Tillerson says US should block China from new islands

Another thing interesting to note was that Russia was threatening to ignore the nuclear weapons treaty if Hillary became president. How do you think THAT would work out? Hillary was already in the process of starting war with Russia and the libs want to continue this.

 

We're going to have to send China a clear signal that first, the island-building stops and second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed."

What do you think that leads to? Why is USA sabre rattling a country that isn't near them

I hope you realize you're likely on your own, we like china in Canada. They're our2nd biggest trading partner. And Europe, they ain't down with that either. And neither is Australia. Once push comes to shove it'll be USA And a few island nations that'll be wiped out anyway in 20 years by rising seas. Good luck,

 

Hillary Clinton threatened to wage war against Russia over cyber security issues this week at the American Legion Convention.

Hillary Clinton: “You’ve seen the reports. Russia’s hacked into a lot of things, China’s hacked into a lot of things. Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee. Maybe even some state election systems? So we gotta step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and make sure we are able to take the fight to those who go after us. As president I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses.“

For some reason that threat of war did not make any headlines??

 

When Israel bombed the US sub and killed everyone on it, was anyone in Israel punished?

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/world/europe/russia-plutonium-nuclear-treaty.html?_r=0

MOSCOW — Saying relations with the United States have deteriorated in a “radically changed environment,” President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia withdrew Monday from a landmark nuclear security agreement, in a troubling sign that the countries’ cooperation in a range of nuclear areas could be threatened.

The treaty, on the disposal of plutonium, the material used in some nuclear weapons, was concluded in 2000 as one of the framework disarmament deals of the early post-Cold War period.

It required Russia and the United States to destroy military stockpiles of plutonium, a deal that represented another encouraging step away from nuclear doomsday and an insurance policy against the materials falling into the hands of terrorists or rogue states.

The deal has no bearing on the numbers of nuclear weapons deployed by Russia or the United States. Instead, it concerns 34 tons of plutonium in storage in each country that might go into a future arsenal, none of which has yet undergone verifiable disposal.

Continue reading the main story
Still, the abrogation signals that the nuclear agreements that accompanied the breakup of the Soviet Union and were to lead the world back from the hair-trigger brink of atomic conflict could be open to revision, as Russia’s relations with the West sour on a range of disputes today, including Syria and Ukraine and the Kremlin’s interference in the domestic politics of Western democracies.

The Kremlin had signaled previously that it planned to cut back on mutual efforts with the United States to secure nuclear material on Russian territory.

Times have changed, Mr. Putin wrote in the decree signed on Monday. “The threat to strategic stability posed by the hostile actions of the U.S. against Russia, and the inability of the U.S. to deliver on the obligation to dispose of excessive weapons plutonium under international treaties” forced Russia’s hand, he wrote.

Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said the administration was disappointed by the Russian decision since “both leaders in Russia and the United States have made nonproliferation a priority.”

“We’ve also been quite disappointed by a range of Russian decisions both in Syria and inside of Ukraine,” Mr. Earnest said, adding that the decision on the plutonium deal was part of a problematic pattern.

Russia will withdraw from the original pact and subsequent amendments, the decree says, meaning that the country will no longer be treaty-bound to destroy its plutonium stockpiles. But the decree also offers an assurance, backed by no bilateral agreement, that the plutonium will not be used for military purposes.

“These agreements were designed to limit and circumscribe the future chances of getting back into a competition over nuclear arms,” James Collins, an associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said in a telephone interview. “It was an important step in defusing the strategic nuclear arms race.”

Mr. Collins, who was the United States’ ambassador to Russia when the agreement was signed, called the abrogation a “strange move,” given the extraordinary danger, not least to Russians, should plutonium fall into terrorist hands. He added that it was “in my understanding the first time they have withdrawn from a specific nuclear agreement,” highlighting the slide in relations lately.

Russia and the United States had reaffirmed the plutonium disposal agreement in 2009, as President Obama pursued the “reset” policy with Dmitri A. Medvedev, then the Russian president.

Russia had viewed the agreement as rendering disarmament irreversible by destroying the fissile materials accumulated during the Cold War. In this light, the Russians had interpreted the treaty as requiring that the plutonium be irreversibly transformed into nonexplosive materials by using it in civilian nuclear power plants as a type of fuel, called mixed oxide fuel, or mox. Russia is pressing ahead with that.

But glitches and cost overruns in the mox plant at Savannah River, S.C., delayed the American program. This year, Mr. Obama proposed canceling the program in the 2017 budget and instead sending the plutonium for long-term storage at a nuclear waste site in Carlsbad, N.M.

The State Department has said the move complies with the treaty, but the Russians have said it does not, as Mr. Putin reaffirmed on Monday.

As ties with the West have frayed under Mr. Putin, analysts in Moscow have floated the prospect of a Russian pullback from an array of disarmament agreements dating from a period of greater friendliness. Two years ago, for example, the Obama administration accused Russia of violating another bedrock security agreement by testing a prohibited ground-launched cruise missile.

In Mr. Putin’s second term in office, Russia pulled out of a treaty governing conventional forces in Europe in retaliation for the Bush administration’s abrogation of the antiballistic missile treaty that prohibited missile defense systems.

Russia and the United States last signed a nuclear disarmament accord in 2009, when both sides agreed to a new limit on delivery vehicles such as bombers or cruise missiles of 500 to 1,100, and a limit on deployed warheads as low as 1,500.

In the chaos surrounding the end of the Cold War, the United States embarked on a sweeping program to secure the former Soviet Union’s nuclear arsenal and fissile materials by returning them to Russia from former Soviet states and upgrading security at storage areas.

The Soviet nuclear program was so entwined with the economy and society that slowing the Cold War military machine took years and cost United States taxpayers billions of dollars.

 

Who the hell cares what Hillary said. Hello, the election is over. Donald won. Hilary lost. What matters is reality and in our reality the US is banging the war drums in China's direction. What a losing presidential candidate says is irrelevant. And you only brought her up to deflect.

 

Haha. I can see it now. Bozo trump bots after getting destroyed economically and militarily in a war against China who was also destroyed and throws the world into a collapse will say "well at least Hillary didn't get her war with Russia"

 

Hillary has a known record for being a warmonger.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brenner/is-hillary-a-warmonger_b_10440976.html

 

Who's crying? Look at yourself in the mirror, and change your avatar to that of a laughing baby.

If that is so, wait for the next typhoon to wash all your so-called crappy Chinese sandbars into the South China Sea without US intervention.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

 

It looks like you are ready to venture into unknown territory to gamble on a war of mutual destruction in the Nuclear Age.

 

Perhaps in a new Hollywood movie showing Moses incarnate parting the South China Sea to sink the 7th fleet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_Red_Sea

 

Israels been busy lately bombing Syria.

 

If it keeps bombing, it will eventually clash with Russia, the protector of Syria.

 

You have no idea what a Snowflake is and why I'm laughing at them in my signature, do you?

Here's a hint:

[video=youtube;grD_IINiH9c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grD_IINiH9c[/video]

PS. I voted for Trump.

I'm looking forward to it. I just hope the debris doesn't wind up in some Chinese-made baby formula or dog food. You never know what toxic substance you'll find it that crap.

 

There must be oil around these islands.

That's the only logical reason for Tillerson's concern considering the fact that he has no history of government service, no diplomatic experience, and no knowledge of international relations between countries so his reason must be because he's a career oil man so it stands to reason that there must be oil there for him to take any interest at all.

 

Yes that's exactly what was writing in my post. Thanks for the translation.

 

This problem with a rising china, an aggressive entitlement as it starts to act a little like the American empire will escalate over time if they can endure business cycles, and when they start to see greater growth in their average people consuming Chinese made goods. They will eventually repeat what we did under the FDR model, and structure a middle class enhancing economic model. By wages high enough to creation domestic consumption. They have an untapped gold mine in economic growth, given their population.

And we will be forever in contention with this economic and rising military super power. Russia isn't even in the same class folks. I think the Chinese economy has now surpassed our own, and very little of it is domestic consumption, it is export sustained. Which is their weakness and any proper empire knows this, and remember unlike America the chinese communist gov't runs china, not elite capitalist interests. This means china looks out for china instead of only looking out for our new robber baron globalists as our gov't does.

So, how did china turn into what it is today? Put it this way. When I was watching what led to the rise of china happening in real time, I could not understand it. For it looked to be insanity. And as it developed and played out, indeed it turned out to be utter insanity. We literally helped to create the china of today, when we should have left them alone, and to themselves. Why did we not leave them alone, why would we enrich them, building them up to be a great industrial power, when their form of gov't is a natural enemy to our form, and all of the West. What would motivate industrializing china, , and giving them our manufacturing technology, while giving them 25 percent of all American factories built in china? What was so important as to indulge in this exercise of insanity ? WHO would be benefitted here in America? Where would money made from all of this go? Into whose hands? Would it create a greater disparity in income and wealth, surpassing the Gilded Age? Yes indeed. So who made out like bandits from creating the rise of china? Certainly not the millions of americans who lost their living wage job by enabling and enriching communist china. So WHO benefitted?

So there you go. We did what was done in regards to china in an elite driven scheme to max out their profits by exploiting slave labor, with a billion poor people, in china. We misnomer it "free trade" to hide what it actually is. So, the greed of our elites, created a rising rich china who is seeing itself as the new world empire, with muscles to flex. And they are not slowing down in catching up in technology and building up their military which can field a million soldiers overnight, and add another million to it easily.

This is the monster the greed of our elites, and the ability of our elected rulers to give these elites what they want, where national interests are now one in the same with the interests of a small group of very rich and powerful men. They own the banks, the MNCs, all big corporations and the US Gov't. Which was evidenced in the Princeton Study which created a black out in MSM when it was first released. Only the tin foil hatter sites reported on it and a few in the foreign press where I read about it.

Being a fairly objective being, not being an ideologue or a member of the two parties, it was obvious to me of the insanity involved, for the outcome was predictable. And that outcome is not in the interests of the People, in fact it has harmed millions of us. A couple hundred million if not more. I saw this back when it was happening, under Clinton who was carrying out GOP plans. First NAFTA and later, PNTR, both devices for maxing out elite profits by hollowing out America, devastating the People. Perot was right, and I supported him. That most americans, working people did not, and could not see what would clearly happen only shows how well equipped we are to cast sane votes. But there are a few like me, who knew what PNTR would create. Another great enemy to feed our military industrial complex, which by the way is owned by some of these same elites. They will profit highly by creating the new china, and profit on the back end by the war industries.

 

What's your stance on China's activities? Since you "like" China, I take it you won't mind if they seize control of that sea and bully their neighbors? Just as long as your trade with them is good, right?

Also, kek @ "wiped out by rising seas". China's little islands will go first

 

A passive stance on Russia, China and the middle east has created lots of problems. Obama foreign policies have been a disaster.

 

Exactly. And exactly what strategy we should be taking. Observers and critics on this thread need to understand access to our tens of thousands of military personnel in South Korea and Japan must be maintained. If you look to your maps, the South China Sea also is a massive waterway between Pacific and Indian Oceans. The Chinese making artificial islands in the South China Sea cannot, I agree with Tillerson, be tolerated.

I'd also like to see a Ford Class Carriers assigned to the 7th Fleet. Where the USS Ronald Reagan and USS John Stennis recently running dual carrier operations in the area, these are Nimitz Class Carriers. Lethal.....but I think we need to send China a message.

Happy New Year, Forum.

 

Don't need no stinking missles. Rubber raft work just fine!

 

Didn't America 'acquire' Hawaii in a particularly underhand fashion?

 

Sorry, but Obama didn't create the mess in Syria.

 

You are going to war with the nutty Liberals?