Jump to content


Photo

Protests In Hong Kong


  • Please log in to reply
961 replies to this topic

#861 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,351 posts

Posted 02 June 2020 - 0134 AM

Jackie Chan backs the CCP HK security law.

TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — On Friday (May 29), Jackie Chan (成龍), the "Clown Prince of Kung fu," joined over 2,000 performing artists in supporting China's new repressive security law for Hong Kong, drawing the ire of Hongkongers and Taiwanese alike.

On Thursday (May 28), China's rubber-stamp legislature, the National People's Congress (NPC), passed a new heavy-handed security law to crush dissent in Hong Kong. The next day, Chan joined 2,616 "people in the cultural and performing arts" and 110 cultural groups in signing a statement which read, "We fully understand the importance of safeguarding national security for Hong Kong and support the decision of the National People's Congress on Hong Kong's national security law."

A number of Hong Kong entertainers immediately expressed their opposition to the law, including singer-songwriter Anthony Wong Yiu-ming (黃耀明), singer Denise Ho (何韻詩), and musical artist Adrian Chow (周博賢), among others. In response, Chan led a group of other Hong Kong celebrities in expressing support for the law, including singer-actress Liza Wang (汪明荃), actor Eric Tsang (曾志偉), director Clifton Ko (高志森), singer-actor Jordan Chan (陳小春), singer Alan Tam (譚詠麟), and entertainer Wong Cho-lam (王祖藍), along with others.

The statement backed by Chan also read that the signatories hoped that when the legislation is enacted it will "fill loopholes" in national security, enable relevant parties to fully communicate with all sectors of society to dispel doubts, and "protect the industry's normal creative freedom and space to develop." The statement also called on all sectors of society to "enhance inclusive understanding and bring Hong Kong back to the right path of civilization and the rule of law, and start again."

In response, Taiwanese netizens accused him of "bootlicking the CCP," and repeated a comment made by Chan about Hong Kong in 2009 in which he said, "If you're too free, you're like the way Hong Kong is now. It's very chaotic. Taiwan is also chaotic... I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled." Out of disgust with Chan's latest antics, one netizen wrote "I've never seen such scum. What he just demonstrated is what is known as a two-faced scumbag."

Other netizens pointed out the hypocrisy of his comment about "having too much freedom."


"Hey, Mr. Big Star, have you ever gone down to see how the lower class lives in fear of the totalitarian evil forces of the CCP?"

"It's because of having too much freedom that this kind of dog leg would appear."

"You had affairs and your son smoked pot. You're too free aren't you?"

"It [Hong Kong] could never be as chaotic as his private life."

Chan is much reviled in Taiwan for his infidelity to his Taiwanese wife and criticism he has made against Taiwan's democracy over the years. As the pro-democracy protests intensified in June of last year, Chan denied knowledge of their existence, saying "I only just found out yesterday that there was a big parade in Hong Kong. I don't know anything about it."

However, over the weekend, a number of Hong Kong celebrities denied that they had endorsed the new law. Hong Kong singer Ram Chiang (蔣志光), Taiwanese actress Hsu Hsi-yuan (徐熙媛), and Hong Kong pianist Jacqueline Li (李巧靈) all denied supporting China's national security law and claimed their names were used without their consent.
https://www.taiwanne...en/news/3942970
  • 0

#862 Ssnake

Ssnake

    Virtual Shiva Beast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,562 posts

Posted 02 June 2020 - 0236 AM

Chan has been a shill for the Chicoms for at least a decade now, why would he change the tune of his whistle now?


  • 0

#863 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,876 posts

Posted 02 June 2020 - 0257 AM

Just another Hollywood Uncle Tom.


  • 0

#864 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,876 posts

Posted 02 June 2020 - 0304 AM

 

Problem is that... South Vietnam was seen by  a good part of the own population as an extension of the colonial regimes. North played heavily on the nationalism card. Guess which one always wins in the end?

 

The North played its hand masterfully, I will grant them that. I have also heard that Ho Chi Minh offered his services to the OSS during his guerilla warfare against the Japanese days. Some may point to this as a sign that the Vietnamese were fighting for democracy. I tend to see this as the Vietnamese would say anything to anyone to get what they wanted. 

 

Leadership is key, and the South Vietnamese did not have it. They have only themselves to blame for that I think.

 

He had very good relations with the Americans in 1945, and he hoped they would back his case against the French Regime. Unfortunately, it didnt quite work out like that.

 

I dont believe Minh was quite the communist Le Duc Tho was. He as far more a nationalist than a Communist it seems to me. Unfortunately after he was shunted aside, then I think the nature of the conflict changed.

 

For all the flaws of the North, it was undoubtedly a nation. I dont think South Vietnam, other than a few exceptions, ever truly became one. If it could have stood on its own two feet in 1975, undoubtedly it woudl have had its own foundation myth as the Israelis did. But of course, it didnt. The irony is, today I understand you can visit Ho Chi Minh City and still see buses with 'Saigon Central' written on them. The South has never been truly integrated with the north, despite 40 odd years of trying to do it by force.

 

There is a parallel with Hong Kong there I think. And one the Chinese  are refusing to listen to.


  • 0

#865 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,309 posts

Posted 02 June 2020 - 0308 AM

 

 

 

 

You've assumed things that are not the case. If the US is in a treaty where the other signatories aren't fulfilling their obligations then yes, the US should threaten to walk away and do so if the behavior doesn't change. This is true of treaties with friends like NATO and it's true of treaties with adversaries like the INF treaty. To fulfill an agreement where the other side fails in their obligations is stupid. If you buy a house but the seller refuses to vacate the house and turn it over to you, do you continue to pay the mortgage?

 

If the EU is going to sell themselves and democracies out so quickly to the ChiComs and Russians then they are going to do so anyway and are not dependable allies. How long before they sell out the US if Russia turns off the gas tap?

 

So the people getting the oil money make no difference? Funding the Iranian Mullahs is no different than funding the Gulf states?

 

We're not looking to leave agreements, we're trying to make them work. If the other signatories won't fulfill their obligations then the treaty is a scam. The piece of paper means nothing if the intent to fulfill it isn't there. Ask Chamberlain how much a piece of paper is worth.

 

 

An interesting take, say, who left South Vietnam in the dirt? Lebanon in 83? Iraq? I gues you can add the Shah to the list. In terms of treaties not fulfilled, the US is not short of, in the last 50 years.

 

Because these treaties you say NATO is not complying with actually are being complied to the letter, but the US wants a bit more, but fudging the numbers (see previous posts on the issue) so the actual contribution to the NATO area is actually at the level of Belgium.

 

Re funding, last I checked the money flow wasn't to the Gulf, but from the Gulf (remember you just said the US is not buying their oil?) into what is, in effect and perceived by the locals to be, protection money paid to the US

 

 

I certainly won't defend our actions in the final years of the Vietnam War. In the end, a people have to fight for themselves but we should have helped them do it. Carter sold the Shah out as well.

 

Show me the TOE of European NATO forces and compare it to US forces and tell me they are pulling their weight. They're lucky if they can pull a decent armored brigade together amongst the lot of them. God forbid if that force needs to fight for more than a week and needs to do so on the fringes of Europe let alone thousands of miles away. Some members are doing their part but a number of nations, particularly the big ones are not. How many subs are currently operational in Germany, any?

 

Protection they need from Iran or do you think the Mullahs are warm and fuzzy? The Gulf states buy weapons and equipment that help keep our factories going. Whether they can use them worth a damn is a different story. Lower oil prices hurt our adversaries for the most part. Denying them resources is one of the most effective tools we have to keep them from causing havoc.

 

 

Already did this in the past, several times. Once more:

 

US Army Europe: 30.000 men, 2 combat brigades, 1 artillery brigade, 1 aviation brigade. GDP 20.54 Bn, Pop. 328 Mio

Belgium: 10.000 men, 2 combat brigades, GDP 542 Mio Pop. 11.4 Mio

Denmark: 12.500 men, 2 combat brigades, GDP 355 Mio Pop. 5.8 Mio

 

I picked this 2 at random, and I find it funny that you mention their inability to fight beyond their border, as they have kept contingents in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as other places that don't make US news, I guess this is the thank you that can be expected from the MAGA crowd.

 

Re. protection from Iran -  the list of countries invaded by the Mullahs is rather short: none. That they took advantage of the opportunities left to them by US intervention can be blamed on whom?


  • 0

#866 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,309 posts

Posted 02 June 2020 - 0315 AM

 

Problem is that... South Vietnam was seen by  a good part of the own population as an extension of the colonial regimes. North played heavily on the nationalism card. Guess which one always wins in the end?

 

The North played its hand masterfully, I will grant them that. I have also heard that Ho Chi Minh offered his services to the OSS during his guerilla warfare against the Japanese days. Some may point to this as a sign that the Vietnamese were fighting for democracy. I tend to see this as the Vietnamese would say anything to anyone to get what they wanted. 

 

Leadership is key, and the South Vietnamese did not have it. They have only themselves to blame for that I think.

 

 

No, it didn't it overextended itself at least 3 times (1965, 1968 and 1972) and were defeated militarily every time, but instead of leveraging a military defeat for political purposes (war is an extension of politics by other means), they were allowed to recover. The South original sin of being a proto-colonialist state in the perception of its people was done away by 1972, when the locals had an idea of what the North had in store for them, but the road to collapse was aided and abetted by the US, which wanted "out" before it was "in" and then allowed itself to get in a tar baby situation while depriving the ARVN of the means to carry out the fight.

 

By the time Nixon came into power too much treasure and lives had been squandered but there was still a final opportunity in 1972/73 to end the war in acceptable terms that was thrown away again. Having Congress pull the rug from under its allies in 1975 (because Cambodia was also thrown under the bus) was just the icing on the cake.


  • 0

#867 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,351 posts

Posted 02 June 2020 - 0318 AM

Chan has been a shill for the Chicoms for at least a decade now, why would he change the tune of his whistle now?

 

No reason, just for the record.


  • 0

#868 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,351 posts

Posted 02 June 2020 - 0321 AM

 

 

Problem is that... South Vietnam was seen by  a good part of the own population as an extension of the colonial regimes. North played heavily on the nationalism card. Guess which one always wins in the end?

 

The North played its hand masterfully, I will grant them that. I have also heard that Ho Chi Minh offered his services to the OSS during his guerilla warfare against the Japanese days. Some may point to this as a sign that the Vietnamese were fighting for democracy. I tend to see this as the Vietnamese would say anything to anyone to get what they wanted. 

 

Leadership is key, and the South Vietnamese did not have it. They have only themselves to blame for that I think.

 

He had very good relations with the Americans in 1945, and he hoped they would back his case against the French Regime. Unfortunately, it didnt quite work out like that.

 

I dont believe Minh was quite the communist Le Duc Tho was. He as far more a nationalist than a Communist it seems to me. Unfortunately after he was shunted aside, then I think the nature of the conflict changed.

 

For all the flaws of the North, it was undoubtedly a nation. I dont think South Vietnam, other than a few exceptions, ever truly became one. If it could have stood on its own two feet in 1975, undoubtedly it woudl have had its own foundation myth as the Israelis did. But of course, it didnt. The irony is, today I understand you can visit Ho Chi Minh City and still see buses with 'Saigon Central' written on them. The South has never been truly integrated with the north, despite 40 odd years of trying to do it by force.

 

There is a parallel with Hong Kong there I think. And one the Chinese  are refusing to listen to.

 

 

ISTR that there are even some language dialect difference between the north and the south. Maybe not as different as northern mainland Mandarin in comparison to Cantonese though.


  • 0

#869 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,192 posts

Posted 02 June 2020 - 0359 AM

 

 

What did Soviet military advisors think of Koreans, and the U.S. for that matter?

 

Unfortunately Soviet memoirs about Korean war, especially not coming from pilots, but from people contacting regular locals on the ground, are rare. Below is Yandex-translation of one of them (Russian original https://oper-1974.li...om/1356804.html) Note author's impression of USians (in this case POWs) typical also for  WWII

 

Spoiler

 

P.S. I do not know if Konstantin Simonov (https://en.wikipedia...stantin_Simonov) memoirs are available in English – as he was describing his impressions about US forces both in Europe and Japan,  about his trip to Vietnam, and by the way about Japanese (both from Mongolia conflict and from US-Occupied Japan).


Edited by Roman Alymov, 02 June 2020 - 0406 AM.

  • 0

#870 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,876 posts

Posted 02 June 2020 - 0403 AM

 

 

Problem is that... South Vietnam was seen by  a good part of the own population as an extension of the colonial regimes. North played heavily on the nationalism card. Guess which one always wins in the end?

 

The North played its hand masterfully, I will grant them that. I have also heard that Ho Chi Minh offered his services to the OSS during his guerilla warfare against the Japanese days. Some may point to this as a sign that the Vietnamese were fighting for democracy. I tend to see this as the Vietnamese would say anything to anyone to get what they wanted. 

 

Leadership is key, and the South Vietnamese did not have it. They have only themselves to blame for that I think.

 

 

No, it didn't it overextended itself at least 3 times (1965, 1968 and 1972) and were defeated militarily every time, but instead of leveraging a military defeat for political purposes (war is an extension of politics by other means), they were allowed to recover. The South original sin of being a proto-colonialist state in the perception of its people was done away by 1972, when the locals had an idea of what the North had in store for them, but the road to collapse was aided and abetted by the US, which wanted "out" before it was "in" and then allowed itself to get in a tar baby situation while depriving the ARVN of the means to carry out the fight.

 

By the time Nixon came into power too much treasure and lives had been squandered but there was still a final opportunity in 1972/73 to end the war in acceptable terms that was thrown away again. Having Congress pull the rug from under its allies in 1975 (because Cambodia was also thrown under the bus) was just the icing on the cake.

 

I dont see any way Nixon or Kissinger could have got acceptable terms. The North Vietnamese Regime could see the writing on the wall, and were not going to accept anything less than their troops left in South Vietham.


  • 0

#871 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,309 posts

Posted 02 June 2020 - 0527 AM

 

 

 

Problem is that... South Vietnam was seen by  a good part of the own population as an extension of the colonial regimes. North played heavily on the nationalism card. Guess which one always wins in the end?

 

The North played its hand masterfully, I will grant them that. I have also heard that Ho Chi Minh offered his services to the OSS during his guerilla warfare against the Japanese days. Some may point to this as a sign that the Vietnamese were fighting for democracy. I tend to see this as the Vietnamese would say anything to anyone to get what they wanted. 

 

Leadership is key, and the South Vietnamese did not have it. They have only themselves to blame for that I think.

 

 

No, it didn't it overextended itself at least 3 times (1965, 1968 and 1972) and were defeated militarily every time, but instead of leveraging a military defeat for political purposes (war is an extension of politics by other means), they were allowed to recover. The South original sin of being a proto-colonialist state in the perception of its people was done away by 1972, when the locals had an idea of what the North had in store for them, but the road to collapse was aided and abetted by the US, which wanted "out" before it was "in" and then allowed itself to get in a tar baby situation while depriving the ARVN of the means to carry out the fight.

 

By the time Nixon came into power too much treasure and lives had been squandered but there was still a final opportunity in 1972/73 to end the war in acceptable terms that was thrown away again. Having Congress pull the rug from under its allies in 1975 (because Cambodia was also thrown under the bus) was just the icing on the cake.

 

I dont see any way Nixon or Kissinger could have got acceptable terms. The North Vietnamese Regime could see the writing on the wall, and were not going to accept anything less than their troops left in South Vietham.

 

 

Nixon and Kissinger downgraded US objectives to getting the PoWs back, which left NVA forces in place in the South when the ceasefire came into place. There was no pressure to downgrade this other than that it was popular with the people at home and provided the fig leaf of peace with honor. The NV then outreached themselves and the 11 day war happened, at the end of which NV was isolated and defenceless. At that point more pressure could have been put on the North to get them out of the South (which incidentally would also have helped Cambodia) and give the South the time it needed to get their act together (after 1972 showed them the abyss was right there but that they could fight out of it). It didn't happened and with Nixon out, the RVN was left high and dry.


  • 0

#872 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,351 posts

Posted 02 June 2020 - 0820 AM

What did Soviet military advisors think of Koreans, and the U.S. for that matter?
Unfortunately Soviet memoirs about Korean war, especially not coming from pilots, but from people contacting regular locals on the ground, are rare. Below is Yandex-translation of one of them (Russian original https://oper-1974.li...om/1356804.html) Note author's impression of USians (in this case POWs) typical also for  WWII
 
Spoiler

 
P.S. I do not know if Konstantin Simonov (https://en.wikipedia...stantin_Simonov) memoirs are available in English as he was describing his impressions about US forces both in Europe and Japan,  about his trip to Vietnam, and by the way about Japanese (both from Mongolia conflict and from US-Occupied Japan).

It's kind of funny for when Pro-CCP posters (other forums) made points about "made in/from occupied-Japan" it was pointed out to them that in Japan, they have freedom of assembly, freedom of internet, freedom to vote, and a multi-party system. So the Japanese in so-called "occupied Japan" still had greater ability to exercise rights than citizens of the PRC. Their response was left to just troll nonsense afterwards.

┐('~`)┌

Edited by JasonJ, 02 June 2020 - 0823 AM.

  • 0

#873 Jeff

Jeff

    Godfather of Tanknet Birthday Greetings

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,947 posts

Posted 02 June 2020 - 1101 AM

 

 

 

 

Problem is that... South Vietnam was seen by  a good part of the own population as an extension of the colonial regimes. North played heavily on the nationalism card. Guess which one always wins in the end?

 

The North played its hand masterfully, I will grant them that. I have also heard that Ho Chi Minh offered his services to the OSS during his guerilla warfare against the Japanese days. Some may point to this as a sign that the Vietnamese were fighting for democracy. I tend to see this as the Vietnamese would say anything to anyone to get what they wanted. 

 

Leadership is key, and the South Vietnamese did not have it. They have only themselves to blame for that I think.

 

 

No, it didn't it overextended itself at least 3 times (1965, 1968 and 1972) and were defeated militarily every time, but instead of leveraging a military defeat for political purposes (war is an extension of politics by other means), they were allowed to recover. The South original sin of being a proto-colonialist state in the perception of its people was done away by 1972, when the locals had an idea of what the North had in store for them, but the road to collapse was aided and abetted by the US, which wanted "out" before it was "in" and then allowed itself to get in a tar baby situation while depriving the ARVN of the means to carry out the fight.

 

By the time Nixon came into power too much treasure and lives had been squandered but there was still a final opportunity in 1972/73 to end the war in acceptable terms that was thrown away again. Having Congress pull the rug from under its allies in 1975 (because Cambodia was also thrown under the bus) was just the icing on the cake.

 

I dont see any way Nixon or Kissinger could have got acceptable terms. The North Vietnamese Regime could see the writing on the wall, and were not going to accept anything less than their troops left in South Vietham.

 

 

Nixon and Kissinger downgraded US objectives to getting the PoWs back, which left NVA forces in place in the South when the ceasefire came into place. There was no pressure to downgrade this other than that it was popular with the people at home and provided the fig leaf of peace with honor. The NV then outreached themselves and the 11 day war happened, at the end of which NV was isolated and defenceless. At that point more pressure could have been put on the North to get them out of the South (which incidentally would also have helped Cambodia) and give the South the time it needed to get their act together (after 1972 showed them the abyss was right there but that they could fight out of it). It didn't happened and with Nixon out, the RVN was left high and dry.

 

 

Agreed


  • 0

#874 Jeff

Jeff

    Godfather of Tanknet Birthday Greetings

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,947 posts

Posted 02 June 2020 - 1101 AM

 

 

 

 

 

You've assumed things that are not the case. If the US is in a treaty where the other signatories aren't fulfilling their obligations then yes, the US should threaten to walk away and do so if the behavior doesn't change. This is true of treaties with friends like NATO and it's true of treaties with adversaries like the INF treaty. To fulfill an agreement where the other side fails in their obligations is stupid. If you buy a house but the seller refuses to vacate the house and turn it over to you, do you continue to pay the mortgage?

 

If the EU is going to sell themselves and democracies out so quickly to the ChiComs and Russians then they are going to do so anyway and are not dependable allies. How long before they sell out the US if Russia turns off the gas tap?

 

So the people getting the oil money make no difference? Funding the Iranian Mullahs is no different than funding the Gulf states?

 

We're not looking to leave agreements, we're trying to make them work. If the other signatories won't fulfill their obligations then the treaty is a scam. The piece of paper means nothing if the intent to fulfill it isn't there. Ask Chamberlain how much a piece of paper is worth.

 

 

An interesting take, say, who left South Vietnam in the dirt? Lebanon in 83? Iraq? I gues you can add the Shah to the list. In terms of treaties not fulfilled, the US is not short of, in the last 50 years.

 

Because these treaties you say NATO is not complying with actually are being complied to the letter, but the US wants a bit more, but fudging the numbers (see previous posts on the issue) so the actual contribution to the NATO area is actually at the level of Belgium.

 

Re funding, last I checked the money flow wasn't to the Gulf, but from the Gulf (remember you just said the US is not buying their oil?) into what is, in effect and perceived by the locals to be, protection money paid to the US

 

 

I certainly won't defend our actions in the final years of the Vietnam War. In the end, a people have to fight for themselves but we should have helped them do it. Carter sold the Shah out as well.

 

Show me the TOE of European NATO forces and compare it to US forces and tell me they are pulling their weight. They're lucky if they can pull a decent armored brigade together amongst the lot of them. God forbid if that force needs to fight for more than a week and needs to do so on the fringes of Europe let alone thousands of miles away. Some members are doing their part but a number of nations, particularly the big ones are not. How many subs are currently operational in Germany, any?

 

Protection they need from Iran or do you think the Mullahs are warm and fuzzy? The Gulf states buy weapons and equipment that help keep our factories going. Whether they can use them worth a damn is a different story. Lower oil prices hurt our adversaries for the most part. Denying them resources is one of the most effective tools we have to keep them from causing havoc.

 

 

Already did this in the past, several times. Once more:

 

US Army Europe: 30.000 men, 2 combat brigades, 1 artillery brigade, 1 aviation brigade. GDP 20.54 Bn, Pop. 328 Mio

Belgium: 10.000 men, 2 combat brigades, GDP 542 Mio Pop. 11.4 Mio

Denmark: 12.500 men, 2 combat brigades, GDP 355 Mio Pop. 5.8 Mio

 

I picked this 2 at random, and I find it funny that you mention their inability to fight beyond their border, as they have kept contingents in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as other places that don't make US news, I guess this is the thank you that can be expected from the MAGA crowd.

 

Re. protection from Iran -  the list of countries invaded by the Mullahs is rather short: none. That they took advantage of the opportunities left to them by US intervention can be blamed on whom?

 

 

That's ALL they have, our forces are just a tripwire for all the rest behind them. How many operational tanks? How about stocks of ammo and parts? Can they get to a combat zone that's not permissible? How do they get to Iraq and Afghanistan and how are they sustained? In Libya, NATO needed our refueling and ran out of bombs shortly after it began. Now do Iran in Iraq and Syria and the WB and Gaza. How many operational subs does Germany have?


  • 0

#875 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,309 posts

Posted 02 June 2020 - 1117 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

You've assumed things that are not the case. If the US is in a treaty where the other signatories aren't fulfilling their obligations then yes, the US should threaten to walk away and do so if the behavior doesn't change. This is true of treaties with friends like NATO and it's true of treaties with adversaries like the INF treaty. To fulfill an agreement where the other side fails in their obligations is stupid. If you buy a house but the seller refuses to vacate the house and turn it over to you, do you continue to pay the mortgage?

 

If the EU is going to sell themselves and democracies out so quickly to the ChiComs and Russians then they are going to do so anyway and are not dependable allies. How long before they sell out the US if Russia turns off the gas tap?

 

So the people getting the oil money make no difference? Funding the Iranian Mullahs is no different than funding the Gulf states?

 

We're not looking to leave agreements, we're trying to make them work. If the other signatories won't fulfill their obligations then the treaty is a scam. The piece of paper means nothing if the intent to fulfill it isn't there. Ask Chamberlain how much a piece of paper is worth.

 

 

An interesting take, say, who left South Vietnam in the dirt? Lebanon in 83? Iraq? I gues you can add the Shah to the list. In terms of treaties not fulfilled, the US is not short of, in the last 50 years.

 

Because these treaties you say NATO is not complying with actually are being complied to the letter, but the US wants a bit more, but fudging the numbers (see previous posts on the issue) so the actual contribution to the NATO area is actually at the level of Belgium.

 

Re funding, last I checked the money flow wasn't to the Gulf, but from the Gulf (remember you just said the US is not buying their oil?) into what is, in effect and perceived by the locals to be, protection money paid to the US

 

 

I certainly won't defend our actions in the final years of the Vietnam War. In the end, a people have to fight for themselves but we should have helped them do it. Carter sold the Shah out as well.

 

Show me the TOE of European NATO forces and compare it to US forces and tell me they are pulling their weight. They're lucky if they can pull a decent armored brigade together amongst the lot of them. God forbid if that force needs to fight for more than a week and needs to do so on the fringes of Europe let alone thousands of miles away. Some members are doing their part but a number of nations, particularly the big ones are not. How many subs are currently operational in Germany, any?

 

Protection they need from Iran or do you think the Mullahs are warm and fuzzy? The Gulf states buy weapons and equipment that help keep our factories going. Whether they can use them worth a damn is a different story. Lower oil prices hurt our adversaries for the most part. Denying them resources is one of the most effective tools we have to keep them from causing havoc.

 

 

Already did this in the past, several times. Once more:

 

US Army Europe: 30.000 men, 2 combat brigades, 1 artillery brigade, 1 aviation brigade. GDP 20.54 Bn, Pop. 328 Mio

Belgium: 10.000 men, 2 combat brigades, GDP 542 Mio Pop. 11.4 Mio

Denmark: 12.500 men, 2 combat brigades, GDP 355 Mio Pop. 5.8 Mio

 

I picked this 2 at random, and I find it funny that you mention their inability to fight beyond their border, as they have kept contingents in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as other places that don't make US news, I guess this is the thank you that can be expected from the MAGA crowd.

 

Re. protection from Iran -  the list of countries invaded by the Mullahs is rather short: none. That they took advantage of the opportunities left to them by US intervention can be blamed on whom?

 

 

That's ALL they have, our forces are just a tripwire for all the rest behind them. How many operational tanks? How about stocks of ammo and parts? Can they get to a combat zone that's not permissible? How do they get to Iraq and Afghanistan and how are they sustained? In Libya, NATO needed our refueling and ran out of bombs shortly after it began. Now do Iran in Iraq and Syria and the WB and Gaza. How many operational subs does Germany have?

 

 

Of course it's all they have, but they don't have commitments in the Pacific, South America, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, the WB and Gaza that do not stem from their alliance with the US.

 

So they are committing 100% of the forces to NATO, while the US is committing what? 5%? What percentage of the GDP invested in defence by the US is actually invested in the NATO area? and how much is European NATO countries resources invested in US interests outside of the NATO area? Once you do the numbers on what is actually committed (and it's not like the US has 10 divisions ready in CONUS to deploy in NATO as existing forces are already doing their thing elsewhere) the result is an imbalance that favors the US. Despite Trump's claims.

 

BTW, it's funny that you bring up the WB and Gaza, which shows how confused your thinking about NATO is. This would be a concern for Israel, not NATO, which doesn't have any kind of defence agreement with Israel. Given they are the largest recipient of US military aid by far, it's curious how silent you are about their lack of contribution to comunal defence.


  • 0

#876 Jeff

Jeff

    Godfather of Tanknet Birthday Greetings

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,947 posts

Posted 02 June 2020 - 1525 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You've assumed things that are not the case. If the US is in a treaty where the other signatories aren't fulfilling their obligations then yes, the US should threaten to walk away and do so if the behavior doesn't change. This is true of treaties with friends like NATO and it's true of treaties with adversaries like the INF treaty. To fulfill an agreement where the other side fails in their obligations is stupid. If you buy a house but the seller refuses to vacate the house and turn it over to you, do you continue to pay the mortgage?

 

If the EU is going to sell themselves and democracies out so quickly to the ChiComs and Russians then they are going to do so anyway and are not dependable allies. How long before they sell out the US if Russia turns off the gas tap?

 

So the people getting the oil money make no difference? Funding the Iranian Mullahs is no different than funding the Gulf states?

 

We're not looking to leave agreements, we're trying to make them work. If the other signatories won't fulfill their obligations then the treaty is a scam. The piece of paper means nothing if the intent to fulfill it isn't there. Ask Chamberlain how much a piece of paper is worth.

 

 

An interesting take, say, who left South Vietnam in the dirt? Lebanon in 83? Iraq? I gues you can add the Shah to the list. In terms of treaties not fulfilled, the US is not short of, in the last 50 years.

 

Because these treaties you say NATO is not complying with actually are being complied to the letter, but the US wants a bit more, but fudging the numbers (see previous posts on the issue) so the actual contribution to the NATO area is actually at the level of Belgium.

 

Re funding, last I checked the money flow wasn't to the Gulf, but from the Gulf (remember you just said the US is not buying their oil?) into what is, in effect and perceived by the locals to be, protection money paid to the US

 

 

I certainly won't defend our actions in the final years of the Vietnam War. In the end, a people have to fight for themselves but we should have helped them do it. Carter sold the Shah out as well.

 

Show me the TOE of European NATO forces and compare it to US forces and tell me they are pulling their weight. They're lucky if they can pull a decent armored brigade together amongst the lot of them. God forbid if that force needs to fight for more than a week and needs to do so on the fringes of Europe let alone thousands of miles away. Some members are doing their part but a number of nations, particularly the big ones are not. How many subs are currently operational in Germany, any?

 

Protection they need from Iran or do you think the Mullahs are warm and fuzzy? The Gulf states buy weapons and equipment that help keep our factories going. Whether they can use them worth a damn is a different story. Lower oil prices hurt our adversaries for the most part. Denying them resources is one of the most effective tools we have to keep them from causing havoc.

 

 

Already did this in the past, several times. Once more:

 

US Army Europe: 30.000 men, 2 combat brigades, 1 artillery brigade, 1 aviation brigade. GDP 20.54 Bn, Pop. 328 Mio

Belgium: 10.000 men, 2 combat brigades, GDP 542 Mio Pop. 11.4 Mio

Denmark: 12.500 men, 2 combat brigades, GDP 355 Mio Pop. 5.8 Mio

 

I picked this 2 at random, and I find it funny that you mention their inability to fight beyond their border, as they have kept contingents in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as other places that don't make US news, I guess this is the thank you that can be expected from the MAGA crowd.

 

Re. protection from Iran -  the list of countries invaded by the Mullahs is rather short: none. That they took advantage of the opportunities left to them by US intervention can be blamed on whom?

 

 

That's ALL they have, our forces are just a tripwire for all the rest behind them. How many operational tanks? How about stocks of ammo and parts? Can they get to a combat zone that's not permissible? How do they get to Iraq and Afghanistan and how are they sustained? In Libya, NATO needed our refueling and ran out of bombs shortly after it began. Now do Iran in Iraq and Syria and the WB and Gaza. How many operational subs does Germany have?

 

 

Of course it's all they have, but they don't have commitments in the Pacific, South America, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, the WB and Gaza that do not stem from their alliance with the US.

 

So they are committing 100% of the forces to NATO, while the US is committing what? 5%? What percentage of the GDP invested in defence by the US is actually invested in the NATO area? and how much is European NATO countries resources invested in US interests outside of the NATO area? Once you do the numbers on what is actually committed (and it's not like the US has 10 divisions ready in CONUS to deploy in NATO as existing forces are already doing their thing elsewhere) the result is an imbalance that favors the US. Despite Trump's claims.

 

BTW, it's funny that you bring up the WB and Gaza, which shows how confused your thinking about NATO is. This would be a concern for Israel, not NATO, which doesn't have any kind of defence agreement with Israel. Given they are the largest recipient of US military aid by far, it's curious how silent you are about their lack of contribution to comunal defence.

 

 

First, NATO would get a lot more than 5% of our military if the balloon goes up.

Second, we're hammered for being America First isolationists and for having military commitments worldwide? If we weren't policing free flow of goods around the world, how long would the other NATO nations last?

You can't have it both ways.

It's not a matter of "can't" with NATO members, for far too many it's a matter of "won't".

As for Iranian meddling in the ME, now who's being the isolationist?


  • 0

#877 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,351 posts

Posted 02 June 2020 - 2304 PM


 
I certainly won't defend our actions in the final years of the Vietnam War. In the end, a people have to fight for themselves but we should have helped them do it. Carter sold the Shah out as well.
 
Show me the TOE of European NATO forces and compare it to US forces and tell me they are pulling their weight. They're lucky if they can pull a decent armored brigade together amongst the lot of them. God forbid if that force needs to fight for more than a week and needs to do so on the fringes of Europe let alone thousands of miles away. Some members are doing their part but a number of nations, particularly the big ones are not. How many subs are currently operational in Germany, any?
 
Protection they need from Iran or do you think the Mullahs are warm and fuzzy? The Gulf states buy weapons and equipment that help keep our factories going. Whether they can use them worth a damn is a different story. Lower oil prices hurt our adversaries for the most part. Denying them resources is one of the most effective tools we have to keep them from causing havoc.
 
Already did this in the past, several times. Once more:
 
US Army Europe: 30.000 men, 2 combat brigades, 1 artillery brigade, 1 aviation brigade. GDP 20.54 Bn, Pop. 328 Mio
Belgium: 10.000 men, 2 combat brigades, GDP 542 Mio Pop. 11.4 Mio
Denmark: 12.500 men, 2 combat brigades, GDP 355 Mio Pop. 5.8 Mio
 
I picked this 2 at random, and I find it funny that you mention their inability to fight beyond their border, as they have kept contingents in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as other places that don't make US news, I guess this is the thank you that can be expected from the MAGA crowd.
 
Re. protection from Iran -  the list of countries invaded by the Mullahs is rather short: none. That they took advantage of the opportunities left to them by US intervention can be blamed on whom?
 
That's ALL they have, our forces are just a tripwire for all the rest behind them. How many operational tanks? How about stocks of ammo and parts? Can they get to a combat zone that's not permissible? How do they get to Iraq and Afghanistan and how are they sustained? In Libya, NATO needed our refueling and ran out of bombs shortly after it began. Now do Iran in Iraq and Syria and the WB and Gaza. How many operational subs does Germany have?
 
Of course it's all they have, but they don't have commitments in the Pacific, South America, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, the WB and Gaza that do not stem from their alliance with the US.
 
So they are committing 100% of the forces to NATO, while the US is committing what? 5%? What percentage of the GDP invested in defence by the US is actually invested in the NATO area? and how much is European NATO countries resources invested in US interests outside of the NATO area? Once you do the numbers on what is actually committed (and it's not like the US has 10 divisions ready in CONUS to deploy in NATO as existing forces are already doing their thing elsewhere) the result is an imbalance that favors the US. Despite Trump's claims.
 
BTW, it's funny that you bring up the WB and Gaza, which shows how confused your thinking about NATO is. This would be a concern for Israel, not NATO, which doesn't have any kind of defence agreement with Israel. Given they are the largest recipient of US military aid by far, it's curious how silent you are about their lack of contribution to comunal defence.
 
First, NATO would get a lot more than 5% of our military if the balloon goes up.
Second, we're hammered for being America First isolationists and for having military commitments worldwide? If we weren't policing free flow of goods around the world, how long would the other NATO nations last?
You can't have it both ways.
It's not a matter of "can't" with NATO members, for far too many it's a matter of "won't".
As for Iranian meddling in the ME, now who's being the isolationist?

Please pardon me to press a little more on international stuff even as the US domestic scene right now certainly does warrant priority. With that backdrop, feel free to take your time if you still want to respond..

For patroling the sea lanes, has it been made known exactly what contributions are being made by other countries? The whole back and fourth of demands or table banging point making is really detrimental when done while unaware of what is going on. But in order to make a good enrionment for proactively coming fourtb and sharing that information in a cooperative manner, a receptive postures is needed. If I just just respond "No you're wrong, look see, so-and-so country is making patrolz too!!1!" then of course you (or anyone else making the pressing point" will not want to receive the point in good spirit. So I could post some examples but I don't want the exchange of information to be in a setting of antagonism and disrespect because ultimately, its the spirit of teamwork (as cheesy as that may sound) that I would be seeking, not to just to prove you wrong. Now of course, even if after I show an example of an other country doing a patrol, it still leaves an debate point as to whether or not it is a sufficient contribution or not, but we can't get to that next stage of discussion in a cool manner if the initial stage is like discourse among mad men.

Edited by JasonJ, 02 June 2020 - 2337 PM.

  • 0

#878 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,699 posts

Posted 03 June 2020 - 0208 AM

BoJo has confirmed the policy that Jeff has decided is abject surrender.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52900700

I think it's much better. If a significant number of eligible HKers vote with their feet, it's a slap in the face for China because it exposed how "their" people feel about their prospective cuddly new government. Maybe they can keep that under wraps domestically, but doing so means turning up the totalitarian knob to 11, which is likely to cause them grief in the longer term.

I'd argue that the US needs to look away from threatening everyone it disagrees with in the near future, not because it lacks the will to fight, but because it can no longer guarantee to overmatch the states that it wants to influence.

In short, the US will increasingly use its trade imbalance with such states to threaten their economic well-being. I think we're seeing that, and maybe that will be Trump's foreign policy legacy.
  • 0

#879 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,309 posts

Posted 03 June 2020 - 0228 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You've assumed things that are not the case. If the US is in a treaty where the other signatories aren't fulfilling their obligations then yes, the US should threaten to walk away and do so if the behavior doesn't change. This is true of treaties with friends like NATO and it's true of treaties with adversaries like the INF treaty. To fulfill an agreement where the other side fails in their obligations is stupid. If you buy a house but the seller refuses to vacate the house and turn it over to you, do you continue to pay the mortgage?

 

If the EU is going to sell themselves and democracies out so quickly to the ChiComs and Russians then they are going to do so anyway and are not dependable allies. How long before they sell out the US if Russia turns off the gas tap?

 

So the people getting the oil money make no difference? Funding the Iranian Mullahs is no different than funding the Gulf states?

 

We're not looking to leave agreements, we're trying to make them work. If the other signatories won't fulfill their obligations then the treaty is a scam. The piece of paper means nothing if the intent to fulfill it isn't there. Ask Chamberlain how much a piece of paper is worth.

 

 

An interesting take, say, who left South Vietnam in the dirt? Lebanon in 83? Iraq? I gues you can add the Shah to the list. In terms of treaties not fulfilled, the US is not short of, in the last 50 years.

 

Because these treaties you say NATO is not complying with actually are being complied to the letter, but the US wants a bit more, but fudging the numbers (see previous posts on the issue) so the actual contribution to the NATO area is actually at the level of Belgium.

 

Re funding, last I checked the money flow wasn't to the Gulf, but from the Gulf (remember you just said the US is not buying their oil?) into what is, in effect and perceived by the locals to be, protection money paid to the US

 

 

I certainly won't defend our actions in the final years of the Vietnam War. In the end, a people have to fight for themselves but we should have helped them do it. Carter sold the Shah out as well.

 

Show me the TOE of European NATO forces and compare it to US forces and tell me they are pulling their weight. They're lucky if they can pull a decent armored brigade together amongst the lot of them. God forbid if that force needs to fight for more than a week and needs to do so on the fringes of Europe let alone thousands of miles away. Some members are doing their part but a number of nations, particularly the big ones are not. How many subs are currently operational in Germany, any?

 

Protection they need from Iran or do you think the Mullahs are warm and fuzzy? The Gulf states buy weapons and equipment that help keep our factories going. Whether they can use them worth a damn is a different story. Lower oil prices hurt our adversaries for the most part. Denying them resources is one of the most effective tools we have to keep them from causing havoc.

 

 

Already did this in the past, several times. Once more:

 

US Army Europe: 30.000 men, 2 combat brigades, 1 artillery brigade, 1 aviation brigade. GDP 20.54 Bn, Pop. 328 Mio

Belgium: 10.000 men, 2 combat brigades, GDP 542 Mio Pop. 11.4 Mio

Denmark: 12.500 men, 2 combat brigades, GDP 355 Mio Pop. 5.8 Mio

 

I picked this 2 at random, and I find it funny that you mention their inability to fight beyond their border, as they have kept contingents in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as other places that don't make US news, I guess this is the thank you that can be expected from the MAGA crowd.

 

Re. protection from Iran -  the list of countries invaded by the Mullahs is rather short: none. That they took advantage of the opportunities left to them by US intervention can be blamed on whom?

 

 

That's ALL they have, our forces are just a tripwire for all the rest behind them. How many operational tanks? How about stocks of ammo and parts? Can they get to a combat zone that's not permissible? How do they get to Iraq and Afghanistan and how are they sustained? In Libya, NATO needed our refueling and ran out of bombs shortly after it began. Now do Iran in Iraq and Syria and the WB and Gaza. How many operational subs does Germany have?

 

 

Of course it's all they have, but they don't have commitments in the Pacific, South America, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, the WB and Gaza that do not stem from their alliance with the US.

 

So they are committing 100% of the forces to NATO, while the US is committing what? 5%? What percentage of the GDP invested in defence by the US is actually invested in the NATO area? and how much is European NATO countries resources invested in US interests outside of the NATO area? Once you do the numbers on what is actually committed (and it's not like the US has 10 divisions ready in CONUS to deploy in NATO as existing forces are already doing their thing elsewhere) the result is an imbalance that favors the US. Despite Trump's claims.

 

BTW, it's funny that you bring up the WB and Gaza, which shows how confused your thinking about NATO is. This would be a concern for Israel, not NATO, which doesn't have any kind of defence agreement with Israel. Given they are the largest recipient of US military aid by far, it's curious how silent you are about their lack of contribution to comunal defence.

 

 

First, NATO would get a lot more than 5% of our military if the balloon goes up.

Second, we're hammered for being America First isolationists and for having military commitments worldwide? If we weren't policing free flow of goods around the world, how long would the other NATO nations last?

You can't have it both ways.

It's not a matter of "can't" with NATO members, for far too many it's a matter of "won't".

As for Iranian meddling in the ME, now who's being the isolationist?

 

 

1) Yes, but the claim is that NATO is not doing their part now, not when the balloon goes up, because NATO would also increase its contribution should the balloon go up (obviously!)

2) No, you are being hammered becuase the apples to oranges comparison of "You are not doing enough, we are defending you" while 'murrica commits as little as possible to Yurrop in the hope that if the balloon goes up more would be forthcoming when events have shown that hasn't been the case with this administration (remember that time the Mullahs took over a British tanker and the US answer was "your problem, not mine"?). So it's not me having it both ways, but this administration.

3) This "won't" has yet to be supported by facts, not what Trump says - which turns out is factually incorrect

4) Iranian meddling - is this why, after menacing them with fire and brimstone,. nothing has happened beyond pre-existing economic sanctions?


  • 0

#880 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,192 posts

Posted 03 June 2020 - 0533 AM

 

 

P.S. I do not know if Konstantin Simonov (https://en.wikipedia...stantin_Simonov) memoirs are available in English as he was describing his impressions about US forces both in Europe and Japan,  about his trip to Vietnam, and by the way about Japanese (both from Mongolia conflict and from US-Occupied Japan).

It's kind of funny for when Pro-CCP posters (other forums) made points about "made in/from occupied-Japan" it was pointed out to them that in Japan, they have freedom of assembly, freedom of internet, freedom to vote, and a multi-party system. So the Japanese in so-called "occupied Japan" still had greater ability to exercise rights than citizens of the PRC. Their response was left to just troll nonsense afterwards.

 

I do not know what is making you angry in my description of Japan in 1946 as US-occupied. When Simonov spend 5 month  there, recording about 1000 pages of diaries and interviews with people  - from Japan Communists fresh from prison to prostitution business owners – Japan was under US direct military rule, and if it is not occupation then what it is?
Below is Yandex translation (slightly corrected) of Simonov’s interviews with suicide bombers. As poet, Simonov was more interested in their motivation and feelings, not technical details.  Sorry for quality of translation. Original in Russian https://modernlib.ne...poniya_46/read/

Spoiler


Edited by Roman Alymov, 03 June 2020 - 0534 AM.

  • 0