China a Big bully? how abt U.S? arent they a big bully too?
-
China lost Taiwan??..China did not lost taiwan..it was the nationalist who retreated to Taiwan when they lost to the communist..n communist China did not want to follow in..so since when China lost Taiwan?..i dun consider it a bully..cos china never pull any punches yet...so pls dun make accusation abt china being a bullyOriginally posted by Patriotic Tim:THe U.S made a mistake spending so much in development of Stealth Aerial Technology..... What a waste. If its Russia who found a counter to F117, its ok, but its CHINA!!!!!! CHINA sucks!!!! I just don't understand man.... WHY do they have to take back what they had lost last time??? TIBET, TAIWAN..... see how they treat the DALAI LAMA and Tibetians, 1940s, they force the Nationalist out and now, they claim that Taiwan is part of them!!! SHIT!!!! See how arrogant they are, so they think they are powerful, conducting exercises at that don't know what island. Actually, Taiwan is fighting a losing battle on the ground and sea, and maybe even the air as the air is going to be used to support ground and sea... i see this ssiiue as big bullies " DA CHI SIAO" in chinese. Anybody and enlighten me on this issue?? -
Give him sometime to adapt. Many ppl still cannot accept the fact china are already the superpower of the east... whether u like it or not.
-
yea..im trying to be cool..but i just hate pple making those accusation abt China
-
Forget it. How often can u find objective view in forum?
-
i am not anti-US, but a lot of times their actions irk me. true, they help others a lot, but often it is heavily tinged with politics. i guess its normal, but what gets to me is their overly self-righteous attitude. they appoint themselves as policemen of the world. often, they think their way, and only, their way, is the proper way and works out for everybody and does not give due consideration for the feelings of the natives. they often poke their noses in when its not wanted. when we caned michael fay, they accused us of going against human rights. when anwar was jailed, they poked their noses in and claimed injustice. when vietnam was split in civil war by communism, they joined the fray 'to protect the vietnamese against communism'. in one word: busybodies.
and they hail their president as 'as the most powerful man in the world' and often label him as 'leader of the free world'. well then why doesn't the rest of the free world get to vote for him then?
i know lots of times they do good, even when tinged with politics. i just feel there should be limit to how deep they poke their noses into other people's business.
------------------
RockerZ! -
Indeed !!!! Americans don't play big brother role for free. Some sort of returns are alway expected may it be political support or trade concession of some kind.Originally posted by Ducati996:i am not anti-US, but a lot of times their actions irk me. true, they help others a lot, but often it is heavily tinged with politics. i guess its normal, but what gets to me is their overly self-righteous attitude. they appoint themselves as policemen of the world. often, they think their way, and only, their way, is the proper way and works out for everybody and does not give due consideration for the feelings of the natives. they often poke their noses in when its not wanted. when we caned michael fay, they accused us of going against human rights. when anwar was jailed, they poked their noses in and claimed injustice. when vietnam was split in civil war by communism, they joined the fray 'to protect the vietnamese against communism'. in one word: busybodies.
and they hail their president as 'as the most powerful man in the world' and often label him as 'leader of the free world'. well then why doesn't the rest of the free world get to vote for him then?
i know lots of times they do good, even when tinged with politics. i just feel there should be limit to how deep they poke their noses into other people's business.
[This message has been edited by seow_leow (edited 21 May 2002).] -
i agreeOriginally posted by seow_leow:Forget it. How often can u find objective view in forum?
-
I think most of the world views american foreign policy as well-meaning but naive. They tend to see things in black or white, ie Israel is right while the Palestineans are wrong. The actual fact is that everything and everyone is a shade of grey, nothing is absolute right or wrong. How they act in different situations also depends very much on who's in office, using the current war on terror as an example, I just can't help feeling that had Gore won the election, US reaction will be very different(not that its a good thing)
Ducati1996: I do agree that the US is a busybody at times, but I think your analysis of US involvement in Vietnam was flawed. I think had the US not got involved, the fall of Vietnam, and all of SE Asia to communism would be very real. It is now agreed for a fact that the National Liberation Front(more pupularly known as the Viet Cong) of Vietnam was just short of initiating Phase 3 of a "peoples revolution"(ie. the start of subversion in urban centres after completing Phase 2 - comunization in the rural areas) by the time the US sent troops to South Vietnam in 1965. It would then be a matter of time before Cambodia and Laos fell, and thereafter Thailand Malaysia and Singapore, which already had active communist movements. Of course, Indonesia under Sukarno was already overtly communist. The Domino Theory may be easy to be scoffed by the Left in the West, but in 1965 in SE Asia, it was very real. US involvement might not have stopped the communists in IndoChina, but it was vital to stopping communism in SE Asia because
1) It slowed the revolution in IndoChina by 10 years, and significantly weakened Vietnam's(and to a certain extent: PRC and USSR's) ability to sponsor similar movements throughout SEA, by forcing them to focus efforts in Vietnam in the case of the latter 2 countries.
2) It actively awoke the US to the threat of communism in SE Asia, and committed the US to fighting it in countries like Malaysia and Thailand
3) It made regional governments wake up to the seriousness of the threat
Their tactics, policies may have not been exactly totally successful or morally aboveboard, but the underlying intentions, were no doubt good.
I do agree however that the US does piss me off with their "holier than thou" attitude, and pokes their noses where it don't belong.
As to China today, I feel that letting Taiwan go would be in the best interests of both countries, but I just feel that after 50+ years of claiming Taiwan is a part of China and accepting the status quo, both sides(minus the Taiwanese independence advocates) would be unable to accept a climbdown without seeing it as a defeat. Which brings me to one more question: What gives Taiwan the right to claim to be the legit China(incl. the mainland) when it feels like it, and declare independence when it feels like it?
China is here to stay, politically, economically and militarily. We'll have to live with it and work with it. There are some who can't accept it, in the West and in Asia. But they'll wake up to that eventually. -
i agree with u in most part Viper..but not this..the problem is.. U.S did not win the war in vietnam..so its involvement is somehow Extra(obsolete)..so it did not stop communism in SEA..i believe communism just die away in those SEA country it trying to infiltrateOriginally posted by Viper52:Ducati1996: I do agree that the US is a busybody at times, but I think your analysis of US involvement in Vietnam was flawed. I think had the US not got involved, the fall of Vietnam, and all of SE Asia to communism would be very real. It is now agreed for a fact that the National Liberation Front(more pupularly known as the Viet Cong) of Vietnam was just short of initiating Phase 3 of a "peoples revolution"(ie. the start of subversion in urban centres after completing Phase 2 - comunization in the rural areas) by the time the US sent troops to South Vietnam in 1965. It would then be a matter of time before Cambodia and Laos fell, and thereafter Thailand Malaysia and Singapore, which already had active communist movements. Of course, Indonesia under Sukarno was already overtly communist. The Domino Theory may be easy to be scoffed by the Left in the West, but in 1965 in SE Asia, it was very real. US involvement might not have stopped the communists in IndoChina, but it was vital to stopping communism in SE Asia because -
Nathan, yes the US did not win the war in Vietnam, and failed to prevent the march of communism in IndoChina. But my point is that US involvement in Vietnam slowed that march by 10 years(1975 instead of 1965 if it had not got involved) and, besides that, woke the Free World(including SE Asia itself) to the fact that the threat of communism to SE Asia was very real and galvanised the nations to form a united front against communism in SE Asia within and without their borders.Originally posted by NathanG5:i agree with u in most part Viper..but not this..the problem is.. U.S did not win the war in vietnam..so its involvement is somehow Extra(obsolete)..so it did not stop communism in SEA..i believe communism just die away in those SEA country it trying to infiltrate
Consider the track record of the communists in Vietnam: Even as the Vietnam war was was rumbling, they were running communist movements in Laos and Cambodia by sponsoring the Pathet Lao and Khmer Rouge respectively. They succeeded in Laos in 1970 and Cambodia in 1975, and when they found the Khmer Rouge government they installed was not to their liking, they simply invaded Cambodia in 1979 and installed a government more malleable to their wishes. All this by a nation depleted by 40+ years of fighting the Japanese, French and Americans.
Now consider the scenario if the US had not gotten itself involved. Vietnam becomes communist in 1965-66. Cambodia and Laos follow in the next 2 years or so with the new(undepleted) Vietnamese regimes help. With the US washing its hands off fighting communism in SE Asia, Sukarnos opponents will not get the support they need to overthrow him, Thailands and Malaysia's(including Singapore's) communists get the support from the USSR, China and Vietnam(remember both the Soviets and Chinese supported Vietnams communists DESPITE the Moscow-Beijing rift). At this moment, Thailands and Malaysias governments are still weak politically economically and militarily and the communists actually had support within the local populace then. How long would a concerted communist subversion effort taken to overthrow these 2 new democracies?
With US involvement in SE Asia, by the time the Vietnamese had invaded Cambodia, the economies of SE Asia was on a more even keel, governments stronger politically and militarily, ASEAN was more established than before to form a united front against the communists in IndoChina to prevent the Vietnemese and their proxies from running the show completely in Cambodia, which would have IMO for certain allowed them to turn attention to the rest of SE Asia
The above scenario are all just ifs and buts, and might not happen even without US involvement. But I don't fancy the chances of it not happening. -
i am not well-versed in history, so your post is actually something new for me to learn. even so, this is one of those things which i do agree US had good intentions. however, again, i feel this is too heavily tinged with politics. unfortunately, my knowledge in this matter is limited to reading autobiographies of US vietnam war veterans. i have a good-sized collection of such books, and i have discovered a common sentiment among them: they lost because their military strategy was determined by politicians back home who did not appreciate the situation at hand, and who had little or no knowledge of military strategy. of course, there were other factors, i just find that this is a common sentiment among the vets.Originally posted by Viper52:Ducati1996: I do agree that the US is a busybody at times, but I think your analysis of US involvement in Vietnam was flawed.
------------------
RockerZ! -
"......if them dumb motherf***in' politician pukeheads would just let us alone and let us do our jobs, we'd be outta here and back to the World in no time at all. Shit! No arty, no fixed-wing, no direct support from those dumbshit, poor-ass tank crews; just our damned M16s and grenades and they want us to root out a regiment of entrenched NVA in a day or two. Well, let them dumb a**hole politicians come over here and follow me around for a minute or two, and see what kind of bullshit happens when dumbshit motherf***in' politicians start calling the shots on the ground. Jesus H Christ, why can't they stick to kissin' asses and babies?..."
- obscene mumbling from pinned-down Marines overheard amid street fighting, Hue, 1968.
- taken from 'Phase Line Green', by Nicholas Warr.
just tot this was funny. the battle that the soldier was fighting wasn't funny of course.
------------------
RockerZ! -
Ducati, the problem with US strategy in Vietnam was two-fold: Firstly, as you have mentioned, they politcized the war and let the politicians, instead of the military, do the fighting. That, along with the nasty American trait of doing everything with overwhelming force(ie using a sledgehammer when a pair of tweezers was needed), effectively meant that the war for hearts and minds would never be won.Originally posted by Ducati996:i am not well-versed in history, so your post is actually something new for me to learn. even so, this is one of those things which i do agree US had good intentions. however, again, i feel this is too heavily tinged with politics. unfortunately, my knowledge in this matter is limited to reading autobiographies of US vietnam war veterans. i have a good-sized collection of such books, and i have discovered a common sentiment among them: they lost because their military strategy was determined by politicians back home who did not appreciate the situation at hand, and who had little or no knowledge of military strategy. of course, there were other factors, i just find that this is a common sentiment among the vets.
Secondly, they focused too much on the military aspect of fighting the commies, ignoring the fact that a succession of governments they propped up in Saigon only had personal interests at heart, rather than that of the country.
I've read a number of books by Vietnam vets as well, one that struck me as very good was Thud Ridge by Col Jack Broughton. col. Broughton was the commander of a USAF F-105 Thunderchief unit based in Thailand and in the book he relates his experiences in the Vietnam war. It does really make you wonder whether the real enemy were the North Vietnamese or the Washington politicians. I do really feel for theses vets, the returned home with the policiticans blaming them for losing the war and viewed by their own people as war criminals. Truly sad.
Its interesting you brought out the 1968 Battle of Hue. Did the book mention anything about what happened after the Communists initially overran Hue? Truly a classic example of commmunists showing their true colours, shown at Hue and repeated on a larger scale in Cambodia in 1975. Apparently the NVA/VC came into Hue with namelists of anyone who they remotely linked with the Southern government and whom they thought might be a threat to their communist state. These included writers, teachers, small time officials, intellectuals etc. They then arrested as many as they could find and shot all of them. No trials, no charges, nothing. They were shot andburied in mass graves and only found after Hue was retaken after the Tet Offensive failed.
Of course the Khmer Rouge went one better in 1975, when any Cambodian wearing glasses would immediately be termed a class oppressor and enemy of the people. -
no it didn't. the story was only about the author's experience as a lieutenant during the battle itself.Originally posted by Viper52:Its interesting you brought out the 1968 Battle of Hue. Did the book mention anything about what happened after the Communists initially overran Hue?
------------------
RockerZ! -
yea..the Khmer Rouge is damn brutal during their reign..due to their leader(who can remember his name? izit Hong seng?) just like the present day Milosevic...n this remind me of the Indonesia riot..n the raping of the chinese woman just piss me off!!
-
Straits Times, May 25:
"US WANTS TROOPS EXEMPTED FROM WAR-CRIMES TRIALS."
i read this article and i started thinking, again, how the US is showing such blatant hypocrisy. here are some points from the article which really irked me:
"...one approach the US govt is considering is to renegotiate military and political treaties...to include guarantees that any american charged with a war crime abroad can only be tried in the US and not in the International Crime Court or home countries..."
"...all US ambassadors were told last month...to explore whether other nations were open to creating mutual agreements that would protect their 'nationals' from the 'reach of the International Crime Court'..."
"...when the International Crime Court treaty enters into force...US citizens will be exposed to the risk of prosecution by a court that is unacceptable to the American people, said Defence Secretary..."
"...threatened to withdraw from UN peacekeeping missions and block funding to get what it wants..."
this just goes to show the US wants to 'help' other countries, but strictly at its own terms, and without fear of being judged for any wrong that they may inadvertantly do. why is an international court unacceptable to the american people? are the americans the only people in the world with a sense of right and wrong, and therefore the only people with a right to judge themselves? if they have done no wrong that why should they fear trial in an international court? and when negotiation fails to get what they want, as usual they resort to using their military and economic might.
i cannot deny that in some places in the world, the US presence is a good thing. but it is unfortunate that, wielding the immense power that they have, they have become far too self-righteous and arrogant.
------------------
RockerZ! -
Hrm, i guess there are the pros and cons to this. The US's judicial system is rather impartial and just when it comes to convicting a person of a crime. But their penalties are just often too lenient I guess. Internation courts seem rather vague to me.
-
Actually, I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea of an International Court of War Crimes. From what I've seen, the definition of "war crimes" seems too vague and ambiguous. The whole thing simply smacks of another pathetic attempt by certain countries(or should I say, those of a certain political orientation) to impose their will and ideas on others. It simply leaves too many question marks over things like definition of war crimes, the court's mandate, their powers etc etc and the EU countries enthusiastic pushing of the court to be set up smacks of self-consolation over their failures in Bosnia and Kosovo.
I say keep the current system of setting up and convening international tribunals like the ones for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, not have a permanent, and potential international kangaroo court helping certain special interests carry out witch hunts. Its a noble concept, I agree, but one thats too open to abuse and manipulation and has too many question marks hanging over it.
While I do disapprove of US unilateralism in this case, and to me smacks of typical US arrogance and their damned "Superior to thou" attitude, I don't think enough has gone into looking into the potential negative aspects of the concept for everyone to rush to agree to the setup.