| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
27 Feb 2005 07:36:02 AM |
| Object: |
SoftPower, Hard Choices |
SoftPower, Hard Choices
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7037845/site/newsweek/
China is emerging as a major economic power, but will that translate
into a military threat? Taiwan will be the test.
By Melinda Liu and John Barry
Newsweek
March 7 issue - Ask a party bureaucrat in Beijing about China's foreign
ambitions these days, and the reply may sound like a beauty
contestant's doe-eyed promise to work for world harmony. "Peaceful
resolution of global problems is both our aim and our style," asserts
one official involved in international affairs. China has no interest
in becoming a military superpower, he insists. "A power, yes, but not a
superpower," he says. "We don't want to be enemies with anyone."
Taiwan
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/84c9e453e27664d6
China
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/d3294ecc38a6a57d
Is the wakening giant a monster?
http://tinyurl.com/iws6
A Blueprint for the Future
http://snipurl.com/a684
.
|
|
| User: "buzz" |
|
| Title: Re: SoftPower, Hard Choices |
08 Mar 2005 10:20:46 PM |
|
|
All people in Tibet are Chinese in China
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: SoftPower, Hard Choices |
27 Feb 2005 09:43:16 PM |
|
|
Kinda like America's "contestant response" - just here to spread
freedom and democarcy (with dirty bombs.)
BTW, has China ever dropped dirty bomb on anyone?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: SoftPower, Hard Choices |
27 Feb 2005 07:49:04 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:36:02 -0800, maff thought carefully and wrote:
.. "Peaceful resolution of global problems is both our aim and our
style," asserts
one official involved in international affairs. China has no interest in
becoming a military superpower, he insists. "A power, yes, but not a
superpower," he says. "We don't want to be enemies with anyone."
That is not now nor has it ever been the REAL policy of the CCP.
It it had been the policy then, the invasion of Tibet could have been
avoided; the invasion of Vietnam could have been avoided; and the invasion
of India could have been avoided.
If it were the policy now, then the Taiwanese would feel a lot safer.
Basically you asked the fox if the chickens were safe. And of course the
fox said, "Yes. The chickens have nothing to fear from me."
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: SoftPower, Hard Choices |
27 Feb 2005 09:46:45 PM |
|
|
It's great to see you bash China by blaming Vietnam on China. This
really takes the cake comming from an American. We Americans were the
one that started this and killed roughtly 4 million people in SE Asia.
Didn't you mention you protested against Vietnam war? It's sad to see
you abandon your conscience for you anti-China agenda.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: SoftPower, Hard Choices |
27 Feb 2005 11:23:32 PM |
|
|
On 27 Feb 2005 19:46:45 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
It's great to see you bash China by blaming Vietnam on China. This
really takes the cake comming from an American. We Americans were the
one that started this
1) The French started what we tried, and failed, to finish.
2) It would be nice if you quoted what you were replying to.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your
Christ."
- Mohandas Gandhi
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Neville Maxwell |
28 Feb 2005 03:03:45 AM |
|
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:36:02 -0800, maff thought carefully and wrote:
.. "Peaceful resolution of global problems is both our aim and our
style," asserts
one official involved in international affairs. China has no
interest in
becoming a military superpower, he insists. "A power, yes, but not
a
superpower," he says. "We don't want to be enemies with anyone."
That is not now nor has it ever been the REAL policy of the CCP.
So what was the REAL policy of Christian and Zen fascists?
It it had been the policy then, the invasion of Tibet could have been
There was no invasion of Tibet.
avoided; the invasion of Vietnam could have been avoided; and the
invasion
of India could have been avoided.
India's China war
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0394470516/
by Neville Maxwell
Neville Maxwell
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Neville+Maxwell%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Neville+Maxwell%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Neville%20Maxwell%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=dg
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=Neville%20Maxwell&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
http://news.google.com/news?q=%20%22Neville%20Maxwell%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=gn
If it were the policy now, then the Taiwanese would feel a lot safer.
Basically you asked the fox if the chickens were safe. And of course
the
fox said, "Yes. The chickens have nothing to fear from me."
But the foxes are Christian and Zen fascists.
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Neville Maxwell |
28 Feb 2005 03:08:47 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 01:03:45 -0800, maff thought carefully and wrote:
Jim Walsh wrote:
If it were the policy now, then the Taiwanese would feel a lot safer.
But the foxes are Christian and Zen fascists.
Are you seriously claiming that Christians and "Zen fascists" are
threatening Taiwan?
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Neville Maxwell |
28 Feb 2005 03:20:14 AM |
|
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 01:03:45 -0800, maff thought carefully and wrote:
Jim Walsh wrote:
If it were the policy now, then the Taiwanese would feel a lot
safer.
But the foxes are Christian and Zen fascists.
Are you seriously claiming that Christians and "Zen fascists" are
threatening Taiwan?
Certainly.
http://news.google.com/news?tab=gn&q=US%20Japan%20Taiwan%20China&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Neville Maxwell |
28 Feb 2005 03:07:33 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 01:03:45 -0800, maff thought carefully and wrote:
Jim Walsh wrote:
It it had been the policy then, the invasion of Tibet could have been
There was no invasion of Tibet.
So, the PLA soldiers were just out for a walk, got lost and happened to
end up in Tibet, where they quickly killed everyone who resisted?
The invasion of Tibet is a fact. [Similarly the invasion of Iraq is a
fact.]
The issue is not whether or not it happened, the issue is whether or not
it was wrong.
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Neville Maxwell |
28 Feb 2005 03:17:01 AM |
|
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 01:03:45 -0800, maff thought carefully and wrote:
Jim Walsh wrote:
It it had been the policy then, the invasion of Tibet could have
been
There was no invasion of Tibet.
So, the PLA soldiers were just out for a walk, got lost and happened
to
end up in Tibet, where they quickly killed everyone who resisted?
There was no resistance. If there was an invasion, why was the Dalai
Lama remain in Lhasa until 1959?
The invasion of Tibet is a fact. [Similarly the invasion of Iraq is a
fact.]
Aeertions by Christian and Zen fascists won't make it so.
The issue is not whether or not it happened, the issue is whether or
not
it was wrong.
Why would it be wrong? Even Dalai Lama accepted Tibet was part of
China.
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Neville Maxwell |
28 Feb 2005 03:26:41 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 01:17:01 -0800, maff thought carefully and wrote:
Assertions by Christian and Zen fascists won't make it so.
I am an atheist. I belong to no religion. I consider all religions,
including both Christianity and Tibetan Buddhism to be silly and wrong.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Neville Maxwell |
28 Feb 2005 04:03:38 AM |
|
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 01:17:01 -0800, maff thought carefully and wrote:
Assertions by Christian and Zen fascists won't make it so.
I am an atheist. I belong to no religion. I consider all religions,
including both Christianity and Tibetan Buddhism to be silly and
wrong.
But you aleady admitted that you're a Zen fascist.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Neville Maxwell |
01 Mar 2005 01:47:42 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 02:03:38 -0800, maff thought carefully and wrote:
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 01:17:01 -0800, maff thought carefully and wrote:
Assertions by Christian and Zen fascists won't make it so.
I am an atheist. I belong to no religion. I consider all religions,
including both Christianity and Tibetan Buddhism to be silly and wrong.
But you already admitted that you're a Zen fascist.
Why add this to your list of lies?
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Moore" |
|
| Title: Re: Neville Maxwell |
01 Mar 2005 11:03:25 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2005.03.01.07.47.40.728157@ms74.hinet.net>,
Jim Walsh <jimwalsh@ms74.hinet.net> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 02:03:38 -0800, maff thought carefully and wrote:
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 01:17:01 -0800, maff thought carefully and wrote:
Assertions by Christian and Zen fascists won't make it so.
I am an atheist. I belong to no religion. I consider all religions,
including both Christianity and Tibetan Buddhism to be silly and wrong.
But you already admitted that you're a Zen fascist.
Why add this to your list of lies?
His particular style of idiocy is to call everyone who disagrees
with him some kind of fascist. He's a joke to soc.culture.china.
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Neville Maxwell |
01 Mar 2005 02:24:05 PM |
|
|
Bill Moore wrote:
In article <pan.2005.03.01.07.47.40.728157@ms74.hinet.net>,
Jim Walsh <jimwalsh@ms74.hinet.net> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 02:03:38 -0800, maff thought carefully and
wrote:
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 01:17:01 -0800, maff thought carefully and
wrote:
Assertions by Christian and Zen fascists won't make it so.
I am an atheist. I belong to no religion. I consider all
religions,
including both Christianity and Tibetan Buddhism to be silly and
wrong.
But you already admitted that you're a Zen fascist.
Why add this to your list of lies?
His particular style of idiocy is to call everyone who disagrees
with him some kind of fascist. He's a joke to soc.culture.china.
Hitler also thought that everyone was an idiot except him. He had to
blow his brains out in an underground bunker. You'll be good buddies.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Neville Maxwell |
01 Mar 2005 05:09:47 AM |
|
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 02:03:38 -0800, maff thought carefully and wrote:
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 01:17:01 -0800, maff thought carefully and
wrote:
Assertions by Christian and Zen fascists won't make it so.
I am an atheist. I belong to no religion. I consider all
religions,
including both Christianity and Tibetan Buddhism to be silly and
wrong.
But you already admitted that you're a Zen fascist.
Why add this to your list of lies?
Cat caught your tongue, Zen fascist?
Zen
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/33f30c2f42a02f94
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Neville Maxwell |
28 Feb 2005 03:24:18 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 01:17:01 -0800, maff thought carefully and wrote:
Jim Walsh wrote:
So, the PLA soldiers were just out for a walk, got lost and happened to
end up in Tibet, where they quickly killed everyone who resisted?
There was no resistance.
Why send the army if there was no resistance? And, btw, what Chinese
officials were administering Tibet prior to the arrival of the army?
Hint: the answer is that no Chinese officials were doing any such thing
until after the PLA invaded.
If there was an invasion, why was the Dalai Lama remain in Lhasa until
1959?
Oh, I see. Saddam is in Iraq so there was no invasion of Iraq. Clever
argument (not).
The invasion of Tibet is a fact. [Similarly the invasion of Iraq is a
fact.]
The issue is not whether or not it happened, the issue is whether or
not it was wrong.
Why would it be wrong?
Because it was inconsistent with the wishes of the Tibetan people.
Even Dalai Lama accepted Tibet was part of China.
No. He accepts that some autonomy is the best he can hope for. In a
perfect world, he would not support Tibet being part of the PRC. No rather
adult would.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Neville Maxwell |
28 Feb 2005 04:02:13 AM |
|
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 01:17:01 -0800, maff thought carefully and wrote:
Jim Walsh wrote:
So, the PLA soldiers were just out for a walk, got lost and
happened to
end up in Tibet, where they quickly killed everyone who resisted?
There was no resistance.
Why send the army if there was no resistance? And, btw, what Chinese
officials were administering Tibet prior to the arrival of the army?
It was not just Tibet. There was hardly any government in most of China
under Zen fascists or KMT fascists. Even KMT considered Tibet part of
China.
http://www.index-china.com/index-english/Tibet-s.html
Hint: the answer is that no Chinese officials were doing any such
thing
until after the PLA invaded.
If there was an invasion, why was the Dalai Lama remain in Lhasa
until
1959?
Oh, I see. Saddam is in Iraq so there was no invasion of Iraq. Clever
argument (not).
Iraq was a sovereign country until Adolf Bush and Benito Blair invaded
the country without any explicit permission from the United Nations
Security Council.
The invasion of Tibet is a fact. [Similarly the invasion of Iraq
is a
fact.]
The issue is not whether or not it happened, the issue is whether
or
not it was wrong.
Why would it be wrong?
Because it was inconsistent with the wishes of the Tibetan people.
You can say that of half of the US.
Even Dalai Lama accepted Tibet was part of China.
No. He accepts that some autonomy is the best he can hope for. In a
perfect world, he would not support Tibet being part of the PRC. No
rather
adult would.
Nope. Dalai Lama remained with the Chinese goverment until CIA
instigated plots forced him to leave. Even Indian government accepted
that Tibet was part of China.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Tibet for Tibetans |
01 Mar 2005 01:55:40 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 02:02:13 -0800, maff thought carefully and wrote:
... Even KMT considered Tibet part of China.
Irrelevant. Japan considered Taiwan part of Japan. The decision as to what
political entity controls Tibet, Taiwan, France, Texas, and so on is only
properly made by the people of Tibet, Taiwan, France, Texas, and so on.
Because it was inconsistent with the wishes of the Tibetan people.
You can say that of half of the US.
No. Not at all. You don't really understand democracy, do you? The
election of Bush is not a reason for Californians to consider secession
any more than the election of Clinton was a reason for Texans to do so.
If every single human (other than Tibetans) in the world supported Tibet
being part of China, but the substantial majority of Tibetans opposed it,
then they should be free of Chinese rule.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
01 Mar 2005 02:17:23 AM |
|
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 02:02:13 -0800, maff thought carefully and wrote:
... Even KMT considered Tibet part of China.
Irrelevant. Japan considered Taiwan part of Japan. The decision as to
what
political entity controls Tibet, Taiwan, France, Texas, and so on is
only
properly made by the people of Tibet, Taiwan, France, Texas, and so
on.
Because it was inconsistent with the wishes of the Tibetan people.
You can say that of half of the US.
No. Not at all. You don't really understand democracy, do you? The
election of Bush is not a reason for Californians to consider
secession
any more than the election of Clinton was a reason for Texans to do
so.
If every single human (other than Tibetans) in the world supported
Tibet
being part of China, but the substantial majority of Tibetans opposed
it,
then they should be free of Chinese rule.
Easy for you to say this now. Remember how we forced the Treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo down Mexico's throat? Can Mexicans get half of their
land back from us? Do you support it based on the exact same principle?
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
01 Mar 2005 03:05:43 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 00:17:23 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
Jim Walsh wrote:
If every single human (other than Tibetans) in the world supported
Tibet being part of China, but the substantial majority of Tibetans
opposed it, then they should be free of Chinese rule.
Easy for you to say this now. Remember how we forced the Treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo down Mexico's throat? Can Mexicans get half of their
land back from us? Do you support it based on the exact same principle?
Since you don't understand the principle, let me explain it to you.
I start with The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 21, Part
(3), which states, "The will of the people shall be the basis of the
authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and
genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall
be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."
From this I conclude that, if a substantial majority of any area is
dis-satisfied with the political arrangements, they can vote to change
them. This includes secession.
From this I also conclude that neither a prior invasion nor other
injustice nor any historical event is a precondition to exercising this
right.
To answer your question directly: "Yes, if the residents of the area
stolen from Mexico want to be re-united with it, they can have an election
and if a substantial majority vote for it, it should occur."
To answer the question in a different context: "If the residents of two
countries wish to unite and create a single country, they can have an
election and if a substantial majority vote for it, it should occur."
I perceive that the above is happening in Europe. And that NAFFTA is a
small step in that direction in North America.
Furthermore: "If the residents of part of one country wish to leave and
create a separate country, they can have an election and if a substantial
majority vote for it, it should occur."
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
01 Mar 2005 04:29:29 AM |
|
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 00:17:23 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
Jim Walsh wrote:
If every single human (other than Tibetans) in the world supported
Tibet being part of China, but the substantial majority of
Tibetans
opposed it, then they should be free of Chinese rule.
Easy for you to say this now. Remember how we forced the Treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo down Mexico's throat? Can Mexicans get half of
their
land back from us? Do you support it based on the exact same
principle?
Since you don't understand the principle, let me explain it to you.
I start with The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 21,
Part
(3), which states, "The will of the people shall be the basis of the
authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and
genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and
shall
be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."
And I repeat since it is a historical fact we stole half of Mexico's
land and drove away their citizens, shouldn't they be able to vote to
get their land back? The descendents of the residents of the stolen
land were driven out of the land. Becareful how your logic to keep
American's stolen land can backfire on your Tibet argument.
From this I conclude that, if a substantial majority of any area is
dis-satisfied with the political arrangements, they can vote to
change
them. This includes secession.
From this I also conclude that neither a prior invasion nor other
injustice nor any historical event is a precondition to exercising
this
right.
To answer your question directly: "Yes, if the residents of the area
stolen from Mexico want to be re-united with it, they can have an
election
and if a substantial majority vote for it, it should occur."
How convienent for you to say this, now that we've invaded mexico,
driven mexicans out of their land we stole?
By the same reason, if China drove away the Tibetans, or move in a
majority of Han Chinese, then China can keep Tibet, right? Because it's
the residents of the area that get to decide, correct?
To answer the question in a different context: "If the residents of
two
countries wish to unite and create a single country, they can have an
election and if a substantial majority vote for it, it should occur."
Can the Native Americans vote to get their sovereignty and statehood
back? I guess not, since US government had declared them subjugated
with "limited sovereignty" and no right to statehood. Can China say the
same thing and keep Tibet?
I perceive that the above is happening in Europe. And that NAFFTA is
a
small step in that direction in North America.
Furthermore: "If the residents of part of one country wish to leave
and
create a separate country, they can have an election and if a
substantial
majority vote for it, it should occur."
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
01 Mar 2005 05:16:52 AM |
|
|
And as a reality check, let's compare our own country's treatment of
Native Americans and China's treatment of Tibetans:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12318245&dopt=Abstract
"The Han population living in Tibet was 2.93% in 1953, 4.85% in 1964,
and 3.09% in 1982. The Han and other ethnic group populations have
never exceeded 10% of the Tibetan population. Han and other ethnic
groups are higher in Nyingchi and Lhasa City, but the other 5
prefectures have over 97% Tibetan population."
Have we in US preserved Native American population to the extend that,
any sizeable, contiguous original NA territory with less than 10% of
white population, exists today?
Sure, now you say "let them vote", when we have effectively taken such
option away from our own conquered indiginous population thru genocide,
and displaced rest by redrawing international border with colonialism.
How about Mexico? We took half of their land and declared whoever
didn't get out "US citizen".
I'm sure you'll have a hard time accepting this - if it's the Chinese
that are doing it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
01 Mar 2005 07:51:22 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 03:16:52 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
And as a reality check, let's compare our own country's treatment of
Native Americans and China's treatment of Tibetans:
I am glad you implicitly agree that the Chinese treatment of the Tibetans
was wrong.
That the USA was worse, even 1,000,000,000 times worse, doesn't make the
CCP behavior correct.
Sin "A" does not excuse sin "B".
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
03 Mar 2005 03:13:57 AM |
|
|
A does not excuse B, yes. However our A does leave you without a moral
ground to stand on. Now you are saying "only resident", "statute of
limitation" - if China killed all them Tibetans and waited another 100
years, it be okay by your book, right?
Or you'd cite UN right of repatriation to slam China (while ignoring
such application to ourselves, or Israel)?
How do you propose we rectify our situation - or we really don't have
to do anything? Hypocrit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
03 Mar 2005 03:56:25 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 01:13:57 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
A does not excuse B, yes.
So, when I criticize the CCP for B, stop bringing up A.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
03 Mar 2005 12:02:42 PM |
|
|
I bring up A is because our A does leave you without a moral ground to
stand on. Now you are saying "only resident", "statute of limitation" -
if China killed all them Tibetans and waited another 100 years, it be
okay by your book, right?
Or you'd cite UN right of repatriation to slam China (while ignoring
such application to ourselves, or Israel)?
How do you propose we rectify our situation - or we really don't have
to do anything? Hypocrit.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
01 Mar 2005 07:49:28 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 02:29:29 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
And I repeat since it is a historical fact we stole half of Mexico's
land and drove away their citizens, shouldn't they be able to vote to
get their land back?
No. Residents, not descendants of residents.
Statute of Limitations.
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
03 Mar 2005 03:10:24 AM |
|
|
Wow, it took me a little while to realize your statement also applied
to the Palistinians.
So much for UN's declaration of repatriation rights. So if the Chinese
did what we did, eg kill all the Tibetans, and the few that refused to
die get stuffed in reservations and sedated with liquor. Then stuff
Tibet full of han Chinese so they can vote to keep stolen land.
Then you wouldn't have problem with it right? Since that's exactely
what we did.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
03 Mar 2005 03:56:59 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 01:10:24 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
Wow, it took me a little while to realize your statement also applied to
the Palistinians.
So much for UN's declaration of repatriation rights. So if the Chinese
did what we did, eg kill all the Tibetans, and the few that refused to
die get stuffed in reservations and sedated with liquor. Then stuff
Tibet full of han Chinese so they can vote to keep stolen land.
Then you wouldn't have problem with it right? Since that's exactely what
we did.
Statute of Limitations on crimes.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
