Chinese protests, whoa! - Page 13 - Political Forum

smallpox · 04-26-2008, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cindy6

If there had been free election in 1949, I bet the commies would have won by a landslide

If legitimacy over land is pointless, then we have Tibet now. Period.

And so if Tibetans want something, they should at least be heard, period.

smallpox · 04-26-2008, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cole

Time is not helping USA - going backwards on freedom and betraying founding fathers' ideals.

Smallpox, Europe and China never wanted to be occupied and fought successfully against Japanese, Nazis, German, etc.

Nonetheless, sustained occupation over many years does give some legitimacy. That's history and realpolitk. As in the case of Ireland and Scotland.

What's wrong with you? I'm not arguing any thing about the US
Strawman.

Fought against the Nazis? bwhahahahahahhaa
I don't know what you're trying to argue, that imperialism in China was wrong? I thought I made myself clear that wasn't what I was talking about.

If it's not legitimacy, then why are you according the same legitimacy over Tibet in favour of China? Biased much?

smallpox · 04-26-2008, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cole

US Administration and western countries that support autocratic regimes - including free Tibet are hypocritic. They can pick and choose who and what they want to support, and has proven detrimental to their national interests. Just that. Sincere friends with good intentions would discuss and counsel not use clandestine means to break up another sovereign country.

What countries support free Tibet? You're not making any sense at all to begin with. I wasn't even talking about western policies....you really need to focus on what is being posted, seems like you're talking to yourself.
And didn't you say this wasn't realpolitik? Then where does this unilateral state policies of free tibet comes from if this wasn't realpolitik?
Considering your mis-reading of my previous posts, I should make it clear that I'm not arguing in favour of realism, I'm simply pointing out your inconsistencies.

smallpox · 04-26-2008, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smallpox

I was just illustrating how pointless claiming legitimacy over land is. No one can do this aside referendums.
Tibet has NOT been part of China for thousands of years. It might have given tribute to China once in a while, but it only came under Chinese rule during the Yuan Dynasty when it was simply allocated as the same administrative region for the Mongolian Empire. Then lost in the Ming dynasty, and given back to China as the de facto ruler during the Qing dynasty.
Eitherways, legitimacy claims mean NOTHING. You just proved it to yourself with the German example.
And yes, Germany own Shandong, whether your friends want to ignore history of not. I'm not saying it's right, I'm simply illustrating that occupation doesn't mean a single god damn thing.

Thought I might repeat since it seems you didn't even read my post, Cole.
This means I'm not arguing in support of German claims over China, or any colonization in China of any sort; I'm simply demonstrating how inane your claims of legitimacy are.

Cole · 04-26-2008, 02:45 AM

Is smallpox only capable of name calling.
Tell that to yourself -- you're better off reading all the posts of participants. Get the facts right first. So far, your assertions failed to disprove China's sovereignty.

1. CIA fact book states Tibet is part of China. Name us which government in the world does not recognise China sovereignty over Tibet?

2. Tibetans have never declared independence in the past and always deferred to China's sovereignty for a thousand years except for short periods of interruptions in history. We know why some choose to focus on the smaller instead of the bigger picture.

3. Dalai Lama does not call for independence.

Tibet does not exist in isolation but has to be measured with yardsticks in international relations especially when there are foreign powers and proxies involved.

The example of Germany should not be relevant. But just to on record, your so-called "occupation" was merely a lease as far as what is internationally recognised.
See the world of difference in the case of Tibet?

I rest my case. Information is to be shared with those who have the capacity to learn with an open mind. Otherwise, it is a waste of time and energy.

smallpox · 04-26-2008, 02:58 AM

GERMANY WAS JUST AN ILLUSTRATION ON WHY LEGITIMACY IS MEANINGLESS, I"M NOT ARGUING IN FAVOUR OF GERMAN IMPERIALISM OR EVEN ABOUT IT.

Quote:

Is smallpox only capable of name calling.
Tell that to yourself -- you're better off reading all the posts of participants. Get the facts right first. So far, your assertions failed to disprove China's sovereignty.

Is Cole only capable of posting about the USA when completely irrelevant?

GERMANY WAS JUST AN ILLUSTRATION ON WHY LEGITIMACY IS MEANINGLESS, I"M NOT ARGUING IN FAVOUR OF GERMAN IMPERIALISM OR EVEN ABOUT IT.

Quote:

CIA fact book states Tibet is part of China. Name us which government in the world does not recognise China sovereignty over Tibet?

And the whole of the world considered Taiwan to be "the" China for 30 years. It's not because other countries recognize it that China shouldn't have referendums.

GERMANY WAS JUST AN ILLUSTRATION ON WHY LEGITIMACY IS MEANINGLESS, I"M NOT ARGUING IN FAVOUR OF GERMAN IMPERIALISM OR EVEN ABOUT IT.

Quote:

Tibetans have never declared independence in the past and always deferred to China's sovereignty for a thousand years except for short periods of interruptions in history. We know why some choose to focus on the smaller instead of the bigger picture.

Argghhh. DO YOU NOT READ MY POSTS?
This trend started in teh Yuan dynasty (Mongol invaders around 1400's), stopped in the Ming, and defacto again by the British Empire during the Qing. That does not at all account for thousands of years. And why would Tibet declare independence before? The concept of nation state did not even exist.....

GERMANY WAS JUST AN ILLUSTRATION ON WHY LEGITIMACY IS MEANINGLESS, I"M NOT ARGUING IN FAVOUR OF GERMAN IMPERIALISM OR EVEN ABOUT IT.

Quote:

Dalai Lama does not call for independence.

And they have bubble gum flavoured ice cream now......oh I'm sorry weren't we talking about something completely unrelated?

Quote:

Tibet does not exist in isolation but has to be measured with yardsticks in international relations especially when there are foreign powers and proxies involved.

The example of Germany should not be relevant. But just to on record, your so-called "occupation" was merely a lease as far as what is internationally recognised.
See the world of difference in the case of Tibet?

I rest my case. Information is to be shared with those who have the capacity to learn with an open mind. Otherwise, it is a waste of time and energy.

OH MY GOD!!!
Are you high or ignorant?
GERMANY WAS JUST AN ILLUSTRATION ON WHY LEGITIMACY IS MEANINGLESS, I"M NOT ARGUING IN FAVOUR OF GERMAN IMPERIALISM OR EVEN ABOUT IT.
Maybe this time it'll go through your head. I sprinkled it throughout the post in case you missed it again.

Parisyann · 04-26-2008, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cole

Is smallpox only capable of name calling.

I've not heard smallpox calling you name except: STRAWMAN

Quote:

Name us which government in the world does not recognise China sovereignty over Tibet?.

Maybe the Tibetan Government In Exile? If that's not too harsh an example for you.

Quote:

Dalai Lama does not call for independence.

No, he's calling for talks over the Tibet issue. Has he been heard?

Quote:

I rest my case. Information is to be shared with those who have the capacity to learn with an open mind. Otherwise, it is a waste of time and energy.

Or, how one is avoiding dialogue when he knows he'll be defeated by the use of simple logic...

ssorov · 04-26-2008, 11:12 AM

Is it the first step for civil war in China? May be! Warsavian organisation of 'Red countries' began to fall the same way - from the "Prague's spring" when soviet tanks entered Prague to chill out czechs

smallpox · 04-26-2008, 02:16 PM

Yeah, it's not going to be civil war. China is more stable than that because it has adopted liberalism in an economic form at least, which is more than the Gorbachev reforms could do.

smallpox · 04-26-2008, 02:18 PM

Quote:

I've not heard smallpox calling you name except: STRAWMAN

And strawman is just calling out a fallacy....oh well.
Sounds like Cole recites the same thing to anybody that posts about China. That would explain his disregard for other's arguments and his insistence on irrelevance.