Spratly Islands, a real potential HOT spot

[Madwand]

You don't really have anything to compare to, since America has never really colonized anyone other than itself. A territory here and there, no laws imposed, we pay their bills and we get nothing in return except a free visa. If we war with someone, we rebuild their country for free and get nothing in return...

[Steadman Uhlich]

Originally Posted by beiland

I had an old friend warn me years ago about the potential flash point that these islands in the South China Sea could be. We've let our guard down while screwing around in the middle east, and now we are at a tough spot to reverse the damage. China is in control of a major navigation route utilized in round the world shipping,...

....new video with a good synopsis

Why China is building islands in the South China Sea
China claims they aren't military bases, but its actions say otherwise.

http://www.vox.com/videos/2017/2/17/...sea-us-islands

Thank you for sharing that video.
I have followed the Spratly Islands issue for years.
This VOX video is the best short explanation of why those islands are important in geopolitical terms. I think the video's use of graphics, satellite photos, and video clips and good narration did an outstanding job of presenting the issues in current context.

China has coveted control of the South China Sea for a long, long time. But, it was only within the last few years (2-4) that they have had the ability to actually put military bases IN it on these new islands they are creating, that feature permanent structures, barracks with hundreds of soldiers, warships in harbors, and missile defenses. THIS is the new development that moves them from "wanting" to "defending." That is what makes this noteworthy. They are expanding their influence, and expanding PHYSICAL presence in what was formally "international waters."

Likewise their demands for control (or permission to enter) that large area's AIRSPACE is significant, especially if they have assets in the area (warships and missile defense systems) that could be a threat to aircraft (civilian or military).

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Actually canada was quite heavily involved in Iraq . They are also rather heavily involved in the military activities in Afghanistan as well
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cana...fghanistan_War

If a hundred men and women doing our normal sharing with the USA military and then a team of Canadians helping to clean up later is heavily involved I guess your correct.

In Afghanistan we were heavily involved as it was a UN sponsored pushback.

The USA went into Iraq with the British and both ended up killing more innocent people than any sane person could count, it will take many generations for those people to ever forget this mass killing for no reason.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Madwand

You don't really have anything to compare to, since America has never really colonized anyone other than itself. A territory here and there, no laws imposed, we pay their bills and we get nothing in return except a free visa. If we war with someone, we rebuild their country for free and get nothing in return...

I think you need to check your history a bit.. theres some folks in Dakota would disagree with you bigtime..
As for rebuilding.. don't see much happening in Iraq or Afghanistan.. or Vietnam and Cambodia come to that.
Difference between us is we usually left countries pretty well organised.. it was the corrupt locals who screwed it up in short order after we left.. Idi Amin, Mugabe, Nehru, Jinnah et al..
Did screw up big time with those Saudi nut jobs though..

[Madwand]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I think you need to check your history a bit.. theres some folks in Dakota would disagree with you bigtime.

My history's fine, I said that.

Originally Posted by Madwand

You don't really have anything to compare to, since America has never really colonized anyone other than itself.

Dakota is in America. And it wasn't U.S. at the time.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Madwand

My history's fine, I said that.



Dakota is in America. And it wasn't U.S. at the time.

I'm talking about today as yet another treaty is being broken.. in 200 years of broken treaties..
And just think.. you could have been speaking French not English.. mind you.. your food would have been a bit more Gourmet..

[Madwand]

If you are talking about today, why would I need to check my history? America conquered Dakota today? I don't watch the news. So whatever you're talking about, unless we conquered another country, then nothing I said is in dispute.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Madwand

If you are talking about today, why would I need to check my history? America conquered Dakota today? I don't watch the news. So whatever you're talking about, unless we conquered another country, then nothing I said is in dispute.

We didnt conquer the dakotas we purchased the territory from france outright.

[Suijin]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Says who? What is this single-minded entity "the US" of which you speak?

Armaments manufacturers, military / intelligence / security contractors and their lobbyists, the top x% interested in wealth and power above all else on the one hand

Those who genuinely care about the interests of the common people on the other

Who holds the real power?

They don't need a real reason, just a pretext. Gulf of Tonkin, remember the Maine?

The rich get richer, the corrupt political operators strengthen their hold on power, US dominance is asserted, excess labor gets trimmed. . .

Seems inevitable, and not far off, the more the administration's looking shaky, sooner they need the distraction, we won't want to change horses mid stream.

Only question is maybe the middle east remains a softer less risky target.

It's one thing to march into Grenada, or Panama, or Iraq or Afghanistan, or Somalia. It's another thing to confront China, our largest trading partner and the lynchpin for dealing with North Korea and a raft of other international issues, with force, in their back yard, when they have not even impacted international shipping through this route. And they won't, because most of it is their exports.

Yes they are building military bases, and asserting control over the region. Probably primarily an issue of fishing rights in their mind at the moment. They have a lot of mouths to feed.

This is not something the US is going to act on unless there is some specific, concrete action on the part of the Chinese that the US sees as a real threat to strategic and economic interests.

[SV Windrush II]

Originally Posted by Suijin

This is not something the US is going to act on unless there is some specific, concrete action on the part of the Chinese that the US sees as a real threat to strategic and economic interests.

Exactly.. it's easy to slap around a mad dog, but slapping a roaring lion may have adverse affects

[beiland]

Originally Posted by mikemenza

I had an old friend warn me years ago about the potential flash point that these islands in the South China Sea could be. We've let our guard down while screwing around in the middle east, and now we are at a tough spot to reverse the damage. China is in control of a major navigation route utilized in round the world shipping,...

Was his name Tom Clancy ?

No he was an old friend I went to work for in the off shore oil industry based out of Singapore. He was a voracious reader and a study on the Asian cultures ever since Vietnam

[beiland]

Originally Posted by Steady Hand

Thank you for sharing that video.
I have followed the Spratly Islands issue for years.
This VOX video is the best short explanation of why those islands are important in geopolitical terms. I think the video's use of graphics, satellite photos, and video clips and good narration did an outstanding job of presenting the issues in current context.

China has coveted control of the South China Sea for a long, long time. But, it was only within the last few years (2-4) that they have had the ability to actually put military bases IN it on these new islands they are creating, that feature permanent structures, barracks with hundreds of soldiers, warships in harbors, and missile defenses. THIS is the new development that moves them from "wanting" to "defending." That is what makes this noteworthy. They are expanding their influence, and expanding PHYSICAL presence in what was formally "international waters."

Likewise their demands for control (or permission to enter) that large area's AIRSPACE is significant, especially if they have assets in the area (warships and missile defense systems) that could be a threat to aircraft (civilian or military).

MOST intelligent reply I have yet to see, SteadyHand. Thanks.

I thought that video was a good presentation myself, and in the words of that dreaded news organization, 'Fair and Balanced'....ha...ha

[beiland]

Originally Posted by Suijin

It's one thing to march into Grenada, or Panama, or Iraq or Afghanistan, or Somalia. It's another thing to confront China, our largest trading partner and the lynchpin for dealing with North Korea and a raft of other international issues, with force, in their back yard, when they have not even impacted international shipping through this route. And they won't, because most of it is their exports.

Yes they are building military bases, and asserting control over the region. Probably primarily an issue of fishing rights in their mind at the moment. They have a lot of mouths to feed.

This is not something the US is going to act on unless there is some specific, concrete action on the part of the Chinese that the US sees as a real threat to strategic and economic interests.

Totally naive reply.

You have never experience the mind set of the Chinese people, and their VERY important 'saving face' element.

[beiland]

It will be interesting to see what happens when one, or a few, of these smaller nations come asking for help from big brother USA to help them with pollution problems arising from development of nature resources on those islands boarding THEIR coast, not China's.

And it will be interesting to see what happens when there are punitive shipping restrictions imposed by an intolerant China.

And it will be interesting to see what a few of these small nations think about their military security when there is a BIG China just off their coast.

I'm old enough to realize that Japan once had its own designs for SE Asia,..for raw materials and energy resources.

[Lepke]

As a multi year Vietnam vet, I say the SCS is a long way from here. If we get too worked up, at best we may find ourselves in a small shooting war. You never know where that may lead.
And then there are all the vets with mental and physical disabilities they live with the rest of their lives. I've come to believe, the dead are the lucky ones.