Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 LastLast
Results 196 to 210 of 229

Thread: Big Trouble in China

  1. #196
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Augusta, GA
    Posts
    5,096
    And if you wanted to blame to President for bad intel...

    Statement by George J. Tenet Director of Central Intelligence
    July 11, 2003

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Legitimate questions have arisen about how remarks on alleged Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa made it into the President’s State of the Union speech. Let me be clear about several things right up front. First, CIA approved the President’s State of the Union address before it was delivered. Second, I am responsible for the approval process in my Agency. And third, the President had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.

    For perspective, a little history is in order.

    There was fragmentary intelligence gathered in late 2001 and early 2002 on the allegations of Saddam’s efforts to obtain additional raw uranium from Africa, beyond the 550 metric tons already in Iraq. In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA’s counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn. He reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office. The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales. The former officials also offered details regarding Niger’s processes for monitoring and transporting uranium that suggested it would be very unlikely that material could be illicitly diverted. There was no mention in the report of forged documents -- or any suggestion of the existence of documents at all.

    Because this report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the President, Vice-President or other senior Administration officials. We also had to consider that the former Nigerien officials knew that what they were saying would reach the U.S. government and that this might have influenced what they said.

    In the fall of 2002, my Deputy and I briefed hundreds of members of Congress on Iraq. We did not brief the uranium acquisition story.

    Also in the fall of 2002, our British colleagues told us they were planning to publish an unclassified dossier that mentioned reports of Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa. Because we viewed the reporting on such acquisition attempts to be inconclusive, we expressed reservations about its inclusion but our colleagues said they were confident in their reports and left it in their document.

    In September and October 2002 before Senate Committees, senior intelligence officials in response to questions told members of Congress that we differed with the British dossier on the reliability of the uranium reporting.

    In October, the Intelligence Community (IC) produced a classified, 90 page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq’s WMD programs. There is a lengthy section in which most agencies of the Intelligence Community judged that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Let me emphasize, the NIE’s Key Judgments cited six reasons for this assessment; the African uranium issue was not one of them.

    But in the interest of completeness, the report contained three paragraphs that discuss Iraq’s significant 550-metric ton uranium stockpile and how it could be diverted while under IAEA safeguard. These paragraphs also cited reports that Iraq began “vigorously trying to procure” more uranium from Niger and two other African countries, which would shorten the time Baghdad needed to produce nuclear weapons. The NIE states: “A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of pure “uranium” (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out the arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake.” The Estimate also states: “We do not know the status of this arrangement.” With regard to reports that Iraq had sought uranium from two other countries, the Estimate says: “We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources.” Much later in the NIE text, in presenting an alternate view on another matter, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research included a sentence that states: “Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR’s assessment, highly dubious.”

    An unclassified CIA White Paper in October made no mention of the issue, again because it was not fundamental to the judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, and because we had questions about some of the reporting. For the same reasons, the subject was not included in many public speeches, Congressional testimony and the Secretary of State’s United Nations presentation in early 2003.

    The background above makes it even more troubling that the 16 words eventually made it into the State of the Union speech. This was a mistake.

    Portions of the State of the Union speech draft came to the CIA for comment shortly before the speech was given. Various parts were shared with cognizant elements of the Agency for review. Although the documents related to the alleged Niger-Iraqi uranium deal had not yet been determined to be forgeries, officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues. Some of the language was changed. From what we know now, Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct - i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. This should not have been the test for clearing a Presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for Presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed.

    Posted: 2007-04-12 07:58
    The weakest of all weak things is a virtue that has not been tested in the fire.
    ~ Mark Twain

    Everyone has a plan until they’ve been hit.
    ~ Joe Lewis

    A warrior may choose pacifism; others are condemned to it.
    ~ Author unknown

    "You don't feel lonely.Because you have a lively monkey"

    "Ninja can HURT the Spartan, but the Spartan can KILL the Ninja"

  2. #197
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    koko
    Posts
    2,723
    Well done.....a little history lesson for the quick-draw revisionists

  3. #198
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Augusta, GA
    Posts
    5,096
    And heeeeeere's more...

    "THORSTEINN INGOLFSSON (Iceland) said he regretted that Iraq had had to face the serious consequences of military action. That would not have been necessary had the Iraqi regime decided to change its attitude and cooperate immediately, actively and fully, as it was obliged to by resolution 1441 (2002). His country had supported the coalition for the immediate disarmament of Iraq, due to its conviction that action was necessary to ensure the implementation of all relevant United Nations resolutions on the disarmament of Iraq."

    And from a meeting late 2003...

    "The representative of Cameroon reiterated it was necessary to add a military component to the United Nations missions in Iraq, possibly in the form of a multinational force with a clear and robust mandate. He called on the Coalition to be more open to the United Nations and its members, which meant more transparency on its part. The challenge of the reconstruction of Iraq must be met together to honour the memory of Sergio Vieira the Mello and other victims of the Tuesday attack."


    18 civilians died recently by a suicide bomber... where's the outrage for that?
    The weakest of all weak things is a virtue that has not been tested in the fire.
    ~ Mark Twain

    Everyone has a plan until they’ve been hit.
    ~ Joe Lewis

    A warrior may choose pacifism; others are condemned to it.
    ~ Author unknown

    "You don't feel lonely.Because you have a lively monkey"

    "Ninja can HURT the Spartan, but the Spartan can KILL the Ninja"

  4. #199
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    22,250
    Well posted Drake.
    Though I don't see anything authorizing military action, typical of the UN though.
    I don't blame the US for the Iraq mess, I blame the UN for not having the balls to state, PLAINLY, wither a military action is authorize,
    I lame UN inspectors for not having the balls to make a call on the WMD, all they did was ask for more time, more this more that.
    I do blame the US for a **** poor strategy though, did they learn nothing from what the Russian went through in Afghanistan?

    Anyways.

    Back to China and Tibet, I am confused as to what these protesters think they will accomplish by doing what they are doing.
    The world knows the plight of the Tibetan people.
    It doesn't really care.
    This will only make the Chinese resolve stronger.
    Psalms 144:1
    Praise be my Lord my Rock,
    He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !

  5. #200
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    koko
    Posts
    2,723
    They've already gotten more attention, and are well on their way to putting a big black eye on China's 'face' for the Olympics.

  6. #201
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    22,250
    Quote Originally Posted by unkokusai View Post
    They've already gotten more attention, and are well on their way to putting a big black eye on China's 'face' for the Olympics.
    And that will accomplish what exatcly for their cause?
    Psalms 144:1
    Praise be my Lord my Rock,
    He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !

  7. #202
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    843
    Quote Originally Posted by Drake View Post
    - 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.
    Iraq had an infrustructure that was not in good shape, but it functioned enough to provide electricity, clean water and other basic services and you took even that away from them.

    The infrastructures poor state of health can in a large part be attributed to the many years of idiotic sanctions imposed on the poor and helpless people of that country.

    You also conveniently "forgot" the fact that each time a US/UK bomb destroyed an infrastructure asset of Iraq, it also murdered dozens if not hundreds of innocent lives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drake
    - Reconstruction is being done mainly by Iraqi workers.
    Of course they are done mainly by Iraqi workers & it is not because because the US/UK authorities are kind hearted, it is because:

    1. It is too dangerous/expensive to get US/UK crews to do the menial jobs.

    2. & if you did manage to get/convince cheap US/UK labor, there is no way the new Iraqi government or the iraqi people would stand for it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Drake
    One of our jobs down there is escorting them, since they have been getting kidnapped & killed by the poor insurgents who only want us out.
    Don't rule out the possibility that they might get kidnapped & killed by your own Special Ops.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drake
    - Instability is not what we want.
    Instability is not what you the soldiers want, but this war is not about you. The divide and rule doctrine has been in existance long before you were around & unfortunately, if things continue the way they are, then it will be around long after you are gone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drake
    All you'll end up ruling is a hornet's nest.
    ...and that is what it is all about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drake
    Whoopee
    Well, just keep your distance from those camels & you should be just fine...

    Quote Originally Posted by Drake
    In fact, please refer to the latest house hearings for our opinions on this.
    The house hearings are imaterial, the war has been promoted, organized orchestrated by the western intelligence agencies, and we all know of their undying respect for democratic decision making.


    Quote Originally Posted by Drake
    The surge was supposed to usher in reconciliation. The Iraqis failed to do their part.
    There is never going to be any kind of reconciliation as long as it is beneficial to keep iraq in a state of turmoil. You are not going to have any internal peace if you have "allied" special ops soldiers, dressed in arabic clothing, shooting at & murdering US friendly iraqi government officials. Why don't you address this topic, which is a proven fact. Or are you not at liberty to discuss this issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drake
    - Show me a mass grave in Iraq created by US/UK/Australian/Romanian/Italian/Ugandan (among others) forces.
    First of all you can add as many nationalities as you want, but this war is a US/UK intelligence operation & I am not including the hired help in this.

    Secondly, as far as the mass graves are concerned, I said you are capable of filling them, because you have sure killed enough in this war as well as throughout the last century.

    As it happens when you bomb the crap out of the iraqis, you just let the survivors bury their dead, it is less messy and it kinda keeps your video games clean. The same thing goes when some soldiers take pot shots at iraqi civilians. I don't believe they run along & bury them afterwards, it is just too incriminating.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drake
    - but there's plenty of evidence showing Iran is providing assistance to insurgents.
    Weren't there "experts" who were making exactly the same comments about Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destructions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Drake
    Where do you think they are getting their nice rockets from?
    Well, one of Saddam's chief arms suppliers was the US,before their lovers' quarel. The weapons supplied included the "nice" chemical weapons that everyone was so obsessed with, even after they were dismantelled & destroyed by UN inspectors, after the FIRST GULF WAR.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drake
    - I'll skip the Fed comment. Been answered already somewhere else.
    Has it been answered to your satisfaction? If so, did you bother to watch the video link?

    And can you direct me to where I may see this answer for myself, because as I recall, former IRS agents have come out and said that the US INCOME TAX IS A SCAM!

    Quote Originally Posted by Drake
    -Please research this before commenting again, because you clearly don't understand what you're talking about.
    Then nor do the UN Inspectors who declared that Iraq did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction.

    Incidentally, one of the inspectors, who was British went public & said that Iraq's Chemical capability was exaggerated to justify the war.
    Funnily enough soon after his declaration he was found dead. Verdict suicide! Nothing suspicious because UK is just like the US,a "free democracy".

    Quote Originally Posted by Drake
    - 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.
    Afghanistan did NOT organize the 9/11. It was all done very close by in Virginia and Washington. WAKE UP!

    There are people out there researching this stuff. There are a lot of questions that have to be answered. Everytime someone tries to explain things to people like you, you end up sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and singing your official/patriotic mantras and praying that the truth will go away. WAKE UP.

    You just swallow what you are told and discard everything else as BS. You don't read books, you don't do research and for some of you a 1hour 42 minute documentary (that reveals a former president to be a drug dealing, coke snorting and dishonest gangster, linked to various murders), TOO LONG . What has happened to the attention span of you people????

    You don't believe me? Then go to video google/google and search "The Clinton Chronicles". Copies of this video were given to every congressman before Clinton's election, and do you know what happened? NOTHING!

    No attempts were even made to discredit the video, well because they couldn't as it would draw attention to the issues the video was raising.

    What does that prove? Well it proves or at least implies that Bill Clinton was "elected" president before he actually became the "democraticaly" elected president and he was "protected" along the way into office, during and after, to the point that now his wife is running for office. It is ridiculous.

    Is this the kind of system that the US is trying to spread across the globe, through slaughter and carnage?


    Quote Originally Posted by Drake
    Iraq did not abide by UN resolutions.
    Sometimes nor does the US ? Does that justify terrorist attacks against its people?

    Quote Originally Posted by Drake
    Please address the issues I mentioned with the prewar movement across the Syrian border.
    Would the source of your information about that prewar movement across the Syrian boarder be the same people whos said that Saddam's missiles could deliver chemical warheads to Europe or was it Israel within 45 minutes?

    Look, the "allies" were calling the shots in Iraq after the first Gulf War. You are saying that not only did Saddam manage to hide his chemical weapons from occuppying forces but also managed to transfer ALL of them to syria,specially during the hightened tensions of the prewar days, where his country was under the "microscobe" of the worlds most powerful intelligence agencies?

    Why get rid of some of your most powerful weapons just before a war, when they could be most handy?

    Why doesn't the US ask the Syrians to hand over the weapons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Drake
    Afghanistan refused to give up Bin Laden.
    George Bush may one day be accused of war crimes. We'll wait and see how the great "Democratic" Nation of U.S.A will hand him over for trial.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drake
    Bin Laden even at first refused to take responsibility for 9/11.
    That is typical of a religious fanatic who is willing to die for allah and take thousands with him. When he is caught he says oh no it wasn't me!

    Don't you see the contradiction in this scenario, taking into account on how "Bin Ladin" has been sold to us?

    Quote Originally Posted by Drake
    I know there's no convincing you otherwise, though it is ironic that you are the one who would use the word "brainwashing".
    The irony here is that you seem like an intelligent person and you seem to mean well.

    However, brainwashing works in a wide spectrum. All I am asking is for you to open your mind and stop faithfully trusting your so called leaders, they are not there to serve you, nor to serve America, they are there to serve their own and their masters' agendas.

    If you are outside of their cults and family bloodlines, then you are worth nothing and you can be used as cannon fodder whenever they please.

    Don't take my word for it, research it for yourself. There are a lot of books out there written by intelligent researchers. There are documentaries here on the internet, and yes some of them are crap and I know that fact too, but there are others that will open your eyes.

    The links I provided are a good place to start. If you watch them and think that they are crap, then come and tell me so. But at least you would have taken the responsibilty as an american to watch and process information that touches upon important issues regarding to what is happening in your nation.

    And what is happening since the "War on Terrorism" is alarming. A lot of your freedoms have been erroded. Now I've heard "reports" saying that Al Quada is recruiting "whites", how very convenient.
    That widens the scope for your security agencies as regards detainments and interrogations, yes it could be Guantanamo for white americans as well.

  8. #203
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    1,234
    Quote Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin View Post
    Back to China and Tibet, I am confused as to what these protesters think they will accomplish by doing what they are doing.
    The world knows the plight of the Tibetan people.
    It doesn't really care.
    Actually, the not caring part is apparently what the Tibetans hope to remedy. They also want international support for cultural autonomy, and it appears that they are succeeding:

    U.S. House of Representatives pass resolution against China.

    Australian Prime Minister meets with Chinese Premier on Tibet issue.

    British Prime Minister vows to boycott Olympic opening ceremony.

    France urges Tibetan talks following torch protests.

    Germany cancels Foreign Aid to China over Tibet crisis.

    European Union expected to boycott Olympics over Tibet.
    Bodhi Richards

  9. #204
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    843
    Quote Originally Posted by Drake View Post
    And if you wanted to blame to President for bad intel...

    Statement by George J. Tenet Director of Central Intelligence
    July 11, 2003

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Legitimate questions have arisen about how remarks on alleged Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa made it into the President’s State of the Union speech. Let me be clear about several things right up front. First, CIA approved the President’s State of the Union address before it was delivered. Second, I am responsible for the approval process in my Agency. And third, the President had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.

    For perspective, a little history is in order.

    There was fragmentary intelligence gathered in late 2001 and early 2002 on the allegations of Saddam’s efforts to obtain additional raw uranium from Africa, beyond the 550 metric tons already in Iraq. In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA’s counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn. He reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office. The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales. The former officials also offered details regarding Niger’s processes for monitoring and transporting uranium that suggested it would be very unlikely that material could be illicitly diverted. There was no mention in the report of forged documents -- or any suggestion of the existence of documents at all.

    Because this report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the President, Vice-President or other senior Administration officials. We also had to consider that the former Nigerien officials knew that what they were saying would reach the U.S. government and that this might have influenced what they said.

    In the fall of 2002, my Deputy and I briefed hundreds of members of Congress on Iraq. We did not brief the uranium acquisition story.

    Also in the fall of 2002, our British colleagues told us they were planning to publish an unclassified dossier that mentioned reports of Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa. Because we viewed the reporting on such acquisition attempts to be inconclusive, we expressed reservations about its inclusion but our colleagues said they were confident in their reports and left it in their document.

    In September and October 2002 before Senate Committees, senior intelligence officials in response to questions told members of Congress that we differed with the British dossier on the reliability of the uranium reporting.

    In October, the Intelligence Community (IC) produced a classified, 90 page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq’s WMD programs. There is a lengthy section in which most agencies of the Intelligence Community judged that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Let me emphasize, the NIE’s Key Judgments cited six reasons for this assessment; the African uranium issue was not one of them.

    But in the interest of completeness, the report contained three paragraphs that discuss Iraq’s significant 550-metric ton uranium stockpile and how it could be diverted while under IAEA safeguard. These paragraphs also cited reports that Iraq began “vigorously trying to procure” more uranium from Niger and two other African countries, which would shorten the time Baghdad needed to produce nuclear weapons. The NIE states: “A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of pure “uranium” (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out the arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake.” The Estimate also states: “We do not know the status of this arrangement.” With regard to reports that Iraq had sought uranium from two other countries, the Estimate says: “We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources.” Much later in the NIE text, in presenting an alternate view on another matter, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research included a sentence that states: “Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR’s assessment, highly dubious.”

    An unclassified CIA White Paper in October made no mention of the issue, again because it was not fundamental to the judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, and because we had questions about some of the reporting. For the same reasons, the subject was not included in many public speeches, Congressional testimony and the Secretary of State’s United Nations presentation in early 2003.

    The background above makes it even more troubling that the 16 words eventually made it into the State of the Union speech. This was a mistake.

    Portions of the State of the Union speech draft came to the CIA for comment shortly before the speech was given. Various parts were shared with cognizant elements of the Agency for review. Although the documents related to the alleged Niger-Iraqi uranium deal had not yet been determined to be forgeries, officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues. Some of the language was changed. From what we know now, Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct - i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. This should not have been the test for clearing a Presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for Presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed.

    Posted: 2007-04-12 07:58
    To cut a long story short, Iran has the nuclear reactors,the unranium etc,etc, so lets go and bomb them to hell?????? Is that what it is all about?

    So why not bomb them before they had built the reactors. Are we waiting for a nuclear "terrorist attack"????

    The fact is that NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION HAVE BEEN FOUND BY THE MOST POWERFUL MILITARY AND INTELLIGENCE FORCES ON THE PLANET.

    And now you are saying well actually we bombed them into the stone age because of our worries about their future nuclear capablities.

  10. #205
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    843
    Quote Originally Posted by Drake View Post
    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
    Quoting CIA sources is like asking the fox to guard the hens. I would not ask those guys the time of day.

  11. #206
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    1,234
    Hardwork8, would you please keep your posts relevant to the topic?

    There are plenty of threads on the war in Iraq that could really benefit from your participation.

    Thanks in advance.
    Bodhi Richards

  12. #207
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    1,234
    Quote Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin View Post
    Back to China and Tibet, I am confused as to what these protesters think they will accomplish by doing what they are doing.
    The world knows the plight of the Tibetan people.
    It doesn't really care.
    Actually, the not caring part is apparently what the Tibetans hope to remedy. They also want international support for cultural autonomy, and it appears that they are succeeding:

    U.S. House of Representatives pass resolution against China.

    Australian Prime Minister meets with Chinese Premier on Tibet issue.

    British Prime Minister vows to boycott Olympic opening ceremony.

    France urges Tibetan talks following torch protests.

    Germany cancels Foreign Aid to China over Tibet crisis.

    European Union expected to boycott Olympics over Tibet.
    Bodhi Richards

  13. #208
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    22,250
    None of that will work in their best interest.
    You really think that IF anyone boycotts the Olympics giving the government of China a "black eye" that, magically, the people in power will say, " fine, they win, give them their freedom", or will they say, " **** with us will you?"
    Psalms 144:1
    Praise be my Lord my Rock,
    He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !

  14. #209
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    1,234
    I think recieving pressure from every major world power will do more to encourage an opening of talks with the Dalai Lama on cultural autonomy than the indifference you were stating the world holds toward Tibet.

    At the very least it's a start.

    The civil rights movement in the U.S., and the independance movement in India began similarly, and both were successful.
    Bodhi Richards

  15. #210
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    22,250
    Quote Originally Posted by Samurai Jack View Post
    I think recieving pressure from every major world power will do more to encourage an opening of talks with the Dalai Lama on cultural autonomy than the indifference you were stating the world holds toward Tibet.

    At the very least it's a start.

    The civil rights movement in the U.S., and the independance movement in India began similarly, and both were successful.
    I hope you are right, I doubt it, but hope you are right.
    Maybe things have changed since Tinamen...real change not the superficial kind.
    Don't recall the Chinese ever being pressured or "blackmailed' into negociations though, not in goof faith anyways.
    Psalms 144:1
    Praise be my Lord my Rock,
    He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •