The Chinese Communist party are campaigners

[Admiral Byng]

They are calling it the death of democracy in Hong Kong.

It is time for consumers in all democratic countries to start boycotting the purchase of Chinese made consumer goods.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

They are calling it the death of democracy in Hong Kong.

It is time for consumers in all democratic countries to start boycotting the purchase of Chinese made consumer goods.

Hong Kong has never been a democracy.

 

[NSWCROW]

China seemingly hell-bent on going out of it's way to tread in dogshit.

Time to get into the 21st century like the rest of us, mother*ers.

 

[Rob R]

China seemingly hell-bent on going out of it's way to tread in dogshit.

Time to get into the 21st century like the rest of us, motherf***ers.

China was heading the right way to be a very positive contributor to the world with increasing freedoms until one violent thug decided to throw away what little democracy they had and concentrate all power in him. Sadly he and his cronies dont care who they threaten, kill or disappear (Hong Kong, Xuiyang, Tibet, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, India) to stay in power.

On SM-G570F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Jello_B]

Disgrace.

 

[DaRick]

Hong Kong has never been a democracy.

Not a liberal democracy no, but an SAR with more civil liberties than it has right now.

Whether China will eventually ease its current grip on HK remains to be seen. The context is different, but it hasn't really loosened it on Tibet.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Not a liberal democracy no, but an SAR with more civil liberties than it has right now.

Whether China will eventually ease its current grip on HK remains to be seen. The context is different, but it hasn't really loosened it on Tibet.

two things on this

SAR was not democratic. the candidates were all endorsed by beijing, and basically were its rep office. on this, HK'ers didnt give a *. Ive been doing to HK for a couple of decades, and only in recent years did HK peeps give a s**t about voting. the only thing the city cared about before then was money - as long as they were making it, they didnt give two *s what their flag was.

secondly, china owns hk, its bs to pretend otherwise. Under the terms of surrender they signed with England, only Hong Kong island was granted to England for perpetuity. The New Territories were a lease. The reason UK agreed to hand over was 1) it had neither the will or the ability to defend it militarily from China, and 2) without the maintain territories hk island loses most of its juice. HK island cannot do what it needs to do with no mainland access.

The other issue was HK was taken from China after the UK declared war on China over china trying to stop its drug dealing in china, beat it like a bitch, and then took HK with chunks of Shanghai and nearly all of the treasury. Defending the spoils of a drug war doesnt exactly scream democracy

 

[QuietB]

two things on this

SAR was not democratic. the candidates were all endorsed by beijing, and basically were its rep office. on this, HK'ers didnt give a fu**. Ive been doing to HK for a couple of decades, and only in recent years did HK peeps give a sh*t about voting. the only thing the city cared about before then was money - as long as they were making it, they didnt give two fu**s what their flag was.

secondly, china owns hk, its bs to pretend otherwise. Under the terms of surrender they signed with England, only Hong Kong island was granted to England for perpetuity. The New Territories were a lease. The reason UK agreed to hand over was 1) it had neither the will or the ability to defend it militarily from China, and 2) without the maintain territories hk island loses most of its juice. HK island cannot do what it needs to do with no mainland access.

The other issue was HK was taken from China after the UK declared war on China over china trying to stop its drug dealing in china, beat it like a b*tch, and then took HK with chunks of Shanghai and nearly all of the treasury. Defending the spoils of a drug war doesnt exactly scream democracy

It is a truth that no one wants to remember.

• England resolved their trade imbalance with China by selling them huge quantities of opioids.
• Unsurprisingly this created friction with China.
• England retaliated to said friction with war and won. Annexed Hong Kong.
• Rince and repeat a few years later. England annexes Kowloon.
• China is now making good.

Similarly with Taiwan.

• China has a civil war.
• Republic of China retreats to Taiwan.
• China leaves them in relative peace.
• One day China will want to reunite noting that the original plan was for Taiwan to take back mainland China which obviously never happened.

The west might not like it but these are local issues that we really have no place putting our noses into.

Just like how we do not like them interfering in our affairs.

 

[Rob R]

It is a truth that no one wants to remember.

• England resolved their trade imbalance with China by selling them huge quantities of opioids.
• Unsurprisingly this created friction with China.
• England retaliated to said friction with war and won. Annexed Hong Kong.
• Rince and repeat a few years later. England annexes Kowloon.
• China is now making good.

Similarly with Taiwan.

• China has a civil war.
• Republic of China retreats to Taiwan.
• China leaves them in relative peace.
• One day China will want to reunite noting that the original plan was for Taiwan to take back mainland China which obviously never happened.

The west might not like it but these are local issues that we really have no place putting our noses into.

Just like how we do not like them interfering in our affairs.

Interesting reinterpretation of history with your second part. You should really include a footnote listing the CCP pamphlet you are quoting from.

Real history is:
Two vile parties fight a vicious civil war in China.
The KMT flee to Taiwan and are only saved from the CCP by foreign forces warning the CCP off.
Taiwan gradually evolves from a dictatorship into a peaceful democracy
CCP remains a violent murderous dictatorship killing over 90 million of its own people, invades its neighbours and continues to threaten Taiwan with a war that would cost millions of civilian lives.

On SM-G570F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[QuietB]

Interesting reinterpretation of history with your second part. You should really include a footnote listing the CCP pamphlet you are quoting from.

Real history is:
Two vile parties fight a vicious civil war in China.
The KMT flee to Taiwan and are only saved from the CCP by foreign forces warning the CCP off.
Taiwan gradually evolves from a dictatorship into a peaceful democracy
CCP remains a violent murderous dictatorship killing over 90 million of its own people, invades its neighbours and continues to threaten Taiwan with a war that would cost millions of civilian lives.

On SM-G570F using BigFooty.com mobile app

ie. it used to be one country.

 

[kranky al]

Whatever you think of the wonderful CCP, why did ScoMo go first and solo in asking for the coronavirus inquiry?

i wonder why

weve got the orange cretin over the pond wanting to lash out at china as the us hits 100000 dead - but it sounds better if a country that hasnt been affected badly says something so the chinese cant point to major marmalades inept handling of the virus

cue americas sheriff in asia and loveable sidekick australia

Orange buffoon: I SAID CUE AMERICAS SHERIFF IN ASIA AND LOVEABLE SIDEKICK AUSTRALIA

*scotty from marketing wades in


are any of you old enough to remember the east german judge at the olympics?

a us figure skater would come on and it would be 8.5, 8.5, 8.4, 8.6, 8.5 from the russian judge AAANND 8.1 from the east german judge

see the russians didnt want to seen to be petty so THEY didnt mark the seppo chick down - the east german judge did

so we all sat there thinking russia was petty af - with extra steps


gentlemen, we are the new east germany.



so - weve made sure the next few years of recovery are going to be a lot harder as china yanks our choke chain extra hard in order that we come to our senses and remember who massa is.

to my way of thinking we need to get proactive here. investigate other markets, invest in countries like vietnam and thailand - start exporting clean green power like hydrogen to them to use in new clean steel production. the eu are a customer in waiting for this. create value adding to our exports.

a little foresight and we can be net clean energy exporters to asia. theres already a company planning on building solar arrays in the desert and exporting the power to singapore.....


move away from china.

 

[DaRick]

Interesting reinterpretation of history with your second part. You should really include a footnote listing the CCP pamphlet you are quoting from.

Real history is:
Two vile parties fight a vicious civil war in China.
The KMT flee to Taiwan and are only saved from the CCP by foreign forces warning the CCP off.
Taiwan gradually evolves from a dictatorship into a peaceful democracy
CCP remains a violent murderous dictatorship killing over 90 million of its own people, invades its neighbours and continues to threaten Taiwan with a war that would cost millions of civilian lives.

On SM-G570F using BigFooty.com mobile app

The PRC most certainly aren't a force for good, but they're not *ed enough to actually attempt an invasion of Taiwan.

Even if they won (far from a guarantee), Taiwan would be a smoking heap and therefore economically useless. Not to mention that they'd still face harassment from mountain forces.

I think one of the key factors that has prevented the PRC from democratising like the ROC is that mainland China is much more of a multi-ethnic/multi-clan state than Taiwan is. I know people will go "but 90% Han!", but it has to be borne in mind that the Han ethnicity would be treated as multiple ethnicities in the US. Also, China is surprisingly clannish - there is a lot of trust within Han clans, but limited trust between Han Chinese as a whole. Hence the perceived need to maintain 'strong leadership' to keep the country pushing in one direction.

Although the problem was clearly worse in Chiang Kai-Shek's time, this is one important reason why he was never able to democratise the mainland, even though that was his eventual goal.

ie. it used to be one country.

It's still one country - it's just that the ROC and PRC disagree on who should be running the joint.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

The PRC most certainly aren't a force for good, but they're not ******ed enough to actually attempt an invasion of Taiwan.

Even if they won (far from a guarantee), Taiwan would be a smoking heap and therefore economically useless. Not to mention that they'd still face harassment from mountain forces.

I think one of the key factors that has prevented the PRC from democratising like the ROC is that mainland China is much more of a multi-ethnic/multi-clan state than Taiwan is. I know people will go "but 90% Han!", but it has to be borne in mind that the Han ethnicity would be treated as multiple ethnicities in the US. Also, China is surprisingly clannish - there is a lot of trust within Han clans, but limited trust between Han Chinese as a whole. Hence the perceived need to maintain 'strong leadership' to keep the country pushing in one direction.

Although the problem was clearly worse in Chiang Kai-Shek's time, this is one important reason why he was never able to democratise the mainland, even though that was his eventual goal.



It's still one country - it's just that the ROC and PRC disagree on who should be running the joint.

you're wrong on this point. Taiwan isnt a missing economic asset to profit off to the chinese people. this is about pride and respect.

if taiwan declares independence, mainlanders would rather see it be a smoking nuclear wastleland with a PRC flag on it than allow it to be independent.

 

[DaRick]

you're wrong on this point. Taiwan isnt a missing economic asset to profit off to the chinese people. this is about pride and respect.

if taiwan declares independence, mainlanders would rather see it be a smoking nuclear wastleland with a PRC flag on it than allow it to be independent.

Wasn't necessarily referring to Taiwan declaring independence, more the objective dangers of invading Taiwan.

I doubt Taiwan declares independence because the ROC still claims title over the mainland.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Wasn't necessarily referring to Taiwan declaring independence, more the objective dangers of invading Taiwan.

I doubt Taiwan declares independence because the ROC still claims title over the mainland.

I dont disagree with this. If Taiwan didnt declare when the bamboo wall was up and they could get away with it, they are not doing it now

 

[Crankyhawk]

Standing up for what "principles"?

Would you ever treat a client like Australia are treating China?

Every single election and every single policy decision and every single priority for conservative governments is the economy and jobs and business and then you try and justify destroying our exports to China because "principles".

Get f’ed!

China started it. They are the ones who decided to blow up one country two systems in Hong Kong. They are the government that bully others. And when called out on behaviour they double down.

 

[Crankyhawk]

It is a truth that no one wants to remember.

• England resolved their trade imbalance with China by selling them huge quantities of opioids.
• Unsurprisingly this created friction with China.
• England retaliated to said friction with war and won. Annexed Hong Kong.
• Rince and repeat a few years later. England annexes Kowloon.
• China is now making good.

Similarly with Taiwan.

• China has a civil war.
• Republic of China retreats to Taiwan.
• China leaves them in relative peace.
• One day China will want to reunite noting that the original plan was for Taiwan to take back mainland China which obviously never happened.

The west might not like it but these are local issues that we really have no place putting our noses into.

Just like how we do not like them interfering in our affairs.

Except when we tell them to stop interfering they say fork you and impose trade bans

 

[kranky al]

The PRC most certainly aren't a force for good, but they're not ******ed enough to actually attempt an invasion of Taiwan.

Even if they won (far from a guarantee), Taiwan would be a smoking heap and therefore economically useless. Not to mention that they'd still face harassment from mountain forces.

I think one of the key factors that has prevented the PRC from democratising like the ROC is that mainland China is much more of a multi-ethnic/multi-clan state than Taiwan is. I know people will go "but 90% Han!", but it has to be borne in mind that the Han ethnicity would be treated as multiple ethnicities in the US. Also, China is surprisingly clannish - there is a lot of trust within Han clans, but limited trust between Han Chinese as a whole. Hence the perceived need to maintain 'strong leadership' to keep the country pushing in one direction.

Although the problem was clearly worse in Chiang Kai-Shek's time, this is one important reason why he was never able to democratise the mainland, even though that was his eventual goal.



It's still one country - it's just that the ROC and PRC disagree on who should be running the joint.

so han multiple

not han solo?

 

[DaRick]

so han multiple

not han solo?

 

[DaRick]

China started it. They are the ones who decided to blow up one country two systems in Hong Kong. They are the government that bully others. And when called out on behaviour they double down.

Except when we tell them to stop interfering they say fork you and impose trade bans

I am critical of how both state and federal governments have let the CCP have so much influence upon our trade and our institutions, not least by selling or 'leasing' (thanks Campbell!) government-owned assets to them.

However, I think we've taken the wrong approach to dealing with China. It is important to understand that the Chinese value face and reputation even more than Australians do. Hence, going out of our way to make them look like the bad guy in the eyes of the world, especially during an economically fraught time such as COVID, is a terrible idea. If Australians wouldn't be happy about that (and they wouldn't be, judging by Sandpapergate), then the Chinese would be even less so, and their subsequent belligerence towards us is no accident. Note that they've never behaved in that way towards their perceived partners (such as in Africa), only towards perceived belligerents (US, AUS).

I contend that if we have to move against China: 1) don't make it obvious to the world that you see them as Public Enemy #1, 2) do so in concert with a bloc of nations, without making ourselves out to be the leader, 3) behave as if China is merely a partner with whom 'misunderstandings' need to be resolved, even if you really wish to leverage the situation in your favour. China can deal with Australia easily enough, but it would be much harder for them to go up against the entire West, because the West is still very important for them economically.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

It is a truth that no one wants to remember.

• England resolved their trade imbalance with China by selling them huge quantities of opioids.
• Unsurprisingly this created friction with China.
• England retaliated to said friction with war and won. Annexed Hong Kong.
• Rince and repeat a few years later. England annexes Kowloon.
• China is now making good.

Similarly with Taiwan.

• China has a civil war.
• Republic of China retreats to Taiwan.
• China leaves them in relative peace.
• One day China will want to reunite noting that the original plan was for Taiwan to take back mainland China which obviously never happened.

The west might not like it but these are local issues that we really have no place putting our noses into.

Just like how we do not like them interfering in our affairs.

No lies there, BUT:
Hong Kong was nothing without the British. It may have been annexed but no-one cares.

Very unethical, since the wars were over the rights of the British to essentially push drugs in China , but they won Hong Kong and Kowloon in war.
The lease was signed for the new territories, however by the time the lease was up , it was going to be very tricky to separate .

China were trying to gain possession of Hong Kong and Macau through the UN.
Kind of ludicrous, if you think of putting every bit of Europe back to where it had been before any wars.
Apparently its ok to possess a country because a group of rebels kicked out the rightful rulers, but not if another country does it .
That's right folks, Stalin was the good guy. Thanks UN , i understand better now.

europe_map_1700.jpg (image)

1.bp.blogspot.com

 

[Admiral Byng]

Australia and Japan have announced an in-principle agreement on defence. This had been under discussion for some time and was nearing the time for public announcement. I think this is probably the real reason behind China's new trade restrictions, the Covid investigation stuff was just a cover story.

 

[DaRick]

Australia and Japan have announced an in-principle agreement on defence. This had been under discussion for some time and was nearing the time for public announcement. I think this is probably the real reason behind China's new trade restrictions, the Covid investigation stuff was just a cover story.

Japan and China have long loathed one another, but COVID has actually thawed their relations some.

So I have my doubts that a defence agreement with Japan played a dominant role in persuading China to impose such drastic trade restrictions.

No, Occam's Razor suggests that China are punishing us mostly because we behaved in a manner that might well have caused them to suffer a loss of face.

 

[ExcitementMachine]

The west might not like it but these are local issues that we really have no place putting our noses into.

Just like how we do not like them interfering in our affairs.

Nice passive aggressive language while living in a time warp.

The real problem is Chinas bullying tactics though and their foreign interference.

 

[Bestbird]

I am critical of how both state and federal governments have let the CCP have so much influence upon our trade and our institutions, not least by selling or 'leasing' (thanks Campbell!) government-owned assets to them.

However, I think we've taken the wrong approach to dealing with China. It is important to understand that the Chinese value face and reputation even more than Australians do. Hence, going out of our way to make them look like the bad guy in the eyes of the world, especially during an economically fraught time such as COVID, is a terrible idea. If Australians wouldn't be happy about that (and they wouldn't be, judging by Sandpapergate), then the Chinese would be even less so, and their subsequent belligerence towards us is no accident. Note that they've never behaved in that way towards their perceived partners (such as in Africa), only towards perceived belligerents (US, AUS).

I contend that if we have to move against China: 1) don't make it obvious to the world that you see them as Public Enemy #1, 2) do so in concert with a bloc of nations, without making ourselves out to be the leader, 3) behave as if China is merely a partner with whom 'misunderstandings' need to be resolved, even if you really wish to leverage the situation in your favour. China can deal with Australia easily enough, but it would be much harder for them to go up against the entire West, because the West is still very important for them economically.

Pretty much sums it up

Using correct diplomatic channels instead of the agenda being driven by megaphone politician diplomacy through the media was a serious misjudgement at the time.