Jump to content

Beijing Pushes Back on Trump Admin Over Disputed Islands

Meathead

By Meathead
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

 Share

China's Fake Sea Island Expansion  

10 members have voted

  1. 1. Should China be allowed to contruct military bases in the S. China Sea?

    • Yes. China has the most legitimate claim to those islands and can do what they want with them
      0
    • No, that kind of aggressive military expansion threatens regional security
      7
    • Other, specify
      3

Recommended Posts

Meathead Veteran

Meathead

Posted
Posted (edited)

Beijing Pushes Back on Trump Admin Over Disputed Islands in South China Sea

 

"There might be a difference" of opinion regarding who has sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea, "but that's not for the United States" to get involved in, Lu Kang, a senior official with the Chinese foreign ministry, told NBC News in an exclusive interview on Tuesday.

 

In other words, he was suggesting the U.S. should butt out of China's relationship with its neighbors.

 

But the new Trump administration has made it clear it has no intention of doing so.

 

Rex Tillerson, Trump's pick for secretary of state who is widely expected to receive full Senate backing, said during his confirmation hearing that the U.S. would block China's access to the disputed Asian islands.

"We're going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed," Tillerson said.

Chinese newspapers responded furiously.

"China has enough determination and strength to make sure that his rabble rousing will not succeed. Unless Washington plans to wage a large-scale war in the South China Sea, any other approaches to prevent Chinese access to the islands will be foolish," wrote the state-run Global Times.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/beijing-strikes-back-white-house-draws-red-lines-over-south-n711401?google_editors_picks=true

this is actually quite fascinating

trump vs the chinks. yes he said chinks. even the word trump can be used as an epithet so it evens out. two bizarre cartoon personalities going head to head. mega rumble. sunday sunday sunday

trump taking the old guns a blazin' route, and china going full kim jung whoever

the cowbody hero or the nuclear armed lunatics who are great at dry cleaning??? sunday sunday sunday

but no for real, this is pretty interesting


but no for real, this is pretty interesting

 

crap i forgot to post a poll about the islands. can i still do that here? idk i will look

 

anyway i actually agree with rex country boy tillersomething. china cant be allowed to militarize those islands. could be a real serious issue

 

get your tickets now

Edited by Meathead
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Meathead Veteran

Meathead

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

perhaps. but arent they sorta starting that now anyway?

 

and history seems to show us that a) dems arent really nearly as weak militarily as their critics paint them to be, and 3) the classic might makes right and crazy new leader tactics have some serious serious drawbacks if it doesnt work. note that we have both of those currently in play on both sides (!!). its the double freakin wammy. sunday

Edited by Meathead
Link to comment
Share on other sites
boyst Hall of Famer

boyst

Posted
Posted

George Bush hates white people.

 

 

We have no choice but to continue with business as usual until China threatens us with these islands and military installations. this is a world problem, not a US problem. and we ain't the world police.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Meathead Veteran

Meathead

Posted
  • Author
Posted

actually if we consider its

- don being john wayne to china

- china being kim jong to donald

- both being crazy new leader to each other

 

so its really the quadrangle web of world leader intransigence

 

fkn awesome. in a crazy could blow chunks off the planet kinda way

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prickly Pete Veteran

Prickly Pete

Posted
Posted (edited)

perhaps. but arent they sorta starting that now anyway?

 

and history seems to show us that a) dems arent really nearly as weak militarily as their critics paint them to be, and 3) the classic might makes right and crazy new leader tactics have some serious serious drawbacks if it doesnt work. note that we have both of those currently in play on both sides (!!). its the double freakin wammy. sunday

 

China's claims on those islands are ridiculous, and present a definite strategic threat to Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines. Just conceding them would be stupid, and would likely lead to Taiwan being absorbed in the near future.

 

What would Hillary do?

 

What would you (as POTUS) do?

Edited by HoF Watkins
Link to comment
Share on other sites
boyst Hall of Famer

boyst

Posted
Posted

 

China's claims on those islands are ridiculous, and present a definite strategic threat to Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines. Just conceding them would be stupid, and would likely lead to Taiwan being absorbed in the near future.

according to Al Gore those islands will be under water in 1 year. there is no need to do anything. global warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
boyst Hall of Famer

boyst

Posted
Posted

The only thing we can realistically do is B word about it. In the end we can't risk getting too involved with China on a military scale, because we need their partnership diplomatically and economically.

...and they need ours just as much.

 

this approach is about as effective as limp noodle in a whore house.

 

the reality is we can impose economic sanctions and we can afford a war with them. we can afford a war with anyone. we're uhmerika' !@#$ yeah.

 

but claiming we can't because we are inferior and have too much to depend upon with China is weak.

 

we only simply need to avoid this because until they poke us we have no concern. but if they poke us we need to put them in a J Strongbow choke hold until they tap out

 

Ha. China would just build them higher.

and have mexicans pay for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Meathead Veteran

Meathead

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

 

China's claims on those islands are ridiculous, and present a definite strategic threat to Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines. Just conceding them would be stupid, and would likely lead to Taiwan being absorbed in the near future.

 

What would you (as POTUS) do?

 

agreed

 

i would have started a treaty that partnered with the countries around china to put econmi ... oh wait

cowboy trump is a hazardous path. chunks of the planet could be our penance. sunday

Edited by Meathead
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dorkington All Pro

Dorkington

Posted
Posted

...and they need ours just as much.

 

this approach is about as effective as limp noodle in a whore house.

 

the reality is we can impose economic sanctions and we can afford a war with them. we can afford a war with anyone. we're uhmerika' !@#$ yeah.

 

but claiming we can't because we are inferior and have too much to depend upon with China is weak.

 

we only simply need to avoid this because until they poke us we have no concern. but if they poke us we need to put them in a J Strongbow choke hold until they tap out

and have mexicans pay for it.

 

Oh we can definitely win a war. But at what cost? Is it worth it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
boyst Hall of Famer

boyst

Posted
Posted

 

Oh we can definitely win a war. But at what cost? Is it worth it?

i don't know. i can't be drafted. 2C

so draft anyone ya want, because eventually they will poke us. they will do so with economics and soon by firing upon us (again).

 

we can eventually wait for another Pearl Harbor in which Kate Beckensale will really light up the screen. Or we can reverse Red Dawn them. I prefer reverse Red Dawn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledInIllinois Hall of Famer

ExiledInIllinois

Posted
Posted

i don't know. i can't be drafted. 2C

so draft anyone ya want, because eventually they will poke us. they will do so with economics and soon by firing upon us (again).

 

we can eventually wait for another Pearl Harbor in which Kate Beckensale will really light up the screen. Or we can reverse Red Dawn them. I prefer reverse Red Dawn.

LoL... You are pushing 40 anyway... You sure an ag deferment is not part of a bygone era... Somebody has been feeding a line of bull (pun intended) about IIc being a current classification:

 

https://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/conscientiousobjection/MilitaryClassifications.htm

 

Shows nothing about IIc in the modern/current code:

 

Let me guess FarmBoy... You suddenly become a minister? LoL...

 

https://www.sss.gov/About/Return-to-the-Draft/Postponements-Deferments-Exemptions

 

"The following classification categories would be available under present operating procedures:

 

- Conscientious objectors perform service to the nation in a manner consistent with their moral, ethical or religious opposition to participation in war in any form. Depending upon the nature of his beliefs, a conscientious objector serves either in a noncombatant capacity in the armed forces or in a civilian job contributing to the national interest.

 

- Surviving sons or brothers in a family where the parent or sibling died as a result of U.S. military service, or is in a captured or missing in action status, are exempt from service in peacetime.

 

- Hardship deferments are available for men whose induction would result in hardship to persons who depend upon them for support.

 

- Members of Reserve components (including the National Guard and advanced level ROTC cadets who have already signed a Reserve contract) are eligible for a separate classification and perform their military service in the National Guard or the Reserves.

 

- Ministers are exempted from service.

 

- Ministerial students are deferred from service until they complete their studies.

 

- Certain elected officials are exempt from service as long as they continue to hold office.

 

- Veterans generally are exempt from service in peacetime.

 

- Immigrants and dual nationals in some cases may be exempt from U.S. military service depending upon their place of residence and country of citizenship."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...