foxy boxing Posted 6 December 2016 Posted 6 December 2016 if China considers Taiwan part of its territory why haven't they sent troops in to reclaim it! Taiwan has every right to be an independent nation if it so chooses and the American president has every right to talk to the president of Taiwan if they so choose. maybe if Britain did things without the thought of upsetting more nations we'd actually get things done!
Alf Bentley Posted 6 December 2016 Posted 6 December 2016 19 minutes ago, foxy boxing said: if China considers Taiwan part of its territory why haven't they sent troops in to reclaim it! Taiwan has every right to be an independent nation if it so chooses and the American president has every right to talk to the president of Taiwan if they so choose. maybe if Britain did things without the thought of upsetting more nations we'd actually get things done! There's a bit of history behind all this. China considers Taiwan part of its territory - and Taiwan (official name: "The Republic of China") considers China part of its territory! Until 1979, I believe that the USA recognised Taiwan as the only real China - and I'd imagine that China might well have invaded Taiwan if it hadn't been for US military support.
leicsmac Posted 6 December 2016 Posted 6 December 2016 1 hour ago, foxy boxing said: if China considers Taiwan part of its territory why haven't they sent troops in to reclaim it! Taiwan has every right to be an independent nation if it so chooses and the American president has every right to talk to the president of Taiwan if they so choose. maybe if Britain did things without the thought of upsetting more nations we'd actually get things done! What Alf said, and adding in that President Nixon (I think) came to a deal with the Chinese whereby they wouldn't invade Taiwan if the U.S. and U.N didn't recognize them. One of those tenuous agreements. I don't think either the US or China really want to start world war 3 by stretching that agreement. By the way, there have been times in the past when Britain and other countries "did things without the thought of upsetting other nations". A lot of people died. Do we really want that again?
Nick Posted 6 December 2016 Posted 6 December 2016 1 hour ago, Darkon84 said: I'm still failing to see all the uproar surrounding Trump's call to Taiwan, saying its provoking China because of their special 'China First' deal etc. How the hell can a single phonecall provoke them more than say, selling $1.8 billion worth of weapons and equipment to Taiwan in the last year alone? Top reporting as ever EDIT: That's in response solely to the reaction of the phonecall made. I've not seen the tweets, but I've got to pretty much agree with everyone that a President-elect shouldn't be spending so much time on Twitter, it's becoming a bit embarrassing. I will give him credit though for calling the family of a fallen cop last week to offer his sympathy, which he has done previously. It makes a change from Obama lecturing the police force about how they're all subconsciously racist, whilst at the funeral of the officers shot dead marshalling a BLM rally. I think the point is that it was naive - it in no way helps America or Taiwan arguably - its being painted as strategically the wrong way to go about making his point. I understand that Trump has numerous pro Taiwan advisors, which is fine - though it may be prudent to get in the chair and listen and learn before using social media to alter a 40 year foreign policy initiative in a disrespectful manner.
Darkon84 Posted 6 December 2016 Posted 6 December 2016 Just now, Swan Lesta said: I think the point is that it was naive - it in no way helps America or Taiwan arguably - its being painted as strategically the wrong way to go about making his point. I understand that Trump has numerous pro Taiwan advisors, which is fine - though it may be prudent to get in the chair and listen and learn before using social media to alter a 40 year foreign policy initiative in a disrespectful manner. I've just seen the tweets and yes, it was certainly ill advised and pretty stupid (he really needs to get the hell off of twitter), but I still can't see how a couple of dumb tweets has got everyone's backs up about angering China and risking their wrath, considering, as I previously said, the US sold over $1.8 billion worth of equipment and serious weapons to Taiwan in the last year alone, with many other deals going back over the period that this agreement with China has been in place. If that's been allowed to happen with no one caring, or the Chinese not hinting at aggression, I'm sure they won't be bothered about a couple of tweets.
Nick Posted 6 December 2016 Posted 6 December 2016 3 minutes ago, Darkon84 said: I've just seen the tweets and yes, it was certainly ill advised and pretty stupid (he really needs to get the hell off of twitter), but I still can't see how a couple of dumb tweets has got everyone's backs up about angering China and risking their wrath, considering, as I previously said, the US sold over $1.8 billion worth of equipment and serious weapons to Taiwan in the last year alone, with many other deals going back over the period that this agreement with China has been in place. If that's been allowed to happen with no one caring, or the Chinese not hinting at aggression, I'm sure they won't be bothered about a couple of tweets. Yeah but its dumb tweets - dumb tweets by the incoming President. It just classless, tactless, cringey unbecoming actions just like attempting to advise other nations on their ambassadors.
Darkon84 Posted 6 December 2016 Posted 6 December 2016 8 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said: Yeah but its dumb tweets - dumb tweets by the incoming President. It just classless, tactless, cringey unbecoming actions just like attempting to advise other nations on their ambassadors. I agree, it's totally classless etc, but people are making out that this is aggression and is bound to upset China because of the China First policy. If the USA has continually been able to sell weapons to Taiwan, including the biggest group of weapons deals for them ever, under Obama, then I don't think China will be bothered by a tweet, and I'm sure they'll treat it like most rational people do, which is as stupid, and not go overboard with the WW3 predictions
Jimothy Posted 7 December 2016 Posted 7 December 2016 16 minutes ago, MC Prussian said: TIME POTY! TIME POTY award isn't for the best person of the year, it's for the person who "for better or worse" has most influenced the years events. Adolf Hitler is a previous winner.
Darkon84 Posted 7 December 2016 Posted 7 December 2016 You know how Times POTY works right? It's not given to someone who they especially like, but to someone who has had an effect politically or culturally. Almost every US president has been their POTY before. And to be honest, by winning the election, he's probably more deserving than the other candidates for it like HIllary, Beyoncé and Mark Zuckerberg And right on cue, the Huff Post have done an article linking him to past winners Hitler & Stalin
MC Prussian Posted 7 December 2016 Posted 7 December 2016 I know, I'm just imagining Trump regarding it as a type of special distinction! Actually, he just did that: “It means a lot. It’s a very important magazine,” he said. “I consider this a very, very great honor.” http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5847f1fee4b08c82e888e014
FireFox Posted 7 December 2016 Posted 7 December 2016 Pretty sure I was the TIME POTY in 2006. Great magazine. Huge honor. The biggest honor.
Jimothy Posted 7 December 2016 Posted 7 December 2016 27 minutes ago, FireFox said: Pretty sure I was the TIME POTY in 2006. Great magazine. Huge honor. The biggest honor. No that was me.
The Horse's Mouth Posted 7 December 2016 Posted 7 December 2016 Could they have picked a more creepy picture
leicsmac Posted 8 December 2016 Posted 8 December 2016 http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-trump.html And in other news, King Herod picked to be the chairman of the Bethlehem Infants Benevolent Association. In the long term, what this man does might well be the most damaging outcome of any of Trumps picks.
davieG Posted 8 December 2016 Author Posted 8 December 2016 Ironic yes? Quote Donald Trump's plan to erect a huge sea wall at his Irish golf course has been withdrawn in the light of stiff opposition. The original application cited rising sea levels as a result of climate change as a key reason for the protective barrier.
ajthefox Posted 8 December 2016 Posted 8 December 2016 2 hours ago, davieG said: Ironic yes? Ironic, funny and also depressing at the same time.
Wymsey Posted 10 December 2016 Posted 10 December 2016 Not surprised at all this accusation is getting deeper and more convincing. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38273933
Darkon84 Posted 12 December 2016 Posted 12 December 2016 'Foreign country favouring the candidate less likely to go to war against them' shocker!
foxy boxing Posted 12 December 2016 Posted 12 December 2016 Russia would also like a comrade Corbyn victory if he wins we'll all know Russia was involved
leicsmac Posted 12 December 2016 Posted 12 December 2016 37 minutes ago, Darkon84 said: 'Foreign country favouring the candidate less likely to go to war against them' shocker! There's favouring, and then there's actual tampering through judicious use of social media. It'll never be proven, though.
leicsmac Posted 12 December 2016 Posted 12 December 2016 Oh, and Trump digging out the "no one knows about climate change" line is so damned passe.
Darkon84 Posted 12 December 2016 Posted 12 December 2016 4 minutes ago, leicsmac said: There's favouring, and then there's actual tampering through judicious use of social media. It'll never be proven, though. You're right, it won't ever be proven. It's a bit naughty of the media to just be highlighting possible involvement by outside sources in favour of Trump when the Clinton Foundation has received so much money from foreign countries it's unreal. Yes, I know she's been over and given talks etc, but the amount of money received for such things is obscene. From the outside looking it, you could easily argue it's an attempt to curry favour with a candidate. And then there's the actual use of MSM during the entire election which HEAVILY favoured and backed Clinton. It became laughable at times.
orangecity23 Posted 12 December 2016 Posted 12 December 2016 I like how it's the CIA declaring that the Russians interfered with the election. Are they confirming that as part of their job to look after the USA, or, err, as experts on fixing elections in foreign countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_presidential_election,_1970 Given that there are retro trends for everything these days, it's nice they've brought back some Cold War classics.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.