HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:11:29 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <BvDBFD.3ys@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (C. Richter) writes:
>Then why did China invade Tibet in the 1950s?  

Why did the People's Liberation Army invade Shanghai in 1949?  Does
this mean that Shanghai is not part of China?

>Are you so sure that Tibetans will benefit?  Chen Kuiyuan, Communist 
>Party leader for Xizang since March 1992, has pushed out the few token 
>Tibetans in the adminstration.  Gone are people (all communists) like   
>Raidi, Baba Phuntsog Wangyal, Loga, and Gyaltsen Norbu.  

On the other hand, ethnic Tibetans still make up a majority of the
cadres in Tibet.

>There are over 100,000 Tibetans in India and Nepal alone (there are   
>more in dozens of other countries), all either left Tibet or were 
>born after the 1959.  

There are over two million Han Chinese in Taiwan who either left the
Mainland after 1949 or who are descended from these people.  In the
United States alone, there are tens of thousands of Han Chinese who
fled after 1949, and there descendants.  (Me being one of them.)

What exactly is your point?

>Tibetans do not want Chinese to keep the peace for them.  The Chinese 
>government could show some maturity and let Tibetans decide for 
>themselves, just as the Canadian government is letting Quebeckers and 
>all Canadians decide for themselves in the coming referendum on 
>October 26th. 

Which Tibetans?  Those that live in the T.A.R.?  Those of ethnic
Tibetan descent?  Do you include a Han Chinese living in Lhasa?  How
about an ethnic Tibetan who lives nowhere close to lands administered
by the Dalai Lama?
From: jan@cs.uq.oz.au (Chen Jan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: the 9201 letter
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:38:19 GMT
Reply-To: jan@cs.uq.oz.au

In <Bv7uw7.IBu@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li) writes:

>In article <2AC511B6.7431@news.service.uci.edu> yeh@netix.com (Mr Shannon Yeh) writes:
>>
 ...
>>Committee Members
>>
 ...
>>Chen, Jian	 University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.
  **********

>Let us give some analysis to these Committee Members.

 ...

>Chen Jian: Decendent of a high ranking Chinese communist official.
 *********
>Conservative and defender of China's Premire Li Peng on his role
>in 89 6/4 Massacre. He claim himself as the fifth generation leader
>of the Chinese communist government.

I'm sure xiao-lin had a wrong match here. I've asked him to correct
this but haven't seen any response from him yet.

I can not see any point in digging people's background when you disagree
with them. 

Chen Jian (from Australia)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: phsj@marlin.jcu.edu.au (su jianfeng)
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Organization: James Cook University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 03:32:05 GMT

In article <BvCIx2.3IA@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (C. Richter) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.021103.14076@marlin.jcu.edu.au> phsj@marlin.jcu.edu.au (su jianfeng) writes:
>>The whole Canada was taken over by force, because the first group of
>>whitemen arrived Canada by warships (the sailers of the ship had
>>weapons).
>
>Canada is trying to make amends by including minorities in the recent 
>constitutional negotiations.  They have participated whole-heartedly. 
>What is China doing?
>
>
>-- 
>Conrad Richter                     richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca
>Richters Herbs                     71550.3411@compuserve.com
>Goodwood, ON L0C 1AO Canada        Tel 416-640-6677 / Fax 416-640-6641
Canada should return the whole country to the aboriginals.  That means you
may have to leave the country.

Can you give more details of the amends?  You should teach Chinese what
to do after you have fixed your similar problem.  China is trying to learn
from the Western countries.  The Chinese government is defending Tibet like
the Great British government which sent troops and warships to defend a small 
island closed to Argentina.

J Su

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: ioguo@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (OA Guo)
Subject: Re: Taiwanese Government Is Not Only Selfish ... Re: TW News 16/9/92
Followup-To: talk.politics.china
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  6 Oct 1992 10:05 EDT  

In article <81138@ut-emx.uucp>, joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang) writes...
>In article ioguo@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (OA Guo) writes:
> 
>>       The problem with communist
>>	of even "socialism with Chinese characteristics" is that Party is
>>	put on top of the country, and there is no check balance of power.
>>	ABSOLUTE POWER DEEMS TO HAVE ABSOLUTE FAILURE.
> 
>So how do we destroy the CCP's absolute power?  We have no hope of
>challenging the CCP militarily, nor any expection that the successor
>to the CCP will not be as bad.  
> 
>The only hope I see of destroying the CCP's absolute power is to focus
>to developing an economy in China that is outside of the direct
>control of the CCP, and to develop this economy it is necessary to
>have a stable political situation.  The suggests that it is better to
>focus on gradual reforms that keep as much of the existing structures
>as possible rather than sudden revolutions that can easily spin out of
>control.

    I have a lot of respect of your kind heart and "hopeless" optimism.
    My problem with CCP in China is that the system has its inherent
    deficiency.  It is limited by current well established structure.
    Even with the development of economy, CCP will grab most of the
    economy source.  I agree with you that it is better to focus on gradual
    reforms that keep as much of the existing structures as possible.
    However, stable condition is not always the best condition.  Some day,
    there will have to be some transitions, and transitions will have pains.
    Just look how much chaos raised in Taiwan in the past few years after
    the end of KMT power control.  But, that is necessary to move the society
    advance to a better state.  China's problem starts with it 'Constitution'.
    And, the only possible transition for China without revolution is for
    CCP to voluntarily give up the power which I don't see as possible.
    To be very honest, if I were the CCP in China and I have all the power
    and wealth under my control, I wouldn't give up either.  That just human
    nature.
> 
>As for the example of Russia, does anyone believe that the Russians
>would not now trade their freedom for the first person who offers them
>bread?
> 
    I am also sure that they definite don't want the Communist era back.
> 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OA Guo                        |My statement does not reflect NASA's point of
NASA - Lewis Research Center  |view.  Nor should NASA's statements reflect
Cleveland, Ohio               |my point of view.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Harold Pritchett <harold@GROUCHO.DEV.UGA.EDU>
Subject:      Test Posting
Reply-To: Harold Pritchett <harold@GROUCHO.DEV.UGA.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:40:20 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

This is a test.  Please DO NOT respond to this message.

Delete this message NOW!

There have been problems with the distribution of this list reported
and we are trying to determine where these problems lie.

--
Harold Pritchett
The University of Georgia
harold@groucho.dev.uga.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: JUENKUNG@RAMOTH.USC.EDU
Subject:      Shen Tong's case getting worse, final push for S1216!
Reply-To: JUENKUNG@RAMOTH.USC.EDU
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 10:57:00 GMT
Comments: cc: ifcss%wam.umd.edu@USC.EDU

	Dear CSS fellows:

	I just get information from Hong Kong that, after a internal
debate, Chinese leaders may not release and expell Shen Tong as they
originally intend to do, they may offer heavier punishment to him!
Also, the Chinese secrete police have started massive detentions and
arrests to those who ever talked or contacted to Shen.

	My uncle's friend who is a key Chinese-American lawer here ask
me to tell those who want to publicly "cry" or push the Bill S1216:

	Whenever you talk to the public about S1216, MAKE SURE YOU
MENTION SHEN TONG'S CASE, ASK THEIR SUPPORT FOR SHEN"S RELEASE!

	May God beless Shen Tong!

	May God beless Chinese Students and the United States of America!

J.K. at California
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: mlibucha@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Libucha)
Subject: Re: Re: IFCSS NR-4042:  Senator Gorton's Speech on S1216
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:23:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.155733.15201@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzhao@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
>In article <BvnLyM.KBr@cs.psu.edu> echeng@phys.psu.edu (Eddie Cheng) writes:
>>blood green-card bill.  If I choose to immigrate, it will be done
>>through my own effort.  Otherwise, I will return to China.  Or, in 
>>
> 
>     Eddie, it will never be your OWN effort. It never is. Whatever rights and
>opportunities we Chinese enjoy now came not only through the progress of 
>time, but also from many many generations' struggle. Eddie, in your own 
>self-rightoues or your apparently cynicall view, if you immigrate through 
>today's available opportunities to you, you can be abusing the blood of the
>the thousands of Chinese railroad workers, miners and many many others.
> 
>>	You may not know that there are still quite a few CSS here who hold
>>some least-level moral standards.
>>
>        No, Eddie, you have no right to accuse those many who work hard toward
>the better of themselves and others. You are , in fact, benefitting from many 
>who came before you, many who struggled, failed or succeeded, many who brought
>the progress in many aspects of our lives.  You may not appreciate that.
>
>   It is ironic and sad to see people like you who think a world of yourselves
>accuse those many others who try hard as selfish and shameless. In your narrow
>minds, you are the cleanest, the proudest, the most able and the best of all 
>us "ugly" Chinese.  Have it ever occured to you that you yourselves may be the
>most selfish, selfish of the most cruel kind ?
> 
>      Sorry I have to use these very strong words. Admittedly, some of us are 
>those who "made it" in America, living a relatively easy life, enjoying
>everything this land provides us. Many of us also have very strong confidence
>in ourselves, always proud to be what we are, always believing we are the best,
>anywhere we are. But your attitude is SICK to me, if you don't want to help 
>others, that's fine, if you can't help others, that fine, if you vainly think 
>you are really above everyone else, take a REAL look into the mirror at yourself!

I think Eddie has it right. There's no shame in seeking U.S. citizenship, but
when you do it by taking advantage of others' sacrifices, that's pretty bad.
Just because Eddie is in the minority doesn't mean he's wrong. He's just
making you look bad because he's not going along with your little game. Mark
my words, if you get U.S. citizenship thru this bill, the day will come
when you will *deny* you did so. It will be a shameful thing to admit, and 
everybody will say they got their citizenship some other way. 

Mark

>
>>	 Eddie
>>
>>
>
>
>Regards
> 
>Joe
>jingyao@columbia.eng.ohio-state.edu
>


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "(Yi Zhang)" <yizhang@IRIS1.SB.FSU.EDU>
Subject:      Appeal stop debating
Reply-To: "(Yi Zhang)" <yizhang@IRIS1.SB.FSU.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 16:23:18 GMT
Comments: To: CHINA-NT <CHINA-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu>

Dear Folks:
     We have not got the final victory yet. Don't let president Bush pocket
veto the bill while we are debating here. I appeal to all of you who intend
to post anything related to debate, please hold your debate for 5 days and
work hard together to give the bill a final push.
     To support CCSA continue to lobby president Bush to sign the bill into
law, the  FSU lobby group has decided to donate $300 to CCSA. We hope our
previews and this donations have helped and will help CCSA's lobby
activities.

Yi Zhang



****************************************************************
Yi Zhang, FSU Biological Science
904-644-5228, 310 Bio Unit 1!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "(Ye)" <stacc0@QUANTUM.FIU.EDU>
Subject: (none)
Reply-To: "(Ye)" <stacc0@QUANTUM.FIU.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:47:46 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

The following is intended as a serious joke.

Bush receives six anonimous phone calls regarding the Bill. Three of them
urging him to sign, we found out:
One is from an American lady who loves every God's creations.
One is from a CSS who wants to spit in his adviser's face.
One is from Deng XiaoPing, 'get it over with'.

The other three asked him to veto, we found out:
One is from a Clinton aid to benifit Clinton's campaign.
One is from a IFCSS aid to sustain their fund raising amoung CSS.
One is from LiPeng, 'just for the heck of it'.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: echeng@phys.psu.edu (Eddie Cheng)
Subject: Re: Re: IFCSS NR-4042:  Senator Gorton's Speech on S1216
Organization: Penn State, Department of Physics
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:06:21 GMT

In article <BvnKB3.A1I@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> "Ignatius Ding" <ding@HPSMTC1.CUP.HP.COM> writes:

	Well, I didn't know how you put your response to my post on 
talk.politics.china onto China-net, a net that I do not post.  But what
the heck.

>I am sorry that I forgot to ask you whether you plan to go back or not.
>Shouldn't have taken you for granted, should I?  This is, nevertheless, a free
>country.  You CAN choose to stay at will.  Almost?!

	Certainly I can choose to.  I would seek immigration when the 
opportunity is there and I judge it as in my best interest.  However,
I would not do that through lying to US Congress and people and not by
abusing the blood of my fellow contry(wo)men in TianAnMen Square.

	I am one of the CSS here who have made a personal resolution of not
taking advantage of our nation's tragedy, namely in this case, the
blood green-card bill.  If I choose to immigrate, it will be done
through my own effort.  Otherwise, I will return to China.  Or, in 
highly unlikely circumstance, I would seek political asylum if I *really*
need some protection, which I don't now.

	You may not know that there are still quite a few CSS here who hold
some least-level moral standards.



	 Eddie


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: usenet@msdhsv.ingr.com (USENET)
Subject: Re: PRC nationals from Aust. need your help
Organization: Intergraph
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:32:37 GMT

In article <9228101.11372@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, dht@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Joyous Dave baby) writes:
|> 89P2820@CSDVAX.CSD.UNSW.EDU.AU writes:
|> 
|> >Dear friends and colleage,
|> >Many people have responsed for the call of "Collection of the document about
|> >the humn right abuse in China". We sincerely appreciate such support for our
|> >course here in Australia. Some politicians of Australia are trying very hard
|> >to convincethe Governmetn and public that "Majority of the PRC nationals will
|> >be safe if they are repatriate back to china" because "eventhough there are
|> >some cases of human right absuse, but that does not indicate that the fate of
|> >majority PRC nationals here will be in jaopardy".
|> >Please help us by sending the materials relavent to that argument and proof to
|> >us.
|> >Liaison Officer Yaming Zhang
|> >Special Committee for Chinese Student
|> 
|> C'mon, there will be no human right abuses towards Chinese students when
|> they get back.  China needs the students to help build the bombing economy,
|> the government will not do anything to harm the students.
|> 
|> Most of the students in Australia just want to stay in Australia because
|> Australia is an easy country, easy life, you can get tons of social
|> welfare if you don't work, etc, etc... rather than worried about the
|> non-existence "human right abuses".  Don't lie to me, I live here, I
|> know!
|> 
|> If you think Australia is such a good (easy) country, you should apply
|> like other immigrants, rather than lie to the Aus Gov about human
|> rights abuses in China which 1) does not apply to you 2) creates a even
|> worse image of China in the eyes of always-very-racist Australians.
|> 
|> Go and find a million dollars and apply as a business migrant, or go
|> and obtain a skill that Australia needs... rather than lie to the Aus
|> Gov at the expense of the face and image of all Chinese in the world.
|> 
|> Don't be selfish!!!

	Good points! They should be also applied to the CSSs in the U.S. who are
"begging" for the approval of the protection bill. And I want to ask them the 
following question:
	If you go back to China for a home visit in the near future, do you 
want to be arrested and thrown into jail by the CCP (so that you can prove
to the whole world that you are currently not lying, you do need protection)? 

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "(phil.physics.orst.edu)" <xia@PHIL.PHYSICS.ORST.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Some thought about someone's thought....
Reply-To: "(phil.physics.orst.edu)" <xia@PHIL.PHYSICS.ORST.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 07:33:39 GMT
Comments: To: CHINA-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu

>From: dnmao@MICH.CERN.CH
>Date:         Sun, 27 Sep 1992 06:39:32 +0100
>Therefore, before we thank any 'leader', we should thank first our money and
every individual's work. With money, we can hire Li HQ, Wang HQ, ZHang HQ...

Oo, the author got this conclusion.  What do you think?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "(Ning Luo)" <ningluo@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Comment about Luo Ning's article
Reply-To: "(Ning Luo)" <ningluo@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:02:24 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

In article <BvEAsF.DDH@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> HAIHUAN@ucs.indiana.edu writes:
>The following is written by an anonymous friend.
>
>-------------------
>
>> From: "(Ning Luo)" <ningluo@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU>
>> Subject:      Would S1216 hurt those who came after 4/11/90? (continue I)
>
>> 5,000 to 10,000 annually + their family members.  It would take more
>> than 20 years for all these people to go through the waiting line.
>
>If they could wait in the line for that long.
>
>The reality is that many of these people are not in the line to begin with,
>because they have already run out of their legal status.
>
>For those who are in the line waiting, their legal status will run out in
>3-5 years, and then they'll have to drop out of the race.
>

Oh, really, how simple it is :-).
If the reason for some of them to "run out of their legal status"
is because the President's Executive Order, then there are ways
for them to regain the legal status (H-1, etc.).  It is a well-recognized
fact that these people graduated early have certain relative advantages
in competing for the jobs.

It would be too naive to underestimate the will of many people to
stay.  Even before 1989, as mentioned in my original post, when
the "patriotism" still dominated a large portion of CSS
(anyone remembers the big debate on the newly established scc
about the Chinese government's "5-2 year policy" early 1988?),
the majority of CSS (F-1 or J-1) did not return.
I must add that, because of the two-year residence requirement,
many J-1 holders would have difficulty to stay.  But, several
friends of mine did get over with that barrier and stayed.

Do you know how long for people from India or Pakistan have to wait?
These cases demonstrate that even after 10 or 15 years, many
people are still in the line and not, as you wished,
"drop out of the race".

>S1216 would add about 30,000 principals and about 70,000 of their dependents
>into the race -- and guarantee them the winning ticket.
>

No, S1216 would SUBTRACT "30,000 principals and about 70,000
of their dependents" by channeling them into a different route
which does not constitute an immediate competition to those
came after 4/11/92.

The difference between us is not in logic, but in different
assumptions about "where would those covered by Bush's Order
go IF S1216 fails?".  It is apparent that neither of us is
going to persuade the other.  But if we want to convince
other netters, we need to provide some data or evidences,
not just the wishes, don't we?

Regards,

Luo Ning
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: ping@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Shiping Zhang)
Subject: Re: Likelihood of Bush's pocket veto
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:29:17 GMT

In article <Bv90Ku.9JD@cs.psu.edu> echeng@phys.psu.edu (Eddie Cheng) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.022208.27580@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mlibucha@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Libucha) writes:
>>
>>George, why do you think Bush will lose ground in the polls by vetoing
>>the bill? *Very* few Americans are aware of the bill, and those who are,
>           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>oppose it (from what I can tell). The PRC Chinese who support the bill will
>>not vote in November. He will certainly veto the MFN bill, won't he? Why
>>do you perceive a difference?
>
>	That is exactly where the problem is: that very few Americans are aware
>of the [content of the] bill.  So the issue can become a high political one.
>If Bush vetoes the bill, the Democrats can just claim Bush "refuses to 
>protect Chinese students, blah, blah...", without going into the details
>in the bill.
>
>	I agree with you that those Americans who are aware of the bill oppose
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>it.  But those who are not will be easily misled by politicians to
 ^^
>overlook the bill itself and felt morally outraged by a Presidential veto.

  If so, how could possibly the bill get passed in the congress, which
  consists of all Americans?

  Seems to me, Americans of most vigorously opposing the bill on SSC are
  just Scott Horne and a student advisor who posted anonymously (really?)
  through 9201 action members.
 
>	Such games have been played numerious times in Clean Air Bill, Civil
>Rights Bill, Family Leave Bill, etc.
>
>	The MFN bill is slightly easier to deal with, since most Americans do
>understand the importance of trade and jobs.  But again, I hardly see
>Bush gaining anything for repeatedly veto the MFN bill.  It may have
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>become one of his baggages after much Demoratic fan-fires.
>
>	 Eddie

  One thing he can gain is show of his rightness on the issue.  Letting
  the bill pass this time would show to the people that he was wrong
  when he vetoed the bill previouly.

-ping
From: stacc0@QUANTUM.FIU.EDU ((Ye))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: (none)
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:54:38 GMT
Reply-To: "(Ye)" <stacc0@QUANTUM.FIU.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

Every once in a while, there will be arguments about who is in danger when
going to China. To raise that again before the final victory is a big mistake.
On the one hand you will loose the support of 'silent majority' who send you
their checks, on the other, this will give support to the argument that
those who need protection can use asylum, and you will be back to square one.

I bet lot of Democrats are hoping secretly that Bush will veto the Bill.
For if it's signed into law, it will be 'their' president to let congress
to dictate presidential policy. As for Clinton, although many had put on
smoke in this network about how he is on 'our' side, the fact remains that
we ain't see him inhale yet. I seem to recall that one posting said that he
was drafted as one of the speakers on ShenTong rally, what happened?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china