But if we have to reach back to 1951 to show how warmongering China is then it's not very convincing is it? Taiwan is as of today a hypothetical. I've been hearing it's going to happen any day now since the 1990s.
But if we have to reach back to 1951 to show how warmongering China is then it's not very convincing is it? Taiwan is as of today a hypothetical. I've been hearing it's going to happen any day now since the 1990s.
The Sino-Vietnamese war was in 1979; the Tibetan takeover was in the 50's. Regarding Taiwan, how about PRC's own laws? https://us.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/zt/twwt/200503/t20050315... (Article 8 is the relevant one)
> The Sino-Vietnamese war was in 1979
I'm aware.
> the Tibetan takeover was in the 50's
Yes, so we're reaching back to the 50s to get to the same numbers as the US has racked up in the past year. What we if we compared the numbers since 1950?
> Article 8 is the relevant one
And has there been an invasion or a toppling of any leaders? No, so again this shows there's a grown up way of recognising there's differences without going all in on war at the drop of a hat.
If you were aware, why were you reaching for the further date as to minimize my point, rather than the more contemporary events? It came off as bad faith.
Further, I was not equivocating the US and China, hence my qualifier of "historically" in my other post; it was said that way to point out that China has in fact invaded other countries in the past. If your bar for "no, its ok" is "hasn't invaded a country in the past 12 months", then by that bar, the vast majority of countries on Earth are just dandy. I think that line of thinking is naive, though.
Regarding article 8; for a law to say what is essentially "we will invade you", and your response is "well... haven't happened yet! It's fine!", that again shows either a bad faith engagement or just naivity.