US occupation of Iraq vs. Chinese occupation of Tibet.

[DrWeird]

Which is worse?

[el_gato]

1. that's a crazy question, they are both wrong

[Downtown Hound]

2. Both are crimes against humanity

But the Chinese occupation of Tibet has been far more bloody, at least from a historical perspective.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

3. It depends on which aspect you look at

The Chinese occupation of Tibet has been longer and more repressive, with such factors as moving large numbers of ethnic Chinese into the area (a technique Stalin used when he moved ethnic Russians into the Baltic republics) to dilute local resistance, as well as imposing Chinese law and language on the Tibetans.

However, at least the Chinese can claim that Tibet was one of the historic tributary states of the Chinese empire. (You'll find that even anti-government Chinese believe that China has a right to be in Tibet for this reason.)

The U.S. has no historical justification, not even a flimsy one like that, for being in Iraq.