3 ms·
> 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 whatsoe
by 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 agoGo 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.