[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.
So it is China that gave Hund Kong democracy. But China decided to tighten it for security reasons due to the mass protests against China. Is this history correct? LOL
[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.
So it is China that gave Hund Kong democracy. But China decided to tighten it for security reasons due to the mass protests against China. Is this history correct? LOL
Actually, the UK hasn't officially handed Hong Kong over to the PRC, so what has happened is that the residents of Hong Kong created their own democracy, as the UK began the 50 year transition of Hong Kong to the PRC. But then of course, Carrie Lam, acting for the PRC, cracked down on the democracy movement, with the resistance to the Extradition Law being the impetus.
U.K. Says China Breached Hong Kong Handover Treaty For Third Time. The U.K. government said China is in a “state of ongoing non-compliance” with the Sino-British Joint Declaration, a treaty signed by the two countries that guarantees Hong Kong's rights and freedoms after the city was handed back to Beijing in 1997.
But who would believe that the PRC would honor its word?
[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.
On that agree.
I misread what you said -- I thought you meant OUR democracy.
But, even in the case of Hong Kong, they had a semblance of democracy -- till they did what China considered to be insurrection. Then they lost even that.
[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.
So it is China that gave Hund Kong democracy. But China decided to tighten it for security reasons due to the mass protests against China. Is this history correct? LOL
But who would believe that the PRC would honor its word?
At this point, after the last 4 years breaking treaties, agreements and alliances our word means nothing, China's word is more trusted than that of the U.S. But that's a pretty low bar to clear.
And, even though it was announced a year ago we were leaving Afghanistan, the world seems to think we broke our word there too.
I'm not sure that's fair. But, that's how it's coming down.
We're accused of bungling the exit. But what we really bungled were expectations. Democrats tend to screw that up on a fairly regular basis.
[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.
So it is China that gave Hund Kong democracy. But China decided to tighten it for security reasons due to the mass protests against China. Is this history correct? LOL
Actually, the UK hasn't officially handed Hong Kong over to the PRC, so what has happened is that the residents of Hong Kong created their own democracy, as the UK began the 50 year transition of Hong Kong to the PRC. But then of course, Carrie Lam, acting for the PRC, cracked down on the democracy movement, with the resistance to the Extradition Law being the impetus.
U.K. Says China Breached Hong Kong Handover Treaty For Third Time. The U.K. government said China is in a “state of ongoing non-compliance” with the Sino-British Joint Declaration, a treaty signed by the two countries that guarantees Hong Kong's rights and freedoms after the city was handed back to Beijing in 1997.
But who would believe that the PRC would honor its word?
Where do you get this shit? Thatcher went to Hong Kong in 1997 and officially turned over Hong Kong to China.
[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.
So it is China that gave Hund Kong democracy. But China decided to tighten it for security reasons due to the mass protests against China. Is this history correct? LOL
Actually, the UK hasn't officially handed Hong Kong over to the PRC, so what has happened is that the residents of Hong Kong created their own democracy, as the UK began the 50 year transition of Hong Kong to the PRC. But then of course, Carrie Lam, acting for the PRC, cracked down on the democracy movement, with the resistance to the Extradition Law being the impetus.
U.K. Says China Breached Hong Kong Handover Treaty For Third Time. The U.K. government said China is in a “state of ongoing non-compliance” with the Sino-British Joint Declaration, a treaty signed by the two countries that guarantees Hong Kong's rights and freedoms after the city was handed back to Beijing in 1997.
But who would believe that the PRC would honor its word?
Where do you get this shit? Thatcher went to Hong Kong in 1997 and officially turned over Hong Kong to China.
I stand corrected.
The UK did give Hong Kong over to the PRC, expecting that the treaty would be honored thru 2047.
Guess the UK was wrong on that.
Pretty much why Taiwan doesn't trust "one country, two systems" either.
[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.
So it is China that gave Hund Kong democracy. But China decided to tighten it for security reasons due to the mass protests against China. Is this history correct? LOL
Actually, the UK hasn't officially handed Hong Kong over to the PRC, so what has happened is that the residents of Hong Kong created their own democracy, as the UK began the 50 year transition of Hong Kong to the PRC. But then of course, Carrie Lam, acting for the PRC, cracked down on the democracy movement, with the resistance to the Extradition Law being the impetus.
U.K. Says China Breached Hong Kong Handover Treaty For Third Time. The U.K. government said China is in a “state of ongoing non-compliance” with the Sino-British Joint Declaration, a treaty signed by the two countries that guarantees Hong Kong's rights and freedoms after the city was handed back to Beijing in 1997.
But who would believe that the PRC would honor its word?
Where do you get this shit? Thatcher went to Hong Kong in 1997 and officially turned over Hong Kong to China.
Yes, that's true. But it was done with conditions, strings and caveats that established an equilibrium between a self ruled democracy and a region of Communist China.
Unfortunately, that equilibrium was broken and China was pretty much forced to step in and take charge.
That was unfortunate. Nobody won and everybody lost.
[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.
So it is China that gave Hund Kong democracy. But China decided to tighten it for security reasons due to the mass protests against China. Is this history correct? LOL
Actually, the UK hasn't officially handed Hong Kong over to the PRC, so what has happened is that the residents of Hong Kong created their own democracy, as the UK began the 50 year transition of Hong Kong to the PRC. But then of course, Carrie Lam, acting for the PRC, cracked down on the democracy movement, with the resistance to the Extradition Law being the impetus.
U.K. Says China Breached Hong Kong Handover Treaty For Third Time. The U.K. government said China is in a “state of ongoing non-compliance” with the Sino-British Joint Declaration, a treaty signed by the two countries that guarantees Hong Kong's rights and freedoms after the city was handed back to Beijing in 1997.
But who would believe that the PRC would honor its word?
Where do you get this shit? Thatcher went to Hong Kong in 1997 and officially turned over Hong Kong to China.
I stand corrected.
The UK did give Hong Kong over to the PRC, expecting that the treaty would be honored thru 2047.
Guess the UK was wrong on that.
Pretty much why Taiwan doesn't trust "one country, two systems" either.
China follows Hong Kong Basic law. One country two systems means China let Hong Kong govern by itself. There is a parallel rule that Hong Kong should not interfere in China. However, some foreign forces used Hong Kong as a base to stage anti-China activities. This is why China decided to step in. It did not change the Basic Law. It modified the eligibility by requiring candidate no involved in anti-China activities and be patriotic to China. This is not anti-democracy according to western standard either.
[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.
So it is China that gave Hund Kong democracy. But China decided to tighten it for security reasons due to the mass protests against China. Is this history correct? LOL
Actually, the UK hasn't officially handed Hong Kong over to the PRC, so what has happened is that the residents of Hong Kong created their own democracy, as the UK began the 50 year transition of Hong Kong to the PRC. But then of course, Carrie Lam, acting for the PRC, cracked down on the democracy movement, with the resistance to the Extradition Law being the impetus.
U.K. Says China Breached Hong Kong Handover Treaty For Third Time. The U.K. government said China is in a “state of ongoing non-compliance” with the Sino-British Joint Declaration, a treaty signed by the two countries that guarantees Hong Kong's rights and freedoms after the city was handed back to Beijing in 1997.
But who would believe that the PRC would honor its word?
Where do you get this shit? Thatcher went to Hong Kong in 1997 and officially turned over Hong Kong to China.
Yes, that's true. But it was done with conditions, strings and caveats that established an equilibrium between a self ruled democracy and a region of Communist China.
Unfortunately, that equilibrium was broken and China was pretty much forced to step in and take charge.
That was unfortunate. Nobody won and everybody lost.
It was broken by the Extradition Law; that's why the protests occurred.
Hong Kong has seen months of protests sparked by a highly controversial plan to allow extraditions to mainland China.
The government had argued the proposed amendments would "plug the loopholes" so that the city would not be a safe haven for criminals.
But critics said those in the former British colony would be exposed to China's deeply flawed justice system, and it would lead to further erosion of the city's judicial independence.
After months of protests which often developed into violence, the bill was officially withdrawn, but that has failed to stop the unrest.
What were the proposals?
The existing extradition law specifically states that it does not apply to "the Central People's Government or the government of any other part of the People's Republic of China".
But the proposed changes would have allowed for the Hong Kong government to consider requests from any country for extradition of criminal suspects, even countries with which it doesn't have an extradition treaty and including mainland China, Taiwan and Macau.
So people wanted for crimes in those territories could potentially be sent there to face trial.
The requests would be decided on a case-by-case basis by the chief executive.
Several commercial offences, such as tax evasion, were removed from the list of extraditable offences amid concerns from the business community.
Hong Kong officials always said Hong Kong courts would have the final say whether to grant such extradition requests, and suspects accused of political and religious crimes would not be extradited.
The government sought to reassure the public with some concessions, including promising to only hand over fugitives for offences carrying maximum sentences of at least seven years.
Why the change now?
The proposal came after a 19-year-old Hong Kong man allegedly murdered his 20-year-old pregnant girlfriend while holidaying in Taiwan together in February 2018. The man fled Taiwan and returned to Hong Kong last year.
Taiwanese officials sought help from Hong Kong authorities to extradite the man, but Hong Kong officials said they could not comply because of a lack of extradition agreement with Taiwan.
But the Taiwanese government has said it would not seek to extradite the murder suspect under the proposed changes, and urged Hong Kong to handle the case separately.
Why is this controversial?
Critics said people would be subject to arbitrary detention, unfair trial and torture under China's judicial system.
"The proposed changes to the extradition laws will put anyone in Hong Kong doing work related to the mainland at risk," said Human Rights Watch's Sophie Richardson in a statement earlier this year.
"No one will be safe, including activists, human rights lawyers, journalists, and social workers."
Lam Wing Kee, a Hong Kong bookseller, said he was abducted, detained and charged with "operating a bookstore illegally" in China in 2015 for selling books critical of Chinese leaders.
In late April, Mr Lam fled Hong Kong and moved to Taiwan where he was granted a temporary residency visa.
"If I don't go, I will be extradited," Mr Lam said during a recent protest against the bill. "I don't trust the government to guarantee my safety, or the safety of any Hong Kong resident."
Who opposed the proposal?
Opposition to the law was widespread from the start, with groups from all sections of society - ranging from lawyers to housewives - voicing their criticism or starting petitions.
Hundreds of petitions against the amendments started by university and secondary school alumni, overseas students and church groups also appeared online.
Lawyers, prosecutors, law students and academics marched in silence and called on the government to shelve the proposal.
Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets for many weekends in a row in some of the largest demonstration since the territory was handed over to China by the British in 1997.
Several countries also expressed concern.
A US congressional commission said in May it risked making Hong Kong more susceptible to China's "political coercion" and further erode Hong Kong's autonomy.
Britain and Canada said they were concerned over the "potential effect" that the proposed changes would have on UK and Canadian citizens in Hong Kong.
The European Union also issued a diplomatic note to Mrs Lam expressing concerns over the proposed changes to the law.
China's foreign ministry has refuted such views, calling them attempts to "politicise" the Hong Kong government proposal and interference in China's internal affairs.
So, the people of Hong Kong were decidedly "unhappy" about the Extradition Law, and protested it en masse, all because "Critics said people would be subject to arbitrary detention, unfair trial and torture under China's judicial system.".
Could it be that China's Judicial System is massively flawed, arbitrary, and unfair?
[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.
So it is China that gave Hund Kong democracy. But China decided to tighten it for security reasons due to the mass protests against China. Is this history correct? LOL
Actually, the UK hasn't officially handed Hong Kong over to the PRC, so what has happened is that the residents of Hong Kong created their own democracy, as the UK began the 50 year transition of Hong Kong to the PRC. But then of course, Carrie Lam, acting for the PRC, cracked down on the democracy movement, with the resistance to the Extradition Law being the impetus.
U.K. Says China Breached Hong Kong Handover Treaty For Third Time. The U.K. government said China is in a “state of ongoing non-compliance” with the Sino-British Joint Declaration, a treaty signed by the two countries that guarantees Hong Kong's rights and freedoms after the city was handed back to Beijing in 1997.
But who would believe that the PRC would honor its word?
Where do you get this shit? Thatcher went to Hong Kong in 1997 and officially turned over Hong Kong to China.
Thatcher may have been in Hong Kong in 1997, but she didn't do any such thing, she had no authority to.
[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.
So it is China that gave Hund Kong democracy. But China decided to tighten it for security reasons due to the mass protests against China. Is this history correct? LOL
Actually, the UK hasn't officially handed Hong Kong over to the PRC, so what has happened is that the residents of Hong Kong created their own democracy, as the UK began the 50 year transition of Hong Kong to the PRC. But then of course, Carrie Lam, acting for the PRC, cracked down on the democracy movement, with the resistance to the Extradition Law being the impetus.
U.K. Says China Breached Hong Kong Handover Treaty For Third Time. The U.K. government said China is in a “state of ongoing non-compliance” with the Sino-British Joint Declaration, a treaty signed by the two countries that guarantees Hong Kong's rights and freedoms after the city was handed back to Beijing in 1997.
But who would believe that the PRC would honor its word?
Where do you get this shit? Thatcher went to Hong Kong in 1997 and officially turned over Hong Kong to China.
Yes, that's true. But it was done with conditions, strings and caveats that established an equilibrium between a self ruled democracy and a region of Communist China.
Unfortunately, that equilibrium was broken and China was pretty much forced to step in and take charge.
That was unfortunate. Nobody won and everybody lost.
It was broken by the Extradition Law; that's why the protests occurred.
Hong Kong has seen months of protests sparked by a highly controversial plan to allow extraditions to mainland China.
The government had argued the proposed amendments would "plug the loopholes" so that the city would not be a safe haven for criminals.
But critics said those in the former British colony would be exposed to China's deeply flawed justice system, and it would lead to further erosion of the city's judicial independence.
After months of protests which often developed into violence, the bill was officially withdrawn, but that has failed to stop the unrest.
What were the proposals?
The existing extradition law specifically states that it does not apply to "the Central People's Government or the government of any other part of the People's Republic of China".
But the proposed changes would have allowed for the Hong Kong government to consider requests from any country for extradition of criminal suspects, even countries with which it doesn't have an extradition treaty and including mainland China, Taiwan and Macau.
So people wanted for crimes in those territories could potentially be sent there to face trial.
The requests would be decided on a case-by-case basis by the chief executive.
Several commercial offences, such as tax evasion, were removed from the list of extraditable offences amid concerns from the business community.
Hong Kong officials always said Hong Kong courts would have the final say whether to grant such extradition requests, and suspects accused of political and religious crimes would not be extradited.
The government sought to reassure the public with some concessions, including promising to only hand over fugitives for offences carrying maximum sentences of at least seven years.
Why the change now?
The proposal came after a 19-year-old Hong Kong man allegedly murdered his 20-year-old pregnant girlfriend while holidaying in Taiwan together in February 2018. The man fled Taiwan and returned to Hong Kong last year.
Taiwanese officials sought help from Hong Kong authorities to extradite the man, but Hong Kong officials said they could not comply because of a lack of extradition agreement with Taiwan.
But the Taiwanese government has said it would not seek to extradite the murder suspect under the proposed changes, and urged Hong Kong to handle the case separately.
Why is this controversial?
Critics said people would be subject to arbitrary detention, unfair trial and torture under China's judicial system.
"The proposed changes to the extradition laws will put anyone in Hong Kong doing work related to the mainland at risk," said Human Rights Watch's Sophie Richardson in a statement earlier this year.
"No one will be safe, including activists, human rights lawyers, journalists, and social workers."
Lam Wing Kee, a Hong Kong bookseller, said he was abducted, detained and charged with "operating a bookstore illegally" in China in 2015 for selling books critical of Chinese leaders.
In late April, Mr Lam fled Hong Kong and moved to Taiwan where he was granted a temporary residency visa.
"If I don't go, I will be extradited," Mr Lam said during a recent protest against the bill. "I don't trust the government to guarantee my safety, or the safety of any Hong Kong resident."
Who opposed the proposal?
Opposition to the law was widespread from the start, with groups from all sections of society - ranging from lawyers to housewives - voicing their criticism or starting petitions.
Hundreds of petitions against the amendments started by university and secondary school alumni, overseas students and church groups also appeared online.
Lawyers, prosecutors, law students and academics marched in silence and called on the government to shelve the proposal.
Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets for many weekends in a row in some of the largest demonstration since the territory was handed over to China by the British in 1997.
Several countries also expressed concern.
A US congressional commission said in May it risked making Hong Kong more susceptible to China's "political coercion" and further erode Hong Kong's autonomy.
Britain and Canada said they were concerned over the "potential effect" that the proposed changes would have on UK and Canadian citizens in Hong Kong.
The European Union also issued a diplomatic note to Mrs Lam expressing concerns over the proposed changes to the law.
China's foreign ministry has refuted such views, calling them attempts to "politicise" the Hong Kong government proposal and interference in China's internal affairs.
So, the people of Hong Kong were decidedly "unhappy" about the Extradition Law, and protested it en masse, all because "Critics said people would be subject to arbitrary detention, unfair trial and torture under China's judicial system.".
Could it be that China's Judicial System is massively flawed, arbitrary, and unfair?
HE HIT ME FIRST!
Is the cry of every grade school fight.
WaveParticle is correct: Foreign actors (namely us!) instigated insurrection. So, China stomped it out. Now Hong Kong has less freedom than it had previously.
And, you are advocating the same fate for Taiwan. China never talked of military takeover of that country till its status as an autonomous region was being challenged -- again instigated by us!
We have a history of that sort of thing: We told the Iraqi Kurds to rise up against Saddam -- then walked away. Later we sought their help in Syria, then walked away. Then we told HongKong activists to rise up against their government -- and then walked away. The same process is unfolding in Taiwan.
It is sad, despicable -- and predictable.
But, like the excuses of the grade school fight, the grade school chant of the 50's rings out: "Dirty Commie!"
... Except instead of being a reaction to the Soviet Union pushing communism it is us pushing democracy and thinking we are helping the world.
[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.
So it is China that gave Hund Kong democracy. But China decided to tighten it for security reasons due to the mass protests against China. Is this history correct? LOL
Actually, the UK hasn't officially handed Hong Kong over to the PRC, so what has happened is that the residents of Hong Kong created their own democracy, as the UK began the 50 year transition of Hong Kong to the PRC. But then of course, Carrie Lam, acting for the PRC, cracked down on the democracy movement, with the resistance to the Extradition Law being the impetus.
U.K. Says China Breached Hong Kong Handover Treaty For Third Time. The U.K. government said China is in a “state of ongoing non-compliance” with the Sino-British Joint Declaration, a treaty signed by the two countries that guarantees Hong Kong's rights and freedoms after the city was handed back to Beijing in 1997.
But who would believe that the PRC would honor its word?
Where do you get this shit? Thatcher went to Hong Kong in 1997 and officially turned over Hong Kong to China.
Thatcher may have been in Hong Kong in 1997, but she didn't do any such thing, she had no authority to.
So THAT"S why you're so confused. You rewrote the history books to support your narrative!
Monument in Commemoration of the Return of Hong Kong to China
The transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong,[1][2][3] commonly known as the handover of Hong Kong (shortened to the Handover and the Return in mainland China), was the formal passing of responsibility for the territory of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to the People's Republic of China at midnight on 1 July 1997. This event ended 156 years of British rule in the former colony.
[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.
So it is China that gave Hund Kong democracy. But China decided to tighten it for security reasons due to the mass protests against China. Is this history correct? LOL
Actually, the UK hasn't officially handed Hong Kong over to the PRC, so what has happened is that the residents of Hong Kong created their own democracy, as the UK began the 50 year transition of Hong Kong to the PRC. But then of course, Carrie Lam, acting for the PRC, cracked down on the democracy movement, with the resistance to the Extradition Law being the impetus.
U.K. Says China Breached Hong Kong Handover Treaty For Third Time. The U.K. government said China is in a “state of ongoing non-compliance” with the Sino-British Joint Declaration, a treaty signed by the two countries that guarantees Hong Kong's rights and freedoms after the city was handed back to Beijing in 1997.
But who would believe that the PRC would honor its word?
Where do you get this shit? Thatcher went to Hong Kong in 1997 and officially turned over Hong Kong to China.
Yes, that's true. But it was done with conditions, strings and caveats that established an equilibrium between a self ruled democracy and a region of Communist China.
Unfortunately, that equilibrium was broken and China was pretty much forced to step in and take charge.
That was unfortunate. Nobody won and everybody lost.
It was broken by the Extradition Law; that's why the protests occurred.
Hong Kong has seen months of protests sparked by a highly controversial plan to allow extraditions to mainland China.
The government had argued the proposed amendments would "plug the loopholes" so that the city would not be a safe haven for criminals.
But critics said those in the former British colony would be exposed to China's deeply flawed justice system, and it would lead to further erosion of the city's judicial independence.
After months of protests which often developed into violence, the bill was officially withdrawn, but that has failed to stop the unrest.
What were the proposals?
The existing extradition law specifically states that it does not apply to "the Central People's Government or the government of any other part of the People's Republic of China".
But the proposed changes would have allowed for the Hong Kong government to consider requests from any country for extradition of criminal suspects, even countries with which it doesn't have an extradition treaty and including mainland China, Taiwan and Macau.
So people wanted for crimes in those territories could potentially be sent there to face trial.
The requests would be decided on a case-by-case basis by the chief executive.
Several commercial offences, such as tax evasion, were removed from the list of extraditable offences amid concerns from the business community.
Hong Kong officials always said Hong Kong courts would have the final say whether to grant such extradition requests, and suspects accused of political and religious crimes would not be extradited.
The government sought to reassure the public with some concessions, including promising to only hand over fugitives for offences carrying maximum sentences of at least seven years.
Why the change now?
The proposal came after a 19-year-old Hong Kong man allegedly murdered his 20-year-old pregnant girlfriend while holidaying in Taiwan together in February 2018. The man fled Taiwan and returned to Hong Kong last year.
Taiwanese officials sought help from Hong Kong authorities to extradite the man, but Hong Kong officials said they could not comply because of a lack of extradition agreement with Taiwan.
But the Taiwanese government has said it would not seek to extradite the murder suspect under the proposed changes, and urged Hong Kong to handle the case separately.
Why is this controversial?
Critics said people would be subject to arbitrary detention, unfair trial and torture under China's judicial system.
"The proposed changes to the extradition laws will put anyone in Hong Kong doing work related to the mainland at risk," said Human Rights Watch's Sophie Richardson in a statement earlier this year.
"No one will be safe, including activists, human rights lawyers, journalists, and social workers."
Lam Wing Kee, a Hong Kong bookseller, said he was abducted, detained and charged with "operating a bookstore illegally" in China in 2015 for selling books critical of Chinese leaders.
In late April, Mr Lam fled Hong Kong and moved to Taiwan where he was granted a temporary residency visa.
"If I don't go, I will be extradited," Mr Lam said during a recent protest against the bill. "I don't trust the government to guarantee my safety, or the safety of any Hong Kong resident."
Who opposed the proposal?
Opposition to the law was widespread from the start, with groups from all sections of society - ranging from lawyers to housewives - voicing their criticism or starting petitions.
Hundreds of petitions against the amendments started by university and secondary school alumni, overseas students and church groups also appeared online.
Lawyers, prosecutors, law students and academics marched in silence and called on the government to shelve the proposal.
Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets for many weekends in a row in some of the largest demonstration since the territory was handed over to China by the British in 1997.
Several countries also expressed concern.
A US congressional commission said in May it risked making Hong Kong more susceptible to China's "political coercion" and further erode Hong Kong's autonomy.
Britain and Canada said they were concerned over the "potential effect" that the proposed changes would have on UK and Canadian citizens in Hong Kong.
The European Union also issued a diplomatic note to Mrs Lam expressing concerns over the proposed changes to the law.
China's foreign ministry has refuted such views, calling them attempts to "politicise" the Hong Kong government proposal and interference in China's internal affairs.
So, the people of Hong Kong were decidedly "unhappy" about the Extradition Law, and protested it en masse, all because "Critics said people would be subject to arbitrary detention, unfair trial and torture under China's judicial system.".
Could it be that China's Judicial System is massively flawed, arbitrary, and unfair?
HE HIT ME FIRST!
Is the cry of every grade school fight.
WaveParticle is correct: Foreign actors (namely us!) instigated insurrection. So, China stomped it out. Now Hong Kong has less freedom than it had previously.
And, you are advocating the same fate for Taiwan. China never talked of military takeover of that country till its status as an autonomous region was being challenged -- again instigated by us!
We have a history of that sort of thing: We told the Iraqi Kurds to rise up against Saddam -- then walked away. Later we sought their help in Syria, then walked away. Then we told HongKong activists to rise up against their government -- and then walked away. The same process is unfolding in Taiwan.
It is sad, despicable -- and predictable.
But, like the excuses of the grade school fight, the grade school chant of the 50's rings out: "Dirty Commie!"
... Except instead of being a reaction to the Soviet Union pushing communism it is us pushing democracy and thinking we are helping the world.
LOL!
You have a link to either of those statements?
Of course not...and you really need to get over your anger at democracy, or more accurately, Capitalism.
[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.
So it is China that gave Hund Kong democracy. But China decided to tighten it for security reasons due to the mass protests against China. Is this history correct? LOL
Actually, the UK hasn't officially handed Hong Kong over to the PRC, so what has happened is that the residents of Hong Kong created their own democracy, as the UK began the 50 year transition of Hong Kong to the PRC. But then of course, Carrie Lam, acting for the PRC, cracked down on the democracy movement, with the resistance to the Extradition Law being the impetus.
U.K. Says China Breached Hong Kong Handover Treaty For Third Time. The U.K. government said China is in a “state of ongoing non-compliance” with the Sino-British Joint Declaration, a treaty signed by the two countries that guarantees Hong Kong's rights and freedoms after the city was handed back to Beijing in 1997.
But who would believe that the PRC would honor its word?
Where do you get this shit? Thatcher went to Hong Kong in 1997 and officially turned over Hong Kong to China.
Thatcher may have been in Hong Kong in 1997, but she didn't do any such thing, she had no authority to.
So THAT"S why you're so confused. You rewrote the history books to support your narrative!
Monument in Commemoration of the Return of Hong Kong to China
The transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong,[1][2][3] commonly known as the handover of Hong Kong (shortened to the Handover and the Return in mainland China), was the formal passing of responsibility for the territory of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to the People's Republic of China at midnight on 1 July 1997. This event ended 156 years of British rule in the former colony.
Representing the People's Republic of China were the President, Jiang Zemin, the Premier, Li Peng, and the first chief executive Tung Chee-hwa. The event was broadcast around the world.
Thatcher was involved in the negotiation with Deng. Blair was elected as prime minister in 1997. Dang passed away early in 1997 age 93. He did not see the return of Hong Kong which has been the shame of China for all his life.
[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.
So it is China that gave Hund Kong democracy. But China decided to tighten it for security reasons due to the mass protests against China. Is this history correct? LOL
Actually, the UK hasn't officially handed Hong Kong over to the PRC, so what has happened is that the residents of Hong Kong created their own democracy, as the UK began the 50 year transition of Hong Kong to the PRC. But then of course, Carrie Lam, acting for the PRC, cracked down on the democracy movement, with the resistance to the Extradition Law being the impetus.
U.K. Says China Breached Hong Kong Handover Treaty For Third Time. The U.K. government said China is in a “state of ongoing non-compliance” with the Sino-British Joint Declaration, a treaty signed by the two countries that guarantees Hong Kong's rights and freedoms after the city was handed back to Beijing in 1997.
But who would believe that the PRC would honor its word?
Where do you get this shit? Thatcher went to Hong Kong in 1997 and officially turned over Hong Kong to China.
Yes, that's true. But it was done with conditions, strings and caveats that established an equilibrium between a self ruled democracy and a region of Communist China.
Unfortunately, that equilibrium was broken and China was pretty much forced to step in and take charge.
That was unfortunate. Nobody won and everybody lost.
It was broken by the Extradition Law; that's why the protests occurred.
Hong Kong has seen months of protests sparked by a highly controversial plan to allow extraditions to mainland China.
The government had argued the proposed amendments would "plug the loopholes" so that the city would not be a safe haven for criminals.
But critics said those in the former British colony would be exposed to China's deeply flawed justice system, and it would lead to further erosion of the city's judicial independence.
After months of protests which often developed into violence, the bill was officially withdrawn, but that has failed to stop the unrest.
What were the proposals?
The existing extradition law specifically states that it does not apply to "the Central People's Government or the government of any other part of the People's Republic of China".
But the proposed changes would have allowed for the Hong Kong government to consider requests from any country for extradition of criminal suspects, even countries with which it doesn't have an extradition treaty and including mainland China, Taiwan and Macau.
So people wanted for crimes in those territories could potentially be sent there to face trial.
The requests would be decided on a case-by-case basis by the chief executive.
Several commercial offences, such as tax evasion, were removed from the list of extraditable offences amid concerns from the business community.
Hong Kong officials always said Hong Kong courts would have the final say whether to grant such extradition requests, and suspects accused of political and religious crimes would not be extradited.
The government sought to reassure the public with some concessions, including promising to only hand over fugitives for offences carrying maximum sentences of at least seven years.
Why the change now?
The proposal came after a 19-year-old Hong Kong man allegedly murdered his 20-year-old pregnant girlfriend while holidaying in Taiwan together in February 2018. The man fled Taiwan and returned to Hong Kong last year.
Taiwanese officials sought help from Hong Kong authorities to extradite the man, but Hong Kong officials said they could not comply because of a lack of extradition agreement with Taiwan.
But the Taiwanese government has said it would not seek to extradite the murder suspect under the proposed changes, and urged Hong Kong to handle the case separately.
Why is this controversial?
Critics said people would be subject to arbitrary detention, unfair trial and torture under China's judicial system.
"The proposed changes to the extradition laws will put anyone in Hong Kong doing work related to the mainland at risk," said Human Rights Watch's Sophie Richardson in a statement earlier this year.
"No one will be safe, including activists, human rights lawyers, journalists, and social workers."
Lam Wing Kee, a Hong Kong bookseller, said he was abducted, detained and charged with "operating a bookstore illegally" in China in 2015 for selling books critical of Chinese leaders.
In late April, Mr Lam fled Hong Kong and moved to Taiwan where he was granted a temporary residency visa.
"If I don't go, I will be extradited," Mr Lam said during a recent protest against the bill. "I don't trust the government to guarantee my safety, or the safety of any Hong Kong resident."
Who opposed the proposal?
Opposition to the law was widespread from the start, with groups from all sections of society - ranging from lawyers to housewives - voicing their criticism or starting petitions.
Hundreds of petitions against the amendments started by university and secondary school alumni, overseas students and church groups also appeared online.
Lawyers, prosecutors, law students and academics marched in silence and called on the government to shelve the proposal.
Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets for many weekends in a row in some of the largest demonstration since the territory was handed over to China by the British in 1997.
Several countries also expressed concern.
A US congressional commission said in May it risked making Hong Kong more susceptible to China's "political coercion" and further erode Hong Kong's autonomy.
Britain and Canada said they were concerned over the "potential effect" that the proposed changes would have on UK and Canadian citizens in Hong Kong.
The European Union also issued a diplomatic note to Mrs Lam expressing concerns over the proposed changes to the law.
China's foreign ministry has refuted such views, calling them attempts to "politicise" the Hong Kong government proposal and interference in China's internal affairs.
So, the people of Hong Kong were decidedly "unhappy" about the Extradition Law, and protested it en masse, all because "Critics said people would be subject to arbitrary detention, unfair trial and torture under China's judicial system.".
Could it be that China's Judicial System is massively flawed, arbitrary, and unfair?
HE HIT ME FIRST!
Is the cry of every grade school fight.
WaveParticle is correct: Foreign actors (namely us!) instigated insurrection. So, China stomped it out. Now Hong Kong has less freedom than it had previously.
And, you are advocating the same fate for Taiwan. China never talked of military takeover of that country till its status as an autonomous region was being challenged -- again instigated by us!
We have a history of that sort of thing: We told the Iraqi Kurds to rise up against Saddam -- then walked away. Later we sought their help in Syria, then walked away. Then we told HongKong activists to rise up against their government -- and then walked away. The same process is unfolding in Taiwan.
It is sad, despicable -- and predictable.
But, like the excuses of the grade school fight, the grade school chant of the 50's rings out: "Dirty Commie!"
... Except instead of being a reaction to the Soviet Union pushing communism it is us pushing democracy and thinking we are helping the world.
LOL!
You have a link to either of those statements?
Of course not...and you really need to get over your anger at democracy, or more accurately, Capitalism.
My anger is not at democracy or capitalism -- but the abuse and squandering of our wealth and power from your ideological, delusional battles.
An example going forward:
We are meeting with our allies today to discuss "sanctions" on Afghanistan -- along with whether we should steal their money that is parked in U.S. vaults. Essentially, the discussion is about transitioning from the military war (where we got our asses kicked) to a financial war. But still, war.
Meanwhile China says (snippets of which are):
[You owe it to yourself to read the article and ask yourself: "which side will come out on top? The one driven by fear, hate and propaganda seeking an ongoing war? Or the one seeking nonjudgemental, mutually beneficial economic cooperation?]
China to offer 'genuine' aid in Afghanistan's economic reconstruction amid chaotic transition
Chinese players' economic engagement - in contrast to some Western
media's hype of "exploiting" Afghanistan's rich mineral deposits after
the US withdrawal - could deliver genuine investment and technical
support to Afghanistan, aiding it in economic reconstruction after the
current chaos, analysts said.
...
Bloomberg said last week that US has frozen nearly $9.5 billion in
assets of the Afghan central bank and banned cash shipments to the
nation.
...
On Sunday, US President Joe Biden said that the decision on sanctions
against the Taliban will "depend on their conduct." The UK is reportedly
pushing for sanctions against the Taliban at a G7 meeting that is
scheduled to take place on Tuesday.
...
[Meanwhile China reports:]
"We saw Taliban members in every street and block... When they heard
about business hurdles in China Town, they would send higher-level
officials, asking about the difficulty and how they could help. They say
that Chinese people are friends, and should not be afraid to ask if
they run into any trouble," Yu Minghui, director of the China Arab
Economic and Trade Promotion Committee, told the Global Times on
Monday.
...
Chinese private firms' risk-taking moves are also built on China's
flexible and successful diplomatic policy, which paves the way for a
stable relationship with the Taliban leadership and provides a solid
foundation for Chinese businesses to run smoothly in Afghanistan,
analysts said.
"There are more opportunities than the extraction
of mineral resources. The economic foundation of Afghanistan -
including transportation, telecom, industry and agriculture - has all
been ruined, and China has the ability to offer a much-needed shot in
the arm to help the country generate self-dependent economic drive," Liu
Zongyi, the secretary-general of the Research Center for China-South
Asia Cooperation at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies,
told the Global Times.
Also, as the Taliban moves toward gaining
international recognition and eliminating terrorism, China could also
include the country, which sits along the Belt and Road Initiative
route, into the benefits of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, Liu
noted."
As Obama said: "Don't do stupid things". It sounds to me like we did something stupid 20 years ago -- and may well be planning on doing even more stupid things. All China has to do is NOT do stupid things and act like adults. We're making it easy for them!
[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.
So it is China that gave Hund Kong democracy. But China decided to tighten it for security reasons due to the mass protests against China. Is this history correct? LOL
Actually, the UK hasn't officially handed Hong Kong over to the PRC, so what has happened is that the residents of Hong Kong created their own democracy, as the UK began the 50 year transition of Hong Kong to the PRC. But then of course, Carrie Lam, acting for the PRC, cracked down on the democracy movement, with the resistance to the Extradition Law being the impetus.
U.K. Says China Breached Hong Kong Handover Treaty For Third Time. The U.K. government said China is in a “state of ongoing non-compliance” with the Sino-British Joint Declaration, a treaty signed by the two countries that guarantees Hong Kong's rights and freedoms after the city was handed back to Beijing in 1997.
But who would believe that the PRC would honor its word?
Where do you get this shit? Thatcher went to Hong Kong in 1997 and officially turned over Hong Kong to China.
Yes, that's true. But it was done with conditions, strings and caveats that established an equilibrium between a self ruled democracy and a region of Communist China.
Unfortunately, that equilibrium was broken and China was pretty much forced to step in and take charge.
That was unfortunate. Nobody won and everybody lost.
It was broken by the Extradition Law; that's why the protests occurred.
Hong Kong has seen months of protests sparked by a highly controversial plan to allow extraditions to mainland China.
The government had argued the proposed amendments would "plug the loopholes" so that the city would not be a safe haven for criminals.
But critics said those in the former British colony would be exposed to China's deeply flawed justice system, and it would lead to further erosion of the city's judicial independence.
After months of protests which often developed into violence, the bill was officially withdrawn, but that has failed to stop the unrest.
What were the proposals?
The existing extradition law specifically states that it does not apply to "the Central People's Government or the government of any other part of the People's Republic of China".
But the proposed changes would have allowed for the Hong Kong government to consider requests from any country for extradition of criminal suspects, even countries with which it doesn't have an extradition treaty and including mainland China, Taiwan and Macau.
So people wanted for crimes in those territories could potentially be sent there to face trial.
The requests would be decided on a case-by-case basis by the chief executive.
Several commercial offences, such as tax evasion, were removed from the list of extraditable offences amid concerns from the business community.
Hong Kong officials always said Hong Kong courts would have the final say whether to grant such extradition requests, and suspects accused of political and religious crimes would not be extradited.
The government sought to reassure the public with some concessions, including promising to only hand over fugitives for offences carrying maximum sentences of at least seven years.
Why the change now?
The proposal came after a 19-year-old Hong Kong man allegedly murdered his 20-year-old pregnant girlfriend while holidaying in Taiwan together in February 2018. The man fled Taiwan and returned to Hong Kong last year.
Taiwanese officials sought help from Hong Kong authorities to extradite the man, but Hong Kong officials said they could not comply because of a lack of extradition agreement with Taiwan.
But the Taiwanese government has said it would not seek to extradite the murder suspect under the proposed changes, and urged Hong Kong to handle the case separately.
Why is this controversial?
Critics said people would be subject to arbitrary detention, unfair trial and torture under China's judicial system.
"The proposed changes to the extradition laws will put anyone in Hong Kong doing work related to the mainland at risk," said Human Rights Watch's Sophie Richardson in a statement earlier this year.
"No one will be safe, including activists, human rights lawyers, journalists, and social workers."
Lam Wing Kee, a Hong Kong bookseller, said he was abducted, detained and charged with "operating a bookstore illegally" in China in 2015 for selling books critical of Chinese leaders.
In late April, Mr Lam fled Hong Kong and moved to Taiwan where he was granted a temporary residency visa.
"If I don't go, I will be extradited," Mr Lam said during a recent protest against the bill. "I don't trust the government to guarantee my safety, or the safety of any Hong Kong resident."
Who opposed the proposal?
Opposition to the law was widespread from the start, with groups from all sections of society - ranging from lawyers to housewives - voicing their criticism or starting petitions.
Hundreds of petitions against the amendments started by university and secondary school alumni, overseas students and church groups also appeared online.
Lawyers, prosecutors, law students and academics marched in silence and called on the government to shelve the proposal.
Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets for many weekends in a row in some of the largest demonstration since the territory was handed over to China by the British in 1997.
Several countries also expressed concern.
A US congressional commission said in May it risked making Hong Kong more susceptible to China's "political coercion" and further erode Hong Kong's autonomy.
Britain and Canada said they were concerned over the "potential effect" that the proposed changes would have on UK and Canadian citizens in Hong Kong.
The European Union also issued a diplomatic note to Mrs Lam expressing concerns over the proposed changes to the law.
China's foreign ministry has refuted such views, calling them attempts to "politicise" the Hong Kong government proposal and interference in China's internal affairs.
So, the people of Hong Kong were decidedly "unhappy" about the Extradition Law, and protested it en masse, all because "Critics said people would be subject to arbitrary detention, unfair trial and torture under China's judicial system.".
Could it be that China's Judicial System is massively flawed, arbitrary, and unfair?
HE HIT ME FIRST!
Is the cry of every grade school fight.
WaveParticle is correct: Foreign actors (namely us!) instigated insurrection. So, China stomped it out. Now Hong Kong has less freedom than it had previously.
And, you are advocating the same fate for Taiwan. China never talked of military takeover of that country till its status as an autonomous region was being challenged -- again instigated by us!
We have a history of that sort of thing: We told the Iraqi Kurds to rise up against Saddam -- then walked away. Later we sought their help in Syria, then walked away. Then we told HongKong activists to rise up against their government -- and then walked away. The same process is unfolding in Taiwan.
It is sad, despicable -- and predictable.
But, like the excuses of the grade school fight, the grade school chant of the 50's rings out: "Dirty Commie!"
... Except instead of being a reaction to the Soviet Union pushing communism it is us pushing democracy and thinking we are helping the world.
LOL!
You have a link to either of those statements?
Of course not...and you really need to get over your anger at democracy, or more accurately, Capitalism.
My anger is not at democracy or capitalism -- but the abuse and squandering of our wealth and power from your ideological, delusional battles.
An example going forward:
We are meeting with our allies today to discuss "sanctions" on Afghanistan -- along with whether we should steal their money that is parked in U.S. vaults. Essentially, the discussion is about transitioning from the military war (where we got our asses kicked) to a financial war. But still, war.
Meanwhile China says (snippets of which are):
[You owe it to yourself to read the article and ask yourself: "which side will come out on top? The one driven by fear, hate and propaganda seeking an ongoing war? Or the one seeking nonjudgemental, mutually beneficial economic cooperation?]
China to offer 'genuine' aid in Afghanistan's economic reconstruction amid chaotic transition
Chinese players' economic engagement - in contrast to some Western
media's hype of "exploiting" Afghanistan's rich mineral deposits after
the US withdrawal - could deliver genuine investment and technical
support to Afghanistan, aiding it in economic reconstruction after the
current chaos, analysts said.
...
Bloomberg said last week that US has frozen nearly $9.5 billion in
assets of the Afghan central bank and banned cash shipments to the
nation.
...
On Sunday, US President Joe Biden said that the decision on sanctions
against the Taliban will "depend on their conduct." The UK is reportedly
pushing for sanctions against the Taliban at a G7 meeting that is
scheduled to take place on Tuesday.
...
[Meanwhile China reports:]
"We saw Taliban members in every street and block... When they heard
about business hurdles in China Town, they would send higher-level
officials, asking about the difficulty and how they could help. They say
that Chinese people are friends, and should not be afraid to ask if
they run into any trouble," Yu Minghui, director of the China Arab
Economic and Trade Promotion Committee, told the Global Times on
Monday.
...
Chinese private firms' risk-taking moves are also built on China's
flexible and successful diplomatic policy, which paves the way for a
stable relationship with the Taliban leadership and provides a solid
foundation for Chinese businesses to run smoothly in Afghanistan,
analysts said.
"There are more opportunities than the extraction
of mineral resources. The economic foundation of Afghanistan -
including transportation, telecom, industry and agriculture - has all
been ruined, and China has the ability to offer a much-needed shot in
the arm to help the country generate self-dependent economic drive," Liu
Zongyi, the secretary-general of the Research Center for China-South
Asia Cooperation at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies,
told the Global Times.
Also, as the Taliban moves toward gaining
international recognition and eliminating terrorism, China could also
include the country, which sits along the Belt and Road Initiative
route, into the benefits of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, Liu
noted."
As Obama said: "Don't do stupid things". It sounds to me like we did something stupid 20 years ago -- and may well be planning on doing even more stupid things. All China has to do is NOT do stupid things and act like adults. We're making it easy for them!
Moving forward, China will have to recognize the Taliban as a legitimate political party as a first step to recognizing a Taliban-led Afghanistan. Despite dozens of reported secret meetings between China and Taliban in recent years, China remains deeply insecure about a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. Leading Afghanistan analysts in China are pessimistic about the future of regional security after the Taliban establishes itself as a legitimate ruling party. For example, Dr Wang Shida (王世达), Deputy Director of the South Asia Institute at the China Institute of Modern International Relations, wrote in an opinion article for Dazhong Daily (大众日报) that the “Taliban’s return to power will turn Afghanistan into a more conservative and isolated country” (Dazhong Daily July 6). More explicitly, Dr Qian Feng (钱峰), Director of the Research Department of National Institute of Strategic Studies at Tsinghua University, told the Global Times that the “fact is, there are still supporters of the East Turkestan Movement within the Taliban” (Global Times July 13). Furthermore, even if the Taliban were to rule Afghanistan as a legitimate political party, it might not be able to guarantee security; various factions within the Taliban controlling different districts would likely still compete to share profits with a foreign investor—such as China—once it finally enters the market in Afghanistan.
The Taliban will not be an easy partner for China. Significant uncertainty remains regarding the kind of Islamic ideologies that the Taliban leadership will pursue, as well as how this will affect the group’s foreign policy—particularly toward its Central Asian neighbors—if it were to gain control of the Afghan state. In the long term, Afghanistan is in a geographically ideal position to benefit from China’s BRI, sitting between Central Asia and South Asia, and potentially providing a conduit for the landlocked former to the South Asian oceans. It is expected that Chinese companies will be interested in Afghanistan’s reconstruction and connectivity plans. But absent substantial political reforms—possibly as an outcome of the peace talks—Afghanistan’s fragile governance also risks leaving a large vulnerability open for Chinese actors to exploit. Across Central Asia, the failure to implement meaningful political and economic reforms following the Soviet era has resulted in a systemic lack of transparency and other safeguards against corruption, leading to a sustained culture in which political elites view their positions as a source of income and thus open the door to Chinese influence. With China determined to attain a security guarantee over Xinjiang issues, future Afghan political elites will be similarly vulnerable to succumbing to China’s open pockets.
[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.
So it is China that gave Hund Kong democracy. But China decided to tighten it for security reasons due to the mass protests against China. Is this history correct? LOL
Actually, the UK hasn't officially handed Hong Kong over to the PRC, so what has happened is that the residents of Hong Kong created their own democracy, as the UK began the 50 year transition of Hong Kong to the PRC. But then of course, Carrie Lam, acting for the PRC, cracked down on the democracy movement, with the resistance to the Extradition Law being the impetus.
U.K. Says China Breached Hong Kong Handover Treaty For Third Time. The U.K. government said China is in a “state of ongoing non-compliance” with the Sino-British Joint Declaration, a treaty signed by the two countries that guarantees Hong Kong's rights and freedoms after the city was handed back to Beijing in 1997.
But who would believe that the PRC would honor its word?
Where do you get this shit? Thatcher went to Hong Kong in 1997 and officially turned over Hong Kong to China.
Yes, that's true. But it was done with conditions, strings and caveats that established an equilibrium between a self ruled democracy and a region of Communist China.
Unfortunately, that equilibrium was broken and China was pretty much forced to step in and take charge.
That was unfortunate. Nobody won and everybody lost.
It was broken by the Extradition Law; that's why the protests occurred.
Hong Kong has seen months of protests sparked by a highly controversial plan to allow extraditions to mainland China.
The government had argued the proposed amendments would "plug the loopholes" so that the city would not be a safe haven for criminals.
But critics said those in the former British colony would be exposed to China's deeply flawed justice system, and it would lead to further erosion of the city's judicial independence.
After months of protests which often developed into violence, the bill was officially withdrawn, but that has failed to stop the unrest.
What were the proposals?
The existing extradition law specifically states that it does not apply to "the Central People's Government or the government of any other part of the People's Republic of China".
But the proposed changes would have allowed for the Hong Kong government to consider requests from any country for extradition of criminal suspects, even countries with which it doesn't have an extradition treaty and including mainland China, Taiwan and Macau.
So people wanted for crimes in those territories could potentially be sent there to face trial.
The requests would be decided on a case-by-case basis by the chief executive.
Several commercial offences, such as tax evasion, were removed from the list of extraditable offences amid concerns from the business community.
Hong Kong officials always said Hong Kong courts would have the final say whether to grant such extradition requests, and suspects accused of political and religious crimes would not be extradited.
The government sought to reassure the public with some concessions, including promising to only hand over fugitives for offences carrying maximum sentences of at least seven years.
Why the change now?
The proposal came after a 19-year-old Hong Kong man allegedly murdered his 20-year-old pregnant girlfriend while holidaying in Taiwan together in February 2018. The man fled Taiwan and returned to Hong Kong last year.
Taiwanese officials sought help from Hong Kong authorities to extradite the man, but Hong Kong officials said they could not comply because of a lack of extradition agreement with Taiwan.
But the Taiwanese government has said it would not seek to extradite the murder suspect under the proposed changes, and urged Hong Kong to handle the case separately.
Why is this controversial?
Critics said people would be subject to arbitrary detention, unfair trial and torture under China's judicial system.
"The proposed changes to the extradition laws will put anyone in Hong Kong doing work related to the mainland at risk," said Human Rights Watch's Sophie Richardson in a statement earlier this year.
"No one will be safe, including activists, human rights lawyers, journalists, and social workers."
Lam Wing Kee, a Hong Kong bookseller, said he was abducted, detained and charged with "operating a bookstore illegally" in China in 2015 for selling books critical of Chinese leaders.
In late April, Mr Lam fled Hong Kong and moved to Taiwan where he was granted a temporary residency visa.
"If I don't go, I will be extradited," Mr Lam said during a recent protest against the bill. "I don't trust the government to guarantee my safety, or the safety of any Hong Kong resident."
Who opposed the proposal?
Opposition to the law was widespread from the start, with groups from all sections of society - ranging from lawyers to housewives - voicing their criticism or starting petitions.
Hundreds of petitions against the amendments started by university and secondary school alumni, overseas students and church groups also appeared online.
Lawyers, prosecutors, law students and academics marched in silence and called on the government to shelve the proposal.
Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets for many weekends in a row in some of the largest demonstration since the territory was handed over to China by the British in 1997.
Several countries also expressed concern.
A US congressional commission said in May it risked making Hong Kong more susceptible to China's "political coercion" and further erode Hong Kong's autonomy.
Britain and Canada said they were concerned over the "potential effect" that the proposed changes would have on UK and Canadian citizens in Hong Kong.
The European Union also issued a diplomatic note to Mrs Lam expressing concerns over the proposed changes to the law.
China's foreign ministry has refuted such views, calling them attempts to "politicise" the Hong Kong government proposal and interference in China's internal affairs.
So, the people of Hong Kong were decidedly "unhappy" about the Extradition Law, and protested it en masse, all because "Critics said people would be subject to arbitrary detention, unfair trial and torture under China's judicial system.".
Could it be that China's Judicial System is massively flawed, arbitrary, and unfair?
HE HIT ME FIRST!
Is the cry of every grade school fight.
WaveParticle is correct: Foreign actors (namely us!) instigated insurrection. So, China stomped it out. Now Hong Kong has less freedom than it had previously.
And, you are advocating the same fate for Taiwan. China never talked of military takeover of that country till its status as an autonomous region was being challenged -- again instigated by us!
We have a history of that sort of thing: We told the Iraqi Kurds to rise up against Saddam -- then walked away. Later we sought their help in Syria, then walked away. Then we told HongKong activists to rise up against their government -- and then walked away. The same process is unfolding in Taiwan.
It is sad, despicable -- and predictable.
But, like the excuses of the grade school fight, the grade school chant of the 50's rings out: "Dirty Commie!"
... Except instead of being a reaction to the Soviet Union pushing communism it is us pushing democracy and thinking we are helping the world.
LOL!
You have a link to either of those statements?
Of course not...and you really need to get over your anger at democracy, or more accurately, Capitalism.
My anger is not at democracy or capitalism -- but the abuse and squandering of our wealth and power from your ideological, delusional battles.
An example going forward:
We are meeting with our allies today to discuss "sanctions" on Afghanistan -- along with whether we should steal their money that is parked in U.S. vaults. Essentially, the discussion is about transitioning from the military war (where we got our asses kicked) to a financial war. But still, war.
Meanwhile China says (snippets of which are):
[You owe it to yourself to read the article and ask yourself: "which side will come out on top? The one driven by fear, hate and propaganda seeking an ongoing war? Or the one seeking nonjudgemental, mutually beneficial economic cooperation?]
China to offer 'genuine' aid in Afghanistan's economic reconstruction amid chaotic transition
Chinese players' economic engagement - in contrast to some Western
media's hype of "exploiting" Afghanistan's rich mineral deposits after
the US withdrawal - could deliver genuine investment and technical
support to Afghanistan, aiding it in economic reconstruction after the
current chaos, analysts said.
...
Bloomberg said last week that US has frozen nearly $9.5 billion in
assets of the Afghan central bank and banned cash shipments to the
nation.
...
On Sunday, US President Joe Biden said that the decision on sanctions
against the Taliban will "depend on their conduct." The UK is reportedly
pushing for sanctions against the Taliban at a G7 meeting that is
scheduled to take place on Tuesday.
...
[Meanwhile China reports:]
"We saw Taliban members in every street and block... When they heard
about business hurdles in China Town, they would send higher-level
officials, asking about the difficulty and how they could help. They say
that Chinese people are friends, and should not be afraid to ask if
they run into any trouble," Yu Minghui, director of the China Arab
Economic and Trade Promotion Committee, told the Global Times on
Monday.
...
Chinese private firms' risk-taking moves are also built on China's
flexible and successful diplomatic policy, which paves the way for a
stable relationship with the Taliban leadership and provides a solid
foundation for Chinese businesses to run smoothly in Afghanistan,
analysts said.
"There are more opportunities than the extraction
of mineral resources. The economic foundation of Afghanistan -
including transportation, telecom, industry and agriculture - has all
been ruined, and China has the ability to offer a much-needed shot in
the arm to help the country generate self-dependent economic drive," Liu
Zongyi, the secretary-general of the Research Center for China-South
Asia Cooperation at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies,
told the Global Times.
Also, as the Taliban moves toward gaining
international recognition and eliminating terrorism, China could also
include the country, which sits along the Belt and Road Initiative
route, into the benefits of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, Liu
noted."
As Obama said: "Don't do stupid things". It sounds to me like we did something stupid 20 years ago -- and may well be planning on doing even more stupid things. All China has to do is NOT do stupid things and act like adults. We're making it easy for them!
Moving forward, China will have to recognize the Taliban as a legitimate political party as a first step to recognizing a Taliban-led Afghanistan. Despite dozens of reported secret meetings between China and Taliban in recent years, China remains deeply insecure about a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. Leading Afghanistan analysts in China are pessimistic about the future of regional security after the Taliban establishes itself as a legitimate ruling party. For example, Dr Wang Shida (王世达), Deputy Director of the South Asia Institute at the China Institute of Modern International Relations, wrote in an opinion article for Dazhong Daily (大众日报) that the “Taliban’s return to power will turn Afghanistan into a more conservative and isolated country” (Dazhong Daily July 6). More explicitly, Dr Qian Feng (钱峰), Director of the Research Department of National Institute of Strategic Studies at Tsinghua University, told the Global Times that the “fact is, there are still supporters of the East Turkestan Movement within the Taliban” (Global Times July 13). Furthermore, even if the Taliban were to rule Afghanistan as a legitimate political party, it might not be able to guarantee security; various factions within the Taliban controlling different districts would likely still compete to share profits with a foreign investor—such as China—once it finally enters the market in Afghanistan.
The Taliban will not be an easy partner for China. Significant uncertainty remains regarding the kind of Islamic ideologies that the Taliban leadership will pursue, as well as how this will affect the group’s foreign policy—particularly toward its Central Asian neighbors—if it were to gain control of the Afghan state. In the long term, Afghanistan is in a geographically ideal position to benefit from China’s BRI, sitting between Central Asia and South Asia, and potentially providing a conduit for the landlocked former to the South Asian oceans. It is expected that Chinese companies will be interested in Afghanistan’s reconstruction and connectivity plans. But absent substantial political reforms—possibly as an outcome of the peace talks—Afghanistan’s fragile governance also risks leaving a large vulnerability open for Chinese actors to exploit. Across Central Asia, the failure to implement meaningful political and economic reforms following the Soviet era has resulted in a systemic lack of transparency and other safeguards against corruption, leading to a sustained culture in which political elites view their positions as a source of income and thus open the door to Chinese influence. With China determined to attain a security guarantee over Xinjiang issues, future Afghan political elites will be similarly vulnerable to succumbing to China’s open pockets.
Of course I quoted Global Times!
There is a reason for that: They have a plan that was laid out in the article I posted. All we have so far is chest thumping and propaganda*.
But, instead of progressing with intelligence as the Chinese are doing, I assume you prefer McCarthy's approach where the losers dictate the conditions that the winners will adhere to. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You need to watch that play out here and now and learn from it before it plays out in Taiwan.
* although, so far, Biden has successfully ignored the idiots and proceeded wisely and making the best of a bad situation. But, the flag waving chest thumpers will do everything they can to block and disrupt any intelligent and peaceful end to this 20 year fiasco.
Taliban as a political entity is much better than being a militia. A government has responsibility to the whole nation. It will have a leader that other leaders can talk to. Afghanistan will have a future than being occupied by US forever. Taliban has religious ideology, people will lose freedom. This may cause great suffering to some people.
Comments
But who would believe that the PRC would honor its word?
The UK did give Hong Kong over to the PRC, expecting that the treaty would be honored thru 2047.
Guess the UK was wrong on that.
Pretty much why Taiwan doesn't trust "one country, two systems" either.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-47810723
So, the people of Hong Kong were decidedly "unhappy" about the Extradition Law, and protested it en masse, all because "Critics said people would be subject to arbitrary detention, unfair trial and torture under China's judicial system.".
Could it be that China's Judicial System is massively flawed, arbitrary, and unfair?
You have a link to either of those statements?
Of course not...and you really need to get over your anger at democracy, or more accurately, Capitalism.
The handover ceremony was held at the new wing of the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre in Wan Chai on the night of 30 June 1997.
The principal British guest was Prince Charles, who read a farewell speech on behalf of the Queen. The newly elected Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair, the Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, the departing Governor Chris Patten and General Sir Charles Guthrie, Chief of the Defence Staff, also attended.
Representing the People's Republic of China were the President, Jiang Zemin, the Premier, Li Peng, and the first chief executive Tung Chee-hwa. The event was broadcast around the world.
"There are more opportunities than the extraction of mineral resources. The economic foundation of Afghanistan - including transportation, telecom, industry and agriculture - has all been ruined, and China has the ability to offer a much-needed shot in the arm to help the country generate self-dependent economic drive," Liu Zongyi, the secretary-general of the Research Center for China-South Asia Cooperation at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, told the Global Times.
Also, as the Taliban moves toward gaining international recognition and eliminating terrorism, China could also include the country, which sits along the Belt and Road Initiative route, into the benefits of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, Liu noted."
Thanks for playing...
My retort...
https://jamestown.org/program/expanding-chinas-central-asia-playbook-to-afghanistan/