- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,054
- Reactions
- 12,624
#231 was a sales graph that had nothing to do with military aggression.
If those are your "facts" I won't bother with the rest.
Your posts remain baseless.
Look at posts #231, 232, 235 and 238 as recent examples, aside from informing you at post #240 about why your claimed airspace violations occur.
I regularly post facts, as I indicated.#231 was a sales graph that had nothing to do with military aggression.
If those are your "facts" I won't bother with the rest.
I regularly post facts, as I indicated.
You post opinion.
Where is your example of China's military aggression?
Which are all part of China... so your point is?Tibet, Hong Kong, Sprattley Islands.
China invaded Tibet in 1950.Which are all part of China... so your point is?
Trump's MAGA strategy was failing:I am of the belief that Xi's aggressive posturing is in large part due to Donald Trump.
The latter's transactional approach to world affairs and aggressive attitude brought out the latent monster in Xi and changed China's approach to international relations.
Check out this excellent 3 part BBC programme.
BBC Two - Trump Takes on the World, Series 1, Episode 1
In his first year and a half, Trump relentlessly pursues his ‘America First’ agenda.www.bbc.co.uk
gg
Tibet was always part of China's empire (check your history books), but somehow you are now going back over 70 years to make your point... seriously!China invaded Tibet in 1950.
Sprattley Islands have not been internationally recognised as being part of China.
I'm with you all the way, @rederob . China has been milking it and The USA is afraid of losing economic world dominance and there is disorder.Trump's MAGA strategy was failing:
View attachment 123477
So in 2018 he broke the WTO rule book and introduced tariffs.
Not satisfied with that he later invoked technology trade sanctions.
China's response was to agree on revised trade arrangements.
I'm struggling to see
Trump's MAGA strategy was failing:
View attachment 123477
So in 2018 he broke the WTO rule book and introduced tariffs.
Not satisfied with that he later invoked technology trade sanctions.
China's response was to agree on revised trade arrangements.
I'm struggling to see Xi's aggressive posturing as you put it.
Tibet was always part of China's empire (check your history books), but somehow you are now going back over 70 years to make your point... seriously!
Sprattley and a host of other islands remain contested around the world. China had the means to settle the Sprattley dispute and settle the islands, without military aggression (given nobody was occupying the islands).
Stay on topic please.I suppose you would support the UK taking back Australia then ?
Tibet was always part of China's empire (check your history books), but somehow you are now going back over 70 years to make your point... seriously!
@greggles - that's true in part. The question is how sovereign nations regarded Tibet:That depends on who you ask. The Tibetan people have always asserted that they are not part of China. The Chinese have invaded and occupied Tibet a number of times, but Tibet has its own unique culture and identity that is separate to that of China.
If a nation says it is being occupied by a foreign power, I tend to believe them. The Tibetan people have steadfastly resisted Chinese occupation since 1950.
@greggles - that's true in part. The question is how sovereign nations regarded Tibet:
"With regard to the position of Tibet in Asia, the British Government has been so good as to give an account of its historical attitude. For its part, the Government of the United States has borne in mind the fact that the Chinese Government has long claimed suzerainty over Tibet and that the Chinese constitution lists Tibet among areas constituting the territory of the Republic of China."When Tibet's culture was threatened they appealed to the USA who did nothing!
Tibet was never a nation in the modern sense and never satisfied the accepted concepts defining a sovereign state.I can't agree that how other sovereign nations viewed Tibet is determinative. Sovereign nations have their own biases, loyalties and agendas that are not objective and are based largely on what political party is in power at the time.
For example, would you agree that Australia's current attitude towards China (Scott Morrison's) should define how others see China? Probably not.
I think we should ask the people on whose land China claims have sovereignty. Do they think that China has sovereignty over that land? if so, then fair enough. If not, then we have a problem.
The Tibetan people do not agree that China has sovereignty over Tibet. That is enough for me.
Or China making claim on India's land? I suppose you could class it as passive aggressive. ?I suppose you would support the UK taking back Australia then ?
Using The Epoch Times as a source on China is a good as using Fox News for America. My bad. Actually it's far worse as The Epoch Times is a front for Falun Gong (nearest equivalent being Scientology).Some comments here remind me of this
I suggest you learn about the veracity of the source you use:As I said some comments here remind me of this excellent publication's story on Wolf Warriors. All they do is attack, criticise sources (as if their sources are infinitely better haha), and present so-called facts that they pull out of their rear ends. But you have to admit Beijing teaches them well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?