3 ms·

I'm sorry you seem to be under the impression there's such a uniform voice. I think you're lying. I don't think you're sorry. I think this is childish, passive

I'm sorry you seem to be under the impression there's such a uniform voice. I think you're lying. I don't think you're sorry. I think this is childish, passive-aggressive bullshit from someone who knows how to act like an adult but somehow can't resist acting like a child. Here's how a grown man states what you were trying to say; "There's not such a uniform voice as you think across the different nations you mentioned." For God's sake, grow up. You seem to have some actual facts to present, but a childish tone undermines everything.

jwtadvice 10y ago
Here is a source, dated in the May of this year, in which policy wonks (Julian Ku, Fravel, Malcohm Cook) discuss the situation in the South China Sea and United States Freedom of Navigation Operations ("FONOPs"). http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/16/freedom-of-navigation-operations-in-the-south-china-sea-arent-enough-unclos-fonop-philippines-tribunal/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/16/freedom-of-navigation-op... This isn't an outlier in reporting on the situation in the South China Sea: reporting - and the diplomacy - emphasizes the need for the United States to find allies and to build a consensus of Asian countries. The response from those would-be-allied Asian countries, the policy wonks discuss, has been ambivilent at best. They link to an article in which the Indonesian government criticizes the US for power projection and calls on the US and China to 'restrain themselves'. The Indonesian response in this regard was not an outlier. Much of the advice to US diplomats was that the FONOPs needed to be changed because the aggressive nature of the military projection undercut the narrative that China was the bully. Advice on changing the operations included doing them silently without much public coverage, or trying to build a coalition so that the US wouldn't 'sail alone'. (The US was unable to build such a coalition.) There's a lot to say in this regard. I think your comment(s) are highly constructive, I take seriously what you say, and have been upvoting them.
- dang 10y ago
  You've been using HN for pure politics for quite a while now. That's an abuse of this site, and we ban accounts that do it. Please stop.

jwtadvice 10y ago

Here is a source, dated in the May of this year, in which policy wonks (Julian Ku, Fravel, Malcohm Cook) discuss the situation in the South China Sea and United States Freedom of Navigation Operations ("FONOPs"). http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/16/freedom-of-navigation-operations-in-the-south-china-sea-arent-enough-unclos-fonop-philippines-tribunal/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/16/freedom-of-navigation-op... This isn't an outlier in reporting on the situation in the South China Sea: reporting - and the diplomacy - emphasizes the need for the United States to find allies and to build a consensus of Asian countries. The response from those would-be-allied Asian countries, the policy wonks discuss, has been ambivilent at best. They link to an article in which the Indonesian government criticizes the US for power projection and calls on the US and China to 'restrain themselves'. The Indonesian response in this regard was not an outlier. Much of the advice to US diplomats was that the FONOPs needed to be changed because the aggressive nature of the military projection undercut the narrative that China was the bully. Advice on changing the operations included doing them silently without much public coverage, or trying to build a coalition so that the US wouldn't 'sail alone'. (The US was unable to build such a coalition.) There's a lot to say in this regard. I think your comment(s) are highly constructive, I take seriously what you say, and have been upvoting them.

dang 10y ago
You've been using HN for pure politics for quite a while now. That's an abuse of this site, and we ban accounts that do it. Please stop.