Dungeness
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2015
- Messages
- 7,461
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
I have checked, but you may want to check the UNCLOS definition of Freedom of navigation
FON in UNCLOS means "navigation shall not suffer interference from other states";
FON OP in US military terms means "challenging the excessive territorial claims";
And here is what you said: "there are only one term and meaning for Freedom of Navigation"
Do you still insist they are the same thing now? Man up, soldier, admit your mistake.
By the way, US has not ratified UNCLOS, so borrowing the term FON from UNCLOS to glorify or address up its military operation is kind of sneaky and not convincing.
Are there any third party country US can "Go to war with" North Korea? Maybe the US should fight a war with North Korea in China .
Dude, you do know "go to war with means you want an invasion by either North Korean "invade" the south, or the American "invading" North. Otherwise there are no way to "go to war with" someone without invading a country.
We are not talking about fighting a war in the video game..
Of course, go to war with NK means invading NK. So what is your point?
What did China do in the past 60 years?
Dispute in Arunachal Pradesh
Dispute in Taiwan
Dispute in South China Seas
Dispute in East China Seas
Interesting, that is all you can come up with. May I also add Korean War and Vietnam War?
Arunnachal/South Tibet is between China and India, and neither has invited US to be a judge, and I think the two countries are capable of solving the problems themselves. Taiwan is entirely Chinese matter, so leave it with them. SCS is something after "Pivot To Asia" policy. Dispute with Japan in ECS is a long standing issue since 1970s. So what exactly qualifies as the offence of "what China was doing drawing the US back into Asia"?
You blame China on every single dispute China has with its neighbors. we can understand it is out of the "national interest" of the US, but, please don't pretend you are doing this out of selfless "justice for all" like an innocent angel.
That's funny, if US does not want to go to war with China over the SCS, then whatever they do is "meaningless"?
Did China plan on going to war with anyone then? If not, then would it be also "Meaningless" for China to have a military force? OR if China are not plan on going to war with anyone else, then would it be meaningless too to "militarize" those island?.
"Meaningless" means the US is not going to change the ground reality in SCS.
What US may do or may not do is not in your concern. Would it be anyway shape or form you can control. If you want to talk about war, okay, let's talk about war. If you don't, then you should shut up about which ever side not ready for war.
Likewise, it is not your concern either. You are not in position calling the shot. Should I remind you this is an internet forum, anybody can talk about his opinion, you either agree or disagree. It is rude to ask people to "shut up" just because you don't like his point of view. You are losing your cool. Please act like a responsible and respectful forum member, a "Professional" one.
Now I know why so many members have put you in their ignored lists. You just can't handle a meaningful debate if you are losing the arguments.
Last edited: