I
Indofred
Guest
- Thread starter
- #21
OK, you seem to be claiming China is bad because it trades with Iran.
China also trades with the US and Israel, the latter including arms sales.
Is that also bad?
OK, you seem to be claiming China is bad because it trades with Iran.
China also trades with the US and Israel, the latter including arms sales.
Is that also bad?
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 136,941
- 28,454
- 2,180
If you have a question, ask it. Don't make ASSumptions. Also, try to follow your own line of discussion, to which I was responding.
I
Indofred
Guest
- Thread starter
- #23
Clean debate zone.
If you can't make valid points without insults, you should not post.
So far, there have been no valid posts to refute my assertion, only one thing about China assisting a developing country in their efforts to build a railway.
Hardly damning evidence.
Can anyone actually come up with a valid reason why China is aggressive?
eagle1462010
Diamond Member
- May 17, 2013
- 73,495
- 38,504
- 2,605
Conflicting Claims China Japan Taiwan on Edge World Affairs Journal
This was the first time China had brought the subject up since the Nationalists did in 1946. And that’s what started the conflict in both the South and East China Seas. It has led to numerous seaborne clashes that, thus far, have stopped just short of shooting and killing.
So far, the most violent hostilities have been water-cannon fights between Japanese and Taiwanese Coast Guard ships facing off with Chinese surveillance vessels—the most recent of them in mid-September. No one has been hurt seriously, but some in the Taiwanese government told me they hoped to deploy what they called “more powerful” water cannons.
China sends patrol boats through the islands frequently—almost daily. It also utilizes its vast array of fishing boats, thousands of them, as an advance fleet. Small fleets of these boats sally into contested areas to see if they face a challenge. And more than once in 2013, Chinese ships “painted” Japanese naval vessels with weapons fire-control radar—a clear threat. So far, the Chinese have not fired any actual weapons, but the situation remains tense.
At the Asia-Pacific Economic conference in Bali, Indonesia, in mid-October, Chinese President Xi Jinping is reported to have actively “snubbed” Prime Minister Abe of Japan. As Chris Nelson of Samuels International’s Nelson Report wrote: “For China, of course, everything has to be run through the filter of strategic one-upmanship, as Beijing tries to discomfit Tokyo in hopes that Abe will at some point ‘blink’ so China’s aggressive pursuit against the Senkakus” islands “status quo will eventually bear fruit.”
Meanwhile, the US Air Force is stationing ever more fighter planes, drones, and stealth bombers in Thailand, India, Singapore, and Australia. In China’s view, that seems to betray the Washington mantra: The United States will not get involved in regional territorial disputes. Yet, in fact, the United States administered those islands, along with Okinawa, until 1972, when America returned them to Japan. All the debate then was about Okinawa. Hardly anyone even mentioned the DSS islands.
This was the first time China had brought the subject up since the Nationalists did in 1946. And that’s what started the conflict in both the South and East China Seas. It has led to numerous seaborne clashes that, thus far, have stopped just short of shooting and killing.
So far, the most violent hostilities have been water-cannon fights between Japanese and Taiwanese Coast Guard ships facing off with Chinese surveillance vessels—the most recent of them in mid-September. No one has been hurt seriously, but some in the Taiwanese government told me they hoped to deploy what they called “more powerful” water cannons.
China sends patrol boats through the islands frequently—almost daily. It also utilizes its vast array of fishing boats, thousands of them, as an advance fleet. Small fleets of these boats sally into contested areas to see if they face a challenge. And more than once in 2013, Chinese ships “painted” Japanese naval vessels with weapons fire-control radar—a clear threat. So far, the Chinese have not fired any actual weapons, but the situation remains tense.
At the Asia-Pacific Economic conference in Bali, Indonesia, in mid-October, Chinese President Xi Jinping is reported to have actively “snubbed” Prime Minister Abe of Japan. As Chris Nelson of Samuels International’s Nelson Report wrote: “For China, of course, everything has to be run through the filter of strategic one-upmanship, as Beijing tries to discomfit Tokyo in hopes that Abe will at some point ‘blink’ so China’s aggressive pursuit against the Senkakus” islands “status quo will eventually bear fruit.”
Meanwhile, the US Air Force is stationing ever more fighter planes, drones, and stealth bombers in Thailand, India, Singapore, and Australia. In China’s view, that seems to betray the Washington mantra: The United States will not get involved in regional territorial disputes. Yet, in fact, the United States administered those islands, along with Okinawa, until 1972, when America returned them to Japan. All the debate then was about Okinawa. Hardly anyone even mentioned the DSS islands.
eagle1462010
Diamond Member
- May 17, 2013
- 73,495
- 38,504
- 2,605
Senkaku Diaoyu Islands of Conflict History Today
These events marked a low point in foreign relations for Japan, already mired in controversy over its plan to relocate the Futenma military base used for decades by US forces in Okinawa. Japan seemed to be under siege from all sides, while a rising China appeared increasingly powerful and assertive, capable of undermining Japan’s vital interests and infringing her territorial sovereignty.
It is important to look at the current dispute between China and Japan in the light of the history of Chinese foreign policy. Chang Chi-hsiung of Taiwan’s Academia Sinica has argued that the pre-modern Chinese world order was based on status and stability (mingfen zhixu). Legitimacy rested not on physical control but on the recognition and enactment of the proper roles and duties appropriate to one’s status. Under the logic of this system, emperors extended their power beyond China’s borders not by force, but by their ‘benevolence’ or ‘virtuous’ rule, which Confucian thinkers believed would lead foreign states to acknowledge the emperor’s moral suzerainty. Thus, outside China proper, it was possible to rule even where there was no mechanism of physical governance in place. Practical benefits accompanied acceptance of China’s nominal status at the head of this universal structure: tributary trade with China was not only extremely profitable but also provided many goods that could not be easily accessed elsewhere. On the other hand, gifts and titles from the Chinese emperor allowed rulers to strengthen their own position vis-à-vis their subjects. Although Japan stayed out of the system during its Tokugawa period (1603-1868) the vast majority of states in east, inner and south-east Asia, including the Ryukyus (modern-day Okinawa), accepted a tributary relationship with China.
These events marked a low point in foreign relations for Japan, already mired in controversy over its plan to relocate the Futenma military base used for decades by US forces in Okinawa. Japan seemed to be under siege from all sides, while a rising China appeared increasingly powerful and assertive, capable of undermining Japan’s vital interests and infringing her territorial sovereignty.
It is important to look at the current dispute between China and Japan in the light of the history of Chinese foreign policy. Chang Chi-hsiung of Taiwan’s Academia Sinica has argued that the pre-modern Chinese world order was based on status and stability (mingfen zhixu). Legitimacy rested not on physical control but on the recognition and enactment of the proper roles and duties appropriate to one’s status. Under the logic of this system, emperors extended their power beyond China’s borders not by force, but by their ‘benevolence’ or ‘virtuous’ rule, which Confucian thinkers believed would lead foreign states to acknowledge the emperor’s moral suzerainty. Thus, outside China proper, it was possible to rule even where there was no mechanism of physical governance in place. Practical benefits accompanied acceptance of China’s nominal status at the head of this universal structure: tributary trade with China was not only extremely profitable but also provided many goods that could not be easily accessed elsewhere. On the other hand, gifts and titles from the Chinese emperor allowed rulers to strengthen their own position vis-à-vis their subjects. Although Japan stayed out of the system during its Tokugawa period (1603-1868) the vast majority of states in east, inner and south-east Asia, including the Ryukyus (modern-day Okinawa), accepted a tributary relationship with China.
eagle1462010
Diamond Member
- May 17, 2013
- 73,495
- 38,504
- 2,605
Taiwan Relations Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Military provisions[edit]
The Taiwan Relations Act potentially requires the U.S. to intervene militarily if the PRC attacks or invades Taiwan. The act states that "the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capabilities”. However, the decision about the nature and quantity of defense services that America will provide to Taiwan is to be determined by the President and Congress. America's policy has been called "strategic ambiguity" and it is designed to dissuade Taiwan from a unilateral declaration of independence, and to dissuade the PRC from unilaterally unifying Taiwan with the PRC.
The act further stipulates that the United States will "consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts orembargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States".
This act also requires the United States "to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character", and "to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan." Successive U.S. administrations have sold arms to Taiwan in compliance with the Taiwan Relations Act despite demands from the PRC that the U.S. follow the legally non-binding Three Joint Communiquesand the U.S. government's proclaimed One-China policy (which differs from the PRC's One-China Policy).
Military provisions[edit]
The Taiwan Relations Act potentially requires the U.S. to intervene militarily if the PRC attacks or invades Taiwan. The act states that "the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capabilities”. However, the decision about the nature and quantity of defense services that America will provide to Taiwan is to be determined by the President and Congress. America's policy has been called "strategic ambiguity" and it is designed to dissuade Taiwan from a unilateral declaration of independence, and to dissuade the PRC from unilaterally unifying Taiwan with the PRC.
The act further stipulates that the United States will "consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts orembargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States".
This act also requires the United States "to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character", and "to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan." Successive U.S. administrations have sold arms to Taiwan in compliance with the Taiwan Relations Act despite demands from the PRC that the U.S. follow the legally non-binding Three Joint Communiquesand the U.S. government's proclaimed One-China policy (which differs from the PRC's One-China Policy).
eagle1462010
Diamond Member
- May 17, 2013
- 73,495
- 38,504
- 2,605
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/world/asia/philippines-detains-crew-of-chinese-fishing-vessel.html
HONG KONG — Tensions in the South China Sea intensified Wednesday as Vietnamese vessels confronted Chinese ships that were working to place an oil rig off Vietnam’s coast, and Vietnamese officials claimed that their ships had been rammed by the Chinese vessels three days earlier.
Vietnam said the Chinese ships also fired water cannons at its flotilla in the encounter on Sunday, injuring Vietnamese sailors, although Chinese officials did not confirm the incident. The skirmishing highlighted the hair-trigger tensions in the region as Asian nations try to contain China’s more aggressive posture in pursuing maritime claims in the South China Sea.
“On May 4, Chinese ships intentionally rammed two Vietnamese Sea Guard vessels,” Tran Duy Hai, a Foreign Ministry official, said at a news conference in Hanoi, Vietnam. “Chinese ships, with air support, sought to intimidate Vietnamese vessels.”
Last week, the Chinese state oil company Cnooc stationed the oil rig 120 nautical miles off the coast of Vietnam, in waters claimed by China and Vietnam. The placement of the rig led to protests and demands by Vietnam that it be withdrawn, and the deployment of a Vietnamese naval flotilla to the area.
Yang Jiechi, a Chinese state councilor, rebutted the criticisms in a telephone call on Tuesday with Deputy Prime Minister Pham Binh Minh of Vietnam. Mr. Yang said the rig was operating within Chinese waters, but Mr. Minh told the Chinese diplomat that Vietnam would take “all suitable and necessary measures” to protect its rights and interests, according to the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry.
HONG KONG — Tensions in the South China Sea intensified Wednesday as Vietnamese vessels confronted Chinese ships that were working to place an oil rig off Vietnam’s coast, and Vietnamese officials claimed that their ships had been rammed by the Chinese vessels three days earlier.
Vietnam said the Chinese ships also fired water cannons at its flotilla in the encounter on Sunday, injuring Vietnamese sailors, although Chinese officials did not confirm the incident. The skirmishing highlighted the hair-trigger tensions in the region as Asian nations try to contain China’s more aggressive posture in pursuing maritime claims in the South China Sea.
“On May 4, Chinese ships intentionally rammed two Vietnamese Sea Guard vessels,” Tran Duy Hai, a Foreign Ministry official, said at a news conference in Hanoi, Vietnam. “Chinese ships, with air support, sought to intimidate Vietnamese vessels.”
Last week, the Chinese state oil company Cnooc stationed the oil rig 120 nautical miles off the coast of Vietnam, in waters claimed by China and Vietnam. The placement of the rig led to protests and demands by Vietnam that it be withdrawn, and the deployment of a Vietnamese naval flotilla to the area.
Yang Jiechi, a Chinese state councilor, rebutted the criticisms in a telephone call on Tuesday with Deputy Prime Minister Pham Binh Minh of Vietnam. Mr. Yang said the rig was operating within Chinese waters, but Mr. Minh told the Chinese diplomat that Vietnam would take “all suitable and necessary measures” to protect its rights and interests, according to the Vietnamese Foreign Ministry.
eagle1462010
Diamond Member
- May 17, 2013
- 73,495
- 38,504
- 2,605
China and Japan can't stand each other.................The know it, and have squared off many times. And this includes the puppet Country of North Korea who has fired missiles in the direction of Japan as part of their tests...........Japan has even threatened to Kick North Korea's Ass over this............These missile shoots are designed to piss off Japan............It works, as Japan does get ticked off.
The disputed Islands are disputed between China, Taiwan and Japan...........They ram each other and threaten to kill each other over them all the time. China has made claims that Taiwan is theirs..................Taiwan has told them to go to hell, and that the only way they will take the Taiwan is by War.............The United States has a mutual pact with Taiwan................and if China ever attacked them they would be fighting the United States.....although the Pact has been watered down in the United States over time.
China disputes Vietnam's claim to waters as well, and it has been a bitter dispute between the countries.............To the point of nearly firing on each other.............
China is the big bully on the block.........and the neighboring countries have told them to go to hell over and over again..............To near actual combat on the seas with Japan, Taiwan, and Vietnam.
The disputed Islands are disputed between China, Taiwan and Japan...........They ram each other and threaten to kill each other over them all the time. China has made claims that Taiwan is theirs..................Taiwan has told them to go to hell, and that the only way they will take the Taiwan is by War.............The United States has a mutual pact with Taiwan................and if China ever attacked them they would be fighting the United States.....although the Pact has been watered down in the United States over time.
China disputes Vietnam's claim to waters as well, and it has been a bitter dispute between the countries.............To the point of nearly firing on each other.............
China is the big bully on the block.........and the neighboring countries have told them to go to hell over and over again..............To near actual combat on the seas with Japan, Taiwan, and Vietnam.
I
Indofred
Guest
- Thread starter
- #29
As I said, China is building forces in answer to the foreign threat you've just outlined.
Note - Feeling to lazy to mess with the quote, so just popped my answers inside your quote, but in red to make them show as my answers.
I
Indofred
Guest
- Thread starter
- #30
Yes, but a far larger aggressive power, one with a long history of attacking other countries, has built up forces.
The Chinese have a right to defend against the United States.
I
Indofred
Guest
- Thread starter
- #31
The Chinese popped an oil rig into the area, Vietnam sent armed warships.
Sounds like Vietnam is being really aggressive, but China is not.
The waters are disputed, not Vietnamese.
As fr the islands in question, they were uninhabited for a very long time, the French occupying them in 1938.
The Japanese killed the French as they entered WWII, and took over the islands.
At the end of the war, when American forced used a couple of WMDs against Japan and they folded, the Chinese regained control of the islands, with no objection from anyone.
The 1954 Geneva accords saw Japan give up all claims on the islands.
Basically, this fight is between China, America's new best enemy, and Vietnam, America's old best enemy, now an American parter in the region.
I massive kick in the teeth to the Americans who died in that war.
America is supporting a country that killed thousands of Americans, to make aggressive moves on America's newly created evil enemy.
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 136,941
- 28,454
- 2,180
As I have said before: China is pursuing a gradual, Mahanian path of expansion and projection. This is no big secret. It would be worse than foolish for the US not to act accordingly. The fact that some poster on some internet site hates America in no way alters the rational response that America should and will follow. If we ever manage to get a real leader in the Oval Office again, we will likely see this situation given more of the military and diplomatic attention that it deserves. Mutual understanding and real statesmanship are what will (or will not) prevent entirely avoidable violence.
I
Indofred
Guest
- Thread starter
- #33
I think you're supposed to back that up with evidence from unbiased sites.
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 136,941
- 28,454
- 2,180
For those who really have NO IDEA about this subject, here is a good place to learn at least the first little thing about what some people are trying to discuss here:
Red Star over the Pacific China s Rise and the Challenge to U.S. Maritime Strategy Toshi Yoshihara James R. Holmes 9781591149798 Amazon.com Books
Red Star over the Pacific China s Rise and the Challenge to U.S. Maritime Strategy Toshi Yoshihara James R. Holmes 9781591149798 Amazon.com Books
uhm----I have to get a whole book?-----have a heart----give me some hints--------I RELUCTANTLY ADMIT-----(well---
I know just about everything else---re WORLD WISDOM)
uhm......<speaking in a faint whisper>----I don't know
nuthin' about it ~~~~~~~
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 136,941
- 28,454
- 2,180
thanks UNKO (now comb your hair) ---I am impressed with the writing----very cogent-----and----to me suggests that as long
as the USA navy OVER THERE remains in international waters---
there is no reason for china to complain----afterall----we are not
at war with china----we are not blocking sea routes----we are not lobbing missiles into her cities.---
We have a very logical reason for being there-----protect both
our ----trade routes and----potential defense sites ON THE
HIGH SEAS. When the people of the USA start chanting
DEATH TO CHINA (I have had a few friends--escapees from
china-----the chant would have to be "china is the devil"---to
impress the Chinese) ---then the US navy out there would be
a matter of concern for them------for now CHINA!!! MYOB
as the USA navy OVER THERE remains in international waters---
there is no reason for china to complain----afterall----we are not
at war with china----we are not blocking sea routes----we are not lobbing missiles into her cities.---
We have a very logical reason for being there-----protect both
our ----trade routes and----potential defense sites ON THE
HIGH SEAS. When the people of the USA start chanting
DEATH TO CHINA (I have had a few friends--escapees from
china-----the chant would have to be "china is the devil"---to
impress the Chinese) ---then the US navy out there would be
a matter of concern for them------for now CHINA!!! MYOB
I
Indofred
Guest
- Thread starter
- #38
That which the USA is doing is not aggression------an issue you
prefer to ignore is china's aggression against our allies-----that is
part of our "business"-----china is aggressive against INDIA
I am damned old-----but I was young in the early 60s ----way back
then I wrote a junior high school paper focused on the india-china
border dispute-----------of course I had no prior knowledge-----
and no bias-----I knew nothing. I did not even know HU-DA-HELL MAO was------and to that point never met an indian.....
It became clear to me that CHINA IS THE AGGRESSOR in
that ongoing albeit indolent war-------a really bad nasty player
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 136,941
- 28,454
- 2,180
The above is, obviously, in no way a response to my post. 'Ignore and Repeat' does NOT result in a discussion.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Kash Patel demands Canada to stop illegal activity at the border
- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 2
-
Patel, Bongino Publicly Expose FBI’s Hillary Clinton ‘Cover Up’- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 8
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
They Said Biden Wouldn’t Come for Our Guns. The Plan Says Otherwise.- Latest: Admiral Rockwell Tory
-