Why is the US constantly sowing discord in South China Sea?

[mrswdk]

Yes, the state owns all of the land in China. So when you said 'own property', you meant 'own a house'? Because even that's wrong. You can own the house, just not the land underneath it.

[Bernie Sanders]

Yes, the state owns all of the land in China. So when you said 'own property', you meant 'own a house'? Because even that's wrong. You can own the house, just not the land underneath it.

In America, we don't own the land, as long as we pay property taxes aka lease fees, we keep the house. See we are in the same boat. Many senior citizens have to sell their homes, cause they can't afford the property taxes.

[rishaed]

Yes, the state owns all of the land in China. So when you said 'own property', you meant 'own a house'? Because even that's wrong. You can own the house, just not the land underneath it.

In America, we don't own the land, as long as we pay property taxes aka lease fees, we keep the house. See we are in the same boat. Many senior citizens have to sell their homes, cause they can't afford the property taxes.

Bernie that is not the same as China. You see as long as I pay the tax for the land, I get to decide whether to buy or sell it. Aka OWNERSHIP. At that point the land belongs to me. JP Morgan down the road can't make a deal with the government to yank the land out from underneath me without my consent. It doesn't matter if I'm using the land for forest, have a house built on it, use it for farmland ect.
In china, lets say you get a house. The next day JP Morgan down the road makes a deal with the government, and you get evicted from said house, because even though you "own" the house, you don't own the land or have any rights to the land. And most of the time they won't even compensate you. So unless you are clever enough to make a homemade RPG, or have good connections as we say, you ain't gonna win. And even then, you might not win. So no, mrswdk, I don't count that as "owning" property in any sense of the word. If you own the house you should own the land underneath the house.

[Bernie Sanders]

Yes, the state owns all of the land in China. So when you said 'own property', you meant 'own a house'? Because even that's wrong. You can own the house, just not the land underneath it.

In America, we don't own the land, as long as we pay property taxes aka lease fees, we keep the house. See we are in the same boat. Many senior citizens have to sell their homes, cause they can't afford the property taxes.

Bernie that is not the same as China. You see as long as I pay the tax for the land, I get to decide whether to buy or sell it. Aka OWNERSHIP. At that point the land belongs to me. JP Morgan down the road can't make a deal with the government to yank the land out from underneath me without my consent. It doesn't matter if I'm using the land for forest, have a house built on it, use it for farmland ect.
In china, lets say you get a house. The next day JP Morgan down the road makes a deal with the government, and you get evicted from said house, because even though you "own" the house, you don't own the land or have any rights to the land. And most of the time they won't even compensate you. So unless you are clever enough to make a homemade RPG, or have good connections as we say, you ain't gonna win. And even then, you might not win. So no, mrswdk, I don't count that as "owning" property in any sense of the word. If you own the house you should own the land underneath the house.

Ever heard of Eminent domain? None of our properties is safe from government or private businesses.

[mrswdk]

@rishaed In China the land under your home is leased from the local government, and that lease may be revoked if the local government wants to develop the area you live on. In America (as Bernie says) the land you live on is leased from the government, and that lease will be revoked if you stop paying for the right to live on that land. I don't see anything other than a difference in semantics. Either way owning the house does not in itself guarantee you use of the land underneath it. The government still reserves the right to kick you off.

[muy_thaiguy]

The government here though usually ends the lease for the property if the property can be better used for some other infrastructure/economic reason.

[mrswdk]

Haha. In which case it's the exact same as China.
mrs wdk 1, rishaed 0

[muy_thaiguy]

Though the people that live there are usually recompensed for their property.

[riskllama]

did mao die of jaundice, mrs?

[jimboston]

Ever heard of Eminent domain? None of our properties is safe from government or private businesses.

You can sue the Gov't in court and resist the Government's attempt to take your property via Eminent Domain (ED).
Additionally the Gov't must pay at least "Market Value" for any land they claim.

Is this the case in China? Can you sue the Gov't and/or offer other legal resistance to their seizure of your land?
Can you take them to court and force them to compensate you more than they originally offer?

... now I know you can find examples of where the Gov't (in the US) has used ED improperly.

There are many local examples here in Boston.

That seems to be mainly a thing of the past... when people were not as sophisticated and had less access to info.

More recently I have seen examples where wrongful ED claims were lost by the Gov't.

A big one here in Boston was about 10 years ago. The City of Boston wanted to claim some private land to allow Fenway Park to expand and/or build a new park. The owners of the Red Sox claimed that couldn't make money with the old Park; and they needed a larger Stadium, with more parking, improved traffic design, and a new hotel. The people who owned the land resisted. They won. It was determined by the courts that ED was being improperly used to benefit one private company (i.e. the owners of the Red Sox); and that there was no cause to claim that the land as currently used was under utilized or misused or dilapidated (or anything like that). So the FACT is that the Gov't here is the USA can't "just take your land". That is a false claim.

[jimboston]

Haha.

In which case it's not at all like China.

mrs wdk 0, rishaed 1

CORRECTED.

[GoranZ]

After the warships, the Pentagon is now sending warplanes to the disputed South China Sea. Does this mean Uncle Sam is moving from the Middle East to Asia?


Creating Buzz

[Bernie Sanders]

After the warships, the Pentagon is now sending warplanes to the disputed South China Sea. Does this mean Uncle Sam is moving from the Middle East to Asia?


Creating Buzz

Just our Navy

[muy_thaiguy]

Oh no! The US is sending ships through international waters! Like they've always done! The horror! The audacity!

[mrswdk]

After the warships, the Pentagon is now sending warplanes to the disputed South China Sea. Does this mean Uncle Sam is moving from the Middle East to Asia?

It's called the Pivot to Asia?

[waauw]

Actually the US has always patrolled the major naval trade routes. This falls perfectly in their strategy of the past half century.

[GoranZ]

Tensions Swell as China Lands Civilian Plane on Islands in S China Sea

Looks like the Chinese are slowly fulfilling their objectives, and US cant do anything about that.

[puhrinsuhtun]

The great and almighty US of A will not cower in fear....oh wait Obama is president...

But just you wait, when the mighty US of A gets a real American like Donald Trump all other countries will bow down to the great US of A

[GoranZ]

The great and almighty US of A will not cower in fear....oh wait Obama is president...

But just you wait, when the mighty US of A gets a real American like Donald Trump all other countries will bow down to the great US of A

I doubt... US military power is dramatically declining despite its high military spending. After all only one cruse missile is enough to take out aircraft carrier, and China has such missiles. They will soon buy Russian S-400 so even stealth planes will be useless. Chinese are not bold enough to make drastic steps towards showing their military abilities as Russians did, but that is probably temporary. So regardless who will be next US president, he will face demanding changeless.

[GoranZ]

Things are getting serious in South China Sea, very serious. So far the Chinese are not brave enough(although they are capable) to show their teeth as Russians showed them, but I wonder for how long.
Beijing Accuses US Destroyer of Violating China’s Territorial Waters

And this is even more serious...
Washington Views Russia, China as Its Main 'Targets'?
If any potential Ruso-Chinese alliance is much more powerful than everything that US and all their ally's can assemble(if we assume 90% of US ally's doesn't chicken out ), I wonder why Americans want to poke both Russian and Chinese bear at the same time. Adrenaline Rush maybe?

[Bernie Sanders]

The great and almighty US of A will not cower in fear....oh wait Obama is president...

But just you wait, when the mighty US of A gets a real American like Donald Trump all other countries will bow down to the great US of A

Trump, Trump...did you say Trump....the laughing stock of the world, that Trump?

[Symmetry]

Things are getting serious in South China Sea, very serious. So far the Chinese are not brave enough(although they are capable) to show their teeth as Russians showed them, but I wonder for how long.
Beijing Accuses US Destroyer of Violating China’s Territorial Waters

And this is even more serious...
Washington Views Russia, China as Its Main 'Targets'?
If any potential Ruso-Chinese alliance is much more powerful than everything that US and all their ally's can assemble(if we assume 90% of US ally's doesn't chicken out ), I wonder why Americans want to poke both Russian and Chinese bear at the same time. Adrenaline Rush maybe?

The Chinese navy is not indeed a force to be reckoned with. I think they're about to put to sea an actual non-second- hand aircraft carrier. US beware- China is less than a century behind now!

[jimboston]

The US couldn't win a Land War against either Russia or China... i.e. US couldn't successfully invade either country.

An Air & Sea War is a different story. I think the US has enough Air & Sea power to successfully beat down both of those countries simultaneously. Assuming that the war remained non-nuclear (if that happened we'd all lose); and also assuming the US didn't care about collateral damage to our allies. The US homeland would remain relatively safe. China and Russia would be under siege. They'd be able to hurt regional allies, but not the Contiguous 48.

Of course this is all baloney and will never happen. US and China are tied together economically in such a way that it's in neither countries interest. I know all our consumer good would dry up. I don't know how reliant our military is on materials that have components sourced from Asia. I assume heavily. In general, both from a consumer and military point of view, I think our reliance on imports is disgraceful.

[Bernie Sanders]

The US couldn't win a Land War against either Russia or China... i.e. US couldn't successfully invade either country.

An Air & Sea War is a different story. I think the US has enough Air & Sea power to successfully beat down both of those countries simultaneously. Assuming that the war remained non-nuclear (if that happened we'd all lose); and also assuming the US didn't care about collateral damage to our allies. The US homeland would remain relatively safe. China and Russia would be under siege. They'd be able to hurt regional allies, but not the Contiguous 48.

Of course this is all baloney and will never happen. US and China are tied together economically in such a way that it's in neither countries interest. I know all our consumer good would dry up. I don't know how reliant our military is on materials that have components sourced from Asia. I assume heavily. In general, both from a consumer and military point of view, I think our reliance on imports is disgraceful.

China and Russia is only a danger to it's neighbors and their own citizens.

[GoranZ]

The US couldn't win a Land War against either Russia or China... i.e. US couldn't successfully invade either country.

An Air & Sea War is a different story. I think the US has enough Air & Sea power to successfully beat down both of those countries simultaneously. Assuming that the war remained non-nuclear (if that happened we'd all lose); and also assuming the US didn't care about collateral damage to our allies. The US homeland would remain relatively safe. China and Russia would be under siege. They'd be able to hurt regional allies, but not the Contiguous 48.

Of course this is all baloney and will never happen. US and China are tied together economically in such a way that it's in neither countries interest. I know all our consumer good would dry up. I don't know how reliant our military is on materials that have components sourced from Asia. I assume heavily. In general, both from a consumer and military point of view, I think our reliance on imports is disgraceful.

You are underestimating both China and Russia... Although I agree that we wont see war between US and Russia or China I strongly disagree that US has superiority on Air or on Sea vs Russia which was demonstrated in Syria.
When it comes to China, China has probably the best coastal defense systems in the world which guarantees that any enemy ship(including carriers) will be sent to the bottom of the sea before they fire a single shot. ATM Chinese are weaker in Air, but that wont last forever and they are quickly catching up.

China and Russia is only a danger to it's neighbors and their own citizens.

Welcome to the future, this is 2016 and things you say doesn't apply now.