Huge markup on imported foods. Why?

[elgordo38]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

Trump vowed on Monday that the United States would prevent China from taking over territory in international waters in the South China Sea,

I took a vow 3 times and look where that got me. You can poke the Chinese dragon but try pulling its tail could be its fire starter. 

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, elgordo38 said:

I took a vow 3 times and look where that got me. You can poke the Chinese dragon but try pulling its tail could be its fire starter. 

I hope nothing happens.  A spat between the US and China will only hurt the global economy more.  Now's not the best time.  The US is barely doing OK, China is doing terrible.  If they melt down, it's going to be big problems.

 

If a war though, China would be the underdog.

[optad]

5 hours ago, Credo said:

I have often thought that Trump's cozy relationship with Russia is in part because he wishes to take on China and that isn't something that can be done if Russia is a wild card on the issue.    

 

The islands, however, are Philippine territory and Duterte is about the most unpredictable leader on the planet, next to Trump.   

 

There's a big difference between drawing a line in the sand and drawing one in the water.   

 

 

I hear what you say but... . That maritime map, even before Chinese ancestral arguments makes a mockery of sea boundaries. International law has ruled on this but if allowed there will be problems into the future for the chinese existance on these created atolls. 

 

I note too, that the USS Maddox was not so far away in 1964 from these seas. We all talk about the freight transport through here yet one moment in 64 drew 500000 troops in to mainland combat. As recently as last week we had the chinese carrier passing, fairly, through the Taiwan strait and alarm bells went off.

 

I suspect most here do not understand the geography nor politics nor history in this area. Future impactions here, makes the Israelis look diplomatic in East Jerusalem and the west bank post trump. These are bad symptoms.  

[sanemax]

7 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

Trump needs to get the Russians behind him on this one.

Add Vietnam, Philippines and other Nations who would side with any U,S /Russian coalition

[sanemax]

How is this for a probability :

War with China .

Dispose of their Government .

Replace them with the Taiwanese leaders.

USA debt to China gets written off

[ddavidovsky]

3 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

Oh yes, because he wants to get stabbed in the back.

 

Remember Poland? The Russians cut a treaty with their best friends the nazis and invaded Poland.

Remember the Russian promises on the  Baltic states? No liberation  wfor them?

Remember the  Iron Curtain and the enslavement of eastern Europe? Putin the KGB  colnel wants to bring back the  diabolical stalinist regime.

 

 

 

Good grief, how out of date do you want to be? Russia's days of dangerous volatility are over - their Communist ideological struggle is finished; they have no territorial ambitions beyond getting back Crimea which is ethnically Russian anyway and made good practical sense.

 

Before the Russians it was the Germans who were dangerously volatile - it took a lot of trouble to sort that out.

The dangerous, volatile country today is China, with all the indicators for trouble: burgeoning population, , authoritarian system. , damaged pride (from various wars), rampant nationalism, imperialistic ambitions.

 

The US and Russia need to team up fast as the world's new joint policemen.

 

[bangon04]

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

War is NEVER fine.

 

I have never ceased to be amazed at the willingness of so many political leaders who are so happy to commit their countries to a senseless pointless, war which will involve a large number of military young men and women ordered to go out and kill their opposite numbers from another country.

 

If innocent men, women and children become killed or injured, that is sad, but it doesn't really matter as they were on the wrong side anyway.

 

What I would personally like to see is the leaders and their parliaments be forced into an arena with their wives and families and forced to fight the "enemy" to death with the rest of the world  watching on live TV.

 

That would quickly put an end to wars if they have to go out and do it themselves.

Not entirely new idea - Frankie Goes to Hollywood - "Two Tribes"

[bangon04]

1 hour ago, sanemax said:

Add Vietnam, Philippines and other Nations who would side with any U,S /Russian coalition

Philippines have already rolled over and told China they can have the South China sea...

[optad]

11 minutes ago, bangon04 said:

Philippines have already rolled over and told China they can have the South China sea...

Is this some kinda TV game board?

[bangon04]

2 minutes ago, optad said:

Is this some kinda TV game board?

the rules of the game are changing as we speak....

[optad]

Donald should use his best skills..

Edited January 24, 2017 by optad

[Thakkar]

7 hours ago, timewilltell said:

Yeah well, so far as China goes, that sort of defines a lot of Asian countries. Their culture has used deception, cheating and corruption and they are really not comfortable with any straightforwardness as it takes away their Trump cards.

Yes, those inscrutable <deleted> Man Chu types are so inscrutably devious. The West is far more honorable as with outright gunboat "diplomacy" or sexing up WMD data as a pretext for an illegal invasion, or supporting fascism as long as the fascists were invading "only" oppressing the Jews and gypsies and invading "inferior races" 

 

The fact is, all cultures have the potential to be both evil and good. At any given time, some countries may be morally superior than some others. But things reverse quickly and continuously. China, while no angel,  has been less interventionist than any other major power—that's a fact.

[boomerangutang]

1 hour ago, bangon04 said:

Philippines have already rolled over and told China they can have the South China sea...

You're probably right.  As far as I know, Duterte's only statement on the S.China sea was a ridiculous statement he made, right after getting elected, that he would ride a jetski out to Scarborough Shoal.   I think Duterte and Trump were twins separated at birth. 

[timewilltell]

48 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

Yes, those inscrutable <deleted> Man Chu types are so inscrutably devious. The West is far more honorable as with outright gunboat "diplomacy" or sexing up WMD data as a pretext for an illegal invasion, or supporting fascism as long as the fascists were invading "only" oppressing the Jews and gypsies and invading "inferior races" 

 

The fact is, all cultures have the potential to be both evil and good. At any given time, some countries may be morally superior than some others. But things reverse quickly and continuously. China, while no angel,  has been less interventionist than any other major power—that's a fact.

Don't really disagree - time China was called out on its deception, corruption and cheating though just as Blair & Bush were called out by many on WMD.

[Chicog]

China doesn't care.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/12/philippines-wins-south-china-sea-case-against-china
 

[boomerangutang]

19 minutes ago, Chicog said:

China doesn't care.

I think China cares greatly.  Russia cares less so.  It doesn't have a dog in a S.China Sea fight, so it will be content to sit back and watch two fellow super-powers bloody each other.

[oxo1947]

Trump may take on  China .................

 

[Morch]

8 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Those in power in the US have an excellent knowledge of what's going on in the rest of the world.  They do have ambassadors and representatives in pretty much every country globally.  This gives them an excellent perspective as these people are interacting with local officials pretty much every day. 

 

With regards to newspaper articles, well, I guess the knowledge depends on the writer???

 

Donald Trump has fired all foreign US ambassadors with nobody to replace them

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-fires-us-ambassadors-no-replacements-a7538256.html

 

Political appointments of Donald Trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_of_Donald_Trump#Department_of_State

 

Terry Branstad, Iowa Governor, Is Trump’s Pick as China Ambassador

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/us/politics/terry-branstad-china-ambassador-trump.html

[copa8]

11 hours ago, Credo said:

The basic question is, which one is a greater danger to the US?   I would say China.   Russia is belligerent, China is devious and insidious.   

Ah...the age old "yellow peril" threat.

[sanemax]

1 hour ago, oxo1947 said:

Trump may take on  China .................

 

It would be better if you gave a reason why you think that it will not happen, rather than just posting silly pictures

[howto]

China is the greater danger.

USA will ally with Russia, make a stance there.

There is no love lost 'tween Russia and China.

Several countries will be grateful for this.

China knows the wind has changed.

 

[ilostmypassword]

25 minutes ago, howto said:

China is the greater danger.

USA will ally with Russia, make a stance there.

There is no love lost 'tween Russia and China.

Several countries will be grateful for this.

China knows the wind has changed.

 

Yes, nothing would please Russia more than the effect that a massive reduction in demand for its commodities would have on its economy.  

[howto]

^^^

'Yes, nothing would please Russia more than the effect that a massive reduction in demand for its commodities would have on its economy.'

 

Should be...

Yes, nothing would please Russia more than the effect that a massive reduction in demand for China commodities would have on China's economy.  

[ilostmypassword]

8 minutes ago, howto said:

^^^

'Yes, nothing would please Russia more than the effect that a massive reduction in demand for its commodities would have on its economy.'

 

Should be...

Yes, nothing would please Russia more than the effect that a massive reduction in demand for China commodities would have on China's economy.  

Well, thanks for the convincing display of ignorance. China may have a few commodities that the rest of the world wants, but it is overwhelmingly a consumer of them. I mean, are you aware that there's quite a bit of manufacturing activity going on in China?  And that kind of industry tends to consume lots of commodities?  

[elgordo38]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Donald Trump has fired all foreign US ambassadors with nobody to replace them

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-fires-us-ambassadors-no-replacements-a7538256.html

 

Political appointments of Donald Trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_of_Donald_Trump#Department_of_State

 

Terry Branstad, Iowa Governor, Is Trump’s Pick as China Ambassador

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/us/politics/terry-branstad-china-ambassador-trump.html

Pick me pick me pick me. 

[howto]

I forgot to mention one should 'google'

'southern resource zone'.

[elgordo38]

Could be a battle in the South China Sea between the American Mach 7 cannon and the Chinese Assassins Mace. Interesting. 

[howto]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, thanks for the convincing display of ignorance. China may have a few commodities that the rest of the world wants, but it is overwhelmingly a consumer of them. I mean, are you aware that there's quite a bit of manufacturing activity going on in China?  And that kind of industry tends to consume lots of commodities?  

China is in deep <deleted> economy wise.

Not to speak of currency depreciation/manipulation.

Has been for a while.

 

To say it bluntly...

China would be foolish to 'take on' the USA there.

They would lose, massively.

Within scant minutes (seconds), they would loose their...

- 'cheap' subs

- only aircraft carrier, aircraft, support ships

- the 'island' would be droned to death

No need for nuk's by the US, even small tactical ones.

 

Reprecussions would be immense for China.

Economy, military, world front, at home, etc.

 

 

 

[elgordo38]

12 minutes ago, howto said:

China is in deep <deleted> economy wise.

Not to speak of currency depreciation/manipulation.

Has been for a while.

 

To say it bluntly...

China would be foolish to 'take on' the USA there.

They would lose, massively.

Within scant minutes (seconds), they would loose their...

- 'cheap' subs

- only aircraft carrier, aircraft, support ships

- the 'island' would be droned to death

No need for nuk's by the US, even small tactical ones.

 

Reprecussions would be immense for China.

Economy, military, world front, at home, etc.

 

 

 

Wars are always loose loose situations. 

[manarak]

5 minutes ago, elgordo38 said:

Wars are always loose loose situations. 

that's wrong, there have been plenty of "good wars", at least for some of the victors, and often also for third party bystanders.

Edited January 24, 2017 by manarak