The Tibetan government's human rights record was bad. Quite bad. The Tibetans were worse off under them.

__________________

Indeed, although it wouldn't have been as funny back in '54.



So I suppose the Americans (who were really ethnically British) should not have been allowed to separate?

Because if you aren't being oppressed you don't really need your own country. Also, every single little ethnic group forming their own countries would completely devastate most of the progress we've made over the last one to two centuries. We need to be moving towards larger and larger political entities, not smaller and smaller ones. Keep following that trend and in a hundred years everyone will have their own little fiefdoms and we'll all be too busy growing food to do anything else.

Well, yeah.

Nations can't take it upon themselves to be "world police." "Better off" is largely subjective.

__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."



~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Better off is somewhat subjective, but you can objectively measure the things that China brought:

1. Roads and outside communication
2. More equitable land distribution.
3. Public education to the masses
4. Improved public health through...hospitals

etc.

We make decisions about what is "better'" and "worse" all the time. You could say it's all subjective to dismiss it. What if we had a time machine and I dropped you off during the height of the Spanish Inquisition Would that be only subjective too relative to today?"

__________________

No, it's only somewhat subjective. Like the Soviet Union invading places to make them better by instituting a Communist system. Saying that you're trying to make life better for whomever you are invading sets a bad precedent, because it would allow nations to cover aggression by claiming they are making things better for the populace. Even if you really are making things better you're setting a precedent that will eventually cause enough trouble to completely negate all the good you did.

__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."



~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I am not saying you should invade people. I argued against it saying it's unpredictable and set a bad precedent. I just don't support separation and think they are being stupid. I am also against the traditional public perception that the Lama government was good. It wasn't.

__________________

You are welcome to your point of view, but I just don't see the consistency in being against the invasion, but now after the fact Tibet should not become independent again.

__________________
National Debt =

Here are some interesting depictions of the priesthood and just how bad old Tibet was.

Documents the exploitation of the peons by the Rich Bastard Priests.

YouTube - Free Tibet: Do you know what Tibet looked like before 1959?


Pay close attention to the common practice of raping young boys at random by the monks.


YouTube - The miserable life of Tibetan serfs !　Tibet human rights

__________________