3 ms·

Why would China even invade Taiwan? For the same reasons they invaded and took Hong Kong. Because they have their own manifest destiny to reunify their country

Why would China even invade Taiwan? For the same reasons they invaded and took Hong Kong. Because they have their own manifest destiny to reunify their country into what it once was. They don't care about the collateral damage to achieve this in the end.

re-thc 2y ago
> For the same reasons they invaded and took Hong Kong. When was this a thing? Britain gave up control "voluntarily". There's been no military conflict whatsoever. Yes, I get that there were changes in law, protests and all sorts of things but those all already happened when Hong Kong was part of China i.e. there was no "invasion".
- barrenko 2y ago
  ... the same thing will apply later on after the successful "non-invasion" of Taiwan.
  - re-thc 2y ago
    > ... the same thing will apply later on after the successful "non-invasion" of Taiwan. Maybe. I never commented on if the situation is good - just that invasion is the wrong term. Perhaps it should be self-implosion.
    - UberFly 2y ago
      Go ahead an look up the column of military transports entering Hong Kong during the ahead-of-schedule "reunification" that apparently wasn't an invasion.
      - re-thc 2y ago
        > Go ahead an look up I'm well aware of what happened in quite some detail. As I said I'm not saying I agree with what happened, but it's still not an invasion. You'd at most be stopping an internal riot / protest if that's what it is. That's like saying if the military moved between Texas and California is that an invasion? Even if you count the whole thing as a civil war that's still not an invasion. Hong Kong returned to China in 1997. Too late to be complaining in 2025.
WhereIsTheTruth 2y ago
You got brainwashed https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12503/1 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12503/1 "1982 U.S.-PRC Joint Communiqué/Six Assurances As they negotiated establishment of diplomatic relations, the U.S. and PRC governments agreed to set aside the contentious issue of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. They took up that issue in the 1982 August 17 Communiqué, in which the PRC states “a fundamental policy of striving for peaceful reunification” with Taiwan, and the U.S. government states it “understands and appreciates” that policy. The U.S. government states in the 1982 communiqué that with those statements “in mind,” “it does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan,” and “intends gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan, leading, over a period of time, to a final resolution.” The U.S. government also declares “no intention” of “pursuing a policy of ‘two Chinas,’” meaning the PRC and the ROC, “or ‘one China, one Taiwan.’”"
- drodgers 2y ago
  I don't see how the commenter is 'brainwashed'. The One China Policy was and remains a convenient status quo for all parties. The risk is that China decides that it's newfound economic and military might have changed that calculus.
  - WhereIsTheTruth 2y ago
    Yeah, now a open question, what's worse: - reuniting with China - getting your only industry stolen by the USA Quick, you have less than 5 years to answer
    - UberFly 2y ago
      Reuniting with China.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
momo_hn2025 2y ago
In a multipolar world, historical ignorance leads to geopolitical disadvantage. One should be well-versed in history before offering opinions on these matters. While American power once allowed it to shape global order unilaterally, a truly multipolar reality requires deep historical understanding to avoid diplomatic failures.
- UberFly 2y ago
  This sounds like Ai nonsense. What does this even mean?
ekianjo 2y ago
They never invaded HK. HK was returned to China.

re-thc 2y ago

> For the same reasons they invaded and took Hong Kong. When was this a thing? Britain gave up control "voluntarily". There's been no military conflict whatsoever. Yes, I get that there were changes in law, protests and all sorts of things but those all already happened when Hong Kong was part of China i.e. there was no "invasion".

barrenko 2y ago
... the same thing will apply later on after the successful "non-invasion" of Taiwan.
- re-thc 2y ago
  > ... the same thing will apply later on after the successful "non-invasion" of Taiwan. Maybe. I never commented on if the situation is good - just that invasion is the wrong term. Perhaps it should be self-implosion.
  - UberFly 2y ago
    Go ahead an look up the column of military transports entering Hong Kong during the ahead-of-schedule "reunification" that apparently wasn't an invasion.
    - re-thc 2y ago
      > Go ahead an look up I'm well aware of what happened in quite some detail. As I said I'm not saying I agree with what happened, but it's still not an invasion. You'd at most be stopping an internal riot / protest if that's what it is. That's like saying if the military moved between Texas and California is that an invasion? Even if you count the whole thing as a civil war that's still not an invasion. Hong Kong returned to China in 1997. Too late to be complaining in 2025.

WhereIsTheTruth 2y ago

You got brainwashed https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12503/1 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12503/1 "1982 U.S.-PRC Joint Communiqué/Six Assurances As they negotiated establishment of diplomatic relations, the U.S. and PRC governments agreed to set aside the contentious issue of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. They took up that issue in the 1982 August 17 Communiqué, in which the PRC states “a fundamental policy of striving for peaceful reunification” with Taiwan, and the U.S. government states it “understands and appreciates” that policy. The U.S. government states in the 1982 communiqué that with those statements “in mind,” “it does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan,” and “intends gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan, leading, over a period of time, to a final resolution.” The U.S. government also declares “no intention” of “pursuing a policy of ‘two Chinas,’” meaning the PRC and the ROC, “or ‘one China, one Taiwan.’”"

drodgers 2y ago
I don't see how the commenter is 'brainwashed'. The One China Policy was and remains a convenient status quo for all parties. The risk is that China decides that it's newfound economic and military might have changed that calculus.
- WhereIsTheTruth 2y ago
  Yeah, now a open question, what's worse: - reuniting with China - getting your only industry stolen by the USA Quick, you have less than 5 years to answer
  - UberFly 2y ago
    Reuniting with China.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

momo_hn2025 2y ago

In a multipolar world, historical ignorance leads to geopolitical disadvantage. One should be well-versed in history before offering opinions on these matters. While American power once allowed it to shape global order unilaterally, a truly multipolar reality requires deep historical understanding to avoid diplomatic failures.

UberFly 2y ago
This sounds like Ai nonsense. What does this even mean?

ekianjo 2y ago

They never invaded HK. HK was returned to China.