tonbridgebrit

I doubt this will happen. Beijing will not be interested in Myanmar breaking up into two separate bits. Beijing knows that causing Myanmar to split into different bits will weaken it's own position in keeping China as a single country. Beijing would much rather have Myanmar staying together as a single unit, and encourage lots of trade between Myanmar and China.

The important thing is, is that Beijing will not send any of it's soldiers into Myanmar. Chinese soldiers entering Myanmar and firing their bullets at people will be disastrous for China and America. And if we do see a new Myanmar government that is very friendly with China, America will likely step in. Washington will back whatever groups that are against a pro-Beijing Myanmar government. What is a pro-Beijing government ? This will be a government that will export lots of natural resources to China, and will allow a mountain of Chinese goods to be imported into Myanmar. As in, mobile phones, computer lap-tops, flat-screen tvs, etc, etc. And yes, a pro-Beijing Myanmar government will borrow money from China, and dish out big infra-structure contracts to Chinese companies. As in, railway lines, hydro-electric power stations, roads, etc, etc.

You want to raise the issue of finding stuff difficult to grasp ? I can very easily put the point back onto you. Just because a group of people want their place to be recognised as a country, well, that don't mean to say that the United Nations will recognise them as a country. A load of people in whatever place in the Middle East, or anywhere in the world, they or you or anybody might want them to be a seperate country. But that makes no difference to whether the UN will grant them a seat at the UN. And without a seat at the UN, any place on earth is not recognized as a country. Is this so difficult for you to grasp ? And why will Republic of China never have a seat at the United Nations ? Because the five big boys at the UN, that's USA, Britain, France, Russia, and China, the five big boys are the real power at the UN. They're permanent members of the Security Council, they have power of veto on any big vote at the UN. The Big Five earned their places there, because they won World War Two. If Republic of China fights and plays a big part in winning World War Three, well then, and only then, will Republic of China be one of the Big Boys at the United Nations. And off-course, this means being recognised as a nation by having a seat at the UN. Actually, as long as Peoples' Republic of China loses World War Three, then, Republic of China will be recognised as a country, with a seat at the UN. Yes, whether I think Taiwan is part of China or not, well, it's irrelevant. What counts is what the UN thinks, having a seat at the UN means being recognised as a country. You're also playing a second card, the Kuwait card. This is saying that Republic of China is vital to the world's economy, planet earth grinds to a halt without Republic of China. You're exaggerating the importance of Republic of China. But let's say you're right. You're playing the Kuwait card, as in, "if you're valuable you will be protected, if not, if you have no oil and no computer chips, we're not going to fight for you". Let's hope China, Europe, or America, will catch up with Republic of China in these computer chips. Kuwait with no oil is not worth fighting for, and if Republic of China is not so important for planet earth's distribution system, then it is also not worth fighting for.

Semantics on whether Taiwan qualifies as a nation ? Republic of China does not have a seat at the United Nations, it does not have an embassy in London or America. From that, it's not a nation. Bit like Kurdistan, or indeed Gaza. I don't think US soldiers should go into Kurdistan or Gaza, and start firing bullets is a good idea. About US warships in the Black Sea, so, we agree, US warships must not fire missiles at the Russians, in the Black Sea. Getting there will be very risky ? Well, if US warships sail there, and don't fire missiles, I think it will be okay and safe. But if they start firing missiles, yes, it will be disastrous and catastrophic. What about US warships in the Atlantic, and firing missiles at the Russians ? In my opinion, that would be just as disastrous as US ships in the Black Sea firing missiles. About Hong Kong. No, I don't think it's a good idea to send weapons to Hong Kong, to see people in Hong Kong fight against China. Washington hasn't sent weapons to Hong Kong, there is no armed fight in Hong Kong against China. I think that's a good thing. And Taiwan being a critical part of the world's economy ? We've been down this road before. Back in 1990, Kuwait was invaded by Iraq, Kuwait has got oil. That's why America and other countries had to kick out the Iraqis. If Kuwait had no oil, if Kuwait only grew carrots, USA would not have sent soldiers to kick out the Iraqis. So, you want to support Taiwan, because Taiwan's computers power the supply chains of planet earth ? Yes, you're right. China, Russia, USA, Europe, etc, etc needs Taiwan computers. So what's the solution ? A four year plan, replace Taiwan with computers in California, Texas and Arizona. And once that's done, Taiwan will no longer be important. No need to defend Taiwan. No need for America to fight for economic reasons, great.

Morch, you want to say that my scenarios are contrived nonsense ? There's people who are convinced that China is trying to build an empire. Build this empire where ? China has a land border with Afghanistan, and Afghanistan does have mineral ores, yes, natural resources. What's so surprising about China trying to take-over Afghanistan ? China needs natural resources, in order to continue exporting the maufactured goods to America and most other countries, including Britain. So, I'm willing to stand next to you, and demand US soldiers will go to Afghanistan, if Chinese soldiers enter Afghanistan and fire bullets at Afghan people. What about Vietnam ? You do realise that China sent soldiers into Vietnam, back in 1979 ? Look it up on wikipedia, if you don't believe me. Yes, we stand next to each other in demanding, US soldiers will go to Vietnam, to kick out Chinese soldiers, if Beijing/China sends soldiers to Vietnam. Okay, we don't agree on Taiwan. But we agree on Afghanistan and Vietnam. Thanks.

Yes, Morch, I'm trying to be a bit funny. But there is a serious side to this. Nobody wants to see war. I'm just trying to highlight the inconsistency and/or hypocrisy that lots of people do have.

Morch, I'ill do a deal with you. If China sends soldiers to Afghanistan, then what ? I stand next to you, and we both demand that America will send soldiers to Afghanistan, to kick out the Chinese soldiers. Yes, Chinese soldiers firing their bullets in Afghanistan is an invasion of Afghanistan. And, if Chinese soldiers are in Vietnam ? Yes, I stand next to you, and we demand US soldiers must go to Vietnam to kick out the Chinese soldiers. Yes, Chinese soldiers firing bullets in Vietnam is an invasion of Vietnam. But if Chinese warships are firing missiles at Vietnamese warships, and it's happening near the disputed islands involving Vietnam and China, well, I'm not in favour of getting US warships to fire missiles. US warships fire missiles at who ? Chinese or Vietnamese ? Well, neither. But Taiwan ? Can we agree that US will not send soldiers or warships to fight, if it's in Taiwan ?

By the way, surely, you yourself are totally against US warships in the the Black Sea, firing missiles at the Russians. Off-course you are. So we both agree on that. And if Peoples' Republic of China fights a war against Republic of China, well, are you against US warships in the South China Sea, firing missiles at China/Chinese ? I don't think US warships should take such action.

No, I'm not okay with wars of conquest, empire building. etc, etc. What if Russia attacks Poland ? Poland is in NATO, it's not the same as Ukraine. If Russia or China attack Poland, then yes, fight a war against the attackers of Poland. Russia won't attack Poland, because they know it's in NATO. And I repeat, yes, fight a war against Russia if they attack Poland, or any other NATO country. And China ? Because Taiwan is a province in China, therefore, an attack on Taiwan by China is not a country attacking another country. Peoples' Republic of China having a fight with Republic of China, Taiwan, is a re-starting of the Chinese civil war that ended in 1949. I don't accept Taiwan being a country, because there's no embassy from Republic of China in London, London being the capital of Britain. And United Nations don't accept that Republic of China as a country, that's because Republic of China has not got a seat at the UN. They're not registered as a country. Now Afghanistan and Vietnam, they are registered as countries at the UN. You talk about empire building. If China sends soldiers into Vietnam, and these Chinese soldiers are firing their bullets at Vietnamese people, then, the case for US military action is not the same. America sending soldiers to Vietnam, to kick out Chinese soldiers in Vietnam, that's not the same as kicking out Chinese soldiers in Taiwan. And if China sends soldiers into Afghanistan, firing bullets at Afghan people, then what ? The case for US soldiers going into Afghanistan, to kick out the Chinese soldiers, that's not the same thing as kicking Chinese soldiers out of Taiwan.

Morch, can you stop repeating yourself ? I don't want to see a war where Britain gets nuked, because of Russia or China. If people in America want to see a war between America and China, well, I don't think that's good, but let them do it. America and China nuke each other. But I don't want Britain firing nukes at China, and I certainly don't want China firing nukes at Britain. And right now, British warships are not firing missiles at the Russians. That's good, let's keep it that way. Why on earth have British warships in the South China Sea, firing missiles at Peoples' Republic of China ? Or, why on earth have British warships in the South China Sea, firing missiles at Republic of China ?

If Peoples' Republic of China wants to re-start their civil war with Republic of China, Taiwan, well, how about let them do it ? As long as nobody else is fighting as well, and nobody is sending their tax-payers money to give to either side, well, let them have their fight.

I don't want to see US warships in the Black Sea, firing missiles at Russia. And I don't want to see US warships in the South China Sea, firing missiles at China. And this means I'm biased towards China ? Why do I not support US warships firing missiles at Russia ? Because if that happens, World War Three breaks out, Britain (and the USA) will be nuked by Russia. And Russia will be nuked as well. And I don't want America and China fighting a war. China has got nuclear sweapons. I don't want Britain getting nuked in a World War Three. Getting nuked by Russia, or getting nuked because of China. What difference does it make ? In my opinion, not a lot. War against China will be just as disastrous and catastrophic as a war against Russia.

I tried to ask something similar on a previous post. Nobody here is in favour of US warships going to the Black Sea, and firing missiles at the Russians. But there are people who reckon, that if China attacks Taiwan, then it would be good if US warships fire missiles at China. Why the willingness to fight a war against China, but not against Russia ? By the way, my own view is this. I'm against any US military action, in Ukraine or Taiwan. Giving weapons to them ? Ukraine, I'm not sure, but not for Taiwan. Selling weapons to them ? Ukraine yes. I don't actually support selling weapons to Taiwan. But if a giant profit is going to be made, well, we can't help it, it's got to be done.

And if Taiwan wants to buy £14 billion worth of military harware from Britain, well, I'd have no problems with using £80 million of British tax-payers money to give as aid to Taiwan.

People in Britain and Europe should realise that Britain and Europe also have declining birth-rates. It's because of immigration, that's what's stopping negative population growth. Perhaps mass usage of condoms and other contraceptives is what's causing the very low birth-rates.

Hello Chomper. I don't actually have a problem with most of your comments. 🙂 I'm trying to say this. NATO is not sending it's soldiers or combat jets to fight Russia, in the Ukraine war. Now, this is something that we all agree on, is that this is a good thing. None of us on ThaiVisa is reckoning that sending soldiers and/or combat jets to fight Russia is a good thing. Now, notice how when we're talking about China's possible attack on Taiwan or the Philippines, oh, lots of people reckon it IS a good idea to send American/NATO soldiers and/or combat jets to fight China. Everybody knows it will be disastrous for American warships to be in the Black Sea, firing missiles at the Russians in Ukraine and Russia. But some people do reckon that it's a good idea to have American warships in the South China Sea, firing missiles at China. Why the inconsistency ? 🙂

What kind of attitude have you got ? So, Biden is carrying out America's foreign policy, and people like you want to ridicule the Biden government. And if Trump and the Republicans were in charge, you'd be cheering on the anti-China and anti-Muslim stance. I'ill say what my view is. Whether it is the Democrats or the Republicans in the White House, no American soldiers should risk their lives fighting against Russia, Islam, or China, in the present situations. Yes, NATO soldiers should fight, when NATO countries are being invaded. Ukraine is not in NATO, hence, the present situation of no NATO soldiers in Ukraine is the correct policy. And the Philippines are not in NATO, hence, I don't think it's right for American/NATO soldiers to risk their lives, fighting a war against China.

Look, let's find out who did the underwater exlosions last year, do that first. We go after them, and then, then we go after whoever did the recent explosions. There must be no hiding place for people who do such acts. Terrorism must be punished, and punished in full.

From the above report, there were some massive underwater blasts last year. These blasts happened at Nord Stream 1 and 2, a major conduit for Russian gas exports to western Europe. Now, I'm trying to say this. Who was responsible for this wreckage, last year ? The explosions disrupted gas flowing into Europe, and spewed gas in the sea, damaging the environment. There's got to be a punishment for Russia, if Russia did actually do it.

I think people should accept how most people feel. Right now, in Britain, whether Covid kills people or not, most people simly don't care. Even if a new outbreak of Covid is in the newspapers, the vast majority of people in Britain are not going to accept another lockdown. A load of Chinese tourists in London ? Just about everybody in Britian doesn't care. We're more concerned about bed bugs moving from Paris to London.

I would like to say that I am so disappointed with most of the posts above. All this silly anti-China sentiment being revealed. Actually, I'm giggling at the comments. ???? Okay, the report is from the BBC. I've just clicked on the link, to see the full report on there. For a start, the young Asian bird we see on the photo, what is it ? That's not some Far East lady protesting against China's hypocrisy. That's actually a woman in South Korea, protesting against Japan outside the Japanese Embassy in South Korea, being led away by security guards. Some people were trying to enter the Japanese Embassy there. Also, from the BBC report, there was an angry demonstration in Hong Kong against the stuff. Back to South Korea, the report says that South Korea has a longstanding ban on some Japanese seafood. So, when talking about banning Japanese food, South Korea has already been doing such bans. Before this latest news. ????

I was actually trying to be funny, with an over-the-top response to hundreds of millions of Chinese trying to leave China. ???? But the issue of too many people chasing not enough housing in Britain is an issue, in my opinion. I'ill carry on with the humour by saying this. If Chinese flood other places, like America, Canada, Europe, well, we don't really care. As long as they don't flood Britain. It's a problem for Europe, if they flood Europe. But you're right, the world economy needs China to export it's goods. And lots of countries, including Britain, need China to import goods. China is, a vast market. I've had a quick look at the video posted. Like so many of such videos, I feel that the main point of the video is to allow the audience to laugh and gloat over the soon-to-be collapse of China's economy. And the video is from India, some Indians are hoping that China's collapse will be good for India. They're hoping that India will partially replace China as an industrial power-house, exporting goods to the rest of the world.

If China implodes, we will have hundreds of millions of people trying to get out of China. And yes, this will be disastrous for Britain. We're still seeing a load of new foreigners entering into Britain, and these new people need to live in whatever housing. This is creating more competition on the rental and buying market for houses. The disasters in Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine, are all adding to the numbers entering Britain. Add on new cheap immigrant labour. And them Chinese turning up from Hong Kong are also buying or paying rent for houses. Britain has to build new houses for the new people to live in. But this isn't going to happen. So, Britain has to stop new foreigners entering. If hundreds of millions of Chinese leave China, if only just two million turn up in Britain, well, it will be disastrous for Britain.

No country would dare attack NATO ? You're right. And Ukraine is not in NATO. And Republic of China is not in NATO. So, NATO is not being attacked. And no country would dare attack Russia, why ? Because Russia has got nukes. NATO has got nukes, that's why NATO (NATO, that includes Britain) will never be attacked. I said Britain should be defended. I'm saying, if Russia attacks/invades Britain, then NATO must nuke Russia, no two ways about it. As soon as Russia does any attack on Britain, yes, America must launch it's nukes (nukes in America, and elsewhere) onto Russia. That's because Britain is in NATO. And when/if China invades Republic of China, no country would dare attack China, why ? Because China, just like Russia, just like NATO, has got nukes. ????

There are no NATO soldiers in Ukraine, nobody, and that includes you, nobody reckons that it will be a good idea to send NATO/American soldiers to Ukraine. Even if the war in Ukraine is still going on in two years time, it will be the case, of nobody thinking it's a good idea to send soldiers. The above comment can be repeated with "Ukraine" removed, and "Republic of China, Taiwan" inserted. What about combat jets ? There's a huge difference between sending combat jets with NATO pilots, and selling/giving combat jets to Ukraine. And with Taiwan, all the American military hardware that they've got was sold to them. None of it given, it's costing US taxpayers zero. This simply smacks of US companies making a profit from the situation. It boils down to you, and others, avoiding a basic issue. ???? The issue being this. America/NATO is not sending soldiers to fight in Ukraine. NATO is not sending combat jets to the sky above Ukraine. Sending NATO jets to fly above Ukraine (and having those jets firing missiles at Russia, or those jets can fired at by Russia) is the same as sending soldiers to Ukraine. That's why it hasn't been done. From this, why on earth send soldiers and combat jets to Taiwan when/if they get invaded, when there's been no soldiers sent to Ukraine. And let's be clear, you're not interested in sending NATO soldiers to Ukraine. ????