- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 59,432
- Reaction score
- 39,008
- Location
- Best Coast Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Well if you're pressed for time, we can take this up later. Too serious for abbreviations.
So how about we start with certain areas to be clarified and addressed.
China and the other countries are signatories to the UN Law of the Sea Convention.
As such what can be claimed as territorial waters is laid out clearly.
My opinion, China is not adhering to the Treaty, correct?
China initially agreed to multiparty talks to address the issue, now has reverted to one on one negotiation’s where significant pressure can be applied by China. Correct?
Basically China is attempting to shut out the US from an area ( Asia for the US) of immense strategic value to each.
As you may consider the TPP an economic NATO for the Pacific designed to shut China out. Other threats to China from the US, that China has expressed concern over, is Obama's 2011 trip to Australia to send a direct message to China that we are stationing troops in N. Australia to let Asia know that America's in town and we've got your back, just in case China starts any ****. The US has been sucking up to south Vietnam, seeking to iron out past disputes because we'd like our use back of their handy deep water ports. The US is also building a huge base in Guam, these are things seen by China (irrespective of how you see them) as threatening to them militarily. So there's two fronts that China feels the tentacles of the US.
You sidestepped my questions but I can wait for the next post
TPP was exactly that, a trade group to balance China.
China was initially worried about this exclusion, and then changed their tack to expanding the Silk Road.
Use of deep water ports, both countries wants that.
China is doing that Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
Why did these countries all want into TPP, due to China’s economic capacity and economic power in the region.
They wanted an economic balance and that was best found in a trade pact.
As to troops, small numbers means squat. The US will with others not recognize Chinas claims and sail or fly thru from time to time.
No one is going to invade China.
The problem is how China rises.
All we had to do was commit to our allies in the region and this wouldn't be happening. Appeasing power hungry nations like China will only result in more of this type of thing.
China knows they can walk all over Obama and they are right.
So how many lives (of our troops and of the military and the peoples of our allies) are you willing to place at risk over the Spratly Islands?
So how many lives (of our troops and of the military and the peoples of our allies) are you willing to place at risk over the Spratly Islands?
See, that's the exact point. China's big now, they need, and they are going to take some elbow room. Somebody needs to decide if this is really worth the fight. Because it's going to be the US taking it on, not Brunei that will be hiding behind us. It's not like the US has a claim to the Spratly's, it's not like its a US territory China's eyeing.
As already stated, we dont need to go to war with China-we just need to make the juice not worth the squeeze.
China isn't going to go to war with one of its best customers over its aggressive stance. Its got a defensive military that can't project. Its got too much invested in being able to engage in commerce with the rest of the world.
Its merely emboldened by a weak POTUS who it knows wont do anything. The sad thing is they are right.
What is it with the left and immediately supplicating to any threat, anywhere? For once, they need to grow a pair and figure out how the world works.
Who's we again. I corrected you on this last night. You're not going to get your way with China!
China isn't warmongering, their not interested in projection, that's a US short coming.
Well now, with regards to Russia, I don't agree that Obama's actions have been effective. They certainly haven't reversed a thing that Russia's done. But then, if it hadn't been for US interference in Kiev to begin with, nobody would likely have felt a need to giving Russia grief anyway.
China isn't going to go to war with one of its best customers over its aggressive stance. Its got a defensive military that can't project. Its got too much invested in being able to engage in commerce with the rest of the world.
Its merely emboldened by a weak POTUS who it knows wont do anything. The sad thing is they are right.
What is it with the left and immediately supplicating to any threat, anywhere? For once, they need to grow a pair and figure out how the world works.
No I do not at this point recognize their claim.Sure it's symbolic. And symbolism means everything in such high stake bets. You've acknowledged that they're all doing it. We have a big power/resource play at issue. There's no righteous player JANFU!! Everybody has their own angle and argument. China has a precedence to the islands that you won't recognize, but it exists nonetheless. That said, nobody's got a sealed case on them.
And you still haven't said what we should do...as in, provide some real details, y'know? With China's new sorta-kinda-man-made islands, what, exactly SHOULD we do, if you as the real testosterone-driven he-man brass-balls American president have the authority to order it done?
We is the United States, guy.
You don't speak for the United States, you speak for yourself.
I dont think Hillary will make it past the primaries, but in the off chance she does become POTUS, she's pretty hawkish, isn't she?
No more than Obama.
It hasn't reversed what Russia's done...but it's certainly stopped it from getting worse.
So china isn't building military bases in the Pacific?
Tell me, what do you think it is doing?
No I do not at this point recognize their claim.
Now my points from earlier.
So how about we start with certain areas to be clarified and addressed.
China and the other countries are signatories to the UN Law of the Sea Convention.
As such what can be claimed as territorial waters is laid out clearly.
My opinion, China is not adhering to the Treaty, correct?
China initially agreed to multiparty talks to address the issue, now has reverted to one on one negotiation’s where significant pressure can be applied by China. Correct?
Basically China is attempting to shut out the US from an area ( Asia for the US) of immense strategic value to each.
You mean like exactly what he is ****ing doing?
U.S. Plans Naval Shift to Asia - WSJ
The Obama Administration's Pivot to Asia | Foreign Policy Initiative
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?