quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moloch

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

I assume the plane was in Chinese territory? my guess is that the US would ahve done the same the other way round. That's the world we live in, we might not like it but China et al are no worse than the west when it comes to international politics. I wish I could say the west holds the moral high ground and has a surplus of integrity but it doesn't.

Nope the Plane was in international territory.

Then it was anyones for the taking if it was unmanned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Tell China to Wake Up Before it's Too Late!

This is the URL to the email petition itself.

I've signed it. Who else?

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112
Good or bad, the moral quality of Tibetan government prior to the Chinese invasion simply has no bearing on the immorality of that invasion.  That is the unalterable order of things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112
Good or bad, the moral quality of Tibetan government prior to the Chinese invasion simply has no bearing on the immorality of that invasion. That is the unalterable order of things.

Thought this was an interesting snippet in relation to the Iraq situation.

"Good or bad, the moral quality of Iraqi government prior to the US/UK invasion simply has no bearing on the immorality of that invasion."

Yep, works quite nicely

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Yep, which is presumably why the "distortions" over WMD - the presence of which may have legitimised action in response to violations in that area. That the reason for invasion then quickly became regime change, (when it was too late to stop it), renders the above possible legitimisation redundant. The only question then is at what stage was it known that WMDs were not present and if well before, what charges are applicable in relation to war crimes?

But whats right for the west to do is no guide for what its right for anyone else to do, it seems. The US/UK aims in Iraq are no different to the Chinese aims in Tibet, yet one is right and one is wrong?

E

quote:

celticlord2112
Good or bad, the moral quality of Tibetan government prior to the Chinese invasion simply has no bearing on the immorality of that invasion.  That is the unalterable order of things.

quote:

LadyEllen
"Good or bad, the moral quality of Iraqi government prior to the US/UK invasion simply has no bearing on the immorality of that invasion"

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

quote:

celticlord2112
Good or bad, the moral quality of Tibetan government prior to the Chinese invasion simply has no bearing on the immorality of that invasion. That is the unalterable order of things.

quote:

LadyEllen
"Good or bad, the moral quality of Iraqi government prior to the US/UK invasion simply has no bearing on the immorality of that invasion"

So
when the Serbs began to ethnically cleanse the Muslims in the old Yugoslavia it was wrong to intervene.
and
Had it become known that the holocaust was in full swing prior to actual conflict having started no intervention should have been considered..
and
Why do some advocate interfering in Dafur, quite frequently those who say intervention in Iraq was wrong.
and
Would it have been wrong to stop the slaughter in Rwanda
or
the return to year zero in Cambodia?
or
the mayhem in Sierra Leone where a Parachute Brigade was dispatched to stop the killing
What was the basis of the VietNam adventure. To protect the Vietnamese from the wicked Ho Chi Minh. This was done by killing anyone with a yellow face and slitty eyes and claiming they were all VCs
Only wonderin'

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

It appears that the Mongols invaded Tibet in about 1705. This was done with the approval of the current Chinese Emperor in order to depose a corrupt Dalai Lama
.
After a bit of toing and froing the Manchurians then gained control of Tibet.

Stepping briskly forward to early 19th century up popped the little pink faces of the Brits who unilaterally imposed a treaty on Tibet and a levy to cover the cost of the expedition  needed to impose the said treaty.

About 10 years later the Chinese reinvaded Tibet and kicked my honourable ancestors into touch.
Moving forward to 1954 that freedom lover Mao Tse Tung reinvaded Tibet

The point of all this is to show that China does have the historical basis of a legitimate claim to control Tibet which is  at least as strong as that of the current US administration to control mainland USA.
So if those who castigate China in this thread would agree that  control of the US should be returned to the Natives  I will for the sake of peace and quiet agree that China should leave Tibet.
After all an invasion is an invasion is an invasion whenever it occured.
There is a precedent, the  hand over of control from the kaffirs in South Africa to those who had the correct skin tone and whose ancestors migrated down to South Africa as that country became more and more successful.
Deal?

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Why would you smile at the Mexicans stealing the Navajo and Ute lands?