tonbridgebrit

20 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

Thanks for putting the map up, it shows the issues well. China's claims are well outside internationally agreed laws. As you can see, if China had its way you only need to go for a swim in Brunei and you would be in Chinese waters.China wants the Spratly's and the Paracels and THEN wants a 200 mile extension around those. It is why Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, Philippines and Indo are well pissed and district and the potential for conflict is brewing. China's move was an aggressive taunt and Trump's current foreign policy is allowing China to troll in the S China Sea.

Hello there.
Looking at that map, Philippines and Vietnam are certainly involved in the South China Sea. What about these two countries ?





Above is the Philipinnes leader, Duterte, in Beijing. Basically, the Philipinnes are fully "in" with Beijing. Duterte wants trade, tourists, investments, etc from Beijing. Duterte knows that the islands in the South China are not worth much.


What about Vietnam ? Should Washington save Vietnam from China ? Surely not ?  Most Americans do know that the Vietnamese and Ho Chi Minh, they fought a war against America. They didn't fight a war 'for' America. In that case, why should America risk World War Three because of Vietnam ? And that's bearing in mind that the guys who are the leaders of Vietnam today, they're the same group as the guys left by Ho Chi Minh.

On 5/20/2018 at 12:21 PM, puipuitom said:

 

Can you imagine, the Danes, made out of a rock in the Doggersbank, North Sea, an Island, 500 km away from their own shores, but 30 km in front of the U.K, claiming it as.. they as Vikings sailed this sea already for over a 1300 years ?+

 

If little Denmark was to do this, Britain will bomb Denmark. But I say this. IF Britain was doing a huge amount of trade with Denmark, if Britain was being flooded with Danish tourists, if Britain needed Denmark more than Denmark needs Britain, if that's the case, Britain would simply say "Denmark, you can have them meaningless rocks, go and build an island on it, we don't care, we value trade and your tourists  as being more valuable than a useless lump of rock, a lump of rock that we can't be bothered to build on".

And that's the point with China in the South China Sea. Those countries involved, they see China as a valuable trade partner. And they want to be flooded with Chinese tourists, they don't want to harm this by fighting a war against China. Same as Thailand, they want to get the Chinese tourists.

21 hours ago, evadgib said:

Wot?

The Electorate voted to leave and to take Scotland with them, and no amount of whining is going to stop that from happening.

Do you accept that Britain leaving the EU and being outside of this massive free-trade zone is basically suicidal and catastrophic ? It is, believe me. I think, the EU is trying to say "Britain, you're going to have to agree on freedom of movement of workers and stay in the customs union or whatever, and then, you can stay in the free-trade zone".

But the hard-Brexiteers are trying to say, "we are not accepting the EU's offer, we are willing to pull out of the free trade zone if we are going to have to accept freedom of movement of workers, etc".
 

Nicola Sturgeon and others are trying to stop a hard-Brexit. If you know what's good for Britain, you would be joining in with us to support Nicola Sturgeon. The pound has dropped to US$ 1.35 , it was at US$ 1.42 quite recently. That drop, I think, in my opinion, is at least partly because the markets are reckoning that a hard-Brexit is more likely than previously thought.

I think the pound did go down to US$1.21 at one point. I think an actual hard-Brexit (leaving the EU without a trade deal, being outside of the free-trade zone) will push the pound down to well below US$1.21.  I reckon a catastrophic US$ 1.10 might happen.

Go on Nicola, say it as it is. I live in Kent, the Garden of England, I'm proud of my Kentish roots, nobody can take that away from me. I'm very far away from Scotland, and you're in Scotland, go and tell them that this hard Brexit is suicidal and catastrophic for our nation.

A bunch of bigots have decided to drive us all over a cliff. And I really do hate it when the media tries to make it look like that us in the Home Counties are mainly a bunch of Brexiteers.

7 minutes ago, khunken said:

As an European I would be very careful & hesitant about any joint European reaction to the USA. I'd love to see it happen but there are numerous recent history clues that make it unlikely.

 

First is how long the UK, France & Germany will continue to trade with Iran if Trump threatens sanctions against companies that are involved and possibly ramps up general trade issues just like he's doing with China. Not very long ago European companies (banks especially) had to dole out billions for the so-called sanctions-busting trade with the same Iran.

 

Second is that the UK has for quite some time blindly supported the US in whatever warmongering exercise it has embarked on. Also Macron is no Jaques Chirac in opposing that same type of warmongering. Only Merkel has the bottle to stand up to Trump but she can't do it on her own.

 

I'm sure that Iran has a contingency plan ready to go nuclear as soon as it becomes clear that trade with European companies is being blocked by the US. If they go that way, then Saudi Arabia will initiate it's own nuclear weapons program and Turkey could well be a candidate too. It's a scary scenario but Trump has no idea of forward thinking - mostly backward unfortunately.

I reckon France and Germany really are going to put up whatever sanctions against America if Trump puts sanctions on European companies. France and Germany reckon that America needs Europe more than Europe needs America.

About the UK blindly supporting whatever war-mongering being done by Washington. Yes, this has been going on for decades, but I think it's going to change, and lots of people in Britain hate this blind support. Theresa May has a very slim majorty in parliament, and the Opposition (led by Jeremy Corbyn) are far less likely to back Washington's war-mongering. In Britain, Conservative or Labour, Brexit or Remain, lots of people simply don't back British support for Washington's war-mongering.

Please note "as the rift between Washington and its allies deepens". None of us wants to see this, and that includes everybody in America.

10 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your point of view, the UN does not govern the US.

and if the US has become a warmonger it is partly because of this abdication of congressional power

Well, IF the UN was to govern America, instead of the White House right now, surely, that would be a good thing. The White House is causing America to be isolated from the rest of the world.

Planet earth needs a stable America, America is the anchor on planet's earth trade and capitalism. We need a USA that will carry on this role. And those who want to isolate America, they should be booted out of the White House. The enemies within, they are the real problem.

We want America back, we want the Obama policies back.

https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/european-leaders-vow-stand-trump-bullying-save-iran-deal-160742050.html

Right, so Washington is a bully, and basically, Europe is standing up to this bullying. We've all been to school, and we all know about the bully in the school play-ground. People who are bullying, they hate it when people fight back. Yes, bullies are usually cowards, bullies rely on fear. But as soon as we fight back, bullies will back of.

Yes Washington, you want a fight, you've got one. You will be sorry if you start a trade war. The rest of planet earth is not going to tolerate your b.s.

2 minutes ago, sawadee1947 said:

Again wrong. As a member of UN security council this agreement was signed. ALL other countries who signed did rely on each other. And now one country betrayed the others. On top of all these countries are ALLIES. USA, I the new warmonger 

Yes, Washington has become a war-monger, it's them bad people in the White House who are influencing Trump, they're the ones who are the war-mongers.

1 hour ago, wabothai said:

Europe first !!!!!!!!!

Well, I'd rather support Europe's Airbus rather than America's Boeing.

2 hours ago, oilinki said:

This is becoming interesting. If USA is going to put sanctions on companies, like Airbus, which sell goods to Iran, then EU must put similar sanctions to USA companies.

 

This is two former allies fighting each other with sanctions. Really damaging to the relationship between EU and USA for years to come.

 

Trump is truly on his way to destroy all the western relationships. 

Yes, this is tragic and dangerous. Trump is causing America and Europe to drift apart. Trump is suppose to be making America great again, what's actually happening is, is that America is becoming more isolated.

I really do hope that America is not going to put up sanctions against guys like Airbus. This means we're in danger of seeing Europe responding by putting up sanctions against American companies.

On 10/05/2018 at 3:30 PM, alocacoc said:

' “I don’t trust these three EU countries either,” Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, tweeted in English. “If the govt. wants to make a contract, they should ask for a guarantee, or else they will all do just as the U.S. did.” '

 

Khamenei is right. You can't trust those European countries. They are just overwhelmed with that issue. Apart from that, there are other serious hurdles to keep the deals running. Thea deal is dead. It really doesn't matter what the EU is thinking or doing. It's only some noise. Like interference on analog radios.

"The deal is dead. It really doesn't matter what the EU is thinking or doing".  

 

From the above ThaiVisa link, I do love it when it says  "Do we accept that the United States is the economic gendarme of the planet? The answer is no."
Basically, companies in Europe (Britain, France, Germany) will continue to trade with Iran. This whole Washington sanctions thing against Iran will have almost zero impact on Iran.

2 hours ago, alocacoc said:

Ahm, the deal is dead. Some just don't realize it. Cognitive dissonance. Bad timing to be stubborn.

Sent from a so called Smartphone using an App.
 

The deal is dead ???

No. Washington has pulled out of the deal, but the rest of the world is still 'in' with the deal. Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, the rest of the world, is still 'in' on the deal.

It's a bit like saying that "just because Washington reckons that global warming is not taking place, just because Washington reckons that burning coal is okay, well, that's Washington, it don't mean to say that other people feel the same way". 

And indeed, most Americans don't agree with Washington, most Americans do actually believe that global warming is taking place, most Americans do reckon that sticking with Obama's nuclear deal is the correct thing to do.

8 hours ago, farcanell said:

And what of trumps threat to sanction other countries that he sees as breaking his sanctions?

 

it seems like NATO is a “horrible deal” and needs tearing up, isolating America, freeing European signatories from any obligations and turning sanctions against other countries into aggressive unsanctioned acts by international law,

 

one stand alone countries sanctions will be meaningless.... and that same word will hopefully be appended to trump.

 

foremost in responsible modern business models is the sanctity of company reputation.... that the great deal maker in chief does not ascribe to this philosophy, as a businessman, is pretty poor...,as a politician, it’s pathetic.

Hello there.

"And what of trumps threat to sanction other countries that he sees as breaking his sanctions?"

Yes, Washington might go ahead and put sanctions on companies that trade and have links with Iran. If Washington does actually do this, well, Washington is in serious danger of making the situation worse, Washington is in danger of creating a gap between America and Europe. I hope Washington won't do this, playing with fire is dangerous.
 

9 hours ago, goldenbrwn1 said:

No1 in the West inc Russia and China will be starting world war 111. They would prefer not to have their countries laid to waste and complete devoid of human life. Now if a Muslim country like Iran had nukes...... well they are stuck like most other Islamic states in the era of witchcraft and pagan times. So yeh they would happily start one .  

 

Religion and politics do not do not blend well at all. Islam in my opinion doesn’t blend well with anything.

You come along here and say that "Religion and politics do not do not blend well at all."

Okay, do you realise what's happening in the White House ? Donald Trump is not actually a Christian man, I don't reckon that Trump believes in the Bible. But I say this. There are a bunch of Christian fundamentalists and extremists in the White House, and they are advising and influencing the President of the USA. These Christian fundamentalists and extremists have miss-interpreted the Bible, and they reckon that the Bible is saying that we're suppose to fight a war (as in, do a Crusade) against Islam. They reckon that in Isaiah and Ezekial, it says that Syria and Iran(Persia) are the problem. These extremists in the White House have got it wrong.

So, that's why the White House is pulling out of this Iran deal, that's why the White House is against Iran/Persia. The White House has been hijacked by Christian fundamentalists and extremists, they've miss-interpreted the Bible.

By the way,  do you believe in Isaiah and Ezekiel ? Do you believe that we've got to fight against Iran, because Jesus is coming back ? If you don't believe the stuff in the Bible about prophecy and End Times, well, you're basically a non-religious man who is taking part in a Crusade against Islam. A Crusade that is being organised by Christian fundamentalists.

Myself, I am a Christian man, but I'm not in the same boat as them lot in the White House.

This is outrageous and disgusting. Sterilizing people because the state reckons that they are unfit is a Nazi thing to do. And in Japan's case, this was happening AFTER World War Two had ended.

Alex Ferguson, you're a legend in your own life-time.  I'm not a Northerner, but I do support Manchester United.

2 hours ago, PhonThong said:

The U.S. has the least to lose if China takes full control of the SCS. If China is able to take full control of the SCS and the islands in dispute.

China would be able to collect tariffs on trade going through the region.  Asian countries would be hit the hardest on tariffs.

But the U.S. Navy helps ensure that free trade and travel can pass through the area that is in dispute.  Saying the U.S. should mind its own business is like saying, " I wish I could pay a lot more for the goods being shipped through the SCS area". Because that is likely what's going to happen. It is also not only the U.S. that patrols this area. Australia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, South Korea, all have a stake in this.

 

Exports Through the SCS (billions)

Top ten exporters

China$874

South Korea$249

Singapore$214

Thailand$170

Vietnam$158

Japan$141

Hong Kong$140

Indonesia$121

Germany$117

Malaysia

A silly and ridiculous post.

Yes, the South China Sea has a huge amount of trade going through it, but most of that trade is actually carrying goods to and from China.

Yes, ships involving goods from Thailand and Vietnam are heavily involved in the SCS area. These are ships doing trade wth China. Please note that Thailand and Vietnam do a lot of trade with China. And Australia is exporting a mountain of coal and iron ore to China, using ships, are we concerned about China taxing or blocking this trade ? That's absurd.

Also, Britain and the rest of the EU is importing a huge amount of cheap Chinese goods. Are we concerned that China might take over the South China Sea and tax and disrupt the ships carrying cheap Chinese goods to Europe ? Again, it's absurd.

And China is not interested in blocking South Korean and Japanese cargo ships in the SCS. If China does, America is welcome to sort out the Chinese military ships.


I will say this. There are a lot of cheap Chinese goods in Britain's shops. The cheap Chinese goods, they got here, via the South China Sea. Who wants to partially block the South China Sea ? I want to know, who wants to block the cheap Chinese goods flowing from China to England ? Whoever wants to block it, don't do it. I want to see Britain continue to have cheap Chinese goods in the retailers. Anybody on planet earth who wants to block the cheap Chinese goods flowing to England, via the South China Sea, do not do it, you will be sorry if you try. Don't forget, Britain was one of the five nations who won World War Two. That's why Britain is one of the five permenant members of the United Nations Security Council.  America, Russia, France and China are also on that Security Council.

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".