tonbridgebrit

Okay, what's happening ?  So, South Korea has decided to jail former president, Lee Myung-bak, for 15 years. Notice in the report, that his successor, Park Geun-hye, has already been jailed on a seperate corruption scandal.

These two politicians are being jailed, and rightly so. Now, both these people were leaders of South Korea, and both were highly pro-American. Both wanted stronger ties with Washington, both disliked North Korea. Washington is keeping quite about this, Washington backed both of them.  ????

Let's get real here. Meng Hongwei is obviously a Chinese person. Most people do feel, "how could Interpol be stupid enough to allow a Chinese person to be it's chief".   ????

So, Washington is drawing up options should Syria use chemical weapons. Now, who are the rebels in Idlib ??

Okay, here is a link from the Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/syrian-rebels-in-idlib-target-those-who-might-surrender-as-government-assault-looms/2018/09/07/1ba47e00-b07c-11e8-8b53-50116768e499_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8306f66447cd

From the article  "In the northern Syrian town of Harem, militants last week erected a gallows in a public square, saying it was for “frogs,” or traitors."
And also  "The town in Idlib province lies within the final enclave controlled by rebels opposed to ­Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. As government forces mass for what could be a climactic assault there in coming weeks, opposition fighters linked to al-Qaeda are seeking to head off the kind of negotiated surrender that has sealed the fate of other opposition areas."


Okay, the Washington Post is telling us that, some of the opposition fighters are actually linked to Al-Qaeda. From the article, there are guys in a group called HTS, and HTS is linked to Al-Qaeda. HTS is also formally known as Jabhat Al-Nusra. This sounds similar to the Al-Nusra Front, Al-Nusra Front are linked to Al-Qaeda, actually, they are Al-Qaeda's branch in Syria. And Al-Qaeda are the Islamic fundamentalists who carried out the 9/11 attack on New York.


There's people on ThaiVisa who hate anybody who is linked to Al-Qaeda.

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Hardly, and nothing said to this effect.

The point made was that the "distraction value" of the OP makes your assertion dubious. Going the extra mile, so to say, would have (perhaps) generated such an effect. As it is...not so much.

 

I think it is more to do with the UK trying to keep on good terms with the US, Trump and all. Unless mistaken, Mattis brought the issue of wider international participation a few times. And Mattis is one of the "adults in the room" on Trump's administration - certainly when it comes to issues like NATO and international cooperation (more specifically on security issues).

 

 

Morch, oh look, you reckon that this is "more to do with the UK trying to keep on good terms with the US, Trump and all" ??

Well, yes, I agree. I put on my post, before yours, that I hope Washington will be giving a more generous trade deal with Britain, because of this. I mean, the last thing we want is, is that Beijing hits back at this by making whatever trade deal less generous, and Washington does not give Britain a more generous trade deal.


Yes, Washington's trade deals. Washington can go ahead and tax Chinese steel entering America. But what about British steel ? How about, when Britain leaves the EU, steel from the EU that enters America will be taxed in a higher way. But British steel entering America will only have minimal taxes put on it ?  Yes, keep on good terms with Washington, by sailing a few warships near whatever disputed islands, and Washington responds by not putting taxes and tariffs on British steel and other British products that enter America.

Do you reckon Trump will offer such a deal for Britain ? I hope he does.

1 hour ago, natway09 said:

Good on ya . As long as they stay outside the 12 mile zone they should do it every day.

As to trade with China it is a completely different issue.

China will trade with GB if they want to.No amount of buttering them up will make any difference

Well, we might feel that by annoying Beijing by sailing a warship near one of these islands, is "no big beal". We might feel that it's got nothing to do with trade talks between Britain and Beijing.

But what about Beijing ?  We know what people are like. If they are are antagonised and aggravated because of this incident, well, they're probably not going to forget it.  They will probably show that they are not happy, by offerring less favourable trade deals in the future.  You can call them childish and silly, you can say to them "so what, so we annoyed you by sailing a military ship near some islands, islands that you claim are yours, that's got nothing to do with trade talks between us and you, now, forget the incident, and let's talk trade". But what do you think is going to be their response ?


We all know that all trade deals done by Beijing are "politically motivated", or , politics is involved. Go and antagonise Beijing by making whatever comments about Taiwan or Tibet, well, Beijing will respond. We know that.

32 minutes ago, TPI said:

Maybe the PM has a little hair on her chest? Casper Milktoasts' are always in a tizzy around sailors, perhaps, trade deals aside, some countries need to see that the UK still has some pride? 

The Chinese and the Vietnamese are involved in a dispute as to who has ownership of the Paracel Islands. Washington is backing neither side, and Britain is also backing neither side, in this dispute over ownership.

Surely, there is no need for Britain to "show pride" by getting involved in this dispute ? A bunch of foreigners wanting to catch fish or whatever seafood that is in Britain's waters, yes, there is a case for telling them foreigners to not catch fish in our waters. But this dispute is very far away from Britain. It's actually got nothing to do with Britain.

Why get involved ?  ?

2 hours ago, wwest5829 said:

Sure, in the tradition of Chamberlain, “ peace in our times”. Encouraging the unilateral seizing of territory either having contested claims or sovereign territory and we do nothing? I am not looking for a war but I want all nations shipping through the South China Sea to demonstrate that China’s action is not recognized as legit. 

Hello there. Interesting to see your comment, and thanks as well.

Yes, the Paracel Islands, both Vietnam and China are claiming the Paracel Islands. Okay, to me, the important thing is this. Washington is backing neither side in this dispute of ownership. Washington has certainly not declared "we are Washington, and we support and back Vietnam's claim of ownership of the Paracel Islands".

Now, none of us wants to see a war. Washington will simply not be backing Vietnam in the event of a war between Vietnam and China, over the Paracel Islands.  And if Washington does not get involved in such a war, well, certainly or surely, Britain will also not be involved in this future war ? So, I reckon, "why take action to raise an issue over Beijing's claim to the Paracel Islands" ?  I mean, how about let the Chinese and Vietnamese sort this out, and if they have a war, well, let them fight it ? Everybody else stays out of the conflict. And, winner takes the Paracel Islands.


Please, let me add some humour to the issue of "all nations shipping through the South China must be allowed". Britain and Europe are importing a huge amount of Chinese goods from China. The goods are being transported by ships, via the South China Sea. Yes, the sea lanes must be kept open, so that Chinese goods can be transported to Europe. So, Britain is making sure the sea lanes are open ? Who, is a threat to the sea lanes being open ? Is China threatening to partially block the sea lanes, the sea lanes that are being used to transport Chinee goods to Europe ?
?


 

On 8/26/2018 at 4:13 AM, lovelomsak said:

 

I am starting to really like this. 

 China is going to have to start facing reality that their take and no give days are over.

On 8/26/2018 at 8:12 AM, Tailwagsdog said:

The trouble is the bleeding hearts & soft centres of American left politics spoiled China for years with the MFN 'Most Favourd Nation' status that gave them priveleged access to the US market. China has returned that favour by stealing secrets and dumping into the US, silly americans and spoilt brat chinese. So here we are in 2018.

I think you guys should look at what's really happening.  ?

Trump is making it look like that he is getting tough on China, that's because he said he would do this during the election campaign. Let's get real here.  America will continue to have a load of cheap Chinese goods at Walmart, regardless of what the White House says. We're not going to see factories in America churning out the same Chinese goods.

China imports a huge amount of food products from America's farmers. It's absurd to think that Trump is going to risk such a huge and valuable market for American farmers. And what's the point of this trade war with China ?  Destroy jobs in America's farming sector (by the way, the farmers are the very people who backed Trump) just to slap taxes on the cheap Chinese goods entering America ?  This just bumps up the price of goods in Walmart, it makes everybody a loser. Not a good idea.

On 8/26/2018 at 3:04 AM, Tailwagsdog said:

Its hard to believe some people in the world can actually have such a toxic opinion, one can only assume they are not well read from multiple sources and in fact are probably victims of the fake news. 

We have got our freedom of speech and we have got access to just about every newspaper and news outlet. Most of us here on this Thaivisa post are against Washington's policy on Iran. You can see for yourself. You have come along here and you claim that people are "not well read from multiple sources and in fact are probably victims of the fake news".

You should ask yourself why most people are against Washington's policy, and why most people do not share your view. Do you really think that it is the case, that's most people here are not well read, and most people here are victims of fake news ? People simply don't have your opinion.


And we here, with our freedom of speech, most of us are against Washington. What about the people of Iran ? Have they got free speech ? If the people of Iran had free speech, and if they had access to lots of news sources, would they feel the same way as us ? Would they also reckon that Washington's policy towards Iran is wrong ?  Think about it.

13 hours ago, Small Joke said:

China,  Bullying who?  Theyre throwing money at the region with NO preconditions,  and the region can't get enough of China. INCLUDING the Philippines, which is why Du30 was kissing up in Beijing and allowing Chinese bases offshore.  He doesn't recognise international courts,  and neither do the US, by the way.  

Sure I'd rather have the US than China holding the biggest stick.  But let's not kid ourselves America is some warm and fuzzy world Grandpa. It's not.  

"Throwing money with NO preconditions".  Well, there are some preconditions, but China's terms are more generous than deals previously dished out by Washington.

"Sure I'd rather have the US than China holding the biggest stick". Actually, how about US and China having sticks that are the same size ?


"But let's not kid ourselves America is some warm and fuzzy world Grandpa. It's not."
And this comment, I totally agree with. The problem is, half of all Americans reckon that Washington IS a warm fuzzy Grandpa to the world. I reckon a quarter of all Americans say "look, I don't like my tax dollars being used to provide peace and security to other countries, we owe them nothing, why should we pay to give them foreign countries these benefits".
That's basically believing that Washington "is a warm fuzzy grandpa, and being angry at having to pay tax to support it."

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

No preconditions. No bullying. Sure thing. They just want to help.

Note that there was nothing said (other than by yourself) about the US being "some warm and fuzzy world Grandpa", but seems like you're quite comfortable portraying China as such. Try harder.

What is this ????
The poster has already said "Sure I'd rather have the US than China holding the biggest stick."  This poster is willing to side with Washington, but you accuse him of siding with Beijing ?  What ???

2 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

And its allies (that means you too, Mr Brit)

I'm not actually concerned about China launching at attack or invasion against Britain.  Aeroplanes packed with Chinese soldiers, and they're suppose to fly from China and land in Britain ? And them Chinese soldiers are going to attack London ? I can't really see it happening.

It's actually more ridiculious than reckoning that aeroplanes packed with Chinese soldiers are going to land in California, and the Chinese soldiers are going to take over Los Angeles, and march all the way to Washington, to the White House ?
?

3 hours ago, zydeco said:

And they're the first ones to complain about Chinese crowding out everyone else at the airports, in hotels, and public spaces.

There are two issues here.

Issue one, China is supposedly, training it's military units to strike America.
Issue two, there are loads of Chinese tourists at Bangkok's airport, this huge number of Chinese tourists means that we have to wait longer to get our passports stamped, when we enter into Thailand.


Can you please, not try to make a connection between the two issues ? It's laughable and hilarious.  ?

How about this ?  China attacking the USA is silly but dangerous talk, China is not going to launch an attack on the USA. The Chinese tourists flooding THailand, yes, they are annoying, people would rather see less of them. When I turn up at my local nightclub, I don't actually want to see it packed fully with other people. I'd rather see it less busy, that way, more room for me to move around.

4 hours ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

Would you rather china do it, or the US? 

How about, I'd rather see both the US and China "not do it" ???

And Washington is trying to tell the world that it is an international police officer, across planet earth. If Washington stops being an 'international police officer', well, I do not wish to see China replacing Washington. Is that okay ?

5 hours ago, Tailwagsdog said:

The point is when China becomes all too powerful then kiss goodbye to the world as you know it, Look around you, go to Cambodia and criticize China, if you dare, thats why i will side with the imperfect good guy that has had Nixon, Kissinger, & others running the show very badly & killing thousands of people, because a democracy can renew itself wheras as dictatorship cannot.

Look, it is Washington right now that is all too powerful. Look at what Washington is doing.

Who is going to be fighting World War Three ?  America against Russia ?  America against China ?  America against Islam ?

Notice how America is involved in all the options. What does that say about Washington ?  By the way, Nixon and Kissinger caused loads of deaths in Vietnam. China and Russia did not.

5 hours ago, Tailwagsdog said:

I would like you to go to China and make similar remarks about the chinese dictatorship and if you ever manage to see the light of day again in your miserable life, then please explain what freedom means. You need to think, not just ramble on.

We have got our freedom of speech, and most of us here are trying to say that Washington is actually a greater threat to world peace than China is.

Now then, them people in China, who do they reckon is the greater threat to world peace ? Do them people in China, do they reckon that Washington is a greater threat than China to world peace ?

Try and think for yourself. Try not to automatically believe the nonsense propaganda dressed up as news, that you watch on television.

On 8/16/2018 at 10:21 PM, Tailwagsdog said:

Everybody deals with the enemy to acheive a result ask anybody with life experience, the western liberal idealists actually thought chinas economic development might actually result in progressive thinking however he Tinamen Square massacre of liberal  students should have warned them the unelected junta in Beijing will never represent the people of China, whereas the people of FREE CHINA or Taiwan elect their government & they are free to think for themselves. Have you got the idea ...yet?

"the western liberal idealists actually thought chinas economic development might actually result in progressive thinking".
So, if we can go back to 1981, do you think it would have been a great idea to NOT start increasing trade with China ?


Today, there is massive trade between China and the West. Do you think it will be a good idea for America and Europe to reduce trade with China ? You don't reckon do you, that Washington is actually concerned about 'lack of freedom in China' ?  Washington has allies on planet earth, some of those allies are not democracies.  Washington has a problem with China. What's the problem ? The problem is, is that China has a huge trade surplus with America and Europe. Washington is backing ( in a subtle way) the Republic of China (Taiwan) , that's Washington's way to antagonise Beijing.
Surely, you can see that ?  ?


And Trump is starting a trade war with China. You do realise, the danger here, is that the people in China will rise up in rebellion due to increased um-employment and increased poverty ?  This ewill cause a dangerous instability. The Beijing government will then, end up being removed by the people. Them people in China, they're more interested in jobs and economic prosperity, rather than freedom of speech and other freedoms.


Have you ever been to mainland China ?  You reckon that they can't think for themselves ?  Some of them are trying to enter into Britain and America. They're not doing it because they want the extra freedom that the West can give them. Those who are doing it, they're doing it because they can earn more money in Britain and America. Do you understand that ?

22 hours ago, Tailwagsdog said:

This comment is hilarious and full of Beijing CCCP non sense. What makes you even think a dictatorship that has murdered more of its own people than any foreign power ever has, has any  legitimacy to govern China. The Beijing Boys are power hungry & corrupt, time to FREE CHINA, Taiwan is an example of what FREE CHINA could be like

Prior to 1949, there was a civil war in mainland China (Republic of China) now, do you accept that ?  Notice how the USA and the rest of the world did not send soldiers to mainland China (Republic of China) to fight in the Chinese civil war. Surely, you accept that sending US and other soldiers into mainland China, prior to 1949, would have been wrong and disastrous ?  When a country is fighting a civil war, it's wrong and it's a mistake, to send soldiers to join in.

Surely, you're not a person who reckons, it would have been a good idea to have sent US soldiers to mainland China, prior to 1949, to fight Mao Zedong ? That would have been a crazy thing to do.

Beijing governs China, and Washington today, recognises Beijing. You do realise, prior to the 1970s, Washington regarded Republic of China, Taiwan, as being the real China ?  Surely, you don't reckon, that Washington today, should regard Taiwan as the legitimate government of China ? That really would be crazy. Washington does have the freedom to regard Beijing as not being the legitimate government of China. But Washington does regard Beijing as the government of China. People might think that Washington is stupid, but they're not that stupid.  ?

On 8/14/2018 at 4:33 PM, Kiwiken said:

In October of 1949, after a string of military victories, Mao Zedong proclaimed the establishment of the PRC; Chiang and his forces fled to Taiwan to regroup and plan for their efforts to retake the mainland. quote on Google. As i said Taiwan (formosa) was not part of china before the 1600's an only intermittently up until 1949.

The Hill people of Formosa the Native people (also relate to the NZ Maori an Polynesian people) 

So by your efinition China has the right then to annex the South Pacific? An New Zealand. And because of migration take over Se Asia as most populations came out of China. "Really"?

Actually, you're right, Chang Kai Shek fled to Taiwan in 1949, not 1947.  ?

But the point about how, between 1945 and 1949, there was a single nation called the Republic of China, and it was made up of mainland China and Taiwan, still stands. You write about how "Chiang and his forces fled to Taiwan to regroup and plan for their efforts to retake the mainland". I do love this comment !  So, would it have been okay for Chang Kai Shek to attack the Peoples' Republic of China, after 1949 ?  So, Mao Zedong and Chang Kai Shek fighting each other in mainland China (Republic of China) , before 1949, that's okay, that's called a Chinese civil war. We all agree on that. What about Mao Zedong fighting Chang Kai Shek in Taiwan (Republic of China) before 1949, was that okay ? In my opinion, fighting in mainland China and Taiwan, prior to 1949, it would have been the same thing.
What about Chang Kai Shek fighting Mao Zedong in Peoples' Republic of China (mainland China) after 1949, would that have been okay ? What about Chang Kai Shek fighting Mao in Republic of China (Taiwan) after 1949 ?  So, it was okay for them to fight each other in mainland China, but it was not okay to fight in Taiwan, after 1949 ?   ?


And heres a link from wikipedia.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan#Qing_rule
China (Qing China) annexed Taiwan in the late 1600s, Japan took Taiwan from China in the late 1890s. This was done after Japan beat China in a war. Mainland China and Taiwan were in the same country for two centuries prior to Japan taking Taiwan.

What's the difference between China attacking Thailand, and China attacking Taiwan ?  Thailand is not part of China, and has never been part of China. So, China attacking Thailand (or Vietnam) is a nation invading another nation. China attacking Taiwan is actually a continuation of the Chinese civil war.