h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Oh for goodness sakes it's been about politics for years. Hence the Chinese didn't get the 2000 Olympics, which went to Sydney. We Brits accepted it was all about politics. The French showed some stupid film about Paris, like some silly tourism film, made by one of their well known establishment directors They were overwhelming favourites to get 2012.

We showed a brilliant film, made by an almost unknown film maker which emphasised the multi cultural aspect of London, and showed sentimental images of kids in the developping world lookiing at a TV of the London Olympics, and feeling inspired. We got Blair and his wife glad handing the delegates days before the decision was made. Shirac turned up on the last day and gave some silly pompous old fashioned speech.

We got masses of black kids from the east end of London coming to the decision making conference to give their views on London winning. We got all our athletes there of the many races from the UK.

And so against the odds we whipped the French. And got the Olympics for London in 2012. I reckon it might be pretty special. Brits always turn up in big numbers for sporting events. There won't be any empty seats, like we've seen at previous Olympics. It'll be brilliant, and I don't want anything to spoil how good it will be.

>>It's not the same situation<< Zagreb

No, it's not. And if you dropped your dearly held prejudice about my world views then you'd have realised that I never said they were the same situations.

the way for china to improve its human rights issues is to lock the dissidents away on an island without any charges being brought and then water boarding them, how could the US then condem them.....?

If that is what it is all about then why not use the Olympics as a political tool and get the really crappy countries with a crappy human rights record to really do more than pay lip service when competing for the right to host the games?Beat them over the head with it UNTIL they do achieve a reasonable level of decent behaviour and true democracy.


Sorry too many rights in that sentence but I'm tired and it's late...

What is Xinjiang and why is it free ?

I suppose no-one wants to pay for it so they're having to give it away.

If it's freedom you're talking about, it's usually the people who have the least who end up paying most dearly. I image the monks who spoke up for freedom at the Jhokang Temple in Lhasa are paying a pretty heavy price already. Check this out:

http://www.studentsforafreetibet.org/article.php?id=1414

<-- himalayan poppy

To

I WOZ ONLY JOKHANG


M8*

Had a look at your link http://www.studentsforafreetibet.org/article.php?id=1414

They're staking everything on trying to raise awareness of their repression under Chinese rule.

With China becoming ever more influential, there are implications for all of us. We've seen how Russia behaves towards dissenters beyond its borders (Litvinenko, a British citizwn, poisoned in London). The spectre of a repressive China with tentacles around the globe is chilling.

Our failure to act now on behalf of Tibet reminds me of the famous words, (paraphrasing a bit) "They came for the Jews, but I did not speak out for I was not Jewish, etc..."

Example of Chinese posters' failure to understand freedom of speech, calling for people to be punished for their views posted on H2g2! http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F1822737?thread=639982&post=61425931#p61425931

Or is Tibet better off as part of China?

It should be up to the Tibetans, not the chinese or any one else. And I think they have shown their preference. Given a full opportunity, probably so will the Uighurs, Manchus, Uyghurs, Kazhaks, Mongols, Tujias, ... The state can terrorise people only for so long. The tragedy is, many will die because of terrorist state actions, a la Hitler, Stalin,... and unfortunately now communist china?

Before China invaded it was a poor country run by priests who lived in palaces.

The same could be said of Quebec or any number of places... except the part about being invaded by China.

I have admittedly never been to Quebec, but I didn´t get the impressions it is a theocracy.

The important question is, if China left Tibet would they get a democratically elected goverment or would the lamas return to rule?

No, but it was until well into the second half of the 20th Century.

The Government in Exile has a democratically elected parliament. I'm sure that Tibetans would insist on nothing less, given a choice.

There was an interesting report on ABC Radio National (Australia) last week all about the history of Tibet.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/rearvision/stories/2008/2200921.htm

Thanks for that link. There's quite a lively debate about Tibet going on here: "tibet was, is and forever will be a part of china." http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F1822737?thread=5247891&latest=1