• 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

Lower prices enrich all Americans.

Not the Americans who lost their jobs due to outsourcing.Not Americans as a whole when we no longer make anything or when the Chinese become a problem for us.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

What are you talking about??? I already pointed out long ago in this thread that the US took possession of the Philippines thru conquest by defeating Spain and taking it from them. You have such a convoluted hypocritical one sided view of the legitimacy of conquest. And after 60 pages of arguing with you about this, I'll just tell you what I told humbolt, I hope the fight your willing to give is worth it.

This will not come to a war.Wait and see what the Court of Arbitration rules on the Philippine - China claims.
Not one sided, how can the French give up territory that may belong to the Philippines?
How can you justify China claiming other countries territorial waters?
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Tell that to the Chinese!

Oh I am sure they know.
They also know while they have substantive claims, the area they claimed (9 dotted line) would & will not hold up legally.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Cold War II you say. Who'd a thunk it. Initiate some bellicose foreign policy comments and make ridiculous demands upon Russia and China and pretty soon we got the old Cold War Fear, like Drug War fear, and Terror War fear, and Fear for the sake of Military Industrial Corporate profits. There's gonna' be some money made here, don't ya' know? The Pentagon narrative will get top billing in the USA Media as if it's the God's honest truth. Noone will say that the Military Industrial Complex is pushing a new marketing agenda to create demand for more and bigger weapons, and they're gonna be very expensive. Hot dam, Mon, and we got new boogie man created for the Media stenographers. Be afraid, be very afraid, the boogie man gonna get ya'. Vote for Lindsey Graham and get lots more wars or war noises and more war contracts. Don't ya' just love Corporatism in the USA. "War is good business and a Cold War is big business."

A Cold War II is possible is what I said.

The post meanwhile quickly becomes a global tour de force that pronounces the presence everywhere of a US war machine while simultaneously ignoring Russia, the CCP Boyz in Beijing, Iran and the ME, India-Pakistan, Beijing-Taiwan, Beijing-Tokyo over the Senkaku islands in the East Sea, Beijing's support of North Korea against everybody, ISIS, Beijing vs Asean, China-India territorial disputes and much more.

Asean countries are for instance beefing up their navies due the new SCS threats from the over-reaching CCP Boyz in Beijing, almost all of the new capital purchases being from Russia, Japan, several EU countries to include purchases by US defense treaty allies such as the Philippines and Thailand.

The US in the SCS is conducting its well known gunboat diplomacy. The important battle ground now is in international finance, economics, trade, not in actual war. This is a maritime dispute, not a dispute on land in some rathole foreign country run by kleptocrats and religious lunatics. It's about the CCP Boyz in Beijing who know that before they can become a global power, they must first become a regional power, which is not anywhere near happening for them.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Donald Trump?? :doh

International Recognition Of China's Sovereignty over the Nansha Islands

The Spratly Islands (Chinese: Nánshā Qúndǎo (南沙群岛)

A. Many countries, world public opinions and publications of other countries recognize the Nansha Islands as Chinese territory.

1. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and the Northern Island

a) China Sea Pilot compiled and printed by the Hydrography Department of the Royal Navy of the United Kingdom in 1912 has accounts of the activities of the Chinese people on the Nansha Islands in a number of places.

b) The Far Eastern Economic Review (Hong Kong) carried an article on Dec. 31 of 1973 which quotes the British High Commissioner to Singapore as having said in 1970: "Spratly Island (Nanwei Island in Chinese) was a Chinese dependency, part of Kwangtung Province… and was returned to China after the war. We can not find any indication of its having been acquired by any other country and so can only conclude it is still held by communist China."

2. France

a) Le Monde Colonial Illustre mentioned the Nansha Islands in its September 1933 issue. According to that issue, when a French gunboat named Malicieuse surveyed the Nanwei Island of the Nansha Islands in 1930, they saw three Chinese on the island and when France invaded nine of the Nansha Islands by force in April 1933, they found all the people on the islands were Chinese, with 7 Chinese on the Nanzi Reef, 5 on the Zhongye Island, 4 on the Nanwei Island, thatched houses, water wells and holy statues left by Chinese on the Nanyue Island and a signboard with Chinese characters marking a grain storage on the Taiping Island.

b) Atlas International Larousse published in 1965 in France marks the Xisha, Nansha and Dongsha Islands by their Chinese names and gives clear indication of their ownership as China in brackets.

3) Japan

a) Yearbook of New China published in Japan in 1966 describes the coastline of China as 11 thousand kilometers long from Liaodong Peninsula in the north to the Nansha Islands in the south, or 20 thousand kilometers if including the coastlines of all the islands along its coast;

b) Yearbook of the World published in Japan in 1972 says that Chinese territory includes not only the mainland, but also Hainan Island, Taiwan, Penghu Islands as well as the Dongsha, Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha Islands on the South China Sea.

4. The United States

a) Columbia Lippincott World Toponymic Dictionary published in the United States in 1961 states that the Nansha Islands on the South China Sea are part of Guangdong Province and belong to China.

b) The Worldmark Encyclopaedia of the Nations published in the United States in 1963 says that the islands of the People's Republic extend southward to include those isles and coral reefs on the South China Sea at the north latitude 4°.

c) World Administrative Divisions Encyclopaedia published in 1971 says that the People's Republic has a number of archipelagoes, including Hainan Island near the South China Sea, which is the largest, and a few others on the South China Sea extending to as far as the north latitude 4°, such as the Dongsha, Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha Islands.

5) Vietnam

a) Vice Foreign Minister Dung Van Khiem of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam received Mr. Li Zhimin, charge d'affaires ad interim of the Chinese Embassy in Viet Nam and told him that "according to Vietnamese data, the Xisha and Nansha Islands are historically part of Chinese territory." Mr. Le Doc, Acting Director of the Asian Department of the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry, who was present then, added that "judging from history, these islands were already part of China at the time of the Song Dynasty."

b) Nhan Dan of Viet Nam reported in great detail on September 6, 1958 the Chinese Government's Declaration of September 4, 1958 that the breadth of the territorial sea of the People's Republic of China should be 12 nautical miles and that this provision should apply to all territories of the People's Republic of China, including all islands on the South China Sea. On September 14 the same year, Premier Pham Van Dong of the Vietnamese Government solemnly stated in his note to Premier Zhou Enlai that Viet Nam "recognizes and supports the Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China on China's territorial sea."

I just chose Trump because he has the bucks and I don't.
Any chance you could distill your ACA-sized reply to an on-point answer to the question?
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

right. ****, even hawks like you can't be bothered to inconvenience yourself by avoiding Chinese made goods to help the war effort. either China will shut the **** up about it, or we'll quietly start diverting planes five feet to the left or right. cheap TVs are too important.

There is no war effort.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Not the Americans who lost their jobs due to outsourcing.Not Americans as a whole when we no longer make anything or when the Chinese become a problem for us.

We are richer, stronger and we have more opportunities because of normalized trade with China.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

We are richer, stronger and we have more opportunities because of normalized trade with China.

And a war would be devastating to both.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

There is no war effort.

No, there isn't. China has chosen a choke point unilaterally whereby they can control over half the world's shipping and strangle Japan, the Philippines, and Vietnam among others, economically. They can't win militarily, and they know it. They're attempt is to illegally exploit this opportunity to prop up their country, which is facing reduced growth in the future, and probably internal unrest as a result. They can't achieve this militarily unless other nations don't object. Other nations are objecting, and thus the bluster. Nobody has threatened to attack them.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

There is no war effort.

well, thank goodness for that, at least. i doubt that there will be very many happy Saturday outings to Walmart for anyone if we're at war with China, boycott or no.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

well, thank goodness for that, at least. i doubt that there will be very many happy Saturday outings to Walmart for anyone if we're at war with China, boycott or no.

It's unclear what point you are trying to make.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

It's unclear what point you are trying to make.

i've already made my points.

there isn't going to be a war, because :

a. MAD

b. both sides will make more money if we don't have a war.

c. the hawks don't even care about the islands enough to stop buying cheap Chinese electronics.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

i've already made my points.

there isn't going to be a war, because :

a. MAD

b. both sides will make more money if we don't have a war.

c. the hawks don't even care about the islands enough to stop buying cheap Chinese electronics.

The islands are not important to us but freedom of navigation is. And "cheap Chinese electronics" are irrelevant.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

The islands are not important to us but freedom of navigation is. And "cheap Chinese electronics" are irrelevant.

i've already explained how this is relevant. pay attention.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

i've already explained how this is relevant. pay attention.

You made a claim. It was without merit.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

You made a claim. It was without merit.

ok. prove that none of the tax revenue China collects from manufacturing and exports ends up being used to fund military expenditures.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

ok. prove that none of the tax revenue China collects from manufacturing and exports ends up being used to fund military expenditures.

Of course some Chinese tax revenue helps fund military expenditures. It's still irrelevant.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Of course some Chinese tax revenue helps fund military expenditures. It's still irrelevant.

in your opinion, perhaps. in reality, no.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

in your opinion, perhaps. in reality, no.


China's economy and trading relationships are vast and numerous. They are not dependent on any single customer. Moreover, with the high priority they assign to military development they will find the money. Any decrease in U.S. trade might short change a new dam but it's not going to slow down missile testing. And then there's the command economy fail safe . . .
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

in your opinion, perhaps. in reality, no.

Helix, I dont' think you're entirely understanding the true nature of a command economy. The workers are slaves of the state. Workers are units of production - not human beings as you and I think they should be. Yes, they do well when it's in the best interests of the state to allow it, but they'll be cast aside in an instant if the situation requires it from the state's perspective. Just remember the walls constructed to keep the westerners from seeing the rest of China during the Olympics, and you'll get the picture.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

Helix, I dont' think you're entirely understanding the true nature of a command economy. The workers are slaves of the state. Workers are units of production - not human beings as you and I think they should be. Yes, they do well when it's in the best interests of the state to allow it, but they'll be cast aside in an instant if the situation requires it from the state's perspective. Just remember the walls constructed to keep the westerners from seeing the rest of China during the Olympics, and you'll get the picture.

reread the thread. i never argued that China doesn't have a command economy. i pointed out that shipping our jobs there and purchasing Chinese goods helps to fund their military.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

reread the thread. i never argued that China doesn't have a command economy. i pointed out that shipping our jobs there and purchasing Chinese goods helps to fund their military.

That would be true of any country's economic activity. If you and thousands of others decide not to purchase an Apple computer for the reason you mention, you will affect Apple, but you won't affect China's military funding. Now I agree that if everybody refuses to buy any Chinese products, China's military funding would be affected, but as you say, that's not realistic either.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

That would be true of any country's economic activity. If you and thousands of others decide not to purchase an Apple computer for the reason you mention, you will affect Apple, but you won't affect China's military funding. Now I agree that if everybody refuses to buy any Chinese products, China's military funding would be affected, but as you say, that's not realistic either.

well, if hawks can't even be bothered to purchase fewer Chinese goods, i have trouble believing that risking war over islands that even the hawks didn't know about a month ago is really worth it. same thing for the Middle East. they'll promote a US led war all day, but then if you ask them if they support replacing oil or paying more in income taxes to fund the war, they flip right the **** out. no thanks. the US has maintained a perpetual state of war for long enough. it's time to try a different strategy.
 
Re: Beijing warns US: 'We will fight back' as battle of words escalates over South Ch

well, if hawks can't even be bothered to purchase fewer Chinese goods, i have trouble believing that risking war over islands that even the hawks didn't know about a month ago is really worth it. same thing for the Middle East. they'll promote a US led war all day, but then if you ask them if they support replacing oil or paying more in income taxes to fund the war, they flip right the **** out. no thanks. the US has maintained a perpetual state of war for long enough. it's time to try a different strategy.

I prefer US made goods because they're of superior quality. The disputes over these islands have been ongoing, and I've followed it generally for some years - but only through press releases until recently. I'm not a hawk. I do believe that perhaps a show of resolve now could foster a just resolution of all the conflicting claims and avoid a potentially far more serious conflict later. Over half of the world's shipping passes through those waters. No single nation should control that water way. If we allow that - and by "we" I include all of the the nations directly and indirectly affected (which is huge) - then a far more serious situation may develop over which US influence will mean little. It will affect all of the Asian subcontinent and the western Pacific as well as the already inflamed ME.
 
Back
Top Bottom