Collegiate Times

Please try to avoid this kind of sensitive topic on campus.

have you ever been to China?? Have you ever been to Tibet? Have you ever read the history of old tibet ? Have you ever, by any chance, known that Dalailma abused slaves for many years? I really want to be objective about history and show neatural position on this controversial event . Dont be the victims of someone's political agenda. Dont truly believe each side's full story and also mainstream media. Have u ever heard anything good about China on US media ? This is not about human rights sometimes, it is about telling people to think easily : first deamonlize some country and then what you need is just to push slightly from media and then all the people will believe that is really true. If you remember CNN has some video clips and pics shown in their program which basically said Chinese police tried to arrest a protestor which you can easily see , they are not CHinese police and even not Chinese! they are nepal police and wear their blue uniform. ....... Brianwash doesn't happen only in one country.

China takes the Olympic Games as an opportunity to display our progress and join the international community. But, our best intention was greeted with biased Western media and people who are ignorant about the history and the truth. Please, do your homework before you make a statement about something you have to knowledge about. Talk to the slaves who never had any freedom under Dalai Lama. Ask them if they really want to be slaves again.

Do you really know anything about Tibet? Or you are just a copycat?

Go China! Go Beijing Olympics! It seems the media like CNN, BBC have problem in just telling the truth of Tibet. Shame on them!

Please be responsible to your report. If you don't know the full story, at least do not give such biased entry.

"state-sponsored human rights abuses, cultural assimilation, religious oppression, and tacit collusion with genocidal forces." What a accusation. Simply blame other countries based on systematic media distortion, in the name of freedom is easy to do and doesn't cost a dime. But really understand the issue, understand and study the history, learning the truth is rather difficult. Your column is based on untruthful demonization of China which has been seen for years. If you have been to China, you will see people in Tibet and other parts of China can practice religion freely; these rights are protected especially after 1980s. Historically religion in China played minor role in politics, unlike in the US, which is fundamentally a christian state, albeit US constitution is for the separation of religion and state. Religion is oppressed only when it tries to interfere with politics in China, such as Dalai Lama who was a theocratic dictator instead of so called "spiritual leader". His privileges and brutal suppression to Tibetan people far exceeded any Chinese Emperor in history. Cultural assimilation is even more unfounded accusation. The truth is that the entire Chinese culture is facing cultural assimilation from the western culture. This started since 1860 when the British invaded China and all the western world wanted a piece of China.

Matt Eldridge, you should apologize for your article. You don't know the truth.

Let's get some facts straight. See below: Tibet is facing annihilation. While some demonstrators certainly have been physically abused or have even "disappeared," the threat of annihilation does not come in a physical form, but rather in the shape of forced cultural absorption. >> Fact 1: Dalai-led Tibetan government reported that the population was 1,275,000 and fatality rate of infants were 430%0. In 2003, the population increased to 2,507,200 while the fatality rate of infants decreased to 6.3 %0.

>> Fact 2: 92.8% of population in Tibet Province is of Tibetan ethnic, who only occupies 45% of all Tibetans in China. In Tibet Province, there are many other ethic groups including Menba, Keba, Han, Hui, Xiaerba, etc., most of whom were descendents of immigrants to Tibet Province since 1800 during the Qing Dynasty. >> Fact 3: In 1955, upon the proposal by Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama, the Chinese government started to build economic and cultural infrastructure in Tibet Province, including power plant, steel plant, water dams, hospitals, modern farms, schools, paved streets in Lasa, hotels, airports, and highways. So finally, Tibet is not an isolated place from the world.

>> Fact 4: The new Panchen Lama was selected by lamas and then approved by the Chinese government. This has been the official procedure since the Qing Emperor Shuizhi officially approved this title to the fifth Dalai Lama in1644 and secured his power around Lasa with military support afterwards. By the way, the title “Dalai Lama” was given by Mongolian aristocrats to the third Dalai Lama in the middle of the 16th century and in Mongolian (the language of Genghis Khan) means “ocean”.

>>Fact 5: NOT like the U.S. in Iraq, China does not intervene with domestic matters simply because we are economically stronger. We abide by internally law; if the UN requests it, we will definitely follow necessary steps to take appropriate actions.

>> Fact 6: this time, you get the fact right. Congratulations! China IS stronger, faster, and better. So deal with it.

>> Fact 7: On those torch relay trips in London, Paris, and San Francisco, the only ones arrested by the police were pro-Tibetans. Though the pro-china side has been far more outnumbered the pro-Tibetans, no arrests have been reported. So who has been producing chaos?

Don't mix politics with sport. Shame on this guy.

shame on this author. WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT China. please study history and use your brain to write something.

It is 21 centuries now, the people in the earth have ended the "cold war" for a long time. but the author still want to do the same things in the cold war.How does he think?

The author is totally ignorant and does not know what he is advocating or supporting. Just ask this simple question, what if the native Indians in Mid-West like Illinois, Kansas, Missouri and Michigan or in southwest such as Arizona, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming starts to say, you Yankees get the heck out of our land?! What if the remainder Indian population after so many generations of suppresion, assimilation, and even previous decimation ever started to protest and demand severance and independence from the United States? Under those circumstances, what would the white house do? let it go, let the Indians claim independence or suppress it down? There are always a bunch of dirty, shameless politicians who wants to undermine China by borrowing from the Kosovo idea. But every consientious Chinese in China and abroad will prove and demonstrate how absurd it is to use the same Kosovo idea on China. Forget it, guys, a separatist's daydream will never come true. And thank you guys, for bringing the Chinese population more cohesive and tightly united like never before.

What's wrong with a country claims for independance? Can this Chinese let it go...take it easy, don't try to claim everything that belong to Chinese. If Chinese think that the native Indians in US are same with Tibetan, then you might want to claim NY China Town is also belong to China, or Singapore, Vietnam also belong to China since people over there are originally from China....Please let it go....

So, why don't the American return the land back to the hands of the native Indians and let them form an independent Indian nation within the ConUS?!

SK and some others: Give me a break. That's your analogy. You use it on what you want and deny it on others. What do you mean a 'country'? You ignorant foolhardy think everywhere else in the world has the same short but brutal history like USA? If you want to discuss something seriously, do research first.

To: SK What is your logic? "Free-Tibet" people claim those ORIGINALLY lived in Tibet can claim their independence. OK, that means Indians too...Chinese in NY China town aren't ORIGINAL people there. So, dont try to rape others' opinion. And please check out some history books before saying anything. You are just one of those who are fooled by so-called free media in America.

I respect the right of Tibetans to protest for freedom (agreed, China does not). But why should others "step up" if the Tibetan leader espouses pacificism? Jimmy Carter wanted to send a message to the Soviet Union so he punished American Olympic athletes.

SK, Tibet is not a country, under the rule of Yuan Dynasty(1271 - 1368), Ming Dynasty(1368 - 1644) and Qing Dynasty(1644 - 1912), which are the predecessors of current China. Da Lai rebelled at 1911 and claimed independence from China illegally, and also launched slavery in Tibet, depriving its people of basic human rights. In the view of long history, there is no reason Tibet could be called a country. If China would let Tibet go, why you won't let Vermont go? Just be more understanding and know better about the history of China, before you just blindly follow the current anti-China fashion.

wow, did the author ever watched TV yesterday. If you did, you should see thousands of pro-china supporters on the street. I won't blame your blindness, because you have no idea what the truth is. You just wrote the article and pretended you know something. "cultural absorption"? Do you know Dalai Lama is the biggest slave owner and his regime is a slavery regime? So you want to keep millions of tibetan people as they were 60 years ago and be proud that's their culture? I won't blame your ignorance because this is how you were cheated by Dalai Lama. It's a game, a game that pursues better, higher and stronger. Let the game goes on, don't play politics in game when real politics needs to be kicked in in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Matt: As a slave master, I could not see return Tibet to Dalai Lama is a good idea. < http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html > I understand that you are pursuing freedom and liberty, but you should repect the history more. I like your sports articles because you really know about it. But this one... you just copied from others, and treat it as a trend. Tibet is really different from Tiananmen Squre Protest, you should not treat them in the same way. Everyone love freedom, love democracy. There may a lot of things you do not know. Do some research and study, and you will see.

It's interesting to see supporters of China's actions in Tibet fall silent when approached about the status of Taiwan. China presents among the largest threat to global security over the course of the next several decades, largely because of the fact that its economy is driven by a military-industrial complex which has proven to be a far better stimulus to economic and technological growth in the last century or so. China presents a direct threat to the United States due to the US's diplomatic ties with Taiwan. The Chinese aren't without their own human rights violations as well - the revolution which brought about the current political system in China has a great deal of blood on its own hands. Neither China nor Tibet is squeaky clean in this particular conflict - and while Mr. Eldridge certainly skews the facts one way, the pro-China commentors on this board skew the facts their own way to and equal or greater degree.

Clearly this author does not have a sense of responsibility. Before publishing somethings in the news paper, at least you need to do some homework. One suggestion, go to Tibet and see what is going there. And then I would like to read your second article about Tibet.

'Tibet is facing annihilation'??? Do you have any proof? Have you ever been to Tibet? Do you see it by your own eyes? Go to see the real life of Tibetans in China. No tibetans wanna go back to the slavery system when Dalai Lama controlled. Dalai Lama is the one who violated human rights.

1. We don't call it Tibet. It's Xi Zang in mandarin Chinese, a region of People's Republic of China. 2. When you say Chinese, that means someone whose nationality is China. There are more than fifty ethic groups living peacefully together. People in Taiwan are also Chinese although some may deny it due to complicated history. 3. Usually the Chinese culture in your language means the culture of Han People in China. This culture is also under the harm of western ideology (especially American) like many other cultures around the world. Think about the Coca-cola generation who likes stupid Hollywood movies. We don't like it. Please tell the democratic leaders in your country to stop this cultural invasion. 4. Olympics may be really related with politics. But who made it like this? Not us, China, but you. We don't want to showcase how developed we are, which is not true. We want to rest world to know how friendly and open we are. 5. Make your judgment from different sources of information. Think before speak. We don't think the media here is free or unbiased.

The notion of the 'People's Republic of China' is laughable at best - I always find it ironic that Communists nearly always use euphemisms to name their societies, as though non-Communist nations inherently work AGAINST the interests of their people. Of course, that was Marx's point, but that's not really important. Capeman, while the people of Taiwan may be culturally Chinese, it doesn't necessarily mean that they view themselves to be Chinese citizens (subjects?) - if my history serves me correctly, the previous democratic government, in the process of being overthrown, relocated itself and its supporters to the island of Taiwan and declared itself an independent state, a classification recognized by the United Nations and most of the global powers.

Agree. Not all Chinese nationality is China...Capeman, please "think before speak". I don't claim myself from China at all...

Kyle Minor, that's impressive you know some of Chinese history, but unfortunately not enough. Seems you're an expert of communism piratically and theoretically. But do you know about capitalism? You like it, don't you? How much do you know about the current situation? From the biased hostile media here? How much even do you know about your own country? I just learned a phrase, 'Pot calling the kettle black', which perfectly fits here. Those deceived Americans who live in lies still think they're in paradise. We love our country like you like yours. Show your respect if you expect ours.

7177, are you from Hong Kong? No time to be distracted by your issue. Who made this situation? Who forced us to accept the name CHINESE? Did they ask if we like it? The world has never been and will never be equal to each individual. Do not judge everything from only what you think.

The goal here isn't insulting China - quite the contrary, the goal is a more intellectually honest look at the situation facing both China and Tibet, and its perceptions in the world political sphere. I'm not sure what you mean by your questions about capitalism - I know that the federal government mandated, to an extent, that banks loan to individuals who were poor risks, and consequently those borrowers defaulted on their loans causing the housing bubble to burst and driving the country towards (but not into) a recession. A similar event happened just before the Great Depression, except the loans were generally for shares of stock rather than mortgages at that point. There really isn't a problem with recession - and what our market is going through right now is a natural correction to a super-accelerated period of growth over the past couple of years. So yes, I'd say I know a little bit about my own country, it's economic situation, and the manner in which the current economic situation will be remedied.

I respect honest discussion. Unfortunately the anti-China opinion is so overwhelming here on TV, newspaper and internet. That's why I chose to fight back. I'm not trying to fully convince anybody. We just want others to know other side of truth and what we think. You know what's going on the surface. How about surplus value? How the third world people are ruthlessly exploited by the first world? Is it reasonable some are born rich others are poor. My point is nowhere is perfect. Do not force us to accept your system of values. Talk about us and with us respectfully and rationally.

I'd say that I've been quite respectful and rational. Blanket assertions like "third world people are ruthlessly exploited by the first world" don't really help your cause, though - the Chinese exploit as many third world nations as the Americans do. I'm not really sure where you are going with your monetary inequality argument - but it's worth noting that the Chinese system is not truly communism because there still exists a ruling class which is charged with determining what constitutes equality. This was the overwhelming problem throughout the history of the USSR, and continues to be a problem in North Korea - Orwell characterizes this quite aptly in 'Animal Farm.'

I knew I will see such a politically biased article appearing on compus sooner or later. This is because of the power of propaganda from western media that want to cut the throat of China. People like the author here can be seen everywhere in western country. They like to show their sympathy to Chinese people but never want to listen to the real voice of them. Also, they never know they are used. Most of them never go to China, know nothing about chinese history and of course they can't read chinese words. The only thing they can do is to watch their TV and read their newspaper with obvious prejudice. But they nerver know.

For example, yesterday there are tnhousands of chinese people gathering in San Francisco to celebrate the Olympic torch rally. However CNN reported them as thousands of protesters. It is so ridiculous that we all know the thousands of red flags are the national flag of China. I can't believe they are so ignorant at that time but eventually I accept it. Why? They do it intentionally. Western people do not want to see a powerful China so they say China is a big threat to the world security. What's the truth? Our people have lived in our land for more than 5000 years and now we are still there. But where were you white people 5000 years ago? It's too long? Then where were you people in American 500 years ago? Who are invaders? It can not be clearer. Please show your sympathy to American Indians, show your sympathy to Iraq people, show your sympathy to yourself.

LH, were China the wholly benevolent entity you claim it to be, there would be no contention about the rights of the Taiwanese to have their own nation. I don't necessarily believe that China constitutes quite the threat to the world that international media claims it does, but its actions against Taiwanese independence threaten American security due to our diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Hence, it serves American interest to ensure that China's power is at the very least closely watched.

You may be. Others may not. Why China is always the target to be condemned? I just can't stand the hypocrisy performed by western world. As I said, nowhere is perfect in the reality. People in the developed countries are the ruling class of this earth. You made the rules of game and now we're following it. So don't act like ethic guards. Seldom mentioned is the bright side of China or other developing countries. People are the same everywhere. Don't try to be a life-savor to others. We don't want to be treated like Iraqis. We're able to control our own fate. No need one or more masters to tell us how to do.

China represents the 'target to be condemned' because they constitute the most capable threat to the global balance of power right now - although China is rapidly being rivaled by Iran's nuclear program and radical government. It's interesting to note also that, while China is technically a communist nation, its economy anymore is driven by primarily capitalistic processes (especially on the global market). I guess even communists figure out eventually that their own economic system simply falls apart. . .

Kyle Minor, you talked about Taiwan. It's not a nation and will never be independent. Because we won't allow it. Reason? Simple. We don't want the US controlled Taiwan to threaten Chinese security. Now you see the difference. Everybody is doing the good to serve their own interests. Do it, but throw away the colorful cover of FREEDOM or HUMAN RIGHTS.

Agree. Not all Chinese nationality is China...Capeman, please "think before speak". I don't claim myself from China at all...

Kyle, Taiwan is always a part of China. As far as I know Taiwan is far far away from American. I can't see China threatening American but American threatening China. There are american carriers cruising near China I think you must know what they are doing there. I only want people know the truth focusing on the article. As you said it serves American interest but not chinese interest.

It's a bit of a stretch to assert that Taiwan is somehow 'US controlled.' Supported, yes. Controlled, no - we don't make their political decisions for them, we don't dictate the outcomes of their elections, and we don't directly finance their government nor their economy. So what we have here is a Chinese fear that Taiwan WILL become US controlled (I'm not convinced that is a rational fear), and in any event a declaration that China will not withdraw its claims to Taiwan simply because it doesn't feel that it is in China's best interests. The Taiwanese left mainland China to escape the mounting political pressure, and have established their own economic and political base on their island. Whether China recognizes its independence or not is inconsequential - the rest of the world recognizes Taiwan's sovereignty, and consequently any Chinese aggression against Taiwan will almost certainly be considered an unlawful act of aggression. Taiwan's struggle isn't a lot unlike America's struggle against the British - but right now, Taiwan still suffers under the shadow of fear cast by a seemingly paranoid Chinese government.

Actually, Capeman, the syllogism is more along the lines of "China = threat to balance of power." Evil is a subjective assessment based on moral principle, and I'm not going to start down that road in this forum. The fact that the Chinese government is nominally communist isn't relevant to the discussion, given that the Cold War is over and the aim of the Chinese government is not to spread Communism as was the USSR's pretense. The Western World isn't concerned with 'submission to the world order,' but it is concerned with a rapidly militarizing nation with a fairly secretive government.

7177, I have responded to your claim in previous posts. I have no interests to talk with you about other issue here. Stop bothering me.

LH, China threatens America by virtue of America's diplomatic ties to the Taiwan nation. When China threatens Taiwan, it is an American responsibility, based upon diplomatic ties created when Taiwan became a sovereign nation, to aid it in its defense. Since America no longer practices global isolationism (which seems to be what you suggest all countries do - not exactly a tenable means of living in a global society), these diplomatic ties are binding.

Kyle Minor Comparing Taiwan to the history of the independence of USA from British is not appropriate. Taiwan is not a colony in the first place. Chinese people did not assert the "discovery" of Taiwan. Chinese people did not kill the natives of Taiwan. Why don't you compare it with your civil war instead? The reason the Taiwan problem is there is because of US intervention in the first place. USA brutally intervened the Chinese civil war simply because of idealism against Communism. Anyone with potent understanding of global politics should be able to understand it is a measure to "keep the Chinese busy and annoyed". It gives the US the power to negotiate and bargain with China in so many aspects.

Your talk about Taiwan is full of fallacies which are derived from what you think you know. That's a civil war. It's no comparison of the relationship between US and Britain. This situation is more like South and North Korea. As a matter of fact, US is 'controlling' or trying to control the rest of the world. You're selling weapons to Taiwan like what you did to Iraq and Iran decades ago. Americans are talking about militarization? Do you know how much you spend on the budget of military, how much profit you've earned by selling or using weapons in the rest of the world? If we don't military us, no wonder one day we'll be invaded like Iraq. I think the debate is pretty clear now. Do not condemn us while you're doing the same under the cover of virtue. No more hypocrisy.

Kyle Minor, why does China need militarization? Because there are countries like USA in the world who ruthlessly invade others (Iraq is a perfect example of the victims). Why does china do it secretly? Because otherwize USA will cause trouble. Nevertheless, do you know how much money China spend on military every year? And do you know how much USA spend each year? FYI Absolute expenditures (in USD).(2004-2005) --United States $419.3 billion; and China $58.6 billion

to Kyle Minor: it's laughable that since your first post you are always trying to distracting the discussion from XiZang (so called Tibet by you guys) to communism/Taiwan etc. Why dare you not to focus on discussion on this thread's topic?

to Kyle Minor: "China = threat to balance of power." lol, where is the balance of power in the current world? America itself can become the "balance"?

You should learn the history of Tibet and China before made your comments, even just a little. Don't be this naive, please. You will be regreted of having said this some years later.

In 1953, the population of Xizang (Tibet) province is 1.28 million. In 2003, in Xizang (Tibet) province, the population of Zang-Chinese is 2.50 million and that of Han-Chinese is 0.19 million. (- from the Chinese Population Information http://www.cpirc.org.cn/en/eindex.htm) So, Matt Eldridge, the CT regular columnist, how do you draw the conclusion that ¡°Tibet is facing annihilation...¡± From 1.28 million to 2.50 million? Is that what you called ¡®annihilation¡¯? I really worry about you math. It seems like that you don¡¯t know how to count. Maybe a columnist does not need to know how to count? Matt Eldridge, the CT regular columnist, you claimed that ¡°¡­while China is attempting to flood the area with Han influences¡­¡± The 0.19 million Han-Chinese FLOOD 2.50 million Zang-Chinese in past 50 years? As a summary, the article written by Matt Eldridge, the CT regular columnist, is full of imagination, assertion and conclusions without any strong facts. It is such a low level article without being peer reviewed by some one who knows more history of Xizang (Tibet). (I didn¡¯t comment on the later part of the article because the comment limit is 25 words.) I am from Virginia Tech and I appreciate the name of Virginia Tech very much. I can¡¯t stand that Matt Eldridge disgrace Virginia Tech by publishing such a low level article. Therefore, I strongly appeal that this low level article written by Matt Eldridge, the CT regular columnist, to be retracted from the Collegiate Times.

For those who think that US is bias, not good, and China is the Great, and true.......please remember that you are currently in US, and most of you should be under assistantship (i.e., US paid you and it is a fact). Therefore, if you really do not like US, then why you come to US? Why don't you go back to China where you believe what you see and hear is true? Come on, I don't believe that your media is free as well. To Capeman, sorry I am not from HK. And I thought HK is belong to China. And also "do not judge everything from only what you think" as well. Do you think what you think is right?

to 7177, nobody here ever said media in China is unbiased. Actually, both of them are biased based on their butt. The issue is all Chinese students here have ever read stories from both sides, however, people here did not and believe in the one-side story they heard from local media without suspects. No mention we have also lived in China for a long time and personelly know some tibetans in Mainland Chian, quite a few of us have ever been to Tibet. Who do you think master more facts? For those who really wanted to know about Tibet seriously (instead of those who oppose China purposely), hope the following reference helps: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsoc4-QnplY Study history, not media. The truth does not come from television program. I love the words at the end of this video.

Kyle I'm from China and i understand that there is some positive sides for Taiwan to be independent. "The Taiwanese left mainland China to escape the mounting political pressure, and have established their own economic and political base on their island."First, most of the Taiwanese are the 2nd and 3rd generation of mainland residents, and their father/grandfathers fled the mainland not because they wanted to "escape" the political pressure;instead, it was because they lost the war that they caused. There was a chance in China 60 years ago to form a two-party system.Unfortunately,KMT's ego screw it. Second,it is true that Taiwan has achieved great success in economy- well, 10 years ago.However, do you know that KMT took most of the treasure with them when they escaped the mainland? And that left the mainland such a leanness but laid the base of Taiwan's take-off in the late 20th century.Besides, you may argue it's just international trade,but mainland's special policies on business with Taiwan actually benefited them a lot. Therefore, i don't think it's fair to say they established their own economic systems. "Whether China recognizes its independence or not is inconsequential - the rest of the world recognizes Taiwan's sovereignty." You gotta be kidding me....right?

7177, stop distraction from the topic. Stop the ad hominem statements. What are you? Do you dare to prove where you are from? If you're afraid, nobody cares. It's internet, who knows you're not a dog. We are here because we got paid to be here, because we have the right to be here. So why not? Does it hurt you? Go and cry in your small corner.

To those who posted before, yes I do agree with you the my initial comparison was not apt and that a better comparison would have been to the US civil war. That having been said, and regardless of the circumstances under which Taiwan became sovereign, it is clear that those who reside there are not interested in being ruled by the Chinese Communist government and prefer an augmentation of the relative autonomy they have enjoyed for the last handful of decades. I don't claim to be a great scholar of Chinese history, but it strikes me that China has not been without its share of political killings, stifling of free speech, and other such tyrannical practices in its short history as a communist state. If the Chinese see themselves as liberators of an oppressed Tibet, that's one thing - and certainly a legitimate cause for contention, as the US claims to be liberator of an oppressed Iraq (to an extent, I believe this assessment to be true). But if China is merely asserting its power as a means toward dissuading further political dissent (something the Chinese government has not seemed to have hesitated to do in the past), then it is another matter entirely. The reason Taiwan enters the picture here is because the Chinese government 'oppresses' the ROC in a similar fashion - namely, attempting to assert its power over a people who have expressed an explicit desire to no longer be ruled by it.

I don't know how you draw the conclusion of what people reside in Taiwan thinks. Now you know it's similar to American war. Then do you think back then everybody was happy about the consolidation? Similarly, things are also changing in East Asia. Some of us may not like our government like those Americans who hate Bush administration. What are we gonna do? All declare independence? That's not the resolution, although it may be what the western world wants. I speak out here because I want some of you to stop stereotyping us. We don't like the labels such as communist nation because it has negative meaning on your mind. We don't want to be called human rights abuser because that's not true. We saw what's happening in China by our own eyes, and we will get improvement by our own hands. Why nobody protest the human rights in Saudi Arabia? Why don't you really do something to help Sudanese instead of criticizing others? As I have said, no more hypocrisy. It's not helpful merely condemning us.

Kyle minor, "the rest of the world recognizes Taiwan's sovereignty, and consequently any Chinese aggression against Taiwan will almost certainly be considered an unlawful act of aggression."?? are you sure? Only twenties small country. How can you stand for " the rest of the world"?

The Chinese government is a Communist entity, whether it has a negative connotation in the West or not. I don't use it here as a derogatory term - although I find the principle of Communism to be deeply flawed - but rather as a descriptive term which aptly identifies the nature of Chinese governance. The political history of Taiwan is no secret, and while there have been political movements in recent years towards a normalization of relations with mainland China, the ROC electorate by and large seem to remain wary of the specter of direct government by the People's Republic. Unlike political opposition in the United States, the people of Taiwan have already established a functioning political and economic system (with aid from other countries, certainly) and so are fully capable of self-sustainment as a sovereign political entity. Capeman, if what you are looking for is vocal approval of Chinese policy, I doubt you will find it - but at the same time, there don't seem to be many (if any) countries lining up to invade PROC and overhaul its system. All I see, with most of the posters on this board, is an awful lot of paranoia about the likelihood of American involvement in Chinese affairs - and right now, that level of involvement is minimal.

As a Chinese student studying USA, I really appreciate the value of freedom pusued by generations of Americans along your history. But I have to point out that sometimes your kindness would be taken advantage of. Please have a good knowledge of Tibet before you really want to "help" Da Lai. The violent riot in Tibet has becme stabe and people living in Tibet has begin to restore their life.I think there is no need to focus that much on Tibet. Tourists who have been in Tibet are all amazed at its fantastic view. So if you have any chance, don't hesitate to have a visit to Tibet. China welcomes you:)

No need to tangle with the useless details. Everything is open, but we have our bottom line, no separation. What do you think about Hong Kong and Macau? They have already established a functioning political and economic system, then they should be independent countries? What do you think about the states in your own country? Each has its functional system. Why don't they declare independence? The world is not monotonous. Do not force us accept what you want. It's already very simple and clear in previous posts. We don't allow Taiwan to be separated because of our interests. You want it because of your interests. Every nation is for its own interests. Nobody will buy the candy of Human Rights, Democracy or Freedom which are disguised by pure interests.

One more addition, we're not paranoid. If you want to see paranoia, watch the media reporters like on CNN when they're talking about China. If you saw any angry Chinese here, that's because he or she felt being suppressed and stereotyped by the overwhelming anti-China media.

You're ascribing to me an awful lot of arguments that I didn't make, and the intellectual dishonesty therein is a bit disheartening at best. IF you must know, I consider myself to be a strict-constructionist, and as such I feel that the states ought to be the final authority on an awful lot of legal and political ends here in the US. The difference here is that no states, to my knowledge, are actively seeking independence from the United States - and neither is Hong Kong, nor Macau. A functioning economic and political system is, I think, a necessary condition to support a declaration of sovereignty, but not a sufficient one - the desire to be sovereign is also required. From what I understand of Taiwanese history, the Taiwanese people do in fact have that desire (or at least, their political leadership, which is popularly elected, seems to espouse that desire). My interest here is not US control of Taiwan, and I'd argue that there isn't a whole lot of proof to the claim that control over Taiwan is a US interest. On the other hand, based on the principle of self-determination, why shouldn't the people of Taiwan be allowed to assert their independence, if such sovereignty is what they desire? Wouldn't the Chinese refusal to accept that sovereignty then be a form of oppression?

Well, you've agreed the situation is similar to what was during American Civil War. Why did the civil war happen in the first place? Confucius has said, 'If you don't want something happen to you, do not do it to others.' Why do you only focus on the past and the present, but not the future? How come we're oppressing people in Taiwan, but a bottom line is a bottom line. Do you know the enormous trade between Taiwan and PRC? Do you know how much their economy rely on PRC? We're not forcing them to be reunited because we want peace, but again, a bottom line is a bottom line. US has no interests in Taiwan? Be awake. Why there are US military base in South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Panama, Turkey, Iraq, Germany and all around the world? You can find excuse for each of these, don't you? You're not interested deploying one more military base in Taiwan? Who believes. Now there isn't just because of what you called balance of power. There are lots of rules of game in this world, most of which were set up by the western world. Freedom is not free. You can't get whatever you want without considering others.

Kyle Minor, the state which are seeking independence, FYI:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vermont_Republic It seemed that you don't even know much what happened in your own country~~

Kyle Minor, when you said"attempting to assert its power over a people who have expressed an explicit desire to no longer be ruled by it", how do you evaluate the civil war of America? Why did Yankees "attempt to assert its power over southerns who have expressed an explicit desire to no longer be ruled by it"?

Hi, Kyle. Correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like you consider the pro-Tibetan, or the so-called "Tibetans" as "a people who have expressed an explicit desire to no longer be ruled by it". Following that logic, your premise is that Dalai Lama and his followers in India are representatives of 2.5 million Tibetan Chinese and what they have claimed are the truth. Well, that's where you are wrong. Dalai Lama and his fellow noble officials left Tibet in 1959, 10 years after the new China was established. Guess what happened during the 10 years! Those serfs and slaved were freed and became the owner of their own future first time in Tibetan history. No wonder Dalai & al. fleed to India when their theocracy ended. What Dalai has requested is to reestablish theocracy with his as the supreme leader in the so-called Big Tibet, three provinces in China while in fact he is the living Buddha of the area near Lhasa. So think twice he can represent 2.5 million Tibetan Chinese who have lived without him for 50 years.

By the way, Chinese government has never denied the current Dalai Lama as the religious leader of Lhasa monasteries. He is always welcome back to Lhasa and Potala Palace. The previous Dalai Lama became the administrative leader of Tibet (NOT the so-called Big Tibet) only because the Qing Dynasty emperor and the Republic of China government allowed him to. However, if the current Dalai Lama wanted to be the administrative leader of Lhasa and Tibet and runs the so-called democratic government, he had to ask for approval of all other living Buddhas in his so-called Big Tibet and all ethic groups in Big Tibet. Well, I bet he cannot. After all, he is only the living Buddha of Potala Palace in Lhasa. Kyle, I suggest you at least read relevant entires in Wikipedia carefully before making any judgments on this issue.

If you want to compare Tibet to Taiwan, O.K. let's compare. Young Tibetans outside China are very active and gradually reject Dalai Lama's leadership. See CNN report here: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/18/tibet.independence/index.html. They have never set foot on Tibet, or Xizhang, or lived the same life of those Tibetan Chinese over the last 50 years. So why do you think they can represent the 2.5 million Tibetan Chinese? If it still bears reasons that Taiwan Chinese want an independent country as they have lived there "by themselves" due to complicated reasons, as you said, Tibetan s outside Tibet should never and can never be the voice of Tibetan Chinese inside China. Again, go to Tibet, read real Tibetan Chinese' stories, and talk to people there before you make judgments. You are always welcome to China.

My contention isn't quite so much about Tibetan freedom as it is for Taiwanese freedom, FL. I've admitted before that I'm no great scholar of Chinese history, but what I'm interested in here is the principle of self-determination. It's important to note, in any case, that a serfdom is not the same as slavery - serfs work for their lords in exchange for protection. Now, given the socialist leanings of the Chinese government, the whole reason (as I understand it) why the Dalai Lama and other associated nobles left Tibet was because the People's Army forcefully redistributed land from their estates to the serfs - even given the nature of the Tibetan politics, that's a highly questionable practice. In any case, FL, I think you confused my arguments regarding autonomy - I am a stern supporter of political sovereignty for Taiwan, which represents a starkly different political situation.

Capeman, you can't just continue constructing straw man arguments - I don't argue my point on behalf of the US government, nor do I argue on behalf of the people of the United States. I argue it only on behalf of myself, and the point that I have tried to make is that, if it is Taiwan's desire to be a free and independent state, that it should be allowed to be so without Chinese interference. While the situation is similar to that of the American Civil War, it is not the same. I stated previously that I am a supporter of states' rights - as such, I actually consider the Confederacy to have had a legitimate claim to separation from the United Sates which was unlawfully impinged upon by the US government which saw as one of its chief purposes maintaining a means of keeping its industrial economy supplied with cheap goods harvested only in the south. The fact that trade exists between Taiwan and China isn't really relevant here - the Chinese and American governments are also trade partners, and a fair amount of China's economic growth can be credited indirectly to American purchases en masse of Chinese-made products.

To bm, the movement to separate Vermont from the US is, currently, not one that has a great deal of political force in Vermont. There are separatist groups everywhere in the US, but few of them have a political or economic structure and even fewer have any real claims to land. Bottom line, though, is that if Vermont wanted to secede, I'd support that decision.

My last post. I've said enough about my stand. You have the right to hold different opinion. You think Taiwan should be like this. You think Xizang should be like that. You think what you think. It's no difference from how Americans thought before you sent troupes to Iraq. You think you're the life-savor to liberate people. You think you're doing good for ethics or any other sake. Did you think of what others concerned are thinking? Did you ask others if they like what you think? You can keep thinking what you think but please, do not make judgment or decision for others from merely what you think.

But I'm not arguing in favor of a forceful rebellion spurred by the American military! I'm talking about a peaceful request for sovereignty by an independent political organization, namely the Republic of China. It isn't a uniquely American position - it's an argument rooted in the principle of collective self-determination. Your presumption of both my motivations and of American motivations, I think, is unfounded, and really only speaks to the apparent paranoia I discussed earlier. In any event, this hasn't been as productive a discussion as I had hoped it would be because you have systematically avoided talking about the point at hand and instead wish to discuss US foreign policy in general - certainly a topic worthy of debate, but not really relevant in this forum.

Since you responded directly to me. When I said YOU, it's not just you Kyle Minor. I want everyone who is reading this to hear about it because I said it should be my last post. Take it easy, not all of it is targeting on you. I know what's your opinion. I hope you're clear about mine, or at least our bottom line which is unchangeable. You're disappointed with the low level debate? Take it easy, English is not my first language. But don't put any judgment like paranoia on us. We need to show harsh response to the paranoid media here instead of being bullied in silence. I'm tired of talking at here but my goal of speaking out has been reached. I think more others would join me here to show our opinion. I want a idealistic world, but it's impossible under current situation. You made all your statements based on the principals you believe. But who made these principals? Must others follow it? There is no answer. If you really wanna talk more, I'm reachable at c a p e m a n (at) h o t m a i l (dot) c o m .

99% Chinese in China don’t have a chance to hear those “biased reportsâ€. Even they do, all voice MUST be harmonized into one voice eventually. So far, the torch relay was very successful, peoples around the world enthusiasm welcomed China. The Beijing Olympics will be the greatest Olympic game in the history, no matter what. No need to argue, the end.

You knew nothing about China,man. Don't feel like a justice fighter when you actually learned everything from one-side media, shallow guy! I don't like Chinese government or the dictatorship in China. But what the media did during those days is just bullshiiiit! They perfectly helped the Chinese goverment to take control everything. They just hurt the growing of democracy,freedom and humanrights in China. Or, maybe they dont really care about the real issues at all though they pretended to be fair, to be justice. They make more and more Chinese think that all they want to do is to embrass the Chinese People, to destroy China. Remember that we can get rid of the violance and war only by communicating with instead of insultiong and hurting the feeling of opposite people! I am sad to see more and more students from China tell their Chinese friends that the western media are just bushiiit and they are no better than the CCTV. The wester media should be shamed for their biased report, you should be shamed for your shallow words! God damn those stupid liars!

To Kyle Minor: I cannot believe that you said "China presents among the largest threat to global security over the course of the next several decades" China has not inflicted any major war with anybody except we defended ourselves against Vietnam, India. We fought in Korea, and partly in Vietnam against the US, but so what. It is the same idea when Soviets put missiles in Cuba and US went all red-alert. On the contrary, look at what the Americans had done? you guys were in Grenada, Panama, Yugoslavia, Irak, Afghanistan, and Somalia. It is sarcastic for Americans to call others as a threat to the world security while US has the strongest military power in the world with the most missiles. It is so ironic for President Bush to try deploying missile defense in former Soviet Republic and try to fool Putin that what Bush intended to do is peace. The war in Afghanistan and Irak is killing both civilians and terrorist while losing our own US soldiers and millions of dollars daily. Kyle, your teachers taught you well. A job well-done.

The Chinese will never remain silent when it talks about TW. The bottom line is clear. TW is never a sovereign nation, and it will never become one. That is the bottom line that any Chinese will die hard to defend. Study the history, Kyle. TW has claimed independence once in Ching Dynasty and that was considered as rebel and it was quenched many centuries ago. And if so happens again, of course, the mainland China will quench such seperation and rebellion. The TW issue is a historical remainder due to the switch of governing power in 1949. And such a problem can be solved within time if the population across the TW straits both come to admit that we come from the same ancestry

What China is doing for TW is for the most, for peace. Should TW claim independence and try to trespass the bloody "one China" bottom line, it will become a rebellion. Just reflect on how much lives were lost in the US civil war between the federal North and the confederate South? TW strait is of strategic importance to Japan and US. That I wouldn't deny. (Do your Geography homework, Kyle). But that strategic importance will not hinder the resolution that TW and China will be re-united one day under the one China principle. Whether Communist will be the resulting ruler or someone else will come to power, well, we do not mind that, as long as TW and China stays together.

What China is doing for TW is for the most, for peace. Should TW claim independence and try to trespass the bloody "one China" bottom line, it will become a rebellion. Just reflect on how much lives were lost in the US civil war between the federal North and the confederate South? TW strait is of strategic importance to Japan and US. That I wouldn't deny. (Do your Geography homework, Kyle). But that strategic importance will not hinder the resolution that TW and China will be re-united one day under the one China principle. Whether Communist will be the resulting ruler or someone else will come to power, well, we do not mind that, as long as TW and China stays together.

I understand the history of the creation of the Taiwan sovereignty - the point I don't really understand is why it is so crucial to PRC that Taiwan NOT become a sovereign nation. The fact that the ROC peoples who moved to Taiwan were not interested in being ruled by the incoming communist/socialist system should serve as evidence enough of the collective self-determination of that populace; why shouldn't they have the opportunity to make their own political decisions? If China wants to claim Taiwan as a matter of strategic or military importance, that's fine - but the PRC spokespeople don't address it in that fashion - they address it as though ROC is an invalid political system that needs to be crushed in order to maintain the socialist paradigm in all of China's lands. It is based on that principle of collective self-determination that the US signed the diplomatic agreement with Taiwan pledging military aid in the case that PRC forces invade Taiwan with the intention of re-annexing it into the political realm of the Chinese mainland. At this point, it isn't an issue of ancestry as much as an issue of political preference - ROC is a republic, PRC is governed by the principles of communism and socialism. The people in Taiwan, from what I understand, don't want to be socialists - so let them function as such.

This is the same logic, as if the federal North wants to abandon black slavery and the Confederate South wants to keep black Slavery. And the great US Civil War breaks out in between which causes massive lives being lost. Read your history and do your homework. The ideal for re-uniting with TW is one country with two regimes. That has been the consistent speech by the Chinese government. Kyle, you are so traditional and standard American, who does not know squat and still pretend to be the sage.

The unity with TW has two level of meanings, one is by ancestry, TWnese and mainland China both belong to the same great China. That is by culture and by heritage. The other meaning is politics, which is whether the great China should be ruled by communism or by some other regime. over the time, China has abandoned the thought to re-unite with TW under communism. Hence this one-country-two-regime statement.

The driving principle behind the civil war was actually NOT slavery (although it was a catalyst), but rather the issue of the sovereignty of the individual states. The northern economy would have almost certainly stagnated without the relatively cheap raw materials provided by the southern states, and this was a primary driving force behind the war. The fact of the matter is, one country cannot be governed simultaneously by two different political philosophies, especially when those two philosophies are diametrically opposed. The north and south held roughly the same political philosophy, which is why the re-integration of the south with the north was so fluid. I'm not 'pretending' to be anything - my claim is that people have the right to collective self-determination. The people of Taiwan, from what I know of history, are there because they did not want to be ruled by what they viewed as an oppressive government headed by the communists. So why, exactly, shouldn't the Taiwanese be able to establish for themselves their own government, their own economy, and enact their own treaties? Ancestral heritage isn't particularly relevant when it comes to political discussion anyway - the fact that people X are of the same lineage as people Y doesn't give either set of people the right to simply claim political power over the other.

FL, to be quite honest I'm not an expert in Tibetan politics and that's why I tend to shy away from that particular discussion. However, it is important to note that it is inappropriate to equate serfdom with slavery. The point regarding the questionability of PRCs actions in Tibet was the reallocation of lands based upon the socialist premise. Whether the serfs were entitled to land or not, it isn't really up to the government to decide who gets to own what. This is, of course, a difference in political opinion between yourself and myself, which is perfectly fine. TO be quite clear, I'm not influencing ANY policies here - and given that you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about me aside from that we have conflicting viewpoints, I'll appreciate it in the future if you'll refrain from attacking my character and instead focus on the points of discussion.

Matt Eldright, if you are hiding somewhere looking, your article has disturbed the entire Chinese community gravely. If you have at least a bit of responsibility as a columnist and as a person, respond to all those comments. Your reputation as a columnist in the Chinese community, if you have earned any before, is ruined. Please do not talk about something lightly because it's in. Everything has consequences. We Chinese also fight for the freedom of speech, but we do not tolerate false accusation and cowardly condemnation.

Kyle, I apologize if you feel being personally attacked. Back to the point, I never deny it was serfdom in old Tibet. But serfdom or slavery, 96% of Tibetans 50 years ago suffered. These were real people. It looks like you know a lot about serfdom and I feel you acknowledge its evilness. So whose right is it to decide how to divide the land? There were three sides: Dalai et. al, serfs, and government. If you say it's not up to the government, should it be up to Dalai or the serfs? Note Dalai was not elected by the majority, but got control of the administration by religious belief, military force, and support of the central Chinese government. If you want a clear-cut argument, here you get it. Chinese government 50 years ago were established on the wishes of 90% of the suffered. Though I have felt it's a cliche to say that, but it was true that Chinese government was built by the people and for the people in 1949. That's all I have to say here. And again, TW is another issue and I don't talk about it here.

Kyle, if memory serves well, I did not recall that Taiwan goverment still advocates independency after the new president candidate is elected. On the contrary, the future president is seeking opportunity of further economic cooperation with mainland China.In the most of the time, Taiwan did not seek independence from China, they just would not like to reunite with mainland due to our different political system and it is not a COOL thing to call themselves Chinese because China is still a developing country. But not want to reunite does not equal to independence. BTW, why are you so interested in seeing Taiwan independent while even the future Taiwan authority is not?

Kyle, if memory serves well, I did not recall that Taiwan goverment still advocates independency after the new president candidate is elected. On the contrary, the future president is seeking opportunity of further economic cooperation with mainland China.In the most of the time, Taiwan did not seek independence from China, they just would not like to reunite with mainland due to our different political system and it is not a COOL thing to call themselves Chinese because China is still a developing country. But not want to reunite does not equal to independence. BTW, why are you so interested in seeing Taiwan independent while even the future Taiwan authority is not?

ry, the point isn't so much about Taiwan's claim for independence (or lack thereof), and I know that the current political leader has pushed for a normalization of relations with mainland China. The point, however, is that Taiwan seems explicitly NOT interested in being re-integrated into the political system of mainland China - and that's a right that they ought to be able to exercise, whether their desire is to become a sovereign political entity or not. FL, serfdom itself is not an evil system. While it relies on a social stratification (ie, not everyone can be a lord), the whole system relies on a voluntary contract between serf and lord - the serf does the work necessary to cultivate the land and produce the things which allow the lord to extend his protection over those serfs. It's a symbiotic system which, admittedly, can be abused - but so can just about any political system.

Don't forget you bring about Taiwan's issue first. We need to clarify that Chinese government never imposed their political system on Taiwan. Ask our Hong Kong and Macau comrades for the truth. I'd be very glad to see if you would provide any link about China impose its political system on Taiwan. Again, whether to be independent or not, at least should be decided by Taiwan people. The recent presidential election has already spoken for itself. So it is none of your business here.

I think we are wasting too much time on human rights, people's wills and morals here. They all sound correct but only are high-sounding excuses. Now let get straightforward. The only reason why either Xinjiang (Tibet) or Taiwan are impossible to be independent is the national interest of China. For the same reason of US, US government supported Saddam Hussein government to fight against Iran in 1980¡¯s WITHOUT caring about the factor Kurds were being slaughtered in Iraq. (DON¡¯T tell me US government didn¡¯t know that at that time); for the same reason of US, US invaded Iraq, a sovereign nation, in 2003 with a MADE-UP excuse; for the same reason of US, US and USSR were allies in WWII but raised cold war right after the war. So as a country, china and US has no difference in this way. In the issue of the Tibet and Taiwan, only two factors decide the result, national interest and national power. Remember, on freedom is free. Just like US paid so many lives and bloods to be independent from Britain. If US government will to scarify millions of lives of US soldiers and civilians to help Taiwan and Tibet to be independent, I am pretty sure they can be independent from China. In Korea, you did it but in Vietnam you failed. So this time, if you want to try, you should try harder. However do you will to do so? Is it worthy?

To Kyle: What does communism mean to you? A symbol of the enemy from media or a real enemy who ever killed your families or friends? What does communism mean to US government? Nothing except a tool. Just like I mentioned above USSR can be the ally or enemy depending on the US national interest. Russian now is not a communist country. But US government still views it as an enemy and is trying to deploy the NMD system in Poland. BTW, the biggest threat of China to US is not the military power but the 1.7 trillion US dollar national reserve. Where is these money from? US is burning $30 billion a month in Iraq now. And Chinese government is paying the bill for US government by buying US government bonds. These bonds can destroy whole worlds¡¯ economy in seconds. It's so powerful as nuke.

Sleepingworm, 'communism' refers to an economic-political system which draws its roots from economic principles of socialism and political principles of anarchy. While it may have a negative connotation in the US, I feel that such a connotation is deserved because of the inherent flaws in the system. The biggest point that jumps out at me is the eternal classification of non-communists as 'enemies of the people-' such was Stalin's justification for his own use of gulags and death camps in Siberia. Communism requires a total and unconditional deference of the people to governmental authority, and consequently it requires individuals to simply forfeit their rights as individuals. Now, perhaps the Chinese population is content with such a sacrifice - if so, that's great. For the record, the Kurdish massacres in northern Iraq were one of the impetuses for Bush Sr.s' First Gulf War, and again for Clinton's smart bomb campaigns in the later 90's. The Vietnam conflict was a political disaster for the American government, and the troop withdrawal there was less of a strategic maneuver (because by many accounts, the US/SVA forces were winning) and more of a political maneuver responding to the will of the American people.

The sad truth is that the American people no longer have the stomach to engage in conflicts which can be morally justified. Vietnam, for instance, was a morally justifiable war (in my opinion) because the South Vietnamese were unwilling to be subsumed by the Communist threat to the north, but did not have the resources the VC had to combat the threat by themselves. I would contend that, should Taiwan ever declare independence from PRC, that American intervention would certainly be justified - but unfortunately, I don't think the American populace would agree. We are moving back towards the isolationism we as a nation espoused in the run-ups to both World Wars - a policy which proved disastrous then, and will almost certainly prove disastrous now.

I believe you are one of the people carrying a good will like the most of my friends. Sadly, like the most of my friends, you only saw what government and media want you see. Your judgments are correct but the base of your judgments is not completely true. I don¡¯t want to argue with you here any more because it¡¯s meaningless. Things will never follow good people¡¯s will since politics is always nasty no matter in China, US, Russia or whatever countries. For Tibet, this particular issue, please watch the video made two average Americas. I think it is pretty fair comment from two average Americas not media. There are six parts. Please talk a look all of them if you real care about Tibet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNeGcLoPFow I just want to tell you Tibet is becoming better and better thought there¡¯re still a lot of problems there. Just please give more time.

Generally, Americans are educated to believe you have not done anything wrong. You freed Europe from Germans. You also used atomic bomb in Japan for the justice. You're always doing good in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Yugoslavia, Somali, Afghanistan and now Iraq. Who is the next in line? Iran? Cuba? Venezuela? Or China? Whoever doesn't obey you. No surprise Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Singapore never needs to be worrying. Don't you get the message of carrot-and-stick? We have military base all over the globe to protect people. We have enough atomic bomb to fight communism. We're the greatest country, where freedom and equality were established after independence, slavery was abolished after Civil War, racial discrimination vaporised after MLK. Why not force others to be like us? JUSTICE, MORALITY, FREEDOM, what beautiful names, and how hypocritical they are. No wonder every nation needs militarizing because of the thoughts like 'American intervention would certainly be justified'. How lucky we would be if really 'American people no longer have the stomach to engage in conflicts which can be morally justified'. Robbers have their own morality, while terrorists fight for their justice. Who is the judge of whom?

I'm going to be frank here, and say that the commentary on American history needs to come to an end until a more thorough understanding can be developed. History is more than the study of facts, dates, and events - it is the study of context, and more specifically it is the study of errors in context and how societies develop to prevent such errors from happening again (or fail to find a way to do so). Some nations need more militarizing than others, and China needs more than most, because militarization is one of the quickest ways to stimulate economic development. The reason China has simultaneously developed the world's most rapidly increasing economy as well as the world's most pollution-prone industry is because of the policy of militarization they have pursued over the last handful of years. Nobody is going to claim that the US government is in the right 100% of the time - but I think you'd be hard pressed to assert that the Chinese government is in the right 100% of the time either. In short, though, no productive discussion on this forum can be had unless we all realize that both the Chinese government and the US government engage in similar propaganda campaigns to convince their citizens of the other's danger.

There is an ancient Chinese saying, 'Don't forget what happened before which is the teacher of what's going to happen'. A Chinese scholar has said in early 20th century that 'history is a little girl, anybody can dress her the way they want'. Looking back into the aggressive history of US from different angles, nobody can believe US government always has good will sending troupes to foreign countries, although it may have taken advantage of people's 'good will'. Similarly, China has never invaded any other country in the thousands years of history, unless you claim each region of China should be independent nations. There is no evidence that the development of China would be a threat to others. I didn't see any proof that China's economic growth is based on and aimed to militarization. It's not right either from what I have seen in China or what I have heard in the west. You may provide some data or evidence. (I don't want to talk about the complicated Darfur problem.) Definitely we need militarization for the reason of defense. We know how bitter it is without military power from our history. We don't want to be invaded, colonized or bullied again. Don't you see the motivation behind this?

Obama's pastor said Americans are blamable for the tragedy of 911, which caused a lot of troubles. My friend was surprised by this because she thought, 'What's wrong with this? Wright is right!' I think you concentrated too much on what's in the books or on the media. It's not simply a logical or ethical problem. I'm an Engineer but I don't think the real world is constituted by mathematical equations. When a hooligan is trying to beat you on the street, it's no use of talking about law to them. Furthermore, nobody is trying to claim that Chinese government is 100% right here. It is as weak to defense Chinese government as to support US foreign policy. We only felt offended when somebody here criticize our country with sympathy and prejudice while thinking they're the flawless judge. The current situation in China is everybody has the right to express his opinion as freely as here. The government is wary about politics-related group-protest to avoid chaos. All in all, things are still looking up.

Everyone, it seems, except for the displaced Tibetan Monks, who are not permitted to have the same pulpit for their views as everyone else. I think that's where China draws most of its human rights criticism - that, quite simply, particular freedoms are extended only to those whose views conform to the 'right way of thinking.' There isn't a whole lot of transparency to the Chinese government, so it's tough to see whether this restriction of freedoms is by explicit policy design or if it is an inadvertant side effect of something else. Nonetheless, regardless of the intentions of the Tibetan Monks, is there a particular reason why they should not be permitted to speak their views, and tell the world their stories?

Chances were in the 1980s for talks but missed due to various reasons. Now he is still saying no independence but autonomy, but his conditions such as no stationary army and independent diplomacy are unacceptable to the government. Nobody can take the risk of letting Tibet be controlled by other countries. The border with India is still in dispute which has caused clashes in 1950s.

The problem of Tibet is amplified mainly due to Dalai Lama's influence in the West. The media gave a wrong impression that everybody is under suppression and wants to protest. That is not true. There is the silent majority who may not be 100% satisfied but will not fight for something unrealistic. I see the riot in Lhasa mainly as the result of class conflicts. The problem in Tibet is universal in China. Same thing could happen anywhere due to the huge income gap in current China. It is hard to imagine for westerners. From the richest to poorest, populace is nearly equally distributed in between. There is the hatred towards wealthy people. The ethic Tibetans have even more benefits than the ethic majority, Han people. They don't need to follow the one child policy. The government put lots of money on modernizing Tibet. Rome was not built in one day. Developing countries always have more problems which will be resolved one after another. It's just a matter of time. We have learned lessons from the history of 20th century. I think this time we can also learn a lot from the crisis. All these lessons will contribute to a bright future by avoiding the same mistakes.