From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Tibet: People Continue to Hope [forwarded article]
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:08:49 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto

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.  

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.  

>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.  

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.  

>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.  


[......]