tonbridgebrit

12 hours ago, Morch said:

I think it's more a case of Hezbollah fervently praying things won't come to an all out war, and that it wouldn't be called upon by Iran do act as diversion.

 

I think the vast majority of people are praying and or desperately hoping that there will not be an all out war, and no military strikes.

What on earth will military strikes using American combat jets and missiles achieve ?
Is Washington going to support and back rebels in Iran, after military strikes ?  We will see a repeat of Syria, in Iran ?  Is Washington going to send American soldiers into Iran ?  Surely not ?  Surely, you yourself, are highly against sending US soldiers into Iran ?

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/iran-says-sanctions-supreme-leader-063236445.html


Okay, from the above article in the Daily Telegraph, Jeremy Hunt has said "The US is our closest ally, we talk to them the whole time, we consider any requests that they say carefully, but I cannot envisage any situation where they request or we agree to any moves to go to war. "

So, Washington, if you fight a war against Iran, Britain will not be part of it. And without Britain alongside you, you cannot fight any war.

Five nations won World War Two. Britain, France, America, Russia and China. These five are the big boys at the United Nations, they control the United Nations. America is just one of the Big Five, America on it's own has no mandate, can do nothing. Preventing a war between America and Iran makes planet earth a far safer place.

So Donald Trump has ruled out sending soldiers to Iran. This is great news, American soldiers on Iranian soil will be catastrophic. Most people still remember when Washington sent ground-forces to Iraq, the last thing we want is a repeat of Iraq back in 2003.

Now, Mr Trump, if you can also rule out air-strikes on Iran, no US combat jets and no missiles being fired, then all of us will regard you as a great statesman.

Yes Mr Trump, go and guarantee us that there will be no military action against Iran. And we will in turn, cheer on your campaign to be elected for another four years.   

25 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Except for a short term reliance on main battle systems, Japan will likely manufacture its own hardware and whatnot. They have the funds, industry, know-how and motivation. The agreement in place essentially made sure that they do not compete with USA firms, and further, buy USA systems.

Look, how about Washington pulls it's soldiers out of Okinawa ?

And once this happens, let China and Japan fight their war. Why on earth should NATO risk it's own soldiers because a load of Chinese and Japanese want to fight each other. Let them get on with it, our soldiers should not be put at risk because these people want to fight one another.

And if Japan wants to buy American combat jets and missiles, let them do it. The important thing is, is that US tax dollars must NOT be used to subsidise Japan's military. Yes, sell to the Japanese a load of weapons, but not at a price that is being partly paid for by US tax payers.

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Let's start with your post having little to do with my post, or even with your previous one. Nothing much to support the assertions made earlier, no points raised in response have been addressed. Just another rant, then.

 

I've no idea whether the Western concept of democracy is what everyone around the World is into. Parts of it, for sure. The whole package, maybe less enthusiasm in evidence.

 

It's interesting that you seem to be able to differentiate between Iran's leadership and Iranians in general in one part of your post, and then ignore the differentiation on another. So "the leadership would not be open" to democratization processes, but somehow Iran could not agree to terms (which terms these are, isn't too clear).

 

What on earth is your point ??

Do you really reckon that it's a good idea to declare war on Iran, and go and bomb and invade them ??

We know, because of the invasion of Iraq back in 2003, that bombing and fighting the Middle East countries does not actuaaly work. It's wrong, it will be a disaster.

Okay, I'm not a Muslim, but let's look at Islam.

With Islam, one of the basic principles of Islam is, is that the part of the body that carried out the crime gets chopped off. So, shoplifting, chop the hand off. It was the hand that did the crime, therefore, the hand gets chopped off.

Now, we're talking rape here. Rape, it was the penis that carried out the offence. Hence, the penis gets chopped off. As in, castration.

Let's be honest here. How many people reckon that, that these blokes should have their dicks chopped off ? Come on, admit it, you'd love to see these blokes getting their dicks chopped off. I mean, if their dicks do actually get chopped off, well, they're not going to be doing the same crime again. ????

 

Okay, right, has anybody, managed to get onto the website, and actually managed to get a Non O or Single Entry Tourist, or any other visa, from the website ?

Supposedly, it's been a whole week (starting from Monday, 17th June) now, where you can't go to the Thai Embassy in London, and get any visa. It must be done online.

Has anybody actually managed to get a visa from online ?????

4 hours ago, Uptooyoo said:

China is unilaterally annexing international waters. If the U.S. doesn't get involved and they succeed, why wouldn't other countries do the same. Maybe the U.S. should lay claim to the entire northeastern Pacific Ocean? The U.S. state of Hawaii sits in the middle, with California to the east, and Alaska to the north.

If Washington wants to claim ownership of the northeastern Pacific, let them. I don't see why European soldiers should fight against America, with the winner taking the the northeastern Pacific Ocean.

And let Canada dispute ownership of the Pacific with America, if it wants to. Canada itself was built on the mass theft of land by the French, I don't see why Britain should declare that France was wrong.

2 hours ago, Selatan said:

The US was involved in China's claim right from the start. In 1946 the US gave China 4 ships, and China sent 2 ships to claim the Paracels and another 2 ships to claim the Spratlys. China had to make the claims because the French were claiming the Paracels and the Spratyls as theirs.

 

Itu Alba, which was occupied by Japan during WW2, was renamed Taiping Island, after the Chinese name of the ship ROCS Tai Ping (formerly USS Decker) and the island is still occupied by the Republic of China (Taiwan) to this day.

 

A few months later, in 1947, China produced its eleven-dash-line claim over the South China Sea.

 

Too bad, in 1949, the Communists kicked the Nationalists out of Mainland China and established the People's Republic of China (PRC). The PRC had maintained the same eleven-dash-line claim by the ROC, but as Traubert had said, later removed 2 dashes in favour of Vietnam.

Thanks for putting up this post. This post, and the one from Traubert, shows the real history of China's claim to the South China Sea.
The truth, China had already claimed the South China Sea before Britain and France had turned up in the Far East during the 1800s. Had China formally declared ownership of the South China Sea to Britain and France back in the 1800s, well, there would be no dispute afterwards.

Mao Zedong won the Chinese civil war, and China changed it's name, from Republic of China to Peoples' Republic of China. Mao simply claimed that all land that was part of Republic of China was, from then onwards, part of Peoples' Republic of China.
 

4 minutes ago, Peterbkk99 said:

I have always wondered why Thailand does not show more solidarity with fellow ASEAN countries Vietnam and the Philippines on the South China Sea issue. Seems there is a disconnect with the photo. Does ASEAN mean anything at all?

 

The Philippines, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand ARE actually acting as a group. They are all pro-Beijing, pro-China.

It is Vietnam who is against China, it is Vietnam who is the odd one out. Yes, Vietnam should accept what the other ASEAN countries want.

And ASEAN countries want more trade with China. ASEAN countries don't want a war against China, because of this South China Sea thing.

On 6/23/2019 at 8:07 AM, Traubert said:

It was actually the Kuomintang, the later government of Taiwan, that drew the 11 dash line in 1947 and it was ratified by the UN post war after the Japanese were thrown out of Taiwan.

 

Zhou En Lai later struck out two of the dashes to cede the Gulf Of Tonkin to Vietnam, hence the 9 dash line.

 

It was only in the 1960's when oil (who'd have thought it) was potentially found under the SCS, that America (through the Philippines), the UK (through Brunei and Malaysia) and the French (through Vietnam) took any sort of interest at all.

 

It was a stalemate until UNCLOS was adopted in 1994 and then the oil greedy nations started making a din. Its nothing to do with sovereignty, it's all to do with oil.

 

China has never restricted navigation through the SCS, it was declared in the original agreement with the UN.

 

As to the shrieking about militarized islands in the SCS, Vietnam has 37, China has...........5.

 

And the US has no claim on anything in the region.

A brilliant post. The shows the inconsistency of those wanting to fight a war against China.

The Peoples' Republic of China claims the South China Sea, and this is regarded as an absurd claim. But, Republic of China (Taiwan) claims the South China Sea as well, but nobody wants to blast Taiwan.

On 6/23/2019 at 8:22 AM, hotchilli said:

Why doesn't the Navy belonging to Asian countries sink Chinese fishing boats acting aggressively.

If they say they are acting in defense of fishermen working within their boundaries they are free to do it!

America isn't the world police. (and I'm not American)

Yes, let Vietnam and China have their war. Winner takes the South China Sea.
The important thing is, is that WE don't get involved. Our soldiers are to be used to defend Europe and America. What goes on in Africa, the Middle East, and the Far East, let the locals fight it out amongst themselves.

1 hour ago, zydeco said:

It's not that times change so much, as governments make hard to understand strategic blunders.  Vietnam had doubts about China all along. The US should have allied with Ho and declared war on the French. How satisfying that would have been!

What ?? France is in NATO, France is a US ally. How on earth are American soldiers going to fire their bullets at French soldiers ?

Washington sending soldiers to Vietnam to kill some Vietnamese, the people might accept that. But sending soldiers to Vietnam, to kill French soldiers, surely, that would never have been accepted by the people of America ?

On 6/23/2019 at 4:52 AM, ChrisY1 said:

Vietnam probably is the only country to voice their concerns....Lao, Cambodia, Thailand and the Philipines have all been seduced by money from China....and China' land boundaries continue to grow unchecked.

Even Australia, the bastion of democracy (bulls__t), pussy foots about, says very little and does nothing.....well not exactly does nothing...China was gifted the port of Darwin for the next 97 years....all for $500m which has long gone with zero benefit!

Them Vietnamese, they fought a war against France. I reckon they're willing to fight a war against China.
The Vietnamese, these people will never surrender. They'ill just carry on fighting.

9 hours ago, BritTim said:

I do not think that history would prevent a Westerner getting another visa exempt entry. Neither recent time in country on tourist entries, nor the total number of visa exempt entries goes over any warning threshold. It is truly extremely unlikely that there could be a problem, and I would not spend 2,900 baht along with the hassle of an immigration office visit (that can lead to its own complications, like TM30 notifications) just to avoid something about as likely as being struck by lightning.

Right, being struck by lightning is very unlikely. So it's best to simply fly into Bangkok on the 60 day tourist visa, and fly home to England at the end of this 60 days. And do the Hong Kong day trip just days before the 60 days expires, and not bother with re-entry permit and don't bother with any visit to immigration during the time in Thailand.  Chances of being not allowed into Thailand after the Hong Kong trip are very unlikely.

Thanks for all the above comments. Some have been pretty funny.

48 minutes ago, BritTim said:

A little better would be to get the extension and then the re-entry permit before the HK trip. Immigration is liable to give your friend a strange look if asked to reinstate a permission to stay with only a day or two remaining rather then a fresh 30-day visa exempt entry. Actually, assuming fewer than six visa exempt entries since the middle of 2015, I would forget about the re-entry permit and assume the visa exempt entry will be OK.

Thanks, I see what you mean. The attempt to make yourself look more better might back-fire and cause more suspicion.
It would be best to make sure that, the print-out for the onward flight from Bangkok to London is available when entering Savarnabumi from Hong Kong. That way, the immigration officer knows that this man is leaving Thailand pretty soon. Actually, in one or two days time.

Right, thanks for your help. Man's got to think about getting or not getting this one thousand baht re-entry permit. There's been four visa exempt entries since mid 2015. But there's also four 60 day tourist visa stamps. That's four 60 day stamps, each one has a visa exempt entry after the sixty day stamp.

9 hours ago, Thaidream said:

This isn't about freedom and democracy. It's about letting China know they cannot use their size to bully their way around the World.

 

The Chinese want to control the natural resources of various countries to enable the Communist Party to remain in power and to satisy their people's needs for jobs; food and other essentials.  As long as the Chinese people are satisfied- the Party remains in control.

 

While China may believe that it has a right to claim Taiwan- it just might be that Taiwan does not agree.  The US position is that the 2 countries  negotiate the issue and the US recognizes 1 China.  However, should the Chinese invade- the US will most likely support Taiwan in some manner short of military intervention.

 

What the US really needs to do is to stop China from buying US debt and  negotiate a decline in the massive trade imbalance.  Tariffs are not the way but blocking Chinese investment in America is the way.  The US should also block Chinese students from getting educated in the US or going to the US  and purchasing any land or business.

 

In addition- the Trans Pacific Partnership needs to be resurrected as a counter to China's Belt and Road Plan.  

 

You wante to stop the Chinese- follow the money.

 

 

You have mentioned Taiwan. Beijing's attitude is, is that Taiwan will be attacked IF Taiwan declares independence. Taiwan is a de facto independent place, Beijing simply does not want Taiwan to declare independence. What about Washington's attitude ? Well, you've already said it. Washington itself has declared that it accepts the one China policy. That means there will not be two Chinas. And indeed, I agree, planet earth must never accept two Chinas. There's only one China, Peoples' Republic of China, the other one is Republic of China (Taiwan) , and planet earth must never accept that Republic of China is "a or the" second China.
So, if Taiwan carries on being a de facto independent place, well, China won't invade. And Washington doesn't have to start World War Three, as long as Taiwan does not declare independence.  So, we accept then, that the danger is, is that Taiwan is going to declare independence ?

You also mentioned the Trans Pacific Partnership. What can I say. I'm not actually against it. The TPP is basically about building a wall, with China on one side, and America and a load of Pacific Rim nations on the other side, with regards to trade. Now, it was Obama's big idea. Notice that Hilary Clinton did not talk loudly about the TPP in the election battle with Trump. That's because she knew that the TPP is not actually a popular idea with Americans. Bernie Sanders was openly against the TPP. As for Trump, he's against it as well.
Americans are against the TPP. It's not because they are against isolating China. It's because they don't actually want to be in a giant free trade zone with a load of Pacific Rim countries.

I really do think the TPP will never happen, because, because most Americans are actually against it.

5 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

He wouldn't have a problem. To avoid any stress he could obtain an extension and a reentry permit. That way makes it 1 million % (Thai speak)

Hello there.
You mentioned the re-entry permit ??  Thanks for saying this, and I've done a bit of reading about it.

Okay, how's this ?  Fly into Thailand with the 60 day tourist visa. Get that re-entry permit, costs 1000 baht, during the holiday. Now, the 57th, or 58th day of the holiday, fly from Bangkok to Hong Kong for this day trip.

On flying back into Bangkok from Hong Kong, immigration will notice the re-entry permit and will certainly allow this man into Thailand, surely ? One million per cent.

And, the flight from Bangkok to London, that's already been booked to fly one or two days after the Hong Kong day trip.  So, guaranteed to be allowed into Thailand at Savarnabumi, and that means being able to fly from Bangkok to London. Am I correct ??   ????

38 minutes ago, onera1961 said:

If he is not living in Thailand and the trip to HK is not a ruse to get another 2/3 months into Thailand, there should not be any problem entering Thailand. 38 million people enter Thailand and we don't know how many are denied entry. Assuming it is 38 thousand, it is only 0.1% It cant be more than that. 

Well, it's more about paranoi and worry, about being not allowed in because it is an airport, Savarnabumi Airport. If it was about coming back in at a land border, the worry wuld be far less.   ????

47 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

What does this man's passport look like? How many entries into Thailand have been stamped into this passport?

During the last four years, there's been four 60 day tourist stamps. One per year. And after each 60 day tourist stamp, there is a 30 day visa on arrival, but they are all from land borders, not any airport.
So, that's roughly three months per year, for the last four years. This is not a man who stays in Thailand on a permanent basis.

2 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Unless he has other reasons to go to Hong Kong it would be best to apply for a 30 day extension of there 60 day entry at immigration.

It should not be problem entering unless he has done several 30 day visa exempt entries before.

But this man needs to go to Hong Kong for a day trip. The last 30 day visa exempt entry was about eight months before the 60 days holiday.
And thanks for your comment, greatly appreciated.

Hello.
Okay, a British man with a British passport is in London, and gets a 60 days tourist visa at the Thai Embassy. He flies into Thailand, no problems.
At the end of his 60 day stay, he flies to Hong Kong or Singapore for a day trip. And then enters back into Thailand on the same day, at Savarnabumi Airport. He only wants a short stay stamp (30 days) . He's got his flight ticket to go home to England pretty soon after coming back into Thailand.

Now, what are the chances of the Thai immigration staff not letting him back into Thailand, at Savarnabumi Airport ? Surely, the chance is zero ?

And prior to the 60 day holiday in Thailand, the man was not in Thailand for about eight or nine months.