Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Im still wondering when the United Nations is going to add Tibet, Hong Kong, Macau, and Xinjiang to the list of non-self governing territories due to the brutal Chinese occupation of these places.
Meanwhile the absurdly archaic UN thinks that Bermuda - completely self governing except for defense and foreign affairs - is a "British colony". Do you think Tibet has anywhere near that level of self government?
American doesn't have a problem with Israel doing worse stuff in Palestine so why should they have a problem with China doing the same thing? At least the Chinese give them Chinese citizenship.
Go protest in front of the Chinese embassy if you have a problem with it.
May be he will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas
and this I could not understand with Russia? they are cozying up with China but don't they realize that they got some territories from China not so long ago? for sure the Chinese have not forgotten that humiliation too
Because Putin is stuck in the 20th century. Siberia is a crapload of more resources. Ukraine and the black sea is Russia's only warm water port. The PRC isn't going to go to war with Russia. They's slowly fill siberia with chinese immigrants. The Chinese men marry the russian women since they don't drink or beat them like russian men do. They'll do this while they build up their military. Russia is living off the soviet union legacy. Notice that putin threatens the west with nukes and not a conventional military.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WIHS2006
Im still wondering when the United Nations is going to add Tibet, Hong Kong, Macau, and Xinjiang to the list of non-self governing territories due to the brutal Chinese occupation of these places.
Meanwhile the absurdly archaic UN thinks that Bermuda - completely self governing except for defense and foreign affairs - is a "British colony". Do you think Tibet has anywhere near that level of self government?
Xinjiang should be the only territory ruled by the PRC. Communists are excellent suppressing islamic fundamentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by X14Freak
American doesn't have a problem with Israel doing worse stuff in Palestine so why should they have a problem with China doing the same thing?
Because Tibetan Buddhists didn't crash 2 planes into the WTC. They only self-immolate. Hamas cuts off people's heads.
American doesn't have a problem with Israel doing worse stuff in Palestine so why should they have a problem with China doing the same thing? At least the Chinese give them Chinese citizenship.
with the exception of an extremely small and largely irrelevant fringe in Xinjiang whose sophistication ends with knife attacks at rail stations, when was the last time that "protest rockets" were launched over their border, they abducted PRC soldiers or Han citizens and killed them or ransomed them, they blew up nightclubs or buses, etc?
I don't blame Israel for not giving them citizenship...
Xinjiang should be the only territory ruled by the PRC. Communists are excellent suppressing islamic fundamentalism.
There is no country in the world that recognizes Tibet, Xinjiang, HK, or Macau as sovereign states. With the exception of Russia, China really has no major outside threats to its interior so it is unlikely Tibet and Xinjiang will ever become independent. Tibet is protected by the Himalaya which means India cannot effectively project power into Tibet and Russia's Far East is sparsely polluted and underdeveloped. And why do people think a Chinese democracy would be any less oppressive to the Uighurs or Tibetans? If Turkey, Israel, Apartheid South Africa, or pre-1965 USA (all of which are democracies) are anything to go by, it is more likely that the Chinese under democracy would pass racist laws and engage in majoritarianism to overrule Tibetan and Uighur interests.
see the 9-line claim on the map? that's the shameless sea grab of the 20th century..it took all the EEZ of the littoral states..not even Rome tried to own the Mediterranean Sea
see the 9-line claim on the map? that's the shameless sea grab of the 20th century..it took all the EEZ of the littoral states..not even Rome tried to own the Mediterranean Sea
Good point. I don't see anywhere where the South China Sea is historically China's, except the name. Although, why is it called the South China Sea? That raises another question. Maybe it did, hence the name? but, the UNCLOS is pretty clear on what is and what isn't a country's territory. The Spratly islands are way outside the UNCLOS boundary for both China and Taiwan. To me, it looks like half rightly belong to the Philippines, and the others to Vietnam and a little to Malaysia and Brunei
Good point. I don't see anywhere where the South China Sea is historically China's, except the name. Although, why is it called the South China Sea? That raises another question. Maybe it did, hence the name?
The name was given to it by Portuguese sailors who sailed thru it on their way to China, and has never had anything to do with who "owns" it. The Chinese do not even call it the South China Sea, they just call it the South Sea. The Vietnamese, for obvious reasons, call it the East Sea.
India has never attempted to claim the Indian Ocean, despite that body of water being rather conveniently named. Nor has Mexico ever attempted to claim the Gulf of Mexico. I am not sure what the name has to do with anything :-)
Good point. I don't see anywhere where the South China Sea is historically China's, except the name. Although, why is it called the South China Sea? That raises another question. Maybe it did, hence the name? but, the UNCLOS is pretty clear on what is and what isn't a country's territory. The Spratly islands are way outside the UNCLOS boundary for both China and Taiwan. To me, it looks like half rightly belong to the Philippines, and the others to Vietnam and a little to Malaysia and Brunei
that 9-claim is just recent invention. as late as the 1930s, the Chinese didn't even know the location of the Spratlys. when the French tried to annex these islands (actually, mostly reefs, only 2 are big enough not to be inundated during high tides), the Chinese consul in Manila had to ask the American colonial government where is the Spratlys and when they pointed the location, the consul was satisfied that it didn't belong to China.
maybe the Paracels has a legitimate claim by the Chinese but not Spratlys. if you study their historical claim on the Paracels, their surveyor stood in one of the islands to signify their southernmost territory. this narrative is being used also in their claim of the spratlys. now can one person/surveyor stood in one island at the same time? its impossible. that's the reason this historical claim is pure BS
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
