PDA

View Full Version : We Canucks are so gullible (off topic)



Slick750
07-25-2005, 08:46 AM
That's where our tax money goes...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/23/china-aid050723.html

You can fix alot of potholes with that kinda money.

BSS_Goat
07-25-2005, 08:55 AM
I think it's a pretty good idea.........can I borrow a dollar?

Pirschjaeger
07-25-2005, 09:18 AM
Well, they are probaly right. Helping China wasn't such a bad idea but it's getting to be time for them to stand on there own.

I've been living in China for 5 years and have seen incredible progress in regards to social development and human rights issues. Rome wasn't built in a day and neither will China. What people don't seem to fathom is that it takes time.

It has further to go but atleast it's on the right path. The problem is, everyone wants in on China's market and palm greasing is at all levels, even between nations.

Besides, 1 billion dollars over a decade isn't much money. Canada is a rich country and 100,000,000 a year is just a drop in the bucket. Canada has donated much more than that to China, as have many other countries.

It's simply in the press as ammo against the ruling parties. This is more about trying to make the other guy (Liberals) look bad.

Don't worry about it, we make more money in trade with China. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

Tooz_69GIAP
07-25-2005, 02:09 PM
$100,000,000 isn't a lot of money?? Are you nuts? Of course, relatively speaking, in the context of national wealth, that amount is probably a very small percentage of a national gross for a country like Canada. But that's not the point!! That's an insane amount of money!!

VW-IceFire
07-25-2005, 04:11 PM
Mispent money in China or Canada...our choice. Its nice of the Conservatives to point it out and all but I'm sure they'd quietly gloss this over later and keep things the way they are.

But with all of the massive economic potential that China has been unleashing in the last few years, maybe its time to change how much money we send them.

We're not guillible...we're overly generous.

Crimea_River
07-25-2005, 05:14 PM
I agree we should turn off the taps. That would leave more money for the $1B gun registry and the lawyers' fees for the sponsorship scandal.

Tip of the iceburg my friend.

arcadeace
07-25-2005, 05:24 PM
Well I can sympathize with you Slick. The authoritarian Chinese government does not need it. They have enough resources and investment to allocate their own ever-growing super power funds for proper distribution of necessary goods to their citizenry. Your government should place the onus on their policies, not your moral responsibility. It€s similar to wasteful and abusive monetary policy we have in the US, tho spent in other areas. Its your money, its that simple, and you should have every right to speak against it. Your government is increasingly socialist but they are still supposed to represent you, right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And I€m not sure you€re correct Icefire. If this was given a straight up or down vote by Canadians do you think it would pass? My guess is, more accurately put, its your government€s generosity with your money, like it or not mate.

Slick750
07-25-2005, 05:29 PM
I think they're millitary budget's a little big for a country needing "aid".

I find it gullible. If they need money that bad, they should slow down missile and sub production.

Crimea_River
07-25-2005, 05:48 PM
Maybe we shouldn't feel so bad.

http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-06/06/content_449109.htm

LeadSpitter_
07-25-2005, 05:55 PM
america gives so much of tax payers money to the world as well.

They need the help tho africa china and many other countries,maybe our childrens kids will get the money paid back when those countries do not need financial aid with lots of interest.

jensenpark
07-25-2005, 10:11 PM
Let no murderous dictatorship go unrewarded is our ruling party's slogan.
We prop up Cuba, idolize Mugabe, and happily supported Saddam through the money-for-oil scam. (Petrofina of France - big creditor of Sadam-Iraq is owned in large part by a Canadian company that has our old PM's son-in-law as owner/president).

Our current PM goes to fundraisers of the Tamil Tigers. Hezbollah? Merely misunderstood-better give 'em more aid pronto lest their feelings get hurt.

Our ruling party, The Liberals, openly ***** themselves and our tax money to any dictator/thug/special interest group that will help keep them elected.
Shameful.

Pirschjaeger
07-25-2005, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by Crimea_River:
Maybe we shouldn't feel so bad.

http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-06/06/content_449109.htm

This was my point, the money Canada gives is not so much and other countries are giving much more. Environmentally speaking, China should be a concern globally. If you've ever seen the sandstorms we get, from satelite photos, you'll see why the Japanese are so concerned. Also, these sandstorms reach the west coast of N.America, mainly Canada.

A few years ago there were Japanese tours coming here to plant trees. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

As for China's military budget, you have to consider a few things. Life is very different over here. Unofficially but at least admitted there is 20% unemployment in a country of 1.3 billion(most likely more). The military is one way to keep young men busy. When you have such a high rate of unemployed you risk revolution. It's happened on two occasions in China already.

Next, China hasn't had any wars in a long time. Their equipment is old and outdated. Their maintanance is behind. My sources on this matter is a military attache from one of the western powers. Names and country are not important here.
Canada's military is a fairly small one but even the reserves have huge budgets. My buddy in the Canadian reserves told me that once a year they must spend their yearly budget of ammo for two reasons. First, to maintain their budget and second, more importantly, you can't recycle live ammo. Live ammo becomes unstable with time so it must be spent to be recycled. Now, imagine this for a military the size of China's.

Next is history and its effects. Most of us are familiar with what Japan did to China before and during WW2. The Japanese, even today, will still not admit to what they did. They even rewrite history(what country doesn't) on a gross scale. The Chinese, probably the proudest people in the world, have never gotten over this. What complicates this problem further is the results of America's attitute towards N.Korea. America claims it a threat in order to get the UN to allow Japan a larger military spending budget, henceforth, weapon sales for America.

Let's not forget the Taiwanese issue. Myself, I agree with any area wanting independance, whether it's Taiwan or Quebec, but only if the greatest majority of the population want it. In Taiwan's case, the majority would like to have it but openly admit they are happy with their current independance. I saw an interview with one of the leaders from the Taiwanese military. He claimed their biggest problem was that the Taiwanese don't want to fight with China for their independance. He also stated that this is a problem for Taiwan.

Anyways, Taiwan keeps building it's military and it's government keeps pushing independance from China. Technically, they already have it but it's not good enough for their leaders, who's family will never see or die in combat.

To add to the Chinese discomfort, concerning Japan, Japan and the US are trying to get veto rites for Japan in the UN, for a country they denies its massive attrocities and attempted genocide against humanity. No country in Asia would agree to this. Most have suffered greatly at the hands of the Japanese.

People will argue that China has a space program and therefor doesn't need money. Well, that's a little weak. China's space program in the last few years has been upgraded for commercial reasons. What was the point of sending a man to orbit the Earth so many years after it had already been done? Simple, during a time when other space agencies are failing, China proved it was capable of setting satelites. There's big money in this industry and to make money you must spend money. It is a business venture.

There are many other factors involved. China as one nation is very young and even today not stable as a nation.

There or more than 15,000 foreign companies with investments here. This number grew very quickly and has been straining China's electrical output. The authorities have shut down electricity in many parts of the country to cope with the demands. China has three operational nuke plants and two under construction. They have many power plants that burn coal. This goes back to the environmental issue.

Many countries will invest/donate(invest is a better word)in China to help build a better power infrastructure to protect their own interests, such as Canadian companies who have invested in China.

I'm not saying I'm for or against the spending in China. I don't know enough about it. I just wanted to show you only a few reasons why China has to spend large amounts of money.

BTW, as for corruption, China executed 12 leaders in 2003 in relation to corruption and missuse of the country's money. One example would be a leader of a province paying his brother-in-law's construction company to build an international airport outside a very small city. A city that is in the poorest area of China where hospitals and schools are in great need. No international plane has ever landed there. It was never put into operation. IMHO, that's corruption and that leader paid the price. I fully agree with the executions of political leaders who cheat the people. Imagine if we did this in the west. But for now, western leaders and media will tell you it's wrong. Why? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The money Canada has donated is a drop in the bucket. I think Germany, France, and the US donate a much higher amount of money.

Canadians are not gullible, we have a great reputation in China and get a lot of respect and donated a small amount. That's good business IMHO.

BTW, I also heard Canada donated a nuke plant to China last year.

Fritz

Kocur_
07-25-2005, 11:09 PM
Truly there is a lot going on in China! Is the dragon awaking?
Friend of a friend was in China recently. Picture he gives is a picture of huge contrasts. Mostly between those new shiny cities and country areas. Of course also between ppl who live there, even in legal issues. This guy says, that Chinese villagers are allowed to travel by train...once a five years! Sounds unbelivable! Should I take it seriously?
On the other side there are things about China hard to belive yet real...How many million of Chinese died after chairman Mao got this idea that reason for harvests of rice are too low because of...sparrows, and ordered to kill all sparrows in China. Which they did, and next year in lack of sparrows to eat insects eating rice on fields, harvest dropped by few times and unbelivable number of Chinese starved. Not to mention insanity of Great Leap Forward or other brilliant Mao's ideas...Im aware of Japanese genocide in China, but Im quite sure communist authorities are guilty of death of much more Chinese.
When I studied at the university there was meeting with Harry Woo. Did you know that many of those T-shirts, pencils and so on are being made by state slaves - prisoners of Lao gai, Chinese Gulag or net of concentration camps. Such camps work outside-wards like normal companies offering their products like any normal biz.
Have you checked prices of steel recently?I mean in last 3-5 years? Most of worlds steel production is bought by China! It takes HUGE investing to be able to consume such amount of steel!
If I were Taiwanese I would be getting more and more scared! Most of improving capabilities of Chinese army is being done with air-sea operations in mind...
Last time China was at war was in 1979. Surprised http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif? In feb. 1979 communist China invaded communist Vietnam.

Pirschjaeger
07-25-2005, 11:53 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kocur_:
Truly there is a lot going on in China! Is the dragon awaking?

No, the dragon is healing.

Friend of a friend was in China recently. Picture he gives is a picture of huge contrasts. Mostly between those new shiny cities and country areas. Of course also between ppl who live there, even in legal issues. This guy says, that Chinese villagers are allowed to travel by train...once a five years! Sounds unbelivable! Should I take it seriously?

No, village people travel fairly freely now. That was in the old days and in those time you were not even allowed to visit another city or province without permission. People here had a passport for inside the country. There are contrasts still and will be for years, but it will take time to correct the damage Mao did to this country.

On the other side there are things about China hard to belive yet real...How many million of Chinese died after chairman Mao got this idea that reason for harvests of rice are too low because of...sparrows, and ordered to kill all sparrows in China. Which they did, and next year in lack of sparrows to eat insects eating rice on fields, harvest dropped by few times and unbelivable number of Chinese starved. Not to mention insanity of Great Leap Forward or other brilliant Mao's ideas...Im aware of Japanese genocide in China, but Im quite sure communist authorities are guilty of death of much more Chinese.

Chairman Mao killed more Chinese than anyone. As for the famin, it was more than 30,000,000. The sparrow story is a bit of a coverup. Actually Mao sent the army to every house to collect all the steel, no matter what it was. He took the farmers out of the fields to process the steel in order to flood and control the market. The farmers were farmers and only ruined the steel. The next year there was no food, no steel, and resulted in one of humanity's worst disasters.

When I studied at the university there was meeting with Harry Woo. Did you know that many of those T-shirts, pencils and so on are being made by state slaves - prisoners of Lao gai, Chinese Gulag or net of concentration camps. Such camps work outside-wards like normal companies offering their products like any normal biz.

This isn't so much anymore. There were a few Asian countries doing this. As for inmates producing products, nothing wrong with that IMHO. They cost tax payer's dollars to keep them.


Have you checked prices of steel recently?I mean in last 3-5 years? Most of worlds steel production is bought by China! It takes HUGE investing to be able to consume such amount of steel!

Yes, China has bought up a large amount of the steel resources, along with concrete and others. They have the highest population in the world and construction is booming.


If I were Taiwanese I would be getting more and more scared! Most of improving capabilities of Chinese army is being done with air-sea operations in mind...

Taiwan should be afraid of their own government. The Chinese mainland has given them a very high degree of independance but the Taiwanese government is still pushing. The Taiwanese I've spoken to are generally happy with the current status. But the leaders want to get their names into the history books. That's more about Chinese culture.


Last time China was at war was in 1979. Surprised http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif? In feb. 1979 communist China invaded communist Vietnam.

True, they did invade Vietnam and failed miserabally, no surprise. But compared to let's say the US, China spends much less weaponry.

BTW, how many here believe you can see the Great Wall from the moon, or even from space? That's successful propaganda that even the Chinese government admits today. Think about it, the wall is no more that 10 meters wide. Can we see a football field or even an expressway from space? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

Luftwaffe_109
07-26-2005, 12:04 AM
Last time China was at war was in 1979.
Actually, I do believe China and Vietnam fought a series of smaller border armed conflicts from 1984-87.

RocketRobin__
07-26-2005, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by Slick750:
That's where our tax money goes...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/23/china-aid050723.html

You can fix alot of potholes with that kinda money.

Canada has always had good relations with the Chinese. Especially since Dr. Norman Bethune gave his life to help the war oppressed Chinese people in the late 1930's. That cost him his life.

Yep, I bet Norman Bethune coulda filled a lot of your precious potholes too. Unfortunately he died helping to save the lives of people of the, uhmm.... 'not round eyes' persuasion.

On the whole, I figure you're intellectual agility is on par with your knowledge of world events, Bethune and a small soap dish.
Thanks for your enlightening opinion.

jensenpark
07-26-2005, 09:16 AM
Hey, enough with the nastiness RR.

Bethune did wonderful work over there - but like his work in Spain he was supporting a cause - not the people.

If it wasn't a liberal democracit revolution and not a communist revolution - he would have been off somewhere else.

Fact remains is we should not be giving China a single penny while they are busy building a massive military complex, using prison slave labour, persecuting members of the Falung religion and on and on and on. They still have massive poverty - so need our aid money, but are spending billions on a space program.

China has good relations with us because they love suckers. They spotted us a mark way back when Trudeau went traipsing around over there so in love with the great Mao while Mao was busy pulling a Stalin on his peasants - trying to match Uncle Joe's death count.

Kocur_
07-26-2005, 09:19 AM
Pirschjaeger! Thanks for the post. But i must disagree here:

"Taiwan should be afraid of their own government. The Chinese mainland has given them a very high degree of independance but the Taiwanese government is still pushing."

GIVING Taiwan any level of independence by PRC might be mainland China point of view, but it isnt so neither historically or legally. Ever sice Chang Kai-shek and his followers fleed to Formosa red China surely wanted but was UNABLE to incorporate Republic of China. Calling this unability "giving" anything is at least not credible. Calling ROC (Taiwan) a "renegade" or "rebelled" province is kind of funny in legal terms, since Chang government was the only, and world wide recognised, Chinese government in 1949 but was pushed out to Formosa by communist rebellionhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Its, if to forget about size of both parts of China http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif, as if North Korea was calling RoK rebelled province. Oops, guess they do http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
About declaring independence: it matters in terms of Taiwan independence safety. It would be easier for the world to swollow invasion and occupation of "renegade province" than an independent state by will of its population.

And about Kanada: I wonder how much Kanadian tax payers financed buying licence to produce Su-27's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Pirschjaeger
07-26-2005, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by jensenpark:
Let no murderous dictatorship go unrewarded is our ruling party's slogan.
We prop up Cuba, idolize Mugabe, and happily supported Saddam through the money-for-oil scam. (Petrofina of France - big creditor of Sadam-Iraq is owned in large part by a Canadian company that has our old PM's son-in-law as owner/president).

Our current PM goes to fundraisers of the Tamil Tigers. Hezbollah? Merely misunderstood-better give 'em more aid pronto lest their feelings get hurt.

Our ruling party, The Liberals, openly ***** themselves and our tax money to any dictator/thug/special interest group that will help keep them elected.
Shameful.

Hey Jensonpark, I've been out for a while so all this that you're saying comes as a surprise to me. Can you give more details?

Fritz

BigKahuna_GS
07-26-2005, 10:01 AM
S!


Yeah- China is getting so sophisticated and tolorant of Taiwan's existance :

From several news sources:
"China should use nuclear weapons against the United States if the American military intervenes in any conflict over Taiwan", a senior Chinese military official said Thursday.

€œIf the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China€s territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,€ the official, Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu, said at an official briefing.

General Zhu, considered a hawk, stressed that his comments reflected his personal views and not official policy. Beijing has long insisted that it will not initiate the use of nuclear weapons in any conflict.

But in extensive comments to a visiting delegation of correspondents based in Hong Kong, General Zhu said he believed that the Chinese government was under internal pressure to change its €œno first use€ policy and to make clear that it would employ the most powerful weapons at its disposal to defend its claim over Taiwan."


Japan commited atrocities against Korea similar to China, both before and during WW2. Japan does have a hard time confronting it's past war crimes against it's asian neighbors and POW's from all allied nations.

As for Japan having veto power in the U.N.--does not Germany have that power now and why should Japan's past sins prevent having this ability ?
It did not prevent Germany from gaining veto status.

I will never understand why countries like India, Pakistan have nuclear weapons while their countrymen starve on a gross scale. There was never a threat that indicated the need for those types of weapons. China being communist and aligned with the former USSR, I can understand their position during the cold war.

The cold war is over and China needs to stand down with all it's saber ratteling of invasions of Taiwan and nuclear weapon first strikes against the US if it comes to the aid of Taiwan if attacked/invaded.

China is also trying to position itself with major oil company purchases in the US. Because of the strategic importance of these assests, I dont any foriegn power will be allowed to negotiate an aquisition of these oil conglomerates.


__

blairgowrie
07-26-2005, 10:13 AM
And I always thought you were a left leaning pinko jensenpark.

SeaFireLIV
07-26-2005, 10:17 AM
Ok, please answer this question, it just bugs me every time ...

What exactly is a Canuck?

I think it`s something to do with being Canadian, but I`ll say no more in case I insult someone.

Pirschjaeger
07-26-2005, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Ok, please answer this question, it just bugs me every time ...

What exactly is a Canuck?

I think it`s something to do with being Canadian, but I`ll say no more in case I insult someone.

That's a good question. I don't know. I thought it was just easier than saying Canadian, you know, after a few beers at the hockey game. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

blairgowrie
07-26-2005, 10:38 AM
Origin and Roots

"Many dictionaries say simply €˜orig. unknown.€ The term is in little use today among us, except for the Vancouver Canucks hockey team. One may, on occasion, run into a jocular person (possibly in a U.S. bar) who will say, "oh, a Canuck, hah?" but the word seldom features in ordinary conversation. (It has been traced) through U.S. dictionaries as Canuck, Canack, Cunnuck and Kanuck, the last one (1835) meaning a Dutch or French Canadian. A Dictionary of Americanisms defines Canuck, Canack, and Cunnuck as "colloquial slang appellations for a native of Canada, although (within Canada) almost solely understood to be a French Canadian.

There is a theory that the word is derived from Connaught, a term said to be given by French Canadians to the Irish. There is a suggestion that it may come from the first syllable of Canada, combined with an Algonquin noun ending in €"uc. The Oxford Companion To The English Language (defines the term as): "Canuck, 1820€s. Probably from the Iroquoian canuchsa, someone in a kanata (village)€¦but possibly from Hawaiian kanaka (man), through a pidgin used in the fur trade (in which Pacific islanders were employed), and taken into French as canaque, perhaps being originally applied to French Canadian canoemen. A nickname for a Canadian€¦but in the U.S. Northeast pejoratively referring to French Canadians."

--The Toronto Star, August 27, 1994, "€˜Canuck€ could have roots in Hawaii"; written by Lew Gloin



Images and Uses



Through my research of the term €˜canuck€, it seems that the term only takes on a derogatory meaning in a certain context. I found three examples of the word being used as a strong link to nationalism that did not imply malice. Rather, I found it was almost difficult to find strong examples of the word being used as in an offensive manner.

The first and most obvious use of the term is the NHL ice hockey team. "The Vancouver Canucks entered the league as an expansion team in 1970. The team has recently changed its logo. Previously, they wore a€¦black, orange, and yellow combination with a hockey skate on the jersey with the word "Canucks" making up the blade. The new logo is in the shape of a capital C with the top part of the letter being formed by a leaping killer whale. The killer whale is a link to the team€s owners, Orca Bay Sports and Entertainment." (The Sporting News, Jim Meier, €˜What is a Canuck?€ January 11, 1999).

Interestingly enough, however, the term Canuck seems to be classified by some as offensive in this use as well, taking its place among a number of other seemingly racist mascots. "Years ago, I was watching a sports commentary show where the topic was team names. During an interview with Stan Fischler, the New York sports reporter commented that he didn€t like the name "Canucks" because it was an offensive term (worse than "Redskins" or "Indians")," (€˜Canuck€ Defined, David Marchak, http://www.comnet.ca/~dmachack/candef.htm).

Two other uses of the term €˜canuck€ were found in comic books depicting two men, Johnny Canuck and Captain Canuck. Johnny Canuck originally appeared in the 1860€s as an editorial cartoon used to represent Canada, similar to our Uncle Sam. "Johnny Canuck was depicted as a wholesome young man, wearing the garb of a habitant, farmer, logger, ranger, or soldier. Johnny was often drawn resisting the bullying of Uncle Sam," (http://www.comnet.ca/~dmachack/candef.htm). It is also noted, however, that Johnny Canuck was not depicted as an intelligent man.

As a "national comic hero", issues featuring a new Johnny Canuck emerged in 1942. Created by Leo Bachle, Johnny Canuck was "tall, strong, and brave." "Just as Superman had devoted his attention to the Axis powers, Johnny Canuck was Canada€s answer to Nazi oppression," (http://www.skypoint.com/members/schutz19/jcanuck.htm).

In addition to Johnny, Captain Canuck found his way into comic books in 1975. Wearing a costume of red and white, Captain Canuck "worked as a super agent for the Canadian International Security Organization (CISO)" (http://www.skypoint.com/members/schutz19/ccanuck.htm).





**€˜Canuck€ seems to be a sticky term. Used by Canadians, the word is acceptable in virtually all applications. Used by an outsider, however, it has the potential to take on an offensive or derogatory tone.

Pirschjaeger
07-26-2005, 10:42 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!


Yeah- China is getting so sophisticated and tolorant of Taiwan's existance :

From several news sources:
"China should use nuclear weapons against the United States if the American military intervenes in any conflict over Taiwan", a senior Chinese military official said Thursday.

€œIf the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China€s territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,€ the official, Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu, said at an official briefing.

General Zhu, considered a hawk, stressed that his comments reflected his personal views and not official policy. Beijing has long insisted that it will not initiate the use of nuclear weapons in any conflict.

But in extensive comments to a visiting delegation of correspondents based in Hong Kong, General Zhu said he believed that the Chinese government was under internal pressure to change its €œno first use€ policy and to make clear that it would employ the most powerful weapons at its disposal to defend its claim over Taiwan."

*Well, I didn't read it but this week already 3 people that don't know each other told me there was a congressman or senator, can't remember, recently talking about nuking Mecca to solve terrorism. Hmmm, think I take him seriously? You ever watch kittens play? They take the same stance. It's only words.


Japan commited atrocities against Korea similar to China, both before and during WW2. Japan does have a hard time confronting it's past war crimes against it's asian neighbors and POW's from all allied nations.

* Japan doesn't have a hard time confronting its past. It simply denies it, no problem.

As for Japan having veto power in the U.N.--does not Germany have that power now and why should Japan's past sins prevent having this ability ?
It did not prevent Germany from gaining veto status.

* When did Germany get veto powers? News to me.

I will never understand why countries like India, Pakistan have nuclear weapons while their countrymen starve on a gross scale. There was never a threat that indicated the need for those types of weapons. China being communist and aligned with the former USSR, I can understand their position during the cold war.

The cold war is over and China needs to stand down with all it's saber ratteling of invasions of Taiwan and nuclear weapon first strikes against the US if it comes to the aid of Taiwan if attacked/invaded.

*Taiwan has nothing to do with the cold war. But I agree, let'em go, invade, conquer, another chapter in history. But it's not such a simple issue. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

China is also trying to position itself with major oil company purchases in the US. Because of the strategic importance of these assests, I dont any foriegn power will be allowed to negotiate an aquisition of these oil conglomerates.

*Check the news, as of June 29 this year. The first licenses were issued to private companies. The Chinese government is pushing privatization in the oil industry. They are also pushing these new Chinese companies to team up with foreign companies. Exxon, BP, Shell, and a few others are already here.

China's biggest oil problem is not the demand, or the money to buy, it's simply storage. They need more.


Fritz

Pirschjaeger
07-26-2005, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by blairgowrie:
**€˜Canuck€ seems to be a sticky term. Used by Canadians, the word is acceptable in virtually all applications. Used by an outsider, however, it has the potential to take on an offensive or derogatory tone.

When I meet Canadians outside of Canada, we usually use the name at some point, such as "Hey, fellow Canuck!"

Only once heard it used offensively and it's not important by who. But I know he just represents the "a"holes of another nation.

Fritz

VW-IceFire
07-26-2005, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Ok, please answer this question, it just bugs me every time ...

What exactly is a Canuck?

I think it`s something to do with being Canadian, but I`ll say no more in case I insult someone.
A "Canuck" is a Canadan. Its like being British means your a "Brit" (or something like that). These things are sometimes derogatory and sometimes friendly. In any case that I've ever heard it, Canuck is a friendly term.

Not an insult...you can call me a Canuck any day.

Back to the China thing...China's military has come a very long way in the last ten years from what I was reading recently. Although they don't have the sophistication of the U.S. they are making up some considerable gains. They have a jet fighter program with an aircraft that is very much like the F-16C.

Definately an emerging superpower.

SeaFireLIV
07-26-2005, 01:57 PM
That`s what I love about this forum. Ask an honest question on something that might be silly and you get good, detailed answers.

Thanks, guys, now I know. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

arcadeace
07-26-2005, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
That`s what I love about this forum. Ask an honest question on something that might be silly and you get good, detailed answers.

Thanks, guys, now I know. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

For sure. Its the longest post Blairgowrie ever made http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

jensenpark
07-26-2005, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by blairgowrie:
And I always thought you were a left leaning pinko jensenpark.

I'm starting to think I'm so far right wing, that I'm coming around to the other side!

Funny timing of this thread. The National Post just ran an editorial calling for the end of aid to China. It acknowledges the fact that 20% of the world's 'poor' live there - but if China has billions for its military - it should look after its own people.
Hopefully our government will take note. Apparently we are already marked Cuba for aid cutbacks until they stop the repression. Maybe there is hope...

jensenpark
07-26-2005, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jensenpark:
Let no murderous dictatorship go unrewarded is our ruling party's slogan.
We prop up Cuba, idolize Mugabe, and happily supported Saddam through the money-for-oil scam. (Petrofina of France - big creditor of Sadam-Iraq is owned in large part by a Canadian company that has our old PM's son-in-law as owner/president).

Our current PM goes to fundraisers of the Tamil Tigers. Hezbollah? Merely misunderstood-better give 'em more aid pronto lest their feelings get hurt.

Our ruling party, The Liberals, openly ***** themselves and our tax money to any dictator/thug/special interest group that will help keep them elected.
Shameful.

Hey Jensonpark, I've been out for a while so all this that you're saying comes as a surprise to me. Can you give more details?

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Paul Martin has consistantly blocked attempts by CSIS and other agencies to have the Tamil Tigers declared a terrorist organization. He attended several fundraisers for them last year. Donations to the organization are still treated as tax deductible here. Donate, get a tax receipt, vote Liberal Party, help murder abroad. Oh, and the Tamil community here is a huge supporter of the Liberal party.

As to our role in the oil for food scandal:

Petrofina (French company - surprise) was one of the largest backers of Saddams regime. Made billions off of oil for food and other scandals.
Petrofina owned in large part by Power Corp of Montreal.
Man who controls Power Corp is married to daughter of our long serving ex-PM Jean Chretien.
Paul Volcker, hired by UN to investigate Oil for Food scandal turns out to be a paid consultant for Power Corp.
Canada stays out of Iraq conflict. Saddam is overthrown - new Iraq government rightfully and legally refuses all debt owed that was run up by previous corrupt/illegal regimes.
Who loses out? Petrofina and PowerCorp. Everyone stays out of Iraq and Saddam still there results in no losses for Power Corp - which conveniently enough is also a huge donator to the Liberal party.

Now I apologize for the following long post - but I couldn't get the link to post properly so I did a lazy cut and paste.

How Montreal's Power Corp. found itself caught up in the biggest fiasco in UN history
by Kevin Steel, The Western Standard

Saturday, March 5, 2005

Most Canadian companies look forward to the day they earn themselves a mention on the prime-time news. They hire PR firms and spend thousands to harass news

editors with press releases to tout their latest acquisition, invention or foreign venture in hopes of convincing someone to give them even a passing mention on the national news€"never mind the nearly unimaginable publicity of being plugged on a U.S. newscast.

But when Montreal-based Power Corporation of Canada found itself, in late January, the topic of a news story on America€s top-rated Fox News Channel, which draws millions of U.S. and international viewers, executives there probably weren€t thrilled. Unlike most publicly traded firms looking to build their brand on Wall Street, Power Corp. is, at the best of times, a quiet, often obscured company (in the past year it€s issued a total of five news releases). That might seem strange, given the massive size and, well, power wielded by the holding company. Power controls some of Canada€s biggest blue-chip companies, including the Investors Group, the country€s largest mutual fund dealer, and investment firm Mackenzie Financial. It owns insurers Great-West Lifeco, Canada Life and London Life. Power owns several Quebec newspapers, including La Presse. It also holds substantial positions in Chinese airlines and telecom firms and has large stakes in the world€s leading entertainment company, Bertelsmann, as well as a big piece of one of Europe€s largest oil producers. In 2003, Power Corp. reported annual revenues of $16 billion.

But the Fox News story wasn€t prompted by an announcement from Power of some billion-dollar takeover or the appointment of a new senior executive. It was something altogether different: the revelation that the man handpicked by the UN secretary general last April to probe the UN€s scandalized Oil-for-Food program, Paul Volcker, had not disclosed to the UN that he was a paid adviser to Power Corp., a story which had originally been broken by a small, independent Toronto newspaper, the Canada Free Press. Why did the highest-rated cable channel in the U.S. care? Because the more that Americans came to know about Oil-for-Food, which has been called the largest corruption scandal in history, the more the name of this little-known Montreal firm kept popping up. And the more links that seemed to emerge between Power Corp. and individuals or organizations involved in the Oil-for-Food scandal, the more Fox News and other news outlets sniffing around this story began to ask questions about who, exactly, this Power Corp. is. And, they wanted to know, what, if anything, did Power have to do with a scandal in which companies around the world took bribes to help a murderous dictator scam billions of dollars in humanitarian aid out of the UN while his people suffered and starved?

Just a month before the Canada Free Press revealed that Volcker, a former Federal Reserve chairman, is a member of Power Corp.€s international advisory board€"and a close friend and personal adviser to Power€s owner, Paul Desmarais Sr.€"a U.S. congressional investigation into the UN scandal discovered that Power Corp. had extensive connections to BNP Paribas, a French bank that had been handpicked by the UN in 1996 to broker the Oil-for-Food program. In fact, Power actually once owned a stake in Paribas through its subsidiary, Pargesa Holding SA. The bank also purchased a stake in Power Corp. in the mid-seventies and, as recently as 2003, BNP Paribas had a 14.7 per cent equity and 21.3 per cent voting stake in Pargesa, company records show. John Rae, a director and former executive at Power (brother of former Ontario premier Bob Rae), was president and a director of the Paribas Bank of Canada until 2000. And Power Corp. director Michel François-Poncet, who was, in 2001, the vice-chairman of Pargesa, also sat on Paribas€s board, though he died Feb. 10, at the age of 70. A former chair of Paribas€s management board, André Levy-Lang, is currently a member of Power€s international advisory council. And Amaury-Daniel de Seze, a member of BNP Paribas€s executive council, also sat on Pargesa€s administrative council in 2002.


In September, the U.S. Congress€"conducting one of seven U.S. government investigations into Oil-for-Food, in addition to the UN probe€"subpoenaed crates of documents from the bank, which earned $700 million for its work, ostensibly to investigate the companies that had been doing business through Paribas that may have ripped off Oil-for-Food. But Capitol Hill insiders say that Paribas itself is of interest to congressional investigators, in particular whether Paribas violated "know your client"€"style banking regulations, which require banks to be vigilant in watching for money laundering and other criminal activities being conducted through their bank. In February, Congress subpoenaed more documents from the bank, looking for very specific information. "The international program was managed through the escrow accounts of BNP maintained in New York and we have pretty strict banking laws, pretty strict disclosure laws and have gotten even more so with the passage of the Patriot Act," says one aide to a senior Republican working for the House International Relations Committee, one of the bodies investigating the Oil-for-Food program. "There are some doubts as to the veracity of BNP€s compliance with the more stringent rules that are contained in the Patriot Act that were law by the end of €˜01."

The reason investigators are interested in Power€s possible links to the bank that acted as a clearing house for Oil-for-Food is because the firm also appears to have had a stake in an oil firm that had been working out lucrative contracts with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Subsidiary Pargesa owns the largest single stake in Total Group Inc. (a Belgian-French petroleum multi-national corporation formed from the merger of Total, Petrofina and Elf Aquitaine), which reportedly had been negotiating, prior to the U.S. invasion in March 2003, rich contracts with former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to develop and exploit the Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields in southern Iraq. Those regions are estimated to contain roughly a quarter of Iraq€s reserves. The contracts were on the verge of being signed in 1997, one year after the beginning of the UN€s Oil-for-Food program replaced U.S. sanctions on Iraq, when the French government intervened and stopped the deal. Paul Desmarais Jr., now chairman of Power Corp. (Paul Sr. retired in 1996, but is said to be active in the firm), sits on the board of Total, and Power director, François-Poncet, also sat on the board of Total€s predecessor firm, Totalfina Elf. Paribas also owned shares in Total as recently as 2000, records show.

Add up the facts that Power Corp. appears to be connected to an oil company that would benefit extensively if Saddam remained in power, with the bank appointed by the UN to help broker an Oil-for-Food program that appears to have been directly enriching Saddam, and which is being investigated for irregularities that may have abetted the wholesale corruption that eventually engulfed Oil-for-Food, and that Power€s owners have a professional and personal relationship with the man hired by the UN to investigate the corruption, and it€s no wonder that more and more questions are being asked about the firm.

The United Nations has refused to co-operate with the U.S. Congress investigations into the US$67-billion Oil-for-Food program and Security Council members Russia and France have refused to give Volcker the right to subpoena witnesses in the internal UN probe. But the way the scam appears to have worked is that Saddam was permitted to sell oil to customers he selected himself (he favoured French and Russian companies) at below-market prices, by allocating them oil vouchers. The customers could resell the oil at market prices and make a large profit, provided they kicked back a portion of the money to Saddam, who used the money for everything but badly needed food and medicine (the program came to be known by critics as Oil-for-Palaces). It is estimated that Saddam may have skimmed as much as US$2 billion from the aid program. And the fact that Iraqis were suffering while Saddam built up weapons and enriched his own personal wealth, obviously makes this scandal not only bigger, but more heinous than any run-of-the-mill Wall Street book-cooking. Companies implicated in what effectively amounts to crimes against humanity may never recover. And, to be clear, Power Corp. has not been linked in any direct way to the con. As for the fact that Power€s name has come up several times in the investigation, Power€s vice-president, general counsel and secretary Ted Johnson believes the news reports to be inaccurate and irresponsible. Says Johnson: "The stories coming out of the United States are a bunch of misinformation based on innuendo and half-truths."

There€s a tale they used to tell on Parliament Hill about a president, a billionaire, an ambassador and a prime minister. The four of them got into an elevator one day at the National Gallery of Canada in Ottawa, when Jim Blanchard, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, began ribbing the billionaire, Paul Desmarais€s son André, about his recent marriage to France Chrétien, the daughter of then prime minister Jean Chrétien, as then U.S. president Bill Clinton listened in. "France certainly married well," Blanchard reportedly said to the prime minister. To which Chrétien replied, smugly: "André married well."

In reality, the wedding of France and André, in 1981, had only formalized the marriage between the Canadian government to the Desmaraises. While the family, worth an estimated US$4 billion and ranked the sixth richest in Canada, has always kept a fairly low profile, they have been in the news for decades--even if most Canadians never really noticed. The fact that the family happens to be friendly with the man who once ran the U.S. federal reserve won€t surprise those who know them: the Desmaraises are as well connected politically as they are corporately. And it€s arguable, based on the circumstantial evidence anyway, that nothing happens on Parliament Hill that isn€t, in some way, a product of the Desmarais family€s design. Prime Minister Paul Martin and former PMs Jean Chrétien, Brian Mulroney and Pierre Trudeau have all been close, personal friends of Paul Desmarais Sr. The story on Parliament Hill was that Trudeau€s leadership bid was cooked up in Power headquarters in Victoria Square in Montreal. In the hiatus of his political career in the 1980s, Chrétien cooled his heels sitting on the board of a Power Corp. subsidiary, Consolidated Bathurst, and Power executive John Rae ran Chrétien€s leadership campaigns in 1984 and 1990, as well as the 1993 election campaign that brought Chrétien to office. Martin got his start in the business world in the early sixties, working for then Power Corp. president Maurice Strong, and was made a millionaire, thanks to an undisclosed 1981 deal in which Desmarais sold him Canada Steamship Lines. Strong continues to act as one of Martin€s senior advisors.

But the connections don€t end there. Ted Johnson, the Power vice-president, is a former assistant to Trudeau. Paul Desmarais Sr. has long been a mentor of former prime minister Brian Mulroney. Don Mazankowski, a former Mulroney cabinet minister, sits on Power Corp.€s board. Bill Davis, former premier of Ontario, is on Power Corp.€s international advisory council. Daniel Johnson Jr., Quebec Liberal leader and briefly premier, worked for Power from 1973 to 1981. In fact, the political connections really don€t stop at all. You could spend days trying to trace the connections that Paul Desmarais Sr. has not only with Canadian politicians, but in nearly every western capital in the world. Not bad for a guy from Sudbury, Ont., who started out fixing buses to save a nearly bankrupt transport company, inherited from his father. Desmarais€s friends have joked that he "collects politicians."

And he has been doing it for a long time. Thirty years ago, in his 1976 book,

The Canadian Establishment, Peter C. Newman wrote, "It seemed to those who knew him best that Desmarais sometimes treated politicians with the deference due to sleepwalkers: men who must be led, but ever so gently, lest they wake up to the fact."

If there€s one government in which Power has as much interest as it does in Canada, it€s the UN. Maurice Strong, president of Power from 1964 to 1966€"who went on to run Ontario Hydro and Petro-Canada€"is not only a member of the Privy Council for Canada and a direct adviser to Paul Martin, he€s also a senior adviser to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Appointed by Annan in 1997, after he took over the general secretariat, Strong€s specific role was "to assist planning and executing a far-reaching reform of the world body." Since Annan€s son, Kojo, has been implicated in the Oil-for-Food scandal, having accepted money from a Swiss firm, Cotecna, which was in charge of overseeing the shipments of food and medicine to Iraqis, Strong€s presence at Annan€s side provides yet more ammunition to those looking to link Power to this terrible tale of corruption and mismanagement (no direct links have been established). In fact, Strong had been an undersecretary general of the United Nations since 1985. He once told Toronto journalist Elaine Dewar that he liked working for the UN specifically because of its undemocratic nature. "He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda," wrote Dewar in her 1995 book, Cloak of Green. "He told me he had more unfettered power than a cabinet minister in Ottawa. He was right: no voters had put him in office, he didn€t have to run for re-election, yet he could profoundly affect many lives."

How close Strong is with Power Corp. these days isn€t clear. But what is clear is that certain UN policies have been a boost to the value of the conglomerate. For one thing, the UN-created Kyoto Protocol€"which was spearheaded by none other than Strong himself, born of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, which he chaired€"could have significant potential benefits for Power€s holdings in China. Through their subsidiary, CITIC Pacific Ltd., the Desmaraises own power-generating facilities, automobile concerns and myriad other industrial interests throughout the Communist nation. The fact that Kyoto€s framers deliberately created regulations that will hamstring exactly those sorts of businesses in the West by imposing limits on greenhouse gas production, but exempt China from those same limits, gives Power a competitive international advantage. Meanwhile, under the protocol, Chinese power plants will be able to sell clean air "credits," or allowances, to Western producers for cash. Some economists have predicted that Ottawa will buy credits as a way of meeting their Kyoto emissions targets.

And few companies stood to benefit from the UN€s resistance to the invasion of Iraq to the same extent that Total might have, had Saddam made good on promised resource development deals with the oil giant. Since the early nineties, Total and Elf had been jointly negotiating with Hussein to develop the Majnoon oilfields north of Basra. In 2000, Total€s president of Middle East exploration and production, had publicly suggested, on several occasions, that the Oil-for-Food sanctions were hurting Iraqi oil development. Shortly afterward, the two companies merged, with Power Corp. owning the biggest stake. According to Power€s official history, "When . . . Totalfina proceeded to take over Elf Aquitaine, the Pargesa group emerged as the largest shareholder, with 3.4 per cent of the shares and three seats on the board of what was to become TotalFina Elf, the fourth largest integrated petroleum company in the world."

Last year, the New York Post interviewed prominent Wall Street figure Gerald Hillman, managing partner of Trireme Investments in New York, who had seen and analyzed the contract. He called the deal "highly unusual" and "very one-sided," as it permitted Total to keep 75 per cent of total production, whereas most deals with foreign partners top out at 50 per cent. It seems that the longer Saddam stayed in power, the better it was for the Total Group and its shareholders in Montreal.

The fact that sustaining Saddam directly could have potentially benefitted a family connected to so many Canadian mandarins and politicians€"and married into the family of the prime minister€"led some Canadians to raise questions about the motivations behind the Liberal party€s decision to refuse to support the invasion of Iraq and Saddam€s ouster. When Chrétien announced that decision in early 2003, Opposition foreign affairs critic Stockwell Day asked in the House of Commons, "I do not fault the prime minister€s family ties with his nephew [Raymond Chrétien], our ambassador to France or with Paul Desmarais Sr., who is the largest individual shareholder of France€s largest corporation, TotalFina Elf, which has billions of dollars of contracts with Saddam€s former regime. With this valuable source of information and experience at his fingertips, has the prime minister ever discussed Iraq or France with his family or friends in the Desmarais empire?"

Chrétien responded by defending his nephew first and, with regard to Power, added: "I hope the attack against the people who have invested money in something, that he will repeat it outside and he will face the consequences." Power€s general counsel, Johnson, told reporters at the time that TotalFina Elf "had no contracts in Iraq . . . Hasn€t. Doesn€t. Nothing with Saddam." Just a few months earlier, The New York Times reported that "The French oil giant TotalFina Elf has the largest position in Iraq, with exclusive negotiating rights to develop Majnoon, a field on the Iranian border with estimated reserves of 10 billion barrels, and Bin Umar, with an estimated production potential of 440,000 barrels a day, according to oil industry executives."John Thompson, president of the Mackenzie Institute, a Toronto-based security think-tank, says that Power Corp. directors were probably not thinking about foreign policy implications when they invested in TotalFina Elf. "They probably thought€"and a lot of people thought like this€"there would eventually be a reopened Iraq, probably under Saddam but not necessarily, and they would like to be in position when it did," Thompson says. "Part of this whole thing was the Europeans bidding to have control of Iraqi oil and afraid that the Americans would be there instead. For the Americans, it was all about not having weapons of mass destruction coming out of the area, but for the Europeans it was all about oil."

Jason Kenney, a Conservative MP, says the questions being raised about Power€s possible connection to Oil-for-Food are worth asking. But he€s quick to point out that if the Liberals guided the country€s foreign policy based on their connections to Power, then we should be asking questions about the Canadian government, too. "I am not the least bit critical of the Desmarais family for being rational actors in a free marketplace and pursuing their advantage," says Kenney. "I am, however, somewhat disquieted by the degree to which Power Corp.€s corporate interest seems to influence Canadian foreign policy. Obviously, every company seeks to influence government policy€"regulatory, taxation or otherwise€"but Power Corp. seems to have a particularly unique influence over Canadian foreign policy."

That€s something that hasn€t been proven. But in addition to Power€s connection to Total, there€s the connection to Paribas, the bank selected to be in charge of the Oil-for-Food money. According to Power Corp.€s official history, produced in 2000, in 1981 it "made a $20-million investment in Pargesa Holding SA, a Swiss corporation that owned a major interest in Banque de Paris et des Pays-Bas (Suisse). The Swiss bank had been a subsidiary of Compagnie Financi¨re de Paris et des Pays-Bas, the French banking organization commonly known as Paribas, with which Power had enjoyed a close association for several years."

Nadhmi Auchi, who has been identified as a cousin of Saddam Hussein, was a significant shareholder in BNP Paribas at least until 2001. Auchi, who resides in London and owns a company called General Mediterranean Holdings, was ranked by London€s Sunday Times in 2003 as England€s thirty-fourth richest person, with some estimates putting his net worth at US$3 billion. In its 2001 annual report, General Mediterranean Holdings described itself as the largest single shareholder in BNP Paribas.

Auchi is a former member of Saddam€s Baathist party. In 1959, he was tried, along with Saddam Hussein, in an attempted assassination plot. He eventually fled Iraq and publicly distanced himself from Saddam after the dictator murdered his two brothers. Time magazine reported in 2003 that Auchi maintained deep connections to Iraq and built much of his fortune selling them armaments. He has been fingered as a key figure in the Oil-for-Food scandal, with accusations that he acted as one of Saddam€s brokers. He certainly is no stranger to shady deals: in 2003, Auchi was convicted in France of bribery charges, along with a raft of Elf oil executives, in a scandal dating back to 1990 involving the sale of a Spanish oil refinery.

Power also has indirect connections to Iraq through one of its directors, Laurent Dassault, managing director of Dassault Investissements, the parent company of Dassault Aviation, a French-based weapons and aeronautics manufacturer that sells, among other things, the Mirage jet. During Iraq€s eight-year war with Iran in the eighties, Dassault Aviation was a major supplier of aircraft to the Hussein regime and it has been alleged that the firm continued illegal weapon sales to Iraq during the embargo period, using intermediaries and a complex system of money laundering set up by the Hussein regime.

Meanwhile, the UN had its own reasons for wanting to keep Oil-for-Food in business. For some strange reason, the aid program had been set up so that the UN would keep a portion of all oil sold through the program€"compensation for the costs of overseeing the aid initiative€"three per cent of every barrel sold. Aid programs usually use money from contributing members to finance their administration. Recipients of previous UN aid programs had not been forced to pay the overhead of the programs. And since the fee paid to the UN was variable, the longer Oil-for-Food went on and the more oil that was sold through it, the more money the world body would earn.

That was not enough, however, for Benon Sevan, the man appointed by Annan to oversee the Oil-for-Food program. An interim report issued by Volcker in February found that Sevan€"who has since retired from the UN€"had personally requested that Iraq allocate some of its oil vouchers (with which companies could resell Iraqi oil at a lucrative profit) to a company with which he was affiliated. Documents uncovered by investigators indicate that Sevan may have directly been the beneficiary of oil allocations. Volcker told reporters that Sevan€s conduct was "ethically improper" and that he had "created a grave and continuing conflict of interest."

Now, Volcker himself is the one facing allegations of conflict. In addition to his connections to Power Corp., which he did not disclose upon being appointed head of the UN probe, Volcker has also been linked to a pro-UN lobby group, the United Nations Association of the United States (which happens to receive generous support from BNP Paribas). Critics are suggesting that the final report, expected in June, could end up being a whitewash.

Oil-for-Food has certainly put the UN€s credibility at stake in a way that no other incident has before. The world body has already demonstrated an inability to deal effectively with rogue dictators, such as Hussein and North Korea€s Kim Jong Il, and has proven impotent to end genocides, like Rwanda in 1994 and Darfur today. But if the world discovers that the UN cannot even run a basic aid program, then there isn€t much left for it to do. "The liberals are having a harder time asserting that what the conservatives want is to get the U.S. out of the UN," says the Republican aide. "They can say that, but it€s not true. We need international mediating organizations like the UN. But you know what? We need them to work. And if they are not working, we are either going to make them work or we are going to find substitutes," he says. Increasingly, he reports, both Republicans and Democrats are open to finding alternatives to the UN for handling international affairs. "Maybe that model is NATO," says the aide. "If the UN is unreformable, then it will begin to shrink in its importance. Certainly in the United States it is already shrinking. That can be good or that can be bad. It is what it is. We do need these international mediating institutions and if the UN cannot step up to the plate and do it, then you are going to see a U.S. push in the next generation to get something else to do it," the aide says.

And certainly that has broad implications for Canada, whose government invested heavily in the UN when it stood by the world body€s plan to keep Oil-for-Food in place, rather than stand by the U.S. in putting an end to a containment program that wasn€t really containing Saddam at all. Whether Canada€s foreign policy€"given the government€s connection to Power€"was "all about the oil," as some have theorized, however, may never be determined. Or, it likely won€t be determined here: while there are six probes being conducted into the Oil-for-Food scandal in the U.S., and one through the UN, there is no investigation underway in this country into any involvement by Canadian companies. And, with few exceptions, the Canadian mainstream media seems to have largely ignored the story linking Volcker to Power Corp. The firm itself has issued no official statement on the accusations.

One press release did come across the wires on Jan. 27 with good news about Power Corp. Not from the normally quiet Power itself, mind you, but from KPMG, an accounting firm that works for Power (and, coincidentally, did audit work on the Oil-for-Food program). The news? A survey conducted in conjunction with pollsters Ipsos-Reid and the Globe and Mail found that Power Corp. is considered the most respected business in Quebec, as ranked by its peers. Hopefully, when all the smoke clears on Oil-for-Food, that will still be the case.

Pirschjaeger
07-26-2005, 10:21 PM
If I remember correctly, China's military consists of around 2 million soldiers. If they spent $2 billion annually then that would be $1,000 per person.

Consider maintenance, natural disasters which they have every year, trying to upgrade old equipment, and fuel.

The problem is people don't seem to get the big picture. If they were spending $2 billion a year, they would be lucky to even keep a military that size.

Next people cry "China's military is too big!" Remember, China has around 20% unemployment rate. Once again, this is a dangerous situation in any nation. You must keep the men busy or face upheaval. This is how Mao got to power and in effect, ruined the country for at least 100 years. It's already happened more than once in China's history. To add, there is a great unbalance between men and women here, atleast officially.(100 women to 115 men) That's also dangerous. Read studies that have been done on this phenominon, it's quite interesting.

China also has a very long border and in a few places it is hostile. This requires a lot of manpower to guard it, especially after Bush launched his war on terrorism. If you know anything about it's border in the west then you'll understand.

I'm not defending China on it's military or spending. It's their choice and their business and if they don't secure the western borders they'll get more flak from Bush.

I'm simply saying that when all things considered, their spending doesn't seem so high. Don't let your media and newspapers get the best of you. All politicians have their own agendas.

Fritz

jensenpark
07-26-2005, 10:58 PM
China has announced another large increase in its military spending.
The increase of nearly 12% - higher than that of 2003 - will see an extra $2.6bn allocated to defence, officially raising the budget to more than $25bn.

This above from the BBC.

I agree spread out over the size of the army it may not mean much.
The original post, and I agree with it, is we Canadians should not be sending our tax money to China as 'aid' when they have $25b for their army - and $2b for their space program. Annualy to boot. All numbers in US currency as well.
They spend at least $1b a year on their army surpressing Tibet that could easily go to their poor.
A recent defector has stated China maintains at least 1000 spies in Canada to steal trade/technology - and spy and harrass the Falung Gong religious members here.

There are always many sides to every story - but we shouldn't be sending $50m to this regime that does not have our interests at heart - to state it mildly.

I'd rather it be spent flooding Africa with low-cost protese inhibitor drugs and other AIDS support drugs.

Man, I tend to rant on and on, don't I?

Hey, where abouts in China are you? Is the internet pretty wide/free access-wise there? I often 'hear/read' of attempts to limit/censor access.

jensenpark
07-26-2005, 10:59 PM
PS:

Hockey is back soon. Strike settled.

Safe to come back to Canada you know! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Pirschjaeger
07-26-2005, 11:02 PM
Thx Jenson, interesting and informative read.

It doesn't surprise me though and I understand why you'd change sides.

The politicians remind me of a lot of rats in the garbage. They are all running around, in front, behind, and over each other trying to eat whatever they can.

I believe most nations are run by corporations and many of these nations work together. The conspiracy theories, IMHO, are not as far fetched as reality. I also believ many off the conspiracy theories are actually created by modern day Goebbels as smoke screens to cover up reality, which is often worse than the conspiracy theories.

We have "freedom" and "democracy" but in the end we may find out that these were some of the worst evils in history. A lie is not a lie until someone proves it to be a lie. What is this "democracy" leading to? The people do not have any real say in politics. Look in the dictionary for the term "democracy" and you'll find something quite different to what we have in the west.

And who's to blame? The people.

Fritz

Kocur_
07-26-2005, 11:06 PM
Ah-ah! We cant tell how much PRC spends on the army! Secondly even if we do any estimation, we cant measure it only in dollars or euros! For spending power of the money converted to yens is much, much greater.
They bought licence to built Su-27's, including engines, keep buying upgraded Sukhoi fighters, have at least two own fighter programmes with prototypes flying, and more of future ones, they have nuclear powered subs, keep producing new tanks, keep intruducing to service new destroyers and the most invested branch is Chinese marines. Dont tell me their space programme is for civilian purposes! So please dont tell me Chinese army is 2 million soldiers standing side by side along the wall http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Btw: they have at least two new rifle programmes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Oh they need army to protect their borders! Especially southern one. For who knows what those buddist monks are plotting...

Pirschjaeger
07-26-2005, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by jensenpark:
China has announced another large increase in its military spending.
The increase of nearly 12% - higher than that of 2003 - will see an extra $2.6bn allocated to defence, officially raising the budget to more than $25bn.

This above from the BBC.

I agree spread out over the size of the army it may not mean much.
The original post, and I agree with it, is we Canadians should not be sending our tax money to China as 'aid' when they have $25b for their army - and $2b for their space program. Annualy to boot. All numbers in US currency as well.
They spend at least $1b a year on their army surpressing Tibet that could easily go to their poor.
A recent defector has stated China maintains at least 1000 spies in Canada to steal trade/technology - and spy and harrass the Falung Gong religious members here.

There are always many sides to every story - but we shouldn't be sending $50m to this regime that does not have our interests at heart - to state it mildly.

I'd rather it be spent flooding Africa with low-cost protese inhibitor drugs and other AIDS support drugs.

Man, I tend to rant on and on, don't I?

Hey, where abouts in China are you? Is the internet pretty wide/free access-wise there? I often 'hear/read' of attempts to limit/censor access.

Personally, I agree with you. Now I'll be more subjective.

I came here 5 years ago as an educator. I immediately ended up in the middle of nowhere with no money. Everything that my agency had told me was nothing but a lie.
I had no return ticket, no money, and couldn't speak a word of Chinese. The only person I knew who could speak English was the Tibeten guy who suckered me into coming here and if I didn't agree to work for free he would report me to the local police as a spy. That's ok, I've been in worse situations and my attitute is I will take a few with me first so all he did is p1ss me off.

Anyways, I made it to Beijing, 1500 miles away from the hell of hell dirt cities. Since then I've have had a few problems here, mostly with authority. During SARS,I was sentenced to 3 months in a Chinese prison for their mistake on my visa. At the last minute they changed their minds. They had already lost face internationally with the SARS issue. They figured I was more trouble then I was worth. BTW, never, never count on the Canadian Embassy for anything. They would do nothing to help me.

Anyways, in an interrogation room, I was able to convince them that within three months of prison time I'd be able to think of interesting ways of revenge. It's not hard to track a police officer here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

What angers me the most is how they love to be authoritive over foreignors. It's the compensation thing. When a Chinese person goes to Canada they have equal rights and then some. Canada has done a lot for China in the past and therefor I expect the same respect Canada gives them. I have to pay much more for everything simply cause I have a white nose. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Sorry for my rant, but I feel better.

I just wanted to make sure you guyz realize I am not pro China. I hate being here but it's my work now. What I have posted before this rant was objective. I didn't realize they were spending that much. This being the case, we needn't give them anymore money.

Maybe my biggest fear for the future would be China becoming a super power. This would be dangerous to humanity IMHO.

Fritz

jensenpark
07-26-2005, 11:37 PM
Interesting info...

Are you still teaching? I have vague recollections that you were an engineer or something (course, my memory ain't what it used to be).

Pirschjaeger
07-26-2005, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by jensenpark:
Interesting info...

Are you still teaching? I have vague recollections that you were an engineer or something (course, my memory ain't what it used to be).

I taught in various countries for a few years. This was my vacation. I also worked independantly as a machine technician for a German company. At the same time I was a consultant for and American investment group. Early this year I accepted an offer to be fulltime. Still haven't figured out my position title as of yet but in I was told that in 2008 I will be Vice-President.

I deal in import and export, mainly minerals and oil. This is much more interesting and the authorities can't bother e anymore. One phonecall and they'll have more trouble then they can handle. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I can't give details of my work because it is politically sensitive but I can say that not everything in your article was a surprise or even a secret.

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
07-27-2005, 07:16 AM
Jenson, I'd just like to mention one more fact the media tends to leave out.

The Chinese government is very unique. You have the ruling party and you have the military. Until recent years they were pretty much separate. Zhang Zi Min managed to merge the two, bringing the military more under control of the ruling party, but still not 100%.

When we think of a military we think of something like the western militaries, under control and military only. It's not the case in China. The military is responsible for many things and many departments. They also own many enterprises, whether successful or not.

I will give you an example without details. I know this for a fact. The Chinese military invested billions upon billions of dollars into a project for reusable energy development. Something China's industry and people desparatly need. They bought the technology from let's say a company from country "A"(Firm A). Before the project was complete and after billions had been spent firm "A" was bought by firm "B" from country "B". The transfer of technology was immediately stopped by country "B" and firm "B".

Since that time the project has been in operation, the Chinese are trying to solve the missing technology, but has produced nothing, only expenses. There are more fingers on my hand than there are countries with this technology.

Interestingly, firm "B" was the previous supplier of the desired product to China, produced by the technoloy I mentioned.

Although they have lost 10's of billions to find the missing technology, they are still trying but so far, without success. At this point, it's too much money to through in the towel.

This was a really underhanded tactic but that's politics for you. When the leader of China went to visit the leader, and shareholder, of country "B" and firm "B", the leader refused to discuss the issue with the Chinese leader.

My point is, we cannot compare spending from one country's military to the other's without knowing all the details, and believe me, there are many.

In Haliburton's history, considering all the subsiduaries, how much of the military's budget had flowed into their accounts?(not a right or wrong based question) I don't think we are talking billions any more.

The same question could be asked about Bombardier and Canada's military spending.

Remember the Howard Hughes story? He was taken to court, accused of wasting millions he received from the military for research and development. He won the case and finally achieved his goal, but it was millions later. Until the details were out in the open, it was easy for the press to make him look like a thief, and the press made a lot of money from this.

Fritz

Kocur_
07-27-2005, 08:37 AM
Pirschjaeger Posted Wed July 27 2005 06:16

"Maybe my biggest fear for the future would be China becoming a super power. This would be dangerous to humanity IMHO."

Lets see, what do we have (t)here:
-a nation with huge amount of national pride and feeling of superiority over others (including people originating from that little peninsula in the west),
-the nation is being ruled by totalitary system based on massive control of population in most if not every aspect, with powerful police system making its official probably most powerful men, no matter if its about a smallest village or in the entire state,
-the state is in period of HUGE ECONOMICAL GROWTH, giving its rulers lots of money to spend on improving their position of course, both internally and externally,
-the state indeed has imperial ambitions, fought wars or at least had armed conflicts with most of their neighbours in last 60 years, and has ambitions of gaining control of new territories, even if those are relatively small and dont seem important in global scale (Taiwan, Spratly islands)
-the nation has some diaspora: southwards, and growing one, northwards.
To sum up China seems to me to be: RITCH, ambitious, hungry for glory and morally ready to conquer and reign...as much and as hard as can.

If you ask me I'd say it looks bad!

On the other hand their political system is very corruptive and ineffective, money and (growing) well-being might make them...lazy.
They are currently able to buy if not any, most of technologies they need, but seem not to be able to be source of technological improvement! They use, duplicate and replicate, but dont create! Yet.

Pirschjaeger
07-27-2005, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Pirschjaeger Posted Wed July 27 2005 06:16

"Maybe my biggest fear for the future would be China becoming a super power. This would be dangerous to humanity IMHO."

Lets see, what do we have (t)here:
-a nation with huge amount of national pride and feeling of superiority over others (including people originating from that little peninsula in the west),
-the nation is being ruled by totalitary system based on massive control of population in most if not every aspect, with powerful police system making its official probably most powerful men, no matter if its about a smallest village or in the entire state,
-the state is in period of HUGE ECONOMICAL GROWTH, giving its rulers lots of money to spend on improving their position of course, both internally and externally,
-the state indeed has imperial ambitions, fought wars or at least had armed conflicts with most of their neighbours in last 60 years, and has ambitions of gaining control of new territories, even if those are relatively small and dont seem important in global scale (Taiwan, Spratly islands)
-the nation has some diaspora: southwards, and growing one, northwards.
To sum up China seems to me to be: RITCH, ambitious, hungry for glory and morally ready to conquer and reign...as much and as hard as can.

If you ask me I'd say it looks bad!

On the other hand their political system is very corruptive and ineffective, money and (growing) well-being might make them...lazy.
They are currently able to buy if not any, most of technologies they need, but seem not to be able to be source of technological improvement! They use, duplicate and replicate, but dont create! Yet.

I would say all that you wrote, though true to some much smaller extent, is a gross exaggeration and worthy of CNN. But you also just described many nations. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

SeaFireLIV
07-27-2005, 09:13 AM
When did this turn into a China-bashing thread?

Maybe it may just occur to some that China is probably feeling a lot like the Russians did back in the bad old days.... Surrounded with a very powerful America making all sorts of sword-swaggering gestures... Afghanistan, Iraq... threatening the Sudan, MiddleEast...

From their side, it probably looks like it`s the WEST that`s going on the warpath... think about it.

Pirschjaeger
07-27-2005, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
When did this turn into a China-bashing thread?

Maybe it may just occur to some that China is probably feeling a lot like the Russians did back in the bad old days.... Surrounded with a very powerful America making all sorts of sword-swaggering gestures... Afghanistan, Iraq... threatening the Sudan, MiddleEast...

From their side, it probably looks like it`s the WEST that`s going on the warpath... think about it.

This is very true. They feel like the underdog and the finger pointing from the west will only have adverse effects in the future.

Nations are like bubbles in a lava lamp. Remember those? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif The rise to the top, cool, and sink to the bottom before warming and rising to the top again. History has proven that this cycle exists.

As long as China's economy is booming, 20 years so far, there will always be accusations and a negative stance from the west. And yes, Chinese believe America is a threat and will one day attack China. Has anyone noticed many countries feel this way in regards to the US?

So how would the Chinese feel?

Fritz

Kocur_
07-27-2005, 09:41 AM
Easy gents! What I wrote is simplified and exagerrated indeed! Its about the worst scenario I can imagine, not my predictionhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SeaFireLIV! I dont read Chinese papers, so I dont know what kind of propaganda is there. Im old enough to have lived quite consciously through 1980's in communist Poland, so I know how might look like. In most every evening TV news you could hear how aggresive pact NATO is, comparisons between Bundeswehr division and Soviet one (German was larger, somehow they never mentioned that West Group of Soviet Army in East Germany had about an army vs. every German divison http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif), lots of talking on Pershing II missiles just about to fall on every city (as you might know Pershing II had small warhead but with sophisticated and precise guiding system, and was to attack small, hard targets like underground C3I facilities), and more such lies. The communist leaders knew the real picture back then, and surely Chinese do too now. And US is as about to attack China as NATO was to attack Warsaw Pact back in the 1980's.

Pirschjaeger! What is "countries feel"? People in countries with free media? Or rulers of states like Libya, Syria and so on?

Pirschjaeger
07-27-2005, 10:19 AM
Hi Kocur,

To be more specific, many people in many countries feel that the US is a threat to world peace. It's usually a toss up between Israel and the US. There are countries from the Middle East, Asia, and Eastern Europe that feel the US is a direct threat to them. I'm not picking on the US are even questioning the governments of these countries.

It was merely to point out the way peoples in various nations feel. You and I both know the US is not the threat many nations think. But, that is you and I, not them. They feel this way and therefor react to it in a certain way. It's simply a reaction.

No doubt you trust the closest person to you, maybe your mom, maybe your father, maybe your wife. But no matter how much you trust them, they can raise their hand and make you blink. It's just a reaction.

I was teaching a high level English class about 4.5 years ago. My students were also highly educated. I took an article from Yahoo news and gave each student a copy to read. This article was accusing the Chinese of aiming missiles at Taiwan, of mass producing missiles to attack Taiwan, and of even killing the large majority of the Taiwanese population. I said nothing but just asked them to read it.

After 50 mins time, I told them we'll take a break. Everyone was very quiet and somber. After break I asked them their opinions on the article. No one would look at me, no one would speak. I thought "success!".

Then I pressured them to share their feelings. The whole class agreed that they felt ashame to be Chinese, that they were ashamed of their government. I had, with this one article, crushed their pride and made them feel deeply ashamed. This was actually part of my lesson. By now you must be thinking "What an "A" hole." Wait.

Then I went over the article with them and took it apart word by word. Within a short time they had regained their pride and lost their shame but were completely amazed. It was simply propaganda. No where in the article did it say that China was actually doing this. Legally there was absolutely no accusation of any sort. It was full of could be's and maybe's.

Another interesting fact, is that this article was shown to me by one of my teachers(I owned the school) who said China should be bombed. He was a Canadian, a native speaker that fell for it.

Now, think about this. I see these sort of articles all the time. English is a hobby of mine and I love reading news papers and picking the articles apart. Many Chinese read western articles, in particular those coming from the US. Many of these articles are translated into Chinese for everyone to read. Get the picture? The translater will not pickup the propaganda. He/she will write what they understand.

Try this, take some of those articles you read about China, North Korea, or any country the US is hostile towards. Pick it apart, sentence by sentence, word by word. Look for words like "believe", "anonymus experts" "studies show", "could be", and many others.

Recently I read the same sort of article about the US claiming that N.Korea can fire a missle at Japan anytime. The article was written in a way you will believe it's an eminant threat, about to happen anytime. What was the reason? Simple, to sway public opinion to believe that Japan is under a serious threat. Why? So they are permitted to buy arms and jion the missle defense program. Who would sell the weapons? Need I say more?

There are two sides to every coin and we don't always see both, but we believe they are there without even looking.

Fritz

LEXX_Luthor
07-27-2005, 10:36 AM
Another thing to remember, Canadians created LEXX. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Canada Makes Formal UN Apology for Lexx (by Edgar Harris) ~~> http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.html?id=1088


Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien apologizes for Lexx.
http://www.revolutionsf.com/images/humor/lexx/apology.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Jetbuff
07-27-2005, 11:02 AM
...more bees with honey...

Pirschjaeger
07-27-2005, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Another thing to remember, Canadians created LEXX. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Canada Makes Formal UN Apology for Lexx (by Edgar Harris) ~~> http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.html?id=1088


Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien apologizes for Lexx.
http://www.revolutionsf.com/images/humor/lexx/apology.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Ha ha ha, that's funny. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Nice to see our tax dollars hard at work. These guyz have so much responsibility.

It reminds me a little of the Toronto mayor, Mel Lastman. When the Spice Girls broke up he sent them a ltter asking them to get back together because Toronto loved them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

He put 100 lifesized fiberglass moose around Toronto. Some woman's right group complained all the moose were male and none female. Mel's response was to have the antlers removed from 50 of these mooses. At the same time he had long eyelashes attached for effect. The woman's right group became speechless on that issue. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Another time the Quebec seperatists were pushing their agende good ol' Mel pulled the carpet out from under their argument. He publically announce Toronto should separate from Canada. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

To be honest, I think Mel was crazy but I liked him. He had a unique way of dealing with things and problems. And he didn't take sh1t from no one, accept his shoplifting wife.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Fritz

Kocur_
07-27-2005, 11:28 AM
Pirschjaeger!
I've read studies proving that more than 80% of TV news viewers understand sh*t of what they hear/see on the screenhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Propaganda is everywhere! What else are TV ads?
But please dont put on the same level "propaganda" in free media and state propaganda. I have something none of you living in the west have: I have experienced both, as I had spent half of my life in communist country. Even if "free media" are used for propaganda, it is done by all possible sides of argument. There is possibility of reaching something close to truth in process of comparing contents. You do not have that chance in case of state propaganda in state owned media in authoritarian state. If there is no outside news or knowledge source like radio broadcasted from another country or satellite TV, ppl of that authoritarian country are CONDEMNED to belive what their rulers want them to.

Please do not make suggestions of terrible things about China or N.Korea we hear on the news are US inspired propaganda bogus. Check your own knowledge about inside of Soviet Union of 1920-50's and compare it with Alexandr Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago". Are you ready to call that book US inspired propaganda?

Pirschjaeger! IMHO you need vacation outside of China quick! What I posted about various Chinese military projects is truth, yet as you wrote before you didnt hear about that spending. I took knowledge on those programs not from CNN or "sources say". Its from Polish military technology magazines.
Now, by my education, my job and last but not least my hobby I strongly belive I do understand what I hear/read. That process of "picking it apart, sentence by sentence, word by word" is what I do for life in one field and for my hobby on another (military technology). And thus:

"Recently I read the same sort of article about the US claiming that N.Korea can fire a missle at Japan anytime. The article was written in a way you will believe it's an eminant threat, about to happen anytime. What was the reason? Simple, to sway public opinion to believe that Japan is under a serious threat. Why? So they are permitted to buy arms and jion the missle defense program. Who would sell the weapons? Need I say more?".

The article you've read might be related to incident from ehmm 2004 or 03(?) when empty stage,first or second, of rocket fired from N. Korea flew over Japan and fell into Pacific Ocean. If they could throw anything ABOVE Japan islands they are technically capable of throwing something like, at least chemical or biological warhead, ONTO Japan islands. Its not propaganda. Its thinking in technical terms of cosequences of a technical event. Author of the article most probably was a journalist who knows nothing on multi stage rockets and wanted baaaad to write something worth a big headline, but the core of it is just truth.

Pirschjaeger
07-27-2005, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Pirschjaeger!
I've read studies proving that more than 80% of TV news viewers understand sh*t of what they hear/see on the screenhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Propaganda is everywhere! What else are TV ads?
But please dont put on the same level "propaganda" in free media and state propaganda. I have something none of you living in the west have: I have experienced both, as I had spent half of my life in communist country. Even if "free media" are used for propaganda, it is done by all possible sides of argument. There is possibility of reaching something close to truth in process of comparing contents. You do not have that chance in case of state propaganda in state owned media in authoritarian state. If there is no outside news or knowledge source like radio broadcasted from another country or satellite TV, ppl of that authoritarian country are CONDEMNED to belive what their rulers want them to.

** Although I have never lived in the Russia's version of communism, I have met many people who have. Maybe I'm wrong but I'll assume you are comparing the version of communism you experienced with that of the version in China. If you are, then you are completely wrong to do so. Two totally different worlds. My East German and Polish friends have told me a lot. You guyz experienced a much higher degree of control than what you'll find here in China.

As far as I know, all western medias are accessible in China, even CNN both via cable or internet. Many were blocked 5 years ago.

Please do not make suggestions of terrible things about China or N.Korea we hear on the news are US inspired propaganda bogus.

** I made no suggestions, just simply related to two articles that were obvious propaganda. The subject I was writing about was propaganda, not whether or not they were true or false was not the issue. Simply that they in no way made accusations but were written in a manner that the reader would believe it as an immediate threat.

Check your own knowledge about inside of Soviet Union of 1920-50's and compare it with Alexandr Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago". Are you ready to call that book US inspired propaganda?

** Never heard of it and know little of it, but, that doesn't mean I even have an opinion on it. Once again, I'm talking about the use of propaganda to sway the masses, not history.

Pirschjaeger! IMHO you need vacation outside of China quick!

** just came back from 6 months in Germany.

What I posted about various Chinese military projects is truth, yet as you wrote before you didnt hear about that spending.

** I didn't deny what you said, just simply said it was an exaggeration, which you already admitted to. As for the spending, I didn't know it was that high but from what I do know, I can see why. I tried to explain that objectively, once more, without opinion.

I took knowledge on those programs not from CNN or "sources say". Its from Polish military technology magazines.
Now, by my education, my job and last but not least my hobby I strongly belive I do understand what I hear/read. That process of "picking it apart, sentence by sentence, word by word" is what I do for life in one field and for my hobby on another (military technology).

** Ok, we have the same hobby and similar duties in our professions. From time to time I must deal with military issues and even worse, the intricacies of UN restrictions placed on China.

And thus:

"Recently I read the same sort of article about the US claiming that N.Korea can fire a missle at Japan anytime. The article was written in a way you will believe it's an eminant threat, about to happen anytime. What was the reason? Simple, to sway public opinion to believe that Japan is under a serious threat. Why? So they are permitted to buy arms and jion the missle defense program. Who would sell the weapons? Need I say more?".

The article you've read might be related to incident from ehmm 2004 or 03(?) when empty stage,first or second, of rocket fired from N. Korea flew over Japan and fell into Pacific Ocean.

** No, this was very recently, earlier this year. I know all about what you are talking about but it's different from what I mentioned.

If they could throw anything ABOVE Japan islands they are technically capable of throwing something like, at least chemical or biological warhead, ONTO Japan islands. Its not propaganda. Its thinking in technical terms of cosequences of a technical event. Author of the article most probably was a journalist who knows nothing on multi stage rockets and wanted baaaad to write something worth a big headline, but the core of it is just truth.

** No one denied N.Korea being able to do this. If you read my posts again after reading these response I've just written, you will see this. I simply stated that the article was written in a manner to sway public opinion and that it didn't accuse N.Korea of anything.

Your responses are just what I'm talking about. Maybe I need to practice my writing skills more but you have taken what I've written out of context. I know you are not a native English speaker, although your English is good, and maybe this plays a part in why you misunderstand what I write.

As I mentioned before, I am not pro-China but I do believe in speaking out when I see wrongs. I also believe we should look at both sides and not just one side. They have all the same propaganda here that they have in the west. Just like in the west the a lot of information from the other side is filtered.

Just like China's 25 billion a year budget for the military. How can we judge? Do you know exactly what all that money is being spent on? Do you have a shopping list? Do you know all the military's responsibilities in China? We don't know and that is a fact, not an opinion.

But we do know that China's military is aging and not in good shape. We do know that China's military carries many responsibilities that have nothing to do with warfare. BTW, one of their responsibilities is a pension and welfare system. When you have a military with over 2 million people, how much could that cost?

Every year when China has it's natural disasters, who foots the bill? The military.
At this point I will repeat myself,"we don't know how much".

I'm not saying they are spending too much or too little. How can I know? How can anyone but the Chinese military know?

What I am saying, and I hope it's clear enough, is that we shouldn't be so quick to judge based on what the papers say. When the media says "China's military budget is 25 billion annually" it is propaganda because of what it doesn't tell you. It is not a lie, but it is missing valuable information. That is propaganda. It's purpose is to sway public opinion.

As for Canada giving a billion over a ten year period, sure it sounds wrong but we don't know what is behind the scenes. Nothing is free. That article was printed in order to sway public opinion. It's political and has an agenda and purpose, therfor it's propaganda. I think it was Jenson who said it doesn't matter because the opposition party complaining about it would not change anything if they got elected. I agree with him, we have seen this many times in Canada.

In summary Kocur, I am not denying or implying anything more than the fact that we don't get both sides of the story and we should be careful not to judge too quickly.

Fritz

Kocur_
07-27-2005, 03:01 PM
Oh Pirschjaeger! If there are any language issues preventing us from understanding eachother fully,they are on my side beyound any doubt!

Pirschjaeger Posted Wed July 27 2005 11:30

"Although I have never lived in the Russia's version of communism, I have met many people who have. Maybe I'm wrong but I'll assume you are comparing the version of communism you experienced with that of the version in China. If you are, then you are completely wrong to do so. Two totally different worlds. My East German and Polish friends have told me a lot. You guyz experienced a much higher degree of control than what you'll find here in China."

Rgrt! If you say there is improvement in human rights in China today-I belive you! Btw: One cant compare "Polish People's Republic" and East Germany! Oh boy! What a country-sized prison Honecker-land was!

IIRC and AFAIK (http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) we started this with ordinary Chinese notion that US is a threat to PRC. We agree that propaganda is being used in every kind of system of rule. Where seem to disagree on taking equally propaganda we encounter in open western societies and propaganda which ppl encounter in PRC:

"They have all the same propaganda here that they have in the west. Just like in the west the a lot of information from the other side is filtered. "

I find it hard to belive Chinese have real access to free media:

"As far as I know, all western medias are accessible in China, even CNN both via cable or internet."

That "AFAIK" is worring me. Does it mean you are not sure if an every-day Chinese can or can not have access to wester media? Even if every Chinese can turn on his TV-set and watch CNN, how many of them can speak english? The real and basic problem is: are there any Chinese papers, radio or TV stations not owned by government? Is there no censorship? For those would be sine qua non's for me to consider ours and Chinese access to free media equal. If it is not, than we do have ability to built our own notions on things, basing of different media sources and Chinese dont. In another words you and I can read both "blue" and "red" papers, we can expose ourselves to both "blue" and "red" propaganda, but ordinary Chinese cant, for all he can read are "red" papers. I can belive you when you say its not as tight as it used to be 5 years ago, but Im not convinced Chinese are able to expose them selves to both, or any-, side propaganda.


"Just like China's 25 billion a year budget for the military. How can we judge? Do you know exactly what all that money is being spent on?"

I wrote above we cant possibly tell how much Chinese state spends on anything really.

">>What I posted about various Chinese military projects is truth, yet as you wrote before you didnt hear about that spending.<<

I didn't deny what you said, just simply said it was an exaggeration, which you already admitted to."

Oh no! I admitted to exaggerate when I posted "my supposed reasons" to suppport your own opinion that reaching super-power by China would be dangerous for the world. My exaggeration is in hidden behind some of those "reasons", supposed Chinese conspiracy, or plan, to reach such status.
It was another post where I listed major Chinese warfare programs of which I read. Noone can say how much they cost, but regardless of that those projects exist and their goal is to improve Chinese military striking capabilities. Again, I accept idea that Chinese army duties are much wider than in the west, and cost it more respecively but it cant change fact they are spending considerable sums to improve areas not related to natural diseasters of welfare.

No doubt in my mind that todays PRC is far away from it used to be throughout 1950-70's. But whatever is changed I cant stop thinking about China as a huge potential country ruled in authoritarian, communist way. Whatever bad I hear about PRC-Im quick, perhaps too quick!, to find it credible. On the other side having you as an eyewitness there, Im ready to find credible good things you report on China you see around you.

And OT: let me encourage you, and you all, to read "Gulag Archipelago", by Alexandr Solzhenitsyn. I dont think one can understand all the tragedy communism was for Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and all the rest of the world east to Iron Courtain without familiarising with that book.

arcadeace
07-27-2005, 03:35 PM
Here we are. This thread was posted by an upset Canadian over his government spending a billion in tax dollars contributed to Mainland China. The argument being the communist Chinese government have the money if allocated properly.

What€s the end result? Like the end result of Japanese whaling; like the end result of Hollywood€s Africa aid concert; etc.. The United States of America is this world€s greatest evil... we, and/or our dastardly government are responsible http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

This argument is over. The bow has been drawn, the arrow aimed, and the stars and stripes... bull€s eye http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Kocur_
07-27-2005, 04:05 PM
And what exactly brought you Arcadeace to conclusion, that argument is over and any conclusions been made? Especially one you posted? I personally dont feel that way. Not about "conclusions" nor US http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

arcadeace
07-27-2005, 04:11 PM
God love the commies http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Death to America http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif And praise Allah too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

I say let€s have another lovefest USA bash! Some stupid Yank want to mention our Independence Day again?

A belated welcome Kocur http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kocur_
07-27-2005, 04:20 PM
You cought me with my english too weak. Are you saying Im a commie and try to bash US?

arcadeace
07-27-2005, 04:28 PM
No mate on the contrary. I don€t disagree with your posts, just pointing out the obvious conclusion for many people, regardless http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Don€t take me literally. Also, try not to take these discussions too serious http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kocur_
07-27-2005, 05:19 PM
SeaFireLIV
Posted Wed July 27 2005 08:13

"Maybe it may just occur to some that China is probably feeling a lot like the Russians did back in the bad old days"

On those Russians, and in fact all the people who lived in all soviet block countries. Be sure they were being scared by their governments propaganda! We were supposed to be affraid of US and NATO. Their leaders were pictured as a bunch of aggresive and mean mads or bandits. Every cold war clash was being shown as western attack on peaceful people of soviet block countries. And they had "proofs". Im sure you know who attacked who in Korea in 1950. But even in the 1980's kids in schools were tought it was US that attacked peaceful North Korea! Can you belive it? On any of those clashes you could read it was western unprovoked attack, starting with aerial bombing of schools and hospitals.
West Germany government was pictured as almost openly nazi, having its Bundeswehr based on SS "tradition" just waiting to invade "us". Judge yourself how much of that was true.
That is about ordinary people. Red leaders knew well what was real. Even since WW2 ended Soiet Union was at offensive against west. Rember blocade of Berlin? Support of Mao's Chinese communists in their bloody rebellion. Korean war where communist North invaded southern part of the peninsula to have more subjects. Soviet invasion Hungary in 1956 when ordinary Hungarians tried to put down terror system they were living in since 1945. Soviets installing ballistic nuclear missiles in Cuba. North Vietnam infiltration and attack on South with partisans at the beginning and regular North army soon after, regardless of previous peace agreements. The 1970's were period of most aggresive soviet stance. With words they were on policy of detente, and deeds? Brezhniev doctine: what is ours OURS IS and there should be more of that. Czechs in 1968 were first to taste it with Warsaw Pact invasion on their country. HUGE extension of soviet high sea fleet through 1970's under adm. Gorshkov, from just off-shore defensive fleet to one with oceanic frigades, cruisers, STOVL carriers and HUNDRETS of subs. Left-wing terrorism in western world, supported with Czech semtex, training facilities in East Germany and weapons from all soviet block. Soviet influences "leap" over Atlantic to latin America. Invasion of Afganistan in 1979. HUGE money soviets spent in 1970's on modern weapons: T-62, 64, 72, 80, Tu-22, MiGs-23,25,27,29. Countless number of new rocket systems: tactical, operational and strategic, of every category. Next time you hear "green" protesting against space probes with nuclear source of electicity, inform them on my behalf that since 1976 TENS of such satellites were orbiting over their heads. For I dont think they ever heard of space-naval target aqusition system Liegienda, with nuclear powered radar satellites and others to transmit data on NATO ships directly to already fired from the Kursk sister-subs Granit missiles. All that weaponry was developed and produced in a country unable to feed itself! Did ypu know that ever since 1964 Soviet Union was fed with US and Kanadian wheat imported to Soviet Union by thousands of tones every year? If you think the world biggest oil outputer was Saudi Arabia or Iraq you are wrong. If you think world greatest gold and diamonds outputer was South Africa you are wrong too.

No I dont think Stalin, Khrushchev or Brezhniev were scared of constantly withrowing western politicians. Well some of them of certain left -wing parties were actually financially supported by soviets.

Luckily there finally was Ronald Reagan with his simple plan: we win, reds lose. Oh yeah, they got scared with him in the White House. And they should have been, for finally western world, the free world! had a leader to oppose communist world offensive and finally defeat them in economical and technological race.
Is it any use to say it all? Dont think so. Most of readers will probably take me for a biased a..hole. Yet not so many Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Hungarians, Czechs, Poles or others who were there.

jensenpark
07-27-2005, 09:59 PM
I think it is clear there is alot, and I mean alot, of pent up envy of the Canadian Cultural blitzkrieg!

You are all jealous that we can produce an epic gift to the world like Lexx! Bow down before our artisitc might!

(actually, we figured if the French would pay for Jerry Lewis, and the Americans would eat up cr*p TV featuring that twit Paris Hilton, then maybe we can make a quick buck producing this garbage!)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Pirschjaeger
07-27-2005, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Oh Pirschjaeger! If there are any language issues preventing us from understanding eachother fully,they are on my side beyound any doubt!

Pirschjaeger Posted Wed July 27 2005 11:30

"Although I have never lived in the Russia's version of communism, I have met many people who have. Maybe I'm wrong but I'll assume you are comparing the version of communism you experienced with that of the version in China. If you are, then you are completely wrong to do so. Two totally different worlds. My East German and Polish friends have told me a lot. You guyz experienced a much higher degree of control than what you'll find here in China."

Rgrt! If you say there is improvement in human rights in China today-I belive you! Btw: One cant compare "Polish People's Republic" and East Germany! Oh boy! What a country-sized prison Honecker-land was!

IIRC and AFAIK (http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) we started this with ordinary Chinese notion that US is a threat to PRC. We agree that propaganda is being used in every kind of system of rule. Where seem to disagree on taking equally propaganda we encounter in open western societies and propaganda which ppl encounter in PRC:

"They have all the same propaganda here that they have in the west. Just like in the west the a lot of information from the other side is filtered. "

I find it hard to belive Chinese have real access to free media:

"As far as I know, all western medias are accessible in China, even CNN both via cable or internet."

That "AFAIK" is worring me. Does it mean you are not sure if an every-day Chinese can or can not have access to wester media? Even if every Chinese can turn on his TV-set and watch CNN, how many of them can speak english? The real and basic problem is: are there any Chinese papers, radio or TV stations not owned by government? Is there no censorship? For those would be sine qua non's for me to consider ours and Chinese access to free media equal. If it is not, than we do have ability to built our own notions on things, basing of different media sources and Chinese dont. In another words you and I can read both "blue" and "red" papers, we can expose ourselves to both "blue" and "red" propaganda, but ordinary Chinese cant, for all he can read are "red" papers. I can belive you when you say its not as tight as it used to be 5 years ago, but Im not convinced Chinese are able to expose them selves to both, or any-, side propaganda.


"Just like China's 25 billion a year budget for the military. How can we judge? Do you know exactly what all that money is being spent on?"

I wrote above we cant possibly tell how much Chinese state spends on anything really.

">>What I posted about various Chinese military projects is truth, yet as you wrote before you didnt hear about that spending.<<

I didn't deny what you said, just simply said it was an exaggeration, which you already admitted to."

Oh no! I admitted to exaggerate when I posted "my supposed reasons" to suppport your own opinion that reaching super-power by China would be dangerous for the world. My exaggeration is in hidden behind some of those "reasons", supposed Chinese conspiracy, or plan, to reach such status.
It was another post where I listed major Chinese warfare programs of which I read. Noone can say how much they cost, but regardless of that those projects exist and their goal is to improve Chinese military striking capabilities. Again, I accept idea that Chinese army duties are much wider than in the west, and cost it more respecively but it cant change fact they are spending considerable sums to improve areas not related to natural diseasters of welfare.

No doubt in my mind that todays PRC is far away from it used to be throughout 1950-70's. But whatever is changed I cant stop thinking about China as a huge potential country ruled in authoritarian, communist way. Whatever bad I hear about PRC-Im quick, perhaps too quick!, to find it credible. On the other side having you as an eyewitness there, Im ready to find credible good things you report on China you see around you.

And OT: let me encourage you, and you all, to read "Gulag Archipelago", by Alexandr Solzhenitsyn. I dont think one can understand all the tragedy communism was for Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and all the rest of the world east to Iron Courtain without familiarising with that book.

Kocur my friend,

I'm am sitting here chuckling. Not laughing at you but laughing because I have to keep explaining every little detail of what I said. I am enjoying this conversation though.

"As far as I know, all western medias are accessible in China, even CNN both via cable or internet."

Key word is "all". I know, for a fact, Cnn, ABC, BBC, The Guardian, Deutsche Welle are all accessible here by either internet or TV, (depending on whether or not you buy cable.)

I wrote "as far as I know" simply because I don't know all available medias in the world, but I don't know of any that are blocked. If I had wrote "All media is available" it would have been wrong because , as I just said, I don't know all medias. I think you understand this now, yes?

Ordinary people do have access to all these things I mentioned.

"It was another post where I listed major Chinese warfare programs of which I read. Noone can say how much they cost, but regardless of that those projects exist and their goal is to improve Chinese military striking capabilities. Again, I accept idea that Chinese army duties are much wider than in the west, and cost it more respecively but it cant change fact they are spending considerable sums to improve areas not related to natural diseasters of welfare."

Of course, like many militaries in the world the are trying to improve. Why shouldn't they have the right? What would give other countries the rights to expand or improve their military and China not?

And for the third time, what does it matter whether I know what they are spending or not? What does it matter if you know? It doesn't matter because we don't know how or what they are spending their money on.

China is a quickly developing country. Many don't understand an important issue here. Mao did great damage to the country and society. He fits right in there with Stalin and Hitler. The problem is he managed to brainwash the people before his death. Most here in China still believe he was a hero. They don't know the truth. If the current government openly stated the truth about Mao, they would have revolution on their hands. The people would take it personally. Therefor, they must work slowly to repair the damage and let the people know what happened. It will take a long time but it will eventually be in the open. Mao was the founder of the party. Mao closed China from the outside world and did his worst.

You cannot change 1.3 billion people overnight but you can over time. The Chinese a far from becoming a military super-power. They lack certain technologies that the rest of the world will not share with them. But, IMHO, if they did have these technologies today, along with their current way of thinking, they might be dangerous. But they are very far from obtaining these technologies. Ironically, considering our discussion, I had a meeting with a high-level engineer from the government yesterday. They are further behind than what I had previously thought.

I do believe the west(society)is too quick to judge. And this is how western governments would like society to be.

OT, communism has never exsisted. That form of communism the Soviets and Mao used was very perveted but I think you know this. I've read Marx. I've also read Mao's version of communism. There's quite a difference. Also, communism is impossible since not all people are equal.

I would like to see a democratic socialist system, similar to Canada's but whereas the politicians are accountable for their actions. A system where the people take a more active role. A system where poeple are taught, not just the basics, but the intricacies of politics. A system where one TV channel reports only politics of that country. We have the net now, people have no excuse not to be more active in their country's politics. This would be a country run like a company. Every citizen is a share holder and therefor shares the good times and the bad times, the profits and the costs. When a bill is introduce the politicians have the opportunity to explian there "fors" or "against" along with possible outcomes. Then the people can vote by the net. It's already possible.

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
07-27-2005, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by Arcadeace:
No mate on the contrary. I don€t disagree with your posts, just pointing out the obvious conclusion for many people, regardless http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Don€t take me literally. Also, try not to take these discussions too serious http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Arcadeace,

No one wants to bash the US. You are too jumpy man. The sky is not falling.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I simply used the US as an example because it was something we knew about and can relate to.

Dude, not everything is about the US. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

FRitz

arcadeace
07-27-2005, 11:22 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Dude, why do you think I was talking about you? How could I misunderstand your feelings? I know there are real reasons why your authoritarian government spends its money. I wasn't overly serious mate... and my sentiments weren't focusing on you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

I pointed out why the thread was started, and how it ended. Not everything is about America http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Pirschjaeger
07-28-2005, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by Arcadeace:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Dude, why do you think I was talking about you? How could I misunderstand your feelings? I know there are real reasons why your authoritarian government spends its money. I wasn't overly serious mate... and my sentiments weren't focusing on you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

I pointed out why the thread was started, and how it ended. Not everything is about America http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

You know this, and I know this, but your post is an open door to those who fly off the handle. Some posters in here get carried away. Sometimes, just the mention of the word "America" puts some people in a defensive posture, therefor ruining the thread and eventually getting it locked. It wasn't exactly directed at you and I kinda thought you were joking. It was more of an "anti-flame" defense, or at least I was hoping.

I've been reading your posts for a long time and know that you usually contribute in a positive way. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

arcadeace
07-28-2005, 12:48 AM
Fritz, there€s probably more misunderstanding than you know and I€d like to make a suggestion with due respect. When there€s political discussion and you want to make a point or two try and keep it limited. Its not very prudent to always feel the need to respond, elaborate and further prove your point. If you believe a certain way and others post the opposite, let it go.

Steve http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kocur_
07-28-2005, 08:38 AM
Im enjoying it too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Pirschjaeger Posted Wed July 27 2005 21:28

"I wrote "as far as I know" simply because I don't know all available medias in the world, but I don't know of any that are blocked. If I had wrote "All media is available" it would have been wrong because , as I just said, I don't know all medias. I think you understand this now, yes?"

I didnt consider "all" any important (you have one, lets say CNN-you have it all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif). Replace "all" with "any" or drop the word, and see what is left. The sentence was ambiguous, and I considered "AFAIK" the "schwerpunkt"http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Btw: does it matter if there is or inst western TV in cable? How many Chinese have real access to it? How many Chinese can speak any europen language?

What is wrong with their industry? They are able to duplicate technologies, when they buy licences. Lets forget creating new technologies for now, they have huge problems even with replicating technologies to manufacture items they obtain illegaly, without know-how. You are close to it these days and I know strangely similar examples from the past. Wnen SU and China had "divorce" in the beginning of the 1960's Chinese had all technology to produce MiG's-17 and 19. They did, J-6's and A-5's (MiG-19 derivatives) make most of their air force. But they didnt have it all to produce MiG-21, most of know-how, but not all. They soon got the missing elements from Albania or Egipt, but still it took them next 20 years to become able to produce J-7's independently!
Is it lact of personnel with proper education? How long can it take to bring up their own cadre of technicians and engineers? I dont mean very high-tech things. I mean metallurgy (MiG-21 engine), electronics of 1960's level, and such things. Pirschjaeger, what is your idea on those reasons?

On commnism: Indeed it never existed! And never will, for its Marx's fantasy: incoherent, based on fundamentally wrong ideas on human minds. Any attempt to materialise Marx's ideas leads to pervertion. No way massive crimes against humanity could be avoided when trying to make it real. Marx had some new, "revolutionary" ideas on historiosophy but he did not dicover "laws" ruling history. Ehmm, Im not arguing here with you, Im sharing my notion! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"A system where poeple are taught, not just the basics, but the intricacies of politics."

We both know its impossible. You cant teach kids that they should support high ideas and at the same time that its justified to violate them when there is an intrest behind it. Look at what is popular notion on Machiavelli. He is commonly recognized as promotor of political cynicism, practicality regardless of morality. How many knows that "The Prince" and other writings were supposed to be merely a tool,helpful in achieving highly patriotic goal-freeing and uniting Italy. I think Machiavelli would be surpised to see himself commonly viewed as an immoral cynic and not as a man driven by idealism, a patriot.
To make work society of people educated in intricacies of politics you would have to have entire society of schizofernics: "I know its wrong to steal and I condemn those who do, but I will steal too if I need it". Simplified of course but thats politics Im affraid. I preffer to be naive and "clean" and let others do dirty job for me. On the other side I'd be happy to see people around understand more. To see there is direct link between sending army overseas and prices of gas not going up at gas station in their neighbourhood. How comfortable not to see it...

Pirschjaeger
07-28-2005, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by Arcadeace:
Fritz, there€s probably more misunderstanding than you know and I€d like to make a suggestion with due respect. When there€s political discussion and you want to make a point or two try and keep it limited. Its not very prudent to always feel the need to respond, elaborate and further prove your point. If you believe a certain way and others post the opposite, let it go.

Steve http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

That would end a good discussion wouldn't it? I like this discussion. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

There is a method behind the madness I must admit. I want to improve my written communication skills. Therefor, I'll try to discuss anything.

Why did you think I joined this forum? To figure out if the P-38 is fantasy or reality? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

I just can't find a good forum where people from all backgrounds are willing to discuss anything and everything. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

After our lengthy discussion Kocur and I seem to agree. Interesting me thinks. I also think we both learned something from it. I thought it was a good discussion but I also think it has run its course.

Do you agree Kocur?

Fritz

arcadeace
07-28-2005, 11:32 AM
That€s certainly your decision but an €œanti-flame€ defense post is a bit ironic to me? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Just don€t be surprised if impressions (sensitivities) are derived about your bent. I didn€t think you were here for an a/c fantasy either mate tho I€ve wondered if we would begin hearing the virtues of the People€s Daily http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I€m not one for censoring much €" too often a Mod can have lockitis in my opinion. I think most of us are big boys and sometimes that requires temperance. I agree with you, this is a forum with folks from all backgrounds and GD can be fun. I€m not quite as enthused as you€¦ but I think you've helped to motivate Kocur http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Pirschjaeger
07-28-2005, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by Arcadeace:
That€s certainly your decision but an €œanti-flame€ defense post is a bit ironic to me? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Just don€t be surprised if impressions (sensitivities) are derived about your bent. I didn€t think you were here for an a/c fantasy either mate tho I€ve wondered if we would begin hearing the virtues of the People€s Daily http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I€m not one for censoring much €" too often a Mod can have lockitis in my opinion. I think most of us are big boys and sometimes that requires temperance. I agree with you, this is a forum with folks from all backgrounds and GD can be fun. I€m not quite as enthused as you€¦ but I think you've helped to motivate Kocur http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ha ha ha, yes, Kocur has posted a lot of interesting points. I think "motivated" is a good adjective. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

As for "anti-flame", I feel I need it. Anytime China has been mentioned before and I try to point out that it is not as bad as everyone thinks, I become the "pinko_commi" or others names.

Just wanted to have a good discussion without the lock. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

arcadeace
07-28-2005, 12:01 PM
I understand Fritz. I'm sure most of us know you're a good guy, with a unique life http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kocur_
07-28-2005, 02:00 PM
Oh boy! I am being dicussed on a forum http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


"Do you agree Kocur?"

Definately I agree it was a good discussion and enlightening! Does "I also think it has run its course." mean in english its over now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif?

I dont see in our discussion any reason to call you "pinko_commi" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif! You have every right to have and share your own political views. As long as you dont promote violent ideas I can discuss with you without throwing names.
We here in Poland went, or rather are going, there,so we know: "What is socialism? Socialsm is the longest, hardest and the most expensive road to...capitalism"http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And about that a bit forgotten Canadian money http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif: if China ever gets to sell outside those Su-27's, Canada should demand dividend http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif