Why Nansha Islands (Spratlys) belongs to China - Page 6

On June 19 2011 03:04 MamiyaOtaru wrote:
Why would someone create an account here to post this. What need does China have for White Knights on random unrelated web forums

On June 19 2011 04:46 Craton wrote:

This was my first thought, as well. It seems like random propaganda. Chinese ownership is hardly "undeniable" when half a dozen nations are contesting it. A partial list of events in a post with a clear pro-China bias is hardly sufficient proof, especially when no source is provided for any of them and there's no mention of counterarguments. You can't just ignore them as if they don't exist; you must address them if you want your claim to be adequately supported. There could just as easily be a list of 50 things that "disprove" Chinese ownership that one of the other governments have.

On June 19 2011 04:40 xarthaz wrote:
IMO China is the best organised nation and so for development of greater good it is just to have them invest in the region and own the property.

On June 19 2011 04:51 Consolidate wrote:
That said, China's claims aren't as ridiculous as some people here think.

On June 19 2011 04:40 Qi wrote:

When we discuss US policy on stem cell research do we bring up the Civil War or the massacre of the Native Americans? No. Same thing here. We may digress, but it bears nothing to the issue at hand.

On June 19 2011 04:55 Ciryandor wrote:


Unfortunately, they're also the most likely to invest the revenue gained from it back to suppressive activities like their lockdown on Tibet, or crushing any religious and temporal dissent that would be a threat to them like the Fa Lun Gong, evangelical Christians and Tianamen Square, all of which undermine their government's control of information and power. Do I even need to include suppression of ethnic strife by marginalizing the Uighurs in Xinjiang to this list? Finally, when you have political prisoners forced to do manual labor by day, and become WoW gold farmers at night, that isn't a rehabilitative process, it's exploitative; much like how denying residency to rural laborers and ex-farmers by city officials let them get away with not providing any sort of welfare for them, along with unemployment benefits. I, nor would more than a few other people, won't pay for oil coming from a state that doesn't respect basic human rights and endangers people systematically. I'd rather that Chevron or Exxon be the ones digging for it instead rather than the CNOOC.

It may be derailing, but let's see if the statement above is enough to staunch the flow of certain undesirable elements in this thread, which we should actually have merged with the other Spratlys thread.

The demonstrations in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City followed a confrontation between a Vietnamese ship and Chinese patrol boats last month.

Hanoi accused a Chinese patrol of cutting the cables of a Vietnamese ship conducting seismic research about 120km (80 miles) off Vietnam's coast.

On Thursday, Prime Minister Dung made his first comments on the row, saying Vietnam's sovereignty was incontestable in areas of the Paracel and Spratly island groups.

"We continue to affirm strongly and to manifest the strongest determination of all the party, of all the people and of all the army in protecting Vietnamese sovereignty in maritime zones and islands of the country," Mr Dung said in comments reported by the Thanh Nien newspaper.

Later, Vietnamese officials accused a Chinese fishing boat of once again intentionally ramming cables from an oil exploration vessel inside its exclusive economic zone.

On June 19 2011 04:56 Craton wrote:

It's not the claims themselves, its the manner the OP is written in and the lack of opposing information.

On June 19 2011 04:56 hypercube wrote:


A better analogy is bringing up the history of US interventions during the cold war whenever a American diplomatic initiative is discussed. It can be taken too far, but it happens and it is relevant in some situations.

You didn't address my other point though. Are you interested in a discussion or your ONLY goal is to declare your own position?

On June 19 2011 04:40 Ciryandor wrote:


Wait, so the Manchu period from 1644 to 1911 wasn't very long? That was a Mongolian dynasty, not a Han Chinese one; and they were the ones that turned China inward in outlook; not exactly a good thing to do if you have land claims over certain territories and not secure them.

The problem with the arguments for China AND Vietnam's pre-1800 claims is that they could just as well as be talking about the Paracel Islands, which have been a flash-point in their relations for quite a long time.

Finally, if this comes down to arbitration, the ROC and Philippines have the best claims over the territory, the ROC by being virtue of the true successor state to the old imperial government that originally made those claims, and the Philippines through UNCLOS and Res Nullius. This does not negate your point about the PRC having some sort of say in it, as their militarily-weighted position has essentially muscled their right over a segment of the islands, regardless of other claims backed up by non-military arguments.

Anyway, why am I bickering about this; we're supposed to be having a barrage of Weiner jokes.

On June 19 2011 04:58 Consolidate wrote:


Oh please, your post pretty much betrayed the fact that your superficial knowledge of China stems from MSM tabloid headlines.

"WoW Gold farmers by night"

Give me a fucking break. People like you are a testament to the greatest trick Western Media has ever pulled.

Stop derailing the thread with your drivel.

On June 19 2011 05:07 Ciryandor wrote:

You don't get what I was trying to do there. Let's see if the pro-China comments continue posting after I made that. It was for a very specific purpose. Clue: It has something to do with the Great Firewall.

Also, do you want me to link that article on BBC about labor camps being used for gold farming? I am not as ignorant as you think I am.

TL;DR You got trolled by a post meant for another purpose.

On June 19 2011 05:03 Qi wrote:

US interventions during the cold was is DIRECTLY related to American diplomatic initiatives. How is territorial claim over an island against a foreign country/countries related to China's evil state policies? Answer that please.

On June 19 2011 03:33 Ghad wrote:


Lol, i heard about that, fair bit of gunboat diplomacy going on. Glad Norway and Russia were able to finally end our own territorial dispute just a few weeks ago.

On June 19 2011 05:11 Consolidate wrote:


You're so misguided.

The GFR doesn't filter English words nearly as strenuously as Chinese words.

And the BBC article has no source.

On June 19 2011 05:07 zestzorb wrote:
Qi, your argument depends on the premise that historical claims undeniably lead to current rightful claims, which apparently is a false premise. Following your logic, Cambodia would have a claim on Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam, due to historical claims in the reign of Suryavarman II. Macedonia should rule over Egypt, and Mongolia would have an absolute right on the whole China.

As a disclaimer, I have limited knowledge on the matter of Spratly Islands. From my perspective, the best way to determine the sovereignty of thess disputed isles is to let the inhabitant choose for themselves via a democratic process.