141–150 of 158 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No you are not. They can decide to live without it.
Ha! Now that would be something. So China is not forcing Norway because Norway can just choose to not trade with China? That's some extremely bizzare logic there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You clearly don’t understand the meaning of the word.
Oh really ? http://www.dictionary.com/browse/forced > enforced or compulsory Is the first definition of the word. How was it compulsory for Norway to comply? They had their officials at gunpoint?
Also, words often have more than just their first definition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Liu Xiaobo always has supporters. Far as I can remember, at that time (Around 2009, 20 years after Tiananmen event), there are some people says Liu Xiaobo should be awarded with the peace prize for against CCP's dictatorship. Some people event had a debate about it. Some say Liu is a hero for democratize China, others say he's wants China to be invaded and controlled by ... may be the US? That debate later end with O…
> I'm not saying Obama is bad or anything though. It's not appropriate for an outsider to comment your president. Why not?
If somebody didn't contribute to your country, how can he/she has right to criticize people who do?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm not saying Obama is bad or anything though. It's not appropriate for an outsider to comment your president. Why not?
Because I'm not a taxpayer in the US? If somebody didn't contribute to your country, how can he/she has right to criticize people who do?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm not saying Obama is bad or anything though. It's not appropriate for an outsider to comment your president. Why not?
Because I'm not a taxpayer in the US? If somebody didn't contribute to your country, how can he/she has right to criticize people who do?
If you mean right in a moral sense, I guess my question still is: Why not?
If you are negatively affected by the actions of a leader of a foreign country ... why should you not have a right to criticize that?
If you have some constructive criticism as to how the leader of a foreign country is doing their job badly and how they could to it better ... what would be the use of not saying so out loud? Couldn't that possibly even be a contribution to their country?
I really don't see why having contributed to something would have anything to do with whether you should criticize it or not?! I can see how maybe you don't get a direct say in who gets to be the leader, but that's quite different from criticizing them, isn't it? I haven't contributed to Equifax either, but I still don't see why I shouldn't criticize their leadership?! Or should I? Why? Why not? And how is a country fundamentally different from a company in that regard?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The style of diplomacy China is using has also been practiced by the US and its allies. That was my point exactly. If you're the top dog, you can do this kind of stuff and get away with it. What the future holds, with an ascendant China, is that they will continue to put this kind of pressure on other countries and we will be unable to counter it so it will work against us.
To be more precise, the point is really this: Up till now, Western countries have been able to do "this kind of stuff and get away with it". Now, a non-Western country is able to do this stuff to "Western countries", and get away with it. So naturally, denizens of said "Western countries" will be aghast, upset, indignant (pick your emotion). While denizens of, well, the rest of the world, might well be laughing their…
They'll just be terrified. For good reason.
This list probably soon will include Pakistan, Afghanistan, and essentially all Southwestern Asiatic countries. Hell, someone might look at a map of China from before Ww1 or so, look at it now, look again saying "wtf", and decide that these people obviously want to conquer a LOT. At which point it'll be China vs the world. And, historically, China has started such conflicts, they're just not very important for western history because the west really wasn't very important for most of history. China eventually lost those conflicts, but not without inflicting massive damage. First to a lot of other countries, then more and more to themselves.
Oh and lest I forget, if you want human rights ... You should be very apprehensive about China. Giving in to western demands has in most cases led to massive improvements in the lot of the average person. China is ... different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because I'm not a taxpayer in the US? If somebody didn't contribute to your country, how can he/she has right to criticize people who do?
That's a very odd sentiment. Do you believe most of the posters here also have no right to criticize China for these actions? Or that noone here has any right to criticize north Korea? I don't think anyone here pays them any taxes.
For me, I just don't comment something I don't understand, I'm not living in the US, so I can't feel what Obama's doing.
Because of that, how can I make a comment that is appropriate? I can't even make a comment that's accurate (Judging by those late night shows I watched on Youtube).
Now about tax, I think it's actually you paid your government to do what they want. When they did something wrong / you don't like it, of course you can complain about it.
But as a foreigner however, if the US government did some negative thing on us, the most effective way I think is to blame our government for letting it to happen.
BTW: Of course, in China we have anit-US (Or Japan etc) prides from time to time, just I'm not a fan of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taiwan is quite used to countries working around China like this. Only 20 countries have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, none of them very influential.
And those that do use the official name of Taiwan's gov't, the Republic of China... which makes PRC look bad since they have a "China" across the strait with democracy and freedom.
How did Liu Xiaobo become so important? So much happening for this guy expressing his opinions, wtf?! If an American or someone from most European countries would express similar opinions wrt his own country's government... nobody would blink a fucking eye, regardless of who gave him what prize... (And we all know that Nobels for anything except science are 100% bullshit. Heck, I'd even question the relevance of the…
In American high school I learned not just about Nathan Hale and Martin Luther King Jr., but also about Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, and Sophie Scholl. These figures are famous for the strength of their moral beliefs, the brutality they endured as a result, and their perseverance despite such adversity. On these points, I think Liu Xiaobo is of equal merit. This would explain his visibility in the West. If student…
But considering that Liu Xiaobo preached about the inferiority of the Chinese race and how they needed to be colonized by the West for a couple hundred years, they would most likely compare him to an Uncle Tom/Chan type of person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be more precise, the point is really this: Up till now, Western countries have been able to do "this kind of stuff and get away with it". Now, a non-Western country is able to do this stuff to "Western countries", and get away with it. So naturally, denizens of said "Western countries" will be aghast, upset, indignant (pick your emotion). While denizens of, well, the rest of the world, might well be laughing their…
Well, except said rest world denizens from Taiwan, Thailand, South Korea, Nepal, Vietnam, India, Japan and the rest of the countries China wants to screw over. They'll just be terrified. For good reason. This list probably soon will include Pakistan, Afghanistan, and essentially all Southwestern Asiatic countries. Hell, someone might look at a map of China from before Ww1 or so, look at it now, look again saying "wtf…
Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Pak-China relations would really be laughing their ass of at this. I won't even bother to correct you there.
> At which point it'll be China vs the world. And, historically, China has started such conflicts,
Aha, spoken like someone desperate to convince others that the big bad Chinaman is really out to get them.
China has issues with its immediate neighbours. And I'm not here to make any claims pro or anti China on those. In many ways, its a consequence of having a large country, surrounded by others - all of whom have a history where they can point to themselves being victimised by the others (while each side conveniently forgets when they were the ones doing the victimisation)
> Oh and lest I forget, if you want human rights ...
What? If I want human rights I should listen to the side which murders civilians across the globe, via drones and trigger-happy killers sitting in a cubicle with a joystick?
Or the one which kidnaps civilians around the world, throws them into various torture centers, and when done, usually dumps them in an offshore gulag in Cuba?
Oops, thats all from the same side.
Seriously, that old argument of "listen to the West, we know whats best for your human rights" really doesn't swallow easily outside of, well, the West.
> You should be very apprehensive about China
Sure. As apprehensive as we should be about, err, you lot.
Fair enough?