Avaaz - a petition against Chinese occupation of Tibet

[Wesley1982]

In the U.S.A. thats why we have God or Creator in the Constitution protecting human rights.

[Son of Buddha]

In the U.S.A. thats why we have God or Creator in the Constitution protecting human rights.

What are you talking about????god nor a creator protects our human rights,nor did the god and creator protect the WW1 veterans human rights when our gov. attacked our own veterans cause they didnt want to pay them the money owed to them.

human rights are always protected by Blood,sweat and tears,and someone almost always has to die for those rights to be upheld and protected(DR. King/gandhi/mandela/Abe lincon/ect........

[conebeckham]

The whole idea of "Human Rights" is a relatively new thing.
No one, but ourselves, defines them, and no one, but ourselves, protects them.

Signing a petition is no "magic act," per se....but it is an expression of one's own personal stance on an issue. And,as Catmoon said:

Governments, if they are wise, keep tabs on the ebb and flow of public opinion. For instance, if the Chinese were to see western public opinion moving strongly against them, at some point they would have to act in order to save international trade and diplomatic relations. The petition is in that sense additional pressure

.

[Blue Garuda]

I don't know how many of 'the Chinese' approve of the occupation of Tibet, nor how many share the perspective that it is a part of China.
Lines on the map move, 'countries' are defined by the lines and given a name. Do they care?

I don't know how many support massacre so they can use tiger body parts, nor what value they place on life in general.

I don't know how many support rapid industrialisation and pollution.

I do know that as long as other countries need China more than China needs them, those in charge of China need take no notice at all of anyone.

Don't their banks now own the USA and most of Europe?

Sign the petition to show that you care - but sadly I don't think 'China' gives a flying firkin.

[Wesley1982]

In the U.S.A. thats why we have God or Creator in the Constitution protecting human rights.

What are you talking about????god nor a creator protects our human rights,nor did the god and creator protect the WW1 veterans human rights when our gov. attacked our own veterans cause they didnt want to pay them the money owed to them.

human rights are always protected by Blood,sweat and tears,and someone almost always has to die for those rights to be upheld and protected(DR. King/gandhi/mandela/Abe lincon/ect........

In this part of the USA country - especially my area; it is very constitutional - protecting rights, freedom, and liberty for all.

In other foreign countries though, the situation may be different as reported on the news.

[Wesley1982]

Don't their banks now own the USA and most of Europe?

There might be major contracts for purchasing tracts of land but it is people that make up a country - and we evolved out of slavery. So no, wealthy banks cannot own people or a nationality.

[practitioner]

Don't their banks now own the USA and most of Europe?

There might be major contracts for purchasing tracts of land but it is people that make up a country - and we evolved out of slavery. So no, wealthy banks cannot own people or a nationality.

Not to mention that the Chinese only own 8% of USA's publicly held debt. That's a lot, but a far cry from "owning the USA"

That said, it is enough to make this happen...

[Wesley1982]

What is specifically happening in that photo? . .(The Dalai Lama just got through with a meeting?)

[practitioner]

It was after a meeting with Obama at the White House where no photos of the two together were allowed and the Dalai Lama was led out the back door by the trash bins so there wouldn't be a nice photo of him at the White House because the Chinese were mad that the President would meet him. A few years ago he was given the Congressional Medal of Freedom by George Bush, now he gets sent out the back door by the piles of garbage.

[practitioner]

I guess main point being. If the US gov't won't even meet publicly with the Dalai Lama it has no plans on doing anything about the horrors in Tibet.

[Son of Buddha]

In the U.S.A. thats why we have God or Creator in the Constitution protecting human rights.

What are you talking about????god nor a creator protects our human rights,nor did the god and creator protect the WW1 veterans human rights when our gov. attacked our own veterans cause they didnt want to pay them the money owed to them.

human rights are always protected by Blood,sweat and tears,and someone almost always has to die for those rights to be upheld and protected(DR. King/gandhi/mandela/Abe lincon/ect........

In this part of the USA country - especially my area; it is very constitutional - protecting rights, freedom, and liberty for all.

In other foreign countries though, the situation may be different as reported on the news.

MY REPLY:yes its very constitutional for YOU and PEOPLE to protect our human rights,writing the name god on a peice of paper doesnt protect anything or insure we keep our human rights in our future.

[Wesley1982]

I guess main point being. If the US gov't won't even meet publicly with the Dalai Lama it has no plans on doing anything about the horrors in Tibet.

It is probably because it will cause more tensions between the US and mainland China if US gov't shows public support for the Tibetan cause.

[Wesley1982]

MY REPLY:yes its very constitutional for YOU and PEOPLE to protect our human rights,writing the name god on a peice of paper doesnt protect anything or insure we keep our human rights in our future.

The USA has sent its troops around the world as a stabilizing force in certain countries that don't have a constitutional mandate.

[Son of Buddha]

MY REPLY:yes its very constitutional for YOU and PEOPLE to protect our human rights,writing the name god on a peice of paper doesnt protect anything or insure we keep our human rights in our future.

The USA has sent its troops around the world as a stabilizing force in certain countries that don't have a constitutional mandate.

yes we sent TROOPS and what does that have to do with a god protecting our human rights??

is the troops or the god the ones protecting our U.S. constitution and human rights??

also our troops are rarely ever used as a stabilizing force to help anyone.we have toppled more 3rd world democracys than we have ever created.in the name of securing our intrests who do you think trained osoma bin laden and Al qadia??who do you think helped put saddam in power??do you think libya got all that shinny new equipment from thin air??the guns said made in russia shiped by U.S.A.

Will tibet ever be free???
NO the best that can be done is to ask for a sharing of govering power,and to infiltrate the communist party with reformers it can only be fixed from the inside,also you dont want a civil war,or war with china period the last thing we need is 1.3 billion people in war and anarchy.yep that will take aVERY LONG TIME you want something done now hope a military general performs a coup,and sets up a GOOD goverment,or you'll end up with a junta which is what most our people already live under anyways(not much better)

[Bhusuku]

The USA has sent its troops around the world as a stabilizing force in certain countries that don't have a constitutional mandate.

Nowadays the US government is sending armed drones as a "stabilizing force" in certain countries...

[Bhusuku]

also you dont want a civil war,or war with china period the last thing we need is 1.3 billion people in war and anarchy

Please, don't use the word "anarchy" here in an deprecative way. I guess what you mean is anomie. I just mention this 'cause I've seen even professors from political science and international relations departments who didn't know the difference between "anarchy" and "anomie", which is really sad and disturbing.

[Son of Buddha]

also you dont want a civil war,or war with china period the last thing we need is 1.3 billion people in war and anarchy

Please, don't use the word "anarchy" here in an deprecative way. I guess what you mean is anomie. I just mention this 'cause I've seen even professors from political science and international relations departments who didn't know the difference between "anarchy" and "anomie"...

yes you are correct

anarchy can also be used in a good term for a just change of an repressive goverment.
what i meant was choas and destabilisation which lewads to rapes murder lawlessnes,and gangs sezing territory till and actual "athority" is set up and exstablished,kinda like what we did to iraq during the invasion times 40(citizen chaos) and the police wont stop it cause they are in fear of being considered military or recistance also.

peace and love

[Dechen Norbu]

It was after a meeting with Obama at the White House where no photos of the two together were allowed and the Dalai Lama was led out the back door by the trash bins so there wouldn't be a nice photo of him at the White House because the Chinese were mad that the President would meet him. A few years ago he was given the Congressional Medal of Freedom by George Bush, now he gets sent out the back door by the piles of garbage.

This is a freaking shame, that's what it is.
However, I suspect that because GB is right wing he did his best to affront Communists, thus giving the Congressional Medal of Freedom to the Dalai Lama. It's not that he held dear any of his ideals of peace and compassion. That would be hard to reconcile with his political decisions while he was in the WH.

[Bhusuku]

anarchy can also be used in a good term for a just change of an repressive goverment.
what i meant was choas and destabilisation which lewads to rapes murder lawlessnes

You know, that's exactly my problem when "well educated" people in our "free" societies use the term "anarchy" - they generally use it as an equivalent to total chaos and lawlessness, but it isn't. Even those poor folks who are studying political science at the universities have no clue about what anarchy really means. It's a kind of taboo in our "democratic" societies, since our leaders fear nothing more than anarchy. You can discuss monarchy, communism, dictatorships and even criticize democracy, but anarchy - no way - it's just bad and ugly and awful and terrible. And the reason is this: all other political systems are structured around very few people who are ruling the rest. And as long as the majority accepts to be ruled by a dominant minority, everything's okay. But as soon as the people want to think and live independently, our leaders are telling us we're too stupid and ignorant, hence we need a shepherd to guide us poor "sheeple", otherwise we're destroying ourselves and the "good" life that we have. But the fact is, even the stupidest among us "sheeple" is in no way more stupid than our leaders are. Therefore our leaders are poisoning our minds with the idea that anarchy is intrinsically bad. And of course, if we learn from childhood on that anarchy means total chaos and lawlessness, no one will bother to learn more about such an dreadful idea... Anyway, to me it seems that anarchy is one of the last taboos in our "free" societies, and it was arranged in way to make it certain that if anybody's ever talking about anarchy, it will be in an deprecative and negative way. But I'm completely here so I'll stop...

[practitioner]

The USA has sent its troops around the world as a stabilizing force in certain countries that don't have a constitutional mandate.

You can't be serious. Iraq is stable? Afghanistan is stable? Libya is stable? Yemen is stable? Pakistan is stable?