Britain plans to send warship to South China Sea in move likely to irk Beijing

[Keesters]

20 hours ago, Scott said:

Apparently Britain decided they do own Hong Kong after all.

They did own the island and the peninsula. It is the New Territories that were leased.

Take a history lesson

 

Quote

On 29 August 1842, Hong Kong Island was formally ceded in perpetuity to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland under the Treaty of Nanking.

Following the Anglo-French victory, the Crown Colony was expanded to include Kowloon Peninsula (south of Boundary Street) and Stonecutter's Island, both of which were ceded to the British in perpetuity under the Convention of Beijing in 1860.

The colony ... acquired a 99-year lease of the New Territories from 1898.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong#British_Crown_Colony:_1842.E2.80.931941

 

[Scott]

1 minute ago, Keesters said:

They did own the island and the peninsula. It is the New Territories that were leased.

Take a history lesson

 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong#British_Crown_Colony:_1842.E2.80.931941

 

Please don't lecture me.   I lived there.   I know what they owned and what was leased.  

 

The remark was sarcasm.  

[Mad mick]

21 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

 

 

 

Two things about that upcoming meeting:   #1 SE Asian countries which aren't directly affected by Chinese aggression in the S.C.Sea will demure.  At most, countries like Thailand will say tepid things like Rodney King would say, "why can't we all just get along?"

 

#2,   Countries which are directly affected, like Philippines and Vietnam, will be hamstrung by their worries about not being strong enough to stand up to the 600 lb China bully.  Granted, they are weaker militarily, but the US Britain and France will lock arms with Fils and VN.   Only Britain and the US, right now, are doing a few tangible things to show they're willing to stand by their Asian friends.

 

                  More countries, including Australia/NZ, should step up to the plate and do what's right.   Notice, it's only Caucasian-dominated countries which are willing to show resolve to assisting Fil and VN.   All Asian countries are fading in the shadows.    

 

                       Similar happened regarding the E.Timor problem with Indonesia.   It was western countries which rang the alarm and came to E.Timor's aid.   Asian countries only showed up after E.Timor went through its darkest hours.    Thailand send a contingent of about 11 armed guards to patrol the streets there, only weeks after farang countries had come in and done the dirty work.  

 

                                             What is it about Asian countries, where they're so easily cowed - particularly cowed by China?  I know China has a giant population and a powerful military.   But heck, India has similar, and is also a nuclear power, but India is always hiding in the wings - when it comes to assisting a fellow Asian country being threatened.   Same for every other Asian country.    Bottom line:  Asians are scared to take a strong stand for what's right.

yes u r right thailand sent some soldiers > 1 got shot e timor within days ,  packed up and went back to thailand retreat common thai military r p_ _s weak  ww11 japan proved , thais did not fire a shot or an arrow every other surrounding Asian countries stood up to imperial japan , lost but tried .

prime example , laos i was their not with thai army > General Chavalit ( Nick name GOB means > frog ) in 90s picked a fight with laos , laos were out numbered out gunned  , laos r combat ready tough fighters in a civil war + cia were their with guerrilla army vietnam war and after , hmong people in the north were there allies , laos was or still is most bombed country on the planet putting both ww1 ,ww11 combined bombings together mor was dropped on laos during vietnam war " ho chi minh trail went through laos to supply south vc  " thai /laos border dispute  " laos were out numbered , out gunned by thai army within a few days of starting offencive thais were pushed off the perch Army led by Great General Chavalit capitulated at border or gave up if u like went back home ! that's how good they r " Not Thai Soldiers Fault " p- -s weak leadership General Chavalit (gob) was full of bravado until got smacked at the border , as per normal , packed up or retreated from thai / laos border dispute ! laos mocked them as they departed , laos r tough , resilient fighter , i saw with my own eyes  ? why do thais need submarines and new fighter jets they will never use in conflict or defend themselves  ! only to line pockets of those who took power via coup , kick backs from china in return thais army coup leaders will let them build and do whatever they like in thailand 1 reason MONEY  for themselves , subs more than likely will be in  ' dry dock . chang mai a prime example little china is there already own land, hotels , houses  , being a farang u can not own land in your name "  unless u r American or Chinese now r allowed , actively buying up for last 2 or 3 years . double standards ..

Edited July 28, 2017 by Mad mick
spelling errors

[Scott]

Off-topic post remove.   Please stay on topic.  

[craigt3365]

7 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Well, as soon as Chinese ships block ships in the South China Sea, the US navy will fire their missiles at the Chinese ships.  To suggest that China's navy is no match for America's navy would be putting it lightly.

And the downside of sending a British aircraft carrier to the South China Sea ? It simply irk's or antagonises China. Nothing else is achieved. Britain is suppose to be signing more trade deals with China, encourage more Chinese tourists, encourage more Chinese investment in Britain.  This is simply not the right way to go about things.

 

What is simply not the right way to go is to seize territory that isn't yours.  Build military bases on pristine atolls that aren't yours.  Destroy the environment, that isn't yours, and threaten your neighbors because of all this.  You are very one sided.  Again, I'll ask, are you Chinese?

[Scott]

Troll post and reply removed.   Continue and earn a suspension.  

[simple1]

2 hours ago, Mad mick said:

yes u r right thailand sent some soldiers > 1 got shot e timor within days , ays ,  packed up and went back to thailand retreat common thai military r p_ _s weak 

Whilst it's off topic IMO the insulting comment should nor be left unanswered, nor the other poster's misinformation. There were more than 900 Thai troops deployed to East Timor, some of whom remained until 2004. Thai military had an excellent reputation fighting in Vietnam and Korea. The other stuff talked to were leadership issues etc, shouldn't blame the troops.

Edited July 29, 2017 by simple1

[Scott]

Let's please stay on topic.  

[boomerangutang]

                                     The fact remains, SE countries' leaders are too cowed by China - to stand by their supposed 'friends' in times of need.   Whenever ASEAN meet, all they talk about are economic issues.  Money is priority #1 #2 #3.   Never a mention of environmental or human rights issues.  Actually, most of the calories expended at ASEAN meetings go towards lavish dinners, playing golf, seeking bar-girls after dinner, and getting a picture taken in pretty silk shirts.

 

                                   It's times like these when Fil and VN needs friends who will stand shoulder to shoulder with them, against the territory-grabbing bullying of China.  Thailand can't be counted on.  Same for other SE Asian countries which aren't in China's crosshairs.

[FritsSikkink]

On ‎28‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 9:19 AM, boomerangutang said:

I wouldn't doubt a military clash between Chinese and British navies would result in a British victory.  The US Navy should show resolve and stand alongside our British brethren.   Chinese territory-grabbers are asking for push-back, and they're going to get it.

 

 

 

The USA and the UK are the biggest territory-grabbers

[craigt3365]

15 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

The USA and the UK are the biggest territory-grabbers

Nice troll post. LOL

[smutcakes]

Without having read the thread, as a Brit, all i can say is that we should stay the hell out of things that are the other side of the world and have nothing to do with us.

[tonbridgebrit]

2 hours ago, smutcakes said:

Without having read the thread, as a Brit, all i can say is that we should stay the hell out of things that are the other side of the world and have nothing to do with us.

I feel the same way. This is, at best, a waste of tax-payers money.

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

I feel the same way. This is, at best, a waste of tax-payers money.

Agreed! All caused by the illegal actions of China. Maybe they should be made to pay for all these expenses? LOL

[tonbridgebrit]

3 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

                                     The fact remains, SE countries' leaders are too cowed by China - to stand by their supposed 'friends' in times of need.   Whenever ASEAN meet, all they talk about are economic issues.  Money is priority #1 #2 #3.   Never a mention of environmental or human rights issues.  Actually, most of the calories expended at ASEAN meetings go towards lavish dinners, playing golf, seeking bar-girls after dinner, and getting a picture taken in pretty silk shirts.

 

                                   It's times like these when Fil and VN needs friends who will stand shoulder to shoulder with them, against the territory-grabbing bullying of China.  Thailand can't be counted on.  Same for other SE Asian countries which aren't in China's crosshairs.

Your comment about ASEAN nations trying to talk about human rights issues is "hilarious".  

Vietnam, some people call them a 'communist dictatorship'. Countries like Laos and Burma don't have elections. As for the Philipinnes, well, they are a democracy. But the Philipinnes, Duterte, Duterte is well 'in' with Beijing. Actually, with Duterte, some people claim that Duterte doesn't really care about human rights.

And, stand 'shoulder to shoulder' with the Vietnam and the Philipinnes ? Philipinnes is accepting trade and tourism with China. Stand shoulder to shoulder with the Philipinnes, yes, don't bother with claims to the South China Sea, don't annoy China, take trade and tourism benefits from China. Maybe Malaysia should copy the Philipinnes. 

Edited July 29, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[craigt3365]

16 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Your comment about ASEAN nations trying to talk about human rights issues is "hilarious".  

Vietnam, some people call them a 'communist dictatorship'. Countries like Laos and Burma don't have elections. As for the Philipinnes, well, they are a democracy. But the Philipinnes, Duterte, Duterte is well 'in' with Beijing. Actually, with Duterte, some people claim that Duterte doesn't really care about human rights.

And, stand 'shoulder to shoulder' with the Vietnam and the Philipinnes ? Philipinnes is accepting trade and tourism with China. Stand shoulder to shoulder with the Philipinnes, yes, don't bother with claims to the South China Sea, don't annoy China, take trade and tourism benefits from China. Maybe Malaysia should copy the Philipinnes. 

Considering how many Duterte has killed via extrajudicial means, most of the civilized world claims he doesn't really care about human rights.  Didn't he throw somebody out of a helicopter? LOL

[craigt3365]

6 hours ago, Scott said:

Please don't lecture me.   I lived there.   I know what they owned and what was leased.  

 

Where haven't you lived? LOL

 

HK is one of my favorite cities.

[dick dasterdly]

2 hours ago, smutcakes said:

Without having read the thread, as a Brit, all i can say is that we should stay the hell out of things that are the other side of the world and have nothing to do with us.

You may well have a valid point - but I'm always worried when genuinely powerful countries start 'flexing their muscles' over other countries/international waters.

 

History should have taught us a thing or two on this subject - namely, make an immediate international stand to prevent the escalation that is likely to happen if the first violation is ignored.

Edited July 29, 2017 by dick dasterdly

[smutcakes]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

You may well have a valid point - but I'm always worried when genuinely powerful countries start 'flexing their muscles' over other countries/international waters.

 

History should have taught us a thing or two on this subject - namely, make an immediate international stand to prevent the escalation that is likely to happen if the first violation is ignored.

Your points are fine, but why should we on the otherside of the world make a stand. Let India, Japan, korea, indonesia etc make the stand its got nothing to do with us.

 

In recent history any involvement we have made has arguably made the countries worse or more unstable. We get no thanks for trying to help. Sure we can back a position but lets not be front and centre. We have plenty of pressing issues at home to deal with without getting into a spat in China.

[dick dasterdly]

5 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

Your points are fine, but why should we on the otherside of the world make a stand. Let India, Japan, korea, indonesia etc make the stand its got nothing to do with us.

 

In recent history any involvement we have made has arguably made the countries worse or more unstable. We get no thanks for trying to help. Sure we can back a position but lets not be front and centre. We have plenty of pressing issues at home to deal with without getting into a spat in China.

 

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

You may well have a valid point - but I'm always worried when genuinely powerful countries start 'flexing their muscles' over other countries/international waters.

 

History should have taught us a thing or two on this subject - namely, make an immediate international stand to prevent the escalation that is likely to happen if the first violation is ignored.

 

[uptheos]

What's Britain doing in the South China Seas, not planning another attempt at world domination surely? Football, Cricket and trying not to make a pigs ear of Brexit should be their priorities.

[geriatrickid]

10 hours ago, uptheos said:

What's Britain doing in the South China Seas, not planning another attempt at world domination surely? Football, Cricket and trying not to make a pigs ear of Brexit should be their priorities.

In plain language, it is ensuring that its vital trade routes remain open. It is essential to the UK economy that the UK have ready access to all international waterways. Access to SE Asia is just as vital to the UK as it is to the  EU, USA, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.  

 

The UK activity is nothing extraordinary. Many Western naval vessels are deployed to SE Asia to do the same thing that the UK will do. US, Canadian, New Zealand, Australian and UK personnel regularly serve on each others  naval  vessels. There is a  significant degree of shared common practice and procedure so that combat or operational errors when the navies are in joint operation minimize the potential for errors. It's a very different world today, where despite news to the contrary, countries do get along and work together for common good.

 

For example;

After concluding amphibious drills with U.S. Marines off Guam recently, French Navy ships FS Mistral and FS Courbet trained with Australian and Spanish Navy ships in Australian waters.  The French ships engaged Australian ships Success and Parramatta and the Spanish Navy’s Cristobal Colon in waters to the north of Darwin.

 

Canada has its Poseidon Cutlass 17  deployment, with HMC Ship's  Winnipeg and Ottawa making  strategic port visits throughout the Indo-Asia-Pacific region.

 

 

[Grubster]

On 7/28/2017 at 11:22 PM, tonbridgebrit said:

 

There's hardly any Japanese military ships or combat jets involved. That's because, ever since they lost World War Two, Japan has been practically banned from using it's military outside of Japan. The ban was implemented by America and Britain. As for the Philipinnes, their leader Duterte, he's well in with China.

If any Chinese ships stop any ships, the US navy will easily blow whatever Chinese ships out of the water. It's very unlikely any American sailors will be killed. You realise how big and powerful America's navy is, when compared to China's very small navy. I think China has got one aircraft carrier, and that's it. Chna is simply no match for America's navy.

China is simply not stopping any ships, and if they did, they can be easily dealt with by America.

Things are changing quickly, Japan has been given the green light to build military and regardless of military might they are in China's face in a big way. The Philippines are not in China's corner on this issue.

[Morch]

On 7/28/2017 at 7:04 PM, tonbridgebrit said:

No, it won't work. There won't be anybody left after World War Three.

 

Quite a leap from conducting freedom of passage operations and World War Three. But hey - anything goes when scaremongering.

[Morch]

On 7/28/2017 at 9:39 PM, tonbridgebrit said:

The politicians have made Britain look ridiculous with these silly announcements. So, Britain is going to send an aircraft carrier to the South China Sea.

These ships have used up a huge amount of tax-payers money. What's the point of sending them to the South China Sea ? They will take part in freedom of navigation exercises. Now then, the USA are already in the South China Sea. American aircraft carriers are already in the area, making sure that all ships can sail through the South China Sea.

There is no need for Britain's military presence in the Far East. If Chinese ships do actually stop whatever ships, let the Americans fire a few missiles and blow the Chinese ships out of the water.  This whole thing is bad use of the resources.


And what's the main point ? It's being done, because Washington wants to make it look like, that there is an international coalition involved in the South China Sea. There isn't one.

 

The UK will not send an aircraft carrier anytime soon, for obvious reasons detailed above. The reference to more immediate operation did not refer to specific vessels.

 

The point of sending them to the South China Sea is to make a stand against the PRC's expansionist stance. That the US does so is great, that other nations participate is even better. Makes it harder for some posters to spin it as a solely PRC vs. US thing - which it  isn't.

 

As was discussed on previous topics (which you partook in), the PRC already limited maritime traffic and activities on several occasions. Hopefully, you'll not waste time re-hashing the same denials and spins employed, and just address things as they are. There is nothing particularly compelling about the call to adopt a strategy of waiting until a crisis develops, then formulate an aggressive response. That's more likely to lead things down a dangerous path, compared with effective ongoing lower intensity operations. Not only that, but I'll bet it would be posters like yourself calling the US to back off in the interest of not starting World War Three if such a situation develops. No such calls will be directed at the PRC, of course, same way no negative references to any PRC actions in the South China Sea are ever made.

 

By your "logic", there can be no international coalitions, because they do not exist until after formed. Nice one.

[Morch]

On 7/28/2017 at 10:56 PM, tonbridgebrit said:

Well, as soon as Chinese ships block ships in the South China Sea, the US navy will fire their missiles at the Chinese ships.  To suggest that China's navy is no match for America's navy would be putting it lightly.

And the downside of sending a British aircraft carrier to the South China Sea ? It simply irk's or antagonises China. Nothing else is achieved. Britain is suppose to be signing more trade deals with China, encourage more Chinese tourists, encourage more Chinese investment in Britain.  This is simply not the right way to go about things.

 

 

Sounds like you are advocating letting things come to a head - which could create a major conflagration, rather than keeping the PRC's actions in check.

 

There is no British aircraft carrier headed to the South China Sea. Read the OP instead of deploying spins.

 

Possibly antagonizing the PRC seems to be a big no-no. Somehow the PRC antagonizing other nations gets a free pass. What you say the UK is not "supposed" to do any of the things you say it does. There's no obligation to embrace your one-sided pro-PRC propaganda views wholesale.

[Morch]

On 7/28/2017 at 11:22 PM, tonbridgebrit said:

 

There's hardly any Japanese military ships or combat jets involved. That's because, ever since they lost World War Two, Japan has been practically banned from using it's military outside of Japan. The ban was implemented by America and Britain. As for the Philipinnes, their leader Duterte, he's well in with China.

If any Chinese ships stop any ships, the US navy will easily blow whatever Chinese ships out of the water. It's very unlikely any American sailors will be killed. You realise how big and powerful America's navy is, when compared to China's very small navy. I think China has got one aircraft carrier, and that's it. Chna is simply no match for America's navy.

China is simply not stopping any ships, and if they did, they can be easily dealt with by America.

 

The Japanese military maritime capabilities aren't negligible, to put it mildly. One reason that Japanese vessels do not feature much with regard to the specific hot spots referenced is that doing so is likely to make things even more charged and complicated. As for carrying operations elsewhere, the Indian Ocean, Somalia and the Persian Gulf may be cited. All of the above were conducted as part of international efforts.

 

Not going to bother addressing the standing nonsense about "if any Chinese ships stop any ships, the US navy will easily blow...". That's been dealt with on numerous topics and posts. The latest addition, though - "very unlikely any American sailors will be killed" is about as disingenuous as it gets. For one thing, there's nothing to support this faux assertion. Military operations, especially those carried against credible opposition are often lethal. Other than that, if there's no risk to US personnel, then why tread carefully to begin with? Comparing the number of aircraft carriers got nothing to do with anything.

[Morch]

On 7/28/2017 at 11:47 PM, tonbridgebrit said:

I think, if Britain, Australia, Japan, Vietnam, if they join in, it still turns out that 90-95% of the firepower against China will be from the US.

Why is Washington encouraging other nations to send ships ? They've got enough firepower as it is.  How about Washington sends one extra aircraft carrier ? This is being done, so that they can say "oh look, it's an international coaltion".


"Outgunned by the US Navy" ?  Yes, same as a man with a starting pistol, one you use at an athletics race. He's going to have a gunfight with somebody with a semi-automatic assault rifle. And the semi-automatic assault rifle has a telescopic sight. 

 

It's nothing to do with overall fire power. And it's not as if the whole of the US navy is parked at the PRC's door anyway.

 

Spin away.

Edited July 30, 2017 by Morch

[IAMHERE]

I'm for waiting until global warming swamps those man made islands.

[thedivezone]

On 28.7.2017 at 4:16 AM, Grouse said:

An aircraft carrier with no aircraft and precious little defensive systems ?

And not due to arrive in the area before 2020, three years from now, talk about a paper tiger