[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).

[CogitoCogito]

> 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.

The US sailing ships there won't "trigger" a war, _China_ will trigger a war. They are threatening a war of choice. This is 100% a choice made by China. China could simply not attack Taiwan and publicly state they never will. China could just engage with Taiwan as a separate country. But China chooses to threaten Taiwan instead.

The US is supporting Taiwan militarily to help them defend against such a Chinese invasion. They are doing so at the request of Taiwan. To say that the US is somehow "threatening" Taiwan by trying to help them to avoid a war by China is total lunacy. Frankly it makes no sense at all.

> 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).

China has never repealed this law. China engaged in military exercises surrounding Taiwan in the just the few months. This law is still official Chinese policy and all of their acts imply they still consider it in force. I've _never_ heard anyone Chinese are Taiwanese say that this law no longer applies. Neither those who are for war or against it or for unification or against it. Frankly I think you're either being willfully obtuse or just arguing in bad faith.

[trasz]

>China has never repealed this law.

US never repealed the Hague Invasion Act. Would you say they are threatening Europe? Or do you know someone who says this law no longer applies?

>avoid a war

What war? Neither Taiwan nor China want any kind of military conflict, and they have coexisted peacefully for many decades, including during the KMT regime. There is only one party that would (greatly) benefit from a war there.

>Frankly I think you're either being wilfully obtuse or just arguing in bad faith.

It's called cognitive dissonance. I've just shown you you're using completely different criteria for China and other countries.