The complication is the extant claims that both profess in being the legitimate government over the whole of China and Taiwan. But that is a diplomatic anomaly that is a holdover from the civil war, in much the same way as both North and South Korea claim to be the "true" Korea. Pick a side according to your ideology, but any semblance of real world practicality will tell you that they are separate and independent.
There is some controversy over how to resolve the issue, but fundamentally there is no need to resolve the issue, everyone is satisfied with the status quo and no one wants to see conflict. So you and George are just stirring up trouble with your propaganda and muddying of waters. Cut it out.
And you still haven't posted anything to back up your claims.
You failed history! China was one of four founding nations of UN and thus ROC is not RECOGNIZED by UN. And your biggest failure is failed to recognize US is the hand behind all the world affairs after WWII. I said Taiwan is not independent originated from this premise. Taiwan cannot be independent if it does not get support from US. This is the conclusion from the premise.
Can you read? That's exactly what I said. The ROC was recognised as China until the 1970s, and the PRC have been recognised as China since then. The very fact that the recognition shifted is indicative that the ROC and its lands are a different entity to the PRC and its lands.
The USA supports Israel too. And in the immediate aftermath of WW2 Europe was rebuilt with aid from the USA. And yet Israel and Europe are all independent of the USA. What you are saying doesn't even make any sense; Taiwan is not independent of China because it receives support from the USA?
Sort out your own story before you criticise mine.
You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council.
So I'm wrong because...?
France is not a founding nation. It was invited after the initial drafting.
Link please...
Read Wikipedia not China. ?
?
You are incoherent.
You should learn to find facts from Wikipedia.
You should unlearn that. Even Wikipedia will say they should not be used a source, they're a collator of sources.
It does not say how UN was formed. It is not relevant to the history of UN we are discussing. And ironically it said India signed in 1945. The fact is India was still ruled by Britain in 1945. Who signed for Indian people? Wikipedia has more factual information than it.
It says when it was founded and who it was founded by, and when each of those founders ratified its charter, which is all that legally matters. You argue that France was not a founding nation, the dates of signing and ratification say otherwise.
India has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, quit with the distraction tactics.
It is not a distraction. It means this web site is not trustable for history. Your short coming is not able to connect the dots with logic. You simply throw away the dots you don't like.
India was a signatory to the founding of the UN. It was not an independent country, but that has little bearing on the matter, it is independent now and has continued its membership and ratification of the charter. What are you even claiming here, that India isn't recognised by the UN? Ridiculous. This is all just another very transparent distraction from you because you still haven't provided any link to back up your earlier claims.
And if you post a Wikipedia link I will openly laugh at you. Actually, I'll probably do that anyway, you're a very funny moron.
I have used India as an example to show that UN has a vague idea of what a nation is. It is very laughable many UN nations were not able to protect the safety of its citizens. They depend UN troops to maintain their own safety. Yet UN RECOGNIZE them as nations. Note, my view is completely different from CCP. So you and TMay repeatedly accuse me of representing CCP is stupid.
I have no idea what this line of argument is meant to achieve, it is entirely irrelevant and yet another distraction. Not only are you trying to delegitimise Taiwan, you're now trying to delegitimise the UN, like a good little PRC pawn stirring the shit. I'm not having any of it. Post your link to where Taiwan sought US approval for their president or shut the fuck up.
[snipped, because the forum software is struggling]
Can you read? That's exactly what I said. The ROC was recognised as China until the 1970s, and the PRC have been recognised as China since then. The very fact that the recognition shifted is indicative that the ROC and its lands are a different entity to the PRC and its lands.
The USA supports Israel too. And in the immediate aftermath of WW2 Europe was rebuilt with aid from the USA. And yet Israel and Europe are all independent of the USA. What you are saying doesn't even make any sense; Taiwan is not independent of China because it receives support from the USA?
Sort out your own story before you criticise mine.
You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council.
So I'm wrong because...?
France is not a founding nation. It was invited after the initial drafting.
I'm wrong about the ROC representing China at the UN until the 1970s because France wasn't a founding nation?
Am I supposed to be taking you seriously, or is this some sort of slapstick routine?
You are wrong because you used the word recognition. Founding nation does not need recognition.
So the ROC is still on the UN Security Council? That'll be news to the UN Security Council. And what does that have to with France?
I have explained earlier why ROC did not use veto power to keep itself stay in UN.
Are you referring to this barely comprehensible nonsense:
You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council. It has veto power. It can veto general assembly resolution. It did not do so because it depends on US for its own security. You would not hear this story because US does not want others know it controls Taiwan.
You're going to need to run that through your PRC translator again because it doesn't make any sense.
Giving you the most generous reading I can, the ROC were not able to veto the resolution, the protocols of recognition of state representatives were not subject to a security council veto. It was given over to a general vote, which the USA voted against (and also did not veto, because they couldn't).
So you're wrong in just about every way that you can be wrong. Being generous.
Of course it makes sense. UN Security Council veto members can veto anything passed by the General Assembly. For example, the General Assembly had passed resolution against Israel overwhelmingly only to be vetoed by US.
Nope, the veto power is limited, and does not include procedural resolutions, which would include recognition of delegates.
The resolution against Israel was substantive, and not procedural.
Whether it is substantive or procedural is not relevant. The point is why US vetoed it.
The complication is the extant claims that both profess in being the legitimate government over the whole of China and Taiwan. But that is a diplomatic anomaly that is a holdover from the civil war, in much the same way as both North and South Korea claim to be the "true" Korea. Pick a side according to your ideology, but any semblance of real world practicality will tell you that they are separate and independent.
There is some controversy over how to resolve the issue, but fundamentally there is no need to resolve the issue, everyone is satisfied with the status quo and no one wants to see conflict. So you and George are just stirring up trouble with your propaganda and muddying of waters. Cut it out.
And you still haven't posted anything to back up your claims.
You failed history! China was one of four founding nations of UN and thus ROC is not RECOGNIZED by UN. And your biggest failure is failed to recognize US is the hand behind all the world affairs after WWII. I said Taiwan is not independent originated from this premise. Taiwan cannot be independent if it does not get support from US. This is the conclusion from the premise.
Can you read? That's exactly what I said. The ROC was recognised as China until the 1970s, and the PRC have been recognised as China since then. The very fact that the recognition shifted is indicative that the ROC and its lands are a different entity to the PRC and its lands.
The USA supports Israel too. And in the immediate aftermath of WW2 Europe was rebuilt with aid from the USA. And yet Israel and Europe are all independent of the USA. What you are saying doesn't even make any sense; Taiwan is not independent of China because it receives support from the USA?
Sort out your own story before you criticise mine.
You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council.
So I'm wrong because...?
France is not a founding nation. It was invited after the initial drafting.
Link please...
Read Wikipedia not China. ?
?
You are incoherent.
You should learn to find facts from Wikipedia.
You should unlearn that. Even Wikipedia will say they should not be used a source, they're a collator of sources.
It does not say how UN was formed. It is not relevant to the history of UN we are discussing. And ironically it said India signed in 1945. The fact is India was still ruled by Britain in 1945. Who signed for Indian people? Wikipedia has more factual information than it.
It says when it was founded and who it was founded by, and when each of those founders ratified its charter, which is all that legally matters. You argue that France was not a founding nation, the dates of signing and ratification say otherwise.
India has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, quit with the distraction tactics.
It is not a distraction. It means this web site is not trustable for history. Your short coming is not able to connect the dots with logic. You simply throw away the dots you don't like.
India was a signatory to the founding of the UN. It was not an independent country, but that has little bearing on the matter, it is independent now and has continued its membership and ratification of the charter. What are you even claiming here, that India isn't recognised by the UN? Ridiculous. This is all just another very transparent distraction from you because you still haven't provided any link to back up your earlier claims.
And if you post a Wikipedia link I will openly laugh at you. Actually, I'll probably do that anyway, you're a very funny moron.
I have used India as an example to show that UN has a vague idea of what a nation is. It is very laughable many UN nations were not able to protect the safety of its citizens. They depend UN troops to maintain their own safety. Yet UN RECOGNIZE them as nations. Note, my view is completely different from CCP. So you and TMay repeatedly accuse me of representing CCP is stupid.
I have no idea what this line of argument is meant to achieve, it is entirely irrelevant and yet another distraction. Not only are you trying to delegitimise Taiwan, you're now trying to delegitimise the UN, like a good little PRC pawn stirring the shit. I'm not having any of it. Post your link to where Taiwan sought US approval for their president or shut the fuck up.
It is relevant to your insistence that Taiwan is independent. You think this is well defined not to be challenged. In the real world, nothing is well defined. US occupied Afghanstan for nearly twenty years. In the end, it still needs to withdraw force from it. Nothing is forever!
[snipped, because the forum software is struggling]
Can you read? That's exactly what I said. The ROC was recognised as China until the 1970s, and the PRC have been recognised as China since then. The very fact that the recognition shifted is indicative that the ROC and its lands are a different entity to the PRC and its lands.
The USA supports Israel too. And in the immediate aftermath of WW2 Europe was rebuilt with aid from the USA. And yet Israel and Europe are all independent of the USA. What you are saying doesn't even make any sense; Taiwan is not independent of China because it receives support from the USA?
Sort out your own story before you criticise mine.
You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council.
So I'm wrong because...?
France is not a founding nation. It was invited after the initial drafting.
I'm wrong about the ROC representing China at the UN until the 1970s because France wasn't a founding nation?
Am I supposed to be taking you seriously, or is this some sort of slapstick routine?
You are wrong because you used the word recognition. Founding nation does not need recognition.
So the ROC is still on the UN Security Council? That'll be news to the UN Security Council. And what does that have to with France?
I have explained earlier why ROC did not use veto power to keep itself stay in UN.
Are you referring to this barely comprehensible nonsense:
You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council. It has veto power. It can veto general assembly resolution. It did not do so because it depends on US for its own security. You would not hear this story because US does not want others know it controls Taiwan.
You're going to need to run that through your PRC translator again because it doesn't make any sense.
Giving you the most generous reading I can, the ROC were not able to veto the resolution, the protocols of recognition of state representatives were not subject to a security council veto. It was given over to a general vote, which the USA voted against (and also did not veto, because they couldn't).
So you're wrong in just about every way that you can be wrong. Being generous.
Of course it makes sense. UN Security Council veto members can veto anything passed by the General Assembly. For example, the General Assembly had passed resolution against Israel overwhelmingly only to be vetoed by US.
Nope, the veto power is limited, and does not include procedural resolutions, which would include recognition of delegates.
The resolution against Israel was substantive, and not procedural.
Whether it is substantive or procedural is not relevant. The point is why US vetoed it.
No, the point of why the USA vetoed a resolution against Israel is categorically, unreservedly IRRELEVANT to a discussion about Taiwan and China. That's possibly the most brazen, shameless attempt at a distraction yet.
Fuck you, you absolute piece of PRC shit.
ROC can veto General Assembly resolution. You just hate to recognize it and using a hate word. I have seen articles in Taiwan that said ROC was advised by US not to veto it. Your fuck does not hurt me because I see you are fucking facts.
[snipped, because the forum software is struggling]
Can you read? That's exactly what I said. The ROC was recognised as China until the 1970s, and the PRC have been recognised as China since then. The very fact that the recognition shifted is indicative that the ROC and its lands are a different entity to the PRC and its lands.
The USA supports Israel too. And in the immediate aftermath of WW2 Europe was rebuilt with aid from the USA. And yet Israel and Europe are all independent of the USA. What you are saying doesn't even make any sense; Taiwan is not independent of China because it receives support from the USA?
Sort out your own story before you criticise mine.
You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council.
So I'm wrong because...?
France is not a founding nation. It was invited after the initial drafting.
I'm wrong about the ROC representing China at the UN until the 1970s because France wasn't a founding nation?
Am I supposed to be taking you seriously, or is this some sort of slapstick routine?
You are wrong because you used the word recognition. Founding nation does not need recognition.
So the ROC is still on the UN Security Council? That'll be news to the UN Security Council. And what does that have to with France?
I have explained earlier why ROC did not use veto power to keep itself stay in UN.
Are you referring to this barely comprehensible nonsense:
You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council. It has veto power. It can veto general assembly resolution. It did not do so because it depends on US for its own security. You would not hear this story because US does not want others know it controls Taiwan.
You're going to need to run that through your PRC translator again because it doesn't make any sense.
Giving you the most generous reading I can, the ROC were not able to veto the resolution, the protocols of recognition of state representatives were not subject to a security council veto. It was given over to a general vote, which the USA voted against (and also did not veto, because they couldn't).
So you're wrong in just about every way that you can be wrong. Being generous.
Of course it makes sense. UN Security Council veto members can veto anything passed by the General Assembly. For example, the General Assembly had passed resolution against Israel overwhelmingly only to be vetoed by US.
Nope, the veto power is limited, and does not include procedural resolutions, which would include recognition of delegates.
The resolution against Israel was substantive, and not procedural.
Whether it is substantive or procedural is not relevant. The point is why US vetoed it.
No, the point of why the USA vetoed a resolution against Israel is categorically, unreservedly IRRELEVANT to a discussion about Taiwan and China. That's possibly the most brazen, shameless attempt at a distraction yet.
Fuck you, you absolute piece of PRC shit.
ROC can veto General Assembly resolution. You just hate to recognize it and using a hate word. I have seen articles in Taiwan that said ROC was advised by US not to veto it. Your fuck does not hurt me because I see you are fucking facts.
There is no permanent security council veto over general assembly votes, and of security council votes they do not get veto over procedural issues. I don't care what articles you think you've seen, article 27 of the UN charter is the only one that counts: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text ;
Article 27
Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.
Article 27 stipulates that the concurring votes of the permanent members are required for the adoption of substantive decisions. Accordingly, when voting on procedural matters, a negative vote cast by a permanent member does not invalidate a decision, the decision stands if it secured nine affirmative votes. (Conversely, Article 27 of the Charter, by requiring the concurring votes of all permanent members for a non-procedural decision to be adopted, establishes the veto system.)
Not sure how China can "give up" Taiwan when they exhibit no control over it at all.
Thank you! It's pointless trying to reason with dunces. They're consuming from the CCP trough and nothing will convince them otherwise. Not wasting my time any further.
It's called the trough of reality. The only group who sees it your way are the China Haters. The rest of the world sees Taiwan as an autonomous region of China. Not even the U.S. government (even under Trump) considers Taiwan an independent country.
We have tried your nation building under the "Democracy, Freedom and Independence" mantra how many times now? And how many times did it work? And how many times did thousands of Americans die before we gave up? And you want to do that again? As the saying goes: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results"
I don’t think the term “nation building” means what you think it means. Without even getting into the merits or dangers of getting involved in helping Taiwan assert its independence, whatever unholy mess that conflict would be, one thing it wouldn’t be is “nation building.”
The only thing Taiwan lacks in being a “nation” is full international diplomatic recognition. Taiwan does not need anyone to come in to help them create political structure and government organizations, or to create a police or military force, or to build infrastructure, or create schools, or any of the things involved in “nation building.”
If, in some fantasy scenario, the PRC dropped their claims on Taiwan this morning, Taiwan would be a “nation” by tea time, with no “nation building” needed.
LOL... So, i don;t understand what "nation building" means?
What you guys are attempting to do is the epitome of nation building: Create a nation where none previously existed (despite your delusions that Taiwan has always been an independent nation).
And, it rests on the notion that the U.S. is able to dictate to the rest of the world how it will act, behave and think.
We should have learned that we are neither the saviors of the world as well as the limitations of our power and resources long ago. We just got slapped in the face with that reality -- again -- but some people are slow learners.
How many Americans should die trying (in vain) to "liberate" Taiwan? How many are you willing to sacrifice?
Or, are you just plan to continue the tough-guy talk until China has had enough of it and moves in -- and then walk away from yet another people who trusted us to defend them? You know, like the Kurds or the Afghans.
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
There is no plan to spend American lives in liberating Taiwan, Taiwan doesn't need to be liberated! It already is independent. No one is creating a nation out of Taiwan because Taiwan is already a nation in just about every way that counts apart from formal recognition, and very few people are saying that there's any need for that to change.
The only one creating any ruckus here is you.
Do you really understand the English word independent? Can Taiwan defend by itself?
Why does Taiwan need to defend itself? It has a bigger army relative to population than lots of other independent nations around the world, so it can defend itself better than most, all other things being equal.
Every time before Taiwan holds a presidential equation, the government will send a delegation to US to hold talks with US officials. If it is really independent, why does it need US approval of the candidate?
You really need to post a reliable source for that. Mr. PRC.
I'll wait...
Can you read Chinese?
Can you?
Of course you can.
Sounds as if you don't have a reliable source...
He's posting to straight propaganda to increase his bounty from the CCP bosses. .50C per post isn't a lot!
My source is from Taiwanese news media. George is right! You are afraid of facts.
Maybe we can all rest a bit easier then, because if the PRC are willing to throw money away on this kind of half-assed crappy trolling then they're not nearly as smart as we've all been lead to believe.
Nonsense! Why do you think my facts are so important?
It is very difficult to find because Taiwan does not want this kind of news to be widely known. So it is a lone news. But I will keep searching.
Don't waste your time.
Even after you post the article, it will not change a thing
I fail to see how you can say this for certain given that you've never posted a link to back up anything you've said ever. Proof is anathema in the PRC-club.
You did not provide any link. And TMay only provided links from western propaganda and are not trustable.
The complication is the extant claims that both profess in being the legitimate government over the whole of China and Taiwan. But that is a diplomatic anomaly that is a holdover from the civil war, in much the same way as both North and South Korea claim to be the "true" Korea. Pick a side according to your ideology, but any semblance of real world practicality will tell you that they are separate and independent.
There is some controversy over how to resolve the issue, but fundamentally there is no need to resolve the issue, everyone is satisfied with the status quo and no one wants to see conflict. So you and George are just stirring up trouble with your propaganda and muddying of waters. Cut it out.
And you still haven't posted anything to back up your claims.
You failed history! China was one of four founding nations of UN and thus ROC is not RECOGNIZED by UN. And your biggest failure is failed to recognize US is the hand behind all the world affairs after WWII. I said Taiwan is not independent originated from this premise. Taiwan cannot be independent if it does not get support from US. This is the conclusion from the premise.
...
Even today, the U.S. is the leader of the free world simply because it has the military to sustain the rules of order, albeit it relies on its allies to accomplish that mission.
...
You sure about that?
We tried in Vietnam: 53,000 dead and we lost -- plus untold thousands of Vietnamese
We tried in Iraq: 4,000 dead and we lost -- plus hundreds of thousands of Iraqis
We tried in Afghanistan: 6,000 dead and we lost -- plus hundreds of thousands of Afghans
Our military couldn't even defend our own capitol!
WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER WAR!
So, you don't recognize the the U.S. Navy and our allies have been providing freedom of navigation, while keeping the world's trade routes safe since the end of WWII? That's the basis of global trade. Yeah, that's rules of order at work.
Factually, neither our National Guard, or Military was involved in protecting the Capitol, until they were requested after the breach.
Investigations are imminent, to determine whether the Capitol Police were undermanned and unprepared for the threat posed by two days of rallies against the results of the 2020 election, but the answer as to why troops posted blocks away were unable to respond to the siege is as simple ― or as complicated ― as a morass of bureaucracy.
Simply put, the National Guard only shows up to D.C. when they’ve been invited, and the Capitol Police did not extend that invitation until after the breach, according to a source with knowledge of the process, who was not authorized to speak about it on the record.
The several hundred troops posted around downtown D.C. on Wednesday were there at the request of Mayor Muriel Bowser, to support local police.
“We had worked out that the support we were providing the [Metropolitan] Police Department would be on traffic control points,” the source said, including downtown subway stations and select blocks, where teams of two Guardsmen and several vehicles were keeping the streets clear of cars.
Bowser put in a request for support Dec. 31, Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy told reporters on Thursday.
The Defense Department was in contact with Capital Police ahead of Tuesday and Wednesday’s protests, Kenneth Rapuano, the assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, told reporters during a press call on Thursday. They asserted that they would not be requesting National Guard support, he said.
You need to get your story straight.
Sorry, but those 60,000+ dead American soldiers (mentioned above) want to know why you want more to die in an unwinnable war?
And, if you didn't notice militias planned an attack on our capitol in public and executed that attack while our military sat a few miles away with their thumb up their ass while police tried to fend off the attack -- and the military then later cried "How were we to know?". Could we count that as the 4th war they lost against a ragtag bunch of militias? But go ahead - wave your flag and chant "U S A !" while you try to incite a war with China.
How about Korea, an actual war that pitted proxies of the U.S. and its allies, under the U.N., and China with North Korea?
Surely you would be happy for South Koreans today.
As for the Military and Jan 6, I already posted what occurred. Perhaps you need to cool off a bit.
With regard to Taiwan, maybe it would be best if you told China just to leave things as it is; status quo. But of course, China is sovereign, so nobody gets to tell them what to do.
What happened was the military completely, absolutely failed on January 6th. It was a failure of both intelligence (even though the invasion was planned publicly) and of execution as police pleaded for help as those militias attacked them. Yes, the military did eventually show up -- but only after the fighting was over.
But,you are correct: our military failed in Korea as well as Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
And, yes, status quo -- with Taiwan as an autonomous region of China -- is where China wants them. But you want to incite another war that we would almost certainly lose with the same cry that got us into those other wars: "Freedom, Democracy".
The complication is the extant claims that both profess in being the legitimate government over the whole of China and Taiwan. But that is a diplomatic anomaly that is a holdover from the civil war, in much the same way as both North and South Korea claim to be the "true" Korea. Pick a side according to your ideology, but any semblance of real world practicality will tell you that they are separate and independent.
There is some controversy over how to resolve the issue, but fundamentally there is no need to resolve the issue, everyone is satisfied with the status quo and no one wants to see conflict. So you and George are just stirring up trouble with your propaganda and muddying of waters. Cut it out.
And you still haven't posted anything to back up your claims.
You failed history! China was one of four founding nations of UN and thus ROC is not RECOGNIZED by UN. And your biggest failure is failed to recognize US is the hand behind all the world affairs after WWII. I said Taiwan is not independent originated from this premise. Taiwan cannot be independent if it does not get support from US. This is the conclusion from the premise.
Can you read? That's exactly what I said. The ROC was recognised as China until the 1970s, and the PRC have been recognised as China since then. The very fact that the recognition shifted is indicative that the ROC and its lands are a different entity to the PRC and its lands.
The USA supports Israel too. And in the immediate aftermath of WW2 Europe was rebuilt with aid from the USA. And yet Israel and Europe are all independent of the USA. What you are saying doesn't even make any sense; Taiwan is not independent of China because it receives support from the USA?
Sort out your own story before you criticise mine.
You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council.
So I'm wrong because...?
France is not a founding nation. It was invited after the initial drafting.
Link please...
Read Wikipedia not China. ?
?
You are incoherent.
You should learn to find facts from Wikipedia.
You should unlearn that. Even Wikipedia will say they should not be used a source, they're a collator of sources.
It does not say how UN was formed. It is not relevant to the history of UN we are discussing. And ironically it said India signed in 1945. The fact is India was still ruled by Britain in 1945. Who signed for Indian people? Wikipedia has more factual information than it.
It says when it was founded and who it was founded by, and when each of those founders ratified its charter, which is all that legally matters. You argue that France was not a founding nation, the dates of signing and ratification say otherwise.
India has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, quit with the distraction tactics.
It is not a distraction. It means this web site is not trustable for history. Your short coming is not able to connect the dots with logic. You simply throw away the dots you don't like.
That's exactly how American propaganda works -- it was perfected by FauxNews and is now being used by others -- such as these two: To them, the only facts that matter or exist are those that support their ideology or agenda. To them, right and wrong, true and false have no meaning. Pursuit of their agenda is all that matters.
But I love the way you put that: while connecting the dots, they simply throw away the dots they don't like.
It's a very persuasive form of lying -- because they seldom, if ever, just lie directly. Instead, they lie by cherry picking facts to manipulate the truth to be whatever they want it to be. It sucks in a lot of suckers.
[snipped, because the forum software is struggling]
Can you read? That's exactly what I said. The ROC was recognised as China until the 1970s, and the PRC have been recognised as China since then. The very fact that the recognition shifted is indicative that the ROC and its lands are a different entity to the PRC and its lands.
The USA supports Israel too. And in the immediate aftermath of WW2 Europe was rebuilt with aid from the USA. And yet Israel and Europe are all independent of the USA. What you are saying doesn't even make any sense; Taiwan is not independent of China because it receives support from the USA?
Sort out your own story before you criticise mine.
You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council.
So I'm wrong because...?
France is not a founding nation. It was invited after the initial drafting.
I'm wrong about the ROC representing China at the UN until the 1970s because France wasn't a founding nation?
Am I supposed to be taking you seriously, or is this some sort of slapstick routine?
You are wrong because you used the word recognition. Founding nation does not need recognition.
So the ROC is still on the UN Security Council? That'll be news to the UN Security Council. And what does that have to with France?
I have explained earlier why ROC did not use veto power to keep itself stay in UN.
Are you referring to this barely comprehensible nonsense:
You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council. It has veto power. It can veto general assembly resolution. It did not do so because it depends on US for its own security. You would not hear this story because US does not want others know it controls Taiwan.
You're going to need to run that through your PRC translator again because it doesn't make any sense.
Giving you the most generous reading I can, the ROC were not able to veto the resolution, the protocols of recognition of state representatives were not subject to a security council veto. It was given over to a general vote, which the USA voted against (and also did not veto, because they couldn't).
So you're wrong in just about every way that you can be wrong. Being generous.
Of course it makes sense. UN Security Council veto members can veto anything passed by the General Assembly. For example, the General Assembly had passed resolution against Israel overwhelmingly only to be vetoed by US.
Nope, the veto power is limited, and does not include procedural resolutions, which would include recognition of delegates.
The resolution against Israel was substantive, and not procedural.
Whether it is substantive or procedural is not relevant. The point is why US vetoed it.
No, the point of why the USA vetoed a resolution against Israel is categorically, unreservedly IRRELEVANT to a discussion about Taiwan and China. That's possibly the most brazen, shameless attempt at a distraction yet.
Fuck you, you absolute piece of PRC shit.
ROC can veto General Assembly resolution. You just hate to recognize it and using a hate word. I have seen articles in Taiwan that said ROC was advised by US not to veto it. Your fuck does not hurt me because I see you are fucking facts.
There is no permanent security council veto over general assembly votes, and of security council votes they do not get veto over procedural issues. I don't care what articles you think you've seen, article 27 of the UN charter is the only one that counts: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text ;
Article 27
Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.
Article 27 stipulates that the concurring votes of the permanent members are required for the adoption of substantive decisions. Accordingly, when voting on procedural matters, a negative vote cast by a permanent member does not invalidate a decision, the decision stands if it secured nine affirmative votes. (Conversely, Article 27 of the Charter, by requiring the concurring votes of all permanent members for a non-procedural decision to be adopted, establishes the veto system.)
I AM fucking facts
I think he meant you're fucking fart. But, before you attack him for THAT, remember you are the one throwing out the swear words and insults to all those not mired in your delusional thinking.
That I am fucking fart makes no more sense than I am fucking facts. Your incoherence is almost on a level with your buddy.
What delusional thinking? I'm literally quoting the UN time and time again and I'm talking about the actual verifiable event in 1971 where the UN voted to change the delegation from China from the ROC to the PRC. Tell me a single verifiable fact that you've contributed to the discussion and cite a fucking source for once.
And NO ONE is calling for war. No one is even talking about war apart from you. Disingenuous bullshit and Trump whining, that's all you bring to the table.
Not sure how China can "give up" Taiwan when they exhibit no control over it at all.
Thank you! It's pointless trying to reason with dunces. They're consuming from the CCP trough and nothing will convince them otherwise. Not wasting my time any further.
It's called the trough of reality. The only group who sees it your way are the China Haters. The rest of the world sees Taiwan as an autonomous region of China. Not even the U.S. government (even under Trump) considers Taiwan an independent country.
We have tried your nation building under the "Democracy, Freedom and Independence" mantra how many times now? And how many times did it work? And how many times did thousands of Americans die before we gave up? And you want to do that again? As the saying goes: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results"
I don’t think the term “nation building” means what you think it means. Without even getting into the merits or dangers of getting involved in helping Taiwan assert its independence, whatever unholy mess that conflict would be, one thing it wouldn’t be is “nation building.”
The only thing Taiwan lacks in being a “nation” is full international diplomatic recognition. Taiwan does not need anyone to come in to help them create political structure and government organizations, or to create a police or military force, or to build infrastructure, or create schools, or any of the things involved in “nation building.”
If, in some fantasy scenario, the PRC dropped their claims on Taiwan this morning, Taiwan would be a “nation” by tea time, with no “nation building” needed.
LOL... So, i don;t understand what "nation building" means?
What you guys are attempting to do is the epitome of nation building: Create a nation where none previously existed (despite your delusions that Taiwan has always been an independent nation).
And, it rests on the notion that the U.S. is able to dictate to the rest of the world how it will act, behave and think.
We should have learned that we are neither the saviors of the world as well as the limitations of our power and resources long ago. We just got slapped in the face with that reality -- again -- but some people are slow learners.
How many Americans should die trying (in vain) to "liberate" Taiwan? How many are you willing to sacrifice?
Or, are you just plan to continue the tough-guy talk until China has had enough of it and moves in -- and then walk away from yet another people who trusted us to defend them? You know, like the Kurds or the Afghans.
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
There is no plan to spend American lives in liberating Taiwan, Taiwan doesn't need to be liberated! It already is independent. No one is creating a nation out of Taiwan because Taiwan is already a nation in just about every way that counts apart from formal recognition, and very few people are saying that there's any need for that to change.
The only one creating any ruckus here is you.
Do you really understand the English word independent? Can Taiwan defend by itself?
Why does Taiwan need to defend itself? It has a bigger army relative to population than lots of other independent nations around the world, so it can defend itself better than most, all other things being equal.
Every time before Taiwan holds a presidential equation, the government will send a delegation to US to hold talks with US officials. If it is really independent, why does it need US approval of the candidate?
You really need to post a reliable source for that. Mr. PRC.
I'll wait...
Can you read Chinese?
Can you?
Of course you can.
Sounds as if you don't have a reliable source...
He's posting to straight propaganda to increase his bounty from the CCP bosses. .50C per post isn't a lot!
My source is from Taiwanese news media. George is right! You are afraid of facts.
Maybe we can all rest a bit easier then, because if the PRC are willing to throw money away on this kind of half-assed crappy trolling then they're not nearly as smart as we've all been lead to believe.
Nonsense! Why do you think my facts are so important?
It is very difficult to find because Taiwan does not want this kind of news to be widely known. So it is a lone news. But I will keep searching.
Don't waste your time.
Even after you post the article, it will not change a thing
I fail to see how you can say this for certain given that you've never posted a link to back up anything you've said ever. Proof is anathema in the PRC-club.
You did not provide any link. And TMay only provided links from western propaganda and are not trustable.
The complication is the extant claims that both profess in being the legitimate government over the whole of China and Taiwan. But that is a diplomatic anomaly that is a holdover from the civil war, in much the same way as both North and South Korea claim to be the "true" Korea. Pick a side according to your ideology, but any semblance of real world practicality will tell you that they are separate and independent.
There is some controversy over how to resolve the issue, but fundamentally there is no need to resolve the issue, everyone is satisfied with the status quo and no one wants to see conflict. So you and George are just stirring up trouble with your propaganda and muddying of waters. Cut it out.
And you still haven't posted anything to back up your claims.
You failed history! China was one of four founding nations of UN and thus ROC is not RECOGNIZED by UN. And your biggest failure is failed to recognize US is the hand behind all the world affairs after WWII. I said Taiwan is not independent originated from this premise. Taiwan cannot be independent if it does not get support from US. This is the conclusion from the premise.
...
Even today, the U.S. is the leader of the free world simply because it has the military to sustain the rules of order, albeit it relies on its allies to accomplish that mission.
...
You sure about that?
We tried in Vietnam: 53,000 dead and we lost -- plus untold thousands of Vietnamese
We tried in Iraq: 4,000 dead and we lost -- plus hundreds of thousands of Iraqis
We tried in Afghanistan: 6,000 dead and we lost -- plus hundreds of thousands of Afghans
Our military couldn't even defend our own capitol!
WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER WAR!
So, you don't recognize the the U.S. Navy and our allies have been providing freedom of navigation, while keeping the world's trade routes safe since the end of WWII? That's the basis of global trade. Yeah, that's rules of order at work.
Factually, neither our National Guard, or Military was involved in protecting the Capitol, until they were requested after the breach.
Investigations are imminent, to determine whether the Capitol Police were undermanned and unprepared for the threat posed by two days of rallies against the results of the 2020 election, but the answer as to why troops posted blocks away were unable to respond to the siege is as simple ― or as complicated ― as a morass of bureaucracy.
Simply put, the National Guard only shows up to D.C. when they’ve been invited, and the Capitol Police did not extend that invitation until after the breach, according to a source with knowledge of the process, who was not authorized to speak about it on the record.
The several hundred troops posted around downtown D.C. on Wednesday were there at the request of Mayor Muriel Bowser, to support local police.
“We had worked out that the support we were providing the [Metropolitan] Police Department would be on traffic control points,” the source said, including downtown subway stations and select blocks, where teams of two Guardsmen and several vehicles were keeping the streets clear of cars.
Bowser put in a request for support Dec. 31, Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy told reporters on Thursday.
The Defense Department was in contact with Capital Police ahead of Tuesday and Wednesday’s protests, Kenneth Rapuano, the assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, told reporters during a press call on Thursday. They asserted that they would not be requesting National Guard support, he said.
You need to get your story straight.
Sorry, but those 60,000+ dead American soldiers (mentioned above) want to know why you want more to die in an unwinnable war?
And, if you didn't notice militias planned an attack on our capitol in public and executed that attack while our military sat a few miles away with their thumb up their ass while police tried to fend off the attack -- and the military then later cried "How were we to know?". Could we count that as the 4th war they lost against a ragtag bunch of militias? But go ahead - wave your flag and chant "U S A !" while you try to incite a war with China.
How about Korea, an actual war that pitted proxies of the U.S. and its allies, under the U.N., and China with North Korea?
Surely you would be happy for South Koreans today.
As for the Military and Jan 6, I already posted what occurred. Perhaps you need to cool off a bit.
With regard to Taiwan, maybe it would be best if you told China just to leave things as it is; status quo. But of course, China is sovereign, so nobody gets to tell them what to do.
What happened was the military completely, absolutely failed on January 6th. It was a failure of both intelligence (even though the invasion was planned publicly) and of execution as police pleaded for help as those militias attacked them. Yes, the military did eventually show up -- but only after the fighting was over.
But,you are correct: our military failed in Korea as well as Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
And, yes, status quo -- with Taiwan as an autonomous region of China -- is where China wants them. But you want to incite another war that we would almost certainly lose with the same cry that got us into those other wars: "Freedom, Democracy".
LOL!
You keep getting the U.S. mixed up with authoritarian countries, like China, where the leader controls the civilian government, the military, and the party.
It took more than three hours for former President Donald Trump's Defense Department to approve a request for the D.C. National Guard to intervene in the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, the commanding general of the outfit told senators on Wednesday.
Maj. Gen. William Walker testified that he had National Guard troops at the ready and sitting idly for hours before he was finally given authorization to send them into the field. Walker said that the delay was caused at least in part over concerns of the optics of sending uniformed troops to the scene.
His testimony to the Senate Homeland Security and Rules committees comes as Congress holds a series of hearings about security preparations for and the response to the violence at the Capitol this year.
The timeline
"At 1:49 p.m., I received a frantic call from then-chief of U.S. Capitol Police, Steven Sund, where he informed me that the security perimeter at the Capitol had been breached by hostile rioters," Walker testified.
"Chief Sund, his voice cracking with emotion, indicated that there was a dire emergency on Capitol Hill and requested the immediate assistance of as many guardsmen as I could muster."
Walker said he "immediately" alerted Army senior leadership of the request. He was not informed of the required approval from then-acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller until 5:08 p.m., he said — "3 hours and 19 minutes later."
"We already had guardsmen on buses ready to move to the Capitol. Consequently, at 5:20 p.m. (in under 20 minutes), the District of Columbia National Guard arrived at the Capitol. We helped to reestablish the security perimeter at the east side of the Capitol to facilitate the resumption of the joint session of Congress," he said.
Walker said he had taken it upon himself to move the National Guard members closer to the Capitol in anticipation of the approval to mobilize. He said about 155 members were ready hours earlier, and he said their assistance "could have made a difference" in pushing back the crowd.
The Army major general testified that the day before the insurrection, he received a letter with an "unusual" restriction on deploying any quick-reaction force service members unless granted explicit approval by then-Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy.
"I found that requirement to be unusual, as was the requirement to seek approval to move guardsmen supporting the Metropolitan Police Department to move from one traffic control point to another," Walker said.
"They didn't like the optics"
Walker said that Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt and Lt. Gen. Charles Flynn were concerned about the optics of sending the National Guard to the scene of the uprising. Hetold the senators that there were concerns that the presence of uniformed troops might "inflame" the protesters.
He said Piatt and Flynn relayed to him: "It wouldn't be their best military advice to send uniformed guardsmen to the Capitol because they didn't like the optics. And they had also said that it could 'inflame' [the protesters]."
Robert Salesses, a Defense Department official who also testified on Wednesday, said that "events in the spring" contributed to concerns about National Guard presence. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., later clarified that Salesses was referring to civil unrest over the spring and summer of 2020, which was a response to police violence against Black Americans.
In June 2020, the National Guard came under particular scrutiny for its handling of peaceful protesters as then-President Trump walked to a nearby church that had been damaged during earlier protests, some of which were violent.
You're so low information at this point, that I expect that your talking points come directly from Xi Jinping himself.
Pretty sure that the Korean War was massively more successful for the South, than the North, and do you really want to back a country whose main claim to military fame, is failing twice in invading Taiwan, invasion of Vietnam in 1979, and only success at conquering Tibet?
In one of the many war cemeteries in Lang Son, a city in northern Vietnam, Pham Thi Ky and her family light incense and offer prayers for her brother-in-law, who died 36 years ago in Vietnam's brief but bloody border war with China.
That 1979 war left more than 50,000 dead. There are other graves here, too. They fought and died against the French occupiers, then the Americans. But relative to China, those were brief battles.
No country weighs on Vietnam like China, and it has been that way for centuries. Has the conflict with China ever really ended, I ask Pham Thi Ky as she lights another candle.
"No," she says. Her daughter agrees. Her sister is even more emphatic. "It will never end. With the Chinese, how can it ever end?"
Vietnam's 2,000 year history with its northern neighbor is complex. There have been countless conflicts as well as shared culture. The Temple of Literature in Hanoi is a good example. It was built by the Vietnamese King Ly Thánh Tông in 1070 to honor the Chinese philosopher Confucius. The teachings on the walls are written in Chinese characters. China is also Vietnam's largest trading partner.
And why exactly did China invade Vietnam?
At least 200,000 Chinese troops poured into northern Vietnam all along the border. China was aiming to punish Vietnam for its invasion of Cambodia the month before to oust the Chinese-backed Khmer Rouge. There were so many Chinese attacking, Nguyen Duy Thuc remembers, that the soldiers in his bunker "fired our AK-47s until the muzzles turned red and they couldn't fire anymore."
Oh yeah, it was because China supported the Khmer Rouge, just like they support the Myanmar Junta;
[snipped, because the forum software is struggling]
Can you read? That's exactly what I said. The ROC was recognised as China until the 1970s, and the PRC have been recognised as China since then. The very fact that the recognition shifted is indicative that the ROC and its lands are a different entity to the PRC and its lands.
The USA supports Israel too. And in the immediate aftermath of WW2 Europe was rebuilt with aid from the USA. And yet Israel and Europe are all independent of the USA. What you are saying doesn't even make any sense; Taiwan is not independent of China because it receives support from the USA?
Sort out your own story before you criticise mine.
You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council.
So I'm wrong because...?
France is not a founding nation. It was invited after the initial drafting.
I'm wrong about the ROC representing China at the UN until the 1970s because France wasn't a founding nation?
Am I supposed to be taking you seriously, or is this some sort of slapstick routine?
You are wrong because you used the word recognition. Founding nation does not need recognition.
So the ROC is still on the UN Security Council? That'll be news to the UN Security Council. And what does that have to with France?
I have explained earlier why ROC did not use veto power to keep itself stay in UN.
Are you referring to this barely comprehensible nonsense:
You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council. It has veto power. It can veto general assembly resolution. It did not do so because it depends on US for its own security. You would not hear this story because US does not want others know it controls Taiwan.
You're going to need to run that through your PRC translator again because it doesn't make any sense.
Giving you the most generous reading I can, the ROC were not able to veto the resolution, the protocols of recognition of state representatives were not subject to a security council veto. It was given over to a general vote, which the USA voted against (and also did not veto, because they couldn't).
So you're wrong in just about every way that you can be wrong. Being generous.
Of course it makes sense. UN Security Council veto members can veto anything passed by the General Assembly. For example, the General Assembly had passed resolution against Israel overwhelmingly only to be vetoed by US.
Nope, the veto power is limited, and does not include procedural resolutions, which would include recognition of delegates.
The resolution against Israel was substantive, and not procedural.
Whether it is substantive or procedural is not relevant. The point is why US vetoed it.
No, the point of why the USA vetoed a resolution against Israel is categorically, unreservedly IRRELEVANT to a discussion about Taiwan and China. That's possibly the most brazen, shameless attempt at a distraction yet.
Fuck you, you absolute piece of PRC shit.
ROC can veto General Assembly resolution. You just hate to recognize it and using a hate word. I have seen articles in Taiwan that said ROC was advised by US not to veto it. Your fuck does not hurt me because I see you are fucking facts.
There is no permanent security council veto over general assembly votes, and of security council votes they do not get veto over procedural issues. I don't care what articles you think you've seen, article 27 of the UN charter is the only one that counts: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text ;
Article 27
Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.
Article 27 stipulates that the concurring votes of the permanent members are required for the adoption of substantive decisions. Accordingly, when voting on procedural matters, a negative vote cast by a permanent member does not invalidate a decision, the decision stands if it secured nine affirmative votes. (Conversely, Article 27 of the Charter, by requiring the concurring votes of all permanent members for a non-procedural decision to be adopted, establishes the veto system.)
I AM fucking facts
I think he meant you're fucking fart. But, before you attack him for THAT, remember you are the one throwing out the swear words and insults to all those not mired in your delusional thinking.
That I am fucking fart makes no more sense than I am fucking facts. Your incoherence is almost on a level with your buddy.
What delusional thinking? I'm literally quoting the UN time and time again and I'm talking about the actual verifiable event in 1971 where the UN voted to change the delegation from China from the ROC to the PRC. Tell me a single verifiable fact that you've contributed to the discussion and cite a fucking source for once.
And NO ONE is calling for war. No one is even talking about war apart from you. Disingenuous bullshit and Trump whining, that's all you bring to the table.
I guess those delusions have completely clouded your thinking.
And, we didn't call for war in Iraq either. We were liberating a nation -- nation building -- just like you're advocating for Taiwan. But, 600,000 died. How many do you plan to kill liberating Taiwan? How many deaths will it be worth to you?
Not sure how China can "give up" Taiwan when they exhibit no control over it at all.
Thank you! It's pointless trying to reason with dunces. They're consuming from the CCP trough and nothing will convince them otherwise. Not wasting my time any further.
It's called the trough of reality. The only group who sees it your way are the China Haters. The rest of the world sees Taiwan as an autonomous region of China. Not even the U.S. government (even under Trump) considers Taiwan an independent country.
We have tried your nation building under the "Democracy, Freedom and Independence" mantra how many times now? And how many times did it work? And how many times did thousands of Americans die before we gave up? And you want to do that again? As the saying goes: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results"
I don’t think the term “nation building” means what you think it means. Without even getting into the merits or dangers of getting involved in helping Taiwan assert its independence, whatever unholy mess that conflict would be, one thing it wouldn’t be is “nation building.”
The only thing Taiwan lacks in being a “nation” is full international diplomatic recognition. Taiwan does not need anyone to come in to help them create political structure and government organizations, or to create a police or military force, or to build infrastructure, or create schools, or any of the things involved in “nation building.”
If, in some fantasy scenario, the PRC dropped their claims on Taiwan this morning, Taiwan would be a “nation” by tea time, with no “nation building” needed.
LOL... So, i don;t understand what "nation building" means?
What you guys are attempting to do is the epitome of nation building: Create a nation where none previously existed (despite your delusions that Taiwan has always been an independent nation).
And, it rests on the notion that the U.S. is able to dictate to the rest of the world how it will act, behave and think.
We should have learned that we are neither the saviors of the world as well as the limitations of our power and resources long ago. We just got slapped in the face with that reality -- again -- but some people are slow learners.
How many Americans should die trying (in vain) to "liberate" Taiwan? How many are you willing to sacrifice?
Or, are you just plan to continue the tough-guy talk until China has had enough of it and moves in -- and then walk away from yet another people who trusted us to defend them? You know, like the Kurds or the Afghans.
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
There is no plan to spend American lives in liberating Taiwan, Taiwan doesn't need to be liberated! It already is independent. No one is creating a nation out of Taiwan because Taiwan is already a nation in just about every way that counts apart from formal recognition, and very few people are saying that there's any need for that to change.
The only one creating any ruckus here is you.
Do you really understand the English word independent? Can Taiwan defend by itself?
Why does Taiwan need to defend itself? It has a bigger army relative to population than lots of other independent nations around the world, so it can defend itself better than most, all other things being equal.
Every time before Taiwan holds a presidential equation, the government will send a delegation to US to hold talks with US officials. If it is really independent, why does it need US approval of the candidate?
You really need to post a reliable source for that. Mr. PRC.
I'll wait...
Can you read Chinese?
Can you?
Of course you can.
Sounds as if you don't have a reliable source...
He's posting to straight propaganda to increase his bounty from the CCP bosses. .50C per post isn't a lot!
My source is from Taiwanese news media. George is right! You are afraid of facts.
Maybe we can all rest a bit easier then, because if the PRC are willing to throw money away on this kind of half-assed crappy trolling then they're not nearly as smart as we've all been lead to believe.
Nonsense! Why do you think my facts are so important?
It is very difficult to find because Taiwan does not want this kind of news to be widely known. So it is a lone news. But I will keep searching.
Don't waste your time.
Even after you post the article, it will not change a thing
I fail to see how you can say this for certain given that you've never posted a link to back up anything you've said ever. Proof is anathema in the PRC-club.
You did not provide any link. And TMay only provided links from western propaganda and are not trustable.
The complication is the extant claims that both profess in being the legitimate government over the whole of China and Taiwan. But that is a diplomatic anomaly that is a holdover from the civil war, in much the same way as both North and South Korea claim to be the "true" Korea. Pick a side according to your ideology, but any semblance of real world practicality will tell you that they are separate and independent.
There is some controversy over how to resolve the issue, but fundamentally there is no need to resolve the issue, everyone is satisfied with the status quo and no one wants to see conflict. So you and George are just stirring up trouble with your propaganda and muddying of waters. Cut it out.
And you still haven't posted anything to back up your claims.
You failed history! China was one of four founding nations of UN and thus ROC is not RECOGNIZED by UN. And your biggest failure is failed to recognize US is the hand behind all the world affairs after WWII. I said Taiwan is not independent originated from this premise. Taiwan cannot be independent if it does not get support from US. This is the conclusion from the premise.
...
Even today, the U.S. is the leader of the free world simply because it has the military to sustain the rules of order, albeit it relies on its allies to accomplish that mission.
...
You sure about that?
We tried in Vietnam: 53,000 dead and we lost -- plus untold thousands of Vietnamese
We tried in Iraq: 4,000 dead and we lost -- plus hundreds of thousands of Iraqis
We tried in Afghanistan: 6,000 dead and we lost -- plus hundreds of thousands of Afghans
Our military couldn't even defend our own capitol!
WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER WAR!
So, you don't recognize the the U.S. Navy and our allies have been providing freedom of navigation, while keeping the world's trade routes safe since the end of WWII? That's the basis of global trade. Yeah, that's rules of order at work.
Factually, neither our National Guard, or Military was involved in protecting the Capitol, until they were requested after the breach.
Investigations are imminent, to determine whether the Capitol Police were undermanned and unprepared for the threat posed by two days of rallies against the results of the 2020 election, but the answer as to why troops posted blocks away were unable to respond to the siege is as simple ― or as complicated ― as a morass of bureaucracy.
Simply put, the National Guard only shows up to D.C. when they’ve been invited, and the Capitol Police did not extend that invitation until after the breach, according to a source with knowledge of the process, who was not authorized to speak about it on the record.
The several hundred troops posted around downtown D.C. on Wednesday were there at the request of Mayor Muriel Bowser, to support local police.
“We had worked out that the support we were providing the [Metropolitan] Police Department would be on traffic control points,” the source said, including downtown subway stations and select blocks, where teams of two Guardsmen and several vehicles were keeping the streets clear of cars.
Bowser put in a request for support Dec. 31, Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy told reporters on Thursday.
The Defense Department was in contact with Capital Police ahead of Tuesday and Wednesday’s protests, Kenneth Rapuano, the assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, told reporters during a press call on Thursday. They asserted that they would not be requesting National Guard support, he said.
You need to get your story straight.
Sorry, but those 60,000+ dead American soldiers (mentioned above) want to know why you want more to die in an unwinnable war?
And, if you didn't notice militias planned an attack on our capitol in public and executed that attack while our military sat a few miles away with their thumb up their ass while police tried to fend off the attack -- and the military then later cried "How were we to know?". Could we count that as the 4th war they lost against a ragtag bunch of militias? But go ahead - wave your flag and chant "U S A !" while you try to incite a war with China.
How about Korea, an actual war that pitted proxies of the U.S. and its allies, under the U.N., and China with North Korea?
Surely you would be happy for South Koreans today.
As for the Military and Jan 6, I already posted what occurred. Perhaps you need to cool off a bit.
With regard to Taiwan, maybe it would be best if you told China just to leave things as it is; status quo. But of course, China is sovereign, so nobody gets to tell them what to do.
What happened was the military completely, absolutely failed on January 6th. It was a failure of both intelligence (even though the invasion was planned publicly) and of execution as police pleaded for help as those militias attacked them. Yes, the military did eventually show up -- but only after the fighting was over.
But,you are correct: our military failed in Korea as well as Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
And, yes, status quo -- with Taiwan as an autonomous region of China -- is where China wants them. But you want to incite another war that we would almost certainly lose with the same cry that got us into those other wars: "Freedom, Democracy".
LOL!
You keep getting the U.S. mixed up with authoritarian countries, like China, where the leader controls the civilian government, the military, and the party.
It took more than three hours for former President Donald Trump's Defense Department to approve a request for the D.C. National Guard to intervene in the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, the commanding general of the outfit told senators on Wednesday.
Maj. Gen. William Walker testified that he had National Guard troops at the ready and sitting idly for hours before he was finally given authorization to send them into the field. Walker said that the delay was caused at least in part over concerns of the optics of sending uniformed troops to the scene.
His testimony to the Senate Homeland Security and Rules committees comes as Congress holds a series of hearings about security preparations for and the response to the violence at the Capitol this year.
The timeline
"At 1:49 p.m., I received a frantic call from then-chief of U.S. Capitol Police, Steven Sund, where he informed me that the security perimeter at the Capitol had been breached by hostile rioters," Walker testified.
"Chief Sund, his voice cracking with emotion, indicated that there was a dire emergency on Capitol Hill and requested the immediate assistance of as many guardsmen as I could muster."
Walker said he "immediately" alerted Army senior leadership of the request. He was not informed of the required approval from then-acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller until 5:08 p.m., he said — "3 hours and 19 minutes later."
"We already had guardsmen on buses ready to move to the Capitol. Consequently, at 5:20 p.m. (in under 20 minutes), the District of Columbia National Guard arrived at the Capitol. We helped to reestablish the security perimeter at the east side of the Capitol to facilitate the resumption of the joint session of Congress," he said.
Walker said he had taken it upon himself to move the National Guard members closer to the Capitol in anticipation of the approval to mobilize. He said about 155 members were ready hours earlier, and he said their assistance "could have made a difference" in pushing back the crowd.
The Army major general testified that the day before the insurrection, he received a letter with an "unusual" restriction on deploying any quick-reaction force service members unless granted explicit approval by then-Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy.
"I found that requirement to be unusual, as was the requirement to seek approval to move guardsmen supporting the Metropolitan Police Department to move from one traffic control point to another," Walker said.
"They didn't like the optics"
Walker said that Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt and Lt. Gen. Charles Flynn were concerned about the optics of sending the National Guard to the scene of the uprising. Hetold the senators that there were concerns that the presence of uniformed troops might "inflame" the protesters.
He said Piatt and Flynn relayed to him: "It wouldn't be their best military advice to send uniformed guardsmen to the Capitol because they didn't like the optics. And they had also said that it could 'inflame' [the protesters]."
Robert Salesses, a Defense Department official who also testified on Wednesday, said that "events in the spring" contributed to concerns about National Guard presence. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., later clarified that Salesses was referring to civil unrest over the spring and summer of 2020, which was a response to police violence against Black Americans.
In June 2020, the National Guard came under particular scrutiny for its handling of peaceful protesters as then-President Trump walked to a nearby church that had been damaged during earlier protests, some of which were violent.
You're so low information at this point, that I expect that your talking points come directly from Xi Jinping himself.
Pretty sure that the Korean War was massively more successful for the South, than the North, and do you really want to back a country whose main claim to military fame, is failing twice in invading Taiwan, invasion of Vietnam in 1979, and only success at conquering Tibet?
In one of the many war cemeteries in Lang Son, a city in northern Vietnam, Pham Thi Ky and her family light incense and offer prayers for her brother-in-law, who died 36 years ago in Vietnam's brief but bloody border war with China.
That 1979 war left more than 50,000 dead. There are other graves here, too. They fought and died against the French occupiers, then the Americans. But relative to China, those were brief battles.
No country weighs on Vietnam like China, and it has been that way for centuries. Has the conflict with China ever really ended, I ask Pham Thi Ky as she lights another candle.
"No," she says. Her daughter agrees. Her sister is even more emphatic. "It will never end. With the Chinese, how can it ever end?"
Vietnam's 2,000 year history with its northern neighbor is complex. There have been countless conflicts as well as shared culture. The Temple of Literature in Hanoi is a good example. It was built by the Vietnamese King Ly Thánh Tông in 1070 to honor the Chinese philosopher Confucius. The teachings on the walls are written in Chinese characters. China is also Vietnam's largest trading partner.
And why exactly did China invade Vietnam?
At least 200,000 Chinese troops poured into northern Vietnam all along the border. China was aiming to punish Vietnam for its invasion of Cambodia the month before to oust the Chinese-backed Khmer Rouge. There were so many Chinese attacking, Nguyen Duy Thuc remembers, that the soldiers in his bunker "fired our AK-47s until the muzzles turned red and they couldn't fire anymore."
Oh yeah, it was because China supported the Khmer Rouge, just like they support the Myanmar Junta;
A relationship decades in the making is now in jeopardy.
The PRC, the douchebags of the world...
Now would be a good time to stick your head back in the sand...
So you are defending a military who failed to see an attack on our Capitol that was planned in broad daylight on social media -- and then sat on their thumbs while out numbered police were beaten to a pulp trying to protect our Capitol and our law makers from the militias looking to hang our vice president.
(In their defense though, they did show up -- after the fighting was over!)
And you call ME delusional?
That's hilarious!
Go ahead, send them over to defend Taiwan when we declare it an independent vassal of the U.S. See if that turns out any differently.
(And, by the way, did you not know that the President is the Commander in Chief of the military?)
[snipped, because the forum software is struggling]
Can you read? That's exactly what I said. The ROC was recognised as China until the 1970s, and the PRC have been recognised as China since then. The very fact that the recognition shifted is indicative that the ROC and its lands are a different entity to the PRC and its lands.
The USA supports Israel too. And in the immediate aftermath of WW2 Europe was rebuilt with aid from the USA. And yet Israel and Europe are all independent of the USA. What you are saying doesn't even make any sense; Taiwan is not independent of China because it receives support from the USA?
Sort out your own story before you criticise mine.
You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council.
So I'm wrong because...?
France is not a founding nation. It was invited after the initial drafting.
I'm wrong about the ROC representing China at the UN until the 1970s because France wasn't a founding nation?
Am I supposed to be taking you seriously, or is this some sort of slapstick routine?
You are wrong because you used the word recognition. Founding nation does not need recognition.
So the ROC is still on the UN Security Council? That'll be news to the UN Security Council. And what does that have to with France?
I have explained earlier why ROC did not use veto power to keep itself stay in UN.
Are you referring to this barely comprehensible nonsense:
You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council. It has veto power. It can veto general assembly resolution. It did not do so because it depends on US for its own security. You would not hear this story because US does not want others know it controls Taiwan.
You're going to need to run that through your PRC translator again because it doesn't make any sense.
Giving you the most generous reading I can, the ROC were not able to veto the resolution, the protocols of recognition of state representatives were not subject to a security council veto. It was given over to a general vote, which the USA voted against (and also did not veto, because they couldn't).
So you're wrong in just about every way that you can be wrong. Being generous.
Of course it makes sense. UN Security Council veto members can veto anything passed by the General Assembly. For example, the General Assembly had passed resolution against Israel overwhelmingly only to be vetoed by US.
Nope, the veto power is limited, and does not include procedural resolutions, which would include recognition of delegates.
The resolution against Israel was substantive, and not procedural.
Whether it is substantive or procedural is not relevant. The point is why US vetoed it.
No, the point of why the USA vetoed a resolution against Israel is categorically, unreservedly IRRELEVANT to a discussion about Taiwan and China. That's possibly the most brazen, shameless attempt at a distraction yet.
Fuck you, you absolute piece of PRC shit.
ROC can veto General Assembly resolution. You just hate to recognize it and using a hate word. I have seen articles in Taiwan that said ROC was advised by US not to veto it. Your fuck does not hurt me because I see you are fucking facts.
There is no permanent security council veto over general assembly votes, and of security council votes they do not get veto over procedural issues. I don't care what articles you think you've seen, article 27 of the UN charter is the only one that counts: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text ;
Article 27
Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.
Article 27 stipulates that the concurring votes of the permanent members are required for the adoption of substantive decisions. Accordingly, when voting on procedural matters, a negative vote cast by a permanent member does not invalidate a decision, the decision stands if it secured nine affirmative votes. (Conversely, Article 27 of the Charter, by requiring the concurring votes of all permanent members for a non-procedural decision to be adopted, establishes the veto system.)
I AM fucking facts
I think he meant you're fucking fart. But, before you attack him for THAT, remember you are the one throwing out the swear words and insults to all those not mired in your delusional thinking.
That I am fucking fart makes no more sense than I am fucking facts. Your incoherence is almost on a level with your buddy.
What delusional thinking? I'm literally quoting the UN time and time again and I'm talking about the actual verifiable event in 1971 where the UN voted to change the delegation from China from the ROC to the PRC. Tell me a single verifiable fact that you've contributed to the discussion and cite a fucking source for once.
And NO ONE is calling for war. No one is even talking about war apart from you. Disingenuous bullshit and Trump whining, that's all you bring to the table.
I guess those delusions have completely clouded your thinking.
And, we didn't call for war in Iraq either. We were liberating a nation -- nation building -- just like you're advocating for Taiwan. But, 600,000 died. How many do you plan to kill liberating Taiwan? How many deaths will it be worth to you?
Complete lies. I am not advocating nation building in Taiwan, or the loss of any life. Taiwan is already a nation, is already built, and doesn't need liberating. That will be clear to anyone reading this thread. Either you're too stupid to understand, or you're deliberately misunderstanding. Either way, enough effort has been spent on you.
[snipped, because the forum software is struggling]
Can you read? That's exactly what I said. The ROC was recognised as China until the 1970s, and the PRC have been recognised as China since then. The very fact that the recognition shifted is indicative that the ROC and its lands are a different entity to the PRC and its lands.
The USA supports Israel too. And in the immediate aftermath of WW2 Europe was rebuilt with aid from the USA. And yet Israel and Europe are all independent of the USA. What you are saying doesn't even make any sense; Taiwan is not independent of China because it receives support from the USA?
Sort out your own story before you criticise mine.
You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council.
So I'm wrong because...?
France is not a founding nation. It was invited after the initial drafting.
I'm wrong about the ROC representing China at the UN until the 1970s because France wasn't a founding nation?
Am I supposed to be taking you seriously, or is this some sort of slapstick routine?
You are wrong because you used the word recognition. Founding nation does not need recognition.
So the ROC is still on the UN Security Council? That'll be news to the UN Security Council. And what does that have to with France?
I have explained earlier why ROC did not use veto power to keep itself stay in UN.
Are you referring to this barely comprehensible nonsense:
You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council. It has veto power. It can veto general assembly resolution. It did not do so because it depends on US for its own security. You would not hear this story because US does not want others know it controls Taiwan.
You're going to need to run that through your PRC translator again because it doesn't make any sense.
Giving you the most generous reading I can, the ROC were not able to veto the resolution, the protocols of recognition of state representatives were not subject to a security council veto. It was given over to a general vote, which the USA voted against (and also did not veto, because they couldn't).
So you're wrong in just about every way that you can be wrong. Being generous.
Of course it makes sense. UN Security Council veto members can veto anything passed by the General Assembly. For example, the General Assembly had passed resolution against Israel overwhelmingly only to be vetoed by US.
Nope, the veto power is limited, and does not include procedural resolutions, which would include recognition of delegates.
The resolution against Israel was substantive, and not procedural.
Whether it is substantive or procedural is not relevant. The point is why US vetoed it.
No, the point of why the USA vetoed a resolution against Israel is categorically, unreservedly IRRELEVANT to a discussion about Taiwan and China. That's possibly the most brazen, shameless attempt at a distraction yet.
Fuck you, you absolute piece of PRC shit.
ROC can veto General Assembly resolution. You just hate to recognize it and using a hate word. I have seen articles in Taiwan that said ROC was advised by US not to veto it. Your fuck does not hurt me because I see you are fucking facts.
There is no permanent security council veto over general assembly votes, and of security council votes they do not get veto over procedural issues. I don't care what articles you think you've seen, article 27 of the UN charter is the only one that counts: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text ;
Article 27
Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.
Article 27 stipulates that the concurring votes of the permanent members are required for the adoption of substantive decisions. Accordingly, when voting on procedural matters, a negative vote cast by a permanent member does not invalidate a decision, the decision stands if it secured nine affirmative votes. (Conversely, Article 27 of the Charter, by requiring the concurring votes of all permanent members for a non-procedural decision to be adopted, establishes the veto system.)
I AM fucking facts
I think he meant you're fucking fart. But, before you attack him for THAT, remember you are the one throwing out the swear words and insults to all those not mired in your delusional thinking.
That I am fucking fart makes no more sense than I am fucking facts. Your incoherence is almost on a level with your buddy.
What delusional thinking? I'm literally quoting the UN time and time again and I'm talking about the actual verifiable event in 1971 where the UN voted to change the delegation from China from the ROC to the PRC. Tell me a single verifiable fact that you've contributed to the discussion and cite a fucking source for once.
And NO ONE is calling for war. No one is even talking about war apart from you. Disingenuous bullshit and Trump whining, that's all you bring to the table.
I guess those delusions have completely clouded your thinking.
And, we didn't call for war in Iraq either. We were liberating a nation -- nation building -- just like you're advocating for Taiwan. But, 600,000 died. How many do you plan to kill liberating Taiwan? How many deaths will it be worth to you?
Complete lies. I am not advocating nation building in Taiwan, or the loss of any life. Taiwan is already a nation, is already built, and doesn't need liberating. That will be clear to anyone reading this thread. Either you're too stupid to understand, or you're deliberately misunderstanding. Either way, enough effort has been spent on you.
LOL...
So, if I claim that the world is flat, does that make it "clear to anybody reading this thread?" And I can "prove" it (using the same type of false arguments you use): go to the ocean and look out over the horizon -- you can actually see the edge where it drops off -- and its not curved, it's a straight, flat line! See? isn't that "clear to anybody reading this thread?" that the world is flat?
Sorry, reality doesn't change to fit your agenda no matter how much you wish it were so. This ain't no fairy tale.
LOL!
George being George; that's his superpower, just like the Energizer Bunny.
[snipped, because the forum software is struggling]
Can you read? That's exactly what I said. The ROC was recognised as China until the 1970s, and the PRC have been recognised as China since then. The very fact that the recognition shifted is indicative that the ROC and its lands are a different entity to the PRC and its lands.
The USA supports Israel too. And in the immediate aftermath of WW2 Europe was rebuilt with aid from the USA. And yet Israel and Europe are all independent of the USA. What you are saying doesn't even make any sense; Taiwan is not independent of China because it receives support from the USA?
Sort out your own story before you criticise mine.
You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council.
So I'm wrong because...?
France is not a founding nation. It was invited after the initial drafting.
I'm wrong about the ROC representing China at the UN until the 1970s because France wasn't a founding nation?
Am I supposed to be taking you seriously, or is this some sort of slapstick routine?
You are wrong because you used the word recognition. Founding nation does not need recognition.
So the ROC is still on the UN Security Council? That'll be news to the UN Security Council. And what does that have to with France?
I have explained earlier why ROC did not use veto power to keep itself stay in UN.
Are you referring to this barely comprehensible nonsense:
You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council. It has veto power. It can veto general assembly resolution. It did not do so because it depends on US for its own security. You would not hear this story because US does not want others know it controls Taiwan.
You're going to need to run that through your PRC translator again because it doesn't make any sense.
Giving you the most generous reading I can, the ROC were not able to veto the resolution, the protocols of recognition of state representatives were not subject to a security council veto. It was given over to a general vote, which the USA voted against (and also did not veto, because they couldn't).
So you're wrong in just about every way that you can be wrong. Being generous.
Of course it makes sense. UN Security Council veto members can veto anything passed by the General Assembly. For example, the General Assembly had passed resolution against Israel overwhelmingly only to be vetoed by US.
Nope, the veto power is limited, and does not include procedural resolutions, which would include recognition of delegates.
The resolution against Israel was substantive, and not procedural.
Whether it is substantive or procedural is not relevant. The point is why US vetoed it.
No, the point of why the USA vetoed a resolution against Israel is categorically, unreservedly IRRELEVANT to a discussion about Taiwan and China. That's possibly the most brazen, shameless attempt at a distraction yet.
Fuck you, you absolute piece of PRC shit.
ROC can veto General Assembly resolution. You just hate to recognize it and using a hate word. I have seen articles in Taiwan that said ROC was advised by US not to veto it. Your fuck does not hurt me because I see you are fucking facts.
There is no permanent security council veto over general assembly votes, and of security council votes they do not get veto over procedural issues. I don't care what articles you think you've seen, article 27 of the UN charter is the only one that counts: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text ;
Article 27
Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.
Article 27 stipulates that the concurring votes of the permanent members are required for the adoption of substantive decisions. Accordingly, when voting on procedural matters, a negative vote cast by a permanent member does not invalidate a decision, the decision stands if it secured nine affirmative votes. (Conversely, Article 27 of the Charter, by requiring the concurring votes of all permanent members for a non-procedural decision to be adopted, establishes the veto system.)
I AM fucking facts
I think he meant you're fucking fart. But, before you attack him for THAT, remember you are the one throwing out the swear words and insults to all those not mired in your delusional thinking.
That I am fucking fart makes no more sense than I am fucking facts. Your incoherence is almost on a level with your buddy.
What delusional thinking? I'm literally quoting the UN time and time again and I'm talking about the actual verifiable event in 1971 where the UN voted to change the delegation from China from the ROC to the PRC. Tell me a single verifiable fact that you've contributed to the discussion and cite a fucking source for once.
And NO ONE is calling for war. No one is even talking about war apart from you. Disingenuous bullshit and Trump whining, that's all you bring to the table.
I guess those delusions have completely clouded your thinking.
And, we didn't call for war in Iraq either. We were liberating a nation -- nation building -- just like you're advocating for Taiwan. But, 600,000 died. How many do you plan to kill liberating Taiwan? How many deaths will it be worth to you?
Complete lies. I am not advocating nation building in Taiwan, or the loss of any life. Taiwan is already a nation, is already built, and doesn't need liberating. That will be clear to anyone reading this thread. Either you're too stupid to understand, or you're deliberately misunderstanding. Either way, enough effort has been spent on you.
LOL...
So, if I claim that the world is flat, does that make it "clear to anybody reading this thread?" And I can "prove" it (using the same type of false arguments you use): go to the ocean and look out over the horizon -- you can actually see the edge where it drops off -- and its not curved, it's a straight, flat line! See? isn't that "clear to anybody reading this thread?" that the world is flat?
Sorry, reality doesn't change to fit your agenda no matter how much you wish it were so. This ain't no fairy tale.
LOL!
George being George; that's his superpower, just like the Energizer Bunny.
My super power is reality. You should try it.
I live reality every day. The reality is that the PRC is a threat to democracy, and yet here you are, carrying water for Xi Jinping, yet again.
I had you figured out when you were arguing that Trump instigated the rioting in Hong Kong, which is absolutely false, and now you double down on the PRC sovereignty over Taiwan because you are afraid of provoking the PRC.
Then you doubled down yet again by ignoring the PRC human rights violations, because you don't believe the Western Press.
I have no use for people like you, and your pal Mr. PRC.
Not sure how China can "give up" Taiwan when they exhibit no control over it at all.
Thank you! It's pointless trying to reason with dunces. They're consuming from the CCP trough and nothing will convince them otherwise. Not wasting my time any further.
It's called the trough of reality. The only group who sees it your way are the China Haters. The rest of the world sees Taiwan as an autonomous region of China. Not even the U.S. government (even under Trump) considers Taiwan an independent country.
We have tried your nation building under the "Democracy, Freedom and Independence" mantra how many times now? And how many times did it work? And how many times did thousands of Americans die before we gave up? And you want to do that again? As the saying goes: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results"
I don’t think the term “nation building” means what you think it means. Without even getting into the merits or dangers of getting involved in helping Taiwan assert its independence, whatever unholy mess that conflict would be, one thing it wouldn’t be is “nation building.”
The only thing Taiwan lacks in being a “nation” is full international diplomatic recognition. Taiwan does not need anyone to come in to help them create political structure and government organizations, or to create a police or military force, or to build infrastructure, or create schools, or any of the things involved in “nation building.”
If, in some fantasy scenario, the PRC dropped their claims on Taiwan this morning, Taiwan would be a “nation” by tea time, with no “nation building” needed.
LOL... So, i don;t understand what "nation building" means?
What you guys are attempting to do is the epitome of nation building: Create a nation where none previously existed (despite your delusions that Taiwan has always been an independent nation).
And, it rests on the notion that the U.S. is able to dictate to the rest of the world how it will act, behave and think.
We should have learned that we are neither the saviors of the world as well as the limitations of our power and resources long ago. We just got slapped in the face with that reality -- again -- but some people are slow learners.
How many Americans should die trying (in vain) to "liberate" Taiwan? How many are you willing to sacrifice?
Or, are you just plan to continue the tough-guy talk until China has had enough of it and moves in -- and then walk away from yet another people who trusted us to defend them? You know, like the Kurds or the Afghans.
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
There is no plan to spend American lives in liberating Taiwan, Taiwan doesn't need to be liberated! It already is independent. No one is creating a nation out of Taiwan because Taiwan is already a nation in just about every way that counts apart from formal recognition, and very few people are saying that there's any need for that to change.
The only one creating any ruckus here is you.
Do you really understand the English word independent? Can Taiwan defend by itself?
Why does Taiwan need to defend itself? It has a bigger army relative to population than lots of other independent nations around the world, so it can defend itself better than most, all other things being equal.
Every time before Taiwan holds a presidential equation, the government will send a delegation to US to hold talks with US officials. If it is really independent, why does it need US approval of the candidate?
You really need to post a reliable source for that. Mr. PRC.
I'll wait...
Can you read Chinese?
Can you?
Of course you can.
Sounds as if you don't have a reliable source...
He's posting to straight propaganda to increase his bounty from the CCP bosses. .50C per post isn't a lot!
My source is from Taiwanese news media. George is right! You are afraid of facts.
Maybe we can all rest a bit easier then, because if the PRC are willing to throw money away on this kind of half-assed crappy trolling then they're not nearly as smart as we've all been lead to believe.
Nonsense! Why do you think my facts are so important?
It is very difficult to find because Taiwan does not want this kind of news to be widely known. So it is a lone news. But I will keep searching.
Don't waste your time.
Even after you post the article, it will not change a thing
I fail to see how you can say this for certain given that you've never posted a link to back up anything you've said ever. Proof is anathema in the PRC-club.
You did not provide any link. And TMay only provided links from western propaganda and are not trustable.
The complication is the extant claims that both profess in being the legitimate government over the whole of China and Taiwan. But that is a diplomatic anomaly that is a holdover from the civil war, in much the same way as both North and South Korea claim to be the "true" Korea. Pick a side according to your ideology, but any semblance of real world practicality will tell you that they are separate and independent.
There is some controversy over how to resolve the issue, but fundamentally there is no need to resolve the issue, everyone is satisfied with the status quo and no one wants to see conflict. So you and George are just stirring up trouble with your propaganda and muddying of waters. Cut it out.
And you still haven't posted anything to back up your claims.
You failed history! China was one of four founding nations of UN and thus ROC is not RECOGNIZED by UN. And your biggest failure is failed to recognize US is the hand behind all the world affairs after WWII. I said Taiwan is not independent originated from this premise. Taiwan cannot be independent if it does not get support from US. This is the conclusion from the premise.
...
Even today, the U.S. is the leader of the free world simply because it has the military to sustain the rules of order, albeit it relies on its allies to accomplish that mission.
...
You sure about that?
We tried in Vietnam: 53,000 dead and we lost -- plus untold thousands of Vietnamese
We tried in Iraq: 4,000 dead and we lost -- plus hundreds of thousands of Iraqis
We tried in Afghanistan: 6,000 dead and we lost -- plus hundreds of thousands of Afghans
Our military couldn't even defend our own capitol!
WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER WAR!
So, you don't recognize the the U.S. Navy and our allies have been providing freedom of navigation, while keeping the world's trade routes safe since the end of WWII? That's the basis of global trade. Yeah, that's rules of order at work.
Factually, neither our National Guard, or Military was involved in protecting the Capitol, until they were requested after the breach.
Investigations are imminent, to determine whether the Capitol Police were undermanned and unprepared for the threat posed by two days of rallies against the results of the 2020 election, but the answer as to why troops posted blocks away were unable to respond to the siege is as simple ― or as complicated ― as a morass of bureaucracy.
Simply put, the National Guard only shows up to D.C. when they’ve been invited, and the Capitol Police did not extend that invitation until after the breach, according to a source with knowledge of the process, who was not authorized to speak about it on the record.
The several hundred troops posted around downtown D.C. on Wednesday were there at the request of Mayor Muriel Bowser, to support local police.
“We had worked out that the support we were providing the [Metropolitan] Police Department would be on traffic control points,” the source said, including downtown subway stations and select blocks, where teams of two Guardsmen and several vehicles were keeping the streets clear of cars.
Bowser put in a request for support Dec. 31, Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy told reporters on Thursday.
The Defense Department was in contact with Capital Police ahead of Tuesday and Wednesday’s protests, Kenneth Rapuano, the assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, told reporters during a press call on Thursday. They asserted that they would not be requesting National Guard support, he said.
You need to get your story straight.
Sorry, but those 60,000+ dead American soldiers (mentioned above) want to know why you want more to die in an unwinnable war?
And, if you didn't notice militias planned an attack on our capitol in public and executed that attack while our military sat a few miles away with their thumb up their ass while police tried to fend off the attack -- and the military then later cried "How were we to know?". Could we count that as the 4th war they lost against a ragtag bunch of militias? But go ahead - wave your flag and chant "U S A !" while you try to incite a war with China.
How about Korea, an actual war that pitted proxies of the U.S. and its allies, under the U.N., and China with North Korea?
Surely you would be happy for South Koreans today.
As for the Military and Jan 6, I already posted what occurred. Perhaps you need to cool off a bit.
With regard to Taiwan, maybe it would be best if you told China just to leave things as it is; status quo. But of course, China is sovereign, so nobody gets to tell them what to do.
What happened was the military completely, absolutely failed on January 6th. It was a failure of both intelligence (even though the invasion was planned publicly) and of execution as police pleaded for help as those militias attacked them. Yes, the military did eventually show up -- but only after the fighting was over.
But,you are correct: our military failed in Korea as well as Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
And, yes, status quo -- with Taiwan as an autonomous region of China -- is where China wants them. But you want to incite another war that we would almost certainly lose with the same cry that got us into those other wars: "Freedom, Democracy".
LOL!
You keep getting the U.S. mixed up with authoritarian countries, like China, where the leader controls the civilian government, the military, and the party.
It took more than three hours for former President Donald Trump's Defense Department to approve a request for the D.C. National Guard to intervene in the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, the commanding general of the outfit told senators on Wednesday.
Maj. Gen. William Walker testified that he had National Guard troops at the ready and sitting idly for hours before he was finally given authorization to send them into the field. Walker said that the delay was caused at least in part over concerns of the optics of sending uniformed troops to the scene.
His testimony to the Senate Homeland Security and Rules committees comes as Congress holds a series of hearings about security preparations for and the response to the violence at the Capitol this year.
The timeline
"At 1:49 p.m., I received a frantic call from then-chief of U.S. Capitol Police, Steven Sund, where he informed me that the security perimeter at the Capitol had been breached by hostile rioters," Walker testified.
"Chief Sund, his voice cracking with emotion, indicated that there was a dire emergency on Capitol Hill and requested the immediate assistance of as many guardsmen as I could muster."
Walker said he "immediately" alerted Army senior leadership of the request. He was not informed of the required approval from then-acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller until 5:08 p.m., he said — "3 hours and 19 minutes later."
"We already had guardsmen on buses ready to move to the Capitol. Consequently, at 5:20 p.m. (in under 20 minutes), the District of Columbia National Guard arrived at the Capitol. We helped to reestablish the security perimeter at the east side of the Capitol to facilitate the resumption of the joint session of Congress," he said.
Walker said he had taken it upon himself to move the National Guard members closer to the Capitol in anticipation of the approval to mobilize. He said about 155 members were ready hours earlier, and he said their assistance "could have made a difference" in pushing back the crowd.
The Army major general testified that the day before the insurrection, he received a letter with an "unusual" restriction on deploying any quick-reaction force service members unless granted explicit approval by then-Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy.
"I found that requirement to be unusual, as was the requirement to seek approval to move guardsmen supporting the Metropolitan Police Department to move from one traffic control point to another," Walker said.
"They didn't like the optics"
Walker said that Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt and Lt. Gen. Charles Flynn were concerned about the optics of sending the National Guard to the scene of the uprising. Hetold the senators that there were concerns that the presence of uniformed troops might "inflame" the protesters.
He said Piatt and Flynn relayed to him: "It wouldn't be their best military advice to send uniformed guardsmen to the Capitol because they didn't like the optics. And they had also said that it could 'inflame' [the protesters]."
Robert Salesses, a Defense Department official who also testified on Wednesday, said that "events in the spring" contributed to concerns about National Guard presence. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., later clarified that Salesses was referring to civil unrest over the spring and summer of 2020, which was a response to police violence against Black Americans.
In June 2020, the National Guard came under particular scrutiny for its handling of peaceful protesters as then-President Trump walked to a nearby church that had been damaged during earlier protests, some of which were violent.
You're so low information at this point, that I expect that your talking points come directly from Xi Jinping himself.
Pretty sure that the Korean War was massively more successful for the South, than the North, and do you really want to back a country whose main claim to military fame, is failing twice in invading Taiwan, invasion of Vietnam in 1979, and only success at conquering Tibet?
In one of the many war cemeteries in Lang Son, a city in northern Vietnam, Pham Thi Ky and her family light incense and offer prayers for her brother-in-law, who died 36 years ago in Vietnam's brief but bloody border war with China.
That 1979 war left more than 50,000 dead. There are other graves here, too. They fought and died against the French occupiers, then the Americans. But relative to China, those were brief battles.
No country weighs on Vietnam like China, and it has been that way for centuries. Has the conflict with China ever really ended, I ask Pham Thi Ky as she lights another candle.
"No," she says. Her daughter agrees. Her sister is even more emphatic. "It will never end. With the Chinese, how can it ever end?"
Vietnam's 2,000 year history with its northern neighbor is complex. There have been countless conflicts as well as shared culture. The Temple of Literature in Hanoi is a good example. It was built by the Vietnamese King Ly Thánh Tông in 1070 to honor the Chinese philosopher Confucius. The teachings on the walls are written in Chinese characters. China is also Vietnam's largest trading partner.
And why exactly did China invade Vietnam?
At least 200,000 Chinese troops poured into northern Vietnam all along the border. China was aiming to punish Vietnam for its invasion of Cambodia the month before to oust the Chinese-backed Khmer Rouge. There were so many Chinese attacking, Nguyen Duy Thuc remembers, that the soldiers in his bunker "fired our AK-47s until the muzzles turned red and they couldn't fire anymore."
Oh yeah, it was because China supported the Khmer Rouge, just like they support the Myanmar Junta;
A relationship decades in the making is now in jeopardy.
The PRC, the douchebags of the world...
Now would be a good time to stick your head back in the sand...
So you are defending a military who failed to see an attack on our Capitol that was planned in broad daylight on social media -- and then sat on their thumbs while out numbered police were beaten to a pulp trying to protect our Capitol and our law makers from the militias looking to hang our vice president.
(In their defense though, they did show up -- after the fighting was over!)
And you call ME delusional?
That's hilarious!
Go ahead, send them over to defend Taiwan when we declare it an independent vassal of the U.S. See if that turns out any differently.
(And, by the way, did you not know that the President is the Commander in Chief of the military?)
Yeah, I did know that about the President;
The U.S. Congress in relation to the president and Supreme Court has the role of chief legislative body of the United States. However, the Founding Fathers of the United States built a system in which three powerful branches of the government, using a series of checks and balances, could limit each other's power.
Not seeing that with the PRC, at all, but you're the expert on China, right? Maybe you can explain to me how the PRC is so wonderful.
[snipped, because the forum software is struggling]
Can you read? That's exactly what I said. The ROC was recognised as China until the 1970s, and the PRC have been recognised as China since then. The very fact that the recognition shifted is indicative that the ROC and its lands are a different entity to the PRC and its lands.
The USA supports Israel too. And in the immediate aftermath of WW2 Europe was rebuilt with aid from the USA. And yet Israel and Europe are all independent of the USA. What you are saying doesn't even make any sense; Taiwan is not independent of China because it receives support from the USA?
Sort out your own story before you criticise mine.
You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council.
So I'm wrong because...?
France is not a founding nation. It was invited after the initial drafting.
I'm wrong about the ROC representing China at the UN until the 1970s because France wasn't a founding nation?
Am I supposed to be taking you seriously, or is this some sort of slapstick routine?
You are wrong because you used the word recognition. Founding nation does not need recognition.
So the ROC is still on the UN Security Council? That'll be news to the UN Security Council. And what does that have to with France?
I have explained earlier why ROC did not use veto power to keep itself stay in UN.
Are you referring to this barely comprehensible nonsense:
You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council. It has veto power. It can veto general assembly resolution. It did not do so because it depends on US for its own security. You would not hear this story because US does not want others know it controls Taiwan.
You're going to need to run that through your PRC translator again because it doesn't make any sense.
Giving you the most generous reading I can, the ROC were not able to veto the resolution, the protocols of recognition of state representatives were not subject to a security council veto. It was given over to a general vote, which the USA voted against (and also did not veto, because they couldn't).
So you're wrong in just about every way that you can be wrong. Being generous.
Of course it makes sense. UN Security Council veto members can veto anything passed by the General Assembly. For example, the General Assembly had passed resolution against Israel overwhelmingly only to be vetoed by US.
Nope, the veto power is limited, and does not include procedural resolutions, which would include recognition of delegates.
The resolution against Israel was substantive, and not procedural.
Whether it is substantive or procedural is not relevant. The point is why US vetoed it.
No, the point of why the USA vetoed a resolution against Israel is categorically, unreservedly IRRELEVANT to a discussion about Taiwan and China. That's possibly the most brazen, shameless attempt at a distraction yet.
Fuck you, you absolute piece of PRC shit.
ROC can veto General Assembly resolution. You just hate to recognize it and using a hate word. I have seen articles in Taiwan that said ROC was advised by US not to veto it. Your fuck does not hurt me because I see you are fucking facts.
There is no permanent security council veto over general assembly votes, and of security council votes they do not get veto over procedural issues. I don't care what articles you think you've seen, article 27 of the UN charter is the only one that counts: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text ;
Article 27
Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.
Article 27 stipulates that the concurring votes of the permanent members are required for the adoption of substantive decisions. Accordingly, when voting on procedural matters, a negative vote cast by a permanent member does not invalidate a decision, the decision stands if it secured nine affirmative votes. (Conversely, Article 27 of the Charter, by requiring the concurring votes of all permanent members for a non-procedural decision to be adopted, establishes the veto system.)
I AM fucking facts
I think he meant you're fucking fart. But, before you attack him for THAT, remember you are the one throwing out the swear words and insults to all those not mired in your delusional thinking.
That I am fucking fart makes no more sense than I am fucking facts. Your incoherence is almost on a level with your buddy.
What delusional thinking? I'm literally quoting the UN time and time again and I'm talking about the actual verifiable event in 1971 where the UN voted to change the delegation from China from the ROC to the PRC. Tell me a single verifiable fact that you've contributed to the discussion and cite a fucking source for once.
And NO ONE is calling for war. No one is even talking about war apart from you. Disingenuous bullshit and Trump whining, that's all you bring to the table.
I guess those delusions have completely clouded your thinking.
And, we didn't call for war in Iraq either. We were liberating a nation -- nation building -- just like you're advocating for Taiwan. But, 600,000 died. How many do you plan to kill liberating Taiwan? How many deaths will it be worth to you?
Complete lies. I am not advocating nation building in Taiwan, or the loss of any life. Taiwan is already a nation, is already built, and doesn't need liberating. That will be clear to anyone reading this thread. Either you're too stupid to understand, or you're deliberately misunderstanding. Either way, enough effort has been spent on you.
LOL...
So, if I claim that the world is flat, does that make it "clear to anybody reading this thread?" And I can "prove" it (using the same type of false arguments you use): go to the ocean and look out over the horizon -- you can actually see the edge where it drops off -- and its not curved, it's a straight, flat line! See? isn't that "clear to anybody reading this thread?" that the world is flat?
Sorry, reality doesn't change to fit your agenda no matter how much you wish it were so. This ain't no fairy tale.
LOL!
George being George; that's his superpower, just like the Energizer Bunny.
My super power is reality. You should try it.
I live reality every day. The reality is that the PRC is a threat to democracy, and yet here you are, carrying water for Xi Jinping, yet again.
I had you figured out when you were arguing that Trump instigated the rioting in Hong Kong, which is absolutely false, and now you double down on the PRC sovereignty over Taiwan because you are afraid of provoking the PRC.
Then you doubled down yet again by ignoring the PRC human rights violations, because you don't believe the Western Press.
I have no use for people like you, and your pal Mr. PRC.
China isn't a threat to democracy. Fools and charlatans are.
[snipped, because the forum software is struggling]
Can you read? That's exactly what I said. The ROC was recognised as China until the 1970s, and the PRC have been recognised as China since then. The very fact that the recognition shifted is indicative that the ROC and its lands are a different entity to the PRC and its lands.
The USA supports Israel too. And in the immediate aftermath of WW2 Europe was rebuilt with aid from the USA. And yet Israel and Europe are all independent of the USA. What you are saying doesn't even make any sense; Taiwan is not independent of China because it receives support from the USA?
Sort out your own story before you criticise mine.
You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council.
So I'm wrong because...?
France is not a founding nation. It was invited after the initial drafting.
I'm wrong about the ROC representing China at the UN until the 1970s because France wasn't a founding nation?
Am I supposed to be taking you seriously, or is this some sort of slapstick routine?
You are wrong because you used the word recognition. Founding nation does not need recognition.
So the ROC is still on the UN Security Council? That'll be news to the UN Security Council. And what does that have to with France?
I have explained earlier why ROC did not use veto power to keep itself stay in UN.
Are you referring to this barely comprehensible nonsense:
You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council. It has veto power. It can veto general assembly resolution. It did not do so because it depends on US for its own security. You would not hear this story because US does not want others know it controls Taiwan.
You're going to need to run that through your PRC translator again because it doesn't make any sense.
Giving you the most generous reading I can, the ROC were not able to veto the resolution, the protocols of recognition of state representatives were not subject to a security council veto. It was given over to a general vote, which the USA voted against (and also did not veto, because they couldn't).
So you're wrong in just about every way that you can be wrong. Being generous.
Of course it makes sense. UN Security Council veto members can veto anything passed by the General Assembly. For example, the General Assembly had passed resolution against Israel overwhelmingly only to be vetoed by US.
Nope, the veto power is limited, and does not include procedural resolutions, which would include recognition of delegates.
The resolution against Israel was substantive, and not procedural.
Whether it is substantive or procedural is not relevant. The point is why US vetoed it.
No, the point of why the USA vetoed a resolution against Israel is categorically, unreservedly IRRELEVANT to a discussion about Taiwan and China. That's possibly the most brazen, shameless attempt at a distraction yet.
Fuck you, you absolute piece of PRC shit.
ROC can veto General Assembly resolution. You just hate to recognize it and using a hate word. I have seen articles in Taiwan that said ROC was advised by US not to veto it. Your fuck does not hurt me because I see you are fucking facts.
There is no permanent security council veto over general assembly votes, and of security council votes they do not get veto over procedural issues. I don't care what articles you think you've seen, article 27 of the UN charter is the only one that counts: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text ;
Article 27
Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.
Article 27 stipulates that the concurring votes of the permanent members are required for the adoption of substantive decisions. Accordingly, when voting on procedural matters, a negative vote cast by a permanent member does not invalidate a decision, the decision stands if it secured nine affirmative votes. (Conversely, Article 27 of the Charter, by requiring the concurring votes of all permanent members for a non-procedural decision to be adopted, establishes the veto system.)
I AM fucking facts
I think he meant you're fucking fart. But, before you attack him for THAT, remember you are the one throwing out the swear words and insults to all those not mired in your delusional thinking.
That I am fucking fart makes no more sense than I am fucking facts. Your incoherence is almost on a level with your buddy.
What delusional thinking? I'm literally quoting the UN time and time again and I'm talking about the actual verifiable event in 1971 where the UN voted to change the delegation from China from the ROC to the PRC. Tell me a single verifiable fact that you've contributed to the discussion and cite a fucking source for once.
And NO ONE is calling for war. No one is even talking about war apart from you. Disingenuous bullshit and Trump whining, that's all you bring to the table.
I guess those delusions have completely clouded your thinking.
And, we didn't call for war in Iraq either. We were liberating a nation -- nation building -- just like you're advocating for Taiwan. But, 600,000 died. How many do you plan to kill liberating Taiwan? How many deaths will it be worth to you?
Complete lies. I am not advocating nation building in Taiwan, or the loss of any life. Taiwan is already a nation, is already built, and doesn't need liberating. That will be clear to anyone reading this thread. Either you're too stupid to understand, or you're deliberately misunderstanding. Either way, enough effort has been spent on you.
What you are advocating is the very essence of nation building. Creating a separate, independent nation where none existed. The world acknowledges that Taiwan is an autonomous region of China -- even the U.S. Pretty much everybody but you.
[snipped, because the forum software is struggling]
Can you read? That's exactly what I said. The ROC was recognised as China until the 1970s, and the PRC have been recognised as China since then. The very fact that the recognition shifted is indicative that the ROC and its lands are a different entity to the PRC and its lands.
The USA supports Israel too. And in the immediate aftermath of WW2 Europe was rebuilt with aid from the USA. And yet Israel and Europe are all independent of the USA. What you are saying doesn't even make any sense; Taiwan is not independent of China because it receives support from the USA?
Sort out your own story before you criticise mine.
You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council.
So I'm wrong because...?
France is not a founding nation. It was invited after the initial drafting.
I'm wrong about the ROC representing China at the UN until the 1970s because France wasn't a founding nation?
Am I supposed to be taking you seriously, or is this some sort of slapstick routine?
You are wrong because you used the word recognition. Founding nation does not need recognition.
So the ROC is still on the UN Security Council? That'll be news to the UN Security Council. And what does that have to with France?
I have explained earlier why ROC did not use veto power to keep itself stay in UN.
Are you referring to this barely comprehensible nonsense:
You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council. It has veto power. It can veto general assembly resolution. It did not do so because it depends on US for its own security. You would not hear this story because US does not want others know it controls Taiwan.
You're going to need to run that through your PRC translator again because it doesn't make any sense.
Giving you the most generous reading I can, the ROC were not able to veto the resolution, the protocols of recognition of state representatives were not subject to a security council veto. It was given over to a general vote, which the USA voted against (and also did not veto, because they couldn't).
So you're wrong in just about every way that you can be wrong. Being generous.
Of course it makes sense. UN Security Council veto members can veto anything passed by the General Assembly. For example, the General Assembly had passed resolution against Israel overwhelmingly only to be vetoed by US.
Nope, the veto power is limited, and does not include procedural resolutions, which would include recognition of delegates.
The resolution against Israel was substantive, and not procedural.
Whether it is substantive or procedural is not relevant. The point is why US vetoed it.
No, the point of why the USA vetoed a resolution against Israel is categorically, unreservedly IRRELEVANT to a discussion about Taiwan and China. That's possibly the most brazen, shameless attempt at a distraction yet.
Fuck you, you absolute piece of PRC shit.
ROC can veto General Assembly resolution. You just hate to recognize it and using a hate word. I have seen articles in Taiwan that said ROC was advised by US not to veto it. Your fuck does not hurt me because I see you are fucking facts.
There is no permanent security council veto over general assembly votes, and of security council votes they do not get veto over procedural issues. I don't care what articles you think you've seen, article 27 of the UN charter is the only one that counts: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text ;
Article 27
Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.
Article 27 stipulates that the concurring votes of the permanent members are required for the adoption of substantive decisions. Accordingly, when voting on procedural matters, a negative vote cast by a permanent member does not invalidate a decision, the decision stands if it secured nine affirmative votes. (Conversely, Article 27 of the Charter, by requiring the concurring votes of all permanent members for a non-procedural decision to be adopted, establishes the veto system.)
I AM fucking facts
I think he meant you're fucking fart. But, before you attack him for THAT, remember you are the one throwing out the swear words and insults to all those not mired in your delusional thinking.
That I am fucking fart makes no more sense than I am fucking facts. Your incoherence is almost on a level with your buddy.
What delusional thinking? I'm literally quoting the UN time and time again and I'm talking about the actual verifiable event in 1971 where the UN voted to change the delegation from China from the ROC to the PRC. Tell me a single verifiable fact that you've contributed to the discussion and cite a fucking source for once.
And NO ONE is calling for war. No one is even talking about war apart from you. Disingenuous bullshit and Trump whining, that's all you bring to the table.
I guess those delusions have completely clouded your thinking.
And, we didn't call for war in Iraq either. We were liberating a nation -- nation building -- just like you're advocating for Taiwan. But, 600,000 died. How many do you plan to kill liberating Taiwan? How many deaths will it be worth to you?
Complete lies. I am not advocating nation building in Taiwan, or the loss of any life. Taiwan is already a nation, is already built, and doesn't need liberating. That will be clear to anyone reading this thread. Either you're too stupid to understand, or you're deliberately misunderstanding. Either way, enough effort has been spent on you.
LOL...
So, if I claim that the world is flat, does that make it "clear to anybody reading this thread?" And I can "prove" it (using the same type of false arguments you use): go to the ocean and look out over the horizon -- you can actually see the edge where it drops off -- and its not curved, it's a straight, flat line! See? isn't that "clear to anybody reading this thread?" that the world is flat?
Sorry, reality doesn't change to fit your agenda no matter how much you wish it were so. This ain't no fairy tale.
LOL!
George being George; that's his superpower, just like the Energizer Bunny.
My super power is reality. You should try it.
I live reality every day. The reality is that the PRC is a threat to democracy, and yet here you are, carrying water for Xi Jinping, yet again.
I had you figured out when you were arguing that Trump instigated the rioting in Hong Kong, which is absolutely false, and now you double down on the PRC sovereignty over Taiwan because you are afraid of provoking the PRC.
Then you doubled down yet again by ignoring the PRC human rights violations, because you don't believe the Western Press.
I have no use for people like you, and your pal Mr. PRC.
China isn't a threat to democracy. Fools and charlatans are.
[snipped, because the forum software is struggling]
Can you read? That's exactly what I said. The ROC was recognised as China until the 1970s, and the PRC have been recognised as China since then. The very fact that the recognition shifted is indicative that the ROC and its lands are a different entity to the PRC and its lands.
The USA supports Israel too. And in the immediate aftermath of WW2 Europe was rebuilt with aid from the USA. And yet Israel and Europe are all independent of the USA. What you are saying doesn't even make any sense; Taiwan is not independent of China because it receives support from the USA?
Sort out your own story before you criticise mine.
You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council.
So I'm wrong because...?
France is not a founding nation. It was invited after the initial drafting.
I'm wrong about the ROC representing China at the UN until the 1970s because France wasn't a founding nation?
Am I supposed to be taking you seriously, or is this some sort of slapstick routine?
You are wrong because you used the word recognition. Founding nation does not need recognition.
So the ROC is still on the UN Security Council? That'll be news to the UN Security Council. And what does that have to with France?
I have explained earlier why ROC did not use veto power to keep itself stay in UN.
Are you referring to this barely comprehensible nonsense:
You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council. It has veto power. It can veto general assembly resolution. It did not do so because it depends on US for its own security. You would not hear this story because US does not want others know it controls Taiwan.
You're going to need to run that through your PRC translator again because it doesn't make any sense.
Giving you the most generous reading I can, the ROC were not able to veto the resolution, the protocols of recognition of state representatives were not subject to a security council veto. It was given over to a general vote, which the USA voted against (and also did not veto, because they couldn't).
So you're wrong in just about every way that you can be wrong. Being generous.
Of course it makes sense. UN Security Council veto members can veto anything passed by the General Assembly. For example, the General Assembly had passed resolution against Israel overwhelmingly only to be vetoed by US.
Nope, the veto power is limited, and does not include procedural resolutions, which would include recognition of delegates.
The resolution against Israel was substantive, and not procedural.
Whether it is substantive or procedural is not relevant. The point is why US vetoed it.
No, the point of why the USA vetoed a resolution against Israel is categorically, unreservedly IRRELEVANT to a discussion about Taiwan and China. That's possibly the most brazen, shameless attempt at a distraction yet.
Fuck you, you absolute piece of PRC shit.
ROC can veto General Assembly resolution. You just hate to recognize it and using a hate word. I have seen articles in Taiwan that said ROC was advised by US not to veto it. Your fuck does not hurt me because I see you are fucking facts.
There is no permanent security council veto over general assembly votes, and of security council votes they do not get veto over procedural issues. I don't care what articles you think you've seen, article 27 of the UN charter is the only one that counts: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text ;
Article 27
Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.
Article 27 stipulates that the concurring votes of the permanent members are required for the adoption of substantive decisions. Accordingly, when voting on procedural matters, a negative vote cast by a permanent member does not invalidate a decision, the decision stands if it secured nine affirmative votes. (Conversely, Article 27 of the Charter, by requiring the concurring votes of all permanent members for a non-procedural decision to be adopted, establishes the veto system.)
I AM fucking facts
I think he meant you're fucking fart. But, before you attack him for THAT, remember you are the one throwing out the swear words and insults to all those not mired in your delusional thinking.
That I am fucking fart makes no more sense than I am fucking facts. Your incoherence is almost on a level with your buddy.
What delusional thinking? I'm literally quoting the UN time and time again and I'm talking about the actual verifiable event in 1971 where the UN voted to change the delegation from China from the ROC to the PRC. Tell me a single verifiable fact that you've contributed to the discussion and cite a fucking source for once.
And NO ONE is calling for war. No one is even talking about war apart from you. Disingenuous bullshit and Trump whining, that's all you bring to the table.
I guess those delusions have completely clouded your thinking.
And, we didn't call for war in Iraq either. We were liberating a nation -- nation building -- just like you're advocating for Taiwan. But, 600,000 died. How many do you plan to kill liberating Taiwan? How many deaths will it be worth to you?
Complete lies. I am not advocating nation building in Taiwan, or the loss of any life. Taiwan is already a nation, is already built, and doesn't need liberating. That will be clear to anyone reading this thread. Either you're too stupid to understand, or you're deliberately misunderstanding. Either way, enough effort has been spent on you.
LOL...
So, if I claim that the world is flat, does that make it "clear to anybody reading this thread?" And I can "prove" it (using the same type of false arguments you use): go to the ocean and look out over the horizon -- you can actually see the edge where it drops off -- and its not curved, it's a straight, flat line! See? isn't that "clear to anybody reading this thread?" that the world is flat?
Sorry, reality doesn't change to fit your agenda no matter how much you wish it were so. This ain't no fairy tale.
LOL!
George being George; that's his superpower, just like the Energizer Bunny.
My super power is reality. You should try it.
I live reality every day. The reality is that the PRC is a threat to democracy, and yet here you are, carrying water for Xi Jinping, yet again.
I had you figured out when you were arguing that Trump instigated the rioting in Hong Kong, which is absolutely false, and now you double down on the PRC sovereignty over Taiwan because you are afraid of provoking the PRC.
Then you doubled down yet again by ignoring the PRC human rights violations, because you don't believe the Western Press.
I have no use for people like you, and your pal Mr. PRC.
China isn't a threat to democracy. Fools and charlatans are.
[snipped, because the forum software is struggling]
Can you read? That's exactly what I said. The ROC was recognised as China until the 1970s, and the PRC have been recognised as China since then. The very fact that the recognition shifted is indicative that the ROC and its lands are a different entity to the PRC and its lands.
The USA supports Israel too. And in the immediate aftermath of WW2 Europe was rebuilt with aid from the USA. And yet Israel and Europe are all independent of the USA. What you are saying doesn't even make any sense; Taiwan is not independent of China because it receives support from the USA?
Sort out your own story before you criticise mine.
You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council.
So I'm wrong because...?
France is not a founding nation. It was invited after the initial drafting.
I'm wrong about the ROC representing China at the UN until the 1970s because France wasn't a founding nation?
Am I supposed to be taking you seriously, or is this some sort of slapstick routine?
You are wrong because you used the word recognition. Founding nation does not need recognition.
So the ROC is still on the UN Security Council? That'll be news to the UN Security Council. And what does that have to with France?
I have explained earlier why ROC did not use veto power to keep itself stay in UN.
Are you referring to this barely comprehensible nonsense:
You are wrong about ROC was recognized by UN as China. When UN was founded in 1945, ROC governed China. When ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949, it still sends delegates to UN and attended all UN meetings. ROC is a permanent member of UN security council. It has veto power. It can veto general assembly resolution. It did not do so because it depends on US for its own security. You would not hear this story because US does not want others know it controls Taiwan.
You're going to need to run that through your PRC translator again because it doesn't make any sense.
Giving you the most generous reading I can, the ROC were not able to veto the resolution, the protocols of recognition of state representatives were not subject to a security council veto. It was given over to a general vote, which the USA voted against (and also did not veto, because they couldn't).
So you're wrong in just about every way that you can be wrong. Being generous.
Of course it makes sense. UN Security Council veto members can veto anything passed by the General Assembly. For example, the General Assembly had passed resolution against Israel overwhelmingly only to be vetoed by US.
Nope, the veto power is limited, and does not include procedural resolutions, which would include recognition of delegates.
The resolution against Israel was substantive, and not procedural.
Whether it is substantive or procedural is not relevant. The point is why US vetoed it.
No, the point of why the USA vetoed a resolution against Israel is categorically, unreservedly IRRELEVANT to a discussion about Taiwan and China. That's possibly the most brazen, shameless attempt at a distraction yet.
Fuck you, you absolute piece of PRC shit.
ROC can veto General Assembly resolution. You just hate to recognize it and using a hate word. I have seen articles in Taiwan that said ROC was advised by US not to veto it. Your fuck does not hurt me because I see you are fucking facts.
There is no permanent security council veto over general assembly votes, and of security council votes they do not get veto over procedural issues. I don't care what articles you think you've seen, article 27 of the UN charter is the only one that counts: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text ;
Article 27
Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.
Article 27 stipulates that the concurring votes of the permanent members are required for the adoption of substantive decisions. Accordingly, when voting on procedural matters, a negative vote cast by a permanent member does not invalidate a decision, the decision stands if it secured nine affirmative votes. (Conversely, Article 27 of the Charter, by requiring the concurring votes of all permanent members for a non-procedural decision to be adopted, establishes the veto system.)
I AM fucking facts
I think he meant you're fucking fart. But, before you attack him for THAT, remember you are the one throwing out the swear words and insults to all those not mired in your delusional thinking.
That I am fucking fart makes no more sense than I am fucking facts. Your incoherence is almost on a level with your buddy.
What delusional thinking? I'm literally quoting the UN time and time again and I'm talking about the actual verifiable event in 1971 where the UN voted to change the delegation from China from the ROC to the PRC. Tell me a single verifiable fact that you've contributed to the discussion and cite a fucking source for once.
And NO ONE is calling for war. No one is even talking about war apart from you. Disingenuous bullshit and Trump whining, that's all you bring to the table.
I guess those delusions have completely clouded your thinking.
And, we didn't call for war in Iraq either. We were liberating a nation -- nation building -- just like you're advocating for Taiwan. But, 600,000 died. How many do you plan to kill liberating Taiwan? How many deaths will it be worth to you?
Complete lies. I am not advocating nation building in Taiwan, or the loss of any life. Taiwan is already a nation, is already built, and doesn't need liberating. That will be clear to anyone reading this thread. Either you're too stupid to understand, or you're deliberately misunderstanding. Either way, enough effort has been spent on you.
LOL...
So, if I claim that the world is flat, does that make it "clear to anybody reading this thread?" And I can "prove" it (using the same type of false arguments you use): go to the ocean and look out over the horizon -- you can actually see the edge where it drops off -- and its not curved, it's a straight, flat line! See? isn't that "clear to anybody reading this thread?" that the world is flat?
Sorry, reality doesn't change to fit your agenda no matter how much you wish it were so. This ain't no fairy tale.
LOL!
George being George; that's his superpower, just like the Energizer Bunny.
My super power is reality. You should try it.
I live reality every day. The reality is that the PRC is a threat to democracy, and yet here you are, carrying water for Xi Jinping, yet again.
I had you figured out when you were arguing that Trump instigated the rioting in Hong Kong, which is absolutely false, and now you double down on the PRC sovereignty over Taiwan because you are afraid of provoking the PRC.
Then you doubled down yet again by ignoring the PRC human rights violations, because you don't believe the Western Press.
I have no use for people like you, and your pal Mr. PRC.
China isn't a threat to democracy. Fools and charlatans are.
Hong Kong disagrees.
Britains did not give Hong Kong democracy.
Ultimately, the UK didn't stand in the way of democracy either, but the PRC surely has, as was expected.
22 November 2015 - 2015 Hong Kong District Council elections saw all elected constituencies democratically elected, with all appointed seats were abolished in this election.
Comments
And by way of an explanation: https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-security-council-working-methods/procedural-vote.php
I AM fucking facts
What delusional thinking? I'm literally quoting the UN time and time again and I'm talking about the actual verifiable event in 1971 where the UN voted to change the delegation from China from the ROC to the PRC. Tell me a single verifiable fact that you've contributed to the discussion and cite a fucking source for once.
And NO ONE is calling for war. No one is even talking about war apart from you. Disingenuous bullshit and Trump whining, that's all you bring to the table.
You keep getting the U.S. mixed up with authoritarian countries, like China, where the leader controls the civilian government, the military, and the party.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/03/973292523/dod-took-hours-to-approve-national-guard-request-during-capitol-riot-commander-s
You're so low information at this point, that I expect that your talking points come directly from Xi Jinping himself.
Pretty sure that the Korean War was massively more successful for the South, than the North, and do you really want to back a country whose main claim to military fame, is failing twice in invading Taiwan, invasion of Vietnam in 1979, and only success at conquering Tibet?
https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/05/01/402572349/ask-the-vietnamese-about-war-and-they-think-china-not-the-u-s
And why exactly did China invade Vietnam?
Oh yeah, it was because China supported the Khmer Rouge, just like they support the Myanmar Junta;
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/what-myanmars-coup-means-china/618101/
The PRC, the douchebags of the world...
Now would be a good time to stick your head back in the sand...
My super power is reality. You should try it.
I had you figured out when you were arguing that Trump instigated the rioting in Hong Kong, which is absolutely false, and now you double down on the PRC sovereignty over Taiwan because you are afraid of provoking the PRC.
Then you doubled down yet again by ignoring the PRC human rights violations, because you don't believe the Western Press.
I have no use for people like you, and your pal Mr. PRC.
Yeah, I did know that about the President;
Not seeing that with the PRC, at all, but you're the expert on China, right? Maybe you can explain to me how the PRC is so wonderful.
China isn't a threat to democracy. Fools and charlatans are.