Should it be permitted?

[setarip]

@blutach

"Gee - I am shocked that this thread is, or at least has the power to, divide us on racial lines."

Old games again by you - There is NOTHING racial implied anywhere in this thread, except by you...


"what the heck has this got to do with Digital Digest?"

Absolutely nothing - and that's why, just like all of the other threads here, it's in the "Off Topic" section...

[Jack Lurker]

I have to say I agree with you Blutach, this thread appears to have been started with the intent to cause offense. This has no place on Digital Digest and I am ashamed of myself for lowering myself by joining in. The Racial and political overtones are quite disturbing.

Columbo, the Chinese seem to be responding to a threat on their nation according to that report, McCormack is renowed for speaking without engaging his brain. Although I do suspect there is more to that story than that report suggests.


Im sorry setarip, Blutach seems to have made reasonble points in his posts, unlike you. You say you started this thread to get opinions and now you belittle them when you get them because you dont agree with them! Grow up man!!

[feedback10K]

I am surprised that the discussion of politics or religion is not forbidden here at Digital Digest.

As Jack Lurker alluded to, there is always someone willing to stir the pot of controversy when that person has nothing better to do.

Now I know how all those posts were accumulated.

Regards,

P.S. Isn't this a multi-cultural site?

[LT. Columbo]

by setarip:

"Old games again by you - There is NOTHING racial implied anywhere in this thread, except by you..."

i don't like to take sides but, setarip is right. i respect you blutach, so don't take offense. you always seem to play this "card"

"I have to say I agree with you Blutach, this thread appears to have been started with the intent to cause offense. This has no place on Digital Digest and I am ashamed of myself for lowering myself by joining in. The Racial and political overtones are quite disturbing"

again, jack lurker, no offense to you either, but your posts in this thread seem completely antagonistic...

(waiting for the tomatoes to be thrown at me...)
i knew this thread would swarm into a hornets nest

[blutach]

NP columbo - you are entitled to your view, mate. I can say that I am not playing a "card" though, so please do not mistake my intentions. Nor was I having a go at anyone, including you. As you said, it would swarm into a hornet's nest and that's what's happened.

I do recognise that OT is the place to "let off a bit of steam" but I do think this subject matter is just too darn political. Still, we are all entitled to our views and to air them, unless admin says "sod off".

This is my last post in this thread. May it be buried, or hopefully, locked. Should anyone wish to discuss the subject with me, they can email me.

Regards

[LT. Columbo]

understood blutach

but i think these type of threads are excellent discussions. rather than them being locked, i say, anyone who goes too far in the eyes of "admin" should be banned/suspended.

[admin]

Bit of a long rant, but here goes...

I was surprised it took so long for a thread about this issue to emerge - every other forum I've visted (most non political) has had something to say on this.

I don't know what the fuss is all about - there have been dozens of foreign companies that have bought or invested in US oil assets over the last decade, and I didn't hear anybody making a fuss about them. Some might say China is more of a threat than, say, an EU company - but in the global economic stage, there is no such thing as friends and allies. When the estimated global oil shortage begins (peak oil), does anyone really think an British oil company would look after US interests before it looks after UK interests (that is assuming they haven't been de-privatized by the UK government on the basis of "national security" first)? I would suspect (and expect) the US to do the same thing with its oil assets as well in this case.

The company trying to buy Unocal (CNOOC) has many foreign companies invested in it (I believe Shell invested 300 million in CNOOC's IPO, and has a 4 billion dollar join venture with them: http://www.atimes.com/reports/BK10Ai01.html). This is the case with many Chinese companies, and this has risks for the Chinese as well, because it's economy is so dependent on these sort of investments. By joiing the WTO, China has to open up even more industries to foreign investments and foreign companies.

What I don't understand is why the US government trying to interfere with a privately run company. If they want to have a say in the sale of Unocal, they can put up funds to buy the company themselves and make it a state owned enterprise. Otherwise, how is it any different to the ecnomic practices of a communist state (whose main principle is to control private businesses based on the reason of "national interest")? If the US wants to protect its strategic interests, that's fine, just make sure you do it against all foreign companies, not just Chinese ones.

Anyway, analysts say the main reason for the Unocal buyout is not the Chinese government wanting to control US oil interests (after all, Unocal is not the only US oil company), but rather, to gain deep drilling technology so that the Chinese can explore their own vast oil reserves.

But why has there been so much China related news (mostly negative news) lately? I believe all of this has been a concerted effort by the US government to deflect attention away from its own domestic and foreign (Iraq) problems. Remember that before 9-11, US had identified not global terrorism, but China, as its main threat - and it's trying to do this again. Case point is the recent news about an increase in China's military budget, which the pentagon estimates at 65 billion (I think US military spending is around 300 billion). The problem is that the right wing think tank, the Rand Corporation, had it's own estimate and it was only 25 billion (still more than the officially Chinese figures) - less than a tenth of the US military budget, thereby showing what the US's main intention is (to portray China as a huge threat). The fact that a lot of the Chinese military budget is actually used to pay salaries and pension to the huge (but low tech) armed forces. China has been trying to modernize it's military, mainly to reduce these costs, and to reduce the number of soldiers needed. And how many Chinese military bases are there around the world, compared to the US?

Then there is also the "Anti-Japanese" protests that have received negative coverage (nationalism in China, anti-Japanese propaganda, etc...). What the US media failed to cover was the fact that there have been protests all over Asia, the most fanatic in South Korean (people cutting off their fingers and all: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4352923.stm). There were also protests in Hong Kong, Vietnam, Taiwan, and yes, even in Japan (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0601/p04s01-woap.html). But instead, the issue is made out to be one involving China's anti-Japanese propaganda, and nothing is made of the fact that certain groups in Japan continues to try and change history books, and the the Prime Minister of Japan continues to visit a war shrine that houses 14 class A war criminals (as judged by the international court) - something like 6 visits in 4 years, and refuses to remove the remains of these war criminals from the shrine.

/rant