tonbridgebrit

Okay, Australia, what you do is this.
Go and talk to Vanuatu, and offer them a load of aid and loans. You've got to offer more than what China is offering to Vanuatu. That way, Vanuata will not allow China to have a military base there.

Or, you accept that this story by the newspapers is nonsense, and don't bother to give whatever aid and loans to them. And anyway, even if it is true, it's absurd to think that China might use this place as a launch pad to invade Australia.

2 hours ago, midas said:

Got to wonder also, who is really in charge-the president or the generals?

Scary issue this. Very dangerous. Is the president in charge, or the generals ?
And that's bearing in mind the generals were not democratically elected to be generals.

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Last I checked, Washington was still on the East Coast. While I understand the insistence on using "Washington" instead of the US as low level propaganda differentiation between government and people - it does sound inane.

 

As for you equally inane argument, Syria is on the news regardless. Quite a bit of Russians, Iranians and Lebanese around. Don't see much by way of a reaction such as you allege. As for your made up quotes, doubt you could provide anything concrete which supports the attitude.

 

Not that such was expected, but will point out that no reasonable explanation was given as to why the US would be expected to foot the bill for destruction largely caused by other parties, some of which are still fully engaged in it.

Morch, what are you trying to say ?
So I use the ord "Washington" and you claim this is "low level propaganda differentiation between government and people-it does sound inane" ?   What, and it's okay for Rueters and other people to do this, and that's okay ?

About Syria in the news. Look, lets look back at Iraq. When Washington still had it's soldiers in Iraq, well, Iraq was constantly in the news, on the television. When Washington pulled out, well, Iraq was given far less coverage. So, Iraq, as far as the general public was concerned, was no longer an American problem once America had left the place. I think the general public will feel the same about Syria.

Morch, do YOU feel that what Washington needs right now, is, is an exit strategy out of Syria ? Surely, this is how just about everybody feels ?

On 05/04/2018 at 4:59 PM, Morch said:

Why would the US be expected to foot the bill for Syria's destruction? Most of the damage was not even done by the US. The last bit about the "Saudi's & Company" (whatever that means) is incoherent.

 

Washington's continued presence in Syria means that Syria is still in the media. And if the general public carry on seeing Syria on television, and about how Washington is still present, well, people start asking "what's the point of being in Syria ?".  "Are they still there, because they're trying to help the Syrians, if not, well, what's the point ?".  "And, if they're trying to help the Syrians, well, why not help them re-build some of the damaged buildings in Syria by financing the reconstruction".

On 05/04/2018 at 1:42 PM, pkspeaker said:

Who cares if Iran & Russia are 'overjoyed' by the American exit-Russia and Iran need Syria and the US does not-so they can have it since it has no strategic value to the US or NATO; That's because the American presence in Syria is totally illegal and US officials have admitted that the reason they are really there is to sort of 'mess' with Iran & Syria.  This messing has failed as Iranian backed militia's who took over the territory ISIS once held in Iraq and met the Syrian Army at the Syrian/Iraqi border-creating a road link between Tehran & Damascus.  Meanwhile the threatening US presence in Syria increases the Russian presence and gives the Syrian Government a 100% safe-area in the Latkia area.  So the US spends billions to be holed up in NE Syria, surrounded on all sides by Iran, Turkey, Russia, and @TheRealSyria.  To make it worse US forces will increasingly be targeted for occupying part of the country and creating a defact-o illegal 'state' in NE Syria that is severed from the rest of the country; And staying means the US comes under increasing pressure to fix the destroyed country.. right now the country needs $200,000,000 just to get started, if they don't pay, the Saudi's & Company always disappoint and come up with a fraction of what they say they will come up with.  

Yes, this is almost how I myself feel.
Anyway, looking back, I think everybody now feels that it would have been far better if Washington had not of got involved in the first place.

What Washington needs right now is an exit strategy, and I hope Donald Trump can carry it out.

This is justice, yes, 24 years prison term. Park Geun-hye and her party did serious damage to South Korea. I'm so happy for South Korea that her and her party are no longer in charge of South Korea.
And I hope the voters will remember this, and not let them back in power for the next ten years.

3 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

You are going to pay more for your goods and thanks the idiot for doing so. 

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/big-screen-tvs-other-products-154300303.html

From the article " Prices for big-screen televisions and some household appliances could go up significantly if the Trump administration's proposed tariffs on Chinese imports are enacted."
And   " On a $4,000 TV ... the tariffs might have a several-hundred-dollar price impact ".   

1 hour ago, the guest said:

You could ask why in the first place did countries source out jobs and materials to countries like China ? The answer is greed ! 

 

Now that we have woken the sleeping Tiger, only this one has no morals or ethics, and will stop at nothing to get its way. 

 

Either way, this scenario could get quite ugly.

Well, yes, this scenario is going to get more ugly. But who do you think is going to feel the pain more ?  America or China ? 

4 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

I wonder as you seem to support the forced reunification of Taiwan with Mainland China. Do you then support the takeover of Tibet by China even though it had been independent.

Therefore if both those are legitimate reasons to use armed force. Why then could China not invade Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Thailand as those people are also of ethnic Chinese extraction? Sure too the Phillipines as they are mixed, And Singapore too? Some Say the Polynesian peoples originated in China so perhaps China would be justified in Annexing many pacific Nations too. Legitimately of course.

Personally I would accept unification of China and Taiwan only if the Taiwanese majority voted for it.

Hong Kong was never given that choice and every year China rolls back the freedoms of that small state.

China's biggest threat is freedom of expression and at the moment that is what Taiwan represents to them

Hello there.
I certainly do not support the forced reunification of Taiwan with mainland China. I support the present situation that we see. As in, Taiwan is a de facto independent state, it does not have a seat at the UN, and it is (at present) not making a declaration of independence. Yes, I support the present situation. Beijing is not interested in attacking Taiwan, as long as Taiwan does not declare independence, yes, I support this.

You've raised the issue of Tibet. Okay, I put under here, the wikipedia link regarding Tibet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet#Qing_dynasty

Okay, that article seems to indicate that Tibet was heavily connected to China during the 1700s, long before 1950.


Now, what about China and it's links with Thailand, Vietnam, etc ?  Beijing is claiming sovereignty, or whatever you want to call it, over Tibet and Taiwan. Beijing is certainly not claiming that Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc are part of China.  And indeed, these areas never have been part of China. 


Yes, if most people in Taiwan want reunification with mainland China, well, let them have it. If they don't, let's continue with the present situation. And about Hong Kong. Britain fought a war, won the war(s) and took Hong Kong. It was agreed in 1898 that the mainland bit of the British colony of Hong Kong would be going back to China in 1997. And I think the British government was correct, in the early 1980s, to agree handing over the entire colony to China in 1997.

20 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Doesn't your "break away" theory only apply to Taiwan if it was originally part of sovereign Communist China (1949)?

Between 1945 and 1949 Taiwan was the governed by the sovereign Republic of China ruled by the Kuomintang. After 1949 it remained under the governance of the KMT. Where is the "break away?"

Okay, you're saying that the "break away" theory does not apply to Taiwan.
Okay, you're saying that from 1945 to 1949, Taiwan was governed by the Republic of China. So, Taiwan was part of the Republic of China during those four years ? Well, this goes back to : the Communists were taking over the Republic of China in mainland China, and the rest of the world did not send soldiers to stop the Republic of China becoming communist. Soldiers were not sent to stop the Republic of China becoming the Peoples' Republic of China.

So, today, why have a policy where NATO soldiers might be sent to stop the last bit of the Republic of China becoming the Peoples' Republic of China ?  We agree, it would have been 'wrong' to send American and British soldiers to the Republic of China prior to 1949, to fight in the Chinese civil war ? It was, after all, a Chinese civil war. Why send soldiers to fight in somebody else's civil war ?

On 3/24/2018 at 9:20 AM, mike324 said:

"Taiwan, along with Penghu and Liaodong Peninsula, were ceded in full sovereignty to the Empire of Japan by the Treaty of Shimonoseki."

 

I'm sure you read that, that is how war is, and how countries were conquer and lost all over the world. So Taiwan was ceded in full. When Japan lost the war and left, they did not return it back to China instead they hand the power down to the US which in term pass it down to the locals there - not back to China.

 

There are two groups of people in Taiwan, one is the locals who immigrated there long before WW2, and those mainlanders (KMT) that fled there during Chinese war. Locals make up the majority even today and they feel like they are independent - compare to the KMT who still thinks Taiwan will reunify with China one day. This is why Taiwanese are actually pretty divided too. KMT had the military power so they rule Taiwan during the Chinese war after they fled to Taiwan. But that does not change the fact that Taiwan no longer belongs to China even though Taiwan had a ruler that fled from China. This is the main reason why China still has no authority over Taiwan, because they don't according to law.

 

I think its the best to recognize China and Taiwan at the UN and all other world organizations. China has absolutely no power, no oversight of Taiwan. How can they make decisions thats in the best interest of Taiwan? But because their political power is so great, other nations have to agree with their choice even though they very well know China and Taiwan are two different countries.

 

 

Hello.
Okay, about Japan beating China in a war, and taking Taiwan. Now, I am criticising/condemning Japan for taking Taiwan after that war. Do you feel the same way ? Now, if we don't say that Japan was wrong when doing this, well, we're going to end up saying that China, today, is entitled to fight wars, try and win, and grab islands and land.
Now, that would be absurd, right ?  
About how Japan handed Taiwan to the US, and how Washington handed Taiwan to the locals and not to China. I'm saying that Washington should have handed Taiwan back to China. And Taiwan was part of the Republic of China, so was large parts of mainland China part of ROC, after 1945. So, it was okay for the Communists to take parts of the ROC in mainland China, but it's not okay for them to take the bit of the ROC that's on the island of Taiwan ?  

You're right, Taiwan is a de facto independent state. Correct, China has no power in Taiwan. Beijing's attitude to Taiwan is simple, "don't declare independence, and you won't be attacked".

Do you really feel that Beijing's attitude is outrageous ? Beijing fought a civil war against the Nationalists, Beijing is simply claiming ownership of all land that was part of China prior to 1949. If there had of been a group of Nationalists trapped in Shanghai after 1949, well, Beijing would have removed them.


And I notice that those who are against Beijing simply don't mention the massive economic benefits that Taiwan gets from China. Taiwan's biggest export partner is China, and Taiwan imports more from China than any other place, and Taiwan rakes in good tourism revenue from China.

Okay, back to the issue of people being allowed to declare independence. See, whatever country we're talking about does NOT actually have to give whatever people "the right to declare independence".  So, in America, if California wants to become independent, even if most people actually want it, well, the US government certainly does have the right to not allow California to break away. It's not a case of "if that area is very different to the rest of the country, then, they are allowed to break away". You're only allowed to break away IF the central government allows you to do it.

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

Yesterday I was concerned that Trump's talks with Kim would lead to selling out US allies in Asia.  Now I'm concerned it will lead to war.

19 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I think the Koreas are going to get together DESPITE the USA and avoid a Vietnam disaster. They have more in common than divides them. Japan WILL need support in coming to terms with this.

Hello Grouse. Bolton has been appointed. I believe "now I'm concerned it will lead to war".

Is it that hard to imagine that Bolton will convince Donald Trump that North Korea must be attacked. And then, Trump turns up at whatever meeting with North Korea, and Trump says "look fatboy, you're dangerous, I'm going to bomb you". Trump's going to say that to Kim of North Korea ?

All the hawks in Washington are dangerous, and Bolton is the most dangerous hawk of all.

This man really does believe that Iran is a threat and danger to world peace, I think he really is mad enough to attack Iran. We're living in scary and dangerous times.

7 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Or... the US would be unable to prosecute its agenda in most of the Southern Hemisphere, without Australian assets.

 

we are allies, because both sides have something to bring to the table... not because the US is some kind of benevolent entity

And unfortunately, the US government has managed to convince lots of people, Americans and people outside of America, that it is a benevolent entity.

3 hours ago, Thaidream said:

I am American and I have no problem criticising America when it is deserved but I resent anyone indicating that the majority of  Americans are sick and violent.  You might want to visit some bars around Thailand and see who is there drunk night after night and looking for a fight.  I can  asure most of the Americans are not there but attending to their business and families.

We're not attacking American people, most of us know Americans in Thailand, and we know that Americans are about the same as anybody else.

What we are against is the US government, we are against Washington. Washington has, through the media, convinced lots of Americans that it is nice and friendly institution. A classic example would be that invasion of Iraq, back in 2003.

Washington has to pretend that it is trying to spread freedom and democracy to the rest of the world. By pretending this, well, it's managed to get lots of Americans to back and support it's foreign policy. Most Americans would certainly not back their government's foreign policy, if they knew what the real goal is.
   

3 hours ago, HLover said:

Fairly dismal since WW2

It might be dismal, but intent counts. And Washington certainly has shown intent to build an empire.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/china-strikes-back-trade-spat-013045477.html

Beijing has already drawn up some action to retaliate if Donald Trump does put up these tariffs.
From the article "Beijing's disclosure of its planned retaliation to proposed tariffs on Chinese metal exports to the United States, served as a warning to Washington as both sides brandished their weapons while holding off from starting a full-blown trade war."

Let's all hope that Washington does not start a trade war. I really do hope that Trump's advisors will make him see sense. A trade war might actually hurt America more than it hurts China.

On 3/21/2018 at 9:25 AM, mike324 said:

I don't see whats the point of mentioning Taiwanese opening up factories in China, marrying Chinese. Taiwanese feel and in fact most people around the world know Taiwan is an independent country, hence they would like to declare independence. Yes its rocking the ship because China is a bully and because of China's retaliation, they won't declare independence without support. Its just that simple.

You don't see the point of mentioning Taiwan relocating most of it's manufacturing base to China ?  What about Taiwan being flooded by Chinese tourists ?
We're talking here about Taiwan declaring independence, and how China will launch a military attack and/or invasion in response. Do you accept, if/when China launches the attack, well, it's going to harm the huge amount of trade between China and Taiwan ? What about the Chinese tourists flooding into Taiwan ? Surely, you accept a war will have a negative impact on Taiwan getting the Chinese tourists ?

Do you accept that China will probably clamp down on it's trade and tourists prior to any military attack on Taiwan ?  And if Beijing does carry out a trade war with Taiwan (partially block Taiwanese goods entering China with taxes) and if Beijing reduces the number of Chinese tourists entering Taiwan, well, is Beijing wrong ? Surely, it's Beijing right to carry out such action, if they wish. I mean, Beijing slaps 'harsh' taxes onto European and US goods entering China. But they, at present, allow Taiwanese goods to enter China with minimal taxes. Is Beijing wrong to scrap this benefit for Taiwan, if Beijing is angry ?  Surely not ??  

On 3/21/2018 at 9:25 AM, mike324 said:

Perhaps you have to go back into history, when Japan ceded control of Taiwan, the power was given to the US, which in term passed it on to the local government during that time. Hence Taiwan has been independent form that point on. Taiwan was a member of UN and many world organization bodies until Beijing put an end to it by intimidating other member countries to not recognize it.

 

The fact that Taiwan doesn't have an "official" embassy does not mean its not an independent country. It is, and it has been with a an independent government. Taiwan has embassies everywhere around the world, it just that China has pressure host countries to prevent it from calling it an "embassy".

 

If China does go to War with Taiwan, Taiwan should be in the same position as Japan or South Korea, viewed as an independent country. By law the US is requested to protect Taiwan from China. If you don't think US should support Taiwan, than the US shouldn't be in any conflict zones, same goes for UK who has troops all over world offering peace and security in different regions.

 

I don't see whats the point of mentioning Taiwanese opening up factories in China, marrying Chinese. Taiwanese feel and in fact most people around the world know Taiwan is an independent country, hence they would like to declare independence. Yes its rocking the ship because China is a bully and because of China's retaliation, they won't declare independence without support. Its just that simple.

Hello there.
Okay, you mention Japan and Taiwan. In 1895, Japan defeated China in a war and took over Taiwan. Basically, Japan stole Taiwan from China, the island of Taiwan was certainly part of China prior to 1895. Below is a link with wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan#Japanese_rule

So, Japan loss World War Two, surely, it would have been right to hand Taiwan back to China ? China was/is the rightfull owner of the island of Taiwan ??


You also mention the issue of Taiwan with the United Nations. 
Yes, in 1945, the UN accepted the Republic of China as a nation. They accepted Chiang Kai Shek. By the way, the Big Five won World War Two, and the Big Five made themselves permanent members of the UN Security Council, with the power of veto. The Big Five are USA, Britain, France, Russia and China.

Okay, in 1949, Mao Zedong won the civil war and announced that China's new name would be Peoples' Republic of China. China's seat at the UN was held by Republic of China (Taiwan) and not by Peoples' Republic of China. It was in 1971, when finally, Peoples' Republic of China actually took China's seat at the UN, Republic of China (Taiwan) no longer has China's seat. Basically, China has never had two seats at the UN.

Do you think it was a good idea to recognise Peoples' Republic of China as China, rather than Republic of China ? Or, do you think it's better to recognise Republic of China (Taiwan) as China, rather than Peoples' Republic of China ?

By the way, Taiwan does not have a seat at the UN, and I think Beijing will never let them. China is one of the Big Five.
 

17 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

But NATO nations like the UK can be involved independently without linkage to NATO.

 

However, if the US presence in the open waters and/or airspace of the South China Sea in proximity to Taiwan were to be attacked without warning, ie., first strike as part of a Chinese strategy to invade Taiwan, Article 5 of NATO could bring at a minimum European/UK NATO members into the fray.

Furthermore, the US security agreements with a number of nations within the Asian-Pacific region such as Australia and South Korea may also trigger additional military defense measures against Chinese military hostilities against the US.

China will have to "thread the needle" if it decides to attack Taiwan without triggering a US/NATO/Pacific ally military response.

Again, thanks for your post. You're correct, Beijing must make sure that any attack on Taiwan does not involve attacks on any American military units. Is it okay if I try to be funny by saying that Beijing should tell Washington, just prior to any attack, to remove all American military units in the area ? Just in case Beijing does un-intentionally harm Washington's military units.

You're a person who knows a fair bit about Taiwan. I really do think we should look at the bigger picture. Taiwan imports a huge amount of Chinese goods, and Chinese tourists are flooding Taiwan. Also, Taiwan has one of the lowest birth-rates in the world. A load of men from Taiwan turn up in mainland China, marry women, and then take them women to Taiwan. Those women then give birth in Taiwan. And a large number of big Taiwanese manufacturers have re-located their factories to mainland China. What's the point of declaring independence officially, bearing in mind it will harm all this in a massive way ?  How about Taiwan keeping the existing situation ? I think it's Taiwan that's taking part in theatrics with all this independence talk. 

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The new talking point - let the PRC do whatever it likes, place restrictions only on the West.

Morch, if Beijing attacks South Korea or Japan, in that case, yes, NATO should step in, and defend those countries. If Beijing attacks Taiwan, why should NATO step in ?

I can very easily say that I don't recognise the Republic of China (Taiwan) as a nation or country. That's because they don't have an embassy in London. So, Beijing attacking Taiwan is the same as Beijing attacking whatever place in mainland China.  South Korea and Japan do have embassies in London, that's why Beijing attacking South Korea or Japan IS an invasion.

I really do feel that, if Washington wants to fight a war against Russia, because it feels that Russia is a threat to America, well, let's think about that. Washington fighting a war against Islam, because it believes that Islam is a threat to America, well, I'm not sure. As for Washington fighting a war against China, because a load of Chinese in Taiwan want to switch from de facto independence to official independence, well, what can I say ? How about tell Taiwan to not declare official independence ? And tell them that, IF they declare it, NATO will not get involved if or when Beijing attacks them. That should be enough to stop the Republic of China (Taiwan) declaring their independence officially.

7 hours ago, Srikcir said:

I was making a broader point with reference to Sun Yat-sen - even emperors are vulnerable to overthrow. 

As far as to what the ROC peoples (as well as Xi) should remember, it's the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act that requires the US to have a policy to:

• provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character
• maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.
• authorizes de facto diplomatic relations with the governing authorities by giving special powers to the AIT to the level that it is the de facto embassy
• be treated under U.S. laws the same as "foreign countries, nations, states, governments, or similar entities,"

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

The new US law is perfectly aligned with the Taiwan Relations Act. Xi's reaction is feigned theatrics.

Okay, thanks for your post. I really do feel Washington fighting a war against China, because a load of Chinese in a de facto independent state want to declare independence officially, makes Washington look absurd. Taiwan is already a de facto independent state, there's no major benefit for them in declaring independence officially. The only thing they gain is, is to antagonise Beijing.

7 hours ago, kamahele said:

Yes, after largely sitting out the war with Japan while others fought in their stead, the communist forces did indeed run out those that chased the Japanese out of China into Taiwan. Those forces have since then kept the much larger communist forces out of Taiwan with little help from the outside.

You're claiming that Mao Zedong's communists did not do a lot of fighting against the Japanese ?? You're claiming that Chiang Kai-Shek and his KMT did most or all of the fighting against Japan ?  Stop being ridiculous. Here's a link from wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong#Alliance_with_the_Kuomintang:_1935–1940

Yes, so the Chinese communists beat the Chinese Nationalists in mainland China, and the Chinese Nationalists fled to Taiwan. They took with them China's name, Republic of China. If it was okay for Chinese communists to fight against Chinese Nationalists in mainland China, bearing in mind that no other countries sent their soldiers to be involved. In that case, surely, it's okay for them to fight again, without other countries getting involved ?

I quote from you "Those forces have since then kept the much larger communist forces out of Taiwan with little help from the outside."  And indeed, when or if Xi attacks the Republic of China (Taiwan) , Taiwan must fight without NATO forces helping it. NATO forces getting involved would be wrong.

10 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Apparently not all the Chinese people, ie., those living in Taiwan.

Emperor Xi needs to decide whether China lives in the 21st century or the 20th century. He should also remember that the last emperor of China was forced to abdicate following Sun Yat-sen's republican revolution. 

And them Chinese who follow Sun Yat Sen today, that's them Chinese in the Republic of China (Taiwan) , they should remember that Sun's followers were beaten by Mao Zedong's followers in China. Thank God that countries like America and Britain did not send soldiers to China, to intervene in China's civil war.

The Chinese who lost the civil war, they fled to Taiwan. Why on earth should the rest of the world fight for Taiwan today ? They didn't fight for them during the civil war. Today, Republic of China (Taiwan) should remember that.