Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
WARmachine88 said:
You as a Canadian are just as free a Cuban!! You're a slave!!
Tiny Tibet feels squeeze from giant neighbors
You as a Canadian are just as free a Cuban!! You're a slave!!
WARmachine88
Banned
Italian Guy said:
of course I am, from Jan 1st to June 30st, all i work for is to pay taxes!!!
oh I am so free!!!
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
WARmachine88 said:
#1 You won't be jailed for saying this
#2 You can leave your country anytime.
WARmachine88
Banned
40% of individual request for government information (totally legal under the law) are rejected by the government.
you will be shocked to see some recent cases about how people are wrongfully jailed for more than 20 years (live in canada and you will know).
you see, just a couple days ago, American citizens (richest nation on earth) are left starving for 5 days with no one rescuing them, are they better than people in north korea in those 5 days?? at least North korean's toliet still works.
you will be shocked to see some recent cases about how people are wrongfully jailed for more than 20 years (live in canada and you will know).
you see, just a couple days ago, American citizens (richest nation on earth) are left starving for 5 days with no one rescuing them, are they better than people in north korea in those 5 days?? at least North korean's toliet still works.
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
WARmachine88 said:
Ok sure, it's about the same. That's what my friends were thinking about when they fled Viet Nam on a boat to challenge oceans and sharks and arrived to America. Oh yes today they think they enjoy the same freedom they did back home. Same with my Cuban friends. I have wasted enough of my time with you, little kid. And BTW were're completely gone off topic.
(I know Canada pretty well, been there).
WARmachine88
Banned
Italian Guy said:
dont worry man, it is jsut my perspective, which is a realistic way of looking at politics.
you can look at it in your way and if you r happy, than so be it.
but you got to agree human world is miserable and no place on earth is perfect.
and i agree we are off topic.
Re: Good points..
Wrong - the Dalai Lama was recognized as the supreme leader, both politically and spiritually by China. The Dalai Lama, recognized as equal in status, was the only dignitary that the emperor would leave the palace to meet. This act recognized the status of the Dalai Lama and his authority in Tibet. This status remained in place right up until the start of the 20th Century.
Now this is where we will never agree. I happen to think people are people, regardless where they are born, with a fundamental right to pursue their own religious beliefs - free from government interference. You don't like religion - fine. Your able to have your view. But when you label people with religious or spiritual beliefs as "easily fooled" & "ignorants" then you also label not only other Chinese and Tibetans, but the majority of the human race.
I don't know how you can reconcile previous comments with this last one. Sounds like a placatory comment without substance. If I'm wrong, please explain it to me. Please read the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (link below) particularly the following line:
human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Boobies said:
Wrong - the Dalai Lama was recognized as the supreme leader, both politically and spiritually by China. The Dalai Lama, recognized as equal in status, was the only dignitary that the emperor would leave the palace to meet. This act recognized the status of the Dalai Lama and his authority in Tibet. This status remained in place right up until the start of the 20th Century.
China didn't even make so much as a diplomatic protest.
Well how far do you want to go back in history. Maybe China from the Mongols, or the US from the British. Mexico. Zimbabwe. Ireland. Most of the SE Asian, African & South American countries. Canada. Even my home country, Australia is free to choose which head of state it wishes to have (oh, and we get to vote on it)
Wrong again - the Tibetans had declared independence from Ching before Britain invaded Tibet. By 1911, the Chinese had been evicted from Tibet.
China, conquered Tibet, changed its government structure, took over its natural assets and prevented the Tibetan people from practicing their own religion. That might be considered meddling by some people.
I actually agree with you on this. Provided it is not one country forcing controls on the other through the force of arms as was the case with the 17 point agreement. If China can have a dual system with Hong Kong, why can't the same be true of Tibet?
:shock:
Now this is where we will never agree. I happen to think people are people, regardless where they are born, with a fundamental right to pursue their own religious beliefs - free from government interference. You don't like religion - fine. Your able to have your view. But when you label people with religious or spiritual beliefs as "easily fooled" & "ignorants" then you also label not only other Chinese and Tibetans, but the majority of the human race.
I don't know how you can reconcile previous comments with this last one. Sounds like a placatory comment without substance. If I'm wrong, please explain it to me. Please read the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (link below) particularly the following line:
human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Oh but you are free to live and enjoy the benefits of a democracy - except, of course, if you are a Tibetan.[/quote]
WARmachine88
Banned
wow nice post, very high quality
incident like Tibet is just one sad fact that is similiar to those happened in North American done by Canadians and Americans, except Chinese didn't put Tibet children in residence school and sexually assult them (happened in Canada).
and talk about religious rights!!
trying to convert Iraq into U.S is sort of intervetion in Mulism people's belief...
they don't have the same concept of freedom, woman's rights and everything like Americans do, yet Americans try to change them with force...talk about respecting others' religion.
incident like Tibet is just one sad fact that is similiar to those happened in North American done by Canadians and Americans, except Chinese didn't put Tibet children in residence school and sexually assult them (happened in Canada).
and talk about religious rights!!
trying to convert Iraq into U.S is sort of intervetion in Mulism people's belief...
they don't have the same concept of freedom, woman's rights and everything like Americans do, yet Americans try to change them with force...talk about respecting others' religion.
LeEnfield
Active member
Well lets look at from another angle, at the end of the 19 th Century a Captain Youghusband invaded Tibet and made it a British colony for a while. This came about due the number of cattle raids that Tibetans were carrying out in to India and their refusal to control the people that were doing this. Captain Younghusband wrote a book on this action and it was a dam good read, but alas I can't remember the title of the book
WARmachine88
Banned
LeEnfield said:
That must be an interesting book because Tibet is always a bit isolated and any first hand description of the old Tibet is worth to read.
godofthunder9010
Active member
There are two statements that are true, but are not worth starting a fight over in regards to China:
1.) Tibet is only "Chinese" by conquest. They only ever were ruled by China by conquest in the ancient and modern past. They possess a culture and historical legacy that is very different and disticnt from traditional Chinese culture. As of the 1950 invasion, Tibet was no more Chinese than Brazil is American. At this point in time, however, I don't think there is a inch of wiggle room left in the Chinese psyche to allow for Tibet to determine its own destiny. The PRC has gone to great lengths to obtain Tibet and then excuse that hostile takeover. She'll never let go of Tibet no matter what. And the statement that Tibet was EVER independent of China comes into direct conflict with the story being told by the Chinese state-controlled media. For that reason, postulating that Tibet should be independent offends China and its people greatly.
2.) Taiwan is an independent country for every intent and purpose, and is only a part of China in name. Calling them an independent country is just statement of the obvious by any definition of "independent country" you care to use.
I don't know why those two things are such sore points with the Chinese people, but ultimately you're going to start a fight if you bring either of them up. On these points, they are just as stubborn as the Japanese are about teaching their children a complete fairy tale for WW2, acknowledging no wrongdoing. The response is instant hostility in all of these cases. Is it all a part of Eastern Culture or something? Regardless, I don't understand it. You'll never be able to carry on a rational discussion about either topic. Why bother?
1.) Tibet is only "Chinese" by conquest. They only ever were ruled by China by conquest in the ancient and modern past. They possess a culture and historical legacy that is very different and disticnt from traditional Chinese culture. As of the 1950 invasion, Tibet was no more Chinese than Brazil is American. At this point in time, however, I don't think there is a inch of wiggle room left in the Chinese psyche to allow for Tibet to determine its own destiny. The PRC has gone to great lengths to obtain Tibet and then excuse that hostile takeover. She'll never let go of Tibet no matter what. And the statement that Tibet was EVER independent of China comes into direct conflict with the story being told by the Chinese state-controlled media. For that reason, postulating that Tibet should be independent offends China and its people greatly.
2.) Taiwan is an independent country for every intent and purpose, and is only a part of China in name. Calling them an independent country is just statement of the obvious by any definition of "independent country" you care to use.
I don't know why those two things are such sore points with the Chinese people, but ultimately you're going to start a fight if you bring either of them up. On these points, they are just as stubborn as the Japanese are about teaching their children a complete fairy tale for WW2, acknowledging no wrongdoing. The response is instant hostility in all of these cases. Is it all a part of Eastern Culture or something? Regardless, I don't understand it. You'll never be able to carry on a rational discussion about either topic. Why bother?
Well...
Well, did the Union allow the independence of the Confederate states? hmm, Mexican California? Why can't you respect China's ownership of Tibet (No mater if was Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming, Ching Dynasties, ROC or PRC) like everyone of you respect the US ownership of California and Confederate states?
Besides, the British version of liberating Tibet from Chinese rule is no different from the Japanese version of liberating Chinese. Oh, by the way, the independence of Tibet by British did look like the independence of Manchu Guo by the Japanese.
Further, China does not want foreign powers to determine its map location and geographic sizes like past results from the Opium War, the 8 Alliances invasion and colonization, and Japanese invasion of WWII.
Well, did the Union allow the independence of the Confederate states? hmm, Mexican California? Why can't you respect China's ownership of Tibet (No mater if was Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming, Ching Dynasties, ROC or PRC) like everyone of you respect the US ownership of California and Confederate states?
Besides, the British version of liberating Tibet from Chinese rule is no different from the Japanese version of liberating Chinese. Oh, by the way, the independence of Tibet by British did look like the independence of Manchu Guo by the Japanese.
Further, China does not want foreign powers to determine its map location and geographic sizes like past results from the Opium War, the 8 Alliances invasion and colonization, and Japanese invasion of WWII.
LeEnfield
Active member
Boobies......Now who said that we liberated Tibet from China, Tibet at that time was an Independent Country and after a the dispute had been sorted was given it's Independence back, there was not one complaint from China over this matter as they also looked upon Tibet as an Independent country.
godofthunder9010
Active member
One puzzling detail. Tibet was absolutely and completely neutral in WW2. China most definitely wasn't. The Chinese schpeel states that Tibet never was independent, yet they most certainly were acting like an independent country. But ... well ... its a pointless argument IMHO. Nobody ever convinces anybody and everyone just gets all pissy.
Boobies, nobody is even remotely considering invading China for the purpose of liberating Tibet. The whole Tibetan Independence movement is throwing itself upon the tender mercies of the PRC. Nobody is nuts enough to invade, but they are petioning China to let go of Tibet of its own volition. Some revolutionaries have it in their heads to free themselves by force, but that is not an outside country.
Boobies, nobody is even remotely considering invading China for the purpose of liberating Tibet. The whole Tibetan Independence movement is throwing itself upon the tender mercies of the PRC. Nobody is nuts enough to invade, but they are petioning China to let go of Tibet of its own volition. Some revolutionaries have it in their heads to free themselves by force, but that is not an outside country.
No doubt, Tibet felt exactly the same way prior to being invaded.Boobies said:
Well...
Confederate States and California felt the same as well. If we need to discuss this issue (sovereignties), we may need to look into all countries' pasts and replace all the wrongs with the rights.
Godofthunder, whenI talked about liberating Tibet, I refer the invasion of China controlled Tibet and British helped Declaration of Independence.
LeE, unable to defend or did little of helping resist does not mean China did not do anything. The "did not do anything" was caused by Qing court's inability to lead, support both politically and financially for the fight against the British invasion. China was declining in a rapid speed with self-boasts and isolation.
To understand "the did not do anything", you may need to understand the ways how Chinese culture, especially Confuciousm responded to external forces. Chinese politics believed and practiced "Big matter adjust to small. Small matters resolve to none". In Tibet's case, Qing was not able to resolve by force nor negotiation. And consequently, Qing lost control of Tibet.
Confederate States and California felt the same as well. If we need to discuss this issue (sovereignties), we may need to look into all countries' pasts and replace all the wrongs with the rights.
Godofthunder, whenI talked about liberating Tibet, I refer the invasion of China controlled Tibet and British helped Declaration of Independence.
LeE, unable to defend or did little of helping resist does not mean China did not do anything. The "did not do anything" was caused by Qing court's inability to lead, support both politically and financially for the fight against the British invasion. China was declining in a rapid speed with self-boasts and isolation.
To understand "the did not do anything", you may need to understand the ways how Chinese culture, especially Confuciousm responded to external forces. Chinese politics believed and practiced "Big matter adjust to small. Small matters resolve to none". In Tibet's case, Qing was not able to resolve by force nor negotiation. And consequently, Qing lost control of Tibet.
heheheh...
British was on a rampage of colonization and political manifestation. Didn't British colonized lot of places during the time? Didn't British intentionally poison China with Opium? Didn't British invade China to force China to trade (Treaty of Nanking?). Didn't British force the Chinese to legalize Opium and force the propagation of Christianity in all Chinese region after defeating the CHinese in the Second Opium war?
Do you support Britain's occupation of other nations at that time? If you say no. Then how can you conclude what British did to Tibet and its relationship with China were justified at that time?
Oh, British was clearly the winner, so she had the right to claim who is or isn't independent and mess around other countries's law and infrastructure?
British was on a rampage of colonization and political manifestation. Didn't British colonized lot of places during the time? Didn't British intentionally poison China with Opium? Didn't British invade China to force China to trade (Treaty of Nanking?). Didn't British force the Chinese to legalize Opium and force the propagation of Christianity in all Chinese region after defeating the CHinese in the Second Opium war?
Do you support Britain's occupation of other nations at that time? If you say no. Then how can you conclude what British did to Tibet and its relationship with China were justified at that time?
Oh, British was clearly the winner, so she had the right to claim who is or isn't independent and mess around other countries's law and infrastructure?
LeEnfield
Active member
Yes while standing here in the 21st Century I have to agree that the Opium Wars that took place in the 19th Century were totally wrong. The British Invasion of Tibet was not about territory it was about making the Government of Tibet take responsibility for their Brigands who were raiding into India. As China had nothing to do with Tibet at this time and there is very little evidence that they ever had taken any interest in Tibet we had to sort put this problem, once this problem had been sorted then we left. We took nothing from the Tibet except an agreement with the Dali Lama, the whole thing could be compared really with the Allies involvement in Iraq, you sort out the problem then you leave, but in Tibet's case it did no take so long