China colonel raises nuclear spectre

reply to post by michael1983l


Explanation: So you personally knew and have done nothing about it!?

And about what is obvious ... [quoted from Next Elections lets Vote 1 China OK! (by OmegaLogos posted on 8-2-2010 @ 11:07 PM) linked also on pg1 of this thread.]

I've KNOWN for over 20yrs that China was the future and NOW its coming true!

Personal Disclosure: Way to be FAIR DINKUM! NOT!

NEED I REMIND YOU TO BE TRUE BLUE! :shk:



You angry bro? COME AT ME!

reply to post by HelenConway


China is not an outwardly aggressive nation, never has been. Possibly that position will change in the future but we have no way of judging that yet. Future years will indicate what the future holds in store.

So why can't Australia be a fence sitter? It works well enough for Switzerland. I think it would be a sensible position for Australia to adopt a similar position regarding South East Asia.

it certainly sounds like a credible threat that things are heating up more and more over the "disputed" territories. this as the Philippines takes China before a UN arbitral tribunal, to try to stop the Chinese aggression.

MANILA, Philippines – The Philippines has taken the step of bringing its West Philippine Sea (South China Sea) disputes to China before an Arbitral Tribunal under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) for a peaceful resolution, Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert Del Rosario announced Tuesday. Del Rosario, in a press conference, said that a note verbale detailing the Philippine’s claim that “challenges before the Arbitral Tribunal the validity of China’s nine-dash claim to almost the entire South China Sea (SCS) including the West Philippine Sea and asking China to desist from unlawful activities that violate the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the Philippines under the 1982 UNCLOS” was handed to Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines Ma Keqing at around 1 p.m. Tuesday.

globalnation.inquirer.net...

Del Rosario, in the press conference, said that the Philippines wants the UN arbitral tribunal to issue a declaration saying that China’s nine-dash line claim were invalid and were contrary to Unclos; directing China to respect the Philippines’ sovereign rights and jurisdiction over its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), continental shelf, contiguous zone, and territorial sea over the West Philippine Sea; and to ask China to desist from activities that violate the country’s sovereign rights.

i think a question is would China even abide by a UN decision? or are they to the point of commitment to their plans. we have heard about China asking their army to prepare for a regional war as being discussed here www.abovetopsecret.com...

China said it was normal for its marine surveillance aircraft to fly over the disputed Diaoyu islands after Japan scrambled fighter jets to intercept the Chinese aircraft early on Thursday. Within hours of the incident, Communist Party of China (CPC) general secretary was quoted by the state media as ordering the largest armed forces in the world, People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to be ready to win “regional wars.”

www.hindustantimes.com...

so it seems that China is getting ready to TAKE what they wrongfully claim as theirs. sending a "back channel" message to Australia to keep out. is rather telling that they are at least "testing the waters" before they commence their attack.

what is really scary is that i don't think they will stop at just the disputed territories. i think that especially when it comes to the Philippines that they will claim the rest of the Philippines as being in their area of control, and work there way from there, to gobble up at least a fair portion of what the Japanese referred to as the southern resource area. this is nothing more than China illegally trying to take what resources they want. in all honesty Australia may even be included in this for their land and resources. i also suspect they will also go after the Japanese main islands as well. the Chinese have no love for the Japanese (in a lot of ways rightfully so), after what the Japanese did to China in ww2. and i would expect if they were to take the Japanese home islands we will hear about rather brutal reprisals to the Japanese because of it.

it even brings to mind the German anexization and attacks that started ww2, "we just want this then we will stop" but yet taking more and more. as France and Britain sat back until it was obvious that Germany had no intentions of stopping. lets NOT REPEAT PAST MISTAKES, if China starts up they NEED TO BE TAKEN DOWN, and it will likely take just about the world to stop the country that has the LARGEST military land forces and navy. we can't wait like back then until it's almost too late to stop them. after a goodly portion of those who would stand up to them are taken one by one. like happened in Europe in the early days of ww2.

reply to post by Aleister

Why do the Chinese hate wolves? Sarah Palin and her husband would feel right at home there. Wolves are loving and intelligent animals, so for the Chinese to hate them puts a strange twist on this current issue. Well, hopefully Obama and other world leaders will get China and Japan into neutral corners and defuse the situation. As Oliver Stone would say "Where is Henry Wallace when you need him."

I think the wolf thing was stated metaphorically. They referred to Japan as the wolf, and then went on to state that they hate the wolf out of all animals...

Sounds to mean as if they are just stating that they hate Japan

I don't know

reply to post by Flavian


I don't think they share your view in Taiwan or Tiebet.

reply to post by OmegaLogos


Woah mate, settle down

We don't need to have arguments here...i think a friendly discussion is better suited to this topic.

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Flavian

 

I don't think they share your view in Taiwan or Tiebet.

I will admit they are the elephant in the room. However, there are two sides to every tale and the Chinese are rather adamant that they are Chinese Territories - historically it is a hard case to argue against (particularly in respect to Taiwan).

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by HelenConway

 

China is not an outwardly aggressive nation, never has been. Possibly that position will change in the future but we have no way of judging that yet. Future years will indicate what the future holds in store.

So why can't Australia be a fence sitter? It works well enough for Switzerland. I think it would be a sensible position for Australia to adopt a similar position regarding South East Asia.

Australia CAN be a fence sitter but then why would the US bother coming to her aid when needed ? Australia was a proud nation with brave men.. so I doubt they would be happy to fence sit. However, the demographic and population has changed ..

reply to post by HelenConway


In my opinion it would be best to fence sit. The last thing Australia wants to do is burn their bridges, whether they are economical or defence ones.

Like Michael1983 said, Australia is still part of the Commonwealth, that includes the UK, Canada and a ton of other places (Antigua and Barbuda; Australia; The Bahamas; Bangladesh; Barbados; Belize; Botswana; Brunei Darussalam; Cameroon; Canada; Cyprus; Dominica; Fiji Islands; The Gambia; Ghana; Grenada; Guyana; India; Jamaica; Kenya; Kiribati; Lesotho; Malawi; Malaysia; Maldives; Malta; Mauritius; Mozambique; Namibia; Nauru; New Zealand; Nigeria; Pakistan; Papua New Guinea; Rwanda; St Kitts and Nevis; St Lucia; St Vincent and the Grenadines; Samoa; Seychelles; Sierra Leone; Singapore; Solomon Islands; South Africa; Sri Lanka; Swaziland; Tonga; Trinidad and Tobago; Tuvalu; Uganda; United Kingdom; United Republic of Tanzania; Vanuatu; Zambia.)

Granted, not all of them would get involved, some may not even have the capabilities, but still, there is a lot of backup there (2 billion people apparently).

So the choice of taking sides between America and China is not really an issue to be concerned with, however I get the sneaking suspicion the USA will be the odds on favourites.

China wouldn't stand a chance.

reply to post by michael1983l


Explanation: On the issue of Tibet ... It is a part of China! The USA agrees! So do many other countries.

Tibetan sovereignty debate: Third-party views [wiki]

Treaties signed by Britain and Russia in the early years of the 20th century, and others signed by Nepal and India in the 1950s, recognized Tibet's political subordination to China. The United States presented a similar viewpoint in 1943. Goldstein also says that a 1943 British official letter "reconfirmed that Britain considered Tibet as part of China."

When Tibet complained to the United Nations through El Salvador about Chinese invasion in November 1950—after China captured Chamdo (or Qamdo) when Tibet failed to respond by the deadline to China's demand for negotiation-- members debated about it but refused to admit the "Tibet Question" into the agenda of the U.N. General Assembly. Key stakeholder India told the General Assembly that "the Peking Government had declared that it had not abandoned its intention to settle the difficulties by peaceful means", and that "the Indian Government was certain that the Tibet Question could still be settled by peaceful means". The Russian delegate said that "China's sovereignty over Tibet had been recognized for a long time by the United Kingdom, the United States, and the U.S.S.R." The United Nations postponed this matter on the pretext Tibet was officially an "autonomous nationality region belonging to territorial China", and because the outlook of peaceful settlement seemed good.

The Agreement was finally accepted by Tibet's National Assembly, which then advised the Dalai Lama to accept it. Finally, on 24 October 1951, the Dalai Lama dispatched a telegram to Mao Zedong:

The Tibet Local Government as well as the ecclesiastic and secular People unanimously support this agreement, and under the leadership of Chairman Mao and the Central People's Government, will actively support the People's Liberation Army in Tibet to consolidate defence, drive out imperialist influences from Tibet and safeguard the unification of the territory and sovereignty of the Motherland.

In 2008, European Union leader Jose Manuel Barroso stated that the EU recognized Tibet as integral part of China: On 1 April 2009, the French Government reaffirmed its position on the Tibet issue.

And on the issue of Taiwan ... it is also a part of China and again the USA agrees!

Political status of Taiwan [wiki]

The United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Republic of India, Pakistan and Japan have formally adopted the One China policy, under which the People's Republic of China is theoretically the sole legitimate government of China. However, the United States and Japan acknowledge rather than recognize the PRC position that Taiwan is part of China.

Council on Foriegn Relations: China-Taiwan Relations [cfr.org]

In 1979, the United States reestablished relations with Beijing and signed a joint communiqué that reasserted the One China policy. According to it, "the Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China." At that time, President Jimmy Carter terminated diplomatic relations with the ROC government in Taiwan.

One-China policy [wiki]

In the case of the United States, the One-China Policy was first stated in the Shanghai Communiqué of 1972: "the United States acknowledges that Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States does not challenge that position."

Personal Disclosure:

Of course we will fight along side our American brothers, as we have done for 100 years.
Did you all forget that speech from Obama in Darwin when he said "Up yours China"?
Have you forgotten the shiny new US base for their navy and marines corp. in Darwin?
Have you all forgotten ANZUS treaty?
Over the last 2 decades we have strived to place our country as a main player in Asia Pacific region.
With that we have to draw the line at some point with China.
And of course the Poms have our backs right guys?......Guys?!

reply to post by LeLeu


As long as you carry that union flag on your nations own flag, I think any one of us Brits would take up arms to defend you, so yes.

EDIT: Actually, scrap that, wrong thing to say as not all commonwealth countries display the union flag......

As long as you are part of the British commonwealth......is what I should have said.

Another reason I change what I said....apparently all of Cuba has gone union flag mad, they are all wearing it!! Have you seen the recent photos? There is more union flags walking around in cuba than there is flying in the whole bloody commonwealth!!! What gives??

For the record, for those who are unsure, Cuba is NOT part of the commonwealth

reply to post by woogleuk


lol I did see that, what a classic

reply to post by woogleuk


I hope so

I don't think Australia has really cared for Britain's help since the incident during WW2...where Britain didn't actually attempt to help Australia (even though they stated that they would).

Times have changed though, so i hope Britain would come to our aid if need be...

reply to post by daaskapital


In fairness Dass.......we did have our hands full during WWII.

If someone like me, who is borderline hippy/pacifist, and against war/guns etc etc, says he will pick up arms, I think it's a safe bet lots of others would.

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by LeLeu

 

As long as you carry that union flag on your nations own flag, I think any one of us Brits would take up arms to defend you, so yes.

EDIT: Actually, scrap that, wrong thing to say as not all commonwealth countries display the union flag......

As long as you are part of the British commonwealth......is what I should have said.

Another reason I change what I said....apparently all of Cuba has gone union flag mad, they are all wearing it!! Have you seen the recent photos? There is more union flags walking around in cuba than there is flying in the whole bloody commonwealth!!! What gives??

For the record, for those who are unsure, Cuba is NOT part of the commonwealth

edit on 22/1/13 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)

Not seen that, very interesting. I know a few people who have been backpacking and cycling around Cuba. From what they were saying, Cuba is full of tourists these days. However, most stay in the resorts or close to them. From what they told me, pretty much the only ones you see biking about and not staying in resorts tend to be Brits. For example, my friends that went took their bikes and a tent and basically cycled all over, arriving in a town and talking to locals - getting bed and breakfast in exchange for doing chores, etc. Apparently, this type of attitude was extremely well received by the locals who were more than happy to accomodate, supply with food, etc. They got taken to all sorts of things with various different locals.

If what they were saying is still true (this was a few years ago now), then perhaps that helps to explain the Union flags being everywhere? If it is still mainly just Brits mixing with the local populace (away from the resorts) it would kind of make sense.....?

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by daaskapital

 

In fairness Dass.......we did have our hands full during WWII.

If someone like me, who is borderline hippy/pacifist, and against war/guns etc etc, says he will pick up arms, I think it's a safe bet lots of others would.

I know I was only poking fun

The closer our countries stand, the better in my opinion. Australia and Britain recently signed a new Defence treaty the other day, so that is some good news.

reply to post by woogleuk


Explanation: Pffft!

The Commonwealth couldn't fix Zimbabwe and hasn't yet fixed Fiji! :shk:

And its not like the Chinese have forgotten all about the stupid opium wars the British instigated in China!

Personal Disclosure: Seems last time we had a world war the Aussies had to come help out the UK in North Africa and that nearly cost us Australia when the Japanese attacked ... and that was becuase 90yrs earlier the USA used gunboat diplomacy on Japan and forced them to open up to trade with the USA.

Furthermore the YANKS ... weren't going to protect the whole of Australia and the Brisbane line proves my point there and McArthure prevented Aussie diggers moving any further north of Papua New Guinea becuase he was afraid we would steal their thunder by quikly attacking the Japanese mainland.

And which country with big cities does NOT have a China town! USA ... UK ... Australia ... anyone?

Please stop with the faptastic BS ok!

Focus more on the Fakland Islands ... Argentina is looking on ok!

Fighting a war on two fronts would be bad ... anybody remember what happend to Germany when it open a 2nd front against Russia!

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Iamschist

 

Austraila should not be concerned from bullying tactics from either side of the potential conflict. Australia should side with whoever their electorate want their government too. Australia also has no reason to be scared of either power as Geographically, Australia has to be one of the hardest countries in the world to attack. If anything does happen and Australia require any assistance from the UK, our boys would do it with honour for our Commonwealth partners, but I am sure they are capable of looking after themselves anyway.

You do realise we only have roughly 20 Million people? We would run out of ammo before the Chinese ran out of soldiers.