Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/
It's a common debate even in China, not unusual at all!Christopher Sidor wrote:^^^^
DavidD I do not disagree with you holding the view that Mao was good for PRC. One is entitled to his or her views. We after all live in a free world.
Why does becoming an independent and sovereign nation require the killing of 20 million ?DavidD wrote:That could not have been achieved without first becoming an independent, sovereign nation.Christopher Sidor wrote:^^^^
So it is okie to lay wreath at memorial of a mass murderer, responsible for deaths of over 20 million. It is okie to build parks and monuments to such an individual. How can PRC and its citizens draw parallels to the nazis when their conduct is in certain cases worse than the nazis?
Why the selective quoting? In the very same post I said this:KrishnaK wrote:Why does becoming an independent and sovereign nation require the killing of 20 million ?DavidD wrote:
That could not have been achieved without first becoming an independent, sovereign nation.
Does that answer your question? Would you rather be a banker who once lost $20 million in a bad investment but is now worth $1 billion, or would you rather be a banker who never lost more than $2000 but is now worth $800 million? In case it isn't clear yet, I'm not saying that the $20 million loss somehow enabled the $1 billion later, just that he's a banker who's made some mistakes.I'm not saying that the deaths of those 20 million somehow paved the way for salvation of 200 million in the future...
China poses an increasing challenge to the U.S. military’s technological edge while budget pressures are hampering Washington’s effort to stay ahead, a senior defense official warned Tuesday.
Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer, told U.S. lawmakers that when it comes to “technological superiority, the Department of Defense is being challenged in ways that I have not seen for decades, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region.”
Citing China’s major investments in anti-ship missiles, stealth fighter jets, hypersonic vehicles and other high-tech weaponry, Kendall said the United States could lose its dominant position if it failed to respond to the altered strategic landscape.
“Technological superiority is not assured and we cannot be complacent about our posture,” he told the House Armed Services Committee.
Asked to assess what one lawmaker called an arms race between the two countries, Kendall said there was cause for concern as China dramatically increases its military spending.
“Their budget is far smaller than ours, but their personnel costs are also far smaller than ours,” said Kendall, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics.
“Our budgets are going in the opposite direction. So just by that metric alone, it’s not positive.”
Lawmakers and defense analysts say China is making strides in modernizing its military, particularly in the area of so-called anti-access weapons — such as missiles and electronic jamming systems — that could potentially limit the reach of U.S. aircraft carriers or warplanes.
Kendall said when he returned to the Pentagon after being away for 15 years, he was “struck immediately by the nature, scope and quality of the investments that are being made in A2AD, as we call it, anti-access area denial capabilities.”
As a result, the Pentagon is “looking very carefully at Pacific Command’s requirements and what they need for the operations in that area,” he said.
Kendall added that Washington was concerned about China exporting its newer weapons abroad. {A farcical statement from the US}
Echoing Kendall’s wider concerns, Adm. Samuel Locklear, head of U.S. Pacific Command, said last week that the American military’s “relative dominance” is declining as other countries invest in sophisticated weapons.
The admiral, however, said it was “not something to be afraid of” and that the U.S. had to be “pragmatic” as it plans for the future.
Kendall, however, said that mandatory budget cuts adopted by Congress were tying the Pentagon’s hands as it tries to maintain America’s military power.
“Our ability within the department to respond to that challenge is severely limited by the current budget situation,” he cautioned.
China is considering declaring a new Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the South China Sea, according to a Japanese report Friday, a move likely to fan tensions in an area riven by territorial disputes.
The report comes months after Beijing caused consternation with the sudden declaration of an ADIZ above the East China Sea, covering islands at the centre of a sovereignty row with Tokyo.
It also comes as countries in the region grow increasingly concerned about what they see as China's aggressive territorial claims.
Working level officials in the Chinese airforce have drafted proposals for the new zone, which could set the Paracel islands at its core and spread over much of the sea, the Asahi Shimbun said, citing unnamed sources, including from the Chinese government.
It is trolling, because you have a past record in your user history, of responding with combative one liners. Such a style amounts to trolling. We do not encourage it. If you write substantially, your post will be left alone.DavidD wrote:Suraj, you can call it meaningless trolling all you want, but the question is a very valid one.
I use one-liners to redirect the topic toward a subject I've already addressed, as it would be meaningless to address the question again, which apparently I had to do anyway since you ironically deemed my one-liner "meaningless". Clearly, I have already addressed why the deaths at Mao's hands may be forgiven, and the reason I gave can be summarized as "20 million vs. 200 million". One may disagree with my reasonings, but he sidestepped it and rehashed once again how many died during Mao's reign. I simply wanted to redirect the topic so that we don't continue in a cycle of truly meaningless conversations in the form of:Suraj wrote:It is trolling, because you have a past record in your user history, of responding with combative one liners. Such a style amounts to trolling. We do not encourage it. If you write substantially, your post will be left alone.DavidD wrote:Suraj, you can call it meaningless trolling all you want, but the question is a very valid one.
n recent months, India has welcomed the Japanese emperor, then the defense minister, and last weekend, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, at national Republic Day celebrations. K. Shankar Bajpai, a former secretary of Indian external affairs, said: “India and Japan can honestly say that they are not building relations in hostility against China. But it is right for them to plan for the eventuality of Chinese hostility.” Between India and Japan, this is largely a marriage of convenience.
Both have territorial disputes with China. India fought a border war with China in 1962 and, last year, had several military standoffs. But, in October, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India and Prime Minister Li Keqiang of China signed an agreement pledging restraint on border issues. Japan has an escalating territorial dispute with China over islets in the East China Sea. Japanese and Chinese leaders have been unable to meet to ease the tension. And Mr. Abe has long regarded India as a powerful counterweight to China’s strategic rise.Mr. Abe offered a $2 billion loan for an array of infrastructure investments including the expansion of the New Delhi Metro train services, the Delhi-Mumbai industrial corridor project and a children’s hospital. Mr. Abe and Mr. Singh agreed to discuss further Japanese aid and loans to India for nuclear power reactors and high-speed rail systems. But Mr. Singh declined to take sides in the territorial dispute between China and Japan.What Mr. Abe got from India were agreements for the director of Japan’s national security council to meet regularly with the Indian counterpart, and to hold consultations between the countries’ defense and foreign ministers. India also invited Japan to join an India-United States naval exercise. Both India and Japan are pleased by the state of their relationship. Still, Mr. Abe should realize that India is not about to weigh in on Japan’s differences with China. He needs to coordinate his China policy with Washington, which sees little gain from confronting China.
n recent months, India has welcomed the Japanese emperor, then the defense minister, and last weekend, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, at national Republic Day celebrations. K. Shankar Bajpai, a former secretary of Indian external affairs, said: “India and Japan can honestly say that they are not building relations in hostility against China. But it is right for them to plan for the eventuality of Chinese hostility.” Between India and Japan, this is largely a marriage of convenience.
Both have territorial disputes with China. India fought a border war with China in 1962 and, last year, had several military standoffs. But, in October, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India and Prime Minister Li Keqiang of China signed an agreement pledging restraint on border issues. Japan has an escalating territorial dispute with China over islets in the East China Sea. Japanese and Chinese leaders have been unable to meet to ease the tension. And Mr. Abe has long regarded India as a powerful counterweight to China’s strategic rise.Mr. Abe offered a $2 billion loan for an array of infrastructure investments including the expansion of the New Delhi Metro train services, the Delhi-Mumbai industrial corridor project and a children’s hospital. Mr. Abe and Mr. Singh agreed to discuss further Japanese aid and loans to India for nuclear power reactors and high-speed rail systems. But Mr. Singh declined to take sides in the territorial dispute between China and Japan.What Mr. Abe got from India were agreements for the director of Japan’s national security council to meet regularly with the Indian counterpart, and to hold consultations between the countries’ defense and foreign ministers. India also invited Japan to join an India-United States naval exercise. Both India and Japan are pleased by the state of their relationship. Still, Mr. Abe should realize that India is not about to weigh in on Japan’s differences with China. He needs to coordinate his China policy with Washington, which sees little gain from confronting China.
No it doesn't answer my question. Multiple issues with your argument. Let me try this one: A dollar bill isn't capable of getting upset that it got burnt and another got to stay in circulation. Unfortunately human beings don't behave that way. Very much the reason behind individual rights and freedoms.DavidD wrote:Why the selective quoting? In the very same post I said this:KrishnaK wrote:Why does becoming an independent and sovereign nation require the killing of 20 million ?
Does that answer your question? Would you rather be a banker who once lost $20 million in a bad investment but is now worth $1 billion, or would you rather be a banker who never lost more than $2000 but is now worth $800 million? In case it isn't clear yet, I'm not saying that the $20 million loss somehow enabled the $1 billion later, just that he's a banker who's made some mistakes.I'm not saying that the deaths of those 20 million somehow paved the way for salvation of 200 million in the future...
JEM, I think the message here is different: don't get china riled up over your war dead. We aren't about to get into a confrontation over that. To add, what they're saying, if true, is troubling.JE Menon wrote:>>He needs to coordinate his China policy with Washington, which sees little gain from confronting China.
The New York Times and other mainstream media in the US is increasingly becoming very "Pakistani" in their analysis of situations and their ability as well. Basically that editorial was all about the last sentence (Typical Pak style), which is an unsubtle whine in the direction of Tokyo: "Why aren't you talking to us and co-ordinating with us (i.e. the US) on China"?
These newspapers, whose relevance is questionable in any case, are ignorant about their ignorance - they don't know that they don't know. The expertise and depth of understanding is lacking, and there is rarely any room for nuance. They are tired, and ultimately steadily descending into uselessness. They do get a decent piece in now and then, but that is more about the writer than about the newspaper.
Why am I commenting on it? Because it was linked, and part copy-pasted. That's why the comment is on BRF, not on the NYT website.
The United States warned has China against any move to declare a new air defence zone over parts of the South China Sea, including disputed islands.
The Asahi Shimbun daily of Japan reported that Chinese air force officials have drafted proposals for the next Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) that could place the Paracel Islands at its core.
Any such move would be seen “as a provocative and unilateral act that would raise tensions and call into serious question China’s commitment to diplomatically managing territorial disputes’’, State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters yesterday.
She stressed, however, that the reports were “unconfirmed” at this time.
“We’ve made very clear that parties must refrain from announcing an ADIZ or any other administrative regulation restraining activity of others in disputed territories, and we would of course urge China not to do so,” Harf added.
SS sir..SSridhar wrote:JEM, you are right on dot. And, why is Japan not so earnestly coordinating with Washington ? The reason is obvious. Japan is losing faith in the American ability to intervene if and a when a situation arises vis-a-vis China. It is beginning to mistrust the US and is therefore hedging its options with other significant and birds-of-the-same-feather players in the region. Of course, this does not mean that there is any major disruption in the US-Japan relationship . Far from it.
The United States has asked China not to set up another air defense identification zone in Asia, warning the move could lead the U.S. military to change its posture in the region, a senior U.S. official said Thursday.
“We oppose China’s establishment of an ADIZ in other areas, including the South China Sea” where China is involved in territorial rows with Southeast Asian countries, Evan Medeiros, senior director for Asian affairs at the National Security Council, said in an interview.
“We have been very clear with the Chinese that we would see that (setting of another ADIZ) as a provocative and destabilizing development that would result in changes in our presence and military posture in the region,” Medeiros said.
The official made the remarks as the U.S. government has strongly reacted to China’s establishment of an ADIZ in November over the East China Sea, saying the move undermined regional stability. Beijing claims the Japan-controlled Senkaku Islands in the area as its own.
Medeiros said the U.S. government has been working with the Japanese government in “very strong coordination” on the ADIZ issue.
Washington thinks Beijing set up an ADIZ over the East China Sea “to try and bolster its claims to disputed territories,” he said, referring to the uninhabited Senkakus, islands that China calls the Diaoyus.
China began to claim the Senkakus in the 1970s after studies indicated there may be vast oil reserves in the surrounding sea bed.
“We do not accept, we do not acknowledge, we do not recognize China’s declared ADIZ,” Medeiros said. Washington has said the Senkakus are covered by its security treaty with Tokyo, which obliges the United States to defend Japan.
Top U.S. officials have criticized China for setting up without prior consultation such a defense zone that overlaps with similar zones operated by Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.
Medeiros dismissed a view that the United States will try harder to join hands with China and lead decision-making on international issues under a so-called Group of Two framework. “Nobody wants it,” Medeiros said, referring to the G-2 concept.
The NSC official said there are “serious sources of competition in the U.S.-China relationship and that these need to be managed.”
“When we look at major powers in East Asia who share our interests, who share our values, and who are actively working with us to solve problems, Japan is at the top of the list,” he said.
I was told by of the Chinese colleague that China has African Govt by its balls...JE Menon wrote:Wait for the Japanese moves in Africa as well.
just kidding, but you've got to dick around sub-Saharan Africa to know what I mean. Jica is present widely already as well. But it's business that will do the trick...No, it clearly answers your question, you just disagree with the answer.KrishnaK wrote: No it doesn't answer my question. Multiple issues with your argument. Let me try this one: A dollar bill isn't capable of getting upset that it got burnt and another got to stay in circulation. Unfortunately human beings don't behave that way. Very much the reason behind individual rights and freedoms.
I've answered the question, twice actually.Suraj wrote:DavidD: what is the causal relationship between the 38-40 million killed in the GLF, and another 10-15 million dead in the GPCR, and the ones 'saved' ? Mao had been quite dead for half a decade before China even embarked on economic reforms. Since you often quoted the German/Hitler example, would you also argue that Hitler saved modern day Jews and contributed to their position of economic and educational preeminence, by killing 6 million of them ? Or would Germans credit their current economic wellbeing to him ? After all, he did get them past the Weimar tumult and built some nice roads.
The fact is, Mao was directly responsible for the deaths in question. He had absolutely no causal role to play in anyone being saved. Do Chinese families - and I'm assuming nearly every person in China today lost someone in those calamities - actually sit around talking 'I'm glad grand<someone> died back then so we can be well off today' ?
That's the problem with China's modern day narrative. You spend an extraordinary amount of energy railing at some opportunistic foreign states who happily took advantage of your own incompetence at running your country, and simultaneously whitewash the worst destructive man-made calamities in terms of casualty count, on the basis of good things that happened later. Some calamities had just causes - say, the US civil war - but GLF/GPCR were unmitigated disasters, and Mao's 'unifying' China had more to do with everyone periodically getting tired of fighting each other than anything to do with him.
In other words, there is no causal relationship. The Great Leap Forward is unequivocally a colossal mistake of Mao's. Mao is forgiven because, once again, he delivered China from 100+ years of constant warfare and stabilized a government that to this day guide the Chinese people forward. As for the Germany/Hitler analogies, do you deny that Hitler helped get Germany over the tumult that followed WWI? Of course, he also invited absolutely, utter destruction upon Germany later on. To put it simply, he's the exact opposite of Mao: the bad Hitler did for his country greatly outweighs the good.I'm not saying that the deaths of those 20 million somehow paved the way for salvation of 200 million in the future...
In india, its not ok to murder someone so that others can have a bigger piece of cake. Dunno about China.In India it's better to have everyone suffer more so that no one would be sacrificed in a risky social experiment. In China it's acceptable that some people may be sacrificed in a risky social experiment if it means that everyone else suffers less.
You're still hang up with this whole "willingness" thing. Few is willing to sacrifice themselves or their loved ones for the greater good, so you don't ask for people to volunteer, you just do it. You don't ask who wants to donate their land for the Three Gorge Dam or the High Speed Rail, you just evict them and give them enough money to start a new life. People will by-and-large accept the outcome because they will by-and-large benefit from it, as the current Chinese society demonstrates.RSoami wrote:The simple question that needs to be answered here is - Would any person in China be willing to see his mother, father, brother or sister die in the name of `greater good` of the society?! If the answer is yes then the argument is over.
Its important that people value other peoples lives and their near and dear ones as much as they do their own. Its easy for the nationalist rhetoric geniuses to say that some people have to sacrifice themselves for the better good of the society. thats what Hitler said too when murdering the hapless disabled people.
Going by your logic, it would be better to murder all the old people in China because there will be more of them due to its one child policy for decades. Their death will benefit the working population who will have less mouths to feed and therefore will be more prosperous and efficient.
And will look nice on the per Capita income graph too.
And who colonized India is irrelevant. It does not influence the Indian though process. Going by that Logic, the thinking of all Chinese ought to be confused, because there was no imperialist power which failed in colonizing China.
Regards
Let's start with "Those are the choices each country makes". You can't cloak what the CPC has done and continues to do with "China making a choice". The Chinese people don't have anything as fancy as choice. It is the CPC that has that power. It is telling that you chose to confuse the CPC with China.DavidD wrote:No, it clearly answers your question, you just disagree with the answer.KrishnaK wrote: No it doesn't answer my question. Multiple issues with your argument. Let me try this one: A dollar bill isn't capable of getting upset that it got burnt and another got to stay in circulation. Unfortunately human beings don't behave that way. Very much the reason behind individual rights and freedoms.
Individual rights and freedoms hamper the growth of a society as a whole, it makes individuals incapable of sacrificing themselves or other individuals for the greater good. This is why kids in China are taught from a young age that "you're not special, you're just like everybody else and your needs are no more important than anybody else'." Considering India was colonized by the British for a long time, I'm assuming that Indians have largely adopted the western view of "you're special, everybody's special, and you always deserve the best and you're the most precious thing in the world." Am I right? Just a matter of different world views.
In India it's better to have everyone suffer more so that no one would be sacrificed in a risky social experiment. In China it's acceptable that some people may be sacrificed in a risky social experiment if it means that everyone else suffers less. Those are the choices each country makes, and as far as I'm concerned, to each his own.
Let me explain in greater detail because you seem to be well and truly confused. The CPC makes the choice: you 20 there are going poof. The CPC then follows up with the choice of absurd propaganda: i.e. telling the other 80, those 20 were poof'ed for your benefit. The remaining 80 don't have any choice as there is no mechanism for them to show their disapproval. Without that what you're peddling is propaganda at the same level of imagination as "kids in China are taught from a young age that "you're not special, you're just like everybody else and your needs are no more important than anybody else'."Okinawa Prefecture and the U.S. territory of Guam could become targets of the Chinese military in the event of contingencies in Taiwan or the South China Sea, a senior U.S. Air Force official said.
The People’s Liberation Army Air Force and the Second Artillery Corps would be tasked with strikes against American forces and facilities if China decided that U.S. intervention in such conflicts would have an overwhelming impact, the official, part of the National Air and Space Intelligence Center, said.
“Chinese analysts note the importance of military on Okinawa and Guam, and these assets and their supporting infrastructure are likely high priority targets of the PLAAF and Second Artillery” Corps, the official noted.
The official made the comments Thursday in written testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, which advises the U.S. Congress.
China is locked in territorial disputes with Taiwan and other Southeast Asian countries over island chains in the South China Sea, and with Japan over the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea.
Let's wait for the usual Chinese reaction.Guwahati: Tibetan religious leader Dalai Lama on Sunday said new Chinese President “seems more realistic” as he is interested in knowing the fact. But, hardliner Chinese Communists were bent on suppressing the Tibetans and their rich Tibetan Buddhist culture and heritage, he said.
The Dalai Lama called for resolving the Tibet issue through dialogue and non-violent methods. He, however, said that non-violent method c could not have one sided victory. One sided victory or one sided defeat would only again lead to confrontation and result in more violence, he said.
He called for making the 21st century the century of dialogue towards building the next century as “the century of peace.”
The Dalai Lama, who arrived in the city on Saturday on a three-day visit to Assam and Meghalaya, made these statements while delivering the first LBS Founders’ Commemorative Lecture organised in memory of Bichitra Nayaran Dutta Borooah and Khagendra Nath Dutta Borooah. His inaugural speech was at the five-day festival of Tibetan Arts and Culture organised by the Friends of Tibet and Tibetans. A large number of Tibetan refugees, besides Buddhist followers from Bhutan, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam and other north-eastern States participated.
China has rejected reports suggesting it was planning to set up an air defence zone over the disputed South China Sea, saying it was “yet to feel any air security threat” from its Southeast Asian neighbours.{Now, that is an interesting articulation, 'yet to feel'}
After a Japanese newspaper reported last week that China was considering setting up a second such zone over the South China Sea — a move that would be certain to worry the half a dozen or so countries that have competing claims over the sea’s waters and islands — the Chinese Foreign Ministry was quick to deny the report, and also, at the same time, accuse Tokyo of attempting to fan tensions.
“In a general view, the Chinese side has yet to feel any air security threat from the ASEAN countries and is optimistic about its relations with the neighbouring countries and the general situation in the South China Sea region”, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei said in a statement. He blamed “right-wing forces of Japan” for “repeatedly clamor[ing]” about the alleged plan of China to set up ADIZ over the South China Sea”. “We sternly warned these forces not to mislead public opinions with rumours and play up tensions for their own selfish benefit,” he said.
What's the old saying, the proof of the pudding is in the eating? The remaining 80 is much better off than a similar country faced with similar choices. Should that no longer be true, the Chinese people will no longer tolerate this government and rise up against it as they have throughout its history, and as many of you have constantly predicted. In this way, the Chinese people choose. All the rest of the details are up to the CPC to decide.KrishnaK wrote:Let's start with "Those are the choices each country makes". You can't cloak what the CPC has done and continues to do with "China making a choice". The Chinese people don't have anything as fancy as choice. It is the CPC that has that power. It is telling that you chose to confuse the CPC with China.DavidD wrote: No, it clearly answers your question, you just disagree with the answer.
Individual rights and freedoms hamper the growth of a society as a whole, it makes individuals incapable of sacrificing themselves or other individuals for the greater good. This is why kids in China are taught from a young age that "you're not special, you're just like everybody else and your needs are no more important than anybody else'." Considering India was colonized by the British for a long time, I'm assuming that Indians have largely adopted the western view of "you're special, everybody's special, and you always deserve the best and you're the most precious thing in the world." Am I right? Just a matter of different world views.
In India it's better to have everyone suffer more so that no one would be sacrificed in a risky social experiment. In China it's acceptable that some people may be sacrificed in a risky social experiment if it means that everyone else suffers less. Those are the choices each country makes, and as far as I'm concerned, to each his own.
"it makes individuals incapable of sacrificing themselves or other individuals for the greater good"
Appropriating land etc, all works more or less in India too. Only slower. You don't need the CPC to do that.
India isn't a democracy because she was colonized by the brits. Else the pakis, bangladeshis, burmese would all be democratic. It was simply the most effective and humane form of governance. The only viable way of keeping the incredibly diverse republic together. One could argue that the choice *India* made is national good over individual. Also there have been multiple occasions when the GoI has come down hard on some community. It has also managed to convince the rest that said "coming down hard" was for the good of the republic. The rest of the country has made a choice to accept that explanation and have cast their acceptance in the form of ballots.
The rhetoric is nice but does not really say anything that Chinese choices are better. It's just another "mine is bigger" argument.DavidD wrote: Time is life. "Only slower" means "only more deaths". How many Indians do you think have perished in the past 40 years due to living standards being lower than China's resulting in 8-12 year reduction in life expectancy?
As for the merits of democracy and the illusion of choice, I'll only address it briefly. A choice isn't a choice unless it's an informed decision, which requires having the choice clearly illustrated and understood. In general, that's mostly theoretically possible in a democracy, but entirely impractical. How many people in America, for example, have actually read the Affordable Care Act and understood its implications, if an ad for "Death squads" can sway millions of votes?
Actually, one of China's greatest actors himself refutes your claim:DavidD wrote:Individual rights and freedoms hamper the growth of a society as a whole, it makes individuals incapable of sacrificing themselves or other individuals for the greater good. This is why kids in China are taught from a young age that "you're not special, you're just like everybody else and your needs are no more important than anybody else'." Considering India was colonized by the British for a long time, I'm assuming that Indians have largely adopted the western view of "you're special, everybody's special, and you always deserve the best and you're the most precious thing in the world." Am I right? Just a matter of different world views.
In India it's better to have everyone suffer more so that no one would be sacrificed in a risky social experiment. In China it's acceptable that some people may be sacrificed in a risky social experiment if it means that everyone else suffers less. Those are the choices each country makes, and as far as I'm concerned, to each his own.
In effect, Chinese indoctrination does nothing to create a harmonious society where people have good civic sense. It exists despite them, entirely because of a police state. Chinese aren't any different from Indians in that regard, and it has nothing to do with British constructs of personal liberty. Any Chinatown looks as disorganized and messy as any Indian bazaar.Chan, 55, whose latest movie, Shinjuku incident, was banned in China, was asked about censorship and restriction on the mainland. He expanded his comments to discuss Chinese society in general.
"I'm not sure if it is good to have freedom or not," he said. "I'm really confused now. If you are too free, you are like the way Hong Kong is now. It's very chaotic. Taiwan is also chaotic."
He added: "I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we are not being controlled, we'll just do what we want."
His comments were applauded by the Chinese audience, but triggered fury in Hong Kong and Taiwan.
Mao invited utter destruction upon China as well. Hitler and Mao were functionally the same, except Mao didn't really distinguish any particular group of people to harm, and invited disaster upon everyone. Chinese growth afterwards depended on the capital he chased out of the mainland. He even jailed someone like Rong Yiren, who would not be alive to found CITIC but for the actions of Zhou and Deng.DavidD wrote:In other words, there is no causal relationship. The Great Leap Forward is unequivocally a colossal mistake of Mao's. Mao is forgiven because, once again, he delivered China from 100+ years of constant warfare and stabilized a government that to this day guide the Chinese people forward. As for the Germany/Hitler analogies, do you deny that Hitler helped get Germany over the tumult that followed WWI? Of course, he also invited absolutely, utter destruction upon Germany later on. To put it simply, he's the exact opposite of Mao: the bad Hitler did for his country greatly outweighs the good.
China was unified until 1911-12. There's no '100+ year' effort here. The Qing may have been weak, but that's a testament to the fact that China does not have the political cohesion to survive as a single entity unless it has a strong center - you simply don't constitute a nation-state except by force. I think every Chinese is aware of that - despite the modern day claimed of the CPC of a united mainland, you're too chaotic to remain together unless there's a strong power in Beijing.DavidD wrote:I'm gonna ignore your comment over the ease of unifying China for a moment, I don't think you really wanted to make unifying China sound THAT easy. After all, so many tried over 100+ years and they all died trying. Surely you didn't mean that they're all idiots who should've simply waited 'till everybody's "tired".