• 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

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

The 1887 Chinese-Vietnamese Boundary convention signed between France and China after the Sino-French War said that China was the owner of the Spratly and Paracel islands.[32] China sent naval forces on inspection tours in 1902 and 1907 and placed flags and markers on the islands.

Spratly Islands dispute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Chinese have as legitimate, if not more so claim to the islands as anybody else. This is not nearly as cut and dry as you wish. And there's certainly no compelling reason to press for hostilities over this.
 
I think I know why you can't answer.

I doubt it. In the mean time, China's taking care of business in the SCS and neither you or Rubio or anybody else the cons can dredge up will be doing anything about it.
 
The US (not under Obama) would not allow such unchecked aggression. I care because it sets a bad precedence (im aware many dont care about the principle) and its negative effects on our allies.

If Mitt Romney would have won...do you think he would get aggressive with China? Hell....he became a very wealthy executive catering to China through off shore job shifting. China is our ally.
 
You don't just stop China. Gotta think that one thru and gotta really want it.

No, you don't just stop China, just as one doesn't just stop Russia. That's why Obama's actions concerning Russia have been particularly effective without putting our troops at risk.
 
Love the false dichotomy. So the options are let China do as it wishes, or nuclear war?

Reminds me of the lefts Iran and terrorism arguments.

Nothing is worth fighting for-so let them take it.

A few mostly-uninhabited islands are NOT worth risking nuclear war over...even if they do have some oil and gas underneath them.

Funny how when the conservatives gripe that we shouldn't be the world's policeman, but when another nation acts up, well, why the heck haven't we started rattling our sabers yet?
 
The 1887 Chinese-Vietnamese Boundary convention signed between France and China after the Sino-French War said that China was the owner of the Spratly and Paracel islands.[32] China sent naval forces on inspection tours in 1902 and 1907 and placed flags and markers on the islands.

Spratly Islands dispute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Chinese have as legitimate, if not more so claim to the islands as anybody else. This is not nearly as cut and dry as you wish. And there's certainly no compelling reason to press for hostilities over this.

France cannot sign another countries rights way. The law is clear on what they have claim to.
This is a resource grab by China. Also a strategic choke point for trade.
 
France cannot sign another countries rights way. The law is clear on what they have claim to.
This is a resource grab by China. Also a strategic choke point for trade.

I think the later is what rubs you. The former has plenty of precedence. Good luck forcing your view of this with China.
 
Last edited:
I think the later is what rubs you. The former has plenty of precedence. Good luck forcing your view of this with China.
Rubs me,yeah, using economic and soon to be military power to lock up control of sea areas they have no right to.
 
Rubs me,yeah, using economic and soon to be military power to lock up control of sea areas they have no right to.

Well, that's supposition. You're suggesting that China intends to prevent Canada from continued use of those sea lanes.
 
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.

um do are allies have clear rights to their contested borders if not we should not try to help them grab land
 
Well, that's supposition. You're suggesting that China intends to prevent Canada from continued use of those sea lanes.

If you wish to discuss I am open to that.
5 T Dollars a year flow thru that area and that amount will only increase.
China is playing chicken, where a mistake can have unexpected consequences.
I do not see the US backing away from their present policy.
China under the newest Poobah has become more aggressive in dealing with their neighbors.
 
Warning the pilots and building up a military presence IS the next step. One they are established you can count on them threatening to attack others.

If this is a game of poker-Obama thinks he's playing go fish.
Those pilots are flying over that area all the time. All China needs to do is start something. So it's not Obama playing poker, it's China, and so far they might as well play fish, but China probably sucks at that too. :coffeepap
 
No, you don't just stop China, just as one doesn't just stop Russia. That's why Obama's actions concerning Russia have been particularly effective without putting our troops at risk.

Well now, with regards to Russia, I don't agree that Obama's actions have been effective. They certainly haven't reversed a thing that Russia's done. But then, if it hadn't been for US interference in Kiev to begin with, nobody would likely have felt a need to giving Russia grief anyway.
 
If you wish to discuss I am open to that.
5 T Dollars a year flow thru that area and that amount will only increase.
China is playing chicken, where a mistake can have unexpected consequences.
I do not see the US backing away from their present policy.
China under the newest Poobah has become more aggressive in dealing with their neighbors.

Well sure I do.
Of course big money flows through the area, what's the point. Are you really suggesting that China's interests down there are in interrupting merchant trade??!!

What do you mean that China's playing chicken? IMO, China's not playing at all. I see them as being very deliberate. You do realize that both China and Russia have expressed concerns about the threats to global security that a US dominated uni-polar world present, right?

In the strictest of terms, what do you see present US policy being in the WESTPAC?

You only see things as Chinese aggression because you oppose China's pursuit of their interests, in favor of Japan, Vietnam and the other parties there pursuing theirs.

Btw, years of USFP now indicate the precedence of "might makes right".
 
Well sure I do.
Of course big money flows through the area, what's the point. Are you really suggesting that China's interests down there are in interrupting merchant trade??!!

What do you mean that China's playing chicken? IMO, China's not playing at all. I see them as being very deliberate. You do realize that both China and Russia have expressed concerns about the threats to global security that a US dominated uni-polar world present, right?

In the strictest of terms, what do you see present US policy being in the WESTPAC?

You only see things as Chinese aggression because you oppose China's pursuit of their interests, in favor of Japan, Vietnam and the other parties there pursuing theirs.

Btw, years of USFP now indicate the precedence of "might makes right".

US Policy on this has been multiparty negotiation.
As mentioned it can quite easily spiral out of control.
And China is the aggressor on this.
 
US Policy on this has been multiparty negotiation.
As mentioned it can quite easily spiral out of control.
And China is the aggressor on this.

Wow, that's debate, JANFU says so, ok buddy.
 
Wow, that's debate, JANFU says so, ok buddy.
Pressed for time.
Your opinion is set in stone.
Where has the US used force on this issue?
 
Pressed for time.
Your opinion is set in stone.
Where has the US used force on this issue?

Well if you're pressed for time, we can take this up later. Too serious for abbreviations.
 
Well if you're pressed for time, we can take this up later. Too serious for abbreviations.

Yeah, busy 4 days, new windows in, a tad of other things, and go back to work at 0500.
So old and tired.
And yes I look forward to discussing this.
 
If Mitt Romney would have won...do you think he would get aggressive with China? Hell....he became a very wealthy executive catering to China through off shore job shifting. China is our ally.

China is also a geopolitical adversary. Just like Russia. And yes, I think Romney would have been better with China.

Today the Obama administration is denying ISIS has a caliphate, its the most inept admin in quite some time.
 
A few mostly-uninhabited islands are NOT worth risking nuclear war over...even if they do have some oil and gas underneath them.

Funny how when the conservatives gripe that we shouldn't be the world's policeman, but when another nation acts up, well, why the heck haven't we started rattling our sabers yet?

All we had to do was commit to our allies in the region and this wouldn't be happening. Appeasing power hungry nations like China will only result in more of this type of thing.

China knows they can walk all over Obama and they are right.
 
All we had to do was commit to our allies in the region and this wouldn't be happening. Appeasing power hungry nations like China will only result in more of this type of thing.

China knows they can walk all over Obama and they are right.

I've got news for you, if you think what China's doing is walking all over Obama, you haven't seen anything yet. And, neither Rubio, Bush, Walker or whomever else you manage to stick in the WH will be doing anything to China either.
 
Back
Top Bottom