A US Navy destroyer, the USS Ralph Johnson, sailed through the sensitive Taiwan Strait on Thursday, drawing protest from China.
Senior Col. Li Xi, the spokesman for the Chinese military’s Eastern Theater Command, said air and sea assets were deployed to monitor the US warship as it traveled through the Strait.
“The Eastern Theater Command remains on high alert and will resolutely safeguard national sovereignty and security, as well as regional peace and stability,” Li said.
The US always frames its Taiwan Strait transits as “routine” even though Beijing views them as provocations, and tensions in the region have been especially high in recent years.
“The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Ralph Johnson (DDG 114) is conducting a routine Taiwan Strait transit on August 22 (local time) through waters where high-seas freedom of navigation and overflight apply in accordance with international law,” the US Navy’s Seventh Fleet said in a statement.
The last time a US Navy warship transited the Taiwan Strait was in May. The US has been encouraging allies to step up their presence near China’s coast, and a Canadian frigate made the provocative trip through the Strait on July 31.
At the time, Li said the Canadian frigate had “harassed and disrupted the situation and undermined peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.”
Per the Law Of The Sea, to which both China and the US are signatories, if a country possesses both sides of a straight then the water between is national territory, not international waters. The US still recognizes Taiwan as Chinese territory. I'm sure DC would be a wee bit perturbed if a Chinese warship were to cruise through the straight between Catalina Island and Long Beach.
US abandoned international laws decades ago…!
Let’s look at the facts, your alternative facts may confuse people:
Straits Used for International Navigation:If the strait is used for international navigation, even if a country controls both sides, the waters of the strait are subject to the right of transit passage under UNCLOS.Transit passage means that ships and aircraft from other countries have the right to navigate through the strait continuously and expeditiously, but they must respect the sovereignty of the coastal state. This right cannot be suspended by the coastal state.
The US is not a signatory to UNCLOS so why are you citing that?
UNCLOS constitutes international maritime law. Your question is ridiculous
Well if that's the case why aren't we a signatory? Well? Does that mean you don't support the US adhering to international maritime law, wise guy? Or what's good for the goose, isn't good for your gander?>
You’ve lapsed into incoherence again
You like to use that same crutch when you're befuddled by common English and common sense.
The Taiwan Strait is a body of water that separates Taiwan from mainland China. It is about 180 kilometers (110 miles) wide at its narrowest point.2. Legal Status Under UNCLOS:Territorial Seas: Both China and Taiwan can claim a territorial sea extending up to 12 nautical miles from their coastlines. If both sides assert these claims, this would leave a central portion of the strait as international waters, as the strait is wider than 24 nautical miles.
As a result of Articles 17-20 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, I do not recognise any prohibition on the passage of a ship. Please compare:
"SECTION 3. INNOCENT PASSAGE IN THE TERRITORIAL SEA
SUBSECTION A. RULES APPLICABLE TO ALL SHIPS
Article 17
Right of innocent passage
Subject to this Convention, ships of all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.
Article 19
Meaning of innocent passage
1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.
2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:
(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;
(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;
…"
https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf
Another question is whether this is an ethically sensible action or whether it constitutes military espionage.
And you don’t consider the passage of a guided missile destroyer a “threat … of force”? The Chinese do, especially considering the US’s long, long history of provocations which it declared after the fact as “self defense” though not being attacked.
What should we do about the nuclear powered and nuclear armed Russian sub in a Cuban harbour?
Passage through a straight in international waters adjoining a country with which we have defence accords by non nuclear warships is perhaps not inherently a threat to any innocent party.
Wrt to recent joint Chinese/ Russian extensive wargame exercises off the Scandinavian coasts, it's valid to ask which naval activity is inherently threatening.
https://chatgpt.com/share/32bafd87-a377-4728-9713-811d1bb4df58
To date, the USA has not ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 (UNCLOS), but recognises it as customary international law. China ratified on 07 June 1996 (List No. 92.). Israel, Syria, Turkey, Eritrea, Peru and Venezuela have also not signed to this day.
https://www.un.org/Depts/los/reference_files/chronological_lists_of_ratifications.htm List No. 92.
https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/oceans-and-the-law-of-the-sea
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/lawofsea.html
https://www.noaa.gov/law-of-sea-convention
https://www.state.gov/law-of-the-sea-convention/
https://www.jag.navy.mil/national-security/law-of-the-sea/
https://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/legal/pages/unitednationsconventiononthelawofthesea.aspx
https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2949&context=ils The U.S. Position on the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
https://saisreview.sais.jhu.edu/unmoored-from-the-un-the-struggle-to-ratify-unclos-in-the-united-states/
We haven’t? My bad. We certainly do attempt to force everyone else to adhere to it. Peru hasn’t? I’m surprised, they used to have a LOT of trouble with foreign ships trawling in their waters before the collapse of the anchovy fishery.
Evidently you don't object to China's threat to use military force against Taiwan and you still haven't reacted to my point about the Russian nuclear powered submarine in Cuba or the joint Russian, Chinese naval exercises off Scandinavia.
No doubt you're also happy with Trump's plans to use military force against Mexico and internal protestors in his second term.
What a piece of work art thou. Hmm, not sure that art's appropriate.
Did Cuba complain about a foreign ship entering its waters? No? Then what the frack do we have to say about it? If it sailed into New York Harbor I can see getting annoyed, but until it violates the laws there’s nothing that we have any right to do about it.
Again, why do you believe that we have the right and/or responsibility to declare that Russia and China cannot cooperate any damn way they please, as long as it is internationally legal operations? We are not the rulers of the world, no matter what your oversized ego may proclaim.
Yes, you used ‘art’ more or less correctly, but there weren’t a lot of grammar rules in use then so it’s open to interpretation.
Who’s talking about Cuba complaining?
I made the point that the Russian Navy are entitled to traverse international waters within 90 miles of the US Coast. That addressing the whining about our destroyer traversing the Taiwan straight which is 110 miles wide at its narrowest point.
You’re very confused. At least, I hope it’s just confusion.
Sure – only PeterS is not confused because he has a brain addled by mental disease.
Obviously you never object when the US threatens military force and has acted on it, many many times? What a hypocrite.
There you go robotically making more baseless, ignorant accusations. Try to control your rage.
As you unravel you become increasingly irrational.
I yet again refer you to the YouTube video I provided days ago, in which AOC sets out her position on the GAZA atrocities, amongst a range of her positions, with which I told you I m in total agreement and was before she appeared on the scene.
I also long ago posted that I believe after Trump is defeated, US officials involved in any actions sanctioned by the ICCJ under the South African case, should be investigated by the DOJ and held accountable, including the of impeachment of Joe Biden at the commencement of his second term.
You should stop making a public fool of yourself.
I'd rather not revert to 4th grade English for someone like you to understand because you've been outed as a dunce.
Can ethics be non sensible?
Ethical values, e.g. international humanitarian law, distinguish between good and evil, don't they?
https://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy
https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English
https://www.thebehavioralscientist.com/glossary/ethical-values
https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm
Yup, that’s why it’s a good thing that the US is assisting Taiwan deter and defend itself against the bad threats made by China to its existence.
Why are you defending the bad and attacking the good?
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12503/1 U.S. One-China Policy
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10275 Taiwan: Background and U.S. Relations
https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-us-one-china-policy-and-why-does-it-matter
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/understanding-the-one-china-policy/
https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2023/02/the-many-one-chinas-multiple-approaches-to-taiwan-and-china?lang=en
https://globaltaiwan.org/2024/02/the-one-china-principle-chinas-norm-versus-global-realities/
https://jfsc.ndu.edu/Media/Campaigning-Journals/Academic-Journals-View/Article/3026633/the-us-one-china-policy-a-primer-for-professional-military-education-faculty/
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-taiwan-relations-tension-us-policy-biden
http://www.china.org.cn/english/taiwan/7956.htm
Yes: ” The TRA explicitly states that the U.S. will provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character and that the U.S. will maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that will jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.6 Recent statements and the executive branches increased statements involving the TRA indicate a move towards strategic clarity and suggest closer relations with Taiwan.7 Moreover, formal U.S. allies, such as Japan and Australia, expressed concern over any PRC aggressive intent, both militarily and commercially, towards Taiwan because of its strategic location.-Academic Journal 2022 as sourced by you.
Meanwhile, the real anti-war news.
…from USNI:
"Navy Could Sideline 17 Support Ships Due to Manpower Issues"
I advocate a joint Russian, Iranian, and Chinese cruise along the west coast of the US that includes transit between Catalina and Los Angeles with a stop in Ensenada, Baja California.
With, at various times, important-looking officers and men in suits pointing at things on the US coastline and nodding in agreement about something.
"Peaceful passage ! Don't mind us. Just…planning a future seaside vacation, is all."
The Russian atomic powered nuclear armed Submarine in a Cuban harbour at 90 miles from Miami is no different than a US destroyer passing through international waters in the Taiwan Straight. Tit for tat, so to speak.
Does a Taiwan Straight beat a Taiwan Flush?
Definitely not quads…
Hmm, he folded..
Stop humming, it's annoying.
Freedom of expression not ok with you, or are you still struggling with that rage of yours that bursts forth when, yet again you’ve embarassed yourself on these threads?
I've seen that kind of dumbfuckery reasoning from warmongers my whole life. Orwellian doublespeak trying to transfer their communicative shortcomings to your opponent, and foolishly attempting to convey an air of superiority,
Calling out your Putin parroting and MAGA style, lies, slurs and alternative facts exposes you as the fool. No one needs to ” try to convey a sense of superiority” when dealing with a MAGA bigot, so sayonara now, this tete a tete has reached its boredom point.
I'm only concerned about the US and its penchant for war.
Article 23 UNCLOS
Foreign nuclear-powered ships and ships carrying nuclear or other inherently dangerous or noxious substances
Foreign nuclear-powered ships and ships carrying nuclear or other inherently dangerous or noxious substances shall, when exercising the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea, carry documents and observe special precautionary measures established for such ships by international agreements.
Article 38 UNCLOS
Right of transit passage
1. In straits referred to in article 37, all ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage, which shall not be impeded; except that, if the strait is formed by an island of a State bordering the strait and its mainland, transit passage shall not apply if there exists seaward of the island a route through the high seas or through an exclusive economic zone of similar convenience with respect to navigational and hydrographical characteristics.
2. Transit passage means the exercise in accordance with this Part of the freedom of navigation and overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of the strait between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone. However, the requirement of continuous and expeditious transit does not preclude passage through the strait for the purpose of entering, leaving or returning from a State bordering the strait, subject to the conditions of entry to that State.
3. Any activity which is not an exercise of the right of transit passage through a strait remains subject to the other applicable provisions of this Convention.
https://www.google.de/maps/place/48°59'59.7%22N+8°22'59.2%22E/@19.4780469,98.2295387,4044810m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d48.9999167!4d8.3831111?hl=de&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDgyMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
of this Convention.
" https://www.google.de/maps/place/48°59'59.7%22N+8°22'59.2%22E/@19.4780469,98.2295387,4044810m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d48.9999167!4d8.3831111?hl=de&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDg "
Why this Google map?
The chart serves the purpose of Art. 38 para. 1, as a voyage east of the island of Taiwan differs from a voyage west of the island of Taiwan due to the depth of the sea, etc.
It’s a map of somewhere near Mannheim in Germany.
https://www.nauticalchartsonline.com/charts/SEMAR/Pacific
https://appchart.c-map.com/core/select/new_place/@133.56389627158586,18.66307898506605
Please reduce the scale by using the tool (-).
https://download.gebco.net
https://map.openseamap.org
https://www.arcgis.com/home/webscene/viewer.html?layers=83135462ac874534943d95f9ca7f52dd
https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?v=98.81450236754502,14.654694641358024,139.1772546521851,34.67644407972752&e=true&efs=true&efa=false&efd=2024-04-26,2024-08-24&l=Reference_Labels_15m(hidden),Reference_Features_15m(hidden),Coastlines_15m,BlueMarble_NextGeneration,VIIRS_NOAA21_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),VIIRS_NOAA20_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),VIIRS_SNPP_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Aqua_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor&lg=true&t=2024-08-24-T21%3A26%3A03Z
https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/atlas/maritime_atlas/#lang=EN;p=w;bkgd=1;theme=2:0.75;c=13219624.37345894,3031680.913462527;z=5
https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/welcome.html
1) the passage of U.S. Navy destroyers through the Taiwan Strait is generally considered legal under international maritime law. The key legal principle governing such passages is "freedom of navigation," which is enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).The Taiwan Strait is considered an international waterway, and under UNCLOS, ships of all states, including military vessels, enjoy the right of "innocent passage" through territorial seas and "transit passage" through international straits.
2) the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) of 1979. This act commits the U.S. to help Taiwan defend itself, although it stops short of guaranteeing direct military intervention. The U.S. also conducts arms sales and engages in joint military exercises with Taiwan, which further strengthens their strategic relationship.
US Destroyers aren't nuclear powered and not automatically nuclear armed.
3) U.S. destroyers are not nuclear-powered, and they are not always nuclear-armed.Power: U.S. destroyers, like the Arleigh Burke-class, are typically powered by gas turbine engines, not nuclear reactors. Only a few types of U.S. Navy ships, such as aircraft carriers and submarines, are nuclear-powered.Armament: U.S. destroyers can be equipped with various weapons, including Tomahawk cruise missiles, which can be nuclear-capable, but they are not always armed with nuclear weapons. The specific armament of a destroyer depends on its mission, and nuclear weapons are only deployed under certain circumstances.
US destroyers are legally entitled to free passage through the Taiwan Straight in terms of international law.
Me Too…! They have to taste their own provocation…!
So in your world two wrongs make a right and tit for tat, the handing over of my junk, earns me a breast to er, admire?
Not in my world… Rather in US world…!
In US world it's completely legit to do the same as them for deterrence, intimidation and provocation… Becuase that's the only language they know…!
So in your world the US assisting the Ukraine defend its existence is a wrong, like helping Taiwan defend its freedom. Ok, gottit.
US has no business assisting any countries thousands of miles away from its borders…!
Yes, WW 1+ 2 are clear examples of American meddling./s
Our involvement inWWI was totally unnecessary and FDR did get his European War by sticking his nose into it, and imposing impossible demands on Japan that he knew they could not accept. Anyway, we do agree, they are examples of meddling in disputes that no matter who won, were not a threat to the US.
No, we do not agree.
"/S' slipped your notice, or are you just desperate for approval?
Obviously you feel you have to be falsely vindicated. You're on the wrong website fort that, pal.
Projection, your MAGA style response to being exposed for the bigot you are. You’re on the right website for that pal.
” Fort”, a Freudian slip? It’s obvious that your paranoia is borderline psychopathic.
Your KAD (Keep America Down) wish and political persuasion that glorifies killing and war because you think you are GOOD, and all those who we kill are BAD. What a brainwashed idiot you are.
Your unintelligible gibberish indicates either a schizophrenic episode, or drug induced hallucinations.
That ridiculous non-germane retort, is indicative of an idiotic attempt to remain on topic.
Yet again you’re incoherent.
How can I be ” attempting to remain on topic” if my retort, according to you, is “ridiculous” and ” non-germane”?
I can't teach you basic comprehension. If you can't understand it's because you obviously have an education that ended with you getting your GED.
Were you for Vietnam, Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria defending their sovereignty or is it always bombs away for warmongers like you.
Look at how you plant strawman and then dishonestly label, with a slur, to feed your malicious confirmation bias.
You perfectly reflect the mentality of a bigot.
You are a master race type who thinks only some countries can kill, bomb, and invade.
Here is where I stand, just posted in the wan hope that it may open a few of your dormant perspective and truth comprehending synapses:
https://youtu.be/TBoqy5Tx6U8?si=F4YyiOGdD_ipC80K.
So now at a loss for coherent thoughts/words, you turn to a couple far left wackos for support? Shame on you.
We know that MAGATs label AOC a communist. They also say there were good people on both sides at Charlottesville.
Why are you supporting Naz!s? Are you a Naz! ?sympathizer, or just unaware of what you’re saying?
There were good people on both sides. You support a nazi regime in Kiev so for you to question anyone on their political leanings is pathetic. So none of the people there other than your left leaning comrades, were good people? It was the mobs from the left that counter-marched without a permit that created the violence.
We're too much in debt to be assisting any country other than our own.
So what if they did? I advocate that you move to Russia, Iran or China. If you did, there would be one less Anti-American. Do you stand for the national anthem at sporting events? Do even go to a sporting event?
I quit sports back when the San Fransisco Giants kept losing at the last minute. It happened every year. Broke my interest in sports except for championship games a friend may have on the tv.
I view Cosmos first thing every morning on the US Government Astronomy picture of the day.
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
A novel I wrote in 2004± explained water on the moon. It pains me that China figured out water on Luna before scientists in, for example, the US state of California and its university system.
I have not pledged allegiance to the flag since the mid fifties. I want a new and more perfect union of real democracy, where the people set the goals and tell the government what to do. My vote is to put the capitol in the middle of the country. Modern tornado-safe ferrocement architecture will make sense there.
Usually you look into space into the past because of the distance, the speed of light with the exception of our sun and its planets with their moons.
If you're going to build with concrete, then carbon concrete.
Or well reinforced very thin concrete carefully cured to last millennia.
Why, the Russian atomic powered submarine transited the East coast on its way to Cuba?
I don't know WITAS (Why In The Actual S**t) my country needs to sail a frigate there. We have maybe the longest coastline in the world !!! Plenty to see off our own shores, whilst defending OUR OWN SHORES.
Defending Taiwan against communist China's oft stated threats of invasion, as per the US/Taiwan defence agreements?
* The U.S. is committed to maintaining the capacity to resist any force or coercion that would jeopardize Taiwan's security.The TRA states that any effort to determine Taiwan's future by non-peaceful means would be considered a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific and of grave concern to the U.S.
That's so ridiculous it stinks. An Act of Congress after we unilaterally abrogated the Taiwan-US Mutual Defense Treaty and withdrew diplomatic recognition of Taiwan. In any case should be none of our business, The Monroe Doctrine should make the arms manufacturers rich enough without sticking our noses into family squabbles all over the world.
Oh boy not the "grave concern"!!!! As if China doesn't have grave concerns with our meddling and going back on our word.
We have a longstanding defence agreement with Taiwan. The TRA clearly sets out our position.
The U.S. maintains a strong, unofficial relationship with Taiwan, primarily governed by the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) of 1979. The TRA does not guarantee U.S. military intervention in the event of a conflict but commits the U.S. to provide Taiwan with the means to defend itself. It also states that any attempt to determine Taiwan's future by non-peaceful means would be of grave concern to the U.S.
Why are you defending Communist China, who after abrogating it's agreement wrt Hong Kong, are now building their military for the stated objective of "unifying" Taiwan by 2025.
China' s " grave concerns" don't seem to extend to the Uyghurs or the Tibetans, or to the international law of the sea.
Do you also defend Russia Hamas and the Israeli Hilltop Youth Party?
Hong Kong was and is Chinese territory that was forced/wrenched from China by England for a 99-year lease that expired in 1999. I bet you hated it when the UN and the US recognized Taipei as the sole legal government of all of China, didn't you? And they occupied the permanent seat on the UN Security Council for China's seat.
I don't defend anyone. Are you a historical supporter of Abraham Lincoln when he sought to preserve the nation?
We aren't a party to the UNCLOS so why would you be concerned with China, England, Panama, etc., or any other country re UNCLOS?
I know you are now turning over a new leaf with sympathy for those from that "religion of peace", as the warmongers called the Muslims in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Gaza, Syria as we killed them.
Go study the words of the Founders and their wisdom on minding our own business and warning to not go searching for monsters to destroy.
Why do you think you or anyone else in the Western Hemisphere has any right or business criticizing people of other nations, on other continents? Isn't the Monroe Doctrine enough for you to fuel our arms industry? Your efforts would be better served trying to improve your own country with its faults and needs instead of trying to dictate to others in foreign lands.
Why do you support an installed dictatorship in Kiev, that was "killing his own people"? Did you support the murder of Diem in Vietnam by the CIA? Did you support the murder of the President of Iran before we installed the Shah?
Would it be OK with you if China/Russia began a long-term Defense Agreement/Treaty with Mexico and started pouring weaponry in that part of the world?
You have difficulty focussing, though none when it comes to parroting Putin.
Your bigotry is on display yet again. You support HAMAS's violence in its quest for Palestinian independence but call Ukrainians democratic, non violent uprising against a deceptive, corrupt, Putin sock puppet a resort to dictatorship. What a blatant, Putin parroting lie.
You have difficulty, period, especially in common sense. Your adoration of a tin horn dictator in Kiev who murdered an AMERICAN journalist with silence from your type and who has cancelled elections, banned the majority religion of Ukraine, and who was "killing his own people" like warmongers like you used as justification to destroy Iraq. Now back to your coop and stop barking. And I noticed you obviously couldn't truthfully reply to my on-the-mark questions to you. Some, like you, are unable to focus beyond your stultified intellect when it comes to logic, or in your case, lack of it.
Well this clarifies who your leader is. Like him you’re delusional with BPD and possibly incipient dementia.
My leader and my nation is the US and what's good for the US, which is not constant belligerence against primarily weak, practically defenseless nations.
Your nation is your leader?
Which ” weak practically defenceless nations”?
You’re very confused.
In comparison to American military power in the past — Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Serbia.
When President Carter, by himself, abrogated the Taiwan-US Mutual Defense Treaty, announced in Fall 1978 to become effective in 1979, the only opposition in the Congress was by Sen Barry Goldwater who said that any Mutual Defense Treaty that required ratification by the Senate to become effective, was required to have the same ratification to abrogate it. No one joined him, and you come with a Congressional Act that doesn't have anything near the force of a Treaty as your wished for remedy?
So, why do you want to make Taiwan a killing field with its people facing hardship, death and injuries, like our meddling in Ukraine has caused that nation. Will you be one of them that cackles, "Oh it's worth it, not one American killed!"?
And, stop using the method outlined by Herman Goering in your lame attempt to stifle dissent, regarding the continual sticking of our nose into affairs that should be none of our or your business.
What you call ” our meddling in the Ukraine”, seems to indicate that you believe that the UN resolution, voted for by 141 countries, that Russia’s unprovoked invasion of an independent sovereign nation was an illegal act, was the UN, ” meddling in the Ukraine”
Aiding the victim of Russian aggression with its stated objective of wiping the Ukraine from the face of the earth, is only viewed as ” meddling in the Ukraine” by Moscow, and you.
You're so predictable, citing the UN when it suits your warmongering purpose, but when the UN votes against Israel or other nations you adore, you want to kick it out of the country. Stop cherry-picking, you pea=picker.
You argue like a peevish, narcissistic teenager.
You baselessly decide my positions, conflate prevaricate, and MAGA like resort to slander and projection.
You have no idea what my position is wrt GAZA and then roll into unhinged ranting. Get a grip you’re doing yourself no favors.
You have no idea PERIOD. Now stop parroting your warmongering media and have an independent thought for once. I knew it with that MAGA reference. Some are too stupid (like you) to not know it's either liberal interventionists and/or neocon warmongers who you adore.
You’re flailing in an over agitated state again.
Settle down and stop running amok.
QED..
I wouldn't say "again." It's pretty much continuous.
True..
Oh look at Tommy, taking sides with the warmonger.
Noticing your sad condition has nothing to do with taking sides in an argument.
I'd say you're totally incorrect. Again!
No – because the job of the UN is to meddle in areas where there are conflicts; it's not the job of a self-annointed country that is responsible for arming and/or being involved in those squabbles.
You’re the one using Nazi tactics in gaslighting and putting words in my mouth.
Naturally you also cherry pick and distort history, ignore China’s reneging on its agreements, while it undertakes a massive preparatory arms build up, and then Goebbels like, blame those who haven’t lied and who are the object of Xi’s stated commitment to “military intervention’ before the end of the decade.
You’re more like Goebbels, Goering et al than Xi, Putin and the north Korean dictator combined.
We signed the communiques with China to "normalize" relations and now because of warmongers like you, we break our word just like we did to Taiwan in 1979.
Oh my. Let me see: You're more like Genghis Khan, Nero, Commodus, Mao, Zelensky, and Idi Amin all combined. There fixed ya on that.
How old are you?
Much wiser than you and that's what counts, plebe.
Hmm, obviously infantile.
I can name that "hmm" tune in 2 notes.
Congratulations, are you sure you’ll be in tune?
Undoubtedly.
Study what Goering said at Nuremburg so you can pigeon-hole yourself into that description he gave of armchair corporals like you.
What are you on?
I'm on a chair sitting. You seem to be higher than a kite from some sort of substance.
Google translate is your friend, you’re torturing the English language again.
Is your first language, Russian or the old GDR dialect?
Why don't you just communicate in your butchered Kiev dialect?
…and it states if any party attempts to change the status quo (like Taiwan is leaning towards), we frown on that. We also have agreements (communiques) with China that state there is One China and Taiwan is part of it.
The TRA explicitly states that the U.S. will provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character and that the U.S. will maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that will jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.6 Recent statements and the executive branches increased statements involving the TRA indicate a move towards strategic clarity and suggest closer relations with Taiwan.7 Moreover, formal U.S. allies, such as Japan and Australia, expressed concern over any PRC aggressive intent, both militarily and commercially, towards Taiwan because of its strategic location. – Academic Journal-2022
The TRA has been the US position since 1979 and was defined at the time of the US moving to its acknowledging the One China position.
It was not defined at the time. The TRA was a unilateral action by Congress of which China had no part or play in. Now stop your damn lying, especially when you know you're a liar.
You’re projection again. The agreement is a matter of record.
The TRA was independent of any communique that resulted in diplomatic derecognition of Taiwan and recognition of China, regardless if that is not what you like.
The Chinese knew about TRA simultaneously.
The manner of informing them is irrelevant, and verifiable facts are not ” what I like”, they’re verifiable facts.
You’re determined to keep on making an idiot of yourself.
The Congress changed the provisions of what was negotiated by the State Department and China didn't know until the US State Department knew.
And the US has restricted their arms to Taiwan to those of a defensive nature only?
Yes, and at the gitgo of our acceptance of the One China position, China was fully aware of the TRA which in 79 was not challenged by China.
The US hasn’t changed its position, China has, just as it did in reneging on its agreement with Britain re Hong Kong.
Evidently you support Xi in his position that reunification will happen even if it means military invasion.
China was NOT aware of the TRA because that was done AFTER the decision was made to cut diplomatic ties to Taipei. Obviously, were you aware that Georgie Bush the Junior and your hero the Dickster Cheney lied through their teeth to get hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed so mongers like you get an erection.
You’re straying all over the place again. Try to focus. China knew about the TRA from its inception which was precisely at the time of the US changing its Taiwan policy to accommodate the US revising it’s China position in 1979.
You dishonestly again lapse into delusional rants about Cheney and Iraq with schizophrenic, baseless accusations. I sourced the AOC YouTube interview yesterday and specifically told you that is precisely where I stand, so you’re making a public idiot of yourself once more .
You're dumb argument of "straying" is ridiculous. The TRA was passed as a unilateral action of the US and China had no foreknowledge of it. Now stop your lying in attempt to not admit you're wrong. What a dunce you are, for all to see. Lowering myself to your dim-witted standards: You are a neocon warmonger psycho who loves wars, death, and destruction.
The Taiwan Relations Act was publicly introduced on February 28, 1979. It didn’t pass the House until March 13, 1979, after which is was passed by the Senate the next day in different form and sent back to the House. It wasn’t signed by Jimmy Carter until April 10.
Are you suggesting that no one in Beijing noticed the bill for 40-odd days? They just woke up on April 11 and were like “wait, what’s this I see in the NYT, they passed a law about Taiwan?”
No and if you had read all the comments you would know that. Of course they knew about it when it was discussed and passed in the Congress, but they didn't know when the decision was made in 1978 for all of the subsequent diplomatic actions and moves involving China, Taiwan and the US. When the decision was made in Sep 1978 after secret negotiations between the US and China and the decision was announced that the US was going to withdraw all US military forces from Taiwan, abrogate the Mutual Defense Treaty, withdraw diplomatic recognition from Taiwan as the sole legal government of all of China, and switch it to the PRC, China had no idea and the US State Department didn't either, that Congress was going to legislate the TRA.
Of course the PRC knew when Congress started acting and putting in provisions that were not part of the State Department's language in the 1978 negotiations. But they didn't know in advance of what the Congress was going to do or what language they were going to put into the Act, and neither did the US State Department.
So how could China know about what was going to be in a TRA in 1978? You get it now?
Wrong again, China first became aware of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) shortly after its passage by the U.S. Congress in 1979. The TRA was enacted on April 10, 1979, following the establishment of formal diplomatic relations between the United States and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on January 1, 1979. The act was a significant piece of legislation because it set out the framework for U.S. relations with Taiwan after the U.S. switched diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China (ROC) in Taiwan to the PRC.China was immediately aware of the TRA because of its implications for U.S.-China relations