Tibet 1903 - Iraq 2004 Weapons of Mass Deception

Huh? Weren't they responsible for the borders of Israel/Palestine, and India/Pakistan/Kashmir ... in other words, the two most likely sources of apocalypse in the world?

That was at the decline of British power and influence, you should have seen what the Brits did here in Canada. The Brits didn't decide the borders of Israel/Palestine that was the UN. India/Pakistan had decided on their own that they should be two independent states, and the only issue btwn the two is Kashmir and that had nothing to do with the Brits. The Hindu "King" of Kashmir joined Hindu India regardless of the fact that the majority of the population was Muslim. The British merely couldn’t afford the costs of empire anymore and just wanted to leave both areas.

Thersites

Tibet, and the question of what the Tibetan view of "sovereignty" was. Inner Mongolia and Tataristan are now parts of China- essentially because their natives once ruled China!

This is why I find the angst over Tibetan independence to be not only disingenuous but ignorant. Just look at these:

Inner Mongolia:

23 Apr 1934- Mongols in Inner Mongolia establish autonomous Mongolian
Federation (or League).
22 Dec 1935- Independence declared.

East Turkestan
1928 – 1944- Autonomous from Chinese central government.
12 Dec 1933 - 6 Feb 1934- Islamic Republic of Eastern Turkestan (in rebellion, also known as Uighuristan or Turkish Islamic Republic of
East Turkestan).
16 Jan 1943-Re-incorporation into China declared.
12 Nov 1944 - 16 Jun 1946- East Turkestan Republic (in rebellion)
Jun 1946- Reincorporated into China
1 Oct 1955- Creation of Xinjian-Ughur Autonomous Region.

Yet we complain about a country that never even asserted it’s independence?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Really? Jack Straw would disagree.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2481371.stm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But hey, the French have also never gotten enough blame. The Treaty of Versailles was the single most important cause of World War II, and they've continued to exert a paternalistic, psuedo-imperal influence throughout Africa while at the same decrying the United States' attempt to exert a paternalistic, psuedo-imperial influence throughout the world.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Balfour Agreement was instrumental in establishing Israel, and as for Kashmir, the British didn't do anything to exacerbate the problem, but they didn't do anything to solve it.

Doesn’t he know that the Balfour declaration was actually rescinded by the UKin 1939? The Brits officially pulled her support for Zionism after the 1939 White Paper, and thus defacto giving it to the Arabs. The UK couldn’t do much in Kashmir anyways; it was independent of her control. The king of Kashmir was given the opportunity to choose and he choose India. Yes the UK’s imperialism has caused seriously problems internationally with odd borders, and creating pseudo-states. Mr.Straw is partially correct, but it was the UN who decided Israel/Palestine, and the UN also passed a resolution pertaining to Kashmir that has not been respected (a Kashmiri referendum). Britain deserves blame surely, but not as much as you assert.

 

Undecided - okay, that's what I was wanted to hear.

The king of Kashmir chose India after Pakistan invaded.

 

A apporiately timed article on Tibet/China:

And so much more...

 

The king of Kashmir had the job because the British rewarded one of his ancestors by making him king of Kashmir, despite most of thge population not sharing his religious beliefs.
"When Mr Balfour gave the land of israel to the jews, he did not know that anyone already lived there."- Dean Inge