• 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!

Exclusive: China warns U.S. surveillance plane

joG said:
That is, what they say. Others say different things. But it is not out of character for you to side against the American allies. In any event, this is the stuff that leads to wars.
Click to expand...

At the conclusion of the Sino-French war, the boundary convention between China and Vietnam, signed by the French, recognized the Chinese as the rightful owners of the islands. Which one of our ally's have such title?
 
Samhain said:
Creating new country 600 miles from your mainland seems pretty ballsy. Plopping down airstrips, radar, battleships, and nuclear warheads takes it to a new level.
Click to expand...

How far from the US is Hawaii?
 
Montecresto said:
At the conclusion of the Sino-French war, the boundary convention between China and Vietnam, signed by the French, recognized the Chinese as the rightful owners of the islands. Which one of our ally's have such title?
Click to expand...

Title via a middle power thousands of miles away, with practically no presents in the area and contested by the country involved? Don't be silly.

But that is hardly the question. The number of areas China is presently contesting is large and will without any doubt run into collision with a number of countries in the region and endanger the trade ways on which the US existentially depends. You might not think that enough reason to be scared, because China is right. But believe me, that is abysmally naive. Because it does not make any difference in many of the cases who is right. You can argue anything.
 
joG said:
Title via a middle power thousands of miles away, with practically no presents in the area and contested by the country involved? Don't be silly.

But that is hardly the question. The number of areas China is presently contesting is large and will without any doubt run into collision with a number of countries in the region and endanger the trade ways on which the US existentially depends. You might not think that enough reason to be scared, because China is right. But believe me, that is abysmally naive. Because it does not make any difference in many of the cases who is right. You can argue anything.
Click to expand...

How can you dismiss the involvement of a distant "middle power" while simultaneously advocating the involvement of a distant "middle power"?? You really are not at all objective. And "scared"??? What are you talking about?
 
Samhain said:
Which god did the US make a sacrifice to cause continental drift and volcanic activity?
Click to expand...

This post makes no sense, make another attempt.
 
Montecresto said:
How can you dismiss the involvement of a distant "middle power" while simultaneously advocating the involvement of a distant "middle power"?? You really are not at all objective. And "scared"??? What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

I suspect the distant middle power you are referring to is the US?
 
joG said:
I suspect the distant middle power you are referring to is the US?
Click to expand...

Look joG, the point is that China's claims are at the very least as legitimate as the rest. This is what makes US interference a scrub. But if you had any objectivity, you'd acknowledge that, instead your patronizing position only encourages hostility.
 
Montecresto said:
Look joG, the point is that China's claims are at the very least as legitimate as the rest. This is what makes US interference a scrub. But if you had any objectivity, you'd acknowledge that, instead your patronizing position only encourages hostility.
Click to expand...

Of course there are two positions to each conflict. You just sounded as though you didn't realize. But ou are wrong to presume the US has no skin in the game and very important skin at that.
 
joG said:
We have seen it coming s have our allies in the region. We should have helped them do exactly what China is doing. We haven't so far and we are slowly losing credibility as an ally. This will continue as we do not lead.
Click to expand...

What, our allies have no confidence in a US lead by a Loser who abandons others? Imagine that.

As to help them as we helped China, that is bull****. G.H. Bush forced China to accept non-socialist capitalist zones. That is why China grew since then. Outside of Japan, the other countries mostly have closed market systems. Thailand and the Philippines, as examples require local majority ownership. Who is going to invest in them like they did in China if they have to hand over controlling interest to the locals, something they didn't have to do in China. Are we supposed to curtail trade from those allies to force them to open up their markets?
 
joG said:
Of course there are two positions to each conflict. You just sounded as though you didn't realize. But ou are wrong to presume the US has no skin in the game and very important skin at that.
Click to expand...

I didn't presume any such thing. I declared that with legitimate claims from all sides (and in my opinion, superior on the Chinese side) the US has no legitimacy in choosing a side.
 
DVSentinel said:
What, our allies have no confidence in a US lead by a Loser who abandons others? Imagine that.

As to help them as we helped China, that is bull****. G.H. Bush forced China to accept non-socialist capitalist zones. That is why China grew since then. Outside of Japan, the other countries mostly have closed market systems. Thailand and the Philippines, as examples require local majority ownership. Who is going to invest in them like they did in China if they have to hand over controlling interest to the locals, something they didn't have to do in China. Are we supposed to curtail trade from those allies to force them to open up their markets?
Click to expand...

I am not sure that I understand the gist of your post. We have rather close ties to a number of the countries in the region. You didn't know that?
 
Montecresto said:
I didn't presume any such thing. I declared that with legitimate claims from all sides (and in my opinion, superior on the Chinese side) the US has no legitimacy in choosing a side.
Click to expand...

That is consistent with all your views concerning America.
 
joG said:
That is consistent with all your views concerning America.
Click to expand...

That's not true either. I heartily agree with the US choosing the side of South Korea, where North Korea is concerned.
 
RDS said:
They been watching you guys invading. A territorial dispute in the South China Sea is nothing compared to invading. They are making a claim and this has nothing to do with US. Let them sort it out without US interference.
Click to expand...

China has no legal clam to what they have stated is theirs in the SC Sea.
 
JANFU said:
China has no legal clam to what they have stated is theirs in the SC Sea.
Click to expand...

Their claim is far closer to legal than the nearest competitors.
 
joG said:
I am not sure that I understand the gist of your post. We have rather close ties to a number of the countries in the region. You didn't know that?
Click to expand...

No. I served almost ten years in the Pacific and was completely unaware of any ties in that region.

It is the fact that we had those ties that we could not "help" them in the same way we "helped" China.
 
US Conservative said:
Its a very clear and simple question. All it requires is a yes or no answer. You can do this.
Click to expand...

Wrong, because both answers would be correct depending. But it's foolishness anyway, America's here and better to focus on how we can make US interaction in the world as much as possible, always a positive presence.
 
Montecresto said:
Their claim is far closer to legal than the nearest competitors.
Click to expand...

No it is not. Look at the areas claimed.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

China wants one on one negotiations. The others do not as they know China will exert pressure on them 1 at a time.
China is a signatory to the Law of the Seas, the US is not.

As seen from any of these photos, China's claim is well beyond what is in the LOS convention.


https://www.google.ca/search?q=chin...fP2JMWdNv3GgLAF&ved=0CDYQsAQ&biw=1600&bih=767
 
Montecresto said:
Wrong, because both answers would be correct depending. But it's foolishness anyway, America's here and better to focus on how we can make US interaction in the world as much as possible, always a positive presence.
Click to expand...

Is there a reason why you can't answer the question?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom