President Elect's telephone call to President of Taiwan

[kallipolis]

We play it safe as in ignoring human rights violations, while at the same time we have embargoes in place against smaller nations.
Consistency would be a good policy. If we pinch our nose and trade with China then do it with all. If we will not trade with some countries because of how they rule their people we should look closely at China and others.

The USA sends troops in to lands and screams liberty while being in bed with oppressive regimes.

Hypocrisy is a human trait....all of us stand guilty of hypocrisy....no exceptions....self interest, rules.

- - - Updated - - -

How did the Taiwan lady got Trump's private number ??
The call was planned long ago and Trump knew about the Taiwan/china issue as he has a lot of business deals with china and Taiwan.

Elementary, dear Watson....

 

[peeonme]

Hypocrisy is a human trait....all of us stand guilty of hypocrisy....no exceptions....self interest, rules.

- - - Updated - - -



In this case I would say that special interest rules, such as big money.

 

[kev]

[Text: Removed]

How many people did Mao kill in the 20th century?

Do any of you [Text: Removed] know?

 

[Telstra]

You people are pathetic....what a bunch of baby-wipes.

How many people did Mao kill in the 20th century?

Do any of you yahoos know?

[Text: Removed]
The US always at fault because it has military bases everywhere circling China as if it is at war with China.

 

[rareboy]

[Text: Removed]
The US always at fault because it has military bases everywhere circling China as if it is at war with China.

Quoted for truth.

Any idiot can find how many people were killed by Mao in the same way they can find how many were killed by Germany in WWI and WWII.

And Mao had no problem with the idea of hundreds of millions dying in a nuclear holocaust.

But Mao isn't leader now...in the same way that Stalin isn't leader, or Hitler sin't leader, or Pol Pot isn't leader.

Most importantly, Trump has indicated yesterday that he is open to reconsidering the 'one China' policy that has made the detente with China and the opening up of China a possibility over the last two decades.

And just keep this in mind.

Whoever think that they can go to war with China will taste ashes.

 

[Telstra]

China will not go to war with anyone.
It will play the game of the art of war and milk you poor ....

 

[rareboy]

China is also very good at proxy wars.

And I'm not worried about China declaring war....but I am concerned that, as in the case of Vietnam and Cambodia, the US will find themselves easily dragged into conflict.

And Trump is just the person to do it.

As you say, it will be the final bleedout of the US.

 

[Telstra]

It is clear that Trump do things on purpose.
It was no accident, Trump understood about one China policy.
It is time to impeach Trump before the US spend/waste so much money on the military and destroy other countries ....

 

[Kulindahr]

[Text: Removed]
The US always at fault because it has military bases everywhere circling China as if it is at war with China.

Good video.

I count 177 U.S. military bases within medium missile range of China, mostly to the east and south. If you turned the map into a RISK game setup, it would certainly look like the U.S. is planning to take on China. In contrast, on the same RISK map, what it appears China is doing with its expansion into the South China Sea is attempting to prepare a defense in depth in case of U.S. attack, without stepping on too many toes.

I think the key here is how much trade moves through the South China Sea; I find figures in the range from 25% to 35% of all world trade! So a good comparison here would be to the British Empire back in the day: the giant corporations of the Empire viewed the government as their lackey with a duty to not merely protect their interests but to pry advantages out of circumstances (this is a major part of what led to the American Revolution). So the U.S. under Obama seriously upping its presence in the South China Sea region can easily be seen as the same thing: giant corporations driving foreign policy rather than the actual interests of the people. And just as with Great Britain, with the U.S. this may lead to violent eruptions (i.e. eruptions of violence).

 

[Kabluey]

Good video.

I count 177 U.S. military bases within medium missile range of China, mostly to the east and south. If you turned the map into a RISK game setup, it would certainly look like the U.S. is planning to take on China. In contrast, on the same RISK map, what it appears China is doing with its expansion into the South China Sea is attempting to prepare a defense in depth in case of U.S. attack, without stepping on too many toes.

I think the key here is how much trade moves through the South China Sea; I find figures in the range from 25% to 35% of all world trade! So a good comparison here would be to the British Empire back in the day: the giant corporations of the Empire viewed the government as their lackey with a duty to not merely protect their interests but to pry advantages out of circumstances (this is a major part of what led to the American Revolution). So the U.S. under Obama seriously upping its presence in the South China Sea region can easily be seen as the same thing: giant corporations driving foreign policy rather than the actual interests of the people. And just as with Great Britain, with the U.S. this may lead to violent eruptions (i.e. eruptions of violence).

China is acting as the aggressor and destabilising the region in doing so. This is a factor that has emerged since the mid-1990s in particular.

There's an issue of sovereignty over the sea bed too. China wants fishing and oil rights.

Although they do not have a provable history of maritime exploration in the way that Indonesia, Taiwan, Malaysia and Japan do, China is claiming seabed that is up to 1,200 miles away from the closest point to mainland China.
Some of their claims are directly within sovereign country's exclusive economic zones.

 

[Telstra]

Taiwan is China, China is Taiwan.
That is the issue of this thread, Trumped up by Trump causing tensions.

 

[Kulindahr]

China is acting as the aggressor and destabilising the region in doing so. This is a factor that has emerged since the mid-1990s in particular.

There's an issue of sovereignty over the sea bed too. China wants fishing and oil rights.

Although they do not have a provable history of maritime exploration in the way that Indonesia, Taiwan, Malaysia and Japan do, China is claiming seabed that is up to 1,200 miles away from the closest point to mainland China.
Some of their claims are directly within sovereign country's exclusive economic zones.

I couldn't find a map showing their claims, so I merely addressed what it looks like merely from the military situation. Though if you take the U.S. out of the picture, China's actions in the Spratlys definitely look aggressive.

 

[Kulindahr]

Taiwan is China, China is Taiwan.
That is the issue of this thread, Trumped up by Trump causing tensions.

Under the U.N. Charter, to which China is a signatory, Taiwan has the right of self-determination. So if they don't want to be China, they don't have to be. China wanting to bring them back by force is just imperialist.

 

[Telstra]

Under the U.N. Charter, to which China is a signatory, Taiwan has the right of self-determination. So if they don't want to be China, they don't have to be. China wanting to bring them back by force is just imperialist.

Under the UN charter, no country is allowed to have nuclear weapons.
But these stubborn countries have it anyway to destroy everything.

 

[Telstra]

I couldn't find a map showing their claims, so I merely addressed what it looks like merely from the military situation. Though if you take the U.S. out of the picture, China's actions in the Spratlys definitely look aggressive.

lol, there is NO if here ....

 

[kallipolis]

China is acting as the aggressor and destabilising the region in doing so. This is a factor that has emerged since the mid-1990s in particular.

There's an issue of sovereignty over the sea bed too. China wants fishing and oil rights.

Although they do not have a provable history of maritime exploration in the way that Indonesia, Taiwan, Malaysia and Japan do, China is claiming seabed that is up to 1,200 miles away from the closest point to mainland China.
Some of their claims are directly within sovereign country's exclusive economic zones.

These words reflect reality with the region's nations feeling threatened by China's expanionist policies.

Ironically Western investment in the Chinese economy, leading to increasing revenues for the Chinese Government is contributing to the massive build up of China's armed forces, obliging Japan to respond with greater spending on its defence forces.

 

[Kabluey]

Under the U.N. Charter, to which China is a signatory, Taiwan has the right of self-determination. So if they don't want to be China, they don't have to be. China wanting to bring them back by force is just imperialist.

Taiwan regards itself as the Chinese government in exile, China considers Taiwan to be Chinese territory.
The situation isn't that far removed from North and South Korea. Both preach reunification but only under their own rule.

 

[rareboy]

For those who don't think that Trump's comments about Taiwan are reckless and dangerous.....

it could bring General Motors to its knees.

“Trump’s tough trade talk makes U.S. firms fear China retribution.” Reuters wrote today. The company that is the most exposed to China is American carmaker General Motors. GM sells more cars in China than in all of North America. A crisis in China could easily break the back of GM.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bertels...could-bring-general-motors-down/#24c5633e1681


Someone needs to explain some of the real facts of life to this myopic clown.

 

[Telstra]

I think one China policy was installed in all Chinese kids minds since the First Emperor of China over two thousand years ago. The policy was, unity all costs.

 

[Kulindahr]

Under the UN charter, no country is allowed to have nuclear weapons.
But these stubborn countries have it anyway to destroy everything.

The Charter doesn't mention nuclear weapons, nor has the U.N. ever established a treaty saying no one can have them.