tonbridgebrit

50 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

In the news from 2030, China demands that US airlines stop referring to Australia and New Zealand as independent territories apart from China.

Well, let's say that actually happens.

Well, the US airlines will certainly have the right/freedom to tell China, tell China to take a running jump. Go and laugh at China, and tell them to have a "reality check".

By 2030, various US airlines might be transporting tens of millions of passengers/customers between China and North America, per year.  There's 1.3 billion people in China, it's the biggest potential market in the world, 2% of 1.3 billion people is 26 million people. Is it reasonable to reckon that by 2030, in an average year, 2% of Chinese people in China go to North America for a holiday ?


Actually, there's no need to worry about China forcing US airlines to declare that Australia and New Zealand are part of China. The Peoples' Republic of China has always claimed that Republic of China (Taiwan) has always been part of China. Peoples' Republic of China has never claimed that Australia and New Zealand to be part of China. That's because Australia and New Zealand are actually, part of Britain. Have you noticed that them Australians and New Zealanders are mainly Brits who went out to live there ?  ?

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@tonbridgebrit

 

Yes.....so do tell: how is China not the neighborhood a bully? Or, rather, how is your position not supportive of bullying?

 

Morch, imagine this.
You've got a business. It might be a night club, a hotel, or a supermarket, or, or an airline. It could be anything. Now, who are your customers ? Do you wish to expand ? Who are your potential customers ? Who do you hope will be your future customers ?

Now then, you've got a company magazine. That magazine of yours, is actually printing something small that is annoying a certain group of customers. You are about to lose some existing customers, more important, you might lose on potential customers. You might feel that the stuff written in your magazine is harmless, it's no big deal. But do you accept, do you believe, it is driving away some customers, and preventing potential future customers ?

Do you feel, that if people are annoyed by your magazine, well, it's their right to refuse to buy your product ? Surely, you accept that ?


And fair enough, if you've got an airline, if you don't want an increasing number of customers from whatever social/ethnic group, well, yes, it's your freedom of choice to carry on annoying them people. Tell them that they are being childish and absurd, tell them that you are going to carry on writing the same stuff in your company magazine. Tell them that it's them who have got it wrong. That's your freedom of choice.


Do you feel, when they refuse to buy your stuff, because you annoyed them, and carried on doing so, does that mean they're being un-reasonable ? Are they bullying you ?  Are they suppose to carry on buying your stuff, if they are annoyed ? Do they deserve a punishment because, because they stopped buying your stuff, on the grounds that they reckoned that you was being an annoying person ?

On 6/4/2018 at 4:19 AM, Morch said:

 

@tonbridgebrit

 

 

 

You do not speak for any "we", and there is no such imaginary, nonsensical imperative as you try to paint. Trump being Trump doesn't make China or Russia righteous. Of course, not "everybody" think Iran is "harmless", and it is untrue that everyone (again, that co-opting of "us") objects to sanctions laid on Iran.

We, as 'we' are against sanctions against Iran. We, as Britain, Europe, Russia and China don't want sanctions against Iran.

27 minutes ago, Juan B Tong said:

Bomb Iran!

 

So you want to bomb Iran ???

I take it that you do accept that sending American soldiers (ground forces) to Iran will be disastrous and catastrophic ? America sent soldiers to Iraq back in 2003, most of us still remember that. Even if we reckon that the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis is not important, we all still feel that American and British soldiers who were killed in Iraq was disgusting and wrong.

Sending American and British soldiers to Iran will be worse than what happened in Iraq. Let's not repeat what happened in Iraq back in 2003. Even idiots and morons can sometimes learn from their mistakes. Let's hope we don't see a repeat of the mistakes.

7 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

Poor Mad Dog Matis. He'll be barking for naught. No one is going to help the USA now that Trump has declared economic war on his allies.

Its rare when I agree with you. But with this post, yes, I think you're right.

Washington, what are you trying to say ??

Supposedly, China is the enemy, and you're trying to hold back China. Well, why don't you just put up tariffs against China, and tell Walmart to reduce the amount of stuff it imports from China.

Why on earth are you putting up barriers against Canada, Mexico, Europe and Britain ?  Britain exports steel to America, and you want to reduce the amount of steel Brtain is going to export ??  The way how this is going, you're actually building a fence surrounding America, a fence that will seperate America from the rest of the world. Don't do this, Washington, you will be sorry if you do.

First, it was the Hispanics. And then it was the Arabs. And now, it's the Chinese. Who is next on the hit-list ??

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Here's why Duterte isn't interested in fighting a war with China

"Duterte defended himself from critics who say he is not doing enough to protect the country’s interests in the South China Sea.

He said he “will not commit the lives of the Filipinos only to die unnecessarily, I will not go into a battle which I can never win.”

http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/2133869/rodrigo-duterte-says-chinese-military-bases-are-oppose-us-not-philippines

Very sensible but hardly an endorsement of the Chinese. In fact, as in other things, Duterte is all over the place about Chinese occupation of the islands. But predominantly his point is that he won't fight a battle he can't win.

Here's a photo of Duterte in Beijing.

Duterte is a man who is doing what's best for the Philipinnes. There's no way that Duterte is going to invite Washington to put it's soldiers back into the Philipinnes. Duterte wants the Chinese tourists and Chinese investments.

Consider Thailand. If Thailand had part of the South China Sea, do you reckon that Thailand would be against China claiming the South China Sea ? Off-course not. Thailand has no claims to the South China Sea, and Thailand is still allied to Beijing. Thailand wants the Chinese tourists, Chinese investment, and Chinese companies to build infra-structure in Thailand. Having a claim, or not having a claim on the South China Sea, every nation still regards Chinese tourists and investments to be very valuable. That's what matters, that's what counts. A few man-made islands in whatever sea is not as important.

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@tonbridgebrit

 

So, while on other topics you claim to be against bullying, somehow different when it comes to China.

 

7 hours ago, Morch said:

Here's a pretty good (and not overly complicated) summary of legalities involved, prevailing circumstances and actions taken:

 

Freedom of Navigation in the South China Sea: A Practical Guide

https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/freedom-navigation-south-china-sea-practical-guide

 

 

 

 

Stop claiming that I am being hypocritical, or inconsistent.
 

Beijing is not bullying the Philipinnes. Duterte of the Philipinnes would much rather accept China's tourists and investments rather than fight a war against China. Do you accept that Taiwan's claims are absurd ? Surely, you do ?
And Taiwan calls itself "Peoples' Republic of China, Taiwan", when you bear that in mind, off-course, Taiwan's claims are mad and mental.

Yes, you've raised the issue of freedom of navigation. Washington has, and will carry on, having a situation where all cargo ships have freedom to sail in the South China Sea. You do accept, right, that the Chinese man-made islands are not restricting cargo ships sailing in the South China Sea ? If Beijing was stopping cargo ships, Washington would have taken serious action already. Washington has taken no action against Chinese patrol boats, that's because Beijing has done nothing to resrict ships carrying cargo, in the South China Sea.

Okay, above is a map of the South China Sea. So, these countries are disputing ownership of the South China Sea.

And from the article "China's claims in the South China Sea, through which about $5 trillion (£3.77 trillion) in shipborne trade passes each year, are contested by Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam."


Okay, let's look at the countries who are contesting China's claims. The Philippines ?  Well, it's silly for the media to claim this. Duterte is the democratically elected leader of the Philippines, and he's actually very friendly with Beijing. Duterte is not interested in fighting a war against China.  Malaysia and Brunei ?  Please look at the map, how much of the South China Sea is closest to these two countries ?  ?

And we have little Vietnam. How about allow China and Vietnam to fight a war, and winner takes the South China Sea ?  Washington is not interested in fighting a war on behalf of Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh's club took over Vietnam after that Vietnam War, and that club still controls Vietnam. There's guys in Washington who still remember the Vietnam War.

As for Taiwan, their claim is absurd. They're further way from the South China Sea than China is.


Okay, let's have ships carrying cargo being allowed to sail freely in the South China Sea. And right now as we speak, all ships carrying cargo are allowed to sail freely. So, the man-made islands being built by China are no big deal. If cargo ships do get stopped, yes, take action to make sure they can sail freely.

Okay, let's get back to the topic.

Washington has decided to put sanctions onto Iran, and Hezbollah is saying that it will stand firm, against the sanctions. How about we try to get Washington to change it's mind, and srap the sanctions ?

Why should we try to get Washington to scrap the sanctions ?

Well, Hezbollah are fighting against ISIS. The Islamic terrorist atrocities done in Europe and America have been done by ISIS, or they were inspired by ISIS. Hezbollah has not carried out terrorist activity in Europe and America. And almost none of the terrorist activity in Europe and America was inspired by Hezbollah.


Let's accept that the real enemy is ISIS, let's hit the enemy, and hit them hard. Why on earth should we fight those who are hitting the enemy ? Why on earth are we fighting people, people who are not harming us ? Bearing in mind that they're fighting against our real enemy.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/29/middleeast/hezbollah-isis/index.html

Okay, the above article from CNN says  "Lebanon's campaign against ISIS in its border region has been declared "mission accomplished" by the armed group Hezbollah shortly after it announced a pause in the fight against the militant group.".

Basically, Hezbollah has been fighting against ISIS. I think it's absurd that the media has decided to demonize Hezbollah, when Hezbollah are actually fighting against ISIS in the Middle East.

19 hours ago, Morch said:

 

As far as I recall, this angle (stockpiling) is covered in the agreement. And even if it wasn't Iran's stock of Uranium is supposedly monitored, so such actions would raise questions. The time frame required for having the resources to produce a weapons, actually producing one and testing seems short, but isn't - not considering Iran being under rather tight surveillance and monitoring. Most of the actions involved could be construed as violations, possibly triggering a reaction (whether by the US alone, or other signatories as well, is another matter).

 

Not saying that Iran couldn't - but it would be very hard to pull off, and carry a whole lot of risk. Goes to show, once more, that withdrawing from the agreement might not have been the best move.

Morch, you turn up here on ThaiVisa and say "Goes to show, once more, that withdrawing from the agreement might not have been the best move."

Why don't you just come out and say it ?  Look, the deal done by Obama was the best way to improve peace in the Middle East. What we are seeing right now, stuff being done by the White House, is disastrous and catastrophic. We all know this. Trump's advisors in the White House are trying to start World War Three, a war between America and Islam.

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

 No not everything only the things that are  documented. Everything I said is undisputed fact.

The US (and I am American but not blind) is the biggest threat to democracy. We are the henry Ford of democracy , you can have any color car as long as it is black . You can choose to govern yourself anyway you want as long as you play ball with as.

Democracy is no Democracy when one has only one choice. It reminds me of this seen in the movie the Jerk.

 

Thanks. However, we've got to accept, that it is the US government that is causing the problem. It's Washington that's the problem. The people of America, the Americans themselves, they're okay people. Washington has convinced the people of America to support the government. It's being done by manipulating the media, and creating a false and non-accurate picture.

8 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

The US has been the international partner of choice because its partners know that they will reap the same rewards but almost none of the risks and a disproportionately small portion of the cost of that partnership. The US has historically been willing to screw its citizens for the benefit of its partners. Good luck finding another international partner that stupid.

See, this is the exact delusion that Washington has exploited for decades.

The truth, Washington only helps countries if they benefit Washington. Actually, you're right about how Washington screws it's own citizens. But Washington also screws everybody else outside of America. And who benefits from all this ?  It's the big defence contractors in America, and other big American companies.

Surely, you don't believe that Washington fights wars, because it wants to spread freedom, democracy and prosperity, across planet earth ???

So, lets not have this silly anti-China sentiment, and see if Australia can target the money flowing into Australia, Chinese and non-Chinese money, and make this money benefit Australian people in a bigger way.

I really do feel that people are being silly when putting on display their anti-China sentiments.

Okay, Australia is exporting a huge amount of coal and iron-ore to China, and what's wrong with this ? Nothing, it just means more money for Australia. It would be crazy to try and reduce the amount of coal and iron-ore being exported. There's also more and more Chinese tourists turning up in Australia, and this is also good, it means valuable tourism revenue. And property developers who build houses, and the houses are sometimes sold to Chinese investors, nothing wrong with that. Money is flowing into Australia when the houses are being sold.


So what exactly is the problem in Australia ? Well, I think it's this. Take the mining companies selling coal and iron-ore to China. The profits are going into the hands of the shareholders of those companies, in dividends, bearing in mind that a lot of the shareholders live in places like London and New York. If Australia was to nationalise the mining companies, or force them to pay extra high taxes, then, this would benefit Australia more. The money generated can be used to pay government pensions, hospitals, schools, etc.

And what about houses ? How about slap extra taxes on sales of new houses, make them Chinese investors pay more for real estate. And the extra revenue will be used to build government housing, housing that is for those people born in Australia. Again, this will benefit Australian people in a bigger way.

On 5/22/2018 at 7:10 AM, BEVUP said:

So why do they need immigration for population growth if most manufacturing has gone overseas due to taxes & high energy costs

Immigration is needed if Australia wants population growth. The issue is not linked to manufacturing.

Basically, Australia's birth-rate is low, and this is because of mass use of contraceptives. If every Aussie lady actually gave birth to three or four kids, well, Australia wouldn't need "immigration for population growth."


And yes, new migrants are needed. The percentage of Australians who are old is increasing all the time. Need to have more young people to work and support the pensioners. The pensions are paid, using taxes from working people.

4 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

This is what happens when  a country whores itself out. Australia is not alone on this, as Canada  and many African and Latin American countries are no better.

 

If this is how you feel, how comes you didn't add the USA onto the list of countries ?  ?

14 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

In the absence of a "dislike" button, I'm going to just come right out and say it. What a crock of shit.

What exactly is it, that you think is a "crock of ____" ??

Okay, Washington using it's military to defend Vietnam today, defend Vietnam against China. Do you think that this is a good idea ? 

Do you reckon that lots of Americans are going to say "why on earth should we fight for Vietnam, they had that war to remove us from Vietnam, and we're now suppose to fight for them ??". "We fought against Ho Chi Minh, we did not fight for Ho Chi Minh, why should we fight for his followers today ?".