Spielberg snubs Chinese Olympics

The Baghdad you are referring to in the opening was Baghdad repressed by a single dictator, who did not allow the cultural or religious expression of any of the various sects.
As a result of UN sanctions, UN corruption, European corruption, and Iraqi corruption, the Iraqi people were being denied adequate nutrition and medical care, and infant mortality was very high.
Once the USA military forces disengage, Iraq's various and divergent sects and interests will have to come to terms with each other, and find an Iraqi way to do that.
Stated otherwise, there is no "Iraq", there was never an Iraq --- the people there are muslim Arabs ... they have never gone through a humanist Renaissance, the Protestant reformation, the enlightenment, or nationalist revolution ... they have always been one of various different sects ... so they will have to develop a nationalist consciousness ... based on the sharedness of being Iraqi --- whatever that will mean! The American removal of Saddam Hussein will just have been the first step.
Again, no comparison to Tibet. Tibetan sovereignty and cultural identity were well established, unique and, if you're familiar with its history and culture, an inspiration to the rest of the world --- all destroyed by a barbarous and degenerate people that carve the penises off of dogs to ingest, inter alia.

No, lets; Otherwise one is left to sink in a morass of European nihilism, and it keeps us moored to reality.

Without that anchor to objective facts and values, anything is possible -- even the defense of the indefensible. Then, anything is possible -- up is down, and down is up.

Without recognizing with whom one is dealing, one can then engage and do any number of things, unreal though they may be, and then delight in a great accomplishment. Recall the euphoria at the creation of the League of Nations; Recall Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler.

I really don't see any significance the referenced UN Covenant or any other UN Covenant, given the actuality of what the UN has proven to be.

The pre-eminent document in that regard, remains the Bill of Rights enshrined in the US Constitution.

American Indians were not US citizens -- I don't see the relevance here.

Kent State is also outside the scenario described; It was not an occasion of political demonstration and protest; There had been rioting, looting, and vandalism that had overwhelmed the local police force, and required the calling of the National Guard. (If my community were going up in flames, my neighbors' and my houses and cars being burned, I would have called for the National Guard.)

The next day, there was talk by both the Governor of the State and the University Dean for the calling for a cessation of the planned protest, and many of the National Guard were under the impression that they had been granted the responsibility for maintaining order in that situation.

When the gatherings began, the National Guard were in fact, being menaced by rioters, and so, fired to protect themselves. Again, fired to protect themselves -- they were being menaced, and it was totally appropriate was the finding of fact and law in different civilian courts; They did not fire to end the protest.

Again, no comparison to China.

Waco -- also known locally (here in Texas) as whacko.
If you believe in some sort of conspiracy theory here, you are being misled by the sort of basketcase mentality that bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City, and cited the killing of the little children in that building as "collateral damage".
The facts of this case are muddled, but the record is clear; within the compound David Koresh had amassed a stockpile of weapons, including rapid-fire automatic weapons, and explosives; had articulated a demented vision of doomsday, that required allegiance of his followers in that final battle, there were reports of possible mass-suicide pact, etc.
There was, in fact, a very real danger to the citizenry, from an obvious mental case.
A lot of innocent people were probably spared -- so across the area, people were relieved the problem and the danger had been eliminated.
Protecting the citizenry -- isn't that the job of law enforcement?
While a lot of the details remain muddled, on the whole, the actions were probably correct.

Again, no comparison to China.

Mistakes by China? --- Looks like actual Chinese policy; It IS actual Chinese policy!

The occasion for Mao's quote was in the context of the strategy he was pursuing in rapprochement with the West, a legacy being pursued by the successor regimes, however, I'm having trouble locating the text of the details ... will have to follow up on this one, but it was not in the theoretical context you are describing

Monitoring doesn't constitute censorship

The US will be leaving Iraq; Will China be leaving Tibet?

Domestic political appeasement?

As far as I know, the US public was not requesting the invasion of Iraq; If the Chinese citizenry were requesting the invasion of Tibet, I doubt the PRC leadership would have cared.

Again, the US forces will be leaving Iraq; Will the Chinese evacuate Tibet?

The US government is shooting US citizens for being Americans?!?!?!

"Loud mouths" means giving voice to thoughts contrary to the Chinese regime, and being executed as a result -- how can you be so airy about it?

The government of the PRC is also responsible for propping up the military dictatorship in Burma, contending with Zimbabwe for the title of worst governed country on the planet.

When it's done for the intent of enforcing behaviour based on fear of retribution, yes it does.

You don't think there was popular support (as well as much dissent) for this, and beforehand Afghanistan. Where you living in a cave?

You don't appear to understand the meaning of political appeasement, the actions taken don't necessarily need to relate to the problems at had. For example, Argentina invaded the Falklands primarily because the Junta was unpopular and had screwed up the economy not because they were asked to. Appease one problem with the solution to another.

You asked for a comparison, I gave you one (illegal occupations). Again you're clearly unable to distinguish between analogy and comparison.

Where did I say the US Government was shooting Americans for being Americans? I was talking about Americans being killed in Iraq (and elsewhere) merely for being American, and being there. This was in response to the initial Iraq connection by another poster. Which I had explained and you either missed, or ignored.

You're free to assign whatever definition of 'Loud Mouth' you wish, of course but as you merely threw in the term without any context so it's hard to use your definition this way now, isn't it.

The correct term for what you're describing is dissent, sedition etc, volume isn't always a factor. I don't know what you mean by my being 'airy' again you will need to explain the origin of that one.

Do you always think in such a linear fashion?

I am unaware of any instances where criticism of George Bush, and his policies, foreign, or domestic, are being curtailed by monitoring of internet postings, or behavior.

Compare and contrast that with internet access and postings in the PRC.

Again, no comparison.

At the time of the initial incursions into Afghanistan, the support that existed was in striking back at the Taliban, holed up in Afghanistan.

The American public clearly distinguished Afghanistan from the Taliban;
Definitely more problematic was the incursion into Iraq; and again, I am among those who do not feel it was necessary, indeed something of a disaster and abuse of US military power.

I am well aware of using one diplomatic or military action to try to resolve another, having studied for my Bachelors and Masters in Political Science and history ... so I'm curious about the logic of the stratagem that you imply existed -- could we have an elaboration?

These I think clarify our respective positions and don't deserve further dissection

You think I mean the sort of bitching and whining that occurs in online fora such as this one? Don't make me laugh.

I'll also add - you assume that I was only referring to or considering America - a little of that America-centric thinking going on there?

Again with the compare and contrast - this isn't a junior school term paper.

Your thinking appears very linear, constrained by what you think you see in front of you and it seems, a naive belief that cause and effect apply, Newtonian fashion when applied in the socio-political arena.

Now for an analogy of the way you and I seem to consider this issue; a comparison of apples and oranges may lead one person (me in this example) to the conclusion while they appear quite different, on closer inspection they are in fact both fruit, and have many characteristics in common. Another (you in this example) may conclude that they are in fact totally dissimilar merely by virtue of having a different outward appearance and look no deeper, dismissing the process with "no comparison".

Finally - you just did compare (and contrast), so can you not see your final comment is somewhat nonsensical. I don't think this conversation is going anywhere as we're clearly considering this on two very different levels, but thanks for the time.