Chinas next leader in hardline rant

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Biped, Feb 16, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    From the Tellingraph:

    My bold.

    Yer, but no, but yer, but does he have a point though?

    My golly, I think I rather agree with his sentiments. As much as I dislike the idea, China does not deliver human rights from underneath a drone aircraft, or by screwing around with sovereign-state politics in another country, or by bombing a place flat on the basis of lies about WMDs.

    Are all these bleating British and US do-gooders rather forgetting the point when they bang on about Chinese human rights violations? Is this a case of pot, kettle, black?
     
  2. Er, no. See Chinese dealings in Zimbabwe, Darfur, Chad, North Korea, or Burma. We may get involved with some iffy people even today, but I'm not seeing any mass graves popping up in Saudi or Jordan. China doesn't export revolution, hunger, or poverty, but it perpetuates them by striking deals with people we dropped as soon as the ending of the Cold War ment we could.

    This gobshite needs to figure out that China's still behind the pack in the humanities score, whatever progress its made. Reminds me of a spoof headline a couple of years ago:

    '60 Stone Man Loses 30 Stone. Is Still Fat'
     
  3. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    You didn't see the bits about the Northern Alliance whacking people (with the aid of the CIA) en-masse in lorry containers then.

    What about invading Iraq?

    It is Western money that is keeping the Al Sauds in power, despite their draconian abuses of human rights that still include stoning to death for certain crimes.

    You forget to mention that as bad as the Chinese may be - it is OUR money from OUR dealings with China (the so-called human rights abuser) that China is spending around the world. China didn't get rich from abusing rights, they got rich off the backs of western firms doing business with them - the US and the UK gets MOST of its products made in China - so what does that make us when we are supporting a country financially that is supposedly guilty of such abuses?

    Comparitively speaking, the Chinese have been MUCH, MUCH better behaved than the West has over the last 50 years. There's not many countries in the world that have not been affected by Western or Russian arms, or money, or politics in this period, many of them to the greater detriment of their people.

    Just because China is spending its money in places we 'aren't supposed to be doing business' does not mean it is guilty of human rights abuses in those countries. In truth Para - the west is still vying for or actually doing business in those self-same countries, and more often than not these days, losing out because we are not as competitive.

    Don't think we are whiter than white, and we sure as hell didn't drop a load of bad b'stards simply because the cold war ended.

    I suppose my point is that I merely agree with the sentiments of this guy. He is pointing out some rather glaring hypocracies as far as the west's attitude towards China goes - hypocracies that have been discusses on here often enough.
     
  4. So true. And what of the offspring???

    Compare & contrast.

    These...
    [​IMG][​IMG]

    ...with these...

    [​IMG][​IMG]
     
  5. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    That wouldn't be an ethical US export to China by any chance would it? :D
     
  6. I thought it may refer back to the original quote...
    The last thing China needs is McDonalds to run a US Aid programme. :)
     
  7. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    er, fries? :twisted:
     
  8. Is that post-Iraq (2003) 'freedom fries' ????
     
  9. You mean the bit where we didn't sell our souls to the resident nutter to gain an economic advantage?

    Yes it does.

    Pretty much everything we did was in the context of the Cold War, and the end product was saving half the world from communism's dead hand and getting the Soviets out of Eastern Europe. And I don't think the West managed to off anything like the 60 million China did.
     
  10. He may indeed have a point.

    USA (population 304m) executed 0.014 persons per 100,000 population.

    PRC (population 1330m) executed 0.035 persons per 100,000 population.

    Source: Amnesty

    Source for population data: US Census Bureau

    The figures aren't that different, to my mind. the lack of a properly functioning civil society cause most of China's problems. China was still a feudal Empire 90-odd years ago. How long did it take us to get to where we are now?

    Besides, hardly a 'rant'. Just getting a bit testy, is all. In any case, operational power lies with the Prime Minister, not the President. Part of a deal struck at the 2007 National Congress involved the promotions of Xi and Le Keqiang to the Politburo Standing Committee. Xi has the more senior position (he's 2 years older and a favourite of the Taizidang), while Le got the nod to succeed Wen in or around 2012.

    Edited to add explanation: Taizidang's a group of hardliners formed around the Shanghai Clique, and is in opposition to the current rulers. Le Keqiang is one of President Hu's proteges and was his own choice to succeed the presidency. Sorry, keep forgetting I'm the duty China monomaniac on the forum.
     
  11. So was everything the Soviets did. Pretty poor reasoning.
     
  12. Not when you compare the two sides endgames. Do you really think if the West had imploded the Soviets would have quit the proxie-war theatres (or for that matter the states they occupied) over-night, as we did?
     
  13. Ah! But one side wore white and was good, the other side wore black and was evil.
     
  14. But 'we' didn't.

    Moreover, having won, the endgame for certain victors seems to be the notion of the right to go around the world stamping upon anybody, for any reason and with impunity.
     
  15. Not good an evil, but given what we'd seen of communism it clearly wasn't a good idea, and I can't think of a single instance before 1989 where communism had been undone in any state. The understandable attitude at the time was that communism was like AIDS, leathal and once it had been caught there was no way to shake it. As a result a lot was justifiable to stop others catching it.