Tibet should not be free from China - currently China, a behemoth that is extremely paranoid (think Germany in say...1913) needs Tibet, and its neighboring province to keep as buffer zones against evolving Islamic, Russian, or Indian power and strategic positioning were those regions to be unguarded by China.

This is simply to say that China has created a rather stable security arrangement in its western borders by holding those regions rather than allowing those regions to be held by others - because those regions expose China's heartland to attack, while holding those regions merely walls-off China...but does not give China the ability to attack others since the borders of those regions are logistics nightmares for armies.

"Note that running along the frontier directly south of this border is one of the largest population concentrations in the world. If China were to withdraw from Tibet, and there were no military hindrance to population movement, Beijing fears this population could migrate into Tibet. If there were such a migration, Tibet could turn into an extension of India and, over time, become a potential beachhead for Indian power. If that were to happen, India’s strategic frontier would directly abut Sichuan and Yunnan — the Chinese heartland.

The Chinese have a fundamental national interest in retaining Tibet, because Tibet is the Chinese anchor in the Himalayas. If that were open, or if Xinjiang became independent, the vast buffers between China and the rest of Eurasia would break down. The Chinese can’t predict the evolution of Indian, Islamic or Russian power in such a circumstance, and they certainly don’t intend to find out. They will hold both of these provinces, particularly Tibet.

The Chinese note that the Dalai Lama has been in India ever since China invaded Tibet. The Chinese regard him as an Indian puppet. They see the latest unrest in Tibet as instigated by the Indian government, which uses the Dalai Lama to try to destabilize the Chinese hold on Tibet and open the door to Indian expansion. To put it differently, their view is that the Indians could shut the Dalai Lama down if they wanted to, and that they don’t signals Indian complicity."

Oops I tend to cite directly (I avoid URLs in the first post for spam reasons but cite by author) regardless; yes it does give them the right.

All the same the US took over New Orleans, invaded Mexico, and conquered to the Pacific ocean, all to preserve its territorial security from the possible invasiveness of European powers through the Mississippi or on the western edge of the US.

The Native Americans, and Mexicans did not want to be a part of the US...nor did the French necessarily, but a part of the US they became.

Just pure ignorance on your part, the US almost went to war with Britain in 1842 over San Francisco, that is "less important"?  The US lost 20,000+ soldiers fighting Mexico, that is "less important"?

What they prove is a stabilization of the security system, if the US were to have Spain in Florida, France along the Mississippi, and Britain along the North and even Pacific Coasts - if that even mattered given the security situation...the US would be a poor rundown pawn of European banter and wars.  Learn a thing or two about regional and geopolitics.

And China is merely doing the same to ensure a stable security system in Asia.

I understand the point you're making, but it doesn't excuse destroying other peoples unless you seriously believe that one group's rights matter while the rest don't.  And yes, the losses involved of homes, lives, and property were far greater on both sides in the endless series of "Indian" wars we fought than in the other wars you mentioned.  For one  thing we too often committed genocide, and so did Native Americans sometimes.  Don't give me those crocodile tears while excusing the similar excesses of China's governmental actions.

P.S.  Work on your civility.  I try not to deliberately insult you, but to attack the ideas I find problematic.  I'm not getting that sense from your comments.  If you want to have a productive debate, please try for more decorum.  Otherwise I'll simply ignore the thread and let you talk to yourself instead.

If caring about human rights and freedom(even of those who aren't Americans) make me a liberal, I guess you'll just have to call me one.  I however, am not the one excusing barbarous behavior.  I see that you argument boils down to "whatever is, is right".  If you accept that ludicrous premise, there's really nothing to discuss.

Best for whom?  China may be one of the great nations of the world, but it doesn't give their government the right to rule peoples who don't want any part of their governance?  Why should they be entitled to greater security at great cost of Tibetans and Turkic tribesmen?  Frankly, China has little reason to fear given its history.  Even when it's been conquered the conquerers were conquered culturally. 

Let me play a little devil's advocate here.  India is one of the great nations of the world too.  Are they entitled to dominate Pakistan to preemptively secure the traditional path of invaders to the subcontinent?  How about Russia?  Should they have the right to the Baltic nations to better secure their traditional "window  on the West".  If you make this argument for China, where does this sort of logic end and how many people are too many to injure in the process?  I understand why China does this, a basic understanding of Sun Tzu and Machiavelli teaches that, but it still  doesn't make such actions right or just.

Better for everyone if the everyone doesn't include Tibet or Turkic Muslims who certainly share the right to national self determination guarded so zealously by Chinese citizens, Indian citizens, American citizens and most every other sort of citizen.  You are ignoring the issue when you attempt to overstretch the India example.  At least half of Pakistan (this certainly includes the culturally and politically dominant areas) is within a zone of traditionally culturally Indian(for lack of a better term) territories.  Secondly comparing  the effects of a religiously split though quite culturally interlocked greater India (their chief "languages" Urdu and Hindi are considered the same language by many linguists, though written with different alphabets) is hardly the same as China for a wide variety of reasons.  Where, even granting Tibet independence, is China truly threatened?  Is it realistic to think that Russia could take and hold it? Hardly.  Russia is busy trying to reabsorb (they likely won't) formerly Soviet Central Asia, the Caucasus, non-Russian Slavs and the Baltics into their orbit.  They aren't likely to take on a project of antagonizing China anytime soon.  The idea that India or Pakistan would be in a better position to do so is even more far-fetched. given their preoccupation with each other.   Frankly the national security need is nonexistent and keeping them under Chinese authority only provides a potential for a persistent fifth column for anyone wanting to weaken China.  As long as an independent Tibet doesn't become a stooge for another regional power (in which case the government is easily toppled by China) what is the harm of allowing them to be independent?

P.S.  The first Russia example I thought of was also Central Asian and I decided for variety .. . so sue me.

China has done to do more good to tibet than bad.  in cultral revolution some bad thing were done.  but now it is better than the native america.