In all my nodes about Tibet, I have always talked about what is best for the people of Tibet. Not what's best for the members of the theocracy that ruled Tibet before China came in.

Isn't the purpose of government to make lives better the people they govern? If they fail at that, then wouldn't they lose their "mandate of heaven" (the Chinese term for the loss of an emperor's right to rule)?

The point is, the overall people of Tibet, IMHO, has benefitted greatly from the occupation of China. There is no majority in Tibet asking for independence or dissenting. Didn't that prove that China's "occupation" of Tibet is somewhat legitimate? They certainly proved it through their deeds.

In sensei's node, Tibet's contributions to Sins of the World, he pointed out that the ruling factions of buddhist monks were no more interested in the welfare of their people than fighting with each other. Does the buddhist theocracy have the right to rule, in those circumstances? Think about it.

In nine9's counterargument, all his evidence comes from what the exiled theocracy has decreed, but not much from the needs of the common Tibetian folk. Who has more say in what the Chinese has done for Tibet in the last 50 years? The exiles who are bitter and have not been in Tibet for decades, or the common people benefitting in Tibet from Chinese help?

Just something for everyone to think about. The right of governence, I think, is lost when the rulers ignore the people so. I also see the Americans using Tibet as an example of "communist expansion" for their own political ends.

Ignore the "legality" or the "infringement of nations' sovereign rights" for a second. Not that the people of Tibet really cares, they were suffering miserably. Now, name who has suffered from China's occupation. I can't think of any.

If you reinsert those, then the only sufferers were the ruling theocracies. They fled to America, to plea about the loss of their power. During the red scare era, politicians naturally saw that as a chance to "prove" communist "aggression".

If the people benefit, doesn't that give legitimacy to the rulers? I think it does. Which is more important? 20 million Tibetians? Or 500 monks who were abusing their power anyways?