tonbridgebrit

7 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

The problem with lying is that soon everybody will stop believe ever single word you say. Can we trust anything China says anymore? 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/30/whats-going-south-china-sea/?utm_term=.3cabec88a183

"The problem with lying is that soon everybody will stop believe ever single word you say. Can we trust anything China says anymore? "

Do you reckon that lots of people feel that your comment can very easily be applied to the US government's foreign policy ? I mean, Washington has started and fought a whole load of wars during the last few decades. And they constantly claim that these wars are being fought, to spread freedom and democracy. What's the real reason as to why Washington is creating and doing these wars ? Surely, we all know that spreading freedom and democracy is an excuse that Washington uses. Most people do actually reckon that the US government doesn't really care about spreading freedom and democracy across planet earth.

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Got to love that in your propaganda-like posts, the USA is reduced to Washington. How come countries you support aren't called Beijing or Moscow? Whatever.

 

Morch, I use the word "Washington" and not "America" because I want to make it clear that I am not criticising the American people, I am criticising the US government. Yes, Washington means or denotes the government of the USA. I've got nothing against the American people. About a third of all Americans are against the US government's foreign policy. And those Americans who support their government's foreign policy, well, a fair number of them people don't realise that Washington is using the media to create a false image of planet earth.
As for Russia and China, most people reckon, "look, the government or the people there are being criticised, well, it makes hardly any difference".  As in, criticise the Chinese government, or criticise the people there, most people feel it makes no difference.


Hostility between these countries ?
Morch, this post is actually about Washington telling China "look, you carry on with your foreign policy in Asia, we, Washington are going to attack you, we'ill fight a war against you". Surely, you accept that ?  And indeed, a small number of people here on ThaiVisa are "cheering on Washington talking about war against China". Some people reckon that Washington should have declared war on China earlier, about two decades earlier.
Now, Russia, they're not exactly threatening to declare war on China, because of China's policy in Asia, surely you accept that ? Are Russia's military ships sailing near the Chinese built islands ? Off-course not. It's Washington who is ordering it's ships to sail close to the twelve mile radius of some of these islands. Russia is not doing this.
And if we see Russian ships sailing close to the Chinese islands, without permission from China, well, yes, we can then say that Russia is also threatening action against China. They're not doing it.


And what about hostility between Washington and Russia ?  Well, that civil war in Syria, surely, you accept that it was a proxy war between America and Russia ?  As in, Russia backed Assad, Washington certainly did not. Washington backed some of the rebels, the rebels, they were against Assad. Hence, a proxy war between Washington and Russia.

On 6/1/2019 at 10:57 AM, Morch said:

 

Fantasies are free. China isn't going to "join" with Russia or vice versa.

Morch, do get real.

During the Cold War, Washington hated Russia. Washington didn't nuke Russia, because Russia would have fired it's own nukes. The Cold War is over, but we know that Washington and Russia are still fighting proxy wars. To suggest that America's nukes are aimed at Russia would be putting it lightly.

What about China ?  Washington has disliked Beijing ever since Mao Zedong defeated Chiang Kai-Shek in the Chinese civil war. There are a few crazy people in the White House right now, who are trying to make it look like that "China is a threat to world peace".  China is not a threat to world peace. But people like you are refusing to declare that "China is NOT a threat to world peace".


So, Washington actually wants to fight against both Russia and China. To suggest that Russia and China would rather combine to defend themselves against America, rather than fight against America as two seperate parties, that's putting it lightly.

I mean, so America fights Russia and China. What, so Russia and China will fight against America, but Russia and China will not coordinate their military action ? Stop being silly.

6 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Because in the case of the West and East Germany, East Germany's economy was dysfunctional. . And of course East Germany was a police state. Is Taiwan's economy dysfunctional? And it's not Taiwan that's the police state, is it?

I don't really want to talk about Germany, because the issue of Germany simply confuses the issue, and it's not the same thing.

The point I'm trying to make is, is "IF you are part of a nation, just because you want to break away, that does NOT mean that you must be given permission to do so". 
Let's apply that with consistency.  An area that's in the southern bit of the USA, or South East England. The capital city has the right to declare that the attempt to break away is illegal. And I back and support Washington and London, if they want to fight a war to stop whatever bits that want to break away. From that, I support Beijing's attempt to stop Taiwan declaring independence.


Actually, back to Germany. Prior to 1945, there's no way that the Berlin government would have given permission for any part of Germany to break away from Germany.

4 hours ago, GinBoy2 said:

@tonbridgebrit I'm confused by your logic

 

I raised the issue of Chiang Kai-Shek being a brutal dictator because somebody else correctly raised the issue. The issue was not raised to justify my point.

You want to talk about Germany. Germany was divided after World War Two, they're back to being a single nation. How about the two Chinas do the same thing ?

My first point is about the creation of Taiwan, how it actually came about. I live in South East England, what if South East England wants to declare independence ?  Break away from the UK, or Britain, or England ? Off-course, the London government can refuse permission, or they can grant permission. Just because you want to break away and form a new country, well, that doesn't mean to say that you can. This applies to every bit of land. If the Southern States in the USA want to break away, that don't mean to say that Washington must grant them permission. Washington is allowed to fight a war and not let them break away. And indeed, I would support Washington in such a war.

And what IF South East England breaks away, and London declares it as being illegal ?  If 40 years goes by, and the new South East England is a better place to live in than the rest of the country, does that make it's creation legal and legitimate ?  Off-course not, if it was illegal to break away, well, it will still be illegal in several decades times.

30 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Why should America fight to stop a Chinese invasion of Europe but not of Taiwan? Because of a technicality about independence? Taiwan functions as a fully independent nation.. Morally speaking, that's enough to justify a fight. Of course, moral considerations are far from the only reasons to consider when going to war. 

I'm trying to say, if we look at how Taiwan was created, how it came about, the legitimacy of Taiwan is questionable. Why should America fight to stop a Chinese invasion of Europe, but not an invasion of Taiwan ?

Well, that's because America and Europe are in NATO.  Republic of China, Taiwan, is not in NATO.

"Of course, moral considerations are far from the only reasons to consider when going to war." I would change that comment. Washington makes it look like that the wars are being fought for moral reasons, they're not, the wars are fought for economic reasons, like oil.

17 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

First of all, who says they didn't get involved because it was wrong? Could be other motivations. And 70 years have passed. The situation is starkly different from what it was then. Back then, Taiwan was ruled by a brutal warlord, Chiang Kai-Shek.  Today, Taiwan is a genuine democracy where citizens are free to criticize the government without fear of losing "social credits" and can engage with the world and its opinions as they please. Whether it's worth fighting to defend them from an invasion by the increasingly Orwellian government on the mainland is another question entirely. But if waging war was to be decided strictly on moral grounds. there would be a very strong argument for waging it on behalf of Taiwan.

America and the rest of the world did not send soldiers into the Republic of China, prior to 1949, to fight against Mao Zedong. Why ? Well, this would have meant American and British soldiers fighting there, in a Chinese civil war. The Russians would probably have sent Russian soldiers to fight alongside Mao Zedong, and this would have created World War Three. Why on earth start World War Three, because one bunch of Chinese in China (Republic of China) don't like another bunch of Chinese in China ? There's was one lot calling themselves Communists under Mao Zedong, and one lot called the Nationalists under Chiang Kai Shek. It would have been catastrophic, a nonsense disaster, if the rest of the world (America, Britain, France, Russia, Japan) had of sent soldiers to fight them Chinese.

And today, we're seeing two groups of Chinese having their dispute, and planet earth is suppose to risk World War Three because they (them Chinese) want to fight each other ??


I love the bit when you talk about Chiang Kai Shek being a brutal warlord. You're correct. He butchered loads of Chinese communists in China prior to 1949. He fled to Taiwan in 1949, he lost the Chinese civil war. When he fled from mainland China to the island of Taiwan, was he "leaving a country, and entering into another country" ?
Or, was he leaving one part of the Republic of China, and entering another part of the Republic of China ??
If Mao had of attacked Taiwan in 1949, or 1950, would it have been part of the same civil war that was happening in mainland China ??

And indeed, when Chiang Kai Shek fled to Taiwan in 1949, he ran the place for a couple of decades. Most people don't know this, he was a brutal dictator during the early part of his time in Taiwan.

1 hour ago, GinBoy2 said:

Having lived in both Taiwan & China I totally agree.

 

How any Westerner would advocate the invasion of free democratic country, and Yes I do consider Taiwan a country not a province, by a totalitarian regime which suppresses it's citizens human rights, freedom of speech beggars believe.

 

Remember the regime in Beijing, currently has ~1 million Uighurs locked up in 're-education' camps.

 

...is that 'foolish' too?????

Nobody is advocating Beijing attacking "Republic of China, Taiwan" today. What Beijing is saying is, IF Taiwan declares independence, then Peoples' Republic of China will invade Republic of China.

Republic of China is not declaring independence. It has not declared independence so far. From 1949 to the present day, Republic of China has not declared independence. Let's hope they never do declare independence. And if they do, do you reckon it will be a good idea if NATO soldiers are sent in, to risk their lives ?

If China invades Europe or America, yes, fight to stop the invasion. But one bunch of Chinese fighting another bunch of Chinese, let them do it. I reckon it's nothing to do with Europe or America, so, let them get on with it.

1 hour ago, car720 said:

It is not a breakaway state.  The legitimate government of China fled to Taiwan with the aid of foreigners in order to survive the onslaught of the Bandit King.  Civilized Chinese flee to Taiwan.

Hello there.

I've noticed a whole load of your posts on ThaiVisa, and I agree with a fair number of your posts. But this time, with a grin, I'm going to say something negative about your post.

Okay, you putting up this post, you're part of the anti-mainland China group with regards to Taiwan. Now then, this comment, you've made a mistake, and I say it with a smirk on my face.


See, the main strategy of the pro-Taiwan guys is, is to bury or forget history, and to NOT focus on how Taiwan was actually created. And once people zoom into how Taiwan came about, well, Taiwan's legitamacy is questionable.



So, a quick bit of history here. Japan beat China in a war in the 1890s, and forced China to surrender the island of Taiwan. In 1945, Japan lost World War Two, and Japan was forced to hand Taiwan back to China. In 1945, China's name was "Republic of China", and Taiwan became part of Republic of China in 1945. You are totally correct, a bunch of Chinese in China lost the civil war and fled to the island of Taiwan in 1949. In 1949, China got it's new name, Peoples' Republic of China.  Taiwan carried on calling itself Republic of China.
So, from 1945 to 1949, mainland China and Taiwan were in a single country, called Republic of China. In 1949, China became PRC, Taiwan continued being ROC. It was civil war prior to 1949, and them Chinese who lost, they went to Taiwan. What this means, a war between the Chinese in China fighting them Chinese in Taiwan, well, it is simply an extension of the civil war.

Europe and America, and the whole world, prior to 1949, did not send soldiers to the Republic of China (mainland China) , to fight against Mao Zedong. It was a civil war. Well, why should Washington send soldiers today ? If it was wrong to have got involved prior to 1949, then surely, it's wrong to get involved today ??
 

4 hours ago, Fore Man said:

I think it is likely...and an outcome that we all probably want to be achieved...that the two sets of Chinese populations and their opposing forms of national government can reach equilibrium through the workings of binational market forces.  These forces are already hard at work, achieving substantial business ties that bind the two countries together in highly successful commercial enterprises.  Now, PRC citizens are allowed to enter Taiwan and vice-versa. Arrive any time at Taoyuan Airport outside of Taipei and you’ll join lengthy waiting queues of passengers, many bearing Chinese passports. Regional dialects aside, such as Cantonese, Hakka and several others, the majority of citizens in each country speak and understand the same form of Mandarin.  They are all ethnically Chinese and each set finds great similarities in their respective cultures.  As Big China moderates over time...an outcome we can only hope for...tensions should reduce, allowing the two nations to jointly prosper and grow.  Nobody wants war on either side of the Strait.  Anything else is essentially posturing, jockeying and a surfeit of pride or arrogance momentarily at play.  Pray for continued peace.

Well, I agree with most of what you say.

What is Beijing's attitude ?  Beijing simply does not want Taiwan to declare independence. Taiwan is a de facto independent place, and Beijing will only attack Taiwan IF Taiwan declares independence.
So, Beijing will not attack Taiwan if Taiwan carries on being a de facto independent place.


You talk about the large numbers of mainland Chinese tourists entering Taiwan. Yes, I think this is a good thing. Also, a large number of mainland Chinese go to Taiwan and purchase real estate. And Taiwan is allowed to export goods to China with minimal or zero taxes. Notice that when America and Europe export goods to China, well, the goods are subjected to taxes. So, Taiwan benefits enormously from China.

And people think that China is bad to Taiwan ???

Okay, what about the people in Taiwan ? Some of them are pro-China, and some are anti-China. The ones who are against China. They don't actually like the flood of Chinese tourists in Taiwan. They're also against mainland Chinese buying real estate in Taiwan, because this is pushing up prices. And they don't like it when they notice stacks of cheap Chinese goods in the shops.
Do you reckon that these people are strange ??

12 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Because you can count on Trump to honor US military commitments?

Washington today is the same as it was previously.

The US government will spill American blood for oil, or whatever economic gain. There's no oil in Taiwan. Why on earth would Washington fight for Taiwan ?  If Washington was willing to fight for Taiwan, them Chinese in Taiwan would have declared independence for the Republic of China, Taiwan, ages ago.

Republic of China, that's what China (mainland China) was called prior to 1949. Republic of China and Peoples' Republic of China should simply call themselves "China". That would prevent the silly confusion that we see today.

There's only one China, there never will be two Chinas. There's only one America, there will never be two Americas. And yes, Washington is correct to fght a war to prevent a second USA.

2 hours ago, mushroomdave said:

Foolishness?  I think most casual bystanders would side with the lopsidedly smaller Republic of China whose people only want to remain free and left alone by the mainland political machine and propaganda apparatus. I don’t consider these wishes to be foolish in any way.  Your shallow attitude might change once you’ve been to Taiwan and befriended its people who are perhaps the most hospitable I’ve ever known anywhere. They deserve self-direction and national autonomy, just as any democratic nation anywhere else and not be threatened by a giant bully that happens to share a common heritage and language. 

 

Well said sir.  I have lived between Thailand and here in Taiwan for 20 yrs (Taiwan mostly) and totally agree.  They have a democratically-elected government and many more freedoms than in the shit-hole communist mainland.  I would like to see them invade as the U.S. would be here in no time.....by their agreement signed.

You really want to see the Peoples' Republic of China invade the Republic of China ?

Look, we all know, Washington will spill the blood of American soldiers because of oil. There's no way the White House will risk the lives of American soldiers because, because a bunch of Chinese in Taiwan don't reckon they're the same as the Chinese in China. And indeed, why should NATO get it's soldiers killed for something that is nothing to do with America or Europe ?

You reckon that Taiwan shares a common heritage and language with China ?   ????
How about you accept that a bunch of Chinese left China and went to live in Taiwan. The Taiwanese, they're actually a bunch of Chinese living in an island called Taiwan. About half the Chinese in Taiwan are people who left China after 1945, or their parents are.

Go on, Washington, do it.

Send the soldiers into Venezuela. Give us proof that a bunch of nutcases really have taken over the White House. Do it. All I say is, is that I don't want to see British soldiers in Venezuela.

Thanks.

Hello. Okay, a man with a British passport entered into Thailand from Britain, via airport, with a sixty day tourist visa. This was in early November, 2018.  Okay, in early Jan. 2019, he went to Laos by a land border and came back into Thailand on the same day, and got a 30 day stamp, great.

Okay, in early Feb. , in about two weeks time, what if he goes to Laos again, via a land border ? If he comes back into Thailand on the same day, using the same land border , will Thailand again, give him a 30 day stamp ?

Thanks for any comments.

2 hours ago, zydeco said:

And China doesn't care. The cat is out of the bag. President/Chairman/Son of Heaven Xi wants the big power grab during his lifetime. 

Xi doing a power grab ?

Surely, Xi becoming Mao Zedong in China is something that is not to do with the rest of the world ? If Xi wants to butcher a load of Chinese, well, why should even one of our soldiers get killed, trying to prevent this ?

If Xi invades America or Europe, fine, lets get ready for the invasion. Lets fight the Chinese soldiers when they are on our soil. Lets shoot down their combat jets when their combat jets attack us.

And if Xi is taking over Laos, Cambodia and Thailand, how about Washington offers these countries loans and aid that is more generous than what Xi is offering ? 


Do you accept that a trade war between America and China will hurt both sides greatly ? Why have a trade war ?  And targetting Huawei, and doing this, certainly harms sentiment between America and China. Huawei is a giant company, symbolic of China, and symbolic of China's presence on planet earth.
Huawei is symbolic of China, any attack on Huawei is an attack on China. I think it's suicidal to attack Huawei.

5 hours ago, Moo 2 said:

When China is going to learn not to interfere with other countries' affairs. Mr Xi, do you know that most developed western countries don't like and don't trust China. If you want to bully Canada, you will have to bully

the US, Australia, the EU, some Latino countries and some African countries, in my book that end up with about the same amount of people as China. You want to fight, go for it Mr. Xi.  

The EU is not part of this anti-China hysteria that the Trump government is trying to stir up. And the Australian government is in no mood to fight an economic war with China. They know that China is harmless, they're not interested in harming Australia's economy just to gain some popularity with the anti-China brigade.

20 hours ago, zydeco said:

Trade war is becoming an even hotter war. As it must be, if China is to be stopped in time. And, yes, Thailand must pick a side this time, China or US.

Thailand must pick a side ?  I think Thailand chose China a few years ago.   ????

On 12/6/2018 at 4:07 PM, zydeco said:

When one tweet, one comment, or one legitimate arrest of the CFO of a foreign company that has been caught already stealing technology can cause markets to crash, then those markets are not healthy to begin with. They are overpriced, puffed up by the fed's printing of free money, and ripe for a fall. The long term trendline for support in the DOW is around 12,000.

Well, I agree that a serious trade war with China will cause the DOW to plunge to around 12,000.

That's because investors know that a trade war is catastrophic, hence, a market crash.

4 hours ago, zydeco said:

China is an enemy to the West. Stop trying to deny it. They and their firms steal, lie, and defraud. Forget the tariffs. Embargo now.

Forget an embargo, let's say America slaps serious taxes onto the Chinese gods entering America. And China does the same to US goods entering China. This will hurt America in a massive way.

I reckon the Dow Jones on Wall Street will plunge about a third from it's present level if a serious trade war breaks out between America and China. Wall Street will plunge because, investors know that America will be hurt greatly. It's not economic suicide, but it is heading in that direction.

15 hours ago, from the home of CC said:

With Huawei in direct competition with Apple this whole thing reeks of protectionism with the Iran violations used as window dressing.

Or basically Trump playing to the anti-China brigade.  Trump can gain a fair bit of popularity by trotting out anti-China policies. Thing is, these policies hurt America just as much. But the anti-China brigade don't accept that.

15 hours ago, dcnx said:

Sells phone parts during embargo, jail time. Drop bombs on various counties killing countless civilians for reasons unknown, no problem.

 

What a time to be alive.

Washington's hypocrisy is staggerring, but lots of people are blind to it.