Digging Under The Great Firewall Of China
MonsieurEvil
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">hi-ho, hi-ho</div> <a href='http://news.com.com/2100-1028-997101.html?tag=fd_top' target='_blank'>http://news.com.com/2100-1028-997101.html?tag=fd_top</a>
The federal government (in conjunction with Microsoft, Sun, and Cisco) has released a new firewall/content-filter bypassing tool. Basically, it is targeted to allow people in China to circumvent their government-controlled internet connections and reach the rest of the world.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The idea behind the U.S.-backed software is to allow someone trying to evade a firewall to tunnel under it via a third-party computer not blocked by the firewall. The software, which uses Secure Sockets Layer (SSL), lets the person who installs it set up a miniature Web site through which a firewall-restricted surfer can access the rest of the Web.
In addition to circumventing firewalls, the software also creates anonymity by covering the Web surfer's tracks and leaving no record of what sites he or she visited beyond the miniature Web site.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A nifty tool. But to play devil's advocate, it will also allow kiddies to bypass their parent's content filtering software as well. Or for students to bypass such blocks at their schools. Is this such a good idea? And is it our job to undermine the Chinese government (and to do the usual wild hand-wringingly nonsensical hippy extrapolation) and PUT THE WHOLE WORLD AT RISK BY ANTAGONZING ANOTHER DICTATORIAL NATION!!!???
Side point: I do also find it incredibly amusing that the Republican-controlled US Federal government just designed a tool which will allow kids all over the world to look at as much previously-blocked porn as they can handle. GG dummies... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
The federal government (in conjunction with Microsoft, Sun, and Cisco) has released a new firewall/content-filter bypassing tool. Basically, it is targeted to allow people in China to circumvent their government-controlled internet connections and reach the rest of the world.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The idea behind the U.S.-backed software is to allow someone trying to evade a firewall to tunnel under it via a third-party computer not blocked by the firewall. The software, which uses Secure Sockets Layer (SSL), lets the person who installs it set up a miniature Web site through which a firewall-restricted surfer can access the rest of the Web.
In addition to circumventing firewalls, the software also creates anonymity by covering the Web surfer's tracks and leaving no record of what sites he or she visited beyond the miniature Web site.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A nifty tool. But to play devil's advocate, it will also allow kiddies to bypass their parent's content filtering software as well. Or for students to bypass such blocks at their schools. Is this such a good idea? And is it our job to undermine the Chinese government (and to do the usual wild hand-wringingly nonsensical hippy extrapolation) and PUT THE WHOLE WORLD AT RISK BY ANTAGONZING ANOTHER DICTATORIAL NATION!!!???
Side point: I do also find it incredibly amusing that the Republican-controlled US Federal government just designed a tool which will allow kids all over the world to look at as much previously-blocked porn as they can handle. GG dummies... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Similar software already exists but without sufficient ease of use that it could achieve widespread international distribution.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Soooo... thoughts?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Similar software already exists but without sufficient ease of use that it could achieve widespread international distribution.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Soooo... thoughts? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Blarg, I did read it...well, skimmed...and it's fairly easy to set up a proxy -__-;; MS needs to integrate that software into its "Chinese version" of their OS's if they want to get widespread use. ¬_¬ I guess it's a "internet free China", but I can't help but disagree with the way they're going about it. Broadcasting radio and directly interfering with the Chinese state's control of information is probably considered espionage/sabotage. Despite my dislike of the Chinese government (since I'm from Taiwan), I have to say that there should be a more subtle approach to finesse the Chinese blockage of the internet.
man, my CISCO teacher had better not get work of this
:-P
The internet: a model of global cooperation and communication. Freedom of speech and freedom to create. All stifiled by a 'superior' form of government?
...
Right...
I support it. Are we infringing on China? You bet. Is it wrong? Legally... maybe. Morally? No way.
Hehe, in a population that is mostly male, what is that gonna do? Uh oh...
Communism works!
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Liability is such junk sometimes. If the child decides to bypass filtering software then the blame falls entirely on that person. When situations like this arise, I feel that people are simply looking for a scapegoat rather than taking responsibilities, in the case of this topic, bad parenting or just a bad child. Is it the companies fault ? Hell no. I mean, C'mon, I could probably use a damn wisk to kill someone, does that mean that its the companies fault for ignoring such a factor ? Yes, a little extreme, maybe the example of firearms as defense, rather than acts of terrorism, but im sure we all understand.
For the most part, its liberal america who simply feel that its always someone elses fault, but thats a different story.
As to the Chinese Government. Meh. I truely don't care about such people who could treat humanity like they do.
/drama queen devils advocate mode on
It may be morally right, but HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF CHINA RELEASED A PROGRAM THAT LET ANYONE ACCESS THE CIA MAINFRAMES AT LANGLEY?<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> OMG!!!!
I know.
I just like baiting MonsE. 9 times out of 10 I can't fault his arguments, but I enjoy harraguing him anyway.
PLEASE NOTE THE ABOVE IS NOT SERIOUS. Any resemblence to threads, living or locked.....
Ok seriously.
What will it achieve? Probably a clampdown on internet use. The Chinese will close down more cybercafes (*shudder*) and maybe regulate telcos to stop them providing internet services to home users. So gg there guys, but not sure it'll work. Anyway, about this pr0n......
Considering that the U.S. and China already point nuclear weapons at each other, face off with each other's aircraft, and generally don't like each other, I'd say the current politeness ratings fall in at 5 out of 10, and trust factor hits about 0 out of 10. Making software available that is contrary to your rival's interests is almost to be expected, and ranks down there somewhere alongside stealing the towels from hotels in Beijing. They know we'll go pee-pee in their coke. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
As far as legality goes, there is no law at the level of nations, other than the law imposed by the victors. "The strong do what they will, and the weak endure what they must." The U.N. isn't going to threaten the U.S. with serious action for violating China's sovereignty- the U.N. HAS no enforcement ability without the U.S.
So my guess is, both China and the U.S. continually do everything they can right up to the line of necessitating open conflict, in terms of serving their own interests, and I'm sure they've been doing that for decades.
The net is one of the last great frontiers of expressionism a lot of countries around the world are trying to limit the way users have access to it. I'm actually suprised the US made something like this though....
What right does the Chinese government have to <a href='http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA170562002?open&of=ENG-CHN' target='_blank'>execute you for going to a website they don't like?</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One of the longest sentences has been passed against a former police officer, Li Dawei, (see: "People's Republic of China: State control of the Internet in China: appeal cases" ASA17/046/2002), who has been sentenced for 11 years in prison for downloading articles from Chinese democracy websites abroad. All his appeals have been turned down.
Two of those detained for Internet-related offences have died in custody, apparently as a result of torture or ill-treatment at the hands of the police. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's Amnesty international's take on it at least. Have some empathy, for gosh sakes...
What right does the Chinese government have to <a href='http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA170562002?open&of=ENG-CHN' target='_blank'>execute you for going to a website they don't like?</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One of the longest sentences has been passed against a former police officer, Li Dawei, (see: "People's Republic of China: State control of the Internet in China: appeal cases" ASA17/046/2002), who has been sentenced for 11 years in prison for downloading articles from Chinese democracy websites abroad. All his appeals have been turned down.
Two of those detained for Internet-related offences have died in custody, apparently as a result of torture or ill-treatment at the hands of the police. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's Amnesty international's take on it at least. Have some empathy, for gosh sakes... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The same right it has to do anything. The application of force.
I am pleased that this is being attempted, I think its fair to say that the broadcast media, and its penetration into the USSR was one of the main catalysts for its eventual fall. China has managed to evade this so far. Even the worldwide coverage of Tianenmen Square and its protests was unable to make a dent inside mainland China.
Lets hope the switch to online services allows some freedom of information. That, and the influence of Hong Kong.
What right does the Chinese government have to <a href='http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA170562002?open&of=ENG-CHN' target='_blank'>execute you for going to a website they don't like?</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One of the longest sentences has been passed against a former police officer, Li Dawei, (see: "People's Republic of China: State control of the Internet in China: appeal cases" ASA17/046/2002), who has been sentenced for 11 years in prison for downloading articles from Chinese democracy websites abroad. All his appeals have been turned down.
Two of those detained for Internet-related offences have died in custody, apparently as a result of torture or ill-treatment at the hands of the police. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's Amnesty international's take on it at least. Have some empathy, for gosh sakes... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The same right it has to do anything. The application of force.
I am pleased that this is being attempted, I think its fair to say that the broadcast media, and its penetration into the USSR was one of the main catalysts for its eventual fall. China has managed to evade this so far. Even the worldwide coverage of Tianenmen Square and its protests was unable to make a dent inside mainland China.
Lets hope the switch to online services allows some freedom of information. That, and the influence of Hong Kong. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
AGREED! Hopefully china can stop living behind it's shields and step out into a world where all are equal etc
I'm starting to argue with pathos, so I'm going to stop...
Information was crucial in the downfall of the USSR, that and it's economy going to pot...
What right does the Chinese government have to <a href='http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA170562002?open&of=ENG-CHN' target='_blank'>execute you for going to a website they don't like?</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's their country and their government. It's a matter of opinion but I have always thought that if some country has decided to be dictatorship/communistic/democracy/whatever, I let them be. If people of that country really really want to change the government, they will. It's <b>Natural Selection</b> and shouldn't be interfered by others.
What do you think, should the Nazi's have been left in power to continue killing all those Jews? It was those Jew's government, they should have stuck up for themselves!
More of that empathy...
What do you think, should the Nazi's have been left in power to continue killing all those Jews? It was those Jew's government, they should have stuck up for themselves!
More of that empathy... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe im just a radical person but Imo countries should take care of their own business. We can debate about ethics and which kind of political structure is right but there really is no right answer. I find it very hard to judge countries because they have dictatorship(there can be a 'good' dictatorship, not just one that kills people for no reason)/communism. Even if most of the people on this planet say democracy is the way to go, does that mean it's the absolute truth?
We can continue discussing about this but it's just about philosophy of good and bad and for that, we should open a new thread.
Then answer me this question. If the Russians occupied your home country Finland (again - as this has happened in the past 60 years), and made the whole country a vassal state, using similar tactics to what they used in Afghanistan and Chechnya, what would your response be? Would you want your NATO allies to come to your defense and liberate you? Or would you want to stay under the control of a military dictatorship, with no civil rights, no democracy, no freedom of speech, or self-determination? Just curious.
I don't have need to discuss this matter anymore, but I was just suggesting it in case you have <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Then answer me this question. If the Russians occupied your home country Finland (again - as this has happened in the past 60 years), and made the whole country a vassal state, using similar tactics to what they used in Afghanistan and Chechnya, what would your response be? Would you want your NATO allies to come to your defense and liberate you? Or would you want to stay under the control of a military dictatorship, with no civil rights, no democracy, no freedom of speech, or self-determination? Just curious. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually Russia never occupied Finland, they tried really hard but they couldn't. Finland was the only nation in WW2 to maintain its indendence after being attacked by other nation(we were actually in war with russians, germany and allied). On to your question anyway:
There is a difference between "freeing" a country which has formed it's government (dictatorship in this case) over dozens of years as a state(it has been chosen by the people that were forming this state), than freeing a country that just got invaded by a hostile nation(here other state tries to force its ideas to other state *cough* USA, read the starting post *cough*). Surely I wouldn't be very pleased if my home country would become invaded by russians, but that doesn't change the fact that imho governments should interfere with other governments business as little as possible. There are certain occations when this "rule" can/should be broken, for example if military pact(NATO) or nature preserving pacts(kyoto convention) have been made.
If a scenario decribed by you would happen, im sure that USA or Sweden or any other country for that matter would give a damn about it, if it werent for their own interest. Probably military action by NATO would be taken only to show Russia that attacking other nations is nasty. In the end every country actually only protects its own interests, no more no less. No one does anything out of "good will".
<a href='http://www.sci.fi/~borg/finland.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.sci.fi/~borg/finland.htm</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On Nov. 30, 1939, Soviet
troops invaded Finland, beginning the Russo-Finnish War.
In March 1940, by the Treaty of Moscow, Finland ceded
Karelian territories to the USSR. When Germany invaded
the USSR in 1941, Finland reoccupied its former territories.
In 1944, however, Soviet troops staged a counterinvasion, and
by the armistice signed in September 1944, Finland was forced
to cede the Karelian Isthmus and other eastern lands, including
the corridor in the extreme north to the Barents Sea, and to
grant a 50-year lease to a military base at Porkkala. The
USSR returned the military base in 1955 in exchange for
the renewal of a friendship treaty signed in 1948. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And if you studied your chinese history for example, you might learn that the Maoist/Communist take over was military and in many ways, and invasion of one part of the country by another. In a land as big as China, with as many diverse peoples and areas, military occupation from one half against another is defacto foreign invasion. They speak incompatible versions of chinese, use different alphabets, different cultures, etc.
And we have no economic interest in Finland. You make mobile phones. That's basically it as far as the US is concerned. We would defend you because we promised to. I can't speak for the EU, they would be doing it for the same reasons, plus a vested interest in stopping aggression in their own backyard. Or maybe not, they didn't really care prior to WW2, I will grant you...
The question was not that someone would help or not. The question was 'Would you want them to help?'. Maybe I wasn't clear, but I'd love to hear your answer. Would you refuse external help? Would you want to lose the war and your own self-determination through overwhelming russian firepower? Rather than changing the subject, try answering the question this time.
<a href='http://www.sci.fi/~borg/finland.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.sci.fi/~borg/finland.htm</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On Nov. 30, 1939, Soviet
troops invaded Finland, beginning the Russo-Finnish War.
In March 1940, by the Treaty of Moscow, Finland ceded
Karelian territories to the USSR. When Germany invaded
the USSR in 1941, Finland reoccupied its former territories.
In 1944, however, Soviet troops staged a counterinvasion, and
by the armistice signed in September 1944, Finland was forced
to cede the Karelian Isthmus and other eastern lands, including
the corridor in the extreme north to the Barents Sea, and to
grant a 50-year lease to a military base at Porkkala. The
USSR returned the military base in 1955 in exchange for
the renewal of a friendship treaty signed in 1948. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*sigh* guess I have to write a short history of Finland for you:
Russians attacked us, we hold them back until we made a peace treaty. In this treaty we gave them few percentages of Finland, I don't know if you call that being occupied or invaded but I don't, we kept our independence. When Russia and Germany started their war, Finland was naturally eager to get the lost parts of the land back and we allowed troops from Germany to use Finland as launch pad to Russia. We took back our lands(and a little extra, we advanced to the big western lakes and rivers which were great defense lines) and left Germany fighting with Russia because we didn't want to get involved with the Big Countries business' anymore than we needed to, though Hitler tried to convince us to help conquering Leningrad etc. German troops in Finland(and in Russia) didn't do very well and Russians started pushing back. After a lot of fighting we made a new peace treaty and again gave some territories to Russia. One part of the peace treaty was to get rid of the German troops who were still in northern parts of Finland, in Lapland. Hitler naturally couldn't accept German troops backing off peacefully and ordered them to stay in Finland, so we had to force them off, though it wasn't very easy. Of course because we were sort of allied with Germany, at least UK, and I guess other allied, anounced war to us(though they never attacked Finland). So we were in war with Russians, Allied and then with Germany. So as you might see, I don't need to revise my statement because all of it is true. Maybe I should have explained a little more accurately but I thought we weren't talking about it so I didn't see a reason to write history essay on my spare time but guess I had to.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And if you studied your chinese history for example, you might learn that the Maoist/Communist take over was military and in many ways, and invasion of one part of the country by another. In a land as big as China, with as many diverse peoples and areas, military occupation from one half against another is defacto foreign invasion. They speak incompatible versions of chinese, use different alphabets, different cultures, etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In this case it is awfully difficult to determine which part of the China were forming Maoism themselves and which parts this belief was forced to. That's why other countries have to proceed carafully with China, instead of "We are right and you are wrong. We don't have any respect towards you and that's why we find it amusing to rape you insidiously through you own people with a software that allows your people to break your laws. Wot cha gunna do about it?!" It's the same if china would support american people to hack in to american banks with their computer, only because it's allowed in China(not that it truely is).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And we have no economic interest in Finland. You make mobile phones. That's basically it as far as the US is concerned. We would defend you because we promised to.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No you wouldn't because we are not in NATO. If you would defend us, it would be only to oppose Russia.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The question was not that someone would help or not. The question was 'Would you want them to help?'. Maybe I wasn't clear, but I'd love to hear your answer. Would you refuse external help? Would you want to lose the war and your own self-determination through overwhelming russian firepower? Rather than changing the subject, try answering the question this time.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought I answered this question, sorry if I didn't do it clearly enough. YES, I would like them to help! Sure, of course. BUT I wouldn't expect them to if there weren't any motivator. I have hard time seeing what this has to do with anything? I like being free doesn't have anything to do with my opinion where countries inner conflicts shouldn't be messed with. Better example would be:
Two big parties form suddenly in Finland; Communistic and Democratic parties. Do I think that USA or NATO should come and crush the other party? Hell no, we would settle the whole thing by ourselves and if Communistic party would win, then Finland would become communistic nation, obviously chosen by the majority people of Finland. Again this is that <b>Natural Selection</b> I was talking about.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What right does the Australian government have to lock me up for going to a child pornography website? Or one which sponsors terrorism? The Chinese government is recognised by the world's governments as the legitimate government of China. Hence, the laws of China are as legal as the laws of the United States. The Chinese government considers certain information to be damaging to it's control of power. But do we have the right to override the Chinese government? In that case, the Australian government would be perfectly justified in undermining or bypassing American import tarrifs which hurt trade to the US. Respecting other country's laws is part of being a nation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And if you studied your chinese history for example, you might learn that the Maoist/Communist take over was military and in many ways, and invasion of one part of the country by another. In a land as big as China, with as many diverse peoples and areas, military occupation from one half against another is defacto foreign invasion. They speak incompatible versions of chinese, use different alphabets, different cultures, etc.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Chinese Revolution was as much social and cultural as it was militaristic. The communists introduced democracy to the people (they were able to chose their governers) and were very active in helping the populace and educating them. From their bases in the north the communists gained widespread support over much of urban and rural china, and the decision of the communists to fight the Japanese over the Nationalists was a big factor in helping the popularity of communism. By 1945 when the war ended Chiang Kai Shek had an army of some 2.1 million soliders armed with the latest in US equipment, vs a communist movement that had 300,000 lightly armed infantrymen. However mass defections in the army, popular uprisings in the cities and the assistance of huge stratas of the civilan population lead to an overwhelming communist victory in less than 4 years. The revolution was not just a few regions invading the rest of China and asserting themselves; it was a genuine movement of the people. The Chinese people had had enough of the "republic" that the revolution of 1911 had brought about; they were sick of endless corruption, starvation, poverty and invasion. The communists promised changes for the better, and the population as a whole supported them.
Of course, things didn't work out as well as the people hoped, but that's another story <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Yes, Finland was occupied against its will.
Yes, Dread would want his country freed from a oppressive dictatorship that ran the country without a mandate from the people.
Finland was with the Germans in WW2, but it was mainly a matter of convenience.
So basically, we agree. Awesome! Thanks for posting.
(I was wrong - Finland is not in NATO, so I guess we would just let you fry like we always let european countries fry. Oh wait, we never do that. We came to the rescue in WW1, WW2, Cold War, Balkans, etc., even with countries that we had no defense agreements with at all).
Good points Ryo. But besides playing devil's advocate, do you really feel like the Chinese have self-determination, or that their government is looking out for their people's interests?
Yes, Finland was occupied against its will.
Yes, Dread would want his country freed from a oppressive dictatorship that ran the country without a mandate from the people.
Finland was with the Germans in WW2, but it was mainly a matter of convenience.
So basically, we agree. Awesome! Thanks for posting. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You summed it up wrong, Finland was not occupied. We kept our independence and lost only a small portion of our land, you should check your "facts" before posting here. Also stop twisting my words. You cant sum my opinions in to few sentences and then say that you were right all along.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(I was wrong - Finland is not in NATO, so I guess we would just let you fry like we always let european countries fry. Oh wait, we never do that. We came to the rescue in WW1, WW2, Cold War, Balkans, etc., even with countries that we had no defense agreements with at all).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think in WW1, WW2, Cold war etc. you were "helpin" only because it was good for you too. You cant say you did it out of good will. Let me quote myself:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Two big parties form suddenly in Finland; Communistic and Democratic parties. Do I think that USA or NATO should come and crush the other party? Hell no, we would settle the whole thing by ourselves and if Communistic party would win, then Finland would become communistic nation, obviously chosen by the majority people of Finland. Again this is that Natural Selection I was talking about.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is a difference between freeing a country with inner conflicts(in China situation, there isnt even a conflict) and freeing a country that is being invaded by another country.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Good points Ryo. But besides playing devil's advocate, do you really feel like the Chinese have self-determination, or that their government is looking out for their people's interests? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ryos points were excellent indeed. He knocked down your statements far more effectively than I did. GJ.