3 hours ago, Traubert said:

The depth of anger at an off duty colleague being stabbed multiple times by 'protestors' (or vicious thugs as they are known around the world) may have stiffened the police attitude. There are currently five police officers in intensive care but you wont read about that, only the brave protestors who put them there.

 

Ask yourself who took the gloves off first.

 

"or vicious thugs as they are known around the world"

 

Other than in your imagination or propaganda-like posts, they are generally referred to as protestors.

 

"There are currently five police officers in intensive care but you wont read about that"

 

Source?

 

2 hours ago, timendres said:

This is an important point. The poor of China have seen their lives improve dramatically over the last few decades. Many are very happy with things as they are. And will be for some time to come. But communism has it's fatal flaw, and at some point it will become a failed experiment, in my opinion.

One thing that I have to admire about the CPC is their success rate in reforms. For example, in recent years, they had managed to rebalanced China's economy quite quickly to depend less on exports. Their dependence had dropped to around 20% of GDP from around 40% a decade ago.

The last emperors of both the Ming and Qing dynasties knew they had to reform or perish and yet they failed even though they tried. Gorbachev also tried to reform to save the USSR but failed.

No doubt Mao had made many mistakes, especially in his later part of his career, but it was due to his brilliant organisational skills that helped shape the CPC into such a successful political machine today.

3 hours ago, Selatan said:

Again, the CPC had learned from this mistake and reformed further and look at what China had achieved in the last few decades.

Yes, they were quite clever to let outsiders use their comrades for cheap labor, pocket the cash and then use it to forcefully expand. Russkies never figured out that opportunity.

On 9/1/2019 at 11:48 AM, Pedrogaz said:

Time for the Chinese army to step in. This protest snit about the extradition bill that was dropped many weeks ago....it is about what will happen in 2047.

 

The agreement is very clear....HK potentially loses its autonomous status and becomes part of China, wholly ruled from Beijing, if Beijing so decides. But what is clear is that the agreement ensures it is totally Beijing's decision and western powers and Hong Kongers have no say at all. 

 

The West now wants to change these agreements made long ago, but there is, as usual, no legitimate reason for thier meddling in China's internal affairs for an event that hasn't even happened yet. Throwing petrol bombs would not be tolerated in any Western city without a huge response from the police and/or military. It is time enforce the laws and restore stability and to crush the protest forcefully, in my opinion.

 

The chicom gov is simply playing its normal long game of slow erosion of the 'agreement'. It follows this course with all of its international 'agreements'. Two steps forward then one step back. The Chinese government simply does not truly honor ANY agreement it makes; recent history makes my point.

 

You make some good points but it's very difficult for me to side with an authoritarian government against people who desire freedom. You are not paying the price. In reality your opinion is simply not relevant, nor is  mine; you are a bystander with no dog in this fight.

 

Americans have gradually sold /squandered their birthright of freedom by virtue of letting it be eroded by an increasingly authoritarian governmentband. It is now almost impossible to reclaim it except by widespread demonstrations that will necessarily turn violent as the government responds to challenges to its rule. I'm afraid that shipped has already sailed for America.

 

This failure may be serving as a lesson to the people in Hong Kong who see the writing on the wall.

 

If you choose to take sides please think twice before supporting a repressive regime like Beijing, regardless of the legal 'correctness' of their stance.