Quote Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Nobody has managed to point out to me how the occupation of Tibet is worse than, say, the occupation of Iraq.
Do you just run around, derailing threads for your own amusement? Is that more or less fun than crushing kittens?

However, I will play. The U.S.A. does not consider Iraq part of its natural territory. The U.S.A. does not intend to integrate Iraq into its homeland. The U.S.A. wants to get out of Iraq as soon as it reasonably can, and all of the hullabaloo you hear between political candidates over here is about when and how fast. Nobody who wants to stay or get in office is talking about an infinite occupation.

The parallels just keep ... not happening. Why do the two seem comparable to you, anyway? Is there any serious, interesting observation you can make about the congruency of the two occupations, or are you just shooting from the hip, seeing if you hit anything?