gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
You specifically said 'territorial claim'.You're kidding right? The U.S. administrations made clear statements prior to the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Regarding Vietnam, the U.S. stated its intent to stop the communist domino effect in Southeast Asia.
Regarding Iraq, Bush said Saddam had 24 hours to leave Baghdad.
Afghanistan was the base for the attack on 9/11. This was simple retaliation.
Now, give me a credible citation of official Obama administration policy for an imminent war with China. Time to put up or shut up.
Here is what State said...
The South China Sea
That is not 'territorial claims' as you often posited. A neutral position on one thing does not mean neutrality on all when it comes to a complex issue like the SCS where there are other competing issues.But we do not take a position on the competing territorial claims over land features in the South China Sea.
Such as...
The US does have vital economic interests in keeping the SCS free of any Chinese domination and WILL take the necessary military steps to ensure that freedom. That does not mean the US accept/prefers the Vietnamese claim or the Phil or anyone else's.We oppose the threat or use of force by any claimant in the South China Sea to advance its claims or interfere with legitimate economic activity.
But he will get 'Thank' for it anyway......It is so sad to see anyone so obsessed with praises from an anonymous Internet forum then turned around and said his time is too valuable.Well I think that went straight over his head...