What's new

China hits back at US on rights !

Status
Not open for further replies.
What is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan is a disaster. What is happening in Tibet is also a disaster.

Just because US was wrong in attacking Afghanistan and Iraq and it supports Tibetan freedom(?) doesn't mean that we turn a blindeye to Tibet or the plight of Tibetans.
 
.
What is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan is a disaster. What is happening in Tibet is also a disaster.

Just because US was wrong in attacking Afghanistan and Iraq and it supports Tibetan freedom(?) doesn't mean that we turn a blindeye to Tibet or the plight of Tibetans.

Not all tibetans want freedom. Also tibet has been a part of china for thousands of years with a gap in between. Why all the noise now?
 
.
Not all tibetans want freedom.

Sadists and Masochists are in every society, but by and large most Tibetans want freedom.... at least freedom to practise their religion and culture.

Also tibet has been a part of china for thousands of years with a gap in between. Why all the noise now?

Not really aware of history but it hardly matters.... Geo-politics, demographics etc. change..
 
.
Not all tibetans want freedom. Also tibet has been a part of china for thousands of years with a gap in between. Why all the noise now?


If you care to go into history, you will observe that Tibet has not been a part of China for thousands of years.
 
.
China would be the loser!
How so - could u elabrate



going back on topic

THis is why I can't appriecate the Tibetans uprise simply because the western potraying of the whole issue especially China.

How about the illegal camp of guantanamo bay proven by the supreme court of US of A.

Or the Illegal war in Iraq where thousands upon thousands of Iraqi suffered from Us occupatient

This "West is right" will not go well in the 21 century

I don't know where that quote of mine is and so the context is lost to me.

China would be a loser since the major share of export (worthwhile export) is to the West.

I have not supported Iraq anywhere in any forum.

I did not find logic in Iraq,

In so far as Gitmo is concerned, they are prisoners in a war and all know about them and they are not being held incognito.

Has China declared war on Tibet?

Please note that the Gitmo issue is well known since the US themselves are campaigning against holding them.

Is China doing anything of the like?
 
.
If you care to go into history, you will observe that Tibet has not been a part of China for thousands of years.
that's interesting. Can you answer me that
1. Was Tibet part of the Yuan dynasty since 1271?
2. Ming Dynasty was established in 1368, when the Han forced the Mongols out of Beijing. At that time, was Tibet an independent country or was it part of the Mongolian Empire?
3. Later when Mongols were forced out of Tibet, did Tibet become part of the Ming Dynasty?
4. Was Tibet part of the Qing Dynasty?
5. Was Tibet part of the Republic of China from 1912 to 1949?
 
.
China would be the loser!

I don't know where that quote of mine is and so the context is lost to me.

China would be a loser since the major share of export (worthwhile export) is to the West.

I have not supported Iraq anywhere in any forum.

I did not find logic in Iraq,

In so far as Gitmo is concerned, they are prisoners in a war and all know about them and they are not being held incognito.

Has China declared war on Tibet?

Please note that the Gitmo issue is well known since the US themselves are campaigning against holding them.

Is China doing anything of the like?

Read a bit more economics will help you analyze China's economy.
If either the US imposes a sanction on Chinese export or China stops exporting, China will be better off in the long run. This is because China has to encourage domestic consumption, this will make China's GDP much more balanced and the economy more competitive. This is the long term effect, but in the short-run the economy will suffer.

If you dont believe and you have access to The Economist magazine, go and search those articles about China's economy, this will give you much better idea.
 
.
that's interesting. Can you answer me that
1. Was Tibet part of the Yuan dynasty since 1271?
2. Ming Dynasty was established in 1368, when the Han forced the Mongols out of Beijing. At that time, was Tibet an independent country or was it part of the Mongolian Empire?
3. Later when Mongols were forced out of Tibet, did Tibet become part of the Ming Dynasty?
4. Was Tibet part of the Qing Dynasty?
5. Was Tibet part of the Republic of China from 1912 to 1949?
So?? Indonasia was apart of Indian empire, during the cholan times.
The kashmir king heriditically has the title at 1947 - the tibet chakravarthi (emperor).
Afghanistan and Pakistan were historically part of India. Infact Pakistan's history can be read as Indian history until 1947.

Historical imperialistic claims do not justify force. Claim, "I have guns, I have power and if anyone says anything- I will shoot and so I have land"-no arguments, but these unconnected tidbits of history do not say much.
and even during these times, Tibet was never historically "part" of china, i.e. direct rule. It simply had suzenarity at various times.

It is interesting to note that China(CCP) claims that the European suzenarity is called colonization and has to go, and its own suzenarity should not be treated as such.

Get out of moral highthrone. CCP and by extension chian have none on this issue except for the law of guns.

The mongols!! huh! this has to be the limit, they exercised control all over middle east and half of europe. So you mean even they are part of china??
Chengiz Khan would have cut off ones tongue, if anyone even hinted that he was chinese.
 
.
So?? Indonasia was apart of Indian empire, during the cholan times.
The kashmir king heriditically has the title at 1947 - the tibet chakravarthi (emperor).
Afghanistan and Pakistan were historically part of India. Infact Pakistan's history can be read as Indian history until 1947.

Historical imperialistic claims do not justify force. Claim, "I have guns, I have power and if anyone says anything- I will shoot and so I have land"-no arguments, but these unconnected tidbits of history do not say much.
and even during these times, Tibet was never historically "part" of china, i.e. direct rule. It simply had suzenarity at various times.

It is interesting to note that China(CCP) claims that the European suzenarity is called colonization and has to go, and its own suzenarity should not be treated as such.

Get out of moral highthrone. CCP and by extension chian have none on this issue except for the law of guns.

The mongols!! huh! this has to be the limit, they exercised control all over middle east and half of europe. So you mean even they are part of china??
Chengiz Khan would have cut off ones tongue, if anyone even hinted that he was chinese.
I dont want to discuss Chinese history with someone who knows nothing about China. Mongols? Yuan Dynasty is only part of the Mongolian Empire (capital Beijing and mainly on traditional Chinese territory), if you dont know this, then dont show off your ignorance on this topic.
 
.
So?? Indonasia was apart of Indian empire, during the cholan times.
The kashmir king heriditically has the title at 1947 - the tibet chakravarthi (emperor).
Afghanistan and Pakistan were historically part of India. Infact Pakistan's history can be read as Indian history until 1947.

Historical imperialistic claims do not justify force. Claim, "I have guns, I have power and if anyone says anything- I will shoot and so I have land"-no arguments, but these unconnected tidbits of history do not say much.
and even during these times, Tibet was never historically "part" of china, i.e. direct rule. It simply had suzenarity at various times.

It is interesting to note that China(CCP) claims that the European suzenarity is called colonization and has to go, and its own suzenarity should not be treated as such.

Get out of moral highthrone. CCP and by extension chian have none on this issue except for the law of guns.

The mongols!! huh! this has to be the limit, they exercised control all over middle east and half of europe. So you mean even they are part of china??
Chengiz Khan would have cut off ones tongue, if anyone even hinted that he was chinese.
This is really stupid, Indonesia is part of India for how long? Tibet is part of China since 1271 until now (though Ming did not get control of this land at the beginning).
 
.
Tibet was never historically "part" of china, i.e. direct rule. It simply had suzenarity at various times.
Show your evidence. Talking crap is easy. Go and check the maps of Qing Dynasty and Republic of China.
 
.
Show your evidence. Talking crap is easy. Go and check the maps of Qing Dynasty and Republic of China.

Tibet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
can you open the above link?? in case you are really chinese and in china, guess what you cant open it.

By blocking access to "real" information, that is how these chinese myths are propagated.
wont fly when faced with real information.

manchus, yes, qing had regents ala residents by british empire, i.e. colonies at best or sartraps at worst.

Yuan dynasty was built on what chengiz khan the mongol(note not the chinese) built. So please excuse me for discounting the remnants of his empire- yuan as being under the chinese. As an analogy, Selucus was the king who lorded over large part of eastern greece after Alexander died. Selecus started the Selucid dynasty. But though he lorded over Persia, his empire constituted what was joined by Alexander and that dynastys empire do not constitue greece or anything new. They were remnants of lands conquered by a great conquerer.

You might also want to read this,
CNN In-Depth Specials - Visions of China - Red Giant: A win-win solution to China-Tibet dilemma


China and Tibet were enemies from the 2nd century B.C. to the 13th century, when both were conquered by the Mongolians.

At the height of the Yarlung Empire's expansion in the 8th century, Tibet controlled the Silk Route and exacted tribute from the Chinese Tang Dynasty. In the 13th and 14th centuries, the Mongol Empire conquered China and accepted Tibet's submission without invading it before going on to conquer most of Eurasia.(mongol not chinese)

During China's Ming Dynasty (1368-1644), Tibet was independently ruled by the Pagmodru, Rinpung and Tsangpa Tibetan dynasties.

In the latter half of the 17th century, China was again conquered by foreigners, this time by the Manchus. Tibet, meanwhile, was ruled independently from 1642 to 1682 by the fifth Dalai Lama, who built the Potala palace and gradually demilitarized the country. To avoid maintaining a military, he negotiated a protective alliance with the Manchu emperor during the 1650s.
Educated Chinese currently think of the Mongol and Manchu empires as Chinese entities -- the Yuan and Ching dynasties -- and have come to feel a sense of righteous ownership about every country involved with those empires, just as the Russians used to feel about the Soviet empire.

I would not comment about treating manchus(from manchuria) as chinese but mongols as chinese, common give me a break.

It is like because the british ruled India and also ruled America, India ruled America!! If you find something wrong with this statement, the same wrong is with your saying about mongols
 
.
Read a bit more economics will help you analyze China's economy.
If either the US imposes a sanction on Chinese export or China stops exporting, China will be better off in the long run. This is because China has to encourage domestic consumption, this will make China's GDP much more balanced and the economy more competitive. This is the long term effect, but in the short-run the economy will suffer.

If you dont believe and you have access to The Economist magazine, go and search those articles about China's economy, this will give you much better idea.

In a recent article published in Caijing (the term in Mandarin means ‘finance’), Wu Jinglian, an economist at the Development Research Centre of the State Council, writes, “While China’s economic growth continues to accelerate, fundamental problems such as resource consumption, environmental degradation, economic inequity, political corruption and the widening gap between the rich and the poor are becoming increasingly acute and attracting criticism from the public.” Large parts of China are experiencing acute water shortage. In spite of the tremendous developments all around China, its political leadership considers food and water security to be its highest priority. As and when it becomes necessary, and it may already be so, China will start diverting major rivers and glacier melts for its own use, without the slightest concern about the consequences for its neighbouring countries.

There are other ideological issues that continue to trouble China. In the same article in Caijing, Wu Jinglian writes that at the end of 2003 the voice of the “old guard” was suddenly heard, which declared that eliminating the planned economy and instituting marketization are equivalent to changing the socialist system and adapting capitalism. It went on to put the blame for China’s social problems on reform and on the opening up of its economy. In 2006, it even began publicly calling for the posthumous rehabilitation of the “Gang of Four”, the “continuation of the revolutionary line under the dictatorship of the proletariat” and a restart of the Cultural Revolution.

Such moves after thirty years of reforms were strongly countered at the 17th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, where the general secretary, Hu Jintao, unequivocally reaffirmed the success of the reforms and the opening up before the cultural committee of the CPC. His rebuttal declared that reforms brought about China’s transformation from a highly centralized planned economy to a robustly socialist market economy. He went on to say that reforms and opening up are the only ways of developing socialism with Chinese characteristics and of rejuvenating the Chinese nation. All this shows that arguments regarding reforms continue to simmer within China and, to an extent, explain its belligerent attitude to any criticism or dissent.
 
.
Read a bit more economics will help you analyze China's economy.
If either the US imposes a sanction on Chinese export or China stops exporting, China will be better off in the long run. This is because China has to encourage domestic consumption, this will make China's GDP much more balanced and the economy more competitive. This is the long term effect, but in the short-run the economy will suffer.

If you dont believe and you have access to The Economist magazine, go and search those articles about China's economy, this will give you much better idea.

That is the issue.

The domestic market cannot substitute for the foreign market.

Therefore, you have to understand economics first.
 
. .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom