11 Apr 08
Kuweit was invaded by the Iraq 1990.
Tibet was invaded by the China 1959.
Both were peaceful countries, people were happy.
Both invading regimes had the same kind of explanation for the invasion:
"Kuweit has always been a part of Iraq!"
"Tibet has always been a part of China!"
Kuweit were liberated rather quickly by military forces.
Noone bothered about Tibet.
Kuweit is still a free and happy country.
Tibet is still a occupied country.
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasChina is a world superpower and can do as they please. Iraq was a thrid world wanna be superpower who could be pushed around.
Kuweit was invaded by the Iraq 1990.
Tibet was invaded by the China 1959.
Both were peaceful countries, people were happy.
Both invading regimes had the same kind of explanation for the invasion:
"Kuweit has always been a part of Iraq!"
"Tibet has always been a part of China!"
Kuweit were liberated rather quickly by military forces.
Noone bo ...[text shortened]... bout Tibet.
Kuweit is still a free and happy country.
Tibet is still a occupied country.
Kuwait was oil rich and had a high standard of living. Tibet is a mountanous wilderness inhabited by poor people.
This is the difference.
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by whodeyThe timing of the Tibet invasion was soon after the Second World War in a remote, and after the break up of the Empire a strategically unimportant, region of the world, which would have been a logistical nightmare to conduct a war in.
China is a world superpower and can do as they please. Iraq was a thrid world wanna be superpower who could be pushed around.
Kuwait was oil rich and had a high standard of living. Tibet is a mountanous wilderness inhabited by poor people.
This is the difference.
Also as I discovered recently (in the other thread) Tibet was historically a part of China, which may have been a factor, but probably not as none of the western governments supported the communists.
Kuwait was/is a western ally in a very important (oil) region.
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by london nickThis is one important point. Oil.
The timing of the Tibet invasion was soon after the Second World War in a remote, and after the break up of the Empire a strategically unimportant, region of the world, which would have been a logistical nightmare to conduct a war in.
Also as I discovered recently (in the other thread) Tibet was historically a part of China, which may have been a fac ...[text shortened]... ents supported the communists.
Kuwait was/is a western ally in a very important (oil) region.
Kuweit has oil, Tibet has not.
So is this all about oil?
If a country doesn't have oil it is okay to go in and take over, and every one says "Well, they have no oil so why care?". Sweden, along most of the states in US has no oil either. "Come on and grab it, noone will care!"
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasChina's scary. Hussein was weak.
Kuweit was invaded by the Iraq 1990.
Tibet was invaded by the China 1959.
Both were peaceful countries, people were happy.
Both invading regimes had the same kind of explanation for the invasion:
"Kuweit has always been a part of Iraq!"
"Tibet has always been a part of China!"
Kuweit were liberated rather quickly by military forces.
Noone bo ...[text shortened]... bout Tibet.
Kuweit is still a free and happy country.
Tibet is still a occupied country.
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasTibet has oil.
This is one important point. Oil.
Kuweit has oil, Tibet has not.
So is this all about oil?
If a country doesn't have oil it is okay to go in and take over, and every one says "Well, they have no oil so why care?". Sweden, along most of the states in US has no oil either. "Come on and grab it, noone will care!"
Potentially Massive Oil and Gas Find in Tibet
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/natres/oil/China/2001/0905disc.htm
11 Apr 08
2 edits
Originally posted by spurs73Depends on what you mean by "took on" China. If we tried to occupy Tibet it would be tough. But I'd like to see China occupy land the US claims as territory!
yeap.. the USA would get their a$$ wiped if they took on china...😵😵
WORLD POLICE...dont make me laugh..just big fat school bully
We'd beat China on neutral ground. It all depends.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by spurs73The fact that it would be a disaster to militarily take on China over Tibet does not justify doing nothing in the case of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. You do what you can when it make sense. I don't see Europe sending troops into Tibet yet they were behind the liberation of Kuwait. Does this make the European Union a "big fat school bully"? Of course not.
yeap.. the USA would get their a$$ wiped if they took on china...😵😵
WORLD POLICE...dont make me laugh..just big fat school bully
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by Ullryes it does
The fact that it would be a disaster to militarily take on China over Tibet does not justify doing nothing in the case of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. You do what you can when it make sense. I don't see Europe sending troops into Tibet yet they were behind the liberation of Kuwait. Does this make the European Union a "big fat school bully"? Of course not.
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by spurs73Chinee not fat, but smoke too mo cig- cig, Day cough too mo and give way der positions. Then we drop nukee on day heinies. All very simple.
yeap.. the USA would get their a$$ wiped if they took on china...😵😵
WORLD POLICE...dont make me laugh..just big fat school bully
GRANNY.