It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How can the US Complain about Chinese Military Bulidup?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by k4rupt


That's all I wanted to say and people just can't help themselves but to come here and attack others of being "Communist" when they give good arguments or when they suggest of America's errors.

Just because I posted that article, it doesn't mean that I base all of what I said on that one article. You want more articles? Here it is:

customwire.ap.org...
Quote: "Complaining of "mixed signals" from China, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Wednesday the communist government must demonstrate more clearly its interest in improving U.S.-China relations."

telegraph.co.uk.../news/2005/07/11/wchina11.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/11/ixworld.html
Quote: "The United States upped its pressure on China yesterday, saying it was "concerned" over its military build-up..."

news.bbc.co.uk...
Quote: " US Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Tuesday the US would "see how they spend this money, see if it in any way is threatening to our interests in the region or whether it's just modernisation"."



Would u like more?

[edit on 6-11-2005 by k4rupt]


thank you, that is all i wanted. regardless of what you say now, you were basing your whole argument on one piece of evidence that wasnt evidence of your accusations at all.

originally, you didnt give any good arguments, and you know it. you posted an article that had nothing to do with the title of your thread, and then proceeded to bash americans with no proof to back it up.

go back and read the very first post if you dont believe me. you post the article, and the the assertation "and US are complaining of chinese aggression"

if you dont want people to refute what youve written, then provide sources that actually back up your argument. how much simpler can i make it for you to understand?




posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
dont worry k4rupt.

Your first post was completly correct.

I think most people are in the know and there are the others which arent.
.

Anyway why is the US complaining about the so called chinese "build-up". Fear of a rival i suppose



fear of a rival? go back and read my post on page two, second from the bottom....you know, the one you agreed with.



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 12:40 AM
link   
What this site may or may not be allowed and whether or not I am using their servers for this, or if I am encouraged to take part in international discussions etc etc may or may not be the case.

Everyone undoubtably draws their own conclusions.



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by snafu7700
no it didnt. show me where in the article the US was complaining about chinese military build up?


I am not claiming that. i have never made that claim and you still bring that up


are these not your words?


The article he posted made a mention of the equipment the US has already prepared to use on asian cities(chinese) or targets while the US is complaining about a chinese military build up






maybe you should look at page 3 third post down




you are absolutely right. i confused you with stellar because i was going over the post too fast. i apologize for this error.




Yes MK apologized but you claimed it was a debate.

This is not a road show it is a forum


then quit making it into a roadshow.

from merriam-webster:
"Main Entry: 1de·bate
Pronunciation: di-'bAt, dE-
Function: noun
: a contention by words or arguments"

call it what you want, but we contended the issue by words and arguments.

you want to continue to discuss the issue, fine. but dont distract from the issue by trying to attack my character.



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Middle Kingdom
What this site may or may not be allowed and whether or not I am using their servers for this, or if I am encouraged to take part in international discussions etc etc may or may not be the case.

Everyone undoubtably draws their own conclusions.


i'm sorry, MK, but i didnt understand this statement at all. i know that english is a second language to you, and it must be hard to translate your thoughts completely, but please try again.



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

before you go off on a tantrum, why dont read the context of the remark that brought me to my conclusion?


The context is irrelevant since your argument is illogical at best. That is what i tried to point out but once again you will rather attack the person based on what you perceive to be their motive. If i threw a tantrum you would know and be screaming for an admin to come save you......



first of all, i have shown continuously that there was no mention of a "china threat" in the article in question. therefore, a call for america to "shut up and stop whining" was just plain ignorant.


The article reaks of posturing and talking up the threat of China and what they might do to 'upset stability' ( wich is doublespeak for doing anything independently) and if one looks at the deployments and all the dozen other references to China i can not imagine how you could have posted what you did. Are we reading the same article? Feel free to call people ignorent but please never use the jealousy or anti anything argument. At least ignorence can be proved or disproved....



i have read other threads that this individual posted on in reference to the china/america situation, and it turns out that he/she was ticked off at people in another thread, and decided to take it out here. i refuse to put up with that kind of behaviour.


While this may be true i did not notice as he stuck with statement of fact. It is obvious that you do not like these self evident facts and then attacked him based on what you perceived to be some strange 'other' motives. Either way you could have dealt with this in far more productive way and the way your responding to me seems to indicate you treat every you disagree with much the same.


sounds like youve got a little animosity toward the US as well. i have never said that we are perfect.


No more animosity than any sane person with facts on hand would have. What is interesting is that you care to mention animosity when it really is irrelevant to the article and the facts it mentions thus making your motive rather clear. People have every right to be angry as long as that anger is based on a factual understanding of the subject. Anger will not help, or solve problems, but why try disqualify their information based on it? Your approach discloses your intent and it's not to get to the bottem of the issue at hand.


in fact, if you read the rest of the posts i have made here (as well as posts ive made elsewhere) instead of judging by one ticked off response to an ignorant post, you will find that i agree america makes many mistakes, and i have made no excuses for that fact.


Well i know that his opinion is not far fetched or need be based on some strange jealously complex thus it's simple to see that you have no idea of the scale of American 'mistakes' ( doublespeak for atrocity commited with intent and understanding of likely results) or in fact that there were no good intent behind these so called 'mistakes'.


who's the one in denial here? again, check my history of posting, or ask some of the muslim individuals here like NR.


I did not call you a racist ( or something comparable) so i have no idea what you want to introduce me to your friends from various cultures and religons. All i suggested is that you do not seem to care much for clearly stated facts when they conflict with what you have chosen to believe allready.... Do show me what i am in denial about as do not like being accused of such things.


i look at every post with an open mind, and think about it from everyone's point of view before i post. have i been guilty of running my mouth before i think? of course, everyone has, and i have been warned for it. but overall, i would say that i am not your typically skippy-esque american poster, and by going off on me over one post that was in every way correct when taken in context, you have shown your bias against all americans.


You did not look at this post wich an open mind so i am not alltogether sure how you would do better eslewhere considering the scale of your error in this instance. You seem to be acting in exactly the way you would not want to be known for so one has to ask what is leading you so far away from your stated intent? I have taken what you said in as much context as can be applied and i still come up with someone defending American actions without giving much consideration wether facts support such defense.

Once again you seem to make some notion of hate against all Americans the central tenant of your defense and as such will expose yourself to a great deal of contempt. Please understand that any such belief is in no way justified and will never bring you to any understanding of why there is so much criticism of American foreign policy.


when you group all americans together as crazies who refuse to listen and continuously deny the facts presented to them, as you have done here, you are just as guilty as those americans who lump all muslims together as crazy extremist.


Well what a relief that i never did that then! You are the one dismissing valid criticism on the basis that the poster is somehow biased against Americans. To think that that is some kind of counter argument to specifc claims made by others is a very strange thing to imagine possible. Even if discovering someone elses motives might be usefull you still have to deal with the information they present so why not just focus on the latter and show them to be ignorent or mistaken? Your emphasis makes your aim clear imo.

Stellar



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by NWguy83
Because we can.

Just thank God everyday of your life that Stormin Norman isn't the president.


lmao....you mean the guy that didnt have enough sense to keep saddam's helos grounded after gulf 1, and therefore allowed the uprising that bush sr. had been trying to get started get squashed? no way he would ever have been elected.


Well it certainly was not his choice ( military men like to win completely) to let Saddam do anything he may have wanted and his orders to let Iraqi forces crush the uprising came right from the top. I find it strange that you manage to see this as some sort of miscommunication or mistake instead of the deliberate policy i can show it was.

Stellar



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by NWguy83
Because we can.

Just thank God everyday of your life that Stormin Norman isn't the president.


lmao....you mean the guy that didnt have enough sense to keep saddam's helos grounded after gulf 1, and therefore allowed the uprising that bush sr. had been trying to get started get squashed? no way he would ever have been elected.


Well it certainly was not his choice ( military men like to win completely) to let Saddam do anything he may have wanted and his orders to let Iraqi forces crush the uprising came right from the top. I find it strange that you manage to see this as some sort of miscommunication or mistake instead of the deliberate policy i can show it was.

Stellar



then please, show the proof instead of running off at the mouth with absolutely no proof to back it up, as you did in the last post to me. i have backed up everything i have said with sources and numbers. and i admit when i make mistakes. you, on the other hand, are just another america-basher who prefers to attack people without any proof to back it up. where are you from, anyway? its very easy to attack americans from an anonymous position. but then, from what i have seen, that is all you seem capable of...attacking individual character with no real proof to back up your statements.

i think my last statement in the last post to you sums you up quite well:

quote: when you group all americans together as crazies who refuse to listen and continuously deny the facts presented to them, as you have done here, you are just as guilty as those americans who lump all muslims together as crazy extremist.



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
then please, show the proof instead of running off at the mouth with absolutely no proof to back it up, as you did in the last post to me.


Why assume i would be so crazy as to make claims without proof? What drives you to imagine that i have so little pride that i can not back what i say with facts? Why shoot the messenger anyways? Noam Chomsky's site is down at this time so i will have to go with Pilger and his reputation for now.

"Bush, Blair and the normalisers now speak, almost with relish, of opening mass graves in Iraq. What they do not want you to know is that the largest mass graves are the result of a popular uprising that followed the 1991 Gulf war, in direct response to a call by President George Bush Sr to "take matters into your own hands and force Saddam to step aside". So successful were the rebels initially that within days Saddam's rule had collapsed across the south. A new start for the people of Iraq seemed close at hand.

Then Washington, the tyrant's old paramour who had supplied him with $5bn worth of conventional arms, chemical and biological weapons and industrial technology, intervened just in time. The rebels suddenly found themselves confronted with the United States helping Saddam against them. US forces prevented them from reaching Iraqi arms depots. They denied them shelter, and gave Saddam's Republican Guard safe passage through US lines in order to attack the rebels. US helicopters circled overhead, observing, taking photographs, while Saddam's forces crushed the uprising. In the north, the same happened to the Kurdish insurrection. "The Americans did everything for Saddam," said the writer on the Middle East SaId Aburish, "except join the fight on his side." Bush Sr did not want a divided Iraq, certainly not a democratic Iraq. The New York Times commentator Thomas Friedman, a guard dog of US foreign policy, was more to the point. What Washington wanted was a successful coup by an "iron-fisted junta": Saddam without Saddam.

Nothing has changed. As Milan Rai documents in his new book, Regime Unchanged, the most senior and ruthless elements of Saddam's security network, the Mukha-barat, are now in the pay of the US and Britain, helping them to combat the resistance and recruit those who will run a puppet regime behind a facade. A CIA-run and -paid gestapo of 10,000 will operate much as they did under Saddam. "What is happen-ing in Iraq," writes Rai, "is re-Nazification... just as in Germany after the war."

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Can get you some more specific information later if you insist that the US could and would never do such a thing...


i have backed up everything i have said with sources and numbers. and i admit when i make mistakes.


Well actually you do not admit mistakes as i will prove shortly. What is even worse than that is that you throw numbers around without any understanding of what they represent and do not represent believing believing instead what you want.


you, on the other hand, are just another america-basher who prefers to attack people without any proof to back it up. where are you from, anyway? its very easy to attack americans from an anonymous position.


By the same logic your a China basher so i guess we all have our flaws right? I assume the problem with that is that you believe America has not commited atrocity with intent and that that makes all the atrocity 'mistakes' and thus not so bad volumes of evidence to the contrary. Not being familiar with that evidence is no reason to call those who are America bashers. Does it really matter where i am from? Will you then look for my motive to 'hate' America instead of looking at the facts?


but then, from what i have seen, that is all you seem capable of...attacking individual character with no real proof to back up your statements.


You have not seen anything yet and accusing me of the very thing you base all your denials on is quite ludicrous.


i think my last statement in the last post to you sums you up quite well:

quote: when you group all americans together as crazies who refuse to listen and continuously deny the facts presented to them, as you have done here, you are just as guilty as those americans who lump all muslims together as crazy extremist.


It actually sums up how you deal with anyone who says anything contrary to your views. I never said what you claim wich just proves you will fabricate what you need to dismiss what you don't want to know about.

You think calling me names will resolve this and that i will just forget about the real issues? You must not be used to serious opposition to your biased world view....

Stellar

[edit on 6-11-2005 by StellarX]



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Snafu: Earlier you claimed that there was no evidence in the article of the US complaining about Chinese military spending....

from the article

"Fallon said he had received a clear mandate in this regard from Washington, despite widely noticed remarks in June from Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld questioning China's motives in modernizing its military forces."

Now in all fairness one should go look at the exact remarks made by Rumsfeld but in light of of American black budget spending this does seem like complaining to me. Why on earth would Chinese spending concern America when there are plenty of nations in the region that could band together and defend against Chinese agression?

In search of the Pentagon's billion dollar hidden budgets - how the US keeps its R&D spending under wraps.

Military waste under fire
$1 trillion missing -- Bush plan targets Pentagon accounting


And so many more links....

Now if one looks at extracts from the rest of the article it becomes abundantly clear who and what the threat is and that there is indeed complaining in Washington that China is daring to arm itself.

"The deployment of Bussiere's squadron, replacing a contingent of aging B-52s, marked part of a broad U.S. military realignment in the fast-changing Pacific. The reposturing, scheduled to run over several years, has been designed to strengthen U.S. military forces in Asia and usher them into a new era, reacting primarily to China's expanding diplomatic, economic and military power."

and

"the rise of China as a regional force has shaken assumptions that had governed this vast region since the end of World War II, including that of uncontested U.S. naval and air power from California to the Chinese coast. With those days soon to end, senior officers said, the U.S. military in Asia is retooling to reflect new war-making technology, better prepare for military crises and counter any future threat from the emergent Chinese navy and air force."

And

"some U.S. specialists have predicted an Asian Cold War or outright conflict as a newly muscular China gets ready to project power beyond its shores. But U.S. military planners in the region have a different interpretation of the Chinese challenge. The goal, they said in interviews, is to maximize U.S. forces here -- as demonstrated by the B-2 deployment. However, the planners also said the United States was seeking to build a network of contacts with the Chinese government and military through which the power overlap could be managed rather than fought over."

And


"Fallon said he had received a clear mandate in this regard from Washington, despite widely noticed remarks in June from Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld questioning China's motives in modernizing its military forces."

and

"The admiral, who has led the Pacific Command for six months, got his start building military ties with China during a maiden visit there Sept. 5-9. Although he and his 300,000 troops have responsibility for 43 countries and more than 100 million square miles, Fallon said China's size and growth make it the center of his network-building efforts.

Despite the resolve to get along, the U.S. military in Asia has long faced off with China as part of the struggle over Taiwan. Many of the U.S. moves underway in Asia have been designed to better counter the improving Chinese military in any conflict over Taiwan."

and

"Under the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States has pledged to assist Taiwan in its defense. Whether this would mean military intervention in the event of a Chinese attack would be up to the leadership in Washington."

some more

"in his confirmation hearing to become Air Force chief of staff, Gen. T. Michael Moseley told the Senate Armed Services Committee in June that calculating the right mix of U.S. air power in Asia to defeat China in case of conflict was "at the top of my list." Fallon, in hearings several months earlier, expressed concern that recent Chinese military improvements, particularly in submarines, should not be allowed to alter the balance against Taiwan and, in case of conflict, U.S. forces that could be sent in to help."

and more

"The two were referring to the fruits of China's two-decade-old military modernization program. After years as the world's largest military reliant chiefly on masses of soldiers, the Chinese armed forces have sought to leap into the age of electronic warfare. Through acquisitions from Russia and elsewhere, along with developments in their own defense industry, they have laid the groundwork for a newly potent navy and air force, equipped with modern missiles able for the first time to pose a threat to U.S. forces in the region."

yet more

"The long-standing danger of Taiwan becoming a reason to go to war against China has been part of the broader military realignment, contributing to concern over the extent to which China's rise changes the environment for U.S. military forces.
"China is a huge piece of the puzzle right now, and the military certainly recognizes it," said Col. Michael Boera, who commands the 36th Air Expeditionary Wing at Andersen.
"Japan is very close to Taiwan," said a senior Japanese official involved in defense policy. "And if something happened in this area, it will undoubtedly affect Japanese security. It is naive to suggest that a cross-strait conflict would not affect Japan."

yawn.

"Japan's growing assertiveness and willingness to work militarily with the United States, although a boon in planning for Taiwan, has also raised the prospect of U.S. involvement in other quarrels with China."


"The United States has been careful to avoid taking sides in either set of disputes, officers noted. But as the U.S.-Japanese military alliance has strengthened, so has the danger that an unforeseen clash in the East China Sea could end up involving the United States."


"Although repositioning in the Pacific is part of Rumsfeld's order to make the military more agile, it has also resulted in the deployment of more modern forces close to Asia's likely trouble spots. Nowhere is that more visible than at Andersen, a 21,000-acre base where a permanent bomber presence and a regular rotation of fighter planes have been ordered since last year, along with the stationing of KC-135 tanker aircraft.

A second submarine, the USS Houston, was assigned to Guam's naval base in December, joining the USS City of Corpus Christi, which arrived in 2002. A third submarine is planned soon."

Now i should have just stuck with saying the enture article reaks of posturing but you would have just denied that as if denial changes fact.

I have long since, in many other forums, proved to myself that i do not lose when it comes to flaming and that it is not nearly as productive as satisfying. If you continue in your current style we can either go elsewhere ,where i can prove i am very much in touch with my inner child, or we can ask the admins if it's ok to just call each other names for a page or two.

Stellar



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX


www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Can get you some more specific information later if you insist that the US could and would never do such a thing...


then why didnt you post this source to begin with? making accusations without evidence simply to bait me?

the page you quote is extremely biased. however, i have managed to find similar reports from more neutral sources, so i will concede the point.



Well actually you do not admit mistakes as i will prove shortly. What is even worse than that is that you throw numbers around without any understanding of what they represent and do not represent believing believing instead what you want.


i'll refer you to post number four on page four, for my admission of mistakes. as for the numbers, before you make more baseless accusations, why dont you explain how you think i am misunderstanding the numbers, instead of attacking my supposed ignorance.




By the same logic your a China basher so i guess we all have our flaws right? I assume the problem with that is that you believe America has not commited atrocity with intent and that that makes all the atrocity 'mistakes' and thus not so bad volumes of evidence to the contrary. Not being familiar with that evidence is no reason to call those who are America bashers. Does it really matter where i am from? Will you then look for my motive to 'hate' America instead of looking at the facts?


i have yet to say anything anti-chinese anywhere on this thread or elswhere, except the one remark about "partly-line", which i apologized to chinawhite for. on the other hand, there have been many anti-american remarks.



It actually sums up how you deal with anyone who says anything contrary to your views. I never said what you claim wich just proves you will fabricate what you need to dismiss what you don't want to know about.


are you seriously suggesting that i fabricated the CRS report i referenced? or the science daily report?



You think calling me names will resolve this and that i will just forget about the real issues? You must not be used to serious opposition to your biased world view....


give me serious opposition, please. i enjoy a good debate. but dont condescend simply because you disagree with my remarks or my sources. come at me with your own sources and facts as you post your comments....not later as you have done here.

i want to discuss the real issues at hand. i recognize that i do not know everything, and that we americans to not get all of the facts from our media outlets. that is one of the main reasons why i am here. but dont come at me with baseless accusations, come at me with facts and a real debate.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
then why didnt you post this source to begin with? making accusations without evidence simply to bait me?

the page you quote is extremely biased. however, i have managed to find similar reports from more neutral sources, so i will concede the point.


I assumed you were informed on this topic? I simply stated fact and i can not do much to prevent you seeing it in the most offensive way possible; for some reason. John Pilger is a credible source and it really is irrelevant wich site that work is published on.


i'll refer you to post number four on page four, for my admission of mistakes. as for the numbers, before you make more baseless accusations, why dont you explain how you think i am misunderstanding the numbers, instead of attacking my supposed ignorance.


You admit to being confused.
That is a start and i am hoping you will soon apologise for treating me like you would never stand to be treated.... My accusations is hardly baseless and if you do not have all the numbers how can you claim to be informed and thus debate these points? The assumption is made that you familiar with the facts and that you are simply misrepresenting them. Excuse me for never assuming other people are simply ignorent.


i have yet to say anything anti-chinese anywhere on this thread or elswhere, except the one remark about "partly-line", which i apologized to chinawhite for. on the other hand, there have been many anti-american remarks.


I am simply stating that it must logically follow that you are Anti-Chinese if the people you accused of being anti-American is really somehow that. Valid criticism was made of American reaction to Chinese military spending wich you then called Anti-Americanism. You then made some valid accusations on how China spends more than they say they do. Your logic suggest that critisism however valid, or accurate, proves bias. By this same logic it is obvious why you see anti-Americanism everywhere. I do not think accusing people of bias makes for much of a learning experience for anyone and in my experience i have noticed that bias always destroys it's own arguments by bad research and flawed reasoning.

The stronger the bias the more flawed the nature of the intelligence so why not just let them hang themselves?


are you seriously suggesting that i fabricated the CRS report i referenced? or the science daily report?


No i did not suggest that as such suggestions would make me rather mindless. What i suggested was that your claims of biased anti-American posting was frabricated to suit your own ends and to prevent discovery of pertinent information.


give me serious opposition, please. i enjoy a good debate. but dont condescend simply because you disagre with my remarks or my sources. come at me with your own sources and facts as you post your comments....not later as you have done here.


Why should i do the grunt work informing you when you are the one lashing out without having the facts on your side? Your making me the villian while you are the one treating the rest of us like ignorents. When you reach the point where you are somehow certain the facts are on your side you may rant and rave all you like but do not attack others for not providing you with information you should have had before you lashed out! To sum it up i suggest you chill out stop accusing so many of bias and ignorence when you seem to be in the same leaky boat.


i want to discuss the real issues at hand. i recognize that i do not know everything, and that we americans to not get all of the facts from our media outlets. that is one of the main reasons why i am here. but dont come at me with baseless accusations, come at me with facts and a real debate.


Well if this is your real motivation we will get along just fine once we sorted out our misunderstanding(s) here. I admit to all your flaws and problems and all i ask is that you do not assume baseless accusations by others without checking your information from both sides. If the truth was so readily apparent you would not be here as you said but it also logically follows that you( or anyone else with same understanding) might also be frequently uninformed or misinformed. I for one am trying to leave base emotions out of my reasoning in this forum and you might want to try that. Why risk emotional involvement (while on forums) with a reality that is so slippery?

ANYWAYS!

Stellar



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
I assumed you were informed on this topic? I simply stated fact and i can not do much to prevent you seeing it in the most offensive way possible; for some reason. John Pilger is a credible source and it really is irrelevant wich site that work is published on.


and everyone is supposed to automatically take your "facts" at face value without anything to back it up?

do you really think that a site on which every single report is biased against the US is a credible source? its called propaganda.

furthermore, i conceded the point, which means you won that segment of the debate....so why are you continuing to bring it up? just to relish in the spotlight a moment longer?



You admit to being confused.
That is a start and i am hoping you will soon apologise for treating me like you would never stand to be treated.... My accusations is hardly baseless and if you do not have all the numbers how can you claim to be informed and thus debate these points? The assumption is made that you familiar with the facts and that you are simply misrepresenting them. Excuse me for never assuming other people are simply ignorent.


yes, i admitted to being confused, which proves that i admit to my mistakes when i make them, and i apologize to those that i wrong...two things you seem to be incapable of doing. are you going to apologize to me for falsely accusing me of not admitting to my mistakes? or accusing me of making false statements? or coming at me with condescending remarks from the very first post you made? or making false assumptions as to where i stand politically? or for implying that i am ignorant? or for calling me a racist (anti-chinese)?

i posted sources as i went, not after the fact as you seem to do. as far as the numbers go, if you think i am misrepresenting them, or that i have not posted all of them, you need to go back and look at them again. should be easy, as i've posted them twice now.

hows about we end this little pissing match and get back to the topic now, please before the mods come rushing in to warn us both.



[edit on 8-11-2005 by snafu7700]

[edit on 8-11-2005 by snafu7700]

[edit on 8-11-2005 by snafu7700]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
and everyone is supposed to automatically take your "facts" at face value without anything to back it up?


I never stated that it was my opinion so why assume that it is and i can not back it up? You made assumptions and you well know where those can lead. Why get angry at me for assuming your well informed and would be familiar with such basics? I could apologise?


do you really think that a site on which every single report is biased against the US is a credible source? its called propaganda.


John Pilger is a credible source and which site happens to host his work is completely irrelevant. If you want to attack Pilger's reputation then do so but do not make the site it was posted on a issue as it can not be.


furthermore, i conceded the point, which means you won that segment of the debate....so why are you continuing to bring it up? just to relish in the spotlight a moment longer?


I am not here to "win" anything and "victory" at this cost in time is not something i would celebrate or relish. Why you make all these assumption ,when your clearly not so awesome with the process, i have no idea and you should probably save yourself the trouble and stick to what i actually say.


yes, i admitted to being confused, which proves that i admit to my mistakes when i make them, and i apologize to those that i wrong...two things you seem to be incapable of doing. are you going to apologize to me for falsely accusing me of not admitting to my mistakes?


Well i can apologise as fast as the next guy given oppertunity and reason!
Most of this thread should have never happened and if you figured out your errors sooner we would not be here and i could have apologised with great ease. I tried to be civil but you never even bothered.


or accusing me of making false statements? or coming at me with condescending remarks from the very first post you made? or making false assumptions as to where i stand politically? or for implying that i am ignorant? or for calling me a racist (anti-chinese)?


So i made condescending remarks..... I explained how you would have to be a racist by the same logic you use to acuse others of being anti-American. I think i was pretty close in my estimation of where you stand politically but for clarity's sake you can tell me what you have assumed i said so i can point out what i in fact said. Your claims that i must post source with every claim i make is surely a fine ideal by i naturally assumed i was dealing with someone you have now denied beingt. In the future i will try tediously sourcing everything i say to you based on the assumption that you are not as well informed as i gave you credit for by assuming you would be familiar with these facts.


i posted sources as i went, not after the fact as you seem to do. as far as the numbers go, if you think i am misrepresenting them, or that i have not posted all of them, you need to go back and look at them again. should be easy, as i've posted them twice now.


When facts are posted does not change their status as such and i really do not think i should be blamed for not posting it sooner when you could have just checked for yourself. If you want to attack someone's reputation ( or anything about them ) you absolutely must make sure that they are in fact in the wrong. If you do not want to check facts stop attacking people!


hows about we end this little pissing match and get back to the topic now, please before the mods come rushing in to warn us both.


I would like to imagine i am still within the rules ( since i am trying so and all) and if that is not so i will take my warning and learn from it. I did not start the 'pissing match', if that's what we are doing in your opinion , and i am just here to defend myself after you attacked a perfectly valid response to you calling valid critisism anti-Americanism. I have nothing to gain here and i have always stuck to the facts as i know them, however late they were posted iyo, so i refuse to just slink away as if i am the trouble maker here.

I am for constructive posting and do feel free to check my posting habits and the ammount of factual content. If you spend half the energy i do on a average post i would be most impressed.

Stellar




[edit on 8-11-2005 by StellarX]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   
your entire last post is a perfect example of your condescending attitude. i refuse to have any more dealings with someone who would rather attack other members than actually debate them.

congratulations, you have just become the first member to appear on my ignore list.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   
My post was simply an evasion. I will not confirm or deny my authority to post or cruise the net freely. I am simply stating a fact that people will undoubtably form their own conclusions too.

Next, its hard reading so much english in one sitting but I will say that Snafu has hardly been a China basher in this thread and has shown remarkable sympthathy for China's situation.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Middle Kingdom
Next, its hard reading so much english in one sitting but I will say that Snafu has hardly been a China basher in this thread and has shown remarkable sympthathy for China's situation.


I treated him as fairly as i could and i never called him any of the things he decided to accuse me of. I never called him a China basher as such and just explained that by the logic he employs when accusing others of being anti-American he qualifies himself as anti-Chinese. Wether he in fact said anything negative about China was not the point.
This whole situation came about when he refused to acknowledge that he could not just call valid critism anti-Americanism. I have read huge volumes of material on the internet and i have seen this kind of behaviour far more than i would like.

Since English is not my first language i feel obliged to apologise for my lack of structure and style wich can not be helping you! Sorry.


Stellar



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 05:24 PM
link   
The structure is ok since in Chinese we just link word-meanings together anyways, the meaning of each individual word contributes for the greater meaning of the manusript.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join