- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 31,057
- Reaction score
- 3,969
- Location
- not here
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Yes, with US ally.
Alone against China?
With US and the allies in the backdrop it would be a good start.
Yes, with US ally.
Alone against China?
What is it you want to do about vietnams reclamation projects in the Spratly's , and their placement of artillery to assert IT'S claims to the Spratly islands.
Can you provide a source for Vietnam's placement of artillery? As far as what I'd do about it, probably not much, other than tell all parties that this isn't constructive. But from what I understand Vietnam's efforts pale in comparison to China's.
If it's wrong for one, it's wrong for both!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe. Frankly, I don't know enough about the history of the islands and international law to make an intelligent comment on whose claims are valid and whose aren't. What I will say is it would probably be more constructive if all parties would cease the reclamation efforts and sit down and talk about it, but I'm guessing that won't happen. More likely the guy with the bigger navy will exert control over them. But the principle that we need to enforce is free navigation of the South China Sea. No country should be permitted to unilaterally declare exclusion zones where none previously existed.
Well that may be true, though a whole other subject than China's solid claims to the Spratly's.
If China has a solid claim then maybe it should take it to the appropriate international tribunal set up for that purpose. Why use force?
They've had possession of those islands since before the tribunal ever existed.
Yes, and yes! Maybe they can enlist the help of the Dardanians. Americans are weary of perpetual conflict!
If China has a solid claim then maybe it should take it to the appropriate international tribunal set up for that purpose. Why use force?
Vietnam inherited its territory from the old Republic of South Vietnam back in the '70s. Plus China's a lot further away from them than the other countries. But if they have a legitimate claim then they should take it to court. I'm guessing it's flimsier than you make it out to be.
An isolationist position, I am sure most of your own countrymen disagree with you there, so no point debating with a minority.
And I'm guessing that you don't even know what it is.
Yeah, it does. International Court of Justice
That Court has no jurisdiction ofver this matter and is a pretty pointless organ in any event.
Bullcrap. It does. It's dealt with similar territorial disputes in the past in the same region. And it's not pointless. Countries that agree to have disputes adjudicated by it must abide by the court's decision.
http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace...d=BC03574EE8075E5B76B7D7128B21CCEA?sequence=1
In other words, when it comes down to real sovereign issues that countries consider vitally important, this court has no jurisdiction.
I don't recall saying that.
That is reality, as also demonstrated by the sources you referred to.
... which is more than you have, i.e. nada, zippo, nichts, null, ZERO!
Couldn't find anything on "nuclear".
Next please.
only of dat wid de commiesIt's "nooklaar" dummy. Ain't you never heard of Nooklaar war with de commies"?
Sandwiched between the usual banal topics of gay marriage and F to use nuclear weapons. China is not in opposition to a U.S. military presence in places like Japan or South Korea, but like Putin with the Ukraine and now China with the islands dispute, both are increasingly drawing red lines of their own in their own backyards.