Big Trouble in China

[unkokusai]

The thing that was missing was the invitation.

I'm sorry, I missed your answer. Are none of them soveriegn?

[HardWork8]

More great material, Basement-Boy. What a show!

I am glad that you liked it. It is that twinkle of intelligence again, very interesting

By the way, there are some cheap deals available for visitors to Iraq and under new democratic and human rights regulations imposed by your consciensious government, the Iraqi travel agents are giving special discounts to retards such as yourself. Don't forget to pack your medication and your drool napkins.

[unkokusai]

Yeah, great, good, good stuff Basement-Boy. Really impressive...

[unkokusai]

Anyway: http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/24024416&GT1=43001

[HardWork8]

Yeah, great, good, good stuff..

Yet more twinklings of intelligence, there may be some hope for you yet, my little retard, although your weird rolling eyes do give me some cause for concern regarding your mental health.

[unkokusai]

Yeah, still great. Everyone is proud of you, Basement-Boy.

[David Jamieson]

I'm sorry, I missed your answer. Are none of them soveriegn?

lol. of course there are sovereign nations with american bases. Iraq is not one of them. so, your point is?

you cannot tell the difference between a base of operations that is allowed under NATO rules and established through treaties and an occupied nation?

astonishing!

[unkokusai]

You specifically said that having American boots on the ground called into question sovereignty.

American troops are there as part of agreements with the host countries.

There is such an agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, and the Iraqi government in fact very much wants us there.

[unkokusai]

Your last fallacious argument aside, isn't this thread about China and Tibet?

[unkokusai]

So, has anyone else been to Tibet and actually spoken to the people there about what they think of all this?

[SPJ]

I have tibetan friends. but I am han.

so I may not speak for them.

I like to look for things in common or bind us together.

Buddhism was from India. it went to China, from China it went to tibet.

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/...b_timeline.htm

http://www.tibet-tour.com/tibet/religion.html

http://www.travelchinaguide.com/intr...sm/tibetan.htm

--

Both people share a lot of culture and history together in the past.

once tang's princess married the king of tibet.

both are dependent on each other for further economic development.

tibet needs technology and capital, infrastructure and all,

himalaya high ground is rich with nature resources.

--

independence protests were always there. it is just more prominent recently.

--

my point is that the issue of independence is there since 1950 or 1951.

--

there are also independence movements for xin jiang. moslem Chinese.

--

and they started since Manchurian or qing took over or conquered xin jiang.

there were 2 big moslem rebellions or hui bian during qing dynasty. these 2 rebellions weakened or shook qing's foundation more than anything else.

--

after republican revolution in 1911.

both tibet and xin jiang were parts of ROC.

in the aftermath of the communist uprising post wwii

PRC was founded in 1949;

after some negociations, the communists troops went into tibet and xin jiang.

--

if China and tibet go each own way separately?

--

--

only time will tell.

--

[SPJ]

the real contention is this.

http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index....6,6135,0,0,1,0



olympic torch may be carried on no matter what.

[Drake]

Are you denying the fact that all those thousands of bombs dropped on Iraq damaged the infrastructure immensley? Weren't bridges, energy installations, homes, hospitals and even a baby food factory destroyed, for god's sake.



And you are not doing it for free. U.S. companies are getting paid good money to rebuild what the US military has destroyed. Do you see now how this dirty game works out?



Not just uneducated extremists but also US and the UK special ops who through terrorist attacks ensure that the country stays distablised. It is called the divide and rule policy.



History has proven that US/UK forces are as capable of filling mass graves as the next psychopathic army.

Besides, who told you that the "bloodthirsty militias" were funded in any way by Iran? Oh, wait a minute, let me guess, it was the same people who told us about the Weapons of Mass Destruction, oh that is ok then, lets go and bomb Iran now, that will show them.



Maybe we can discuss the rampant corruption in the US that terrorizes its citizens into paying an income tax that is illegal and unconstitutional, to pay the debt that the government owes to the Federal Reserve, a PRIVATE bank which prints and lends dollars to the US government. All this happens while the government has the right to print its own money legitimately without having to borrow from and without filling the pockets of private bankers, who are the secret shareholders of this bank.

Ah, you don't believe me, then you can enlighten yourself by watching the following documentary.
http://www.video.google.com/videopla...80303867390173





A couple of iraqi soldiers may have had mild colds as well. That does not point to the existance of biological weapons. There were no weapons of mass destruction and that is no me talking, but the UN inspectors.



The profession of the soldier is a difficult one and has to be respected. However, historically the soldiers are always kept in the dark and are motivated by patriotic BS and the graveyard is full of them (and their victims). I am sorry, but that is the nature of the job.

Whichever way you look at it, the war with Iraq was wrong. Don't you believe for one minute that any of your psychopaphic leaders are concerned with democracy and human rights in Iraq, while the US itself is slowly but surely turning into a police state.

Your rights are being erroded almost day by day because of this so called war against so called "terrorists" who somehow managed to fly planes into the World Trade Centre, none of whom were, by the way, iraqis or afghans.

There are too many wars and each time there is a war there are billions of dollars made by bankers, arms companies,construction companies and in the case of Iraq the oil companies as well. Lets lessen the brainwashing propaganda, PLEASE.

Since you insist... I'll take this paragraph by paragraph.

- I'm saying there wasn't much to destroy to begin with. What we didn't destroy was found to be in a horrendous state of disrepair.

- Reconstruction is being done mainly by Iraqi workers. They even do a lot of work for military facilities as well. One of our jobs down there is escorting them, since they have been getting kidnapped and killed by the poor insurgents who only want us out.

- Instability is not what we want. All you'll end up ruling is a hornet's nest. Whoopee. In fact, please refer to the latest house hearings for our opinions on this. The surge was supposed to usher in reconciliation. The Iraqis failed to do their part.

- Show me a mass grave in Iraq created by US/UK/Australian/Romanian/Italian/Ugandan (among others) forces. They are all down there. I've met them.

- I'm not at liberty to discuss specifics, but there's plenty of evidence showing Iran is providing assistance to insurgents. Where do you think they are getting their nice rockets from? Wal-Mart?

- I'll skip the Fed comment. Been answered already somewhere else.

- Mild colds and mild nerve agent poisoning aren't even remotely comparable. That's reaching. REALLY reaching. Please research this before commenting again, because you clearly don't understand what you're talking about.

- I've never made a comparison between 9/11 (Organized and orchestrated from Afghanistan, who harbored the plotters, regardless of the birthplace of the hijackers) and Iraq. Iraq did not abide by UN resolutions. Iraq was warned. Iraq was warned SEVERAL times thereafter by the UN. Iraq failed to comply. Please address the issues I mentioned with the prewar movement across the Syrian border. Afghanistan refused to give up Bin Laden. Bin Laden even at first refused to take responsibility for 9/11.

I know there's no convincing you otherwise, though it is ironic that you are the one who would use the word "brainwashing".

[Drake]

Kofi Annan, Novenmber 8th, 2002.

“If Iraq’s defiance continues, however, the Security Council must face its responsibilities"

"It reflected a renewed commitment to preventing the development and spread of weapons of mass destruction, and the universal wish to see that goal obtained by peaceful means. " Guess ol Kofi thought they had WMDs too!

From the UN website.

"By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities. It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations."

18 February, 2003... UN meeting...

"Several speakers, however, including Australia, Peru, and Japan, urged quick action if the Council was to maintain credibility. The representative of Australia said it was patently clear that Iraq was in further material breach of its obligations. The Council should not wait forever to confront the issue and should move quickly to consider a further resolution that dealt decisively with Iraq’s failure to comply with resolution 1441. Delays and divisions in the Council would only play into Iraq’s hands."

Kuwait said...

"The Iraqi Government alone could spare the Iraqi people and those of the region the negative repercussions of military force by adjusting its position and substantially cooperating with inspectors, not only on procedure and process. The Council unity must be maintained as an important aspect of guaranteeing implementation of the resolutions it adopted. Iraq was similarly frustrating in addressing the situation of the Kuwaiti prisoners of war and missing persons. Those persons had been missing for more than 12 years, yet Iraq had refused to cooperate in remedying that humanitarian dimension."

Japan said...

"He went on to say that his country was aware of strong opposition to war around the world and shared the desire to resolve the issue peacefully. However, even if the inspections were to be continued and strengthened, they would hardly lead to the elimination of its weapons of mass destruction, unless Iraq fundamentally changed its attitude of cooperating only passively. It was crucial now that the international community remain united, and continue to put strong pressure on Iraq. If the Council failed to act in unity, it would not only damage the credibility of the United Nations, but also send the wrong message to Iraq. As Iraq was not cooperating and discharging its obligations fully, Japan considered it desirable for the Council to adopt a new resolution that would clearly demonstrate the determined attitude of the international community. Diplomatic efforts had been made for 12 long years; Iraq now had very limited time. He hoped the Council would be united and take effective action to fulfil its responsibilities for international peace and security."

And particularly condemning... Kofi Annan one week after the invasion...

"KOFI ANNAN, Secretary-General, said that “all of us must regret that our intense efforts to achieve a peaceful solution, through the Council, did not succeed”. Many asked why the Iraqi Government did not take full advantage of the last chance they were given by the Council, "

"JANUSZ STANCZYK (Poland) said the conclusion had to be reached that the peaceful means for resolving the Iraqi crisis had been exhausted and the use of force remained the only option. The exclusive responsibility for that state of affairs rested with the Iraqi leadership. The intervention of the international coalition to force implementation by Iraq of relevant Council resolutions was not directed against the Iraqi people. It had been undertaken to eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, which threatened international peace and security. Failure to take action to effectively disarm Saddam Hussein’s regime would be a serious political and military mistake, tantamount to tolerating breaches of the law and persistent disregard of obligations towards the United Nations. It would lead to further undermining the authority of the United Nations."

"KISHORE MAHBUBANI (Singapore) expressed deep regret that the Government of Iraq had chosen not to take the final opportunity afforded it under resolution 1441. The people of Iraq, who had already suffered greatly from the Government’s failure to comply with its disarmament obligations over the past 12 years, would suffer the most from the conflict. Like many Members, his country would have preferred that the Council had again explicitly authorized military action to disarm Iraq, but the onus had always been on that country to avoid war. Given Iraq’s long history of flouting Security Council resolutions, the inability of the Council to reach a new consensus could not be taken as a reason for inaction to disarm Iraq."

"JOHN DAUTH (Australia) said it was time for Council members to go beyond the acrimony, narrow political ambitions and separate agendas that had hamstrung the Council in recent months and seize the opportunity to make good on their responsibilities. It was time that the Council looked to the future for Iraq and the Iraqi people. It was time that the Council focused on what was at stake, and provided the guidance the international community was waiting for on humanitarian needs, long-term reconstruction, and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction."

"SUN JOUN-VUNG (Republic of Korea) said Iraq had been given more than enough time and opportunity to disarm. Since it had failed to comply with its disarmament obligations for the past 12 years, it must be concluded that Iraq had had no genuine intention in disarming. If the country today faced the “serious consequences” mentioned in resolution 1441, it had no one but itself to blame. The coalition action by the international community should be construed as an inevitable measure taken after the exhaustion of all possible diplomatic efforts to resolve the issue peacefully."

"JAGDISH KOONJUL (Mauritius) said that, had Iraq respected all its obligations regarding implementation of the relevant Council resolutions, war could have been avoided. "

"SRGJAN KERIM (The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) said that, unfortunately, the Iraqi regime did not comprehend the seriousness of the situation and had failed to fulfil its disarmament obligations. If Iraq had made a real effort to cooperate in substance in the past 12 years, and seized the final opportunity given to it in resolution 1441, it would have been possible to avoid the current situation. The action that was being led by the coalition represented a last resort and was in accordance with relevant United Nations resolutions."

There's MUCH more, so let me know when you're ready for more solid evidence. Or perhaps you'd like to carry on some more with the emotional argument using vague adjectives and outlandish assumptions, which, oddly enough, aren't even based on any real fact.

So there you go... there's only a sliver of my evidence. What do you have? More assumptions, perhaps?

*all of this is accessible on the UN website

[Drake]

Now, I know most conspiracy theorists don't like reading more than one or two paragraphs, and would prefer a youtube link made by unqualified folks, but at least SKIM the **** thing...

https://www.cia.gov/news-information..._02052004.html