I Believe We Should All Just Be Happy and Relax

(Now I'm imitating a zombie from "Brave New World"):

"SO-MA! SO-MA! Gimme that soma!" :shock:

Hey Math, I knew you wouldn't let us down. Keep those posts coming! You're fun, in a freakish way.

That's very un-socialist of you Math. Aren't we all supposed to help each other to finally realise the socialist paradise? You capitalist running dog!

Math! You're back! Did you enjoy your lack of free speech?

Yeah, screw my kids. Great attitude. Typical Chinese short-sightedness.

Hypothesis:

Math is actually someone's sarcastic interpretation of CCP trolls. It's a damn good interpretation. Damn funny too. Keep it up, oh unknown muse. Our sanity depends on it, especially when panzi/hello/thinkdude pops up.

But t-co, Math often sounds like a satire of the kinds of arguments YOU often make....

8)

Count me as a Math fan. Though I generally disagree with him, he is good-natured and not hateful.

Plus I'm still having flashbacks from that post with all the psychedelic squares and circles and stuff...

Math, I've thought about it. You're right, we should just be happy with what we have, and not try to effect change in the world. Even if we live under oppression, it's all better than cannibalism.

That's sarcasm.

Math is likely a CCP internet "security" assigned to this site, or is a self-proclaimed assingee, like the volunteers watching the US-Mexico border.

Lisa, I'm with you there. I'm also a Math Fan. Seriously!

I mean, Math is SOOO weird that I can't help but like him. He has a lot of fans here - including you and me. He has become a kind of cult-icon.
Actually I think we should start a "Math Fan Club", like the Mickey Mouse Club.

(Singing):
"Who's the leader of the weirdest
Threads on TPD?
Math, it's he! Math, it's he! Fun for you and me!
Funky Math! Funky Math!
His comments always make us feel we're high,
HIGH! HIGH! HIGH!".....

Lightyear, respectfully - and seriously - I disagree with your assessment that Math works for the Chinese government. He doesn't fit the profile.
At all. t-co is far, far closer to the profile of a Chinese internet mole.

Aarghh. I want to know which ancient sage it was that coined the aphorism '��太平犬，��乱世人" (better to be a dog in times of peace than a human in times of chaos) and whether it would be possible to desecrate his grave.

You may very well be right. Don't know enough about the profiles.

You know, I wonder how my little feeder guppy lives happy in that little tank, detached from its friends in my garden pond.

Then I remember, it has about a 4 second short term memory. It can barely remember anything short term and has vague long term memories.

So while Math here talks about the CCP being good because its better than War or Disasters, he forgets that China is usually the hardest hit nation in East Asia when it comes to flooding, earthquakes, etc (far dwarfing New Orleans). He forgets that 800 million people in the rural areas of China have ever worsening healthcare, human rights, and poverty. He also forgets that the People's Republic of China is one of the most aggressive nations in the world having initiatied over 5-6 wars (some 'battle actions'), having had major battles with almost all of its neighbors in the last 50 years, in addition to having the most major land disputes in the world.

I wonder if my feeder guppy concerns itself with the night cold his comrades have to endure, the neighborhood cat that might pose a problem, the neighbors dog which visits to drink on a weekly basis, or the lilies which aerate the water?

Then I remember, my little feeder guppy here only cares about himself. =)

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Martin Niemöller said appears in the Congressional Record, 14, October 1968, page 31636

Of course, now that I've left that and my previous post, do I have the guts to face down beatings, torture and death for what I believe in? Probably not. I would (and do) do just what Math is doing. Nothing, while secretly hoping it's a virtue.

I repeat - and I'm trying to resist the temptation to explain this in more detail- I repeat: Math does NOT fit the profile of a Chinese intelligence operative.

t-co does.

If you bash Math here, you're wasting your breath. (Eh, I mean, if you get too serious about arguing with Math. I argue with him, but only because it's FUN to argue with Math. That's Math's role, that's what he's for. He's fun!)

Math is not a CCP propagandist.

t-co is.

Ivan, I think you're too hard on T-Co.

But hey, it's 3:44 AM here in Los Angeles, I'm still awake, which is just wrong, so take everything I say with a large grain of salt. I've been up till 4 AM every night since I got back from China.

I'm not exactly suffering from jet-lag, but for whatever reason, I'm wide-awake at these ungodly hours and am trying to take advantage of this to get some work done. I'm going to have to stop doing this very soon. Like, tomorrow. Otherwise I'll never make it to work on time...

8)

Brilliant, this is my quote of the day, Ivan. I couldn't have put it any better. One have to understand the art of double-talking in order to understand Math. (OK, I can see Ivan frowning at this statement. I'm only suggesting that we have to understand how double-talking is used. I'm not saying that we have to agree with the use of it.) In short, Math is a teaser and his is enjoying every minute of it. But he is not an enemy. In fact I really think that he is starting to feel very much at home at the Duckpond. I'm looking forward to teasing him more often as well as being teased.

As for t-co. Well, what can I say. Did you see me reacting often to his provocation? Nupe. Why? Let's put it like that, it takes a lot to be ignored by Fat Cat.

self-deleted

I disagree with you on this one.

China has more land disputes because it has more borders. It borders Afghanistan, Bhutan, Burma, India, Kazakhstan, North Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, Vietnam. It is by far the country with the most bordering states in the world. This does not mean it is more "aggressive" in nature.

As far as I know, China has (or had) "major" disputes with India, USSR, and Vietnam. Not really "almost all of its neighbors," is it?

Further, by labeling China as one of the most belligerent states, you seem to imply that all these border disputes (and wars) were unquestionably China's fault and served no other purpose than China's strategy of aggression. These included provocations at the Sino-Soviet border and problems with Vietnam's occupation of Cambodia. In reality, most border disputes are complex and bidirectional.

PS. You mentioned that the PRC has wage more than 5-6 wars, can you please list them for me (Note that this is not some smartass rhetorical question, I just want to know.)

Vietnam invaded Cambodia at least in part to get rid of Pol Pot. China, keeping good company as always, decided to intervene.
My Indian housemate is incredulous that anyone believes India started the conflict with China. I trust him more than I trust Chinese propaganda.
There is also the Korean War. China may not have started it, but once again it sided with the noble, namely the North Koreans, against the wicked, in this case the United Nations.
And there are always those parts of China that weren't, and still aren't, the willingest of parts.
So China may not be the most aggressive nation in the world, but it is close. And it almost invariably defends oppression and violence.

I disagree with you on this one.

China has more land disputes because it has more borders. It borders Afghanistan, Bhutan, Burma, India, Kazakhstan, North Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, Vietnam. It is by far the country with the most bordering states in the world. This does not mean it is more "aggressive" in nature.

As far as I know, China has (or had) "major" disputes with India, USSR, and Vietnam. Not really "almost all of its neighbors," is it?

Further, by labeling China as one of the most belligerent states, you seem to imply that all these border disputes (and wars) were unquestionably China's fault and served no other purpose than China's strategy of aggression. These included provocations at the Sino-Soviet border and problems with Vietnam's occupation of Cambodia. In reality, most border disputes are complex and bidirectional.

PS. You mentioned that the PRC has wage more than 5-6 wars, can you please list them for me (Note that this is not some smartass rhetorical question, I just want to know.)

Takes two to tango - its not -all China's fault- unless you're a FLG or something!!

I disagree with you on this one.

China has more land disputes because it has more borders. It borders Afghanistan, Bhutan, Burma, India, Kazakhstan, North Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, Vietnam. It is by far the country with the most bordering states in the world. This does not mean it is more "aggressive" in nature.

As far as I know, China has (or had) "major" disputes with India, USSR, and Vietnam. Not really "almost all of its neighbors," is it?

Further, by labeling China as one of the most belligerent states, you seem to imply that all these border disputes (and wars) were unquestionably China's fault and served no other purpose than China's strategy of aggression. These included provocations at the Sino-Soviet border and problems with Vietnam's occupation of Cambodia. In reality, most border disputes are complex and bidirectional.

PS. You mentioned that the PRC has wage more than 5-6 wars, can you please list them for me (Note that this is not some smartass rhetorical question, I just want to know.)

I'll get back to you on that later, but yes China has had battles or wars with most of the nations you listed, like the "defensive war" that was initiated against Vietnam, battles with India and Russia and so on. Keep in mind those are major land disputes, and theres also the minor ones like with Japan, East Turkistan, etc, and aggresive historical rewriting involving Korea's ancient empires.

Before you list me all the wars and disputes that the PRC supposedly initiated (including minor ones with Japan and "East Turkestan," which in my book, aren't exactly bordering countries), I just want to make myself clear. I wasn't challenging you on facts (actually, you didn't give much factual information anyway), I just didn't know what you meant by "one of the most aggressive nations."

You need to provide a context. Is it one of the 2 most aggressive nations in the world or one of the 100 most aggressive nations? If you meant the latter, then I have no problem with it. Of course China is more aggressive than New Zealand or Nauru because of its geopolitical position. If you meant the former, then that's where I disagree.

So which one is it? Is China the ultimate bully and the most bellicose of them all? What about the US? The USSR? Israel? Vietnam...(Indeed, most of China's neighbors, what about them? Stellar examples of peace and nonviolence?)

ukok's list of countries which "border" on China, is a tendentious and misleading one. Let's take a closer look:

1. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Russia, all were part of just one country, the USSR, until 1991. All of the PRC's clashes with the USSR happened before 1991, thus you can include ALL FOUR of those Soviet republics as having been involved in armed clashes with China. (For now I'll ignore the issue of who started it, because the CCP propaganda about this is just too widespread - a "Big Lie" which the Chinese are brainwashed to believe, and arguing about it will lead nowhere in this thread.) And you should include Mongolia as a de facto dominion of the USSR during those years.

2. Afghanistan: Well, yes technically it has a border with China, which is something just a few kilometres long, in the wilderness. It's negligible.

3. Bhutan and Nepal do not border on China. They border on Tibet, which China invaded as an act of naked aggression. 8)

4. China is currently intervening in the internal affairs of Burma.

5. India, well yes. And there I WILL say categorically, it was the PRC's act of naked aggression.

6. North Korea: The PRC took part in a war of naked aggression in the Korean peninsula.

7. Laos: cf VietNam. Laos is a mountainous country of negligble strategic interest, except insofar as it shares a border with VietNam...

8. ...VietNam which China invaded as an act of naked aggression

All of which DOES indicate that, well, the PRC has some "anger-management" problems....

ETA: China's problem is not that it has so many borders. China's problem is that throughout history - until just very recently - China did not even acknowledge that ANY borders even EXIST! There is just China, and then there is the rest of the world, none of whose countries have any inherent dignity or even inherent existence of their own.

:roll:

Actually, it's probably both nations' fault.

Heheheh... which nation invaded Afghanistan from 1979-1988? Which nation invaded Afghanistan in 2002?

5. India, well yes. And there I WILL say categorically, it was the PRC's act of naked aggression.

Then nor does India.

If providing military aid is intervention, then the U.S. is undoubtedly the most interventionist country in the world.

8. ...VietNam which China invaded as an act of naked aggression

Agreed. You should also examine Henry Kissinger's autobiography to look at how Zbigniew Brzezinsky egged Deng Xiaoping on, guaranteeing U.S. support in the even the U.S.S.R. engaged the Chinese in the north.

You should read the Treaty of Nerchinsk, signed between China and Russia in 1665. I believe that both sides acknowledged each others' legitimate right to exist, and proposed a border.

There are earlier foreign treaties signed as well. And even if they were broken, they still show that China didn't automatically regard foreign nations as nonexistant. (Although breaking treaties, I'll agree, is quite vile.)

When did I provoke you? Fat Cat, I make it a point to not directly address other people in my posts (etiquette rules from my usenet days.)

t-co does.

Perhaps you can PM me on this. China must treat its operatives quite interestingly, like working them 12 hours a day, 6 days a week in a stressful, hectic job, while not paying them any extra.

Misdirection/false parellel. The topic is Chinese aggression and borders. If you want to talk about US aggression (or self-defense) meet me over in the other forum.

Misdirection/false parellel, same as above, meet me over in the other forum.

Just saying "but they did it too!" doesn't make it right. And not all the parelles you draw are anywhere near accurate. Meet me over in the other forum if you wish to discuss it.

Misdirection/false parellel. The topic is Chinese aggression and borders. If you want to talk about US aggression (or self-defense) meet me over in the other forum.

Misdirection/false parellel, same as above, meet me over in the other forum.

Just saying "but they did it too!" doesn't make it right. And not all the parelles you draw are anywhere near accurate. Meet me over in the other forum if you wish to discuss it.

I agree with you, Iron Buddha, that two wrongs don't make a right. But I think the original objection, which sadly has been ignored, is that someone called China one of the most aggressive nations in the world.

So in this sense, what t_co brought up is kind of relevant, b/c without comparing China with other nations, it's rather irresponsible to label in superlatives.

"6. North Korea: The PRC took part in a war of naked aggression in the Korean peninsula"

The Korean War was a civil war with each side backed by international powers. From our 2006 perspective, we can look back and say South Korea and the UN were the good guys, but back in 1950, the choice wasn't "good versus evil" but rather "less evil versus more evil." The US had withdrawn its troops in 1949 because both KIS and SK President Yi Syngman were threatening to invade the other half to reunify the country by force. While China did indeed promise support to KIS, it did not send ground troops until the US-led forces reached the border. China's real crime wasn't sending troops in 1950; rather, it is continuing to send back refugees to face brutal persecution and possible execution and to prop up a truly evil regime that condemns its internal opponents to Nazi-like concentration camps. I wonder if the NorKs share data from their human medical experiments with the Chinese.

I'm sure they do, as much as the Japanese 731 Brigade shared their information with the U.S. Army to avoid charges of war crimes.

Don't take this the wrong way; I'm just saying that every nation has had a historical interest in data on the human body irregardless of the methodology used to obtain the data.

Actually, when you look at the wider scale, China is actually a pussycat cwhen compared to other world powers.

For example. Britain ensaleved almost 1/4 of the human population. Ocupying a dozen countries and committing ontles war crimes in an empire spree that lasted over 100 years. Britian still is occupying North Ierland without the international comunity doing more than whispering quietly about it, and it is participating in or supporting acts of colonial aggression in several other countries. Casulties in the millions.

Oh, and lets not forget about all of the natives killed during colonization acts, and those killed when they pulled out of the empire without ensuring that there was a stable regime to replace them. That counts as a 'peace crime'. Which is like a war crime, but different, and still counts as a crime against humanity under international law.

Russia enslaved its neighbors for 2 generation and funded revolutions and counterrevolutions in a dozen more countries, creating bloody civil wars, some of which are still being fought today. Resulting in millions of deaths.

Japan enslaved Korea and Taiwan for 2 generations, and laid wast half a dozen other countries within living memory. And in case that you've forgotten many of Japan's outer islands used to be indepenent kingdoms or principalities (the Ryukyu Kingdom, for a start). Tens of millions dead.

America had started or tried to start a dozen revoutions in Latin America and the middle east, including revolts by the Marsh arabs in Iraq that rsulted in the gassing of curds, and opperation Pbsuccess which overthrew the democratically elected Guatamalan government, or US support for anti-socialist movements that saw thousends of people 'vanish' in places like Brazil and Pinochet's fifedom. Lets not forget Vietnam and modern day Iraq. Millions more dead. Millions more living under puppet governments like that in Saudi or in pre revolution Cuba. Let's also not forget that failed CIA uprising in Tibet.

Now China. True China has engaged in a lot of border squabbles, and it is currently occupying two other countries, but even when you add in all of the Tibetans and Xinjianren who were killed, China is still nowhere near Japanese and western standards for agression or colonial agression.

In the case of Korea, China actually was attacked first. US sponsered forces crossed the border and fired on Chinese facilities. So this is't an agressive act on the part of China. At the very least, blame should be shared by the west.

China sponsered Pol Pot, but he would have killed a million even if China hadn't been involved, and Maoist gurillas are now largely acting on their own so thir modern day kills and acts of agression can't really be blamed on China.

You have my sympathies. All of us are hoping that you will soon be able to leave your wilderness posting and join us back in the civilized world as soon as possible.

China actually opposes Maoist guerrilas in Nepal. True, it supported the autocratic King, but at least it calls for peaceful resolution (and supported the Parliament when the revoked the emergency powers of the King) instead of that universal socialist brotherhood crap that it said during the '60s and '70s.

China opposes Maoist guerillas in Nepal? Big fucking deal.

Stalin's Russia opposed many of the Spanish Communists during the Spanish Civil War - at a time when Russia WAS spouting all of that "universal socialist brotherhood" crap.

Neither Communist Russia nor Communist China has EVER practiced what it preached about "universal socialist brotherhood."

Thus, once again, t-co has shown us a distinction without a difference.