Now if W. was wrong about the Iraqis greeting us as liberators in the long term, at least initially, a lot of them were rightly glad to be shut of Saddam and the Baath Party. But not even for one brief, riotous, museum-looting period did Tibet find China's affections agreeable.
By an account of the Tibetan Government in Exile, 1.2 million Tibetans have been murdered as a result of China's 'Great Leap Forward.' And lest we congratulate ourselves as Americans for not slaughtering nearly that many Iraqis in our latest escapade, we did turn our back on Tibet and allow it to happen in the interest of splitting the Sino-Soviet relationship. Good ol' Nixon, if you ever think he couldn't have done more harm, you just haven't read enough history.
Now, if you think I'm being disingenuous by comparing China's occupation of Tibet with our occupation of Iraq, it's true up to a point. But that point isn't quite where you'd think. China has been busy lately touting what a benefit it is to Tibet.
One of the articles I saw included a bit about how the Chinese Govt' was displaying a helmet used to hold a person's head still while their eyes were gouged out as proof that Tibet was more brutally run by the Dalai Llama than by Chairman Mao and his successors. I'm not sure under what circumstances a Tibetan might expect to be blinded, and certainly it's not the sort of tool a culture should be proud of, but if Red China has to reach that far to make itself look good by comparison?
Sorry, I've got my boot on your throat and I'm about to rape your sister, but it's for your own good.
The right wing maniac in me has to point out, however, that Tibet's problems underline the flaw of pacifism. I'm not pro war, far from it, but when you take the position that there is never a situation where you have to resort to violence to defend yourself, you're a sitting duck for the many, many others who don't share that view.
As the old libertarian saw goes, if the First Amendment doesn't work, the Second will.
No comments:
Post a Comment