China has keeped in peace nearly 30 years

Finn McCool said:

Don't forget Tibet. There is nothing to call the Chinese invasion of Tibet but agression and conquest.

Other than that, China under the communists has not fought a war except to protect its vital interests and homeland. I don't think its earned its bad reputation.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you if the topic of this thread is 'China has kept in peace since its independence'. But sadly the original topic of this thread is 'China has kept peace NEARLY 30 YEARS'!

I know some of you will still say Tibet and Xinjiang still have problems. But they are just internal problems now. So really you can't count them in, can you? Coz they are already parts of PRC now! And at the end of the day we humans are all from Africa, aren't we? If you think Tibet and Xinjiang are still 'not in peace'. Coz they are still occupied by foreigners(Chinese).Then everywhere else in the world (except Africa) are all in wars now!

Anyway, this thread was an good healthy thread until DPRKUnderground made a 'strange' comment. So now it's the time for somebody to close this thread before people get really exited.

eecsmaster said:

then what do you call the Indian, British, and American actions in Tibet that directly let to it being trampled under the columns of the PLA?

Click to expand...

What actions did such powers make that required the Chinese invasion of the 1950s? CIA support for the Tibetan fighters only occured after China took control in the first place.

this is where modern interpretations come to play.

From the Chinese perspective (which, by the way, is based on cultural norms and has never changed), Tibet was an extension of the Qing dynasty, and therefore, part of whatever party that lays claim to the country. However, the CCP, or the KMT for that matter, did not have the resources (or in KMT's case, did not see the need for such) to solidify its hold on the region.

This was interpreted as a sign of weakness, and well, you know the rest. The ruling class was incited to rebellion, they got weapons from the Indians, the Americans, and the British. Some were even sent to America for military training. Then the Red Horde rolled in and, well, killed a lot of people.

eecsmaster said:

this is where modern interpretations come to play.

Click to expand...

I think your interpretation is rather questionable. It is a simple fact that China invaded and occupied Tibet. It then exerted an increasingly repressive rule over the people there - they rose up because they were being treated poorly, not because the Chinese leadership was "weak".

about a quarter of the world's population does not agree with you.

And it's simple fact that three countries had hands in the uprising.

BTW, CCP rule in Tibet after 49 and before 56 was very hands off.

eecsmaster said:

about a quarter of the world's population does not agree with you.

Click to expand...

Lol, so? You know perfectly well that Chinese are far too biased on territorial matters to be regarded as objective. They are fed propaganda by the government as children, with contrasting views rarely allowed in the public domain - what else are they going to think? Besides India is almost as large as China these days - the people there generally take the opposite view.

So the point you're making above is irrelevant - the mob doesn't decide how history should be interpreted.

FuManChu said:

........ Again they would generally disagree with you.

Click to expand...

And u know this how ?

I merely offer interpretations. You like to stay on the high horse with no corresponding merit. I assure you, if you want this to turn into a shouting match, I would win.

So please, instead of acting like an ass and a bigot, do offer up some real material, otherwise, piss off.

Oh, the mob you so viciously deny sure as hell decide how history is written. Ever read American history? What the hell do you think democracy is? But let's not get into this.

Schumacher said:

And u know this how ?

Click to expand...

I removed the comments before I read your post.

eecsmaster said:

I merely offer interpretations. You like to stay on the high horse with no corresponding merit.

Click to expand...

So it's ok for you to offer interpretations but I cannot? Isn't that rather hypocritical?

So please, instead of acting like an ass and a bigot, do offer up some real material, otherwise, piss off.

Click to expand...

I could say the same to you, given you haven't offered any "real material" either.

FuManChu said:

Schumacher, how long does it take you to type and post five words? Please check for updates before you reply to a message.
.......

Click to expand...

lol, u were quick to change what u wrote weren't u ? Must have realized it looked pretty much like u're making things up again. Or did u change it after I asked for some semblance of proof to back up what u said ?