JimO: "Chinese space advances benefit everyone"

Scott Lowther wrote:
John Savard wrote:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:10:48 GMT, (Christopher)
wrote, in part:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:24:43 GMT, lid
(John Savard) wrote:

Under democratic rule, the Chinese people would be America's friends.

France is a demoracy, yet is France one of 'America's friends'?

They gave America the Statue of Liberty!



And America gave the French liberation from the Nazis. Which is more
important?

American liberation from the Nazis doesn't disprove French-American
friendship, which seemed to be what Savard was arguing the existence of.

Am not sure what argument you're trying to rebut.

--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 04:46:46 GMT, lid
(John Savard) wrote:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:07:16 GMT, (Christopher)
wrote, in part:

One away day in space
and China is now public enemy one in the American administration mind
set, it seems were back to the same mind set as it was on 1 October
1958.

I wasn't aware that George Bush was voicing any sentiments similar to
mine. I would rather have expected him to be extending warm
congratulations to China. Which are also appropriate on such an
occasion; this is an achievement. I am only not entirely happy about
it because I saw China as a problem before it happened.

That may be so but the first reaction form the American administration
shows nothing much has changed since 1958.



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

Dimitri Vertikov wrote:

Scott Lowther wrote:
France is a demoracy, yet is France one of 'America's friends'?

They gave America the Statue of Liberty!

And America gave the French liberation from the Nazis. Which is more
important?

Americans tend to conveniently forget that only 2 countries gave the USA
concrete intelligence with regards to 9-11 itself. France and Syria.

But once the USA ran out of "9-11" stories and felt it needed another
evil-doer...

Blah, blah, blah. Adjust your tinfoil hat, skippy.


--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

In article , Rand Simberg wrote:
On 18 Oct 2003 07:23:08 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(B. Isaksen) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


Like Bush said: "Eigther you are with us, or against us".

Bush didn't say that.

When you correct the typo, and reparse it slightly (from "Either you
are" to "You're either", which doesn't AIUI impart any change to the
meaning), he did. Or, at least, he was certainly reported as doing.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0011106-4.html

[press conference w. Chirac that morning]

: Q****Mr. President, you said this morning that you wanted more than
: sympathy or words from other countries.**What nations were you
: specifically talking about, and what do you want from them?
:
: PRESIDENT BUSH: (...) But over time, it's going to be important for
: nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity.*You are
: either with us or you are against us in the fight against terror.*And
: that's going to be part of my speech [on November 10th -ag] at the
: United Nations.

He may not have said "The war is over", but he certainly said this one.

--
-Andrew Gray

And America gave the French liberation from the Nazis. Which is more
important?

However, they seem to hate us for it, because we didn't join the fight before
they fell. That we couldn't have made a difference in time doesn't seem to
matter.


Errrmmm... the US didn't "outgrow" slavery. We fought a very big war
over it.


That's hardly something to be proud of. Every other country in the New World
got rid of slavery in a peaceable manner (and all but one before we did).

spared the unpleasantness
of World War II.

Yes, but... we might have gotten to experience the magic of Soviet
domination. Had the Nazis been driven out of power early, the Communists
in Germany would have been in a stronger position to take over.

No way; the US would have armed up against Soviet Germany the way it did
against Hitler. It feared communism long *before* it feared Hitler. Whether
it could have saved Europe from the reds is another matter.

And of
course the Soviet Union wouldn't have been stomped flat by the Luftwaffe
and Wermacht.

Hmmm...wasn't it the Soviets that ultimately did the stomping?

(Christopher) wrote in
:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 04:46:46 GMT, lid
(John Savard) wrote:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:07:16 GMT, (Christopher)
wrote, in part:

One away day in space
and China is now public enemy one in the American administration mind
set, it seems were back to the same mind set as it was on 1 October
1958.

I wasn't aware that George Bush was voicing any sentiments similar to
mine. I would rather have expected him to be extending warm
congratulations to China. Which are also appropriate on such an
occasion; this is an achievement. I am only not entirely happy about
it because I saw China as a problem before it happened.

That may be so but the first reaction form the American administration
shows nothing much has changed since 1958.

Really?

What *was* the first reaction to Shenzhou 5 from the American
administration?

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 01:20:11 -0400, (Tao Tong)
wrote:

In article ,
(John Savard) wrote:

If China were weak and helpless, Tibet would have been liberated long
ago. Therefore, for China not to be weak and helpless is bad, because
China's not being weak and helpless is contributing to innocent people
getting hurt.

Where is the flaw in that logic?

How about the Basques? Spain being should hurts them.

Are you comparing the situation of Tibet with that of the
Basque Country? Uh, oh, your ignorance is showing here.

Greetings.
--
Jose M. Arnesto

(Christopher) wrote in
:

On 19 Oct 2003 04:36:52 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

(Christopher) wrote in
:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 04:46:46 GMT, lid
(John Savard) wrote:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:07:16 GMT, (Christopher)
wrote, in part:

One away day in space
and China is now public enemy one in the American administration mind
set, it seems were back to the same mind set as it was on 1 October
1958.

I wasn't aware that George Bush was voicing any sentiments similar to
mine. I would rather have expected him to be extending warm
congratulations to China. Which are also appropriate on such an
occasion; this is an achievement. I am only not entirely happy about
it because I saw China as a problem before it happened.

That may be so but the first reaction form the American administration
shows nothing much has changed since 1958.

Really?

What *was* the first reaction to Shenzhou 5 from the American
administration?

Well on the BBC news, a talking head in the administration popped up
and said bla bla bla then 'it's a threat to National Security'.

Wrong. This was the first reaction from the administration:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003...333_china.html

"This launch is an important achievement in the history of human
exploration. China, after Russia and the United States, is only the third
nation to successfully launch humans into space.

"The Chinese people have a long and distinguished history of exploration.
NASA wishes China a continued safe human space flight program."

(and if you wish to contend that Sean O'Keefe is not a member of the
administration, think again.)

This was the first public statement by Bush himself, and directly
contradicts whatever official you quoted above:

http://www.spacedaily.com/2003/03101....hjzi9nyf.html

"No, it's an interesting development," he told Channel News Asia in an
exchange taped earlier this week in Washington. "I don't necessarily see it
as a threat."

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

lid (John Savard) wrote in
:

China is not a democracy.

It doesn't have a free press or free elections.

FYI, China has never been a democray.

Family relationships in China are not democratic. Relationships between
people in China are not democratic. The Chinese view relationships as
dominate and subordinate.

In short, the Chinese mentality is not very democractic.

A country does not necessarily need to be democratic to be successful.
--
Lucas Tam )
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/

lid (John Savard) wrote in
:

What most saddens me about this is that it will delude many young
Chinese further into primitive nationalism and uncritical support of
their regime. That will delay the day when China wakes up and realizes
it has taken a wrong turn.

Primitive Nationalism?

Canada and the United States often resort to "primitive nationalism" to
support their causes as well.

Look at Bush and Post 9/11...

Even in Canada, nationalism is pushed from time to time, except we're too
passive to care.

--
Lucas Tam )
Please delete "REMOVE" from the e-mail address when replying.
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/coolspot18/