Notices
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: The Controversy of the Chinese History Project

  1. #1 The Controversy of the Chinese History Project 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    54
    The Controversy of the Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project
    (Excerpt)

    Chen Ning


    Forewords
    The Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project (XSZCP) sponsored by the government that cost the taxpayer tens of millions of yuans has become well known in the mainland China as the “greatest event in the cultural history”, surpassing the Yong-Le Dictionary. The “abbreviated report” of the project was officially accepted by the government and given one of the “Ten Great Scientific Progress Awards”. As the report is officially accepted in China, the wave of criticism started to show up overseas. Some considered it politically motivated and nationalistic while others criticized it from academic perspectives. Professor David Nivison from Stanford claimed on New York Times that he would “tear it into pieces”. The Chinese media portrayed the international criticizers as the “imperialists” and “hostile forces”. In April of 2001, the director of the project Li Xueqin (李学勤) and the chief scientist Qiu Shihua (仇世华) participated in an academic conference, when the two sides faced each other for the first time and had a frank exchange. The overseas scholars sharply criticized the methodology and the conclusion of the project. … Here, we will ignore the political background and the fierce debates on the media, and focus on the academic aspect of the project.

    The Rationale
    Chinese have all heard about the “five thousand years of civilization” as the history books used to mention the Xia, the Shang and the Zhou Dynasties. But the chronology as Sima Qian put it on his Shi-Ji only covered up to Gonghe Year One (841 BC), while the earlier kings had no date. Thus, the so-called “five thousand years” of civilization could only be dated to about three thousand years ago. The situation is considered frustrating to some Chinese and the non-recognition by the western scholars caused deep resentment among certain Chinese historians.
    To fill in the gap, XSZCP was initiated in 1996 and became the “focus project” of the Ninth Five-Year Plan” (of the PRC government). The State Council established a board headed by Deng Nan (邓楠), while Li Tieying (李铁映) and Song Jian (宋健) functioned as the consultants. Li Xueqin, Qiu Shihua and Xi Zezong (席泽宗) formed the expert group … … More than 200 experts participated in the project. … …
    The objectives were to (1) establish the exact chronology of the Western Zhou Dynasty; (2) establish the relatively reliable chronology of the late Shang Dynasty; (3) propose a detailed chronological framework of the early Shang Dynasty; (4) propose a basic framework for Xia Dynasty.

    Results
    XSZCP depended on two approaches to achieve the objectives: one is the ancient literature and inscriptions on the oracle shells and bones and bronze instruments, and interpret its astronomical and calendar records using modern methods; the other was the carbon dating of the relevant archeological sites including the burials.

    After four years of efforts, XSZCP published the chronology which set the beginning of Xia Dynasty at 2070 BC, the beginning of Shang Dynasty at 1600 BC, and extended the exact chronology from 841 BC to 1250 BC (the Year One of King Wuding of Shang). All the kings of Western Zhou were given exact dates, which was mainly based on the Year King Wu Conquered Shang and Year One of King Yi. The rest of the chronology was arranged and adjusted accordingly.

    Questioning the Results
    Since the publication of the report, the scholars from China and overseas engaged in three major debates, and the critics of the results seem to outnumber the supporters.

    The First Debate on Internet
    Starting from November 200, the debate was conducted on internet regarding the political issues and the academic issues. XSZCP not only affirmed the existence of Xia Dynasty (it has never been archaeologically proved – the translator), but also gave the lineage of the supposed Xia kings. Many Western scholars are skeptical about this. They regard Xia Dynasty in the Chinese text books as legendary while Shang was credited as the first dynasty of China, which had been proved by the oracle shells and bones. Many of them criticized the conclusion labeling the Erlitou site as the capital of Xia without sufficient evidences. The supporters laid their claims mainly on four evidences: (1) the western Henan Province and the southern Shanxi Province were historically considered the areas of the Xia people, in which the Erlitou site was located; (2) a foundation of a “palace” was discovered in the site; (3) Erlitou was C-dated to a date earlier than Shang Dynasty; (4) As the Shang Dynasty mentioned by Sima Qian was proved, Xia Dynasty mentioned also by Sima Qian must be true. Some western scholars think that the historical records on the ancient book of Zhou Dynasty probably were created by the Zhou rulers for political purposes and could not be trusted as genuine history. On the other hand, the Erlitou site does not display a sophisticated culture to qualify as a civilization (typically including writing, cities, government, and a class society). Unless we discover writing, bronze instrument and other signs of civilization, the boundary of the prehistory and the history will remains at (the beginning of) Shang Dynasty. Regarding the credibility of Sima Qian’s writings, they argued that the first king of Shang was said to be conceived by stepping on the footprints of a big bird; due to this and many other supernatural phenomena related to the early kings, all his writings are not to be treated as genuine history.

    The Second Debate – Face-to-Face
    On April 4-7, the annual meeting of the Asian Society of USA convened in Washington, DC. The meeting organizer has invited the XSZCP scholars (it was said that the invitation was given only after request by the XSZCP group – the translator). The participants from the XSZCP group included the director Li Xueqin, and members Zhang Changshou (张长寿), Qiu Shihua, Zhang Peiyu (张培瑜). Many overseas scholars questioned the XSZCP project orally or by writing. First of all, the so-called fen-ye (zodiac) theory formed in the Eastern Zhou Dynasty, not the Western Zhou Dynasty, which undermines the supposed “ancient astronomical records” of “Chunhuo” (鹑火) used to date the Founding Year of Western Zhou – translator). Secondly, the word “sui” (岁) on Li Gui (利簋) (a bronze instrument – the translator) could mean year instead of Jupiter as the project interpreted it. Thirdly, XSZCP favored the year of 1046 BC over 1044 BC based on interpretations of the lunar terminologies in a way inconsistent with the “four-period theory” of Wang Guowei, which is considered reliable. Fourthly, XSZCP ignored the records on the “current version” of Bamboo Annual by considering it “falsified”, which is still in debate. Fifthly, the computer program used to calculate the 14-C dating only produced one SD (68.3%) of probability. Finally, XSZCP gave inconsistent data on the Marquess Jin’s tomb when different papers are compared.
    Some overseas scholars questioned the ethical standard of the XSZCP group. Professor Edward Shaughnessy of Chicago University said that the result of the solar eclipse in 899 BC coinciding with the Year One of King Yi, critical to the project and widely reported on the Chinese newspapers and TV programs, was first obtained by a scholar from another country. The report failed to mention this, which is unethical by academic standard. In addition, the result of 1046 BC was first proposed by an American scholar David Pankenier in 1980’s; it was never mentioned, either. The criticism is reasonable. … … The Korean scholar Fang Shanzhu published the solar eclipse dating on 899 BC in 1975.
    … … Li Xueqin tried to explain the omission of references as due on the limit of the size of the report. Zhang Peiyu admitted that the omission is inappropriate. … …

    The Third Debate in Chicago
    The debate on April 22 was fierce and more dramatic than the previous one. It is worthy mentioning the researcher Jud Jiang from Stanford. … … His article mainly questioned the year of King Wu conquering Shang. He brought attention to the OxCal program, which he borrowed from Oxford to check the calculation of the adjusted data published by the XSZCP project on the spot, and found the range of spread is wider than what was quoted in the report by a large margin. A narrower spread could be obtained only at a probability of 68.3%, which is widely criticized by experts in 14-C dating. XSZCP used such a low probability for the founding year of Western Zhou is unscientific.
    Why would XSZCP not use 95.4% or 99.7% as usual? Because, he said, the range would have become larger by one or two centuries instead of plus or minus 20 years requested by the project leaders. This was necessary to eliminate most of the 44 other alternative results and narrow the range down to a few decades. In other words, XSZCP sacrificed the reliability of the result to eliminate other possibilities.
    Jiang’s article also pointed out that the OxCal does not use the international standard in the tree rings calibration. Experts showed that the calculation incorporated arbitrary elements, which means a need to provide a series of archaeological samples with definite upper and lower boundaries, which is difficult to achieve. … … the article emphasizes that the method was unrealistic because the ceramics, cereals and lumber samples could not be exclusively placed in the period of one king or another. Also, a sample taken from certain stratum does not necessarily belong to it. For example, the wood from a coffin may have been cut and stored well before the death of the owner. Thus its carbon date does not belong to that stratum.
    The article concluded that the so-called “multidisciplinary creation” mainly used non-literature sources to solve the chronological problem. The strata, the ceramics and the 14-C dating with an error of centuries are useful only for prehistorical studies but not suitable for the chronological aspects and the project. Academically speaking, the criticism on XSZCP is reasonable and highly objective. The errors committed by XSZCP are not on specific results but on the general methodology and thus fatal.
    In the meeting which Li Xueqin failed to attend as he made an early return to China, Jud Jiang orally presented his main points and used his computer and the OxCal program to recheck the data and proved that the results are not consistent with what had been published by XSZCP reports. Qiu Shihua admitted that he also had some doubts on the 14-C data. Zhang Changshou explicitly agreed with Jud Jiang’s conclusion. At the moment, Prof. Shaughnessy pounded the table and asked how could the Western Zhou’s chronology of the XSZCP project, which was based on the 14-C data of the Fengxi site, be accepted? Zhang Lidong, a PhD student in Chicago, a former secretary of the XSZCP project, reported the debate in the China Wenwu Daily on May 24, 2002. This report caused a shock wave in China. Two months later, another article titled “The Tour of the USA – about the XSZCP Project” by Su Hui was also published on the same newspaper, and claimed Zhang’s report as inconsistent with the facts and misleading in details. Qiu Shihua recalled the meeting in the article that the Jud Jiang found only one year of difference using my data, and he laughed and said that another check might produce a difference of two years, and all the fuss amounted to nothing. To clarify the issue, this author called other participants of the meeting in China and overseas. They all said that Qiu agreed with Jiang’s conclusions in the meeting, and were surprised by Qiu’s irresponsible attitude.
    Interestingly, Xu Lianggao (徐良高), the author of the report on the excavation in Fengxi of 1997, acted in a similar manner. In his article on China Weneu Daily, he argued that he used the terminology of “approximately equivalent to” certain king’s period while this was deleted by Jiang in his article (he effectively accused Jud Jiang for falsification – the translator). This author checked the original excavation report, which said “Period One: we determined its age to be from King Wen moving to Feng until King Wu conquering Shang; Period Two: we interpret its age as the Year One of King Wu until the early period of King Cheng.” Therefore, Jiang’s quotation had been faithful to the original. While Qiu Shihua denied his recent speech, Xu Lianggao denied his recent writing on paper. We have to call into doubt about the scholarship and attitude of certain members of the XSZCP group. Hence, some comments on newspapers questioned how such people could be trusted to work out the ancient date if they cannot get the recent event straight?

    Some Thoughts
    … … Dr. Nivison’s opinion (on the project) is not an isolated case. A Japanese scholar 成家彻郎 also mentioned that the project ignore his doubt, and ignore the contradictory literature evidence as well as changing inscription on the bronze instruments (meaning the Ganzhi dating records – the translator). Both Dr. Nivision and成家彻郎 are measuring the results of the projects by scientific standards. Although their criticism caused “troubles” to the project, their works are meaningful as academic studies should never be mixed with false results.
    Although the full version of the report has not been passed, the chronology of the XSZCP project has been incorporated into the text books for the elementary schools, high schools, and even the universities as well as dictionaries. Even the university entrance examination also treated the XSZCP chronology as the exclusively correct result. If the full report is passed without appropriate modifications, its errors will be forced down the throat of everyone in the society and will mislead the students. … … (The translator’s note: the full report was never passed, but the results are still treated as “official” by the XSZCP group as well as all the official media and the education sector in China. Some people related to the XSZCP project also made their effort to contain different interpretations of the chronology on internet forums using various means including smear campaigns.)

    Translated by E. Lin


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    128
    It''s really very very looooong.
    But a lot of information. I like it. Thank u.
    Personally, I think "Debate" is good. None research can complete without any "Debate". Isn't it? Wish the debate can let us get part of the truth.
    And, forget "politic" toward this subject. It's really boring. I don't know who will benefit from that. Look at us, the normal Chinese people, we claim that we inherited a culture of 5,000 years old, but just claiming. We all know 5,000 is just a big number, how big and how bigger, who cares it? None human race is isolated. Dr.Joseph Needham has showed a lot of evidences to us. Remember we are all brothers, maybe it's idealistic, but true and good, okay?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by wangwy13
    It''s really very very looooong.
    But a lot of information. I like it. Thank u.
    Personally, I think "Debate" is good. None research can complete without any "Debate". Isn't it? Wish the debate can let us get part of the truth.
    And, forget "politic" toward this subject. It's really boring. I don't know who will benefit from that. Look at us, the normal Chinese people, we claim that we inherited a culture of 5,000 years old, but just claiming. We all know 5,000 is just a big number, how big and how bigger, who cares it? None human race is isolated. Dr.Joseph Needham has showed a lot of evidences to us. Remember we are all brothers, maybe it's idealistic, but true and good, okay?
    I think some of them care a lot about the number; otherwise I cannot undersatnad why all the fuss and all the attacks on those who criticise the project and its conclusions. Until this date, some of the participants of the porject still ban any criticism on the forum controlled by them. That is ugly enough. Sadly, the claims not be substantiated by any scientific methods; instead, it becomes a mean for the political propaganda. It is the suppoters of this project who heavily politicize the who thing and blow its significance out of proportion. There would not be a controversy at all if they did not try to manipulate the medium and force everybody to accept their conclusions.

    As far as the brotherhood are concerned, I believe that all mankinds are brothers. Promoting nationalism is a dangerous path, which has been proved by the history ofthe 20th century. China, as a rising nation, is historically predisposed to such danger, as this has been demonstrated by the nations in the similar stage of development (Germany and Japan, for example).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    128
    OOOh...
    some of the participants of the porject still ban any criticism on the forum controlled by them
    Do you mean this forum? The Science Forum? Is there any evidence?

    Promoting nationalism is a dangerous path, which has been proved by the history of the 20th century. China, as a rising nation, is historically predisposed to such danger, as this has been demonstrated by the nations in the similar stage of development (Germany and Japan, for example).
    I really do not understand why you think this way? Could you tell me your proof?
    From 1864 to 1945, China was divvied up by several countries. "Promoting nationalism" was just to save our own land. After winning of Anti-Japanese War, has we invaded any nation?
    Even it is not proper to use the term "Promoting nationalism".
    At first, before 1911, truly, nationalism was very active, when most Han began to anti-Manchu. After the Republic of China was founded and Japan started invading, this kind of nationalism was seldom heard then. At least four nationality in China worked together to force the invader get out of China. Do you mean this is also a kind of "Promoting nationalism"?
    After 1949 and before 1972, when PRC founded a few years, the USA lead the whole west fight against China. There is also huge pressure from the Soviet Union. Because the Chinese want to build a socialist state. If the term "Promoting nationalism" you used is to describe this period, I should say it was the west who force us to do so.

    A rising nation is never dangerous, unless you regard it as an enemy!

    And, why Germany and Japan become invaders? Because they are rising nations?
    A joke!
    External war is a method to divert attention of their own citizen about the economic crisis, which can easily occur under imperialism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    54
    You reply contains much confusion, to say the least.

    First of all, external conflicts and nationalism is indeed a method to divert attention from the internal crisis, but I have to correct you that this could be used by any one, not imperialism. That is why a conflict flared up in the Sino-Soviet border after the disastrous Cultural Revolution. Same could be said about the German attacks on the other European countries.

    Secondly, China has been invaded when it week and has invaded other countries when it was strong in the old days. That is why the Vietnamese and the Korean dislike China for what happened in the history, not for what happen recently. You cannot prove any particular countriy in the world is more peaceful than the others. When you said “has we invaded any nation”, you might have conveniently forgotten that fact that China invaded Vietnam, not for any border conflicts, but to punish the Vietnamese because they overthrow the Khmer Rough in Cambodia. China continued to support the Khmer Rough in UN. There is nothing glorious about that Cambodian regime committed crimes against humanity.

    Thirdly, the Korean War was initiated by the North Korean, masterminded by Stalin and actively supported by Mao. The whole thing was conceived by Stalin to weaken the USA, and Mao was consulted before the invasion; he was very keen about it as he was thinking about finishing off the USA and the capitalist west by sucking the American Army into China. Mao even told Stalin that he can put in 100 divisions for the war, and he does not care if the USA retaliate with the A-bomb because China can afford to cut its population to 1/3 and will easily recover in a few years. Even after the death of Stalin, Mao still tried to persuade Krushchev (when he visited China) that a nuclear war could be won. Krushchev considered this ridiculous – indeed, it is! This is well documented and well known around the world. Now the truth has also reached China. It is useless to repeat the old lie about the South Korean starting the war.

    Fourthly, we cannot just talk about a “nation”. It could mean the state, or it could mean the people. Don’t mix up the two things. Boerseun replied to my post that “the current government model is neither civilized nor Chinese”.

    Finally, let us not loose the sight that Chen’s article is about the academic corruption in China, it was not about nationalism. You obviously cannot defend the charges and need to create a diversion. That is not very effective.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    128
    First of all, let us not loose the sight that Chen’s article is about the academic corruption in China under communism, it was not about nationalism. You obviously cannot defend the charges and need to create a diversion. That is not very effective.

    Secondly, external conflicts and nationalism is indeed a method to divert attention from the internal crisis, and it is typically used by a totalitarian regime, not imperialism. That is why a conflict flared up in the Sino-Soviet border after the disastrous Cultural Revolution. Same could be said about the German attacks on the other European countries.

    Thirdly, when you said “has we invaded any nation”, you might have forgotten that fact that China invaded Vietnam, not for any border conflicts, but to punish the Vietnamese because they overthrow the Khmer Rough in Cambodia. There is nothing glorious about that committed crimes against humanity. Do I have to prove this?

    Fourthly, the Korean War was initiated by the Korean, masterminded by Stalin and actively supported by Mao. The whole thing was conceived by Stalin to weaken the USA, and Mao was very keen about it as he was thinking about finishing off the USA and the capitalist west by sucking the American Army into China. Mao even told Stalin that he can give 100 divisions for the war, and he does not care if the USA retaliate with the A-bomb because China can afford to cut its population to 1/3 and will easily recover in a few years. This is well documented and well known around the world. Now the truth has also reached China. It is useless to repeat the old lie about the South Korean starting the war.

    Finally, all totalitarian regimes share some similarities. Perhaps we don’t have to go into details here, do we?
    Please DO NOT consider me as some mad man from mad communism, okay?
    If that we do not have anything can talk together!

    I want to tell you that your history knowledge on China is totally WRONG.
    Of cause, you'll not believe me now. If you really treat history with respectful caution, time will prove it.

    I'd like to remind you that you didn't answer my first question.

    Okay, about your first point, I NEVER "defend the charges and need to create a diversion". I've already said ' "Debate" is good. None research can complete without any "Debate". ' 'Wish the debate can let us get part of the truth.' You wrong, I correct it, that is it. DO NOT "create a diversion".

    And I can not see "academic corruption in China under communism" from Chen’s article, maybe my English is really poor, hehe. In my eyes, it just showed a 'debate' on academic research. There is academic corruption in China, but here, I can't see and I can't believe corruption IN THIS ARTICLE.

    Show rather than tell, okay? I can judge it.

    Your second point, I do not know if you are familiar with the geography about China and Soviet. Zhenbao Island is in the Chinese side, NOT Soviet side. And about "external conflicts and nationalism typically used by a totalitarian regime", answer me please, except bloody method in war, is there any different between some nations did to Africa, middle Asia, Indians and the second world war? Both greed, both inhumanity! Finding fault with choice of words is MEANINGLESS. There is the old adage in China, "In the Spring and Autumn Era there were no righteous wars." PRC never occupy any land and mistreatment other people, that's the different.

    Your third point. You see part of the result and try to get answer from it. I don't mention the things before Vietnam defeat USA. Ho Chi Minh died in 1969, Vietnam War ended in 1975, this war was in 1979. Isn't there any relationship? Stalin always considered Mao as one nationalist, he can not fight with Mao, of course-- 'friends' they were. After Vietnam War, he was so happy to find Vietnam is really a good brother to fight with Mao and Vietnam was really want to build a bigger state consisting Cambodia. China became their both enemy. Then Vietnam was already to invade China. Is there any PLA in Vietnam's land after the short war? Why don't you compare it to Iraq war?

    Your fourth point. Obviously, Stalin was NOT the mastermind, and there is no mastermind. Bombs had already came northeast China, didn't the gov of your country tell you? The whole thing was USA want to stop another country under socialism born. Weaken USA? JOKE! No invading, never weaken! "sucking the American Army into China" , another joke, do you like the war comes to your hometown? "This is well documented and well known around the world.", Sorry there is none such doc here and how you verify them? "old lie about the South Korean starting the war", sincerely , I do not care who starting the war. I just see one army was beside my hometown, and wished to eat us like some delicious food. USA lost that war, if it had won, what would happen? Maybe the history would write "the Chinese was liberated by great USA".



    Maybe you'll say I was poisoned by the gov of China. Why not you?
    Please think of it!


    Oh,Mr/Ms line. Just now, I found you have changed some words, and somewhere the meaning has already changed a lot.
    To refute your opinions again? Too long-winded I become then.
    Again, Finding fault with choice of words is MEANINGLESS.

    We both have fixed idea to each other.
    Let me admit some of your comment.
    Chinese gov supported the Khmer Rough for years. True and this is improper.
    Khmer Rough is really strange to understand. It also killed many Chinese, sarcastic.
    "Mao still tried to persuade Krushchev (when he visited China) that a nuclear war could be won" ---In the given context,only this sentence is true.

    Once I just listen to one side, it has been years I try to listen to both sides.
    What about you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    supporting the Khmer Rough was improper! perhaps you should consider a stronger word like sadistic, stupid or evil.

    if i were to shoot you, yes it would be "improper" but it would be much more than that, atleast in the english language
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    128
    ishmaelblues, I admit I used the wrong word, poor my English. Evil not improper. I apologize.
    Luky, the Chinese gov stopped the things after they knew the truth.

    Listen, I do not want to be too militant.

    Here is the history forum, right? Let's back to history.
    Could you answer me who supported Khmer Rough too?
    Before Khmer Rough controlled whole Cambodia who gave them supporting, what happened at that time?
    Do not answer me it was China. To the north and east is Vietnam. On the sea there was the Seventh Fleet. Use your brain!
    When it comes to Khmer Rough, the USA gov is more evil than Chinese gov.

    I'm not getting Chinese gov free for Khmer Rough.

    Did anybody here think of my question?
    "Once I just listen to one side, it has been years I try to listen to both sides.
    What about you?"

    Could you?

    Do not take a fixed idea on us!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    54
    You don’t need to deny the fact that stealing the result from scholars of other countries is nothing less than corruption. This is a fact, and you are not in the position to judge. By all likelihood, you are one of those involved. In addition, intentional misinterpretation of the ancient records in the book and bronze vassals are definitely a form of corruption. You merely pretend that you don’t understand what is revealed in this article. That is too bad. Of course, you would never admit that you need to create a diversion since that is not proper either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    54
    As far as the Cambodian issue is concerned, there is never a doubt that the border war between China and Vietnam was design as retaliation for their invasion of Cambodia. Normally I would not support any invasion, but here we have to make a distinction, it is essential that the evil Pol Pot regime that killed almost one third of its population (and many of them are Cambodian Chinese) be removed from the head of the Cambodian people, just like it is essential to remove Hitler from power. There is no doubt about that. China could not stay in Vietnam because the invasion was universally condemned by the international society, from US to USSR, left and right. If you want to restrict the discussion to certain period in order to take advantage of it, I don’t need to follow your corrupt logic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    54
    Regarding the Korean War, the whole history is there to be seen. You have to tell a white lie to cover up. Too bad, the Russian is not cooperating with you any more since they have set up an elected government that has to answer to the people, more or less. When you said you don’t care who started the war, you have contradicted yourself. The truth is Mao was consulted when he visited Moscow. Kim was told by Stalin to check with Mao before he would start the attack. This is on all the sources from Russia including the memoir of Khrushchev himself. Maybe you never read such documents because they are not allowed to be printed or sold there; you live behind a bamboo screen. You defense here is like someone denying the Holocaust. Your words like "the Chinese was liberated by great USA" reflects a typical strategy used by those official writers in China who resort to nationalism as their final cover in order to divert the attention from the real issue. Too bad, that is not going to work here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    54
    ‘I'm not getting Chinese gov free for Khmer Rough. “
    I have no clue what he is talking about. Could anyone explain to me?
    “When it comes to Khmer Rough, the USA gov is more evil than Chinese gov.” is another ridiculous statement. Please tell me where Pol Pot got his evil ideology from? He is a Maoist. The entire idea of driving the city population to the country to do the hard labour was inherited from Maoist policies of sending the office workers and students to the countryside to be “re-educated” by the poor peasants in order to reform their “capitalist thinking”. Mao appreciate what Pol Pot did and told him that he had a great achievement because he did something Mao himself would like to do to China but couldn’t.
    And, finally, what does Cambodia and Pol Pot have anything to do with the Seventh Fleet? I guess he either suffers from brain injury or he is desperately trying to find some irrelevant excuse but found only a fig leaf at the end. The fleet was there to protect Taiwan, which is under the control of another Chinese government; it never occupied Taiwan. I don’t think it would be a great thing if the communist force take over Taiwan, which would definitely bring all the disasters which befell the mainland to Taiwan, including the crackdown on the “counterrevolutionaries” of the early 1950’s, the anti-Rightist movement of 1957, the Grand Famine killing 30 million people in 1959-1961, and the Cultural Revolution killing millions. I Think it is a good thing that the island did not fall under communism. People in Taiwan have a choice of their own government; this is not the case in the mainland. The mainland has a lot to learn from Taiwan, not only in economic management but more importantly in political reforms and introduction of democracy. Until that happens, the Taiwanese people don’t have to submit themselves to a totalitarian form of government.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    54
    At the end, let me advice you that you don’t prove anything by saying “listen to both sides”; what is important here is that you speak on behalf of the official scholars under fire and the political system which was responsible for the academic scandals of this project and many others. You merely expose yourself by shouting like a mad man. But there is not a bit of truth in your statement. Too Bad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    128
    Hey, line. Could us stop here?
    I'm not afraid of your words. I have said that I do not think the Chinese gov is completely innocent but I can prove it's not that bad like you consider as and it's some good gov when compare to some others.
    I have many evidence to challenge your words here.
    But I found that our debate become too emotional here.
    You seem to argue with me just for the arguing.
    I have read your comments carefully.
    You didn't think of my questions. Never.
    I am disappointed.
    You do not want to understand why I think this way.
    You got one fact then made your opinion from that but you forgot why the very fact was caused.

    Guy, I know you hate the Chinese gov. Right? I tell you, to some degree, I hate it too. But not the same way like you. You listed a lot of historical events. Do I know them? Yes. Do I think the Chinese gov is completely innocent? No. I'm not politician, I do not serve for the gov. Then why did I debate with you here?

    China censured Tito for no right reason.
    China supported Khmer Rough.
    .....

    I am not historian, but I know that. It is not complete clean, I know.

    Please, forget politics and your honor of your country.
    You have too many fixed ideas.
    Let's calm down and to be objective to look at the history.
    Okay?


    OK. The next words are for the next reply by line. Sorry I do not want to build a new reply.

    To be first, if you just list the Wikipedia article to me, you do not have to do this.
    I can see that. And before today, I have read the article already.
    Maybe you think I know nothing about the GFW.
    Haha, I'm not well-behaved as you think. I used some tools to break GFW sometimes, to get to some low speed links. To get to wikipedia, I do not need them, really.

    Wikipedia is excellent, but not for careful academic use. Dr. Brabazon in UK do not allow student using "University of Google" and wikipedia, I don't know if you get this news, google that.
    And the ones who support wikipedia is not get along well with the Chinese gov.
    It's known all the world.
    I'm Chinese, I came to this American dominated forum. How about you?
    Did you ever get with some Chinese to know what they are thinking of? (Ah, I forgot just now, except me)
    I'm quite confidence to say I have listened to both sides and I will continue that in future.
    Before blaming me, could you tell me something about you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    54
    Now, you need to stop if you have nothing better to say and repeating the same old same old. You are adding reply for the sake of covering up you own lies. You want to see the prove of the North Korean starting the war, so I will satisfy your need. The following is from Wikipedia:

    North Korea invades

    The United States received less than two weeks notice of the Korean War—the Chinese-authorized, North Korean invasion of South Korea on 25 June 1950. The CIA provided the early notice; before the war, in early 1950, CIA China station officer Douglas Mackiernan had got Chinese and North Korean intelligence forecasting the summer KPA invasion of the South. Earlier, after the US missions had left the communist People's Republic of China, he volunteered to remain and get the intelligence. Afterwards, he and a team of CIA local mercenaries then escaped the Chinese, in a months-long horse trek across the Himalaya mountains; he was killed within miles of Lhasa city, Tibet—yet his team delivered the intelligence to headquarters. Thirteen days later, the North Korean People's Army (KPA) crossed the 38th-parallel border and invaded South Korea. MacKiernan was posthumously awarded the CIA Intelligence Star for valor.[56]

    Under the guise of counter-attacking a South Korean provocation raid, the North Korean Army (KPA) crossed the 38th parallel, behind artillery fire, at Sunday dawn of 25 June 1950.[38]:14 The KPA said that Republic of Korea Army (ROK Army) troops, under command of the régime of the "bandit traitor Syngman Rhee", had crossed the border first—and that they would arrest and execute President Singman Rhee.[44] In the past year, both Korean armies had continually harassed each other with skirmishes—and each continually raided the other country across the 38th-parallel border, as in a civil war.

    Hours later, the United Nations Security Council unanimously condemned the North Korean invasion of the Republic of South Korea (ROK), with UNSC Resolution 82, so adopted despite the USSR, a veto-wielding power, boycotting the Council meetings since January—protesting that the (Taiwan) Republic of China, and not the (mainland) People's Republic of China held a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.[57] On 27 June 1950, President Truman ordered US air and sea forces to help the South Korean régime. After debating the matter, the Security Council, on 27 June 1950, published Resolution 83 recommending member-state military assistance to the Republic of Korea. Incidentally, while awaiting the Council's fait accompli announcement to the UN, the Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister accused the US of starting armed intervention in behalf of South Korea.[58]

    The USSR challenged the legitimacy of the UN-approved war, because (i) the ROK Army intelligence upon which Resolution 83 is based came from US Intelligence; (ii) North Korea (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) was not invited as a sitting temporary member of the UN, which violated UN Charter Article 32; and (iii) the Korean warfare was beyond UN Charter scope, because the initial North–South border fighting was classed as civil war. Moreover, the Soviet representative boycotted the UN to prevent Security Council action, to challenge the legitimacy of UN action; legal scholars posited that deciding upon an "action" required the unanimous vote of the five permanent members.[59][60]

    The North Korean Army launched the "Fatherland Liberation War" with a comprehensive air–land invasion using 231,000 soldiers, who captured scheduled objectives and territory—among them, Kaesŏng, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu, and Ongjin—which they achieved with 274 T-34-85 tanks, some 150 Yak fighters, 110 attack bombers, 200 artillery pieces, 78 Yak trainers, and 35 reconnaissance aircraft.[44] Additional to the invasion force, the KPA had 114 fighters, 78 bombers, 105 T-34-85 tanks, and some 30,000 soldiers stationed in North Korea.[44] At sea, although comprising only several small warships, the North Korean and South Korean navies fought in the war as sea-borne artillery for their in-country armies.

    In contrast, the ROK Army defenders were unprepared. In South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu (1998), R.E. Applebaum reports the ROK forces' low combat readiness on 25 June 1950. The ROK Army had 98,000 soldiers (65,000 combat, 33,000 support), no tanks, and a twenty-two piece air force comprising 12 liaison-type and 10 AT6 advanced-trainer airplanes. There were no large foreign military garrisons in Korea at invasion time—but there were large US garrisons and air forces in Japan.[44]

    Within days of the invasion, masses of ROK Army soldiers—of dubious loyalty to the Syngman Rhee régime—either were retreating southwards or were defecting en masse to the Communist North, to the KPA.[38]:23
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    54
    And the following is an article providing the direct evidence of Stalin and Mao's role in initiating the war.

    Who started Korea?


    June 1950
    Paul Wingrove looks at the roles of Stalin, Mao and Kim Il Sung.
    On June 25th, 1950, Communist North Korea launched an invasion across the 38th Parallel into South Korea. Initially taken aback, the West, under American leadership, quickly recovered and within days had obtained United Nations Security Council agreement to repel the attack. For President Truman this was a decisive encounter. As he saw it, North Korea's Communist leader Kim Il Sung was not acting independently, nor was the aim of this attack simply limited to reunification of the divided Korean peninsula. In this aggressive action he discerned the hand of the USSR, and possibly that of Communist China. In Truman's words: 'The Reds were probing for weaknesses in our armour; we had to meet their thrust without getting embroiled in a world-wide war'. His Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, also concluded that 'it seemed close to certain that the attack had been mounted, supplied and instigated by the Soviet Union...', and:

    To back away from this challenge... would be highly destructive of the power and prestige of the United States... we could not accept the conquest of this important area by a Soviet puppet under the very guns of our defensive perimeter with no more resistance than words and gestures in the Security Council.

    Only recently, however, have the roles of Stalin and Mao in unleashing the Korean War become better known, thanks to the opening of the archives of former Communist bloc countries. Researchers have also benefited from President Yeltsin's personal decision in 1994 to present to the South Korean government hundreds of pages of high-level declassified documents relating to the origins of the war. Even so, the record is far from complete. In Russia many documents from the highly sensitive 'Presidential Archive' and from KGB and military archives are simply not available, while China's archives are effectively closed to outsiders.

    Nonetheless, fifty years on we are much clearer about the war's origins. Who wanted the war, and why? The answer seems to be that it was primarily Kim Il Sung who sought reunification of Korea through military action, but as a client state of the USSR he needed, and was given, the support and encouragement of Stalin. Kim was driven by the cause of reunification, but was also perhaps too easily impressed by Mao Zedong's successes in the Chinese civil war of 1946-49. Stalin came to see an attack on South Korea as a potentially cheap Cold War victory.

    Reunification through war seems first to have been raised as a serious possibility in March 1949 when Kim travelled to Moscow to meet with Stalin. Their exchange of March 7th is recorded as follows:

    Kim Il Sung: We believe that the situation makes it necessary and possible to liberate the whole country through military means. The reactionary forces of the South will never agree on a peaceful reunification and will perpetuate the division of the country until they feel themselves strong enough to attack the North. Now is the best opportunity for us to take the initiative into our own hands. Our armed forces are stronger, and in addition we have the support of a powerful guerrilla movement in the South. The population of the South, which despises the pro-American regime, will certainly help us as well.

    Stalin: You should not advance to the South. First of all, the Korean People's Army does not have an overwhelming superiority over the troops of the South. Numerically, as I understand, you are even behind them. Second, there are still American troops in the South which will interfere in the case of hostilities. Third, one should not forget that the agreement on the 38th Parallel is in effect between the USSR and the United States. If the agreement is broken by our side, it is more of a reason to believe that the Americans will interfere.

    Kim Il Sung: Does it mean that there is no chance to reunify Korea in the near future? Our people are very anxious to be together again and to cast off the yoke of the reactionary regime and their American masters.

    Stalin: If the adversary has aggressive intentions, then sooner or later it will start the aggression. In response to the attack you will have a good opportunity to launch a counterattack. Then your move will be understood and supported by everyone.

    Whatever his inclinations, Stalin was clear that this was not the time for military action. Indeed, for some time in 1949 his concern was the opposite - that the South might launch an early attack against the North. In a telegram of April 17th to Terentii Shtykov, Soviet ambassador to North Korea, Stalin suggested that:

    In April-May the Southerners will concentrate their troops near the 38th Parallel. In June the Southerners will start a sudden attack on the North in order to finish off the total destruction of the Northern Army by August.

    Kim was undeterred by Stalin's caution. Indeed he was spurred on by events such as the withdrawal of US troops from South Korea in mid-1949, and by Mao's victory in China. On September 3rd, 1949, Shtykov reported to Moscow that Kim had requested permission

    ... to begin military operations against the South, with the goal of seizing the Ongjin peninsula and part of the territory of South Korea to the east of the Ongjin peninsula, approximately to Kaesong, so as to shorten the line of defense. Kim Il Sung considers...that if the international situation permits, they are ready to move further to the south. Kim Il Sung is convinced that they are in a position to seize South Korea in the course of two weeks, maximum two months.

    Shtykov prudentily counselled Kim that this question was 'very large and serious', and not to do anything until Moscow had considered the matter. Moscow, in the person of Andrei Gromyko, replied a week later, with instructions to the ambassador to 'give your evaluation of the situation and of how real and advisable is the proposal of our friends', indicating some change in Stalin's policy following the US withdrawal. After consultations in Pyongyang the Soviet chargé d'affaires, Tunkin, reported back to Moscow on September 14th, that Kim had again indicated that he planned only a 'partial' operation on the Ongjin peninsula, with the possibility of moving further south if this attack resulted in 'demoralisation' of the enemy forces. Irrespective of the scope of Kim's plans, Tunkin stated that he personally remained unconvinced of the ability of the north to carry out an invasion, or to contain the war:

    …the northern army is insufficiently strong to carry out successful and rapid operations against the south. Even taking into account the help which will be rendered to the northern army by the partisans and the population of South Korea it is impossible to count on a rapid victory. Moreover, a drawn out civil war is disadvantageous for the north both militarily and politically…After their lack of success in China, the Americans will probably intervene more decisively than they did in China…

    Despite his over-optimistic expectations of the population of the south, Tunkin's assessment was sound. The message to Kim, formally delivered from the Soviet Politburo on September 24th, reflected this judgement:

    ...it is impossible to acknowledge that a military attack on the south is now completely prepared for and therefore from the military point of view it is not allowed.

    Yet Kim remained committed to his plans. In mid-January 1950, at a rather emotional lunchtime meeting, he told Shtykov:

    Lately, I do not sleep at night, thinking about how to resolve the question of the unification of the whole country. If the matter of the liberation of the people of the southern portion of Korea and the unification of the country is drawn out, then I can lose the trust of the people of Korea.



    Kim then:

    ...placed before me [Shtykov] the question, why don't I allow him to attack the Ongjin peninsula, which the People's Army could take in three days, and with a general attack the People's Army could be in Seoul in several days.

    Shtykov replied that Kim should put such questions to Stalin personally, and reported this conversation to Moscow. In the event, an emboldened Stalin informed Shytkov in January 1950 that he agreed to a second meeting with Kim, now hinting at his new view of things:

    I understand the dissatisfaction of comrade Kim Il Sung, but he must understand that such a large matter in regard to South Korea as he wants to undertake needs large preparation. The matter must be organised so that there would not be too great a risk. If he wants to discuss this matter with me then I will always be ready to receive him. Transmit all this to Kim Il Sung and tell him that I am ready to help him in this matter.

    From now until the outbreak of the war on June 25th, 1950, Stalin encouraged Kim and armed him in preparation for an attack on the South. Why this change of heart? Partly because US troops had departed, but also because the 'international situation' had changed in a number of ways advantageous to the Communist world. According to a document prepared by Soviet Communist Party officials which summarised the second Stalin-Kim talks, held in April 1950, Stalin reasoned that

    The Chinese Communist Party's victory over the Guomindang has improved the environment for actions in Korea... if necessary, China has at its disposal troops which can be utilised in Korea... the Chinese victory is also important psychologically...[and] now that China has signed a treaty of alliance with the USSR, Americans will be even more hesitant to challenge the Communists in Asia... Such a mood is reinforced by the fact that the USSR now has the atomic bomb.

    Having decided that US intervention was unlikely, Stalin now made clear what would happen if, against his expectations, the war should spread:

    Comrade Stalin added that the Koreans should not count on direct Soviet participation in the war because the USSR had serious challenges elsewhere to cope with, especially in the West. He again urged Kim Il Sung to consult with Mao Zedong and mentioned that the Chinese leader had a good understanding of Oriental matters. Stalin repeated that the USSR was not ready to get involved in Korean affairs directly, especially if Americans did venture to send troops to Korea.

    Kim's argument had always been that American intervention was unlikely and that the war would be short. From a more calculated perspective, Stalin had come to accept this view, while taking precautions against the event of a different outcome.

    Given that China was to play such a crucial role in the war, it is surprising that these Moscow-Pyongyang interactions were largely hidden from Mao. While some writers suggest that Stalin and Mao may have discussed Korea during the latter's visit to Moscow from December 1949 to January 1950, this was almost certainly not the case. Indeed, in a telegram from Stalin to Shtykov sent in February 1950 Stalin commanded that:

    The question he [Kim] wants to discuss with me must be completely confidential. It should not be shared with anyone even in the North Korean leadership, as well as the Chinese comrades.

    Although Mao was in Moscow until the signing of the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship on February 14th, 1950, Stalin chose not to talk to him about Korean affairs. Mao did not discover what was afoot until May, following Kim's month-long visit to Moscow in April. On Stalin's suggestion, Kim had travelled to Beijing to see Mao to lay out his plans. While Mao and Kim were in talks Vyshinsky, writing on May 14th, informed Mao that Stalin had already agreed to Kim's 'proposal', and hinted at a role for Beijing:

    In a conversation with the Korean comrades Filippov [Stalin] and his friends expressed the opinion that, in light of the changed international situation, they agree with the proposal of the Koreans to move toward reunification... In this regard a qualification was made...that the question should be decided finally by the Chinese and Korean comrades together, and in case of disagreement by the Chinese comrades the decision on the question should be postponed until a new discussion.

    Thus, China was to be tied into the war, if only loosely. Mao gave a rather lukewarm agreement to Kim's plans, although for Kim this was sufficient. Stalin had proved himself generous in his support and Kim took the view that since 'all his requests were satisfied in Moscow' there was no need to bother Mao too much. This meeting, which ended with Mao's muted approval for the enterprise, cleared the way for the June 25th attack.

    The North's invasion turned out to be spectacularly successful for the period that it took the West to recover, re-group and send troops to Korea. Stalin, taken aback by a United Nations intervention which confounded his calculations, initially pretended he was not involved in the war - a ploy that dismayed Kim and failed to deceive the West. MacArthur's bold execution of the landings at Inchon in September turned the tide, producing heavy defeats for the North Koreans. In a ciphered telegram of September 30th, Kim pleaded with Stalin:

    If the enemy does not give us time to implement the measures which we plan, and, making use of our extremely grave situation, steps up its offensive operations into North Korea, then we will not be able to stop the enemy troops solely with our own forces. Therefore, dear Josif Vissarionovich, we cannot help asking you to provide us with special assistance. In other words, at the moment when the enemy troops cross the 38th Parallel we will badly need direct military assistance from the Soviet Union.

    This, of course, was at odds with Stalin's intentions. Fortunately, Kim went on to request the formation of 'volunteer units in China and other countries of people's democracy', a request Stalin was only too eager to assist with. He immediately fired off a message to Mao:

    If in the current situation you consider it possible to send troops to assist the Koreans, then you should move at least five-six divisions towards the 38th Parallel at once.

    As Stalin had always intended, he was not going to pull North Korean chestnuts out of the fire; the Chinese would undertake that task. In later years Mao recalled that it was only when the Chinese had proved their mettle in combat in Korea that Stalin lost some of his earlier suspicion of them. But this was no comfort for Mao, for not only did the Korean war involve huge sacrifices for his country, it also put off indefinitely the higher priority - the conquest of Taiwan.

    This was an unnecessary war, for which the responsibility lies mainly with Stalin. His miscalculation damaged the interests of the USSR and the Communist world in general, and it is not surprising that upon his death in 1953 his successors quickly sought a formal end to the conflict. Nor is it surprising that Mao Zedong held a rather jaundiced view of the man who had armed the North for this war, permitted it to be launched, then expected others to save the day.

    Paul Wingrove is Senior Lecturer in Politics at the University of Greenwich.

    © History Today

    You should know we live in open societies while you live in an isolated one. You should not think that poeple in open societies could be easily deceived. Obviosuly, you are not listening from both sides.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    54
    The debate here is what is the truth, and what is false. It is not about who hate whom. Apparently, you are thinking like that since you grew up in an environment that taught you to “hate the enemy” and never got rid of it. I was there too, but I am over with it. The communist system does not represent me. And it does not represent the Taiwanese people. Their government is also a Chinese government; it is a much better one. Please don’t try to take advantage by twisting the issues.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    54
    In any event, I advice you not to try to dress up yourself as someone "representing China" because you don't. That kind of play is too low.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    54
    Dishonesty in academia(China Daily)
    Updated: 2009-02-04 07:43 Comments(0) PrintMailIf honesty is the best policy, it is nowhere more so than in scientific research and the academia in general.

    That explains why professors have always been held in high esteem and so have institutions of higher learning.

    Yet, repeated exposures of cheating and plagiarism by professors in recent years have brought to light an unholy link between academic papers and dishonesty.

    The latest exposures of cheating in academic research papers published in several overseas magazines last year add to the sad story. They seem to have come as another bombshell further shattering the public credibility of academic research in institutions of higher learning.

    The fact that an academician of Chinese Academy of Engineering, along with the prestigious Zhejiang University, is involved points to a deeper malaise. It lends further credence to the increasingly strong accusations about a contaminated academic environment and lack of professional ethics among professors.

    In several papers showing how a herbal medicine impacts cardiac infraction, the same figures were used for different experiments. And the same papers have been submitted to different magazines for publication after minor changes were made.

    Further investigations are yet to be conducted into how the research team headed by the academician in Zhejiang University had plotted the cheating in more than a dozen papers.

    But this biggest-ever academic scandal is for sure a wake-up call that the Chinese universities are facing a crisis of credibility.


    And behind the crisis is the phenomenon that quite a number of professors or so-called scholars have benefited from their dishonest "dissertations" and "research programs".

    As everyone knows, good breakthroughs do not come without hard work, but hard work does not necessarily bring about any substantial result. This is the cruel truth about academic study. This also means anyone dedicating his or her life to academic research should never assume that his or her work will necessarily produce worthwhile results.

    It should be always those who have truly dedicated themselves to academic studies without bothering about fame and material gains who will hopefully make the greatest contributions to scientific progress.

    But some academics' pursuit of fame and material gains, even with dishonest means, is eroding fundamental principles for academic research: hard work and spirit of dedication.

    Their "success" will quite probably encourage more to follow their examples and thus further deteriorate the academic atmosphere.

    We need a thorough investigation into this scandal primarily to warn the entire academic community against the dangers of dishonest practices. The bad apples involved should be severely punished to serve as a deterrent to others.

    Actually we need something much bigger - an overhaul of the mechanism for academic study in institutions of higher learning. The quota on the number of research papers to be published annually by professors needs to be scrapped. This has exerted pressure on professors, and some are forced to cheat or plagiarize in order to get their papers published.

    The exposure of all irregularities behind this scandal may probably provide useful ideas for thoroughly restructuring the management of academic studies.

    (China Daily 02/04/2009 page4
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •