Paul J Gans wrote:

In talk.origins Dan Luke <c172rg@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:

"maff" wrote:

Why would they want to bomb any country?

Because they would deem it necessary to advance their interests.

So since when did you get the urge to speak for them?

Since when are they different from any other tyrants?

Oh boy. A fact free mind. Dare I ask what tyrrany
they have imposed on the world?

---- Paul J. Gans

A significant tyranny on their families wrt number of children allowed.
And remember, this tyranny affects almost a quarter of the worlds
population.

A significant tyranny on their families wrt number of children allowed.
And remember, this tyranny affects almost a quarter of the worlds
population.

Mick White wrote:

maff wrote:

Dan Luke wrote:

"China's external behavior during the Maoist era was a contradictory
phenomenon. Despite its tendency toward using force, Mao's China was
not an expansionist power.

Tibet?

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

bob young wrote:

maff wrote:

Dan Luke wrote:

"maff" wrote:

Why would they want to bomb any country?

Because they would deem it necessary to advance their interests.

So since when did you get the urge to speak for them?

"China's external behavior during the Maoist era was a contradictory
phenomenon. Despite its tendency toward using force, Mao's China was
not an expansionist power. It is essential to make a distinction
between the pursuit of centrality and the pursuit of dominance in
international affairs in terms of the fundamental goal of Chinese
foreign policy. While Mao and his comrades were never shy about using
force in pursuing China's foreign policy goals, what they hoped to
achieve was not the expansion of China's political and military control
of foreign territory or resources -- which was, for Mao and his
comrades, too inferior an aim -- but, rather, the spread of their
influence to other "hearts and minds" around the world. Mao fully
understood that only when China's superior moral position in the world
had been recognized by other peoples would the consolidation of his
continuous revolution's momentum at home be assured. "

Mao has long since gone and China has long since changed

In Mao's days if a foreigner disguarded a used razor behind in his hotel
bathroom a member of the hotel staff would run to the railway station before he
left and hand it back to him.

Now there's a special ticket office at the railway station for foreigners where
they pay double what the locals pay for the same journey.

China is going through the stresses of change. Only recently visitors to hong
kong complain they are being asked to pay US$65 before they can get a visitors
visa to cross the border into China Proper. Then when one crosses from Hong
Kong any sample of merchandise is treated with suspicion and sometimes
confiscated. Alternatively, take an aircraft to Shanghai and you can walk
through with virtually anything.

China is a very difficult country to administer

As Mao approached the last decade of his life, he found that in
pursuing the ideals he cherished he had become a "lone monk with a
leaky umbrella,"[21] and a majority of the Communist elite were unable
-- or unwilling -- to follow the development of his thinking. A pivotal
challenge obsessed Mao constantly: through what means could he
transform China and the world? Even with his seemingly unrestricted
political power, he often found himself powerless. What he encountered
was a paradox sitting deeply in the challenge itself: he had to find
the means needed for transforming the "old" world from the very "old"
world that was yet to be transformed. Throughout Mao's
twenty-seven-year reign in China, he was never able to overcome this
profound anxiety.

http://www.ibiblio.org/uncpress/chapters/chen_maos.html

http://www.ibiblio.org/uncpress/chapters/chen_maos.html

It's stupid.

Yes. The greedy, ambitious men who rise to power are often stupid in this
peculiar way.

--
Dan

"Mission accomplished!"
-- George W. Bush

bob young wrote:

maff wrote:

Dan Luke wrote:

"maff" wrote:

Why would they want to bomb any country?

Because they would deem it necessary to advance their interests.

So since when did you get the urge to speak for them?

"China's external behavior during the Maoist era was a contradictory
phenomenon. Despite its tendency toward using force, Mao's China was
not an expansionist power. It is essential to make a distinction
between the pursuit of centrality and the pursuit of dominance in
international affairs in terms of the fundamental goal of Chinese
foreign policy. While Mao and his comrades were never shy about using
force in pursuing China's foreign policy goals, what they hoped to
achieve was not the expansion of China's political and military control
of foreign territory or resources -- which was, for Mao and his
comrades, too inferior an aim -- but, rather, the spread of their
influence to other "hearts and minds" around the world. Mao fully
understood that only when China's superior moral position in the world
had been recognized by other peoples would the consolidation of his
continuous revolution's momentum at home be assured. "

Mao has long since gone and China has long since changed

In Mao's days if a foreigner disguarded a used razor behind in his hotel
bathroom a member of the hotel staff would run to the railway station before he
left and hand it back to him.

Now there's a special ticket office at the railway station for foreigners where
they pay double what the locals pay for the same journey.

China is going through the stresses of change. Only recently visitors to hong
kong complain they are being asked to pay US$65 before they can get a visitors
visa to cross the border into China Proper. Then when one crosses from Hong
Kong any sample of merchandise is treated with suspicion and sometimes
confiscated. Alternatively, take an aircraft to Shanghai and you can walk
through with virtually anything.

China is a very difficult country to administer

As Mao approached the last decade of his life, he found that in
pursuing the ideals he cherished he had become a "lone monk with a
leaky umbrella,"[21] and a majority of the Communist elite were unable
-- or unwilling -- to follow the development of his thinking. A pivotal
challenge obsessed Mao constantly: through what means could he
transform China and the world? Even with his seemingly unrestricted
political power, he often found himself powerless. What he encountered
was a paradox sitting deeply in the challenge itself: he had to find
the means needed for transforming the "old" world from the very "old"
world that was yet to be transformed. Throughout Mao's
twenty-seven-year reign in China, he was never able to overcome this
profound anxiety.

http://www.ibiblio.org/uncpress/chapters/chen_maos.html

http://www.ibiblio.org/uncpress/chapters/chen_maos.html

It's stupid.

Yes. The greedy, ambitious men who rise to power are often stupid in this
peculiar way.

--
Dan

"Mission accomplished!"
-- George W. Bush

bob young wrote:

maff wrote:

bob young wrote:

AC wrote:

On 12 Jun 2005 12:01:04 -0700,
maff <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:

Shaping China's Future Power
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/12/weekinreview/12cohen.html

http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1786.8493
By ROGER COHEN
It seems unlikely that China can be dissuaded from the notion that its
future involves a great-power destiny.

As unlikely as Rome's, England's or the United States'. Quite frankly I'm
not sure that any nation has the idea of becoming a great power, but rather
cultural and historical forces ultimately leave little choice. The US, in
fact, did seem to try to escape at times its great power status,
particularly between the two World Wars when isolationism was at its
strongest. In the end, it simply had no choice.

....and it is just as well the USA is a cosmopolitan land full of all types of
folks. Doubt China would want to bomb SanFrancisco, half of those killed
would be Chinese!

Why would they want to bomb any country? It's stupid.

Stupid maybe, but nations have been bombing other nations since the first bomb was
invented. No-one knows what China's bombing policy might be

But what motive would that be? Their actons have been consistent with
their foreign policy.

<snip>

--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com

Saint Cyril and some monks who burned the great Library
at Alexandria, destroying 600,000 volumes of knowledge
of the ancient world -- the greatest property crime of all
time."

"vivapadrepio@aol.com" wrote:

maff wrote:

Shaping China's Future Power
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/12/weekinreview/12cohen.html

http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1786.8493
By ROGER COHEN
It seems unlikely that China can be dissuaded from the notion that its
future involves a great-power destiny.

Prayer For Peace In The World:

Lord Jesus Christ, Prince of Peace, grant us peace throughout the
world, that all nations may work together and that there might be an
end to war. I ask this, Lord, in your name. Amen.

Reminds me of when I was a kid in W.W.II. In Britain we all went to church
to pray for the victory of our glorious soldiers and the Germans were doing
exactly the same thing!

We can all hope for world peace, but no gods are going to be involved,
unless they were responsible for these monstrosities:


The silence of Pope Pius XII during the Nazi holocaust.

Monsignor Tiso, head of the Slovak State who (per the
website below), "delivered the first trainload of Jews to
Auschwitz."

Hundreds of thousands of women burned alive as Witches
in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance.

Saint Cyril and some monks who burned the great Library
at Alexandria, destroying 600,000 volumes of knowledge
of the ancient world -- the greatest property crime of all
time."

The so-called "Crusades."

The spurring of the Protestant Reformation and the "wars
that followed wherein Germany lost half its population in a
generation."

The "destruction, plunder, rape, and papal pillage of the
people of the Americas and the eradication of their
culture..."

The extermination of the Huguenots in France.

The issuing of Vatican passports to Nazi leaders after World
War II so that they could escape prosecution for war crimes.

The castration of boy singers in the church so that they
could continue to sing in high pitch into adulthood.

[With acknowledgements to 'zadadu']