Hundreds of thousands march in Hong Kong to protest China extradition bill

[Vanoi]

South Vietnam was a dictatorship like South Korea and Greece until the uprising of the polytechnic in Athens, in all cases supported by the US to prevent popular anti-US governments to take over. Chile is just another example, certainly not the only one.

South Vietnam was a democracy for all of its history except four years. What anti-US government was going to take over in South Vietnam?

It isn't "sticking its nose" into anything, it's saying what everyone else has said, that India's abolition of the region's autonomy is going to create issues for the Kashmiris,

Kashmir is not in China. Its not their business. Just China actively supporting Pakistan against its geo-political rival India.

and Chinese intervention in the Korean War was demanded by the North Korean government in the form of an expedition corp of volunteers from the civil war. Through its intervention in the Korean War, North Korea was preserved (barely, every city was subject to the equivalent of five atomic bombs and by the end of the war almost no building in the north was left standing. The US had made it a point to wipe out the country from the map) and China kept US encroachment to the south. I guess you'll never digest either result.

Of course after North Korea starts the war and then starts losing badly do they ask for China's help. China has done nothing but preserve a horrible dictatorship.

In Vietnam it was the culmination of a territorial dispute and an attempt to keep Vietnam out of Cambodia, which failed.

So i am correct?

There is no need to counter China, you don't get it. It isn't as if China's going to invade Okinawa or anything. It is quite literally encirclement. If you defend this encirclement, you are defending aggression, no ifs and no buts.

No need? You do know China actively claims Japanese territory as theirs? The same China who has fortified disputed islands and in the case of Philippines has taken their territory and harasses any ship that disputes its claims? Your apologism is profound.

I'm sorry but you are vastly ignorant of the current disputes China has with multiple of its neighbors.

[Altzek]

South Vietnam was a democracy for all of its history except four years. What anti-US government was going to take over in South Vietnam?

South Vietnam was a dictatorship, even a stratocracy, throughout the '60s, I don't know what kind of democracy you're talking about.
In response to that question... the Viet Congs, who had parallel political stuctures and the support of most in the countryside.

Kashmir is not in China. Its not their business. Just China actively supporting Pakistan against its geo-political rival India.

And Hong Kong isn't in Europe or the United States, it's in China, so you, Western governments and the medias should shut the up because it isn't your business either.


And since Kashimr is a disputed land between India, Pakistan and China and the revocation of autonomy touched marginal pieces of land that China is claiming, this is entirely their business. Not to mention that the government in Taipei also claims roughly the same slices of Kashmir but nobody says anything about it. Hell it claims Mongolia, the mainland doesn't claim Mongolia.
Considering that Taipei claims is involved in as many as if not more territorial claims than the mainland, I wonder how would the world react if a pro-Western Kuomintang would be the ruling party in Beijing and not the communist party. Who would throw a tantrum?

Not to mention that, once again, pretty much the whole world including Western countries and institutions gave their condemnation or expressed their worries regarding what's going on in Kashmir, not just China and Pakistan.

Of course after North Korea starts the war and then starts losing badly do they ask for China's help. China has done nothing but preserve a horrible dictatorship.

Both the north and the south considered each other's existence illegitimate, not to mention that the southern government was wildly unpopular given the insurgency in the south and the massacre of hundreds of thousands of communist activitists.
One of the two would have started a war to unify the country and the north attacked pre-emptively. Because of the US propping up unpopular former Japanese collaborators that butchered their fellow citizens as much as the Koreans on the other side of the border instead we get a permanently divided country.


Not to mention that AT LEAST until the '80s or '90s the north was far more democratic and developed than the south, so I'd say that they also preserved the better government.

So i am correct?

Not in the slightest, Cambodia was an ally of China and China was attempting to preserve its independence. There is nothing wrong in this.

No need? You do know China actively claims Japanese territory as theirs? The same China who has fortified disputed islands and in the case of Philippines has taken their territory and harasses any ship that disputes its claims? Your apologism is profound.

I'm sorry but you are vastly ignorant of the current disputes China has with multiple of its neighbors.

Okinawa isn't in the Senkaku/Diaoyu, it would never be invaded, worst case the Diaoyu islands are the ones getting Chinese marines. Do you know how escalating territorial disputes work?

[Vanoi]

South Vietnam was a dictatorship, even a stratocracy, throughout the '60s, I don't know what kind of democracy you're talking about.
In response to that question... the Viet Congs, who had parallel political stuctures and the support of most in the countryside.

I admit i was wrong but the Viet Cong didn't have enough support to win an election. Popular support for sure but not enough to get elected.

And Hong Kong isn't in Europe or the United States, it's in China, so you, Western governments and the medias should shut the up because it isn't your business either.

So you finally admit China is poking its nose where it doesn't belong. Hong Kkong is certainly the UK's business considering the treat between China and the UK regarding Hong Kong.

And since Kashimr is a disputed land between India, Pakistan and China and the revocation of autonomy touched marginal pieces of land that China is claiming, this is entirely their business. Not to mention that the government in Taipei also claims roughly the same slices of Kashmir but nobody says anything about it. Hell it claims Mongolia, the mainland doesn't claim Mongolia.
Considering that Taipei claims is involved in as many as if not more territorial claims than the mainland, I wonder how would the world react if a pro-Western Kuomintang would be the ruling party in Beijing and not the communist party. Who would throw a tantrum?

Oh because they have claims its their business now? Get real. China has no business in Kashmir other than to stoke tensions against its rival India.

A pro-West China wouldn't likley be interfearing in India's business.

Not to mention that, once again, pretty much the whole world including Western countries and institutions gave their condemnation or expressed their worries regarding what's going on in Kashmir, not just China and Pakistan.

Most Western nations just expressed the same worries they always do. The US openly even says that its policy on Kashmir has not changed and that this is an internal matter between India and Pakistan

Both the north and the south considered each other's existence illegitimate, not to mention that the southern government was wildly unpopular given the insurgency in the south and the massacre of hundreds of thousands of communist activitists.
One of the two would have started a war to unify the country and the north attacked pre-emptively. Because of the US propping up unpopular former Japanese collaborators that butchered their fellow citizens as much as the Koreans on the other side of the border instead we get a permanently divided country

The US is to blame now for Korea being divided? And what evidence is there the South would have invaded North Korea? They had no military capable of doing so and still dont even now.

Not to mention that AT LEAST until the '80s or '90s the north was far more democratic and developed than the south, so I'd say that they also preserved the better government.

Far more democratic my ass. More developed is true though. I find it hilarious considering the outcome of both Koreas you honestly think preserving North Korea was better? South Korea goes on to become a very developed democracy while North Korea becomes an authoritarian hellhole where people can't even meet their basic needs. Apologism at its finest for you.

Not in the slightest, Cambodia was an ally of China and China was attempting to preserve its independence. There is nothing wrong in this.

Cambodia started the war with Vietnam in the first place. They started losing just like North Korea and call in China to help them. Fortunately China couldn't manage and the very muderous regime of Pol Pot was overthrown. Its still China interfearing in foreign affairs.

Okinawa isn't in the Senkaku/Diaoyu, it would never be invaded, worst case the Diaoyu islands are the ones getting Chinese marines. Do you know how escalating territorial disputes work?

Okinawa is close by though which is great if you are trying to counter any Chinese aggression. You just made the case for why the US should remain in Okinawa.

And nothing on the rest of what i said like Chinese actions against the Phillippines?

[Altzek]

I admit i was wrong but the Viet Cong didn't have enough support to win an election. Popular support for sure but not enough to get elected.

So unpopular they had to ban communist activities in the south of Vietnam. I will put it in these terms: in order to have the numbers, organization and and scope they did, the Viet Cong would have needed at least the passive support of the population, you don't maintain and feed an army of hundreds of thousands of guerrillas just like that.

So you finally admit China is poking its nose where it doesn't belong. Hong Kkong is certainly the UK's business considering the treat between China and the UK regarding Hong Kong.

If the institutions of Hong Kong as they were mutually agreed upon by Britain and China prior to the handover would be in jeopardy, sure, it would be their business (and the UK and China's business alone), but they aren't, I think I addressed both the extradition thing and the "democracy" thing. Extradition was implied in the agreement, if someone from the mainland escapes from there to Hong Kong, the local government is bound to extradite the suspect if found in a case of double felony (which means when in a felony that's such in both HK and the mainland), and the constituencies were made up by the British so they can't whine about the lack of "democracy" either because that's their rabbit that they extracted from their hat.

Oh because they have claims its their business now? Get real. China has no business in Kashmir other than to stoke tensions against its rival India.

Learn how international diplomacy works, when a disputed territory has its status unilaterally changed, the claimant is bound to oppose it. Without taking any sides here, Ukraine wasn't quite happy of Crimea and Sevastopol becoming a Russian republic and federal city respectively since the pretense was that, since the territories constitutionally belonged to Ukraine, any change of status about them should have involved discussions with the Ukrainian government, which didn't happen (and even if they would have happened, of course Ukraine would have never agreed to the concession, which is why it had to happen unilaterally and arguably by force, ndr).
The Serbian government also never agreed to Kosovo's independence and to this day will protest any change of status, whether that means more US bases, admission to international institutions, actions towards the Serbian minority, etc etc.
This was but a diplomatic formality, one of hundreds that happened so far. You don't know how diplomacy works.

And what would be the point of "stoking tensions against its rival India"?
Hell is it even a worthy rival? It's a country with a economy, all of its neighbors hate it and it doesn't even have the culture to be the superpower it aspires to be what with the caste system and the entire country being made of ugly sexually-thirsty incels stuck in 10th century BC throwing tantrums if anyone dares to touch a cow.
They're also technically allies, being both in the SCO.

A pro-West China wouldn't likley be interfearing in India's business.

I don't know how you could say that with a straight face. Maybe you didn't.

Most Western nations just expressed the same worries they always do. The US openly even says that its policy on Kashmir has not changed and that this is an internal matter between India and Pakistan

The US's stance on Kashmir is that the region is disputed and that the situation has to be solved diplomatically between India and Pakistan, which has been essentially the same stance of China outside of the tiny slice of Ladakh that India and China dispute. The US never said anywhere that it is an internal matter of India.

The US is to blame now for Korea being divided? And what evidence is there the South would have invaded North Korea? They had no military capable of doing so and still dont even now.

They militarily opposed a reunification that at least most people wanted decades ago (can't say the same now. Not under northern rule anyway) and kept an unpopular mass-murdering dictatorship in power, and yeah since the south's government considered the northern one as illegitimate as the south's was considered by the north, and since Korea was a crown jewel on the geopolitical stage, the south would have attacked at some point, with Western support if necessary. The US is the prime culprit of keeping Korean people and Korean families divided.

That the south wouldn't be able to stand to the northern army today is , it would probably wipe the floor with it considering how much more modern and well-supplied the southern army is. The north's civilian infrastructure and economy are still partially recovering from a famine and economic crisis in the '90s and they had to assign like 10-20% of the state budget to the army to keep it afloat and preserve their independence, at the expense of much of what would make a modern country. The very reason for their nuclear program is that they could divert all that money for the army to things that actually keep the country out of prehistory while spending only a small portion on the nukes as deterrent against the south.
The north wouldn't stand a chance.

Far more democratic my ass. More developed is true though. I find it hilarious considering the outcome of both Koreas you honestly think preserving North Korea was better? South Korea goes on to become a very developed democracy while North Korea becomes an authoritarian hellhole where people can't even meet their basic needs. Apologism at its finest for you.

The north had and still has democratic and direct elections for parliament while the south was a military dictatorship, you tell me which was more authoritarian. And eventually the south sustained itself by literally selling its women as prostitutes to American GIs until it could attract Western investments while the north lost major economic partners (the USSR and the entire COMECON), had to face a famine at the worst period possible and was all but locked out of the world through sanctions in order to prevent it from reassessing and recalibrating its economy and creating new trade agreements to replace those with the old trade partners. Someone here's cheating.

Cambodia started the war with Vietnam in the first place. They started losing just like North Korea and call in China to help them. Fortunately China couldn't manage and the very muderous regime of Pol Pot was overthrown. Its still China interfearing in foreign affairs.

Vietnam always stated that it began with a Cambodian attack on Vietnamese border villages but it never really made sense, Cambodia's army was basically made of the Khmer Rouge guerrillas that had overthrown the US-backed government (the one that allowed the US to turn the country's fields into Swiss cheese, prompting an epochal wave of refugees to the cities) and the country was barely in its third year of peace. The Cambodian army was small, and under-equipped, the people were still starving from the civil war and there was no way they could feed the army while Vietnam had easily mobilized something like two hundred thousand men for the invasion while fighting battles in the north. The circumstances of the war of 1978 have always been extremely suspicious, especially due to Vietnam's intention to create an Indochinese block monopolized by itself, and Cambodia's skepticism towards it.

Okinawa is close by though which is great if you are trying to counter any Chinese aggression. You just made the case for why the US should remain in Okinawa.

The Diaoyu dispute has emerged only recently, what were these marines doing there until now? China held claims for a long time but the drama never started until recently.

And nothing on the rest of what i said like Chinese actions against the Phillippines?

What do you want me to say? Kudos to them for enforcing their claims and at the same time keeping good relations with the Philippine government somehow.

If China would be interested in anything but a few useless rocks, they'd fund and arm the CPP which has instead been left to its fate.

[Vanoi]

So unpopular they had to ban communist activities in the south of Vietnam. I will put it in these terms: in order to have the numbers, organization and and scope they did, the Viet Cong would have needed at least the passive support of the population, you don't maintain and feed an army of hundreds of thousands of guerrillas just like that.

You forget the massive support the Viet Cong got from North Vietnam. In terms of supplies, manpower, and weapons. Even at their height of 200,000 soldiers in 1968 the Viet Cong still failed in the Tet Offensive. So much for all that popular support.

If the institutions of Hong Kong as they were mutually agreed upon by Britain and China prior to the handover would be in jeopardy, sure, it would be their business (and the UK and China's business alone), but they aren't, I think I addressed both the extradition thing and the "democracy" thing.

No. The UK helps guarantee the current system put in place in Hong Kong. Any attempt at changing that which (China has been doing for years) would definitely make it the UK's business.

Learn how international diplomacy works, when a disputed territory has its status unilaterally changed, the claimant is bound to oppose it.

Yep and you do realize there is no international recognition for Chinese claims in Kashmir? Only two nations are recognized to have claims in Kashimir. China is not one of them. Its not their business.

Without taking any sides here, Ukraine wasn't quite happy of Crimea and Sevastopol becoming a Russian republic and federal city respectively since the pretense was that, since the territories constitutionally belonged to Ukraine, any change of status about them should have involved discussions with the Ukrainian government, which didn't happen (and even if they would have happened, of course Ukraine would have never agreed to the concession, which is why it had to happen unilaterally and arguably by force, ndr).
The Serbian government also never agreed to Kosovo's independence and to this day will protest any change of status, whether that means more US bases, admission to international institutions, actions towards the Serbian minority, etc etc.
This was but a diplomatic formality, one of hundreds that happened so far. You don't know how diplomacy works.

In both Ukraine's and Serbia's case they actually have legitimate claims to those areas. China does not. Serbia in its own situation through its own actions screwed itself out of Kosovo.

And what would be the point of "stoking tensions against its rival India"?

Better relations with its rival, Pakistan.

Hell is it even a worthy rival? It's a country with a economy, all of its neighbors hate it and it doesn't even have the culture to be the superpower it aspires to be what with the caste system and the entire country being made of ugly sexually-thirsty incels stuck in 10th century BC throwing tantrums if anyone dares to touch a cow.
They're also technically allies, being both in the SCO.

That country actually has not only a bigger and better economy than your own country of Italy, but a better military too. You think culture determines if a country can become a superpower? My own country had numerous issues in 1945 going into the 20th century but that didn't stop it from being a superpower. being a superpower just requires a great and large economy with a military that can project power. Thats veyr possible for India to achieve.

The rest of your quote is just anti-Indian nonsense.

I don't know how you could say that with a straight face. Maybe you didn't.

Thats funny since your entire hypothetical depends on an assumption. You do know why you don't assume right?

The US's stance on Kashmir is that the region is disputed and that the situation has to be solved diplomatically between India and Pakistan, which has been essentially the same stance of China outside of the tiny slice of Ladakh that India and China dispute. The US never said anywhere that it is an internal matter of India.

They said it was a bilateral issue involving Pakistan and India. Still no China involved in that. And China actually takes a more proactive stance including being the only UNSC member to support Pakistan in the UNSC meeting on Kashmir. And it balmes India for the tensions.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...action-blocked

They militarily opposed a reunification that at least most people wanted decades ago (can't say the same now. Not under northern rule anyway) and kept an unpopular mass-murdering dictatorship in power, and yeah since the south's government considered the northern one as illegitimate as the south's was considered by the north, and since Korea was a crown jewel on the geopolitical stage, the south would have attacked at some point, with Western support if necessary. The US is the prime culprit of keeping Korean people and Korean families divided.

Assuming it could get Western support to do so. Its all assumptions with you. Not evidence.

That the south wouldn't be able to stand to the northern army today is , it would probably wipe the floor with it considering how much more modern and well-supplied the southern army is.

Don't put words in my mouth. Where did i say the South Korean army couldn't stand up to the North Korean Army? I said the South Koreans couldn't invade North Korea. And they still can't. Not without massive civilian casualties and bad casualties to its own army. Being modern and well-supplied means nothing when invading and occupying a country.

The north's civilian infrastructure and economy are still partially recovering from a famine and economic crisis in the '90s and they had to assign like 10-20% of the state budget to the army to keep it afloat and preserve their independence, at the expense of much of what would make a modern country. The very reason for their nuclear program is that they could divert all that money for the army to things that actually keep the country out of prehistory while spending only a small portion on the nukes as deterrent against the south.
The north wouldn't stand a chance.

Nukes are for the US, not South Korea. Its a combined US-South Korean invasion they fear. South Korea alone could defend against the North Koreans, but alone in an invasion against the North Koreans? No way.

The north had and still has democratic and direct elections for parliament while the south was a military dictatorship, you tell me which was more authoritarian.

You mean the "democratic" elections that where you could only choose one party and where the voting was rigged? The same country that sends you to re-education camps?

And eventually the south sustained itself by literally selling its women as prostitutes to American GIs until it could attract Western investments while the north lost major economic partners (the USSR and the entire COMECON), had to face a famine at the worst period possible and was all but locked out of the world through sanctions in order to prevent it from reassessing and recalibrating its economy and creating new trade agreements to replace those with the old trade partners. Someone here's cheating.

Capitalism isn't cheating. No one has forced North Korea it keep its closed style economy since it lost its economic support from the USSR. There have been many attempts in the last three decades from the US and South Korea (with its Sunshine policy) to seek better relations with North Korea and cooperate economically and attempt to open up North Korea. It hasn't worked. North Korea isn't being forced to keep its current mostly closed economic policy.

Vietnam always stated that it began with a Cambodian attack on Vietnamese border villages but it never really made sense, Cambodia's army was basically made of the Khmer Rouge guerrillas that had overthrown the US-backed government (the one that allowed the US to turn the country's fields into Swiss cheese, prompting an epochal wave of refugees to the cities) and the country was barely in its third year of peace. The Cambodian army was small, and under-equipped, the people were still starving from the civil war and there was no way they could feed the army while Vietnam had easily mobilized something like two hundred thousand men for the invasion while fighting battles in the north.

You don't know much about how the war started, do you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambod...Vietnamese_War

The conclusion of the Cambodian Civil War and the Fall of Saigon in April 1975 immediately brought a new conflict between Vietnam and Kampuchea. Although the North Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge had previously fought side by side, the leaders of the newly created Democratic Kampuchea continued to view Vietnam with great suspicion, because they believed the Vietnamese communists had never given up their dream of creating an Indochinese federation with Vietnam as the leader.^[33] For that reason, the Kampuchean government removed all North Vietnamese military forces from Kampuchean territory shortly after their capture of Phnom Penh on 17 April 1975. In the first major clash between the two former allies, the Kampuchean Revolutionary Army invaded the Vietnamese island of Phú Quốc on 1 May 1975 (barely 24 hours after Saigon fell), claiming it was part of Kampuchea's territory.^[33]

It wasn't just one attack by Cambodia that started the war. Cambodia attacked Vietnam three separate times. The first one i have quoted above. They attacked twice in 1977. Once in April and again in September. It was only after these attacks that in 1978 Vietnam attacked and fully occupied Cambodia.

China intervened solely because Cambodia was pro-China and it feared another pro-Soviet/pro-Vietnamese state near its borders.

The Diaoyu dispute has emerged only recently, what were these marines doing there until now?

Still containing China and generally protecting US interests in the Pacific.

China held claims for a long time but the drama never started until recently.

Its only until recently they had the military might to do so.

What do you want me to say? Kudos to them for enforcing their claims and at the same time keeping good relations with the Philippine government somehow.

If China would be interested in anything but a few useless rocks, they'd fund and arm the CPP which has instead been left to its fate.

Useless rocks that contain vast amounts of resources underneath them. And you don't have to say anything. Its you who is trying to claim China is a victim that is being encircled but tis no where near that simple. Now if the US was doing this, i'm sure you'd be all over it.

[Altzek]

You forget the massive support the Viet Cong got from North Vietnam. In terms of supplies, manpower, and weapons. Even at their height of 200,000 soldiers in 1968 the Viet Cong still failed in the Tet Offensive. So much for all that popular support.

I said that they had plenty of support, not that they were universally effective. They were a guerrilla fighting two regular armies, after all.

No. The UK helps guarantee the current system put in place in Hong Kong. Any attempt at changing that which (China has been doing for years) would definitely make it the UK's business.

And the prooves that China is trying to change the system in Hong Kong are...?

Don't tell me the extradition bill.

Yep and you do realize there is no international recognition for Chinese claims in Kashmir? Only two nations are recognized to have claims in Kashimir. China is not one of them. Its not their business.

China doesn't claim all of it, if that's your point. Aksai Chin, though, as far as I know it is in Chinese hands, and it is recognized or at least accepted to be so. India claims Aksai Chin as its own.

In both Ukraine's and Serbia's case they actually have legitimate claims to those areas. China does not. Serbia in its own situation through its own actions screwed itself out of Kosovo.

China isn't claiming all of Kashmir, only a portion that's recognized or even accepted to be so by most countries except India. And whether these claims are legitimate or not is really just your impression and your bias.

Better relations with its rival, Pakistan.

But they don't need to stoke tensions for that, just passively support their position. What did they say anyway?

regarding disputed territory on the China–India border. Regarding Kashmir in general, Hua affirmed that "the Kashmir issue is an issue left from the past between India and Pakistan".^[86] On 9 August, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi after meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said that China is "seriously concerned about the turbulence and escalating tensions" in Kashmir, and that "China will continue to firmly support the Pakistan side in safeguarding its legitimate rights."^[87]

That's just diplomatic support, what's wrong with it?
Pakistan itself recognizes China's claim to Aksai Chin and actually gave it the Trans-Karakoram Trait, it's a matter of mutual favors. Why shouldn't China offer its diplomatic support to an ally?

Do you even know how Kashmir found half of itself in India?

That country actually has not only a bigger and better economy than your own country of Italy, but a better military too. You think culture determines if a country can become a superpower? My own country had numerous issues in 1945 going into the 20th century but that didn't stop it from being a superpower. being a superpower just requires a great and large economy with a military that can project power. Thats veyr possible for India to achieve.

The rest of your quote is just anti-Indian nonsense.

Have you seen the size of India and the size of Italy?
With sixty millions of people we barely qualify as an Indian state while they have more than a billion of people. They have a bigger economy by any measure but do you want to compare purchasing power, human development, literacy, health care, etc? Do you want to compare how we live and how they live? What our streets are like and what theirs are like?

India's economy is massive (thank my hairy balls, the damn country is massive with a massive and growing workforce) but qualitatively poor.

Thats funny since your entire hypothetical depends on an assumption. You do know why you don't assume right?

It's just that the claim is beyond absurd.

They said it was a bilateral issue involving Pakistan and India. Still no China involved in that. And China actually takes a more proactive stance including being the only UNSC member to support Pakistan in the UNSC meeting on Kashmir. And it balmes India for the tensions.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...action-blocked

They locked down the entire region, cut all outside communications, arrested hundreds of people and shot dead dozens, revoked their autonomy and they're now about to open the valley to real estate speculation and mass Hindu settlement (that's literally what the autonomy was preventing), not to mention they revoked its right to keep an elected legislative. If India isn't the one causing tensions, then I don't know who or what is. Even the US had to express its preoccupations:

and further stated "We are concerned about reports of detentions and urge respect for individual rights and discussion with those in affected communities."^[105]

Assuming it could get Western support to do so. Its all assumptions with you. Not evidence.

They'd have a more powerful ally, why would they not support it?
Because attacking first is for bad guys and the West is unmistakably the good guys?

Don't put words in my mouth. Where did i say the South Korean army couldn't stand up to the North Korean Army? I said the South Koreans couldn't invade North Korea. And they still can't. Not without massive civilian casualties and bad casualties to its own army. Being modern and well-supplied means nothing when invading and occupying a country.

You think they wouldn't consider them worth it?
Do you know how many trillions minerals is worth the North Korean soil?

Nukes are for the US, not South Korea. Its a combined US-South Korean invasion they fear. South Korea alone could defend against the North Koreans, but alone in an invasion against the North Koreans? No way.

Irrelevant, what matters is that they exist as a deterrent and to cut corners for the army. Also I'm fairly sure that it could cripple the North Korean army before it even crosses the 38th, it only needs air strikes to disable the obsolete anti-air defenses and radars, ground the enemy air force (very easy) and then the entire armoured force, and with satellites it's a joke. The DPRK could lose within a month.

You mean the "democratic" elections that where you could only choose one party and where the voting was rigged? The same country that sends you to re-education camps?

There are three parties in addition to popular institutions and expatriate associations represented in the SPA, and the elections are legitimate.
Sources at the bottom in case you don't like the website, because you are going to make excuses.

Capitalism isn't cheating. No one has forced North Korea it keep its closed style economy since it lost its economic support from the USSR. There have been many attempts in the last three decades from the US and South Korea (with its Sunshine policy) to seek better relations with North Korea and cooperate economically and attempt to open up North Korea. It hasn't worked. North Korea isn't being forced to keep its current mostly closed economic policy.

The economy was closed by the West, it wasn't the DPRK that closed it. The DPRK has opened China-like SEZs in Kaesong, Sinuiju and Rason but the sanctions prevent any sort of investment there, and with the COMECON being disbanded, they had all the reasons of this world to seek trade agreements with other countries, even capitalist ones, to make up for those that weren't valid anymore.

You don't know much about how the war started, do you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambod...Vietnamese_War



It wasn't just one attack by Cambodia that started the war. Cambodia attacked Vietnam three separate times. The first one i have quoted above. They attacked twice in 1977. Once in April and again in September. It was only after these attacks that in 1978 Vietnam attacked and fully occupied Cambodia.

China intervened solely because Cambodia was pro-China and it feared another pro-Soviet/pro-Vietnamese state near its borders.

I was referring exactly to that quoted part, it never made sense for Cambodia to attack Vietnam first when it had no chance to defend itself in case of war. Do you know how long Cambodia resisted against Vietnam? Two months, barely, and this with mass defections that the Cambodian government knew would have had considering its frantic hunt for Vietnamese agents within the party in peacetime.

Again, the circumstances of Vietnam's invasion are extremely suspicious, and with the Khmer Rouge gone, we will never really know the truth. Personally I think that the claim that Cambodia started is bogus, it just didn't have any reason to do so due to its military insufficiency.

Still containing China and generally protecting US interests in the Pacific.

Containing what? We just said that China hasn't given a about the rocks for six decades, how did they know in the late '40s that China would have started being serious about their claims there decades from then? Did they have a crystal ball?

Its only until recently they had the military might to do so.

Yeah I guess they had a crystal ball.

Useless rocks that contain vast amounts of resources underneath them. And you don't have to say anything. Its you who is trying to claim China is a victim that is being encircled but tis no where near that simple. Now if the US was doing this, i'm sure you'd be all over it.

Like what? Nobody ever surveyed them and the best that you can say about them is that they contain a lot of fish.

[caratacus]

Despite the intense rain today, tens of thousands of people filled Victoria Park in Hong Kong, to demonstrate their resolve for change, on another Sunday of protest. In contrast to the airport demonstration, there was no sign of conflict with the police, as both sides seem mindful not to give Beijing an excuse for sending in their heavy mob, currently amassed close to the border.

I think the people of Hong Kong need to look to Mahatma Gandhi for inspiration if they want to face up against their opponents, violence will only be turned against them.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Despite the intense rain today, tens of thousands of people filled Victoria Park in Hong Kong, to demonstrate their resolve for change, on another Sunday of protest. In contrast to the airport demonstration, there was no sign of conflict with the police, as both sides seem mindful not to give Beijing an excuse for sending in their heavy mob, currently amassed close to the border.

I think the people of Hong Kong need to look to Mahatma Gandhi for inspiration if they want to face up against their opponents, violence will only be turned against them.
]

What I find particularly inspiring about the movement is just how resilient it is, drawing organically from across society day after day, week after week, in the face of physical violence, intimidation, and lately, increasingly certain death, courtesy of the PLA. I recall the story of an accountant in HK, an average guy like you or me. Police put him in the hospital twice. Each time, he was back in the streets as soon as possible, telling those who interviewed him he was ready to die. By contrast, Americans briefly complained about income inequality via the Occupy protests a few years back, camped out for a day or two in some park in NYC before getting hungry and heading to Mickey Ds because they needed to recharge their smartphones.


The Brits should have given Hong Kong independence rather than caving to the PRC out of indifference, corporate greed, or simply the naive belief that Chinese Communism would follow the USSR to the ash heap of history. The chances Hong Kong can ever become another Singapore are now slim to none. It seems the best anyone can hope for at this point is that when the smoke clears, the legacy of the protests is more like Gwangju and less like Tiananmen.

[caratacus]

What I find particularly inspiring about the movement is just how resilient it is, drawing organically from across society day after day, week after week, in the face of physical violence, intimidation, and lately, increasingly certain death, courtesy of the PLA. I recall the story of an accountant in HK, an average guy like you or me. Police put him in the hospital twice. Each time, he was back in the streets as soon as possible, telling those who interviewed him he was ready to die. By contrast, Americans briefly complained about income inequality via the Occupy protests a few years back, camped out for a day or two in some park in NYC before getting hungry and heading to Mickey Ds because they needed to recharge their smartphones.

Indeed, it is even more remarkable, because this is not a single political movement and isn't organised by any particular group. There are elements which are, but on the whole, these people are taking to the streets to express their solidarity with their neighbours and their own unhappiness with the current situation. It is a very inspiring thing to see this mass movement of ordinary people standing shoulder to shoulder in the heavy rain, silently and orderly.

I know that other countries are refraining from comment about the protests because it is acknowledged to be an internal affair of China. But this hasn’t stopped such comments elsewhere. So think that the economic power of China, over the World economy is the major influence in muting comments of solidarity from outside. If Hong Kongers think that support will be forthcoming from other countries they are going to be disappointed. In the global world in which we are living, the principal concern is for investment. Their appeal must be to the Chinese people directly, a task made very difficult by the system they are against.

West reluctant to criticize China over Hong Kong stance
Clashes in Hong Kong have grown more violent and Beijing has ramped up its intimidation tactics as protests enter their 11th week. But so far, the West has shied away from openly chiding China.
https://www.dw.com/en/west-reluctant...nce/a-50028222

The Brits should have given Hong Kong independence rather than caving to the PRC out of indifference, corporate greed, or simply the naive belief that Chinese Communism would follow the USSR to the ash heap of history. The chances Hong Kong can ever become another Singapore are now slim to none. It seems the best anyone can hope for at this point is that when the smoke clears, the legacy of the protests is more like Gwangju and less like Tiananmen.

Great Britain should have given Hong Kong democracy well before handing it back to China. The current situation is part and parcel of the rushed job that was done back in 1984 under the Sino-British Joint Declaration on the future of Hong Kong. Having said that the cuurrent crisis would probably not have resulted if this agreement had been followed to the letter, as the current administration is very much under the control of Beijing. China's foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang said the legally binding Hong Kong handover treaty with Britain was 'a historical document, no longer has any practical significance,' and that 'It is not at all binding for the central government's management over Hong Kong.

[RandomPerson2000]

Great Britain should have given Hong Kong democracy well before handing it back to China. The current situation is part and parcel of the rushed job that was done back in 1984 under the Sino-British Joint Declaration on the future of Hong Kong. Having said that the cuurrent crisis would probably not have resulted if this agreement had been followed to the letter, as the current administration is very much under the control of Beijing. China's foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang said the legally binding Hong Kong handover treaty with Britain was 'a historical document, no longer has any practical significance,' and that 'It is not at all binding for the central government's management over Hong Kong.

Indeed, the 12-3 incident and the Hong Kong riots in 1967 and perhaps the Communist victory in the Chinese Civil War in 1949 should have been a massive wake up call for the UK that it's position in Hong Kong was very vulnerable, thus a longer period of democracy for the city would have been extremely beneficial in the long run in building up a possibly stronger Hong Konger identity. But instead we have this mess today that is unfortunately very likely to get worse as time goes on.

[Heathen Hammer]

Despite the intense rain today, tens of thousands of people filled Victoria Park in Hong Kong, to demonstrate their resolve for change, on another Sunday of protest. In contrast to the airport demonstration, there was no sign of conflict with the police, as both sides seem mindful not to give Beijing an excuse for sending in their heavy mob, currently amassed close to the border.

I think the people of Hong Kong need to look to Mahatma Gandhi for inspiration if they want to face up against their opponents, violence will only be turned against them.

I strongly disagree regarding Ghandi.
Its not like British authorities saw how peaceful his movement was, let out a collective "awwwww!" and decided not to crush his movement.
The reason why Gandhi's "peaceful" approach worked was because he had a lot of military backing and could have probably won via method of violence, or at least make it not worthy for his opponent if he'd chose to.
People in Hong Kong don't have such a luxury, as they don't have a military or even a basic militia force. They need to get access to weapons, or start making their own, organize into units, etc. If they keep non-violent approach, they'll just get crushed by the brutal force of the government since government would lose nothing by doing so.

[B. W.]

Chinese debt is around 300% of their GDP and now they've decided to get into a trade war with the US after Trump attempted to level the playing field. The real reason China wants to increase its influence in Hong Kong is because of its riches. Power grabs over weaker entities is something tyrants have done since the beginning of civilization.

Things are starting to shape up into national alignments, the likes of which usually occur when the war drums start playing. The entire world economy is overextended, a direct result of globalism. Hopefully there will be a happy ending, but pursuing a one world government for 30 years or more and tying it to economies was a recipe for disaster. If there is a way out of the coming mess, it won't be pretty, but hopefully the world can get through it without too much bloodshed.

[Altzek]

I don't know where are you getting that idea, the country's public debt stands at around 47% of their GDP per 2017, and while it is growing, most of it is domestic debt, not external one.

Also Hong Kong doesn't offer anything that Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Shanghai or any other city that has grown to surrogate its function doesn't have. Its GDP is at best 3% of China's and poverty has skyrocketed to 20% since it was forced to compete with the mainland. The city is a dumpster fire.

[Love Mountain]

Conflating all private and public debt is just evident of gross economic ignorance. I'm not sure if the pundits who publish about this stuff are writing these articles for the hits, or out of ignorance.

[Altzek]

It's mentioning public debt, I don't know where you got the private one, and the source is the CIA World Factbook. I don't think you've even opened the link, that isn't even an article.

[Love Mountain]

I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about B.W. who's using a definition of "debt" that no economist uses.

[Common Soldier]

I heard on the radio the other day about the actress in Disney's upcoming Mulan movie receiving criticism for supporting the Hong Kong police. It made me think, that what if the roles were reversed, and this protest was happening in the West? I'd our criticism of the authorities simply because we don't like the Chinese government?

These protest are disruptive, and the.protestors have made their point and views known, so do they really need to continue? And while the police may not be saints, are the protestors as peaceful as portrayed? I don't trust the media in this country, so why should we trust what it says about either side of the dispute 100%? Yes. There are a lot of protestors, but there are a lot more people who aren't protesting and likely support the government view. Should a minority dictate their policy to the majority?

[Heathen Hammer]

I heard on the radio the other day about the actress in Disney's upcoming Mulan movie receiving criticism for supporting the Hong Kong police. It made me think, that what if the roles were reversed, and this protest was happening in the West? I'd our criticism of the authorities simply because we don't like the Chinese government?

These protest are disruptive, and the.protestors have made their point and views known, so do they really need to continue? And while the police may not be saints, are the protestors as peaceful as portrayed? I don't trust the media in this country, so why should we trust what it says about either side of the dispute 100%? Yes. There are a lot of protestors, but there are a lot more people who aren't protesting and likely support the government view. Should a minority dictate their policy to the majority?

I recall that coverage for protests in HK was quite different from coverage of anti-government protests in Western countries, where protesters almost immediately are demonized as "extremists", "racists" and/or Russian spies. Yellow Vest movement in France, UK and some other countries is a good example of that.
Having said that I noticed that as of recent few days Western mainstream media coverage of protests in HK died down, probably to appeal to Chinese investors who are likely pulling their accounts from outlets that glorify protesters. So this is not a black&white issue.

[B. W.]

Hong Kong vs China. In a trade war Hong Kong would be a useful acquisition for China:

https://countryeconomy.com/countries...ong-kong/china

[Altzek]

How so?
Which part of those statistics say that Hong Kong is "vital" to China?


Also I hope you realize Hong Kong is already "acquired" by China.