Especially given that I've been more than respectful in presenting the counterpoint, and that at root, the source of dissension is as much one of interpretation of fact as it is one of ideological beliefs. We've had similar discussions on Afghanistan (where I've actually been at) and held the undoubtedly just as unpopular view on this matter that Afghanistan would have been far better off if the Saudi Americans and their mujahideen proxies had been defeated by the Soviets and Najibullah, while bad, was far better than who (and what) came thanks to the Saudi Americans.

For me, this is a very similar discussion at the ideological level. Same part of the world, too, buffer areas of hardscrabble between very large and competing regional imperial powers (one of which you current reside in). And, while the Dalai Lama presents an admirable, sympathetic, noble face for his people and his cause, I think you know that as he has moved more and more towards inclusionary, progressive views of the future and of relations with Beijing and the Han people who live in Tibet, the exile community has in inverse proportion gotten quite nervous about him. This brings to the fore the obvious question of who succeeds the Dalai Lama after his death, and what all of this means to future progress, plurality human rights and human gains not in this decade, but in future decades as well.

Again, I really do not appreciate being called a liar.    

 

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill