The committee has to be controlled by liberals/leftists in order to make such a braindead decision like China.

I'm sure their thinking was, "Oh let's show the world that China, regardless of their opressive communist regime, has changed for the better. No more human rights violations, their economy has improved, much more open policies, etc."

Hilarious.

quote:

Originally posted by Nostalgic The committee has to be controlled by liberals/leftists in order to make such a braindead decision like China. I'm sure their thinking was, "Oh let's show the world that China, regardless of their opressive communist regime, has changed for the better. No more human rights violations, their economy has improved, much more open policies, etc." Hilarious.

Uh, what? Since when have liberals been the ones turning a blind eye to human rights abuses?



EDIT: And just because I'm still lol'ing at you, I thought I'd throw in some quotes.

quote:

BAUER [to Bush]: We would never make the argument [that we should work with China] if we were talking about Nazi Germany. Is there no atrocity that you can think of, the labor camps doubling in their slave labor, a bigger crackdown, more priests disappearing in the middle of the night, is there anything that would tell you to put trade on the back burner? BUSH: Gary, I agree with you that forced abortion is abhorrent. And I agree with you when leaders try to snuff out religion. But I think if we turn our back on China and isolate China things will get worse. Imagine if the Internet took hold in China. Imagine how freedom would spread. Our greatest export to the world has been, is and always will be the incredible freedom we understand in America. And that’s why it’s important for us to trade with China to encourage the growth of an entrepreneurial class. It gets that taste of freedom. It gets that breath of freedom in the marketplace. Source: (cross-ref. from Bauer) Phoenix Arizona GOP Debate Dec 7, 1999

quote:

Barack Obama is the first presidential candidate to put out a statement in response to the protests by Tibetans inside and outside of Tibet and China’s brutal crackdown in response. quote: I am deeply disturbed by reports of a crackdown and arrests ordered by Chinese authorities in the wake of peaceful protests by Tibetan Buddhist monks. I condemn the use of violence to put down peaceful protests, and call on the Chinese government to respect the basic human rights of the people of Tibet, and to account for the whereabouts of detained Buddhist monks. These events come on the 49th anniversary of the exile of the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists, the Dalai Lama. They demonstrate the continuing frustration of the Tibetan people at the way in which Beijing has ruled Tibet. […] Tibet should enjoy genuine and meaningful autonomy. […] Now is the time to respect the human rights and religious freedom of the people of Tibet. While this is a good statement - far better than what the Bush administration has put out - I agree with Lhasa Rising’s comments at Tibet Will Be Free: quote: Thank you, Senator Obama. However, Senator Obama does miss something major. Tibetans aren’t just frustrated at “the way in which Beijing has ruled Tibet.” Tibetans are fundamentally opposed to Chinese rule in the first place. They are calling for independence, not “better” rule by Beijing. Also, Senator Obama misses the significance of March 10, 1959; in addition to being when His Holiness the Dalai Lama fled into exile, it was when Tibetans across Tibet rose up against the Chinese occupation of their country. So while we appreciate Senator Obama’s support for Tibetan autonomy, we would be much happier if he recognized and supported what Tibetans are literally dying for in the streets: independence. Indeed. This statement is a step in the right direction, but it falls for the all too common mistake of soft peddling what Tibetans want (freedom) and what they object to (China’s military occupation of Tibet). I know criticizing China isn’t popular in the West, but when the situation is as transparent as it has become this week, you’d think the old standbys for appropriate discourse might be modified to reflect the severity of the situation. That said, again, Obama’s statement is good and it is certainly an improved articulation of US-Sino-Tibetan policy from what the Bush administration has provided us.

http://holdfastblog.com/2008/03/15/obama-on-tibet-protests/

___________________

Last edited by Lebezniatnikov on Mar-26-2008 at 17:11

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Sorry Jer, northern Ireland is not an occupied territory. They have been given a choice of union with the UK or with the Irish Republic. Tibet, on the other hand, was invaded and occupied in the 1950's, and the sovereign government of the Dalai Lama exiled. There is no comparisn here to Ireland.

quote:

The Dalai Lama also appealed to China to recognise his long-standing position that he wants real autonomy for Tibet, and not independence, and that his campaign is non-violent.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...icle3562971.ece

How are the chinese occupying land that the dalami lama himself considers to be part of china?

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...icle3562971.ece How are the chinese occupying land that the dalami lama himself considers to be part of china?

The Tibetans have accepted the annexation of their land to China. Their suppression continues though unfortunately, UNLIKE the Irish which are not being supressed by the British government. You can not say Ireland is an example for why the UK shouldn't host the Olympics. I really don't know why you said that to begin with.

___________________

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The Tibetans have accepted the annexation of their land to China. Their suppression continues though unfortunately, UNLIKE the Irish which are not being supressed by the British government. You can not say Ireland is an example for why the UK shouldn't host the Olympics. I really don't know why you said that to begin with.

....because you implied that the Olympic committee shouldn't give the games to countries that are "occupying" other lands. I think that implication is ridiculous for various reasons, mostly because china is not occupying tibet, and also because you can make an argument against any country for any reason, including that many countries are occupying lands (based on your flimsy implied definition of occupation) - NI arguably being an example. If you don't agree that does not mean others may not think that way. clearly most of the world doesn't think china is occupying tibet (evidenced by every country recognizing that tibet falls within the chinese border) - so your position that it is occupying tibet clearly runs against the grain.

to specifically address your comment about occupation, regardless of whether the people of tibet "accepted the annexation of their land," (which btw is a nice word manipulation) the people of tibet recognize that the land rightfully belongs to china. The fact that tibet is accepted as part of china gives china the right to place troops in the territory, or do whatever else the chinese wish to do within that territory; it belongs to the chinese! No one claims that california is occupied because the state has thousands of US troops.

Even if the people of tibet are suppressed that doesn't make it an occupation. Suppression is subjective and normally a personal determination. For example, on paper African Americans have the same rights as every other American; however, many will tell you that they are suppressed. Clearly, the suppression of African Americans, whatever it may be, is not the same as the suppression of the people of Tibet. Therefore, i find it difficult for you to analyze from your computer chair in Florida which people are suppressed and which are not suppressed. While it may be easy to say that the people of tibet are suppressed because the people don't have the western version of "god given rights," a Northern Irish person may feel suppressed by the UK government because he wants total independence. How can you say that the Northern irish person is not suppressed? Although, i would like to point out, for the third time, i am not claiming that the northern irish are occupied or that the people are suppressed, i'm just saying people could feel that way.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 ....because you implied that the Olympic committee shouldn't give the games to countries that are "occupying" other lands. I think that implication is ridiculous for various reasons, mostly because china is not occupying tibet, and also because you can make an argument against any country for any reason, including that many countries are occupying lands (based on your flimsy implied definition of occupation) - NI arguably being an example. If you don't agree that does not mean others may not think that way. clearly most of the world doesn't think china is occupying tibet (evidenced by every country recognizing that tibet falls within the chinese border) - so your position that it is occupying tibet clearly runs against the grain. to specifically address your comment about occupation, regardless of whether the people of tibet "accepted the annexation of their land," (which btw is a nice word manipulation) the people of tibet recognize that the land rightfully belongs to china. The fact that tibet is accepted as part of china gives china the right to place troops in the territory, or do whatever else the chinese wish to do within that territory; it belongs to the chinese! No one claims that california is occupied because the state has thousands of US troops. Even if the people of tibet are suppressed that doesn't make it an occupation. Suppression is subjective and normally a personal determination. For example, on paper African Americans have the same rights as every other American; however, many will tell you that they are suppressed. Clearly, the suppression of African Americans, whatever it may be, is not the same as the suppression of the people of Tibet. Therefore, i find it difficult for you to analyze from your computer chair in Florida which people are suppressed and which are not suppressed. While it may be easy to say that the people of tibet are suppressed because the people don't have the western version of "god given rights," a Northern Irish person may feel suppressed by the UK government because he wants total independence. How can you say that the Northern irish person is not suppressed? Although, i would like to point out, for the third time, i am not claiming that the northern irish are occupied or that the people are suppressed, i'm just saying people could feel that way.

Ok, I'll admit calling China essentially a foreign occupier was going too far, but nevertheless, the Tibetans are being suppressed and oppressed. Comparing that campaign of suppression to anything going on Ireland does not make sense. So I guess I'll say, the Olympic Committeee should not be choosing countries which oppress their own citizens.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Ok, I'll admit calling China essentially a foreign occupier was going too far, but nevertheless, the Tibetans are being suppressed and oppressed. Comparing that campaign of suppression to anything going on Ireland does not make sense. So I guess I'll say, the Olympic Committeee should not be choosing countries which oppress their own citizens.

point taken