China and US at it again

[Topaz]

Well, here we go again the two countries of China and the US, China telling the US to back off going into the South China Sea is trespassing and the US saying no it not its international waters, which makes me wonder when the US is going to do the same with Canada in the NW Passage down the road.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/china-warns-us-over-naval-patrol/ar-BBmtdqS?ocid=spartandhp

[TimG]

Well, here we go again the two countries of China and the US, China telling the US to back off going into the South China Sea is trespassing and the US saying no it not its international waters, which makes me wonder when the US is going to do the same with Canada in the NW Passage down the road.

International law is clearly on the side of the US in this dispute since the law says quite clearly that a country can't create artificial islands and then claim sovereign rights. The NWP is a more murky situation since the presumption is the NWP are Canadian internal waters unless it is an existing shipping lane. The US has deliberately sent ships through the NWP in order to establish its use as a shipping lane. In the end, Canada and the US will agree to disagree on the NWP status since Canada has no way to block ships from using the passage nor is is it in Canada's interest to engage in a military showdown over the passage. Edited October 27, 2015 by TimG

[Big Guy]

Yes, it looks like another test of wills:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/10/navy-spratly-sail-threatens-china-sovereignty-151027062513637.html

Beijing insists it has sovereign rights to nearly all of the South China Sea, even waters close to the coasts of other states. The sea is a strategically vital waterway with shipping lanes through which about a third of all the world's traded oil passes, and the dispute has raised fears of clashes.

[bjre]

International law is clearly on the side of the US in this dispute since the law says quite clearly that a country can't create artificial islands and then claim sovereign rights. The NWP is a more murky situation since the presumption is the NWP are Canadian internal waters unless it is an existing shipping lane. The US has deliberately sent ships through the NWP in order to establish its use as a shipping lane. In the end, Canada and the US will agree to disagree on the NWP status since Canada has no way to block ships from using the passage nor is is it in Canada's interest to engage in a military showdown over the passage.

Does US obey all "International laws"?

Who create those "International laws" based on who's interest?

Is China the first country to build an artificial island?

What happened before that?

Why should US spend their tax dollars on sending that boat?

Will Canada benifit on that?

If new war created, should Canada receive more millions of refugees?

What would be the ecomonic impact to Canada, Europe because of this?

Will any of Asian country benifit on that?

What would Canadian tax payers will pay for that if the situation goes on?

Who else in the world on the earth can benifit on that other than US big bankers and millitery suppliers?

[TimG]

Who create those "International laws" based on who's interest?

International laws are designed to reduce conflict by providing rules that everyone follows. The ban on extending territory with artificial islands is needed to prevent aggressors like China from expanding their borders by gambling that their neighbors are unwilling to start a war over it. China is a freeloader that has benefited immensely from the international system which has allowed peaceful trade but now seeks to undermine it.

Is China the first country to build an artificial island?

China is the only country to claim sovereignty around artificial islands in violation of UN rules.

If new war created, should Canada receive more millions of refugees?

China is a bully that, if ignored, will forever increase its demands until war is an unavoidable outcome. The only way to avoid war is to push back against the bully and hope that the Chinese leadership will eventually come to their senses and try to work within the system instead of trying to tear it down. Edited October 27, 2015 by TimG

[bjre]

International laws are designed to reduce conflict by providing rules that everyone follows. The ban on extending territory with artificial islands is needed to prevent aggressors like China from expanding their borders by gambling that their neighbors are unwilling to start a war over it. China is a freeloader that has benefited immensely from the international system which has allowed peaceful trade but now seeks to undermine it.

China is the only country to claim sovereignty around artificial islands in violation of UN rules.

China is a bully that, if ignored, will forever increase its demands until war is an unavoidable outcome. The only way to avoid war is to push back against the bully and hope that the Chinese leadership will eventually come to their senses and try to work within the system instead of trying to tear it down.

You did not answer the question "Does US obey all "International laws"?"

That means you probobly want use "reduce conflict" to high the nature "for some people's own interest".

Do you really honestly believe send a battle boat there is "reduce confilict" instead of "increase conflict"?

If no incident happen why there is a law? Is there a law to ban any one from traval to the Sun so that all people's energe source will be in danger?

China did not claim Sourth China Sea by artificial islands, it claimed it 1000 years before that, China create artificail islands because its islands has been invaded by Vietnam, Phillipins and others backed by the US and Soviet Union gradually after WWII when China had no ability to protect it.

The only bully nation in the world is US, and many Canadian polititions just following that bullier for his/her own interest. Ignore the interest of most Canadian tax payers.

[TimG]

Do you really honestly believe send a battle boat there is "reduce confilict" instead of "increase conflict"?

China is the aggressor. It is grabbing territory and daring it neighbors to challenge it. The blame for creating tensions rests entirely with China.

China did not claim Sourth China Sea by artificial islands, it claimed it 1000 years before that

What happened 1000 years ago is irrelevant. Borders today are based on whoever has had most recent control. This is a compromise designed to minimize conflict because as soon as you start going back into history to rationalize claims you end up with irreconcilable differences that often lead to war.

The only bully nation in the world is US

ROTFL. Delusional rhetoric that is at odds with reality. China, more than any other country, is completely incapable of understanding the POV of other nations and constantly seeks to bully others. International laws exist to place limits on the ability of large powers to bully smaller nations. China repudiates international laws because it does not want its ability to bully others to be limited.

FWIW: I concede that the US can also be a bully and that US also does break international law. However, 2 wrongs do not make a right and in this situation China is in the wrong.

Edited October 27, 2015 by TimG

[bjre]

China is the aggressor. It is grabbing territory and daring it neighbors to challenge it. The blame for creating tensions rests entirely with China.

Your ancestors are aggressor, they grabbing territory from oboriginals in North America and South America. 100 million people have been killed here.

What happened 1000 years ago is irrelevant. Borders today are based on whoever has had most recent control. This is a compromise designed to minimize conflict because as soon as you start going back into history to rationalize claims you end up with irreconcilable differences that often lead to war.

ROTFL. Delusional rhetoric that is at odds with reality. China, more than any other country, is completely incapable of understanding the POV of other nations and constantly seeks to bully others.

According to your position, a thief has a most recent control of what he has stolen, even if he takes money from bank, to minimize the conflict, you should let him control those things.

[bjre]

FWIW: I concede that the US can also be a bully and that US also does break international law. However, 2 wrongs do not make a right and in this situation China is in the wrong.

You mean, you will send a battle boat to US too?

[TimG]

Your ancestors are aggressor, they grabbing territory from oboriginals in North America and South America. 100 million people have been killed here.

You don't know who my ancestors were and even if the claim was true it would be irrelevant. The past is the past and what matters are facts on the ground today.

According to your position, a thief has a most recent control of what he has stolen, even if he takes money from bank, to minimize the conflict, you should let him control those things.

Every country in the world (including China) exists because people in past stole territory from its neighbors. If your argument had any merit you would be calling for China to be broken up into into the small states that used to exist because this land was "stolen" by Qin Chinese aggressors 2000 years ago.

When it comes to international borders the only thing that matters is current possession because that is best way to ensure peace. Your moralizing is shamelessly hypocritical.

[bjre]

You don't know who my ancestors were and even if the claim was true it would be irrelevant. The past is the past and what matters are facts on the ground today.

Every country in the world (including China) exists because people in past stole territory from its neighbors. If your argument had any merit you would be calling for China to be broken up into into the small states that used to exist because this land was "stolen" by Qin Chinese aggressors 2000 years ago.

When it comes to international borders the only thing that matters is current possession because that is best way to ensure peace.

I think all shamelessly hypocritical robbers love your logic.

Your moralizing is shamelessly hypocritical.

You'd better go back to high school and re-learn what is fallacy of ad hominem

[TimG]

I think all shamelessly hypocritical robbers love your logic.

So you are saying that all of the territory that the Qin emperor stole should be given back? How about the land Yuan emperor stole? Why are you so unwilling to acknowledge that China today only exists because leaders in the past stole the land from its rightful owners? The Chinese are the original land robbers. Edited October 27, 2015 by TimG

[bjre]

So you are saying that all of the territory that the Qin emperor stole should be given back? How about the land Yuan emperor stole? Why are you so unwilling to acknowledge that China today only exists because leaders in the past stole the land from its rightful owners? The Chinese are the original land robbers.

Before Qin dynesty, there was Zhou, at that time, China already united.

China is not the fist and not the last, why when it is China, you will blame, when it is US, you keep silent?

Why when someone take China's belonging, you keep silent, when China try to build the land it has controlled for decades, you becomes so excite?

The "artificial islands" diescribed by recent US control mainsteam media actually have been controled by China for decades if not hundred of years.

What do you think how should be describe your such kind of behaviour?

[TimG]

Before Qin dynesty, there was Zhou, at that time, China already united.

You need to learn some history. Qin emperor stole the land of its neighbors. That is an indisputable fact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warring_States_period

Are you proud of the Chinese robbers?

My point is your "robber" rhetoric is pure hypocrisy and quite irrelevant.

China is not the fist and not the last, why when it is China, you will blame, when it is US, you keep silent?

2 wrongs do not make a right. In this situation China is wrong no matter what the US may have done in other contexts. China has no claim on the territory today yet it is using military power to seize the land. China is the aggressor. Edited October 27, 2015 by TimG

[bjre]

You need to learn some history. Qin emperor stole the land of its neighbors. That is an indisputable fact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warring_States_period

Are you proud of the Chinese robbers?

My point is your "robber" rhetoric is pure hypocrisy and quite irrelevant.

You need to improve your learning skill.

From the web page you linked clearly said all the neighbors are belong to Zhou Dnasty, that you failed to notice. It is just like the states of US.

I never pround of any robber. In the mean time, I don't support any statement proposed by any robber because when robbers blame others, they usually have hidden agenda, just like this time US blame China.

2 wrongs do not make a right. In this situation China is wrong no matter what the US may have done in other contexts. China has no claim on the territory today yet it is using military power to seize the land. China is the aggressor.

I am getting tried of this quarrel, you did not answer if you will send a battal ship to US after last time you talk about 2 wrongs make right things. LOL

[TimG]

From the web page you linked clearly said all the neighbors are belong to Zhou Dnasty

From the page:

The Warring States period (Chinese: 戰國時代; pinyin: Zhànguó shídài) was an era in ancient Chinese history following the Spring and Autumn period and concluding with the Qin wars of conquest that saw the annexation of all other contender states, which ultimately led to the Qin state's victory in 221 BC as the first unified Chinese empire known as the Qin dynasty.

Qin was a robber.

I never proud of any robber.

The point of the example is to illustrate the stupidity of justifying robbing territory today because a country had previously robbed the territory in the past from someone else. That is why current possession is the only thing that matters in International Law and China has no legal claim to the territories in the south china sea. This means, in this case, China is the aggressor and the US is responding to this aggression. Edited October 27, 2015 by TimG

[bjre]

From the page:

Qin was a robber.

I don't want to commend Qin, but that was civil war.

The point of the example is to illustrate the stupidity of justifying robbing territory today because a country had previously robbed the territory in the past from someone else. That is why current possession is the only thing that matters in International Law and China has no legal claim to the territories in the south china sea. This means, in this case, China is the aggressor and the US is responding to this aggression.

The fallacy of problematical premise -- Who is the "someone else" before China is there 1000 year ago?

[bush_cheney2004]

I am getting tried of this quarrel, you did not answer if you will send a battal ship to US after last time you talk about 2 wrongs make right things. LOL

Canada already sends "battle ships" on deployments to enforce international law (e.g. Somali pirates), ensure safe passage, and execute foreign policy (e.g. Operation Apollo). Nothing special about China's false claims or actions.

[GostHacked]

International law is clearly on the side of the US in this dispute since the law says quite clearly that a country can't create artificial islands and then claim sovereign rights. The NWP is a more murky situation since the presumption is the NWP are Canadian internal waters unless it is an existing shipping lane. The US has deliberately sent ships through the NWP in order to establish its use as a shipping lane. In the end, Canada and the US will agree to disagree on the NWP status since Canada has no way to block ships from using the passage nor is is it in Canada's interest to engage in a military showdown over the passage.

International law means nothing. If it did, we would not have seen the global war on terror that the US was engaged in for over a decade and are now somewhat upset when Russia decides to take on the same enemy the US is trying to defeat. Strange situation. I'd welcome Russia crushing ISIS.

China can do what it wants, it has population, it has power via military and economy.

[TimG]

International law means nothing.

China is invoking international law as the justification for its 'outrage' over the US ship passage. That makes international law extremely relevant to this dispute.

[TimG]

I don't want to commend Qin, but that was civil war.

It really makes no difference. Land was owned by one group of people and it was stolen by another. That is the basis for the creation of every state in the world today. Therefore your attempt to rationalize Chinese aggression via right of past possession is an exercise in hypocrisy.

The fallacy of problematical premise -- Who is the "someone else" before China is there 1000 year ago?

Sending ships through the ocean does not grant sovereignty over the ocean. Building artificial islands that did not exist 1000 years ago does not grant sovereignty. The only basis for sovereignty is control of the few actual islands and there is a process for determining who has the best claim but that process does not automatically grant sovereignty to whoever has the oldest map. It is based on who has demonstrated control over the island in question and if no one can demonstrate control it goes to the closest nation. Edited October 27, 2015 by TimG

[bjre]

It really makes no difference. Land was owned by one group of people and it was stolen by another. That is the basis for the creation of every state in the world today. Therefore your attempt to rationalize Chinese aggression via right of past possession is an exercise in hypocrisy.

Sending ships through the ocean does not grant sovereignty over the ocean. Building artificial islands that did not exist 1000 years ago does not grant sovereignty. The only basis for sovereignty is control of the few actual islands and there is a process for determining who has the best claim but that process does not automatically grant sovereignty to whoever has the oldest map. It is based on who has demonstrated control over the island in question and if no one can demonstrate control it goes to the closest nation.

Did you make any comment on US illegally occupied Kingdom of Hawaii, is Hawaii's closest nation the United States before US ocupied it?

PR China has demonstrated control over those islands for decades, which now you call it artificial islands.

What you are doing now is just use different laws to different nations.

This is common ugly behavior used by lots of shameless lawyers that generate too many social problems nowadays.

This is also the ugly behaviour that generates the most problems in the world, from mideast to east Europe, to the whold world.

You following US so loyally, no matter if you are intensionally work for bullier or just be brainwashed, you are part of the reason the world has so much conflict and so many refugees and so many people dies everyday on war, and part of the reason why Canada people need to pay so many tax.

[TimG]

Did you make any comment on US illegally occupied Kingdom of Hawaii, is Hawaii's closest nation the United States before US occupied it?

Sure it was an illegal occupation but that is the past and Hawaii is now a US state. Just like it makes no difference that Qin emperor or the Kublai Khan illegally occupied the territories which are now part of China. The past is the past.

PR China has demonstrated control over those islands for decades, which now you call it artificial islands.

You can't demonstrate control of artificial islands because they have no relevance when it comes to determining sovereignty.

What you are doing now is just use different laws to different nations.

In the past many bloody conflicts erupted because there were no standard rules. The rules have been developed to eliminate the need for conflicts in the future. If the US annexed new territory today I would protest just as much. But the US does not do that even when it gets involved in conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan. It always leaves the sovereignty over the territory with the existing state. China and Russian are the only countries today that create conflict with their neighbors by annexing territory. Edited October 28, 2015 by TimG

[bjre]

You can't demonstrate control of artificial islands because they have no relevance when it comes to determining sovereignty.

China was in those islands long before you call it "artificial" when you yourself are living in an "artificially" expanded city.

In the past many bloody conflicts erupted because there were no standard rules. The rules have been developed to eliminate the need for conflicts in the future.

After the monkey took 80% of apples from the tree, it said, no more apple should be taken from the tree, that is the rule, then it took 80% of the bananas from another tree, it said again, no more bananas should be taken from the tree.

The rules are not for eliminate the conflicts, the rules are for create more conflict, because it is not fair, there will be angry, US can use that conflicts to eliminate the governments that US bankers cannot make enough profit from.

When the war break between US and China, Canada and Europe will pay for it.

If the US annexed new territory today I would protest just as much. But the US does not do that even when it gets involved in conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan. It always leaves the sovereignty over the territory with the existing state.

US now is the country that has the most powerful war machine in the world, it now change its strategy. It wants to be the dictator of the nations. Previously, Dictators slave more people by expand its territory to involve more people, later European countries salve more people by create new colonies; now US slave people by create pro-US governments. In this way, 9% of tax money of Canada goes to US bankers in form of bank interest since Canadian government loan money from private banks instead of Bank of Canada. If a country has a government that does not support US, does not let US robber their work result, give enough amount of the work result to US, US will use every means to change its government, no matter if the leader is elected or not, like US did in Haiti, Ukraine, If a government support US government, US will let it exist even if it is ruled by a dictator, like Saudi. So now if there is a “standard rule”, it is actually if US can take interest from it. When the day come that every country supports US, US will have more time to deal with Canada and take more from Canada by creating new “standard rules” for trading to “eliminate” trading “conflict” and other kind of “standard rules”, and you will need to pay more taxes even if you willing to work as a brain washer for US.

China and Russian are the only countries today that create conflict with their neighbors by annexing territory.

PR China’s territory shrinked gradually after it was founded.

US has expanded several times after it was founded.

PR China did not start any war after it was founded.

In the last 50 years, nearly every bloody conflict is created by US by either by sending military directly, or provide weapons to one or several group that involved, or use rumors and sanctions to blame the goverment of the country and make people of that country blame and fight and destory the governement. When the local government becomes weak, ISIS rised. Somali pirates rised...

What China give us, is cheap goods that we need when more and more dollars are taken by tax.

Edited October 28, 2015 by bjre

[TimG]

The rules are not for eliminate the conflicts, the rules are for create more conflict, because it is not fair

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?

US now is the country that has the most powerful war machine in the world, it now change its strategy. It wants to be the dictator of the nations.

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. 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.

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.

PR China did not start any war after it was founded.

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. 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.

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.

Edited October 28, 2015 by TimG