Who says we owe the Chinese visits?

[bjre]

Its also a fact that there hasn't been a visit from Chinese authorities in the same length of time. According to the Globe and Mail, the last time the Chinese president visited Canada was in September of 2005. The government of China is still angry that Canada gave the Dalai Lama honorary citizenship, so they are looking for ways to publicly shame Canada. Too bad for them, their shame is far more apparent to the international community than ours is.

Dalai Lama was assigned by Chinese government before 1949.

Dalai Lama rule Tibet with slavery.

Dalai Lama meeting Mao after 1949 and agree to switch from led by the Nationalist (Kumingtang, now in Taiwan ) to led by the Communist.

After that Dalai Lama rebel support by the US. When he failed, he led some of Tibetans flee to India.

After that Chinese abolish slavery in Tibet, People have freedom since then; the government treats them better than majority Han for a long time. For examples, they can have more than one child. They learn Tibet language in school. they have countless temples, the monks are feed by tax from government. How many native temples Canada have? How many native learn their own language in schools in Canada?

After that Dalai Lama continuously try to separate China with the help of CIA. He is just one of many fighters work for the United States and Western countries try to rob from all of the world.

The following videos were last year made by angry Chinese oversea students when they realize that telling lie is the most favorite thing western media enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz6epnlSWcc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQPv8RgsbSc

The following is by a westerner's trip in Tibet.

Edited December 5, 2009 by bjre

[paulfrottawa]

As usual, complete nonsense.

What also is nonsense is our politicians thinking they can control a billion people.

Edited December 5, 2009 by paulfrottawa

[Topaz]

One thing that always gets me, are nations that protest about Human Rights then still go along and do business with the country like China. Either you REALLY believe in Human Rights or you don't! Harper is talking out both sides of his mouth, along with other leaders. China has been doing business with Canada, especially the oil industry, so again whatever Harper is saying, he's DOING the opposite. China does have to do what other countries say, because it knows they will come crawling and beggging for business!

[Argus]

if his visit was to gain trade "face" is very important... his actions have hurt the trade cause, you don't insult someone/country publicly if you want ot do business with them...

There is actually no evidence that Harper's ignoring China for four years has had ANY affect on our trade relationship.

[Argus]

The U.S. too if we base trade sanctions on arms exports to conflict regions. When we trade with countries that truck with dictators we're trucking right along with them. Just like countries that fund terrorists are no better than terrorists themselves because they're with them. See how it works?

And who are we left to trade with then? The EEC has trade walls which make exporting anything but raw materials to them difficult. You've cut the US, Japan, China and India, along with all third world countries from our list of trade partners. Who's left?

[Argus]

It's odd how we have the Liberals and NDP screaming invective over our supposed involvement in possible human rights abuses in Afghanistan, yet when it comes to China both Layton and Ignatieff are appalled that Harper even mentions human rights. To hear these two talk we should have been on our knees before the Chinese, perhaps making annual pilgrimages to worship at the alter of Chinese trade potential.

Ignatieff blithely tried to explain away Chinese human rights violations, making excuses for them, but he's the same guy who will allow no justification for a considerably lower level of violations in Afghanistan, a poverty stricken, wartorn land. Layton, of course, never met a Communist dictator he didn't love, so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised at him saying, in effect "Forget all that human rights crap! Go for the bucks, man!" but it's another indication of the incredible hyporcisy the many is capable of.

But sucking up to China has been done by numerous others for years, and it rarely accomplishes much. The Chinese will buy and sell wherever it is in their interests to do so. They bask in the sucking up, and love the suggested power it gives them but it really isn't going to sway their decision making.

China wants to buy nothing from anyone other than raw resources, and sell their cheap-ass goods everywhere without hindrance. And it will do anything it can, legal or illegal, under international rules of trade and law, in order to get as close to that goal as possible.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It's odd how we have the Liberals and NDP screaming invective over our supposed involvement in possible human rights abuses in Afghanistan, yet when it comes to China both Layton and Ignatieff are appalled that Harper even mentions human rights. To hear these two talk we should have been on our knees before the Chinese, perhaps making annual pilgrimages to worship at the alter of Chinese trade potential.

Ignatieff blithely tried to explain away Chinese human rights violations, making excuses for them, but he's the same guy who will allow no justification for a considerably lower level of violations in Afghanistan, a poverty stricken, wartorn land. Layton, of course, never met a Communist dictator he didn't love, so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised at him saying, in effect "Forget all that human rights crap! Go for the bucks, man!" but it's another indication of the incredible hyporcisy the many is capable of.

But sucking up to China has been done by numerous others for years, and it rarely accomplishes much. The Chinese will buy and sell wherever it is in their interests to do so. They bask in the sucking up, and love the suggested power it gives them but it really isn't going to sway their decision making.

China wants to buy nothing from anyone other than raw resources, and sell their cheap-ass goods everywhere without hindrance. And it will do anything it can, legal or illegal, under international rules of trade and law, in order to get as close to that goal as possible.

Is it really that surprising that they have taken the American model of economics and tweaked it to their own needs? If this nation wants to interact with the rest of the world to capitalize on opportunities and advantages found within free trade then we need to go back to the drawing board and consider carefully how to achieve that goal.

[eyeball]

And who are we left to trade with then? The EEC has trade walls which make exporting anything but raw materials to them difficult. You've cut the US, Japan, China and India, along with all third world countries from our list of trade partners. Who's left?

Well, I suspect we'd have a lot of hard work ahead of us all right. Like I said we would have to put our country on a peace-footing with an impact comparable to the war-footing we were on during WW 1 & 2. That said our domestic manufacturing sector would certainly get a much needed boost. We are a country in a world that is increasingly dependant on raw products (like the fish I catch that is exported to Europe and Asia) so we are best positioned to begin moving this world in a better direction. We can wield both a carrot and a stick. I would also suggest we would need to invest quite a bit on our military to protect our borders.

As for the EEC's trade walls...my fishery is well on the way to receiving certification this year as a sustainable fishery from the Marine Stewardship Council. Basically what this means is that in Europe all fish will one day have to be certified before it can be sold into their market. The point I'm getting at, in response to your question who's left, is that people are willing to put their principles ahead of their pocket books. Its just up to us to go find each other and stick by one another and above all else the very principles that sustain us. If we sell them out, we'll have sold out the only sustainable means we have to protect ourselves from anything that might threaten us. We'll be sitting ducks.

[Argus]

Well, I suspect we'd have a lot of hard work ahead of us all right. Like I said we would have to put our country on a peace-footing with an impact comparable to the war-footing we were on during WW 1 & 2. That said our domestic manufacturing sector would certainly get a much needed boost. We are a country in a world that is increasingly dependant on raw products (like the fish I catch that is exported to Europe and Asia) so we are best positioned to begin moving this world in a better direction. We can wield both a carrot and a stick. I would also suggest we would need to invest quite a bit on our military to protect our borders.

I am in general agreement about the way we should treat nations which don't respect human rights, but practicality forbids too strict an application of that approach. You grossly, and I mean GROSSLY underestimate the economic dislocation of a strict application of such a policy would cause, especially if you include the US and other western nations simply because, on rare occasion, they have, in particular locations, violated the human rights of certain individuals. The majority of everything we manufacture, for example, is shipped to the US. All our oil and natural gas (excluding what we need) is shipped to the U.S. and we have no means at the moment to ship it elsewhere, even presuming there are nations which meet your strict requirements who are able to purchase it.

I would, however, support the implimentation of a policy of shunning nations who are at the bottom of the world's human rights index, and that means not only a lack of trade, but a lack of aid or even recognition. No aircraft or ships registered to such entities could cross our borders, and no passports or other documentation from such states would be accepted.

[bush_cheney2004]

....I would, however, support the implimentation of a policy of shunning nations who are at the bottom of the world's human rights index, and that means not only a lack of trade, but a lack of aid or even recognition. No aircraft or ships registered to such entities could cross our borders, and no passports or other documentation from such states would be accepted.

This would work both ways, as Canada certainly has "human rights" issues as well. Be careful what you wish for.

[eyeball]

This would work both ways, as Canada certainly has "human rights" issues as well. Be careful what you wish for.

So it should work both ways. I have no problem at all with other countries rubbing our noses in our own shit.

[eyeball]

I am in general agreement about the way we should treat nations which don't respect human rights, but practicality forbids too strict an application of that approach. You grossly, and I mean GROSSLY underestimate the economic dislocation of a strict application of such a policy would cause, especially if you include the US and other western nations simply because, on rare occasion, they have, in particular locations, violated the human rights of certain individuals. The majority of everything we manufacture, for example, is shipped to the US. All our oil and natural gas (excluding what we need) is shipped to the U.S. and we have no means at the moment to ship it elsewhere, even presuming there are nations which meet your strict requirements who are able to purchase it.

War is hell. I can see the need to apply pressure for reform in a even handed even diplomatic way but I cannot see how without some sort of economic penalty or consequence or else there is no incentive for change. We need a system of 'conflict debits' or something against arm sales...I'm thinking of a system that tries to account for the human costs of conflict, the way a carbon credit accounts for CO2 emissions or capture, but I can't bring myself to apply the term credit to conflict, especially in places like the Horn of Africa. Conflict "debits" could be turned into "credits" I suppose when used towards developing and applying peaceful resolution processes. Like I said the term credit sounds perverse but maybe someone else can put it a better way.

I would, however, support the implimentation of a policy of shunning nations who are at the bottom of the world's human rights index, and that means not only a lack of trade, but a lack of aid or even recognition. No aircraft or ships registered to such entities could cross our borders, and no passports or other documentation from such states would be accepted.

There is no point in going after these without going after any nation that is supporting them. It would defeat the whole point of the excersize.

[bjre]

I am in general agreement about the way we should treat nations which don't respect human rights, but practicality forbids too strict an application of that approach. You grossly, and I mean GROSSLY underestimate the economic dislocation of a strict application of such a policy would cause, especially if you include the US and other western nations simply because, on rare occasion, they have, in particular locations, violated the human rights of certain individuals.

So you mean you need not to respect human rights in western nations, human rights only need to be respected in non-western nations?

So in western nations human right can often occasionally violated and you need not care about?

Do you mean Chinese are better human beings that need more human rights than Canadians that you need to take special care of?

So your human right can occasionally violated without respect?

Your brothers, sisters' human right can occasionally violated without respect?

Or do you mean native people's human right can occasionally violated without respect?

Edited December 6, 2009 by bjre

[ZenOps]

Its also a fact that there hasn't been a visit from Chinese authorities in the same length of time. According to the Globe and Mail, the last time the Chinese president visited Canada was in September of 2005. The government of China is still angry that Canada gave the Dalai Lama honorary citizenship, so they are looking for ways to publicly shame Canada. Too bad for them, their shame is far more apparent to the international community than ours is.

But Canada doesn't regularily invite the Chinese government to visit ever since Harper has been in office.

If you read between the lines and look at the pictures of the visit, you will see Harper standing on the Great Wall of China... The significance of this is alarming. If the Harpers wanted to have a picture taken on the wall, then disregard the rest of this. If China suggested he go on the wall... Lets just say that the Wall was historically built to keep the barbarian hordes out, to have a leading member of another nation have their picture taken on the wall is a sign of a failing/failed relationship (Its sort of like giving a knife to a Chinese person as a "present", it means the relationship business or otherwise - is over.)

Ignatieff seems to understand and recognize how badly neglected this relationship has been recently.

If China still had a good view of Canada, they would probably have been invited into the Olympics or the Forbidden temples/city.

Tenzin Gyatso? Jim Jones of Buddhism, enough said.

[Smallc]

I don't know, I'm of the opinion that Ignatieff understand very little about anything political. There is another way to look at Harper's photo op on the wall. By having his picture taken on one of China's most recognized symbols, Harper is showing that China is somewhere that he now sees as important, even if he was late in realizing it. The trip is definitely a success by any measure.

[ZenOps]

Forget the trade imbalance, you said it yourself this is a thoroughly corrupt, brutal, backwards regime run by powerful thugs. Canada simply shouldn't be trading with any countries, including China, that don't respect human rights or the environment. I'd also extend this to countries who's arms exports find their way into the world's conflict regions and their thoroughly corrupt, brutal, backward regimes.

Well, I've always felt that we shouldn't be trading with the US after they tested 1,021 nuclear weapons in Nevada. 100 of which were atmospheric and have probably shortened the lives of millions of Canadians by several years.

But then again, they did the same to their own citizens too.

In Calgary there were several air raid/nuclear war sirens still active into the 1980's. Those sirens went off anytime there were significant nuclear (gamma emitting) particles detected in the air. That siren went off a heck of a lot more times than I really want to remember.

The Canadian government does not screen for Radioactive iodine-131 in the thyriod gland. But I have no doubt than many in Southern Alberta and Sask were well over 3 rads during the very powerful 100 atmospheric nukes that the US tested. Nowadays - we know how bad nuclear fallout can be, and the area just east and north of Nevada is without doubt the most radioactively contaminated place on the planet (easily thousands of times more contaminated compared to Nagasaki and Hiroshima)

Edited December 6, 2009 by ZenOps

[Guest TrueMetis]

Well, I've always felt that we shouldn't be trading with the US after they tested 1,021 nuclear weapons in Nevada. 100 of which were atmospheric and have probably shortened the lives of millions of Canadians by several years.

But then again, they did the same to their own citizens too.

In Calgary there were several air raid/nuclear war sirens still active into the 1980's. Those sirens went off anytime there were significant nuclear (gamma emitting) particles detected in the air. That siren went off a heck of a lot more times than I really want to remember.

The dose makes the poison. How many particles did there have to be before the sirens went off and how was it measured? Bet they were just being safe and it never actually got that high.

Edited December 6, 2009 by TrueMetis

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, I've always felt that we shouldn't be trading with the US after they tested 1,021 nuclear weapons in Nevada. 100 of which were atmospheric and have probably shortened the lives of millions of Canadians by several years.

An appropriate fate, considering where much of the uranium came from during the Cold War, and continues to this day, including DU.

Edited December 6, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[ZenOps]

The dose makes the poison. How many particles did there have to be before the sirens went off and how was it measured? Bet they were just being safe and it never actually got that high.

I'd like to know too, but its very hush hush. Up to 15 Megatons per nuke is about as scary as it gets (Hiroshima was only 20 kilotons)

As much as I hate to use wiki as a source "In a report by the National Cancer Institute, released in 1997, it was determined that ninety atmospheric tests at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) deposited high levels of radioactive iodine-131 (5.5 exabecquerels) across a large portion of the contiguous United States, especially in the years 1952, 1953, 1955, and 1957—doses large enough, they determined, to produce 10,000 to 75,000 cases of thyroid cancer." Of course probably understated by at least a factor of 10x to reduce lawsuits. And of course the US was setting off nukes in Nevada all the way to 1992. And of course since that report, the US admitted to 10 more atmospheric nukes than reported in 1997.

People here do still tend to think they were actually air raid sirens for actual air raids. Tell people anything and they will tend to believe you. Noone was violating the airspace with an airplane above us when the sirens went off. But without doubt - it was a violation of our airspace with nuclear fallout (which is a violation worse than an airplane flying overhead)

In many ways China learned its media blackout and misdirection ability from the US, which is a master at media manipulation.

What makes it worse for Alberta and Sask, is that the jet stream tends to run in a "omega" pattern, pushing up nuclear fallout much further north, and almost none south of the explosions. As a borne Calgarian, I would put up a thyroid extraction today if someone asked - I'd be very interested in knowing how close to a radioactive leper I am.

Edit: Its rumored that the Calgary and Regina airports have security terminals that are tuned to much higher tolerances than other airports. It does make me wonder how much radioactive material is pumping through my veins if it sets off a detector in another country, but won't set off one in Calgary.

Edited December 6, 2009 by ZenOps

[Shady]

I'll ask eyeball again...

Exactly. You see how ridiculous it gets? How we'd pretty much have to stop trading with every country in the world? That's why I criticized the idea in the first place, and spoke against it.

Some of their standards have no lower to fall, and these places are still ruled by dictators. In fact, economic strife often leads to these types of dictatorial regimes. So I'm not sure how making things worse, will make things better.

You may want to re-think that initiative before putting hundreds of thousands of Canadians on the unemployment line, destroying families, and depriving our country of even more resources for healthcare and education. All for your noble goals which you yourself only suspect might work.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

How does that help?

[Argus]

But Canada doesn't regularily invite the Chinese government to visit ever since Harper has been in office.

And how often did China invite Harper?

If you read between the lines and look at the pictures of the visit, you will see Harper standing on the Great Wall of China... The significance of this is alarming. If the Harpers wanted to have a picture taken on the wall, then disregard the rest of this. If China suggested he go on the wall... Lets just say that the Wall was historically built to keep the barbarian hordes out, to have a leading member of another nation have their picture taken on the wall is a sign of a failing/failed relationship (Its sort of like giving a knife to a Chinese person as a "present", it means the relationship business or otherwise - is over.)

You're being paranoid. ALL world leaders visit the wall when they go to China. It's China's number one tourist attraction. Everyone wants to see it. Nixon went there during his ground-breaking visit. Trudeau went there, too, as did Chretien.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I'd like to know too, but its very hush hush. Up to 15 Megatons per nuke is about as scary as it gets (Hiroshima was only 20 kilotons)

As much as I hate to use wiki as a source "In a report by the National Cancer Institute, released in 1997, it was determined that ninety atmospheric tests at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) deposited high levels of radioactive iodine-131 (5.5 exabecquerels) across a large portion of the contiguous United States, especially in the years 1952, 1953, 1955, and 1957—doses large enough, they determined, to produce 10,000 to 75,000 cases of thyroid cancer." Of course probably understated by at least a factor of 10x to reduce lawsuits. And of course the US was setting off nukes in Nevada all the way to 1992. And of course since that report, the US admitted to 10 more atmospheric nukes than reported in 1997.

I wish it would give use an actual number. The NCS assume that relationship with radiation is linear. That we could plot the numbers we know on a graph and then extrapolate down, but they only do this to play it safe. When it comes to low levels of radiation we just don't know.

[eyeball]

I'll ask eyeball again...

How does that help?

I think I answered your question here. Argus pretty much asked the same thing.

All for your noble goals which you yourself only suspect might work.

We won't know until we try, and that said I'm long past convinced that our current goals will never be achieved if we stay on the ignoble unsustainable course we're following.

Edited December 6, 2009 by eyeball

[ZenOps]

And how often did China invite Harper?

You're being paranoid. ALL world leaders visit the wall when they go to China. It's China's number one tourist attraction. Everyone wants to see it. Nixon went there during his ground-breaking visit. Trudeau went there, too, as did Chretien.

First visit yes. Its like every white guy gets Chicken balls on the first visit. The second visit he might get Peking duck. Its a long way to abalone on sliced seaweed

If in five years you haven't made it to peking duck, its bad.

Edited December 6, 2009 by ZenOps

[ZenOps]

I wish it would give use an actual number. The NCS assume that relationship with radiation is linear. That we could plot the numbers we know on a graph and then extrapolate down, but they only do this to play it safe. When it comes to low levels of radiation we just don't know.

And they usually only quote iodine 131. The far more insidious radioactive cobalt is far more dangerous. I shudder to think how many parts per billion radioactive cobalt is in my system right now.. Probably right up there with all the aluminum from the canned pop I've drunk over a lifetime.