Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Sun Apr 20, 2014 3:44 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 4:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17032
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
I have to keep this going. Otherwise I'll miss out on communication from my dear friend Ian. :lol:

But seriously...

Before I say a lot, I want to post this article from today's Wall Street Journal. I will highlight a few parts of the article which reflect the essence of my concern.

- Bill

Quote:
JULY 5, 2010, 11:21 A.M. ET

China Sentences American Geologist

By JAMES T. AREDDY

SHANGHAI—Spurning a personal appeal from U.S. President Barack Obama, a Chinese court on Monday sentenced an American geologist to eight years in prison for trying to buy data about the Chinese oil industry, a heavy penalty that legal experts said is a warning to foreign businesses and a rebuke to Washington.

The Beijing Number One Intermediate People's Court fined 44-year-old Xue Feng 200,000 yuan, or about $29,850, in addition to the prison sentence, on charges of attempting to obtain and traffic in state secrets.

Image
David Rowley/Associated Press
In this file photo released by David Rowley, taken Dec.
7, 1993 and made available Thursday, Nov. 19, 2009,
Xue Feng posed for photos in Yuexi, Anhui province, China.


Tong Wei, Mr. Xue's lawyer, called the sentence—coming a year after the conviction—"harsh" and said few details of the allegations against Mr. Xue were made public. He said options for a possible appeal will be considered later.

Three Chinese nationals also were convicted as accomplices, he said.

The U.S. Embassy in Beijing said Washington is "dismayed" at Monday's sentence, announced during the U.S. Independence Day holiday weekend. The Embassy called for Mr. Xue's "humanitarian release" and deportation.

The U.S. government has taken a strong interest in Mr. Xue's case. But it mounted a quiet diplomatic campaign to win clemency since he was first detained in late 2007.

President Obama last year urged Mr. Xue's release in a meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao, and other U.S. government officials have raised the issue privately as well. The U.S. ambassador, Jon Huntsman, took an unusual interest in the case, visiting Mr. Xue in detention and attending Monday's 40-minute sentencing.

For foreign companies, Mr. Xue's case is the latest to highlight stark questions about the legality in China of conducting market research. Unlike more-celebrated allegations involving Chinese secrets, Mr. Xue's case stems purely from his attempt to purchase commercially available data on the oil industry, according to people involved in his defense. It illustrates China's sensitivity that certain data in the hands of foreigners may weaken national security, even while Beijing remains vague in its definitions of secret information.

In comparison, this year's prosecution and conviction of four Rio Tinto PLC executives revolved around their alleged possession of steel-industry secrets, but their convictions also hinged on evidence they took millions of dollars in bribes.

Less is known about the nature of the information Mr. Xue was trying to buy than the material in the case of the Anglo-Australian miner Rio Tinto, which were mostly iron-ore pricing data. Mr. Xue was seeking data on behalf of his then-employer, an information-services business now known as IHS Inc., based in Englewood, Colo. He had switched jobs shortly before he was detained for his work for IHS.

"IHS is extremely disappointed at the news and is very sympathetic to the situation," Ed Mattix, a spokesman for the company, said in a statement. "We are continuing to work with our advisers on the issue."

Like Stern Hu, the Australian national at the heart of the Rio Tinto affair, Mr. Xue was born in China, a reminder that ethnic Chinese may be more vulnerable to pitfalls of the country's legal system than other foreigners. In both cases, the men initially were denied contact with consular representatives, for months in Mr. Xue's case.

Mr. Xue obtained a doctorate in geology from the University of Chicago and lived in Texas, where he has a wife and two children, before returning to China for IHS to work in the natural-resources sector.

Monday's sentence "sends a very bad signal to the foreign business community if they care to examine what happened," said John Kamm, executive director of the Dui Hua Foundation, a San Francisco group focused on helping those detained in China that was involved in Mr. Xue's case.

China's government appears to be taking a harder line with foreign nationals than it once did, according to legal experts who cite repeated instances of harsh penalties for foreigners in the face of calls for leniency by their governments. In March, Rio Tinto's Mr. Hu was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Last December, a British national was given a lethal injection for carrying drugs into China, while four Japanese men in April were executed on drugs charges.

Mr. Xue's case has underscored the limits of the U.S. government's ability to influence the conduct and outcome of Chinese-espionage charges. The verdict's announcement over the U.S. holiday—a year after the conviction—appeared to be a calculated act of defiance.

"One notable aspect of this case was the Chinese government's thumbing its nose at the [U.S. government's] efforts to support Xue," said Jerome A. Cohen, a New York University law professor and authority on China's legal system.

But the case also raises questions about the effectiveness of Washington's decision to remain mostly quiet about Mr. Xue, despite questions about how he was treated by Chinese authorities after his detention in November 2007. Although people close to Mr. Xue have lobbied the White House starting in 2008 to address it, the case wasn't publicly known until a November 2009 Associated Press report stating that Mr. Xue had been tortured in detention and that his case was otherwise mishandled by Chinese authorities.


China's Foreign Ministry didn't respond to a request for comment Monday.

Chinese security agents initially denied Mr. Xue the right to contact the U.S. Embassy and his whereabouts were unknown for weeks, while his extended detention, quick trial and alleged actions were likewise cloaked in secrecy. Detained in November 2007, Mr. Xue was formally arrested in April 2008 and tried in July 2009.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 2:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 2141
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
I agree that the Chinese ignoring the requests for clemency from two presidents, an ambassador, and "other U.S. government officials" can be disconcerting, but really would the U.S. government have listened to any requests for clemency from the Chinese government...particularly with regards to a case about the trafficking of state secrets? They are lucky they were not sentenced to death, so maybe Bush's and Obama's "quiet diplomatic campaign" had an effect afterall.

Why the heading of "Political Correctness can Kill - Part IV" though, are you saying Bush not going public with the reports of of Xue's possible mistreatment and torture, and not bowing to lobbying to take a stronger stance, was 'politically correct' in some way?

Quote:
The verdict's announcement over the U.S. holiday—a year after the conviction—appeared to be a calculated act of defiance.

For it to be 'defiance' China would have to care what the U.S. thought and view the U.S. as stronger, which it doesn't. This is just one more example of China not caring what the U.S. wants, same attitude it has had for decades. We're talking about a country that openly violates WTO free-trade rules as well as freely taking the infromation and technology of other countries while making its own 'state secrets'...and as a result has been thriving with trade surpluses while countries like the U.S. have been struggling with trade deficits. As far as China is concerned, the dominance of both the U.S. and the free-trade model has peaked and they see themselves as in the position to become the dominant global power and in the driver's seat for replacing free-trade. Why would they show weakness by caving to any leader in Washington?

_________________
Glenn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 1:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17032
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Glenn wrote:

would the U.S. government have listened to any requests for clemency from the Chinese government...particularly with regards to a case about the trafficking of state secrets?

Are you colorblind, Glenn? Just wondering...
Wall Street Journal wrote:

Mr. Xue's case stems purely from his attempt to purchase commercially available data on the oil industry

Glenn wrote:

We're talking about a country that openly violates WTO free-trade rules as well as freely taking the infromation and technology of other countries while making its own 'state secrets'...and as a result has been thriving with trade surpluses while countries like the U.S. have been struggling with trade deficits. As far as China is concerned, the dominance of both the U.S. and the free-trade model has peaked and they see themselves as in the position to become the dominant global power and in the driver's seat for replacing free-trade.

Bad, Glenn. Bad, bad!

Image
...............No peace prize for you!!!

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 2:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 2141
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Bill Glasheen wrote:
Are you colorblind, Glenn? Just wondering...

Actually yes, with particular difficulty distinguishing certain shades of reds, greens, and yellows (not to mention black and navy blue). But I saw your red highlights.

Bill Glasheen wrote:
Mr. Xue's case stems purely from his attempt to purchase commercially available data on the oil industry

You forgot an important part of that quote:
Quote:
Mr. Xue's case stems purely from his attempt to purchase commercially available data on the oil industry , according to people involved in his defense

So according to his supporters it was publically available, but according to the Chinese government it was not. That's a big difference, as Xue found out.

Here are some excerpted details from another article that sheds some light on this:
Quote:
In pronouncing Xue Feng guilty of spying and collecting state secrets, the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court said his actions “endangered our country’s national security.”

Its verdict said Xue received documents on geological conditions of onshore oil wells and a data base that gave the coordinates of more than 30,000 oil and gas wells belonging to China National Petroleum Corporation and listed subsidiary PetroChina Ltd. That information, it said, was sold to IHS Energy, the U.S. consultancy Xue worked for and now known as IHS Inc.

Born in China, Xue earned a doctorate at the University of Chicago and became a U.S. citizen, returning to his native country to work. By all accounts, including witness statements cited in the court verdict, Xue poured his energies into his work for IHS, trying to gather information on China’s oil industry, contacting former school mates from his university days in China.

Two of the three other defendants sentenced along with Xue on Monday were school mates. Chen Mengjin and Li Dongxu, who worked for research institutes affiliated with PetroChina were each given two-and-a-half-year sentences and fined 50,000 yuan ($7,500). The other defendant, Li Yongbo, a manager at Beijing Licheng Zhongyou Oil Technology Development Co., was sentenced to eight years and fined 200,000 yuan ($30,000). Xue was also fined 200,000 yuan.

Li and Xue arranged the sale of the database — which was originally prepared by a Chinese company for sale to PetroChina’s parent company and contained details on the coordinates and volume of reserves for the 30,000 wells — to IHS for $228,500, the court’s sentencing document said.

A spokesman for IHS, which is based in Englewood, Colorado, said the company is disappointed by the news yet declined to comment on China’s broad interpretation of state secrets. In the past, the spokesman, Ed Mattix, has said that Chinese authorities never notified IHS that it was involved in any wrongdoing.

During Xue’s closed-door trial, which ran over three dates last July and in December, the court document said he defended himself, arguing that the information he gathered “is data that the oil sector in countries around the world make public.”

In rejecting Xue and his lawyer’s arguments that no crime had been committed, the court cited the National Administration for the Protection of State Secrets as saying that the information Xue received on China National Petroleum Corp. was classified as either secret or confidential.

Chinese officials have wide authority to classify information as state secrets. Draft regulations released by the government in April said business secrets of major state companies qualify as state secrets.

Xue's defense was based on the fact that countries other than China make this information public, which is different from his supporters saying that the Chinese data was commercially available. And maybe he truly thought it was commercially available and he was doing no wrong, but clearly China saw it otherwise. I'm sure we could debate whether the data should be public, but that is a moot point with China saying no to it.

_________________
Glenn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 2141
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
As both articles point out, Xue's case is not the only one:
Quote:
Like IHS, many multinationals have come to rely on people like Xue to run their China operations. Another China-born foreign national, Australian Stern Hu who worked for the global mining firm Rio Tinto, was sentenced in March to 10 years for bribery and infringing trade secrets that dealt with iron ore sales to Chinese companies.


And then there is this from the WSJ article:
Quote:
China's government appears to be taking a harder line with foreign nationals than it once did, according to legal experts who cite repeated instances of harsh penalties for foreigners in the face of calls for leniency by their governments. In March, Rio Tinto's Mr. Hu was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Last December, a British national was given a lethal injection for carrying drugs into China, while four Japanese men in April were executed on drug charges.

In the case with the British national executed last December, some relevant excerpts:
Quote:
Akmal Shaikh, 53, a father-of-three, of London, had denied any wrongdoing and his family said he was mentally ill.

The execution took place despite repeated calls from his family and the British government for clemency.

Foreign Office minister Ivan Lewis said he was believed to have died by lethal injection.

His body will not be repatriated to the UK, and Mr Lewis said Mr Shaikh had been buried quickly "in accordance with the Muslim faith"

Mr Lewis held last-ditch talks with the Chinese ambassador in London on Monday evening.

He said the government had made 27 representations to China in two years, and believed it had done everything it possibly could.

In a statement, [Briitish Prime Minister] Brown said: "I condemn the execution of Akmal Shaikh in the strongest terms, and am appalled and disappointed that our persistent requests for clemency have not been granted.

"I am particularly concerned that no mental health assessment was undertaken.

So clearly China's actions are not focused on the U.S., but rather on foreign nationals in China regardless of what country they are citizens of or what the governments of those countries say.

Here is another article from last Decemberon how China has been taking a stronger stance with other countries lately, and governments are caving to the Chinese:
Quote:
Beijing's insistence in carrying out the death sentence reflects both the communist government's traditional distrust of foreign interference and its newfound power to resist Western pressure.

"We express our strong dissatisfaction and opposition to the British accusation," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told reporters at a regularly scheduled news conference. "We urge the British side to correct its wrongdoing to avoid causing damages to bilateral relations."

Though rare, China has in the past pardoned prisoners or released them early in response to international pressure, particularly those accused of spying or political or economic crimes.

But with its rising global economic and political clout, China appears increasingly willing to ignore Western complaints over its justice system and human rights record. And as it relies more and more on China's cooperation to solve global problems -- from the recession to climate change -- the West has few ways to exert pressure on Beijing.

China's leaders "feel freer than their recent predecessors to disregard world pressures," said Jerome Cohen, an expert on China's legal system at New York University School of Law.

Whereas in the past, the West may have held out its approval as a carrot for China to improve its record on human rights, analyst Kerry Brown said now countries like Britain are now the ones eager to maintain good relations.

"There is a feeling that we have very limited leverage on China. We have to pick our territory where we can have an impact," said Brown, a China expert at the Chatham House think tank. "It's becoming more complicated by the day."

Foreign Office Minister Ivan Lewis called Tuesday a "deeply depressing day for anyone with a modicum of compassion or commitment to justice." Prime Minister Brown said he condemned the execution "in the strongest terms, and am appalled and disappointed that our persistent requests for clemency have not been granted."

But tellingly, Lewis also said "we must and will continue to engage with China."

Recent weeks have seen China flex its new muscle repeatedly, and criticism from the West has mattered little.

_________________
Glenn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 8:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17032
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
You, like many, are clouding the issue with irrelevancies.
  • He did not carry drugs into China. Why did you bother mentioning this? If this was a court of law, my objection would be sustained, and your remark would be stricken from the record.
  • It shouldn't matter who he is. Laws are laws. Why is China discriminating, Glen? Why is it treating people born in China who go to the US to work more harshly than they would others? Sorry, but that's just wrong. Ever heard of The Hundred Flowers Campaign? Need I remind you that they "cleanse" their own?

    China law? I really don't give a schit. I also don't care to speak kindly of other China laws which violate what I would consider inalienable rights.

    Should he have known he was dealing with totalitarian thugs? Probably. But he was acting in good faith.
  • The fact that this information was readily available from outside sources SHOULD matter, Glenn. Should he have instead gotten said information from outside sources? Probably.
  • The fact that they consider it "state secrets" because the Communist government nationalized major industries is something that should bother anyone who pretends that we're engaged in "fair trade" with China. We most certainly are not. There are international laws which deal with those kinds of inequalities. China wants us to play by our rules, but then freely follows whatever business and trade rules it wants to make up as it's going along. Then they want to loan us lots of money to live off our economy, and ultimately tell us how we should conduct our lives.

    Don't agree with them? Just bring your butt over there for a bit, and they'll throw you in jail for eight years. Got the message?

    I most certainly have the message. And I'd have a message to give back to them. You know that money we owe you? I think we'll make up a few rules of our own as we're going along. Trust me, there are ways...

Obambi needs to grow a set. And so does any leader dealing with this governmental thug. They're most certainly communicating to us, Glenn. I think "polite" discourse of this type deserves equally "polite" discourse. And it doesn't have to happen in the press either.

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 8:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17032
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
This is what China does after encouraging people to act and behave as if they are in a free society.

Quote:
The result of the Hundred Flowers Campaign was the persecution of intellectuals, officials, students, artists and dissidents labeled "rightists" during the Anti-Rightist Movement that followed.[5] During this time, over 550,000 people identified as "rightists" were humiliated, imprisoned, demoted or fired from their positions, sent to labor and re-education camps, tortured, or killed.[6]
- Wiki

Mr. Xue is a United States citizen. Once upon a time our government used to be feared. Now it's open season on Americans. And if you were an intellectual born in the motherland and went over to the dark side, well... Can you say target?

Speak out against this. DO NOT make excuses for tyrants.

This all may be theory for you. I have dear friends I've worked with for years who do business over there. It's very real for me.

I have stories... but for another day. 8)

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 2141
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Bill Glasheen wrote:
You, like many, are clouding the issue with irrelevancies.

Nothing I included is irrelevant, it all paints the big picture of China's current international-relations strategies.

Quote:
He did not carry drugs into China. Why did you bother mentioning this? If this was a court of law, my objection would be sustained, and your remark would be stricken from the record.

Because your WSJ article brought it up. You are focusing on the wrong part of those articles, re-read them again in the context of how China has dealt with Britain and other governments over trails of those countries' nationals and you will see that info in those articles is very relevant.

Quote:
It shouldn't matter who he is. Laws are laws. Why is China discriminating, Glen? Why is it treating people born in China who go to the US to work more harshly than they would others? Sorry, but that's just wrong. Ever heard of The Hundred Flowers Campaign? Need I remind you that they "cleanse" their own?

China law? I really don't give a schit. I also don't care to speak kindly of other China laws which violate what I would consider inalienable rights.

Should he have known he was dealing with totalitarian thugs? Probably. But he was acting in good faith.

Agreed, and I never said anything to contradict any of this. I was focusing on what you were focusing on, the international relations issues, not the unethical and inhumane nature of the Chinese government/law.

Quote:
The fact that this information was readily available from outside sources SHOULD matter, Glenn. Should he have instead gotten said information from outside sources? Probably.

Except it has not been made clear that the information was available from outside sources. The articles I have seen so far indicate it was not, but none have come right out to say one way or another. According to the articles above, Xue himself at his trial defended his actions not by saying that the Chinese information was already publically available but only that other countries make this information public, that would indicate that the Chinese data was not readily available.

Quote:
The fact that they consider it "state secrets" because the Communist government nationalized major industries is something that should bother anyone who pretends that we're engaged in "fair trade" with China. We most certainly are not. There are international laws which deal with those kinds of inequalities. China wants us to play by our rules, but then freely follows whatever business and trade rules it wants to make up as it's going along. Then they want to loan us lots of money to live off our economy, and ultimately tell us how we should conduct our lives.

Don't agree with them? Just bring your butt over there for a bit, and they'll throw you in jail for eight years. Got the message?

Nice re-statement of what I said earlier, so why when I said it did you reply:
Quote:
Bad, Glenn. Bad, bad!
No peace prize for you!!!

:D

Quote:
I most certainly have the message. And I'd have a message to give back to them. You know that money we owe you? I think we'll make up a few rules of our own as we're going along. Trust me, there are ways...[/list]
Obambi needs to grow a set. And so does any leader dealing with this governmental thug. They're most certainly communicating to us, Glenn. I think "polite" discourse of this type deserves equally "polite" discourse. And it doesn't have to happen in the press either.

Yep, it's the same message they have been singing for a couple administrations now, and yet no one has been willing to take them to task about it, largely because our offshoring has gotten us to the point that we cannot afford to economically.

_________________
Glenn


Last edited by Glenn on Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 2141
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Bill Glasheen wrote:
Speak out against this. DO NOT make excuses for tyrants.

This all may be theory for you. I have dear friends I've worked with for years who do business over there. It's very real for me.


Then why did you highlight only the international-relations aspects of the WSJ article? My replies were focused on what you were focusing on. I was elaborating on the overall international-relations/world-power issues that you raised, not making excuses for tyrants.

If you are now changing that focus away from what you were highlighting originally then fine, I do not disagree with any of your points about the wrongs being committed by the Chinese government against individuals/groups there.

Geesh, I realize you like the strategy of trying to keep people off balance, but maintaining some consistent focus has benefits too. :D

And you're not the only one with Chinese-born friends/colleagues doing business in China.

_________________
Glenn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 3:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17032
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Glenn wrote:

Then why did you highlight only the international-relations aspects of the WSJ article?

Because it all comes down to basic principles of getting along in a competitive world. I shouldn't want things to be different just because so-and-so is my friend.
  • I want my friends to be protected by my (not so) fearless leader behaving like a leader and not like Jimmy Carter.
  • I want my friends to be protected because they live in a country that celebrates personal freedom and not merely because they're my friends.
  • I want my friends to be protected because they engage in fair play - BY OBJECTIVE STANDARDS - and not because they're adept at reading the whims of despots and bowing to the self-serving demands of oppressive governments.

Quote:
It is far better to be trusted and respected that it is to be liked.
- unknown source


Obama's charm offensive is nice, but it's ass-backwards. It's nice to be loved and it's nice to be respected. But given a choice, it's far better to be respected than to be loved.

Quote:
When I became the NASA administrator -- or before I became the NASA administrator -- [Obama] charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering,
- NASA Chief Charles Bolden


Wow... no wonder NASA isn't doing squat. Instead of fueling our competitive edge in science in a global economy, our tax dollars are all about getting the Muslim nations to feel good and to love us. WTF????
Quote:
The two pillars of 'political correctness' are:
a) willful ignorance
b) a steadfast refusal to face the truth
- George MacDonald


We have both here.
  • There's ignorance as to the true intent of our enemies.
  • There's a refusal to face the fact that some elements in the world never, ever will love us or what we represent. They want us buried.

But respect? That can work.

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 2141
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Bill Glasheen wrote:
We have both here.

There's ignorance as to the true intent of our enemies.

There's a refusal to face the fact that some elements in the world never, ever will love us or what we represent. They want us buried.


Bill Glasheen from the WSJ wrote:
The U.S. government has taken a strong interest in Mr. Xue's case. But it mounted a quiet diplomatic campaign to win clemency since he was first detained in late 2007.

But the case also raises questions about the effectiveness of Washington's decision to remain mostly quiet about Mr. Xue, despite questions about how he was treated by Chinese authorities after his detention in November 2007. Although people close to Mr. Xue have lobbied the White House starting in 2008 to address it...

So what was Bush's reason for taking this ineffective...or to paraphrase your take on it, ignorant and oblivous...approach? Could Bush and Obama have been taking other factors into consideration besides the well-being of one individual. I'm not sure any presidency in the history of the U.S. has ever done a lot for one individual who has gotten into trouble in another country.

I do wonder though if either president would have reacted more strongly if China had been trying/sentencing a native-born U.S. citizen instead of a Chinese-born naturalized citizen?

And let's face it, it has been quite a few presidents since the U.S. was trusted, respected, or liked internationally.

Quote:
Obama's charm offensive is nice, but it's ass-backwards. It's nice to be loved and it's nice to be respected. But given a choice, it's far better to be respected than to be loved.

Wow... no wonder NASA isn't doing squat. Instead of fueling our competitive edge in science in a global economy, our tax dollars are all about getting the Muslim nations to feel good and to love us. WTF????

Now who's clouding the issue with irrelevancies?

_________________
Glenn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 4:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Posts: 3519
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
I dunt care. I still dislike Obama. For various reasons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILg1-H6oNuM


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 6:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
:roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17032
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Panther wrote:

:roll:


I couldn't have said it better myself, Panther. That video was just plain silly.

Which president wipes himself off only 2 times rather than 3? You got it - Ronald Reagan. Obama insists on all bowel movements being AT LEAST 3-wipers, making him the more conservative president.

You get the idea...

Why do people compare their favorite politician to Reagan? Insecurity. Reagan is a gold standard. Others are wannabes or - in the case of Obama - not done anything useful yet.

If you didn't live through Carter's Iran hostage crisis, OPEC oil embargo, malaise speech, we-need-to-be-more-humble speech, and "stagflation" and then saw the transformation of a nation, well you wouldn't get it. The one good thing I can say about Carter is that the hyperinflation of his era made my student loans much, much easier to pay off.

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17032
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Glenn wrote:

And let's face it, it has been quite a few presidents since the U.S. was trusted, respected, or liked internationally.

Umm... Al qaeda hated us before 9/11, and didn't respect us. They still hate us and what we represent, and ALWAYS will. However... al quaeda leaders today - who are still alive - most definitely respect us.
Glenn wrote:

Bill Glasheen wrote:

Obama's charm offensive is nice, but it's ass-backwards. It's nice to be loved and it's nice to be respected. But given a choice, it's far better to be respected than to be loved.

Wow... no wonder NASA isn't doing squat. Instead of fueling our competitive edge in science in a global economy, our tax dollars are all about getting the Muslim nations to feel good and to love us. WTF????

Now who's clouding the issue with irrelevancies?


I'm on topic, Glenn. Apparently you don't get it.

Here's a nice editorial I found from way back in 2003. Very interesting... It may help you understand just a little better.

- Bill

Quote:
Orlando Sentinel

OPINION
Better To Be Respected Than To Be Loved
April 18, 2003 | By Peter Brown, Sentinel Columnist

Every mother's cliche that honey catches more flies than vinegar doesn't necessarily apply to international relations.

Making nice may win more friends on the playground, but the Iraq war is further evidence that, in foreign affairs, sometimes it's better to be respected than loved.

After the U.S. victory in Iraq, movement by the others in the "axis of evil," North Korea and Iran, reinforces the Cold War lesson.

Twenty years ago, Ronald Reagan brushed aside those who wanted to extend an olive branch to the Soviet Union. Instead, he challenged Moscow to a contest of ideas and a game of international economic chicken.

His critics, at home and abroad, forecast doom, gloom and cataclysm. They fretted that labeling the Soviet Union as "the evil empire" would just make things worse.

They confidently predicted that the cowboy -- does that description of an American president sound familiar? -- could set off World War III. Even if he didn't, they worried, Reagan would make America even more unpopular around the world.

As even a C student -- you know, the type critics now love to denigrate President Bush as -- is aware, it didn't quite turn out that way.

The good guys won the Cold War, and the bad guys joined our side, more or less.

And, by the way, Reagan's tenure led to the greatest mutual arms reduction in history.

The Soviet Union imploded because Reagan forced it into intellectual and financial bankruptcy. The Soviets' organizing principle -- communism -- failed. The guiding U.S. principle, capitalism, became all the rage around the globe.

Although the F students who believe that Jimmy Carter should have been re-elected president in 1980 (after messing up the economy and allowing the Iran embarrassment) might think otherwise, it is hard to argue that the Gipper's peace-through-strength formula didn't make the world a safer place.

Worry today all you want about terrorists, but the threat pales compared to the thought of Soviet missiles raining down on U.S. cities.

Today, America again has a president who isn't afraid to offend the politically correct crowd with both his rhetoric and his actions.

Bush has been candid. After Sept. 11, he improved homeland security. Critics worried about possible civil-rights violations, but there haven't been any more acts of terrorism here at home (although that doesn't mean there won't be in the future).


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group