tonbridgebrit

On 02/05/2018 at 1:17 AM, mrwebb8825 said:

First, get your facts straight; they are NOT a "load of Chinese" they are Taiwanese. They have a different life style and government preference. 2nd, they don't want to be "The Real China", they want to be Taiwan and live free and run their own lives and country.

Brings to mind another country that was under the rule of a dictatorship that got sick of it and fought back. That was 238 years ago. They too sought assistance from others and succeeded. 

They've been nothing but a war pawn for a long time and are probably just sick of it.

"Following the First Sino-Japanese War in 1895, Taiwan was ceded by Qing government to the Empire of Japan via the Treaty of Shimonoseki. At the end of World War II in 1945, Taiwan was taken over by the ROC, which was widely recognized as China."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_independence_movement

You ask me to get my facts right, I can very easily ask you to get your facts right.
Taiwan's name is "Republic of China, Taiwan".  The word 'China' is in their name, that's because they are China, or they reckon so. How about us telling Taiwan to remove the word 'China' from "Republic of China, Taiwan" ?  They won't do that, that's the same as telling the Americans to remove the word 'America' from the "United States of America".

Okay, you mention how Taiwan was given back to China in 1945, after Japan lost World War Two. Okay, here's my point. Mao Zedong was fighting and taking land in mainland China, prior to 1949, mainland China was called "Republic of China" back then. America did not send soldiers to mainland China to fight against Mao Zedong, and this was the correct and right thing to do. After all, why would America get involved in a Chinese civil war, in the Republic of China ? It would have been wrong and absurd.
Now, what if Mao had of attacked Taiwan prior to 1949 ? Surely, he would have been attacking the tiny bit of the ROC that is/was on the island of Taiwan ? And we've already said that it "would have been wrong and absurd to send American soldiers (and start World War Three) to mainland China, the ROC, prior to 1949."

Why on earth start World War Three by protecting Taiwan (ROC) but refuse to start World War Three by protecting the ROC on mainland China from Mao ?  Surely, it's absurd to defend the ROC, Taiwan, but to not defend the ROC on mainland China. Bearing in mind, that defending either one against Mao would have led to World War Three.


We're now past 1949, Beijing attacking Taiwan prior to, or after, 1949, what's the big difference ? In my opinion, there is no difference. Why start World War Three today, by sending US soldiers to Taiwan to fight aganst Beijing's invasion, when it was wrong to do so prior to 1949 ?  

18 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

 

Jingthing, I do love it when people like you say your stuff.  

Okay, Washington has got something against the Middle East, the Muslims, especially against Iran and Syria. Now, why is that ? Well, most of the hatred against Syria and Iran is coming from "Christian fundamentalists" who are in the White House. I'm not sure how much belief Trump has got in "Christians are suppose to fight a Crusade against Islam", but what is true, is, is that Trump is influenced by guys who reckon that. Yes, some of Trump's staff and advisors do fully accept that "Christians are suppose to do a Crusade against Islam".

Now then, what about guys like you ? You reckon that 'Christian fundamentalism' is a load of silly stuff, and you hate the Trump administration. But you've got something against Iran. You're willing to say that Islamic fundamentalism is dangerous and needs to be dealt with.

So, you reckon the 'Christian fundamentalists' have got it all wrong, but you're in the same camp as them, regarding Syria, Iran, and the Middle East. And, in the White House, guys like you, guys who hate Iran and whose hatred is NOT based on the Bible, well, you're in a very small group. I'm trying to say, that in the White House, hatred for Iran is mainly based on "Christian fundamentalism".


By the way, I am a Christian man. But I believe that a whole load of Americans in the White House have mis- interpreted the Bible, and that's why they believe that America has to "fight a Crusade against Islam".

 

17 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Oh, Mary, please.

I'm against the Iranian regime because of the way they treat their own people, their expansionism in the middle east, and also their obsession with destroying Israel.

Ironically, I think Persians and Jews have a lot in common and that Israel and Iran should really be great friends. Oh well.

I'm against the Assad regime because he's a mass murderer of his own people. 

I'm no fan of the Saudi regime which is a horror show too, even though the U.S. government seems to be.

I do understand the strongest support base in the USA for Israel are Christian fundamentalists that deep down aren't really friends of the Jews but rather need a certain Middle East scenario to play out for them to get their "rapture" orgasm (as "prophesied" they say, bless their dear fanatical hearts). I find that sick and ironic, but, heck, life is complicated, and Israel would be silly to reject their two faced support. 

Jingthng, so you agree that the main driving force behind Washington's hatred for Iran, Syria and Islam is from the 'Christian fundamentalists'.

It's because of stuff written in Isaiah 17 and Ezekiel 38 in the Bible, that's why some Christian fundamentalists believe in carrying out a 'Crusade against Islam'. If stuff like Isaiah 17 and Ezekiel 38 was not written, well, the Christian fundamentalists would not be backing any Crusades. And if the Christian fundamentalists are removed, then guys like you (guys who hate Iran and Syria, but your hatred is not based on your religious beliefs) representing such a small remaining group, well, the force behind hatred towards Iran would be far smaller. The power would simply not be enough to drive the rest of America onto a war in the Middle East.

So, a Crusade is being fought, and the Crusaders are saying to people like you "so you reckon what's written in Isaiah is nonsense, but you still want to be in our Crusade, well, we accept your support, you don't have to believe what's written in Isaiah to join in with us".

8 hours ago, drhugo said:

If you really want to understand what is going on in the ME, read Isaiah 17 & Ezekiel 38-39! 

8 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Pass.

Jingthing, I do love it when people like you say your stuff.  

Okay, Washington has got something against the Middle East, the Muslims, especially against Iran and Syria. Now, why is that ? Well, most of the hatred against Syria and Iran is coming from "Christian fundamentalists" who are in the White House. I'm not sure how much belief Trump has got in "Christians are suppose to fight a Crusade against Islam", but what is true, is, is that Trump is influenced by guys who reckon that. Yes, some of Trump's staff and advisors do fully accept that "Christians are suppose to do a Crusade against Islam".

Now then, what about guys like you ? You reckon that 'Christian fundamentalism' is a load of silly stuff, and you hate the Trump administration. But you've got something against Iran. You're willing to say that Islamic fundamentalism is dangerous and needs to be dealt with.

So, you reckon the 'Christian fundamentalists' have got it all wrong, but you're in the same camp as them, regarding Syria, Iran, and the Middle East. And, in the White House, guys like you, guys who hate Iran and whose hatred is NOT based on the Bible, well, you're in a very small group. I'm trying to say, that in the White House, hatred for Iran is mainly based on "Christian fundamentalism".


By the way, I am a Christian man. But I believe that a whole load of Americans in the White House have mis- interpreted the Bible, and that's why they believe that America has to "fight a Crusade against Islam".

 

6 hours ago, Expatthailover said:

Seriously...a bunch of blacks????

An alf garnet aficionado!

 

Okay, I should have wrote the following :
"Amber Rudd, a load of West Indians who were suppose to be in Britain were threatened with deportation. A few of them might have been deported. You are the Home Secretary, and you are partly responsible. You had to go.

I really wonder about Theresa May's position. Theresa May was Home Secretary before you."


So, instead of 'blacks', it should have been 'West Indians'.

On 28/04/2018 at 1:17 PM, mrwebb8825 said:

I reread the OP to make sure I didn't miss it and guess what? President Trump and the US are NOT mentioned. Since some of you have to satisfy your fetishes When it comes to President Trump no matter what or who the story is really about, how about this; Wouldn't this be an opportune time for the US Navy to give their sailors some R&R by rotating 1/4 of the fleet roaming around the Korean peninsula to Taiwan for a week at a time? Could be interesting to see if Xi has the balls to go head-to-head with a real navy.

Has Xi got the balls to go head-to-head with a real navy ?
How about, has Washington got the balls to start World War Three because a load of Chinese in the Republic of China reckon that they are the real China and want to declare independence ?

Amber Rudd, a bunch of blacks who were suppose to be in Britain were threatened with deportation. A few of them might have been deported. You are the Home Secretary, and you are partly responsible. You had to go.

I really wonder about Theresa May's position. Theresa May was Home Secretary before you.

9 hours ago, electric said:

Australia is to send one maritime patrol aircraft

 

Kim Jong Un will be terrified. He'll be shaking in his boots.

 

He's probably wondering why Austria needs maritime aircraft.

 

Little kids really should not be playing in the big kids sandbox.

Totally agree, Australia make themslves look like a bunch of jumped-up nobodies by doing this.

Australia, do please shut up.  We're entering into a new era of peace with Korea. The last thing we want is, is you pretending that you have whatever impact on the world stage, and flying your aeroplane(s) near North Korea.

Look, let the Koreans monitor their own ships. Let South Korea do the monitoring, and South Korea can then calm America down with the results. That's a much better idea. Thanks, Australia.

17 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Taiwan leaders sometimes appear conciliatory towards China, but all Taiwanese privately want China to mind its own business and quit breathing down their necks.

 

Boomer, you wrote "Taiwan leaders sometimes appear conciliatory towards China, but all Taiwanese privately want China to mind its own business and quit breathing down their necks."

Okay, the previous Taiwan government was not interested in declaring independence, and this meant good relations between China and Taiwan. It's only because the present Taiwan government is talking about moving towards declaring independence, well, that's why China is "breathing down their necks".


People talk as if the Taiwanese hate China, as if Taiwan would love to have a big wall built, a wall between China and Taiwan. People talk as if Taiwan would love to be physically re-located to a new bit of the Pacific, hundreds or thousands of miles away from China. It's not true.
Taiwan is a defacto independent place, their government chooses whatever policies. Taiwan is being flooded by the mainland Chinese tourists, they're not exactly drafting in legislation to reduce this flood. Why ? Because they want the tourism revenue. Taiwan's shops are packed with cheap goods from China. Yes, shops in America (Walmart) are packed with goods from China too. Taiwan is allowed to export it's goods to China with minimal or zero taxes, notice how America and Europe have serious taxes slapped on their goods, when the goods enter China. This gives Taiwan a generous benefit, Taiwan's economy benefits enormously from this. Throw in Taiwan having a very low birth-rate, and how men from Taiwan turn up in China, marry a lady, then take her to Taiwan, and the lady gives birth to a baby in Taiwan. 

I'm trying to say, Taiwan is far more reliant on China than Britain is reliant on the rest of Europe. And Britain being seperated from Europe (we're talking trade here) is going to hurt Britain more than it hurts Europe. We know that.  

17 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

This is a page out of the Chinese play book. Hang debt everywhere and wait to use it as leverage to promote strategic interests.

 

https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/does-debt-pay-china-and-the-politics-of-investment-in-sri-lanka/

 

If that sounds familiar, it's because the US has done the same thing in the past but less so today:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man

I'm trying to say that, China in Africa today is a massively diluted version of what Europe previously did in Africa. Europe turned up in Africa, and conquered the place. China has not used it's army to take over Africa.

The issue of the US giving loans to other countries, and then using the debt to control them, yes, it's true. I think it's a case of China repeating this stategy, and that basically, China is slowly replacing America on the world stage, when it comes to this sort of thing. So, America previously did it, and China is now replacing America ? Does this mean that China is wrong ? And how is China able to replace America ? Is it because Beijing is offering loans that are more generous ?

By the way, back in 2003, Washington invaded Iraq. Surely, that was a case of "we are not going to bother to give you loans and put you in debt, and control you in that way, no, we are simply going to invade you, and control your oil". 
Beijing has not invaded whatever country to get natural resources.

11 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

It's inevitable that the US and China will lock horns in the near future.  I don't say that in a cynical vein.  If there's a military clash, neither side will lose, because a complete victory by either side will be almost as bad as losing.  I think there needs to be some periods of letting off steam - similar to a pressure cooker.  Much will depend on whose side Russia takes in a near-future military conflict.  More likely, it will take China's side.   

 

In the event of a war between America and China, Russia will certainly be on China's side.

The real confrontation is between Washington and Russia. Washington knows that China is harmless, that's why Washington hasn't got a problem with importing a stack of cheap Chinese goods.

And this problem that we're seeing with the Republic of China, Taiwan. What's really going on ? It's because Washington has said that it will defend the Republic of China if the Peoples' Republic of China invades, well, that's why the Republic of China might declare independence. If Washington was to tell Taiwan "don't declare independence, we're not going to save you (Taiwan) if Beijing invades you", then, Taiwan would certainly not be hinting or implying that they might declare independence. Taiwan will simply carry on being a de facto independent place.

10 hours ago, Yann55 said:

 

Interesting input, thanks. Two more points :

 

1/ When you say 'strike' I believe you are thinking in Western terms. But the West plays Chess while the Chinese play Go. Both games are based on strategy, albeit with two radically different approaches. To understand how and why a player wins or looses in the game of Go is to start deciphering the Chinese way of thinking and how they envisage war. The Chinese policy in Africa is a perfect example. It's not war in a Donald T. sense, for sure, but it is most definitely war in a Chinese sense. Defined by the end, not the means.

 

2/ For anyone who wishes to understand more about China at this point in time , I would recommend three very different books :

 

- When China Rules the World by Martin Jacques

- Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday

- No Wall Too High by Xu Hongci

 

 

The West plays chess, whilst China plays Go ??  And the Chinese policy in Africa ? 

So, chess and Go have different approaches ?  How about the aim (goal/point) of chess and Go are the same ? Raising the issue of Africa is a bit funny. China is doing stuff in Africa, but it's no way near as bad as what Europe previously did in Africa. Beijing simply wants natural resources, and Beijing is not conquering any African nations.
Europe used military conquest, China is not the same. China is talking to African countries, and building infra-structure in return for natural resources. Beijing is certainly not forcing any deals onto anybody.

And the books that you've chosen.
Just because some people have written those books, that doesn't mean to say that lots of Chinese believe in taking over the world, using military or non-military means. I mean, I can easily pick out a few Muslim speakers who go on and on about how they're going to convert the whole of planet earth into Islam. Does this mean Islam is a threat, and must be dealt with ? Off-course not. There's a few people in Europe who still believe that Europeans are superior to other people, and that the whole point of Latin America, Africa and Asia is to provide naural resources and cheap labour for Europe. Does this mean that Europe is a threat to planet earth ? Off-course not.

All this talk of China having expansionist plans is silly and ridiculous. Has China threatened to invade places like Thailand and Burma ? Off-course not.


The stuff that Beijing is doing towards Taiwan is being done, because Beijing simply does not want Taiwan to declare independence. The present government of Taiwan has certain people in it, people who want to move closer to declaring independence. The previous government of Taiwan was not interested in declaring independence, and this meant far better relations between main-land China and Taiwan.

Okay, the important thing is this. A load of Chinese in the Peoples' Republic of China might fight against a load of Chinese in the Republic of China, Taiwan. If they do fight, let them get on wih it. Let the Chinese have their fight. The point is this, the rest of the world must not get involved. It's their civil war, our soldiers must not be put at risk, fighting somebody else's civil war.

What is the problem ?  Sanctions against Russia will harm imports of Russian military hardware ?  So, some of America's allies will not be allowed to import lots of Russian military hardware.

The solution, surely, is blindingly obvious ? It's this. How about America's allies will all be banned from buying Russian military stuff, and they will buy American military hardware ??

This will mean more profits for America's defence contracters, and more jobs in America.
"India, what's so amazing about Russia's weapons ?  Surely, the American stuff is just as good ? Why have you got something against American weapons ?"

"Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen attended the event while on a visit to a country which is one of the few to maintain diplomatic ties with Taiwan rather than Beijing. "


Yes, this is a country that 'reckons' that the Republic of China (Taiwan) is China. They don't reckon that the Peoples' Republic of China is China. 

On 15/04/2018 at 2:31 PM, Morch said:

 

There is an attempt to remove Assad? Seriously? Do tell. Assad's been in place since the beginning of the Syrian Civil War. Had the US really wanted him out, why wasn't he removed prior to the Russian intervention (which rendered the proposition unrealistic) and when he was most vulnerable? Weaken Assad "ineffective"? How exactly is that going?

 

You have demonstrated nothing. Assad is still in place. And, of course, you have not actually "answered" much regarding similarities between Iraq and Syria, even if you truly believe you have.

Morch, what's really happening ?

Washington has been trying to remove Assad from a very early stage. Washington was backing the rebels (whatever rebels) who were rebelling against Assad. Washington has carried out these air strikes, and claims that Syria's ability in whatever has been crippled. It's a pack of lies.

The invasion of Iraq was built on a lie, and Washington's continued presence in Syria is based on lies. Why is Washington still in Syria ? Why is Washington still heavily involved in Syria ? Why carry out this missile strike ?
Because, I think it's a case of, Washington refuses to have Syria as a country ruled by Assad. As long as Assad is still in charge of Syria, as long as Assad survives (with Russia and Iran/Hezbollah in Syria) then, Washington will continue to be heavily involved in Syria. These missile strikes are the latest chapter of Washington's role in Syria.

This military strike will have almost zero impact on the war in Syria. It was done, why ?

Because Trump and Theresa May wanted to make it look like that they're doing something positive in Syria. Got to get the media to take attention away from the present problems that both of them have.

Theresa May, you didn't bother to have a vote in parliament about this, because you was scared you would lose the vote.

By the way, Theresa May, I'm outraged that you decided to join in with the attack on Syria. You ordered the attack to take attention away from the existing problems that you've got.

So, this man went from Africa to Saudi Arabia ? And maybe, later on, into Europe. What race was he ? Was he coloured ?

15 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

So, basically you expect us to believe your claim that this mysterious "few" entity made the story up? You expect us to take you at your word and to accept your unsubstantiate, uncorroborated claim? You are doing the exact act that you claim others have done, and you are lying.

 

Read the article again. The article  reports a claim and then provides a rebuttal by way of the Vanuata government? Ever been there? I have. Port Villa is rather grim. It's a dusty backwater, and the country survives on handouts  from Australia, New Zealand and France.  It is regularly  implicated in offshore fraud schemes because there is systemic corruption. If the  ruling clique could make money leasing  a port to China it would.

 

Right, so Australia, New Zealand and France should increase their handouts for Vanuata ? Or how about scrap their handouts to Vanuata if China does build a base there ? This will surely save money for Australia ? No need to subsidise these foreigners ?

And if Vanuata does decide to accept aid from China, and let China build a port there, well, surely, that's Vanuata's choice ?

16 hours ago, FitnessHealthTravel said:

'Nothing more than other Countries do' are you kidding?  Setting up a Military base is a little different don't you think. Plus, if you actually know anything about China is does actually plan and say it wants to 'rule the world' they're pretty clear about that and these are the steps towards that.

So China plans to rule the world ?  So how many Chinese told you that they want to rule the world ?  How many Muslims would like to see almost everybody converting to Islam ? Does this make Islam a threat to world peace ?  Off-course not !

Just because you've read a few books going on about China wanting to take over the world, well, that don't mean to say it's true. What about Russia and Washington ? Have they been trying to increase their areas of influence ? Off-course they have.

What's happening is this. China is exporting a stack of cheap goods to America and Europe.  Trump is unusual, because he wants to reduce this stack of cheap imports. China needs raw materials to produce this stack of cheap goods for export. That's why China is importing a mountain of coal and iron ore from Australia. If the Australian government thought that China was a threat, well, they wouldn't be absurd enough to export to China such a huge amount of raw materials.

3 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

The Chinese are invading everywhere they can but  not with military but with money.  They buy up foreign debt  (USA mostly)  provide 'foreign aid';  purchase foreign land and  literally steal technology around the World.  Their goal is to become the number one economic and military power on earth and our countries continue to assist them by educating their students;  allowing sovereign debt to be purchased and allowing land to be sold to Chinese interests.

You've decided to say that China is not going to invade with it's military. So, it's safe then, to allow Vanuata to accept China's aid and loans, and to let China have a military base there ??

Right, Trump is saying that he is going to take swift action due to the 'chemical attack'.
I hope Trump is still going to pull America out of Syria. I really do hope that Trump's advisors don't tell him to continue having Washington in Syria for years. They'ill probably use the issue of the 'chemical attack' as an excuse to continue America's presence in Syria.