The US hasn't made any claim to Iraq. I totally disagree with this invasion but in no one has said anything about claiming Iraq as US territory.
Then why not let the Tibetans decide for themselve? Why won't the PRC even let the Dalai Lama back into the country? If the Tibetans are so happy about PRC rule then put it to a test let the Dalai Lama come back on the condition of a referendum on autonomy based on the the model the Dalai Lama has proposed. In the end all this talk about things being great for the Tibetans under PRC rule and so much better than under Tibetan rule are being made by the PRC and Han Chinese. They aren't being made by Tibetans.
Start a thread compucomp. Otherwise comment on what CHINA has done in TIBET. If you want, start a thread that debates all of the evils of America vs. all the evils in China. You have been around a lot longer than we have. While evil isn't right, no matter who commits it, I could come up with a lot more examples in regards to China than simply Tibet. I suggest you get back on topic. Cheers, Brock
and following your logic and your extension of the evils of the United States to all of its people - You are a murderous, torturous, raping, supressor of freedom, killer of the environment, shooter of nuns, racist. Even so, I'm willing to talk with you a while. Do you really believe it is accurate to compare the Dalai Lama with Saddam Hussein? Regards, Brock
It's 2 seperated issues. First, I don't think Dalai Lama has a claim to negotiate the fate of Tibet. He's the spiritual leader of Tibet Buddism, but he's not the Tibet ruler. He was the official "Living God" in Tibet, even after PRC officially controlled Tibet, before he was kidnapped by those other Lamas and slave owners. When he lived abroad, he was no longer the Tibet ruler. Second, I would like to see a general election in China, including Tibet. I would like to see Dalai Lama form a political party in China and participate the general election. It's not so now, but I believe there will be free election in the future. I never said things being great for Tibetans under PRC rule. However, I did say CCP government had a track record for good things and bad things in Tibet. On the other hand, those former slave owners only had a track record of bad things and a promise. Personally, I don't mind seeing every single province in Canada, China, every single state in US, or every single city, or Chinatown, Koreantown in NYC to announce independance. But I just don't see that as realistic. I don't think it matters if Chinese government is communist or nationalist, or some new democratic coalition between all parties, I don't think people get to choose which country they want to belong to, or which country they want to form. However, in a democratic country, one should be able to choose their leader, including central or federal government leader and local leader. If that day comes, Dalai Lama can first seek election as some sort of Tibet governor and then run the campaign for president of PRC, or it could even change to some other name. But every vote counts, Tibetan Chinese or Han Chinese or any other Chinese can vote Tibet to seperate from China, but by the same token, they can vote it to stay in. Your proposal of only Tibetans got to vote about Tibet doesn't work, just like not only Beijing people can't decide the fate of Beijing alone, people in Chinatown can't decide which country it belongs to. If you own your own house, that means you have your right to do whatever you want to, but with some limitation controlled by the country. You can't declare that as an independent country and set an army around the house. You can't claim that you give that piece of land away to China, and it belongs to China now. It's just not realistic.
hey moron - ive already stated about 5 times in this thread that i dont support the invasion of iraq - if you can find ANYWHERE where i have supported bush it will be news to me. but again, american involvement in iraq has nothing to do with the evil things the chinese government does. you can start a thread about it if you want. this is nothing more than a weak attempt on your part to deflect attention away from the truth about the chinese government. i suppose you think forced abortions are ok too? - if so than i will call you what you are, which is a piece of trash.
The problem is posters like Brockstapper use China's actions in the Tibetan provinces to suggest(fairly or not) China's intent to commit planned assimilation(a PC word for cultural genocide), but when it comes to USA in Iraq, they stop using USA's actions in Iraq to suggest USA's intent, but resort to proclaimation of intent to suggest intent, so that the USA's exempt from being labeled the same "crime" of China. This flippant and hypocrite approach renders their position on the Chinese matters biased.
Continue with my reply to Sishir: In history, every single piece of land or territory was claimed by someone at some point. Some was claimed long long time ago, like the middle part of China; some was claimed not so long ago, like US or Canada. For those territories with longer history, most of them have experienced all kinds of changes, name, boundary, rulers, people etc. Theorectically, everyone has some legitmate claim over somewhere their ancestor lived, ruled, or just stayed over-night. I am wondering what's all this fuss about Tibet, and Tibet only? Didn't China have claim over it long long time ago, much longer than lots of new found lands for US and Canada? If one claimes different culture legitimize independant country claim, should US and Canada just break up by every single culture? By the same token, shouldn't we agree that same culture legitmize a combined country. Maybe China can claim ownership over Singapore, Japan, Korea and other places in Asia? AFter all, Japan and Korea culture were greatly affected and rooted from Tang Dynasty? Their traditional custume are still the ones they got from Tang Dynasty. The family names in Korea, especially "Li" the name of Korean Emperor was a gift from the Emperor from Tang? I guess there will be endless wars if one support such seperatism all over the world. So, why just Tibet? Let's start with US and Canada, in which there are claimed territory with shorter history. Or we can start with other parts in China, Russia, Britain and other places in Europe, there are claimed terrotories with longer history than Tibet. Why just Tibet?
You say let Dalai Lama back into the country so that he can incite a interracial war between the Tibetans and the other races living in Tibet? Why not let Hezbolla freely compete with other parties in Lebanon? Why not let Iraqis decide if they like to elect an anti-US fundamentalism government? Why not let native indians decide whether all whites and blacks should get out of all territories that used to belong indians? Yeah, why not let native indians decide if we should return 80% of land of this country to their control? Great idea. Daila Lama was a slavemaster in 1950's, in the freaking 20th century! I don't get why people are so obsessed with him. His reigm was just about as merciless as that of Saddams.
I don't know what you want. Human imigration happens all the time. When there is a rarely populated land, people imigrate to there and settle down and have children. Is that a crime now? Isn't that what europeans did in north america a few hundreds years back?
Neverthless I still consider the civil war an effort to end slavery system, otherwise it even has less justification than the chinese liberation of Tibat.
It was impossible to secure the border in a peaceful way, because Daila Lama government was already getting foreign forces into Tibat in preparation of a military confrontation. Maybe the Tibetan people was peaceful, but its government back then was not. Speaking of mineral resource, almost all of those you mentioned were found after 1950's. Chinese didn't know that in advance so it couldn't have been the motives. And secondly, you make it sound like so much richer than it is. China import most mineral resources from overseas, because domestic mines are nowhere close to those in south america, australia and other parts of world.
The problem is that you are too biased and it prevents you from talking about your government's actions and instead must point the finger back. Your defense in a murder case would be that it is ok because other murder's do it... Regards, Brock
And you make it sound like the atrocities and invasion have ended in the 1950's. And can I introduce you to our new railroad? How about the four new airports they want to build? Some of these discoveries are very recent and the stepping up of Chinese workers and infrastructure in the region is for a reason. And it ain't to enjoy dances... Regards, Brock
Why didn't the North let the South decide their own fate after the Civil War? Should they have let Jefferson Davis rule the South? China is making progressive changes in Tibet, and I really do feel it is better for that region. At the same time, I hope China can make sure that the people still have religious freedom. However, I believe it is in everyone's best interest for Tibet to have a secular government. In recent history, most religious governments have done crazy things in the name of religion (e.g. Israel and Iran).
In the globalization process, I think the Tibetan culture's biggest threat is the Western culture, especially the Amercian culture. As the Tibetan province's economy grow,there will be cinemas(a western invention), movies(a western invention), western clothes(which marginalize traditional Tibetan clothes), American songs(which suggests American values and living styles), infiltration of Christian preachers, books, cars(a western invention that pollutes the Tibetan environment), airplanes(an American invention), McDonald's, KFCs... the list goes on and on... You know, the Chinese letters on Lhasa's street signs are an eye sore, but the things above are gospels. Typical Western cultural arrogance refelcted by wester cultural imperialism.
Dude... ease up on Brockstapper... at least he's not saying China committed genocide in Tibet. He's saying China has committed mistakes and an amount atrocities in Tibet, which is mostly true. Focus on your true enemy, NewYorker. Oh wait... I think you're on his ignore list.
To the first part of your question, the goal of the North from the start was one country. The middle - I'm not convinced it is for the better of the region but of course it will be for the better of China. Religious freedom in that region isn't something that is going to happen. It will be religious freedom as long as the region steps to the beat of the party line. To the rest of your post: Amen to that...
