Chinese Dilemma......

[MHunterB]

China's great food dilemma - Video - Business News

I thought this short video was worth watching, something to ponder. We've all noticed that China s HUGE in area, and in population. But I doubt most of us know that so much of China's land is not really fit for agriculture, that they have been farming very marginal land. Not only is there less yield, but it's very labor-intensive and not in ways that can be automated.....

At the same time, we also see tremendous growth in China's cities - which attract rural people, especially the young, with higher wages and more opportunities. But UNlike the US, China can not really afford to leave any land uncultivated: they were already having to import food.

One question NOT touched upon in this video is, will the Chinese rulers consider resorting to 'incentives' to keep 'em down on the farm producing food?

 

[bianco]

Fear not, China is buying up all of Australia's best agricultural land...and the dimwitted Aussie politicians are just letting them, calling it 'foreign investment'. LOL

Ya gotta laugh.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

The borrower is servant to the lender and therein America is servant to China although I do believe the time is coming that they will demand far more. In fact, I believe it is at the door now.

One of the recent developments in China has been a shift in open and severe persecution of Christians over there. I believe they are behind the demand to begin it over here and soon we will see it openly. I saved an article someone wrote about it here and will have to find it but it ties in with what they do there they will demand to be done here.

I believe their land does not produce because they are under a curse.

 

[3.14]

One of the recent developments in China has been a shift in open and severe persecution of Christians over there. I believe they are behind the demand to begin it over here and soon we will see it openly. I saved an article someone wrote about it here and will have to find it but it ties in with what they do there they will demand to be done here.

Yeah, but it's not like your own country is great either. After 9/11, even though George W. Bush said in 2002 that "ours is a war not against a religion, not against the Muslim faith", as they say, talk is cheap by itself. It seems like the post-9/11 American government has turned against Muslims. People think that something like that would never happen in America, no matter what. But Muslims were singled out and required to register with the US government (you know,since 19 out of millions of Muslims-although even then these 19 never truly settled in American society, unlike the Muslim-Americans that were targeted-were involved in terrorist acts) to "prevent terrorism", NYC police has been monitoring mosque-goers without clear justification, and Muslims are captured without a fair trial (at whim, if you will), degraded and forced to listen to tapes insulting their religion for hours in Guantanamo Bay, isolated from the rest of the world.

Don't turn your back on the injustices being done in your own country and start criticizing other nations as if they're morally inferior. Really, you and them are only marginally different.

And if you will argue that the persecution of Muslims by the US government are justified by the fact that Islamists orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, then that would be as correct as saying that Chinese persecution of Christians is justified because they "incite rebellion and disrupt harmony".

I believe their land does not produce because they are under a curse.

So the Chinese settled in a cursed land because thousands of years later, their government would oppress Christians? Sounds improbable to me. And surely, God would not be cruel enough to curse the Chinese people for their government's actions, which they can not control.

By the way, the Chinese have been able to survive in China because of their intelligence-remember the Four Great Inventions of China-and they have flourished. Today, over a billion Chinese live on an unproductive land with a bright future on the horizon (the per capita GDP has approximately tripled in the last decade).

Excuse me for defending China when Americans criticize them, and excuse me for even suggesting that the United States has degraded freedom and justice terribly. I know that these are two lines that you sure as hell shouldn't cross.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

One of the recent developments in China has been a shift in open and severe persecution of Christians over there. I believe they are behind the demand to begin it over here and soon we will see it openly. I saved an article someone wrote about it here and will have to find it but it ties in with what they do there they will demand to be done here.

Yeah, but it's not like your own country is great either. After 9/11, even though George W. Bush said in 2002 that "ours is a war not against a religion, not against the Muslim faith", as they say, talk is cheap by itself. It seems like the post-9/11 American government has turned against Muslims. People think that something like that would never happen in America, no matter what. But Muslims were singled out and required to register with the US government (you know,since 19 out of millions of Muslims-although even then these 19 never truly settled in American society, unlike the Muslim-Americans that were targeted-were involved in terrorist acts) to "prevent terrorism", NYC police has been monitoring mosque-goers without clear justification, and Muslims are captured without a fair trial (at whim, if you will), degraded and forced to listen to tapes insulting their religion for hours in Guantanamo Bay, isolated from the rest of the world.

Don't turn your back on the injustices being done in your own country and start criticizing other nations as if they're morally inferior. Really, you and them are only marginally different.

And if you will argue that the persecution of Muslims by the US government are justified by the fact that Islamists orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, then that would be as correct as saying that Chinese persecution of Christians is justified because they "incite rebellion and disrupt harmony".

I believe their land does not produce because they are under a curse.

So the Chinese settled in a cursed land because thousands of years later, their government would oppress Christians? Sounds improbable to me. And surely, God would not be cruel enough to curse the Chinese people for their government's actions, which they can not control.

By the way, the Chinese have been able to survive in China because of their intelligence-remember the Four Great Inventions of China-and they have flourished. Today, over a billion Chinese live on an unproductive land with a bright future on the horizon (the per capita GDP has approximately tripled in the last decade).

Excuse me for defending China when Americans criticize them, and excuse me for even suggesting that the United States has degraded freedom and justice terribly. I know that these are two lines that you sure as hell shouldn't cross.

You assume a great deal from my few sentences written here. I see that you are new to this board so your response surprises me. I do not discuss politics per se.. I merely made a comment on Christian persecution escalating in China and that we will most likely see it here soon as the borrower is servant to the lender. The Nation that does not serve God is under a curse. That is scripture. Read your bible, friend.
- Jeri

 

[MHunterB]

American 'persecution' of Muslims is infinitesimal compared to the persecution by many governments of Muslim-majority nations against anyone who is not a Muslim......

What were we doing 'allied' with a nation that outlaws faiths other than Islam? (KSA) Or trying to make pals with a nation that oulaws, persecutes and murders a faith of pacfism (Iran: Baha'i and Ahamadiyya Muslims)?

Lest we forget, China has something like 56 'minority' cultures - and oppresses every last one of those, to a degree only approached in the US by the lynchings and mob actions in the South from the end of Reconstruction through to the 1960's........

 

[3.14]

American 'persecution' of Muslims is infinitesimal compared to the persecution by many governments of Muslim-majority nations against anyone who is not a Muslim......

What were we doing 'allied' with a nation that outlaws faiths other than Islam? (KSA) Or trying to make pals with a nation that oulaws, persecutes and murders a faith of pacfism (Iran: Baha'i and Ahamadiyya Muslims)?

Lest we forget, China has something like 56 'minority' cultures - and oppresses every last one of those, to a degree only approached in the US by the lynchings and mob actions in the South from the end of Reconstruction through to the 1960's........

So as long as there are countries that are much worse than us, we can find solace in the fact that our own religious tolerance and freedom is deteriorating? And are you suggesting that because Muslim governments tend to be oppressive, Islam is an immoral religion and deserves to face injustice in America? We can always find solace in that some countries will be worse than us, but we certainly aren't moving in the right direction-crimes have been committed against innocent Muslims! The Bill of Rights has been defied by the government (now I sound like a "bleeding heart", and people will tune me out..) ! Sure, not just Muslim-Americans, but also all Americans may have lost the guaranteed legal protection of the Constitution. Sure, we may have fallen from even our own standards, and the government now uses torture and other police state tactics in the shadows (wait, but they say there's justification!). But America will always be better than some terrible, very heavy-handed regimes. So we can assure ourselves that we haven't crossed a line, and that it's still a free country...


As for the lynching of ethnic minorities in China, I honestly do not know of such incidents, although I certainly am aware that the Chinese government is by no means liberal. Tell me more, and cite your sources. I presume that such incidents are clearly much worse than the systematic police crackdowns on antiwar protests and killings of protestors seen across the US in the 1960s and 1970s, or the harassment, bombing, and even murders of pro-Cuba activists by covertly US-backed terrorists. In history, both the United States and China have committed numerous repulsive and atrocious crimes, and no side can just be black or white, especially not with the meager evidence that we used. And while you may believe that you're helping your country by defending its actions, comparative thinking is simply delusionary.

 

[MHunterB]

Uighurs: Middle East Ignores China's Oppressed Muslims - TIME

A declaration of oppression | Wu'er Kaixi | Comment is free | The Guardian

National Minorities

 

[MHunterB]

Thanks for attempting to insert all your lovely words into my mouth - but there was no 'so....' in my post. I was discussing the actions of a couple of other nations where a lot more minorities have been killed - and by official government action - than any 'minority' in the US since before the '60's (remember it is 'government action').....

"Anti-war" protesters are not a minority: they are not seeking 'equal rights'. I wonder if you were ever at any of the rallies in the '60's or '70s..... I was.

More recently, the groups like 'International ANSWER' have actually had speakers and writers arguing in SUPPORT of the Chinese government's murder of protesters in Tianamen Square. That is one huge reason I do not trust those groups as being truly 'anti-war' OR dedicated to American democracy.

Yes, we DO need to remain vigilant in the US, and we need to prevent abuse of minorities of ALL ethnicities and religion. That is part of the basic duty of our government. I have no disagreement with you there.

I DO think that we should consider the human rights records of other nations when we are thinking of giving them trade concessions or making any alliances or treaties with them.

 

[3.14]

Thanks for attempting to insert all your lovely words into my mouth

"I don't like what you're saying! Your fancy vocabulary irritates me!"
Your response: Make groundless accusations of attempted indoctrination.

I was discussing the actions of a couple of other nations where a lot more minorities have been killed - and by official government action - than any 'minority' in the US since before the '60's (remember it is 'government action').....

Of course, the American government's actions may appear less heinous when compared to what some other nations have done. But does that make fear tactics and murder morally acceptable in any case? Such things are not meant to be ambiguous. Stop justifying crime when it's done by the US government! And if the government is really so great, then why are you even comparing it to terrible countries like China and Iran? That should be an unfair comparison, like comparing lasagna to garbage, right? Again, comparative thinking is simply delusionary.

"Anti-war" protesters are not a minority: they are not seeking 'equal rights'. I wonder if you were ever at any of the rallies in the '60's or '70s..... I was.

More recently, the groups like 'International ANSWER' have actually had speakers and writers arguing in SUPPORT of the Chinese government's murder of protesters in Tianamen Square. That is one huge reason I do not trust those groups as being truly 'anti-war' OR dedicated to American democracy.

Perhaps you thought that I was trying to follow your lead of mentioning oppressed minorities. Clearly, you are mistaken. I was not trying to copycat you; I was simply mentioning state persecution in America, minority or not. I knew that as the Vietnam War painfully dragged on, antiwar protestors grew to become a majority in America. Yet the government and police still slandered, harassed, beat, killed, and monitored antiwar protestors. And you have failed to address the heavy-handed mistreatment of pro-Cuba activists, and they too were a minority. So if our government is willing to persecute not just minorities such as people having certain political views and Muslims (I believe that forced registry, unjustified surveillance directed at Muslims, and psychological torture and possible attempted brainwashing constitutes persecution, although I agree that instances of persecution in numerous other countries are much worse) but will also oppress a majority if it sees it as necessary, then what does that say about the strength of "American democracy"?

In addition, I should say that just because some groups like International ANSWER supported both the anti-Vietnam War movement and China's crackdown on Tiananmen Square demonstrators does NOT mean that you can extrapolate this and imply that all antiwar protestors were like these hypocrites, OR that therefore, the peace activists of the 1960s and 1970s somehow deserved oppression, unlike the ethnic minorities that you mentioned (this is the only plausible reason for your mentioning of the "hypocrisy" of antiwar protestors).

I DO think that we should consider the human rights records of other nations when we are thinking of giving them trade concessions or making any alliances or treaties with them.

I do not deny the moral righteousness of such a policy, but the unfortunate fact of the matter is that American politicians would simply use morality as an excuse to impose trade restrictions on China while they not only allow trade, but also give billions of US aid dollars to Israel, a country that forces its settlements deeper into Palestine, a UN-recognized nation, blockades the Gaza Strip with the knowledge that it causes a choke-hold on the import of essential non-military goods, and whose soldiers occupying Palestine shoot and maim/kill Palestinians for reasons like standing too close to the border fence not sporadically or occasionally, but repeatedly (possibly meant to ease resistance and ensure compliance to Israeli actions with a fearful, militaristically despotic atmosphere)-in short, such a policy would only be applied when politicians want it to be applied. Also, the nations with poor human rights records will usually have undemocratic governments that their citizens cannot influence, and some of the countries that this policy would target would be bound to resist American influence, and then, their citizens would either suffer (example: North Korea), or we would have to make allowances regarding our human-rights policy. Additionally, this policy also requires closing doors on more nations then we'd expect, some of which are quite friendly with the US-for instance, Taiwan, which has rather flexible death penalty laws and has been known to torture confessions out of criminal suspects, and Indonesia for its forced relocation ("transmigration") policies, among numerous others-will this work against them, or will it work against us?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Thanks for attempting to insert all your lovely words into my mouth

"I don't like what you're saying! Your fancy vocabulary irritates me!"
Your response: Make groundless accusations of attempted indoctrination.

I was discussing the actions of a couple of other nations where a lot more minorities have been killed - and by official government action - than any 'minority' in the US since before the '60's (remember it is 'government action').....

Of course, the American government's actions may appear less heinous when compared to what some other nations have done. But does that make fear tactics and murder morally acceptable in any case? Such things are not meant to be ambiguous. Stop justifying crime when it's done by the US government! And if the government is really so great, then why are you even comparing it to terrible countries like China and Iran? That should be an unfair comparison, like comparing lasagna to garbage, right? Again, comparative thinking is simply delusionary.

"Anti-war" protesters are not a minority: they are not seeking 'equal rights'. I wonder if you were ever at any of the rallies in the '60's or '70s..... I was.

More recently, the groups like 'International ANSWER' have actually had speakers and writers arguing in SUPPORT of the Chinese government's murder of protesters in Tianamen Square. That is one huge reason I do not trust those groups as being truly 'anti-war' OR dedicated to American democracy.

Perhaps you thought that I was trying to follow your lead of mentioning oppressed minorities. Clearly, you are mistaken. I was not trying to copycat you; I was simply mentioning state persecution in America, minority or not. I knew that as the Vietnam War painfully dragged on, antiwar protestors grew to become a majority in America. Yet the government and police still slandered, harassed, beat, killed, and monitored antiwar protestors. And you have failed to address the heavy-handed mistreatment of pro-Cuba activists, and they too were a minority. So if our government is willing to persecute not just minorities such as people having certain political views and Muslims (I believe that forced registry, unjustified surveillance directed at Muslims, and psychological torture and possible attempted brainwashing constitutes persecution, although I agree that instances of persecution in numerous other countries are much worse) but will also oppress a majority if it sees it as necessary, then what does that say about the strength of "American democracy"?

In addition, I should say that just because some groups like International ANSWER supported both the anti-Vietnam War movement and China's crackdown on Tiananmen Square demonstrators does NOT mean that you can extrapolate this and imply that all antiwar protestors were like these hypocrites, OR that therefore, the peace activists of the 1960s and 1970s somehow deserved oppression, unlike the ethnic minorities that you mentioned (this is the only plausible reason for your mentioning of the "hypocrisy" of antiwar protestors).

I DO think that we should consider the human rights records of other nations when we are thinking of giving them trade concessions or making any alliances or treaties with them.

I do not deny the moral righteousness of such a policy, but the unfortunate fact of the matter is that American politicians would simply use morality as an excuse to impose trade restrictions on China while they not only allow trade, but also give billions of US aid dollars to Israel, a country that forces its settlements deeper into Palestine, a UN-recognized nation, blockades the Gaza Strip with the knowledge that it causes a choke-hold on the import of essential non-military goods, and whose soldiers occupying Palestine shoot and maim/kill Palestinians for reasons like standing too close to the border fence not sporadically or occasionally, but repeatedly (possibly meant to ease resistance and ensure compliance to Israeli actions with a fearful, militaristically despotic atmosphere)-in short, such a policy would only be applied when politicians want it to be applied. Also, the nations with poor human rights records will usually have undemocratic governments that their citizens cannot influence, and some of the countries that this policy would target would be bound to resist American influence, and then, their citizens would either suffer (example: North Korea), or we would have to make allowances regarding our human-rights policy. Additionally, this policy also requires closing doors on more nations then we'd expect, some of which are quite friendly with the US-for instance, Taiwan, which has rather flexible death penalty laws and has been known to torture confessions out of criminal suspects, and Indonesia for its forced relocation ("transmigration") policies, among numerous others-will this work against them, or will it work against us?

Who are you to bring into question the judgments of God and accuse Him? To call good evil and evil good! Do you not know that those who do such things are under a curse? Leave God to be Judge of his own people and His own Land and you go work out your own salvation with fear and trembling while there is breath within you to do it. I pray Gods mercy be over you for such ignorance! - Jeri

 

[Unkotare]

The borrower is servant to the lender and therein America is servant to China .

Um....NO.

 

[Unkotare]

I believe their land does not produce because they are under a curse.

So, how's the whole 'bat-shit crazy' thing working out for ya?

 

[Moonglow]

The borrower is servant to the lender and therein America is servant to China although I do believe the time is coming that they will demand far more. In fact, I believe it is at the door now.

One of the recent developments in China has been a shift in open and severe persecution of Christians over there. I believe they are behind the demand to begin it over here and soon we will see it openly. I saved an article someone wrote about it here and will have to find it but it ties in with what they do there they will demand to be done here.

I believe their land does not produce because they are under a curse.

You think that Christian persecution is bad now? Should have seen it during the Boxer rebellion or the Communists reign. Can't religions ever get a drift that they are not wanted in some nations?

 

[Unkotare]

It seems like the post-9/11 American government has turned against Muslims. .

No, it has not.

 

[Moonglow]

I believe their land does not produce because they are under a curse.

So, how's the whole 'bat-shit crazy' thing working out for ya?

They ate the bats.

 

[Unkotare]

I do not deny the moral righteousness of such a policy, but the unfortunate fact of the matter is that American politicians would simply use morality as an excuse to impose trade restrictions on China while they not only allow trade, but also give billions of US aid dollars to Israel, a country that forces its settlements deeper into Palestine, a UN-recognized nation, blockades the Gaza Strip with the knowledge that it causes a choke-hold on the import of essential non-military goods, and whose soldiers occupying Palestine shoot and maim/kill Palestinians for reasons like standing too close to the border fence not sporadically or occasionally, but repeatedly (possibly meant to ease resistance and ensure compliance to Israeli actions with a fearful, militaristically despotic atmosphere)-in short, such a policy would only be applied when politicians want it to be applied.

You're on the wrong thread, champ.

 

[bianco]

Obama admin seems to be more in love with Muslims than anyone else on the planet.

Obama seems to apologise to and appease the Muslim world at every opportunity.
His best friend in the whole world seems to be Indonesia.

 

[Unkotare]

Obama admin seems to be more in love with Muslims than anyone else on the planet.

Obama seems to apologise to and appease the Muslim world at every opportunity.
His best friend in the whole world seems to be Indonesia.

You seem very bitter about more important countries in your region. I don't blame you for having an inferiority complex.

 

[3.14]

Who are you to bring into question the judgments of God and accuse Him? To call good evil and evil good! Do you not know that those who do such things are under a curse? Leave God to be Judge of his own people and His own Land and you go work out your own salvation with fear and trembling while there is breath within you to do it. I pray Gods mercy be over you for such ignorance! - Jeri

Sorry, but frankly, this seems to be an emotional outburst, not even an attempt at legitimate argument. To say that I call "good evil and evil good" is an exaggeration made to legitimize your anger at my opinions. You have been very vague in your reply, and devised a simple generalized smear that reeks of ambiguousness instead of actually debating individual aspects of my post. And finally, who are you to speak for God and impose your political views on others? How can you say that God has cursed such a country that you dislike? What are "God's judgments" that I have questioned? Are they God's modern political opinions that you have so helpfully determined for Him? I believe that playing God is a sin in Christianity.

It seems like the post-9/11 American government has turned against Muslims...

No, it has not.

This matter is controversial, and is open for debate. However, notice my usage of the word "seems"-no matter what the government's intentions are, I find it unfair that injustices have been directed at normal Muslim Americans only for choosing to affiliate with a certain religion.

I do not deny the moral righteousness of such a policy, but the unfortunate fact of the matter is that American politicians would simply use morality as an excuse to impose trade restrictions on China while they not only allow trade, but also give billions of US aid dollars to Israel, a country that forces its settlements deeper into Palestine, a UN-recognized nation, blockades the Gaza Strip with the knowledge that it causes a choke-hold on the import of essential non-military goods, and whose soldiers occupying Palestine shoot and maim/kill Palestinians for reasons like standing too close to the border fence not sporadically or occasionally, but repeatedly (possibly meant to ease resistance and ensure compliance to Israeli actions with a fearful, militaristically despotic atmosphere)-in short, such a policy would only be applied when politicians want it to be applied.

You're on the wrong thread, champ.

At a glance, it appears to be. But I was providing an example to argue against MrHunterB's proposed policy. Perhaps I got a bit carried away, but you have to provide explanations whenever you discuss Israel, because it's so politically volatile.

Anyway, Unkotare, I appreciate your sense of fairness shown in your comments. It is a welcome sight on this message board.