Comments:China 'furious' at U.S. over Dalai Lama award

I wrote the bit that says avoid swearing on comments pages so I'll say bleep the swines in Beijing. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree 100% -Spacehusky 20:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's all political blustering. --David Shankbone 20:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Imagine if someone protested giving the pope an award... Contralya 20:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable!
I just can't believe this! Are people insane, or am I completely ignorant on the correct way of thinking? What did we do to THEM!?! Mutton333 21:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * China opposes efforts of the U.S. and EU around the globe, like in Darfur. The Chinese government apparently doesn't have western morals or values. Like having a free press, or thinking that police killing protesters is bad. Contralya 01:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is more complicated than that. China really only opposes the US and the EU when it conflicts with China's goals or when on some more general ideal. China is still very sensitive to interference from Western governments after the West split up China into the various zones of influence. Furthermore, from the Chinese perspective the Dalai Lama is at best a nuisance and at worst a terrorist. How would people in the United States react if China gave a major award to Osama bin Laden? Finally note that the Dalai Lama isn't exactly the saintly incarnation of freedom and Western values but in his view both the political and religious leader of Tibet. It isn't very western to have 100% establishment of a specific religion. JoshuaZ 03:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * He can hardly be like Osama to them! More like a peaceful religious leader who wants his nation, that got conquered by China, to be free. And China doesn't like that. You see, China got to it's current size by annexing it's neighbors, like Yunnan. Contralya 12:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * From what I've read of the Dalai Lama, he is /no/ terrorist. I don't know even what kind of really messed up propaganda you'd need to do that.  Fephisto 12:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * China takes over Tibet with no legal claim, deposes its spiritual leader and christens one of their own in his stead, then begins moving huge populations of ethnic Chinese to Tibet, and the Dalai Lama opposes all of this, but with nonviolence. Then in January he tells the Tibetan people to 'think longterm' and accept China's invasion of Tibet.  He is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.  Like Osama bin Laden?  Hardly.  He has never been the genesis of terrorist attacks against innocent Chinese civilians.  He simply opposes a foreign power's invasion of his country that gives his own people no autonomy.  Sounds more like a George Washington.  The Chinese make these loud declarations because it "looks good" and it keeps their official policy line intact.  So much of what you read as an "issue" really isn't an issue, it's "saving face" or "towing the party line" while the leaders meeting behind close doors and say, "No big deal."  It's political blustering.  It's sad it is necessary, that there are people who fall for it.  But then again, there is still a sizable portion of the American populace who believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which has been conclusively proven not true.  --David Shankbone 14:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard of anyone that still thinks Saddam had to do with terrorists. Things would obviously been better if Iraq weren't invaded. Think about it, the terrorists moved into Iraq AFTER the invasion. The thing is, Iran and Iraq hated each other, that kept either of them from working together well. Now, nations like Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Syria, N Korea etc all work together. Saddam was evil, he was a dictator and mass murderer, but he kept Iran and Terrorists in check somewhat.

Anyway, the Lama IS more like George Washington than Osama Bin-laden. Like I said, China got most of it's territory through conquest, one way or another. I hope he turns out to be the Ghandi of Tibet. Contralya 15:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You may not have heard of Americans thinking Saddam was linked to 9/11 still, but that doesn't mean much. http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13081  --David Shankbone 15:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't making a claim of moral equivalency between the Dalai Lama and Osama. The comment was in regard to the Chinese attitude towards him. In that vein "the Lama IS more like George Washington than Osama Bin-laden" - the British in the 1770s probably had an equally dim view of GW. JoshuaZ 15:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I know what you were saying, but I don't think the Chinese see the Dalai Lama as their own Osama bin Laden for the reasons I outlined. Neither the actions, words or desires of either are similar; nor is the impetus for their views.  I understand you just floated it out there to say, "Think of it from their POV" but I think you are just wrong about in what you posit as their POV.  I don't think the Chinese see the two individuals as the same.  --David Shankbone 15:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right. I'm trying to think of a better example but there isn't any obvious equivalent in the modern US. It might be more accurate to just say that the Chinese see him as a highly disruptive influence over territory they regard as theirs. JoshuaZ 02:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, no-one that I know thinks he was involved.

Anyway, I think they see the Lama similarly as they see Taiwan. I, personally think china should be broken up, and the territories they conquered should be granted independence. And the funny thing about Taiwan, is that they never actually conquered it. Taiwan is a De Facto independent state, it has it's own ambassadors and military... The entire reason China is mad is because they don't want attention and praise given to anyone who wants to succeed from their little 'empire'. This metal, can be used as an example by the Tibetan separatists, if you look at the values in American nationalism, some of these ideals, represented in this metal he is getting, are the basis of what Tibetan separatists want. I think this will show Europe how bad China is. Contralya 19:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC) No, George Washington isn't like the Dalai Lama. He did seek separation from his rulers, but in no way did he seek rulership over his new lands with the form of dictatorian theocracy that the Dalai Lama wants. We Westerners have the right to support whomever we feel shares our virtuous values, but does the Dalai Lama really live up to our standards? Sure he is a sweet guy and completely deserves his Nobel Peace Award, but the theocratic rule he will impose rubs wrongly with our division of church and state. If there is an appropriate analogy to describe the Dalai Lama, it would be Jim Jones, but instead of setting up a colony in South America, he would be demanding an entire state out of America devoted to his "religion". Tibetan buddhism isn't as bad as the People's Temple, you say? Remember that the journalists we sent over to investigate People's Temple actually had favorable first impressions of the religion. Google up "Tibet under the lama". China during its occupation has actually improved living conditions in many areas through construction and modernisation. Don't think that in this process Tibetan culture has been destroyed too; China actually spent 180 million yuan (26 mil USD) renovating the Potala Palace "in Tibetan style"(http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-09/19/content_375748.htm). I think there is strong evidence that Tibet under Chinese rule is faring better. Now if only activists would quit their wailing and let those poor Tibetans live in peace.
 * Why should China be broken up and its territories given what I interpret as self-determination? If you believe it's because China annexed all those territories, then what right does the American government have to preside over America? Last I checked, Native Americans play an insignificant role in this governing over lands that, by your ruling, is rightfully theirs. Where is the deposed royalty of Hawaii in its government? Before we jump to the conclusion that China is in the wrong, we should consider who it is we are really judging.

Is this some religious prejudice thing from China?? Mutton333 23:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ummmmmm...yes. Why? Does that surprise you? Not every country is as tolerant as we Westerners (assuming you are one) are.

Irony
I think the main reason he is getting the award, is to humanize Uncle Sam a bit. Ironic that it would make the Freak'n Chinese mad. Contralya 01:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "i thonk thos is turrible."
i thonk thos is turrible. &mdash;64.235.102.2 (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "trollollollollolloll"
trollollollollolloll &mdash;198.86.93.2 (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)