Conquer Club

Looks like America is now challenging China's obscene claims in South China Sea

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/10/27/china-warns-us-over-warship/21254503/?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-sb-bb%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D848714814

What is Freedom of Navigation?

The US Freedom of Navigation programme challenges what it deems to be "excessive claims" to the world's oceans and airspace

It was developed to promote international adherence to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, even though the US has not formally ratified the treaty.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-34647651

In other words, the US is deliberately militarily provoking various Asian nations not because it has any kind of legitimate point to make but merely because it wants provoke. Good work.

mrswdk wrote:

What is Freedom of Navigation?

The US Freedom of Navigation programme challenges what it deems to be "excessive claims" to the world's oceans and airspace

It was developed to promote international adherence to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, even though the US has not formally ratified the treaty.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-34647651

In other words, the US is deliberately militarily provoking various Asian nations not because it has any kind of legitimate point to make but merely because it wants provoke. Good work.

And yet the US did uphold to most of the treaty(especially the basic rights and uses) as proclaimed by president Ronald Reagan, and in furtherance subsequent presidents.

http://thediplomat.com/2015/10/what-would-reagan-do-about-chinas-violations-of-the-law-of-the-sea/

So, what would Reagan do about China’s failure to comply with UNCLOS? In 1982, President Reagan announced he would not sign UNCLOS due to “several major problems” on the rules for deep seabed mining. Nonetheless, Reagan realized most provisions of UNCLOS concerning traditional uses of the oceans confirm and reflect long-standing maritime law and state practice. Accordingly, on March 10, 1983, he proclaimed the United States “…is prepared to accept and act in accordance with the balance of interests relating to traditional uses of the oceans – such as navigation and overflight.” This is why Reagan is the most consequential U.S. president on the law of the sea, even though he declined to sign the Convention. Every U.S. president since has followed Reagan’s 1983 proclamation.

Reagan was willing to recognize coastal state claims under UNCLOS, such as the 12-nautical mile territorial sea and the 200-nautical mile EEZ, but only on condition that those states observe and respect the rights and freedoms of the United States and other states. Instead of adhering to this key caveat, however, all subsequent administrations have afforded the benefits of coastal state entitlements under UNCLOS to other states regardless of whether those states respected U.S. rights and freedoms.

The new approach reflects a bipartisan ideal that the United States is strongest when it serves as a beacon for the rule of law. Yet the current approach confers the entitlements and benefits of UNCLOS on states that deprive those very same rights to the United States and other countries. It may set a high-minded example, and evidence suggests that for some states it has worked to shape their policy and laws. With regard to China, however, the U.S. approach has been woefully ineffective, and it is not what Ronald Reagan would do. For recalcitrant states such as China that are not influenced by the positive example of the United States, perhaps it is time to invoke the forgotten caveat of Reagan’s policy.

Your quote touches on to the exact reason why the US quoting UNCLOS is hypocritical:

In 1982, President Reagan announced he would not sign UNCLOS due to “several major problems” on the rules for deep seabed mining.

Those 'several major problems' are that signing UNCLOS would require US companies to conform to regulations which they are in violation of at present. The US doesn't like this and doesn't want to comply, and so refuses to sign UNCLOS.

UNCLOS is not something the US genuinely cares about, it is just a convenient stick with which to beat China.

you realize this would all de escalate very quickly if china returned the little lama boy, doncha missus?

mrswdk wrote:Your quote touches on to the exact reason why the US quoting UNCLOS is hypocritical:

In 1982, President Reagan announced he would not sign UNCLOS due to “several major problems” on the rules for deep seabed mining.

Those 'several major problems' are that signing UNCLOS would require US companies to conform to regulations which they are in violation of at present. The US doesn't like this and doesn't want to comply, and so refuses to sign UNCLOS.

UNCLOS is not something the US genuinely cares about, it is just a convenient stick with which to beat China.

But they did uphold other points like right of passage and they did so for a very good reason. As Riskllama correctly pointed out, if you start denying access to certain countries, those countries will react. China is the country who made the first move in this whole south-china sea situation and should not be surprised that it encounters hostility and adversity towards it. China provoked the whole situations itself.

Even though the US didn't officially sign the treaty, they did uphold certain aspects of it and China broke those exact aspects.

To be fair, it does have their name on it.

waauw wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Your quote touches on to the exact reason why the US quoting UNCLOS is hypocritical:

In 1982, President Reagan announced he would not sign UNCLOS due to “several major problems” on the rules for deep seabed mining.

Those 'several major problems' are that signing UNCLOS would require US companies to conform to regulations which they are in violation of at present. The US doesn't like this and doesn't want to comply, and so refuses to sign UNCLOS.

UNCLOS is not something the US genuinely cares about, it is just a convenient stick with which to beat China.

But they did uphold other points like right of passage and they did so for a very good reason.

The US can't pick and choose which parts of the law it likes and which parts of the law it wants to ignore.

As Riskllama correctly pointed out, if you start denying access to certain countries, those countries will react. China is the country who made the first move in this whole south-china sea situation and should not be surprised that it encounters hostility and adversity towards it. China provoked the whole situations itself.

lol. I'm pretty sure llama was making a whole other point entirely, but to address the underlined:

1 - China only denies military access to its claimed territorial waters. Sea traffic is still free to pass through
2 - One of the pressing issues here is quite why it is any of the US's business to 'react' to a territorial dispute in SE Asia

/ wrote:To be fair, it does have their name on it.

Hells yeah it does. If 'finders keepers' is a good enough reason for white people to occupy North America, Australia and New Zealand, it's a good enough reason for China to occupy its own sea

/ wrote:To be fair, it does have their name on it.

Does that matter? In the Philippines people call it the 'West-Philippine' sea. The Gulf of Mexico is called after Mexico, does that mean the entire Gulf is mexican property?

waauw wrote:

/ wrote:To be fair, it does have their name on it.

Does that matter? In the Philippines people call it the 'West-Philippine' sea.

Do they call it that with a straight face?

waauw wrote:

/ wrote:To be fair, it does have their name on it.

The Gulf of Mexico is called after Mexico, does that mean the entire Gulf is mexican property?

I guess...

But we get planet 916 America.

mrswdk wrote:

waauw wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Your quote touches on to the exact reason why the US quoting UNCLOS is hypocritical:

In 1982, President Reagan announced he would not sign UNCLOS due to “several major problems” on the rules for deep seabed mining.

Those 'several major problems' are that signing UNCLOS would require US companies to conform to regulations which they are in violation of at present. The US doesn't like this and doesn't want to comply, and so refuses to sign UNCLOS.

UNCLOS is not something the US genuinely cares about, it is just a convenient stick with which to beat China.

But they did uphold other points like right of passage and they did so for a very good reason.

The US can't pick and choose which parts of the law it likes and which parts of the law it wants to ignore.

A. It's a treaty, not a law.
B. Non-signed treaties that are followed are called 'policies'. So yes they can pick and choose.

mrswdk wrote:

As Riskllama correctly pointed out, if you start denying access to certain countries, those countries will react. China is the country who made the first move in this whole south-china sea situation and should not be surprised that it encounters hostility and adversity towards it. China provoked the whole situations itself.

lol. I'm pretty sure llama was making a whole other point entirely, but to address the underlined:

1 - China only denies military access to its claimed territorial waters. Sea traffic is still free to pass through
2 - One of the pressing issues here is quite why it is any of the US's business to 'react' to a territorial dispute in SE Asia

1. So those Vietnamese fishermen ships were what? Military vessels? Not to mention the bigger issue here is that ALL SHIPS have the right to pass through INTERNATIONAL WATERS. Elevated pieces of underwater archipelago's and artificial islands don't count as real islands. If the US were to build an artificial island at the tip of the Malacca straight, would that make the surrounding waters american? Of course not, and the same thing applies to China's fake islands.
2. The US is allowed to demand passage through international waters, not to mention the us has strong military ties with several nations in the region. Countries like Thailand and Indonesia are strengthening their ties with Washington. The Philippines even has a Mutual Protection Pact with the US, making them official allies. Even Vietnam is now interested in american military cooperation.

It's China's own aggressive foreign policy that's chasing SE-asian nations into american arms. Do you honestly think the Vietnamese, who hate the americans, would ever desire closer relations to Washington if it weren't for China?

mrswdk wrote:

waauw wrote:

/ wrote:To be fair, it does have their name on it.

Does that matter? In the Philippines people call it the 'West-Philippine' sea.

Do they call it that with a straight face?

Do you walk around like a shemale with a straight face?

waauw wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

waauw wrote:

/ wrote:To be fair, it does have their name on it.

Does that matter? In the Philippines people call it the 'West-Philippine' sea.

Do they call it that with a straight face?

Do you walk around like a shemale with a straight face?

Yoowwww!! I played with lava and got burned!

waauw wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

waauw wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Your quote touches on to the exact reason why the US quoting UNCLOS is hypocritical:

In 1982, President Reagan announced he would not sign UNCLOS due to “several major problems” on the rules for deep seabed mining.

Those 'several major problems' are that signing UNCLOS would require US companies to conform to regulations which they are in violation of at present. The US doesn't like this and doesn't want to comply, and so refuses to sign UNCLOS.

UNCLOS is not something the US genuinely cares about, it is just a convenient stick with which to beat China.

But they did uphold other points like right of passage and they did so for a very good reason.

The US can't pick and choose which parts of the law it likes and which parts of the law it wants to ignore.

A. It's a treaty, not a law.
B. Non-signed treaties that are followed are called 'policies'. So yes they can pick and choose.

A The principle is exactly the same
B They don't follow the treaty, as evidenced by my earlier post in which I talked about how their deep seabed drilling is in violation of UNCLOS

wwe wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

As Riskllama correctly pointed out, if you start denying access to certain countries, those countries will react. China is the country who made the first move in this whole south-china sea situation and should not be surprised that it encounters hostility and adversity towards it. China provoked the whole situations itself.

lol. I'm pretty sure llama was making a whole other point entirely, but to address the underlined:

1 - China only denies military access to its claimed territorial waters. Sea traffic is still free to pass through
2 - One of the pressing issues here is quite why it is any of the US's business to 'react' to a territorial dispute in SE Asia

1. So those Vietnamese fishermen ships were what? Military vessels? Not to mention the bigger issue here is that ALL SHIPS have the right to pass through INTERNATIONAL WATERS. Elevated pieces of underwater archipelago's and artificial islands don't count as real islands. If the US were to build an artificial island at the tip of the Malacca straight, would that make the surrounding waters american? Of course not, and the same thing applies to China's fake islands.
2. The US is allowed to demand passage through international waters, not to mention the us has strong military ties with several nations in the region. Countries like Thailand and Indonesia are strengthening their ties with Washington. The Philippines even has a Mutual Protection Pact with the US, making them official allies. Even Vietnam is now interested in american military cooperation.

It's China's own aggressive foreign policy that's chasing SE-asian nations into american arms. Do you honestly think the Vietnamese, who hate the americans, would ever desire closer relations to Washington if it weren't for China?

1 - thieves
2 - but what about through Chinese waters?

mrswdk wrote:A The principle is exactly the same
B They don't follow the treaty, as evidenced by my earlier post in which I talked about how their deep seabed drilling is in violation of UNCLOS

You don't follow do you? That's not even the point. China turned an american policy against themselves through ungentlemanly behaviour. You don't do that to a country as powerful as the USA and expect them to sit back and not react. If you poke a tiger, the tiger might get angry. It's a simple as that.

The US might not have signed the treaty for not agreeing with everything, but they did uphold some standard at least. China's standard is obviously lower, which pokes the tiger.

wwe wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

As Riskllama correctly pointed out, if you start denying access to certain countries, those countries will react. China is the country who made the first move in this whole south-china sea situation and should not be surprised that it encounters hostility and adversity towards it. China provoked the whole situations itself.

mrswdk wrote:1 - thieves
2 - but what about through Chinese waters?

1. way to go to ignore the whole section about 'international waters'... Did they teach you that at the zoo? Cover your eyes and it will disappear?
2. I agree that if the americans fly near your coast with a spy-plane you should be allowed to shoot them down, but you can hardly blame anyone for passing through waters that aren't even officially anybody's. They're either international waters or disputed waters.

Why is the U.S. provoking China in the South China Sea?

waauw wrote:

mrswdk wrote:A The principle is exactly the same
B They don't follow the treaty, as evidenced by my earlier post in which I talked about how their deep seabed drilling is in violation of UNCLOS

You don't follow do you? That's not even the point. China turned an american policy against themselves through ungentlemanly behaviour. You don't do that to a country as powerful as the USA and expect them to sit back and not react. If you poke a tiger, the tiger might get angry. It's a simple as that.

The US might not have signed the treaty for not agreeing with everything, but they did uphold some standard at least. China's standard is obviously lower, which pokes the tiger.

I'm not missing the point at all. America is pick-and-choosing which parts of UNCLOS it follows and which it feels like ignoring. Obviously you have your bias towards the Philippines so you are perfectly happy for America to throw its weight around in aid of the Philippines' cause and who cares if they have a proper justification, but I'm just calling it how I see it.

mrswdk wrote:

wwe wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

As Riskllama correctly pointed out, if you start denying access to certain countries, those countries will react. China is the country who made the first move in this whole south-china sea situation and should not be surprised that it encounters hostility and adversity towards it. China provoked the whole situations itself.

mrswdk wrote:1 - thieves
2 - but what about through Chinese waters?

1. way to go to ignore the whole section about 'international waters'... Did they teach you that at the zoo? Cover your eyes and it will disappear?
2. I agree that if the americans fly near your coast with a spy-plane you should be allowed to shoot them down, but you can hardly blame anyone for passing through waters that aren't even officially anybody's. They're either international waters or disputed waters.

1 - No I didn't. See my previous point 2.
2 - And for as long as they're disputed third parties should keep their beaks out and let the interested parties work towards resolving their disputes.

mrswdk wrote:

waauw wrote:

mrswdk wrote:A The principle is exactly the same
B They don't follow the treaty, as evidenced by my earlier post in which I talked about how their deep seabed drilling is in violation of UNCLOS

You don't follow do you? That's not even the point. China turned an american policy against themselves through ungentlemanly behaviour. You don't do that to a country as powerful as the USA and expect them to sit back and not react. If you poke a tiger, the tiger might get angry. It's a simple as that.

The US might not have signed the treaty for not agreeing with everything, but they did uphold some standard at least. China's standard is obviously lower, which pokes the tiger.

I'm not missing the point at all. America is pick-and-choosing which parts of UNCLOS it follows and which it feels like ignoring. Obviously you have your bias towards the Philippines so you are perfectly happy for America to throw its weight around in aid of the Philippines' cause and who cares if they have a proper justification, but I'm just calling it how I see it.

mrswdk wrote:

wwe wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

As Riskllama correctly pointed out, if you start denying access to certain countries, those countries will react. China is the country who made the first move in this whole south-china sea situation and should not be surprised that it encounters hostility and adversity towards it. China provoked the whole situations itself.

mrswdk wrote:1 - thieves
2 - but what about through Chinese waters?

1. way to go to ignore the whole section about 'international waters'... Did they teach you that at the zoo? Cover your eyes and it will disappear?
2. I agree that if the americans fly near your coast with a spy-plane you should be allowed to shoot them down, but you can hardly blame anyone for passing through waters that aren't even officially anybody's. They're either international waters or disputed waters.

1 - No I didn't. See my previous point 2.
2 - And for as long as they're disputed third parties should keep their beaks out and let the interested parties work towards resolving their disputes.

Hahahahahhahahahhahahahhahaha!!!!!!
The problem is that China can bully its neighbors considering Population and Military size coupled with Proximity. Lets see how "work towards Resolving their disputes" turns out without someone on an equal/greater Military Power LVL around. Sometimes I wonder how you write some of these things with a straight face. Also US is an interested party due to various Treaties with some countries in the area.

rishaed wrote:

mrswdk wrote:1 - No I didn't. See my previous point 2.
2 - And for as long as they're disputed third parties should keep their beaks out and let the interested parties work towards resolving their disputes.

Hahahahahhahahahhahahahhahaha!!!!!!
The problem is that China can bully its neighbors considering Population and Military size coupled with Proximity. Lets see how "work towards Resolving their disputes" turns out without someone on an equal/greater Military Power LVL around. Sometimes I wonder how you write some of these things with a straight face. Also US is an interested party due to various Treaties with some countries in the area.

Then I guess it's for this exact reason that the USSR was totally legit to start pouring missiles into Cuba, and America should have sat back and allowed the Soviet build up in the Caribbean as a nice political leveler.

In fact, given the US's continuing bullying stance towards Cuba, maybe it's time for Russia to send a fleet or two back to the Florida coastline.

mrswdk wrote:

rishaed wrote:

mrswdk wrote:1 - No I didn't. See my previous point 2.
2 - And for as long as they're disputed third parties should keep their beaks out and let the interested parties work towards resolving their disputes.

Hahahahahhahahahhahahahhahaha!!!!!!
The problem is that China can bully its neighbors considering Population and Military size coupled with Proximity. Lets see how "work towards Resolving their disputes" turns out without someone on an equal/greater Military Power LVL around. Sometimes I wonder how you write some of these things with a straight face. Also US is an interested party due to various Treaties with some countries in the area.

Then I guess it's for this exact reason that the USSR was totally legit to start pouring missiles into Cuba, and America should have sat back and allowed the Soviet build up in the Caribbean as a nice political leveler.

In fact, given the US's continuing bullying stance towards Cuba, maybe it's time for Russia to send a fleet or two back to the Florida coastline.

For the first one, I find it comical that you compare this to that. A. US Responded to Perceived threat shortly off the coast by then Cold War Rival. B. China Provokes International Criticism and other countries by building Artificial Islands to attempt to claim ownership of area. Foreign Countries Respond (either through U.N. or otherwise).
II. U.S. has relaxed some political tensions with Cuba as it has allowed Embassies to be built. And now has an embassy in Havana. (The embargo isn't lifted, but i'm unsure how much that would effect the Cuban economy right now considering all their other trade partners in Europe and Asia coupled with the size of the country and resources.)
A.k.a Your point is what again? None of what you said even disputes what I said. Either the claim of China bullying its neighbors (which you practically admitted to it resorting to this tactic with your analogy), or the fact that due to treaties the U.S. is an interested party.

rishaed wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

rishaed wrote:

mrswdk wrote:1 - No I didn't. See my previous point 2.
2 - And for as long as they're disputed third parties should keep their beaks out and let the interested parties work towards resolving their disputes.

Hahahahahhahahahhahahahhahaha!!!!!!
The problem is that China can bully its neighbors considering Population and Military size coupled with Proximity. Lets see how "work towards Resolving their disputes" turns out without someone on an equal/greater Military Power LVL around. Sometimes I wonder how you write some of these things with a straight face. Also US is an interested party due to various Treaties with some countries in the area.

Then I guess it's for this exact reason that the USSR was totally legit to start pouring missiles into Cuba, and America should have sat back and allowed the Soviet build up in the Caribbean as a nice political leveler.

In fact, given the US's continuing bullying stance towards Cuba, maybe it's time for Russia to send a fleet or two back to the Florida coastline.

For the first one, I find it comical that you compare this to that. A. US Responded to Perceived threat shortly off the coast by then Cold War Rival.

And China is responding to a navy which has been belligerently involved in disputes concerning China and which has constantly sought to provoke and contain China along pretty much its entire coastline.

mrswdk wrote:

rishaed wrote:For the first one, I find it comical that you compare this to that. A. US Responded to Perceived threat shortly off the coast by then Cold War Rival. B. China Provokes International Criticism and other countries by building Artificial Islands to attempt to claim ownership of area. Foreign Countries Respond (either through U.N. or otherwise).
II. U.S. has relaxed some political tensions with Cuba as it has allowed Embassies to be built. And now has an embassy in Havana. (The embargo isn't lifted, but i'm unsure how much that would effect the Cuban economy right now considering all their other trade partners in Europe and Asia coupled with the size of the country and resources.)
A.k.a Your point is what again? None of what you said even disputes what I said. Either the claim of China bullying its neighbors (which you practically admitted to it resorting to this tactic with your analogy), or the fact that due to treaties the U.S. is an interested party.

And China is responding to a navy which has been belligerently involved in disputes concerning China and which has constantly sought to provoke and contain China along pretty much its entire coastline.

I think you must define "its entire coastline" because of the nature of this argument. Also prove Belligerence? Because really if the U.S. was being belligerent, we'd say... Companies go move all your factories and all that stuff to places not in china. Also cut economic ties with china. Why? Well because we enjoy making them squirm. That is belligerence.
Please Enlighten the poor uneducated me about our "Lets Bully China into what we want them to do" tactics, and while your at it please provide with the sources where you are getting your information so I can pull out some relevant facts.

mrswdk wrote:And China is responding to a navy which has been belligerently involved in disputes concerning China and which has constantly sought to provoke and contain China along pretty much its entire coastline.

It's like reading the CCP's propaganda word for word! But in English!

Also, some entertaining and interesting videos.






The last one is just for shits and giggles, but still entertaining.