1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI never changed the argument, just debated things as they came along. You've just been buzzing about making a fool of yourself. Luckily, it's your forte, so i'm used to reading it for what it is.
Huck, do you notice that you've been running away from every answer that was given to you?
This started from whether people cared about Tibet. Not being able to defend your position, you decided to change the issue into 'what is better for Tibet (with your 'economic' arguments). Not being able to defend that position AGAIN, you've now went full tilt into 'why would China want that to happen'.
1 edit
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundZero substance. Keep running.
I never changed the argument, just debated things as they came along. You've just been buzzing about making a fool of yourself. Luckily, it's your forte, so i'm used to reading it for what it is.
They didn't just 'come along', you mentioned while answering the issues other people were mentioning. You answered questions with questions that diverted attention from the original ones.
Originally posted by PalynkaI made a mistake to engage your inane drivel the first time.
Zero substance. Keep running.
They didn't just 'come along', you mentioned while answering the issues other people were mentioning. You answered questions with questions that diverted attention from the original ones.
I'll repost the post before you decided to argue with nothing.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageGreater stability within the region - China would happily displace every Tibetan rather than fold to them. Think about how many people were displaced for three gorges Dam, and i've seen a couple of redirected rivers. The Chinese would do this without thinking twice.
Greater stability within the region. A better international image. Tourism. Because it's the right thing to do. For example. (And again -- why should the British Empire have withdrawn from Ireland?)
A better international image - As if China ever cared about that. We'll keep buying their products, America will still have enough chinese owned dollars to cripple it, and China will still be big enough not to give a crap what the west thinks.
Tourism. - Tourism is actually one of Tibet's biggest money makers, and China has done a lot to help them in this, building connecting roads/rail/air links. If people really cared that much, there would be no tourism now, right ?
Because it's the right thing to do - I can only guess that this was you being facetious.
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundYour arguments are about:
Greater stability within the region - China would happily displace every Tibetan rather than fold to them. Think about how many people were displaced for three gorges Dam, and i've seen a couple of redirected rivers. The Chinese would do this without thinking twice.
A better international image - As if China ever cared about that. We'll keep b ...[text shortened]...
Because it's the right thing to do - I can only guess that this was you being facetious.
1)What the Chinese government is ready to do. Those are not 'facts' regarding what would be best for China, nor regarding what the is best for the Chinese government itself.
2) About whether china 'cares' about an international image. Considering the large fuss they made about the Olympics, it's obvious that the Chinese government cares. Even if the purpose of impressing foreigners is to show its own people that they are strong. It's still caring about its international image. No facts presented relevant to the issue.
3) Again, no facts provided to help your conclusion. You claim that China has invested in infrastructure to 'help Tibet' (as if it had no self-interest in doing so) and then claim that 'if people cared that much, there would be no tourism'. I wonder where you get this ridiculous conclusions from.
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessThat's too simplistic.
To answer your original question....
Just keep on an eye how many protests occur AFTER the olympics are over. If Tibet really is an issue for all these people, then the protests should continue unabated. If they tail off, then well, you have your answer.
The reason why so many have risen up now is that people see a clear way to push their governments into action. The window of opportunity is over after the Olympics.
Do you think the increase of protests by Tibetan monks is also pure bandwagon? Why are they protesting more strongly now?
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessIf the Olympics are disrupted, it'll look bad on the protesters. All they have now , is disrupting the torch, and nobody really thinks chinese media is showing all the comotion and protest on it's news channels, do they ?
To answer your original question....
Just keep on an eye how many protests occur AFTER the olympics are over. If Tibet really is an issue for all these people, then the protests should continue unabated. If they tail off, then well, you have your answer.
So, after the Olympics is over, Tibet will still be Chinese, the public spotlight will be off Tibet, and the Tibetans will be left to reep the whirlwind while all the rentamobs and keyboard guerillas have moved to the next "reality TV show" 😛
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundThe short answer is that if people REALLY cared about the situation in Tibet, they could hold a much more effective protest by refusing to purchase Chinese manufactured goods. However, most people care more about getting cheap shoes at Walmart than they do about the violent oppression of a small nation of people on the other side of the planet, and so China gets a pass on this one.
Do people actually care about the situation in Tibet, or are they just jumping on an easy bandwagon ?
Discuss.
