tonbridgebrit

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.

17 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

Formosa was not part of China. An indeed the Chinese dynasties had little interest until the Portugese set up a traing post there in the 1600's . Taiwan as we know only came about thru the KMT fleeing there in 1949. Taiwan is not Chinese an China is a foreign threat

This comment is funny.  ?

Actually, it was 1947 when the KMT fled to Taiwan. 
Okay, let's look at history. In 1945, Japan lost World War Two and handed Taiwan back to China. In 1945, there was one nation on planet earth, called the "Republic of China", and it was made up of mainland China and the island of Formosa/Taiwan. In 1947, yes, the KMT fled from mainland China to the island of Formosa/Taiwan, that's because they was losing the civil war in China.

You do accept don't you, when Chiang Kai Shek and the KMT moved from mainland China to Taiwan, they was not "leaving a country, and going to a another country" ???  They was actually moving from one part of China (Republic of China) to another part of China (Republic of China) .

Yes, in 1949, Mao Zedong declared that China's new name would be Peoples' Republic of China. And Taiwan ?  Taiwan continued to be called the Republic of China. Taiwan today is actually called "Republic of China, Taiwan". Prior to 1949, if it was okay for Mao to take land in mainland China as part of a civil war, surely, it would have been okay for him to take the island of Formosa/Taiwan ?

Prior to 1949, what was the difference between Mao taking mainland China and if Mao had of attacked Taiwan ? There was no difference. That's because, prior to 1949, mainland China and Taiwan were both in the same country, a country called "Republic of China".

Washington is making a big mistake here. Targetting Turkey and destroying Turkey's currency and economy will simply push Turkey into the arms of Russia. And that's bearing in mind that, supposedly, Russia is the real enemy.

Who needs who more ?  Does Turkey need America more than America needs Turkey ?  I doubt Turkey needs America more than America needs Turkey. Turkey is in NATO, and Turkey is of massive strategic importance to Washington. Hurting Turkey and causing them to drift towards Russia is actually catastrophic as far as the Washington cheerleaders are concerned.

Washington needs to have a coalition against the perceived enemy, the coalition needs Turkey to be in it. It's far better to give Turkey loans and benefits, rather than destroy their economy.

On 7/27/2018 at 10:43 AM, TPI said:

You can hear the whine starting already......More money, more money, more money! This is what Ms Hansen said 30 years ago was the problem with our "sun tanned brothers and sisters"! It's a problem that combines the historical low level IQ's of the Aboriginals with SJW's who specialise in "Gender Studies".....All the problems will go away, all the sins of the past will be wiped clean, things will be just peachy, if they only give us more money!  

How can I put this ?  If a bunch of foreigners turned up in Britain and carried out mass murder and genocide, how would I feel ?

Them outsiders giving me some money (welfare, social security, government benefits, etc) is actually not enough.  How about they give me my country back, and go back to where they're from ?  They're keeping the land they took, and I'm suppose to be grateful because they're giving me some dole money ??

On 7/27/2018 at 6:42 AM, robblok said:

Almost every country has done some bad things in the past, the Dutch in Indonesia and other place, the Americans, wiping out the native Americans (one of the first times where disease was used to kill giving infected blankets to the native Americans). The Belgians in the Kongo, the Germans and French and Italians in their colonies.  But if you go back even further then almost all bigger empires are build by conquest it was the norm back then. So do we still have to feel guilty that is the question. Not so sure as I as a Dutch guy feel not responsible for what others have done in the past. 

But the Dutch massacres in Indonesia (and Belgium in the Kongo) are not the same as the genocide in Australia and America, surely ?

Holland and Belgium killed people, and then got out of the place. In Australia and America, genocide took place, and the land was taken permanently.  The ones who did the mass killings are still there today, with the the land they took.