From: tak@leland.Stanford.EDU (David William Budd)
Subject: Re: Tibet: People Continue to Hope [forwarded article]
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: na  
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 02:52:02 GMT

In article <93Jan26.150833est.150@orasis.vis.toronto.edu> liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.020700.2210@leland.Stanford.EDU> tak@leland.Stanford.EDU (David William Budd) writes:
>>>
>[......] 
>>>
>>
>>
>>Oh. I am so sorry to have mistaken the history of the relations
>>between the PLA and Tibet. I see the error of my ways, now.
>>The PLA "routed" the tibetan forces for the good of tibet.
>>
>go back and point out where i said the above.  

Where you said what? You deleted the text of what you said, so I
cannot. 

>of course, the communist couldn't possibly have those
>good intentions, we all know that.  I can only assume
>the british realized that 20 years before the CCP was
>formed in the beginning of this century, and as a pre-cautionary
>move to save the world from communism. send a "free-tibet" 
>coalition forces composed men from freedom-loving countries
>of the commonwealth(India, Nepal, et al) "entered" Tibet,
>capturing Lhasa, wiped out a couple of monostaries(unfortunately
>those laser-guided muskets mis-fired), and oh, relieve
>their friends the Qing Dynasty officials the duty there,
>of course the Dalai was pissed off then, but hey they've
>got time, eventually, especially after reincarnations  he started see 
>things the british way, his affection toward briton and india grow, 
>especially Qing or the following republican regime could not
>offer him very much.   yeap, when the evil communists took over 
>half a century later, the brits job had been well done.  

What the English did was far from admirable. But does that 
give the CCP the right to go in and "liberate" tibet?? }On
a more general level, do two wrongs make a right?

>>Actually, I never accused the CCP of being "murderers and liars."
>>Please. Check my post. I simply pointed out a fact. That
>>Peking has not always lived up to the terms of its agreement
>>with the gov't in Lhasa. While it is true that the
>>PLA was under no obligation whatsoever to give any terms
>>to the government in Tibet other than its own, {it
>>conquered, after all} it DID make an agreement.
>>
>
>it did make an agreement, and the majority forces did live
>up to that agreement for quite a while.  The reason for the
>1959 shoot out is still quite mysterious, clearly the PLA
>didn't plan it, and neither was the Dalai personally involved
>from the start, and those started certainly throw Dalai's title
>around to attract support.  it could be some low level trigger happy 
>people start it, and pointing fingers at each other after
>it got out of hand, and which point of course, brasses on both
>sides were backed into corners, and Dalai really looked bad, 
>to clear himself is quite impossible and ran to India was his 
>only choice.  

Let's for the sake of argument accept your claim a priori, that
the majority did bserve the terms for "quite a while." The fact
is that they did not follow through in perpituity, and in fact
not even close to the 50 years "guaranteed" to HK. Of course,
the govt in China {Mao Tse-tung} was quite diefferent then then 
it is now. It is much more pragmatic now. But, the fact of
the matter is the bottom line. Chinese soliders violated the
agreement.

>such a situation was hardly a comparison to HK, even on the
>worst situation, the CCP is not interested to disrupt HK,
>after all, shooting each other in the street is bad for business.  

OK. I will accept your statement, if you will accept
its implied premse. You say that China is not interested in 
disrupting HK, so the situation is differnet. That implies
that the CCP WAS interested in disrupting tibet...

Also, shooting in the street is bad for business. So is
killing citizens with tanks.

>>Likewise, the CCP was really under no obligation to give terms
>>to HK either. We all know that the PRC has the right after 1997
>>to take back the so-called "New Territories." Also, it
>>is true that the PRC could take back not only the NT, but
>>Kow Loon and HK island as well, and without firing a shot.
>>
>hmmm, a bonus!  they really don't have any rights besides
>the "New Territories" don't they?  Someone ought to advise
>the Top-brass in CCP first sell opium in Tibet, and then
>invade to collect the debt.  and that would really really Legitmize 
>its OCCUPATION in Tibet.  
>
>Heck!  The Brits might invite those short yellow man with slimy eyes 
>(not exact quote from Prince Phillip)  into their own proper clubs 
>like they invite the Japanese in 1902, the main dinner course
>that time is, the map of China on a platter, and it's
>self-serve.  
>

I suppose that you are right. I will not deny thsat
the history of the UK in Asia is spotted at best.  The
"unequal" treaties which ceded HK and Kow Loon are recognised
by the world, however. In fact, when the UN council
on colonisation in the 1970's wanted to work to override
the treaties, the CCP refused to allow such arbitration, saying
that the matter was for the English and Chinese to decide.
I am going to pretend that your non-sequitir regarding
Prnce Philip's quote did not happen.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china