Montecresto
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 24,561
- Reaction score
- 5,507
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
If your claim is true then I'm sure you can produce evidence.
I am indifferent to whether you're sick of anything.
Freedom of flight and maritime navigation is a core vital national interest of the US, supported by centuries of international law.
I very much doubt that the Spratlys are of any such 'vital' national interests to anyone other than the US in their efforts to provoke China into an arms race with the US. I have to say that compared to other historic provocations between nations over the last century this has to be the most pathetically transparent I've witnessed in my 54 years
OK, but the Convention on Seas is clear.
I do not see how China can claim within another countries 12 mile limit or their other territorial waters.
On the bolded. Well then Jack, if your going to continue to dismiss IL when it runs counter to "US interests" and then assert IL when you need to reign in other nations, you have no credibility.
There is no bolded. IL never trumps national interest for any state any time. In this particular case IL is pertinent because the provisions for freedom of navigation are among the oldest in existence, and have been a vital interest of the US all the way back to the founding of our Republic.
True, but China has.Do you realize that the US has not ratified the convention, (UNCLOS) which lends credence to the perception that it only abides by international conventions when doing so aligns with its national interests!!!
I'm completely aware of the various claims. Note that none of the other nations with claims are building a military installation, and none of them are threatening free use of international territory. Only China. If you would apply the same metric in that area you consistently apply to the US, you might come to a reasonable position. I have no bias against China. You do have a bias against the US however, and you show it here every day Monte.
True, but China has.
Well, if they shouldn't be doing it either, perhaps they need to discontinue it if they expect China to. :roll:
You really should learn more about this before posting.
Surveillance imagery recently obtained by the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) shows that in recent years Vietnam has undertaken significant construction in the Spratly Islands, a highly contested area in the South China Sea.
The never-before-published satellite photographs, taken between 2010 and April 30 this year, reveal that Hanoi has been carrying out land reclamation activities on two features in the Spratly archipelago: Sand Cay (title picture) and West London Reef. According to the think tank, Hanoi has added 65,000 square meters to West London Reef and some 21,000 square meters to Sand Cay where it has also developed military facilities.
Images reveal Vietnam
And this is why you guys have credibility issues. You only see a problem when China does this!
On the bolded, so you acknowledge the US's contradiction. And China doesn't believe they have violated it.
Sorry, there is now. Apparently, you see no authority in IL then, yet you keep pointing to it when you think that China's violating it. Again, you're very inconsistent, hypocritical and as such, not credible.
I can't agree with you that China is simply engaged in symbolism.
Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South China
them's fightin' words. let's all blow each other up over some islands.
Freedom of flight and maritime navigation.
whooptee ****.
if you want to fight China, stop going to walmart.
Maybe they should, but you do realize that there's a significant difference between Vietnam threatening others and China threatening others, don't you. I am pleased that you admit that such practices are a threat, though.
No. I never said that. You should read the previous post, and reconsider.
I had thought earlier in our debate that they stayed at 13 Miles distance, but this morning I saw a photo of one of the islands in question that was taken by the Posioden (not sure of the spelling on that plane) that appears to be nearly directly over it, so I don't know, that could change things. And I already stated yesterday that I believe that if truly in international airspace, they can be told to leave, but of course the US isn't obliged to. And of course there's history of baiting, provoking and creating false flag events, documented.
The right to free navigation in international waters is not dependent on UNCLOS.
I didn't say that it did. Do you acknowledge that the US is pushing China on a convention that they have conveniently not ratified??
I continue to await your evidence for your claim about "baiting, provoking etc.":waiting:
We've been through all that with Germany, Japan, Vietnam, and your in denial of all of it, so what's the point. I'm still waiting for you to prove your claim that China's placed an artillery piece on their island to deny access to the shipping lanes on merchant ships.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?