Originally Posted by Sexybeast

i dont know wut r u talking about korean dude...

You must repect others if you want to be apart of this forum. That statement was totally uncalled for. You have been warned

SGT Doody

we chinese like that to be changed to counter-offensive... thanks

No, I don’t feel shame about the word “invading”, but there is another meaning in Chinese about that word, which we usually use it to describe wrongfully attack another country without consequences. Maybe we like to choice our words more carefully to avoid misunderstanding. Just like the word “threat”; people can easily throwing it around here and on the media, it’s a spreading of unfriendly feeling. When you say WMD 100 times on CNN, public opinion will shift from 43% to 52% agree. It is not healthy when comes to foreign affair, it’s spreading of wrong impression. How would two countries improve relations with everyday pointing a figure and say “you are a threat”? And how many of you still automatically to link “communist” to “threat” in the first impression? Threat is something you would like to eliminate, not try to live with, like the terrorism is a threat, Nazi is a threat, unless you think China and U.S will have to have a war to solve their difference, why would you still using it to ship out the wrong impression? That isn’t helping to keep the peace at all is it?

In fact, I never thought that a country would ever do “volunteer work”, but the people do, greatfully, and I also take the Korean War as a self-defense, as the Vietnam War, as the indo-china war, which China only acted as saving ourselves, and it’s nothing wrong about that either; and I still think if China is not been invaded again, we do not post as a threat to anyone.

It is welcome if South korea wannar be a friend of China.If she do not think so, China do not fear either.

cmon, china is not a threat, though economically speaking china is taking alot of the labor away from countries like the united states.

china throught the ages haven't been expanding according ot land size, china just owns the mainland, 2 islands we like to call hainan and TAIWAn as well as some little islands such as the daiyu islands but thats it

how can a country that defends itself and does not invade others for imperial powers historically be a threat now.

Originally Posted by Sexybeast

but we got to admit china did invade vietnam, nothing shame about it, just like U.S invades Iraq, it is invasion but it does not mean it is bad

THANK YOU. That's what I was waiting to read. That wasn't too hard was it? Now you've made a valid point. Yes, China invaded Vietnam because it was invading Cambodia which was friendly with China. And there we go, some progress and we're closer to the truth. For China it was the right thing to do and gained much by maintaining order in the Southeast Asian communist block.

Originally Posted by paratroopa

how can a country that defends itself and does not invade others for imperial powers historically be a threat now.

Not true. You've tried Korea but I guess you guys felt co-existing with a vassal system was much better. Also the Vietnamese have a long history of you guys coming down to take land. The latest of these is the Spratleys. Oh right how did we forget about Tibet? Just why Tibet? That place wasn't even considered worth a dime back in the old days. And some border disputes with India... which wouldn't have happened really if you didn't grab Tibet in the first place. If you make a statement it's got to at least be remotely close to true. What we've seen so far is attempts and failures or attempts and half-successes.

My god, you just cant’ take the story as a whole didn’t you? Have you really read the article for the first part, like 300 lines? It gave you a idea to put your question "Why Tibet", but the answer is right there in the article.

“In the sixteenth century, it became a tributary state of the Mongol Empire”, that’s 600 years ago until nineteen century! that's about 500 years under China control. Then, the author mentioned “it was regarded as part of Tibet again.” but the author spent the next 200 lines to explain it! At that time, china was at the weakest point! Everyone was cutting China’s land, the English, as part of it, “viewed China as a passive or almost neutral element in its diplomacy” and they were trying to make Tibet a buffer with Russia! What English was doing at that time was grabbing land overseas, and the it was just part of plan which India really isn’t have anything to do with it! (but has everthing to do English people!)

“But in the first decade of the twentieth century, (yeah, even the chinese is under occupying and constent wars)as the Manchu dynasty ended, Chinese policy changed sharply in Tibet. Military presence was extended through central Tibet, and more modern institutions replaced the theocratic and ancient machinery of administration, which reducing the role of the Dalai Lama and the power of the monastic orders. By 1910, China had established effective power in Tibet, and the buffer for India to keep Russia away was lost.” why? Because Chinese people see Tibet as part of china still, the strength was to prevent English’s plan to separate Tibet! “In 1911-12, the Chinese power in Tibet suddenly collapsed. The British decided that it was in their strategic and political interest to exclude effective Chinese power from Tibet.”
how clear it was? China has power over Tibet, and English was doing the dirty work!

And then what really happened? Please, read it yourself: “In 1911-12, the Chinese power in Tibet suddenly collapsed. The British decided that it was in their strategic and political interest to exclude effective Chinese power from Tibet. In 1913, British convoked a conference at Simla which was aimed at making Tibet a buffer state between Britain and China, like the buffer effect to keep the Russians away. McMahon, the Foreign Secretary of the Indian government, led the British delegation to attend the Simla Conference. The British made open effort to make China accept a division of Tibet into Inner and Outer Tibet, as the agreement made by China and Russia in the case of Mongolia. China would have suzerainty over the whole of Tibet, but would have no administrative rights in Outer Tibet, thereby keeping back from the borders of India. The coercive diplomatic methods of Britain brought the weak and unwilling China to the conference. The Chinese representatives stressed the paramount importance of Tibet and resisted its zonal division, keenly aware of the British effort to separate Tibet or at least a great part of it from China. In April 1914, McMahon induced the Chinese official, Ivan Chen, to initiate a draft treaty, but the Chinese government repudiated the unauthorized compliance immediately. McMahon presented the draft to the British, which plainly cancelled its validity. In July, the conference was closed without Chinese signing the convention. London had instructed McMahon all along not to sign bilaterally with Tibetans if China refused, but McMahon proceeded to sign with the Tibetan representative while Ivan Chen was sent to the next room. Chen was not told of what was being signed and the declaration was kept as secret for many years. Although all this provided much fertile ground for international lawyers, the results of the conference were clear, and was accepted as such by the British Government at the time: the Simla Conference produced no agreement to which the government of China was a party. McMahon admitted this himself: "It is with great regret that I leave India without have secured the formal adherence of the Chinese Government to a Tripartite Agreement." China had emphatically and repeatedly denied that Tibet enjoyed sovereign identity and that China would not recognize any bilateral agreement between Tibet and Britain.”

How clear it is? was Tibet considered part of China during this time? and what was English trying to do? Was McMahon line ever been an official?

“A covert byproduct of the Simla Conference was the McMahon Line. It came as a result of the secret discussions, without the Chinese participation or knowledge, which took place in Delhi between the British and the Tibetans in February and March of 1914. These meetings breached not only the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1906, in which Britain was to "engage not to annex Tibetan territory," but also of the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907, in which Britain was to engage "not to enter into negotiations with Tibet except through the intermediary of the Chinese Government." The British moved the line progressively to the north of Tawang, which was still short of the goal proposed by the Chief of the General Staff to annex some two thousand square miles of Tibetan territory. McMahon Line essentially pushed the boundary northward about sixty miles, and moved it from the foothills to the crest line of the Assam Himalayas. In doing so, McMahon accomplished for British India what other officials attempted twenty years ago on the Afghan frontier, and brought the tribal no-man land under nominal British sovereignty. China forcefully repudiated the convention and denied the validity of the map, and the Tibetans in practice ignored the Line. In 1919, the British tried once more to induce China to resume the tripartite negotiations. After China refused, the British began providing military aid to Tibetans, including arms, ammunitions, and training in their use. When the British relinquished the Indian Empire in 1947, they started to translate the McMahon Line from the maps as the effective northwest boundary of India, despite that the Line appeared on its maps only ten years before. As the British departed, the new Indian government assured that they would complete their work: "If anything, they intended to pursue an even more forward policy than had the British."

Have you got that? That’s two generations of Chinese government on the Tibet issue, which I really isn’t see much about India government!!! And, have you seen the problem here? The McMahon Line, which made secretly by English! That’s continuing. The probelm would have just stopped here, when India discarded the English rule, but why continuing their "Owner's" idea?

“With their independence on August 14, 1947, the status of the boundaries of India changed from the pawns for the British to play with their imperial rivals, to become the cell walls of a new national identity. The Indian government followed closely the footsteps of the British colonists. In 1949, India sent troops during an uprising in Sikkim and brought the state as a protectorate. In the same year, India signed a treaty to take over Britain’s rights to guide Bhutan in foreign affairs. In 1950, India increased its control over Nepal and consolidated the "chain of protectorates" in the Himalayan states. Towards Tibet, the new Indian Government followed the British mission in encouraging Tibetan separatism. In its strategic and geopolitical thinking inherited from the British, the Indian Government continued the exclusion of China’s authority from Tibet and attempted to increase the Indian influence. The Tibetans hoped that the transfer of British power to the Indians would give them an opportunity to regain the territory that British took from them a century before. In October 1947, they formally requested India to return their territory from Ladakh to Assam, and including Sikkim. The Indians in return simply asked Tibet to continue the relationship on the basis of the previous British Government.”
Three countries, former tributes of China, were gone, and who did it? India! that's called invation! Keep following their “Owner’s will, to claim a part of land that has nothing to do with their past history, get it?

“The Indian plan to continue with British policy was met with major challenges. The absence of the British power and emergence of a strong central authority with the establishment of the Communist China reversed the power balance.”

I don’t think anyone could discard 600 years of China’s control over Tibet, when every ganerations of chinese linked their life with Tibet for 600 years. Although the Dalai Lama feared that he could lose it all, the power, slaves, palaces, to the Chinese communist government, and become an equal man. Even feared the life could be taken by the former slaves’ class people. the Tibet before 1949 was not a place you want to live in, or a human want to live in, it's still slavery rules and a underdeveloped land. Anyway, The India's standing on this issue was so weak to make such claim, a government on exile in their country not means they have to rights to have Tibet, even those exile Tibetan will not support your claim! basicly, india will make that move to try to invade Tibet no matter chinese was there or not, don't you see all other three countries were gone? Today, Even Dalai Lama is giving up his separation view, and trying to have a talk with the chinese government so that he could return when he still can, and he never said that Tibet should be India’s! China communist government, like any Chinese governments in the past, has ever rights to have Tibet back as part of the Chinese territory when we lost it to those invading countries. Simple as that! Tibet was never been, or ever will be having anything to do with India, in history, in percent, and in the further!

I hope you still reading it. I really can’t think why you think things this way, and start attack especially when you don’t really know anything about this issue, or even what others really talking about. You can’t just cut other’s statement and hope it could be used to against then back. a fight isn’t worth anything but listening do. Why do we have to discuss something with that sense of anger? So peace, alright?

That crap is way too long. The last time I checked I graduated from university.

It's history, not crap! The history is long, but you can't ignore it and just take the part you want.

i take it as you takes your worng idea back, and if you can't take things seriously, i can't really considers your point is as serious point.

how can you argue with me when you not even read my thought.

The problem with making any sort of blanket statement that Tibet was China's by rights is this: They were their own nation or kingdom for a VERY long time. A tiny portion of it was controlled through most of the Tang Dynasty, but that was a move for vengence against ancient Tibet (who had invaded ancient China).

The Qing had all of Tibet. This is the basis of the PRC's claim of ownership over Tibet. The contrary part of this is that borders never carried over from one dynasty to the next. For all intents and purposes, the People's Republic of China is a new dynasty. Why is a new dynasty trying to make a basis of territorial claims that has never been done previously?

Saying that "we invaded and took Tibet because we could" is more accurate. That was how every other dynasty did it. Why bother with saying that you have a right to it all?