Miscellaneous News

Phead128 said:

Good thing all UNGA resolutions are public record and verifiable. That specific article is pretty based. It refered to failed attempt as the "biggest US defeat in United Nations history", doesn't seem very anti-China to me. It is overall a very historically accurate article, I challenge you to find a historically biased aspect from the article.

Click to expand...

Let's stop this pointless discussion please. You can go on believing your theory that the US wholeheartedly supported the Two China resolution in the UN, even though Kissinger visited China in July 1971 to explicitly set up for the Shanghai communique which includes the One China principle. You can also continue to believe your NED funded rag is a better source than the declassified US documents and literal transcripts between Nixon, Kissinger and Bush on this issue.

horse said:

Two outcomes.

---> China backs Russia all the way. China and the west lose-lose.
---> China backs Russia all the way. China and the west win-win.

Click to expand...

Okay, this is the most important part of this mini-rant.

It is the fog of war.

We just do not know which way Europe will want to go!

We don't. If someone is telling us that Europe will do this, that is pure snake oil salesman.

So it is an interesting time.

Which way Europe decides to proceed, won't really change the world, it will change Europe.

The only way it can change the world if there is a total diplomatic breakup of the west, and the Americans under President Trump says the heck with it and they go isolationist again.

That is a possibility. It's the fog of war.

coolgod said:

You can go on believing your theory that the US wholeheartedly supported the Two China resolution in the UN,

Click to expand...

Actions speak louder than words. The US drafted and sponsored the "Two China" resolution and voted Yes on it at UNGA, so I am inclined to believe US wholeheartedly supported the "Two China" resolution at UN.

coolgod said:

even though Kissinger visited China in July 1971 to explicitly set up for the Shanghai communique which includes the One China principle.

Click to expand...

US only 'acknowledges' the 'One China' principle, and does not formally accept PRC's interpretation of sovereignty over Taiwan island. US completely avoid the acceptance of sovereignty issue. Therefore, US flexibility in interpretation of 'One China' principle enables it to adopt a "Two China" resolution, where PRC will be admitted as 'China', and Taiwan is admitted as RoT or Chinese Taipei or whatever they figure out.

coolgod said:

You can also continue to believe your NED funded rag is a better source

Click to expand...

I have yet to see you quote a part of the article you deem as biased or historically inaccurate.

coolgod said:

than the declassified US documents and literal transcripts between Nixon, Kissinger and Bush on this issue.

Click to expand...

Let's examine these declassified US documents and literal transcripts you posted.

Before Kissinger made his second visit, in October 1971, Nixon had to deal with a delicate problem. Kissinger's visit would coincide with the United Nations General Assembly's annual debate over the Peoples Republic of China's membership in the UN. Ambassador George H. W. Bush, who led the U.S. delegation to the UN, diligently lobbied to preserve Taiwan's seat, but believed that Kissinger's travel schedule would undermine that purpose. As Sharon Chamberlain's transcripts of the tapes disclose, Bush requested Nixon to change Kissinger's schedule, arguing "I think this thing [Kissinger's trip]--to be candid as I've told Henry--will not be helpful at all" (see document 6), a striking contrast to Kissinger's later recollection that neither he or Bush thought that "the UN vote would be decisively affected."(

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

) Nixon was well aware that Taiwan enjoyed important support in the United States---"there's a lot of people that don't want to see us ... let Taiwan go down the drain"--but he could only advise Bush to "fight hard." For Nixon, however, rapprochement with Beijing had priority over Taiwan's UN status and Kissinger's schedule was left unchanged. With the PRC's widespread support among Third World delegations, Bush's efforts to save Taiwan's seats were to no avail. On 25 October 1971, while Kissinger was returning from China, the General Assembly, by the vote of a substantial majority, admitted the People's Republic of China to the UN and expelled the Republic of China.(

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)

Click to expand...

This proves exactly my point, Nixon told Bush to "fight hard" for Taiwan, but PRC's widespread support among 3rd world delegation meant PRC defeated US attempts to prevent ejection of ROC.

Bush: It’s very close, we’re fighting [inaudible] still, but extremely close, we think we’ve got to win this important question, this procedural vote. We gotta get that done first. ..If there was a way we could mention that to Sir Alec,3 that he’s going to be one step from us—not that they can support us but they can abstain on priority the very important question—they can abstain on the important question, that would be important. I don’t know whether you want to mix that in, but if you could it would be helpful. We’re going to have to do some things like that in order to be—to guarantee this first vote—this important question vote. We think we can get the votes to do that. And then it’s a procedural thing—is a little confused. [Inaudible] the Albanian Resolution is not going to get two-thirds of the vote and then we think we’ve got a—there is a fifty-fifty chance to win our dual representation. The problem with this thing, and Henry is very well aware of it, is that we’re fighting a kind of a psychological battle. The arguments are well if the U.N. [inaudible] can’t be serious if the President’s gone to Peking. You’re fighting the battle of people who obviously do want to see us lose. We’re separated from our guys on this. The Scandinavians who normally are helpful to us in certain things up there. Just solid, they’re hard-headed, they’re—so I think, I think it’s winnable. I think this thing [Kissinger’s trip to China]—to be candid as I’ve told Henry—will not be helpful at all.

Click to expand...

Bush says it's very close, still fighting hard, and the "Two China" question has got to be won. There is a solid 50-50 chance of winning dual representation, and that the Peking visit isn't helpful at all, but he still thinks it's Winnable, but timing of Peking trip is not helpful. Let see what Nixon says:

Nixon: [Inaudible.] We have a two-[inaudible] problem here. We have the desire which of course [inaudible] to see that the Chinese visit goes off. It’s very important for other reasons [inaudible]. On the other side, [inaudible] in this country there’s a hell of a lot of people that don’t want to see us just drag our feet and let Taiwan go down the drain.
Bush: Exactly, and that the—I think, ah—
Nixon: I think that on that point, since we are going ahead we better let George fight hard.
Bush: [Inaudible].
Kissinger: There’s no question about that.

Click to expand...

Source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Yes, so Nixon told Bush to "fight hard" to defend Taiwan at UN, and Kissinger strongly agreed.

So literally your own sources say US was still fighting hard for "Two China" proposal and thought it was a good 50-50 chance of winning, but the timing of Peking trip was not helpful in the eyes of UN states. Nixon still told Bush to "fight hard".

Phead128 said:

Actions speak louder than words. The US drafted and sponsored the "Two China" resolution and voted Yes on it at UNGA, so I am inclined to believe US wholeheartedly supported the "Two China" resolution at UN.

US only 'acknowledges' the 'One China' principle, and does not formally accept PRC's interpretation of sovereignty over Taiwan island. US completely avoid the acceptance of sovereignty issue. Therefore, US flexibility in interpretation of 'One China' principle enables it to adopt a "Two China" resolution, where PRC will be admitted as 'China', and Taiwan is admitted as RoT or Chinese Taipei or whatever they figure out.

I have yet to see you quote a part of the article you deem as biased or historically inaccurate.

Let's examine these declassified US documents and literal transcripts you posted.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This proves exactly my point, Nixon told Bush to "fight hard" for Taiwan, but PRC's widespread support among 3rd world delegation meant PRC defeated US attempts to prevent ejection of ROC.


Bush says it's very close, still fighting hard, and the "Two China" question has got to be won. There is a solid 50-50 chance of winning dual representation, and that the Peking visit isn't helpful at all, but he still thinks it's Winnable, but timing of Peking trip is not helpful. Let see what Nixon says:

Source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Yes, so Nixon told Bush to "fight hard" to defend Taiwan at UN, and Kissinger strongly agreed.

So literally your own sources say US was still fighting hard for "Two China" proposal and thought it was a good 50-50 chance of winning, but the timing of Peking trip was not helpful in the eyes of UN states. Nixon still told Bush to "fight hard".

Click to expand...

Good rebuttal. I concede to your point for the time being. Lol

Meanwhile in other news.

I can't watch these two videos because they are blocked in Europe. I guess it's for adults only, and they won't let us watch it in the mental kindergarten, which was an expression I used to use and is now real down to the last detail.

W20 said:

I can't watch these two videos because they are blocked in Europe. I guess it's for adults only, and they won't let us watch it in the mental kindergarten, which was an expression I used to use and is now real down to the last detail.

Click to expand...

Seriously? What happened with the Free World, Free Media and Free Press they slinger to our heads day in, day out, week in, week out, year in, year out, decades in and decades to show our their superior moral society?

RT America is DEAD and the supposed great "bastion of free speech" and the land of the brave have all but forced to shutdown every Russian news based or funded news organizations in all of the western world. And here's some of the reasons why.

Appix said:

Seriously? What happened with the Free World, Free Media and Free Press they slinger to our heads day in, day out, week in, week out, year in, year out, decades in and decades to show our their superior moral society?

Click to expand...

That's an american thing.
Europe have Nanny states.

The U.S. Supreme Court says, what torture? Nothing to see here. Now move along and focus on something else.