Author: augustusq

Some truth to tell the western people: [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 4

Post time 2008-5-3 21:32:41 |Display all floors

Do you know China?

To seneca for Post #23

Westeners mostly do not know much about China, though they may think they do, from their media, which is itself questionable about their objective and historical knowledge of China. Many Americans, for example, have a poor knowledge of the world geography. Many cannot tell where Iraq is. Many cannot tell you much about their own short history, Many do not know where are the four cradles of human civilizations...

On the contrary, there are Chinese students, researchers, scholars, business people, tourists all over the world, and more of them each year. Many Chinese understand foreign langages. How many westeners understand Chinese, by the way?

Reading someone else's books can never substitute for personal experience with another culture, don't you think? Is watching Holywood movies the same thing as living in the United States? Is reading about Virginia Tech's grusome campus shooting the same as living on a US college campus? Is reading about London subway bombing the same as taking the Londond subway personally? Is reading about the polygomist sect in America the same as the life everywhere in America...

Your book knowledge about China is very respectable. And you seem to have selected to read some like-minded writers who wrote about China from across the oceans.  Those writers, however authorative they or you may think they are, can never catch up with the fast-changing and dynamic China that is there and now. Can I claim good knowledge of the US by reading Ronald Reagan's memior? Or good knowledge of China by reading Maco Polo?

But I happen to think your book "Red Star over China" by Edgar Snow is still a good source of inspiration. At least that's a book that impressed you on what was happening in a China of more than half a century ago. And I can assure you the China of today can only be several hundred times better than then.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2008-5-3 23:02:56 |Display all floors

Reply to #17 exportedkiwi's post

Kiwi, Kiwi, Kiwi...

As much as the green jackets have been transformed into business suits and < C E N S O R E D > into office buildings - the one central rule remains:

Party is mother, Party is father, Party is all - to dis-associate party from country is still a cardinal sin.
China's Eccentric 'Uncle Laowai' from Chicago, IL

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2008-5-3 23:44:37 |Display all floors
Originally posted by seneca at 2008-5-3 23:39
I have gathered much of my China-related knowledge from actually touring this country.  ...

Then why you accumulate so much hatred and prejudice toward Chinese?

Use magic tools Report

Post time 2008-5-3 23:58:18 |Display all floors
Reminder: Author is prohibited or removed, and content is automatically blocked
Roach Exterminator

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2008-5-4 09:45:43 |Display all floors
Originally posted by tongluren at 2008-5-2 10:40
THIS happens daily in their name, and yet they could care less. ... 2006/29/93/5_1.html

They worry about calories and how big their SU ...

This is shocking, but thanks for the link.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2008-5-4 17:06:21 |Display all floors
More mistakes from our so-called English teacher:

Originally posted by seneca at 2008-5-4 15:55

You ask me a question to which I know no answer that might trutyfully satisfy both myself and you; let's make matters simple: You give us your reasons for hating AUS and Usania without knowing either country.

I have corrected three of your mistakes. There are many others to do with the use of colons and semi-colons!

Where were you educated?

Are you qualified to teach English in China?

[ Last edited by buddy35 at 2008-5-27 07:37 AM ]

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2008-5-10 16:36:32 |Display all floors

Myanmar, the Next Country Invaded by the U. S.?

We can say the U. S. is a very agressive country, killing people with a "descent excuse".
Recently, 15 thousand people lost heir lives in cyclone disaster in Mayanmar; the world communities are considering how to provide aid to the country, but  what are those agressive Amercians thinking about? Let's have a look at the following passage from,8599,1739053,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-world:  

"Burma's rulers have relented slightly, agreeing Friday to let in supplies and perhaps even some foreign relief workers. The government says it will allow a US C-130 transport plane to land inside Burma Monday. But it's hard to imagine a regime this insular and paranoid accepting robust aid from the US military, let alone agreeing to the presence of US Marines on Burmese soil — as Thailand and Indonesia did after the tsunami. The trouble is that the Burmese haven't shown the ability or willingness to deploy the kind of assets needed to deal with a calamity of this scale — and the longer Burma resists offers of help, the more likely it is that the disaster will devolve beyond anyone's control. "We're in 2008, not 1908," says Jan Egeland, the former U.N. emergency relief coordinator. "A lot is at stake here. If we let them get away with murder we may set a very dangerous precedent."

That's why it's time to consider a more serious option: invading Burma. Some observers, including former USAID director Andrew Natsios, have called on the US to unilaterally begin air drops to the Burmese people regardless of what the junta says. The Bush Administration has so far rejected the idea — "I can't imagine us going in without the permission of the Myanmar government," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday — but it's not without precedent: as Natsios pointed out to the Wall Street Journal, the US has facilitated the delivery of humanitarian aid without the host government's consent in places like Bosnia and Sudan.

A coercive humanitarian intervention would be complicated and costly. During the 2004 tsunami, some 24 US ships and 16,000 troops were deployed in countries across the region; the mission cost the U.S. $5 million a day. Ultimately, the US pledged nearly $900 million to tsunami relief. (By contrast, it has offered just $3.25 million to Burma.) But the risks would be greater this time: the Burmese government's xenophobia and insecurity make them prone to view US troops — or worse, foreign relief workers — as hostile forces. (Remember Black Hawk Down?) Even if the U.S. and its allies made clear that their actions were strictly for humanitarian purposes, it's unlikely the junta would believe them. "You have to think it through — do you want to secure an area of the country by military force? What kinds of potential security risks would that create?" says Egelend. "I can't imagine any humanitarian organization wanting to shoot their way in with food."

So what other options exist? Retired General William Nash of the Council on Foreign Relations says the US should first pressure China to use its influence over the junta to get them to open up and then supply support to the Thai and Indonesian militaries to carry out relief missions. "We can pay for it — we can provide repair parts to the Indonesians so they can get their Air Force up. We can lend the them two C-130s and let them paint the Indonesian flag on them," Nash says. "We have to get the stuff to people who can deliver it and who the Burmese government will accept, even if takes an extra day or two and even if it's not as efficient as the good old US military." Egeland advocates that the UN Security Council take punitive steps short of war, such as freezing the regime's assets and issuing warrants for the arrest of individual junta members if they were to leave the country. Similar measures succeeded in getting the government of Ivory Coast to let in foreign relief teams in 2002, Egelend says.

And if that fails? "It's important for the rulers to know the world has other options," Egeland says. "If there were, say, the threat of a cholera epidemic that could claim hundreds of thousands of lives and the government was incapable of preventing it, then maybe yes — you would intervene unilaterally." But by then, it could be too late. The cold truth is that states rarely undertake military action unless their national interests are at stake; and the world has yet to reach a consensus about when, and under what circumstances, coercive interventions in the name of averting humanitarian disasters are permissible. As the response to the 2004 tsunami proved, the world's capacity for mercy is limitless. But we still haven't figured out when to give war a chance. "
手握乾坤鼠, 茶溶四海秋. 心宽无大志, 戏赋欲还休.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email:
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.