Tibet

[Phreakmeister]

In 1991, the allied forces, led by the U.S., kicked Iraq out of Kuwait, after Saddam's troops had invaded the country. Allegedly, this was because of an illegal invasion of an independent country.

No matter how true that argument may be, why has the Western world not responded to the Chinese invasion of Tibet?????

What is the difference between the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the Chinese invasion of Tibet?


Well, the answer is simple. In Tibet, the occupied territory is less important, the occupant is more powerful, and it is happening in an economically less significant part of the world.

We, in the Western world, have to wake up, and demand justice. If we wanna be consequent, we also gotta kick China outta Tibet.

---------------------------------------------
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"
- Rev. Martin Luther King

While the decisions on foreign wars may not be consistent in a moral sense, they are all perfectly in line from an economical and political standpoint. While the allies may claim they liberated Kuwait for moral reasons, the main focus was due to their economic ties (oil trade) with the allies. Tibet is a mountainous country with hardly as many resources as Kuwait, and facing China, who is a standing trade partner with such countries as the US, would be detrimental to the US' economy, and if ground forces are used, military as well. I'm not saying that the US couldn't beat China in a war, but I would expect an invasion of Tibet to be much more costly than the 250ish I believe were lost in the Gulf War.

------------------
Co-Owner
Bueno Technologies

[ogb]

Fighting China would cause another world war - and nobody wants that. China has to be respected as any other leading nation in the world. It's a completely different situation if in a comparably unimportant country like Iraq some terrorist violates all human rights. This one can and must be punished. With China you can solve your problems only on a diplomatic way. Economy is just a second ranked aspect. Everyone knows that China is doing wrong (but improves slightly year by year), but a war against them is impossible. You only have to think about their number of human beings that would fight for them, which is a main aspect in a war.

[This message has been edited by ogb (edited January 18, 2002).]

[Phreakmeister]

So because China is important, it can do whatever it pleases?

Btw, for your info, I wasn't necessarily talking about military action. I was talking about getting China outta Tibet. Although I don't think politics and diplomacy will get that done, I never excluded that option.

In 1979, the Soviet-Union, a nuclear power, invaded Afghanistan. The US struck back then. Why can't it strike back now?

You bet economy is a first-ranked aspect. That's a main reason the US is fighting in Afghanistan now, and not in for instance Saudi-Arabia, or Sudan, or wherever. That's why it did intervene in Afghanistan in 1979, but not in Tibet. That's why it intervened in Kuwait in 1991, but not in Chechnya.

[TV_Guy]

US would get pretty badly screwed, they might win but the cost would the very high. There would have been some agenda for Afganistan, could be just a chance to peeve russia. Its ironic that they've invaded afganistan themselves.

[Phreakmeister]

Yeah, the Soviet-Union invaded Afghanistan themselves.
One independent country invading another independent country. Same thing happened in Kuwait. Same thing happened in Tibet.
But in several occassions, we, in the western world, intervened, and in similar occassions we don't. Now why doesn't that make sense to me?

[cleoeo]

The US went into Kuwait because it was in our best interests to protect the Middle Eastern oil field's stability.
The US went into Afganistan because the Taliban were harboring the asholes who destroyed the WTC.
The US has very little interest in interferring in the Tibet situation.

The idea that the US is an arrogant imperialist nation that runs around the globe interferring in everyone's affairs and trying to get them to live like Americans is not true. We only act on the International scene when our National interests are at stake. We did not really care too much about Saddam Husein repressing his own people until he invaded Kuwait. We did not really care about the Taliban's repressive actions like blowing up ancient Buddas until they harbored Al Queda. We aren't bullies and we aren't angels. We are, however, not to be messed with.

That's a nice, honest way to state it cleo http://rockbottomdlux.freewebspace.com/smilies/Clapping.gif .


I think I'm the only one using those extra smilies.... http://rockbottomdlux.freewebspace.com/smilies/Frustrated.gif

------------------
Co-Owner
Bueno Technologies

[MacReady]

True, America is more interest in milking other countries' natural recourses for only Americans' benefits. China is powerful country and we could fight them, it would be a long war unless we both go nuclear. Have to think their population are almost equal to world's population. Their army have 300 million ppl, while America have only 10 million ppl in army, navy, etc. America would be flood up by chinese army if we go war against them. America population is 300 million. 300 million chinese army vs 10 million American army, ouch it's like couple of trees being overrun by avalanche

[Phreakmeister]

The US went into Kuwait because it was in our best interests to protect the Middle Eastern oil field's stability.
The US went into Afganistan because the Taliban were harboring the asholes who destroyed the WTC.
The US has very little interest in interferring in the Tibet situation

See, and that is exactly my point. Because Saddam happened to intervene in an economically important area, the western world (not just the US) intervened.

And do you seriously think that it is just the Taliban harbouring those !%!%!%!%!%!%!%s? Well, think again. Now where again did they learn how to fly? Florida. Where did they meet one another? Germany. What were you saying about the Taliban again?

So because Tibet is in an economically unimportant area, China can just do to the Tibetans whatever it pleases? Now why does that sound just a little bit selfish to me?
"As long as our money isn't at stake, I don't care what they do to each other"

I believe China could easily be overtaken by the US in a war, just as Germany was really beating up Russia in WW2. The reason why Germany finally got pushed back by the Russians was their leadership (Hitler insisted on commanding everything) as well as other Allied armies on the German's tail on the western front as well. A modern example would be the Gulf War where the Iraqis lost an estimated 100,000+ and the US lost around 250ish, most of which were from weapon malfunctions and friendly fire...

------------------
Co-Owner
Bueno Technologies

[ogb]

Originally posted by Jeff:
The reason why Germany finally got pushed back by the Russians was their leadership (Hitler insisted on commanding everything) as well as other Allied armies on the German's tail on the western front as well.


No, that's not true. War was completely different compared to today. Hitler didn't have direct access to the troups in Russia. The German problem was the cold Russian winter which they did not expect and where they didn't have the clothes for. (Ask my landlord, he tells me stories about his time as war prisoner in Russia whenever I don't manage to escape http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/wink.gif)

[cleoeo]

Moot point who wins a land war between two nuclear superpowers with both warheads and delivery systems sufficient to blow up the world. It wouldn't do Tibetians or anyone else on the planet any good to have the US and China go toe-to-toe.
Well, perhaps a few survivalists hiding in bunkers in Oregon or fanatics hiding in caves in Afganistan would welcome the idea.

[Phreakmeister]

Now why does everybody keep on thinking that I'm talking about a (nuclear) war?

Although I don't believe in a political or diplomatic solution, I do not exclude the option.

[cleoeo]

You are correct, Phreakmeister, we Americans are rather selfish. We tend to take care of our own first, then help others if we feel we can. We'll spend huge sums of Government money to help indigent AIDS patients, homeless people, Mississippi flood victims, etc. because they are American citizens. The same ammount of money could potentially save millions of people in famine-stricken Africa, but Americans come first and the rest of the World comes second. No appologies either.

[Idnew]

http://rockbottomdlux.freewebspace.com/smilies/Clapping.gif for Cleoeo.

Well Jeff you could put a link to them ya know since Rock did them mostly for us to use. Next to the Smilies Legend or something maybe



------------------
(ô¿ô)Proud member of the Dumb Laws Mod Squad so watch it!*smile*

Attitude Ajustments Gladly Performed(ö¿ö)

My Home Spot (http://members.tripod.com/~freeatlast_3/Doing_Whatever.htm)

Brain Mania (http://www.brainmania.com)

Cosmic Coffee Shop (http://pub83.ezboard.com/bcosmiccoffeeshop)
Meet The Squad (http://www.geocities.com/idnew52/Mod_Squad_Poster.htm)

Hehe not my job....talk to Andy http://rockbottomdlux.freewebspace.com/smilies/Naughty.gif

------------------
Co-Owner
Bueno Technologies

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by cleoeo:
You are correct, Phreakmeister, we Americans are rather selfish.

Well, American people not necessarily. But American politicians: YES

[Sephirstein]

I would support kicking China's ass to free Tibet and keep Taiwan free.

[Phreakmeister]

So would I. And Xinjiang or Sinkiang-Uygur (north of Tibet).

------------------
Do you believe in death after life?