So Tibet eh?
So Tibet eh?
Any ideas on this one? The world as usual is strangely silent on Tibet (as it always is).
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
So Tibet eh?
Pelosi spoke today about it, and went to see the Dalai Lama. (her remarks are labeled her personal opinion, since the US government is mute on this point):(
China is oppressive in their responses to the protesters, and the situation in Tibet.
China is oppressive in their responses to the protesters, and the situation in Tibet.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
So Tibet eh?
Continues today
BEIJING - The flagship newspaper of China's ruling Communist Party called Saturday for efforts to "resolutely crush" anti-government demonstrations by Tibetans, while Beijing urged people to turn in those on a "Most Wanted" list of 21 protesters.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23754052/
BEIJING - The flagship newspaper of China's ruling Communist Party called Saturday for efforts to "resolutely crush" anti-government demonstrations by Tibetans, while Beijing urged people to turn in those on a "Most Wanted" list of 21 protesters.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23754052/
So Tibet eh?
What? Speak up and possible need then to take a stand on the Olympics?
We have turned a blind eye to all of the other human rights abuses in China, why would the west speak up about this one?
Face it, we want their cheep T-Shirts.
We have turned a blind eye to all of the other human rights abuses in China, why would the west speak up about this one?
Face it, we want their cheep T-Shirts.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
So Tibet eh?
Boycott the Olympics. Don't wait for governments, just make a personal commitment not to go. Not flying also helps save the planet (in a tiny way).
If it says "Made in China", don't buy it.
I'd recommend emailing or writing to the local Chinese Embassy, but I don't think totalitarian govts pay any attention. Hit their pocket, hit their showcase event.
If it says "Made in China", don't buy it.
I'd recommend emailing or writing to the local Chinese Embassy, but I don't think totalitarian govts pay any attention. Hit their pocket, hit their showcase event.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
So Tibet eh?
My way of protesting Chinese made junk is to shop the internet for USA made items I need. If I can't find it new, I look for good used USA made stuff. Being retired, it's much easier for me than for a family. But, that's how this one man fights China.
So Tibet eh?
jimbo;813877 wrote: remember people for every good deal you get buying cheap chinese goods some one in china is probably paying for it with their life 
:-5
Would you like to explain the reason you think so jimbo? If people stop buying Chinese goods the people of China would have no export market, I can't see that being very good for them.
Neither do I think China has a long-term human rights problem any more than a western democracy might face, I think it's changing fast and changing in interesting directions. This thread's simply xenophobic, it has no examples at all just prejudice.
:-5Would you like to explain the reason you think so jimbo? If people stop buying Chinese goods the people of China would have no export market, I can't see that being very good for them.
Neither do I think China has a long-term human rights problem any more than a western democracy might face, I think it's changing fast and changing in interesting directions. This thread's simply xenophobic, it has no examples at all just prejudice.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
So Tibet eh?
IMHO, we can support chinese laborers, or American ones. I made my choice.
So Tibet eh?
I'm not offering a fight, I just don't see how your average Chinese worker is going to thrive if nobody buys what his factory's producing. You see something different, I wondered what it was.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
So Tibet eh?
spot;813884 wrote: Would you like to explain the reason you think so jimbo? If people stop buying Chinese goods the people of China would have no export market, I can't see that being very good for them.
Neither do I think China has a long-term human rights problem any more than a western democracy might face, I think it's changing fast and changing in interesting directions. This thread's simply xenophobic, it has no examples at all just prejudice.
Why is it xenophobic to mention the Chinese occupation and repression in Tibet?
Is is xenophobic to mention the American occupation of Iraq, you know against Yanks?
Or the shelling and destruction of Grozny by the Russians?
Or is it anti-semitic to discuss the Israeli occupation of Palestine?
Should people have kept their mouths shut about Apartheid because it was offensive to the Africaaners?
Why is that?
Neither do I think China has a long-term human rights problem any more than a western democracy might face, I think it's changing fast and changing in interesting directions. This thread's simply xenophobic, it has no examples at all just prejudice.
Why is it xenophobic to mention the Chinese occupation and repression in Tibet?
Is is xenophobic to mention the American occupation of Iraq, you know against Yanks?
Or the shelling and destruction of Grozny by the Russians?
Or is it anti-semitic to discuss the Israeli occupation of Palestine?
Should people have kept their mouths shut about Apartheid because it was offensive to the Africaaners?
Why is that?
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
So Tibet eh?
spot;813912 wrote: I'm not offering a fight, I just don't see how your average Chinese worker is going to thrive if nobody buys what his factory's producing. You see something different, I wondered what it was.
Why should people in Britain be concerned about whether Chinese industrial workers thrive? I don't presume that Chinese people worry overmuch about whether people in Castle Bromwich have jobs.
Why should people in Britain be concerned about whether Chinese industrial workers thrive? I don't presume that Chinese people worry overmuch about whether people in Castle Bromwich have jobs.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
So Tibet eh?
Galbally;814097 wrote: Why should people in Britain be concerned about whether Chinese industrial workers thrive? I don't presume that Chinese people worry overmuch about whether people in Castle Bromwich have jobs.
If you look back you'll see I was responding to "remember people for every good deal you get buying cheap chinese goods some one in china is probably paying for it with their life", which I *do* consider xenophobic along with calls to "boycott the Olympics". There was another "boycott the Olympics" call last month to try to change the policies of the Burmese government, at least this one relates to China.
Either China has arguable historical claims to control the foreign policy of Tibet or it doesn't. Does it? The US most certainly doesn't have any historical claim to control the foreign policy of Occupied Iraq and yet it's doing so and it's going to insist on doing so for the next century like it's done with Occupied Japan and Occupied Korea.
China's not in that position at all. I tried, again last month, to find any instance in history where the Chinese had occupied any territory they didn't consider their national homeland and I thought we'd decided they hadn't ever done it.
Tibet's a province of China which has on occasion, when China's been weakened by external forces (I'm talking about the British Opium trade mainly), been autonomous. Tell me why that's not an accurate statement.
If you look back you'll see I was responding to "remember people for every good deal you get buying cheap chinese goods some one in china is probably paying for it with their life", which I *do* consider xenophobic along with calls to "boycott the Olympics". There was another "boycott the Olympics" call last month to try to change the policies of the Burmese government, at least this one relates to China.
Either China has arguable historical claims to control the foreign policy of Tibet or it doesn't. Does it? The US most certainly doesn't have any historical claim to control the foreign policy of Occupied Iraq and yet it's doing so and it's going to insist on doing so for the next century like it's done with Occupied Japan and Occupied Korea.
China's not in that position at all. I tried, again last month, to find any instance in history where the Chinese had occupied any territory they didn't consider their national homeland and I thought we'd decided they hadn't ever done it.
Tibet's a province of China which has on occasion, when China's been weakened by external forces (I'm talking about the British Opium trade mainly), been autonomous. Tell me why that's not an accurate statement.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
So Tibet eh?
spot;814188 wrote: If you look back you'll see I was responding to "remember people for every good deal you get buying cheap chinese goods some one in china is probably paying for it with their life", which I *do* consider xenophobic along with calls to "boycott the Olympics". There was another "boycott the Olympics" call last month to try to change the policies of the Burmese government, at least this one relates to China.
Either China has arguable historical claims to control the foreign policy of Tibet or it doesn't. Does it? The US most certainly doesn't have any historical claim to control the foreign policy of Occupied Iraq and yet it's doing so and it's going to insist on doing so for the next century like it's done with Occupied Japan and Occupied Korea.
China's not in that position at all. I tried, again last month, to find any instance in history where the Chinese had occupied any territory they didn't consider their national homeland and I thought we'd decided they hadn't ever done it.
Tibet's a province of China which has on occasion, when China's been weakened by external forces (I'm talking about the British Opium trade mainly), been autonomous. Tell me why that's not an accurate statement.
I do take your point in that you weren't replying to the original question, which is valid, but only to a response, though you said the "thread" was xenophobic as opposed to the replys so thats why I reacted in that way.
In terms of the wider issues, my response would be why not consider the opinion of lots of ordinary tibetans about how they feel about Chinese claims that "Tibet is an intrinsic part of China", instead of repeating Chinese government propaganda, based on a selective reading of events. The simple question is that if people are so happy about Chinese rule, then why are the Chinese police and military batoning people off the streets in Katmandu and Lhasa? Why did the communists have to use the military to invade and occupy Tibet, and surrounding regions in the first place in 1949? Why have they had to rule with an Iron fist ever since?
I don't think most people here support the War in Iraq, I certainly don't and I never have, but thats got nothing to do with what the Chinese are up to, they are independent issues. I think as usual you are engaging in moral relativism.
Either China has arguable historical claims to control the foreign policy of Tibet or it doesn't. Does it? The US most certainly doesn't have any historical claim to control the foreign policy of Occupied Iraq and yet it's doing so and it's going to insist on doing so for the next century like it's done with Occupied Japan and Occupied Korea.
China's not in that position at all. I tried, again last month, to find any instance in history where the Chinese had occupied any territory they didn't consider their national homeland and I thought we'd decided they hadn't ever done it.
Tibet's a province of China which has on occasion, when China's been weakened by external forces (I'm talking about the British Opium trade mainly), been autonomous. Tell me why that's not an accurate statement.
I do take your point in that you weren't replying to the original question, which is valid, but only to a response, though you said the "thread" was xenophobic as opposed to the replys so thats why I reacted in that way.
In terms of the wider issues, my response would be why not consider the opinion of lots of ordinary tibetans about how they feel about Chinese claims that "Tibet is an intrinsic part of China", instead of repeating Chinese government propaganda, based on a selective reading of events. The simple question is that if people are so happy about Chinese rule, then why are the Chinese police and military batoning people off the streets in Katmandu and Lhasa? Why did the communists have to use the military to invade and occupy Tibet, and surrounding regions in the first place in 1949? Why have they had to rule with an Iron fist ever since?
I don't think most people here support the War in Iraq, I certainly don't and I never have, but thats got nothing to do with what the Chinese are up to, they are independent issues. I think as usual you are engaging in moral relativism.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
So Tibet eh?
I do also agree that this idea that all these cheap manufactured products we are buying from China has no immeadiate human costs, as well as serious long term costs for ourselves is nonsense. That will become far more apparent over the next two decades.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
So Tibet eh?
Quebec wants pretty much the same thing. Autonomy without independence. They want Canada to foot the bill but have no jurisdiction over them. It's a bit more severe to consider as Quebec is smack in the middle of the country. If ask English speaking Canadians what they think of Quebec separatists you'll likely hear a few expletives. We've wasted a lot of money holding referendums and the idea that we'd still have to feed the province money makes them look like rebellious teenagers who don't want to pay their own rent.
You'll also find many instances there of English being banned from store signage and employers charged for hiring someone who doesn't speak French.
So, I think, we have a similar circumstance but one that is more easily seen from all angles. The Dalai Lama being the leader of Tibet makes one think that they must have been done wrong and the Chinese must be spiritually bankrupt but it is possible that there is another explanation.
The world is also strangely silent about the plight of Quebec. :rolleyes:
You'll also find many instances there of English being banned from store signage and employers charged for hiring someone who doesn't speak French.
So, I think, we have a similar circumstance but one that is more easily seen from all angles. The Dalai Lama being the leader of Tibet makes one think that they must have been done wrong and the Chinese must be spiritually bankrupt but it is possible that there is another explanation.
The world is also strangely silent about the plight of Quebec. :rolleyes:
So Tibet eh?
koan;814337 wrote: Quebec wants pretty much the same thing. Autonomy without independence. They want Canada to foot the bill but have no jurisdiction over them. It's a bit more severe to consider as Quebec is smack in the middle of the country. If ask English speaking Canadians what they think of Quebec separatists you'll likely hear a few expletives. We've wasted a lot of money holding referendums and the idea that we'd still have to feed the province money makes them look like rebellious teenagers who don't want to pay their own rent.
You'll also find many instances there of English being banned from store signage and employers charged for hiring someone who doesn't speak French.
So, I think, we have a similar circumstance but one that is more easily seen from all angles. The Dalai Lama being the leader of Tibet makes one think that they must have been done wrong and the Chinese must be spiritually bankrupt but it is possible that there is another explanation.
The world is also strangely silent about the plight of Quebec. :rolleyes:
Wow, are the rest of Canadians going to send the tanks in?, brilliant, thats an unexpected twist as you people are famously not like that really. I would also suggest that you have a fight with Denmark over Greenland (its thawing out, might be oil in there), with the Yanks over the Northwest passage, (not to be confused with the back passage), and with Iceland over fishing in the North Atlantic. Maybe its the rise of Canada we should worry about.
You'll also find many instances there of English being banned from store signage and employers charged for hiring someone who doesn't speak French.
So, I think, we have a similar circumstance but one that is more easily seen from all angles. The Dalai Lama being the leader of Tibet makes one think that they must have been done wrong and the Chinese must be spiritually bankrupt but it is possible that there is another explanation.
The world is also strangely silent about the plight of Quebec. :rolleyes:
Wow, are the rest of Canadians going to send the tanks in?, brilliant, thats an unexpected twist as you people are famously not like that really. I would also suggest that you have a fight with Denmark over Greenland (its thawing out, might be oil in there), with the Yanks over the Northwest passage, (not to be confused with the back passage), and with Iceland over fishing in the North Atlantic. Maybe its the rise of Canada we should worry about.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
So Tibet eh?
Galbally;814345 wrote: Wow, are the rest of Canadians going to send the tanks in?, brilliant, thats an unexpected twist as you people are famously not like that really. I would also suggest that you have a fight with Denmark over Greenland (its thawing out, might be oil in there), with the Yanks over the Northwest passage, (not to be confused with the back passage), and with Iceland over fishing in the North Atlantic. Maybe its the rise of Canada we should worry about.
We're dangerous and cunning creatures. One day the world will fear us.
We're dangerous and cunning creatures. One day the world will fear us.
So Tibet eh?
The reason the Chinese government is being so repressive is that collectively they're scared of various potential mass movements. Christianity, Tibetan independence, Falun Gong, Islam, the Kuomintang in Taiwan - all the mass movements that can draw a large body of people to a non-Party allegiance, each of those groups number tens of millions. Within central China it's far harder to protest on the street, the reaction's more immediate and the army's immediately to hand. Across Tibet the army's proportionately fewer in number. The policy seems to be shut up and keep your head down or you'll be considered an enemy of the state. If the West didn't employ such similar definitions about who's a terrorist it would be a lot easier to draw a distinction between our pristine selves and the ruling elite in China.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
So Tibet eh?
I'd prefer to see the Dalai Lama state that they want independence. Autonomy within another country just doesn't seem like a good plan. Next they'll be baking croissants and marketing their own brand of smoked ham.
So Tibet eh?
spot;814354 wrote: The reason the Chinese government is being so repressive is that collectively they're scared of various potential mass movements. Christianity, Tibetan independence, Falun Gong, Islam, the Kuomintang in Taiwan - all the mass movements that can draw a large body of people to a non-Party allegiance, each of those groups number tens of millions. Within central China it's far harder to protest on the street, the reaction's more immediate and the army's immediately to hand. Across Tibet the army's proportionately fewer in number. The policy seems to be shut up and keep your head down or you'll be considered an enemy of the state. If the West didn't employ such similar definitions about who's a terrorist it would be a lot easier to draw a distinction between our pristine selves and the ruling elite in China.
Its certainly true that western hyprocrisy about oppression and exploitation, and this current ridiculous "war" on all terrorism, as if that was a definable or realistic idea, does make it much harder to be unequivocal about things like this, so I agree with the thrust of what your saying.
Its certainly true that western hyprocrisy about oppression and exploitation, and this current ridiculous "war" on all terrorism, as if that was a definable or realistic idea, does make it much harder to be unequivocal about things like this, so I agree with the thrust of what your saying.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
So Tibet eh?
It also has threatened Beijing's attempts to project an image of unity and prosperity ahead of the Aug. 8-24 Olympics.
Beijing's official death toll from last week's rioting in the Tibetan capital of Lhasa rose to 22, with the Xinhua News Agency reporting that five more civilians and a police officer died. The Tibetan government-in-exile has said 99 Tibetans have been killed _ 80 in Lhasa and 19 in Gansu province.
Beijing has portrayed the protests as having been instigated by supporters of the exiled Tibetan leader, the Dalai Lama.
'Evil intentions'
"We must see through the secessionist forces' evil intentions, uphold the banner of maintaining social stability ... and resolutely crush the 'Tibet independence' forces' conspiracy," the People's Daily said in an editorial.
Obviously Beijing doesnt have a clue. Its like someone standing in the middle of the room saying "IM NOT HERE"
Beijing's official death toll from last week's rioting in the Tibetan capital of Lhasa rose to 22, with the Xinhua News Agency reporting that five more civilians and a police officer died. The Tibetan government-in-exile has said 99 Tibetans have been killed _ 80 in Lhasa and 19 in Gansu province.
Beijing has portrayed the protests as having been instigated by supporters of the exiled Tibetan leader, the Dalai Lama.
'Evil intentions'
"We must see through the secessionist forces' evil intentions, uphold the banner of maintaining social stability ... and resolutely crush the 'Tibet independence' forces' conspiracy," the People's Daily said in an editorial.
Obviously Beijing doesnt have a clue. Its like someone standing in the middle of the room saying "IM NOT HERE"
I AM AWESOME MAN
So Tibet eh?
Tibet or not Tibet, that is the question;
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
So Tibet eh?
The riots continue, into Nepal today. And there was a protest at the Olympic torch lighting ceremony:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23780660/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23780660/
So Tibet eh?
‘The plight of Quebec’ that is funny. Those poor Québécois, having to be part of a country that is constantly ranked by the UN as one of the top 5 countries in the world to live in. I am surprised the world has not joined together and protested.
koan;814337 wrote: Quebec wants pretty much the same thing. Autonomy without independence. They want Canada to foot the bill but have no jurisdiction over them. It's a bit more severe to consider as Quebec is smack in the middle of the country. If ask English speaking Canadians what they think of Quebec separatists you'll likely hear a few expletives. We've wasted a lot of money holding referendums and the idea that we'd still have to feed the province money makes them look like rebellious teenagers who don't want to pay their own rent.
You'll also find many instances there of English being banned from store signage and employers charged for hiring someone who doesn't speak French.
So, I think, we have a similar circumstance but one that is more easily seen from all angles. The Dalai Lama being the leader of Tibet makes one think that they must have been done wrong and the Chinese must be spiritually bankrupt but it is possible that there is another explanation.
The world is also strangely silent about the plight of Quebec. :rolleyes:
koan;814337 wrote: Quebec wants pretty much the same thing. Autonomy without independence. They want Canada to foot the bill but have no jurisdiction over them. It's a bit more severe to consider as Quebec is smack in the middle of the country. If ask English speaking Canadians what they think of Quebec separatists you'll likely hear a few expletives. We've wasted a lot of money holding referendums and the idea that we'd still have to feed the province money makes them look like rebellious teenagers who don't want to pay their own rent.
You'll also find many instances there of English being banned from store signage and employers charged for hiring someone who doesn't speak French.
So, I think, we have a similar circumstance but one that is more easily seen from all angles. The Dalai Lama being the leader of Tibet makes one think that they must have been done wrong and the Chinese must be spiritually bankrupt but it is possible that there is another explanation.
The world is also strangely silent about the plight of Quebec. :rolleyes:
So Tibet eh?
It's the part about wanting another country to foot the bill but allowing another group to govern the area that is problematic for me.
I really can't see it as any better than a teenager wanting to move out of the parent's house but doesn't want to pay rent or hydro.
I wish I'd had a chance to visit Tibet before it was taken over and altered by "modernization" but that isn't possible. No point dwelling on the past. No citizens should have to live in fear of their own government and it is a terrible thing when they do. I support populations that wish to return to or remain in their country and be unmolested. I can't support any ideas that a culture should be given their own land but have someone else deal with all the grown up stuff of having to pay for it. I don't care how spiritual the Dalai Lama is, if he doesn't want his own country than he should just accept what happens when someone else owns it. He'd have to work his way into the government of the country he lives in, like anyone else, or walk away.
If all he's trained to do is lead a sect of people spiritually like a giant ashram plopped in the middle of whatever country will have him, then he isn't a political leader at all. I'd be interested to see him sit at round tables with other world leaders and discuss global warming in terms of practical solutions or take a stance on other global issues/wars/displaced people.
Go Dalai Lama. Get in there.
Otherwise, just stay out and continue being a simple spiritual leader.
Maybe I'm wrong and he's just saying that he doesn't want independence so that they'll negotiate. If that's the case, whoa, Dalai, you sly dog, welcome to the political world of liars, you're doing well.
I really can't see it as any better than a teenager wanting to move out of the parent's house but doesn't want to pay rent or hydro.
I wish I'd had a chance to visit Tibet before it was taken over and altered by "modernization" but that isn't possible. No point dwelling on the past. No citizens should have to live in fear of their own government and it is a terrible thing when they do. I support populations that wish to return to or remain in their country and be unmolested. I can't support any ideas that a culture should be given their own land but have someone else deal with all the grown up stuff of having to pay for it. I don't care how spiritual the Dalai Lama is, if he doesn't want his own country than he should just accept what happens when someone else owns it. He'd have to work his way into the government of the country he lives in, like anyone else, or walk away.
If all he's trained to do is lead a sect of people spiritually like a giant ashram plopped in the middle of whatever country will have him, then he isn't a political leader at all. I'd be interested to see him sit at round tables with other world leaders and discuss global warming in terms of practical solutions or take a stance on other global issues/wars/displaced people.
Go Dalai Lama. Get in there.
Otherwise, just stay out and continue being a simple spiritual leader.
Maybe I'm wrong and he's just saying that he doesn't want independence so that they'll negotiate. If that's the case, whoa, Dalai, you sly dog, welcome to the political world of liars, you're doing well.
So Tibet eh?
One can quite see why China's so keen on retaining control of Tibet's foreign policy. The southern border's impenetrable. By contrast, were Tibet in the same position with China as Turkey is vis-a-vis Russia (a long shared border) and with the US (military acquiescence) you'd have US bases and airfields and mobile ICBM launchers all along China's currently undefended flank. Of course the Chinese will put up with a bit of bad press to avoid that, and who'd blame them.
What's more, we've seen so many instances of CIA-financed "popular protests" in so many countries - Iran in 1953 is a perfect example leading to the overthrow of a democratic nationalist government - that it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the US was handing out bags full of dollars in exchange for the unrest. They do, after all, now own Afghanistan and keep bases in lots of other 'stans round that part of the world, and they do have a habit of punching below the belt.
What's more, we've seen so many instances of CIA-financed "popular protests" in so many countries - Iran in 1953 is a perfect example leading to the overthrow of a democratic nationalist government - that it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the US was handing out bags full of dollars in exchange for the unrest. They do, after all, now own Afghanistan and keep bases in lots of other 'stans round that part of the world, and they do have a habit of punching below the belt.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
So Tibet eh?
spot;815667 wrote: One can quite see why China's so keen on retaining control of Tibet's foreign policy. The southern border's impenetrable. By contrast, were Tibet in the same position with China as Turkey is vis-a-vis Russia (a long shared border) and with the US (military acquiescence) you'd have US bases and airfields and mobile ICBM launchers all along China's currently undefended flank. Of course the Chinese will put up with a bit of bad press to avoid that, and who'd blame them.
What's more, we've seen so many instances of CIA-financed "popular protests" in so many countries - Iran in 1953 is a perfect example leading to the overthrow of a democratic nationalist government - that it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the US was handing out bags full of dollars in exchange for the unrest. They do, after all, now own Afghanistan and keep bases in lots of other 'stans round that part of the world, and they do have a habit of punching below the belt.
Well now, I think we can be fairly assured that what is happening in Tibet has not got a lot to do with the U.S., as its China that is the main actor in everything that is happening, China has all the power there, and given the recent history of the place, its pretty amazing that a lid has been kept on the resentment for so long.
I guess that it was pretty inevitable that a lot of people across China were going to use the Olympics to embaress their government, which whatever way you want to look at it, is very repressive and not afraid to use extreme force (on occasion) against its own people when it percieves they are going to far.
So disidents and ordinary people who are disaffected are trying to make a statement, and why not, its as good an opportunity as they ever will get probably. God help them when the crackdown really starts, which will be after the summer games of course, when we have all forgotten about it again.
What's more, we've seen so many instances of CIA-financed "popular protests" in so many countries - Iran in 1953 is a perfect example leading to the overthrow of a democratic nationalist government - that it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the US was handing out bags full of dollars in exchange for the unrest. They do, after all, now own Afghanistan and keep bases in lots of other 'stans round that part of the world, and they do have a habit of punching below the belt.
Well now, I think we can be fairly assured that what is happening in Tibet has not got a lot to do with the U.S., as its China that is the main actor in everything that is happening, China has all the power there, and given the recent history of the place, its pretty amazing that a lid has been kept on the resentment for so long.
I guess that it was pretty inevitable that a lot of people across China were going to use the Olympics to embaress their government, which whatever way you want to look at it, is very repressive and not afraid to use extreme force (on occasion) against its own people when it percieves they are going to far.
So disidents and ordinary people who are disaffected are trying to make a statement, and why not, its as good an opportunity as they ever will get probably. God help them when the crackdown really starts, which will be after the summer games of course, when we have all forgotten about it again.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
So Tibet eh?
Well not really, the "China that is the main actor in everything that is happening" bit. They're obviously not bringing the crowds out onto the streets, now are they. Someone is and it's not the Chinese government. It's organized and one assumes that any large-scale conspiracy inside their border would be persuaded to come down to the station quietly and help the police with their inquiries for a good while. That makes it externally sponsored by my reckoning. I don't insist, I just claim logic.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
So Tibet eh?
spot;815896 wrote: Well not really, the "China that is the main actor in everything that is happening" bit. They're obviously not bringing the crowds out onto the streets, now are they. Someone is and it's not the Chinese government. It's organized and one assumes that any large-scale conspiracy inside their border would be persuaded to come down to the station quietly and help the police with their inquiries for a good while. That makes it externally sponsored by my reckoning. I don't insist, I just claim logic.
Maybe it is the French, President Sarkozy isn't ruling out boycotting the olympics if China doesn't show responsibilty for the unrest. (whatever that means)
Maybe it is the French, President Sarkozy isn't ruling out boycotting the olympics if China doesn't show responsibilty for the unrest. (whatever that means)
So Tibet eh?
Where did you get those words from?? It's not a suggested boycott of any competitions, just the opening ceremony. It's asking for an improvement, not an acknowledgment of responsibility.http://www.rte.ie/sport/other/2008/0325/olympics.html
Robert Menard, secretary general of Reporters Without Borders, asked for Mr Sarkozy to consider a boycott of the Beijing opening ceremony. 'The responsibility lies in the hands of politicians,' Mr Menard said. 'We do not call for a boycott of athletes, (but) we asked Mr Sarkozy to say that if the situation does not improve in Tibet and China, (French athletes) will not be present on 8 August.'That's the only use of "responsibility" that I can see. I took it that he was referring to his own president acting responsibly, not the Chinese government taking responsibility for starting the unrest!
Robert Menard, secretary general of Reporters Without Borders, asked for Mr Sarkozy to consider a boycott of the Beijing opening ceremony. 'The responsibility lies in the hands of politicians,' Mr Menard said. 'We do not call for a boycott of athletes, (but) we asked Mr Sarkozy to say that if the situation does not improve in Tibet and China, (French athletes) will not be present on 8 August.'That's the only use of "responsibility" that I can see. I took it that he was referring to his own president acting responsibly, not the Chinese government taking responsibility for starting the unrest!
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
So Tibet eh?
Here.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080325/wl_ ... bet_dc_137
French President Nicolas Sarkozy urged China on Tuesday to show responsibility over the unrest and refused to rule out a possible boycott of the Beijing Olympic Games.
"I don't close the door to any option, but I think it's more prudent to reserve my responses to concrete developments in the situation," Sarkozy said, when asked about a possible boycott.
In Washington, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, reacting to Sarkozy's remarks on the Olympics, said there was no change in Bush's plans to attend the Games.
"We believe that China should respect minority cultures -- particularly in this case, the Tibetan culture -- and we want to make sure that there is freedom of the press and international access to the area," Perino said.
Beijing had hoped the torch's journey around the world and through China would be a symbol of confident national unity ahead of the Games, which open on August 8. Instead, it is caught in a war of words with the Dalai Lama, Tibetan Buddhism's spiritual leader, and his supporters.
SNOW LION
Beijing has accused the Nobel Peace Prize-winning monk of masterminding monk-led marches in Lhasa and then an anti-Chinese riot there in mid-March, which authorities say killed 19.
Since then, Tibetan parts of western China have seen ongoing protests, despite a massive influx of police and troops. The Dalai Lama, 72, denies he is behind the unrest and his government-in-exile says 140 people have died in the violence.
China's Communist authorities, which entered Tibet in 1950, have barred foreign journalists from the remote, mountain region, making the competing claims difficult to independently check.
In Lhasa, 13 people were arrested for a March 10 protest, the Tibet Daily reported, the first announcement of consequences for those involved in that largely peaceful march.
Monks yelled "reactionary slogans" and held up a banner of snow-mountain lions, the Tibet Daily said. The snow lion symbolizes demands for Tibetan independence and the march came on the anniversary of a failed 1959 uprising against Chinese rule.
Nicholas Bequelin of Human Rights Watch said the arrests of apparently peaceful protesters marked a turn in the security crackdown in Tibet towards political targets.
"This official account gives credence to the fact that the protests in Lhasa started peacefully, and only in subsequent days, after repeated police suppression, did they become violent," said Bequelin.
China's Minister for Public Security, Meng Jianzhu, made an inspection tour of Lhasa and vowed stricter management of Tibetan Buddhist monasteries, the Tibet Daily reported.
The riot "not only violated the law, it also seriously violated the fundamental teachings of Tibetan Buddhism," the newspaper quoted Meng as saying, adding the Dalai Lama had long been disqualified as a true Buddhist.
Buddhist monks were involved in protests leading to the March 14 riot, and threw rocks and hot water at police, the Tibet paper said, calling them "loyal running dogs of the Dalai clique."
But China's assertion that protests outside of Lhasa have faded after a massive influx of troops across Tibet and nearby areas was shaken when state media announced the Ganzi unrest.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080325/wl_ ... bet_dc_137
French President Nicolas Sarkozy urged China on Tuesday to show responsibility over the unrest and refused to rule out a possible boycott of the Beijing Olympic Games.
"I don't close the door to any option, but I think it's more prudent to reserve my responses to concrete developments in the situation," Sarkozy said, when asked about a possible boycott.
In Washington, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, reacting to Sarkozy's remarks on the Olympics, said there was no change in Bush's plans to attend the Games.
"We believe that China should respect minority cultures -- particularly in this case, the Tibetan culture -- and we want to make sure that there is freedom of the press and international access to the area," Perino said.
Beijing had hoped the torch's journey around the world and through China would be a symbol of confident national unity ahead of the Games, which open on August 8. Instead, it is caught in a war of words with the Dalai Lama, Tibetan Buddhism's spiritual leader, and his supporters.
SNOW LION
Beijing has accused the Nobel Peace Prize-winning monk of masterminding monk-led marches in Lhasa and then an anti-Chinese riot there in mid-March, which authorities say killed 19.
Since then, Tibetan parts of western China have seen ongoing protests, despite a massive influx of police and troops. The Dalai Lama, 72, denies he is behind the unrest and his government-in-exile says 140 people have died in the violence.
China's Communist authorities, which entered Tibet in 1950, have barred foreign journalists from the remote, mountain region, making the competing claims difficult to independently check.
In Lhasa, 13 people were arrested for a March 10 protest, the Tibet Daily reported, the first announcement of consequences for those involved in that largely peaceful march.
Monks yelled "reactionary slogans" and held up a banner of snow-mountain lions, the Tibet Daily said. The snow lion symbolizes demands for Tibetan independence and the march came on the anniversary of a failed 1959 uprising against Chinese rule.
Nicholas Bequelin of Human Rights Watch said the arrests of apparently peaceful protesters marked a turn in the security crackdown in Tibet towards political targets.
"This official account gives credence to the fact that the protests in Lhasa started peacefully, and only in subsequent days, after repeated police suppression, did they become violent," said Bequelin.
China's Minister for Public Security, Meng Jianzhu, made an inspection tour of Lhasa and vowed stricter management of Tibetan Buddhist monasteries, the Tibet Daily reported.
The riot "not only violated the law, it also seriously violated the fundamental teachings of Tibetan Buddhism," the newspaper quoted Meng as saying, adding the Dalai Lama had long been disqualified as a true Buddhist.
Buddhist monks were involved in protests leading to the March 14 riot, and threw rocks and hot water at police, the Tibet paper said, calling them "loyal running dogs of the Dalai clique."
But China's assertion that protests outside of Lhasa have faded after a massive influx of troops across Tibet and nearby areas was shaken when state media announced the Ganzi unrest.
So Tibet eh?
Typical US news hype, isn't it. It doesn't quote him saying he's considering a boycott of the competitions, it just muses. Even then, "show responsibility over the unrest" is nowhere near the same as "take responsibility for the unrest".
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
So Tibet eh?
spot;815896 wrote: Well not really, the "China that is the main actor in everything that is happening" bit. They're obviously not bringing the crowds out onto the streets, now are they. Someone is and it's not the Chinese government. It's organized and one assumes that any large-scale conspiracy inside their border would be persuaded to come down to the station quietly and help the police with their inquiries for a good while. That makes it externally sponsored by my reckoning. I don't insist, I just claim logic.
So basically what you are saying is that widescale civil unrest in Tibet and other Western Provinces of China, against the PRC government, by Chinese citizens, because of internal Chinese and Tibetan issues is America's fault? Spot you are so blinkered with this mantra about the US, its just laughable.
My point about the Chinese having the power is that Tibet is part of China, its policed by the Chinese police, and the PLA, its governance is conducted by Communist Party Officials, who control almost all aspect of public and personal life, they are the people who have created the situation, and the population are reacting (well some of them are) against a situation they percieve to be unjust or repressive or whatever, how you manage to wangle in some conspiracy about the evil US and the their dollars, you might as well be working for the propaganda machine in Beijing.
The US supports the Chinese government, not the people of Tibet, look at US-China trade, at EU-China trade, we are all in bed with the Chinese Communist party and their complete repression of all free speech, expression, religion, or politics of 1.3 billion people because its profitable, and we are getting cheap goods from the exploitation of the Chinese proleteriat by their own Communist leaders, its kinda almost trippy really, the worlds leading communist nation, providing the labour (and quite a lot of the capital) for the world's capitalist economies. And you think the US or Britain, or Europe is interested in Tibet and some monks, or would risk an economic confrontation with China because of the Dalai Lama? I mean you can't really be so deluded as to believe that crap can you?
Ultimately the responsibility for what the PRC does belongs to the Communist Party in China, they are responsible for the lives of their people, and how they live, not America, the Western countries are just making hay while the sun shines, while the Communists in Bejing long ago gave up any pretense of believing in a socialist vision for the future, and instead are using every means necessary to simply ensure that they maintain their authoritarian grip on power via state planned uber-capitalism enforced through police repression, they are making a mockery of the human idea of the Olympics, and will no doubt turn it into some god awful mass propaganda rally, like Berlin 1936 or something, and we are all colluding in it, our atheletes will all run around like China is our new best friend, and the companies will sell soft drinks, and its disgusting to watch. The power-mad communists and their usual schemes of dominion, leading the greedy, morally bankrupt Westerners into a hell which they will enjoy together at their leisure. You probably think that's great because somehow it sticks it to your bogeyman the US, what you don't seem to see is the depressing nature of what's happening, how blinkered you are sometimes.
So basically what you are saying is that widescale civil unrest in Tibet and other Western Provinces of China, against the PRC government, by Chinese citizens, because of internal Chinese and Tibetan issues is America's fault? Spot you are so blinkered with this mantra about the US, its just laughable.
My point about the Chinese having the power is that Tibet is part of China, its policed by the Chinese police, and the PLA, its governance is conducted by Communist Party Officials, who control almost all aspect of public and personal life, they are the people who have created the situation, and the population are reacting (well some of them are) against a situation they percieve to be unjust or repressive or whatever, how you manage to wangle in some conspiracy about the evil US and the their dollars, you might as well be working for the propaganda machine in Beijing.
The US supports the Chinese government, not the people of Tibet, look at US-China trade, at EU-China trade, we are all in bed with the Chinese Communist party and their complete repression of all free speech, expression, religion, or politics of 1.3 billion people because its profitable, and we are getting cheap goods from the exploitation of the Chinese proleteriat by their own Communist leaders, its kinda almost trippy really, the worlds leading communist nation, providing the labour (and quite a lot of the capital) for the world's capitalist economies. And you think the US or Britain, or Europe is interested in Tibet and some monks, or would risk an economic confrontation with China because of the Dalai Lama? I mean you can't really be so deluded as to believe that crap can you?
Ultimately the responsibility for what the PRC does belongs to the Communist Party in China, they are responsible for the lives of their people, and how they live, not America, the Western countries are just making hay while the sun shines, while the Communists in Bejing long ago gave up any pretense of believing in a socialist vision for the future, and instead are using every means necessary to simply ensure that they maintain their authoritarian grip on power via state planned uber-capitalism enforced through police repression, they are making a mockery of the human idea of the Olympics, and will no doubt turn it into some god awful mass propaganda rally, like Berlin 1936 or something, and we are all colluding in it, our atheletes will all run around like China is our new best friend, and the companies will sell soft drinks, and its disgusting to watch. The power-mad communists and their usual schemes of dominion, leading the greedy, morally bankrupt Westerners into a hell which they will enjoy together at their leisure. You probably think that's great because somehow it sticks it to your bogeyman the US, what you don't seem to see is the depressing nature of what's happening, how blinkered you are sometimes.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Phoenix789
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:34 pm
So Tibet eh?
So, um...sorry to be so ignorant, but what has actually happened between China and Tibet?
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
So Tibet eh?
Tibet is protesting against Chinese rule, China doesn't want them to protest, it is escalating.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23780660/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23780660/
So Tibet eh?
Galbally;816271 wrote: You probably think that's great because somehow it sticks it to your bogeyman the US, what you don't seem to see is the depressing nature of what's happening, how blinkered you are sometimes.
It comes down to consequences. The Americans have emptied the shop of rope, they've taken so much over so many years. Now you're disapproving of the Chinese in the same way you disapproved of the Soviets and of the Cubans, for equally poor reasons. I went to the Soviet Union, I've talked to people who lived in the Soviet Union, it wasn't the hell-hole you describe. It was a place of mass idealism which was genuinely felt, not mocked at. We need that element of social idealism and the US has entirely lost it under Capitalism.
As for whether the Americans are capable of stirring up civil unrest abroad for their own ends, that's practically the only weapon in their arsenal and it's been taken out and used so many times that - in my opinion - it's all they know how to do any longer. If I name you a dozen countries where they've done it in my lifetime will that help? Or do you concede that they regularly use it as diplomatic tool and that it kills people?
You look at what Stalin achieved between the wars and you say oh, poor people, how repressed. You look at what the PRC has achieved since the war and you say oh, poor people, how repressed. Yes a lot of people died in both instances. What's left is completely transformed as a consequence. It's not at all obvious to me why the net result is to be disparaged.
It comes down to consequences. The Americans have emptied the shop of rope, they've taken so much over so many years. Now you're disapproving of the Chinese in the same way you disapproved of the Soviets and of the Cubans, for equally poor reasons. I went to the Soviet Union, I've talked to people who lived in the Soviet Union, it wasn't the hell-hole you describe. It was a place of mass idealism which was genuinely felt, not mocked at. We need that element of social idealism and the US has entirely lost it under Capitalism.
As for whether the Americans are capable of stirring up civil unrest abroad for their own ends, that's practically the only weapon in their arsenal and it's been taken out and used so many times that - in my opinion - it's all they know how to do any longer. If I name you a dozen countries where they've done it in my lifetime will that help? Or do you concede that they regularly use it as diplomatic tool and that it kills people?
You look at what Stalin achieved between the wars and you say oh, poor people, how repressed. You look at what the PRC has achieved since the war and you say oh, poor people, how repressed. Yes a lot of people died in both instances. What's left is completely transformed as a consequence. It's not at all obvious to me why the net result is to be disparaged.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
So Tibet eh?
Yes a lot of people died in both instances. What's left is completely transformed as a consequence. It's not at all obvious to me why the net result is to be disparaged.
Um, in part at least, because a lot of people died in both instances.
I find the whole thing not just depressing, but frightening. On the Weather Programme here one of the Met Office blokes showed a picture of the Arctic Ice Cap in 1982 and then a picture of it this year at the same time of year. It's just over half the size. In 26 years!
Actually, not frightening. Terrifying.
Um, in part at least, because a lot of people died in both instances.
I find the whole thing not just depressing, but frightening. On the Weather Programme here one of the Met Office blokes showed a picture of the Arctic Ice Cap in 1982 and then a picture of it this year at the same time of year. It's just over half the size. In 26 years!
Actually, not frightening. Terrifying.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
So Tibet eh?
Clodhopper;816753 wrote: I find the whole thing not just depressing, but frightening. On the Weather Programme here one of the Met Office blokes showed a picture of the Arctic Ice Cap in 1982 and then a picture of it this year at the same time of year. It's just over half the size. In 26 years!
Actually, not frightening. Terrifying.Wrong thread mate. Ten out of ten for correct sentiment, minus a hundred for context.
Actually, not frightening. Terrifying.Wrong thread mate. Ten out of ten for correct sentiment, minus a hundred for context.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
So Tibet eh?
chuckle. It was only an aside (if, IMO, a very important one).
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
So Tibet eh?
You look at what Stalin achieved between the wars and you say oh, poor people, how repressed. You look at what the PRC has achieved since the war and you say oh, poor people, how repressed. Yes a lot of people died in both instances. What's left is completely transformed as a consequence. It's not at all obvious to me why the net result is to be disparaged.
Now look, let me start of this reply by saying that of course the Chinese have every right to run their own system whatever way they wish, and I am not a complete right wing reactionary about left wing countries, but seriously Spot?
Stalin was a complete monster, in his career as a professional meglomaniac and also as a person, even his own people admitted this as far back as 1957, if he has been somewhat rehabilitated by Russians eager for the power and alleged "glory" of Stalinist times, well the time that has gone in between has obviously softened the reality of the agonies that Stalin, Beria et al put the Russian people through in the 1930s, and 40s when millions of people starved, were murdered, or imprisoned in a grotesque prison system, while his gross ineptitude during the early stages of the second war almost cost the Russians everything, it certainly cost the lives of millions of ordinary soliders. The treatment of the Stalinist government of the people who had been conquered or captured by the Nazi's was scarcely better than the Nazi's themselves, while of course the Red Army's pillage of Eastern Europe up to the Elbe, and their treatment of ordinary civilians does not require further comment other than to say that even Stalin was embarresed and it took a lot to make that man feel guilty.
As for Mao, he was scumbag if ever there was one, an immature, pompous, vainglorious, selfish, lying, murdering, scumbag. At least Hitler and Stalin have the excuse of both being pretty crazy, Mao didn't even have that excuse, he was just a nasty bit of work, and his legacy was the death of tens of millions, the exile of further tens of millions, the destruction of China's culture and history, and now the environmental annihiliation of much of China by committee. I would say that China and Russia have survived inspite of these people and their hateful rule, not the other way around.
You are of course entitled to your view of politics and the world, and obviously we are wildly divergent in our politics, oh well cest la vie.
Now look, let me start of this reply by saying that of course the Chinese have every right to run their own system whatever way they wish, and I am not a complete right wing reactionary about left wing countries, but seriously Spot?
Stalin was a complete monster, in his career as a professional meglomaniac and also as a person, even his own people admitted this as far back as 1957, if he has been somewhat rehabilitated by Russians eager for the power and alleged "glory" of Stalinist times, well the time that has gone in between has obviously softened the reality of the agonies that Stalin, Beria et al put the Russian people through in the 1930s, and 40s when millions of people starved, were murdered, or imprisoned in a grotesque prison system, while his gross ineptitude during the early stages of the second war almost cost the Russians everything, it certainly cost the lives of millions of ordinary soliders. The treatment of the Stalinist government of the people who had been conquered or captured by the Nazi's was scarcely better than the Nazi's themselves, while of course the Red Army's pillage of Eastern Europe up to the Elbe, and their treatment of ordinary civilians does not require further comment other than to say that even Stalin was embarresed and it took a lot to make that man feel guilty.
As for Mao, he was scumbag if ever there was one, an immature, pompous, vainglorious, selfish, lying, murdering, scumbag. At least Hitler and Stalin have the excuse of both being pretty crazy, Mao didn't even have that excuse, he was just a nasty bit of work, and his legacy was the death of tens of millions, the exile of further tens of millions, the destruction of China's culture and history, and now the environmental annihiliation of much of China by committee. I would say that China and Russia have survived inspite of these people and their hateful rule, not the other way around.
You are of course entitled to your view of politics and the world, and obviously we are wildly divergent in our politics, oh well cest la vie.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
So Tibet eh?
Gosh.
Mao was a poet but we'll let that pass.
The Tsar did the same to the Russian Army in World War One, it's something of a tradition over there. What Stalin gave to Russia before the Germans arrived was industrialization on a colossal and wildly successful scale, he's the only reason the Germans lost. Stalin, personally. Not Roosevelt, not Churchill, nobody anywhere, just Stalin. Krushchev might have criticized the guy in 1956 and Beria was unpersonable but Stalin's the true hero of the 20th century. In retrospect I'd have advised him to tone down the paranoia but honestly, that goes with the territory if you're upgrading half of Europe in fifteen years against a tight schedule of defeating Fascism.
Who else were you slagging off? I forget. Oh, Mao. Go and re-read Harrison Salisbury and you'll see he had a similar problem, he just solved it less successfully. He did, in mitigation, have a major civil war to fight for thirty years first, not to mention the Japanese.
Were you inviting me to defend Hitler too?
Mao was a poet but we'll let that pass.
The Tsar did the same to the Russian Army in World War One, it's something of a tradition over there. What Stalin gave to Russia before the Germans arrived was industrialization on a colossal and wildly successful scale, he's the only reason the Germans lost. Stalin, personally. Not Roosevelt, not Churchill, nobody anywhere, just Stalin. Krushchev might have criticized the guy in 1956 and Beria was unpersonable but Stalin's the true hero of the 20th century. In retrospect I'd have advised him to tone down the paranoia but honestly, that goes with the territory if you're upgrading half of Europe in fifteen years against a tight schedule of defeating Fascism.
Who else were you slagging off? I forget. Oh, Mao. Go and re-read Harrison Salisbury and you'll see he had a similar problem, he just solved it less successfully. He did, in mitigation, have a major civil war to fight for thirty years first, not to mention the Japanese.
Were you inviting me to defend Hitler too?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
So Tibet eh?
spot;817369 wrote: Gosh.
Mao was a poet but we'll let that pass.
The Tsar did the same to the Russian Army in World War One, it's something of a tradition over there. What Stalin gave to Russia before the Germans arrived was industrialization on a colossal and wildly successful scale, he's the only reason the Germans lost. Stalin, personally. Not Roosevelt, not Churchill, nobody anywhere, just Stalin. Krushchev might have criticized the guy in 1956 and Beria was unpersonable but Stalin's the true hero of the 20th century. In retrospect I'd have advised him to tone down the paranoia but honestly, that goes with the territory if you're upgrading half of Europe in fifteen years against a tight schedule of defeating Fascism.
Who else were you slagging off? I forget. Oh, Mao. Go and re-read Harrison Salisbury and you'll see he had a similar problem, he just solved it less successfully. He did, in mitigation, have a major civil war to fight for thirty years first, not to mention the Japanese.
Were you inviting me to defend Hitler too?
I know Russian history and Stalin was certainly not unique in being a horrible ruler, but you brought him up, and Mao, and sure he was Poet, though he was crap, and it would have been so much better for all concerned if he had stuck to that. Hitler of course was famously a vegetarian, an amateur architect, a Wagner fan, and a bit of a painter, all laudable, but slightly offset by his demonic, innocent murdering, war mongering, civilization destroying ways, as well as that fruity hand salute and his somewhat camp love of uniforms. No don't worry I don't expect you to defend that particular murdering scumbag, there are other people here who will do that.
So Stalin is the true hero of the 20th century is he? Jaysus boy you have some strange ideas, you really are a hardline leftie ain't ya? No mention of Zhukov then? I believe he may have had something to do with stopping the Wermacht, and of course the equipment and the money came from the states, but of course Stalin took all the glory. Still if that's what you like to believe, thats your perogative, I still like ya despite the nonsense you come out with sometimes.
Mao was a poet but we'll let that pass.
The Tsar did the same to the Russian Army in World War One, it's something of a tradition over there. What Stalin gave to Russia before the Germans arrived was industrialization on a colossal and wildly successful scale, he's the only reason the Germans lost. Stalin, personally. Not Roosevelt, not Churchill, nobody anywhere, just Stalin. Krushchev might have criticized the guy in 1956 and Beria was unpersonable but Stalin's the true hero of the 20th century. In retrospect I'd have advised him to tone down the paranoia but honestly, that goes with the territory if you're upgrading half of Europe in fifteen years against a tight schedule of defeating Fascism.
Who else were you slagging off? I forget. Oh, Mao. Go and re-read Harrison Salisbury and you'll see he had a similar problem, he just solved it less successfully. He did, in mitigation, have a major civil war to fight for thirty years first, not to mention the Japanese.
Were you inviting me to defend Hitler too?
I know Russian history and Stalin was certainly not unique in being a horrible ruler, but you brought him up, and Mao, and sure he was Poet, though he was crap, and it would have been so much better for all concerned if he had stuck to that. Hitler of course was famously a vegetarian, an amateur architect, a Wagner fan, and a bit of a painter, all laudable, but slightly offset by his demonic, innocent murdering, war mongering, civilization destroying ways, as well as that fruity hand salute and his somewhat camp love of uniforms. No don't worry I don't expect you to defend that particular murdering scumbag, there are other people here who will do that.
So Stalin is the true hero of the 20th century is he? Jaysus boy you have some strange ideas, you really are a hardline leftie ain't ya? No mention of Zhukov then? I believe he may have had something to do with stopping the Wermacht, and of course the equipment and the money came from the states, but of course Stalin took all the glory. Still if that's what you like to believe, thats your perogative, I still like ya despite the nonsense you come out with sometimes.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
So Tibet eh?
spot: You're a Stalinist? Good heavens. I thought he was one of the biggest killers of the C20 - up to 10,000,000 in the collectivisation programme alone, wasn't it? I see little difference between him, Mao, Hitler or, indeed, Pol Pot - all creating Paradise over the screaming bloody bones of their own people (and other peoples too, in some cases). I'll grant you that Stalin was a better general than Hitler - he certainly impressed Alan Brooke (Chief of the Imperial General Staff for most of WW2) with his grip of military affairs - but he was a monster nonetheless.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
So Tibet eh?
He had a bad press. Honestly. Capitalists just didn't like seeing him succeed and they criticized the worst excesses while ignoring the stunning achievement.
The civil war and the suppression of the bourgeoisie, that was Lenin with the military judgment of Trotsky. Had they not done as they did the revolution would have died there and then.
Stalin came into his own in the mid-twenties and for those fifteen years absolutely everything that was needed to generate mass industry had to take priority. The campaign against the Kulaks collectivized feeding the country and to a large extent it worked, the famines were mostly in those first ten Doctor Zhivago years.
Galbally claims that the equipment for the Red Army which allowed Zhukov to push the Russians from Stalingrad to Berlin came from the West. Some of it did, yes. The greater proportion - we're talking (from memory) of 20,000+ tanks and as many aircraft - were home-made in huge facilities out of harm's way by the Urals. The entire state went from candle-light to that level of industry solely because Stalin saw the need and made it happen. He needed compulsion among his labour force so he arrested a large proportion of it and built the camps. Of course it was ruthless. I'm quite sure it was impossible by any other means. I'm certain that the goal was essential if the nation was to avoid extermination as Untermensch once Central Europe's Push East began.
The civil war and the suppression of the bourgeoisie, that was Lenin with the military judgment of Trotsky. Had they not done as they did the revolution would have died there and then.
Stalin came into his own in the mid-twenties and for those fifteen years absolutely everything that was needed to generate mass industry had to take priority. The campaign against the Kulaks collectivized feeding the country and to a large extent it worked, the famines were mostly in those first ten Doctor Zhivago years.
Galbally claims that the equipment for the Red Army which allowed Zhukov to push the Russians from Stalingrad to Berlin came from the West. Some of it did, yes. The greater proportion - we're talking (from memory) of 20,000+ tanks and as many aircraft - were home-made in huge facilities out of harm's way by the Urals. The entire state went from candle-light to that level of industry solely because Stalin saw the need and made it happen. He needed compulsion among his labour force so he arrested a large proportion of it and built the camps. Of course it was ruthless. I'm quite sure it was impossible by any other means. I'm certain that the goal was essential if the nation was to avoid extermination as Untermensch once Central Europe's Push East began.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
So Tibet eh?
Capitalists just didn't like seeing him succeed and they criticized the worst excesses while ignoring the stunning achievement
Khruschev certainly wasn't a capitalist! NKVD murder squads, the Katyn massacre (26,000 Polish intellectuals and leaders of society), the Ukraine famine (which many, including the Ukrainians believe was deliberate - another 4,000,000 or so dead) and Stalin's THE hero of the C20? Of course Stalin was responsible for the industrialisation of Soviet society - no-one else was allowed to make decisions of any significance (if they tried, they died) and there is certainly an argument that these things might have been done less inefficiently by someone slightly less murderous...
What does it take to make someone a monster in your eyes?
Khruschev certainly wasn't a capitalist! NKVD murder squads, the Katyn massacre (26,000 Polish intellectuals and leaders of society), the Ukraine famine (which many, including the Ukrainians believe was deliberate - another 4,000,000 or so dead) and Stalin's THE hero of the C20? Of course Stalin was responsible for the industrialisation of Soviet society - no-one else was allowed to make decisions of any significance (if they tried, they died) and there is certainly an argument that these things might have been done less inefficiently by someone slightly less murderous...
What does it take to make someone a monster in your eyes?
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
So Tibet eh?
spot;817422 wrote: He had a bad press. Honestly. Capitalists just didn't like seeing him succeed and they criticized the worst excesses while ignoring the stunning achievement.
The civil war and the suppression of the bourgeoisie, that was Lenin with the military judgment of Trotsky. Had they not done as they did the revolution would have died there and then.
Stalin came into his own in the mid-twenties and for those fifteen years absolutely everything that was needed to generate mass industry had to take priority. The campaign against the Kulaks collectivized feeding the country and to a large extent it worked, the famines were mostly in those first ten Doctor Zhivago years.
Galbally claims that the equipment for the Red Army which allowed Zhukov to push the Russians from Stalingrad to Berlin came from the West. Some of it did, yes. The greater proportion - we're talking (from memory) of 20,000+ tanks and as many aircraft - were home-made in huge facilities out of harm's way by the Urals. The entire state went from candle-light to that level of industry solely because Stalin saw the need and made it happen. He needed compulsion among his labour force so he arrested a large proportion of it and built the camps. Of course it was ruthless. I'm quite sure it was impossible by any other means. I'm certain that the goal was essential if the nation was to avoid extermination as Untermensch once Central Europe's Push East began.
Yes, they made a lot of tanks and planes, but they had to get quite a few of the more difficult components from their good friends the americans, you know copper, zinc, cadmium, then of course there was the food issue, much of which was again supllied by the Americans, the electronic equipment, for the planes and tanks, (american), then there were the jeeps, the trucks, the rolling stock, the rubber, the chemicals for the shells. The list goes on.
There is no doubting that the Russian people made unbelieveable and heroic sacrafices and work to beat the Germans (but not the leaders, who generally made a bollix of it, until the Red Army was allowed to decouple a little from the political brigades and the commisars and the put actual army generals in charge). Lets not forget here that Molotov signed a non-aggression pact in 1939 with Nazi Germany to allow it to blow England and France to kingdom come, (not a wise move in the end). I guess it was to Stalin's credit that he understood enough to know that he didn't know what he was doing, (unlike Herr Hitler).
But the contribution of the allies to the Russian war effort was enormous, there is no doubt that Russia could not have won the war in the way it did without American aid in particular. But the Russian leadership completely downplayed it after the war, as it made socialism look bad to have to get help from dirty capitalists, Stalin also of course in the ultimate betrayl purged most of the army staff who won the war afterwards, including Zhukov, cause you couldn't have anyone outshining uncle Joe could you?
The civil war and the suppression of the bourgeoisie, that was Lenin with the military judgment of Trotsky. Had they not done as they did the revolution would have died there and then.
Stalin came into his own in the mid-twenties and for those fifteen years absolutely everything that was needed to generate mass industry had to take priority. The campaign against the Kulaks collectivized feeding the country and to a large extent it worked, the famines were mostly in those first ten Doctor Zhivago years.
Galbally claims that the equipment for the Red Army which allowed Zhukov to push the Russians from Stalingrad to Berlin came from the West. Some of it did, yes. The greater proportion - we're talking (from memory) of 20,000+ tanks and as many aircraft - were home-made in huge facilities out of harm's way by the Urals. The entire state went from candle-light to that level of industry solely because Stalin saw the need and made it happen. He needed compulsion among his labour force so he arrested a large proportion of it and built the camps. Of course it was ruthless. I'm quite sure it was impossible by any other means. I'm certain that the goal was essential if the nation was to avoid extermination as Untermensch once Central Europe's Push East began.
Yes, they made a lot of tanks and planes, but they had to get quite a few of the more difficult components from their good friends the americans, you know copper, zinc, cadmium, then of course there was the food issue, much of which was again supllied by the Americans, the electronic equipment, for the planes and tanks, (american), then there were the jeeps, the trucks, the rolling stock, the rubber, the chemicals for the shells. The list goes on.
There is no doubting that the Russian people made unbelieveable and heroic sacrafices and work to beat the Germans (but not the leaders, who generally made a bollix of it, until the Red Army was allowed to decouple a little from the political brigades and the commisars and the put actual army generals in charge). Lets not forget here that Molotov signed a non-aggression pact in 1939 with Nazi Germany to allow it to blow England and France to kingdom come, (not a wise move in the end). I guess it was to Stalin's credit that he understood enough to know that he didn't know what he was doing, (unlike Herr Hitler).
But the contribution of the allies to the Russian war effort was enormous, there is no doubt that Russia could not have won the war in the way it did without American aid in particular. But the Russian leadership completely downplayed it after the war, as it made socialism look bad to have to get help from dirty capitalists, Stalin also of course in the ultimate betrayl purged most of the army staff who won the war afterwards, including Zhukov, cause you couldn't have anyone outshining uncle Joe could you?
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
So Tibet eh?
Clodhopper;817438 wrote: What does it take to make someone a monster in your eyes?Invading another country which poses no threat to your own, which is not a thing the Soviets or Mao ever did. Before you say Poland 1939 that was a necessary counter to the Axis invasion. Every other country the Soviets ever set foot in was in order to expel the Axis occupation. The Chinese entered Korea and India but only in response to direct attacks and in both cases they withdrew at the first opportunity.
Now, who can we think of that's invaded other countries which posed no threat to their own? Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Iraq? Grenada, of all places? Somalia - do I remember Somalia being on the list? Haiti? Sri Lanka?
Gerald Ford never actually invaded anywhere as far as I recall but he shook hands with the biggest world monster in living memory, Henry Kissinger. Oh, sorry, I meant "pragmatist" didn't I, my fingers slipped for a moment.
Now, who can we think of that's invaded other countries which posed no threat to their own? Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Iraq? Grenada, of all places? Somalia - do I remember Somalia being on the list? Haiti? Sri Lanka?
Gerald Ford never actually invaded anywhere as far as I recall but he shook hands with the biggest world monster in living memory, Henry Kissinger. Oh, sorry, I meant "pragmatist" didn't I, my fingers slipped for a moment.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.