Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump

[Suckrates]

Trump repeatedly BLAMES both the Ukraine War AND the Palestine War on Biden,  insisting those wars would NEVER have started if HE were President.

So how come he is UNABLE to prevent the War between India and Pakistan starting. ?      Or will he be blaming BIDEN for this one too ?  

IF HE runs the World, as he claims to, any war would be started or prevented ONLY by him,  So Trump, who's war is India/Pakistan ?    

[vinapu]

42 minutes ago, Suckrates said:

Trump repeatedly BLAMES both the Ukraine War AND the Palestine War on Biden,  insisting those wars would NEVER have started if HE were President.

So how come he is UNABLE to prevent the War between India and Pakistan starting. ?      Or will he be blaming BIDEN for this one too ?  

IF HE runs the World, as he claims to, any war would be started or prevented ONLY by him,  So Trump, who's war is India/Pakistan ?    

you taking him too seriously

[Suckrates]

39 minutes ago, vinapu said:

you taking him too seriously

Really ?   Perhaps YOU need to start paying attention ?   When people didnt take him seriously, he got elected AGAIN...

So I better take him SERIOUSLY...

[bucknaway]

[PeterRS]

It's an interesting discussion - who was worse? Much as i absolutely loathe Trump for all the reasons so far expounded, I also agree that by the thinnest of margins, Bush was worse. First he should never have become President. All that ridiculous hanging chad business should have seen Al Gore succeed Clinton. I think most now agree with that. It did highlight, though, how backward the US voting system is. Not in terms of voting for governors or congressmen and women or even District Attorneys and Sheriff's - although I think the USA takes this idea of democracy way too far. No! I mean in terms of a General Election in which the entire nation paricipates. I know how much states' rights etc. are valued, but a General Election affects not just states, it affects the country as a whole. And if a country of the size and importance of the USA cannot get a standard voting system that is as accurate and fair as in, say, the UK (despite the little flaws it may possess), something is seriously wrong.

Equally, as have written before, the seemingly desperate desire for all in US public life to cling on to what worked 200 or more years ago is just ridiculous, surely! Why wait for more than two entire months between the results of votes being announced and a new President taking office. What mayhem could an existing President indulge in during that period. In the UK, the result is announced one day and the incoming Prime Minister is installed the next. The US no longer has to work on hand count after hand count and then use covered wagons in relaying the results to Washington does it?

Then there is the four year term limit. 200 years ago that might have made sense. Today it makes none - unless the US votes more often than not for idiots to the top job! Internationally you cannot have one President start a raft of programmes and then another ditch them in favour of his own a few years later.

Example 1. Clinton with assistance from Bill Richardson and Madelyn Albright was making progress - how much we do not know but it was definitely progress - with North Korea. In comes idiot 1 in the shape of Bush 2, calls North Korea part of an axis of evil - and boom, back to the drawing board on one nuclear state.

Example 2. Iran. As long as the USA backed the Shah and the Shah happily sided with the USA but only because of all the $$$ and weaponry it gained, the US was perfectly happy for Iran to start an atomic programme and Iran agreed to regular inspections. Having totally misread the Iranian people, the USA continued with this fiction until the Iranians were fed up of their corrupt, megalomaniac leader, kicked him out and welcomed back the Ayatollah Khomeini. All change again and again back to the drawing board - but arguably a more dangerous one this time! 

Example 3. Iraq. The US happily propped up Saddam Hussein as a stablising force in the turbulent Middle East. Even during the 8-year Iran-Iraq war it fed oodles of cash and even more weapons to Hussein. When that ended in stalemate and Hussein was discovered to be the bully and thug he always had been by attacking Kuwait, the US changes tack once again. Bush 1 attacks but stops short of dethroning him. To save papa's face, on false pretenses Bush 2 lunches a full-out war. He then puts a cigar-chomping cowboy-boot wearing idiot like Paul Bremer with little foreign policy experience other than being a staffer in that warmonger Henry Kissinger's company into Baghdad to run the country. His first job is abolishing the Iraqi army which directly leads to ISIS - and we know where that led.

Example 4. Iran again. In 2015 under Obama, the US announced its participation in a joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to permit Iran to start a simpified programme of nuclear activity in return for  getting rid of sanctions. The Agreement was signed by the USA, the UK, China, France, Germany, Russia, Iran and the EU. Throughout IEAE inspectors confirmed iran's adherence to the Agreement. In April and July 2017, Trump's administration confirmed Iran was sticking to the deal. Trump then pulled out of the deal and it collapsed.

So in my view four years in a term of office is not nearly long enough. The top men in the US' main opponents Russia and China have no term limits that cannot be broken virtually at will. They can view the future through a long term lens. How can the US compete in our hugely complex world of 2025 when election depends on achievements during four year terms? Yet the US happily elects Supreme Court Justices on the basis of their politics, they adhere to no known ethics standards and are there for life! How can a sub-standard lawyer with only 2 years judicial experience like Clarence Thomas be allowed to vent his spleen and accept bribes on those who opposed his stupid nomination for almost 34 years? It surely makes no sense whatever!

But I still believe Bush wins the more loathed President - at least until next week when goodness knows what Trump might do. After all, Bush is the one who claimed after his first meeting with Putin in 2001, "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy . . . I was able to get a sense of his soul." What an idiot! Bush had not the faintest grasp of foreign affairs. 

[Suckrates]

6 hours ago, PeterRS said:

It's an interesting discussion - who was worse? Much as i absolutely loathe Trump for all the reasons so far expounded, I also agree that by the thinnest of margins, Bush was worse. First he should never have become President. All that ridiculous hanging chad business should have seen Al Gore succeed Clinton. I think most now agree with that. It did highlight, though, how backward the US voting system is. Not in terms of voting for governors or congressmen and women or even District Attorneys and Sheriff's - although I think the USA takes this idea of democracy way too far. No! I mean in terms of a General Election in which the entire nation paricipates. I know how much states' rights etc. are valued, but a General Election affects not just states, it affects the country as a whole. And if a country of the size and importance of the USA cannot get a standard voting system that is as accurate and fair as in, say, the UK (despite the little flaws it may possess), something is seriously wrong.

Equally, as have written before, the seemingly desperate desire for all in US public life to cling on to what worked 200 or more years ago is just ridiculous, surely! Why wait for more than two entire months between the results of votes being announced and a new President taking office. What mayhem could an existing President indulge in during that period. In the UK, the result is announced one day and the incoming Prime Minister is installed the next. The US no longer has to work on hand count after hand count and then use covered wagons in relaying the results to Washington does it?

Then there is the four year term limit. 200 years ago that might have made sense. Today it makes none - unless the US votes more often than not for idiots to the top job! Internationally you cannot have one President start a raft of programmes and then another ditch them in favour of his own a few years later.

Example 1. Clinton with assistance from Bill Richardson and Madelyn Albright was making progress - how much we do not know but it was definitely progress - with North Korea. In comes idiot 1 in the shape of Bush 2, calls North Korea part of an axis of evil - and boom, back to the drawing board on one nuclear state.

Example 2. Iran. As long as the USA backed the Shah and the Shah happily sided with the USA but only because of all the $$$ and weaponry it gained, the US was perfectly happy for Iran to start an atomic programme and Iran agreed to regular inspections. Having totally misread the Iranian people, the USA continued with this fiction until the Iranians were fed up of their corrupt, megalomaniac leader, kicked him out and welcomed back the Ayatollah Khomeini. All change again and again back to the drawing board - but arguably a more dangerous one this time! 

Example 3. Iraq. The US happily propped up Saddam Hussein as a stablising force in the turbulent Middle East. Even during the 8-year Iran-Iraq war it fed oodles of cash and even more weapons to Hussein. When that ended in stalemate and Hussein was discovered to be the bully and thug he always had been by attacking Kuwait, the US changes tack once again. Bush 1 attacks but stops short of dethroning him. To save papa's face, on false pretenses Bush 2 lunches a full-out war. He then puts a cigar-chomping cowboy-boot wearing idiot like Paul Bremer with little foreign policy experience other than being a staffer in that warmonger Henry Kissinger's company into Baghdad to run the country. His first job is abolishing the Iraqi army which directly leads to ISIS - and we know where that led.

Example 4. Iran again. In 2015 under Obama, the US announced its participation in a joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to permit Iran to start a simpified programme of nuclear activity in return for  getting rid of sanctions. The Agreement was signed by the USA, the UK, China, France, Germany, Russia, Iran and the EU. Throughout IEAE inspectors confirmed iran's adherence to the Agreement. In April and July 2017, Trump's administration confirmed Iran was sticking to the deal. Trump then pulled out of the deal and it collapsed.

So in my view four years in a term of office is not nearly long enough. The top men in the US' main opponents Russia and China have no term limits that cannot be broken virtually at will. They can view the future through a long term lens. How can the US compete in our hugely complex world of 2025 when election depends on achievements during four year terms? Yet the US happily elects Supreme Court Justices on the basis of their politics, they adhere to no known ethics standards and are there for life! How can a sub-standard lawyer with only 2 years judicial experience like Clarence Thomas be allowed to vent his spleen and accept bribes on those who opposed his stupid nomination for almost 34 years? It surely makes no sense whatever!

But I still believe Bush wins the more loathed President - at least until next week when goodness knows what Trump might do. After all, Bush is the one who claimed after his first meeting with Putin in 2001, "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy . . . I was able to get a sense of his soul." What an idiot! Bush had not the faintest grasp of foreign affairs. 

 

Bush acknowledged the constitution and the Rule of Law.   Trump is a convicted criminal that has no use or regard for either, and believes ONLY he has the right to live a "comfortable" life.  He has gotten 1000% WORSE in his 2.0 term,  more cruel, more vindictive, more corrupt, more Dishonest,  MORE in every way EXCEPT in service of the American people.   Its now ALL or nothing for HIM, and Him only.  I wouldnt characterize Bush that way. 

[stevenkesslar]

10 hours ago, PeterRS said:

It's an interesting discussion - who was worse? Much as i absolutely loathe Trump for all the reasons so far expounded, I also agree that by the thinnest of margins, Bush was worse.

That was a very thoughtful post.

I assumed you were responding to me, but you did not quote me.  So I had to go back a page to re-read what I wrote last month.

I'll add a few things, around one theme:  there is a direct causal link between Bush and Trump, I think.  In at least two ways.

As that article I quoted cites, Trump learned a lot of his bag of dirty tricks from Bush.  The article goes through W's post-9/11 attacks on civil rights in detail.  In my view it was an uglier time.  In part because people were legitimately freaked out by 9/11.  Bush had a sort of mandate, at least in opinion polls on civil rights issues, that Trump has never had.  Basically, while Bush came off as a nicer guy and perhaps is a nicer guy, his actions were far more egregious.  So far.  (Big exception:  the Jan. 11 Jubilant Patriotic Cop Beating.  Hanging chads is nothing compared to Trump sending a mob to the Capitol to stop a peaceful transfer of power._

On an even deeper level, I see Trump as a direct reaction to Bush and his failures.  A part of the Republican Party, which now seems to be the majority of the Republican Party, basically said "No more of this shit."  No more Iraq Wars, no more globalization, and more working class flavor.  As one Republican Senator said, kind of distastefully, his party is now the truck driver party.

If I had to choose, I would take this Republican Party in a heartbeat - so far.  The worst two things Bush gave us were the Iraq war and the subprime lending crisis.  The global economic meltdown happened on his watch.  And since he ran all the regulatory agencies that looked the other way while Wall Street and Mortgage USA drove the global economy off the cliff, I do believe Bush has blood on his hands for that.   

Granted, MAGA is ladled with contradictions.  They still pander to fat cats like Elon Musk with huge tax cuts, while they cut Medicaid and SNAP for the working class.  But I think it is better that they now feel at least some accountability to the working class and moderate Hispanics.  They know they have to pander to them now, too.  So now it is Republicans who want a $500 increase in the child tax credit for working class families.  And no tax on tips.  So it is not just Elon Musk.  Even though of course Elon is THE GUY who matters the most to Trump, since he paid for his election.

Trump's recent speech about the nation builders actually being the nation wreckers was a good speech.  I'm a lifelong liberal Democrat.  And I mostly agree with what he said, which some speech writer obviously wrote. 

My Dad fought in WW2 and was a Reagan Republican.  He was fully on board for the Iraq War and how these Iraqis would throw roses at our feet to thank us.  Oops!  They threw bombs at us and slaughtered each other, thanks to us opening Pandora's Box.  So if this Republican Party now has it in their brain that these misadventures like Iraq are now verboten, that's mostly a good thing. 

That said, I feel Trump and MAGA have betrayed Ukraine and are empowering Putin.  But that is a different issue.  If we just stop launching stupid wars, that would be a plus.  Assuming this new MAGA GOP means it.  Because some of them sound like they still want a war - with China.

 

[stevenkesslar]

3 hours ago, Suckrates said:

 

Bush acknowledged the constitution and the Rule of Law.   Trump is a convicted criminal that has no use or regard for either, and believes ONLY he has the right to live a "comfortable" life.  He has gotten 1000% WORSE in his 2.0 term,  more cruel, more vindictive, more corrupt, more Dishonest,  MORE in every way EXCEPT in service of the American people.   Its now ALL or nothing for HIM, and Him only.  I wouldnt characterize Bush that way. 

I think we are all right, in different ways.

What you are talking about is that Trump is an asshole and criminal who has no respect for the Constitution or the rule of law.  All true.  If I had to decide who is a better person, I would probably say Bush.  And obviously if you are the "leader of the free world" what kind of person you are has an impact on everyone.  But this is not really a personality contest.

The main reason I pick Bush is his actions, not his character.  He did tremendously bad and stupid shit in a way that Trump has not done yet.  Again, Exhibit A is the Iraq War.  Bush started that.  It was on him.  Exhibit B is subprime and the global financial crisis.  Bush did NOT start that.  But I do blame him for letting it fester and blow up on his watch.  All those loans were made when he was POTUS. And an army of do-gooders was screaming that this is predatory, and it will end badly.

Here is an interesting question.  What is Trump doing now that is most likely to end badly for the US, or the world?

I'm not sure.  If the US did suspend democracy, I would say that is the worst thing.  But we are not there yet.  And even a Trump appointed SCOTUS is pushing back and setting limits.

I think my pick is that Trump is the king of bankruptcy.  I'm a liberal but a deficit hawk.  And Trump is just going to fuel a massive debt crisis that he certainly did not start.  But it may blow up on his watch.  Check back with me in a few years.

[Stable Genius]

Anyone else think The Boss will be getting a hard time coming back into the USofA?

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/15/entertainment/bruce-springsteen-trump-criticism-scli-intl

[PeterRS]

9 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

That said, I feel Trump and MAGA have betrayed Ukraine and are empowering Putin.  But that is a different issue.  If we just stop launching stupid wars, that would be a plus.  Assuming this new MAGA GOP means it.  Because some of them sound like they still want a war - with China.

The China issue is fascinating on several levels - economic, military, socially around the world. and so on.We know that China is going through a lot of economic pain right now. The real estate market is totally bankrupt and this used to be a key factor in determining the country's GDP. Youth unemployment has passed the 21% mark. It is now so bad the Chinese have stopped issuing monthly figures.

Yet we also know that with US markets increasingly subject to sanctions, the Chinese have not been idle. They have been carving out markets in many other parts of the world. President Xi's Belt & Road initiative is expressely intent on expanding China's markets.

Yet its sabre-rattling continues over Taiwan, an issue I have discussed in several other threads here if only because I believe China historically and diplomatically does in fact have the legitimate claim to the island. But it is an island and a people I love and visit 3 or 4 times a year. Interestingly, I think, not one of my friends there believes China will try to take back Taiwan by force. Having lived and worked in Hong Kong for the better part of four decades since the end of the 1970s, I believed China's promises re the 1997 handover. And I believe China did fulfil its promises. It was the British and their idiotic and ultimately impossible attempt to introduce democracy in the last years of their rule when they totally broke their Agreements with China and as a result opened a massive pandora's box. Why had they waited more than a century before atempting to introduce any form of democracy when they had specifically promised the Chinese there would be no change in the status quo? China has every right to blame the British - and I write as a citizen of that country.

By 2012 Hong Kong was progressing towards a form of anarchy which China would never have allowed on its borders. It is especially sensitive about these borders - as we have seen sadly in both Tibet and with the Uighurs in Xinjiang Province and we are now seeing in war-torn Myanmar. Even earlier at the end of the 1960s, there was amost a nuclear war between China and Russia re a border dispute. With riots and the attempts to build on Britain's last governor's hollow promises, it had no option - it had to do something in Hong Kong.

Having been there several times last year, I abhor what is happening. But anyone with any real knowledge of modern China would have known that by breaking the jointly negotiated Agreements Britain's last governor was playing with a deadly fire and his actions were bound to result in a crackdown of some description. So in terms of Taiwan, I believe had Britain allowed Deng Xiao-ping's concept of one-country-two-systems actually to work in Hong Kong, it could have been a model for Taiwan. That is now a dead duck. 

The assumption of most in the west seems to be that the Taiwanese want independence. That is just not true! What most fail to realise is that Taiwan is split virtually down the middle on whether it wishes to become an independent sovereign state or retain the status quo or become part of China. In the latest 2023 poll, just under 50% wanted independence. And I find it hard to think of any other reason why the USA would find itself in a war with China. Although there is an Agreement (not sure if it is a Treaty as such) that the US will come to Taiwan's aid if attacked by China, realistically what can it possibly do? China is a massive military and nuclear power. It is no Vetnam, Iraq or Afghanistan! Will the American public stand for yet another war in Asia when it lost the last one so badly? I suspect there is presently a majority of hawks in Congress who would quickly vote in favour - until their constituents come down on them like a ton of bricks saying "stop".

A war on the basis of trade? That won't happen if only because it is in neither side's interest to allow it to happen in my view.

[stevenkesslar]

31 minutes ago, PeterRS said:

A war on the basis of trade? That won't happen if only because it is in neither side's interest to allow it to happen in my view.

I agree on that part.

So that it is clear, my reference to Republicans wanting war with China was not about Trump himself, or a trade war.  Trump appears to be loving his role as a peacenik.  And maybe he is angling for a Nobel Prize.  I do believe he does not want a war, least of all on his watch.

I think the militarists are the ones that feel that an invasion of Taiwan, or China's overall hostility and aggressiveness and unwillingness to play by the rules (in their view) is what will ultimately trigger a war with China.  So it's funny to hear examples I did not know about regarding the West (meaning the UK in this instance) being the one to break the rules.  Why am I not surprised?  🙄

I've read a few things enough times that they sound plausible to me, even though these ideas are outside my experience and above my pay grade.

One idea I have read a lot is that for most Chinese (mainland) the idea of unification with Taiwan is so deeply felt that it is just a matter of time and method.  The argument usually goes like this:  Westerners who think this is even negotiable for China basically have no clue.  So the best hope is to just keep the status going for as long as possible.

The other idea I have read that surprised me at first, but also seems plausible, is that a maritime invasion of Taiwan will be very difficult for China, especially if the US is involved.  It is true that, regardless of how advanced China's military technology is, they have not fought a war in a long time.  And the experience of Russia in Ukraine (or Afghanistan) suggests that these things are not as easy as they seem on paper.

Hopefully, the world will never have to find out.

Your points about the economy in China suggest that the US and China have every reason to make some kind of trade deal.  Which is what I suspect Trump, Xi, and the world all want.

[stevenkesslar]

3 hours ago, Stable Genius said:

Anyone else think The Boss will be getting a hard time coming back into the USofA?

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/15/entertainment/bruce-springsteen-trump-criticism-scli-intl

On the plus side, it would at least show that Trump has a sense of irony.

 

 

[PeterRS]

1 hour ago, stevenkesslar said:

So it's funny to hear examples I did not know about regarding the West (meaning the UK in this instance) being the one to break the rules.

Hong Kong

The reason for the breaking the rules was basically an indirect result of of the 1992 General Election in the UK. This was the first after Margaret Thatcher had been booted out and her party, the Conservatives, were expected to lose. The party Chairman was a man named Chris Patten who was an MP. By a stroke of extremely good fortune, Patten steered the Party to a small victory, but in the process lost his own parliamentary seat. The Prime Minister, John Major, wanted to elevate him to the House of Lords. Patten declined. He was offered a number of senior cabinet positions in the House of Commons. He rejected these as well. Somewhat exaxperated, i expect, Major asked him what he did want. "To become the last Governor of Hong Kong," was the reply.

That Major agreed to this is staggering. Ever since the British took over Hong Kong following the Opium Wars, the Governor had always been a senior civil servant. Since WWII at least, all had spent time serving in the British Embassy in Beijing, all spoke Mandarin Chinese and knew - and were known by - the Chinese leadership. Patten was a self-serving politician. He had never served in China. Knew no Chinese and none of the country's leaders. He also had a particular disliking of the British Civil Service!

Hong Kong had had no democracy of note until a Democratic Party was formed in 1994. Its membership was small and it never gained more than a few seats in elections. In Hong Kong the Governor was all powerful, in fact wielding more power than the British Prime Minister in the UK. Successive Governors had squashed the idea of democracy. And with the 1984 signing of the Joint Agreement on Hong Kong's future after 1997 and the subsequent Basic Law agreed by both parties in 1990, neither party wanted any furtherance of democracy - in the short term, although the Chinese promised under the Agreements gradually to expand the democratic franchise over the following decade (whch incidentally they did).

Patten arrived in Hong Kong without the usual pomp and ceremony of the arrival of Governors. But he had a secret agenda. He was going to be Hong Kong's saviour by immediately extending the electoral franchise to root democracy so firmly the Chinese could not unravel it. To do this, he gathered around him a very small group of like-minded officials who spent a year going through the Joint Agreement and Basic Law with a tooth comb to pick apart every phrase and comma to find a means to achieve his end. Far worse than this being in secret, he had an old pal of his, the highly respected BBC journalist Jonathan Dimbleby, secretly come to Hong Kong several times during to film him devising this new future for Hong Kong. The resultant book and TV series The Last Governor came as a complete surprise to the people of Hong Kong with whose lives he was playing. 

When the Chinese heard what was going on, they were - as can be expected - fury personified. Since there was no way they would agree to Patten breaking the Agreements, he held a media conference and announced them himself, all but daring the Chinese to oppose them. Not surprisingly, the Chinese broke off all negotiations and informed the British that the "through train", the political term for the continuation of the form of British administration after 1997, would be abandoned. They would put in their own legilature and other political machinery. Patten had gambled with the lives of amost 6 million people - and lost. I will leave the last word with one of Patten's predecessors in the government of Hong Kong. This is an excerpt from a Huffington Post article.

The late John Walden, director of home affairs in the colonial government until the early 1980s, lived through this British hypocrisy most of his life. Calling the late introduction of democracy to Hong Kong a "grand illusion." he added "If I personally find it difficult to believe in the sincerity of this sudden and unexpected official enthusiasm for democratic politics it is because throughout the 30 years I was an official myself, from 1951 to 1981, 'democracy' was a dirty word. Officials were convinced that the introduction of democratic politics into Hong Kong would be the quickest and surest way to ruin Hong Kong's economy and create social and political instability."

Very sadly, how right he proved to be!

[stevenkesslar]

On 5/14/2025 at 11:09 PM, PeterRS said:

To save papa's face, on false pretenses Bush 2 launches a full-out war. He then puts a cigar-chomping cowboy-boot wearing idiot like Paul Bremer with little foreign policy experience other than being a staffer in that warmonger Henry Kissinger's company into Baghdad to run the country. His first job is abolishing the Iraqi army which directly leads to ISIS - and we know where that led.

 

20 minutes ago, PeterRS said:

Patten was a self-serving politician. He had never served in China. Knew no Chinese and none of the country's leaders. He also had a particular disliking of the British Civil Service!  When the Chinese heard what was going on, they were - as can be expected - fury personified.  Patten had gambled with the lives of almost 6 million people - and lost.

 

Well, I have to say thank you.

Somehow, amazingly, you made me realize we could have a worse Secretary of Defense than Pete Hegseth!  😉

[PeterRS]

3 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

One idea I have read a lot is that for most Chinese (mainland) the idea of unification with Taiwan is so deeply felt that it is just a matter of time and method.  The argument usually goes like this:  Westerners who think this is even negotiable for China basically have no clue.  So the best hope is to just keep the status going for as long as possible.

The other idea I have read that surprised me at first, but also seems plausible, is that a maritime invasion of Taiwan will be very difficult for China, especially if the US is involved.  It is true that, regardless of how advanced China's military technology is, they have not fought a war in a long time.  And the experience of Russia in Ukraine (or Afghanistan) suggests that these things are not as easy as they seem on paper.

Taiwan

Historically I think it is important to put the Taiwan issue into some kind of context. Just as Britain colonised Malaya and Singapore, the Dutch Indonesia and so on, Chinese had started to colonise the island of Taiwan in the 1600s, effectively becoming the sovereign power in 1661 when it beat out some early Dutch colonisers. From then until 1895 - 234 years- China ruled the island until it was defeated by the Japanese who then took over sovereignty. 

In 1943 there was a Conference in Cairo attended by Roosevelt, Churchill and Chiang Kai-shek, then the ruler of China (although only because he was propped up by the USA). After the end of Imperial rule in China, Sun Yat-sen was the father of Chinese independence. But he died too soon, leaving a battle for the leaderhip of his party, the Kuomintang (KMT). Chiang, a gangster and a crook, won out partly - and then later much more so - with the help of the Green Gang in Shanghai. The Green Gang controlled virtually all the extensive vice in Shanghai - gambling, prostitution, drugs, opium dens etc.

The Cairo Conference was to reach agreement on what to do with the Pacific countries which had been invaded and taken over by the Japanese. All agreed such countries would revert to their previous rulers. Thus, although the British were colonisers in Malaya the country was given back to them much to the anger of Malayan separatists. Similarly, since Beijing had ruled Taiwan for far longer than the British had Malaya, Taiwan reverted to Chinese rule.

During WWII Chiang's party had entered into an alliance with the young Chinese communist party run by Mao Tse-tung to join forces to fight against the invading Japanese. Following the war, once again despite huge injections of cash from the USA, Chiang lost the resultant civil war. Chiang and around 2 million of his followers fled to Taiwan which was already inhabited by 6 million indiginous Taiwanese and Han Chinese while Mao declared the new China as The People's Republic. 

No nation was more furious at this outcome than the USA. The corridors in Washington reverberated to the question "Who Lost China?" Then the question became, "Which is China?" Chiang declared that as leader of the KMT and with the KMT now in charge of Taiwan he remained the legitimate ruler of China. Few apart from the USA agreed. The last thing Washington wanted on its Pacific doorstep was two massive communist powers. It therefore tried to overturn the terms of the Cairo Agreement by calling a formal Peace Conference in San Francisco in 1951. There it attempted to prove that Chiang had been the legitimate ruler of China and so the communists were usurpers. Its purpose to try and arrange for the Japanese to return China to the KMT failed, although there remains an unsettled issue in international law. Many major powers did not agree - notably the UK which stated firmly that the country of China was now ruled by Mao and his troops.

Chiang never believed that it would be his destiny to die in Taiwan. With a great deal of American cash, he reformed his troops and hatched his plans to retake the mainland. It was all pie in the sky. It would never happen. And then Nixon made his totally unexpected trip to meet Mao in 1971. Chiang's dream was dead. His party the KMT continues as a political force in Taiwan but without the aim of reconquering the mainland.  

Since I was based in Hong Kong for nearly four decades, I have visited many parts of China many times. I have friends there. It is true that some, especially of the older generation, regard Taiwan as Chinese and feel strongly about this. By far the majority whom I know and have had business dealings with, frankly, could not care less. They are basically happy with the status quo. I am certain most would not like to see an independent Taiwan. On the other hand, virtually none want to see Chinese fighting Chinese. So the views I get are basically let's keep the status quo.

To this day I hear arguments that the communists usurped power and that the real nation of China is Taiwan. They add that Beijing is now the capital of a new nation The People's Republic of China. This is utter b/s.  The fact is that nations the world over change their governments, some by revolution, most by an electoral process. Nations also change their names without its having any effect on their international status. We no longer talk of Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia. These same lands are now called Zambia and Zimbabwe!

[stevenkesslar]

13 minutes ago, PeterRS said:

Since I was based in Hong Kong for nearly four decades, I have visited many parts of China many times. I have friends there. It is true that some, especially of the older generation, regard Taiwan as Chinese and feel strongly about this. By far the majority whom I know and have had business dealings with, frankly, could not care less. They are basically happy with the status quo. I am certain most would not like to see an independent Taiwan. On the other hand, virtually none want to see Chinese fighting Chinese. So the views I get are basically let's keep the status quo.

Thank you.   That confirms what I read, although I worded it differently.  In bumper sticker terms, independence is a no go zone.  The status quo works.  And the last part you said reinforces this idea that a real invasion and war with Taiwan would not be easy for China.  Or the Chinese people.

This is getting into obscure but interesting corners.  There is a guy named Edward Luttwak whose claim to fame is a few books on war strategy.  So he thinks he knows a lot about war, at least.  I've watched a number of interviews of him because he is bellicose and fun to listen to.  Like you, he has a lot of fun stories about idiots like Bremer who know shit about the people they are supposed to subdue or rule.

My point is in one interview Luttwak went into this long story about the four Chinese soldiers who died in a border clash with India in 2020.  If he is correct, first there was a news black out.  And then the Chinese government launched this massive PR campaign to turn them into iconic heroes for the people of the China.  

 

Luttwak is clearly the kind of guy who relishes war, and is proud he has killed people in war.  He says he kept their helmets as souvenirs.  He would probably have their heads mounted on his wall as trophies if he could, I imagine.

So his point, in his bellicose terms, is that China fighting a war is a joke.  This is not a country like the US, or UK in its imperial heyday, that has oodles of Pete Hegseths ready to go kill for their country.  Or, at the very least, they have not gone out and killed for their country in great numbers.  And when a few of them actually die, it had to be turned into something like a fairy tale.

I have no idea whether what Luttwak is saying is true.  It was interesting to listen to.  But, again, hopefully China and Taiwan and the world never have to learn what China is really like when it gets into an awful, deadly, bloody war.

[Stable Genius]

Its almost impossible to distinguish where the hypocrisy ends and irony begins:

Kitchens Close to Avoid ICE at Steve Smith’s Broadway Bars

Conservative bar owner lost prime weekend service at Honky Tonk Central, The Diner and Kid Rock’s because of heavy ICE presence

https://www.nashvillescene.com/news/pithinthewind/lower-broadway-ice-sweeps/article_7840f5c5-fba5-447c-bb20-14016fc661aa.html

[PeterRS]

14 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

My point is in one interview Luttwak went into this long story about the four Chinese soldiers who died in a border clash with India in 2020.  If he is correct, first there was a news black out.  And then the Chinese government launched this massive PR campaign to turn them into iconic heroes for the people of the China. . . . So his point, in his bellicose terms, is that China fighting a war is a joke.  This is not a country like the US, or UK in its imperial heyday, that has oodles of Pete Hegseths ready to go kill for their country.  Or, at the very least, they have not gone out and killed for their country in great numbers.  And when a few of them actually die, it had to be turned into something like a fairy tale.

Luttwak is correct. I had never heard of him but there was indeed a Sino-Indian mini-war - they called it a skirmish - in 2020. In fact there had been previous border skirmishes in 1962 and 1967. In all, soldiers on both sides had been killed, although I can find no confirmation of Chinese deaths in 2020.

When I first flew to take up my first job in Hong Kong at the start of March 1979, the Air France 747 could not fly the last sector Bangkok to Hong Kong via the usual route over Laos and then Da Nang in Vietnam. The reason was some weeks earlier there had been a border war/skirmish betwen Vietnam and China and Vietnamese air space was closed. 

And all this illustrates a point I suggested or implied earlier: the Chinese are ultra-sensitive about their country's borders. Hence, however much we may loathe how they have gone and are going about it, Russia, Tibet, Xinjiang and Hong Kong. And hence the sensitivity over the Taiwan issue. Re the latter, if American politicians would just forget about Taiwan and not make rabble rousing visits like Nancy Pelosi's, there would be no need for Beijing to get all jumpy.

The idiot Mitch McConnell has called these skirmishes - and the others that are not reported - as "salami slicing", encroaching on to small parts of a neighbour's territory to keep it as its own. That is also basically nonsense because no part of India or Vietnam is now in Chinese hands - although the problems now arising in the South China Sea over a number of small islands, some man-made, and disputed by several countries do cause some concern. 

In the west we tend to forget that the Chinese call the century from the Opium Wars onwards the "century of humiliation". Rotting from within, the Imperial system was collapsing, famine was rife, rents and taxes were skyrocketing, opium was finally openly sold condemning well over a million to long slow deaths, foreign powers were carving out parts of the country's coats where Chinese law would not apply, and following in the wake of the troops came the missionaries. With the aim of winning souls for a Christian God of whom the Chinese knew next to nothing and paying no heed to the concepts of Confucionism, Daoism and Buddhism, tens of thousands of missionaries roamed the countryside handing out leaflets about how Jesus would save China etc, etc. 

The only way out of poverty in those days was to win one of the coveted government places following the annual Imperial Examinations. One Han Chinese peasant who had failed the exam no less than four times, Hong Xiuquoan, picked up one of these leaflets. He had been seeing visions and began to believe that he was the brother of Jesus Christ. Under a Christian missionary, he studied the Bible in Guangzhou. The missionary refused to baptize him, calling him a burleque performer. 

But Hong would not be stopped. Thanks to the desperate poiverty around him, he soon had more than 10,000 folllowers for his Taiping religion. They formed an army. Thus began the Taiping rebellion,  a 14-year civil war in which between 20 and 30 million were killed before the Imperial army won the day in 1864.

As if that was not enough, foreign armies were to inflict on China an event that even to this day arouses deep-rooted passions unique in Chinese history. As the Taipei Rebellion started French and British troops marched on Beijing with the intent of opening up more of the country to trade. Forces of the Qing Dynasty captured and tortured a small group of British and French soldiers. 19 died as a result. In a fury, the leader of the English forces Lord Elgin ordered his men to destroy the old Summer Palace in the northeast of the city.  It took 3,500 British troops to set it ablaze and the fire lasted three days. Beforehand, much of the Palace treasures had been looted. The Palace had boasted the most extensive and invaluable art collection in the country. That attack is regarded to this day as the worst act of vandalsim in modern Chinese history.

One of the huge number appalled by this act of wanton destruction on one of the great glories of Chinese civilisation was the novellist Victor Hugo. He wrote, "We call ourselves civilised and them barbarians. This is what civilisation has done to the barbarians.” Whatever we in the west may think, for all Chinese around the world the destruction of the Summer Palace remains to this day the deepest, unhealed and most entrenched historical wound. Western nations should always bear this in mind in dealings with Chinese officialdom. 

[bucknaway]

[PeterRS]

I was under the impression that the 777X aircraft which form part of this package were firm orders from QR a couple of years ago.

[Suckrates]

Trump is so Thirsty, he is willing to accept the "throwaway Old junk" of a Middle East Dictator.  He is fascinated by the "optics" of it.    He's a SICK man. 

[stevenkesslar]

7 hours ago, bucknaway said:

 

This is actually a great example of why I don't see Trump as awful as Bush.

Have to say this first.  These Tik Tok videos are annoying, and more important often completely untruthful.  It's hard to understand what the digital voice in this video is saying.  Let alone whether it is true.  So I checked a more reliable news source, Fox Business.   Reuters and others say essentially the same facts.

WH announces $1.2T in economic commitment with Qatar, including significant Boeing order

The Boeing deal with Qatar Airways marks the largest-ever order for Boeing jetliners

 

The US lost about 4.5 million manufacturing jobs from Jan. 2001 to Jan. 2009.  Another 1 million+ were lost in the first year of Obama's Presidency, thanks to the Great Recession he inherited but clearly did not create.  So that should be blamed on a set of Republican policies that encouraged it and gutted working class jobs and communities.

That did not happen under Clinton.  We had MORE manufacturing jobs in Jan. 2001 when Clinton left office than in Jan. 1993 when he started.  This is on Bush, and Republicans.  

So I'm glad that Trump is reversing that Republican policy.  And this makes a hell of a lot more sense than tariffs, which mostly so far have simply created chaos.  Hopefully it means Trump is learning something, too.

Thanks, bond market, for educating Donald Trump.  Like Jim Carville, I want to be reincarnated as you.  😉

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, PeterRS said:

I was under the impression that the 777X aircraft which form part of this package were firm orders from QR a couple of years ago.

 

Sweetie!  You're not supposed to say that.

Pam Bondi says Trump has saved '258 million lives'

Why, just this morning, I woke up to learn my life had been saved by Donald Trump.  I think I was supposed to die of fentanyl or something.

Not to be an arrogant American.  But I do feel pity for every other nation.  Every day now, in the grand old USA, we wake up knowing that out jobs and our lives have been saved by Donald Trump.

How did we ever get to be so lucky?

 

 

[Stable Genius]

I am convinced that Trump supporters really don't care about policy, they just want a performance.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DJxzH2UxtBR/

 

[Suckrates]

9 hours ago, Stable Genius said:

I am convinced that Trump supporters really don't care about policy, they just want a performance.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DJxzH2UxtBR/

 

YUP, they wanna see Trump kicking everyones asses, being nasty and cruel, and acting as if he is a "bad ass".....

They view him as some action hero.  No sane person would want their President "taking from the poor and giving to the Rich",  and in trumps case putting it all in his OWN pockets.   A sane person would be outraged, but THEY applaud him.