How Tough is China’s Mission to Fight Terrorism

[mDumb]

<Turkey is a natural enemy of Turkey?>

Oops, sorry, I meant <Turkey is a natural enemy of China?>

 

[oceanx]

The last time China sent its military machines across the border was on 1979.

Which was an unmitigated mistake politically and morally IMO (many PRC "patriots" may disagree, but we can hash it out another time).

Because it wasn't necessary - from a self-preservation point of view, unlike say, in 1950 (where the casualty and cost were staggering to the PRC anyway you look it), or in 1963 (at a considerable cost of "good will").

The cost/benefit analysis has a moral aspect that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as mere sentimentality.

Turkey is a natural enemy of China

The above statement is far more idiotic than interesting, IMO.

Mongolian, Japanese, Manchurian, and Korean languages are Turkic.

You mean "Altaic"? I am not the least bit of a linguist but I wouldn't be surprised if there is some truth to that according to Internet wisdom ...

 

[mDumb]

<Because it wasn't necessary> How so? IMHO, it was.

First, Vietnam was ungrateful to China for its support to fight the US.
Second, the Vietnamese government expelled ethnic Chinese. Third, the Vietnamese government thumbing its nose at the Chinese government by invading Cambodia. Lastly, the Vietnamese government tried to play the game of Russia against China.

 

[oceanx]

<Because it wasn't necessary> How so? IMHO, it was.

First, Vietnam was ungrateful to China for its support to fight the US.
Second, the Vietnamese government expelled ethnic Chinese. Third, the Vietnamese government thumbing its nose at the Chinese government by invading Cambodia. Lastly, the Vietnamese government tried to play the game of Russia against China.

You have shown an unusally good knowledge in the intimate slogans of CCP propaganda. Did you foray into the PRC political sanctum for any length of time by any chance? Just curious.

With the exception of the Vietcons "playing CCCP off the CCP and vice versa", every other point you raised just does not quite stand up to closer scrutiny:

1. Whether or not the Vietcons were "ungrateful" depends on one's point of view - at any rate, no one fights a war over "ingratitude", and neither did the CCP. Claims of "ingratitude" was just to fool the Chinese in China.

2. When did the bloody CCP ever worry about the ethnic Chinese in South East Asia who prospered relatively well in South Vietnam (among elsewhere) as a fairly cohesive and somewhat influential merchant class? By backing the Vietcon and their ideology to the hilt the CCP essentially condemned these so-called "ethnic Chinese" and their properties to a trip to the open seas ...

Look even Deng himself had no clue - not even a d@mn clue that the Maoist policies were making the lives of ethnic Chinese in S/E Asia a living hell until Lee Kuan Yew told him (politely) face to face - one Hakka elder to another!

3. And who was the CCP backing in Cambodia if not the "wonderful" Khmer Rouge?

Don't get me started on Vietnam. I have done my own research and drawn my own conclusions.

Regards.

 

[no_name]

The conflict in Vietnam is meant to draw a line in the sand.

 

[mDumb]

<You have shown an unusally good knowledge in the intimate slogans of CCP propaganda. Did you foray into the PRC political sanctum for any length of time by any chance? Just curious.> NOPE!!!

What's CCP propaganda? Why China decided to send its military machines to cross the border is well documented (obviously, they are pros and cons on this). Well, I am on the pros side (nothing to do with CCP propaganda).

<2. When did the bloody CCP ever worry about the ethnic Chinese in South East Asia who prospered relatively well in South Vietnam (among elsewhere) as a fairly cohesive and somewhat influential merchant class? By backing the Vietcon and their ideology to the hilt the CCP essentially condemned these so-called "ethnic Chinese" and their properties to a trip to the open seas ...>

The Chinese government policy is being inconsistent on protecting Chinese overseas. Over time as China gets stronger it has no choice but to be consistent on protecting Chinese overseas.

Here is an example of inconsistency, on May 1998, many Chinese Indonesians were raped, killed, their businesses and houses were looted and burned and the Chinese government didn't say or do **** about it. The Taiwanese (ROC) government did.

<Look even Deng himself had no clue - not even a d@mn clue that the Maoist policies were making the lives of ethnic Chinese in S/E Asia a living hell until Lee Kuan Yew told him (politely) face to face - one Hakka elder to another!> Deng is a HAKKA?

<3. And who was the CCP backing in Cambodia if not the "wonderful" Khmer Rouge?> But the current Hun Sen government is close to China (This is because of China's 1979 actions).

<Don't get me started on Vietnam. I have done my own research and drawn my own conclusions.> I have too and I look at the big picture (from the geopolitical perspective).

 

[oceanx]

The conflict in Vietnam is meant to draw a line in the sand.

Over Khmer Rouge's demise perhaps. IMO, and in retrospect, PRC had no business backing the North in aggression against the South.

If the South was belligerent, or somehow involved bigger bullies in a "revenge attack" (as in the case of South Korea and the American push up to the Yalu River), then self-defensive cross-boarder actions would have been legit.

But the PRC reaped what she sowed - not in casualty terms (which was comparatively low), but politically and morally.

This story holds contemporary implications. I have no problem with the PRC supportting Iran and the Persian people's right not to be strong-armed by some hodge-podge, gog-magog voodoo politicking ...

This would be the right thing to do despite escalating costs.

But if the Iranians want to somehow boss the Arabs around (strictly hypothetically and IMO very unlikely), then no matter what their historical grievances, then they are on their own and other countries should stay clear - unequivocally so (even if some, like yours truly, personally favour "Persia" slightly over "Arab").

But feelings should have nothing to do with it. Only principles.

Same principles should apply to some of the exchanges between Iran and Israel (however rhetorical and "simulated") ...

Backing the aggressor will backfire one way or another, IMO.

 

[mDumb]

<PRC had no business backing the North in aggression against the South.> Aggression? I called it unification.

I think the US backed South Vietnamese government was motivated by the racial thinking.

Ho Chi Minh humiliated the white French army at Dien Bien Phu badly. The US at that time was a very racist country. You can ask the black Americans who live in that era.

 

[oceanx]

You are only partially correct by my reckoning, friend.

Backing the Viet Mihn against the French at Dien Bian Fu could be viewed through an anti-colonial lens (in fact a heavy presence of PLA advisorship throughout the entire struggle was well known) - with that I can agree.

But they had no business backing one side against the other in the Vietnamese Civil War. Now the caveat is that the Yankees got involved and things got tricky ... I grant you.

Otherwise, backing Viet Cons' aggressions (you can call it re-unification or by any othe terms) in the Vietnamese Civil War would have made even less sense.

By choosing the North over the South, PRC (more specifically the CCP, and most specifically Mao himself) chose to liquidate the South Vietnamese merchant class, who happened to comprise to a large extent the ethnic Chinese.

You know, the truth is, I can appreciate making an "honest" stand over ideology at the expense of ethnic kinship. After all, ethnic Chinese merchant classes in S/E Asia have also been known to be corrupt, and it's not like the locals never have a case in their grievances (just my 2 cents) ...

But then for the CCP to turn around and insinuate that they fought the war of 1979 to "avenge ethnic Chinese" is the ultimate insult to injury.

Anyways, I have met enough "boat people" here in Canada to have gotten curious about their background. And not a single one of them appeared bitter or "vengeful" - at least not in front of me.

We'll let bygones be bygones.

 

[mDumb]

<By choosing the North over the South, PRC (more specifically the CCP, and most specifically Mao himself) chose to liquidate the South Vietnamese merchant class, who happened to comprise to a large extent the ethnic Chinese.>

Have you ever been to Ho Chi Minh city (formerly Saigon) after the liberation? I have been there and Chinatown (Cholon) is still thriving.

Most of them are selling Chinese products like TVs, bicycles, motorcycles, housewares, etc.

Yes it's true, many ethnic Chinese moved out from Ho Chi Minh city to Canada and USA but they were not forced out they decided to leave on their own (maybe because they didn't want to share their wealth with the communists which is understandable or maybe brainwashed by the US propaganda that they would be killed). Anyway, this is the impression I got from talking with some of them.

<But then for the CCP to turn around and insinuate that they fought the war of 1979 to "avenge ethnic Chinese" is the ultimate insult to injury.> This will NEVER be a true statement by itself. I listed some other reasons which are more geopolitical.

 

[below_freezing]

Well, it'll be better to put this into words that are more easily understandable to us all:

The nation of China is made up of Chinese citizens.
The government of China is also made up of Chinese citizens.
The armed forces of all nations generally protect their citizens and government from armed threats.
Overseas Chinese are usually NOT CHINESE CITIZENS. Therefore the government of China has no obligation to protect them.

In fact in 1998, the people killed were KMT supporters and Indonesian citizens; not a single Chinese citizen lost their life. Singapore is another example of why Chinese ethnicity is vastly different from being Chinese. They are not Chinese. They support policies of a nation that is currently a rival of China.

Some other Chinese here are so happy when some Asian-American gets to be an official in the US. I'm puzzled as to why: Isn't it just some American rising in rank? What's the issue here? Their language is the same as the white man, their ideology is the same, their culture is the same, what distinguishes them from the white man?

In fact, the one thing the Chinese race has never lacked, is a minority of traitors small enough to remain somewhat hidden, but large enough to ruin the lives of everyone else.

I think Vietnam in 1979 was more for border issues. our government has NEVER said it was avenging ethnic chinese. why would it, they arent citizens, what do we owe those who aren't even of our nation?

 

[oceanx]

Have you ever been to Ho Chi Minh city (formerly Saigon) after the liberation? I have been there and Chinatown (Cholon) is still thriving.

Most of them are selling Chinese products like TVs, bicycles, motorcycles, housewares, etc.

No, Mister. You seem to have some "background". At any rate, they didn't see fit to give me an official tour of Saigon while I was still in diapers. But I'll take your word that the "environment" did not deteriorate immediately after take over.

Yes it's true, many ethnic Chinese moved out from Ho Chi Minh city to Canada and USA but they were not forced out they decided to leave on their own (maybe because they didn't want to share their wealth with the communists which is understandable or maybe brainwashed by the US propaganda that they would be killed). Anyway, this is the impression I got from talking with some of them.

Sure, I have come across Tamils and former Yugoslavians who decided to "leave on their own" as well - I am not saying the situation is entirely analogous.

Did you talk to some boat people and see what impression you got out of them? At at rate, once the CCP began the war to avenge the Khmer Rouge, the number of boat people exploded. I am sure all of them feel indebted to the CCP.

<But then for the CCP to turn around and insinuate that they fought the war of 1979 to "avenge ethnic Chinese" is the ultimate insult to injury.> This will NEVER be a true statement by itself. I listed some other reasons which are more geopolitical.

Of course it ain't true. And I know you know that. But it didn't stop the CCP from flogging such platitudes to score nationalistic points in order to shore up support for their botched ideological war ...

 

[mDumb]

<Overseas Chinese are usually NOT CHINESE CITIZENS. Therefore the government of China has no obligation to protect them.> This is a SAD statement. You need to modernize your thinking.

<In fact in 1998, the people killed were KMT supporters and Indonesian citizens; not a single Chinese citizen lost their life. Singapore is another example of why Chinese ethnicity is vastly different from being Chinese. They are not Chinese. They support policies of a nation that is currently a rival of China.> This is another SAD statement. You really need to modernize your thinking.

This is a fact to you, without overseas Chinese China would not be as a big power as today. China would still be backward.

So, China owes a lot to overseas Chinese and it's about time that China recognizes the contributions of the overseas Chinese.

The father of China's ballistic missiles is American Chinese.

 

[mDumb]

<Did you talk to some boat people and see what impression you got out of them?> Yes, I did. I hinted you what they told me.

< At any rate, they didn't see fit to give me an official tour of Saigon while I was still in diapers.> So, you know about China's 1979 war?

 

[Speeder 2]

Mongolian, Japanese, Manchurian, and Korean languages are Turkic.