[Vallessian]

I'm sure that most everybody is aware of the pr-Tibet/ anti-China protests popping up everywhere that the Olympic torch is carried. I am interested in hearing what people think of China's occupation of Tibet. Is the occupation of Tibet legal or illegal? Is it just or unjust?

As an American, I am opposed to China as it is a communist nation, but I am also of the opinion that "freedom isn't free". Tibet had the opportunity to fight to maintain their freedom, yet they didn't, and therefore they must submit to there new masters.

I may be wrong about this, but one thing I have noticed about the protests, however, is that they tend to be made up of other nationalities, not natives of Tibetans. Thoughts on that?

[Colonel_Sanders]

Originally Posted by Vallessian

Tibet had the opportunity to fight to maintain their freedom, yet they didn't, and therefore they must submit to there new masters.

Actually there was a short resistance, albeit very small. It was a very peaceful country however, and I am frankly glad they did not make more of an effort to fight back because I'm sure it would have simply resulted in more needless deaths. Most of said deaths would have been Tibetans, as well.

Originally Posted by Vallessian

I may be wrong about this, but one thing I have noticed about the protests, however, is that they tend to be made up of other nationalities, not natives of Tibetans. Thoughts on that?

No, there have been many protests in Tibet. So many in fact, the Dalai Lama has threatened to step down as the Tibetan leader if the protests do not stop.

The BBC

The NY Times

I'm not really in the mood to go into whether it's unjust or not, (which I most definitely think it is) so I'll let someone else pick it up.

[Sidstyler]

Admittedly I'm not all that educated on the situation, but I think a lot of the U.S. protestors aren't, either, and are just hopping on the bandwagon.

Also, screwing with the torch makes no sense at all...to me, anyway.

[Genmotty]

As an American, I am opposed to China as it is a communist nation, but I am also of the opinion that "freedom isn't free". Tibet had the opportunity to fight to maintain their freedom, yet they didn't, and therefore they must submit to there new masters.

That statement annoys me. First you imply that all Americans are 'anticommunist'. Second you don't explain why. Furthermore your phrase 'freedom isn't free' doesn't apply in the general context. It is a specific phrase when there is occupation or the curbing of civil liberties.

[hr]

Question: I am interested in hearing what people think of China's occupation of Tibet. Is the occupation of Tibet legal or illegal? Is it just or unjust?

Slightly hypocritical from a US Imperialistic attitude to it's foreign policy. I think China is exercising a certain amount of Imperialism against a country that has little will to 'fight'. Furthermore as the British themselves tried to subjugate Tibet in the past as well it suggests the Tibet has left itself vulnerable to the rest of the world even back in history.

For instance if we take the Sino-Japanese War where the Tibetans did kick Chinese control over Tibet in the late 1800s. However there is much to be said for China's argument of Tibet being part of the Chinese states as we should really call them. Because if we go back in time much futher then China was much smaller than it was today and through military and diplomatic expansion got to where it is today.

But what many protesters fail to notice is that after the 1950s when China did invade Tibet the development of the country has been drastically improved with the old feudal system being replaced and slavery being outlawed. So actually from a human rights point of view China has been of some benefit to Tibet.

Part of the trouble is that all identities will have elements that care strongly for them. Part of the trouble is that that US CIA in the Cold War gave backing to these elements which it is still doing today as a way for the US to hit back at what it sees is the threat of China. It's a political game being played by the major powers of the world with the emotions of a third party.

So even though the Chinese are occupying a state I think that they are justified in this because of the history of Tibet (I've not explained this fully yet, but I will do). But I think there are alot of ulterior motives at stake and much of the world opposition to China is based on a 'bandwagon mentality' of wanting to be seen to support a 'just cause' when infact they are only perpetuating a rebellion backed in the Cold War.

[hr]

Side note: attacking the Olympic torch is so idiotic a protest their should be protests against those protesters, because it is a symbol of unity of mankind, and by attacking the torch in such a way they are actually enacting the very 'crimes' they are thinking they are protesting against. It really is a mark of stupidity.

Genmotty

[ForbiddenKnowledge]

Side note: attacking the Olympic torch is so idiotic a protest their should be protests against those protesters, because it is a symbol of unity of mankind, and by attacking the torch in such a way they are actually enacting the very 'crimes' they are thinking they are protesting against. It really is a mark of stupidity.

I kinda think thats the point - they are attacking the hypocrisy of the Chinese being allowed to carry the torch with the current Tibetan situation.

[TheEmperorsJanitor]

The tibetans are ****ed either way. Lets see em try to choose between an oppressive fuedal theocracy led by an ancient hypocrite or an oppressive regime that combines the worst aspects of capitalism and communism.

[ForbiddenKnowledge]

Originally Posted by FlipperFish

The tibetans are ****ed either way. Lets see em try to choose between an oppressive fuedal theocracy led by an ancient hypocrite or an oppressive regime that combines the worst aspects of capitalism and communism.

Watch the language, please

And can you back that up? The parts about it being an oppressive feudal theocracy led by an ancient hypocrite? As otherwise it just sounds like you hate them.

I don't know where you got that impression from them.

[TheEmperorsJanitor]

The dalai lama was the leader of a theocractic fuedal state where most of the people lived in dark age poverty.
And i said F-ed, i wasn't calling them F-ers.

[khanaris]

Regardless, watch your language.

I am not really sure why China should control Tibet. It becomes a question of sovereignty. What does China gain from being able to set policy in Tibet rather than simply trading with it as a neighbor? What does Tibet gain from having outsiders set policy for them? What is best for the interests of both countries?

[ForbiddenKnowledge]

So the Chinese control has some merits, then. That of raising the level of living of the people, from a dark age poverty. Although one has to wonder if it was needed. The Tibetan people could have been happy living in the "Dark Ages" with their leader.

Although you have to admit, the Chinese rule is worse than it could be good - the human rights record of china isn't great anyway, and they have committed some atrocities in the country.

[hr]

And I know, I just didn't think it was needed


[hr]

Damnit, Khanaris, I just hit post

I think thats a good point. What does china gain, and more importantly, would the Tibetans be happier without Chinese rule? Even if they were living in "Dark Ages" they way they react to Chinese rule shows they obviously prefer it to being ruled by an outside power.