xul

If you trully believe what you said here, why just call Obama and advise him to use these subs?

Right now, if the "South China Sea" your referred only means Spratly Islands area, what you said may be correct, because without the runways on the artificial islands and aircraft carries, Chinese land-based fighter jets even need aerial refuelling to reach the area. As for "into the near future", it depends on how near the future is. But there is no way that China and U.S will go into a war. Vladimir Putin is crushing Georgia, Ukraine, and now Syria by rusty Soviet-aged war machines. But why Bush the Second, Obama the First, and their successor, Bush the Third or Clinton the Second...didn't, don't and will not use U.S. more advanced conventional military forces against Putin's worn-off old war toys? I think when you read the question you has already known the answer. China has been working on these artificial islands for a year. But where were, are and will be the subs of COMSUBPAC? I knew the answer before I asked the question-------submerged, submerge and will submerge beneath the water . And I knew why: 2nd reason: they are submarines; 1st reason: ..... USS Lassen acted by the same way which China has been doing: "I'm here so what can you do against me?"------ This is how the great powers or super powers play games. A modern war isn't engaged by the ancient way. I mean soldiers vs soldiers; generals vs generals, subs vs ships...subs will not survive without the cover from surface fleet, the Battle of Atlantic has proved it. And surface fleet can not survive if it is within the range of land-based aircraft and anti-ship missiles. F-22 and F-35 will not survive if the runways are destroyed by cruise and ballistic missiles....etc. After the Cold War, many people are under the impression that the U.S. military is invincible because the U.S military has triumphed Saddam Hussein , Taliban and ISIS...lol....even for these, the job hasn't done yet. But the fact is that the U.S has never win a war against a superpower or great power like the Korean War or the Vietnam War.

In 1818, if British militory power was as weak as Philippine, I wager I would need an U.S. visa to immigrate Canada. That's true. I guess China will eventually accept American version of freedom of navigation. Not today, but when China has build more and bigger warships so its political leaders's sight can go beyond Taiwan Strait and South China Sea.

Come back home and find the message from forum Facilitator: What if China present PCA evidence and the judge thinks that the evidence isn't necessary so through it into trashcan? Anyway, China made a declaration when it signed United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982 and ruled out any PCA jurisdiction on this matter. http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm You misunderstood that every country should obey your so-called international law. The fact is: if you didn't sign the convention (like U.S.), you needn't to obey it; if you signed it but declared to except you from some terms, you needn't to obey these terms (like China). This is how the system works.

Yes, China knows the islands are disputed, but so do Vietnam and Philippines. Then have a look at what Vietnamese and Filipino did on these islands and reefs: Deliberately grounding a ship on an inhabitated disputed reef is more like an action of stealing. And Philippines did it in 1999. A war against who? The rusty Philippine warship? or Vietnamese armed fishing boat? or U.S? If Obama truly wanted a war against China, he would have to send a bigger ship like LHA. U.S. replaced British and raised to power because it launched a war against U.K.....LOL.....because the U.S. government was the richest of them all after WW2, Meanwhile others were almost bankrupt because of the war. Exactly the power of U.S. has been weakened after the Cold War by endless wars which warmongering Americans started. Hundreds of Vietnamese soldiers died in 1988 because their leaders thought Vietnam could do what it wanted if it was backed up by a superpower: https://youtu.be/uq30CY9nWE8 I'm sure this time, neither Vietnamese nor Filipino would commit the same mistake. And I'm also sure that the leadership of U.S. and China have leaned from the fall of British and Germany and will not let their country went into an "unwinnable war".(unless somebody stupidly thinks British won ww2.)

I think you know that UN has existed for 80 years. But how many countries's borders are settled by UN? Isreal and its Arabic neighbours? Ukraine, Georgia and Russia? Iraq and Kuwait? Canada and Danmark?.... Building three 3km runways in that region doesn't mean that China wants to go into war with anyone. It's just like, for example: If you have a apple tree in you backyard, and some of your greedy neighbour "believe" the tree theirs and come to steal apples, what you has to do is to hire some guards to protect the tree. There is no needs to let these guards kicking their asses. You need a lot of $$$ not a lot of debt to start WW3 , Trust me, neither U.S. nor China wants WW3. China has built 3 runways to support its airforce existence in the region, meanwhile U.S. has sent their warships to keep American face , LOL but yes, and cheer up the voters of President Obama's party's. Both of them have got what they want, why should they start ww3 and left Russia ruling the world? As for Vietnamese and Filipino, when they realize how expensive F35 is and U.S. will not give them F35 free of charge, they may reconsider their stands and realize that cooperating with China is the best way to prompt their national interests.

UN isn't always as neutral as you think. If you read the wiki timeline carefully, you will find that in 1947 ROC published the map, British and U.S didn't oppose the claim. But in 1951, all of them except Soviet argued against ROA's claim. Why was there a dramatic turn just within 4 years? Because the communists had taken Chinese mainland in 1950 and the islands owned by an unfriendly new China is no longer according with the interests of the western world. Just as what I have said, Canada and U.S (and other countries) also don't use UN to settle their sovereignty issue. The current border was settled by war between British and U.S. if my knowledge of history isn't wrong. You have no idea that as a great power, China really doesn't "need" or count on them to believe something. Did Bush really need Russia, China, France and Canada to "believe" that Saddam had nuclear weapon when he sent troops to Iraq? He probably even didn't believe such no sense himself. As for Vietnamese and Filipino, I'm sure they would declare Hainan Island their territory if they believed that China was weaker than them.

You should get that if you want to accuse someone stealing something, you should own it first. Do Philippines, Vietnam and other claimers had owned what they claim today before China claimed the islands and water? According to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands_dispute Obviously, Chinese fishermen lived on these islands or used them as shelter first, and the fact that Chinese government then protested and made a treaty with France also shows the Islands were under Chinese government's administration. Meanwhile, other parties like Vietnam and Philippines were colonized by France and America. They even didn't have their own governments, how on earth could they own and administrate these islands? After WW2, China (ROC) was the first one which reclaim the islands. Meanwhile, other parties were just pawns of their colonial masters.Whether they claimed the islands or not, they were just speaking on the bedding of their masters, not for themselves. Even if there were debates over the islands, it is just between their masters like France and China, and it's definitely no their business. For example: Canada was once a British colony, and British "stole" Hongkong from China when China was wake. Does it make sense that Canada owns Hongkong and China hasn't right at all? As for P.R.China, the legal successor of R.O.C., exactly is the last one of all parties which sending troops to garrison the islands. Your claim that China needs to give up its territory claim to cater for its neighbours is also wrong. If China has to do so, why shouldn't Canada and U.S do the same thing over NW passage issue? bjre has asked "Is China the first country to build an artificial island?" and you didn't answer. I suppose you have already known that China isn't the first one. Vietnam and Philippines have been doing the same thing for a long time. Chinese artificial islands are far bigger than theirs because China is bigger than them , GDP is greater than theirs, fisher ships are larger than theirs, and I think no need to use dodgy diplomatic words here , warships and warplanes are also bigger than theirs . So it's reasonable that China needs larger islands to harbour all these stuff. From bold parts of Wiki timeline, I think the answer of the question that who has been stealing whose is clear.

I can not resist cracking a joke: When Filipino lawyer immigrant TimG, who occupationally believed laws were ultimately above everything in this world , found his chinese immigrant neighbour bjre scewdriver-prying the door of a car parked just at curb of TimG's front yard, he called 911 reporting that bjre was stealling his car. Soon a Canadian police officer arrived and arrested bjre, lol, arrested TimG. "No, not me. He is the thief," TimG screamed. "Losing the key of his car doesn't make him a thief. He has shown me his ownership paper," the officer smile. "But your claim that the car is yours makes you a thief, because in canada, a car parked near your front yard doesn't mean your own it."

Queen of England.....LOL.....King of Saudi Arabia I bet at least 50% of Canadian conservative dudes would make him their king if he shut down his oil pipe to rise the oil price to $100 per barrel once again before the end of this year, so the dudes could get their desirable Christmas gifts---a brand new version of Xbox with 4k war games and "minecraft" support I suppose---from their re-employed parents

There are two kind of frauds which police or even a court couldn't do anything with them. The first kind of fraud is which is practically untraceable. This kind of frauds usually take forms of internet, e-mail or telephone frauds. Two years ago, when I was trying to buy a SUV or a truck to tow my boat, I found an ad of an almost brand new Ford with very attractive price on Kijiji. I sent a message to make an appointment to see the vehicle, praying there weren't a dozen of buyers before me. Surprisingly, I got a reply minutes later. The seller told me she was an ex-wife of a rich guy and the vehicle was left by her ex-husband so it was no use to her. The price is so low because she was eager to get rid of all heartbreaking old souvenirs. I even didn't realize it was a fraud at this point. But the story she or alleged she told me after that almost made me laught----she told me the vehicle wasn't in Canada right now. It was in an American militray base in Panama, where a friend of her father (an American general ) kept the car for her, so we'd be better to trade the vehicle via ebay. I guess the next step is to send me a fake ebay and paypal link to pay for the vehicle if I take the bait. I didn't report to police. Not only because I was only a common people which the police might not bother to take care my humble "worthless" case, but also because even if I was a Canadian MP or something, how on earth would Canadian police have power to track a fake paypal account in Panama? The second kind of frauds are virtually "legal". People become victims because they are too trust. It was on the day of the first month I came in Canada and the first week I moved into the new home. When my wife called me for there was a safety inspector of gas company in the basement to check the hot water tank, I didn't suspect that because in China the gas company did regularly send inspector to customer's home checking gas leak. When I went down stairs, The inspector had gone upstair from basement and told me the hot water tank needed to be replaced, then he took out some documents to let me sign. I told him that the former woner of the house told me the tank was 2 years new. Then I noticed the title of the document wasn't the gas company which I contracted with. The "inspector" desperately tried to convince me that his company was the same thing with the gas company, but I just had no mood to listen his blah. "When I followed him to the basement, he just went into the tank room then went out in less than 10 seconds. He even didn't turn on the light, " my wife told me later. "I was just thinking how on earth could he inspect anything in the sheer darkness?" I posted the story in a Chinese immigration forum and got a lot of replies like "Oh, another victim of hot water tank fraud". Not everyone in that forum could see through such kind of fraud. "I have just sign the contract," a lady cried."can I cancel it?" Unfortunately she couldn't. The contract she signed was legal and she, like everyone, didn't carry an audio recorder ereryday to record her every talk with others, so she has to pay hundreds of dollars rental fee each year for the unnecessary tank.

I knew he was a Muslim and had seen the photo. I just thought a junkie like him would have been killed by ISIS in the first place if RCMP gave him the passport and he had joined them. I doubt he knew the cause of Islamic extremism very much. I think he was just such a loser who desperately wanted to cling on something big to make him looked bigger. And unfortunately he had a Muslim dad (I suppose) so he moved to cling on Islamic extremism.

I guess conservatives here will say," If lefties allowed Canadian carrying guns like Americans, our boss would have come out and taken on this guy in person" Then so-called lefties will reply, "When the conservative boss was highly praised by Canadian for his courage and valour, the truth would come out----the conservative boss who confronted the gunman was just his decoy. The real boss was still in that cupboard, just like the imposter president taking on Magneto scene in film X-men: Days of Future Past "

I wonder if the incident is really a terrorist attack. If I was an archivist and there were 2 shelves, one labled "Terrorist" and another labled "Loser", I would definitely put this guy's file in "Loser" rather than "Terrorist".

Someone may say it's an actor's job to promote his or her film. But it is obviously that she is the only actor/actress of the film standing by director Susanne Bier. And considering the reputation of the film has got, it isn't difficult for everyone to know why. Just imagine, how on earth could Susanne Bier face the audience alone without a single actor or actress of her film coming for support?

That's what I was trying to say. They just didn't know it was going to be used on a commercial plane. The radar operator of the missile didn't know the little green spot on the radar screen was a commercial plane. Somebody who pulled the trigger didn't know he was shooting a commercial plane.... Maybe those Ukrainian political leaders didn't know that missiles did have shot down passenger planes because they are idiots----any politicians who gets their countries into such mess should be considered as an idiot, but their American wire-puller should know that---because they made such mistake in person in 1988: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 American even has shot down their own military helicopter in Iraq, which was carrying some UN officials and that's why it made the news and we are able to know it. It's true that some experienced radar operators can distinguish plane types by the flickering of the spot on radar screen. Some advanced radar systems even have A.I. software to do the job. But none of these methods is mistake-free. MH17 was flying just 300 meters above restricted airspace. To a SAM, that means it's just 0.2 second to make it. Hardly to blame the pilot. His CEO must have told him to take short cut to save $ or he would be fired, and now he was fired along with his passengers. The fact that the airspace 300 meters beneath plane was restricted is interesting. I wonder any passenger would set foot in that plane if he or she knew that he or she was just 300 meters above the missile's ceiling. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2696321/Why-MH17-flying-warzone-European-safety-watchdogs-warned-against-flying-Ukraine-April.html

It's weird that Ukrainian government, or exactly its wire-puller Uncle Sam, knew nothing about the missile before the incident. Then all of a sudden, they began to know everything----even without any investigation?

There was a war right beneath that plane... I think whoever autherized the flight course over that area is more likely a terrorist than who shot it down.

Every voter whose IQ is not lower than normal level can see Tim Hudak is a liar and then he or she will conclude that Hudak's IQ level must be lower than normal or he must be a druggy like Toronto mayor because he has made such ridiculous and pathetic job cutting/creating lies. So the next move of Ontario PC is to do some IQ tests and drug tests to make sure their next leader is a normal person, then the PC may stand a chance of winning next election.(I'm sure the Liberal Party will, as usual, let its voters down ) By the way, the Liberal Part, eithter federal or provincial, also needs some IQ tests to make sure their leader's IQ isn't too much higher than normal Canadian voters' level so they can still follow his or her thoughtway.

Credibility means nothing to today's American since the CEOs of their bankrupt companies no longer jump off skyscrapers like their old fashioned capitalist predecessors did in 1930s. They most definitely would say what you say if they believed that Russian most definitely would not nuke Poland by risking WW III. But if the worst scenario did happen, since there are many NATO members, I merely wish Canadian PM wouldn't be the first NATO member leader advising US president: "Not to call you a coward, Master, but sometimes cowards do survive"

I think it is not only about justice/injustice, but also about the future of human race. The world population is 7 billion by now and some UN study says that it will be 10 billion in 2050 and 24 billion in 2150. The natural resource of Earth will not be able to support such huge population. Fossil fuel is not only used for powering CEO's and MBA's cars, yachts and private airplanes, but also a raw material of chemical fertilizers and plastics. Without chemical fertilizer there will not be enough food to support even current population and without plastics there will be no electrical wire, no IC...., in short, no modern civilization. As the world only superpower, US ought to use her influence to do somethine real like helping other nations on birth control, not just speech some political-correct/God-holy-book-correct blah then do nothing or even make things worse.

I think this means that a clever American statesman like Obama (and a clever American citizen like her? ) has already found the new source of energy----the poor Africans should live on burning free American universal-political-correct books, newpapers and doctrine leaflets, which always lecture these poor third world folks that birth control is so evil that our god has banned it in his thousands-years-old holy book,----meanwhile our Americans will live on burning fossil fuel to power our cars, yachts, airconditioners....and F22s of course. I think you misunderstood what Obama said. What he said to Afericans is no different than what Happer said to Canadian aboriginal chiefs: You have my fully sympathy for what happened hundreds years ago and I would do my best if I was able to correct these.....but what could I do since we have already been here?

"Blowing anybody up" is a perfect pattern of all these patterns. Then the "computers", or most likely the spying softwares, begin to monitor Argus-es's (I suppose you are not the only "Argus" on internet) e-mails, facebook accounts, posts, ..... And then, if one of these Aagus-es happens to be a terro...lol...maybe just an Israel supporter who used to have word patterns like "terrorism", "attack", "Islamic", "al-Qaida", "Osama"....in his or her posts to prove how evil what he is against is , maybe the next step of the software is to bring all his or her personal stuff to the attention of a human being.

Unfortunately, the cost-effectiveness of these machines' ability of killing / defending "people" is no longer as positive as it used to be. F-35 for example. This killing machine is a great achievement of political-scientific-engineering-technical-....-correctness but a catastrophe of cost-effective control. How on earth a machine would kill / defend people even if people couldn't afford to buy it?

I totally agree with your history lecture. But you still haven't answered my question----Why has US applied more security measures since 911 terrorist attacks? I think it is because the level of the terrorism threat rises. 200 years ago, British needed an army and a war for burning the White House, but today only a few terrorists with a hijacked airplane can do this.