• 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

Doppelgangirl said:
There is that, too.

Given the current international climate, I wonder how many other nations might hypothetically "side" with China? :shock:

Russia in the mix would not be good...

("President Pinprick" is a new one for me.) :lol:

I'll have to remember that one.
Click to expand...

Even though this president's weakness continues to make the world more unstable, I wouldn't worry about any alliance forming between Russia and China. What is much more dangerous is letting ISIS survive. I am sure they are determined to strike us here and kill as many people as possible, and they have at least as good a safe haven and even more resources than Al Qaeda had when it planned the 9/11 attacks.

The safest way to deal with a fascist cur like Putin is to elect a president who believes in an well-calculated, assertive foreign policy backed by a strong military, and who has the character and will to use force when necessary to protect the interests of the United States. In other words, the very opposite of an America-resenting weak sister like Barack Obama, who does not inspire caution or respect in any of our adversaries.

I thought the term Pinprick sort of fit B. Hussein's military strategy against ISIS--among other things. I also call him President Pinocchio, because he is a G--damned liar.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

matchlight said:
Even though this president's weakness continues to make the world more unstable, I wouldn't worry about any alliance forming between Russia and China. What is much more dangerous is letting ISIS survive. I am sure they are determined to strike us here and kill as many people as possible, and they have at least as good a safe haven and even more resources than Al Qaeda had when it planned the 9/11 attacks.

The safest way to deal with a fascist cur like Putin is to elect a president who believes in an well-calculated, assertive foreign policy backed by a strong military, and who has the character and will to use force when necessary to protect the interests of the United States. In other words, the very opposite of an America-resenting weak sister like Barack Obama, who does not inspire caution or respect in any of our adversaries.

I thought the term Pinprick sort of fit B. Hussein's military strategy against ISIS--among other things. I also call him President Pinocchio, because he is a G--damned liar.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but America is moving AWAY from interfering foreign policy. Wait and see! The present uni-polar world status is waning. But don't fear, a balance of power is preferable.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Montecresto said:
Excuse me but the US isn't a party to this dispute! There are six nations with overlapping claims to these islands, none of them are the US. Brush up on the Spratly history before posting.
Click to expand...

All nations are to enjoy freedom of navigation. The U. S. is among the group of all nations, and we trade with the nations in that area of the globe. Understanding these things is fundamental.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Montecresto said:
Would you stop it with your bull**** rhetoric. China isn't threatening merchant ship travel in the shipping lanes in the straight.
Click to expand...

China is not threatening it at present and China may never threaten it. However, if China were able to gain a position where it could militarily dominate the South China Sea, it would have a capacity to shut down shipping in those waters. The optimal approach would be a settlement of the historic disputes or at least development of a framework for managing differences among the countries even as the territorial disputes persist.

As has been the case with rising powers in the past, China is almost certainly going to seek to translate its large and growing economic clout into military power. That need not mean inevitable conflict. How China, its neighbors, and the world's other major powers manage their differences will be important in avoiding the risk of conflict.

In the end, China understands the importance of hard power. That its past period of weakness was exploited, especially during the 19th and early 20th centuries, has further strengthened the importance it places on hard power. Power remains the principle guarantee of security, even in the 21st century. Given today's emphasis on technology, one can reasonably expect that China will seek to develop strong military capabilities in all the possible military forums: land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Montecresto said:
Oh, 1999. In this instance, the older the better. China has the strongest proof of title of any of the claimants. And the Us doesn't have a dog in this race, beyond it's typical intrusion and interference in regional issues that they have no business in.
Click to expand...

We have treaty obligations with Japan and the Philippines. Perhaps China should settle the dispute with the other claimants before declaring an economic exclusion zone and building a military base on disputed territory.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

humbolt said:
All nations are to enjoy freedom of navigation. The U. S. is among the group of all nations, and we trade with the nations in that area of the globe. Understanding these things is fundamental.
Click to expand...

Yes, true enough. Has anybody disputed that?? Now kindly show me where China has threatened to compromise anybody's ability to continue to peddle their trade via the shipping lanes that straddle the Spratlys?
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

humbolt said:
We have treaty obligations with Japan and the Philippines. Perhaps China should settle the dispute with the other claimants before declaring an economic exclusion zone and building a military base on disputed territory.
Click to expand...

At the very least then, the US should set back and leave them to settle their dispute. And if Japan or the Philippines initiate hostilities then the US should deny responsibility.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

donsutherland1 said:
China is not threatening it at present and China may never threaten it. However, if China were able to gain a position where it could militarily dominate the South China Sea, it would have a capacity to shut down shipping in those waters. The optimal approach would be a settlement of the historic disputes or at least development of a framework for managing differences among the countries even as the territorial disputes persist.

As has been the case with rising powers in the past, China is almost certainly going to seek to translate its large and growing economic clout into military power. That need not mean inevitable conflict. How China, its neighbors, and the world's other major powers manage their differences will be important in avoiding the risk of conflict.

In the end, China understands the importance of hard power. That its past period of weakness was exploited, especially during the 19th and early 20th centuries, has further strengthened the importance it places on hard power. Power remains the principle guarantee of security, even in the 21st century. Given today's emphasis on technology, one can reasonably expect that China will seek to develop strong military capabilities in all the possible military forums: land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace.
Click to expand...

You so nicely describe the US with that. Otherwise I agree with you that China understands the value of hard power, which is a no brainer, who doesn't. But China's understanding of this doesn't end with their experiences with Japan. The current military spending spree, (approximately 18% annual increase) has directly correlated to US military adventurism in the Middle East which has taken both China and Russia's breath away. And they have declared there concerns over it, and even blocked further US aggressions at the UN level. USFP is pushing Russia and China together, and pushing China on the Spratlys, (and greater SCS) and coming to unfounded conclusions about their intentions is either the product of bias hatred of China (god knows why) or just plain ignorance, or maybe both.
 
Last edited:
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Montecresto said:
Sorry, but America is moving AWAY from interfering foreign policy. Wait and see! The present uni-polar world status is waning. But don't fear, a balance of power is preferable.
Click to expand...

Oh yes. That worked so well in 1914........
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Montecresto said:
Yes, true enough. Has anybody disputed that?? Now kindly show me where China has threatened to compromise anybody's ability to continue to peddle their trade via the shipping lanes that straddle the Spratlys?
Click to expand...

Free trade and free passage are not limited to strictly maritime issues. Additionally, there are also disputed fishing rights among other things. All suggest that a solution be settled at a table for discussion, negotiation, and arbitration if necessary.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Montecresto said:
At the very least then, the US should set back and leave them to settle their dispute. And if Japan or the Philippines initiate hostilities then the US should deny responsibility.
Click to expand...

That would be preferred, but we aren't the country that's acting aggressively here - China is. And no, I'm not in favor of the US ignoring it's treaty obligations, and again no, we are not bound to honor the treaty when the other signatory initiates hostilities irresponsibly. We are bound to help defend them if they are attacked. As a result, we are compelled to watch closely.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

humbolt said:
Free trade and free passage are not limited to strictly maritime issues. Additionally, there are also disputed fishing rights among other things. All suggest that a solution be settled at a table for discussion, negotiation, and arbitration if necessary.
Click to expand...

Right, so China isn't threatening the shipping lanes.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

humbolt said:
That would be preferred, but we aren't the country that's acting aggressively here - China is. And no, I'm not in favor of the US ignoring it's treaty obligations, and again no, we are not bound to honor the treaty when the other signatory initiates hostilities irresponsibly. We are bound to help defend them if they are attacked. As a result, we are compelled to watch closely.
Click to expand...

One cannot act aggressively when defending their territory. And China has several forms of title to the Spratlys, the others none. And China has accussed the others, save Brunei, of their own aggressive actions over the years in building military infrastructures on various islands in the archipelago, as well as stationing troops on them. This is NOT this cut and dry situation that the "hate China" crowd depicts. I suppose your amongst the party of hawks that even thinks China's pursuit of its interests in the South China Sea are worthy of a military response???
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Montecresto said:
Right, so China isn't threatening the shipping lanes.
Click to expand...

Did I say they were? I think you need to understand free and innocent passage - it doesn't pertain to maritime passage alone, and not solely to shipping, although that seems to be the only portion of this issue you seem eager to discuss. Could it be that the reason is that shipping itself, per se, is not the central issue? I think so.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Doppelgangirl said:
I'd be worried once the first nuke went off, it'd pretty much be the end of things.

IIRC, China kicked our butts during practice "War Games" not too long ago.

Kinda scary.
Click to expand...

Oooh when was this (even though war games =\= all out war).
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Montecresto said:
You so nicely describe the US with that. Otherwise I agree...
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the U.S. would or should be an exception? Of course, possession of hard power and its use are two different matters. IMO, the use of hard power should be limited to cases where critical or vital national interests are at stake and/or strategic allies are threatened. If one can use it to deter threats, one can accomplish one's strategic goals at much lower cost than if one actually has to use force.

But China's understanding of this doesn't end with their experiences with Japan. The current military spending spree, (approximately 18% annual increase) has directly correlated to US military adventurism in the Middle East which has taken both China and Russia's breath away. And they have declared there concerns over it, and even blocked further US aggressions at the UN level.
Click to expand...

China's advocating non-interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign states is rooted in its own tragic experience when its empire's weakness was exploited by foreign states. It rejects calls for intervention on grounds of another country's political structure, internal conflict, etc., as it believes such intervention can lead to abuses and rationale for renewed interference in its own internal affairs. Whether intervention was pursued along the lines of the 2003 Iraq War aimed at toppling Saddam Hussein or under the Obama Administration's "Responsibility to Protect" principle, China believes such intervention is illegitimate. Of course, China takes a different posture when it comes to Taiwan, as it sees Taiwan as an inherent part of China that had temporarily broken away.

USFP is pushing Russia and China together, and pushing China on the Spratlys, (and greater SCS) and coming to unfounded conclusions about their intentions is either the product of bias hatred of China (god knows why) or just plain ignorance, or maybe both.
Click to expand...

The current U.S.-Russia tensions have led to a closer relationship between Russia and China. Common interests between the two countries are also playing a role. How deep the relationship grows remains to be seen.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

humbolt said:
Did I say they were? I think you need to understand free and innocent passage - it doesn't pertain to maritime passage alone, and not solely to shipping, although that seems to be the only portion of this issue you seem eager to discuss. Could it be that the reason is that shipping itself, per se, is not the central issue? I think so.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about, that's what people continue to claim. In fact at least three posters have offered it up as a legitimate excuse for the US to stick its nose in another dispute in the Asian region that involves six nations, none of which are the US!
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Luftwaffe said:
Oooh when was this (even though war games =\= all out war).
Click to expand...


Early 2000's. And I never said it was.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

donsutherland1 said:
Are you suggesting that the U.S. would or should be an exception? Of course, possession of hard power and its use are two different matters. IMO, the use of hard power should be limited to cases where critical or vital national interests are at stake and/or strategic allies are threatened. If one can use it to deter threats, one can accomplish one's strategic goals at much lower cost than if one actually has to use force.



China's advocating non-interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign states is rooted in its own tragic experience when its empire's weakness was exploited by foreign states. It rejects calls for intervention on grounds of another country's political structure, internal conflict, etc., as it believes such intervention can lead to abuses and rationale for renewed interference in its own internal affairs. Whether intervention was pursued along the lines of the 2003 Iraq War aimed at toppling Saddam Hussein or under the Obama Administration's "Responsibility to Protect" principle, China believes such intervention is illegitimate. Of course, China takes a different posture when it comes to Taiwan, as it sees Taiwan as an inherent part of China that had temporarily broken away.



The current U.S.-Russia tensions have led to a closer relationship between Russia and China. Common interests between the two countries are also playing a role. How deep the relationship grows remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

To the bolded, I don't buy that from you for a moment. USFP that is pushing China and Russia closer together far predates and has to do with much more than Ukraine.

I will also notice that you're unwilling to factor in China and Russia's disgust with the US over its ME policies over the last dozen years, and more recently, Ukraine. Remember that China doesn't buy the US position on that either.
 
Last edited:
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Montecresto said:
To the bolded, I don't buy that from you for a moment.
Click to expand...

I used exactly those grounds to oppose U.S. military intervention in Syria's sectarian conflict and in Libya. In the former case, one was dealing with illiberal to extreme elements and an authoritarian regime, none of which were likely to be hospitable to U.S. interests and regional allies. In the latter, one was dealing with an Islamist uprising against another authoritarian regime in which no meaningful U.S. interests were at stake. IMO, Syria would have been better off and ISIS far weaker had there been an international arms embargo on the warring parties. Libya disintegrated when central authority was smashed reviving tribal rivalries and creating significant arms flows to other parts of the Mideast.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Montecresto said:
One cannot act aggressively when defending their territory. And China has several forms of title to the Spratlys, the others none. And China has accussed the others, save Brunei, of their own aggressive actions over the years in building military infrastructures on various islands in the archipelago, as well as stationing troops on them. This is NOT this cut and dry situation that the "hate China" crowd depicts. I suppose your amongst the party of hawks that even thinks China's pursuit of its interests in the South China Sea are worthy of a military response???
Click to expand...

I don't care about China's titles or claims. Vietnam also has claims and titles as do the Philippines, in spite of your assertion to the contrary. Any sovereign in the area could make a claim, but that doesn't make it legitimate. There are responsible avenues for asserting such claims, and they don't involve building military bases, claiming economic exclusion zones, and warning all others to keep out under threat of military action. That's China's game at present, and the history of others who've done the same before is not justification for engaging in the very same behavior now. I've not mentioned a military response at all - I've mentioned our treaties and our obligations. The military response and the hate China thing seems to be your game - not mine.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

donsutherland1 said:
I used exactly those grounds to oppose U.S. military intervention in Syria's sectarian conflict and in Libya. In the former case, one was dealing with illiberal to extreme elements and an authoritarian regime, none of which were likely to be hospitable to U.S. interests and regional allies. In the latter, one was dealing with an Islamist uprising against another authoritarian regime in which no meaningful U.S. interests were at stake. IMO, Syria would have been better off and ISIS far weaker had there been an international arms embargo on the warring parties. Libya disintegrated when central authority was smashed reviving tribal rivalries and creating significant arms flows to other parts of the Mideast.[/QUOTE]

Bolded. As was the case in Iraq, another that you should have opposed.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

humbolt said:
I don't care about China's titles or claims. Vietnam also has claims and titles as do the Philippines, in spite of your assertion to the contrary. Any sovereign in the area could make a claim, but that doesn't make it legitimate. There are responsible avenues for asserting such claims, and they don't involve building military bases, claiming economic exclusion zones, and warning all others to keep out under threat of military action. That's China's game at present, and the history of others who've done the same before is not justification for engaging in the very same behavior now. I've not mentioned a military response at all - I've mentioned our treaties and our obligations. The military response and the hate China thing seems to be your game - not mine.
Click to expand...

Please produce titles from Vietnam and the Philippines.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Montecresto said:
What are you talking about, that's what people continue to claim. In fact at least three posters have offered it up as a legitimate excuse for the US to stick its nose in another dispute in the Asian region that involves six nations, none of which are the US!
Click to expand...

So you think we should ignore our treaty obligations?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom