Tibet is, was, and will always be part of China?

[Nono]

Quote by: The Decider Unfortunately for the Serbians, the world doesn't need their markets. We do need China's. So Kosovo will remain free despite Serbian protests and tantrums. Tibet will not.

I think that about puts it in a nutshell.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: vysis This is the Los Angelos Times, a credible source. I would have cited Xinhua News Agency as i source, but i doubt you would believe those as credible sources. Anyways, some except from this article:

I don't doubt they were on a homicidally rampage. However, this rampage, both could have been avoided, and could of been handled in a much better fashion. They certainly have in other parts of the world.

Yes, those items will disperse a crowd. But the crowd will only get back again the next day. China's goal is to put down the unrest, not to delay it.

While I have no doubt killing the rioters would stop them coming back, you can arrest them while they are trying to find out what hit them.

Also, do you really think china has never tried using tear gases etc.. etc..? Of course they have: Clashes leave 10 dead in Tibet - CNN.com Quote "Police used gunfire and tear gas to quell the Lhasa protest, according to witnesses, human rights groups and Xinhua."

Why not only use tear gas?

Also, MILLIONS of people died in the "great leap forward". 20-43 million of Chinese people. Yet only 200 000 Tibetans died. I am not trying to make it sound like the lives of 200 000 Tibetans is not a significant number. However, when you consider that 20-43 million people died, it pretty obvious that the chinese government wasn't "treating Tibetans badly." It was universal and everybody was suffering. Tibetans are no exception.

There are 2 million Tibetans (in Tibet, not outside of prefecture) in China. 200,000 means 10% died.

There are 1.3 Billion people in China. 20 million means 1.5%.

I cannot comment on the Tianamin Incident because: A. I wasn't even alive back then B. I know nothing about it C. It has nothing to do with our current debate.

Fine to A. Shock and awe at B. Confusion at C.

you said:There is no prof that the Chinese government have tried anything worst the Guantanamo (as far as i know), if so. Please cite your source.

So I found proof.

OF COURSE its ENFORCED and forced. The one-child policy is a LAW. Its not optional! These people should be happy they are not getting criminally charged. If you break the law and you don't want to suffer the consequences guess what? You still suffer them!

...wow...

You're obviously not anti-abortion so let's skip that argument and move right to the next.

The only legal power they had to enforce this law was monetary. So the forced abortions were used because the local official wanted to show how obedient his prefecture was.

Also, not only was abortion being used, but also infanticide.

Finally, your ok with a country forcing it's citizens to abort a child (fetus) at 8.5 months against the will of the parents and done by physical force?

If you are trying to say what an oppressive country China is, I agree with you. It is. Democracy doesn't happen overnight, especially not with 1.3 Billion people. However if you look at the significant progress China has made in the past 50 years, you will realize that it is on its way there.

That's justification for letting a country run over it's citizens with tanks? I don't care if it happened in Antarctica, this is plain wrong.

It has nothing to do with the development of democracy, it has to do with the use of force on citizens, especially after getting high and mighty about the horrors Japan committed during WWII (Which were really horrific).

The "riots" in Tibet are violent. The "riots" in Tibet are getting innocent people killed. The "riots" in Tibet aren't Riots. Its an rebellion.

To the first two, I agree.
To the last...spare me.

Los Angeles riots of 1992 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That wasn't a rebellion. Neither is this. (a rebellion would be centered at freeing themselves from the government. This is just chaos).

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Anmon I think they will do both like the US did, like most hegemony's do, a mixture of trade and armed might.

The United States does not have control over the world. So the precedent is moot.

I don't think the world would care much if china built a hwy to Iran and invaded her, taking her oil, probably give a cheer if anything, especially Israel.

No they wouldn't. The United States and other countries were uncomfortable with China launching a maned mission to space because showed their rocket technology, they aren't going to skip for joy if China took over Iran.

Two, Iran would become another Viatnam or Iraq, for China and would suck up so much money that would lose the will to go on living.

Finally, Iran is not all of the Middle East, they might have a small chance at justifying invading Iran (they don't really have any, but people would care slightly less) however, try justifying invading Afghanistan (American), Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Palestine, and all the other Middle Eastern countries.

Rev:16:12

And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared.

First off the Euphrates is still there, second off, China doesn't need it to vanish to send air raids to bomb the Middle East back to the stone age. China isn't creating a super water evaporator to cross the Euphrates, they are building a highway.

Finally, it said kings. What other kings other then Hu Jintao are they talking about? (not even a king. he's the "paramount leader" or General Secretary of the Party)

[grandpa]

Quote by: Winter wind The United States does not have control over the world. So the precedent is moot.

You're right, in the sense that no country ever totally can control the world. But they sure can try, and most likely will...until we abolish whatever state governments are in question.

Grandpa h.

[Domino]

A. I wasn't even alive back then B. I know nothing about it C. It has nothing to do with our current debate.

This cracked me up, the second time I read it. If (B), how can you be so sure of (C)?

[Winter wind]

Quote by: grandppa You're right, in the sense that no country ever totally can control the world. But they sure can try, and most likely will...until we abolish whatever state governments are in question

No, even then someone will control the world, or at least try.

[nomad-town]

Tibet issue is not a problem of religion, not one of human rights,but a problem of indepence.

The point view of Dalai lama is to make Tibet independent non-violently.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Winter wind No, even then someone will control the world, or at least try.

Without some kind of state machinery, he/she will have a difficult time succeeding.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: nomad-town Tibet issue is not a problem of religion, not one of human rights,but a problem of indepence. The point view of Dalai lama is to make Tibet independent non-violently.

This is true, though I'd consider independence to be a right, though not an inherent one. Of course, it's hard to establish independence non-violently when dealing with authoritarian systems.

Even the most peaceful people may feel driven to violence.

Grandpa h.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: grandpa Without some kind of state machinery, he/she will have a difficult time succeeding.

You need to first prove that the system of government (or lack thereof) would be helpful rather then harmful to the people and the progress of society (scientific). And you don't need to prove it to me, but to everyone else.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Winter wind You need to first prove that the system of government (or lack thereof) would be helpful rather then harmful to the people and the progress of society (scientific). And you don't need to prove it to me, but to everyone else.

No, the burden of proof is on the existing system, not the lack thereof. It should be apparent, for example, that one cannot "scientifically" prove a system of government to be legitimate. First of all, you can't prove a negative. No system of coercive authority can ever be totally legitimate, even if it accomplishes some decent things here and there. Any coercion involved already de-legitimzes the system. Even further, authority and society are not entirely even matters of science, nor could they be. Yes, evidence could and should be used to guide our judgments regarding the status quo, but whether or not we wish to be under the yoke is largely a subjective matter.
This is not to say questioning authority has no basis in emprical study. After all, to question why things happen is the basic foundation of science, and anarchists are supposed to be questioning things.

Why do we have authority? Largely because of conquerers, and also because people tend to only listen to things they already believe. If something new comes along to challenge convention, the expected reaction is one of disgust. This is why, whenever I speak against the system, people want me to explain what I would replace it with. People are so used to being ruled that they expect me to be like a ruler. But my mission isn't to prescribe solutions to every possible scenario, nor is that the objective of any legitimate social system. The more a person or system claims to have all the answers, the greater our skepticism should be. Usually, such a person or system winds up persecuting someone else.

Grandpa h.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: grandpa No, the burden of proof is on the existing system, not the lack thereof

That's what should happen. However at the end of the day, to get people interested, you have to sell it.

This is why, whenever I speak against the system, people want me to explain what I would replace it with. People are so used to being ruled that they expect me to be like a ruler. But my mission isn't to prescribe solutions to every possible scenario, nor is that the objective of any legitimate social system. The more a person or system claims to have all the answers, the greater our skepticism should be. Usually, such a person or system winds up persecuting someone else.

We need to have an idea what to do after eliminating government, because otherwise all we have is a free-for-all. Most likely someone else will take charge and create his/her own government, because there will be nothing to stop him/her.

So my question is how do we stop a single person gaining too much power after the government is gone?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Winter wind That's what should happen. However at the end of the day, to get people interested, you have to sell it.

What's there to "sell"? The absense of external authority is already saleable, provided society consciously rearranges itself along egalitarian and anti-authoritarian lines.

Grandpa h.