Please sign this

[Lucy]

:


I'm not surprised you visit sites called solo passion - hillarious

Jokes aside, yes I've read that fraud Ayn Rand etc etc.
Now why don't you think for yourself and answer my perfectly reasonable question? When you have individual freedom and a therefore a relatively weak state, how do you resist a more powerful organised state that does not subscribe to the notion of individual freedom?

How do you get to that conclusion sas?

Try answering without insulting or patronising or attacking me.

[HYpno27]

If you went to Tibet you would have found that people there are not fighting for their freedom - they have generally accepted occupation and trying to make the most of it. I don't think they are the most opressed in the world - look at genocide in Darfur that is happening pretty much now en masse, and the Chinese are quietly supporting corrupt regimes in Africa - now THAT is something to fight about on Govt level.

Some are fighting; but the Lamas don't want to go down that route. I agree the Darfur genocide is also something to get Govts sorting out.

The economics of the situation will be what drives any of this. China is bankrolling the US debt so they'll keep quiet, and we have huge trade links as well which we don't want to jeopardise.

Don't confuse a wish to see change with a blinkered view of the situation

[Lucy]

How do you get to that conclusion sas?

Try answering without insulting or patronising or attacking me.

Obviously, you aren't able to do that.

But seriously, the most free country in the world is the United States, and certainly a place that prides individual freedom, and why they aren't weakened in the way that your mad logic suggests is through wealth and innovation. Citizens know that is worth protecting. Simple.

[AtW]

I have been to Tibet, and they are fighting for freedom.

Like doing exactly what?

You have a million excuses to not support their fight, I wonder why.

Freedom of Tibetians or any other nation is unachieveable until the Chinese people become free - right now they are opressed and loving it. Just like the Russians. The forus of fight should be not on Tibet, but on root cause of their misforchune.

I don't think you answered my question about Britains involvement in China - Britain was occupying force there using stuff like opium, what makes you think you have actually got any moral ground to make any suggestions to the Chinese how they should occupy local countries in their sphere of influence? USA might have moral ground to say these things, but Iraq adventure really cut down those too.

[Pinto]

Like doing exactly what?



Freedom of Tibetians or any other nation is unachieveable until the Chinese people become free - right now they are opressed and loving it. Just like the Russians. The forus of fight should be not on Tibet, but on root cause of their misforchune.

misfortune

unless you wear dentures

[AtW]

Don't confuse a wish to see change with a blinkered view of the situation

I just don't think there will be any change in this situation until root cause of the problem is addressed - one side is way too strong and you can't beat it militarily, it's like slavery - it ended not because of black armed struggle, but because the whites came to conclusion that it is wrong to enslave human beings - not all of them agreed with that, so war had to sort it out.

[Lucy]

Alexi, I belive the Tibetans are fighting through the refusal to give up their traditions customs and religion, despite the chinese trying to oppress them and stifle their culture. And, back to the beginning again, by having a spiritual leader who travels the world 300 days a year.

[sasguru]

Obviously, you aren't able to do that.

But seriously, the most free country in the world is the United States, and certainly a place that prides individual freedom, and why they aren't weakened in the way that your mad logic suggests is through wealth and innovation. Citizens know that is worth protecting. Simple.

Nothing is simple when it comes to political-economic systems.
Think of the Spanish Civil War, The Sino-Japanese war, the second world war, Tibet-China. In all cases the real winner was the more totalitarian state. It may seem perverse to say that about the 2nd world war, but the country that got the most in terms of land was Russia. Imagine if Russia and Germany (both totalitarian) had been on the same side - would the outcome have been the same? If the Germans had managed to land in Britain would the outcome have been the same?
My point is that totalitarian countries are better at war in the short run, but not in the long run, when economics tells.

[AtW]

Alexi, I belive the Tibetans are fighting through the refusal to give up their traditions customs and religion, despite the chinese trying to oppress them and stifle their culture. And, back to the beginning again, by having a spiritual leader who travels the world 300 days a year.

Sounds like the Chinese are very soft handed - Russia killed all Chechen leaders (even when it could capture them to try in court) rather than let them travel the world. And in Darfur they are just being slaughtered, yet you choose to support Tibetians from horrible Chinese people who might impose their own style of chopsticks and fried rice.

Maybe you should support Wales - it is close to home and those horrible English are destroying their culture and language

[DodgyAgent]

I have thought a long time and have come to conclusion that unless citizens of those countries want to be free and prepared for great sacrifices to achieve freedom then it is pointless to try to help them.

I don't know if China is doing war crimes in Tibet - my guess is that not at the moment and not in recent times (last 5-10 years), from this point of view what happened in Chechnya is by far more brutal, yet the UK is not particularly interested in this issue either - at least the Chinese are not killing their dissidents with polonium in London.

You've changed your tune. Wasnt long that you were saying that Israel had no right to exist. humbug.