14 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If you are going to try and repudiate what I said, do try and get it right. The British had Hong Kong in perpetuity. It was ceded to them in 1842 by the treaty of Nanking. The "lease" refers to the New Territories

 

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

 

You repudiated yourself. You are  trying to use an immoral and technically illegal agreement to support an untenable position. The ceding of Hong Kong  came about as a result of the first opium war when Great Britain  waged war against China in its campaign to force the Chinese to allow foreigners to sell opium to the Chinese and to create a nation of drug addicts.  The Kowloon peninsula was  obtained after the 2nd Opium War. A treaty that originates from coercion and violence is not the most easy of agreements to defend. However, the Chinese did respect the Hong Kong treaties.  Yes, the new territories were technically the only areas that had a lease ending, however, Hong Kong could not exist without the new territories including the islands that had been leased.  Water, electricity and food came from the new territories. Much of the  population who supported  the "city" lived in the New territories. Hong Kong without the new territories was not viable.

 

It is  astounding that you are using an unjust colonial construct to defend your position. The presence of Great Britain in China was an immoral and wrongful presence.  Great Britain did the right thing when it withdrew. it had neither the legal nor moral right to occupy a foreign nation in the manner it did, particularly when it was based on trying to addict people to opium. You are arguing in defense of that.  It does shed light on why why you are a defender of the Putin colonialist expansionism. 

 

Overall your position is patronizing and condescending to the Chinese. I have the impression that it is a whitey knows all mindset, common to the the purveyors of bankrupt political positions of the 1970's.

3 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

It is not a lie to state that you have not provided a compelling case (to support Putin's invasion of Ukraine) and instead have thrown out weak excuses for the Russian expansionist policy.  Your comments oppose the provision of aid to Ukraine.  As a result I have asked why  you just not come clean and make clear that you support the war initiated by Putin, and as a result  support all of the  knock on results that I have  listed.

 

Are you now saying that you do not support the Russian position and that it is acceptable for Russia to have started a war with Ukraine and to have  supplied and directed militias that have attacked Ukraine?

I have no idea what your first sentence means.

 

To be clear, I do not "support" Russia, but recognising reality says they will not be defeated. To support a losing side is just a waste of western money that should be spent on the taxpayers that provided it, not on military adventures that IMO had no chance of success in the long run.

 

You seem to believe that anyone accepting reality must ergo be a Russian supporter, which is a nonsense, and to say that I am is a lie. Obviously you have not found any quote from me saying I support Putin, so I suggest you stop lying.

3 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

You repudiated yourself. You are  trying to use an immoral and technically illegal agreement to support an untenable position. The ceding of Hong Kong  came about as a result of the first opium war when Great Britain  waged war against China in its campaign to force the Chinese to allow foreigners to sell opium to the Chinese and to create a nation of drug addicts.  The Kowloon peninsula was  obtained after the 2nd Opium War. A treaty that originates from coercion and violence is not the most easy of agreements to defend. However, the Chinese did respect the Hong Kong treaties.  Yes, the new territories were technically the only areas that had a lease ending, however, Hong Kong could not exist without the new territories including the islands that had been leased.  Water, electricity and food came from the new territories. Much of the  population who supported  the "city" lived in the New territories. Hong Kong without the new territories was not viable.

 

It is  astounding that you are using an unjust colonial construct to defend your position. The presence of Great Britain in China was an immoral and wrongful presence.  Great Britain did the right thing when it withdrew. it had neither the legal nor moral right to occupy a foreign nation in the manner it did, particularly when it was based on trying to addict people to opium. You are arguing in defense of that.  It does shed light on why why you are a defender of the Putin colonialist expansionism. 

 

Overall your position is patronizing and condescending to the Chinese. I have the impression that it is a whitey knows all mindset, common to the the purveyors of bankrupt political positions of the 1970's.

Do you support the right of modern day Americans to live on land stolen from the original inhabitants, and moreover land stolen after treaties were ignored?

 

If you actually believe what you wrote, you should accept that israel has no right to Palestine based on occupation 2,000 years ago.

 

Please don't bother me with your nonsense any more, I don't wish to debate with someone that tells porkies about my position on the Ukrainian war

On 8/4/2024 at 2:07 AM, Patong2021 said:

 

PM Johnson made 26 foreign visits during his time as PM.  The UK has had an historical relationship with Ukraine since 1945 when  the UK actively recruited  Ukraine workers. There were multiple visits between their leaders. Even PM Thatcher visited Ukraine. The UK could not have close relations with Ukraine while it was still under the yoke of the Soviet Union's tyranny.  However, once the Russian tyrants temporarily withdrew , relations  grew. You seem to forget that the UK was involved in the Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons. 

 

Your fixation on  the PM's visits to the Ukraine are irrelevant.  PM Johnson visited 3 times over 2 years. prior to the war, President of Ukraine  president Victor Yuschenko visited the UK 3 times in one year.   The visits to the Ukraine were important because Russia had invaded Europe and violated previous agreements. The invasion put European allies at risk.  PM Johnson also visited nations who had been targeted by Russian military threats and incursions. These visits included; Poland,  Estonia, Sweden and Finland.  PM Johnson visited India at a time it was facing border  tensions with China and Pakistan. He also visited Rwanda and the UAE (2X).  

 

Why would you expect the PM of the UK to visit the Congo? The UK did not have a significant relationship with the country. Belgium and  France are the Congo's key allies.

 

The UK has 34 agreements and MoUs in effect with Ukraine dating back to 1991 when  diplomatic relations were restored after the Russian occupational forces influence  diminished. Until then, Russia did not allow Ukraine the freedom to establish relations with other nations without Russian approval.  https://uk.mfa.gov.ua/en/partnership/881-ukrajina-velika-britanija/593-dogovirno-pravova-baza-mizh-ukrajinoju-ta-velikoju-britanijeju

 

 

 

Interestingly, the UK has links to Ukraine that go way back. Donetsk was founded in 1870, but it wasn't called Donetsk then. It was called Hugheskova, after the man who founded the city, John Hughes. Welsh migrants to the area established the Russian metallurgy industry.

 

70 years before Hughes,  a Yorkshireman Charles Gascoigne founded what is now called Luhansk, setting up an iron foundary there. What he did there was make guns for Catherine the Great. Ironically, many of the captured Russian cannons on display around the UK, were made by Gascoigne.

 

And it was a young Welsh journalist who brought to international attention the Holodomor.

 

https://www.garethjones.org/

 

 

 

 

 

On 8/8/2024 at 7:01 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

Do you support the right of modern day Americans to live on land stolen from the original inhabitants, and moreover land stolen after treaties were ignored?

 

If you actually believe what you wrote, you should accept that israel has no right to Palestine based on occupation 2,000 years ago.

 

Please don't bother me with your nonsense any more, I don't wish to debate with someone that tells porkies about my position on the Ukrainian war

You have not addressed the historical reality.?  You attempted to justify the Russian initiated war by  alluding to Hong Kong. When that did not work, you went to  your fall back position of  trying to distract with unrelated  subject matter. The reality is that you are a defender of Putin and his invasion of Ukraine. You support the abrogation of previously agreed upon borders between Russia and Ukraine.

1 minute ago, Patong2021 said:

You have not addressed the historical reality.?  You attempted to justify the Russian initiated war by  alluding to Hong Kong. When that did not work, you went to  your fall back position of  trying to distract with unrelated  subject matter. The reality is that you are a defender of Putin and his invasion of Ukraine. You support the abrogation of previously agreed upon borders between Russia and Ukraine.

You are getting boring with your continual made up attacks on me, so the time has come to put you where I don't have to read your personal insults any more. Bye.

27 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You are getting boring with your continual made up attacks on me, so the time has come to put you where I don't have to read your personal insults any more. Bye.

 

Good. Too bad it won't stop you from your faulty claims and unsubstantiated arguments in favour of Russia;s war. 

16 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You are getting boring with your continual made up attacks on me, so the time has come to put you where I don't have to read your personal insults any more. Bye.

@Patong2021 Welcome to the (not very exclusive) club. Your membership confirms that you have posted a rational argument.