Urethra Franklin said:
We obviously disagree on what we believe constitiutes freedom, but there was really no need to resort to slander and re-adopt your aggressive tone.
Once I hear you state support for free nations in the world and not support totalitarian dictatorships, than I will stop saying that you are against freedom.
No, it can't topple those dictatorships it sucks up to as it wouldn't want to lose the benefits, often oil related (Saudi Ararbia, Uzbekistan etc.)
Many nations that have been close to the United States through the Cold War have opened up considerably from their days of totalitarianism. South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines and Indonesia are but a few examples of nations with close U.S. ties that were authoritarian, but later democratized. Even Saudi Arabia has recently taken its first steps toward democratization due to behind the scenes U.S. pressure. Just because the U.S. has friendly relations with some totalitarian governments and doesn't browbeat them, it doesn't mean that they don't exert other forms of pressure.
It would have been better to have a plan in place for the day after. The war's "won" hence so is Bush's election, but what then for Iraq? Nobody is defending Saddam, but your claim that 99% of the population were disadvantaged is an overstatement. Replacing one tyranny with another is no progress. Or are you OK with tyranny if it's religious tyranny? Or if it's only women who suffer?
OK, 80% of the population was disadvantaged, basically anyone who was not a Sunni Arab. Does that make you any happier? And there is no guarantee that a new constitution under a democratically elected Iraqi government is going to oppress women. WHat we DO know is that if the insurgents get their way, they will bring in a government that will not only oppress women, but will likely oppress Kurds and whatever ethnic or religious subgroup they don't happen to like.
Erm, Allende was elected democratically. As in all healthy democracies, there was opposition, but much of it was from the wealthy classes who didn't like the fact that cleaning up the poblacions and tackling poverty actually meant afew less diamond necklaces. Are you referring to the saucepan protests? Yes, the bored, bridge playing housewives of Santiago's chicer suburbs suddenly found something to do when the champagne was threatened with rationing. You're obviously fine with the fact that any "opposition" to Allende could result in widespread torture and murder - with the support of the US. I would point you towards two very good texts: Joan Jara's "Victor - An Unfinished Song" (written from a communist perspective - you won't like it) and Dr. Sheila Cassidy's "Audacity To Believe" (written from a christian perspective - you might just approach that with a more open mind).
As for Allende, I never said that he wasn't a democratically elected leader of Chile. What I pointed out is that while CIA involvement in his ouster is taken as an article of faith among U.S. haters, the fact is that there is little evidence for direct CIA involvement. You say nothing that negates the fact that there was significant domestic opposition to him and they were as likely as anyone to be involved in his ouster.
They each have a very different approach to things. The Chinese government's made its mistakes, and no, I wouldn't defend an atrocity such as Tiannanmen.
That is good to know. Is that the only atrocity of theirs you wouldn't defend? How about the oppression of the Tibetan people as well as people in Occupied-East Turkestan? How about their buildup of missiles against peaceful and democratic Taiwan? How about their claim to the Senkaku Islands and an EEZ that comes right up to the Japanese islands of the Ryukyu Chain? What about China's claim to the entire South China Sea? Don't forget, China's best friends are the likes of North Korea, Burma, Cuba, Pakistan, Iran, and Sudan!
But I also wouldn't defend US inspired atrocities like for example Chile, Iraq or the bombing of Belgrade's radio station in the knowledge you would only have civillian casualties (the hairdressers and make-up artists who perished were hardly Milosovic's right hand men).
Again, the Chile example is not proven. What is the atrocity in regards to Iraq, the efforts to free its people from a horrible dictator, or the insurgents who deliberatly target civilians while the U.S. did all it could during the invasion to limit civilian casualties. Do you think the bombing of the radio station was deliberate and without purpose? Remember, that Yugoslavia operation had the full blessings of NATOs military council. The U.S. got involved in that conflict reluctantly.
As Fried Rice points out, China, for all its faults doesn't horse it's way around the world launching phoney wars based on lies in which innocents perish. What is unrivalled in the world, is the arrongance in US foreign policy for decades, and the untold harm that has done.
The Chinese haven't yet because they can't, it't that simple. The Chinese have a phoney claim on Taiwan. If they launch their missiles and invade this country, it will result in countless casualties. China's claims to the South China Sea are similiarly based on lies. The occupation of Tibet, which has been ongoing for more than five decades, is based on the lie that TIbet is historically part of China and that the Tibetan people welcome the presence of the People's LIberation (sic) Army. There is a difference between the U.S. and China in this regard. When Iraq is ready to stand on its own two feet, the United States WILL leave. Tibetans only dream that the ChiCom army will ever leave their country.
ludahai, this is not an attack on you, simply an observation. While I fully understand what it is to fall in love with a foreign country and make it your home, I think we should avoid the foreigner knows more about this place than the natives syndrome.
As for defending Taiwan and saying I know more about Taiwan than Taiwanese do, that is NOT the case. For one, Fried Rice and frankguy are NOT natives of Taiwan, they are natives of China. In China, it isn't as if there is a free media from which people can consult different points of view. In fact, websites around the world that present a different view from the one held by the Chinese government are routinely blocked. THis is especially true if the website is in Chinese. Taiwanese newswebsites are blocked in China. The reverse is NOT true in Taiwan.
I defend France, I criticize France, but I would never dare to speak FOR the French. I may have an opinion on how the French handle the Corsican separatists for example, but I don't make banging on about it my raison d'être.
I am only speaking for the right of the Taiwanese people to make their own decisions in peace. That is all I have ever argued for Taiwan. Taiwan is historically not a part of China, nor is it legally a part of China. That isn't a matter of interpretation, that is fact. It is up for the Taiwanese people to decide what kind of relationship they want with China (or not to have one at all.) I have never argued any differently. However, it is also clear that the majority of Taiwanese people have no desire at all to be a part of the PRC. Nearly all Taiwanese people I know refer to them as "Taiwanren" (Taiwanese nationality) and "Huaren" (Chinese ethnicity), but NOT "Jhongguoren" (Chinese nationality.) Many of those who do say the later out of habit (due to decades of indoctrination by the KMT occupation government) quickly correct themselves when it is brought to their attention. Generally, the only ones in Taiwan who consider themselves to be citizens of China are the Chinese who came to Taiwan in 1949 and illegally occupied and took control of the island.
I think you need to stand back a little to have a more objective view on the whole Taiwan question. Look at your responses to frankguy and Fried Rice. Whilst you have every right to disagree with them, your responses simply dismiss them out of hand without demonstrating that you've actually considered what they have to say.
All they know is what they have been brainwashed to say by their government. They have never made a case for Taiwan being legally a part of China in accordance with international law. It is that simple. Territory can only be transferred from one state to another by means of a treaty. There is no legally binding treaty between the PRC and Japan that transfers sovereignty of Taiwan to the PRC.