US discusses China’s ‘assertiveness’ with India

[Jackdaws]

Give it up Indian, you know why the Chinese members getting sick and tired of you? cos you are a nobody from India, lack the basic common sense in the real world, like your beloved late PM said: "there are no place for a weak nation", it does imply to their citizens too, as long as the world which including your GOI recognize tibet is part of China, case close, as simple as that.
PS, name calling only show you were beaten badly in a debate

For the longest time, the world recognized places like Ukraine and Kazakhstan as part of USSR - didn't take long for that to change. Lack basic common sense? Of course I do - I am expecting something constructive from you - but alas, Ladyboy seems utterly incapable. It's hardly name calling - it is the ladyboys who should be offended, not you.

I am a nobody from India that is true - no argument there at all. You of course are the spokesperson for the Communist Party of China in Thailand?

 

[siegecrossbow]

Tibet has been a part of China since the Yuan and Qing Dynasties and despite the turmoils of the Republican era it never formally declared independence (as Cardsharp's video pointed out the U.S. supported this as well). If you are going to strictly go by historical sovergnity (Tibetan freedom during the Ming Dynasty) then the U.S. should turn the entire state over to the Native Americans and Russia should turn parts of Siberia over to China (home of the Manchus).

Either way the Tibetan issue has no relevance to the Chinese "assertiveness" or U.S. discussions with India. Let us not get sidetracked.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Of course I do - I am expecting something constructive from you - but alas, Ladyboy seems utterly incapable. It's hardly name calling - it is the ladyboys who should be offended, not you.

That is an interesting trick to avoid the moderators, but everyone can see from this thread that you were calling him a ladyboy, in part because he is from Thailand. Which is quite prejudiced/intolerant if I may say so.

You should pose that query to the ladyboy from Thailand who brought in the historical angle to the debate.

So maybe we should stop all this stupidity, and just get back on topic?

 

[CardSharp]

Being a scientist, he would say you (obviously) cannot prove a negative.

The burden of proof is on the person who made the positive claim.

So back up this claim you made:



We all know that TODAY, not a single country on Earth regards Tibet as a sovereign nation.

So we naturally find it hard to accept that what you wrote above is true. And since you made that claim, the burden of proof is on you to back it up.

Well done especially the part about the onus of proof and how in science you can't prove a negative. I can't trust myself not be a complete jerk in this situation, so out of respect for other Indian members here I'll not say another word.

 

[siegecrossbow]

I think both Molawchi and Jackdaw should both calm down and refrain from further national/personal attacks. Attack one another's points as ferociously as you'd like but verbal assault is a nono.

 

[challenger]

For the longest time, the world recognized places like Ukraine and Kazakhstan as part of USSR - didn't take long for that to change. Lack basic common sense? Of course I do - I am expecting something constructive from you - but alas, Ladyboy seems utterly incapable. It's hardly name calling - it is the ladyboys who should be offended, not you.

I am a nobody from India that is true - no argument there at all. You of course are the spokesperson for the Communist Party of China in Thailand?

Hey... watch your mouth. Post reported.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Well done especially the part about the onus of proof and how in science you can't prove a negative. I can't trust myself not be a complete jerk in this situation, so out of respect for other Indian members here I'll not say another word.

LOL well, I haven't studied science like you have (I'm in Finance), but this applies to many academic fields. It's particularly interesting when applied to the "existence of God" debate... but I won't derail this thread any further.

 

[Jackdaws]

UN Resolution

UN Resolution 1723 | International Campaign for Tibet

he 1961 resolution asserts that "principle of self-determination of peoples and nations" applies to the Tibetan people.

Has such a resolution been passed with the other nationalities you guys mentioned?

Stop beating around the bush - simply answer these 2 questions -

Is there a Treaty similar to the 17 point treaty you signed with Tibet with any other "nationality"?

Is there an equivalent to the Battle of Chamko?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

^^^ Jackdaws, at least you have stopped the prejudiced "ladyboy" comments against other members, but you still haven't managed to back up your claim.

- but when Tibet was invaded by China not one country accepted it as part of China.

There you go, you made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you to back it up.

As to your questions above, I don't know the answer, and even if I did... your entire argument is based on hypotheticals, and there would be nothing concrete that you could conclude from it. You might as well assume the answers you want, because that would still lead to just more guessing, and still nothing concrete.

 

[siegecrossbow]

UN Resolution

UN Resolution 1723 | International Campaign for Tibet

he 1961 resolution asserts that "principle of self-determination of peoples and nations" applies to the Tibetan people.

Has such a resolution been passed with the other nationalities you guys mentioned?

Stop beating around the bush - simply answer these 2 questions -

Is there a Treaty similar to the 17 point treaty you signed with Tibet with any other "nationality"?

Is there an equivalent to the Battle of Chamko?

There is the Manchurian conquest of 1644 and I would say that it was a much larger scale conflict than the Battle of Chamko.

 

[Jackdaws]

Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, Pub. L. No. 103-236, § 536, 108 Stat. 382, 481 (1994) ("Because Congress has determined that Tibet is an occupied sovereign country under international law," Congress has imposed a reporting requirement on the Secretary of State regarding, inter alia, the state of relations between the United States and "those recognized by Congress as the true representatives of the Tibetan people."); see also Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993, Pub. L. No. 102-138, § 355, 105 Stat. 647, 713 (1991) ("It is the sense of the Congress that . . . Tibet . . . is an occupied country under the established principles of international law [and] Tibet’s true representatives are the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in exile as recognized by the Tibetan people . . . ."

 

[siegecrossbow]

UN Resolution

UN Resolution 1723 | International Campaign for Tibet

he 1961 resolution asserts that "principle of self-determination of peoples and nations" applies to the Tibetan people.

Has such a resolution been passed with the other nationalities you guys mentioned?

Stop beating around the bush - simply answer these 2 questions -

Is there a Treaty similar to the 17 point treaty you signed with Tibet with any other "nationality"?

Is there an equivalent to the Battle of Chamko?

The UN still recognized the Nationalists as the legitimate ruler of mainland China in 1961. In the 1940s they also recognized Britain as ruler of India. What part of TODAY do you not understand?

Just FYI the Dalai Lama is bailing out of the Tibet Independence idea as well.

Also another bit of info on the 17 point agreement that you were talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet#Late_20th_century

"The Tibet Local Government as well as the ecclesiastic and secular people unanimously support this agreement, and under the leadership of Chairman Mao and the Central People's Government, will actively support the People's Liberation Army in Tibet to consolidate national defence, drive out imperialist influences from Tibet and safeguard the unification of the territory and the sovereignty of the Motherland." [2]

Coming from the Dalai himself.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, Pub. L. No. 103-236, § 536, 108 Stat. 382, 481 (1994) ("Because Congress has determined that Tibet is an occupied sovereign country under international law," Congress has imposed a reporting requirement on the Secretary of State regarding, inter alia, the state of relations between the United States and "those recognized by Congress as the true representatives of the Tibetan people."); see also Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993, Pub. L. No. 102-138, § 355, 105 Stat. 647, 713 (1991) ("It is the sense of the Congress that . . . Tibet . . . is an occupied country under the established principles of international law [and] Tibet’s true representatives are the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in exile as recognized by the Tibetan people . . . ."

Did you just make that up? Because the US State Department says the complete opposite.

Historically the U.S. has acknowledged Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. U.S. policy has explicitly recognized the Tibet Autonomous Region...as part of the People’s Republic of China. This long-standing policy is consistent with the view of the entire international community, including all China’s neighbors: no country recognizes Tibet as a sovereign state. Because we do not recognize Tibet as an independent state, the U.S. does not conduct diplomatic relations with the self-styled 'Tibetan government-in-exile'.

http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/tibetanSociety/documents/TheUnitedStatesTibetandtheColdWar.pdf

This is from the US State Department, maybe you should quote your sources too.

 

[Jackdaws]

There is the Manchurian conquest of 1644 and I would say that it was a much larger scale conflict than the Battle of Chamko.

LOL - 1644?? hahahaha - jesus christ - I am talking of modern history.

 

[Jackdaws]

Did you just make that up? Because the US State Department says the complete opposite.



http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/tibetanSociety/documents/TheUnitedStatesTibetandtheColdWar.pdf

This is from the US State Department, maybe you should quote your sources too.

I have given you the sources - complete with page number- you can look it up.