China and US at it again

Topaz · October 28, 2015

As far as the NWP, do u think Canada could setup a Toll and therefore any ship that wanted to use the passage could and what amount would the toll be?

TimG · October 28, 2015

As far as the NWP, do u think Canada could setup a Toll and therefore any ship that wanted to use the passage could and what amount would the toll be?

You can't demand a toll unless you are willing to use force to obtain it and attempting to do so would likely make other states less likely to accept Canada's claim. If you want details look here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/researchpublications/prb0747-e.htm

Note that even if the NWP is an international strait Canada would still maintain the right to exercise protective environmental jurisdiction over the waters.

I personally don't see why Canada needs to make a big deal about it. My preference would trade official designation as an international strait in return for some other border concession by the US.

Edited October 28, 2015 by TimG

Big Guy · October 28, 2015

Does not look like things are getting any better:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/10/vows-repeat-sail-china-claimed-islands-151028051023960.html

China is still pi$$ed and the USA intends to continue those trips through the contested zone.

bjre · October 28, 2015

So what happens when there are *competing* claims? Just because China thinks its claim it fair that does not mean its neighbors agree. When faced with competing claims one can:

1) Accept the status quo;

2) Join the rule based process that allows for peaceful changes to the status quo;

3) Start a war to change the status quo;

The status quo has a lot of power because it is the status quo and requires no actions or changes to maintain it. That is why international law places so much weight on the status quo.

Why do you think China in entitled to impose change on its neighbors through the use of war?

China have almost solved the problem peacefully when US were keep silence. Then US start to make conflict by talk to those countries behind since for its own purpose. US is the country that fears of no conflicts.

It is US that impose change in that area with war. It makes Philipines change president and the new president "ask" US base back to the philipins that previously Philipin people spend many years protest to drive US base away. That is why US want "democracy" in other countries, so that it can change govement with pro-US ones.

It is US use war to make change, most wars in the last 50 years are started by US or its followers.

Spare us the unhinged propaganda. China's neighbors do not fear the US. They see the US a powerful ally that will help protect their sovereignty rather than undermine it. The US only cares about maintaining the peace and rules based trade between countries.

US has force that every country fear of except Russia.

US want wars to profit its military suppliers, US does not care about peace or human life.

US is the reason of almost every war in the earth in the past 50 years.

The difference between China and the US is the US treats its allies like allies even if they do not always agree with the US. China has no interest in allies - it only wants vassals who are punished if they ever fails to parrot the "truth" which China has decided.

The difference between China and the US is China make fair trade, and sometime, give his trade partner more profit. US always thinks take more and pay less.The trade between Canada and US clearly shows this. You have to pay more electricity bills than US user who uses Ontario generated electicity.

Perhaps the best illustration of how the US is seen as a positive force in Asia is the recent thawing of relations between the US and Vietnam. If any country has a reason to fear the US it would be Vietnam but they fear China more.

Vietnam does not fear China at all, it simply want to take advantage from all the countries, US, Soviet Union, and China by using their conflicts.

After it was founded with a bloody civil war. Subsequent purges after gaining power resulted in the murder of millions of Chinese citizens because they failed to show obedience to the Communist party.

The blooding war was started by your ancesters, who killed 100 million native people in Americas, they came to China and make it a mass, just like what US made in the middle east where ISIS rise due to their government no longer can control the country. the Communist party lead Chinese people drive all the aggressors away. Now it becomes great sucessful to becomes the 2nd largest economy in the world. As for many people dead in the first few years was caused by multiple reason, nature disasters, the distroyed economy during the wars, the sanction lead by US and others.

China is no paragon of peace. If China wanted it could be a respected partner in Asia but that would require that it accept the status quo instead of trying to change it with war. China seems to prefer war because it is unhappy with where the chips landed after age of empires ended.
claims one can: To this day PR China constantly threatens war whenever anyone suggests that the people of Taiwan should be entitled to decide for itself whether they wish to be independent of China. China foments war in the Korean peninsula by propping up the Kims.

Taiwain is part of China, Previously US constantly ask KMT to fight back to China by providing them weapons until US want use China to defeat the Soviet Union, but US never stop give weapons to Taiwain to maintain the conflict possibilities.

China involve Korean war is after US army reach the border between China and Korea and US bomb already dropped into China, so China drive US back to the 38 line and return back. It was US that want to invade China from Korea the help KMT fight back to China from Taiwain.

You are just make every argument based on LIEs, So I am really tired of it.

And you don't care about the interest of Canadians, on both tax issues and about NWP.

I don't think I need to make more comments on this topic.

I don't want to waste more time whoes arguments are just baseless US propeganda materials without anything from his own brain.

Have a good day.

TimG · October 28, 2015

China have almost solved the problem peacefully

You are completely delusional. None of China's neighbors agrees with China's claims. Some want the disputes to go to the international tribunals but China refuses because it realizes that it will likely lose. Your definition of "solving it peacefully" means China simply takes what it wants from countries that are too weak to fight back like a schoolyard bully. These tactics are simply encouraging China's neighbors to seek allies like the US.

As for VietNam: relations with China has soured badly since China sinking VietNamese fishing boats in territory claimed by VietNam. VietNam knows it can't stand up to the Chinese bully on its own so it seeks allies including the US. It would not feel the need if it was not faced with an unreasonable China.

Taiwan is part of China, Previously US constantly ask KMT to fight back to China by providing them weapons until US want use China to defeat the Soviet Union, but US never stop give weapons to Taiwain to maintain the conflict possibilities.

Taiwan was originally an independent island until the land was stolen by the Chinese. The fate of the native Taiwanese is no different than the fate of Native Americans. Today Taiwan is an independent sovereign territory trapped in a political limbo because of the PR China bully. Fairness requires that the people living there be allowed to make their own choice about whether to join with China or become an official independent state.

You are just make every argument based on LIEs, So I am really tired of it.

That is the trouble with PR China types: anyone who disagrees with them is "lying". My arguments are based on a rational analysis of facts on the ground. PR China has no interest in compromise and friendly relations. It expects its neighbors to meekly accept whatever PR China demands and threatens violence if it does not get its way. Such tactics poison the environment and can easily lead to a war. If PR China wants peace it needs to acceptt the status quo and work co-operatively with its neighbors instead of trying to intimate them. Edited October 28, 2015 by TimG

xul · October 29, 2015

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."

TimG · October 29, 2015

I can not resist cracking a joke:

I get that Chinese nationalists sincerely believe that China is entitled to grab whatever territory it wants and justify it with self serving interpretations of ancient history. The trouble occurs when others disagree with China's self serving interpretations of ancient history.

This leads to the question: Why should any other country accept China's interpretation of history? What rational argument can China offer to convince others to accept its view? I have not heard of any. Just silly analogies to land robbery when China is one of the greatest land robbers in the history of civilization.

If China thinks that the opinion of its neighbors is irrelevant then why does China get upset when its neighbors react to China's disrespect with hostility?

Seems to me China could have good relations with its neighbors but that would require that it show respect for different views regarding these disputed territories.

Or China can sacrifice good relations with its neighbors because control over tiny islands is a more important national interest.

It can't have both.

China is clearly choosing the latter which is puzzling because good relations with one's neighbors is a much more valuable thing.

Edited October 29, 2015 by TimG

xul · October 30, 2015

I get that Chinese nationalists sincerely believe that China is entitled to grab whatever territory it wants and justify it with self serving interpretations of ancient history. The trouble occurs when others disagree with China's self serving interpretations of ancient history.

This leads to the question: Why should any other country accept China's interpretation of history? What rational argument can China offer to convince others to accept its view? I have not heard of any. Just silly analogies to land robbery when China is one of the greatest land robbers in the history of civilization.

If China thinks that the opinion of its neighbors is irrelevant then why does China get upset when its neighbors react to China's disrespect with hostility?

Seems to me China could have good relations with its neighbors but that would require that it show respect for different views regarding these disputed territories.

Or China can sacrifice good relations with its neighbors because control over tiny islands is a more important national interest.

It can't have both.

China is clearly choosing the latter which is puzzling because good relations with one's neighbors is a much more valuable thing.

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

Timeline19th century– Europeans found that Chinese fishermen from Hainan annually sojourned on the Spratly islands for part of the year.^[34]^[35] 1870– British naval captain James George Meads established the micronation The Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads.

1883– When the Spratlys and Paracels were being surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests against them.^[36]

1887– The 1887 Chinese-Vietnamese Boundary convention signed between France and China after the Sino-French War said that China was the owner of the Spratly and Paracel islands.^[36]

1900– Colonial French Indochina asserted that the state Bac Hai Company had exercised Vietnam's sovereignty in the Spratlys since the 18th century.^[97] 1927 The French ship SS De Lanessan conducted a scientific survey of the Spratly Islands.

1930 France launched a second expedition with the La Malicieuse, which raised the French flag on an island called Île de la Tempête. Chinese fishermen were present on the island, but the French made no attempt to expel them.

1933 Three French ships took control of nine of the largest islands and declared French sovereignty over the archipelago to the great powers including the UK, US, China and Japan, according to the principles found in the Berlin convention. France administered the area as part of Cochinchina.

Japanese companies applied to the French authority in Cochichina for phosphate mining licenses in the Spratlys.
1939 The Empire of Japan disputed French sovereignty over the islands, citing that Japan was the first country to discover the islands. Japan declared its intention to place the island group under its jurisdiction. France and the United Kingdom protested and reasserted French sovereignty claims. 1941 Japan forcibly occupied the island group and remained in control until the end of World War II, administering the area as part of Taiwan.
A Japanese submarine base was established on Itu Aba Island.

1945 After Japan's surrender at the end of World War II, the Republic of China claimed the Paracel and Spratly Islands. The Republic of China sent troops to Itu Aba Island; forces erected sovereignty markers and named it Taiping Island.

1946 France dispatched warships to the islands several times, but no attempts were made to evict Chinese forces.

1947 China produced a map with 9 undefined dotted lines, and claimed all of the islands within those lines.^[98] France demanded the Chinese withdraw from the islands. 1948 France ceased maritime patrols near the islands and China withdrew most of its troops. 1951 At the 1951 San Francisco Conference on the Peace Treaty with Japan, the Soviet Union proposed that the Spratlys belonged to China. This was overwhelmingly rejected by the delegates. The delegates from Vietnam, which at that time was a French protectorate, declared sovereignty over the Paracel and the Spratly Islands, which was not opposed by any delegate at the conference. China did not attend the conference and was not a signatory of the treaty.

1956 Tomas Cloma, director of the Maritime Institute of the Philippines, claimed sovereignty over the northwestern two-thirds of the Spratly Islands, naming his territory "Kalaya'an" ("Freedomland"). The People's Republic of China, the Republic of China, France, South Vietnam, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands all issued protests. The Republic of China and South Vietnam launched naval units to the islands, though South Vietnam left no permanent garrison. Later in the year, South Vietnam declared its annexation of the Spratly Islands as part of its Phước Tuy Province.

1958 The People's Republic of China issued a declaration defining its territorial waters which encompassed the Spratly Islands. North Vietnam's prime minister, Phạm Văn Đồng, sent a formal note to Zhou Enlai, stating that the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam respects the decision on the 12 nautical mile limit of territorial waters. Both the South Vietnamese government and the communist revolutionary movement in South Vietnam continued to assert that the Spratlys belonged to Vietnam. 1961–63 South Vietnam established sovereignty markers on several islands in the chain.

1968 The Philippines sent troops to three islands on the premise of protecting Kalayaan citizens, and announced the annexation of the Kalayaan island group.

1971 Malaysia issued claims to some of the Spratly Islands. 1972 The Philippines incorporated the Kalayaan islands into its Palawan province.

1975 The unified Vietnam declared claims over the Spratly Islands. 1978 A presidential decree from the Philippines outlined territorial claims to the Kalayaan portion of the islands. 1979 Malaysia published a map of its continental shelf claim, which includes twelve islands from the Spratly group.
Vietnam published a white paper outlining its claims to the islands and disputing those of the other claimants.

1982 Vietnam published another white paper, occupied several of the islands and constructed military installations.
The Philippines occupied several more islands and constructed an air strip.^[where?]

1983 Malaysia occupied Swallow Reef (Layang Layang), in the south of the Spratly Islands. A naval base and diving resort was later built at this location on reclaimed land. 1984 Brunei established an exclusive fishing zone encompassing the Louisa Reef and neighbouring areas in the southeastern Spratly Islands. 1986 The first Philippine-Vietnam Joint Marine Scientific Research Expedition in the South China Sea was conducted aboard the RPS Explorer. 1987 The People's Republic of China conducted naval patrols in the Spratly Islands and established a permanent base.^[where?]

1988 PRC warships and Vietnamese transport ships clashed at the South Johnson Reef. Over 70 Vietnamese were killed and two Vietnamese transport ships were sunk. The PRC gained control of some of the Spratly reefs. 1995 The Philippine government revealed that a PRC military structure was being built at the Mischief Reef. Philippine President Fidel Ramos ordered increased patrols of the Philippine-controlled areas; the incident lead to numerous arrests of Chinese fishermen and naval clashes with PLAN vessels. 1999 A Philippine World-War-II-vintage vessel (LT 57 Sierra Madre) ran aground on the Second Thomas Shoal. Despite initial PRC demands for its removal, and subsequent PRC offers for its free removal, the vessel remains aground on the reef.^[99]^[100] 2008 Taiwan's President became the first head of state from the claimant countries to visit the Spratly islands. His visit sparked criticism from other claimants. 2009 The Office of the Philippine President enacted the "Philippine Baselines Law of 2009" (RA 9522). The law classifies the Kalayaan Island Group and the Scarborough Shoal as a "regime of islands under the Republic of the Philippines." This means that the Philippines continues to lay claim over the disputed islands.^[101]
In May, two submissions were made to the UN's Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS): a joint submission by Malaysia and Vietnam claims jurisdiction over their respective continental shelves out to 200 nautical miles; a submission by Vietnam claims jurisdiction over an extended shelf area. The People's Republic of China and the Philippines both protested the moves stating that they violated agreements made with regards to the islands.^[102]^[103]
2011 On 18 May 2011, China Mobile announced that its mobile phone coverage had expanded to the Spratly Islands, under the rationale that it can allow soldiers stationed on the islands, fishermen and merchant vessels within the area to use mobile services, and can also provide assistance during storms and sea rescues. The deployment of China Mobile's support over the islands took roughly one year to fulfil.^[104]
In May, PRC patrol boats attacked and cut the cables of Vietnamese oil exploration ships near the Spratly Islands. The incidents sparked several anti-China protests in Vietnam.

In June, the PLA navy conducted three days of exercises, including live fire drills, in the disputed waters. This was widely seen as a warning to Vietnam, which had also conducted live fire drills near the Spratly Islands. PRC patrol boats fired repeated rounds at a target on an apparently uninhabited island, as twin fighter jets streaked in tandem overhead. 14 vessels participated in the manoeuvres, staging antisubmarine and beach landing drills aimed at "defending atolls and protecting sea lanes."^[105]
2012 On 11 July 2012, a Chinese Type 053 frigate Dongguan ran aground on PRC controlled Mischief Reef, sparking embarrassment for the Chinese government and causing an awkward diplomatic situation. The ship was later towed back to base.^[106] 2014 On 6 May 2014, Philippines police arrested 11 Chinese turtle poachers on board the Qiongqionghai near Half Moon Shoal.^[107] 2015 On 20 May 2015, the Chinese navy sternly warned the United States P8-A Poseidon, on a surveillance flight over the Fiery Cross Reef, to leave the "Chinese military alert zone".^[108] The Pentagon released a video recording of the challenge to CNN^[109] amid "growing momentum within the Pentagon and White House for taking concrete steps" in the region.^[110]

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.

Edited October 30, 2015 by xul

TimG · October 30, 2015

Do Philippines, Vietnam and other claimers had owned what they claimed before China claims the islands and water? According to Wikipedia:

There is a process with the UN for resolving competing claims. China refuses to allows this process to work and instead believes that it should be free to use the threat of violence to impose its version of history on its neighbors. This leads to resentments no matter what the actual merits of the claims.

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?

There is a UN process that should be followed to resolve these questions.

But you are also missing the point entirely: it makes no difference that you believe that China has a legitimate claim. The issue is how should China deal with neighbors that sincerely believe they also have legitimate claims. China has taken the "might makes right" approach and seeks to impose its will with the threat of violence on its neighbors and then hypocritically complains when its neighbors respond with hostility and seek alliances that would allow them to respond in kind to Chinese aggression.

This approach is wrong headed. Countries that truly care about peace know they need to 'agree to disagree' on these kinds of trivial territorial disputes (Canada and the US have a few) where both sides concede nothing but also do nothing. As long as China continues on its course of using the threats of violence to bully its neighbors it will create resentments and risks starting an actual war. It is a position that is completely inconsistent with China's claim that it wishes peace.

Edited October 30, 2015 by TimG

xul · October 30, 2015

There is a process with the UN for resolving competing claims. China refuses to allows this process to work and instead believes that it should be free to use the threat of violence to impose its version of history on its neighbors. This leads to resentments no matter what the actual merits of the claims.

There is a UN process that should be followed to resolve these questions

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.

But you are also missing the point entirely: it makes no difference that you believe that China has a legitimate claim. The issue is how should China deal with neighbors that sincerely believe they also have legitimate claims. China has taken the "might makes right" approach and seeks to impose its will with the threat of violence on its neighbors and then hypocritically complains when its neighbors respond with hostility and seek alliances that would allow them to respond in kind to Chinese aggression.
This approach is wrong headed. Countries that truly care about peace know they need to 'agree to disagree' on these kinds of trivial territorial disputes (Canada and the US have a few) where both sides concede nothing but also do nothing. As long as China continues on its course of using the threats of violence to bully its neighbors it will create resentments and risks starting an actual war. It is a position that is completely inconsistent with China's claim that it wishes peace.

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.

Canada_First · October 30, 2015

The Red Dragon awakens!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TimG · October 30, 2015

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.

All borders of existing countries were settled by war but the point of the UN is to provide a process where these disputes can be resolved without war today. If you think China is entitled to use war to solve its boundary disputes then you are admitting that China's "peaceful rise" claims are a sad joke and the US, Japan, Taiwan and others are right to arm themselves to protect from Chinese aggression.

You have no idea that as a great power, China really doesn't "need" or count on them to believe something.

It is question of actions and consequences. China can act as a bully if it wants but it should expect its neighbors to respond in kind. If China's actions eventually lead to war it will the Chinese who will be guilty of starting it much like the Germans started WWI and WW2. Is control of a few irrelevant islands so important that you would start WW3? Edited October 30, 2015 by TimG

bush_cheney2004 · October 30, 2015

Actually, the majority of the Canada - U.S. border along the 49th parallel was established through a treaty in 1818...basically a land swap to make things tidy (e.g. Louisiana Purchase land exchanged for some of Rupert's Land). The Oregon Territory was actually shared by both nations until 1846.

Historically, China didn't have much objection to U.S. military power in the region after Japan invaded and killed millions of Chinese nationals.

TimG · October 30, 2015

Historically, China didn't have much objection to U.S. military power in the region after Japan invaded and killed millions of Chinese nationals.

In the 70s, Mao said China should thank the Japanese army because it invaded and created the conditions to allow the Communists to seize power.

xul · October 30, 2015

All borders of existing countries were settled by war but the point of the UN is to provide a process where these disputes can be resolved without war today.

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?....

If you think China is entitled to use war to solve its boundary disputes then you are admitting that China's "peaceful rise" claims are a sad joke and the US, Japan, Taiwan and others are right to arm themselves to protect from Chinese aggression.

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.

It is question of actions and consequences. China can act as a bully if it wants but it should expect its neighbors to respond in kind. If China's actions eventually lead to war it will the Chinese who will be guilty of starting it much like the Germans started WWI and WW2. Is control of a few irrelevant islands so important that you would start WW3?

You need a lot of $$$ not a lot of debt to start WW3 :lol: , 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: , 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.

Edited October 30, 2015 by xul

TimG · October 30, 2015

Building three 3km runways in that region doesn't mean that China wants to go into war with anyone.

Complete BS and you know it. China knows their claims are disputed. It knows that any construction in the disputed lands will provoke its neighbors. More importantly, there is no compelling reason to do any construction on those islands other than to piss off its neighbors. How would China react if Japan started building on the Senkakus? I am fairly certain it would make the US reaction look very polite and measured.

So whether you want to admit it or not China is pushing for a war.

Frankly, the most annoying thing about the Chinese government is not its warmongering ways but the sniveling, deceitful way it constantly pretends it is not the aggressor. China is deliberating provoking its neighbors by threatening violence if it does not get it way. It happens over these islands. It happens over Taiwan. It is not the actions of a responsible nation.

The Germans were arrogant like China prior to WW1. A lot of Germans died because of that arrogance.

Edited October 30, 2015 by TimG

xul · October 30, 2015

Complete BS and you know it. China knows their claims are disputed. It knows that any construction in the disputed lands will provoke its neighbors. More importantly, there is no compelling reason to do any construction on those islands other than to piss off its neighbors. How would China react if Japan started building on the Senkakus? I am fairly certain it would make the US reaction look very polite and measured.

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.

1999 A Philippine World-War-II-vintage vessel (LT 57 Sierra Madre) ran aground on the Second Thomas Shoal. Despite initial PRC demands for its removal, and subsequent PRC offers for its free removal, the vessel remains aground on the reef.^%5B103%5D^%5B104%5D

So whether you want to admit it or not China is pushing for a war.

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.

Frankly, the most annoying thing about the Chinese government is not its warmongering ways but the sniveling, deceitful way it constantly pretends it is not the aggressor. China is deliberating provoking its neighbors by threatening violence if it does not get it way. It happens over these islands. It happens over Taiwan. It is not the actions of a responsible nation.

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.

The Germans were arrogant like China prior to WW1. A lot of Germans died because of that arrogance.

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.)

TimG · October 30, 2015

Deliberately grounding a ship on an inhabitated disputed reef is more like an action of stealing. And Philippines did it in 1999.

The Philippines may have also engaged in provocative acts, however, it has taken its case to the UN (and by implication agrees to be bound by the decision):

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-30/hague-court-to-hear-south-china-sea-dispute-philippines/6897852

That makes the Philippines the more reasonable party in the dispute.

or U.S? If Obama truly wanted a war against China, he would have to send a bigger ship like LHA.

The US does not want a war. It simply did the minimum necessary to repudiate China's illegal claims of sovereignty based on artificial islands.

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.)

War is a disaster for everyone. OTOH, it is very dangerous for China to gamble that it can get away with bullying its neighbors simply because no one wants a war. WWI started because a minor conflict in Serbia pulled in the major powers because of their various military alliances. Edited October 30, 2015 by TimG

Wilber · October 30, 2015

Garnet Wolseley predicted this back around 1905.

xul · October 31, 2015

The Philippines may have also engaged in provocative acts, however, it has taken its case to the UN (and by implication agrees to be bound by the decision):

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-30/hague-court-to-hear-south-china-sea-dispute-philippines/6897852

That makes the Philippines the more reasonable party in the dispute.

The US does not want a war. It simply did the minimum necessary to repudiate China's illegal claims of sovereignty based on artificial islands.

War is a disaster for everyone. OTOH, it is very dangerous for China to gamble that it can get away with bullying its neighbors simply because no one wants a war. WWI started because a minor conflict in Serbia pulled in the major powers because of their various military alliances.

Come back home and find the message from forum Facilitator:

your images in the China Sea post were removed. They are unnecesssary.

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

Declaration under article 298:

The Government of the People's Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) ( and © of Article 298 of the Convention.

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.

Edited October 31, 2015 by xul

xul · October 31, 2015

Actually, the majority of the Canada - U.S. border along the 49th parallel was established through a treaty in 1818...basically a land swap to make things tidy (e.g. Louisiana Purchase land exchanged for some of Rupert's Land). The Oregon Territory was actually shared by both nations until 1846.

In 1818, if British militory power was as weak as Philippine, I wager I would need an U.S. visa to immigrate Canada.

Historically, China didn't have much objection to U.S. military power in the region after Japan invaded and killed millions of Chinese nationals.

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.

Edited October 31, 2015 by xul

Derek 2.0 · October 31, 2015

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. [/size] [/size]

"More and bigger warships" doesn't translate into a navy capable of power projection, in contested waters, against a navy with a semi-capable submarine force. The Chinese now, and into the near future, would be unable to operate safely within the South China Sea with impunity, let alone setting their sights further abroad. Right now, and into the future, the varsity in the South China Sea is COMSUBPAC, which if ever required, would turn the Chinese navy into crab food in short order.

xul · October 31, 2015

"More and bigger warships" doesn't translate into a navy capable of power projection, in contested waters, against a navy with a semi-capable submarine force. The Chinese now, and into the near future, would be unable to operate safely within the South China Sea with impunity, let alone setting their sights further abroad. Right now, and into the future, the varsity in the South China Sea is COMSUBPAC, which if ever required, would turn the Chinese navy into crab food in short order.

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 :lol: .

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.

Edited October 31, 2015 by xul

Derek 2.0 · October 31, 2015

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.

No, I mean the entire South China Sea, Chinese "fighter jets" pose little threat to the USN's sub force, inversely, said runways and aircraft carrier(s) are very much vulnerable to said sub force.

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.

The US has no need to start a war with the Chinese, as the Chinese are quick to back down when confronted with the slightest show of force. Unlike Putin's Russia, the Chinese have little leverage to bring to a political poker game.

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:

You make that sound like a bad thing...........the use of the USN's Pacific submarine force proved vital in defeating that last Asian power intent on Empire building, a Empire defended by the use of tiny islands.

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.

That's exactly it, the game was played by the Americans, and then, the Chinese backed down. How long will the current Chinese Government and military leaders survive with a continual loss of face?

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.

The Chinese today don't have the capabilities of the Allies during the Second World War in countering a modern submarine threat. And no, a surface fleet today can survive when pitted against land based aircraft and ASM....

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.

When was the last time the Chinese have won a war?

Wilber · October 31, 2015

subs will not survive without the cover from surface fleet, the Battle of Atlantic has proved it.

The subs of WW2 were actually surface ships that could operate submerged for a few hours at a time. They had a maximum speed of less than 10 knots under water and the faster they went the shorter their endurance. They also had to see their target to attack it. Today's subs do not. Today's nuclear subs are true underwater craft that only need to surface when they run out of food and are as fast under water as most surface ships. Even faster in rough weather.