India increases millitary budget or shut up?

[houde10000]

buddy, i just answer someone

I AM WAITING FOR THE CHINESE MILITARY BREAK UP BUDGET IN DETAILS WHICH WAS THE ORIGINAL IDEA OF THE THREAD WHERE IS IT?
discuss one point at a time in one thread dont go here and there discuss military budgets of china and india here only why bring in kashmir if you want to discuss kashmir and sikkim open a new thread and we will burst your bubble on the kashmir issue

who is the real "an expansionist and aggressive country" China or India?

 

[A.V.]

who is the real "an expansionist and aggressive country" China or India?

give me the link of your claim for the military budget you can start a new thread about who is the expansionist country and we can discuss there this thread is for military budget comparison on which you have made tall claims but proved nothing

i ask you again give me the chinese military budget breakup from an official source and your not answering me will prove the point that your tall claims are nothing more than a propaganda gospel taught to you like a parrot recitation

LINK? no kashmir no tibet no expansionist on this thread

 

[houde10000]

I don't where your map come from, please watch National Geographic site

british map of Tibet as a separate country but i see you have a comprehension problem

TIBET WAS NOT A PART OF CHINA


NG Maps Print Collection - 1942 Asia and Adjacent Areas Map

please find where is Tibet and Mongolia. and also check 1933, 1912 map, thanks.

 

[Known_Unknown]

India is not peaceful country, not as good as said:

1) after 1947, you invaded Pakistan and dismembered her into two countries: Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Wrong. Pakistan invaded India in 1971. Please read up on it:

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the evening of Sunday, 3 December, the Pakistani air force launched sorties on eight airfields in north-western India, including Agra which was 300 miles (480 km) from the border.. This attack, called Operation Chengiz Khan, was inspired by the Arab-Israeli Six Day War and the success of the Israeli preemptive strike. Unlike the Israeli attack on Arab airbases in 1967, which involved a large number of Israeli planes, Pakistan flew no more than 50 planes to India. Indian runways were non-functional for several hours after the attack.

India reacted by declaring war on Pakistan. Indian forces responded with a massive coordinated air, sea, and land assault. Indian Air Force started flying sorties against Pakistan from midnight and quickly achieved air superiority. The main Indian Objective on the Western front was to prevent Pakistan from entering Indian soil. There was no Indian intention of conducting an offensive into West Pakistan.

So the war was started when the Pakistan Air Force launched attacks on air bases in India. India was not the first to attack.

2) India annexed Sikkim, a free Tibetan kingdom,

Sikkim was not a free Tibetian kingdom, it was a protectorate of India. There was a referendum held after Indian forces entered the kingdom, in which the majority of Sikkimese voted to join India.

Such a referendum has to this day not been held in Tibet, by the way.

3) India force Nepal to sign unfair treat to control Nepal's foreign and millitary affair.

India didn't force anyone to do anything. Nepal is surrounded on three sides by Indian territory and on the fourth by the Himalayas. The Nepalese share a common history, culture and religion with most Indians, and Nepal's Gurkha soldiers have fought in the Indian Army before Indian independence. It's only natural that Nepal's king wanted to have closer relations with India. Don't believe everything the CCP feeds you.

4) India took 2/3 of Kashmir land, use army to bloodly squash local muslin majority choose to join Pakistan.

Indian forces entered Kashmir only after the Maharaja of J&K signed an agreement making it a part of India. On the other hand, Pakistani tribal warriors backed by the Pakistani Army invaded Kashmir without having any legal basis for doing so, which was what caused the Maharaja to flee to India in the first place.

5) forward policy to nibble Chinese Tibetan land during Chinese-US Korea war and 3 year natural disaster 1959~1962.

India did not nibble anything. The British signed an agreement with Tibet delineating the border. We were only sending troops upto that border. We had no intention or reason to invade Tibet.

On the other hand, the Chinese invaded and occupied the Indian territory of Aksai Chin in the 1950s without having any legal basis for doing so.

6) Supprt LTTE first, then use LTTE as excuse, Invaded Sri Lanka

LTTE was supported because of the massive discrimination and oppression of Tamils in Sri Lanka before the 1980s. Please read up on Sri Lankan history if you want to go beyond the propaganda that the CCP fed you. Also, the Indian army entered Sri Lanka on the invitation of the President of Sri Lanka, as a peacekeeping force. It left when Sri Lanka decided that they no longer needed the peacekeepers.

Where are you doing your research from anyway? Pakistani and CCP propaganda websites?

7) Ride roughshod over Bhutan.

Please elaborate. Bhutan is a close and friendly country of India. I don't think Bhutan has ever accused India of "riding roughshod over it", even though your communist government may want you to think so.

Hope what I list could give a different view about your country.

Nope. You have only demonstrated how brainwashed Chinese are by their government. Even after living for many years abroad, the effect of all that propaganda that you were fed since childhood does not get erased easily.

1) Korea is Chinese door, 1000 year, Japan invaded China from Korea, there is no choice for Chinese to protect Korea. No matter Korea is good or bad, we not allow a Japanese, American boot on that land. Remind you where is Korea, what you think American will do if Chinese army invade Mexico.

You prolonged the conflict and created the mess that is today North Korea. Because of you, the world has to today contend with a starving, but heavily armed, dictatorial communist country with nuclear weapons.

2) Russian had force old Chinese government signed unfair treat to cede over 2 million square kilo land, and USSR separated Mongolia (1.67 million square kilo land) from China. You said China invade USSR, are you blind or crazy?

Yes, all the treaties that China ever signed were unfair, right? Your communist government refused to honour any treaty because that would give them a nice excuse to expand their Chinese empire. Discard treaties with India and Russia and attack both just to expand your empire.

3) Chinese spent over 20 billion dollars between 1956 ~ 1975 to help Vietnam to get reunited and independant from France and American hand. Just like what Chinese did in Korea, after the war, Chinese didn't leave even 1 soldier, 1 millitary base in Vietnam after 1975. Tell me you logic, there were over 350,000 chinese troop fought in Vietnam during the war, where were they after 1975, what you mean invade Vietnam? Vietnam has big ambitions to conquer cambodia, China always help the small country, we punished Vietnam to save Cambodia, I don't know what you mean invade Vietnam?

The Chinese invaded Vietnam for no reason in 1979. You wanted to help Cambodia's Khmer Rouge, which indulged in a genocide in Cambodia, against Vietnam who wanted to prevent that genocide. Congratulations to China for being responsible for another mass slaughter of human beings. You have sort of achieved a distinction in that in your 60 year history.

4) You said India has good friendship with US, I agree, we used to be very close friend before USSR crashed. If China were crashed, who will be American's next virtual enemy? maybe India? good luck!

Democracies don't go to war. Especially the largest and oldest ones in the world. Dictatorships, on the other hand, like China, are famous for aggressive expansionist wars and conflicts.

 

[houde10000]

sorry, i can not find a link show you the detail how chinese millitary budget breakup

give me the link of your claim for the military budget you can start a new thread about who is the expansionist country and we can discuss there this thread is for military budget comparison on which you have made tall claims but proved nothing

i ask you again give me the chinese military budget breakup from an official source and your not answering me will prove the point that your tall claims are nothing more than a propaganda gospel taught to you like a parrot recitation

LINK? no kashmir no tibet no expansionist on this thread

Friend, sorry, i can not find a link show you the detail how chinese millitary budget breakup. I only can find the totally number from chinese government website and american government site. Maybe Chinese government doesn't publish the detail to public at all.

 

[A.V.]

Friend, sorry, i can not find a link show you the detail how chinese millitary budget breakup. I only can find the totally number from chinese government website and american government site. Maybe Chinese government doesn't publish the detail to public at all.

so you say whatever the chinese goverment publish on their own site you claim that to be true great that is very unlike the case with india where every spending must be accounted for and shown to the public

about the american link forget it they have a lot of news about china about tibet if you believe theirs to be true then their other posts are also true

my friend you are mistaken open your eyes what is taught and printed do not follow it blindly try to put some logic behind it china might not even spend a 10000 th time of what you quoted or even spend much more than what you quoted there is no open news its a closed country a closed media and they want their people also to keep their eyes closed but you wake up my friend before its too late



IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS OTHER TOPICS ON CHINA THERE ARE A LOT OF DEDICATED THREADS ON TIBET , ON CHINESE MILITARY AND WEAPONS YOU CAN POST YOUR VIEWS THERE TOO PEOPLE CAN DISCUSS EVERY TOPIC NO RUSH

 

[johnee]

Your post was detailed and very informative. I request you to write a detailed post regarding the treaty between the British India and Tibet and why/when/how China refused to honour the treaty.
Also right something about the so-called forward policy. And whether Nehru was responsible for overlooking the imminent danger. You are the resident historian of the forum, so plz do this.

Democracies don't go to war. Dictatorships, on the other hand, like China, are famous for aggressive expansionist wars and conflicts.

But I found this assertion/assumption of yours strange. Is there any justification or illustration in history for this assumption.

 

[Known_Unknown]

Thanks johnee. About the Simla Accord, you can find an excellent article on wiki.

McMahon Line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for the forward policy, I'd recommend a book by Brig. J P Dalvi, called "Himalayan Blunder" that discusses the historical details about the border dispute, it's handling by the GoI, and finally the war and aftermath. Brig. Dalvi was taken as a PoW during the 1962 war, and his book was banned for many years by the GoI, but it's not hard to get a copy of it in India. I had one myself.

As for the democracies won't go to war statement, there has been a lot of discussion and debate between academics on this matter. In the modern world (I'm talking about after WWII and the end of colonialism), this principle has generally held true. In free democracies, politicians have to answer to their subjects and present a good reason to go to war, as their political careers depend on the result. As information is available freely, it is not possible to indulge in mass propaganda to build a case for war as happens in dictatorships. People can easily access international media sources to find out the truth. A defeat could mean a long term drop in the political future of a party, something that dictatorships don't need to worry about.

In short, there are a lot of domestic political constraints on leaders of democratic countries, whereas there are almost none in case of dictatorships. That results in fewer chances of democracies instigating wars against other democracies.

 

[kautilya]

In short, there are a lot of domestic political constraints on leaders of democratic countries, whereas there are almost none in case of dictatorships. That results in fewer chances of democracies instigating wars against other democracies.

Indo-Pak wars in '47 and '99 occurred between democracies. I suppose we could argue the former.

Kosovo war too was arguably between one democracy(Yugoslavia) and a group of democracies (NATO) + the KLA.

 

[Known_Unknown]

Kautilya,

Are you Chankya from WAB?

Indo-Pak wars in '47 and '99 occurred between democracies. I suppose we could argue the former.

The definition of a democracy matters. A functioning democracy has to be able to conduct elections on a regular basis, have civilian supremacy etc etc, just like the democracies in most of the west and in India. Nawaz Sharif was elected by popular vote, but when the Army Chief has more power than the PM and keeps him in the dark about a war, the country can hardly be termed a democracy.

The one in '47 wasn't technically a war between democracies either. No general elections had taken place prior to 1947 to elect Nehru. The 1950 Constitution proclaimed India a democracy.

Kosovo is often used as an example to the contrary, but Yugoslavia at that time was a country in transition, faced with a lot of violent ethnic conflict and Milosevic had been accused of rigging elections in his favour. Certainly not a stable, free democracy.

 

[Known_Unknown]

An article illustrating both sides of the debate:

BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Do democracies fight each other?

In his essay for Peace magazine in 1999, Rudolph J Rummel made the same point as Bush and went further to say "democracy is a general cure for political or collective violence of any kind".

To help his argument, he put forward a rigorous definition of the term:

* regular elections for the most powerful government positions
* competitive political parties
* near universal franchise
* secret balloting
* civil liberties and political rights (human rights)

This meant that Germany, for instance, was not a democracy in World War I, according to Rummel. And Britain was not a full democracy in 1812-1815 in the Anglo-American War.

He also defined an international war as a military engagement in which 1,000 or more people were killed.

RUMMEL'S THEORY
353 pairs of nations engaged in wars between 1816-1991
None was between two democracies
155 pairs involved a democracy and a non-democracy
198 involved two non-democracies fighting each other
The average length of war between states was 35 months, average battle deaths was 15,069
For more, see internet links

Rummel's response when asked why he believed democracies didn't fight was to recall Immanuel Kant's Perpetual Peace, published in 1795.

Kant's theory is that democratic leaders are restrained by the resistance of their people to bearing the costs and deaths of war. And a democratic culture of negotiation and conciliation, plus the hurdles to taking swift action, favours peace.

 

[NikSha]

Hey houde10000, when do you think China is invading India? I hope it's not today, I have some important work to do.

Maybe perhaps... on Sunday? (I am free then)

 

[houde10000]

guys, thank you much for today's discuss

unfortunately i just lost 1 hour hard work, my post was denied and lost somehow.

I am tired, hope we can find other time to talk more, thanks,

Best Regards
Houde

 

[Known_Unknown]

Hope to see you back in action soon, houde.

 

[kautilya]

Kautilya,

Are you Chankya from WAB?

Yes but I'm afraid you have the advantage of me. I've seen your nick before but can't seem to find you on wab. Would I have seen you somewhere else? BR perhaps? I lurk there from time to time.

The definition of a democracy matters. A functioning democracy has to be able to conduct elections on a regular basis, have civilian supremacy etc etc, just like the democracies in most of the west and in India. Nawaz Sharif was elected by popular vote, but when the Army Chief has more power than the PM and keeps him in the dark about a war, the country can hardly be termed a democracy.

Fair enough. I just thought I'd throw it out there. Very nice article by the way. I guess the definition of democracy matters for this hypothesis.

The '47 war was admittedly way out.

Kosovo is often used as an example to the contrary, but Yugoslavia at that time was a country in transition, faced with a lot of violent ethnic conflict and Milosevic had been accused of rigging elections in his favour. Certainly not a stable, free democracy.

I'm not sure. He did leave when he eventually lost in 2000 (albeit after large protests).

Certainly I don't see the UK not embarking on its colonial adventure just because the receiving end had a democratic setup.

IMO democracy acts to check the weaker state but very rarely does it restraint a stronger state. For instance, Iran has some semblance of a democratic structure. Yet the democratic aspect of it is rarely discussed in the US in the context of a possible attack on Iran's nuclear program.

Also Pakistan finds almost universal support for a low intensity conflict with India. I guess what I'm working towards is that democracies will happily go to war if they perceive a large payoff with relatively little loss.

 

[Rage]

As Chinese government announced 2009 Chinese millitary budget is over 70 billion dollar, plus hidden millitary budget, the number will be at least over 140 billion dollar. If Chinese millitary budget keeps the same double digital increasing rate (15%), the number will reach 300 billion dollar around 2015 easily [...]

I'm curious to know houde1000, where do you accurately derive your figures of China's "hidden military budget" from? Are you privy to certain details of the CCP's spending or projected expenditure to which not even most loyal party officials are ? I understand that the US, through it's DIA and DoD Task Forces and Senate Evaluation Committees, consistently over-estimates China's military spending as a factor multiple of between 2 - 2.5 times that of officially disclosed figures. For all intents and purposes this may even be true (although your government continues to vehemently denies this) but a prudent analysis would not preclude the political context of these statements: in order to maintain US military spending at levels more than 12 times higher than that of China's official ones, and more than 5 times higher than that of even the highest US estimates of Chinese spending in the absence of concerted external state-based threats similar to that experienced during the Cold War, requires the conviction- or otherwise confabulation - of Senators and lawmakers alike to sanction budgetary approvals for costly defense programs and ever-spiralling defense spending.


Arriving at the more immediate question of India's defense expenditure vis-a-vis China's, let me assure you in the first instance that your figures for India are atleast two budgetary years too late. The figure was 20 billion dollars in the fiscal year 2006-07. The latest estimates project defence spending to rise by more than a third to INR 1417 billion, or USD 32.7 billion for the Fiscal Year 2009. That represents a 34.2 per cent increase from the proposed 2008 budget of INR 1,057 billion, and more pertinently, a 23.6 per cent increase from the revised 2008 budgetary defense spending estimate of INR 1,146 billion. Shuvey?


Please see: http://www.janes.com/news/defence/triservice/jdw/jdw090219_1_n.shtml; and Defence allocation up 35%

Over 90% Chinese army equipments are made in China, which is much cheaper than Indian army equipments. Correct me, over 50% Indian army equipment are imported, even rifle bullet has to buy from Isaril? 20 billion dollar is enough to beat Chinese PLA?

As for the nature of India's defense acquisitions, it is true that they are to a great extent foreign-origined. But that is because we recognize the deficiencies and delays in production in our domestic arms industry - an arms industry still in its infancy by the way- and not unfettered by the same lack of constraints, scruples or disregard for international norms and arms treaties as China's.


It is also testament to the fact that our Tri-Services seek, and are satisfied with, nothing but the best in weapons systems - borne out of a response to the nature of their constantly changing QSR's that are thankfully not as gridlocked as our domestic military-industrial complex that in its turn has failed to keep up with - and that these procurements are characterized by both a higher price [yet, pecuniary issues are not the problem as I will elaborate later], but also a higher technology quotient in fulfillment our exigent defence needs.


On the other hand, your defence industry has not had an entirely sublime run either - which is astonishing considering that much of your weapons systems are illegitimately 'acquired' , stolen or copied versions of previously researched and developed technologies in the West, and to a greater extent Russia. Your 'Chengdu-10 (J-10/FC-20)' multi role fighter aircraft for instance, developed from the subsequently canceled J-9 program, and a plausible (although again officially denied) copy of the Israeli 'Lavi', has had a development trajectory that spans nearly 30 years - excluding a more secretive development history that spans far longer - a fact not known to many- and by some accounts, even failed its first test flight. For all the hooplah over the long-drawn and fault-ridden protracted development history of the HAL 'Tejas', and the fact that it uses several non-indigenous subcomponents in its weapons and avionics systems, yours- for a defence industry that is far less mitigated by the government's concern for international arms protocols or violations of proprietorship - has fared only marginally better in relative context, with several of your J-10's subcomponents sourced from foreign suppliers: including it's Russian AL-31 FN M1 engine, its Russian Phazotron Zhemchoug/ Italian FIAR Grifo 2000/16/ Russian Tikhomirov (NIIP) Pero RADAR, fundamentally Ukrainian 'Arsenel HMS' cockpit components replica'd by Luoyang Avionics and potential ordnances of Russian R-73 IR air-to-air and radar-navigated R-77 surface-to-air missiles.


If India were to emulate Chinas example, it would merely copy and mass produce without giving a pigeon's arse, reduplications of weapons systems stolen from Russia or others. That would dent its credibility vis-a-vis international arms production agreements and also lock it out of future license production- a concern not shared to the same extent by China.


And do not even begin to get me started on the rueful state of China's paltry engineering in medium and heavy goods- military or otherwise- for such audacious claims of competitiveness with the West. The following image of the proposed 4th generation JF-17 fighter, I trust, will suffice to demonstrate:


http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/1628/attachmentcgy.jpg


I hope you can identify the egregious problems in that picture.


For a more poignant and determined answer to your question, that debunks the flaws in your argument of always tying defense expenditure to a proportion of GDP, rather than on an ad-hoc, post-cumulative and strategic-foresight basis, please see:

A Lazy Argument: Tying defence expenditure to GDP is no substitute for policy making


To surmise the above, the fixing of defence allocation to a certain percentage of GDP is not always a theoretically sound argument, given the volatilities in economic growth rates and threat perceptions in the long run. And in our case, a lack of funds is hardly the problem. Rather it is an absence of a concerted cogitation of long-term security and strategic requirements, and the fact that we experience delays in defense procurements (not always through faults of our own) that impede a dedicated program of acquisition and modernization that is more accurately reflected in bursts and spurts rather than a steady, onward path.


The annual defence budget, which follows from and adumbration of the Defence Capability Plan, the 15-year Long Term Integrated Perspective Plan, the 5-year Services Capital Acquisition Plan and the Annual Acquisition Plan, is handicapped in terms of catering to the true security needs of the country because of the poor formulation and execution of, and multiple delays in, planning. In other words, it is not the issue of there being a crunch in funding to match security needs, rather that security needs are poorly reflected in the budget, and the capability requirements of the Armed Forces either get delayed or come to possess a short shelf-life. That is thankfully showing signs of change however, reminiscent in the revival of vestiges like this: http://www.defenceforum.in/forum/st...-strategic-presence-along-chinese-border.html

Frankly, I suggest India increase her millitary budget to a reasonable level, like 100 billion dollars, how do you think?

Frankly, we have neither the means, nor the necessity to increase defence spending to "100 billion dollars". We are an economy, which because of our development model and subsequent induction into the global economy, are in absolute terms about a third the size of China's, and in the context of this, our defense spending is proportionately comparable. Among our most recognizable strategic rivals, yours is the only nation with a defense spending that outstrips ours (quite like the fact that US defense spending in turn far outstrips yours). The Capital Expenditure component of our annual defense budget is relatively elastic and adjusted on an ad-hoc basis, as when we seek to procure larger or more substantial weapons systems like the INS Vikramaaditya or make sizable purchases of Mirages or Hawk jet trainers for instance. That flexibility remains classified ofcourse, just as the alleged 'clandestine' or 'secret' defense expenditure for China remains so. The only components of our Defense Budget that remain relatively static during a given fiscal year are the Revenue Expenditure component for the Tri-Services and Defense R&D expenditure.


A "reasonable level" for us is not 100 billion dollars- atleast not in the present and the interim. As indicated previously, a lack of funding is hardly the problem. If anything, India is slated to spend dozens of billions of dollars in defense acquisitions over the next five years, with Boeing alone attempting to capture a 31 billion dollar share of the market over the next ten. And a rapid increase in military spending is already on the anvil: India infact intimated at doubling its defense expenditure to over $40 billion this fiscal, but that was prorogued in view of our more pressing exigencies, including a national federal election...

[...] Oh, forget to count Chinese Yuan currency exchanging rate increasing, let say 3% each year, the number will reach crazy 400 billion dollar around 2015?!
How about Indian millitary budget? 10 billion? 20 billion?

In purchasing-power-parity (PPP) terms, an "increase by 3% per year" in the exchange rate (I assume that you are using the more universally applied version of the concept that is, the version of the exchange rate on the American side of the Atlantic), of your currency vis-a-vis the USD would imply a devaluation of your currency against the dollar (the policy pursued for the last 30 years by the CCP to ensure that a given income stream of foreign currency is worth more in terms of domestic currency- and therefore that exports are cheaper abroad) not a revaluation as you are trying to suggest- in turn implying that the dollar would be worth more in terms of the Yuan (conversely that the Yuan would be worth less in terms of the dollar) and that an increase in your defense spending would be worth proportionately less in (nominal) dollar terms as the exchange rate "increases". Ergo discounting your assertion: "Oh, forget to count Chinese Yuan currency exchanging rate increasing, let say 3% each year, the number will reach crazy 400 billion dollar around 2015?!" Kapeesh?


You also fail to recognize that any spending comparisons between India and China will also factor in PPP for the former: with military-specific PPP (factored on the basis of a military-specific 'basket of goods' as opposed to a civil-economy 'basket of godds') estimated at a comparable index of between 6 and 8 in 2006. Factoring in military-specific PPP therefore, India's military budget might thus be estimated as the equivalent of about $120 billion (20.1 billion USD in absolute [non-PPP] dollar terms) in 2006; and under the Interim Budget for the Fiscal Year 2009-10, the equivalent of about $196.2 billion (again assuming a static conservative multiple of 6 as previously done, in absolute constant 2006 PPP dollar-rupee, military-specific terms). Your analysis therefore is riddled with flaws, including your wildly inaccurate estimates of your own nation's defense spending in PPP terms, and your implicit imputing of India's PPP as equivalent to China's.


So what do I think? I think I shall say thank you very much for your concern. Suggestion duly noted, but subject as always to our discretion. The strategic compunctions and environment that drive your government are not the same that impel ours. And the gains from modernization are not always commensurate with spending. I will also say this to you: Unlike some of our other national counterparts, as also some of our less illustrious predecessors, this forum is run by a team of moderators with far less biased scruples. So when a moderator says "stop" , you will stop. Lest you find the need to surgically remove their collective boots - and mine- from where the sun don't shine.


And really houde1000 ! 'Orphean' ?? Do you even realize what that means?

 

[ShyAngel]

1) The world is very small, there is no choice, China and India have to live as neighbour. It can be good neighbour, also can be bad neighbour, the choice is in Indian's hand. India planed to invade Chinese Tibet region right after she got independent in 1947, when Chinese army fought in Korea with US, Indian troop take advantage to steal our land, 1959, 60, 61, Chinese premier Zhou Enlai fly to New Deli many time to pursuade Indian premier Nehru stop his "forward policy" to take Chinese Land at south of McMahon line, Nehru refuse to talk, he told report what indian troop take, finaly will be accepted by Chinese, that's is pirate logic, even your master, British has never taken that land, who you are? The result is clear and painful: India lost the war, Nehur lost his power and died, India lost the third world leader position, India lost the opportunity to be a member of UNSC. China didn't involve the war between Pakistan and India before 1962, but India feed DALAI from 1959 and invaded Chinese land from 1947, You can clearly see who provocate first? China didn't lose anything from the war except the 90,000 square kilo land ( For that, I really don't understand and don't agree with Chairman Mao, why he has to give the land to indian, it is stupid idea to win friendship by giving our land. Anyway, no border in human history is fixed, none changable). You are right, we support Pakistan, Pakistan is Chinese close friend and brother, without Chinese support, I am sure India can easily beat Pakistan. That's your stupid premier's choice.

As I know, Chinese never really think India is a big threat, our millitary target is not India at all, but if you keep treat China as enemy, anything could happen in future, maybe we seriously think India is a big threat to us, we may support your separatist, give them money and weapon, let's India break into 100 peices. ( I don't really want to see that happen)

Dalai Lama, himself is nobody, anyone was announced by Chinese central government with Dalai Lama Title will have his Holiness power. Current Dalai was born in Qinghai, a no-doubt Chinese province, his parents only speak mandarin, in my opinion, he is a 100% Chinese citizen at that time. He was chosen acoording to tradional religious rule and protected to Lasa, capital of Tebit region, and finally was anounced by Chinese Central government as 14th Dala Lama in 1946(?). That's totally it is Chinese domestic issue. If India is friend of China, you won't follow British to use Dalai as tool to separate our country. Dalai is peaceful person, that's holy shit, he is mediaeval slave master, he is traitor. And please remember Tibetan is also Chinese.

If Dalai really lookinf for a autonomy to Tibet, then we can talk about that, but he is not, he just want to be tool to attack his motherland. He asks for a big Tibet, which almost 1/4 of China land, his region had never been that big even before he fled to India, If you was us, do you think we can accept that.

You are not worth debating until you spell Tibet and Lhasa correctly. Dalai Lama is nothing to you because you don't even know yourself. Qinghai is the chinese name of Amdo region of Tibet which shares open border with China. Dalai Lama's family always spoke Tibetan first then they were also exposed to mandarine as well. If you believe in no border in human history is fixed then you are insulting your so call want to be brave ancestor for building the great wall of china to protect their people and land. Now lastly, if Tibet were to be part of China; dick head it will not be on the opposite side of the great wall. If you try to combine the name of India and Pakistan as one nation; that will only make you look stupid. So there's no such a thing as tibetan chinese or what so ever. Now go and mingle with your koran and pakistani prostitutes and sell this fake and dirty history to your bastard kids, only they will be willing to buy it.

 

[ShyAngel]

unfortunately i just lost 1 hour hard work, my post was denied and lost somehow.

I am tired, hope we can find other time to talk more, thanks,

Best Regards
Houde

Beautiful excuse!

 

[yang]

unfortunately i just lost 1 hour hard work, my post was denied and lost somehow.

I am tired, hope we can find other time to talk more, thanks,

Best Regards
Houde

Houde
I won't feel alone any more ,for you are here with me.
Your English is perfect,not like mine,many times I find it hard to express my opinion freely.
I am so happy to see you here.By the way ,I will give you this link Dalai-Liar.com You can show it to the people in US,let them know more about the truth, it is made by a group Chinese youngsters.
regards.

顶一下，加油， 全国人民看好你哩:cray:

 

[Rage]

unfortunately i just lost 1 hour hard work, my post was denied and lost somehow.

I am tired, hope we can find other time to talk more, thanks,

Best Regards
Houde

I can assure you houde1000, that any posts lost by you were not due to the fault or 'denial' of the moderators, but rather to a technical feature. If you were preparing a long post (as your "1 hours hard work" would suggest) the forum will automatically log you out if it finds you were inactive [not browsing through the forum] for a certain length of time: 10 to 15 minutes I think. That can be rectified by simply logging in after your post is prepared to submit it, provided you don't have another tab or browser opened on the forum already. And I would highly suggest you do a "Ctrl+A" to quickly select all of your post so that you can simply hit the right click and paste if for some reason it does not appear. Or alternatively, save your post in a Word processing document before you post.

If you encounter any further problems, feel free to post in the "Suggestions, Comments and Feedback" section. We, as always, would be happy to help.