India, China seek to resolve boundary dispute - Page 6




 
--
Boots
 
April 24th, 2005  
MadeInChina
 
lol common knowledge, if you would call or use it, is mostly stereotypical

i dont think indian sources are very accurate, especially on a topic of china

fine, the rise of the waking dragon.. hapy?

lol, again, if you feel religion is what really matters in political boundaries, then be welcomed to think that way, as most people dont

it doesnt mean poland is france, or vise versa, religion is important but it shouldnt bother with border disputes



Quote:
to Chinese politically lording over Tibet or its people... quite the opposite, and for the Chinese to claim this as reason for its 'historic' ownership of Tibet is the height of arrogance..
yet here you are claiming tibet as indian, quite contridictory to the basic principles you have enlightened us here.

ok, im gonna have to correct some of you here, its xizhang, not tibet
April 24th, 2005  
Xion
 

Topic: Awesome Example !!!


rajkhalsa wrote:

An analogy: Your neighbor steals your lawnmower when you were away on vacation. You come back, realize its stolen and now are in a position to take it back. However, he then claims the shovel and snowblower in your posession that he is no position to take.

Months go by, and you see your neighbor using your lawnmower. Finally, in a gesture of "goodwill" he says he'll stop claiming your snowblower and shovel if you stop claiming the mower he stole.

Voila, his theivery is exchanged for his claims

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

godofthunder9010, rajkhalsa gave that excellent example!!....china is the neighbor in that example
aksai chin = india's lawnmower
arunachal pradesh = india's snowblower and shovel

India is a soft state, india's political leadership is very weak, Indian political leaders are 'Gandhian', which means when someone slaps them on one cheek they ask him to slap them on the other, since our independence we have been slapped quite a few hundred times by our neighbours
April 24th, 2005  
rajkhalsa
 
Sterotypical? Facts are stereotypical? Stop evading. What have I posted that is incorrect or untrue in any way?

If you have such a problem with what I've said, then it would be easy to say what's wrong. And no, I don't need "Indian sources" to prove any of these points.


I never said religion makes political boundaries. You claim ethnicity does, and I made an analogy that uses both religion/culture and ethnicity to refute it.

Political boundaries, in the rule of international law and custom, are determined by bilaterial treaties between independant nations. This is what makes Tibet legally independant. Just because India accepted China's invasion after the fact, does not retroactively support Chinese legal basis for the invasion.

And if you seriously think I'm advocating that India 'owns' Tibet, then you have completely missed the point of both my and godofthunder's posts here. I'm using Chinese-gov't logic and applying it exactly as it were to India and Tibet, showing that, if we were to use this misguided logic, India would have a better "historic" claim to Tibet than China.

My point is showing just how inane and unfounded China's claims to Tibet are. Tibet belongs to Tibetans. Even if India were to use Chinese logic and claim Tibet, India would still claim Tibet for Tibetans!


China conquered it and brutally suppresed its people, but it doesn't make it legally, morally or politically right, no matter what revisionist history is cooked up to support it.
--
Boots
April 24th, 2005  
MadeInChina
 
Quote:
China conquered it and brutally suppresed its people, but it doesn't make it legally, morally or politically right, no matter what revisionist history is cooked up to support it.
i dont thinks so, airports?? highways??? food??? we are giving them more than receieved

Quote:
My point is showing just how inane and unfounded China's claims to Tibet are. Tibet belongs to Tibetans. Even if India were to use Chinese logic and claim Tibet, India would still claim Tibet for Tibetans!
let me remind you xizhang is a automous region, a region of minorities controlling themselves, it applies to inner monogolia, and other places, with special privages such as more then 1 child and the freedom to pratice religion

however you want to claim tibet as a independent slavery-driven nation, and how wrong it was for china to take over after kmt, then go on and express it.

the truth is tibet faired for the better alot more since it was a chinese automous region, new roads, new access, industry, money, wealth, freedom for slaves and so much more.

lol, without much effort we would all know if china didnt make clear of the border india will ruthlessly take over tibet. without china there wouldnt be roads, airports, so much more
April 25th, 2005  
Boobies
 
 

Topic: Oooops...


MadeInChina, I think your argument is opening up more cans of worms. Developing an area and liberating the area from slavery are not very good arguments for the ownership of that region.

In retrospect, you need to use historical data instead of political benefits to prove your point. Furthermore, if India took over XiZhang (Tibet), then it would be India's issue. You can't use India's possible intents to justify the ownership of XiZhang (Tibet).
April 25th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
The underlying thing is probably to sort out what basis to use for claims to territories. An in depth study of Tibet and its history would lead one to believe that it should be independent (unless you're Chinese, for some reason). Yet the fact remains that Tibet is not independent. It was invaded and annexed by China, so its part of China. That is no more basis for Tibetan = Chinese than the annexation of Texas makes all Mexicans = Americans ... simply because a lot of Mexicans lived there.

MadeInChina, when did China EVER control territory anywhere near Lake Baikal??? Are you counting the Mongols/Yuan Dynasty? True that they did control that territory because it was part of their native lands. Ghengis Khan's tribe was located very close to Baikal in fact. But how can it be valid to count the Yuan Dynasty as any sort of basis for borders? They conquered China, not the other way around. The Han Chinese liked them so well, that they threw the bastards out the first chance they got.

Interestingly, nobody has found any information about the basis of the claim by China on NP. Shall we assume that it is a baseless claim then?
April 25th, 2005  
MadeInChina
 
the manchu and mongolia alike have controlled areas around lake balkal for a long time, it was one of their favorite hunting grounds

however when russia expended they absorbed some of these areas, as they got stronger, the qing dynasty realized the polar bear from the north's agression


the region around lake balkal is also where genghis khan was born, it is known as a foreested hunting grounds, and a training area for mongol calvarymen
April 26th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadeInChina
the manchu and mongolia alike have controlled areas around lake balkal for a long time, it was one of their favorite hunting grounds

however when russia expended they absorbed some of these areas, as they got stronger, the qing dynasty realized the polar bear from the north's agression


the region around lake balkal is also where genghis khan was born, it is known as a foreested hunting grounds, and a training area for mongol calvarymen
I'm pretty familiar with all of that except one thing. I know that the Manchu are essentially the natural successor to the Mongols and largely come from the same ethnic group.

What are the dates of Qing Dynasty control of Baikal and adjoining territories? I'd be intereseted to read up on how that all played out with the Russian Empire, etc.
April 26th, 2005  
MadeInChina
 
well, see the thign is there was never really a border, since north of china was pretty much a harsh climated area hard to live in, most of the areas held by china were less dense settlement of hunters and loggers of sorts

the territory held up to that point was not really defined, it was cloudy in terms of defination