“U.S. threat theory” and how we talk about threats

| December 20th, 2009

1133976_7b617f33e356e46c80660bfb0ae04e46-1

For the past decade or so, there has been debate about the validity of the “China threat theory.” The above picture shows the presence of US military bases in relation to China in the region. My first reaction to this picture was: Is there talk of a “US threat theory” in China that I am not aware of? When I first saw this picture, I was very intrigued. In my studies of international relations, I have never heard the term “US threat theory,” or nor do I know of scholars talking about the US using these terms.

So I turned to Google. If you Google “China threat theory,” (in quotes) you get over 266,000 results, but if you Google “US threat theory,” there are 7 results. One of which is this People’s Daily article quoting Lu Xiaobo, the Director of the East Asia Institute of Columbia University, as saying both “China threat theory” and “US threat theory” exist. Is this really the case? Then I looked in Baidu for “美国威胁论”(U.S. threat theory) and found that the creation of the U.S. as a security threat in public dialogue was hardly the case. Rather than making the case for U.S. threat theory, the articles that I did find are mostly reflections and reactions on “China threat theory.”

Now, I take threat construction very seriously and the point of this post is not to say that the US is a threat, but to talk about the idea of threat construction. I hope to provide some information and viewpoints that might provide some reflection on how a “threat” manifests through language, especially in the context of US-China relations. Ole Weaver, in the book On Security, talks about security “not as an objective or material condition, but as a ‘speech act,’ enunciated by elites in order to securitize issues or ‘fields,’ thereby helping to reproduce the hierarchical conditions that characterize security practices.”

In 2007, the Global Times (环球日报)published an article entitled “Why you never hear about ‘US threat theory.’” The article looks at how the United States creates an image of “security” rather than one that causes other nations to perceive it as a “threat.” The premise of the article is:

Even though the United States freely roams the world as they please, often waging war or being a major party in the cause of conflict, there are virtually no experts, media, or any politicians that stand up and propose “U.S. threat theory.” This is an incredible phenomenon! On the other hand, China engages in military build-up only to ensure that its own territory is not divided, and yet elicits “concern” from Western countries and some countries in the Asia-Pacific, causing the so-called “China threat theory” to flourish.

The article then talks about two ways that the U.S. uses to prevent other countries from constructing it as a threat. First is using “justice, freedom, and democracy” as cover-up:

In light of this, the tactic of “cover-up” employed by successive U.S. administrations is indeed worthy of consideration. The U.S. is ahead of other countries in the public advertising and the media industry, and in military and foreign policy and internal and external propaganda, it is definitely not inferior. In dealing with CIA and operations of special forces that do not naturally gain international and public support, in dealing with situations where explanation is needed, the U.S. will often first accumulate evidence, find a reputable spokesperson, and then gain support. In times where public support is impossible to gain, the U.S. president has a last resort of using the statement “not excluding any possibility” that works as a last resort. Hence, no matter the real nature of his military actions, the U.S. president can always find arguments on the basis of “fighting for democracy.”

The next tactic the article says that U.S. uses is giving carrots after using sticks, and thus reducing the shock that the country being attacked or invaded suffers:

“Carrots and sticks” are complimentary, they not only help the U.S. military influence weak governments when a political vacuum occurs, they can also stablizie a political situation, and provide a catalyst for economic development when the conditions are ripe.

The article continues:

Open any article about military affairs in the U.S. press, and many reports are about how the U.S. military provides humanitarian assistance to the “weak,” how the U.S. brings security and stability to all the corners of the world, etc. This type of publicity that pays great attention to detail will leave a deep impression with many people.

Now back to the “China threat theory” side. Ole Weaver talks about threats and security as a “speech act,” and we can clearly see this in action in public statements made by U.S. officials. In this article (great article, would recommend reading the entirety), The Nation talks about Rumsfeld’s speech at a strategy conference in Singapore:

After reviewing current security issues in Asia, especially the threat posed by a nuclear North Korea, Rumsfeld turned his attention to China. The Chinese can play a constructive role in addressing these issues, he observed. "A candid discussion of China…cannot neglect to mention areas of concern to the region." In particular, he suggested that China "appears to be expanding its missile forces, allowing them to reach targets in many areas of the world," and is otherwise "improving its ability to project power" in the region. Then, with consummate disingenuousness, he stated, "Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: Why this growing investment? Why these continuing large and expanding arms purchases? Why these continuing robust deployments?"

The article follows with:

To Beijing, these comments must have been astonishing. No one threatens China? What about the US planes and warships that constantly hover off the Chinese coast, and the nuclear-armed US missiles aimed at China? What about the delivery over the past ten years of ever more potent US weapons to Taiwan? But disingenuousness aside, Rumsfeld’s comments exhibited a greater degree of belligerence toward China than had been expressed in any official US statements since 9/11, and were widely portrayed as such in the American and Asian press.

So, the threat that is being constructed has nothing to do with the actual material weapons that the U.S. has or that China has. When Rumsfeld talks about China “improving its ability to project power,” he seems to be automatically implying that if the U.S. does the same thing, it’s just not a big deal (check out “Obama’s Empire” from New Statesman). I’ll leave you with a quote from this article in International Organizations – Alexander Wendt and Daniel Friedman write:

The threat posed to the United States by five hundred British nuclear weapons is less than that posed by five North Korea ones, because the British are friends and the North Koreas are not, and amity and enmity are social, not material, relations. In that sense it is “ideas all the way down.”

145 Comments | Leave a comment | Comment feed

  1. Great visual. Puts it all into perspective though I would say that China’s emerging global status probably means a more engaging policy on management of world resources or it’s down to the military and posturing. Both pernicious solutions.

  2. maotai says:

    Great article. I have always admired the ability of the US to package and market its high minded ideals while undermining their enemies using tactics that clearly shame those same ideals.

  3. apensi says:

    Bet the Chinese are already spending money in US Media Industry, PR firms and sponsorships to China-friendly policymakers there.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2009/05/18/new-china-news-agency-guardian-of-media-ethics/

  4. meerkat- says:

    Hey, those are great articles you linked, and good post. Thanks!

  5. alex says:

    “bringing democracy to nations around the world” isn’t 100% empty talk. if you look at WW1, WW2 and the korean war, you’ll see america has fought in wars that resulted in a nation becoming or remaining free

    china fought in the korean war to keep north korea communist, and look how that has worked out for them

    it’s true that china hasn’t fought any offensive wars in modern times, but at the same time china was not a major power until very recently, so it remains an unknown. if china decided to tool up and go on the offensive, the situation would be extremely drastic.

    it may be dumb to think of china as a lurking threat like this, most chinese probably have no intention of conquering another country. but what keeps this threat in our minds is that the chinese government still operates in a very calculated, authoritarian manner with no transparency. a country that can prevent its people from having freedom of the press etc seems more capable of getting its people to fight an offensive war than one like britain where they dont even suppress public pro-jihad demonstrations

    to say the difference between britain and north korea comes down to friend/foe is idiotic. north korea is a very oppressive regime where people eat grass to survive and are imprisoned for life for political thought crime. britain is a nation where everyone is more or less free.

    • C says:

      China invaded Vietnam in 1978. It has also invaded the Soviet Union in 1969.

    • Adrealist says:

      Let’s not forget what China did and continues to do to Tibet. A genocide of an entire culture and it’s people. At least those who didn’t manage to escape to India. America has done some foolish things in our recent passed, but at least we don’t run peaceful protestors over with tanks. Sorry, but if only one country is allowed to be in control of the world – If it becomes China I’ll just shoot myself and be spared the pain of repressed civil rights, free speech, and so many other things we take for granted.

      • madbeef says:

        我支持民主,对话的方式解决西藏问题.中国所谓的民族政策有相当大的问题.

        但分裂中国是不可容忍的.

        • Nicodemus says:

          I think there’s still plenty of chance for peace. This economic downturn might send a lot of Americans to Asia, looking for jobs as English teachers. Several of my friends have done it.

          Why can’t East and West be friends? Don’t forget who’s friends with a certain country from which they rebelled with hate mail and a war.

  6. AlleyCat says:

    What is the difference between leadership and outlawry? Leadership is often stimulated by providing incentives to rule-breaking. However, such rule-breaking must be done cleverly enough to avoid getting caught in the act. In addition, the rule-breaking must be justified as done to achieve a ‘superordinate good’, if only from the perspective of the immediate group to which one belongs.
    The semantics involved can only be considered to be preconceived or biased, as far as they would fail to reflect a consensus amongst a majority of a specific community. Regardless of what a random search on Google may suggest, from a european point of view the duality of the US on global issues and the lack of balance in their foreign policy has always been acknowledged as a serious threat, which in recent years was mainly subsribed to its previous administration. Nowadays we are slightly more hopeful.
    In anycase the US has always given us europeans plenty of reason to worry. The dutch in particular are still wincing at the Bush-era, after the US Congress passed a law in 2002 that would allow the US to constitutionally send jack-booted commandos to fly over fields of innocent tulips, swoop into the land of wooden shoes, tread past threatening windmills and sleepy milk cows right into The Hague – a city synonymous with international law – and pry loose any US troops that would have been brought before trial at the International Court of Justice. Because according to George, no american soldier would ever have to justify himself in front of a non-american court:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2009/0213/p05s01-woeu.html

    Strangely enough, China also doesn’t seem very cooperative when it concernes binding international agreements. Both states seem very reluctant to give up some of their so-called autonomy. Still in comparence, we consider the US to be a minor threat because we know them well. In spite of all, we share some basic values. The US has always been like our big bully brother, for better or for worse. China is more like a far away uncle that we never met. Therefore China must be left with the major part of the burdon – because up until now, we clearly do not know our uncle at all. At least not sufficiently to fully comprehend his intentions. Not enough to surpass any unreasonable suspicions we might have. And perhaps not as well as we would like to know him.

  7. Hm… looking at the map had me doing a head stratch – Clark Air Force Base and Subic Bay Naval Base have been closed since the early 1990’s after the Mount Pinatubo eruption. As for Thailand – no U.S. airbases since the 1970’s. So… what gives?

    • CC says:

      US airbases in Thailand:

      Thailand is an important element in the Pentagon’s new strategy of “forward positioning,” establishing sites where United States forces can store equipment and from which they can come and go as needed.
      Despite Thailand’s neutrality on the war in Iraq, the Thai government allowed U-Tapao RTNAF to be used by American warplanes flying into combat in Iraq, as it had earlier done during the war in Afghanistan.
      In addition, U-Tapao may be where Al Qaeda operatives have been interrogated, according to some retired American intelligence officials.

      Also, the Clark Air Force Base has been shut down, but since the beginning of the WOT, US forces have returned to the Phillipines:

      http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-02-13-philippines-terror_x.htm

      http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/apr2002/phil-a16.shtml

      • CC says:

        Oh, the Thailand quote is from this Wikipedia article:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force_in_Thailand

        • Hm… USA Today I can see, to a point. But Wiki? Sorry, just do not give that sight my crdit anymore.

          • CC says:

            Um, asserting that the US has air force personnel stationed somewhere is not really a minor fact, I think the USA Today, being a major newspaper, would be pretty reliable.

            The reliability of Wikipedia: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

            Still, here is another source confirming the US does have personnel in Thailand:

            More recently, Thai ports and airfields played a crucial role in maintaining the flow of troops, equipment, and supplies to the theater in both the 1991 and 2003 Iraq wars.

            In October 2003, President Bush designated Thailand as a “major non-NATO ally,” a distinction which allows more access to U.S. foreign aid and military assistance, including credit guarantees for major weapons purchases.11 An agreement concluded with the United States in July 2001
            allows Thailand to purchase advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles for its F-16 fighters, a first for a Southeast Asian state.12 Thaksin authorized the reopening of the Vietnam-era U.S. airbase in Utapao and a naval base in Sattahip, from which the U.S. military can logistically
            support forces in Afghanistan and the Middle East. Thailand served as the logistics hub for much of the U.S. and international relief effort after the
            2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. U.S. relief operations by air and sea for the entire region were directed out of Utapao air base and Sattahip naval base. Thailand immediately granted full U.S. access to the bases after the disaster.

            Emphasis on last sentence: Thailand immediately granted full U.S. access to the bases after the disaster.

            This is a Congressional Research Report made for Congress:

            http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32593.pdf

  8. TC says:

    The latest count I have seen is about 720 military oversea bases for US.

  9. TC says:

    @Alex

    This may give a glimpse how aggressive US is militarily.

    US-Vietnam war : millions vietnamese dead
    Korean war : millions dead
    Now Afghan and Iraq : couple of hundred thousands dead

    Those are wars that US fought in foreign countries thusands of miles away from US homeland.

    • hardyandtiny says:

      distance is meaningless…there is no home country.

      • TAC says:

        To me a nation that contantly invades others are most aggressive and should be condemned. I am very surprise most people in the west support thiese acts despite their purported higher ideals on human rights, democarcy and so on.

        • Peace Lover says:

          Trust me TAC, the West ideology work the way their religious believe. This is how Christians believe, If you are not a Christian you are not worth living. The way the West run their countries is the same. If you don’t accept their principal, you are not worth living. They had done this over and over for centuries, what make you think they’ll change? We have China to help set the score straight. a New World Order is coming our way.

          • Adrealist says:

            What’s sad is how the United States began as a secular nation. Our founding fathers would be rolling in their graves to see how we’ve become so fanatical with Christianity. A church one very street corner. Now their trying to push their stupid creationist beliefs into our schools. Our wars are holy wars. Now Atheists are for the first time coming together to protest. Richard Dawkins, Bill Mahers, Carl Sagan, Christopher Hitchens. Releasing books, creating movies, giving speeches. Anything to finally inform the American people of what Fox news will not
            The majority of American’s aren’t actually hard core religious but they are easily fooled by those who are.

          • Rex Remes says:

            What do you actually know about western ideology or theology?

            Is the New World Order that you are thinking of the one where things are done the Chinese way? A scary thought.

      • Peace Lover says:

        Acording to you, the whole world is US territery. They all belong to the US.

  10. voidness says:

    As some one has pointed out for me before, The validity of “The China Threat” depends on the interests of each individual country in relation to China. However I cannot see or find a country with its border to China which shares China’s political stance and interests.

    The US have involved/influenced most of the major conflicts after WWII, however this is not as bad as it seems. Like some one pointed out above, Korea is a good example. The two wars mentioned above were both influenced/instigated by (China) and (communism) at the time. It takes 2 to tango, the only different is US involvement in the war is more open and direct and this is because of their somewhat more transparent political system, where as a totalitarian regime like China will not allow it to publicly involved.

    I have yet to find a country that the US occupied and conquered in the same manner as China have done to Tibet, and I would also like to point out the issue of South China Sea where China have recently claimed a vast area as its terittory, See image below http://vnexpress.net/Files/Subject/3B/A1/32/09/anh1.jpg
    , I often shown this picture to any one who tried to portrait china as being a good neighbor. I don’t see the US have any unreasonable border claim like China have been doing. China need to learn how project it interests and influences politically and economically as military occupation/suppression like they have done with Tibet is so 1900’s.

    • CC says:

      This is a good example of China and its neighbors being politically aligned on an issue:

      http://www.cfr.org/publication/8440/

      Also, when you consider the history of slaves and American Indians in US, I don’t really think it’s fair to make absolute comparisons like you are doing.

    • TAC says:

      “US involvement in the war is more open and direct and this is because of their somewhat more transparent political system, where as a totalitarian regime like China will not allow it to publicly involved.”

      You seems to suggest that any country which is open and direct in involvement in wars has a license to invade a sovereign nation. I am not sure what world we are going to have if every country behave in this manner.

    • TAC says:

      “The US have involved/influenced most of the major conflicts after WWII, however this is not as bad as it seems. Like some one pointed out above, Korea is a good example. The two wars mentioned above were both influenced/instigated by (China) and (communism) at the time.”

      The US troops were thousand of miles from US soils and threatening Chinese borders, why should any country take this type of security threat lying down. Remember what the US did when the Russians tried shipped nuclear missiles to Cuba, WWIII almost broke out. The US is entitled to take care of its threat near its border, why other country could not do the same?

    • TAC says:

      “I have yet to find a country that the US occupied and conquered in the same manner as China have done to Tibet, ”

      Tibet was part of China since 12th century. China ruling Tibet is not the same as the West occupied the Americas, Australia,NZ,…, massacred the natives and claimed their lands as white men’s lands.

      • AlleyCat says:

        “Tibet was part of China since the 12th century”

        Your statement shows a rather selective perspective at historical events. Just a personal observation on my part: as a relatively close neighbor to one of our former colonies, the Chinese were always glad to do business with us. Our trade history goes back many centuries.
        Anyway, as a half a dutchman I deeply apologize in retrospective for our shameful past. Once upon a glorious time we thought we were much better then those we had conquered. We assumed our culture was more civilized. We even thought it was our duty to rule over others. Make second class citizens out of them, or slaves even – if we could find a buyer. Tell them what they should and shouldn’t do. What language they should speak or teach in schools. Our only excuse maybe was our ignorance, based on a false sense of superiority, which was contineously fueled by our economic dominance. All of the atrocities that were committed; for a long time we never even acknowledged them. All casualties were in principle justifiable, for we were absolutely convinced of our undeniable sovereignity. Movements seeking autonomy were simply seen as insurgents and could therefore count on brutal force. But you are absolutely right: not at all like China ruling Tibet. Nothing happened there since the twelfth century. I’m sure the Tibetans have good reason to be very pleased with their dignified rulers.

      • John says:

        Native American, Guam, Diego Garcia…Africa.

    • TAC says:

      “The US have involved/influenced most of the major conflicts after WWII, however this is not as bad as it seems..”

      Why don’t you ask the Iraqis and Afghans whose innocent people were killed by the hundreds each week(sometime each day) by American and British bombs, bullets and missiles. The cumulative losses of lives now number a couple of hundreds of thousands now… this probably does not seem bad to you but it is bad, very bad to the Iraqi and Afghans.

      • AlleyCat says:

        If it is merely about numbers, let’s go along with your lign of reasoning then: millions of people in China had their human rights annulled during the Cultural Revolution. Those identified as spies, “running dogs” or “revisionists” (such as landowners) were variously subjected to violent attack, imprisonment, rape, torture, sustained and systematic harassment and abuse, seizure of property and erasure of social identity, with unknown hundreds of thousands (or more) murdered, executed, starved or worked to death[citation needed]. Millions were forcibly displaced. During the Cultural Revolution, young people from the cities were forcibly moved to the countryside, where they were forced to abandon all forms of standard education in place of the propaganda teachings of the Communist Party of China.

        • TAC says:

          How many millions the west massacred in colonies in africa, americas, asia, australia, nz…How many tenths of millions die in WWI and II in the west contest for control of vast swathe of territories and resources driven by greed for power and wealth? How many millions dead in US-vietnam and US Korean wars of aggressions?

          I do not mean china’s governement is great or perfect but the west should not pretend to occuppy the moral high grounds in just singling out china to bash as and when they like as if the west are god sent to do god’s work on earth when the west have committed most of the atrocities in the world. It is the same modus operandi of the west in climate issues when the west has cut down all its trees and eaten all its animals and now turned around pretending to be nature loving and quick to admonish poor countries who are struggling to feed their people in not sharing the same ideals; the west acted similarly after polluting the world in an unrestrained manner for hundreds of years to achieve the current industrialised and developed status.

          • hardyandtiny says:

            “How many millions the west massacred in colonies in…”

            Are you afraid to use the term “Europeans”? In any case, people – all over the world – have always enslaved and killed one another, and they always will, that is part of what makes us human.

        • TAC says:

          I forgot to acknowledge that the millions of lives lost in China are tragic and chinese leaders should bear responsibilities. But the chinese are normally not as aggressive as the west to go thousands of miles away from their borders to invade, occuppy and take advantage of hapless nations or people. Such is not in the culture of chinese. You could see this in its 5000 years history when even at its peak and most capable, it did not conquer to create an empire that stradled continents. This contrasts clearly with the Greek/Roman, british, spanish, french, portugis empires and the American, german hegemonistic tendencies and adventures, past and present.

          • AlleyCat says:

            It doesn’t seem accurate to pile up all wars since the beginning of the 20th century and suggest it was all about winning territory and exploitation. Most of them were not. Nor does it seem fair to blame it on the west that had they once had the advantage of being pioneers and explorers of human knowledge which gave them the drive to search for terra incognita at a time that a huge part of the world wasn’t even mapped out yet. Instead of clouding issues by nationalistic favor and putting the blame on questionable entities such as east and west, we should come together and move forward towards a common global awareness. Furthermore, let me reassure you: here in the west we haven’t cut down all our trees. Most of our wood production is sustainable nowadays. We are more concerned about the trees in the Amazone (Brasil) and places such as Indonesia. Also, there are still plenty of animals to be slaughtered, since we invented the bio-industry. Not so sure about the fish though. Worldwide there only seems to be about 10 % left of what the population used to be not so long ago. I suppose you in the east don’t eat fish and we would be to blame for the overfishing of oceans as well, but don’t worry, we will not starve to death. Not immediately anyway.

            • TAC says:

              “Instead of clouding issues by nationalistic favor and putting the blame on questionable entities such as east and west, we should come together and move forward towards a common global awareness.”

              I couldn’t agree more that the world’s only hope is that we should come together to build consensus and common values to move forward in a peaceful way instead of running down and subverting the stability of any country.

            • Peace Lover says:

              I don’t think the East blaming you, Westerners, but you always slam on us in every issue that we try to do to insure our right to exist. The only bashing and blaming are from the wester world, Asian/China only respond to you just to defend our right to secure our own integrity and existant. Stop slaming and defame us, then we’ll try to work together. And, stop trying to kill off other race.

              • Rex Remes says:

                Touchy, touchy!! hehe

                Seems you are quite the emotional one. Take a deep breath and try to relax.

                Maybe you should go to the gym and try to work out some of that anger you seem to have inside you.

              • Adrealist says:

                The West does have a lot to answer for in the invasion of Iraq. I’m agitated by how the lose of 2,000 American lives was treated as cataclysmic in nature when events far worse than this has been occurring all around the world for decades. As was stated in the constitution – rebellion against the Government is a duty, not a right – when it becomes necessary. Our political system is falling apart and it needs to be corrected here soon. However, if 70% of our shouts is about freedom, positive environmental change, and world peace while our actions show only 30% to be non-hypocritical and productive, while China would be at the 30% of claiming to be interested in those things and the population is being treated like KFC chickens… What I mean is despite disappoints I have in the US government, a China ran Government sounds far worse. They have not started as many wars in the past but now they show every sign of gearing up in an aggressive control of the people, military build up, and using a minority as a scape goat (Tibet). Almost exactly like Hitler in WW2. When a communist/dictator style Government gains power the one thing it could never do is just ‘leave the rest of the world’ alone.
                Perhaps the other countries involved in NATO should have rallied against America for the lies of nuclear weapons. Demanded that the war end immediately instead of sending just enough troops to pretend that they agreed.
                We can’t just act like we all live on islands. This is one planet. Each and every country must keep the others accountable for their actions. Cut down on the corruption of all nations.

          • Rex Remes says:

            China rarely, if ever, admits wrong doing or takes responsibility. and maybe china never went thousands of miles away from their borders because they were not capable of it. wait a sec, Genghis Kahn did, but he was actually Mongolian. Why can china claim 5000 years of history? sure, their have been people in china, living in towns and such … but a lot of that was no different than the “tribes” of Europe over the Millenium. If we had a time machine and went to 2000 BC, and found a village in Chengdu or Tibet, would any of those residents know that they were part of some “country” called China? No country and no people are perfect. The americans, the brits, the germans, the russians, the africans, the japanese, the chinese, etc have ALL done bad things and killed lots of others (as well as their own). As some say in the west: “those who live in glass houses should not throw stones” and “let he who has not sinned, cast the first stone”. How about EVERYONE try to make themselves a nicer, better, more civilized person, and stop worrying about what somebody (or somebody’s great grandfather) did. Basically, that means …. Grow Up.

            • TAC says:

              I think you are confused. What I wrote is in defence of Chian being portrayed and accused of being a monster or devil in western media almost daily. Have you seen a Chinese accusation on a western contry in the same way?

              • Rex Remes says:

                No, I am not confused…….. #1) I responded to a few points that were made by you and/or others —-> you said “But the chinese are normally not as aggressive..” —-> you also said “it did not conquer to create an empire…..” —-> and you said “… innocent people were killed by the hundreds … by American…” … among many other things………. and #2) Have you looked at what is said about the West in Chinese media (particularly about the USA)? Can you provide me with 5 examples of western media portraying China as a monster/devil?

                • MAC says:

                  There must have been more than a few hunfreds on Tibet and Uygor riots; on failures of Copenhagen meeting on climate change; on China’s expenditure on defence;…

            • TAC says:

              “China rarely, if ever, admits wrong doing or takes responsibility…”

              What happen in China is China’s business and its criticism if any about the US or Europeans is within the country and not in the international arena or media. China have not been interfering or criticising the Europeans or US over Iraq, Afghans or other disputes that the west are involved.

              • Rex Remes says:

                You gotta be kidding me! Once again, do even read (or think about) what you write?

                You can search the internet and find lots of “China criticizes…” I am not saying the “west” is not guilty of this or that, but China constantly criticized other countries. And just because something happens within a country’s borders, that does not mean it is not open to criticism. If I used your logic, then slavery and racism in the USA is none of your business. If I used your logic, genocide in Serbia is none of our business. So, let me ask you … is the indirect Chinese support of the continuing “bad stuff” going on in Dafur open to dispute or criticism??

                • sac says:

                  Why don’t you criticise US for Abu Gharib, Guantanamo, and all that goes on in Iraq, Afghan?

                  • Rex Remes says:

                    If you read what I wrote, you would see that I stated that “I am not saying the west is not guilty ….”

                    The US gets criticized all the time … some rightly, some wrongly. We deal with it and move on.

                    Whereas, China is super sensitive. Can’t take one word of criticism. I find it hard to believe that you truly think that China is perfect and does no wrong.

                    So, go ahead … criticize the west, criticize america. We can take it. And if the Chinese hate the west sooo much, why are so many Chinese striving so hard to be just like the west? Wearing western style clothes, watching the NBA, playing and loving basketball, drooling over western products, putting up Christmas decorations, etc.

                    Pretty ironic, isn’t it???

              • Al Jensen says:

                “China have not been interfering or criticising the Europeans or US over Iraq, Afghans or other disputes that the west are involved.”

                That’s simply not true. The Chinese media is constantly criticizing foreign countries. It’s just that very few non-Chinese can read Chinese to the level of “getting” a newspaper article, whereas China is full of English students who go on to CNN or the BBC to practice their English.

                In any case, in some sense China is trying to interfere with other sovereign nations – by telling them what is acceptable to be published or broadcast within the borders of their own countries.

            • Peace Lover says:

              Please remind me, REX, who cast the first stone here? China don’t even have any energy to to lift a grain of sand, let alone pick up a stone. You, Westerners are the one that cast stones on us, hell, you dumped sands on us. Truck loads of it. you just ganged up on us. All we are trying to do is fending ourselves from your truckloads of sands and gravels. Very well said, but use that phrase on yourseves is more appropriat. Stop dumping gravels on us ever again. Before you try to cast any stone on us, make sure you, yourself is cleaned. You hypocrite! Westerners always are hypocrite in every which way. Beware of Westerners. For they are evils.

              • Rex Remes says:

                What?

                Does what you wrote make any sense at all?

                Did you write that English yourself or did your little brother just randomly type some words?

        • Peace Lover says:

          Are you suggesting that whatever China and the rest of the world do is wrong. But Whatever the Westerners do is right. The US and Westerners have to right to kill without any chalenge? What a hypocrite, you are! You have to right to live. Just the way you think of those women and children of Middle East that you’d condone of killing. What rights do you have to kill them? What wrong had they done that they had to suffer such tragic from your wrong doing?

    • Peace Lover says:

      You have forgotten about the US occupied and conquered the whole continent of the North America. The US had killed off the American Indians and conguered the land and called it its own. The Hawaii islands were forced to join the Union of the US as the 50th state of America by kidnaping Hawaiin queen and threatened to kill off all her subjects. In order to save her subjects’ lives, she agree to give up Hawaii to the greater USA. Saipan of Japan is another example. That is just to name a few. Haiti is going to be next. You are right about China not conquering neighboring nations the way the US did. Because the USA kill them off and take their land and call it USA. China never done such attrosity act. China value human lives, unlike the Christian USA. Kill in the nam of “god”

      • Rex Remes says:

        China has many “peoples” living within its current borders. I think there are 53 ethnic groups. You don’t think there was fighting between these groups? You don’t think that the Han Chinese didn’t kill or invade or takeover land that was occupied for 100’s or 1000’s of years by people who never thought of themselves as Chinese?

        You don’t even know your own history.

  11. TAC says:

    “and I would also like to point out the issue of South China Sea where China have recently claimed a vast area as its terittory, See image below http://vnexpress.net/Files/Subject/3B/A1/32/09/anh1.jpg

    There were overlapping claims for the same area by several countries in the region. Why shouldn’t China have the right to claim? Is there an international law that forbid China from claiming? You should ask why British is claiming Melvinas(Falklands) and few hundreds km of surrounding economic zones when the islands were thousands of miles away from UK.

    • AlleyCat says:

      This also happens to be a remainder of colonialism, which used to be a widely accepted political reality. Like the Dutch, the British assumed they were the rulers of an empire once, because in practice those that ruled the sea, ruled the world. Although we may have different standards and other values now, sometimes it may be difficult to turn the clock back completely, as new realities may be taken into consideration. Holland for instance still has the Dutch Antilles (close to Venezuela) being part of their Royal Kingdom. Recently this status was once again confirmed by local elections. Perhaps we would rather have them take care of their own business, but they would rather not. So due to our historic responsability, we feel obliged to forsake them. China can claim anything they want, but nowadays there are indeed international regulations that would dispute such arguable claims.

    • Rex Remes says:

      As AlleyCat said, there are international regulations. So TAC, do you even try to answer your own questions before you ask them? Can I claim the money in your bank account since the account number is close to mine? 😉

      • “But though there is no difference in this respect between the best demagogue and the worst, both of them having to present their cases equally in terms of melodrama, there is all the difference in the world between the statesman who is humbugging the people into allowing him to do the will of God, in whatever disguise it may come to him, and one who is humbugging them into furthering his personal ambition and the commercial interests of the plutocrats who own the newspapers and support him on reciprocal terms.”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogy

      • TAC says:

        It is more pausible to have dispute over borders than claiming lands that are thousand of miles away from one’s homeland. The bank account analogy is a bad analogy since the case is giverned by a country’s law and not the same as a territorial dispute.

        • Rex Remes says:

          What does TAC stand for? “The Almighty Clueless”? My analogy is valid since it was you that thinks that proximity is the basis for a claim. . . . . . . Regardless, just so you know, an analogy is just a way to help someone understand a situation. It is not necessarily an exact comparison. You also asked … “Why shouldn’t China have the right to claim? Is there an international law that forbid China from claiming?” … this was responded to. THERE ARE INTERNATIONAL LAWS.

  12. Bill Rich says:

    You should read more web and blogs in Chinese. I got the impression that “US Threat” is not a theory but a fact.

    • Peace Lover says:

      The “US threat” had always been there since it roam the world…Dang, since the West roam the world. They Kill in the name of “god”. what are you talking about.

  13. sailor says:

    I have to say I am proud to be an Asian American. I was in the U.S. Navy and was placed all over Asia including Japan, Guam, Fuji, Tonga, South Korea, etc. Although the U.S does not have military bases in some Asian countries, most of those countries let our planes touchdown and utilize their bases such as in Thailand, probably with the exception of China. China has a billion people and there manpower is a threat. However, U.S. will still still be on top for decades to come due to the fact that we are able to spend and support numerous aircraft carriers and placing troops all over the world. Also, the U.S. has such good benefits for its military personnel. To further conversate closer to this article, the U.S. has always been “the world police” since forever. U.S. has no threat theory, I dont believe it, just some people want to think otherwise. Yes it is true numerous other countries dislike Americans. On the other hand, they need us and still love what we do for the world in a bitter hate relationship.

    • lordofreimes says:

      Copenhagen should of shown that no country in the world has such a high level of altruism that they can act so selflessly as the “world police”.

      Every country is just a group of mercenaries acting in their own self interest.
      Some are just smarter than others, donning a badge inscribed with the words “police” and then tell everyone that they are out there to “uphold the law and justice”.

      • C says:

        Who benefits the most from having an effective police force? The richest person. So yes, the US is the world’s policeman because stability is generally to the US’s benefit. The world gets a side benefit of this as well.

        • lordofreimes says:

          Indeed, you are right.

          “The world gets a side benefit of this as well.”

          You assume that the side benefits somehow just spill over to everyone.
          The fact is they choose who they want the benefits to go to and more importantly who doesn’t benefit.
          Less akin to police, more merc, no?

    • TAC says:

      Do you know how dangerous it is for US to have so powerful a military when the US government is in the clutch of self-interest groups like the bankers and defence complex contractors? It is not beyond realm of possibilty that one day, extremists of all sorts control the government and the US military war machines.

    • TAC says:

      “To further conversate closer to this article, the U.S. has always been “the world police” since forever. U.S. has no threat theory, I dont believe it, just some people want to think otherwise. ”

      How come US threatened WWIII with Russia when Russia tried to installed missiles in Cuba? If what Russian attempting to do constitue threat to US…why is it that surounding China with so many military bases not a threat to China?

      • hardyandtiny says:

        Perhaps the US and China will go to war one day.

        • Peace Lover says:

          Yes, One day. When China is well prepared and ready. I may not live to see it, but that one day, China will send her troops and civilians to the US soil the way the Europeans did to the American Indians. My children or grand children may live to see that. That will come to fact one day.

          • Rex Remes says:

            so, you talk about China being peaceful and loving. about china never invading other countries and only protecting itself … but it seems your “dream” is to have China attack the US. Why is that? What are you so angry about?

          • Adrealist says:

            Your words are full of venom and hatred. Like a Christian who claims to be humble while gleefully exclaiming about how all non-believers will be burning in hell one day by the all compassionate God.

            Even if the US was as terrible as you claim it is, and China somehow as saintly as you believe (I guess the peaceful protesters getting ran over by tanks doesn’t mean much in your book) there is still the enormous assumption that the future does not hold a one world government made up of all 1st world countries, or that rampant space exploration, disassemble of nuclear missiles, or an array of other possibilities may occur.
            Behind your words of injustices and ethically accountability is the desire to see the blood of an entire country. If only the world was as blank and white as that, Good Vs Evil. But instead that is merely the sign of those who are delusional.

          • Uncle Sam says:

            No, “peace lover,” your people don’t have what it takes to go to war with America, especially in America. It’s one thing to fight in Korea but quite another thing to take on the US in America. If your children or grandchildren make this mistake then my children will send them back to China in body bags. We welcome Chinese immigrants, students and tourists to come to America. However, PLA soldiers will not last very long on American soil. Besides, they couldn’t get there anyway.

    • Peace Lover says:

      The US is the world police my ass. More like the world murderer of women and children fit the US the best.

  14. SteveLaudig says:

    Ask yourself, which country has the U.S. invaded the most for “democracy” and “economic” development? Answer: As near as I can, tell that bastion of economic and development: Haiti. Second place. I don’t know. Probably Mexico another beacon of domestic peace and tranquility and economic development. I don’t think it is Switzerland. After the U.S. finished off the American Indians in the 1880s it waited about 5 years and then invaded and “regime-replaced” the Hawaiian Islands [compare Germany’s invasion and regime-replacement in Austria] and within a decade it phonied up a war on Spain, thwarted Filipino nationalism and caused the death of perhaps as much as 10% of the Filipino population. The Hawaiian Islands at the time was a fully functioning democratic Kingdom with all the freedoms of a modern state. The U.S. has occupied it ever since.

    • C says:

      US was doing just what the rest of the civilized countries at the time were doing. If the Americans hadnt gotten to the Philippines first, the Japanese would have. And it would have been that much harder for Americans to hold the rest of the world off from dividing China even more (they didnt do this for the Chinese, but because they were so late to the occupation of china that they would not have gotten any benefit out of it.)

      Actually I’m surprised that Chinese nationalists, and obvious ‘fans of history’ are not more thankful to America. If it were not for American expansionism into the Pacific, the Japanese would probably be still occupying vast portions of China. Under some kind of Wang Jingwai type regime.

      And if it wasnt for the threat of US intervention, the Soviet Union would have probably invaded you after the Sino-Soviet split in the 60s, and they would have won.

      • TAC says:

        “Actually I’m surprised that Chinese nationalists, and obvious ‘fans of history’ are not more thankful to America. If it were not for American expansionism into the Pacific, the Japanese would probably be still occupying vast portions of China. Under some kind of Wang Jingwai type regime..”

        Like you have said, “(they didnt do this for the Chinese…”. The US were secretly (but well known) subverting the security of China by directly participating with Tibetan fighters in the so-called Secret War over few decades. Why wouldn’t China be thankful to US? Japan, Russia or whatever western countries might occuppy large area of China but it could almost be guaranteed that the invaders would have hell. The US-Vietnam war, Russian-Afghan war and some others have shown that invaders, including the US who pride themselves in being most powerful militarily) would have to pack up and leave after they figured out that they have had enough. May be some other country could replace US one day and the US could then have the opportunity to be thankful to the new power for doing to US what the US is doing to the rest of the world.

        • Rex Remes says:

          1) I welcome the day that some other country spends the money to be the world’s policeman. …… 2) Even though the USA has made it’s fair share of mistakes, does anyone want some other country (trust any other country) to take this role? Japan? China? …. Come on, there is no way to be perfect and no way to make everyone happy. The world is an f’ed up place (complicated place).

          • Kage Musha says:

            Why would the world’s policeman role be played by a single country?
            And where would the arrogance come from that the U.S.A. is THE trusted country to play the world’s policeman?

            • AlleyCat says:

              The point being made is this: there is hardly any alternative… In spite of attempts to do things differently after WW II (1945: foundation of the United Nations and international peace keeping forces), there is still no worldwide supported organisation to enforce international law effectively. Therefore the dubious position of being regarded as ‘the world’s policeman’ is merely an observation of historical facts where military capacity tends to be decisive; it does not necessarily impose a false sense of moral supremacy as has been suggested above.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

          • Peace Lover says:

            Yes, China will do just that one day. As you can see, China is expanding her economic power all over the world. This is WW3 as you know it. It’s called “Economic War”, this war is more powerful than any type of war. Far more powerful than any Atomic Bombs that the US used to kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians. This war doesn’t cost lives. This war will lift people from poverty. The type of war the the US had never encountered in it existing history. The kind of WAR that is LOVE by all human race.

            • Rex Remes says:

              Firstly, China should be thankful that the US got involved in WW2 and fought the Japanese … otherwise, everyone in Beijing and Shanghai would be speaking Japanese now.

              Secondly, China’s quest for economic power and resources is at times being done at the cost of human lives — check out Darfur.

              Thirdly, this quest is at the cost of the environment. Why does China have 7 of the top 10 polluted cities in the world? How many Chinese lives are cut short by this pollution?

              Fourthly, do you recall how in 2008, just because Chinese businessmen wanted to make more profits, they put chemicals into the milk that led to the death and illness of many children and babies? Is that LOVE? The love of money was so strong that these Chinese people killed their own countrymen.

              And finally, the economic progress in China is lifting many out of poverty. But, the vast majority of chinese still are poor – living without potable water or modern facilities or sewage/waste treatment. Most of the money is being made by a small percentage of the people – many who are corrupt.

              • Adrealist says:

                It’s funny you’d mention that. I’ve lived in Japan for nearly a year and have a strong love for that country. While I also have many Chinese penpals and nearly each one I speak to hate the Japanese with a cold passion. In previous conversatiosn I’d mention how I felt it was horrible how we dropped the atomic weapons on civilizations – 2 no less! While the Chinese friends protest, “They deserved it! We would all be dead had the US not done that. They should have dropped more and burned the whole country the ground.”

                I’m surprised Japan doesn’t have a tourist problem coming from China like the US has coming from Iraq.

      • Peace Lover says:

        To you, whatever the US do is well justify. Nothing wrong with whatever action the US takes, even it means to kill off the entire nations/continent’s population as long as it serve the US purpose and its interest. Just like the Christian had wiped out almost the whole world population just to serve its own interest.

    • sac says:

      So much for the west’s moral high grounds.

  15. huzhang says:

    This is the difference:

    China’s militaristic attitude is perpetuated by nationalistic 20-somethings that don’t know anything about geopolitics and get all their information from internet stereotypes. These people can safely be ignored like the insecure imbeciles they are.

    America’s militaristic attitude however, is present and very real, and actually endorsed by the government.

    • Rex Remes says:

      haha interesting points. but ignoring imbeciles might be dangerous??

    • Peace Lover says:

      US militaristic is endorsed by the CROOKED government of the US of A who kill without prejudice.

    • Al Jensen says:

      “China’s militaristic attitude is perpetuated by nationalistic 20-somethings that don’t know anything about geopolitics and get all their information from internet stereotypes. These people can safely be ignored like the insecure imbeciles they are.

      America’s militaristic attitude however, is present and very real, and actually endorsed by the government.”

      Ouch. Good point!

  16. TAC says:

    I think the difference is the US acted on its militaristic attitude by invading others so very frequently.

  17. TAC says:

    @hardyandtiny
    “if two people guarding an antenna is a base…”

    By Global Research

    II. More than 1000 US Bases and/or Military Installations

    The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide.

    Where is the Threat?

    The 2000 Global Report published in 1980 had outlined “the State of the World” by focussing on so-called “level of threats” which might negatively influence or undermine US interests.

    Twenty years later, US strategists, in an attempt to justify their military interventions in different parts of the World, have conceptualised the greatest fraud in US history, namely “the Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT). The latter, using a fabricated pretext constitutes a global war against all those who oppose US hegemony. A modern form of slavery, instrumented through militarization and the “free market” has unfolded.

    Major elements of the conquest and world domination strategy by the US refer to:

    1) the control of the world economy and its financial markets,

    2) the taking over of all natural resources (primary resources and nonrenewable sources of energy). The latter constitute the cornerstone of US power through the activities of its multinational corporations.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5564

    • Rex Remes says:

      Well TAC,

      I will agree with you on one thing. The “war on terrorism” is a joke and I believe breeds more American hatred and potential terrorism than it removes or prevents.

      Regarding natural resources … You don’t think China hopes to gain control or access to large amounts of natural resources? How many commodity based companies has China purchased or tried to purchase in the last few years?

      The highly respected “The Economist” wrote an article: China – The new colonialists

      “THERE is no exaggerating China’s hunger for commodities. The country accounts for about a fifth of the world’s population, yet it gobbles up more than half of the world’s pork, half of its cement, a third of its steel and over a quarter of its aluminium.… ”

      Another research report stated: “As is evidenced in recent events, the role of oil is becoming a significant part of foreign policy making in most states in the world. The same can be said of China.”

      And AsiaMoney recently wrote: “As the rest of the world wallows in economic weakness, Chinese delegations are on a global acquisition spree, especially in the energy and commodities sectors. Beijing basically wants more control over resources…”

      I’ll say it again —- China is no different (no better, no worse) than any other country.

      • sac says:

        The difference is China does not invade or colonise like the west to gain lands or resources.

        • Rex Remes says:

          Was the earth created with China already in place? Come on … China invaded and expanded throughout its history – that’s what almost every country/civilization has done throughout history.

          How long Tibet or Xinjiang has been part of China is very, very debatable. If those places have “always” been part of China, then why do the people who live there don’t think of themselves as Chinese?

          Do you even know the history of China … or just the standard line that was learned from the Chinese textbooks of “China has 5000 years of history and culture”? I’ve heard this sooo many times, but I don’t think many Chinese know anything more than that one statement.

      • Peace Lover says:

        It is just Business As Usual, stupid! But China do it without sheding a drop of blood, unlike the US of A. It kills million just for the control of resource. Who is doing it better and with love? CHINA, don’t you think?

        • Rex Remes says:

          In the near past, China only sheds drops of its own people’s blood – internal conflicts and crackdowns. You don’t think China has killed people from other country’s in the past?? you must be the stupid one. Why don’t you read that history book you have, instead of using it as a doorstop.

  18. kailing says:

    Taiwan is a part of the People’s Republic of China? that map is completely wrong. Since its beginnings in 1949 the PRC hasn’t had a second of sovereignty over that island.

    • Peace Lover says:

      It is, and it will always be, Stupid!

      • Rex Remes says:

        Hey Peace Lover … why you need to call everyone stupid? Quite ignorant and pathetic of you. Why do Chinese need to get a visa to travel to Taiwan? Do Taiwan people think they are part of mainland China? Does Taiwan have its own government?

  19. richard says:

    If you use correct punctuation (i.e. U.S. instead of us) ‘U.S. threoy theory’ gets around 15 million hits, 15 times more than ‘China threat theory’.

    I think everyone in the world agrees that the U.S. is a military threat to more nations than China.

    • Key says:

      If you look at the search results, almost the only article talking about U.S. Threat theory is this one from ChinaHush. Most of the rest are really about China threat theory.

      • sac says:

        This means all the western media could not be trusted.

        • Peace Lover says:

          You said it SAC!

        • Rex Remes says:

          haha … so are you trying to say that the Chinese media is more open, honest and trustworthy? You must be living in a bubble or don’t have a clue about what is going on around you.

      • Peace Lover says:

        Hey stupid! China think tanks know about it, but they don’t talk about it with the outside world. “Let the sleeping dog lies” China is a Sleeping Dragon that don’t care what you do. They are just well prepared for you, that’s all. One wrong move, you’ll be swallow whole.

        • Rex Remes says:

          Why you call yourself “Peace Lover”? Your posts are always full of animosity – always calling the other person stupid. Did you hear that often from your parents growing up?

  20. stfu says:

    stfu. jackasses.

    what a bunch of nubs.

  21. jjang says:

    for anyone that interested, google this:

    “War On Democracy”

    a documentary by John Pilger about U.S. foreign policy in Latin America, watch it on youtube or google video

    also the truth about Darfur and Sudan, you can google this:

    “Darfur Genocide? It’s oil stupid”

    click on the first link, an article written by William Engdahl, it’s about U.S role in Darfur conflict, basically U.S. instigated the conflict to overthrows the Sudanese government and to replace it with U.S controled one as usual, go watch the documentary by John Pilger and you’ll see how evil the U.S are

    • Peace Lover says:

      There’s no need to watch it my friend. We know it all along. The world know it all along. China knows it like they know the palm of their hands. That’s the reason why China keep on doing what she does. China don’t care what the Western world say or cry about. It’s just business as usual. What can the US do? Invade China?

  22. Johnny Cash says:

    Taiwan is not part of China. US threat theory caught my eye, but why is Taiwan Red? Thats just misleading. I admire the passion on your website. But really the US sells weapons to Taiwan so they are able to defend themselves. “You” turned to GOOGLE on this topic… 😉 so Chinahush.com turns to GOOGLE for their information…

    • Chinese says:

      What right have you to say that Taiwan is not part of China, if we say that Hawaii is not part of your How do you, if we sell weapons to Hawaii and the excuse that it is you have to let them protect themselves and grandfather were. Taiwan in a few hundred years ago China’s territory. It seems that you have false contents of history textbooks.

      • Hans says:

        I’m sorry to disappoint you, but it’s actually you who got it wrong with the China’s history. Taiwan might have been part of Qing dynasty territory or even the one that belonged to the pre-WW2 Republic of China, but never been a part of People’s Republic of China. And because PRC is the government that represents China (according to UN and most other countries’ diplomatic policy), it’s actually true to say “Taiwan is not part of China”.

  23. Chinese says:

    China is a very peaceful country, I do not know whether China is well aware of. However, from your published articles and your comments look at “You are very much do not understand China.” First of all: China since its establishment, never any excuse for aggression against other countries to send troops, while the cut is not hostile to other countries. In addition Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan has been China’s territory, when it comes to their previous one country, then I think the United States about 70% of the land previously under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government is not how I get these lands do not have more to say. Since the founding of China has not launched a war, all wars are all due to the invasion of his country. On the contrary one country is to launch many wars in many countries are still troops formed a ring of encirclement around China has seriously affected China’s national security. China tasks out of implementing the United Nations has never foreign troops. Finally, I would like to ask you: “You are too much about China or do not understand China!!!”

    • Key says:

      Who are you refering your comment to?

      • Chinese says:

        I meant to say: “Please you who the Western media, web sites to convey the American people the real China”

        • Key says:

          But did you read this article? this article is saying on the website there are so much talks about “China Threat Theory”, but almost no one talks about “US threat throry”, and yet it is the U. S. that is in every war, just like what you said… I don’t think you undertood the article…

        • Key says:

          图上的黑色飞机是美国的海外驻军和军事基地

    • Rex Remes says:

      China was too poor and chaotic in the 20th century to invade other countries — it couldn’t feed or take care of its own people. However, China was involved in wars, directly and indirectly, in Korea and Vietnam (and others) where people were killed.

  24. aaron says:

    China is not as innocent as many of you think. It launched a cruel war against Vietnam in 1979 just to “teach them a lesson.” Tens of thousands of people died in this meaningless conflict just to satisfy the anger of PRC leaders.

    • sac says:

      As I could remembered, the Vietnamese claimed there were the world’s third strongest army and insulted and challenged China to fight them. So, vietnam got what they asked far and has since never asked again.

    • sac says:

      All wars are bad as far as I am concerned but wars could not ve avoided sometimes. The China-Vietnam war is part of the geopolitics of that time.

  25. sac says:

    On the other hand, msac says

    “…
    The British invaded Tibet at the beginning of 20th century after cannibalising China with 7 other western powers along Chinese shores, taking advantage of China’s weak military strengths, chaotic internal political situation and forced chinese people to consume opium at gun point and ceded great swathe of territories to japan, russia and part of Tibet to India even today. Since then China has always been treated with hostilities by the west as a communist country and even today. You should note that China has not had an empire that straddled continents(unlike the western powers) throughout its known history. It never went thouand miles away to colonise other people’s lands and massacred natives like the west did. Even today the Brits are still at it, not only claiming but occupying Melvinas(aka Falklands) lands thousands of miles off the british borders. Simialrly for the Americans who invaded Iraq, Afghans…”

  26. Doug says:

    No, China only massacres it’s own people. Funny how they hate the Japanese so much for killing several hundred thousand, and love Mao despite being responsible for the deaths of 40-million. Just goes to show how history is written by the winners.

    • sac says:

      It is tragic that many Chinese people died in China due to internal problems and the Chinese leadership should take responsibilities for it. However, more people died in China does not mean it is ok for foreigners to kill Chinese in less number. Also, when a bad regium massacred its own people, it does not mean it is ok for a country to massacre people outside their own country like the west is doing.

    • Peace Lover says:

      China did what was necesary to prevent foreign invation. Starving to death was not killing. It was China’s duty to protect her territory at all cost, even if it means to loose one’s life to defend it. A nation goes to war to defend it from any invation. War kills. Sacrisfy one’s life for a nation is one’s duty to defend its integrity from all forces. Millions of Chinese die for that same reason. If you don’t know the real history, don’t blab senselessly. The reason Chinese honor Mao is not his policy that lead to millions of death, but the policy that help keep the integrity of China in tack. Today’s prosperous China is because of Mao’s policy of not bowing down to any foreign power. Thus, in turn, people have him to be very thankful for.

      • Rex Remes says:

        China is prosperous now because Mao died and some forward thinking leaders came to power. Once again Peace Lover, have you even read a history book? Chairman Mao was responsible for the Cultural Revolution, which led to the death of many innocent, decent people. And it had nothing to do with protecting or defending China.

        You really don’t know what you are talking about, it seems.

  27. SteveLaudig says:

    Ask Native Americans about the U.S. government’s honoring of treaties; Ask how many times the U.S.G. has invaded countries not adjacent to the U.S.; Ask how many democratic regimes the U.S. toppled. Maybe, maybe before the U.S. war to take Spain’s colonies, the U.S. could be admired [except for its treatment of its own nationals such as Native Americans and those of African descent] but after its war of aggression on Spain [with the sole exception of Japan’s attack on the U.S. occupied Hawaiian Islands] the U.S. has been the illegal aggressor. And who’s to say that if the Korean peninsula had been unified the perverse northern regimes would never have existed and would now be more like China than Hitlerian Germany. The U.S. intervention in Cambodia led directly to the Khmer Rouge horrors and U.S. war on Vietnam distorted its development process. Haiti is the most invaded by the US who occupied it for 20 years and propped up the Duvaliers. and on and on and on.

  28. SteveLaudig says:

    http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html. For a substantial, yet still partial, list of U.S. invastions, interventions in the affairs of other countries.

    • Uncle Sam says:

      This list is a joke. Even verbal notices are included on this list. If the U.S. so much as sneezes then he’d call it an invasion. By this criterion any nation could be painted as an aggresor. This is just lazy scholarship at best.

  29. kimboslice says:

    At least the USA took care of China’s “Japan problem” in a decisive way. One could argue that China owes much of its freedom from “foreign imperialists” to Americans. Sure, this happened long ago, 1945. I wonder if Chinese are aware of the unspeakable horrors committed upon them by the Japanese military? Perhaps they do.

  30. roman says:

    Advances in computer technology and the Internet have changed the way America works, learns, and communicates. The Internet has become an integral part of America’s economic, political, and social life.

  31. John says:

    China should be the beacon of the third world and should give hope to the majority of the world population that is currently under the yoke of Western hegeomony. First thing China should do is export all the technology and give to third world country and expand it media foot print to show the history of Western society and their babarianism and cruelty to non-white people around the world.

Leave a Comment

Prove you are human! *
Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Beijing blog » Blog Archive » US Threat Theory?
  2. ChinaHush one year anniversary review, and submit your stories! | ChinaHush
  3. US Threat Theory? | Eastbound.cz
Kepard - Premium VPN Service

Latest Posts

Send or Receive Money in China

David Goldman | August 16th, 2016
bankwire

5 luxury hotels in Asia

Oliver Verot | June 2nd, 2016
ritz-bund-view-suite

Recent Comments

Mao Zedong was a sheep fucker and a homosexual.» more

For me, it means I'll be able to do my work while traveling to visit my in-laws. I guess I'll…» more

The Chinese government was offended, and afraid of the literature (in the genre, now banned), by Cixin Liu.…» more

that's mean you should never stop from doing a good deed» more

Subscribe by email

Enter your email address: