US diplomatic cables released

[Bakustra]

See, the Chinese considered Tibet part of their country, so they would not consider it an invasion, especially since the Dalai Lama seceded following the Republic of China's efforts to reintegrate Tibet in 1910, and he only held power while China was embroiled in civil and external war. No nation recognized him as an independent country either during this time, so it is doubtful as to whether it was an invasion at all. China would not, out of the blue, attempt to annex India or even Nepal.

In the case of India, this may very well be due to the practical problems with doing so. In the case of Nepal, to a great extent along with geographic issues it may well have been to avoid a full scale conflict with India, especially after the Sino-Soviet split with the USSR's reasonably good relations with India. (An obvious reason China may have avoided invading Nepal earlier was the need to absorb Tibet to a degree first with its historical ties taking priority along the the calculation of a lower risk of serious foreign intervention, especially if powers like the US and UK were working with India.)

China did invade Vietnam the most recently in 1979, and while we can debate their intentions we certainly can't rule out China intended to seize at least some territory if they found Vietnamese resistance weak enough. For the record, you can at least technically argue the Us intervention in Vietnam was entirely about supporting the ruling government of South Vietnam. In reality, there are plenty of cases in Latin America where the USSR was trying to give support to Communist revolutionary movements at least indirectly through Cuba. (You can to a significant degree argue the distinction was that the US was generally more successful in its efforts than the USSR was.)

Evidence that the PRC is actively seeking to annex India or Nepal? Furthermore, if they really wanted to conquer and absorb Vietnam, why then did they break off border skirmishes in 1989 when Vietnamese forces left Cambodia? You can't rule out lots of things. You can't rule out that Ronald Reagan supported the Contras because he found the idea of raping and murdering nuns erotic. But nobody would hopefully give that credence. Neither would suggesting that China would have sought to permanently annex Vietnam. The USSR was trying to give support to Communist revolutionary movements, sure, I'll give you that, but that doesn't mean that Mossadegh was a commie or Allende would have been a Soviet puppet, and it doesn't mean that the CIA behaved well in Chile either.

So? That ignores much of what I was saying, and besides, if this happens and yet nobody will acknowledge it nor be able to handle it if it's leaked, no wonder the world is in such a crappy shape. We're run by motherfucking prima donnas who have no perspective nor ability to handle critique. That's something that probably should be exposed to the public eye, in hopes of getting somebody with a little thicker skin in office, then. You basically insist that this is the best of all possible worlds without even the comic charisma of Doctor Pangloss.

Who exactly do you think has a big enough ego to honestly believe that they deserve to run a country? Egomanical primadonnas. You seem to be extremely naive about the way the world actually works, and handwaving away Omega's post reinforces that.

Well, see, there are three kinds of people in the world, when faced with an unjust system. Those who don't care, those who try to fight it, and those who salivate at the chance to get in. You, mi amigo, are part of the third group.

See, I don't believe that world leaders are really idiots with a complete lack of perspective. I do believe that they will find this embarrassing but not so much that they will seriously take action against the US out of spite. I suspect that there will be a scramble to tighten security in some nations, seeing as the US wants DNA and iris scans for some nefarious reason. I think that the paranoid fantasies of you and your cohorts are just that- fantasy! I think, in other words, that the majority of actual world leaders are canny, rather than being the complete idiots you believe them to be.

[Shroom Man 777]

Who cares about China or Russia? If Wikileaks caught America eating dogshit, these assholes would go "Hey, b-b-b-but China and Russia are drinking out of an entire septic tank!". So what? That doesn't change the fact that America is eating dogshit. Your country is eating dogshit. Who gives a shit about what kind of shit China and Russia are doing? You people should be thankful that Wikileaks points out your country's disgusting dietary preferences. He is doing you a favor. Hell, you should be thankful that unlike China or Russia, these Wikileaks guys can actually do their stuff. I would be very grateful if my country had something as wonderful as Wikileaks, but alas my country is a shithole where journalists are routinely murdered.

The fact that Wikileaks exists to spill out all the lousy shit America does is proof that America is awesome. Allowing the existence of an organization that points out your myriad hypocrisies and failures is a mark of a great and powerful nation, truly worthy of the status of world's only superpower.

[Bakustra]

Who cares about China or Russia? If Wikileaks caught America eating dogshit, these assholes would go "Hey, b-b-b-but China and Russia are drinking out of an entire septic tank!". So what? That doesn't change the fact that America is eating dogshit. Your country is eating dogshit. Who gives a shit about what kind of shit China and Russia are doing? You people should be thankful that Wikileaks points out your country's disgusting dietary preferences. He is doing you a favor. Hell, you should be thankful that unlike China or Russia, these Wikileaks guys can actually do their stuff. I would be very grateful if my country had something as wonderful as Wikileaks, but alas my country is a shithole where journalists are routinely murdered.

The fact that Wikileaks exists to spill out all the lousy shit America does is proof that America is awesome. Allowing the existence of an organization that points out your myriad hypocrisies and failures is a mark of a great and powerful nation, truly worthy of the status of world's only superpower.

Wikileaks is international, though. Besides, it used to have a broader focus. They exposed shit from all over the world. Hell, maybe they had stuff on the Philippines. But apparently all informed Americans want Julian Assange's head. Besides, these guys believe that if not for America torturing for freedom, you guys would all be under Maoist corporatism in days and a literal Chinese province. We'd be all alone, the last free nation to provide protagonists for crappy polemic sci-fi.

[Shroom Man 777]

Haha. Behead those who say Islam is violent meets waterboard those who say America tortures?

[Drone]

Well, see, there are three kinds of people in the world, when faced with an unjust system. Those who don't care, those who try to fight it, and those who salivate at the chance to get in. You, mi amigo, are part of the third group.

See, I don't believe that world leaders are really idiots with a complete lack of perspective. I do believe that they will find this embarrassing but not so much that they will seriously take action against the US out of spite. I suspect that there will be a scramble to tighten security in some nations, seeing as the US wants DNA and iris scans for some nefarious reason. I think that the paranoid fantasies of you and your cohorts are just that- fantasy! I think, in other words, that the majority of actual world leaders are canny, rather than being the complete idiots you believe them to be.

This is really laughable. You know nothing about me and make these wonderful snap judgements about my entire life based on nothing that's even related to what we're talking about? You also left out a fourth group, which is the only one that matters, and that's the ones who try to fix things from the inside, but that's a completely different discussion that has jack and shit to do with what is being talked about, which is the fact that these things being leaked are going to have an effect.
I don't remember claiming anywhere that it's going to cause massive problems, but it certainly can make things more difficult in the future for people to make rational decisions based on reports from firsthand sources, because those sources will be less trusting that whatever they pass along isn't going to be leaked. That is my major concern. The other stuff, people doing things out of spite certainly can happen, see Bush ignoring Clark for months, any number of actions Castro's taken over the years, everything Kim Jong Il does, etc. Again, most people who want to run countries are egomaniacs, they have to be or they'd run screaming from the job, it doesn't mean they're all insane, or they're all spiteful children, but they are human, they do make decisions that are influenced by personal belief, feelings, faith, etc..

So to say a report that's leaked with an insulting assessment of a person's character, especially if it's true, has no effect at all on that person's future decisions regarding the one who made the assessment and what he or she represents, is very naive.

[Omega18]

Evidence that the PRC is actively seeking to annex India or Nepal? Furthermore, if they really wanted to conquer and absorb Vietnam, why then did they break off border skirmishes in 1989 when Vietnamese forces left Cambodia? You can't rule out lots of things. You can't rule out that Ronald Reagan supported the Contras because he found the idea of raping and murdering nuns erotic. But nobody would hopefully give that credence. Neither would suggesting that China would have sought to permanently annex Vietnam.

The reality is may merely mean China is better at covering up its secrets. A non-Democratic society without freedom of the press generally has an easier time of this.

At a minimum, we know in 1962 China did launch an invasion of India and ended up with territory previously under India's control. Its clear that pressing the invasion excessively would have been difficult with the geographic limitations at the time and created a real risk of unfavorable international intervention from China's perspective.

As far as the 1979 invasion of Vietnam goes, a definite possiblity is China concluded the Vietnamese military resistance was too strong to be worth it, especially with the obviously inevitable guerrilla warfare fighting which would follow any conquest. (Or China mostly settled for Vietnamese forces leaving Cambodia, although I don't believe China's withdraw was really that closely tied to this actual action.) Waiting as long as they did may merely have given China a graceful way to claim victory and that their objectives had been accomplished. We also do know from troops deployments that China was clearly worried about the possibility of Soviet intervention in the conflict and this could have been a key factor in the decision to withdraw. In fact, its distinctly possible that a Soviet threat was the trigger for China backing down and we simply don't know about it.

The reality is with the restrictions on historical documents from China in particular, we really have a simply lack of information to draw definitive conclusions on some of these questions. (It should be noted that in the case of Vietnam they were historically part of China for a long time, and later rulers did send China tribute and various acknowledgments of the Chinese Emperor's authority, giving China a potential historical claim on Vietnam depending on how you want to look at it.)

[Shroom Man 777]

I think these people deserve the right to know that they are being spied upon. They deserve the truth, because these are the principles we uphold in our free society, in our Constitution, as enshrined by our Founding Fathers. After all, if this is a free market of information, then why should they trust the Big US Government and their regulations? Spying? Surveillance? That's anti-freedom, that's anti-democracy. That's something you'd see in a goddamn socialist commie country with spooks and spies and the goddamn Reds trying to sap and impurify their precious bodily fluids. DNA is from precious bodily fluids!

I say Wikileaks is doing us a favor. And it's not a "service" from the big government. It's a free market entrepreneur, a hard-working man, doing this for charity and out of concern for his fellow man following the true American idealisms of rugged individualism, of helpfulness that we see in small idyllic communities untouched by the socialist Big Government statisms!

Shame on those of you who would put down Wikileaks! Wikileaks is a fine venture made out of the hard work of a lone businessman-entrepreneur seeking to struggle against Big Government's regulations! You would rather have Big Government infringe upon our freedoms? What next? Will you want the government to regulate our healthcare? Our economy? You bunch of disgusting socialists!

[Broomstick]

See, the Chinese considered Tibet part of their country, so they would not consider it an invasion

Funny, though - Tibet thought of itself as an independent country. Why does China get the final vote?

especially since the Dalai Lama seceded following the Republic of China's efforts to reintegrate Tibet in 1910, and he only held power while China was embroiled in civil and external war.

The government that invaded Tibet in the 1950's was NOT the same government that attempted to integrate Tibet in 1910. And if Tibet was, indeed, part of China why would it need to be "integrated" at all? Because it wasn't part of China, maybe?

No nation recognized him as an independent country either during this time, so it is doubtful as to whether it was an invasion at all. China would not, out of the blue, attempt to annex India or even Nepal.

So......... because no one gave a fuck about Tibet it was OK to invade and annex it?

The USSR, meanwhile, established Czechoslovakia as a puppet buffer state against the West.

And that's OK because....? I'm waiting. Seriously, how is making another country - or more accurately, several countries - into a "puppet buffer state" somehow OK? Somehow better than invasion? Why do you think that's OK? Because it's anyone other than the US?

Had the US and Western Europe not been so ideologically committed to crushing communism, it is quite, quite possible that greater autonomy and liberalization would have been permitted, especially after the death of Stalin, which is when the Prague Spring happened.

I suppose you've forgotten that communism was ideologically committed to crushing capitalism? Krushchev pounding his shoe on the table declaring "We will bury you!". Did you forget about that? Or is it OK for anyone other than the US to be "ideologically committed" to crushing the competition?

Meanwhile, the Soviets were invited into Afghanistan by the ruling government, which had established itself without overt Soviet assistance.

Did anyone tell the Afghanis shooting at the Soviets that? Because it sure seemed like they had a war over there, not just a visit after a polite invitation.

This is ignoring that the USSR and Russia are distinct bodies with distinct attitudes as well.

The Russians dominated the USSR. You have to be a fucking moron to try to get around that.

...but you really cannot say that Russia and China carry out more invasions than the US does.

Not when you redefine or excuse every invasion on their part as something other than an invasion, no - but it does make you look like a posturing, bigoted tool.

Mind you, I fully support your right to be anti-American. I just disagree with you AND think you're full of shit.

[Bakustra]

Well, see, there are three kinds of people in the world, when faced with an unjust system. Those who don't care, those who try to fight it, and those who salivate at the chance to get in. You, mi amigo, are part of the third group.

See, I don't believe that world leaders are really idiots with a complete lack of perspective. I do believe that they will find this embarrassing but not so much that they will seriously take action against the US out of spite. I suspect that there will be a scramble to tighten security in some nations, seeing as the US wants DNA and iris scans for some nefarious reason. I think that the paranoid fantasies of you and your cohorts are just that- fantasy! I think, in other words, that the majority of actual world leaders are canny, rather than being the complete idiots you believe them to be.

This is really laughable. You know nothing about me and make these wonderful snap judgements about my entire life based on nothing that's even related to what we're talking about? You also left out a fourth group, which is the only one that matters, and that's the ones who try to fix things from the inside, but that's a completely different discussion that has jack and shit to do with what is being talked about, which is the fact that these things being leaked are going to have an effect.
I don't remember claiming anywhere that it's going to cause massive problems, but it certainly can make things more difficult in the future for people to make rational decisions based on reports from firsthand sources, because those sources will be less trusting that whatever they pass along isn't going to be leaked. That is my major concern. The other stuff, people doing things out of spite certainly can happen, see Bush ignoring Clark for months, any number of actions Castro's taken over the years, everything Kim Jong Il does, etc. Again, most people who want to run countries are egomaniacs, they have to be or they'd run screaming from the job, it doesn't mean they're all insane, or they're all spiteful children, but they are human, they do make decisions that are influenced by personal belief, feelings, faith, etc..

So to say a report that's leaked with an insulting assessment of a person's character, especially if it's true, has no effect at all on that person's future decisions regarding the one who made the assessment and what he or she represents, is very naive.

You keep on talking, but all I hear is a song... "You spin me right round, baby, right round/like a record baby, right round round round". I made a classical allusion to wind you up tight, and you took the bait. You took it hard. You don't have what it takes to be a foreign policy wonk. You lack the cool, smug aura that nothing can penetrate. That's good, though, because foreign policy wonks are wonky in the worst way.

This ignores that there was always the possibility of leaks. The main reason that this leak was able to happen is that there is less and less trust of government. That is something that cannot be fixed by ever more secrecy. The second reason is desire for fame, and that is an impulse that cannot be dealt with so easily. But there have been similar leaks before, will be similar leaks again, and things will return to normal, especially once the powermongers remember that nobody will care. If rulers really are so motivated by spite, then isn't that something that people in general should be made aware of? Furthermore, I doubt that the majority of rulers are really so self-obsessed either.

Evidence that the PRC is actively seeking to annex India or Nepal? Furthermore, if they really wanted to conquer and absorb Vietnam, why then did they break off border skirmishes in 1989 when Vietnamese forces left Cambodia? You can't rule out lots of things. You can't rule out that Ronald Reagan supported the Contras because he found the idea of raping and murdering nuns erotic. But nobody would hopefully give that credence. Neither would suggesting that China would have sought to permanently annex Vietnam.

The reality is may merely mean China is better at covering up its secrets. A non-Democratic society without freedom of the press generally has an easier time of this.

At a minimum, we know in 1962 China did launch an invasion of India and ended up with territory previously under India's control. Its clear that pressing the invasion excessively would have been difficult with the geographic limitations at the time and created a real risk of unfavorable international intervention from China's perspective.

As far as the 1979 invasion of Vietnam goes, a definite possiblity is China concluded the Vietnamese military resistance was too strong to be worth it, especially with the obviously inevitable guerrilla warfare fighting which would follow any conquest. (Or China mostly settled for Vietnamese forces leaving Cambodia, although I don't believe China's withdraw was really that closely tied to this actual action.) Waiting as long as they did may merely have given China a graceful way to claim victory and that their objectives had been accomplished. We also do know from troops deployments that China was clearly worried about the possibility of Soviet intervention in the conflict and this could have been a key factor in the decision to withdraw. In fact, its distinctly possible that a Soviet threat was the trigger for China backing down and we simply don't know about it.

The reality is with the restrictions on historical documents from China in particular, we really have a simply lack of information to draw definitive conclusions on some of these questions. (It should be noted that in the case of Vietnam they were historically part of China for a long time, and later rulers did send China tribute and various acknowledgments of the Chinese Emperor's authority, giving China a potential historical claim on Vietnam depending on how you want to look at it.)

You got any evidence as to China being secretly waiting to conquer the world, or at least large swathes of Asia? I will ignore your Sinophobic conspiracies unless you can bring some good evidence to the table. For that matter, the areas of India under dispute are claimed as part of (surprise surprise) Tibet! It's almost as though they have specific beliefs as to what does and does not constitute China.

[Broomstick]

So? That ignores much of what I was saying, and besides, if this happens and yet nobody will acknowledge it nor be able to handle it if it's leaked, no wonder the world is in such a crappy shape. We're run by motherfucking prima donnas who have no perspective nor ability to handle critique.

Welcome to the adult world. That IS the way the world works. No, I'm not happy about it either. Some times the hypocrisy and lying is worse than at other times, but it never goes away. That's why politicians are slimy and diplomats no better.

[Shroom Man 777]

In that case, we shouldn't fault Assagne for ruining American foreign interests, then. He's got his own agenda, his own interests and hypocrisy and whatever. Hell, I certainly don't fault him.

[Broomstick]

See, I don't believe that world leaders are really idiots with a complete lack of perspective. I do believe that they will find this embarrassing but not so much that they will seriously take action against the US out of spite.

In other words, they'll fall over themselves trying to turn it to their own advantage and to hell with anyone getting hurt. Business as usual on the international scene.

I suspect that there will be a scramble to tighten security in some nations, seeing as the US wants DNA and iris scans for some nefarious reason.

Seeing that iris scans and DNA provide an very effective means of identifying people it might be as simple as wanting to check people against a database of either known criminals or known enemies of the US. For example, for years there have been accusations that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a part of the group that instigated the 1979 US hostage crisis in Iran. Would be nice if we could firmly establish, once and for all, if that is or isn't true. If it is true then clearly Ahmadinejad has acted against US citizens, and US interests, for a long time, occasionally in very direct and personal ways. If it is not true then, well that might change how the US approaches him, as someone who disagrees with the US but has not directly acted against it. Pity, we can't do that... on the other hand, if we had a means of definitely identifying, without question, who was or wasn't in the group holding the hostages...

Or it could be some completely "nefarious" and evil purpose. We don't know. Or at least I don't know. Do you? If you do, maybe you should enlighten the rest of us.

I think that the paranoid fantasies of you and your cohorts are just that- fantasy! I think, in other words, that the majority of actual world leaders are canny, rather than being the complete idiots you believe them to be.

Canny enough to milk this for all it's worth, to their own advantage, and let others twist in the wind.

[Omega18]

You got any evidence as to China being secretly waiting to conquer the world, or at least large swathes of Asia? I will ignore your Sinophobic conspiracies unless you can bring some good evidence to the table. For that matter, the areas of India under dispute are claimed as part of (surprise surprise) Tibet! It's almost as though they have specific beliefs as to what does and does not constitute China.

The reality is the actual differences between Tibet and Vietnam prior to communist China invading are not as great as you think. For that matter, Taiwan was clearly only really part of mainland China for a very limited period historically, yet mainland China's government has very clear views on this issue.

You seem to be suggesting that since we don't have proof one way or the other due to limited information we should assume China is innocent of ever having any intentions of trying to take over portions on its neighbors. The reality is even if only motivated to restore "historical areas of China" that can end up covering a significant amount of additional territory in reality. We really don't know if China's behavior is due to the problems achieving certain goals or having no desire to take more territory, although the answer with Taiwan is obviously pretty clear historically. (I'm not ruling out previous leadership desiring more territorial gains and the current batch of leaders not being interested in this.)

As noted, you are really simply trying to hand wave away the military actions and assorted interventions of the USSR/Russia and China to a great degree at this point when trying to advance your argument.

[Bakustra]

See, the Chinese considered Tibet part of their country, so they would not consider it an invasion

Funny, though - Tibet thought of itself as an independent country. Why does China get the final vote?

especially since the Dalai Lama seceded following the Republic of China's efforts to reintegrate Tibet in 1910, and he only held power while China was embroiled in civil and external war.

The government that invaded Tibet in the 1950's was NOT the same government that attempted to integrate Tibet in 1910. And if Tibet was, indeed, part of China why would it need to be "integrated" at all? Because it wasn't part of China, maybe?

No nation recognized him as an independent country either during this time, so it is doubtful as to whether it was an invasion at all. China would not, out of the blue, attempt to annex India or even Nepal.

So......... because no one gave a fuck about Tibet it was OK to invade and annex it?

Why did the US get the final vote in the question of the CSA? Who gave us the right to invade the Confederacy, which thought of itself as an independent nation, which nobody cared about either? Tibet had to be reintegrated because the last Qing Empress had removed the Dalai Lama from power. The RoC offered him it back, and he decided to establish a brutal, repressive theocracy instead. Pardon me for thinking that it may not have been evil Chinamen invading a sovereign, independent nation so much as a new government bringing a close to an era of civil war. I disagree with many parts of Chinese policy in Tibet- but they would have been worse off under the Lamas. They may well have been another Saudi Arabia, without the traces of mineral wealth, or another Afghanistan under the Taliban.

The USSR, meanwhile, established Czechoslovakia as a puppet buffer state against the West.

And that's OK because....? I'm waiting. Seriously, how is making another country - or more accurately, several countries - into a "puppet buffer state" somehow OK? Somehow better than invasion? Why do you think that's OK? Because it's anyone other than the US?

Had the US and Western Europe not been so ideologically committed to crushing communism, it is quite, quite possible that greater autonomy and liberalization would have been permitted, especially after the death of Stalin, which is when the Prague Spring happened.

I suppose you've forgotten that communism was ideologically committed to crushing capitalism? Krushchev pounding his shoe on the table declaring "We will bury you!". Did you forget about that? Or is it OK for anyone other than the US to be "ideologically committed" to crushing the competition?

See, it's not a matter of good standing against evil. It was more complex than that, and you cannot say that the USSR fired the first shot, so to speak, seeing as we intervened against the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War.

Meanwhile, the Soviets were invited into Afghanistan by the ruling government, which had established itself without overt Soviet assistance.

Did anyone tell the Afghanis shooting at the Soviets that? Because it sure seemed like they had a war over there, not just a visit after a polite invitation.

See, they were what we call rebels. Rebel forces. They were rising against the government. They may have had legitimate grievances, but one cannot call being invited in an invasion, unless one has a clear argument for illegitimacy beyond what your paranoia tells you.

This is ignoring that the USSR and Russia are distinct bodies with distinct attitudes as well.

The Russians dominated the USSR. You have to be a fucking moron to try to get around that.

Reread my sentence until you understand it, please. I am not saying what you think I am saying.

...but you really cannot say that Russia and China carry out more invasions than the US does.

Not when you redefine or excuse every invasion on their part as something other than an invasion, no - but it does make you look like a posturing, bigoted tool.

Mind you, I fully support your right to be anti-American. I just disagree with you AND think you're full of shit.

Hahaha! Who's the posturing one, exactly? The person who throws out smarmy parting shots about how FREE America is compared with all those repressive shitholes? That's ignoring that you try to put up the US on a pedestal- but I pointed out that the US has performed more invasions than you could provide together, let alone singly.

Oh, in response to your series of posts- smarminess about how "in the adult world, everybody is a fragile butterfly who cannot bear to hear criticism" is at odds with my experiences. Perhaps you're just too busy aping what other people are saying to think? I also don't know why they would need the iris scans and DNA samples of African leaders, the ones in the cable that I posted a link to, but I'm sure there is a clear reason which is perfectly good, just like the rest of American foreign policy. Because America is great!

[Drone]

See, I don't believe that world leaders are really idiots with a complete lack of perspective. I do believe that they will find this embarrassing but not so much that they will seriously take action against the US out of spite.

In other words, they'll fall over themselves trying to turn it to their own advantage and to hell with anyone getting hurt. Business as usual on the international scene.

That is of course exactly what I said, but probably phrased a bit better. Thank you.

[Bakustra]

You got any evidence as to China being secretly waiting to conquer the world, or at least large swathes of Asia? I will ignore your Sinophobic conspiracies unless you can bring some good evidence to the table. For that matter, the areas of India under dispute are claimed as part of (surprise surprise) Tibet! It's almost as though they have specific beliefs as to what does and does not constitute China.

The reality is the actual differences between Tibet and Vietnam prior to communist China invading are not as great as you think. For that matter, Taiwan was clearly only really part of mainland China for a very limited period historically, yet mainland China's government has very clear views on this issue.

You seem to be suggesting that since we don't have proof one way or the other due to limited information we should assume China is innocent of ever having any intentions of trying to take over portions on its neighbors. The reality is even if only motivated to restore "historical areas of China" that can end up covering a significant amount of additional territory in reality. We really don't know if China's behavior is due to the problems achieving certain goals or having no desire to take more territory, although the answer with Taiwan is obviously pretty clear historically. (I'm not ruling out previous leadership desiring more territorial gains and the current batch of leaders not being interested in this.)



As noted, you are really simply trying to hand wave away the military actions and assorted interventions of the USSR/Russia and China to a great degree at this point when trying to advance your argument.

So Vietnam was a rebellious province of Qing China that refused to join the Republic of China? Taiwan was also a Qing province that had been ceded to the Japanese and returned to the RoC successor state following WWII. See, the PRC views itself as a legitimate successor to the RoC as well, and considers Taiwan therefore part of its territory. You still argued that China wanted to annex Vietnam in the 1979 war, annex India, and annex Nepal. Do they also seek to annex Mongolia, Japan, the Koreas, and, for all I know, Russia?

[Omega18]

So Vietnam was a rebellious province of Qing China that refused to join the Republic of China? Taiwan was also a Qing province that had been ceded to the Japanese and returned to the RoC successor state following WWII. See, the PRC views itself as a legitimate successor to the RoC as well, and considers Taiwan therefore part of its territory. You still argued that China wanted to annex Vietnam in the 1979 war, annex India, and annex Nepal. Do they also seek to annex Mongolia, Japan, the Koreas, and, for all I know, Russia?

The reality is we don't know which areas China at least historically may have wanted to annex, although its presumably safe to say they don't want North Korea today if they can avoid it. The practical point is in many cases we honestly don't know if China has wanted to take these areas but been prevented by international circumstances and fear of the consequences, although China has clearly not been a position to any actually invade Japan proper and other than a couple of disputed islands presumably has not even been on the radar screen until possibly recently. (In the case of Russia there certainly have been grumblings that the border as currently established is unfair, but obviously there are potential real military complications in trying to do anything about it.)

The point is the evidence points to Vietnam being under the direct control of China for a substantially longer period than Tibet was until the most recent invasion. There is the more recent nature of the control, but the differences are still not that great overall. In the case of Taiwan, after being under Dutch rule and effectively outside of mainland Chinese control for a long time, they did fall under their control during the Qing Dynasty. As you noted, after 50 years of rule, Japan did not actually return Taiwan to the PRC in the treaty, although you certainly articulated China's argument on this matter.

[Broomstick]

Why did the US get the final vote in the question of the CSA?

They won the war.

Who gave us the right to invade the Confederacy, which thought of itself as an independent nation, which nobody cared about either?

Actually, the South started the fight at Fort Sumter. Prior to that, the Union had pledged not to invade and Secretary of State Seward was trying to negotiate a peaceful resolution when the south started shooting. Uh, yeah, start shooting at someone they have a tendency to come after you. Or are you saying that people should just lay down and not resist when someone starts shooting at them?

Tibet had to be reintegrated because the last Qing Empress had removed the Dalai Lama from power. The RoC offered him it back, and he decided to establish a brutal, repressive theocracy instead.

Um... are you aware that the Dalai Lama removed from power by the Qing was an entirely different person than the one the RoC offered the title back to in the 1950's? Because your paragraph makes it sound like you think it was the same person.

Pardon me for thinking that it may not have been evil Chinamen invading a sovereign, independent nation so much as a new government bringing a close to an era of civil war.

I pardon you for holding that opinion, no problem - I just disagree with your notion that Tibet was a part of China. That is, in fact, a debatable point. By your reasoning the US should have surrendered to the British in 1812 when they finally got back to dealing with those rebellious colonists in North America. But obviously that's not what happened.

I disagree with many parts of Chinese policy in Tibet- but they would have been worse off under the Lamas. They may well have been another Saudi Arabia, without the traces of mineral wealth, or another Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Oh, yes, I'm aware that they theocracy was shit for a lot of people - but it's not like the Chinese are so wonderful either. At best, the lesser of two evils, but I'm not yet convinced the Chinese in Tibet are an actual good.

See, it's not a matter of good standing against evil. It was more complex than that, and you cannot say that the USSR fired the first shot, so to speak, seeing as we intervened against the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War.

Sound to me like this, once translated: "I can't come up with a good counter-argument, so I'll just hand wave it as complex and pull yet another reason why the US was the bad guys out of my capacious ass".

What does the Russian Civil War have to do with the Soviet land grab turning Eastern Europe into "puppet buffer states"? When the US rolled into Europe during WWII we actually gave everyone their country back, and this is demonstrated by the fact that Europe has since gone its own way, freely criticized the US even while borrowing large sums of money from the US (which only Finland and the UK ever bothered to pay back, by the way), and opposed the US whenever the hell they felt like it. In contrast to the Soviets who rolled in, never left, controlled the actions of their "puppet buffer states" (your words) with an iron fist and tanks. Oh, yeah, the situations are completely the same.

Hahaha! Who's the posturing one, exactly? The person who throws out smarmy parting shots about how FREE America is compared with all those repressive shitholes?

Actually, I haven't said jack shit about how free the US is or isn't - check in with Shroomy, that's more his line of writing.

That's ignoring that you try to put up the US on a pedestal

Actually, I haven't. I've repeatedly admitted that the US has done bad things.

Oh, in response to your series of posts- smarminess about how "in the adult world, everybody is a fragile butterfly who cannot bear to hear criticism" is at odds with my experiences.

Check back when you've been an adult for a couple decades.

I also don't know why they would need the iris scans and DNA samples of African leaders, the ones in the cable that I posted a link to, but I'm sure there is a clear reason which is perfectly good, just like the rest of American foreign policy.

Frankly, I haven't a clue why they would need them, and because I don't know why I haven't a clue if the reason is good or bad or neutral. I even alluded to the possibility in a prior post. YOU are the one misrepresenting my position at any turn to serve your own needs. Rather like how the governments of other nations will happily twist this to their own advantage.

[Broomstick]

Anyhow, have fun arguing - I have an 800 km road trip tomorrow, and might be off line the rest of the week.

[Shroom Man 777]

You know, I'm wondering. Where the hell does Wikileaks get all this dirt from, anyway? Man, they are uncanny. They probably get more stuff than actual foreign intelligence agencies.

[Ralin]

Um... are you aware that the Dalai Lama removed from power by the Qing was an entirely different person than the one the RoC offered the title back to in the 1950's? Because your paragraph makes it sound like you think it was the same person.

He was according to the Tibetans!

[Fire Fly]

You know, I'm wondering. Where the hell does Wikileaks get all this dirt from, anyway? Man, they are uncanny. They probably get more stuff than actual foreign intelligence agencies.

It was leaked by an American army intelligence analyst. Whatever defense he had has been more or less completely blown away now.

[K. A. Pital]

Just FYI to frothing idiots who go about Russia - I can't fucking wait for Wikileaks to release a pile of documents on the corruption and oligarchy in Russia, which they promised to do - bank account infos of our oligarchs and corrupt officials, and much, much more. Perhaps this information will act like a bomb and force political change. I'm not sure why people in America are unhappy - what, the desire for "CHANGE" ran out after Obama was elected?

I am glad Wikileaks included Russia in it's "corrupt assholish nations" focus.

You should be grateful, not bitchy.

At best, the lesser of two evils, but I'm not yet convinced the Chinese in Tibet are an actual good.

You know what theocracies look like, don't you?

What does the Russian Civil War have to do with the Soviet land grab turning Eastern Europe into "puppet buffer states"?

Lots, actually. Buffer states were seen as crucial to secure the USSR from a land invasion, which after the 1920s' interventions by every imperialist power on Earth (including uncanny brotherhood of the USA and the Japanese Empire in the East) and the 1941 massive invasion by the Nazis, was seen not just as a real possibility. It was seen as a dire and ever-present threat. Western Europe didn't invade the USA in World War I and could not do so. Hence, Western Europe did not pose a threat to the USA.

I suppose you've forgotten that communism was ideologically committed to crushing capitalism? Krushchev pounding his shoe on the table declaring "We will bury you!". Did you forget about that? Or is it OK for anyone other than the US to be "ideologically committed" to crushing the competition?

Khrushev's shoe incident seems to be an urban legend. The photo turned out to be a montage. More than that, the shoe and "Bury you" are completely different cases, and the latter was mistranslated to hell and back (not to mention that Khrushev had Dubya-like speech gaffoes, this being one of them). I mean, it's even mentioned on fucking wikipedia.

Did anyone tell the Afghanis shooting at the Soviets that?

Oh wow. Unbounded hypocrisy much? The USA entered Russia, a major power, at a time when the latter had civil war. Nobody asked the Russians shooting at the Americans, right?

For the record, you can at least technically argue the Us intervention in Vietnam was entirely about supporting the ruling government of South Vietnam.

You can argue the same about every single Soviet intervention in Eastern Europe and the war in Afghanistan. I'm not sure what this argument was supposed to prove.

They won the war.

*laughs* China won "the war" in Tibet.

To sum up - I see no reason why America's dirty laundry should be kept secret. And neither that of any other goverment.

[Spoonist]

I'll stay clear of the vs in this thread, but since so many asked about the genetic material stuff. Well its almost SOP for the US vs anyone important.

They used to collect, among others, Arafats feces during negotiations (one of the reasons why they wanted them come to the US) that way US was informed about Arafat's illnessess way before it became public. So their negoyiators at the table could enter medic facilities as a bargaining chip.

This was so prevalent that at some high up parties in the US you would see aidees run with small plastic bags for later disposal. Yupp, lackeys reduced to poopoo duty and VIPs doing it in bags instead of the toilet.

There are several cases where the US have informed allied governements about their diplomatic staff either being drug addicts or recently infected with VD. Both which are potentials for blackmail or pressure.

I'm sure that there are similar setups in place in several countries spy networks.

Just getting the DNA could be helpful to get riskassessment to a lot of cancer related stuff etc. Plus coordination with other sources to see if it is actually person X we are dealing with.

[Shroom Man 777]

Speaking of DNA and Khrushchev, they also did that to his long feces when he came and visited shopping malls and argued with Richard Nixon.

I also hope Wikileaks shovels out some shit about my Philippine government. As a person who lives in a shit country like the Philippines were journalists are murdered routinely, and leftists disappeared by military kill-squads, I welcome and salute this service Wikileaks is doing. I don't know why you Americans are so bothered by this, but apparently making you look "weak" or damaging your ability to influence other nations for your own "foreign interests" takes more importance than actual immoral behavior, crimes and other such shit your government does to your people, or that of the people of other countries - now, up to and including their leaders. Cry me a fucking trail of tears and get some dispossessed group of people your country has screwed up to trek on it or some shit.