imperfect is meant to take the wind out of certain people’s sails, so that they’d hopefully come down a notch and talk about the issue face to face, not down their nose.

    Can you please consider this before you spam dumbshit responses like:

    Every response WTF makes, no matter what it’s about, is “Oh yeah? Well AMERICA TOO!” It doesn’t matter where the other person is from or what they’re talking about. That’s seriously this guy’s one defense.

    C’mon man.

  • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

    Kai, maybe, just maybe, there’s justice in saying this about WTF since he seemed not to have actually read the OP before making his first comment, in which he starts talking about the US.

  • http://cnreviews.com Kai

    FOARP, what are you talking about? What did WTF say or do to suggest he didn’t read the post before making his first comment?

    He was responding to King Tubby who was incredulous about the Chinese referring to the Sino-Vietnamese War being a “counterattack”. King Tubby listed numbers. WTF responded by citing different numbers and disagreeing with King Tubby’s characterization of Vietnam “kicking ass” and “winning”.

    One of WTF’s points is that its hard to say they “kicked ass” if they sustained a lot of damage themselves. He also felt it wasn’t a “war” relative give the size of engagement relative to other Asian conflicts.

    Most importantly, he agreed that he personally doesn’t think it was entirely in self-defense, just like America’s first Gulf War wasn’t entirely in self-defense either. Iraq had invaded Kuwait, America’s ally. China, like America, had geo-political interests in using military force in response to Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia.

    The parallels are there. King Tubby didn’t even respond to it. Neither did anyone else in that thread.

    Where Jones responded to WTF on invoking America was after this comment.

    Look at what WTF was responding to.

  • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

    Kai, you just go owned by Jones. Learn from it.

    As for WTF, he didn’t even read the translated comments before dragging that piece of screed out of his insta-blame-the-US-o-matic, as you can clearly see from his responses.

  • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

    “The moment people judge, they beg to be judged in return. Invoking America, the “beacon”, and quickly showing it too to be imperfect is meant to take the wind out of certain people’s sails, so that they’d hopefully come down a notch and talk about the issue face to face, not down their nose.”

    BUT KAI, WHAT. IF. THEY. ARE. NOT. FUCKING. AMERICANS.

    Seriously, you keep repeating this and repeating this, but why is it used in this kind of dispute not only against non-American foreigners, but also against native Chinese? Most people I know do not consider America to be ‘the beacon’, do not identify with the United States. The only way they could be ‘talking down their noses’ is if they actually say or intimate that the United States is better whilst criticising China. Has anyone on this thread done this?

    Why is it that people who are critical of the Chinese government are answered by criticism of the American government when, even if they are American, they are not necessarily supporters of the American government?

    Why is it that people who are critical of the Chinese government are automatically assumed to have a favourable opinion of the American government?

    Can any country be used as an example – can I, say, respond to criticism of South African policy in Namibia by bringing up Argentina’s policies in the South Atlantic?

    Am I forbidden from criticising the Soviet Union’s invasion of Hungary because of the British invasion of Suez? Are supporters of the former Soviet union similarly forbidden from doing the reverse?

    Is “but the US tried to invade Cuba” a reasonable response to Swiss or Irish criticism of China’s invasion of Vietnam?

    Simply put, you are trying to defend an illogical argument, and making a prize fool out of yourself in doing so.

  • http://cnreviews.com Kai

    Jones,

    Please go re-read my comment. I was addressing you here to point out our overarching discussion on why people invoke America in their comments.

    I gave you a specific example of a dumbshit response of your’s, one where you go off on whining about why America is invoked yet again. You’re free to think my responses are dumbshit as well. Feel free to quote me if you want.

    Let me put it in baby words for you: I told Jimmy that, just because a person has a critical opinion about China (or anywhere else) it doesn’t mean that they are basing that idea using their own nation as a reference, unless explicitly saying so.

    Please quote me, in context, as to where or what I said to suggest I disagree with this.

    Then here you come with this useless “it’s them reacting against what they feel to be a certain hypocritical self-righteousness” comment, when you know good and damned well that that would actually apply to MY own comments if I responded in an equally inane “hey, you can’t talk about America” comment like you’re implying.

    How is it useless when I’m trying to point out something I feel you still don’t get BECAUSE you still make responses like the one I quoted? Your response evidences that you don’t understand why someone invoked America. Since I did understand why, I was explaining it to you because you were complaining about it.

    To repeat: Jones, when people feel someone makes an unfair self-righteous hypocritical judgement against China and the Chinese as if the wrong being judged is inextricably linked to being China or the Chinese, they often feel compelled to quickly offer an example that shows how that judgement applies to others as well. You get upset when people invoke America. I’m simply telling you they invoke America because it’s a well-known source for examples many people easily understand and recognize.

    My point is, I’m simply stating that if you want to invoke the US with every single thing you comment on, then at least explain how that even relates to the persons comment they’re responding to.

    Jones, some people readily see the relation. You’re not one of those people. That’s okay, but that’s also why I’m trying to explain it to you. Is there any example of someone invoking America here that you don’t yet understand? I’ll be happy to explain it to you.

    Do you really want to know why peope invoke America or do you just want to be angry at me for explaining why they’re invoking America to you?

    In fact, this is why I was going on about WTF. He throws in another nation like it will somehow make China better.

    How is WTF doing this? Please quote him. How is he trying to make China better at all? Does simply pointing out a parallel or similarity to something else make China better? No, it doesn’t.

    It’s like “hey, you can’t say anything as a person. You can’t have an opinion. You can’t comment until USA is perfect.”

    Did he say this or do you only interpret him as saying this? If the latter, that’s your problem. You should evaluate him by what he says, not what you think he represents.

    Really? I lost my right to an opinion because of a national history of which I, first of all, wasn’t alive for and second of all, was not an actual part of?

    Him disagreeing with your opinion or your presentation of information is not him denying you an opinion. You disagree with me all the time. Do I whine about losing my “right to an opinion?”

    Jones, you are arguing against a straw man. Neither WTF or I am denying you an opinion.

    Your explanation about why they would invoke the US is insane. People invoke the US in hypocrisy defenses (sometimes even with non-Americans) because they have been convinced by the US’s excellent PR guys that the US is the beacon of freedom and democracy? Seriously?

    I say some people invoke America because it is a well-known source of examples. America is well-known, is it not? It is well-known because it is the world’s sole remaining super-power. Because of all the attention it understandably receives, using an American example has a greater chance of everyone immediately understanding that example.

    I’ve repeatedly said this obviously isn’t ALWAYS the case. Did I not?

    However, in the cases where you’ve complained, I haven’t interpreted them as you have, as some disingeneuous intellectually dishonest attempt to merely shift attention away. The reason is because I see the point they’re making and specifically in response to what. That air of self-righteous hypocrisy I mentioned above? I see it. You may not. I’m not saying you specifically. After all, I already said you seem to try really hard to be fair and correct. But I see it with a lot of other people.

    As I also already said, I understand why using, for example, an Australian example in response to an Australian guy would make more sense. But this doesn’t make using an American example nonsensical. The point is merely to say “this isn’t only applicable to China”. And more often than not, that’s absolutely and completely true. The idea isn’t to get the other person to start blaming America or the subject of the example, the idea is to tone the attacker down.

    Do you really not understand the parallels between the first Gulf War and the Sino-Vietnamese War and how it relates to how China perceives its role in the Sino-Vietnamese War? You did say this was about the name China ascribes to the conflict, right?

    So why would they so constantly bring up the US that way? And when they do, do you honestly and truly believe they’re invoking it because of that or, could it be just that they took the comments about China personally and think that throwing out an “oh yeah, well so do you!” response because they got their feelings hurt.

    Please re-read my comment. I already answered this question. Because I knew you’d ask it.

    Actually, Kai, every time I ever comment on someone bringing up the US (even if it’s in direct response to a post of mine) you come in and tell me that I’m wrong for doing so. But, man, you’ll jump on someone for using China or Chinese in a generalizing, knee-jerk fashion. Stop making assumptions. It leads to “dumbshit responses”.

    I generally always explain my disagreements and arguments, Jones.

  • http://cnreviews.com Kai

    Jones,

    King Tubby: “What is this Counter Attack nonsense.”

    WTF: “And yeah I agree, China invading Vietnam for Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia is about as “defensive” as America’s actions in the first gulf war.”

    WTF is agreeing with King Tubby that, as a “counterattack”, it was as “‘defensive’ as America’s actions in the first gulf war.” In other words, China invading Vietnam in response to Vietnam invading Cambodia is like America (actually, a coalition though mostly American troops) invading Iraq in response to Iraq invading Kuwait.

    King Tubby = Jamaican Australian whatever else. Not American. Therefore…what is the point of throwing out US history at him? Oh, he didn’t comment on the US reference! I guess this means it was correctly used or on topic. Because King Tubby didn’t mention it.

    In the initial two comments, it wasn’t about hypocrisy or anything. It was just WTF expressing agreement. He wasn’t even trying to shift attention to America by drawing the parallel, UNLESS you see him merely drawing the parallel and offering an example of how he agrees to be doing so.

    WTF wasn’t disagreeing with King Tubby on the “counterattack” name. King Tubby’s nationality has nothing to do with it. WTF citing America here was not about proving King Tubby wrong or proving that King Tubby’s comments could apply to his own country.

    So why does King Tubby’s nationality matter at all?

    Try this: “I agree, those girls were about as ‘legal’ as China’s gymnastics team.”

    “Hey Kai, you foreigners talk shit about the US invasion of Vietnam in the 60s, but hell, don’t you know history? Japan invaded Burma and a lot of people died!”

    Is this what WTF said? I’d rather you quote him, ideally with consideration of context, instead of putting words in his mouth.

    You get too butthurt about people calling out someone for making irrational comparisons. Well, no, you get butthurt if I do that and it involves the US. Sounds like someone is a little biased. Hmmmmm…

    Are you feeling persecuted or something, Jones? Remember those good things I said about you? You ever stop to think that it is because of those good things I think about you that I bother trying to explain things from a different perspective to you, Jones? That I think you genuinely try to be fair and correct so you’d genuinely care to see a different side from what you first saw things? If I just wanted to troll you, don’t you think there’d be much more efficient ways of doing so than our conversations?

  • http://cnreviews.com Kai

    Jones,

    Just because someone doesn’t agree with you, it doesn’t mean that they just didn’t read your comment.

    No, I’m telling you to need to reread my comment not because you disagree with me but because your comment doesn’t evidence you having read my previous comment. It’s as simple as that.

    You’re not infallible, believe it or not.

    Have I ever claimed that I was? Stop beating a straw man. Feeling you didn’t read my previous comment carefully doesn’t mean I think I’m infalliable.

    So explain how that sentence draws any parallels at all, seeing as how it’s completely bullshit. WTF knows it’s bullshit. What was his reason for saying it, then?

    WTF was responding to Annoy. WTF feels there are still people in America who think and claim the Iraq war was to stop Iraq from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and had ties to Al Qaeda. His point was to show how Annoy’s comment about hidden information, changed information, and people believing what the government tells them is not limited to “communist” countries.

    You don’t see the parallels? Maybe you simply disagree with WTF suggesting “still”? But was what he said, in response to Annoy, complete bullshit? I’ve explained how it isn’t. Please explain how it is complete bullshit to you.

    The biggest reason of all, is that you don’t see the irony in you jumping on my case for this even though you are practically arguing against the dictionary about what the definition of “counterattack” just to defend the CCP.

    I disagree I’m going against the dictionary, which I’ve already responded before. I also disagree with you characterizing me explaining why the CCP named its involvement in the Sino-Vietnamese war what it does is me “defending” the CCP. When did merely explaining why someone does something become defending that person doing it?

  • http://cnreviews.com Kai

    Jones,

    Now you’re just being dumb. Kai, you know that was an example of how idiotic the comparison is. No, it wasn’t a direct quote. No, I didn’t put words in his mouth. Don’t even try to turn it around to look like that. I’d rather you actually explain why it’s wrong rather than just start crying foul.

    My point is that if you actually quote him, you might realize you’re not making an appropriate comparison. I do think you’re putting words in his mouth, not literally, but figuratively, in the sense that you’re misrepresenting his argument and intent.

    What’s it matter about good things you said in the past? You still came in and tried to turn it around to make it look like I was being unfair and otherwise just refusing to read your post [read: not agreeing with your interpretations].

    I DO think you’re being unfair and I DO disagree with you.

    I think it’d be more efficient if you didn’t say that I was just misinterpreting things, act like you knew exactly what they were meaning, and then when I didn’t agree, you simply write it off or tell me to go back and read your posts again.

    If I think you’re misinterpreting things, how else am I going to communicate that to you without telling you so and explaining alternate interpretations I consider more appropriate and reasonable? If you keep saying I don’t explain when I clearly feel I have, why wouldn’t I ask you to go back and read my posts again?

  • Tins of sardines

    Capt. Wed. Dude, you need to stop bitch slapping people then immediately trying to kiss their ass to avoid any inevitable retribution.

    For example…

    Capt. Wed, your mother is a cheese farm. Oh, haha, I was only kidding! Why so angry??

    So because we are now rid of our angry faces, what are you doing this weekend? I was thinking maybe we could go get a bite to eat and skip stones on the lake? Or what ever you want to do because that is fine too… you know. Are you wearing aftershave?

  • Jean

    A more proper name would have been “Active defense War.” As I stated in my previous post, the reason for China attacking Vietnam was to help Cambodia and show that if attacked Vietnam, USSR wouldn’t have helped them. Effectively, USSR didn’t invade China, thus ONE of the objetives of the war was accomplish: Show that USSR was a paper tiger and punish Vietnam for the border issues they were having.

    I would leave you this website where they discuss this matter more deeply, it’s very informative:

    http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/military-history/sino-vietnam-war-1979-ended-soviet-nuclear-threat-4710.html

  • http://cnreviews.com Kai

    Jones,

    “Attack by part or all of a defending force against an enemy attacking force, for such specific purposes as regaining ground lost or cutting off or destroying enemy advance units, and with the general objective of denying to the enemy the attainment of the enemy’s purpose in attacking. In sustained defensive operations, it is undertaken to restore the battle position and is directed at limited objectives. See also countermove; counteroffensive.”

    China saw itself as a defending force against the Vietnamese attacking force. It was certainly seeking to deny the enemy the attainment of the enemy’s purpose in attacking: control of Cambodia.

    You are not putting yourself in China’s shoes with China’s interests.

    Jones, can you stop for a moment and review what I’ve written. Am I asking you or anyone to agree with the name China gave it? Am I asking you to not laugh at it? I even said “we laugh” at it. All I’m pointing out how and why it might make sense from the Chinese government’s perspective. Refusing to understand why your opponent thinks the way they does not make you any better than your opponent. The smart person anticipates and seeks to understand how the opponent thinks. This isn’t about agreeing, it’s about understanding.

  • LOLZ

    In the first Iraq War, how would you describe what went on between the US and Kuwait?

    You would say that the US DEFENDED Kuwait, by counter attacking Iraq.

    I think the Chinese name for this war is silly but it’s not illogical. What is illogical is the term freedom fries.

  • Tins of sardines

    It would certainly be a better forum if people could post more like Yin did. Only 1 long post that is concise and gets the point across.

    Dealing with what would appear to be blatant propaganda or someones international relations thesis really gets old fast. If it takes 15 posts of 20,000 words each to get your point (if any) across, then you are missing something.

    Interesting reading though. First post in a while that has been focussed on the topic.

  • Goodness

    You can not be serious Jean. You just stated that China attacked Vietnam. When you attack you are the aggressor.

    Attacking is an act of Aggression. Aggression is not an act of self defense.

    If China wanted to show that the USSR was a paper tiger, then why didn’t they attack the USSR?

    Imagine if Yao Ming wanted to show that Shaquile O’neal was a paper tiger. Yao Ming does this by punching a towel boy less then a third his size to prove that Shaq is a paper tiger and because the towel boy was hogging the arm rest. To many peoples amazement, the towel boy fights off this ATTACK and bloodies Yao Mings nose. Yao Ming tells anyone who will listen that he was “Actively Defending” himself.

    Absolutely laughable.

  • Jean

    @Goodness: I never said China was not the agressor. You have to take into account that Vietnam was attacking Cambodia, which is/was a Chinese ally. Chinese decided to help Cambodia because they were getting cornered by USSR and her allies. They felt that if they didn’t do anything, USSR and Vietnam would have thought that China was pushover and would have went to the next level.

  • Goodness

    @Jean

    You never said China was not the aggressor, but you did write that China was in an “Active defence War”. Again when you are an aggressor you can’t be in a any “defence war”. Your trying to have it both ways.

  • beowulf

    Yes you are right. Some might be from countries who are part of the “Coalition of the willing” lol

    I do not like the chinese name of the war either. But what is going on here, is really throwing stones in the glasshouse. Just like if North Korea would mock about the human rights situation in Italy.

  • Tins of sardines

    “Just like if North Korea would mock about the human rights situation in Italy.”

    It’s not really the same is it? Poor analogy.

  • Harribo

    2 wrongs don’t make a right, or is that too difficult for you, and yeah I know I am but what are you Beowulf? Oh yes you are, oh yes you are

  • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

    Go to the military museum in Beijing, actually one of the more interesting museums in China, they’ve got a hold load of stuff they captured off the Viets on display there, of course there is a similar display of Chinese equipment in Hanoi . . .

  • beowulf

    There are human rights violations in North Korea and in Italy. But we all agree that in North Korea are much more. The same is about wars and US and China. The US are the record holder in wars in the last 50 years. And Yes – the Viet-Sino war was at least as just as all of the american wars since ww2. The only problem is, is that the ordinary western citizen is so brain washed that he until today still believes they were the good guys in the wars and the fought for humanitas and freedom. How ridiculous. Yeah I know. It was always the former administrations fault. Thats the nice thing about democracy, the whole country is born again and free of sin every four/eight years.

  • Tins of sardines

    B.O Wolf

    “But we all agree that in North Korea are much more”

    I don’t agree as I can’t know for sure without the actual facts but I can assume. Can you really say for a fact that you know this? Did you hear it on CCTV or from a friend of a friend?

    You are a tool.

    “The only problem is, is that the ordinary western citizen is so brain washed that he until today still believes they were the good guys in the wars and the fought for humanitas and freedom. ”

    Western citizens? You mean Blondie, Tuco and Angel Eyes?

    Soldiers on both sides fight because they believe that they are right. Being ‘right’ depends on what ‘truths’ are shovelled into ones head from many influencial sources.

    Fact can not be disputed. Truths can. Don’t get confused between the two, they are different.

    For instance:

    – My mother told me Santa won’t visit at Christmas if I don’t eat my brussel sprouts. Why would my mother lie to me about that?? I believed her so, to me, it is the TRUTH.

    – Santa does not exist and my mother is a lying cunt for making me eat those fucking brussel sprouts. This is a FACT.

    Understand?

  • Tins of sardines

    Capt. Wed: “OK, this is it, I am going now. Bye bye”.

    Us: “Ok bye. Enjoy yourself”

    After a step towards the door…

    Capt. Wed: “I am really going this time, it was nice to meet you all”

    Us: “Ahh.. ok. uh.. bye?!”

    After another step towards the door…

    Capt. Wed: “Well, I will be going now. Did you say something?”

    Us: “No Capt. Wed. Make sure you close the door behind you”

    Arriving at the door, Capt. Wed pauses and turns his head to see if anyone is about to try to stop him leaving but they are just playing PS3 and not even paying attention. After realising his bluff failed he says…

    Capt. Wed: “Oh, It is pretty cold out there. Maybe I should wait until tomorrow. Afterall, Sardines wants to go to the lake and it would be rude to renig on our agreement. Who wants me to make my famous meatloaf for dinner?”

  • Tins of sardines

    Yep, gay… with one leg.

    Now that I am on your level, are you still interested?

    My stump gets pretty sore in the cold weather. Maybe you could stroke it for me to help the circulation?

    I could be your good man FRI.

  • Tins of sardines

    Hahaha… Homophobe hey? Wouldn’t that make you afraid of gay people?

    Just please don’t tell me you are an Apotemnophobe. That would really break my achy-breaky-heart.

  • Tins of sardines

    Jones,

    RE: Leg – Lets just say that most of my comments on here are pretty ‘lame’.

    I think it would be amusing to run.. er… hop with it.

  • http://cnreviews.com Kai

    Jones,

    Now, I know you love words and definitions,

    Coming from someone who points out that being anti-Chinese is not “racist” because “Chinese” are not a “race”? We all care about words and definitions. Don’t be a jerk.

    A counterattack is an attack in response to an attack. When did Vietnam attack China? They didn’t.

    They attacked China’s ally and threatened its interests. China, in turn, attacked back. How is this not easily within the definition of counter-attack? Vietnam is seen as an opponent who is attacking what China cares about. China attacks back. Hence, “counterattack”.

    This was thrown in there so the name would immediately invoke a feeling of NOT being the aggressor. Of being the glorious defender.

    Did I say anything to suggest I have an issue with this? Haven’t what I said plainly evidenced that I fully expect each side to make themselves sound better? That they’d portray things in a way advantageous to themselves?

    They weren’t. They were the aggressors.

    Doesn’t this depend on how you look at the situation? Vietnam invades Cambodia and China comes to its ally’s aid?

    THAT is why people are commenting so much on the CCP’s name for the war. It’s not about which side you agree with. It’s about the very definition of the words used.

    And how am I not responding to people’s comments on the CCP’s name for the war? Vietnam invades Cambodia, China’s ally. China feels its ally and interests are threatened and infringed upon. It retaliates. It counter-attacks, in self-defense of of its interests and its allies. The name is cheesy as hell but it isn’t the least bit difficult to understand.

  • Harribo

    there you go justifying yourself again, leaving opinions about some place you had a busmans holiday, what are you trying to achieve…its a forum and no amount of attrition is going to change the fact that its a forum of shite with half baked opinions crying into the dark hoping someone will hear them….stop taking this so seriously can you see its just all a big joke….. and you keep taking extra dumps, go write a book or paint something, cloth the hungry feed the naked and occasionally drop in but youre hurting my eyes with all your sticking around all the time and posting drivel to entertain yourself, or are you converting us all with your opinions

  • beowulf

    “2 wrongs don’t make a right” Yes – and throwing stones in the glasshouse is still throwing stones in the glasshouse.

    I do not like the official chinese name of the war. I also think the war was wrong and stupid. But I will not stand aside and let you people abuse this topic for satisfying your sinophobia.

  • LOLZ

    More like two wongs don’t make a white.

  • http://cnreviews.com Kai

    King Tubby,

    Did you respond to WTF’s mention of America in this comment? Because that’s what I was referring to, that you didn’t even respond to his allusion whereas Jones is. I don’t see you taking issue with WTF’s mention of America there in your response or this one.

    As for the season of good will from you, thanks, but I appreciate if you don’t extend me any false courtesy. I respect you enough to agree with you when I agree and to disagree with you when I don’t. The best good will is to respect the other person to recognize not just where you disagree but also where you agree.

  • http://cnreviews.com Kai

    Jones,

    I asked when Vietnam attacked China. Not if they attacked Cambodia or hurt China’s interest.

    I’m explaining why China could interpret their response as a “counterattack” and “in self-defense”. Your original complaint was over the name the Chinese people use.

    Obviously you ignored the definition I posted.

    How can I have ignored the definition when I used the SAME WORDS.

    Put it into perspective. Do you try to glorify a war that you were obviously the aggressors in, in as far as your own violent involvement? Are there any official opposing views or regrets to entering that war? Or did they just slap a name on it that made it seem like China was under imminent threat by the Vietnamese military and they actually responded to an actual attack on them?

    This is precisely what whichone was responding to you about.

    It’s an attack by a DEFENDING FORCE. China was never on the defensive. Vietnam did not make an assault on China prior to it.

    What part of China seeing itself as a defending force do you not understand? What, a party can’t feel it is threatened and hence on the defense just because YOU say they can’t feel that way? China was defending its ally and its interests. It is China’s choice to see itself as defending. You don’t have to agree but simply denying them their self-perception is a dead-end.

    Here’s another example. The Korean War is called “The War to Resist America and Assist Korea”. In this war, the US’s ally was attacked. Our interest was threatened. Why are we not considered the “defenders” launching a “counterattack” in that case?

    Because of what whichone has already explained to you, that governments do phrase things according to their preferences. Why are you surprised that China would frame itself as “good” and the enemy as “bad”?

    Again, I must ask. Was the US the defenders in the Korean War or the Attackers? What’s the CCP’s official stance on that?

    See above.

    Definitely not difficult to understand. It screams of “victimization”. This is the sort of shit that drums up nationalism. Look at what happened here after 9/11, and the amount of blind support that gave way to an invasion of Iraq. That is what it was all about.

    That’s fine. I was never disagreeing with you on the ramifications of propagandic names, was I?

  • http://cnreviews.com Kai

    Jones,

    We’re repeating a lot of things to each other because there is overlap and on the multiple comment threads we’re both responding to.

    However, they got the name wrong. Had they named it “Assisting Cambodia against Vietnamese Aggression and Protecting our Interests Abroad” then there you go.

    I’m not arguing that their name is correct, Jones. I’m only explaining why it might make sense from their perspective. Like whichone, I was also explaining why they’d be predisposed to coming up with a name that makes them look good.

    The only problem is, it wasn’t a counterattack. It was barely even defense. It was an attack on Vietnam.

    I disagree in that I don’t think they CAN’T interpret it as a counterattack. I totally see how they can interpret attacking an country that invades their allies and threatens their interests to be a counterattack. The thing is, the Chinese are internalizing the attack on Cambodia as an attack on them, even if its not an attack on their territory. Why can’t they interpret an attack on their interests to be an attack on themselves? They defintely can, and they can definitely see their response as a counterattack. You don’t share that same perspective, that same internalization, as the Chinese government. That’s normal, but that’s also why I was begging you to try putting yourself in their shoes.

    If you were American, everyone would call you a Republican Warmongering George Bush Jr II for your type of logic on this.

    What makes you think I’m not American?

  • LOLZ

    “You can say that the US helped defend Kuwait. The difference here, though, is that it wasn’t claimed to be “self-defense”.”

    Yeah, most of the people get caught up on this, but if you think of China and its allies as one team then it makes perfect sense.

    Since there are plenty of koreans and gamers here we can put easily put it in starcraft’s context. If we are playing 3v3 and one of my allies got attacked of course I would go aid my ally. I don’t see why can’t I call my action “self defense” because I am focusing on my “team” rather than just me.

    And why did I bring up “Freedom fries”? Because it’s a funny name which US politicians made up in order to booster nationalism during the Iraq War. The whole “self defensive counter attack” is just another name which some Chinese politician made up to make China’s actions a little more justified.

  • Harribo

    No I’m not and I’m not trying to upset you either really, it’s just a lot of us who come to this site would rather see something else than Jones’s obsessive posting, you little try hard…..I wander if you have so many heartfelt opinions about other places or do you still have a hard on for china now you are stuck in bum fuck texas….go on then I’ve given you another chance to formulate a post…..oh the irony! dude, its not the ‘others,’ its you and its just the quantity, you’re like a dog trying to piss everywhere, all opinions and i bet you do nothing to effect them..stay exactly where you already are, cretin.

  • http://没有.cn.com kedafu

    Is that a threat?

    Anytime, Anywhere, Anyplace

    you tell me when and where 在中国 of course, i’ll be there in 12 hours,

    you better bring something bigger than a gun!

    seriously!

    lets take this off the virtual world and into the real world

    cap. cock

  • Tins of sardines

    You do realise that the real world involves you going outside and nasty things like that?

    Why not just stay in front of you cum covered keyboard and stop inciting violence.

  • Developing China

    Nice stereotyping there you fucking racist. Why don’t you go choke on a burger & coke while you’re at it you fat american fuck

  • Developing China

    The rating of your post sooooooo proves your point. HOW IRONIC.

Personals @ chinaSMACK - Meet people, make friends, find lovers? Don't be so serious!»