US discusses China’s ‘assertiveness’ with India

[Chinese-Dragon]

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

And you STILL haven't managed to back up your claim.

How many times are you going to avoid the question?

 

[siegecrossbow]

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

Modern history:

Modern history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Modern history, or the modern era, describes the historical timeline after the Middle Ages. Modern history can be further broken down into the early modern period and the late modern period. Contemporary history describes the span of historic events that are immediately relevant to the present time.

 

[Jackdaws]

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:

Tibet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Coming from the Dalai himself.

Is reading English difficult for you? When did I say TODAY??????

I am still waiting for my answer -

1. Did China have something similar to the 17-point Treaty as it did with the Tibetans?

2. Besides, trying to dig up history from 1644 - did the modern nation-state of China - i.e. Peoples Republic of China have a battle like the Battle of Chamko?

 

[Jackdaws]

And you STILL haven't managed to back up your claim.

How many times are you going to avoid the question?

I just answered your question by quoting from the U.S. Congress.

But since you want more -

Powered by Google Docs

where - the International Commission of Jurists evaluated in its studies the status of Tibet in international law:
The Commission feels that although, due to its peculiar history and local conditions, the international position of Tibet is difficult to appraise it is clear that Tibet has been to all intents and purposes an independent country and has enjoyed a large degree of sovereignty.[128]
Tibet demonstrated from 1913 to 1950 the conditions of statehood as generally accepted under international law

Additionally,

The Permanent Peoples' Tribunal, gathered in Strasbourg to examine testimonies and arguments in November 1992, concluded that the Tibetans meet the legal criteria, generally accepted, of "a people" having the right of self-determination and "are therefore entitled to exercise the right to self- determination." The Tribunal concluded also that "the presence of the Chinese administration on Tibetan territory must be considered as foreign domination of the Tibetan people." The Tribunal also concluded that "the Tibetan people have from 1950 been, continuously, deprived of their right to self-determination."

This proves that sufficient doubt exists in the minds of people - some question Chinese sovereignty over Tibet and many don't. Either way - the case if not as clear cut as it is with say - Manchuria.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Is reading English difficult for you?

I see you're falling back on personal attacks.

It seems your racist abuse against Molawchai (i.e. calling him a "ladyboy" because he is from Thailand) wasn't enough for you?

I suggest that everyone ignores this troll from now on.

Then maybe we can FINALLY get back to the topic.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Is reading English difficult for you? When did I say TODAY??????

I am still waiting for my answer -

1. Did China have something similar to the 17-point Treaty as it did with the Tibetans?

2. Besides, trying to dig up history from 1644 - did the modern nation-state of China - i.e. Peoples Republic of China have a battle like the Battle of Chamko?

Didn't I tell you not to use personal attacks? For your information I've been staying in the United States since I was nine so I am more fluent in English than I am in Chinese (although I could speak mandarin fluently).

Before I answer your question I want you to answer whether you read the quote from the Dalai Lama that I posted from the said 17 point treaty reaffirming Chinese soverignty.

p.s. Also please answer my question on how the Tibetan issue is relevant to the topic at hand (U.S. discusses China's 'assertiveness' with India). Our discussion is, for all we know, off topic.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Just another dosage, for luck?

 

[Molawchai]

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?

Awww, don't forget 1922-1991 lifespan for USSR was still longer than India history since independence, yeah true, you never know whether will India last that long, will India be break into 30 piecies by any chance, that will be anybody guess in the unknown future

And i will ignore your low life personal attack as my Chinese friends suggested.
Lastly, don't troll, the topic is not about tibet sovereignty, now both of us get lost and let people carry on with a healthy discussing.

 

[Jackdaws]

LOL - How is it a personal attack? You are from China, where English is not your first language - I asked it genuinely - it is a shame that you suffer such an inferiority complex with regard to your language skills or lack thereof. Either way - calling me a troll is not going to take away from the facts that I presented or the irrefutable evidence submitted.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Here is another reminder to ignore the troll above, so the thread can continue on topic.

Does anyone have a reply to this?

U.S. is here for its own interests, GOI must balance its relationship between USA and PRC. India must engage in dialogue with china to sort out the issues amicably while maintaining an independent alliance with U.S. We stand to gain tremendously by maintaining/developing good relations with both, souring any one for the sake of another will cause more headaches down the line
just my .02

Following an "independent" foreign policy means that you have to carry out a delicate balancing act between your neighbours and other relevant powers in the region, however the rewards from an "independent" foreign policy can be very impressive... since you are free to cooperate with everyone.

For example, China buys oil from the Arab league, AND weapon systems from Israel, without having to join one camp or the other. (Which is fair enough, considering that most of us don't have much of an understanding of the Israel-Arab conflict).

 

[Jackdaws]

Didn't I tell you not to use personal attacks? For your information I've been staying in the United States since I was nine so I am more fluent in English than I am in Chinese (although I could speak mandarin fluently).

Before I answer your question I want you to answer whether you read the quote from the Dalai Lama that I posted from the said 17 point treaty reaffirming Chinese soverignty.

p.s. Also please answer my question on how the Tibetan issue is relevant to the topic at hand (U.S. discusses China's 'assertiveness' with India). Our discussion is, for all we know, off topic.

As I said earlier and I reiterate here - I did not bring the historical angle to the debate - the very charming gentleman from Thailand did.

 

[indian_reality]

U.S. is here for its own interests, GOI must balance its relationship between USA and PRC. India must engage in dialogue with china to sort out the issues amicably while maintaining an independent alliance with U.S. We stand to gain tremendously by maintaining/developing good relations with both, souring any one for the sake of another will cause more headaches down the line
just my .02

Yeah keep lickin china's foot while they keep needling us on north-east and kashmir. pathetic !

 

[Jackdaws]

Awww, don't forget 1922-1991 lifespan for USSR was still longer than India history since independence, yeah true, you never know whether will India last that long, will India be break into 30 piecies by any chance, that will be anybody guess in the unknown future

And i will ignore your low life personal attack as my Chinese friends suggested.
Lastly, don't troll, the topic is not about tibet sovereignty, now both of us get lost and let people carry on with a healthy discussing.

The 1922-1991 lifespan is longer than China before P.R.C. took over too. Cuts both ways.

 

[indian_reality]

And if you are so naive as not to understand what I mean then read this.

New Delhi, Sept. 9: India is not in any rush to send a team to China as part of a cultural exchange programme after Beijing said delegates from the Northeast and Jammu and Kashmir should not be included, government sources revealed.

An Indian delegation of professionals from various fields was to visit China later this year as part of an annual exchange programme.

A Chinese delegation had visited India last year on New Delhi’s invitation. However, even as the dates were being finalised, the Chinese government sent an email requesting India not to include delegates from the Northeast and Jammu and Kashmir. A flurry of e-mails later, the Chinese continued to stand their ground.

India made it clear to the officials that they could not dictate terms on the composition of the delegation, the sources said.

What offended the Indian side most was that this time Beijing was making an issue not just of Arunachal Pradesh but the entire Northeast. “The Chinese attitude has been offending in the extreme to us,” a top government source said.

India has decided not to send the delegation till such time as China relents.



The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | Nation | India culture snub to China

 

[Jackdaws]

Yeah keep lickin china's foot while they keep needling us on north-east and kashmir. pathetic !

What's pathetic is that they can't defend their invasion of Tibet. What's even more pathetic is that they don't realize that in a democracy the media often whips up emotion to sell more newspapers or for TRPs. The Americans enjoyed their share of Soviet bashing by analyzing their every move, if India enjoys its share of China bashing - so be it.