248
Priorities
(lemmygrad.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2023
248 points (83.0% liked)
World News
2307 readers
131 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
But you said "maps claim it", that is not annexation. You require boots on the ground occupation to annex a territory, you can't just claim an annexation into existence.
I ask again, where has China, "taken those islands"?
You are making yourself look like a fool.
For example, the US and Canada both claim several islands and territories owned by the other. Canadian maps show they own it, and American maps show they own it. Have either of the two countries "annexed" that territory?
I annex Texas in the name of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea by virtue of being in the state. Sorry FBI, cope and seethe.
Somehow I feel like that's an improvement.
That's because almost anywhere being annexed by the DPRK is an improvement.
I don't know, I feel like that would be a logistical and administrative nightmare, especially as the population of Texas is 5 million more then North Korea, and not that many Texans speak Korean while an equally few North Koreans speak English.
It would still be better than the current administration.
Tbf you could probably drum up a lot of support for the DPRK in Texas by offering Texans the right to personal nukes, courtesy of Kim.
Sure, but on the other hand, this is Texas we’re talking about. It would turn into nuclear winter real fast…
You're being pedantic. You know what I mean, you're not arguing against the idea I'm presenting but pointlessly bickering over the words I'm using. And what's worse, you're not even correct.
Annexing does not require military action. It usually does involve it, but that is not a defining property. Annexing is adding territory to your own by appropriation, ie taking it from another nation.
China has "taken those islands" and that area of sea into their territory. Obviously it's still in exactly the same place, but territory is being taken away from other nations.
There's a handful of disputed territories between the US and Canada, and each situation is different. Some of those might have been annexed at some point or another.
A better example would be Canada and Denmark with Hans island. Each country claimed it in turn, back and forth. Every time each nation visited the island and claimed it they annexed it. Strictly speaking they probably didn't need to visit the island to annex it, but with each side planting a flag to prove their claim they kind of had to visit in order to remove the old flag and make their latest claim superior.
How is China expanding its territory and claiming that of other nations' not annexing? If it isn't that, then what is it?
Lots of words, none of them answer the question 🤦🏿♂️
Few words from you, even less substance. Two questions were asked and answered:
Care to answer my questions?
Turns out you don't need lengthy comments for substance.
Your "responses":
Dunning-Kruger is in full effect here lmfao.
You probably don't know what that means, but ironically you're correct - only it's not me exhibiting cognitive bias.
You still haven't answer my questions. Were they too hard for you?
No you didn't, what countries did China annex? What makes "the situation different" with regards to the US and Canada?
Lol mans just said "no u".
You can keep trying to snark me but you're the one who looks like an idiot here.
Philipines, Malaysia, and maybe Japan. That's 2-3. You could throw in Vietnam as well if you want.
I am a bit of an idiot, yes. Because I choose to argue with you and get covered in shit with you, in spite of the fact that you apparently like it. But I'm clearly not wrong, and that's what matters to me.
If China's not physically there to claim it, they're not really expanding their territory. South Korea considers itself to own all the territory of North Korea, but it can't enforce that, so their claim doesn't really matter.
You don't need to physically be there to annex territory. The map itself is the claim of annexation. You probably can't assert the claim without being there, but the claim is still annexation on its own.
Furthermore, China is sailing its warships through those areas as if it were their own territory. So they are physically there and attempting to assert their claim.
Korea is a little different in the way the country was split up by the victors of WW2. However, if you acknowledge the sovereignty of North Korea, then South Korea is also trying to annex that territory by claiming it as their own. South Korea's claims are a little bit more hollow than China's.
Maybe, but there's not much value in fighting over definitions. De facto, they have not gained additional territory regardless of any claims China may or may not be making.
Oh, are countries not allowed to sail ships through international waters now? Is the US annexing these territories when it does the same thing?
This is nonsense. You're attempting to redefine what annexation is to suit your argument.
China themselves claim that their boats are patrolling their own territorial waters when sailing in these areas. The US and Canada and others claim they are sailing in international waters under international maritime law, or with the permission of the nations whose water they are sailing through.
But the big difference is that the US isn't making a claim to any territory. China is, and then they're attempting to assert that claim with their navy. That is clearly annexation.
Fair enough, I did not phrase the above point correctly. I have edited the comment accordingly.
Since you keep using this word, I guess I'll bite a bit longer in fighting over definitions...
Courtesy of Merriam-Webster, annexation is incorporating "(an additional geographic area) within the domain of a country, state, etc." I don't think it's self-evident that just sailing a ship by some islands is "clearly annexation"
In any case, it's not really important whether it counts as "annexation" or not. What difference does it make if China makes this claim if there's nobody there to enforce it?