An opinion piece by Diane Francis;
The new Game of Thrones is not about military conquest but about picking off trophy assets from countries, like Canada, that are Boy Scouts and naïve enough to let them do so. And growing and nurturing large successful entities is essential to any nation-state. Size matters.
h/t Brian
ET, would you expect the government to explicitly state that the Chinese owned their networks? and had hacked into numerous other Canadian networks?
Note I also left out the Chinese government denied responsibility, ’cause I don’t believe that either.
cgh, if I rephrased the question to state:
“…Canada nationalizing natural resources companies, why is it okay for the Chinese government to own companies that hold mining leases,
but not okay for the Canadian government?”
Knight, dress it up however you want, all you are doing is justifying theft. Your usual defence of property rights is revealed as a hypocritical lie. There’s no practical difference between you and Stalinism. You are precisely part of the problem as to why it is so difficult to attract venture capital in Canada.
When favill asks why there’s a shortage of capital in Canada, all I need do is hold you up by the scruff of your neck and say, “Here’s your reason.”
SDH – cgh has answered your comment about cyber spying between nations – and that includes Israel, Iran, the US, the UK, China, Russia and etc. They are not acts of war.
As cgh has pointed out, Canada, with its small population, has limited investment capital to develop its resources. Therefore, it must attract foreign capital. This does not mean that such investors can flout Canadian law. The US under Obama rejected any participation in developing the oil sands.
And references to China being communist are irrelevant, for capital investment in foreign lands can’t be communist. Again, China is rapidly becoming less socialist than the West.
Knight99 – I don’t see the point of your comments about ‘murderers of 60 million’ and so on. Such views could apply to doing business with Russia, Germany, the US (eg the civil war, the natives), with Spain (the Spanish Inquisition), with France (the Vichy govt)..and so on.
CGH >
“….all you are doing is justifying theft. Your usual defence of property rights is revealed as a hypocritical lie.”
Yea I don’t hear about you giving your car, home, and other property rights away. No need to defend them you’ve given it all away.
“….all I need do is hold you up by the scruff of your neck and say, “Here’s your reason.” – CGH
Now there was your best line, believe me in all sincerity when I say that you would never have me by the scruff of the neck, not ever.
So enough about me, let’s look at you for a change, a sellout communist sympathiser hating anyone not considered a Liberal loony loser while crying “racist” at the drop of a hat along with every other moon-bat troll that doesn’t like an opinion that does not sell out their nations wealth and sovereignty.
Niiiiice, and we who actually care about our great nations built on the freedoms and ingenuities of our forefathers who despise murderous totalitarian states should be listening to YOU? LOL I think not.
If only we could sell them the CBC…
Posted by: marco at July 30, 2012 1:29 AM
I would love to see the CBC dissapear but…
The CBC is already a bunch of communist elites who look down on us simple villagers and who distort facts and then call it news to better brainwash us ( or at least try to )…
ET >
“I don’t see the point of your comments about ‘murderers of 60 million’ and so on.”
Yea ET, I don’t think I need to go on about who China actually is today. Either your being intentionally deceptive, or naive, or incredibly ignorant. Whatever the case, comparisons between a defeated Stalinist Russia, or Nazi Germany, and China’s current diplomatic global face is weirdly out of place. Do you need a fresh kidney or something?
Anyway, aside from CGH’s obvious misdirection’s, racist finger pointing, and attempted tough guy cyber bullying, I did not ever state on this thread that we shouldn’t or couldn’t sell products to whoever has the cash to pay for them. I said that we should not sell China direct investments providing them with any ownership.
Only a true dullard would not comprehend that vast Chinese ownership has the potential to lead to some form of governance and occupation over time. Australia is already starting to feel some regulatory demands from mainland China due to its vast selloff of mining interests.
China is a big powerful totalitarian military empire thanks to our technologies, stolen or otherwise. They are building plenty of nice humanitarian Aircraft Carriers to carry all that state of the art stealth technology they stole to go spread joy and lucky Chinese happiness around the world I suppose. Ever think they may end up off the coast of Australia one day protecting some Chinese mining interests very similar to what US aircraft carriers are doing in the Gulf?
Apple still needs to put up suicide nets in its Chinese sweatshops to keep the cheep labor retraining costs down.
I mean where are people’s heads? This thread is a ridiculous display of what a soft, decadent society of losers we’ve become.
knight 99 – where are cgh’s ‘racist’ comments? I have no idea what you are referring to here.
You don’t define, clearly, ‘what China is today’. The way I see it, China is an emerging economic giant. Its communism infrastructure is gradually dissolving as its population moves more and more into a capitalist economy. I don’t understand why you see this as a problem. Most Chinese have only one focus: money. Oh, and getting brand name goods. That’s valid for Chinese in the West as well as in China.
I don’t see the slippery slope that you suggest, which is that IF China invests in X, THEN, it will attempt to control the nation in which X exists. I think the era of mercantilism is over; we are a global economy and I don’t think that any one nation can exert an imperial political or economic control.
Plus, I don’t subscribe to the ‘Yellow or Red Peril’ imagery of China. It isn’t as totalitarian as you suggest; it is too large and diverse for such a unified control – and the psychological result of such size and diversity is localization (and yes, local power fiefdoms and corruption).
What is interesting is seeing how a population that has always been decentralized in practice (economically, ethnically, linguistically) and only vaguely acknowledging an abstract far-off central power (the dynasties as well as communism) will slip into capitalism far more easily because of that decentralized reality.
ET >
“where are cgh’s ‘racist’ comments?”
CGH @ 11:24am – “And all the shrieking hysterics from Knight and the rest of his little cesspool of racist chauvinists can’t hide it.”
ET @ 4:30pm – “Most Chinese have only one focus: money. Oh, and getting brand name goods. That’s valid for Chinese in the West as well as in China.”
LOL – and I’ll bet their sneaky little buggers as well!
Where’s the amazing race policeman CGH when we need him now? Oh yea, It’s only racists if the viewpoint comes from someone with an opposing opinion, whether they brought up race or NOT. So let’s go back and find “Knights” racist comment in the thread, hmmm zip, nada, nothing. Why am I talking with you people is the real question?
As far as “I don’t see the slippery slope that you suggest”, of course you don’t, that is why you’ll argue your theoretical viewpoint to death, regardless of China’s human rights records and historical atrocities that have apparently seamlessly disappeared from their political landscape. Must have been all the Western Leftist hug your communist neighbor propaganda that magically converted China into the little sweatshop utopia that we all admire today.
If ET didn’t read it in an academic book, it isn’t true. Totally brainwashed into believing communitarianism = free enterprise. In fact, she doesn’t even know what communitarianism is.
The. Book of Daniel foretold the mixing of the iron and clay. Iron curtain countries and our free enterprise ways.
So true, that the love of money is the root of all evil.
fiddle >
“If ET didn’t read it in an academic book, it isn’t true.”
Now, now, in ET’s defence @ 4:40pm “….It isn’t as totalitarian as you suggest; it is too large and diverse for such a unified control”.
She obviously didn’t read Mao’s little Red Book……..carefully enough.
knight – for me to say that most Chinese are focused on money isn’t racist! After all, that would mean that any generalization about the beliefs and behaviour of any people would be defined as racism! Is it racist to say that most Americans believe in freedom of speech?
You haven’t provided any evidence to support your basic theme that ‘China is a totalitarian empire that will attempt to take over our nation if it invests in it…’
The US ‘historical atrocity’ of legal slavery does not mean that it, now, as a nation, must be rejected.
The Canadian internment of Japanese people, who were Canadian citizens, during the war, does not mean that it, now, as a nation, must be rejected.
So, we’ll have to disagree on this issue.
fiddle -Where did I say that communitarianism means free enterprise? I’m not familiar with communitarianism but I assume that you’ve read some, ah, books on it. And I assume that you’ve read some, ah, books on free enterprise, and thus, can compare the two. No? You haven’t read anything on these belief systems? Your knowledge of them is genetically innate? Hmmm.
You seem to have no empirical grounds to your comments, you never provide any hard data and no theoretical grounds; the only references you ever make are to the bible. Hmm.
Knight – I’ve read Mao’s book. So what? And I’ve read the classics of Chinese thought – all in the original, if you are interested – and again, so what?
Your view of China and mine are totally different. I think that communism, as an infrastructure, is operationally impossible in any group larger than 30 people – and therefore, Mao’s book exists in words. I prefer reality, and think that the reality of China in the world is not a clone of Mao’s rhetoric.
“The US ‘historical atrocity’ of legal slavery does not mean that it, now, as a nation, must be rejected.
The Canadian internment of Japanese people, who were Canadian citizens, during the war, does not mean that it, now, as a nation, must be rejected.”
Typical leftist false equivalence. China still is a totalitarian dictatorship. We aren’t.
China is a big powerful totalitarian military empire thanks to our technologies, stolen or otherwise.
– said Knight 99
Mostly stolen. Evidence of this abounds.
And that only confirms we should not lower our guard.
As for ET, a lot of people here confuse good writing skills with good reasoning or good arguments; they are hypnotised by the nice wrapping but fail to notice the lack of substance.
I usually skip over her comments as she says one thing one day and the opposite the next, but always in impeccable English…
ET >
“for me to say that most Chinese are focused on money isn’t racist!”
Well you’ll need to confirm that with CGH, I didn’t bring up race at all and was labeled a racist for simply disagreeing with him. I think your extended comment “….That’s valid for Chinese in the West as well” would put you in the racist category with CGH (only if you were in disagreement with him of course). Thankfully I don’t throw those stones, merely pointing out the hypocrisy and the idiotic throwaway rationality you had aligned yourself with.
“You haven’t provided any evidence to support your basic theme that ‘China is a totalitarian empire….” – ET
I guess your awaiting some sort of published academic theses to validate anything I have to say. I’m afraid that if you can’t see the totalitarian police state that China is today, and the Empire that it’s becoming, there really is no more to say. BTW, how many children do you have? My guess is that it’s not one state mandated child. If you want to know more about China’s current state of political prisoners including religious persecutions, death squads that harvest organs from “on-site medical/ execution vans” there is a plethora of On-line research you could do (not in China mind you).
If you better understood the significance of China’s new Aircraft Carriers from a military standpoint along with their technological military buildups you may also have a different perspective of this loving “emerging economic giant”.
I will agree with you on one point, “…..UK, the US, Europe etc have become more socialist and focused on big government control.” Which of course makes today’s China seem far more loving and cuddly than it might have otherwise. That is not because China has become nicer totalitarians; it is because we are becoming more like them.
If “they” killed off +60 million American’s, and then impoverished and propagandized a few generations, they’d be allot more compliant and easier to control as well.
If we actually saw one fair and democratic election in China we could honestly say they are moving in the right direction. Until then there is no reason to sell them controlling interests in anything of our own. Want to sell them a little milk and some spare motor oil, fine.
canadian friend (aka who?) – heh, your comments are mere opinions without actual evidence. Piffle.
The easiest thing in the world is to offer an opinion, as you have done, without evidence or logic. Is that how you operate?
Technology is never, ever, confinable to its inventor. If you take a look at history, it was simply impossible to prevent the diffusion of, for example, the invention of fire, of the plough, of horse stirrups, the invention of printing, of gunpowder, of glass lenses, of the germ theory of disease, of antibiotics, of computers, of the Internet, of cell phones.
To consider such diffusion as ‘theft’ is naive and ignorant of our human species and how we live as such. Ever heard of ‘the information society’?
knight – to generalize or use a stereotype (Chinese are interested in money) is not the same as racism! If I were to say, as so many do, that ‘Canadians are nice’, is that a racist opinion? Or a generalization?
If I say that Italians are excitable – is that racism or stereotyping?
And there’s no need to insult me by denigrating my academic background. Is your knowledge innate?
I certainly agree that China is not democratic in our sense of a multi-party open election. China’s elections are ‘in-house’ so to speak, within the party. This is rather similar to the way China was always run (by the elite mandarins). In effect, this is a two-class system, but the middle class is rising in China in economic power. Political power must follow.
ET >
“…to generalize or use a stereotype (Chinese are interested in money) is not the same as racism!”
Relax already; saying that most blacks love to eat watermelon and fried chicken isn’t racist either, I understand.
“there’s no need to insult me by denigrating my academic background” – ET
No insult intended, where am I to go with your incessant demand for proof that is everywhere. I can only assume you require some sort of professionally written paper to understand the material, you didn’t really clarify. To state that China is a totalitarian regime building an excessively large military might, coupled with an aggressive global resource expansion, is common knowledge to most. If you can’t accept those easily searchable facts, what am I to assume?
Anyway, here is an interesting summary to start with:
http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=298
Honestly, anything I’ve criticised China about is well researched knowledge. To pretend that they *the Chinese government is someone else kinder and gentler is disingenuous to say the least. Why anyone claiming to be of rational mind who loves freedom and liberty would defend China’s bid to have controlling interests of any kind in our resources or economy, is simply OUT OF THEIR MIND.
It would help for a little clarification from PM Harper.
At the start of the proposed Potash takeover, Harper said that the bid was a “proposal for an American-controlled company to be taken over by an Australian-controlled company.”
That was a subtle, yet nicely clear statement of principle, without igniting an unnecessary bonfire on a naturally sensitive issue. Unfortunately, that clarity, of course, was negated by the final rejection of BHP’s bid by the government.
If Harper had ok’d the Potash, sale, as was right, he could now easily nix the Nexen sale without inflaming concern of foreign capital seeking a return in Canada.
This episode is a good example of how politician’s search for a politically expedient solution, rather than working on principle, always stores up problems for the future that no pol is clever enough to serve around.
Whatever comes out of this, I hope all the strongly pro, and strongly anti folks in the country write letters, and call their MPs with their opinions. People who hold strong positions are way too passive, and that’s what all the bad men in politics know, and endlessly exploit.
If people argue, and post, but don’t tell the political class what they want done, they’ve largely wasted their energy. They’ll know, if you communicate.
ET throws plenty of insults at me in one comment, then right in the next one complains Knight has insulted her.
As I said, she says( or does) one thing ( it is ok to throw plenty of insults ) and then the opposite of it( it is wrong to insult ).
And apparently she has never heard of copyrights and patents.
Pathetic.
Canadian Friend >
Yea well, you need to take ET’s comments/ criticism in stride, I wouldn’t take them too personally.
Listen carefully to her very last comment and absorb the reality of her worldview–
“I certainly agree that China is not democratic in our sense of a multi-party open election. China’s elections are ‘in-house’ so to speak, within the party…” – ET
Yea, not unlike the cozy Nazi Party of 1940, no?
Anyway, once you catch on, you don’t need to get your nose out of joint too much on a few little ET criticisms, they shipped intellectual superiors like her off by the millions. The next time around will be no different.
Personally, I think China is being very nice, they’re offering more than top dollar (backed by gold) to buy Nexen, and are just taking advantage of what “western capitalism” has to offer. They have their ducks a row so to speak. Now it’s up to Canadians to get our whatever in a row and decide if we want to sell our resources at top dollar or be told by another country what we are going to do with those resources. Remember resources are items for sale to whoever can afford them outright or negotiate the ownership of them in some other manner!
One more thought..the last time you bought or sold something at a garage sale, did you care whether the buyer was a communist, if he/she was wearing yellow or green pants…probably not! You were just happy that you sold what you had for sale and that person paid you the $$ you requested!
Threadspinner >
“You were just happy that you sold what you had for sale….”
Like selling a known felon a gun?
There’s nothing like society losing its moral compass.
The point to the thread was not about selling a product to China, it’s about selling the farm that produces the product.
When a foreign government owns enough of your real assets, it owns your ass. If China was Switzerland I doubt many would worry as much. The fact that China has a long historical record of human atrocities that remain a part of their governing policies today, should make people pause to think whether or not they should be allowed to potentially have control over your life. It’s not complicated.
Ok, hands up all those who used a Chinese-made computer or handheld device to post here about totalitarian China.
The point to the thread was not about selling a product to China, it’s about selling the farm that produces the product.
Knight ,
I was going to say ” it does not matter so much who we sell Canadian lumber to, but it does matter who owns Canadian forests”
In other words I agree with you completely,
but why some can not see what the problem is…is beyond me…