backtop


Print 212 comment(s) - last by mino.. on Sep 11 at 12:55 PM

Chinese military possibly pulls off the most successful hack yet against U.S. defense

According to American officials, the Chinese military launched in June the most successful attack on the U.S. defense department. Representatives at the Pentagon confirmed that it had to shut down part of its computer system in response to an attack, though declined to comment on who it believed to be behind the attack. Sources say that the attack came from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in China.

“The PLA has demonstrated the ability to conduct attacks that disable our system... and the ability in a conflict situation to re-enter and disrupt on a very large scale,” said a former official to the Financial Times. The official also said that the PLA was able to penetratedefence and think-tanknetworks.

Both the Chinese military and the U.S. defense bodies are believed to take part in active probing of one another. Hackers from China supposedly spent weeks testing the Pentagon before launching the attack. In response to the intrusion, the Pentagon took offline vulnerable parts of its network.

Although the Pentagon will not discuss in detail the effects of the attack, sources familiar with the matter said that the information accessed by the hackers were “unclassified,” and thus, likely not to contain sensitive government data.

The Pentagon said that the attack on its system has urged greater attention to the matter of security. “These are multiple wake-up calls stirring us to levels of more aggressive vigilance,” said Pentagon top Asia official Richard Lawless.

The compromise of the U.S. defense system has forced officials to reconsider the type of information that is transmitted via email or with BlackBerry mobiles.

The phenomenon of cyberwar is not one that is new to the U.S. government. A number of government websites have been the target of attacks by both foreign governments and independent hackers. The U.S. and China, in particular, are no stranger to spying on one another. In April 2001, a US spy plane collided with a Chinese fighter jet, sparking the first major cyberwar between the two countries.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

6th military branch?
By 1337n00blar on 9/4/2007 9:02:33 AM , Rating: 2
Does anyone else think that the US should make a 6th military branch devoted to cyberwarfare? It's only going to get more important, not less so.




RE: 6th military branch?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 9/4/2007 9:45:50 AM , Rating: 2
The U.S. sort of did already, last year:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4800


RE: 6th military branch?
By Oxygenthief on 9/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: 6th military branch?
By rcc on 9/4/2007 12:25:33 PM , Rating: 2
Just a clarification. The Marines fall under the Department of the Navy, I know, they don't like it, but they do. The Coast Guard is under the Department of Transportation, except in case of war where they conduct operations under the Department of the Navy.

Unless things have changed a lot in the last few years. : )

The problem in starting a separate branch for "cyberwar" is that by its very nature it would have to work internally to all the other branches. And as we have seen so many times in the past, inter-branch rivalries make that difficult at best.


RE: 6th military branch?
By rdeegvainl on 9/4/2007 2:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yes we do unfortunately, but i am kinda hoping it will work out for us like it did for the air force (previously the air corps) We get a cool new name (United States Marine Force?) and allot more funding. :D
If that doesn't work out i still think we should be recognized as a separate branch off of paper, by the people.


RE: 6th military branch?
By rcc on 9/4/2007 4:06:44 PM , Rating: 2
It's ok, most of the people don't realize that the Corps isn't a separate entity anyway. Just the people involved, and the semi-oldtimers like me.

: )


RE: 6th military branch?
By Albotron on 9/6/2007 2:29:19 PM , Rating: 2
The Coast Guard was moved under the Depatartment of Homeland Security upon the department's formation.

You can check that at http://www.uscg.mil/

Right at the top of the page.


RE: 6th military branch?
By Oxygenthief on 9/4/2007 10:10:02 AM , Rating: 2
It won't happen in our lifetime. Though I am sure the 5 current branches will have MAJCOMs devoted to thwarting Cyberterrorism like the Air Force currently does, it would simply be too difficult to manage at a Branch level.

Imagine needing to get tech support for your Air Force owned computer, you couldn't just call tech support on base, you would have to contact the NEW Cyber Terror Branch and have them help.

Its not a question of need in this case, its a question of ownership. The Army deals in ground pounders, the Airforce in Jets, Navy and Coast guard with ships, and the Marines for amphibious assault. All of which use computers to do their jobs. What would the new 6th branch own? What assets would they control? Would the 5 current branches ever relinquish control of their computer systems to an external entity? Could it ever truly integrate and support each of the other Branches?

My guess is no, and will remain so for another 50 to 100 years until computer automation takes a few leaps forward. Once technicians are no longer needed to maintain our networks then assets in the form of personnel are no longer necessary which means integration would be easier as would support. Even then, I doubt it would be classified as a 6th branch. The DoD would probably just have an organization that issued orders to the Cyber commands of each Branch when necessary and managed by exception in most other cases.


RE: 6th military branch?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2007 10:23:53 AM , Rating: 2
> "My guess is no, and will remain so for another 50 to 100 years"

While you raise valid points, no one can predict what computer automation will look like in 50 years time, much less 100. Even the Air Force itself has barely been existence for 50 years. Trying to predict how the armed forces will use computers in the year 2100 is a task beyond any of us.


RE: 6th military branch?
By BlackBanna on 9/4/2007 1:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
You wont have a Cyber branch of the military established until you have a conflict similar to what WWII did for air power or the Barbary Wars did for the navy.

Right now, any cyber warfare would be conducted through the combined air ops center. When the Air Force established Cyber Space Command, they rewrote their doctrine so the Cyber Space was included in their definition of Air and Space. That is about all their is to do on. I believe anything else would fall under the intelligence communities /Home Land security.

Oxygenthief; largely your IT example happens today. The military is divided up by capabilities. When some one calls for CAS they might get army, navy, or air force units to respond. The FOB where a unit is deployed might be operated by the navy and so the navy is responsible for providing power/water/shelter to units there. Today, it could be an allied force that aid an American Unit.


RE: 6th military branch?
By ivanv4 on 9/4/2007 11:31:07 AM , Rating: 2
I guess it's possible, that way they could act more freely and have more direct chain of command, but by the time it became a branch it would be because of the need of Hacking as an offensive weapons that could reach real damage to the enemy.

In other thoughts. does a cyberattack would be considered terrorism? where does the line disappear?


RE: 6th military branch?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2007 11:59:08 AM , Rating: 1
I don't think any rational person would conclude this attack was meant to instill terror. Its simple espionage, nothing more.


RE: 6th military branch?
By HrilL on 9/4/2007 12:20:59 PM , Rating: 2
I think it would matter on what they are doing. If they hacked in to take down infrastructures then that would be considered an act of terrorism.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/4/2007 2:59:11 PM , Rating: 2
Or a military grade surgical strike?


RE: 6th military branch?
By InsaneGain on 9/6/2007 12:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
Terrorism doesn't mean causing damage or casualties. It is basically a form of coercion, which is the act of using force or threats to obtain compliant behavior from a previously uncooperative organization. Causing damage in order to hinder or eliminate the function of an objective is just a military attack.


RE: 6th military branch?
By mino on 9/11/2007 12:55:27 PM , Rating: 2
Well, according to your definition the biggest terrorist organization is the US government.

Not that on international scene I object that observation.

But this same definition makes ANY government terrorist in regard to its citizens.

Funny, how the logic works, isn't it?


It wasn't the Chinese at all.....
By Amiga500 on 9/4/2007 6:18:33 AM , Rating: 2
It was the Decepticons.

Sure they were even caught on camera doing it!!! :-D




By lufoxe on 9/4/2007 9:16:00 AM , Rating: 2
the funny part is it sounds exactly like that at first


RE: It wasn't the Chinese at all.....
By mars777 on 9/4/2007 9:37:22 AM , Rating: 2
Your title can really be true.
I could use the Tor network to hack their system. If my endpoint were to be in China the Government could not say anything else.
They would be saying the Chinese spies have hacked them.
Thats because they cant supervise or request investigation of internet traffic in China...


RE: It wasn't the Chinese at all.....
By Ringold on 9/4/2007 2:00:37 PM , Rating: 2
I predict the Tor house of cards will fall apart within a few years.

Security reasons? No. Random hackers that want to prove they can do it? No.

Simply because it harbors child porn, and the government knows that it does. I've rarely seen anything more viciously pursued than law enforcement after child porn. I last heard about it a year or two ago; I don't know if they'll crack the whole thing apart or simply pursue those hosting the material, but they'll figure it out if it takes all decade.


By geddarkstorm on 9/5/2007 3:42:42 PM , Rating: 2
The only way to take on Tor is taking on the exit nodes, or by banning the IP for the directory servers by a state wide firewall. China hasn't even done that yet, amazingly.

It is really sad that people perceive Tor as some pass to such dark things. The truth of the matter is, it's much safer just to steal someone else's identity to use Tor; and someone who is so unscrupulous to post child porn would probably not have any issues doing that too. I'm a scientist, so I don't care about any porn crap; but I use Tor at home for good reason: I grew tired of having to fight hackers, spyware, and other such crud periodically and directly. Tor makes one invisible and just adds another layer of protection outside of a NAT and Firewall (both of which I have). It's amazing the sort of stuff floating around in normal places on the net.
Also, the network is booming rapidly still, which only makes it faster and so forth. We'll see how governments try to handle it in the future, but it isn't a shady thing at all.

On the hacker side of things, Tor is horrible for hacking. It is much slower than straight out internet, and all someone has to do to stop the attack is look up the Tor network directory (which anyone has access to) and ban the IPs of all exit nodes. Some sites already do this, it is simple as pie. It's far far more effective to infect millions of windows computers and attack using bots than trying anything high latency and well known as Tor. Again, if Tor was used, the government would have known immediately and probably said something about it.


For now...
By Targon on 9/4/2007 6:33:33 AM , Rating: 2
For now, things like this seem to be shrugged off, but how much longer will the USA not respond to this sort of thing? George W. is focused on the middle east, but picture what the response might be if he were focused on China?




RE: For now...
By mars777 on 9/4/2007 9:45:33 AM , Rating: 2
The response could be WW3.
And the survivors will be getting out of their vaults 50 years from now, searching for the Garden of Eden Creation Kit, wielding Vindicators and wearing Power Armors while abusing Psycho, Jet and Buffout to handle the day. (God how i miss that game! Bethesda make a good FO3 i beg you!!)

And thinking: why did we attack the Chinese?


RE: For now...
By lompocus on 9/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: For now...
By mars777 on 9/5/2007 12:34:05 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't really matter if the whole world goes nuked :)


RE: For now...
By animedude on 9/5/2007 4:52:20 AM , Rating: 2
You are a funny guy.


Judgement Day
By codehack2 on 9/4/2007 9:35:23 AM , Rating: 2
God help us all if they get into SKY-NET.




RE: Judgement Day
By JackBeQuick on 9/4/2007 9:38:23 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6437

We should be OK for now -- until the 9th Doctor comes along and aliens crash into Big Ben. Then I think the British lose SkyNet.


RE: Judgement Day
By Pythias on 9/7/2007 5:13:02 AM , Rating: 2
I'm rather more concerned with the interstellar freeway thats coming through...


Admiral Adama Says
By Ringold on 9/4/2007 2:02:24 PM , Rating: 2
Don't say I didn't warn you all.




RE: Admiral Adama Says
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 9/4/2007 2:06:52 PM , Rating: 2
It's a trap!


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 9/4/2007 2:07:25 PM , Rating: 2
Oh wait that was Admiral Ackbar :)


Ha ha!
By Proteusza on 9/7/2007 11:01:04 AM , Rating: 2
Seeing as one lucky British kid hacked most of the US defense network, I'm surprised they were able to keep the Chinese out. The British guy probably woke them up to security issues they had never thought of, they should thank him rather than extradite and prosecute him.




RE: Ha ha!
By rcc on 9/7/2007 11:13:01 AM , Rating: 2
yeah, and burglars for pointing out the flaws in your home's security; and I suppose child molesters for pointing out that you really ought to watch your kids 24/7.

Interesting perspective there, but I think I'll pass.


They should Convene
By TimberJon on 9/4/2007 12:03:36 PM , Rating: 2
And create the Ares Conventions of war. They don't exist yet, but maybe they will later.




Empires rise and fall
By mankopi on 9/5/07, Rating: 0
RE: Empires rise and fall
By Min Jia on 9/5/2007 9:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
You speak the truth! China FTW!


Good
By budapest on 9/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good
By ivanv4 on 9/4/2007 6:10:11 AM , Rating: 4
Better a CyberWar that a full real War.


RE: Good
By budapest on 9/4/2007 6:12:05 AM , Rating: 4
maybe now that is true, but perhaps in the future when we become more computer/network dependent, it will cause far greater harm then.


RE: Good
By Samus on 9/4/2007 4:54:00 PM , Rating: 2
It could be a Battlestar Galactica in the making...or to a lesser extent, Die Hard 4.

Yes, I'm going to refer to it as Die Hard 4. Because the real name is really dumb.


RE: Good
By East17 on 9/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good
By TomZ on 9/4/2007 10:09:27 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, quite a conspiracy theory you've got going on there. You got any proof of your accusations?

Are you suggesting the lead thing is all a hoax? Millions of toys recalled needlessly for political reasons? All the pets that died from melamine in wheat gluten? All made up or staged by the CIA? Please, get real!


RE: Good
By East17 on 9/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good
By rdeegvainl on 9/5/2007 1:31:50 AM , Rating: 1
Wow that WTC theory you just spouted is bullshit, you don't have to get the metal to the melting point to make it fail. at a temperature far less than the melting point it would start losing its structural integrety, and all the combined forces around it would break it. I believe Masher had the numbers in a post a long while back, if you could bring them back and show a source or link to the evidence, that would be much appreciated.
Oh and by the way, where do you get your news? somebody trying to sell a book? the internet outlets that the majority are still owned by those corporation that are oh so evil? or from some Chinese government paid propagandist?


RE: Good
By SlyNine on 9/5/2007 4:16:55 AM , Rating: 2
Most people afraid or that disagree with the US's actions normally spout crap like this.

As normal their is truth too their lies that make it sound all the more believable.

They think that their way is the only way and will buy in to bull crap like that and then try to sell it too you.

Its funny most people would buy in to the terrorist propaganda over people that spend billions of dollars on aid threw out the world.

If thats overly preachy sorry but this is how I feel.Its not that the US government is perfect but at least they are taking active steps to protect its people.


RE: Good
By Misty Dingos on 9/5/2007 8:43:36 AM , Rating: 2
What a crazy person. This is always very confusing to me. The whole conspiracy thing. From the WTC to the Kennedy assassinations to the moon landings. Average people saw the events in New York on September 11 but you can't convince the conspiracy enthusiasts (CE) that it was just some determined fanatics on some hijacked planes. The Kennedy assassinations are the same story. Sure there is more conspiracy room to run with them but still you can not convince these bright thinking people that there isn't some vast network of people running around in the background pulling strings. Makes for nice theater but that isn't real life. Just trying to keep simple conspiracies secret is an impossible task.

People just can not keep their mouths shut forever. Unless you kill them and even then it isn’t for certain.

And the range of conspiracies enthusiasts’ interest is often odd. A good example is a guy I work with. Crop circle nut, obviously to him they are alien constructs or the work of some other higher power. Laughs at the Kennedy assassinations CEs.

I have run across several CEs that swear the moon landings were all faked. There were six landings on the moon with thousands of people involved in the program! Not one credible person has every ratted out the conspiracy program that NASA apparently fomented. Does this not seem to stretch the limits of credibility? This is NASA folks. They have a hard time not having a geek fest news conference. These are not the guys that could or would put together what would be the greatest hoax of all time and manage to keep it viable to fifty years. But you can’t prove this to the CE.

So is this CE behavior a psychological construct that allows the CE to explain events or phenomena that is inherently uncomfortable for the person involved. That they have to have a grander theory for the event to be able to internalize the information in someway that allows them to deal with the reality of their own lives?


RE: Good
By East17 on 9/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good
By masher2 (blog) on 9/5/2007 10:25:41 AM , Rating: 3
In other news, Elvis and two of Hitler's clones are alive and living on the dark side of the Moon.


RE: Good
By East17 on 9/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good
By rcc on 9/5/2007 11:43:43 AM , Rating: 2
You ever notice how these nutballs alway post in bold or caps and insist that you can't trust anyone but them?


RE: Good
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2007 10:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
> "Ever since then , the Chinese products depicted as being poisonous..."

You're right, we have Federal agents running around killing dogs, so we can blame the Chinese dogfood. We thought we being pretty sneaky about it; how did you manage to guess?


RE: Good
By Amiga500 on 9/5/2007 4:22:47 AM , Rating: 1
Well, to be fair, Bush & Co have got many young Americans killed across the world just so they can get rich(er).

You guys/gals really need to take a close look at the interactions between the administration and the big industries.

The same shit is happening over here with BAe systems (etc) and I'm not liking it.


RE: Good
By Amiga500 on 9/5/2007 4:24:07 AM , Rating: 2
If you (or anyone else) disagrees with me, ask yourself this -

Who in the administration is ending up poorer as a result of the war in Iraq?


RE: Good
By greenchasch on 9/5/2007 9:00:46 PM , Rating: 2
Who in the administration is ending up richer? If you say Bush and Cheney, you're 100% wrong.

You're welcome to claim they're helping unnamed friends get richer if you want, but they're certainly not benefitting personally.


RE: Good
By alusul on 9/8/2007 1:45:25 AM , Rating: 2
You really think the public is aware of all financial compensations they receive? your 100% wrong comment is FUD, but this is FUD too so its even now :)


RE: Good
By lompocus on 9/4/2007 11:02:53 PM , Rating: 1
Oh yes, and the United States is the answer to all the hatred in the world.

Are you fucking out of your mind? It is called an 'arms war' but in cyber stuff. However, not only are we lightyears ahead of them (I could say, but it'd get me killed lol, so yea, take my word for it), everyone tries to hack into our network.

Economic boom?

Oh yes, they are doing so great aren't they? I so wanna live in this place ->
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/10/12/china_sm...


RE: Good
By knowyourenemy on 9/5/2007 1:19:25 AM , Rating: 2
An entertaining read, but truth needs more than a concerned voice to become fact.

As you said, do the research yourself.


RE: Good
By lompocus on 9/5/2007 1:59:43 AM , Rating: 2
rofl, i ddin't know there was an article on it. I had seen a popsci article and that was the same pic in the article which I found to best represent the quality of life in China.

Besides, once they do hit the plateu in china, where does one of their largest industries, the construction of mega cities of 20 or more million, go to?

What does a truth need to become fact? Only statistics can show fact, though as we've seen statistics can prove other statistics wrong (china quality to economy boom ratio, if one exists lol).


RE: Good
By leidegre on 9/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2007 7:37:55 AM , Rating: 2
> "the world doesn't need war, nor will it sustain a world war 3. It's serves no purpous and in my opinion could and never will happen. "

What purpose did WWI and II serve? They happened regardless, didn't they?


RE: Good
By Spivonious on 9/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By jskirwin on 9/4/2007 9:25:25 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The first two world wars happened to defend Europe from hostile takeover. Definitely a purpose.


Uhm, no... Perhaps this explains American involvement in Europe in World War 2, but World War I was a much more complex conflict than that.

"World Wars" is a misnomer. Each participant went to war for a specific reason, not a shared purpose. Japan attacked the US on 12/7/41 to give it unfettered access to oil in Indonesia/Malaysia so that it had the resources it needed for the main fight in China. There was very little coordination between Japan and Germany and even less shared purpose.

The USSR attacked Germany only after the latter attacked it - not because it supported France and the Benelux nations. In fact the Soviets only attacked Japan in the last weeks of the war when it was clear the Japanese were on the ropes and the Soviets wanted the same influence there that it had in the German occupation.

quote:
Also, I'm gonna keep with my previous statment that the world doesn't need war, nor will it sustain a world war 3. It's serves no purpous and in my opinion could and never will happen.


Nations don't band together and say "Let's have a war!" Conflicts begin slowly, a diplomatic incident here, an opportunity presenting itself there.

In the case of China, is it possible to imagine it blockading Taiwan for ideological reasons? If Taiwan is blockaded how will the United States respond? It's an ally we've promised to defend, so are we going to change our policy suddenly and leave it to it's own devices? If we make it clear that we will protect, how will Russia respond?

That's how wars start - a series of steps until eventually history throws the term "world war" on it.


RE: Good
By Spivonious on 9/4/2007 1:08:52 PM , Rating: 1
I agree that Japan was totally out of left field. The fighting in Europe, however, was to prevent Germany from taking over, period. Be it England, France, or Russia, they were all facing invasion by the Germans. The U.S. involvement was to help out its buddies in Europe and to get revenge on Japan for Pearl Harbor.

I'm not as educated on WWI so I won't go into that, but did the U.S. ever even officially join that war? I know U.S. soldiers fought in it, but did the country actually declare war? Anyway, WWI also involved one country trying to take over parts of Europe.

My point that there was definitely a purpose to those wars stands.


RE: Good
By rdeegvainl on 9/4/2007 2:01:28 PM , Rating: 2
WWI kinda kicked off in the balkins with the assasination of archduke Francis Ferdinand, (like lighting the fuse to a gunpowder keg) then through a system of treaties and alliances other nations got pulled in and it spread pretty fast. The area still very volatile.


RE: Good
By animedude on 9/5/2007 3:21:33 AM , Rating: 2
People back then were actually celebrating during the first week of the WWI. Assasination of the Archduke was just a spark that caused WWI. It is bound to happen sooner or later. Too many tensions between countries and people were ready to fight.


RE: Good
By rcc on 9/4/2007 2:49:07 PM , Rating: 2
It's been awhile, but as I recall, the UBoat sinking of the Lusitania with many American citizens aboard actually triggered the official entry of the US into WWI.


RE: Good
By edge929 on 9/4/2007 4:14:29 PM , Rating: 1
You would be correct. This is one of many reasons.

From Wikipedia: "Other factors contributing to the U.S. entry into the war include German sabotage of both Black Tom in Jersey City, NJ, and the Kingsland Explosion in what is now Lyndhurst, NJ."

Unrestricted submarine warfare was the final nail in the coffin:

"After submarines sank seven American merchant ships and the publication of the Zimmerman telegram, Wilson called for war on Germany, which the U.S. Congress declared on 6 April 1917."


RE: Good
By animedude on 9/5/2007 3:28:07 AM , Rating: 2
The real truth was that America was losing out on war contracts. All these contracts went to Commonwealth countries. Capitalism got the US out of its isolationism and joined WWI.


RE: Good
By imperator3733 on 9/5/2007 12:43:45 PM , Rating: 2
What do you mean? Before the US entered WWI, it traded with both sides, including Germany. The US only entered the war when Germany continued to sink American ships/ships with Americans on them. It wasn't capitalism


RE: Good
By imperator3733 on 9/4/2007 5:53:04 PM , Rating: 2
The Lusitania was sunk in 1915 and the US entered the war in 1917. A few more ships with American passangers were sunk in between. There was also the Zimmerman Note, in which Germany promised Mexico some land in the south-west if Mexico were to join the war on Germany's side. That was a major factor in the US entry into the Great War/World War I.


RE: Good
By joeld on 9/5/2007 12:40:44 AM , Rating: 2
don't have enough posts to rate, so I'll just say great!


RE: Good
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By Spivonious on 9/4/2007 1:11:17 PM , Rating: 3
I understood your point mash, just wanted to attack the details ;)

Personally, I don't think we can have another World War, at least in the classic sense. Countries aren't as defined anymore. The global economy needs us all to play nice or everyone gets hurt. China would never (openly) attack us because it would destroy their rising economic greatness.


RE: Good
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2007 1:18:06 PM , Rating: 2
> "The global economy needs us all to play nice or everyone gets hurt"

Immediately prior to WW2, The US and China were Japan's two largest trading partners. Yet Japan attacked both.

In the same period, the economies of Germany and France were even more entwined. Yet that didn't stop Germany from invading France...a decision that ultimately wound up resulting in its own economic ruin.

Nations don't always act in their own best interests.


RE: Good
By lompocus on 9/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good
By Spivonious on 9/10/2007 3:36:34 PM , Rating: 1
Actually there are zero links between Saddam and Osama bin Laden. We entered Iraq because Bush wanted to ride the "kill the terrorists" wave and get some oil in the process.

Important note: I am not a Democrat. I am registered Republican. I'm all for less spending and less Federal involvement in State matters.


RE: Good
By imperator3733 on 9/4/2007 6:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
The First World War had nothing to do with a hostile takeover. When the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated on June 28, 1914, most European countries were outraged. I read somewhere that if the AHE (Austro-Hungarian Empire) had declared war on Serbia very soon after, that most likely no other countries would have interfered. However, the Empire wanted the Germany Empire to help them, and it was quite a while before war was actually declared. By this time, the other countries had gotten over the shock of the assassination, so there was a lot of declarations of war, causing World War I.


RE: Good
By animedude on 9/5/2007 3:55:35 AM , Rating: 2
No, the First World War was about hostile takeover. AHE wanted to control the Balkans while Russia also wanted the Balkan too. So the Russian backed the Serbian because if AHE took over the area, the Russian would lose its trade and could not conquer the area. The German backed the AHE due to their alliance with AHE and also wanted a reason to attack Russia if war does occur between AHE and Russia.

Assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was just a spark that AHE wanted so it could run its troops into the Serbia and then the Balkans. No one cared about the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. He was just used as the catalyst.

Russia thought that the German would not really send troops to help AHE so they attacked AHE. Of course they were utterly wrong, the German helped AHE. Then we have the entente alliance between Russia, France and GB that came in.


RE: Good
By imperator3733 on 9/5/2007 12:52:46 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, lets say that both AHE and Russia wanting Serbia was one of the reasons that WWI happened. It definetly wasn't the only one, and my opinion is that if AHE had declared war right away, WWI might not have happened, or at least would have been a much smaller war. The delay in AHE declaring war probably made it larger than it would have been otherwise.

About you saying that no one cared about Franz Ferdinand, I don't think anyone cared about the actual person, it was more just the assassination of royalty, which was shocking.


RE: Good
By Oregonian2 on 9/4/2007 1:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
They didn't serve "a purpose" because they who were the aggressors in those actions didn't succeed in their goals. Although there certainly were side effects due to the "wounds" incurred.

Had the aggressors succeeded, they would have "served a purpose" (in the case of WWII, all of Europe and perhaps Russia as well would be a single country and all speaking German).


RE: Good
By SlyNine on 9/5/2007 4:29:15 AM , Rating: 2
Least we forget Germany always had its sights set on America


RE: Good
By leidegre on 9/8/2007 2:26:56 AM , Rating: 1
Yes they did, but it's in the past, and we certainly learned that war is devestating for everybody. Anyone which resorts to violance (or be it war) has lost the cause, simply becuase it doesn't solve anything. It's a easy way out, but you should know better.

You should be intelligent enough to be able to use your rage or anger in a constructive manner, and if you cant handle it, get off the fucking planet.


RE: Good
By Misty Dingos on 9/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By Captain Orgazmo on 9/4/2007 7:48:08 PM , Rating: 2
As long as there are nations which are run by dictators where the people hear only what the leaders say, there is the opportunity for war to arise between these nations and others. However, as the world increasingly converts to democracy, the likelihood of war decreases. No two truly democratic nations (and I emphasize "truly") have ever declared war on each other. Look it up.


RE: Good
By Darkskypoet on 9/9/2007 9:14:32 AM , Rating: 2
Truly Democratic States... In What sense? As in of a type of democracy that we approve of? Or where people seem to have control enough to not enter a

war... Whereas the criteria of truly democratic becomes then for this purpose countries with an electoral system where entrance to run on this race is

not controlled by any system except for the market. AND Also has not engaged in prolonged conflict with another such entity.

Simply that of those nations attempting the first part; those that have done so, in many cases have had its "democracy" status disputed and / or simply

gets more examined, and discredited by those truly believing the democratic peace theory.

In a time when war effects only certain classes of people within an advanced capitalist democracy. Case in point is the United States. With no draft, the

number of people directly fighting, or mobilized to fight is significantly reduced. The personal impact of what is going on, the loss, and the sacrafice

of the many local areas where this is felt most strongly, are borne by communities dedicated to the cause, (military communities, etc) and thus would not

really complain very much. ( in the sense of derailing military action, etc that would be felt as a betrayal almost of the construct they inhabit.

Many other citizens may be positively effectd as the war goes on in the sense of the boom, and full emplpoyment usully experienced. This then, along with

positive news coverage, and a sense of protecting / defending the states "National values", more support for ceasing a war fails to emerge.

Those at other positions in the democracy's heirarchy, except for a few at first, do not feel the effects of the war. In many cases the effects (short

term) of a a war like this lead to an economic boost to the citizens requiring one, and some of the more wealthy profit from it immensely.

Small wars of a nature where one attacks a struggling, or just beginning democracy; tend to be fought by larger ex-colony holding democracies that have

avested interest or gain in those areas.

Battles, both directly, and indirectly (funding of anti government movements, etc.) have been very common in the 20th century, especially after the

majority of the 'colonies' gained their independence.

So either we choose not to consider these other poorer, newer, and in some cases supremely difficult to govern states as democratic (if in fact they are,

or were before intervention) or we do not acknowledge that any real democracy ever committed any acts such as this against another democracy.

The key to the democratic peace theory is that only those considered democracies, and thus unattackable unless thoroughly demonized, by the powers that

be count in this idea. The firm belief of this idea has one pre biased about the validity of the participants democracy. Or their engagement in such

acts.

In many democracies, the only choices we really have inmany elections, is which special interest groups do we want to rule the legislative agenda. Rather

the catholic vs protestant, it is more religious vs secular rule.

If war is thoroughly hazardous to a large part of the population, a democracy does not tend to engage in wars unless agressed upon.

When warfare required national mobilization, wars were more costly and required more sacrafices from the public at large. With the changes in weapon

tech, and new doctrines of maximal (near casualty-less) air power with as few ground troops as possible inplace, many low intensity / disruptive

operations, etc. canbe carries out without to great of an impact. The Iraq War is a testament to this.

With appropriate nationalistic positioning, the democracy can be brought into a war by a very determine special interest without the real informed

consent of the people.

This has happened. This is happening, and it will continue to happen. The wuestion becomes then, or the answer assumed: were all those others on the

participating (recieving end if applicable) not considered democracies?

Our democracies on the NATO side of things are not innocent of these smaller actions and wars. We have blood on our hands, as surely as the soviets did

for actions in other 'non-democracies / less firmly entrenched governments of states'.

Both sides moved to pull states into it's orbit. Turning despot and democratic gov't out of power, or medling so as to curry influence and support for

its cause. Even those that were newly created democracies were wrecked in favour of influence.

For the longest time, the 'democracies' considered so by interpretations of this theory were all allies. Because of this, they tended not to wage war

upon each other. That begat the massive trade network (especially post-ww2) that allowed American Goods to be shipped to war ravaged everywhere. I

believe the only 'developed' economy to grow (and massively) during ww2, was that of the U.S.

As someone else pointed out, you don't fight wars with your trade partners either. (not in this global economy)

Essentially; by the time the level of threat that made its appearance between both sides of the 'Iron Curtain' diminished, we had traded ourselves into

very much a new more interconnected homoginity that further prevents us from fighting those in our club (the fear of that otehr only now rekindled).

For those democracies or others outside of our club, (and far from the media, or simply absent from it) that resisted our attempts to exert influence

were subverted, invaded, orstarved without recourse.

The Democratic peace theory is informed by the idea that those that are like us don't go to war with us, and those that are not, are more likely too.

Something more applicable would be along the lines of, those who have control of their destiny tend not to en masse engage in selfdestructive acts. When

this occurs chances are that those entities are either misinformed about some aspect of the action, or have other overridding emotions influencing the

decision.

Thus if people know they are going to be negetively affected, they will more often then not (if given the choice) refuse to participate. This is true of

most humans.

The democracies covered by the theory, are not peaceful. They simply play more or less by the rules of the club, and have all agreed not to beat each

other up physically in public because there is nothing to gain from it. Strategically important states, not in the club and not able to mount a

significant military response do not enjoy this comeradery. Quite the opposite, they tend to be over run without consequence. Noteable exceptions,

afghanistan, vietnam, iraq, and (north) korea. All of which we picked a side in, and moved in forcefully to exert its and our influence.

China, in many cases is bucking the trend, as they have not yet had to become a 'democracy' to join most of the western clubhouses. China is in the midst

of its industrial revolution and is growing at an insane pace. Because of the 'markets' predominance, and the advancement of materialistic values vs

ideologic ones; we are inviting China to the table without reforms to 'get in on the ground floor'. Fighting with China in any public way would devastate

many western economies at this point, and even more so in the future. Thus, they too will find their way into this club... at first as an outisder, and

then with more and more clout. All of this without meeting the stated requirements of the democracy club.

Do we then create the 'Stable by any means, mostly market economy peace theory'? Or realize that maybe its the way we treat our friends added to a

plethora of other things that enable some of us to live in 'peace'.


RE: Good
By Misty Dingos on 9/4/2007 7:52:37 AM , Rating: 2
The prelude for a real war with China will be a cyber war. Welcome to the world of global war. It is a war on every front. If China can disable or disrupt internet communications in the US military during the crucial first phases of an invasion, of say Taiwan, then they gain an enormous tactical advantage. Disruption of food, materials, fuel imports to the US and our allies. Attacks on satellite communications would no doubt be next.

Perhaps some of you will take this as a wake up call but I doubt it. China is not your friend. And before a bunch of you start saying that China is just moving into an equal position to that of the US. A statement I find ludicrous by the way. China has a billion people and few real allies. The only reason they are increasing their influence around the world is to gain support if they engage in military adventurism.


RE: Good
By tanjahreeen on 9/4/2007 9:02:41 AM , Rating: 2
Of course China is not your friend. Who has been its friend in hard times? I mean when the dynasties collapsed everybody rushed in to claim peices of china, NOT to help it start a new government. Take Japan, Japan had commited vicious war crimes against china in WW2 and still hasnt formally apoligized.


RE: Good
By jskirwin on 9/4/2007 9:36:17 AM , Rating: 5
I count about 40 apologies made by Japan to China.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_s...">Source</a>

The Chinese use this as an excuse to extort money and power from Japan, not because Japan hasn't apologized.

What I would like to see is the Chinese government formally apologize for the Tiananmen Square massacre, and for the millions of Chinese killed during the Cultural Revolution and the collectivization of agriculture. What the Japanese did was brutal, but that was 70 years ago.

Mao killed more Chinese than any Japanese emperor, general or soldier.


RE: Good
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2007 9:43:01 AM , Rating: 2
> "Mao killed more Chinese than any Japanese emperor, general or soldier. "

Don't stop there. Mao killed more people than Hirohito, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Idi Amin....all combined.


RE: Good
By Ringold on 9/4/2007 1:34:57 PM , Rating: 3
I didn't believe Stalin could be topped; not everybody knows he killed at least 20m.

So I went to check on your assertion on Mao.

And holy crap, up to 72 million killed from 1949-1975! A minimum figure comes in at 44.5m.

*dons flame-resistant suit*

I bet GreenPeace loves him!


RE: Good
By tanjahreeen on 9/4/2007 9:53:58 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly and who helped when china was going into cultural revolution? The only thing i recall is US supplying weapons to the nationalist party ...
plus what about the british occupation of hong kong
and the portugease occupation of macau and the dividing up of shangai and many other chinese terratories
plus...the deaths from war crimes in WW2 in asia were underestimated... many more died.. it was only an estimate!


RE: Good
By jskirwin on 9/4/2007 10:51:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Exactly and who helped when china was going into cultural revolution?


Who should have helped? Are you suggesting that other nations should have interfered in a purely domestic matter in China? The Chinese army was one of the most formidable in the world at the time, and I don't think they would have thought too highly about foreigners intervening in their domestic affairs. On what basis would we have intervened? Keep in mind that at the time Mao was "purifying the ideology" he was being feted by Leftists here.

You then go on to mention the times when foreigners interfered in Chinese affairs. Do you believe those policies of carving up China should have continued?

I'm not sure what you're arguing about. My point is that China has it's own foibles to apologize for and should stop beating up on the Japanese for its behavior in the 1930's and 1940's. Enough already.


RE: Good
By A5un on 9/4/2007 11:59:57 AM , Rating: 2
China before war and after war (and I think you're talking about WWII) are different. The Nationalist China occupied the area prior to war, then lost it to the Communist after the war (or shortly after). Just want to point that out.

As for the last comment, I find it incredible to believe. Are you tell me to forget about the attrocities commited by the Japanese simply because they were too long ago? That's like asking the all the Jews to forget the Holocaust. These deaths aren't deaths resulted from battle. These were war crimes.

As for Mao? He's just a complete tyrant. When the Communists took over, the lands owned by various people were consequently re-divided to everyone, hence Communism. The way they achieved total re-organization was by basically killing the land owning men, leaving only the women, young, and old. I cannot believe the mainland Chinese have even begun to glorify Mao.


RE: Good
By SirLucius on 9/4/2007 1:51:41 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
As for the last comment, I find it incredible to believe. Are you tell me to forget about the attrocities commited by the Japanese simply because they were too long ago? That's like asking the all the Jews to forget the Holocaust. These deaths aren't deaths resulted from battle. These were war crimes.


It's not so much that the Chinese need to forget, but they need to accept the apology and move on. To me, this is similar to Jews hating Germans for the Holocaust or black people hating white people because of slavery. As a black person, do I forget about slavery? No. But do I go around hating every white person I see because their relatives may have owned slaves? Definitely not.

Also, I think this is an issue found mostly among older Chinese. The younger generation, especially in urban areas, doesn't seem to have this grudge, and many even embrace Japanese culture. Even within the older generations, you can find the sentiment fading some (like with my girlfriend's parents.)


RE: Good
By A5un on 9/4/2007 2:56:58 PM , Rating: 2
Did you know that the Japanese has excluded the Najing Masaccre from their textbooks? How would you feel if we suddenly just exclude every mentioning of slavery from textbooks?

I'm not someone who you'd call older generation, in fact, I'm 21. And I have nothing against Japanese people. But I do find it annoying that some Japanese still will not acknowledge what they've done. I think my feeling is comparable to what you may feel if one day the KKK starts to have their own float in New Year's parade


RE: Good
By jskirwin on 9/4/2007 3:17:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did you know that the Japanese has excluded the Najing Masaccre from their textbooks?


I have trouble with textbooks in my own school district.

quote:
But I do find it annoying that some Japanese still will not acknowledge what they've done.


Keyword is some . Most Japanese accept their nation's responsibility for the atrocities committed in China. Sure there are those who seek to minimize the atrocities just as there are pacifists who seek to keep Japan from remilitarizing. It's a nation of 120 million and while its culturally homogeneous, it is politically very diverse - from emperor worshipping ultra Rightists to anarchists.


RE: Good
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By SirLucius on 9/4/2007 4:39:49 PM , Rating: 2
As far as I knew, only a handful of books outright denied the massacre - most only made it seem "less bad. Not that that's much better, but it is a bit different. Kinda like the difference between saying slavery didn't happen and the slaves didn't suffer that much. And yes, I'm well aware that many Japanese politicians have denounced war atrocities, and as stupid as I think it is, that's the Japanese way: pretend something never happened and move on. You see it all the time within Japanese politics. Someone gets caught doing something they shouldn't, and to "take responsibility", they silently disappear out of the public eye never to be seen again. Honestly, it's not surprising that they'd try to downplay their actions. But, as a nation, they have at least apologized and held the post war treaties.

I'd consider older generation 50's+, as I've seen the most anti-Japanese sentiments from Chinese in this age bracket. I understand what you're saying about being upset about those that don't even acknowledge the event, too. But I'd put this more in line with a US Senator making racist remarks, not the KKK marching down the street. It's not like groups of citizens are pushing to ignore these events. Even the textbook scandal was because a group of politicians pushed for them, and if I remember correctly, several Japanese professors and teachers spoke out against the textbook decision. It's always been politicians making statements or actions that denounce the atrocities.

All that being said, I don't want you to think that I'm trying to say that Chinese don't have a right to be upset when Japanese politicians say or do something stupid, but I think holding the entire country responsible for the ignorant actions of a few is silly, especially when most don't feel the same way. Personally, I wish the Japanese politicians would stop being so damn simple minded, cease denouncing past transgressions, and just move on, but knowing how they think, I don't see that as being likely until some fresh blood comes into the political arena.


RE: Good
By animedude on 9/5/2007 4:14:24 AM , Rating: 2
There is a difference between the German and Jews, the Black American and Slave owners, and between The Japanese and Chinese. German apologized and admitted their wrongdoing. Slave trades were abolished and Blacks were given equal rights. Now the Japanese and Chinese case is that the Japanese DO NOT WISH to apologize and try to distort the real truth. Now the Japanese went as far as saying the thing they did in the past were not bad at all or they did not do it.


RE: Good
By greenchasch on 9/5/2007 9:13:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now the Japanese went as far as saying they did not do it.
But they didn't do it. Some OTHER people who are dead now did. I think apologizing for what someone else did is pretty silly.


RE: Good
By jskirwin on 9/4/2007 2:50:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you tell me to forget about the attrocities commited by the Japanese simply because they were too long ago?


China uses its being a victim to Japanese aggression as a cudgel to beat the tar out of the Japanese whenever it suits them. They aren't interested in "moving on" - they only care about using Japan's war guilt to get something. Imagine us demanding better market access because of the Bataan Death March, or the Japanese demanding something from us because we nuked Hiroshima. I'm not implying that these events are morally equivalent - they aren't. However they illustrate what China's behavior is like from the Japanese perspective.

Japan apologizes, and it's never good enough. What would be good enough ? For the entire nation to don sackcloth and paint themselves with ashes? No - because the Chinese don't care about the past unless it gets them something in the present.

Guilt works with the Japanese - at least the older ones. The younger Japanese simply view China's banging the Guilt Drum for what it is: extortion.


RE: Good
By A5un on 9/4/2007 3:11:46 PM , Rating: 2
What's your definition of moving on? When you hear Japan has public officials openly denouce and refute their war time responsibility, what are you supposed to do? Let it slide? Just forget about it?

And what did China get from Japan?


RE: Good
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2007 3:46:13 PM , Rating: 2
> "what did China get from Japan?"

Reparations to China from Japan were part of the 1952 Treaty of Taipei, which formally ended the war between the two nations. As part of that treaty, Japan renounced claims to the Pescadores Islands, the Lioadong Peninsula on mainland China, and the island of Taiwan itself, all of which had been ceded to Japan by China in an earlier treaty. So yes, China "got something" from Japan.

Now, for bonus points, tell us what reparations Tibet received from China's invasion. Oh wait...the Chinese are still there.


RE: Good
By A5un on 9/4/2007 4:13:54 PM , Rating: 2
Compared with WWI reparation figures, I think this is the bare minimal. And really, getting some BACK that was originally yours from war...well, that's hardly reparation at all. If China had received trillions of Yen...maybe.

As for Tibet, that you'll have to take up with the current Chinese government. I can only speak for the Nationalists that faught the war.


RE: Good
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By animedude on 9/5/2007 4:21:37 AM , Rating: 2
China asking for more? China are asking for an official formal apologize through the Japanese diet passing a bill. Not only China, but many other Asian countries are asking for an official formal apologize.


RE: Good
By rotarysports on 9/4/2007 12:09:21 PM , Rating: 2
Really ?

And how come after every single one of those apologies, the Japanese senior government officials went back on their word and then said later on that atrocities such as the Nanjing massacre and comfort women didn't exist ? This happened many times and still to this day, many senior Japanese officials still visit Yasukuni shrine(which is the equivalent of the Nazis visiting Hitler's tomb; which of course has never been found; in Europe) ? Also, unlike the Germans who have owned up to their mistake as much as they can by war compensation and rules/regulations(you know you it's against the law to say Holocaust didn't happen in Germany now), the Japanese kept revising their history textbooks. Did you know the Japanese did "human experiments" in China ?(babies thrown to microwave oven to see what happens, people subjected to hypthermia until death, chemical weapons deliberately grown on live human beings and then dissect them without pain killer to observe its growth). If I remember right, there were a few full Japanese battalion units full time doing this during WW2(if I'm not mistaken look up Unit 730 or 742).

Regarding cruelties done by Chinese to other Chinese, I agree it's horrible. But that's no excuse for other foreign nations(in this case Japan) to invade a country, kill a lot of people horribly, and left without being sorry for it. What's worse is they're not admitting that they did it.
What you're insinuating is if there is a domestic violence between a husband and a wife in their house, it's ok for you to come into their house and rape the wife because in your opinion, that's no worse than the husband beat his wife. Japan itself has gone through many periods when warlords vie for power and kill each other in mass killings, almost every country has gone through some thing like this but that does not make it right for somebody else to come in, kill you, rape you, and not even being sorry but not admitting that it happened. Face it, if you've done something horribly wrong don't look for justification and/or excuse. The Japanese falls way short of the Germans on this issue.


RE: Good
By rcc on 9/4/2007 12:35:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Did you know the Japanese did "human experiments" in China ?(babies thrown to microwave oven to see what happens


Ok, yes the Japanese did a lot of terrible things during the war. But this wasn't one of them. Go find a microwave oven dated from the 40's. Have fun.

There are enough atrocities to go around, but lets not make up anymore.


RE: Good
By rotarysports on 9/4/2007 12:50:46 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe not a microwave oven but something like it to determine what would happen when a human is put into that condition.

What's funny is out of all my valid points, you can only nitpick a technical typo. Is that all you can say ?


RE: Good
By rdeegvainl on 9/4/2007 2:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
FUD should always be eliminated on the spot, cut it off at the source. What's funny is that you are pretty much being a troll, he found an inaccuracy with your statement and pointed it out, what is your problem. Like he said, enough has been done, you don't have to make anything else up.


RE: Good
By rotarysports on 9/4/2007 2:55:32 PM , Rating: 2
Umm.. no, he didn't say enough apology has been done(assuming there is even one sincere apology). He pretty much said that there isn't a microwave oven back then which most likely is true. Looks like you're the one who's shoving words at people's mouth.

Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

I take my microwave oven comment back, what I meant was in the article:
Some prisoners had lethal doses of x-ray radiation administered.

Among other things of course.
Anyway, this topic has digressed so much.


RE: Good
By rdeegvainl on 9/4/2007 3:31:25 PM , Rating: 2
enough has been done as enough loss of life, sorry for not clarifying, just more words you shoved in.


RE: Good
By rotarysports on 9/4/2007 4:04:17 PM , Rating: 2
Great, I agree with that. Enough atrocities and loss of life has been spent. And indeed, the Japanese did subject human beings to lethal doses of x-ray radiation so I didn't make that one up. Everybody is right, that's good enough for you ?


RE: Good
By rdeegvainl on 9/4/2007 5:12:58 PM , Rating: 2
no, my bank account will still be too small tomorrow to but that island in the bahamas i've been looking at


RE: Good
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2007 12:59:44 PM , Rating: 2
Let's take bets on who will apologize first-- the Japanse government for killing 300,000 during the Rape of Nanking, or the Chinese government for killing 70 million under the rule of Mao.

I won't hold my breath in either case.


RE: Good
By rotarysports on 9/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2007 3:56:11 PM , Rating: 1
> "What happens on China's domestic borders is none of anybody else's business"

So you're saying a government has the right to commit what atrocities they wish against its own citizens, without the rest of the world being able to intervene?

Sorry, but among civilized people, that sort of thinking went out of fashion long ago.


RE: Good
By rotarysports on 9/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2007 6:21:06 PM , Rating: 2
> "[Emperors] who are cruel are always short lived and get overthrown "

Mao ruled until his death at age 82 and, even today, the Chinese government isn't apologizing for his atrocities, but rather revering him as a hero. The millions he killed aren't even acknowledged in official PRC history. To this day, China continues to be one of the world's worst offenders against human rights.

If you're trying to make the point that the Chinese quickly solve their own problems internally, I think you failed.

> "The thing about outside influence is that it is almost always sinister in Chinese history "

That still doesn't give you carte blanche to kill millions of civilians and tell the outside world, "its none of your business".

> "the British and USA did supplying weapons to different factions to countries all over the world..."

According to the BBC:
quote:
"China is the only major arms exporting power that has not signed up to any multilateral agreements with criteria to prevent arms exports likely to be used for serious human rights violations."


RE: Good
By rotarysports on 9/4/2007 7:07:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Mao ruled until his death at age 82 and, even today, the Chinese government isn't apologizing for his atrocities, but rather revering him as a hero. The millions he killed aren't even acknowledged in official PRC history. To this day, China continues to be one of the world's worst offenders against human rights.
If you're trying to make the point that the Chinese quickly solve their own problems internally, I think you failed.


How many times do I have to say this ? There are assholes in every ethnicity and culture. Is Mao bad ? Of course. But what I'm trying to say all along is we'd rather have an asshole of our own than an asshole from 1000 miles away. Period. Case closed.

Solve our problems quickly ? Hmm... if the KMT and the Communist didn't unite and halt the Japanese invasion and Japan occupy all of China, you'd be hearing Nanjing massacre type event in different parts of China every year.

quote:
That still doesn't give you carte blanche to kill millions of civilians and tell the outside world, "its none of your business".


Can you guarantee that outside influence will be 100% good ?
It hasn't been the case in Chinese history when the dynasty collapsed and there is a civil war going on(i.e. Mongol, Manchu, Japanese for some parts of China). Do they come in and say to all factions in the civil war:
"Hey you guys stop fighting, it's bad for you you know ? It's better if you stay united and prosperous. Let me help you to do that."
Hahaha... don't be so naive dude.

quote:
According to the BBC:
"China is the only major arms exporting power that has not signed up to any multilateral agreements with criteria to prevent arms exports likely to be used for serious human rights violations."


Hahaha... do you know what BBC stands for ? Let me give you a hint: one of those B is for British.

Again, don't be so naive dude/gal(I don't know).


RE: Good
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By rotarysports on 9/4/2007 8:12:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Calling the largest mass murderer in all history "an asshole" is a bit of an understatement, wouldn't you say?


Really ? It's only because China's population is so big that the casualties is so high especially the fact that the event take place so recently. So if another dictator 200 yrs from now killed more people than Mao, is he/she worse than Mao ? It's a bit shallow to grade evilness with the number of people killed.

quote:
I do hope this isn't what they're teaching in school these days. First, The KMT "united" only when Kai-Shek was kidnapped and forced into it at gunpoint. Secondly, the union was pretty much in name only, as it entailed no coordinated action between the two and, even when it existed, both sides clashed nearly as much with each other as they did with the Japanese. Third, the United Front broke down entirely in 1940, having accomplished nothing whatsoever but to slow Japanese movement somewhat. Fourth, Japan occupied China for a full five years after the KMT and Communists stopped all pretence of cooperation, and was finally ejected from China only with a massive amount of assistance from Allied forces.


And why would we believe this at all ?
First, Japan only occupied the coastal areas of China for 5 yrs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_...
Look at map.
Second, this is directly from that article above:
"By 1940, the war had reached a stalemate with both sides making minimal gains. The Chinese had successfully defended their land from oncoming Japanese on several occasions, while strong resistance in areas occupied by the Japanese made a victory seem impossible to the Japanese. This frustrated the Japanese and led them to employ the "Three Alls Policy" (kill all, loot all, burn all) (????, Hanyu Pinyin: Sanguang Zhèngcè, Japanese On: Sanko Seisaku). It was during this time period that the bulk of Japanese atrocities were committed."

Looks like you still can't prove outside influence is 100% good for China right now while I proved otherwise so many times. You must be a Japanese troll.

quote:
If you feel the BBC is lying, you can easily counter the argument simply by naming the international arms exports accords China has actually signed.


Why would I waste my time to do that for ? It's common knowledge the British supplied arms and perform divide and conquer policy in the past 200-300 years, that's mainly how they acquired their colonies. And the US was arming Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran in the 1980s as well as the Afghans against Soviets also in the 1980s. Looks like their former allies are now mortal enemies.
Why do I have to dance to your tune while it's obvious you are biased. Quoting BBC in your last post was not very intelligent and proved that it is a waste of time to respond further to your post.

You know what ? I know you want to have the last post so somehow you can feel good about it and think that you "win". Go ahead, I don't care if you "win", but I'm not going to bite this time and waste my time which is more important.


RE: Good
By TomZ on 9/4/2007 10:16:44 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I didn't read your entire post, but this caught my eye as being somewhat "humorous":
quote:
It's a bit shallow to grade evilness with the number of people killed.

So, are you suggesting that we rate them in percentage of population murdered, kind of a sliding scale? That suggestion is kind of idiotic - you've lost sight of the big picture, that some leaders like Mao are just truly evil. Whether they killed 100,000 or 10,000,000 is isn't really relevant - it's still truly evil.


RE: Good
By Min Jia on 9/5/2007 9:49:47 PM , Rating: 1
LAMO again, Mao is not truly evil. He's done more good than harm to the country (China); and most Chinese (myself included) regard him as 70% good and 30% bad.


RE: Good
By greenchasch on 9/5/2007 10:18:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Mao is not truly evil. He's done more good than harm to the country
Yeah, murdering tens of millions of people isn't evil. I bet he was a real nice guy once you got to know him.

::rolleyes::


RE: Good
By Min Jia on 9/6/2007 10:28:42 PM , Rating: 1
Murder 10s of millions fo people? LMAO, how? You people have been brainwashed by the west, and know shit about my country Without Mao, there would be no New China. So you fucking Americans should shut the fuck up and mind your own fucking shit business!


RE: Good
By InsaneGain on 9/7/2007 12:48:45 PM , Rating: 2
"Murder 10s of millions fo people? LMAO, how? You people have been brainwashed by the west,"

Hey there is no need to resort to insulting others. If you have a reasonable argument, then present your facts and express them in a respectful manner. Just because many Chinese hold Mao above criticism, doesn't mean the rest of the world can't interpret the historical record and come up with their own conclusions, even if they are unfavorable. I can understand though that there may be lingering issues of resentment for many Chinese due to the imperialistic policies of western nations in the past. However, that is the past, and without a doubt, today China benefits enormously from the technology and ideas of the West, and the west benefits enormously from China. Please note that there are many non-Americans on the internet, myself included. I correspond with people in China on a daily basis, and I have been to Hong Kong and the mainland a few times, and I have nothing but respect for the people.


RE: Good
By Min Jia on 9/8/2007 12:20:37 AM , Rating: 2
Well, then those of you said Mao killed tens of millions please list your facts and explain how he did it. But don't tell me Great Leap Forward because that was just a failed industrialization compaign, and people died of starvation because of drastic drop in food pruduction as everyone was makig steel + famine.


RE: Good
By Min Jia on 9/8/2007 12:31:08 AM , Rating: 2
And BTW, we don't want your stinking respect. You stupid guai lo are all the same, and we're gonna kick your asses eventually.


RE: Good
By InsaneGain on 9/8/2007 5:36:35 PM , Rating: 2
I'm going to guess you are 14 - 16 years old. You think you're speaking for all of China huh? Well I feel very confident that the Chinese I know in both Hong Kong and the mainland would be embarrassed by your insulting comments, and trust me, these people have far more to do with creating the "New China" than Mao ever did.


RE: Good
By InsaneGain on 9/6/2007 1:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
It never ceases to amaze me how cruel and brutal human history is. Another interesting fact of human nature is that the brutality is not just the consequence of a single anomalous sociopathic leader with a ruthless and bloodthirsty desire for power over others. It takes many, many people to turn a blind eye or actively support the sociopath and carry out his wishes. Your comment that most Chinese regard Mao as mostly good really confirms this fact of human nature for me.


RE: Good
By Min Jia on 9/6/2007 10:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
We regard Mao as mostly good because we looked at his entire life. He only became bad at later age, influenced by other people like the group of four (not sure if that's it is called in English) and make bad decisions.


RE: Good
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2007 10:43:12 PM , Rating: 2
> "It's only because China's population is so big that the casualties is so high "

I got a nice chuckle out of this. It's like the guy who, when asked why he killed 10 people in a house, and he said, "because thats how many were inside".

> "First, Japan only occupied the coastal areas of China for 5 yrs...Look at map."

The map is accurate; you've simply misread it. That's the situation as of 1940. By that time, Japan had already occupied parts of China for 3 years. Counting the period from 1940-1945, that makes 8 years total.

> "You must be a Japanese troll"

Japanese with a surname like Asher? Well, I suppose anything is possible.

> "Why would I waste my time to do that for ?"

Because, when you make wild claims and don't support them, you lose credibility.


RE: Good
By InsaneGain on 9/6/2007 1:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
"Really ? It's only because China's population is so big that the casualties is so high...It's a bit shallow to grade evilness with the number of people killed."
That is one of the most ridiculous comments I have heard. So lets say hypothetically a tyrant gained control over the entire world's population. Would he then be allowed to kill up to a billion before being considered a mass murderer or "evil"? Would his "evilness" be comparable to a village ruler who killed 100 people in a village of 600? The percentage killed is not the important figure, it's the total number killed.


RE: Good
By Puddyglum1 on 9/4/2007 4:29:08 PM , Rating: 3
I just spent a lot of time and energy in responding to this, and then looked at your other posts to see what else you might have said.

You're using the Rape of Nanking as a platform to generalize that one country's involvement in another countries domestic issues is unjustified.

"None of anybody else's business", "does not mean anybody else [has] the right..."

This really is the best information in regards to the situation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre#Hist...
quote:
At present, both China and Japan have acknowledged the occurrence of wartime atrocities. However, disputes over the historical portrayal of these events have been at the root of continuing political tensions between China and Japan.


RE: Good
By rotarysports on 9/4/2007 6:44:10 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, that's true nobody has the right to perform horrific acts to a human being be it he/she the same ethnicity of not. If I said something to the opposite I'm sorry but I posted so many comments and don't have time to proof read it like a thesis.

What you quoted(the article) in your post is mostly correct although there are still some Japanese historians who claimed to this day that the Nanjing massacre never happens.
For the most part, the Chinese just wanted for these events to be portrayed as it is: the ugliest side of human being whereas the Japanese still tries to gloss over it and invented excuses along the way. That's all.


RE: Good
By animedude on 9/5/2007 4:30:26 AM , Rating: 2
With photos shown and it did not happen. May be the Japanese professors believed it did not happen.


RE: Good
By Ringold on 9/4/2007 6:34:58 PM , Rating: 2
You dare compare it to the Civil War?

The death toll from the Civil War was by a vast majority combat-related.

Not massive famine. Not executions for saying the wrong thing. Not massive death/labor camps.

Combat. Honorable combat among brothers with differing ideas on the power of the federal government, with combat kept between soldiers.

It wasn't until near the end, when Sherman realized the best way to subdue the South quickly would be mass destruction (but not death) that things got even remotely nasty. Sherman is known for his neck-ties (tieing rail tracks around trees), not for mass executions.

Often times opposing sides were even quite civil with each other, much like the troops in WW1; it was brother fighting brother.

Mao's 'Great Leap Forward' was something else entirely.


RE: Good
By Min Jia on 9/5/2007 9:41:36 PM , Rating: 1
70 million? LAMO, stop making numbers up you asshat!


RE: Good
By accura on 9/10/2007 12:33:24 PM , Rating: 2
70 Million.. I can't believe people make up number like that!


RE: Good
By rdeegvainl on 9/4/2007 2:10:30 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see anyone excusing what atrocities were committed. It seems like your just shoving handfuls of words in peoples mouths.


RE: Good
By rotarysports on 9/4/2007 2:46:22 PM , Rating: 2
No, my previous post was to debunked the poster who said that the Japanese government has apologized to the Chinese which isn't true. They say one thing now, then lick their words back a few years later giving an excuse, then another excuse, then another. They kept on visiting their war criminal shrines which pretty much says they did not think the war criminals did anything wrong. They even revised their history textbook saying that it didn't happen or gloss over it. Personally I think that is more insulting that straight out saying they will not apologize ever.

In addition, what war compensation they have given pales in comparison to what Germany did partly because they never fully admitted what they did so they can not liable for it.

So if you pay attention to the post that I first was responding to, this is not about any of the posters giving an excuse about the atrocities done by the Japanese. I'm fully aware that none of the posts that I see shows that.


RE: Good
By rdeegvainl on 9/4/2007 3:36:33 PM , Rating: 2
Ahh, my mistake, thinking that you were directing that torwards those posting here.
War compensation though is just a load of bull, no matter how much they pay it would never be enough to make amends. All it does it burden the future generations who are innocent. By all means punish those who committed the crimes, but asking for for compensation, no.


RE: Good
By rotarysports on 9/4/2007 3:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think the compensation matter as much as a sincere apology. Even if there won't be sincere apology, that is ok because obviously sincere apology needs to come from the heart(which are not our hearts so we can't force it).

But I think what really get the Chinese people still mad to this day is the fact that the Japanese did not even admit that these things happened, revise their textbooks to gloss over it, and invent excuses to justify events that can not covered up. Bad things happen around the world, not just the World Wars, but also slavery, annihilation of Native Americans, etc. but at least the truth come out(if not all then some of it) and some people own up to it.
By not doing this, the Japanese is just as good saying that they did nothing wrong. I understood that not all Japanese is like this however.


RE: Good
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2007 4:17:18 PM , Rating: 1
I understand how you feel, but seriously, its time to move on. There are many historical events which "should" have been apologized for, but never were, and never will be. Did China ever apologize for invading Tibet in the 1950s, or for invading Vietnam 500 years before that? Was an apology ever issued for the "first" Rape of Nanking...the one conducted by Chinese troops, at the end of the Taiping Rebellion?

I can see why Chinese citizens today would want an apology for Japanese actions. I can also see why Japanese citizens -- who had nothing whatsoever to do with this -- are unwilling to give one.

So why not move on, and look to the future instead of the past?


RE: Good
By rotarysports on 9/4/2007 5:55:01 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm... so is it probably ok for the Germans not to admit what they did was wrong and own up to it which they mostly did ? The Jews and other Europeans will probably forgive them later on right ?

Regarding Tibet, it has been part of China before even Columbus found America. China can give up Tibet when the whole American continents are given back to Native Americans.

I see what you mean about looking to the future, but we should definitely study the past so in the future we don't make the same mistake.


RE: Good
By bangmal on 9/4/2007 6:20:25 PM , Rating: 2
You got it reversed.
It is not the Chinese the ones who cant move on. They do have Japanese cars and eletronics, comics, consoles everywhere in the country. The generals Chinese have nothing against the Japs. It is the japs can't get over the past and move. The Japs keep offending and reminding them by denying or justifying their atrocities, the denial of "comfort women" is the most recent stunt.
And Chinese is not the only one, Korean have much stronger anti-jap in their coutry. That makes one wondering, Jap is the innocent nation that is being extorted by some money begging countries eh?

You are just ignorant about the past and present. why not just admit it, get over it, do yourself a favor and stop making you look even more stupid.


RE: Good
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2007 6:37:39 PM , Rating: 1
> They do have Japanese cars and eletronics, comics, consoles everywhere in the country"

And the Japanese buy a large quantity of Chinese goods as well. The two nations are major trading partners. If that says something for China, it says it equally for Japan.

As for your comment that "the japs can't get over the past", it was the Chinese who had anti-Japanese riots throughout the country a couple years ago, not the other way around.

> Chinese is not the only one, Korean have much stronger anti-jap in their coutry"

This is the "excuse my sins because others are worse" defense?

> "Jap is the innocent nation that is being extorted by some money begging countries eh?"

I said no such thing. In fact, I specifically stated that I see China's point in this matter. I also see the Japanese side, however.


RE: Good
By rcc on 9/4/2007 6:35:50 PM , Rating: 2
True. And given that a 20 year Japanese soldier at that time is in their mid 80s now, there really aren't too many people left whose apologies would really mean anything.

There are many tragedies and atrocities, etc. throughout history. But visiting the sins of the father upon the son, etc. doesn't really accomplish anything positive.

I think slavery is horrible, and some of the things that were done to the Native Americans, and various other groups on different continents, were terrible as well. But I didn't participate in any of them. So, while I agree that the world is a harsh place at times, and am willing to help avoid things like this in the future, I see no reason for me, or anyone else to apologize or make reparation to any of those people's decendents for something my ancestors (or country, etc) may have done.

To keep the record straight, I don't condone the activities, and I certainly don't think they should be forgotten. Santayana probably said it best, paraphased, "those that don't study history are doomed to repeat it".

Don't forget, but don't wallow in it, and don't let it hold you back.


RE: Good
By Min Jia on 9/5/2007 10:12:35 PM , Rating: 2
There's a difference between official apology and non-official ones from 80+ year old Japaense soldiers, which is aplenty, but China as other neighboring Asian countries want one from the Japanese Government. And believe it or not, most Japanese people except the right-wing extremists think their governement is wrong in not apologising.


RE: Good
By Min Jia on 9/5/2007 9:59:27 PM , Rating: 1
Tibet has always been part of China, so stopped saying China invaded it.


RE: Good
By greenchasch on 9/5/2007 10:15:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tibet has always been part of China
Bzzzt! Your answer is incorrect. Tibet had its own independent government from the 7th Century all the up to 1910, when China invaded. In the 1911 Chinese rebellion, Tibetan forces through out the Chinese invaders and resumed control of their country. Then in 1950, the Chinese Red Army invaded Tibet again and since then has refused to relinquish control of the country.

I understand your patriotism, but facts are fact.


RE: Good
By Min Jia on 9/6/2007 10:39:10 PM , Rating: 2
My answer is correct. Tibet always has been part of China. You don't like it, shut up and leave.


RE: Good
By Min Jia on 9/6/2007 10:42:31 PM , Rating: 2
Since Tang Dynasty


RE: Good
By animedude on 9/5/2007 4:07:28 AM , Rating: 2
The Japanese Diet DID NOT pass a bill with a formal apology. Only the Presidents were apologizing. By the way, the link you gave did not exist.

Recently, the Japanese government were saying that their soliders did not abused any comfort women during WWII. We know how true that is. http://news.google.com/news?q=japan+comfort+women&...

No formal apologies issued by government
Declining the fact that Japanese soldiers abused comfort women

Now who is wrong?


RE: Good
By Misty Dingos on 9/4/2007 10:01:24 AM , Rating: 1
How many Americans, British, Australians, and others fought and died for China to be free of the Japanese? China's biggest problem is China. Rampant government corruption (funny how communist nations have such problems with corruption I thought it was all about one big happy family of workers working toward utopia) government driven economy, slave labor, ineffectual government oversight of industry, no free speech rights, no opposition political parties, oh and my favorite oppression of dissent in any form. Lovely place that China.

You know if I go down to the state capitol and flip off the government representatives I might get a ticket for being rude in public. I might get on TV if I did it for a few days and had a viable axe to grind.

If the average Chinese citizen did that he could be imprisoned for years. Without trial. Or just killed. Hey here is a clue kids. Communism Kills.


RE: Good
By retrospooty on 9/4/2007 10:59:08 AM , Rating: 2
The points you make are valid, but it isn't "communism" that did it, it was China's leaders acting in their own selfish interests. Communism itself as an ideal does not breed corruption any more than capitolism. Power breeds corruption under both ideals...


RE: Good
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2007 11:07:22 AM , Rating: 2
> "Power breeds corruption under both ideals... "

True, but Communism -- by giving more power to the government -- breeds more corruption than does Capitalism.


RE: Good
By HrilL on 9/4/2007 11:45:10 AM , Rating: 6
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Lord Acton


RE: Good
By rdeegvainl on 9/4/2007 2:18:01 PM , Rating: 2
that last part is still not proved yet, though we can run a case study, just have to find someone willing to accept absolute power

*raises hand


RE: Good
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2007 2:26:22 PM , Rating: 2
Lol


RE: Good
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/4/2007 2:46:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I found that quite amusing. People take quotes are face value far too often.


RE: Good
By bodar on 9/10/2007 9:51:42 PM , Rating: 2
OK, then "Corruption increases as Power approaches infinity"? :P


RE: Good
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 9/4/2007 4:53:11 PM , Rating: 2
You win the Internet for today!


RE: Good
By bangmal on 9/4/2007 6:37:49 PM , Rating: 2
That is the hilarious thing i hv read in a while. They did not die for China. They were merely protecting themselves because the japs attacked them.

In contrary to what your governments want you to think that they are the world saver. The americans did not really give a damn about the japs until the japs attacked them first.
Here is the killer:
The american did not help Nationalist(their ally) to fight the communists, instead they were prohibiting the then stronger Natinalist to keep the commies in check. And later in that period, americans placed a miltary embargo onto the chinese government, even they were aware that the Russian were backing, training and arming the communist.

That is how the real america "helped" their allies by lies and betraying. And later, the american paid the price for its stupidity in Korean war and Vietnam war


RE: Good
By rcc on 9/4/2007 6:59:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That is the hilarious thing i hv read in a while. They did not die for China. They were merely protecting themselves because the japs attacked them


Go tell it to the AVG. You might know them better as the Flying Tigers.


RE: Good
By JonnyDough on 9/4/2007 7:56:31 AM , Rating: 2
You seem to be missing the point...an attack on our intelligence could be construed as a preemptive strike. Disabling communications and figuring out our action plans is all part of the process. I think it's funny that everyone is so in the dark that we're on the verge of a big bad war with China. The question becomes how many of China's massive citizen population will defect in the event of war. It's no secret that we're at great odds with the communists.


RE: Good
By ivanv4 on 9/4/2007 9:41:56 AM , Rating: 2
I dont think so, the best interest for them now is to make money.

If they start a war their economy based on the manufacture of cheaps goods will crumble, and that would hurt them.

I see it this way they are just trying to demostrate they can be a power too and create an sphere of influence now they can.


RE: Good
By mars777 on 9/4/2007 9:33:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Better a CyberWar that a full real War.


Well of course, but..

I just wonder why is everything happening to the US?
But isn't it a rather rhetorical question?
No, it's not because it's the most powerful nation on earth... i think it's because it puts their fingers where they don't belong (outside their borders) :)

First the Cold War with Russia, now the Cyber War with China... in between a dozen of real wars... the US will always have a war :)

(without offense - it's related to the government not the people)


RE: Good
By rsmech on 9/4/2007 11:46:42 AM , Rating: 2
Are you suggesting that the cold war didn't have a positive outcome? Would a real war satisfied you more? Don't even suggest that if there was no cold war we would be better off because neither you nor I can really be sure of what would have happened, but we do know that it has had many more positives then negatives.

I don't see how you can cast when the Berlin wall came down as a negative course in history. & with offense we the people are the gov't.


RE: Good
By Polynikes on 9/4/2007 12:35:16 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't be surprised if someday these things were considered enough provocation for real military action.


RE: Good
By javajolt on 9/4/2007 10:33:45 PM , Rating: 2
US-China reminds me of Carthage-Rome. Carthage being the US this time around. Carthage had all bases covered (technology, military, trading, etc), but a series of bad decisions both politically and militarily eventually ended in defeat to the up and coming Roman Empire.


RE: Good
By animedude on 9/5/2007 4:39:26 AM , Rating: 2
Hannibal was about to eliminate the Romans but the Carthage had to call him back for no good reason. Just one political decision costed the whole Carthage empire.


Of course
By tanjahreeen on 9/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Of course
By JonnyDough on 9/4/2007 8:01:01 AM , Rating: 2
The Clinton administration signed a horrible trade deal with China that has allowed them to basically take over our economy. In the late 90's we were all seeing the benefit, but now we're living in the aftermath. Once they rob us of our spirit and riches they'll take down our communications and plunder us. I think it's funny because our government is tied to them. They are BOTH evils, not one over the other. There is a lot going on behind closed doors, which is why the American public ought to have already overthrown the government. Let the bastards come to my house. I have a shotgun shell with some stupid puppet soldier of the government's name on it. This is why we have the right and the OBLIGATION to bear arms according to the constitution. To protect oneself from one's own government, not necessarily an invading nation. I believe that is what the constitution was addressing with that amendment.


RE: Of course
By enlil242 on 9/4/2007 8:12:36 AM , Rating: 5
This thread is starting to frighten me... <:-O


RE: Of course
By Etsp on 9/4/2007 8:35:04 AM , Rating: 2
Thats a thought-crime!!!!!

You sir are a thought criminal, I'm contacting the thought police!

But seriously, "rob us of our spirit and riches" do you have any idea what's happening to Chinese imports? It's starting to get to the point that checking them just to make sure they didn't contain hazardous materials is getting about as costly as the price difference between Chinese manufacturing and the manufacturing of other nations. They aren't in a position to do that. Even if they had been, they messed it up royally.


RE: Of course
By tanjahreeen on 9/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Of course
By Nfarce on 9/4/2007 9:02:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thats a thought-crime!!!!! You sir are a thought criminal


LMAO. First it was "hate crime" legislation which basically added personal thought and bias in a crime that was already committed. As if another charge on top of murder is going to do anything. The assininity of our government in America from both parties is going to be our downfall. How much longer before we have government minders?


RE: Of course
By FITCamaro on 9/4/2007 10:48:56 AM , Rating: 2
Thats a good thing. It means less companies will outsource to there.

And I agree with people that China is the biggest threat to the US since Russia. 1 billion people + aggressive communist government + lots of weapons = bad for everyone. And I wouldn't put it past them to use nukes in a conflict.

They know that they can win a ground war through strength in numbers. They could easily have a military of millions and millions without even coming close to exhausting their labor force. And while America still rules the skies, they're not far off. And with Democrats constantly wanting to cut military funding, our military isn't getting any stronger. If Hillary gets elected, I think it'll spell the downfall of America. We'll loose a lot more of our military, defense spending will plummet, more American jobs will be lost to illegal immigrants who she'll welcome with open arms in return for votes, NAFTA will get that superhighway connecting Mexico to Canada through the US, taxes will rise, more people will be able to live off the government at the middle classes expense, etc.

I'm only 24 and I have no faith that Social Security will be around when I retire. I'd love it if I could put all my payments to it into a private account. And I love seeing the huge amounts I'm paying into Welfare being given to people who have no desire to work.


RE: Of course
By Ringold on 9/4/2007 1:50:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If Hillary gets elected, I think it'll spell the downfall of America.


Why the hatred for Hillary? Come on, it's equal opportunity here at DT! :) All 3 of the top runners on that side would either do the same or simply dangerous mismanage it -- like randomly invading our sovereign ally, Pakistan, and encouraging it's people to install leadership less friendly to our interests. I'll throw Ron Paul in with those 3 as well.

I agree with you on Social Security, too. We had our chance to fix a fiscal nuclear bomb -- and blew it because the word "privatize" was in the plan. Can't expect the left to understand the average joe would be better even if all they did with it was dump it in to a government bond fund than under the present system.

I've got to jump off on free trade though. As long as both parties play fair, we all benefit. Walmart alone has shaved whole points off of our CPI, and the jobs that are sent abroad result in necessary structural employment that forces American's to get useful job skills. England, for example, is prosperous and has lost virtually all industrial capacity to its trade partners. It's not pleasent for those affected but it allows society here in general to live a much higher standard of life by allowing low-skill labor elsewhere to do our menial work for us while we engage our more productive workers in more profitable ways. This goes all the way back to when we were all farmers or hunters and gathers.


RE: Of course
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Of course
By FITCamaro on 9/5/2007 7:07:58 AM , Rating: 2
I started a 401K the minute I started working.


RE: Of course
By BMFPitt on 9/4/2007 3:34:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm only 24 and I have no faith that Social Security will be around when I retire. I'd love it if I could put all my payments to it into a private account.


Why aren't you? It seems pretty financially irresponsible not to put money away just because the government isn't doing it for you.


RE: Of course
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2007 3:59:54 PM , Rating: 1
> "Why aren't you?"

Possibly because federal, state, and local governments are taking half his salary in taxes, leaving him little left over to save himself?


RE: Of course
By BMFPitt on 9/4/2007 4:25:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Possibly because federal, state, and local governments are taking half his salary in taxes, leaving him little left over to save himself?
So why is he asking for the government to take more and give him minimal control over it?

Social Security has no money, it's entire holdings are in federal IOUs. He'll be paying for the last few generations whether he likes it or not. Renaming the tax might make him feel better, but I'd rather just control my own money in my 401k.


RE: Of course
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2007 4:46:32 PM , Rating: 1
> "So why is he asking for the government to take more and give him minimal control over it?"

I didn't hear him ask that. I heard him ask for the government to stop taking what it does for social security, and instead allow him to invest that money in a private account.

Of course, that would mean the federal government repudiating its IOUs to current social security recipients, so it'll never happen. But its good to have dreams, don't you think?


RE: Of course
By BMFPitt on 9/4/2007 5:06:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I didn't hear him ask that. I heard him ask for the government to stop taking what it does for social security, and instead allow him to invest that money in a private account.
Sounded to me like he wanted to privatize social security, which would mean taking less under that name and giving him minimal control of it, but taking more through other means to pay off the current debt.
quote:
Of course, that would mean the federal government repudiating its IOUs to current social security recipients, so it'll never happen. But its good to have dreams, don't you think?
Do your dreams only include cutting off the IOUs, or are you going big and dreaming that they started dealing with the problem 30-40 years ago when it should have been apparent that our changing demographics were going to kill a system based on lots of kids and short lifespans?

I regard the hope that people would act in their own best interests and save on their own, making rational choices and managing risk as being to unrealistic to dream.

I also think it's good that our street corners won't be littered with homeless retired boomers in 20 years.


RE: Of course
By FITCamaro on 9/5/2007 7:13:17 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I didn't hear him ask that. I heard him ask for the government to stop taking what it does for social security, and instead allow him to invest that money in a private account.


Yes. This is what I actually said. Not what the other guy implied I said. He should definitely go work for the the liberal media.

I want to put the money I'm paying into Social Security into a retirement fund that I'll actually see. Not Social Security which I will never see. And my welfare payments for that matter. I work hard for my fucking money. If you're not willing to, guess what, you'll live on the street. With our current Welfare system as well, we almost encourage young girls to get pregnant and have kids while having no job. They get free money for each kid.


RE: Of course
By BMFPitt on 9/5/2007 8:56:53 AM , Rating: 2
So I restate my question, why aren't you putting any money into your own retirement accounts?

Also, are you advocating that the United States government default on its outstanding debt to the people who have been paying into the system for 40 years, that future generations be taxed to pay for it with no promise of benefits, or a mix of both?


RE: Of course
By geddarkstorm on 9/5/2007 1:15:09 PM , Rating: 2
He is. Look at his reply above to Master Kenobi. "I started a 401K the minute I started working."

The system as it is will cause the same end as that, that's why it's "broken", or do you think they say that just to say that? That's already what is trying to be avoided by looking at alternatives. Do I know any good alternatives? Nah, I'm not in the position to have enough info on that. But either way, leave it as it is and we'll soon be doing that very thing--paying off the debt while getting nothing ourselves when its our turn. It's no easy issue.


RE: Of course
By BMFPitt on 9/5/2007 5:51:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The system as it is will cause the same end as that, that's why it's "broken", or do you think they say that just to say that?
The system as it is will cause the third option - progressively higher taxes until the economy fails and the government with it. But I didn't include it as one of this options since he seemed to be against the status quo.
quote:
That's already what is trying to be avoided by looking at alternatives. Do I know any good alternatives? Nah, I'm not in the position to have enough info on that.
I've listed the alternatives (choose at least two):
1) Screw the last generation.
2) Screw the current generation.
3) Screw the next generation.

If you think there exists a way to not do this, you are quite the optimist.
quote:
But either way, leave it as it is and we'll soon be doing that very thing--paying off the debt while getting nothing ourselves when its our turn. It's no easy issue.
10 more years - in 2017 Social Security will hit the point at which it breaks even on taxes vs. payouts. That is the year I expect it to start to be gradually abolished for mine and future generations, and the taxes that pay for the previous generations will be renamed.


RE: Of course
By Nfarce on 9/4/2007 9:16:54 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Let the bastards come to my house. I have a shotgun shell with some stupid puppet soldier of the government's name on it. This is why we have the right and the OBLIGATION to bear arms according to the constitution


Precisely. But the left in this nation doesn't want us to bear arms. Why? Because it's a control thing. They use the excuse that guns only do harm (cars kill WAY more people daily in this nation but don't tell that to the New York Times and Jason Blair), but know full well that a gun owner doesn't need to rely on a government source like 911 for personal safety. ("Please hold, your call is very important to us.." while someone is freaking breaking your door down lol)

Just wait until Hillary & Obama are elected next November. I'd highly recommend installing a gun safe underground in your back yard (just kidding.. sort of). Hell John Edwards under his brilliant "free" healthcare for all proposal has included MANDATORY doctor visits under the guise of "preventative care." Thanks Johnboy, but I'll just eat my vegetables, limit red meat input, and drink booze every day like my 95-year old gun owning & game killing grandfather who has never had a sick day in his life.


RE: Of course
By mars777 on 9/4/2007 9:52:19 AM , Rating: 2
Thats a very very bad example.

Cars do way more harm than guns, thats true.
But guns don't do any good, cars do.

Basically, you're a radical that cant weight the good and the bad of something. You just want to have a gun... do you miss something in your pants perhaps?


RE: Of course
By Nfarce on 9/4/2007 10:14:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But guns don't do any good, cars do.


Sure they do in self defense. And tell that to hunters and our forefathers who used them for obtaining food. I guess spears were also bad in the cave men days to you, huh?

quote:
Basically, you're a radical that cant weight the good and the bad of something. You just want to have a gun... do you miss something in your pants perhaps?


Awe. That really hurt. Any time guns are brought up you liberals wet your beds. Hate to break you the bad news, but when UK banned guns, crimes using a gun ROSE:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=paFiguresT...

Check out gun-banned Washington DC's gun crime stats while you are at it. Leave it to a bedwetter to call a gun owner a "radical." Hey clown, there are lots of Democrats in congress who are also avid gun owners. Are they radicals to you? Let me ask you a question: why are you bedwetting liberals afraid of guns so much?

Tell ya what: you just stick with the government 911 system for your personal security, and I'll stick to my Glock.


RE: Of course
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2007 10:27:53 AM , Rating: 3
> "Basically, you're a radical that [just wants] to have a gun"

Missed the whole 2nd Amendment thing, did you?


RE: Of course
By mars777 on 9/4/2007 11:57:45 PM , Rating: 2
They missed it to when they banned smoking...


RE: Of course
By rcc on 9/5/2007 12:25:11 PM , Rating: 2
lol, it's illegal for me to shoot you without a good reason. Why shouldn't it be illegal for you to make me breathe deadly chemicals?


RE: Of course
By Etsp on 9/4/2007 10:35:15 AM , Rating: 2
How many people would be willing to mug somebody if the national statistics showed that 1 in 2 people owned a gun? "Should I attack this guy for the $50 + credit cards he may or may not have? I've got a 50/50 chance he's unarmed, and if he is the only thing at risk is my life"

Seriously, gun control only effects law abiding citizens, unless all handguns are illegal to citizens, like say, Japan.

The concept that gun control has much effect on those who would use them for criminal purposes is laughable. Sure Cho got his guns through legal means, but he wasn't supposed to be able to. If the stable and law abiding gun owners had been allowed to be armed, there's no telling how many lives may have been saved. Personally, I don't like to use that example, but I simply wanted to prevent someone from using it against me.


RE: Of course
By niaaa on 9/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Of course
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2007 11:04:39 AM , Rating: 2
Handgun ownership is totally prohibited in Russia, yet its murder rate is some 400% higher than in the US.

Switzerland, on the other hand, requires all male citizens to keep a fully automatic weapon in their home. They have one of the lowest murder rates in the entire world, a fraction of most other European nations.

Clearly there's more to the statistics than simple gun ownership rates.


RE: Of course
By Ringold on 9/4/2007 1:53:43 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Switzerland, on the other hand, requires all male citizens to keep a fully automatic weapon in their home. They have one of the lowest murder rates in the entire world, a fraction of most other European nations.


No wonder Switzerland has never been invaded.

Mountainous passes + heavily armed populace = Attack France


RE: Of course
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2007 2:27:59 PM , Rating: 1
Reminds me of the old joke about how many Frenchmen it takes to defend Paris...


RE: Of course
By rcc on 9/4/2007 2:46:33 PM , Rating: 2
None? They just let them have it and get the world to take it back later?


RE: Of course
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/4/2007 2:52:24 PM , Rating: 2
Good question, let me know when it happens will ya?


RE: Of course
By Misty Dingos on 9/4/2007 11:07:05 AM , Rating: 3
Yes it is. Apparently more developed than the nanny states that other nations are trying to saddle their citizens with. Freedom is a responsibility. If you don't want to be truly free then accept the yoke of oppression and be done with it. But don't expect the gun toting Americans to shed a tear for your lack of foresight or desire to be free.


RE: Of course
By Nfarce on 9/4/2007 12:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
You have to remember that to these global liberals, "developed" is all out socialism where no personal choices can be made because the government makes them all for you, personal freedoms are gone (like gun ownership), and you are punished with hefty taxes for being successful. Oppression to them is "progress." No thanks.


RE: Of course
By rsmech on 9/4/2007 12:08:19 PM , Rating: 3
On simple principal the anti gun crowd can't grasp is that it's easier to take the path of least resistance.

Let me give you an example. If neighborhood A has 75% of it's people having guns in their homes for protection & neighborhood B bans guns (all else being equal) and they are located within 5 miles of each other if you were a criminal were would you go?


RE: Of course
By HrilL on 9/4/2007 12:14:56 PM , Rating: 3
First of all Guns are used for many sports that are completely safe. Hunting, Target shooting, skeet, and trap. If you don't like these sports you don't have to play them, but you don't have the right to tell me I can't. Just like I won't tell you you can't play golf because people can be beaten to death with golf clubs. Hell it is even an Olympic sport.

In states that are right to carry states gun crimes are far lower then in non right to carry states. Actually that is pretty much all crime in general.


RE: Of course
By rdeegvainl on 9/4/2007 2:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
Well shit, i thought they helped alot of families keep fed, and be able to explore this great peace of land I call america. Well i guess feeding a family isn't doing any good in your book.
Basically you are a radical that can't weigh the good and the bad of something. You just want to ban guns... do you miss something in your head perhaps?


RE: Of course
By TomZ on 9/4/2007 10:26:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But guns don't do any good, cars do.

Not necessarily true - there are many cases in the U.S. where ordinary citizens legally carring a weapon intervene to stop a crime in progress. I hear about them in the news quite often.

Just a couple weeks ago a police officer was shot and killed, and the shooter was subsequently shot and killed by an ordinary citizen who happened to be in the area. While it's too bad the police officer was shot, it's good that the criminal in that case isn't out there where he can harm others.

I'm not necessarily pro-gun, but I'm not anti-gun either. Just as with anything else, there are advantages and disadvantages - anyone portraying it as black-and-white is either lying or trying to sell you something.


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki