Like Tree51Likes

China's 6 Wars in the next 50 Years

Reply
Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6 11 12 13 14 15 16 LastLast
  1. #131

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,112
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    Thank you for telling me. What the international community thinks is probably more important than what the CCP thinks.


    So in essence every totalitarian regime doesn't have to care what people think of their actions and they also usually end badly...

    As with the Senkuka/Diaoyu Islands where China are the 3rd nearest country they also claim the Socotra Rock where Korea and Japan are nearer (rather than Japan and Taiwan)



    What justification is there for this aggressive stance?
    So long as they feel they are justified, they don't really need to explain it to others. That's how the CCP works. Speaking of the international community, it is interesting. The news has been going on how the US challenged the zone with their B-52s and all that. But go underneath the surface and you will see something a little different. The US has been actually been careful not to provoke the Chinese over the zone. This B-52 flight is actually just to assure the Japanese. Had the US really want to provoke the Chinese and stick it in their face, they would send a hell of alot more than just a pair of B-52s.

    That means the US is less gung-ho than the Japanese. You can already see this when the US advice their carriers to report their flight plans to the Chinese, contradicting the Japanese. They may well be advising the Japanese behind-the-scenes to not let things get out of hand. The last thing the US wants is to be dragged into a Sino-Japanese conflict over some islands.

  2. #132
    ouwen
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBrit:
    Start here

    http://hongkong.geoexpat.com/forum/s...st&showposts=1

    Blithely defensing China at all costs, vicious anti-US government rhetoric, misinformation on the Chinese territorial claims, refusal to discuss Chinese domestic politics, pivoting every issue into criticising the US... it is all straight out of the 50 cent playbook. To be honest, if you are not being paid to write this stuff then I feel really sorry for you.

    Plenty of factually incorrect comments from you on this very thread, including you being the only person in Asia not to recognise China's increasingly aggressive stance in the South China Sea.

    My last post documented the probability that China's claim to a submerged rock is an attack on Japan's and Korea's ability to apply for determination of maritime limits. I also pointed out that there is no other reason to claim a submerged rock, because submerged rocks cannot be used as a baseline for the drawing of maritime limits. My post also documented that this manover opens the possibility of legal military occupation of the China/Korea continental shelf.

    My comments are not factually incorrect. They simply exceed your educational and mental comprehension level, and do not agree with the fantasy of your non existent war.

    And I am not in Asia, and I don't give flying flip about your domestic politics. I have enough domestic political problems in my own country.
    Last edited by ouwen; 09-12-2013 at 10:54 AM.

  3. #133

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,112
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBrit:
    Sprouting off? Another classic malapropism.

    There were no other options. It was (a) or (b). If you had followed the story at the time, you would have known this. Since you declined to answer which was better, I guess you accept that the Japanese government did pick the least worst option from everyone's perspective.

    Thanks for coming round to the rest of the worlds way of thinking.
    I never said whether the Japanese had any other options. Maybe there are indeed no other options as you say. Maybe there was a third way out, but we'll never know now. That is not the issue however. The issue is whether the Chinese understood or accepted Tokyo's explanation, politically-speaking. It seems clear that the Japanese explanation is unacceptable for Beijing (or politically, they could never accept it). Either the Japanese communicate their view poorly to the Chinese or the Chinese could never accept such change in status quo (and warn the Japanese to find an alternative, whether one exist or not).

  4. #134

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    22,173
    Quote Originally Posted by Watercooler:
    But go underneath the surface and you will see something a little different. The US has been actually been careful not to provoke the Chinese over the zone. This B-52 flight is actually just to assure the Japanese. Had the US really want to provoke the Chinese and stick it in their face, they would send a hell of alot more than just a pair of B-52s. That means the US is less gung-ho than the Japanese.
    Seems conjecture. Didn't the Japanese airlines inform the Chinese they were entering the "special ADIZ" until the US sent a couple of B52's to prove a point. Now the ADIZ is routinely ignored by many countries.

    Whatever the intention of the fly through by the B52's it has rendered the Chinese special ADIZ redundant (with a probably big loss of face). The CCP doing what it wants because it is the CCP is not a very good justification and certainly does not make the actions better.

    Perhaps you can try a better argument to show the CCP are in-fact being treated badly by the international community and their actions are justified.

  5. #135

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    23,164
    Quote Originally Posted by Watercooler:
    I never said whether the Japanese had any other options. Maybe there are indeed no other options as you say.
    With the choice of two bad options, you have to pick the least worst. Between a rock and a hard place... between the devil and the deep blue sea. Both appropriate expressions in this particular case.

    I do very much think that both countries tacitly used this spat to cement their domestic support base ahead of the change in Government in both China and Japan. Now China is getting more assertive and clearly trying to test the strength of the US-Japan alliance.

    I do agree with this comment of yours

    They may well be advising the Japanese behind-the-scenes to not let things get out of hand. The last thing the US wants is to be dragged into a Sino-Japanese conflict over some islands.
    They have been advising this both behind the scenes and publically. The US has no interest in a Pacific war (unless you believe ouwen).

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...34883085679794

    "I believe this latest incident underscores the need for agreement between China and Japan to establish crisis-management and confidence-building measures to lower tensions," Mr. Biden said, adding he will discuss these issues with leaders of the nations he visits this week.

  6. #136

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    23,164
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    Seems conjecture. Didn't the Japanese airlines inform the Chinese they were entering the "special ADIZ" until the US sent a couple of B52's to prove a point. Now the ADIZ is routinely ignored by many countries.
    The Japanese airlines complied with the reporting requirements until told not to by the Tokyo government.

    I think only Japanese & Korean airlines are ignoring the reporting requirements. That is a long way from "many".
    Watercooler likes this.

  7. #137
    ouwen
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBrit:
    With the choice of two bad options, you have to pick the least worst. Between a rock and a hard place... between the devil and the deep blue sea. Both appropriate expressions in this particular case.

    I do very much think that both countries tacitly used this spat to cement their domestic support base ahead of the change in Government in both China and Japan. Now China is getting more assertive and clearly trying to test the strength of the US-Japan alliance.

    I do agree with this comment of yours



    They have been advising this both behind the scenes and publically. The US has no interest in a Pacific war (unless you believe ouwen).
    All US Pacific weapons customers are expected to fight their own wars. The US defence agreement is to sell them weapons with which to defend themselves. There is no agreement that they can drag the US into their wars.

    However, you seem to think you can do that with your brilliant political commentary.........


  8. #138

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    23,164
    Quote Originally Posted by ouwen:
    The US defence agreement is to sell them weapons with which to defend themselves. There is no agreement that they can drag the US into their wars.
    I guess, in your special world that the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan was never signed in San Francisco.

    Under the treaty, both parties assume an obligation to maintain and develop their capacities to resist armed attack in common and to assist each other in case of armed attack on territories under Japanese administration.

    Furthermore, Hilary Clinton made it very clear that the Senkaku islands are covered by this agreement. You can google it.

  9. #139
    ouwen
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBrit:
    I guess, in your special world that the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan was never signed in San Francisco.

    Under the treaty, both parties assume an obligation to maintain and develop their capacities to resist armed attack in common and to assist each other in case of armed attack on territories under Japanese administration.

    Furthermore, Hilary Clinton made it very clear that the Senkaku islands are covered by this agreement. You can google it.

    That applies to Japan, where we don't have any other choice, because Japan is not allowed to possess offensive weapons due to it's role in WWII. The US has diplomatic ties with China on the same footing as any other country. Japan is farther down the list as a war criminal on probation.

    My government does not recognize Taiwan as a country. It is recognized as part of China. The US sells weapons to Taiwan with which Taiwan is expected to maintain it's own defensive capability.

  10. #140

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    23,164
    Quote Originally Posted by ouwen:
    That applies to Japan, where we don't have any other choice, because Japan is not allowed to possess offensive weapons due to it's role in WWII.
    Well, originally you said this

    Quote Originally Posted by ouwen:
    All US Pacific weapons customers are expected to fight their own wars.
    Now you are backtracking. However, the position you are backtracking into is wrong too - Japan has a large and modern set of offensive weapons under the auspices of the JSDF.

    The Maritime Self-Defence Forces of Japan boasts more frigates, submarines and mine warfare craft than the Royal Navy or the French Navy. Japan has more ships in its merchant marine fleet and a more advanced ship building industry than the UK or France.

    Japan also has hundreds of MHI built fighter planes, quarter of a million active troops.... these are offensive assets in any sense of the word. They are prevented from offensive actions by the Constitution but unfortunately the current Abe-led administration has made it very clear they wish to revise the Constitution and tone down the pacifist aspects. Fortunately, the Japanese population is resolutely against this at the moment.

Reply
Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6 11 12 13 14 15 16 LastLast