• 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!

US B-52 bombers challenge disputed China air zone.

It isn't relevant what they claim. Spain claims that Gibraltar is Spanish not British territory, Argentina claims the same for the Falklands, Haiti over Navassa island, Turkey and Greece over the Aegean islands, etc. In none of these cases is it acceptable for the non-occupying power to unilaterally declare a military zone over the subject area with the implication of asserting and fortifying that claim with military force. This is an attempt by China to establish facts on the ground and force regional powers to accept its claim. This should and has been rejected.

An ancillary point worth mentioning is that it should matter which actors are involved. I do not want to see China expand its reach and influence at the expense of our allies and other regional powers. That would be a highly negative outcome.

Well we legally obtained Gibralter and as for the Falklands they were inhabited by British citizens when they were invaded hence why our military responded in kind. However unlike Japan we don't need to hide behind our large allies to deal with our disputes we back up our claim.
 
So, you think there should be "discussion," but you also think we should bow to aggressive, unilateral military moves.

I ask you again -- why shouldn't China be waiting for that "discussion" before doing this?

No i think there should of been a discussion but the time for that has passed, Japans recent moves have forced Chinas response.
 
Well we legally obtained Gibralter and as for the Falklands they were inhabited by British citizens when they were invaded hence why our military responded in kind. However unlike Japan we don't need to hide behind our large allies to deal with our disputes we back up our claim.

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.
 
No i think there should of been a discussion but the time for that has passed, Japans recent moves have forced Chinas response.

Your posts are actually starting to make me think this comes from an anti-Japanese bias, for whatever reason that might be.
 
No i think there should of been a discussion but the time for that has passed, Japans recent moves have forced Chinas response.

Cementing their control over an island they've occupied for more than a century? In any event neither the US nor Japan will bow to this blatant effort at intimidation. I wonder how China will find a way to draw down without risking further embarrassment. It clearly is not capable of preventing US-Japanese overflights that ignore their authority.
 
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 ;)
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.....:lol:
 
Cementing their control over an island they've occupied for more than a century? In any event neither the US nor Japan will bow to this blatant effort at intimidation. I wonder how China will find a way to draw down without risking further embarrassment. It clearly is not capable of preventing US-Japanese overflights that ignore their authority.

Heya Sherman I don't think they will look to be provocative.....the WCG can end their assistance to those who they have been helping, and can reinforce the warning shot across China's bow. Matter of Hours I think.
 
It's an "arse," not an "ass". "Ass" was invented by Christians who thought by them saying "ass" big dumb God wouldn't realise they were "swearing," and thereby "sinning," by mentioning one of the dirty icky bits he so despises below their belts. You would have noticed that God is much mollified when we "make love" rather than shock him to his goody two-shoes core by having a feral unfeigned ---k*. And how he prefers we use sanitary Latin or infantile language - such as "*****" - to describe our dirty bits and their filthy sinful functions.

*women have extreme difficulty exhorting their sexual partner to just "make love me....make love me"!! when the are about to cu....O-o-ps, climax and more often than not will substitute the "make love" with the sinfully hissed "---k".....thereby condemning their soul to Hell forever for every ---k they utter.

If I gulped down a bottle of bourbon, I might understand your babble.
 
Jesus Wept! It's obvious most here have completely lost touch with reality and hire out their reactionary rent-a-minds from Fox Channel on a daily basis.
 
If I gulped down a bottle of bourbon, I might understand your babble.
Try reading stuff in English rather the American slanguage. Then gradually try literature a bit more intricate than Jack T Chick comics, Little Golden Books, and War Comics.
 
Jesus Wept! It's obvious most here have completely lost touch with reality and hire out their reactionary rent-a-minds from Fox Channel on a daily basis.

Try reading stuff in English rather the American slanguage. Then gradually try literature a bit more intricate than Jack T Chick comics, Little Golden Books, and War Comics.

How people outside of the Fourth Reich are seeing America's latest imperial interference in others affairs. Obama projects Pacific power - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

:screwy :screwy :screwy
 
Try reading stuff in English rather the American slanguage. Then gradually try literature a bit more intricate than Jack T Chick comics, Little Golden Books, and War Comics.

Try writing something in English.
 
Back
Top Bottom