Jump to content
tanknet.org

Recommended Posts

They might make a human chain like the three Baltic states 30 years ago, among other updates.

 

 

HONG KONG (AP) -- High school students thronged a square in downtown Hong Kong Thursday to rally for political reforms as residents gird for further anti-government protests.

Also Thursday, police charged two people in connection with a shocking attack against protesters by assailants with organized crime ties in July while major banks called for an end to the political crisis and threw their support behind the city's Beijing-backed government.

Hundreds of teenagers, wearing black and holding umbrellas in the oppressive heat, turned out for the rally, one of many demonstrations organized by different groups over the coming weeks.

They chanted "Liberate Hong Kong" and "Revolution of our times" and called for Hong Kong's Beijing-backed leader, Carrie Lam, to step down, before breaking into groups to discuss the city's political future.

Hong Kong has been gripped for more than two months by at times violent protests led by young people demanding the withdrawal of an unpopular extradition bill and full democracy. The bill, which would have seen suspects extradited to mainland China where the judiciary is not independent, was eventually shelved.

On Friday, the movement's supporters plan to form human chains across the semi-autonomous Chinese city, inspired by a similar event 30 years ago in the Baltic states when hundreds of thousands of Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians joined together to mourn the loss of independence to Soviet rule.

Two people have been charged with rioting in connection with the July 21 attack, Chief Superintendent Tse Chun-chung said at a daily press briefing. Masked assailants suspected of ties to organized crime swung bamboo poles and steel rods in the rampage, injuring 45 people, which came as a shocking escalation of the city's summer of protest.

Protesters complain about the lack of police progress in investigating the attack, which left both protesters and bystanders injured. They've accused police of colluding with the attackers by delaying their response, which police deny.

The charges are the first to be filed against the 28 people arrested after the attack.

Tse said police are awaiting legal advice from the Department of Justice on charges for the other 26 arrested.

Major banks in Hong Kong took out advertisements in some newspapers calling for an end to the political crisis, signaling the financial industry's support for Lam.

HSBC called for dialogue to resolve differences, in a full page ad in the pro-Beijing Wen Wei Po.

"We are very concerned about recent social events and strongly condemn any violence and behavior undermining social order," the bank said, adding it "fully supports a peaceful approach to finding solutions."

Standard Chartered said it opposes violence and "firmly supports" the Hong Kong government in effectively maintain social order.

Bank of East Asia took out a smaller ad with a similar message.

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20190822/p2g/00m/0in/125000c

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The impetus of the protest movement appears to be moving away from civil disruption and violence, when it should in fact be ramping up both.

 

The reluctance and/or failure of these Hongkongese to do so is unfortunate in various ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the outcome you want is the protestors being crushed and their leaders facing decades in prison in China while the world looks on and does nothing, then the course you advocate is a good one.

I tend to agree with you there. Violence will only be met with greater violence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hong Kong's problem to me is that compared to China mainland it's rich - over four times the average mainland GDP. I don't think given that disparity there's going to be any sympathy from the mainlander troops they send in. They'll see the protestors as dangerous spoiled leftist agitators and they will be ruthlessly dealt with, the movement wiped out, and all done at minimal to zero people killed unless the protestors themselves open fire. After occupation, Hong Kong will be stripped of its special status. The west will send protest letters, and failing in their effect, they will send more.

 

Hong Kong needs to STFU for a few years and not bring down the roof on their heads. The deal they have now is better than the one they will get if they escalate.

Edited by glenn239
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hong Kong's problem to me is that compared to China mainland it's rich - over four times the average mainland GDP. I don't think given that disparity there's going to be any sympathy from the mainlander troops they send in. They'll see the protestors as dangerous spoiled leftist Fascist agitators and they will be ruthlessly dealt with, the movement wiped out, and all done at minimal to zero people killed unless the protestors themselves open fire. After occupation, Hong Kong will be stripped of its special status. The west will send protest letters, and failing in their effect, they will send more.

 

Hong Kong needs to STFU for a few years and not bring down the roof on their heads. The deal they have now is better than the one they will get if they escalate.

 

FIFY

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have broad shoulders, and its traditional for Americans to blame us for its foreign policy shortcomings. For example, Obama blamed us for Libya. Nothing new under the sun.

 

Looks like it might kick off at the airport again.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-hongkong-protests/hong-kong-protesters-target-airport-week-after-arrivals-hall-mayhem-idUKKCN1VD02M?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Link to post
Share on other sites

What foreign policy shortcoming of America's led Britain to sign a treaty that everyone with a brain knew would eventually lead to HK being subsumed by the PRC, and not gently? What foreign policy shortcoming of America's has lead the UK to effectively do nothing about what's happening there now? HK was a British colony for 100 years, one might think they would feel some responsibility to take the lead on any reactions to the PRC's actions. Does Britain plan on playing any role in the international arena or just sit back and wait for the US to make all of the decisions and then kibitz about how everything we do sucks and if the Brits had wanted to actually get off their butts and do something, it would have been much better, just ask them? The Tanknet Orange Man Bad Committee is in high dudgeon.

 

I ask again, what is the Tanknet Orange Man Bad Committee's plan for effective response to the PRC's actions in HK? We have a detailed list of grievances but I don't hear any solutions or even half assed wild guesses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And still nobody bothers to read the wiki entry. Here, let me repost it again.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Territories

As the expiry date of the lease neared in the 1980s, talks between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China led to the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration (1984), in which the whole of Hong Kong would be returned, instead of only the New Territories. This is because Hong Kong's shipping ports, reservoirs and other vital installations were all in the New Territories. Had only the New Territories been returned to China, it would also have been difficult to accommodate those New Territories residents moving to the Kowloon Peninsula and Hong Kong Island.

 

So a few points.

1 We were obligated to hand over the territories we had a lease on. There was no way out of that. Whatever fault you can lay against the UK, we respect property rights if nothing else.

2 We could have held onto half a city with no water and no room for all the people wanting to leave the territories returned to China.

 

I keep hearing 'well gee, you could have held onto them'. China was YOUR ally. If it came to it, would America side with the UK in a war to hold onto colonial territories against a million man army? Somehow im doubting this.

 

 

If America had an issue with the treaty signed, it could have jumped in during 1984 or at any point up to 1997 and object. And quite clearly, they weren't remotely interested, because who wanted to piss off the PRC?

 

Actually Trump has done exactly what I would hope he would do, though more volume would probably be more welcome. What I just objected is the constant nagging there was any alternative to the above events. There wasnt. As pointed out before, if the Uk had listened to the US in 1945, Hong Kong would have had to endure 70 years of communist administration, not the 22 its had to endure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have broad shoulders, and its traditional for Americans to blame us for its foreign policy shortcomings. For example, Obama blamed us for Libya. Nothing new under the sun.

 

 

If it was a former US colony...then it would be our fault at least in part. It's not a former US colony is it?

 

Obama blamed everyone for everything, so long as they weren't the right sort of people. He was nominally woke.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And still nobody bothers to read the wiki entry. Here, let me repost it again.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Territories

As the expiry date of the lease neared in the 1980s, talks between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China led to the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration (1984), in which the whole of Hong Kong would be returned, instead of only the New Territories. This is because Hong Kong's shipping ports, reservoirs and other vital installations were all in the New Territories. Had only the New Territories been returned to China, it would also have been difficult to accommodate those New Territories residents moving to the Kowloon Peninsula and Hong Kong Island.

 

So a few points.

1 We were obligated to hand over the territories we had a lease on. There was no way out of that. Whatever fault you can lay against the UK, we respect property rights if nothing else.

2 We could have held onto half a city with no water and no room for all the people wanting to leave the territories returned to China.

 

I keep hearing 'well gee, you could have held onto them'. China was YOUR ally. If it came to it, would America side with the UK in a war to hold onto colonial territories against a million man army? Somehow im doubting this.

 

 

If America had an issue with the treaty signed, it could have jumped in during 1984 or at any point up to 1997 and object. And quite clearly, they weren't remotely interested, because who wanted to piss off the PRC?

 

Actually Trump has done exactly what I would hope he would do, though more volume would probably be more welcome. What I just objected is the constant nagging there was any alternative to the above events. There wasnt. As pointed out before, if the Uk had listened to the US in 1945, Hong Kong would have had to endure 70 years of communist administration, not the 22 its had to endure.

There was no chance of getting a deal for a longer lease on the new territories?

 

Was that perhaps becasue the Chinese KNEW that the UK would give in?

 

4C8C48F700000578-5761375-Photographer_La

Link to post
Share on other sites

(...)

 

Whatever fault you can lay against the UK, we respect property rights if nothing else.

 

(...)

:lol:

 

Only since England is not an imperial power, and she could not get away with stealing. But before the attempted occupation of the Suez canal in 1956, oh boy...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(...)

 

Whatever fault you can lay against the UK, we respect property rights if nothing else.

 

(...)

:lol:

 

Only since England is not an imperial power, and she could not get away with stealing. But before the attempted occupation of the Suez canal in 1956, oh boy...

 

Would be much better if they succeeded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(...)

Whatever fault you can lay against the UK, we respect property rights if nothing else.

(...)

 

:lol:

 

Only since England is not an imperial power, and she could not get away with stealing. But before the attempted occupation of the Suez canal in 1956, oh boy...

 

Yeah, shame on us for reocuppying our own property taken by a bunch of communist bootlickers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me, urbanoid, how the alliance with Great Britain worked ultimately for Poland in WWII?

Not that well, but there was no good option really and we were fucked either way. Nobody had a 20/20 hindsight, you know. Sure, we could have allied ourselves with the Austrian Painter, but that had the potential of being even more problematic in case of the war ultimately lost and ... the war ultimately won.

 

And it was the British who came up with the idea of Operation Unthinkable in 1945 and it was the Americans that weren't really interested. First of the many postwar mistakes, abovementioned Suez Crisis is another example. Between that Mac wanted to nuke chicoms, he was right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tell me, urbanoid, how the alliance with Great Britain worked ultimately for Poland in WWII?

Sunday, my grandfather spent 5 years in a pow camp in a war trying to prevent fascists occupying Poland.

 

By way of contrast, what did YOUR country do for them?

 

 

So, your grandfather spent 5 years in a pow camp, and the Communists took half Europe. If that is a desired outcome...

 

MY country defeated the Communists, with some, little help from the Western democracies, and, of course, did not enjoy the Marshall Plan postwar because... Fascism!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tell me, urbanoid, how the alliance with Great Britain worked ultimately for Poland in WWII?

Not that well, but there was no good option really and we were fucked either way. Nobody had a 20/20 hindsight, you know. Sure, we could have allied ourselves with the Austrian Painter, but that had the potential of being even more problematic in case of the war ultimately lost and ... the war ultimately won.

 

And it was the British who came up with the idea of Operation Unthinkable in 1945 and it was the Americans that weren't really interested. First of the many postwar mistakes, abovementioned Suez Crisis is another example. Between that Mac wanted to nuke chicoms, he was right.

 

 

Having good ideas is really quite cheap. On the other hand, there was only one nuclear power postwar, but Truman made nuclear weapons unusable in practice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Tell me, urbanoid, how the alliance with Great Britain worked ultimately for Poland in WWII?

Sunday, my grandfather spent 5 years in a pow camp in a war trying to prevent fascists occupying Poland.

 

By way of contrast, what did YOUR country do for them?

 

 

So, your grandfather spent 5 years in a pow camp, and the Communists took half Europe. If that is a desired outcome...

 

MY country defeated the Communists, with some, little help from the Western democracies, and, of course, did not enjoy the Marshall Plan postwar because... Fascism!

 

Yet another mistake, but it wasn't because of the British.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Tell me, urbanoid, how the alliance with Great Britain worked ultimately for Poland in WWII?

Not that well, but there was no good option really and we were fucked either way. Nobody had a 20/20 hindsight, you know. Sure, we could have allied ourselves with the Austrian Painter, but that had the potential of being even more problematic in case of the war ultimately lost and ... the war ultimately won.

 

And it was the British who came up with the idea of Operation Unthinkable in 1945 and it was the Americans that weren't really interested. First of the many postwar mistakes, abovementioned Suez Crisis is another example. Between that Mac wanted to nuke chicoms, he was right.

 

 

Having good ideas is really quite cheap. On the other hand, there was only one nuclear power postwar, but Truman made nuclear weapons unusable in practice.

 

Well, they would commit forces to that idea, but there was no realistic prospect of UK going alone with that, just as there wasn't a realistic prospect of them helping us directly in 1939 in any meaningful manner.

 

And before Truman was Roosevelt, bending over for Stalin. In all those 'Big Three' conferences Churchill was little more than an ornament.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Tell me, urbanoid, how the alliance with Great Britain worked ultimately for Poland in WWII?

Sunday, my grandfather spent 5 years in a pow camp in a war trying to prevent fascists occupying Poland.

 

By way of contrast, what did YOUR country do for them?

 

 

So, your grandfather spent 5 years in a pow camp, and the Communists took half Europe. If that is a desired outcome...

 

MY country defeated the Communists, with some, little help from the Western democracies, and, of course, did not enjoy the Marshall Plan postwar because... Fascism!

 

Yet another mistake, but it wasn't because of the British.

 

 

Yes, it was because of the French, actually. It looks like GB wanted to extend the Marshall Plan to Spain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Tell me, urbanoid, how the alliance with Great Britain worked ultimately for Poland in WWII?

Not that well, but there was no good option really and we were fucked either way. Nobody had a 20/20 hindsight, you know. Sure, we could have allied ourselves with the Austrian Painter, but that had the potential of being even more problematic in case of the war ultimately lost and ... the war ultimately won.

 

And it was the British who came up with the idea of Operation Unthinkable in 1945 and it was the Americans that weren't really interested. First of the many postwar mistakes, abovementioned Suez Crisis is another example. Between that Mac wanted to nuke chicoms, he was right.

 

 

Having good ideas is really quite cheap. On the other hand, there was only one nuclear power postwar, but Truman made nuclear weapons unusable in practice.

 

Well, they would commit forces to that idea, but there was no realistic prospect of UK going alone with that, just as there wasn't a realistic prospect of them helping us directly in 1939 in any meaningful manner.

 

And before Truman was Roosevelt, bending over for Stalin. In all those 'Big Three' conferences Churchill was little more than an ornament.

 

 

GB managed to save Greece, however, but operations in the Baltic post WWII should have not been possible.

 

I think the shame rests upon the bumbling shoulders of Chamberlain and Daladier, those that could have done something significant after the annexation of Czechoslovakia, not Churchill's

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...