To directly answer the OP vis-a-vis the Chinese interception. According to what America and a majority of countries perceive as international law, then China was breaking that perception of international law. That said, China has never been a signatory of the IIRC 12 mile legal sovereign limit that the US follows as international law. China in fact claims something like 200 miles. Therefore, from a Chinese point of view on international law, the US was clearly breaking a law.
This is not to say China or the US was right or wrong. But to answer the OP it depends on what definition of international law you are using. It depends on what international treaties that both China and the US are signatories to.
International law is a very tenuous thing. Just ask the US about the “World Court.”
Don’t you love it when irony bites you in the arse ? That last statement really makes me wonder who’s the naive one here.
I don’t think BBF implied that Australia played a part of equal importance in world politics that the US does. But the US can’t operate solely on its own. It needs support, because even if it exists on top of the world, it needs someone to hoist it up there. If US isolated itself economically from every other country in the world, the rest of the world would continue functioning, if eventually. But the US wouldn’t thrive for too long.
Thank you Gyan9 for your kind words - I certainly didn’t intend to imply that Australia is as heavy a hitter as the USA in world affairs - that would be a ridiculous assertion, obviously. Your follow up comments confirm my original sentiments. I concede my earlier post was possibly guilty of being verbose - after all, I canvassed not one, but two subjects rather thoroughly.
But as for you leander - you got a bit personal there mate where it wasn’t necessary. My post merely served as a reminder that the USA never “truly” acts alone in diplomacy or armed conflict - regardless of what sort of media spin the internal US media might put on things. She always has friends in some capacity - and the assertion that the USA can “do it all” - totally on her own is bunkum - pure bunkum. For example, take out “Pine Gap” from the USA’s Satellite Program - in one instant - that’s a quarter of the planet which becomes invisible. And if you aren’t aware of the role that “Pine Gap” plays in the US Military and Intelligence communities, then that merely confirms Gyan9’s observations on the irony involved…
Nonetheless, my other slight disappointment is that nobody has offered to pick up on my comments regarding the OP - namely that North Korea resembles the Warsaw Pact in it’s last days and that China can be arm-twisted into taking care of the problem for us…
“America will continue to operate as it sees fit, regardless of international support or retribution.” – That means that no matter what other countries say or do, America will (particularly under this administration) follow its own course. No matter what. You want a cite? Try reading a newspaper anytime in the last few years.
“Unfortunately, in this day and age, what cannot be argued can be bought, or coerced, or simply ignored.” – That means that America has the power and money to buy any “support” we need; or to threaten, manipulate and cajole until an “agreement” is reached; or to ignore any country who disagrees and simply do it anyway.
Now was that so hard?
As to Boo Boo Foo, I did not mean to insult you or your country. I have a lot of respect for the men who fought so valiantly and died for the cause of freedom. I just think you were getting a bit carried away in re the importance of Australia in world politics/world affairs.
I never said we can do it alone; in fact, I said we cannot and should not. The easiest way to understand this is to read my earlier post.
Indeed leander, I actually agreed with you - but you didn’t see that. I asked you NOT to include me in the list of people who would argue FOR isolationism - because it’s a myth.
I maintain however, that you’ve misinterpreted my earlier sentiments. Certainly, it’s true that on a per capita basis, Australia has made some astonishing sacrifices over the years - in lands far away from us. And we’ve done so as Britain’s ally, and as the USA’s ally. But we’ve never argued that we were the primary “movers and shakers” - and I won’t argue that now. We Aussies just don’t have that sort of ego problem. But I can’t help but feel you’re interpreting my remarks as this being the case. So may I reiterate… it matters not as to what precisely the “degree of contribution” has been in the past - what counts, is that when she needed it, the USA has found herself with friends who lent support - both militarily and at a spiritual level - and you can’t under-estimate the value of that. To do so (and I’m not suggesting you’re guilty of this personally leander) is just plain mean it seems to me.
Anyways, I’m kinda hijacking this thread, so I’ll shut up now.
You’re absolutely right. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
As I said before, I strongly believe that America needs its friends, now more than ever. I only wish that we, as a nation, would be more open when our friends disagree with us.
leander: Why don’t you try reading a newspaper, perhaps even a recent one? The United States of America has helped out a good number of countries on this planet and has done so also as part of multi-national treaty organizations. Your comments above belie a certain hatred, and thus automatic distrust–regardless of facts–of the United States.
Why don’t you try reading this entire thread (and all of my comments) before you spout such nonsense. When have I ever said that America hasn’t helped numerous countries, with and without “multi-national treaty organizations”?
Seriously, before you shout “fire” check for smoke and flames.
Talk about naïveté. Do you seriously think that all policy publicly announced by the US administration (especially foreign affaires), isn’t filtered to check whether it will meet a broad international consensus or atleast acceptibility ? The US may run over 3rd world unstable and imporvished countries, but it can’t implement any foreign policy that is opposed by a vast majority of the important economies. Like you said, opinions can be bought. That applies to the US as well. And yes, there are rich enough entities that can buy favorable US influence.
I was going to post a lengthy comment about what you said & in response to your snide comment above, leander; however, Gyan9 showed that a short posting directing you towards reality, even giving room for what I perceive as your distorted view of American foreign policy.
Hah! Thank you for proving my point. What I meant, obviously, was “take a course in Reading Comprehension 101. Please.” I will reiterate that desire here again. It will make things much easier.
Do you honestly believe that the U.S. cannot implement foreign policy that is “opposed by a vast majority of the important economies”?
Where have you been living?
There’s this wonderful thing called the internet. I am assuming (though perhaps I shouldn’t) that you know how to use it. Many newspapers have large databases filled with various articles. These are called resources. Use them.
Monty, thanks for stopping by with your insightful comments. First you accuse me of “hatred” and “automatic distrust” without reading and following along with the entire thread. Then you “direct me towards reality” by citing the aforementioned argument. Brilliant!
Coil! Great question. My understanding, according to what I was taught in school is that the 5 countries are as follows… USA, Great Britain, Canada, Sweden, and Australia.
New Zealand came close - being federated in 1904 apparently.
For some reason, Switzerland wasn’t included in that listing. I suspect it’s because their lovely “unique system of Elders” didn’t qualify on some sort of technicality.
Indeed, it’s a good enough question for another thread in General Debates if truth be known. Certainly, I’m open to standing corrected if I’ve got it wrong.
No, it cannot. All policy relating to foreign affaires that is announced by the US govt. is only done so after having been checked for acceptibility for a sufficient consensus. US cannot implement a foreign policy that is not acceptable to atleast a few of the important economies.
Planet Earth. You might want to visit us sometime.
Then, you meant to say
Try reading a newspaper [published] anytime in the last few years.
Try reading a newspaper from the last few years.
In either case, I might have to take up Reading Comprehension 101. Comprehension of your proprietary brand of the language.
Gyan: I’m noticing leander’s comments towards both you and me & I’m wondering, “What?” But you’ve described it perfectly with that great comment above about leander’s “proprietary brand of the language.” Are you going to throw the copyright to that comment into the public domain?