Tougher U.S. Stance in the South China Sea

eohrnberger · Oct 26, 2015

Helix said:
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.

So in other words holding to a strong position WRT the maintenance of historical international waters boundaries in that area is all that's needed? (It'll blow over)

So doesn't that kinda make your position a tempest in a tea pot?

Helix · Oct 26, 2015

eohrnberger said:
So in other words holding to a strong position WRT the maintenance of historical international waters boundaries in that area is all that's needed? (It'll blow over)

So doesn't that kinda make your position a tempest in a tea pot?

No, I'd say that all of these stupid pissing matches are pretty bad for the country, even if they are unlikely to go hot. We need to stop looking for bar fights and fix the ****ing roof.

eohrnberger · Oct 26, 2015

Helix said:
No, I'd say that all of these stupid pissing matches are pretty bad for the country, even if they are unlikely to go hot. We need to stop looking for bar fights and fix the ****ing roof.

Again, characterizing it as a 'stupid pissing match' is doing the importance of national interests, such as international waters and their boundaries, a disservice.

It seems to speak to a distinct lack of knowledge specific to the importance of these things.

Helix · Oct 26, 2015

eohrnberger said:
Again, characterizing it as a 'stupid pissing match' is doing the importance of national interests, such as international waters and their boundaries, a disservice.

It seems to speak to a distinct lack of knowledge specific to the importance of these things.

It is a stupid pissing match. Let Japan and China work it out. We already have enough on our plate, and the keyboard hawks aren't even bothered by it enough to change their shopping habits.

Wiggen · Oct 26, 2015

Helix said:
same question. see my previous post.

Your question is meaningless. How does sending a warship into international waters constitute conflict with China? Unless, of course, they attack it in which case we will respond and the blame will attach to them. We could try your approach of meekly doffing our cap and acceding to all of their actions and demands, but as history has shown, that hardly ever works.

Wiggen · Oct 26, 2015

Helix said:
It is a stupid pissing match. Let Japan and China work it out. We already have enough on our plate, and the keyboard hawks aren't even bothered by it enough to change their shopping habits.

The last part of your post is just a meaningless rant against anybody who doesn't support the Chinese expansion. You have no idea what 'the keyboard hawks' think or do. It's a rather insulting little term, much like calling those who want to let China do whatever they like in the Pacific 'keyboard cowards'.

Wiggen · Oct 26, 2015

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.

Ahh, you're just a 'keyboard hawk'. What do you know?:lamo

eohrnberger · Oct 26, 2015

Helix said:
It is a stupid pissing match. Let Japan and China work it out. We already have enough on our plate, and the keyboard hawks aren't even bothered by it enough to change their shopping habits.

When faced with a persistent severe and juvenile lack of comprehension on this issue such as this, I retire.

eohrnberger · Oct 26, 2015

Wiggen said:
Ahh, you're just a 'keyboard hawk'. What do you know?:lamo

Clearly more about national interests in the international arena than some.
Although I wouldn't call myself any sort of expert on the matter. Just someone with an appreciation of it.

joG · Oct 26, 2015

Helix said:
It is a stupid pissing match. Let Japan and China work it out. We already have enough on our plate, and the keyboard hawks aren't even bothered by it enough to change their shopping habits.

I am very much afraid that this might have more downside than ignoring most "pissing matches" would.

joG · Oct 26, 2015

Helix said:
we should stay out of it.

The reality is that it is not possible "to stay out of it". If we had started winding down our commitments 20 years ago we could "stay out of it" sort of. But to reneging on commitments would put us right in the culprit's seat and do us more harm than you seem to realize.

Helix · Oct 26, 2015

Wiggen said:
The last part of your post is just a meaningless rant against anybody who doesn't support the Chinese expansion. You have no idea what 'the keyboard hawks' think or do. It's a rather insulting little term, much like calling those who want to let China do whatever they like in the Pacific 'keyboard cowards'.

i support scaling back our international military operations significantly. we need to focus on our own country rather than maintaining a constant state of war and having endless brinksmanship with other large countries.

however, i have to edit my opinion on this one, as i didn't have all of the info. just started a new job, and i haven't had time to follow the news as closely. apparently, this isn't about the stupid island fight with Japan. according to what i heard on the radio, China created some fake islands on reefs, probably just for this purpose. that's dumb. i still wouldn't specifically cruise by the damned things just to stick a finger in their eye, but you can't just invent an island out in the middle of the ocean and then act like nothing can come within a thousand miles of it. if i would have known that from the get go, my opinion would have been different.

either way, if we're going to play "my military can beat up your military" and "you can't swim in my ocean" constantly with China now, it's time for some boycotts and tariffs. we can make a ****ing computer here just fine if we have to, and honestly, we probably should anyway. they steal technology all of the time, and they make all of the equipment that the info is stored on.

Helix · Oct 26, 2015

eohrnberger said:
When faced with a persistent severe and juvenile lack of comprehension on this issue such as this, I retire.

see post 87.

Helix · Oct 26, 2015

Wiggen said:
Ahh, you're just a 'keyboard hawk'. What do you know?:lamo

to be honest, most hawks fit that description. when it comes to paying for the wars or changing spending habits, the majority of them balk. it's like the posters who want to carpet bomb the Middle East while fighting every effort to transition from gasoline tooth and nail. does not compute.

eohrnberger · Oct 26, 2015

Helix said:
see post 87.

Helix said:
i support scaling back our international military operations significantly. we need to focus on our own country rather than maintaining a constant state of war and having endless brinksmanship with other large countries.

Isolationism is not a solution as global oriented as the world has become. If you've noticed the resurgence of Putin's Russia, you would have also noticed that there is a country, multiple ones in fact, that would be more than happy to step into any vacuum, gap or crack we leave, much to our future jeopardy, peril and weakness.

No, the US doesn't go a seek these things, these things are thrust upon it, as if to dare a response, and a response the US should deliver.

Helix said:
however, i have to edit my opinion on this one, as i didn't have all of the info. just started a new job, and i haven't had time to follow the news as closely. apparently, this isn't about the stupid island fight with Japan. according to what i heard on the radio, China created some fake islands on reefs, probably just for this purpose. that's dumb. i still wouldn't specifically cruise by the damned things just to stick a finger in their eye, but you can't just invent an island out in the middle of the ocean and then act like nothing can come within a thousand miles of it. if i would have known that from the get go, my opinion would have been different.

Well, that is the case. A case of long held international waters remaining so. To withdraw and allow this to happen will only further embolden China and other nations, as it will be seen as international weakness.

Helix said:
either way, if we're going to play "my military can beat up your military" and "you can't swim in my ocean" constantly with China now, it's time for some boycotts and tariffs. we can make a ****ing computer here just fine if we have to, and honestly, we probably should anyway. they steal technology all of the time, and they make all of the equipment that the info is stored on.

Why go to trade war, suffer the economic impact of one, one which the UN in it's ever paper tiger status will probably rule against the US? No one wins in a trade war anyway, it's at least as economically damaging to yourself as it is economically damaging to the other party, and it's also economically damaging to other nations who have no part in this. Why economically damage them? What have they done to deserve this economic damage?

It's the prefect opportunity to have the Navy practice their exercises. Aren't we kinda paying for them already anyway? May as well give them the opportunity to practice and hone their skills.

Remember the long cold war? All that was driven by necessity. While we may not be in a cold war at this moment, the continued military and political posturing on the international stage is driven the same by necessities.

Helix · Oct 26, 2015

eohrnberger said:
Isolationism is not a solution as global oriented as the world has become. If you've noticed the resurgence of Putin's Russia, you would have also noticed that there is a country, multiple ones in fact, that would be more than happy to step into any vacuum, gap or crack we leave, much to our future jeopardy, peril and weakness.

we're not going to do **** about Russia. Crimea is a lost cause, and Ukraine is Europe's job. meanwhile, if Russia wants to occupy Iraq and Syria for the next century, that's their problem.

eohrnberger said:
No, the US doesn't go a seek these things, these things are thrust upon it, as if to dare a response, and a response the US should deliver.

ok. wartime tax rates, then, and they should be crushingly high. shared sacrifice. enough of this pro bono / unfunded global police force stuff. if hawks want a constant state of war, then they need to pay for it, and so does everyone else. that will make us a lot more careful about which wars we choose.

eohrnberger said:
Well, that is the case. A case of long held international waters remaining so. To withdraw and allow this to happen will only further embolden China and other nations, as it will be seen as international weakness.

meh. if China wants to **** us up, they won't do it by playing battleship. they'll just use the backdoor they've probably put into every computer in the US and shut down everything. we could sail a ship the size of the moon past the fake islands, and it will mean exactly jack ****. they probably won't do it, though, because we buy a **** ton of **** from them, and even the anti-China hawks can't be bothered to stay away from Walmart for ten seconds.

eohrnberger said:
Why go to trade war, suffer the economic impact of one, one which the UN in it's ever paper tiger status will probably rule against the US? No one wins in a trade war anyway, it's at least as economically damaging to yourself as it is economically damaging to the other party, and it's also economically damaging to other nations who have no part in this. Why economically damage them? What have they done to deserve this economic damage?

so you support rescinding the Russian sanctions, too, i assume, lol. if you're so worried about China, then don't buy goods made there.

eohrnberger said:
It's the prefect opportunity to have the Navy practice their exercises. Aren't we kinda paying for them already anyway? May as well give them the opportunity to practice and hone their skills.

bring them home. enough of this bull****.

eohrnberger said:
Remember the long cold war? All that was driven by necessity. While we may not be in a cold war at this moment, the continued military and political posturing on the international stage is driven the same by necessities.

Russia wasted too many resources on occupying Afghanistan, and that was the straw that broke the camel's back. plus, communism doesn't work.

DaveFagan · Oct 27, 2015

Worthy of note is the fact that China is the World's largest exporter and most of the shipping in the disputed area is Chinese. Japan has absolutely no business there. Vietnam and the Philipines may have real claims. The Chinese have been willing to negotiate on almost any issue, but US NeoCons always want to wave a war club. We live in a World run by morons, or as they say, "the inmates are running the institution," eh?

eohrnberger · Oct 27, 2015

Helix said:
we're not going to do **** about Russia. Crimea is a lost cause, and Ukraine is Europe's job. meanwhile, if Russia wants to occupy Iraq and Syria for the next century, that's their problem.

The problem of Russia gaining influence in the region and the US losing influence in the region will be the US' problem going forward.

Helix said:
ok. wartime tax rates, then, and they should be crushingly high. shared sacrifice. enough of this pro bono / unfunded global police force stuff. if hawks want a constant state of war, then they need to pay for it, and so does everyone else. that will make us a lot more careful about which wars we choose.

There's no need for your claimed 'wartime tax rates' for Naval exercises. That's about all that this is going to be for right now anyway. I don't see it as even a remote possibility that there'll be armed conflict between the US and China over this. However, international waters need to remain so. That's a strategic national interest.

Helix said:
meh. if China wants to **** us up, they won't do it by playing battleship. they'll just use the backdoor they've probably put into every computer in the US and shut down everything. we could sail a ship the size of the moon past the fake islands, and it will mean exactly jack ****. they probably won't do it, though, because we buy a **** ton of **** from them, and even the anti-China hawks can't be bothered to stay away from Walmart for ten seconds.

U.S. Destroyer Sails Through Disputed Waters in South China Sea

Already have done it, which I see as a good thing, you know, protecting important national interests such as the boundaries of international waters. I don't think that China is going to make any trouble such as you are saying, as their economy is starting to slow down from it's record growth rate.

Helix said:
so you support rescinding the Russian sanctions, too, i assume, lol.

Nope. Whatever gave you that idea?

Helix said:
if you're so worried about China, then don't buy goods made there.

bring them home. enough of this bull****.

So you'd rather that the US relegate themselves to 3rd world nation status as far as the international stage goes? Do you even like the US? You proud of the US? Or are you a US hater? I'm thinking the latter.

Helix said:
Russia wasted too many resources on occupying Afghanistan, and that was the straw that broke the camel's back. plus, communism doesn't work.

Seems that they've recovered from a lot of that, projecting power like they are in Syria and the Ukraine and all.

Helix · Oct 27, 2015

eohrnberger said:
The problem of Russia gaining influence in the region and the US losing influence in the region will be the US' problem going forward.

let them try occupying the region and fighting endless wars there, then.

eohrnberger said:
There's no need for your claimed 'wartime tax rates' for Naval exercises. That's about all that this is going to be for right now anyway. I don't see it as even a remote possibility that there'll be armed conflict between the US and China over this. However, international waters need to remain so. That's a strategic national interest.

there's a need for wartime tax rates when the US maintains a perpetual state of war. given that it's so important to you, i'm sure that you won't mind paying higher tax rates to fund it.

eohrnberger said:
U.S. Destroyer Sails Through Disputed Waters in South China Sea

Already have done it, which I see as a good thing, you know, protecting important national interests such as the boundaries of international waters. I don't think that China is going to make any trouble such as you are saying, as their economy is starting to slow down from it's record growth rate.

we aren't going to war with China, at least not a traditional war. it will most likely be more technological / economic.

eohrnberger said:
Nope. Whatever gave you that idea?

the people of Russia didn't do anything to deserve the sanctions, either.

eohrnberger said:
So you'd rather that the US relegate themselves to 3rd world nation status as far as the international stage goes? Do you even like the US? You proud of the US? Or are you a US hater? I'm thinking the latter.

you get one of those. after the second one, you and i are done discussing anything. i don't indulge "you hate America dontcha, herp derp" arguments.

eohrnberger said:
Seems that they've recovered from a lot of that, projecting power like they are in Syria and the Ukraine and all.

we'll see how it it works out for them.

Tougher U.S. Stance in the South China Sea

Iconoclast