Forum Index
this forum welcomes all forumers who appreciate decent and well thought out views and discussions. all forumers are encouraged to accept that different forumers have different views and often there is no absolutely right or wrong views.
Menu
 Forum IndexHome
FAQFAQ
MemberlistMemberlist
UsergroupsUsergroups
RegisterRegister
ProfileProfile
Log in to check your private messagesMessages
Log inLogin/Out

Quick Search

Advanced Search

Links
mysingaporenews
Singapore River Tour
Singapore Education
Singapore Orchids
littlespeck
ypapforum
Singapore Hosting
Sample Link 2
Sample Link 2

Who's Online
[ Administrator ]
[ Moderator ]


Google Search
Google

http://www.phpbb.com
Wake Up or sleep with the curse of the evil West/US forever.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> World Affairs
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14436
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 8:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

An Australian racist bastard revealing himself on national TV
He is not an ordinary Australian but a billionaire, a law maker. He is Clive Palmer, someone whom the Chinese is buying iron ore from but having a dispute over money issues. This is what this racist bastard said as reported by AGENCIES and reposted in the Today paper, ‘Clive Palmer had described the Beijing govt as “bastards” who shoot their own people and accused it of wanting to take over Australia’s resources.’ Later, after public rebukes from the govt, he amended what he said, ‘My #qanda comments not intended to refer to Chinese people but to (a) Chinese company which is taking Australian resources and not paying’.
Can you believe what this bastard said, that the Chinese company could take away Australian resources today without paying? The Australians or then British, took the whole continent of Australia from the natives a couple of centuries ago without paying. Did he remember that? His iron ore mine was probably taken away from the natives in the same manner or paying a pittance.
My goodness, how ignorant this bastard is. But that was the international law imposed on the rest of the world by the European colonialists. They came, they saw, they conquered and they took. Remember that, Clive? And did they shoot the aborigines before? Can Clive Palmer answer that?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14436
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sat Sep 06, 2014 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why China must be assertive?
For centuries, China had been the victim of foreign aggression. Many of the neighbouring tribes were lusting to conquer China. The Mongols and the Manchurians succeeded and ruled China for several centuries each. After the Manchus, the tribes came from further afar, the Japanese, Russians and the Europeans and Americans. China was robbed and raped and dismembered to pieces. Till today, many of its territories are still in foreign hands, now given a new title as disputed territories with the Russians, Indians and the Japanese.
Today China has stood up and demanding the return of these territories seized from her by foreign invaders when China was weak. Why are the Americans crying foul, that China is being assertive and even aggressive? What is wrong with a country wanting to reclaim its lost territories? It is a natural right of the Chinese to take back what was taken away from her wrongfully, by force.
Why are the Americans taking this stand, that China cannot take back its lost territories? It is because the Americans have taken away the territories of the native Americans and many other territories belonging to other natives. To the Americans, what had been taken is a done deal. The natives or losers cannot take them back. If the native Americans were to demand for it, they would also be branded as assertive and wrongful to do so, for wanting to change the balance of power, the status quo.
The same would apply to the natives of Australia and New Zealand, Hawaii, Canada and many other pieces of land. These natives would be branded as not only assertive, they would either be put behind bars or be shot, for wanting to reclaim their land from the thieves.
China is only trying to reclaim its lost territories from the thieves, and the Americans are protecting the thieves and even accusing China of being assertive and aggressive. Many people of Asia and the Asean countries have reclaimed their land through the fight for independence. If they have not done so, if they are still a colony, or if their land is still occupied by the thieves, they would be branded as assertive and trouble makers should they dare to demand for the return of their land.
China must be assertive. China has all the rights and reasons to be assertive to reclaim its lost territories. So do the natives of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and many others. There is nothing wrong about assertiveness when one is demanding for the return of his lost territories taken away by the thieves. The thieves are crying foul now, as if they are rightful owners of the natives’ land.
The deceit and trickery of the thieves to want to keep the stolen land as theirs, as a fait accompli, must not be seen as a rightful thing and the natives reclaiming their land a wrongful thing.
Would anyone put themselves in the shoes of the Chinese and ask themselves what they should do to reclaim their lost land?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14436
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2014 8:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hillary Clinton: ‘We came, we saw and he died’
The above is the famous joke from Hillary Clinton often quoted to describe how callous the Americans are of the lives of Arabs in the Middle East. They came, they saw and they executed Saddam Hussein and many more Arab leaders as if it was a natural thing to do, a fun thing. The hypocrisy of the American and western policies in the Middle East is best described by Jeffrey Sachs in his article, ‘Let the Middle East govern itself’ published in the Today paper this morning. No one, I mean no Afro Asians, would bother about what I say. They would even pooh poof it as nonsensical and hysterical if I were to write what Sachs had written. It is best that it comes from a western intellectual to say the truth.
Basically what Sachs said was that all the wars of intervention in the Middle East were never about democracy or human rights. It was all about oil, about control of a real estate and transit to Asia. All the Arab leaders and parties are dispensable and would be disposed off when they turned against American and western interests, meaning too ‘nationalistic, anti Israel, Islamist and dangerous to America’s oil interests’. The Americans have been supporting practically every group and party in the region and also in their destruction.
Sachs quoted the Sykes-Picot Agreement between the British and French that ‘ formed a lasting pattern of destructive outside meddling. With America’s subsequent emergence as a global power, it treated the Middle East in the same way, relentlessly installing, toppling, bribing or manipulating the region’s govts, all the while mouthing democratic rhetoric.’ These few sentences summarized the ugly intentions of the Americans and the West in the Middle East. The Americans would only install a regime that is acceptable to them. Period.
The invasion of Iraq has led to its ‘destruction as a functioning society in an ongoing civil war, fuelled by outside powers, that has caused economic ruin and collapsing living standards’ and the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Not to dismiss or ridicule the beheading of the two American journalists, how could the lives of two Americans be more precious than the hundreds of thousands of death inflicted by the Americans on the Arab nations in the Middle East? The hypocrisy must stop here.
But no, the Americans are hell bent to topple another Arab leader in Bashar Assad. ‘More than 190,000 Syrians are dead and millions have been displaced as a result of an insurrection supported by the US and its allies.’
Everything in the Middle East is about brute force. And as Sachs said, the rise of ISIS, another creature that has claimed Hillary Clinton as the grandmother, America intervenes again with more bombings, and violence rule the day. How does this relate to the article by Thomas Friedman that the Russians and the Islamic States were all about violence and brute force when the real culprit of violence and brute force is none other than the Americans and the West?
Sachs was calling for an end to American and western hypocrisy in the Middle East, to leave the Arab states alone to deal with their problems and find their own status quo. As a consoling gesture to the Americans he said, ‘There is enough hatred, corruption and arms in the region to keep it in crisis for years to come.’ He knew that this is what the Ameicans and the West would want to see, a region in perpetual conflict, dysfunctional economies and govts, and not able to become a threat to Israel and American/western oil interests in the region.
How much more explicit does it takes to understand what is going on in the Middle East? Is it about democracy, human rights and about America and the West helping to keep peace? Don’t be naïve.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14436
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

War against the Islamic State getting closer
The Axis, from Washington and London, has reached Canberra. The three European colonial powers have joined hands to take on the ISIS. They have formed a ‘Coalition of the Willings’ once again to take on the Islamic fighters they called evil. On the evil Islamic fighters side there is a real coalition of more than 80 countries, fighters from these countries who marched there with their feet, to fight on the side of the Islamic State. This kind of volunteerism and martyrdom is frightening and very difficult to defeat.
When we were part of the first ‘Coalition of the Willings’, many knew it was the ‘Coalition of the Unwillings’, we could be excused for being forced into a situation when we were either with George Bush or against George Bush. We had no choice. Do we have a choice this time? Has the armed twisting started and we would again be volunteered to fight in this war against the Islamic State?
In the first instance, fighting to topple Saddam Hussein was a pretty isolated event. Invading Iraq on a fake charge of WMD, a serious violation of a country’s sovereignty, a very serious precedent set by the evil Empire to justify an invasion, given the predominance of the Empire, it was quite safe to do so with minimal repercussions.
To be actively involved against the Islamic State is not going to be a cake walk, and not going to be pleasant. In particular, living in a sea of Islamic states and with many sympathizers quietly supporting, it is deadly crazy to incur their wrath. We cannot afford to be involved in this war. We are too vulnerable and exposed.
May wisdom rule and we be spared from becoming a party to this Coalition of the Willings or Unwillings. We have no choice but to walk away. And pray there is no hero who thinks this is another party for a bit of glory and chest thumping. This war is disease. There will be plenty of gory.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14436
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sat Sep 20, 2014 9:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why a Coalition of Forces against IS?
In the first place who created this monster called ISIS? American media have touted this honour to Hillary Clinton, calling her the grandmother of ISIS. The ISIS was given life by the Americans when they went in to kill Saddam Hussein and intervened in Syria. With Saddam gone, with Assad on the defensive, there is no Arab leaders or dictators with the stature and power to put a leash on the ISIS fighters. And they morphed into a new and more powerful military force with equally powerful appeal and mission. They have no need to call for a coalition or twist the arms of any country to form a coalition. The fighters went there voluntarily, fighting with their hearts.
The Americans are rounding up a coalition by force. They are demanding a coalition against the wills of other nations. The sickening thing was that when they bulldozed their way into Iraq and other Middle East countries to do their regime change and to kill their leaders, the Americans did not see a need to get any approval or agreement from their allies. They brazenly and arrogantly did what they wanted to do, even against the wishes of their allies, countries they are coercing to be part of the coalition.
Why is there a need for a coalition when the Americans could do it on their own? Thomas Friedman had put it simply, that this war cannot be seen as the West attacking the Arab countries. This war cannot be seen as Christians against Muslims. The Americans need to camouflage this war as a war by a coalition of countries against the IS.
What are the implications or consequences to the other members of this unwilling coalition? In a simple analogy, the Americans are holding the hands of their allies to catch a poisonous snake. The hands could be beaten by the snake in the process. The Americans started a dangerous war, releasing a very brutal and powerful force, they branded it as an evil force. Now the American wanted other countries to participate in the suppression of this force.
If the Americans were to do it alone, they would be the one and only target for the IS to attack. By forcing a coalition of many countries, these countries will share the risk and also become targets of ISIS. To the Americans, it is spreading their risk.
To the members of this unwilling coalition, they are force to fight a war that they have nothing to do with and would end up as enemies and targets of ISIS. The weaker members of this coalition, especially those with a substantial Muslim population and with sympathizers of the ISIS, would likely to bear the brunt of retaliation by the ISIS. The attacks by ISIS would not be confined to Iraq and Syria. It could be anywhere or in any country, but likely to be in countries that are members of the coalition.
Welcome to the Coalition of the ‘Willing’ and share the risk.
Thomas Friedman’s latest article ‘Helping the Arabs to help themselves’ revealed an American hard truth. I quote ‘But then he asks: “(Is the Islamic States) really a problem for the US? The American interest is not stability, but the existence of a dynamic balance of power in which all players are effectively paralysed so that no one who would threaten the US emerges….’
Now, would the Arabs understand what the Americans are doing to them? Would the rest of the world understand the intent of the Americans around the world? Thank you Tom for this hard truth that many Afro Asians are too dumb to appreciate, refused to see, or wanted to know.
Tom Friedman has a good advice for the Americans in Washington, let the Arabs fight and defend themselves. They have bigger stakes and interests to protect themselves if only the Americans take their hands off their problems. What Tom forgot is that the American war industry would want to be involved and would want Washington to be involved. That’s where the money is.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14436
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 8:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Singapore the flag bearer of TPP

After putting the intelligence of our super talents together, Singapore carved out an idea called TPP. It was so convincing that this TPP thing is so good, they never tell you any negative things about it, so it must be one of those things that only have goodness and no bad effects, they also think that it is good to all the countries in the Asia Pacific region. Hsien Loong even travelled all the way to the US to convince the American law makers that this TPP thing is the ‘koyote’ to save the declining American economy. Obviously Obama could not sell this ‘koyote’ to his colleagues and the American people.

And because this is our baby, we have been trying all means to get the Chinese, Koreans, the Japanese and Asean countries to come on board. Ouch, someone just elbowed me. Oops, this is NOT our baby. It is an American baby, an American construct for American domination and control of the Asia Pacific countries again. Then why are we in such a state of frenzy in pushing for the TPP? Do we get a cut for the effort?

You see, there have been many free trade agreements signed in the Asia Pacific region without the Americans in them. How can that be, how can they exclude the Americans in these agreements and not allowing the Americans to be the leader and calling the shots? America must be the leader of all world and regional organisations so that it can continue to dominate and control the world. Now, why are the Americans taking the back seat and Singapore carrying the TPP flag?

Look at the MH370 incident. What expertise or technical knowledge do the Australians have to be dictating to the countries involved that they knew the aircraft sank in the Antarctic Ocean? Are the Australians the technical experts in satellites, are they in control or in touch with the captain of MH370? Did any Australian radar actually pick up signals or radio conversation with MH370? Zilch. How is it that Abbott thinks he knows all and the whereabouts of MH370? Think.

Why is Australia calling the shots and acting like the front man in the new coalition against the ISIS? Why are the Australians hyping up the terror threat in Australia when the war is half way across the world? Why is Australia the flag bearer of this coalition?

Let’s get back to the phrase, ‘If the US did not do this, it would be “giving the game away”’. ‘Giving the game away’ could have different meanings. One is to lose the game. Another is to let out a hidden intent or agenda. Put this in a proper context, in Rachel Au Yong’s article, Delays in TPP ‘could affect US presence in Asia’ in the Sunday Times on 21 Sep, the whole intent and purpose of the TPP is about ‘a strategic and significant presence in the Asia Pacific’. It is not really about trade and commerce. And Hsien Loong had this to say, ‘having a presence “is not just battleships and aircraft carriers and aeroplanes. You have to have trade, goods exchanges …interdependence. And the TPP is your way of doing this.’

Agree, TPP is the only disguise the Americans could have to pretend that its presence is about trades and not about war and domination. And this is followed by the quote, ‘If the US did not do this, it would be “giving the game away”’. Now the meaning is clear, the true agenda of the TPP.

In the same article Hsien Loong was quoted to say, ‘We are all in Asia, interacting and trading with one another…So, you don’t promote trade, what are you promoting? What does it mean when you say you are a Pacific power? It just does not make sense’.

To the Americans, their presence of battleships, aircraft carriers and aircraft make perfect sense. It is all about American power and control of Asia Pacific countries. Trade is secondary and a guise to promote the military interest of the American Empire. Do I still need to explain what the TPP is all about?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14436
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 8:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Below is a condensed version of an article by Thierry Meyssan on the role of the Americans and what they are up to in their domination of the world. It told what the Americans were saying in public and what went on behind closed doors. And look at what they are doing to Syria, violating national sovereignty and international laws to bomb another country. It totally ignored the UN and did not even bother to seek any face saving resolutions or consent before striking at Syria. The Empire is getting more and more arrogant and defiance in the use of power against other countries.

And where are the gore and blood they were pointing out at the gruesome beheading of 3 westerners? No, the cruise missiles and bombs would not lead to any blood shedding. No heads will be severed by the bombs. It is all a matter of pushing a few buttons. Nothing else happened, no one dies, no mother and child got cut into pieces, no grandfather and mother got killed in the process. It is so neat and nice.

NATO intends to prohibit Russia’s and China’s Development
by Thierry Meyssan
The Newport (Wales) Summit is NATO’s largest since the 2002 Prague edition. At the time, it meant to include new central and eastern European states within the Alliance. This time it’s about planning a long-term strategy to contain the development of Russia and China so as to prevent their competing with the United States [1]….
The future of the Anglo-American imperialist project
Since the coup of 2001 [4], the United States is planning a confrontation with China. With this in mind, President Barack Obama announced the repositioning of US forces in the Far East. However, this agenda has been disrupted by economic, political and military recovery in Russia, which has been able in 2008 to defend South Ossetia under attack by Georgia and, in 2014, Crimea threatened by the Kiev coup…..
While performing its "pivot to Asia", Washington has exacerbated tensions between China and its neighbors, especially Japan. NATO, which historically vassallizes Europe to North America, has thereby opened itself to Asian and Oceanian partners, notably Australia and Japan, through association contracts. It has, in passing, broadened its field of action to the whole world. [5]
In this time of budgetary restrictions, the Alliance, which is not experiencing the crisis, is building a new headquarters in Brussels for the staggering sum of € 1 billion. It should be ready in early 2017. [6]

The issue of the Islamic Emirate
This summer, to the preoccupation with preventing China and Russia from controlling enough raw materials to develop the ability to compete with the United States was added the issue of the Islamic Emirate.
An intense media campaign has demonized the jihadist organization whose crimes are not new, but who just attacked the Iraqi people. We have repeatedly explained that the IE is a Western creation and that, despite appearances, its action in Iraq is entirely consistent with US plans to divide the country into three separate states. [7] For a project which constitutes a crime against humanity because it assumes ethnic cleansing, Washington has used a private army that could be condemned publicly while being supported covertly.
The United States would have taken the measure of the Islamist threat after the IE murdered two of their nationals, journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff. However, a careful examination of the videos [8] suggests that they are not authentic. The problem had already arisen with the IE when it was supposed to have murdered Nick Berg in 2004 [9].
We have also often stressed that the IE was different from previous jihadist groups both by its communication services and its civilian administrators able to manage the conquered territories. So this is a group which is meant to last. As Alfredo Jalife-Rahme showed, the Caliphate, even if it is currently active mainly in Syria and Iraq, was designed to bear arms against Russia, India and China in the long-term [10] .
The issue of the Islamic Emirate did not therefore have to be added to the anti-Russian and anti-Chinese agenda. It was already part of it. Moreover, not wanting to risk that a Member State might express doubts about this masquerade, Washington shifted the debate to the sidelines of the summit. President Obama met eight other states plus Australia (which is not a NATO member, but only an associate) to develop its war plan. It was later decided to add Jordan to this device.

Summit conclusions
The summit held a hurried morning session to expedite the question of its long presence in Afghanistan. Certainly, NATO will withdraw its combat troops as planned by year’s end, but it will retain control of the Afghan army and national security. The summit even allowed itself the luxury of calling on the two candidates for the Afghan presidency to commit to signing without delay the criminal immunity requirements of the United States, while this election is organized and the ballots counted by American forces. Therefore, the candidate who does not agree should not be surprised if he is not considered elected....
In addition, the summit equipped the Alliance with two new tools: a cyber warfare service to counter Chinese military hackers, and a rapid response force of 4000 men from 7 countries placed under British command. Finally, the summit paved the accession process of Montenegro and, of course, requires member states to develop their military spending.
Some remarks
Despite accusations from the Ukrainian government - according to which Russia would have invaded the country ... but with only 1,000 men that no one has seen, as noted by Giulietto Chiesa [11] -, the summit did not decide to go to war against Moscow and merely posed a symbolic gesture. We do not understand therefore why such ostentation was put on display in Newport.
Unless the important things have been decided behind closed doors at the meeting of the Heads of State Friday, Sept. 5, it does not seem that secret wars were discussed at the summit, but only on the sidelines of the summit with certain allies only. Already in 2011, NATO had violated its own rules by not assembling the Atlantic Council before bombing Tripoli. It seemed effectively impossible that all would agree to such a slaughter. The United States and the United Kingdom therefore met secretly with France, Italy and Turkey in Naples to plan an attack that caused at least 40,000 civilian deaths in one week.
The final release is a rare hypocrisy [12]: the Ukrainian crisis is treated as a Russian aggression, without ever mentioning the coup of Maidan Square, or the installation of a government including Nazis. The Syrian crisis is presented as a conflict between “ a moderate opposition which protects minorities” and at the same time the “tyranny of the regime of Bashar al-Assad”, and “extremist groups”, without ever mentioning that the Syrian regime is a republic while the moderate opposition is paid by the dictatorships of the Gulf, nor that the crisis was triggered by a secret Franco-British war in accordance with the Annexes to the Treaty of Lancaster House, nor that President Assad has just been re-elected by 63% of the electorate, and that the Syrian Arab Republic is the only one to have protected not only minorities, but all its citizens, including the Sunni majority. Cynically, the statement claims that the Alliance has protected the Libyan people, in accordance with resolutions 1970 and 1973, when in fact it used these resolutions to change the regime in Libya by killing 160,000 Libyans and plunging the country into chaos.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14436
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ISIS – A chilling message
Reuters and AFP reported that ISIS is demanding $270m for the lives of two Japanese captured by them, a Haruna Yukawa and a Kenji Goto. The message, ‘To the Prime Minister of Japan: Although you are more than 8,500km away from(ISIS), you willingly have volunteered to take part in this crusade.’
According to the newpaper report, ‘Abe has pledged around US$200 million in non military assistance for countries battling ISIS.
Fighting a war is fun when one is on the winning side and with a lot of heroes and heroic stories to tell and to cheer. When you have your own people captured and waiting for their throats to be slit on TV, it is no fun any more.
This is a very chilling message to all the heroics and war advocates. Of course Abe will not be fighting and neither his children will be fighting and risking their lives. Neither will be the children of Japanese politicians be sent to fight the ISIS, like the American boys and girls.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14436
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

An American Japanese joke
The Pew Research Centre came out with a report that the Americans and Japanese trust each other than they trust China. And the report also reminded the readers that this is despite the trusting Americans believing that Japan was trustworthy and negotiating for peace before they launched a sneak attack against Pearl Harbour without declaring war on the Americans and decimated the American Pacific Fleet and thousands of soldiers who were still sleeping after a night of partying.
And of course the Americans were so furious that Roosevelt vowed to do anything he could to avenge the dastardly attack by the sneaking Japanese. And the Americans went to do flatten Tokyo but not before dropping two atomic bombs into Nagasaki and Hiroshima. And the Americans believe that they can trust the Japanese to rearm itself and would not do another attack on the Americans to avenge the two atomic bombs on its people.
Immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbour, all the Japanese in American soil were rounded up and put into detention camp, because they were untrustworthy. Now they are all trustworthy. Good for the Americans and definitely good for the Japanese to be allowed to rearm, to reject the pacifist Constitution imposed on by the Americans not to even allow the Japanese to repeat what they did in Pearl Harbour. And Abe is happily provoking the Chinese to drag the Americans into a total self destruct war with China.
They said fools would never learn and history would repeat itself.
And the Japanese did not trust the Chinese. Why? Did China invaded Japan or was it Japan invaded China? Did China seize Japanese islands or Japan seized Chinese islands?
And did China attacked or invaded the US or the US attacked China? Who is the world’s biggest lender to the Americans? Who is lending the Americans in the trillions to buy weapons to threaten China?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14436
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Diego Garcia, Guam and Spratleys, what’s the big deal?
The Americans have been bombarding the Chinese daily about their constructions of buildings and airstrips in the islands in South China Sea. To the Americans, these actions are unacceptable, even acts of aggression that could lead to war. The Americans are all behind the Philippines to cry foul against the Chinese and even agitating the Asean countries to form a naval force to challenge the Chinese for building structures in their islands. And everyday there will be reports in the New York Times or other American media highlighting the Chinese activities with aerial photographs and condemning them. The drumming of war has started.
What is so wrong with the Chinese construction of buildings and airstrips in their own islands? These are islands the Chinese claimed as their own under the historical law of finders keepers. These are uninhabited islands, with no natives, no human life forms in them.
What about Diego Garcia and Guam? These were islands with islanders, natives living in them. And one is in the Indian Ocean and the other in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. The Americans went in and seized the islands from the natives and built buildings and air bases for military purposes. These are two military fortresses owned by the Americans, taken from the natives. These islands are owned by the natives.
Why is it acceptable, no crimes, no aggressive intent? Why are the Americans allowed to treat the islands belonging to the natives as their own, without the permission of the owners and happily strutting around as a right? American Exceptionalism? The islands are not no man’s land. There are natives living in them.
China should show aerial photographs of the military bases in Diego Garcia and Guam to the world, get the New York Times to publish them and make comparisons on why one is acceptable, nothing wrong, and why the other is unacceptable and wrong. No man’s land is finders keeper. Land with natives are own by natives, like the continent of North America, Australia and New Zealand, and of course Diego Garcia and Guam. Who conquered them, robbed them from the natives?
Did China rob any natives of their islands in the South China Sea? Oh, other Southeast Asian countries are claiming them too. When China founded these islands, these Southeast Asian countries did not even know of their existence. They were not even nation states in the western concept of statehood. They have more rights to the islands than China?
The Americans should stop their bull and stop using its bigger military size and power to bully China. China would not take it lying down. When would the Americans stop their hypocrisies? The Americans must remember that the Chinese would not forget the attack on their Embassy in Belgrade. One day, one of the American Embassies will suffer the same fate when China is ready to stop the bullying. Sleep well America! What you sowed you shall reap.
When the Japanese conducted the sneak attack on Pearl Harbour all the Americans were crying for blood and blood they did extracted from the Japanese with the two Atomic bombs. What makes the Americans think that they can get away with the sneak attack on the Chinese Embassy?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14436
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2015 10:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

American pivot and a new Asia

What is the American pivot all about? After going round in circles, the Americans have finally admitted that it is all about the American Empire, about America’s dominance as the undisputed Number One Super Power. China would not be allowed to challenge this state of being. No, the Pacific Ocean is not big enough for the USA and China. The world is not big enough for two. Or like the Chinese saying, one mountain cannot have two tigers. In the western Pacific and the whole Pacific Ocean, there can be only one Super Power and America would not tolerate anyone challenging that position. Cut the craps, the Americans are here to rule. China should save its breath to tell the Americans the Pacific Ocean is big enough for two. The Americans want it for themselves.

What would be the American pivot mean? It would mean the containment of China or better still the defeat of China. The whole game plan is to keep China under control. And what would be the map of Asia be if the American pivot is successful? China would be a semi colonised state like Japan under the rule of another Gen MacArthur. With China’s fall, North Korea would be overrun by a combined force of the USA, Japan and South Korea. The two Koreas would be reunited under the dominance of South Koreans.

The Russians would be cornered and would be dealt the same blow by the combined forces of the US and its allies and suffer the same fate as China. Vietnam, being another key member of the Empire would enjoy the largesse of having Laos and Cambodia in the larger entity of Indochina. Further to the west, India would be emboldened to close rank with the Americans and run over Pakistan to end the century old rivalry. All the neighbouring states of India, including Myanmar, would have come under a new regional warlord in India. Iran and the Middle Eastern countries fate need no elaboration.

Further to the south, Indonesia would then have Australia as the new regional power to contend with. The rest of the Asean countries would know which side to take.

This would be the new map of Asia under the American pivot. America is Number One, the undisputed Super Power of the day, Pax Americana.

Would China, Russia and their allies be able to do anything? What would be their options? They can’t be sitting helplessly waiting for the curtain to fall and all march to the concentration camp by the American Empire.

Wait for American Pivot part 2.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14436
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TPP – Cannot tell you!
The Trans Pacific Partnership failed to conclude once again as the members could not agree on two items, dairy products and drugs. The 12 member countries would have to go back to get more inputs to sort out these two areas to come to a compromise. The problem with the drug issue is about the length of protection for exclusive rights to the manufacturers of drugs. The USA wanted 12 years but prepared to compromise at 8. The other countries wanted this to be 5 years. The US wanted to protect the drug makers and keeping the prices of drugs high and thus not available to people from poorer countries. In the case of dairy products, farmers of some countries fear competition affecting their livelihood.
What is important is not about their failure to reach an agreement but the secrecy of the agreements. What is so secret and why so secret they cannot be made known. Anything that cannot tell is dangerous and fearful. They must have things that they did not want the world to know, the people of those countries signing the agreement to know.
Now, is that comforting or frightening? Or it is a case that it is best for the people of the countries not to know? And the proponents of the TPP did not even bother to make any motherhood statement like the TPP is good for the signing countries and also for the people. Scare or not?
Like all con men, trust me, no need to know, it is good for you. Now who are the countries so happy and willing to sign a secretive agreement without telling their citizens? Would this be another form of CECA? The countries involved in the negotiation are Japan, Mexico, Singapore, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, Chile, New Zealand, South Korea, Peru, Australia, Canada and the USA.
Cannot tell must be good.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14436
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Freedom of Navigation, a cunning American move
In the name of Freedom of Navigation, FON, just like in the name of human rights, the Americans are accusing the world, particularly China and the Soviet bloc, of violations but the truth is that the Americans are the worst violators of human rights and FON. They killed the natives in North America and seized their land under the Doctrine of Discovery, where the inhabitants are presumed to be sub humans and have no rights to their land. So it is only fair and just and god given to take over the lands of natives, killed them in the name of God or civilized them in the name of European civilization.
And being the Number One super power and self appointed world cop, they asserted the right to intercept ships of other nations, boarded them, searched them and arrested the crews and detained the ships in open seas. This is what the Americans called Freedom of Navigation but under the control and supervision of the American navy. They have violated the rights of many countries in international waters. Now they are using the same trick to call China building lighthouses on their islands a cunning trick. Did China seize the islands from the natives? Did China kill the natives in the islands to take over their land? And has China imposed any restriction on FON in the South China Sea?
Reuter reported a ‘Trevor Hollingsbee, a retired naval intelligence analyst with Britain’s Defence Ministry, said building lighthouses on the reclaimed reefs was a “rather cunning” move by China.’ Was the selling of opium in China a cunning British move to poison the Chinese and to start a war with China? Were the signing of protection treaties with African countries, India and Malaya to colonise them also cunning moves of the colonialists?
What is more important and serious is the American’s cunning trick of using FON to control the whole of South China Sea. The Americans again have appointed themselves as the gangsters that owned the South China Sea in the name of FON and would sail and fly their weapons of war all over the South China Sea as if they owned them. And there is also the small town self proclaimed sheriff in Australia claiming a right to carry its little water pistol to strut around under the watchful eyes of the big gangster.
And the silly Asean countries could not see the implications that the Americans and Australians are saying they owned the South China Sea. But what can you expect from dull minds not knowing that they have lost the whole of South China Sea to a cheap American cunning move? While they tried to compete with China to claim little uninhabited islands, they did not know that the whole area is now controlled by the Americans?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14436
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 8:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The US Calvary is here, Indians, you are dead
How many of you remember this fetish Hollywood stuff and stood up to cheer when the US Calvary arrived to massacre the Red Injuns in cowboys and Indians movies? The Injuns were the bad guys and the cowboys and calvary were the good guys, the land of the Injuns, oops, what land of the Injuns, they were God’s given land for the white settlers. Grab as many as you can by killing the Injuns that were illegally occupying the land, the Promised Land God has willed for his believers.
Many Injuns were butchered, murdered, starved to death or inflicted with deadly diseases brought in by the Europeans to infect them. Today you could barely see an Injun in North America now called the United States of America, minus the original natives that once roamed free in their land.
The story of the Calvary killing the Injuns and driving them away from their home land is being repeated all over again in the Middle East. The modern day Injuns are the Arabs and Muslims in the region that is now war torn, with the modern day Calvary bombing their land to Stone Age and inhospitable. The modern day ‘Injuns’ are marching into Europe to escape being killed or starve to death. And the Americans and the rest of the stupid world are looking on and cheering the modern day Calvary to kill the natives of the land all over again. The modern day Calvary are the good guys and the natives of the land are as usual, the bad guys. They will be resettled in new reservations. If they are lucky to survive the long march to the North, they could find themselves in Europe, definitely better than the Reservations given to the Injuns in North America.
The American Calvary are all over the Middle East to as far as Afghanistan and Pakistan, used to be in Vietnam, still in South Korea and Japan, and now emerging in the South China Sea, to do what they were good at, looking for more Injuns to kill and take away their lands.
And the rest of the stupid world stood up to welcome the Calvary and to cheer them on, without knowing that their land too will be at risk, that they too could become Injuns of their homeland. Malaysia better watch out, the Philippines will be going that way when they invite the Calvary in.
The American Calvary are the saviours of mankind and will kill the modern day ‘Injuns’ as they deemed fit. It is their right to do so, Manifest Destiny.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14436
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sat Oct 24, 2015 9:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Geopolitics – Who to balance who?
In his article appearing in the ST on 23 Oct 15, Luhut B Pandjaitan, the Corodinating Minister for Politics, Legal and Security Affairs of Indonesia discussed the role of Indonesia as a regional power and where it should stand in big power politics. He hoped that Indonesia should not be put in a position to take sides between China and Japan or between China and the USA. This is about the only sensible thing that he said before turning into another parrot repeating the views of the western world. The lack of original strategic thinking is evident when he aped the West in talking about the need for the USA to balance the rise of China.
What is wrong with this concept of the American Empire, the world’s Number One superpower having to act as a balance against a much weaker rising power in China? In the first place, the USA is the undisputed supreme military power as well as economic power. The USA can do as it likes, can bulldoze its way against any country, including China. If it comes to shove, the Americans could simply walk all over China. What is this talk about balancing a rising China?
In most cases it is the smaller power that needs to get together to balance an abusing superpower. And this was admitted by Lihut himself when he wrote, ‘inspite of their reservations about the way in which American power has been used sometimes, in the middle East, for example.’ Was he being polite or being a cock to say that sometimes the Americans abused their power? The Americans have always been abusing their superpower status to whack any country they so desired without the need for consultation, Indonesia included. Could not this Lihut see any need to balance the overwhelming power of the Americans to prevent the Americans from becoming a trigger happy gangster?
The intervention of Putin in Syria was exactly for this purpose, to balance the power of the Americans from killing more Arab and Muslim leaders called regime change. The Russians have stopped the Americans from doing exactly this and save Assad from the same fate as Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi. The rise of China would fill the same void in Asia, to balance the overbearing power of the Americans not to run wild and bully Asian countries one by one. It is the power of the Americans that needs to be balanced, not China, an emerging power that is very much weaker than the Americans. Without the rise of China, all the Asian and Southeast Asian countries will be treated and bullied by the Americans like the Arab and Muslim countries in the Middle East. Indonesia is a Muslim country, remember that.
China’s claim on the South China Sea islands is within its historical right and is not the business of the new South East Asian states. It becomes an issue only when these new states started to counter claim these islands as theirs. If China were as powerful as the Americans, it would show its fingers to these pretenders to think they have a rightful claim to the islands in the South China Sea. China is not making wild claims against the territories of any Asean states. When China was sailing the high seas and marking all these islands, there was no Vietnam, no Philippines, Malaysia or Indonesia to talk about.
Would a war start in the South China Sea? Sure, when these new states are audacious enough to want to claim islands already claimed by China several centuries ago when they were not states in South East Asia but villages and tribal chieftains. Where was Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia or Indonesia?
The Americans too would want a war in the South China Sea to allow them to put a foot into the region and control over the South East Asian states by raising China as their enemy. It would then do the necessary to push China back with its superior and unchallenged military might.
The countries in East Asia and South East Asia are too used to be bullied by the Americans, with the Americans calling the shot and threatening them with interference in their internal affairs and even regime change. If these countries did not create an enemy out of China by wanting to claim Chinese territories, China would be their friend to counter American hegemony in the region and to stand up for them when the Americans try to meddle with their internal affairs or even changing their govt.
The rise of China is a balancing force for the smaller and mid size countries to stop the Americans from bullying them and taking them for granted. It is a smaller power ganging up with other smaller countries to balance the might of a super power, not a super power balancing the power of a smaller rising power.
South East Asia must not become another Middle East with the Americans calling the shot and be deceived into endless warfare, to be taken down one by one by the Americans, divide and rule, remember?
Do the British need to bring in the Americans to balance against a rising China in Europe? Isn’t the British using China to balance against the power and dominance of the USA?
On the same page of the ST there was an article by Jean Pierre Lehmann on Britain and China relations and Jean wrote, ‘That was in the “good old times”, when it was “Great” Britain that ruled the waves and pretty much acted throughout the world as a bully – as all (no exception) “great” powers are prone to do – for example, the US in Iraq, Russia in Ukraine.’
Luhut better prayed that the USA would not turn Indonesia into another Iraq. And Lihut is best advised to read what Jean Pierre wrote about the idiot called Charles who ‘boycotted the opening Buckingham Palace banquet, apparently because of “Tibet”. This idiot Charles’ knowledge of history is as far as his nose, and Jean Pierre in his article chastised him for his snobbish royal ignorance of British misdeeds in China. Actually it wasn’t ignorance but a lack of intellect to grasp history, or maybe he had no time to read them.
Can Southeast Asian leaders think? Or they allowed the Americans to think for them, to shape their thinking of what is good or bad in the interests of the Americans?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> World Affairs All times are GMT + 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 2 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group. Hosted by Vodien Internet Solutions