But the Americans are such peaceful people....

'Chinese paper condemns Libya air strikes 2011-03-21 15:18 BEIJING - Chinese official newspaper People's Daily on Monday stepped up opposition to Western air attacks on Libya, accusing the United States and its allies of breaking international rules and courting new turmoil in the Middle East. The paper likened the assault on Libyan sites to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, and suggested it followed a pattern of Western overreaching in other countries' affairs. "The blood-soaked tempests that Iraq has undergone for eight years and the unspeakable suffering of its people are a mirror and a warning," said the commentary in the People's Daily. "The military attacks on Libya are, following on the Afghan and Iraq wars, the third time that some countries have launched armed action against sovereign countries," it said....' We all know that the Americans are such peace loving people. And they did all the invasions of Arab countries to maintain peace for the world. Their next target for war, oops, I mean for peace, is North Korea. Then there will be peace in Korea, like in Iraq, with many infrastructures flattened and many Koreans bite the dust. All for a good cause. Long live the peaceful American Empire. Yes, we believe America is a peace loving country. Not like China! So belligerent and aggressive, fighting wars everywhere! Where, where? Don't worry, the silly Asians and Africans will believe that America is the best thing that happens to them and to the peace loving people. In the meantime, Arabs, please don't complain. It is all for your own good and the good of the world.


Anonymous said...

Speaking from the deepest of my heart and most sincerely, me does hope that the US does its' international/global policing more seriously and intensely.

It appears to me that the US Leaderships have been piecemeal in doing it divine duty of ridding the World of devils and evils. And who else is more evil than those that do not respect democracy and human rights???

If the US is half-hearted in doing its' duty, me am afraid the American People may run out of patience with their leadership soon.

Come on Obama, do a better job, You can.


Matilah_Singapura said...

Ah, this has very little to do with anti-US sentiment and a whole lot to do with "editorialising" and calling it "news".

Most rational people oppose war, unless it is strictly limited to the defense of a country's people from foreign incursions.

However it is not the job of the media -- any media, not only China -- to "opinionate" on events. The job of the media is to remain OBJECTIVE, report THE FACTS as best they can and then leave individuals to make the judgement.

Once you pass news thru a philosophical or ideological lens, it is no longer "news".

Anonymous said...

Policing is one thing. What they are doing is beyond policing.

It's touted to be liberating the people of those countries from their evil regimes, for control of the oil, folks. Bomb the country back to the stone age for all they care, and let the people fight among themselves, while they quietly stake their claims to the oil, distributing the rights to cronies and poodles to exploit.

Plus the added bonus of further sale of weapons to the warring parties to kill each other.

Matilah_Singapura said...

I don't buy the "for the oil" argument in totality. Oil may be part of a whole range of "foreign polity" reasons from the US point of view.

But they are not the only players in the game -- the game is complex with what we can see and what remains hidden. Who is allied to who, where are the collusions and secret deals? You don't really know.

But let's say for argument that it is about the oil. Who stands to benefit the most?

The oil sheiks of course. Saudi Arabia is a good example. So was Iraq under Saddam -- when he was a US ally. Another good friend of America -- the old king who was thrown out. And the former king of Libya who was ousted by Gadaffi's coup in 1969. In addition, Saudi Arabia HATES Iran. They want Iran blown off the map and they would like nothing better than the US to do this "hatchet job" on Iran for them. And if it does happen, the Saudi's can fake a moan-job and come out smelling of roses.

Oil is highly politicised -- i.e. there are very many powerful people pursuing their "self interest" in the most diabolical ways.

The recent unrest and "police action" in the Middle East has sent the price of oil soaring.

Ask yourself: Who is benefitting from these higher prices?

1. The oil companies
2. The governments through their dometic taxes on oil
3. The Oil Sheiks

Anonymous said...

Author, in your perspective of local affairs, I quite wholeheartedly agree with you. Not on matters of foreign affairs though.

You seem anti-american on most things. But would you rather have China, India or Russia do the policing instead? You can be quite sure that China and India is equally keen on Libyan/Iraqi oil than but with America there, they cannot just send their human red-tide to get it.Whoever thinks that China is rising peacefully is seriously daft (Singaporean or otherwise).

Now on whether this policing should even be done. Sure, we can choose not to do so, but we would risk another Rwanda or another Kosovo. Would anyone want that?

Anonymous said...

To conclude, is America interested in the 1.6 bpd Libyan sweet crude. My answer is No. Is America interested in the idea of democracy so that they can POTENTIALLY invade another country to secure a larger oil source. YES.

BUT, is China and India interested in the same oil? You bet!
Pity all daft Singaporeans or otherwise.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Hi anon, please feel free to disagree with me. This is not a matter of right or wrong. It is a matter of opinion and subjectivity. America is just an extension and continuation of the colonial empires. You are either with them or against them.

America has been blowing its trumpet about democracy and human rights. It built its empire by trampling on democracy and human rights. The real interest of America is its own national interest and its empire. It is not a charitable old man dispensing money and justice to all. Its justice is cowboy justice. It has many records of supporting dictators and abuses of human rights.

As for China, it is a very defensive country. It is only aggressive as much as the west wanted to paint it to be. It was and still is the victim of western aggression and isolation.

Historically the Chinese empires were not expansionist up to its historical sphere of influence. The only Asian hordes that raided Europe were the Mongolians.

At the peak of the Ming Empire, Admiral Cheng Ho was sent to as far as Africa, for trade and peace. He did not conquer any country or laid claims to them. Only the aggressive and expansionist Europeans did such things.

You are right. The Asians are daft and believe what the West have been telling them, that China is an expansionist power. China is not an expansionist country. But it will reassert itself to reclaim the land it lost during the time when it was weak and nearly conquered hy the colonialists. The West will use this as evidence to denounce China as expansionist.

The little islands in the South China Seas were visited by Admiral Cheng Ho at a time when most of the Southeast Asian countries were not even countries. Now, with the backing and provocation of the West, they are claiming these islands as theirs.

I bet you, China will claim all of them one day. If it is gracious enough, it will try to work out an amicable compromise with the new countries. These island were visited and marked by the Chinese in their deep sea going fleet when the Southeast Asian countries were only at best rowing in little canoes. They will never have any idea that these islands existed.

The disputed border with India was created by the British lord at the peak of the British Empire. They simply redrawn the territories of China and India to their advantage. China will want to reclaim the land lost. It is only their natural right. So will be the islands like Diaoyutaia and a few others in the east. Don;t forget there is Mongolia, a part of China but seceded and carved out by Stalin from China.

China was a much bigger country than it is now but torn apart during its dark days by the imperialists and colonialists. Is China supposed to accept the present status quo forced upon it at gun point?

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Let me say a few good words about the US. There are still many medieval regimes around the world, some are brutal dictatorship, some called themselves kingdoms, fiefdoms, and abusing their citizens is a right of the privileged class.

In such areas, the American presence helped to hammer the light out of these abusers and dictators. Gaddafi, Saddam, and some others in Africa and the Middle East, maybe some in Latin America, need America to deal with them and bring freedom to the oppressed people.

Anonymous said...

First thing, an American empire. What empire? Hawaii and the Polynesian islands they won from the Spanish other than that I don’t see any other parts of the United States that should label them an empire. You can however consider China an empire considering they control Xinjiang and Tibet (culturally quite distinct populations). But no, I am not contesting that Xinjiang and Tibet do not belong to China, instead I believe they do.

Now to China regaining its lost territories. Yes, I have always despised the humiliation that gun-boat diplomacy brought to China and think that China should regain all its lost territories. But honestly I do not know if the act of sailing through an island makes it yours because if so, the Polynesian people probably can lay claim to all islands from India to Easter island south of Taiwan (should read Jared Diamond’s Collapse for a history of this). And yes, they rowed using their “little canoes” just like the Vikings raided all of Northern Europe in their little longboats.

China would be expansionist up to its historical sphere of influence. Well Qin united the northern and central plains, Han expanded that to include Gansu and southern China. Tang expanded that to include Xinjiang (silk road), then Yuan dynasty (assume Chinese) expanded that to Tibet, and Qianlong (assume chinese again) brought China to its greatest height HISTORICALLY. Each dynasty built on another, how do you know that the Chinese will stop at its historical sphere of influence?

Anonymous said...

Okay so hopefully we now both agree that historically China is not as “peaceful” as one might think. But honestly I can’t imagine any country giving up its land “amicably”. Hypothetically lets give the whole south china sea to China, parts of India to China, Mongolia to China. Now, how about North Vietnam to them too, how about revoking all treaties signed from the treaty of Nerchinsk and claim Vladivostok, lets give Okinawa to them since Okinawa used to pay tribute to Ming China and the most important prize, Korea to them as well. Yes, I distinctly remembered that some Chinese textbooks are claiming that North Korea (Goguryeo) belongs to China historically.

Wait, you will say that China would not occupy Okinawa and Korea, well just like America is not occupying Iraq or Libya. They just install puppet regimes that the Chinese would similarly do (see Kim Jong Ill). Historically, this was what the Chinese emperor do which is to install regimes loyal to them and send in troops should the gold stop coming. Yellow gold is now simply replaced by black gold.

America when touting its democracy and human rights to invade is just an act, everyone not daft knows that. Which nation does not act for its self-interest? What I am trying to say is lets not be too skeptical of the Americans, like you say, they did good before but on matters of American national security, lets give them a break because I am sure China when the time of pax Cathay arrives, will show little mercy.

It will be a whole new world order in 50 years time that I can only hope will not be painted red.

Communist red and blood red.

Pity the stupid Singaporean. This is just my sign-off and the above is like you said, just a differing opinion.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Hi Anon, glad that we have differing views. I still disagree with your contention that China is not a peaceful country in the sense that it wages war with other countries. Yes China fought a lot of wars among its own rival tribes, within China. And it exerts its influence, historically only to its historical field of influence. Outside it is trade and goodwill.

On record, since China reunited itself as a republic in 1949, it fought 3 wars that were brought to its borders. And on record, the wars were precipated by the enemies, the Korean War of 1950s, the Sino India border war in the 1960s and the border war with Vietnam in 1979.

Look at the records of the peaceful Americans in the same period. Korean War, Vietnam War, Middle Eastern Wars, European Wars, Indo Pakistan Wars, secret Latin American wars, and mind you, all started by the Americans. And the Americans are still at wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, now Libya, and threatening to start wars in Korea and Iran.

Shall I go on about the peaceful Americans?

The current Chinese rulers are law abiding and treaty abiding people. They could have taken HongKong and Macau back much earlier, but they let the treaties to run out. They could have taken Taiwan back by force but chose not to. They could have taken Diaoyutai and a few other islands back from Japan and Japan could do nothing about it. But they chose not to. So were the lands taken away from China by Russia, Mongolia and the Indian China border.

The Chinese leaders are not as foolish or ambitious as you put it to want all the territories be returned to them since time immemorial. There are some realities that no longer can be reverted to the days of the past.

The Chinese believe in peaceful co existence and negotiation, not by the sheer use of force like the Americans unless they are forced into a corner.

The western propaganda to brainwash the world of how peaceful and benevolent the Americans were and how expansionist and aggressive the Chinese were is contradicted by the evidence of modern and current events.

Countries survived and some prospered under the Americans as long as they are willing to accept their status as semi colonies, and the South Koreans, Japanese and several Middle Eastern countries are there as proof. Once the American troops are in the semi colony's land, they will not get out unless evicted like in Vietnam.

Compare to what the Chinese are doing and where their troops are occupying and the wars they are conducting, the truth is clearer than the clear blue sky.

But many chose not to see the truth and would want to continue to believe the Western lie. Some leaders pander to the American lies for favours and hoping that the Americans will leave them alone, for good practical and strategic reasons.

The Empire will call the shot. See how trigger happy they were in Iraq and now Libya?

Anonymous said...

If it was China attacking Iraq or Libya or any other country, imagine how the western media will be screaming...aggression, hostile China, expansionist China, blah blah blah.

Matilah_Singapura said...


You neglect the history of western culture.

Amrica was formed when European people were fed up of the many faceted wars which were constantly being fought in europe: wars based on religious and sectarian differences, political ideology, cultural differences, territorial ownership disputes, and the good old jollies of large scale "gentlemen games" played between and amongst the myriad of monarchs and feudal lords.

For about 100 years after the amricans shrugged of the yoke of their colonial master, The British King, they prospered in peace and were the beacon of a social experiment to this day untried by any other sovereign power -- a system based on the primacy of the individual and his freedom to "pursue happiness".

The "new America" was of the late 1700's to the 1800's America adopted (more or less) an isolationist stance, until the idea of "foreign policy" came in and corrupted the political thinking.

Alas, since then America has fallen into thsame trap and is travelling the same path of the European tyrants and imperialists that were their forebears.

Although our species is a warlike species, the European theatre of war was very different from Asia, Africa or the Middle East. The Europeans never trusted each other. Every country has more or less fought with every other country -- English and Spanish, Normas and Saxons, French and Russians, Slavs and Slavs, Flemish and Germans...fucking hell...they were constantly fighting -- in large campaigns with more awesome weapons tha the rest of the world who confined their skirmishes to small countries and tribal skirmishes.

Lest you forget: Europe has been the threatre and the cause of TWO WORLD WARS. In WW2, they managed to rope in the Asians into their bloody campaigns.


Anonymous said...

The fights(wars) within the Europeans themselves were no different from the international/civil wars fought in China throughout history. Such fights/wars happened and is happening anywhere anytime, the Middle East is in such a state now. So based on empirical experience, it is normal and so normal that it almost borders natural.

Many claimed that the involvement of the Americans in Middle East is because of oil. Me accepts that it is a part of the reason, however me believes that the MEAN REASON lies in the CONTINUATION of the Historical CRUSADE/JIHAD WAR/STRUGGLE.


Anonymous said...

'....were no different from the international/civil wars fought in China throughout history'.

Apology for a mistake in the Above.

It should be 'internal' instead of 'international'.


Matilah_Singapura said...

A big, big difference is that there was no centralised "official" religion in China. Warfare increased in Europe after the Roman Empire went Christian. After that it was centuries of mayhem "in the name of god": Christians vs Muslims, Christians vs Christians, everyone and his dog vs Jews.

One feature of Abrahamic religious dogma is that the bullshit "holy book" those religions are based on can be easily interpreted to justify conquest for the sake of empire. Fundamentalists from Zion, to Arabia to the USA all hold the line for "killing in the name of a just god".

This is no surprise: Abrahamic religions were founded on killing in the name of god -- this "god" spoke to a man and commanded him to show his "love" by killing his son -- without question. Although the story says he didn't because "god" intervened at the last moment, this is still a horrible basis for an ideology. I hope they kill off each other -- and leave me the fuck alone! (wishful thinking!!!)

Once China was "united" virtually all squabbles were contained internally -- and to be sure, there were many.

Anonymous said...

Mao Ze Dong and the other Communist Regimes knew/know how Religions will mired their nations in chaos and therefore have to be removed or made impotent.