Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 106

Thread: US B-52 bombers challenge disputed China air zone.

  1. #81
    Sage
    Higgins86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,252

    Re: US B-52 bombers challenge disputed China air zone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    You legally obtained Gibraltar? Well isn't that a nice bow on that dispute. You'll be happy to know that Japan legally acquired the Senkaku's. China may disagree, but hey so do Spain and Argentina! And being able to fend off Spain or Argentina has nothing to do with anything. Unless you are saying the only legitimacy worth considering stems from the barrel of a gun.
    Gun boat diplomacy or in some cases B-52 diplomacy
    ‘This is not peace, it is an armistice for 20 years.’ (Ferdinand Foch. After the Treaty of Versailles, 1919).

  2. #82
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:29 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,568

    Re: US B-52 bombers challenge disputed China air zone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Higgins86 View Post
    Gun boat diplomacy or in some cases B-52 diplomacy
    No, you're saying that's wrong.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  3. #83
    Sage
    Higgins86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,252

    Re: US B-52 bombers challenge disputed China air zone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Your posts are actually starting to make me think this comes from an anti-Japanese bias, for whatever reason that might be.
    Not really a bias just not a fan of some of their recent and previous moves in the region and I can understand other countries frustration with them. This is a country that ran amok in Asia mudering civillians, seizing islands, countries etc but had the advantage of being able to hide behind American guns when it all finished. They have been able to still throw their weight around in the region with the knowledge that the US fleet protects their interests and instead of trying to diffuse a potential flashpoint with these Islands they take the aggressive step of buying the islands knowing it would enrage the Chinese. I don't think it was a smart move on their part and the difference now is that the Chinese are in a much stronger position to oppose them.
    Last edited by Higgins86; 11-27-13 at 02:41 PM.
    ‘This is not peace, it is an armistice for 20 years.’ (Ferdinand Foch. After the Treaty of Versailles, 1919).

  4. #84
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: US B-52 bombers challenge disputed China air zone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Higgins86 View Post
    Not really a bias just not a fan of some of their recent and previous moves in the region and I can understand other countries frustration with them. This is a country that ran amok in Asia mudering civillians, seizing islands, countries etc but had the advantage of being able to hide behind American guns when it all finished. They have been able to still throw their weight around in the region with the knowledge that the US fleet protects their interests and instead of trying to diffuse a potential flashpoint with these Islands they take the aggressive step of buying the islands knowing it would enrage the Chinese. I don't think it was a smart move on their part and the difference now is that the Chinese are in a much stronger position to oppose them.
    If by hide behind American guns you mean atomic bombardment, war crimes tribunals, and occupation for seven years. If the historic tradition of murdering civilians and regional aggression is the metric for opposing this sort of activity I think we can quite easily train our (metaphorical) guns on China.

    As a point of fact I do not believe the islands are Chinese and support the Japanese claim. As a point of realistic utility I oppose any Chinese effort to expand its sphere of influence and am gratified that we took this opportunity to reign in their ambitions and support our allies.

  5. #85
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:29 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,568

    Re: US B-52 bombers challenge disputed China air zone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Higgins86 View Post
    Not really a bias just not a fan of some of their recent and previous moves in the region and I can understand other countries frustration with them. This is a country that ran amok in Asia mudering civillians, seizing islands, countries etc but had the advantage of being able to hide behind American guns when it all finished. They have been able to still throw their weight around in the region with the knowledge that the US fleet protects their interests and instead of trying to diffuse a potential flashpoint with these Islands they take the aggressive step of buying the islands knowing it would enrage the Chinese. I don't think it was a smart move on their part and the difference now is that the Chinese are in a much stronger position to oppose them.
    Whatever. You're saying Chinese military aggression is OK and that we shouldn't oppose it less they be "antagonized." Never mind that they are the antagonists here, and they are the ones risking war if they try to interfere with air traffic in the area.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  6. #86
    Sage
    Higgins86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,252

    Re: US B-52 bombers challenge disputed China air zone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Whatever. You're saying Chinese military aggression is OK and that we shouldn't oppose it less they be "antagonized." Never mind that they are the antagonists here, and they are the ones risking war if they try to interfere with air traffic in the area.
    I'm saying the US should not interfere in what is a dispute strictly between Japan and China especially when they have no official position on the ownership of the islands. They especially should not interfere in a manner which could start a conflict.
    Tell me how will the US react if South Korea were to do something similar in regard to Tsushima?
    ‘This is not peace, it is an armistice for 20 years.’ (Ferdinand Foch. After the Treaty of Versailles, 1919).

  7. #87
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: US B-52 bombers challenge disputed China air zone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Higgins86 View Post
    I'm saying the US should not interfere in what is a dispute strictly between Japan and China especially when they have no official position on the ownership of the islands. They especially should not interfere in a manner which could start a conflict.
    Tell me how will the US react if South Korea were to do something similar in regard to Tsushima?
    The only way your argument makes sense is if you accept the premise that the United States has no global interests. I reject that.

  8. #88
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:29 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,568

    Re: US B-52 bombers challenge disputed China air zone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Higgins86 View Post
    I'm saying the US should not interfere in what is a dispute strictly between Japan and China especially when they have no official position on the ownership of the islands. They especially should not interfere in a manner which could start a conflict.
    It ISN'T "strictly between" China and Japan; those air corridors are used by EVERYONE, not just Japan. The US has been using them for decades. Now China is trying to muscle in and control the air space. According to YOU, the US continuing the use the air routes which have been used for 70 years is aggression, not the unilateral move by China to control it. That's daft.

    Also, your "argument" assumes that China only has Japan in mind when it asserts control over that airspace. That, too, is daft.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  9. #89
    Student Singe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    10-12-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    170

    Re: US B-52 bombers challenge disputed China air zone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Also, your "argument" assumes that China only has Japan in mind when it asserts control over that airspace. That, too, is daft.
    I heard a reference on the radio this morning that the Chinese unilateral assertion overlaps South Korea's airspace as well, but I can't seem to find anything backing that up (yet). It was NPR, I believe.

  10. #90
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    20,285

    Re: US B-52 bombers challenge disputed China air zone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Higgins86 View Post
    BBC News - US B-52 bombers challenge disputed China air zone


    Two B-52 bonbers have challenged Chinas new air defence rules by flying over the disputed islands in the south china sea. This comes after Japan have refused to acknowledge China's new "air defence identification zone", US claim that normal procedures but China have warned that aircraft obey its rules or face "emergency defensive measures".
    I feel that both sides have valid points here but from a neutral standpoint I don't understand why the US would risk antagonising China or risk a possible mis-communication which could result in shots being fired.
    Dr. Strangelove still lives.....

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •