4 ms·

Seems to me that invasion of foreign countries is pretty provocative. Except that The Peoples' Republic of China and the Republic of China are recognised by 95

Seems to me that invasion of foreign countries is pretty provocative. Except that The Peoples' Republic of China and the Republic of China are recognised by 95% (or thereabouts) of the world, including the US, as 'One China'. An 'invasion' of China by China makes as much sense as the US 'invading' the US island of Manhattan. Why would China , or the US for that matter, invade themselves and damage valuable infrastructure, commercial property and manufacturing capacity? The only reason for China to take military action against one of their islands is if that island declares Independence. You know, like the Southern Confederate States did in 1861. I remember the North didn't bother to take any military action then.

hackerlight 3y ago
Recognized by everyone except the people that actually matter which are those that live there and don't wish to live under an autocracy.
- scrubs 3y ago
  Agree. Quoting from above: "The breakdown in representative surveys https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7801&id=6963 https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7801&id=6963 is more like 8.4% for unification now or later (mostly later), 25.3% for independence now or later (mostly later), 61.1% for not moving in either direction for now or forever" These numbers will change considerably if China invades against China. The 61.1% are people who merely hope nothing changes ... they're in a bit of denial in other words. Hong Kong is not particularly happy with what the Chinese did ... there's no second system there.
  - hackerlight 3y ago
    People confuse coercion with voluntary statements. The reason liberal democracies pay lip service to this insane notion that 20 million people must live under an autocracy is because we are fucking scared of WW3. That's it. We do not believe in this disgusting nationalist project that desires to subjugate the will of millions of people in the name of restoring the homeland or some other sociopathic blood and soil fantasy.
keybored 3y ago
But the wide agreement on “One China” is like a Don’t Ask Don’t Tell situation, no? Parties like the US agree to a de jure “One China” in order to not rock the boat on the de facto “Two China” status quo.

hackerlight 3y ago

Recognized by everyone except the people that actually matter which are those that live there and don't wish to live under an autocracy.

scrubs 3y ago
Agree. Quoting from above: "The breakdown in representative surveys https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7801&id=6963 https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7801&id=6963 is more like 8.4% for unification now or later (mostly later), 25.3% for independence now or later (mostly later), 61.1% for not moving in either direction for now or forever" These numbers will change considerably if China invades against China. The 61.1% are people who merely hope nothing changes ... they're in a bit of denial in other words. Hong Kong is not particularly happy with what the Chinese did ... there's no second system there.
- hackerlight 3y ago
  People confuse coercion with voluntary statements. The reason liberal democracies pay lip service to this insane notion that 20 million people must live under an autocracy is because we are fucking scared of WW3. That's it. We do not believe in this disgusting nationalist project that desires to subjugate the will of millions of people in the name of restoring the homeland or some other sociopathic blood and soil fantasy.

keybored 3y ago

But the wide agreement on “One China” is like a Don’t Ask Don’t Tell situation, no? Parties like the US agree to a de jure “One China” in order to not rock the boat on the de facto “Two China” status quo.