• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tougher U.S. Stance in the South China Sea

Helix said:
i want the US to withdraw from international dick measuring conflicts. if China and Japan want to fight over a couple of islands, let them.

but assuming there's a conflict and we get involved, how much are you willing to pay to fund it? what should wartime tax rates look like (including the Middle East?)
Click to expand...

You just want the US to withdraw. Period. We tried that in the 30's. Didn't work worth a crap.
 
notquiteright said:
First don't call me Shirley.... ;)

Ahhh the Domino Theory... that's what got us into a ground war in SE Asia... few Americans care to repeat that. We should be smart enough to know the difference between blind adherence to a policy and flexible, smart responses. Rote, inflexible adherence to ANY policy is as faulty as having no policy at all. I never said we shouldn't show the flag, just Jack's comment of doing whatever it takes to support our 'allies' is foolish on several levels- first they aren't our allies until they need a cop. Second there is absolutely no strategic advantage to attempting to block the Chinese in the South China Seas (their backyard) as it would be for Russia to attempt to intervene in a dispute over say Gitmo, (or BushII attempting to interfere in Georgia after Russian troops entered the civil war)

The world will not end if China uses her might, economic at the least to leverage concessions in the South China Sea- we have done that time and time again in other places FAAAR removed from our shores. The concept of International Waters will not collapse if China gets to exploit the region's resources- more likely if we attempt to block her in her own backyard she will support turmoil in the more sensitive regions where we think we have the right to leverage concessions without interference.

Fly the flag but don't try and dictate to the region 'at any cost'... :peace
Click to expand...

Greetings, notquiteright. :2wave:

Since this involves many nations that may use these international shipping lanes, this should be something that the UN should handle, IMO. Japan and China have other squabbles with each other to keep them busy for a long time....
 
Wiggen said:
You don't own everywhere your ships sail. Or where you trade. And there is no Chinese 'settlement' on these islands, except what they've done in the last couple of years.
Click to expand...

Never said that did I? But I recall Europeans thinking they owned every place THEY sailed, and trading settlements were the camel's nose of European conquests... ;)

There is no settlement by anyone, our 'regional allies' had centuries to settle them, they aren't useful for much more than what they may have under them. China has the economic muscle to exploit the region- if the 'allies' did they should have decades ago. China's rise to power wasn't microwave fast- the region had plenty of time to settle/counter/build defense forces to block the fledgling Chinese navy.

I'm tired of the only skin in the game being American... :peace
 
polgara said:
Greetings, notquiteright. :2wave:

Since this involves many nations that may use these international shipping lanes, this should be something that the UN should handle, IMO. Japan and China have other squabbles with each other to keep them busy for a long time....
Click to expand...

Perhaps, then again if Japan and China aren't involved in any UN negotiations I see them carrying little weight. No negotiations will be worth half a bucket of warm spit if China and Japan don't agree to the terms. While the shipping lanes are there, the real struggle is over economic exploitation of the sea floor. China/Japan/Philippines/whoever doesn't care what civilian shipping passes through.

Personally I'd like to see regional nations settle regional disputes. I'd see a collaboration where Japan and China work as senior partners to boost the SE Asia economy and nations like the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Singapore work as junior partners. face it, the juniors can do little to stop the seniors so it is really between those two nations. USofA involvement only perpetuates a false reality, that eventually will collapse.
 
notquiteright said:
Our allies, who never seem to do much for us other than call us into regional crap... can't name any advantage we get from 'our allies' we didn't pay dearly for in blood and treasure. If 'our allies' have claims that predate CHINESE claims let them enforce their claims. Those 'allies' need to spend a few bucks on a military of their own, an 'allied' regional defense force instead of calling for mommy- especially when they have no use for Mommy telling them anything on so many other topics...

The other nations of the region's claims have ZIP to do with our policy. If the islands are in international waters then I'd say our dear 'allies' have no claim either. Would you have us use American Blood to enrich some other nation?

I vote no...
Click to expand...

Our allies seek only a negotiated agreement on access to these international waters, as do we.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, notquiteright. :2wave:

Since this involves many nations that may use these international shipping lanes, this should be something that the UN should handle, IMO. Japan and China have other squabbles with each other to keep them busy for a long time....
Click to expand...

UN? Yeah, that toothless paper tiger.

I think they are far too busy hawking their climate change schtick for anything of any significance.
 
Helix said:
i don't support committing to an unwinnable pissing contest over some ****ing islands. let Japan and China figure it out. but if it makes you feel better, any time that we are involved in a foreign dispute, i support enacting wartime tax rates to pay for it. i expect that you agree, since you feel so strongly about it. just to clarify, how much more in taxes are you willing to pay to fund the potential conflict over the islands? scroll upthread to Jack's post for the correct answer.
Click to expand...

A contest of wills with a nation that is trying to exclude shipping from international waters is "unwinnable" only to those who do not want this country to win it. All that is necessary to win in a situation like this is to refuse to be intimidated, and continue to sail in all the places we have been sailing all along.

I don't agree with a single thing you have said about this. You apparently want peace at any cost. That may sound high-minded to people who are determined to kid themselves, but it is hard to imagine a policy more dangerous and likely to start war than one based on that shameful principle. It encourages aggression by our adversaries while corroding our alliances against them. Peace comes through strength.
 
Jack Hays said:
Our allies seek only a negotiated agreement on access to these international waters, as do we.
Click to expand...

Then I see ZERO reason to start the 'at any cost' BS about what 'we' will do to protect our 'allies'.

BTW you have yet to explain just what do our 'allies' do for us except drag us into more crap. :2wave:

Explain what our 'allies' think access is... Everyone can sail through- that isn't the issue. What everyone is scrapping about is exploiting the resources.
 
notquiteright said:
Then I see ZERO reason to start the 'at any cost' BS about what 'we' will do to protect our 'allies'.

BTW you have yet to explain just what do our 'allies' do for us except drag us into more crap. :2wave:

Explain what our 'allies' think access is... Everyone can sail through- that isn't the issue. What everyone is scrapping about is exploiting the resources.
Click to expand...

The US issue is freedom of navigation. The rest is for the parties to negotiate. Everyone "sailing through" is what the Chinese are threatening.
 
matchlight said:
A contest of wills with a nation that is trying to exclude shipping from international waters is "unwinnable" only to those who do not want this country to win it. All that is necessary to win in a situation like this is to refuse to be intimidated, and continue to sail in all the places we have been sailing all along. I don't agree with a single thing you have said about this. You apparently want peace at any cost. That may sound high-minded to people who are determined to kid themselves, but it is hard to imagine a policy more dangerous and likely to start war than one based on that shameful principle. It encourages aggression by our adversaries while corroding our alliances against them. Peace comes through strength.
Click to expand...

Our alliances against 'them'??? The Chinese??? Our biggest trading partner of non petroleum products??? The lack of a rational base to plant this jingoistic flag is amazing- and a little sad. Fact is the 'exclusion zone' has far more to do with resources and so little to do with who sails through. The Chinese are looking for resources, claiming the various islands is the first step. i see this as far more a negotiating tactic than a contest of wills. (FYI I doubt many American parents would sacrifice their children in this penis waving contest)

I don't want peace at any cost- I do want pragmatic policy over puffery and jingoism... :peace
 
Jack Hays said:
The US issue is freedom of navigation. The rest is for the parties to negotiate. Everyone "sailing through" is what the Chinese are threatening.
Click to expand...

Then your earlier posts about- at any cost, and defending our 'allies' was just puffery? NO ONE will contest us sailing through. China's objective is economic, not starting a war. I can see how they view our sailing through as counterproductive to a reasoned solution as we quite often give our 'allies' false hope only to fall short as even a superpower can only do so much (as BushII showed us with South Ossetia)

Now I guess you are refusing to answer my question- just what do our 'allies' in the South china Sea do for us except drag us into crap???? :2wave:
 
notquiteright said:
Then your earlier posts about- at any cost, and defending our 'allies' was just puffery? NO ONE will contest us sailing through. China's objective is economic, not starting a war. I can see how they view our sailing through as counterproductive to a reasoned solution as we quite often give our 'allies' false hope only to fall short as even a superpower can only do so much (as BushII showed us with South Ossetia)

Now I guess you are refusing to answer my question- just what do our 'allies' in the South china Sea do for us except drag us into crap???? :2wave:
Click to expand...

Our allies are both trading partners and military/naval partners, and they provide facilities of great value. China's new islands are meant to establish a territorial claim in international waters, denying free navigation. We will sail there to assert freedom of navigation and block a unilateral territorial claim.
 
eohrnberger said:
But it's not over some islands, it's over the safe passage through already recognized international waters, and that's a significant not only to the US, but to many other nations. Obama's lead from behind strategy, if it can be called that, isn't the correct approach and won't work. US leadership is required here.
Click to expand...

great. what does the conflict with China look like, and how much should we all chip in to get it done? also, will we continue to import all of our electronics and other manufactured goods from China? when will you begin your boycott of Chinese made goods to support the effort?
 
Wiggen said:
You just want the US to withdraw. Period. We tried that in the 30's. Didn't work worth a crap.
Click to expand...

same question. see my previous post.
 
matchlight said:
A contest of wills with a nation that is trying to exclude shipping from international waters is "unwinnable" only to those who do not want this country to win it. All that is necessary to win in a situation like this is to refuse to be intimidated, and continue to sail in all the places we have been sailing all along.

I don't agree with a single thing you have said about this. You apparently want peace at any cost. That may sound high-minded to people who are determined to kid themselves, but it is hard to imagine a policy more dangerous and likely to start war than one based on that shameful principle. It encourages aggression by our adversaries while corroding our alliances against them. Peace comes through strength.
Click to expand...

put simply, when people who are not willing to pay for a war or to make any other sacrifices tell me that a conflict is necessary, i don't believe them.
 
Helix said:
great. what does the conflict with China look like, and how much should we all chip in to get it done? also, will we continue to import all of our electronics and other manufactured goods from China? when will you begin your boycott of Chinese made goods to support the effort?
Click to expand...

You go from a turn tail and running to an all out shooting war. There are a million stops and steps in between, the first of which is not to be intimidated followed shortly by not observing and not recognizing the claimed exclusion zone, and US Navy sailing through the same routes in those waters that they've been sailing for years if not decades.

Lack of backing down, lack of turning tail and running away, continuing with business (sailing) as usual on the courses as usual, is probably all it's going to need at this moment.
 
notquiteright said:
Fact is the 'exclusion zone' has far more to do with resources and so little to do with who sails through.
Click to expand...

I don't know what that doubletalk means, if anything. Of course an attempt to exclude U.S. ships from international waters, by definition, has everything to do with who sails through those waters. Whether that attempt is motivated by economic interests is irrelevant--all that matters is that China is making it.

There has never been one square yard of international waters on this earth that was an "exclusion zone" to our navy, and it is very important to keep it that way. It's like someone trying to prevent people from walking on the public sidewalk adjacent to his property. Start letting yourself be pushed that way, and you are sure to be pushed some more.
 
Helix said:
put simply, when people who are not willing to pay for a war or to make any other sacrifices tell me that a conflict is necessary, i don't believe them.
Click to expand...

What war are you talking about? What sacrifices are involved in exercising our absolute right to pass naval ships through international waters, anywhere on earth? None, I would say, except as exist in your imagination.
 
notquiteright said:
First don't call me Shirley.... ;)

Ahhh the Domino Theory... that's what got us into a ground war in SE Asia... few Americans care to repeat that. We should be smart enough to know the difference between blind adherence to a policy and flexible, smart responses. Rote, inflexible adherence to ANY policy is as faulty as having no policy at all. I never said we shouldn't show the flag, just Jack's comment of doing whatever it takes to support our 'allies' is foolish on several levels- first they aren't our allies until they need a cop. Second there is absolutely no strategic advantage to attempting to block the Chinese in the South China Seas (their backyard) as it would be for Russia to attempt to intervene in a dispute over say Gitmo, (or BushII attempting to interfere in Georgia after Russian troops entered the civil war)

The world will not end if China uses her might, economic at the least to leverage concessions in the South China Sea- we have done that time and time again in other places FAAAR removed from our shores. The concept of International Waters will not collapse if China gets to exploit the region's resources- more likely if we attempt to block her in her own backyard she will support turmoil in the more sensitive regions where we think we have the right to leverage concessions without interference.

Fly the flag but don't try and dictate to the region 'at any cost'... :peace
Click to expand...


Well as regards the Vietnam illusion, there is flattening a country because you don't like the form of government its people want and there is actually enforcing the law. And its not the Chinease we have to worry about its everyone else, once the presedent has been set that maritime law doesnt apply and everyone can just grab what they want then countries all over the world will follow suit. Think how much worse the world would be if Saddam had been allowed to stay in Kuwait, not only would Iraq have kept expanding but countries all around the world feel confident that they could grab whatever they felt was theres without consequence. Similarly think how much better the world would be had the Non Proliferation Treaty actually enforced. It would be huge tradgedy if one of the few systems of international law that actually works was to fall apart.

Lastly in compliance with the laws of the internet i should point out that there was one case in the mid 1930s were the domino theory was proven to be devastatingly correct.
 
eohrnberger said:
You go from a turn tail and running to an all out shooting war. There are a million stops and steps in between, the first of which is not to be intimidated followed shortly by not observing and not recognizing the claimed exclusion zone, and US Navy sailing through the same routes in those waters that they've been sailing for years if not decades.

Lack of backing down, lack of turning tail and running away, continuing with business (sailing) as usual on the courses as usual, is probably all it's going to need at this moment.
Click to expand...

I missed the part where you outlined the sacrifices that you're willing to make to support the dick measuring contest with China. Will you be boycotting Chinese made goods? Do you support tariffs?
 
matchlight said:
What war are you talking about? What sacrifices are involved in exercising our absolute right to pass naval ships through international waters, anywhere on earth? None, I would say, except as exist in your imagination.
Click to expand...

See my post above. Same question.
 
Helix said:
I missed the part where you outlined the sacrifices that you're willing to make to support the dick measuring contest with China. Will you be boycotting Chinese made goods? Do you support tariffs?
Click to expand...

Miss-characterizing this situation as a "dick measuring contest" and I'm supposed to take you seriously? :lamo

Try again when you have a more mature perspective on the matter.
 
eohrnberger said:
Miss-characterizing this situation as a "dick measuring contest" and I'm supposed to take you seriously? :lamo

Try again when you have a more mature perspective on the matter.
Click to expand...

So no boycott, I take it. Even though the ownership of these islands is crucially important, we wouldn't want to inconvenience ourselves or pay more for goods made elsewhere. I'm sure that China is trembling all the way to the bank.
 
Helix said:
So no boycott, I take it. Even though the ownership of these islands is crucially important, we wouldn't want to inconvenience ourselves or pay more for goods made elsewhere. I'm sure that China is trembling all the way to the bank.
Click to expand...

Again, it's not the islands, it's the re-definition of formally recognized international waters which China now wants to define as territorial waters, which is BS.

I could give a rats ass if they want to have the islands. Give it to them. I do care about this business of international waters.

You just seem to keep missing the point, on purpose it seems.
 
eohrnberger said:
Again, it's not the islands, it's the re-definition of formally recognized international waters which China now wants to define as territorial waters, which is BS.

I could give a rats ass if they want to have the islands. Give it to them. I do care about this business of international waters.

You just seem to keep missing the point, on purpose it seems.
Click to expand...

No, I'm making a point. Hawks promote a constant state of war / international pissing contests, but most of them are unwilling to inconvenience themselves in the slightest or pay more taxes to fund the wars. This latest China bull**** will blow over like all of the others. They like money and jobs, and we're one of the biggest customers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom