| Author |
Message |
dfoo
Post Roaster
Joined: Jan 19, 2005
Posts: 4140
Status: Offline
|
 Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 02:47 PM |
 
|
|
It matters because it gets to the heart of the matter. t¡bet is part of China. More Chinese live in t¡bet than t¡betans. So what is your suggestion? Than the minority can kick out the majority? That would be a rather amazing accomplishment! |
|
|
|
|
oh_the_darkness
Fire-eater
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Posts: 2528
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 02:49 PM |
|
|
| *CheerLeader*Mao wrote: |
Amazing how Britain entered into agreements with tĦbet separately if it believed it to be a part of another country ie. China at the time in 1914.
I guess the 1792 precedent didn't really hold up. |
Nah, that just shows that contracts don't mean **** in China. |
|
|
|
|
|
dfoo
Post Roaster
Joined: Jan 19, 2005
Posts: 4140
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 02:51 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*CheerLeader*Mao
Post Roaster
Joined: July 07, 2004
Posts: 4678
Location: frenCh belgiuM
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 02:52 PM |
|
|
| oh_the_darkness wrote: |
| *CheerLeader*Mao wrote: |
Amazing how Britain entered into agreements with tĦbet separately if it believed it to be a part of another country ie. China at the time in 1914.
I guess the 1792 precedent didn't really hold up. |
Nah, that just shows that contracts don't mean **** in China. |
 |
_________________
 |
|
|
|
|
*CheerLeader*Mao
Post Roaster
Joined: July 07, 2004
Posts: 4678
Location: frenCh belgiuM
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 02:55 PM |
|
|
China daily? HAha, no thanks mate, i prefer other sources.
And you might recall the Allies were aligned with China at the time and were busy dividing up the maps the way they see fit. It was quite clear that t¡bet was actually Independent from China at that time. It was also neutral during WWII which China was not. So how could that be if t¡bet was part of China.
I mean this whole ALWAYS argument of yours has fallen to pieces quite quickly now hasn't it. |
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
dfoo
Post Roaster
Joined: Jan 19, 2005
Posts: 4140
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 02:59 PM |
|
|
"Hoover Institution of Stanford University" <- not chinese.
| Quote: |
| "Roosevelt said, 'I asked Churchill why did he mention t¡bet at all, and he replied that Britain had no intention to occupy the region. I then said that t¡bet had been part of China since imperial times and it is now part of the Republic of China, which had nothing to do with Britain.'" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*CheerLeader*Mao
Post Roaster
Joined: July 07, 2004
Posts: 4678
Location: frenCh belgiuM
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 03:01 PM |
|
|
| dfoo wrote: |
| It matters because it gets to the heart of the matter. tĦbet is part of China. More Chinese live in tĦbet than tĦbetans. So what is your suggestion? Than the minority can kick out the majority? That would be a rather amazing accomplishment! |
No, my suggestion is that the Chinese lose the base of its lies of saying t¡bet has always been part of China, recognize that it has always been an separate entity in various forms and enter in to talks and discussion related to t¡bet having more autonomy for its people, culture and religion.
This would include engaging the dali 1ama in those talks. |
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
tomnoddy_uk
Fire-eater
Joined: Mar 14, 2006
Posts: 2910
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 03:02 PM |
|
|
| dfoo wrote: |
CLM, it is clear that you have never ever done an ounce of research on this topic. Stolen online after 30 seconds of searching:
| Quote: |
The British government recognized Chinese sovereignty over tĦbet in 1792, and again in the Anglo-Chinese Conventions of 1876, 1890 and 1906 and in the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907.
In 1943 the United States government formally reaffirmed that it had never raised a question regarding China's claim that tĦbet was part of China. "The Government of the United States has borne in mind the fact that the Chinese Government has long claimed suzerainty over tĦbet and that the Chinese constitution lists tĦbet among areas constituting the territory of the Republic of China. This Government has at no time raised a question regarding either of these claims. |
|
Even you could do better than getting a customer review from amazon titled 'CIA Propogandists'. Not exactly the authoritive source. |
_________________
"Eight minutes past the hour here in Belgium - and presumably eight minutes past the hour everywhere in the world." Murray Walker |
|
 |
|
oh_the_darkness
Fire-eater
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Posts: 2528
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 03:03 PM |
|
|
^ Agree with you there, CLM.
HJT talks to DL and things could definitely progress for both parties.
As Churchill said when setting up the UN 'Jaw-jaw is better than war-war'. |
_________________
And you may ask yourself Am I right? ...am I wrong? And you may tell yourself My god!...what have I done? |
|
|
|
|
dfoo
Post Roaster
Joined: Jan 19, 2005
Posts: 4140
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 03:03 PM |
|
|
USA founded -- 1776.
Canada founding around 1780.
UK recognized t¡bet as part of China - 1792.
That was just one recognition. What happened to the all the natives that lived in the US? Slaughtered & subjugated through various horrible means.
Ok, lets have a vote among the native indians (the minority) to take back their own land.
Free America!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
*CheerLeader*Mao
Post Roaster
Joined: July 07, 2004
Posts: 4678
Location: frenCh belgiuM
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 03:05 PM |
|
|
| dfoo wrote: |
"Hoover Institution of Stanford University" <- not chinese.
| Quote: |
| "Roosevelt said, 'I asked Churchill why did he mention tĦbet at all, and he replied that Britain had no intention to occupy the region. I then said that tĦbet had been part of China since imperial times and it is now part of the Republic of China, which had nothing to do with Britain.'" |
|
Yes I would expect both these men to be experts on understanding 2000 years of t¡betan history.
Give me a break. This doesn't hold any wait to your argument. |
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
dfoo
Post Roaster
Joined: Jan 19, 2005
Posts: 4140
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 03:05 PM |
|
|
| tomnoddy_uk wrote: |
...
Even you could do better than getting a customer review from amazon titled 'CIA Propogandists'. Not exactly the authoritive source. |
The dates are wrong then I take it? Oh, I thought not. |
|
|
|
|
|
oh_the_darkness
Fire-eater
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Posts: 2528
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 03:07 PM |
|
|
Yeah! Turn that big palace in Lhasa into a casino and the t¡betans would soon stop their bitching and whining. Plus China could turn its attention to Xinjiang or elsewhere. Everyone's a winner! |
_________________
And you may ask yourself Am I right? ...am I wrong? And you may tell yourself My god!...what have I done? |
|
|
|
|
*CheerLeader*Mao
Post Roaster
Joined: July 07, 2004
Posts: 4678
Location: frenCh belgiuM
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 03:14 PM |
|
|
| dfoo wrote: |
| tomnoddy_uk wrote: |
...
Even you could do better than getting a customer review from amazon titled 'CIA Propogandists'. Not exactly the authoritive source. |
The dates are wrong then I take it? Oh, I thought not. |
Tommy, don't be so hard on Goggle boy. Without cut and paste he would have no opinions at all. |
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
dfoo
Post Roaster
Joined: Jan 19, 2005
Posts: 4140
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 03:14 PM |
|
|
Treaties & Conventions Relating to t¡bet
Sino-t¡betan Treaty, 821/823 A.D. [371]
Peace Treaty Between Ladakh and t¡bet at Tingmosgang (1684) [372]
Ladakhi Letter of Agreement (1842) [374]
Agreement Between t¡bet and Kashmir (1852) [375]
Treaty Between t¡bet and Nepal (1856) [376]
Treaty Between Nepal and t¡bet (1856) [378]
Chefoo Convention (1876) [380]
Convention Relating to Burmah and Thibet (1886) [381]
Convention Between Great Britain and China Relating to Sikkim and t¡bet (1890) [382]
Convention Between Great Britain and Thibet (1904) [385]
Convention Between Great Britain and China Respecting t¡bet (1906) [389]
Convention Between Great Britain and Russia (1907) [391]
Agreement Between Great Britain, China and t¡bet Amending Trade Regulations of 1893 (1908) [393]
Treaty of Friendship and Alliance Between the Government of Mongolia and t¡bet (1913) [397]
Anglo-t¡betan Declaration (1914) [399]
Convention Between Great Britain, China, and t¡bet, Simla (1914) [400]
Anglo-t¡betan Trade Regulations (1914) [403]
Agreement for the Restoration of Peaceful Relations Between China and t¡bet (1918) [406]
Supplementary Agreement Regarding Mutual Withdrawal of Troops and Cessation of Hostilities Between Chinese and t¡betans (1918) [409] |
|
|
|
|
|
dfoo
Post Roaster
Joined: Jan 19, 2005
Posts: 4140
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 03:16 PM |
|
|
| *CheerLeader*Mao wrote: |
...
Tommy, don't be so hard on Goggle boy. Without cut and paste he would have no opinions at all. |
Sorry if my claims have some basis in fact. I'm still waiting for the source on the t¡betan economy... pray tell, fess up. |
|
|
|
|
|
*CheerLeader*Mao
Post Roaster
Joined: July 07, 2004
Posts: 4678
Location: frenCh belgiuM
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 03:18 PM |
|
|
^hmmmm, all these treaties and yet they are somehow supposedly according to Dfoo, ALWAYS part of China.
So weird. So Strange, what is one to think.
Why would a place that belongs to China require so many Treaties, conventions, wars and the like when it has ALWAYS just been a part of China.
I am so confused. |
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
*CheerLeader*Mao
Post Roaster
Joined: July 07, 2004
Posts: 4678
Location: frenCh belgiuM
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 03:19 PM |
|
|
| dfoo wrote: |
| *CheerLeader*Mao wrote: |
...
Tommy, don't be so hard on Goggle boy. Without cut and paste he would have no opinions at all. |
Sorry if my claims have some basis in fact. I'm still waiting for the source on the tĦbetan economy... pray tell, fess up. |
I didn't write anything about the t¡betan economy, but now that you ask what would you like to know. |
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
oh_the_darkness
Fire-eater
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Posts: 2528
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 03:21 PM |
|
|
Did they have one before the Chinese took over? |
_________________
And you may ask yourself Am I right? ...am I wrong? And you may tell yourself My god!...what have I done? |
|
|
|
|
dfoo
Post Roaster
Joined: Jan 19, 2005
Posts: 4140
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 03:22 PM |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Newsflash, economically in all measurements they were worse off under the CUM. |
Sorry, Chinese economy... So, lets hear it. What part of your rectum did this come from? |
|
|
|
|
|
dfoo
Post Roaster
Joined: Jan 19, 2005
Posts: 4140
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 03:23 PM |
|
|
| *CheerLeader*Mao wrote: |
| ... I am so confused. |
Yes, you said it sister. |
|
|
|
|
|
tomnoddy_uk
Fire-eater
Joined: Mar 14, 2006
Posts: 2910
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 03:26 PM |
|
|
| dfoo wrote: |
| tomnoddy_uk wrote: |
...
Even you could do better than getting a customer review from amazon titled 'CIA Propogandists'. Not exactly the authoritive source. |
The dates are wrong then I take it? Oh, I thought not. |
Based on what you have said Dfoo you clearly know much more about this subject than I do. If an amazon review is good enough for you then it is good enough for me. |
_________________
"Eight minutes past the hour here in Belgium - and presumably eight minutes past the hour everywhere in the world." Murray Walker
Last edited by tomnoddy_uk on Apr 25, 2008 - 03:36 PM; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
dfoo
Post Roaster
Joined: Jan 19, 2005
Posts: 4140
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 03:28 PM |
|
|
So they're right then. Ok, good that is settled. |
|
|
|
|
|
*CheerLeader*Mao
Post Roaster
Joined: July 07, 2004
Posts: 4678
Location: frenCh belgiuM
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 03:28 PM |
|
|
| dfoo wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Newsflash, economically in all measurements they were worse off under the CUM. |
Sorry, Chinese economy... So, lets hear it. What part of your rectum did this come from? |
Millions of people starving to death isn't enough for you?
Anyway, as I said to HC, we aren't debating whether the CUM was good or bad. We are debating the t¡bet occupation by the CUM |
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
*CheerLeader*Mao
Post Roaster
Joined: July 07, 2004
Posts: 4678
Location: frenCh belgiuM
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 03:30 PM |
|
|
| dfoo wrote: |
| *CheerLeader*Mao wrote: |
| ... I am so confused. |
Yes, you said it sister. |
Yeah, imagine how confused I would be if I listened to any more of your bullsh1t eh? |
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Preferences
Watched Topics
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
