U.S. shouldn’t hesitate to use its leverage in dealing with Vietnam

[Viet]

the 2 viet guys are obviously translators
vice president biden gave a state banquet to the visiting communist boss. I can read his lip: you needn´t worry about the northern chinese commie. vietnam will get aegis destroyers to deal with them. let me know how many you want. 5 or more

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

the 2 viet guys are obviously translators
vice president biden gave a state banquet to the visiting communist boss. I can read his lip: you needn´t worry about the northern chinese commie. vietnam will get aegis destroyers to deal with them

your desperation and rage only fuels us. cry harder.

 

[Viet]

It is actually worse, the Chinese have something we called "Selective Journalism"

Do remember when Washington Post post some Anti-Chinese article and those Chinese member jump in and say They are the propaganda piece of America and should not be trusted? Article like Chinese Stock market and general recession or cooling of industrial expansion.

But suddenly they are gospel for them when the WP said something they can use?? lol You can either trust one source or don't, you can't trust the one you like and don't trust the one you don't like, simply you cannot have the cake and eat it.


On topic, why US want to topple a regime which is WORKING on closer ties with the US? What the article said does not make any sense.

and @Peter C beats me to it, the OP change the title for maximum effect.

actually it´s called chinese worldview, telling you everything

 

[jhungary]

Washington Post is a conservative media, reflecting the point and interest of conservatives in United States. So it makes sense for Washington post (or any US media really) to publish anti-China articles.

At the same time, being a conservative media, it also reflects the opinion of republican party on Vietnam. While the current Democrat administration wants closer tie to Vietnam, Obama's 8 years term didn't exactly leave a wonderful impression, hence there is a good chance the democrats will not be in office in 2016. So, you can see where this is going.

The typical anti-China articles in Washington post and this one are all designed for American readers and express the opinion of conservatives. The reality of China is not going to be affected by the opinion, hence is propaganda when publishing about China, but upcoming US policy regarding to Vietnam IS affected by the opinion, hence it has weight.

lol, think you misread or don't understand what I said.

Indeed Washington post is an US Media and it's intended audience is, well, American.

Problem is, you cannot be a Chinese and call this a "Propaganda" as a simple reason, this is not your media.

And if YOU DO, which is my point, you are most definitely cannot use it as your own advantage and only pass thru a few article that not related to China as a propaganda of your own, simply saying this is not at Chinese Stand point. And for the Chinese, if they have to consider a media outlet a propaganda, then, any basic intelligent would indicate that all article (Whether or not considering Chinese) would also be propaganda.

actually it´s called chinese worldview, telling you everything

lol indeed

and the fact is the OP altered the title itself worth more than a thousand words.

 

[tranquilium]

lol, think you misread or don't understand what I said.

Indeed Washington post is an US Media and it's intended audience is, well, American.

Problem is, you cannot be a Chinese and call this a "Propaganda" as a simple reason, this is not your media.

And if YOU DO, which is my point, you are most definitely cannot use it as your own advantage and only pass thru a few article that not related to China as a propaganda of your own, simply saying this is not at Chinese Stand point. And for the Chinese, if they have to consider a media outlet a propaganda, then, any basic intelligent would indicate that all article (Whether or not considering Chinese) would also be propaganda.

Hence why I went into the reason Washington Post's opinion is useful in this topic. It is perfectly normal for a perspective to be useful in one instance, but not useful in others. For example, even known joke medias such as wantchinatimes or epoch time can publish useful things when the topic is NOT related to China.

 

[mike2000 is back]

It is actually worse, the Chinese have something we called "Selective Journalism"

Do remember when Washington Post post some Anti-Chinese article and those Chinese member jump in and say They are the propaganda piece of America and should not be trusted? Article like Chinese Stock market and general recession or cooling of industrial expansion.

But suddenly they are gospel for them when the WP said something they can use?? lol You can either trust one source or don't, you can't trust the one you like and don't trust the one you don't like, simply you cannot have the cake and eat it.


On topic, why US want to topple a regime which is WORKING on closer ties with the US? What the article said does not make any sense.

and @Peter C beats me to it, the OP change the title for maximum effect.

Well,one thing that applies to china doesnt applies to others.loool. Depends on when it suits them. As you said, if WP had wrote something similar about china, then i dont need to tell you how chinese members here will be ranting about american propaganda/lies/manipulation , trying to bring the great PRC down. Etc etc. Lol But when it comes to vietnam then WP is a credible newspaper that says nothing but the truth(never mind that its just 1 of many independent media outlets in the U.S that has nothing to do with the government/print what they want, unlike in china where media has to always toe the party line). Loool

China orders media to toe the party line
Chinese Government OrdersMedia to Toe the Party Line - WSJ

 

[jhungary]

Hence why I went into the reason Washington Post's opinion is useful in this topic. It is perfectly normal for a perspective to be useful in one instance, but not useful in others. For example, even known joke medias such as wantchinatimes or epoch time can publish useful things when the topic is NOT related to China.

Dude, are you for real??

Say I am anti-China, can you assume only What I said about China is Anti-China? No, because my stance is anti-China, whatever I said, be that reasonable or not, or related to China or not, will be Anti-China. I might, can and will put in an ulterior motive about anti-china view on everything I said, with or without regard to China, hence if my stance is anti-China, anything I said cannot be trusted as Pro-China, as what I said may not be related to China directly but would or could have ulterior motive in mind.

Let use this news from Washington as an example.

For US to topple Vietnam, what exactly is the ulterior motive here for US to topple Vietnam? Is it because Washington post thinking of Helping Chinese to remove the current Vietnamese party? or Washington Post thinking of installing a Pro-US, Anti-Chinese government to tight the noose to China? Which one do you think the ulterior motive of said WP article is about?

If you don't understand what I said, then try this

If I am anti-China, I cannot be pro-China in any circumstance, including talking on other topic.

Well,one thing that applies to china doesnt applies to others.loool. Depends on when it suits them. As you said, if WP had wrote something similar about china, then i dont need to tell you how chinese members here will be ranting about american propaganda/lies/manipulation , trying to bring the great PRC down. Etc etc. Lol But when it comes to vietnam then WP is a credible newspaper that says nothing but the truth(never mind that its just 1 of many independent media outlets in the U.S that has nothing to do with the government/print what they want, unlike in china where media has to always toe the party line). Loool

China orders media to toe the party line
Chinese Government OrdersMedia to Toe the Party Line - WSJ

lol maybe we should shove it up their faces next time WP write something anti-China and put this as a shiny example on it. lol

 

[tranquilium]

Dude, are you for real??

Say I am anti-China, can you assume only What I said about China is Anti-China? No, because my stance is anti-China, whatever I said, be that reasonable or not, or related to China or not, will be Anti-China. I might, can and will put in an ulterior motive about anti-china view on everything I said, with or without regard to China, hence if my stance is anti-China, anything I said cannot be trusted as Pro-China, as what I said may not be related to China directly but would or could have ulterior motive in mind.

Let use this news from Washington as an example.

For US to topple Vietnam, what exactly is the ulterior motive here for US to topple Vietnam? Is it because Washington post thinking of Helping Chinese to remove the current Vietnamese party? or Washington Post thinking of installing a Pro-US, Anti-Chinese government to tight the noose to China? Which one do you think the ulterior motive of said WP article is about?

If you don't understand what I said, then try this

If I am anti-China, I cannot be pro-China in any circumstance, including talking on other topic.



lol maybe we should shove it up their faces next time WP write something anti-China and put this as a shiny example on it. lol

Your stance is a good indicator on what you will be saying. However, the specific piece of information still needs to be determined to see if it is trustworthy. Hence why I disagree with your post stating "Do remember when Washington Post post some Anti-Chinese article and those Chinese member jump in and say They are the propaganda piece of America and should not be trusted? Article like Chinese Stock market and general recession or cooling of industrial expansion.
But suddenly they are gospel for them when the WP said something they can use?? lol You can either trust one source or don't, you can't trust the one you like and don't trust the one you don't like, simply you cannot have the cake and eat it."

The post implies that since Chinese members here disagree with some of Washington Post's articles on China, they can't use articles on other countries and my post explained why some of Washington Post's articles can be reliable, but not the others. I disagree because the way you proposed (which boils down to "if you don't trust some of the article, then you can't use the rest either") determines the validity of information purely based on political stance instead of the actual content.

In this case, while the Republicans are not in office yet, the opinion reflects on its intention for greater control over Vietnam's foreign policies. Currently, while the VCP is leaning towards cooperation with US, it is still a fully independent entity. As an independent entity, it will make its decision based on its own interest. Meaning Vietnam can oppose China if it felt the gain outweights the cost, but it can also quickly choose to stop opposing China if it felt it no longer has a chance. As China's strength grew, the latter is more and more likely to become true; therefore, if US wishes to establish Vietnam as a long term adversary to China, it needs a puppet instead of a partner. Hence why the need to topple VCP and install one that is more malleable.

 

[大汉奸柳传志]

There is kiddo game here my Cantonese friend. Mr. Ngyen don't let Mr. Xi to deal a policy bussiness related to us in back of Vietnam like what China did in the past.

What did China do that‘s worse than Agent Orange? LOL

Vietnam severely lacks strategic thinking skills. The Americans will play you like a six year old，but don't worry，we will help VCP by absorbing them，and make Vietnam a province

 

[LacViet]

What did China do that‘s worse than Agent Orange? LOL

Vietnam severely lacks strategic thinking skills. The Americans will play you like a six year old，but don't worry，we will help VCP by absorbing them，and make Vietnam a province

you are effected by chemical warfare of Unit 731 made in China from WW II by Japanese, do you know about that ?, so Nihonjin 1065 has negative rating for you, you do understand nothing here politically.

Who is the 6 year old kid when Mao said that "USA is paper tiger" in196os but in 1970s China invited Nixon to Peking with imposant welcoming like USA is your father.

we dont worry about VCP, using enemy to counter enemy is VCP tactic. Vietnam never be province of China like Canton. You are Cantonese, ruled by Han Chinese until now. You don't have right as human being to say something related to Independence of Vietnam now.

 

[jhungary]

Your stance is a good indicator on what you will be saying. However, the specific piece of information still needs to be determined to see if it is trustworthy. Hence why I disagree with your post stating "Do remember when Washington Post post some Anti-Chinese article and those Chinese member jump in and say They are the propaganda piece of America and should not be trusted? Article like Chinese Stock market and general recession or cooling of industrial expansion.
But suddenly they are gospel for them when the WP said something they can use?? lol You can either trust one source or don't, you can't trust the one you like and don't trust the one you don't like, simply you cannot have the cake and eat it."

The post implies that since Chinese members here disagree with some of Washington Post's articles on China, they can't use articles on other countries and my post explained why some of Washington Post's articles can be reliable, but not the others. I disagree because the way you proposed (which boils down to "if you don't trust some of the article, then you can't use the rest either") determines the validity of information purely based on political stance instead of the actual content.

In this case, while the Republicans are not in office yet, the opinion reflects on its intention for greater control over Vietnam's foreign policies. Currently, while the VCP is leaning towards cooperation with US, it is still a fully independent entity. As an independent entity, it will make its decision based on its own interest. Meaning Vietnam can oppose China if it felt the gain outweights the cost, but it can also quickly choose to stop opposing China if it felt it no longer has a chance. As China's strength grew, the latter is more and more likely to become true; therefore, if US wishes to establish Vietnam as a long term adversary to China, it needs a puppet instead of a partner. Hence why the need to topple VCP and install one that is more malleable.

Well, you can, actually, but then you will be called a hypocrite

Whether or not republican in the office related to the Authority of the Washington Post is another matter, it DOES NOT CONCERN China nor Chinese member because the Republican Party is not in charge of China. While propaganda term stem from the stance, the context of the stance is very important.

In the same suit, you can disagree whatever you want, that your stance, but if you are talking about something else, that does not negate your stance. And in that context, you cannot claim your's stance have change simply because you are talking about something else.

In the same sense, Chinese member cannot claim Washington Post is a reliable source for their article because of it's Anti-Chinese stance, as the stance dictate the context of a publication. It won't change simply because you are talking about something else.

 

[Beast]

the 2 viet guys are obviously translators
vice president biden gave a state banquet to the visiting communist boss. I can read his lip: you needn´t worry about the northern chinese commie. vietnam will get aegis destroyers to deal with them. let me know how many you want. 5 or more

I can you translate.

US aegis destroyer each cost USD 1.2 billion after special discount. You need to pay for it. Do you vietnamese have money to get at least 3 of them?

 

[tranquilium]

Well, you can, actually, but then you will be called a hypocrite

Whether or not republican in the office related to the Authority of the Washington Post is another matter, it DOES NOT CONCERN China nor Chinese member because the Republican Party is not in charge of China. While propaganda term stem from the stance, the context of the stance is very important.

1. It is not authority. It is a media outlet. It expresses an opinion. "Republic party is not in charge of China" has no logical link with "Whether or not republican in the office related to the Authority of the Washington Post". Not sure what you are saying.

In the same suit, you can disagree whatever you want, that your stance, but if you are talking about something else, that does not negate your stance. And in that context, you cannot claim your's stance have change simply because you are talking about something else.

2. I do believe I stated in the previous post that "the specific piece of information still needs to be determined to see if it is trustworthy". I am against judging the piece of information's validity due to stance.

In the same sense, Chinese member cannot claim Washington Post is a reliable source for their article because of it's Anti-Chinese stance, as the stance dictate the context of a publication. It won't change simply because you are talking about something else.

3. Sure we can. Because stance on China has no bearing on this particle because it is not about China.

 

[jhungary]

2. I do believe I stated in the previous post that "the specific piece of information still needs to be determined to see if it is trustworthy". I am against judging the piece of information's validity due to stance.

lol you still don't know why I say what I said..

The reason why I said my first post here is because Chinese member would say "Washington Post" is a western propaganda ooutlet and "Automatically" all article related to the post are deem unreliable.

So does WantChinaTime, so does Free Radio Asia, Same as Fox, and same as any Western Media Outlet.

lol I was pulling the leg of Chinese member lol.

If you still don't get it then nevermind

 

[tranquilium]

lol you still don't know why I say what I said..

The reason why I said my first post here is because Chinese member would say "Washington Post" is a western propaganda ooutlet and "Automatically" all article related to the post are deem unreliable.

So does WantChinaTime, so does Free Radio Asia, Same as Fox, and same as any Western Media Outlet.

lol I was pulling the leg of Chinese member lol.

If you still don't get it then nevermind

Like I said and again, depend on the article. If it is BS, then I will call it and yes, I am well aware why you said it. I am, however, interested to see if you can come up with an argument to back it up. So far it is a bit disappointing.