Those numbers are debatable; it's disingenuous to pick and choose doctored numbers by a lying tyrannical Chinese government and some of the more liberal estimates in Myanmar. 'Violent protesters' carries a negative connotation; as if they were using harmful violence. The protesters in Tibet are no more violent than those in Myanmar. And even if they were, can you blame them?

I know I'd be pretty goddamn violent if a tyrannical nation invaded, occupied, and attempted to ethnically cleanse my country. By all rights they would continue to have the moral high ground even if it were a violent resistance.

I fail to see the alleged logic in this. It seems you like to peddle the lie that our economy is somehow dependent upon China's? Despite the persuasiveness of the doom and gloom sayers, we're still the most powerful economy on Earth and can quite suffice without the shitty mass produced toxic crap that comes from China.

In actuality, China's economic development is highly dependent upon the United States and the west. We have a lot more leverage than they. The Chinese care a lot what we think. But so long as our governments are more interested in expanding business into the opening vast Chinese market than standing up for our sovereignty, the sovereignty of occupied countries, or human rights then the Chinese don't have much to worry about.

It's when foreign governments stop saying the Chinese should "exercise constraint" in their putting down of Tibetan non-violent resistance (thereby effectively sanctioning it) and start saying that Chinese should recognize Tibet's sovereignty and they should recognize universal human rights when the Chinese need to start being worried.

Had today's global socio-economic climate been applied to the times of WWII, then we probably wouldn't give a crap about the occupation of France and much of Eastern Europe, because it would be so economically beneficial to trade with the Nazis.