Partner Asean Act - Be warned, it is mischievous!

 The western media are trolling about how good this proposed American Partner Asean Act is to Asean. It would boost the image of Asean if it is passed in Congress. Does Asean need the approval of the American Empire to become respectable and enjoy a better status in the world?

This unilateral Act is something like the Taiwan Relations Act. It is something written by the Americans for the American interest, not in the interest of Asean. The unilateral Taiwan Relations Act allows the Americans to use it to meddle with the internal affairs of Taiwan, claiming that it is lawful to do so, because of the Act. The Americans did not ask the Taiwanese and now can unilaterally come to the defence of Taiwan. Do the Taiwanese have any say in what the Americans can do to them?

The Partner Asean Act would eventually have the meaning, that the Americans could quote this Act to interfere and meddle with Asean's affairs. The Americans did not ask the Asean countries about this Act, did not ask for Asean's approval. They are saying that with this Act, Asean is like their ally and they can say and do what they want with Asean and interfere with Asean's relationship within Asean and with other countries.

Asean must protest and say no to this Act. Asean must not be unilateral become part of the American Empire. However, this may be pointless as the evil Empire would do as it pleases, whether Asean likes it or not. Like in the case of Taiwan Relations Act, the Taiwanese may not want the Americans to meddle in their relations with China. But the Americans can ignore all the protest and objection by the Taiwanese. They can simply said that they are governed by this Act, by their law, to act as they please. It is American's Rules Based Order!

The Americans would introduce more of such laws/Acts to give them the right to mess around with the internal affairs of other countries. How many silly countries are still chirping about the American Rules Based Order, to volunteer themselves to be controlled by the American Empire, under laws/Acts imposed on them unilaterally by the Americans? 

How about Indonesia Relations Act, Malaysia Relations Act, Singapore Relations Act, and the Americans can quote these Acts to conduct wars in the guise of defending Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore or any country, without the consent or invitation of these countries?

Would Asean raise any objection to this Partner Asean Act when they have no part or intent in its making or want to be part of it?

Covid19 - When would WHO stop lying and do the necessary?

GENEVA: The World Health Organization will continue pushing until it finds an answer to how the COVID-19 pandemic started, the agency's chief said on Wednesday (Feb 15) following a report suggesting it had abandoned the search....

The Nature report suggested that the WHO has "quietly shelved the second phase of its much-anticipated scientific investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic".

It quoted Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO expert leading the agency's COVID-19 response, saying that "there is no phase two".

The WHO planned for work to be done in phases, she told the report, but "that plan has changed", adding that "The politics across the world of this really hampered progress on understanding the origins".  CNA

Tedros Ghebreyesus, WHO chief is still lying. It is still blaming China and using China as the scapegoat in this Pandemic. China is the only country that opened itself for WHO to inspect and they could not find anything wrong.

On the other hand, everything is pointing to the Americans, Fort Dettrick and the 36 bioweapon labs in Ukraine. Why is WHO so afraid to conduct an investigation on the Americans? They could not or did not want to see the elephant in the room?

Until WHO starts to investigate the USA, there will be no truth to talk about. Anyway, by now the Americans would have destroyed or removed all evidence on the origins of the virus coming from the Americans.

This creep still dared to open his stupid mouth to accuse China of not cooperating when the USA refused to cooperate from the start and spread all the lies about the origins from China.

When is WHO going to investigate the USA?

The credibility of WHO as an American running dog is no difference from the UN. Period.

 

PS.  When would WHO investigate the crimes against the Pacific Islanders for testing hundreds of nuclear weapons in the surrounding islands, destroying the environments, marine lives and human lives?

When would WHO investigate the environment disaster in the blowing up of the Nordstream pipelines?

When would WHO investigate the disastrous chemical explosion in Ohio, USA, another man made disaster on mother earth?

When would WHO put a stop to the release of nuclear waste by Japan in the coming months?

US Provocation, China Must Act:

 WASHINGTON—The U.S. is markedly increasing the number of troops deployed to Taiwan, more than quadrupling the current number to bolster a training program for the island’s military amid a rising threat from China.

The U.S. plans to deploy between 100 and 200 troops to the island in the coming months, up from roughly 30 there a year ago, according to U.S. officials. The larger force will expand a training program the Pentagon has taken pains not to publicize as the U.S. works to provide Taipei with the capabilities it needs to defend itself without provoking Beijing.

The number of American troops, which has included special-operations forces and U.S. Marines, has fluctuated by a handful during the past few years, according to Defense Department data. The planned increase would be the largest deployment of forces in decades by the U.S. on Taiwan, as the two draw closer to counter China’s growing military power.

Beyond training on Taiwan, the Michigan National Guard is also training a contingent of the Taiwanese military, including during annual exercises with multiple countries at Camp Grayling in northern Michigan, according to people familiar with the training. 

 

Anonymous

Dumbass Western leaders..

 

'Mr. Putin has previously said that nobody can win a nuclear war, and it is a war that should never be fought. However, behind the scenes Russia had been furiously preparing to survive just such a war, which they hope to avoid.

Russia has developed and deployed the S-500 and S-550 air defenses which are primarily designed to shoot down intercontinental ballistic missiles in space before they can release their multiple warheads upon re-entry. Each S-500 battery is capable of simultaneously tracking and destroying 10 ICBMs in the early to mid flight stages.

The S-300 and S-400 batteries armed with the new 77N6-N and 77N6-N1 anti-ballistic missiles are also capable of shooting down ICBM warheads after re-entry at shorter ranges than the S-500.

These systems create an onion of defensive rings around key Russian cities and military bases. In the event of a nuclear exchange the S-500 would target the incoming ICBMs while still in space at a range of 600 kilometers, and outside the borders of Russia; and the S-400 and S-300 batteries would target any deployed warheads that managed to get through. Obviously, preventing as many enemy missiles as possible from being launched would improve the chances of successful defense.'

If Russia’s ICBM defenses could take out 90% of 640 incoming missiles, it could survive a nuclear exchange at the cost of absorbing hits from about 50 warheads that got through. Given the smaller modern warheads in NATO’s missile forces, it would do terrible but localized damage. Moscow would probably experience massive damage, but the rest of Russian territory would be fine.

NATO’s nuclear offense forces rely on aging Trident II and Minuteman III ICBMs. The majority of these systems are over thirty years old. This means they will probably have a significant failure rate just to launch. Russia’s modern air defenses and ECM have been designed to defeat these old technologies.

In balance to the effort to perfect defenses against ICBMs, Mr. Putin announced that Russia’s nuclear forces have been 91% modernized. That means that the ICBMs that Russia would fire all have maneuverable hypersonic warheads. US air defenses are currently unable to defend against these.

The spacing of American Minuteman silos was designed for the majority to survive a first strike and launch retaliation. However, Russian maneuverable hypersonic multiple re-entry vehicles nullify this defense if the targeting data is accurate. Russia has to accurately hit 400 ground targets in the first strike to nullify a response.

Thus, if Russia strikes first, it may be able to eliminate the majority of incoming missiles by destroying them on the ground. The 240 submarine launched Trident missiles would be the primary threat to defend against. Thus a first strike could reduce the number of expected retaliation missiles by 62%.

A first strike would make it unlikely that the bombers and refuelers could get off the ground in time to effectively respond.

Russia currently has a window of superiority in both nuclear offense and defense that NATO is rapidly trying to close. It is not in Russia’s interest to allow NATO to close the technology gap in air defense and ICBM offense.

The world is now on the threshold of nuclear war. Russia keeps warning the West. The West keeps ignoring the warnings and doubling down. The immovable object is meeting the unstoppable force.

In the coming weeks Russia’s ally, China, will offer a peace deal which freezes the Ukraine conflict within the current lines of contact, i.e. Ukraine conceding lost territory to Russia.

If the West rejects the offered peace, which seems fairly likely, then all of the conditions for a nuclear war will be in place. All it will take is a new provocation by NATO to trigger a first strike by Russia. Or worse, if both parties realize this is the case, both will have the incentive to strike first.

Link to article:
http://thesaker.is/the-dire-significance-of-putins-feb-21-speech/

Anonymous 

Singapore is such a well run country

The Bill proposes a legislative framework for three measures; namely a disposable carrier bag charge at supermarkets, a beverage container return scheme, and a food waste reporting framework

SINGAPORE — Dr Amy Khor, Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment introduced the Resource Sustainability (Amendment) Bill for its first reading in parliament on Feb 6. The bill seeks to reduce packaging and food waste and aims to drive behavioural changes across Singapore to reduce waste and increase recycling. This includes introducing a compulsory charge of five cents for plastic bags at larger supermarkets.  www.theindependent.sg

Singapore is indeed a very well managed and well run country that the most important issue of the day is how to save plastic bags being used in supermarkets. And this is now being discussed in Parliament as a priority item, important enough for a slot in Parliament.  It is another way to say that Singapore is so blessed that there are no problems more serious than saving a few plastic bags.

During Chok Tong's time, traffic jam was a sign of prosperity, not a sign of insufficient road networks. Now the savings of plastic bags is a sign of no problems, only plastic bag problems. And all the solutions needed to save and reduce plastic waste have been thought off and exhausted. Now it is left with cutting use of plastic bags. Is the use of plastic bags in super market a luxury, unnecessary? How about replacing plastic bags with banana leaves as wrappers? Never mind if wastage of plastic bags did not amount to much savings compares to bringing in millions of people to consume and consume that would dwarf the savings of all the plastic bags used in the island. Nevermind if the cutting down of plastic bags would create more problems and may lead to more expensive means to replace the lack of plastic bags. 

When plastic bags is not available or at a cost, people would need to be carrying some forms of bags everywhere so that when they need to go to the supermarkets, they would have containers available and no need to go home to bring a container. And all would have to buy some containers to dump their waste in the bin chutes or rubbish bins.  Or would they simply throw or pour everything into the bin chutes or bins, without using a bag? Perhaps there would be a new product, selling plastic bags to hold swills and waste. 

What about hawkers selling takeaway food? Are they going to cut down on the use of plastic containers as well? Everyone needs to carry tiffins to buy takeaway food, like in the 50s and 60s? What about ordering takeaway food to be delivered by food delivery staff?

What do you think? Would bringing in 100 people less, save more from their consumptions of everything than the savings from plastic bags?

PS. Why didn't Parliament discuss about how many foreigners should be allowed into the country, how many can be given citizenship each year, or what is the percentage of foreigners versus citizens to maintain our core and to keep Singapore Singaporean?