Thank you for your objective remarks on China and Chinese culture and development. Western countries, like US are often partial to China, considering China a country where there is human rights abuses,freedom limitation,poorly developed culture. It is strongly suggested that one be objective to everything about China.China is no different from any other country.

**And your comments about elections in China are just as entertaining.....for China, that has never had a democratic system, elections are meaningless in some sort of an overnight flip...like USSR. Again, look at USA and its 2 centuries of elections....You got Bush as a result!**

i do realy not understand what you are trying to say.

Whats wrong to have voted for Bush? short time in the future he will left and USA will got the new president. try to do it in PRC. i will bet your house will get very nice para-millitary quard for the end of your live.

"...cartoonish black portrait telegraphs the end of world. That is probably the biggest, if not the most visible, threat of all. ...Such simplification is rare in other languages."

The author obviously knows very little about China. If you want examples of simplistic, bombastic, childish, biased, one-sided, culturally insensitive and blatantly propagandistic language, just check out The People's Daily, Xinhua or China Daily.

AMERICAN OBSERVER

You go over the self-congratulations of post WWII, leaving behind many important facts. But you have forgotten the punchline....and then, at the end...USA elects George W. Bush!

And your comments about elections in China are just as entertaining.....for China, that has never had a democratic system, elections are meaningless in some sort of an overnight flip...like USSR. Again, look at USA and its 2 centuries of elections....You got Bush as a result!

I thought that the question for discussion was:

"the world's perception of China isn't as rosy as it used to be. Do you see China as a threat? Why? Why not?"

There are several ways to answer this question but the simplest and most direct seem to me to be "yes because........" or "no because.......". However, instead of that we are treated to an attack on Western civilization for daring to ask such an innocuous question with strong overtones of defense for closed and belligerant societies.

The idea of "picking on China" with this question is ludicrous I believe. How faint of heart the Chinese leadership must be if they take offense at this question. No, I suspect the faintness of heart comes from those who are paranoid for sound reasons. :)

TT:

"You are stuck in a mindset of about 6 decades ago. The age of attacks, conquest and military power is finished.."

American Observer replies:

You said '6 decades ago.' Well, what happened six decades ago? Six decades ago America won the Second World War and chased the Japanese out of China. In the nineteen-fifties America chased the Chinese out of South Korea. In the nineteen-sixties the Russians beat back Chinese incursions into Siberia, and in the nineteen-seventies the Vietnamese chased the Chinese out of Vietnam. In the nineteen-nineties American aircraft carries persuaded the Chinese to stop shooting missiles at China. Thus, the People's Republic of China remains at peace to the south and the north and the east of China because America and other powers have broken China's greedy fingers everytime China has reached too far. That fact has been good for the ordinary Chinese people, who might be engulfed in gigantic wars otherwise. Even today, however, China does not enjoy complete peace because there are holes in the wall which blocks Chinese aggression. China is still at war in Tibet and China is still at war in East Turkestan because none of the nations on China's western borders are strong enough to stop Chinese colonialism. As I said before, the best thing that America can do for China is to surround China with strong armies and strong alliances so that the Chinese will not be tempted to abuse other nations like Taiwan and South Korea the way the Chinese are abusing Tibet and East Turkestan.

Ziggy says:

"to TOM MILLER
Does each to his own ring a bell with you at all?"

American Observer replies:

'To each their own' sure rings a bell with me. I say let the Tibetans ring their own bell without interference from China. I say let the Uighers ring their own bell without interference from China. I say let the Taiwanese ring their own bell without interference from China. Chinese out of Tibet! Chinese out of East Turkestan! Let Taiwan declare independence without threats from China!

Ziggy says:

"If Chinese want to be 'free' or 'democratic,' they can choose and do it on their own time, their own schedule and terms. Ditto for other countries."

American Observer replies:

The Gang of Four said exactly the same thing when they were inflicting the Cultural Revolution on China. The Red Guards said the same thing when they were beating their own mothers to death. Tell me, Ziggy, if the Chinese love dictatorship so much, why is the regime so desperate to lock up any Chinese who advocates elections or freedom of speech?

Your comments are correct as Chinese have their own issues to deal with. We cannot expect the rest of the world to follow on doctrine only.

to TOM MILLER
Does each to his own ring a bell with you at all? And the topic is China, not the writer or his country. I guess he is right, at least about you: those that do not see the light, turn up the heat. If Chinese want to be "free" or "democratic", they can choose and do it on their own time, their own schedule and terms. Ditto for other countries. They are all of adult age and can decide for their own. For now, go and play with your own Guantanamo before you start picking on others.

Given that China is an empire, undemocratic, militaristic, and on the rise I believe that the question asked is perfectly valid. If your answer is "no" then fine but in societies with a free press we ask the uncomfortable questions that seem to rile the paranoia of those who write for closed societies.

And this: "Those who cannot see the light insist on turning up the heat, quick to dispense irresponsible labels."

Apparently, this is so. Was it necessary for Mr. Ettefagh to use terms like "the Brittney Spears doctrine" and "a sham political, or cultural, McDonalds-ization" to gloss over the question? This is honest debate? :)

In truth, the West that I know is more positive about events in China than negative. There is a fervent hope that bringing more people up from poverty and exposing them to more freedoms will help the world at large live in peace and prosperity. Change should always be scrutinized carefully and given world history it would be folly to think that there will not be unforseen repercussions from China's rise. For this reason alone the West and the East should not become euphoric and ignore the challenges for all of us as change continues in China.

The rub for Mr Ettefagh, however, is that his country countinues to wallow in the backward ways of the past handpicking political puppets for elective office, threatening the anihilation of a neighboring state, pursuing at all costs a destructive nuclear power, and electing a leader who believes that the Mahdi himself is guiding his hand. And yes, the political elite in Iran are a minority. Do we think they are nervous about the term "evil empire"? :)

@AMERICAN OBSERVER

You are stuck in a mindset of about 6 decades ago. The age of attacks, conquest and military power is finished....look at your beloved USA: it attacked a small, creampuff like Iraq and 6 years later, it has not finished the job and has not stabilised the place. So much for American military might, even against a disarmed basketcase of a country after 15 years of food-for-oil decay!

Why would China attack South Korea, when Korean companies are giving them all the manufacturing business that China can handle? And what is the point of such destruction?

You seem to forget that the Russians suffered the biggest loss of life (29 million) in WWII alone, more than all war theatres of WWII combined!

Time to fast-forward to modern reality.

I agree with most of your views, especially the title "China no different than the rest of us", i always think the essence of human being is the same, but they may have different ways to show their human beings, and that is culture.

American Observer is still living in the cold war era.everybody do their best to make as many friens as they can except america and europa.they are never content with their list of enemy. they do what they can -lies ,demonisations-to create more and more enemies for themselves.the more enemies they have,the happier they are.strange mentality.

Ali Ettefagh says:

"China has its own cultural quilt of different ethnic groups (and regional languages) and its own problems, most of which are unique throughout history."

American Observer replies:

Actually, the Chinese just conquered an empire in the bad old days, the way the Spanish and the Arabs and the Russians did, and the Chinese killed a lot of people and forced the survivors to speak their languages. However, some of the more recent Chinese colonies are still fighting for their freedom. The Spanish and the Arabs lost their empires, and the Russians have lost most of their empire, and the Chinese will lose many of their colonies, with Tibet and East Turkestan being first on the list. As for the rest of their neighbors, such as Korea and Taiwan and Vietnam, the Chinese will attack them if they dare, but the Chinese will avoid war if the Chinese see that China is surrounded by strong armies and strong alliances. Thus, the ordinary Chinese people will be much safer if America keeps a strong military presence in Asia and discourages the Chinese Communist Party from starting any wars.