UK Sending Aircraft Carrier To China In “Show Of Force”

New Media Central ^ | 2-11-2019

[blam]

"Then Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and the Philippines should combine their economic might and make that clear. Their plan, like Europe’s is to come running to us to be their protector and the muscle of their ideas."

Isn't that at our insistence?

[jdsteel]

I don’t give a rat’s patootie what they want. They don’t get to ignore international agreements regarding international waters if they are yellow, green or blue.

[DesertRhino]

“The situation in the Western Pacific is not the same as Western Europe. We have credible partners that are more than willing to work with us to help stabilize the region and constrain China’s aggressiveness. “

Agree on that. They face an actual expansive and hard ball China. And they will stand up for themselves. Europe on the other hand faces no threat, they ARE the expansionist and attacking neighbors, and want American welfare.

[Tallguy]

Good point. But the principle of Freedom of Navigation still stands. The Unites States Navy is not trying to do anything more than sail past.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"You would think six thousand dead, tens of thousands more physically and psychologically maimed, close to $6 trillion squandered in Iraq and Afghanistan with little of consequence achieved, would give pause and reflection to those still enthusiastic about even more foreign entanglements."

Well, being someone who has been in a few of those foreign entanglements I am the last person who wants to see American blood shed in war. To ensure that does not happen we have to be strong in the defense of our allied partners. I believe Ronald Reagan referred to this as peace through strength. In other words, we share the same goal, not being drawn into wars. However, I believe you don't understand how that is to be done.

You are advocating policies that were pursued by the United States from the 1920's - 1940. How did that turn out for us? Like it or not, the United States has been the leader of the free world and the catalysts for the post WWII order. In this era, there has not been conflict between western powers that would ultimately lead to WWIII and IMO destruction of the world as we know it.

Here's a good policy paper on what China is doing:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42784.pdf

In it, it discusses freedom of the seas, something I have touched on previously. Here's a salient point to consider from the article:

"Some observers are concerned that China’s actions in the SCS appear to challenge the principle that the world’s seas are to be treated under international law as international waters. If such a challenge were to gain acceptance in the SCS region, it would have broad implications for the United States and other countries not only in the SCS, but around the world, because international law is universal in application, and a challenge to a principle of international law in one part of the world, if accepted, could serve as a precedent for challenging it in other parts of the world. Overturning the principle of freedom of the seas, so that significant portions of the seas could be appropriated as national territory, would overthrow hundreds of years of international legal tradition relating to the legal status of the world’s oceans and significantly change the international legal regime governing sovereignty over much of the surface of the world."

If we don't have freedom of the seas, simply put this whole global economy comes crashing down. Imagine if you will a Barbary Pirates scenario all over the world in little dinbat countries that want to extort the U.S.A. Our founding Father Thomas Jefferson was against it, just as we should be today.

[sinsofsolarempirefan]

You do actually realise that the reason we will be sending a carrier task group is because the US has requested allied nations such as the UK to show solidarity with the US in enforcing freedom of navigation? We have no particular interest in that part of the world other than supporting the US in containing China as a quid pro quo of Americas support closer to home. And yes, there will be USMC pilots on that aircraft carrier amongst the thousands of casualties if the Chinese were able to sink it, so that’s not quite as funny is it?

[sinsofsolarempirefan]

You are rather insulting considering that carrier is going there to show solidarity with our American allies. We wouldn’t be out there confronting China if not for a US request for allied nations to show support for their freedom of navigation patrols. As it is, I’m sceptical that we should be there, and this ingratitude if it was shared by people who actually matter in the US would convince me that we should just leave Americans alone to do their thing and benefit from the policy of armed neutrality whilst the US makes enemies around the globe an we contribute nothing to world peace other than our own area.

[allendale]

You have summarized nicely the pseudo rationale justifying the distant forward deployments of the interventional globalists. The reality is that any nation, especially one who’s economic lifeblood is world trade, would be creating economic suicide if it actually restricted free navigation. However if the Chinese were to deploy a large task force with 60,000 marines in stealthy transports, 200 miles off the coast of Seattle in international waters, the US military would be rightly concerned. Much the way the Iranian military was concerned when US task forces were patrolling the international waters of the Persian Gulf. Imagine the temerity of the Iranians when they fortified their shores with state of the art stealthy shore to ship missiles.

Freedom of navigation and open sea lanes are of course important international concerns. Any nation that closes such routes is subject to reprisal in a variety of ways. However to argue that the aggressive forward deployment of the American military in distant alien places is meant only to ensure international passage and should not be perceived as a threat to the nations those guns threaten is ludicrous.

You would do well to examine part of the rational for Japan’s aggression in WW II. The Japanese of course were of course haughty elite nationalists who believed it was their right to dominate and direct Asia. However the West often ignores that Japan was enraged that white Europeans and Americans had come to dominate Asia politically, economically and militarily. The British, the French, the Dutch, the Americans and even the Portuguese defacto ruled Asians. The Japanese saw ridding Asia of these interlopers as a sacred duty. They assumed the political and cultural mantle of the legendary Middle Kingdom. They were of course brutal, nationalistic and domineering. Even if somehow they had won the Pacific war, it is doubtful they would have maintained hegemony over Asia. Eventually a consensus, however bloody would have been achieved. When American globalists think they with American military power can “bring order, peace and progress” to Asia, one can only cringe and wonder if anyone reads or understands history.

[trebb]

Just more proof some in the world agree with president Trump because they understand their interests are being served by his efforts too. Forget the rest - the signal is clear....others have their eyes on China too.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

With each post, you really show that you don’t know what you’re talking about. First you posit that Asians don’t want white American’s dictating their policy, when I debunk that you now have more pseudo reasons to not advance our national interests.

Your point concerning China deploying 60,000 Marines is just pure silliness. For one thing, they don’t even have the capability. For another we barely have that kind of capability to deploy a modern force of 60,000 Marines. The largest amphibious deployment of troops in the modern day was the 4th and 5th MEB off the coast of Kuwait during the first Gulf War. I was a part of it. Do you want to guess how many Marines that was? It was under 20,000. What’s a stealthy transport BTW? Also, international waters is 12 nautical miles off a countries coast so they can park that large task force 200 miles out and it wouldn’t bother me at all.

Again, you don’t know what you are talking about concerning Iran and the Persian Gulf. They have Chinese silk worm missiles at the straits of Hormuz. I’ve been through it, have you? They have armed that passage since the fall of the Shah and have done it because they would love nothing more than to shut down the oil coming out of the Gulf. It has nothing to do with our ships.

Your whole comments concerning the Spratleys are ludicrous as these islands are 1000 + nautical miles away and so they are not in China’s territorial waters, nor are they in their economic exclusion zone.

I don’t even want to go into your arguments concerning pre-WWII Japan. You’ve already lost the argument when you are using per WWII Japan as an example. They wanted east Asia for themselves and it had nothing to do with European or American imperialism. They merely wanted to replace it with Japanese imperialism.

In conclusion, you need to educate yourself on the issues before commenting and not fall back on some kneejerk position of neocon bad...

[mac_truck]

Do you realize how much trade flows though the South Pacific area?

Do you realize the size of our trade imbalance with China?

Seems ironic that its the US taxpayer who has to foot the bill for policing the Pacific sea lanes, so that the flow of goods from Communist China reach our shores unmolested.

That said, I have no problem with Great Britain shouldering some of the burden of this rather pointless exercise.

[Lurker]

“To put it bluntly, they want us there.“

Then they need to blow the dust off their checkbooks.

L

[Old Teufel Hunden]

Seems ironic that its the US taxpayer who has to foot the bill for policing the Pacific sea lanes, so that the flow of goods from Communist China reach our shores unmolested.

Obviously if the Chinese shut down the sea lanes it would not effect them. It would effect countries like Vietnam, Phillipines, India, South Korea, etc... These countries are working with us and are credible partners who are putting their money where their mouth is.

Also, it would have far greater implications than just the South China Sea. See my post 45 for that discussion.

[allendale]

Sorry but you are wrong and ought to read history a bit more critically. If you did, you would have a better understanding.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Sorry but you are wrong and ought to read history a bit more critically. If you did, you would have a better understanding."

You are funny. I've shown with examples, personal history and facts where you are wrong, your reply, I'm wrong. Not how or why. Way to engage. Just as an aside, not only have I studied history, I've taken part in some of that history as well.