21–30 of 246 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are you proposing we do? Cut off trade with China? Intervene militarily? Write a strongly worded letter?
That's what you did with Cuba and Iran and Iraq and Russia and etc., etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The UN is useless anytime the interests of the US, China, Russia or other veto wielding countries are involved.
Or friends of any of those. Which in essence renders the whole UN useless.
Not saying this is right, but it sounds like the city exceeded their legal cap of 5k people? So it doesn't sound like it's a total surprise to them. Am I reading it wrong?
That's just rationalization. Had the city population been 4200, the cap would have been set at 4k.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are you proposing we do? Cut off trade with China? Intervene militarily? Write a strongly worded letter?
What about Diplomacy? Increased recognition of Tibetan leaders and activists, sending diplomatic missions to problematic spots, etc. It would also not hurt to stop with the constant demonization of "China" as a whole, which just serves to downplay criticism as bigotry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure, China being a permanent member of UN's security council, they would just veto [1] anything going against their interest... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Counci...
UN is A joke.
Wow! It is amazing that we do not consider this a human rights violation. Oh well, gotta keep them prices low at Walmart!
China : Tibet :: Israel : Palestine, they are analogous in many ways. The human rights groups talk about the problems, we recognize it is bad, the weaker ethnic community suffers and is oppressed, the more powerful ethnic group makes slow but steady progress in exerting its wishes, and no real changes are effected by the international community.
The way Tibet was Incorporated into China, the nature of the Tibetan resistance, the way China governs Tibet, the reason China wants Tibet, the reason China represses Tibetans are all very very different from what's happening in Judea and Samaria. The Israeli Arab conflict is perhaps the most unique of all time.
The better analogies perhaps are some of the separatist leaning Russian Republics or India's Jammu and Kashmir
Not saying this is right, but it sounds like the city exceeded their legal cap of 5k people? So it doesn't sound like it's a total surprise to them. Am I reading it wrong?
Under what legal authority does that cap exist?
We marvel at how quickly they built up high speed rail, but when you can just seize land without regard to imminent domain, associated lawsuits and the like, things tend to get expedited.
This will truly be a tragic loss - the town is much more than the 'slum' it is represented as - it's arguably the most important Buddhist learning institution in the world..
Photos for the interested from my visit: http://travel.ninjito.com/dump/2016-06-15-Larung-Gar/index.h...
Edit: Got a good internet connection, uploaded decent photos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
China : Tibet :: Israel : Palestine, they are analogous in many ways. The human rights groups talk about the problems, we recognize it is bad, the weaker ethnic community suffers and is oppressed, the more powerful ethnic group makes slow but steady progress in exerting its wishes, and no real changes are effected by the international community.
Isn't that the nature of almost every conflict with an ethnic context? If there's no clear weaker and stronger you usually end up with two independent states. The way Tibet was Incorporated into China, the nature of the Tibetan resistance, the way China governs Tibet, the reason China wants Tibet, the reason China represses Tibetans are all very very different from what's happening in Judea and Samaria. The Israeli A…
> Isn't that the nature of almost every conflict with an ethnic context? If there's no clear weaker and stronger you usually end up with two independent states.
Your statement is sort of weird in the above. It presupposes that subjugation of a weaker ethnic group by a more powerful ethnic group is acceptable -- that is how these conflicts are resolved. It is counter to the idea of universal human rights that arose because of the the atrocities that arose because of the ethnic issues in WW2. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_human_rights#After_...
Your point of view, the powerful ethnic groups win and the weak lose and that is how the world works, justifies slavery, South African apartheid, and many other situations where one ethnic group is more powerful and wishes to impose its wishes on the less powerful. That is an allowable perspective, but that is antithesis to universal human rights.