| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"JTEM" |
| Date: |
13 Jul 2005 12:54:19 AM |
| Object: |
International experts, please. |
So what exactly are the odds of China making a play
for Mongolia any time soon?
.
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: International experts, please. |
13 Jul 2005 10:07:24 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p7idnZqUAYjQN0nfRVn-uw@comcast.com...
So what exactly are the odds of China making a play
for Mongolia any time soon?
Zero in one million.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: International experts, please. |
13 Jul 2005 09:10:24 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in news:p7idnZqUAYjQN0nfRVn-
uw@comcast.com:
So what exactly are the odds of China making a play
for Mongolia any time soon?
What's in Mongolia? Not much.
Who lives in Mongolia? Nobody, really.
What could China do with Mongolia? Nothing.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power.
-- Eric Hoffer
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Witziges Rätsel" |
|
| Title: Re: International experts, please. |
13 Jul 2005 03:31:56 PM |
|
|
So what exactly are the odds of China making a play
for Mongolia any time soon?
It depends on whether there's oil under Mongolia. If there is,
the whole wide world will be in love with the place.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: International experts, please. |
14 Jul 2005 09:02:36 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
So what exactly are the odds of China making a play
for Mongolia any time soon?
Why build the railroad from Thailand to Vladivostok to Europe
when you can cut 3000km off by going through Mongolia? And
given China's animosity towards democracies, no matter how
small (2 million in Mongolia), it wouldn't surprise me to see
them interfering in some way.
Bob Dog
Atheist #153 = 1^3 + 5^3 + 3^3
EAC's chief cook and brainwasher
-----
"You won't find any opposition to the idea of evolution among
sophisticated, educated theologians. It comes from an
exceedingly retarded, primitive version of religion, which
unfortunately is at present undergoing an epidemic in the
United States."
- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: International experts, please. |
14 Jul 2005 11:30:12 PM |
|
|
On 14 Jul 2005 07:02:36 -0700 the ET form known as
bg12345@apexmail.com<bg12345@apexmail.com> sent a radio signal across
the vast expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
JTEM wrote:
So what exactly are the odds of China making a play
for Mongolia any time soon?
Why build the railroad from Thailand to Vladivostok to Europe
when you can cut 3000km off by going through Mongolia? And
given China's animosity towards democracies, no matter how
small (2 million in Mongolia), it wouldn't surprise me to see
them interfering in some way.
The question you have to ask is why do ONLY 2 million live in a very
large area next to a nation with 1.4 billion people. The answer to
that question gives a clue as to what can be gained from the nation by
a takeover from another.
--
Remove YOUR_SHOES before replying
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2009
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
Sunday: A day given over by Americans to wishing that they themselves
were dead and in Heaven, and that their neighbors were dead and in
Hell.
-Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: International experts, please. |
15 Jul 2005 03:12:53 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
So what exactly are the odds of China making a play
for Mongolia any time soon?
Why? It has been an independent state since July 11, 1921.
Mongolia
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/dff603fe1ed290d9
Vatican fascist, JTEM
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/92fd5d9bedca5c91
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: International experts, please. |
14 Jul 2005 02:09:04 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 01:54:19 -0400 the ET form known as
JTEM<gymraven@hotmail.com> sent a radio signal across the vast expanse
of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
So what exactly are the odds of China making a play
for Mongolia any time soon?
What's in Mongolia? I think Kazakstan as a source of oil and gas, and
potential pipeline conduit, plus an opportunity to neutralise American
influence in Central Asia makes that country a more likely target for
Chinese geo-chess.
--
Remove YOUR_SHOES before replying
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2009
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
Sunday: A day given over by Americans to wishing that they themselves
were dead and in Heaven, and that their neighbors were dead and in
Hell.
-Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: International experts, please. |
14 Jul 2005 02:08:18 AM |
|
|
"Meteorite Debris" <epicurus1@YOUR_SHOESoptusnet.com.au> wrote
So what exactly are the odds of China making a play
for Mongolia any time soon?
What's in Mongolia?
What was in Tibet?
The present Chinese regime is fanatically nationalistic, with
territorial claims placing themselves in conflict with nearly the
entire region, including the Philippines.
For oil or other natural resource? No.
Because they're brutal thugs with dreams of conquest? Yes.
Mongolia's independence was achieved & preserved by
the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is not only gone, but
Russia isn't in the best of shape right now.
Unlike most of China's other so-called "historic" claims,
their conflict with the Philippines as an example, China
does have the resources to act against Mongolia. Mongolia
does not present the transport & supply line issues that
most other Chinese wars of conquest would.
In short: They can.
When has China ever needed a better reason? Never that
I'm aware of.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: International experts, please. |
14 Jul 2005 03:52:45 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in news:p8udnTgLStC-kEvfRVn-
oA@comcast.com:
"Meteorite Debris" <epicurus1@YOUR_SHOESoptusnet.com.au> wrote
So what exactly are the odds of China making a play
for Mongolia any time soon?
What's in Mongolia?
What was in Tibet?
The present Chinese regime is fanatically nationalistic, with
territorial claims placing themselves in conflict with nearly the
entire region, including the Philippines.
For oil or other natural resource? No.
Because they're brutal thugs with dreams of conquest? Yes.
Nope, China has never had the 'empire making' desire of western
societies.
Mongolia's independence was achieved & preserved by
the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is not only gone, but
Russia isn't in the best of shape right now.
Unlike most of China's other so-called "historic" claims,
their conflict with the Philippines as an example, China
does have the resources to act against Mongolia. Mongolia
does not present the transport & supply line issues that
most other Chinese wars of conquest would.
In short: They can.
When has China ever needed a better reason? Never that
I'm aware of.
And when has China illegally invaded a defenseless country ?
(Tibet, perhaps, but they've done more good there than harm.)
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: International experts, please. |
14 Jul 2005 02:52:09 PM |
|
|
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote
Nope, China has never had the 'empire making' desire of western
societies.
So China doesn't presently occupy Tibet?
But as far as "never" goes, China "never" had much if any
interest in anything beyond it's own shores. Not historically.
But that hasn't slowed down their present day claims to the
Spratly Islands.
China seized islands from Vietnam in the 1970s. Although this
aggressive conquest is often over looked, it contributed greatly
to Vietnam's drift towards the former Soviet Union, further straining
relations, which ultimately lead to a Chinese invasion of
Vietnam in 1979.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: International experts, please. |
15 Jul 2005 02:46:08 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in news:V8CdnbHBoMy3XUvfRVn-
sQ@comcast.com:
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote
Nope, China has never had the 'empire making' desire of western
societies.
So China doesn't presently occupy Tibet?
You obviously didn't read my post properly.
But as far as "never" goes, China "never" had much if any
interest in anything beyond it's own shores. Not historically.
But that hasn't slowed down their present day claims to the
Spratly Islands.
http://www.american.edu/projects/mandala/TED/ice/spratly.htm
'The conflict is the result of overlapping sovereignty claims to various
Spratly Islands thought to possess substantial natural resources --
chiefly oil, natural gas, and seafood.'
Hey, it's ok for us to invade Iraq, for their resources, but, how dare
those evil Chinese try it !
China seized islands from Vietnam in the 1970s. Although this
aggressive conquest is often over looked, it contributed greatly
to Vietnam's drift towards the former Soviet Union, further straining
relations, which ultimately lead to a Chinese invasion of
Vietnam in 1979.
Oh, those dastardly Vietnamese ! How dare they decide communism might
benefit THEIR country. Don't they know the whole world is, by rights, the
property of the USA !!!
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: International experts, please. |
15 Jul 2005 02:59:59 AM |
|
|
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote
But as far as "never" goes, China "never" had much if any
interest in anything beyond it's own shores. Not historically.
But that hasn't slowed down their present day claims to the
Spratly Islands.
http://www.american.edu/projects/mandala/TED/ice/spratly.htm
'The conflict is the result of overlapping sovereignty claims to various
Spratly Islands thought to possess substantial natural resources --
chiefly oil, natural gas, and seafood.'
Hey, it's ok for us to invade Iraq, for their resources, but, how dare
those evil Chinese try it !
Only problem, of course, is that I'm the one being consistant here.
Neither one of us has been cheerleaders for Bush, but only you
are defending Chinese aggression.
You're also ignoring the fact that China did the exact same thing
with Vietnam back in the 1970s, and it eventually lead to a
Chinese invasion of Vietnam.
China seized islands from Vietnam in the 1970s. Although this
aggressive conquest is often over looked, it contributed greatly
to Vietnam's drift towards the former Soviet Union, further straining
relations, which ultimately lead to a Chinese invasion of
Vietnam in 1979.
Oh, those dastardly Vietnamese ! How dare they decide communism might
benefit THEIR country. Don't they know the whole world is, by rights, the
property of the USA !!!
What the hell are you responding to? Certianly nothing I've said.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: International experts, please. |
15 Jul 2005 03:46:56 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in news:atOdnUNa8Pcj90rfRVn-
tw@comcast.com:
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote
But as far as "never" goes, China "never" had much if any
interest in anything beyond it's own shores. Not historically.
But that hasn't slowed down their present day claims to the
Spratly Islands.
http://www.american.edu/projects/mandala/TED/ice/spratly.htm
'The conflict is the result of overlapping sovereignty claims to
various
Spratly Islands thought to possess substantial natural resources --
chiefly oil, natural gas, and seafood.'
Hey, it's ok for us to invade Iraq, for their resources, but, how dare
those evil Chinese try it !
Only problem, of course, is that I'm the one being consistant here.
Neither one of us has been cheerleaders for Bush, but only you
are defending Chinese aggression.
I am in no way defending Chinese aggression.
But I do smell the stink of hypocrisy.
You're also ignoring the fact that China did the exact same thing
with Vietnam back in the 1970s, and it eventually lead to a
Chinese invasion of Vietnam.
China seized islands from Vietnam in the 1970s. Although this
aggressive conquest is often over looked, it contributed greatly
to Vietnam's drift towards the former Soviet Union, further
straining
relations, which ultimately lead to a Chinese invasion of
Vietnam in 1979.
Oh, those dastardly Vietnamese ! How dare they decide communism might
benefit THEIR country. Don't they know the whole world is, by rights,
the
property of the USA !!!
What the hell are you responding to? Certianly nothing I've said.
'China seized islands from Vietnam in the 1970s. Although this
aggressive conquest is often over looked, it contributed greatly
to Vietnam's drift towards the former Soviet Union, further straining
relations, which ultimately lead to a Chinese invasion of
Vietnam in 1979.'
But now Vietnam is a neo-cons dream-land.
As if the 'Merkins gave a ***** about who invaded Vietnam,(after they had
left the country ruined for generations.), or why.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: International experts, please. |
15 Jul 2005 06:02:56 PM |
|
|
"Jez" <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote
Only problem, of course, is that I'm the one being consistant here.
Neither one of us has been cheerleaders for Bush, but only you
are defending Chinese aggression.
I am in no way defending Chinese aggression.
But I do smell the stink of hypocrisy.
Where? How?
What the hell are you responding to? Certianly nothing I've said.
'China seized islands from Vietnam in the 1970s. Although this
aggressive conquest is often over looked, it contributed greatly
to Vietnam's drift towards the former Soviet Union, further straining
relations, which ultimately lead to a Chinese invasion of
Vietnam in 1979.'
But now Vietnam is a neo-cons dream-land.
And? This is supposed to be in response to... what?
I gave you an example of Chinese aggression, not in the name of
vast resources or national security, but nationalism in the face
of a weak & politically isolated enemy.
The example went further though. Chinese policy was so bad,
it's diplomacy so botched, that the result of this aggressive
action was that China felt LESS SAFE. It drove Vietnam ever
further from China, and into the Soviet camp. Ultimately, it
lead to a Chinese invasion of Vietnam only a few years later.
Mongolia is weak. Mongolia is isolated, it's patron, the old
Soviet Union, long gone & Russia in the ***** can.
The parallels are strong.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Voytinsky" |
|
| Title: Re: International experts, please. |
15 Jul 2005 05:46:30 AM |
|
|
Jez wrote:
And when has China illegally invaded a defenseless country ?
(Tibet, perhaps, but they've done more good there than harm.)
You must be using "good" and "harm" in some highly unusual senses here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: International experts, please. |
02 Aug 2005 09:11:11 AM |
|
|
"Michael Voytinsky" <michaelvoy@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1121424390.405066.3800@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Jez wrote:
And when has China illegally invaded a defenseless country ?
(Tibet, perhaps, but they've done more good there than harm.)
You must be using "good" and "harm" in some highly unusual senses here.
The lamas rule over Tibet was brutal.
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
But then all religious rule is brutal.
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Voytinsky" |
|
| Title: Re: International experts, please. |
02 Aug 2005 04:37:27 PM |
|
|
Jez wrote:
And when has China illegally invaded a defenseless country ?
(Tibet, perhaps, but they've done more good there than harm.)
You must be using "good" and "harm" in some highly unusual senses here.
The lamas rule over Tibet was brutal.
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
What proportion of Tibet's population did the Dalai Lama kill? Did his
army bomb Tibetan villages?
But the author does have a point about brutal punishments in
pre-Chinese-takeover Tibet. The Chinese never used brutal punishments.
Oh, wait. They did.
Sarcasm aside, the claim that by invadiding Tibet China improved the
Tibetans' lives is as spurious as the claim that by invading Iraq, the
US improved the Iraqis lives.
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: International experts, please. |
02 Aug 2005 05:05:21 PM |
|
|
Michael Voytinsky wrote:
Jez wrote:
And when has China illegally invaded a defenseless country ?
(Tibet, perhaps, but they've done more good there than harm.)
You must be using "good" and "harm" in some highly unusual senses here.
The lamas rule over Tibet was brutal.
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
What proportion of Tibet's population did the Dalai Lama kill? Did his
army bomb Tibetan villages?
But the author does have a point about brutal punishments in
pre-Chinese-takeover Tibet. The Chinese never used brutal punishments.
Oh, wait. They did.
Haven't you read the article in full?
"The Chinese Communists occupied Tibet in 1951, claiming suzerainty
over that country. The 1951 treaty provided for ostensible
self-government under the Dalai Lama's rule but gave China military
control and exclusive right to conduct foreign relations. The Chinese
were also granted a direct role in internal administration "to promote
social reforms." At first, they moved slowly, relying mostly on
persuasion in an attempt to effect change. Among the earliest reforms
they wrought was to reduce usurious interest rates, and build a few
hospitals and roads. "Contrary to popular belief in the West," writes
one observer, the Chinese "took care to show respect for Tibetan
culture and religion." No aristocratic or monastic property was
confiscated, and feudal lords continued to reign over their
hereditarily bound peasants.21"
Sarcasm aside, the claim that by invadiding Tibet China improved the
Tibetans' lives is as spurious as the claim that by invading Iraq, the
US improved the Iraqis lives.
But Iraq was never part of the US.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Voytinsky" |
|
| Title: Re: International experts, please. |
02 Aug 2005 08:53:13 PM |
|
|
maff wrote:
Haven't you read the article in full?
Yes.
Sarcasm aside, the claim that by invadiding Tibet China improved the
Tibetans' lives is as spurious as the claim that by invading Iraq, the
US improved the Iraqis lives.
But Iraq was never part of the US.
So, following this reasoning, it would be morally acceptable for Russia
to invade Alaska and kill a large proportion of its population?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: International experts, please. |
02 Aug 2005 09:23:41 PM |
|
|
"Michael Voytinsky" <michaelvoy@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1123033993.131113.153130@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
maff wrote:
Haven't you read the article in full?
Yes.
Sarcasm aside, the claim that by invadiding Tibet China improved
the Tibetans' lives is as spurious as the claim that by invading
Iraq, the US improved the Iraqis lives.
But Iraq was never part of the US.
So, following this reasoning, it would be morally acceptable for
Russia to invade Alaska and kill a large proportion of its population?
When did *less than a tenth of a percent* become a large proportion?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Political correctness is a form of moral and emotional blackmail
whereby if you call a spade a spade you must apologize to the spade.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Voytinsky" |
|
| Title: Re: International experts, please. |
02 Aug 2005 10:58:40 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
So, following this reasoning, it would be morally acceptable for
Russia to invade Alaska and kill a large proportion of its population?
When did *less than a tenth of a percent* become a large proportion?
And your source for that number is?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: International experts, please. |
03 Aug 2005 07:26:44 AM |
|
|
"Michael Voytinsky" <michaelvoy@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1123041520.653931.13400@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
So, following this reasoning, it would be morally acceptable for
Russia to invade Alaska and kill a large proportion of its population?
When did *less than a tenth of a percent* become a large proportion?
And your source for that number is?
Basic math.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Political correctness is a form of moral and emotional blackmail
whereby if you call a spade a spade you must apologize to the spade.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Voytinsky" |
|
| Title: Re: International experts, please. |
03 Aug 2005 09:49:50 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
When did *less than a tenth of a percent* become a large proportion?
And your source for that number is?
Basic math.
To quote my old math teacher, "Could you show your work?"
The various estimates for death toll in Tibetan from the Chinese
takeover start at around 100,000 and go up. Going with the lowest
estimates, that is around 3% of the population.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: International experts, please. |
03 Aug 2005 11:39:44 PM |
|
|
"Michael Voytinsky" <michaelvoy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123033993.131113.153130@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
maff wrote:
Haven't you read the article in full?
Yes.
Sarcasm aside, the claim that by invadiding Tibet China improved the
Tibetans' lives is as spurious as the claim that by invading Iraq, the
US improved the Iraqis lives.
But Iraq was never part of the US.
Tibet was invaded and controlled by the Mongols and Chinese at
two different times, but still remained Tibet, not China. It was never
a part of China, even if China still controls it.
So, following this reasoning, it would be morally acceptable for Russia
to invade Alaska and kill a large proportion of its population?
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: McMahon Line |
04 Aug 2005 03:07:31 AM |
|
|
Michelle Malkin wrote:
"Michael Voytinsky" <michaelvoy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123033993.131113.153130@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
maff wrote:
Haven't you read the article in full?
Yes.
Sarcasm aside, the claim that by invadiding Tibet China improved the
Tibetans' lives is as spurious as the claim that by invading Iraq, the
US improved the Iraqis lives.
But Iraq was never part of the US.
Tibet was invaded and controlled by the Mongols and Chinese at
two different times, but still remained Tibet, not China. It was never
a part of China, even if China still controls it.
McMahon Line
http://news.google.com/news?q=%22McMahon%20Line%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22McMahon+Line%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&tab=nw&ie=UTF-8&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22McMahon+Line%22&btnG=Search+Directory&hl=en&cat=gwd%2FTop
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=%22McMahon%20Line%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N&scoring=d&tab=wg
Tibet
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/1d18508c152a0878
So, following this reasoning, it would be morally acceptable for Russia
to invade Alaska and kill a large proportion of its population?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: International experts, please. |
04 Aug 2005 02:55:41 AM |
|
|
Michelle Malkin wrote:
"Michael Voytinsky" <michaelvoy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123033993.131113.153130@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
maff wrote:
Haven't you read the article in full?
Yes.
Sarcasm aside, the claim that by invadiding Tibet China improved the
Tibetans' lives is as spurious as the claim that by invading Iraq, the
US improved the Iraqis lives.
But Iraq was never part of the US.
Tibet was invaded and controlled by the Mongols and Chinese at
two different times, but still remained Tibet, not China. It was never
a part of China, even if China still controls it.
Not according to Qing dynasty or Chiang Kai-Shek's government or the
Western powers.
"From the seventeenth century onwards, the Qing government further
strengthened its administration over Tibet. In 1721 the system of Kalon
(Council Minister) in charge of administrative affairs was set up. In
1727 the Office of Amban (Resident Official) was instituted in Tibet.
In 1792 the twenty-nine-article Imperial Ordinance was issued. It
stipuIated in explicit terms for the reincarnation of the Living
Buddhas in Tibet as well as the administrative, military and foreign
affairs. The Imperial Ordinance marked that the administration of the
Tibet region by the Qing central government was upgraded to the level
of systematization and legalization.
In late Qing period, Britain twice launched armed invasions against
Tibet. The Chinese government was forced to sign unequal treaties
relating Tibet, After the Revolution of 1911 , the political situation
of China was turbulent. In order to realize its aim of splitting Tibet
from China and reducing it into a dependency of the British Indian
government, Britain adopted various acts of aggression against Tibet.
Owing to the instigation of Britain, the relations between the Tibet
region and the central government of China were for a time abnormal
during the period of the Republic of China. Although the British
impedalists attempted to split China and to grab Tibet, its schemes
never succeeded. On the contrary, they were opposed and boycotted by
the broad masses of the Chinese people, including the majority of the
Tibetan upperstrata figures. Tibet was not officially recognized as "an
independent country" by any country through diplomatic channels in the
world at that time, including even the schemers themselves. The Tibet
region also never detached itself from the sovereign jurisdiction of
the central government and became "independent"."
http://www.tibet-china.org/serie_book/english/independent/independent.html
So, following this reasoning, it would be morally acceptable for Russia
to invade Alaska and kill a large proportion of its population?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: International experts, please. |
03 Aug 2005 04:47:11 AM |
|
|
Michael Voytinsky wrote:
maff wrote:
Haven't you read the article in full?
Yes.
Try to read it again.
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
Sarcasm aside, the claim that by invadiding Tibet China improved the
Tibetans' lives is as spurious as the claim that by invading Iraq, the
US improved the Iraqis lives.
But Iraq was never part of the US.
So, following this reasoning, it would be morally acceptable for Russia
to invade Alaska and kill a large proportion of its population?
But Russia sold Alaska to the US. Alaska is now part of US. Why would
Russia now invade Alaska and kill the people there?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Voytinsky" |
|
| Title: Re: International experts, please. |
03 Aug 2005 09:35:46 PM |
|
|
maff wrote:
But Russia sold Alaska to the US. Alaska is now part of US. Why would
Russia now invade Alaska and kill the people there?
I have no idea. What would China do that with Tibet?
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: International experts, please. |
04 Aug 2005 03:14:38 AM |
|
|
Michael Voytinsky wrote:
maff wrote:
But Russia sold Alaska to the US. Alaska is now part of US. Why would
Russia now invade Alaska and kill the people there?
I have no idea. What would China do that with Tibet?
Tibet was never an independent country. Even Dalai Lama accepts that.
Not even the Dalai Lama claimed that that the Chinese were killing
Tibetans. You must be thinking of the Confederacy or the Native
Americans.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: International experts, please. |
14 Jul 2005 11:23:40 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:08:18 -0400 the ET form known as
JTEM<gymraven@hotmail.com> sent a radio signal across the vast expanse
of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
"Meteorite Debris" <epicurus1@YOUR_SHOESoptusnet.com.au> wrote
So what exactly are the odds of China making a play
for Mongolia any time soon?
What's in Mongolia?
What was in Tibet?
The present Chinese regime is fanatically nationalistic, with
territorial claims placing themselves in conflict with nearly the
entire region, including the Philippines.
What China shares with the Philippines is a claim to the South China
Sea. That area is thought to be an oil and gas prospect. For the same
reason Chinese naval boats have been caught in waters claimed by
Japan.
For oil or other natural resource? No.
You miss what has been happening. The oil deals with Sudan, Venezuela,
Iran etc. To say nothing of the bid for Unocal. Without oil and gas
nothing else works. You can't burn dinosaur fossils but you can burn
fossil fuels.
Because they're brutal thugs with dreams of conquest? Yes.
China has territorial designs on Taiwan. That is because Taiwan was
the last Nationalist stronghold against Mao in 1949. It is only
recently the Taiwan has wanted independence. Previously Taiwan wanted
China - the lot of it to restore the Nationalists to power on the
mainland.
Mongolia's independence was achieved & preserved by
the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is not only gone, but
Russia isn't in the best of shape right now.
Unlike most of China's other so-called "historic" claims,
their conflict with the Philippines as an example, China
does have the resources to act against Mongolia. Mongolia
does not present the transport & supply line issues that
most other Chinese wars of conquest would.
In short: They can.
When has China ever needed a better reason? Never that
I'm aware of.
There's always a reason. Why go after dirt when China's geopolitical
energy is needed to secure resources, like oil, gas, steel, aluminum.
If Mongolia has none of these, and I do not know if it does, why spend
the above resources, which every army needs, on real estate that has
none?
China needs oil and gas. It has power blackouts daily, is growing its'
economy at 9% a year, 1.4 billion people who need fossil fueled
agriculture, has declining oil production from its' own super giant
oil fields. Why go for dirt in Mongolia when it can tie up oil and gas
deals in Central Asia? It can also counter US influence there at the
same time. Central Asia is where the chess game is being played. It
links with Afghanistan, Iran to the gulf, the Caspian, and Russia.
America is settled all through Central Asia. China does not want to be
encircled and America wants to encircle China.
The US and China are probably wage war on each other in this century
because or resource competition. I hope I'm wrong but each needs more
resources in a world with finite resources. For that scenario the pain
of energy deprivation would have to be greater than the pain of
conflict which would include dumping T-bills and the $USD.
--
Remove YOUR_SHOES before replying
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2009
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
Sunday: A day given over by Americans to wishing that they themselves
were dead and in Heaven, and that their neighbors were dead and in
Hell.
-Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
