Chuck Hagel Rips China’s ‘Irresponsible’ Actions During Stand-Off At Sea

[Purveyor]

Source: Agence France-Presse

China acted in an “irresponsible” way in a stand-off with a US naval ship this month in the South China Sea, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said on Thursday.

US officials have said that the USS Cowpens, a guided missile cruiser, had to take evasive action to avoid a collision with a Chinese vessel that had come dangerously close in the December 5 incident.

“That action by the Chinese, cutting in front …100 yards out in front of the Cowpens, was not a responsible action,” Hagel told a news conference.

“It was unhelpful, it was irresponsible.”

Hagel said the maritime confrontation, the first reported for several years, pointed to the need for clear protocols between the two militaries to avoid a potential clash in the Pacific.

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/19/chuck-hagel-rips-chinas-irresponsible-actions-during-stand-off-at-sea/

[MyNameGoesHere]

1. Huh what?

We used to do that shit all the time during the cold war days to the Soviets. Also when you rush a bunch of ships into an area where you have no business being, well mistakes are bound to happen.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. Why do you say the US has no business being in the open seas?

Can you make a case based on the coordinates that the US was "where it had no business being"?

[Warren Stupidity]

4. The Chinese ships were engaged by our ships, deliberately.

Yes we have the right to be in "open seas". We even have the right to fuck with their naval exercises, and then when they fuck right back with us, to act like we are the injured party. Or we could stop doing that.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. Were they engaged deliberately? Link please. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

25. Is google broken for you?

Or do you just have difficulty reading through the bullshit?

The Chinese were on naval maneuvers off of their shores, and we just accidentally put a couple of our warships right into the midst of theirs. Is that your version of events?

Seriously?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

26. Ball is in your court since you made the assertion. Link please for "engaged deliberately". nt

[Warren Stupidity]

27. So your theory is that we had no idea and our ships were there by accident?

Because the only other alternative is exactly what happened: we deliberately fucked with their naval maneuvers.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

29. Nope.

You have made the common fallacy of false dichotomy, of binary thinking.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. What is the excluded middle between "knew they were there" and "didn't know they were there"?

This is fascinating.

You do know that we have a 24/7 planetary satellite surveillance system, right?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

32. I seek to understand the source of your theory. I have not asserted a theory and don't need to.

theory is that we had no idea and our ships were there by accident? Because the only other alternative is exactly what happened: we deliberately fucked with their naval maneuvers.

There's that binary thinking. There are many other alternatives. For example, the US could have announced a movement of ships from one ally's port to another that would traverse the area and then the Chinese called a quick military exercise. There are others that could be imagined.

But it is easy for a person not to imagine such possibilities if they are seeking confirmation for a deep-seated dislike of military. Confirmation bias.

Myself, I don't know. I would like the facts. You write with such great confidence in your theory that I would like to know the facts behind it, beyond bald assertions.

Link please on "deliberately fucked with their naval maneuvers".

[intersectionality]

38. I think you actually created the binary...

And projected it on Warren. He's saying tons of different things could be the cause, but most likely it was because we knew what was up and needed to power project. I won't read through your history, but I would be stunned if this type of piss poor argument you've framed here doesn't litter your posts. It is also impressive how quickly you dismiss analytical reasoning with the deft of a first year communication studies major who just found out what a fallacy is. It makes me wonder if you've read the news or understand the theories of political hegemony and its subsequent ideas like power projection. I suggest picking up some mearsheimer or another political theorist who could explain to you why larger nation states behave in this manner before you attack someone for making a 'false binary' argument when presented with a relatively compelling analytical argument. What makes this series of embarrassing posts you've made even more embarrassing is that you wasted all of that time attacking a 'false binary' when you could have taken two seconds to google this shit yourself. This (http://www.stripes.com/news/analysts-china-us-legal-views-make-more-cowpens-incidents-likely-1.258357) popped up immediately saying "Apart from some very serious territorial disputes with neighboring countries, much of the naval tension surrounding China boils down to one question: Do military ships have a right to surveillance and other operations in international waters, if they are within 200 nautical miles of another nation?" Turns out the US knows china doesn't want them doing this but cowpens pressed the issue. *drops mic*

[Bernardo de La Paz]

41. See post #31 where WarrenStupidity declares ownership of the binary.

Thank you for the link which provides some background and does give the Chinese version of the story.

I'm sure the presence of the US ships was not "accidental". However, just being present is not provocative. It seems from the report that the Chinese ship was provocative by cutting in front.

It is often the case that many here automatically assume fault on the part of the US military. But it is best to have a more open mind. Mr. WarrenStupidity made an assertion that was counter to the contention of the article but provided no link about the specific incident. I suspected (and it has turned out) that his assertion was pure conjecture so I wanted to see if there was anything behind it, because it would be useful to know the facts if it were true the US warship was deliberately provocative in its actions. (Note: steaming through international waters is not deliberately provocative.)

[intersectionality]

42. Nope. You've simply added the word 'false' to binary.

Tell me the third option in what he is asking about. Either they do or they don't know about it. You created a standard in which one must justify their claims with warrants and evidence, and yet you refuse to respond to his request about the know/didn't know binary. Hopefully you quote rummy's 'known knowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns' statements so I can tell you're trolling. Otherwise, I am very concerned that you do not know how to engage arguments in context and not just in a vacuum. You clearly either lied about reading the article I posted, swiftly managing to dismiss it as "the Chinese version of the story," or do not know how to read. It literally says the US knows that china demands a 200 nm zone restricting military surveillance and then the following paragraphs saying, "The U.S. Navy views the guarantee of freedom of navigation in EEZs — and any other international waters — as a vital part of its global mission." As a former resident of Texas and a current resident of NY, the only way I can only imagine you reaching your conclusions is because you live in an echo chamber of blue dog conservative thought. Take your jingoist ball and go home because the way you talk about china makes a shiver run down my very progressive spine.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

46. Nope. It's "false ** dichotomy **", not binary. And I thanked you for your link to the article.

The fallacy of the false dichotomy derives its name from dichotomy, which derives from "di" meaning "two" and "tomy" which means "cut". It is very often a false argument to argue that there are only two ways of looking at something, only two pieces that an issue can be cut into. This is also called binary thinking because of the two-state nature of binary logic: off/on, yes/no, all-or-nothing.

About the link you posted, I thanked you. In conjunction with those thanks and part of them, I thanked you for providing a link to the Chinese version of the story, as contained in the article. We had the American version in the OP and a ton of conjecture, but thanks to you we now had some information on the Chinese version of the events.

That was not dismissive of the article.

I was sincere in thanking you.

A helpful word or three to new members with low post counts who may not be familiar with the DU way of doing things:

1) Calling a DU member a liar is asking to get the post hidden.

2) Calling a DU member illiterate is yet another way.

3) Telling another member to shut up and go home is skating perilously close to having the post hidden by a jury vote.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

28. US warships often travel between the Phillipines & Japan and many destinations.

I do not know the particulars of this incident but you claim to know them; hence my request for your references. I do not know as much as you do. So please show us the link where you got your information.

It seems you wish that the USA should ask Chinese permission to travel in international waters.

Even if they did "put a couple of warships right in the midst of theirs", that does not mean that they "engaged deliberately" as you asserted to cause the near collision.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. So it is your claim that we just stumbled across the Chinese naval maneuvers.

Interesting. I guess our planetary surveillance system was down, huh?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

33. Nope.

I simply presented an alternative possibility that goes beyond the binary thinking without stating it as my theory.

It is a fact that warships transit from port to port. I do not know if this was the case here.

But your planetary surveillance system seems to inform you of the motives and exact operational details of both parties. Please share your links where this information is laid out.

[Ace Acme]

6. Would a Chinese missile cruiser have any business in the Gulf of Mexico

other than a bullying assertion of the right to be as provocative as it wants anywhere that it wants?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

10. Yes, it would not surprise me if Chinese missile cruisers have been there.

The US does not own the Gulf of Mexico.

And it would not be provocative, per se.

Or do you take at face value the Chinese claims of the islands and territories?

A better example would be if Mexico asserted ownership of some small islands in the Gulf of Mexico that the US claimed and then the British navy sent a ship for a look see.

[Ash_F]

11. I would like to see some back up for this

I did a quick search and found nothing. If not, you shouldn't make misleading arguments like that.

Wasted my time.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

13. I did not assert that they had. If you "wasted your time" it was from your misreading. nt

[Ash_F]

15. Well it seems like you were wrong

You are welcome.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

16. It is impossible for you to say I am wrong when I say "I would not be surprised".

"I would not be surprised" is an assertion about my personal internal reaction to a possible event that might have happened. It says nothing about the actuality or non-actuality of the event.

[Ash_F]

17. Whoa you just made this really complicated

Take it easy tiger. I'm just going to slowly back away.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

20. In 1997 the Chinese Harbin missile destroyer was close to Mexico, Pearl Harbour, and San Diego.

I found that within less than 60 seconds.

[Ash_F]

21. Umm, it looks like they were visiting

http://research.archives.gov/description/6517831

16 years ago, during better times. That's a little bit different than the standoffs we are having now.

Do you have another link to indicate otherwise?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

22. Of course they were visiting. nt

[Ash_F]

23. But they were given arrival honors in our port by our sailors.

I guess you are not technically wrong, if it makes you happy.

[MyNameGoesHere]

8. Sure if it wasn't patrolling

within our international waters they have no business being there. Simple enough. You know the constitution agrees with me. Since there is not a declared war, these ships should be decommissioned and moth balled until we are in an actual war. But, since I know there are pro military industrial complex proponents here, what do you propose? You want to fund something that uses 10's of thousands of dollars an hour to operate on or feed some hungry children? Which would you rather do?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. "International waters" are not "our waters", by definition, or Chinese waters. Simple enough.

What part of the Constitution prohibits travel in international waters? You cannot point to it because there is no such section.

Since there is not a declared war, these ships should be decommissioned and moth balled until we are in an actual war.

That statement is utterly ridiculous. Logically it would have to be extended to all US military equipment or the statement makes no sense. By your logic whenever there is not a declared war, all ships and planes and tanks and trucks and jeeps would be decommissioned and mothballed so that any other nation could just walk in.

You want to fund something that uses 10's of thousands of dollars an hour to operate on or feed some hungry children?

You have fallen into the fallacy of binary thinking, of the false dichotomy.

And hungry children have nothing to do with your Huh what? post where you wrote the silly statement "rush a bunch of ships into an area where you have no business being".

The point is that international waters are not off limits and the US can send ships into any international waters it wants to.

[Ace Acme]

35. To me it's not a question of being prohibited. It's a question of being deliberately provocative.

It reminds me of that Die Hard movie where Bruce Willis has to stand in Harlem wearing nothing but a sign insulting the locals.

A Chinese missile cruiser in waters off our shores would be similarly provocative.

JFK actually proposed that all navies, all air forces, all armies be outlawed. There would only be a small international peacekeeping force, and police forces for keeping internal order. Maybe the reason that idea is regarded as ridiculous now is because the people who've been propagandizing us non-stop since 1963 wanted us to think so.

[MyNameGoesHere]

44. Just because there is water there

doesn't mean WE HAVE TO put military ships there. That is your fallacy of binary thinking, of the false dichotomy. Why you would use 5 dollars words in a nickel sentence is beyond me. It pained me even to type that.

The area has not been denied navigation, the Chinese are asking for prior permission from vessels, planes etc. file a intent to navigate. No freedom of travel is being denied. Much like we would require them to file a flight plan to land at a conus airport. Or overfly Hawaii. Or Alaska. Or Guam. Wow it is hard to keep track of an empire.

Standing armies. Even George Washington, as dense as he was, had the foresight to realize it was a bad idea. The constitution says:
The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 12

Now this has been twisted and violated into some unstoppable monstrosity. The bottom line it was never intended to be on constant preemptive military standing. The boogeymen isn't coming to get you. You don't have to duck and cover under a desk. The brown isn't going to stream across the border to convert you. It is the message of fear you are drinking up.

We have been doing this since 1945. It hasn't made the world safer. It hasn't stopped wars. It hasn't projected peace. It has not worked. Now let's try it the way it was supposed to be.

[Ranchemp.]

43. Are you serious?

Since there is not a declared war, these ships should be decommissioned and moth balled until we are in an actual war

That's got to be one of the most ridiculous statements to date. In today's fast moving wars, do you have any clue as to how long it takes to get a ship that's been mothballed ready for combat?

[Ash_F]

14. Maybe legally they could be there...

...but it is questionable whether it is an intelligent use of our military budget.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

18. Now you are asking the right questions.

I think there are strategic geo-political reasons to be there, but it is certainly debatable and contestable and there are good points on both sides of the issue as you have posed it.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. This from a representative of a nation that mistakenly killed 100,000+ Iraqis. nt.

[Purveyor]

7. And they are still dying as we f**ked that place up but good. The entire middle east is a cluster-

funk because of our crimes against the sovereign state of Iraq.

Should this country continue to weaken at the pace it is currently proceeding, someday the international community will be strong enough to bring justice for this unpardonable war crime.

[Ace Acme]

36. Long live Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, Addington, Yoo, Rice, Zelikow, and Feith!

Long enough to face their Pinochet moments, please!

[Benton D Struckcheon]

5. Asserting morality in cases like this is beyond stupid.

The US does what it does for the simple reason that it knows, in the long run, China has the advantage. China knows this too.
The only way to keep them in line is to ally with everyone else in the region. Hence our alliance with Japan, South Korea, Australia, and above all, India, diplomatic spats over little things like the keeping of slaves notwithstanding.

[okaawhatever]

37. How does China have the advantage? nt

[Benton D Struckcheon]

45. Long term

China was, until the 18th century, the richest nation on the planet. They will be again and their military spending is growing rapidly.

[madrchsod]

19. a tempest in a teapot.....

it was either 05 or 06 a russian fighter flew about 40-50 feet over the flight deck of an american carrier. the pilot of the russian jet emailed the photo back to the us carrier and this was published in a us naval magazine.

if i remember no one in the media ever reported the story and it did`t start ww3

[TwilightGardener]

24. Recent tensions because of the ADIZ business are going to put these interactions

in the news. I think the action of turning and stopping short in front of a US ship possibly goes beyond the usual confrontations, but I don't know. What's interesting to me is that this incident wasn't reported on until a week after it happened, if I have my dates right.

[Alamuti Lotus]

34. Why won't those goddamn bastards just let US ships spy on them peacefully?

The nerve of those irrational monsters! They're downright unpatriotic, they just don't support American surveillance efforts strongly enough!

[winstars]

39. "The Bedford Incident" great movie, similar subject...

[Android3.14]

40. Maybe if the ship had a different name

I'm sure the Battle of Cowpens deserves remembrance, but it sure isn't a name that exudes confidence and authority.
"This is the USS Cowpens. You must change course immediately."
"Cowpens? Cow Pens? We'll just mooooove on over."
"Ha ha, we've heard it before. You still need to change course."
"Don't tip me bro!"