[Sixstrings]

And the US remains an outlaw nation, for it's failure to comply with the courts previous rulings. To start jumping up and down about China stating they will do the same is actually quite humorous.

Well, Reagan was fighting communism. So what is China opposing, democratic capitalism?

Secondly -- the South China Sea is a MUCH bigger swath of resource-rich valuable ocean, compared to the Nicaragua situation:



AND China has built / is building large artificial island military bases. AND China wants it all to be an exclusive air control zone, so they'd pretty much own it. US never did all that, off Nicaragua.

Ultimately -- we'll have to see what the world thinks. It's up to them. Europe, India, Philippines, Vietnam, Japan, Australia.

Here's something funny -- China is participating in US led naval exercises, right now:

US Navy Rim of The Pacific (RIMPAC) War Games, Coopting China, Isolating Russia?

The Rim of the Pacific biennial naval exercises taking place near Hawaii under the auspices of the US Navy have caused some comment due to the inclusion of China. However joint military exercises between the USA and China are part of a co-operation of long duration.

The U.S. Navy states of the exercises: “Twenty-six nations, 45 ships, five submarines, more than 200 aircraft, and 25,000 personnel will participate in the biennial Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise scheduled June 30 to Aug. 4, in and around the Hawaiian Islands and Southern California.” The theme is “Capable, Adaptive, Partners.”

Notable is the exclusion of Russia, while Russia’s BRIC partners were invited: Brazil, India, China. China has attended RIMPAC since 2014. Russia had participated in 2012 and 2013, but has not been re-invited. However, the USA had been urging China to participate since 2010. Indian analyst Vijay Sakhuja, although maintaining that the relationship between the USA and China is one of mutual suspicion, stated of 2014 RIMPAC and China’s participation that the USA wanted to “enhance engagements with the People’s Liberation Army Navy,” dispel suspicions that there was a containment policy towards China, and to “enmesh the Chinese into multilateral naval engagements.”[2]

So far from being seen as an enduring antagonist, the USA continues to regard China as a potential ally in the containment of Russia and a pivotal factor in a global economy, and beyond that a world order. The USA’s outlook towards China is different from its outlook towards Russia. The present Chinese regime is one that can be worked with, and even partnered.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-sponsored-rim-of-the-pacific-rimpac-war-games-coopting-china-isolating-russia/5535240

That's actually all strategic / foreign policy brilliance.

Keeping China in these war games does two things:

* Keeps China engaged / we actually do want them for a partner.
* BUT if we're headed for conflict, then by doing these games the US gets to see Chinese capability, and test their stuff out against ours, and learn from that.

Ultimately, I think this will all work out. China's pretty pragmatic. Long term US strategy is just to SHAPE China, and manage its rise, and the US keep its position as head of the Pacific.

The US really does WANT China to step up in the world, and be a global order security power. And take on responsibilities, and then the US could do less (which is fair.. why do we have to fight in the ME all the time?).

The US is offering China two different paths, and the US has a backstop of allies ringing China all around.. China can join us, and we want them to.. or China can fight us, which makes no sense.

The US is prepared for either contingency. It's all very smart strategy.

Ultimately -- my hunch is China will choose the responsible global security partner path.

[GregT]

we actually do want them for a partner.
* BUT if we're headed for conflict, then by doing these games the US gets to see Chinese capability, and test their stuff out against ours, and learn from that.

There is no we, we're, or ours about this Six. TPTB could care as much about you as they do about anybody else. You are nothing more than a source of income, or cannon fodder if need be. Stop drinking the kool-aid man.

[AgentR11]

To be blunt. Nothing will happen.
Or at least nothing interesting.

Court rules according to US interests.
China ignores court ruling.
US adds extra patrols to SSC
China adds extra patrols to SSC
China adds a bunch more dredgers to their island building.
Teenagers are allowed on the radio to mock each other.

The end.

As our patrols are freedom of navigation patrols, and China has no interest in restricting navigation through those islands, and has in fact installed lighthouses and other navaids, there will be no shooting for six to cheer about, and if we are "standing up" to anyone, I'm not sure what we are preventing them from doing.

There will of course be much ranting about the US patrols crossing lines, and Chinese overreach. But in the end, zilch.

[Turning_Point]

There are a couple things I've noticed about Sixstrings in articles regarding foreign policy. He's a serious hawk, he's not pragmatic at all, he hates Russia or simply can't or won't put himself in their shoes, and he apparently has no idea what an ICBM is or has ever heard of Mutual Assured Destruction.

I'm getting tired of this clown.

[Sixstrings]

there will be no shooting for six to cheer about,

No, I just agree with views of people like the late Ronald Reagan, and then President Obama today, and John McCain and Lindsay Graham and Jeb Bush, and national security democrats like Diane Feinstein.

Standing up a bit, *defending and upholding international law*, are GOOD things, Agent. It's a chaotic, and increasingly more dangerous world otherwise. I'm sorry, I just agree with the Establishment on this kind of thing.

That admiral that Obama appointed in command of all the Pacific theater -- he's very good. I agree with him.

All those generals that came from West Point, and navy officers that come out of the US Naval Academy -- they received the best, most professional, well rounded military and strategic education possible. They're the best, they know what they're talking about, I agree with them.

Some of you guys that are on the anti establishment side -- you just don't want the US to have the role it currently has, as global superpower and stabilizer in the world and coordinator of global allies.

For some reason you guys think that's bad. But you've never seen a world yet, where USA the Global Cop is *gone*. So I posit to you, that you actually don't know that would be "better" in some way -- my best guess is it would be a lot worse.

I agree with Reaganism -- peace through strength, and that deterrence is NOT war. If you recall your history, the man won the cold war.

[Sixstrings]

I'm getting tired of this clown.

Well you only have 3 posts in two years. If you'd like to start posting more, I'll post less and read your analysis instead.

EDIT: I mean seriously, you've got three posts in two years. I'd like to be able to say I'm tired of you too, but you have never posted before so I don't even know who you are.

Okay, you have the floor. It's President Turning_Point in the oval office.

You're now responsible for leading the great super power in the world, the United States. You have to handle domestic things, AND lead a vast global military and international bloc of nations that are all looking to you to help them advance their interests and make the team work.

You're answerable to the PEOPLE (americans) and making their lives better, but yes you're also answerable to the corporations of America and the world, and the rich too. You've gotta lead EVERYBODY, be leader of the free world, that's your job now President Turning Point.

So let's hear it, what would be your policy and plan about China. As president, you'd have to go to those NATO summits and those Pacific nations conferences, and all the other presidents would be looking to you, for leadership.

So let's hear it, what's your plan.

[GregT]

you just don't want the US to have the role it currently has, as global superpower and stabilizer in the world and coordinator of global allies.

The US is the largest global de-stabilizing force in the world today Six. The fact that you appear unaware of this fact speaks volumes to your indoctrination.

[SeaGypsy]

He's unaware of lots of things, like his glaring self contradictory positions on stability & the neocons. I guess if his world is stable, things are about right everywhere, if not, then not.

The scumbag elected President of the Philippines, Duterte, is already doing backroom deals with China in preparation for today's ruling. His country is virtually broke, no way can they set up the deep O&G gear alone, it will be done in partnership with China. The Philippines is likely to go down the toilet it has been circling the next 6 years, an idiot country believing the 5% of people on illegal drugs are the cause of their infinite problems, ruled by murderous fiefdoms, failed justice system & extrajudicial killing the flavor of the day. China can do whatever it wants in the SC Sea, just fiddle the books the way everyone does in that part of the world & line the necessary pockets. Agent is correct as usual, nothing's going to happen.

[Sixstrings]

The US is the largest global de-stabilizing force in the world today Six. The fact that you appear unaware of this fact speaks volumes to your indoctrination.

And the fallacy of your thinking is that China, Russia, and Iran would not (and do not) just do the exact same, if the Western bloc broke up.

We're talking about geopolitics here -- STRATEGY, it's like a game of survivor and people making allies and there's intrigue and plots and plans and strategy and struggles for power -- and it's been that way since the Greek Republics, to the Roman Empire, to the British Empire, to the Holy Roman Empire and all those little German states scheming against each other, and foreign powers meddling in them too.

For goodness sake, America would not even be a country if not for the French Empire joining our side, just so they could stick it to the British Empire.

It's the Game of Thrones.

For some reason, you guys think the game would just go away if the King goes away.

But that's not true.

You guys don't think Iran is a geopolitical RISK game board player, plotting and scheming and manipulating and it's all realpolitik and advancing their power bloc? YES, they are doing that, right now. There's a geopolitical bloc struggle over in the ME right now.

You guys don't think Vladimir Putin is playing chess, to advance himself and his nation? Guess what, he is.

Do you think Xi Jinping isn't doing the same, and playing chess and trying to meddle and influence and build a power bloc of his own? Of course he is.

WHO is really advancing anti-American and anti-western narratives?

It's the RISING powers -- but they don't want a world WITHOUT dominant power, they just want to BE that dominant power, don't you understand that?

It's the same as in the Cold War, WHO was pushing anti-Americanism? It was the USSR and communists, right? Was it because they wanted a world without power? No, it was because THEY wanted to be in charge.

IF YOU CARE ABOUT PEACE and not chaos, and stability -- not to mention a democratic capitalist world order that values human rights and democracy as the ideal -- IF YOU CARE ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE, and a mostly united world that can address global problems like that.. AND a world that is mostly united and peaceful with a global cop on the block, and therefore business and prosperity can thrive.. if you care about all those things, then I am just suggesting that maybe the "new world order" isn't such a bad thing.

There is ALWAYS gonna be a "world order." In history, when an old one breaks down, then there's a period of scrambling and war and turmoil while new powers rise and compete.

Look folks -- we in the West are the good guys. Our way of life is best -- consumerism, a lot of freedom, a lot of business and innovation, humanist values and science and progress.

China is a rising global power, in the process of finding its way and place in all that, and the reality is that the Western leaders expect China to take over eventually -- Western leaders' intentions are GOOD, they just want to manage things and keep some leverage so that we can be sure that the kind of China that leads us all one day, shares most of our values and will be good for the world.. what else would you guys want, some totalitarian full total communist China in charge of you?

[Sixstrings]

The scumbag elected President of the Philippines, Duterte,

If you don't want to see a broken up world, led by despot Dutertes, then perhaps you should like Angela Merkel and Hillary Clinton a bit more.

The Establishment.

They're better than tin pot banging, mad max despots anyway, I'm just sayin'.

The "anti establishment" new world (dis)order:

Tina Turner Beyond Thunderdome
https://youtu.be/1fzqPOedUYs

[SeaGypsy]

Both are just actors. Same with Duterte &-Trump, self deluded, deluding, lying cheating scum the lot. Most of which applies to most politicians. The world is run wrong & Will continue to be run so. You respect assholes, makes you one in my book.

[Sixstrings]

Okay, long rant, first part about globalism new world order vs. anti establishment, second part about my views on China..

The world is run wrong & Will continue to be run so.

Ok SG, there's "establishment" and "anti establishment." There's "globalist," and "nativist." And the whole West -- the electorate -- seems divided right now.

Most people on a forum like this are "anti establishment," it's safe to say. I've always been in the middle, really. Someone like Ennui on this forum -- he's total establishment. Me -- I'm establishment, but I have an open mind to anti establishment stuff, *but that doesn't mean I'm ever gonna buy it hook line and sinker*.

Let's consider a question -- what do you anti establishment guys really care about?

* A lot of you care about climate change.
* And then, there's people that just want as small of government and individual liberty as possible, and that's where the left and right anti establishment meet, in some ways.
* A lot of you guys want peace in the world. Which is GOOD. We ALL want peace.

So what are the problems?

* The "big globalist system" of awful America and all the countries aligned to it, has just gotten so big that the people in these places feel too lost in it and disconnected, and most of all that the Big Globalist Thing isn't benefiting them in any way.

What I am doing here, is just offering a counter argument for consideration --

* Yes, the "establishment" needs to do more for that 50% of voters / citizens that want to say "screw it all, I'm votin' Leave, I don't want any more orders coming down from Brussels or the Hague or Merkel over in Germany, or Washington DC."

* BUT, I'm just saying consider this, that as bad as you may think the establishment is -- maybe you need it more than you think you do. Maybe the economy is actually dependent on it, or maybe the company you work for is part of that establishment and that puts food on your table. Granted, if you're an out of work Pennsylvania steelworker then yeah, you ain't too happy with the Global Establishment.

* What about larger issues though -- if you care about climate change, then that actually needs a united world to address. If you're an American, in my view anyway, then you should also care about fundamental American principles and what this country was founded on, and that those don't get lost in the world -- because nobody else but us, cares about them so much. If you care about world peace, then actually that needs a global order establishment, to maintain that. It requires international law, it requires that nations like India follow that maritime tribunal ruling, which India DID yet China has announced in advance "we ain't gonna listen to you and your global order, maybe we want to make our own global order and we are in charge of it."

That's dangerous, folks. If international law breaks down.

Consider how dangerous the future could be -- hypersonic missile swarms and every random crazy tinpot Duterte or Hezbollah having those, and nuclear proliferation. There has to be a strong global order establishment, to prevent things like that.

* What if you just care about humanist values, human rights, and good business climates, and what if you LIKE tech advance and humanity progressing.. well, that all requires order in the world, versus chaos and Duterte's banging their tin pots and being crazy, and humanity devolving.

Personally -- if it's ever a choice between a Duterte and a Angela Merkel, well I'm gettin' in HER boat. Peasants and pitchforks is cool, up to a point, then it ain't so cool anymore. I'm just sayin'.

REGARDING CHINA --

I'M NOT ANTI CHINESE. Actually, being the cultural observer I am, I like Chinese. The fact that Chinese love American tv shows and movies so much, makes me comfortable about them. The fact that they LOVE Kentucky Fried Chicken, and McDonalds, and French wine and all things western (they even built a replica of Paris, and New York, as massive housing developments / one of their ghost towns they hope to finally fill up one day ) -- that makes me more comfortable about them.

I'm being very fair here and this is the truth, China doesn't have democracy but I'm tellin' you guys, the PEOPLE are getting to be a lot like us.. as far as CONSUMERISM, and some cultural things.

What's very interesting about China, is that as a rising power it's figuring itself out and its identity. They're actually embracing the West, quite a bit. Like I said, they love American media. "House of Cards" is one of my favorite shows -- well guess what, it's a top show in China too. When Xi Jinping was in Seattle, he even mentioned "House of Cards."

When I look at Chinese social media -- I actually see a lot of Western type thinking, and views.

So okay, I feel okay about China.

And China isn't really rock the boat type -- they DEPEND on their trade with the USA. And they are hooked in and globalist and DEPEND on their investments in the rest of the world.

So I think it'll be okay, it'll never be war. The Western governments may have to push back a little bit, just to BE SURE that China really is becoming one of us in all aspects -- INCLUDING being a partner in upholding international law.

The more they want to become one of us, the MORE we will embrace them in return.

Ultimately that's what's gonna happen, I think, China is going to mesh with us -- and that's okay, we'll share similar views and values, and upholding international law and peace and sane order in the world, and working together on global problems.

P.S. A lot of what I'm stating is just the actual policy of the Western governments.. Australia, UK, all of them. This is the thinking, they do not oppose China's rise but it's just that they want to GUIDE it and be sure we're all landing on a same page we're all comfortable with.

If the the Western bloc decides it has to send some ships around those islands, to check China a bit, then that's not because anyone wants war with China -- it's just CHECKING China. Like I've already said, the Chinese THEMSELVES are still figuring themselves out and what they're gonna be as they rise up in the world.

It's HELPFUL that the West directs the Chinese government a bit, if it starts going off in some bad direction.

Can you guys see that? That the INTENT is for a good future for everyone?

[SeaGypsy]

The problem number 1 is the MIC. Of which your government is the number 1 protagonist & number 1 beneficiary. How can sanity prevail while the world leaders act like hood rats?

[Sixstrings]

The problem number 1 is the MIC. Of which your government is the number 1 protagonist & number 1 beneficiary.

Every country has a MIC, Australia has a MIC and security establishment too.

I see France won over Japan for Australia's massive $40 billion submarine contract:

How France sank Japan's $40 billion Australian submarine dream

France, on the other hand, mobilized its vast and experienced military-industrial complex and hired a powerful Australian submarine industry insider, Sean Costello, who led it to an unexpected victory.

Japan's loss represents a major setback for Abe's push to develop an arms export industry as part of a more muscular security agenda after decades of pacifism. ...

And unlike France and Germany which quickly committed to building the submarines in Australia, Japan initially only said it would follow the bidding rules, which required building in Australia as just one of three options.

"The Japanese had been invited in on a handshake deal and were left trying to compete in an international competition having no experience in doing such a thing," an Australian defense industry source said.

By September 2015, Japan's key ally Abbott had been deposed by Malcolm Turnbull, blowing the competition wide open. ...

Other Japanese officials still want Australia to explain why they lost so they can learn from the painful and bewildering experience.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-submarines-japan-defence-in-idUSKCN0XQ1FC

I wonder which sub was actually better, the French or Japanese one.

How can sanity prevail while the world leaders act like hood rats?

Probably the only way militarism in the world can ever end, is *IF* there is a global world order. There's certainly far less MIC and large scale arms now, versus back in the cold war and two major superpowers.

[Sixstrings]

delete, duplicate

[SeaGypsy]

Another topic you barely understand. The MIC is multinational. Your blathering is becoming unreadable again.

[Sixstrings]

Well the ruling is in.. the Philippines won on all counts.. international tribunal in the Hague issues "sweeping rebuke," says China's maritime claims have no legal basis, and also China has broken international law by causing extensive environmental damage to coral reef systems, and hunting endangered sea turtles and other endangered species:

Hague Tribunal Rejects Beijing’s Claims in South China Sea

BEIJING — An international tribunal in The Hague delivered a sweeping rebuke on Tuesday of China’s behavior in the South China Sea, from the construction of artificial islands to interference with fishing, and ruled that its expansive claim to sovereignty over the waters had no legal basis.

The tribunal also said that Beijing had violated international law by causing “severe harm to the coral reef environment” and by failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from harvesting endangered sea turtles and other species “on a substantial scale.”

The landmark case, brought by the Philippines, was seen as an important crossroads in China’s rise as a global power. It is the first time the Chinese government has been summoned before the international justice system, and neighboring countries have hoped that the outcome will provide a model for negotiating with Beijing or for challenging its assertive tactics in the region.

“It’s an overwhelming victory. We won on every significant point,” the Philippines’ chief counsel in the case, Paul S. Reichler, said after the decision was announced. “This is a remarkable victory for the Philippines.”

China, which refused to participate in the tribunal’s proceedings, has expressed defiance about the case, insisting for months that it would ignore the decision and risk being labeled an international outlaw.

After the decision, China’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement, “The award is invalid and has no binding force. China does not accept or recognize it.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/world/asia/south-china-sea-hague-ruling-philippines.html?_r=0

[SeaGypsy]

Yeah & 1 hour later China refuted it, declared it will not be bound against it's own interests. Like clockwork.

[Tanada]

Yeah & 1 hour later China refuted it, declared it will not be bound against it's own interests. Like clockwork.

Anyone who expected different is a self deluded fool.

BTW why is the international court of Justice in The Hague instead of a neutral location, like say Liberia, or Nicaragua or Madagascar where local politics has no influence on the world stage?

I have argued with people for years that the UN and all international organs should be located on some low population isolated island like say St. Helena that sits in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. It wouldn't cost the UK anything to donate the island group to the UN as a world headquarters location and it would solve a whole lot of the problems that come from various organs being in the USA and EU countries.

[AgentR11]

That admiral that Obama appointed in command of all the Pacific theater -- he's very good. I agree with him.

Good; then you accept that there will be no shooting up of Chinese dredgers and fishing boats.

Some of you guys that are on the anti establishment side -- you just don't want the US to have the role it currently has, as global superpower and stabilizer in the world and coordinator of global allies.

You and your bloodlust are on the anti-establishment side. *I* am on the establishment side. The guys in charge are NOT SHOOTING at annoying Russians and Chinese. That is MY preferred policy. That is the policy in the Baltic, and that is the policy in the SCS.

ps: the US is far from a bringer of stability. don't kid yourself. we sew chaos at any opportunity that will bring us profit.

I agree with Reaganism -- peace through strength, and that deterrence is NOT war. If you recall your history, the man won the cold war.

[/quote]

Reagan killed far fewer than any of his successors. He knew both how to be strong, and insure the enemy did not mistake strength for an open invasion. He knew how to avoid trapping the enemy in a decision between die alone and die with everyone.

Fortunately the officer corp grew up in that era; and in their actions are largely doing what is necessary to both deter aggression and reassure China and Russia that we are not currently executing an invasion. You might think that's trivial; but it is desperately critical.