Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Content

Article 23 is bad news. I knew it was coming, but it's still really bad news.

—Chris

Files

Comments

Kwok Wai Chin

One less canary, before the blink

Vorbis Exkvizitor

Hey Chris, does article 23 means - that if I go to HongKong (or China I presume), and CCP find out I am supporting you here, on Patreon - I will go to jail? For how long?

droidward

Chris, it seems that even if the CCP one day decided a multi-party system would be better for China, the CCP could not act on it, because a multi-party system would probably put many communists in jail. Question: can you imagine an offer the US could make to, say, the top CCP leadership, which could include maybe the top 10,000 communist officials, for safe harbor/amnesty in the US or elsewhere, and an economically comfortable life to be financed for those officials by the US, provided the CCP facilitates transition to multiparty democracy in China? It would cost the US many billions to finance that, but it would be well worth it if something like that could be arranged. A "truth and reconciliation" deal for China, like the one in a South American nation a few decades ago?

Jeff Lockwood

Further evidence that, when the PLAN retakes Taiwan, the U.S. and its “allies” will do little beyond issuing a “strongly worded communique decrying a ‘dangerous and unprofessional action’.”

Jeff Lockwood

“…pulling out…” often wise advice.

Joe King

Nah, everyone who is charge of strategy knows Hawaii and the west coast would fall soon after, and Japan will go offensive immediately, Phillipines would be attacked too, so two treaty allies taking hits means the defending is inevitable, even calculating a preemptive hit on North America and Guam into it, I'd think