As I stated earlier the Dalai Lama has said that doesn't want to see a return to the old ways and that they were wrong. You and Canoner and others continue to imply that it is a choice of what they have now versus pre-1950 life in Tibet. It isn't that all but instead allowing the Tibetans now to have self-determination. Its unlikely they will chose to go back to pre-1950 or stay with the status quo but would probably choose something different likely along the lines of something like Hong Kong where the PRC maintains overally control over borders and international affairs but they control local governance. If you read my last response to Canoner for the US to be supporting the Dalai Lama as an instrument to overthrow the PRC it is a very poor choice as the Dalai Lama continually discouraged armed revolt and is even willing to accept PRC sovereignity. Anyway what you are saying is might makes right so the PRC is justified in ruling due to pure power. I would hope that the Chinese as a people who were brutalized by foreign powers would think differently. What you're saying here is that the PRC is no better than other imperialistic powers and admitting to that the PRC is an occupying power. The problem here is that the PRC is trapped into an old way of thinking regarding what they consider how to deal with perceived external threats. In this day and age and as a nuclear power territory is less important than diplomatic leverage. The US, Britain and other countries will never invade the PRC as that would mean nuclear anhilation. That doesn't mean that there won't be all sorts of diplomatic disagreements. The PRC by negotiating with the Dalai Lama agreeing to a referendum on autonomy in Tibet will gain a huge diplomatic advantage in regard to arguments on everything from human rights to trade over other powers while still holdling onto territory. The US will never be able to lecture the PRC again or move for UN Resolutions against the PRC as the PRC can always point to how its enlightened policy on granting the Tibet autonomy. In short accessing to the Dalai Lama's offer is a long term pragmatic winner for the PRC. That they continue to reject speaks far more about what I would call paranoia on the part of the PRC and its supporters than pragmatism. Totally agree and it would help cross cultural relations if Westerners learned more about Chinese history and vice versa. Understood and I don't think you're being dogmatic about anything. That's not an easy question to answer. The popularity of Tibetan Buddhism has to do with a few things. One is the Dalai Lama who has written widely and in a manner that is easy to understand. Further he has simplified Tibetan Buddhism to downplay many of the more esoteric elements of it. Tibet as a largely isolated religious enclaved preserved many of the more esoteric forms, Vajrayana, and also incorporated many of the msytical elements of the prior Tibetan shamanistic religion. These have also made Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism seem more exotic than some of the other forms of Buddhism. Either way though Tibetan Buddhism still emphasizes peace and compassion as much as other Buddhism. Tibetan history is bloody and there have been violence committed by those seeking to suppress Buddhists and by Buddhists towards others but the ideals of Tibetan Buddhism are the same as other denominations of Buddhism.
As I mentioned before, I consider Dalai Lama full of charisma, as a person. However, he's not alone. He represents a politically motivated interest group, which consists of former ruling members in Tibet. I don't think PRC considered Dalai Lama a legitimate candidate to negotiate with, and strike a deal FOR TIBETANS. I am only talking about FEASIBILITY and REALITY here. No government will negotiate with an exile group to discuss the fate of people, while in power. I don't think PRC is interested whether Dalai Lama is EVEN willing to accept PRC sovereignity. I believe Dalai Lama meant what he said about discouraging armed revolt, but once he's in power, he has to answer to his supporters and pay back for those support. I know you are quite familiar with Chinese history. You might know about the first Emperor in Ming Dynasty, who finished the civil war, but was forced to wear the "Royal Robe" and made an Emperor by his generals. He rewarded them very well after that; however, they wanted more and more. Finally, he invited them to a feast and disappeared, and bombed the whole restaurant. Since then, there was NOT a single emperor in Ming Dynasty could even remotedly be called good to the people. It doesn't matter what Dalai's intention is now, nobody knows what will happen in the future. That's why I only believe in good systems, but never believe in good politicians. I firmly believe that there will be free election in China in the future. However, I also believe that China will have free election before the CCP government will talk to Dalai Lama about his returning to power, in any form. Again, as I mentioned before, I would love to see that Dalai form a political party and participate that election in the future. The main part of China didn't become a whole country, until 2000+ years ago. People have been fighting over territories since they could fight. The current Chinese territory is much smaller than the one in Yuan Dynasty, or even Qing Dynasty, but still bigger than the Qin Dynasty or even before where there was no central Chinese government. For every single country in the world, not a single one occupies the same territory as 1000 years ago, or even 100 years ago. Some ended up more land, some less; however, every single force is an occupying force according to your definition. If someone claims that 100 years is too long, too late and too bad for those ones getting the short end of the bargain. OK, let's then talk about 50, 60 years ago. According to history, you could consider the whole Israel was an occupying force. After the split of India and Pakistan (in 1947?), one has to be called an occupying force, according to the same occupation definition. Is any of those right? I don't think so. But according to the current international law, they are all recognized, therefore justified. If you want me to admit that PRC is an occupying power, I can do that, and I admit that PRC is an occupying power in every single inch of that 9,600,000 square kilometers, because it was founded only in 1949, not since God created men. Personally, I don't think the perceived external threats is some paranoia as you would like to believe. At least, Pentagon disagrees with you. They release and go through exercise projecting military conflicts with China every single year. The adminstration and defense department emphasizes Chinese threat every now and than. Polls showing there is still a great percentage of Americans considering China the biggest threat or potential enemy. It would be abnormal, if Chinese government don't consider that stance a serious potential threat. Going to war with US is never China's interest, and it wasn't even in China's interest 55 years ago. But to expect China not to get themselves ready after what have happened since 1840, is just not realistic. There is no eternal enemy nor eternal friend in politics, especially in international affairs. I don't think any hostile posing helps any country in general, it's just used for governments to serve domastic audience, just like every single country. To my understanding, the most attracting point of Buddhism is that, every one can become a Budda, if one purifies and exercises onself enough. It's the process itself makes one a Budda. There is not an all-mighty God, but rather only many more powerful, more spiritually pure Buddas. It's totally different than the Tibetan version. Not only are there Living Gods (like Dalai Lama or Panchen Lama) in Tibetan Buddhism, but also one has to somehow go through those Lamas to get close to the high beings. I might be ignorant in that regards, but aren't they doing similar things as Catholics, only in a more extreme way?
No offense, real... but we can't even get Iraq right so I can assure you that our country will not be invading China anytime soon. I do view it as paranoia to even think that is a remote possibility.
No offense taken. But, your suggestion will be what? Every single country should just dissolve army before US finishes in Iraq? OK, let's say US is not a threat to China, all the hostile posing is, just posing. What about Russia? After all, they just got 1,500,000 square kilometers from Chinese over the years. What about Japan? They only killed 10-40 million Chinese 60 years ago, according to different sources. They only asked for Silver from China worth 5 times of whole Japanese GDP at the time, 150 years ago. It's not about seeing anyone as enemy, but rather being ready for any potential threats. Any threat is real, history has proven that, so far. But, you are entitled to your opinion.
I can see maintaining and building an army to protect against potential threats. I can't see the United States invading China. At least not in the next 100 years or so... Do you honestly believe that is even a remote possibility? Japan? They asked for a bunch of silver 150 years ago and you think they are going to invade now? Russia? They have troubles of their own and will for a while - and invading China isn't going to cure those ills. Anyways, build up the army. You never know who might be a rappin' and a tappin' at your door... And the logic that my suggestion is "Every single country should just dissolve army before US finishes in Iraq" escapes me. I have no idea where you got that one. for the record, history has proven that most threats are imagined. Cheers, Brock
Brock, he is paranoid. China is so big and powerful and yet they are crying about Japan and Russia. I mean, China has so many nukes. And of course, they have to worry about an invasion from Taiwan and the Dalai Lama! It's so strange - how these guys are so insecure and victimized...by what? The boxer rebellion?
I didn't talk about invasion, did I? I don't think a full scale invasion is possible at this stage. However, it doesn't mean there will not be military conflicts. You need a powerful army to sustain any threat, and prevent conflicts. You didn't say that sentense, but I did. But I don't understand what your complaint was, that China being paranoia to be ready for a military conflict or potential threat. What was your complaint and what was your suggestion? Your complaint was about the army? Then the only suggestion will be dissolving that army, am I right? If you didn't complain about PLA, then what's the fuss about being ready for any threat? You mean they shouldn't even entertain that idea? Despite a)US calling out Chinese threat b) defense department releasing reports about potential Chinese threat every year c) US/Japan, and US/Korea joint military exercise in fornt of China, you are telling China that they are paranoia there isn't even remotely any threat from US? I don't get it. US administration consideres China a potential threat, so does defense department, so does a certain percentage of general public. But you are complaining that China is entertaining the idea that US might be a threat to Chinese? Forgive me if I can't comprehend your logic behind that. Therefore my question was, what is your suggestion? As for Russia and Japan, I never said they are invading China now, and I never said they plan to invade China in the future. I only sited, that history proved that Russia and Japan being a threat happened before, no one can be sure that it won't happen again in the future. I guess you have some problem with that idea. That's ok. However, I just think Chinese government might want a little more to be sure, than your personal assurance.
Actually following your logic, US needs the army even less than Chinese or anyone else does. Canadians and Mexicans aren't gonna invade USA. If Russia isn't a threat to China, it is even less a threat to US. BTW, Japanese still spend more on military than chinese, so your preaching should go to Japanese first, then then to the congressmen in DC. A lot of things can happen, that is why every country wants an army. You think the Brits weren't seemingly invincible? You think Japanese weren't walking over all countries in Asian 65 years ago? Things change, and change fast. It'd be stupid not to be prepared for the worst. The worst often happens to those who aren't prepared. That is why every country has to do what it thinks needed to be prepared.
I think I already agreed to the fact that a country needs to protect itself and be prepared to do so. What I didn't agree with was the unfounded paranoia that promotes the thought that the United States (and Japan, Russia, Etc.) are out to get China. That was what was presented. That the US defense department and the heads of state view China as a threat and are prepared to deal with that threat. Bull****. I was asked by Real what I suggest doing about it... I suggest not losing any sleep. Regards, Brock
You know when the new treasury secretary Paulson make the comments of "we want you to succeed" before his visit to China, it make headline news on every major newspaper. Why? Because it is new. The fact is US and China are equally paranoid. There are always hawks in Pentagon that hype up the threat from china.
even if the U.S. didn't have to worry about all those nukes China has, why on earth would we ever think about invading one of our biggest trading partners? That would be economic suicide. It might stall our ability to do nearly a 100 tasks. Half of what we used seems to be made in China. So...the U.S. doesn't try to contain China anymore then Jamaica ok? I mean, the U.S. doesn't like how China treats Tibet, but we still recognize Tibet as part of China! We don't like how China intimidates Taiwan...but we still recognize China, not Taiwan, as China. So where is Americans practicism any kind of imperialism upon China? Because we want China to be a democracy? We want everyone to be a democracy! We don't like how the Chinese gov't suppresses thoughts an ideas....and how China's media manipulates everyone to think we're against you....when we're not. We don't like repression. China competes with the U.S. - not the other way around. do you get it?
Oh come on, I think China overreacts at times but its not entirely baseless. Let's see, we have the largest naval deployment outside of the US stationed in Japan and patrolling the South China Sea. We have given strategic defense and nuclear guarantees to everyone of China's neighbors (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Phillippines, Indonesia, etc..) We currently fund Indonesian defense training with US trainers for the purpose of maintaining Indonesia's "strategic position" as the holders of the Strait of Malaca which is a key waterway that the US wants unlimited access to. We have started defense and joint-combat training with India in recent years and we have given strategic aid in order to help ensure American influence in the region. This has less to do with containment and more to do with influencing the region. China has made it clear that it wants a sphere of influence, namely an area that it can assert itself as the regional hegemon, and naturally as the world's only remaining superpower, the US has made it clear that it wants to maintain influence in East and South Asia. We don't give a hoot what Jamaica does and the state and defense department certainly don't release national defense estimates on Jamaican weapons capacity, proliferation and foreign policy. Well, we certainly do that regularly with China. The US has a strange relationship with China. We rely heavily on them economically but we don't want them to become a regional influence and possibly promote interests that are in conflict with our own so the US, for years, has strategically asserted itself in Asia. The base in Okinawa doesn't even really serve that much of a purpose anymore. Its purely a point of power projection in East Asia and an area of rapid response for Taiwan or North Korea. So yes, China does overreact and may even be slightly paranoid, but it is not without reason.
Sure - but that presence is more to prevent China from bullying our allies then it is anything against China. We're only trying to prevent aggressive stances from China - and preventing china from making territorial claims against it's neighbors and unilaterially taking land (as it did in Tibet). Why should China be so paranoid - and it's more then "slight"
Like I said, a full scale invasion is not possible at this stage, but regional military conflict is probable. Why? You can google and read some of the reports from Pentagon, you can also watch some TV - I mean American TV and listen to some of the speaks from the Administration. They view China as a trading partner, competitor, and potential threat. I trust US official position more than your shouting on a message board. You are saying since US recognizes one of the five permenant UN members, so China is not allowed to entertain the idea that US could be a potential threat, despite yearly confirmed US official position that China is a potential threat? Didn't you jump up and down complain that Chinese didn't ask Tibetans before they got rid of slavery in Tibet? So, if US wants China to be a democracy, with US projected version and projected result, China should just comply? That if is a big if, because we all saw what happened in Lebanon and Palastine about wanting everyone to be a democracy. So China competing with US is a taboo now? US didn't compete with China? China competed with US so hard, that they insisted US to send army cross the half world and station in front of China, and release reports on how China could be a threat and how to maintain China? Sorry, I don't. Do you get it?
How paranoid is China? China didn't declare US as threat in annual report of any department. China didn't hold joint military exercise with any country, in front of US, preparing for US aggression. Or really it's the US, who's utterly paranoid? Or better to say, US government and defense contractors aren't paranoid, but using that "Chinese threat" tactical to gain support from a bunch of ignorant and paranoid people, including yourself? Speaking of "preventing China from bullying allies", you are very reliable in finish your daily joke. As your past record proved, you are terrible in math, know nothing about statistics, very flawed in simple logic, and extremely poor in history knowledge. Before my meeting, I still got a few minutes. Let me give you a history lesson. US stationed army in Japan after WWII, when China was still an official ally of US and a nationalist controlled country, an official democratical country under a Christian leader. Right after bloody WWII, during which period, Japan killed 30 million Chinese, and you are cliaming that US was there to prevent China bullying Japan? US army entered Korea, before Chinese army were sent into that country. After fire-seizing, Chinese army retreated FULLY from North Korea, and US army has stayed in South Korea since then. In Phillippines and Indonesia, US stationed army after WWII again, while China suffered tramendous lost. What exact bullying were you talking about? English is not my mother tongue, but I guess YOU should be able to tell the difference between "before" and "after". Or, I still expect too much from you? Wake me up, when you are ready to discuss and debate with some facts, instead of all your wishful thinking or own paranoid intepretation. Before you can do that, I would suggest you to drop that "we" against "you people" pose, you are doing a disservice to Americans.
Sure - there are a few hawks in government who see China as a threat - but most people here don't. The U.S. military presence in the far east is more to serve as a deterrent and to help our allies feel protected against Chinese regional bullying. That's all. China and the U.S. would never get into a conflict. Even a few years ago when China attacked and brought down a U.S. AWAC plane, the incident was quickly swept under the rug by the U.S. as it didn't want to have bad relations with China. Had we attack a Chinese vessal, you guys would have cried about it for a 100 years. We don't see CHina as a military threat. We do see China as a major human rights violator and that's what scares us. We have morals and values we ascribe to after all. As the lone superpower, we are somewhat responsible for paying attention to what happens in Tibet, Rawanda, the Balkans, Africa as a whole, and other places. This isn't about the U.S. gov't per se either - it's about all America. We do have that ideal of freedom for all...so it's very distasteful to see repression - by us or anyone else.
