[trasz]

USA regularly threatens military action against Taiwan. China has made it very clear they don’t have any intention to invade. They also don’t have a recent history of invading.

I guess the optics here depends on the sources you’re following. If you only read one side you can get to rather silly conclusions.

[CogitoCogito]

> USA regularly threatens military action against Taiwan.

Could you provide an example of this please?

> China has made it very clear they don’t have any intention to invade.

I'm quite confused about this. Are you claiming that China has not made threats to invade Taiwan? I find that claim very confusing considering both their rhetoric as well as their military exercises. China even passed an "Anti-Secession Law" which explicitly states that China will attack Taiwan if Taiwan doesn't "peacefully" allow its annexation.

I find your position quite hard to square with reality.

> I guess the optics here depends on the sources you’re following. If you only read one side you can get to rather silly conclusions.

I'm quite curious what "side" you're reading that's leading to to ignore the PRC's own official policy and actions demonstrating their aggression and belligerence towards Taiwan.

[trasz]

>Could you provide an example of this please?

Literally anything about the conflict. Look at their posturing, or military exercises. It’s a matter or rhetorics - it’s usually described as helping Taiwan, because, well, that’s media for you.

>Are you claiming that China has not made threats to invade Taiwan?

Not only that - it repeatedly declared they won’t invade, and have it written down in their constitution. Also, https://www.ft.com/content/01eb9112-6363-451f-89d2-b90566d9f....

>I'm quite curious what "side" you're reading that's leading to to ignore the PRC's own official policy

Again - you’re not describing PRC’s own policy, you’re describing US state propaganda materials about that policy.

[CogitoCogito]

> Literally anything about the conflict. Look at their posturing, or military exercises. It’s a matter or rhetorics - it’s usually described as helping Taiwan, because, well, that’s media for you.

Could you provide an actual example of this? If the USA regularly threatens military action against Taiwan as you said, providing such a specific example would be quite easy for you.

> Again - you’re not describing PRC’s own policy, you’re describing US state propaganda materials about that policy.

So you’re making the claim that the anti-secession law in which China threatens Taiwan is not official Chinese policy?

[trasz]

Sure, https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/two-us-carriers-e....

Your turn now - can you quote the law which threatens Taiwan?

[CogitoCogito]

> Sure, https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/two-us-carriers-e...

How were those carriers threatening Taiwan exactly? I understand how those carriers might have threatened China, but not Taiwan. Can you find any statement by Taiwan decrying the carriers' presence? Can you find any statement from Taiwan asking the carriers to leave? I can find many statements from Taiwan decrying Chinese actions near them, but none taking issue with the US. Please find me an example of the USA threatening military action against _Taiwan_.

> Your turn now - can you quote the law which threatens Taiwan?

I already have mentioned the Anti-Secession Law multiple times, but sure I'll save you from typing "anti secession law" into Google yourself. Here's Article 8:

> Article 8 In the event that the "Taiwan independence" secessionist forces should act under any name or by any means to cause the fact of Taiwan's secession from China, or that major incidents entailing Taiwan's secession from China should occur, or that possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted, the state shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

> The State Council and the Central Military Commission shall decide on and execute the non-peaceful means and other necessary measures as provided for in the preceding paragraph and shall promptly report to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.

https://www.refworld.org/docid/474403752.html

If you are curious as to Taiwan's position on the law, here is what they have to say:

https://www.mac.gov.tw/en/News_Content.aspx?n=8A319E37A32E01...

China's law quite clearly threatens military action against Taiwan. I can't understand why you would claim otherwise. I've never even met a Taiwanese or Chinese person who has made that claim. Everyone knows the official policy of the PRC is to attack Taiwan if Taiwan doesn't allow its annexation. Your claiming otherwise makes you an interestingly unique person on the internet.

[trasz]

>How were those carriers threatening Taiwan exactly? I understand how those carriers might have threatened China, but not Taiwan.

If it triggered the war, do you think it would be waged mostly on territory of continental China, or Taiwan?

To put it differently - nobody is claiming USA wants to _invade_ Taiwan. They "merely" wish there was a war _in_ Taiwan. Contrast it with Taiwanese, who generally prefer the "leave it as it is" option.

>I already have mentioned the Anti-Secession Law multiple times

Ah, indeed. Except you failed to mention it's from 2005, which in this context was ages ago. And then you quoted the part which clearly states that an invasion is pretty much out of the question - China could only do it to "protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity", which is a higher bar than most superpowers have (cf Hague Invasion Act).