China launches upgraded drills for South Sea fleet

CPT Jack Durish - Captain; The difference between "aggressive actions" and "normal operations" is who is doing it. The difference between "overthrowing governments and installing new ones" and "liberation followed by elections to establish regime change" is who is doing it.

In the words of the old "I - You - He" game "I am prudent. You are worried. He is paranoid.".

This is NOT to say that there haven't been government which richly deserved to be toppled, but is only to say that how you describe that toppling depends on whether you benefit from it or not.

I wonder what the US reaction would have been if the Iraqis had risen up against Saddam Hussein and ousted his government in favour of a flagrantly pro-Russian government (but one that allowed UN inspectors the same freedom to search Iraq for nuclear weapons and other WMD as the UN inspectors ended up having) when the US invaded Afghanistan.

COL Ted Mc - Some people enjoy playing the "what if" game. I don't. I find it to be an exercise in mental masturbation. Since the US has withdrawn into itself (no, I can't say that, can I? We're not even defending our sovereign borders) Ever since the US has disengaged from world politics, the bullies of the world have come out to play. The Russians are trying to recapture the glory of their Soviet days. China is wresting control of seaways (to what purpose, who knows?). Iran is flexing its muscle as the greatest power in the Middle East. And various "gangs" are getting away with murder in Africa. Coincidence? I don't think so. Has the US acted badly on occasion? Sure has. The Mexican-American and Spanish-American Wars were sad affairs and the cause of shame. The incursion into Iraq is debatable, but that does not compare with the previous two I mentioned. We had a legal basis for the Iraq incursion and walked away without taking territory. However, historically, prior to WWII, Great Britain was the world's policeman. After WWII, the US picked up the tab. Now that we're no longer policing the world, it has become a vastly more dangerous place and, in my opinion (and it's only an opinion) will become even more dangerous.

CPT Jack Durish - Captain; Other than to point out that a lot of people around the world would have preferred "the OTHER bullies of the world" to "the bullies of the world", I don't disagree with you.

Would the world be in the shape that it is in if the various US governments had done more than pay lip service to "The American ideals" when conducting international affairs? I don't know, but I do know that it wouldn't be in any worse shape and the US would enjoy a higher level of esteem than it does today.

PO1 (Join to see) - PO; "International Waters" are whatever someone can enforce as "International Waters". At one time "International Waters" started at "The Three Nautical Mile Limit" (because that was as far as a land based cannon could realistically fire with some degree of accuracy. That went to "The Twelve Nautical Mile Limit" when cannon improved, and in 1999 the US started treating the "Contiguous Waters" the same way it was entitled to treat "Territorial Waters" (thereby, effectively adopting a 24 Nmi limit).

There is also the fact that some nations calculate "Territorial Waters" using a "Headland to Headland" basis that is not recognized by other countries and the fact that some nations base "Territorial Waters" claims on "historical precedent" (again, which some other countries do not recognize).

I knew about the Contiguous Waters but didn't realize how it all began. Thanks for the info, Sir.

PO1 (Join to see) - PO; Sometimes "the problem" is completely unintelligible - until you understand what the other guy is thinking.

At that point you may well be able to understand "the problem" BUT that doesn't mean that you can SOLVE it (and, in particular, that you can solve it to give you 100% of what you want while giving the other guy absolutely nothing of what they want).