Chinese fighter intercepts Navy Poseidon

[BridgeTroll]

Philippines primarily... Vietnam also...

How so? Or are you arguing that their claims to these islands are somehow more legitimate than China's?

Their claims are just as legitimate or spurious as China's. But, I suppose how one interprets that depends on one's own biases.

An honest glance at a map shows this not to be true...

I guess that's why Argentina has the "Malvinas" and Hawaii belongs to Kiribati.

completely different circumstances...

[Adam White]

Philippines primarily... Vietnam also...

How so? Or are you arguing that their claims to these islands are somehow more legitimate than China's?

Their claims are just as legitimate or spurious as China's. But, I suppose how one interprets that depends on one's own biases.

An honest glance at a map shows this not to be true...

I guess that's why Argentina has the "Malvinas" and Hawaii belongs to Kiribati.

completely different circumstances...

You said "an honest glance at a map". All the map shows is geographic proximity. Don't change horses mid-stream.

[spuwho]

How long does a claim last?

How does a claim originate?

How is a claim maintained?

What keeps Greece from claiming Syria because Alexander the Great conquered it.

What motivated Germany to take Sudetenland in 1939?

What keeps Genoa from attempting to reclaim Istabul and calling Constantinople again?

I dont really care if China wants to occupy an island in the middle of no where.

But to claim a reef, pile a bunch of sand on it and call it a sovereign part of your country, when you havent maintained a claim nearby in nearly a thousand years?

Seems different to me.

[BridgeTroll]

it is...

[Adam White]

The difference is when reality doesn't match with your foreign policy aims. Your jingoistic viewpoints would be laughable if they weren't so pathetic.

[BridgeTroll]

The difference is when reality doesn't match with your foreign policy aims. Your jingoistic viewpoints would be laughable if they weren't so pathetic.

lol... pot meet kettle...

[Adam White]

The difference is when reality doesn't match with your foreign policy aims. Your jingoistic viewpoints would be laughable if they weren't so pathetic.

lol... pot meet kettle...

Sure thing, mate.

I don't take a side in the conflict. I think all the involved parties have elements of their claims that are compelling. As I said earlier, they're equally legitimate or spurious.

You just parrot the US position. The US position is one borne out of foreign policy aims, nothing more. If China were located where the PI are, you can guarantee that the US would be endorsing the PI claims anyway. That's because the US views China as a threat.

I don't agree with the way the Chinese have acted (more often that not), but I also acknowledge the fact that the US "freedom of navigation" missions are nothing more than a provocation. It's an attempt to reinforce the US view on the sovereignty of the islands under the guise of being about freedom of navigation.

So the reason I know you guys are just typical US chauvinists is because you so uncritically adhere to the US view of this dispute and don't give any creedence whatsoever to the Chinese (or ROC) claims. Dismissing everything out of hand reveals your true motives.

[BridgeTroll]

You certainly are taking a side... I have also said... there could easily be a negotiated settlement of these "spurious claims"  Unsurprisingly... China is the party who refuses to participate.  I hear a parrot but it is speaking chinese... mate.

[Adam White]

You certainly are taking a side... I have also said... there could easily be a negotiated settlement of these "spurious claims"  Unsurprisingly... China is the party who refuses to participate.  I hear a parrot but it is speaking chinese... mate.

I don't take a side - I've been very consistent in that. But I guess in your narrow view of things, calling out your bias is the same as "taking a side".

[BridgeTroll]

You certainly are taking a side... I have also said... there could easily be a negotiated settlement of these "spurious claims"  Unsurprisingly... China is the party who refuses to participate.  I hear a parrot but it is speaking chinese... mate.

I don't take a side - I've been very consistent in that. But I guess in your narrow view of things, calling out your bias is the same as "taking a side".

So in your "broadminded view" why does China not negotiate with PI, Vietnam, Malaysia etc?  Seems fairly simple... we keep these... you get those... these stay open for fishermen.  Seems to me reasonable people could divvy these mostly submerged sandbars up in a day or two.

[Adam White]

You certainly are taking a side... I have also said... there could easily be a negotiated settlement of these "spurious claims"  Unsurprisingly... China is the party who refuses to participate.  I hear a parrot but it is speaking chinese... mate.

I don't take a side - I've been very consistent in that. But I guess in your narrow view of things, calling out your bias is the same as "taking a side".

So in your "broadminded view" why does China not negotiate with PI, Vietnam, Malaysia etc?  Seems fairly simple... we keep these... you get those... these stay open for fishermen.  Seems to me reasonable people could divvy these mostly submerged sandbars up in a day or two.

Well, I have no idea what the PRC's motivations are (or the ROC's for that matter). I assume they refuse to negotiate because they either a) feel they have an unassailable claim and don't feel a moral obligation to compromise or b) they don't want to give compromise because they just don't want to compromise. Perhaps their longstanding enmity towards Vietnam keeps them from negotiating. Who knows. Maybe they're just confident that they don't have to.

Or perhaps they're evil bastards who just like to make things difficult for everyone else. Or are greedy.

But regardless,  even if their actions are "wrong", that doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the basis of their claims to the islands. As I said before, there are compelling aspects of the Chinese arguments, just as there are compelling aspects of the other nations' arguments.

[spuwho]

The difference is when reality doesn't match with your foreign policy aims. Your jingoistic viewpoints would be laughable if they weren't so pathetic.

lol... pot meet kettle...

Sure thing, mate.

I don't take a side in the conflict. I think all the involved parties have elements of their claims that are compelling. As I said earlier, they're equally legitimate or spurious.

You just parrot the US position. The US position is one borne out of foreign policy aims, nothing more. If China were located where the PI are, you can guarantee that the US would be endorsing the PI claims anyway. That's because the US views China as a threat.

I don't agree with the way the Chinese have acted (more often that not), but I also acknowledge the fact that the US "freedom of navigation" missions are nothing more than a provocation. It's an attempt to reinforce the US view on the sovereignty of the islands under the guise of being about freedom of navigation.

So the reason I know you guys are just typical US chauvinists is because you so uncritically adhere to the US view of this dispute and don't give any creedence whatsoever to the Chinese (or ROC) claims. Dismissing everything out of hand reveals your true motives.

PRC already has possession of an island and no one disputes that. (Took it in 1946)

ROC also has posession of an island. No one disputes that.

Phillippines posess several islands, no one is disputing that.

These reefs all fall outside any countries EEC zones (200 miles) and have been up to now navigation hazards as well as great fishing zones.

The US hasnt been an innocent party in the past to the use of these islands and reefs (1896 Guano Act) but we dont claim them as sovereign territory when they spend 80 percent of their time underwater.

So while you may think of me as some US policy cheerleader, the Phillipines did make a peaceful and legitimate petition to the UN and World Court to resolve the situation. A petition the PRC refuses to even engage or acknowledge.

Generally speaking I think the US wants to do the right thing, but if the PRC wants to be a bully about it and not be a leader in resolution, then yes, we have to remind them that there are others in the world and they cant be ignored.

[Adam White]

The difference is when reality doesn't match with your foreign policy aims. Your jingoistic viewpoints would be laughable if they weren't so pathetic.

lol... pot meet kettle...

Sure thing, mate.

I don't take a side in the conflict. I think all the involved parties have elements of their claims that are compelling. As I said earlier, they're equally legitimate or spurious.

You just parrot the US position. The US position is one borne out of foreign policy aims, nothing more. If China were located where the PI are, you can guarantee that the US would be endorsing the PI claims anyway. That's because the US views China as a threat.

I don't agree with the way the Chinese have acted (more often that not), but I also acknowledge the fact that the US "freedom of navigation" missions are nothing more than a provocation. It's an attempt to reinforce the US view on the sovereignty of the islands under the guise of being about freedom of navigation.

So the reason I know you guys are just typical US chauvinists is because you so uncritically adhere to the US view of this dispute and don't give any creedence whatsoever to the Chinese (or ROC) claims. Dismissing everything out of hand reveals your true motives.

PRC already has possession of an island and no one disputes that. (Took it in 1946)

ROC also has posession of an island. No one disputes that.

Phillippines posess several islands, no one is disputing that.

These reefs all fall outside any countries EEC zones (200 miles) and have been up to now navigation hazards as well as great fishing zones.

The US hasnt been an innocent party in the past to the use of these islands and reefs (1896 Guano Act) but we dont claim them as sovereign territory when they spend 80 percent of their time underwater.

So while you may think of me as some US policy cheerleader, the Phillipines did make a peaceful and legitimate petition to the UN and World Court to resolve the situation. A petition the PRC refuses to even engage or acknowledge.

Generally speaking I think the US wants to do the right thing, but if the PRC wants to be a bully about it and not be a leader in resolution, then yes, we have to remind them that there are others in the world and they cant be ignored.

Land reclamation is common and it's something lots of countries do within what they consider to be their national boundaries. In practical terms, if the Spratlys are Chinese (and lie within Chinese territorial waters, as China maintains the case to be), then their reclaimed reefs don't really differ from Zeeland.

[spuwho]

The difference is when reality doesn't match with your foreign policy aims. Your jingoistic viewpoints would be laughable if they weren't so pathetic.

lol... pot meet kettle...

Sure thing, mate.

I don't take a side in the conflict. I think all the involved parties have elements of their claims that are compelling. As I said earlier, they're equally legitimate or spurious.

You just parrot the US position. The US position is one borne out of foreign policy aims, nothing more. If China were located where the PI are, you can guarantee that the US would be endorsing the PI claims anyway. That's because the US views China as a threat.

I don't agree with the way the Chinese have acted (more often that not), but I also acknowledge the fact that the US "freedom of navigation" missions are nothing more than a provocation. It's an attempt to reinforce the US view on the sovereignty of the islands under the guise of being about freedom of navigation.

So the reason I know you guys are just typical US chauvinists is because you so uncritically adhere to the US view of this dispute and don't give any creedence whatsoever to the Chinese (or ROC) claims. Dismissing everything out of hand reveals your true motives.

PRC already has possession of an island and no one disputes that. (Took it in 1946)

ROC also has posession of an island. No one disputes that.

Phillippines posess several islands, no one is disputing that.

These reefs all fall outside any countries EEC zones (200 miles) and have been up to now navigation hazards as well as great fishing zones.

The US hasnt been an innocent party in the past to the use of these islands and reefs (1896 Guano Act) but we dont claim them as sovereign territory when they spend 80 percent of their time underwater.

So while you may think of me as some US policy cheerleader, the Phillipines did make a peaceful and legitimate petition to the UN and World Court to resolve the situation. A petition the PRC refuses to even engage or acknowledge.

Generally speaking I think the US wants to do the right thing, but if the PRC wants to be a bully about it and not be a leader in resolution, then yes, we have to remind them that there are others in the world and they cant be ignored.

Land reclamation is common and it's something lots of countries do within what they consider to be their national boundaries. In practical terms, if the Spratlys are Chinese (and lie within Chinese territorial waters, as China maintains the case to be), then their reclaimed reefs don't really differ from Zeeland.

And that is where we will disagree.

Spratlys are not the Netherlands. Not even a close compare.

[Adam White]

And that is where we will disagree.

Spratlys are not the Netherlands. Not even a close compare.

Sure, you don't think so. I know that.

But if one (say a Chinese citizen, for example) were to consider the Spratlys to lie within Chinese territorial waters, then the analogy is sound. You think there is no comparison because you reject Chinese claims to those waters out of hand. But, in the eyes of a Chinese person, the activities of the Chinese state are completely normal and legal. To them, it's no different than if the US were to start reclaiming land around the Hawaiian islands.