It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

China state paper warns of war over South China Sea unless U.S. backs down

page: 10
19
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   
It's funny, I read a book back in the mid 90's called 'The Coming Conflict with China' by Richard Bernstein & Ross H. Monroe, it was a very good book, I still have it in my library.

That was 20 years ago, and everything in it is coming to fruitation. The World events are right on schedule. Russia and China are securing resources.

The media has quickly increased the message to the herds, the discussion is everywhere now. I wonder how much longer we have until it pops off?

Throw in the fact that we have a lot of old Men on both sides that probably would not mind tossing the dice or going out with a bang.

They sure do spend like they want it, without a thought about the future. World War 3 certainly seems inevitable now. ~$heopleNation
edit on 28-5-2015 by SheopleNation because: TypO




posted on May, 28 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

Well let's look at the past, shall we? They weren't necessary in Iraq either time, or in Afghanistan, yet they were used. They weren't necessary in Serbia, yet they were used. But now, for a fight they were designed for, they're not going to be used.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Let's go back and look at where this discussion started. I never said they wouldn't be used what I said they wouldn't be used in the South China Sea. You're the one that kept claiming I talked exclusively about land bases. I never made that statement.

That's a perfect example of how you hear people Zap.


Let me tell you something Zap . Nobody knows everything, you can learn something every day from anybody at any time all you have to do is be willing to listen.
edit on 28-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

Hey that hurts. Were not groupies. We're sycophants dammit!!!!!

Zaph I finished washing your car and I cleaned all the hardware in your bathroom like you requested. Let me know if theres anything else I can do for you.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Greathouse

Hey that hurts. Were not groupies. We're sycophants dammit!!!!!

Zaph I finished washing your car and I cleaned all the hardware in your bathroom like you requested. Let me know if theres anything else I can do for you.




Sorry dude I should've found a better word.


I'm just a dumb old hillbilly though!!

edit on 28-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

And I heard what you said and responded to it. You said they had land bases in the area so wouldn't use carriers there which is exactly what I've been responding to. In those other fights they had plenty of land bases in the area too, but there were carriers in the thick of things.

I'm well aware that I can learn from others and have learned a lot from others. But in this case you're wrong. The carriers will be on the leading edge of something happens in the South China Sea.
edit on 5/28/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/28/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


And I heard what you said and responded to it. You said they had land bases in the area so wouldn't use carriers there which is exactly what I've been responding to.


No I said they wouldn't send carriers into the South China Sea. This is starting to become very familiar. I believe it was on this thread?

When you told me Japan was patrolling the Spratly's Islands. It took six pages of me posting repeated proof. You constantly told me I was wrong and everyone agreed with you.

You used multiple angles to try not to admit that I was right. Yet finally on page 6 in the face of mounting evidence you did finally admit you were wrong.


Honestly I just don't have the patience for it again.

Take care zap at least I respect your opinion.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

Hey I just checked. There are no posts from Zaph on page 6.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

That's why there was a ? behind that sentence I wasn't sure if it was this thread.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

edit on 28-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   
[/url]a reply to: BASSPLYR

Here you go his second post. Read on from there this thread was posted four or five days before this current thread. It received no attention because prominently displayed on the first page it was called a non-issue. Yet as evident by this thread it certainly was an issue.
edit on 28-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



ATS thread
edit on 28-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

AH my mistake.

Fair enough.

BTW nothing wrong with Hillbillies. I learned a lot about fishing from one once. Still use what he taught me to this day. Was successful just this last Sunday. Some Tilapia, A hold over trout, and a few blue cats.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 09:36 PM
link   
It's disturbing that more people here on ATS are not discussing this subject instead of bickering about absolutely nothing. And yes, at least one U.S Aircraft carrier is most likely already planning on visiting the area where the lawless Chinese have attempted to illegally occupy land.

You can't just go and steal land and resources when others have a claim to those resources too. What China should have done was consulted with their neighbors in the region of these Islands, and worked out something reasonable.

Instead they just grabbed it, and it's not a surprise really, because they did the same exact thing to Tibet. Everyone complains about what the USA does, but who do we occupy or subjugate? = Nobody. Hopefully cooler heads prevail, because this could very well end up being the spark that ignites it all. ~$heopleNation



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: SheopleNation

Where Chinas thought process has come of the track revolves around how they view sovereignty.

An EEZ does not create sovereign territory per international law / agreements. All an EEZ does is secure resources located in the zone to a nation. Freedom of navigation on sea and air is still guaranteed and cannot be restricted.

The second failing revolves around their claim of sovereignty over artificially created islands. Again this runs counter to international law and UN treaties.

If China opts to attack foreign vessels in these zones they will have absolutely no legal standing to defend their actions. I believe China is trying the Russia play, which is to yell threats in hopes of scaring others. If push comes to shove China will not win a war. The moment they attack the US article V of the NATO charter will be invoked.


edit on 28-5-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: SheopleNation

ok, so the scale differs. i give you that....... but nothing else. no try at all. slap me with info that makes me a believer, and i will come to your side. MAKE ME BELIEVE



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 04:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: SheopleNation
It's disturbing that more people here on ATS are not discussing this subject instead of bickering about absolutely nothing. And yes, at least one U.S Aircraft carrier is most likely already planning on visiting the area where the lawless Chinese have attempted to illegally occupy land.

You can't just go and steal land and resources when others have a claim to those resources too. What China should have done was consulted with their neighbors in the region of these Islands, and worked out something reasonable.

~$heopleNation


Interesting question if anyone has the answer.

How often will a land grab end in war as opposed to ending peacefully?

In other words whats the odds of a war if you use history as the barometer.
edit on 29-5-2015 by joho99 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 04:35 AM
link   
a reply to: joho99


How often will a land grab end in war as opposed to ending peacefully?


Land grabs always end in war; they are the principal cause of war throughout history. China can forget about presiding over some East Asian economic alliance.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

So you think war is 99% certain?



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 04:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: joho99
a reply to: DJW001

So you think war is 99% certain?



I think war has already begun; now we wait for the actual shooting.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: fixitwcw

ok, so the scale differs. i give you that....... but nothing else. no try at all. slap me with info that makes me a believer, and i will come to your side.


Well you're going to need to be a little more specific than that, what exactly are you having trouble agreeing with?


MAKE ME BELIEVE


I can't MAKE you believe anything, it will be up to you to form your own opinion by using the information provided. ~$heopleNation




top topics



 
19
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join