Compassion vs. Communism

Or is it peace versus authoritarianism? People tend to see them as interchangeable.

Having just seen the movie Kundun rented at Blockbuster, I cannot fathom why Mao did not want to work with the Dalai Lama to achieve their goals. The Dalai Lama was told by Mao that "religion is the opiate of the masses." Well you can believe something is awful, but what do you replace it with? Communism replaced it with the same thing America did: materialism. Americans pray to the dollar just as the Chinese now do.

Regardless how the Chinese religion has changed,the Olympics are an opportunity to rectify past and current wrongs. It could be a time when Tibet can gain meaningful autonomy. This is what they want, not an independence wrought with war against China. Allowing the Tibetan people the opportunity to speak their language openly and freely. Allowing the Tibetan people to practice the religion of their own choosing. But how are they to do this if the Dalai Lama is not even allowed to attend the Olympics?

China has decided where it stands on human rights - on the side of tyranny. Are the Olympics just another long version of the Super Bowl - just another sport to pray to the almighty Dollar? If they are, then we can send China a message through our mutual societal faith: boycotting the Olympics.

Of course, my Communist acquaintances believe that Tibet was a feudal state under the 16-year old Dalai Lama. Decades after the occupation of Tibet began, they still state their feelings word for word what the Chinese media stated in the movie Kundun. But if Communism has been so wonderful for Tibet, why do ethnic Han still have to uphold their rule by military power? Wouldn't the Tibetans welcome their liberators? I guess we only have to look at our delightful occupation of Iraq. Of course the life of Saddam Hussein and the Dalai Lama aren't anywhere near the same, regardless what the Chinese propaganda of the day is. But I don't think my Communist acquaintances will watch Kundun, preferring to read the latest on Xinhua.

Proud to have marched

Obviously there are many who still find solace in Bush claiming we can still "Win" this war. It would be nice to win, but you have to define what winning is first. Without such criteria, statements about "winning" are empty and unmeasurable.

There are multiple wars being fought in Iraq. The first was to topple Saddam and ended back in 2003. Now we are trying to "help" the Iraqis by being their friendly occupying force. Unfortunately, the many factions in Iraq do not all believe we are on their side. ( whose side are won on anyways?)

I have come to the belief long ago that wars are never winnable. You can only work to mitigate their lethality and destruction. A war is a loss in and of itself.

Most wars throughout history were for imperialistic reasons. I have no doubts that the Neoconservatives believed this war would be easy. That oil would flow freely and that democracy would flourish. Of course, we Americans want to live in a Utopia of a global span. But we have these odd means of doing it known as lethality. And then we wonder why the world sees us as the new Romans.

But I am not truly worried. Every empire falls. The world is becoming multipolar once again, and will become more so once the American economy diminishes in scale. Take the hydrocarbons from America, and you take our might.

For those that think the world will be safer without an American Empire are fooling themselves. There will be more imperialistic and resource wars than ever. What America and Europe should be doing is strengthening the United Nations and upholding Global Values. If we fail at that, as we are now, then expect those like the Chinese and Iranians to uphold their own version of values.