xul, ToadBrother, M.Dancer 's favourate China topic

[M.Dancer]

China did never invade, the king of Tibet invaded China, and after he failed, the king gave his land to China, and China Emperor assigned him as the king of that area and marry him with one of princesses.

Oh so when the Chinese army marched into Tibet in 1949...it wasn't an invasion, it was a bridal party...remind me to avoid chinese weddings...

[bjre]

Oh so when the Chinese army marched into Tibet in 1949...it wasn't an invasion, it was a bridal party...

No, at that time, Tibet is part of China for hundreds of years. The army is moving inside the country.

...remind me to avoid chinese weddings...

wedding is much better than western style of killing after win a war.

Edited August 20, 2010 by bjre

[M.Dancer]

Early 20th century

In 1904, a British expedition to Tibet under the command of Colonel Francis Younghusband, accompanied by a large military escort, invaded Tibet and reached Lhasa. The British were spurred in part by a fear that Russia was extending its power into Tibet, and partly by hope that negotiations with the 13th Dalai Lama would be more effective than with Chinese representatives.[24] But on his way to Lhasa, Younghusband slaughtered many Tibetan troops in Gyangzê who tried to stop the British advance. When the mission reached Lhasa, Younghusband imposed a treaty which was subsequently repudiated, and was succeeded by a 1906 treaty[25] signed between Britain and China.

In 1910, the Qing government sent a military expedition of its own to establish direct Chinese rule and deposed the Dalai Lama in an imperial edict, who fled to British India. After the Xinhai Revolution toppled the Qing, the new Republic of China apologized for the actions of the Qing and offered him his previous position.[26] He refused, and declared himself ruler of an absolutist theocracy in Tibet[27] in collusion with Theocratic Mongolia. For the next thirty-six years, the 13th Dalai Lama governed this territory while China endured its Warlord era, civil war, and World War II. During this time, he tried to capture Xikang and Qinghai (or the Tibetan provinces of Kham and Amdo), which were still held by China, but failed.[21] However, no independent state has recognised the Dalai Lama's state as an independent country.[28]

funny that the proletariat communists would so eargely resume the policies of the despised bourgois aristicracy and resort to imperialistic adventures.

BLOOD ON THEIR HANS!

[bjre]

funny that the proletariat communists would so eargely resume the policies of the despised bourgois aristicracy and resort to imperialistic adventures.

BLOOD ON THEIR HANS!

So the brits want more land just like they enter Americas. and Tibet's lama at that time want independent under the pressure of brits just Quebec want today.

So you should recognize Quebec as a country now and any Canadian army there is invade?

Edited August 20, 2010 by bjre

[M.Dancer]

So the brits want more land just like they enter Americas. and Tibet's lama at that time independent just Quebec want today.

So you should recognize Quebec as a country now and any Canadian army there is invade?

The Brits gave back India etc etc....when will the imperialist Han give back their colonial possession?

There have been not only regular elections in Quebec, both provincial and federal, there have been two referendums on soveriegnty.

When will the murderous chinese offer tibet a choice?

[bjre]

The Brits gave back India etc etc....when will the imperialist Han give back their colonial possession?

There have been not only regular elections in Quebec, both provincial and federal, there have been two referendums on soveriegnty.

When will the murderous chinese offer tibet a choice?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16946&view=findpost&p=571991

murderous is a more suitable word for you westerners considering 100 million aboriginal killed in Americas.

Edited August 20, 2010 by bjre

[ToadBrother]

No, you are still try to hide it by trying to make the number smaller. And Europeans still did not return the land they robbed from native people.

And never will, likely, but we're making the reparations we reasonably can. Where's the payments to all the Tibetans?

Innocent people dead in Iraq and Afghanistan will be more than a million, how did you correct it?

HOw many of those people would have died under Saddam's regime. Oh of course, you're a Chinese apologist, as long as the deaths are caused by the leaders of the state in question, that's okay.

But the next "elected" guy are just same type that supported by powerful large business.

I think you'd better look up the information on Ford. He never actually expected to be president. Not that I'm sure he didn' accept business donations, but so what? The United States is a free country, and not a dictatorship.

But why no one have ever seen the piled up bodies during the Great Leap Forward?

Wow, co-opting Holocaust denial rhetoric to hide from the truth of Mao's incredible ineptitude and callousness.

Mao is the greatest leader that make your leaders unable to keep killing and slave people in China. He make it by drive all colonist out of China and drive them from China-Korea border to the 38 line.

Mao killed upwards of 40 million people because he was an economic moron. Yes, he was a great political leader and had some skill as a military strategist (mainly in the form of mobile forces), but when it came to running a country, he sucked profoundly. But that's alright, the real hero of modern China, Deng Xiaoping buried the foul evil ghost of Maoism and turned China around, and with impressive speed.

Your democracy is limited by brain-washing corporate controlled media that make you unable to know what is truth. And you will only waste time if you vote a person not among those pre-chosen for you by big-business.

I'm not brainwashed at all. But you are, tragically.

Your liberties is limited by the amount of money you have.

Nope, not in the least.

Your free expression is limited in non-main-stream media unless you talk about what corporate controlled media like to use.

Freedom of expression goes all the way. That means the corporations can say what they like and I can say what I like. You won't get arrested here even for the patently absurd things you say. In China, try to get a little democracy happening and tanks roll over top of you.

Actually, the word hypocrite is just fit for you when you asked me to go back to China when I have a different idea when you claim you like democracy.

You've condemned democracy as a sham. Why is it that you're here? Surely you need to go back to the land of the ideological pure.

Unless, of course, you are just a hypocrite. I'm leaning in that direction. I don't think you want to go to China at all.

[ToadBrother]

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16946&view=findpost&p=571991

murderous is a more suitable word for you westerners considering 100 million aboriginal killed in Americas.

What I want is evidence that there were 100 million people in the Americas to begin. I'll accept scholarly articles, peer reviewed studies, that sort of thing. Anything else is unacceptable. Got any evidence?

[bjre]

I have to work to make living now. Bye-Bye.

[ToadBrother]

I have to work to make living now. Bye-Bye.

That's it, little boy, run along now.

[bjre]

And never will, likely, but we're making the reparations we reasonably can. Where's the payments to all the Tibetans?

HOw many of those people would have died under Saddam's regime. Oh of course, you're a Chinese apologist, as long as the deaths are caused by the leaders of the state in question, that's okay.

I think you'd better look up the information on Ford. He never actually expected to be president. Not that I'm sure he didn' accept business donations, but so what? The United States is a free country, and not a dictatorship.

Wow, co-opting Holocaust denial rhetoric to hide from the truth of Mao's incredible ineptitude and callousness.

Mao killed upwards of 40 million people because he was an economic moron. Yes, he was a great political leader and had some skill as a military strategist (mainly in the form of mobile forces), but when it came to running a country, he sucked profoundly. But that's alright, the real hero of modern China, Deng Xiaoping buried the foul evil ghost of Maoism and turned China around, and with impressive speed.

I'm not brainwashed at all. But you are, tragically.

Nope, not in the least.

Freedom of expression goes all the way. That means the corporations can say what they like and I can say what I like. You won't get arrested here even for the patently absurd things you say. In China, try to get a little democracy happening and tanks roll over top of you.

You've condemned democracy as a sham. Why is it that you're here? Surely you need to go back to the land of the ideological pure.

Unless, of course, you are just a hypocrite. I'm leaning in that direction. I don't think you want to go to China at all.

Back for a lunch break, and found you don't have any new idea, nothing but stereotype, guess you are just a shill (Michael Hardner gave the definition for this word in a post several months ago), that is why you don't have your own thinking.

[ToadBrother]

Back for a lunch break, and found you don't have any new idea, nothing but stereotype, guess you are just a shill (Michael Hardner gave the definition for this word in a post several months ago), that is why you don't have your own thinking.

This is nothing more than rhetorical salad. You don't, won't, or more likely can't deal with what I'm saying, so this sort of dull, generalistic attack on me is what I guess we can expect. I'm not really all that surprised. You probably know about as much about Chinese history as you do Western. I'm beginning to think you're a pretty ignorant guy.

[bjre]

This is nothing more than rhetorical salad. You don't, won't, or more likely can't deal with what I'm saying, so this sort of dull, generalistic attack on me is what I guess we can expect. I'm not really all that surprised. You probably know about as much about Chinese history as you do Western. I'm beginning to think you're a pretty ignorant guy.

I have repeated it too much. And from this thread begin, I don't have to intention to talk about it. If you are so interest in it, just search my post, you can read it until you tired of it.

[ToadBrother]

I have repeated it too much. And from this thread begin, I don't have to intention to talk about it. If you are so interest in it, just search my post, you can read it until you tired of it.

Yes, you just keep repeating the same things over. Though I was surprised to see what a devotee of Mao you were. That China has pretty much rejected everything Maoism was about in favor of what amounts to a capitalist technocracy must drive you nuts.

[bjre]

Yes, you just keep repeating the same things over. Though I was surprised to see what a devotee of Mao you were. That China has pretty much rejected everything Maoism was about in favor of what amounts to a capitalist technocracy must drive you nuts.

You know my opinion, and you still ask, what a hypocrite you are.

I think your only goal is to disturb any serious discuss here.

You fear Canadians begin to think.

You want to fool them.

So that you can keep rob more tax from them.

[bloodyminded]

I knew it was Toadbrother who was taking my money.

[ToadBrother]

You know my opinion, and you still ask, what a hypocrite you are.

I think your only goal is to disturb any serious discuss here.

You fear Canadians begin to think.

You want to fool them.

So that you can keep rob more tax from them.

Your responses are becoming increasingly incoherent. I feel like Captain Kirk driving some poor computer insane. I can literally see you saying "Does not compute..."

[bjre]

Read the novel "Gone with the wind", there are many loyal slaves there.

There was also a war fought to liberate those slaves...

Your analogy is clueless...

But from the novel point of the view, the war is not for liberate those slaves:

“Why, honey, of course there’s going to be a war,” said Stuart. “The Yankees may be scared of us, but after the way General Beauregard shelled them out of Fort Sumter day before yesterday, they’ll have to fight or stand branded as cowards before the whole world.”

So, it is the south launched the war first. More over, the war is for land:

When she looked at Tara she could understand, in part, why wars were fought. Rhett was wrong when he said men fought wars for money. No, they fought for swelling acres, softly furrowed by the plow, for pastures green with stubby cropped grass, for lazy yellow rivers and white houses that were cool amid magnolias. These were the only things worth fighting for, the red earth which was theirs and would be their sons’, the red earth which would bear cotton for their sons and their sons’ sons.

And those land were robbed from aboriginal people and others.

"Liberate slave" is only a term like "Freedom", "Human rights", "Iraq has WMD", "Global warming cause by Human activity", "H1N1 pandemic", when need to fight a war or ask people to spend for other reasons, they can find any reason.

If it was for liberate the blacks, why Martin Luther King still need to "have a dream" in 1963?

The White house was build with the help of slaves, if Lincoln hate slavery, he should move out of the white House and find another place to be his president office.

Edited September 5, 2010 by bjre

[bush_cheney2004]

....If it was for liberate the blacks, why Martin Luther King still need to "have a dream" in 1963?

Same reason women needed Liberation.

[Jack Weber]

But from the novel point of the view, the war is not for liberate those slaves:

So, it is the south launched the war first. More over, the war is for land:

And those land were robbed from aboriginal people and others.

"Liberate slave" is only a term like "Freedom", "Human rights", "Iraq has WMD", "Global warming cause by Human activity", "H1N1 pandemic", when need to fight a war or ask people to spend for other reasons, they can find any reason.

If it was for liberate the blacks, why Martin Luther King still need to "have a dream" in 1963?

The White house was build with the help of slaves, if Lincoln hate slavery, he should move out of the white House and find another place to be his president office.

Get a historical clue before you embarass yourself again...

Please read up on the outcome of the Battle of Antietam on September 17,1862,the Emancipation Proclamation one week later,The Emancipation Proclamation being enacted into law on January 1,1863,and,the mindset of the Union hierarchy as it related to the war taking on a higher purpose than just being about land...

Edited September 5, 2010 by Jack Weber

[bjre]

Get a historical clue before you embarass yourself again...

Please read up on the outcome of the Battle of Antietam on September 17,1862,the Emancipation Proclamation one week later,The Emancipation Proclamation being enacted into law on January 1,1863,and,the mindset of the Union hierarchy as it related to the war taking on a higher purpose than just being about land...

The war started in 1861, that law was after that, it is clearly the law is not the reason for the war. it is not the original purpose or intention, even if the result looks positive.

Edited September 6, 2010 by bjre

[Jack Weber]

The war started in 1861, that law was after that, it is clearly the law is not the reason for the war. it is not the original purpose or intention, even if the result looks positive.

Correct...The end of slavery was not the original intention.Abolition had always been a side issue until the Battle of Antietam and the Emancipation Proclamation 1 week later...

That's when the war took on a higher purpose..That's the historical fact you refuse to grasp....

[bjre]

Correct...The end of slavery was not the original intention.Abolition had always been a side issue until the Battle of Antietam and the Emancipation Proclamation 1 week later...

That's when the war took on a higher purpose..That's the historical fact you refuse to grasp....

Since it was made during the war, the purpose can strongly be doubted.

I strongly suspect it was for the purpose of liberate slaves, it is obvious that drive slave away strongly destroy the southern economy that can provide the south supplies for the war that the south rely on. According to the novel wherever the north go, they destroyed railways, burning farms, rob foods, burning cottons, so that people have nothing to eat and nothing to wear that slaves had to go, so that the economy become hard to resume.

The conclusion is, only when release slaves was good for north's own interest, they would do it. That is why.

Edited September 6, 2010 by bjre

[ToadBrother]

Correct...The end of slavery was not the original intention.Abolition had always been a side issue until the Battle of Antietam and the Emancipation Proclamation 1 week later...

That's when the war took on a higher purpose..That's the historical fact you refuse to grasp....

I've always had trouble with this argument. It's very clear that Abolitionists were pissing off the Southern states and were gaining a lot of traction in the Northern states. Lincoln was very much seen on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line as the abolitionist president; the potential liberator of the slave to the North and the raper of States Rights in the South.

While slavery wasn't entirely what it was about, it was assuredly a very large factor.

[g_bambino]

murderous is a more suitable word for you westerners considering 100 million aboriginal killed in Americas.

You didn't answer his question.