Trump Plans a Major Naval Build-up; Possible BLOCKADE of Spratly Islands

[presence]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-southchinasea-idUSKBN1572M4


By David Brunnstrom (http://www.reuters.com/journalists/david-brunnstrom) and Matt Spetalnick (http://www.reuters.com/journalists/matt-spetalnick) | WASHINGTON

The new U.S. administration of President Donald Trump vowed on Monday that the United States would prevent China from taking over territory in international waters in the South China Sea, something Chinese state media has warned would require Washington to "wage war."
The comments at a briefing from White House spokesman Sean Spicer signaled a sharp departure from years of cautious U.S. handling of China's assertive pursuit of territory claims in Asia, just days after Trump took office on Friday.
"The U.S. is going to make sure that we protect our interests there," Spicer said when asked if Trump agreed with comments by his Secretary of State nominee, Rex Tillerson, on Jan. 11 that China should not be allowed access to islands it has built in the contested South China Sea.
"It’s a question of if those islands are in fact in international waters and not part of China proper, then yeah, we’re going to make sure that we defend international territories from being taken over by one country," he said.

Tillerson's remarks at his Senate confirmation hearing prompted Chinese state media to say the United States would need to "wage war" to bar China's access to the islands where it has built military-length air strips and installed weapons systems.
Tillerson, who was expected to be confirmed as secretary of State on Monday, was asked at the hearing whether he supported a more aggressive posture toward China and said: "We’re going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed.”
The former Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N (http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=XOM.N)) chairman and chief executive did not elaborate on what might be done to deny China access to the islands.
But analysts said his comments, like those of Spicer, suggested the possibility of U.S. military action, or even a naval blockade, that would risk armed confrontation with China, an increasingly formidable nuclear-armed military power. It is also the world's second-largest economy and the target of accusations by Trump that it is stealing American jobs.
Spicer declined to elaborate when asked how the United States could enforce such a move against China, except to say: “I think, as we develop further, we’ll have more information on it.”
RISK OF DANGEROUS ESCALATION
Military experts said that while the U.S. Navy has extensive capabilities in Asia to stage blockading operations with ships, submarines and planes, any such move against China's growing naval fleets would risk dangerous escalation.
Aides have said that Trump plans a major naval build-up in East Asia to counter China's rise.
China's embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the White House remarks.
China's Foreign Ministry said earlier this month it could not guess what Tillerson meant by his remarks, which came after Trump questioned Washington's longstanding and highly sensitive "one-China" policy over Taiwan.
Washington-based South China Sea expert Mira Rapp-Hooper at the Center for a New American Security called the threats to bar China's access in the South China Sea "incredible" and said it had no basis in international law.


"A blockade - which is what would be required to actually bar access - is an act of war," she added.
"The Trump administration has begun to draw red lines in Asia that they will almost certainly not be able to uphold, but they may nonetheless be very destabilizing to the relationship with China, invite crises, and convince the rest of the world that the United States is an unreliable partner."
Bonnie Glaser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank called Spicer's remarks "worrisome" and said the new administration was "sending confusing and conflicting messages."
Dean Cheng, a China expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Spicer's remarks showed the South China Sea was an important issue for the Trump administration.
He said it was significant that neither Spicer nor Tillerson had been specific as to what actions would be taken and this left open the possibility that economic measures - instead of military steps - could be used against China and firms that carry out island building.
(Reporting by David Brunnstrom and Matt Spetalnick; Editing by Andrew Hay)

[69360]

There are no Chinese in the south China sea. Period.

[goldenequity]

It is an unwinable declaration and just plain dumb.

Anyone paying attention to the Asia Pacific developments
over the past 6 months especially KNOWS
the 'allies' that we THOUGHT we had are RETHINKING everything
in terms of alliances.
From Australia to Vietnam to Indonesia to Philippines to S. Korea and Japan.
They all know whassup.

The days of plunder and bullying are over.
Remember the Maine was the start...
this past year was the finish.
It was a good run. It's over.
Move along and let China's neighbors work it out.

PS... anything that floats ABOVE the water facing today's anti-ship technology is a sitting duck.

Russia-Japan Military exercise was held in the Sea of Japan (http://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12108869@egNews)

http://eng.mil.ru/images/upload/2015/tribuc-550.jpg


Today, ship detachment of the Pacific Fleet, including Admiral Tributs major anti-submarine ship and Boris Butoma major tanker,
have finished its visit to the Maizuru port (Japan).

Warships of two countries held the SAREX naval joint exercise in the Wakasa Bay in the Sea of Japan.
Despite complicated weather conditions, two parties assessed the exercise as successful.

The Russian Navy ship detachment arrived in the Maizuru port on January 21.

The Russian warships have been performing tasks under command of Rear Admiral Eduard Mikhailov since October 2016.

[presence]

PS... anything that floats ABOVE the water facing today's anti-ship technology is a sitting duck.

I certainly agree with this

subs+cruise > carrier+fighters

china is heavily fortified w/ subs off their coast in deep bunkers

not to be fucked with


It is an unwinable declaration and just plain dumb.

yep

[TheTexan]

Thought title said he was going to block spotify.

Had me worried for a second

[goldenequity]

►Asian TPP nations seek to salvage trade accord after U.S. exit (http://www.nst.com.my/news/2017/01/206839/asian-tpp-nations-pledge-salvage-trade-accord-after-us-exit?d=1) (Uh-huh :) )

Australia and New Zealand said on Tuesday they hope to salvage the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
by encouraging China and other Asian nations to join the trade pact after U.S. President Donald Trump kept his promise to pull out of the accord.

►Australia opens door to China in push to save TPP (http://www.nst.com.my/news/2017/01/206950/australia-opens-door-china-push-save-tpp)


SYDNEY: Australia said Tuesday it was working to recast the Trans-Pacific Partnership without the United States
and opened the door for China to sign up after President Donald Trump ditched the huge trade pact.
The deal included a dozen Asia-Pacific nations which together account for 40 percent of the global economy.
Canberra is floating a “TPP 12 minus one“, with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull
saying his government was in “active discussions” with other signatories including Japan, New Zealand and Singapore
on how to salvage the agreement.






►Routine/Year after year 'Joint Military Exercises' w/ US Naval fleets
are being refused and canceled.
The most recent was S. Korea.

[presence]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-southchinasea-idUSKBN1572M4
South China Sea (http://www.reuters.com/news/archive/south-china-sea) | Tue Jan 24, 2017 | 7:24am EST
China says will protect South China Sea sovereignty


01:05



By Ben Blanchard (http://www.reuters.com/journalists/ben-blanchard) and David Brunnstrom (http://www.reuters.com/journalists/david-brunnstrom) | BEIJING/WASHINGTON
China said on Tuesday it had "irrefutable" sovereignty over disputed islands in the South China Sea after the White House vowed to defend "international territories" in the strategic waterway.
White House spokesman Sean Spicer in his comments on Monday signaled a sharp departure from years of cautious U.S. handling of China's assertive pursuit of territorial claims in Asia.
"The U.S. is going to make sure that we protect our interests there," Spicer said when asked if Trump agreed with comments by his secretary of state nominee, Rex Tillerson. On Jan. 11, Tillerson said China should not be allowed access to islands it has built in the contested South China Sea.
"It's a question of if those islands are in fact in international waters and not part of China proper, then yeah, we're going to make sure that we defend international territories from being taken over by one country," Spicer said.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told a regular news briefing on Tuesday "the United States is not a party to the South China Sea dispute".
China claims most of the South China Sea, while Taiwan, Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines and Brunei claims parts of the sea that commands strategic sealanes and has rich fishing grounds along with oil and gas deposits.
China's sovereignty over the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea was "irrefutable" Hua said. But China was also dedicated to protecting freedom of navigation and wants talks with nations directly involved to find a peaceful solution.
"We urge the United States to respect the facts, speak and act cautiously to avoid harming the peace and stability of the South China Sea," Hua said.
"Our actions in the South China Sea are reasonable and fair. No matter what changes happen in other countries, what they say or what they want to do, China's resolve to protect its sovereignty and maritime rights in the South China Sea will not change," she added.






FILE PHOTO - An aerial photo taken though a glass window of a Philippine military plane shows the alleged on-going land reclamation by China on mischief reef in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, west of Palawan, Philippines, May 11, 2015. REUTERS/Ritchie B. Tongo/Pool/File Photo





BAR ACCESS TO ISLANDS
Tillerson's remarks at his Senate confirmation hearing prompted Chinese state media to say at the time that the United States would need to "wage war" to bar China's access to the islands, where it has built military-length air strips and installed weapons systems.
Tillerson was asked at the hearing whether he supported a more aggressive posture toward China and said: "We're going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed."
The former Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N (http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=XOM.N)) chairman and chief executive did not elaborate on what might be done to deny China access to the islands.
But analysts said his comments, like those of Spicer, suggested the possibility of U.S. military action, or even a naval blockade. Such action would risk an armed confrontation with China, an increasingly formidable nuclear-armed military power. It is also the world's second-largest economy and the target of Trump accusations it is stealing American jobs.
Spicer declined to elaborate when asked how the United States could enforce such a move against China, except to say: "I think, as we develop further, we'll have more information on it."
Tillerson narrowly won approval from a Senate committee on Monday and is expected to win confirmation from the full Senate.
RISK OF DANGEROUS ESCALATION
Military experts said that while the U.S. Navy has extensive capabilities in Asia to stage blockading operations with ships, submarines and planes, any such move against China's growing naval fleets would risk a dangerous escalation.
Aides have said that Trump plans a major naval build-up in East Asia to counter China's rise.
Also In South China Sea

Vietnam police halt anti-China protest over islands (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-vietnam-protest-idUSKBN15312C)
Philippines defense minister says China arms on islands worrying (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-philippines-china-idUSKBN1510NM)


China's foreign ministry said earlier this month it could not guess what Tillerson meant by his remarks, which came after Trump questioned Washington's longstanding and highly sensitive "one-China" policy over Taiwan.
Washington-based South China Sea expert Mira Rapp-Hooper at the Center for a New American Security called the threats to bar China's access in the South China Sea "incredible" and said it had no basis in international law.
"A blockade - which is what would be required to actually bar access - is an act of war," she added.
"The Trump administration has begun to draw red lines in Asia that they will almost certainly not be able to uphold, but they may nonetheless be very destabilizing to the relationship with China, invite crises, and convince the rest of the world that the United States is an unreliable partner."
Bonnie Glaser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank called Spicer's remarks "worrisome" and said the new administration was "sending confusing and conflicting messages."
Dean Cheng, a China expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Spicer's remarks showed the South China Sea was an important issue for the Trump administration.
He said it was significant that neither Spicer nor Tillerson had been specific as to what actions would be taken and this left open the possibility that economic measures - instead of military steps - could be used against China and firms that carry out island building.
(Clarifies paragraph 4 attribution)
(Additional reporting by Matt Spetalnick in Washington, and Christian Shepherd in Beijing; Editing by Andrew Hay and Bill Tarrant)

[specsaregood]

ok, so why exactly is china not allowed to build islands there? Hell, I'd say anybody should be able to go build islands anywhere in international waters and make their own country.

[presence]

ok, so why exactly is china not allowed to build islands there? Hell, I'd say anybody should be able to go build islands anywhere in international waters and make their own country.

because sovereign islands = "territorial waters" = exclusive jurisdiction to tax offshore oil production

checkmate

[osan]

There are no Chinese in the south China sea. Period.

Um... you are dead wrong.

My little brother is on a carrier in the South China Sea and tells me it is crawling with them and that tensions are building. You can bank on that.

Truth aside, a blockade of China? Doubtful. There is far too much to be lost on both sides if war breaks out between the USA and China. This article is just wring-bait. To wit:



The former Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N (http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=XOM.N)) chairman and chief executive did not elaborate on what might be done to deny China access to the islands.
But analysts said his comments, like those of Spicer, suggested the possibility of U.S. military action, or even a naval blockade, that would risk armed confrontation with Chin

What a load of bullshit. Now the lefties and other panty-wastes will be wringing their hands and going all agog about how Trump is going to bring us into nookyoolrwarz.

Put it this way, if he or someone else does it, we will have no power to stop it, given the current worldwide political status quo. Until people take governance into their own hands with sufficient knowledge and proper honor, the world will hang by its balls at Theire pleasure. I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for that light to go on.

Now, if China expropriates the South China Sea, a precedent would be set that stands in square opposition to the notion of free oceans with access by all. If China establishes that hegemony, global trade would be very severely impacted. Consider that the majority of global manufacturing occurs in China. The implications are troubling.

The only thing I would say about this is that if a blockade were to be instituted, it must be executed not by the USA alone, but in concert with Russia, UK, and so on. Let the Chinese see that they are not quite what they think.

And honestly, given the hideous realities of today's global political circumstance, were I king, I would remove every Chinese military satellite from orbit. Park a thousand high-yield nukes above China and dictate terms. But we all know how awry THAT is likely to go, given the failings to which even good men are given.

Deep is the kimchee.

[goldenequity]

►China Tells US To "Act And Speak Cautiously" In Response To Spicer "Threat" Over South China Sea (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-24/china-tells-us-act-and-speak-cautiously-response-spicer-threat-over-south-china-sea)


"We urge the United States to respect the facts, speak and act cautiously
to avoid harming the peace and stability of the South China Sea,"
Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Hua said.
"Our actions in the South China Sea are reasonable and fair.



►China Deploys ICBM System "In Response To Trump's Provocative Remarks" (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-24/china-deploys-icbm-system-response-trumps-provocative-remarks)


Beijing has deployed advanced Dongfeng-41 ICBMs in China's Heilongjiang Province
according to Chinese media reports based on images,
possibly leaked to coincide with Donald Trump’s inauguration as US president.
According to Chinese media, "this is Beijing's response to Trump's provocative remarks on China."

=============

I think we're going to see more of this 'leaked' maneuvering from ALL sides.
I think it's EXACTLY what Trump did
with the 'Moving the Embassy to Jerusalem' "leak"....
which
he then strategically pulled back from.
It's probably like 'Chapter 5' in the Art of the Deal. hahaha

[pcosmar]

Just what business do we have in the south China Sea?

It does not border any part of the US.

[afwjam]

We need to make the South China Sea great again! It will be safe for democracy.

[69360]

Um... you are dead wrong.

My little brother is on a carrier in the South China Sea and tells me it is crawling with them and that tensions are building. You can bank on that.

Truth aside, a blockade of China? Doubtful. There is far too much to be lost on both sides if war breaks out between the USA and China. This article is just wring-bait. To wit:




What a load of bull$#@!. Now the lefties and other panty-wastes will be wringing their hands and going all agog about how Trump is going to bring us into nookyoolrwarz.

Put it this way, if he or someone else does it, we will have no power to stop it, given the current worldwide political status quo. Until people take governance into their own hands with sufficient knowledge and proper honor, the world will hang by its balls at Theire pleasure. I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for that light to go on.

Now, if China expropriates the South China Sea, a precedent would be set that stands in square opposition to the notion of free oceans with access by all. If China establishes that hegemony, global trade would be very severely impacted. Consider that the majority of global manufacturing occurs in China. The implications are troubling.

The only thing I would say about this is that if a blockade were to be instituted, it must be executed not by the USA alone, but in concert with Russia, UK, and so on. Let the Chinese see that they are not quite what they think.

And honestly, given the hideous realities of today's global political circumstance, were I king, I would remove every Chinese military satellite from orbit. Park a thousand high-yield nukes above China and dictate terms. But we all know how awry THAT is likely to go, given the failings to which even good men are given.

Deep is the kimchee.


The sarcasm was lost on you wasn't it?

There are 1.5 million Chinese in the south china sea. The most Chinese ever in the south China sea.

[goldenequity]

►China-led investment bank attracts 25 new members (https://www.ft.com/content/671d8ac4-e18a-11e6-8405-9e5580d6e5fb)
Growing interest in AIIB strengthens Beijing’s bid to play bigger world role

Simply put.. the Old World Order is being replaced.
'They' thought they could prevent/control with Military projection using Naval prowess.
An archaic idea. They can't.
Truth?
They will have to compete.
The days of NGO's to monopolize, overthrow, subvert and dominate are over.
The World understands and resents it.
The vanquished will poison their captors and resent their 'captivity' to their last dying breath...
even
if they are surrounded by rubble.
Everybody understands the 'game'. It's over.

[Ender]

Just what business do we have in the south China Sea?

It does not border any part of the US.

^^THIS^^

[goldenequity]

King of Bahrain receives letter from Chinese President (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.qna.org.qa%2FNews%2F17012420490 102%2F%25D8%25B9%25D8%25A7%25D9%2587%25D9%2584-%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D8%25A8%25D8%25AD%25D8%25B1 %25D9%258A%25D9%2586-%25D9%258A%25D8%25AA%25D9%2584%25D9%2582%25D9%2589-%25D8%25B1%25D8%25B3%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D8%25A9-%25D8%25AE%25D8%25B7%25D9%258A%25D8%25A9-%25D9%2585%25D9%2586-%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D8%25B1%25D8%25A6%25D9%258A %25D8%25B3-%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D8%25B5%25D9%258A%25D9%2586 %25D9%258A&edit-text=)

http://www.qna.org.qa/Portals/0/NewsMedia/Photos/2014/Gulf_Leaders/QNA_Hamad_Bin_Issa_Bahrain_King.jpg


... Bahrain News Agency said the Chinese president said during the message
continued cooperation and continue to work and joint bilateral coordination with the King of Bahrain
in order to strengthen and develop relations between the two countries.

Great example of what's in store.
How do I describe this w/o sounding too cynical?
Remember when..
We thought the 'World Order' was organized around the concept of 'human rights?'
It's over.
We've all learned that the NWO/Atlanticists have been COMPLETELY/UTTERLY brutal every step along the way.

So here we have 2 brutal regimes who will TRADE together
who could give 2 shiits about what the other does domestically
to it's own citizens.
Organ trafficking and ISIS be damned.

Who cares? srsly.... Who DOES care?
Well I do.. so ME tell U: Love & care about people MORE than things.
Even if
the world goes to hell in a handbasket.
It may get crazy... REALLY crazee now that the 'old order' is collapsing.

[TheCount]

Looking forward to this new era of isolationism and non interventionism.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Looking forward to this new era of isolationism and non interventionism.


Spoken like a true supporter of this forum. NOT.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Any chance China acts preemptively on this, to not allow the naval buildup?

This would seem to point to "no":


I certainly agree with this

subs+cruise > carrier+fighters

china is heavily fortified w/ subs off their coast in deep bunkers

not to be fucked with



yep

[Schifference]

Maybe send a bunch of archaic carriers or whatever kind of junk floaters over there for China to sink. Then when they fire on those ships fire on the submarines from remote location.

Whatever happens we need to make sure to take the oil and of course win big!

[Ender]

Looking forward to this new era of isolationism and non interventionism.

We can hope- but I won't lay bets. ;)

[seapilot]

King of Bahrain receives letter from Chinese President (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.qna.org.qa%2FNews%2F17012420490 102%2F%25D8%25B9%25D8%25A7%25D9%2587%25D9%2584-%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D8%25A8%25D8%25AD%25D8%25B1 %25D9%258A%25D9%2586-%25D9%258A%25D8%25AA%25D9%2584%25D9%2582%25D9%2589-%25D8%25B1%25D8%25B3%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D8%25A9-%25D8%25AE%25D8%25B7%25D9%258A%25D8%25A9-%25D9%2585%25D9%2586-%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D8%25B1%25D8%25A6%25D9%258A %25D8%25B3-%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D8%25B5%25D9%258A%25D9%2586 %25D9%258A&edit-text=)

http://www.qna.org.qa/Portals/0/NewsMedia/Photos/2014/Gulf_Leaders/QNA_Hamad_Bin_Issa_Bahrain_King.jpg



Great example of what's in store.
How do I describe this w/o sounding too cynical?
Remember when..
We thought the 'World Order' was organized around the concept of 'human rights?'
It's over.
We've all learned that the NWO/Atlanticists have been COMPLETELY/UTTERLY brutal every step along the way.

So here we have 2 brutal regimes who will TRADE together
who could give 2 shiits about what the other does domestically
to it's own citizens.
Organ trafficking and ISIS be damned.

Who cares? srsly.... Who DOES care?
Well I do.. so ME tell U: Love & care about people MORE than things.
Even if
the world goes to hell in a handbasket.
It may get crazy... REALLY crazee now that the 'old order' is collapsing.

Are you sayin that China does not give two Crap$ about climate change?

The new CIC favorite book is The Art of War. He borrowed ideas of it to write the deal book. I do not think it is smart to challenge the Chinese when one of them wrote the book.


“All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

One of my favorite quotes from the book,


“There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

[jllundqu]

China is threatening US Naval/Stategic hegemony with it's expansion in the SCS. Building runways etc on these islands is an aggressive act that Trump shouldn't tolerate. We should pre-emptively blow up such structures and teach those ChiComs a hard lesson.... Don't mess with Uncle Sam


-Murica

/sarc

[osan]

The sarcasm was lost on you wasn't it?

There are 1.5 million Chinese in the south china sea. The most Chinese ever in the south China sea.

Yes it was. If you were being sarcastic, you need to go back to sarcasm school because what you wrote seemed very seriously unsarcastic.

Text media are notorious for this loss of nuance.

[osan]

Just what business do we have in the south China Sea?

What business does China have in it?

If we subscribe to the notion of territorial and international waters, as well as that of international law (not saying I do, just working on the realities of the current world arrangement), then China needs to be reeled in. Otherwise, why lie to ourselves about law and the stated conventions when in reality it's anything goes?

But on the practical side, if China is allowed to do what it is doing... it would seem to set a very dangerous precedent. Today the Spratlys... what next?

Nobody of a true liberty bent wants to see interferences such as what has been suggested in this thread, as well as in many others. Denouncing such acts has been a central pillar of our philosophy. But men race toward ever lower common denominators. The rise of pure pragmatism and the ouster of any sense of the sacred leads humanity to its doom. Given that men come together in unholy bond to act in concert toward evil ends, what are the rest to do? Shall they stand idly by, only to be consumed at some later date?

Our circumstance is what it is. We either play to practicality or we expose ourselves that lead inevitably to our destruction.


It does not border any part of the US.

Nor does the rest of the Pacific, if I read your meaning correctly.

I don't like these conditions any more than anyone else, but this is the hand we hold. We either deal with it, or live in a bubble.

[pcosmar]

But on the practical side, if China is allowed to do what it is doing... it would seem to set a very dangerous precedent.
.

That dangerous precedent has been SOP for our Navy for my whole lifetime.

China is doing the same in their neighborhood.

seems more a time for intelligent diplomacy than dick shaking.

[muh_roads]

Ron Paul did say one time that the best way to increase the US military presence around the world and do it for way cheaper is to bring all of our submarines out of "mothballs" and place them around the globe in international waters.

[AZJoe]

What business does China have in it?

ANSWER:
The South China Sea is China’s vital life blood shipping highway for its trade.
It is China’s trade route to much of the rest of southeast Asia.
It is China’s trade route to Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore.
It is China’s trade route to Australia and New Zealand.
It is China’s trade route to South America.
It is China’s trade route to India.
It is China’s trade route to the Middle East.
It is China’s trade route to all of Africa.

And until the overland new silk road routes are developed, the South China Sea is still China’s trade route to all of Europe.

In short the South China sea is China’s crucial gateway to trade with the rest of almost the entire world. It is indispensable to China’s global supply chain. Its open access to the shipping routes is necessary to China’s very survival. In fact the Only major power with a vital strategic interest in open shipping trade through the South China Sea is China.

Pcosmar is absolutely correct by implying Washington has no business trying to control the South China sea. Controlling the South China sea is part of the neoconservative grand strategy to “contain” China. It is part of the “indispensable” empire’s claim to rule world commerce. Washington’s modus operendi is to manufacture pretexts for its worldwide military projection and threats. That is why Washington keeps sending aircraft carriers and fleets of warships into the South China Sea, into the heart of China’s entire trade access to most of the world. It is gun boat diplomacy.

Those warships are not to defend US coasts. They aren’t even to defend shipping lanes. China has not and is no threat to shipping. That would be bad for business and self-destructive suicide. It depends on trade with its neighbors as much or more than they do. The only threat in the area are the threats Washington is creating. It is Washington trying to destabilize the region and foster conflict. Washington’s war ships are not going there to promote trade, but rather to impede it. That is why Washington opposed ASEAN trade integration with China. That is why Washington opposes and wants to dissolve RCEP. That is why Washington vehemently opposed the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and lobbied and pressured (unsuccessfully) other nations not to join in commerce with it.

That is why Washington keeps pushing China’s neighbors to provoke conflicts. (Duterte now trying to cut Washington’s puppet strings over Philippines.)

They want to make the South China Sea (and the Pacific for that matter) into Washington’s lake. It is part of their great “pivot to Asia” strategy. Part of their neocon grand strategy is their attempt control the South China Sea to be able to place a maritime chokehold on China trade, and thereby contain and control China.

MORE:
http://www.ronpaul.com/2015-10-27/are-we-looking-for-a-fight-in-the-south-china-sea/

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/28/the-real-secret-of-the-south-china-sea/


P.S. -


If we subscribe to the notion of territorial and international waters ... then China needs to be reeled in. ... if China is allowed to do what it is doing... it would seem to set a very dangerous precedent. Today the Spratlys... what next? ... Shall they stand idly by, only to be consumed at some later date? Our circumstance is what it is. We either play to practicality or we expose ourselves that lead inevitably to our destruction. ... this is the hand we hold. We either deal with it, or live in a bubble


You are wise enough to see the neocon manufactured BS pretexts for Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Syria ... Don't buy into the latest neocon the sky is falling war mongering. This is simply another manufactured pretext for conflict.

[osan]

That dangerous precedent has been SOP for our Navy for my whole lifetime.

China is doing the same in their neighborhood.

seems more a time for intelligent diplomacy than dick shaking.

In a rational world, yes. I am not sure how to judge the most basic qualities of it anymore.

With each day I seem to become more suspicious that the only path to the salvation of this race of idiots is wholesale destruction such that we are sent express mail back to the stone age.

[osan]

ANSWER:
The South China Sea is China’s vital life blood shipping highway for its trade.
It is China’s trade route to much of the rest of southeast Asia.
It is China’s trade route to Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore.
It is China’s trade route to Australia and New Zealand.
It is China’s trade route to South America.
It is China’s trade route to India.
It is China’s trade route to the Middle East.
It is China’s trade route to all of Africa.

And until the overland new silk road routes are developed, the South China Sea is still China’s trade route to all of Europe.






That doesn't make the SCS their property. The Spratlys are nowhere near China. This is positioning for future aggression, plain and simple, unless you subscribe to the idea that China's activities are defensive in nature, which is a bit of a stretch. By that reasoning, China should be building bases on Hawaii and Terminal Island, not to mention the Aleutians, and so forth.


In short the South China sea is China’s crucial gateway to trade with the rest of almost the entire world. It is indispensable to China’s global supply chain. Its open access to the shipping routes is necessary to China’s very survival. In fact the Only major power with a vital strategic interest in open shipping trade through the South China Sea is China.

No more than it is anyone else's.


Pcosmar is absolutely correct by implying Washington has no business trying to control the South China sea.

Neither does China.


Controlling the South China sea is part of the neoconservative grand strategy to “contain” China. It is part of the “indispensable” empire’s claim to rule world commerce.

That may also be true. Fie upon Themme.



They aren’t even to defend shipping lanes.

You know this, how?


China has not and is no threat to shipping.

I don't believe that for an instant. Are you aware of what they are doing? They are building naval bases all over the world. Their MO is to lend money at low or even zero interest and very small payments with a balloon payment at term. They also attach the condition that all construction is to be done by Chinese companies, meaning they get all their money back instantly. When the nation in question cannot pay, China gives them terms. Risk the risks that defaulting brings, pay up, or give us half of your shiny new port. They universally choose the latter. Instant naval base without the label. This is not the work of a nation that is "no threat".

If you think China is innocuous, you are fooling yourself. This is not to say what we are doing is right, either.


That would be bad for business and self-destructive suicide.

Depends on the specific nature of the threat. Not all threats directly involve artillery and that sort of thing. If they take complete control of all shipping lanes going through the SCS, the international waters of which they have no valid territorial claim, they can begin demanding tribute/tax paid by all ships coming and going. This screws trade for nations such as Viet Nam, Korea, and so forth.

And if other shipping decides to go the long way, if China decides this is an affront, there would be nothing in principle to stop them from claiming more international waters as theirs.

I am afraid there is no way to slice this pie such that China does not coming out stinking like a pestilent and unwashed whore.


It depends on trade with its neighbors as much or more than they do. The only threat in the area are the threats Washington is creating.

That is clearly not the case. It is pretty clear by their actions that they are seeking wide-area assumption of territory. There is even reason to believe they pose direct threats of annexation to nations such as Viet Nam, Cambodia, and so forth, not to mention Taiwan. Then there is the whole history deal with Japan and there is no reason to think that once established beyond a threshold, they would not make a move against Japan, "Remember Nanking" or something similar underpinning at least in part their motives.

To believe that China seeks no expansion is naive in the extreme. They are Empire. They are human. They are also likely to be hedging their bets, economically. At any moment Europe and America, as well as others, could decide to tell China to screw off and start restoring their own manufacturing bases. That would screw China into the mud to their eyeballs. How likely it is to happen, I cannot rightly say, but look at it from the Chinese perspective. Without US and European trade, they are in big trouble, as in possible civil war trouble. Bad shit happens when your people have their taste of the better life snatched away, much more so if they start going hungry.

The more territory they control, the more captive markets they stand to ensure for themselves. If they secure for themselves all the waters surrounding the Philippines, there is nothing to stop them from forcing the island nation from buying from China only. Don't be too fast to say that this is not possible. They are already laying claim to waters of the SCS to which they have no valid title. Why not the waters east of Manila?

None of this seems too likely today, but it takes only minor changes in the situation and vast sea changes occur in the regional geopolitical circumstance.


It is Washington trying to destabilize the region and foster conflict.

That could also be true, but that does not make China the innocent babe in the woods. Not by a long shot.


Washington’s war ships are not going there to promote trade, but rather to impede it.

This is nonsense. If we're impeding trade, why not begin by withdrawing from CAFTA? What you are claiming makes no rational sense. Once again, I fully expect "we" are up to no-good, but there are rational limits to what we may do without precipitating disaster upon ourselves. China is the largest producer of steel on the planet. Undo that and the DC war machine would be in something tight and unflattering.


They want to make the South China Sea (and the Pacific for that matter) into Washington’s lake. It is part of their great “pivot to Asia” strategy. Part of their neocon grand strategy is their attempt control the South China Sea to be able to place a maritime chokehold on China trade, and thereby contain and control China.


And China is doing the same thing. As for controlling China, in some ways it is understandable. Competition is a great sounding idea when you're the big dog. When the competition begins eating your lunch, the idea loses much of its shine.

I would also point out that we do not have free markets in either political subdivision. Even if the neocons committed suicide to the man this very night, that would not solve the broader problems between US and China, with the latter holding at least half the culpability.

We live in a world of Empire - that PERFORCE means "conquest". Because one nation is up to this bullshit, all nations have to sink to that lower denominator. That is just the way the world works. So even without neocons, we would still have to face the threats posed by another Empire and this is yet another of the thousand reasons why the race of men is doomed.

Therefore, I say don't sweat about it. Be aware. Try to prepare however you can and are inclined, and just say "fuck it" to the rest because that shit's out of your hands. And mine. And his. And hers. And so on.


You are wise enough to see the neocon manufactured BS pretexts for Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Syria ... Don't buy into the latest neocon the sky is falling war mongering. This is simply another manufactured pretext for conflict.

I'm not. I'm taking my information from an unimpeachable source. China is most assuredly a threat. That is the nature of Empire and with all this technology in all the wrong hands, it stands not to end well for any of us.

[AZJoe]

No more than it is anyone else's.
Actually, yes, it is far, far more than anybody else’s. China alone accounts for the vast majority of all shipping trade through the South China Sea. The only other nation of which the South China Sea is a vital trade route is Vietnam in which shipping trade is miniscule compared to China. Further, China is the ONLY major power that has a strategic interest in the South China Sea. Its economy is vitally dependent on its global supply train that runs through the South China Sea. It is China's choke-point access to the bulk of its global trade. That is true of no other nation on the planet except perhaps Vietnam whose global trade is miniscule in comparison


Neither does China.
This is just senseless denial of reality. China absolutely has business in protecting its indispensable trade routes though the South China Sea, which is its access to the bulk of of world trade. China is not interfering or preventing anyone else shipping trade.


[They aren’t even to defend shipping lanes.] You know this, how?

Because the shipping lanes are not being blocked or threatened at all.


Are you aware of what they are doing? They are building naval bases all over the world.

“Naval bases all over the world”? You sure you haven’t confused China with Washington?

The statement is false. Despite several years of Chicken Little “sky is falling” reports and drawn up fantasy maps of China’s alleged plans to “build naval bases all over the world”, China has exactly one “1” foreign naval base. It is a small base in Djibouti. That’s it. OMG the sky is falling right. Compare that to Washington, United Kingdom, or France. In fact, even India has more foreign naval installations at four. OMG India must be planning to conquer the world four time over by that logic.



There is even reason to believe they pose direct threats of annexation to nations such as Viet Nam, Cambodia, and so forth, not to mention Taiwan. Then there is the whole history deal with Japan and there is no reason to think that once established beyond a threshold, they would not make a move against Japan, "Remember Nanking" or something similar underpinning at least in part their

This is completely off the deep end. No there is not any rational reason to believe that is likely. Base on what, sponsoring terrorists in Libya, Syria and others; bombing and destroying Libya; fostering regime change coups and color revolutions; sending in drones to any country at will in violation of national sovereignty to assassinate anyone they choose at will; maintaining a global military presence in over 10 nations; beefing up military installations and missile that surround the US (i.e. US in Korea, Japan, Philippines); simultaneously bombing or occupying multiple nations in the middle east; blowing Yugoslavia apart on accusations later proven false; invading and destroying Iraq on false accusations; and on and on ..
No it is not China taking these aggressive actions. It is the "indispensable" "uni-polar" global empire doing this.


This is pure paranoid delusional fantasy, and not based on any actual events. Listening to too many neocons or watching too many Hollywood B movies. These are not validly contested rocks strategically vital to China's access to global trade. If China did, the entire world would respond with Washington at the lead. It would be suicide. It would be everything the neocons ever dreamed for – neocon heaven. If they actually do invade a nation, you can make that argument. But for now reality must prevail. You don’t get to go to war just because of paranoid delusions that China is going to invade Japan or anyone else. And the motive? By that argument Japan must also be planning to invade the USA for “remember Hiroshima”. Likewise Germany is planning is revenge on the Allies.



To believe that China seeks no expansion is naive in the extreme. They are Empire.

This again is not actual events. This is fantasy psychological projection. Advocating expansion of a Washington’s already global military empire, interventions, provocations and conflicts. The reason given is a projection that China wants to do this [they aren’t invading anyone, but the advocates is sure they want to and thus kill their own economy and likely commit national suicide in the process]. So based upon this projection one advocate for their own desired expansion of Washington’s already global military empire, interventions and conflicts. So provoke conflict and war not based actual events but based upon projected speculation of childlike motives.



This is nonsense. If we're impeding trade, why not begin by withdrawing from CAFTA? What you are claiming makes no rational sense.

Specific factual examples of Washington opposition to trade were given. Denial is nonsense. Yes, of course Washington does not oppose managed trade or managed trade agreements that it can control or write. It has repeatedly however opposed trade that by-passes Washington’s control and involvement. You only need look at Washington’s actual actions. Look at how they hysterically lobbied against the AIIB trying to get other nations not to sign on. Washington’s opposition to the New Development Bank. Washington and the EU’s hysterical opposition to Ukraine entering the trade agreement with Russia and moving to joining the Eurasian Economic Union. When their lobbying efforts failed they fostered and funded the overthrow of the Ukraine government to install a puppet regime. Washington’s opposition to Gaddafi’s efforts to create an economic union in Africa. Washington’s opposition to ASEAN trade integration with China. Washington opposition to RCEP. The fact Washington selectively supports managed trade it controls or writes, doesn’t prevent it from actively impeding other trade that bypasses Washington. Washington, unequivocally, has done so.



We live in a world of Empire - that PERFORCE means "conquest". Because one nation is up to this bull$#@!, all nations have to sink to that lower denominator.

Can’t stipulate with the premise as given, but aggression does exist. The answer to aggression, however is defense and not preemptive aggression.



with all this technology in all the wrong hands, it stands not to end well for any of us.
That is for certain. With the dangers and risks involved from modern military destructive power and the unthinkable dangers of escalation, we must be exceptionally cautious not to preemptively act, or to provoke, or escalate, but to set an example as advocates for peace, trade, prosperity.

[AZJoe]

That doesn't make the SCS their property. The Spratlys are nowhere near China. This is positioning for future aggression, plain and simple, unless you subscribe to the idea that China's activities are defensive in nature, which is a bit of a stretch. By that reasoning, China should be building bases on Hawaii and Terminal Island, not to mention the Aleutians, and so forth.

The issue is Washington's intervention and escalation. Even were all the allegations correct, it does not make the South China Sea Washington's property or even Washington's obligation. Even Philippines now wants Washington to bud its nose out. In fact Philippines only pushed the dispute to begin with under pressure from Washington. Washington is intentionally pushing an escalating conflict between these neighbors that would not otherwise exist because Washington wants to destabilize another region as a pretext for its intended military and political dominance "pivot to Asia".

In light of Washington’s extended repeated history of telling lie after lie after lie as a false pretext for intervention after intervention, one would have to be a obliviously ignorant or intentionally and willfully foolish to buy into another pretextual excuse for intervention on the other side of the globe.

Further, despite Washington’s best efforts to further conflict, Philippines and China have already begun bilateral talks to resolve the issue themselves without Washington. (Washington doesn’t want resolution, only dominance). By setting aside Washington’s attempts at escalation, Philippines and China have both already taken considerable measures toward de-escalation and final peaceful resolution. They will likely will resolve their issues amicably on their own so long as Washington keeps its nose out of it.

Duterte reached out to its neighbor and they had talks. In addition to reaching a $13+ billion trade deal, the two nations also reached agreements on tourism, maritime trade, and agreement to resolve the [Washington promoted] dispute by “settlement through bilateral dialogue.” Of course Washington opposes this peaceful resolution because it doesn’t allow the pretext for its “pivot to Asia” plan to control the South China Sea and thus have a chokehold over China’s vital trade with the rest of the world. One of the biggest issues of contention – maritime fishing, is already nearly completely worked out. China has agreed to Philippines fishing rights in the waters (previously they had blocked Philippines fishing boat access). Philippines has also now agreed to make the disputed Scarborough Shoal a marine sanctuary off-limits to fishing, and China is supports the move.

So imagine that. Without Washington pushing escalation, two nations are able to resolve their issues peacefully and diplomatically, and Washington opposes them even having peaceful dialogue. So who is the aggressor trying to escalate? You don’t have to be the sharpest tool in the shed to come up with the correct answer.

As to the claim “China is positioning for future aggression, plain and simple”. That is delusional conjecture. There is nothing to support that other than mad hatter false claims by neocons. Washington which has been unilaterally invading, bombing, sanctioning, or fostering color revolutions around the world to establish dominance and impose political and financial control wherever it goes. This is the government that unilaterally invades other nations with drones and bombs them; that is occupying multiple countries in the middle east; that covertly supports and fosters terrorists organizations to destabilize other nations (Libya, Syria), that has destroyed multiple nations; that sponsors regime change operations and color revolutions in other nations; that admits to a global surveillance system and intercepting the communications of even other leaders it calls allies; that maintains a worldwide military empire with military presence in 160 nations; that fostered and advocated the overthrow of governments on Russia’s borders and on and on and on.. This is the same Washington that announced its “pivot to Asia”; beefs up it missiles and military in Korea, Japan and Philippines; pressures China’s neighbors to raise conflicts that would not exist but for the initiation of Washington; intentionally cuts China out of trade deals (TPP); opposes China’s trade deals with its neighbors and other countries; and send large groups of war ships into China’s trade route with the rest of the world. Mind you the bulk of China’s trade with the rest of the world travels through the South China Sea. China’s maintaining its shipping lanes through the South China Sea is vital to its very economic survival. It doesn’t take a genius to see that any country might just want to beef up its defenses over it indispensable trade route access to the bulk of the world in response to such aggressive measures by a worldwide military empire.

And to provide just a bit of background on the history of the Spratlys – history the Western media certainly won’t report. Prior to 1937 US and British maps placed the Spratly’s as belonging to China (but not the James Shoal), and not with Philippines which had been under US occupation since 1898. In 1937, Japan invaded China and occupied almost the entire China coast. Japan subsequently invaded Philippines and Americans surrendered in the Philippines. After the war, in 1946, the Americans simply declared the Spratly’s Philippine territory, Something China never agreed to. For the most part the Spratly’s have little economic importance except for fishing. That issue Philippines and China have already resolved on their own, once they got Washington’s interference out of the way. The second issue is strategic to protect China’s trade routes. That is only an issue because of Washington’s expansion of military and naval base around China's coast and trade routes the past decade combined with its intentionally trying to foster conflict between China and its neighbors, and Washington’s bellicose aggressive attempts to assert dominance and control over the South China Sea, and its history of continuous strong-arm belligerence worldwide. Such aggressive and threatening actions will result in self defense measures. China’s actions are strategic, predictable and precipitated by Washington’s actions over the past 15 years.

The argument that allowing Philippines and China to resolve their issues peacefully (as they are doing now) and without Washginton interference provoking conflict and escalation somehow equates to reasoning that China should pull a Washington and start building bases on “Hawaii and Terminal Island, not to mention the Aleutians” is beyond non-sensical. It is not parallel in any form to the South China Sea issue at all. China is not doing such things. China has no historical claims to those places. Nor do those places have any importance to protecting China’s vital shipping trade.

Unlike China, Washington has no business in the South China Sea at all. Washington is not protecting anything at all, but threatening, escalating and creating conflict. To paraphrase Osan’s words in a more accurate manner, to subscribe to the idea that Washington’s activities are defensive in nature is a bit of a stretch that goes beyond the breaking point of reality.

[presence]

I don't like these conditions any more than anyone else, but this is the hand we hold. We either deal with it, or live in a bubble.



The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline. Had that been the law in 1898 the Maine would never have gone to Havana Harbor. She never would have been blown up. There would have been no war with Spain with its attendant loss of life. Two hundred miles is ample, in the opinion of experts, for defense purposes. Our nation cannot start an offensive war if its ships can't go further than 200 miles from the coastline. Planes might be permitted to go as far as 500 miles from the coast for purposes of reconnaissance. And the army should never leave the territorial limits of our nation.

To summarize: Three steps must be taken to smash the war racket.
We must take the profit out of war.
We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war.



We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes.

- Uncle Smedley

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/smedleywarisracket.shtml

[osan]

Actually, yes, it is far, far more than anybody else’s. China alone accounts for the vast majority of all shipping trade through the South China Sea. The only other nation of which the South China Sea is a vital trade route is Vietnam in which shipping trade is miniscule compared to China. Further, China is the ONLY major power that has a strategic interest in the South China Sea. Its economy is vitally dependent on its global supply train that runs through the South China Sea. It is China's choke-point access to the bulk of its global trade. That is true of no other nation on the planet except perhaps Vietnam whose global trade is miniscule in comparison

I cannot agree with this. Having an interest in something is NOT the same as title to it. You are conflating two very different considerations. We are talking of international waters to which China has no special rights. Period. If that is not the case, then I recommend we blow out our military to huge proportions and take over the Pacific and Atlantic and say "fuck you" to the world. That is the ultimate logic of your position. The seas are supposed to belong to NOBODY. That is why we have the notions of territorial and international waters. Is it your position that these notions are of no use or are otherwise incorrect and unsupportable as agreed and accepted policies binding upon all nations? If so, I cannot say you are wrong, but would like to see your basis.


This is just senseless denial of reality. China absolutely has business in protecting its indispensable trade routes though the South China Sea, which is its access to the bulk of of world trade. China is not interfering or preventing anyone else shipping trade.

Once again, you confuse an interest with title. As for not interfering, that is true today, but what of tomorrow when the entire region is militarized up the wazoo? American military vessels have every right to be in those seas, as do Russian and so on. The Chinese appear to be setting up for the taking of international waters by force and the threat thereof.


Because the shipping lanes are not being blocked or threatened at all.

This is impossibly naive. You need to put your nose into history books - just those of the twentieth century alone should suffice. People seek power, including Chinese. They are Empire, just like us, and that ultimately and inevitably leads to conflict on a world that is finite and where men's desires are not.


“Naval bases all over the world”? You sure you haven’t confused China with Washington?

No. Me little brother does this for a living and he is one of the keenest minds on the planet with regard to this brand of intelligence, no bullshit. He has done this analysis and the trend cannot be denied. This is what China does. They are establishing military bases and calling them commercial ports. They lie. Imagine that.


The statement is false. Despite several years of Chicken Little “sky is falling” reports and drawn up fantasy maps of China’s alleged plans to “build naval bases all over the world”, China has exactly one “1” foreign naval base. It is a small base in Djibouti. That’s it. OMG the sky is falling right. Compare that to Washington, United Kingdom, or France. In fact, even India has more foreign naval installations at four. OMG India must be planning to conquer the world four time over by that logic.

It is not false. I have been given the dope on it from the man who knows more about this than anyone in the world outside of the Chinese government. Believe what you will, of course.



This is completely off the deep end

We will have to agree to disagree. I know my sources.


Likewise Germany is planning is revenge on the Allies.


They did precisely that under Hitler. I suppose you will tell me that that is no longer possible either.


This again is not actual events.

China is not Empire? Have you ever read anything of their history? Why do you think they call the head-cheese the "Emperor"? May I suggest a dictionary?


Advocating expansion of a Washington’s already global military empire, interventions, provocations and conflicts.

I've advocated no such thing. I believe that I implicitly did the opposite when I mentioned the sad and disgusting state in which the world now finds itself. How much nicer would everything be were the "leaders" of this world not a raft of foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics. But once again, we are in the soup we are in and that leads everyone toward that lowest denominator.


So based upon this projection one advocate for their own desired expansion of Washington’s already global military empire, interventions and conflicts. So provoke conflict and war not based actual events but based upon projected speculation of childlike motives.

Hooboy... once again: what you are claiming WRT "Washington's" intentions is likely in the ballpark of correct. That does not mean China is not looking to get some of the same action. Perhaps "Washington" set the bar to a new low. I will gladly stipulate to that. Do not for one minute think that I am on Theire side. Most decidedly I am not. But unless this whole deal is pure smoke and mirrors and the Chinese and Americans are sucking each other's dicks behind closed doors (and I so not discount that possibility completely), China is up to nothing good. Even Stoopid America has not claimed international waters... yet. Maybe China is simply doing what we are doing with no intentions. That, however, is not quite out of Doubtful's back yard. And by what right have they to take the Spratlys? Did they purchase them rightfully, or did they just show up, kick everyone off and tell the world that they're running the show there now? Please do enlighten me if you have information that shows China is completely in the right here.


Specific factual examples of Washington opposition to trade were given.

Last I heard, we were still in CAFTA.


Yes, of course Washington does not oppose managed trade or managed trade agreements that it can control or write.

Do you mean to suggest that CAFTA didn't give the farm away to China? I don't know what economics training you've had, but mine tells me that there is no free market trade with China. Their sole competitive advantage is their nearly cost-free labor - SLAVE labor. How can a nation like America or any other compete with a slave labor market whose rates are artificially and criminally suppressed to such impossibly low values that nary a nation on the planet can compete with them? Or is it your contention that they are not a slaver nation?

And in the accusation you make about DC, China is no different. Empire is dishonest by its nature. Each wants advantage over the rest for the sake of having control. That is the sad and embarrassing truth about the infantility of world leaders. The world is managed by mad dogs and here you are attempting to paint China as somehow immune. And you suggest I am delusional? Come now.

If we're going to play the Empire game, and I personally have no desire for it but nobody gives a shit what I want, then it makes all sense for the USA to attempt to retain a position of dominance. It makes all sense for China to try to do the same, supplanting America as the dominator. It makes equal sense for Russia to do the same and for India to one day decide to stretch its legs down that highway. It makes sense in the context of INSANITY. In a non-crazy world, everyone would mind their own fucking business and devote their energies to more profitable and far less dangerous enterprises. But nosir, our leaders - those in China included - have decided to go down this miserable path into tyranny and possible worldwide self-destruction.

Well, the good news for me is that in a few more years I will be gone from this shithole and I can have a good laugh at the world of suckers as I strain my gaze upward from my private cell in the Great Inferno's special 13th-level.


It has repeatedly however opposed trade that by-passes Washington’s control and involvement.

Firstly, control and involvement are not the same things. The slave master in involved and in control. The slave in merely involved. :)

How are "we" in control? We do most of our trade with a slaver nation whose artificial advantage in labor costs does our nation some palpable harms. We further labor under environmental restrictions that China doesn't have. We have no import tariffing on Chinese products. In a truly free and undistorted market, that would be the way to go. In a wholly imbalanced market arrangement, tariffs retain a non-trivial measure of credibility. And finally, China enjoys completely open exports to the USA while they put the kybosh on much US exports into China.

Tell me once again how we are in control of the agreement? Are you being facetious?



Can’t stipulate with the premise as given, but aggression does exist.

Can't or won't? How can you not, with umpteen thousands of years of historical evidence that shouts this message at you with such force that your hairs get blown our of your scalp?


The answer to aggression, however is defense and not preemptive aggression.

That is a bit simplistic.

If I am on the street and a stranger is giving me every reason to think he is going to take a swag at me, you'd better know I am going to strike first. To stand by waiting for it is a pretty good definition of "idiotic".

Your statement speaks to an ideal but fails to account for outlier situations where one is no longer afforded the luxury of his perfect world vision.


That is for certain. With the dangers and risks involved from modern military destructive power and the unthinkable dangers of escalation, we must be exceptionally cautious not to preemptively act, or to provoke, or escalate, but to set an example as advocates for peace, trade, prosperity.
[/QUOTE]

Seems we agree on something.

Trouble is, everyone is provoking. Do you think for a moment that China is not aware that it is provoking other nations with its activities on the Spratlys?

We agree that Theye are up to nothing good. We seem to differ on the point that China is doing precisely the same thing.

[osan]

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/smedleywarisracket.shtml

You don't need to quote a bible to me. :)

But what do we do if China decides to claim the Pacific its own? I am all for defense-only, but if China decided to charge passage fees to all ships crossing the sea, how does trade prosper? Does the world simply suck it just because China isn't landing troops on their shores?

I don't know the answer in any specifics, but I suspect that generally speaking, appeasement is not it.

[presence]

You don't need to quote a bible to me. :)

:D


but if China decided to charge passage fees to all ships crossing the sea, how does trade prosper?

perhaps I should quote apocrypha?

http://praxeology.net/NewLibertarianManifesto.pdf


or perhaps I should just advise you to simply begin with the notion that all which is State is satanic devil worship and it is your duty before your creator to avoid it, cheat it, overcome it, and in any way you find possible in peace to resist it until your dying day: do so; and should it come to that day; that you cannot get past this beast in peace: know you are right, just, and sanctified in slaying it.


Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

(http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html)

[jmdrake]

You don't need to quote a bible to me. :)

But what do we do if China decides to claim the Pacific its own? I am all for defense-only, but if China decided to charge passage fees to all ships crossing the sea, how does trade prosper? Does the world simply suck it just because China isn't landing troops on their shores?

I don't know the answer in any specifics, but I suspect that generally speaking, appeasement is not it.

If China is stupid enough to do that then their export based economy will crumble and we won't have to worry about them for very long.

[osan]

As to the claim “China is positioning for future aggression, plain and simple”. That is delusional conjecture. There is nothing to support that other than mad hatter false claims by neocons.

I don't know any neocons, so that is not where I'm getting my information.

As for support, there is 8K years of consistent human history on my side. Are you suggesting that the Chinese have seen the light and will not follow the universal suit of every past Empire? I'd like to see your basis for that and would hope it credible because nothing would please me more.



And to provide just a bit of background on the history of the Spratlys – history the Western media certainly won’t report. Prior to 1937 US and British maps placed the Spratly’s as belonging to China

There were no permanent establishments on the Spratlys until something like 1955 or 60 or some such. Viet Nam and the Philippines also claim ownership, as do Brunei and Taiwan. So then, whose are they?


The argument that allowing Philippines and China to resolve their issues peacefully (as they are doing now) and without Washginton interference provoking conflict and escalation somehow equates to reasoning that China should pull a Washington and start building bases on “Hawaii and Terminal Island, not to mention the Aleutians” is beyond non-sensical. It is not parallel in any form to the South China Sea issue at all. China is not doing such things. China has no historical claims to those places. Nor do those places have any importance to protecting China’s vital shipping trade.

Your statement assumes all is honky dory beneath superficial appearances. It may be, but may not. Did you ever consider that the Philippines are shitting in their pants at the thought of an ascendant China and are making nice only to avoid serious troubles in the not-so-distant future?

I think you assume too much.


Unlike China, Washington has no business in the South China Sea at all.

Nonsense. America has as much business in international waters as anyone else.

I cannot quite understand why you would be an apologist for China. They are no different from any other Empire. We are tyrants. They are tyrants. I play no favorites in this revolting game.

[osan]

:D



perhaps I should quote apocrypha?

http://praxeology.net/NewLibertarianManifesto.pdf


or perhaps I should just advise you to simply begin with the notion that all which is State is satanic devil worship and it is your duty before your creator to avoid it, cheat it, overcome it, and in any way you find possible in peace to resist it until your dying day: do so; and should it come to that day; that you cannot get past this beast in peace: know you are right, just, and sanctified in slaying it.

This is how I've lived my entire adult life. A decade and about $3MM made in business, I paid about $1500.00 (One thousand five hundred) dollars in tax, all 100% within the confines of law. You ace tax accountant is your friend. It is also the reason I have nothing now... couldn't save anything because I squarely refused to give anything to Themme. I carried a gun illegally for 20 years in NYC because nobody was going to deny me my rights. Sadly, I had to hide as if I were indeed a criminal, for Theye would have treated me as one, had I been discovered. There is more, but perhaps my point is made.

I wish the world were different, but it's not.

[presence]

cheers osan

[AZJoe]

A little wisdom from Dr. Ron Paul


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KudfRyn3ZbA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm8BPvFGZ1c


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CppuOxkHPFs

[AZJoe]

I recommend we blow out our military to huge proportions and take over the Pacific and Atlantic and say "$#@! you" to the world.

Too late. Washington's already doing that.

https://blogs.thomsonreuters.com/answerson/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/05/us-military-west-pacific-graphic.jpg https://i1.wp.com/womenagainstmilitarymadness.org/newsletter/2016/06fall2/images/bg1c.jpg http://www.ucmjdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/militarylawyers-us-bases-worldwide.jpg

[anaconda]

There are 1.5 million Chinese in the south china sea.

Someone send help!

http://www.jeffcoatney.com/images/environments/coatney_concept02.jpg

[nikcers]

Someone send help!

The UN is sending AID as we speak..


Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Donald Trump held an in-depth telephone conversation on Saturday afternoon. A broad range of topics were addressed, including NATO, the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, relations with Russia and the conflict in eastern Ukraine. "They also agreed to intensify their cooperation in the fight against terrorism and violent extremism as well as in the stabilization of the Near and Middle East and North Africa. ..."