xul

Don't worry. CPC boss is not as smarty as Bjre thinks. He buys the debts just because there are not a lot of other options. He is just like the living buddhas, he can not do any magic to make his things good and others' bad. One cause of that Chinese economy is better than western just becasue Chinese in their culture likes to save money for emergency purpose, and it looks like CPC boss is also subdued the culture, so when the economic downturn happened, people takes the money out for purchase and then releases the suffer of most of the manufacture sectors and other sectors. Another cause is collectivism in the culture. Chinese culture is based on agriculture. Anyone can imagine, for thousands years, when the river flood, millions of people works along the riverbank to protect their property, no one cares who does more and who does less----just like western people when they are soldiers, knowing if anyone fails, all others will fail. And now in industrial ages, the culture continues. In Chinese factories, workers more like collective wages cutting down than keeping their own interests but kicking weaks out, and there is no one question the CPC boss using governmental money to bailout poor countrymen. So it lowers the unemployed rates and increases the sell. Of course, there is the third cause. When west in economic depression, people likes to go to China-town's $2 store, LOL, maybe India-town's $2 store, to buy their pants . So to those economists, a country with many poor people to cut wages and produce cheap goods is not entirely a bad thing.

I guess the CPC boss buys Obama's debt only for political cause, such as the prospect of that Obama would sell him Dalai Lama if it is not Taiwan. If he wants interests, buying CAD might be better---though Mr Harper maybe don't want him to buy a lot.

The article said these ships have 25mm "cannons", I think they are just some anti-aircraft guns. It sounds like this ships are just some landing crafts carring marines with ice-breaking ability. If anyone depend on these ships confront a hostile warship along, I think it would be better that they don't have guns---if you don't have guns you are unarmed, so a warship can hardly shoot you. If you have guns but too powerless, you are just doing the other side a favor.

Honestly, CPC boss only knows he needs to buy American trash debt to please Obama, though you couldn't suppose he would buy a lot. I hear China foreign minister is in Canada, arranging the CPCs's bosses meeting later this year. Hoping CPCanada's boss could sell some made-in-Canada planes to another CPC boss to save Canadian workers job, not sell poor Chinese immigration applicants like me to his counterpart. 3 years has passed, we are still waiting to see how credible and honorable Canadian government woulb be..... Every time my communist manager boss meets me he cracks joke to me, "haven't you successfully betrayed us yet?"---when I applied, the Canada PM was a Liberal and the processing time of Canadian Immigration Hong Kong Officer was only 18 months, so they asked a lot of supporting materials such as recommendation signed by applicants' boss. Now the conservative in power, they lengthened the time but no longer asked the supporting material until the immigration officer is ready to process the application---that's really a good move, but they just totally have forgoten the old applications like me. How could you ask a person tell his boss he will leave but just don't know when he will leave? I tell my story here, just want Canadian understand, if you don't care others' interests--I don't mean immigrants, China has 1.4 billion people and the world has more and most of them will never dream to be otherwhere--- why you have rights to want others to care yours? Such political smear has lasted for over 20 years, it doesn't work. Why not stop doing such silly things instead of doing things more usefully? Look the effect of China-smearing on Canadian--someone seriously suggested Canada should rebuild slave system just because he believes what the papers told him, China's economy achievement depond on using slave labour so the only way to exceed China is using slave too.

You don't understand. To those common Chinese Beijing citizens like me who experienced the evient, there is no difference between who was killed in the Street and who would be killed in the square. But to some western media "writers", it make significant sense. The event is a tragic moment of our nation's history, but not a massacre. Have you seen the article on CNN's website when the writer was smugging how CNN has benefited from the event? I think this is why nowaday "reporters" are more like "writers"--they just live on massacres, wars, floods, ....and really want such things happen. Tiananmen Square: A watershed story for CNN This CNN vedio below is very real, but just vedio not the audio: TianAnMen Tank Standoff If you are an objective observer and please turn off the audio for a while just watch the video first, that meants don't let the "writer" or mostly brain-manipulater's fairy tale interfering you judgement, you will find when the yong man in the video blocked the way of the thanks, the tank just steered to right then left, and then right and then left, and finally stopped and the man climbed up the tank. Until this point, do you think it looks like a massacre? And at this point, everyone must be eager to know what happen next? But unfortunately, our dear "writer" turned off his camera without rhyme or reason, so we have to listen anything he wanted to tell us. Now, let's tun on the audio and listen the writer's fairytale---the "writer" told us he heard the Tank's cannon shot! I guess the "writer" had never been a war fiction writer, because if he was he would be telling his story more professional. The man faced were tanks with 105mm cannons, I guess you must know how powerful the cannons are and how much damage they could cause if they were fired---I remember Army Guy praised you knowing military technology well. But if there are still some persons don't know it, I suppose, please see the photo link : Russian Tank Shot Their Parliament Building In 1993 By the way, no western media blamed Boris Yeltsin did that---I remember when it happened, I was listening the VOA, and the "reporter"--sorry, mostly the "writer" told his listeners with a delightful voice "the President is cracking down the rebellious parliament to defend Russian democracy" ---Thanks heaven the VOA writer was not Canada PM, or else he might run some tanks to wipe Canadian "rebellious parliament" out last year. I'm not saying all soldiers are patient like the soldiers in these Tanks, but most of them are, and they are also human, so most of them also have certain moral criteria like us. There did have a lot of died and casualties, according Chinese government it was hundreds died and over 2000 wounded, the figure may be higher than that, because if someone's wound was slightly no need lying in a hospital, he would not want police knew. But if anyone watches these CNN Photos, thanks photographers, they didn't photoshoped them like "writers", he will find that considering the numbers of the protestors in the street showed on photos, the life loss can hardly consider as a massacre. It's a crackdown by using army, but not a massacre. But from where the massacre came out? I remember I listened from VOA, it told us the massacre happened in the square, tanks squashed students, "thousands to tens thousands"(I could not listen English then, it was Chinese words 成千上万, the re-translation to English is bit odd) of student died at the night. CPC soon found out western media's flaw and reliesed their video that students evacuated from the square leading by a Taiwan singer Hou De Jian---because the so-called "protest leaders" all fled on 3rd, June with American and French passports. And then CPC began to accuse western medias "fake" the news. And then, VOA lowered the life loss to "hundreds to thousands" and no longer talked about Tanks squashing students, but still called it massacre. Honestly, I don't think VOA or CNN deliberately to make the story of massacre, they just took in some big mouth Chinese's story---everytime when a meteor falls there are some idiots declaring ET coming---and refuse to admit that they have made some wrong to keep their faces. This is why more and more young Chinese backlashed them---they are just doing the favor to CPC boss-kind because the boss may say, "ah, I'm a liar, you all have known that; but now you all also know that my opposite is a liar too. Thus why you need to risk everything you have to throw an old lair out instead of a new liar?"

Yes, if Truman fired him when he just said that, American will not have DPRK nuke problem---DPRK may still exist---in a strip with its border mostly in Pyongyang... Do you think its good to China? And who has won? I guess a lot of Americans may say, "our Americans has won." Maybe it is truth, by with what costs? If you calculate how many debts other countries owed America when the Cold War began and how many debts Amercia owes others now, you will hardly say "our Americans has won". Last year several days later when Russian invaded Georgia, I saw in CCTV news that Condoleezza Rice signed a treaty with Poland PM about setting a radar for missile shield in Poland. I felt very curious why Rice, unlike her broad-smiling Poland counterpart, looked unhappy in the news conference for this event could be considered a great diplomatic victory of America. Several hours later the newspapers came, I eagerly searched the columns for the news and found it. The title is--TREATY SIGNED, AMERICA WAS BLACKMAILED TEN BILLION DOLLARS TO FUND POLAND..... Yes---that's the political-correct answer for such questions---really universal political-correct answer, valid in American, Canada, Poland, Russia and China.... When Quebec fell in 1795, I guess the Frenches here must also feel hopeless...but two hundreds years later, today....I think I'd better hold my breath. It's not funny to violate the "universal political-correctness"

I remember General Douglas MacArthur said that in 1950. I was ever a fan on the stories of wars when I was a boy though I'm never a fan of war itself---thousands maybe millions of soldiers on both side killed each others in the good faith of that the other side was so evil, that's the politicians told them, mostly inaccuracy , and when the war ended and the soldiers came home, they found sadly the world was not so different. The CEO of the GMBH who once built cinerators for Nazi was still the CEO of the GMBH, now maybe built boilers for American warships, meanwhile the poor Brit before he got the uniform still kept poor and had to go to Canada for a $8/h payed job after took off the uniform. It's kinda sarcastic. If I try to find some positive function of war, I will say that people has learned from wars that smearing and underestimating their opponent's ability and resolution is the shortcut to go into a war, but usually more harmful to themselves more than to other sides, and going into a war usually is a loss-loss solution to both side. This is why the world has generally kept peace between main powers for over 60 years. If you review your own country's history objectively, you will find that you can hardly say that American wins a lot of wars after WW2. The Korean War is the first, Vietnam War is the second, then in Somalia, and now in Iraq and Afghanistan. All this wars are full of surprise because American has the tendency of underestimating their rivals, and refuse to consider the warning from their rivals, allies (like some "left-wing" Canadian ), or even your own veterans.(I think Colin Powell have warned Rumsfeld the dangerous factors of Iraq War, and I remember in Dick Nixon's autobiography, he said when he visted Douglas MacArthur in early 1960s, after he failed the election vs Kennedy, the retired General warned politicians "never go into the 'Asian mouseholes' ", Nixon said he reported to Kennedy but this time it seemed no one considering McArthur's opinion. ) Maybe some American or Russian may say, we did win the WW2 and became superpowers---that's also an inaccuracy understanding of the history. Exactly the fact is America and Russia were the last two went into the war and the first ones, German, British and France, have all fellen now, saying nothing of that US and Soviet are far bigger than the loser-three and their economic strength might have already exceeded others before the war began.

Both Bush and Obama must be very foolish that don't despatch Admiral BC2004's battle groups to China to blackmail gold. China is not Iraq. The numbers and range of F-18 on carriers are limited and you can not sent all of them to attack if enemy can also strike you. And the range of E-2C's radar is also limited, so I suppose you can not sail battle groups too close the coast to fight enemy's land-based airforce during a war if your enemy's plane's range longer than you and it has subs, cruise missiles and electronic countermeasures. If American really wants to intervene, keeping fleet outside Taiwan east coast and sending some anmunition(and evacuate the president if PLA comes ) may be a wise choise. Taiwan strait is not Pacific Ocean, it's only wide less than 200 miles so there are no need of big ships to across it. If PLA sent thousands of mosquitol boat with radar decoys tugged round it, I don't think limit-numbered F-18 can stop them. By the way, a aircraft carrier is not a spaceship, it can not sail across oceans in several hours. If it take several days to reach the battle field, I bet the game is over.

Maybe Obama should sell Taiwan to CPC boss to pay American debts. LOL. Taiwan is not American property. I just was a fan of military stuff when I was a middle school student so my knowledge may be also inaccuracy. I think if PLA starts the offensive, they will attack Taiwan's airports, harbors, C3I system,etc with ballistic and cruise missiles at first. I suppose Taiwan air force will be disabled in several hours after the war begins. Taiwan is a small Island, without top cover, maybe PLA does can swim across the sea without being disturbed. China does not attack Taiwan just for political and economic reason. Militarily taking over somewhere is easy, but you can not stop them to think what they want. And if they come to street to protest peacefully every day, it may make CPC a big headache. Taiwan economy highly depend on America, if China takes over it, I don't think America will still sustain it and it will become a useless economic burden. CPC boss knows how to play the game. He knows Taiwan's economy can not afford to confront China mainland in the long term. He knows Obama will not sell Taiwan to China, but it's just a matter of time that some one may do that in next down turn just like this time Bush sold Dalai Lama to him. About Korean War, What did you want to say? If you read a serious history book and mark the battlefront line before and after China intervened on your map, I can not see what can make you feel so good about the war.

If you reviewd all topics bjre started here, such as those "law protects this, law protects that", you would find it's just his style, not relating with from where he collects the information to support his opinion. In any case, I think partly his opinion is correct. There do have some inaccuracy. BC2004 for one, several days ago he said in that DPRK Nuke's thread that American will not attack DPRk's nuclear establishment because China opposes it, but today he said China has not ability to take over Taiwan. But if China has not ability to defeat small island Taiwan, how can it stop superpower American attacking DPRK? Obviously at least one of his statements is inaccuracy.

Exactly Canadians have false knowledge on everything---just look at this forum, such as "Ignatieff is a flake", "Harper is a fraud", "Layton is a sucker",...,etc, for instance. Political smear is a part of the way the system works on....and other nations are the same. American and Canada are neighbours, do you think the media of both side have never smeared each other? If you search this forum, you will find a lot of such kind of "hot" posts. Being smeared is not sheer bad thing, because that means others is about to treat you as their equal. The forum for one, you hardly see a poster smearing Marijuana and Green, I guess it jsut because they are too small not to be considered as threat to others. Nevertheless there still are a lot of critics on China are correct or partly correct. And I don't think China's nowaday achievement are all due to CPC's leadership. CPC is not equivalent with China just as British King is not equivalent with British or Canada. The only reason of keeping such things here is that they are the remains of history and removing them off may be too risky to divide the nation and may cost more than keeping them, so it is wise to leave the problem to the future to deal with.

So people's ideology depend on where they live in? What is Canada's standard ideology? Only with which kind of ideology a person can live in Canada or being Canadian? Maybe if one-day these would-be human-rights protectors take over power here, Canadian immigration and citizenship officers will need brain detectors to decide who would fit being Canadian.

Hardly say it's a win-win result. I'm not sure I can understand Canadian politics correctly, but usually in a critical period such as an economic down turn, people likes to choose decisive-liked political leaders, not shilly-shally bookish scholars. Just as one of two plane's engines fails in air, passengers want the pilot telling them "don't warry, we still have another engine and I can manage it." not "if there is no wind, no thunderstorm, no mountains ahead we may be safe." though the second state may be telling the truth. Harper is using the same tactic he has defeated Dion to defeat Ignatieff--making him like an irresolute political leader and turning some voters who like more decisive leadership but don't like Harper to NDP to divide Liberal's votes.

I just want to express that I agree with you. Some bjre's opponent have forgotten that they ever also suggested here that Canada should lock drunks into gulag-liked concentration camps to force them work, execute criminals to stop crime or mercifully throw them in tiny cells 23 hours a day as punishment, cancel all unions to be convenient management, use water-boarding as resort to collect information from "national-enemies".... they once made themselves perfectly to the side they allegedly oppose today. Is it funny, isn't it?

Without Roosevelt's New Deal, that was the start point of a series of reform on the system, people today would not have pension, unemployment compensation, medicare,etc. Before his-kind reformed the "stone-aged" capitalism system, if a worker at that time got ill or disabled, the capitalist would kicked him out and he would starve to die. Of course, if a capitalist run out of money in the recession, he had to jump off the skyscraper he built but no longer belonged to him becasue there was not bankruptcy protection law to help him. The system was really barbaric then. This is why in 1930s, Hitler-Stalin-kind can easily took over the power.

If FDR spent all these money on military purpose to build the most powerful military force to conquer the world, Chamberlain, Hitler, Stalin would all be scared and would have to ally together to fight against America.

No surprise...last time they elected Hitler in power when American elected Roosevelt...

I remember every president after Nixon. There was a story of my family . Though it looks like a joke but I guarantee it really happened. It was my son's 4 years old birthday. I took out an old laptop computer from a closet and played an old computer game named Red Alert to amuse him. I followed the old ways to built the ore refineries to boom economy first and then began to build some military establishments preparing the war. At this point, my son grasped the mouse of the computer and began to play the game himself. To my surprise, he looked like prefectly knowing how to run the game---figuring out how to build missiles, tanks, planes, warships....even atomic bombs by himself without my help. Satisfied for having such a gifted child, I slumped into a sofa for a nap. It was about 30 minutes later when I was awaken by a huge jolt. I opened my eyes and happily found it was just my son shaking my hands, not an earthquake. "The computer has jammed. It dosen't response my order to build anything. Can you come taking a look?" my son demanded. I came to the computer and surprisingly found out almost one third of the map was filled with war factories, army camps, airbases, navy yards, missile silos, laser towers, radar domes and satellite controls. Sarcastically, in despite of having such formidable military establishments, the enemies were still here mostly untouched and occasionally sent out suicide attackers blowing up his ore refineries. I thought my son had just totally forgotten the purpose of these military establishments, he was just enjoying to build up as many them as possible meanwhile totally neglected the computer's warning "insufficient funds". I took over the control and began to rebuild economy. "It seems that your son fits a perfect American," I cracked a joke to my wife. "a republican, working for pentagon as a computer operator under the command of our American friend Admiral Bush_Cheney2004 to computerize the American military presence all around the world." "Oh, yes, he had made himself a prefect American republican, always runing out of money for building such stuffs and has to give up control to you," my wife came to look. "I think you will fit to be a democrat---always have managed to raise money refilling the treasury up and then you will be kicked off and he will run out of these money again....."

Taking moral high ground is not just some bookish "liberal" girls/boys/professors' theory or slogan, it's also an effective weapon in wars. The Iraq War is an instance. Why could only 200,000 American troops easily defeat Sadaam's 500,000 army with minor cost just in several weeks? Some may say, "it's just because American militery technology exceeding Iraqi Army." I partly agree with this, just partly, becasue there is another part of the cause. The easy victory of American is also because most Iraqi army soldiers and officers believe that Americans will treat them fairly and humanely, and the downfall of Sadaam would end their and their country's pain like "VOA-kind" propagandized. Though the war itself is illegal according to international law, but at this point, American still take the moral high ground from their prevenient records. Just imagine, if VOA told Iraqis that American would torture them, humiliate them, rape them, shoot them...., that means American didn't take the advantage of its moral high ground, could American achieve the victory such easily? I think they could not. Unfortunately, Rumsfeld-kinds totally underestimated the importance of taking the moral high ground and took American off the ground too quickly. Now since most Iraqis (and also most people in the world, include most Canadians, I bet) no longer trust that American would treat them fairly and equally but just think them some cheeky plunderers and conquerors, the war becomes likely "unwinable".

and if we can never again take the moral high ground on anything, improving human rights will never be used as an excuse to pursue wars unless our politicians wear balaclavas to hide their ruddy faces like AQs when they lecture their counterparts of poor developing countries.....

The cause of the Sri Lanka Civil War is complexe and historical. In ancient times Tamil had their own kingdom and now they speak Tamil and most of them are hindus different from the majority of Sri Lankan. It is said Tamil historically attaches importance to education and the white colonial authorities offered them better chances of education and job to use them as some kind of underlings to help them to rule the majority Sinhalese Sri Lankan during the colonial time, so they have the most better job, better the standard of living and more chance to enroll universities when the colonial authorities left. After the independency, Sri Lanka government, was elected by the Sinhalese majority, tried to correct the historical problem by discriminating policies such as enforcement of speaking Sinhalese in governmental jobs, setting up harder crierions for Tamil to enroll universities than for Sinhalese, etc. Just as all politicians's policies, someone feels them fair, others think them unfair. When the policy gave more Sinhalese equal opportunity to enroll universities and find good gobs to compensate their historical loss caused by colonists, it also made lots of Tamils lost their opportunities to enroll universities and find good jobs. This was the start of the rebellion. A military victory can not solve all these problems. Only a political solution can eventually settle them.

Of course, yes....

Exactly, there is nothing can certainly be defeated or can absolutely not be defeated in a war or a conflict, whether or not it's a regular army or a guerrilla movement. The result usually depend on that both sides can and will put how many resource and make how much effort to win the war. A guerrilla movement is very difficult to be defeated, becaue of two causes: The first cause is obvious. The side seeking guerrilla tactics usually is the weak side of the conflict, so it is more easily drawn sympathy from common people or neutral. That means it can commit of some resorts that its rival can not commit, so the strong-looked side becomes no longer strong as it would be. The second cause is obscure but very important. The existence of a guerrilla movement usually means it can gain the support from the majority of people in the certain area whether you like it or not. Without such support, a guerrilla can not last for long. For example, an ET kid did a mischief and moved a thousand Taliban into Canada by magic. Can we expect them commiting a guerrilla war in Canada? LOL. They will be caught by Canadian soldiers in several days if not in several hours becasue they can not find someone hiding them in the cellar of his house. But in their home country, the circumstance is quite the contrary. When Canadian or American soldiers took over a village, even if there were a dozen of Taliban hiding, how could these soldiers sort them out from hundreds of non-cooperative villagers since Taliban militiamen don't wear bloody uniforms? This is why without a political solution, that means the government must regain the support for the common people in these area, an anti-guerrilla war can hardly win.

Brezhnev also ever defeated the communist insurgency in Czechoslovakia in 1960s. But today I'm not sure his successors is able to defeat a single Georgia's rebellious president. Maybe after defining "free-speech" as "universal value" to be convenient for "uncivilized" people beaters , "freedom-loved people" should add "free-firing" as a new term of "universal value of freedom" to be convenient for soldiers to be able to wipe any insurgency out by their colonial-times predecessor's ways.