• Arelin@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    China invaded and annexed them.

    Again, the popular Tibetan revolutionary party fought the feudal rule and welcomed Chinese intervention; their views were in line with the rest of China, and the autonomous nature of the region while being part of China reflects that.

    the US invasion of Iraq

    Not even comparable. There were no popular pro-US movements fighting Saddam’s rule, and Iraq was destabilized in the first place because of US sanctions, not Saddam’s decisions unlike the feudalism in Tibet. This was purely a strategic invasion to set up military bases and secure oil and resources by making up false claims of WMDs.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      popular Tibetan revolutionary party

      If they were popular, they wouldn’t have needed China to invade. China was supporting them just like the US supported revolutionaries that overthrew their governments.

      There were no popular pro-US movements fighting Saddam’s rule

      The Kurds.

      This was purely a strategic invasion to set up military bases and secure oil and resources by making up false claims of WMDs.

      Their are no us military bases in Iraq and all the oil money goes to Iraq.

      • Arelin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        11 months ago

        If they were popular, they wouldn’t have needed China

        Why wouldn’t commoners in a feudal slave state not want help from a nearby government whose views match their own?

        just like the US supported revolutionaries that overthrew their governments

        The US overthrew democratically elected popular governments, like Mosaddegh’s in Iran, or Salvador Allende’s in Iraq, replacing the latter with a military dictatorship, because their policies benefitted their own countries instead of the US.

        Their are no us military bases in Iraq and all the oil money goes to Iraq.

        …What? There are still military bases in Iraq even now, and the economic dependence on the US that Iraq is now in is exactly what the US wanted/wants. ExxonMobil, Chevron etc. extracting oil for cheap from a war-torn country that doesn’t have a choice; even CNN admits it.