Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Stormtrooper X wrote:Ah Texas, the only state that openly celebrates getting their ass beat. Oh, and if you want "good food" then you need to head a bit further west and get some green chili. That's right, a place where you ask for hot sauce and they don't give you Taco Bell juice.

Bah! they think chili is a bowl of green chilis. Their chili has almost no beer or armadillo in it. Thats just a sin...

As an off-topic comment about girl scouts and invasions. About 5 years ago at a convention in Denver (Ghengiscon I think) those damned Girl Scouts set up shop at the entrance to the elevator on the convention floor. Now, take a group of 12-16 year old girls and dress them in skimpy clothes and all those poor bastards coming down to game don't stand a chance... simply evil.

Must have been the juniors or whatever they are called. The ones that really make a killing on the cookie front are the young ones. They do that sad puppy eye thing and you might as well hand over your wallet.

jfrazell wrote:Must have been the juniors or whatever they are called. The ones that really make a killing on the cookie front are the young ones. They do that sad puppy eye thing and you might as well hand over your wallet.

True story. They let those sappy little girls set up shop outside of Wal-Mart and they just make a killing.

We like to set up outside Walgreens (pharmacy store). again the aformentioned killing is accurate. The flipside, outside of progress on that whole "world domination" thing we figured it out and about 83% of the cookie earnings that we received for the troop went to some form of charity-either directly or money used in a service project. I know as I shelled out some cash to keep the troop going after agreeing they should spend it that way.

Stormtrooper X wrote:As for the death penalty, here's a question. What if we began executing our prisoners publicly (the ones that have committed heinous crimes, not traffic violations)? So that the public began to see first hand the punishment for murder/rape/etc. Now after awhile do you think crime would significantly decrease as people realize that if you pull this crap you'll be thrown on the chopping block? If so then wouldn't it warrant it? Sure you'd have a period there where a lot of people would die (some might even be innocent), but in the end crime would go down, taxes would go down, things of that nature. Now, I could be horribly wrong here as it has been known to happen, but I think it's a plausible road to take.

It's not exactly a novel idea. England and the US did this for a long time. People in Texas (correct me if I'm wrong, JF), often make something of a spectacle of them. If the crime was particularly vicious or sensational crowds gather outside the prison to celebrate.

Execution doesn't seem to work as a deterrent. A large number of countries which don’t have the death penalty have lower rates of homicide than we do. Obviously it’s a complex question exactly WHY we have such high rates of violent crime, but the death penalty doesn’t seem to be helping. From my reading, it seems like most folks who commit violent crimes either a) aren’t thinking about the consequences, or b) think they can get away with it. In either case, deterrence isn’t a factor.

Here’s a good article from The National Review, from 2000, about the death penalty and the innocence issue:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_11_52/ai_62838139/pg_1

Then-Governor Bush claimed to be confident that none of the 100+ (144 I read in one place, though the TNR article says 120+) executions he had presided over had been of innocent people. But the odds are he was wrong.

jfrazell wrote:It just shows how many countries wanted this great land. Don't be jealous Manny, there's room for you too...

Keep your deserts, Southron. I'll be up here enjoying my mountains and forests with the sons of Stark.

Mannahnin wrote: They’re also really jealous of how France has the reputation of being the surrender monkeys.

There's an old expression in Europe that goes along the lines of " The French army is always feared and immensely impressive, in times of peace."

I made a crack about the French here one time and got jumped all over for it. Meh.

Good call Mann, Texas is a vast and scary place. jfrazell is just trying to lure you down there so he can cut out your eyes and put them in a pickle jar. I've seen the movies!

I almost responded once before, but scrapped it because I didn't have the hour I needed to properly compose that post. Since then, several people have already said some of the basics of my opinions, so I can opine in relative simplicity now.

First (and this is a newer though), my thoughts on the death penalty, especially in public. There are times when I think a good "burning at the stake" is warranted (Kenneth Lay, anyone?), but I am, in general, opposed to the death penalty simply because we CAN'T undo it. Yes, you can't give years of prison time back, but you can give the person the rest of their life. There's no "revert" button with the death penalty. As far as public executions, I think that will only further desensitize us to killing. Don't want bread and circuses turned into blood and circuses; watching someone actually die is far more disturbing than seeing it in the movies.

Second is about self-government. I don't think anyone can/should tell us how to run our country, but I also believe in the flip-side as well. I really don't give a damn how China rules its billion people (excepting Tibet, who they unlawfully conquered) or if Cuba has that really high tax rate. The idea of Communism spreading like wildfire and endangering us is gone, but we still hold on to that Cold-War mentality that we HAVE to spread Democracy. Why? It doesn't really increase our global influence, and dictators are far easier to deal with. Some societies even seem to function better with a stricter government; seems to me that the Russians would enjoy having Tzar Putin, and I say more power to them. When they really want a revolution, they'll make it happen. We should just keep shipping them food and buying their oil.

Third, and this relates to the second, it's not like we make a secret of our death penalty, ESPECIALLY in Texas. These people knew what they were getting in to; just because they got caught doesn't mean they get a do-over now. While I don't agree with the death penalty, them's the rules right now.

Stormtrooper X wrote:I made a crack about the French here one time and got jumped all over for it. Meh.

Good call Mann, Texas is a vast and scary place. jfrazell is just trying to lure you down there so he can cut out your eyes and put them in a pickle jar. I've seen the movies!

Well yeah. We have a quota.

Don't forget swamps Manny. We have swamps. (and mountains and wild pigs and hippies too).
But don't forget about the swamps. Nothing like walking your dog by one and hearing gators to the side, then the front, and then one behind you.

Iorek wrote:Second is about self-government. I don't think anyone can/should tell us how to run our country, but I also believe in the flip-side as well. I really don't give a damn how China rules its billion people (excepting Tibet, who they unlawfully conquered)

You almost got it then you cut your own legs off. Please show me where it was unlawful in the Chinese legal system where it was illegal.

Tibet was an autonomous country that China took by force. It has a seperate cultural identity and language; where's the confusion?

Iorek wrote:Tibet was an autonomous country that China took by force. It has a seperate cultural identity and language; where's the confusion?

China is made up of lots of languages, so that doesn't really hold together to well as an argument against.

The United States is also made up of many distinct cultural identity regions as well, does that mean that they are all not part of the same country?

China would also argue that it was not an autonomous country and has always been a part of greater China. So I ask again, if country's have full sovereignty where in Chinese law was to illegal to restore the state of Tibet.

Except, in fact, it hasn't always been a part of China. It was annexed by force in the 18th century, regained its independence for a bit in the early 20th century, and was conquered again round about 1950ish. I'm not saying that this was against China's laws, but it certainly was against Tibet's laws.

Iorek wrote:Except, in fact, it hasn't always been a part of China. It was annexed by force in the 18th century, regained its independence for a bit in the early 20th century, and was conquered again round about 1950ish. I'm not saying that this was against China's laws, but it certainly was against Tibet's laws.

China would disagree with your western interpretation of history and point out that Tibet and China goes back much farther then the 18th Century. I think that they would also say Tibet's "laws" were made under an illegitimate government and thus not true laws anyway.

*contents deleted*

Are you having a seizure or something Ahtman? Tibet was independent. What part of: invaded by a foreign (communist and murderous) power; government replaced by a dictatorship; thousands killed; domestic population repressed and reduced to 2nd class status are you not getting?

jfrazell wrote:Are you having a seizure or something Ahtman? Tibet was independent. What part of: invaded by a foreign (communist and murderous) power; government replaced by a dictatorship; thousands killed; domestic population repressed and reduced to 2nd class status are you not getting?

I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate obliviously but your side still hasn't made your argument. There is hyperbole and conjecture, and I'm not sure that asking China if they "are having a seizure" is going to change their mind.

The "it's illegal" argument will never work because that is how the West sees it, not China, and they have a million man plus standing army to back up their sovereign claim. Saying it is illegal and going to the communist button will have, well, the effect it has had up to this point which is practically nothing. If you want to make a difference argue that China needs to be more humane, not rip what it considers part of itself off because a bunch of middle class white kids find a cause in college.

That may be a simplification, but that is how they see many of the protesters: a bunch of idle youths throwing bumper sticker slogans on something they know nothing about until they move on to something else. At the same time the US and Britain have been trying to use Tibet to get influence int he region, like they did when they passed out Opium years ago.

If you only know the arguments of one side of a debate you aren't going to be able to effectively argue. I'm not going to say I agree with everything in this website, but if you want a better picture of the Tibet issue you might read it to see what your opponent says.

http://www.index-china.com/index-english/Tibet-s.html

edited by myself for unsporting comment.

The "it's illegal" argument will never work because that is how the West sees it, not China, and they have a million man plus standing army to back up their sovereign claim. Saying it is illegal and going to the communist button will have, well, the effect it has had up to this point which is practically nothing. If you want to make a difference argue that China needs to be more humane, not rip what it considers part of itself off because a bunch of middle class white kids find a cause in college.

I’m, not arguing “legalities.” China invaded, conquered, killed, and annexed a free country. Its no different than Germany invading and taking over Switzerland. The mass executions of thousands of Tibetans, including hundreds of priests, is a documented fact. I question your motives if you hide your head in the sand and refuse to admit that.

If the US was trying to use Tibet to influence China, they could have nuked China off the map when it was invaded. But we didn’t need a reason after 300,000 Chinese “volunteers” invaded through North Korea.

Edit:
Duelling website-I love it

history and arguments from a Chinese perspective and Tibetan persepctive. Quite interesting
http://www.rangzen.com/history/views.htm

And here's why the 2nd amendment was created-to resist tyranny:


http://www.savetibet.org/tibet/index.php
Tibet is important to China for strategic and economic reasons and because of the Communist Party's imperialist ambitions. In China today, it is a serious offence to say that Tibet is separate from China.

In March 1959, Tibetans rose up against the Chinese occupiers. The uprising was brutally crushed and the Tibetan leader, His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama, escaped to India, followed by more than 80,000 Tibetans. Tens of thousands of Tibetans who remained were killed or imprisoned. Untold numbers, but at least hundreds of thousands, of Tibetans have died as a direct result of China's policies since 1949 - through starvation, torture and execution.

Marginalisation and exclusion

Fifty years after China's invasion, Beijing is intensifying its control over Tibet and its approximately six million Tibetans.

Tibetans are facing increasing marginalization as their economy becomes integrated with China and its population of 1.3 billion. They are losing out under the 'Western development' strategy, a massive campaign launched in 1999 to improve infrastructure in China's thinly-populated west, including Tibetan areas of China. The Chinese government has constructed a railway across the Tibetan plateau to Tibet's capital, Lhasa, which will increase the numbers of Chinese commercial migrants into Tibet, resulting in the further militarization of the region and accelerating the exploitation of Tibet's natural and mineral resources

China's fast track economic policies in Tibet, based on a political agenda, are directly linked to the repression of the Tibetan people. They are the most serious modern threat to the survival of Tibet's unique religious, cultural and linguistic identity.

The Chinese government claims that it is pouring money into health and education to benefit Tibetans. But the majority of Tibetans who live in rural areas do not have access to adequate or affordable health care and are still suffering from easily treatable conditions such as malnutrition, diarrhea, pneumonia, or even the plague.

Education facilities and opportunities for the Tibetan children are minimal and many Tibetan parents cannot afford schooling So they send their children into exile to study at Tibetan schools in India. Often education that is available in Tibet suppresses Tibetan religious or linguistic identity.

Religion and culture

Approximately 6,000 monasteries, nunneries and temples, and their contents were partially or fully destroyed from the period of the Chinese invasion and during the Cultural Revolution

The repression of Tibet's culture and religion continues today. Tibetan Buddhism is an integral element of Tibetan national identity, and measures used to implement Chinese government religious policy have been harsh.

China, which promotes atheism, aims to undermine the Dalai Lama's influence in Tibet and maintains strict control over monasteries and nunneries. Political campaigns or "patriotic re-education" require forced denunciations of the Dalai Lama, and there are restrictions on religious pilgrimages. Obtaining a religious education remains extremely difficult or impossible in Tibet.

Tibet's religious heritage has made a profound impact worldwide and has a unique contemporary relevance. The Dalai Lama has pioneered a dialogue with scientists on human consciousness, drawing on ancient Buddhist texts, and Tibetan Buddhist lamas teach across the globe.

The tradition of peaceful co-existence in pre-occupation Tibet among Tibetan Buddhists and Muslims serves as a model of religious tolerance, and the Dalai Lama's efforts to promote interfaith understanding continues to this day.

Over the past 50 years, Tibetans have expressed their resistance to Chinese rule through the assertion of their cultural and religious identity. Following the Cultural Revolution, they rebuilt monasteries and temples in Tibetan communities. Today, Tibetans worship at secret shrines to the Dalai Lama, express their dissent through pop music or poetry and protect their Tibetan identity by keeping their language and traditions alive.

Political repression

The Chinese government severely restricts the rights of Tibetans to exercise human rights as provided in the Chinese constitution, including the freedoms of speech, press, association, and religion. Reading an autobiography of the Dalai Lama or talking about freedom to friends in Tibet can be classified as 'endangering state security'.

Tibetan political prisoners endure harsh prison conditions, including torture, deprivation of food and sleep, and long periods in isolation cells.

"When they were torturing us it was literally as if they were trying to kill us. Prison guards would hit and beat with all their strength. Once after we all shouted 'Long live the Dalai Lama' they started to kick and beat us so much that the ground was covered in blood."

Crikey. Hot topic.

Tibet/China is the biggest International talking point ATM, methinks.

@ahtman-I don't think 1,000,000 soldiers gives your argument any credence, but it sure does give it a lot of weight.....

I cannot debate very well. I leave that kind of sticky situation to others.

jfrazell wrote:I’m, not arguing “legalities.”

No, Iorek was the one that brought it up.

Again, it isn't that I necessarily disagree but the arguments given preach to the choir, they don't change China's mind, and that is who has to be convinced.

The million man army isn't my argument, it is China's.

OK, I went back and read your original post on the topic, Ahtman, and I see why I'm not convincing you; I hadn't been trying to answer the question that you asked (and my apologies for it).

I'm not saying that what China did was illegal from their point of view, but it sure was from the Tibetan point of view. This isn't meant to be a "Free Tibet!" argument, but rather a statement of my ideals and their boundaries. All I am saying is that I think that their occupation of Tibet is wrong and doesn't fall under the purvey of "they can do whatever the heck they want to their people" because, as far as I'm concerened, Tibet isn't "their people".

Basically, I was using it as an example to illustrate my belief system.