Anti-China campaign waged by German Foreign Ministry and Washington

[RedStarOverChina]

According to this article, the recent unrests and the anti_China Tibet campaign was waged by German Foreign Ministry and Washington.

LHASA/BERLIN
(Own report) - Conference reports and the research of a Canadian journalist reveal that a German Foreign Ministry front organization is playing a decisive role in the preparations of the anti-Chinese Tibet campaign. According to this information, the campaign is being orchestrated from a Washington based headquarters. It had been assigned the task of organizing worldwide "protests" at a conference organized by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation (affiliated with the German Free Democratic Party - FDP) in May 2007. The plans were developed with the collaboration of the US State Department and the self-proclaimed Tibetan Government in Exile and call for high profile actions along the route of the Olympic Torch Relay and are supposed to reach a climax in August during the games in Beijing. The campaign began already last summer and is now profiting from the current uprising in the west of the People's Republic of China that is receiving prominent coverage in the German media. The uprising was initiated with murderous pogrom-like attacks by Tibetan gangs on non-Tibetan members of the population, including the Muslim Chinese minority. Numerous deaths of non-Tibetans provoked a reaction of the Chinese security forces.


Read the full report here:

http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/56145

[Phalanx]

Oh those evil Tibetans! They can't be trusted to control their own affairs so the Han man's burden is to show them the light!

[Xiao Banfa]

Those evil Chinese! They're not stupid enough to commit geopolitical suicide and give an invasion bridgehead to India, make their half a century of putting money into Tibet (not shipping it out that's what the western imperialists do) worthless and embolden such scary partnerships as VR described.

Ah... liberal capitalists, naive leftists, FDP freemarket extremists and the US State Department- what a holy alliance.

Surely this cause must be so important.

Shame on those yellow peril chinese for cracking down on violent protests, we never do that.

[RedStarOverChina]

Instead of raising questions over the article you decided to attack Han chauvinism, one can only assume it's because I am Han Chinese. Since I'm Han Chinese, all the ideas I present are invalid, because all Chinese are brainwashed Han Chauvinist thugs, right?

Just to accommodate your racist mentality, the article wasn't written by a brainwashed Chinese zombie. It was written by Germans.

[Wanted Man]

Video of Chinese community in Munich, protesting the German media witch hunt against the Chinese people: http://youtube.com/watch?v=-nOeaHTuHYg


Ah... liberal capitalists, naive leftists, FDP freemarket extremists and the US State Department- what a holy alliance.
Not to mention the entirety of trotskyism, anarchism and some maoists, as we've seen on RevLeft.

Sinologist Jan Willem Nienhuys wrote an interesting reaction to a newspaper article from De Pers:


A reaction to tibet1022008:

The story that Tibet is being flooded by Han Chinese keeps popping up. In reality, the amount of Han Chinese in Tibet, particularly those on temporary jobs, has been dwindling for years.

This story comes out of the pipeline of the Dalai Lama and his ilk. If they utter the word Tibet, they mean all areas where great amounts of Tibetans live. Not just the Tibetan Autonomous Region, where some 2.6 million people live, including 160,000 Han Chinese and 30,000 other minorities (100,000 temporary migrants included); the so-called Greater Tibet (the area that the Dalai Lama-led Gelugpa sect wants to have absolute spiritual and political authority over) is twice as large as the TAR, and is populated by a total of 7.3 million people, not counting the big cities in Xining and Haidong, and 5 million of them are Tibetans. So in those areas, about half are Tibetans. The increase of the amount of Han Chinese possibly refers to those territories.

By systematically saying Tibet when he means "Greater Tibet", the Dalai Lama and his sympathizers create a wrong view, which is then confirmed by tourists who scarcely venture outside of Lhasa.http://www.depers.nl/buitenland/190340/Laat-het-idee-varen-dat-Tibet-een-soort-Shangri-La-is.html

[Xiao Banfa]

Why can't I hear any good Tibet secessionist arguments?! This is too easy.:confused:

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Tibet was liberated by China. China democratized a fuedal country where foot binding and all kinds of horrors were rampant -- the Tibet protests now have alot of legit points but they are reactionary and organized by Washington that is clear.

[Phalanx]

Instead of raising questions over the article you decided to attack Han chauvinism, one can only assume it's because I am Han Chinese. Since I'm Han Chinese, all the ideas I present are invalid, because all Chinese are brainwashed Han Chauvinist thugs, right?

Just to accommodate your racist mentality, the article wasn't written by a brainwashed Chinese zombie. It was written by Germans.

I'm not saying that all Chinese are brainwashed. I'm saying the mentality that Tibet can't lift itself out of feudalism and needs and outside power to do so is exactly what the Europeans and Americans "practice" in their imperialism.

The same would be true if I would've said:

Oh those evil Iraqis! They can't be trusted to run their own affairs so the White man's burden is to show them the light!

Communist China had a lot of positive things to be said about it. Tibet wasn't one of them.

[Bud Struggle]

Why can't I hear any good Tibet secessionist arguments?! This is too easy.:confused:

Here's a good argument:

Let the Tibetians VOTE on staying with China or leaving. Tibet has been a "part" of Ching for almost 70 years so I think they've seen what China could offer.

Now, just let them VOTE! It's the only fair solution.

[Keyser]

Here's a good argument:

Let the Tibetians VOTE on staying with China or leaving. Tibet has been a "part" of Ching for almost 70 years so I think they've seen what China could offer.

Now, just let them VOTE! It's the only fair solution.


Lets have a referendum on the former provinces of Mexico (such as California, New Mexico, Arizona, Taxas etc) that were stolen from Mexico by the expansionist, imperialist and agressive wars waged by the USA during the 19th century and still have a large number of people of Mexican decent living there.

Somehow I cannot see many of the 'pro-Tibet' activists in the US making a stand against their own imperialism. Notice that the likes of Richard Gere, George Clooney and other pathetic bourgeois liberals are silent on the real atrocities that US imperialism is responsible for in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Bud Struggle]

Lets have a referendum on the former provinces of Mexico (such as California, New Mexico, Arizona, Taxas etc) that were stolen from Mexico by the expansionist, imperialist and agressive wars waged by the USA during the 19th century and still have a large number of people of Mexican decent living there.

Seems as if people in those states are pretty happy where they are. It's the Mexicans that are comming to the US. But hell if they want to vote to leave--let them vote.


Somehow I cannot see many of the 'pro-Tibet' activists in the US making a stand against their own imperialism. Notice that the likes of Richard Gere, George Clooney and other pathetic bourgeois liberals are silent on the real atrocities that US imperialism is responsible for in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Well, I can't speak for any American Liberals, but American was right to wack Afganistan and it was mistaken on Iraq. But Communist China is as if not more Imperalist than America. In that respect America and China ARE THE SAME!!! Get used to it.:crying:

[Zurdito]

According to this article, the recent unrests and the anti_China Tibet campaign was waged by German Foreign Ministry and Washington.


Read the full report here:

http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/56145

Man's material being determines his consciousness, not brainwashing by exiled buddhists and the CIA. If the Tibetan peasants are rioting against a bourgeois state, it is because they have material grievances, not because they got brainwashed.

[Keyser]

Seems as if people in those states are pretty happy where they are. It's the Mexicans that are comming to the US. But hell if they want to vote to leave--let them vote.



The motivation for Mexicans (along with other people from countless other countries) to move to the US is the fact that their own countries suffer terrible poverty and for them their own countries offer nothing but destitution, poverty, lack of any opportunities and in some cases starvation.

They don't move out of any love for the US as a society or for it's culture, they are not like the middle class British ex-pats who live in France and Italy because they cashed in their stocks and bonds and wish to live in the sun and sip glasses of wine in the hills of Tuscany or Provence.

In short your point on immigration is irrelevant to the point that the US occupied part of another country in a war of aggression and has invaded and occupied two countries this century alone.

Americans who don't speak out, against their own imperialism, or support their own imperialism, should shut up about the Tibet situation.


Well, I can't speak for any American Liberals, but American was right to wack Afganistan and it was mistaken on Iraq.

Ok, you support the American occupation of Afghanistan. That is your own point of view but unless your happy being a hypocrite, you should hold your tongue on China and Tibet.

[Bud Struggle]

The motivation for Mexicans (along with other people from countless other countries) to move to the US is the fact that their own countries suffer terrible poverty and for them their own countries offer nothing but destitution, poverty, lack of any opportunities and in some cases starvation.

They don't move out of any love for the US as a society or for it's culture, they are not like the middle class British ex-pats who live in France and Italy because they cashed in their stocks and bonds and wish to live in the sun and sip glasses of wine in the hills of Tuscany or Provence.

In short your point on immigration is irrelevant to the point that the US occupied part of another country in a war of aggression and has invaded and occupied two countries this century alone.

Not in the least: Mexicans COME to America--Trust me on this--we don't want them, but the COME here. I could care less about their motives, they come here. FWIW: Cubans COME to America they float over on crappy little boats risking their lives every day. They COME here. If America was so sucky they'd stay home. East Germans died trying to cross the Wall to come to America. People want to come to America. Really.


Americans who don't speak out, against their own imperialism, or support their own imperialism, should shut up about the Tibet situation.

Why?


Ok, you support the American occupation of Afghanistan. That is your own point of view but unless your happy being a hypocrite, you should hold your tongue on China and Tibet.

Afganistan attacked America on 9/11--they deserve to be destroyed.

You, my friend, are no Communist. You are an an IMPERIALIST sympathizer. Fye on you!

[Keyser]

Not in the least Mexicans COME to America--Truest we on this--we don't want them, but the COME here. FWIW Cubans COME to America they float over on crappy little boats risking their lives every day. the COME here. If America was so sucky they'd stay home.


That does not make much sense, can you re-write this.



Why?



What I meant was that of course they can still talk about Tibet, I did not mean that they are to be forced to shut up. Just that no one with any common sense or logic will listen to them given their hypocrisy and the fact that US imperialism has killed millions more people than the Chinese-Tibetan conflict has.

Americans who support their own imperialism yet denounce China over Tibet are either ignorant or have a political agenda at distorting the truth.



Afganistan attacked America on 9/11


Wrong.

The attacks of the 11th of September, 2001, were carried out by a criminal terrorist organisation (Al-Qaeda), not by the state or government of Afghanistan. What Afghanistan did was simply allow Al-Qaeda to base itself in their country. Osama bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda leaders were never part of the Afghan government nor did they ever hold offices of state in Afghanistan.

Your distorting history, the attacks on America were carried out by crminal terrorist group, not a state or nation.

America allows Cuban terrorists to reside in the US, there are also training camps for Cuban paramilitary terrorist groups. By your logic Cuba has the right to, and I'll quote your own words, invade the US as they have the right to be destroyed.

If you want to catch criminals, you go and arrest or kill them, using the police and failing that military special operatives. You don't invade a entire country, kill it's civilians and then treat it as a colony.

Afghanistan is a country under US imperialist occupation and the Afghans have every right to use any means available to liberate their country from occupation, including lethal force and armed struggle against the US/UK and NATO forces.


they deserve to be destroyed.

Who, the innocent civilian population of Afghanistan?

All the leading Al-Qaeda members have so far escaped capture and the US seems to have little or no interest in capturing him. Not that it will make any difference to whether Al-Qaeda continues it's existence or not.



You, my friend, are no Communist.


You don't know me and your stupid comment is meaningless. Do you really think I care whether some braindead capitalist such as yourself thinks I am not a communist.

To those who actually know me and to those people I am involved with in politics, I am a communist and have been for years.



You are an an IMPERIALIST sympathizer.


Says the person who justifies the US imperialist rape of Afghanistan.:rolleyes:



Fye on you!


Shut up you stupid moron!

[Bud Struggle]

That does not make much sense, can you re-write this.[quote]

I did--my keypad sticks a bit.

[quote]What I meant was that of course they can still talk about Tibet, I did not mean that they are to be forced to shut up. Just that no one with any common sense or logic will listen to them given their hypocrisy and the fact that US imperialism has killed millions more people than the Chinese-Tibetan conflict has.

But in general the Chinese (and other Communists) have killed millions and millions more than the Americans. The Chinese are IMPERIALISTS. And you refuse to admit that.


Americans who support their own imperialism yet denounce China over Tibet are either ignorant or have a political agenda at distorting the truth.

The same goes for you. You denounce American Imperialism and you applaud Chinese Imperialism.


Wrong.

The attacks of the 11th of September, 2001, were carried out by a criminal terrorist organisation (Al-Qaeda), not by the state or government of Afghanistan. What Afghanistan did was simply allow Al-Qaeda to base itself in their country. Osama bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda leaders were never part of the Afghan government nor did they ever hold offices of state in Afghanistan.

Your distorting history, the attacks on America were carried out by crminal terrorist group, not a state or nation.

America gave Afganistan the opportunity to turn over the criminal terrorists--or at least let America go in and catch them. Afganistan refused and thus allied itself with the criminal terrorists. The Taliban got what it derserved.



America allows Cuban terrorists to reside in the US, there are also training camps for Cuban paramilitary terrorist groups. By your logic Cuba has the right to, and I'll quote your own words, invade the US as they have the right to be destroyed.

Fine, let Cuba invade the US. Lets see how far they get. Cuba will fall as soon as the Castro brother die. It's just a matter of time.


All the leading Al-Qaeda members have so far escaped capture and the US seems to have little or no interest in capturing him. Not that it will make any difference to whether Al-Qaeda continues it's existence or not.You may be right there.


You don't know me and your stupid comment is meaningless. Do you really think I care whether some braindead capitalist such as yourself thinks I am not a communist.

To those who actually know me and to those people I am involved with in politics, I am a communist and have been for years.

All I know is that you support Chinese Imperialism. By your logic--you shouldn't ever criticize American Imperialism. Just let the Tibetians vote for or against independance.


Says the person who justifies the US imperialist rape of Afghanistan.:rolleyes:

Says the person that justifies the Chinese Imperialist rape of Tibet.


Shut up you stupid moron!

I admit America is Imperialist at times--I hope you can admit the same about China. You do admit China is Imperialist, right?

[Xiao Banfa]

Well, I can't speak for any American Liberals, but American was right to wack Afganistan and it was mistaken on Iraq. But Communist China is as if not more Imperalist than America. In that respect America and China ARE THE SAME!!! Get used to it.:crying:

Who has China invaded in the last 20 years? Way more imperialist?

How can you say something like that?

The invasion of Tibet was not the stupidest thing that China could have done. To prepare millitarily for a possible conflict with India.

Why do you think the Indians are harbouring the DL in Dharamsala?

How are you more righteous to get on the side the anti-Chinese side?

Are you naive enough to believe that Tibet indepenedence exists in a bubble?

Capitalist states are good at funding independence struggles when it suits them. This has nothing to do with principle however.

They'd support the secession of Star Trek fans if it hurt their rivals.

Imperialist countries take resources, profits out of countries, China has been investing heavily in Tibet resulting in an exponential rise in living standards.

It's not a Haiti for example.

As for Afghanistan, I hate the Taliban as much as you do. I remember your comrades funded them against my comrades in order to prevent a left Afghanistan.

But the 'got rid of the Taliban' justification for the US/Nato invasion starts looking ridiculous when so few troops are there and territory starts falling to the Taliban again.

US occupation forces can do no good in other words.

Not that I have anything against commando raids and predator strikes however, nations must be able to defend themselves.

The stategy for a democratic, secular afghanistan involves other things as well such as how pakistan is engaged with.

Anyway, can we get back on topic. You're getting us all off topic.:sleep:



Cuba will fall as soon as the Castro brother die. It's just a matter of time.


Keep dreaming cappie.

Anyway, please explain how China is imperialist with regards to Tibet.

I don't see it personally. I seem to remember imperialism as a way of economically exploiting a country first and foremost. Call me old fashioned...:o

Not taking territory vital to your nations self defence then helping that territory skip a painful process out of feudalism and slavery.

[Xiao Banfa]

Not in the least Mexicans COME to America--Truest we on this--we don't want them, but the COME here. FWIW Cubans COME to America they float over on crappy little boats risking their lives every day. the COME here. If America was so sucky they'd stay home.


What the hell has this got to do with the price of Qingdao?

[Zurdito]

Wow Xiao Banfa your posts display a high level of economic confusion, you accept a lot of bourgeois premises:



Those evil Chinese! They're not stupid enough to commit geopolitical suicide and give an invasion bridgehead to India, make their half a century of putting money into Tibet (not shipping it out that's what the western imperialists do)

...

Imperialist countries take resources, profits out of countries, China has been investing heavily in Tibet resulting in an exponential rise in living standards.

...

I don't see it personally. I seem to remember imperialism as a way of economically exploiting a country first and foremost. Call me old fashioned...


You are wrong. Not all imperialists neccessarilly ship money out of their semi-colonies. Overall, US and EU imperialism lose money from propping up regimes in Africa, they don't gain money.

The reason they do this is because Africa is a dumping ground for capital. Imperialism arises from the over-accumulation of capital in imperialist states which must be exported, it is a way to get it out of the domestic market.

therefore China "investing" money in Tibet doesn't mean shit. All imperialists "invest", that's what the export of capital is FFS. The idea that there is "good investment" and "bad investment" under capitalism is a compeltely reformist idea.

China dumps its capial in Tibet, at the expense of Tibet developing its own. I don't class China as having become imperialist just yet on a global scale, because not every country with oppressed nations within it is by definition imperialist, but regionally Tibet serves the purpose which say a small central american state serves for the US.

[Xiao Banfa]

Overall, US and EU imperialism lose money from propping up regimes in Africa, they don't gain money.

Bwahaha. Read some history.


The reason they do this is because Africa is a dumping ground for capital. Imperialism arises from the over-accumulation of capital in imperialist states which must be exported, it is a way to get it out of the domestic market.

This is looking at things in a bubble.


therefore China "investing" money in Tibet doesn't mean shit. All imperialists "invest", that's what the export of capital is FFS. The idea that there is "good investment" and "bad investment" under capitalism is a compeltely reformist idea.


I never talked about 'good' and 'bad' investment at all. I don't mean that word in the narrow sense.

It's really about the fact that Tibet is a autonomous region of the PRC and needs to have some semblance of equal 'investment'.


China dumps its capial in Tibet, at the expense of Tibet developing its own. I don't class China as having become imperialist just yet on a global scale, because not every country with oppressed nations within it is by definition imperialist, but regionally Tibet serves the purpose which say a small central american state serves for the US.

No Zurdito no.

While I am heartened at your materialist assessment of China as a power,
the paragraph deteriorates towards the end.

Tibet= Not oppressed nation. Federative socialist republic in waiting.

In the PRC which has a completely different economic set up from the former situation (and sadly, in some cases current) in the Americas.

Please don't be so fucking arrogant. That won't remove the icepick.

[Zurdito]

Bwahaha. Read some history.

This is looking at things in a bubble.[/

I don't get your point.




I never talked about 'good' and 'bad' investment at all. I don't mean that word in the narrow sense.

It's really about the fact that Tibet is a autonomous region of the PRC and needs to have some semblance of equal 'investment'.


You did kind of talk about good and bad investment, because you thought chinese investment in Tibet was a good thing. and it is definitely "investment" and not just some kind of socialism or "rebuilding" or "development" or whatever, China is a bourgeois state, it is not "rebulding" Tibet out of an enlightened socialist policy. that is the key here, you are imagining there can be some kind of benign, not-quite-socialist but not-as-bad-as-neoliberalism kind of state. you're wrong. China is a bourgeois state and any investment in backwards nations like Tibet is purely an outlet for Chinese capital which in the long run keeps those nations backward. You talk about Tibet being "autonomous", well no, it won't be if it is economically dependent on the rest of China. This is not even getting into the racial discrimination against Tibetans which is encoded in Chinese law.


Tibet= Not oppressed nation. Federative socialist republic in waiting.

Oh please!!! China is not a socialist country, the Chinese bourgeoise exploits its own workers, they are accumulating and centralising wealth, and storing up for economic crises which will have to be passed onto the working class, underdeveloped regions, and China's subordinate "economic partners" - semi-colonies - like Zimbabwe or Sudan, if Chinese capitalism is to survive. You are just butchering marxism with your vague idea of "socialism" under a bourgeoisie!


In the PRC which has a completely different economic set up from the former situation (and sadly, in some cases current) in the Americas.

Wow well that's a truism and therefore not very illuminating. What they haven't acheived is a new economic system. China is capitalist and moving towards becoming imperilaist, and it is doing so within the parameters described by Lenin's theory of imperialism.


Please don't be so fucking arrogant. That won't remove the icepick.

harrrsh :tt1:

[Xiao Banfa]

You did kind of talk about good and bad investment, because you thought chinese investment in Tibet was a good thing. and it is definitely "investment" and not just some kind of socialism or "rebuilding" or "development" or whatever


I stand corrected. Those are the words I should have used but I was try to be accessible.



China is a bourgeois state, it is not "rebulding" Tibet out of an enlightened socialist policy


That's not what I said at all. I'm just talking about the socialistic content of Chinas political history and how the nature of the economy has changed the nature of the state.

China has only recently liberated itself from imperialism in one of the most seismic events of the 20 century and needs to be defended. The alternative would be the weakening of China and possibly oppurtunities for victimisation. Oppressed nation and all that.

[Marsella]

Afganistan attacked America on 9/11--they deserve to be destroyed.

What an utterly disgusting thing to say.

Leaving aside the fact that not one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizers_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks#List_ of_the_hijackers) of the 9/11 terrorists were Afghani, even if they were, would it justify attacking the civilian population of a country?

If a group of extremist American terrorists attacked Sweden, do you think Sweden would be justified in attacking America?

Even putting aside our conflicting politics, do you really believe that?

[Zurdito]

What an utterly disgusting thing to say.

Leaving aside the fact that not one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizers_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks#List_ of_the_hijackers) of the 9/11 terrorists were Afghani, even if they were, would it justify attacking the civilian population of a country?

If a group of extremist American terrorists attacked Sweden, do you think Sweden would be justified in attacking America?

Even putting aside our conflicting politics, do you really believe that?

TomK clearly thinks Afghans are less than human. This makes him no different to countless white middle class fascists or "conservatives" throughout history, and his view is quite mainstream throughout the west, and especially the USA.

The irony is that the ones who least value other human beings are usually the ones who themselves are least in a position to look down on anyone, and TomK is a case in point: all you have to do is read 10 of his posts and it becomes pretty clear that he is a worthless excuse for a human being who couldn't string together an intelligent sentence or show any measure of human decency even if you payed him to do so (and TomK knows about money if nothing else!), so yeah, go figure. I wouldn't even piss on that piece of shit if he was on fire.

[Phalanx]

TomK clearly thinks Afghans are less than human. This makes him no different to countless white middle class fascists or "conservatives" throughout history, and his view is quite mainstream throughout the west, and especially the USA.

The irony is that the ones who least value other human beings are usually the ones who themselves are least in a position to look down on anyone, and TomK is a case in point: all you have to do is read 10 of his posts and it becomes pretty clear that he is a worthless excuse for a human being who couldn't string together an intelligent sentence or show any measure of human decency even if you payed him to do so (and TomK knows about money if nothing else!), so yeah, go figure. I wouldn't even piss on that piece of shit if he was on fire.

Once you guys are less brainwashed maybe we can have a decent discussion.

The Taliban (the ones controlling Afghanistan at the time) were allied to Al Qaeda, and because the Taliban refused to give them up the US attacked. It was completely legitimate. If a group of American terrorists attacked Sweden and America refused to do anything about it, then yes, Sweden would have the right to destroy those terrorists based in America.

Civilian casualties do happen in war, and it's very unfortunate. But the US military is a model of morality compared to pretty much any other military in history. Take a look at the Soviets in Afghanistan and the two million Afghan dead they were responsible for.

[Zurdito]

Once you guys are less brainwashed maybe we can have a decent discussion.

The Taliban (the ones controlling Afghanistan at the time) were allied to Al Qaeda, and because the Taliban refused to give them up the US attacked. It was completely legitimate. If a group of American terrorists attacked Sweden and America refused to do anything about it, then yes, Sweden would have the right to destroy those terrorists based in America.

Civilian casualties do happen in war, and it's very unfortunate. But the US military is a model of morality compared to pretty much any other military in history. Take a look at the Soviets in Afghanistan and the two million Afghan dead they were responsible for.

Well yes, it's very easy for you to say that Sweden has the abstract "right" to destroy military bases in the USA, because you know they don't have the material ability to back up their abstract "right", because the USA could simply defeat them. However if they were dominating your economy, decisively influencing which governments you lived under through ther funding of guerrilla movements, and then bombing you, invading you, and profiting from "rebuilding" your country and gaining new access to you and your neighbours resources, then you might feel differently.

In fact, the US has backed terrorism in countless states - not to mention outright bombing and invading them -, openly and explicitly at times, and they do this because they can. Therefore if there were such a thing as an "international law" which operated equally for everyone, the UN would enforce the right of Nicaragua to bomb US military bases on US soil as part of a coutner-terrorism operation, and the US government would hold its hands up and accept its "sentence".:lol:

So as you see, the idea that there exists some kind of geo-political morality based on mutual respect and "the rule of law" is something so absurd that no, it's not usually worthwhile to attempt a civilised conversation with someone who invokes such a fantasy. All support for US "national security" comes down not to the belief in the "sovereignity of nation states", but in the belief in the superiority of the rich, the white and the middle class, over the rest.

[Bud Struggle]

TomK clearly thinks Afghans are less than human. This makes him no different to countless white middle class fascists or "conservatives" throughout history, and his view is quite mainstream throughout the west, and especially the USA.

The irony is that the ones who least value other human beings are usually the ones who themselves are least in a position to look down on anyone, and TomK is a case in point: all you have to do is read 10 of his posts and it becomes pretty clear that he is a worthless excuse for a human being who couldn't string together an intelligent sentence or show any measure of human decency even if you payed him to do so (and TomK knows about money if nothing else!), so yeah, go figure. I wouldn't even piss on that piece of shit if he was on fire.

Well, aren't we in a "lets kill all the bourgeoise mood today?!?!" :lol:

[Dejavu]

Once you guys are less brainwashed maybe we can have a decent discussion.

The Taliban (the ones controlling Afghanistan at the time) were allied to Al Qaeda, and because the Taliban refused to give them up the US attacked. It was completely legitimate. If a group of American terrorists attacked Sweden and America refused to do anything about it, then yes, Sweden would have the right to destroy those terrorists based in America.

Civilian casualties do happen in war, and it's very unfortunate. But the US military is a model of morality compared to pretty much any other military in history. Take a look at the Soviets in Afghanistan and the two million Afghan dead they were responsible for.

Theres a difference in targeting specifically terrorist outposts and overthrowing a government and then proceeding to nation build.
The U.S. may have had the right to strike specifically terrorist strongholds but no authority to overthrow and institute a puppet regime ( even if its ethically better than the Taliban.) Talking about innocent casualties of war ,the ends justifying the means argument is pathetic and I believe you're above resorting to such lows.

Now on the other side of things regarding China. I think TomK was in the right territory when he commented that it appears the communists on this forum strongly oppose American Imperialism but applaud Chinese Imperialism ( if only because China declares itself a Socialist state). Making that kind of argument is self-defeating.
American and Chinese governments are both imperialist minded and we can see that with competition in Africa among many places. Chinese communists killed much more of their own people in that atrocity to humanity called the 'cultural revolution' but America isn't flawless as we must acknowledge the government's ethnic cleansing of Native Americans in the past. Though in pure numbers, the Chinese scale is much larger.

[Marsella]

If it makes you feel better, I would piss on you if you were on fire, Tom. :blushing:

[Dejavu]

Lets have a referendum on the former provinces of Mexico (such as California, New Mexico, Arizona, Taxas etc) that were stolen from Mexico by the expansionist, imperialist and agressive wars waged by the USA during the 19th century and still have a large number of people of Mexican decent living there.

Somehow I cannot see many of the 'pro-Tibet' activists in the US making a stand against their own imperialism. Notice that the likes of Richard Gere, George Clooney and other pathetic bourgeois liberals are silent on the real atrocities that US imperialism is responsible for in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The very fact that Mexico was that big is expansionist in itself. The original native Mexicans had a territory much smaller than what the Spanish made out of Mexico for the Mexicans. Dozens of other natives were placed under the military rule of Mexico and Spain. What happened with the Western territories is just a switch in large government control from Spain, to Mexico, to the United States.

However, I'm all for secession as I believe the States would be better of with out the intrusive and despotic Federal government. I really believe that if secession was a consideration ( I wish it was and I wish they can do it freely) I don't think there would be any push to outright be annexed by Mexico rather I think the States in question would operate as independent countries in or out of a very loose confederation.

I wouldn't take what the actors do and say seriously and certainly take it with a grain of salt. They're ignorant as most support social democracy but little do they realize that their own personal wealth would be the target of a more socialist government ( more so than we have now.) It isn't very honest to give a reactionary statement alluding to American atrocities in Iraq + Afghanistan ( which are certainly true) but then use that as an excuse to pardon Chinese despotism. A wrong is a wrong no matter where it exists in the world.

[Bud Struggle]

If it makes you feel better, I would piss on you if you were on fire, Tom. :blushing:

Promise? You are so sweet. :wub:

[Xiao Banfa]

But the US military is a model of morality compared to pretty much any other military in history.


There have been worse, put it that way.

But basically they do what they can get away with. There really isn't any other guiding principle.