The American Constitution

[Alan Klein]

Time isn't on Hong Kong's side. Frankly it was over when the Brits left. The question is Taiwan. They're capable of fighting back although when there time is on China's side

[Rob C]

Time isn't on Hong Kong's side. Frankly it was over when the Brits left. The question is Taiwan. They're capable of fighting back although when there time is on China's side

Hong Kong. You're right about that: the game was over the moment the ceremony ended.

Taiwan. Fighting back, as in a real war, is suicide. Is it the better choice? I don't think so.

If change is going to come, it has to come from deep within China. It's not impossible, but improbable for the time being.

If you look at it coldly, remove yourself from any partisan position, does the West today really offer the other societies, with alternative takes on life, any outstanding moral highground? Frankly, there appears to be so much hypocricy, corruption and crime at all levels of its society, so much misery and squalor, social division and meanness of spirit... yes, possibly a higher standard of living for some, but beneath that, what?

[Robert Roaldi]

Hong Kong. You're right about that: the game was over the moment the ceremony ended.

Taiwan. Fighting back, as in a real war, is suicide. Is it the better choice? I don't think so.

If change is going to come, it has to come from deep within China. It's not impossible, but improbable for the time being.

If you look at it coldly, remove yourself from any partisan position, does the West today really offer the other societies, with alternative takes on life, any outstanding moral highground? Frankly, there appears to be so much hypocricy, corruption and crime at all levels of its society, so much misery and squalor, social division and meanness of spirit... yes, possibly a higher standard of living for some, but beneath that, what?

An interesting TED talk from a Chinese political scientist: https://www.ted.com/talks/eric_x_li_a_tale_of_two_political_systems. It sounds a bit too glib, glosses over a lot, but offers some thoughts that are worth examining.

[JoeKitchen]

Time isn't on Hong Kong's side. Frankly it was over when the Brits left. The question is Taiwan. They're capable of fighting back although when there time is on China's side

If Hong Kong goes, so does China. 

Hong Kong is essentially what gives China its legitimacy.  It is a highly active business center of the East with banking and corporate centers China desperately needs in order to survive.

Given the current unrest, some businesses have moved their headquarters to Singapore, even though what China has done has been quite minimal by any standard.  This is pretty serious and if a mass exodus of businesses begins, it would probably cause a recession in the already weakened Chinese economy.  The current Trump tariffs and negative effects of China's building boom (which was 40% of their economy for a period of time) would certainly add to this. 

This would not be good, and I can not see China letting this happen, although many a dictators have been blinded by power.

King (excuse me President) Xi is in a very precarious situation right now. 

[Alan Klein]

If you look at it coldly, remove yourself from any partisan position, does the West today really offer the other societies, with alternative takes on life, any outstanding moral highground? Frankly, there appears to be so much hypocricy, corruption and crime at all levels of its society, so much misery and squalor, social division and meanness of spirit... yes, possibly a higher standard of living for some, but beneath that, what?

To say China is equal to the rest of the world and that the rest of the world has nothing better to offer is nonsense.   Political freedom,  freedom of speech,  religion, the press,  etc. There's no comparison.   

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

To say China is equal to the rest of the world and that the rest of the world has nothing better to offer is nonsense.   Political freedom,  freedom of speech,  religion, the press,  etc. There's no comparison.

The question was not 'to criticize China', but what do we/you have to offer them?

Cheers,
Bart

[Rob C]

To say China is equal to the rest of the world and that the rest of the world has nothing better to offer is nonsense.   Political freedom,  freedom of speech,  religion, the press,  etc. There's no comparison.

Count your listed blessings and then take a closer look at them and evaluate: feel the quality, not the width.

Rob

[Alan Klein]

The rioting Chinese in Hong Kong know what they're about to lose.

[RSL]

If they lose it, it'll be an economic disaster for China, not just Hong Kong. But that's something I doubt communists understand.

[Alan Klein]

If they lose it, it'll be an economic disaster for China, not just Hong Kong. But that's something I doubt communists understand.

Why do you think that would happen? 

[Rob C]

Why do you think that would happen?

Throw of the dice? Rumble of a tank? Chatter of a machine gun?

[Osprey]

The Rule of Law?  A system that doesn't change on a dime with whatever Big Man is in power?  Ask all the Chinese trying to salt their money away in the West.

The question was not 'to criticize China', but what do we/you have to offer them?

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

The Rule of Law?  A system that doesn't change on a dime with whatever Big Man is in power?  Ask all the Chinese trying to salt their money away in the West.

+1  There's more to living than just having money.

[LesPalenik]

Why do you think that would happen?

Just look at the history. This is what will happen:
The protesters will get bolder, the bad guys in their midst will get more violent, and the Hongkong police will have get firmer with them. However they will respond rather carefully, not brutally. That police action will infuriate the protesters who are now more confident and anxious to put more weight on the streets. They will now demand autonomy and freedom for Hongkong. Not unsurprisingly, the bad actors will get even bolder and even more violent, vandalizing the offices and stores. This will be perfect opportunity and excuse for the Chinese military to move in, jail the opposition, install a new governor and stratocracy to start a new phase in the once-free Hongkong. 

The only question is when it will happen. I would guess sooner than later.
On my street, two of the houses near me are owned by Hongkong citizens who are now renting out the houses while still making money at home. There are quite a few such homes in Toronto and Vancouver, as safe places to move in when the above events take place.   

[Alan Klein]

Just look at the history. This is what will happen:
The protesters will get bolder, the bad guys in their midst will get more violent, and the Hongkong police will have get firmer with them. However they will respond rather carefully, not brutally. That police action will infuriate the protesters who are now more confident and anxious to put more weight on the streets. They will now demand autonomy and freedom for Hongkong. Not unsurprisingly, the bad actors will get even bolder and even more violent, vandalizing the offices and stores. This will be perfect opportunity and excuse for the Chinese military to move in, jail the opposition, install a new governor and stratocracy to start a new phase in the once-free Hongkong. 

The only question is when it will happen. I would guess sooner than later.
On my street, two of the houses near me are owned by Hongkong citizens who are now renting out the houses while still making money at home. There are quite a few such homes in Toronto and Vancouver, as safe places to move in when the above events take place.   

I agree.  Like I said in an earlier post, once the Brits pulled out, it was only a matter of time before HK's government. industries and people fell under the rule of Peking. The Chinese are patient.   The more interesting question, when will China shed it's one-party rule, if ever?  Even if it did, would it's expansion policies be any different? 

Getting back to the US Constitution, its writers were against getting involved in foreign intrigues, especially with countries "over there". That hasn't worked out too well. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... And I resent you calling the expression of my opinions as "mouthing off".

That was wrong. You are just politely saying stupid not very intelligent things.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Getting back to the US Constitution, its writers were against getting involved in foreign intrigues, especially with countries "over there".

How so? What part of the constitution are you referring to?

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

How so? What part of the constitution are you referring to?

Cheers,
Bart

The part that requires the US Senate approve all treaties. It prevents presidents from making deals on their own as if they were a king.  Obama and the Iran deal is a good example. So was the Paris Accord. 

[Rob C]

The part that requires the US Senate approve all treaties. It prevents presidents from making deals on their own as if they were a king.  Obama and the Iran deal is a good example. So was the Paris Accord.

You could do with a king; so far you've got a court jester, but keep working on it, the signs are promising.

We've got a queen, but we might as well not: she couldn't influence Brexit one way or the other. It's a British thing: have a great gun but don't buy ammunition; not even blanks.

:-)

[Robert Roaldi]

That was wrong. You are just politely saying stupid not very intelligent things.

That exchange was dealt with by the people involved.

Are you actually trying to bait me? You might have too much time on your hands.