So? Was I advocating American involvement into Israel? I'm actually against Zionism too. Comparing Darfur to Israel is enormously far fetched. Further it's all pretty irrelevant. China does something wrong, but that's ok because the US also does something wrong? What a load of bullshit. Why do CCP apologists ALL rely on this in virtually every single argument. It's a fallacy. If I'm in court for stealing a bike, I'll say "so? Rob stole a car". I hope even you can realise how pointless that is, so why would it make any more sense that the state level?

__________________

I agree that you're horrible at arguing. I don't know what else you were trying to prove with all these fallacies.


It was nothing like colonialism. Sovereignty was achieved by 1905, and even before then, imperialism in China was nothing in matters of extent to what it was in the Congo region, or the Gold Coast, Sudan, or Seria Leone/Liberia -- AKA those few regions in the world not experiencing growth but the opposite.
It's funny how you attempt to defy the definition of colonialism to propagate your false sense of authority over me, "kid". Fact of the matter, these warlords, and the ROC were seen as Chinese in every sense of the myth of the Chinese nationality even today.

My bias? MY bias? MY bias??? From someone whose avatar is "GoChina" Ohhh God. Something you should be really impressed about is the persistence of your stereotypes towards westerners and how it fuels your ignorance.

__________________

man i strongly suggest you stop your fallacy game in order to make yourself less laughable.

Article 156 of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 transferred German concessions in Shandong, China to Japan rather than returning sovereign authority to China, despite Chinese protests.

Sovereignty huh???

whats ironic is, this treaty directly led to the birth of the Chinese Communist Party. so, the great US+UK+France= Treaty of Versailles= the birth of Chinese Communist Party? LOL

yes YOUR bias is very obvious, hehe, proof is above. now who is ignorant? hey i dont think i even mentioned the word westerner. oh once i did, as i said " a bunch of western countries". westerners= western country?

i dont have stereotype towards westerners, and i dont have sereotype towards western countries either, because forming stereotype toward western countires is IMPOSSIBLE, why? the US government sometimes supports the most authoritarian military government in the world ( like what they did in South Korea before 1980s), sometimes becomes the vanguard of freedom. i CANT form a stereotype toward it!!

What's a fallacy game? You commit a fallacy, so how else can I answer than by pointing out it's a fallacy? Of course you don't listen and continue in your tangent. If that's a game, I don't see the fun in it. And what's funny about you committing a fallacy?

I said except Manchuria and Shandong. MAN YOU REALLY NEED TO START READING MY POSTS!!!!!!!

What's ironic about it? OHHHHhhh Because US+UK+FRANCE made it, ergo I MUST support it as some sort of all revealing liberalist ideology.
Ya, it's not because these states were behind it that I was arguing in favour of it as a method against communism. The Trueman doctrine appeared 40 or so years later.

Everything I have stated has been backed by facts and logic. I wish I could say the same about you and your crappy pictures and fallacies.

You form a stereotype on what you perceive to be "western" perceptions of China. How else can you explain your outrageously out of context arguments?

__________________

vice versa lol. again, your argument is way too far from convincing as you yourself think.

you read your post again. you stated:" Sovereignty was achieved by 1905..", your definition of Chinese sovereignty excludes Shandong?

sorry, your so called facts are nothing but charades.

vice versa lol. sorry you can not convince me. try again kid.

i was thinking of bringing up your nice wax joke again. but i wont. LOL. that will be out of context again lol.

What do you mean vice-versa? It's not because you aren't convinced due to your blind patriotism that I'm committing any sort of fallacies. Plus, if you aren't convince, you don't need to say that, you could respond with actual arguments.

Shandong does not encompass all of China. When Japan withdrew from Shandong, it wasn't like the whole of China had been free from imperialism.
Oh, and I forgot to include Taiwan, but seems like according to your definition of imperialism, Taiwan is still some sort of colony....

Vice versa what? Vice versa the Versailles Treaty pre-dates the Trueman Doctrine?
It's like you don't even know what a fallacy is.

That picture was out of context in the first place. It's a prime example of fallacy. I wasn't even debating the Dalai Lama's stance toward the Mao regime. I can see that you aren't convinced of my arguments because you don't understand them, you ignore them and you judge my person on irrelevant ad hominems. Your convictions that you aren't convinced aren't convincing on their own.

__________________

vice versa means i think youve been committing fallacies too. plus, if you think your "unchalleged", you dont need to say that, you just keep up your nice facts giving work.

Japan's Twenty-One Demands in 1915: "The Chinese Government engage not to cede or lease to any other Power any harbour or bay on or any island along the coast of China." Not to mention the nominally fair, but actually unfair Sino-American Treaty of Friendship,Commerce and Navigation in 1946. This is enough to prove China then was far from decolonized. Semi-colonized, a very precise word.

one word for this sentense: brazen. oh dont worry kid this is not an attack at your person, just this sentense, hehe. every warlord then was supported n sponsored by a foreign power.

according to your logic, then why the hell your bashing China for supporting Sudanese government? those are just Sudanese, and nobody else fighting with each other!

a fallacy is what you just presented above.

What fallacies have I committed? Viceversa isn't a call on fallacy. I have to say unchallenged because once you guys start your rampage of ignorance, there's no stopping it. I say something, it is ignored and then you bring it up as if I have never responded to it. Why wouldn't I bring it up?

Most of the 21 demands weren't up held due to Yuan Shikai's insistence on ignoring certain clauses -- plus they not at all prove that China was a colony in 1915. Signing a treaty to open borders is a far cry to call a country a colony.

Because they traded with foreign powers and received aid, they were a colony? That doesn't make any sense. I suggest picking up an encyclopedia and revising what a colony is, you really need it if you want to even begin to sound serious. The CCP received lots of aid from Lenin's International and other types of aid from the USSR until the Sino-Russian split in the 1960's. Does that make the CCP a Russian imperialist endeavor, or is the CCP along with the ROC and Northern warlords considered Chinese in every sense of the national myth? But of course that would prove you wrong, and shatter your false sense of authority you think you have over me (the only thing one can do when desperate to counter good arguments), and you'll defy many more definitions before we get to the bottom of this (the end will just be you ignoring my posts out of sheer discontent with you inabilities to form a serious argument in response to mine). I know the drill.

Because all attempts to halt the genocide in Sudan are vetoed against by China, because all economic sanctions to deprive the Sudanese government of funds to sponsor the Jinjewee militia has been opposed by China. Because China keeps investing and that gives the Sudanese government funds to airstrike Darfurian villages, because this isn't just Sudan, this is spreading into Chad and becoming a regional conflict. Who vetoed against sending an actual outfit of peacekeepers that could do a far more effective job than the African Union? China! All of this could have been stopped long ago without the CCP. Oh, but who gives a shit that over half a million people died due to violence and many more millions died of starvation or are about to and the countless of women raped, of torture scandals; but sovereignty is the only thing you care about.....even when the sovereign state has failed so obviously and so miserably.
What logic? I say the ROC and northern warlords were Chinese and that someone justifies China to sponsor the Sudanese government? Philosophy, ever heard of it? I suggest you read up on it.

WHAT FALLACY?.....why am I even trying to reason with you? I'll just stick to what I said above:
It's like you don't even know what a fallacy is.

__________________

man do you really understand the word "semi colony" means? who ever stated China was a colony? me? no.


so what? i know the terrible things out there but you can not expect a government sacrifices the economic development by stopping importing oil while 23 million people in this country consume less than 0.70 dollar per day. btw, where the sovereign state failes?

what was i trying to justify anything? no. i was just telling you that theres someting wrong with your logic of proving China was a state with complete sovereignty just by that fact that those warlords were Chinese.

There's a lot of insults going on here. I guess we've decided that we don't give a damn about the forum rules. That's OK, I have no problem with that. People can violate the forum rules if they want, so long as they have no problem with being banned or unable to post for a while. So by all means, please do keep up the personal attacks.

The next one to make a personal attack will only be slightly inconvenienced with a 3-day ban. Thanks.


WEB

__________________
"Of course the fact that a person believes in racial equality doesn't prove that he's a communist...but it certainly makes you look twice, doesn't it? You can't get away from the fact that racial equality is part of the communist line." - Joseph McCarthy

Political Forum Diplomacy Game Map (In Progress)
Current Diplomacy thread