fasgnadh wrote:
> Hunter01 wrote:
>>
>> His views aren't pessimism, they're realism.
>
> Are they? Then if you two know the future, can you tell
> me where you posted, before it happened, telling us all
> that the surprising reality would be the Chinese finally
> agreeing, as a result of the Olympic spotlight shining on them,
> and all the adverse publicity, to meet the Dalai Lama.
>
> If you knew what would happen, when did you, or TFK, predict it.
>
> A message ID will do.
>
> How can you talk about realism in regard to the future, it is unknown.
>
> YOu can't argue about the future, as you have tried to do, because
> you don't know it, do you?
Then perhaps you should stop posting, as the vast majority of what you
post is bluster and supposition. Do you get upset when people with a
much stabler grounding predict that Rudd's kiss on the arse will do
nothing for Tibet? Meeting the Dalai Lama means nothing, do you really
think Rudd pissing in China's pocket will get them to reverse the
Han-ification of Tibet?? You're .ing delusional.
>> The Olympics and Rudd's kiss on the arse
>
> Can you explain what you mean by that?
>
> Rudd was criticised in strong terms by the Chinese when he raised
> Tibetan Human Rights abuses Face to Face.
Yes, twas a nice little act. Lets see anything come of it other than
Rudd and Hu Jintao having a little drink and saying "well boys, we
didn't have to change a thing but we sure suckered them".
> Did Howard ever incur their wrath by criticising them?
Did Howard ever send one of his ministers to sit on the lap of a Chinese
minister and announce we would not participate in security discussions
with Japan, the US and India any more? Why does Rudd feel the need to
include a Chinese minister in an announcement which has nothing to do
with China, unless of course China is pulling the strings. Sort of
reminds me of an old sci-fi show called V. Rudd will be calling the
Chinese government "The Visitors" soon, and he'll be inviting the
Chinese foreign minister to sit in Parliament, if inviting him to sit in
on our announcements on foreign policy that does not relate to China is
any reflection on the shape of things to come.
You want an explanation of kiss-arse? Well the above is more like
bending over and spreading them wide for China, no wonder they're happy
to offer a few meaningless tokens that will go nowhere to help Rudd
delude the public.
And despite your whimpers of denial, it seems Asia and India are also
seeing the truth about Rudd's subservience to China :
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23637459-2702,00.html
In fact one particular line from that article sums up Rudd's attitude
nicely:
' He characterised Mr Rudd's speeches on his tour as: "China, China,
China, China and more of China was the recurring theme." '
> What would you have done in Rudd's place, how would you
> act to stop the Chinese in Tibet...?
> organise a boycott of Chinese products, refuse to
> sell them resources.. all of which would hurt us considerably,
> and thus show we were SINCERE in protesting..
Nope not at all, but I sure as hell wouldn't be making a clown of myself
by putting on an act of criticising China whilst behind the scenes
reaming them sideways and becoming a right royal subservient puppy dog.
Don't criticise people if you're going to kiss their arses in the same
mouthful, it just makes you look weak and pathetic, as the act is shown
to be nothing more than an act within the same moment.
> or are you like Fran,
> and just want someone else, the olympic athletes and supporters,
> who have done NOTHING to the Tibetans, to pay the price for
> YOUR moral outrage.
The Olympics should not have anything to do with politics, just as
people should not use what is happening in Tibet as ammunition to
worship their leader of choice, if anyone is capitalising on the misery
over there it's people like you.
>> aren't going to make a dot of difference in the long run.
>
> How do you know? and
> What then, in your opinion, will?
Very little is going to make a difference over there, other than China
changing its ways, and no-one at all will ever force that upon them.
> > China couldn't give two .s what Rudd or Australia think.
>
>
> As you seem to know far more about what they think about us,
> what would make them listen.. how would you handle the problem?
How will you stop the sun burning out? You can't. But you'd look like a
right royal idiot if you said "look, I made a bar heater, we might be
warm when it does.". Rudd just put himself firmly in that category.
>> The two terms are hardly mutually exclusive,
>
> Except that they have been violently opposed enemies
> engaged in to-the-death struggles.
We're not living in the WWII era any more fags. Take a look here, you
might learn something about how similar the 2 definitions are, much
better thought out then your little quip.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_fascism_and_communism
And in fact you could nearly say China is more fascist than communist if
you were to accept the definitions on this page considering they most
definitely play with "nationalistic and ethnic divisions" as we've seen
in Tibet and elsewhere, and they most definitely do not have that
communist co-op thing going, in fact they are brutally capitalist in the
way they exploit their own people. Interestingly this write-up also
makes the point that they are facist.
http://www.bigcynic.com/2008/01/chinacommunist.html
I'd have to agree with the following:
' In other words, communist-in-name-only China is essentially a fascist
regime that makes its cheap, exploited workers freely available to
businesses the world over. It's like the opposite of the Statue of
Liberty—instead of "Give me your huddled masses yearning to breathe
free," the Chinese government's motto is "Give me your corporations
yearning to exploit our huddled masses." '
>> in fact the only thing that doesn't plant them firmly in the field of
>> facism is the fact they have a body rather than an individual running
>> the show, but then the same is true at face value of any facist
>> country, they all claim to have a body running the show. A country
>> could quite easily be communist without being facist, but China
>> manages quite easily to be both.
>
> How does confusing the two quite different systems help?
So lets just define Rudd's buddies as fascists then huh? Desipte your
protests to the contrary.
|