The new Cold War pt2 (China)

What does that prove except that certain foreign alliances are more eager to use claims to further their interests than others?

History proves that it doesn't prove the accuracy of those claims.
Well I'll be happy for you to prove that China have no bad intentions. It'll be a long wait I guess.
 
There's been absolutely loads of news about it
Repeated reporting of the same claims from the same sources, with little-to-no analysis of those sources' reliability beyond, 'it seems like the sort of thing their sort of people would do.'

Loads of news does not equate to loads of fact.
 
Probably not. You can blame them for not being more critical in their analysis of the claims, though.

The utility of a free press is inversely proportional to the extent of their unquestioning acceptance.
The portly Major General in the mushroom beret was making the assertion while interviewed on camera. Untempered bravado? Certainly. But in context, very newsworthy.
 
Well I'll be happy for you to prove that China have no bad intentions. It'll be a long wait I guess.
How does one prove a negative?
Russia is, according to the US, a threat to Europe, yet Russia quite happily built pipelines to supply Europe with gas, which Europe wants to buy from them.
China is, according to the US, a threat to everybody, but has built a railway through a dozen countries to supply its customers as far away as UK.
Meanwhile the US holds the record for countries invaded and bombed.
Go figure.
 
Well I'll be happy for you to prove that China have no bad intentions.
They have intentions that will have bad effects for some and good effects for others, same as any other large and powerful nation. They don't show any desire as yet to stamp round the world enforcing their will with high explosive, which for my money makes them less destructive overall than the 'good guys' have been these last 30 years.

How does their 'same as' make them bad but others' 'same as' make them good? It might be bad for us, but how is that objectively bad?
 
But in context, very newsworthy.
As would, "Iraqi general talks transparent bollocks."

Think of the grief that could have been saved if only someone had thought, "Hang on a mo'!" was an important follow-up.
 
They couldn't interview anyone
Odd, they claim to have such a lot of first-hand testimony. It must be from one of those Schroedinger's Torture Victims.
 
How does one prove a negative?
Russia is, according to the US, a threat to Europe, yet Russia quite happily built pipelines to supply Europe with gas, which Europe wants to buy from them.
China is, according to the US, a threat to everybody, but has built a railway through a dozen countries to supply its customers as far away as UK.
Meanwhile the US holds the record for countries invaded and bombed.
Go figure.
China is a threat, a good starting point to better relations would be to allow a fully unhindered WHO investigation into the Wuhan facility. Why deny access if there's nothing hide ?
 
Why deny access if there's nothing hide ?
That could also apply to Porton Down. Why should either site divulge sensitive information, even if it is entirely innocent?
 
China is a threat, a good starting point to better relations would be to allow a fully unhindered WHO investigation into the Wuhan facility. Why deny access if there's nothing hide ?
Why allow nosey foreigners in to cast aspersions if there's no evidence of wrongdoing?
Even if WHO inspected and stated openly that covid was a natural occurrence, the closed minded would call it a conspiracy.
A good starting point would be to stop assuming that China is hostile, maybe?
 
Yep, from people who were persecuted but managed to get out of China.
They manage to arrange an interview with a team of journalists without any assistance whatsoever? Would it surprise you to learn how much a part the WUC play in arranging interviews - between carefully selected journalists and interviewees, of course?

It would be more accurately phrased as, "from people who say they were persecuted but managed to get out of China helped by the people who want to be in charge of that part of China."
 
Even if WHO inspected and stated openly that covid was a natural occurrence, the closed minded would call it a conspiracy.
That's already happened. A principle reason the initial WHO report was rejected by its critics was that it didn't find the evidence they were already certain existed somehow and somewhere.

They were the wrong facts, see?
 
Why allow nosey foreigners in to cast aspersions if there's no evidence of wrongdoing?
Even if WHO inspected and stated openly that covid was a natural occurrence, the closed minded would call it a conspiracy.
A good starting point would be to stop assuming that China is hostile, maybe?
It is hostile though, it dominates global current affairs.
 
There are 80-odd million of them and they represent pretty much every human archetype. That's why it's a successful organisation.



Unlike our entirely peaceful exploits of the last few decades.

Do they do anything wrong on the international stage? Yes.

They don't do anything unusual, with the possible exception of not using military force as their preferred tool for shaping the world.

As a result, when you talk about them being a threat to world peace or a danger to the rest of the world, I call bollocks. The butcher's bill grants that accolade to us.

Wrong as usual. Every member of the CCP shares a common trait: the only good one is a dead one.

When we start a pandemic that kills millions of Chinese and wrecks their economy, then you may have a point. Until that happy day, I will continue to consider the PRC to be the scum of the earth. And so far beneath the moral high ground we occupy that our piss would evaporate before it reached the target should be decide to urinate on them.
 
Last edited:
It is hostile though, it dominates global current affairs.
It's invaded Afghanistan, promoted turmoil in the Middle East, upset the global financial system, etc?

The US dominates global current affairs, it's the world's only superpower. The PRC only dominates reporting of certain aspects of world affairs, particularly those of its immediate neighbourhood.
 
The lands of the far north West of china are “ a land far far away, of which we know little” to parephrese old Neville.
unfortunately for the PRC with its nearly iron grip on the info sphere in its own domain, word has got out as what they are building and what they do to their own people in the facilities they have built.
Also,Rather uncomfortably for apologists like carrots we don’t live in the 1930’s or 40’s when Joe S ,and Adolf were able to go about similar lines of work untroubled by corrabarative prying eyes.
The satellite images of the facility’s that house the uighers that HAVE been released rather back up,the claims made by the few that get away to speak of it.
or maybe if you don’t see it with your own eyes you can just pretend it isn’t happening, like the Brit socialists did during Stalin’s great purges or the Ukrainian famine of the 1930’s.
carrots?
 
Last edited:
There's quite a few countries said it, Canada, the UK, to name just two.
In the case of the Canadian resolution on Uighurs that was an attempt by its backers to bring down what was claimed to be an appalling regime in, er, Ottawa.

This was all about domestic Canadian politics. The opposition were attempting to stir up Beijing into saying something inflammatory in order to further their agenda of claiming that the government in Ottawa were mishandling foreign affairs and so must be replaced. It was a minority parliament so the government couldn't simply shut down the vote but cabinet boycotted the vote and issued a statement that they didn't support it. The response of the government was calibrated to minimize the effects of the vote (not directly opposing it while not giving it official backing either) instead of stepping into the opposition political trap of either supporting or opposing it.

The actual position of the government of Canada, and therefor of "Canada", was that reports from Xinjiang about human rights abuses were concerning and a thorough investigation through the UN should be conducted. However, they don't believe that there currently exists sufficient proof at this time to call events there a "genocide" and that the term "genocide" should not be used lightly or else it will lose its impact when faced with actual proven genocide.


And since Iraq and "45 minutes" was mentioned in other posts, I'll address those here as well. Unlike that of a number of other countries, the position of the government of Canada was that there was no proof of "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq and that Canada would not participate in the invasion of Iraq without a UN resolution which supported it. No such UN resolution was forthcoming and the states that invaded Iraq did so without one. I guess we could call them "rogue states".

Tony Blair called PM Chretien and tried to persuade him to back the war. One of Blair's arguments was that Hussein was an evil dictator who must be overthrown on those grounds. Chretien replied that there were a lot of evil dictators in the world, and if you were going to go around invading countries on those grounds then where would you stop? Chretien then further stated that Iraq was none of our business, but that Zimbabwe, as part of the Commonwealth, was (they were "part of the family" as I believe Chretien put it). Chretien then proposed to Blair to do "something" about Mugabe. Blair refused, insisting that Zimbabwe was a different situation not requiring action. Chretien then accused Blair of wanting to invade Iraq simply because of the oil, which Blair denied.

The rest of course is history. Untold numbers of Iraqis died in the war and subsequent occupation and the decades of turmoil which followed and the survivors face generations of poverty and starvation while they rebuild what was destroyed. But we claimed we meant well, so that's all OK.

Our duty to oppose Iraq and China for not meeting the exacting standards of democracy and freedom that we set for them also seems to have been conveniently forgotten when it came to Zimbabwe, a country that we had a greater excuse for involving ourselves in. Why is that? Is it possible that this was because it simply wasn't in our self interest to do so?

Since we're talking about what's reported in the press let's look at how free the press are in various countries as a useful proxy for our principles.

Reporters Without Borders 2021

China are down near the bottom of the list (177 out of 180), there's no surprise there. But India are ranked at 142nd, only marginally above Russia at 150th. India are our friend so they're fine upstanding democracy, but Russia are our enemy so they're not a real democracy.

Oh but "we" (and by that I mean "you" because Canada gave it a pass) brought freedom to Iraq, right? Well they're at 163, down near the bottom along with our great and wonderful friends Iran (174) (and Saudi Arabia for that matter at 170). What exactly is it that all those Iraqis died for? It obviously wasn't freedom because they don't appear to have it.

How about that oh so principled EU? Well they have members ranking as low as 112 (Bulgaria). Admittedly that isn't at the very bottom, but it's well down into the bottom half.

And the US? Well their bestest friends and neighbours Mexico (143) are again only marginally above Russia (150). Yet the only criticisms the Americans seem to have about Mexico is about them not stopping immigrants crossing the border. Nobody is bellowing on the floor of the legislature in Washington about their duty to bring freedom to the downtrodden Mexicans.

If I try to find a correlation between "freedom" and "who our friends in the third world are" there doesn't seem to be any relationship there. If however I look at "who we support or at least turn a blind eye towards" and "who is useful to furthering our interests" then the correlation seems to be pretty absolute.

It's something to think about.
 
The satellite images of the facility’s that house the weigers ( apologise if gash spelling), that HAVE been released rather back up,the claims made by the few that get away to speak of it.
The satellite photos also back up the PRC government's claims that they're engaged in mass resettlement and reschooling. All we can really tell from them is that one of the two sides is telling lies, and since both are proven liars there's no reason on the basis of truth/lies to prefer one over the other.

We do, on the other hand, know that similar claims have been bandied around since God was a boy and have usually proven false - the WUC's own estimates of incarcerated pax is incompatible with the known birth rate amongst Uighurs its claims of population loss i.e. it's physically impossible for Uighur women to have given enough births to replace the losses and still increase the population to its current levels.

If they're prepared to lie about so many things, why the automatic trust on anything else?
 

Latest Threads

Top