• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread


Once again Justin‘s foul-ups are coming home to roost with his admission that he often doesn’t follow the recommendations of his intelligence people. I wonder how much pressure he’s under by his party to either resign or not run in the next election.
My totally amateurish read on JT is this: He is a spoiled boy in an adult's body. He cannot take "no" for an answer. He fired two high profile female politicians because they would not bend to his will. To add to this I think he is narcissistic and surrounds himself with boot lickers.

And to top it off he has not the sense to know the game he is playing with China is dangerous to our nation.
 
My totally amateurish read on JT is this: He is a spoiled boy in an adult's body. He cannot take "no" for an answer. He fired two high profile female politicians because they would not bend to his will. To add to this I think he is narcissistic and surrounds himself with boot lickers.

And to top it off he has not the sense to know the game he is playing with China is dangerous to our nation.
I’m not like some here who won’t give him credit for having done anything right. Having said that, he has been horribly naïve about the intentions of China and Russia. He has also left this country with a weakened military. And, yes, he’s narcissistic.

These are very dangerous times and I only hope there is someone else in the political scene, regardless of party affiliation, who can lead us out of the wilderness.
 
Terry Glavin explains the situation to some Yanks on the China Unscripted podcast


Here is Sam Cooper on the same podcast in June:

 

In what I call a related matter, read Justin’s own words about the death of “el Comandante” Fidel Castro back in 2016. The only unkind word he says is that he was “controversial”. I can appreciate how world leaders sometimes have to moderate their personal feelings regarding other heads of state but Trudeau’s official press release sure sounds like he absolutely loved the guy and that the vast majority of Cubans did as well. Oh, yes, there may have been a few misguided Cubans who didn’t like Castro but, other than that, he was a good guy. Kind of like how the Chinese all loved Chairman Mao.
 
I seem to recall that Trudeau and Garneau didn’t exactly see eye to eye on a number of things. Too bad. I think Garneau was, for the most part, ethical. IMHO he demonstrated more loyalty to his country than his party or his own self interest.
 

Oh good... this should foster institutional trust:

"For the RCMP to reveal it will investigate security leaks to media, which the prime minister suggested should be done, while declining to investigate the details of the leaks, which the prime minister had declared weren't worth investigating, is an alarming optic."
 

Oh good... this should foster institutional trust:

"For the RCMP to reveal it will investigate security leaks to media, which the prime minister suggested should be done, while declining to investigate the details of the leaks, which the prime minister had declared weren't worth investigating, is an alarming optic."

Basically...

Explosion Reaction GIF
 
I must admit to being of two opinions about this whole sad business.

On the one hand, people are finally beginning to see through Justin and see how he has allowed China to gain control of our economy and heavily influence our government. It’s reached the point where many in the media can smell blood and want to go in for the kill. And whether that happens in the next few months remains to be seen. But definitely he is a wounded animal. And if he is forced to resign or loses in the next election it’s because he deserves it. I only hope that the Canadian public doesn’t lose interest in what has happened. Which is often the case. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the better, more promising LPC members decide not to run again.

On the other hand, I say be careful what you wish for. Right now there’s a terrible lack of leadership in this country. If Poilievre is as scary as he sounds, then things could really take a downward turn in Canada. The NDP? I think Singh is a decent person who has some good ideas but am sure that his party would be disastrous. Also, let’s not forget, both liberal and conservative leaders have been cozy up and sucking up to China for decades now.

Still, largely because of his foreign policy, I don’t think Trudeau should be kept in power. Freeland, in my opinion, could possibly be better suited for the role as Prime Minister. Or possibly Mark Carney. Mind you, neither of them have said they are even interested in the job. At least Freeland is somewhat more pragmatic and has assumed various roles in the Trudeau government. And having some Eastern European blood In her veins, she may have more of an appreciation of the importance of a strong defence program.
 
I must admit to being of two opinions about this whole sad business.

On the one hand, people are finally beginning to see through Justin and see how he has allowed China to gain control of our economy and heavily influence our government. It’s reached the point where many in the media can smell blood and want to go in for the kill. And whether that happens in the next few months remains to be seen. But definitely he is a wounded animal. And if he is forced to resign or loses in the next election it’s because he deserves it. I only hope that the Canadian public doesn’t lose interest in what has happened. Which is often the case. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the better, more promising LPC members decide not to run again.

On the other hand, I say be careful what you wish for. Right now there’s a terrible lack of leadership in this country. If Poilievre is as scary as he sounds, then things could really take a downward turn in Canada. The NDP? I think Singh is a decent person who has some good ideas but am sure that his party would be disastrous. Also, let’s not forget, both liberal and conservative leaders have been cozy up and sucking up to China for decades now.

Still, largely because of his foreign policy, I don’t think Trudeau should be kept in power. Freeland, in my opinion, could possibly be better suited for the role as Prime Minister. Or possibly Mark Carney. Mind you, neither of them have said they are even interested in the job. At least Freeland is somewhat more pragmatic and has assumed various roles in the Trudeau government. And having some Eastern European blood In her veins, she may have more of an appreciation of the importance of a strong defence program.
I really struggle to see how PP is "scary"... Unless "scary" is anyone but the LPC running government.
 
I really struggle to see how PP is "scary"... Unless "scary" is anyone but the LPC running government.
I see the ultra right wing as being as dangerous as the ultra left. And right now it sure seems to me that the ultra right have too much influence, even though Poilievre is trying to restrain some of those who are more vocal. Having said all that, I admit to wanting more of a Progressive Conservative party. I think Robert Stanfield was one of the better prime ministers Canada never had.
 
I see the ultra right wing as being as dangerous as the ultra left. And right now it sure seems to me that the ultra right have too much influence, even though Poilievre is trying to restrain some of those who are more vocal. Having said all that, I admit to wanting more of a Progressive Conservative party. I think Robert Stanfield was one of the better prime ministers Canada never had.

CPC is not an ultra far right party. PP, has a gay parent who he publically supports, and his wife is a immigrant WOC. If it was a far right party he never would have made it to leader.

I'm a center right at best, and in some countries would be a Liberal party.

The issue is that anything not further left than 90 degrees left is now far right in Canada.
 
I feel that Harper had the same problem as Poilievre, which is why he insisted In much of the information coming out of his mouth rather than that of some of his MPs. We’re not that far removed from what Trump did or tried to do in the U.S. Many people said that Trump was mainly bluster and he turned out to be a disaster for the country. As for Poilievre being a gay parent, etc. Mitch McConnell‘s ended up tolerating if not supporting much of Trump’s racist rants despite being married to a woman of Asian heritage, Elaine Chau (the Secretary of Transportation).

Poilievre just hasn’t done enough to distance himself and the party from the racists and the neo-fascists. Erin O’Toole did a much better job of trying to get rid of the extremists and look where that got him.
 
I feel that Harper had the same problem as Poilievre, which is why he insisted In much of the information coming out of his mouth rather than that of some of his MPs. We’re not that far removed from what Trump did or tried to do in the U.S. Many people said that Trump was mainly bluster and he turned out to be a disaster for the country. As for Poilievre being a gay parent, etc. Mitch McConnell‘s ended up tolerating if not supporting much of Trump’s racist rants despite being married to a woman of Asian heritage, Elaine Chau (the Secretary of Transportation).

Poilievre just hasn’t done enough to distance himself and the party from the racists and the neo-fascists. Erin O’Toole did a much better job of trying to get rid of the extremists and look where that got him.
So, nothing the CPC can do short of becoming the LPC will be enough. Fair enough.
 
The vast majority of Canadians are close to centre, some barely to the right, some barely to the left. It’s not the same as being LPC only. I strongly support a more progressive (small or large “P”) Conservative party. The PCs generally supported fiscal responsibility. Another thing that worries me about Poilievre is his belief in cryptocurrency…yikes!
 
I see the ultra right wing as being as dangerous as the ultra left. And right now it sure seems to me that the ultra right have too much influence, even though Poilievre is trying to restrain some of those who are more vocal. Having said all that, I admit to wanting more of a Progressive Conservative party. I think Robert Stanfield was one of the better prime ministers Canada never had.
Him and Joe Clark ;)
 


This is not a Canadian Election piece. But it might as well be - the UK.


Upsetting China is the Government's biggest taboo, as I found out the hard way​

No Taiwan jokes, and Wuhan lab was just a coincidence: officials seemed terrified of annoying Beijing when they vetted Matt Hancock's book
ISABEL OAKESHOTT8 March 2023 • 8:52pm
Isabel Oakeshott



Boris Johnson’s father, Stanley Johnson, will soon be on his way to Xingjiang province in China. Home to the persecuted Uyghur population, the remote region makes for an unlikely tourist destination, but the veteran environmentalist won’t be on holiday: he’ll be making a film. As an unashamed Sinophile, he is unlikely to say anything that upsets Beijing.
Of course Johnson Snr is not in government, but we now know that his reluctance to antagonise the Chinese regime is shared by those in the highest echelons of the British Government. While President Xi Jingping presides over appalling human rights abuses and charts a sinister path to global domination, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office does not want to tweak the dragon’s tail – even via the pages of a former Tory minister’s memoirs.
Publicly, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has begun acknowledging what defence experts have long been warning, which is that the Chinese state emphatically does not wish us well. This is a regime that systematically steals our trade and technology secrets; has infiltrated our critical national infrastructure; and has stretched its toxic tentacles all over our universities.


According to MI5, it poses a “game-changing threat” to the UK. Sunak recently used his first foreign policy speech to declare that the “golden era” of relations between our two countries is over. Unfortunately, the panjandrums in the Foreign Office have yet to catch up, as the Cabinet Office’s painstaking attempts to water down Matt Hancock’s book about the
pandemic expose.
Did Covid-19 originate in a Wuhan lab, a global centre for the study and storage of exactly the type of coronaviruses that led to the outbreak? The FBI is certainly warming to the theory. Just last week, the US intelligence agency said that was the most likely cause of the outbreak.
Choosing his words carefully, FBI director Christopher Wray declared that a “potential lab incident” was “most likely” to blame. Other intelligence agencies also struggle to believe that the proximity of the first known case to the world’s leading coronavirus research laboratory – a place where samples are deliberately altered to make them more deadly to
humans – is just happenstance.
As for Downing St? They won’t go there. During tortuous negotiations between Hancock and the Cabinet Office over what he could and could not say in his Pandemic Diaries, officials let slip something quite extraordinary: that they believe the proximity of the Wuhan lab to the first recorded Covid outbreak is “entirely coincidental.” They seem terrified of
anyone saying otherwise.

Wuhan remarks 'would cause problems'​

To date, M16 has studiously avoided commenting one way or another on this highly sensitive matter – so this is quite the revelation. In private feedback on Hancock’s draft manuscript, officials underlined the importance of their message in bold red font, ordering the former health secretary to make clear that any talk of lab leaks is pure "supposition,”
and certainly does not reflect HMG’s “views or beliefs.” Any hint that anyone in government suspects the virus started life in a coronavirus research facility in Wuhan “would cause problems,” officials complained.
Nor did the civil service want Hancock to dwell on the questionable relationship between the World Health Organisation and Beijing, which pumps tens of millions of dollars into the UN agency, raising concerns about impartiality. An observation that WHO director general Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus was “terrified of upsetting the Chinese” would have to be removed, the Cabinet Office declared. Instead, Hancock was asked to point to difficulties with the China relationship in a “less pejorative tone” and remove “broader references” to the WHO’s relationship with Beijing.
Officials were particularly twitchy about a passing reference in the draft manuscript to relations between China and Taiwan. Hancock had wanted to include an amusing anecdote about how deputy chief medical officer Jonathan Van Tamm had got on at a global health security conference hosted by Taiwan, where he says he came under pressure from Taiwanese representatives to criticise the WHO’s links to the Chinese regime. “Trrying not to start WWIII,” the deputy chief medical officer had quipped in a lighthearted WhatsApp to the health secretary. The UK Government did not see the funny side.
It was not just Beijing the Government was keen not to upset: Hancock was also asked to delete a reference to Johnson receiving a “passive aggressive email” from French president Emmanuel Macron. Such criticism was “problematic,” officials felt. Neither did the Foreign Office want to embarrass a Middle Eastern country for asking for 400 Covid jabs for members of its royal household, while the vaccine roll out was at an early stage here. But these countries are our allies – and the People’s Republic of China very definitely is not.
There will be much disappointment in defence and intelligence circles that the Foreign Office remains so queasy about telling it as it is.


 
Back
Top