HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cyc@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:51:34 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor

>We have seen a lot of discussions about F-16's. Some
>one said that it should not matters. Some one said
>why Beijing fears if it does not intent to invade Taiwan.
>I do not think any one in Beijing fears the F-16's. But
>this is realy a matter. Because:
>
>1. Selling weapons to Taiwan is an invasion to Beijing's
>sovereignty. After all, Washington recognized that Beijing
>is the only legitimate government of whole China and Taiwan
>is only a province of China. So, selling weapons to Taiwan 
>is difinitely a violation of the communique and is obviously
>unacceptable to Beijing.
>

This one doesn't hold, because most of the countries recognized PRC's
claim they never agree or accept that claim. So, every country can still do
whatever they want to deal with Taiwan, because only PRC will think they own
Taiwan not other countries. Do you understand that ?

>3. Uncle Sam has been policing arm sale for quite a while.
>he always oppose other body to sell weapons. However, when
>he deeds to sell weapons to help him out of his own trouble,
>he can do it. Then why do the other body? It is called
>imperialism.
>

You can sell guns to good citizen for their protection, but you cannot sell
guns to gangs to kill good people, do you ?
Selling weapons is the same thing, but who are you going to sell makes real
differences. 
 
Yi-Chieh
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.china
From: ylq@lems23lems.brown.edu (Yan Shen)
Subject: Re:      Shen Tong's Showdown
Organization: Laboratory for Engineering Man/Machine Systems
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 17:50:06 GMT

In article <9209071531.AA17370@einstein.physics.buffalo.edu>, xiaofei@einstein.physics.buffalo.edu (XiaoFei Wang) writes:
|> * Is American
|> * ready to have a governor of a second class to run this "first class"
|> * country? Reamain to be checked!
|> * 
|> 
|> I would like to point out that Bush is the first vice president who
|> became president by vote. I do not think that a man who is only
|> qualified forr vice president, like Quayl, qualifies for president. For
|> this reason, I support Clinton-Gore ticket. 
|> 
"You got right one, baby! U-hu"----Pepsi Cola Commercial. 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: haiqiu@news.duc.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: Shall we support CCP use force to TI?
Organization: Auburn University, AL
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:26:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.161603.10213@unixg.ubc.ca>, wangf@unixg.ubc.ca (Frank Wang) writes:
> After reading so many articles, follow ups on F16, I have a question
> to  us well educated mainlanders, DO WE SUPPORT CCP TO USE FORCE
> IF TAIWAN CLAIMS INDEPENDANT LIKE THE YOUGOSLAVIAN ARE DOING?
> 
> F. Wang 
> 

  I think CCP and KMT should have the third cooperation against the TIers.
Just like the second CCP-KMT cooperation against Japs.

--HAMLET
From: liqiang@kramden.nyu.edu (Li)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Change in spelling of Chinese names
Date: 11 Sep 92 23:42:33 GMT
Organization: New York University

yy7085@meibm10.cen.uiuc.edu () writes:

>liqiang@kramden.nyu.edu (Li) writes:

>>room for improvement. For example, there are two provinces in China both 
>>spelled as Shanxi but if you mark the tones they are different: one is
>>Shan1xi1 and the other is Shan3xi1. Even if you do mark the tones, the Chinese`

>Now ShanXI is for Shan1Xi1 and ShaanXi (yes 2 a's ) is for Shan3Xi1. This
>was started more than five years ago to avoid the confusion.


I was never aware of this. I thought we simply use Hanyu Pingyin to spell out
any Chinese proper names.

Even if you can solve this problem here, how about other similar situations?

- Li, Qiang
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: 129.83.161.10 (H. Chao)
Subject: Re: Specification of F-16, SU-27 (I)
Organization: MITRE
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:00:13 GMT


> >>   PROC(Mainland)
> >>     1). purchased about 24 SU-27 fighters last year.
> >>     2). bought 72 SU-27 and 24 MIG-31 interceptors early this year.
> >>     3). acquired the right to license-production of 200+ MIG-31
> > 
> >Why they want to acquire the right to license-production of 200+ MIG-31
> >instead of MiG-29 or Su-27??  MiG-31 is not an air-superiority fighter.  It
> >is only a interceptor with surveillance cappability. 
> > 
> 
> For defence, if you believe that. 
> c.q.
> 
> 

Sure, I believe it.  Even A-bomb, H-bomb, and chemical weapon are also for
"defense."  You can find a lot of "defense" magzines; you can not find a
"offense" magzine.  But, where is the beef? I still can not find the
answer.  Why the ratio between MiG-31 and Su-27(or MiG-29) is 224+ : 96. 
This ratio is not a good combination to me and I think they should either
lower the MiG-31's number or raise the air-superiority fighter's (MiG-29 or
Su-27) number to balance this
ratio.
From: 129.83.161.10 (H. Chao)
Subject: Re: Specification of F-16, SU-27 (I)
Organization: MITRE
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:26:30 GMT

 
>   PROC(Mainland)
>     1). purchased about 24 SU-27 fighters last year.
>     2). bought 72 SU-27 and 24 MIG-31 interceptors early this year.
>     3). acquired the right to license-production of 200+ MIG-31

Why they want to acquire the right to license-production of 200+ MIG-31
instead of MiG-29 or Su-27??  MiG-31 is not an air-superiority fighter.  It
is only a interceptor with surveillance cappability. 

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: lo@fwi.uva.nl ()
Subject: Re: This is a test
Organization: FWI, University of Amsterdam
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 19:18:36 GMT

Ignore, aussi .

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.hongkong,soc.culture.taiwan
From: rot@multisys.com (Republic of Taiwan)
Subject: Re: I'm very disappointed in Chinese
Organization: Multimedia Information Systems Corporation, San Jose, CA                        TEL: (408) 437-3031            E-mail: info@multisys.com
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:57:55 GMT

=In article <1992Sep1.113239.12546@cs.mu.OZ.AU>, dht@mulga.cs.mu.oz.au (Joyous Dave) writes...
=I'm very disappointed in Chinese people.
= 
=I want to improve China, improve its people's living standard,
=improve its productivity, improve its economy, improve its
=stand in the world.  And I asked people to contribute suggestions
=to how to improve China.

I don't know God post news here. :-)

= 
=I got handful of constructive suggestions, but tons of noise and
=flames on ideological differences, history, general complains, or
=pure noise.

God, we are mere being human. :-)

= 
=I feel that Chinese nowadays like to feel pride that they belong
=to the oldest civilization in the world which still exists; but
=when asked to do something to contribute, they hold back.

God is speaking.

= 
=It seems that people don't care about China anymore, and lack
=a nationalist spirit (remember the songs you used to sing? like:
="I am Chinese", "Desendants of Dragon", "Be a Brave Chinese"??)
=people become too comfortable in Western societies, and don't care
=less about helping their root, and blood brothers!

Now we know God is Chinese origin. Gee, is Mao Jesus?

= 
="Drink Water, Think Source"
= 
=Now, I really believe that Chinese are a grain of sand.  PLEASE PLEASE
=PLEASE prove me wrong by posting some suggestions on how to improve
=the country!

God, you are mighty powerful. Why good needs normal human's input?

= 
=-- 
=1)-----------------------Rev 6:8 "... They were given authority over a quarter
=of the Earth, to kill by the sword, by famine, by plague, and wild beasts."

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: wa2ise@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (robert.f.casey)
Subject: Anyone want an ASCII file copy of USA constitution?
Keywords: USA
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:31:03 GMT

Just received an ASCII file of the constitution of the USA.  It's way
too big to post.  Especially for a document that can be easily found
in most any American history book in most any library.  Only thing
special about this copy is that it is already in electronic form
that you could vi (or some other editor).
I'll e-mail it to anyone who wants it, or if there is a huge demand,
I'll consider posting it.  Though it's about 60Kbytes long.  No, I
didn't type it in, someone else did (whose name appears in the file).
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: rot@rlyeh.multisys.com (Republic of Taiwan)
Subject: Re: When does a Chinese become an American?
Organization: Multimedia Information Systems Corporation, San Jose, CA                        TEL: (408) 436-8929            E-mail: info@multisys.com
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 07:02:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.192809.2890@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mlibucha@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Libucha) writes:
=	Suppose the U.S. Green Card Bill becomes law. Every Chinese who
=applies for a green card does so (at least officially) with the intent of
=becoming a U.S. citizen. If a Chinese becomes a U.S. citizen does he or
=she then share the blame and glory of America?
=
=	For instance, will he or she share the blame for the Vietnam War,
=for the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, the bullying of China, the 
=extermination of Native Americans, etc.?
=
=	Can he or she take credit for the first moon walk, the first actor
=president :-), etc.?
=
=	I personally am a second generation American. Yet because I have
=white skin and speak fluent English I feel that American history is somehow
=partly my responsibility. Will the new Chinese U.S. citizens (or their 
=children) feel the same way? Should they? Should I?
=
=
=	
=


Since Chinese loves to be an American, why don't you make
China as part of America, then everyone in China automately
skip H-1, F-1, B-1, green card... steps and become American 
citizen.   :-)

No more jumpping of ships, jumpping of airplanes or smugglling
in through US borders. Let everyone has same chance to taste
the 'evil' of Capitalism.  ;-)

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong
From: rot@multisys.com (Republic of Taiwan)
Subject: Re: What About Tibet?
Organization: Multimedia Information Systems Corporation, San Jose, CA                        TEL: (408) 436-8929            E-mail: info@multisys.com
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 07:16:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.211310.1646@wuecl.wustl.edu> esh1@cec2.wustl.edu (Edmond Siu-kei Hui) writes:
=In article <1992Aug26.053713.10429@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> pcalvert@nyx.cs.du.edu (P. Calvert) writes:
=>i think I know what you are alluding to here.  A few Chinese people sent
=>me some e-mail saying that the Chinese are too humane.  They then went on
=>to say, half seriously, that there would be fewer problems in Tibet today
=>if they had simply gone ahead and killed all the Tibetans.
=>
=Who dare to say "killed all the Tibetans"? Please give their names to
=us.
=Whether the Han people are more humane to chinese minorities needed to
=find out by comparing the treatment of American Indians in the US.
=At least, monorities used to be the noble class untill they were
=defeated by the Europeans. Can the whites let the indians to be
=the ruler for next hundred years? Come on!!! Just hundred years!!!
=


Oh! yes, they are really too humane. They should wipe out all
the students. At least it will bw fast way to control their
population. :-) 

I am not surprised to hear that kind of comment.
Don't forget, they are only Communists.  ;-(

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: yhan@ee.tamu.edu (Yong Han)
Subject: Re: test, ignore...
Organization: Texas A&M University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:10:44 GMT


Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.hongkong
From: dht@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Joyous Dave baby)
Subject: Territory of Ancient China : Tang Dynasty
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 14:36:59 GMT

**Period:

618 A.D. -> 907 A.D.

**Dynasty:

Tang Dynasty (everyone's favourity Dynasty, of course!!!  :-)  )

**Area under Central Control:

669 A.D.

Tang took over Mongolia, Western Korea's, majority of YunNan,
took modern XingJiang Uygur, Afghanistan, Turkmenia, Uzbekistan,
Kirghizia, Tadjikistan, and eastern part of Kazakhstan.

741 A.D.
Areas of Afghanistan and central Asia are lost.
Mongolia revived and Tang lost Outter Mongolia.
Southern Korea is also lost.  But Tang took over
Manchuria.
Tibet has also taken over and Qinghai, and western SiChuan.

820 A.D.
Tibet has taken over XingJiang and GanSu.  And bordered
with Mongolia.
Tang also lost control over eastern part of Manchuria.
Mongolia is also threathening northeastern Tang.
Tang also lost control over YunNan in the southwest.

**Area under Central Influence:

Trade with Rome, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Persia, India, Nepal,
Cambodia, Siam (Thailand), Japan, etc.

**Neighbouring States/Tribes/Civilizations:

Tibet was a MAJOR threat to China.
Mongolia (which extended to Central Asia) didn't stay under
Tang control for too long either, and became a major threat.
Manchuria, and the southwest was also threatening.

-- 
1)-----------------------Rev 6:8 "... They were given authority over a quarter
of the Earth, to kill by the sword, by famine, by plague, and wild beasts."
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: cyc@z.eecs.umich.edu (Yi-Chieh Chang)
Subject: Re: 150 F-16 to Taiwan
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 17:13:23 GMT

>>>America is different. 
>>>1) Before its independence, this land was only a conlony 
>>>of the Great Britan, people lived here paid taxes to the English 
>>>government but could not enjoy the right of British citizens.
>>>2) A lot of people were from countries other than England. 
>>>3) A lot of people came here because of religious conflicts in
>>>their old land.(I guess that's why Lincoln said "...A new nation,
>>>conceived in liberty...).
>>>4) The now USA is far away from England, it's also larger than 
>>>England.
>>>We can see that USA was born to be different. People came here
>>>with different ideals, and the undeveloped continent gave
>>>them a good place to form a kind of new culture.
>>
>
>>As a summary, when people don't like their government or the government
>>that governs them, people have the choice to build their own country.
>>Then, what's the different between TIers adn American ?
>
>The difference is that, there are more people who think TIers are 
>wrong than who think the Americans are wrong to choose independence.
>You see, we cannot only concern about our own interest, we have to
>balance others too.
>

But, at that time there were also many American who opposed independence.
If TI is considered illegal by the government and prohibited to  
be discussed in public, I don't think most of the people really understand 
its benefit. If KMT dare to let people freely to talk, discuss, and 
communicate about TI for just one year, I bet most of people will go for it.

The reason is very simple, almost every Taiwanese want to be their own 
boss and start a small bussiness, but very few want to be employed by a big
company. So, why would Taiwanese like CCP to be their boss ?

Yi-Chieh
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: kemnitz@netcom.com (Greg Kemnitz)
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 22:20:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <88514@netnews.upenn.edu> minzhi@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Min-Zhi Shao) writes:
>In article <mvtnt0f.kemnitz@netcom.com> kemnitz@netcom.com (Greg Kemnitz) writes:
>]Another factor behind Bush's (I suspect it is more likely Jim Baker's)
>]decision to sell the F-16's is that Bush is percieved by many Americans as
>]being too close to the PRC leadership, given his stance on MFN and his tepid
>]response to Tiananmen Square.
>]
>]Beijing is certainly aiding Bush's cause by making loud noises in the press;
>]attempts by the Democrats to portray Bush as "kowtowing to the Butchers of
>]Beijing" (as they did in the Democratic Convention) are currently blunted.
>
>No.  From what I read in the recent People's Daily, I have never seen the
>Chinese government is so angry to the Bush administration, or any one since
>Mr. Nixon.  They finally realized that they are dealing with a government
>which has no credit, both politically and financially, and with a man who
>can sacrifice his nation's long term interests just for saving his own job.

Bush has shown every willingness to sacrifice his nation's long-term interests
for his own job by refusing to be honest about taxes and deal with the national
debt.  It seems that the American people are coming to the same conclusion as
the Chinese government...

But about the political strategy, you must remember that next to Saddam
Hussein, the Chinese government is probably the least popular government with
Americans in the world today - Bush gains politically by insulting it and
removes a line of attack from the Democrats.  Also, the Republican Right has
been upset with US China policy since Nixon and has always prefered the KMT;
Bush nicely tosses them a bone as well.  This is why I suspect the hand of Jim
Baker behind the announcement if not the decision - it came while Santa Bush
was sledding through the country handing out pork product from Kansas to
Florida.

The US could well be having a change in government comparable to the sea
change after Roosevelt defeated Hoover.  All bets are off in how this will
influence our foreign policy positons and perceptions of interests in East
Asia.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Kemnitz                        | "I ran out of the room - I
MultiMedia Information Systems Inc. | didn't want to be killed by a pile
kemnitz@netcom.com                  | of VMS manuals" :-)
                                    |
                                    | --A friend at DEC Palo Alto in the Quake
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: li@sicvax.enet.dec.com (Tong-Kang Li)
Subject: Re: Who Cares 150 F-16s.
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:33:48 GMT


In article <88514@netnews.upenn.edu>, minzhi@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Min-Zhi Shao) writes...
>In article <mvtnt0f.kemnitz@netcom.com> kemnitz@netcom.com (Greg Kemnitz) writes:
> 
>No.  From what I read in the recent People's Daily, I have never seen the
>Chinese government is so angry to the Bush administration, or any one since
>Mr. Nixon.  They finally realized that they are dealing with a government
>which has no credit, both politically and financially, and with a man who
>can sacrifice his nation's long term interests just for saving his own job.

People's Daily? Anything they say will not surprise me.

In fact, CCP should be angry with France and Russia. Both have expressed 
interest to sell air fighters to Taiwan before the U.S. Taiwan has signed
preliminary Mirage-2000 purchase agreement with France but not with U.S. yet.

Holland and Germany are reviewing the sale of Submarines to Taiwan according
to yesterday newspaper. You will see more "anger" from People's Daily.

What's wrong for Taiwan to defend herself? Particularly CCP refuses to promise
not to unify Taiwan by forces. Wasnt the time CCP received military aid from
ex-Soviet Union during the civil war?

Dont get angry but focus on your economy and political reform. Frankly, if 
Mainland China can be as free, democratic, wealthy as Taiwan. Hey, no problem, 
we are happy to come home and save bucks.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
From: yuqian@bvc.edu (Suicidal Freshman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan
Subject: Re: 150 F-16 to Taiwan
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:54:30 CDT
Organization: Buena Vista College, Storm Lake, IA

In article <ROTEN.92Sep3211505@CUBA.gsfc.nasa.gov>, roten@CUBA.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Roten) writes:

>>       Yea well F-16 helps but nuclear weapon would be better..
> 
> Nope.  Nukes are nice as _deterrents_.  But you can't afford to _use_ 
> them.  So in the practical military sense, the things are useless, and 
> they are dangerous into the bargain.  What if the wrong folks got 
> control of them ?  That is always the problem with nukes.  F-16s could 
> be bad news, sure, but the damage one of those would do is limited !!  

	Saw this post.  Shall we clear a question first:  what is considered to
be deterrents?  If we look into US nuclear strategy, the deterrence is diveded
into different options, and one of them is the counter conventional force
option in case of a losing conventional war, LNO would be suitable for a fairly
practical attack on the enemy force.  Aha!!!  There is your deterrents against
an invasion.

SF
bvc

-- 
******************************************************************************
*           "I didn't think I ate that much!"                                *
*                                       -- Ding Chavez                       *
*----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*                yuqian.bvc.edu		    the Suicidal Freshman            *
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
From: danjiong@cc.utah.edu
Subject: The Status of the Protection Bill ?
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date: 7 Sep 92 11:30:32 MDT

The Congress will be in resession from today, what happens to the Bill ?
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.korean,soc.culture.hongkong