DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on May 29, 2008, 08:42:25 PM
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/27/iraq-soldier-discusses-hi_n_103698.html
Just bringing peace and democracy the American way. Aren't we wonderful?
-
I look forward to Mr. Turner placing himself under arrest with the appropriate jurisdictional authority.
-
Michael or BT did I miss something?
Thats it?
Come on Michael please show any examples in history where war wasn't "hell".
Showing a few snippets of US Soldiers in Iraq and implying it paints the whole picture is absurd.
It would be like if I posted the pictures below and (to borrow some words from you) said
"aren't we wonderful?"
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/rockcloud/patriotic/untitled-1.jpg)
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/rockcloud/patriotic/seesaw.jpg)
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/rockcloud/patriotic/soldiereatschild.jpg)
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/rockcloud/patriotic/iraqichild.jpg)
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/rockcloud/patriotic/giasleepwithchild.jpg)
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/rockcloud/patriotic/troopsforcelabor.jpg)
-
<<I look forward to Mr. Turner placing himself under arrest with the appropriate jurisdictional authority.>>
Yeah, THAT'LL legitimize the whole operation alright. Fixes everything just fine.
-
No.
That will legitimize Mr, Turner
When advocating holding others accountable, it is usually a good idea to accept accountability oneself.
-
No.
That will legitimize Mr, Turner
When advocating holding others accountable, it is usually a good idea to accept accountability oneself.
Maybe he wants to become a Senator.
-
<<Michael or BT did I miss something?>>
Nah, nothing much. Just this Marine telling how he shot a fat guy on a bike in front of his father and a friend. Shot him in the chest and when he started screaming, finished him off with a second shot. Well, I guess you missed a good laugh too - - it took seven family members and friends to carry off the dead fat guy. That was hilarious.
<<Thats it?>>
Well, there was also the 14-year-old kid with his brains oozing out of the top of his skull. Pretty dull stuff, eh? And the little chuckle you might have had where the Marine says his company commander promised a special reward of four days leave to the first man in the company to kill a man by stabbing him to death. But yeah, that's pretty much it, CU4. Pretty tame stuff, eh? You gotta remember, though, he was only one Marine, and he'd only been there one time. It's not like he was laying claim to be the Heinrich Himmler of the USMC.
<<Come on Michael please show any examples in history where war wasn't "hell".>>
Oh, yeah, my uncles and cousins in WWII killed civilians for fun all the time. It was better than pinochle. But I get your point, CU4: War is hell. That's brilliant. It excuses everything. The guy was tortured to death? War is hell. Raped a TEN-year old? War is hell. Shot up the whole fucking family? War is hell. Works for me, CU4. Say, tell me again, what's that "C" stand for in "CU4?"
<<Showing a few snippets of US Soldiers in Iraq and implying it paints the whole picture is absurd.>>
I like your attitude, CU4. Positive thinking. Just what the world needs. That kid with his brains oozing out of his skull? That's nothing, man, just a "snippet." The fat guy on the bike shot to death in front of his father? Another "snippet." And offering a reward for being the first in your outfit to stab someone to death? You got it - - a snippet. Nothing that a few propaganda photos of GI's with cute little kids won't fix. Don't worry. Be happy.
<<It would be like if I posted the pictures below and (to borrow some words from you) said
"aren't we wonderful?">>
Oh, yeah. You're wonderful, alright. I'm your biggest fan. USA! All the way! You're No. 1.
-
How can a guy incriminate himself so thouroughly and stay out of jail?
-
<<How can a guy incriminate himself so thouroughly and stay out of jail?>>
Beats the hell out of me. I guess, given the fanatical and relentless zeal with which the U.S. prosecutes and punishes its own war criminals, and the overwhelming respect shown by this administration for the Geneva Conventions, we have to consider it a latter-day miracle.
-
<<That [turning himself in for war crimes prosecution] will legitimize Mr, Turner>>
You're probably right. In a purely relative sense, of course. But Mr. Turner is a nobody. One of millions. One of millions who served, one of millions to have criticized the war. His legitimacy as a person is of minimal to non-existent significance. Far more interesting is the legitimacy of the invasion itself and the occupation.
<<When advocating holding others accountable, it is usually a good idea to accept accountability oneself. >>
No doubt an instructive moral precept for Mr. Turner to follow. Hopefully it was meant as a useful admonition to Mr. Turner, should he chance to come upon this board. I would hate to think it was just another "shoot the messenger" attempt to invalidate Mr. Turner's message by besmirching his character.
-
But Mr. Turner is a nobody.
Mr. Turner is a confessed war criminal. Doesn't sound like a nobody to me.
No need to shoot the messenger, the messenger did the shooting, he said so himself.
He may be a pawn to others, and i will let you figure out who the others are, but he also is imbued with free will which means he made choices at every step of the way. Should he not be held accountable for those actions?
-
<<Mr. Turner is a confessed war criminal. Doesn't sound like a nobody to me.>>
Oh, but he IS a nobody. There are thousands like him. You could see some of them lined up to testify. He's a nobody alright. His crimes are so pedestrian that the MSM doesn't even bother to report them. The government doesn't even bother to investigate, much less prosecute them. These are stories that anyone who's interested can hear over and over again, if he or she only takes the time to hunt them down on the net.
<<No need to shoot the messenger, the messenger did the shooting, he said so himself.>>
"Shooting the messenger" is just a phrase - - it means to discredit or character-assassinate the bearer of news unfavourable to one's cause, or merely displeasing to one's ear. The theory is that the more one can discredit the messenger (a) the less attention is being paid to the message, which ultimately will become lost and (b) the more skepticism and even outright disbelief one can generate for the message itself.
<<He may be a pawn to others, and i will let you figure out who the others are, but he also is imbued with free will which means he made choices at every step of the way. Should he not be held accountable for those actions?>>
No, of course not, not when there are really bigger fish to fry. It's a complete distraction to focus on this one guy. As you probably know.
-
No, of course not, not when there are really bigger fish to fry. It's a complete distraction to focus on this one guy. As you probably know.
Perhaps. But this guy admitted his crimes. He did them at the behest of a rejuvenated winter soldiers group. He confessed to add credence to the cause. If he is brave enough to brag about his crimes, he should be brave enough to face the music for those same crimes.
I look forward to his trial.
But i suspect there won't be one.
I suspect as soon as the kleig lights dim, he will recant his confession, claiming he was caught up in the moment and embellished his role.
At least if he has half a brain, that is what he should do.
Before fat guys relatives see the video and hunt him down.
-
Perhaps. [Perhaps it's a distraction to focus on Turner, on his ability to own up to his crimes in a criminal justice concept.]
Ah, too bad I'm not a more religious guy. Somewhere in the Bible (but I forget if it's in the Christian or the Jewish part) it says that God desireth not the death of the sinner but that he repent and go forth and sin no more. I always liked that, except that it seemed to let guys like Nazis get away with murder. But for a guy like Turner, it seems to be kind of apt. He seemed more like a loser, a slacker with a gun, and now he's sorry for what he did. I guess though, bottom line you have to think about the fat guy and his father. How much hurt this one guy did. Turner can't get off just because he's sorry now. He's gone over a line. Someone will have to pay. Turner probably won't pay any more than any of the other known war criminals pay. Somebody will have to pay, though. It'll be the next GI whose brains spill out on the pavement somewhere in Iraq or Afghanistan - - it won't be perfect justice, by any means, but it'll be the best justice readily available in this fucked-up world.
<<But this guy admitted his crimes. He did them at the behest of a rejuvenated winter soldiers group. He confessed to add credence to the cause. If he is brave enough to brag about his crimes, he should be brave enough to face the music for those same crimes.>>
THAT is a totally irrelevant issue. Whether he's the bravest of the brave or the most wretched snivelling coward on the entire planet - - what is the difference? Why is this about Turner when there are hundreds, thousands of Turners and always will be, here, in Canada, in the U.S.A., in Germany, anywhere and everywhere?
I will tell you something about leadership - - an army is what its leaders make it. The leaders have the power to discipline, the power to punish. If they were truly concerned about behaviour like Turner's, they would have the power to eliminate it by setting examples, by constant vigilance for the least trace of that conduct. If the state of military law did not permit them to exact the kind of punishment necessary to enforce their demands, they would demand those powers and refuse to serve without them. An officer who admits that he does not have the disciplinary power to enforce his code of military conduct on his own troops is a pathetic and miserable failure. I believe that those powers already exist, but they are not used. They are not used because this army is rotten from the top down. There are no expectations at the top that certain codes of conduct be observed, and this lack of interest percolates all the way down to the platoon and the squad. THAT'S why you have Turners and Turners' partners and Turner's unit commander (offering prizes for stabbing people to death) and that's why you have the level of atrocities that we can all see (unless of course we don't WANT to see, which is an entirely different matter.)
<<I look forward to his trial.
<<But i suspect there won't be one.>>
Better there isn't - - it's only more infuriating (although terribly instructive) to see the lightness of the sentences compared to the horror of the crimes. That's probably one of the few places where you can still see the original racism of Amerikkka in all its ugly glory.
<<I suspect as soon as the kleig lights dim, he will recant his confession, claiming he was caught up in the moment and embellished his role.>>
Like any sensible war criminal with a healthy sense of self-preservation.
<<Before fat guys relatives see the video and hunt him down.>>
Wouldn't that be beautiful? But we have to settle for the next IED casualties, the next helicopter crash. God works in wond'rous ways His miracles to perform. But very hard to follow. What I'd like to know is how He takes care of the leaders, the guys truly responsible for the whole mess.
-
Why is this about Turner when there are hundreds, thousands of Turners and always will be, here, in Canada, in the U.S.A., in Germany, anywhere and everywhere?
Quite simple really. Because he is the face of the New Winter Soldiers. He is your poster boy. And by his own admission he is a war criminal.
-
You're probably right. In a purely relative sense, of course. But Mr. Turner is a nobody. One of millions. One of millions who served, one of millions to have criticized the war. His legitimacy as a person is of minimal to non-existent significance. Far more interesting is the legitimacy of the invasion itself and the occupation.
He can't be one of millions that have killed two or more innocent victims , unless there are more than two million such victims.
If he were ordered to act this way then there are NCOs and Officers that can be named and perhaps prosicuted , depending on the quality of the evidence.
Is the evidence of the quality demanded in a courts marshal , or is it propaganda quality ?
-
<<He can't be one of millions that have killed two or more innocent victims , unless there are more than two million such victims.>>
Well, I lump together the killers, the do-nothing onlookers who participate in the cover-up and the superiors who sweep it all under the rug. I figure there are millions of perps and onlookers and cover-up guys and officers who know how to stop this and don't - - I think people are way too easy on the military and in the result you really did end up with a lawless, criminal organization. Not to say every single one of them is a bad apple, but they're pretty far gone.
<<If he were ordered to act this way then there are NCOs and Officers that can be named and perhaps prosicuted , depending on the quality of the evidence.>>
Nobody's interested, plane. Once they started with these guys, there'd be no end to it. It'd be like finding a loose thread in the carpet and then pulling and pulling and pulling until the whole fucking thing comes apart. Nobody needs it. Even a guy like me, I'm no longer interested in prosecuting these guys, what's the point? I'm just happy to see those little spikes in the casualty count, another two guys in Mosul, one guy in Baghdad, etc. It's the roughest kind of justice one can imagine, but better than no justice at all. As long as they're wearing the same uniform . . .
<<Is the evidence of the quality demanded in a courts marshal , or is it propaganda quality ?>>
We can only guess. Here's mine. One case in a hundred, you might get domestic criminal quality evidence, the rest you meet a stonewall of eye-witness code of silence, deliberately botched investigations, failure to preserve evidence, dispersal of troops involved, etc. If you're lucky, you'll find "propaganda quality" evidence, but most times you won't even find that. IMHO, most of the war crimes committed are never even recorded as such, let alone that evidence would be left behind.
-
I'm not sure why you insist on broad brushing and trying to sweep everyone into the net.
The perp you have is the perp you introduced to us.
I am not clear why you insist he is not worthy of our attention.
I believe the Winter Soldiers made a tactical error seating this murderer at the dais.
I think they realized this as he was confessing, judging by the discomfort of those sitting around him.
-
<<If he were ordered to act this way then there are NCOs and Officers that can be named and perhaps prosicuted , depending on the quality of the evidence.>>
Nobody's interested, plane. Once they started with these guys, there'd be no end to it. It'd be like finding a loose thread in the carpet and then pulling and pulling and pulling until the whole fucking thing comes apart. Nobody needs it. Even a guy like me, I'm no longer interested in prosecuting these guys, what's the point? I'm just happy to see those little spikes in the casualty count, another two guys in Mosul, one guy in Baghdad, etc. It's the roughest kind of justice one can imagine, but better than no justice at all. As long as they're wearing the same uniform . . .
He is speaking to the Senate isn't he?
That is intrest , these guys do not do traffic infractions.
Remember that one of our Senators launched his political carreer with just this same confession during the Vietnam conflict , it later turned out to be a false confession but his career was well launched by then.
-
I'm just happy to see those little spikes in the casualty count, another two guys in Mosul, one guy in Baghdad, etc.
Again you confuse me. You cheer on American deaths (it's payback dontcha know, street justice if you will) but deny folks like Turner the same rules of engagement.
Why is that?
-
Again you confuse me. You cheer on American deaths (it's payback dontcha know, street justice if you will) but deny folks like Turner the same rules of engagement.
Why is that?
=========================================================================
Quite simply, because Turner isn't the problem. There are a million guys like him. Chasing down a symbolic few and prosecuting them is a gigantic waste of time, a fool's errand. Worse yet, it's a distraction. The real criminals are the guys who armed Turner and sent him to Iraq. Who started the war in the first place. That's who oughtta be in the dock.
The punishment Turner deserves is death. You know and I know that even if he were to be put on trial for his crimes (as if!) he will NEVER get the death penalty. Nobody even gets life. Nobody even gets 15 years.
SOMEBODY's gotta pay because crimes like this are too horrific to go unavenged. So it comforts me to think, in some karmic way, every time some GI's head gets blown off in Baghdad, one more American war crime has been avenged. Rough justice to be sure, but justice nevertheless, and the only kind I'm ever likely to see.
-
Quite simply, because Turner isn't the problem.
Sure he is.
He wouldn't be newsworthy if every other soldier who has served in Iraq bragged about blowing fat guys off bikes.
They haven't have they? So i guess there aren't millions like him.
The real criminals are the guys who armed Turner and sent him to Iraq. Who started the war in the first place. That's who oughtta be in the dock.
Except they aren't the one who shot the fat guy off his bike. Turner did. You seem to be obsessed with spreading blame.
So it comforts me to think, in some karmic way, every time some GI's head gets blown off in Baghdad, one more American war crime has been avenged.
And will you also think it karmic when the GI's avenge their lost brothers in arms come the next patrol?
-
<<Sure [Turner is the problem.]
<<He wouldn't be newsworthy if every other soldier who has served in Iraq bragged about blowing fat guys off bikes.
<<They haven't have they? So i guess there aren't millions like him.>>
I think you are confusing "newsworthiness" with "problems." Turner is definitely newsworthy, not because he, personally, is a big problem (he's about one-millionth of the big problem) but because he is living proof of the existence of a problem that many Americans still deny. "Show us the evidence," they say. Turner is newsworthy because he IS the evidence, he's Exhibit A.
Where you got confused is obvious: Turner is newsworthy, therefore he's the problem. Think of it this way: Lindsay Lohan's tits are, in some circumstances, newsworthy. They are never, in any circumstances, a problem.
<<Except they [those who started this war] aren't the one who shot the fat guy off his bike. Turner did. You seem to be obsessed with spreading blame.>>
I'm sure glad that guys like you weren't the ones who organized the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunals. We would have seen endless details of hapless schleppers who pulled the trigger on one Jewish toddler, two Jewish schoolteachers, a husband, wife and kids, and meantime the guys who masterminded the entire Holocaust and war from their desks and offices would be happily scarfing down bratwurst and beer and playing with toy soldiers back in whatever was left of their homes and backyards. Yeah, that seems right to me. How it really shoulda bin. Tell ya what - - you continue to "obsess" on the insignificant Mr. Turner personally, and I will stay focused on the real criminals here.
<<Quote
<<So it comforts me to think, in some karmic way, every time some GI's head gets blown off in Baghdad, one more American war crime has been avenged.
<<And will you also think it karmic when the GI's avenge their lost brothers in arms come the next patrol?>>
Yeah, that's karmic too. But I know they too (the next round of murdered Iraqis) will be avenged in the near future in their turn. The source of the evil is in Washington. When that source is switched, the cycle will start to lose energy in Iraq. When the ultimate karmic payback arrives, in the form of economic collapse, it should be far-reaching and complete. The three trillion dollar spree shouldn't take too long to show its effects.
-
"Show us the evidence," they say. Turner is newsworthy because he IS the evidence, he's Exhibit A."
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
He isn't only exibit A , he is most of the evidence.
Should we assume that there are many like him?
Why?
-
He isn't only exibit A , he is most of the evidence.
Should we assume that there are many like him?
Why?
==================================
Watch the whole thing. It wasn't just Turner, his buddy also made the same kind of kill. The other guys in the platoon seem to have acquiesced. The unit commander was satisfied with the kill, but obviously it wasn't sadistic enough for him, so he offers four days' leave to the first guy to kill by stabbing to death. Nowhere is there any sign of Army disapproval, let alone prosecution. When Turner was talking about embedded reporters, saying the troops act completely differently with reporters around, you could see another war criminal nodding his head in agreement.
What is there about Turner's squad that would indicate it is markedly different from the rest of the army or special in any way? Nothing. He's a pretty run of the mill type fellow.
My experience with people, my acquired knowledge of human nature, my plain common sense and instincts tell me that there is nothing remarkable about Turner, he's probably an all-too-typical recruit, and there's nothing special or out-of-the ordinary about him or anyone else in his unit. If he WAS in a bunch of psychos or sickos, he'd probably transfer out.
So it's just my judgment that Turner is typical, he is representative of an ordinary American soldier today and his unit is a typical unit and therefore there must be plenty of guys like this in the Army. When there's no press around, they'll act pretty much the same. And nobody in the higher echelons gives a shit. I admit it - - I could be wrong. Maybe Turner really is some one-of-a-kind freak, somebody very exceptional, very special, unique even but - - I don't think so. This is just an exchange of opinions, right? - - my opinion, for what it's worth, is that there are plenty of Turners in the U.S. military and that there is nothing at all special or unusual in what he did.
-
Michael or BT did I miss something?
Thats it?
Come on Michael please show any examples in history where war wasn't "hell".
Showing a few snippets of US Soldiers in Iraq and implying it paints the whole picture is absurd.
It would be like if I posted the pictures below and (to borrow some words from you) said
"aren't we wonderful?"
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/rockcloud/patriotic/untitled-1.jpg)
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/rockcloud/patriotic/seesaw.jpg)
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/rockcloud/patriotic/soldiereatschild.jpg)
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/rockcloud/patriotic/iraqichild.jpg)
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/rockcloud/patriotic/giasleepwithchild.jpg)
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/rockcloud/patriotic/troopsforcelabor.jpg)
good ONE, CHRISTIANS!
Nice Shots. It's nice to know that there are two sides of the story.
There is still a horrific thing going on in Iraq...a war that should not have been called.
-
a war that should not have been called.
But it was.
And Michael seems the way to end it is to slur all soldiers as if they were Turner clones.
The evidence doesn't back him up, but that doesn't matter.
-
a war that should not have been called.
But it was.
And Michael seems the way to end it is to slur all soldiers as if they were Turner clones.
The evidence doesn't back him up, but that doesn't matter.
TRue, MTee is a bad boy. He doesn't play with compassionate marbles, This is so true.
The evidence can win the argument all day long as far as winning "points" is concerned, but the war should never have been called. I believe we should have called for the war against the terrorists who were directly responsible for 9-11. Too much too soon...and now where are we, really? No way to go back, and I do applaud the work done by the American soldiers in Iraq, as well as the Iraqi soldiers. I am sure there will be a good outcome in the end, but time and money will have to be "over spent" to see a sweet end...if we ever see a sweet end to this war on terrorism brought to us by Bush.
-
<<And Michael seems the way to end it is to slur all soldiers as if they were Turner clones.>>
Michael's way to end it is to put up a candidate who promises to end it NOW , in two months, by pulling all troops out and abandoning all bases - - not some candy-ass anti-war fake who wants sixteen months or 14 months and talks only about evacuating "combat troops" and all the rest of his phony bullshit.
Michael thinks people who support the war should know about Turner, his buddy and his unit commander, who shoot civilians in cold blood for target practice and promise 4 days leave to the first guy who STABS someone to death.
Michael is not fooled by phony propaganda pictures of GIs cuddling kids or the totally asinine assertion that a few such phony cuddles counterbalance the crimes and atrocities of Turner and his pals.
Michael is not stupid enough to believe that in finding Turner, his buddy and his unit commander,we have identified the source of all the evil in the U.S. occupation forces, and that these guys are unique, one-of-a-kind monsters found only in that one little pocket of military depravity while all the rest of the US forces spend all their time in Iraq finding teddy bears for orphans and snuggling up to cute little kids.
Turner seems like a fairly typical U.S. Marine and his story doesn't seem much different from other stories of U.S. atrocities I have heard. I don't think he's the only one, and I don't think he's a particularly rare breed. In only one way is he unusual - - he's willing to 'fess up to what he did, at least for the moment, and at least without charges pending. In that, also, I don't find his conduct unheard-of or bizarre.
I believe that for each Marine compelled to admit to his crimes and expose them, many more will cover up. I believe the military encourages cover-ups - - it makes sense, no organization wants bad PR.
I think there are lots of Turners in the USMC, lots of crimes and atrocities committed by them in Iraq, most of them covered up permanently, some exposed exactly in the way we have seen Turner expose his. Just like the rape and murder of the 14-year-old Abeer, for which two GI's were tortured and murdered in Iraq and for which Stephen Green is now going to stand trial in a US criminal court. That crime also was exposed through the bad conscience of a very limited number of eye-witnesses, and it took the torture and murder of two of their comrades to shake them up enough to admit to investigators what had happened.
There are some apologists for war crimes and atrocities, and for this army of criminals - - people who, no matter how many times evidence of the crimes surface, against all odds - - will say on each occasion, "isolated event," and ridicule any suggestion that the problem is systemic, institutional or widespread. "Where is the evidence?" they ask, as if totally ignorant of the extent to which the participants and their superiors would go to make all the evidence disappear, and of the difficulties which people not in the military would experience in ferreting it out. Where is the evidence?
It's all around you - - in the coverups attempted, in the crimes that nevertheless surface, in the numbers of charges brought, charges dismissed without going to trial, charges reduced, sentences imposed, sentences reduced, and in the evidence of the perps themselves, the brazenness of the crimes, the complicity of the superiors - - how much evidence do you really need? It's more than enough evidence for me, and it should be more than enough for anyone else who isn't a damn fool.
-
"Turner seems like a fairly typical U.S. Marine ..."
Well yes , to you he seems normal , to me he seems atipical .
This seeming needs to be settled by a real count , if that is possible .
I have known a lot of Marines , decency is very common with them.
-
There are some apologists for war crimes and atrocities, and for this army of criminals
I seem to recall you saying Turner was a small fish, not worth going after.
I seem to recall me saying i looked forward to his trial concerning his confessed crime.
Who is the apologist?
-
I have known a lot of Marines , decency is very common with them.
==========================
It is one thing to be decent, and rather another to be able to denounce the Corps. I imagine that denouncing atrocities committed by fellow Corpsmen might be considered quite indecent.
-
I have known a lot of Marines , decency is very common with them.
==========================
It is one thing to be decent, and rather another to be able to denounce the Corps. I imagine that denouncing atrocities committed by fellow Corpsmen might be considered quite indecent.
You have known a lot of Marines?
I don't think them incapable of crime , I just think them less liable to crime than the less disciplined.
If this soldier is guilty of heinous crimes and knows of other heinous crime , then let it all go to trial or courts martial.
That is better than having a feud on the street .
But Saying that catching this guy in a confessed crime proves all his comrades are the same , is like catching a shark and concluding that all fish are sharks , or catching a professor in a crime and concluding that all professors are criminals.
I know that Sharks seldom tell on each other , but do proffessors cover for each others wrongdoing?
-
<<Who is the apologist?>>
You are. You want to go after the small fish who killed one guy to keep the spotlight off the major war criminals who started the war and killed hundreds of thousands. And you use ridiculous arguments shamelessly each time one of these crimes (against all odds) does surface to attempt to prove that it's an aberration rather than the systemic problem that it all too obviously is.
-
<<I don't think them incapable of crime , I just think them less liable to crime than the less disciplined.>>
That is the whole point - - the commission of war crimes is endemic because of a lack of discipline. And the discipline is lax because the war criminals at the head of the enterprise don't give a shit about war crimes committed. How could they, when they are themselves war criminals?
-
You want to go after the small fish who killed one guy to keep the spotlight off the major war criminals who started the war and killed hundreds of thousands.
Where did i ever state that?
I say get all the fish. Let's start with the ones bragging about their crimes. Then let's go after those others who have actually committed crimes.
-
<<I say get all the fish. Let's start with the ones bragging about their crimes. Then let's go after those others who have actually committed crimes.>>
Define "actually committed crimes."
Do you believe that a criminal investigation should be commenced into the actions of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and other high administration officials to determine whether any of them committed the crimes of planning and waging a war of aggression, ordering or permitting torture or other illegal treatment of human beings including prisoners of U.S. forces, and human rights abuses by delivering persons up for torture by agents of foreign governments?
Do you believe that similar investigations be commenced into the actions of the top military commanders of U.S. forces in Iraq and their closest associates and subordinates?
-
Define "actually committed crimes."
Lets start with shooting the fat guy civilian off his bike.
Do you believe that a criminal investigation should be commenced into the actions of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and other high administration officials to determine whether any of them committed the crimes of planning and waging a war of aggression, ordering or permitting torture or other illegal treatment of human beings including prisoners of U.S. forces, and human rights abuses by delivering persons up for torture by agents of foreign governments?
Do you believe that similar investigations be commenced into the actions of the top military commanders of U.S. forces in Iraq and their closest associates and subordinates?
No.
-
It's pretty obvious, BT, that you are interested in going after the small fish only and not the real criminals who caused the war and permitted the atrocities to occur on their watch.
As I said previously, in a slightly different way, this is like going after the guy who let the gas into the gas chamber, while ignoring the actual architects of the Holocaust, who planned and organized the whole thing.
It's a very peculiar concept of justice which, thankfully, was not shared by the Allied Powers at the conclusion of WWII. It seems to be the concept favoured by the Bush administration and its suporters, which is not very surprising, since the administration itself is composed, I would say almost exclusively, of war criminals.
-
What's pretty obvious to me is you are more interested in venting political anger, calling that with which you disagree, criminal.
Bush is a criminal but Stalin wasn't.
Your inconsistency is consistent.
-
What's pretty obvious to me is you are more interested in venting political anger, calling that with which you disagree, criminal.
Bush is a criminal but Stalin wasn't.
Your inconsistency is consistent.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
HEY, nice distraction! STALIN? in a discussion of American war crimes in Iraq? Not bad. Of course, I am not going to get suckered into a discussion of Stalin's alleged crimes in THIS thread, so suffice to say, yes, Bush IS a war criminal and no, Stalin is not and never was. Or if he was, it was on a much lower level than Bush. Finland apart, Stalin did NOT launch a war of unprovoked aggression against anyone, unlike Bush.
And now back to our topic and sorry for that short digression, folks.
<<What's pretty obvious to me is you are more interested in venting political anger, calling that with which you disagree, criminal.
>>
Yes, congratulations, you have correctly assessed my motivation in discussing the subject: anger. I could legitimately ask you for your motivation, now that you've raised the subject, but I'm really not that interested. Would you like to get back to the topic under discussion, the relative criminality of those who instituted the war, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, measured against that of the dumb schmuck Turner, who pulled the trigger on one fat guy on a bike?
-
I've already answered that..... i do not think the administrations actions were criminal.
Some of their actions were inept, the occupation the first couple years was a cluster, but once they pulled the string on a full blown counterinsurgency things seem to be going pretty well.
-
"
. .. Finland apart, Stalin did NOT launch a war of unprovoked aggression against anyone, unlike Bush.... "
Iraq apart, neither has Bush.
Bush is not useing any methods that would shock Stalin or embarras Beria.
-
<<Iraq apart, neither has Bush.>>
Well, there goes the ball game. If, as you now admit, Bush has launched a war of unprovoked aggression against Iraq, he is by definition a war criminal, as are those of his cabinet who assisted in the effort. Yet you insist on prosecuting the small fry while letting the really big fish get away. Someone criminally responsible for the death of one man gets the hammer, those criminally responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands get a pass.
<<Bush is not useing any methods that would shock Stalin or embarras Beria.>>
I don't agree with that, but I won't argue the point. Beria and Stalin are long past the point where they can be punished for anything they may have done. They have nothing to do with the issue of Bush's criminality. Whatever they may have done was in defence of the Socialist Motherland against racism and fascism. Whatever Bush has done was done for greed. And even THAT'S irrelevant, going only to why Michael Tee thinks Bush is a criminal and Stalin is not. Returning to the subject at hand, it's even more obvious than ever why you are so insistent on prosecuting the small fry and letting the big fish off the hook.
-
<<but once they pulled the string on a full blown counterinsurgency things seem to be going pretty well.>>
How are things going pretty well? The insurgents are lying low, the troops can't be pulled out, the financial drain is continuing. You know and the insurgents know that your financial predicament is worsening day by day and the plug will have to be pulled sooner or later. I'd say you're whistling in the dark.
-
How are things going pretty well? The insurgents are lying low, the troops can't be pulled out, the financial drain is continuing. You know and the insurgents know that your financial predicament is worsening day by day and the plug will have to be pulled sooner or later
Yeah who needs munitions when you are lying low.
Who said anything about pulling troops?
What drain?
Has the cost as a percent of GDP risen? Is the fall of the dollar related to the war or the collapse of the sub prime market?
Seems to me, you make up stuff as you go along.
-
<<Yeah who needs munitions when you are lying low.>>
Everybody in Iraq need munitions. They're not planning on lying low for the rest of their lives.
<<Who said anything about pulling troops?>>
EXACTLY.
<<What drain?>>
Oh. The three trillion dollar to date and still rising drain.
<<Has the cost as a percent of GDP risen? >>
Probably, but more importantly how much of the GDP is totally non-productive spending, such as the production of military equipment that will be destroyed or used up in pointless and wasteful activities such as the war in Iraq? There is GDP and there is GDP, if you get my drift. If all or even a large part of your GDP is the production of useless crap, a high GDP is indicative of nothing but waste, as for example if your yearly production includes six hundred million dollars worth of bullets and no new engineers, you are in worse shape than a country whose annual GDP includes the production of six hundred million dollars worth of new engineers and no bullets. You'd have to be nuts to take GDP as an absolute measure of anything, particularly in a country at war.
<<Is the fall of the dollar related to the war or the collapse of the sub prime market?>>
Both. A country in the grips of a sub-prime crisis cannot be helped by the further assault on its currency caused by the incurring of a three trillion dollar expenditure, particularly an expenditure that carries no upside, such as the development of human or material infrastructure.
<<Seems to me, you make up stuff as you go along. >>
You're welcome to your opinion, and thanks for sharing it. So far, I've backed up everything I said.
-
So far, I've backed up everything I said.
Sure you have. I especially like your certitude of facts in the Keating thread.
-
<<Sure you have. I especially like your certitude of facts in the Keating thread. >>
Excuse me, but I was responding in terms of this thread to an allegation that I took to be also related to terms of this thread. If you now want to drag in the Keating thread:
I specifically indicated in the Keating thread in what areas of the facts, research would be needed. Where there was a gap in my present knowledge, I indicated the possible results of the research and how I would deal with them one by one.
So I backed up what I knew and I admitted what I did not know. When I speculate, I don't claim it to be anything but speculation.
Just to make things perfectly clear: In this thread, I backed up what I said. In Keating, I made it perfectly clear where I was speculating and backed up whatever I said that was not speculation.
-
It is not a fact that the cost is three trillion to date.
This figure is what one analist supposes the total cost will be eventually , counting all pnntion payments and hospital bills far into the future.
-
It is not a fact that the cost is three trillion to date.
This figure is what one analist supposes the total cost will be eventually , counting all pnntion payments and hospital bills far into the future.
====================
That is the well-considered opinion of a Nobel-Prize-winning economist and it's the best estimate we have to date. Actually Stiglitz now says that the cost will exceed three trill. In the absence of countervailing opinion of equal weight, I'll go with the Professor as the best on hand.
-
That is the well-considered opinion of a Nobel-Prize-winning economist and it's the best estimate we have to date. Actually Stiglitz now says that the cost will exceed three trill. In the absence of countervailing opinion of equal weight, I'll go with the Professor as the best on hand.
Has his estimate been peer reviewed.
Wasn't the doctor who claimed vitamin c would cure cancer also a nobel prize winner?
-
<<Has his estimate been peer reviewed.>>
Sorry, I don't know.
<<Wasn't the doctor who claimed vitamin c would cure cancer also a nobel prize winner?>>
Linus Pauling was a Nobel laureate in physics, who somehow strayed into the field of nutrition and health sciences. Stieglitz won his Nobel for economics and is pronouncing on purely economic matters.
P.S. While Dr. Pauling made many very broad and unusual claims for Vitamin C, I don't ever recall him claiming it would cure cancer.
-
Two economists take an unflinching look at the costs of invading Iraq
The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict
By Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes
SUPPOSE that, five years ago, George Bush had asked every American household to stump up $25,000 to pay for an imminent war on Iraq. How would they have responded?
That money, suitably husbanded, would have paid for arming, provisioning and remunerating the troops; treating the wounded; and restoring the army's strength in the aftermath. It would have paid just compensation for the death and injury of American servicemen and contractors, and it would have covered America's outlays on reconstruction. It would also have allowed America to subsidise the price of oil by $10 a barrel?offsetting the disruption to Iraq's supply.
Mr Bush never asked, of course. But this hefty sum is nonetheless just part of the toll the war may take on America by the time it is over, according to a new book by Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel prize-winner in economics, and Linda Bilmes, a budget and public finance expert at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
How do the authors arrive at the $3 trillion figure of the title, and the still bigger numbers they report inside? To the administration's own requests for money they add other costs to the taxpayer that either appear elsewhere in the budget (such as the bonuses required to attract recruits put off by the war) or do not yet appear at all (such as the future disability claims of wounded veterans). They put a dollar figure on the American lives lost or damaged by debilitating injury. And they also estimate the damage the war has done to the American economy, by raising the price of oil and diverting spending from domestic investment to foreign adventures.
Along the way, they accuse the administration of both mortgaging the nation's future and short-changing the troops and of deceiving the public and deluding itself. The administration still treats a five-year war as an unforeseen contingency to be paid for by an extra, emergency appropriation outside its regular budget request. And it has indulged in false economies that shave the cash requirements of the war today?by, for example, hesitating to purchase mine-resistant vehicles?only to store up much bigger burdens for the future, such as the cost of caring for veterans injured by roadside bombs.
Critics have questioned some of the authors' estimates, since these were first rehearsed in an academic paper in 2006. The head of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, for example, thinks that paper overestimated the burden of brain injuries, overstated the cost of replacing munitions and equipment, and misattributed other military expenses. But the authors have taken pains to answer those quibbles, and they disclose their sources so that readers can add or subtract as they see fit.
They go on to pursue the war's trail through every twist and turn of the macroeconomic labyrinth. Here, their reasoning is a bit too ingenious. They argue, for example, that the government's spending abroad prevented it from giving America a needed fiscal boost at home. Even if you believe America has suffered from a shortfall of demand in the past five years, surely the blame cannot be pinned on the Iraq war. It must lie instead with the Federal Reserve, which is supposed to maintain full employment as best it can.
Indeed, what is remarkable is how small a macroeconomic price America has paid for its adventure. Not only has the war been financed by borrowing rather than taxes, but also the borrowing has been dirt cheap. Neo-imperialists worry that America has the responsibilities of a global superpower, but an electorate unwilling to shoulder them. For better or worse, though, the combination of volunteer soldiers, hired guns and Asian creditors has lightened the load.
Unlike some other economists, Mr Stiglitz and Ms Bilmes do not weigh the cost of the war against the obvious counterfactual: the cost of containing Saddam Hussein. (They do subtract the cost of enforcing the no-fly zones over the country). Keeping a big force in the region?big enough to cow the dictator into letting weapons inspectors do their job?would not have been cheap, although with hindsight the strategy looks like a bargain. Nor do they pay much attention to the benefits of the invasion, however meagre. For example, the world now knows for sure that Saddam will never lay his hands on weapons of mass destruction. That knowledge may not be worth $3 trillion. But it is surely worth something.
The book mixes the patience of an auditor with the passion of a polemicist; it combines forensic intelligence with prosecutorial zeal. This reviewer responded more to its quieter virtues. As the authors say, the book is not just about the big number on the cover. More importantly, ?by examining the costs, we come to understand better the implications of the war.?
Great powers almost never pay for their wars up front. Even in America's war of independence, the revolutionaries printed money to finance their campaign. But a government contemplating war should surely provide a credible advance estimate of the final bill, akin to what Mr Stiglitz and Ms Bilmes have done. If they cannot, it is a good sign they have not fully weighed the implications of their venture. If so, perhaps they should not undertake it at all.
http://www.economist.com/books/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=10843030
-
Let us suppose that Chairman Mao and his Commie pals had never taken over China, and instead China had been economically controlled as a sort of neocolonialist entity whose undemocratic government banned labor unions and allowed capitalists to pay near-starvation wages to peasants brought from the countryside.
These peasants, working for US corporations to manufacture consumer products dirt-cheap for sale to the US, would generate tremendous profits for their owners.
One can only speculate that in such a situation, the Chinese peasantry would have contributed as much to the Iraq War as they are doing now, working for a government that loans money for this venture.
Eventually, the interest rates have to rise, and the Chinese will surely realize a larger gain. But until then, the Chinese are basically subsidizing a war to replace Baathist Socialism with Who-The Hell- Knows-What in Iraq.
I doubt that either the US public, asked to contribute $25,000 to the war, or the Chinese, asked to lend it, would have been even remotely likely to lend it.
I wonder of Sirs or Plane would have gladly sent a check to fund this war that they claim is so beneficial. I know I wouldn't have done so for sure.
-
<<Great powers almost never pay for their wars up front. Even in America's war of independence, the revolutionaries printed money to finance their campaign. But a government contemplating war should surely provide a credible advance estimate of the final bill, akin to what Mr Stiglitz and Ms Bilmes have done. If they cannot, it is a good sign they have not fully weighed the implications of their venture. If so, perhaps they should not undertake it at all.>>
Sure. WWII was financed, in part, with war savings bonds. But WWII wrapped up with total victory, the utter destruction of some of America's strongest economic rivals and a fatal weakening of the U.S.S.R., and the communist ideal which prior to the war had been growing the Soviet economy at phenomenal, record rates. WWII wrapped up in less time than the Iraq war and for at least a year before the end, it was pretty obvious who was gonna win and who was gonna lose. In a nutshell, money was borrowed and the successful conclusion of the war produced record prosperity out of which the borrowings were easily repaid.
There's nothing wrong with going to war on borrowed capital, if you win the war and profit mightily during the post-war period. That ain't gonna happen. Even if the U.S. wins the war (which, of course, it can't) it will still be stuck with its debilitating balance-of-payments problems. Furthermore, as XO points out, the interest rates will have to rise to attract new dollars to service existing interest and prevent further dollar collapse. I didn't read Prof. Stigler's report and don't intend to, but I am sure that rising interest rates in the future have been factored into his conclusions, otherwise the three trill will have to be raised even higher.
-
Linus Pauling was a Nobel laureate in physics, who somehow strayed into the field of nutrition and health sciences. Stieglitz won his Nobel for economics and is pronouncing on purely economic matters.
Chemistry and Peace were his two Nobel prizes - both unshared. He never won a Nobel Prize for physics.
P.S. While Dr. Pauling made many very broad and unusual claims for Vitamin C, I don't ever recall him claiming it would cure cancer.
Curing cancer with vitamin C was one of his claims. Studies have not found a link between mega doses of vitamin C and reduced cancer death rates, however.
-
I stand corrected. Thanks, Ami.
-
Let us suppose that Chairman Mao and his Commie pals had never taken over China, and instead China had been economically controlled as a sort of neocolonialist entity whose undemocratic government banned labor unions and allowed capitalists to pay near-starvation wages to peasants brought from the countryside.
This would be worse than what happened with Mao exactly how?
China has delt with several famines during the Mao dynasty and from that ,near starvation would be an improvement.
Untill recently the Chinees have had neither freedom , safety nor good pay, recently they havve started getting good pay , an ordinary carpenter can demand eight dollars for a ten hour day , this is hugely improved from the days of the "Iron Rice bowl" when so many died of hunger.
Eight dollars a day may not sound impressive to us , but it can buy plenty of food and that is really what counts.
-
This would be worse than what happened with Mao exactly how?
China has delt with several famines during the Mao dynasty and from that ,near starvation would be an improvement.
Untill recently the Chinees have had neither freedom , safety nor good pay, recently they havve started getting good pay , an ordinary carpenter can demand eight dollars for a ten hour day , this is hugely improved from the days of the "Iron Rice bowl" when so many died of hunger.
=================================================
Well, that is the point, isn't it?
The revolution has not changed much.
The most positive thing that the Revolution did in China was to slow the growth of the population: and that is a major thing.
-
<<China has delt with several famines during the Mao dynasty and from that ,near starvation would be an improvement.>>
China has been plagued with famine for thousands of years. In 1944, four million Chinese died in a famine.
The communists inherited chaos and have been whipping it into shape ever since. Just not fast enough for plane's taste, apparently. It's ridiculous to hold the communists responsible for famine when they are the ones, after all the others failed, who have finally licked it. Partially through measures of population control, as XO has pointed out. The accomplishments of the Chinese Communist Party in bringing China to what will be the dominant country on this planet in less than 100 years are mind-boggling and unprecedented. And Mao, BTY, did NOT found a dynasty. The Party chooses its own leaders.
-
<<China has delt with several famines during the Mao dynasty and from that ,near starvation would be an improvement.>>
China has been plagued with famine for thousands of years. In 1944, four million Chinese died in a famine.
The communists inherited chaos and have been whipping it into shape ever since. Just not fast enough for plane's taste, apparently. It's ridiculous to hold the communists responsible for famine when they are the ones, after all the others failed, who have finally licked it. Partially through measures of population control, as XO has pointed out. The accomplishments of the Chinese Communist Party in bringing China to what will be the dominant country on this planet in less than 100 years are mind-boggling and unprecedented. And Mao, BTY, did NOT found a dynasty. The Party chooses its own leaders.
The party is the dynasty.
It brooks no alternative , this is its worst fault.
So there was a famine during the war with Japan?
I understand that , but a worse famine than ever before in 59?
Mao presided over the worst famine in human history strictly because of mismanagement.
How on Earth can you suppose that an alternative system would have been worse than the worst that has ever been?
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/319/7225/1619
British Medical Association.
Forty years ago China was in the middle of the world's largest famine: between the spring of 1959 and the end of 1961 some 30 million Chinese starved to death and about the same number of births were lost or postponed. The famine had overwhelmingly ideological causes, rating alongside the two world wars as a prime example of what Richard Rhodes labelled public manmade death, perhaps the most overlooked cause of 20th century mortality.1 Two generations later China, which has been rapidly modernising since the early 1980s, is economically successful and producing adequate amounts of food. Yet it has still not undertaken an open, critical examination of this unprecedented tragedy.
Summary points
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The largest famine in human history took place in China during 1959-61
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although drought was a contributory factor, this was largely a manmade catastrophe for which Mao Zedong bears the greatest responsibility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will never know the precise number of casualties, but the best demographic reconstructions indicate about 30 million dead
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two generations later China is yet to openly examine the causes and consequences of the famine
-
How on Earth can you suppose that an alternative system would have been worse than the worst that has ever been?
=======================================================================
Whether this was the worst famine ever is subject to debate.
You cannot compare it to a theoretical famine under a different regime that never existed.
China has managed to make the economy grow at around 10% annually for over a decade. No nation, Capitalist or Communist, has ever done this before in human history.
The Communist Party of China is not a dynasty. Not only does it appoint very different leaders than the ones that preceded them, it does not vest most of its authority in just one man, either.
Suppose China did have a democracy. The individual vote would count for a very, very small amount. There are 1.3 million Chinese, and one person just has one vote.
Your vote here in the US is nopt worth all that much, as you are still only one vote in a nation of 300,000,000.
On the other hand, if you are Costa Rican, you are one vote in a nation of 4,300,000.
Your vote counts 69 times more than an American's does, and 302 times more than that of one Chinese guy.
The US has had only 43 presidents, but Bolivia has had 80. Think about it.
Michael T's vote counts ten times any American's, because there are 10 times more Americans than Canadians.
-
How on Earth can you suppose that an alternative system would have been worse than the worst that has ever been?
=======================================================================
Whether this was the worst famine ever is subject to debate.
You cannot compare it to a theoretical famine under a different regime that never existed.
It is subject to debate?
Think about the worst famine in all human history being subject to debate.
In the US or most of the rest of the world this sort of secrecy is not possible . That a huge event , so huge that it might be the worst that has ever been should be subject to debate is by itself a fact that demonstrates the extreme evil of a closed society .
This much secrecy is not there to cover up stuff they are proud of.
I have read reports that minimised the 59 -63 famine , claiming that the 13 million or so people that went missing was the result of an census error. This is an error something like misplaceing Mexico City.
same link as before..http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/319/7225/1619
The origins of the famine can be traced to Mao Zedong's decision, supported by the leadership of China's communist party, to launch the Great Leap Forward. This mass mobilisation of the country's huge population was to achieve in just a few years economic advances that took other nations many decades to accomplish.2 Mao, beholden to Stalinist ideology that stressed the key role of heavy industry, made steel production the centrepiece of this deluded effort. Instead of working in the fields, tens of millions of peasants were ordered to mine local deposits of iron ore and limestone, to cut trees for charcoal, to build simple clay furnaces, and to smelt metal. This frenzied enterprise did not produce steel but mostly lumps of brittle cast iron unfit for even simple tools. Peasants were forced to abandon all private food production, and newly formed agricultural communes planted less land to grain, which at that time was the source of more than 80% of China's food energy.3
At the same time, fabricated reports of record grain harvests were issued to demonstrate the superiority of communal farming. These gross exaggerations were then used to justify the expropriation of higher shares of grain for cities and the establishment of wasteful communal mess halls serving free meals.4 In reality, grain harvest plummeted (fig 1); and since supply and demand of food before 1958 were almost equal, by the spring of 1959 there was famine in a third of China's provinces.
-
Mao was a fool, and the Great Leap Forward was a neat slogan, perhaps, but it was actually a leap in the opposite direction.
Stalin deliberately provoked a famine in Ukraine in the 1920s that resulted in the starvation of the Kulaks. Maos Great Leap was due mostly to stupidity.
In any event, the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party today has learned greatly from Maos many mistakes, and seem to understand industrial development in a Communist society thru Capitalist investment better than most capitalists do.
In any event, it is certainly unclear that Chiang would have done worse than Mao overall. Maos one talent seems to have been at winning the Revolution. He was not very good at much else after that.
-
Mao was a fool, and the Great Leap Forward was a neat slogan, perhaps, but it was actually a leap in the opposite direction.
Stalin deliberately provoked a famine in Ukraine in the 1920s that resulted in the starvation of the Kulaks. Maos Great Leap was due mostly to stupidity.
In any event, the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party today has learned greatly from Maos many mistakes, and seem to understand industrial development in a Communist society thru Capitalist investment better than most capitalists do.
In any event, it is certainly unclear that Chiang would have done worse than Mao overall. Maos one talent seems to have been at winning the Revolution. He was not very good at much else after that.
I am gonna have to agree with you .
But I really hate it when that happens.
-
I'd like to know if any organization or source other than the British Medical Association has ever certified to a famine taking 30 million lives during Mao's regime. I would NOT buy evidence of such a massive event as that unless the evidence were a lot more broadly based.
If the Communist Party is a dynasty in China, so is the Republocrat Party in the U.S.A., with a lot more nepotism in it as well. Whatever you want to call the CPC is much less important that what it has managed to accomplish. Calling it a dynasty does not in the least detract from its awe-inspiring success to date. The sleeping giant has finally awakened.
-
I'd like to know if any organization or source other than the British Medical Association has ever certified to a famine taking 30 million lives during Mao's regime. I would NOT buy evidence of such a massive event as that unless the evidence were a lot more broadly based.
Here is a list of other sources (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Mao).
The "official" total admitted to by the Chinese government is 20 million.
-
<<The "official" total admitted to by the Chinese government is 20 million.>>
The source you linked to doesn't show any official admission by the Chinese government. Besides I don't trust the Chinese government any more than I trust the U.S. government. Why wouldn't they say things to blacken Mao's rep if they intend to deviate from Mao's path?
-
The source you linked to doesn't show any official admission by the Chinese government.
Li Chengrui, a former minister of the National Bureau of Statistics of China, estimated 22 million in 1998.
Li Chengrui(李成瑞): Population Change Caused by The Great Leap Movement, Demographic Study, No.1, 1998 pp. 97-111
-
If Li was a former Minister when he published, it's not an official admission of anything, any more than Scott McClellan's confessions are official admissions of the Bush Administration.
-
I'd like to know if any organization or source other than the British Medical Association has ever certified to a famine taking 30 million lives during Mao's regime. I would NOT buy evidence of such a massive event as that unless the evidence were a lot more broadly based.
If the Communist Party is a dynasty in China, so is the Republocrat Party in the U.S.A., with a lot more nepotism in it as well. Whatever you want to call the CPC is much less important that what it has managed to accomplish. Calling it a dynasty does not in the least detract from its awe-inspiring success to date. The sleeping giant has finally awakened.
No one can prove anything.
If I were to assert that five million Americans died of hunger in 63 , or Frenchmen , or Japaneese I could easily be proven wrong.
China has facts like this wrapped up in secrecy , not what you do with facts that cause pride.
Many Chineese under twenty five have never heard of the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.
If you can edit it out , it didn't happen.
This government nor Mao's deserve to have the benefit of a doubt.
-
Whatever happened way back when, 40 years ago, it is history and will not be repeated. If it were important to the present situation, which it isn't, you and I, not being Chinese, could not vote even if the Chinese had elections, which they don't.
So what is the point?
Could it be you are wasting electrons needlessly?
-
If Li was a former Minister when he published, it's not an official admission of anything, any more than Scott McClellan's confessions are official admissions of the Bush Administration.
Nothing like reaching. He's a former Minister now, not when he published. He was still Minister in 2000, so unless he left prior to 1998 to publish, then went back to work there afterward, I'd say that his work is "official".
-
<<China has facts like this wrapped up in secrecy , not what you do with facts that cause pride.>>
Oh. Kinda like what America does with its floating prisons and outsourced torture programs, eh? NOW I get it.
-
from the Wikipedia article on the Great Chinese Famine -
<<Until the early 1980s, the Chinese Government's stance, reflected by the name "Three Years of Natural Disasters", was that the famine was largely a result of a series of natural disasters compounded by some planning errors. Researchers outside China, however, generally agree that massive institutional and policy changes which accompanied the Great Leap Forward were the key factors in the famine.[1] Since the 1980s there has been greater official Chinese recognition of the importance of policy mistakes in causing the disaster, claiming that the disaster was 35% due to natural causes and 65% by mismanagement.>>
The same article also put the total at 15 million although it said the sources gave widely varying totals.
China's a big population, so "mismanagement" mistakes can take a huge toll. However it appears that famine has finally been licked in China by the Communist government. After milennia of famine which no government was ever able to stop, this government has stopped it. Against the allegedly 15 million deaths caused even by mismanagement (which accounted for 65% only) one has to measure the toll that unchecked famines would have caused from 1949 to date, had it NOT been for the new regime and its ultimately successful policies.
-
Whatever happened way back when, 40 years ago, it is history and will not be repeated. If it were important to the present situation, which it isn't, you and I, not being Chinese, could not vote even if the Chinese had elections, which they don't.
So what is the point?
Could it be you are wasting electrons needlessly?
MT points out that China has been dealing with Famine for centuries , I can accept this as probly true .
In the times that were not famine the people had food , like now.
What is the diffrence between now and one of the earlyer times between one famine and another?
-
China's a big population, so "mismanagement" mistakes can take a huge toll. However it appears that famine has finally been licked in China by the Communist government.
By becomeing much less Communist?
After milennia of famine which no government was ever able to stop, this government has stopped it. Against the allegedly 15 million deaths caused even by mismanagement (which accounted for 65% only) one has to measure the toll that unchecked famines would have caused from 1949 to date, had it NOT been for the new regime and its ultimately successful policies.
Famines come and go , I don't know what will cause the next one , I can prognosticate but I can't know.
Do you know what Mao got out of those meetings with Nixon?
Fertilizer.
And some advice on where to put it.
-
<<By becomeing much less Communist?>>
No, by adapting to the changing circumstances, by recognizing and effectuating the "two steps forward, one step back" principle as and when appropriate and by not giving up on the basic principle of the dictatorship of the proletariat through its vanguard, the Communist Party. Russia lost its way, unfortunately, but better get used to this, plane: the 21st Century belongs to China and China is Communist.
<<Do you know what Mao got out of those meetings with Nixon? Fertilizer.>>
And that's surprising to you? "A capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him with." [Lenin]
-
<<By becomeing much less Communist?>>
No, by adapting to the changing circumstances, by recognizing and effectuating the "two steps forward, one step back" principle as and when appropriate and by not giving up on the basic principle of the dictatorship of the proletariat through its vanguard, the Communist Party. Russia lost its way, unfortunately, but better get used to this, plane: the 21st Century belongs to China and China is Communist.
<<Do you know what Mao got out of those meetings with Nixon? Fertilizer.>>
And that's surprising to you? "A capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him with." [Lenin]
Lennin admitted that the Communists would never have rope makeing enough of their own?
Nixon made a deal that included several modern fertilizer plants , helping Chineese to survive is much diffrent than helping them harm us.
No I ws not surprised.
-
<<Lennin admitted that the Communists would never have rope makeing enough of their own?>>
I didn't see that. Big mistake in any event, because there's no shortage of rope in China.
<<Nixon made a deal that included several modern fertilizer plants , helping Chineese to survive is much diffrent than helping them harm us.
No I ws not surprised.>>
What surprised?? First the American missionaries bring 'em Bibles, but Nixon was a realist so he brought them bullshit you could actually see and touch - - and smell.
-
<<Lennin admitted that the Communists would never have rope makeing enough of their own?>>
I didn't see that. Big mistake in any event, because there's no shortage of rope in China.
<<Nixon made a deal that included several modern fertilizer plants , helping Chineese to survive is much diffrent than helping them harm us.
No I ws not surprised.>>
What surprised?? First the American missionaries bring 'em Bibles, but Nixon was a realist so he brought them bullshit you could actually see and touch - - and smell.
And that was needed , the Green Revolution was not an entirely American phenominon It would not have happened without co-operative agreements like this in several nations. The leadership of India worked hard to make it happen .
But with American leadership the food production of the planet was doubbled in a decade.
The Green Revolution was the biggest event of the century but nobody died in it , it was the opposite of a war so it is forgotten.
Wars are more traumatic and easy to remember than the famine that didn't happen.
-
I've got a feeling you are trying to make a point with the Green Revolution that I am just missing. Why is the Green Revolution being brought up in this thread? Is it to prove that America is not all bad?
Green Revolution or not, America is still pretty bad, on the whole. I think Americans should focus a whole lot more on cleaning up their act and a whole lot less on patting themselves on the back for something they did fifty years ago.
-
I've got a feeling you are trying to make a point with the Green Revolution that I am just missing. Why is the Green Revolution being brought up in this thread? Is it to prove that America is not all bad?
Green Revolution or not, America is still pretty bad, on the whole. I think Americans should focus a whole lot more on cleaning up their act and a whole lot less on patting themselves on the back for something they did fifty years ago.
In all human history there was never anything as big and good for the little guy as the green revolution.
But it was a co-operative effort of several governments and non government agencys.
It is no news at all that a billion people do not die , even if they are scheduled to die.
-
As I say, time to stop patting yourselves on the back for something that happened a long time ago (if in fact it's as momentous as you claim) and focus on today's problems today;dwelling on past glories isn't the healthiest kind of attitude to have.
-
As I say, time to stop patting yourselves on the back for something that happened a long time ago (if in fact it's as momentous as you claim) and focus on today's problems today;dwelling on past glories isn't the healthiest kind of attitude to have.
IT is high time to stop thinking of Mao as if he were a saint or even above average .
Nixon bought him off , Communism was buying the rope to hang itself with , the alternative being the death of millions more Chinese.
The rule of history is the purer the Communism , the worse the famines. Bending Communist principals to allow the reemergence of landlords , financiers, entrepreneurs and millionaires has made Chinas economy grow at a great rate , much as Forest Gump ran better after his heavy braces fell off.
Look up the green Revolution for yourself , I think you will wonder how something so large and important could be accomplished so quietly.
-
<<IT is high time to stop thinking of Mao as if he were a saint or even above average .>>
Chairman Mao was the Great Helmsman, he took China on a new path, the path to greatness and the path out of the slavery to Western imperialism that had kept it paralyzed and poor for a long time.
<<Nixon bought him off , Communism was buying the rope to hang itself with , the alternative being the death of millions more Chinese.>>
That's nonsense. Nixon made some kind of typically sleazy deal with him, but he stayed on the path of communism and they've never left it.
<<The rule of history is the purer the Communism , the worse the famines.>>
Sounds more like the rule of plane to me. Pure nonsense.
<<Bending Communist principals to allow the reemergence of landlords , financiers, entrepreneurs and millionaires has made Chinas economy grow at a great rate , much as Forest Gump ran better after his heavy braces fell off.>>
The proof of the pudding, plane - - this is China's century.
<<Look up the green Revolution for yourself >>
Thanks, I will.
<< I think you will wonder how something so large and important could be accomplished so quietly.>>
Let's wait till I look it up first, OK?
-
<<IT is high time to stop thinking of Mao as if he were a saint or even above average .>>
Chairman Mao was the Great Helmsman, he took China on a new path, the path to greatness and the path out of the slavery to Western imperialism that had kept it paralyzed and poor for a long time.
<<Nixon bought him off , Communism was buying the rope to hang itself with , the alternative being the death of millions more Chinese.>>
That's nonsense. Nixon made some kind of typically sleazy deal with him, but he stayed on the path of communism and they've never left it.
<<The rule of history is the purer the Communism , the worse the famines.>>
Sounds more like the rule of plane to me. Pure nonsense.
<<Bending Communist principals to allow the reemergence of landlords , financiers, entrepreneurs and millionaires has made Chinas economy grow at a great rate , much as Forest Gump ran better after his heavy braces fell off.>>
The proof of the pudding, plane - - this is China's century.
<<Look up the green Revolution for yourself >>
Thanks, I will.
<< I think you will wonder how something so large and important could be accomplished so quietly.>>
Let's wait till I look it up first, OK?
China is huge , it is the repository of much knoledge and talent , large resorces and a certain number of geniuses.
China can avoid greatness only by wasteing itself , perhaps with ignorance mismanagement and waste of resorces leading to the waste of an incredable number of human lives.
It is hard to imagine China remaining so backwards so long without Chariman Mao to implement his very stupid policys. The great helmsman put the great ship on the rocks almost immediately.
Richard Nixon made a deal that saved Mao's bacon , without this "sleezy " deal the output of those fertilizer plants would not have been availible to feed the masses people can't eat promises. But they can eat better when American advice and fertilizer raise up more rice and wheat.
Before Nixon , what did Mao ever succeed at ,other than takeing charge? Forceing people to praise himself?
-
<<Before Nixon , what did Mao ever succeed at ,other than takeing charge? >>
That's kind of like asking what did George Washington ever accomplish, other than the independence of the United States of America? FYI, "taking charge" of China and rescuing it from its long slumber was the accomplishment of the millennium. You treat it like it was nothing more than winning a high-school ribbon for pole-vaulting. Mao's accomplishment was a landmark in human history.
-
<<Before Nixon , what did Mao ever succeed at ,other than takeing charge? >>
That's kind of like asking what did George Washington ever accomplish, other than the independence of the United States of America? FYI, "taking charge" of China and rescuing it from its long slumber was the accomplishment of the millennium. You treat it like it was nothing more than winning a high-school ribbon for pole-vaulting. Mao's accomplishment was a landmark in human history.
He took over , then ran it into a famine.
If just takeing over is such a great accomplishment, why not admire Napolion and Hitler?
N and H took over and did not cause a famine .
-
If just takeing over is such a great accomplishment, why not admire Napolion and Hitler?
China is not Germany
China is not France
There is a matter of scale involved.
One could certainly admire Hitler's powers of persuasive speech, and Napoleon's subversion of the French Revolution, but neither of them had to defeat a foreign invader and a powerful opposition and unite a country as huge in area and population as China.
-
If just takeing over is such a great accomplishment, why not admire Napolion and Hitler?
China is not Germany
China is not France
There is a matter of scale involved.
One could certainly admire Hitler's powers of persuasive speech, and Napoleon's subversion of the French Revolution, but neither of them had to defeat a foreign invader and a powerful opposition and unite a country as huge in area and population as China.
I do not admire Hitler , I do not admire Napolion , I do not admire Mao , they are not worthy of the admiration of a common man like me , each one of them had the choice of being a common man and doing much less harm.
There is no point in saying that China is not Germany etc..., unless you mean that China cannot be governed . How does Chinas being huge mitigate Maos bad decisions?
-
There is no point in saying that China is not Germany etc..., unless you mana that China cannot be governed . How does Chinas being huge mitigate Maos bad decisions?
====================
It has nothing to do with his bad decisions.
Mao united China, which was never really united, for the very first time.
Napoleon did not face unifying France, nor did Hitler face any serious challenges in uniting Germany.
Before a national government can change a country, it must unify that country to a degree that the government has the power to do so. Mao and Chao Enlai managed to do this. Chiang Kai Shek was unable to unify China to any manageable degree.
If you take the stance that everything that a leader did is bad because the results were bad, then you will have a defective view of that leader. Napoleon and Hitler both had some positive achievements, even though their terms ended in overall disaster.
The French monarchy and nobility never had anything like the powers they had prior to Napoleon. The French after Napoleon did nto allow the Church to dominate society as before him. The sciences, literature, and philosophy have flourished since Napoleon. Militarism, oppression, and Master Race theories died in Germany as a result of Hitler. Autobahns, Volkswagens and a superior healthcare and pension system were created or improved as a result of Hitler's reforms. Hitler also managed to get all of Europe to drive on the right side of the highways, which they did not previously.
-
There is no point in saying that China is not Germany etc..., unless you mana that China cannot be governed . How does Chinas being huge mitigate Maos bad decisions?
====================
It has nothing to do with his bad decisions.
Mao united China, which was never really united, for the very first time.
Napoleon did not face unifying France, nor did Hitler face any serious challenges in uniting Germany.
Before a national government can change a country, it must unify that country to a degree that the government has the power to do so. Mao and Chao Enlai managed to do this. Chiang Kai Shek was unable to unify China to any manageable degree.
If you take the stance that everything that a leader did is bad because the results were bad, then you will have a defective view of that leader. Napoleon and Hitler both had some positive achievements, even though their terms ended in overall disaster.
Napolion and Hitler were trying to unify Europe , a goal worthy of excess in means?
If they had succeeded in unifying Europe their accomplishment would match Mao's more closely.
-
Napolion and Hitler were trying to unify Europe , a goal worthy of excess in means?
If they had succeeded in unifying Europe their accomplishment would match Mao's more closely.
--------------------------------------------
Napoleon would have probably been deemed a success had he not tried and failed to conquer Russia. Keeping the British off the European continent was a worthy goal for France: the Brits had nothing to offer but a return to decrepit monarchies and of course, alliances of said decrepit monarchies with England.
Hitler's economic success was based on a military buildup of the economy, and eventually, he would have had to start a war. Internally, Hitler would have stifled Germany as Stalin did the USSR, and the whole Master Race schtick was extermemly counterproductive. So the authbahns and the Volkswagens (which had a really stupid name that translated something like "Strength through Joy car" and a few other things were all Hitler did that was truly positive.
Neither of them was actually competing with Mao to best him or match him at anything. The success of China today would not have happened were it not for Mao. Chiang was not independent from foreign exploiters. Taiwan was different, because Taiwan is a tiny island with no serious resources to exploit. Mao was able to separate China from the rest of the world and protect it from exploitation. Within a few years, he separated it from the USSR, which is no mean feat, since the PRC and the USSR share a very long common border.
And no, nothing mitigates anything. It's not like you could make Mao disappear *poof!* from the history of China because you proved that they would have been better off without him. Americans could not change China in 1949, and no one can change 1949 China now. Perhaps you have noticed that time flows in just the one direction., and once something has happened, everyone is powerless to unhappen it.
-
The success of China today would not have happened were it not for Mao.
I see no reason to think this way , China recovered very slowly from WWII , why can't I think that Mao with his "great leap forward" delayed the recovery that would naturally have happened anyway?
The People of Tiwan have been exploited by the Uninted States and Europe quite a lot , it seems that the most exploited nations turn out to be much more comfortable to live in than the ones most insulated from this exploitation.
-
I see no reason to think this way , China recovered very slowly from WWII , why can't I think that Mao with his "great leap forward" delayed the recovery that would naturally have happened anyway?
The People of Tiwan have been exploited by the Uninted States and Europe quite a lot , it seems that the most exploited nations turn out to be much more comfortable to live in than the ones most insulated from this exploitation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look, Mao unified China. No one else had ever done this in all of recorded history. That is what he did that was an absolute sine qua non for Chinese progress. If you are building a highway, first you lay down a heavy layer of rocks and gravel, without which the pavement will crack and sink into the mud. That is what Mao did.
After that, he screwed up. The Great Leap Forward was a disaster and the Cultural Revolution an even bigger one.
Chiang also screwed up by oppressing the native Taiwanese, the Fukien Chinese that had been educated by the Japanese, and anyone in his own KMT party that opposed him. But, like Mao, he died, and with his death came progress.
Taiwan did not progress because it was exploited by the Americans and Europeans, but despite it. The base for Taiwanese progress was laid down by the Japanese, who were experts at unifying the diverse population that they found when they invaded in 1895. As the Japanese people rejected the Tojo dictatorship and embraced democracy when the US occupied Japan in 1946-50, the Taiwanese rejected the dictatorship as soon as Chiang's son slipped from power in the 1980's. The Taiwanese combined the best features of Sun Yatsen's KMT Constitution with the Japanese system and some features from the US.
Without Mao, China would not be even one country today, but several countries that would be played off against one another by everyone. Money from Taiwan and Hong Kong entrepreneurs were also crucial to the development of China that we see today.
Exploitation by the West is not the driving force behind the development of Taiwan. In these places, most businesses were not run by Americans or Europeans, but by Chinese.
-
Look, Mao unified China. No one else had ever done this in all of recorded history.
Except for Qin Shi Huang. And Yang Jian. And Kublai Khan. And a few others.
-
That depends on what you mean by "unify".
China was ruled as an assortment of conquered states prior to Mao. That is not the same as a unified country.
-
China was ruled as an assortment of conquered states prior to Mao. That is not the same as a unified country.
Those leaders all ruled a unified China. I guess you can quibble if you want, because the borders might not have matched the current borders exactly. However, all of those leaders unified the governments and bureaucracies of the various states. And there were other leaders that also did so, but to a lesser degree. And several have lasted much longer than Mao's China has lasted until now.
-
You must consider yourself some sort of expert on Chinese history.
The fact is that Mao's government had a much higher degree of control over the people than any of the previous rulers.
-
The fact is that Mao's government had a much higher degree of control over the people than any of the previous rulers.
That is typical for dictators. Control, however, does not equate to "unity".
China has enormous control over Tibet. Do you think that Tibetans feel like they're a unified part of China?
-
You must consider yourself some sort of expert on Chinese history.
I have studied history extensively. China was a hobby for a while. Had a friend living over there.
-
Look, Mao unified China. No one else had ever done this in all of recorded history. That is what he did that was an absolute sine qua non for Chinese progress.
Not really , did Europe need to be unified to recover from the damage of WWII?
I have to guess that sine qua non , means "requirement"?
so what makes it absolute?
Jaban did a lot better and became the second largest economy in the world from a standing start , but is a pitiful fraction of Chinas size. If China were less obsessed with size , they might do better at prosperity because they would devote more to prosperity and less to controll.
-
Jaban did a lot better and became the second largest economy in the world from a standing start , but is a pitiful fraction of Chinas size. If China were less obsessed with size , they might do better at prosperity because they would devote more to prosperity and less to controll.
===================
China is not obsessed with size. At least being obsessed with size is not why China took so much longer to industrialize.
Japan managed to develop its economy because they had the US as a market where they could sell their manufactured goods, starting with stuff like toys made from discarded American beer cans. My father used to bring me these crappy little toy cars every week from the Katz Drugstore where he cashed his paycheck. They cost a nickel or a dime, depending on size. I loved the ugly little things. I imagine they are serious collectors' items these days.
China could not do this, because the US refused to recognize China and allowed no Chinese products to enter the US. Japan had a highly urban population that had extensive experience in factories. China had millions of rural peasants with no such experience, and no decent roads, no developed sites for raw materials, at least not compared with China.
Taiwan, being much more like Japan than China, managed to imitate what Japan had done. Hong Kong and Singapore and Korea followed the same pattern.
Taiwan and Japan are are among the major contributors to China's industrialization. Observe where your Sony products are made these days.
-
Jaban did a lot better and became the second largest economy in the world from a standing start , but is a pitiful fraction of Chinas size. If China were less obsessed with size , they might do better at prosperity because they would devote more to prosperity and less to controll.
===================
China is not obsessed with size. At least being obsessed with size is not why China took so much longer to industrialize.
Japan managed to develop its economy because they had the US as a market where they could sell their manufactured goods, starting with stuff like toys made from discarded American beer cans. My father used to bring me these crappy little toy cars every week from the Katz Drugstore where he cashed his paycheck. They cost a nickel or a dime, depending on size. I loved the ugly little things. I imagine they are serious collectors' items these days.
China could not do this, because the US refused to recognize China and allowed no Chinese products to enter the US. Japan had a highly urban population that had extensive experience in factories. China had millions of rural peasants with no such experience, and no decent roads, no developed sites for raw materials, at least not compared with China.
Taiwan, being much more like Japan than China, managed to imitate what Japan had done. Hong Kong and Singapore and Korea followed the same pattern.
Taiwan and Japan are are among the major contributors to China's industrialization. Observe where your Sony products are made these days.
I am missing the part of this that makes "unity" a sine qua non . Mao's efforts at unity did not bring any success at prosperity for two decades.
Did the recovery of all the world really depend on dimestore toys sold to Americans? I am sure that it helped Japan just as you say , but it wasn't and shouldn't have been availible to China .
-
China did not industrialize sooner because of many factors. First, there was no capital to purchase factory equipment. Second, there was no market for Chinese products. Third, the infrastructure to ship the natural resources (coal, iron ore, other metals and wood) to manufacturing sites did not exist. Japan and Korea could ship much of their resources by coastal steamer. In Taiwan, the population is concentrated along the east coast, and the distances are small. There are no coastal steamers from Szechuan to Canton.
You cannot blame Mao for the US embargo on Chinese products. Form 1948 through 1977 or so, the US position on the PRC was "we will ignore you in every way in hopes you will collapse". It was the same strategy used on the USSR from 1919 through 1939. WWII made Stalin an ally against Hitler.
Before the US started buying huge amounts of goods from China, the capital to develop the PRC came from Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan. From 1946 through the mid-1960's, these investors could easily find lucrative investment opportunities in their own countries.
-
China did not industrialize sooner because of many factors. First, there was no capital to purchase factory equipment.
Well duh, they became communist and killed or chased off the capitolists , bad decision number one.
Second, there was no market for Chinese products.
Like food and coal?
Third, the infrastructure to ship the natural resources (coal, iron ore, other metals and wood) to manufacturing sites did not exist. The Japaneese built most of their WWII navy from Chineese coal and iron shipped on rails they laid to the harbors they developed. Some of this stuff was ruined in the war , but not as badly as Europe.
Japan and Korea could ship much of their resources by coastal steamer. In Taiwan, the population is concentrated along the east coast, and the distances are small. There are no coastal steamers from Szechuan to Canton.
You cannot blame Mao for the US embargo on Chinese products. Yes I can , there was no reason for a Mao other than communism and communism was a basic mistake itself.
Form 1948 through 1977 or so, the US position on the PRC was "we will ignore you in every way in hopes you will collapse". It was the same strategy used on the USSR from 1919 through 1939. WWII made Stalin an ally against Hitler.
Before the US started buying huge amounts of goods from China, Savein their bacon.
the capital to develop the PRC came from Hong Kong, British colony
TaiwanMortal enemy
and Japan. unforgiven exploiter and US ally
From 1946 through the mid-1960's, these investors could easily find lucrative investment opportunities in their own countries.
If an embargo of American buying harmed China , what were they doing chaseing Americans out of their country ?
-
the capital to develop the PRC came from Hong Kong,
Quote
British colony
Taiwan
Quote
Mortal enemy
and Japan.
Quote
unforgiven exploiter and US ally
From 1946 through the mid-1960's, these investors could easily find lucrative investment opportunities in their own countries.
===============================================================================
Do you deny that this is true?
If Japan is unforgiven and Taiwan is a mortal enemy and Hong Kong is a British colony, the fact still remains that China was developed by investments from these places. Apparently the British did not wish to prevent Hong Kong Chinese from investing in the PRC. Apparently some Japanese were forgiven. After all, the people who established Sony and Panasonic were children during the Rape of Nanking. Apparently the some Taiwanese valued a fat return on their investments more than they valued their ideology. Just like Wal*Mart does today.
Mao was just this one guy. Other Chinese believed in him, followed him, died for him.
Had it not been for Mao and Chao Enlai, China would not have become the emerging power that it is today. Keep in mind that it was never part of Mao's plan for you to like him. You still can protest your displeasure by purchasing non-Chinese made footwear, though it'll cost you.
There were few Americans in China in 1947 and 1948. Some were missionaries, some were US agents, some were adventurers , some were all of the above. The US was arming Mao's enemies.Why should they have been allowed to remain? Should fundamentalist Muslims with no papers and no permission be allowed to stay in the US, then?
=========================================================
You cannot blame Mao for the US embargo on Chinese products.
Quote
Yes I can , there was no reason for a Mao other than communism and communism was a basic mistake itself.
The Chinese have a right to be led by people you do not approve of. The embargo on China was imposed by the US government, not by Mao. You can approve of the embargo, you can disapprove of it, but if you buy a can of Raid, that is your act. You cannot blame your purchase on the roaches, and the roaches cannot blame you for roach poo on your countertop.
-
The Chinese have a right to be led by people you do not approve of. The embargo on China was imposed by the US government, not by Mao. You can approve of the embargo, you can disapprove of it, but if you buy a can of Raid, that is your act. You cannot blame your purchase on the roaches, and the roaches cannot blame you for roach poo on your countertop.
South Africa also has a right to be governed by peopel I disapprove of , but if I don't like Aparthied I might eschew South African products and embargo my stuff from them , even persuede my government to take such action.
This is diffrent from attacking the stinky government .
-
I am all for you boycotting whatever you disagree with.
I would mention that your boycotting of South Africa would be a bit tardy and more than a bit difficult, assuming that you are not hoarding diamonds and Krugerrands. I have never seen a single South African product in any store for decades.
Once JC Whitney sold me some tires and a muffler for my Renault 10 made there. It did not mention this in the catalog. They were satisfactory in every way, and cheap, too. This was in the late 1960's.
-
I have never seen a single South African product in any store for decades.
I bet some produce you eat in the winter comes from there. Agriculture products are their largest export.
-
I bet some produce you eat in the winter comes from there. Agriculture products are their largest export.
I have seen modest amounts of South African wine. If there are other products, they have not been labeled as such.
-
I have seen modest amounts of South African wine. If there are other products, they have not been labeled as such.
Their major exports are sugar, grapes, citrus, nectarines, wine and deciduous fruit.
-
I am all for you boycotting whatever you disagree with.
I would mention that your boycotting of South Africa would be a bit tardy and more than a bit difficult, assuming that you are not hoarding diamonds and Krugerrands. I have never seen a single South African product in any store for decades.
Once JC Whitney sold me some tires and a muffler for my Renault 10 made there. It did not mention this in the catalog. They were satisfactory in every way, and cheap, too. This was in the late 1960's.
Everything we are discussing here is past , but the embargo on South Africa actually helped, once enough nations and agencys signed on to it , the Embargo on China forced them to beg Nixon for Fertilzer so it worked pretty well too. Even though fewer nations were going along with it.
This makes me think of the Aparthied government of South Africa and the Mao Government in juxtaposition, did one of them ever commit a sin that the other did not?
-
This makes me think of the Aparthied government of South Africa and the Mao Government in juxtaposition, did one of them ever commit a sin that the other did not?
The Maoists did not practice anything like apartheid.
The South Africans never made children denounce their parents.
I don't see why this is of any consequence. No one is going to get a prize, ant they were two very different countries with very different problems.
What Nixon wanted from China was a promise that China not intervene in Vietnam if he bombed Hanoi and other parts of the north: that was a lot more important than a few loads of fertilizer.
-
This makes me think of the Aparthied government of South Africa and the Mao Government in juxtaposition, did one of them ever commit a sin that the other did not?
The Maoists did not practice anything like apartheid.
The South Africans never made children denounce their parents.
I don't see why this is of any consequence. No one is going to get a prize, ant they were two very different countries with very different problems.
What Nixon wanted from China was a promise that China not intervene in Vietnam if he bombed Hanoi and other parts of the north: that was a lot more important than a few loads of fertilizer.
Don't underestimate the value and power of fertilizer.
But ... this timeline seems wrong.
Nixon bombed Hanoi after his China visit?
-
But ... this timeline seems wrong.
Nixon bombed Hanoi after his China visit?
The US began bombing Hanoi in 1966, before Nixon was president.
-
Still, the main thing Nixon was after was a promise by Mao that China would not get involved in the Vietnam War, no matter what the US did or threatened to do.
He wanted to get out of Vietnam slowly enough that he would not preside over the takeover by the North.
Watergate made that possible, and neither Spiro Agnew nor Nixon was in office when the final rout occurred.