posted 10-19-2003 09:23 AM               

quote:

---

In a nod to the space program's roots, CCTV also showed 92-year-old Tsien Hsue-shen, the reclusive founder of China's rocketry program, exulting in Shenzhou 5's success.

The Chinese-born Tsien, a co-founder of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, was driven from the United States in 1955 during anti-communist fervor and returned to work for his homeland.

In the TV footage, shot Friday, Tsien — lying in a medical bed in a sun-drenched room — smiled as friends showed him splashy front pages with big headlines and color pictures of the craft, the view from space and Yang.

---

From: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031018/ap_on_sc/china_space

posted 10-19-2003 10:25 AM               

I would say to the Chinese, "What took you folks so long?" :-)

posted 10-19-2003 11:13 AM               

Good thing he's got hero status, otherwise the above comment might've gotten him a month in the hole.

posted 10-19-2003 02:43 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
"I did not see the Great Wall from space," Yang said, answering a question from a China Central Television viewer.
________________________________________

Good thing he's got hero status, otherwise the above comment might've gotten him a month in the hole.-chet

---

Even though you think the Chinese government was still the same as the one back in 1990, I can assure you the Great Wall was NOT built by the Commies .....

Who sits in a hole should stop digging.

posted 10-19-2003 02:47 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
IAsk the Tibetans and Taiwanese who they feel more
threatened by.

-chet

---

Fair deal: I ask the Tibetans and Taiwanese, and you ask the Cubans and the Nicaraguans, the Libyans and the Iraqi's, the Mexicans and the Guatamaltecans, the Vietnamese and the Cambodians, and then we talk.

posted 10-19-2003 03:05 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by eurospace:
Fair deal: I ask the Tibetans and Taiwanese, and you ask the Cubans and the Nicaraguans, the Libyans and the Iraqi's, the Mexicans and the Guatamaltecans, the Vietnamese and the Cambodians, and then we talk.

Ahh heck juergen, Chet's got enough folks to talk to without you deciding the rules. Hey who are "Guatamaltecans"? And just for the record, the capitol F on fantasizing was to show the proper way to spell it.

---

posted 10-19-2003 03:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by eurospace:
Fair deal: I ask the Tibetans and Taiwanese, and you ask the Cubans and the Nicaraguans, the Libyans and the Iraqi's, the Mexicans and the Guatamaltecans, the Vietnamese and the Cambodians, and then we talk.

---

Thirty to seventy million people died in the Great Leap Forward, a government-directed attempt to up their steel production.

Beijing killed seventy million people for steel, Juergen.

Steel.

Spare me the moral equivalence. There is none.

posted 10-20-2003 01:32 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
Thanks Rodina, for saving me the time;
I owe 'ya one.

-chet

---

Rodina and yourself are constantly missing the point: where is today, 2003, the aggressive imperialist foreign policy and military strategy of the People's Republic and what qualitative leap forward does the manned (!) launch constitute in this strategy?

You guys would have condemned Yuri Gagarin's flight in 1961 had you been around.

posted 10-20-2003 03:31 AM               

Tibet is still occupied by the Chinese, and
Taiwan still lives in fear; THAT'S today's aggressive imperialist foreign policy and military strategy of the People's Republic, for starters.

ANYTHING that strengthens China also strengthens their ability to dominate and intimidate others - - they don't make much of a secret of it.

How is it that these little details continue to escape your notice?

posted 10-20-2003 09:44 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by eurospace:
Rodina and yourself are constantly missing the point: where is today, 2003, the aggressive imperialist foreign policy and military strategy of the People's Republic and what qualitative leap forward does the manned (!) launch constitute in this strategy?

---

I've been as positive about the Shenzhou flight as anyone on this board. But, mercifully, I can separate the narrow (but important) accomplishment that this represents from the morally bankrupt system that created it.

But you keep trying to put the government in Beijing (which has almost nothing to do with the desires of the Chinese people) and my government and my country on the same moral plane, but you just brought up American policy in years other than 2003 (Vietnam, Cambodia, Central America, etc.) If the past history of the United States is part of that debate, it's certainly that we can talk what Beijing has done, too.

Am I proud of everything my country has done? Heck, no. But a couple of days ago, you suggested that China was NOT aggressive (but for Tibet and Taiwan) -- I pointed out six times they had been (not to mention the genocide that was the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution), and you ignore that.

Now, I point out the inconvienent fact that China killed seventy million people to up their steel production, and you change the subject.

If you want to engage on the subject of American policy, fine, but don't make some blanket statement about how awful and hideous the United States foreign policy is and then ignore when someone questions your somewhat strange assumptions. History is an imperfect guide, but it's the only one we have.

posted 10-20-2003 01:16 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
Jurgen, you ARE joking, aren't you?

Tibet is still occupied by the Chinese, and
Taiwan still lives in fear; THAT'S today's aggressive imperialist foreign policy and military strategy of the People's Republic, for starters.

ANYTHING that strengthens China also strengthens their ability to dominate and intimidate others - - they don't make much of a secret of it.

How is it that these little details continue to escape your notice?

-chet

---

Nothing in this manned flight modifies the military strength or operational capacities of the Chinese military. Nothing at all. There is no new quality nor new quantity in their military abilities in respect to Taiwan or Tibet.

That it is a successful propaganda operation? Fair enough. Certainly this propaganda success is based on achievement and truth, what cannot be said on other propaganda claims (WMD, ready in 45 minutes, babies in incubators, etc.).

What I notice - again - is that spaceflight is no achievement for you as such. Shenzhou is bad because it serves the Chinese, Gagarin is bad because it serves the Soviet Empire. Can you tell me why you would call yourself a space enthusiast?

posted 10-20-2003 01:28 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rodina:
I've been as positive about the Shenzhou flight as anyone on this board. But, mercifully, I can separate the narrow (but important) accomplishment that this represents from the morally bankrupt system that created it.

But you keep trying to put the government in Beijing (which has almost nothing to do with the desires of the Chinese people) and my government and my country on the same moral plane, but you just brought up American policy in years other than 2003 (Vietnam, Cambodia, Central America, etc.) If the past history of the United States is part of that debate, it's certainly that we can talk what Beijing has done, too.

Am I proud of everything my country has done? Heck, no. But a couple of days ago, you suggested that China was NOT aggressive (but for Tibet and Taiwan) -- I pointed out six times they had been (not to mention the genocide that was the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution), and you ignore that.

Now, I point out the inconvienent fact that China killed seventy million people to up their steel production, and you change the subject.

If you want to engage on the subject of American policy, fine, but don't make some blanket statement about how awful and hideous the United States foreign policy is and then ignore when someone questions your somewhat strange assumptions. History is an imperfect guide, but it's the only one we have.

[This message has been edited by Rodina (edited October 20, 2003).]

---

Rodina,

My initial statement was that China behaves aggressive and dominant like any other large power (including the US), and that a balance of various big powers is to be preferred over one single dominant ruler.

It does not help anything to say "the Chinese were always evil", mixing events in the 60s, in the 90s, and in 2003, to come to a judgement. You need to go more into detail when it comes to analyzing the political or military impact of the manned launch and its importance. If "the enemy is evil" would be enough, we would not need any military intelligence. This analysis is lacking in both your statements as in Chet's.

Mixing the "great leap forward" (you forgot the Cultural Revolution), the Square of Eternal Peace events and today's rocket launch is tantamount to saying "the Americans were always bad", "the Jews were always greedy", and the like. Chet and - to a lesser degree - yourself sound just like that.

Notorious "Anti-Americanism" (everything the US does is bad) is as stupid as is "pro-Americanism" (everything the US does is good and rightful). But "Anti-Chinaism" based on generalized statements of the sort ("amoral", "evil", etc.) is just as doubtful.
It's propaganda.

posted 10-20-2003 03:26 PM               

Jurgen, you obviously paid no attention to my main point, i.e., ANYTHING that strengthens China also strengthens their ability to dominate and intimidate others.

Imagine a husband who physically abuses his wife. Anything that enables the husband ultimately aids him in his ability to continue abusing his wife, whether it be having a beer, buying a new pair of shoes, taking a nap.....ANYTHING.
Unless the husband's behavior can be modified so he will no longer beat his wife, I'd be against ANYTHING that enabled the brute. So I will not be happy about, or admiring of, China's new ability to put men in space so long as the Chinese government is thuggish and unrelenting in its oppression of NON-THREATENING states, and its own people.

You continued: "[The Chinese] propaganda success is based on achievement and truth, which cannot be said for other propaganda claims".(WMD)

Propoganda by whom, Jurgen? The U.S., Europe, the U.N.? ALL these entities acknowledged Iraq's WMD threat, which was viable and ongoing, according to the Kay report, if you'd bother reading it. I suggest you take some time off from your little fantasy world view of the U.S. and China as moral equals to acquaint yourself with those bothersome little things known as facts.

You wrote: "China behaves aggressive and dominant like any other large power (including the US), and that a balance of various big powers is to be preferred over one single dominant ruler".
_____________________________________

I understand; we need the Mafia to balance out the Police Department.

You wrote: "Notorious "Anti-Americanism" (everything the US does is bad) is as stupid as is "pro-Americanism" (everything the US does is good and rightful). But "Anti-Chinaism" based on generalized statements of the sort ("amoral", "evil", etc.) is just as doubtful. It's propaganda".
______________________________________

Neither I nor Rodina ever said anything of the sort (America all-good, China or USSR all bad). But YOUR incessant attempts to blur any meaningful distinctions between opposing camps is vacuous. Rodina based his "Anti-Chinaism" on 70 MILLION DEAD (among other horrors), which you refer to as a "generalized" statement, and propoganda.

Just curious,.... are democracy and authoritarianism really just 2 sides of the same coin in your view?

-chet

posted 10-20-2003 09:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by eurospace:
Rodina,

My initial statement was that China behaves aggressive and dominant like any other large power (including the US), and that a balance of various big powers is to be preferred over one single dominant ruler.

---

As I said, history is an imperfect guide, but it's the only one we have.

My point was not about the launch of Shenzhou, at all, except to say that the United States ought to take the Chinese military seriously and plan accoridngly. Shenzhou demonstrates that their technology continues to mature.

But you tried to put the United States and the regime in Beijing on the same moral plane. And if you think I'm going to pass on that without challenging your strange assumptions -- and expecting a response on the issue you brought up (i.e., the moral equivalence) -- you are mistaken.

But I'll say it again: Hurrah for Shenzhou! But down with the People's Republic. Freedom for Falun Gong! Free Tibet! Remember Tianamen Square! Independence for Taiwan!

posted 10-21-2003 01:38 AM               

A banality. Says nothing about their real warfaring capacity and strategy, a question which was asked repeatedly and which you never answered.

>>>Imagine a husband who physically abuses his wife. Anything that enables the husband ultimately aids him in his ability to continue abusing his wife, whether it be having a beer, buying a new pair of shoes, taking a nap.....ANYTHING.
Unless the husband's behavior can be modified so he will no longer beat his wife, >>>
A rocket in his garden will not alter or enhance his abusive behaviour.

But the comparison is enlightening: is the Chinese rocket primarily a phallic symbol to you, independent of its real military capacities?

>>Propoganda by whom, Jurgen? The U.S., Europe, the U.N.? >>
The US and their prime ally, the British Prime Minister.

>>ALL these entities acknowledged Iraq's WMD threat, which was viable and ongoing, according to the Kay report, if you'd bother reading it. >>
Kay did not locate any WMD, nor did Blix. A real military threat might have existed in the early 90s, but was removed thanks to the first Gulf War and the ongoing UN inspections. There is nuttin' in Iraq any longer but past dreams and blueprints. No real threat, certainly no operational weapons, and most definitely none that could a) reach the United States and/or the United Kingdom and /or b) be deployed within 45 minutes.

>>But YOUR incessant attempts to blur any meaningful distinctions between opposing camps is vacuous. Rodina based his "Anti-Chinaism" on 70 MILLION DEAD (among other horrors), which you refer to as a "generalized" statement, and propoganda. >>
We were discussing China's capacities to the World, primarily through ICBM or rockets. The 70 Million Rodina mentioned, as sad as they are, were Chinese citizens. Their deplorable death did not threaten the international community. Again, you are mixing topics.

>>Just curious,.... are democracy and authoritarianism really just 2 sides of the same coin in your view?>>
On the level of military risk assessment, yes. And that was our topic.

Actually, I have not heard one single element of military risk assessment from you. And the only argument you put forward - "anything that is good for them is bad for us" - is a banality.

Let's just fix distinctions:
- China has been operating as a regional middle power thus far. Their military aggressiveness was limited to neighbouring countries and the Asian continent.
- the US have not limited their military outreach to their immediate geographical environment, but have both in the past as in the most recent period of time undertaken military action on other continents, namely in Asia and the Arab peninsula. The US entertain military bases in over 120 countries, something that China does not.

In other words: by simple comparison of scope and extension of their military operations the US are the far more active and aggressive part, compared to China and probably anyone on this Earth. Not a morale question at all, a simple descriptive fact.

Maybe we start to describe and analyze facts before we come to conclusions?

After all, if you consider China a potential enemy, you better know about its REAL capacities and intentions. Just knowing "they can make good propaganda by launching fireworks" won't get you far.

------------------
Jürgen P Esders
Berlin, Germany http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Astroaddies

[This message has been edited by eurospace (edited October 21, 2003).]

posted 10-21-2003 02:11 AM               

I know, Jurgen, the 70 million dead are another banality.

"Is the Chinese rocket primarily a phallic symbol to you, independent of its real military capacities"?
________________________________________

Jurgen, you, with your profane incidentalism and belittling of horrible human suffering, are a phallic symbol to me.

posted 10-21-2003 09:52 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by collectSPACE Admin:
A reminder, that personal attacks of any nature are not permitted on collectSPACE. Comments are to be directed at the ideas expressed on this forum, not the person who is posting them.

Should the direction of this discussion continue comments directed at individuals, this thread will be closed.

---

Yeah right. Don't fool yourself Robert. You'll only close the thread if the personal attacks are made against folks YOU support & agree with (and often not even then). I can show you multiple personal attacks made on myself and others, on various topics, after similar threats to "close the thread". The attacks kept acomin' and you did nothin'. That's why I've quit posting.

Back to being a recluse.

posted 10-22-2003 01:38 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
My apologies.

-chet (son-in-law of holocaust survivors)

---

Chet,

It is sad that while you cannot support your claims about the military threat emanating from the Chinese manned flight with analysis or facts, you have to resort to personal aggression.

I could understand that - son-in-law of holocaust survivors, as you claim (and that means you are not a victim yourself) - would consider any rocketry evil and bad as the rocket was indeed invented by Nazi scientists.
- The same Nazi scientists and accomplices of mass murder later built the Saturn rockets for the US (and before praising Wernher von Braun, maybe pay a visit to the remains of Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp near Nordhausen and read and listen to the testimonials of survivors?)
- The Soviet rockets were developed and built at a time where Stalin held and killed hundreds of thousands in the Gulags, and Korolyov and Glushko were amongst those.

I could understand that - but why don't you just tell us that in your eyes any rocketry and spaceflight are evil, evil and evil?

Why are Nazi rocketeers and rockets built on the graves of Gulag inmates acceptable to an in-law of a holocaust survivors, while Chinese are not, even thought they didn't even use slave lavor and death camps on-site to build their rockets?

At least that would be a clear universal and unequivocally moral position.

As it is and as you do not condemn that rocketry all over the World was built on the bloodstains of so many innocent victims, it sounds like you would just beef up your Anti-Chinese sentiments with some half-baked moral background. That is very regrettable, particularly considering the fact how many Jews the Chinese gave refuge during the holocaust.

------------------
Jürgen P Esders
Berlin, Germany http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Astroaddies

[This message has been edited by eurospace (edited October 22, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by eurospace (edited October 22, 2003).]

posted 10-22-2003 01:50 AM               

We've reached a point where nothing either side says is likely going to (a) change the other sides' opinion or (b) add anything significant to what hasn't already been said.