China's Blueprint For Global Power

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

The issue, I think, is how far back in history do we really want to go, on any issue?

China looked much different in the Qing or Han dynasties. The US of today does not look at all like it did prior to the Louisiana Purchase. If you go back a few centuries Great Britain controlled a huge portion of the planet. If you go back further, the Vatican didn’t exist. Lo and behold, if you go back even further, sure enough, there is a country called Israel!

If you selectively pick an era in history to suit your own narrative, you need to keep a global perspective and be willing to accept the state of the rest of the world in that same era.

The fact is, you cannot turn back the clock, we live in the ‘here & now’, whether we like it or not.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

If you go back a few centuries Great Britain controlled a huge portion of the planet

Legendary history those people have. England specifically, let's be honest.

7 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

you cannot turn back the clock, we live in the ‘here & now’

Yes but 1984 is becoming present and future so it gets a little confusing. 

Edited October 17, 2019 by Guest

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

But their cuisine leaves alot to be desired...😂

[Guest]

oh absolutely, my mum's generation doesn't even know what 'herbs' means, and we have the worst bread in the world

basically anything with potato we are good

I agree with you, our food is shocking. Luckily I can cook.

Edited October 17, 2019 by Guest

[Otis11 + 551]

2 hours ago, DayTrader said:

So .. pretty accurate articles I'd say. Depends on your version of history / fact.

I'm still waiting on a refutation... 

If you're going to call Bullshit and bias, be able to back it.

(Luckily for me he happened to pick a topic I'm better versed on than most westerners, and caught me in a slow week. Wife is gone, so if I wasn't writting that refutation, I'd be reading more of your BS!)

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

If you're going to call Bullshit and bias, be able to back it.

The joke being it reads pro China to you, and he still has an issue with it.

I started that blog I mentioned in the '5 tweets' thread, so you can check out some more of my BS.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

What the heck are you two talking about? You lost me somewhere down the trail!😂

[Guest]

Just now, Douglas Buckland said:

What the heck are you two talking about?

Marcin didn't agree with one line, so called my whole article BS.  Since then Otis has completely schooled the guy on Chinese history and is waiting for the reply. That's the simple version. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Be afraid, be very, VERY afraid!

Marcin seems to be omniscient and directly related to the Wizard of Oz....you will experience mental defeat at the hands of his helical logic! Be warned!😂

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Sometimes I crack myself up!

[Guest]

no one on his level

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

I am sure that in his mind that it is hard to soar with eagles, when you are surrounded by turkeys...

[remake it + 288]

On 10/15/2019 at 5:34 AM, Otis11 said:

It's claims to 'historical' lands are completely bogus.

It seems to work for other countries, either that or buy territory from the French or Russians and annex the rest from other Spain and Mexico.

[frankfurter + 562]

On 10/15/2019 at 6:14 AM, DayTrader said:

So the blatant error example is the same line you mentioned before that @Otis11 and I have already discussed with you?

Everything is ''biased'' to a country that controls its own press. Their bias however is absolutely fine. 

"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it ... And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable…what then?"

- 1984

Ah, the self-proclaimed expert on 1984.  Well done. 

But as I read the text, seemingly it can apply to all people everywhere. The greatest lies are perpetrated by the Western "educational' systems, which are in fact indoctrination systems. 1984 was written by a westerner, for westerners specifically, but its lessons are universal.

If you cite the text as a lesson to all people, I commend you. But your context is to yet again demonise China, only, so you should be exposed for what you are. 

[Otis11 + 551]

4 hours ago, remake it said:

It seems to work for other countries, either that or buy territory from the French or Russians and annex the rest from other Spain and Mexico.

I'm sorry, but what?!?

How has it worked for other countries? What other country has used claims of historical ownership to take over land almost 3x the size they've historically been and over 40% larger than their previous largest point in history?

You're trying to compare this to the Louisiana Purchase, the war with Mexico and subsequent annexation of Texas,  the Mexican possession of 1848, the gadesden purchase, the agreement with the British for Oregon and the purchase of Alaska?

Ok, well I think I disagree, but before I put together a refutation, I'll let you explain. I am open and willing to be convinced...

(Like I said, I disagree for a few reasons, but I can see enough similarities I'll hear you out and honestly consider the argument)

20 minutes ago, frankfurter said:

Ah, the self-proclaimed expert on 1984.  Well done. 

But as I read the text, seemingly it can apply to all people everywhere. The greatest lies are perpetrated by the Western "educational' systems, which are in fact indoctrination systems. 1984 was written by a westerner, for westerners specifically, but its lessons are universal.

If you cite the text as a lesson to all people, I commend you. But your context is to yet again demonise China, only, so you should be exposed for what you are. 

I think DT, like myself, does see this as a warning to the whole world... and likely has some problems with the west like I do. He just claims it's not nearly on the same level (for reasons he's previously cited across multiple threads... and which remain unrefuted.)

 

We can all go back and forth telling others their wrong, but if no one is willing to explain and cited evidence (as shown in my reputations above) we're doing nothing. We're not going to convince anyone to change their views without concrete, logical discussions and debates... (nor is it very interesting)

So with that, again, I sincerely ask for a refutation.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

People tend to read, and write, in their own language. That being the case, it is not surprising that Western countries read (become indoctrinated) the histories which are available in their languages.

Are all of these histories identical throughout Western civilization? Throughout all Western languages? I doubt it.

You say “the greatest lies are perpetuated by the Western “educational” systems, which are in fact indoctrination systems,”.

For you to claim these are the greatest lies would indicate that you have read all of the other lies, from all other cultures, in all other languages...how else could you determine which were the greatest lies? I doubt that you have done this.

Finally, educational systems are all essentially indoctrination systems. You must be indoctrinated in geometry before tackling trigonometry. It is helpful to be indoctrinated in basic chemistry before moving on to physical chemistry. Indoctrination, and the ‘school of hard knocks’ are how we are educated.

I can guarantee you that the history taught in Chinese schools ‘demonizes’ the West. No surprise there.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

2 hours ago, Otis11 said:

I'm sorry, but what?!?

How has it worked for other countries? What other country has used claims of historical ownership to take over land almost 3x the size they've historically been and over 40% larger than their previous largest point in history?

You're trying to compare this to the Louisiana Purchase, the war with Mexico and subsequent annexation of Texas,  the Mexican possession of 1848, the gadesden purchase, the agreement with the British for Oregon and the purchase of Alaska?

Ok, well I think I disagree, but before I put together a refutation, I'll let you explain. I am open and willing to be convinced...

(Like I said, I disagree for a few reasons, but I can see enough similarities I'll hear you out and honestly consider the argument)

I think DT, like myself, does see this as a warning to the whole world... and likely has some problems with the west like I do. He just claims it's not nearly on the same level (for reasons he's previously cited across multiple threads... and which remain unrefuted.)

 

We can all go back and forth telling others their wrong, but if no one is willing to explain and cited evidence (as shown in my reputations above) we're doing nothing. We're not going to convince anyone to change their views without concrete, logical discussions and debates... (nor is it very interesting)

So with that, again, I sincerely ask for a refutation.

At last someone with an open mind who speaks common sense

Hallelujah!

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Otis11 said:

I think DT, like myself, does see this as a warning to the whole world... and likely has some problems with the west like I do. He just claims it's not nearly on the same level (for reasons he's previously cited across multiple threads... and which remain unrefuted.)

DING, my issue with China is that it's a different level and the points system. Not that pesky CCTV which is global. They clearly did not get the 1984 memo, like NK. 

LOL WESTERN education is indoctrination?? You trying to be ironic??

3 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I can guarantee you that the history taught in Chinese schools ‘demonizes’ the West. No surprise there.

Yep. It's funny how everyone here who knows Chinese people that have left China have heard completely different versions from this one person still presumably there. How odd. Why do you think that is? Ohh ...

This is why I block this nonsense. 

[Marcin + 519]

I really don't know why am I doing this but OK:

Otis11 argumentation:

The agreement was that the highest ridge was the separation between the two countries, but in the map of the agreement, they drew the line wrong because they didn't have sufficiently accurate topographical maps to find the agreed ridge.

So actually (according to these Indian argumentation) 43 Indian posts were not north of McMahon line.

Marcin argumentation1:Please find below Simla Accord 1914 text:

His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, His Excellency the President of the Republic of China, and His Holiness the Dalai Lama of Tibet, being sincerely desirous to settle by mutual agreement various questions concerning the interests of their several States on the Continent of Asia, and further to regulate the relations of their several Governments, have resolved to conclude a Convention on this subject and have nominated for this purpose their respective Plenipotentiaries, that is to say:

His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, Sir Arthur Henry McMahon, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Knight Commander of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Companion of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Secretary to the Government of India, Foreign and Political Department;

His Excellency the President of the Republic of China, Monsieur Ivan Chen, Officer of the Order of the Chia Ho;

His Holiness the Dalai Lama of Tibet, Lonchen Ga-den Shatra Pal-jor Dorje; who having communicated to each other their respective full powers and finding them to be in good and due form have agreed upon and concluded the following Convention in eleven Articles: —

Article 1.

The Conventions specified in the Schedule to the present Convention shall, except in so far as they may have been modified by, or may be inconsistent with or repugnant to, any of the provisions of the present Convention, continue to be binding upon the High Contracting Parties.

Article 2.

The Governments of Great Britain and China recognising that Tibet is under the suzerainty of China, and recognising also the autonomy of Outer Tibet, engage to respect the territorial integrity of the country, and to abstain from interference in the administration of Outer Tibet (including the selection and installation of the Dalai Lama), which shall remain in the hands of the Tibetan Government at Lhasa.

The Government of China engages not to convert Tibet into a Chinese province. The Government of Great Britain engages not to annex Tibet or any portion of it.

Article 3.

Recognising the special interest of Great Britain, in virtue of the geographical position of Tibet, in the existence of an effective Tibetan Government, and in the maintenance of peace and order in the neighbourhood of the frontiers of India and adjoining States, the Government of China engages, except as provided in Article 4 of this Convention, not to send troops into Outer Tibet, nor to station civil or military officers, nor to establish Chinese colonies in the country. Should any such troops or officials remain in Outer Tibet at the date of the signature of this Convention, they shall be withdrawn within a period not exceeding three months.

The Government of Great Britain engages not to station military or civil officers in Tibet (except as provided in the Convention of September 7, 1904, between Great Britain and Tibet) nor troops (except the Agents' escorts), nor to establish colonies in that country.

Article 4.

The foregoing Article shall not be held to preclude the continuance of the arrangement by which, in the past, a Chinese high-official with suitable escort has been maintained at Lhasa, but it is hereby provided that the said escort shall in no circumstances exceed 300 men.

Article 5.

The Governments of China and Tibet engage that they will not enter into any negotiations or agreements regarding Tibet with one another, or with any other Power, excepting such negotiations and agreements between Great Britain and Tibet as are provided for by the Convention of September 7, 1904, between Great Britain and Tibet and the Convention of April 27, 1906, between Great Britain and China.

Article 6.

Article III of the Convention of April 27, 1906, between Great Britain and China is hereby cancelled, and it is understood that in Article IX(d) of the Convention of September 7, 1904, between Great Britain and Tibet the term 'Foreign Power' does not include China.

Not less favourable treatment shall be accorded to British commerce than to the commerce of China or the most favoured nation.

Article 7.

(a) The Tibet Trade Regulations of 1893 and 1908 are hereby cancelled.

(b) The Tibetan Government engages to negotiate with the British Government new Trade Regulations for Outer Tibet to give effect to Articles II, IV and V of the Convention of September 7, 1904, between Great Britain and Tibet without delay; provided always that such Regulations shall in no way modify the present Convention except with the consent of the Chinese Government.

Article 8.

The British Agent who resides at Gyantse may visit Lhasa with his escort whenever it is necessary to consult with the Tibetan Government regarding matters arising out of the Convention of September 7, 1904, between Great Britain and Tibet, which it has been found impossible to settle at Gyantse by correspondence or otherwise.

Article 9.

For the purpose of the present Convention the borders of Tibet, and the boundary between Outer and Inner Tibet, shall be as shown in red and blue respectively on the map attached hereto.^[4]

Nothing in the present Convention shall be held to prejudice the existing rights of the Tibetan Government in Inner Tibet, which include the power to select and appoint the high priests of monasteries and to retain full control in all matters affecting religious institutions.

Article 10.

The English, Chinese and Tibetan texts of the present Convention have been carefully examined and found to correspond, but in the event of there being any difference of meaning between them the English text shall be authoritative.

Article 11.

The present Convention will take effect from the date of signature.

In token whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed and sealed this Convention, three copies in English, three in Chinese and three in Tibetan.

Done at Simla this third day of July, A.D., one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, corresponding with the Chinese date, the third day of the seventh month of the third year of the Republic, and the Tibetan date, the tenth day of the fifth month of the Wood-Tiger year.

Initial of the Lonchen Shatra		(Initialed) A.H.M.
Seal of the Lonchen Shatra		Seal of the British Plenipotentiary

Marcin argumentation2:  There is nowhere in the agreement about "highest ridge" or any detailed geographical feature. This is Indian interpretation of the accord intention cited by some internet sources. No Indian official ever claimed this interpretation of Simla Accord because they would simply look unprofessional and be laughed at. Such a claim could be refuted very easily in 1 sentence by any diplomat in the room:"Ha, ha, ha, you have treaty with only some niceties and general claims of Outer and Inner Tibet and detailed maps attached and signed by parties to the agreement as part of the agreement, yet you claim that the intention was different from the maps, ha, ha , ha". Both sets of maps to the SImla accord were signed by British. As per these maps 43 India posts were north of McMahon line before start of 1962 war. This was part of Indian forward policy.

 

Otis11 thank you for this discussion, it was nice to discuss this complicated issue. I am not pro Chinese or anti Indian or whatever anti- or pro-. Just like to undestand tendencies and causes. We are living in a very interesting times. As a side note: Most Americans did not understand China threat before Trump. In 2001 it was time to contain China (I think Chinese are nice people and should not be contained or treated badly but US interests require this) and not mount senseless wars against Muslims, they were under control. Now it is time for US to make solid defence positions and keep them and mainly clean their own house.

 

[remake it + 288]

9 hours ago, Otis11 said:

I'm sorry, but what?!?

How has it worked for other countries? What other country has used claims of historical ownership to take over land almost 3x the size they've historically been and over 40% larger than their previous largest point in history?

Apart from China having a credible ethnic basis for its territory - unlike the USA - China has previous dynastic territorial extents which are actually beyond its current boundaries.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, remake it said:

unlike the USA

@Tom Kirkman ... there it is 

4 hours ago, Marcin said:

I really don't know why am I doing this but OK:

Hahaha I like it  

Edited October 18, 2019 by Guest

[Otis11 + 551]

5 hours ago, remake it said:

Apart from China having a credible ethnic basis for its territory - unlike the USA - China has previous dynastic territorial extents which are actually beyond its current boundaries.

I'll have to get back to Marcin... there are a few to many 'majesties' for me to digest tonight after all day in the field...

Crown helps with dehydration,  right? (Especially when mixed with coke?)

Anyway... Chinese territory currently covers 55 different ethnicities. Please dont try and lump all asians together. That's like saying Ethiopia has a cultural basis to take over all of Africa.

And under what dynasty? 

Please see  previous post addressing this very argument: (linked for convenience)

 

 

[Guest]

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/nbas-china-problem-due-political-control-over-markets

The NBA's China Problem Is Due To Political Control Over Markets

The news and sports media have been focused on the recent confrontation between the National Basketball Association (NBA) and the Chinese government due to a tweet by the general manager of the Houston Rockets about recent pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong that brought down the wrath of China. While many commentaries have focused on the NBA’s attempt to placate the Chinese authorities in the face of losing millions if not billions of dollars in lost revenues in the Chinese market, less attention has been given to what lies behind it all: a government’s ability to shut down commercial dealings between willing participants by simple command. 

 

Dunno what @Tom Kirkman is on about ...

Free speech, shmee speech ...

[specinho + 470]

On 10/14/2019 at 8:15 PM, frankfurter said:

China's rise means America's decline. So what else is new? 

This comparison might be a little skewed.......

Being a nation with the second largest population of the world China is still not recognized as developed but developing. It is not in leading position in any kind but internal improvements..... Therefore..........

The regression of America as the world leading figure can only be replaced by members from the equal or similar status i.e. the European countries.

Europe has been the center for change in the last 3 decades. Good changes have been made and led by Europe. Recently Russia would like to trade oil in Euro replacing USD........ No ill words were being spoken off them. But sere admiration and duplication or half duplication of their success.........

Why are we so stern on the progress of China?? Where is the above statement leading to??

[remake it + 288]

2 hours ago, Otis11 said:

Anyway... Chinese territory currently covers 55 different ethnicities. Please dont try and lump all asians together. That's like saying Ethiopia has a cultural basis to take over all of Africa.

You did that, as the point made related to the extent that previous dynasties had a greater footprint than China today: a claim you regarded as "bogus."