YES!!!! Trump signs bill in support of Hong Kong protesters. China angry now.

China has now shut off all U.S. ships from entering the harbor at Hong Kong. That may not sound like much, but it removes the U.S. ships from a close proximity to Hong Kong. That is something you would want to do if you planned on sending in your military to crack down on the protesters and the U.S. has pledged support for the protesters.

Think of all those love sick Sailors and Marines floating around in the South China Sea.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Good-Ole-Rebel said:

China has now shut off all U.S. ships from entering the harbor at Hong Kong. That may not sound like much, but it removes the U.S. ships from a close proximity to Hong Kong. That is something you would want to do if you planned on sending in your military to crack down on the protesters and the U.S. has pledged support for the protesters.

Think of all those love sick Sailors and Marines floating around in the South China Sea.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Click to expand...

Do you have a link for this? I tried to find information, but all I found was an article from back in August about two U.S. warships being denied port access to Hong Kong, but nothing about all U.S. ships being denied.

This was the article I found, dated August 14 of this year:

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Stevicus said:

Do you have a link for this? I tried to find information, but all I found was an article from back in August about two U.S. warships being denied port access to Hong Kong, but nothing about all U.S. ships being denied.

This was the article I found, dated August 14 of this year:

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Click to expand...

I think we both agree the link is a credible source. Other organizations have reported the same thing. It only applies to the navy.

China to suspend US Navy visits to Hong Kong over new law

Good-Ole-Rebel said:

That may not sound like much, but it removes the U.S. ships from a close proximity to Hong Kong. That is something you would want to do if you planned on sending in your military to crack down on the protesters and the U.S. has pledged support for the protesters.

Click to expand...

That isn't really an issue due to the South China Sea which the navy can use. A ship in port in vulnerable anyways so isn't a position the navy would want to be in if military support is required. The navy will want distance until the area is secure from Chinese naval, land and air assets have been dealt with. At best it remove a symbol of support, nothing more.

Until there's a use of force or an authorization for extended deployment of assets, this resolution really isn't anything other than a biting of the thumb.

Shad said:

That isn't really an issue due to the South China Sea which the navy can use. A ship in port in vulnerable anyways so isn't a position the navy would want to be in if military support is required. The navy will want distance until the area is secure from Chinese naval, land and air assets have been dealt with. At best it remove a symbol of support, nothing more.

Click to expand...

The legislation the U.S. signed is supposed to just be a 'symbol of support' and nothing more...correct? That is the way everyone here treats it. Yet these symbols of support mean something as the other side reacts to them. As you now see China doing.

And, not allowing U.S. navy ships is not the only thing that China did. She put sanctions on certain pro-democracy and pro-west groups. Such as "National Endowment for Democracy" and "Human Rights Watch and Freedom House".

Slowly shutting the doors. Slowly getting ready.

And of course, because America's bill which openly supports the protesters is just 'symbolic' then China doesn't have to worry about any other symbolic actions. Right?

Now you hear N. Korea rattling a sabre. They are demanding Trump end the U.S. hostile deneuclearzation policies. Do you think that is coincidence at this time? Just a symbolic gesture I'm sure....correct? The U.S. used China to keep N. Korea in check as much as it could. That is all over now. Don't worry...it is all symbolic.

The bottom line is the U.S. stuck it's nose where it didn't belong. And we have gone from a typical 'feel good' action by America, which America loves to posture, to a challenge against our denuclearization policies with a threat of deadline if we don't. Trump should have vetoed the bill.

Just google "N. Korea sets Christmas deadline for U.S."

Good-Ole-Rebel

When you wear a police uniform for long enough, the world likes to check to see if your badge is real. Unfortunately or fortunately, the US is somewhat ideologically bound on this one. We've pledged since the end of WWII to support democracies and pro-democratic movements worldwide. As far as vetoing, Trump could have done that, but that veto would have been overridden. The resolution was passed with a supermajority.

nyRednek said:

When you wear a police uniform for long enough, the world likes to check to see if your badge is real. Unfortunately or fortunately, the US is somewhat ideologically bound on this one. We've pledged since the end of WWII to support democracies and pro-democratic movements worldwide. As far as vetoing, Trump could have done that, but that veto would have been overridden. The resolution was passed with a supermajority.

Click to expand...

Didn't help at the bay of Pigs...did it? Didn't help in S. Vietnam....did it?

And what is the basis for our having to support every democratic movement in the world?

It doesn't matter that the resolution would have been passed by a majority anyway. Trump would still have the ear of China. Not any more.

So, since all this is supposedly 'symbolic', just how far do you think the U.S. should take the symbolism? War with both China and N. Korea? Let's see, how many lives do you think that could involve? How many countries do you think that will involve?

The U.S. has backed itself into a corner. Because China is not going to lose face internationally. She is going to crack down on the protesters whether the U.S. likes it or not. And what are we going to do now? We have only two options. 1.) Bay of Pigs....where we renege on our support and lose face internationally. 2.) South Vietnam...where we are willing to use military force and cost thousands upon thousands of lives and still lose.

Whoever drafted that stupid resolution pledging our support for the protesters have dragged us into an impossible situation. One we should have stayed out of. And.....in 27 years it aint going to matter at all. Unless of course we can defeat China, and N. Korea in a war and just take it over. And that aint going to happen.

Good-Ole-Rebel