XPost: soc.culture.china, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.iraq   
   XPost: soc.culture.taiwan, rec.sport.tennis   
   From: acoustic@panix.com   
      
   In article <175c92f7-5c47-4212-b279-e183ca3db6b1@googlegroups.com>,   
   ltlee1@hotmail.com  wrote:   
   >Hong Kong is not an independent country. It is not an independent   
   >political entity like Taiwan. It is also not a naturally existing city   
   >like Shanghai or Guangdong.   
   >   
   >Hong Kong exists in an artificial environment created by the Hong Kong   
   >Wall. China wish Hong Kong well and it has granted Hong Kong a license   
   >in the form of a policy Hong Kong Wall, to be special. Hong Kongers are   
   >in no position to talk about democracy before they revoke granted   
   >license.   
      
   Actually, the promise of universal suffrage by 2017 is a large leap   
   forward in the direction of democracy.  The next Chief will be chosen   
   by a city-wide election while the current one was appointed from   
   Beijing (after consultations with local civic leaders), just as a   
   governor was appointed by the Queen under the British rule before   
   1997.  Therfore, we can say real reform has taken place.   
      
   The current protesters are actually demanding more democracy that The   
   United States currently afford its citizens.  In America, candidates   
   for national offices are carefully "vetted" for years to make sure   
   that they hold views compatible with continuity of the country's   
   foreign policy.  And that's why the futile Afghanistan war continued   
   beyond George W Bush who started it and will continue after Obama   
   leaves office in 2016 (given the agreement just signed between the US   
   and Afghanistan under the new Afghan puppet president Ghani Ahmadzai).   
      
   In fact, the BBC News today use the word "vet" to describe the   
   protesters' chief demands:   
      
     "Tens of thousands of people have been blocking parts of the city for   
      days.   
      
      They are demanding that China withdraw plans to vet candidates for   
      the next leadership election in 2017."   
      
   For sure, there is a difference between the vetting between Beijing   
   and that by America's political Establishment.  Responsibility can be   
   readily identified in the first but not the second.  And that's why we   
   have our endless war to "garrison the planet" (Tom Engelhardt) because   
   the unseen hand is driving our foreign policy that we cannot vote to   
   stop.  And that's why every year we see a new Hitler somewhere and a   
   new icon revolution elsewhere.  So, why does HK want a democracy that   
   we Americans can't even have and that would risk incoherence with the   
   national policy of Mother China?   
      
   It's interesting that the BBC report from which I quoted above has a   
   "drone"-captured video purportedly showing the "scale of the protests".   
      
   So, who is going to mind China's national security in her south when   
   HK gets a Ghani (as Afghanistan has just gotten) to sign away Mongkok   
   or Causeway Bay to foreign countries?   
      
   lo yeeOn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)