Should U.S. get involved in China's repression of Tibet?

[Bandit]

While I am sympathetic to the plight of the Tibetan Monks the situation is much more complex than you might realize.

Isn't there an important railroad there? There has to be something big that China has interest in to keep doing this to those people and of no interest to others.

Your post on this was great, JRScott.

[rilbrianne]

I understand how we can help other countries but why do we find it necessary to stick our noses in everyone else's business? I don't understand why we fight with Iraq, bomb them, but educate their children and kiss their behinds. What about our own children? What about the RECESSION that WE are in because of the fact that we are blowing our money in every other country?

We really need to stop depending so much on other countries and we need to keep our noses in our own business and stop wiping the noses of every other country.

My opinion? Who died and made the US the worlds dominating leader?

[BKOnce]

Because US is now a big combination of many other country's people of many origins all came here & spring forth... and US people still remembering their long foreign ancestors/accents/roots so that why US country always is a BIG brother to any country's problems and always involve and seems but NOBODY here CARES what happening here ANYMORE... so what is UNITED PEOPLE of 50 STATES meant to us anymore ?? And what is about the "origin" of red-face Indians tradition still lives here???.. J/K

[BKOnce]

USA should be meant/read/changed as "United People of Many/Different/Multi- Countries"!

Together we live/stand, divided we die/fall!

[Bandit]

... so what is UNITED PEOPLE of 50 STATES meant to us anymore ?? And what is about the "origin" of red-face Indians tradition still lives here???.. J/K

Me red face Cherokee Indian to West Virginia. Mix with white face Irish & German man. I have some old black & white pics of great grandma with some others who were the real mccoy.
I can say I am a Native American. Could be why I am so patriotic at times & love fire.

[danaf]

NO! The last thing we need is another war! I honestly wish we were more like Switzerland - neutral and taking care of our own.

[JRScott]

I understand how we can help other countries but why do we find it necessary to stick our noses in everyone else's business? I don't understand why we fight with Iraq, bomb them, but educate their children and kiss their behinds. What about our own children? What about the RECESSION that WE are in because of the fact that we are blowing our money in every other country?

We really need to stop depending so much on other countries and we need to keep our noses in our own business and stop wiping the noses of every other country.

My opinion? Who died and made the US the worlds dominating leader?

Oil is the reason.

It's the same reason we've been involved in the Middle East since WWII.

Originally the USA and UK backed the Shah of Iran. We armed and supplied them. He was not very popular with his people and we overlooked his humanitarian violations because we feared the USSR would overrun the area unless we supported him.

His people revolted and overthrew him establishing the current Theology style government of the Ayatollah.

Fearing now that Iran would dominate the region we decided to back another dictator, Saddam Hussein. We felt we could use him to help stabilize the area and ensure that the oil would flow freely. Once again we were wrong, Saddam used his weapons first to invade Iran, where he lost, and then sought to invade Kuwait were ultimately he lost.

Recently we've been backing the Saudi's. Which is another mistake.

The main problem is that we need to become energy independent again. We have the ability to do that if we can just tell the environmentalist where to go and drill in Anwar. This would provide enough oil for us to develop cleaner energy in the next few decades using wind power (in the upper midwest around the great lakes), solar power (in the American southwest), and wave power (along the eastern seaboard of the USA). In addition we need to stop the not in my backyard mentality folks have every time someone wants to build a windmill, nuclear power plant, wave generation power plant or solar power plant. Until we are energy independent we will continue to be drawn into these wars.

[JRScott]

Isn't there an important railroad there? There has to be something big that China has interest in to keep doing this to those people and of no interest to others.

Your post on this was great, JRScott.

Tibet has two primary industries.

Agriculture: Here livestock is the primary agricultural product but there are some other stable crops raised as well.

Tourism:

Strategical Interest:

Most major rivers in China have their source in Tibet.

Thus you have a large nation that needs food source and an ability to protect its water supply. Thus the Chinese interest in Tibet. (Tibet declared independence in 1911 but has never been recognized as an independent state by any foreign power).

[PaKettle]

Tibet has two primary industries.

Agriculture: Here livestock is the primary agricultural product but there are some other stable crops raised as well.

Tourism:

Strategical Interest:

Most major rivers in China have their source in Tibet.

Thus you have a large nation that needs food source and an ability to protect its water supply. Thus the Chinese interest in Tibet. (Tibet declared independence in 1911 but has never been recognized as an independent state by any foreign power).

Thanks for that. That may explain why China wanted to control Tibet. (Personally I also think ithey want it because it is a strategic location from which they can eventually wage war on the Middle East.)

But why couldn't China have just made Tibet an ALLY and come to an international agreement with them, instead of crushing them? And why, in any case, was it necessary to crush their WAY OF LIFE, their CULTURE? It's one thing to take over a country, and quite another to perform cultural genocide, destroying temples and records over 1000 years old and not allowing the people to freely express their "religion" (Buddhism isn't really a religion but I'll use the term here out of convenience.)

As to all those who object to the U.S. getting involved in another war, I couldn't agree more. I also believe that the U.S. should mind it's own business and take care of its own citizens first.

But as members of the U.N. why couldn't we push for the U.N. to get involved in pressuring China to at least stop the cultural genocide?

[JRScott]

Thanks for that. That may explain why China wanted to control Tibet. (Personally I also think ithey want it because it is a strategic location from which they can eventually wage war on the Middle East.)

But why couldn't China have just made Tibet an ALLY and come to an international agreement with them, instead of crushing them? And why, in any case, was it necessary to crush their WAY OF LIFE, their CULTURE? It's one thing to take over a country, and quite another to perform cultural genocide, destroying temples and records over 1000 years old and not allowing the people to freely express their "religion" (Buddhism isn't really a religion but I'll use the term here out of convenience.)

As to all those who object to the U.S. getting involved in another war, I couldn't agree more. I also believe that the U.S. should mind it's own business and take care of its own citizens first.

But as members of the U.N. why couldn't we push for the U.N. to get involved in pressuring China to at least stop the cultural genocide?

The same reason the UN never condemns us. China has veto power. (As does UK, France, USA and Russia... we all hold permanent seats on the UN Security Council and we all hold a veto power).

What's odd is that if the USSR ambassador to the UN had never walked out of the meetings just before the Korean Conflict then there would have been no military under the UN banner. Ultimately by walking out USSR left the table and thus could not veto the vote at the time.

[PaKettle]

The same reason the UN never condemns us. China has veto power. (As does UK, France, USA and Russia... we all hold permanent seats on the UN Security Council and we all hold a veto power).

What's odd is that if the USSR ambassador to the UN had never walked out of the meetings just before the Korean Conflict then there would have been no military under the UN banner. Ultimately by walking out USSR left the table and thus could not veto the vote at the time.

Guess I should read more about how the U.N. works.

Apparently it doesn't serve much purpose at all if any of the biggest powers can veto anything they don't like... Almost nothing would ever get done under the UN banner, in that case. Which, now that I think about it, is the way things have been...