• 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

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

So how about we start with certain areas to be clarified and addressed.
China and the other countries are signatories to the UN Law of the Sea Convention.
As such what can be claimed as territorial waters is laid out clearly.
My opinion, China is not adhering to the Treaty, correct?
China initially agreed to multiparty talks to address the issue, now has reverted to one on one negotiation’s where significant pressure can be applied by China. Correct?

Basically China is attempting to shut out the US from an area ( Asia for the US) of immense strategic value to each.
 
So how about we start with certain areas to be clarified and addressed.
China and the other countries are signatories to the UN Law of the Sea Convention.
As such what can be claimed as territorial waters is laid out clearly.
My opinion, China is not adhering to the Treaty, correct?
China initially agreed to multiparty talks to address the issue, now has reverted to one on one negotiation’s where significant pressure can be applied by China. Correct?

Basically China is attempting to shut out the US from an area ( Asia for the US) of immense strategic value to each.

As you may consider the TPP an economic NATO for the Pacific designed to shut China out. Other threats to China from the US, that China has expressed concern over, is Obama's 2011 trip to Australia to send a direct message to China that we are stationing troops in N. Australia to let Asia know that America's in town and we've got your back, just in case China starts any ****. The US has been sucking up to south Vietnam, seeking to iron out past disputes because we'd like our use back of their handy deep water ports. The US is also building a huge base in Guam, these are things seen by China (irrespective of how you see them) as threatening to them militarily. So there's two fronts that China feels the tentacles of the US.
 
As you may consider the TPP an economic NATO for the Pacific designed to shut China out. Other threats to China from the US, that China has expressed concern over, is Obama's 2011 trip to Australia to send a direct message to China that we are stationing troops in N. Australia to let Asia know that America's in town and we've got your back, just in case China starts any ****. The US has been sucking up to south Vietnam, seeking to iron out past disputes because we'd like our use back of their handy deep water ports. The US is also building a huge base in Guam, these are things seen by China (irrespective of how you see them) as threatening to them militarily. So there's two fronts that China feels the tentacles of the US.

You sidestepped my questions but I can wait for the next post
TPP was exactly that, a trade group to balance China.
China was initially worried about this exclusion, and then changed their tack to expanding the Silk Road.
Use of deep water ports, both countries wants that.
China is doing that Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

Why did these countries all want into TPP, due to China’s economic capacity and economic power in the region.
They wanted an economic balance and that was best found in a trade pact.
As to troops, small numbers means squat. The US will with others not recognize Chinas claims and sail or fly thru from time to time.
No one is going to invade China.
The problem is how China rises.
 
You sidestepped my questions but I can wait for the next post
TPP was exactly that, a trade group to balance China.
China was initially worried about this exclusion, and then changed their tack to expanding the Silk Road.
Use of deep water ports, both countries wants that.
China is doing that Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

Why did these countries all want into TPP, due to China’s economic capacity and economic power in the region.
They wanted an economic balance and that was best found in a trade pact.
As to troops, small numbers means squat. The US will with others not recognize Chinas claims and sail or fly thru from time to time.
No one is going to invade China.
The problem is how China rises.

Sure it's symbolic. And symbolism means everything in such high stake bets. You've acknowledged that they're all doing it. We have a big power/resource play at issue. There's no righteous player JANFU!! Everybody has their own angle and argument. China has a precedence to the islands that you won't recognize, but it exists nonetheless. That said, nobody's got a sealed case on them.
 
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.

So how many lives (of our troops and of the military and the peoples of our allies) are you willing to place at risk over the Spratly Islands?
 
So how many lives (of our troops and of the military and the peoples of our allies) are you willing to place at risk over the Spratly Islands?

See, that's the exact point. China's big now, they need, and they are going to take some elbow room. Somebody needs to decide if this is really worth the fight. Because it's going to be the US taking it on, not Brunei that will be hiding behind us. It's not like the US has a claim to the Spratly's, it's not like its a US territory China's eyeing.
 
So how many lives (of our troops and of the military and the peoples of our allies) are you willing to place at risk over the Spratly Islands?

China isn't going to go to war with one of its best customers over its aggressive stance. Its got a defensive military that can't project. Its got too much invested in being able to engage in commerce with the rest of the world.

Its merely emboldened by a weak POTUS who it knows wont do anything. The sad thing is they are right.

What is it with the left and immediately supplicating to any threat, anywhere? For once, they need to grow a pair and figure out how the world works.
 
See, that's the exact point. China's big now, they need, and they are going to take some elbow room. Somebody needs to decide if this is really worth the fight. Because it's going to be the US taking it on, not Brunei that will be hiding behind us. It's not like the US has a claim to the Spratly's, it's not like its a US territory China's eyeing.

As already stated, we dont need to go to war with China-we just need to make the juice not worth the squeeze.
 
As already stated, we dont need to go to war with China-we just need to make the juice not worth the squeeze.

Who's we again. I corrected you on this last night. You're not going to get your way with China!
 
China isn't going to go to war with one of its best customers over its aggressive stance. Its got a defensive military that can't project. Its got too much invested in being able to engage in commerce with the rest of the world.

Its merely emboldened by a weak POTUS who it knows wont do anything. The sad thing is they are right.

What is it with the left and immediately supplicating to any threat, anywhere? For once, they need to grow a pair and figure out how the world works.

China isn't warmongering, their not interested in projection, that's a US short coming.
 
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.

It hasn't reversed what Russia's done...but it's certainly stopped it from getting worse.
 
China isn't going to go to war with one of its best customers over its aggressive stance. Its got a defensive military that can't project. Its got too much invested in being able to engage in commerce with the rest of the world.

Its merely emboldened by a weak POTUS who it knows wont do anything. The sad thing is they are right.

What is it with the left and immediately supplicating to any threat, anywhere? For once, they need to grow a pair and figure out how the world works.

And you still haven't said what we should do...as in, provide some real details, y'know? With China's new sorta-kinda-man-made islands, what, exactly SHOULD we do, if you as the real testosterone-driven he-man brass-balls American president have the authority to order it done?
 
Sure it's symbolic. And symbolism means everything in such high stake bets. You've acknowledged that they're all doing it. We have a big power/resource play at issue. There's no righteous player JANFU!! Everybody has their own angle and argument. China has a precedence to the islands that you won't recognize, but it exists nonetheless. That said, nobody's got a sealed case on them.
No I do not at this point recognize their claim.
Now my points from earlier.
So how about we start with certain areas to be clarified and addressed.
China and the other countries are signatories to the UN Law of the Sea Convention.
As such what can be claimed as territorial waters is laid out clearly.
My opinion, China is not adhering to the Treaty, correct?
China initially agreed to multiparty talks to address the issue, now has reverted to one on one negotiation’s where significant pressure can be applied by China. Correct?

Basically China is attempting to shut out the US from an area ( Asia for the US) of immense strategic value to each.
 
And you still haven't said what we should do...as in, provide some real details, y'know? With China's new sorta-kinda-man-made islands, what, exactly SHOULD we do, if you as the real testosterone-driven he-man brass-balls American president have the authority to order it done?

I already did-make the juice not worth the squeeze.
 
You don't speak for the United States, you speak for yourself.

So your premise is that instead of saying "We dont need to go to war with China", it would have been more appropriate in context to say "I dont need to go to war with China"?

I love the stands you take, Monte. :lol:
 
It hasn't reversed what Russia's done...but it's certainly stopped it from getting worse.

I will grant you that beyond the initial ill advised interference by the US in Kiev, Obama has exercised restraint as far as arming Ukraine or any other types of provocations towards Russia.
 
So china isn't building military bases in the Pacific?

Tell me, what do you think it is doing?

In the pacific, or in the South China Sea. The US is building a huge base in Guam right now, why do you have a problem with China building military installations?
 
No I do not at this point recognize their claim.
Now my points from earlier.
So how about we start with certain areas to be clarified and addressed.
China and the other countries are signatories to the UN Law of the Sea Convention.
As such what can be claimed as territorial waters is laid out clearly.
My opinion, China is not adhering to the Treaty, correct?
China initially agreed to multiparty talks to address the issue, now has reverted to one on one negotiation’s where significant pressure can be applied by China. Correct?

Basically China is attempting to shut out the US from an area ( Asia for the US) of immense strategic value to each.

Well it seems clear to me that you have an anti China bias and your accusation that they are trying to shut out the US is unfounded. You're treating this as though it's cut and dry and China is the aggressor and you seem to be unaware of several facts. There are six nations that have overlapping claims to the spratly islands, that's right, CLAIMS!!!!! Nobody can produce a title, yet all of them, with the exception of Brunei, have built runways, barracks, communication centers, hello pads or some other form of military infrastructures on them, some of them have even had troops stationed on some of them for extended periods. That's right, without any clear title, these activities have taken place. Your treating this as a cut and dry situation and painting China as the bad guy. There's others here spouting all this tough talk, and stupidly accusing Obama of being weak because, who knows, he hasn't attacked China over it or whatever they think he should be doing.

Here's Malaysia's situation........

Malaysia has claimed sovereignty over twelve islands in the Spratly group, but those claims appear ill-founded. Serious doubt remains about the legal propriety of Malaysia’s assertions, which arises from Malaysia’s basing its claims to certain islands on ocean law principles associated with prolongation of a continental shelf seaward, rather than the accepted legal means of validating claim to title over territory through permanent occupation.

http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/cbmapspratly.pdf

And there's this...........

Eight states claim title to these South China Sea islands. Singapore and Malaysia dispute claims over Pisang Island and Pulau Batu Puteh, strategically situated in the congested waters of Malacca and Singapore Straits.7 China, Taiwan, and Vietnam contest each other’s claims to sovereignty over the Paracel Islands, a group of fifteen islets and several reefs and shoals scattered over a 200-kilometer area in the middle of the Gulf of Tonkin.8 Taiwan also contests China's claims to Pratas Island and the Macclesfield Bank. As for the Spratlys, six states assert claims: China, Taiwan and Vietnam claim the entire archipelago, while the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei claim sovereignty over portions of the Spratlys. Except for Brunei, all the others have established a military presence in the Spratlys.

http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/cbmapspratly.pdf

I hope you can see what a complicated mess this is, and that it's not the "China is the bad guy" abusing everyone else as so many insist on presenting it.
 
Last edited:
Mapping the Claims
Six countries lay overlapping claims to the East and South China Seas, an area that is rich in hydrocarbons and natural gas and through which trillions of dollars of global trade flow. As it seeks to expand its maritime presence, China has been met by growing assertiveness from regional claimants like Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines. The increasingly frequent standoffs span from the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, on China’s eastern flank, to the long stretch of archipelagos in the South China Sea that comprise hundreds of islets. The U.S. pivot to Asia, involving renewed diplomatic activity and military redeployment, could signal Washington’s heightened role in the disputes, which, if not managed wisely, could turn part of Asia’s maritime regions from thriving trade channels into arenas of conflict.

China's Maritime Disputes

To the bolded, like the hot heads here that are calling Obama weak, suggesting he should be flexing some muscle!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom