Reply With QuoteJesus... it has nothing to do with ''rights''.Originally Posted by seasch
Its a matter of objective conditions of the reality we live in.
At least you agree, that China has no right to occupy Tibet...
Jesus... it has nothing to do with ''rights''.
Its a matter of objective conditions of the reality we live in.
Not really, if I steal USD 50.00 from you, I have in "a matter of objective conditions of the reality we live in" USD 50.00 which belong to you. Or do you argue, there is no difference in your perception of me if I had worked for the money or stole it from you?
Perhaps you misunderstood my point. There are no such things as rights in international relations, rights are only a tool to be used to further ones interests. Relations between countries are formed on the basis of who has more leaverage over the other and who has the bigger c0ck. Justice and rights are only lovely wishes which have no place in discussing issues such as this particular one.
If you go by legal status, then Tibet is an official part of China and we have no business meddling in their internal affairs.
I think you are avoiding doing any research on what you espouse. And no, this is not about 2012.
Its more about the world in 1950. From a Chinese perspective, they were regaining a region that they had not focused on for the last 18 years, due to a more annoying group called the Japanese.
And people conveniently forget that Tibet before Chinese was state with slavery, with hundreds of thousands peasants enslaved by Lhasa religious government and monasteries.
Basically Chinese occupation should be praised as bringing totalitarian state to democracy
Not sure if I would go that that far. But what they have today is far better than the theocratic wasteland (think todays-Iran, with slaves) it used to be.Basically Chinese occupation should be praised as bringing totalitarian state to democracy
Why not? Just have a look at Libya example. Praised as being liberated from awful dictator Quaddafi, now every person who was against him had complete immunity from prosecution no matter what crimes one may committed, and people who dare to say good things about Quaddafi should be jailed by law.
The amount of propaganda is so high in modern world that it is possible to say anything about anybody, if it is "for good cause". I'm just speaking ironically, if we pretend that Tibet was occupied not by communist China, but by democratic India for example.
Words would be the same, I'm certain
Wow the stupidity...And people conveniently forget that Tibet before Chinese was state with slavery, with hundreds of thousands peasants enslaved by Lhasa religious government and monasteries.
Basically Chinese occupation should be praised as bringing totalitarian state to democracy
China today is no democracy, it is a totalitarian state. It was a totalitarian state when China invaded Tibet, so one totalitarian system replaced an other. At least the Free Tibet government of today, in exile, is democraticly elected.
Muahaha.
They elect themselves basically.
Tibet was historically seen part of China (the Lamas paid hommage to the Emperors), and from a chinese perspective they lost sovreignity over it due to the Chaos in the 20th century. It was not so much something communist but rather restoring chinese authority.
Chiang Kai Shek would have done the same, Taiwan considers Tibet to be a part of China as well (plus a lot more territory that even the PRC has given up like Vladivostok and outer Mongolia).
![Ozzy[NO]'s Avatar](image.php?s=8fc75a40ee07e414bffe8ba1ce403dd6&u=43474&dateline=1204317543 "Ozzy[NO]'s Avatar")
Yeah, if all countries in the world would just get their former territories back...
By whom? Surely not by people who actually live in Tibet. And exile governments usually are either corrupt as hell or are ideologically world apart from people who they pretend to represent. Not that the people who are ruling in Tibet were chosen democratically, but at least they actually live in Tibet.
You can't blame the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) that the Chinese are not allowing the occupied Tibetans to vote for their own government.
The people ruling Tibet, live in China, as the government of the communist China is very centralistic.
Tibet has both Tibetan and Chinese in Goverment, although most power lies by Chinese, Tibetan still are not totally symbolical and have some power, although its limited compared to the Secretary of Party actually ruling the Tibet.
And about China being very centralistic - China didnt had a working centralistic government in its whole thousands year old history.
Posting Permissions
