antiterror13
Brigadier
No just unconcerned, that's all.
selective concerned? I think this is another proof for China to do something
No just unconcerned, that's all.
Well, there are some significant differences.
Japan is not creating an island...only markers. No base that I can see associated with it.
If you are accusing Japan of certain infringement, isn't it fair and reasonable to actually specify what they are? Did you specify or did you merely asserted that Japan is wrong? Please contrast that with Vincent. At least he specified what he views the problem to be.
Japan spends millions building structures on uninhabited rocks 1,740 km from Tokyo to mark its territory
...
The tiny land mass is only above water because two parts of the coral reef have been protected by concrete embankments and blocks that are designed to prevent them from disappearing beneath the waves for good, critics of Japan’s claim to sovereignty say.
China has been particularly vocal about Japan’s claim, insisting that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea makes it clear that Okinotorishima is a reef that cannot support human life and, therefore, cannot be used by Tokyo to extend its continental shelf or EEZ a further 200 nautical miles.
...
What international norms are you talking about? The one in Nirvana or in the real world? If you mean the real world, then China is following well-established international norms. I say that because evidence show China avoiding the ICJ is not double standards at all, quite the opposite. In fact, history show great powers avoid international courts in general and habitually ignore unfavorable rulings with alacrity. So, the internal norm you're so fond of supports China opting-out of ICJ lawsuits and ignoring court rulings when it suits its interests.Or PRC could act based on International norm and take it to ICJ. Double standards?
The real reason is US needs Japan to contain China, so it will overlook Japanese infringement of international laws for national interest reasons. Should US and Japan part ways on China, then you'll hear Uncle Sam sing a different tune.Basically the US has no conflicting interest concerning the issue so they are not going to spend money on it.
Yes you did. However neither Blackstone nor your post referencing his comments actually stated what Japan was infringing. If you are making an accusation, isn't the decent thing to do is to state what it is? I am reproducing the two said posts immediately below as reference.I was commenting on Blackstone's comment on the original post which already stated the issue with Japan's claim which Vincent restated:
If the world is silent on Japan's action, then China could do the same. It's called what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the West say China can't do the same just because it is China, then it's might makes right.
I don't know about might makes right but definitely double standards and favoritism. In this particular case it is also Japan's geographic advantage to be located next to open waters with no other immediately neighboring state to contend its claims. It is much easier to claim parts of a physical public commons for oneself when no one else is near.
Here is a more in-depth article regarding Okinotori specifically and in the context of US-Japan-China relations:
Here is a much more in-depth article regarding the legal issues surrounding artificial islands in general which includes looking at Okinotori:
Right now yes but the rest in FY 16 effectively 2016 or 17 ? with one of the two F-2 Sqns based to Misawa replace this one to Tsuiki, and 2 based there.Are they just reshuffling existing F-15s?
Right now yes but the rest in FY 16 effectively 2016 or 17 ? with one of the two F-2 Sqns based to Misawa replace this one to Tsuiki, and 2 based there.
Good infos also on Scramble, ORBAT.
Maybe SamuraiBlue know more ?
View attachment 24781
About Huyga Class, can also refuel others ships, about 3000 m3 max disponible and used several MCH-101 for minesweeping, also can carry up to 450 troops.
Yes you did. However neither Blackstone nor your post referencing his comments actually stated what Japan was infringing. If you are making an accusation, isn't the decent thing to do is to state what it is? I am reproducing the two said posts immediately below as reference.
Btw, Vincent did not restate as you allege and thus implying he did the same thing as you or Blackstone,. He actually stated what he believes Japan was infringing.
There you go again. You don't position your views by providing links as a primary recourse. Common sense is that you state your views (in your own words) and reference to specific comments from sources if you want to and provide links if you have to. That is simply basic presentation and communication skills because it is your job to communicate your thoughts (not someone else as your surrogate) . It is not for the other side to try to figure out what you are trying to say or your point of disagreement.