Boycott China & Olympics

[zenheretic]

With all due respect Zen, I can't see how this is much more than a diversionary tactic away from the actual argument at hand. I suppose it's interesting in its own way, but has little to no relevance.
.

I deleted the rest of your post not because it is invalid. It was well stated and valid.

Again a diversion from what? The thread was about boycotting watching the olympics on tv, which as I said long ago, unless you are part of the Nielsen ratings, has no meaning whatsoever. The original poster are long gone. You, fixer, and I are all that remain, so what am I diverting you from?

You can't free Tibet unless you realize and understand that history you were harping about. Tibet, Mongolia, and China are very much tied together. Montana and North Dakota could easily start signing treaties with each other and Canada and then declare autonomy from the US, but the history points to a deep a long relationship as a part of the USA. It is easy to see China views Tibet as just another "state". Until the "Free Tibet!" movement realizes that, they will just be seeing the Great Wall of China.
You want to free Tibet? The best way possible would be to buy China and buy it with gusto, it wouldn't be hard to find their products. Then immediately switch to buying India...

[bobofish]

Just.. the three of usss.....woah oha oh...
Actually that's not true, there's a couple more in the wings a few posts up, but whatever.

Just to get this straight, I agree with you about the Nielsen ratings box. I've stated somewhere in this thread that it makes no sense to boycott the olympics for several reasons. I also as an addendum really like the Olympics and get a little tear in my eye every time I watch them, for what they represent. That's neither here nor there.

As far as understanding that Tibet is a part of China and people should understand that, well, it's a debatable point. It's debatable for several factors, not least of which is the moderate sovereignty that Tibet has enjoyed for a very long time; for me that's not even a particular issue though.

Even the Dalai Llama has publicly stated that he has revised his goal of an "independent" Tibet, and strives for, rather, an autonomous one with self governance and the absence of typical PRC settlement etc. tactics.

I also agree with you that people are far too disinformed and also misinformed about history in general, and that of Tibet (or Inner Mongolia) in particular. I also find it tragic that most Americans can't name and summarize the Bill of Rights, or for that matter find the US on a map. These are not things we will probably ever disagree on.

Finally, I don't think I understand your last sentence. If I understand it correctly, and that we should "buy Chinese products" en masse and then suddenly start buying Indian products in boycott.....that's a bit problematic and I don't agree with the basic logic.

Firstly, we already buy too many Chinese products. I've stated that in this thread, and I've stated that it is wiser to boycott Chinese products directly, also for domestic economic reasons. Not only is India not capable yet of producing things like China does, buying everything we can from them would still skirt the economic self interests of the US.

So anyway, I think it's time for a grilled burger slathered with kaesomorphins.

[zenheretic]

Oh noes gastroburgers!

I didn't count the other posters, as they are just arguing about vacation spots.

My last sentence goes along the line of the Neo-Con theory of economic interdependence (which doesn't make me a Neo-con, I wouldn't be able to stand be in the same crowd as Cheney and Clinton, one might be humping my leg while the other shoots me in the face)

I'm saying that China won't change without the economic uplift that currently taking place. Without it, workers wouldn't dare strike or they would get jailed for life or shot; now China can't afford to kill those workers as they are skilled.

As it is more and more uplifted economically, economic sanctions have a greater effect as a course of persuasion. Economic sanctions are better than bombs in my book (if they work of course).

Switching to India just means uplifting them afterwards, it is best to have a near rival on the same playing field to encourage a country to play nice.

Peace out.


and if only those Mongols had a decent Dalai Lama...

[fixer27]

I believe did indicate Tibet would have its own version. China will have its own version too, of course. That is why I put up a version from an American university scholar (born in America).

If you want I can provide a link a far more glowing account showing Tibet's autonomy (a Tibetan version of course ).

What is ironic is this position you have built says human rights are dependent upon an established autonomy. Inner Mongolia went from the Ching, to independent Chinese warlords, to the Russians, to the Japanese, to Mao so are invalid, while certain papers signed nearly 100 years ago make the Tibetans worthy of a drum circle and some smoke induced meditation before writing a scathing blog about China crushing Tibet.

Remember this whole "diversion" was a rolling of my eyes about the huge support of Tibet that has grown while others (who happen to have the same/similar religion, ethnic background, history are completely ignored. Hypocrisy.

Even the Tibetan version (not the watered synopsis you presented) acknowledges the Tibetans looked eastward and hosted an Imperial Chinese presence even from the 1700s onward. It is interesting stuff, if you are actually interested and not searching for debate points.

I can't postulate on the Mao question, I've never read a Chinese version. I do know the paper signed in 1950 that was used as a springboard for invasion was very similar to an agreement signed centuries earlier.

My interest in Tibet has nothing to do with the bald guy with the funny robes.

I lurk over at the Himilayain Imports Cantina and read about some of the things that the Communist insurgents are doing in Nepal, a country that China considers part of Greater China, I find it impossible to believe that the ChiComs are not bankrolling the insurgents in Nepal.

Hopefully if the ChiComs find the game not to be worth the candle in Tibet, they will lose interest in funding the insurgents in Nepal, the same way that once Thailand was stablized, the ChiComs lost interest in funding the Communist Party in Burma.

I find it odd that Buddhists (yes a singular branch of buddhism) would care so much about the idea of a country, their supposed detachment to this world would seem to be failing them.

And Zen, the Tibetans would of course emphasize their more recent history rather then the 1700's when even my clumsy C&P refutes that early claims.

[zenheretic]

I find it odd that Buddhists (yes a singular branch of buddhism) would care so much about the idea of a country, their supposed detachment to this world would seem to be failing them..

Tibetan buddhists are the most earthly of all the major brands of Buddhism, imo. From the history, the Tibetans are a proud people, they even had an emperor over China at one time. The Tibetan Buddhists were always part of the Tibetan government. I'm guessing if it was imperial China invasion that wasn't systematically cleansing the Tibetas out (disputed), it wouldn't be such an issue with the monks.

If you can stand it read some of the Tibetan history from my link. For best effect start a few pages earlier than my link.

Quick summary.
Mongols coming to Tibet.
Tibet buddhists meets with Khan, convinces their religion is good (had some similar origins in pre-Buddhists times. Tibet pays tribute yearly.
Through the centuries, rival Buddhists gain and loose power, one gets the nod from imperial China (mongols). Dalai Lama thing starts.
Lots of various invasions, Dalai Lamas flee to India, Nepal, Mongolia, or the Imperial Chinese court depending upon who was attacking.
Always imperial presence in Tibet.
Even during 1900s autonomy, Tibetan leaders have titles in China court but are on their own. Chinese troops in and out at various times.

And Zen, the Tibetans would of course emphasize their more recent history rather then the 1700's when even my clumsy C&P refutes that early claims.

You correctly pointed out the legaleze that aids to the Tibetans autonomy stance. It is pretty irrefutable that they considered themselves their own nation in the early 1900's, along with treaties and what not, although even then the Dalai Lama and other leaders of Tibet carried titles in the Chinese government. China was just so destabilized by the Euro interests, corrupt central government, Kai-shek, the commies, etc; that anything in the border regions was ignored.

[bobofish]

My last sentence goes along the line of the Neo-Con theory of economic interdependence (which doesn't make me a Neo-con, I wouldn't be able to stand be in the same crowd as Cheney and Clinton, one might be humping my leg while the other shoots me in the face)

[/SIZE]

That's the first time I've seen anyone outside of sheltered academia or my own head classify Clinton (I assume you mean Bill...Hillary's ...um...different somehow or the other) as a neo-con. Although there are certainly differences that I'm sure Cheney and others would be happy to point out, people forget that it was Clinton that started the whole China mess in the first place. In fact, when you look at most of his policies, he differs only in degrees from our classic picture of Neo-Cons. People on the left idolize him as a god, without spending even a few moments to contemplate the truly aweful things he did to our country. And no, I don't care that he got BJ's from a fat intern (met her once) but I do care that he lied about it; what I care more about was his actual policy though.

Also Zen, I have to protest your editing your post to make it look like I'm just obtuse. Shame!

[zenheretic]

That's the first time I've seen anyone outside of sheltered academia or my own head classify Clinton (I assume you mean Bill...Hillary's ...um...different somehow or the other) as a neo-con. Although there are certainly differences that I'm sure Cheney and others would be happy to point out, people forget that it was Clinton that started the whole China mess in the first place. In fact, when you look at most of his policies, he differs only in degrees from our classic picture of Neo-Cons. People on the left idolize him as a god, without spending even a few moments to contemplate the truly aweful things he did to our country. And no, I don't care that he got BJ's from a fat intern (met her once) but I do care that he lied about it; what I care more about was his actual policy though.

Also Zen, I have to protest your editing your post to make it look like I'm just obtuse. Shame!

I have to credit Moderator Cox for pointing out B.Clinton's Neoconism. I was just reading up on Neocons tonight and at least in the Wiki, the authors go to great pains to show Clinton as not being a NeoCon, their evidence being some of his actions pissed off the neocon thinkers/authors. However his other foreign policies went right along with neocon actions imho.

I don't know about the editing, I wouldn't pull a dirty trick here, just in W/C. Here I prefer to talk about ideas. If you disagree fine, I usually come away wealthier in knowledge. I know I did in this thread, and all due to a couple of quips.

[Ken Cox]

How nice to hear someone else describe the Clintons as Neoconservatives.

The Neoconservatives gravitated to the Republican Party only because they needed the American Military in order to see their long term plan to fruition; and, the Democrats, in recent times (LBJ, Carter and Clinton) seem unable or unwilling to keep the American Military healthy and functioning.
And how ironic, seeing how much the Democrats depend on the American Military.

In any event, the Neoconservatives have a foot on each party's platform.

Make no mistake (do I sound like Nixon?), the Neoconservatives mean to make the world wealthy and interdependent, so that the world will police the Arabs and keep Israel safe.
We want the Chinese to have too much to lose; and, we want the Chinese totally dependent (for the time) on America as a consumer of China's goods and as a provider of dollars and oil.
If the actions of the Arabs hurt the Chinese in their pocketbook, the Chinese will bring a surprising amount of pressure on the Arabs.

Right now, the Neoconservatives need to keep Iran and Russia from providing China with oil.
An oil pipeline directly from Russia to China would hurt America, Britain and the Netherlands deeply, and significantly endanger Israel; as would a pipeline from the Russian side of the Caspian through Iran devastate America, Britains, the Netherlands AND Saudi Arabia.

Happily, though, America and Britain (and the Dutch) have about 1500 world class tanks in Iraq and Afghanistan, on Iran's Western and Eastern borders, and America has the military might in place to use muscle if necessary.

Hopefully a tank war in the Middle East between America/Britain and the Russians won't happen, because, if it does, American and British blood will flow like a river (as will Russian blood).

The Russians have orders of magnitude more military capability than most people realize.

[zenheretic]

The Russians have orders of magnitude more military capability than most people realize.

http://www.foi.se/FOI/templates/Page____4352.aspx

I am only just getting into it, but this Swedish study Russian Military Capability in a Ten-Year Perspective: Problems and Trends in 2005 seems to speak an interesting outlook.

Just in the introduction it mentions the Russians plans on using energy as a security tool...

[bobofish]

The Russians are now becoming able to wield a degree of power in Europe that even their tanks couldn't achieve, thanks to their near monopoly of Europe's gas lines.

[fuzzwuzz133]

Went to China for a year for an exchange program in college. Wasn't that bad. Pretty much like New York but with better food and more Asians. Many of the cops didn't even have guns, just batons. If you did nothing wrong, then you're in the clear.

[Karda]

Please don't necro 4 year old threads.