|
That's the trap though. Just because Western nations did this before, some worse than others, doesn't make it right. Just because China is late to the game doesn't mean they get a "get out of jail free" card. The Tibetans aren't asking for much and that just shows how broken China is politically. It's like arguing that Scotland shouldn't have a parliament. China is not going to fall apart if Tibet goes from being a police state to an SAR. It just means an end to the money that's going to the Beijing oligarchs and the pittance they give Lhasa for appearances.
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 09:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 18:39 |
|
|
So what exactly happens if they were to become a SAR? Does the Chinese government still get to control their natural resources and fresh water? Because that's the only way it would ever happen.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 09:20
|
|
|
RocknRollaAyatollah posted:That's the trap though. Just because Western nations did this before, some worse than others, doesn't make it right. Just because China is late to the game doesn't mean they get a "get out of jail free" card. I think worry over legitimacy and "looking weak" is also critical at stake. The central government senses their position is weak, but the government is too large and the problems are too severe to make real changes. (I am kind of reminded of Tsarist Russia in this case) If you start negotiating fairly with one group...the other groups will start expecting it as well, better to have a firm boot on everyone's necks. It's imperialism, and the government is pragmatically (and cynically) using past application of imperialism by Japan and European powers to justify it. Tibet and Xinjiang are going be successfully colonized unless the situation dramatically destablizes within the next 5-10 years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 09:22
|
|
|
Arakan posted:So what exactly happens if they were to become a SAR? Does the Chinese government still get to control their natural resources and fresh water? Because that's the only way it would ever happen. They would operate like their own country except for certain areas like foreign policy and the possession of the military. The corporations could still probably exist there but they would probably have competition now that the deck isn't entirely stacked in favor of Beijing. I'm sure once the police state is ended as well, conditions will improve for Tibetans socially. I think a lot of that has to do with the dominance of state corporations and how state corporations are bad for China. Around 70% of corporations in China are state owned and aggressively protect their market shares. Most Chinese people I've talked to think it's awful and stunting China as a nation. Not because of SOCIALISM but because it's just a monopoly system operating without the rule of law. When the guys who regulate a certain industry also own stakes in the leading company in that industry, they have no incentive to allow an equal playing field. It leads to lovely domestic products in China, low wages for state corporation employees, and doesn't allow for the emergence of a stable sustainable middle class. Most middle class Chinese people seem to have gotten rich from owning homes on valuable land and getting a generous payout. From my personal experience very few people make what could be considered a middle income. I've only really seen low income and incredibly high income jobs. Very few people seem to have the equivalent of a 9-5 job that pays $50,000 a year. I know a lot of that is anecdotal but I see it everyday. I'm sure in Shanghai or Beijing things look awesome but out in the rest of China it's pretty depressing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 10:03
|
|
|
I can't speak beyond my experience as an engineer in Shenzhen, but there are a number of senior engineer positions in the electronics industry that are basically the 9-5, $50k job you described. You have to be a senior engineer with a pretty good specialization to actually get $50k, but it's possible. Alternatives are being a mid level manager in a multinational corporation, or accepting a $30k job (these aren't nearly as rare). I don't know about other departments, but my company pays mechanical engineers about $20-25k per year and we regularly have them leaving for $30k offers. But you're not going to become rich on that kind of money without something else coming along. I was just discussing this sort of thing with some of my coworkers yesterday. I think China is in a pretty interesting position, because there's tons of wealthy people and nearly all of them acquired their wealth rather than being born into it (except I guess in the case of people making money by the virtue of living on land that is now very valuable). There's really not that many ways rich people have made it, and basically none of them involve wages.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 10:36
|
|
|
How old are the people earning those middle class salaries, though? It seems like all the wage earners in Hong Kong (outside of finance and law) that get more than US $30K are over 35.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 10:40
|
|
|
Usually in their 30s to early/mid 40s. Coming at it from a different perspective, we pretty much outsourced our Los Angeles office to Shenzhen by replacing people 1:1 and our labor costs are still about 2/3 of what they were. fart simpson fucked around with this message at 11:35 on Mar 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 11:14
|
|
|
A good percentage of China's freshwater and the water from the Mekong originates from the Tibetan plateau. You have to be high to think that China would willingly give that up. Forget about the human issue, people aren't looking at the resource angle clearly enough. It's a _significant_ resource. It's like asking the U.S. to give up Alaskan oil fields in the mind of the PRC. From a practical geopolitical strategic vantage point no country would do it willingly unless absolutely forced to in total war. Unless the dalai llama can levitate large basins of water then fuggedaboutit. Also, sexy hong kong Chinese girls with Tibetan tattoos with australian boyfriends championing the cause probably does more to hurt the whole effort than help it. Heh. Modus Operandi fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Mar 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
What I gotta ask is if anyone in China believes the 'Peaceful rise' bullshit that's been spouted for a while. Annexing Tibet, Strongarming Taiwan, aiming missile radars at Japanese ships - Is there some misunderstanding as to the translation of peaceful that I'm not clued into?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:What I gotta ask is if anyone in China believes the 'Peaceful rise' bullshit that's been spouted for a while. Annexing Tibet, Strongarming Taiwan, aiming missile radars at Japanese ships - Is there some misunderstanding as to the translation of peaceful that I'm not clued into? I'm not sure what you're going for with this question. Nations tend to behave in a shitter manner than the way they portray themselves in propaganda, big surprise I guess? Does Americans actually believe that they're the savior of the free world, exporting freedom and democracy to people sitting in the dark? Actually, don't answer that, because we all know the answer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:What I gotta ask is if anyone in China believes the 'Peaceful rise' bullshit that's been spouted for a while. Annexing Tibet, Strongarming Taiwan, aiming missile radars at Japanese ships - Is there some misunderstanding as to the translation of peaceful that I'm not clued into? And Rome thought it was welcoming barbarians into the bosom of civilization, and Greek colonists thought they were following in the steps of Hercules...And "the US consumer" thought they weren't hurting anyone by buying cheap clothing and computer products made by slave labor. Basically, everyone throughout history is always hurting some other group of people- and they NEVER are fully in touch with the fact that they are just as bad as everyone else. "gently caress those Romans, they're assholes, not like we Carthaginians!" etc. So Chinese people might have a bit of a national myth, but they're not especially deluded for believing it. It's convenient and useful for them to believe it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
I don't know... we all have our popular national myths, but I do think the Chinese are more deluded than others. Try to find popular or academic criticisms of Chinese foreign policy other than it being too soft and not involving nuking Japan. I've seen some, but not a hell of a lot, not that I claim to be an all-knowing expert by any stretch. Clearly China has not exactly been involved in nearly as many foreign wars as the US, but this is not because the Chinese are a uniquely peace-loving people, as supposedly serious people constantly claim. I mean, I hate it when Obama says that the US is the greatest country in the world (I like to think he's too smart to believe that) but I basically want to bash my head against the wall when Chinese officials literally say things like "China never hurts other countries' interests." I mean, how is that even possible for a country and economy of that size, regardless of intent?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
Fiendish_Ghoul posted:Try to find popular or academic criticisms of Chinese foreign policy other than it being too soft and not involving nuking Japan. I've seen some, but not a hell of a lot, not that I claim to be an all-knowing expert by any stretch. Gee, I wonder why that is! It's almost as if dissenting opinions are being censored by the government or something! Clearly, Chinese people are not smart enough to not buy into their own bullshit, unlike Obama 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 03:48
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:What I gotta ask is if anyone in China believes the 'Peaceful rise' bullshit that's been spouted for a while. Annexing Tibet, Strongarming Taiwan, aiming missile radars at Japanese ships - Is there some misunderstanding as to the translation of peaceful that I'm not clued into? You forgot attacking India, fights with the USSR, numerous border clashes with their neighbors, and invading Vietnam. Also, the US started the Korean War. Most educated Chinese people or those who have studied abroad see through the bullshit. The average Chinese person believes the CCP propaganda that China is a scrappy peaceful underdog that has been harassed by foreign nations forever. People live in a vacuum in China and they barely even teach history here. Anything that's not related to your area of study or the test is useless. It doesn't help that every other show on TV is a WWII drama where Japanese caricatures rape and kill Chinese people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
RocknRollaAyatollah posted:It doesn't help that every other show on TV is a WWII drama where Japanese caricatures rape and kill Chinese people. The problem is with media in China depicting Japanese people in the present day in the same way or shifting the sins of the father onto a situation where it hinders reasonable foreign policy or common sense. One common issue I see a lot here and other places is that people are very willing to lessen or revise history in a way that doesn't make Japanese war crimes look as bad. This is all reactionary based on current modern day geopolitics and distaste towards mainland China. WW2 Imperial Japan was every bit as awful as the Nazis and admitting that doesn't mean you throw your hat in with mainland China. Modus Operandi fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Mar 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
No, sorry, I don't buy it. There is quite a bit of room for people to express their opinions on most subjects. Censorship happens, but it doesn't seem to be nearly harsh enough to explain the apparently widespread conviction that China will never do anything to any other country (that didn't totally have it coming). Edit- sorry for not including the quote....
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
It's also just saturating the media with negative depictions of one people. If you see how the white folks act in period Chinese shows, it's usually boorish, often stupid, but not nearly as bloody and dominating as the imperialists were at the time. It's like if America constantly ran historical dramas about Pearl Harbor or The Alamo or 9/11, and that was all you ever got to see of Japanese, Mexicans and Arabs. That's not entirely fair, because I don't watch too many Chinese dramas. But I did like this one 愛情公寓, called iPartment in English, that was inspired by (rip off of) How I Met Your Mother with some Big Bang Theory elements in there, but it was surprising because it featured a Japanese character who spoke Chinese, was into manga, and was extremely attractive to one of the Chinese female characters. It was refreshing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:It's like if America constantly ran historical dramas about Pearl Harbor or The Alamo or 9/11, and that was all you ever got to see of Japanese, Mexicans and Arabs. The US isn't all that far from that, and it wouldn't be hard to go your whole life not seeing any fictional portrayal of an Arab that wasn't facing off against Chuck Norris.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 05:24
|
|
|
RocknRollaAyatollah posted:
Actually, I have to disagree on the point about low wages for employees when it comes to State Owned Enterprise (SOE's). Nowadays oil companies like Sinopec offer fantastic salaries companies have really nice benefits. The SOE's that are still around the block have adjusted pay to be better than the market. And they are not as cost conscience as private companies because they are funneled with mystery public money. quote:Most middle class Chinese people seem to have gotten rich from owning homes on valuable land and getting a generous payout. From my personal experience very few people make what could be considered a middle income. I've only really seen low income and incredibly high income jobs. Very few people seem to have the equivalent of a 9-5 job that pays $50,000 a year. However, back in the 70's and early 80's people relied on SOE's for a decent housing allocation. But everything broke down during the 90's. The wage for top management was 150 RMB a month but the whole country was experiencing major inflation with the relaxation of currency controls. My girlfriend's father was just promoted to head position of a local factory but it was a ceremonial position because everything was being closed down. Everyone around him started quitting left and right and started new businesses and selling stuff. Whether it's moonlighting by the school corner to sell bras to school girls, import/export Levi's, starting MacDonalds and Fastfood franchises, opening a corner shop, scrap metal collection company, it was a mad rush to corner the market. Everything new/foreign was a major novelty and considered good because foreign products seen as master blueprint copies. KFC was considered a status symbol because of its price back in the day. A value meal at 30 RMB does not seem much in today's standards but it was a sizable chunk of pay for a meal. With no reference point, people would assume it's good and "that's how foreign things are". People took an overnight train to Shanghai just for a taste of KFC. Or they waited 10 years down the line for their own city to have it. And the Hong Kong dollar was 10 HKD ：1 RMB  That's why Hong Kong has a magical reputation for mainland folk - a land of free flowing goods, air-conditioning, and colour televsion. Cantopop sounds bad, but coming from Hong Kong, it must be awesome  The 90's were chaotic times and basically transformed the coastal regions. School teachers, university officials, doctors, or other positions still retained a very very nice pension. But if you got laid off? No luck for you and time to bootstraps. It was a sink or swim situation and started to develop a wealth gap. The middle class was formed when people tried getting new jobs and reinvented themselves to make a new buck or grab a new opportunity. Tanks rolled in, protest gig is up, so time to go make some bank! Public officials already had cushy jobs but it was their connections which made them rich. Local village head is still the sole scrap metal collector or food processor because they own the keys to everything. Nowadays they are super rich and own a gazillion shell companies to stash their wealth. It's a bit surprising though, to see people spend so much money on themselves buying expensive clothing yet still look so loving cheap. Arakan posted:So what exactly happens if they were to become a SAR? Does the Chinese government still get to control their natural resources and fresh water? Because that's the only way it would ever happen. It's a trap, don't fall for it! A SAR is not really all that good Modifications to the underlying legal system (Basic Law) is not allowed and you get mainland officials always breathing down your judicial independence. Oh and your economic policy/tax revenue becomes too tied in to China. I suppose I want my cake and eat it too. Happy that my part of town has *mostly free speech/press*, super fast internet not controlled by the state, low tax and low corruption, have as many kids as I want (not that I want to). But I do enjoy life in the mainland where I don't need a visa, have more leeway in dealing with public officials in terms of work/business/permits, greater market access and being treated like a rock star because I'm from Hong Kong. Oh and none of that hukou silliness. To be honest though, a lot times being SAR Chinese is a 2nd class citizen. I'm out of the "official system" - there are hotels I can't check in (because I don't have regular government ID), train tickets I can't purchase online, credit cards I can't apply, international credit fees to pay, international delivery, "minor first world inconveniences". I always poke fun at the jingoistic Chinese who always claim Hong Kong is part of China, but I highlight the everyday problems that Hongers go through when they live in China. Everyone just looks at me funny - "Why do you want to part of the system, it's messed up!" If HK ever becomes independent, I don't think China will be as friendly as Malaysia dealing with Singapore. caberham fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Mar 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 06:08
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:You can simply take the flat position that interior imperialism against indigenous minorities is something that shouldn't happen. I don't think America as a nation as much of a leg to stand-on, but I don't see Americans as hypocritical for saying both past and current treatments of Native Americans are wrong and China shouldn't colonize Tibet. In the case of the United States, its terrible policy towards Native Americans neatly dovetails with its other horrific policies towards the rest of the population that isn't rich. A Chinese guy I know asked me once why Westerners thought that Tibet's claim to independence was such a genuine one. Thinking it over on the spot I concluded it was because of the general idea of self-determination. But trying to apply this logic on an international scale lead to all sorts of interesting implications, because it's not even a matter of looking back to treatment of the Native Americans. Look at the American political position on places like Kurdistan, South Ossetia, or Israel, and the main unifying principle is not "because human rights", but "because geopolitical interests" or "because convenience" or "because that's a special snowflake situation" with human rights arguments maybe being thrown in as an afterthought. I could see why he needed the idea explained to him. On a superficial level it's really just not much of a unifying thread, except maybe among liberals who really do believe in self-governance for everyone. (I didn't discuss human rights abuses there as I am not familiar with them to a great deal of depth. And neither does the typical American who believes in "Free Tibet", for that matter.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:
I think before the Arab Spring Back to the Future was the only portrayal of Libyans that Americans had.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
caberham posted:Public officials already had cushy jobs but it was their connections which made them rich. Local village head is still the sole scrap metal collector or food processor because they own the keys to everything. Nowadays they are super rich and own a gazillion shell companies to stash their wealth. It's a bit surprising though, to see people spend so much money on themselves buying expensive clothing yet still look so loving cheap.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:A Chinese guy I know asked me once why Westerners thought that Tibet's claim to independence was such a genuine one. Thinking it over on the spot I concluded it was because of the general idea of self-determination. But trying to apply this logic on an international scale lead to all sorts of interesting implications, because it's not even a matter of looking back to treatment of the Native Americans. Look at the American political position on places like Kurdistan, South Ossetia, or Israel, and the main unifying principle is not "because human rights", but "because geopolitical interests" or "because convenience" or "because that's a special snowflake situation" with human rights arguments maybe being thrown in as an afterthought. I could see why he needed the idea explained to him. On a superficial level it's really just not much of a unifying thread, except maybe among liberals who really do believe in self-governance for everyone. If you want to see another grievous example of how "might makes right" and people really bending when it comes to their principles just mention Chechnya. The international community pretty much turned a blind eye to Russia leveling Grozny over and over again. I don't recall any American pundits/activists even attempting to discuss it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:A thing that cannot be overstated. Every time I see that guy and his wife getting on a Cathay flight or whatever in first class with their designer mom jeans and red socks and horrible loud polo shirts it's just :ugh: because I know they're spending gobs of money on this poo poo. Living under communist rule somehow had this weird side-effect of setting back fashion like 2-3 decades. Russians are identical and always easy to spot in an airport. What the gently caress about escaping a dystopian technocracy for a capitalist plutocracy makes you want to wear acid washed jeans and Chuck Taylors and always be dragging around a plastic bag of duty free Marlboros? I'll never figure that out. This is basically the way I can distinguish a mainlander from a local (likely HK descended) Chinese person in Vancouver at a glance, so as to know beforehand if I should attempt Mandarin first, because Good Goddamn its like a loving uniform those dudes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
When I was in Prague five years ago, it was during China's Olympics and there were all sorts of activist tagging around town that pointed to human rights abuses. I also attended a small "Free Tibet" themed community concert. I think a big part of it was genuine bitterness towards a Communist government - the feeling that Tibetans deserve the same right of independence that the Czechs were denied for so long, and that in the recent experience of the Czechs, any communist government is inherently oppressive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
Well the US gov. is pretty oppressive too, albeit usually more subtly if you live in the states. I can't think of a government in the world I totally support. (Edit: I was also referring to the all-out war they commit outside the borders too. War on drugs screwing up Mexico, drone wars destabilizing the middle east, etc. Within the borders they focus on economic warfare.) \/ got any sevens fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Mar 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
effectual posted:Well the US gov. is pretty oppressive too, albeit usually more subtly if you live in the states. I can't think of a government in the world I totally support. Then your standards are a teensy bit out of whack, wouldn't you say? The U.S. government is way less oppressive even with the bad things it does inside its borders.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 04:23
|
|
|
I've heard it once framed in terms of decorum. Yeah, maybe a lot of places are ruled by a country which ain't from there, like yankland is full of white people or whatever, but if the people are being oppressed, if they're lighting themselves on fire and poo poo, aren't allowed even the illusion of control, it's a huge loving embarrassment for China because that poo poo ain't hard. You just give them enough control to play around with, stop loving with the monks and try and least let some of the money stay there. Look at what the west does to Africa! We engage in neocolonialism galore, loving over huge swathes of the world population but because we do it indirectly, it's much better. His point was that it's a loving embarrassment to see a country going around doing what they're doing, it's backwards and that trying to point fingers at others just made them look childish. I think that last point worked well but at that point I was on my fourth Vodka-Bull so I wasn't following the discussion in the most critical manner. (Unrelated, but my impression is that Chinese people can handle their liquor way better than Japanese peeps, but a limited sample size makes me wonder if that's unfounded. Just curious if you lot feel the same.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Then your standards are a teensy bit out of whack, wouldn't you say? The U.S. government is way less oppressive even with the bad things it does inside its borders.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 05:16
|
|
|
Modus Operandi posted:It's less oppressive.. unless you lived in SEA in the 60's, South America in the late 70's-80's, or the war torn areas of the middle east in the 90's up until the present. It's pretty hard to argue that the U.S. government is objectively "better" when hundreds of thousands of Iraqis/Afghans are dead as a result of bad foreign policy. 30 million dead. Shut up.  I'm in a lovely mood apparently. Look, I get what you're trying to do but the comparison doesn't work nearly as well as you think it does. Yes, it is pretty easy to argue that the U.S. government is objectively better than the Chinese government. One killed vastly more through its policies, one is vastly more oppressive inside its borders, one suppresses freedom of speech, one sends people to labor camps without due process for pissing off whatever minor official, one is vastly more corrupt and venal, one is actively pursuing resettlement policies in its conquered territories etc. etc. The list could go on for a while. Yes, I get the U.S. government does a lot of immoral things, but it's not the same. It's like a bad balance in the bank account, -$1,00,000 and -$10,000,000 are both negative balances, but one is a lot worse than the other.I hate to hear this from Westerners because the Chinese loving love their tu quoque arguments that come out exactly like yours. "America is bad too, so you have no grounds to say anything. China is no worse than anyone else." China shouldn't get a pass because other countries did some bad things. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Mar 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:30 million dead. Shut up. So eat a dick.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
Modus Operandi posted:If you honestly want to go there and compare atrocities then just add up the dead through the bad foreign policy years. It's closer than you think especially with the huge numbers of bad regimes supported by both countries. This idea that one government is better and there's some kind of moral high ground to stand on is pretty childish. Government's aren't really inherently moral. Okay you want to do some addition, go ahead and do that and come back. Don't tell me to make your argument for you. It's closer than I think? I think this is just you being lazy. That's a content-less assertion if I ever saw one. Your attitude is really common, and it's pathetic. Let me tell you why: it's a facile argument for people who don't have a stake in the matter and want to sound like they know something without having to actually know poo poo about anything. You can say, "This idea that one government is better and there's some kind of moral high ground to stand on is pretty childish. Government's aren't really inherently moral." at a cocktail party and people will smile and nod, and you don't have to have a loving clue what you're talking about. But it's worse than simple ignorance; it's a refusal to event attempt at making a judgement and a denigration of anyone who puts in the effort to try. And then the governments you so casually dismiss as immoral turn around and teach the same argument as propaganda. You have the luxury of sitting around with your friends denouncing the attempt to make moral judgements about the state. People who live in that state don't have that luxury, and if they get sold on your stupid argument they are going to suffer. So stop saying it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 05:41
|
|
|
Modus Operandi posted:If you honestly want to go there and compare atrocities then just add up the dead through the bad foreign policy years. It's closer than you think especially with the huge numbers of bad regimes supported by both countries. This idea that one government is better and there's some kind of moral high ground to stand on is pretty childish. Government's aren't really inherently moral. 60 million dead in 10 years as the direct result of one individual's personal beliefs being forced on the population. The number is 30-60 million because there was so much chaos and devastation in the country side they have no concrete numbers and it's likely the ruling party made up data for the census to make the losses seem less severe. All governments have problems and hosed up legacies, but Mao is a singular example of one of the most terrible there has been. There have been other mad men and dictators doing horrible things to their people but no one except maybe Hitler and Stalin are personally responsible for as much suffering as Mao. As bad as the US is or has been, it still doesn't negate China's past atrocities or justify the crippling and all consuming corruption the pervades the entire country. pentyne fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Mar 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 05:43
|
|
|
You'll need to add in Pol Pot's numbers on the China side if you're going to add the Southeast Asian dead on the American side. Still, don't let the Chinese win, guys, America is better at everything and there's no way they managed to accidentally kill more than we did when we tried to drat hard! If so, it's only because we were dealing with such tiny countries, which should be counted as a handicap.
ReindeerF fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Mar 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 08:43
|
|
|
Most people agree that the Great Leap Forward death toll was between 18 and 35 million, no idea where you're getting the 60 from.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 09:31
|
|
|
Mao's time machine sent red guards to start the Tai Ping Rebellion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 09:50
|
|
|
I forgot to turn on my script blocker before going to a Chinese subtitling website, where I was treated to my new favorite banner ad:
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 14:17
|
|
|
Is that an RTS or something?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
My first thoughts are "I wonder if they let you play as Japan and defeat the Chinese" and "I wonder what better game this is ripped off from." Is that bad?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 15:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 18:39 |
|
|
Bloodnose posted:I forgot to turn on my script blocker before going to a Chinese subtitling website, where I was treated to my new favorite banner ad: It would be interesting to see what that game actually is especially since it seems to be happening in a built-up area and the islands are barren rocks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 19:47
|
|