Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Beijing makes play for Africa
The Sunday Times ^ | November 5, 2006 | Michael Sheridan

Posted on 11/05/2006 2:06:18 AM PST by MadIvan

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last
To: MadIvan
Boy this proves that Chi-Coms are dumber then a sack of potatoes.

I don't think we have anything to worry about. China can pour all the money they want down Mugabe's rat hole and it will remain a rat hole. The "money to refurbish the stadium" is a clear indication of this. Talk about a waste of money. If they really wanted a return on their investment they would sink money into roads and actual useful infrastructure. But then Communists have never been smart. They are sinking money into a country with an economy that is shrinking on an average of 8% a year.

On the other hand India is investing in Kenya and Tanzania where the economy is expanding on the average of 6% a year.

The smart money is on India.

21 posted on 11/05/2006 11:57:02 AM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (De inimico non loquaris sed cogites)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
One should be careful not to be misled by bias. There is a tendency to evaluate countries better when they are more to us and worse when they are closer to someone else. But it is very natural and almost impossible to avoid.
22 posted on 11/05/2006 12:12:57 PM PST by A. Pole (Rudyard Kipling: "Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Indeed.

And you are doing exactly that.

China is showing vast stupidity by supporting Mugabe and Bashir. There were plenty of other places that they could have invested time and money and gotten a far better return but like to like and China has an affinity for murderous thugs that will come back to bite them.

23 posted on 11/05/2006 12:27:47 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (De inimico non loquaris sed cogites)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
And you are doing exactly that. [...] China has an affinity for murderous thugs

Somehow the murderous thugs are always on the other side

24 posted on 11/05/2006 12:37:36 PM PST by A. Pole (Rudyard Kipling: "Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
When you are on the side of right, yes.
25 posted on 11/05/2006 12:42:16 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (De inimico non loquaris sed cogites)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
When you are on the side of right, yes.

I will give you example. During Reagan administration Iraq attacked and waged bloody war against Iran. Iranians were bad guys and Iraqis were the good guys.

At that time Iran accused Iraq of using poison gas. It was dismissed as an Iranian propaganda. After Iraq invaded Kuwait and fell out of favor, the criminal use of poison gas and other Iranian accusations became the absolute truth.

Don't you find it a little confusing? Or is your thinking so flexible that it always matches the official and changing position, even about the past events?

26 posted on 11/05/2006 12:56:11 PM PST by A. Pole (Orwell:He who controls the present, controls the past.He who controls the past, controls the future.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Your example is bogus as is your history.

Iraq was never the good guys something easily shown by their being armed by the USSR, China and france all open supporters of bloody tyrants.

Of course maybe to you they were the good guys.

27 posted on 11/05/2006 1:15:02 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (De inimico non loquaris sed cogites)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
Iraq was never the good guys something easily shown by their being armed by the USSR, China and france all open supporters of bloody tyrants.

Do you remember how US navy was sent to protect Iraqis? (It was when the Iranian airliner was shot down).

28 posted on 11/05/2006 1:21:58 PM PST by A. Pole (Orwell:He who controls the present, controls the past.He who controls the past, controls the future.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Nope. And neither do you.

They were not sent to protect Iraqis they were there to protect Kuwaiti oil tankers and keep the Strait of Hormuz open.

I know that you and Saddam have a tendency to think that Kuwaiti is part of Iraq but they are separate countries.

Do you have any more faux-history you would like to pull out?

29 posted on 11/05/2006 1:32:40 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (De inimico non loquaris sed cogites)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear; A. Pole

"China is showing vast stupidity by supporting Mugabe and Bashir."

You mean like the US did with Saddam, Castro and countless other dictators?

As A. Pole has already stated, the Chinese are very pragmatic and unlike the US, their moves are very calculated with a great deal of thought given to the long-term future.

I wouldn't say the Chinese are being stupid at all. There's obviously something they want and apparently they're getting it.


30 posted on 11/05/2006 1:42:35 PM PST by Dr. Marten (http://thehorsesmouth.blog-city.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
"money to refurbish the stadium" is a clear indication of this. Talk about a waste of money. If they really wanted a return on their investment they would sink money into roads and actual useful infrastructure.

The Chinese ARE building roads and other useful infrastructure like generators, schools and satellite communication networks. Stadium is just an example of the diversity the Chinese are willing to invest upon, and like others have said already, having a stadium is better than no stadium. The Chinese are gaining exclusive contracts and deals because of these investments. I guess we shall see in a few more decades how smart or stupid that is, but I don't think you can clearly dismiss it right now.
31 posted on 11/05/2006 1:43:13 PM PST by diesel00
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
They were not sent to protect Iraqis they were there to protect Kuwaiti oil tankers

Iraq was allowed to put Kuwaiti and other foreign flags on Iraqi tankers.

I will remind you another detail. Do you remember how USS Stark was attacked by Iraq on May 17 1987 what resulted in 37 deaths? Somehow the bias against Iran was so strong that this attack was disregarded. Don't you find this amazing?

Now if the USS Stark was sunk without survivors, how likely is that Iran would be blamed?

32 posted on 11/05/2006 1:50:46 PM PST by A. Pole (Orwell:He who controls the present, controls the past.He who controls the past, controls the future.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

Go back to the history books. Look for transculturations - the many failed attempts [start with the Katyn Forest massacre - it is the easiest one to analyse, everything is on the surface] and the two large scale successes [even then the degree of success is somewhat dubious] - early expansion of Islam and the creation of Spanish colonial empire in South America. Both were genocidal. This would give you an idea of the depth of scouring required.


33 posted on 11/05/2006 1:55:14 PM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear; A. Pole
On the other hand India is investing in Kenya and Tanzania where the economy is expanding on the average of 6% a year. The smart money is on India.

Why are you bringing India into this? Do you know how much India trades with Africa? India-African trade was $9 billion last year, while China-African trade was $42 billion last year. BTW, China trades more with Kenya than India does. Total China-Kenya trade is $475 million, while total India-Kenya trade is $249 million.

The smart money is on Africa. Africa needs as much trade as it can get to crawl out of its mess.
34 posted on 11/05/2006 2:03:35 PM PST by diesel00
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: diesel00
but I don't think you can clearly dismiss it right now.

I can not only dismiss it but laugh at it.

If China wishes to pour money down that rat hole that is their business.

The Chinese ARE building roads and other useful infrastructure like generators, schools and satellite communication networks.

Not.

Chinese money is going into swiss bank accounts except for a few projects like the mad one's palaces.

It will be fascinating to see what happens when he falls. China will find it's self out in the cold again.

35 posted on 11/05/2006 2:10:15 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (De inimico non loquaris sed cogites)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Iraq was allowed to put Kuwaiti and other foreign flags on Iraqi tankers.

Irrelevant. That was between Iraq and who ever else. Not us.

Now if the USS Stark was sunk without survivors, how likely is that Iran would be blamed?

You have now moved from fact into the realm of wild speculation.

36 posted on 11/05/2006 2:14:20 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (De inimico non loquaris sed cogites)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
For at least a couple of years on FR, I've been seeing this coming.

China needs the mineral resources of southern Africa (South Africa and Zimbabwe). China does NOT need the Africans. They have millions of excess peasants who can come over and work the mines and the farms. The Africans will then be treated like the American Indians: driven off or killed

In exchange for being the figurehead who allows this, Mugabe will be allowed to retire to a nice estate in China, and will bring along all the women he wants to grab

37 posted on 11/05/2006 2:15:42 PM PST by SauronOfMordor (A planned society is most appealing to those with the arrogance to think they will be the planners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Marten
You mean like the US did with Saddam, Castro and countless other dictators?

More faux-history.

It is amazing that how the defenders of Communist regimes all have the same talking points.

38 posted on 11/05/2006 2:15:55 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (De inimico non loquaris sed cogites)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
China needs the mineral resources of southern Africa (South Africa and Zimbabwe). China does NOT need the Africans. They have millions of excess peasants who can come over and work the mines and the farms. The Africans will then be treated like the American Indians: driven off or killed

Now there is a far more likely scenario then the "benevolent Chinese" being pushed by many.

39 posted on 11/05/2006 2:19:05 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (De inimico non loquaris sed cogites)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GSlob; liberty or death
To clean up a mess so deeply ingrained would require a pretty deep scouring

Mao killed somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 million Chinese during his rule. South Africa has a population of just 44 million. Genocide on that scale is well within Chinese capability

40 posted on 11/05/2006 2:20:19 PM PST by SauronOfMordor (A planned society is most appealing to those with the arrogance to think they will be the planners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson