It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Surya 1 and 2 : India's ICBM's

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2005 @ 06:33 AM
link   


hell with thtat kind of logic we start a whole new polenesian republic!!REclaim all the poleynesian lands!!
And while you're at it..Give back Australia to the aborgines, new zealand to the maoris and the US to the native american indians..

You cannot lay claim to somethingbecause an empire "once" ruled over it half a century ago..

With that logic wars could be started on such territorial claims at many places all around the globe..
There exists a state of "status quo".. at any time.. things are left as they are, unless ALL relevant parties have concensus on future actions..

i agree. in that case Greece would be half the world, because Alexander occupied it, and Egypt would belong to France,and india would extend into afghanistan and iran.

Mao suffered from the same kind of thinking, and declared Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh, Ladakh as a part of China and attacked India to get it.

Did someone say higher IQ.....


China still stakes claim to areas of India:



[edit on 23-5-2005 by Stealth Spy]




posted on May, 23 2005 @ 06:45 AM
link   
BTW : The invasion and annexation of Tibet has been condemned by the Tibetians. Most Tibetians hate China. China has persecuted tibetians and exploited tibet's resources too.

Chinese human rights abuses in tibet are widely condemned the world over. Some tibetian websites claim that the communist chinese torture is worse than Nazi torture.

Tibet is primarily buddhist and concequently its people are forbidden from hurting "any living being". This has aided in the chinese persecution efforts as tibetians offer little or no resistance.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Tibet is a part of China, who in the world denied that? Tibet was a part of China for many many dynasties, especially Qing dynasty(the last one) that ended in the 1910s I believe, then China went into civil war which took some 30 something years until 1949 PRC was established, Tibet was left without a proper governing system for two decades while central China was in all out war. Chinese casulty in the civil war was 30-45 million people, enough for almost all of WWII's casulty. Dalai Lama stated Tibet was and is a part of China and all the Lamas before him mutually agreed to that as well.

Tibetans are now a minority in Tibet, Han Chinese is the majority of the population in Tibet now. Persecuted? Do you not kill the insurgents? America kills/confines all terrorists and separatists am I not right? Whats the difference between that and Tibet? If you have terrorists in your area that would kill a lot of people for their ideals, do you wait to be killed or do you kill them to not be killed? Muslims are also not allowed to kill others but where did all the beheadings and executions come from? Extremists would do anything, if its for their ideal then they'll do it.

[edit on 23-5-2005 by COWlan]

[edit on 23-5-2005 by COWlan]



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 02:37 AM
link   
I always said india provoked china into war.

of course little firing cannot be dubbed as starting the war. but when india invades chinese terrioty china will fight back.

that terrioty was never indian. it has always been chinese.

china always claimed the terrioty to be chinese. even the ROC claimed it. but had no opputunity because of civil war/ww2.

Are you lost. you have already mentioned this


On 25th August 1959, around 300 Chinese troops crossed into Longju region of the Subashin Frontier division and captured an Indian post. In both cases the Chinese heavily outnumbered Indians.

At 8 A.M on 8 September 1962, about 600 Chinese soldiers occupied Thagla Ridge and surrounded Dhola post. The Chinese had chosen the spot and the timing well: Thagla Ridge, which overlooked the key Chinese garrison at Leh, was an exceedingly remote area with terrain that was not conducive for troop movement.



i have already said that india already attacked before august 25th thats why china retailated.

india couldn't do so not dint want to do so.

STEALTH SPY
can you give me numbers of the indian airforce?? it was very small. it was technically superiour not numbericaly

OMG now your saying tibet has never been part of china.


china had ruled over tibet for more than 600years.

ming dynasty


Qing dynasty





posted on May, 24 2005 @ 02:51 AM
link   
How is askin chin even indian terrioty???????

i hope you refer to the McMahon line:lol


It was not until publication of Neville Maxwell's very important book, India's China War, in 1972 that the facts could no longer be ignored. But by that time it was too late. As Henry Kissinger is reported to have said at the time, if he had known the facts of the dispute earlier, his image of Beijing as inherently aggressive would have weakened, together with his support for US intervention in Indochina.



The Chinese deny the validity of the McMahon Line on the grounds that
Chen I-fan, the Chinese plenipotentiary at the Simla Conference
(1913-14), was not a party to the Indo-Tibetan agreement on what was
later called the McMahon Line; that China was actually ignorant of the
boundary negotiations between the British and Tibetan plenipotentiaries,
Sir Henry McMahon and Lonchen Shatra; and that the Lonchen had no
authority to negotiate the boundary without Chinese approval.

The first argument is correct. Chen never participated in the
Indo-Tibetan border negotiations between McMahon and Lonchen Shatra.
Chen's real concern was to fix a boundary between Inner Tibet and Outer
Tibet, the two zones into which it was proposed to divide Tibet and
thus solve the conflict between Tibet and China in the region and
ensure peace. But the next two arguments of the Chinese are
disingenuous.



The Sino-Indian frontier dispute of 1962 was a key part of my education in foreign affairs, even though I was largely a bystander.

If I relate the details now, 40 years later, that is partly because they remain important in themselves. But even more importantly, they are also crucial to understanding the lying and duplicitous nature of Western foreign policies during the Cold War years.

For much of 1962 I was the official directly in charge of Chinese affairs within the East Asia division of Australia's former department of external affairs. As a Chinese language speaker, I had previously been stationed in Hong Kong as second secretary for two years.

At the time it was obvious that India was pursuing a forward policy in all three sections of the 'line of control' border with China. Posts and patrols were being pushed further and further into territory that seemed clearly to lie on the Chinese side of that border.

Beijing was warning heavily that if the pressure continued, inevitably there would be conflict. I decided to look much more closely at the claims both sides were making to disputed territory.

At the time, in any dispute involving China, Canberra's usual assumption was that Beijing was in the wrong. China had been labelled an aggressor in the 1950-53 Korean War. Taiwan was still a hot issue at the time, with China once again seen as an aggressor following the very dangerous 1958 Taiwan Straits crisis involving the offshore islands of Quemoy and Matsu (the civil war nature of Beijing's dispute with Taiwan had conveniently been forgotten).

1959 saw Beijing's suppression of the Tibetan uprising. By 1962 the Sino-Soviet dispute was underway, with Beijing firmly seen as seeking to follow a much more anti-Western and harsher ideological line than Moscow. None of us realised then what I later worked out to be the key cause of the dispute, namely Khrushchev's withdrawal of the Soviet nuclear umbrella from China during the Taiwan Straits dispute.

All this combined with events along the Sino-Indian border served to create in the West the image of an aggressive China already on the move and out of control.

But when I began to look at the details of the Sino-Indian frontier dispute a totally different picture emerged.

In the NEFA, China seemed tacitly to have accepted the Indian claim and the fact of Indian occupation, even though this meant the loss of a very large and valuable territory populated by Mongoloid people and which in the past had clearly belonged to Tibet. It had come into Indian hands only as a result of British expansionism during China's period of historical weakness, a fact firmly suggested by the very name of the frontier Beijing had tacitly accepted as the line of control --- the McMahon Line.

In the central sector there seemed to be little to contradict Chinese claims to the small pockets of territory being contested. In the western Aksai Chin sector the Chinese claim seemed overwhelming --- the facts that most of the land lay on the Chinese side of the watershed, that China had built a badly needed road to connect Tibet with Sinkiang through the barren landscape without New Delhi even realising it, and that the population even on the Indian (Ladakh) side of the 'line of control' border was Mongoloid and Tibetan Buddhist.

When thanks to Alastair Lamb's important book, The China-India Border, I discovered that the Indian claim was based on serious distortions of 19th century British-Chinese documents, I was amazed by the seeming vehemence of New Delhi's very weak claim to the territory. (Distribution of Lamb's book was banned in India at the time.)

Even more disturbing was New Delhi's demand that China evacuate the entire territory before there could be serious border talks.

In short, it was obvious that Beijing was preparing for a very reasonable compromise settlement to the frontier dispute, namely giving up the NEFA claim in exchange for India accepting China's Aksai Chin claim.

This would leave India in control of by far the most valuable piece of territory, namely the NEFA. That India seemed to want to reject this very generous solution seemed most unreasonable. The Nationalist government in Taiwan was already criticising Beijing for being willing to abandon historical Chinese territory in the NEFA.

Gradually I began to realise that the entire dispute had to be seen in the context not of border rights and wrongs, but rather of Nehru's anger over loss of an Indian presence in Tibet after the establishment of the Communist regime in China and particularly after 1959. He seemed to believe that somehow the situation could be reversed by continued pressure on China.

At the time the details of how India had co-operated with the CIA in helping foment the 1959 Tibetan uprising were not known. But Beijing was already providing good evidence of Indian involvement. In short, and even without looking at the facts on the ground, it was very likely that New Delhi, not Beijing, was instigating border tension.

A key piece of evidence showing that Beijing was not trying to be aggressive along the border was the so-called Tibetan Documents --- material captured from a Chinese frontier post in mid-1962 and smuggled out to the West via Washington. Careful reading of the documents made it clear that Beijing was very concerned about Indian policies over Tibet, and warned Chinese officials constantly about the danger of Indian provocations.

In other words, China was clearly on the defensive. But none of the people around me at the time seemed very interested in this kind of reliable inside evidence of Chinese thinking. They had already decided that Beijing was aggressive, and that was that.

When serious fighting broke out on October 20 as Chinese troops moved south across the Thag La Ridge area following Nehru's October 12 order to have Indian troops occupy the Dho La Strip territory, I made it my job immediately to check where the disputed Dho La Strip territory was actually located. Extremely detailed and seemingly objective material coming out of Beijing, including copies of the original McMahon Line agreement, complete with maps, seemed to confirm that both the Dho La Strip and the Thag La Ridge were indeed north of where the McMahon Line was supposed to be. In which case, India was clearly the aggressor.

I sent cables to our offices in London and Washington with instructions to find out whether British and US intelligence confirmed my conclusions about the location of the strip and Indian activities there. A day or two later, probably around October 24, very guarded replies came back from relevant officials saying in effect that my conclusions were not inaccurate.

What to do? Already London, Washington, and Canberra were coming out with strident condemnations of Chinese aggression against peaceful India. Many were already saying how this was the first stage in a Chinese thrust through to the Bay of Bengal. Canberra had even announced that it would supply weapons to help peace-loving India resist the Chinese aggressors.

I decided to send up a submission to my superiors saying that Indian claims of unprovoked aggression from China were not quite as strong as most believed, and that Canberra's rushed offer to supply weapons should at least be conditional on a New Delhi promise to negotiate the frontier in a more serious manner.

My two immediate superiors accepted the submission, despite their normally rather hawkish views. But it came to a dead stop in the hands of the then division head, David Anderson, later to be Australia's ambassador to Saigon.

In the margin he had scrawled: "I fail to see that it is not in the Australian interest to see the Chinese and the Indians at each other's throats."

For me, this was the ultimate example of the ugly Cold War realpolitik that was to lead eventually to the mess that Anderson was to confront later in Vietnam. From then on there was little more I could do, other than contemplate cynically Canberra's puzzlement when the Chinese 'aggressors' failed to press on to the Bay of Bengal and in fact returned to precisely where they had started, without even trying to seize some of the NEFA.

Later, I resigned from external affairs in 1965 and became involved in the anti-Vietnam War protest movement. At the time the myth of an 'expansionist' China, with heavy emphasis on the 1962 Sino-Indian dispute, was being used constantly to justify Western, including Australian, intervention in Indochina. The only answer, it seemed, was for me to try to write a detailed book on China, pointing out the not unreasonable nature of Beijing's foreign policies.

A key element in rebutting the 'China as Asian aggressor' image would be a chapter giving full details of everything I knew about the 1962 Sino-Indian dispute. Other chapters would discuss the Sino-Soviet dispute (where I had already worked out the Taiwan connection), the civil war nature of the Taiwan dispute, and Tibet's role in the Sino-Indian dispute plus the fact that Tibet has always been seen as Chinese territory.

During a 1963-5 Moscow posting I had got to know India's top China expert, also posted there at the time, and he had confirmed my feeling that Tibet was indeed the key to Nehru's aggressive frontier policies.

The book, In Fear of China, finally appeared in 1968. I had assumed naively that the detailed research I had done with so much effort on the Sino-Indian dispute would be widely read and would awaken world opinion to the facts.


www.gregoryclark.net...



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Yeah im also a buddhist..

not allowed to hurt people???? they not allowed to kill people(thats only monks). you dont even know what buddhist are.


This book is based almost exclusively on information available from Indian sources. Yet, the book faults Prime Minister Nehru of India primarily for provoking and then mis-managing the war. The book is a damning account of the ineptitude of top Indian political leadership in strategic matters. India, facing all the disadvantages of terrain, chose to pursue a 'Forward Policy' of establishing indefensible flag posts that could only be supplied by air, against a world-class PLA land army that held the advantage of a well-connected road network throughout some of the most inhospitable terrain in the world. After refusing to enter into meaningful negotiations on defining the border, Nehru pursued this myopic policy because he foolishly deluded himself into believing that the Chinese would be unwilling to enforce their territorial claims by force of arms. In the end, the war broke out at in a narrow Himalayan valley that could not possibly have been any more disadvantageous for Indians -- the Chinese positions overlooked a denuded, unready Indian infantry brigade which lacked ANY ARTILLERY SUPPORT WHATSOEVER, that was THREE WEEKS away from the nearest Indian roadhead by foot across high mountain passes and thick tropical forests, and supplied exclusively by erratic air drops. The Chinese, by contrast, had a 7-ton roadhead barely a few hours walk away. The book also severely castigates the Indian political leadership for interfering with the functioning of the military in matters of promotions of senior officers. The end result was that by 1962 the Indian General Staff had become mere supplicants of their political masters, and unable to counter impossible strategic/tactical demands with an objective, professional military analysis. Thus, senior military officers at the general staff level (who had never held major combat commands before) were often making decisions for individual battalions or companies -- all the while not protesting against the impossible demands being made of them. Another excellent account of the military aspect of the battle at Thag La is 'Himalayan Blunder' by Brigadier JP Dalvi -- the beleagured brigade commander who was given impossible orders to assault well-defended Chinese positions at an altitde ranging from 14,000 feet to 18,000 feet with no air/artillery support, roughly 3 battalions spread over 12 miles, and only 50 rounds of pouch ammunition per man! Thus, did David take on Goliath.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
hell with thtat kind of logic we start a whole new polenesian republic!!REclaim all the poleynesian lands!!
And while you're at it..Give back Australia to the aborgines, new zealand to the maoris and the US to the native american indians..


How is my logic flawed?

Care to explain?

There is no stage missing between the Qing, the ROC and the PRC. It's simply a continuation, the Qing ruled from 1600-1900, ROC from 1900-1949, PRC from 1949-now. (Roughly)

It's not reclaiming past empires, i'am certainly not claiming Siberia or Outer Mongolia btw. You talk about the status quo, but the fact is, to take away land during the Qing is a breaking of the Status quo is it not?.

We are not talking about the something that was in ancient dynasties. Unless your logic only applies to "loss of land" being the status quo.

People seem to be complaining awfully lots about the so called "invasion of Tibet" where in fact, it was a retaking. Western logic is flawed, if China "invaded Tibet" then the U.S invaded half of North America, England invaded Wales, Scotland and Ireland, France invaded all of itself after giving it's land to Hitler in WW2, Russia similarily invaded all of itself west of Moscow and Stalingrad.

The hypocrisy would be funny if it was not so serious.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Before posting anything else, i suggest you guys read and contemplate what a chinese poster had to say. Turn to page 5 and u'll find it yourselves


Originally posted by Taishyou
I am Chinese and I still don't think Tibet is part of China. It never was. The traditional Chinese empire is the eastern part of what is now China.

Tibet did not have Han as ethnic majority, like the rest of China. It had its own race, ethnic group, and culture. Buddhist teachings in Tibet promoted pacifism and dismantlement of the military, which was why China so easily conqered Tibet.

Mao probably saw Tibet as an excellent strategic location, being a very very high plateau, the "roof of the world." Controlling the whole plateau would make the western part of China very difficult to capture, as enemies had to march uphill to attack

.



Now what shall i say


[edit on 24-5-2005 by Stealth Spy]



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 05:46 AM
link   
yeah one chinese disagrees.

Tashiyou what part of china you oringinally from?

i posted proof that china was chinese along time ago.

You haven't posted any proof what so ever



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
china had ruled over tibet for more than 600years.


China never existed 600 years back


Some xyz kingdom ruled over tibet, god knows when.
and that kingdom is not china..kingdoms change hands...the british took tibet and left it as an independent state.

This kind of a logic is really silly. In that case if you were to consider india as the mauryan empire, india could stake claim to pakistan, afghanistan, sri lanka, mayanmar, maldives, parts of iran and what not.

read this carefully :

The roots of the war between China and India can be traced to Chinese annexation of Tibet.

Before annexation, Tibet’s transactions with the outside world were conducted mainly through India because of the centuries old ties between the two countries and also due to unstability in China due to civil war. Both India and China had their missions in Lhasa, the capital of Tibet.

After the defeat of Chiang Kai Shek’s Nationalist Govt in Chinese civil war, the Tibetan govt on July 8, 1949 asked Chinese mission to "vacate", exercising its rights as an independent country.

China invited Tibetans early in 1950s to "accede peacefully" and stationed its army near Chamdo city East of Tibet. On October 7, 1950, the day the Tibetan delegation was scheduled to arrive, 80,000 soldiers of People's Liberation Army (PLA) of China attacked Tibet and announced its 'peaceful liberation'. The Dalai Lama was forced to sign a "17-Point Agreement of May 23, 1951".

India was completely taken by surprise.

When PLA invaded Tibet, China said it did so to "liberate three million Tibetans from imperialist aggression, to complete the unification of the whole of China". But the main reason, say the experts, was to control highly strategic crossroads of Tibet that led to the heart of Western, Central, South and South East Asia.

The autonomous Tibetans and the Dogra rulers of the kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir in 1842 signed a non-aggression pact recognising the "old, established frontiers." But the boundary wasn't specified. In 1847, the British delineated a boundary from the Spiti river up to Pangong lake.

However, the Chinese tried to capture Tibet many times until 1913 but failed.

In 1913, Tibet declared independence and a conference was held in 1914 in Simla regarding Tibetan independence.

Tibet demanded recognition of their de facto sovereignty but China remained adamant. The conference decided to divide Tibet into an Inner and an Outer-Tibet. The Outer-Tibet was to accept Chinese "suzerainty" if its autonomous status was recognised.

Territories that became disputed: The territories that came in dispute between India and China due to the latter's claims to Tibet were:

Eastern sector: 90,000 Sq. km under Indian control then called the North-East Frontier Agency or NEFA.
The Middle sector: 20,000 Sq. Km on either side of the Himalayan watershed and passes.
The Western sector: 30,000 Sq. Km of high plateau country known as the Aksai Chin in the district of Ladakh of Jammu and Kashmir state bordering Tibet and Xinjiang province of China.

The period between 1955 and 1960 was marked by increasing tension at the Sino-Indian border.

Aiming to consolidate its grip on Tibet, China started developing infrastructure in the region's strategic areas. It planned a ring road from China to Tibet and from there via the Karakorum Range to Sinkiang and Mongolia and then back to China. India's Ladakh district of Askai Chin region of Jammu and Kashmir obstructed this road.

India discovered the road only in October 1958. Both sides exchanged angry messages, charging each other with territorial transgressions.

Before these border incidents, Nehru had recommended that both sides take a look at historical proofs and recommend where the border should be. On November 7, 1959, Chou en-Lai suggested complete demilitarisation of the entire border to a depth of 20 km using the McMahon line in the East and the "Line Of Actual Control" in the West. This would effectively have jeopardised India's defencive positions in the East.

Neheru proposed that in Ladakh, the Indian troops should withdraw behind the border claimed by China while the Chinese troops should withdraw behind the border claimed by India, leaving the territory in between a "no man's land" pending a negotiated settlement.

But the Chinese were rapidly changing their maps. On Dec 17, 1959, Chou rejected Nehru's proposal as "unfair" to China.

Tensions grew when India welcomed Dalai Lama in March 1959 after he crossed over to India along with 20,000 followers. Mao felt humiliated. The Chinese then staked claim to NEFA as a result of the aftermath of the 1959 Tibetan revolt.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 07:19 AM
link   


Nehru and Chinese foreign minister Chou En-Lai decided in a 1959 that two countries won't send patrols within two miles of McMahon Line in NEFA.

But China betrayed

However, On August 7, 1959, about 200 Chinese troops intruded into Indian border at Khenzemane in the Kameng frontier division at east of Thagla Ridge. China claimed that the international border ran through Drokung Samba bridge.

On 25th August 1959, around 300 Chinese troops crossed into Longju region of the Subashin Frontier division and captured an Indian post. In both cases the Chinese heavily outnumbered Indians.

The Chinese excusions became more frequent by late 1959.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Stealth Spy

Could you link sources to your articles, makes them easier to understand in a particular context. Thanks in advance.

Frankly, the Tibet issue is largely academic nowdays largely because China has learned from the U.S and not Russia.

The U.S has proved that you solve such issues (ie. the American west) by two things.
a) Mass migration.
b) Throw money at the area.

China is doing both at the moment and eventually Tibet will be no different to California.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapier28

How is my logic flawed?

Care to explain?

There is no stage missing between the Qing, the ROC and the PRC. It's simply a continuation, the Qing ruled from 1600-1900, ROC from 1900-1949, PRC from 1949-now. (Roughly)

It's not reclaiming past empires, i'am certainly not claiming Siberia or Outer Mongolia btw. You talk about the status quo, but the fact is, to take away land during the Qing is a breaking of the Status quo is it not?.

We are not talking about the something that was in ancient dynasties. Unless your logic only applies to "loss of land" being the status quo.

People seem to be complaining awfully lots about the so called "invasion of Tibet" where in fact, it was a retaking. Western logic is flawed, if China "invaded Tibet" then the U.S invaded half of North America, England invaded Wales, Scotland and Ireland, France invaded all of itself after giving it's land to Hitler in WW2, Russia similarily invaded all of itself west of Moscow and Stalingrad.

The hypocrisy would be funny if it was not so serious.


Your logic is flawed in the sense that if one were to adher to your logic then no boundaries would be held sacred ever even as of today..
There will always be some community claiming land that currently is held by another..
As of 1959 China erred by breaching this status quo esp. since most boundaries were in place AND the WORLD maps were a commonplace..
As of today Tibet is a part of China and it should stay so.. again applying status quo..
Only whne the cliamers and the occupiers reach a common agreement can this status quo be altered..That is what I meant by status quo..
If ALL were to adher to this simple rule hereafter.. no territorial conflicts would ever arise..



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Also two queries..
Whats is the reason behind China claim to Arunachal Pradesh?Again because it lay within the Qing empire??

And Why did the chinese move out of tibet if they once occupied it during qing??
Its not like the british/japanese relocated all chinese within qing??
I doubt there were any han chinese in tibet..
IMO it was always a autonomous province even during the qing dynasty..
So when/how did the chinese lose claim to it??


And as for the california analogy.. I seriously doubt it...China will concentrate on Manchuria more...At least IMO..
Tibet reaching parity with the rest of China??.. Not less than 50 years..

[edit on 24-5-2005 by Daedalus3]



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
I agree with Daedalus.
China does not have all the wealth in the world to make tibet like california.
Heck there hare 100+ million people in China living below the poverty line (there are more in India, but that's not part of the argument).

If china wanted to have all the territory that some ancient dynasty posessed, then why has'nt it taken mangolia yet?

Mongolia's defences are certainly not very potent.

And rapier here's the link www.hindustantimes.com...

you are welcome in advance.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   
China has 56 different ethnic groups, all are tiny minorities except for Hans which accounts for something like +92% of the population. Just wanted to share that with you


Mongolia technicially should be part of China now if it wasn't for damn Stalin and pressure from the USSR which forced the disintegration of Outer Mongolia from PRC.

[edit on 24-5-2005 by COWlan]



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
yeah one chinese disagrees.

Tashiyou what part of china you oringinally from?

i posted proof that china was chinese along time ago.

You haven't posted any proof what so ever

I'm from Shanghai.
Anyway, about Tibet, it was separate from what is now China for the majority of China's history, and only annexed sometime around Ming or Qing dynasty. The Tibetans had a culture similar to the Bhutanese and Nepalese. I think. It had strong Buddhist influences. It once had a pretty tough military of its own, but Buddhist teachings later influenced Tibet to adopt pacifism and reduce its military.
This is a good site for a very brief overview of China's history, historical maps included. www-chaos.umd.edu...
As you can see from the maps, only during the Qing dynasty was Tibet included. For the majority of China's history, China's territory remained in the eastern half of what is now the PRC.

I argue that Tibet was once a separate country just for the sake of getting some facts straight. I don't think it really matters now whether or not Tibet was once independent. Civilisations swallowing up other civilisations happens all the time. It's a power struggle. Power struggle is what humanity was all about since the dawn of history. Even today it's still happening though politicians try to make it sound prettier for the public. So what if China gained control of Tibet over time? What if China was the aggressor in the '62 Sino-Indo war? It just shows China is tougher and tend to get more. Those with more power get more land, more resources. Those that are weak lose the game. You can argue about who the original owner of the western part of China all you want, but it's not going to change anything. The CCP is not just gonna say "oh yeah, that land was yours in 1575, now we remember. You can have it back!" China conquered it, so now it belongs to China. Sad, but that's the way the dirty world works. We aren't living in heaven.

Anyway if you want to further discuss this we can start a new thread about it. I really don't feel comfortable talking about this in the middle of a (supposed) discussion about Indian ICBMS :S

[edit on 24-5-2005 by Taishyou]



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 12:58 AM
link   
the reason china didn't take mongolia is because it had protection of the USSR.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

Originally posted by chinawhite
china had ruled over tibet for more than 600years.


China never existed 600 years back


Some xyz kingdom ruled over tibet, god knows when.
and that kingdom is not china..kingdoms change hands...the british took tibet and left it as an independent state.

This kind of a logic is really silly. In that case if you were to consider india as the mauryan empire, india could stake claim to pakistan, afghanistan, sri lanka, mayanmar, maldives, parts of iran and what not.



CHina is zhong guo. the chinese call it middle kingdom.

chinese dynastys arent like india. when someone takes over power. they keep exsiting imperial structure and mail/amdistrative areas.

dont this mauryan empire to the chinese one. how long ago did they administed this area??? 1000years ago.

chinese only didn't admister tibet for 39years.


To me, the answer lies in: "Who knew what?"

The Americans knew very little about Tibet. Newsweek reported that when the Americans tried to decide whether to engage in this operation, our then Secretary of State had asked, "Where is Tibet?"

The top level American government officials saw the operation in Tibet as a path to contain communism. They made their decision based on scant knowledgeable on the details in the reality of Tibet.

But the Tibetan leaders such as the Dalai Lama knew a lot more. For one, despite the Dalai Lama's continuous claim of Tibet having been an independent country, he knew that Tibet had been part of China. There is proof to his knowledge, but to this day, he refuses to admit it. Instead, on his official web site, a picture of Tibet currency is posted to convince people that Tibet had been independent. The reality is Tibet was an autonomous region of China. Being an autonomous region, Tibet had its own currency and its own governor, as many other minority regions of China had. Yet, as any autonomous region went, the local ruler of Tibet was subordinate to the Chinese central government. It was traditional for the selections of Dalai Lamas to be approved by the central government of China.


Have any proof about tibetian independence.????



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

i agree. in that case Greece would be half the world, because Alexander occupied it, and Egypt would belong to France,and india would extend into afghanistan and iran.

Mao suffered from the same kind of thinking, and declared Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh, Ladakh as a part of China and attacked India to get it.

Did someone say higher IQ.....


China still stakes claim to areas of India:



[edit on 23-5-2005 by Stealth Spy]


stealth spy when did Arunachal Pradesh get its name???

do you even know



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join