Since the west love to bash China lets draw a comparison between what happened in the Iraq war and the Great Leap Forward in China. The West blames Chairman Mao for what happened in the Great Leap Forward, they say Mao killed millions of Chinese because of his incompetence and failed policies in GLF, hence the blame and responsibility lies squarely on Mao's shoulders. Now, its important to note that Mao was NOT directly involved in these deaths ie. he gave NO orders to kill the millions of peasants, however his INCOMPETENCE AND FAILED POLICIES is what INDIRECTLY led to the deaths of those Chinese people! So was Mao to blame for the deaths in GLF? Now, lets look at what happened in the Iraq war, firstly lets leave aside the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians killed in the actual invasion and concentrate on the aftermath of the war. The US govt was repeatedly warned prior to the start of the war by knowledgeable people with experience in the region that there were glaring sectarian factions among the Iraqi population, which if not managed properly in the post war period could lead to a massive death toll of civilians. The US administration ignored these warnings and went ahead with the war and invasion of Iraq. They destroyed and dismantled the Iraqi army and police, essentially the whole security apparatus in the country which led to massive carnage and terrible sectarian bloodletting from the Sunni and Shiite communities , and some of it were exploited by outside terrorist groups like Al Qeada. The US govt also wanted to fight the war "on the cheap" the US did NOT send enough soldiers to maintain law and order and peace inside the country. People in the US govt like Donald Rumsfeld proposed sending a "minimum" amount of troops to fight the war and maintain Iraq. I think the number of the US troops sent were something like approx between 150,000 and 180,000, while in realty the US needed to send THREE TIMES that amount to actually stand any chance of properly maintaining law and order in Iraq. So whose to blame for what happened in Iraq?? Like Mao, the US govt may not have been directly involved in many of deaths of Iraqis in the post war period, but like Mao, the US govt's INCOMPETENCE AND FAILED POLICIES in the aftermath of the Iraq war indirectly led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi people!! yes, you can argue that more people may had died in GLF (don't forget some estimates put the civilian deaths in Iraq at over one million!) but the fundamental principal remains the same. So like Mao, isn't the US govt to blame for the deaths of innocent Iraqis?? Another question is, why is one excusable and the other is reprehensible to west??
"Since the west love to bash China lets draw a comparison..." LOL... No, Let's NOT... The above is a classic use of an Ad Hominem Tu Quoque argument, which is explained as: In a rush? For a quick synopsis, just read the red highlighted lines. But, if one were really serious about reviewing Mao's legacy and what he did for and to the Chinese people, just a simple look at the literature, written by Chinese; finds ample documentation of just what kind of leader and man Mao was. So is this then to be labeled China Bashing? Chinese nationalists' fail to realize that, by their own inability or unwillingness to realistically critique their leaders, they themselves become the primary cause of continued flawed China leadership. The only victim here again, would be the Chinese people. The above are examples of books that I have personally read. I wonder how much literature on China some of these other purported China lovers have in their own personal libraries? So read for yourself, from independent publications written by Chinese authors, of the real Mao. He probably single-handedly caused the deaths of more Chinese people than any other man in history and then tried to foist the blame on others. Contrary to the disbelief of Chinese nationalists, he did it all without any western help. To me, that makes... Mao, the greatest China Basher of all time.
lol there is always two side to a story. i can easily pull out much much more evidences that mao is a good leader than you have pull out but im not going to do it coz i dont have the time and have no interest in arguing.
LOL, dude its called "making a comparison" or "drawing a parallel" understand? If you ever watch current affairs programs or political discussions shows you will notice people using them in their debates quite frequently!! lol So please stop whining and debate like a adult!! LoL Firstly dude all your sources are linked to books at Amazon LOL And regarding your primary source of Jung Chang and Halliday's book "Mao The Unknown Story", well their book have been widely crictcise for inaccuracy!! lol Heres a couple of links from western press about this: From the Sidney Morning Herald: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/a-swans-little-book-of-ire/2005/10/07/1128563003642.html excerpt But many people agree with Thomas Bernstein, of Columbia University in New York, that "the book is a major disaster for the contemporary China field .Because of its stupendous research apparatus, its claims will be accepted widely," he said this week. "Yet their scholarship is put at the service of thoroughly destroying Mao's reputation. The result is an equally stupendous number of quotations out of context, distortion of facts and omission of much of what makes Mao a complex, contradictory, and multi-sided leader." As well as factual errors and dubious use of sources - which even favourable reviewers such as Princeton's Perry Link (an editor of The Tiananmen Papers) have felt compelled to cricticise, many scholars point out that much of what Chang and Halliday present as a previously "unknown story" had in fact been exposed long ago. But no credit is given to earlier writers. From The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/dec/04/china.books excerpt But now the authors find themselves in a bitter battle with some of the world's leading China experts, who have united to unleash a barrage of criticism of the book in general, and, in particular, of its sourcing - the subject of a ten-point reply from the authors in the forthcoming edition of the London Review of Books. And dude I'm not a big fan of Mao, although I do recognize some of the positive things he had done like uniting the country together, fighting against foreign imperialism and getting rid of the cruel fudal class system in China etc. He did undo all this by the disastrous mistakes like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution etc
Well, you see that wasn't so hard was it? You're finally talking about Mao vis a vis Mao and not Mao via Bush. If I were debating the pros and con about the American presidency, would comparing what an American leader did, to misdeeds of one foreign country to another, really be a fair critique; say, American leadership compared to what happened in Tibet vis a vis China? Most people would consider the comparison unrelated and moot. Like the historic Qin's bloody uniting of China; there were obviously some silver linings to having a singular system (like wheel base widths and measure of scale), but does that mean that we should wholeheartedly support bloody conquests and ruthless suppression of a populace as a proper method of national unification? While some admire the Legalist period for its regimentation, I certainly don't regard it as all that good. So linking to Amazon is a crime now? I use those links to provide examples of the books. Do you mean to say any books listed on Amazon are of less scholarly status than other sources? That's rather narrow and I don't agree with that view. Further, allow me to expound on the preamble of your quoted first excerpt: "...Few are disputing that the subject, the late Chinese Communist Party chairman Mao Zedong, was a monster as a human being and a leader who put his country through hell. Or that the book, written by Chang and her British historian husband, Jon Halliday, who live in great comfort in London's plush Notting Hill on the proceeds of Wild Swans, is powerful and destined to be highly influential. But many people agree with Thomas Bernstein, of Columbia University in New York, that "the book is a major disaster for the contemporary China field..." And this from article of your second excerpt: "...There are elements in the story on which there is general agreement. Nor do the book's critics deny that Mao was a monster..." While I agree that the overall tone of the The Unknown Story was unnecessarily strident and loose with some facts, the general body of the work seemed plainly dead on in terms of Mao's self serving character. If you really want to compare and contrast, maybe you should consider Amin of Uganda or Sar of Democratic Kampuchea; both like Mao, killed a substantial amount of their own countrymen in their bid for political advantage under the guise of national advancement. I know that comparing Mao to the US military adventurism in Iraq appeals to many Chinese nationalists simply because the US position is wholly indefensible. It was national folly wrought by one party similar to what extremist Japanese did in their political process antecedent to their initiation of the Showa war. So, I certainly know and recognize what a comparison argument is; your's wasn't. To start a discussion with "Since the west love to bash China (by your tone, the preceding was stated as a matter already established as solid fact) lets draw a comparison between what happened in the Iraq war and the Great Leap Forward in China..." distinctly has the air of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque rather than any real comparison of the failed national leadership that Mao has been historically charged with. So it seems to me at the least that you're attempting to defend Mao by comparing his failures to examples of US failures in leadership. But what US leader's policy mistakes starved millions of Americans, ie, his own people? If you find one then please, by all means, compare him to Mao. Recalling Mao as the ruthless opportunist that he was, is reading and recognizing history. You may narrowly consider it to be China Bashing. I certainly don't. Otherwise, your anti-west and persistently anti-American comments is just as guilty of America Bashing. My opinion of Mao remains as is; he was one of the worst leaders that China ever had, and millions of Chinese died for his political avarice. As for your histrionics to debate like an adult? No, I would rather debate like an intellectual because some "adults" here can argue as immaturely as children. LOL indeed, allow me to remind you of who I'm dealing with here:
People like you love to point at the faults of others, but cry and protests when your own faults are revealed!! lol Look, if the USA is so righteous and moral compared to bad commie China, why would a few comparisons bother you?? Wouldn't these comparison hightlight how morally superior the USA is to commie China?? LOL Dude, nearly all the countries in existence today in the world is the result of bloody wars and conquests!! So please read some history books! Dude theres nothing wrong with linking your sources to Amazon, except nobody can verify what you have stated is the truth without READING THE BOOKS FIRST understand? lol Dude show me where in this thread I have defended Mao's mistakes and crimes?? So using your logic, if I was to use the USA's failed policies in Iraq as a comparison to Mao's failed policies in the Great Leap Forward, I am DEFENDING THE USA POLICIES IN IRAQ?? LOL Geeze what a joke But a US leader did starved and killed millions of true Americans!! And the few true native Americans that are alive today are forced to live in reservations!!
I never stated that the USA is righteous or moral. In fact it probably has a heck of a lot to answer for. I don't know why you feel you must always compare China to the US, especially in a China forum. Do you mean that China's existence can only be judged against a standard as set forth by the US? It isn't that the US is morally superior, but many Chinese nationalists somehow feel morally inferior, and they force themselves to seek out examples of US moral repugnance to make themselves feel better. Since you seem to fall into that school of thought perhaps you can explain why that is. You may think I'm here to defend the US. Far from it. I'm here to talk about China, it's people, it's problems and what can or should be done to better the situation for Chinese. Hint: not all Chinese problems are US related. I know that the absurd dichotomy of the two statements above somehow makes perfect sense to you. I won't even bother to try to understand your self opposing rationale. I already did. Your OP is otherwise known as an Ad Hominem Tu Quoque argument. No, using my logic, you were defending Mao's failed policies in the GLF by an illogical comparison to the failed USA policies in Iraq, using a red herring tactic known as Ad Hominem Tu Quoque Yes, it was, and it's getting more stale by the minute. No matter how many ways you try to tell it, the punchline is still Ad Hominem Tu Quoque Oh? What US leader was that? And if you're talking about the US subjugation of native American sovereign nations, and the subsuming of their lands and resources; it would be more comparable to Mao's military force occupation and subjugation of Tibet, and certainly not of the GLF. Further, the rapid decline in indigenous American population had more to do with their immunologic inability to cope with the introduction of European and African diseases, rather than directed US government policy (which by all means, was of no help to the natives either). As for the Native American Reservations; you're mistaken. No native American is "forced" to live there. The reservations are now areas that are used to preserve tribal lands from further encroachment and to protect the interests of indigenous tribal descendants. They are rather like a state within a state. While still subject to federal laws, most civil and criminal misdemeanor remains under the purview and adjudication of tribal law. This is similar to the legal system that was used in the New Territories of Hong Kong when it was still under the British Crown. Crown law dealt with most criminal cases, while civil complaints (rights of property, succession, marriage ties, et cetera, remained under the rule of each individual village clan law or tradition). Alternatively, it is akin to the Special Administrative Regions of the PRC; whereas the PRC at large will govern overall, the SAR each has their own laws and legislation. Again, no native American is now required to live on any reservation. Since reservations are not subjected to state gambling laws, many have taken to opening lucrative casinos and becoming gambling meccas in otherwise no gaming states. Perhaps if you were to follow your own advice and actually read a few more history books (like you're so eager to tell me to, but don't seem to have any personal scholarly ambition or stomach for), your appreciation of the world would broaden beyond your presently narrow and presumptuously mistaken views.
morally inferior?... i find that kinda insulting... u can't talk about morals or ethics w/o comparisons... if you take the world today and had to choose two countries of eastern principles vs western principles... many if not all would generally choose China and the US... or Japan and the US... i don't see why it's an issue with the comparison... furthermore, judging what's moral or ethical requires one to compare anyways... so even if you state that you just want to talk about China, you always will have a background of reference... I believe I've made this same argument before, you are biased Ralph... just like I am, and just like the OP... also even if this thread is off topic, and even if the OP is just being a dick and trying to make his case via a cheap shot... fact still remains, you're arguing him back by not answering his initial questions to begin with... so, regardless of whether this topic is off-topic... is the US in fact fcking up in Iraq, and why is it not receiving as much criticism as Mao's atrocious deeds? o and why is it only considered an ego boost when the Chinese "win" an ethics/moral debate, and a valid truth or accepted ethic/moral when a non nationalist "wins"? that pretty much pissed me right off...
I seriously differ with you on that, Aoes; why is the fact that the US FU in Iraq is NOT (?) receiving as much attention ? Excuse me, but the daily press is replete with accounts of US involvement in Iraq and just about every article talks to some degree about failures or things yet left to (the Iraqis to) be done. I've read continuing volumes about not just the US prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, but the demand for release under the freedom of info act of the remainder of the photos. I've seen documentary movies such as Standard Operating Procedures , and read the repeated complaints of the scant prosecution of the involved chain of command (only limited to low level soldiers), and the call for disbarment of Justice department lawyers who narrowly interpreted the law to allow torture... This was just on the problems of Abu Ghraib... alone. Other serious issues of diversion of funds, reckless cowboy tactics of US hired civilian security firms, the abuse of average Iraqis (to include rape and murder), the lack of accountability of US military arms and munitions, the abhorrent treatment of wounded combat veterans; should I go on? Just about everything I see in the news related to Iraq today details some US government snafu (and I'm sure you know the pedigree of the word). The sheer volume of bad news is staggering. I don't see how you can even suggest that there is more negative criticism about Mao by comparison. Secondly, do we need to import all that US related news into a China forum? If that's the way people want it, then let's turn this into a China AND US forum, and I'll be happy to discuss all the dirt bag shit that I feel about the US, the republican party, and corporate greed; personalities likes Cheney, Limbaugh, Palin, and how the US oil industry with the Saudis bought out America. We can talk about the US homeless, industrial pollution, how Obama is now reneging on closure of Guantanamo, and how the bail out dollars are being squandered left and right. My point is, comparisons are fine, but moot comparisons are just a waste of time and decidedly off topic. Again, if the OP wanted to compare Mao's policy direction of attempted national advancement and its results of inducing famine that killed millions, to other national leaders in history with similar policy mistakes that killed substantial numbers of its own people (I even gave him some examples) then I'm all ears. But to compare the GLF to ANY US failure (especially an overseas war) is, like you already characterized, a cheap shot. Thus, should I devote effort and time to debating seriously the details of someone's cheap shot attempt? I hardly think so. The emperor's new clothes is just that, nothing at all even worth discussing. As for your assessment of my characterization of the Chinese nationalist "...feeling morally inferior" as insulting? I don't think so. Nationalists typically feel the need to avoid truths that they feel can tarnish their groups reputation. Similar to a person who ruthlessly won't admit to any faults, they do this out of an emotional need; if they admitted to such faults, they feel less about themselves. That is, they have feelings of inferiority. In this case, Chinese nationalists don't want to admit to any mistakes in PRC history, politics, and current events because it tarnishes the image of what they feel that China should be in the eyes of the world. This is especially so in the realm of morality. So, do Chinese nationalists feel morally inferior? Yes. Just like most nationalists regardless of who that root for. Its a political illness. So, am I insulting the Chinese nationalists? No. Their moral inferiority complex is an insult of their own making. Being biased if fine. Like you already agreed, we all have our biases, but I can readily accept the fact that you disagree with me without disparaging your person. The thing I find here is, that some people here don't want to ever discuss China's problems. This is after all, a China Forum, not a China Love Forum. China is what it is, warts and all. We here (presumably mostly Chinese of some kind) should be able to openly discuss the problems that affects our people. However some don't seem to be mature enough to do that. Personally, I wonder if Chinese people in China do the same thing; that is, call each other "White Ass Kisser" for not following the party line?
Dude, like I said to you before, people make comparisons all the time, whether its about military, politics, current affairs, fashion, food and drink, girlfriends etc the list is endless ITS NOT A NEW CONCEPT!! So stop whining! LOL Dude you can talk about China as much as you want, thats your prerogative!! Just like I can talk about a comparision with what happened in the Iraq war and GLF in China or perhaps tomorrow I may compare a event between China and Germany or Singapore or Narnia etc.!! Understand? lol Yawwnnn, only neanderthals who walks around dragging their knuckles on the ground would find your statements intellectually stimulating!! lol And your OP is known as IVe LostaDebate WantToWhine argument. LOL Like I said, your red herring tactic is known as "IVe LostaDebate WantToWhine" LOL Oh look who is making comparisons now? tsk tsk LOL Damn, your right, I so stupid!! All those native Indian deaths died of diseases!! The white settlers didn't wanted any land in the New World, It was those nasty Indians fault for making the land so rich and fertile for crops that the white settlers were forced to set up farms!! And every time a Indian was shot dead by a white settler it was the nasty Indian's fault for standing in the way of the bullet!! and all those books and sources on the internet are all wrong!! Whilst a nerd on the internet who calls himself "ralphrepo" is COMPLETELY RIGHT!! LOL And dude the reason I said the native American Indians are "Forced" to live in reservations, is because these reservations is whats left of their ANCESTRAL LAND (most of it have been stolen) and its their most important connection and identity to their past and culture. So when I said "forced" I did not mean they were compelled by law, instead I meant they were compelled to clung on to whats left of their ancestral land for cultural and historic reasons, understand?? Saids the frog in the well LOL
I feel true. But the difference lies in the fact that the US did not tried to hide things in the war, and actually spent billions and shed blood trying to stop it. Mao was more concerned with hiding his mistakes.
Firstly, thanks for your honestly. Are you sure the US govt didn't try to hide certain aspects of the war in Iraq?? The US govt imposed certain media restrictions during the invasion of Iraq. The press and media did not have the freedom to report on what they wanted. The US govt also imposed news blackouts in certain events like the retaking of the city of Fallujah, where the entire city was turned into rubble and leveled to the ground!! Also the blanket ban of any pictures of dead or injured US soldiers returning back to the US from Iraq or Afghanistan! The US govt even made sure the planes that were taking the dead or injured US soldiers back home retured in the MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT away from prying eyes and cameras this was the ridiculous extent the US govt tried to hide the sight and spectacle of these "fallen" US soldiers from the public. The ban on these pictures have only been lifted recently, which rather convienently coincides with most of the US military leaving Iraq!! Also why did the US govt not keep a official count of the civilian casualties in Iraq?? However yes I do agree that a democratic country has more media freedom than a communist country, hence thats why I said that China needs to change throughout my posts.
