Miscellaneous News

AssassinsMace

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
taxiya said:
The US has tried this trick at the end of Trump's time in office. China rejected it. I don't see why China would pick it up this time.

There are two paths:
  1. As US wish, Meng admit guilt and released without China's official involvement.
    • US win the "legal" and diplomatic ground.
    • China loose the diplomatic ground.
    • Canada further loose the Chinese favor.
    • The two Canadians serve their full terms in Chinese prison because China is officially out of the loop.
  2. As China wish, Meng is released by Canada without admitting anything.
    • China win the legal and diplomatic ground.
    • Canada restore China's favor by essentially breaking away from US' orbit.
    • Canada enters an uncharted water with US being troublesome.
    • U.S. loose legal and diplomatic ground, and credibility of cohesion to the rest of world.
    • The two Canadians released after sentencing.
So far, China's official stand is staying out of any negotiation with US and refusing the connection of the two Canadians with Meng's case. This means that China is only going to talk to Canada alone. Only this way can Canada expect an exchange.

If Meng take the bait (path 1), she will be socially dead in China, and forget about any career in Huawei. China is not going to pay national asset (diplomatic and prestige) for Meng to surrender to the US. What the US is doing is to exploit the personal weakness to get rid of a deadlock of useless negative asset.
Click to expand...
That's what they usually do. In order for the government to not further pursue the case, Wen Ho Lee had to agree to plead guilty to a lesser charge with no jail time so the FBI could save face after the judge basically told the government they have no case. But because the government had unlimited money and could drag this case out for the rest of his life, Wen Ho Lee agreed to plead guilty. Get you to plead guilty on a lesser charge so they can declare victory instead of looking like they're human rights abusers.
 
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
escobar said:
US global military dominance is trough its "alliances". That is how US constraint its adversaries, and PLA hate it.
Then saying alliance is a rubbish strategy because alliance could always be destroyed is not what RU and PLA experiment daily.
Click to expand...
Yes Russia and China experience the "alliances" everyday. The US allies are also experiencing back-stabbing frequently as we are witnessing. And this will just get more and more frequent. Is this alliance strategy rubbish or gold? To the Chinese eyes, "back-stabbing and being back-stabbed" is rubbish whatever you call it.
 
A

Andy1974

Senior Member
Registered Member
taxiya said:
I like the saying "time will tell", so I keep re-examining the past.

You claimed to be wanting fairness and justice, you claimed not being monsters, few days ago.

Yet, whenever there is an opportunity, you would grab it to back-stab your ally.


If pursuing economical gain at the expense of an supposed ally is not back-stabbing, betrayal and monstrous behavior, then what is?

If a common citizen like you is willing to do the above and I am sure you are not alone, then it is just reasonable for other people to think that majority of you don't want common prosperity. Shouldn't you and the likes be directly responsible for whatever long term consequence from this "back stabbing the French" event?

If your word and act matches one another, you would not have felt the need to make the complaint.
Click to expand...
I was talking about my country not myself, sorry it was a bit subtle. Contemporary capitalism.

I’m saying the UK’s actions can be explained easily by profit seeking for BAE, RR and Babcock.
 
A

Andy1974

Senior Member
Registered Member
FairAndUnbiased said:
you have to understand why China imports from Australia: it is due to public pressure to develop Chinese internal resources as little as possible. For Chinese, the greatest era of economic shame was in the 1980s-90s when China was an oil exporter and Japan bought oil, to sell back to Chinese, as high value added plastics. It was vowed to never sell the blood (oil) and flesh (ore) of the country to foreign exploiters, and instead import and sell only high value added resources. A resource economy can never beat an industrial one in the long run. Doesn't mean should keep buying from Australia. Other trade partners are better. But never, ever go back to being a resource economy.

Climate change control is also not for Australia. It is to drive internal innovation and reduce public pressure on emissions. The other part is that it forces reduction of oil reliance. That is a positive. China should not only not backpedal on climate change resolutions, they should be pushed even further with proposed global restrictions and goals on per capita emissions. This solely hurts the Ang.los, since China and EU are at the same level with per capita emissions. If/when they refuse, this can be used to harm their EU ties even further.
Click to expand...
It only hurts TWO of the Anglos lol.
 
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Andy1974 said:
I was talking about my country not myself, sorry it was a bit subtle. Contemporary capitalism.

I’m saying the UK’s actions can be explained easily by profit seeking for BAE, RR and Babcock.
Click to expand...
I take it that you are saying that you do not approve what the UK government would do in this scenario. And I appreciate that.

As others have pointed out, individual can not be excused or get away from the consequence of their government's act. The simplest and straight example is that all Japanese and Germans paid for the consequences of WWII regardless their personal opinions and actions during the war, even if they were against it. It may not be fair to these good people, but that is reality and won't ever change. The only thing the good people can do is to oppose whatever they perceive as wrong in their own conscious to make sure the consequence won't happen, but once it does come, there is no way to get away from it by saying "I am not part of it". To put it in a simple way, one is responsible for whatever their parents and relatives do outside the family.
 
FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Andy1974 said:
It only hurts TWO of the Anglos lol.
Click to expand...
in general, overseas Anglos have actually been far more zealous of the imperial project than the UK itself. See the case of Rhodesia:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in his Winds of Change speech (rather than race based white rule), Rhodesia's response was to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
And of course, apartheid South Africa ignored it too.

Rhodesia didn't last that long.
 
A

Andy1974

Senior Member
Registered Member
FairAndUnbiased said:
in general, overseas Anglos have actually been far more zealous of the imperial project than the UK itself. See the case of Rhodesia:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in his Winds of Change speech (rather than race based white rule), Rhodesia's response was to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
And of course, apartheid South Africa ignored it too.

Rhodesia didn't last that long.
Click to expand...
Neither did South Africa, perhaps this time they will listen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top