Thread: Chinese jets in "unsafe" interception of US spy plane over South China Sea

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Originally Posted by thaimeme

American establishment apologist [what he truly is].

He's just a run of the mill America is Exceptional myth believer. He pretends otherwise sometimes, but he is all about the Great Democracy* Machine






* Democracy in the American Dictionary is defined as "invasion , occupations , and tyranny"

Yep.....
Unfortunately, Snubby is apart of an overwhelmingly greater percentile that are instinctively conditioned in this manner -

Most of the actions listed were opposing a threat to local democracy and were allied interventions, not just the US.
I have some serious doubts about the necessity for many of these actions, especially when other more worthy causes warranted intervention.
As long as you are happy that China acts with impunity over legally disputed maritime claims that's fine.
Do you expect Vietnam Philippines and Brunei to stand alone against the Chinese?

To be honest, I'm surprised you didn't go straight to th US MIC. Some serious and complicated shenanigans going on there. The US will always deploy to protect its own interests. Nothing new in that since WWII.

Always require an enemy/boogieman.

Same old pathetic tale.

Originally Posted by chassamui

Most of the actions listed were opposing a threat to local democracy and were allied interventions, not just the US.

You're funny. Sad thing is, you actually believe that shit as well

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Originally Posted by chassamui

Most of the actions listed were opposing a threat to local democracy and were allied interventions, not just the US.

You're funny. Sad thing is, you actually believe that shit as well

Wow....
Shouldn't be surprised as to how many are stayed to this traditional backward mindset, would you Syd?

Obfuscation is the hiding place of the true scoundrel who refuses to occupy the real world.

If this is all you have in response to my rebuttal you are just a sad sack.

Cheers easy.

Originally Posted by chassamui

Obfuscation is the hiding place of the true scoundrel who refuses to occupy the real world.

If this is all you have in response to my rebuttal you are just a sad sack.

Cheers easy.

Well it's because your response was laughable. Ok you tell which of those was about democracy and when i have stopped laughing I'll show you why it wasn't

Deal? Just one but you can do as many as you like.

Originally Posted by BobR

Originally Posted by Baas Babelaas

The US would outright own the fuck out them in a battle of the skies (and seas, and land etc etc.)

In a full war between China (who would immediately unite with Russia) and the USA there would be no winner, only ashes and a nuclear winter.

Don't you realize that?

^ Which makes it even more stupid for the USA to be playing childish games near the Chinese.

Anyone whose ever played Civilisation V, will know there are much cheaper ways to win a war than fighting one.

Iraq
Kuwait
Lybya
Angola
Macedonia
Yugoslavia
Need I go on?

You can argue all you like that it was about Oil, but the US is only interested in securing self sufficiency at home. All it gains from oil bearing states is reconstruction contracts. That is a sdie effect, not a symptom or a cause.

As for your regime change argument, that is something that has to precede democracy. If only the US and the allies had a plan B and what next? programme.

The likes of Hussein and Qaddafi would have gone sooner or later anyway, but the allies did lack a post war plan. Not saying the aim was achieved or well thought through, just that restoration of democracy was the reason for going in.

Originally Posted by chassamui

Iraq
restoration of democracy was the reason for going in.

'Restoration' of democracy??? Americans really are loons.
Also these are tribal societies, democracy is never going to work.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Hillary is the most war mongering person in the world, and no doubt is already laughing about the chance to attack china.

China has too many T-bills for the US to do anything g. It'll remain rhetoric.

^ The same argument (or at least a very, very similar one) was made before 1914. It was wrong then and although I rather doubt that the Americans are planning to start a war with China, events do just happen.

Originally Posted by Cujo

'Restoration' of democracy??? Americans really are loons.
Also these are tribal societies, democracy is never going to work.

What he said.

Originally Posted by chassamui

Iraq
Kuwait
Lybya
Angola
Macedonia
Yugoslavia
Need I go on?

You can argue all you like that it was about Oil, but the US is only interested in securing self sufficiency at home. All it gains from oil bearing states is reconstruction contracts. That is a sdie effect, not a symptom or a cause.

As for your regime change argument, that is something that has to precede democracy. If only the US and the allies had a plan B and what next? programme.

The likes of Hussein and Qaddafi would have gone sooner or later anyway, but the allies did lack a post war plan. Not saying the aim was achieved or well thought through, just that restoration of democracy was the reason for going in.

Why is the USA "self sufficiency" bolstered by invafing countries on the other side of the world?

There ones in the list you could have selected and had a small chance to justify them but not these ones.

There are so many things wrong in your reply it is actually laughable.

This is a list of all the nations invaded, attacked or "intervened in" by the USA since that time

UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Reaction to hijacker attacks on New York, DC

Only in loony pseudoworld does a defensive response on home soil by ones own military against a sudden air attack count as an invasion.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Why is the USA "self sufficiency" bolstered by invafing countries on the other side of the world?

I never said it was.

Originally Posted by OhOh

I don't see a link on this post

World Military Strength Comparison

Apologies if I missed it out first time around.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

There are so many things wrong in your reply it is actually laughable.

Sorry If I used up all your excuses in my reply.

Originally Posted by thaimeme

Wow.... Shouldn't be surprised as to how many are stayed to this traditional backward mindset, would you Syd?

Did someone order a c u n t

Because one has just turned up


That's how to express your feelings Jeff. Out in the open and not in a private nasty red repo. Minimal effect coming from someone as weak as you anyway.

Originally Posted by chassamui

Originally Posted by pseudolus

There are so many things wrong in your reply it is actually laughable.

Sorry If I used up all your excuses in my reply.

No excuses. For various reasons i am stuck using a tablet today so can not be bothered responding to the nonsense you wrote on this. However every single point you raised is wrong, not least the pitiful and sycophantic "all they got were" statement as if the owners of the USA lost on the deal. Feel free to add some more cobblers as well if you like and a bit later on i will reply. So hang around for a while and if you want to home school yourself have a peek at the federal reserve, who owns the large companies, the petro dollar deals central banks in other countries, and how this all ties into the corporate media that you rely on. Theres a good starting point.

Needless to say, reconstruction was not all they got. Ordo ab chao.

Originally Posted by chassamui

World Military Strength Comparison Apologies if I missed it out first time around.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Needless to say, reconstruction was not all they got.

Agreed but it wasn't the reason they went in the first place. They did not invade for the oil, or the post war rebuild. It was just badly planned regime change in a highly volatile area of the world.
I know your agenda so please stick to the point and at least try to avoid further thread drift.

Originally Posted by chassamui

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Needless to say, reconstruction was not all they got.

Agreed but it wasn't the reason they went in the first place. They did not invade for the oil, or the post war rebuild. It was just badly planned regime change in a highly volatile area of the world.
I know your agenda so please stick to the point and at least try to avoid further thread drift.

?...... agenda? What, stopping people reinforcing the myth of the usa as a bungling benevolent world police force?

You make the assumption that they had the right to impose regime change in the first place, that regimes needed changing, ignoring who built them in the first place on the whole, and have the audacity to ignore who made the area of the world, and as that in the case of that list is the whole world , volatile, in he first place.

What is your agenda?

As usual the Ameristanis use illegal phrases and thus muddy the waters when crying like a baby. Possible non native English speakers of just plain bullies. Who is the intended audience for such actions. You decide. I suspect some Chines have a greater knowledge of the English language than Ameristani leaders and military pawns.

UNCLOS misinterpretations lead to air incidents


By Liu Haiyang Source:Global Times Published: 2016-5-20 0:42:4

UNCLOS misinterpretations lead to air incidents - Global Times


"Under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the world oceans are divided into various jurisdictional zones, where different legal regimes with balanced rights and duties between coastal and user states applies respectively. These legal regimes applied in various jurisdictional zones serve as a benchmark for deciding on the lawfulness of the conduct of relevant parties. Consequently, the place where the incident happened plays a key role in judging the lawfulness of the US reconnaissance activities.

The US has as always claimed that the interception took place in international airspace over the South China Sea, a term that could be found nowhere in the UNCLOS. Based on the US stance as reflected in its public statement and Navy Commander's Operational Handbook, the term "international space" refers to the airspace over the maritime areas beyond territorial waters, which may include airspace over both the EEZs and the High Seas. This is a typical American understanding of the international law of the sea, which purports to name each maritime area and its above airspace with its exact name as stipulated under the UNCLOS, such as the territorial sea, the EEZ, the High Seas, etc.

Notwithstanding the fact that the US is not a party to the UNCLOS but habitually uses some articles of UNCLOS to its advantage, the US-designed term does lead to a serious conflict of understanding of law regarding the legal status of each maritime area and its airspace, in particular within EEZs."