tonbridgebrit

39 minutes ago, placnx said:

You are wrong. "Beating the drum of war" is not about posters on this site. It is about Xi Jin Ping changing China's stance to belligerent.

Let's look at the OP put up by ThaiVisa, originally from Reuters.
"China toughened its language towards Taiwan on Thursday, warning after recent stepped up military activities near the island that "independence means war" and that its armed forces were acting in response to provocation and foreign interference. "

I've quoted that directly. Is Xi Jin Ping banging the war drum ?  Well, he's only saying what China has been saying for decades. He's not saying anything new. And that is, IF Taiwan declares independence, then yes, there will be war.

You're right, this post by ThaiVisa is not about posters expressing their views on how they would like to see China getting a kicking. But, you do realise that some posters reckon that China has already done enough to get a kicking. As in, China has already done enough to get a military strike from NATO, or whatever.

As for my own views, I hope that there will not be, and never will be, military action taken by America against China.

From the OP  "Trump restored the U.S. sanctions that the deal removed and placed more on Iran" .

So, Obama removed the sanctions and Trump restored the US sanctions, and placed more. Once Trump was in power, did Iran change whatever policy they had during Obama's time in charge ?  They didn't, Iran's policy during Obama's time was the same as what it was when Trump took over the presidency.

So, Macron wants to help broker a peace deal with Iran ?
Well, the first thing Macron can do is, is to encourage Joe Biden to immediately remove all sanctions that were placed onto Iran during Trump's time in charge. Once this has been done, once the sanctions have been removed, hopefully Iran will be happier. And then, then Macron can organize a big meeting, involving Iran and the other countries.

Can Macron do this ?  Can Macron go all out to encourage Joe Biden to immediately remove the sanctions ?

7 hours ago, heybruce said:

Yes, China went from a peak of over $1.2 trillion to over $1 trillion.  It is still holding a massive amount of treasuries. 

 

China will not deliberately undermine the US dollar, which is the world's trade currency.  That would undermine the entire global financial and trade system that has worked so well for China.  The biggest threat to the primacy of the dollar are the policies of the US government, especially under Trump, providing others with a keen motivation to find another reserve currency.

3 hours ago, PatOngo said:

Nihao ma, stay in denial!

Hello heybruce.   ????
You don't reckon that China is a threat to the USA, and indeed, I reckon the same thing. I reckon that America putting on an aggresive display of it's warships in the Far East, is simply not needed.
Now, that post that is saying that you are in denial.  The scary thing is, I think in America, these people outnumber you.

On 1/29/2021 at 1:01 AM, Suua said:

They need to be put in their place.....I look forward to them getting a kicking, as is most of the planet.

And will gladly lend a hand.

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

 

 

I hope that anyone with a functioning memory and fingers is able to scroll to the top of the topic - and realize that the beating of the drums of war comes from China. The China fan club on here trying to paint it otherwise notwithstanding.

Let's be clear as to who is beating the drum of war.  That post about looking forward to them getting a kicking, it appeared early on. You do realise what 'them getting a kicking' actually means ?    ????
And notice how posters actually clicked 'like' on the post. Yes, it's scary.

11 minutes ago, herwin1234 said:

why? whats a tiny island far away from your own home country up to you? 

Why they need to be "put in their place". The world doesnt belong to the usa...

Why not put other countries "in their place", like certain countries which brutally kill and dismember their critics, totalitarian countries ruled by kings, countries where half of the population (women) doesnt have any rights nor freedom.

I hope nobody thinks this anti China drums of war has anythong to do with "human rights" or "democracy" but all with the usa unable to keep up with the economic succes of China. Cant handle the competition, so lets wreck their economy and put them on the leash of the usa. 

 

A great post, I agree with you. Thanks for putting this up.

17 minutes ago, heybruce said:

China has made some just for show selling of US Treasuries during the Trump administration, but it continues to buy and hold a large stash.  https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/040115/reasons-why-china-buys-us-treasury-bonds.asp

Thanks for putting up the above link to the article.
Yes, the report claims that China has about one trillion dollars of US national debt.

From the article, "As the trade war between the two economies escalates, leaders on both sides seek additional financial arsenal. "
And also "Some analysts and investors fear China could dump these Treasurys in retaliation and that this weaponization of its holdings....." .

So, China has a trillion dollars. There's a trade war going on. (A war without guns) .  And, China might weaponize it's dollar holdings.  Weaponize, as in, try to use it's dollar holdings as a weapon.

And all this is from the article you've put up.   ????      Are we seeing already, a war without the guns ? A war where dollars are one of the weapons being used ?

21 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Changing demography and affluence have lots to do with the changing sentiment of young Taiwanese and Hong Kongnites resistance towards the central command from Beijing. Honestly, I think the one-country-two-systems will never work and Beijing will be very strong to nullify any expression of democratic rights. The breakup of Soviet Union scared the hell out of Beijing. The costs are just too big for the country to made the political change and the world will neither be better if such catastrophy occured. China is just too big to fail in the global perspective. 

 

All said and done, both superpowers will want to avoid a dooms day confrontation. Winning has no meaning when you annihilate the two biggest economies; much a zero sum game. We can expect the sabre rattling and brinkmanship from both militaries and even possible skirmishes but don't expect all out war. Silly to even think of that in this nuclear age.

 

As for Taiwan, the people have mostly spoken when they alternate between anti-Beijing and pro-Beijing political parties for government. Most will rather live with the current defacto independence than to risk confrontation that will have an undesirable effect on their life and livelihood.  

Good post.
Okay, you write "The breakup of Soviet Union scared the hell out of Beijing."  I think I will disagree on that. The USSR was a collection of countries, and Russia seperated from the other countries. Russia itself is a single nation, and Russia itself did not break into seperate bits. That's the same as saying that China is a single nation, and China won't break up into seperate bits. Well, Beijing will never allow it to happen.

We talk about Taiwan. We agree right, that economic prosperity is of great importance to the people of Taiwan and Hong Kong ?  I'm trying to say that Taiwan's economic prosperity is dependent on China. As in, the vast numbers of Chinese tourists visiting Taiwan, rich mainland-Chinese buying real estate in Taiwan, Taiwan being allowed to export goods to China with zero or minimal taxes slapped onto the goods, etc, etc. And Taiwan's shops are stacked with Chinese-made goods, just like shops in America and Europe are stacked with Chinese-made goods.
Beijing can very easily take away these economic benefits that Taiwan gets. And off-course, whilst trade between Taiwan and China represents a considerable percentage of Taiwan's trade, well, trade between China and Taiwan represents only a small percentage of China's trade with the rest of the world.

So, if Beijing wanted to, they can easily harm Taiwan's economy. And Beijing isn't doing anything illegal by slapping serious taxes onto Taiwanese goods entering China, and Beijing will still carry on preventing Taiwan being represented as a nation at the UN.

As for Hong Kong, all the same priciples apply. Hong Kong's economic reliance on China is considerably greater than Taiwan's reliance on China. And that's bearing in mind that Taiwan's reliance on China is greater than Britain's reliance on the European Union.   ????

1 hour ago, kingdong said:

Once america beats china? Know something i don,t? And how do you think the war will be fought conventially or nuclear? If it goes to war i don,t think they,ll be any winners,there is also the chance china could use germ warfare,or are they signatories to the geneva convention?

1 hour ago, kingdong said:

Good i hope you,re right,do you think the American public would support a war,call ups ,etc and watch the results in glorious technicolor on the six o/ clock news.

When I say "Once America beats China", I mean it in the sense that this is the US government's plan or goal.  Is the war going to be nuclear ? Germ warfare ?  Well, the US government's intent will be a 'quick and decisive' war. A few nukes dropped on China if needed. Remember, they're not interested in turning China into a nuclear waste-land. After all, they still want China to mass produce consumer goods for export to the USA, during the decades after the conflict. Bit like Japan after World War Two.

A few nukes dropped onto China ?  And hope to use the defensive shield to knock out any Chinese nukes heading for the USA. Defensive shield, as in a system where America launches missiles to hit the enemy nukes flying towards America. A few nukes on China ?  Is this Chinese propaganda ?  You've got to bear in mind that, a number of Thai Visa posters are suggesting nuking China's man-made islands in the South China Sea.    ????

I do, off-course, hope that the USA and China never fight a war. America is a democracy. The US government needs the support of the US general public in order to fight a war with China. Notice how a number of posters on Thai Visa are actually calling for war against China.  ????

2 hours ago, kingdong said:

Its stupid to declare war over a trade deficit,what you should do is put tariffs on their exports to limit the damage,and if dealing with a country that starts misbehaving cut trade altogether,this prevents possible rogue states financing their armed forces financially.

Let's put it this way. The war is not going to be done to actually remove the monthly deficit. Once America beats China in this war, America will take away China's vast pile of US dollars. And tell China that they've now got a giant debt with America. And then, during the decades after this war, America can then go back to having a big monthly deficit with China.
And give it another four or five decades, when China has got back a huge pile of dollars, well, do it all over again. ????

The cynics talk about what really happened after World War Two. Yes, Japan started the war against America. America defeated Japan. So, what really happened during the 1950s and 60s, in Japan ?  Japan became a 'sweat shop' or land of cheap labour, mass producing goods for the USA. Yes, that was the victory prize for the USA.   ????

1 hour ago, kingdong said:

Its stupid to declare war over a trade deficit,what you should do is put tariffs on their exports to limit the damage,and if dealing with a country that starts misbehaving cut trade altogether,this prevents possible rogue states financing their armed forces financially.

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

You seem to think that trade deficits are inherently bad.  Why?

The trade deficit. On a monthly basis, China's exports to America are worth billions more than it's imports from America. Hence, America's deficit. The monthly deficit has meant that Beijing has built up a vast quantity of US dollars. The power and influence that Beijing has because it has got a vast pile of dollars is not minimal. And this vast pile of dollars is getting bigger every month, due to China exporting more than it imports.

It was over fifteen years ago, the US dollar was weakening on the world markets, when the US government hinted and implied to China "the dollar is our currency, but it's your problem".   ????

It's your problem.  As in, it's you who has got this huge plie of dollars, the dollar's collapse is your problem. And that was over fifteen years ago. The pile is, off-course, far bigger today.

1 hour ago, placnx said:

These are conspiracy theories. Where did you find them?

They're conspiracy theories ?  Where did I find them ?   ????

Please read the post immediately above, the one put up in response to "heybruce".  

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

You think the US wants to go to war with China?  You further think the motivation for the war would be to eliminate the trade deficit? Not even Trump is that delusional.  Well, maybe not.

I don't reckon the USA actually wants to fight China, but I reckon the American government wants to have the option to attack China in the future. Obviously, the US government needs an excuse to attack China if it does attack, and yes, Taiwan would be an obvious excuse. As in, attack China on the grounds that China is a threat to Taiwan. Or, order Taiwan to declare independence, knowing full well that China has to attack Taiwan, and then, attack China.

Let's change 'World War Three' to a 'brief but decisive military conflict'.

A conflict carried out for economic /financial reasons.  See, the US government carried out that invasion of Iraq. It was done supposedly, because Iraq was a threat and danger to world peace. It was done with the supposed goal to create a new Iraq. A country that would go on to be a democracy, with religious freedom, freedom of expression, etc.  Most people now do reckon, it was done mainly because Iraq has oil. It was done for economic reasons. Same as Libya, when removing Gaddafi.

And let's not forget about Britain fighting two wars against China back in the 1800s.  History itself calls these wars the "Opium Wars".  They were fought mainly because, the Chinese government at the time, Chinese government wanted to stamp out the flood of opium entering China. Britain was importing Chinese gooods, had a big trade deficit, and responded by exporting opium to China. This resulted in China having a large deficit. Chinese government attempted to stamp out opium, Britain responded by fighting two wars against China. It was nothing to do with China being a threat to Britain.  ????

And today, we see the huge trade surplus China has with the USA. The problem is, is China not buying enough goods made in America and Europe. So, yes, how about history repeats itself ? I mean, if they removed Saddam and Gaddafi because of oil, if the Opium Wars were fought because of opium and money, and the list goes on. Well, why not repeat the system, fight a war to clear up the problem of China holding billions of dollars of US government bonds.    ????

2 hours ago, sscc said:

You know some of the relevant history,  so I quoted your posting and add more info. 

 

Mainland PRC and Taiwan ROC  both claim as the ONE and SOLE China for a long period. 

 

Taiwan ROC had been "thinking and planning" to take over Mainland PRC in all of 1950's and up until around 1965.   Taiwan ROC had also enjoyed a rather progressively prosperous and advancing period from 1975 to 1995.   Then Taiwan ROC has turned stagnant in many ways till now.  

 

On the other hand,   Mainland PRC was very, very poor economically and was in disarray and disaster from late 1950's to late 1970's.   

 

Only starting 1978, Mainland PRC had done 180 degree change ---  converting to capitalistic socialism,  gradually abandoning Communist Karl Marx economic policy and reserving the socialism part.     The advance in Mainland PRC in the past 40 years is obvious and undeniable.   

As reference point,  In 1980's  GDP of India to Mainland PRC were equal,  in 2019,  it is 100 : 450 in percent ratio.   

 

The sheer confidence of PRC actually had gotten strong after 2008,  post-Beijing Olympic time and the extra high GPD growth period started from 2001.    ( Sarcastically India is eyeing to stage an Olympic nowadays. ) 

 

 

Ultimately it is about which side is stronger and the stronger side is to take over the other side. 

It is not about  Authoritarian Vs Democracy  or communism Vs Capitalism.       

Great post. I'ill add a bit more myself.
During the last two decades, China has given big benefits to Taiwan's economy.  Beijing has allowed vast numbers of mainland Chinese tourists to visit Taiwan, and rich Chinese have turned up in Taiwan to buy real estate. This has boosted Taiwan's economy and real estate prices. Also, China allows Taiwanese goods to enter China with zero or minimal taxes. Cynics will claim that Beijing is deliberately doing this to make Taiwan dependent on China. This might be the case, but it still benefits Taiwan in a big way. And there's a large number of Taiwanese factories that have re-located to China, cheaper labour, this actually was already happening in the 1980s and 90s.
Also, Taiwan has got one of the lowest birth-rates in the world, and Taiwanese women are not easy to go on a date with. Hence, stacks of Taiwanese men go to mainland China and get a girlfriend, marry her, and take her to Taiwan. Some of the babies being born in Taiwan have mainland women as their mothers.

So, basically, Taiwan IS reliant on China. People talk about Britain being reliant on Europe, I reckon Taiwan is more reliant on China, than Britain is reliant on Europe.

And I totally agree with "It is not about  Authoritarian Vs Democracy  or communism Vs Capitalism. "
I reckon it's more about "America using the issue of Taiwan as an excuse to declare war on China, just in case if America does want to fight China" .   ????
See, that vast trade deficit that America has got with China. Them billions of US government bonds that China has got. How can America clear these bonds held by China ? Well, defeat China in a war, that will do it.   ????

3 hours ago, BKKBike09 said:

Thank you for your analysis. You are quite correct that China is a P5 Member of the Security Council. But just as the 'Chinese' seat has changed once in the past, it is possible it could change again. The composition of the P5 bloc is anachronistic in the extreme; neither France nor UK wield the global influence they did in 1945, and never again will. 

 

I agree we should all accept there will never be two Chinas, only one: namely China, co-existing peacefully with a sovereign Taiwan.

 

 

About Britain being in the P5 at the UN.  Seeing as Britain fought a massive bit during World War Two, there's no way I'm supporting Britain losing it's P5 special status at the UN. And I'm really convinced that the P5 will stay as they are, there won't be any changes, unless we have World War Three.

Supposedly, there's talk about Germany, Japan and India being given special status. But none of the existing P5 actually want change. China and Russia don't want Japan, Germany and India to be given special status.  America, Britain and France don't want India added to the list. And seeing as Britain normally sides with America, well, America will make sure that Britain stays in the P5.    ????

And yes, one China, co-existing with a de facto independent Taiwan. Let's hope so. I think people exaggerate China's desire to attack Taiwan. They're only going to do it IF Taiwan declares independence. And even if Taiwan does declare it, China might still not attack.

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Right.  And there will be only one Yugoslavia, one Czechoslovakia, and one USSR. 

You've got to bear in mind, USSR was one of the Big Five, Russia actually allowed Ukraine, Belo-Russia, etc, to break away and be recognised as nations at the UN.   So Russia allowed it to happen, and it happened. China, also one of the Big Five, China will never allow Taiwan to become a place that is recognised by the UN and having any seat.

And Yugoslavia, Serbia weren't in the Big Five. Czechoslovakia, they weren't in the Big Five either. The UN is all about being in the Big Five. The 'power of veto', the right to play that card, the right to scupper any proposal. Yes, the Big Five earned it by winning World War Two.

And the Big Five, all of them are not interested in countries like Japan, Germany, India, Brazil, they're not interested in these countries having the same special status as the Big Five. The Big Five, and that includes the USA, they simply don't want to the Big Five to become the Big Seven, or Big Eight.   ????

7 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

 The United Nations ?   The UN Security Council ? ????

You're forgetting that China is one of the Big Five in the UN.  USA, Britain, France, Russia and China are the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and each one has the vital importance of the 'power of veto'.
 

And seeing as we're talking about Taiwan, what about Taiwan and the UN, and the Big Five ?   ????

Well, yes, in 1945, Republic of China was one of the Big Five, a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Alongside USA, Britain, France and Russia. China did do some massive fighting against Japan during World War Two.  Republic of China had Chiang Kai-Shek as it's leader.

Chiang Kai-Shek lost the civil war against Mao Zedong and the Communists, and fled/re-located to the island of Taiwan. Taiwan carried on being called Republic of China, whilst China became Peoples' Republic of China, in 1949.

And it's hilarious. The UN decided to accept Republic of China as China. And indeed, up until 1971, China's seat at the United Nations was held by Republic of China, Taiwan.  So, Taiwan sat on China's seat at the UN. It was in 1971, when finally, the UN decided that Peoples' Republic of China, and not Republic of China, will have the seat and be recognised.

And so, looking at the history of the UN, only one China has been at the UN. Republic of China or Peoples' Republic of China, but not both.   ???? 

I think all of us should accept that, there will never be two Chinas on planet earth, only one.

8 hours ago, BKKBike09 said:

I agree that the situation will likely escalate, but I also still believe there will be no appetite in the USA to engage in a military conflict with China to protect Taiwan. You can forget a 'coalition of the willing' involving NATO; much hand wringing, yes, and UN Security Council condemnation, but military action? Only if approved by Security Council.

 

Since it is impossible to conceal the force build up required for a full-scale airborne/amphib invasion, I expect that the playbook would begin with naval blockading, or a manufactured 'incident' Gulf Of Tonkin style that saw Chinese forces take limited action against Taiwanese forces following an alleged provocation by Taiwan that couldn't be ignored etc. Actions that the West would deplore but which, on their own, wouldn't be sufficient to justify Western involvement.

 

Maybe I'm wrong. I do hope so, because the broader implications of a Chinese move on Taiwan are terrifying.

 

 The United Nations ?   The UN Security Council ? ????

You're forgetting that China is one of the Big Five in the UN.  USA, Britain, France, Russia and China are the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and each one has the vital importance of the 'power of veto'.

And by the way, why is it that them five are in that powerful position ? Well, after World War Two, the League of Nations was converted to being the United Nations. And basically, the winners of World War Two chose to give themselves the special status of being permanent members of the security council, and having 'power of veto' over whatever issues.
A country having power of veto, means that country is allowed to play their 'power of veto' card, and it blocks whatever proposal.

And so, seeing as Peoples' Republic of China is one of the Big Five, well, the UN are not going to do much against China.   ????

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Why would Biden want to be "friendly" with China?

 

Biden is not pro-China, just as Trump was not bad for China (as evidenced by the fact that after four years of Trump, China is far more influential in world affairs and the US much less so).  Biden wants to take on China with like-minded allies, Trump thought he could take on China and all our other major trade partners alone.

 

President Biden understands world affairs, as does the team he assembled.  Trump understands noise and bullying, which has been shown to be ineffective with China.  I'd much rather have Biden in charge now than Trump.

Let's see what Biden actually does regarding trade between America and China.

Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Barrack Obama all had no problems with trade between America and China. China exported a mountain of cheap goods to America, this was good for China and good for America. China had a big trade surplus, America benefitted from buying cheap goods. Three presidents, nearly a quarter of a century of benefits for both.

Trump came along, and slapped taxes on the Chinese goods being imported into America. Beijing responded by slapping taxes onto American goods entering China. This was harmfull to both America and China. Yes, let's hope Biden goes back to what was happenning during the two decades prior to Trump.
 

2 hours ago, ctxa said:

What many people need to understand, is that although the West always accuses China of propaganda and brainwashing. Both parties eventually extensively use those tools, as it’s a very powerful way to legitimize the one in charge and convince the population. And yes, it works both ways in China and in any other country. 
 

Naturally China and the USA are competitors. And competitors never get along well because eventually humans care about their own interest rather than at their competitors’ interest (as it’s natural and normal). So China bad on one side, USA bad on the other, and mutually inventing or exaggerating stories to bash each other is to some degree normal. 
 

I am a white European guy, who has lived in China for many years. And yes, sometimes I’ve had fights with locals (alcohol, lol), been dealt by the police, and no the police won’t torture you, they won’t kill you, they won’t send you to concentration camps it’s hardly any different to what they would do back in my home country. 

 

The Uighur matter. In November 2019 I was in Urumqi (capital of Xinjiang). There is significantly more police control than in other regions of China, but it makes sense when in 2015 600 people died of terrorism. I never was questioned by police, as I abide by the rules and didn’t do things as taking pics where it clearly said do not. I don’t know if detention camps exist or not, I obviously didn’t see one, but what I saw was plenty of local Uighurs who didn’t look much like they were oppressed at all. 
 

When it comes to Corona. Many people think that China is to be blamed for allowing everyone to go out. And sure, things could have been done better. On the 31st of December of 2019, I was at a business dinner in the city of Shenzhen and someone commented that he saw on some group chat in his WeChat app that something was happening in Wuhan. By the 9th of January my wife and I cancelled the plans that we had of driving from a place in which we were gonna stay for the Chinese New Year to Wuhan (an hour and a half away) because everyone in China knew by that point that transmission was out of control in Wuhan. So why did not western countries close their gates to flights from Mainland China then? 
 

The Taiwan issue, once again is just a tool for propaganda between China, Taiwan and the USA. Except for some people who politicize it on all sides. I have a Taiwanese guy working at my company who loves China and Taiwan, I have been to Taiwan with my Chinese wife... you get the idea, ordinary people don’t care about it, they certainly see each other as though being the same. 
 

Sure, you can call me Wumao, commie or whatever. I don’t care what you call me and specially I don’t care about politics and I don’t wanna get into them , because politics have never fed me or my family. But I feel it is my duty to try and offer some insight on all of this specially when some people are crazily asking for a war with China, it is my duty for say this words as I can only be grateful to China for the many chances it has offered to me, to my career and to have my own company. Personally I have never ever experienced any mistreatment from the Chinese government. (Sure certain  things are overly complicated for foreigners, but never been mistreated at all). 

What a brilliant and wonderfull post. I wish it was that most people on ThaiVisa feel this way.

40 minutes ago, mlmcleod said:

Taiwan has always been independent as the Republic of China.  The "People's" Republic of China chooses to ignore that fact along with most of the countries in the world.

Taiwan has always been independent ?  Let's look at history.

A load of Chinese turned up in Taiwan a few hundred years ago, and stole land and carried out genocide on the indigenous population. The indigenous people were not Chinese, they were/are Polynesians.

Japan then beat China in a war, in the 1890s, and took over Taiwan. Most of the population at that time were Chinese. Japan lost World War Two in 1945, they were forced to give Taiwan back to 'China'.

'China' was, back then called Republic of China. So, you accept that, prior to 1945, Republic of China was made up of mainland China ? Surely, you do ? Okay, 1945, Taiwan was given back to China.  Okay, 1949, Chiang Kai Shek lost the civil war in China, and went to Taiwan. Mao Zedong declared China's new name as Peoples' Republic of China.
So, surely, you accept that between 1945 and 1949, the Republic of China was made up of mainland China and the island of Taiwan ? And from 1949 onwards, Republic of China was made up of Taiwan only.

Okay, if Mao Zedong had of attacked Taiwan prior to 1949, (1949 was when Mao Declared China's new name) well, you accept that would have been part of a civil war ?  As in, prior to 1949, war between China and Taiwan would have been "Republic of China is attacking  Republic of China".  Surely, that's a civil war ? Do you accept this ? And prior to 1949, Mao taking Shanghai and Mao taking Taiwan,  would have been the same thing ? What's the difference ? There's no difference.

Let's get back to Chiang Kai-Shek, the founding father of moderrn-day Taiwan.  Chiang Kai-Shek was the political head of mainland China, Republic of China, between 1928 and 1949, you accept that ?

31 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

It all depends on which Hong Kong residents they are trying to attract.  I lived there for a little over two years and was a frequent traveler there for over twenty.  The Chinese living in Hong Kong  come in all shapes and sizes and levels of education.  Certainly  the younger ones would adapt well and they all speak English pretty well.  Especially the university educated ones.  I would think they would be a good addition to the UK.

 

However, many of the older Chinese would be reluctant to leave for the UK.  More likely they would try to integrate back onto the mainland.

 
Interesting that you mention the issue of the university educated ones, and the younger ones. This BNO passport, so the ones who have got a BNO passport are allowed to apply for this special visa to Britain. And all those who are eligible to apply for the BNO, they can then apply for the special visa after applying for the BNO.

And, supposedly, most of the people in Hong Kong prior to the 1997 Handover were allowed a BNO.  And right now as we speak,  those born in Hong Kong prior to the 1997 Handover are still allowed to get a BNO. 1997 was 24 years ago.  So, those born in Hong Kong in 1998 and after, they're aged 22 or over, they're not likely to get a BNO.  ????

I really do think the vast majority of the people in Hong Kong are not going to live in Britain on a permanent basis.  I think it's likely that only some of the 300,000 will actually turn up in Britain and stay several months. They're likely to go home to Hong Kong once they've got permanent residence for Britain, or once they get full British citizenship. They only want permanent residence status for Britain, or full British citizenship, so that they can come/return to Britain if things turn really bad in Hong Kong.

Most Hong Kong people are driven and motivated by money and jobs. A lot of them already earn good money in Hong Kong, they're not going to want to live in Britain and do a job with the same pay, or less pay. And nearly all of them are not interested in British culture or British identity and history. Bit like them Polish people and other East Europeans, money and work is what motivates them. ????

And anyway, in Hong Kong, they've got their religious freedom, and they're allowed to read any book or newspaper that is available in the rest of the world.  ????

4 hours ago, Somtamnication said:

Please make it more difficult for Thai spouses to come over. We really need this!  UK has enough Chinese around the bloody  island.

How about you change that to "UK has enough bloody Chinese on this island".     ????

So, the British government carried out a public relations stunt, and announced that maybe 300,000 Chinese from Hong Kong will be allowed to enter Britain. Was this deliberately done to make Beijing look bad ?

And now that the stunt has been announced, yes, a load of Chinese might actually turn up in Britain. We've got enough Chinese take-away food shops, and Chinese chip shops. But still, I don't have a problem with more Chinese, or more foreigners, coming into Britain. But I do know though, lots of them who voted for Brexit, they wanted to see less foreigners coming into Britain.

Yeah, take back control of immigration. And to think, the problem was not actually a load of Polish or Romanians entering Britain. Eastern Europeans are actually white. 'Control of immigration' really meant a reduction in the number of coloureds entering Britain.
And these Chinese who might be entering Britain, they are coloured, right ?   ????

China didn't get their nukes until the early 60s. Yes, America could have nuked China back in the 50s, and China would have done nothing.

So how comes America didn't nuke China back then ?  Well, simple.
Prior to 1949, Chiang Kai Shek was China's leader, America recognised Chiang as leader, and America had no problems with China back then. Do realise, Japan was the deadly enemy during World War Two. And China, Britain and America, fought together against Japan.
In 1949, Chiang Kai Shek lost the Chinese civil war, and fled to Taiwan. The Americans were backing Chiang Kai Shek, and Chiang certainly didn't want America nuking China. That's because Chiang still regarded himself to be ruler of China. He wanted to see his own KMT group take China back, take it back from Mao and the Communists.
And by the 1960s, China had their nuclear bomb. Obviously, nuking China would have meant China nuking America.  And yes, it was the Russians who gave China the technology to build a bomb.

You mentioned Tibet ?  Chiang Kai Shek was ruler of China from 1928 onwards. He is regarded as modern day Taiwan's founding father, from 1949 onwards. You do realise that he regarded Tibet as part of China, part of the Republic of China ? 
There's that other issue, regarding the the South China Sea.  Today, China's claims of ownership of the South China Sea are based on the 9 dash line map. It's hilarious, that map came about in 1947, yes, 1947.  Chiang Kai Shek, as leader of the Republic of China, a country made up of mainland China and the island of Taiwan back then, certainly did reckon that the South China Sea belongs to China. And after he fled to the island of Taiwan in 1949, then what ?  Mao Zedong declared China's new name as Peoples' Republic of China, Mao claimed that ALL the bits that made up Republic of China now made up Peoples' Republic of China. Hence, Mao claimed ownership of Tibet and the South China Sea.

And by the way, Taiwan (as in, the Republic of China) today still claims ownership of the South China Sea. Yes, the claim is through the same map that China is claiming. Republic of China (Taiwan) are certainly not giving up their claim. They've actually got one of the islands that is nowhere near China's coast.