OT: Hong Kong, China, United States and NBA

[matchman]

We are going to see how Beijing will respond to this polling result.

[blanko]

This is not surprising indeed.

Liberals can be racist too. Guys who claim themselves as peacemakers would not blink an eye on how bloody horrible the Cambodians are suffering during the Pol Pot days; Bush Sr. and Clintons cannot wait to deal with PRC enormous market after the Tiananmen Massacre. Many Americans back in the 1930s approve or tolerate Nazi expansions.

That's why we need to remind them, it is about them not us. We Hong Kong people could be all torn apart or be smashed under the dragon's claws, but all those noble Westerners will be the next after we fell down. In Lord of the Ring style.

Comparing china to Nazi Germany is a completely flawed argument which does nothing to support your cause. China has shown NOTHING to think it has expansionist aspirations. In fact, it has shown everything that is does not. China is extremely averse to using its military power outside of China.

I think there is very little to worry about Chinese tanks rolling through Asia. It's not going to happen.

Like it or not, Hong Kong is part of China and there isn't anybody in the world who is willing to dispute that. Chinese did not occupy Hong Kong by force. I understand and empathize with HK residents' struggle for freedom and democracy, but with all due respect, this is none of the US' business. The US cannot tell China how to rule Hong Kong. We're talking about some extradition law. We're not talking about concentration camps and gas chambers. The US cannot and should not intervene with this.

Listen to this man

Sent from my SM-N960N using Tapatalk

[2ThouTeninator]

[matchman]

This is not surprising indeed.

Liberals can be racist too. Guys who claim themselves as peacemakers would not blink an eye on how bloody horrible the Cambodians are suffering during the Pol Pot days; Bush Sr. and Clintons cannot wait to deal with PRC enormous market after the Tiananmen Massacre. Many Americans back in the 1930s approve or tolerate Nazi expansions.

That's why we need to remind them, it is about them not us. We Hong Kong people could be all torn apart or be smashed under the dragon's claws, but all those noble Westerners will be the next after we fell down. In Lord of the Ring style.

Comparing china to Nazi Germany is a completely flawed argument which does nothing to support your cause. China has shown NOTHING to think it has expansionist aspirations. In fact, it has shown everything that is does not. China is extremely averse to using its military power outside of China.

I think there is very little to worry about Chinese tanks rolling through Asia. It's not going to happen.

Like it or not, Hong Kong is part of China and there isn't anybody in the world who is willing to dispute that. Chinese did not occupy Hong Kong by force. I understand and empathize with HK residents' struggle for freedom and democracy, but with all due respect, this is none of the US' business. The US cannot tell China how to rule Hong Kong. We're talking about some extradition law. We're not talking about concentration camps and gas chambers. The US cannot and should not intervene with this.

Listen to this man

Sent from my SM-N960N using Tapatalk

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare

Unrestricted Warfare (超限战, literally "warfare beyond bounds") is a book on military strategy written in 1999 by two colonels in the People's Liberation Army, Qiao Liang (乔良) and Wang Xiangsui (王湘穗). Its primary concern is how a nation such as China can defeat a technologically superior opponent (such as the United States) through a variety of means. Rather than focusing on direct military confrontation, this book instead examines a variety of other means. Such means include using International Law (see Lawfare) and a variety of economic means to place one's opponent in a bad position and circumvent the need for direct military action.

War of 21st century is not comparable to that of 20th or 19th. Bombs and bullets are no longer the only means of war.

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” – Sun Tzu

[blanko]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/16/world/asia/china-detention-directive.html?mtrref=amp-businessinsider-com.cdn.ampproject.org&gwh=8C13DEFB3F97BDF41A7E7315BD3313DD&gwt=pay&assetType=REGIWALL

Sent from my SM-N960N using Tapatalk

[TimRobbins]

Unrestricted Warfare (超限战, literally "warfare beyond bounds") is a book on military strategy written in 1999 by two colonels in the People's Liberation Army, Qiao Liang (乔良) and Wang Xiangsui (王湘穗). Its primary concern is how a nation such as China can defeat a technologically superior opponent (such as the United States) through a variety of means. Rather than focusing on direct military confrontation, this book instead examines a variety of other means. Such means include using International Law (see Lawfare) and a variety of economic means to place one's opponent in a bad position and circumvent the need for direct military action.

War of 21st century is not comparable to that of 20th or 19th. Bombs and bullets are no longer the only means of war.

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” – Sun Tzu

That's not "war" and cannot be used as a pretext to meddle with Chinese internal matters. China is a sovereign country. The US is in no position to tell it how to rule HK.

[KingWing]

This is not surprising indeed.

Liberals can be racist too. Guys who claim themselves as peacemakers would not blink an eye on how bloody horrible the Cambodians are suffering during the Pol Pot days; Bush Sr. and Clintons cannot wait to deal with PRC enormous market after the Tiananmen Massacre. Many Americans back in the 1930s approve or tolerate Nazi expansions.

That's why we need to remind them, it is about them not us. We Hong Kong people could be all torn apart or be smashed under the dragon's claws, but all those noble Westerners will be the next after we fell down. In Lord of the Ring style.

Comparing china to Nazi Germany is a completely flawed argument which does nothing to support your cause. China has shown NOTHING to think it has expansionist aspirations. In fact, it has shown everything that is does not. China is extremely averse to using its military power outside of China.

I think there is very little to worry about Chinese tanks rolling through Asia. It's not going to happen.

Like it or not, Hong Kong is part of China and there isn't anybody in the world who is willing to dispute that. Chinese did not occupy Hong Kong by force. I understand and empathize with HK residents' struggle for freedom and democracy, but with all due respect, this is none of the US' business. The US cannot tell China how to rule Hong Kong. We're talking about some extradition law. We're not talking about concentration camps and gas chambers. The US cannot and should not intervene with this.

China does have expansionist aspirations though. The CCP never fails to remind everyone that they want to take over Taiwan, a sovereign nation in its own right. Not to mention the nine dash line, which everyone should google.

[TimRobbins]

China does have expansionist aspirations though. The CCP never fails to remind everyone that they want to take over Taiwan, a sovereign nation in its own right. Not to mention the nine dash line, which everyone should google.

Taiwan is not a sovereign nation and never was. It's part of China. The South China sea issue has been there fro almost 100 years. These are not "expansionist" policies. China has not used military power on any of its neighbors neither did Chins'a president threaten the use of military power on any of its neighbors.

I don't think there's any credible threat of Chinese tanks rolling through Asia and annexing territories. I'm not scared of China and I really don't think we need to meddle in their affairs. The US should definitely try to get better trade terms with China, particularly in terms of IP protection and market access, but we should not try to micro-manage their internal affairs.

[KingWing]

China does have expansionist aspirations though. The CCP never fails to remind everyone that they want to take over Taiwan, a sovereign nation in its own right. Not to mention the nine dash line, which everyone should google.

Taiwan is not a sovereign nation and never was. It's part of China. The South China sea issue has been there fro almost 100 years. These are not "expansionist" policies. China has not used military power on any of its neighbors neither did Chins'a president threaten the use of military power on any of its neighbors.

I don't think there's any credible threat of Chinese tanks rolling through Asia and annexing territories. I'm not scared of China and I really don't think we need to meddle in their affairs. The US should definitely try to get better trade terms with China, particularly in terms of IP protection and market access, but we should not try to micro-manage their internal affairs.

How is Taiwan not a sovereign nation?

[TimRobbins]

China does have expansionist aspirations though. The CCP never fails to remind everyone that they want to take over Taiwan, a sovereign nation in its own right. Not to mention the nine dash line, which everyone should google.

Taiwan is not a sovereign nation and never was. It's part of China. The South China sea issue has been there fro almost 100 years. These are not "expansionist" policies. China has not used military power on any of its neighbors neither did Chins'a president threaten the use of military power on any of its neighbors.

I don't think there's any credible threat of Chinese tanks rolling through Asia and annexing territories. I'm not scared of China and I really don't think we need to meddle in their affairs. The US should definitely try to get better trade terms with China, particularly in terms of IP protection and market access, but we should not try to micro-manage their internal affairs.

How is Taiwan not a sovereign nation?

1. Because it's not.
2. Because most countries do not recognize it as a sovereign state.

The reality is the Taiwan is an autonomous region+, not a fully sovereign state.

[KnicksGadfly]

China does have expansionist aspirations though. The CCP never fails to remind everyone that they want to take over Taiwan, a sovereign nation in its own right. Not to mention the nine dash line, which everyone should google.

Taiwan is not a sovereign nation and never was. It's part of China. The South China sea issue has been there fro almost 100 years. These are not "expansionist" policies. China has not used military power on any of its neighbors neither did Chins'a president threaten the use of military power on any of its neighbors.

I don't think there's any credible threat of Chinese tanks rolling through Asia and annexing territories. I'm not scared of China and I really don't think we need to meddle in their affairs. The US should definitely try to get better trade terms with China, particularly in terms of IP protection and market access, but we should not try to micro-manage their internal affairs.

How is Taiwan not a sovereign nation?

Better not to engage with him. His talking points are eerily similar to Chinese propaganda/the crap they feed you in the Chinese education system.

As an aside:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-moment-a-chinese-spy-decided-to-defect-to-australia-20191122-p53d0x.html

[TimRobbins]

Better not to engage with him. His talking points are eerily similar to Chinese propaganda/the crap they feed you in the Chinese education system

Hardly. I have 0% Chinese heritage in me. I have absolutely no sympathy for the Chinese regime and would never want to live under such a regime. I simply don't think the US should get into matters that really don't concern it. The US is not the world police, it's not the world government and it's not the world court. We should not be intervening in other countries' internal matters unless we're talking about some mass genocide.

[KingWing]

Better not to engage with him. His talking points are eerily similar to Chinese propaganda/the crap they feed you in the Chinese education system

Hardly. I have 0% Chinese heritage in me. I have absolutely no sympathy for the Chinese regime and would never want to live under such a regime. I simply don't think the US should get into matters that really don't concern it. The US is not the world police, it's not the world government and it's not the world court. We should not be intervening in other countries' internal matters unless we're talking about some mass genocide.

It's hard to take you seriously when you can't acknowledge that Taiwan is a sovereign nation, and then can't give any compelling reasons why it's not.

Perhaps it's because you know that acknowledging this fact ruins your claim that China isn't expansionist.

[matchman]

Oh man, so we are expanding the topic on Taiwan?

So the word trick is, "Taiwan is not a sovereignty state."
But my response would be," Republic of China, is indeed a much older country than PRC, is the actual ruler of Taiwan and the nearby islands, which is recognized by America (hey ROC passport holder does not need to apply for a visa to enter America border, unlike PRC and Hong Kong passport holders) and have their words on commitment if PRC tries to invade them."

Conclusion: Yes the country name is not called "Taiwan", but "Republic of China".

[TimRobbins]

Better not to engage with him. His talking points are eerily similar to Chinese propaganda/the crap they feed you in the Chinese education system

Hardly. I have 0% Chinese heritage in me. I have absolutely no sympathy for the Chinese regime and would never want to live under such a regime. I simply don't think the US should get into matters that really don't concern it. The US is not the world police, it's not the world government and it's not the world court. We should not be intervening in other countries' internal matters unless we're talking about some mass genocide.

It's hard to take you seriously when you can't acknowledge that Taiwan is a sovereign nation, and then can't give any compelling reasons why it's not.

Perhaps it's because you know that acknowledging this fact ruins your claim that China isn't expansionist.

I gave you the arguments above. I can repeat them:

1. China does not recognize them as a sovereign state and never did.
2. most countries do not recognize it as a sovereign state.
3. Taiwan itself has been keeping it ambiguous and will not declare itself independent.

Currently, Taiwan's political status is highly ambiguous and heavily disputed. All of the island territories (aside from the Japan-controlled Senkaku/Diaoyutai islands) that are generally considered to collectively constitute a single "Taiwan region" are under the control of the Republic of China (ROC), a polity that conducts official diplomatic relations with and is recognized by fifteen United Nations-recognized countries.[1]

Why are we arguing about this? The issue of Taiwan has been contested for over 100 years now.

[TimRobbins]

Oh man, so we are expanding the topic on Taiwan?

So the word trick is, "Taiwan is not a sovereignty state."
But my response would be," Republic of China, is indeed a much older country than PRC, is the actual ruler of Taiwan and the nearby islands, which is recognized by America (hey ROC passport holder does not need to apply for a visa to enter America border, unlike PRC and Hong Kong passport holders) and have their words on commitment if PRC tries to invade them."

Conclusion: Yes the country name is not called "Taiwan", but "Republic of China".

China has been arguing that Taiwan or (RPC) is part of China for over 100 years. This is nothing new and hardly "expansionist". I will say it again, Chinese tanks are not going to roll through Asia, and the very-long disputes over Taiwan and the South-China-Sea will not change these facts.

I will say it again - I don't see China as a military threat to the US. I don't see China as a military threat to any of its neighbors (Japan, Korea, India). China has not used it's military power anywhere outside of China for the part 50 years and I'm not seeing any signs that this would change.

China is a very important trade partner for the US and I don't think we should alienate them and turn them into unnecessary enemies by meddling in their internal affairs. I have a lot of sympathy and empathy for the people of HK, but I am not willing to go to war with China over an extradition bill. We're not talking about gas chambers or a mass genocide here and it does not nearly meet the threshold that would morally require outside intervention.

I do support the continued effort to change the trade terms with China but we should not be looking to make China into an enemy.

[KingWing]

Hardly. I have 0% Chinese heritage in me. I have absolutely no sympathy for the Chinese regime and would never want to live under such a regime. I simply don't think the US should get into matters that really don't concern it. The US is not the world police, it's not the world government and it's not the world court. We should not be intervening in other countries' internal matters unless we're talking about some mass genocide.

It's hard to take you seriously when you can't acknowledge that Taiwan is a sovereign nation, and then can't give any compelling reasons why it's not.

Perhaps it's because you know that acknowledging this fact ruins your claim that China isn't expansionist.

I gave you the arguments above. I can repeat them:

1. China does not recognize them as a sovereign state and never did.
2. most countries do not recognize it as a sovereign state.
3. Taiwan itself has been keeping it ambiguous and will not declare itself independent.

Currently, Taiwan's political status is highly ambiguous and heavily disputed. All of the island territories (aside from the Japan-controlled Senkaku/Diaoyutai islands) that are generally considered to collectively constitute a single "Taiwan region" are under the control of the Republic of China (ROC), a polity that conducts official diplomatic relations with and is recognized by fifteen United Nations-recognized countries.[1]

Why are we arguing about this? The issue of Taiwan has been contested for over 100 years now.

Earlier you flatly said Taiwan is not a sovereign nation. Now you're quoting something that says its political status is highly ambiguous and heavily contested. I'm not sure what your stance is now.

[TimRobbins]

Earlier you flatly said Taiwan is not a sovereign nation. Now you're quoting something that says its political status is highly ambiguous and heavily contested. I'm not sure what your stance is now.

ambiguous and heavily contested = not a sovereign nation. I'm really not getting your point. What is this debate about? facts are clear.

[KingWing]

Earlier you flatly said Taiwan is not a sovereign nation. Now you're quoting something that says its political status is highly ambiguous and heavily contested. I'm not sure what your stance is now.

ambiguous and heavily contested = not a sovereign nation. I'm really not getting your point. What is this debate about? facts are clear.

Not sure if it's early in the morning for you or what, but ambiguous and heavily contested mean it's not clear either way. You're saying it is clear one way. Can't have it both ways.

[TimRobbins]

Earlier you flatly said Taiwan is not a sovereign nation. Now you're quoting something that says its political status is highly ambiguous and heavily contested. I'm not sure what your stance is now.

ambiguous and heavily contested = not a sovereign nation. I'm really not getting your point. What is this debate about? facts are clear.

Not sure if it's early in the morning for you or what, but ambiguous and heavily contested mean it's not clear either way. You're saying it is clear one way. Can't have it both ways.

ambiguous and heavily contested = not sovereign. I don't understand how it can be interpreted any other way? In any case, how do these semantic games matter? The facts are clear.