- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 20 Hour
- Reading permission
>I see other posts here regurgitating history regarding the US/Reagan's role in Central America in the 1980's. If you really want to go back to the playground, running up to the teacher and crying "He started it first!"<
This is what we call selective reading, possibly with a deliberate intention to ignore the crux of the matter, which is media biasness against China. There're several reasons for bringing up the US role in Central America. The first is the proximity of what happened in the Central American outrage, just months before the LA Olympics. The US in this case did not have to, as a poster implied in the case of China, anticipate international criticism because, as usual, the Western-controlled mass media would've never dreamed of tying US aggression in Central America with the LA Olympics. The second, perhaps an even more powerful indictment of the mass media such as Reuters, AP, AFP, CNN and so on, is that Western - particularly American - aggression against other countries are continuing even as we speak. Indeed, poll after poll show that the warring sides in Iraq want the Yankees out of their country, yet America still insists on continuing its occupation. Presidential contender McCain even talked of staying there for "a hundred years." Over a million Iraqis have died, and a fifth of Iraqis are now refugees. American use of depleted uranium is giving cancer to thousands more ordinary Iraqis. It's likely that the effects would eventually be more deadly than Agent Orange in Vietnam (by the way, just last week or so, the US STILL refuses to compensate the Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange). Surely Spielberg should be even more concerned with the ongoing killings of Iraqis by his country? Surely he should protest even louder the ongoing threats against another country, Iran??? That, I believe, is the hypocrisy many posters here are unable to stomach.
>There has been much written here on China's morally higher position. i.e. it doesn't invade other countries and takes a neutral view in international situations. ...The govt has to be responsible for its actions.....<
The question here isn't about China's morally higher position, and a comparison between Western genocide on three continents with China's relationship with the Sudan is disingenuous, if not an exercise in humbuggery. The question, as stated above, is the hypocrisy of the Western media and the hypocrisy of Spielberg. Certainly China can help other countries, including the Sudan, more. But it doesn't need the vitriolic condemnation of the West at a time when they're bloodletting in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
>the Olympics are certainly NOT the time or place to make this situation public. <
This I certainly agree, but the statement also deconstructs your entire posting - it's precisely this attempt, foregrounded by media biasness, to link the Olympics with events in the Sudan that has upset a number of posters here.