troung

But if I refer to the abuser as a wife beating piece of ****, who gives a damn about his or his friends feelings? Should I compliment his right cross? A decent person helps the victim, and these victims want the hell out. With Tibet, East Turkestan and other victims being the beaten wife, the abuser is the CCP/PAP/PLA and their drinking buddies are the idiots/jackasses protesting CNN and that French chain of stores.

Hopefully the victims of abuse can get independence because separation is the best solution in cases of abuse. Abusers don't change. Of course the invasion of East Turkestan was more a rape of the land and people, not a marriage.

"Showing them face" - excuse me riding their balls - is a joke. Bob Mugabe doesn't like to be called a thug either.

__________________
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

Inst

Effect. You're just as good as the Chinese nationalists complaining about Japan. Their approach is rampant name-calling, and neither they nor you are achieving the objectives.

troung

At the end of the day I am a private citizen calling the leadership and enforcers of a violent dictatorship thugs. Same way I can call the Iranian mullahs thugs, Mugabe a thug, Bashir a thug, Kamirov a thug and so forth - they is what they is. If these vile regimes get offended that in some nations private citizens have a right to say these things, a right to protest and have a free media which brings light to oppression then maybe they should change their behavior but free people sure as **** shouldn't be muzzled as to not offend vile regimes.

Helium

As an Australian I have knowticed Rudd's close association with China ( my perceived view) and was curious to watch how Rudd handled the question of whether to attend the opening ceremony when European and US leaders gave either a no or wont say as yet and also how he handled the pressure to criticise China on Tibet.

I however take assurance in him passing laws concerning party donations from civilians, where you must declare who gave you the money if it is over $1000 instead of like before at (I think) $10,000. This leaves out opportunites for rich businessmen or anyone who want to influence our elections including people acting on behalf of another country or trying elect a pro-their country leader (not necessarily government sanctioned).

I dont however like that he immediately after his election pulled Australia out of the joint Singapore, India, Japan and US annual defence meeting, which some people and China viewed as a Pacific NATO to contain China, which I believe it is and I think this is a good thing when you have a ideolically different giant emerging and significantly lacking in transperancy especially to do with Defence spending. I believe the majority of Australians would agree with being in this defence treaty and I question why then he would pull out, the action he took didn't benefit Australia (although it didn;t hurt) but seems to have been more benficial to China.

Rudd was democratically elected by Australians and I expect him to act in Australias interests not Chinas nor any others (not that I am implying he has but i am sceptical of him). And i do not believe withdrawing from that defence treaty was in our interest as much as to appease Chinese relations, but as another member said in this thread - China does not like to mix its economic and strategic interests/diplomacy - so our economic ties with China were not threatened by the treaty and I believe diplomatic ties aswell.

A huge majority of Australians support our Alliance and close relationship with the USA and I would hope that if there is any appeasment of the giants that it would only be to the US - ONLY because it is supported by the majority of Australians.

1947

is the lady in your picture the one workin for independence of eastern Turkmenistan?

1947

his china visit was the one that sparked the fears it wasn't that he visited china but the fact that he forgot to include japan

Inst

Once again, effect. The end result of the Chinese nationalists was that they harmed severely the relationship between Japan and China; while the Japanese businesses are still intent on profiting from Chinese labor and consumer markets, the average householder has been turned off from China, and even the Japanese corporations are pursuing "China+1" strategies, where the Chinese labor market is supported by an up-and-comer, such as India or Vietnam. And the Japanese population is not any closer to reducing its position on the textbooks or Yasukuni.

Shrill Western criticism has the same effect. Among the Chinese internet users, various campaigns were launched against targets such as CNN, and Carrefour. What you're doing in the end is only strengthening the nationalists, who keep the liberals in check. It doesn't matter if the Chinese government is offended or not, there will always be a faction critical of them, but what about the population?

UnderSpin

I can understand your sentiment as an Australian.
Watching from the sideline, I want to say that good cops and bad cops are all cops. Their behavior may seem contradictory, but in the grand scheme of things their actions complement each other to accomplish their common objectives. Rudd is in a unique position to play good cop. No one else in the world can play his role. If he decides to play good cop, he has to pull out of that multinational alliance against China to gain some credibility to play good cop. The fact that we have this discussion is a proof that playing good cop is much harder than playing bad cop. I hope Australian will back him up to assume this tough role. Your statement about Rudd’s effort to reduce special interest influence to the government also says that Rudd wants to be responsible for the general public, not just special interests. I tend to trust this type of politician.

Interestingly, Taiwan’s president-elect Ma Ying-jeou will need to play a similar the good cop role. He currently enjoys very strong support from voters in Taiwan, because we realized that playing a bad cop role was a disaster for us. Nevertheless, playing good cop is a tougher role. He surely will be questioned by people in Taiwan in the near future. That seems unavoidable for a good cop

troung

Rebiya Kadeer.

Everyan

Praise first:
I see, we are actually talking about different things. Offending the regimes? Go ahead, we need guys like you outside the system to keep CCP awake, since free press is still a goal to achieve in China. I respect your belief and righteousness.

Here comes my argument:
But if you had stated the offending target clearly, distinguishing CCP and general Chinese, you would have won my respect much easier. And now you see my point? The power of rhetoric. Too many times it is just a mere misunderstanding, because of culture difference.

__________________
天下兴亡，匹夫有责

mweber24

Good point about the PRC being on the same trajectory as South Korea and Taiwan. Both were dictatorships, both are not pretty democratic. I think a key commonality is that both made the transition while they were both still pretty prosperous and growing economically. A good economy can soothe internal resistance to change, while a bad economy makes people more likely to lash out at a perceived oppressor. I think you will find that the U.S. will breathe a huge sigh of relief if the PRC starts reforming more than its economy (of course OUR politician may have to find a new boogyman to blame our economic setbacks upon, first Japan, then China, WATCH OUT INDIA!)

__________________
The SWO

astralis

mweber,

nah, not india- if china ever gets buddy-buddy with the US, there's still russia, iran, of course the terrorists.........

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Oscar

The Asian model China wants to emulate is not Taiwan or South Korea it is Singapore.

hx37

You are of course encouraged to criticize any government that you find oppressive or brutal, just don't really expect any effective results from them. The US has been supporting brutal dictatorships around the world for decades while a minor portion of its population kept protesting that fact. They do this to keep the flow of oil going (Saudi Arabia) and for other military/economic benefits. Governments deal with problems on a scale that's sometimes not compatible with the ethics you would use on the average person. For example, how immoral is it for the US to keep supporting the Saudi royal family considering that if they didn't, then the world oil trade and hence the US economy would suffer a catastrophic loss?

Inst

Somewhere between Singapore and the Japanese Liberal Democratic Party.

S'pore has a significant problem when it comes to cultural and technological growth, and there's a HUGE problem with the population growth rate. And it's a small country, not really scalable, is it?

With regard to the Japanese Liberal Democratic Party, they've been in control of the Japanese Diet (legislature) for the majority of the post-war era. On the other hand, the Prime Ministers of the LDP are usually quite short-lived.