Tibet was a very brutal theocracy before the Chinese took over.

It's kind of ironic that the Chinese occupation did have a liberalising effect. However this does not excuse the invasion, the occupation or the continued oppression of Tibetans by the Chinese government. I think it is important to support the people of Tibet free themselves but not support the Dalai Lama or the monastic regimes. I'm very much pro-Tibet in some respects but for the people, not the old powers that were overthrown in 1951.

brutality in itself doesn't necessarily make a regime unpopular with the people.  the old tibetan regime may have been brutal, and the chinese are certainly brutal, but there is one key difference: the chinese are not tibetans, and the majority of the tibetan people desire the dalai lama's return.

it's too western a viewpoint to see only a dichotomy between theocracy and secular government in this case.  never mind the fact that it's problematic to call buddhism, even with the shamanistic tibetan stamp, "theistic" to begin with": to see what the dalai lama represents as merely "theocracy" is to completely fail to take into account what the dalai lama represents for the tibetan people, and that is tibetan identity.

east asian culture is historically very conservative and protective of its traditions.  for example, it is well known that by 1945 the united states could have had the surrender of japan without either a prolonged pacific campaign or dropping atomic bombs, if they had simply agreed not to depose the emperor, whom the japanese considered sacrosanct.  this concession would have cost the US absolutely nothing, yet they refused, and thus caused untold suffering.  why, with the japanese traditionally being a pragmatic and syncretistic people, did they insist on this one condition?  not for reasons of religion, the institution of the emperor predating buddhism and perhaps even shinto, but because under all the western clothes and the western military, the emperor represented the immutable identity of japan.

the dalai lama is something similar for tibet, though not completely the same.  it is true that his role is more overtly religious than the role of the japanese emperor.  however, he also represents, in a single person, the protest of the tibetan people against foreign occupiers, and their continued existence as a distinct people.

if we in the west truly believe all our high-flown oratory about national and popular sovereignty, the people's right to self-determination, etc., then we must admit to ourselves that, were a referendum held today, it would unquestionably be the will of the tibetan people for tibet to be a sovereign state with the dalai lama as its titular head, perhaps in the same way as the ayatollahs are in iran.

if this is indeed the will of the people, then we in the west, as long we identify ourselves as democratic, cannot without being labeled as hypocrites oppose any revolution to make the will of the tibetan people a reality, even if it be a violent one.   if in its place a brutal theocracy is established, as long as the tibetan people desire it to exist, it will exist, and no foreign nation will have a right to interfere.  when they no longer desire it to exist, let them dispose of it, but once again, no foreign nation will have a right to interfere.  bleeding hearts can make a mao or a george w. bush just as easily as greed or prejudice.

absolutely not.  that's why i was very careful to say "we shouldn't OPPOSE a revolution," rather than "we should SUPPORT," as well as mentioning several times that no outside country has any right to interfere, no matter what the circumstances.  and even when i say "shouldn't oppose" i pretty much just mean "shouldn't talk shit in the world media about tibet and say they have no right to be independent."  until tibet establishes a sovereign nation, this is an internal affair of the sovereign nation of china, and must remain so.  if tibet does establish a sovereign nation, it will of course have all rights to make treaties and alliances with any other nations if its independence is ever threatened again.

now, i'm not an absolutist in any sense, and a nation's "sovereignty" is not a sacred, inviolable principle any more than any other.  but, from a purely pragmatic viewpoint, violating a nation's sovereignty got us into the shit storms of korea, vietnam, and iraq, none of which ever accomplished anything.  thus, speaking purely in scientific terms, it is highly probable that violating china's sovereignty would get us into yet another useless shit storm--scientifically speaking. 

really?  because i actually talked to a guy from seoul once and he thinks the way the western capitalist stooges in seoul conscript labor from the south korean countryside is despicable, and in a way worse than anything kim jong-il does, because at least kim jong-il doesn't give you the illusion you're in a "free country."  the world bank and corporate america are nothing more than the negative image of the comintern.  just how many times have you opened the newspaper and read about some fat billionaire south korean businessman who's facing imbezzlement charges?  where do you think all that money came from?  the sky?  it came from the sweat of korean villagers, same as all of kim jong-il's money.

besides, just what do you think the US accomplished in korea?  anyone who's read beyond the public high school textbook bullshit version of the conflict knows that the cease-fire had nothing to do with the might and right of the great US military machine.  who were the americans fighting?  i got news for you: most of those troops weren't north korean but chinese.  the reason the conflict ended was because troubles at home forced mao to stop starving the chinese people to pour money into backing, or rather overlording, kim il-sung and negotiate the cease-fire.  need i remind you there was no victory. 

we didn't "save" the south koreans.  internal conflicts within the chinese communist party did.  had we not gotten involved, mao never would've gotten involved, and kim il-sung's revolution may never have triumphed, since it is well known that mao used the korean conflict to draw the US into an indirect military engagement with china and thus justify to the international community china's acceleration into a military superpower.  i suggest reading "mao: the unknown story" by jung chang and jon halliday.

you're right there, will.  what people in the west don't get is that asians, and particularly east asians, are very communally oriented.  they don't see the point in liberal individualism and even before mao et al. they valued the subordination of the individual to the good of the community.  the dalai lama very well might not bring "peace" in the liberal democratic idealist sense (freedom of speech, the press, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, the nra, hallelujah...) but he will signify the return of the tibetan identity, which is what the tibetan community desires. 

Pure garbage. It's not to say that in Asian culture, community is not to be valued, but your generalizations are frankly absurd. I've lived in Asia for 11 years, I still do, been to every country in Asia except for North Korea and Burma, speak two Asian languages (Mandarin Chinese and Japanese), and would be unable to truthfully say "Here, in Asia, they don't see the point of individualism" . The dichotomy "Westerns favor individual liberalism, Asians favor communalism" is precisely the stereotypical understanding present in the West! Hence you've shot yourself in the foot. By virtue of thinking that you somehow "get" something, you've fallen into precisely the Western stereotyping you've just belated! Irony...

wow.  if you want to argue something, that's fine, but i don't need argument plus asshole attitude, thanks.

i don't pretend to "get" asian culture.  a., if you look CLOSELY at the thread, you'll see i was trying to back up will, not arguing that i "get" anything, b., i clearly didn't say "individualism" but "liberal individualism," i.e. the american/western european view that the individual's rights should be inviolable, and c., the only reason i said this was because i've read it in the writings of east asian authors, among them daisetz suzuki and, i'm fairly certain, jung chang (one of the co-authors of the new mao biography/exposee), so why not go tell them they've "shot themselves in the foot"?

and of course it's a generalization.  show me a historian or ethnographer who doesn't generalize.  if they didn't generalize, every history book would be ten fucking thousand pages long.

congratulations on your linguistic achievements.  i speak slovak, have been to almost every central and eastern european country, and have lived in slovakia for four years, but if you ever want to make a "generalization" about the czechs or slovaks, you're welcome.  i might disagree, but i won't be a smartass.