India Vs. China (borderline War)

**Officer of Engineers** · 01 Feb 05,, 06:23

Maxwell has been pretty well proven to be pro-Chinese in his regards. He left out alot of details as to the operational status of the InA and the political incompetence of the Nehru administration.

And speaking as a Canadian soldier who really is neutral in this matter, like hell the Chinese didn't want war. You don't move two regiments a 1000 miles for a picnic.

**k19** · 01 Feb 05,, 07:16

Well, we pulled back didn't we? Even our top officials were surprised with that kind of "progress". We were even consider India as one of our “the third world friends” at that time.

Who cares how a nation would act after the mouth game was over, but who started it was more important to me. Sadam played mouth game and his army got washed out, regime changed.

India’s support was pretty much based on cold war mind, communist vs. capitalism base at that time. Everyone was impressed by India’s action against the communist. you can't critisize the other side "over reacting" when you held the wrong cause.

My point is if you don’t piss somebody off, they won’t start against you, just like the rabbit could bit your finger off too. Maxwell explained the history cause pretty well. and india’s action didn’t make sense. Chinese didn't hold this as pride, we let it go, however many Indians still don’t get this; don’t learn from this kind of events, still try to seek some sort of revenge or have such mind imbedded in their head, that’s what I don’t understand about. It is a piece of junk land anyways.

**lemontree** · 01 Feb 05,, 07:26

Originally Posted by k19

For those who were interested in the 62 war, I have something you could read about:....

k19,
I have answered this post of yours in the Indian Navy vs PLAN thread, where you had also posted the above post.

**lemontree** · 01 Feb 05,, 07:28

Originally Posted by k19

Well, we pulled back didn't we?

PLA had to pull back. The Indian army had mobilised and winter was setting in. Had the PLA stayed put the war would have continued with a different ending.

**Jay** · 02 Feb 05,, 23:11

Originally Posted by k19

My point is if you don’t piss somebody off, they won’t start against you, just like the rabbit could bit your finger off too.

Wrong analogy. China wanted Aksai Chin, regardless of India's action they wudve occupied it, just like Tibet.

Maxwell explained the history cause pretty well. and india’s action didn’t make sense.

Maxwell aint God, is he??

Chinese didn't hold this as pride, we let it go, however many Indians still don’t get this; don’t learn from this kind of events, still try to seek some sort of revenge or have such mind imbedded in their head, that’s what I don’t understand about.

Well it was India which supported China's inclusion in the UN, it was India which supported China in Korea war...India was then a leader of 3rd world countries (NAM). What India understood in 1962 war was, political will is much important to face a friend/enemy. And we learnt it very well.

It is a piece of junk land anyways.

Well if thats a piece of junk land, why occupy it, build/maintain roads and guard it ??

**k19** · 03 Feb 05,, 07:20

Wrong analogy. China wanted Aksai Chin, regardless of India's action they wudve occupied it, just like Tibet.

Aksai Chin in not an "innocent" piece of lands that was part of Indian’s “all along”, otherwise, even I would agree with you.

Maxwell aint God, is he??

You could say Maxwell is somewhat "harsh" on India, but his view might not be surly "Pro-china" since even Chinese tend to disagree with what he wrote in his book. Anyways, if you think his view is pro-china, fine, read this

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...t/1984/CJB.htm

Seems to me people here was pretty "Pro-globalsecurity.org", were they pro-china as well? In fact, I don't even read those Pro-china stuffs from the mainland.

Well it was India which supported China's inclusion in the UN...

So? What do these have anything to do with my point here? That’s what both side should do, I mean, both sides! Constantly aiming china as an immanent threat and take the 62 war as assumption proving a further war? These two nations should have sorted out many things many years, not only politically on the top level, but the civilian level as well. Chinese history text book not even have this 62 event in it, does Indians do the same? I am criticizing both sides for not pushing it hard enough and sooner. Chinese people, mostly, have already put it back at their heads, does Indians? A search in Google would show it pretty clearly.

Well if that’s a piece of junk land, why occupy it, build/maintain roads and guard it ??

It’s the road that is important, which really isn't starting point of the war but a factor, and even the Dalai Lama is an important factor than the actual land dispute. Please read the link I provide, read every events carefully, you will get the idea. If it is important to you guys, why would it take you two years to find out there was a road on "your" "important" land? That land is as equally useless as the rest of the disputed land at other place before the road was been built! We give you 68% and kept only 32% of the disputed land which really would be settled before the war, and we were still aggressive to India? Isn’t the major dispute here was caused by the British other than India?

================================================== ====
I am somewhere agreed that it is a “That’s why I said that the '62 war was a result of diplomatic failure on both sides" said by lemotree, but after reading many documents regarding this issue, I don't know how china would further back down on Indians policy. Political position was equally important on both sides regardless on what the value of the land is. Simply you could not make china say "let's divide the land and you can have more, but I will keep the one with my construction on it". Being a land selling government would be crushed by people and criticized in the history book. Well, there were a way to settle it with international help, however china was not that "popular" in the international community with a "communist" on their head and yet has the ability to influence the world view, it was still under the cold war era; on the other hand, and India could do so. I have to say India should admit the major responsibility on this matter.

I don't really care what has happened 45 years ago, as many Chinese, and what worries me is that sense of anger and revenge and military build up toward one or another. From one side extreme (friendly) to another, the potential danger would be an over shuttled response. It is equally dangerous to have the "confidence" to have the “will” to use force in the future, but instead, link two sides with forgiving attitude to shade out that part of the history, could really change the problem from root to top.

i like this part of the article, really, finally someone, somehow, at a point of time thought like a chinese!

""China had easily won a military victory on the ground.
But Peking may have lost in terms of its international image.
Western nations, especially the United States, were already
suspicious of Chinese attitudes, motives and actions; after
all, People's Republic leader Mao had stated that "The way to
world conquest lies through Havana, Accra, and Calcutta."1
These western nations, including a suspicious United States,
appeared to minimize, or not fully to understand, the China-
India dispute background: that China believed that Aksai Chin
had been legally Chinese since 1899 or before, that no official
boundary had been agreed upon between the two nations, and
that Nehru's "forward policy" had thrusted troops even beyond
India's claim line into Tibetan/Chinese territory. These
same nations saw China's goals as monolithic intent on world
conquest, and clearly viewed China as the aggressor in the
Border War. China's first nuclear weapon test in October,
1964, and her support of Pakistan in the 1965 India-Pakistan
Bordr War tended ot confirm the American view of monolithic
communist world objectives, including Chinese influence (if
not expansionism) over Pakistan. Yet, an examination of
China's international objectives, since the Communists came
to power in 1949, shows a pattern of conservative aims and
limited objectives, rather than expansionism. China's role
in the Korea Conflict was not simply to assist North Korea,
but also to protect herself again assault from anti-Communist
western forces. China's actions in Tibet in 1950 were viewed
by India as blatant aggression; but China saw her move into
Tibet as simply reuniting what is "traditionally Chinese" ter-
ritory. The 1962 Border War, again, had only the objective
of keeping what was "traditionally Chinese"; otherwise, why
would have China given all of NEFA back to India? In 1979,
China feared increasing anti-Chinese attitude in Viet Nam.
When Viet Nam invaded Kampuchea--and after much preplanning
and thought--China launched a limited objective assault, to
punish Viet Nam. Thus, the People's Republic of China has
been historically non-expansionistic.""

**lemontree** · 03 Feb 05,, 09:21

Originally Posted by k19

It’s the road that is important, which really isn't starting point of the war but a factor, and even the Dalai Lama is an important factor than the actual land dispute.

For India the road and occupation of Aksai Chin by PLA was of concern. Dalai Lama was given assistance after PRC refused to back down from Aksai Chin.

We give you 68% and kept only 32% of the disputed land which really would be settled before the war, and we were still aggressive to India?

Which is the 68% that your are referring to?

Being a land selling government would be crushed by people...

Since when did the CCP bother about the peoples opinion!..

The 1962 Border War, again, had only the objective
of keeping what was "traditionally Chinese"; otherwise, why
would have China given all of NEFA back to India?

PLA withdrew from the military point of view. If it had the means it would have stayed on. As I have mentioned earlier, the Indian army had mobilised, and winter was setting in, The PLA units in Kameng sector, were out of ammo and supplies, they would have been trapped and eliminated. They had no choice, but to withdraw.
Also, in keeping with the strategy of "teaching a lesson", the objective was to humiliate Nehru, and not to occupy land.

**ajaybhutani** · 03 Feb 05,, 13:22

Originally Posted by k19

Aksai Chin in not an "innocent" piece of lands that was part of Indian’s “all along”, otherwise, even I would agree with you.

But it was under indian occupation while chineese aneaked in slowly.
Now what wud u call it if india sneaks in PoK and captures it Then is it fair from indias side.

You could say Maxwell is somewhat "harsh" on India, but his view might not be surly "Pro-china" since even Chinese tend to disagree with what he wrote in his book. Anyways, if you think his view is pro-china, fine, read this

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...t/1984/CJB.htm

Seems to me people here was pretty "Pro-globalsecurity.org", were they pro-china as well? In fact, I don't even read those Pro-china stuffs from the mainland.

What matters is when u ask an indian. ur hear "Chineese stabbed us in the back ".

So? What do these have anything to do with my point here? That’s what both side should do, I mean, both sides! Constantly aiming china as an immanent threat and take the 62 war as assumption proving a further war? These two nations should have sorted out many things many years, not only politically on the top level, but the civilian level as well. Chinese history text book not even have this 62 event in it, does Indians do the same? I am criticizing both sides for not pushing it hard enough and sooner. Chinese people, mostly, have already put it back at their heads, does Indians? A search in Google would show it pretty clearly.

Well they dont have it bec they want to forget it .For they didnt suffer They benefitted from it using aggression. They donot want to tell their children that they sneaked in like robberers into indian territory and build a road in it.Well this act is nto good to ears is it??
While the indians suffered. Well u slap someone u can forget it . But the guy slapped will not he wil remember it and might one day if givena chance slap u back. ITs just a simple reaction and that dsnt make chineese great .They will still remain what they are the same guys who preformed an act of aggression on india . and when it comes to helping someone look at how much they did for trunami victims ???

It’s the road that is important, which really isn't starting point of the war but a factor, and even the Dalai Lama is an important factor than the actual land dispute.

China got askai chin so for china askai chin isnt imp .So but dalai lama is a pain in ur ass so hes imp to u. When it comes to india dalai lama istn anything . But askai chin is comething we wil remember.

Please read the link I provide, read every events carefully, you will get the idea. If it is important to you guys, why would it take you two years to find out there was a road on "your" "important" land?

Its "OUR LAND" In which u entered like theifs and captured it . So what if we didnt check it out. Does that mean that it gives u a full right to invade an indian ocupied territory. So what is ur china GOD that it can do anything with anyone.

That land is as equally useless as the rest of the disputed land at other place before the road was been built! We give you 68% and kept only 32% of the disputed land which really would be settled before the war, and we were still aggressive to India? Isn’t the major dispute here was caused by the British other than India?

ITs" OUR LAND " And its imp to us. If its so useless why did china robbed it in the first place .God thanks for returning our territory to us u did such and act of GODLINESS. How can u defend the chineese act by saying tha british started it . If tey started it then why didnt china attacked britain why india?? that even amkes china a bigger culprit.

Well the aggression was started by china on india . And for 110 crore indians china will remain an agressor who robbed us while calling us as frnds.

================================================== ====

I am somewhere agreed that it is a “That’s why I said that the '62 war was a result of diplomatic failure on both sides" said by lemotree, but after reading many documents regarding this issue, I don't know how china would further back down on Indians policy. Political position was equally important on both sides regardless on what the value of the land is. Simply you could not make china say "let's divide the land and you can have more, but I will keep the one with my construction on it". Being a land selling government would be crushed by people and criticized in the history book. Well, there were a way to settle it with international help, however china was not that "popular" in the international community with a "communist" on their head and yet has the ability to influence the world view, it was still under the cold war era; on the other hand, and India could do so. I have to say India should admit the major responsibility on this matter.

If china couldnt say that we can divide the land but it attacked india . Bhaai sahab its called aggression. And a faliure of diplomacy from the chineese side that they needed to use force. Admit to what responsibility. That china stabbed us on our backs . Well my frnd we adit it and we will remember it .For not all future will be chineese dominance.

I don't really care what has happened 45 years ago, as many Chinese, and what worries me is that sense of anger and revenge and military build up toward one or another.

Bec u are chineese. Come to india and u can feel the heat. fo what happened 45 years ago. WE faced the pain and so we remember it. If u dotn remember it then it shows that u dont even take such an act as any imp for ur nation. Just like the british howsoever they feel that they did nothin to colonies its the people in the colonies who know the pain.

From one side extreme (friendly) to another, the potential danger would be an over shuttled response. It is equally dangerous to have the "confidence" to have the “will” to use force in the future, but instead, link two sides with forgiving attitude to shade out that part of the history, could really change the problem from root to top.

Forgiving attitude, Ek baat batao mujhe Why doeds it always comesto india to forgive. Forgice paksitan bec its weak and idotic for all it did terorism three wars. forgive british for their atrocities .Forgive the invaders like alexander mahammad ghori etc etc etc and now forgive china for robbbing us. Well we are used to of forgiving . when will china learn to forgive, has is stopped yet. It gave the nukes to paksitan missiles etc etc . Still claims over arunachal pradesh. Add to it all It still canot accept that taiwaneese people preffered to live away from it . Well then will chine learn to forgive .. Dude Look at ur side first.

i like this part of the article, really, finally someone, somehow, at a point of time thought like a chinese!

and so i assumed that u are a chineese and so i ahve written like an indian.

""China had easily won a military victory on the ground.
But Peking may have lost in terms of its international image.

Well china just won a war . But it lost a frnd created an enemy on iboundary. Well that isnt called winning. Winning is when u get hte job done and still donot create enemies.

Western nations, especially the United States, were already
suspicious of Chinese attitudes, motives and actions; after
all, People's Republic leader Mao had stated that "The way to
world conquest lies through Havana, Accra, and Calcutta."1
These western nations, including a suspicious United States,
appeared to minimize, or not fully to understand, the China-
India dispute background: that China believed that Aksai Chin
had been legally Chinese since 1899 or before, that no official
boundary had been agreed upon between the two nations, and
that Nehru's "forward policy" had thrusted troops even beyond
India's claim line into Tibetan/Chinese territory. These
same nations saw China's goals as monolithic intent on world
conquest, and clearly viewed China as the aggressor in the
Border War. China's first nuclear weapon test in October,
1964, and her support of Pakistan in the 1965 India-Pakistan
Bordr War tended ot confirm the American view of monolithic
communist world objectives, including Chinese influence (if
not expansionism) over Pakistan. Yet, an examination of
China's international objectives, since the Communists came
to power in 1949, shows a pattern of conservative aims and
limited objectives, rather than expansionism. China's role
in the Korea Conflict was not simply to assist North Korea,
but also to protect herself again assault from anti-Communist
western forces. China's actions in Tibet in 1950 were viewed
by India as blatant aggression; but China saw her move into
Tibet as simply reuniting what is "traditionally Chinese" ter-
ritory. The 1962 Border War, again, had only the objective
of keeping what was "traditionally Chinese"; otherwise, why
would have China given all of NEFA back to India? In 1979,
China feared increasing anti-Chinese attitude in Viet Nam.
When Viet Nam invaded Kampuchea--and after much preplanning
and thought--China launched a limited objective assault, to
punish Viet Nam. Thus, the People's Republic of China has
been historically non-expansionistic.""

Sorry i dont have time to read evthin u write So i m leaving it though for a country where the next ruler burned the records of the previous one ,the country which prefers to sneak into a neighbours territory and capture it . A country which prefers to kill its students its future with bullets tanks . A country which still thinks that taiwaneese dont have a right todecede what they want. A country which takes every country as athreat to itself. Well frankly its very difficult to forgive such a country.

**lemontree** · 03 Feb 05,, 13:33

Originally Posted by ajaybhutani

But it was under indian occupation while chineese aneaked in slowly.

ajay,
You are wrong, there was no Indian Border Post any where along any border, except the LOC with POK in Kashmir. Blame Nehru and Krishna Menon.
Don't blame the thief if you forgot to close the door.

Originally Posted by ajaybhutani

Now what wud u call it if india sneaks in PoK and captures it Then is it fair from indias side.

Wrong analogy, POK is different from Aksai Chin.
There was nothing stopping us from taking over POK and Aksai Chin earlier (now it too late). Why did'nt we?....

**ajaybhutani** · 03 Feb 05,, 13:53

Originally Posted by lemontree

ajay,
You are wrong, there was no Indian Border Post any where along any border, except the LOC with POK in Kashmir. Blame Nehru and Krishna Menon.
Don't blame the thief if you forgot to close the door.

Wrong analogy, POK is different from Aksai Chin.
There was nothing stopping us from taking over POK and Aksai Chin earlier (now it too late). Why did'nt we?....

dsnt change the fact that hes still a theif.
And yes theres was nehrus fault in it for neglecting te armed forces but again the act is still an act of aggression.

**Officer of Engineers** · 03 Feb 05,, 14:04

Regarding 1987, this is what a Chinese PLA Captain had to say

Finally regarding the Sino-India tension in 1987, I can assure you that your claim was totally groundless. There were two isolated shooting incidents buy both sides without casulties to either. The Tibet Military region was placed on 2nd degree alert. The situation developed in the summer of 1986 when the Chinese border patrol noticed in the Xia Cha-yu area buffer zone (where they patrol 3 times a year) that the Indians were building border posts in the areas they had been driven out in the 1962 border war, creating a creeping occupation, the Chinese response was to build our owns posts, pretty soon these posts started to intertwine with each other. During these times, both sides shout to the others side to get out, but nobody moved. Following these developments, both sides started to make military units closer to the border, India reportedly moved 10 battalions there as reinforcements and the PLA moved two regiments plus the only 2 dozens of Black Hawk helicopters there. I was working in the Situation Room of PLA G-2 at the time. The Chinese leadership did considered a war with India. ironically, the civilian leaders wanted the fight, but the PLA decided that PLA could not win a fight in the western sector due to logistic difficulties. At one of the meetings hosted by then prime minister Zhao Ziyang, General Xu Hui-zi, deputy chief of general staff, attended by officials from railway, telecommunication and health minisries and other PLA departemnts, PLA officers indicated that unless they were allowed to open the Eastern sector through Pakistan, PLA would be at a disadvantage. Even with the eastern sector, there would be no guarantee of victory unless the central government was totally prepared for a drwn-out full scale conflict. While all options were being considered, there came the news that the Indian foreign minister was going to visit Beijing to discuss the tense situation. One week later, Indian Foreign misister reached an agreement with his Chinese counterparts that both side would withdraw back to the post 62-war line of control, thus a crisis was avoided.

**k19** · 03 Feb 05,, 14:55

So, Mr OOE, what is the american's thought on it at that time? and what they gona do with it when chinese official told them? and why would this happen really? do indian know china did not have the ability to do it? it is had to find more info on this since it was not "big news" at that time, so could you please give me your opinion?

**Officer of Engineers** · 03 Feb 05,, 15:02

In 1987? Seriously, nothing. Our attention was Europe, not South Asia. Everybody was talking the talk but nobody was walking the walk.

**Jay** · 03 Feb 05,, 16:02

Originally Posted by k19

Aksai Chin in not an "innocent" piece of lands that was part of Indian’s “all along”, otherwise, even I would agree with you.

Aksai Chin was never a part of China. As Lemontree said it was ruled by Kashmir kings. So China has no "historical" claims over Aksai China like they did in Tibet. Atleast if we go by "historic" Chinese maps, still southern part of Aksai China belongs to India. China was opportunitstic at that time to secure Tibet. So there are no "historical" reasons for the war, just "militaristic" and "strategic" goals.

Anyways, if you think his view is pro-china, fine, read this
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...t/1984/CJB.htm
Seems to me people here was pretty "Pro-globalsecurity.org", were they pro-china as well? In fact, I don't even read those Pro-china stuffs from the mainland.

It’s the road that is important, which really isn't starting point of the war but a factor,

This is from the link you posted above,

The key issue was the 1956-57 construction of a Chinese military highway in the disputed territory of Aksai China just west of Tibet. India protested
the Chinese "incursion"; diplomatic exchanges continued for three years without progress or compromise. Each side firmly asserted its claim to the Aksai Chin area. Large sections of the North East Frontier Agency, east of Tibet, were also in dispute. In 1959, India initiated a forward policy of sending
Indian troops and border patrols into disputed areas. This program created both skirmishes and deteriorating relations between India and China.

Constantly aiming china as an immanent threat and take the 62 war as assumption proving a further war?

When did you last fight a war with Japan? How friendly is China with Japan?? It may be a poor analogy, but the scar still remains.

These two nations should have sorted out many things many years, not only politically on the top level, but the civilian level as well.

Chinee civilains cannot freely say their opinions to the world.

Chinese history text book not even have this 62 event in it, does Indians do the same? I am criticizing both sides for not pushing it hard enough and sooner.

When I was in school, I read about 62 war, dont know whether they still do have it. India had Nehru, a schmuck at that time. Later on, since India lost the war politically, it would be suicidal to any Indian politician to give concession to the Chinese. Atleast CCP/PLA dont have that problem, coz they dont face elections after every 5 years.

Chinese people, mostly, have already put it back at their heads, does Indians? A search in Google would show it pretty clearly.

I dont know about Chinese people, and that really doesnt count. Chinese political leadership keeps on fuelling the tensions by being in bed with Pakistan. China provided them missiles that can hit India, China provided them nukes than can be used against India. Its a clear case of aggression against India by the Chinese. So Indians are not going to let their guard down any time soon.

If it is important to you guys, why would it take you two years to find out there was a road on "your" "important" land?

So does that mean I can get in to your home and take an un-used corner under the notion that its un-used??

We give you 68% and kept only 32% of the disputed land which really would be settled before the war, and we were still aggressive to India? Isn’t the major dispute here was caused by the British other than India?

China didnt "give" India 68% of land. Chinese simply say Arunachal Pradesh is disputed and they gave away that for free. Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim were already part of India.

32% of land falls in Aksai Chin which China originally occupied from India which that still remains under China.

Simply you could not make china say "let's divide the land and you can have more, but I will keep the one with my construction on it". Being a land selling government would be crushed by people and criticized in the history book.

China is ruled by CPC. They dont have to face elections every 5 years. Its the Indian govt that will be crushed on any sovreign issues. Taiwan is already independent, did the Chinese people crushed Mao's govt for that??

I have to say India should admit the major responsibility on this matter.

See above, any concessions to China will be viewed as treachery in India. Lets say, Indian politics is too complicated for you to understand.

It is equally dangerous to have the "confidence" to have the “will” to use force in the future, but instead, link two sides with forgiving attitude to shade out that part of the history, could really change the problem from root to top.

Time can answer that better!

BTW China won a political victory in 1962. These days our politicos are hell bent in war coz of the scathing reports from 1962 that talks about command failure in the top order.

**k19** · 03 Feb 05,, 16:38

What matters is when u ask an indian. ur hear "Chinese stabbed us in the back ".

Yeah, i would rather just taking the chinese's point, but what is the value of that? two sides make a coin, the problem will never slove if you just want to listen what you want to hear, i am willing to hear, so i post and listen.

at least i take the disputed land as "disputed" land, i don't make myself get involoved with it like Tianjing and Beijing. you take Tianjing or Beijing, i will kill you, but for "disputed" land, i might reconsider!

there were a rummer says that Mao personally ordered to destory an indian army group, reason? they were there and their ancient used to be in ShangHai policing when under British control in 1900s! If english were still there, my god we will fought even harder!

has is stopped yet. It gave the nukes to paksitan missiles etc etc .

ironically, i was reading a old topic line by line, when MR. OOE was arguing with a guy on this, paksitan made their own nuke.

Add to it all It still canot accept that taiwaneese people preffered to live away from it . Well then will chine learn to forgive

there were many dispute events around the world, from which you see a "peace goodbye" for your own land? maybe canada was the only one could do it, i am always impressed by that. (was the high court later states that have to be a "majority" agree so it can be done? and they never explain what the majority means?) however, china is not a federal formed country like canada and U.S, and we were not talking about french and english, two sets of people here neither, there is only chinese. They can live away from the communist china, i support it as well, in fact they are now, at this min! chinese people were so wanted their freedom, but there is only one china, no matter it's ROC or PRC, there is only one! keep as it is, no independence,no invasion, works best for everyone. ROC could take back PRC, i am more than happy to be a ROC citizen.

Sorry i dont have time to read evthin u write So i m leaving it though f

the last part was written by a american officier, not me, the article is from gobalsercurity.org. our textbook do have this war on record but not be told and explained in great details, just like the veinam war, when war is over and both sides somewhat normalized, we entend to play the "war" history light, but aiming more on the friendly side at persent.

A country which prefers to kill its students its future with bullets tanks

for what part you understand a bit about the 89 event? the tank was crossed in front of our home that night, army trucks were burning 30m to our window! not even mention hearing the worning shot all night long. i hope you can read chinese, so you can go to BBC's discussion board, and see what chinese say about that night, you might be just surprised! does chinese need freedom? yes, do i support such event like 89? god no! i can give you a thousand reasons for it which really off topic here, and you don't have the experience and background anyways!