Tibetan sovereignty and independence from China.

In this day in age, Tibet would not have slavery. Yes I know all those African countries have slavery, but Tibet would get its freedom through national intervention if it ever does. The UN would never let them have slavery if they helped them gain independence from China.

Why would the UN care if Tibet had slaves or not? Why would the UN spend money to intervene in Tibet when it doesn't spend the money to intervene in African countries? And where does it say that Tibet was going to liberate its slaves eventually.

You do know the U.N is actively in the African countries trying to help theme out right? and its just very hard to do with the rampant government corruption, terrorist organizations, businesses being out of control and exploiting the people *blah rage mode about corporatism imperialism* the fact that the 13th Dali lama even admitting that it was going down and would have gone away (oh he was the one before the invasion) and the U.N nations with universal human rights law.

The percentage of slaves in Tibet was lower then any other country at the time (still having legal slavery) Saudi Arabia and Yemen had the worse, oh and Tibet system was designed that if the owner couldn't provide for the slave the slave would be taken away and presented into a higher class to care for it.

If Saudi Arabia was going to illegalize slavery then so was Tibet, not to mention that 2,000 people being slaves for one more year is better off then 2,000,000 dead.....that we know of.

got any links to back that up?

Well it was really more or less serf, but serf/slave/ bounded labor/ truly overworked is still illegal

Yeah going to be honest with you, I was making all of that up, well except the U.N part (That i know for fact ), Tibet slaves we're (according to exile Tibet democratically elected government) going down; while the Chinese government holds the opposite; so supporting any sort of non biased view is out of the question as both are going to try to say there side in a way to sway views.

Saudi Arabia and this one Africa nation (starts with an M and i won't begging to spell it) made slavery illegal in the late 70s-early 1980s, Based on how the world works there would be so much pressure on the Tibet regime to denounce it, more then likely it would have happen. Infact i would go so far to boldly say it would be outlawed.

But why do I get this felling your going to take this and use this as a way to go "oh yeah slaves so china awesome and blah and Tibet is saved now woot"
|
The point i was making with this entire thread was China has no bases to be in Tibet (Ironically thats imperialism, oh and did you know the Dali lama is a Marxist) and the people and exile government want the Chinese to leave and allow them to govern themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Tibet_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_sovereignty_debate

Mali, Maliwa, Mozambique. does that help?

Mauritania.

Believe me, I have no love for China. I would prefer Tibet be free if it has a free democratically elected government, with no influence from the Dalai Llama. I realize that if Tibet were freed tomorrow, it wouldn't have slavery but it still would have had it for decades longer than it did had China not invaded.

Speaking of Dalai Llama you know he might not reincarnate himself right, and the exile government is democratically elected and China has killed more people then it has apparently "freed" from the shackles of slavery, no not decades longer eventually because of a aggressive china so close to Tibet they would do anything to have the west help or hell even the soviet union.

But the funny thing is, China blames the west on imperialism but is not the occupation of Tibet imperialism by its own right?

Can you clarify on the "no Dalai Lama influence". Do you mean government, or Tibet in general?

I like how the duke of awesome is afraid of a buddhist theocracy, of all things. Get a grip.

Theocracy in all accounts is wrong however if Tibet was freed today the prime minster of the democratically elected Tibet government would have the power.

Tibet has always been a buddhist theocracy, and it wouldn't change, and "democratic" government would be seen by the people as a western pawn. And rightly so, democratic republics are a western idea, and not everybody wants it. To be honest I don't see how a buddhist theocracy would be any worse than what we in America have, as a matter of fact it would probably do more good than harm.

A theocracy a theocracy and it is the right of the people to choose there own leader, the Dalai lama might be spirtual guide but have no administrative power (if he chooses to go forth with reincarnation) however all the main power will go onto their parliamentary system and prime minster.

Though it would be interesting to see how a Marxist Buddhist Democratic theocracy would work.

I'm as much afraid of a Buddhist theocracy as I am of Cuba I just want representation for all people

Well that explains it.

And so it was declared that will pretend to support Tibet but will continue sucking the cock of the Chinese--- Barack Obama

The Chinese invasion of Tibet was in 1950 or so. Ok sure, they slowly but eventually spend the next decade or two getting rid of slavery. It's 1970 at the worst, Tibet is incredibly sorry for this blemish on their history, regrets ever doing it, and goes on its merry way.

This is a much better alternative to being conquered and oppressed by China. Especially since Chinese forced labor is far far far worse than Tibet's slavery.

Kara have mention i love you lately?

You win this round, but you're still ugly!