| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Research: Tibet under the Chinese rule
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Research: Tibet under the Chinese rule

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
evalq View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 21 May 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 2
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote evalq Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Research: Tibet under the Chinese rule
    Posted: 22 May 2013 at 18:52

Hello!

I am a high school student and doing a research paper about Tibet under the Chinese rule. As a part of the research, I would like to examine how familiar people from different regions are with the case that involves this historical matter. As well, I would like to know what kind of opinions people, who have had interest to go into this topic, have.

I am really really happy if you could find some time to help me. :)


https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1SZbwCZ7jwuuSRWbAS2GqjjAlnIP3_TZKYpZ5JalmBfU/viewform


Thank you in advance!

Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Lao Tse View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jun 2012
Location: Louisville, KY
Status: Offline
Points: 678
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote Lao Tse Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 May 2013 at 03:38
Welcome to the forum sir!
 
From a historical somewhat timeline of the Chinese occupation in Tibetan Lands. During the Ming empire and early Qing, Tibet was one of the largest countries in Asia. By about 1750, the Da Qing zhi Man Ren (Manchu Qing Empire) under Qianlong Tongbao (Qianlong Emperor) had taken over Tibet, BUT under Manchu Rule, the Buddhist monks were not forced into wearing sonochos, and their hierarchy was still strong. This was because the Manchus were decendants from Jurchens, which were Khitans, which at one time were Mongols who left the tribes, and Mongols were primarily buddhist (in fact, the word Dalai in Dalai Lama is Mongol for Ocean, and the word Lama [aka Blama b is silent] is Tibetan for guru or teacher, so the meaning of Dalai Lama is literally Ocean teacher). The Tibetan People were always independent from the farther eastern of the empire. After the Fall of the Da Qing, the Republic did relatively nothing, Tibet was often a good place of refuge for those hiding in the Second Sino-Japanese War. In 1959, the Dalai Lama and many monks had to leave their homes and go to India during an uprising. Mao Zedong's policies towards Tibet were often harsh, and the peole disliked the communist party and its control over them, who were given no say-so during the 1948 Revolution (I left shortly before it got too bad, I knew Chaing Kai Shek was doomed the day he stole the pearl from Cixi's mouth). Tibet, in my opinion should be free. It has its own government and even the Titled Emperor of the Former Qing stated that Tibet should have total freedom, and many have died for such a cause. It is like a wild bird trapped in a cage, wanting freedom and will do anything to get it.
 
Hope this helps,
Lao Tse


Edited by Lao Tse - 23 May 2013 at 03:50
在財富的害處,而是一件好事永遠不持續。我在和平中仅居住在新的風下。 Wei Jia Hong No harm in wealth, but a good thing doesn't last forever. I live only among peace under
Back to Top
thd002006 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 16 Aug 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote thd002006 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Aug 2013 at 11:12
By emphasizing on mao or communist party could distract the attention. The fact was, every Chinese government, from Qing emperor, beiyang to KMT , held a stand against  the independence of Tibet. The so called independence has never recognized by any Chinese government. But,  until mao reunified the rest of China, the Chinese government didn't get enough military force to get the Tibet under control.

It is right that Tibet isn't historically belong to China. Only in two dynasties of China's long history , Yuan and Qing, Chinese government ever governed Tibet efficaciously. But in late 19th century and after, the concept that Tibet is part of China had gotten into Chinese mind so deeply, that even doctor Sun Yat-sen, the Father of the Republic of China, used the term of "wu-zu-gong-he" ,which meant "Five-Nationality Unity for a Republic", as the ideal of China's democratic revolution. "Five- Nationality" includes Han, Tibetan, Manchu, Uyghur and Mongols. So, when Mao reunified China, he got no choice. If he had just let Tibet go, he would have faced fierce criticism.In fact he had waited for a year before eventually sending military force into Tibet. The military action cost incredible huge amount of money and soldiers' lives. As for mao himself, he never thought Tibet worth the cost.

So, regarding the Communist party as the reason of the ethnic conflicts now existing between Han and Tibetan, won't come to a right answer to help solve the bloody issue.


    Edited by thd002006 - 16 Aug 2013 at 11:20
    Back to Top
    pinguin View Drop Down
    WorldHistoria Master
    WorldHistoria Master
    Avatar

    Joined: 29 Sep 2006
    Status: Offline
    Points: 15238
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Aug 2013 at 00:45
    The question is when China will let the Tibet go.
    Back to Top
    Logic View Drop Down
    Knight
    Knight
    Avatar

    Joined: 05 Feb 2013
    Status: Offline
    Points: 55
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Aug 2013 at 02:26
    Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

    The question is when China will let the Tibet go.

    Let us keep in mind that Chinese culture is very effective at assimilating other cultures. We can see evidence of that from the Khitan, Jurchen, Xia and Manchurians. All these people have been assimilated and are now Chinese. Surprisingly, Tibet has proven harder to assimilate, even despite the recent economic benefits that being with China brings.

    People in Tibet are determined to keep their cultural identity, but when that starts to disappear China will no longer need to hold on to Tibet by force. 

    So, the question is whether or not Tibet will be assimilated. If it resists long enough, China will have to let her go, but if they don't then they will become Chinese and be forever a part of China. 
    Back to Top
    pinguin View Drop Down
    WorldHistoria Master
    WorldHistoria Master
    Avatar

    Joined: 29 Sep 2006
    Status: Offline
    Points: 15238
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Aug 2013 at 04:04
    It is not a matter of culture, but of imperialism. I hope China doesn't behave the same way the Americans have done with the world. It is time China show us it is a different place, and let the Tibet go.
    An invaded country can resist invaders for centuries. So, no matter how hard Chinese try, they hardly will convince Tibetans they are Chinese. 



    Edited by pinguin - 17 Aug 2013 at 04:05
    Back to Top
    Lao Tse View Drop Down
    Colonel
    Colonel
    Avatar
    Editorial Staff

    Joined: 20 Jun 2012
    Location: Louisville, KY
    Status: Offline
    Points: 678
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lao Tse Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Aug 2013 at 06:36
    The thing is, China, no matter what the rest of the world says or thinks about it, will always be China. Tibet, in and of itself, is not Chinese, as pinguin has stated, but China may not necessarily be trying to make it into Chinese. There's a reason why the only difference between Inner Mongolia and Outer Mongolia is that there is a national border between the 2. One who lives in Inner Mongolia is considered Chinese in SOME places, but most people in China because of its location (at least the way I was raised, and the way many consider it) consider the people of Inner Mongolia to be Mongols. Tibet will not be released from China for a long time, and yes there is a lot of unrest because of this, but Tibet is still a part of China. If Tibet were independent from China and China had never once taken it over (including during the Mengguo Yuan), things would be extremely different, perhaps India may have ruled it instead, or it could be part of Nepal, or it could well be different, but the way things turned out may have ended for the better, things could be better or worse if things had not happened the way they were. Should Mao Zedong have been so harsh towards Tibet? No. Should Tibet be free by now? Maybe. But, does the world have any regrets while Tibet is a part of China (territoriality) and has been in parts of history? Likely not, if Tibet were independent, the spread of Tibetan Buddhism may not have reached Mongolia, or China, and many things would not have existed, so it would not have been able to influence the world.
    在財富的害處,而是一件好事永遠不持續。我在和平中仅居住在新的風下。 Wei Jia Hong No harm in wealth, but a good thing doesn't last forever. I live only among peace under
    Back to Top
    Logic View Drop Down
    Knight
    Knight
    Avatar

    Joined: 05 Feb 2013
    Status: Offline
    Points: 55
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Aug 2013 at 10:13
    China has too much to lose and too little to gain from letting Tibet go. The Chinese deserts are growing and projects like (The Green Wall of China) which are supposed to prevent the desert from growing are only going to stall it in a few places at best. This means that China will need agricultural land, which Tibet can offer, not to mention the water and mineral resources there. 

    For China to let Tibet go just to prove that they're better than the US or someone else would be economically costly, to the point that the government making such a decision could face serious riots.

    Furthermore, the claims China is making on the South China Sea and areas of Asia indicate that they aim to expand as they become more powerful, so I can't see them letting any areas go.
    Back to Top
    pinguin View Drop Down
    WorldHistoria Master
    WorldHistoria Master
    Avatar

    Joined: 29 Sep 2006
    Status: Offline
    Points: 15238
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Aug 2013 at 17:41
    Originally posted by Logic Logic wrote:

    China has too much to lose and too little to gain from letting Tibet go. ..


    It is not a matter of convenience for the Chinese. It is a matter of justice. In the same way Hong Kong was returned to China, same day China will have to let its pray free; will have to let Tibet go. As simple as that.
    Back to Top
    Logic View Drop Down
    Knight
    Knight
    Avatar

    Joined: 05 Feb 2013
    Status: Offline
    Points: 55
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Aug 2013 at 01:40
    Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

    Originally posted by Logic Logic wrote:

    China has too much to lose and too little to gain from letting Tibet go. ..


    It is not a matter of convenience for the Chinese. It is a matter of justice. In the same way Hong Kong was returned to China, same day China will have to let its pray free; will have to let Tibet go. As simple as that.

    Not if they manage to assimilate them, in which case Tibetans would consider themselves Chinese and would not seek to be let go. 

    The assimilation process is slow and arduous. It involves replacing the old language with Chinese, to the point that Chinese becomes the mother tongue of younger generations, until they are a majority. 
    Back to Top
    pinguin View Drop Down
    WorldHistoria Master
    WorldHistoria Master
    Avatar

    Joined: 29 Sep 2006
    Status: Offline
    Points: 15238
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Aug 2013 at 03:37
    No way Tibetans will ever consider themselves Han.
    Back to Top
    Lao Tse View Drop Down
    Colonel
    Colonel
    Avatar
    Editorial Staff

    Joined: 20 Jun 2012
    Location: Louisville, KY
    Status: Offline
    Points: 678
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lao Tse Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Aug 2013 at 06:20
    The thing is that the Han will not except the Tibetans as a Han. Tibet will never be considered Han, nor will they even try to be Han. China is not trying to get rid of the Tibetan language either. If they were, then why would the paper currency have multiple languages on it, including Tibetan? In my opinion, China wishes more to preserve Tibetan ways, but keeping Tibet as a territory.
    在財富的害處,而是一件好事永遠不持續。我在和平中仅居住在新的風下。 Wei Jia Hong No harm in wealth, but a good thing doesn't last forever. I live only among peace under
    Back to Top
    Logic View Drop Down
    Knight
    Knight
    Avatar

    Joined: 05 Feb 2013
    Status: Offline
    Points: 55
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Aug 2013 at 12:04
    I'm in China, and the people I've spoken to here say they would like Tibetans to become Chinese. Let us keep in mind that Manchurians consider themselves Chinese, but they do not consider themselves Han, as is the case with other ethnic minorities. 

    Chinese is being taught starting in elementary schools in Tibet. There are wide protests against this, but the teaching of Chinese is likely to increase as the years go by.

     Most classes are taught in the Tibetan language, but mathematics, physics, and chemistry are taught in Chinese. Tuition fees for ethnic Tibetans from primary school through college are completely subsidized by the central government.[3]


    Back to Top
    pinguin View Drop Down
    WorldHistoria Master
    WorldHistoria Master
    Avatar

    Joined: 29 Sep 2006
    Status: Offline
    Points: 15238
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Aug 2013 at 20:30
    Whatever. But the feelings of the invaded peoples aren't relevant. What matters is what Tibetans think of the situation they live right now, where a foreign power take the decisions for them.


    Back to Top
    lirelou View Drop Down
    Chieftain
    Chieftain
    Avatar

    Joined: 26 Mar 2009
    Location: Tampa, FL
    Status: Offline
    Points: 1346
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Aug 2013 at 16:00
    Penguin,

    Your: "It is not a matter of culture, but of imperialism."

    Successful imperialism is culture. Where two cultures merge, new national identities emerge. Where one culture is deemed superior and is adopted by the colonized, they become members of empire. Culture is an essential element of imperialism.

    Your: "In the same way Hong Kong was returned to China, same day China will have to let its pray free; will have to let Tibet go. As simple as that."

    The people of Hong Kong gladly adopted certain elements of British culture, particularly regarding government's role and the economy. To accommodate Hong Kong, China made it a Separate Autonomous Region with the power to print its own currency and elect its own local government, subject of course to an overseer appointed by China. They did likewise in Macao.

    Hong Kong was returned to China because it was a remote overseas colony that could no longer be protected by Britain. And, no small consideration, it was in Britain's interest to return it to an economically resurgent China. Tibet borders China, and has a strategic value to China (in addition to the economic potential noted by other posters). If the Tibetans can retain their culture after being swamped by a tide of Han immigrants, they stand a chance of regaining their independence. It is just a chance, but no empire is permanent.

    I know nothing about current conditions in Tibet, but I assume inclusion in China gives them greater opportunities in education, employment, and health care. To take Korea as an example, while it was a Japanese colony the economy was modernized, a modern educational system implemented. and life expectancy increased. Yet the Koreans remained culturally Korean. Wen the chance for independence arrived, they gladly took it. But note that two radically different states emerged; one a success and one an utter failure.

    Tibet would do well to remember both Hong Kong and the two Korea's examples when their time comes. Full independence is not some panacea for social ills.

    Edited by lirelou - 19 Aug 2013 at 16:03
    Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
    Back to Top
    tonyget View Drop Down
    Immortal Guard
    Immortal Guard


    Joined: 17 Feb 2009
    Status: Offline
    Points: 2
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tonyget Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Mar 2014 at 19:43
    Originally posted by Logic Logic wrote:

    Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

    Originally posted by Logic Logic wrote:

    China has too much to lose and too little to gain from letting Tibet go. ..


    It is not a matter of convenience for the Chinese. It is a matter of justice. In the same way Hong Kong was returned to China, same day China will have to let its pray free; will have to let Tibet go. As simple as that.

    Not if they manage to assimilate them, in which case Tibetans would consider themselves Chinese and would not seek to be let go. 

    The assimilation process is slow and arduous. It involves replacing the old language with Chinese, to the point that Chinese becomes the mother tongue of younger generations, until they are a majority. 



    CCP's ethnicity policy is strictly anti-assimilation, people have no rights to choose their ethnic group even if they want to. A Tibetan can't be Han by law.
    Back to Top
    tonyget View Drop Down
    Immortal Guard
    Immortal Guard


    Joined: 17 Feb 2009
    Status: Offline
    Points: 2
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tonyget Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Mar 2014 at 19:49
    As for why China needs Tibet, keyword - water security
    Back to Top
    toyomotor View Drop Down
    Moderator
    Moderator
    Avatar

    Joined: 15 Feb 2014
    Location: Tasmania, AUST.
    Status: Offline
    Points: 4935
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Mar 2014 at 02:13
    Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

    It is not a matter of culture, but of imperialism. I hope China doesn't behave the same way the Americans have done with the world. It is time China show us it is a different place, and let the Tibet go.
    An invaded country can resist invaders for centuries. So, no matter how hard Chinese try, they hardly will convince Tibetans they are Chinese. 

    I think it's wrong to use the word "imperialism" in the context of the USA.
     
    Historically, the USA has never sought to annexe other countries or expands its own borders.
     
    Granted, it has interceded many times in the affairs of other countries, but I wouldn't call that Imperialism, more protecting its own interests on a global scale.
     
    My thoughts always have been that a people should be free to self determine their countrys future, and in this case, Tibet should be free to do just that.
     
    Btw, isn't Mongolia in a similar position? 
    It's not that I was born in Ireland,
    It's the Ireland that was born in me.
    Back to Top
    pinguin View Drop Down
    WorldHistoria Master
    WorldHistoria Master
    Avatar

    Joined: 29 Sep 2006
    Status: Offline
    Points: 15238
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Mar 2014 at 02:59
    So, now U.S.A. is not imperialist? Just watch the world's map of U.S. military bases abroad. 
    Back to Top
    lirelou View Drop Down
    Chieftain
    Chieftain
    Avatar

    Joined: 26 Mar 2009
    Location: Tampa, FL
    Status: Offline
    Points: 1346
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Mar 2014 at 15:01
    Toyomotor:  In re your: "Historically, the USA has never sought to annexe other countries or expands its own borders."

    Generally true, but there were a few blips along the way when the U.S. proudly boasted of having an "Empire", i.e. 1898 and all that.

    We annexed the Philippines and fought a war against those who demanded independence. And in the end, we agreed that the country should be independent following some decades of U.S. tutelage. And by and large, the Philippines were very happy with that arrangement.

    We annexed Puerto Rico in the wake of its being granted autonomy by Spain. General Nelson Miles was quite blunt in his goals. To seize and hold the island for the United States. After a short period of military government, it too was granted limited self-government, growing into full Commonwealth status in 1952. Puerto Rico remains an unincorporated territory of the U.S., with the legal right to go independent, if anything more than 4 tp 6% of the population would vote for such. (highly unlikely)

    We also annexed Guam and a few other Pacific territories, some of which are now independent nations and others of which are Commonwealths.

    And then, of course, there was the Panama Canal Zone, a ten mile wide strip of the United States running through the heart of Panama. To our credit, we essentially made Panama an independent republic by blocking the Colombian forces that would have put down a small provincial rebellion. Then, if you believe the left-wing Panamanian version, we put a gun to their head and said: "Sign this treaty giving us the Canal Zone or we'll let the Colombians back in." But in 1977 we signed an agreement with Panama to return to zone to them completely in 1999, which we did. 

    Americans are genuinely welcomed in Panama, Puerto Rico (who are U.S. citizens), and the Philippines (where the U.S. maintains a Veterans Hospital to treat Philippine veterans of the Second World War, in addition to the U.S. veterans retired there.)
    Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
    Back to Top
    toyomotor View Drop Down
    Moderator
    Moderator
    Avatar

    Joined: 15 Feb 2014
    Location: Tasmania, AUST.
    Status: Offline
    Points: 4935
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Mar 2014 at 00:24
    Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

    So, now U.S.A. is not imperialist? Just watch the world's map of U.S. military bases abroad. 
     
    The USA does not casually annexe other countries or parts thereof, unlike Russia.
     
    True, it has extended it's influence by setting up military bases abroad, with the consent of the host country.
     
    But that's where it stops.
    It's not that I was born in Ireland,
    It's the Ireland that was born in me.
    Back to Top
    toyomotor View Drop Down
    Moderator
    Moderator
    Avatar

    Joined: 15 Feb 2014
    Location: Tasmania, AUST.
    Status: Offline
    Points: 4935
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Mar 2014 at 00:27
    lirelou:
    Thanks for that. I'd overlooked those cases, concentrating more on the recent history.
     
     
    It's not that I was born in Ireland,
    It's the Ireland that was born in me.
    Back to Top
    Thorvald View Drop Down
    Housecarl
    Housecarl


    Joined: 22 Sep 2008
    Location: The Netherlands
    Status: Offline
    Points: 31
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thorvald Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jun 2015 at 10:25
    The idea of Tibet ever to gain again independent from China is i think wishfull thinking...

    http://germanicrealm.informe.com/forum/
    Back to Top
    lirelou View Drop Down
    Chieftain
    Chieftain
    Avatar

    Joined: 26 Mar 2009
    Location: Tampa, FL
    Status: Offline
    Points: 1346
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jun 2015 at 15:32
    Thorvald, to say 'never again' independent is to ignore China's history. Let's just say it is very unlikely to happen in our lifetimes. After all, today's Vietnam was once China's Nan Yue.
    Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
    Back to Top
    Thorvald View Drop Down
    Housecarl
    Housecarl


    Joined: 22 Sep 2008
    Location: The Netherlands
    Status: Offline
    Points: 31
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thorvald Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jun 2015 at 11:00
    True... But how much will there remain of Tibetans considering the Chinese settlement overthere? 

    http://germanicrealm.informe.com/forum/
    Back to Top
    PeaceB View Drop Down
    Housecarl
    Housecarl


    Joined: 27 May 2015
    Status: Offline
    Points: 36
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PeaceB Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jun 2015 at 11:20
    A free Tibet would spark a huge war that could occupy Tibet by India. China's doing its best to avoid such huge war.

    Thank you, China, for saving this part of Asia. Westerners appreciate the Chinese Communist Party.

    Edited by PeaceB - 23 Jun 2015 at 11:22
    Back to Top
    lirelou View Drop Down
    Chieftain
    Chieftain
    Avatar

    Joined: 26 Mar 2009
    Location: Tampa, FL
    Status: Offline
    Points: 1346
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jun 2015 at 13:58
    PeaceB. And what strategic value does Tibet hold for India that demands it occupy Tibet were the Chinese to pull out? I take your post was meant as black humor. China and India have a long-standing border squabble in the Himalayas, but I see no recent pattern of behaviour to suggest that India has designs on Tibet. As for avoiding a huge war, the Chinese Communist Party has in the past shown itself capable of inflicting greater damage to the Chinese people than any wars ever have. Hopefully they're past that now.
    Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
    Back to Top
    wolfhnd View Drop Down
    General
    General
    Avatar

    Joined: 18 Feb 2015
    Location: United States
    Status: Offline
    Points: 816
    Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jun 2015 at 21:49
    Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

    PeaceB. And what strategic value does Tibet hold for India that demands it occupy Tibet were the Chinese to pull out? I take your post was meant as black humor. China and India have a long-standing border squabble in the Himalayas, but I see no recent pattern of behaviour to suggest that India has designs on Tibet. As for avoiding a huge war, the Chinese Communist Party has in the past shown itself capable of inflicting greater damage to the Chinese people than any wars ever have. Hopefully they're past that now.

    Funny where people show up Wink  

    Nice post but the Chinese occupation of Tibet is a mystery to me and doesn't seem in anyway practical.  Why bother?
    Back to Top
     Post Reply Post Reply
      Share Topic   

    Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

    Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
    Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

    This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.