India tells China: Kashmir is to us what Tibet, Taiwan are to you

[nimo_cn]

well plz tell is only IoK is disputed according to china or Pok as well?

Well, that is more than enough to make it a disputed land.
Do you want more parties to be involved in?

If i am not mistaking, Kashmir is internationally recognized as a disputed land.

 

[nimo_cn]

Having a functioning GOT is any-day bigger than stapled visas.....

Yeah, keep wanking yourself.

 

[Necrosis Factor]

You still don't understand (or don't want to understand), China was always seen by US as a balancing factor against erstwhile USSR, so no US intervention then, today China is trying to flex its loose muscles (pre-mature) and what US is doing (encircling China and proving who still is the real Boss) in south Asia (including construction of new naval bases) is no secret. If things get ugly, it will be China which will be on a losing side with allies such as beggar-terror epitome defunct pakistan and North Korea, and no-one else.
As I had said everything falls in place when the time is ripe, nothing happens before schedule, you can go on with your argument that no one is opposing Tibet occupation "today", however, can you guarantee that your rival nations with the type of (Tibetan) assets they possess can never cause China any threat? If yes, then you need to read a lot and update your shallow knowledge. If No, then you are fine.

P.S: You have uselessly argued on the thread " Nehru refused UNSC membership" without any prior research on the topic, on which you were proved incorect, please don't continue with your arguments based on CCP propaganda.

The US government has never supported Tibetan indepedence. It's military bases have North Korea and Afghanistan in mind. There are no indications that the US is making preparative moves to support a Tibetan rebellion, and you have no proof.

So while you continue to live in your hypothetical dream land of what if's, the fact is that Tibet is ruled by China and will continue to be ruled by China for the forseeable future.


P.S. I wasn't wrong. Nehru didn't refuse a UNSC permanent seat with veto power because India was never offered one. What was offered was a permanent seat with NO veto power.

 

[Necrosis Factor]

Furthermore during the Tibetan unrest in 2008, Indian police were video-taped detaining and sometimes beating Tibetan protestors when the Olympic flame was carried through New Dehli. Pray tell me MaoMao, what unseen forces are we witnessing that will one day lead to Tibetan indepednance??

Maybe...if all the planets align....lol

 

[nimo_cn]

We may not say in the open but we do not recognize Tibet as China, GOT in exile is headquartered in Dharamshala, India.

In politics, only things be said in the open matters.

No one cares what you think deep inside your heart. Do you think we believe India sincerely recognize Tibet as an integral part of China? Hell no, we know pretty well India harbours outrageous territorial ambition over Tibet, we know pretty well you are a bunch of expansionists.

But does that matter to us? No, your present official stance over Tibet is just what we want.

 

[maomao]

The US government has never supported Tibetan indepedence. It's military bases have North Korea and Afghanistan in mind. There are no indications that the US is making preparative moves to support a Tibetan rebellion, and you have no proof.

So while you continue to live in your hypothetical dream land of what if's, the fact is that Tibet is ruled by China and will continue to be ruled by China for the forseeable future.


P.S. I wasn't wrong. Nehru didn't refuse a UNSC permanent seat with veto power because India was never offered one. What was offered was a permanent seat with NO veto power.

Ok....you will not understand what I am trying to portray, as you have become a bit emotional.

However, read the thread again "nehru was offered a permanent seat" with a veto, a concept of non-veto permanent membership is absurd, it would have never solved USA's problem of balancing the council in its favor.

 

[nimo_cn]

way chinese are behaving lately we will definitely be looking to revise our policy in Tibet . China need to get the same pain to feel what others feel due to their lack of sensitivity. Just a trip of Dalai Lama to Arunachal hurt them so much what if we declare Tibet as disputed territory.

You reverse your policy over Tibet, we can do same to Sikkim. It is a fair game.

 

[nimo_cn]

Well, there is something in common.

Kashmir is with us today.

Tibet will be ours in due time.
Taiwan is kicking Chinese CCP's arse as we speak.

China will go back behind the inner wall again.

LOL, i love to read posts like this which just proves well Indian minds are full of expansionism.

 

[Necrosis Factor]

Ok....you will not understand what I am trying to portray, as you have become a bit emotional.

However, read the thread again "nehru was offered a permanent seat" with a veto, a concept of non-veto permanent membership is absurd, it would have never solved USA's problem of balancing the council in its favor.

Sigh....
India was pretty much in the opposite camp when it was supposedly offered a seat. It wouldn't have solved the US's problem of balancing the council in its favor, because India was aligned with communist Russia! So why on earth would the US offer a seat?

 

[maomao]

Sigh....
India was pretty much in the opposite camp when it was supposedly offered a seat. It wouldn't have solved the US's problem of balancing the council in its favor, because India was aligned with communist Russia! So why on earth would the US offer a seat?

Again you have shown ignorance in this matter, India was not aligned with anyone during the "Cold War", however, maintained good relations with both the US and Russia at that time. India's inclusion would have eventually favored US, due to India not being a hard-core Communist state, with lods of private businesses.

Suggested Reading for you and your comrades: nehru's Non-Alignment Movement aka NAM

 

[Necrosis Factor]

Again you have shown ignorance in this matter, India was not aligned with anyone during the "Cold War", maintained good relations with both the US and Russia at that time. India's inclusion would have eventually favored US, due to India not being a hard-core Communist state, with lods of private businesses.

Suggested Read for you and your comrades: nehru's Non-Alignment Movement aka NAM

US certainly didn't think so. Why do you think it armed Pakistan at the time with American weapons?

At the time, India had very little private business.

 

[maomao]

US certainly didn't think so. Why do you think it armed Pakistan at the time with American weapons?

At the time, India had very little private business.

Nehru showed blunders after blunders, and pakistani military beggars proved perfect docile pets, so it gave what pakistan wanted in-return for shameless mercenary work!!

India had thriving private business (which expanded exponentially after liberalization) and it was more than enough for US to consider India as a non-Communist threat!!

P.S: you need to do some home work and read a lot!!

 

[Necrosis Factor]

Nehru showed blunders after blunders, and pakistani military beggars proved perfect docile pets, so it gave what pakistan wanted in-return for shameless mercenary work!!

India had thriving private business (which expanded exponentially after liberalization) and it was more than enough for US to consider India as a non-Communist threat!!

P.S: you need to do some home work and read a lot!!

What enemies did Pakistan have back then that the US wanted them to fight with their weapons? It was only India.

 

[civfanatic]

If i am not mistaking, Kashmir is internationally recognized as a disputed land.

Actually, no.
http://www.defenceforum.in/forum/showthread.php?t=16256

 

[Vinod2070]

LOL, i love to read posts like this which just proves well Indian minds are full of expansionism.

Well, it was sarcasm. Just in response to sme chest thumping by you and the other 50 cent party worker's chest thumping on the previous page.

I personally just want Tibet to be left alone to preserve their culture and glorious heritage.

 

[civfanatic]

Nehru showed blunders after blunders, and pakistani military beggars proved perfect docile pets, so it gave what pakistan wanted in-return for shameless mercenary work!!

India had thriving private business (which expanded exponentially after liberalization) and it was more than enough for US to consider India as a non-Communist threat!!

P.S: you need to do some home work and read a lot!!

India was more or less neutral during the 50s and 60s, but from 1971 onwards India was firmly in the Soviet camp.

The reason why India never became a close U.S. ally during the Cold War, despite its democracy, was because of Indian unwillingness to allow American businesses and interests to take over India (which was fairly common for U.S. puppets and allies at the time). Indian businesses at the time were very undeveloped and had no chance of competing internationally against Western businesses, hence why Nehru adopted policies of protectionism and quasi-socialism.

 

[maomao]

What enemies did Pakistan have back then that the US wanted them to fight with their weapons? It was only India.

So? Why are you so confused? You are completely OT.

 

[Parthy]

You reverse your policy over Tibet, we can do same to Sikkim. It is a fair game.

Reversing our policy in Tibet meant that declaring Tibet as an autonomous region instead of keeping mum during china's claim over tibet. Never ever dream of showing Chinese aggression to India anymore.. Its not 1962... :emot159:

Any conflicts with India will result in three results

1. Reclaiming Aksai Chin
2. Making Tibet as an autonomous region.
3. McMohan line will formally declared and accepted as border shared with China.

No single sq.km of China's territory will be claimed by India.. India never shown any interest in threatening other country's sovereignty. Liberation of Bangladesh is an example..

If it was China in the place of India for liberating Bangladesh, after the war they would have constructed port, would have provided billions of dollars as economical aid for reconstructing the war destroyed country. In addition, they would have provided a Chinese prime minister, president and a 50,000 troops to protect them.. Invariably claiming it as "Sokai Chin".... :emot15:

 

[Parthy]

What's the use of recognizing the Gov. of Tibet without recognizing it to rule Tibet!?!

Yes their plight has been raised many times...to deaf ears.

Yes, US will remain as deaf ears as far as it has no strategic interest as it has in Taiwan. :emot154:

 

[civfanatic]

I personally just want Tibet to be left alone to preserve their culture and glorious heritage.

Well, there unfortunately isn't much chance of that happening. Tibet is part of China now and it's going to stay that way. With Han Chinese immigrating in large numbers and displacing native Tibetans, within a decade or two Tibet might became as "sinicized" as the eastern provinces.

All I want to see in Sino-Indian relations are the follwing:
1. Withdrawal of Chinese claims over Arunachal Pradesh, in exchange for withdrawal of Indian claims over Aksai Chin.
2. Acknowldegement of the permanent nature of the Sino-Indian border.
3. Gradual withdrawal of Chinese support for Pakistan - if China still supports Pakistan by 2025 in a way that threatens India, India should should look to publicly supporting Japan, Taiwan, and Vietnam on their disputes with China. Tit for tat.
4. Chinese recognition of Kashmir (excluding Chinese-controlled parts) as a dispute between India and Pakistan only, and withdrawal of support to Pakistan on the issue.

Once these four points are reached, India and China can start talk about being allies and whatnot. Until then, China poses a threat to the Union of India.