TIBET

[Matt Kidd]

JayB

Gains need not be merely in the resource sector. Gaining geopolitical advantage and maintaining/expanding spheres of influence are also important. That said, I could never see the US getting involved in Tibet. Just as in the Cold War significant powers generally avoid interfering in each other's established spheres of influence unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

[Fairweather]

It'd be one thing if constantly attributing the basest possible motives to every single action this country takes were even accurate, but it's not. I invite you to start counting at the Revolutionary War and work forward, and tabulate how many military interventions which [you believe] were motivated by nothing more noble than a simple desire to for material gain.

 

List the wars and the probable material gain that [according to you] that served as the foremost motive for participating in them in each case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll play devil's advocate:

 

Revolutionary War: Yes. Triangular Trade and Brit interference therein. (Stamp Act)

 

War of 1812: No.

 

Mexican American War: Yes. Territorial gain. Engineered by massacre of Americans in disputed territory. We get...the entire American southwest. Feel guilty and pay $$$. (25 million?)

 

Civil War: No.

 

Spanish American War: Yes. Sugar. Cuba. Philippines. Control. Colonialism.

 

WWI: No.

 

WWII: No.

 

Korea: No.

 

Vietnam: No. (Spare me the tin-market bullshit.)

 

Grenada: No.

 

Panama: No. (We lost control of our dog.)

 

Gulf War I: Yes. Kuwaiti Oil. Stopped threat to Saudi Oil supply.

 

Iraq: Yes. Regional influence/demonstration of power all related in some way to the free flow of oil. (IMO)

 

 

Edited March 17, 2008 by Fairweather

[Matt Kidd]

What would your list look like if you included geopolitical considerations?

[prole]

I'll play devil's advocate:

 

Revolutionary War: Yes. Triangular Trade and Brit interference therein. (Stamp Act)

 

War of 1812: No.

 

Mexican American War: Yes. Territorial gain. Engineered by massacre of Americans in disputed territory. We get...the entire American southwest. Feel guilty and pay $$$. (25 million?)

 

Civil War: No.

 

Spanish American War: Yes. Sugar. Cuba. Philippines. Control. Colonialism.

 

WWI: No.

 

WWII: No.

 

Korea: No.

 

Vietnam: No. (Spare me the tin-market bullshit.)

 

Grenada: No.

 

Panama: No. (We lost control of our dog.)

 

Gulf War I: Yes. Kuwaiti Oil. Stopped threat to Saudi Oil supply.

 

Iraq: Yes. Regional influence/demonstration of power all related in some way to the free flow of oil. (IMO)

 

 

This is a devil's advocate position? Whatta maroon.

[dmuja]

As far as I know, Tibet doesn't have any oil or other seriously strategic resources. I suspect our government is not likely to get involved.

 

Yeah - we'd roll right past the PLA if they had oil.

 

It'd be one thing if constantly attributing the basest possible motives to every single action this country takes were even accurate, but it's not. I invite you to start counting at the Revolutionary War and work forward, and tabulate how many military interventions which [you believe] were motivated by nothing more noble than a simple desire to for material gain.

 

List the wars and the probable material gain that [according to you] that served as the foremost motive for participating in them in each case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_history_events

 

 

With maybe a few exceptions, basically, the U.S. intervenes militarily when any of 3 things are at risk; American Lives, American property, American "interests" (last one open to interpretation). Of coarse in this day and age of nukes and great risk of global conflict we would not even consider to intervene militarily on behalf of the Tibetans.

 

The Chinese care about this issue to the extent that the world is watching - and as it enters the age of economic warfare. They (China) are commies yes, and commies only know force its true. But they are trying to also understand and use the modern force of economics to exert world dominance and beat the West at its own game. The Chinese are a bit vulnerable in this way of economic power because people/nations can still choose to not do business with them. "Image" is still be important in business and right now Chinas image is taking a hit.

 

The Tibetans and their supporters have to keep taking advantage of this situation if they want to "benefit" (not the right word) as a culture in some way and that is why the Dalai Lama is not calling for the protests to stop despite the loss of life potential I think.

 

BTW, Unfortunately, (this is just my uneducated opinion) the U.S. (through greed mostly) is apparently choosing to sell most of its economic power off for a quick buck or two. We are getting weak and a few of us are getting fat. Eventually we may realize that we need some sort of self regulation/legislation which mandates that global business be conducted with an eye toward protecting long term American interests over unrestrained personal wealth. In other words, as the Chinese are moving more toward capitalism, in the coming age of economic power, the U.S. may have to adopt a bit of socialism if its going to avoid becoming the "American Autonomous Region" of China.

 

My bumper sticker of the day.."TAX THE RICH, KEEP AMERICA STRONG"

[dmuja]

wouldn't it then logically follow that, accordingly, the chinese oppression is simply a consequence of past karma, negative karma at that, and the way through (as with all karma) is to become witness to the manifestations with no attempt to change or rectify it, beyond following the 8-fold path?

 

hmmmmm.....

 

 

Ok, the following may be quite boring and annoying to non religious philosophy majors so be forewarned:

 

As for "Karma"..

 

It can be said that many Tibetans view their current predicament as being a manifestation of karma, of past "wrong actions" you might say, however, in higher Tibetan Buddhist philosophy "karma" is a bit different than say Hindu karma. It is a complex subject (boring to say the least unless you enjoy studying the stuff - I did for a while) but the chase is basically that ones karma can be changed or influenced in another direction thru wise (enlightened) thought and action. Ie, Karma is not set in stone. Becoming a "witness to the manifestations (of karma) with no attempt to change or rectify it" is not really correct.

 

What I studied of Buddhist phi mentioned 2 aspects of reality simultaneously always present. 1, conventional (physical measurable reality). 2 Ultimate (empty, non-"self" existing) reality.

 

Karma is number 1. It is the "cause n effect" process of life, or more correctly of what is our experience across many lives. We have to interact with karma because we live in its midst, everything we experience as practical/conventional reality is simply put, karma.

 

The ultimate truth or ultimate nature of karma (and our selves) though is that it is empty of being anything actually substantial and independently real (this is where it differs from Hindu karma) so it ultimately is rather "dream like."

 

And so, because karma is an empty process, it can actually exist because only a process that is empty can actually exist as a process. Got it???

 

Take home lesson is that a wise person engages life as though every single moment is precious and meaningful, but realizes it is but momentary and without ultimate meaning (not at all the same as "meaningless" btw).

 

 

[sexual_chocolate]

Becoming a "witness to the manifestations (of karma) with no attempt to change or rectify it" is not really correct.

 

i did go on to mention in that sentence the "prescription" of the 8-fold path, which delves into an entire rich process for engaging one's life wisely inre to "karma" (which literally means "action", i believe).

 

 

[sexual_chocolate]

You don't remember yourself before you could speak?

 

i have one memory, when i plugged some keys into an electric outlet. i think i was 2. but i think i spoke a little by then....?

 

i don't know how serious my ramblings are, but i do know that my life experiences as of late have been mediated by an overly active thought process! i think it might be time to start meditating regularly again....

[mattp]

Yeah - we'd roll right past the PLA if they had oil.

 

It'd be one thing if constantly attributing the basest possible motives to every single action this country takes were even accurate, but it's not. I invite you to start counting at the Revolutionary War and work forward, and tabulate how many military interventions which [you believe] were motivated by nothing more noble than a simple desire to for material gain.

 

Jay, I could spend hours on your homework assignment here, and the results would be as dmuja suggests above, that we go to war for (1) resources, (2) geopoolitical "influence" and (3) where American lives are at stake. There will be few examples of any war we undertook for humanitarian reasons, despite Fairweather's apparent assertion that those were our motives in Vietnam (I guess he was assuming fighting communism there was for their beneifit not ours).

 

But I'd actually be interested to see you state a coherent position here. What do YOU think is the prospect for a free Tibet? What do YOU think our government should do about it?

 

Take off that pimple face and stop throwing spitballs and tell us what you think. See if you can take a stand in a clear fashion where you can't back peddle out of it if somebody questions something you write.

[AlpineK]

I'm sure you're right to some degree about the, "average Americans," view of Native Americans. However there have been quite a few, "nonnative," Americans who have put a lot of effort and time into fighting to improve the Indian's lot in life. I've seen a bunch of time and support given to Indians by whitey right here in the NW.

 

As far as the Tibetans go I don't think they want a government like other countries. They just want a little control and say over their land.

[carolyn]

As far as the Tibetans go I don't think they want a government like other countries. They just want a little control and say over their land.

 

More importantly I think they want to be able to practice their spiritual beliefs more freely.

 

Not the greatest news source, but I was glancing at the Yahoo update. Interestingly enough they have an "ethnic Tibetan" speaking on behalf of the chinese government about protesters needing to turn themselves in and what will happen to them if they do not.

[carolyn]

wouldn't it then logically follow that, accordingly, the chinese oppression is simply a consequence of past karma, negative karma at that, and the way through (as with all karma) is to become witness to the manifestations with no attempt to change or rectify it, beyond following the 8-fold path?

 

hmmmmm.....

 

 

Ok, the following may be quite boring and annoying to non religious philosophy majors so be forewarned:

 

As for "Karma"..

 

It can be said that many Tibetans view their current predicament as being a manifestation of karma, of past "wrong actions" you might say, however, in higher Tibetan Buddhist philosophy "karma" is a bit different than say Hindu karma. It is a complex subject (boring to say the least unless you enjoy studying the stuff - I did for a while) but the chase is basically that ones karma can be changed or influenced in another direction thru wise (enlightened) thought and action. Ie, Karma is not set in stone. Becoming a "witness to the manifestations (of karma) with no attempt to change or rectify it" is not really correct.

 

What I studied of Buddhist phi mentioned 2 aspects of reality simultaneously always present. 1, conventional (physical measurable reality). 2 Ultimate (empty, non-"self" existing) reality.

 

Karma is number 1. It is the "cause n effect" process of life, or more correctly of what is our experience across many lives. We have to interact with karma because we live in its midst, everything we experience as practical/conventional reality is simply put, karma.

 

The ultimate truth or ultimate nature of karma (and our selves) though is that it is empty of being anything actually substantial and independently real (this is where it differs from Hindu karma) so it ultimately is rather "dream like."

 

And so, because karma is an empty process, it can actually exist because only a process that is empty can actually exist as a process. Got it???

 

Take home lesson is that a wise person engages life as though every single moment is precious and meaningful, but realizes it is but momentary and without ultimate meaning (not at all the same as "meaningless" btw).

 

Karma is definately a more complicated concept than what I first thought it to be. I try to see it as cause/effect, event/reaction/event.

 

If I am late to work and someone in front of me is driving too slow I may get mad. That frustration or anger will cause me to think and act in ways that will likely produce MORE events to my disliking, possibly at work. Those events may carry over into my ride home and how I treat others on the road...and so on. Over time it all accumulates UNLESS I am able to change my thoughts to produce what I might consider more favorable Karma. And on it goes through my entire life, carried on from past lives and continued on to future lives (depending on how I experience my death).

 

When they say repeating phrases like, "Oh mani padme hum" reduces negative karma or increases positive karma it is only because it is known to put you in a mindstate that allows you to be in the moment and/or react in a more compassionate manner.

 

So....the way I see this recent outburst in Tibet related to karma MAY have to do with their reaction to built up anger, NOT that they deserve it from past lives. Im sure there are plenty of other factors involved in this situation/karma as well.

 

Just my thoughts - though never complete and possibly not accurate.

[G-spotter]

Why aren't we campaigning over East Timor?

 

Umm.. cause East Timor is its own country now?

[Fairweather]

Why aren't we campaigning over East Timor?

 

Umm.. cause East Timor is its own country now?

 

Reality and/or current events aren't one of his strong suits. Matt would prefer to go around calling others "pimple-faced" and putting words in mouths re Vietnam. Soon he will claim that it is he who is being maligned and personally attacked.

[JayB]

Yeah - we'd roll right past the PLA if they had oil.

 

It'd be one thing if constantly attributing the basest possible motives to every single action this country takes were even accurate, but it's not. I invite you to start counting at the Revolutionary War and work forward, and tabulate how many military interventions which [you believe] were motivated by nothing more noble than a simple desire to for material gain.

 

Jay, I could spend hours on your homework assignment here, and the results would be as dmuja suggests above, that we go to war for (1) resources, (2) geopoolitical "influence" and (3) where American lives are at stake. There will be few examples of any war we undertook for humanitarian reasons, despite Fairweather's apparent assertion that those were our motives in Vietnam (I guess he was assuming fighting communism there was for their beneifit not ours).

 

But I'd actually be interested to see you state a coherent position here. What do YOU think is the prospect for a free Tibet? What do YOU think our government should do about it?

 

Take off that pimple face and stop throwing spitballs and tell us what you think. See if you can take a stand in a clear fashion where you can't back peddle out of it if somebody questions something you write.

 

This is a much different conclusion than the one you put forth with your categorical statement stating the only reason that the US wouldn't intervene militarily on behalf of Tibet is because they aren't sitting atop a significant concentration of natural resources. Of course nations wage war for "resources" more generally, but the number of instances in which the only, or even the most significant variable at play in the strategic calculations is physical control over a salable commodity constitute such a minority of cases that one has to wonder why people trot out this trope over and over again. As a theory to explain the history of American millitary interventions throughout history, it's about as accurate and intellecutally honest as the oft cited claim that the only reason why we haven't "cured cancer" is that "there's too much money in the disease."

 

The prospects for a free Tibet are zero. China has succeeded in creating facts on the ground such that are beyond any other nation's power to reverse. The only significant, lasting changes in Tibet that will occur are those that occur with the consent and approval of the Chinese. End of story.

 

You know this as well as anyone, and you are also aware of the fact that the Tibetans themselves are hardly unanimous in their desire for specific political changes or how to secure them. Instead of addressing these realities, you repeated the same lame, mendacious cliche. Why?

 

The only thing that anyone - the US government included - can do for the Tibetans is to attempt to create a political consensus in China that would be more favorable to granting the Tibetans concessions and protections that would enable them to pursue their own ends within the Chinese political system. The other side of the same coin would be letting the Tibetans know that violent uprisings are likely to be not only futile, but counterproductive measures that will only make it more difficult to secure whatever gains that they hope to achieve.

 

 

 

 

[JayB]

See if you can take a stand in a clear fashion where you can't back peddle out of it if somebody questions something you write.

 

Comment sent to the "Museum of Irony" for storage in its "Hall of Fame" collection.

 

 

[G-spotter]

Is "back peddling" anything like "influence pedalling"?

[mattp]

This is a much different conclusion than the one you put forth with your categorical statement stating the only reason that the US wouldn't intervene militarily on behalf of Tibet is because they aren't sitting atop a significant concentration of natural resources.

 

So where did you get the idea I was talking only about military intervention when I said we were not likely to get involved? Is that the only type of "involvement" we might undertake?

 

Thanks for answering my question about waht do you actually think about the idea of a movement for a free Tibet. It seems you more or less agree with the basic premise of my posts above. Now you can continue to sling the insults or sarcasm if you feel the need. Consider this my stock response: "I know you are, but what am I."

 

Are you really suggesting that we generally go to war for reasons that do NOT have to do with geopolitical influence or resources or, god forbid I'd introduce another possible motivation: business interests? Why don't you do some of my homework for me and list all these great moral wars we've embarked on where we had no political or economic interest in the outcome.

[Dechristo]

American film crew kept from protests in Tibet.

[JayB]

This is a much different conclusion than the one you put forth with your categorical statement stating the only reason that the US wouldn't intervene militarily on behalf of Tibet is because they aren't sitting atop a significant concentration of natural resources.

 

So where did you get the idea I was talking only about military intervention when I said we were not likely to get involved? Is that the only type of "involvement" we might undertake?

 

Thanks for answering my question about waht do you actually think here. It seems you more or less agree with the basic premise of my posts above. Now you can continue to sling the insults or sarcasm if you feel the need. Consider this my stock response: "I know you are, but what am I."

 

Are you really suggesting that we generally go to war for reasons that do NOT have to do with geopolitical influence or resources or, god forbid I'd introduce another possible motivation: business interests? Why don't you do some of my homework for me and list all these great moral wars we've embarked on where we had no political or economic interest in the outcome.

 

I'm suggesting that you can't accurately understand the history of US military interventions around the world as a series of conflicts designed to secure physical control of salable commodities. If this is a gross misrepresentation of the views encapsulated in your original statement, feel free to disavow it at your leisure.

 

If you bundle in your "we only go to war to seize natural resources" article of faith/innuendo in with "political and economic interests" then you've made a statement along the lines of..."Prove that I am not the reincarnation of Napoleon *AND* that the sky isn't blue."

 

Of course nations don't often go to war when there's no significant political or economic interests at stake. The fact that this is so doesn't lend any support to your position that the only, or even the principal, motive behind US participation in wars has been to enrich itself via seizures of natural resources or territory, much less that it's all been orchestrated by whatever devious cabal is presently haunting your imagination.

[mattp]

JayB, I said I don't think our government is likely to get involved in any Free Tibet effort because there are no valuable resources involved, and I stand by that statement.

 

If Tibet was located just outside our border, say in Mexico, it might be different. If it happened to be in an important location - say next to the Panama Canal or in the middle of Europe, things would be different. But a backwater place with no big resource value and of no apparent strategic import unless we want to get in the middle of some future war between China and India? I don't think it likely that Bush, McCain, Clinton, or Obama are going to get too heavily involved except maybe make a reference to it on the campaign trail or some oblique reference in a press conference dealing with other issues. Are we going to arm the rebels? Call for serious sanctions? I doubt it. And you seem to agree.

 

I have not argued that, as you summarized my writing "the only, or even the principal, motive behind US participation in wars has been to enrich itself via seizures of natural resources or territory." Clearly, that has not been the case. The last time that we seized natural resources or territory through a war effort was - what? The Spanish American war? Or maybe the Pig war?

 

Go ahead and continue with the snide remarks. I'm sure you are really impressing lots of folks here. As to my very active imagination? I imagine a political discussion where you didn't feel the need to be snide. I doubt it will ever happen, though.

Edited March 17, 2008 by mattp

[prole]

As I'm sure you know Jay, such a simplistic line of questioning will never produce the smoking gun. What seems to missing here is a recognition of the unique form American imperialism takes in distinction from earlier European forms based on the acquisition of formal territories and direct resource extraction. While the US certainly engaged in classically imperialist adventures (particularly in the early 20th century) it's more informative to consider post-WWII US imperialism in terms of the American role in the management of capitalist crises, global policeman, and leader in the expansion of capitalist markets (of course, with American capital in a privileged position), and cultural hegemon. It's done this through any number of military, diplomatic and economic tools at its disposal from invasion, to foreign campaign finance to structural adjustment to embargo. When, where, what tools are appropriate to meet American geopolitical and economic goals are the questions. That American state seeks to extend and maintain a dominant economic and political position with respect to the rest of the world should be a given.

[JayB]

Seems like an apt summary of the above would be "Adjectival Imperialism."

 

I pretty much agree with your analysis of the manner in which the US has wielded power, but have to observe that it differs substantially from the classical definitions and the conventional understanding of the term "imperialism."

 

I think that where we'd part company is that I think that - given the available alternatives that were on the table between 1939 and 1989 - the American imperialism that you describe has been quite a bit better for humanity than the probable outcomes would have been if either the Axis powers or the USSR had prevailed.

 

 

 

 

[JayB]

JayB, I said I don't think our government is likely to get involved in any Free Tibet effort because there are no valuable resources involved, and I stand by that statement.

 

If Tibet was located just outside our border, say in Mexico, it might be different. If it happened to be in an important location - say next to the Panama Canal or in the middle of Europe, things would be different. But a backwater place with no big resource value and of no apparent strategic import unless we want to get in the middle of some future war between China and India? I don't think it likely that Bush, McCain, Clinton, or Obama are going to get too heavily involved except maybe make a reference to it on the campaign trail or some oblique reference in a press conference dealing with other issues. Are we going to arm the rebels? Call for serious sanctions? I doubt it. And you seem to agree.

 

I have not argued that, as you summarized my writing "the only, or even the principal, motive behind US participation in wars has been to enrich itself via seizures of natural resources or territory." Clearly, that has not been the case. The last time that we seized natural resources or territory through a war effort was - what? The Spanish American war? Or maybe the Pig war?

 

Go ahead and continue with the snide remarks. I'm sure you are really impressing lots of folks here. As to my very active imagination? I imagine a political discussion where you didn't feel the need to be snide. I doubt it will ever happen, though.

 

These are welcome clarifications, Matt. From now on when you say "valuable resources" I will take it as a given that you are referring to "strategic significance" and not to anything more tangible or concrete than that.

 

[ZimZam]

Is "back peddling" anything like "influence pedalling"?

No, but it does tend to throw the chain off my sprocket.