"This is the Chinese navy ... You go!"

[mirth]

I was hoping the women of questionable morals were a ticket to something else, but let's keep talking Realpolitik in southeast Asia. That's how you get the ladies, right?

[LongBlade]

I was hoping the women of questionable morals were a ticket to something else, but let's keep talking Realpolitik in southeast Asia. That's how you get the ladies, right?

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

She said her name was Peasy

[mirth]

She said her name was Peasy

Yeah but she still thinks she's a Disney Princess and she has no problem with the ChiComms building Resort properties in the Spratly's

[LongBlade]

She said her name was Peasy

Yeah but she still thinks she's a Disney Princess and she has no problem with the ChiComms building Resort properties in the Spratly's

= kicked+to+the+curb

[Nefaro]

Revive SEATO. Alliances are how you deal with naked aggression.

You're absolutely correct mirth.  I just don't think though that the guys at the top these days think there is any problem.  Or they just don't want to get involved because the days of the cold war are over so what's the point?  I bet that is what they think to themselves.

That's exactly why China, Russia, ISIS, etc have been taking the opportunity to expand militarily.  Other major powers' leadership is (justifiably) perceived as weak-willed pushovers.  Best time to strike.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0OA0DY20150525?irpc=932

[Steelgrave]

^Wow, lots of sabre rattling in that article. Sounded almost like their little buddy in North Korea wrote it.

[Centurion40]

It's tricky to talk Geo-politics when women of questionable morals are buying you Margaritas that are mostly Tequila.

Mirth is a bar-fly! Sweet!!!

[LongBlade]

It's tricky to talk Geo-politics when women of questionable morals are buying you Margaritas that are mostly Tequila.

Mirth is a bar-fly! Sweet!!!

This is news?

[Centurion40]

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0OA0DY20150525?irpc=932

The United States has routinely called on all claimants to halt reclamation in the Spratlys, but accuses China of carrying out work on a scale that far outstrips any other country.

Washington has also vowed to keep up air and sea patrols in the South China Sea amid concerns among security experts that China might impose air and sea restrictions in the Spratlys once it completes work on its seven artificial islands.

China has said it has every right to set up an Air Defence Identification Zone in the South China Sea but that current conditions did not warrant one.

The Global Times said "risks are still under control" if Washington takes into account China's peaceful rise.

"We do not want a military conflict with the United States, but if it were to come, we have to accept it," the newspaper said.

China's state media has stepped up its rhetoric against the United States, warning that the row over the South China Sea could hurt broader relations. But there appears to be little popular anger among the Chinese population so far, judging from sentiment expressed on Weibo, China's version of Twitter.

So a few thoughts are running through my mind, after having read the article and the comments to date.  The question that I keep struggling with is "Why is this the US' fight?"  Then it strikes me that I might be leaning towards a Libertarian-esque foreign policy view, and (as a Centrist) I sit here somewhat perplexed; wondering if there might be a racist streak in my foreign policy views (typical Centrist thinking) in that would I see the situation in Europe, vis-a-vis Russia, in the same light.  But that it a piece of navel gazing for another time.

Ok, sure the US has defence treaties with Japan, South Korea & the Philippines. But wouldn't that mean that the US would have the backs of the Japanese and/or Filipinos should they tangle with an enemy- in this case China?  Shouldn't it be Japanese or Filipino planes over the Spratlys pissing-off the Chinese (by shining a light on their nefarious shenanigans)?  Or are the Japanese and Filipino governments asking the US to fly these missions?  Or are they already doing their own sovereignty assertions, and it just isn't making the news? Or could it be US Admirals and Generals keeping things interesting so as to validate their budgets? 

Clearly the Chinese are expanding into territory where they have a tenuous claim, but they are still far from any US territorial holdings.  I know it's all a game to some, and it's probably good (in the long run) for the US to start digging its knuckles into the Chinese's ribs (so as to keep this shit far away from Hawaii).  But I can't help but think that this a Filipino, Malaysian, Vietnamese and Japanese problem first, and a US problem second.

[Centurion40]

It's tricky to talk Geo-politics when women of questionable morals are buying you Margaritas that are mostly Tequila.

Mirth is a bar-fly! Sweet!!!

This is news?

I thought that he was going out and plying the bar-flies with booze, but no.  He's the bar-fly!!  I like it.  Male equality, and all that!  O0

[mirth]

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0OA0DY20150525?irpc=932

Priceless. We overfly a recently built Chinese "insta-island" and the Chinese accuse us of "provocative behavior". They do know how to play the game.

[Steelgrave]

So a few thoughts are running through my mind, after having read the article and the comments to date.  The question that I keep struggling with is "Why is this the US' fight?"  Then it strikes me that I might be leaning towards a Libertarian-esque foreign policy view, and (as a Centrist) I sit here somewhat perplexed; wondering if there might be a racist streak in my foreign policy views (typical Centrist thinking) in that would I see the situation in Europe, vis-a-vis Russia, in the same light.  But that it a piece of navel gazing for another time.

Ok, sure the US has defence treaties with Japan, South Korea & the Philippines. But wouldn't that mean that the US would have the backs of the Japanese and/or Filipinos should they tangle with an enemy- in this case China?  Shouldn't it be Japanese or Filipino planes over the Spratlys pissing-off the Chinese (by shining a light on their nefarious shenanigans)?  Or are the Japanese and Filipino governments asking the US to fly these missions?  Or are they already doing their own sovereignty assertions, and it just isn't making the news? Or could it be US Admirals and Generals keeping things interesting so as to validate their budgets? 

Clearly the Chinese are expanding into territory where they have a tenuous claim, but they are still far from any US territorial holdings.  I know it's all a game to some, and it's probably good (in the long run) for the US to start digging its knuckles into the Chinese's ribs (so as to keep this shit far away from Hawaii).  But I can't help but think that this a Filipino, Malaysian, Vietnamese and Japanese problem first, and a US problem second.

As the article points out (and most historians of U.S. history already know) right of free passage has been an American doctrine since our founding. The Pacific, while not necessarily the "American lake" of old, is vital to U.S. security, both economic and militarily. It's not that the Chinese are threatening American territory, it's that they are threatening the right of free movement in international waters as well as the right of America to sail our navy wherever we want, so long as we are not violating lawful recognized borders. The big picture here, I believe, is the Chinese know their military cannot enforce their political will so long as America rules the seas. They are not big enough to challenge that superiority, as of yet, but are attempting to gain the same goals by bluster, obtrusion, and claiming something is so because they say it is.

The Chinese are like the guy who shoots his parents, then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he's an orphan. They build where they have no right, ignoring other nations 12 mile recognized borders, then claim the same borders for themselves when we test them. Under no scenario should America purposefully go to war with China over this, however, continued overflights of international waters and incursions by naval units are lawful, justified and should increase. I don't think China has the balls to shoot first and the uproar can only continue to bring attention to China's growing imperialistic streak.

[Centurion40]

As the article points out (and most historians of U.S. history already know) right of free passage has been an American doctrine since our beginning. Additionally, the Pacific, while not necessarily the "American lake" of old, is vital to U.S. security, both economic and militarily.

I also like the idea of free passage, so long it is not violating recognized territorial waters.  But please explain what about the Spratlys is "vital" to US economic and military security.  See, that is the point I am not getting.