Re: Is a 'Free Tibet' a possibility?

On Sun, 11 May 2008 23:16:51 -0700, Yu wrote:

> On May 12, 1:37 pm, netvegetable <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 08:36:55 -0700, Yu wrote:
>> >> It is like claining New York city to be part of Chin because there
>> >> is a Chinatown in New York and some Chinese in New York city want to
>> >> be Chines citizens.
>>
>> > The NED is now sup****ting the Xinjiang separatists and more recently
>> > sup****ting South Mongolia separatists. South Mongolia is the name for
>> > Inner Mongolia.
>> > CIA's dream is take out 70% of China's land.
>>
>> Do you know it's a distinctive trait of third world, totalitarian
>> ****holes, that they blame foreigners for almost all their problems?
>>
>> It's true. You'd think there was absolutely no problem Zimbabwe, Burma,
>> or the PRC that can't be attributed to the CIA.
> 
> Read this declassified CIA do***ent and see how the CIA paid the Dalai
> Lama US$180,000 a year for his service to the CIA.
> http://www.intellnet.org/do***ents/700/040/744.html


Nearly half a century ago I see. Long before Nixon went to visit Mao, 
back when Taipei was the recognized capital of China, and the PRC was 
behind what we called the "Iron Curtain".

> Welcome if you have
> any more question. Sure every country has problem, yet USA doesn't try
> to help the Natives of USA and prefer to spent millions on Radio
> FreeASia to incite violence in Tibet.

I have a question. Whatever the CIA's alleged involvement, you don't 
think that shooting Tibetans, and locking them up for speaking their 
minds might also be contributing factor to the violence there?

http://tinyurl.com/6gtm9e

http://tinyurl.com/6zkq2o

http://tinyurl.com/6fycff


> What is you opinion about CIA's global activities?

I think that back in the 60s, they were very active globally. Back then 
you got CIA activities like Operation Phoenix, where CIA went into 
foreign countries, and attempted to actively influence the politics 
there, by bribery, blackmail, and even assassinations.

You will find that most of their operations in this period were failures. 
They're really not very good at getting political outcomes.

The reason they were active in the field then, is because this was 
shortly after America's "Red Scare", during which a lot of skilled 
diplomats from the US State Department had been marginalized as 
"communist sympathizers." Into the power vacuum strolled Allan Dulles and 
CIA, offering to advice Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon 
on how best to deal with foreign policy difficulties, mostly involving 
leaving it to them. So the CIA were free to have boy's own adventures, 
blunder around the planet killing people, and generally exacerbate the 
very problems they were being paid to solve.

These days, ever since Richard Colby's admissions before Congress in the 
late 70s, CIA has been reigned in considerably. I suspect that they do 
still have active agents in the field, but the average CIA agent will be 
some sort of bespectacled analyst, at home in Wa****ngton. They may or may 
not come up with reliable intel, but we saw in Iraq how this intelligence 
is subject to an awful lot of political interference, depending on who 
it's being ac***ulated for. On that basis, I suspect they're mainly just 
another useless government department.

-- 
A: Top posters
Q: What's the most annoying thing on usenet

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are 
conservatives."- John Stuart Mill