China's Blueprint For Global Power

[Marcin + 519]

11 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Ah I see, yep you may need to point it out for me. It gets lost among the anti US stuff so I switch off hahah   

While we're at the whole explaining thing, maybe Scott can explain ''citizens'' to you.

Yes. The citizens thirst for blood. Literally    They have focused on little else for a century now, while avoiding sunlight. 

 

I am really sorry, I did not understand @PE Scott point, it must be something culture specific, Americans just show kindness by bombing, invading and occupying countries.

Or what still more probable, it just happened accidentally, without consent or prior knowledge of American citizens. 3 aircraft carriers, 20 destroyers and 40 auxiliary vessels with 250 planes, 100000 sailors are just cruising through Mediterranean Sea or Persian Gulf. They aim for Cyprus beaches to take some rest. And because of some misunderstanding they bomb, bomb, bomb. And later out of pure accident  also 1000 tanks invade from ground postions.

Man it happens all the time, nobody at fault, simple force majeure.

[Guest]

You're Polish yes?

1 hour ago, PE Scott said:

none of this has anything to do with a typical american citizen

Ah ... There it is

Edited October 19, 2019 by Guest

[PE Scott + 563]

I see what you're trying to get across @Marcin, you are clearly ignoring my point.

It doesn't matter to me though really. Clearly, in present day, the U.S. is growing tired of fighting in foreign conflicts. The popular consensus is to let the ME and the rest of the world handle their own business.

So, when tens of thousands of innocent civilians die horribly from chemical or biological agents, well they should have found a means to stand up for themselves. If the U.S., or any other country for that matter, has the knowledge, means and ability to prevent such atrocities.....it certaintly isnt their responsibility and they should feel no moral compulsion to do so. 

 

[Guest]

M I C  D R O P

 

[Guest]

Oh I'm sure the wonderful strong Poland would be straight in there to help others anyway ....

Oh wait, now I remember ... you lasted a month? It must be so lovely to have such a selective memory that apparently goes back a whole century? But you just mention the ME while talking about invasions !!! ? Unreal.

Bloodthirsty? Hmm let's have a think back a sec ... (and chat in English).

#offtoseethewizard

Edited October 20, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

hahaha just remembered Doug's Wizard of Oz line

what was I thinking??

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 10/17/2019 at 6:25 AM, frankfurter said:

Ah, the self-proclaimed expert on 1984.  Well done. 

But as I read the text, seemingly it can apply to all people everywhere. The greatest lies are perpetrated by the Western "educational' systems, which are in fact indoctrination systems. 1984 was written by a westerner, for westerners specifically, but its lessons are universal.

If you cite the text as a lesson to all people, I commend you. But your context is to yet again demonise China, only, so you should be exposed for what you are. 

You seem to be able to see context where there is none. 

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, PE Scott said:

So, when tens of thousands of innocent civilians die horribly from chemical or biological agents, well they should have found a means to stand up for themselves. If the U.S., or any other country for that matter, has the knowledge, means and ability to prevent such atrocities.....it certaintly isnt their responsibility and they should feel no moral compulsion to do so. 

It's somewhat ironic that Iraq was attacked by the USA because they could not find the WMD they knew had previously existed, as the USA was complicit in Iraq's fight against Iran.

[Guest]

This thread is about China.

Stop diverting please, or atleast answer Otis' 7 questions to you, rather than the nonsense and diversions.

Many thanks. 

#mirror

Edited October 20, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

On 10/18/2019 at 11:11 PM, Otis11 said:

It goes back to 1000 years BCE - so over3000 years. (Sorry, I couldn't find a gif that went back further. How far would you like to go back in history?)
If not dynastic, what coverage would you prefer to use?

Where did it show coverage past current day China? Ok, Taiwan, Parts of Russian, Mongolia, and just a hair more territory in a few small SE Asian nations - but never at the same time.

Why can China claim it all of these now at the same point in time when they have never had both Hanoi and Taiwan at the same time? Why do these countries  (which were ruled by China for less than 10% of the last 3000 years) not have their own say in how they want to be governed? It only had Xinjiang during the Qing and Tang Dynasties - Why does China get to claim the Uygur people when they clearly would rather not be claimed?

And yet again - Why can China do this, but Italy can't claim all of the historic Roman Empire?

You've again failed to answer a single question I've posed, and again, have provided 0 evidence.

[Guest]

China's Blueprint

For Global Power

This is the thread title.

Cheers.

Edited October 20, 2019 by Guest

[remake it + 288]

21 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

This thread is about China.

Stop diverting please, or atleast answer Otis' 7 questions to you, rather than the nonsense and diversions.

Many thanks. 

#mirror

People here make claims they cannot back up or defy common sense, such as the idea that sequential occupation is a "bogus" basis for China's territory, while you have yet to learn what a diversion is through your repeated misuse.

[Guest]

So just to clarify ....

STILL no answers and a reference to diversion

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Incredible stuff.

[PE Scott + 563]

53 minutes ago, remake it said:

It's somewhat ironic that Iraq was attacked by the USA because they could not find the WMD they knew had previously existed, as the USA was complicit in Iraq's fight against Iran.

This is from a left leaning publication. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/19/iraq

There was plenty of reason besides WMDs to invade Iraq.

As this article point out, based on WikiLeaks, there was plenty of evidence of WMD's, just not the manufacturing facilities the Bush administration had spoke of.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/amp

The whole thing comes back around to my original point though, which you reinforced by pointing out the narrative at the time was there were WMD that threatened innocent civilians in Iraq. The majority of American Citizens would rather avoid war. In the instance of Iraq, many american citizens were convinced based on the suggestion that Iraq was manufacturing WMDs they intended to use on civilians. Certainly there was evidence they has used mustard gas previously.  What the average american citizen was unaware of is the WMDs being used were from stockpiles, not newly manufactured. If I'm being fair, some of those shells were probably stamped "Lake City" as the CIA had provided them previously. Still, not to the knowledge of the average american citizen.

None of that points to American citizens harboring enough hate and animosity for foreign countries for their citizens to invade them and indiscriminately drop nuclear bombs and such, which is the whole reason this all started. In fact, it only reinforces the fact that most americans were or are under the impression those military engagements were for the benefit of an oppressed and under represented people suffering under a genocidal dictatorship. 

 

FFS though, stick to the original topic.

Edited October 20, 2019 by PE Scott

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

7 hours ago, Marcin said:

American citizens do not remember what suffering for civilians is the war, cause last one on US territory was American Civil War.

Not quite, chum.   I remind you that the Empire of Japan invaded  Alaska during WWII, seizing and holding one major island in the Aleutians.  The US Army had to send in a division of men to root them out.  In typical Japanese fighting posture of that time, they chose to never surrender, and that fighting, down to the last man, was remarkably bloody.  

The Japanese Army also invaded and held Wake Island, shortly after Pearl Harbor, and lined up all the civilian workers there for ritual beheadings, where the civilians are bound hand and foot, placed in a line on their knees, and the executioner with the long sword paces before them, shouting imprecations.  Lovely way to die.  

You do seem to forget these little tidbits about the Asians and their murders of American civilians.  

Further, during WWII, the Philippines was an American Territory, and the civilian slaughter there was totally horrific. That was from 1941-1945, a hundred years after the [U.S.] War between the States  (what you call the "civil war"). 

Do try not to post nonsense here.  I remind you that  there are some 10,000 readers, all of whom quite self-evidently outclass you.  The Forum has been remarkably tolerant of your postings.  Me, not so much.

[remake it + 288]

12 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

So just to clarify ....

STILL no answers and a reference to diversion

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Incredible stuff.

 

On 10/19/2019 at 12:03 AM, Otis11 said:

China has never controlled all the land they currently have at any single point in history. If they want to use the historical appeal to take over new land, then they open themselves up to others using the historical appeal to reclaim land that is currently China.

As previously links showed, China's dynasties actually controlled greater land areas than the China of today, so this is a proven a "bogus" claim, although Otis adopted a different argument when pushed, and decided to go back 3000 year and do some dodgy math, whereas sequential occupation only needs to go back a few hundred years.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

6 minutes ago, remake it said:

whereas sequential occupation only needs to go back a few hundred years.

Thus by logical extension of your argument, that territorial conquests and seizures of the last severl hundred years should and would provide a proper and just foundation for demanding ownership and control of lands today, you would posit that the British should have its borders expanded to include:  South Africa, Rhodesia, Kenya, anyone?, India, Pakistan, Singapore, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Diego Garcia, Malta, Cyprus, Palestine, all of Ireland.....

This  is just lovely logic.  In all candor, have you been drinking when you do these posts?  

[PE Scott + 563]

4 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

In all candor, have you been drinking when you do these posts?  

All though the legalization of marijuana has created some positive tax revenue, the downside can't be ignored.

[Guest]

Can someone please make up a map of UK that includes all that ?? I wanna see the England - Oz border lines for a kick off and how big we would be.

 

Edited October 20, 2019 by Guest

[PE Scott + 563]

5 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Can someone please make up a map of UK that includes all that ?? I wanna see the England - Oz border lines for a kick off and how big we would be.

 

Might as well include the USA and Canada while your at it.

Nvmnd, @Jan van Eck included Canada. 

All hail the Queen!

Edited October 20, 2019 by PE Scott

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

Just now, DayTrader said:

Can someone please make up a map of UK that includes all that ?? I wanna see the England - Oz border lines for a kick off.

 

Piece of cake, chum.  Just head on down to the antique shop and pick up an old globe.  All the areas coloured in Red are the old British Empire.  You will find that it is most of the globe.  

So, for England, it has been all downhill since the Battle of Waterloo.  OK, so since the losses in the Dardanelles Campaign.  Whatever.  Downhill is downhill.  Sigh.  And now, Brexit.  (Oh, I forgot:  you consider that one a Win.  Yup, carry on...)

[PE Scott + 563]

19 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Thus by logical extension of your argument, that territorial conquests and seizures of the last severl hundred years should and would provide a proper and just foundation for demanding ownership and control of lands today, you would posit that the British should have its borders expanded to include:  South Africa, Rhodesia, Kenya, anyone?, India, Pakistan, Singapore, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Diego Garcia, Malta, Cyprus, Palestine, all of Ireland.....

This  is just lovely logic.  In all candor, have you been drinking when you do these posts?  

Actually, this would solve quite a bit as everything would belong to the U.K.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_that_have_gained_independence_from_the_United_Kingdom

How far back are we going? Honk Kong sure misses jolly ol' England. Maybe everyone just needs to embrace U.K. rule.

Sorry about that whole revolution thing, we're cool now. 

-America

Edited October 20, 2019 by PE Scott

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

4 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

Nvmnd, @Jan van Eck included Canada. 

All hail the Queen!

While we are at it, I concede I left out:  Bermuda, Bahamas, Cayman Islands, St. Kitts, Barbados, Barbuda, Virgin Islands, Ceylon, Burma, Nigeria, Swaziland, Egypt, Sudan, .....   As for the USA, The Brits took that from the Dutch by force of arms, so that doesn't count, and besides, they don't want it back, too many of those anti-Monarchist Roundheads over there.  

As for that Queen, yes I am a Monarchist, just not that Monarch!

[remake it + 288]

18 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Thus by logical extension of your argument, that territorial conquests and seizures of the last severl hundred years should and would provide a proper and just foundation for demanding ownership and control of lands today, you would posit that the British should have its borders expanded to include:  South Africa, Rhodesia, Kenya, anyone?, India, Pakistan, Singapore, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Diego Garcia, Malta, Cyprus, Palestine, all of Ireland.....

This  is just lovely logic.  In all candor, have you been drinking when you do these posts?  

The logical extension requires a meaningful basis and in the majority of China's recent history (back a few centuries) related to internal transitions as distinct from extraterritorial conquests.

[remake it + 288]

24 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

... you would posit that the British should have its borders expanded to include:  South Africa, Rhodesia, Kenya, anyone?, India, Pakistan, Singapore, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Diego Garcia, Malta, Cyprus, Palestine, all of Ireland.....

This  is just lovely logic.  In all candor, have you been drinking when you do these posts?  

Why do people at this site invent so many straw men?