Posted on Jun 6, 2016
3
3
0
Personally I don't think that the PRC is going to be overly concerned about whether the Taiwanese "recognize" any ADIZ declared by the PRC.
On the other hand, I do find Sec. Kerry's "insistance" that the PRC get international approval for setting up an ADIZ when there is no mechanism for doing so and when it was the government of the United States of America which set the international law precedent that the only requirement for the establishment of an ADIZ was for a country to DECLARE that one existed (and have the clout to enforce it [although that is sort of optional]).
On the other hand, I do find Sec. Kerry's "insistance" that the PRC get international approval for setting up an ADIZ when there is no mechanism for doing so and when it was the government of the United States of America which set the international law precedent that the only requirement for the establishment of an ADIZ was for a country to DECLARE that one existed (and have the clout to enforce it [although that is sort of optional]).
Taiwan 'won't recognize' any Chinese air defense zone over South China Sea
Posted from reuters.com
Law
Geopolitics / International Relations
Politics
China
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
1
1
0
Obama foreign policy at its finest - I'm betting WWIII starts over this Chinese BS.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SPC David S. - Spec; You may well be right. The question is also going to be "Who actually fires the first shot?".
On that one, the PRC actually has the advantage because it can well afford to allow international scrutiny of any "Polish Border Post" incident while the US government is going to be rather constrained in light of "The Gulf of Ton-kin Incident".
PS - It would be MUCH more difficult for me to put together a plausible incident (complete with supporting evidence) that showed that an American ship had actually been fired on by a Chinese ship than it would be for me to put together one that showed that a Chinese ship had been fired on by an American ship (evidence to include - but not necessarily limited to - dead sailors (with American munitions still in their bodies) and physical damage to a naval vessel (complete with fragments of shells/missiles that are clearly American).
On that one, the PRC actually has the advantage because it can well afford to allow international scrutiny of any "Polish Border Post" incident while the US government is going to be rather constrained in light of "The Gulf of Ton-kin Incident".
PS - It would be MUCH more difficult for me to put together a plausible incident (complete with supporting evidence) that showed that an American ship had actually been fired on by a Chinese ship than it would be for me to put together one that showed that a Chinese ship had been fired on by an American ship (evidence to include - but not necessarily limited to - dead sailors (with American munitions still in their bodies) and physical damage to a naval vessel (complete with fragments of shells/missiles that are clearly American).
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
COL Ted Mc if it's not one things it's another. Can we all just get along! Thanks for the read and share!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
COL Ted Mc
SSG Pete Fleming - Staff; I think that there's something to be said for having others see you as "one of the biggest kids on the block and a real good guy" rather than "the biggest bully on the block".
Part of the problem that ANY administration is going to have to face is the fact that "Being the world's policeman" has (in large measure) turned into being perceived as "Being the world's policeman PROVIDED that the payoff was enough and not giving a damn if it wasn't".
NO ONE likes/respects a "dishonest cop" and that is the way that large portions of the world's population sees America.
America DOES NOT have any right ("God given" or otherwise) to tell other countries what to do internally or with respect to any country other than America. NO country has any right ("God given" or otherwise) to tell other countries what to do internally or with respect to any country other than themselves.
That, of course, doesn't mean that no country has the POWER to tell any other country what to do internally or with respect to other countries.
It's when people start confuse "Right" with "Might" that things get interesting.
Part of the problem that ANY administration is going to have to face is the fact that "Being the world's policeman" has (in large measure) turned into being perceived as "Being the world's policeman PROVIDED that the payoff was enough and not giving a damn if it wasn't".
NO ONE likes/respects a "dishonest cop" and that is the way that large portions of the world's population sees America.
America DOES NOT have any right ("God given" or otherwise) to tell other countries what to do internally or with respect to any country other than America. NO country has any right ("God given" or otherwise) to tell other countries what to do internally or with respect to any country other than themselves.
That, of course, doesn't mean that no country has the POWER to tell any other country what to do internally or with respect to other countries.
It's when people start confuse "Right" with "Might" that things get interesting.
(0)
(0)
SSG Pete Fleming
COL Ted Mc - The vision of right and wrong in in the eye of the beholder. Though I completely agree (for the most part) that a country should mind it own business, what happened in the international regions, and what happens to our allies does matter. And if someone request assistance we have options:
Rwanda we did nothing
Bosnia we put ourselves in the middle
Kosovo we took a side
Each were similar, they were internal issues. They really had no impact on the USA. Now we can go into the deeper facts about each later (I am very up on this and would prefer to not debate these conflicts, please). My point is that we have options and those options have consequences.
But often inaction is the worse thing one can do. Has every thing the USA done been the right thing? Again perspective. I would say no, I think often the intentions, real or imagined, were not for evil, but the execution of our involvement was not the best course of action.
To call the USA a bully is unjust. Just as is unfair to completely blame Obama for the state of the world. There are many factors that got us to this point.
The world is like a pool of water with small toy boats in the middle. They will of course all be built by different degrees of skill and materials available to the builder. If you throw small rocks in the pool to make the boats move you have effected the entire 'fleet'. Your intension might not be to ruin any boats just to move them. But some might take on water, others will bump into each other. So then everyone starts tossing rocks. Soon sides are drawn up. Eventually someone will throw a big stone. As the pool fills with rocks the water recedes. Eventually the sunken boats emerge while others were smashed by the rocks. Was the first person in the wrong? Was the one who threw the large stone wrong? Or could have someone at anytime intervened and prevented the pool from being lost and the damage to the boats?
When is it ok to intervene?
Rwanda we did nothing
Bosnia we put ourselves in the middle
Kosovo we took a side
Each were similar, they were internal issues. They really had no impact on the USA. Now we can go into the deeper facts about each later (I am very up on this and would prefer to not debate these conflicts, please). My point is that we have options and those options have consequences.
But often inaction is the worse thing one can do. Has every thing the USA done been the right thing? Again perspective. I would say no, I think often the intentions, real or imagined, were not for evil, but the execution of our involvement was not the best course of action.
To call the USA a bully is unjust. Just as is unfair to completely blame Obama for the state of the world. There are many factors that got us to this point.
The world is like a pool of water with small toy boats in the middle. They will of course all be built by different degrees of skill and materials available to the builder. If you throw small rocks in the pool to make the boats move you have effected the entire 'fleet'. Your intension might not be to ruin any boats just to move them. But some might take on water, others will bump into each other. So then everyone starts tossing rocks. Soon sides are drawn up. Eventually someone will throw a big stone. As the pool fills with rocks the water recedes. Eventually the sunken boats emerge while others were smashed by the rocks. Was the first person in the wrong? Was the one who threw the large stone wrong? Or could have someone at anytime intervened and prevented the pool from being lost and the damage to the boats?
When is it ok to intervene?
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SSG Pete Fleming - Staff; While it IS unjust to call America a bully, that is how America is perceived by many in other countries.
To say that America has always been the very model of moral righteousness when it intervened in other countries is just plain silly, but that is how America is perceived by many in America.
Reality is someplace in the middle and you will never discover where it is as long as you stick to any position that even remotely resembles
"It is perfectly OK for __[fill in the blank]__ to do whatever it wants to do and that means that __[fill in the blank]__ has the right to make everyone else allow __[fill in the blank]__ to do what __[fill in the blank]__ says that no one is allowed to do whenever __[fill in the blank]__ wants to do it because __[fill in the blank]__ is always 100% right and anyone who does not agree that __[fill in the blank]__ is 100% right is 100% wrong and that means that __[fill in the blank]__ has the right to do whatever __[fill in the blank]__ feels like doing about it."
Unfortunately much of America's foreign policy has been based on that premise and it is going to take some time for people to get used to a foreign policy based on "If we say that it is wrong, then we mean it and no one is allowed to do it even the people who say that they are our friends (or where we can make a whole lot of money) - NOT EVEN us."
To say that America has always been the very model of moral righteousness when it intervened in other countries is just plain silly, but that is how America is perceived by many in America.
Reality is someplace in the middle and you will never discover where it is as long as you stick to any position that even remotely resembles
"It is perfectly OK for __[fill in the blank]__ to do whatever it wants to do and that means that __[fill in the blank]__ has the right to make everyone else allow __[fill in the blank]__ to do what __[fill in the blank]__ says that no one is allowed to do whenever __[fill in the blank]__ wants to do it because __[fill in the blank]__ is always 100% right and anyone who does not agree that __[fill in the blank]__ is 100% right is 100% wrong and that means that __[fill in the blank]__ has the right to do whatever __[fill in the blank]__ feels like doing about it."
Unfortunately much of America's foreign policy has been based on that premise and it is going to take some time for people to get used to a foreign policy based on "If we say that it is wrong, then we mean it and no one is allowed to do it even the people who say that they are our friends (or where we can make a whole lot of money) - NOT EVEN us."
(0)
(0)
SSG Pete Fleming
COL Ted Mc - You're last paragraph actually is a one of the opinions we share. And I think this overall assessment is very good.
As for the [fill I the blank} I think most men would put their spouse... oh, wait did I just start a new debate... haha...
As for the [fill I the blank} I think most men would put their spouse... oh, wait did I just start a new debate... haha...
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google