China threatens to send Lithuania to garbage bin of history

[Roegerland]

CCP are such petulant children, it would be funny if they weren't also a gargantuan psychotic nuclear power.

[Rumasaya]

We should threaten to send the PRC to the garbage bin of history instead...

[-Astoria-]

And it's driving strategic bombers totally non-aggressively all over the East China Sea for totally peaceful reasons. Amirite.
And no, if Taiwan dared to put up its flag and its national anthem proper in an international sports event there would be such a bitchingfest that even the Heavens would be maddened over Peking's immaturity.

And why does it fly strategic bombers on its own borders? Perhaps because the US does the same thing...

And no, I don't recall the PRC condemning the playing of the Taiwanese anthem at the Olympics. Again, don't know where you're coming up w this stuff

Except it isn't actually the national anthem:

Since 1983, the song (officially with different lyrics) was used at Olympic competitions instead of the National Anthem due to pressure from the Chinese Olympic Committee and the International Olympic Committee. This also changed the symbols used by Taiwan during the Olympics and another sporting and another events and their name officially changed to "Chinese Taipei".

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

CCP are such petulant children, it would be funny if they weren't also a gargantuan psychotic nuclear power.

I mean Peking's favourite activity appears to be dickwaving at other people these days, an activity they euphemistically call "war wolf" "diplomacy".

[Wumaohar]

What you're saying is a hypothetical and that is precisely what it is: a hypothetical

China has the right to secure its own borders especially when the US, UK, and many other imperial powers constantly enter Chinese waterspace and park highly-lethal naval vessels so close by. China does not do this to "threaten Taiwan", they do it to thwart the invasion of their own de facto territory. Ever since the opening up of China the PRC has wished to bolster relations between the PRC and the government of Taiwan, this can be seen by China allowing Taiwanese companies to operate within China

"their de facto territory"

de facto
especially : being such in effect though not formally recognized

Yes, when I say de facto I mean mainland china.

[Novus America]

And it's driving strategic bombers totally non-aggressively all over the East China Sea for totally peaceful reasons. Amirite.
And no, if Taiwan dared to put up its flag and its national anthem proper in an international sports event there would be such a bitchingfest that even the Heavens would be maddened over Peking's immaturity.

And why does it fly strategic bombers on its own borders? Perhaps because the US does the same thing...

And no, I don't recall the PRC condemning the playing of the Taiwanese anthem at the Olympics. Again, don't know where you're coming up w this stuff

The US does not fly bombers towards Canada on simulated attack runs.
Because that would be freaking stupid if we want peaceful relations with Canada.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

And why does it fly strategic bombers on its own borders? Perhaps because the US does the same thing...

And no, I don't recall the PRC condemning the playing of the Taiwanese anthem at the Olympics. Again, don't know where you're coming up w this stuff

The US does not fly bombers towards Canada on simulated attack runs.
Because that would be freaking stupid if we want peaceful relations with Canada.

It's the same bullshit the USSR trotted out about the Baltic being the Sea of Peace while running submarines with nuclear weapons straight into Swedish naval ports.

[Wumaohar]

And why does it fly strategic bombers on its own borders? Perhaps because the US does the same thing...

And no, I don't recall the PRC condemning the playing of the Taiwanese anthem at the Olympics. Again, don't know where you're coming up w this stuff

Except it isn't actually the national anthem:

Since 1983, the song (officially with different lyrics) was used at Olympic competitions instead of the National Anthem due to pressure from the Chinese Olympic Committee and the International Olympic Committee. This also changed the symbols used by Taiwan during the Olympics and another sporting and another events and their name officially changed to "Chinese Taipei".

I'll admit I find the "Chinese Taipei" stuff a bit cringe but again, China is ok w Taiwan competing so long as they don't claim to be independent

[-Astoria-]

"their de facto territory"

Yes, when I say de facto I mean mainland china.

I do not think you understand what de facto means; the mainland does not control Taiwan.

[Wumaohar]

And why does it fly strategic bombers on its own borders? Perhaps because the US does the same thing...

And no, I don't recall the PRC condemning the playing of the Taiwanese anthem at the Olympics. Again, don't know where you're coming up w this stuff

The US does not fly bombers towards Canada on simulated attack runs.
Because that would be freaking stupid if we want peaceful relations with Canada.

Thats because Canada doesn't simulate attack runs on the border, either. But when one country actually simulates an invasion route (US-NATO alliance into mainland China), of course the receiving end will start to fly runs of its own

[Novus America]

"their de facto territory"

Yes, when I say de facto I mean mainland china.

That is not de facto.
De facto means you control it in fact, even if not legally.

Russia de facto controls Crimea. The PRC does NOT de facto control Taiwan as territory because Tawain has its own government, laws and military, and the PRC laws do not in fact apply, and the PRC has no military or government presence on Taiwan.

[Wumaohar]

Yes, when I say de facto I mean mainland china.

I do not think you understand what de facto means; the mainland does not control Taiwan.

My previous comment was referring to the US exploring the idea of invading mainland China, hence why I said "they do it to thwart the invasion of their own de facto territory." I would say de jure if I was saying that Taiwan is part of the PRC

[Bewaffnete Krafte]

I do not think you understand what de facto means; the mainland does not control Taiwan.

My previous comment was referring to the US exploring the idea of invading mainland China, hence why I said "they do it to thwart the invasion of their own de facto territory." I would say de jure if I was saying that Taiwan is part of the PRC

De Jure means in theory.
De Facto means in Practice.
By saying De Jure when referring to China's control of Taiwan means Taiwan is Independent in Practice, though not in theory because of the PRC.
By saying De Facto you are saying that Taiwan is in theory independent but in practice controlled by the PRC.
De Jure is Correct.

[Novus America]

The US does not fly bombers towards Canada on simulated attack runs.
Because that would be freaking stupid if we want peaceful relations with Canada.

Thats because Canada doesn't simulate attack runs on the border, either. But when one country actually simulates an invasion route (US-NATO alliance into mainland China), of course the receiving end will start to fly runs of its own

When did Taiwan last fly bombers towards the PRC?
And no, the US has absolutely zero plans to use Taiwan to invade the PRC. None at all.
That would be insane. And certainly NATO does not.

You are claiming things that are simply false.

It is no longer the 50s. Yes Taiwan did this stuff back then. Like the US and Canada did back in the day.

But Taiwan the US and Canada grew up. The PRC is still stuck in a 1930s, fascist foreign policy mindset. Which is obviously bad, because again we know what irredentism does.

If the PRC would simply treat Taiwan like the US treats Canada now, there would be no risk of war over Taiwan.
It is that simple.

[Wumaohar]

My previous comment was referring to the US exploring the idea of invading mainland China, hence why I said "they do it to thwart the invasion of their own de facto territory." I would say de jure if I was saying that Taiwan is part of the PRC

De Jure means in theory.
De Facto means in Practice.
By saying De Jure when referring to China's control of Taiwan means Taiwan is Independent in Practice, though not in theory because of the PRC.
By saying De Facto you are saying that Taiwan is in theory independent but in practice controlled by the PRC.
De Jure is Correct.

Please don't mansplain the de facto-de jure dichotomy to me, I was referring to mainland China when I said "de facto", no Taiwan

[Novus America]

I do not think you understand what de facto means; the mainland does not control Taiwan.

My previous comment was referring to the US exploring the idea of invading mainland China, hence why I said "they do it to thwart the invasion of their own de facto territory." I would say de jure if I was saying that Taiwan is part of the PRC

The US has not been “exploring” that in some 70 years. What decade do you think it is?

[Bewaffnete Krafte]

De Jure means in theory.
De Facto means in Practice.
By saying De Jure when referring to China's control of Taiwan means Taiwan is Independent in Practice, though not in theory because of the PRC.
By saying De Facto you are saying that Taiwan is in theory independent but in practice controlled by the PRC.
De Jure is Correct.

Please don't mansplain the de facto-de jure dichotomy to me, I was referring to mainland China when I said "de facto", no Taiwan

Sorry, i guess I misunderstood the situation.

[Novus America]

De Jure means in theory.
De Facto means in Practice.
By saying De Jure when referring to China's control of Taiwan means Taiwan is Independent in Practice, though not in theory because of the PRC.
By saying De Facto you are saying that Taiwan is in theory independent but in practice controlled by the PRC.
De Jure is Correct.

Please don't mansplain the de facto-de jure dichotomy to me, I was referring to mainland China when I said "de facto", no Taiwan

It is not “mansplaining” as it has nothing to do with whatever gender you might be.

[Wumaohar]

Thats because Canada doesn't simulate attack runs on the border, either. But when one country actually simulates an invasion route (US-NATO alliance into mainland China), of course the receiving end will start to fly runs of its own

When did Taiwan last fly bombers towards the PRC?
And no, the US has absolutely zero plans to use Taiwan to invade the PRC. None at all.
That would be insane. And certainly NATO does not.

You are claiming things that are simply false.

It is no longer the 50s. Yes Taiwan did this stuff back then. Like the US and Canada did back in the day.

But Taiwan the US and Canada grew up. The PRC is still stuck in a 1930s, fascist foreign policy mindset. Which is obviously bad, because again we know what irredentism does.

If the PRC would simply treat Taiwan like the US treats Canada now, there would be no risk of war over Taiwan.
It is that simple.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWyVEF1inSs

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 021-06-23/

https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/How-the ... with-China

[Novus America]

Then why all the threats? Which only makes peaceful “reunification” LESS likely!

The PRC is only making peaceful “renunciation” LESS likely with stuff like this!

If the PRC stopped acting so authoritarian and obnoxious, made real attempts to understand the feelings of the people in Taiwan, and made real accommodations (like becoming less authoritarian) then the people of Taiwan would be less inclined to feel so negatively about the PRC.

So this is bullshit.

I would like Canada to join the US. But I still recognize Canada’s sovereignty, its ability to have relations with other countries, and that most of its people do not want to join the US at this time.

For any hope of “reunification” the US would first have to fix our flaws, such as things on healthcare, take into account what their people want and make concessions and compromises.

And moreover sending bombers to constantly threaten Canada, holding military exercises to practice violently seizing Ottawa, and such economic threats would be entirely counterproductive. It would only make Canada dislike us more.

So it is good we do not do that, and have NATO and NAFTA instead. We are not fully “unified” under one government but we can and do recognize their sovereignty while still working for peaceful integration on areas we can agree.

And moreover we recognize a North American union, might never happen. I hope it does happen but it is not “destiny” or “fated by history” or such nonsense.

If it does not happen at all, or does not happen for a century so be it. You cannot always get what you want.

What threats? China has a strict non-interventionist policy and only flexes its military muscles on *its own borders* when the Americans cross the largest ocean in the world to provoke them

Also specifically speaking what do you mean by authoritarian?

The PRC has a base in Djibouti, is opening another in Equatorial Guinea.
Some non intervention. Also claiming territory you never controlled to then conquer is NOT no interventionist!

We cannot say “we did not intervene in Iraq because Iraq is ‘Murica!”

Authoritarian as in lacking free and fair elections, being entirely intolerant of dissent.

If the PRC actually wants peaceful “reunification” it will have to make compromises and concessions, massively change its model of governance, and policy towards Taiwan.

Regardless of what you think is moral or right, objectively, from a pragmatic standpoint what the PRC is doing is REDUCING the likelihood of peaceful unification, as it is deeply unpopular in Taiwan.

The people of Taiwan are much better off than the average person in the PRC. Have more freedoms and better living conditions. They overwhelmingly do not want Xi’s boot on their neck.

[Rumasaya]

De Jure means in theory.
De Facto means in Practice.
By saying De Jure when referring to China's control of Taiwan means Taiwan is Independent in Practice, though not in theory because of the PRC.
By saying De Facto you are saying that Taiwan is in theory independent but in practice controlled by the PRC.
De Jure is Correct.

Please don't mansplain the de facto-de jure dichotomy to me, I was referring to mainland China when I said "de facto", no Taiwan

What is exactly "manspain"-ing about this?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

When did Taiwan last fly bombers towards the PRC?
And no, the US has absolutely zero plans to use Taiwan to invade the PRC. None at all.
That would be insane. And certainly NATO does not.

You are claiming things that are simply false.

It is no longer the 50s. Yes Taiwan did this stuff back then. Like the US and Canada did back in the day.

But Taiwan the US and Canada grew up. The PRC is still stuck in a 1930s, fascist foreign policy mindset. Which is obviously bad, because again we know what irredentism does.

If the PRC would simply treat Taiwan like the US treats Canada now, there would be no risk of war over Taiwan.
It is that simple.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWyVEF1inSs

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 021-06-23/

https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/How-the ... with-China

1. America doesn't have nuclear mines lmao
2. Taiwan Strait is international waters. It is nobody's business what anybody does in international waters even if its the goddamn Ever Given crossing it while sailing broadside on to the waves.
3 is an opinion piece lmao.

[Ethel mermania]

“Re-uniting” against the will of the people in the area you are annexing is straight imperialism.
As such you are advocating imperialism.

And why does the PRC only get that “right”?

Is the US entitled to invade the Philippines and Canada, or Germany, Poland or Austria? Or Japan, Korea (and Taiwan ironically enough). Sure the current Federal Republic of Germany never controlled Austria, and the US government never did Canada. But neither did the PRC ever control Taiwan.

The US as as much claim to Canada and Germany to Austria as the PRC does Taiwan.

Remember how last time the whole “reunite” the nation craze turned out?
There was some 70 million people dead.

Maybe not advocate causing WWIII?

Thats not what imperialism is. Taiwan is part of China and its people have been held hostage from rejoining the mainland.

I am sure the original Formosaians would like all the Chinese interlopers to leave.

[Rumasaya]

Thats not what imperialism is. Taiwan is part of China and its people have been held hostage from rejoining the mainland.

I am sure the original Formosaians would like all the Chinese interlopers to leave.

On top of that I don't think there ever was a legal treaty written for the Dutch withdrawal from Formosa...

It is rightfully Dutch!

[Novus America]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWyVEF1inSs

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 021-06-23/

https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/How-the ... with-China

1. America doesn't have nuclear mines lmao
2. Taiwan Strait is international waters. It is nobody's business what anybody does in international waters even if its the goddamn Ever Given crossing it while sailing broadside on to the waves.
3 is an opinion piece lmao.

Besides 3 does not even say what he or she claims.
The US is planning for the possibility of DEFENDING Taiwan against attack.

This is well known. It would only go into effect if the PRC attacks Taiwan first, and would only be fought to defend Taiwan, not take territory on the mainland. As soon as the PRC stopped attacking Taiwan, Japan etc. in such a scenario the US would stop fighting as well because our objective would be achieved.

But it would not in anyway include invading the mainland, something we obviously lack the capacity to do even if we wanted to (and we do not).

Nowhere in that article does it claim the US has a plan to invade the mainland.