Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gary Ng who wrote (92379)	4/11/2003 2:17:16 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Through out history there have been many nations who have for one reason or another relied on a neighbor or have been "owned" by their neighbor. But that does not make them part of the other nation. Nor does it make it right and an internal matter to do whatever you want to them. Tibetans are no less related to Chinese than Irish are to the British. The Kurds have always been part of the greater kingdoms of their neighboring states, but that does not mean their Arabization was justified. For the longest time, Armenia was the protectorate of Iran; they respected Iran's wishes and in return were protected against attacks from Turkey and Russia. That did not mean that they were owned by Iran. Edward I of England considered "breeding out" the Scottish as a way of controlling them (and Scotland still operates as part of UK, but don't think that they've been happy about it...yes I know, during the 20th century finally some understandings have been reached). All in all, the historical ties between Tibet and China are hardly unique and in general less material than aforementioned examples. They do not make Tibet a property of China. As to being peace loving, if my read of Chinese history is correct, China has always had more in-fighting than trying to take over the world. But it has never shied from grabbing what it could from its neighbors whenever it could either...so yes more peace loving than Romans and the like, but not peace loving enough like Greeks or the Tibetans. ST