did the ancient chinese behave like aryans?
harmony
like the the aryans went all over from west europe to south asia. the
chinese tried to mimic the aryans - and with great successs but with a lot
of cruelty.
the chinese immigrants and invaders went to japan and drove out the
original japanese from manchuria. they drove the mongols back into a small
country. they fought border wars with russia. they drove out the taiwanese
from shanghai, and are still threatening them. they are doing the same to
tibetans. they are occupying hongknog against the wishes of the people.
indonesians, malaysians think they have stolen their resources, they warred
on vietnam, the phillipines find them overbearing trying to steal their oil
reserves. taiwan is standoffish with them. tibetans find them cruel
colonialists. china torture its own peple. mao kill millions of chinese.
china make too much conflict - just like muslims. no wonder the only
countries like china are muslim countries like pakistan, saudi arabia and
iran, all human right culprits.
time for china to have democracy.
Gods and Monkeys
> time for china to have democracy.
Sure. Why not? But let's wait until 2050. There are a lot of
converging forces
for the world that will resolve by that time- environmental,
scientific, demographically,
wars. Democracy by itself may not be efficient enough to deal with
these issues, in
fact democracy is the cause of these issues. So lets have multiple
controls, political
options for the world, until that time.
P. Rajah
> for thousands of years the chinese invaders and migrants went all over asia.
> like the the aryans went all over from west europe to south asia. the
> chinese tried to mimic the aryans - and with great successs but with a lot
> of cruelty.
>
> the chinese immigrants and invaders went to japan and drove out the
> original japanese from manchuria. they drove the mongols back into a small
> country. they fought border wars with russia. they drove out the taiwanese
> from shanghai, and are still threatening them. they are doing the same to
> tibetans. they are occupying hongknog against the wishes of the people.
Are you a total idiot, or are you just trying to make Indians look like
idiots? Put the f**king pipe down, you drug-addled clown!
ModerateMallu
Chi,chi! Drugs? No! It is just that the pure grape juice the poor bloke
had must have been in a state of ferment - the expiration date wasn't in
Sanskrit. :-)
Penang
Yo !
Why are you so afraid of your fellow Indian poster?
Is your fear based on your own innate acknowledgement that you Indians
can never come up with anything logical?
Neo
> time for china to have democracy.
Everyone makes a big thing about elections and how its suppose
to be hall mark of a democratic society but it is not all that
important.
There are two important social factors that create a working
democracy.
1) The power and the right to say what you want and the ability to
assemble peacefully and hold public forums
2) The mechanism and the political power to hold government
accountable to its citizenry. .
If given those two social environmental factor - -
every other freedom or right can be derived, gained, obtained or
re-instated even if it was previously lost.
A society that depends soley on superior physical force and
ruthlessnes will
only creates ill-feelings that will threaten the foundations of that
society.
A man who think with his little head is at risk of losing his big
head.
.
harmony
"Neo" <residualse...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f1f57abc-e609-44cb...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Everyone makes a big thing about elections and how its suppose
to be hall mark of a democratic society but it is not all that
important.
----------------------
democrazy is important more to the outsiders who can feel secure, specially
the neighboring countries. it is well recorded that democrazies don't start
wars. dictatorship is always a threat, they always are insecure, hence
arbitrary, because they don't feel the legitimacy. they make demands on
neighobrs' lands and make wars. this is the main reason why the west is
pushing for "democrazy and freedom" in china (it has little to do with the
"aspirations of chinese people"). dictatorial china is already doing that
to taiwan, tibet and india and causing problems with the other countries i
mentioned.
i will agree democrazy is no nirvana, but the best thing you can say is it
is peaceful.
-------------------------------
There are two important social factors that create a working
democracy.
1) The power and the right to say what you want and the ability to
assemble peacefully and hold public forums
2) The mechanism and the political power to hold government
accountable to its citizenry. .
If given those two social environmental factor - -
every other freedom or right can be derived, gained, obtained or
re-instated even if it was previously lost.
----------------------------------------
what about the chinese families' long suppressed right to have more than one
child, eg.? why can't the non-han chinese have the right to speak in their
own language? why do chinese officials get upset at their people who want to
speak in sanskrit?
A society that depends soley on superior physical force and
ruthlessnes will
only creates ill-feelings that will threaten the foundations of that
society.
-----------------------------
well, so far rusha and china seem to be holding on pretty good.
A man who think with his little head is at risk of losing his big
head.
----------------------------------
if you quoted confuse-us you have succeeded :)
Neo
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:20:34 -0700 (PDT), Neo
The CCP believes that law and political stability are
more important than free speech. Even as China
leaps forward economically - politically the CCP
faces significant challenges which will probably force
CCP/China to evolve into a different place than
it is today.
Neo
> democrazy is important more to the outsiders who can feel secure, specially
> the neighboring countries. it is well recorded that democrazies don't start
> wars.
It's not the form of government that makes a country
beliligrent or militarily agressive. Great Britian was a
democracy - but during the 1600-1900 it fought multiple
wars of conquest to create the British Empire. Ancient
Athens which is often described as the cradle of
democracy started wars just to force tribute from other
neighboring city states. A better indicator of whether
a country is likely to start a war is whether that country
has relatively greater military advantage over its
neighboring states. Regardless of the form of governance,
Governments with very powerful military forces (like
China) - are always tempted to use physical force
when diplomatic efforts don't bring results. War
being the final diplomatic option.
> what about the chinese families' long suppressed right to...
The China limits private and individual rights.
More importantly, the CCP reserves the right of expression,
right to assemble, and the power to make the government
accountable. Recent repression of dissent has only
increased and made worst the ill-feelings which I
if not address will destablize China internally.
> well, so far rusha and china seem to be holding on pretty good.
The Russia's Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc disintegrated
into chaos. Russia's doing better because the government
took back all the oil wells.
China changed dramatically after Chairman Mao
died. China is alot less repressive than it use to be.
North Korea - however - is about as repressive now as it was in 1955.
.
> if you quoted confuse-us you have succeeded :)
Over your head?
Just forget it.. :-)
bitter anko
> for thousands of years the chinese invaders and migrants went all over asia.
> like the the aryans went all over from west europe to south asia. the
> chinese tried to mimic the aryans - and with great successs but with a lot
> of cruelty.
>
> the chinese immigrants and invaders went to japan and drove out the
> original japanese from manchuria. they drove the mongols back into a small
Where did you get that wrong idea?
The ancestors of the Japanese are not Chinese. They are some non-
Chinese tribe in Yunnan or Tibet.
Neo
> On 9月25日, 午前4:25, "harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > for thousands of years the chinese invaders and migrants went all over asia.
> > like the the aryans went all over from west europe to south asia. the
> > chinese tried to mimic the aryans - and with great successs but with a lot
> > of cruelty.
>
> > the chinese immigrants and invaders went to japan and drove out the
> > original japanese from manchuria. they drove the mongols back into a small
>
> Where did you get that wrong idea?
Anime?
Anime often uses alternative universes to create a storyline.
> The ancestors of the Japanese are not Chinese. They are some non-
> Chinese tribe in Yunnan or Tibet.
Some believe that a proto rice growing civilization in
Asia called the Han-Gook(korean pennisula civilization)
was the predecessor to both the chinese/Han and
current koean/Chosun civilizations.
The current archaelogical information suggest a
proto-Japanese (Yayoi) community immigrated
from a China(Han) and Korea (Go-Chosun) to Japan
about 400 BC whom later supplanted the then
dominant aborginal Jomon (Ainu, 10000BC-400 BC ) .
Yayoi brought over rice-cultivation technologies which
gave them a food production advantage over the Ainu.
Popular Shintoist view is probably the fusion of Yayoi
and Jomon cultures. The earliest archaeological sites of
Yayoi communities have been found on Japan's
southern island of Kyushu.
sources
------------
http://facts-about-japan.com/ancient-japan.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yayoi
http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2410.html
http://www.eastasianhistory.pe.kr/lecture/data/2231.pdf
http://www.allempires.net/the-genetic-sequences-of-japanese_topic22577.html
the Fucking Budha 's Learn Ga , Budha' s Fucking Black Kock
but the Chinese during the Shan Dynasty behaved like the
Aryans in their having slaves system
and class warfares .
Tibet 's Lama copied form the Shan Chinese
Penang
Fucking Black Kock" <mahatmanga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don ' t know about the ancient Chinese,
>
> but the Chinese during the Shan Dynasty behaved like the
> Aryans in their having slaves system
> and class warfares .
The Arab Muslims were the one supplying nigger slaves to the Europeans
The Malay Muslims used the wives and daughters of those who owe them
money as sex slaves
The Cambodians enslaves the Viets and the Thais until the Viets and
Thais fought back
> > ------------http://facts-about-japan.com/ancient-japan.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.or......
harmony
On Sep 25, 1:36 pm, "harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> democrazy is important more to the outsiders who can feel secure,
> specially
> the neighboring countries. it is well recorded that democrazies don't
> start
> wars.
<It's not the form of government that makes a country
beliligrent or militarily agressive. Great Britian was a
democracy - but during the 1600-1900 it fought multiple
wars of conquest to create the British Empire. Ancient
Athens which is often described as the cradle of
democracy started wars just to force tribute from other
neighboring city states. A better indicator of whether
a country is likely to start a war is whether that country
has relatively greater military advantage over its
neighboring states. Regardless of the form of governance,
Governments with very powerful military forces (like
China) - are always tempted to use physical force
when diplomatic efforts don't bring results. War
being the final diplomatic option.>
------------------------------------------
harmony:
this is a very good point, sir neo.
actually, the point you make did cross my mind, creating a doubt even while
i was writing but i felt the era of colonialism is now past, and the
colonial powers have fallen in line arranged by the usa.
i overcame the doubt realizing that in the 60 plus years since the ww2, the
democracies have a good track record of being peaceful - and considerate
despite all sorts of provocation.
the u.s.a. led nato, eg, did have considerable advantage over russia in the
immd years post ww2, but nato did not proceed to undo ussr.
ww2 created so much conscience stirring that solutions to conflicts were
sought thr' broad principles of humanity and patience backed, of course, by
solid strength.
i really think usa was the biggest and greatest civilizing influence that
the world has ever seen - warts and all.
what usa did is no country has ever done or likely to do in generations to
come.
it treated its vanquished enemies with dignity. unlike the history of all
past conflicts, usa was not mean to its enemies. the hindus easily this
model behavior comparable to their own ideal lord shri raama after he
vanquished the rakshas king raavan of sri lanka. in fact, it is often said
in jest that for any country to get propoerous the fastest way is to wage a
war on usa.
my point is usa set a very high bar for democracies by its own conduct and
example. so, i can not accept your point that big difference in
military-power potentials between two neighbors would cause wars.
because if that were the case pakistan would long be history. terroist
pakistan still exists because india is a liberal democracy which hopes to
tame pakistan the way, more or leass the patient performer usa tamed
non-performing ussr. now, i admit china is a performing villain, so it
presents a unique challenge. my guess is usa will tame the chinese dragon
too, but it needs to get its economy in order first.
the world can not be grateful enough to usa for its leadership in humanizing
of humans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> what about the chinese families' long suppressed right to...
<The China limits private and individual rights.
More importantly, the CCP reserves the right of expression,
right to assemble, and the power to make the government
accountable. Recent repression of dissent has only
increased and made worst the ill-feelings which I
if not address will destablize China internally.>
-----------------------------------
harmony:
has china transitioned from dictatorial communism to dictatorial capitalism?
> well, so far rusha and china seem to be holding on pretty good.
The Russia's Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc disintegrated
into chaos. Russia's doing better because the government
took back all the oil wells.
China changed dramatically after Chairman Mao
died. China is alot less repressive than it use to be.
---------------------------------------------
the popular opinion in usa regards china as an adversary, not a partner
(yet) - almost like it regards russia. this will incrementally change
depending on how china works toward human rights more than anything else,
and i think it is changing.
the opinion toward russia is mellowing as russia has made some move toward
democracy (which is usa means freedom and human rights, although the
actuality may not be so).
in my view, for the world peace, china would have to be seen moving toward
democracy. perhaps china will come up with a liberal system all its own to
suit its own genius (which is tremendous) that would be an alternative to
democracy, but something palpable needs to take place.
in many minds, as in mine, china is a great transforming power, they just
want it to be 100pct positive for all.
the hindus are big on yoga and inner beauty, leadiing to a sense of
contentment, tolerance and joy; i think world wide there is great
expectation that china is cut out for its role in combining outer beauty and
material needs of the world for lasting prosperity and peace. people are
eager to see that day come around fast both for china and the rest.
my view.
North Korea - however - is about as repressive now as it was in 1955.
----------------------
fortunately there is the wondrous south korea, a wonderful counter balance,
which seems to reduce n. korea to no more than a nuisance.
> if you quoted confuse-us you have succeeded :)
Over your head?
Just forget it.. :-)
-------------------
i greatly enjoy the words of wisdom from the far east, but this one i did
not get.
Neo
> "Neo" <residualselfimage1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I disagree. While democracies have a slightly higher bar for using
military force - that bar is not fix and sometimes can go very low
even in modern time
(after 1970). Democracies have a track record of using miltiary
intervention when it suits them.
For example -- when Argentina and the Great Britian had problem about
who owned
the Falkland Island it ended up as a military conflick. When the USA
had problems
with Iraq not allowing for weapons verification - the USA invaded Iraq
and overthrew
the Iraqi government despite the fact that a diplomatic option was
still available.
When the USA had problems with the Panama Regime it invaded Panama and
overthrew the government despite there being no military provocation.
Isreal has
repeatedly use miltiary intervention to prevent its neighboring states
from developing
nuclear power capabilities (and no doubt if the US led diplomatic
efforts fail to
halt Iran's nuclear ambition - Isreal will destroy Iran's facilities
in the very near
future - regardless of how many short range missile Iran has). Using
military
power is not only for big countries but for small ones as well - at
issue
is the percieved relative strength of the military forces. This was
the particular
case when the Balkan Civil wars (between Bosnia, Crotia, and Serbia)
and
the Isreali invasion of Lebanon,.
The age of colonialism has given way to the age of globalism or
international
corporations ( Most colonial governments were ended by the 1980).
While international corporations have no national loyalities they
still have capitalistic self interest. One of the reasons, the
British Empire
was so successful is that it was based on a proto-globalism economic
structure
called mercantilism. At the heart of british mercantilism were
international
corporatons like the East Indies Company and international banking
groups
like the Rothchilds. All of this sounds very similar to today's large
international
corporations like General Electric or international banking
corporations like
Citibank. Slavery maybe gone but not slave wages. Tulip speculators
are replaced by sub-prime mortgage speculators. Are we that much
better
than our forefathers?
> the u.s.a. led nato, eg, did have considerable advantage over russia in the
> immd years post ww2, but nato did not proceed to undo ussr.
USA/Nato did not have a considerable advantage over the Soviet Union
with respect to the East Bloc Countries and the Cold War Europe.
Most miltiary expert agree that during the Cold War - in a
conventional
battle - the Soviets would destroyed NATO forces and have overrun
Europe like the Nazis did in WW2. Why? The Soviets had a larger
and if not superior then equal in equality conventional military (army
and airforce). Numbers does count on the battle field. The key
sticking point was the USA support with the UK. The US potential
to provide military support could keep the UK from falling to a
soviet
invasion. To negate the USA would require a nuclear strike of the
first magnitude - that lead to the Mutually Assured Destruction
Scenario - which scared the pants off most people with
atleast half of their brain functional..
> ww2 created so much conscience stirring that solutions to conflicts were
> sought thr' broad principles of humanity and patience backed, of course, by
> solid strength.
Oh - I' wish that were true but I know it is not.
WWII ethnic cleansing still occurs today in places like Dafur
and has recently happened in places like Rwanda or Bosnia.
Broad principles of humanity backed by due process and strength
is still a dream for most of the world.
> i really think usa was the biggest and greatest civilizing influence that
> the world has ever seen - warts and all.
> what usa did is no country has ever done or likely to do in generations to
> come.
> it treated its vanquished enemies with dignity. unlike the history of all
> past conflicts, usa was not mean to its enemies. the hindus easily this
> model behavior comparable to their own ideal lord shri raama after he
> vanquished the rakshas king raavan of sri lanka. in fact, it is often said
> in jest that for any country to get propoerous the fastest way is to wage a
> war on usa.
WW2 corrected the errors of WW1 in that the losers were not
economically punished and destablized. Requiring Germany and
Japan to limit their military to defense - allowed both countries to
focus on rebuilding their economy which inturn has made them
today's economic powerhouse.
> my point is usa set a very high bar for democracies by its own conduct and
> example. so, i can not accept your point that big difference in
> military-power potentials between two neighbors would cause wars.
> because if that were the case pakistan would long be history. terroist
> pakistan still exists because india is a liberal democracy which hopes to
> tame pakistan the way, more or leass the patient performer usa tamed
> non-performing ussr. now, i admit china is a performing villain, so it
> presents a unique challenge. my guess is usa will tame the chinese dragon
> too, but it needs to get its economy in order first.
> the world can not be grateful enough to usa for its leadership in humanizing
> of humans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
The Pakistani govenment is not a monolithic terrorist agency but
a confederacy of equal power centers some which back a more radical
and fundamentalist form of islam which is unfriendly to hindus and
India. India is also a confederacy of power center with hindus holding
the bulk of the power. Pakistan does not have the same power
structure as the USSR so the same political policies are not
viable. Pakistan is a religious state much as Isreal and Saudi
Arabia are. India is a nonreligious state with a religious majority
like the USA. However, what make Pakistan unstable is a
relative weak central government combined with a weak economy
(which allow other competiting military and political forces room
to grow and thrive). China attempts to maintain a strong
central government, military, and economy. Economic reports indicate,
China's economy has started to bounding and it still has a significant
amount of leverage over the USA economy. It appears to
me that Sino American relations are not beligerent but
more coorperative on the commerical-financial level. On a
purely political and social idealogy, I agree there are broad
difference
between Chinese and American view points but such talk
hasn't translated to much. Eventually both the chinese and
Americans are going to have to face up with global climate changes
and finding an alternative sustainable form of energy to keep
humanity going - I see that issue as probably the turning
point or nextus point where Chinese and American views will
eventual converge.
> > what about the chinese families' long suppressed right to...
>
> <The China limits private and individual rights.
> More importantly, the CCP reserves the right of expression,
> right to assemble, and the power to make the government
> accountable. Recent repression of dissent has only
> increased and made worst the ill-feelings which I
> if not address will destablize China internally.>
>
> -----------------------------------
> harmony:
> has china transitioned from dictatorial communism to dictatorial capitalism?
authoritarian socialism --> authoritarian capitalism.
for chinese communist party it is all about control
The CCP feels they need centralized control to keep the country from
spinning out of control.
> > well, so far rusha and china seem to be holding on pretty good.
>
> The Russia's Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc disintegrated
> into chaos. Russia's doing better because the government
> took back all the oil wells.
>
> China changed dramatically after Chairman Mao
> died. China is alot less repressive than it use to be.
>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> the popular opinion in usa regards china as an adversary, not a partner
> (yet) - almost like it regards russia. this will incrementally change
> depending on how china works toward human rights more than anything else,
> and i think it is changing.
> the opinion toward russia is mellowing as russia has made some move toward
> democracy (which is usa means freedom and human rights, although the
> actuality may not be so).
Most reports I've read is that russia is moving
back to a more authoritarian government with respect to
freedom of expression. The Russian govenment has
decided to take over and nationalize key industries to
it economy like the oil industry. One of the big concerns
among venture capitalist is what will Russian property rights
be like tomorrow?
> in my view, for the world peace, china would have to be seen moving toward
> democracy. perhaps china will come up with a liberal system all its own to
> suit its own genius (which is tremendous) that would be an alternative to
> democracy, but something palpable needs to take place.
The Chinese Communist Party is of the notion that with
so little resources to run the government and so little expertise
that the central government can't be hampered by public debate.
Central to this theme is that local governments are inferior
to the central government. Local governments need the
backing, expertise and resources of the central government.
So to effectively assist those local governments/communities
the central government need authoritarian powers. In some
places - because the central government is weak and the
local government is corrupt - people in China are taking
the law into their own hands - Hence, I've been hearing
reports of revenge beatings and lynchings in China.
China's central government powers are not unlike the
powers of the USA federal government was in 1840s.
The CCP is most powerful in the urban areas but out
in the rural undeveloped western areas - anything could
happen.
> North Korea - however - is about as repressive now as it was in 1955.
>
> ----------------------
> fortunately there is the wondrous south korea, a wonderful counter balance,
> which seems to reduce n. korea to no more than a nuisance.
Your living in a dreamworld.
South Korean has never counter balanced North Korea.
North Korea is not a mere nuisance .
North Korea reportedly is the source of
kidnappings in japan,
illegal human trafficking/modern slavery in asia,
counterfeit currency in the USA,
weapons prolification around the world, and
nuclear energy/power/weapons prolification (to pakistan).
harmony
the war was imposed by argentine army dictatorship, dear, with forcible
occupation of the island.
brits had no choice.
>When the USA
> had problems
> with Iraq not allowing for weapons verification - the USA invaded Iraq
> and overthrew
> the Iraqi government despite the fact that a diplomatic option was
> still available.
i think all agree on this and recognize it as totally uncalled for and
foolhardy. so much that they elected the anti-war obama.
most think the naive and "incurious" pres bush was taken for a ride by the
"isreali lobby working as his close advisors". many references are available
on this:
..... "This is so widely understood in Washington that US Senator Ernest
Hollings was moved in May 2004 to acknowledge that the US invaded Iraq "to
secure Israel," and "everybody" knows it. He also identified three of the
influential pro-Israel Jews in Washington who played an important role in
prodding the US into war: Richard Perle, chair of the Pentagon's Defense
Policy Board; Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary; and Charles
Krauthammer, columnist and author."
http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml
this war should be regarded as exception.
> When the USA had problems with the Panama Regime it invaded Panama and
> overthrew the government despite there being no military provocation.
this was part of war on drugs. it was not a war on panama. noreiga was a
drug "baron". surveys showed in those days that the no.1 security threat to
usa was drugs. reagan appointed a "drug czar in bill bennette, a first in
u.s. history. i mean usa never had an alcohol czar though there was
prohibition. noreiga did not stop despite warnings. what can you do when a
ruler in monroe doctrine sphere poses no. 1 threat? this like getting rid
of taliban, a surgical action, albeit on a smaller scale.
usa was prepared to do that to cuba in 1960s but luckily castro and the
soviets complied in time after very long discussions.
usa does not have army on its border, it just takes care of problem where it
originates if the locals can't do it themsleves despite u.s. help. eg, fbi
agents are routinely sent to mexico to fight drug lords.
but this is not a war intended for plunder, rape and colonization; it is
highly localized, surgical. usa did that to libya, grenada etc.
> Isreal has
> repeatedly use miltiary intervention to prevent its neighboring states
> from developing
> nuclear power capabilities (and no doubt if the US led diplomatic
> efforts fail to
> halt Iran's nuclear ambition - Isreal will destroy Iran's facilities
> in the very near
> future - regardless of how many short range missile Iran has).
you have to appreciate the reality: israel, surounded by islam, will have to
be lucky with islam all the time, islam will have to be lucky just once.
israel can not take the chance until there is full democracy and human
rights in islamic world. let me ask you a simple question: what would happen
to israel if the power balance were reverse? do you think a single jew would
be safe? what do you think would be the fate of jewish women?
now if saudi arabia were to get rid of "koran as its legal constitution",
and allow a grand hindu mandir near mecca, israel would let them build any
number of nukes. the litmus test with islamic world is simple: is it
tolerant to the idol worshippers?
until then israel simply can not allow nukes in the hands of people who are
religiously motivated to annihilate infidels. sorry, islam needs to be
kicked out of states' consittuions and governments.
>Using
> military
> power is not only for big countries but for small ones as well - at
> issue
> is the percieved relative strength of the military forces. This was
> the particular
> case when the Balkan Civil wars (between Bosnia, Crotia, and Serbia)
> and
> the Isreali invasion of Lebanon,.
>
isn't jihad the common factor here?
> The age of colonialism has given way to the age of globalism or
> international
> corporations ( Most colonial governments were ended by the 1980).
> While international corporations have no national loyalities they
> still have capitalistic self interest. One of the reasons, the
> British Empire
> was so successful is that it was based on a proto-globalism economic
> structure
> called mercantilism. At the heart of british mercantilism were
> international
> corporatons like the East Indies Company and international banking
> groups
> like the Rothchilds. All of this sounds very similar to today's large
> international
> corporations like General Electric or international banking
> corporations like
> Citibank. Slavery maybe gone but not slave wages. Tulip speculators
> are replaced by sub-prime mortgage speculators. Are we that much
> better
> than our forefathers?
>
i think the comparison is way overblown. yes, we surely, undoubtedly, are
better off than our forefathers were (or could have ever hoped to be),
thanks to usa.
there is no comparison between british blood sucking colonialism (euphemism:
mercantalism), opium warring and the mncs operating in free markets.
ge will never ship out anybody in slave boat. every nation has the
opportunity to provide education to their people and level the playing
field - again, thanks to usa.
>
>> the u.s.a. led nato, eg, did have considerable advantage over russia in
>> the
>> immd years post ww2, but nato did not proceed to undo ussr.
>
>
> USA/Nato did not have a considerable advantage over the Soviet Union
> with respect to the East Bloc Countries and the Cold War Europe.
> Most miltiary expert agree that during the Cold War - in a
> conventional
> battle - the Soviets would destroyed NATO forces and have overrun
> Europe like the Nazis did in WW2. Why? The Soviets had a larger
> and if not superior then equal in equality conventional military (army
> and airforce). Numbers does count on the battle field. The key
> sticking point was the USA support with the UK. The US potential
> to provide military support could keep the UK from falling to a
> soviet
> invasion. To negate the USA would require a nuclear strike of the
> first magnitude - that lead to the Mutually Assured Destruction
> Scenario - which scared the pants off most people with
> atleast half of their brain functional..
>
the numerical advantage on the battlefield was nullified after the advent of
nuke bombs.
russia did not have nukes for several years after usa first got it. there
were many in u.s. army like general patton who advocated not concluding ww2
before communists were also done in because it was militarily a feasible
thing to do. but u.s. politicians, reasonably assured of selfdefence,
wouldn't support more mass killings of people.
>
>> ww2 created so much conscience stirring that solutions to conflicts were
>> sought thr' broad principles of humanity and patience backed, of course,
>> by
>> solid strength.
>
> Oh - I' wish that were true but I know it is not.
> WWII ethnic cleansing still occurs today in places like Dafur
> and has recently happened in places like Rwanda or Bosnia.
> Broad principles of humanity backed by due process and strength
> is still a dream for most of the world.
>
things are now changing since usa's involvement. china did nothing at all to
help. in fact, china supplied weapons to these peoples who haven't yet had
an opportunity to join in the world modernity.
look, we have to acknowledge there is good part of the world that needs a
lot of education. would china help? it seems the chinese don't even like to
help the black people.
they have a racist attitude.
>
>> i really think usa was the biggest and greatest civilizing influence
>> that
>> the world has ever seen - warts and all.
>> what usa did is no country has ever done or likely to do in generations
>> to
>> come.
>> it treated its vanquished enemies with dignity. unlike the history of all
>> past conflicts, usa was not mean to its enemies. the hindus easily this
>> model behavior comparable to their own ideal lord shri raama after he
>> vanquished the rakshas king raavan of sri lanka. in fact, it is often
>> said
>> in jest that for any country to get propoerous the fastest way is to wage
>> a
>> war on usa.
>
>
> WW2 corrected the errors of WW1 in that the losers were not
> economically punished and destablized. Requiring Germany and
> Japan to limit their military to defense - allowed both countries to
> focus on rebuilding their economy which inturn has made them
> today's economic powerhouse.
>
pls, it is not a mere "error correction". it takes a huge attitudanal
change which has spiritual dimension. needs vision at the very least.
yes, that's the hope. commerically it is all goodie goodie, but experts are
keeping their eye on the ball: democratization of china as the guarantor of
peace.
i think popular expectations are huge that china now needs to be rooted
firmly in the modern times where human dignity can not be compromised any
longer.
it must democratize and let freedom ring true.
>
>> North Korea - however - is about as repressive now as it was in 1955.
>>
>> ----------------------
>> fortunately there is the wondrous south korea, a wonderful counter
>> balance,
>> which seems to reduce n. korea to no more than a nuisance.
>
> Your living in a dreamworld.
> South Korean has never counter balanced North Korea.
>
> North Korea is not a mere nuisance .
> North Korea reportedly is the source of
> kidnappings in japan,
> illegal human trafficking/modern slavery in asia,
> counterfeit currency in the USA,
> weapons prolification around the world, and
> nuclear energy/power/weapons prolification (to pakistan).
>
>
nk could be easily tackled if china quits playing games with the club of 6.
my view is the first order of business against all that is wrong must start
with saudi arabia, the center of all problems.
unfortunately, usa is too soft with saudis, and that's where the real
bottleneck is. it does not help that obama, being born to muslim dad, is
actaully going the wrong way, misleading the world with his now boring
oratory. next must be nk and all commies everywhere, specailly in and around
china.
anon246813579
person. His false propoganda about Asians like Chinese and Muslims is
misleading and has no place in our newsgroup. Let us pray that Allah
destroys him at every turn.
Jai Hind!
On Sep 24, 3:25 pm, "harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Neo
> >> the doubt realizing that in the 60 plus years since the ww2, the
> >> democracies have a good track record of being peaceful - and considerate
> >> despite all sorts of provocation.
>
> > I disagree. While democracies have a slightly higher bar for using
> > military force - that bar is not fix and sometimes can go very low
> > even in modern time (after 1970). Democracies have a track
> > record of using miltiary intervention when it suits them.
>
> > For example -- when Argentina and the Great Britian had problem about
> > who owned the Falkland Island it ended up as a military conflick.
>
> the war was imposed by argentine army dictatorship, dear, with forcible
> occupation of the island. brits had no choice.
Argentine and the Brits have for centuries fought over the Falken
islands.
The Falken islands is on the Argentine coastline, and the Argentines
have tried several times to take the islands away from the British -
but
the british have steadfastly held on to this last vestiage of their
Empire.
In this case there is a long track record of Great Britian, a european
democracy, of using military force to maintain territory it
established
during its colonial empire - your assertion that "the era of
colonialism
is now past" is false - the Falkan Island is proof that colonialism
still
live on in some parts of the world..
> >When the USA had problems with Iraq not allowing for weapons
> > verification - the USA invaded Iraq and overthrew the Iraqi government
> > despite the fact that a diplomatic option was still available.
>
> i think all agree on this and recognize it as totally uncalled for and
> foolhardy. so much that they elected the anti-war obama.
> most think the naive and "incurious" pres bush was taken for a ride by the
> "isreali lobby working as his close advisors". many references are available
> on this:
To describe obama as anti war is stretching it since he
never voted against on the bill that allow for the Iraqi War.
The only presidential candidate who could be rightfully
called anti-war would be Dennis Kunicich who did vote
against the bill that allowed the Bush Administration to
unilaterially invade Iraq.
Isreal's lobby was not a significant factor in the Iraqi
War - however, Cheney-Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld have been
largely credited with advocating the Iraqi Invasion.
George Tenet and Colin Powell were initially not on board
but as *team* players they were eventually push into the Iraqi
War. Isreali lobby has influenced the USA policy with Iran,
Syria, Lebanon and the Palenstinians. I disagree the the
assessement that the US invasion of Iraq was never to
secure Isreal. Isreal was strong enough to repel any Iraqi
invasion or attack. During the Gulf war and during the Iraqi
War - the USA asked isreal military to stay back - because
mobilization of the isreal military would destablize the region
and set every arab state into a defensive/war footing.
The real reason to invade iraq was to eliminate any risk
that Iraq would use its military to destablize oil production in
the middle east (e.g. Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Dubai) .
There is no evidence that Krauthammer had any
significan influence on Bush or Cheney.
> > When the USA had problems with the Panama Regime it invaded Panama and
> > overthrew the government despite there being no military provocation.
>
> this was part of war on drugs. it was not a war on panama. noreiga was a
> drug "baron"........
The War on Panama was made without Panama having
made any military provocation against the USA.
(Panama was not a military threat to the USA at the time). .
The reasons for war may change - but it's still a war all the same.
Today's its a war on terror, tomorrow its a war for something else...
You can justify war with a political doctrine but its still war.
Given the length of US occupation neither the Iraq war nor the Afghan
War can be classified as a surgical use of force.
> > Isreal has repeatedly use miltiary intervention to prevent
> > its neighboring states from developing nuclear power
> > capabilities (and no doubt if the US led diplomatic
> > efforts fail to halt Iran's nuclear ambition - Isreal will
> > destroy Iran's facilities in the very near future - regardless
> > of how many short range missile Iran has).
>
> you have to appreciate the reality: israel, surounded by islam, will have to
> be lucky with islam all the time, islam will have to be lucky just once.
> israel can not take the chance until there is full democracy and human
> rights in islamic world. let me ask you a simple question: what would happen
> to israel if the power balance were reverse? ....
You've proven my point - being a democracy doesnot make
a government less prone to using miltiary force. It is the
governments' access to superior military force and its
own political realities that makes a government more
prone to use miltiary force. Democracy unto itself does
not necessarily equate to human rights or the
support religious tolerance. Ethnic tensions and
religious intolerance is a common causes for war.
> > Using military power is not only for big countries
> > but for small ones as well - at issue is the percieved
> > relative strength of the military forces. This was
> > the particular case when the Balkan Civil wars
> > (between Bosnia, Crotia, and Serbia) and
> > the Isreali invasion of Lebanon,.
>
> isn't jihad the common factor here?
No.
In the Balkan civil war there was religious
intolerance that lead to ethnic cleasing.
Isreali forces invaded Lebanon to fight the
palenstinian revolutionary/independence
movement forces. the Palenstinian forces
were staging rocket attacks on Isreal
from Lebanon. IIRC the Palenstian forces
were fighting against the Isreali occupation
of the Gaza strip and Palestine.
.
.
> > The age of colonialism has given way to the age of globalism or
> > international
> > corporations ( Most colonial governments were ended by the 1980).
> > While international corporations have no national loyalities they
> > still have capitalistic self interest. One of the reasons, the
> > British Empire was so successful is that it was based on a
> > proto-globalism economic structure called mercantilism.
> > At the heart of british mercantilism were international
> > corporatons like the East Indies Company and international banking
> > groups like the Rothchilds. All of this sounds very similar to
> > today's large international corporations like General Electric
> > or international banking corporations like Citibank.
> > Slavery maybe gone but not slave wages. Tulip speculators
> > are replaced by sub-prime mortgage speculators. Are we that much
> > better than our forefathers?
>
> i think the comparison is way overblown. yes, we surely, undoubtedly, are
> better off than our forefathers were (or could have ever hoped to be),
> thanks to usa.
> there is no comparison between british blood sucking colonialism (euphemism:
> mercantalism), opium warring and the mncs operating in free markets.
> ge will never ship out anybody in slave boat. every nation has the
> opportunity to provide education to their people and level the playing
> field - again, thanks to usa.
The playing field is not all that all that fair or level.
While education is important, education is not sufficient indicator of
economic opportunity.
Economic opportunities is a combination of labor markets,
physical resource, education, and financial markets.
> >> the u.s.a. led nato, eg, did have considerable advantage over russia in
> >> the
> >> immd years post ww2, but nato did not proceed to undo ussr.
>
> > USA/Nato did not have a considerable advantage over the Soviet Union
> > with respect to the East Bloc Countries and the Cold War Europe.
> > Most miltiary expert agree that during the Cold War - in a
> > conventional
> > battle - the Soviets would destroyed NATO forces and have overrun
> > Europe like the Nazis did in WW2. Why? The Soviets had a larger
> > and if not superior then equal in equality conventional military (army
> > and airforce). Numbers does count on the battle field. The key
> > sticking point was the USA support with the UK. The US potential
> > to provide military support could keep the UK from falling to a
> > soviet
> > invasion. To negate the USA would require a nuclear strike of the
> > first magnitude - that lead to the Mutually Assured Destruction
> > Scenario - which scared the pants off most people with
> > atleast half of their brain functional..
> > Oh - I' wish that were true but I know it is not.
> > WWII ethnic cleansing still occurs today in places like Dafur
> > and has recently happened in places like Rwanda or Bosnia.
> > Broad principles of humanity backed by due process and strength
> > is still a dream for most of the world.
>
> things are now changing since usa's involvement. china did nothing at all to
> help. in fact, china supplied weapons to these peoples who haven't yet had
> an opportunity to join in the world modernity.
> look, we have to acknowledge there is good part of the world that needs a
> lot of education. would china help? it seems the chinese don't even like to
> help the black people. they have a racist attitude.
Your assessement is flawed.
Comparing China with the USA is unfair - the USA
is a developed country and China is a developing country
- their economics realities are very different.
From about 1970-1990, I remember that China provided
university training to african students in China during a
time when chinese/asians were discriminated in africa
by whites (south africa) and blacks (Uganda). Today.
what is in the news most often is China-Sudan relationship
(due to the ethnic cleasing that is occuring in Darfur).
It seem that economic trumps race as the major issue.
Sudan exports oil to China and China exports weapons
and oil extraction technologies and services to Sudan.
Neo
> This harmony sounds like a Eurocentric Racist. Watch out for this
> person. His false propoganda about Asians like Chinese and Muslims is
> misleading and has no place in our newsgroup. Let us pray that Allah
> destroys him at every turn.
>
> Jai Hind!
I would prefer it if the Almighty turned my enemies into my friends.
harmony
what would you think would be the result if a referendum were to be held in
falkland island? would the majority want to be independent or with
argentina?
the people are not being looted, they are not being discriminated against,
have their own govt like any british state would. still, if there were to be
a popular opinion, not even an uprising, that wants out, i am sure britain
would cede that, like it did in many places which got their independence.
so, excuse me, but this sounds like nitpicking.
there are any number islands in oceans that are occupied by the colonial
powers.
like diego garcia is occupied by britain, leased to usa for an air force
base. france conducts its nuke testing in some of them.
usa occupied hawaii forcibly, on and on. but these small islands'
populations would not change their occupiers if referndums were to be held.
at least i know that to be the case in hawaii despite the fact that there is
a small group of hawaiian who want out.
colonialism is gone for good even if colonial powers might still be hangin
on.
>
>> >When the USA had problems with Iraq not allowing for weapons
>> > verification - the USA invaded Iraq and overthrew the Iraqi government
>> > despite the fact that a diplomatic option was still available.
>>
>> i think all agree on this and recognize it as totally uncalled for and
>> foolhardy. so much that they elected the anti-war obama.
>> most think the naive and "incurious" pres bush was taken for a ride by
>> the
>> "isreali lobby working as his close advisors". many references are
>> available
>> on this:
>
> To describe obama as anti war is stretching it since he
> never voted against on the bill that allow for the Iraqi War.
>
he did not get to vote, but he did spoke openly against the war at a time it
was not a wise thing to do.
he ran on that record, and became a senator, and the president.
he would have had no chance at senate or presidency if weapons of mass
destruction were found in iraq.
but i am not saying his election is necessarily a good thing.
> The only presidential candidate who could be rightfully
> called anti-war would be Dennis Kunicich who did vote
> against the bill that allowed the Bush Administration to
> unilaterially invade Iraq.
>
> Isreal's lobby was not a significant factor in the Iraqi
> War - however, Cheney-Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld have been
> largely credited with advocating the Iraqi Invasion.
>
> George Tenet and Colin Powell were initially not on board
> but as *team* players they were eventually push into the Iraqi
> War. Isreali lobby has influenced the USA policy with Iran,
> Syria, Lebanon and the Palenstinians. I disagree the the
> assessement that the US invasion of Iraq was never to
> secure Isreal. Isreal was strong enough to repel any Iraqi
> invasion or attack. During the Gulf war and during the Iraqi
> War - the USA asked isreal military to stay back - because
> mobilization of the isreal military would destablize the region
> and set every arab state into a defensive/war footing.
> The real reason to invade iraq was to eliminate any risk
> that Iraq would use its military to destablize oil production in
> the middle east (e.g. Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Dubai) .
> There is no evidence that Krauthammer had any
> significan influence on Bush or Cheney.
>
i have heard that side, but most americans -ie the "non-conservatives" are
not buying that.
there was no way saddam could have messed up oil supplies. the fact was
saddam was trying desperately to make the money with his oil.
and his oil was cheap, putting downward pressure on oil prices. the fact is
oil went up considerably after usa got rid of him. dumb, dumb, dumb.
whatever. the war was a mistake, euphemistically called the "war of choice",
if not a fraud.
>
>> > When the USA had problems with the Panama Regime it invaded Panama and
>> > overthrew the government despite there being no military provocation.
>>
>> this was part of war on drugs. it was not a war on panama. noreiga was a
>> drug "baron"........
>
>
> The War on Panama was made without Panama having
> made any military provocation against the USA.
> (Panama was not a military threat to the USA at the time). .
>
> The reasons for war may change - but it's still a war all the same.
>
> Today's its a war on terror, tomorrow its a war for something else...
>
> You can justify war with a political doctrine but its still war.
>
panama was surgical. usa knew that the people of panama will throw up a
democratic govt to replace dictator noreiga in no time.
like i said, noreiga was hurting usa badly, behaving like a columbian drug
baron. that he was in power was of no consequence.
usa has taken down columbian drug mafias studiously. it is doing the same to
afghan poppy farmers.
drug war is real, and so is terror war. i think the world needs to thank usa
that it is keeping it surgical.
> Given the length of US occupation neither the Iraq war nor the Afghan
> War can be classified as a surgical use of force.
>
i don't disagree. the problem is these 2 countries can't do democracy,
thanks to islam, and usa must hang on, draining its resources, to teach
democrazy to the unteachables.
it might take 2 generations, and still there will be no change if islam
holds primacy there. usa needs to get out, let the rest of the world deal
with terror.
if usa were to do that, the whole world will start pleading with usa to "fix
what it has broken" before it leaves :)
>
>> > Isreal has repeatedly use miltiary intervention to prevent
>> > its neighboring states from developing nuclear power
>> > capabilities (and no doubt if the US led diplomatic
>> > efforts fail to halt Iran's nuclear ambition - Isreal will
>> > destroy Iran's facilities in the very near future - regardless
>> > of how many short range missile Iran has).
>>
>> you have to appreciate the reality: israel, surounded by islam, will have
>> to
>> be lucky with islam all the time, islam will have to be lucky just once.
>> israel can not take the chance until there is full democracy and human
>> rights in islamic world. let me ask you a simple question: what would
>> happen
>> to israel if the power balance were reverse? ....
>
> You've proven my point - being a democracy doesnot make
> a government less prone to using miltiary force. It is the
> governments' access to superior military force and its
> own political realities that makes a government more
> prone to use miltiary force. Democracy unto itself does
> not necessarily equate to human rights or the
> support religious tolerance. Ethnic tensions and
> religious intolerance is a common causes for war.
>
if you have islam, you will have problems.
no way to get around that.
>
>
>> > Using military power is not only for big countries
>> > but for small ones as well - at issue is the percieved
>> > relative strength of the military forces. This was
>> > the particular case when the Balkan Civil wars
>> > (between Bosnia, Crotia, and Serbia) and
>> > the Isreali invasion of Lebanon,.
>>
>> isn't jihad the common factor here?
>
> No.
>
> In the Balkan civil war there was religious
> intolerance that lead to ethnic cleasing.
> Isreali forces invaded Lebanon to fight the
> palenstinian revolutionary/independence
> movement forces. the Palenstinian forces
> were staging rocket attacks on Isreal
> from Lebanon. IIRC the Palenstian forces
> were fighting against the Isreali occupation
> of the Gaza strip and Palestine.
> .
> .
sounds like islam to me. jihad, terror.
ibtd. vast amjority of people today are much much better off than their
forebears were.
not impressed. china is a proliferator, violator of human rights. not a
responsible country consistent with its economic might.
it needs to deemphasize relentless wealth accumulation, and start helping in
africa.
the world is very nervous about china, and china does not have a whole lot
of time to be dillydallying on human rights issue.
Neo
So the Argentines and the British are really fighting for the off
shore oil drilling rights around the Falkland Islands?
Geez, I wonder why I didn't see that initially? (9_9)
On Sep 30, 12:36 am, Free Tibet <freeti...@nym.mixmin.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:21:38 -0700 (PDT), Neo
>
>
>
>
>
> <residualselfimage1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Argentine and the Brits have for centuries fought over the Falken
> >islands.
> >The Falken islands is on the Argentine coastline, and the Argentines
> >have tried several times to take the islands away from the British -
> >but the british have steadfastly held on to this last vestiage of
> >their Empire. In this case there is a long track record of
> >Great Britian, a european democracy, of using military force to
> >maintain territory it established during its colonial empire -
> >your assertion that "the era of colonialism is now past" is false
> >the Falkan Island is proof that colonialism still live on
> >in some parts of the world..
>
> Just to butt in... this dispute over the Falkland Islands (still
> ongoing) is about oil... again.
>
> ~~~
> This PGP signature only certifies the sender and date of the message.
> It implies no approval from the administrators of nym.mixmin.net.
> Date: Wed Sep 30 04:36:05 2009 GMT
> From: freeti...@nym.mixmin.net
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkrC4DUACgkQViYZwngkfDuKCACbBi3WFqipju4YHz9QGiWlmBn0
> 6TcAnRrmNqCLBahfWnS+IRHqYbc8Sjem
> =OtsD
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE------
Neo
> > away from the British but the british have steadfastly held
> > on to this last vestiage of their Empire.
> > In this case there is a long track record of Great Britian, a european
> > democracy, of using military force to maintain territory it
> > established during its colonial empire - your assertion that "the era of
> > colonialism is now past" is false - the Falkan Island is proof that
> > colonialism still live on in some parts of the world..
>
> what would you think would be the result if a referendum were to be held in
> falkland island?
The island was initially uninhabited until the british established
a small colony (less than 100 if IIRC) on the Falkland lsland
based on a sheep herding economy. The British condition
of a referendum for releasing the Falklands was to prevent
the Argentines from taking the Falkland Islands over ( since
there is no Argentine colony established on the Falkland
Islands any referendum would only be reflect the interest
of the crown). After the Falkland Wars, the British have beefed
up their Military presence there. Another poster has indicated
that the British desire to hold the Falklands is to claim off
shore oil drilling and mineral rights.
> usa occupied hawaii forcibly, on and on. but these small islands'
> populations would not change their occupiers if referndums were to be held.
> at least i know that to be the case in hawaii despite the fact that there is
> a small group of hawaiian who want out.
You cannot morally justify a robbery or assault by a vote.
Common law doesnot decide ownership by referendums nor does
it validate ownership by physical force. At issue today, is the
common
lands that was owned and controled by the Hawaiian Monarch that
was seized by the Republic of Hawaii (government of white american
expats who wanted Hawaii to join the Union). When the Republic
of Hawaii became a U.S. Territory - the lands were controlled by
the US Governor of Hawaiian Territories and was mainly leased at
very low rates to white ranchers to grow livestock. The leases
were to pay for social programs for Native Hawaiian social programs
which of course suffer from the earnings. When Hawaii was made
into a state - the Hawaiian common lands were established as
a trust for Native Hawaiian to be run by the USA federal government's
Department of Interior which continued the cheap leases to
white ranchers. When Native Hawaiians sued the federal government
for mismanaging the common hawaiian lands - the federal government
turned over the lands to the State of Hawaii. A descendents of
the white ranchers who benefited from the cheap leases of
common Hawaiian lands then sued the State of Hawaii to
stop the state from running the trust. In Rice vs Caytano the Supreme
court said that the state of hawaii could not administered
the trust but that the trust could be administer by a non
government agency. From my last reading, Rice was focusing
on filing another law suit working to invalidate the Native
Hawaiian common land trust for the last remaining native
hawaiians and reallocate the funds for that trust to
state government use.
The US Navy and Marines assisted white european american expats in
Hawaii in the the overthrowing of the Hawaiian Monarchy and the
establishment of the Republic of Hawaii ( you might also say it was
sort of like the Republic of Dole Foods-ConAgra ). However, by
the time the Hawaiian Monarchy was overthrown - the plantation
economy which the whites introduced to Hawaii had changed the
demographics of the Islands such that Hawaiian natives were being
out numbered by the foriegn workers brought over to run the
plantations.
.
>
> > To describe obama as anti war is stretching it since he
> > never voted against on the bill that allow for the Iraqi War.
>
> he did not get to vote, but he did spoke openly against the war at a time it
> was not a wise thing to do.
I disagree with your assessment.
Obama only spoke against the Iraqi War only after the vote was taken
and by the time Obama was a congressman - the anti war moment
had gathering more strength and speaking out against the war was
not as politically dangerous. Initially it was not Obama that lead
the fight against the war - it was men like Dennis Kuncinich (D-Oh)
who lead the fight against the Iraqi war when it was not a wise thing
to do and when all of his counterparts including Senator Clinton and
Senator McCain did the politically safe thing and voted for the bill
to allow the Bush Administration to use the US Military to
invade and occupy Iraq .
> i have heard that side, but most americans -ie the "non-conservatives" ...
correction
most americans are not neo-conservative or liberals.
most americans dont even vote.
A military analysis must be based on facts not votes -
- the strategic military analysis that I've read that called
for the removal of Saddam Hussein was based on the long term
effect of an anti-USA military force that could destablize the
middle east. It recognized and accepted the short term
effect of a war was higher oil prices - because of disruption
to the oil supply chain.
>
> >> > When the USA had problems with the Panama Regime it invaded Panama and
> >> > overthrew the government despite there being no military provocation.
>
> it is doing the same to afghan poppy farmers...
USA is not doing "the same to afghan poppy famers"
One ofthe reasons is that "Surgical" military ops has not been
all that effective in central america, e.g. columbia, mexico..
There is no "Drug War" in that the USA is not fighting
a country - such rhetoric plays on your fears. While
mitigating illegal drug trafficking can be dangerous - it
does not create the same mass wholesale carnage as a real war.
Such rhetoric inhibits rational analysis.
> > Given the length of US occupation neither the Iraq war nor the Afghan
> > War can be classified as a surgical use of force.
>
> i don't disagree. the problem is these 2 countries can't do democracy,
> thanks to islam, and usa must hang on, draining its resources, to teach
> democrazy to the unteachables....
Harmony, you are biased against Islam
that makes you a religious bigot.
Islam does not make people unteachable no more
than any other religion. One might say that
christianity, hinduism, or Judiaism can makes
people unteachable as well. It is not that Islam
makes people unteachable but when socio-economics
realities make religious institutions like Islam
very powerful - then a person's world revolves
around that religious teaching at the expensive
of all other things.
It is not that islam is bad but that islam
in the arab world has taken on all-encompassing
needs of the community roles in many regions
where governments have failed or refused to do.
It also likely that most of China's foriegn aid
will be in Asia rather than Africa since much of Asia
is still economically developing. Also it is easier
for China to monitor, prevent fraud, and abuses
from foriegn aid in Asia than in Africa. Per
capita, China's economic wealth is no match for
the developed countries of the West.
tengri_gim
> for thousands of years the chinese invaders and migrants went all over asia.
> like the the aryans went all over from west europe to south asia. the
> chinese tried to mimic the aryans - and with great successs but with a lot
> of cruelty.
>
> the chinese immigrants and invaders went to japan and drove out the
> original japanese from manchuria. they drove the mongols back into a small
> country. they fought border wars with russia. they drove out the taiwanese
> from shanghai, and are still threatening them. they are doing the same to
> tibetans. they are occupying hongknog against the wishes of the people.
>
> indonesians, malaysians think they have stolen their resources, they warred
> on vietnam, the phillipines find them overbearing trying to steal their oil
> reserves. taiwan is standoffish with them. tibetans find them cruel
> colonialists. china torture its own peple. mao kill millions of chinese.
> china make too much conflict - just like muslims. no wonder the only
> countries like china are muslim countries like pakistan, saudi arabia and
> iran, all human right culprits.
>
> time for china to have democracy.
Only through the spilling of blood, can the world be cleansed.
sugarless anko
> On Sep 26, 4:39 am, bitter anko <kaz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 9月25日, 午前4:25, "harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > for thousands of years the chinese invaders and migrants went all over asia.
> > > like the the aryans went all over from west europe to south asia. the
> > > chinese tried to mimic the aryans - and with great successs but with a lot
> > > of cruelty.
>
> > > the chinese immigrants and invaders went to japan and drove out the
> > > original japanese from manchuria. they drove the mongols back into a small
>
> > Where did you get that wrong idea?
>
> Anime?
> Anime often uses alternative universes to create a storyline.
>
> > The ancestors of the Japanese are not Chinese. They are some non-
> > Chinese tribe in Yunnan or Tibet.
>
> Some believe that a proto rice growing civilization in
> Asia called the Han-Gook(korean pennisula civilization)
> was the predecessor to both the chinese/Han and
> current koean/Chosun civilizations.
Wrong. such rice growing civilization is not monopolized with Chinese
or Korean.
Actually Japanese rice cultivation is more similar to the one of
Iran,
which refers to the fact that it came from somewhere near central Asia
via Tibet.
Remember that the Japanese language is quite different from Chinese
language,and it is a Turkish language group.
Rice cultivation went to Korea from Japan. Not from Korea to Japan.
Actually many part of Korea is cold district just like Manchuria,
and rice cultivation of the ancient could never be settled.
It's utterly bullshit that it came from Korea.
It's obviously came from south, not from Korean peninsula anyway.
> The current archaelogical information suggest a
> proto-Japanese (Yayoi) community immigrated
> from a China(Han) and Korea (Go-Chosun) to Japan
> about 400 BC whom later supplanted the then
> dominant aborginal Jomon (Ainu, 10000BC-400 BC ) .
> Yayoi brought over rice-cultivation technologies which
> gave them a food production advantage over the Ainu.
> Popular Shintoist view is probably the fusion of Yayoi
> and Jomon cultures. The earliest archaeological sites of
> Yayoi communities have been found on Japan's
> southern island of Kyushu.
>
> sources
sugarless anko
> Wrong. such rice growing civilization is not monopolized with Chinese
> or Korean.
> Actually Japanese rice cultivation is more similar to the one of
> Iran,
> which refers to the fact that it came from somewhere near central Asia
> via Tibet.
> Remember that the Japanese language is quite different from Chinese
> language,and it is a Turkish language group.
>
> Rice cultivation went to Korea from Japan. Not from Korea to Japan.
> Actually many part of Korea is cold district just like Manchuria,
> and rice cultivation of the ancient could never be settled.
> It's utterly bullshit that it came from Korea.
>
> It's obviously came from south, not from Korean peninsula anyway.
In Korea and Manchukuo, not rice cultivation.
Cultivation of this is more common in Korea and Manchukuo
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%A2%E3%83%AD%E3%82%B3%E3%82%B7
The reason why people in northern Korea are starving is because they
can not cultivate rice.
So stop stupid story as if rice cultivation came from Korean
peninsula. You just look idiot. But I think you maybe a genuine idiot.
Ha Ha HA
Neo
> On 9月26日, 午後8:50, Neo <residualselfimage1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 26, 4:39 am, bitter anko <kaz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 9月25日, 午前4:25, "harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > for thousands of years the chinese invaders and migrants went all over asia.
> > > > like the the aryans went all over from west europe to south asia. the
> > > > chinese tried to mimic the aryans - and with great successs but with a lot
> > > > of cruelty.
>
> > > > the chinese immigrants and invaders went to japan and drove out the
> > > > original japanese from manchuria. they drove the mongols back into a small
>
> > > Where did you get that wrong idea?
>
> > Anime?
> > Anime often uses alternative universes to create a storyline.
>
> > > The ancestors of the Japanese are not Chinese. They are some non-
> > > Chinese tribe in Yunnan or Tibet.
>
> > Some believe that a proto rice growing civilization in
> > Asia called the Han-Gook(korean pennisula civilization)
> > was the predecessor to both the chinese/Han and
> > current koean/Chosun civilizations.
> > proto-Japanese (Yayoi) community immigrated
> > from a China(Han) and Korea (Go-Chosun) to Japan
> > about 400 BC whom later supplanted the then
> > dominant aborginal Jomon (Ainu, 10000BC-400 BC ) .
> > Yayoi brought over rice-cultivation technologies which
> > gave them a food production advantage over the Ainu.
> > Popular Shintoist view is probably the fusion of Yayoi
> > and Jomon cultures. The earliest archaeological sites of
> > Yayoi communities have been found on Japan's
> > southern island of Kyushu.
> >
> > sources
> > http://facts-about-japan.com/ancient-japan.html
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yayoi
> > http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2410.html
> > http://www.eastasianhistory.pe.kr/lecture/data/2231.pdf
> >
> Wrong. such rice growing civilization is not monopolized
> with Chinese or Korean. Actually Japanese rice cultivation
> is more similar to the one of Iran, which refers to the
> fact that it came from somewhere near central Asia via Tibet.
False, no explicit assertion was made indicating
that rice growing civilization was monoplized by
Chinese or Korean - only that the agriculture practice
of rice cultivation came from China-Korean based
civilization.
False, Japanese rice cultivation is more similar to
that of Chinese-Korean-Southeast asian rice cultivation
Iran rice cultivation is more similar to Indian rice
cultivation.
Details
===========
While there are several hypothesis on the orgins
of rice as a crop, Scholars associate Japanese
rice cultivation as being importated from Asia
(in particular China-Korea-Southeast Asia cultivar).
Scholar are in general agreement that rice
cultivar/rice cultivation from Asia (India) was
imported to the Persian Empire(Iran) / middle east.
Southeast Asian With respect to asia both
India and China are cites as possible orgins
of rice as a crop. Scholar have dated rice
cultivation in northern china during the
(Han-Gook civilization) Sheng Nung Period
at about 2800 BC. and rice cultivation in the
Inda (Harappan civilization) at about 2500 B.C.
However, the oldest evidence of a form of rice as
a food crop/grain is from India during the
Chalcolithic Period(Copper Age) about 6570 BC to
4530 BC. Early estimates of the beginning of
rice cultivation in India, China, and
other tropical Asian countries is about
8000BC to 9000BC. Rice cultivation comes
to Japan during the Jomen Period at
about 1000BC from China/Korea. Rice
cultivation come to Persia Empire
(Iran) around 1000BC from India.
source
============
The Cambridge World History of Food - History of Rice
II.A.7. - Rice
http://www.cambridge.org/us/books/kiple/rice.htm
sugarless anko
A simple question, why do you consider Chinese-Korean-Southeast as a
single region? It's as stupid as saying "Finland has the same climate
as Egypt". Korea and Manchuria have cold climate which can not grow
rice while Vietnam has warm and humid climate.
Yes, Japanese rice cultivation is similar to the one of Vietnam. And
the rice cultivation in Iran is just like it. But not to the ones of
Korea or Manchuria or northern China simply because there are too cold
to grow rice so they didn't have any civilization of rice cultivation
in the ancient times. As for Mongol, they did not even have any
cultivation. They are simply nomads even today.
Now, do you realize how stupid your logic is?
sugarless anko
> False, Japanese rice cultivation is more similar to
> that of Chinese-Korean-Southeast asian rice cultivation
> Iran rice cultivation is more similar to Indian rice
> cultivation.
Check this again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorghum_bicolor
This is what it's been cultivated in Korean peninsula and Manchuria.
NOT RICE, moron.
The rice cultivation came from Yunnan near Vietnam as I said before.
NOt from Korea simply because Korea did not have any rice cultivation
civilization in the ancient. It has nothing to do with Korea. Also,
Yunnan is not China. It is merely occupied by Chinese communists.
Yunnan is Yunnan just like Manchukuo is Manchukuo, not any north
eastern part of China.
Nowadays, rice can be cultivated in southern part of Korean peninsula
because of biological improvement. But not in the ancient times.
In Europe, rice can be cultivated Alps and southward, but not beyond
the Alps because of the climate. That's why Germans are eating
potatoes while Italians eat rice. Your logic is as stupid as saying
rice cultivation instructed from Germany to Italy.
sugarless anko
Japanese Yayoi civilization came from south, Yunnan-Vietnam region.
Not from Korea-China. Korea even has nothing to do with rice
cultivation.
Do you see it?
Don't get fooled by the Koreans. They always distort the history.
Remind that you can trust none of their history.
Liu Ya Tzer , a founding member of the KMT and a Communist Sympathizer of Chairman Mao
not rice .
n Oct 11, 4:46 am, sugarless anko <serbet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10月11日, 午後8:11, sugarless anko <serbet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wrong. such rice growing civilization is not monopolized withChinese
> > or Korean.
> > Actually Japanese rice cultivation is more similar to the one of
> > Iran,
> > which refers to the fact that it came from somewhere near central Asia
> > via Tibet.
> > Remember that the Japanese language is quite different fromChinese
> > language,and it is a Turkish language group.
>
> > Rice cultivation went to Korea from Japan. Not from Korea to Japan.
> > Actually many part of Korea is cold district just like Manchuria,
> > and rice cultivation of theancientcould never be settled.
> > It's utterly bullshit that it came from Korea.
>
> > It's obviously came from south, not from Korean peninsula anyway.
>
> In Korea and Manchukuo, not rice cultivation.
> Cultivation of this is more common in Korea and Manchukuohttp://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%A2%E3%83%AD%E3%82%B3%E3%82%B7
Liu Ya Tzer , a founding member of the KMT and a Communist Sympathizer of Chairman Mao
agree with you about Manchuria aqnd Yun Nan .
Manchuria has never been a Chinese territory ,
Manchuria was Mongol and Korean territories
Yun Nan has never beeen a Chinese territory .
North Yun Nan was Tibetan territory .
South Yun Nan was Lao territory .
n Oct 11, 7:36 am, sugarless anko <serbet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10月11日, 午後9:48, Neo <residualselfimage1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > False, Japanese rice cultivation is more similar to
> > that ofChinese-Korean-Southeast asian rice cultivation
> > Iran rice cultivation is more similar to Indian rice
> > cultivation.
>
> Check this again.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorghum_bicolor
>
> This is what it's been cultivated in Korean peninsula and Manchuria.
> NOT RICE, moron.
>
> The rice cultivation came from Yunnan near Vietnam as I said before.
> NOt from Korea simply because Korea did not have any rice cultivation
> civilization in theancient. It has nothing to do with Korea. Also,
Liu Ya Tzer , a founding member of the KMT and a Communist Sympathizer of Chairman Mao
was originally called Yue Territory , not South China ,.
North China is very cold ,
south China Yue land is temperate ,
on the 20 October 2009 .
the 6th CABIS conference in Quan - Xi prepares
to make SE ASEA ASEAN
into a New South China , just like what the Chinese have done
to the original Yue territory .
Oct 11, 7:19 am, sugarless anko <serbet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10月11日, 午後9:48, Neo <residualselfimage1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 11, 7:11 am, sugarless anko <serbet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 9月26日, 午後8:50, Neo <residualselfimage1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 26, 4:39 am, bitter anko <kaz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 9月25日, 午前4:25, "harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > for thousands of years thechineseinvaders and migrants went all over asia.
> > > > > > like the thearyanswent all over from west europe to south asia. the
> > > > > >chinesetried to mimic thearyans- and with great successs but with a lot
> > > > > > of cruelty.
>
> > > > > > thechineseimmigrants and invaders went to japan and drove out the
> > > > > > original japanese from manchuria. they drove the mongols back into a small
>
> > > > > Where did you get that wrong idea?
>
> > > > Anime?
> > > > Anime often uses alternative universes to create a storyline.
>
> > > > > The ancestors of the Japanese are notChinese. They are some non-
> > > > >Chinesetribe in Yunnan or Tibet.
>
> > > > Some believe that a proto rice growing civilization in
> > > > Asia called the Han-Gook(korean pennisula civilization)
> > > > was the predecessor to both thechinese/Han and
> > > > current koean/Chosun civilizations.
> > > > The current archaelogical information suggest a
> > > > proto-Japanese (Yayoi) community immigrated
> > > > from a China(Han) and Korea (Go-Chosun) to Japan
> > > > about 400 BC whom later supplanted the then
> > > > dominant aborginal Jomon (Ainu, 10000BC-400 BC ) .
> > > > Yayoi brought over rice-cultivation technologies which
> > > > gave them a food production advantage over the Ainu.
> > > > Popular Shintoist view is probably the fusion of Yayoi
> > > > and Jomon cultures. The earliest archaeological sites of
> > > > Yayoi communities have been found on Japan's
> > > > southern island of Kyushu.
>
> > > > sources
> > > > ------------
> > > >http://facts-about-japan.com/ancient-japan.html
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yayoi
> > > >http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2410.html
> > > >http://www.eastasianhistory.pe.kr/lecture/data/2231.pdf
> > > >http://www.allempires.net/the-genetic-sequences-of-japanese_topic2257...
>
> > > Wrong. such rice growing civilization is not monopolized
> > > withChineseor Korean. Actually Japanese rice cultivation
> > > is more similar to the one of Iran, which refers to the
> > > fact that it came from somewhere near central Asia via Tibet.
>
> > False, no explicit assertion was made indicating
> > that rice growing civilization was monoplized by
> >Chineseor Korean - only that the agriculture practice
> > of rice cultivation came from China-Korean based
> > civilization.
>
> > False, Japanese rice cultivation is more similar to
> > that ofChinese-Korean-Southeast asian rice cultivation
> > Iran rice cultivation is more similar to Indian rice
> > cultivation.
>
> A simple question, why do you considerChinese-Korean-Southeast as a
> single region? It's as stupid as saying "Finland has the same climate
> as Egypt". Korea and Manchuria have cold climate which can not grow
> rice while Vietnam has warm and humid climate.
>
> Yes, Japanese rice cultivation is similar to the one of Vietnam. And
> the rice cultivation in Iran is just like it. But not to the ones of
> Korea or Manchuria or northern China simply because there are too cold
> to grow rice so they didn't have any civilization of rice cultivation
> in theancienttimes. As for Mongol, they did not even have any
Penang
What a load of crap.
Japanese genes are closer to the Koreans that to the Vietnamese.
You may fool yourself with that shit but you ain't fooling mother
nature, you asshole !
la Comtesse Erzsebet de Bathory
from SE Asia,
and from North East Asia .
Neo
You are working from the false assumption that weather patterns were
the same thousands of
years ago. Archealogists believe that the weathe and agricultural
environment in Asia
was much different thousands of years ago than it is from today. .
the Black Fucking Learngar Cock of the Holy Boudha
North China has always been colder than
southern China Yueland
for the past 50000 years .
ZhenZhou on the Yellow River was the final period
of the Shang Dynasty and the beginning of Chou Dynasty .
An Yang was just a burrial ground of Shang emperors.
Neo
any different from what it looks like today
but archaelogist have evidence that
suggest this is so... FYI
Climate's Role in Ancient Chinese Civilization
Xinhua News Agency February 11, 2003
source:
http://china.org.cn/english/2003/Feb/55500.htm
summary;
Geologist Liu Dongsheng of the Chinese Academy
of Sciences said that glaciers in the western
part of China advanced forward about 5,500 years
ago and that the development of the ancient
soil of the Loess Plateau in Northwest china
stopped while cold resistant spruces prospered
in the northeastern region of China.
Wu Wenxiang, a scholar with the Urban Environment
Department of Peking University, explained that
the sudden change of climate caused a sharp
decrease of food and intensified the conflict
between population and resources.
The global climate got even colder about
4,000 years ago. Chinese archaeologist Yu Weichao
attributed the decline of the Liangzhu and
Longshan cultures on the lower reaches of the
Yangtze and Yellow rivers to serious floods
about 4,000 years ago. With the decline of the
Longshan and Liangzhu cultures, the Xia Culture
was able to rise out of central China during
the climate change and initiating China's first
dynasty, Xia (about 2070-1600 BC).
Neothlic Northern China was warmer and wetter than modern china's
climate
===============================================================
http://www.rugreview.com/atroc/atrocneo.htm
excerpts:
The Neolithic period began in China about 12,000 B.C. However, good
evidence of Neolithic settlements exists from only about 4,000 B.C.
The Neolithic lasted until about 2,000 B.C. It is defined by a spread
of settled agricultural communities, but hunting and gathering was
still practiced. The largest concentration of agriculture was below
the southern bend of the Yellow River and millet was the main crop.
The climate and geography of Neolithic China was different from today.
It was much wetter, with most of Northern China being lakes and
marshes and central China covered in an enormous lake. The climate was
warm and moist, rather than the colder, arid China of today. The
mountains were well forested and there was a wide variety of animal
life.
map of neolithic China= 8000BC tp 2000BC
==========================================
http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/tps/4000bce.htm
http://www.artsmia.org/art-of-asia/history/chinese-dynasty-map.cfm
http://etcweb.princeton.edu/asianart/timeperiod_china.jsp?ctry=China&pd=Neolithic
Evidence of Wild Rice in China
------------------------------
source
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/neolithic_agriculture.htm
excerpt
Yangtze River were beginning to cultivate wild rice, according to new
studies by archaeobotanist Zhijun Zhao of the Smithsonian Tropical
Research Institution and colleagues. Rice, the most important food
crop in the world, was long thought to have been cultivated first
around 6500 years ago in southern Asia, where the climate is warm
enough to support luxuriant stands of wild rice. But in the 1980s,
ancient bits of charred rice turned up in a site along the banks of
the middle Yangtze River, in the far northern edge of the range of
wild rice today. Directly carbon-dated to 8000 years ago, these grains
are the oldest known cultivated rice and suggest that the center of
rice cultivation was actually farther north.
Now the dates have been pushed back even farther, revealing a long,
gradual transition to agriculture, according to work in press in
Antiquity by Zhao. He has analyzed a sequence of abundant rice
phytoliths from a cave called Diaotonghuan in northern Jiangxi
Province along the middle Yangtze, which was excavated by Richard
MacNeish, research director at the Andover Foundation for
Archaeological Research in Massachusetts, and Yan Wenming, a Peking
University archaeologist in Beijing.
On Oct 25, 12:40 am, the Black Fucking Learngar Cock of the Holy
> > was much different thousands of years ago than it is from today. .- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
charlie vietcong
why is there a slight difference between
Vietnamese and Norther Chinese ?
> ===============================================================http://www.rugreview.com/atroc/atrocneo.htm
> excerpts:
> The Neolithic period began in China about 12,000 B.C. However, good
> evidence of Neolithic settlements exists from only about 4,000 B.C.
> The Neolithic lasted until about 2,000 B.C. It is defined by a spread
> of settled agricultural communities, but hunting and gathering was
> still practiced. The largest concentration of agriculture was below
> the southern bend of the Yellow River and millet was the main crop.
> The climate and geography of Neolithic China was different from today.
> It was much wetter, with most of Northern China being lakes and
> marshes and central China covered in an enormous lake. The climate was
> warm and moist, rather than the colder, arid China of today. The
> mountains were well forested and there was a wide variety of animal
> life.
>
> map of neolithic China= 8000BC tp 2000BC
> ==========================================http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/tps/4000bce.htmhttp://www.artsmia.org/art-of-asia/history/chinese-dynasty-map.cfmhttp://etcweb.princeton.edu/asianart/timeperiod_china.jsp?ctry=China&...
>
> Evidence of Wild Rice in China
> ------------------------------
> sourcehttp://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/neolithic_agriculture.htm
Jesus Christ , St. Mary 's cunt ' s faithful Fucker , is the Unique son of God
the Shan Dynasty which was full of Chinese slaves .
n Oct 26, 6:36 pm, charlie vietcong <vietcong.charlie...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > ==========================================http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/tps/4000bce.htmhttp://www.artsmia.org/a......