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 says U.S. naval ship was breaking law: report

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by antar
So its ok for them to own our borders, and have free rein to our ports, to transport goods (if you can call them that) and services to our country, but they dont want us going near their waters? BS! I am sick of the double standard. If we stopped sending them our stuff to send back to us like the best wood and steel and everything else they sell back to us marked up 1000%, then I could see them having a problem with us nearing their waters, but we support them!!!

With the horrible way they are treating the world I am getting sick of china. Not the people or the culture or country, just the military industrial complex.

If its true Rockefeller owns their banks, let him pull out...


It's the other way around, China owns us. The U.S. owes trillions to China, this is fact, look it up.




posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Leto
 


Who "owns" America? This is the answer!



Foreign ownership of US Debt

A traditional defense of the national debt is that Americans "owe the debt to themselves", but that is becoming increasingly less accurate. The US debt in the hands of foreign governments was 25% of the total in 2007, virtually double the 1988 figure of 13%. Despite the declining willingness of foreign investors to continue investing in US dollar denominated instruments as the US dollar fell in 2007, the U.S. Treasury statistics indicate that, at the end of 2006, foreigners held 44% of federal debt held by the public.

About 66% of that 44% was held by the central banks of other countries, in particular the central banks of Japan and China. In total, lenders from Japan and China held 47% of the foreign-owned debt. This exposure to potential financial or political risk should foreign banks stop buying Treasury securities or start selling them heavily was addressed in a recent report issued by the Bank of International Settlements which stated, "'Foreign investors in U.S. dollar assets have seen big losses measured in dollars, and still bigger ones measured in their own currency. While unlikely, indeed highly improbable for public sector investors, a sudden rush for the exits cannot be ruled out completely."
en.wikipedia.org...


The answer is Japan holds 19% (8%) of our foreign debt and China holds 22% (9.7%). Number in parenthesis represents the total of all US public debt held by foreign AND domestic lenders.


[edit on 3/10/2009 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leto


It's the other way around, China owns us. The U.S. owes trillions to China, this is fact, look it up.


It's an investment called T Bills it gets paid out in 30 years look that up!



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


That was a very good tape from Youtube. I did not realize what a good resource YouTube could be.

[edit on 3/10/2009 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


Most of what I see on Youtube is garbage home made junk I look for clips from good sourced quality unbiased documentaries.




posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 




The three co-authors, Russian, American, and Chinese, show that the critical decision to initiate the war was made by Stalin in April 1950 when he decided to support Kim Il Sung's attempt to forcibly reunify Korea. The authors have also interviewed former high-ranking North Korean officers who were closely concerned with the launching of the war on that fateful Sunday morning of June 25 1950.



I disagree. My reason is that the Soviets had walked out of the UN Security Council - a frequent act on their part - and their absence at the crucial moment allowed the US and others to adopt several UN Resolutions authorizing the expulsion of North Korean forces from South Korea. It is unreasonable to think the Russians would have let that happen if A) they were issuing the marching orders, or B) they knew when Kim Jong Il would make his move.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Well there really isnt anything to disagree with!
This is what really happened read the whole thing here I supply the link again. This isn't my opinion of what happened it's what really happened consider the sources not my opinion.

Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao, and the Korean War


The primary concern of Sergei Goncharov, John H. Lewis, and Xue Litai in Uncertain Partners lies in Sino-Soviet security relations and their influence on the beginnings of the Korean War.

The three co-authors, Russian, American, and Chinese, show that the critical decision to initiate the war was made by Stalin in April 1950 when he decided to support Kim Il Sung's attempt to forcibly reunify Korea.

The telling of this complicated story has benefited much from new written and oral sources on the subject made available in Moscow and Peking as a result of the end of the Cold War. The authors have also interviewed former high-ranking North Korean officers who were closely concerned with the launching of the war on that fateful Sunday morning of June 25,





[edit on 10-3-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Also a little farther down the page just in case you missed it.



The authors then take their own advice, wisely avoiding any simple, monocausal explanation of the war.

The new evidence presented here makes Uncertain Partners an important contribution to Korean War studies and points the way to further work based on new Russian, Chinese, and Korean sources. But its main merit is the compelling drive of its historical reconstruction. That reconstruction focuses most of all on Soviet-North Korean relations.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
funny how people have moved this subject from Chinese and US ships having a little run in, to Who's army did the most arocities and who shouldn't have been here or there during war.

lets face it, the US owes China a lot of money, if the American economy drops any further it will effect the Chinese economy,
An angry chinese claming the US for it's problems is not a position you would like to see.

Yes we know that China would be walked over in a matter of days just like Iraq was (sorry couldn't resist)

For people that frequent conspiracy sites you arn't all that up to date with what is going on.
The US is being set up to fall, it has almost used up it's usefulness, It became the world Police, it became the hub of the stock market and very soon it is time to pull the rug out from under it's feet.
The collapse of the US will allow a one world goverment to be set in motion to prevent more wars.
a one world bank to avoid another stock market crash.


They will be able to point at the late great USA and say we can't let this happen again.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 




Well there really isn’t anything to disagree with! This is what really happened read the whole thing here I supply the link again. This isn't my opinion of what happened it's what really happened consider the sources not my opinion.



OK, we’ll skip your shutdown, and let’s consider the source. “Uncertain Partners” Published by Stanford University Press, 1993. Full title, “Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao, and the Korean War.”

Your link sent me to a website, BNET (a subsidiary of CBS, Inc.) which has a book review in its department, National Interest, The, Winter, 1995 by David Rees. I googled ‘David Rees’ and got this: “David Rees is a freelance wine consultant and budding fashion industry insider who lives on the cutting edge of innovation and style."

"David was working a crummy magazine job when Operation: Enduring Freedom inspired him to make his cartoon "Get Your War On." The satire about the war on terrorism became an internet phenomenon. Sales of the two GYWO books have raised almost $100,000 for land mine removal in western Afghanistan."

Now any guy who will put his money where our’s ought to go has my approval! This guy is a PEACEMAKER of the first order.

Now to the book. I have bowdlerized the review. Here it follows:



“ . . Secretary of State Dean Acheson's famous speech of January 12, 1950 to bolster his case with Stalin. On this notorious occasion, Acheson had appeared to exclude South Korea from the American Pacific defense perimeter.

Stalin consented in a general way to Kim's plan but insisted on consultations with Mao as a precondition "for his unequivocal assent to any future detailed plan of action."

Preoccupied with the problem of Taiwan, and reluctant to express fears of American intervention, Mao gave Kim his blessing. It was thus the convergence of Soviet and North Korean objectives that produced the decision for war; China's role at this stage of the decision process was far less significant.

Total victory was then expected in less than a month. Kim personally set the timing for the invasion at 0400 hours on Sunday, June 25, 1950 but his Soviet advisors were closely involved in this aspect of the planning as well.

Yet the combination of political miscalculation and strategic adventurism that characterized the invasion made a quick victory unattainable. Seoul fell on schedule within three days but the southern uprising, supposedly the centerpiece of the operation, did not occur.

Premier Zhou Enlai called a special meeting of the Chinese Central Military Commission to assess Chinese options in the conflict. So began the process through which China, not the Soviet Union, paid the major price for Kim and Stalin's decision to launch the war.

When it became clear that the United States would not turn over these [Pusan, Inchon and an island to the west] vital points in its occupation zone, Soviet policy shifted to maintaining firm control of North Korea while paying lip service to the concept of a unified Korea.

Moscow thus sought to protect Soviet security "by maintaining a compliant government in the northern half of the country and shoring up the military strength of that client state."

At the insistence of Kim Il Sung, the beginning of military activity was scheduled for June 25, 1950 ....

Although conclusive evidence is not available, Weathersby believes that Stalin's main motive in backing Kim may have been to prevent any rapprochement between Mao's China and the United States. Whether true or not, hers is a valuable contribution to the literature on the origins of the war.

The United States gained much political authority from the mantle of the United Nations during the fighting.

Europe was the cockpit of the early Cold War, "the strategic prize that, in the hands of either of the superpowers, would tip the balance in the competition."

During the prolonged crisis of the Korean War, the United States transformed a paper commitment to the defense of Western Europe into reality "demonstrating an intention to keep major forces on the continent permanently and taking the lead in coordinating their operations with NATO partners."

Without the Western response to the North Korean attack "a tragedy of far greater magnitude might have occurred."

Thus of the great powers, "the Soviet Union was clearly the prime loser by virtue of the Korean War."

The real interests of the Soviet State were badly served. The war provoked an unprecedented buildup of American nuclear and conventional forces and militarized the Cold War. Soviet security declined and the USSR's economic and intellectual isolation in a hostile world was to shackle its modernization efforts for decades to come.

(1) See Alexander H. George, The Chinese Communist Army in Action: The Korean War and its Aftermath (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967). findarticles.com... END


Note first this is a 1995 review of a 1993 book. Note the footnote above is dated 1967. Not exactly the latest news! Note also the book is vague on what exactly Kim and Stalin said in Moscow in April, 1950. You must surely know well that correlation is not necessarily causation.

No one in this review has addressed my original argument that because the Soviet Union had pulled one of its frequent walkouts on the Security Council, the US was able to get very important and crucial UN Resolutions condemning North Korea and giving legal cover to the US and its allies to repulse the North Koreans.

The PRC - China - to avoid international repercussions claimed its soldiers who entered North Korea were actually NOT the PLA but were instead, VOLUNTEERS that China could not stop from going to the aid of their neighbors.

I happen to have been at Kimpo AB, K14, when the 77 Squardron of the RAAF - Royal Australian Air Force - pulled out after the truce. Kimpo was the home of the 4th FW. And my unit, the 67th TRW. Tactical Reconnaissance Wing. I have been to the DMZ and to Inchon. All after the truce.


[edit on 3/10/2009 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


Well lets see here

The Origins of the Korean War

An Interpretation from the Soviet Archives- Evgueni Bajanov



So, Stalin finally took the decision to initiate preparations for the war. At exactly the same time that the above mentioned exchange of cables between Moscow and Pyongyang took place, Mao Zedong was present in the Soviet capital. Stalin discussed with Mao the Korean situation, but according to all available data the Soviet dictator never mentioned to the Chinese guest his decison to launch an attack on the South as well as his invitation to Kim II Sung to come to Moscow.

Kim II Sung and his delegation spent almost all of April 1950 in the Soviet Union. The first issue on the agenda was: ways and methods of unification of Korea through military means. (10) Stalin gave his approval to an invasion of the South and outlined his view on how the war had to be prepared. Unfortunately, memorandums of conversations between Stalin and Kim in April 1950 have not been found as yet in the Russian archives. However, from some secondary sources (testimonies of people involved in the negotiations, reports of the Foreign Ministry of the USSR), and from earlier and later statements and positions of Moscow and Pyongyang, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. Stalin changed his mind on the Korean war because of: a) the victory of the communists in China; b) the Soviet acquisition of the atom bomb (first tested by Moscow in August 1949); c) the establishment of NATO and general aggravation of Soviet relations with the West; and d) a perceived weakening of Washington's position and of its will to become militarily involved in Asia.

Stalin was now more confident of the communist bloc's strength, less respectful of American capabilities, and less interested in the reaction of Western public opinion to communist moves.





posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 




Unfortunately, memorandums of conversations between Stalin and Kim in April 1950 have not been found as yet in the Russian archives. However, from some secondary sources (testimonies of people involved in the negotiations, reports of the Foreign Ministry of the USSR), and from earlier and later statements and positions of Moscow and Pyongyang, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. Stalin changed his mind on the Korean war because of: a) the victory of the communists in China; b) the Soviet acquisition of the atom bomb (first tested by Moscow in August 1949); c) the establishment of NATO and general aggravation of Soviet relations with the West; and d) a perceived weakening of Washington's position and of its will to become militarily involved in Asia.

This article is based on recently declassified Soviet archives. The article was originally presented by Dr. Evgeni Bajanov to the conference on "The Korean War, An assessment of the Historical Record," 24-25 July 1995.



This material is dated 1995. Which does not make it wrong, but it does make it old. Then with this I suggest we call it quits, and get back to the topic of this thread.


[edit on 3/10/2009 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Here is something interesting I found some PDFs check them out. Now this conversation has peaked my curiosity. I have to throw some steaks on the grill and then take off to the airport let me know what you think.


Sino-Soviet Relations and the Origins of the Korean War: Stalin's Strategic Goals in the Far East



After initially insisting on the peaceful reunification of Korea, Josif Stalin suddenly decided in early 1950 to give North Korean leader Kim Il Sung permission to invade South Korea. Documents from the Russian archives and materials published in China help explain this abrupt shift in Stalin's position.

They show that Stalin carefully assessed the likely American reaction and mistakenly concluded that North Korean forces would quickly seize South Korea, giving the United States no opportunity to respond. The documents also reveal that Stalin's attitude toward Korea was strongly influenced by Sino-Soviet relations in 1949–1950, particularly his desire to maintain Soviet privileges on Chinese territory and his concern that Beijing would challenge Moscow's leadership of the international Communist movement. Stalin believed that a North Korean invasion of the South would greatly strengthen the Soviet Union's leverage vis-a÷-vis China.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
"I love China and Love it's long and beautiful history and all the major scientific accomplishments they have given to mankind but don't confuse that with the present government. They are relative new comers to tthe worlds stage they have been around what something like a little over 60+ Years? "


As you probably know China was the worlds superpower for hundreds of years. When Europe was paddling around the med in 80 foot sailboats China had trans oceanic fleets consisting of 300 foot long treasure ships, numbering in the hundreds, and capable of landing 50,000 soldiers. China was using rocket assisted artillery when Europe was using crossbows.
This all changed when an Empress destroyed the navy and much of the military in favor of domestic priorities roughly the mid 1400's, and China closed itself off from international affairs.
China is now coming back into its own.

What we should not do is confuse a system of Government with Chinese culture, history and people. Socialism is shifting towards managed capitalism, Chinese people are rediscovering their History, and their place in the world. The Government is slowly letting go and guiding the shift towards a capitalist/socialist society. ( its interesting to see the same is happening in USA by economic collapse).

It wont be long that China takes its position once again as the worlds superpower, becoming the worlds largest ship builder, constructing Nuclear reactors, solar and wind farms that dwarf anything else in the world. China will once again sail its treasure fleets, though now they will be supercargo ships built in Dalian Shipyards.

The USA had a 60 year window of opportunity to use its position and status to lead the world into a golden age of trade, exploration, outreach and scientific discovery. Instead we supported coups when it suited us, and murdered foreign leaders when it didnt. Our claim to fame is being the worlds largest weapons dealer and enslaving our own population to a European Banking system.
We blew it, big time. It is slowly dawning on USA leadership the slippery slope is rapidly becoming steeper and will soon become freefall into subservient status to Europe and Asia.

This is what terrifies USA war strategists ( AKA defense companies). Who will they sell their weapons platforms to ??


[edit on 10-3-2009 by Hallberg Rassy]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Hallberg Rassy
 




As you probably know China was the worlds superpower for hundreds of years. When Europe was paddling around the med in 80 foot sailboats China had trans oceanic fleets consisting of 300 foot long treasure ships, numbering in the hundreds, and capable of landing 50,000 soldiers.

This all changed when an Empress destroyed the navy and much of the military in favor of domestic priorities roughly the mid 1400's, and China closed itself off from international affairs. China is now coming back into its own. Chinese people are rediscovering their History, and their place in the world. The Government is slowly letting go and guiding the shift towards a capitalist/socialist society.



I do not mean to denigrate China, Chinese or Chinese history and accomplishments. Just as I do not believe the Ark of Noah story so also I do not believe in 300 feet long ocean going boats. The Euros stuck to 80 foot long boats - ships - in the main because that was the longest boat they could make that would stay in one piece in heavy seas. Wood is not that strong. Further, the Viking’s long boats had a very large length to beam ratio. Maybe 10 to 1. The old Chinese boats we are referring to had length to beam rations of 2-3 or 4 to 1. That’s good to float down a river in but deadly to put to sea in. I think the story tellers got carried away with the story. He really meant to say, “The biggest @!*% ship I ever saw!”


I have finally come to the conclusion that “leaders” do not lead, they follow! Like turning the Titanic with a broken rudder. It may be possible but its much better to tell the crew “full speed ahead!” As long as they think you are “leading” you are safe. Same with the public. American or Chinese. You can only be out in front when you have deduced where they are going. That’s a/k/a known as a successful leader.




The USA had a 60 year window of opportunity to use its position and status to lead the world into a golden age of exploration, trade, outreach and scientific discovery.

Instead we supported coups when it suited us, and murdered foreign leaders when it didn’t. Our claim to fame is being the worlds largest weapons dealer and enslaving our own population to a European Banking system. We blew it, big time. It is slowly dawning on USA leadership the slippery slope is rapidly becoming steeper and will soon become freefall into subservient status to Europe and Asia. This is what terrifies USA war strategists ( AKA defense companies). Who will they sell their weapons platforms to?



Try this website to get a handle on American history.
www.historycommons.org...



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 




Here is something interesting I found some PDFs check them out. Now this conversation has peaked my curiosity. I have to throw some steaks on the grill and then take off to the airport let me know what you think.



I tried S69, but the link to the PDFs took me here:
MIT Pay Per Article: “If you are not a subscriber, you can purchase this article online through our Pay Per Article system. * Purchase this article online for US $ 10.00 now.”

I did not go there. However, I think I can resolve our “butting of heads” contest.

I have disputed that Stalin APPROVED the war date of June 25, 1950. I did NOT say that specifically. I gave my reason.

You have posted several references that mentioned Kim Johg Il was in Moscow in April, 1950, where those writers have inferred that Stalin GAVE PERMISSION to Kim to wage the War of Korean Unification.

That much I admit. But I continue to contend that “permission” did not necessarily extend to setting the time and date for launching the war. In fact, one post says Stalin qualified his “grant of permission” on the reception it would get with the Chinese.

Our 2 propositions are not mutually exclusive. Both can be true.

You are equally entitled to adopt their interpretation of Stalin and Kim’s discussions and the inference that follows, as I am to reject it on the basis of the USSR walkout at the UN.

And which neither of us can PROVE as both Stalin and Kim are now dead.
I did go to these websites.
uskoreainstitute.org...

I found a lot about Prof. Shen Zhihua who is at the East China Normal University.
faculty.ecnu.edu.cn...
en.wikipedia.org...

Note: In America the term NORMAL meant a teacher’s college but it fell into disuse here at the end of the Second World War.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
This is ridiculous, China is sadly misinterpreting international treaties, which it has ratified, and therefore must observe.

Wall Street Journal

Treaty Text



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 




This is ridiculous, China is sadly misinterpreting international treaties, which it has ratified, and therefore must observe.



Is that like the USSR misunderstood our only good intentions with the U2 overflights? That followed by the SR71? And then the KH series of satellites? Hmm. Shakespeare said it best: "Methinks she doth protest too much!"



So once again we are reminded of why Ronald Reagan sank the Law of the Sea Treaty.

The problem is that, as with any document that contains 320 articles and nine annexes, the treaty creates as many ambiguities as it resolves. In this case, the dispute involves the so-called "Exclusive Economic Zones," which give coastal states a patchwork of sovereign and jurisdictional rights over the economic resources of seas to a distance of 200 miles beyond their territorial waters.

Thus, the U.S. contends that the right of its ships to transit through or operate in the EEZs (and of planes to overfly them) is no different than their rights on the high seas, including intelligence gathering, and can point to various articles in the treaty that seem to say as much. But a number of signatories to the treaty, including Brazil, Malaysia, Pakistan and China, take the view that the treaty forbids military and intelligence-gathering work by foreign countries in an EEZ. Matters are further complicated by the claims China made for itself over its EEZ when it ratified the Law of the Sea in the 1990s.

We don't have a view on the legal niceties here, which amounts to a theological dispute in a religion to which we don't subscribe. But the incident with the Impeccable is another reminder that China's ambitions for regional dominance, and for diminishing U.S. influence, remain unchanged despite a new American Administration; and that the Law of the Sea Treaty, far from curbing ambitions or resolving differences, has served only to sharpen both.
online.wsj.com...


1) The WSJ (say Rupert Murdoch) reveals its political slant in line 1. Still touting Reagan! After the financial collapse he began. I suppose for that I should be grateful lest the casual reader think the NEW WSJ is reliable as was the OLD WSJ. At least on non-economic issues. And there it was merely a PITCH-MAN.

2) I have declined your invite to “read the treaty” after the WSJ noted it contains 320 articles and 9 annexes. Fortunately the WSJ says it went to the germane articles and I’ll take that on faith.

3) You and I know the American ship was looking for gas and oil under the sea floor around the Spratly Islands and South China Sea area. You don’t have to be smarter than a 5th grader to know that is ECONOMIC and falls in the 200 nm economic zone under the Treaty.

But if you are indeed dumber than a 5th grader then you can believe they were 160 nms off course, and were sun-bathing when the Chinese came upon them. That’s why they had the fire hoses at the ready. To slow or stop a sunburn! Is that not called "being gullible?"

4) Our intelligence ship is 70 miles away from China, about 8,000 miles away from America, and we are complaining? How many Chinese ships did you see around Long Island Sound today? Or traipsing up the Gulf of Mexico towards New Orleans?

5) We’ve got to get over this serious affliction of EXCESS HUBRIS we suffer from. It’s a new world.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join