OK…Sachi, I know that you and Dafydd support the anti-China side, and so I will only mention the Mount Everest portion of your post.

Personally, after seeing what the anti-China (“pro-Tibet”) mobs had done to the ‘Spirit’ of the Olympics previously (especially in Great Britain and in parts of Europe), it was nice to see an uninterrupted carrying of the Olympic torch to the summit of Mount Everest…

Whatever it takes to maintain the "image", eh, Seaberry?

Using the Olympics as a prop for tyrannies ahs not really worked out very well.
China is looking uglier and uglier and less and less likely to be the stable progressive country the rest of the world has been hoping for, and the Chinese people desperately need.

Okay, how about this. China could simply cancel this silly running of the torch outside their own country in the interest of peace and the Olympic spirit.

Why didn't they do that? Because they are overly proud thugs.

Seaberry:

All right; let's only talk about the Mount Everest portion of the post.

You're a mountain climber, or maybe a guided guest; you have nothing to do with the Olympics or the "free Tibet" movement. You have trained for a couple of years to climb Everest. In addition to that, you have spent several tens of thousands of dollars on the trip; and you have picked a specific time to climb.

You get to the south face base camp and begin the long process of acclimatizing yourself to the altitude... that means you go up to ABC, stay a bit, then down again. Then you go up to Camp 3, then down to ABC, etc. This takes many days.

Then, just as you're about to make the final push up to Camp 4, then make the summit attempt... you get a call: The Chinese on the other side of the mountain have closed Mount Everest for more than a week, time unspecified, to prevent anyone but themselves being able to politically exploit the 2008 Olympics.

(And to suppress freedom of speech for anyone who disagrees with their occupation.)

After nine days, the Chinese finally allow Nepal to open the south route; but you may as well just forget everything and go home. The trip is off. All the money is lost, along with the time and the effort you have put in so far. You might never be able to get back.

But at least, thank God, the Chinese got a chance to show the world that when they aggressively seize control of an entire mountain range at the border of another country, they can have "an uninterrupted carrying of the Olympic torch to the summit of Mount Everest."

Hooray.

Seaberry, I know that you actively applaud the Communist occupation of Tibet and wish Communist countries would conquer and enslave many more primitive cultures -- including perhaps Nepal.

But perhaps you can take a step back and understand how the rest of the world reacts to the colossal arrogance of totalitarianism... which believes that it, by right, properly owns the whole planet -- including a mountain that has always been considered international -- because of the "historical inevitability" of world socialism... and to hell with the rest of us.

No?

All right. I tried.

Dafydd

Dafydd:

All right; let's only talk about the Mount Everest portion of the post.

You're a mountain climber…

Bummer…you mean that I can’t disrupt China’s carrying of the Olympic torch relay to the summit of Mount Everest?!? ;-)

Seriously though, after the ‘spectacle’ of anti-China protests during the first few weeks of the Olympic torch relay, I am sure that China didn’t want to see such protests on top of Mount Everest…and, from what I have seen, it wouldn’t have surprised me to have seen some anti-China protestors on top of Mount Everest attempting to disrupt the relay. Not a safe place to protest…so to speak.

Seaberry, I know that you actively applaud the Communist occupation of Tibet and wish Communist countries would conquer and enslave many more primitive cultures -- including perhaps Nepal.

But perhaps you can take a step back and understand how the rest of the world reacts to the colossal arrogance of totalitarianism... which believes that it, by right, properly owns the whole planet -- including a mountain that has always been considered international -- because of the "historical inevitability" of world socialism... and to hell with the rest of us.

First, I am not pro-Communist. The Western World has been sticking its nose, hands, and feet into China’s business for centuries. Let’s take a quick look at the history of modern China…starting with the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 (from Wikipedia):

1. Until March 1919, the most important role for negotiating the extremely complex and difficult terms of the peace fell to the regular meetings of the "Council of Ten" (head of government and foreign minister) composed of the five major victors (the United States, France, Great Britain, Italy, and Japan).

2. Article 156 of the treaty transferred German concessions in Shandong, China to Japan rather than returning sovereign authority to China. Chinese outrage over this provision led to demonstrations and a cultural movement known as the May Fourth Movement and influenced China not to sign the treaty. China declared the end of its war against Germany in September 1919 and signed a separate treaty with Germany in 1921.

3. China had entered World War I on the side of the Allied Triple Entente in 1917 with the condition that all German spheres of influence, such as Shandong, would be returned to China. That year, 140,000 Chinese laborers (as a part of the British army, the Chinese Labor Corps) were sent to France. Instead of rewarding China for its contribution to the Allies’ victory, the Versailles Treaty of April, 1919, awarded Shandong Province to Japan. (NOTE: Sorta like what happened to Ho Chi Minh and Vietnam, i.e. they were promised that France would not be allowed to reclaim Vietnam after WW2, if Vietnam would help fight Japan. That promise was quickly forgotten after the war, and France was allowed to reclaim Vietnam.)

Naturally, Great Britain kept Hong Kong, because it had been their “dependent territory” since 1842. BTW, let me add Japan along with the Western World, as another country that has been known to stick its nose, hands, and feet into China’s business. (OK…I will add more than just the modern history – History of China.)

4. Qing Dynasty: “…the First Opium War erupted in 1840. Britain and other major powers, including the United States, France, Russia, Germany, and Japan thereupon forcibly occupied "concessions" and gained special commercial privileges. Hong Kong was ceded to Britain in 1842 under the Treaty of Nanjing.”

5. Sino-French War (1883-1885): “Its underlying cause was the French desire for control of the Red River, which linked Hanoi to the resource-wealthy Yunnan province in China. The previous conflict between France and China was the Anglo-French expedition to China (1856-1860).”

6. Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895): “As a newly emergent country, Japan turned its attention towards Korea. In order to protect its own interests and security…Japan resolved to end the centuries-old Chinese suzerainty over Korea. Moreover, Japan realized that Korea’s coal and iron ore deposits would benefit Japan's increasingly-expanding industrial base.”

Other than re-claiming Tibet, I don’t recall China invading another country in the modern era in order to occupy or rule it. Even China’s long history seems to suggest that they want to be left alone (for the most part), i.e. not having meddlesome countries interfering into their business. Everyone might as well forget about Tibet becoming an independent country again. China needs Tibet as a security border from other threatening and/or meddling countries, and are not about to let it go without a fight.

Seaberry:

All right; let's only talk about the Mount Everest portion of the post.

You're a mountain climber...

Bummer…you mean that I can’t disrupt China’s carrying of the Olympic torch relay to the summit of Mount Everest?!? ;-)

What a mountain of omission hides behind a simple elipsis! Here is my complete sentence:

You're a mountain climber, or maybe a guided guest; you have nothing to do with the Olympics or the "free Tibet" movement.

So far as we know, none of the mountain climbers prevented by China from fulilling their mission to summit Everest intended to do anything to interfere with the "Chinese" team's ascent. Are you aware of any such disruptor?

[A]nd, from what I have seen, it wouldn’t have surprised me to have seen some anti-China protestors on top of Mount Everest attempting to disrupt the relay.

Um... have you ever climbed a very tall mountain? What you suggest is physically impossible.

The Western World has been sticking its nose, hands, and feet into China’s business for centuries.

So your syllogism is that the West has in the past oppressed China... so now that China is Red China, it's only fair we allow them to oppress their neighbors -- just to even things up.

Is that more or less your point?

Other than re-claiming Tibet, I don’t recall China invading another country in the modern era in order to occupy or rule it.

Well, except for that little fracas in Korea a while back. And we might include the attack on the American EP-3E and holding of the Navy crew hostage for a week and a half. It's hard to see what we did to provoke that, but perhaps you'll tell us.

And there's all that aggression against Japan recently, particularly over the natural-gas fields underneath Japanese waters (I believe China claims as its own territory all the water right up to Japan's beaches).

And the military aid (including nuclear and missile technology) to North Korea and Iran, two aggressive, threatening friends of China.

China needs Tibet as a security border from other threatening and/or meddling countries, and are not about to let it go without a fight.

Anent those "threatening and/or meddling countries" that border Tibet -- would that be India, Nepal, or Bangladesh?

You're really not answering much, Seaberry; you have yet to explain why, when forced to choose between an aggressive Communist enemy of America and a country that really and truly just wants, like Greta Garbo, to be let alone, you unhesitatingly choose up sides with the former.

I hope you were not so even-handed during the time they held our Navy airmen hostage.

Dafydd

My impression of the Japanese police, as an institution, was that they are a pretty independent bunch, not easily influenced by the other branches of government. Also, going back to the student riots of the seventies, that they have a policy of containing unrest and letting it burn itself out rather than suppressing it with overwhelming force.

Dafydd:

What a mountain of omission hides behind a simple elipsis! Here is my complete sentence:

Picky Picky…and, it looks like you misspelled ellipsis. Anyway, my point was not to cause a “mountain of omission” or to have ignored your scenario, but to suggest that China may have been ‘shell-shocked’ by and from all the previous anti-China protests. Sure, under your scenario, if I had been a mountain climber, I would’ve been disappointed, and will agree that China probably over-reacted by not allowing the other climbers to make their climb.

So your syllogism is that the West has in the past oppressed China... so now that China is Red China, it's only fair we allow them to oppress their neighbors -- just to even things up.

Is that more or less your point?

No. My point remains the same as my original one in Sachi’s first post on this subject – i.e. that this is the Olympic Torch Relay, a part of the Olympics, and political protests should not be evolved. The Olympics is a worldwide sporting event and not some United Nations political event where grievances are aired. The West, along with Japan and others, have attempted to continue their Modus Operandi of trying to ‘oppress’ China, and to embarrass China whilst attempting to disrupt the Olympic Torch Relay prior to the start of the Olympic Games (and beyond). China knows this and remembers the past.

Well, except for that little fracas in Korea a while back. And we might include the attack on the American EP-3E and holding of the Navy crew hostage for a week and a half. It's hard to see what we did to provoke that, but perhaps you'll tell us.

By the “little fracas in Korea” I will assume that you mean – the Korean War, “6•25 War”, “Fatherland Liberation War”, “Korean Conflict”, and/or the “War to Resist America and Aid Korea”.

Korean War:

After defeating China in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95, the Japanese forces remained in Korea, occupying strategically important parts of the country. Ten years later, they defeated the Russian navy in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905), contributing to Japan's emergence as an imperial power.[20] The Japanese continued to occupy the peninsula against the wishes of the Korean government and people, expanded their control over local institutions through force, and finally annexed Korea in August 1910.

The eventual division of Korea was considered at the Potsdam Conference, boundaries weren't discussed and the wishes of the Korean people to be free of foreign interference were not considered, though Churchill, Chiang and Roosevelt had stated a determination for Korean independence and freedom at the Cairo Conference.

The American forces arrived in Korea in early September. One of Hodge's first directives was to restore many Japanese colonial administrators and collaborators to their previous positions of power within Korea. This policy was understandably very unpopular among Koreans who had suffered horribly under Japanese colonial rule for 35 years, and would prove to have enormous consequences for the American occupation.

There are always two sides to a story. In the case of the “little fracas in Korea”, our side was trying to stop the spread of Communism, and China’s side was probably trying to stop the spread of Imperialism, whilst trying to maintain some security around their border areas. Both Korean sides were probably just happy to be rid of the Japanese, and after suffering some 35 years “under Japanese colonization”…“most Koreans opposed another period of foreign control.” Point is, the West and Japan were also seeking control over Korea…and there was the interesting story of Syngman Rhee.

The American EP-3E…a spy plane and its collision with a Chinese F-8 fighter, in April of 2001, which ended with the F-8’s crash and death of pilot Wang Wei, and the EP-3E’s emergency landing at a “PLA’s Lingshui airfield on Hainan Island”.

“In China, the veteran Wang, 33, was seen as a heroic defender of the motherland. In truth, he could be a bit of a joker himself. An American air crew once photographed Wang winging by holding up a sign advertising his e-mail address. A showboat in the fighter-jock tradition, Wang Wei liked to fly underneath the ponderous American EP-3Es--then suddenly pop up just ahead.”

BTW, the EP-3E was approaching “…the headquarters of China's South Sea Fleet…”

And there's all that aggression against Japan recently, particularly over the natural-gas fields underneath Japanese waters (I believe China claims as its own territory all the water right up to Japan's beaches).

If Japan has a dispute with China over some “natural-gas fields”, then perhaps they should invade China again…just kidding. Apparently Japan and China hate each other, but such hatred should be kept out of the Olympics, IMHO.

And the military aid (including nuclear and missile technology) to North Korea and Iran, two aggressive, threatening friends of China.

America sells arms to and supports Taiwan…a touchy subject with China.

Anent those "threatening and/or meddling countries" that border Tibet -- would that be India, Nepal, or Bangladesh?

In Sachi’s previous post on this subject, I provided a link to a “Population Map” – Here. China does not want those massive populations of northern India, Nepal, and Bangladesh to end up squatting on Chinese soil…thus; they have reclaimed the northern side of the Himalayas. China and Tibet have been linked together for centuries. China claims that “Greater Tibet…was engineered by foreign imperialists as a plot to divide China amongst themselves”, and history (both old and modern) seems to backup their claim. See my previous post – “Hong Kong was ceded to Britain in 1842… Sino-French War (1883-1885)…Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895)…the Allied Triple Entente in 1917…the Treaty of Versailles in 1919…Article 156 of the treaty”. Let me add:

Western Government secret intervention into Tibet began before the 1959 CIA supported insurrection. British MI6 agent Sidney Wignall, in his recent autobiography, reveals that he travelled to Tibet with John Harrop in 1955 posing as mountaineers. Captured by the Chinese authority, Wignell recalled that he was surprised to find two CIA agents were already under Chinese detention. Tibetan exiles trained in a CIA camp in Colorado clashed with Chinese forces in 1959 during the celebration of the Tibetan New Year, after which the 14th Dalai Lama, with CIA help, went into political exile in India.

The recent anti-China/pro-Tibet Olympic Torch Relay protests prove that foreign meddling into China’s affairs go far beyond just politics, and that China is wise in securing their mainland, from the likes of the United States, Germany, France, Great Britain, Italy, and Japan (along with a few other countries), with strong borders.

Now, I would like to point out that China has changed…not as fast as we may like, since the days of Mao Zedong, but changed it has. Still, if I were President of the US, I would attack China and try to destroy it totally; however, judging by the reactions of many Americans towards the War Against Terrorism, I would probably end up being impeached. Clearly, China isn’t our worst enemy; we are our own worst enemy. We are about to elect a President who will cater to Ahmadinejad, Muqtada al-Sadr, and the likes of Hezbollah more than Carter catered to Yasser Arafat and the PLO. With such a scenario, Tibet seems more like a non-issue to me, if not for the all the protests disrupting the Olympic Torch Relay.

Seaberry,

The West, along with Japan and others, have attempted to continue their Modus Operandi of trying to ‘oppress’ China, and to embarrass China whilst attempting to disrupt the Olympic Torch Relay prior to the start of the Olympic Games (and beyond). China knows this and remembers the past.

When and how did we "oppress" china during the torch relay? How was that mob in Japan or Korea oppressed? Who sent the thugs to foreign countries to suppress freedom of speech? Who pressured Nepal to send away an American climber who had a "Free Tibet" banner?

Who is trying to "oppress" freedom of speech all over the world?

Not us.

Sachi

Sachi:

Who pressured Nepal to send away an American climber who had a "Free Tibet" banner?

I didn't know that, and will have to correct my point to Dafydd about agreeing with him "that China probably over-reacted". After all the protesting, the American climber needed to be sent away. The Olympics isn't about "freedom of speech", i.e. the freedom to harass, disrupt, embarrass, insult, etc. the hosting country.

When and how did we "oppress" china during the torch relay? How was that mob in Japan or Korea oppressed? Who sent the thugs to foreign countries to suppress freedom of speech?

Before Japan and SOUTH Korea, there were the violent anti-China messes in Great Britain and Europe. That seemed to set off all the political protesting, which has ruined the meaning of the Olympic Torch Relay, to me anyway. There was no need to protest the relay in such a way, i.e. to bring politics into the Olympic scene…no need to hound China in such a way. Then the pro-China crowds apparently got involved.

Politics needs to be kept out of the Olympics...

Seaberry:

Picky Picky…and, it looks like you misspelled ellipsis.

Oh, did I make a typo? How clumsy of me. By the way, in this sentence of yours --

[T]his is the Olympic Torch Relay, a part of the Olympics, and political protests should not be evolved.

-- I think the last word ought to be involved, not evolved. Can we get back to most substantive points, now?

The West, along with Japan and others, have attempted to continue their Modus Operandi of trying to ‘oppress’ China, and to embarrass China whilst attempting to disrupt the Olympic Torch Relay prior to the start of the Olympic Games (and beyond). China knows this and remembers the past.

Perhaps, in all your studies of history, you never stumbled across this; but here in the West, we have another tradition -- one even older than the modern Olympic games: That is the tradition of freedom of speech.

It trumps any putative "right" China (or any other nation) may have (assuming nations can have rights, which I also dispute) to the PR opportunity of hosting an Olympics.

"The West" is not trying to embarass China; China is doing a bang-up job of embarassing itself by its ham-fisted and thuggish attempts to stifle any negative publicity anent its brutal Tibet policy.

All that "the West" is doing is allowing those with opinions to express them freely. When they cross the line -- crowding around the torch runner, for example -- cops in "the West" push them back. They even try to keep pro-freedom and pro-China protesters apart, so the latter can't beat and kill the former, as they ache to do.

This may seem a strange tradition, allowing speech, even protest, coming from your self-chosen perspective as a de facto agent of Red China; but you'll just have to get used to the fact that large swaths of the rest of the world do not share China's totalitarian impulse.

There are always two sides to a story. In the case of the "little fracas in Korea", our side was trying to stop the spread of Communism, and China’s side was probably trying to stop the spread of Imperialism, whilst trying to maintain some security around their border areas.

Pure cultural relativism! "Our side" -- why do you include yourself when you take China's side, not ours? -- was indeed trying to stop the spread of Communism... but "China's side" -- that is, the side of Mao Tse Tung, Josef Stalin, and Kim Song-Il -- was trying mightily to spread Communism... to conquer the southern part of Korea.

As brutal as Syngman Rhee was in suppressing Communist insurgents in South Korea (and likely his democratic opponents as well), he pales to nothing compared to the transcendental evil and bloodlust of Stalin, Mao, and Kim; between them, according to the seminal and undisputed Black Book of Communism, they caused the deaths of nearly 100 million souls. (Mao -- your dog in this fight -- was responsible for the lion's share of that death toll.)

BTW, the EP-3E was approaching "...the headquarters of China's South Sea Fleet..."

BTW, our EP-3E was about seventy miles from any Chinese land. Under the Law of the Sea Treaty, that put us squarely in international waters.

But China doesn't recognize that treaty. Instead, it insists that it owns the ocean out to 200 miles... and it violently "defends" that claim by assaulting shipping and air traffic that "violates" their self-declared airspace.

So you're on China's side in that attack on our plane too? I am rather surprised... I hadn't realized you were willing to defend every military claim made by the People's Republic of China -- no matter how indefensible.

Why not 500 miles? Why not 2,000? Judging by your next statement (comparing Taiwan to Iran and North Korea), you would defend "reunification" between Red China and Taiwan, which China calls a "renegade province" of itself (Red China has never controlled Taiwan). If China claimed ownership of Korea and Japan, would you defend that as vigorously as you defend their claim to Tibet?

And the military aid (including nuclear and missile technology) to North Korea and Iran, two aggressive, threatening friends of China.

America sells arms to and supports Taiwan... a touchy subject with China.

Here you astonishingly equate Taiwan with North Korea and Iran: When is the last time Taiwan announced an intention to invade China by force and annex it? How many nuclear missiles does Taiwan have? When is the last time the democratic government of the Republic of China aggressed against any other country?

But the People's Republic declares them a renegade province, and that appears to be good enough for you to counter Red China's aid to Iran and North Korea by pointing to America's refusal to allow China to invade and occupy Taiwan.

Do we detect a pattern here?

China claims that "Greater Tibet... was engineered by foreign imperialists as a plot to divide China amongst themselves", and history (both old and modern) seems to backup their claim.

"China claims," and you defend. The pattern continues.

Another way to look at it is that Greater Tibet was engineered by foreign advocates of democracy as an operation to liberate the Communist Chinese empire's oppressed colonies... just as we sought to liberate the oppressed nations of eastern Europe from the tyranny of the Soviet Union. (Are you also angry about the fall of the Berlin wall?)

You insist you are not a Communist, and I have no reason to dispute that; but you certainly appear to be an apologist for Communism, even for its worst excesses. E.g.:

The recent anti-China/pro-Tibet Olympic Torch Relay protests prove that foreign meddling into China’s affairs go far beyond just politics, and that China is wise in securing their mainland, from the likes of the United States, Germany, France, Great Britain, Italy, and Japan (along with a few other countries), with strong borders.

One cannot read such a statement without realizing at once that you have chosen up sides... and you didn't choose democracy, freedom, and the West. Against this, your subsequent statement that you, as president, would "attack China and try to destroy it totally" rings rather hollow, falling into the category of "methinks the lady doth protest too much."

You sometimes talk like an anti-Communist -- in vague, general terms; but whenever it comes to specific incidents, you are always on the side of the PRC. I don't recall a single instance I or anyone else has brought up where you said, "China is totally wrong on this point, and the other side was right to resist." You have defended China on:

• The conquest of Tibet;
• The violent crackdown in 1989;
• The Tibetan protests and the violent crackdown this year;
• The use of paramilitaries in other countries to "guard the torch" -- and suppress legitimate freedom of speech against China;
• The use of Chinese foreign-exchange students to continue the work of the paramilitaries above, when the PLA soldiers were banned from the torch parade by Japan and South Korea;
• China's attack on the American EP-3E;
• China's goal of the overthrow of the democratic nation of Taiwan by invasion and occupation;
• China's paranoid claims about its territorial waters and the "threat" posed to it by South Korea, Japan, the United States, India, Nepal, and Bangladesh;
• And you even take China's side in the Korean war.

Have I missed any?

Oh, and last point. You wrote:

After all the protesting, the American climber needed to be sent away. The Olympics isn't about "freedom of speech", i.e. the freedom to harass, disrupt, embarrass, insult, etc. the hosting country.

The Olympics also isn't being held on the Nepal side of Mount Everest. More than any other point you made, this shows your animosity against freedom of speech when that speech is directed against Red China.

You now flatly state that protest against China should be forbidden anywhere in the world, even in territory that not even China itself claims as its own, because such free speech might detract from the propaganda coup Red China hopes to wring from the Beijing Olympics.

To quote Stan Lee, "'nuff said."

Politics needs to be kept out of the Olympics...

Then the Olympics should be kept far away from political animals like the People's Republic of China.

Dafydd

Dafydd:

Perhaps, in all your studies of history, you never stumbled across this; but here in the West, we have another tradition -- one even older than the modern Olympic games: That is the tradition of freedom of speech.

It trumps any putative "right" China (or any other nation) may have (assuming nations can have rights, which I also dispute) to the PR opportunity of hosting an Olympics.

Let’s see…the anti-China/pro-Tibet protestors were merely exercising their rights to “freedom of speech” by trying to disrupt, hinder or halt the Torch Relay and, in some cases, by physically attacking the Torch bearers. Jin Jing, a 27 year-old amputee, was assaulted several times, i.e. "tugged at, scratched" and "kicked"…in another instance of a protestor exercising his rights to “freedom of speech”, Konnie Hug was attacked. There were instances of protestors trying to extinguish the flame with water or fire extinguishers. Torch routes had to be shortened and changed constantly, because of the violent anti-China/pro-Tibet protestors.

Prompted by the chaotic torch relays in Europe and North America, the president of the International Olympic Committee, Jacques Rogge described the situation as a "crisis" for the organization…

Look at your post that I am replying to…sheesh! For taking China’s side in the Olympic Torch Relay, I end up being a supporter of “Mao Tse Tung, Josef Stalin, and Kim Song-Il”…asked if I am “also angry about the fall of the Berlin wall”…that I have defended China on the “violent crackdown in 1989” (show me where I defended China on that)…that I am against “against freedom of speech”…etcetera etcetera.

Ditto on the Stan Lee quote, "'nuff said."

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)