April 17, 2008 05:57 AM Missouri Time
The Chinese are just going nuts now on way to prove that the west is just anti-China and not really pro-Tibet.
This posted on Shanghai Daily
by Gideon Polya
Intersting mand this Polya guy. He is very anti-west. Click on his name to see some of his articles. He could probable get elected on the Democratic ticket. But this is the guy the Chinese have trotted out to be the "authority". Read on.
THERE is an anti-China geo-political agenda behind the hypocritical US-, UK-, EU- and Australian criticisms of China over Tibet.
Wait a minute. I remember posting an article from this same news site saying that the US, UK, and Australia where supporting China because they will not boycott the Olympics. Which is it? Did you accidently let some truth out again in your over zealousness.
The most fundamental human right is the right to life.
No argument there. In fact you say that this is what most people have been arguing. That the Tibetans have no right to be alive. If they disagree with anything China says or does to them then they must be killed. No right to life. Ask the 3 million or so that Mao did away with. They had no right to life.
According to data from the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) and the UN Population Division, China has made huge advances in dramatically reducing the mortality rate and infant mortality rate in both the Tibet Autonomous Region and in China as a whole, and to similar levels.
The infant mortality rate has in creased in Tibet therefore China is a wonderful country doing wonderful things. I am curious though. I wonder if some of this rate going down has anything to do with all the Han people China moved into the region and the hospitals only they can either go to or afford to go to. The hospitals that are built around areas where the Han live and are kilometers away from any true Tibetan villages. HMMMMM add that to the one child policy and the fact that China really has no idea how many babies die because they don't really track this kind of stuff in the small minorities or in the country side. Then you really don't have an argument at all. I will go ahead and critique the rest of your babbling anyway.
Thus the ''annual under-five-year-old infant death rate" is about the same (about 0.6 percent) in Tibet and China as a whole as compared to 6.2 percent for US- and Australia-occupied Afghanistan, 0.12 percent for occupier Australia and 0.16 percent for occupier United States.
Is it any surprise that China has a lower infant mortality rate then a country in the middle of a war. Lets compare China and Afghanistan. China is a modern country with modern medicine and hospitals. An educated population that has money to go to the doctor. Afghanistan is a country that is living in the dark ages, steeped in superstition and follows a religion where women can not get proper health care. Yes, I do believe these two places make for a good comparison on infant mortality rate.
I also love the "occupier" title they give us. A country that has had free election and we are occupying them. If they are really wanting to use this as a basis for their comparison then we must also say that China is the "occupier" of Tibet. It makes me wonder if the teacher Confucius ever taught debate. because these guys are horrible at it.
The annual infant death rate in occupied Afghanistan (6.2 percent) is 51 times that in occupier Australia, 38 times that in occupier US and similar to the ''annual death rate" of 10.2 percent for Australian prisoners of war of the Japanese in World War II - a war crime for which key Japanese leaders were tried and hanged.
OH MY GOD!!! So I really want to see if I understand this. China is good because our infant mortality rate is smaller then the death rate of prisoners in World War II. This would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
(The author is a Melbourne-based writer who has published some 130 works and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org)
130 published works. Well this end the debate. He must be right, he has 130 published works.
Theres an email address. It was part of the story so I didn't go just find it an put it on here. Do with it what you will.
Posted by: Smellyfish at 05:57 AM
39 queries taking 0.2404 seconds, 56 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.