9/24    China+Tibet != Invasion. It is merely crushing a rebellion, like
        any country will do.
        US+Iraq = Invasion, any way you slice it. End of story.
        \_ compare and contrast to us/mexico/texas
        \_ I'd rather be invaded by the US than be anywhere in China where
           they're crushing a rebellion.
        \_ The US invaded Grenada too.  I was there after the invasion (1994)
           and people there were pretty happy about the US.
           \_ so invasion is OK as long as the people are happy about it.
              got it.
           \_ for everyone that is happy, there will be someone else who
              is unhappy. it's pointless to argue this way. an invasion
              is an invasion. If Hitler won WWII, then by now, the "people"
              will be happy about it too, you can count on it.
           \_ really? do you really want to be invaded? I suppose you will be
              the first one to welcomes the alien invasion force with open
              arms because they can promise you end of corruption and a better
              life style. maybe you should go to Iraq and pretend to be the
              locals, let's see how life treats you there. Anyone who believes
              it's ok to be invaded because the invader is 'better' has serious
              problems.
        \_ Rebellion? Tibet was an isolated, autonomous nation. China commie
           army decided to "free" it (and move in the Han population).
           \_ Nope, sorry, you're wrong. Thank you for playing. Read up on
              some history before believing all the propoganda hype
              generated by the Dalai Lama and the former Tibetian
              aristocracy. Tibet has always been closely tied to China,
              both politically and economically. Throughout history,
              Chinese rulers have installed rulers into Tibet, so
              Tibet has always been subject to Chinese rule.
                \_ At the time of invasion, Tibet had a separate
                   gov., prime minister of sorts and an army. This
                   gov. was recognized by other nations such as
                   the US, India, Britian etc. Maybe you should
                   read up on history.
                   \_ Maybe you should learn to understand a point. The point
                   you made was that Tibet was an isolated, seperate country.
                   This has never been true. Tibet has had a long history of
                   having had a strong relationship (whether good or bad) with
                   China. In addition, it has been the gateway from India to
                   China for centuries. This is hardly the description of
                   an "isolated" country, and Tibet's autonomy has always
                   been subject to its larger neighbors. Whether you believe
                   Tibet should be autonomous is not the issue. The point
                   is that Tibet has always been a region of political
                   intrigue because of its central locality and its
                   geographical position in relation to China. Calling
                   it an isolated state without regard to its historical
                   underpinnings merely promulgates the simplistic views
                   of westerners towards Sinoistic relationships in general.
                   I'm sure that you would have similar objects if I were to
                   say "Give North Ireland back to the Irish!" The issue
                   has never been, and will never be as simple as black and
                   white.
                   \_ yeah, if any of part of China would declare independence
                      today, then I am sure the US, Britian, would instantly
                      recognize it as well.
           \_ Wasn't it the Manchus who first did that a few hundred years ago?
        \_ This is awesome.  One little post that just pointed out a
           fairly balanced article that showed that the "Tibetan utopia"
           promoted by the Dalai Lama might not be the reality, and
           suddenly we've got TWO full on flamefests in less than 24 hours.
           Well done, jerking knees!  I love how there's no such thing as
           a nuanced opinion, a grey area, or a complicated problem in
           MotdLand.  And here, I'll call myself a COMMIE PINKO FAGGOT
           CHINA-LOVER so you don't have to:
           \_ You seem to be using 'balanced' as a keyword for moral
              relativism.  That Tibet was a medieval theocratic hellhole
              is most likely true, but how does that justify China's invasion
              and institution of their own brand of genocidal modern communist
              hellhole (which is likely worse)?  That China had influence over
              Tibet for a brief period in the 20th century does not give them
              any justification for this.  The Mongols had influence over China
              for hundreds of years, does that mean Mongolia should invade?
              \_ Mongol dynasty in China lasted slightly more than 100 years,
                 not hundreds of years.
           \_ COMMIE PINKO FAGGOT CHINA-LOVER!
              There.  Less work for you.
           and people there were pretty happy about that.