Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Islam vs Islamists, Introduction To Islamofascists vs "Moderates" vs "Reformed"

American Admiralty Books Safety & Privacy Policies  


Dome of the Rock (PD)

Embedded image permalink

 These quotes, directly from the Koran so often used by the Wahabis presently driving Islamofascism among Sunni and Shiite Muslims have been rejected by certain Muslim groups who do not find them binding on modern Muslims. The price these "Reformed Muslims" pay for their belief is constant harassment by the Wahabis influenced islamofascists. Some writers have attached the term "moderate"  to elements within the Wahabis influenced Sunni and Shiite Muslims who at least don't openly engage in violence. Some say that a "militant Muslim is one who cuts your head off, a moderate is one who cheers him on."  Don't mistake a "Reformed Muslim" for these so called "Moderates". What the major media reports as "moderates" are those who are vectoring 1/8 of the so called charitable donations through their mosques to the support of terrorist organizations such as Hamas. Any one of them is unlikely to kill you, but most are quite willing to surreptitiously contribute to the expenses of killing you.  By contrast the "Reformed Muslims" mostly from the Sufi and Alwrite sects see stoning, beheading, amputation as coming from decisions by Imams at the request of Caliphates, Sheiks, and other despotic rulers and not binding on Muslims living in Western democracies, or for that matter any democracies that might be established one day in the Middle East. The Muslims we call "Reformed" ( not a term used by Muslims of any sect) also reject the above verses of the Koran as not binding on modern Muslims living in nations where Muslims are not persecuted. These Muslim do not believe they have any obligation to impose the Sharia on the larger societies they live in , and indeed do not see every part of the Sharia as binding on modern Muslims particularly the mistreatment and suppression of women. 

The "Reformed Muslims" as we refer to them are not the "mainstream" in America, Canada, Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands. Within Islam they are persecuted. This presents a challenge to the governments now confronted by the present push for Sharia. The so called moderates who in fact support terrorism hide behind an authentic image that belongs only to this persecuted minority that we collectively refer to as the "Reformed". Western Governments are going to have to learn the differences between the "Reformed" from the so called "moderates" who are actually the financiers of violent Jihad. Below is a video produced originally for PBS that will introduce you to the groups we call "Reformed" and give you a shocking look at the so called mainstream. The video was rejected for broadcast by PBS as not in keeping with the liberal view of "Moderate" Muslims. Western Governments are now being confronted with the problem of not only suppressing Muslim violence on the larger national community but Moderate suppression of the Reformed. It is very difficult for a "moderate" to convert to another religion given the Wahhabis demand for death for apostasy.  The "Reformed" mosques may be the most important escape routes for those who find themselves among the Wahabis influenced "mainstream" Shiite, and Sunni mosques of America and the West. Western governments have to learn how to suppress Islamofascism while protecting the "Reformed" . The Video we link you to below will give you insight into both how immoderate the so called "moderates" are , and how persecuted by the moderates the "Reformed" are.  Again "moderate"/"reformed" are not Islamic terms but they are useful for non Muslim thinkers in understanding the dire situation we are now in with the infusion of Islam into western states.   

 Again terms like "reformed" and "moderate" are not of Islamic origin. The people and organizations we refer to as "reformed" would probably reject the label noting that their teachings have been handed down through ages. But the concept is useful to the Westerner in understanding what is going on. The "Reformed" should also not be confused with those we have previously identified as "Nominals" who are basically agnostic but seeking to avoid the charge of apostasy by avoiding clear denunciation or statements of non belief ,but otherwise leading secular lives.  American Admiralty Books Safety & Privacy Policies  



Monday, September 29, 2014

Golden Gate Ferry Captains Stage One-day Strike

The BAY CITY a "Rocking Arm sidewheeler about 1908 (PD) 

"The Golden Gate passenger ferry system, California's largest, was shut down on Friday by striking boat captains, disrupting service for thousands of San Francisco Bay-area commuters in a wider labor dispute over wages and benefits for transit workers."  Full Story at MARINE LINK.COM

2.7 Million Passengers a year depend on this ferry system for their daily commute. The 20 or so Captains went out on a one day wildcat strike to underscore the importance to management of bargaining in good faith. The Captains wildcat action was apparently part of a larger maritime labor dispute involving the ferry system as part of the larger urban mass transit system including the BART system. The smaller Bay Area Ferry System apparently is not involved in the labor dispute.. We first learned of the strike at MARINE LINK.COM



American Admiralty Books Safety & Privacy Policies    
 Presidential proclamation recently expanded the existing Pacific Remote Islands National Monument  by six times its original size. The total area of the resulting reserve is roughly 390,000 square nautical miles or 490,000 square statute miles, now closed to mineral exploration or development, and commercial fishing. The reserve is now the largest protected natural area on land or sea on the planet. The Reserve is located in the south-central Pacific and is roughly bounded by U.S. held Wake, Johnson, Baker, Howland, Kingman, Jarvis and Palmyra Islands. 

Grey Reef Sharks (PD) 

 Susan White The Marine Monuments First Superintendent (PD)

 The Obama administration identified expanding the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument as an area of particular interest for protection. Recent oceanographic studies  have shown that large marine protected areas can help rebuild biodiversity, support fish populations, and improve overall marine ecosystem resilience. 
The expanded Reserve will include over 130 newly protected sea mounts, which are submerged islands of 
biodiversity. The expansion is expected to better protect the delicate habitat, and its inhabitants  including marine mammals,  manta rays , sea turtles, and coral. The Monument is also a rest stop and roosting grounds to many species of  of seabirds.

Image NOAA (PD): The original circular boundaries around the islands of the National Monument. To envision the marine reserve enclose all of the islands and their original sea boundaries in something of a square. The very tight restrictions on surface navigation or visiting the actual islands that applied as a national monument remain in effect. A fishing and mineral industry prohibition now exists in the additional warer areas enclosed in the square. The creation of a marine reserve did not abolish the national monument.

  We have found little to agree with this administration on in the maritime, and wider sectors but we do appreciate this move towards protection of the Ocean. However we foresee some rough sledding ahead in terms of China. This is a very large and very open area of the Pacific and the administration has used widely scattered Islands as boundaries for what amounts to an unprecedented expansion of exclusive economic zone type authority. China uses a similar theory to claim almost the entirety of the South and East China Seas as territorial waters. The big difference between the two regions is this. THE U.S. ESTABLISHED RESTRICTED ZONE DOES NOT IMPINGE ON ANY ONE ELSE'S EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE  (EEZ) OR TERRITORIAL SEAS, IT IS SIMPLY OPEN OCEAN BETWEEN ISLANDS. EQUALLY IMPORTANT, THE U.S. DOES NOT CLAIM SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE  AREA OR ATTEMPT TO RESTRICT INTERNATIONAL SURFACE NAVIGATION OR OVERFLIGHT RIGHTS. The U.S. does have clear title to the corner stone islands. This application of the EEZ type provisions in the International Convention on the Law of The Sea is novel and arguable. China will exploit it and the defense of the U.S. action will be complex enough for the general public to have a very difficult time understanding it. Aggravating the U.S. defense is the fact that the United States has yet to sign aboard the Convention. 

 On the other hand China has signed the convention but absolutely ignores its provisions when they prove inconvenient. If anyone hauls the U.S. into an international tribunal over the restrictions in the area it will probably be China and / or some proxies. Since the United States is not restricting surface, or over flight rights of other nations few have any real economic interest in this big empty area of the Pacific. China however has a vested political interest in making the United States look hypocritical in opposing their naked land grab of their neighbors sovereign territory. The arguments will be all about a concept that we call "graduated sovereignty".  While not called by exactly that name in the treaty language,"graduated sovereignty"  is a fundamental concept around which the current international law of the sea is based.  It is the compromise that civilized states are reaching to maintain freedom of the seas in terms of navigation, while providing security of the seas and the oceanic commons and resources. It is a very complex issue, one that we cover in detail in our free on line Book AMERICAN ADMIRALTY BUREAU'S GUIDE TO THE ENDURING PRINCIPLES OF MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW which may be read in our AUTHORITATIVE LITERATURE SECTION. Precisely because it is complex expect the Chinese to take full advantage of including propaganda opportunities for the Chinese home audience. No doubt they will protest loudly and parade a naval flotilla through the area with big time media coverage making careful note of the fact that the United states did not challenge the Chinese naval presence. This is a safe bet for them since we did not claim the authority to regulate surface traffic except to prohibit fishing and subseas mining so we certainly aren't going to challenge through traffic naval or commercial that doesn't imping eon the already proscribed national monument waters. So all total we give the establishment of the Pacific Remote Islands National Marine Reserve an "A" for ocean conservation and environmental protection,  a "C+" for admiralty legal scholarship and legal defenseability,  a "B+" for probability of success as a conservation and protective measure, and a "D" for international, and particularly naval, diplomatic acumen. That's about how most things usually pan out, a mixed bag and only time will tell us about the unexpected consequences both positive and negative. 

Product Details

Product DetailsProduct Details

                                                                                                  BEACH GEAR

Saturday, September 27, 2014



Richie Lott

Shared publicly6:28 PM
This year's Mullet run in Coastal Georgia is Rockin'!

Whether you like Mullet for smoking and eating, or for great Redfish bait, these bruiser size mullet are some of the largest we've had in a long time. Some of these mullet are in the 15-16 inch range.

We ended up with about 400 pounds of Top Shelf, HUGE Mullet to stack in the freezer for bait this season. Our split of the catch was around 175 pounds. We're happy, happy, happy!

See more on the Fishing adventures with Capt. Richie Lott at http://www.georgiasportfishing.com or http://www.richielott.com
陳侯秋's profile photoGENHGIS KHAN JR. III's profile photo

Yeah , steamed with black bean sauce . Mmmm !

Friday, September 26, 2014


American Admiralty Books Safety & Privacy Policies   


Bringing The "Islamic State " To The Bad End They Deserve Absolutely Will Require "Boots on The Ground.
Londoners taking shelter in a subway station during Blitz
 Germany didn't bring London to its knees in WW II with around the clock bombing. Instead the Brits maintained a stiff upper lip, continued to demand the unconditional surrender of Germany and dug in for the long haul building public underground bomb shelters and government command and control centers. Britain continued to make massive contributions to the war effort aimed at Germany while under constant bombardment. While the United States is stepping up its air campaign against the "Islamic State" targets, we can be sure that ISIS/IS is preparing to hide in prohibited targets such as schools, hospitals, and museums. ISIS/IS has also demonstrated, through their close cousins Hamas, the ability to skillfully build tunnels. In a matter of weeks air attacks no matter how frequent will start to become  less productive in terms of destroying the "Islamic state's " military capacities. 
 Recently, retired U.S. Navy Admiral James Stavridis who is the former  supreme allied commander of NATO talked with the media about U.S. air strikes and the probability of a need for "boots on the ground. You can watch the video interview by clicking on this link: Admiral Stavridis Comments on "Boots on The Ground".  You'll note that the Admiral begins with ; "

"The Key over time Tom,..is boots on the ground."

 The Admiral notes that the U.S. does plan to have boots on the ground but not U.S. boots. He also acknowledges that it is going to take up to two years to train Arab allies to work on the ground with U.S. air cover. We urge our readers to watch the linked video interview:  Admiral Stavridis Comments on "Boots on The Ground"

Admiral Stavridis is the author of THE ACCIDENTAL ADMIRAL:

                                                          American Admiralty Books Safety & Privacy Policies                                                            

 American Admiralty Books Safety & Privacy Policies   

On September 26, retired U.S. General David Petraeus said boots on the ground in Iraq will be required in order for U.S.-led efforts against ISIS to succeed. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/09/26/Retired-US-General-ISIS-Cannot-Be-Defeated-Without-Boots-On-The-Ground


Editor's note 10/5/2015: No changes in the reported situation since last year, links checked
File:MSC Poesia Vision of the Seas & Mein Schiff 2 in Tallinn 13 June 2012.JPG
MSC Poesia, Vision of the Seas & Mein Schiff 2 in Tallinn 13 June 2012 (Photo byPjotr Mahhonin , Released under :Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. 

  Laurie Dishman didn't die in the sexual assault against her while on board a foreign flagged cruise ship operating out of an American port. Though she lived to identify her attacker, he is a free man in his native country beyond the reach of the U.S. Coast Guard and FBI. He was a member of the ship's crew. MS Dishman's testimony about her ordeal before Congress helped assure the passage of the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act (CVSSA) of 2010, a new statute that attempts to improve safety and security on foreign flag cruise lines that board passengers in the United States.
File:Prinzessin Victoria Luise LOC det.4a15439.jpg PRINZESSIN VICTORIA LOUISE thought to be the World's first purpose built ocean passenger cruise vessel. (Photo Library of Congress)

 The new legislation imposes on such ships new safety and security requirements to be implemented in sequential phases. These new requirements include such physical measures as minimum rail guard heights on weather decks, and passenger cabin lock and peep hole requirements, and such non physical elements as sexual assault treatment training, and equipment for the medical crew and crime scene security training for the security crew, as well as "enhanced crime reporting" requirements.
                                                                                             The British P&O Line cruise ship STRTHAIRD photographed in 1950. The British P&O line has been providing passenger services continuously since 1944. They are sometimes a bit more expensive than the new flag of convinence operators but we are yet to hear of a breakdown or epidemic aboard. (Photo PD)

 Unfortunately in the second year after passage of the Act Security Management and South Florida's Sun Sentinel reported that the the FBI has watered down the reporting requirements, through policy decisions, that limit reporting of cruise ship crime to the Coast Guard's public web site to only cases reported to the FBI , investigated by the FBI, and closed by the FBI. The net result has been a 96% decreases in crime reports over the past few years. security professionals aren't buying that figure as real and neither is the International Cruise Victims (ICA) Association. There were 363 reported crimes in one year aboard foreign flag cruise ships operating out of American ports before the CVSSA was passed. That's why there are enough interested  "victims" to form an association. Since the FBI reporting system was implemented the figures have dropped from 13 to 0 per quarter or  about 39 per year. Since these are foreign ships the FBI would not involve itself in a "reported crime" that did not involve an American victim or perpetrator, was not considered a felony , or for any one of dozens of other reasons within their discretion. There is also the possibility that the cruise line security personnel are actively finding ways to avoid the reporting requirement. The physical safety and security requirements are also due for Coast Guard  regulatory proposals before being enforced. The interested media and victims association believes that the cruise industry is actively influencing the regulatory process to avoid full implementation of the Congressional intentions of the Act. While we have no statistics later than 2011 we were unable to turn up any indication of improvement.

 The bottom line is simple. The average American believes that when he or she embarks on a cruise ship out of an American port that the full protections of the American flag follows them. That is only true if that cruise ship is part of the American Merchant Marine, registered in America and commanded by licensed officers of the United States Merchant Marine who are under the supervision and administration of the United States Coast Guard. Even then it only holds true on the ship and not in the ports of call. Moreover even on the ship, in a foreign port you are subject to the law of the port state. Cruise ships do not enjoy the privileges and immunities of  warships. Unfortunately the remaining cruise ships under the American flag are either operating in the "Jones Act" protected trade such as on the Mississippi, or spend a great part of the year in the coastal cruise trade between American states such as New England Fall Foliage tours, and are as small as very large yachts, not competitive with the big mass market cruise lines. 

 The American Cruise ship industry fell to the foreign competition due to the foreign carriers lower wages and lesser safety requirements. Under American law and international agreements it is generally perceived that such international cruise ship operations may not be brought under the protection of our cabotage (protected coastwise trade)  laws. Even as we write this, there are fools in Congress (no sense in mincing words) who are trying to open our surviving Jones Act cabotage passenger trade to the deadly foreign competition (See our January 2012 Blog "Another Attack on the Jones Act , Calling a Stink Weed a Rose* and the related SUSTAINING THE JONES ACT A NECESSITY"    that we are now struggling to make safe for American passengers who are supporting a huge foreign flag industry. For little more than the cost of passing and enforcing CVSSA the Maritime Administration could easily provide an operational differential subsidy to an American owner to compete in this business after providing a waiver for the registration of their already foreign built vessels from the "built in America" provision of the "Jones Act". Accurate crime reporting would help drive the customers to the American flag carrier. For this minimal cost the United States would not only offer proper protection to the cruise consuming American which the CVSSA doesn't but we would capture additional revenues for the United States, increase employment of Americans and most importantly gain access and control of ships of high value and utility as naval auxiliaries. (Please see our "Another Attack on the Jones Act-Calling a Stink Weed a Rose" about House Resolution 2460 in our January  2012 blogs)

* This article related the story of how Senator John McCaine of Arizona last tried to eliminate the Jones Act. Unfortunately we just discovered that for some reason we can not recover from the "cloud" or where ever Google and the NSA keep our stuff anything older than March 2012. We apologize for not linking you to this article but apparently it is lost in cyber space. Oh...and don't think that John McCaine is anti Jones Act because he is a Republican.  Historically the opposition has come from individual members of both parties from Arizona and New Mexico, two states with neither a sea coast nor inland river ports or any other type of maritime commercial transport services. So why do the inland desert state representative care about the Jones Act?  Our guess is that historically they haven't cared and factually there is no constituency in their states with a vested interest in how they vote on such issues. So it would be the representatives from these states who would be free to accept campaign money from the anti Jones Act interest (mostly foreign marine transportation operators) without incurring the wrath of constituents. As always in such matter we suggest following the money but we have to leave that pursuit to the actual professional journalists. The bad news is that most of them don't understand or care about the issue. The good news is that most of the Congress and the Senate from both parties do support the Jones Act. The most success the anti Jones lobby has had is in encouraging a general lack of actual enforcement, but they haven't been able to change the law. 


                                                                                                                                                                     CRUISE SHIP READING SHELF

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Chinese Professor Han Xudong Predicts World War III

Chinese Scholar Professor Han Xudong Says That Nations Are Involved Collectively In An "Era Of New Forms Of Global War."

Chinese sailors at Pearl Harbor, the place their government has publicly announced that they would drive us back to. (Official U.S. Navy Photo)

Professor Xudong also suggest that the next World War will probably be triggered as a result of " maritime disputes. We see lots of opportunity for such a war especially in the South and East China Seas as we have discussed so often in our series of posts under the title "How Far Will The Dragon Swim".  We fear this outcome more so than any of the other maritime potential causes because of the recklessness and intransigence of Chinese naval behavior in the region. Professor Xudong teaches at the People's Liberation Army National Defense University. He has published his thoughts about a third world war in the state run newspaper Global Times. We think that the China Seas present the greatest probability of a state on state war breaking out due to China's attempts to control the entire sea out to the mainland facing beaches of the Philippines and to own all of the maritime resources between their own mainland and the mainland islands of the Philippines, Japan, Malaysia,Vietnam,Brunei and Taiwan.

Maps U.S. Department of Energy
File:Taiwan, East China Sea, and conflicting sovereignty claims over the Senkaku Islands.gif  

  Interestingly Xudong mentions the wider Pacific, Arctic and Indian Oceans as the "sites of the fiercest rivalry". Well Canada, and Russia both claim subsurface mineral rights all way from their mainland to the North Pole and each claim the North Pole as their very own, which doesn't make the United States and the few other remaining nations that have an Arctic Coast very happy. But so far the "conflict" seems limited to swapping motions and memorandums in support litigation in UN tribunals, delivering supposedly "scientific" arguments for their claims in international academic forums, and engaging in ill advised drilling operations and the establishment of regional base camps.

 Canada has recently announced that their Transport Ministry doesn't believe that the Arctic will emerge as an alternate route between the Atlantic and the Pacific any time soon. The Transport Ministry cited a number of reasons for their expected slower than previously predicted High Arctic development, they didn't put much emphasis on this but for two winters now the ice cover on the Arctic Ocean has actually been increasing. Due to the Atlantic Ocean surface water temperature inversion, and some solar flare activity many meteorologists and climatologists are predicting cooler than "normal" temperatures for the next decade or two. Generally the independent climatologists who don't work for the U.S. Government think that the period of 2014-2034 is likely to reflect the temperature regimes of 1945-1975. Those of you who were college age or so in 1970 may recall all the speculation about how we were about to enter a "new ice age". Instead the planet had about 18 years of slow warming. The warming actually stopped a few years ago and the last two years experienced cooler winters than most reporting stations had seen in two decades. The United States has experienced two major mobile offshore drilling unit failures just trying to enter the Arctic Ocean from the Bering Sea. Russia at the moment has the only on going drilling program and the Bear is establishing some military installations in the High Arctic.All told while the Arctic is of concern to a number of states it appears at the moment to actually be slowing down in terms of what at first appeared to be breakneck development and economic rivalry. The Arctic continues to be an area of naval concern but no war appears eminent.

 The broader Pacific beyond the Philippines is a pretty empty place. The mid way point would typically be regarded as Hawaii. The Chinese have publicly stated that it is their intention to drive America out of the China Seas and "all the way back to Pearl Harbor". They don't seem to be contesting Hawaii as an American State. And so far America comes and goes as it pleases in the China Seas. However China uses the world's largest coast guard to patrol the China seas and intimidate neighbors and rival claimants to uninhabited islands and exclusive economic zones. It would appear that in fact there is very little in the way of disputes liable to trigger a world war in the Pacific region except where China is making trouble.

Chinese marines, the Dragon will need these for Island Hopping Photo U.S. Navy

 Despite the fact that Japan and the Philippines have defensive treaties with the U.S. China continues to press both nations into hair trigger confrontations. China apparently thinks that it can push U.S.allies even into war and keep the "war" naval in character. While its true that the U.S. and Japan have no desire to invade and try to occupy China, a naval war in the China Seas would quickly turn into an economic war as well with the U.S. quickly cancelling its massive debt to China with little effect on its credit since no one expects a nation at war to be making regular payments to its enemy. China would face economic ruin after losing its two biggest customers and would retaliate by nationalizing billions in U.S. assets in China. The U.S. economy would be hit in terms of a number of U.S. based large corporations but overall the debt elimination and the damage control provided by having its economy in many hands vice centrally planned, the U.S. might actually come out ahead economically.

 The Chinese merchant marine would be put to the bottom anywhere and everywhere it could be found in the world by U.S. submarines. The U.S. relies on multi flagged international merchant marine ships so China, if it didn't want to have to fight the entire world, would be limited to board and search operations for "contraband" and they would be ill equipped to do that. Relatively speaking U.S. maritime commerce would suffer much less than China. The U.S. can leap frog over the vast Chinese Coast Guard and Navy in the China seas and mine ports aerially. Once mined the global maritime insurance industry will effectively close Chinese ports. China's economy would be destroyed completely in about 30 days. The Chinese would then face a popular revolution which might cause China to throw the first nuke. In a nuclear exchange the U.S. might well lose some cities. China by contrast would be a glow in the dark glazed parking lot. Yet this Chinese "expert" thinks there are multiple maritime hot spots in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Ocean that could erupt into a global naval war. He has obviously bought into his government's line that the conquest of the China Seas is a done deal. Following that line blindly is exactly what will lead to a global naval dust up.

 We do however have to agree with Professor  Xudong's observations about new theaters of war opening. Previously uncontroversial elements of the "commons" like outer space, cyber space,and International waters look to be a part of any international battle field. China basically has its self to blame for any weaponization of outer space. There is an international convention prohibiting weapons in space but China just had to demonstrate its  capability of weaponizing space by shooting down one of its own satellites. It really is quite a feat to hit a satellite with a missile. A satellite is a very high speed moving target. But China seems to forget that the U.S. Navy routinely shoots down missiles which is analogous to hitting a bullet with a bullet. If China is thinking of a shot from space or taking down U.S. command and control satellites the Dragon will be unpleasantly surprised by U.S. capabilities that the Dragon just doesn't seem to see, though they are out there in plain sight. The Dragon is the most frequent invader in U.S. cyber space both corporate and governmental. The U.S. rarely confirms its presence or capabilities in cyber space but the world's geeks are pretty well convinced that the cyber warriors of the U.S. Air Force can and has performed cyber warfare operations that have included infecting closed computer systems without physical contact with the computers by knowing human agents.

 Finally acknowledging that things might actually start in the China Seas Professor Xudong wrote:

"As the rivalry on the sea grows intense, China’s military development should shift from maintaining the country’s rights on the land to maintaining its rights on the sea,” Han also wrote, that “large-scale military power” needs to be developed in order to prevent being “pushed to a passive position” by strong military forces. He specifically named the U.S. 

 Professor Xudong's diatribe was not the first Chinese newspaper article to predict war for China in the 21st century. Last year, the pro-government hawkish newspaper Weweipo published an article describing “Six Wars China Is Sure To Fight In The Next 50 Years.” Up first on the Dragon's hit parade of wars was the one  over the South China Sea islands which the paper predicted would run  from 2025 to 2030, Weweipo clearly indicated that their projected 2025 to 2030 would be driven by  China’s desire to “reconquer” areas like the Spratly Islands. The newspaper did not see the island war to include the theft of the Philippine owned Islands simultaneously with the Diaoyu / Senkaku islands of Japan. The newspaper thought that war with Japan over the Diaoyu / Senkakus wouldn't open until 2040. Obviously the Dragon expects to divide and conquer at its leisure and keep things low intensity so as not to disturb its economy. It doesn't seem to dawn on the Dragon that the rightful owners of the territories it covets might combine and come after her. With a combined 1800+ fleet of naval and coast guard armed ships solidifying a victory over the Philippines should be an overnight project but for the U.S./ Philippines alliance. A planned five year war would indicate a desire to keep the island grab low intensity so as to cause little economic disruption. But the likelyhood is that the Philippines would go for the jugular and the resulting high intensity sea clash coupled with Western economic sanctions would destroy China's economy in weeks. The people of China have worked hard to secure a promising future and will probably hang communists from lamp posts if they are deprived of the fruits of their labors. Meanwhile China has a growing Muslim population like the rest of us, so ready or not China is involved with the rest of us in the global resumption of voracious Islam, which is about tearing down societies not building them up.  We are certainly living the ancient Chinese curse; "may you live in interesting times".