So its domestic law trumps the international law about foreign ships in its EEZ correct? Even when China says U.S. has to respect its ships in U.S. EEZ?
Chinese Harrass U.S. Aircraft In International Airspace
- Thread starter boomslang
- Start date
So its domestic law trumps the international law about foreign ships in its EEZ correct? Even when China says U.S. has to respect its ships in U.S. EEZ?
dlclong
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 996
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
Who was the first to do these？
who beginning these ?
who flew a Pacific distance, came to the China door arrangement of forces, containment of others?
Have Chinese aircraft flew to Mexico Bay in Florida around?
USA on Chinese monitoring high frequency, range is wide, has reached an alarming level. From the Yellow Sea to Hainan Island, the East China Sea, Xisha Islands, dispatched aircraft, naval reconnaissance aircraft, ocean survey ship and nuclear powered submarine, America monitoring activities every year to China up to hundreds of times, beyond the America reconnaissance frequency on the Soviet Union in the cold war era.
don't forget How American over Hainan Island at a distance of 70 nautical miles, Chinese exclusive economic zone ，American collision Chinese aircraft in 2001.
Chinese has not responded to America, American now is to be insatiable.
Before RIMPAC exercises, don't forget American was how to supported Japanese peeping Chinese exercises.
we disdain to see you Exercises, we are not interested in the f Mexico Bay,
also please self-respect, don't come to China door!
Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you！
JSCh
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2011
- Messages
- 13,235
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
International law is not enforceable, it has to be interpreted by domestic law.
According to your media, China has a ship in Hawaii EEZ during RIMPAC exercise. You deem it as a surveillance or whatever ship. But your military did not seem to mind the presence of the ship.
In another word, you did not complain at the time. Then why your media talk about it later. Saying China want to "having your cake and eating it too" is incorrect. According to international law and US interpretation, China has to right to navigate any ship be it civilian or military without prior notice into your EEZ.
Last edited:
So in other words you cannot complain anymore about U.S. warships in your EEZ since the U.S. accept your ships in ours right?
But your govt. says they will still not accept U.S. warships in your EEZ even now even though they claim its acceptable for a Chinese spy ship in our waters.
Do I need to quote your govt. on this issue?
dlclong
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 996
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
we disdain to see you Exercises, we are not interested in the f Mexico Bay,We are not interested in your EEZ,So in other words you cannot complain anymore about U.S. warships in your EEZ since the U.S. accept your ships in ours right?
But your govt. says they will still not accept U.S. warships in your EEZ even now even though they claim its acceptable for a Chinese spy ship in our waters.
Do I need to quote your govt. on this issue?
also please self-respect, don't come to China door!Please come back to the other side of the Pacific ocean,thats all.
I say it again, please take your spy plane, ship back,We are not interested in your USA native.If you put end to these acts, there is no dispute between China andUSA
In addition, Chinese intercept your plane? No！Your plane can fly, China cannot fly?
Why do you say Chinese intercept your aircraft?
What time Chinese said not to let your ship enters China EEZ?？
You have the right at my door swinging, I also have the right to salute you, OK? !
Last edited:
Huaren
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2010
- Messages
- 366
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Same tactic?
"
The administration of US President Lyndon Johnson was looking for an excuse to massively escalate US military action in Vietnam in 1964. Historians believe that LBJ deliberately provoked Hanoi by sending US navy ships on electronic spying missions into North Vietnam, known as De Soto patrols, as well as carrying out OPLAN (Operations Plan) 34-A, a series of commando raids starting in January 1964 against selected targets in North Vietnam.
The excuse to escalate that the LBJ administration badly wanted was manufactured soon afterwards. The administration claimed that North Vietnamese patrol boats had attacked US ships on Aug 4, 1964.
At the time, LBJ’s version was taken to be true. But with the declassification of US documents in 2005 and 2006, it became clear that the North Vietnamese had attacked US destroyer Maddox only once on Aug 2 in international waters close to the Vietnamese coast, and only because they had been provoked repeatedly.
The LBJ administration claimed that US ships had again come under attack on Aug 4, but new historical evidence shows their claim to be false. The North Vietnamese did not attack US naval ships Turner Joy and Maddox on Aug 4. That night, the South Vietnamese, who were allied to the Americans, staged more OPLAN raids into North Vietnam.
Here is why the Gulf of Tonkin episode is important in understanding US foreign interventions. New historical evidence tells us that the Johnson administration was determined to find any pretext to destroy North Vietnam.
A key member of President Johnson’s staff, Undersecretary of State George Ball, revealed in a BBC interview: “At the time, there’s no question that many of the people who were associated with the war saw the necessity of bombing as the only instrument that might be persuasive on the North Vietnamese, and therefore were looking for any excuse to initiate bombing ... the De Soto patrols, the sending of a destroyer up the Tonkin Gulf, was primarily for provocation ... that if the destroyer got into some trouble, that would provide the provocation we needed.”
US Navy Lieutenant-Commander Pat Paterson argues that the new evidence makes clear that “high government officials distorted facts and deceived the American public about events that led to full US involvement in the Vietnam War”.
Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara claimed that the North Vietnamese had indeed attacked US ships on Aug 4, and President Johnson appeared on television and announced plans to retaliate against North Vietnamese targets.
From here on, LBJ began escalating. US Navy Commander James Stockdale was ordered to launch an air strike against North Vietnamese targets for their “attacks” of August 4. Commander Stockdale commented: “We were about to launch a war under false pretences, in the face of the on-scene military commander’s advice to the contrary.”
In the long history of US foreign interventions since the beginning of the 20th century, the Gulf of Tonkin incident has become a precedent in at least another false testimony, the one given by the administration of President George W Bush in order to invade Iraq in 2003.
"
"
The administration of US President Lyndon Johnson was looking for an excuse to massively escalate US military action in Vietnam in 1964. Historians believe that LBJ deliberately provoked Hanoi by sending US navy ships on electronic spying missions into North Vietnam, known as De Soto patrols, as well as carrying out OPLAN (Operations Plan) 34-A, a series of commando raids starting in January 1964 against selected targets in North Vietnam.
The excuse to escalate that the LBJ administration badly wanted was manufactured soon afterwards. The administration claimed that North Vietnamese patrol boats had attacked US ships on Aug 4, 1964.
At the time, LBJ’s version was taken to be true. But with the declassification of US documents in 2005 and 2006, it became clear that the North Vietnamese had attacked US destroyer Maddox only once on Aug 2 in international waters close to the Vietnamese coast, and only because they had been provoked repeatedly.
The LBJ administration claimed that US ships had again come under attack on Aug 4, but new historical evidence shows their claim to be false. The North Vietnamese did not attack US naval ships Turner Joy and Maddox on Aug 4. That night, the South Vietnamese, who were allied to the Americans, staged more OPLAN raids into North Vietnam.
Here is why the Gulf of Tonkin episode is important in understanding US foreign interventions. New historical evidence tells us that the Johnson administration was determined to find any pretext to destroy North Vietnam.
A key member of President Johnson’s staff, Undersecretary of State George Ball, revealed in a BBC interview: “At the time, there’s no question that many of the people who were associated with the war saw the necessity of bombing as the only instrument that might be persuasive on the North Vietnamese, and therefore were looking for any excuse to initiate bombing ... the De Soto patrols, the sending of a destroyer up the Tonkin Gulf, was primarily for provocation ... that if the destroyer got into some trouble, that would provide the provocation we needed.”
US Navy Lieutenant-Commander Pat Paterson argues that the new evidence makes clear that “high government officials distorted facts and deceived the American public about events that led to full US involvement in the Vietnam War”.
Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara claimed that the North Vietnamese had indeed attacked US ships on Aug 4, and President Johnson appeared on television and announced plans to retaliate against North Vietnamese targets.
From here on, LBJ began escalating. US Navy Commander James Stockdale was ordered to launch an air strike against North Vietnamese targets for their “attacks” of August 4. Commander Stockdale commented: “We were about to launch a war under false pretences, in the face of the on-scene military commander’s advice to the contrary.”
In the long history of US foreign interventions since the beginning of the 20th century, the Gulf of Tonkin incident has become a precedent in at least another false testimony, the one given by the administration of President George W Bush in order to invade Iraq in 2003.
"
JSCh
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2011
- Messages
- 13,235
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Nope, when we see your military ship/plane do things that we consider harmful to national security of China, we would ask you to leave.So in other words you cannot complain anymore about U.S. warships in your EEZ since the U.S. accept your ships in ours right?
But your govt. says they will still not accept U.S. warships in your EEZ even now even though they claim its acceptable for a Chinese spy ship in our waters.
Do I need to quote your govt. on this issue?
It is our EEZ, our rule.
What you do in your EEZ, that is your problem.
BoQ77
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2012
- Messages
- 8,704
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pentagon: China tried to block U.S. military jet in dangerous mid-air intercept
By Craig Whitlock August 22 at 1:50 PM
The Pentagon on Friday blamed China for instigating a dangerous midair encounter with a U.S. military aircraft off its coast, saying that a Chinese fighter jet made several threatening passes during an intercept in international airspace.
Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said the U.S. government filed a formal complaint with China about the near miss between a Chinese J-11 fighter jet and a Navy Poseidon P-8 patrol aircraft 135 miles east of Hainan Island. The incident occurred Tuesday, he said.
Kirby said the Chinese fighter jet brought one of its wingtips within 20 feet of the Poseidon, performed a “barrel roll” at close range and also flashed past the nose of the U.S. aircraft at a 90-degree angle with its underside exposed, apparently “to make a point of showing its weapons.”
“This kind of behavior not only is unprofessional, it’s unsafe,” Kirby told reporters.
The risky incident was the latest in a series of near misses between Chinese and American ships and aircraft as both countries have sought to assert their military might in the East China and South China seas.
U.S. defense officials said they believe the J-11 fighter aircraft involved in Tuesday’s incident belongs to the same People’s Liberation Army unit suspected of conducting intercepts of U.S. aircraft in March, April and May. The Pentagon declined to identify the Chinese military unit but said it was based on Hainan Island.
Defense officials said this week’s encounter was particularly hazardous, calling it the most reckless Chinese intercept since April 2001, when a Chinese J-8 fighter jet collided with a U.S. Navy EP-3 surveillance aircraft and triggered an international furor. In that case, which likewise occurred off Hainan Island, the Chinese fighter tried to intercept the U.S. plane by buzzing past at close range but crashed into it instead, according to U.S. accounts. China, in turn, cast blame on the Americans.
The Chinese pilot was killed and his plane fell into the sea. The U.S. aircraft was badly damaged, and its two-dozen crew members made an emergency landing on Hainan. The Chinese military detained the U.S. crew members, and it took 11 days to negotiate their release. China kept the surveillance aircraft for several more weeks, stripping it of sensitive material.
The Pentagon kept this week’s incident quiet for three days. Defense officials said they were holding out hope that China would express regret or provide an explanation, but they said none was provided.
“You’re not supposed to do a barrel roll over an aircraft,” Kirby said. “I think the message that they are apparently trying to send was [to prevent] the flight of this patrol aircraft. The message we’re sending back to China is that’s unacceptable and unhelpful to the military relationship that we would like to have with them.”
Ben Rhodes, White House deputy national security adviser, called Tuesday’s intercept “a deeply concerning provocation.” He added: “What we’ve encouraged is constructive military-to-military ties with China. And this type of action clearly violates the spirit of that engagement.”
The two superpowers have a contentious relationship over security matters. While U.S. military officials acknowledge a strategic rivalry, they say they have tried to develop closer ties with the People’s Liberation Army leadership and maintain open lines of communication.
The Pentagon confirmed reports of what it called a dangerous intercept of a U.S. Navy plane by an armed Chinese fighter jet earlier this week about 135 miles east of Hainan Island in international airspace. (Reuters)
In June, for example, the Pentagon made a point of inviting the PLA to participate in its annual Rim of the Pacific maritime exercise off Hawaii, one of the largest multinational military exercises in the world.
China accepted, but tensions with the United States and its Asian allies have persisted. A few days before the Hawaii exercises, for example, Chinese fighter jets and Japanese military aircraft flew dangerously close to each other over the East China Sea.
The U.S. military routinely conducts air and naval patrols off the Chinese coast, in part to collect signals intelligence.
Although the Pentagon says it takes care to keep its planes and ships in international airspace and international waters, the practice has long irked the Chinese, who view those areas as part of their sphere of influence.
Craig Whitlock covers the Pentagon and national security. He has reported for The Washington Post since 1998.
Pentagon: China tried to block U.S. military jet in dangerous mid-air intercept
By Craig Whitlock August 22 at 1:50 PM
The Pentagon on Friday blamed China for instigating a dangerous midair encounter with a U.S. military aircraft off its coast, saying that a Chinese fighter jet made several threatening passes during an intercept in international airspace.
Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said the U.S. government filed a formal complaint with China about the near miss between a Chinese J-11 fighter jet and a Navy Poseidon P-8 patrol aircraft 135 miles east of Hainan Island. The incident occurred Tuesday, he said.
Kirby said the Chinese fighter jet brought one of its wingtips within 20 feet of the Poseidon, performed a “barrel roll” at close range and also flashed past the nose of the U.S. aircraft at a 90-degree angle with its underside exposed, apparently “to make a point of showing its weapons.”
“This kind of behavior not only is unprofessional, it’s unsafe,” Kirby told reporters.
The risky incident was the latest in a series of near misses between Chinese and American ships and aircraft as both countries have sought to assert their military might in the East China and South China seas.
U.S. defense officials said they believe the J-11 fighter aircraft involved in Tuesday’s incident belongs to the same People’s Liberation Army unit suspected of conducting intercepts of U.S. aircraft in March, April and May. The Pentagon declined to identify the Chinese military unit but said it was based on Hainan Island.
Defense officials said this week’s encounter was particularly hazardous, calling it the most reckless Chinese intercept since April 2001, when a Chinese J-8 fighter jet collided with a U.S. Navy EP-3 surveillance aircraft and triggered an international furor. In that case, which likewise occurred off Hainan Island, the Chinese fighter tried to intercept the U.S. plane by buzzing past at close range but crashed into it instead, according to U.S. accounts. China, in turn, cast blame on the Americans.
The Chinese pilot was killed and his plane fell into the sea. The U.S. aircraft was badly damaged, and its two-dozen crew members made an emergency landing on Hainan. The Chinese military detained the U.S. crew members, and it took 11 days to negotiate their release. China kept the surveillance aircraft for several more weeks, stripping it of sensitive material.
The Pentagon kept this week’s incident quiet for three days. Defense officials said they were holding out hope that China would express regret or provide an explanation, but they said none was provided.
“You’re not supposed to do a barrel roll over an aircraft,” Kirby said. “I think the message that they are apparently trying to send was [to prevent] the flight of this patrol aircraft. The message we’re sending back to China is that’s unacceptable and unhelpful to the military relationship that we would like to have with them.”
Ben Rhodes, White House deputy national security adviser, called Tuesday’s intercept “a deeply concerning provocation.” He added: “What we’ve encouraged is constructive military-to-military ties with China. And this type of action clearly violates the spirit of that engagement.”
The two superpowers have a contentious relationship over security matters. While U.S. military officials acknowledge a strategic rivalry, they say they have tried to develop closer ties with the People’s Liberation Army leadership and maintain open lines of communication.
The Pentagon confirmed reports of what it called a dangerous intercept of a U.S. Navy plane by an armed Chinese fighter jet earlier this week about 135 miles east of Hainan Island in international airspace. (Reuters)
In June, for example, the Pentagon made a point of inviting the PLA to participate in its annual Rim of the Pacific maritime exercise off Hawaii, one of the largest multinational military exercises in the world.
China accepted, but tensions with the United States and its Asian allies have persisted. A few days before the Hawaii exercises, for example, Chinese fighter jets and Japanese military aircraft flew dangerously close to each other over the East China Sea.
The U.S. military routinely conducts air and naval patrols off the Chinese coast, in part to collect signals intelligence.
Although the Pentagon says it takes care to keep its planes and ships in international airspace and international waters, the practice has long irked the Chinese, who view those areas as part of their sphere of influence.
Craig Whitlock covers the Pentagon and national security. He has reported for The Washington Post since 1998.
Hyperion
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 12,564
- Reaction score
- 26
- Country
- Location
Come on man, we all know what the CBG is doing there. If the Yanks had clear SoP's, they could have shot it down. Do you think it's out of their good heart that they let it go? It's all about brinkmanship.
Imagine, if it were you or us, our aircraft would've been downed before we had the time to say 'hello'..........
Btw, on another note, I heard some progress with artificial stable wormholes?????
Imagine, if it were you or us, our aircraft would've been downed before we had the time to say 'hello'..........
Btw, on another note, I heard some progress with artificial stable wormholes?????
if i were PLA boss i'd order the pilot to intentionally cause an accident and eject out and wait to be rescued.. apologies.. play dumb.. rip that P8 apart to pieces like they did before on hainan island. crack their secret comm link and steal everything else. totally worth it
Last edited:
Audio
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2012
- Messages
- 5,411
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
I'd say blustering mixed with selfpitty is the culprit as to why you two geniuses haven't managed to find out P-8 is a land based airplane and what this means for the very creative and somewhat suggestive nature of your posts.
#sryjstpassin'thruwithfacts2014®™
Similar threads
- Locked
Latest posts
-
Imran Khan vs Pakistan: Protest of Treachery - Casualty Report- Latest: Pakistan Space Agency
-
-
-
Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts
-
Imran Khan vs Pakistan: Protest of Treachery - Casualty Report
- Latest: Pakistan Space Agency
-
-
-
-
Bajwa calls Bushra's allegations against Saudi Arabia 'baseless'
- Latest: Novus ordu seclorum
