I largely agree

... it's always difficult to have a true understanding in regards to all things concerning China, given their government's ability to publish and deny or ignore any news as it suits the PRC with impunity (since the concepts of public truth and transparency, not to mention accountability, don't exactly apply to the PRC)

I think China is still trying to exercise it's influence in the same manner that it did in the dynastic era. Before European forays into Asia and China, Asian states, especially those in Northeast and Southeast Asia, more or less operated as tributary states under Chinese sway. Europe effectively (although not literally) usurped the role that China once played in that relationship in the 19th century, and I suspect that China is attempting to get back to where it left off. The problem is that the world is an entirely different place today than it was in the late 18th century, and China has failed (or is slow) to readjust its diplomatic strategy to properly reflect this.

Our country was a powerful nation in a long historical period,but We have fallen behind one hundred years ago.There is no wrong we construct our national and make it powerful again! we are not a combative country , if you don't believe it, you can come to china to see.
(ps:sorry for my bad english)

You make the point exactly.

Your point can be extended by further mentioning that the democracies of the West have learned, mostly the long and hard way by wars hot and cold, the nature of dictatorships such as the present reincarnation of dictatorship in the persons of the fascist CPC/PRC dictators and dictatorship of Beijing.

All dictatorships have common traits and characteristics, such as one party rule, censorship, control of the minds of the populace, control especially of the minds of the military and police that enforce the dictators' rules, manners, etiquettes, prohibitions and the like.

This harshly acquired knowledge makes dictators such as those in Beijing predictable and relatively easy to deal with. For instance, when Adm Dennis Blair, recently of the Obama Administration, was commander in chief of US military forces Pacific, he spent several days conferencing in Beijing. After the first day, Adm Blair emerged to speak to the press/media.

Adm Blair was asked if and what had been accomplished during the first day's talks. Blair said, "I'm not sure. They talked a lot about animals." Blair's conscious and strategic sarcasm was well said and well taken, at least by people away from the mainland PRC. This simplistic chatter by the Chinese is another cultural and intellectual failure of the 5000 year old dictatorship that presently resides in Beijing, i.e, they speak to the world in terms that not only are antiquated (lower order animals predict and/or reflect human behaviors?!?), but also in the same frame of reference as they speak to their domestic peasant population. The Jung Gwo leaders don't know the difference.

That is the nature of dictators in the modern world, from Napoleon to Who is Jin Tao.

The Jung Gwo (Chinese central country of the world to which everyone must come to pay tribute) are more than slow. They are dense. Dense in the extreme. Indeed, the present dynasty of dictators in Beijing, the CPC, think they are living in the world of 500 years ago.

Five hundred years ago - yea, 100 years ago - the Chinese to many in the West were, in the cliched term, "inscrutable." That was the cliched then; this is the real now.

During the past 100 years, yea, the past 50 years, unforeseen developments originating in the West have yet again changed life completely. There are life-changing technology, new means to communicate, radical changes to transportation such as the airplane, the Space Age and its orbiting satellites, globalized trade on an astounding scale, undreamed of wealth, the triumph of market economics (mangled market socialism in the CPC/PRC), and much much more.

The Chinese are no longer unknown to the world at large, and are so much better known to the West. The Jung Gwo no longer are "inscrutable." That is, the Jung Gwo, i.e., the ancient Chinese Heavenly Middle Kingdom, is known and recognized today as only another grizzly gang of dictators who in the modern world are reactionaries. The dictators in Beijing need as nimbly as they are able to keep on their toes to find new and diabolical ways to censor the rich garden of information and knowledge that circulates throughout the democratic modern world.

The dictators of Beijing must work harder to control their receptive population. The PRChina is not like other countries. In the PRChina there truly and in fact isn't any difference between the government and the population. This is so because the government controls the population, whether by censorship, state controlled mass media, the schools, the family system from birth, i.e., society itself or plainly by constant and continuous indoctrination. Indoctrination of course, as with any dictatorship, includes outright lies, lies and more lies.

So in the modern world knowing and comprehending the dictatorship of Beijing is not a difficult project to the Western democracies. In the modern world we have learned that the Chinese are human, that their dictators and dictatorship are products of a certain kind of human being that esists anywhere and anytime, and that dictators whether East or West are largely predictable. Really, after all, the 5000 year old Chinese are certain in the absolute that they could not conceivably be wrong, ever. It's just impossible and unthinkable to the Jung Gwo that they could be wrong, ever at all about anything anywhere.

What could be more humanly mundane and comprehensible than that?

Its kind of pathetic. Damn straight we're a rude people, and proud of it. You sound like an early 19th century Englishman. Explain to me the value of politness. Strong codes of etiquette have been used for millenia as a tool for the ruling class to hold on to power. Even now, the Chinese government uses it for that purpose. It is rude to ask demanding questions, it is rude to disrespect an official, it is rude to step out of one's place, it is rude to get involved in business that one needent concern oneself with. See how that kind of works out in the party's favor? You grew up with the sense of historical injustice and weakness that the party wanted you to. That way, you feel that your country and government need to be protected, not questioned and certainly not made demands of.

As to your earlier ponts, of course they made an unacceptable offer that China had to refuse. Thats just part of the games of strategy that countries play on eachother. Countries do it to China and China does it to other countries, nothing to get emotional about, except for you, because of your programming. The poor little PRC needs you to protect it from the big scary bad guys.

Thank you for proving my position on how rude Americans are. One reason rudeness is condemned in every region of the planet throughout all of human history is because it is a primary indication of stupidity. Being rude is stupid, and only the stupid are proud of it. As further proof of your stupidity, I am not remotely Chinese, and was born many thousands of miles from there. Americans are programmed, hard-wired computer chips, far more than any other people in the world. You are the living, walking proof.

I can say "being red proves something is fast," it doesnt mean anything. You say rudeness proves stupidity, how? It just does? Looking at history, the human tendency has historically been to hold social traditions and etiquette to an excessive importance, not the other way around. Secondly, Im calling youre bluff, I am fairly confident you are Chinese. The way you rail against Lee for his "self-hating, degenerate bias" doesnt make a lot of sense if you are an Argentinian. You also seem to know a lot about the commitee processes for someone who lives thousands of miles away. That means you are either making things up, someone who works in water delivery systems or a related field, or you live in a place affected by the whole thing (China or its neighbors). Your emotional defense of the actions of the Chinese government in acquiring water are incredibly illogical if you are from some distant, uninvolved country. I suspect you never explicitly mentioned your nationality for just this purpose. I respect your attempts at misdirection, but I dont buy them. Seriously, youre just "thousands of miles away?" If you were a European, African, or North or South American, why would you demand the US apologize for one writer's comments? That seems needlessly impassioned. Please, other readers, read his first post and tell me it doesnt clearly imply his nationality. I think it pretty clearly does.

Please read the gentleman's first and second post. Does it seem fair to assume the writer is a Chinese citizen?

How can you deny such an eloquently-worded, respectfully objective post like First Advisor's ?

Though we've all been taught what "assuming" makes of you and me, I agree with Norboose that there seems to be sufficient markers in First Advisor's comments to possibly identify him as Chinese full of nationalistic zeal at least from my viewpoint. My only reason for commenting is First Advisor's straight assertion that he isn't, which seems to me to belie the evidence as Norboose points out. Of course, we may both be in error.

In the interests of fair disclosure, First Advisor may also brand me as self-hating given that I'm Chinese-American. To rebut this, however, I was born and raised in the States, which would then also open me up to being subject to the "programming" that First Advisor refers to in his second comment. All in all, this disclosure leaves little to support my credibility in the eyes of First Advisor (and having known a few mainland Chinese, this sarcasm will be understood as a straight assertion).

I would like to particularly note two markers that in my estimation probably identifies First Advisor as being of Red China. I've often seen the use of the "trick" terminology in other Chinese-defending comments to Chinese news and analysis Web sites when attempting to tar the actions of others with a conspiratorial tone. Usually, a level-headed comment would just state matter-of-factly that the author was not balanced and excluded certain facts in his article rather than it being a "well-designed trick." My granted second-rate reasoning for why this is done is because mainland Chinese view others in the same lens as their own government-controlled media that is often very much subject to "trickery," message manipulation and propaganda.

Second, the article was noting the U.S. aid to the Mekong region, the primary purpose of which is to foster goodwill. First Advisor's abrupt assertion about the United States apologizing for "leaping off a cliff to a conclusion" suggests to me an anti-U.S. inclination, which at this point in time and as it relates to the subject of this article, would further suggest to me that the person making such an assertion is a mainland Chinese. I note that the straight jump to blaming the United States for something is often found in Chinese-defending comments. Maybe the author makes the conclusion and provides a value judgement/analysis of such aid, but all I read was that the United States was giving aid for education, development and humanitarian purposes. It only makes strategic sense for the United States to foster goodwill in other Asian countries given the view that a counterbalance to China may be necessary. One can never have to many friends and the best way to make friends is through largesse. In any event, I didn't see anywhere that the United States also was asserting that China was siphoning water or am I missing some facts.

I'm a little flabbergasted by what an intense response a basic comment made. Clearly, some people have far too much time on their hands. Once more, for the record, I am not Chinese. What I am I consider, rightly or wrongly, to be personal, private, and confidential, i.e., none of your business. I also regard the subject as irrelevant. Anyone is capable of rational, objective, impartial analysis, whether the person is Chinese or not.

The first complianant's conviction that I am Chinese is easy to explain, naturally, he obviously just doesn't have the IQ points necessary to understand how a person can be educated, rather than absorbing a country's culture by osmosis, instead of intellectual labor.

Second, the US State Dept.'s accusation that China was stealing the water of the pertinent SouthEast nations was reported in both the BBC news and The (London) Times. I regret I can't remember any other details, except that both reports appeared over the last three months.

Third, and sadly, the failure of imagination in grasping that anyone in the world might dislike the USA and all Americans, unless that person is a born and bred "Red Chinese" is exactly typical of the "patriotism" jingoism, indoctrination, and propaganda crammed into the young, innocent brains of everyone unlucky enough to be born and "educated" in the USA, and exactly the vain assumption of automatic superiority over all other people on earth that makes the Americans so unanimously hated, loathed, and despised by every other nationality on the planet. Even if an American is so conceited that he finds it simply impossible to believe that anyone might dislike him, the truth is that the overwhelming majority of the entire world's population detest all Americans, and some Chinese are merely a fraction of that total. Simply because liberals are the people who most often make comments on blogs like this one does not mean that liberals are the only people out there in the great, wide world. The fallacy of believing that what we see in the news media is reality is a self-deception well-known to sociologists.

Most of the world is sick and tired of seeing the USA throw its weight around for no more reason than the sick pleasure of cruelty. Americans are only kill-happy cowboy bullies, with zero justification or legitimacy for their swaggering, brutal thuggery in other people's countries, killing innocent, defenseless men, women, and children simply because they don't have the weapons to fight back on an even playing field. Some of us believe in justice, and we do feel a moral responsibility and duty to defend those who can't defend themselves, from the extortion and intimidation that is the normal American gangsta attitude.

If you want me to take you seriously, you just cant use the long-winded labels typical of a propaganda outlet. Your vocabulary is above average, but that is not a substitute for reasoning. You keep insulting my intelligence, but I see almost no logical chains in your arguments. They are made of blame, pathos, and obsfucation. I can confidently say that you sir are Chinese. (Using the phrase "degenerate" and "self-hate" in the way you did gave it away.) No, the fact you are Chinese doesnt preclude you being a rational, intelligent person. However, being a near-verbatim mouth piece of Xinhua does preclude you from being a rational, intelligent person.

I was concerned I might be overreading and greatly appreciated another perspective. If your name indicates what I guess it means, I wish you good luck in the coming season. DDSNAIK, thank you as well, although sarcasm is always hard to read over text.

No, being a near-verbatim mouth piece of Xinhua does NOT preclude a person from being a rational, intelligent person. Your statement is your personal opinion, and it is factually false. Your opinion is not the truth. The very fact that you are convinced someone is something he is not is evidence of your idiocy. The fact that two different sources in different parts of the world say similar things does not prove they are the same source. That kind of logic makes no sense at all. It's just idiocy. You are stupid, and that's why you don't understand this situation correctly.

It is impossible for you to consider the possibility that both Xinhua and I might be right, and you find it impossible to imagine that you might be wrong because you have been indoctrinated into believing everything you do, from a very young age. Your brain does not function, it simply repeats whatever it has been programmed to think. The basic situation is that you don't have a brain, just a hardwired computer chip in your head sprouting American jingoism. The reality remains that you are wrong, and you are living, breathing proof of everything wrong and bad about American propaganda. Americans like you are why Americans are despised everywhere around the world.

The only ways three storage dams could have no effect on the downstream flow is if they (1) weren't storing anything, i.e., were empty, or (2) if the Chinese government repealed the laws of physics that cause evaporation. Lake Powell loses two or three per cent of the flow of the Colorado through evaporation - I suggest that three dams might have an equal cumulative effect.

Zero loss is not a possibility unless water does not evaporate in that part of the world

I agree no more with FIRST ADVISOR

Ancient Greece, the 2500 year old center of Western Civilization, taught us hubris. The 5000 year old China, as an ancient center of Asian civilization, completely missed this vital realization of human life. (With all due respect, India also is one of the four ancient centers of civilization, along with the lesser if spectacular sideshow, Egypt.)

I'm not religious, but I was born into a Western, Christian civilization - the USA. While generally the US is a more religious civilization than is Western Europe, the history, foundation and roots of Western Civilization long ago became centered on a submission to a "higher power," i.e., a god of the earth and universe (initially multiple gods).

The higher power is in fact a belief and acceptance of theism. Monotheism is indeed a power and force which is far greater than the individual or of the state per se, thus humbling both in the face of god (although for some time monarchy claimed god's sanction to rule in the absolute). Monotheism teaches the mentality of 'who made me? god made me' while simultaneously accepting the rule that we must render unto god that which is god's, and render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's (secularism).

In their absence of any theology, the Chinese Jung Gwo missed this kind of humility, limitations, submission to a higher authority than themselves. That is, the Jung Gwo have entirely missed any realization and recognition of hubris. For all of the historical faults and failures of organized, institutionalized Christian religion, the fact is that Western Civilization has always submitted to a "higher power." Consequently, the individual in the West learned to recognize something greater than himself individually, and as greater than any particular people, or of all peoples of the planet.

In stark contrast, the Jung Gwo are their own power. Never theological and oblivious of hubris, the Jung Gwo haven't anything that is greater than themselves. To the Jung Gwo, there simply isn't anything in the universe that is greater than they themselves. The Jung Gwo are it. There isn't any greater power or authority in all of t he universe that would cause the Jung Gwo to learn humility, limitations, human frailty - most critically, the inherent human flaw of hubris.

Theology, as with ideology, is a brain disease - or a disease of some sort. However, while the contemporary West is invariably gravitating away from its ancient roots in theology, the Jung Gwo only continue to compound their ignorance of hubris or any related concept of humility or human limitations. Always, the Jung Gwo haven't had any concept of anything greater than they themselves. Consequently, they have always missed a very crucial aspect of life, i.e., the limitations, the inborn fallibility of the self destructive hubris that is natural to human beings.

In the nuclear age, this especially is a menacing failure.

The Jung Gwo have been a power and force unto themselves for 5000 years. That the Jung Gwo are right in the absolute in and of themselves is a given. There's no why to it. "No why!" is a common refrain in the classrooms and among the Jung Gwo throughout their lives, generation after generation - for 5000 years.

This is impossible to deal with or to overcome by the nations and peoples of the world. The ancient hegemony of the Jung Gwo has been dismantled by the modern world. The Jung Gwo are in the process of rebuilding themselves in accord with the standards of living of the modern world

Okay, first of all, First Advisor may or may not be Chinese. Assuming and trying to prove he is is immaterial.

Second, I don't understand why anybody takes him (or her) seriously. This person irrationally hates Americans, and there's no point in trying to change him because his head is too thick to see any other viewpoints anyway. Simply by generalizing, asserting that "All Americans" are a certain way, or that the rest of the world hates Americans is just proof of his ignorance and lack of mental capacity. I'd like to see a single major population-related statistic that proves an absolute.

If the Mekong region needs help, and we are in a position to provide that help, I fully support the United States' decision to do so. Everyone knows that China is a cock, and that they are not above power plays.

You got it backwards.

The Jung Gwo for thousands of years have viewed all foreigners as "devils." With great disrespect and contempt.

To the Jung Gwo democracy is the invention of the Great Satan himself.

China is America's nightmare. It's the saviour of the world and for people who oppose hegemonic America.

The newest dynasty of China, the Communist Party of China which rules the People's Republic of China is a gang of fascists who are the nightmare of the world, to East Asia and Southeast Asia especially.

While India has a population of 1 100 000 000, India is a republic with democracy, yet the CPC tells the Jung Gwo that because there are 1 400 000 000 Chinese there can't be democracy. And the Jung Gwo eat that right up. India has been a democracy for longer than the PRC has existed. The PRChina is a fascist dictatorship of plutocrats, autocrats and corrupt oligarchs. This freak country is the antithesis of a savior of any kind or sort.

You need to get your head out from down where the sun don't shine.

Pakistan is a democracy. Iran is a democracy. Sekkim was a democracy. Nepal is a democracy. India is a worse democracy than they are.

Is India really a democracy? Why does India prevent Jammu and Kashir from joining Pakistan? Don't tell others it is because the Kashmiri people wish to stay in India. India is hegemonic state that bully all its neighbours. Since, independ from its colonial master, India had invaded Pakistan and split East Pakistan to become Bangladesh. India had annexed Sekkim, an independant nation. India also made direct influence of Bhutan's foreign affair. India had funded the separatist in Sri Lanka. Also, India had made South Tibet an restricted area. India is an hegemonic fake democracy.

China was a democracy with former Gwo Min Dang ( now in Taiwan). However, Chinese people rejected fake democracy and chose a new experiment. Now that Socialist system have evolved into a new form of government and is still evolving. It has made China a strong nation that benefit all its people. Compare that of India, what did India do to help the poor in the country? Why is India lack so lag so behind China in terms of GDP per capita? India had started democracy 60 years ago, it shall be much better than China. Why is it lag so behind in general? It is because it has fake democracy. The Moaists in India see the truth, so they revolted. They want to seek real democracy.

Good luck with India.

Pakistan is a democracy. Iran is a democracy. Sekkim was a democracy. Nepal is a democracy. India is a worse democracy than they are.

Is India really a democracy? Why does India prevent Jammu and Kashmir from joining Pakistan? Don't tell others it is because the Kashmiri people wish to stay in India. India is hegemonic state that bully all its neighbours. Since independent from its colonial master, India had invaded Pakistan and split East Pakistan to become Bangladesh. India had annexed Sekkim, an independant nation. India also made direct influence of Bhutan's foreign affair. India had funded the separatist in Sri Lanka. Also, India had made South Tibet an restricted area. India is an hegemonic fake democracy.

China was a democracy with former Gwo Min Dang ( now in Taiwan). However, Chinese people rejected fake democracy and chose a new experiment. Now that Socialist system have evolved into a new form of government and is still evolving. It has made China a strong nation that benefit all its people. Compare that of India, what did India do to help the poor in the country? Why is India lag so behind China in terms of GDP per capita? India had started democracy 60 years ago, it shall be much better than China. Why is it lag so behind in general? It is because it has fake democracy. The Moaists in India see the truth, so they revolted. They want to seek real democracy.

Good luck with India.

India has regular elections which, because of its several hundred million voters in 28 states, are conducted in a compressed sequence of time in regions of the country. This is a remarkable innovation and adaptation of democratic government by Indians, a display of creativity and a reliable election management which has yet to be even considered by the ruling Communist Party of China or by any of the "intellectuals" of the People's Republic of China.

Because of its diversity, India has a multi-party democracy consisting of working coalitions. When the government loses and election, it vacates the North Block of New Delhi in favor of the newly elected democratic government. In recent elections the poor and dispossessed of India voted the Congress Party to government because the previous government had been ignoring them. The 800 000 000 of the CPC/PRC who live in the countryside on USD $2 a day or less are equally ignored, if not more so, but haven't any such option or alternative to rule by diktat.

India has the 12 largest economy of the world measured by market exchange rates and enjoys the 4th position globally in purchasing power. The Bombay Stock Exchange in Mumbai is the oldest in Asia. Goldman Sachs projects that by 2020 Indian GDP per capita will quadruple. During the 1980s India abandoned its socialist economic policies in favor of privatization and market economics.

Two Indians have won the Nobel Prize in Literature for their works written in the English language, 7 Indians in all have won the Nobel Prize to include the first Asian to win the science award (Physics). The only Nobel Prize winners of Chinese ancestry are Chinese nationals who live outside of the culturally and intellectually moribund mainland of the CPC/PRC.

India continues to have serious problems of poverty as does the CPC/PRC. While Indians have elected and re-elected the present government to address poverty in more systematic and systemic ways, the Jung Gwo les miserables haven't any such option. India and China historically and to the present are two freak of nature countries which are in a population category of their own, one that is apart from the normal, typical nation state. However, India continues to move much more towards the mainstream of the world at large than the CPC/PRC.

India is the world's most populous democracy, the PRC is the world's only 5000 year old dictatorship of warlords, emperors and dynasties of emperors to include the present dynasty, the Communist Party of China. In the Age of IT, the CPC is a reactionary and very nervous dynasty which has to devise new and diabolical ways to continue to censor the minds of the passive and obedient Jung Gwo sheeple.

Repulicus, you seem to be a China basher and an Indian defender. Then let's talk about India in relative terms and not intended to bash it.

1. India has adapted new election procedure for officials and head of states. That is not any unique features of an democratic country and should not be accorded to India people alone. Most other nations have some form of variation of procedure and election method. Greek is a proportional representative democracy country. France has two tier methods which involves with number of votes aquired in the first round. USA and Canada has a similar one vote system for Prime Minister. However, USA chooses the President directly, whereas Canada choose the party. Therefore, most countries will adapt some form of variations based on history, populace, geographics make up, etc., to adapt to its own need. Indian government's adaptation is of need and is not an ingenuity of its people to claim of intelligence. Whereas China had experimented these form of democracy during the begining of last century and found it did not work well. Eventually the people rejected it and had a revolution to correct it. And 30 years ago, China had started to revised the then socialist system and began a course of development and self improvement. The results are incredible. Presently, most lower village representative and officials are elected by one vote system. This works well for China at the moment. People in China don't want the India system of election.

2. China is still poor, but by means poorer than India. There are still roughly 40 million people live under the amount designated by UN as poor. However, India still has half its population living under that category. The 800 million figure must be at least 25 years ago.

3. India has a chance to improve its economy at least 60 years ago. It should be much better than China if its democracy is real. However, accordingly, the purchasing power of China is more than twice than of India and China actually started to improve 30 years ago. So system of government is not relevant here in comparison.

4. The nobel price of the India should be congradulated, but it should not be accorded to democracy. Just ask any Naxalites in India whether they should care or not. The advance of society should not be judged on Nobel price alone. For example, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and many other nations have no nobel prize winner produced domestically, but they are just and fair society. So, what did the two Nobel prize winner did for the poor of India?

5. The Chinese government had a change of several leader groups peacefully in the last 30 years. Each group was elected internally and had built on the success of China. Each has improved the form of government. Whereas India was ruled by the Ghandi family for a long time and there is no way out. Vote rigging and buying is prevelant. The lastest ruler is Sonia, the wife of late Ghandi's son. She will continue ruling for some time to come.

6. China is an country promotes peace and harmony for the last 2 thousand years. Of course the present China composed of more variety of people for at least 3 hundred years. During the Qing dynasty, the government promoted the five cultures as "close like a family". No restriction is placed on the officials based on its cultures. As for dictators of 5000 years, that is incomprehensible. Whereas India was not a nation at its present form. When it gets to its present form, it prevented Jammu and Kashmir from joining Pakistan. India had split East Pakistan into Bangledash. It had annexed Sikkim, an independant nation. It had restriction on Bhutan's foreign relations. It had allowed thousands of its population to move to Nepal. Who is the hegemony here?

I'm Publicus but because I consider you a friend you can call me "Republicus" if you like.

To the Jung Gwo, the billions of others who are not Jung Gwo are (foreign) devils. You can assign demons to the hearts of those of us who disagree with you if you wish and if it helps you to find irrational reasons why we oppose totalitarian and authoritarian regimes.

The CPC likewise demonizes India because, like the PRChina, India has a population that exceeds 1 000 000 000 but, unlike the PRC India is a democracy. The CPC line to its sheeple is that because China has such a large population it cannot have democracy, that the Communist Party of China is in fact the only party that can govern China. Consequently Beijing always indoctrinates its sheeple against India. This absolute negativism is self serving Communist Party crap.

You like to say India is a fake democracy. You too are full of crap.

Give us the timeline for democracy in the People's Republic of China (the country) and state to us how the coming democracy of the PRC will be a true democracy. Until the People's Republic of China has democracy, you are in no position to criticize the democracy of any country anywhere, anytime.

yes they,only they can say yes,the others couldn't say no!

If you don't call those who brought you death and destruction, what do you call them? For the last 2000 years, the Chinese culture preaches peace, harmony and tolerance. And in the last two hundred years, then foreign devils came. First is the Spain who annexed Taiwan. Then came the Russia who annexed and still annexed the part of the area near Japan in Northern China. Then the British democratically voted to have war on China to force opium on China. Then the Japanese came to conquer China and slaughtered 200 thousands in Nanking. EVery body came to take a piece and destroy everything. If you don't think those foreigners are devils and demons, what do you call them? And just because the British voted on war effort democractically, did it made them to be saints. When Ming dynasty was strong and militarily surpassed all nations, did it raided any one? Ming dynasty sent out several expenditions of 200 hundred boats (3 times larger than the Spainish boats used by Columbus) 60 years before Columbus and sailed around the India Ocean , did it raided any one? The answer is no. When the Chinese have clear upper hand, it did not bring wars unnecessarily. So, to those who bring you death and destruction, you call them demons and devils.

However, Indian may called its colonial master saints. Before colonial time. India was never a single nations. It was not unified and wars between each others happened all the time. Even the Mongolian had not unified India. When the British unified India, war disappear within its border. For such, Indian had thanked and kneeled to its colonial master with heads down (even crying).

China had not demonized India because India is not in China radar screen. Why would Chinese want to compare with India when all India generally have is fake democracy and real ruler is Sonia, the wife of late Ghandi's son. No thanks! No need to.

Unlike India, China rejected fake democracy. China had formed KMT party and an elected parliament during the begining of last century, well before India was freed from its colonial masters. China had chosed something more suitable for itself and will evolved into something unimaginable. And it will bring prosperity to the Chinese people. Whereas India is stucked with its fake democracy until it will free from Sonia's rule or have a revolution by Maoists or Naxalites.

Yes,here has democracy,but it is Chinese democracy,not western democracy.the western democracy only will give China and Chinese people disaster,not peace,rich and harmony.
The western democracy always has double standards.If it is good for western countries,then they will call you has democracy.If not,then they will call you are autocraft.
The western democracy does not adapt to Chinese.
Please don't pick up finger to say which is right or not.We know what is right or not,we have our own standard ,not yours.
Now only China can contend with the USA.We would like to be a great opponent,but not a lovely lamb.

The Jung Gwo (central country) have considered the world at large to be populated by "devils" from long before the 19th century and the Western intrusions into China that demolished the 'ancien regime' of the Jung Gwo (approx 1830 - 1945).

You express the common and widespread teachings of the CPC in regard to events and their initiators of the time period I've identified (which during the last 15 or so years is more specific to Showa Japan than to the West).

I'm concerned however that when you speak of demons and devils, whether in Chinese or in English, you speak literally. The entrances to thousands year old temples and other historic buildings throughout China have awful looking figures with menacing poses and facial expressions to ward off 'evil' whether the 'evil' may be spiritual or physical.

I'm confident that had the Gwo Min Dang won the civil war rather than the CPC, the grudge and revenge mentality that you express, and which pervades the sheeple of the PRChina, would not exist. But the CPC did win the civil war, as we well know. And, of course, the day of reckoning for the West is actively in the long term making - or so goes the plan of the CPC.

If India is off the radar screen of the CPC, then why do something like 98% of PRChinese speak only negatively of India each and every time India is mentioned (never discussed, at least not with foreign devils)? For the reasons I've stated, India is very much on the CPC radar screen; it certainly is on your radar screen, in every way consistent with the CPC anti-India line.

Russia is having a tuff time breaking with its thousand year old tsar top-down mentality and culture but at least some measurable progress towards having a democratic government is being made, however modest and qualified it indeed is. Some limited progress towards democracy in Russia is possible and is occurring principally because the Russians suffered the rule of tsars for only 1,000 years.

The Jung Gwo are the hardest core of the hard core totalitarians/authoritarians. I of course refer to the 5000 uninterrupted years of it. You can cite Sun Yat Sen's two year Republic of China early last century but two years of 5000 years is a meaningless speck of Jung Gwo history. Sun's republic was overwhelmed by the Jung Gwo 5000 year culture of dictatorship - it never had a prayer of a chance to succeed.

The late historian Will Durant liked to call the Western person a "restless" person given the European Age of Exploration as it's called in Western History books. Durant certainly was imprudently restrained to call the conquistadors "restless" and to accept so readily their conquests (i.e., the West) as nothing more than the politely termed "Age of Exploration."

Conversely, here is what the Brits visiting China were confronted with in 1792 by the Qing Emperor Qianlong, who replied to a message from George III: "You, O king, live beyond the confines of many seas, nevertheless, impelled by your humble desire to partake of the benefits of our civilisation, you have dispatched a mission respectfully bearing your memorial...I have read your memorial...Surveying the wide world...strange and ingenious objects do not interest me. I have no use for your country's manufactures. It behooves you, O king, to respect my sentiments and display even greater devotion and loyalty in future so that by perpetual submission to our throne, you may secure peace and prosperity for your country. Tremblingly obey and show no negligence."

Having to state this particular fact and reality is unfortunate, but it must be said that the smug, self-satisfied and arrogant attitude expressed in this missive is indicative of how and why the stagnated "central country" invited the continuing bloody nose it got for the next 150 years.

Maoism is bankrupt, always has been. Even in the PRC Maoism is dead.

You are speaking of passe' totalitarian ideologues who seek to seize power in the same fashion as Mao, the same as Stalin, same as Hitler - the list is very long. The Shinning Path in Peru long ago got their arses shot dead during an embassy siege. Maoists in India are a tiny sideshow and in Nepal they inspire no one besides themselves.

Cheerfully, Maoism is irrelevant and immaterial to the peoples of the world. You live in an obscure and arcane past.

Maoism is still kicking and screaming in India and Napal. Please refer this subject to: Maoists in Limbo, BY ANUP KAPHLE, dated 26 August 2010 in Foreign Policy magazine; Fire in the Hole, BY JASON MIKLIAN, SCOTT CARNEY, dated Sept/Oct 2010; and India's Hidden War, dated Sept/Oct 2010. No one is here to redicule India and Nepal. But the truth is: Maoism is very much alive in these two countries.

As for China, Maoism went to sleep when Mao died and stay in the coffin. Mao's teaching is about justice and class struggle, which is readily adopted by the cast struggle in India and Nepal. China has moved past this stage into economic development and country building. Mao is very lousy in economic development. Deng is good in this area. So Dengism has prevailed now. Maoism went to sleep in book shelves. Usually people who adopted Maoism are bankkrupted people and people who have been oppressed by others.