4 ms·

"I can admire China’s growth in infrastructure and technology, it’s pursuit to compete on a global scale, but what good is all that growth if it allows these cr

"I can admire China’s growth in infrastructure and technology, it’s pursuit to compete on a global scale, but what good is all that growth if it allows these crimes to go on next door?" I admire America's prominence in infrastructure and technology, it's continuing domination on a global scale, but what good is all that power when over 40,000 people and rising are murdered because of a drug war for which they are complicit next door? It's great to try to solve problems that seem so fruitless and terrible, but isn't it akin to pointing your finger at a mirror?

chopsueyar 15y ago
Yes.
ugh 15y ago
The author of the article is no member of the US government and doesn't speak for it. To accuse him of hypocrisy on the basis of actions his government takes seems wholly misguided.
- muhfuhkuh 15y ago
  But, pointing the finger at one particular government for their failure to sanction/punish/invade/liberate another country when they could "easily" do so seems totally justified? How about pointing the finger at the offending country, rather than at it's bordering ones?
  - ugh 15y ago
    The article makes very specific complaints about China’s behavior. Which do you think are unjustified and why?
    - muhfuhkuh 15y ago
      I turned an exact passage from a heavily opinionated and critical article on North Korean slaves that turned into a Chinese government hit piece and held a light on US policies toward blood-soaked Mexican border drug wars (that are now spilling into Texas and neighboring states, btw). Do we need to excoriate and condemn the Kim regime and his policies and call for a revolution within their borders? Absolutely. Should we shame bordering countries into liberating them in the name of "freedom" (of which, said bordering country's people are themselves not free)? I believe the US is firmly (and some would say inexorably) ensconced in two wars (and on the ragged edge of 3 or some would say 4) trying to "liberate" the Middle East. How's that going for us?
      - ugh 15y ago
        I see no advocacy for a war with North Korea in the linked article. China will not go to war with North Korea, China supports North Korea and North Korea is to a certain extent dependent on China. This article wishes that China would use this dependency for good, no more, no less.
abbasmehdi 15y ago
Come on muhfuhkuha, you're taking this out of context. The author is saying that China is an accomplice in crimes committed by NK because it expels refugees who face imminent threat in NK, thus making China an accomplice. China cannot push escapees back into shark waters and say "I am not the shark", I'd say "Yes China, but you kind of fed this person to the shark." The US has a very generous amnesty and refugee program, and if you can prove in court that you will be killed or prosecuted in your home country then you're granted residency. I personally know 3 people who have undergone this process. If they tried the same in China, they would have been swung right back over the border.
- muhfuhkuh 15y ago
  "The US has a very generous amnesty and refugee program" ... unless you're a little boy from communist Cuba who wanted to live free in America but was repatriated at gunpoint in the middle of the night[1]. [1]http://www.nndb.com/people/574/000025499/ http://www.nndb.com/people/574/000025499/
  - abbasmehdi 15y ago
    Muhfuhkah you have a knack for taking things out of context. You come up with this as an example of someone facing the threat of being "killed or prosecuted in [their] home country"? Elian Gonzales faced no such risks. You're easy ;)
- abas 15y ago
  This is from close to 30 years ago, but I think it illustrative of what could still easily happen in the US (and perhaps does, I'm not too knowledgeable about refugee issues): In the 80s around a million fled violence (from repressive governments, civil wars and paramilitary groups) in central America seeking asylum in the US. They were largely turned away due to political considerations (i.e. the administration wanted to maintain ties with the governments of those countries). You can read about it in this wiki entry about the sanctuary movement that developed to help some of those people in spite of the US government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_movement
burgerbrain 15y ago
Ignoring the fact that this tangent is offtopic, two wrongs don't make a right. The "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" attitude is and always has been absolute bullshit. EDIT: s/sin/stone/
dimmuborgir 15y ago
Mexico is a functioning democracy and the Mexican drug mafia isn't America's headache. Whereas, China has a long history of supporting North Korea despite it being a ruthless dictatorship.
uuilly 15y ago
Making a concentration camp is intentional. Allowing a drug war to proliferate is neglect. Intent matters in criminal sentencing and it matters here.
- zinkem 15y ago
  What do you call it when the CIA participates in the drug trafficking, is that acting with neglect or intent?
  - uuilly 15y ago
    Then the question becomes: Would the drug problem exist without the CIA? a) Yes. b) Yes but slightly less bad. c) No. 'c' is unreasonable 'a' and 'b' are reasonable answers. Now: Would the concentration camps exist with or without the North Korean Government's help? 'c' is the only reasonable answer.
    - zinkem 15y ago
      Oh OK. So just as long as the problem would exist without us, we aren't responsible for our actions? Well governments have been putting people in concentration camps long before North Korea decided to do it.
lotusleaf1987 15y ago
They're being murdered because of our own un-pragramatic religious and ideological interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I agree with the right to bear arms, but there should a limit. A hand-gun with a limited magazine seems reasonable, an assault rifle with armor piercing bullets and an extended magazine doesn't. In 2005 when the assualt weapons ban was lifted the cartels were able to get their hands on a cheaper and better source of weapons. The balance of power shifted more to the cartels as they were able to get better weapons. We should be helping Mexico because the cartels are beginning to look like an insurgency. Edit: If you're downvoting me can you at least try to explain why it's not our fault that our weapons sold in the US are being used to murder civilians and contribute to a narco-state? Felipe Calderon even said this as recently as yesterday on Bloomberg.

chopsueyar 15y ago

Yes.

ugh 15y ago

The author of the article is no member of the US government and doesn't speak for it. To accuse him of hypocrisy on the basis of actions his government takes seems wholly misguided.

muhfuhkuh 15y ago
But, pointing the finger at one particular government for their failure to sanction/punish/invade/liberate another country when they could "easily" do so seems totally justified? How about pointing the finger at the offending country, rather than at it's bordering ones?
- ugh 15y ago
  The article makes very specific complaints about China’s behavior. Which do you think are unjustified and why?
  - muhfuhkuh 15y ago
    I turned an exact passage from a heavily opinionated and critical article on North Korean slaves that turned into a Chinese government hit piece and held a light on US policies toward blood-soaked Mexican border drug wars (that are now spilling into Texas and neighboring states, btw). Do we need to excoriate and condemn the Kim regime and his policies and call for a revolution within their borders? Absolutely. Should we shame bordering countries into liberating them in the name of "freedom" (of which, said bordering country's people are themselves not free)? I believe the US is firmly (and some would say inexorably) ensconced in two wars (and on the ragged edge of 3 or some would say 4) trying to "liberate" the Middle East. How's that going for us?
    - ugh 15y ago
      I see no advocacy for a war with North Korea in the linked article. China will not go to war with North Korea, China supports North Korea and North Korea is to a certain extent dependent on China. This article wishes that China would use this dependency for good, no more, no less.

abbasmehdi 15y ago

Come on muhfuhkuha, you're taking this out of context. The author is saying that China is an accomplice in crimes committed by NK because it expels refugees who face imminent threat in NK, thus making China an accomplice. China cannot push escapees back into shark waters and say "I am not the shark", I'd say "Yes China, but you kind of fed this person to the shark." The US has a very generous amnesty and refugee program, and if you can prove in court that you will be killed or prosecuted in your home country then you're granted residency. I personally know 3 people who have undergone this process. If they tried the same in China, they would have been swung right back over the border.

muhfuhkuh 15y ago
"The US has a very generous amnesty and refugee program" ... unless you're a little boy from communist Cuba who wanted to live free in America but was repatriated at gunpoint in the middle of the night[1]. [1]http://www.nndb.com/people/574/000025499/ http://www.nndb.com/people/574/000025499/
- abbasmehdi 15y ago
  Muhfuhkah you have a knack for taking things out of context. You come up with this as an example of someone facing the threat of being "killed or prosecuted in [their] home country"? Elian Gonzales faced no such risks. You're easy ;)
abas 15y ago
This is from close to 30 years ago, but I think it illustrative of what could still easily happen in the US (and perhaps does, I'm not too knowledgeable about refugee issues): In the 80s around a million fled violence (from repressive governments, civil wars and paramilitary groups) in central America seeking asylum in the US. They were largely turned away due to political considerations (i.e. the administration wanted to maintain ties with the governments of those countries). You can read about it in this wiki entry about the sanctuary movement that developed to help some of those people in spite of the US government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_movement

burgerbrain 15y ago

Ignoring the fact that this tangent is offtopic, two wrongs don't make a right. The "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" attitude is and always has been absolute bullshit. EDIT: s/sin/stone/

dimmuborgir 15y ago

Mexico is a functioning democracy and the Mexican drug mafia isn't America's headache. Whereas, China has a long history of supporting North Korea despite it being a ruthless dictatorship.

uuilly 15y ago

Making a concentration camp is intentional. Allowing a drug war to proliferate is neglect. Intent matters in criminal sentencing and it matters here.

zinkem 15y ago
What do you call it when the CIA participates in the drug trafficking, is that acting with neglect or intent?
- uuilly 15y ago
  Then the question becomes: Would the drug problem exist without the CIA? a) Yes. b) Yes but slightly less bad. c) No. 'c' is unreasonable 'a' and 'b' are reasonable answers. Now: Would the concentration camps exist with or without the North Korean Government's help? 'c' is the only reasonable answer.
  - zinkem 15y ago
    Oh OK. So just as long as the problem would exist without us, we aren't responsible for our actions? Well governments have been putting people in concentration camps long before North Korea decided to do it.

lotusleaf1987 15y ago

They're being murdered because of our own un-pragramatic religious and ideological interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I agree with the right to bear arms, but there should a limit. A hand-gun with a limited magazine seems reasonable, an assault rifle with armor piercing bullets and an extended magazine doesn't. In 2005 when the assualt weapons ban was lifted the cartels were able to get their hands on a cheaper and better source of weapons. The balance of power shifted more to the cartels as they were able to get better weapons. We should be helping Mexico because the cartels are beginning to look like an insurgency. Edit: If you're downvoting me can you at least try to explain why it's not our fault that our weapons sold in the US are being used to murder civilians and contribute to a narco-state? Felipe Calderon even said this as recently as yesterday on Bloomberg.