Jump to content
tanknet.org

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

I would love for someone to do something, I'm pointing out that the only party even talking about it is the US. There were two parties to the treaty, if one party abrogates the treaty, then the other party should be the one to take the lead in calling them on it. If the UK wants to fulfill their duty as the other party, I'm sure the US under the current administration would be just fine with backing that up. YOU GUYS signed the treaty, YOU GUYS got screwed, YOU GUYS should be the first ones in line to say ENOUGH. As always, YOU GUYS turn around, look at the US and say "Well, what are YOU going to do about it?" Hey guys, we'll be right behind you, have at it.

 

Seriously Jeff?

 

I don't see the UK with a begging bowl in hand asking for the US to intervene.

 

What I see is the only thing that we can realistically offer - a chance for those who have that qualified citizenship to escape.

Then the UK really has no standing in the world if they can be so blatantly disrespected and respond with a whimper. Also, some are stomping around here with grandiose ideas of what someone should do while giving their government a pass. Who's going to protect the UK's honor and international treaties if they won't bother to protect them themselves? They don't need fire up the carriers and Astutes and go to war but a doomed pathetic attempt at getting the UN to do something is just sad. Where is the EU? They all seem to welcome their new ChiCom overlords and would like to remind them that as trusted multicultural societies, they can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground iPhone caves.

 

Look, I find this distressing. All this has happened before and apparently, all this is going to happen again. Stuart brought up Hitler, and the lesson there is not to placate the monster until the result is world shattering. Firm boundaries now can keep Armageddon from happening later but everyone needs to grab the rope and help pull.

This from the guy that was claiming the US should leave Europe to do its thing

It might be just FFA play style forum pilitics maybe, unfortuntely.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

I stand corrected, trade between Taipei and Beijing since 2010 has been over 1.5 trillion dollars.

 

Dont allow yourself to be seduced by cheap rubber dog shit from Hong Kong and forget your values.

 

They have their price, apparently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand corrected, trade between Taipei and Beijing since 2010 has been over 1.5 trillion dollars.

 

 

 

The amount of trade between China and most countries has been generally increasing each year since the 2000. Taiwan is by far no exception to increasing volume of trade. But it wasn't Taiwan that made it possible for China to join the WTO. When that happened, open economic forces take over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I stand corrected, trade between Taipei and Beijing since 2010 has been over 1.5 trillion dollars.

 

 

 

The amount of trade between China and most countries has been generally increasing each year since the 2000. Taiwan is by far no exception to increasing volume of trade. But it wasn't Taiwan that made it possible for China to join the WTO. When that happened, open economic forces take over.

 

 

The logic to have the PRC in the WTO was impeccable from the US point of view, coming down to US prints paper to give the PRC in exchange for goods, then they use that paper to buy resources from elsewhere, and IP and design (as well as finance) remains in the US as those are the most productive activities. Problem was, then the PRC developed its own playbook which included copying (there goes the IP) and designing its own stuff while closing its internal market to international finance - an imbalance starts to develop as US companies stop producing in the US and move to China where there are no rules (in practical effects) other than "don't screw the Party".

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I stand corrected, trade between Taipei and Beijing since 2010 has been over 1.5 trillion dollars.

 

 

 

The amount of trade between China and most countries has been generally increasing each year since the 2000. Taiwan is by far no exception to increasing volume of trade. But it wasn't Taiwan that made it possible for China to join the WTO. When that happened, open economic forces take over.

 

 

The logic to have the PRC in the WTO was impeccable from the US point of view, coming down to US prints paper to give the PRC in exchange for goods, then they use that paper to buy resources from elsewhere, and IP and design (as well as finance) remains in the US as those are the most productive activities. Problem was, then the PRC developed its own playbook which included copying (there goes the IP) and designing its own stuff while closing its internal market to international finance - an imbalance starts to develop as US companies stop producing in the US and move to China where there are no rules (in practical effects) other than "don't screw the Party".

 

 

For some reason, I doubt the American contingent could say it was impeccable from the US POV :)

 

Meanwhile the whole Falun Gong persecution and organ harvesting was well underway just as China's admission to the WTO was underway. Funny that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I stand corrected, trade between Taipei and Beijing since 2010 has been over 1.5 trillion dollars.

 

 

 

The amount of trade between China and most countries has been generally increasing each year since the 2000. Taiwan is by far no exception to increasing volume of trade. But it wasn't Taiwan that made it possible for China to join the WTO. When that happened, open economic forces take over.

 

 

The logic to have the PRC in the WTO was impeccable from the US point of view, coming down to US prints paper to give the PRC in exchange for goods, then they use that paper to buy resources from elsewhere, and IP and design (as well as finance) remains in the US as those are the most productive activities. Problem was, then the PRC developed its own playbook which included copying (there goes the IP) and designing its own stuff while closing its internal market to international finance - an imbalance starts to develop as US companies stop producing in the US and move to China where there are no rules (in practical effects) other than "don't screw the Party".

 

 

For some reason, I doubt the American contingent could say it was impeccable from the US POV :)

 

Meanwhile the whole Falun Gong persecution and organ harvesting was well underway just as China's admission to the WTO was underway. Funny that.

 

 

It was at the time, but the Chinese had other plans.

 

Human rights never play a part in international relations unless they can be leveraged for other purposes. I think the clearest example was how the Helsinki accords backfired for the Soviet Union when disenters asked their own government to comply with what they signed

 

https://www.britannica.com/event/Helsinki-Accords

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I stand corrected, trade between Taipei and Beijing since 2010 has been over 1.5 trillion dollars.

 

The amount of trade between China and most countries has been generally increasing each year since the 2000. Taiwan is by far no exception to increasing volume of trade. But it wasn't Taiwan that made it possible for China to join the WTO. When that happened, open economic forces take over.

The logic to have the PRC in the WTO was impeccable from the US point of view, coming down to US prints paper to give the PRC in exchange for goods, then they use that paper to buy resources from elsewhere, and IP and design (as well as finance) remains in the US as those are the most productive activities. Problem was, then the PRC developed its own playbook which included copying (there goes the IP) and designing its own stuff while closing its internal market to international finance - an imbalance starts to develop as US companies stop producing in the US and move to China where there are no rules (in practical effects) other than "don't screw the Party".

For some reason, I doubt the American contingent could say it was impeccable from the US POV :)

 

Meanwhile the whole Falun Gong persecution and organ harvesting was well underway just as China's admission to the WTO was underway. Funny that.

It was at the time, but the Chinese had other plans.

 

Human rights never play a part in international relations unless they can be leveraged for other purposes. I think the clearest example was how the Helsinki accords backfired for the Soviet Union when disenters asked their own government to comply with what they signed

 

https://www.britannica.com/event/Helsinki-Accords

Most countries are smaller than the US. Far smaller. So if they have bad human right's record or not, even with trade and investments, they would not be able to come close to US strength. China was a different. China was far larger than all those small countries. The very basic factors of GDP in China mean the potential for China to rival the US is there. That combined with the very tight control of the government would be an indication that China likely was not going to play by the rules. Along with the Fulan Gong persecution, the creation of the PRC Great Firewall started in 1998. "Golden Shield" in 2003, the whole Firewall finished by 2006.

 

It's a wonder why the UK should be hammered over HK.

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I would love for someone to do something, I'm pointing out that the only party even talking about it is the US. There were two parties to the treaty, if one party abrogates the treaty, then the other party should be the one to take the lead in calling them on it. If the UK wants to fulfill their duty as the other party, I'm sure the US under the current administration would be just fine with backing that up. YOU GUYS signed the treaty, YOU GUYS got screwed, YOU GUYS should be the first ones in line to say ENOUGH. As always, YOU GUYS turn around, look at the US and say "Well, what are YOU going to do about it?" Hey guys, we'll be right behind you, have at it.

 

Seriously Jeff?

 

I don't see the UK with a begging bowl in hand asking for the US to intervene.

 

What I see is the only thing that we can realistically offer - a chance for those who have that qualified citizenship to escape.

 

 

Then the UK really has no standing in the world if they can be so blatantly disrespected and respond with a whimper. Also, some are stomping around here with grandiose ideas of what someone should do while giving their government a pass. Who's going to protect the UK's honor and international treaties if they won't bother to protect them themselves? They don't need fire up the carriers and Astutes and go to war but a doomed pathetic attempt at getting the UN to do something is just sad. Where is the EU? They all seem to welcome their new ChiCom overlords and would like to remind them that as trusted multicultural societies, they can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground iPhone caves.

 

Look, I find this distressing. All this has happened before and apparently, all this is going to happen again. Stuart brought up Hitler, and the lesson there is not to placate the monster until the result is world shattering. Firm boundaries now can keep Armageddon from happening later but everyone needs to grab the rope and help pull.

 

 

This from the guy that was claiming the US should leave Europe to do its thing

 

 

I see no conflict in this, please explain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Ah, the joys of the Co-Prosperity Sphere. Such idiocy.

Japan Inc is not going to be the first major economic stakeholder to exit China, and will need guarantees and a coherent economic plan from those who may ask it to in the future.

 

The days of Japan submissively paying the invoice given to it by Washington for the Gulf War are over, I'm afraid.

You mean the bill for doing the heavy lifting to protect your oil supplies. We don't get our oil from the Gulf.

Give this thread a proper endorsement then :)

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=40923&page=39

 

 

I find that topic very interesting and follow it as much as I can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I stand corrected, trade between Taipei and Beijing since 2010 has been over 1.5 trillion dollars.

 

 

 

The amount of trade between China and most countries has been generally increasing each year since the 2000. Taiwan is by far no exception to increasing volume of trade. But it wasn't Taiwan that made it possible for China to join the WTO. When that happened, open economic forces take over.

 

 

The logic to have the PRC in the WTO was impeccable from the US point of view, coming down to US prints paper to give the PRC in exchange for goods, then they use that paper to buy resources from elsewhere, and IP and design (as well as finance) remains in the US as those are the most productive activities. Problem was, then the PRC developed its own playbook which included copying (there goes the IP) and designing its own stuff while closing its internal market to international finance - an imbalance starts to develop as US companies stop producing in the US and move to China where there are no rules (in practical effects) other than "don't screw the Party".

 

 

Agreed, WTO membership was a huge mistake, or at least it attaining its stated goal was. There may have been ulterior, selfish motives for it. I'm sure the "right people" made a hell of a lot of money from that policy, board memberships, speaking fees, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there is two clear lessons here.

 

1 Dont fall asleep in the snow. Dont allow yourself to be seduced by cheap rubber dog shit from Hong Kong and forget your values, particularly when you have Chinese (or Russian) cash being waved under your nose.

2 Work with Allies. Because a punch with allies is considerably more effective than on your own. Thats a lesson thats as true today as 1940, and at least part of the reason why I never wanted to leave the EU. God help us if NATO falls over.

 

None of these fit easily with MAGA. They are wholly contradictory to that agenda,s o whilst Jeffs criticism is undoubtedly spot on, there is I think a certain amount of glasshouses and stones going on here. :)

 

Thank you...I think. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Ah, the joys of the Co-Prosperity Sphere. Such idiocy.

 

Japan Inc is not going to be the first major economic stakeholder to exit China, and will need guarantees and a coherent economic plan from those who may ask it to in the future.

 

The days of Japan submissively paying the invoice given to it by Washington for the Gulf War are over, I'm afraid.

You mean the bill for doing the heavy lifting to protect your oil supplies. We don't get our oil from the Gulf.

Give this thread a proper endorsement then :)http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=40923&page=39

I find that topic very interesting and follow it as much as I can.

Well unfortunately, thread has already been dead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The logic to have the PRC in the WTO was impeccable from the US point of view, coming down to US prints paper to give the PRC in exchange for goods, then they use that paper to buy resources from elsewhere, and IP and design (as well as finance) remains in the US as those are the most productive activities. Problem was, then the PRC developed its own playbook which included copying (there goes the IP) and designing its own stuff while closing its internal market to international finance - an imbalance starts to develop as US companies stop producing in the US and move to China where there are no rules (in practical effects) other than "don't screw the Party".

 

Japan Inc was able to navigate the intricacies of integrating China and Chinese into its low-end supply chain with less difficulty than its American counterparts. Then again, said counterparts have never really navigated the intricacies of entry into the Japanese market very well, either.

 

You know what they say about the fittest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

I would love for someone to do something, I'm pointing out that the only party even talking about it is the US. There were two parties to the treaty, if one party abrogates the treaty, then the other party should be the one to take the lead in calling them on it. If the UK wants to fulfill their duty as the other party, I'm sure the US under the current administration would be just fine with backing that up. YOU GUYS signed the treaty, YOU GUYS got screwed, YOU GUYS should be the first ones in line to say ENOUGH. As always, YOU GUYS turn around, look at the US and say "Well, what are YOU going to do about it?" Hey guys, we'll be right behind you, have at it.

 

Seriously Jeff?

 

I don't see the UK with a begging bowl in hand asking for the US to intervene.

 

What I see is the only thing that we can realistically offer - a chance for those who have that qualified citizenship to escape.

 

 

Then the UK really has no standing in the world if they can be so blatantly disrespected and respond with a whimper. Also, some are stomping around here with grandiose ideas of what someone should do while giving their government a pass. Who's going to protect the UK's honor and international treaties if they won't bother to protect them themselves? They don't need fire up the carriers and Astutes and go to war but a doomed pathetic attempt at getting the UN to do something is just sad. Where is the EU? They all seem to welcome their new ChiCom overlords and would like to remind them that as trusted multicultural societies, they can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground iPhone caves.

 

Look, I find this distressing. All this has happened before and apparently, all this is going to happen again. Stuart brought up Hitler, and the lesson there is not to placate the monster until the result is world shattering. Firm boundaries now can keep Armageddon from happening later but everyone needs to grab the rope and help pull.

 

 

This from the guy that was claiming the US should leave Europe to do its thing

 

 

I see no conflict in this, please explain.

 

 

Overllooked this one yesterday - If I understand correctly your position, America First means the US should walk away from those commitments that offer no added value in the short term, yet now you are saying the UK should step in do exactly that. So how does this treaty thing work, it's OK for the US to walk away but not OK for the UK?

 

A point Americans seem to miss is that even though it may seem to be more expensive, this treaty commitments (NATO, UN) actually work for the US by providing a framework in which America's supremacy is not contested. Should they go away tomorrow, EU nations would be "protected" by the EU treaties but everything outside (Norway, Iceland) would be fair game and it would take all of 5 minutes to reach an acomodation with powers that may not be aligned to US interests.

 

You brought up that the "US is protecting our oil" but that's just not the case, first, most of the oil doesn't come from the Gulf, second, if tomorrow there was a regime change in the Gulf monarchies, they would still have to sell oil to keep afloat. Guess who's SA largest client? China.

 

So the US walking away from its allies won't lead to all becoming Chinese/Russian colonies but it would lead to a situation in which US interests would be irrelevant to most countries now aligned to the US, and since the US would have to reinforce its position from CONUS or leave it, to expanded .mil expenditure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One point about the Gulf oil is overlooked. If the US doesnt buy it, clearly if it disappeared from the Market, US oil companies would have to pick up the slack. That would make prices go through the roof, doubtless great for the small guy with an oil well in his back yard. Less good for the consumer who will be hit at the pumps, and the knock on effect to truckers, suppliers, wholesalers, you name it. The US participation in the Gulf may be for defending other peoples oil, but in an interconnected global market, its still going to have an effect on the US consumer. Look back at 1991 at what happened to the global price when Saddam decided to invaded Kuwait.

 

What is amusing about this is that im agreeing with Jeff and Retac, whom are both disagreeing with each other. This suggests to me on this one they both have a point, and the point is we all need to worth together and stop playing with silly nationalist agenda's that presume the individual nation state is greater than the market. That hasnt been true for nigh on 50 years, but politicians of all stripes dont seem to see it yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To those seeking to bring jobs and manufacturing back to their shores, the corporate adaptation of shifting production from one offshore location to another is basically just rearranging deck chairs.

 

 

 

No, it's not in the slightest like "rearranging deck chairs". Orders from factories overseas is a leap of faith by the customer that the factory is not a bunch of thieves or clowns. Third world sellers are very likely to be both thieves and clowns. The unit of currency is the 40' container, and by the time you open the door on your container, the money is already paid with no chance of getting it back. It takes a long time for a factory to get good at manufacturing its products.

 

You can't just move Chinese production to Indonesia or India, or wherever, and continue on as before. It takes decades to establish the broad base of business culture and infrastructure necessary to replace China. And that is, of course, assuming that China itself isn't playing shell games such as fronting a Chinese factory out of Indonesia, or working with local Indian mafias to create shell factories in India that take the money for orders, then disappears.

Edited by glenn239
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Lets remember an important fact. The China that started its industrial revolution, the China of Deng Xiaoping, WAS a third world nation. It had barely moved on from 1949, and whilst militarily it was not unimpressive, industrially it had gone nowhere. So if we use the argument we cant invest in third world nations because they cant be trusted, if we had used that argument in the 1980's and 1990's, China's great industrial leap forward would never have happened either.

 

I dont personally care if the Chinese are fronting out of Indonesia. If the Indonesians are getting the work, and the Chinese establishment are heaving to deal with an increasingly unemployed populace that is pissed off with them, then to my mind, the effect is exactly the same. Lets see how they deal with a little Globalization.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Fronting doesn't necessarily mean a factory in Indonesia, it means a front in Indonesia pretending to be Indonesian produced while the bulk of the factory production is actually in China, with final shipment is from Indonesia. The customer does not care. Their shipping manifest shows the port of embarkation as not China, and the goods that arrive are well priced and of good quality. You get what you want and make money, you don't rock the boat on asking questions. Taiwan and Hong Kong have long done the same thing, "made in Taiwan" has long meant "made in China and exported from Taiwan".

 

The reason why China took off as a manufacturing base in the first place was because it had enough of western business and work ethics imbued in its population to kick start itself. Other Asian countries like Vietnam can do that, but it takes time. It's not an overnight thing. And, when these economies do modernize, they will not be our lackies, they will use their power to ruthlessly promote their own agenda, just like China has done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would love for someone to do something, I'm pointing out that the only party even talking about it is the US. There were two parties to the treaty, if one party abrogates the treaty, then the other party should be the one to take the lead in calling them on it. If the UK wants to fulfill their duty as the other party, I'm sure the US under the current administration would be just fine with backing that up. YOU GUYS signed the treaty, YOU GUYS got screwed, YOU GUYS should be the first ones in line to say ENOUGH. As always, YOU GUYS turn around, look at the US and say "Well, what are YOU going to do about it?" Hey guys, we'll be right behind you, have at it.

 

Seriously Jeff?

 

I don't see the UK with a begging bowl in hand asking for the US to intervene.

 

What I see is the only thing that we can realistically offer - a chance for those who have that qualified citizenship to escape.

 

 

Then the UK really has no standing in the world if they can be so blatantly disrespected and respond with a whimper. Also, some are stomping around here with grandiose ideas of what someone should do while giving their government a pass. Who's going to protect the UK's honor and international treaties if they won't bother to protect them themselves? They don't need fire up the carriers and Astutes and go to war but a doomed pathetic attempt at getting the UN to do something is just sad. Where is the EU? They all seem to welcome their new ChiCom overlords and would like to remind them that as trusted multicultural societies, they can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground iPhone caves.

 

Look, I find this distressing. All this has happened before and apparently, all this is going to happen again. Stuart brought up Hitler, and the lesson there is not to placate the monster until the result is world shattering. Firm boundaries now can keep Armageddon from happening later but everyone needs to grab the rope and help pull.

 

 

This from the guy that was claiming the US should leave Europe to do its thing

 

 

I see no conflict in this, please explain.

 

 

Overllooked this one yesterday - If I understand correctly your position, America First means the US should walk away from those commitments that offer no added value in the short term, yet now you are saying the UK should step in do exactly that. So how does this treaty thing work, it's OK for the US to walk away but not OK for the UK?

 

A point Americans seem to miss is that even though it may seem to be more expensive, this treaty commitments (NATO, UN) actually work for the US by providing a framework in which America's supremacy is not contested. Should they go away tomorrow, EU nations would be "protected" by the EU treaties but everything outside (Norway, Iceland) would be fair game and it would take all of 5 minutes to reach an acomodation with powers that may not be aligned to US interests.

 

You brought up that the "US is protecting our oil" but that's just not the case, first, most of the oil doesn't come from the Gulf, second, if tomorrow there was a regime change in the Gulf monarchies, they would still have to sell oil to keep afloat. Guess who's SA largest client? China.

 

So the US walking away from its allies won't lead to all becoming Chinese/Russian colonies but it would lead to a situation in which US interests would be irrelevant to most countries now aligned to the US, and since the US would have to reinforce its position from CONUS or leave it, to expanded .mil expenditure.

 

 

You've assumed things that are not the case. If the US is in a treaty where the other signatories aren't fulfilling their obligations then yes, the US should threaten to walk away and do so if the behavior doesn't change. This is true of treaties with friends like NATO and it's true of treaties with adversaries like the INF treaty. To fulfill an agreement where the other side fails in their obligations is stupid. If you buy a house but the seller refuses to vacate the house and turn it over to you, do you continue to pay the mortgage?

 

If the EU is going to sell themselves and democracies out so quickly to the ChiComs and Russians then they are going to do so anyway and are not dependable allies. How long before they sell out the US if Russia turns off the gas tap?

 

So the people getting the oil money make no difference? Funding the Iranian Mullahs is no different than funding the Gulf states?

 

We're not looking to leave agreements, we're trying to make them work. If the other signatories won't fulfill their obligations then the treaty is a scam. The piece of paper means nothing if the intent to fulfill it isn't there. Ask Chamberlain how much a piece of paper is worth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Fronting doesn't necessarily mean a factory in Indonesia, it means a front in Indonesia pretending to be Indonesian produced while the bulk of the factory production is actually in China, with final shipment is from Indonesia. The customer does not care.

 

Depends on whom you see as the customer. Ther business partner in the US or in Europe?

They will send inspection teams. Of course the depth and severity of audits depends on what's at stake. Rubber dog shit production is uncritical. Apparel, it's a mixed bag but consumers exert a growing pressure to have humane working conditions and environment-friendly production facilities. And when it comes to the production of parts for final assembly elsewhere the scrutiny level usually goes way up. So it depends entirely if you're producing an anonymous commodity or components that go into a product with a high brand recognition/reputation at stake. Even Apple couldn't tolerate the conditions at Foxconn forever. The result: Conditions at Foxconn got better. Maybe only marginally so, but still. Same with T-shirt sweatshops in Bangladesh, which are burning down less often these days. Child labor no longer has the positive reputation of yore.

 

Fronting a factory isn't so easy as you make it sound.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You've assumed things that are not the case. If the US is in a treaty where the other signatories aren't fulfilling their obligations then yes, the US should threaten to walk away and do so if the behavior doesn't change. This is true of treaties with friends like NATO and it's true of treaties with adversaries like the INF treaty. To fulfill an agreement where the other side fails in their obligations is stupid. If you buy a house but the seller refuses to vacate the house and turn it over to you, do you continue to pay the mortgage?

 

If the EU is going to sell themselves and democracies out so quickly to the ChiComs and Russians then they are going to do so anyway and are not dependable allies. How long before they sell out the US if Russia turns off the gas tap?

 

So the people getting the oil money make no difference? Funding the Iranian Mullahs is no different than funding the Gulf states?

 

We're not looking to leave agreements, we're trying to make them work. If the other signatories won't fulfill their obligations then the treaty is a scam. The piece of paper means nothing if the intent to fulfill it isn't there. Ask Chamberlain how much a piece of paper is worth.

 

 

An interesting take, say, who left South Vietnam in the dirt? Lebanon in 83? Iraq? I gues you can add the Shah to the list. In terms of treaties not fulfilled, the US is not short of, in the last 50 years.

 

Because these treaties you say NATO is not complying with actually are being complied to the letter, but the US wants a bit more, but fudging the numbers (see previous posts on the issue) so the actual contribution to the NATO area is actually at the level of Belgium.

 

Re funding, last I checked the money flow wasn't to the Gulf, but from the Gulf (remember you just said the US is not buying their oil?) into what is, in effect and perceived by the locals to be, protection money paid to the US

Link to post
Share on other sites

US and China clash over Hong Kong laws at closed UN meeting

https://www.570news.com/2020/05/29/us-and-china-clash-over-hong-kong-laws-at-closed-un-meeting/

 

Zhang also asked what the U.S. would do if China wanted the council to discuss the situation in Minneapolis where an unarmed black man, George Floyd, died after a white policeman knelt on his neck, the diplomat said.
U.S. Ambassador Kelly Craft responded that every country has its difficulties and grievances but the difference is that the United Stated is a democracy with the rule of law where people can protest and have democratic rights, which isn’t the case in China, the diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity because discussions were closed.

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...