China builds new military facilities on South China Sea islands - think tank

[ddavidovsky]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I never mentioned anything about simply wishing that China would pull out. Same lame debate tactics on every topic.

 

There was no suggestion this could be resolved in a way which would satisfy all parties interests. Your "solution" amounts to to folding and saving face. That could very well be how things will pan out. Not like the US got a whole lot of leverage and a leadership able to effectively apply the leverage even if this was a realistic possibility. Is this a good outcome? If the alternative is war, then yes. If the consequences would be an emboldened PRC taking up similar initiatives elsewhere, then no. 

 

Pretty much like how things stand between the US and Russia, the other side had better timing, longer vision and a willingness to ignore convention. Playing by the rules doesn't always pay.

I didn't say you'd said that, I was ruling it out before you did. You might read carefully before hitting the abuse button.

 

So, you don't have any position on this other than the one America is taking, which is butthurt whining, and which risks lapsing into conflict for no reason.

 

Similar initiatives elsewhere? Odd islands here and there maybe, but if the territory is being ignored, and is not being defended, and if no one gets hurt - then by all means China can be expected to take it. It's a competitive world. Nobody has blown a whistle and told the world that all borders are now fixed and nobody is allowed to move any more - though many people seem to think so.

 

What China has done does stick in the gullet, but it's done. Let's now just hope they develop the region for tourism.

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

I didn't say you'd said that, I was ruling it out before you did. You might read carefully before hitting the abuse button.

 

So, you don't have any position on this other than the one America is taking, which is butthurt whining, and which risks lapsing into conflict for no reason.

 

Similar initiatives elsewhere? Odd islands here and there maybe, but if the territory is being ignored, and is not being defended, and if no one gets hurt - then by all means China can be expected to take it. It's a competitive world. Nobody has blown a whistle and told the world that all borders are now fixed and nobody is allowed to move any more - though many people seem to think so.

 

What China has done does stick in the gullet, but it's done. Let's now just hope they develop the region for tourism.

 

 

 

 

 

And you can stop trolling. Or rather, your obviously can't. Seeing as you immediately try to imply yet another "position" which I did not take, and do your lamest best to present it unfavorably.

 

Not interested.

 

 

 

 

 

[Scott]

An inflammatory post has been removed.  

[craigt3365]

12 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

I didn't say you'd said that, I was ruling it out before you did. You might read carefully before hitting the abuse button.

 

So, you don't have any position on this other than the one America is taking, which is butthurt whining, and which risks lapsing into conflict for no reason.

 

Similar initiatives elsewhere? Odd islands here and there maybe, but if the territory is being ignored, and is not being defended, and if no one gets hurt - then by all means China can be expected to take it. It's a competitive world. Nobody has blown a whistle and told the world that all borders are now fixed and nobody is allowed to move any more - though many people seem to think so.

 

What China has done does stick in the gullet, but it's done. Let's now just hope they develop the region for tourism.

The Philippines did and the International Tribunal in the Hague ruled against China. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/world/asia/south-china-sea-hague-ruling-philippines.html?_r=0

Quote

Tribunal Rejects Beijing’s Claims in South China Sea

 

At some point, you have to stand up to the bullies. 

 

https://chinadailymail.com/2013/12/01/china-claims-territories-of-23-countries-but-only-has-borders-with-14/

 

Quote

 

China claims territories of 23 countries, even though it only has borders with 14

The total area of China’s claims on other countries exceeds the size of modern China itself, but Beijing refuses to budge on its claims.

 

Many are based on unsubstantiated (outside China) and unprecedented “historical precedents” dating back centuries.

 

And while China only has land borders with 14 countries, it is claiming territory from at least 23 individual nations.

 

 

 

[tonbridgebrit]

16 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

The Philippines did and the International Tribunal in the Hague ruled against China. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/world/asia/south-china-sea-hague-ruling-philippines.html?_r=0

 

At some point, you have to stand up to the bullies. 

 

https://chinadailymail.com/2013/12/01/china-claims-territories-of-23-countries-but-only-has-borders-with-14/

 

 

 

And that ruling by the Hague, yes, China looked at the ruling, and threw it in the bin.

What about Washington ? Did Washington say to Beijing "the Hague has ruled against you, can you dismantle one or a few of your dots, can you stop building more dots ?" .  Certainly not. Washington is not interested in taking any action to dismantle any of the dots, and not interested in taking action to prevent more dots being built.  

That "going to the Hague", that was done by the previous government of the Philipinnes. The previous government were almost a bunch of clowns. Going to the Hague and getting that ruling, it made no difference whatsover to the Chinese dots (man-made islands). All it did was anger Beijing.

And the present government of the Philipinnes. Duterte, Duterte has been much more sensible. Duterte has visited Beijing, and he's (sort of) friends with the Beijing government. Duterte is simply not interested in having an argument with Beijing, over these dots. He would much rather accept the benefits of more trade with China. And probably, hope for an increasing flood of Chinese tourists.

Edited July 12, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[ddavidovsky]

17 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

At some point, you have to stand up to the bullies.

 

Not in this case, as it would mean conflict - and it's just not worth it.

There's also the double standard. What about all the territories currently occupied by 'the good guys' through equal brute force? The Falkland Islands, for example. I can't see any difference.

 

 The other claimants should have done a lot more a long time ago. As soon as they saw the rate at which China was developing, they should have heard alarm bells and if they were serious about their own claim they should have done what China has now done, even if that meant getting together and sorting out their own bickering.

They didn't even need to build military bases, just an airstrip, then they should have subsidised some tourist resorts and let the tourists turn up for paradise holidays - that would have been enough to secure these atolls at very little cost - and would have made them some profit to boot. But nope, they sat around in the sun doing jack all as usual, and now they've lost the whole lot. I don't have much sympathy.

[craigt3365]

8 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

What about Washington ? Did Washington say to Beijing "the Hague has ruled against you, can you dismantle one or a few of your dots, can you stop building more dots ?" .  Certainly not. Washington is not interested in taking any action to dismantle any of the dots, and not interested in taking action to prevent more dots being built.  
 

Washington has stated numerous times they want China to stop.  Don't you read the news? LOL  How many times have ships gone next to these islands?  Planes flown overhead?  With strong complaints by the Chinese?  Here but one article:

 

http://time.com/4644651/u-s-vows-to-stop-beijing-taking-over-south-china-sea-islands/

Quote

U.S. Vows to Stop Beijing Taking Over South China Sea Islands

Keep up!

[craigt3365]

6 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

Not in this case, as it would mean conflict - and it's just not worth it.

There's also the double standard. What about all the territories currently occupied by 'the good guys' through equal brute force? The Falkland Islands, for example. I can't see any difference.

 

 The other claimants should have done a lot more a long time ago. As soon as they saw the rate at which China was developing, they should have heard alarm bells and if they were serious about their own claim they should have done what China has now done, even if that meant getting together and sorting out their own bickering.

They didn't even need to build military bases, just an airstrip, then they should have subsidised some tourist resorts and let the tourists turn up for paradise holidays - that would have been enough to secure these atolls at very little cost - and would have made them some profit to boot. But nope, they sat around in the sun doing jack all as usual, and now they've lost the whole lot. I don't have much sympathy.

It's a mess for sure.  One that should have been dealt with strongly several years ago.  For sure there are double standards.  But this one is pretty bad.  For me?  I'm more upset about the environmental disaster these artificial islands have done than anything else.  Terrible how they've destroyed them.

[tonbridgebrit]

55 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Washington has stated numerous times they want China to stop.  Don't you read the news? LOL  How many times have ships gone next to these islands?  Planes flown overhead?  With strong complaints by the Chinese?  Here but one article:

 

http://time.com/4644651/u-s-vows-to-stop-beijing-taking-over-south-china-sea-islands/

Keep up!

Can you please stop being silly ?  

Okay, from the article.  Yes, the new administration from Donald Trump made a comment about stopping Beijing doing it's stuff in the South China Sea. Yes, correct.  Now, notice the writing from the article straight after that sentance.  Here it is " The comments at a briefing from White House spokesman Sean Spicer signaled a sharp departure from years of cautious U.S. handling of China's assertive pursuit of territory claims in Asia, just days after Trump took office on Friday. "

So basically, this attitude is a sharp departure from the Obama government's stance. The Obama government had ships carrying out "freedom of navigation" trips, sailing the ships near the Chinese dots. Washington previously, has never got involved in who owns whatever islands in whatever part of the South China Sea. Washington never supported any nation's claims on any bits of the South China Sea. Do you remember Publicus ? This particular issue was something that Publicus specifically stated on at least a few times. 


Okay, you're right, from the article, the Trump government has handed out aggresive talk. But, I think we should accept a few things about the Trump government. Basically, massive comments are made, but it appears to be, that many times, no concrete action is taken. Building that wall between America and Mexico, switching the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem,  etc, the stuff simply doesn't happen.

Also, have you noticed that very few people on ThaiVisa are backing any of Trump's ideas ?  Those who cheered on Hillary are refusing to cheer on anything that Trump is doing. And those who cheered on Trump before the election, well, they're not so noisy now.  
 

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Can you please stop being silly ?  

 

I replied to your post where you said Washington isn't taking any action.  I showed you where they are, and you call me silly? 

 

As you know, I'm not a Trump supporter.  Nor one for HRC.

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/05/warship-challenges-china-claims-south-china-sea-170525021338426.html

 

Quote

 

US warship challenges China's claims in South China Sea

A first under President Trump, USS Dewey cruises past artificial island built by Beijing in move likely to rile China.

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/03/g20-obama-warns-beijing-against-south-china-sea-aggression

 

Quote

 

G20: Obama warns Beijing against South China Sea aggression

As he arrives in China, US president says he has attempted to convince Xi Jinping of the benefits of restraint

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/24/obama-backs-vietnam-in-south-china-sea-dispute-with-beijing

Quote

Obama backs Vietnam in South China Sea dispute with Beijing

 

[tonbridgebrit]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

It's a mess for sure.  One that should have been dealt with strongly several years ago.  For sure there are double standards.  But this one is pretty bad.  For me?  I'm more upset about the environmental disaster these artificial islands have done than anything else.  Terrible how they've destroyed them.

I do love the bit how you talk about the environmental disaster. 

Please look at page 4 of this thread. Okay, Beijing is imposing a three month ban, once a year, on fishing near the Paracel Islands. It's being done to prevent over-fishing !   
Yes, Vietnamese boats that were fishing near the islands were attacked by Chinese ships. By the way, Washington has done nothing to the Chinese ships. Vietnam claims the Paracel Islands, China also claims them, Washington is backing neither claim.

Yes, I think a three month ban every year is a good thing.

[Morch]

12 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

And that ruling by the Hague, yes, China looked at the ruling, and threw it in the bin.

What about Washington ? Did Washington say to Beijing "the Hague has ruled against you, can you dismantle one or a few of your dots, can you stop building more dots ?" .  Certainly not. Washington is not interested in taking any action to dismantle any of the dots, and not interested in taking action to prevent more dots being built.  

That "going to the Hague", that was done by the previous government of the Philipinnes. The previous government were almost a bunch of clowns. Going to the Hague and getting that ruling, it made no difference whatsover to the Chinese dots (man-made islands). All it did was anger Beijing.

And the present government of the Philipinnes. Duterte, Duterte has been much more sensible. Duterte has visited Beijing, and he's (sort of) friends with the Beijing government. Duterte is simply not interested in having an argument with Beijing, over these dots. He would much rather accept the benefits of more trade with China. And probably, hope for an increasing flood of Chinese tourists.

 

They are military bases, not "dots". Why insist on presenting them as something else?

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

I do love the bit how you talk about the environmental disaster. 

Please look at page 4 of this thread. Okay, Beijing is imposing a three month ban, once a year, on fishing near the Paracel Islands. It's being done to prevent over-fishing !   
Yes, Vietnamese boats that were fishing near the islands were attacked by Chinese ships. By the way, Washington has done nothing to the Chinese ships. Vietnam claims the Paracel Islands, China also claims them, Washington is backing neither claim.

Yes, I think a three month ban every year is a good thing.

 

The PRC did built those military bases in order to protect the environment.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Can you please stop being silly ?  

Okay, from the article.  Yes, the new administration from Donald Trump made a comment about stopping Beijing doing it's stuff in the South China Sea. Yes, correct.  Now, notice the writing from the article straight after that sentance.  Here it is " The comments at a briefing from White House spokesman Sean Spicer signaled a sharp departure from years of cautious U.S. handling of China's assertive pursuit of territory claims in Asia, just days after Trump took office on Friday. "

So basically, this attitude is a sharp departure from the Obama government's stance. The Obama government had ships carrying out "freedom of navigation" trips, sailing the ships near the Chinese dots. Washington previously, has never got involved in who owns whatever islands in whatever part of the South China Sea. Washington never supported any nation's claims on any bits of the South China Sea. Do you remember Publicus ? This particular issue was something that Publicus specifically stated on at least a few times. 


Okay, you're right, from the article, the Trump government has handed out aggresive talk. But, I think we should accept a few things about the Trump government. Basically, massive comments are made, but it appears to be, that many times, no concrete action is taken. Building that wall between America and Mexico, switching the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem,  etc, the stuff simply doesn't happen.

Also, have you noticed that very few people on ThaiVisa are backing any of Trump's ideas ?  Those who cheered on Hillary are refusing to cheer on anything that Trump is doing. And those who cheered on Trump before the election, well, they're not so noisy now.  
 

 

Trump's habit of issuing strong statements, then show little by way of acting on them is nothing new. That the same is evident with regard to the situation in the South China Sea is not a surprise. Most who aren't diehard Trump fans would accept that the US does not currently have a leadership able to tackle such issues. 

 

To assert that Trump's "ideas" (or rather, bombastic statements) were destined to become reality is not something that was claimed by many, other than his diehard supporters. Presenting it as some general sentiment is simply out there.

 

And they are still, despite your lame efforts, military bases. Not "dots".

 

 

[ddavidovsky]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

The PRC did built those military bases in order to protect the environment.

They built them to protect what is now de facto their territory - there's no reason to suppose the bases will be used for aggression against other nations. Defending the place is No. 1 priority, as the other claimants should have realised long ago. Having secured it, presumably China will develop the region in other ways.

We can worry about the environmental damage, as always, but then we'd have to worry about all the development in the Maldives and everywhere else too...

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

They built them to protect what is now de facto their territory - there's no reason to suppose the bases will be used for aggression against other nations. Defending the place is No. 1 priority, as the other claimants should have realised long ago. Having secured it, presumably China will develop the region in other ways.

We can worry about the environmental damage, as always, but then we'd have to worry about all the development in the Maldives and everywhere else too...

Wow.  You are 180 degrees off from reality.  They built them to acquire territory and protect what they've taken, illegally, as decided by the international court.  I would guess that court could would know more about this than you or I.  I'll side with them. LOL

 

[ddavidovsky]

13 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Wow.  You are 180 degrees off from reality.  They built them to acquire territory and protect what they've taken, illegally, as decided by the international court.  I would guess that court could would know more about this than you or I.  I'll side with them. LOL

 

According to international law then, the Falklands should never have become British.

The British earned the Falkands through industry - exactly as China has now earned the S. China Sea through a particularly impressive piece of industry.

International law is a man-made idealistic concept that aims to prevent any further changes to the world, for the benefit of those making the law - ie, for those who have already got a big enough slice of the cake. At bottom, it's one bunch of ideas against another. People will pick the side that suits their sense of security.

I don't have any side. I take an entirely objective position and just amuse myself watching the endless bickering of humans.

 

Edited July 13, 2017 by ddavidovsky

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

They built them to protect what is now de facto their territory - there's no reason to suppose the bases will be used for aggression against other nations. Defending the place is No. 1 priority, as the other claimants should have realised long ago. Having secured it, presumably China will develop the region in other ways.

We can worry about the environmental damage, as always, but then we'd have to worry about all the development in the Maldives and everywhere else too...

 

I suggest you direct your post at the poster insisting those aren't military bases, I have no illusions as to what they are. There is every reason to assume they would be used  "for aggression". What exactly is "aggression" and what's "defense" could be debated. I doubt that the PRC's view conforms to all other involved nations'.

 

Didn't bring up the environmental issue, doubt it's of much importance to the PRC, or relevant much to the OP.

 

 

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

According to international law then, the Falklands should never have become British.

The British earned the Falkands through industry - exactly as China has now earned the S. China Sea through a particularly impressive piece of industry.

International law is a man-made idealistic concept that aims to prevent any further changes to the world, for the benefit of those making the law - ie, for those who have already got a big enough slice of the cake. At bottom, it's one bunch of ideas against another. People will pick the side that suits their sense of security.

I don't have any side. I take an entirely objective position and just amuse myself watching the endless bickering of humans.

 

 

Topic isn't about the Falklands.

[craigt3365]

26 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

According to international law then, the Falklands should never have become British.

The British earned the Falkands through industry - exactly as China has now earned the S. China Sea through a particularly impressive piece of industry.

International law is a man-made idealistic concept that aims to prevent any further changes to the world, for the benefit of those making the law - ie, for those who have already got a big enough slice of the cake. At bottom, it's one bunch of ideas against another. People will pick the side that suits their sense of security.

I don't have any side. I take an entirely objective position and just amuse myself watching the endless bickering of humans.

 

As was pointed out, this isn't about the Falklands.  This is about China and the SCS.  Don't deflect.

[ilostmypassword]

31 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

According to international law then, the Falklands should never have become British.

The British earned the Falkands through industry - exactly as China has now earned the S. China Sea through a particularly impressive piece of industry.

International law is a man-made idealistic concept that aims to prevent any further changes to the world, for the benefit of those making the law - ie, for those who have already got a big enough slice of the cake. At bottom, it's one bunch of ideas against another. People will pick the side that suits their sense of security.

I don't have any side. I take an entirely objective position and just amuse myself watching the endless bickering of humans.

 

185 years ago, if you called someone a colonialist or said that they had an empire, that would have been considered a compliment. Please join the 21st century.

[tonbridgebrit]

On 13/07/2017 at 8:16 AM, craigt3365 said:

As was pointed out, this isn't about the Falklands.  This is about China and the SCS.  Don't deflect.

 

On 13/07/2017 at 7:54 AM, Morch said:

 

Topic isn't about the Falklands.

Look, how about this ?

The BS court ruling ruled against China. The same court is not willing to rule with the same consistency on a whole load of other islands. Other islands, like the Falklands and Diego Garcia. Now, Beijing has thrown the ruling into the bin. What is Washingon doing about the Chinese claims ?

Washington is doing practically nothing. Washington is not backing the Philipinnes on any of the disputed claims being made by the Philipinnnes. Washington is not backing Vietnam on any disputed claims being made by Vietnam, Washingon is not backing Vietnam on it's claims to the disputed Paracel Islands.

Why ? Why is Washington refusing to back anybody's disputed claims ?  Why is Washington refusing to tell/ask China to dismantle a single dot ? I mean, if the Chinese dots are illegal, why not dismantle the dots ? I mean, the dots have missiles on them, even more reason to dismantle the dots. Why is Washington refusing to do this ?
It's because Washington knows that the ruling is a load of rubbish. Washington is not going to get involved in military action (or any action), where it is removing whatever Chinese lumps of concrete in the sea, bearing in mind that there's other islands (like Diego Garcia and the Falklands) that belong to other people. Can you guys see this ?

Edited July 14, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[tonbridgebrit]

On 13/07/2017 at 7:52 AM, Morch said:

 

I suggest you direct your post at the poster insisting those aren't military bases, I have no illusions as to what they are. There is every reason to assume they would be used  "for aggression". What exactly is "aggression" and what's "defense" could be debated. I doubt that the PRC's view conforms to all other involved nations'.

 

Didn't bring up the environmental issue, doubt it's of much importance to the PRC, or relevant much to the OP.

 

 

Washington won't do anything about the Chinese dots. One, Washington knows that they are harmless. Two, Washington will do nothing because of the reason I've put on the above post:  it's absurd to remove the Chinese dots when other people have other islands (Falklands and Diego Garcia) and nothing is being done about those other islands.

[Credo]

I believe you have a few things wrong.   First, the US has a military pact with the Philippines.   If the Philippines is attacked, the US will assist them, militarily.   The US does not have ownership or claim to the shoals, so it would be completely inappropriate to take any action until/unless the Philippines does and is then attacked in retaliation.

 

There is no military pact with Vietnam, so there is no basis for the US to get involved.   

 

As long as there is unimpeded travel through the area, there is no reason for US involvement.  

 

The remainder of your post is simply trolling.    The topic is about the military facilities being built on the shoals, not on how the US does or doesn't defend various islands around the world.   

[craigt3365]

4 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

 

Look, how about this ?

The BS court ruling ruled against China. The same court is not willing to rule with the same consistency on a whole load of other islands. Other islands, like the Falklands and Diego Garcia. Now, Beijing has thrown the ruling into the bin. What is Washingon doing about the Chinese claims ?

Washington is doing practically nothing. Washington is not backing the Philipinnes on any of the disputed claims being made by the Philipinnnes. Washington is not backing Vietnam on any disputed claims being made by Vietnam, Washingon is not backing Vietnam on it's claims to the disputed Paracel Islands.

Why ? Why is Washington refusing to back anybody's disputed claims ?  Why is Washington refusing to tell/ask China to dismantle a single dot ? I mean, if the Chinese dots are illegal, why not dismantle the dots ? I mean, the dots have missiles on them, even more reason to dismantle the dots. Why is Washington refusing to do this ?
It's because Washington knows that the ruling is a load of rubbish. Washington is not going to get involved in military action (or any action), where it is removing whatever Chinese lumps of concrete in the sea, bearing in mind that there's other islands (like Diego Garcia and the Falklands) that belong to other people. Can you guys see this ?

I quit reading your post after the 2nd sentence.  That international court is far from BS.  You may not like it's rulings, but to call it BS shows your misinformed.

[craigt3365]

3 hours ago, Credo said:

I believe you have a few things wrong.   First, the US has a military pact with the Philippines.   If the Philippines is attacked, the US will assist them, militarily.   The US does not have ownership or claim to the shoals, so it would be completely inappropriate to take any action until/unless the Philippines does and is then attacked in retaliation.

 

There is no military pact with Vietnam, so there is no basis for the US to get involved.   

 

As long as there is unimpeded travel through the area, there is no reason for US involvement.  

 

The remainder of your post is simply trolling.    The topic is about the military facilities being built on the shoals, not on how the US does or doesn't defend various islands around the world.   

Good post.  He keeps deflecting to other areas. LOL  Perhaps afraid to admit China is in the wrong? LOL

[jaggiss]

Seriously what can be done?
China is to big and powerful now.
The west is dependant on china economically and a military conflict is a no win situation.
Everyones is sitting on their hands.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[craigt3365]

19 minutes ago, jaggiss said:

Seriously what can be done?
China is to big and powerful now.
The west is dependant on china economically and a military conflict is a no win situation.
Everyones is sitting on their hands.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

China isn't that powerful.  And it's China that's dependent on the West economically.  Without exports, they'd collapse in a heartbeat.  Not to mention they are in tough economic times right now.  The West isn't.

 

But you are right.  No easy answers and China isn't making it easy! LOL

[tonbridgebrit]

4 hours ago, Credo said:

I believe you have a few things wrong.   First, the US has a military pact with the Philippines.   If the Philippines is attacked, the US will assist them, militarily.   The US does not have ownership or claim to the shoals, so it would be completely inappropriate to take any action until/unless the Philippines does and is then attacked in retaliation.

 

There is no military pact with Vietnam, so there is no basis for the US to get involved.   

 

As long as there is unimpeded travel through the area, there is no reason for US involvement.  

 

The remainder of your post is simply trolling.    The topic is about the military facilities being built on the shoals, not on how the US does or doesn't defend various islands around the world.   

Hello there.

Yes, the Philipinnes. Correct, if the Philipinnes is attacked, yes, the USA will protect the Philipinnes. Duterte is friendly with Beijing, so China is not going to attack the Philipinnes. 

You say that Vietnam has no military pact with the US, so there is no basis for US involvement. Well, I think we agree that Washington is not backing any of Vietnam's claims in the disputed areas in the South China Sea. Washington is backing nobody in the Paracel Islands dispute.

"As long as there is unimpeded travel through the area, there is no reason for US involvement".  This is a massive comment, and I totally agree. Right now, there certainly is unimpeded travel through the area. The Chinese dots are certainly not impeding travel. More Chinese dots might be built, and there will still be unimpeded travel through the area. As soon as free travel is stopped, Washington will take action. But that's not happening right now,  and it isn't going to happen.

[jaggiss]

China's power is in it sheer mumbers


Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app