Bush and the Dalai Lama

[Laver1969]

Bush met with the Dalai Lama last week. Apparently Bush supports the fact that some discussions should be taking place between the government of China and the Dalai Lama.

The report continues, "Encouraging substantive dialogue between Beijing and the Dalai Lama is an important objective of this Administration. The United States encourages China and the Dalai Lama to hold direct and substantive discussions aimed at resolution of differences at an early date, without preconditions. The Administration believes that dialogue between China and the Dalai Lama or his representatives will alleviate tensions in Tibetan areas and contribute to the overall stability of China."

http://www.savetibet.org/news/newsitem.php?id=845

I wonder what Yauch's take is on this.

[QueenAdrock]

I wonder if the Dalai Lama is aware of Cheney's boner over torture, and what their people think of it. I mean, sure, the women who were raped with cattle prods by Chinese officials may not like it, but I'm sure they don't speak for all Buddhists.

[Documad]

I wonder if China cares what Bush wants?

[D_Raay]

I wonder if China cares what Bush wants?
Short answer... NO. I could elaborate if you like.

[Laver1969]

Here's CNN's report on Bush in China.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/11/20/china-us.bush.ap/index.html

[sam i am]

Short answer... NO. I could elaborate if you like.

I'm assuming you mean they don't care what the US government thinks about the rights abuses in Tibet? Or Taiwan's freedom? Or the lack of respect for women in China, where they abort or kill after birth girls, since boys are much more highly prized?

Hmmm.....

Guess they care when the US vetoes them in the UN Security Council, eh?

Or, if the US defaulted on loans from the Chinese banks? Or, if the US embargoed Chinese goods and the Chinese economy took a digger?

[TonsOfFun]

China is a too bigger economy for the USA not to care about it. Too many natural resources and too many cheap goods.

[Ali]

I'm assuming you mean they don't care what the US government thinks about the rights abuses in Tibet? Or Taiwan's freedom? Or the lack of respect for women in China, where they abort or kill after birth girls, since boys are much more highly prized?

Hmmm.....

Guess they care when the US vetoes them in the UN Security Council, eh?

Or, if the US defaulted on loans from the Chinese banks? Or, if the US embargoed Chinese goods and the Chinese economy took a digger?That's right. Fuck with the Chinese. See where that gets you.

If you default on a loan, the bank can legally seize your assets.

If you embargo Chinese goods... guess whose economy will take a bigger knock? The one which sells its goods to just about every country in the world, or the one which relies on cheap imported goods?

Oh, oh, and NOW you are a member of the UN, able to veto other members?

Not when the UN votes unanimously to lift the embargo on Cuba or when other veto-weilding nations vote against invading a country which may or may not have WMD's.

Here's a news flash: YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. You, alone, cannot veto China in the UN Security Council, where did you get the idea that the US's vote is all-powerful? Your administration despises the UN, how come sometimes you are a part of it and sometimes not?

This whole Bush meeting with the DL is nothing more than a PR excercise, another attempt to rattle China's cage, like selling missiles to Taiwan and telling the Taiwanese to aim them at the Three Gorges Dam. Those Dolts in the White House are gearing up for some major Beef with the Chinese... let's hope that they are removed before they can do any more damage.

And before you go on about the Human Rights abuses committed by the Chinese, please remind yourself of the Human Rights abuses being inflicted on Enemy Combatants in Black Sites around the world, as well as the abuses in Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and other US allies.

Clean up your own act before you try to tell others to, H Y P O C R I T E.

[sam i am]

That's right. Fuck with the Chinese. See where that gets you.

Ok. The US has, many times, "fucked" with the Chinese, and never come out the worse for wear. See the Boxer Rebellion, US intervention in Korea, where we fought the Chinese to a draw in their own backyard, the continued independence of Taiwan in the face of overwhelming Chinese force in the South China Sea, US support for Japanese rearmament in the face of Chinese protestations, US support for Tiananmen Square, etc., et al.....

So far, the Chinese are a paper tiger. This is NOT to say that they EVENTUALLY will be a grave threat to US hegemony worldwide, but for the forseeable future, the Chinese still have a LONG way to go to catch up to the US. US complacency is it's biggest shortfall.

If you default on a loan, the bank can legally seize your assets.

And HOW, exactly, under international law, is this going to ACTUALLY happen? The US can simply print more money, cause greater worldwide inflation, still pay it's bills, and screw the rest of the world.

If you embargo Chinese goods... guess whose economy will take a bigger knock? The one which sells its goods to just about every country in the world, or the one which relies on cheap imported goods?

Ummm....the Chinese economy? Can you really envisage a scenario where Chinese manufactured goods are going to be absorbed by the rest of the world? Are the Europeans going to step up and purchase all the crap we Americans do from the Chinese? The prices alone are higher in Europe due to tariffs and protective barriers for European cottage industries.

The US got along just fine before we became a net importer and debitor worldwide and would do just fine without all the cheap foreign goods. Sure, there'd be massive problems, but the US has more natural resources and ingenuity than most other countries around the world combined. Look at the history of the US prior to the 1960's, when the US became much more of an importer than an exporter.....then come back and see if what you wrote above still holds true.

Oh, oh, and NOW you are a member of the UN, able to veto other members?

Did you really write this? C'mon....as much as you villify the US, we still have the UN buildings in New York City....most of the payroll for what the UN does is paid for by the US....the US FOUNDED the UN....the US is one of the members of the SECURITY COUNCIL (which I made clear above) and, therefore, has a VETO over any resolutions that come before that council, just as do Russia, China, France, and Britain (http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_members.html) as permanent members.

Not when the UN votes unanimously to lift the embargo on Cuba or when other veto-weilding nations vote against invading a country which may or may not have WMD's.

Read the Security Council charter - the five permanent members have veto power and the Security Council is the ONLY body that has actual power....not the General Assembly.

This is really rather basic stuff that I thought you would already know, ali....

Here's a news flash: YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. You, alone, cannot veto China in the UN Security Council, where did you get the idea that the US's vote is all-powerful?

See above. Will you recant?

Your administration despises the UN, how come sometimes you are a part of it and sometimes not?

See above. Will you recant?

This whole Bush meeting with the DL is nothing more than a PR excercise, another attempt to rattle China's cage, like selling missiles to Taiwan and telling the Taiwanese to aim them at the Three Gorges Dam. Those Dolts in the White House are gearing up for some major Beef with the Chinese... let's hope that they are removed before they can do any more damage.

Agreed except for the last part. The US is unwise to pick fights with the Chinese, I agree, but the Chinese would be just as unwise to pick a fight with the US. We need each other and can accomplish much more for the human race by cooperating than by petty conflict....

And before you go on about the Human Rights abuses committed by the Chinese, please remind yourself of the Human Rights abuses being inflicted on Enemy Combatants in Black Sites around the world, as well as the abuses in Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and other US allies.

My point was that the Chinese have had human rights problems for the past 58 years (since the Communists came to power in 1947) while the US has had human rights problems for the past....oh.....3 years....

Hmmm.....truly a compelling case for comparing apples to apples, methinks.

Clean up your own act before you try to tell others to, H Y P O C R I T E.

I've stated before, and will state again for the record....we're ALL hypocrites.

Embrace your hypocrisy, ali...it's freeing.

Now....as for your point that the US should clean up it's own act before we try to tell others to : are you sure you really don't want to take advice from others that is GOOD advice just because they may have a flaw or two that you can look at and exploit rather than taking the advice as good due it's inherent goodness? Do you judge everyone in your life so harshly? Do you NEVER take advice from people in your life who are flawed because...hey!....their advice has to be flawed since it comes from a flawed source?

[Ali]

Do you NEVER take advice from people in your life who are flawed because...hey!....their advice has to be flawed since it comes from a flawed source?Doh!

[fucktopgirl]

bush and is bunch of losers should leave alone china!
what the fuck he want there?

[EN[i]GMA]

I wonder if the Dalai Lama is aware of Cheney's boner over torture, and what their people think of it. I mean, sure, the women who were raped with cattle prods by Chinese officials may not like it, but I'm sure they don't speak for all Buddhists.

I'm sure the Dalai Lama will be looking for torture tips in order to carry on the fine tradition of the Dalai Lama's be repressive dictators.

You do realize Tibet was a dictatorship under the Dalai Lama, right?

That's a bad story about those women. Sort of like how women were treated BEFORE the communists arrived.

[Schmeltz]

The US can simply print more money, cause greater worldwide inflation, still pay it's bills, and screw the rest of the world.


...and once again it becomes clear that conservatives would rather look at their little nationalist boners than the big titties of the global picture. Do you seriously think this is a viable way out of these problems? Do you think the business interests in your own country would like to see this happen?


The US got along just fine before we became a net importer and debitor worldwide and would do just fine without all the cheap foreign goods.


That was then, this is now. It's not the 1960s anymore. You might just as well say "Britain got along fine before all that messy business about the Second World War. Look at Britain in the 1930s and see if your statement still holds true." Do try to stay in the present.


the US FOUNDED the UN


Again - happier times and cooler heads, to be sure, but this is the 21st century now.


while the US has had human rights problems for the past....oh.....3 years....


What an odd thing to say, coming from somebody asking us to look at the United States before the 1960s. I'd tell you to take your case to Rosa Parks, but she's dead.


We need each other and can accomplish much more for the human race by cooperating than by petty conflict


This is very true, and a commendable sentiment. So why you feel the need to postulate all these trade wars and Security Council vetoes is beyond me. Must be your nationalism acting up again. They ought to make a pill for that.


You do realize Tibet was a dictatorship under the Dalai Lama, right?


Well, not all dictators are evil. It strikes me that the Dalai Lama is a sufficiently intelligent and enlightened individual to consider implementing real democratic reforms in his country, should he ever get it back. He doesn't come across as the kind of leader who wants his position back just so he can enjoy the favours of nubile young wenches atop piles of gold and jewels. I think he cares deeply for the institutions and welfare of his people. That's how he comes across to me, anyhow.

[EN[i]GMA]

Well, not all dictators are evil. It strikes me that the Dalai Lama is a sufficiently intelligent and enlightened individual to consider implementing real democratic reforms in his country, should he ever get it back. He doesn't come across as the kind of leader who wants his position back just so he can enjoy the favours of nubile young wenches atop piles of gold and jewels. I think he cares deeply for the institutions and welfare of his people. That's how he comes across to me, anyhow.

Perhaps.

But of course if he DID want to rule with an iron fist, would he tell anyone?

Would he have thousands of sycophantic supporters if he did?

[Schmeltz]

Even if he did want to rule Tibet with an iron fist, he'd have a pretty tough time of it starting from such a position of weakness. No doubt the Chinese would maintain a position of considerable influence over any allegedly independent nation of Tibet - shit, if they were really smart they would have co-opted the Dalai Lama and used him as a puppet instead of sending the troops in. All the Lama would really have going for him is the religious beliefs of his people, and if they actually want to be ruled by a totalitarian theocratic dictator, who are we to tell them different?

[EN[i]GMA]

Even if he did want to rule Tibet with an iron fist, he'd have a pretty tough time of it starting from such a position of weakness. No doubt the Chinese would maintain a position of considerable influence over any allegedly independent nation of Tibet - shit, if they were really smart they would have co-opted the Dalai Lama and used him as a puppet instead of sending the troops in. All the Lama would really have going for him is the religious beliefs of his people, and if they actually want to be ruled by a totalitarian theocratic dictator, who are we to tell them different?

I don't think the serfs want to be controlled. The Lama's; they're OK with it though.

[Schmeltz]

I don't think the serfs want to be controlled.


Have you ever met a really religious person?

[EN[i]GMA]

Have you ever met a really religious person?

I know where you're going, but it doesn't change the fact that these people are basically slaves and that their lives would be much better if not for their dictators.

Whether they know it or not is of little consequence.

And do they let out the ones that don't want to be there?

[sam i am]

Doh!

That's all you have to say?

[sam i am]

...and once again it becomes clear that conservatives would rather look at their little nationalist boners than the big titties of the global picture. Do you seriously think this is a viable way out of these problems? Do you think the business interests in your own country would like to see this happen?

That was then, this is now. It's not the 1960s anymore. You might just as well say "Britain got along fine before all that messy business about the Second World War. Look at Britain in the 1930s and see if your statement still holds true." Do try to stay in the present.

Again - happier times and cooler heads, to be sure, but this is the 21st century now.

What an odd thing to say, coming from somebody asking us to look at the United States before the 1960s. I'd tell you to take your case to Rosa Parks, but she's dead.

This is very true, and a commendable sentiment. So why you feel the need to postulate all these trade wars and Security Council vetoes is beyond me. Must be your nationalism acting up again. They ought to make a pill for that.


All I did was take each of ali's positions and assertions and make mincemeat of them.

All of the points I made were valid, lucid, and correct and your wishful thinking that the US has somehow magically "changed" does not make it so.

[greedygretchen]

we're ALL hypocrites.

speak for yourself...

Do you judge everyone in your life so harshly? Do you NEVER take advice from people in your life who are flawed because...hey!....their advice has to be flawed since it comes from a flawed source?

that was "valid, lucid, and correct"? :rolleyes:

and I don't think anyone suggested that the US "magically" changed...but you don't think that have there been social and political movements that have been catalysts for major change in the US since its inception? Not mention cultural changes?

My point was that the Chinese have had human rights problems for the past 58 years (since the Communists came to power in 1947) while the US has had human rights problems for the past....oh.....3 years....

What an odd thing to say, coming from somebody asking us to look at the United States before the 1960s. I'd tell you to take your case to Rosa Parks, but she's dead.

See above: Will you recant?

Unless you don't consider slavery or segregation or child labor or overthrowing democratically elected leaders in other countries (Iran, Chile) in bloody coups to be human rights violations.

[Ali]

That's all you have to say?Yup.

[Schmeltz]

your wishful thinking that the US has somehow magically "changed" does not make it so.


There's no wishful thinking about it: America is a very different place now than it was even a generation ago. You admitted yourself that it is now a net importer of capital, and that's only one dimension of economics, which is itself only one dimension of the larger framework. None of your points seem particularly lucid or correct to me, especially since you didn't bother to defend them.