Should we attack Iraq?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
RE: Angola

Thanks for the thorough insights. It sounds like you have been working on Angola. Angola is an interesting case and lately people have advised that I look at that one. I had been thinking more about former Zaire and Liberia in comparative study.

Have you thought about doing comparative work with Mozambique? I had entertained a notion of doing a comparison in post conflict resolution between both countries before, but then I heard that the folks in Mozambique think all the yankees work for the CIA.

WOuld also like to hear your thoughts on the future of France in Africa.

Cheers,
 
RE: Angola

>Thanks for the thorough insights. It sounds like you have
>been working on Angola. Angola is an interesting case and
>lately people have advised that I look at that one. I had
>been thinking more about former Zaire and Liberia in
>comparative study.

You`ll find Angola and Congo/Zaire connected in many ways.
>
>Have you thought about doing comparative work with
>Mozambique? I had entertained a notion of doing a
>comparison in post conflict resolution between both
>countries before, but then I heard that the folks in
>Mozambique think all the yankees work for the CIA.

Well i have actually, but not much.I`m going to attend a reunion with someone that monitored the entire process of negotiation for some ONG`S and a Research institute for conflict resolution just in a couple of weeks.
I can tell you the story how the Carter Foundation closed their eyes to massive electoral fraud in Mozambique, and how that strangely helped peace...
I have several colleagues from Mozambique, and a good friend, they are suspicious of the americans but aren`t hostile on the South African sense, so it won`t be so difficult to talk to them.
Very different actors, different political context and the lack of minerals or oil to fund the war from within separate Mozambique and Angola, though.
>
>WOuld also like to hear your thoughts on the future of
>France in Africa.

Er, that would take me several hours, and i´m quite tired ;-) but sure, the USA and France are those that count in Africa, Britain, Portugal, China and Belgium are tier2 material, and the spanish and the italians barely have a presence there, so i´l be glad to discuss that...

...but in a few days, i`m a bit tired now.

Cheers
 
>What bothers me more about this is the precedent of a
>preemptive strike. I can understand the Israeli's doing
>this and other countries, but the US starting a war doesn't
>sit right. Kennedy is quoted for delaying bombing Cuba
>during the Cuban Missile Crisis by saying "Now I know what
>the Japanese felt like." Referring to the preemptive attack
>by Japan against Pearl Harbor starting World War 2. I just
>don't like the idea of the US starting wars.

I agree, the pre-emptive strike is the main concern. It's the "attack him IN CASE he attacks us" line that worries me the most, like it does you. There are numerous countries that MIGHT attack the United States. If America blew them all up, there won't be much of a planet left and I seriously doubt the world would be a better place because of it.


>That's not really the point though. Sure the US has probably
>tried. But the idea of killing the sovereign leader of
>another state has significant implications as well. Do we
>want to live in a world were political leaders regularly
>target each other?

We already live in that world. It's arguably part of what started World War I and look how great that turned out. It led to World War II...
 
This is where notions of international law, morality and practical reality come to a head.

On the one side International Law says no preemptive strikes, no war initiation. On the other side though, the UN Charter reserves for each nation the right to self defense. It also reserves the ability of the UN Security Council the right, in Chapter VII, to initiate aggression and take other militant moves as well as moves short of war.

The notion of preemption raises the moral issue of "when do you have the right to shoot first." Say a policeman is confronted with a possible criminal that is carrying a gun and pointing it, in a potentially hostile way. Does the cop have the right to shot the criminal and so doing, defend himself or other citizens? Or does he have to wait for the bad guy to start shooting. To be guilty of a crime involves two elements- a mental state and a criminal action (called mens rea and actus reas). What is the level of mens rea or actus reas needed for a country to shoot first?

Because if one does not have the right to shoot first, then does that mean you have to take the hit, even if that hit might be something as dangerous as a nuclear strike against oneself or a vital security interest? That would seem to be too much. There is the case of the 1967 Middle East War, where the Arab states had made sufficient hostile moves so that the Israelis thought a war was imminent. The response was to hit first, and in so doing, assured the temporary destruction of the military forces of its neighbors. Arguably that secured peace until 1973, but that would ignore the protracted fighting. Did it do worse for the security of the region?

After the 1967 war, Egypt declared that it had no intent to start the war, that the moves were merely beligerent saber rattling. But did the Israeli's know that? Had the arab state hit first the Israeli's might have been wiped out. Did the Israeli's deserve to take the hit?

Ok those are your philosophical problems. Now the reality? What about the current situation in the Gulf. Does Hussein pose a sufficient threat to allow a preemptive first strike?

Or does the entire preemptive first strike issue matter at all?

The second question concernes the assassination of political leaders. The US record on this isn't great, after all we tried to whack Castro and we have faciliated the assassination of other leaders (both in and outside the state). But this is something that states shouldn't do. To kill the sovereign leader of a state is an act of war, just as would be attacking an embassy or shooting at a naval vessel. Furthermore, by destroying heads of state, one causes great instability within the state which might lead to more unnecessary bloodshed. Furthermore, if there is no clear head of state on the otherside, than with whom does one make peace? Remember wars are bookended with initiation and termination periods. A sovereign Iraqi leader would make it easier for the US to end a war, but of course that leader would have to actually have sovereign power.

But then modern warfare is often directed at destroying command and control centers. This includes officers, communication networks, etc. And could include heads of state.

So there you have it. There is the practical and the philosophical issues of both alternatives.
 
Whether you say yeah or nay, here's something worth thinking about.

According to Forbes, Saddam is worth US $2 Billion. This after years of 12 years of sanctions, and lets not forget to mention all those Iraqis starving and not receiving medical attention.

Maybe sanctions is an easy way to make a buck.
 
>There is the case of the 1967 Middle East War, where the Arab states had made sufficient hostile moves so that the Israelis thought a war was imminent.

This was a preventive strike, of course, wich is pretty estabilished in terms of international law, having only the dispositions of the UN charter and regional security organisations as a limit. When Clinton ordered the bombings in Sudan and Afghanistan knowing that there was clear hostile intention from Al-Qaeda against american nationals and american security i defended it in the lines that he was simply ordering a preventive strike, with sufficient urgency that the UN security counsil could be called after. My Wilsonian professors don`t like that idea, but it has some grounds in wich to base a defense of those actions .

Now for a preemptive strike , in wich the intensity of the threat and sufficient proof that it may turn into action isn`t needed makes me a bit nervous. One can´t say it´s legitimate under the self-defense argument, since it is more of a vague possibility than something for sure.

It`s like when someone shoots someone else because he knew the fow was conspiring against him and saw a gun in his hands, it`s a legitimate response; but when the person A thinks that the person B that had a fight 12 years ago may one day join enemy C in attacking him, when there is no proof that B doesn`t just wants to survive for the moment, and is killed by A beeing armed with a slingshot in his pocket, then the judge would call it man slaughter or homicide...

In practical terms it provided the mad warning from North Corea that it had every right to make a preemptive strike on the U.S.A. since it has been accepted by the americans that those strykes are legitimate.

A new world worder based on that terms would be too dangerous, even for a hyper-power...

Cheers
 
>>There is the case of the 1967 Middle East War, where the Arab states had made sufficient hostile moves so that the Israelis thought a war was imminent.
>
>This was a preventive strike, of course, wich is pretty
>estabilished in terms of international law, having only the
>dispositions of the UN charter and regional security
>organisations as a limit.

Brioasafreak- I think you are being a bit fast and loose. Are they different concepts, yes, but they sure do overlap and they are subject to missuse. One persons preventative strike is another person's preemptive. The law on the "right to shoot first" is pretty unclear. There are quite a few folks who said the Israeli preventative strike starting the '67 war was itself a violation of the law of war.

Taking the basis of interational law (treaty, custom, law of nations, and jurists), you can argue that conceptually they are different. However a lot of people would argue, no shooting first. OK, that might be a bit extreme weighed against the right of self defense.
But there is the other goal of law- to maintain order and peace and to avoid the abuse of self-help.

Considering the danger of abusing the argument of preventative first strike with that of a preemptive strike- one would probably argue neither would work. The law here is a bit murky and probably justifiably so.

> When Clinton ordered the bombings
>in Sudan and Afghanistan knowing that there was clear
>hostile intention from Al-Qaeda against american nationals
>and american security i defended it in the lines that he was
>simply ordering a preventive strike, with sufficient urgency
>that the UN security counsil could be called after. My
>Wilsonian professors don`t like that idea, but it has some
>grounds in wich to base a defense of those actions .
>

But see this is where the problems come up. The Clinton administrations bombing of a the wrong target in Sudan (wasn't a pharmecutical or baby making formuls plant?) and the cruise missile hit on the training grounds in Afghanistan, might better be considered a reprisal than a preventative strike. After all the terrorists had already struck. But it also doesn't seem like that was much of an actual threat from either, even if one could argue that both sites were part of the terrorist infrastructure.

In contrast, had the Clinton administration sunk a terrorist vessel that was carrying mines for New York harbor, or even if it had been the destruction of a building used to house terrorists that were about to strike a US embassy- then you have a preventative strike.

In the Clinton situation, it looks like a reprisal. Reprisals were perfectly legal before the UN Charter became governing on this issue, but have since been deemed illegal (at least that's what Oppenheimer's treatise says- last I checked). The goal there seemed more to punish than to prevent. That's the old "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" method of international law, strong positivist defense on the notion of sovereignty.

Now you can argue one way or the other whether that was justified. I would have preferred something more carefully targetted and more strongly made, myself. Politically it was the right thing to do for the Clinton Admin. A lot of other countries thought it wasn't, that there were less forceful means at Clinton's disposal. But was it legal? I would argue no, even if it was politically and perhaps morally justified.

>Now for a preemptive strike , in wich the intensity of the
>threat and sufficient proof that it may turn into action
>isn`t needed makes me a bit nervous. One can´t say it´s
>legitimate under the self-defense argument, since it is more
>of a vague possibility than something for sure.

True. Consider for instance that the US oil embargo against Japan more or less threatened the survival of that regime. That doesn't justify the Pearl Harbor strike that got the US involved in World War 2, even if the US and Japan were getting increasinly hostile.

I agree, the legal right here, even accepting a right to either a preemeptive or preventative strike, seems shakey at best.

Politically right, however, is another story.
>
> It`s like when someone shoots someone else because he knew
>the fow was conspiring against him and saw a gun in his
>hands, it`s a legitimate response; but when the person A
>thinks that the person B that had a fight 12 years ago may
>one day join enemy C in attacking him, when there is no
>proof that B doesn`t just wants to survive for the moment,
>and is killed by A beeing armed with a slingshot in his
>pocket, then the judge would call it man slaughter or
>homicide...
>

Indeed, but someone will call up the words humanitarian intervention to save the poor Iraqis. Is that justified?

>In practical terms it provided the mad warning from North
>Corea that it had every right to make a preemptive strike on
>the U.S.A. since it has been accepted by the americans that
>those strykes are legitimate.

Got to love those North Koreans for bringing back old Cold War fears once again. It seems that the North Koreans are really just trying to get attention that they don't deserve, but being a wart on the ass of a globalized world. Yet a dangerous and poisonous wart, the kind that causes bloodpoisoning that could bring down the whole thing.

If nuclear weapons are like having an insurance policy, than they might also be the big party horn that attracts a lot of attention.

>
>A new world worder based on that terms would be too
>dangerous, even for a hyper-power...

North Korea- a couple of years ago when it was suffering a famine (oh those communist agricultural policies!) it looked like the government would fall. I even heard that the leadership had asked an energy concern to feel out possibilities about abandoning North Korea. The feelings, according to this fellow was that the government was afraid that they were facing a coup.

Is this the last gasp of a bankrupt power?


>Cheers

Cheers,
 
>Brioasafreak- I think you are being a bit fast and loose.
>Are they different concepts, yes, but they sure do overlap
>and they are subject to missuse. One persons preventative
>strike is another person's preemptive.

I`m using these concepts as different according to our military, wich more or less follow NATO`s handbook. i do believe that they are different, but preventive strikes do pose a lot of problems, i fully agree.
>
>Taking the basis of interational law (treaty, custom, law of
>nations, and jurists), you can argue that conceptually they
>are different. However a lot of people would argue, no
>shooting first. OK, that might be a bit extreme weighed
>against the right of self defense.
>But there is the other goal of law- to maintain order and
>peace and to avoid the abuse of self-help.
>Considering the danger of abusing the argument of
>preventative first strike with that of a preemptive strike-
>one would probably argue neither would work. The law here
>is a bit murky and probably justifiably so.

Well, abuse is a inherent temptation when one leads with the law, and the fact that international law can`t be uphold by a higher power (there the anarchycal system we live in) just make it easier to abuses to be commited. But in the case of preventive strykes at least there´s a conceptual basis to work on, preemptive strykes just seem too thin on the concepts and limitations to be taken serious. They are just a tool for power politics, and in this case, it seems that it´s an unfortunate tool.


>> When Clinton ordered the bombings
>>in Sudan and Afghanistan knowing that there was clear
>>hostile intention from Al-Qaeda against american nationals
>>and american security i defended it in the lines that he was
>>simply ordering a preventive strike, with sufficient urgency
>>that the UN security counsil could be called after. My
>>Wilsonian professors don`t like that idea, but it has some
>>grounds in wich to base a defense of those actions .
>But see this is where the problems come up. The Clinton
>administrations bombing of a the wrong target in Sudan
>(wasn't a pharmecutical or baby making formuls plant?) and
>the cruise missile hit on the training grounds in
>Afghanistan, might better be considered a reprisal than a
>preventative strike. After all the terrorists had already
>struck. But it also doesn't seem like that was much of an
>actual threat from either, even if one could argue that both
>sites were part of the terrorist infrastructure.
>In contrast, had the Clinton administration sunk a terrorist
>vessel that was carrying mines for New York harbor, or even
>if it had been the destruction of a building used to house
>terrorists that were about to strike a US embassy- then you
>have a preventative strike.
>In the Clinton situation, it looks like a reprisal.
>Reprisals were perfectly legal before the UN Charter became
>governing on this issue, but have since been deemed illegal
>(at least that's what Oppenheimer's treatise says- last I
>checked). The goal there seemed more to punish than to
>prevent. That's the old "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth"
>method of international law, strong positivist defense on
>the notion of sovereignty.


Yes, one can understand the attacks that way, solely as a reprisal, or to defend that if there are strong proofs that material and men are beeing prepared for an attack on our country one should attack, limited only, again, by the UN charter. If Clinton knew that there were men to be prepared to attack at any moment american nationals or american interests and there was the fear that they could escape before a resolution would be passed in the security counsil there may be grounds to it be considered legal, if it´s discussed afterwards and considered coherent with the defense of peace on the long run (what happened with the attack from NATO against former Yoguslavia, where a resolution with the support of the russians was passed after the attacks had started, wich allowed the russians to enter Kosovo territory to balance the ground troops deployed by NATO; that was a political decision and negotiation but with the legal justification on the basis i tried to express).



>Now you can argue one way or the other whether that was
>justified. I would have preferred something more carefully
>targetted and more strongly made, myself. Politically it
>was the right thing to do for the Clinton Admin. A lot of
>other countries thought it wasn't, that there were less
>forceful means at Clinton's disposal. But was it legal? I
>would argue no, even if it was politically and perhaps
>morally justified.


it was a mess, like everything Clinton did on the international front, besides Bosnia and Kosovo. The clashes on the Great Lakes region in africa that started the Great African Conflict in the 90´s were in part caused by the low intensity "cold-war" that the americans and the french were carrying out after Clinton`s New african Inniciative. He was well intended, but just didn`t understood the continent, as Bush doesn`t understand,er, many continents...

Oh, and i´m not trying to convince you on my position, since even beeing the best at Internacional Law classes i couldn`t convince any of my professors of it :D
>
>Got to love those North Koreans for bringing back old Cold
>War fears once again. It seems that the North Koreans are
>really just trying to get attention that they don't deserve,
>but being a wart on the ass of a globalized world. Yet a
>dangerous and poisonous wart, the kind that causes
>bloodpoisoning that could bring down the whole thing.
>If nuclear weapons are like having an insurance policy, than
>they might also be the big party horn that attracts a lot of
>attention.
>North Korea- a couple of years ago when it was suffering a
>famine (oh those communist agricultural policies!) it looked
>like the government would fall. I even heard that the
>leadership had asked an energy concern to feel out
>possibilities about abandoning North Korea. The feelings,
>according to this fellow was that the government was afraid
>that they were facing a coup.
>
>Is this the last gasp of a bankrupt power?

i hope so. The famine continues, and the only senior official that could lead a coup escaped to South Corea a year or two ago.They are true robots, there`s no way anyone from the outside could understand the controled mentality of the north coreans, it´s Orwell`s work incarnated. They are moving because of the unfortunate "Axis of Evil" speech made by Bush,the "since the americans are attacking rak, we`re probably next, so we don´t have nothing to loose" mentality. Oh, and Iran is indeed helping out partially the americans with the Irak issue, but they restarted their nuclear program and armed Heqmatyar in afghanistan, so he could fight te americans. Again, a product of that speech...

The reunion on Mozambique is going to take place in three weeks, i´ll see if anything important that i don`t know surfaces from there, i`ll let you know.

Cheers

p.s: now i´m too tired to talk about France and Africa again :-(
 
An interesting news flash:

Appearently, in order to win an UN vote in favor to attack Iraq, the CIA has resorted to monitoring and blackmailing some of the non-permenant members of the security council. Every form of communication is being tapped and recorded, and they are being shadowed everywhere they go. Chile is having a really tough time of it because they've trying to sign a free trade agreement with the US for 10 yrs, and it seems that Bush is dragging his feet in signing the motion to pass it in Congress.

This is going to get interesting. :D
 
Hey Starseeker-

Well damn, it's nice to hear that the CIA is doing something!

The deals that got cut for the last Gulf War were also pretty crazy.
These Republicans!

Cheers,
 
Whew! I don't think so many people reply to these. Sorry, i'm pretty busy for next few month.
Well somehow I'm doing some R&D on Water vehicle with pressure vessels propulsion codenamed "Torpedo" and that's very exhausting (pssstt!!!! Don't tell Bush about these. I'm afraid he'll put some restriction to my project.... and ask me to destroy them. heh...heh...heh...). Well, that's just University project and next year we should have at least 15 prototypes. I'll call my vehicles, "Al-Samoud." heh..heh..

Okay, lets back to history and cultural lessons about Arabics and Islam, by Mr. Bhass....
Hmm, unlike Indonesian moslems, Arabic divided between Sunni and Syiah Islam (I don't know i belong into which one? I never think a damn about it.Hell!! I even barely know the difference between them!).
I heard that Bush planned to put a Syiah Islam Leader to replace Saddam (phoey!), while most Iraqi were Sunni and guess what we got! BAM! Another fundamentalist Iranian-like regime! Beside most Iraqi hates Southern Syiah Rebels and Northern Kurdi's.
In Afghan, most people hates Taliban. In Iraqi, lot's of people hate Saddam, but more people HATES KURD's and SYIAH.

And just like i said before, perhaps Saddam buys time to destroy his weapons. Some of fellow students told me that There were rumours in Jordania that Iraq really have Nukes. But perhaps now they have dismantle that.

Personally i didn't like Saddam and Bin Laden. And connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda really make me laugh! Those to faction were different!! The best solution for conflict perhaps both Saddam and Bush should Resign. That should make a better world, I think.
Oh yeah, Arafat and Sharon must resign too, and replace with peaceful leaders. That's should solved mid East problems. And so Kim, and our President (sigh!).....

The good think about US attacked Iraq perhaps....
1. Saddam Hussein will fall.
2. All of his Oil Well were burned.
3. US control the Oil in Iraq.
4. Schlumberger got contract for exploration and need more man.
5. I become Schlumberger employee.
6. And I'll become Multi Million Dollar Millionaire, retire, returned to Indonesia, married and spend my lifetime happily. (Wake Up Bhass! You're dreaming!!!)
 
Oh yeah, after reading Brios and Welsh review about China and ASEAN, i'll add some.

Right now China got a grip in ASEAN, especially Indonesia. Last month, Chen Su Bian planned to go to Indonesia, but Megawati didn't allow that. When Taiwanese vice President arrive for a Holiday, he was deported from Bali. Ironically, we use lots of Taiwan products, watching Taiwan movies (Only few. We got more HongKong Movie here), hearing Taiwan song (Even President Megawati herself watch F4 concert in Jakarta!), riding Taiwanese Bike etc.

Since US Embargo, and European and Japanese Investors pull off from here, China offered us aid, as long as we buy their Product and BAM! My dad's issued Chinese Jeep called Beijing 2000 which somewhat unreliable (HEY! It's two years old and i must replaced the whole Clutch assembly!) and leaks a lot, shooting Chinese AK-101, and during weekend, Indonesian citizen gardening with Chinese made tool and watching Chinese movie with Chinese PANASONICSON TV (don't know where did they got that name...) and spend weekend riding Chinese Motor Bike.
And our investor turned their investment to china and Chinese began making Factory and investing here.

Ironically, 10 years ago China are our biggest enemy. Indonesian Chinese Population were forbade to use Chinese name, and Confucians were banned. They who Confucian must convert to Buddhist since Suharto government think both religion were same!
Why that happened? Because back there, US were our closest ally! And now! Our closest Ally were Chinese.

US got bad reputation here. back in 60's they supplied our Rebels with Invader Bombers (!) and Mustang Fighter (!!). Then during late 70's they supply us with M-16 rifles, Bronco Gunships and Huey chopper to Invade East Timor and then in 90's place Embargo on us for "Human Rights violation in East Timor" which fully supported by US!!

They ask us to fight Terrorism but placed us Embargo! With what we should fight them hah? Swords?

Don't know what they wants. But our relation with US Gov, will never the same again.....
 
Hey Mr. Bhass-

Sorry to hear about all the problems you are having with Chinese products. As for the Taiwanese, that sucks. In a world where the argument of self-determination and recognition are so important, it's a pity that the Taiwanese have to live in fear of the PRC. But with so much of Taiwan being a manufacturer, its not suprising you have a lot of Taiwanese products. That China is becoming the big boy on the block, you can expect more crappy Chinese products.

But I think you are going to have to get used to it. Since the Chinese pushed the Philippines on Mischief Reef (how's that for a name?) and the ASEAN countries basically ignored the issue, it seems that the ASEAN countries are due to recognize that they are in China's sphere of influence. Pity that, because if the ASEAN countries could get their act together they might be able to get a bit more bargaining leverage. A while back I had been reading how Singaporean firms in China are getting hosed.

You got to figure that Indonesia is still a worry for many of its neighbors. The Australians are fearful (is a wonder of their involvment in East Timor when they already had petroleum - it think Natural Gas- off East Timor) of Indonesian aggression. There are a lot more of you then there are of them. The Malaysians, Singaporeans, and Filipinos are also worried- Indonesia is the big country in ASEAN. During the East Timor episode there was fear that the nation-state itself would collapse with other groups trying to go soverign then there was a history of the "confrontazi" (not sure about the spelling). So lots to worry lots of people about Indonesia. Finally Suharto's own brand of ideologly had for a long time suppressed notions of dominant Islam. But the rise of islamic organizations in the years prior to his fall and the reshuffling of the political elite to match the rising voice of islamic groups not only worried a sizeable portion of the military but also worried outsiders. If you want more on this, check out the Wall Street Journal that did a nice article on the fall of Suharto and the role of the military in orchestrating the chain of events.

With Japan on the long term wane, and the US keeping a more or less- "over the horizon presence" that leaves only the Chinese as the other big neighbor. So expect a bigger role by China in your local affairs for years to come.

For more news on China you might want to check-
http://www.stanford.edu/~fravel/chinafp.htm
 
*LOL*

Hey, welsh.

It's funny to see people from other countries talking about the things I lived with for at least 1/2 of my life. I am old enough to remember going through the constant air raids and drills. We were still taught China was Evil, communism is Evil, and sooner or later we are going to take back our motherland. :D I lived through marshal law most of my younger days. We were given military training, including martial arts, in elementary school. We were taught in a way similar to the Americans. (you know, the "not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country crap") We were very pissed off of the Americans when Nixon(I think) decided to pull out, and embrace China. So of my older friends were there to throw eggs and rotten cabbage at the diplomat who came to announce his country's sorry forign policy. (It was known later on that, even the diplomat himself didn't agree with the policy) The 1989 student protest at the square gave us another false hope that we can finally go "home", and the communist party will fall once for all. I still remember that one minute of silence at the lunch time for those who died in front of the Tank. I had never seen the school so quiet. All military service is mandatory(it still is) for boys over 18, unless he's lucky enough to go to college(you had to pass the exam with a 70% failure rate), or rich enough to leave the country. The funny thing is the system they use to decide where you will end up. If you aren't pre-selected to go to a certain location and detachment(for examble, if you graduated from medical school, you are automatically assign a rank and send to places where they need doctors), you'll go through a 3 month boot camp with an evaluation to separate you into different section according with your physical fitness and so on. Then the fun starts, you get to draw straws. :D:D It's possible(if you are fit enough) to draw the short one and get send to front lines as special forces such as marines or SEALS, or worse. Another interesting thing a lot of people don't know is that we are still technically at war in a situation similar to Korea. If you get send to the front lines(the 2 islands next to the Fujin prov.), you have a higher chance of not coming back. The final test to graduate as a special force member(Marines or higher) usually requires you to swim over to the Mainland, kill a patrol guard, and bring back his head. Of course, they do the same thing to us.

Sorry, I think I've ranted on for too long. It just brings back memories, that's all. But, I hope I gave you guys the insider look into the problem.
 
Jeezus!

Swim to the mainland and bring back a head. Are you kidding? What are the chances of not coming back from the islands?

You know that people have studied the likelihood of the PRC actually invading Taiwan, and the belief that the PRC would get badly hurt in the process.

To be honest with you the situation is nuts, but I think the PRC just plays with it to boost up nationalism and party support. There are a lot of people here (not just Chinese) who really see the situation as strictly a "chinese domestic problem."

Remember when the PRC was sabre rattling a few years ago, and shot some missiles over Taiwan, and the US sent two aircraft carriers (which carry nuclear weapons). Well the Professor went off saying how the two aircraft carriers was provocative and overdone. Like the missiles weren't overdone.

I have spoken to plenty of Chinese students here, and when I ask them if they think Taiwan should be free the answer is "What? It's ours? We have the right to have it back!" - Well, but it's democratic, sperate, stable, and the people don't want to go back. "It doesn't matter. They have to come back. Only one China. It's like if Texas want to leave the US. We got Hong Kong, next is Taiwan."
 
*LOL*

*in a mocking tone*

"Do NOT get me Started on that!"

How can I put this in a way that's not, mmm..., insulting to your Chinese friends. :D

Where do you go to school?

I am assuming most of the "Chinese" students you talked to are mainland "Chinese" students who just came from China. I used to work extensively in the immigration field. Some of my friends jokingly called us Vancouver's "Immigration Naturalization Service". We'll pick you up from the airport, to finding you a home, find school for your children, apply for your sin card, health insurance, and even find you a job or business you maybe interested in investing. :D

Those were the days. Anyway, most of my Clients were mainland Chinese. For those of you who didn't know, you can meet every single type of people coming through the system. I've met Corporate CEOs, speculators, real estate developers, farmers, engineers, reaserchers, event promoters, and etc. If you can name it, I've probably seen it. What I've found out is that you can learn all you want about a place, but you can never know what's it really like until you've talked to, and get to know the people there.

The biggest problem I've found with China is that they are still stuck in the 50/60s'. In a situation similar to Taiwan, going from a Confucius(I never really learned how to spell that, funny, huh? ;-) )to a Capitalist society is not an easy one. I can not relate in any way to the young people that was suppose to be my generation. They may have Gucci shoes, Armani shirts, and Chanel bags, but their ideals are still stuck in the 50s/60s'. This is extremely diffcult to explain if you don't know what I am talking about. And, to make matters worse, you also have to consider the fact of the Culture Revolution. (Examble: There is an old saying in doing business in Asia, "Business is War". This is esp. bad when dealing with most the mainland Chinese people in Business, since they have no moral values what so ever, so you can not depend on them for Anything.)

Culture Revoltion wiped the plate clean for the mainland Chinese people. An old surviver used to say, "Why build a jail when you can lock people up inside their minds?". The whole society became a jail, and your neighbors are the prison guards. This guy also said that the reason he didn't escape is because his life in prison was better than the people outside. He had 2 square meals a day, while the people outside were eating their babies. Did you know these prisons had no locks? That's right, you can walk right out of the door if you want to. The question is, do you want to?

I've stray slightly off the topic somewhat, but I was trying to give a more detailed explanation about the situation.

The point is(finally..., :D )- they still maintain the one dimensional thinking that was rampant during the 50/60s', with the same prejudice, worldly views, and stigma. Of course you do get the odd one who actually know what's really going on, but that doesn't happen very often.

"We got Hong Kong, next is Taiwan."

I don't know how much ignorance is stated in that sentence, but it's enough to get me this far. :P If life is this simple, then maybe Bush got something here. He's Evil, I am good, so I must attack him! :D If this is a video game, then I might agree with him.
 
I agree with this, and to be honest, i was really surprsed that so many young mainland Chinese students are willing to accept these statements. The comments were made by a post-doc bio student and an computer engineering student. To be honest, I was a bit shocked at this. The Taiwanese students I know are of a different mindset, naturally.

I had been to the PRC in 1988 for a brief period and I saw construction sites just about everywhere. But even there, I felt a strong sense that this was all still 1950s-60s Cold War, that things were speeding along but that this is a state that still fears its own people. But that was about 15 years ago. It's surprising that people still have that sentiment. There are a lot of people who still recognize the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist party to run things.

Like you said, no better prison than one's own mind. But that Chinese have come to the US and still have those sentiments was surprising.

I also agree with what you said about business practices on the mainland. When you are there, you have to watch your ass.

The thing is that China is growing and as it does its going to want to have that respect it feels it deserves, and a bigger role to play in the world. Maybe that's justified. But its a different world than it was under the dynasties. And I fear that when the party starts to feel political pressure from the grassroots to change, it will turn on the nationalism to turn attention back to Taiwan. The Taiwan-PRC issue will be a sticky one for years to come.
 
Whew, thanks for "insider" review.
I'm waiting for our Mainland friend Gauss to talk about this.

Well, the Chinese product were totally flooded my country. From scissor to Motorbike. Even there were Chinese made Spare part for anything that run!! Some chinese Pistons and Crank Shaft for Italian Scooter that broke down after 5 months. But to be honest, some taiwan products also got poor quality.
Apparently they come at the right time after US embargo and Withdrawal. Now Indonesia once again joined "Eastern Bloc". Not only us, Thailand and Malay also doing the same. Malay recently purchased Russians Sukhoi Fighter, MiG-29 and T-95 Tanks. Thailand would purchase Chinese Tanks too, last i heard. The only nations which support US nowaday is Phillippines, and they somewhat "exiled" by other ASEAN members. And last i heard they suffered from Commie and Muslims rebels....

BTW Chinese is the biggest nation today, with 1,6 billion citizens, and borders with 18 nations. Even Chiang Kai Sek himself couldn't control all of it.
What about uprising in China? I mean it must be difficult to control anything that big? And what would likely Chinese do about Mid East crisis?

Well most Arabic nation hate Israeli (US as Israeli ally and protector) but China-Israel relation seems to be good, before US intervention in 1998 that canceled a lot of Chinese-Israeli defense pact and some Nuke development backed by Israeli...
It seems now China decided to play in the Gulf......
 
*LOL*

You know what's really funny about that? Some of my close mainland Chinese friends agree with you. They never buy any products here made in China if they can help it. :D They think their stuff is pretty crappy and worthless too. Some of them even told me that because they know how they make it, that's why they won't buy it.

Please don't bring up those old presidents and history, because I don't really feel like debating it. I know enough people in the higher up of both goverments to know the real history, and it's not what you read in text books and library books.

The mainland Chinese problems are now a tinking time bomb, and very few people have noticed that. Just as the American society went through a dramatic change after the cold war, and so will they. Taiwan went through it, and you can still feel the after shocks. So is Japan. I don't know if any of the big internation corporations investing with the dollar signs in their eyes know what's really going on. In 10yrs or less, something big WILL happen that can change the whole landscape in China.

Btw, Mr. Bhass, where does your friend live?

Hey, welsh, I'm surprised to see you understand my point of view, agree with it, nontheless. :P Not very many Asian students get it, and even less westerners get it. In essence, a lot of the people you talk to probably are still just, mm..., shall I say "teenagers"? They see the world using the microscope they are programed with. Some of my friends call them an egg. White on the outside, and yellow on the inside. The funny thing is they try to abondon all Chinese traditions, and yet they cling to these interestingly old style values and morals.

Curious, no?
 
Possibly

The weapons that Iraq supposedly owns look very powerful and can wreak havoc. Iraq is openly threatening us(the United States) by not disarming/discarding their weapons. They have been given enough time to disarm.

I think we should do something about them, because I don't like those biological weapons I've heard of, and if they still have them, than there's something wrong.

So, yes. We should go to war.


Or, I'm just clueless. Bad hangover.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top