• 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!

Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South China

Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

zI'm just coming into this thread...
my question: have there actually been any interferences of note?
Or is it more in the potential realm so far?

Chinese threatened a US aircraft flying in international air space.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Yes.

The UN.

I see no legitimacy in the case even coming before The Hague due to China's solid historical claims and international recognition of their ownership that I presented you yesterday. If we're going to start requiring countries to burden the claims of others upon their borders going back in history, there's no end to what may transpire, and may not bode well for our own countries.
The Philippines have that right, and the Hague has the final say.
Both sides get to present their claims and supporting evidence.
China has also used their claims to expand into other countries territorial waters.
Do you consider that claim legitimate?
An interesting link you may wish to check out
South China Sea Dispute
2 informative slide shows to see.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Range would depend on type of artillery, but several miles is likely. Enough to shut down a narrow shipping lane. Why not the Chinese Navy? Because the island can't be sunk.

Jack you crack me up. I know that you know that is total BS. Have you even looked at the geography invloved here ?
 
Last edited:
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

The Philippines have that right, and the Hague has the final say.
Both sides get to present their claims and supporting evidence.
China has also used their claims to expand into other countries territorial waters.
Do you consider that claim legitimate?
An interesting link you may wish to check out
South China Sea Dispute
2 informative slide shows to see.

China's historic title, by land treaty as well as the international acknowledgements of their title to the Spratly's is sufficient for me. I don't think that The Hague should even hear this case, and I think that China should tell them to kiss off. I can't speak to your other claims, my focus presently is on the Spratleys/Paracel's, and China's legitimate title of them.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Jack you crack me up. I know that you know that is total BS. Have you even looked at the geography invloved here ?


  1. [h=3]Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative | Atlas[/h]amti.csis.org/atlas/


  2. Over half of the world's commercial shipping passes through the waterways of ... The Strait of Malacca, in particular, is one of the most important shipping lanes in ... The South China Sea contains significant proved and probable oil reserves, ...



  3. [h=3]South China Sea Shipping Lanes - GlobalSecurity.org[/h]www.globalsecurity.org › Military › World › War › Spratly Islands



    Nov 7, 2011 - South China Sea Oil Shipping Lanes. More than half of the world's annual merchant fleet tonnage passes through the Straits of Malacca, Sunda ...


 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

The Chinese are the ones who threaten aircraft in international air space.

I don't agree that telling them to leave, without forcing them to leave is threatening. I do believe that the US's spy plane was used as a provocation. I also don't think it will be the last such. There's a long US history of provocations to draw a first strike, and when that doesn't work, baiting, and when that doesn't work, false flag events.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

I don't agree that telling them to leave, without forcing them to leave is threatening. I do believe that the US's spy plane was used as a provocation. I also don't think it will be the last such. There's a long US history of provocations to draw a first strike, and when that doesn't work, baiting, and when that doesn't work, false flag events.

More fantasy. International air space is international air space. There can be no provocation flying where the US has every right to fly and China has no right to tell others not to be there. Your last sentence is false.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

  1. [h=3]Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative | Atlas[/h]amti.csis.org/atlas/


  2. Over half of the world's commercial shipping passes through the waterways of ... The Strait of Malacca, in particular, is one of the most important shipping lanes in ... The South China Sea contains significant proved and probable oil reserves, ...



  3. [h=3]South China Sea Shipping Lanes - GlobalSecurity.org[/h]www.globalsecurity.org › Military › World › War › Spratly Islands



    Nov 7, 2011 - South China Sea Oil Shipping Lanes. More than half of the world's annual merchant fleet tonnage passes through the Straits of Malacca, Sunda ...



You've yet to illustrate why China is about to alter that. As soon as you can give an example of China's resistance to free trade I'll take notice. It seems entirely unlikely given China's entire dependence on such free trade
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

China's historic title, by land treaty as well as the international acknowledgements of their title to the Spratly's is sufficient for me. I don't think that The Hague should even hear this case, and I think that China should tell them to kiss off. I can't speak to your other claims, my focus presently is on the Spratleys/Paracel's, and China's legitimate title of them.
Well it will be interesting to see the results.
Question - Are these results binding?
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

More fantasy. International air space is international air space. There can be no provocation flying where the US has every right to fly and China has no right to tell others not to be there. Your last sentence is false.

I had thought earlier in our debate that they stayed at 13 Miles distance, but this morning I saw a photo of one of the islands in question that was taken by the Posioden (not sure of the spelling on that plane) that appears to be nearly directly over it, so I don't know, that could change things. And I already stated yesterday that I believe that if truly in international airspace, they can be told to leave, but of course the US isn't obliged to. And of course there's history of baiting, provoking and creating false flag events, documented.
 
Last edited:
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Well it will be interesting to see the results.
Question - Are these results binding?

I hope that's all it will be is interesting. Which results are you speaking of?
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

I hope that's all it will be is interesting. Which results are you speaking of?

If part of the Philippines claim is upheld.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

You've yet to illustrate why China is about to alter that. As soon as you can give an example of China's resistance to free trade I'll take notice. It seems entirely unlikely given China's entire dependence on such free trade

They've already so demonstrated with their declaration of an Air Defense Identification Zone in the East China Sea, in 2013 as I recall. (US advised commercial air carriers to abide by "all" regional regulations but advised the Chinese US military aircraft won't acknowledge the zone.) Now, in the South China Sea the Chinese have threatened a US aircraft flying in international air space and moved artillery to their island construction project.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

I had thought earlier in our debate that they stayed at 13 Miles distance, but this morning I saw a photo of one of the islands in question that was taken by the Posioden (not sure of the spelling on that plane) that appears to be nearly directly over it, so I don't know, that could change things. And I already stated yesterday that I believe that if truly in international airspace, they can be told to leave, but of course the US isn't obliged to. And of course there's history of baiting, provoking and creating false flag events, documented.

Your statement about "baiting, provoking, etc." is false.

I'm not sure of the Poseidon's flight path,but the crew would have had every right to directly overfly the island. It has no standing in international law.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

If part of the Philippines claim is upheld.

I don't know what makes Hague results binding. I know they don't have an enforcement arm like my local court does, lol. It's not up to me obviously, but if I was the Chinese in this, and The Hague did rule against my title, ordering me to surrender territory that I have historical claim to, I'd be very pissed, right after I laughed. Something that is as obvious to me as stickers on a cactus is that Taiwan claims the entire archipelago, and Vietnam is engaged in their own reclamation project and has their own artillery installment, and that seems perfectly fine with many. I see the same vilification of China going on as I see with Russia, I see continuing policies implemented that are driving China and Russia closer together and I can't understand the logic behind that.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

They've already so demonstrated with their declaration of an Air Defense Identification Zone in the East China Sea, in 2013 as I recall. (US advised commercial air carriers to abide by "all" regional regulations but advised the Chinese US military aircraft won't acknowledge the zone.) Now, in the South China Sea the Chinese have threatened a US aircraft flying in international air space and moved artillery to their island construction project.

Interesting. And what makes you believe that your rights supercedes theirs in that region ? I cannot imagine what vital US strategic concern involves the Spratly islands
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Interesting. And what makes you believe that your rights supercedes theirs in that region ? I cannot imagine what vital US strategic concern involves the Spratly islands

The right to free flight in international air space is global. China literally has no recognized territorial rights regarding air space over the Spratlys. The Spratlys are unimportant to the US but are of intense interest to several US allies. The US interest, a core vital national interest, is in freedom of flight and maritime navigation. You may very well soon see the USS Ronald Reagan battle group arrive to exercise those rights.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Your statement about "baiting, provoking, etc." is false.

I'm not sure of the Poseidon's flight path,but the crew would have had every right to directly overfly the island. It has no standing in international law.

No, it is certainly not.

I'm pretty sick of you invoking international law when it fits your meme and flaunting it otherwise.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

  1. [h=3]Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative | Atlas[/h]amti.csis.org/atlas/


  2. Over half of the world's commercial shipping passes through the waterways of ... The Strait of Malacca, in particular, is one of the most important shipping lanes in ... The South China Sea contains significant proved and probable oil reserves, ...



  3. [h=3]South China Sea Shipping Lanes - GlobalSecurity.org[/h]www.globalsecurity.org › Military › World › War › Spratly Islands



    Nov 7, 2011 - South China Sea Oil Shipping Lanes. More than half of the world's annual merchant fleet tonnage passes through the Straits of Malacca, Sunda ...



Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Very interesting links! :shock: It looks like I need to re-read Sun Tzu!
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

If part of the Philippines claim is upheld.

Japan occupied the Paracels and the Spratlys from February 1939 to August 1945.

After accepting the Japanese surrender of the islands based on the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations, Japan had renounced all claims to the islands in the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty together with the Paracels, Pratas and other islands captured from the Chinese, and upon these declarations, the government of the Republic of China reasserted its claim to the islands.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

No, it is certainly not.

I'm pretty sick of you invoking international law when it fits your meme and flaunting it otherwise.

If your claim is true then I'm sure you can produce evidence.

I am indifferent to whether you're sick of anything.

Freedom of flight and maritime navigation is a core vital national interest of the US, supported by centuries of international law.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Japan occupied the Paracels and the Spratlys from February 1939 to August 1945.

After accepting the Japanese surrender of the islands based on the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations, Japan had renounced all claims to the islands in the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty together with the Paracels, Pratas and other islands captured from the Chinese, and upon these declarations, the government of the Republic of China reasserted its claim to the islands.
OK, but the Convention on Seas is clear.
I do not see how China can claim within another countries 12 mile limit or their other territorial waters.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Very interesting links! :shock: It looks like I need to re-read Sun Tzu!

Good evening, Polgara.:2wave:

If the Chinese were actually following Sun Tzu's teachings they would not be making such clumsy grabs.:shock:
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

The right to free flight in international air space is global. China literally has no recognized territorial rights regarding air space over the Spratlys. The Spratlys are unimportant to the US but are of intense interest to several US allies. The US interest, a core vital national interest, is in freedom of flight and maritime navigation. You may very well soon see the USS Ronald Reagan battle group arrive to exercise those rights.

I very much doubt that the Spratlys are of any such 'vital' national interests to anyone other than the US in their efforts to provoke China into an arms race with the US. I have to say that compared to other historic provocations between nations over the last century this has to be the most pathetically transparent I've witnessed in my 54 years
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

I very much doubt that the Spratlys are of any such 'vital' national interests to anyone other than the US in their efforts to provoke China into an arms race with the US. I have to say that compared to other historic provocations between nations over the last century this has to be the most pathetically transparent I've witnessed in my 54 years

Since the US is doing nothing different from our normal activity ever since 1950 I fail to see a provocation. That normal activity is fully consistent with international law. And once again, the Spratlys per se are of interest to our allies, not us. I believe the Philippines and Vietnam have issued a joint declaration, for example. Nor do we seek an arms race, or have any reason to.
 
Back
Top Bottom