Forum Index
this forum welcomes all forumers who appreciate decent and well thought out views and discussions. all forumers are encouraged to accept that different forumers have different views and often there is no absolutely right or wrong views.
Menu
 Forum IndexHome
FAQFAQ
MemberlistMemberlist
UsergroupsUsergroups
RegisterRegister
ProfileProfile
Log in to check your private messagesMessages
Log inLogin/Out

Quick Search

Advanced Search

Links
mysingaporenews
Singapore River Tour
Singapore Education
Singapore Orchids
littlespeck
ypapforum
Singapore Hosting
Sample Link 2
Sample Link 2

Who's Online
[ Administrator ]
[ Moderator ]


Google Search
Google

http://www.phpbb.com
Silly and mischievous articles to incite hatred
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> World Affairs
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13857
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another China bashing article

China Business
Mar 12, 2010
China lassoes its neighbors
By Walden Bello Asia Times

With the Doha Round of negotiations of the World Trade Organization in limbo, the heavy hitters of international trade have been engaged in a race to sew up trade agreements with smaller partners. China has been among the most aggressive in this game, a fact underlined on January 1, when the China-ASEAN Free-Trade Area (CAFTA) went into effect.

Touted as the world's biggest free-trade area, CAFTA will bring together 1.7 million consumers with a combined gross domestic product of US$5.9 trillion and total trade of $1.3 trillion. Under the agreement, trade between China and Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Singapore has become duty-free for more than 7,000 products. By 2015, the newer members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) - Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar - will join the zero-tariff arrangement.

The propaganda mills, especially in Beijing, have been trumpeting the free-trade agreement as bringing "mutual benefits" to China and ASEAN. In contrast, there has been an absence of triumphal rhetoric from ASEAN. In 2002, the year the agreement was signed, Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo hailed the emergence of a "formidable regional grouping" that would rival the United States and the European Union. ASEAN's leaders, it seems, have probably begun to realize the consequences of what they agreed to: that in this FTA, most of the advantages will probably flow to China....


The above are the opening paras of Walden's article. The writer took the position that the Asean leaders were all dummies and did not know what they were going into, and the peasant Chinamen were first class conmen.

I think the Chinamen cannot beat the conmen that caused the SWFs to lose hundreds of billions within a few months. Those, in my view, were either real first class conmen or the victims were really dumb asses.

If one were to remember the early years when the empires put a gun at the heads of native headmen and forced them to sign away their countries and national wealth, perfectly fair deals. Today all the trade agreements signed between China and any country, no matter how small, were negotiated by the countries best brains on a willing buyer willing seller basis. No guns on their heads for sure.

The western propaganda machine is still in full swin to attack and discredit China in all ways, but how many would believe in them today?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13857
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The western hang ups

Why is it so difficult for Asians to have independent thoughts, to see the world from the Asian perspective instead of parroting the agenda of the West? We have CNA, probably the only credible media that speaks Asian other than Al Jazeera and China Daily.

I read an article in the ST titled 'China arrogant? Maybe, but that's not the point'. I thought I was reading an article written by some western journalists. The views and contents were similar, everywhere in the western media, whacking China for standing up to the bullying of the US and calling China arrogant is the politically correct thing to do.

Is China arrogant or just standing up to the bully? From the Asian perspective, I would say, show the Americans the middle finger. The US have been accusing and threatening and bullying every country other than its major allies. It is time a new power tells the US to shut up. It has nothing to do with being arrogant but refusing to be pushed around. What's wrong with that?

I couldn't imagine that the writer is an Asian, by the name of William Choong. And he went on to explain that China was reacting from a sense of insecurity. A weak power fumbling around trying to make a defensive stand from a position of weakness. And he even talked this cock about 'face' as if the West do not have a face to worry about. The Chinese are sensitive to face. Obama gate crashed a meeting in Copenhagen when he was not invited. It was not about face but about American pride. How could they not give the American President face by not inviting him to a meeting?

Then he went on blabbing about China's weak arrogance being troubling and maybe waiting to be kicked by the number one super power. American arrogance like George Bush's triumphant claim during the Iraq War is good. Weak arrogance like China is bad.

And China is an irresponsible power not pulling its weight to protect the existing balance of power. Maybe it would be better for China to help the Americans to kill the Arabs and Afghans, then China could be welcomed as a responsible power. Maybe China should also join the US to threaten any country that it does not like, threaten them with sanctions to make the US feel better. Is that what is meant by being responsible? Attack another country, killed its leader, under the pretext of WMD. That must be a very responsible way to act as a big power.

Now what is the point? China an arrogant irresponsible power?

Let's give this writer a Congressional Medal or an OBE.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13857
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What arrogance of strength?

China had many embarrassing and humiliating experiences with arrogance of strength in the past. The British sold the Chinese opium only to be confiscated and burnt by the Chinese. They declared war on that ground, raided China, demanded indemnity for war raparation and the opium, including seizure of Hongkong. That was arrogance of the British Empire.

The Americans followed by demanding that 5 ports be opened as free ports. Another arrogance of strength. Then the rest of the wolf pack consisting mainly Europeans powers, plus Russia and Japan followed to designate Chinese territories as their territories. That was arrogance of strength.

Today, the American signed a defence treaty with a renegade defeated political party in Taiwan and insisted that they have now a legal right to arm and defend Taiwan. This is arrogance of strength in modern day. And the Americans and British cooked up the threats of WMD to invade Iraq and murdered its President, turned the country into a war zone, and getting away free without anyone daring to whisper a word about war crimes. And better still, dragging all its weak allies to help in the killings of the Iraqis. This is arrogance of strength.

Is China exhibiting an arrogance of weakness? In the first place it was not even arrogance but standing up to the number one bully. You call that arrogance? Bloody fool! And China is weak? The whole of Europe can join forces and do a 8 Nations attack on Beijing today, like they did before, and see if China is weak.

The US can also try to test how weak China is today. Between the two, I must admit that China is very much weaker. But it is not that weak for the US to attempt to be adventurous.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13857
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another mad fortune teller

This mad fortune teller knew for sure that Kim Jong Il will not live past 2013. Actually he is better than a fortune teller, a doctor and god combined. It is reported in the ST, in an article by Associated Press and REUTER, that he has medical reports to prove his clairvoyance.

And the mad fortune teller came by the name of Kurt Campbell. And he has a title called Assistant US Secretary of State. Actually the mad fortune tellers have been predicting Kim's death so frequently that it is next in numbers to those who predicted the end of the world since the time of Jesus.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13857
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2010 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kim Jong Il visiting. The news clip on TV showed that he is much healthier than he was when he reappeared after a bout of illnesses. He has gained some weight and is looking more like he was before.

To all the western joker journalists and analysts who are predicting his imminent death, they should be predicting their own demise. All human beans will die. But looking at Kim Jong Il, he is going to go on for many more years.

I am posting this to show how ridiculous the western media is and how obnoxious are their reports of hate at those they are against.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13857
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another silly article

Repeated Chinese navy helicopter flights close to Japan's Self-Defense Force ships in the East China Sea and the Western Pacific in April were neither professional nor responsible, says the commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, Adm. Patrick Walsh.
Walsh expressed concern about China's increasingly aggressive behavior in the South China Sea.
In reaction to China's disturbing behavior in the South China Sea, several littoral states such as Vietnam and Singapore are now purchasing submarines "as a way of protecting sovereign rights," Walsh said....


The above article is by Yoichi Kato from Asahi Shimbun.

Is he or the Admiral joking or clowning? Singapore and other littoral states are buying submarines to take on the Chinese? And the Chinese are being irresponsible flying near other ships?

What was the American plane that flew over Hainan and brought down by a Chinese fighter doing there? Friendly tourists? What were all U2s doing flying over other nation's territories? What were the American bases doing in South Korea and Japan?

And the Japanese PM Hatoyama had to resign because he could not evict the Americans from their territory? How come? Japan an American colony?

Why couldn't Hatoyama do it? Was there some unequal treaty that was signed giving away Okinawa to America for 150 years like Hongkong being ceded to Britain during the colonial days?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13857
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The most enlighten article on North Korea

Doug Bandow, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, I dunno where it is, has his article published in the ST today. Let me quote some of his ’intellectual’ comments about North Korea and Kim Jong Il.
‘The so called Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the world’s first “communist monarchy”, poses no threat to America.’ Clap, clap, clap. This is ingenius observation.

‘Its economy is a wreck. Its military equips undertrained and malnourished soldiers with ancient equipment. One American aircraft carrier has more firepower than the entire North Korean military.’ This must be based on objective academic observation and empirical data. Obviously he did not see the recent parade and the well fed, well uniformed and well armed North Korean soldiers. The US should just march in like they did in Iraq and see what happens.

‘…Dear Leader Kim Jong Il is evil but not stupid. He knows that the US could wipe his nation off the map. He wants his virgins in this life, not the next, and would not waste his time attempting to pass power to his son if he planned self immolation in a pyre of fire.’ Kim is evil? How many people has he killed compared to Bush and Obama? And he wants virgins. Kim must have confided in him privately. My god, this is an academic piece of art!

‘The South’s forces are better trained and its equipment is more capable; Seoul has a much large army reserve and military industrial base. It has twice the population and upwards of 40 times the gross domestic product of the North. Moreover, neither China nor Russia, the North’s traditional allies, would support it in another war.’ Obviously this joker did not remember what happened during the Korean War. Let me remind him that the North nearly drove the South Korean army into the sea. Only the American intervention saved the South from a complete annihilation. And his simpleton’s conclusion that China and Russia would not come to the North’s aid in another war is as good as saying there is no Christmas comes December.

After reading till this part, I wonder what kind of academic integrity there is in this article. This looks like a thrash written by a bigoted secondary school boy. I couldn’t bear to read further for fear of being impressed by his silliness.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13857
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

China involved in largest number of conflicts???!!!

‘China, significantly, has been involved in the largest number of military conflicts in Asia. A recent Pentagon report is unsparing: “The history of modern Chinese warfare provides numerous case studies in which China’s leaders have claimed military preemption as a strategically defensive act.’ It then went on to quote the Korean War, (the world knew who brought the war to China’s border), the border war with India in 1962, ( and yes, who started it?), with the Soviet Union, to reclaim lost Chinese territories, and the war with Vietnam, (again, who started it?).

China involved in the largest number of military conflicts in Asia? What about the Americans? The professor never heard of the USA? Matilah has this to say, ‘Meanwhile since the 18th century, America has been involved in 200 or so "armed conflicts" all of them overseas -- in "OPC" - Other Peoples' Cuntries.’ Anyone bother to count? Starting from the Korean War, Vietnam War, the Middle East, Europe, not counting Latin America and Europe…

And the claim that China is involved in the largest conflict came from a Brahma Chellaney, professor of strategic studies at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi. What kind of academic integrity does he have when he can’t even count or refuses to acknowledge the great involvement of the Americans in military conflicts. The scale of the wars waged by the Americans, in any one of them is thousands of times more severe and destructive than all the conflicts the Chinese were involved.
And this foolish article titled The Chinese conundrum, appears in today’s Straits Times.

By the way, how many military adventures have India been involved since it became independent? How many times had India fought with its neighbours and the little islands in the Indian Ocean?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13857
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brave Japanese will fight!

The militant right wing Japanese are shouting, ‘Brave Japanese will fight. Proud Japanese will fight’. And they are denouncing Naoto Kan for releasing the Chinese fishing boat captain as crumbling under China’s pressure.

I really like to see Japan declaring war on China today. It will be a spectacle to watch the brave samurais wielding their Japanese swords against the Chinese broad swords. Today, the match can be very interesting. In the last century it was tanks, big guns and aircraft against bows and arrows and spears. Not anymore.

Go brave Japanese, go. Banzai! Banzai! Show the world the true yakuzas behind the suit and tie. And I am not the only one instigating the Japanese and try to drive their superiority complex to a crazy pitch. Read the main media today and there are at least a couple of articles castrating the Japanese govt for being weak and unable to stand up to foreign pressure.

Let’s stoke the fire of war and push the Japanese to do it. And those who can profit and benefit from wars will pop champagne and celebrate.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13857
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The perpetuation of Untruths in the media

Yuriko Koike, a pretty Japanese lady who was Japan's former Minister of Defence and National Security Adviser, wrote an article in the Today's Comment and Analysis page. Her article is Vietnam's Chinese lessons.

She wrote that China launched two attacks, in fact the words she chose was invaded, India in 1962 and Vietnam in 1979. In both cases she gave the picture that China was an aggressive nation that would choose to use force freely. The facts of the two incidents which she failed to reveal were that both incidents were started by India and Vietnam respectively. They were attacking Chinese border guards and the Chinese guards suffered heavy casualties as they were caught by surprise. Only after a few weeks of attacks that China counter attacked to drive the invaders back deep into their countries. And China could have stayed as the defeated countries were of no match to the Chinese forces. But China chose to withdraw voluntarily without holding to an inch of the captured territories.

Yes, China went in to repel the attackers and taught them a lesson that they never forget, and since then never dare to attack China again. And the stupid western view that Vietnam taught China a lesson instead and killed many Chinese soldiers. If the Vietnamese were that good, they would not have been driven back deep into Vietnam. And neither would they be so well behaved since that defeat by the Chinese. I should post this in the thread, Japan, a nation of liars.

But Yuriko, parroting the western views, without any analysis, kept harping as if China was the aggressor and India and Vietnam were victims of Chinese aggression. What rubbish! This is the kind of distorted truth that the western media has been spreading over the years.

If China has any hostile intent, or coveting its neighbours territories, the three wars it engaged after 1949, would have allowed China to hold on to territories in Korea, India and Vietnam. But China did not stay put unlike the western powers who still have bases in Japan, Korea, and the Middle east, now including Pakistan and Afghanistan.

China does not have any soldier or military bases in foreign land. Is this so hard to believe?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
liuggs73tl



Joined: 30 Nov 2010
Posts: 123

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 11:59 pm    Post subject: These UGG Roxy Tall 5818 boots Reply with quote

These UGG Roxy Tall 5818 boots are acutely fashionable. With the fashion elements,more and more people love this item well.
Related Articles:


UGG Adirondack Tall 5498 young children boots

UGG Adirondack Tall 5498 young children boots
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
liuggs73tl



Joined: 30 Nov 2010
Posts: 123

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 1:29 am    Post subject: discount classic ugg boots Reply with quote

discount classic ugg boots, to cite a couple.In two thousand, snowboarding became the fastest-growing sport in the US.
Related Articles:


because the shoes look uggs on sale stupid

as some of the UGG Metallic Tall 5812 Boots Sale U
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
liuggs73tl



Joined: 30 Nov 2010
Posts: 123

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 4:02 am    Post subject: The cheap uggs for sale are most made of sheepskin Reply with quote

The cheap uggs for sale are most made of sheepskin instead of ordinary leather which will help you stay cool in summer meanwhile keep you warm in winter.
Related Articles:


UGG Ultra Tall 5245 crucial young children may wel

the Australia for the UGG Bailey Button 5803 Boots
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13857
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Clever or stupid question?

William Choong, senior writer of ST, asked a Chinese professor and a Chinese Ambassador about transparency and Chinese military build up. And he deservedly got told off by the Chinese for asking those questions. Why wouldn’t he ask the Americans for more transparency in their weapons development and what their military arms were for? I believe the Americans will tell him it is just a hobby, or toys for the big boys to play with. Would that be good enough answers for him?

There is this group of analysts and reporters who have run out of wits and did not know what to write, and so whenever they see a Chinese official, they will ask the same stupid questions. What are China’s military build up for? The Chinese should simply say, to screw your arse.

China had been a victim of foreign aggression and nearly lost its independence as a country because it was militarily weak. Does that answer all the silly questions?

A smart analyst will know what military weapons and soldiers are for. There is no need to announce their stupidity in the public. The stealth fighter is a problem? What problem? What is the range of the aircraft and its armaments? Can it fly to the US? Yes, it has attack capability. But with its limited range, it is good only to defend the Chinese coast against enemy attacks. And when the enemies are at the door step, what should the Chinese do? Do I have to explain what an aircraft carrier is for? I hope no military analyst or expert is going to ask that silly question. Just look at its range, and the weapons it is carrying. Yes, an aircraft carrier is to party. It is an offensive weapon!

William Choong wrote in his article today explaining his line of questioning. He said, ‘…my question had been open ended and harmless…I had posed a question that was deemed a tad too critical.’

I must praise him for his child like innocence. The Chinese reply to his childish questions was most appropriate though he thought that the Chinese were over reacting. And no, the Chinese were not trying to be smart. They were smart. And definitely they were not incompetent and did not want to answer silly and naďve questions. The Chinese should adopt a practice to say, ‘We don’t answer stupid questions. Next please.’
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13857
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The foreign North Korean experts at it again
They could not understand why the North Koreans are launching the satellite to celebrate the 100 anniversary of Kim Il Sung. Or they just do not want to understand. But that is not enough. They even came out with their foolish comments as if the North Koreans were little ignorant farmers, did not know what they were doing. The favourite reasons, internal rift or rivalry, Kim Jong Un must do something to establish himself, Kim Jung Un is trying to please everyone, Kim Jung Un is following what his father did, playing brinkmanship, what else is new? Oh, he is ill advised by his advisers!
And this Professor Andrei Lankov said his best guess, ‘is a culmination of bureaucratic inefficiency and factional rivalry.’
My no expert guess, the North Koreans need to show the Americans that they have the weapons to deliver a few nuclear warheads into the hearts of the USA. That is the only safe guard for the North Koreans if they want to avoid the fate of Iraq or a Libya. They must be able to do it. They could send a few hundred warheads into all the big cities in Japan and South Korea. These have neutralized the threats from these two neighbours.
The one that is left standing and wanting to have a go at the North Koreans is the US, thinking that it could hit the North Koreans without the latter being able to hit back. The security of the North Koreans is to be able to strike back at the international gangters. Period.
So difficult to understand the North Koreans and so many make beliefs of incompetencies in the North Koreans?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> World Affairs All times are GMT + 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group. Hosted by Vodien Internet Solutions