EU lifts Arm embargo to CHina in 6 month - Page 8




 
--
Boots
 
January 19th, 2005  
k19
 
My response really was to this statement and not necessary how every Chinese dynasties achieve their influence and control on the Tibet.

“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.”

1, I want to show the cause of this dispute----the Mc Mahon line, and the really trouble maker, the English, not Indians, not the China’s invasion of Tibet, without China’s control over the Tibet, it would still be invaded and a possible China-India face off at a different place not even mention that would be almost at the heart of our nation geographically.
2, which, at least, China maintained close tie with Tibet for ages, economically, politically and militarily but India did not, however India chose to carry on English’s policy over the region, a backdoor draft, and based on that, to start the border dispute with China, not the other way around.
3, India’s military aggression at the region was the threat, not China regaining control of Tibet, and lead to a war at that reason.
4, Tibet was an important place, and is an important place to our nation’s security, and a strategically curial component.

Although my intension was to explain above points, I do have strong sense regarding on traditional territory ideology, there is nothing wrong about it. Why would you give up the territory after the fall of a generation of government, and failed to maintain the traditional territory, especially with trucks of record of same thing happens throughout your history, could lead to public far cry, mistrust of the ruling governments and humiliation. Most of western countries do not have such experience, winning or losing lands overseas as colonial exchange do not have the same effect.

I agree about the “rights” issue that I used in the article, I admit it isn’t quite a right word to use; however, I don’t have any regret over the Tibet issue on our government’s actions. In fact, it’s very common and people should not make a big deal out of it.
January 20th, 2005  
Sexybeast
 
well...if china has to give tibet back...i bet U.S and Canada has to give their lands back to indian ppl then....isn't the same?

thanks korean buddy for consolidating my points, china did invade vietnam, PRC guys dont have to feel ashamed of it, that was true and u guys captured lots of lands, couple of islands from vietnam..

i think we really should stop arguing the history stuff....PRC guys and Godofthunder will wrtie a 2 page long post (makes me does not want to read it)...

one thing i think everyone knows by heart is that...lands always belong to the winners...
rome took away lands from babarians....white ppl took away lands from indians...chinese took away from tibetians...it just goes on and on
January 20th, 2005  
Chinaman
 
hey hey, we did good in tibet, we rid the barbarian way of life and gave them a new society.

lol, anyways, military speaking if hte chiense did not take tibet india sure will
--
Boots
January 20th, 2005  
Sexybeast
 
well..from wut i ve known, china abolished slavery in tibet..
January 20th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
The reason why Tibet comes up is because that pretty much goes against everything you guys claim to be true about China. About not invading unless it's for self defense purposes mostly and that you don't go in there and permanently take over the land.
Tibet is what makes you wrong.
The thing about the US and the Indian tribes is somewhat unique because if you think about it, the US in the beginning too was a fledging little tribe of outsiders trying to make a living. Basically this led to competition for the land and the Indians eventually lost. But yeah, this history too is rather dark. The only redeeming thing here is that it was a long time ago.
Tibet however, is rather recent history and it wasn't about two tribes vying for land. Rather it was an already established country of the People's Republic of China beating the crap out of a country that hadn't launched some silly attack since a previous dynasty!
January 20th, 2005  
Sexybeast
 
lol....British guys came to fur trade and then kicked indians out of there...that is wut happened buddy...

u r just scrapping some reasons to make white ppl look good as they commited same crime as china did
January 20th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sexybeast
lol....British guys came to fur trade and then kicked indians out of there...that is what happened buddy...

u r just scrapping some reasons to make white ppl look good as they commited same crime as china did
A lot of things happened dude. Actually the fur traders were probably more friendly towards the Indians than the established government which wanted to have more land and secure a link with California. The fur trading guys were in no position to kick out entire tribes of Indians.
January 20th, 2005  
Sexybeast
 
fur trade was good i believe....but those fur traders brought small pox to indians (if u learn social study 9 in canda) and worse, those ppl sell the items of dead indian and disease spread even further, lots of indians get killed by that small pox and villeges exsited for thousands of years disappeared....

fur traders also hunted bufflos....for furs....and bufflos are major food source for Indians....Indians in canada mostly didn't now how to farm and the disapparence of bafflos starved lots of them to death


and U.S did worst on kicking out indians and slaughter them....although they suffered some caulcauties too....Custer u heard right? but still....indians died by tens of thousands and their lands are taken away..
January 20th, 2005  
k19
 
So, if you really think the chinese invation of Tibet triggered the dispute with india, which happened 12 years after the liberation of Tibet, what makes you think the India action in 1962 is right, after waited 10 years? because they were against China? you just about against everything that China do, and that's fundamentally your point.

Not even many South Koreans had the guts to have a comfortable "vision" to welcome a Korean -Japan coalition. Do you know the Japanese political party has just showed their support again to the pre-minister, support him to go warship the criminals once again this year in 18th Jan 2005, to pay tribute to war criminals like executed wartime Prime Minister General Hideki Tojo and 13 other class-A war criminals. And thousands more class-B! By searching though the recent history. That's really wrong!!!
January 20th, 2005  
Chinaman
 
um... redneck 13 is quite weird, ive been in korea and many people liked the chinese and understood why china came to the help of north kroea. all the same they find this topic very sensative. many were also nationlstic and felt that americans are indeed imperialists and they should not be positioning troops in south korea.

i guess hes just a radical who grew up in the united states or soemthing