Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & World News' started by N8 v2.0, Apr 9, 2008.
Please register to disable this ad.
The question should not be whether they want the Dalai Lama back, the question should be whether the Chinese are oppressing the Tibetans. We should not see them as having to choose between the two.
An oppressive regime is an oppressive regime regardless of what went before it, no?
I think the question is... what would happen to Tibet if they were "freed". Many seem to think they'd slide back into their previous state, including the average folks of that country.
And i put that in quotes cuz Tibet is part of China and China has no obligation to release the land. They should treat the citizens with humanity, but that's a different issue than "free Tibet".
Wait, are we in favour of oppressive, totalitarian regimes that have no respect for human rights, or are we against them?
Just checking; I've been away a while. Need to work out which way the wind's blowing before i nail my colours to the mast, etc.
re-read my post... two seperate issues tantamount to USA and Indians.
Well, I'm not clear what your point was, that people freed from oppression may not establish a utopian society? That's certainly true and proven many times over, but is that a reason to remain silent about their oppression?
As regards whether Tibet is part of China, clearly it is at present but it has not always been so and it disputed whether it should be now.
Should people care that Tibetan peoples' human rights are being transgressed?
I think the US should invade Tibet and take that land in the name of freedom and democracy....isn't that our goal? To spread democracy? We could free them from the Commies
Are you being dense on purpose? AGAIN, the people are afraid of liberation. That's their opinion, not mine.
Wasn't it part of China in the 1800s before they rebelled and then China took it back?
Anyone who cares about them enough to make an impact should first focus their efforts on Africa.
no free oil, no care!
Except the Chinese have yet to commit mass genocide on the Tibetans to squelch all opposition.
The Chinese government has as much claim on Tibetan lands as the British do on Indian ones, it's time to let it go before the above happens.
There are many monarchies still around today, and we do not stop them.
Tibet was forcefully taken, and lack any way to throw off the Chinese.
seems like it was a f'ed up place to start with and communism is a small step up.
So was Poland.
I thought the point was no religious freedom and monks protesting. You mean the dala lama utilized the caste system and now the moaist gov't is going to let people be free??
A friend of mine is over there and claims this about NEpal, but earlier in the same LONG email she says free Tibet. I think it would take a political science class to understand the situation:
Freedom by the end of tank barrel?
Do you think control by the most repressive country on the UN Security Council is a good thing?
I appreciate your link to Parenti's article. I found it informative.
But one thing I hate about discussing any political matter with you N 8 is your lack of commitment. When your biggest concern is what kind of goblet goes with the chardonnay you drink, it is easy to make comments about any serious political topic.
Maybe if you get recalled to Iraq, and then you might gain some insight into your political arguments.
Sorry, which repressive country is that? I forget...
Ah, insults. Nice. Perhaps they have little experience of freedom, is that any reason to deny it to them?
How far do you want to go back? Is it not enough that they suffer under the Chinese rule?
Isn't that a bit of a cop-out? Sure there are many issues in Africa that need addressing, as there are in many other places, but that's not a reason to ignore Tibet, is it?
Furthermore, n8, Parenti's article concluded with comments that indicate his opinion is that continued Chinese rule is not a good thing. He did also rather skim over the past of Chinese rule, and at one point appears to imply that the Kuomintang were communist (which they were not). So a reasonable article, but by no means comprehensive or totally accurate.
Until China stops the forced abortions, slave labor camps, and oppression to it's citizens, (all of them, not just tibetans) China should not be traded with, or even dealt with. Boycott China, & the Olympics.
They aren't even going to be close to finished with the facilities, so it's going to be a joke anyway..
It's easily taxed, you may need to recalibrate.
I'm going have to get an industrial model....
not an insult, a question as you can't seem to grasp the issue... how about Tibet votes on it and we go from there?
How far? how about today? Tibet belongs to China, period.
Somebody please think of the children.
I saw a movie about Tibet once. As far as I can tell, there's only one child in Tibet, but he was definitely getting seriously messed with. Some dude kept trying to get him to eat blood, but Eddie Murphy saved him.
That kid was creepy.... he brought dead birds back to life. I don't need flying pet cemetery.
Iiii want the kniiiiiiife........pleeeeeeeeease
I take it that's not a serious suggestion?
So imperialism is OK again? Should we not have kicked Saddam out of Kuwait?
The point of voting isn't that China would listen, but rather that the world would. Right now, all we have is average Tibetians being interviewed saying the old way was worse, implying that China is at least a better owner.
Why are you being dense? Are you trolling? China and Kuwait aren't valid comparisons.
They are comparable in that the occupying/controlling state took control forcibly and are/were unlikely to leave any other way.
As for the vote, how exactly would you persuade the Chinese (who are imprisoning & beating people who write articles criticising regime) to allow a free vote on whether they should be there?
It's rich to accuse me of being dense and then be obtuse yourself.
Look, the bottomline is that China ruled Tibet for hundreds of years, then China had a civil war and Tibet tried to break away, subsequently failed. Tibet IS part of China, just like North Dakota is part of the USA.
Tibet should not be "free" any more than Native-Americans.
Now, the OTHER issue is human rights and yes, that should be afford everyone on the planet. Not just Tibet, but all of China.
Is that less obtuse for you?
My opinion on the two issues:
- Tibet should not be free.
- China should treat people better.
Chandler Jarrell: Only a man whose heart is pure can wield the knife, and only a man whose ass is narrow can get down these steps. And if mine's is such an ass, then I shall have it.
Ah....back before Eddie went all koo koo bananas......
o rly? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet
Thanks for the link n8.
The whole internet searching thing has me confused.
Where's the smiley blowing a kiss when you need it?
did you have a point with the link there n8?
uh perhaps it was this:
doesn't sound so much like China ruled Tibet for hundreds of years as much as a few decades.
The Salvador Dali Llama was a Governor or Mayor, probably a city council man.