tonbridgebrit

Look, let's agree on a basic point. If one US soldier, or one NATO soldier, dies defending Ukraine, well, that's a waste of one life. And if one US soldier, or one NATO soldier, dies defending Republic of China (Taiwan) well, that's also a waste of one life. Why on earth would America or NATO fight a war against Russia, because of Ukraine ? From that, why on earth would America or NATO fight a war against China, because of Republic of China ? Yes, if Putin invades Britain, then yes, America has to nuke Russia. And if China invades Britain, then yes, America has to attack or nuke China. But Ukraine and Republic of China, well, leave it alone. And indeed, America is NOT fighting against Russia right now. Who is crazy enough to think it's a good idea for NATO or America to send soldiers or combat jets to Ukraine ? Who is crazy enough to reckon that American soldiers defending Taiwan, when/if China invades, is a reasonable idea ?

And what if Xi does actually invade Taiwan ? What if Peoples' Republic of China invades Republic of China ? Will the USA step in, and invade China ? I don't think America will. What's the rational thinking regarding war on China, if China attacks Republic of China, Taiwan ? Russia has invaded Ukraine. Why on earth would NATO declare war on Russia ? Declaring war on Russia, starting World War Three, because of Ukraine, is stupid and irrational. That's why America hasn't declared war on Russia. So, why on earth would America fight China over Taiwan ? How about let a load of Chinese attack another load of Chinese, and let them get on with it. Yes, sanctions against China if they attack Taiwan will be applied. Blocking Chinese goods entering America will hurt America. But it's got to be done.

If you're black, and you are American, yes, you are a victim of racism and abuse. But are you going to be better off if you go to North Korea ?

Raised to hate the tourists ? What's really happening ? The indigenous people of Hawai have always been angry about their land and country being taken over or stolen. These people want justice.

How is social care funded ? There's no need to go into detail about the existing system. A gradual phasing in of a new long-term system is needed. A state-funded system, available for everybody, funded by tax-payers money. Who are the 'rich' ? People in the top 20% in terms of wealth ownership, and annual income. Yes, about housing the new migrant workers. Employers, in this case, must find accomadation for the overseas workers. So, accomadation is rented out or purchased. Overseas workers are basically competing with British people to rent or purchase places to live. There are simply not enough houses in Britain to house the existing population. And yet, we're still seeing new people entering Britain. Either, the government builds new housing, or get private developers to build more housing. Number of new houses being built in Britain is very small. Or, massively reduce the new numbers of people entering Britain. We've seen a huge increase in house prices during the last decade, or more. I think, it's mainly driven by an increasing population, and with very few new houses being built. It's landlords who are very happy. Price of the house rockets, and rake in generous rent money. Let's try to hit landlords with new rules and new taxes, who on earth feels sorry for landlords ? We feel sorry for tenants, yes, but not landlords.

In my opinion, growth is important, but reducing poverty in Britain is just as important, or even more important. Yes, bump up interest rates to reduce inflation to about 2%. Growth ? So that there will be more wealth in Britain ? Yes. But greater wealth, with only a tiny bit of improvement for the poorest 20% is, in my opinion, not a good thing. Closing the big gap between rich and poor should be a government aim. And housing in Britain is absurd. I'm getting off-topic, but I'ill say it.

I'm trying to say that the present system is unworkable. Carry on drafting in a large number of foreign workers is not sustainable. And if large numbers of foreigners are going to be brought in, well, Britain needs a lot more houses to be built. House prices are pretty expensive in Britain, and rent is very expensive. This is, off-course, due to the chronic shortage in Britain. Hence, social care (and other parts of the economy) and it's funding needs to be massively changed. If we carry on seeing the existing way of funding social care, and continue with what's going on with the rest of the economy, well, it's not going to be good for Britain. "You clearly have no idea how social care is funded. " I think you should look at your views regarding the poor in Britain, the un-employed and under-employed, and have a better idea of what's actually happening.

A whole load of people are living on benefits and are poor. Some of them (maybe, most) would much rather work and have more money in their pockets. No need to raise taxes ? The wealth gap between rich and poor in Britain is surprisingly big, it's bigger today than some previous times. Raising taxes, poorer people will pay token or very little tax, richer people will see their tax bills go up. This is the way to narrow the wealth gap in Britain.

Do I believe Britain's poor have enough access ? No, I don't think so. How would driving up care costs impact the poor ? Let's answer that. Increase taxes, and do it so the increase is mainly on those with higher incomes. Government revenue will finance state-run care homes, part of a long-term plan. The prices quoted on this forum mean that most people will not be able to afford care. Driving up costs ? People in the higher income bracketts will be financing the increased cost with their higher tax bills. The poorest 20% in Britain do actually suffer from poverty. How do we close the wealth gap in Britain ? Take money from the richest 20% and re-distribute it to all in society. Yes, the poorest 20% will benefit the most. And if the richest 20% or 10% want to go private, well, let them. Private health care, private sector education, private anything, let them do it if they can afford it.

And having a system that is made up of private care homes is a big part of the problem. Yes, a long-term plan is needed, have a large number of state-owned care homes. Fees of £900-1600 per week means that vast numbers of people can simply not afford it.

You're right, not many people in Britain are cut out for working in care homes. How about this ? Give generous grants and hourly pay to those born in Britain, to work as trainee care home staff. And slowly and gradually phase out and remove the large number of foreigners working in care homes. No need for a rapid two year expulsion plan, how about a five/seven year long-term plan to make most the care workers British. And yes, those in care homes. Private and government care homes. Private care homes, that's for people who can afford it, they'ill have to increase their bills in order to pay the higher staffing costs. And government care homes, higher taxes to pay the higher staff wages. It's not going to be Britain's poor taking the pain from higher tax bills. Do it so that Britain's lowest income people will pay nominal or token tax.

And who will pay the higher bill for increased care costs ? I have no problems with bumping up tax bills (bearing in mind that increased tax bills won't hurt those in poverty that much, it's people with higher incomes who will be hit hardest by increased tax bills ) in Britain. "Sponge off the poor is a better description" . And sponging off the poor, exploitation of the poor in Britain, that's what we're seeing. In my opinion, we are seeing imported cheaper labour to compete against the poor in Britain. A simple example is this. Heathrow Airport, and hotels in Britain, need clean toilets and floors. And also, all them public toilets in Britain. Yes, foreign immigrant workers are willing to do such a job on a lower rate of pay. Almost nobody born in Britain wants to do such a job. Now, how about don't allow any foreigners to enter Britain and do this type of work. Only those born in Britain can apply. This will force up the hourly pay, and we'ill see how many people apply. And if not enough people apply, bump up the pay again. Remember, Heathrow Airport and Britain's hotels have got to have clean toilets and floors. Give people a generous per hour pay, thirty hours per week, and a three month contract. And a loyalty bonus of one weeks pay for completing the three month contract. And they can apply for a new three month contract once the present contract expires, if they want to. This, surely, will help Britain's poorest to get out of poverty ?

You're a well-meaning person, but I think you miss-interpret the situation and my view. Unemployment is extremely low ? There's still loads of people without a job, and lots who are doing part-time jobs. Can't get workers to work in care homes and farms ? Well, bump up the wages, and we'ill see how many people come forward. And bump it up again, if not enough British workers come forward. What's actually happening is, is importing cheaper foreigners to compete against British workers in un-skilled and semi-skilled jobs, jobs that are low-paid. We know that there is poverty in Britain today. Rich people in Britain would rather draft in foreigners to keep wages low, rather than pay higher wages to those born in Britain. And yes, an ever increasing population benefits landlords (those with more than one house) . Again, richer people benefit from the poor.

We ? As in, us, the people. What can we do ? For a start, stop going to Cambodia for holidays and day trips.

"On the plus side, my rental properties are easy to fill, just have to separate the wheat from the chaff at the application stage." See, people like you are part of the problem. It's not as if you actually want to see more foreigners in Britain. You're willing to cheer on the present situation, where more and more foreigners are allowed in. This is because you gain from increased rent.

There is a solution to the huge problem we have here. Britain should not import any more cheap foreigners to do the jobs that British people are now unwilling to do. The only foreigners who should be allowed into Britain to work, are foreigners in highly skilled jobs, like doctors, engineers, computer staff, etc. Instead of importing foreigners on low wages, to compete against British workers, how about bumping up the wages for those born and raised in Britain ? So, few people in Britain actually want to work in care homes ? That's not surprising. So, don't import low wage foreigners. And instead, increase pay, that way, it will attract British workers to do the job. Drafting in foreign migrant workers, all it's doing is forcing British people to compete against the cheap labour. And the ever increasing number of foreign workers in Britain is increasing the population, it's increasing rent and house prices. Not good for Britain.

Cambodia is not a real democracy, it does not have proper elections. This must stop, and we should help to stop the rigged elections in Cambodia.

Britain is no longer in Europe, and this means it's of vital importance that a big and comprehensive trade deal with China must be agreed and signed. A British ex-prime minister turning up in Taiwan is simply antagonising Chinese in Beijing, it's going to diminish Britain's position in front of China. This visit by this blonde woman is disastrous for Britain. You go on about human rights in China ? Let's all be honest. If China wants to butcher Chinese in China, well, let them do it. Who cares ? If America or Britain sends soldiers to China, to prevent Chinese killing Chinese, well, what's the point ? If one American or British soldier dies to prevent ten or twenty people in China being killed, that's still a waste of an American or British soldier. Let them do it. Same as Middle East types fighting each other. Or Africans fighting other Africans. Why on earth waste our money and waste our own soldiers' lives, for what ?

The average stereo-typical bloke doing a retirement in Thailand does not look like the bloke above. The bloke above has also got a white girlfriend, but the vast bulk of people retiring in Thailand have got a Thai girl-friend or wife.

Hello heybruce. ???? Look, if you want to condemn China because of the points you've raised, well, go and do it. But those things you've listed are not interfering with other countries internal affairs. ???? They're actually external affairs. I will try to explain. Vietnam is claiming ownership of certain parts of the South China Sea. China is claiming ownership of all of the South China Sea. And so, there are parts of the SCS where both Vietnam and China claim. Hence, China and Vietnam are in conflict, there's a dispute/fight over who owns that bit of the SCS. It's not an internal dispute. What would be an internal dispute ? I'ill give an examople. Okay, a group of guys inside Vietnam, they've got something against the government of Vietnam. There is conflict. And Beijing is now supporting these rebels, hoping that the rebels will throw out the Vietnamese government. Now, this is called interfering with an internal dispute. If USA backs Vietnam in the SCS, or if USA backs China in the SCS, well, USA is not actually interfering with any countries internal affairs. But if a group of anti-communists in Vietnam are trying to remove the Communist regime that runs Vietnam, and if Washington backs the anti-communists, well, yes, that is interfering with Vietnam's internal affairs. With China and Vietnam's dispute over the SCS, Vietnam is united with itself in claiming ownership of those parts of the SCS. By the way, Republic of China is involved in this dispute over the SCS. How ? It was back in 1947, Chiang Kai-Shek's Republic of China drew up the nine-dash-line map. This map claimed that the SCS belonged to Republic of China. In 1949, Mao Zedong won the civil war in China, he declared China's new name as Peoples' Republic of China. And very important, he claimed ownership of all the parts and bits that made up Republic of China. Hence, Mao Zedong claimed ownership of the SCS through that map. Republic of China carried on claiming ownership of the SCS. And to this day, Republic of China, Taiwan, still claims ownership of the SCS because of that map. Taiwan has in island called Itu Aba (it's also called Taiping Island ) right in the middle of the SCS. Here's the link on wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Island And by the way, Washington is neutral in the dispute over the SCS. Washington is not backing Vietnam in Vietnam's claims of ownership. And Washington is not backing Peoples' Republic of China over it's claims. And Washington is not backing Republic of China on Republic of China's claims over ownership. How comes Washington is not backing Vietnam on it's claim ? How comes Washington is not backing Republic of China on it's claim of ownership of the SCS ? I'm sorry, I'm smirking in an evil way, I think you know why. ????

"What do you think China will do when it learns the west is supplying anti-government armed groups in Myanmar? " Simple, Beijing will respond by pouring military and non-military aid to the regime in Myanmar. And once the fighting is over, Beijing will feel that Myanmar owes China a debt. Yes, China has been attempting to get contracts for infra-structure projects in Myanmar for years. Bit like China building a railway line in Thailand and Laos. "Remember, China is fine with a corrupt, transactional military government in Myanmar. " This comment's hypocrisy is laughable. ???? I don't sit here and say to you, to get properly informed. I simply say that, the US government has had no problems dealing with (being allied to, or regarding whatever countrty as a client state, trade deals, etc) regimes that were not democratic (corrupt, dictatorships, lack of human rights, lack of freedom of media, etc, etc) for decades now. Hence, your silly hypocrisy. And as for Afghanistan, are we talking Afghanistan Part One, or Afghanistan Part Two ? Part One. Russia backed a government in Kabul, and had it's own soldiers in Afghanistan. Washington responded by arming the 'rebels'. Rebels fought for a decade, rebels then took over the country. Yes, be careful when you back certain people, guys you support might be more dangerous than Russia itself. Would it have been better to let Russia take Afghanistan ? Part Two. USA had to go to Afghanistan because of 9/11, yes. But, two decades of war and presence of US soldiers. End up with Taliban back in charge, back to square one. How many billions of dollars of tax-payers money was spent ? It was a lot. And do most people in Afghanistan really hate the Taliban ? The important point is this. Myanmar is not backed by Russia, or China. Hence, no need to kick out Russia or China in Myanmar. As far as Washington is concerned, let the regime in Myanmar do it's stuff. No need to spend even a tiny bit of money on arms, and giving it to the rebels.

That's not actually totally true or gauranteed. Yes, re-locate any manufacturing in Republic of China that the rest of the world needs. Relocate it to Peoples' Republic of China, South Korea, Japan, California, Britain, Thailand, any place that China is certain to not attack. And once it's been re-located, well, China will still claim ownership of Taiwan. They've been claiming ownership since, since 1949. The important thing is, is not Peoples Republic of China re-starting it's civil war. The important thing is, is American and Brritish soldiers don't have to fight in a war against China. Such a war will trigger World War Three, a nuclear war. Just like, if NATO sends soldiers to Ukraine. And Republic of China without it's IC manufacturing, well, Washington will regard Republic of China as not worth fighting for. Actually, removal of IC manyfacturing will mean, that the big excuse to fight against Peoples Republic of China, has been removed. ????

You have to bear in mind that the West gets involved in wars for several reasons. And, spreading freedom and democracy is not actually one of the main reasons. It's never the case that the one and only reason was spreading freedom and democracy. Why prop up Ukraine ? Simple, Russia is attacking Ukraine, and supplying Ukraine with weapons is in-directly fighting against Russia. It's the same as a proxy war, and proxy wars constantly happened between the USA and Russia during the Cold War, and today as well. Afghanistan ? Again, Russia was in Afghanistan. Washington's attitude was "if you're fighting against Russia, we'ill give you weapons, we don't care who you are". Hence, weapons for 'Islamic fundamentalists' . We can carry on, Syria. The Syrian government was heavily backed by Russia. The rebellion or uprising happened in big way, Washington backed the rebels. We do realise who the rebels, or who some of the rebels, actually were, don't we ? And now we see Myanmar. Myanmar is not the same as Syria or Afghanistan (Afghanistan in the 1980s) . The Myanmar regime is not heavily backed by Russia or China. If Russia or China was involved in backing the Myanmar regime, and if a genuine rebellion (as in a rebellion that is big enough) was happening, then, then Washington would back the rebels. And it doesn't matter if the rebels are united or not. It doesn't matter if the rebels can form a credible government afterwards. Bit like Syria and Libya. And by the way, in the 1980s, backing the anti-Russia rebels in Afghanistan, who was the credible government waiting to be in power, once the rebellion was successful ? Yes, a bunch of so-called Islamic Fundamentalists. ????

It doesn't matter what race you're in, never say anything against Jewish people. You won't get away with it. You can attack black people by saying that Wokeism is rubbish, you won't be punished. And indeed, Jewish people are the biggest victims of all races. Europe spent centuries having anti-Jewish policies, prior to the murder of the six million.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/taiwan-foreign-minister-says-preparing-115200315.html The above article is from the Independent newspaper. Okay, " Taiwan’s foreign minister has expressed his concerns regarding the possibility of conflict with China in 2027, stating that the island nation is taking the Chinese military threat seriously. " So, 2027 is the big year, that's four years from now. Let's hope that in four years time, most of the world's computer chips will be manufactured in China, California and Britain. That way, when Peoples' Republic of China re-starts it's civil war with Republic of China, well, there's no need for America's soldiers to see action. Great.