Official Trump Does East Asia Thread

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

Trump's accusation that China had stolen the drone was "not accurate", said foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying.

"Imagine that you found something on the street -- you would need to first check and verify it before handing it back to someone else," she told a regular press conference.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-tweets-china-more-dangerous-funny-media-071558949.html

 

LOL China sounds just like Russia now a days. But we should be respectful and careful in our comments?? eff off China, you double talking, sidewalk spitting, line cutting commies! 

[Mooka]

53 minutes ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

 

I agree with Trump and like the response. Let them keep it. Next time they do something like that, dont announce it to the world and give out some stern but punchless warnings. Keep it quiet. Dont say a thing. China knows. We know. Steal 2 of their underwater drones. 

 

We are the toothless tiger. To wrapped up in maintaining the status quo. To wrapped up in diplomacy over confrontation. 

 

China's diplomacy is death by a thousand paper cuts in which they have already seized large nautical miles of vitally important water ways without firing one bullet. 

 

Good for Trump imo. 

 

I think you're too personally wrapped up in the propaganda. You think what released by the media is 100% what's going on? And we're weak, too wrapped up in diplomacy, other countries walking all over us, yada yada, based on what, that a D has been in charge for the last 8 years? 

 

Our entire Pacific Fleet has been posturing and militarizing the South China Sea for months now anticipating the international ruling against China and its water borders. We're a toothless tiger with aircraft carriers and destroyers up their ass.

 

We do keep things quiet. We do it by calling our military operations things like Freedom-Of-Navigation-Operations. It seems when a D runs these operations, they're obviously toothless diplomatic operations. 

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

32 minutes ago, Mooka said:

 

I think you're too personally wrapped up in the propaganda. You think what released by the media is 100% what's going on? And we're weak, too wrapped up in diplomacy, other countries walking all over us, yada yada, based on what, that a D has been in charge for the last 8 years? 

 

 

I vote democrat so this isnt a R vs D thing for me. 

 

I base my opinion off of reading well written articles from places not called Fox News or Huffington Post. Many times the articles are written by former US ambassadors to China and people who are or were part of the equation. 

 

Im sorry but those Freedom of Navigation Operations NOW consists of us sailing our ships outside the 12 nautical mile bubble of the illegal reef made islands. Its what China anticipated and expected. A non-challenge challenge from the US. We respond to provocation from China by making sure we dont enlarge the provocation. 

 

China's diplomacy to the US is typically defined as "death by a thousand paper cuts" by both Rs and Ds. In which China takes an inch, takes an inch, takes an inch .. and each time the singular inch taking isnt enough to warrant anything more than a token protest from the US ... until one day China has large anti-aircraft weapons on the illegal islands and the US is left to send out a strongly word tweet.

 

Nothing to do with R vs D. Your opinions may be viewed strictly through red or blue lenses but Id like to think I read enough from all sides to make my own view .. or at least parrot people who I think have an educated or smart view of the situation.  

 

 

edit - I love people who dismiss someones view or thoughts as being the "uninformed voter" or "low information voter" .. or in this case, Im a propaganda dupe bc somehow having a somewhat negative view of our South Asian approach has to be bc Im some trump thumping republican? lol ... man, talking politics on the internet. 

[Mooka]

1 minute ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

I vote democrat so this isnt a R vs D thing for me. 

 

I base my opinion off of reading well written articles from places not called Fox News or Huffington Post. Many times the articles are written by former US ambassadors to China and people who are or were part of the equation. 

 

Im sorry but those Freedom of Navigation Operations NOW consists of us sailing our ships outside the 12 nautical mile bubble of the illegal reef made islands. Its what China anticipated and expected. A non-challenge challenge from the US. We respond to provocation from China by making sure we dont enlarge the provocation. 

 

China's diplomacy to the US is typically defined as "death by a thousand paper cuts" by both Rs and Ds. In which China takes an inch, takes an inch, takes an inch .. and each time the singular inch taking isnt enough to warrant anything more than a token protest from the US ... until one day China has large anti-aircraft weapons on the illegal islands and the US is left to send out a strongly word tweet.

 

Nothing to do with R vs D. Your opinions may be viewed strictly through red or blue lenses but Id like to think I read enough from all sides to make my own view .. or at least parrot people who I think have an educated or smart view of the situation.  

 

Of course our ships are outside the nautical bubble. If they were inside, that's called WW3. 

 

I don't agree at all that positioning our entire Pacific Fleet in the South China Sea is a toothless act, or a non-challenge. You talk diplomacy with a big stick. Its not either WW3 or toothless threats. That's absurd. 

 

I find it hard to believe you vote Democrat and applaud Trump tweeting the Chinese like a 13 year old being good international relations. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, Mooka said:

 

 

I don't agree at all that positioning our entire Pacific Fleet in the South China Sea 

You apparently have no clue what you are talking about.  Do you have any clue what makes up our entire Pacific fleet?  They are not all in the south China sea.  

 

And before you try to tell me I'm wrong, be aware in a Chief Petty Officer in the United States Navy.

[Mooka]

Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

You apparently have no clue what you are talking about.  Do you have any clue what makes up our entire Pacific fleet?  They are not all in the south China sea.  

 

And before you try to tell me I'm wrong, be aware in a Chief Petty Officer in the United States Navy.

I was just exaggerating.

 

I have no idea how many carriers or destroyers or whatever we have down there.

 

Still, positioning your navy directly in their face, and do operations directly in their face, is not toothless diplomacy. Its an absurd claim. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, Mooka said:

I was just exaggerating.

 

I have no idea how many carriers or destroyers or whatever we have down there.

 

Still, positioning your navy directly in their face, and do operations directly in their face, is not toothless diplomacy. Its an absurd claim. 

Exaggerations like that make a discussion worthless.  Argue using the facts.  If you care enough to discuss, look at what ships are in the area right now.  It's a 30 second Google search.  Why don't you look at what we are ACTUALLY doing before you try to tell someone about the level of diplomacy it involves.

[Mooka]

Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

Exaggerations like that make a discussion worthless.  Argue using the facts.  If you care enough to discuss, look at what ships are in the area right now.  It's a 30 second Google search.  Why don't you look at what we are ACTUALLY doing before you try to tell someone about the level of diplomacy it involves.

 

1 military vessel is enough for my argument. 

 

But yes, you are correct. I am dead wrong, the entire Pacific Fleet is not in the South China Sea. 

 

But you'r dead wrong on the current discussion. If it was worthless, you wouldn't have responded. But now, you get to talk some **** to a civilian that doesn't know anything about the navy. Even got to throw in some caps and jabs. 

 

Since you're in the navy, do you view our current operations as toothless diplomacy? I view toothless diplomacy as sending John Kerry to your country with a fruit basket. Positioning warships isn't exactly what comes to mind. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

7 minutes ago, Mooka said:

 

1 military vessel is enough for my argument. 

 

But yes, you are correct. I am dead wrong, the entire Pacific Fleet is not in the South China Sea. 

 

But you'r dead wrong on the current discussion. If it was worthless, you wouldn't have responded. But now, you get to talk some **** to a civilian that doesn't know anything about the navy. Even got to throw in some caps and jabs. 

 

Since you're in the navy, do you view our current operations as toothless diplomacy? I view toothless diplomacy as sending John Kerry to your country with a fruit basket. Positioning warships isn't exactly what comes to mind. 

I posted because I care about the discussion and want it to be meaningful.  What you were doing takes away from the meaningful-ness.  And if you don't know anything about the Navy, maybe you should refrain on commenting about the effectiveness of what we do.  It doesn't have anything to do with being active duty.  A civilian can do some basic research and form an intelligent opinion.  As for my opinion, it would be wrong of me to post criticism of our operations (though I sometimes slip up.  I try not to though).  So in the spirit of "if you can't say anything nice...." I will not say anything.  Take from that what you will.

[PeterMP]

59 minutes ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

Im sorry but those Freedom of Navigation Operations NOW consists of us sailing our ships outside the 12 nautical mile bubble of the illegal reef made island.

 

Do you have a link for this?

 

It looks like to me that we were within the 12 mi bubble as recently as May:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/10/politics/us-china-destroyer-sails-by-disputed-island/

 

(And before that at least in Oct. 2015).

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Do you have a link for this?

 

It looks like to me that we were within the 12 mi bubble as recently as May:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/10/politics/us-china-destroyer-sails-by-disputed-island/

 

(And before that at least in Oct. 2015).

I think he meant what we are currently doing.  Though what time period that can be considered as "current" is open to debate.

[PeterMP]

Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

I think he meant what we are currently doing.  Though what time period that can be considered as "current" is open to debate.

 

I'm not sure this link is reporting something old, but it is even talking about it us doing it and is from Oct this year:

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-usa-exclusive-idUSKCN12L1O9

 

Is it something we need to do on a daily basis to make our point?

 

To me he certainly made it sound like there had been a distinct change in policy to not challenge the 12 mile bubble.

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I'm not sure this link is reporting something old, but it is even talking about it us doing it and is from Oct this year:

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-usa-exclusive-idUSKCN12L1O9

 

Is it something we need to do on a daily basis to make our point?

 

To me he certainly made it sound like there had been a distinct change in policy to not challenge the 12 mile bubble.

I can't speak for him so I will stop trying.  But, in my opinion, the big difference is if you conduct "military operations" while inside that 12 mile bubble.  Something such as launching and recovering aircraft.  Generally it is regarded as still respecting a countries claim of ownership if you aren't conducting operations.  So just being there is not saying AS much.  Though I bet if China was conducting carrier operations 12 miles off california it would be viewed differntly.  Anyways, a lot goes into what message is being sent.

[Mooka]

52 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I posted because I care about the discussion and want it to be meaningful.  What you were doing takes away from the meaningful-ness.  And if you don't know anything about the Navy, maybe you should refrain on commenting about the effectiveness of what we do.  It doesn't have anything to do with being active duty.  A civilian can do some basic research and form an intelligent opinion.  As for my opinion, it would be wrong of me to post criticism of our operations (though I sometimes slip up.  I try not to though).  So in the spirit of "if you can't say anything nice...." I will not say anything.  Take from that what you will.

 

I'm sure you're a stand-up guy there Buzz, but if that was true, you'd simply have pointed out I was incorrect, but you made it a point to call me out and throw some jabs, which I appreciate all in good fun and in good discussion. 

 

I do find it interesting, that you claimed I said anything about the effectiveness of our Navy though when Mr Pink is essentially arguing our Navy is worthless, and is doing nothing atm. 

But of course I look what we're actively doing, and what I see, is a **** ton of warships and operations in the South China Sea to directly challenge Chinese water borders and position possible naval blockades in the future.

 

And those operations do not match this statement: 

"We are the toothless tiger. To wrapped up in maintaining the status quo. To wrapped up in diplomacy over confrontation."

[TheGreatBuzz]

22 minutes ago, Mooka said:

 

I'm sure you're a stand-up guy there Buzz, but if that was true, you'd simply have pointed out I was incorrect, but you made it a point to call me out and throw some jabs, which I appreciate all in good fun and in good discussion. 

 

I do find it interesting, that you claimed I said anything about the effectiveness of our Navy though when Mr Pink is essentially arguing our Navy is worthless, and is doing nothing atm. 

But of course I look what we're actively doing, and what I see, is a **** ton of warships and operations in the South China Sea to directly challenge Chinese water borders and position possible naval blockades in the future.

 

And those operations do not match this statement: 

"We are the toothless tiger. To wrapped up in maintaining the status quo. To wrapped up in diplomacy over confrontation."

If you think those were jabs, you don't know me.  I'm usually way more condesending.  It's part of my charm.  But I apologize.

Anyways, I try to give everyone benefit of the doubt that they know what they are talking about when they make a statement (except twa and btfoom).  Pink expressed an opinion that he is entitled to (note I haven't said I disagree).  You made a statement that was wrong.  You then told me you don't know anything about naval operations (paraphrasing).  That's when I said you shouldn't comment.  If pink were to say the same thing I would respond the same way.

 

Out of curiosity, what do you consider to be a "**** ton of warships?"  Care to take a stab at how many ships are currently there?  Or how many we have had there at one time in the last year or two?  And would you agree that WHAT a ship does while there greatly affects the message sent?  No cheating!  For example, speed just necessary to maintain steerage vs military maneuvers like high powered turns or not conducting flight operations vs launching and recovering aircraft either armed or unarmed?  

 

Note: Submarines do not factor into this.  No one knows where they are, us general folk or the other nations 90% of the time.

 

Edit: Oh and when the last time a carrier was there?  Would you agree that sends a stronger message than any other ship in our fleet?

[PeterMP]

51 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I can't speak for him so I will stop trying.  But, in my opinion, the big difference is if you conduct "military operations" while inside that 12 mile bubble.  Something such as launching and recovering aircraft.  Generally it is regarded as still respecting a countries claim of ownership if you aren't conducting operations.  So just being there is not saying AS much.  Though I bet if China was conducting carrier operations 12 miles off california it would be viewed differntly.  Anyways, a lot goes into what message is being sent.

 

China having war ships simply pass by within 12 miles of Alaska was a big deal.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/04/5-chinese-navy-ships-off-alaska-coast-reportedly-pass-through-us-waters.html

 

Even with Japan, China having a war ship enter the 12 mi zone is rare and a big deal:

 

http://navaltoday.com/2016/06/15/chinese-spy-ship-enters-japan-waters-shadowing-us-japanese-indian-exercise/

 

"While Chinese Coast Guard ships have sailed in Japan’s contiguous zone on a number of occasions, this is the first time since 2004 that a Chinese naval ship entered Japanese territorial waters.

 

Territorial waters are the 12-nautical-mile strip off a nation’s coast while contiguous waters refer to further 12 miles adjoining the territorial waters."

 

I think internationally we recognize being allowed to conduct military exercises within the 12 mile zone, but I don't think we do much of it without the cooperation of the relevant country.

And this is where I'm not sure our Asian allies actually want us to do it.  Japan is not going to be happy if China starts regularly conducting military exercises within the 12 mi boundry.

[TheGreatBuzz]

I'm not disagreeing with you PeterMP.  I was just stating what is said to be acceptable and also that things don't always go that way.  We are notorious for wanting other countries to allow something but freaking out when it is done to us.

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

We used to sail within the 12 nautical miles but this past October we sailed outside of it. I dont know why and wont pretend to. My only point was that I liked Trumps response of saying keep it vs doing the predictable lodging of a protest. China's actions are predicated on our responses being logical and de-escalating. 

 

Over the past few years, China has effectively claimed large sections of international waters. Now they are militarizing the zone. 

 

I find China's response of "found something left on the street" to be mocking us in Putin style fashion. Why not go off-script every now and then by not predictably lodging fruitless complaints every time China takes an inch.  By telling them "keep it", it kinda publicly shames China and may have them re-thinking their interpretation of us. It doesnt hurt. Lodge a complaint, dont lodge a complaint, doesnt change anything. 

 

Our foreign policy to China is like a warm fuzzy blanket for them. They know they can steal one cookie at a time from the cookie jar and only get the same lecture in response. 

 

Anyways, I hope I cleared up any confusion from my end. 

11 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

I think internationally we recognize being allowed to conduct military exercises within the 12 mile zone, but I don't think we do much of it without the cooperation of the relevant country.

And this is where I'm not sure our Asian allies actually want us to do it.  Japan is not going to be happy if China starts regularly conducting military exercises within the 12 mi boundry.

The problem is these 12 nautical mile buffers China is trying to assert isnt off their coast or their land but reefs they illegally built on in international waters. Thats a huge difference. I hope we all understand the distinction. 

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

44 minutes ago, Mooka said:

 

 

And those operations do not match this statement: 

"We are the toothless tiger. To wrapped up in maintaining the status quo. To wrapped up in diplomacy over confrontation."

During the time that we have had a carrier fleet in South Asia, China has built on reefs in international waters and now has anti-aircraft weapons on the islands. Thats is the definition of a toothless tiger. Putting a fleet there or sailing around the disputed islands has done nothing to deter or slow China down. 

 

In truth, if you asked me what I would have done differently, I couldnt tell you. Bc the way China does things is brilliant long term planning. But their planning is based off our predictable responses. What harm does it do to go off script every now and then.   

[Mooka]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Out of curiosity, what do you consider to be a "**** ton of warships?"  Care to take a stab at how many ships are currently there?  Or how many we have had there at one time in the last year or two?  And would you agree that WHAT a ship does while there greatly affects the message sent?  No cheating!  For example, speed just necessary to maintain steerage vs military maneuvers like high powered turns or not conducting flight operations vs launching and recovering aircraft either armed or unarmed?  

 

Note: Submarines do not factor into this.  No one knows where they are, us general folk or the other nations 90% of the time.

 

I saw at least 2 carriers, and like 4+ destroyers, and a bunch of other ships I that I don't know what they are. I wasn't counting. To me, 1 air-craft carrier is a ****-ton because those suckers are massive. I have no idea how that relates to the size of our entire Navy or what China is building on those islands. Again, how many ships or what kind is trivial to me, as is their actual operations. They are military ships and are there to challenge the Chinese. 

 

I don't agree what the ships actually do matters. This freedom of navigation or non-hostile military operations are just oxy-morons IMO. No such thing. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

8 minutes ago, Mooka said:

 

I saw at least 2 carriers, and like 4+ destroyers, and a bunch of other ships I that I don't know what they are. I wasn't counting. To me, 1 air-craft carrier is a ****-ton because those suckers are massive. I have no idea how that relates to the size of our entire Navy or what China is building on those islands. Again, how many ships or what kind is trivial to me, as is their actual operations. They are military ships and are there to challenge the Chinese. 

 

I don't agree what the ships actually do matters. This freedom of navigation or non-hostile military operations are just oxy-morons IMO. No such thing. 

Got it.  I do find it odd that you mentioned "a **** ton of ships" were sent and then say "how many ships is trivial".  I will say what they do absolutely does matter.  And those terms you called oxymorons absolutely do exist and mean something.  For example, you think a ship just passing through with no flight operations going is the same as a ship running it's anti-aircraft radar?  I liken to to two 800-pound gorillas, one just strolling around and one violently pounding it's chest.  You think they both send the same message?  

[Mooka]

21 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Got it.  I do find it odd that you mentioned "a **** ton of ships" were sent and then say "how many ships is trivial".  I will say what they do absolutely does matter.  And those terms you called oxymorons absolutely do exist and mean something.  For example, you think a ship just passing through with no flight operations going is the same as a ship running it's anti-aircraft radar?  I liken to to two 800-pound gorillas, one just strolling around and one violently pounding it's chest.  You think they both send the same message?  

 

Ultimately, the same message. Obviously the gorilla pounding his chest is sending a stronger one. 

 

The problem with your analogy is that it implies the first gorilla is actually there to stroll around. You wouldn't send an 800pound gorilla in the first place it that was the case. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

Except there are times when ships are there just to stroll.  Usually when there is a scheduled port visit in a near by area that requires transit to get there.

[FanboyOf91]

 

[PeterMP]

22 hours ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

The problem is these 12 nautical mile buffers China is trying to assert isnt off their coast or their land but reefs they illegally built on in international waters. Thats a huge difference. I hope we all understand the distinction. 

 

Yes, but if we are entering that zone every few months or even once a year as compared to once every few years (until recently they had not entered Japan's 12 mile zone with a warship since 2004) then we are essentially not acting in accordance with general international behavior of it being their 12 mile zone.  We are essentially saying, you can count it as your 12 mile zone, but we aren't go enter it every, which we don't normally do with your 12 mile zone or you to other countries (including ours).

 

Our responses are likely to be more "normalized" simply because our responses are partly dictated by the concerns of our allies.  On a domestic policy front (which for China this realistically it is), it is easier to act in a more unilateral and therefore unpredictable manner.

 

Us acting unpredictably, but in a way that also bothers Japan (and other Asian allies) is going to be counter productive long term.

 

Similar to some of the actions with respect to Taiwan.  My understanding has been at least sometimes our actions have been limited by what Taiwan wants where Taiwans relationship to China is important to Taiwan.  Actions that we take that might make China mad at Taiwan than might make Taiwan mad at us.

 

At least publicly after the call, the Taiwanese President stated that she did not think there would be a foreign policy shift (essentially voicing support for continuing the one China policy, which her government has supported).  

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/12/06/phone-call-trump-taiwan-president/95027782/

 

But then Trump goes and questions the one China policy too.

 

Now, I don't know, maybe all that was planned (maybe we want to be seen as putting pressure on China (being bad cop), while Taiwan is still friendly (being a good cop)), but if that was not done in a planned manner, we could end up in a situation where we have upset China and Taiwan.

 

It is easy to say doing these things is good because it shakes them up and makes us a little more unpredictable, but if it is making us more unpredictable to our allies and in a way that our allies are not comfortable with, then it isn't hard to see where long term it might hurt us more than help us.

 

Policy in Asia is not just tricky because of China, but because of all of the players involved, many of which our allies that don't necessarily have the same concerns or priorities.  By default, that's likely going to normalize our behavior.

 

Unless we start showing less concern for our allies concerns and priorities