Chesto Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 Prior to 1959, when the Dalai Lama fled to N. India, after the Chinese Army invaded, Tibet was a feudal theocracy. Serfs worked for huge, land owning monasteries. Political rights were non existent. Ditto human rights. What kind of Tibet 'government' would be put in place if the Chinese government was persuaded to leave? And would we recognize the new Tibet as anything other than yet another dictatorship? Would the world be a safer place once the existing buffer between China and India was removed? Does the world really need another Iran, even if the new one 'seems' more cuddly? Do I NEED to say that I consider the present , and past, Chinese government activities to be wholly criminal, vicious... (you fill in the blanks)...? So please don't start off by accusing me of being an apologist for that , or any similar, regime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landsknecht Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 Prior to 1959, when the Dalai Lama fled to N. India, after the Chinese Army invaded, Tibet was a feudal theocracy. Serfs worked for huge, land owning monasteries. Political rights were non existent. Ditto human rights. With the Chinese occupation, the only difference is that the land is owned by Beijing instead of monasteries. What kind of Tibet 'government' would be put in place if the Chinese government was persuaded to leave? And would we recognize the new Tibet as anything other than yet another dictatorship? Would the world be a safer place once the existing buffer between China and India was removed? Does the world really need another Iran, even if the new one 'seems' more cuddly The government would probably be something similar to what it was with probably with not change in previous rights unless the Dalai Lama would be an Enlightened Despot. As a buffer zone, it would lessen tensions between China and India, possibly become split in half as a proxy state, like Iran was during the late Qajar dynasty. And speaking of Iran, I think a closed off county, like North Korea or the Taliban's Afghanistan would be a better example than "Iran" in that statement since Iran is open enough for there to be sizable opposition groups. Do I NEED to say that I consider the present , and past, Chinese government activities to be wholly criminal, vicious... (you fill in the blanks)...? So please don't start off by accusing me of being an apologist for that , or any similar, regime. If the Chinese government had a decent to good human rights record, there could be a debate for a continued occupation of Tibet, however, the people of Tibet are more likely to receive rights from a Tibetan dictatorship than from a government which is run half a continent away that runs over civilians with tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justwantmusicbe Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 What were they thinking, protesting against mighty China? They news got out, of course, but to what end? It always sounds really bad on the news but innocent people are getting hurt only because they decided to speak up without anything to back their words.If people would be willing to march into battle against impossible odds, that would get the word out these people have nothing to lose and simply hate whats going on, and bystanders would NOTICE. When they get a couple hundred people waving signs walking down a street, these people obviously dont care too much. Nonviolence like that is like approaching the government and saying please. With a revolution, the people demand reform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J3X Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 efter nuking Tibet I'm pretty sure China going to set it free..... :whistling: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.