Tibet had a popular revolutionary party whose views were in line with the rest of China that wanted China’s help overthrowing the Dalai Lama, under whom slavery and serfdom was common in the region.

Yes Tibet was a theocratic slave state. But China still invaded and annexed them.

Was the US invasion of Iraq justified because Saddam was a dictator? If we annexed Iraq and didn't make them speak English it would be fine?

[–] Roflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Forget it. He is too far gone. We are just Strangers on the Internet, and he lives inside a paranoid nightmare. I tried my best but got nowhere.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

I can see his side because Tibet was a Theocratic slave state. But he pretends China didn't invade.

[–] DarkThoughts@kbin.social 7 points 11 months ago

He's clearly a tankie. I wonder if lemmy.zip is just as bad as lemmygrad or lemmy.ml.
I know why I went to kbin though. I just have no desire to directly support those developers.

[–] Arelin@lemmy.zip -1 points 11 months ago

he lives inside a paranoid nightmare

Lmao I wouldn't go that far. But we can't all see eye-to-eye ig unfortunately.

[+] Arelin@lemmy.zip -9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

China invaded and annexed them.

Again, the popular Tibetan revolutionary party fought the feudal rule and welcomed Chinese intervention; their views were in line with the rest of China, and the autonomous nature of the region while being part of China reflects that.

the US invasion of Iraq

Not even comparable. There were no popular pro-US movements fighting Saddam's rule, and Iraq was destabilized in the first place because of US sanctions, not Saddam's decisions unlike the feudalism in Tibet. This was purely a strategic invasion to set up military bases and secure oil and resources by making up false claims of WMDs.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

popular Tibetan revolutionary party

If they were popular, they wouldn't have needed China to invade. China was supporting them just like the US supported revolutionaries that overthrew their governments.

There were no popular pro-US movements fighting Saddam’s rule

The Kurds.

This was purely a strategic invasion to set up military bases and secure oil and resources by making up false claims of WMDs.

Their are no us military bases in Iraq and all the oil money goes to Iraq.

[–] Arelin@lemmy.zip -5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If they were popular, they wouldn’t have needed China

Why wouldn't commoners in a feudal slave state not want help from a nearby government whose views match their own?

just like the US supported revolutionaries that overthrew their governments

The US overthrew democratically elected popular governments, like Mosaddegh's in Iran, or Salvador Allende's in Iraq, replacing the latter with a military dictatorship, because their policies benefitted their own countries instead of the US.

Their are no us military bases in Iraq and all the oil money goes to Iraq.

...What? There are still military bases in Iraq even now, and the economic dependence on the US that Iraq is now in is exactly what the US wanted/wants. ExxonMobil, Chevron etc. extracting oil for cheap from a war-torn country that doesn't have a choice; even CNN admits it.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Why wouldn’t commoners in a feudal slave state not want help

Yes many wanted it. But if it was popular, Chinese invasion would not have been necessary. Nor would 1.2 million Tibetans need to have been killed.

There are 2500 US troops in Iraq today compared to 300,000 Chinese troops in Tibet today. The US did not annex Iraq or the other countries you mentioned.

Iraq Balks at Chinese control of their oil:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/iraq-balks-greater-chinese-control-its-oilfields-2022-05-17/