Asp Forum - Error with VB6 COM Component called from Interop .NET assembly - microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.interop

Jen

11/7/2007 6:07:00 PM

I am trying to access an interface within a VB6 COM component through a .NET
interop assembly. I can access this interface when I call it with VBA and
VB.NET but when I try to run my code in an automated situation the error I
receive is:

Exception: Unable to cast COM object of type
'OmegaGroup.Desktop.Interop.OpenGraphs.OpenGraphs2Class' to interface type
'OmegaGroup.Desktop.Interop.OpenGraphs.IOpenGraph2'. This operation failed
because the QueryInterface call on the COM component for the interface with
IID '{917AAEDA-07F1-4BE5-ABBD-A4E35BA5049B}' failed due to the following
error: Element not found. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x8002802B
(TYPE_E_ELEMENTNOTFOUND)).

Can anyone tell me what this error really means, and how I might approach
finding the source of the problem?

4 Answers

bmoore

10/25/2010 5:52:00 PM

On Oct 24, 8:29 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
> In article <3617abac-5513-406c-92e8-8050303eb...@s4g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> bmo...@nyx.net <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
> >On Oct 22, 1:55 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
> >> In article
> ><fa7fd552-cb52-4fbb-8720-038990130...@g20g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> bmo...@nyx.net <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
> >> >On Oct 22, 8:09 am, "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Oct 22, 10:39 am, Demorising <demoris...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Oct 21, 9:09 pm, "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > On Oct 21, 7:44 pm, Demorising <demoris...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > > On Oct 21, 6:35 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
>
> >> >> > > > > For more please see the post-exchange included below.
>
> >> >> > > > > In article <1611920.833rMHq7AA@Dharma>,
> >> >> > > > > Peter Terpstra (ç å¿ å½¼å¾ )
> >> > <lionhe...@dharma.dyn-o-saur.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > > > >US, China in 'fundamental disagreement' over Liu
> >> >> > > > > >AFP[Thursday, October 21, 2010 19:32]
> >> >> > > > > >By Marianne Barriaux
>
> >> >> > > > > >BEIJING â€” The US and China are in "fundamental
> >> >disagreement" over the
> >> >> > > > > >case of jailed Nobel Peace Prize winner
> >> >> > > > > >Liu Xiaobo, US Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday
> >> >after raising
> >> >> > > > > >it with top officials.
>
> >> >> > > > > >The plight of the dissident, who was sentenced to 11 years
> >in prison
> >> >> > > > > >last year on subversion charges, is the latest
> >> >> > > > > >issue to cloud China-US relations, already strained over
> >the value of
> >> >> > > > > >the yuan and a litany of trade disputes.
>
> >> >> > > > > >Holder confirmed Wednesday that Chinese President Hu Jintao
> >> >would visit
> >> >> > > > > >the United States in January -- meaning
> >> >> > > > > >he and US President Barack Obama will soon have an opportunity for
> >> >> > > > > >wide-ranging talks that could touch on Liu's
> >> >> > > > > >case.
>
> >> >> > > > > >"The issue did come up. This is an area in which the United
> >> >States and
> >> >> > > > > >China have a fundamental disagreement,"
> >> >> > > > > >Holder told a press conference on the second day of a
> >visit to China,
> >> >> > > > > >during which he met with several top
> >> >> > > > > >officials.
>
> >> >> > > > > >"President Obama has made clear his position on the issue.
> >We believe
> >> >> > > > > >that China should respect the fundamental
> >> >> > > > > >human rights of all of its citizens and that includes Liu."
>
> >> >> > > > > >Liu, 54, was jailed after co-authoring Charter 08, a bold
> >manifesto
> >> >> > > > > >calling for political reform in one-party
> >> >> > > > > >Communist-ruled China.
>
> >> >> > > > > But he wasn't jailed just because of Charter 08 as other
> >signatories
> >> >> > > > > to the document have not been jailed or charged, as ltlee1
> >pointed out
> >> >> > > > > based on a source he found in the publication German Voice. Liu's
> >> >> > > > > been consistently financed by the NED. See the post
> >exchange below.
>
> >> >> > > > It is a very strange situation when nobody knows for sure why
> >a famous
> >> >> > > > prisoner is jailed. All we have are competing theories. It
> >should make
> >> >> > > > a reasonable person suspicious of the validity of the charges if they
> >> >> > > > (the charges) cannot be exposed to scrutiny.
>
> >> >> > > Actually, the verdict was straight forward. Liu had violated PRC
> >> >> > > criminal
> >> >> > > code number 105, part 2. However, the verdict did not elaborate on how
> >> >> > > the
> >> >> > > court had reached that conclusion which might be presented in some
> >> >> > > other
> >> >> > > document. Probably part of the prosecution's statement.
>
> >> >> > So you had to find the information on a "Western" human rights
> >> >> > website?? Where is the link in China?
>
> >> >> Supply and demand.
> >> >> Most Chinese are happy with their government. They simply don't
> >> >> care about Liu. Hence no demand.
>
> >> >Anyone in China who expressed "demand" about Liu would find him or
> >> >herself questioned and/or jailed by government security forces. You
> >> >know it's true, but you won't admit it.
>
> >> But if you believe the Guardian article below, then do you think that
> >> the 100 signatories will be "questioned and/or jailed by government
> >> security forces"?
>
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/nobel...
>
> >Dozens of Liu's supporters were rounded up on the night the prize was
> >announced. Since then, reports of subsequent round-ups of key figures
> >in the dissident community and warnings to others have surfaced,
> >activists say.
>
> The question is whether and which of the 100 signatories mentioned
> above have been or will be arrested and charged for signing that
> document, isn't it? (Other arrests may have to do with somethine
> else, until specific identifications are made, your assertion that
>
> >> >Anyone in China who expressed "demand" about Liu would find him or
> >> >herself questioned and/or jailed by government security forces. You
> >> >know it's true, but you won't admit it.
>
> simply cannot be taken seriously.

How about "Anyone in China who expressed "demand" about Liu would be
at severe risk of finding him or herself questioned and/or jailed by
government security forces." ?

The relevant point being that LT Lee's claim that people don't ask
about Liu because they are not interested is disingenuous. It can be
very dangerous to express interest. To deny this is to deny reality.

>
> In any case, if Liu's wife has been receiving NED money on behalf of
> him for his work as reported elsewhere, that money surely will fund
> his supporters and their activities also. So, surely there are some
> people who will go into the street and make noise about this. And
> there may be laws (excuses) to arrest them just as the Californian
> gubernatorial candidate for the Green Party was arrested for simply
> protesting at the site where only Jerry Brown and that lady who used
> to sell tupperware over the internet were allowed to air their views
> because of our duopoly system of politics.
>
> Ultimately, most people here who have not seen the Chinese people
> living in China first hand are confused about what freedom means to
> most of them simply because they don't have national elections. The
> China I saw in 1999 and the numerous Chinese I have met here in the US
> subsequently tells me that a greater percentage of people are actually
> freer to speak there than here. Here, if you have money, then you're
> sort of ok. But most minorities, including hispanics, are regularly
> thrown in jail and everywhere you go, nobody want to get too close to
> the police and nobody want to speak too loud if they have a criticism
> against the government. And this is America. America also have what?
>
> Gasp! Guantanamo where people are kept as caged animals without
> charge and Johnny Taliban was sentenced to 20 years of prison after
> the high price lawyer his parents afforded him made him apologize for
> all kinds of stuff that didn't sound like having anything to do with
> his arrest and conviction (but was done just so that the government
> would be willing to throw out _most_ of the charges against him,
> charges we can be sure are pretty bogus to begin with). All this is
> justice? All this is freedom?
>
> When we have a government which is so prone to violence and exporting
> violence to the helpless people around the world but which has at the
> same time made such a huge example out of a young man who simply held
> a different opinion about these same people, I see that we are nothing
> but a hypocritical bunch.
>
> Just look at the dramatic rise in cancer cases that have come to light
> in Iraq since our shockn'awe invasion is enough to make anyone with a
> sense of moral outrage see that the destabilization work done by the
> Dalai Lama, Liu Xiaobo et al on behalf of the CIA/NED can be very
> dangerous to the welfare of the majority of the Chinese people if
> those guys have their way. I can certainly see that what they are
> doing may have been hurting the national security of China.
>
> And as we're still killing innocent people everyday and making more
> hazardous and miserable the lives of those who happen to be lucky
> enough to survive the day, in Iraq and Afghanistan, in most of the
> decade of this millennium, we've lost all our moral rights to accuse
> the Chinese government for maintaining their own internal security
> situation, bearing in mind that the country is yet to export violence
> to the world like we have done.
>
> There are actually statistics to show that more Americans in every one
> thousand have gone to or are in jail than Chinese have. I have seen
> how Chinese conduct themselves inside China. They do not act like the
> police is on their back. They don't live in fear. Most people kind
> of know what to expect so they go about their business like people in
> other countries who know what to expect.
>
> There is of course a very small minority who are being harassed by the
> Police, like Liu and his supporters. I didn't see them in 1999 but
> hear about them like you do.
>
> But I can say this: Liu should count himself lucky that he is living
> in a different era and under a different government because someone
> like him who lived in a different era, under the Chiang Kei-sak
> regime, e.g., such as the infamous Wang Jingwei (The Chinese version
> of Benedict Arnold during the Imperial Japanese occupation of China
> during WWII) was himself through two assassinations attempts by the
> Chiang regime, due to his outspokenness and advocacy for Japanese
> colonization of China. Everyone who is interested in pointing a
> finger at China for its treatment of its citizens should read more
> about how similar situations were handled under Chiang Kei-sek. It's
> in fact easy to read a lot about this from Wikipedia about various
> personalities who lived during that era. Liu is safe at least where
> his life is concerned.
>
> Finally, Liu's advocacy is simply not a popular one for the Chinese.
>
> I thought about what Chinese would want China to be a western colony
> for even a decade, not to mention three hundred years.
>
> I remember the angry protest in Beijing surrounding the US embassy in
> 1999 after the US bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, even though
> the US government said it was a mistake. This ought to give you a
> hint to the question of what Chinese would want China to be a western
> colony.
>
> There is such a thing as nationalism and it is an especially ...
>
> read more »

demorising

10/27/2010 2:49:00 PM

On Oct 25, 1:52 pm, "bmo...@nyx.net" <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 8:29 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <3617abac-5513-406c-92e8-8050303eb...@s4g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > bmo...@nyx.net <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
> > >On Oct 22, 1:55 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
> > >> In article
> > ><fa7fd552-cb52-4fbb-8720-038990130...@g20g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > >> bmo...@nyx.net <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
> > >> >On Oct 22, 8:09 am, "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> On Oct 22, 10:39 am, Demorising <demoris...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >> > On Oct 21, 9:09 pm, "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >> > > On Oct 21, 7:44 pm, Demorising <demoris...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >> > > > On Oct 21, 6:35 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
>
> > >> >> > > > > For more please see the post-exchange included below.
>
> > >> >> > > > > In article <1611920.833rMHq7AA@Dharma>,
> > >> >> > > > > Peter Terpstra (ç å¿ å½¼å¾ )
> > >> > <lionhe...@dharma.dyn-o-saur.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >> > > > > >US, China in 'fundamental disagreement' over Liu
> > >> >> > > > > >AFP[Thursday, October 21, 2010 19:32]
> > >> >> > > > > >By Marianne Barriaux
>
> > >> >> > > > > >BEIJING â€” The US and China are in "fundamental
> > >> >disagreement" over the
> > >> >> > > > > >case of jailed Nobel Peace Prize winner
> > >> >> > > > > >Liu Xiaobo, US Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday
> > >> >after raising
> > >> >> > > > > >it with top officials.
>
> > >> >> > > > > >The plight of the dissident, who was sentenced to 11 years
> > >in prison
> > >> >> > > > > >last year on subversion charges, is the latest
> > >> >> > > > > >issue to cloud China-US relations, already strained over
> > >the value of
> > >> >> > > > > >the yuan and a litany of trade disputes.
>
> > >> >> > > > > >Holder confirmed Wednesday that Chinese President Hu Jintao
> > >> >would visit
> > >> >> > > > > >the United States in January -- meaning
> > >> >> > > > > >he and US President Barack Obama will soon have an opportunity for
> > >> >> > > > > >wide-ranging talks that could touch on Liu's
> > >> >> > > > > >case.
>
> > >> >> > > > > >"The issue did come up. This is an area in which the United
> > >> >States and
> > >> >> > > > > >China have a fundamental disagreement,"
> > >> >> > > > > >Holder told a press conference on the second day of a
> > >visit to China,
> > >> >> > > > > >during which he met with several top
> > >> >> > > > > >officials.
>
> > >> >> > > > > >"President Obama has made clear his position on the issue.
> > >We believe
> > >> >> > > > > >that China should respect the fundamental
> > >> >> > > > > >human rights of all of its citizens and that includes Liu."
>
> > >> >> > > > > >Liu, 54, was jailed after co-authoring Charter 08, a bold
> > >manifesto
> > >> >> > > > > >calling for political reform in one-party
> > >> >> > > > > >Communist-ruled China.
>
> > >> >> > > > > But he wasn't jailed just because of Charter 08 as other
> > >signatories
> > >> >> > > > > to the document have not been jailed or charged, as ltlee1
> > >pointed out
> > >> >> > > > > based on a source he found in the publication German Voice. Liu's
> > >> >> > > > > been consistently financed by the NED. See the post
> > >exchange below.
>
> > >> >> > > > It is a very strange situation when nobody knows for sure why
> > >a famous
> > >> >> > > > prisoner is jailed. All we have are competing theories. It
> > >should make
> > >> >> > > > a reasonable person suspicious of the validity of the charges if they
> > >> >> > > > (the charges) cannot be exposed to scrutiny.
>
> > >> >> > > Actually, the verdict was straight forward. Liu had violated PRC
> > >> >> > > criminal
> > >> >> > > code number 105, part 2. However, the verdict did not elaborate on how
> > >> >> > > the
> > >> >> > > court had reached that conclusion which might be presented in some
> > >> >> > > other
> > >> >> > > document. Probably part of the prosecution's statement.
>
> > >> >> > So you had to find the information on a "Western" human rights
> > >> >> > website?? Where is the link in China?
>
> > >> >> Supply and demand.
> > >> >> Most Chinese are happy with their government. They simply don't
> > >> >> care about Liu. Hence no demand.
>
> > >> >Anyone in China who expressed "demand" about Liu would find him or
> > >> >herself questioned and/or jailed by government security forces. You
> > >> >know it's true, but you won't admit it.
>
> > >> But if you believe the Guardian article below, then do you think that
> > >> the 100 signatories will be "questioned and/or jailed by government
> > >> security forces"?
>
> > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/nobel...
>
> > >Dozens of Liu's supporters were rounded up on the night the prize was
> > >announced. Since then, reports of subsequent round-ups of key figures
> > >in the dissident community and warnings to others have surfaced,
> > >activists say.
>
> > The question is whether and which of the 100 signatories mentioned
> > above have been or will be arrested and charged for signing that
> > document, isn't it? (Other arrests may have to do with somethine
> > else, until specific identifications are made, your assertion that
>
> > >> >Anyone in China who expressed "demand" about Liu would find him or
> > >> >herself questioned and/or jailed by government security forces. You
> > >> >know it's true, but you won't admit it.
>
> > simply cannot be taken seriously.
>
> How about "Anyone in China who expressed "demand" about Liu would be
> at severe risk of finding him or herself questioned and/or jailed by
> government security forces." ?
>
> The relevant point being that LT Lee's claim that people don't ask
> about Liu because they are not interested is disingenuous. It can be
> very dangerous to express interest. To deny this is to deny reality.

Was China behind cyber attack on Nobel Peace Prize website?

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/1027/Was-China-behind-cyber-attack-on-Nobel-Peace-Pri...

“My assumption is that it is a Chinese-based actor,” said Greg Walton,
an expert on information technology surveillance in Oslo yesterday for
a seminar on censorship and freedom of expression in China. “I assume
a lot of traffic interest is in people coming to the [Nobel] Peace
Prize site. The attacker can identify the identity of people of
interest to them.” ... He added that the virus was probably meant only
to send a signal because it did not deface the website. By doing that,
he said, the hacker emphasized that it wanted to “harvest the social
graph of people using the website.”

>
>
>
> > In any case, if Liu's wife has been receiving NED money on behalf of
> > him for his work as reported elsewhere, that money surely will fund
> > his supporters and their activities also. So, surely there are some
> > people who will go into the street and make noise about this. And
> > there may be laws (excuses) to arrest them just as the Californian
> > gubernatorial candidate for the Green Party was arrested for simply
> > protesting at the site where only Jerry Brown and that lady who used
> > to sell tupperware over the internet were allowed to air their views
> > because of our duopoly system of politics.
>
> > Ultimately, most people here who have not seen the Chinese people
> > living in China first hand are confused about what freedom means to
> > most of them simply because they don't have national elections. The
> > China I saw in 1999 and the numerous Chinese I have met here in the US
> > subsequently tells me that a greater percentage of people are actually
> > freer to speak there than here. Here, if you have money, then you're
> > sort of ok. But most minorities, including hispanics, are regularly
> > thrown in jail and everywhere you go, nobody want to get too close to
> > the police and nobody want to speak too loud if they have a criticism
> > against the government. And this is America. America also have what?
>
> > Gasp! Guantanamo where people are kept as caged animals without
> > charge and Johnny Taliban was sentenced to 20 years of prison after
> > the high price lawyer his parents afforded him made him apologize for
> > all kinds of stuff that didn't sound like having anything to do with
> > his arrest and conviction (but was done just so that the government
> > would be willing to throw out _most_ of the charges against him,
> > charges we can be sure are pretty bogus to begin with). All this is
> > justice? All this is freedom?
>
> > When we have a government which is so prone to violence and exporting
> > violence to the helpless people around the world but which has at the
> > same time made such a huge example out of a young man who simply held
> > a different opinion about these same people, I see that we are nothing
> > but a hypocritical bunch.
>
> > Just look at the dramatic rise in cancer cases that have come to light
> > in Iraq since our shockn'awe invasion is enough to make anyone with a
> > sense of moral outrage see that the destabilization work done by the
> > Dalai Lama, Liu Xiaobo et al on behalf of the CIA/NED can be very
> > dangerous to the welfare of the majority of the Chinese people if
> > those guys have their way. I can certainly see that what they are
> > doing may have been hurting the national security of China.
>
> > And as we're still killing innocent people everyday and making more
> > hazardous and miserable the lives of those who happen to be lucky
> > enough to survive the day, in Iraq and Afghanistan, in most of the
> > decade of this millennium, we've lost all our moral rights to accuse
> > the Chinese government for maintaining their own internal security
> > situation, bearing in mind that the country is yet to export violence
> > to the world like we have done.
>
> > There are actually statistics to show that more Americans in every one
> > thousand have gone to or are in jail than Chinese have. I have seen
> > how Chinese conduct themselves inside China. They do not act like the
> > police is on their back. They don't live in fear. Most people kind
> > of know what to expect so they go about their business like people in
> > other countries who know what to expect.
>
> > There is of course a very small minority who are being harassed by the
> > Police, like Liu and his supporters. I didn't see them in 1999 but
> > hear about them like you do.
>
> > But I can say this: Liu should count himself lucky that he is living
> > in a different era and under a different government because someone
> > like him who lived in a different era, under the Chiang Kei-sak
> > regime, e.g., such as the infamous Wang Jingwei (The Chinese version
> > of Benedict Arnold during the Imperial Japanese occupation of China
> > during WWII) was himself through two assassinations attempts by the
> > Chiang regime, due to his outspokenness and advocacy for Japanese
> > colonization of China. Everyone who is interested in pointing a
> > finger at China for its treatment of its citizens should read more
> > about how
>
> ...
>
> read more »

bmoore

10/28/2010 2:50:00 AM

On Oct 27, 3:18 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
> In article <2c61dc36-01c3-420d-8737-59c13aaea...@a37g2000yqi.googlegroups..com>,
>
>
>
> bmo...@nyx.net <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
> >On Oct 24, 8:29 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
> >> In article <3617abac-5513-406c-92e8-8050303eb...@s4g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> bmo...@nyx.net <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
> >> >On Oct 22, 1:55 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
> >> >> In article
> >> ><fa7fd552-cb52-4fbb-8720-038990130...@g20g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> >> bmo...@nyx.net <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
> >> >> >On Oct 22, 8:09 am, "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Oct 22, 10:39 am, Demorising <demoris...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > On Oct 21, 9:09 pm, "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > > On Oct 21, 7:44 pm, Demorising <demoris...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > > > On Oct 21, 6:35 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > > > > For more please see the post-exchange included below.
>
> >> >> >> > > > > In article <1611920.833rMHq7AA@Dharma>,
> >> >> >> > > > > Peter Terpstra (ç å¿ å½¼å¾ )
> >> >> > <lionhe...@dharma.dyn-o-saur.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > > > > >US, China in 'fundamental disagreement' over Liu
> >> >> >> > > > > >AFP[Thursday, October 21, 2010 19:32]
> >> >> >> > > > > >By Marianne Barriaux
>
> >> >> >> > > > > >BEIJING â€” The US and China are in "fundamental
> >> >> >disagreement" over the
> >> >> >> > > > > >case of jailed Nobel Peace Prize winner
> >> >> >> > > > > >Liu Xiaobo, US Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday
> >> >> >after raising
> >> >> >> > > > > >it with top officials.
>
> >> >> >> > > > > >The plight of the dissident, who was sentenced to 11 years
> >> >in prison
> >> >> >> > > > > >last year on subversion charges, is the latest
> >> >> >> > > > > >issue to cloud China-US relations, already strained over
> >> >the value of
> >> >> >> > > > > >the yuan and a litany of trade disputes.
>
> >> >> >> > > > > >Holder confirmed Wednesday that Chinese President Hu Jintao
> >> >> >would visit
> >> >> >> > > > > >the United States in January -- meaning
> >> >> >> > > > > >he and US President Barack Obama will soon have an
> >opportunity for
> >> >> >> > > > > >wide-ranging talks that could touch on Liu's
> >> >> >> > > > > >case.
>
> >> >> >> > > > > >"The issue did come up. This is an area in which the United
> >> >> >States and
> >> >> >> > > > > >China have a fundamental disagreement,"
> >> >> >> > > > > >Holder told a press conference on the second day of a
> >> >visit to China,
> >> >> >> > > > > >during which he met with several top
> >> >> >> > > > > >officials.
>
> >> >> >> > > > > >"President Obama has made clear his position on the issue.
> >> >We believe
> >> >> >> > > > > >that China should respect the fundamental
> >> >> >> > > > > >human rights of all of its citizens and that includes Liu."
>
> >> >> >> > > > > >Liu, 54, was jailed after co-authoring Charter 08, a bold
> >> >manifesto
> >> >> >> > > > > >calling for political reform in one-party
> >> >> >> > > > > >Communist-ruled China.
>
> >> >> >> > > > > But he wasn't jailed just because of Charter 08 as other
> >> >signatories
> >> >> >> > > > > to the document have not been jailed or charged, as ltlee1
> >> >pointed out
> >> >> >> > > > > based on a source he found in the publication German
> >Voice. Liu's
> >> >> >> > > > > been consistently financed by the NED. See the post
> >> >exchange below.
>
> >> >> >> > > > It is a very strange situation when nobody knows for sure why
> >> >a famous
> >> >> >> > > > prisoner is jailed. All we have are competing theories. It
> >> >should make
> >> >> >> > > > a reasonable person suspicious of the validity of the
> >charges if they
> >> >> >> > > > (the charges) cannot be exposed to scrutiny.
>
> >> >> >> > > Actually, the verdict was straight forward. Liu had violated PRC
> >> >> >> > > criminal
> >> >> >> > > code number 105, part 2. However, the verdict did not
> >elaborate on how
> >> >> >> > > the
> >> >> >> > > court had reached that conclusion which might be presented in some
> >> >> >> > > other
> >> >> >> > > document. Probably part of the prosecution's statement.
>
> >> >> >> > So you had to find the information on a "Western" human rights
> >> >> >> > website?? Where is the link in China?
>
> >> >> >> Supply and demand.
> >> >> >> Most Chinese are happy with their government. They simply don't
> >> >> >> care about Liu. Hence no demand.
>
> >> >> >Anyone in China who expressed "demand" about Liu would find him or
> >> >> >herself questioned and/or jailed by government security forces. You
> >> >> >know it's true, but you won't admit it.
>
> >> >> But if you believe the Guardian article below, then do you think that
> >> >> the 100 signatories will be "questioned and/or jailed by government
> >> >> security forces"?
>
> >> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/nobel...
>
> >> >Dozens of Liu's supporters were rounded up on the night the prize was
> >> >announced. Since then, reports of subsequent round-ups of key figures
> >> >in the dissident community and warnings to others have surfaced,
> >> >activists say.
>
> >> The question is whether and which of the 100 signatories mentioned
> >> above have been or will be arrested and charged for signing that
> >> document, isn't it? (Other arrests may have to do with somethine
> >> else, until specific identifications are made, your assertion that
>
> >> >> >Anyone in China who expressed "demand" about Liu would find him or
> >> >> >herself questioned and/or jailed by government security forces. You
> >> >> >know it's true, but you won't admit it.
>
> >> simply cannot be taken seriously.
>
> >How about "Anyone in China who expressed "demand" about Liu would be
> >at severe risk of finding him or herself questioned and/or jailed by
> >government security forces." ?
>
> >The relevant point being that LT Lee's claim that people don't ask
> >about Liu because they are not interested is disingenuous. It can be
> >very dangerous to express interest. To deny this is to deny reality.
>
> While your new wording give you some room to justify your original
> your attack at LT Lee, I just fail to see how the uncertainty of your
> current claim help you. So, have you rounded up some statistics as to
> which and how many of those 100 signatories who have made "demand"
> about Liu have been questioned or jailed by government security forces
> yet?

Are you seriously arguing that people in China wouldn't put themselves
at risk by inquiring about a well-known dissident? The "100
signatories" argument aside, there are plenty of people in China who
have been detained for such things.

Your argument is mired in semantics and ignores substance.

> I personally suspect that every one of those 100 would have a
> file opened on them if there wasn't one for them already because of
> their past activities, just as I personally suspect that every person
> residing in America would have a file opened by the FBI when they call
> for Johnny Taliban's release from prison in a similarly visible
> fashion. But that doesn't mean that they would necessarily send some
> security agents to question them or even arrest them. If they just
> send people to prison without following what is on the book, then I
> guarantee you that the Chinese people would not be so at ease going
> about their lives as I and so many people have observe in the China of
> the last twenty years at least. There would not have been the level
> of energy and intensity for the progress the world has witness from
> China today. Today's China is not the China of the days of ``Let the
> one hundred flowers bloom''! You are speculating and unfortunately
> basing your it on information that is outdated at the least. Ihe
> reality of China you've painted is yet to be given any credence: that
> those guys who signed that statement calling for Liu Xiaobo's release
> knowingly took an action that they knew would put their freedom and
> personal well being severely at risk. Many people in this country
> have an FBI file opened on them. But they continue to openly oppose
> the wars of aggression that have rendered Iraq an land of cancer
> patients and Afghanistan once again a center of opium growth and
> trafficking. They are taking calculated risks. Some have indeed been
> made an example of for taking actions to oppose the sinisterness of
> the wars.
>
> The most prominent examples of those include Private Bradley Manning
> and the Sweden-based Australian Julien Assange in connection with
> Wikileak's activities. So, I think it would be fair for me to say
> that if China eventually put all or most of those 100 signatories
> behind bars than the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize should go to those for
> their courage, for having knowingly come to sepak out for a cuase they
> believe in even with the knowledge of great personal risks. (By the
> way, those 100 signatories are presumably not dummies. They knew what
> they were doing. They were making a calculated risk to be visible.)
> And when that comes to pass, it will be just and will also show how
> serious the current debate about the meaning of peace and freedom is
> for the Chinese people and for the people of other countires. And if
> China does something so stupid to make your claim come true, then
> China has no one to blame except herself, for dooming herself. But
> until then, China's been acting just about like any nation on earth,
> not ideal, but not worse than America for example, which spends a lot
> of money to destabilize other countries for its own hegemonic aim but
> which has done absolutely nothing to be responsive to the will of the
> American people, despite the farce of national elections..
>
> lo yeeOn
> ========
>
>
>
> >> In any case, if Liu's wife has been receiving NED money on behalf of
> >> him for his work as reported elsewhere, that money surely will fund
> >> his supporters and their activities also. So, surely there are some
> >> people who will go into the street and make noise about this. And
> >> there may be laws (excuses) to arrest them just as the Californian
> >> gubernatorial candidate for the Green Party was arrested for simply
> >> protesting at the site where only Jerry Brown and that lady who used
> >> to sell tupperware over the internet were allowed to air their views
> >> because of our duopoly system of politics.
>
> >> Ultimately, most people here who have not seen the Chinese people
> >> living in China first hand are confused about what freedom means to
> >> most of
>
> ...
>
> read more »

acoustic

11/1/2010 11:47:00 PM

In article <2c61dc36-01c3-420d-8737-59c13aaea978@a37g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
bmoore@nyx.net <bmoore@nyx.net> wrote:
>On Oct 24, 8:29 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
>> In article <3617abac-5513-406c-92e8-8050303eb...@s4g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>> bmo...@nyx.net <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
>> >On Oct 22, 1:55 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
>> >> In article
>> ><fa7fd552-cb52-4fbb-8720-038990130...@g20g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> >> bmo...@nyx.net <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote:
>> >> >On Oct 22, 8:09 am, "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Oct 22, 10:39 am, Demorising <demoris...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Oct 21, 9:09 pm, "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > On Oct 21, 7:44 pm, Demorising <demoris...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > > On Oct 21, 6:35 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > > > For more please see the post-exchange included below.
>>
>> >> >> > > > > In article <1611920.833rMHq7AA@Dharma>,
>> >> >> > > > > Peter Terpstra (ç å¿ å½¼å¾ )
>> >> > <lionhe...@dharma.dyn-o-saur.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > > > >US, China in 'fundamental disagreement' over Liu
>> >> >> > > > > >AFP[Thursday, October 21, 2010 19:32]
>> >> >> > > > > >By Marianne Barriaux
>>
>> >> >> > > > > >BEIJING â?? The US and China are in "fundamental
>> >> >disagreement" over the
>> >> >> > > > > >case of jailed Nobel Peace Prize winner
>> >> >> > > > > >Liu Xiaobo, US Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday
>> >> >after raising
>> >> >> > > > > >it with top officials.
>>
>> >> >> > > > > >The plight of the dissident, who was sentenced to 11 years
>> >in prison
>> >> >> > > > > >last year on subversion charges, is the latest
>> >> >> > > > > >issue to cloud China-US relations, already strained over
>> >the value of
>> >> >> > > > > >the yuan and a litany of trade disputes.
>>
>> >> >> > > > > >Holder confirmed Wednesday that Chinese President Hu Jintao
>> >> >would visit
>> >> >> > > > > >the United States in January -- meaning
>> >> >> > > > > >he and US President Barack Obama will soon have an
>opportunity for
>> >> >> > > > > >wide-ranging talks that could touch on Liu's
>> >> >> > > > > >case.
>>
>> >> >> > > > > >"The issue did come up. This is an area in which the United
>> >> >States and
>> >> >> > > > > >China have a fundamental disagreement,"
>> >> >> > > > > >Holder told a press conference on the second day of a
>> >visit to China,
>> >> >> > > > > >during which he met with several top
>> >> >> > > > > >officials.
>>
>> >> >> > > > > >"President Obama has made clear his position on the issue.
>> >We believe
>> >> >> > > > > >that China should respect the fundamental
>> >> >> > > > > >human rights of all of its citizens and that includes Liu."
>>
>> >> >> > > > > >Liu, 54, was jailed after co-authoring Charter 08, a bold
>> >manifesto
>> >> >> > > > > >calling for political reform in one-party
>> >> >> > > > > >Communist-ruled China.
>>
>> >> >> > > > > But he wasn't jailed just because of Charter 08 as other
>> >signatories
>> >> >> > > > > to the document have not been jailed or charged, as ltlee1
>> >pointed out
>> >> >> > > > > based on a source he found in the publication German
>Voice. Liu's
>> >> >> > > > > been consistently financed by the NED. See the post
>> >exchange below.
>>
>> >> >> > > > It is a very strange situation when nobody knows for sure why
>> >a famous
>> >> >> > > > prisoner is jailed. All we have are competing theories. It
>> >should make
>> >> >> > > > a reasonable person suspicious of the validity of the
>charges if they
>> >> >> > > > (the charges) cannot be exposed to scrutiny.
>>
>> >> >> > > Actually, the verdict was straight forward. Liu had violated PRC
>> >> >> > > criminal
>> >> >> > > code number 105, part 2. However, the verdict did not
>elaborate on how
>> >> >> > > the
>> >> >> > > court had reached that conclusion which might be presented in some
>> >> >> > > other
>> >> >> > > document. Probably part of the prosecution's statement.
>>
>> >> >> > So you had to find the information on a "Western" human rights
>> >> >> > website?? Where is the link in China?
>>
>> >> >> Supply and demand.
>> >> >> Most Chinese are happy with their government. They simply don't
>> >> >> care about Liu. Hence no demand.
>>
>> >> >Anyone in China who expressed "demand" about Liu would find him or
>> >> >herself questioned and/or jailed by government security forces. You
>> >> >know it's true, but you won't admit it.
>>
>> >> But if you believe the Guardian article below, then do you think that
>> >> the 100 signatories will be "questioned and/or jailed by government
>> >> security forces"?
>>
>> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/nobel...
>>
>> >Dozens of Liu's supporters were rounded up on the night the prize was
>> >announced. Since then, reports of subsequent round-ups of key figures
>> >in the dissident community and warnings to others have surfaced,
>> >activists say.
>>
>> The question is whether and which of the 100 signatories mentioned
>> above have been or will be arrested and charged for signing that
>> document, isn't it? (Other arrests may have to do with somethine
>> else, until specific identifications are made, your assertion that
>>
>> >> >Anyone in China who expressed "demand" about Liu would find him or
>> >> >herself questioned and/or jailed by government security forces. You
>> >> >know it's true, but you won't admit it.
>>
>> simply cannot be taken seriously.
>
>How about "Anyone in China who expressed "demand" about Liu would be
>at severe risk of finding him or herself questioned and/or jailed by
>government security forces." ?
>
>The relevant point being that LT Lee's claim that people don't ask
>about Liu because they are not interested is disingenuous. It can be
>very dangerous to express interest. To deny this is to deny reality.

While your new wording gives you some room to justify your original
your attack at LT Lee, I just fail to see how the uncertainty of your
current claim help you.

So, have you rounded up some statistics as to which and how many of
those 100 signatories who have made "demand" about Liu have been
questioned or jailed by government security forces yet? I personally
suspect that every one of those 100 would have a file opened on them
if there wasn't one for them already because of their past activities,
just as I personally suspect that every person residing in America
would have a file opened by the FBI when they call for Johnny
Taliban's release from prison in a similarly visible fashion.

But that doesn't mean that they would necessarily send some security
agents to question them or even arrest them. If they just send people
to prison without following what is on the book, then I guarantee you
that the Chinese people would not be so at ease going about their
lives as I and so many people have observe in the China of the last
twenty years at least.

And there would not have been the level of energy and intensity for
the progress the world has witnessed from China today.

Today's China is not the China of the days of ``Let the one hundred
flowers bloom''! You are speculating and unfortunately basing your it
on information that is outdated at the least. The reality of China
you've painted hass yet to be given any credence: that those guys who
signed that statement calling for Liu Xiaobo's release knowingly took
an action that they knew would put their freedom and personal well
being severely at risk. Many people in this country have an FBI file
opened on them. But they continue to openly oppose the wars of
aggression that have rendered Iraq an land of cancer patients and
Afghanistan once again a center of opium growth and trafficking.

All of these people, Chinese and American, are taking calculated
risks, at a level comfortable to themselves personally.

Some have indeed been made examples of for taking actions to oppose
the sinisterness and acceptability of the wars.

The most prominent examples of those include Private Bradley Manning
(see url1, e.g.) and the Sweden-based Australian Julien Assange (see
url2, e.g.) in connection with Wikileak's activities.

url1:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7918632/Bradley-Manning-suspected-source-of-Wikileaks-documents-raged-on-his-Facebook...

url2:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,20064...

So, I think it would be fair for me to say that if China eventually
put all or most of those 100 signatories behind bars than the 2011
Nobel Peace Prize should go to those for their courage, for having
knowingly come to speak out for a cause they believed in even with the
knowledge of great personal risks. (By the way, those 100 signatories
are presumably not dummies. They knew what they were doing. They
were making a calculated risk to be visible.)

And should that come to pass, it will be just and will also show how
serious the current debate about the meaning of peace and freedom is
for the Chinese people and for the people of other countries.

And if China does something so stupid to make your claim come true,
then China has no one to blame except herself, for dooming herself.

But until then, China has been acting just about like any nation on
earth, not ideal, but not worse than America for example, which spends
a lot of money to destabilize other countries for its own hegemonic
aim but which has done absolutely nothing to be responsive to the will
of the American people, despite the farce of national elections.

lo yeeOn
========
>
>>
>> In any case, if Liu's wife has been receiving NED money on behalf of
>> him for his work as reported elsewhere, that money surely will fund
>> his supporters and their activities also. So, surely there are some
>> people who will go into the street and make noise about this. And
>> there may be laws (excuses) to arrest them just as the Californian
>> gubernatorial candidate for the Green Party was arrested for simply
>> protesting at the site where only Jerry Brown and that lady who used
>> to sell tupperware over the internet were allowed to air their views
>> because of our duopoly system of politics.
>>
>> Ultimately, most people here who have not seen the Chinese people
>> living in China first hand are confused about what freedom means to
>> most of them simply because they don't have national elections. The
>> China I saw in 1999 and the numerous Chinese I have met here in the US
>> subsequently tells me that a greater percentage of people are actually
>> freer to speak there than here. Here, if you have money, then you're
>> sort of ok. But most minorities, including hispanics, are regularly
>> thrown in jail and everywhere you go, nobody want to get too close to
>> the police and nobody want to speak too loud if they have a criticism
>> against the government. And this is America. America also have what?
>>
>> Gasp! Guantanamo where people are kept as caged animals without
>> charge and Johnny Taliban was sentenced to 20 years of prison after
>> the high price lawyer his parents afforded him made him apologize for
>> all kinds of stuff that didn't sound like having anything to do with
>> his arrest and conviction (but was done just so that the government
>> would be willing to throw out _most_ of the charges against him,
>> charges we can be sure are pretty bogus to begin with). All this is
>> justice? All this is freedom?
>>
>> When we have a government which is so prone to violence and exporting
>> violence to the helpless people around the world but which has at the
>> same time made such a huge example out of a young man who simply held
>> a different opinion about these same people, I see that we are nothing
>> but a hypocritical bunch.
>>
>> Just look at the dramatic rise in cancer cases that have come to light
>> in Iraq since our shockn'awe invasion is enough to make anyone with a
>> sense of moral outrage see that the destabilization work done by the
>> Dalai Lama, Liu Xiaobo et al on behalf of the CIA/NED can be very
>> dangerous to the welfare of the majority of the Chinese people if
>> those guys have their way. I can certainly see that what they are
>> doing may have been hurting the national security of China.
>>
>> And as we're still killing innocent people everyday and making more
>> hazardous and miserable the lives of those who happen to be lucky
>> enough to survive the day, in Iraq and Afghanistan, in most of the
>> decade of this millennium, we've lost all our moral rights to accuse
>> the Chinese government for maintaining their own internal security
>> situation, bearing in mind that the country is yet to export violence
>> to the world like we have done.
>>
>> There are actually statistics to show that more Americans in every one
>> thousand have gone to or are in jail than Chinese have. I have seen
>> how Chinese conduct themselves inside China. They do not act like the
>> police is on their back. They don't live in fear. Most people kind
>> of know what to expect so they go about their business like people in
>> other countries who know what to expect.
>>
>> There is of course a very small minority who are being harassed by the
>> Police, like Liu and his supporters. I didn't see them in 1999 but
>> hear about them like you do.
>>
>> But I can say this: Liu should count himself lucky that he is living
>> in a different era and under a different government because someone
>> like him who lived in a different era, under the Chiang Kei-sak
>> regime, e.g., such as the infamous Wang Jingwei (The Chinese version
>> of Benedict Arnold during the Imperial Japanese occupation of China
>> during WWII) was himself through two assassinations attempts by the
>> Chiang regime, due to his outspokenness and advocacy for Japanese
>> colonization of China. Everyone who is interested in pointing a
>> finger at China for its treatment of its citizens should read more
>> about how similar situations were handled under Chiang Kei-sek. It's
>> in fact easy to read a lot about this from Wikipedia about various
>> personalities who lived during that era. Liu is safe at least where
>> his life is concerned.
>>
>> Finally, Liu's advocacy is simply not a popular one for the Chinese.
>>
>> I thought about what Chinese would want China to be a western colony
>> for even a decade, not to mention three hundred years.
>>
>> I remember the angry protest in Beijing surrounding the US embassy in
>> 1999 after the US bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, even though
>> the US government said it was a mistake. This ought to give you a
>> hint to the question of what Chinese would want China to be a western
>> colony.
>>
>> There is such a thing as nationalism and it is an especially ...
>>
>> read more <snipped in B. Moore's post>

For what follows from the ... above in the previous post, please see
the following excerpt:

>Dozens of Liu's supporters were rounded up on the night the prize was
>announced. Since then, reports of subsequent round-ups of key figures
>in the dissident community and warnings to others have surfaced,
>activists say.

The question is whether and which of the 100 signatories mentioned
above have been or will be arrested and charged for signing that
document, isn't it? (Other arrests may have to do with somethine
else, until specific identifications are made, your assertion that

>> >Anyone in China who expressed "demand" about Liu would find him or
>> >herself questioned and/or jailed by government security forces. You
>> >know it's true, but you won't admit it.

simply cannot be taken seriously.)

In any case, if Liu's wife has been receiving NED money on behalf of
him for his work as reported elsewhere, that money surely will fund
his supporters and their activities also. So, surely there are some
people who will go into the street and make noise about this. And
there may be laws (excuses) to arrest them just as the Californian
gubernatorial candidate for the Green Party was arrested for simply
protesting at the site where only Jerry Brown and that lady who used
to sell tupperware over the internet were allowed to air their views
because of our duopoly system of politics.

Ultimately, most people here who have not seen the Chinese people
living in China first hand are confused about what freedom means to
most of them simply because they don't have national elections. The
China I saw in 1999 and the numerous Chinese I have met here in the US
subsequently tells me that a greater percentage of people are actually
freer to speak there than here. Here, if you have money, then you're
sort of ok. But most minorities, including hispanics, are regularly
thrown in jail and everywhere you go, nobody wants to get too close to
the police and nobody wants to speak too loud if they have a criticism
against the government. And this is America. America also has what?

Gasp! Guantanamo where people are kept as caged animals without
charge and Johnny Taliban was sentenced to 20 years of prison after
the high price lawyer his parents afforded him made him apologize for
all kinds of stuff that didn't sound like having anything to do with
his arrest and conviction (but was done just so that the government
would be willing to throw out _most_ of the charges against him,
charges we can be sure are pretty bogus to begin with). All this is
justice? All this is freedom?

When we have a government which is so prone to violence and exporting
violence to the helpless people around the world but which has at the
same time made such a huge example out of a young man who simply held
a different opinion about these same people, I see that we are nothing
but a hypocritical bunch.

Just look at the dramatic rise in cancer cases that have come to
light in Iraq since our shockn'awe invasion is enough to make anyone
with a sense of moral outrage see that the destabilization work done
by the Dalai Lama, Liu Xiaobo et al on behalf of the CIA/NED can be
very dangerous to the welfare of the majority of the Chinese people
if those guys have their way. I can certainly see that what they are
doing may have been hurting the national security of China.

And as we're still killing innocent people everyday and making more
hazardous and miserable the lives of those who happen to be lucky
enough to survive the day, in Iraq and Afghanistan, in most of the
decade of this millennium, we've lost all our moral rights to accuse
the Chinese government for maintaining their own internal security
situation, bearing in mind that the country is yet to export violence
to the world like we have done.

There are actually statistics to show that more Americans in every one
thousand have gone to or are in jail than Chinese have. I have seen
how Chinese conduct themselves inside China. They do not act like the
police are on their backs. They don't live in fear. Most people kind
of know what to expect so they go about their business like people in
other countries who know what to expect.

There is of course a very small minority who are being harassed by the
Police, like Liu and his supporters. I didn't see them in 1999 but
hear about them like you do.

But I can say this: Liu should count himself lucky that he is living
in a different era and under a different government than Wang Jingwei.

Wang Jingwei (a Chinese version of Benedict Arnold, the American
general who plotted, unsuccessfully, to surrender what was under his
command to the Brits during the American war of Independence, or
Quisling, the Norwegian fascist who collaborated with Nazi Germany's
occupation forces in Norway during WWII) advocated that China
surrender to Japan and actually collaborated with its occupation
forces. For Wang's outspokenness and active opposition to Chiang
Kei-Sak's government, there were two assassination attempts made on
him. According to the Wikipedia article on Wang:

Wang believed that China needed to reach a negotiated settlement
with Japan so that Asia could resist Western Powers.

This kind of rationalization might have appealed to a few; but Wang
was deeply unpopular with the Chinese populace. Likewise, Liu Xiaobo
has recently advocated a 300-year colonization of China by the West
and rationalized it as good medicine for the heart and soul of the
Chinese people. If Wang's traitorous sentiment was unpopular then,
neither can Liu's traitorous sentiment be more popular with the
Chinese people today.

But unlike Wang, Liu is safe at least where his life is concerned,
partly because the government today is more secure than that under
Chiang Kei-Shek and partly because it has long decided that killing
its adversaries cannot be a good government policy, at least where
domestic matters are concerned.

(Everyone who is interested in pointing a finger at China for its
treatment of its citizens should read more about how similar
situations were handled under Chiang Kei-sek. Assassination was the
modus operandi in those days. It's in fact easy to find many such
stories from Wikipedia in relation to various personalities who lived
during that era.)

On Liu's advocacy of colonization of China by the West not being a
popular idea for the Chinese people:

we should recall the surprisingly heated protest thousands of Chinese
citizens staged outside the US embassy in Beijing in the aftermath of
the US bombing of the Chinese Embassy during the 1999 US-NATO violent
breakup of Yugoslavia. The anger of the protesters persisted even
after the US government had explained that it was a mistake that it
had happened.

That incident ought to give us a hint for the question about what
Chinese would want China to be ruled as a colony by the West.

There is such a thing as nationalism and it is an especially sensitive
subject among modern Chinese. The funny thing is whether you're a
communist or an anti-communist Chinese, you remember the bad vibe of
colonialism from the 19th century China more than anything else. You
look at those scientists who have spent their adult life abroad are
now regularly visiting China to help her build up her universities.
Many of them have a background as refugees living in exile in Taiwan
because their parents were supporters of Chiang Kei-shek's government
in exile in Taiwan.

They're not some insensitive human beings who simply keep a blind eye
on some intolerable human conditions that might exist in the country.
It is rather simply a case of people thinking that "well, if you're
agitating to overthorw the government, what do you expect?".

On the other hand, I can't imagine that they would still hold the same
attitude were China an occupied land of some foreign power. In fact,
during the Japanese occupation of China during WWII, many of China's
best scholars fled Beijing for the unoccupied Kunming in the Southwest
to form the Southwest Associated University where the best of China's
younger generation could still get their college education. In fact,
S.S. Chern, the great geometer was there as well as Chen Ning Yang's
mathematician father. And the future Nobel Physicist as well as his
co-winner Tsung Dao Lee were also there as students. And when Chern
retired from Berkeley and the MSRI he co-founded, he went back to
China to help out, as did Yang. And now Chern's most famous disciple
Shing-tung Yau, of the Calabi-Yau manifold fame, will be head of the
newly founded Mathematical Science Research Institute based in
Beijing. Chern, Yau, Yang, and their peers are not insensitive human
beings who keep a blind eye on some known intolerable human conditions
that might exist in China.

The Chinese government is by and large responsive to its people's
need. And until the US quits the Korean Peninsula, quits Okinawa,
quits Afghanistan and Bagram, quits Pakistan and Iraq, more openness
in China just won't happen if it means more information for foreign
countries to play with for their hegemonic scheming and plotting
against the country.

In the most crucial way, China's openness does depend on whether the
US is willing to bring America home. In other words, the absence of
threat from the outside is always the best inducement for a country's
domestic freedom and openness.

lo yeeOn
========

microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.interop

Error with VB6 COM Component called from Interop .NET assembly

Jen

bmoore

demorising

bmoore

acoustic

x Login to ForumsZone