Zhang Wen: “Those Disappointing American Devils…”

The following is a translation of part of this post from Zhang Wen’s blog. It begins with a conversation he is having with an older friend of his who is interested in international affairs and watches CCTV’s nightly news program daily.

Translation

Uncle: You’re experienced in the news business ((Zhang Wen is a journalist and social commentator)), give me your opinion, why are the American devils attacking Gaddafi?

Me: Uncle, Gaddafi was using planes to kill the common people who opposed him, he killed a lot of people!

Uncle: That’s Gaddafi’s personal business, what right do foreigners have to interfere? Our foreign ministry spokesperson, Yu-whatever-her-name-is, said that Libya’s affairs should be decided by the Libyan people.

Me: This isn’t a private matter. If the ruler of a country is massacring his own people, international society needs to step in. The U.N. has already passed two resolutions on this.

Uncle: Then why aren’t other countries sending troops? It’s just the American devils, the French devils, and the British devils, it’s like the Eight Nation Alliance ((This comparison is everywhere, and it strikes me as really odd. Have these people forgotten how to count?)) all over again.

Me: Well, somebody had to do something, and it’s not like China was going to send any troops. Moreover, America, France, and England are democratic countries, they have a deeper understanding of human rights. In their eyes, human rights are more important than national sovereignty.

Oh shut up about human rights and sovereignty, and don’t bring up democracy either. Let me ask you, why is no one paying any attention to Bahrain? The American devils haven’t sent troops, but aren’t there many common people being killed there as well?

Me: ……………..

Uncle: Hah, you’re speechless! I’m saying, if the American devils were also helping in Bahrain, I’d have no leg to stand on, I’d really believe that American devils were actually the masters of justice in the world.

When he asked me that question I was furious, argh, these American devils are really disappointing. They’re just doing things as they please, interfering with this hoodlum but ignoring that one, and people are saying it’s a “double standard”, hypocrisy.

They ought to be like the Roman Empire, bulking up and eliminating anyone who looks like trouble, let’s see who dares to fart then?

But if they really are worthless, and they don’t bother meddling in others’ affairs, and instead learn from one of the great eastern powers to “not interfere in other nations’ internal affairs,” then who will take care of the gangsters [despots] that haven’t yet been dealt with?

Selected comments

“It isn’t America’s job to provide free human rights to the entire world. They can only do what’s in their power to help protect human rights. 5,000 Americans have died in Iraq, and they have spent a ton of money there, but the benefits were reaped by those shameless special interests. As far as Libya, who knows whether America is making a grand chess maneuver or not, but they should really pull out and pay more attention to the Pacific. There are three bigger hoodlums there [for them to deal with.] “

“The American devils really don’t dare to act recklessly against the big hoodlums of the Pacific.”

“Zhang Wen: Uncle, if the neighbors start fighting, and the husband grabs a knife and kills his wife, should the police interfere?
Uncle: Of course, the law was broken, if they didn’t it would be chaos.
Zhang Wen: What law?
Uncle: The criminal law of the People’s Republic of China. But as for Gaddafi’s personal problems, he is the law, what law did he break?
Zhang Wen: International law.
Uncle: You mean there’s such a thing as international law?!”

“I want to ask another question: How much does a rightist, West-serving, motherland-hating media entity like yourself get paid by the US each month?”

“Gaddafi is reasonable. The West is banding together, coveting the resources of others. Only the government of China is honest and aboveboard.”

Advertisements

0 thoughts on “Zhang Wen: “Those Disappointing American Devils…””

  1. “Oh shut up about human rights and sovereignty, and don’t bring up democracy either. Let me ask you, why is no one paying any attention to Bahrain? The American devils haven’t sent troops, but aren’t there many common people being killed there as well?”

    Wait, what?

    Like

  2. I think you’re being disingenuous. 美国老 doesn’t translate into “American devil.” It’s just something like “American guys.” At best it’s something like “Yanks.”

    Like

  3. When Protesters died in Libya, a UN resolution was passed and now a no-fly zone was imposed. When protesters are being shot in Bahrain, they get a slap on the wrist.

    Like

  4. @Anon, I’ve brought up the issue of translation before.

    As to Gadafi breaking international law, just exactely what international law has he broken? UN has refered the case to ICC, has the ICC judicated and found him guilty? Does ICC even have authority, under international law, on non-signatory state such as Libya, or US (who withdrew)?

    And more fundamentally, whatever happened to innocent until proven guillty?

    It is completely reasonable for him to use force to restore law and order, against bandits who’re revolting. But since that’s not going to rile anyone’s sense of justice, we claim he bombed unarmed, inncocent, peaceful protesters.

    Where’s the evidence? Why doesn’t he just fire a few shots like Bahrain. Unless the protesters were armed and violence had spread?

    As far as what the news have provided, air raid were not against unarmed civilian, but rebels who’s killed and occupied cities against Libya’s de facto government. Armed rebels are not civilians, and I thought “collateral damage” was acceptable and justified (eg. Iraq/Afghanistan), yet now it is not.

    As we denounce Gadafi and bomb and kill Libyan civilians (collateral damage is okay again, I see), giving the rebels air cover to harm and threaten pro-Gadafi civilian (when UN resolution 1973 clearlty stated all civilian are to be protected) is effectively taking side in Libya’s civil war.

    Guess what, resolution 1973 also stated limit of the operation as to not divide Libya’s sovereignty. Where’s the ICC referal and self-righteous condemnation?

    Like

  5. I don’t know everything you have ever written, so I don’t know what issue of translation you’re talking about. But that, doesn’t change the fact that translating “mei guo lao” as “American devil” is incredibly disingenuous. It’s not an “issue of translation,” it’s simply not correct. None of those words even have the connotation of devil. It’s simply an informal way of referring to Americans akin to referring to Britons as “Brits” or Australians as “Aussies.” Maybe you disagree with the guy’s opinion about America, but mistranslating the word he uses to imply more prejudice than it warrants frankly seems like you’re looking for persecution where it doesn’t exists, not unlike those nationalists you like criticizing all the time.

    Like

  6. Sorry, ChasL. I mistakenly thought you were the translator. What I wrote isn’t directed toward you, but my point still stands.

    Like

  7. @Anon, I’ve brought up the issue of translation on CG before, take a look at the translation Andy Yee had done in the foreign journalist crackdown blogpost.

    The fact is the source had no mention of “ghost/devil”, and these twists in translation are often to force a narrative.

    Like

  8. 美国鬼 = American devil/ghost
    美国佬 = Yank

    Both terms are disparaging but the former is worse than the later.

    Foreign policies in general are being drafted by realists focusing on national interests. That US ignores the plight of one group and “helps” another group is to be expected. After all, when has any country helped out another country out of the pure goodwill without expecting something good in return?

    The US has little to gain from destabilizing Bahrain because it would send a message to Saudi Arabia that America will no longer shield the house of Saud and other US allies in the region. This would have a significant impact on oil prices world wide in the short term, not to mentions challenging diplomacy to ME countries in the long term. It’s a lot more difficult to manipulate a democracy than an autocracy. It is thus in the US interest to deal with pro-West autocracies/dictatorships than anti-West democracies.

    This wouldn’t be a problem at all if people would just admit to this. Afterall, at the end of the day it’s a country’s duty to put its own citizens’ well being over other citizens. However, instead the western MSM shields what it perceives to be this harsh reality from masses and instead preaches moralistic, self justifying BS. The result is that you get a bunch of ignorant dumbasses (josh for example) who have no idea what’s going on when others complain about US’ hypocrisy.

    Like

  9. @ lolz

    You mean self-interest in the sense of publishing and promulgating this work? self-interest in challenging pro active foreign policy on any and all terms justified or not because you don’t want the same? self-interest in wanting to gain a consensus of non-involvement through propaganda in order to permit a country to imprison and torture its own citizens when they voice political dissent or seek redress for corruption that led to a school building crushing their children, or toxic milk, etc? do you mean self-interest as in our opinion is premised on the fact that if we want to go into a province and kill ethnic minorities for acting up or run tanks over people in major thoroughfares to squash peaceful dissent, we should be able to without challenge? Is THAT the self-interest you mean?… I’ll admit self-service operates in Western foreign policy sometimes more so than altruistic benefit and sometimes not, but since you want to purport to be a holistic view of hypocrisy and inconsistent behavior I wanted to make sure to help you achieve that goal since your bash is unwittingly one-sided.

    Like

  10. …but mistranslating the word he uses to imply more prejudice than it warrants frankly seems like you’re looking for persecution where it doesn’t exists, not unlike those nationalists you like criticizing all the time. -Anonymous on March 26, 2011 at 02:51

    Agreed. A rule of thumb that should be followed especially in this age that we live in:

    “Believe none of what you hear (or read) and half of what you see”

    When Protesters died in Libya, a UN resolution was passed and now a no-fly zone was imposed. When protesters are being shot in Bahrain, they get a slap on the wrist. -pug_ster on March 25, 2011 at 23:20

    The US has poured billions of dollars into that region to help prop up current governments to combat the ever growing fundamentalism movement. There is a chance of Islamic fundamentalists taking power if current governments fall. A situation that Western nations do not want especially the US. I suspect the real problem in Bahrain and surrounding regions are religious in nature – Shi’ites vs. Sunnis. One important note, Iran has the largest population of Shi’ites (~90%). Don’t be surprised if Iran have a hand in the unrest.

    Like

  11. @Anonymous, ChasL, cdn, lolz, etc:

    佬 is often used as a derogatory term. I translated it as “American devils” because that sounds less serious in English. It’s meant to reflect the way Zhang Wen’s using it in the essay, as a rhetorical device rather than a way to actuall disparage Americans.

    “American devils” in English sounds too silly and old-fashioned to really be offensive, which is why I chose that translation. This might seem paradoxical, but if the original text had said 美国鬼 I would probably have translated it as “American pigs” or “fucking Americans” — something that carries the same weight in English that 鬼 does in Chinese.

    So yes, 美国佬 doesn’t directly translate to “American devils.” But I think “American devils” more accurately reflects the vibe in English. Of course it’s not exactly the same; translation is not an exact science, or even a science at all. But I think translating it as “Yanks,” for example, doesn’t really work because it fails to reflect the negative tone that’s often associated with 佬.

    ChasL: I would love for you to point out one place where I have ,em>ever used translation to try to “force a narrative”.

    Like

  12. That’s all a bunch of nonsense. The intent of using “American devil” instead of something more accurate is clear for anyone with even a hint of common sense and reading ability. The point is to portray anyone who disagrees with your particular viewpoint as hopelessly backward (or “old-fashioned” as you call it) and xenophobic, stuck in the 19th century.

    It has nothing to do with how “silly” it sounds in English. American “pigs” sounds equally “silly.” The point is that calling people “devils” brings up associations with 19th century/early 20th century anti-foreign sentiment in China, the Boxers and all that, while something like “Yanks” is not. The point isn’t that “Yanks” or “Yankees” doesn’t have pejorative connotations (which, by the way, is a bunch of nonsense, just ask Hugo Chavez; the phrase “Yankee go home” also comes to mind) or that lao “sometimes” has a negative tone (which is frankly irrelevant since you are supposed to determine whether it has one in this instance and nothing I have read about it suggests that “the Uncle’s” choice of words have any particular significance aside from being a bit casual; some people just talk like that and maybe you’re just oversensitive) but that translating this thing accurately doesn’t allow you (not the Zhang Wen) to editorialize.

    Like

  13. This, by the way, is a pretty good example of trying to use translation to force a narrative, down to the clearly representative sample of selected comments. Get some self-consciousness.

    Like

  14. Pardon my French but this:

    “Uncle: That’s Gaddafi’s personal business, what right do foreigners have to interfere? Our foreign ministry spokesperson, Yu-whatever-her-name-is, said that Libya’s affairs should be decided by the Libyan people.” is fucking Childish.

    If something is wrong and you have the power to help, you should help. Crazy dictators hurting their own people is not just the Lybia’s problem, (eg. forecast 2 years into the future, what’s going to happen?), and to say that you see something tragic going on, and not do anything about it, is borderline psychopathic/dehumanizing.

    So what, if I saw a girl getting attacked on the street here in Shanghai, it’s HER problem and she should negotiate her way out of it? China has absolutely ZERO moral fiber on this one, what a disgrace. In fact, it’s one of the great things that ChinaGeeks does here, is translate and share some of the ‘quirky’ things the Chinese are trying to say under the cloak of… ahem… arguably the most popular language on the planet.

    Like

  15. Totally agree with Michael.

    @ ChasL

    The whole “innocent until proven guilty” critique of foreign intervention is absurd. He even admits to human rights abuses himself, though he tends to take the angle of “heroic libyans using their own bodies to block rockets”, rather than “using civilians as human shields.”

    The protests began as peaceful, then there were riots, then there was the funeral massacre of unarmed mourners and it all went rapidly downhill. There are large number of eyewitnesses, doctors, satellite images and journalists who have supported the claim that there were large scale intentional massacres of unarmed demonstrators which took place on numerous occasions. Gaddafi is guilty as proven guilty. If you don’t think this is within the realm of reasonable doubt then you must have an incredible imagination.

    Also, there was already enough evidence against Gaddafi to prosecute him in international court of law BEFORE the rebellion. Gaddafi was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing, a bombing of a Berlin nightclub, and many proven human rights abuses against his own people. Like I said in the other thread, this whole problem came about almost certainly because the west has been propping him up all these years – I doubt he’d still be in power otherwise.

    Like

  16. Add to that China could have cast a veto at any time and chose to do nothing. That shows clearly enough how the Chinese government planned to sit on this one.

    Like

  17. Anonymous: Yeah, that doesn’t make any goddamn sense. BOTH of the people in the article (the one who argues for my point of view and the person who argues against it) use the term. So how could I possibly be using it to try to make the “other side” sound bad?

    Anyway, I’ve explained my rationale for the translation, and I stand by it . Obviously, it’s a matter of opinion and different translators would translate the same piece differently. But any arguments that I translated it this way to mislead readers are just nonsense, and frankly kind of insulting to my intelligence.

    Here’s a hint: if I wanted to mislead readers by mistranslating something, I wouldn’t painstakingly insert the original Chinese into the code with every paragraph so that people can check the translation without even having to click anywhere. I also wouldn’t have open, unmoderated comments on a website where MOST of the readership also speaks and reads Chinese.

    Like

  18. @Custer

    Don’t get your knickers in a bind, I said CG, not you specifically. But I will say Zhang is saying anything derogatory near to using “Gui Zi”in his title; the blogpost was about America’s behavior towards Libya rendering him without a reply to his uncle’s question. Same thing with Andy Yee changing a somewhat negative “Nobel controversy” to something that doesn’t convey the author’s attitude towards the event.

    @brightgrey

    I noticed you are making a lot of claims without any citation. Are you aware of the fact Russian military release satellite photos that shows Kadaffi bombing peaceful protesters reported by BBC never happened?

    http://wn.com/Libya_Airstrikes_Russian_Satellite_Detect_NO_EVIDENCE_of_Bombings

    Also, google “Annie Machon Libya” to find out what MI5 whistle blower Annie Machon’s analysis of the situation in Libya.

    Like

  19. @ChasL

    what on earth is this wn.com site? whatever it is, they’re rather upfront about saying pretty much nothing about where they’re based — http://www.wnnmedia.com/contact.html — and if you check its WHOIS dats more than once you get different registration records each time.

    so in other words: what a reliable news source!

    honestly, at this point, i don’t know who you think you’re even fooling: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/21/libya-pilots-flee-to-malta

    Like

  20. @ChasL

    what on earth is this wn.com site? whatever it is, they’re rather upfront about saying pretty much nothing about where they’re based — http://www.wnnmedia.com/contact.html — and if you check its WHOIS dats more than once you get different registration records each time.

    so in other words: what a reliable news source!

    honestly, at this point, i don’t know who you think you’re even fooling: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/21/libya-pilots-flee-to-malta

    Like

  21. Anyone who doesn’t belive we’ve usurped UN resolution 1973 to give the rebellion air cover against Qadafi (instead of protecting civilians, hundreds of missile/bomb raids have no collateral damage, we are we kidding?) can read about how rebel incursion threating civilians are allowed as we bomb non-air-defence related ground targets, even punishing cvilians that support Qadafi, and Quatar will now work with the rebels to get oil out of Libya to finance the rebellion:

    http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/libya-air-raids-hit-886954.html

    All this are enabled by the coalition attack, in violation of UN resolution 1973. Where’s the outrage?

    Like

  22. I don’t know if it’s purposely done or not. Translating 美国佬 into “American devil” is about “18 thousand miles” off. No question about it.

    Like

  23. Oh, nevermind guys. TC, an anonymous commenter on a website, has proclaimed that my translation is wrong. Since he (or she) is the be-all-and-end-all arbiter of translation questions, I guess that means I’m wrong. My bad!

    Like

  24. You were called out by at least 5 people on the same mistranslation on the same point. That is a sign that something is probably wrong.

    Like

  25. Also “painstakingly inserting the original Chinese into the code” doesn’t mean anything for someone who can’t read Chinese, i.e. the only people that would benefit from a translation. And unlike some European languages where at least some of the roots look the same, it’s not like they could pick out a word and look it up in the dictionary either. And, you would need to prove that most people who read this site are bilingual. It’s not like you can tell what language people know through IP addresses.

    Like

  26. @C.Custer:
    For you to translate some Chinese incorrectly is like for me to say things in broken English, which I do everyday in the past 30 some years. There’s nothing “wrong” about it. It’s quite natural, don’t you think? In fact, your translation is very good. I am so impressed.
    美国佬 has no negative connotation like “American devil” does. You might have done that on purpose trying to give your readers the impression that Zhang Wen is no Liu XiaoBo, and he still loves “democracy”, and hates…. Just a speculation. Tell me if I am right.

    Like

  27. @ChasL

    Actually, no I didn’t know the BBC report on the satellite images were fake, so thanks, but my point still stands.

    I don’t provide many references because I presume we all read the news. If you have followed the Libyan chain of events from the start (i.e. a few weeks ago) you’d know that the rebellion wasn’t an immaculate conception of state subversive organized violence. I’m not going to give you a keynote presentation and a timeline on this.

    Lockerbie Bombing (just the first one I could find):

    http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/2011223213547845546.html

    1986 Berlin nighclub bombing:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1653848.stm

    Here’s a collection of his human rights abuses as recorded by Amnesty International.

    http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/libya?page=1

    etc etc etc.

    Worth mentioning that last time there was a protest 1200 imprisoned demonstrators were systematically extra-judicially massacred, though an international investigation into the incident was blocked.

    Like

  28. @ Anonymous: Yeah, except the “five people” you’re talking about are the same five people who attack every single post I make here, regardless of the content. If I had heard the same thing from anyone who doesn’t regularly accuse me of being an anti-China terrorist, I’d be more concerned.

    People who can’t read Chinese are NOT the only people who benefit from a translation. In fact, most second-language learners (myself included) would generally rather read a translation (assuming the quality is good) because it’s faster and easier than reading the original. My demographic research into this site’s readership indicates that most people who read the site can read some Chinese, and many are fairly fluent. However, that doesn’t mean they have the time or the patience to scan Chinese blogs and struggle through reading these articles.

    @ tc: 美国佬 and 佬 as a suffix can have a negative connotation depending on the context. In this article, I read it as being derogatory but in a tongue-in-cheek (not serious) way, and checked with my dictionary, which says “佬 ²lǎo suf. man (often derogatory)”. The reason I used “devil”, as indicated above, is because it also doesn’t sound like a serious insult in English.

    Translation is a subjective business, but it ought to be fairly easy to understand why I’m sticking with my intuition and my dictionary rather than the people who constantly attack me, virtually regardless of what I write or say.

    Like

  29. I do not read any chinese. I have always wondered how some one translates tone or implied post/neg feelings when words carry different emotional weight depending on the culture.The example of Yanks/devil is interesting Were Yanks in the US is not much of an insult while devil has a way more negative context but from Custers explanation I understand that Yanks has a way more negative context in China. If Custer had used Yank instead of Devil I would not of assumed the Uncle was being overly biased. With the devil I assumed a bias. I grew up in the north and spent my adult life in the south so I have been called a Yank more times then not for me it’s like saying boy girl.
    By the way the shootings in Bahrain only started when the US 5 fleet left to go help Japan. There was a big outcry in the US when the Libyan navy asked for help(No Fly Zone) so they could run instead of follow orders and bomb their own people. As of yet Bahrain has not asked for help. Even those protesters who were carrying signs that said”Welcome Bullets” did not ask for international help. I find the complaints disingenuous when they dont mention what citizens rebelling asked for help and those that did not. Instead Baharain believe that the US Backed the crake down which is bull. Gates came in said don’t Clinton said don’t and the Saudi’s did. By the way you will notice the Saudi’s did not use their airforce to bomb Bahrain. Plus the UEA were going to help in Libya no fly zone but said no because the US and EU came out against the Saudi’s crake down in Bahrain.http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110322-705280.html

    Like

  30. Michael A. Robson,

    So what, if I saw a girl getting attacked on the street here in Shanghai, it’s HER problem and she should negotiate her way out of it? China has absolutely ZERO moral fiber on this one, what a disgrace. In fact, it’s one of the great things that ChinaGeeks does here, is translate and share some of the ‘quirky’ things the Chinese are trying to say under the cloak of… ahem… arguably the most popular language on the planet.

    Sorry, I fail to the relevance about your rant about of the similarity between a girl getting attacked in the street and Libya. It is not just China which abstained, but Germany, Brazil, India, and Russia, whose countries accounts half of the world’s population also abstained. Maybe their governments have zero moral fiber, or maybe they wanted to see a peaceful resolution to this crisis, not another bombing campaign that will result thousands dying or fleeing the country.

    You seem to be emotionally charged up about civilians being killed in Libya but is there any proof? Why not have independent UN inspectors to verify the findings that civilians are getting slaughtered and have Gaddifi court and him being charged in ICC instead of a bombing runs that will result in more suffering of the civilians in Libya?

    Like

  31. Read the news about the rebel incursions agaisnt pro-Kadafi, it’s plainly obvious the coalition has not only violated Res 1973, it has violated international norm when it comes to respect for sovereignty.

    We’ve basically taken side in fighting Libya’s civil war – why aren’t we bombing the rebels to protect pro-kadafi civilians, so they can peacefully protest against what they don’t believe in?

    Count how many cruise missiles and bombs we’ve dropped, not one collateral damage. Who would believe that?

    Like

  32. Just heard Obama speech about his case of why are we in Libya and this is the stupidest propaganda speech that I have ever heard. His kind of lies was only surpassed by the former president who tried to tie 9/11 to Saddam Hussein. He and some US general in charge of this bombing campaign made these stupid allegations of Gaddafi slaughtering its citizens by the thousands when he does not have any proof. I mean, we never heard this kind of crap 2 weeks ago.

    Like

  33. And now the rebels incursionare endangering pro-Kadafi civilians under the air cover we are provicing, all the while his speech says we are protecting civilians.

    In Obama’s sheech he says it’s not about regime change, but everything we do is about regime change.

    Mr. Obama, I voted for you to be my president, not to commit war crime in my name.

    Like

  34. @C.Custer:
    The Chinese word 佬 is a combination of two words – “old” and “man”. It’s more like “fellow” or “guy” — a neutral word to me.

    The fact that you are a lot smarter doesn’t disqualify me as your Chinese teacher, even though I am a Taiwanese Chinese, not a mainland Chinese.

    Like

  35. No one has the right to hurt another human being, no matter who they are. Gaddafi is no other but a ruthless criminal and has no right to one cent, it belongs to all the Libyan people. A president is someone elected to serve its people. not to kill them, use them or destroy them. We should abide by the law of Universe. The law of Love, from law this law using common sense, we all know what’s right.

    Like

  36. I do believe that there is a very simple answer to his questions.

    Before you begin to understand why Obama has sent forces to Libya, you have to understand the events leading up to the no-fly zone. Please do not ignore history, even if it’s a couple weeks old!

    Obama did not initially push for a no-fly zone and did not give his support until the very last moment. In fact, the Pentagon was very much against military intervention. Liberals and conservatives alike were clamoring for Obama to enforce a no-fly zone, along with Britain and France, very important allies! And don’t forget the Arab League! They matter a lot too. Obama didn’t just wake up one morning and decide to interfere militarily in Libya. There were great political forces at work that led up to the no-fly zone.

    The “American devils” or whatever are taking the exact same approach to Bahrain as we did to Libya. Do not call for military interference. The difference between Libya and Bahrain is EUROPE and the ARAB LEAGUE. Britain, France, and the Arab League are the REASON why US forces are engaged in Libya.

    Nobody in Europe or the Arab League is asking America to send forces to Bahrain, that is the reason why we’re no interfering in Bahrain.

    Perhaps our Chinese friends should learn this. America is not the only country in the world. We don’t always decide things unilaterally. Quit blaming America for every little thing. France and Britain led the charge, not America.

    Obama has been very consitent in this respect. He is following his own rule: “No unilateral military actions. Only military action with UN and regional consent.” I applaud Mr. Obama for this. Nobody gives him enough credit.

    Like

  37. This is a perfect example of pug-ster again being out of his depth when discussing the issues — and why I recommend he take a 5-year sabbatical from commenting until he educates himself.
    -The Daily Kos often makes The Global Times appear tasteful and discriminating in its choice of materials and contributors.
    -Susan Lindauer (born 17 July 1963) is an American journalist, author, and antiwar activist. She was accused of conspiring to act as an agent for the Iraqi Intelligence Service and engaging in prohibited financial transactions involving the government of Iraq under Saddam Hussein.[1][2] Lindauer was found mentally unfit to stand trial and all charges were dropped in 2009.[3]

    With all due empathy for those who suffer mental illness, she was not a “CIA Asset” — she hallucinated that, and our pug_ster fell for it whole hog. Thanks for the laughs!

    Like

  38. America and the West would like to believe that they are the bastion of human right and democracy, but history have shown that the American government is anything but when it comes to treating the non-Western world. In Iraq, 1.5 million were killed, in Vietnam 3 million were killed, in Japan 400000 were killed in seconds. The brutality of American regime is shocking, yet people still stuck to the idea that American stands for human rights. It is shocking and saddening the amount mental gymnastic American go through in order justify killing million so women and childrens.

    Like

  39. Slim,

    Your whole rant about Susan Lindauer doesn’t discount the facts about why the US and other NATO allies are there in the first place.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s