Re: TO OVERLOOK REALITY WOULD BE STUPID
library101
China must comply with Reason, Truth, Non-Violence in the coming world
of the future -
You cannot go on like before with the 1962 invasion of Bharat and
try to have the Cake and Eat it Too !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good job by 'Claude Arpi' in putting this article together !
Bharat needs to get to the bottom of the reasoning structure of every
one involved in the decision making that led to the sudden and totally
unexpected 1962 Chinese military incursion into Bharat. Also, the
complete hierarchy of people involved in the 'stapled visa problem'
and their reasoning behind it. Bharat can also get into other
investigations into the 'blocking of Bharat from the UN Security
Council seat' etc. to complete the picture.
All the Sun Zi and Sun Bin and Qi and Wei and Zhao and every other
'being' such as 'their' dearie friend JNU professor 'eminent scholar'
put together won't equal one sentence in logical reasoning in the
coming world otherwise. If it takes crossing international boundaries
to find the people involved in the decision making, that is what would
be needed.
Please do that. We cannot proceed without that into the future.
- HSN.
P.S.
I received the following error message when I tried posting a 'Reply'
the first time :
"The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to
this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the
Internet.
You can only send to a maximum of 5 groups."
------------------------------------------
The 6 original groups were :
"soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, alt.politics,
alt.politics.economics, alt.computer.consultants, soc.culture.china"
The 5 groups that were retained after that restriction on the 'Freedom
of Communications' are :
"soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, alt.politics,
alt.politics.economics, soc.culture.china" (minus *.computer.*)
On Feb 28, 4:58 pm, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> To overlook reality would be stupid
>
> By Claude Arpi
> Op-Ed
> The Pioneer
> Tuesday, March 1, 2011
>
> While China is free to believe that it has done nothing to raise
> hackles around the world, more so in its neighbourhood, that is far
> from the truth. It makes little sense for Beijing to feign surprise
> that other nations are preparing to meet the Chinese challenge which
> is not necessarily limited to economic issues. Strangely, while
> others are mindful of the challenge posed by rising China, India
> remains trapped in the past
>
> Recently a conference on the Relevance of Tibet in the Emerging
> Regional Situation was held in Delhi. One of the participants, a
> professor from Jawaharlal Nehru University, gave the audience a grand
> lecture on the cultural and civilisational closeness of India and
> China; other analysts and experts were missing the point, the
> professor said, because they continue to focus on the nitty-gritty of
> China-India relations (the border issue, Chinese incursions, stapled
> visas, the ever-growing infrastructure in southern Tibet, etc); the
> 'real' solution however was 'civilisational'. The 'eminent scholar'
> kept repeating this strange word.
>
> Other participants seemed unable to grasp the subtlety of the
> concept, while yet others, more down-to-earth lamented: "We can't
> understand the Chinese, we are trying to be nice with them and they
> are not nice with us".
>
> After reading a recent article published in Qiushi Journal, the
> official publication of the Central Committee of the Communist Party
> of China, I could better grasp this 'civilisational' business. The
> argument developed in the article is: "When faced with an aggressive
> US, how should China respond?" "How China Deals with the US Strategy
> to Contain China" quotes from a 1949 slogan of Mao Tse-tung: "Cast
> Away Illusions; Prepare for Struggle" and reaffirms that "it is still
> applicable to today's situation".
>
> The author goes into recent China-US relations: "Our wishes to
> persuade the imperialists and those who are against China to be kind-
> hearted and repent are fruitless. The only way is to organise forces
> to fight against them". The author believes that the fundamental
> principle to be followed is, "If friends come, treat them with wine;
> if jackals come, we have shotguns for them."
>
> Are these comments not reflective of a certain 'civilisational
> attitude'?
>
> The Qiushi Journal article mentions six strategies believed to have
> been selected by the US to 'contain' China: The trade war, the
> exchange rate war, the public opinion war, the anti-China campaign,
> the military exercises and simulated warfare; and, the setting up of
> an anti-China alliance. The author suggests seven counter-strategies.
>
> Regarding the 'trade war', the Chinese publication complains: "Since
> September, the US has launched seven 'Section-337' investigations and
> one 'Section-301' investigation, involving products such as solar
> lights, LCD monitors, and printer cartridges."
>
> The most astonishing trait of the Chinese civilisational character
> seems to be that Beijing is unable to envisage that something could
> be wrong in their own dumping exercises or more generally in their
> international dealings. The same stance is taken by the author for
> the 'exchange rate war' and the other issues raised by him.
>
> As for the "military exercises and simulated warfare", the Qiushiv
> Journal asserts that the US frequently prevails upon South Korea,
> Japan, Vietnam, and other countries to join military exercises: "(The
> US) purpose is very clear: To encircle China militarily."
>
> Instead of speaking of the US creating an anti-China alliance,
> Beijing should perhaps analyse its own actions during 2010 and see
> why the so-called anti-China alliance was forced to act the way it
> did. Take the case of India, which has always been over-sympathetic
> to China. What does India get in return? Only the blocking of the
> Indian seat in the UN Security Council, the raising of a 'dispute'
> over Jammu & Kashmir and so on.
>
> The article goes into great detail about what China should do to
> "contain the US" on each of the subjects. India is not mentioned: It
> is probably not considered worth 'containing', China being aware that
> India has garnered decades of expertise for shooting itself in the
> foot (look at Kashmiri leaders 'offering' Aksai Chin to China, or the
> Foreign Minister reading another Ambassador's speech in the Security
> Council). About the "military exercises and simulated warfare", the
> Communist Party publication is explicit: "No doubt the US military
> exercises challenge China's strategic bottom line. China should
> certainly actively respond, but the issue is how to respond
> skilfully. Wherever the US chooses to conduct its military exercises,
> let's pick another location for our military exercise". The strategy
> should be 'Besieging Wei to rescue Zhao'.
>
> This is one of the famous Thirty-Six Strategies from ancient China.
> It refers to an incident that occurred in 354 BC and involved Sun Bin
> (a descendent of Sun Zi, the author of the Art of War). One day in
> the court of the Wei State, a Minister jealous of Sun Bin denounced
> him as a spy; Sun fled to the State of Qi. Several years later, the
> king of the State of Wei attacked the capital of the State of Zhao
> whose king immediately appealed to the State of Qi for help.
>
> Sun Bin recommended: "To intervene now between two warring armies is
> like trying to divert a tidal way by standing in its path. It would
> be better to wait until both armies wear themselves out." The king
> followed his advice and waited. A year later Sun Bin decided the time
> was ripe to help Zhao: "Since most of Wei's troops are out of the
> country engaged in the siege, their defences must be weak. By
> attacking the capital of Wei, we will force the Wei Army to return to
> defend its own capital, thereby lifting the siege of Zhao while
> destroying the Wei forces in an ambush." The plan worked perfectly.
>
> The article suggested that China should follow this strategy: "There
> is no need for China to fear the US aircraft carrier. During the
> Korean War, when the contrast in military strength was much greater
> than it is now, we were not afraid; why should we be now? Facts prove
> that America is a paper tiger that cannot even handle Iraq or
> Afghanistan, not to mention China".
>
> On February 8, 2011, the US Department of Defence published the
> National Military Strategy of United States of America 2011. Inter
> alia, it asserted: "We remain concerned about the extent and
> strategic intent of China's military modernisation, and its
> assertiveness in space, cyberspace, in the Yellow Sea, East China
> Sea, and South China Sea". Washington added that the US "will be
> prepared to demonstrate the will and commit the resources needed to
> oppose any nation's actions that jeopardise access to and use of the
> global commons and cyberspace".
>
> The Chinese news agency Xinhua immediately answered through a series
> of articles analysing the US document. It noted that for the first
> time a US report lists "coping with the threat of an Internet war" as
> a separate military strategy. The US strategy is meant to target
> China, Xinhua affirmed: "The report didn't overtly mention China, but
> China's influence is obvious in the text... Even when it's not talking
> about Asia, the main focus is not too far away from China's military
> expansion."
>
> Once again, the Chinese leadership forgets that it started the cyber
> war. In 2008, the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission
> reported: "US computer security authorities detected a series of
> cyber intrusions in 2002 into unclassified US military, Government,
> and Government contractor Websites and computer systems. This large-
> scale operation, code named Titan Rain by the US Government, was
> attributed to China. Targeted locations included the US Army
> Information Systems Engineering Command, the Naval Ocean Systems
> Center, the Missile Defence Agency, and Sandia National
> Laboratories."
>
> Obviously, the US and other nations have to defend themselves. It is
> their civilisational right. One old friend used to tell me: "To be
> loved, you have to be lovable". Beijing should perhaps meditate on
> the subject instead of promulgating new guidelines to select
> reincarnated Lamas.
>
> http://dailypioneer.com/321075/To-overlook-reality-would-be-stupid.html
>
> More at:http://www.dailypioneer.com
>
> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> Om Shanti
>
> o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
> purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
> have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
> poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
> fair use of copyrighted works.
> o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
> considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
> e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
> o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
> not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
>
> FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
> which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
> owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
> understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
> democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
> that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
> provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
> 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
> profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
> information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
> subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
> go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
> If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
> your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
> copyright owner.
>
> Since newsgroup posts are being removed
> by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
> this post may be reposted several times.