Do you see a position other than my suggesting the opposition of principle vs. financial motives?
We should support it. What Britain did to them by giving them to the Chinese was simply horrid.
1 Like
Yes. The principle of not getting US soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines killed for something that is none of our ■■■■■■■ business.
No, we shouldn’t. Let the englishmen support it. We need to stay out of it.
And that’s bull ■■■■■ There’s no way you could know that.
We’re going to have to disagree. We don’t need to take action, but we should support human rights when we can.
Welcome to ~4 years ago?
HK locals want to be able to independently elect their own leaders rather than puppets vetted by the CCP. They are seeking certain levels of autonomy; not “independence”. Only morons would support full independence given HK’s history.
Britain didn’t “give” it to them. Their “involuntary lease” expired and they realistically had zero means to force an involuntary extension upon the Chinese.
1 Like
How?
…
In other words anti-militarism… lines you up well with Barack Obama. I can see why you said you are not a Republican.
Sanctions
Support for Political Asylum seekers
Setting an example: Ronald Reagan’s “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” speech in Berlin did not place any American soldiers at risk, but it inspired millions.
(As to soldiers at risk, I know a former RAF member who was in Berlin the night the Wall came down. He told me that their entire unit was “confined to quarters” that night because “there is a disturbance at the wall.” He, and almost all his buddies changed into civilian clothes and headed out to see what was up. He says that his participation in tearing down the wall was one of hte proudest moments of his life. But I guess that means that some military took risky actions.)
1 Like
Obama reinvaded Iraq, put us in Syria and murdered US citizens.
Try again.
2 Likes
Sanctions like Iran?
US foreign policy has never been about being that “shining city upon on a hill”. The ignorant and/or stupid are the only ones who buy into it.
Picking sides in this matter carries significant risks that has to be considered.
If anyone is at fault here it’s the British. They can deal with the fallout.
It’s Britain’s fault, not ours.
Everyone knew the day would come when the CCP would revoke Hong Kong and Macau’s relative autonomy. They said around 50 years but considering agitation in Hong Kong over the past five years they are clearly going to accelerate forced integration into greater China.
We don’t have a dog in this fight. It sucks for the people in Hong Kong but this was inevitable. The CCP was never going to allow true democracy and republicanism in its territory. They don’t have to do so.
I’m surprised they’ve even allowed this to go on for as long as it has. They’ve been fairly lenient. But I think those days are over.
If China moves in with tanks and other armor…what kind of message would that send to rest of SE Asia, Taiwan?
I think you would see those nations turning their backs on China, global business community would rethink their business deals with China…and maybe move or expand in other SE nations.
Hell it would be big propaganda boost for us.
Hong Kong still have strong influences in those nations.
I think China knows this and thus will quietly back away.
You know when someone has no arguments left on this forum… the insults come out.
Ignorant. Stupid. Fortunately for you I am too committed to free speech to flag your insults.
What I suggest is you take a voluntary time out and read up on the presidencies of Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 (second term). I expect you will then change your mind.
We do have a dog in this fight called liberty and self determination. A smarter president could make a powerful and front page newsworthy statement on it too. However we don’t have one and I think Trump oughta just keep his mouth shut on it.
Good job.
