Comments on: China as peacemaker Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: trevorh Tue, 02 Apr 2013 19:47:28 +0000 I wanted to write even more patch-up comment, but then I realize whatever I write somebody always ends up being unhappy…

very very hard to say anything these days

By: trevorh Tue, 02 Apr 2013 04:02:17 +0000 More patch-up comment.

By co-existence, I mean co-existence of countries of different culture and language protected by border at the global level, NOT multiculturalism. Multiculturalism will disintegrate whatever country short-sighted enough to embrace it.

Multiculturalism, I think was invented by the Jewish people since they don’t have a home land to live (Israel is too small), as well as other groups that have embraced the growth agenda.

Now the grow agenda people have run out of places and resources to live so they have to move into places of people who have moved forwarded into getting better agenda. In the past, this happened with expansionary military actions and wars.. now it is happening in a different way.

I think it is more fair, that people who embrace the growth agenda face the consequences of their actions by living with low standard of living and not cause problem to others by moving in and live with people who embrace ‘getting better’ agenda.

By: robalka Mon, 01 Apr 2013 17:07:23 +0000 A great sequel to your weightier suggestion that America should relinquish the role of global umpire. But I doubt China wants to be the global umpire, let alone try to boss around its neighbour from hell, North Korea. If push came to shove I suppose China could bomb North Korea to smithereens – China has always been good at seeing the big picture. As for China playing good cop to America’s bad cop, I think this is a strategy by default rather than design and I doubt China wants to associate itself with a bad cop. Sooner or later North Korea will have missiles to hurl at the US and we know that Reagan’s Starwars defence blanket was no more than aspiration/fantasy. Once suitably armed for long distance aggression, North Korea’s first soft option will be to attack South Korea. What then will the US, our present emasculated world umpire, propose or insist upon? China will just look inscrutable and hope that this comes across to North Korea as “don’t even think about messing with us”? It would be great to think that the US and China have a working relationship that can respond to this threat but, with politicians the way they are, I doubt it. The poverty of their thinking never ceases to amaze me.

By: act1 Mon, 01 Apr 2013 14:05:44 +0000 China much prefers to keep its prickly ally alive and well as a buffer between U.S. ally S. Korea and China proper. It may pull on the leash from time to time but not too hard.

By: trevorh Mon, 01 Apr 2013 04:26:28 +0000 Oops, duplicate comment. I thought the prev one was missed because of connection reset.. so I have to retype

By: trevorh Mon, 01 Apr 2013 04:25:31 +0000 Need to write a patch up comment here. It is hard to write something these days without being overanalyzed.

I did not mean to attack China in the above comment. Throughout the history of the world. Almost any country which became big and powerful enough would bully smaller ones to some extent.

And even when these things happen, there shouldn’t be any guilty by association because there are always people who disagree with action of others, want nothing to do with it, yet having no control over it.

.. just try to write down a few ideas based on the facts I know.. still very hard to do..

By: trevorh Sun, 31 Mar 2013 22:21:17 +0000 “With a 2,200-year history of non-aggression, China is in the best position to take the lead”

This just shows how ignorant this author is.
She should also see history as it is told by other countries in Asia as well.

Having said that, China right now has the full capability to do a lot of ‘things’ and they don’t have a rigorous religion to give them good moral judgement . It is lucky for many countries in Asia that the communists are in power. They do a good job of refraining the other factions to some extent (remember, not all communists are the same)

I think if we are to come out of this crisis with minimum suffering, some kind of ‘communism’ is probably required to be part of the solution.

For starter, the ‘communists’ should focus more on the other core idea of communism : cooperation and no-conflict (ie co-existence) instead of redistribution and coercion.

That’s how I can see with my limited knowledge

By: pbgd Sun, 31 Mar 2013 20:34:18 +0000 The Chinese are free today because American troops died defeating the Japanese and liberating China from brutal Japanese occupation.

There are no blue-helmeted UN troops protecting the Korean border because the US prevented them from coming.

By: Shamizar Sun, 31 Mar 2013 12:36:08 +0000 There is no danger from North Korea. The pig-faced little fat boy in charge probably just got his grubby little fingers on an old copy of “The Mouse That Roared” and thought it was a great way to make some money.

By: LeeCheung Sun, 31 Mar 2013 08:07:32 +0000 The Fed Reserve is sued for violating Chinese Anti-monopoly Law by enforcing QE

Ms. Liu Hua, a Chinese lady at 58, charged the Fed Reserve System in Kunming city of China main land with intentionally abusing currency issuance monopoly power by enforcing four rounds of Quantitative Easing (QE) policies on March 19, 2013.

Ms. Liu alleges she deposited 250 dollars in a local municipal bank in Feb 2006. But with the Fed Reserve’s QE from 2009 through 2012, the real value of 250 dollars depreciates significantly both in China and in the United States.

In this antitrust complaint, Ms. Liu claims that the Fed Reserve is a private institution which monopolizes US dollar issuance. According to IMF, the US dollar is the main Foreign Exchange Reserve with more than 60 percent market share. According to anti-monopoly rules, the conduct of injecting trillions of dollars into the financial market by the Fed Reserve is apparently one of the abusive conducts of monopoly power, which inevitably devalues the dollars in circulation.

The plaintiff, pursuant to China Antimonopoly Law, requests the court: Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of Chinese Anti-monopoly Law by the defendant; and Award the plaintiff one US dollar as damages.

Till now, the lawsuit, Liu Hua v. Federal Reserve, is submitted to the Kunming Intermediate People’s Court in the capital city of Yunnan Province, PRC.