|
Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks
This is an issue that unofficially started in the 1990s, were revived in the early 2000s, and in the last few weeks has been a hot international issue on diplomacy and geopolitics.
Let me go straight to the point: China has undeniable historical claim over the Nansha Islands (Spratlys).
Basics about the Nansha Islands and neighboring geography
The South China Sea encompasses a portion of the Pacific Ocean stretching roughly from Singapore and the Strait of Malacca in the southwest, to the Strait of Taiwan (between Taiwan and China) in the northeast. The area includes more than 200 small islands, rocks, and reefs, with the majority located in the Paracel and Spratly Island chains. The Spratlys links the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean. All its islands are coral, low and small, about 5 to 6 meters above water, spread over 160,000 to 180,000 square kilometers of sea zone (or 12 times that of the Paracels), with a total land area of 10 square kilometers only. The Paracels also has a total land area of 10 square kilometers spread over a sea zone of 15,000 to 16,000 square kilometers.
Many of these islands are partially submerged islets, rocks, and reefs that are little more than shipping hazards not suitable for habitation.
Which countries are also claiming the Nansha Islands
Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, and Chinese Taipei
Why is everyone interested in China's Nansha Islands
The islands are important, however, for strategic and political reasons, because ownership claims to them are used to bolster claims to the surrounding sea and its resources.
The South China Sea is rich in natural resources such as oil and natural gas. These resources have garnered attention throughout the Asia-Pacific region. Until recently, East Asia's economic growth rates had been among the highest in the world, and despite the current economic crisis, economic growth prospects in the long-term remain among the best in the world. This economic growth will be accompanied by an increasing demand for energy. Over the next 20 years, oil consumption among developing Asian countries is expected to rise by 4% annually on average, with about half of this increase coming from China. If this growth rate is maintained, oil demand for these nations will reach 25 million barrels per day - more than double current consumption levels -- by 2020.
Almost of all of this additional Asian oil demand, as well as Japan's oil needs, will need to be imported from the Middle East and Africa, and to pass through the strategic Strait of Malacca into the South China Sea. Countries in the Asia-Pacific region depend on seaborne trade to fuel their economic growth, and this has led to the sea's transformation into one of the world's busiest shipping lanes. Over half of the world's merchant fleet (by tonnage) sails through the South China Sea every year. The economic potential and geopolitical importance of the South China Sea region has resulted in jockeying between the surrounding nations to claim this sea and its resources for themselves.
Recent update on the issue
In an attempt to legally exercise its due jurisdiction over the area, China has increased its military presence in the Nansha Islands this week. This is a reaction to recent actions by a claimant country, the Philippines, after it's military forces removed markers that establish China's borders over the territory. The Philippines, one of the most aggressive countries to lay claim on the Chinese islands, is recently in talks with neighboring countries and fellow claimants Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, and other members of the ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations). China was not invited in the multilateral talk.
Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Jiang Yu said that “any one-sided action taken by any country on the Nansha Islands is illegal and invalid.” He added that countries who wish to explore the islands and its surrounding waters must first get China's permission. In addition, Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines Liu Jianchao has assured the Philippines and other South East Asian countries that China's increased presence in the islands are merely legal means to establish its rightful claim over its territory, and added that it “does not change our position and attitude for peaceful settlement” and will not strain its economic relation with the country.
Yu has also added that the US should stay away with this issue as it is neither a claimant nor part of the ASEAN. The US has a military agreement with the Philippines.
Historical records that show why China owns Nansha Islands
+ Show Spoiler +200BC around
China firstly discovered the Spratly Islands and other Suthern Sea Islands
111BC
China started to occupy and govern the Southern Sea Islands
206BC-24AD
Most of the Paracel, the Spratlys and Pratas Island were known by Chinese geographers of the Han Dynasty
23-220AD
Yang Fu of the East Han Dynasty made the reference to Nansha Islands in his book entitled Yi Wuzi (Records of Rarities)
220
Nansha (Spratly) Island was settled by Chinese monks, building up a monastery on that island.
220-280AD
General Kang Tai one of the famous ancient Chinese navigator of East Wu State of the Three Kingdoms Period mentioned Nansha Islands in his book Funan Zhuan (or Journeys to and from Phnom) (the name of an ancient state in today's Cambodia).
265-420AD
Fei Yuan of the Jin Dynasty(265-420 A.D.) wrote about the fishing and collecting of coral samples by the fishermen of China on the South China Sea in his article Chronicles of Guangzhou.
789
The Tang Dynasty, China included the Nansha Islands into its administrative map
990
Spratley Islands became a part of the Northern Song area in Hainan
1121
Kublai Khan controlled most of the islands during China's Yuan Dynasty
1211
The island group shown on a Chinese Map
1250
Chinese fishermen became the right by the Pan-Han Dynasty to settle on some of the northern islets and reefs.
1405
Cheng Ho, the official minister of the Ming Kings, visited several northern islands of the Spartly Islands Group, Cheng Ho made several vojages to the Spratly Group and mapped most of the northern reefs and island, today a reason for China, to occupay the complete group. In 1436 an excellent map of the reefs is shown by the Ming-Dynasty.
1406 - 1444
most of the reefs and islet were successsively maped by Chinese geographers
1478
A China brigg run on Amboya Cay's reef and Archeologists found about 300 ancident vessels, made by ceramics.
1530
Alvarez de Diegoz, one of Albuquerque's navigators found several scattered tiny islets and reefs on his way to the future Macao area
1606
The Spain adventure and sailor Andreas de Pessora reached some of the western Spratly islands and named 'a larger islet' with the name Isla Santa Esmeralda Pequena. Today it is unknown which island Pessora reached, but it could be Spratly Island, or also one of the south-eastern islets.
1710
The Chinese Ching Dynasty claimed two northern islands and errected a small temple on North East Cay.
1730
Pirates settled on several islands and hold up British, Portugese and Dutch ships, crossing the area. In 1735 the British troups runn over and destroyed several priate camps located on some islands.
1791
Captain Spratle arived in the group and named the islands by his name. He was one of Captain Collets navigators.
1798
The British built up an iron observation tower on Itu Aba Islet. The remainds are visible till today.
1804
The British vessel HMS Macclesfield run on a drying reef in the southwest corner of the shoals, known today as the Macclesfield Shoals (Bank)
1883
The Germans wanted to claim several islands in the Spartly Group, but the Chinese Government threatened with war. After several government notes between Berlin and Peking, Germany gave up Spratly Islands and Paracel Islands but became controller of the area of Tsingtau.
1885
China officially claimed all islands of the Spratly Group
1887
The France built up the first lighttower on Amboyna Cay
1902
Chinese war-ships surveyed and erected sovereignty stone on Paracel Islands.
1908
China gave the right to mine guano from the islands to the British Australian Guano LTD.
1909-03-21
China (Qing Dynasty) set up Paracel Islands administrative committee.
1909-04
China (Qing Dynasty) war-ships surveyed Paracel Islands and affirmed Chinese sovereignty over these islands, fired cannon and hoisted flag.
1911
China - Guangdong Government reaffirmed Paracel Islands is under Qiongya (Hainan Island) Adminstration.
1930
French - Japan War over the rights on the Paracel Islands, and some of the north-western Spratley Reefs.
1932-1935
The Chinese Government set up a committee for the review of Maps of Lands and Waters of China. This committee examined and approved the 132 names of the islands in the South China Sea, all of which belong to Xisha, Zhongsha and Nansha Islands.
1933
France raised first official claim to the Paracel and Spratly Islands after invaded and occupied 9 of Nansha Islands, including Taiping and Zhongye. The Chinese fishermen who lived and worked on the Nansha Islands immediatedly made a firm resistance against the invasion and the Chinese Government lodged a strong protest with the French Government.
1939-44
The Spratly Islands were invaded and occupied by Japan and used as a submarine base during the Second World War. The two major bases were on Itu Aba and on Namyit Island in the Tizard Bank.In line with the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of China, in consultation with the Navy and the government of Guangdong Province, appointed Xiao Ciyi and Mai Yunyu Special Commissioner to the Xisha and Nansha Islands respectively in 1946 to take over the two archipelagoes and erect marks of sovereignty on the Islands.
1946
China declared the Spratlys as a part of the Guangdong Province, and seized the biggest island of Tai Ping Dao (Itu Aba).
1947
The Ministry of Internal Affairs of China renamed 159 islands, reefs, islets and shoals on the South China Sea, including the Nansha Islands. It subsequently publicized all the names for administrative purposes
1947
The Philippines claimed some of the eastern islands in the Spratly Group and claimed too the Scarborough Reef.
1948
The Philippines claimbed the offshore Scarborough Reef, one of the most outlier reefs in the northeastern Spratly Islands. A light was errected and an oberservationtower on the South Rock, a 5 ft high rocky and steep sided islet.
1951
At the San Francisco conference, Japan renounces all rights to the Spratly Islands. No resolution is made on who owns them.
1956
The Philippines built up a mailitary base on North Danger Reef.
1961
Taiwan annexed several reefs in the northeastern part of the Spratly Group.
1969
On Spratly Island the American Navy errected a Radar Station, closed in 1971.
1974
China occupies Paracel Islands to the north of the Spratly Islands, taking them from South Vietnam.
1978
China occupies six atolls in the Spratly Islands, taking them from Vietnam.
1979, 21.Dec.
Malaysia claimbed Swallow Reef (Layang Layang Reef) and built up a base. In January
1980
Malaysia continued in claimbing and annexed several reefs in the southern and south-western group. A second Malayan station was built on Amboyna Cay, heave disputed with Vietnam
1982
Internatinal conflict between Vietnam and Malysia, when Malaysia claimbed Amboyna Cay.
1984
Brunei claimbed the Louise Reef in the eastern group
1988
Chinese and Vietnamese navies clash at Johnson Reef. Two Vietnamese gunboats are sunk and seventy people die. Chinese troops has been garrisoned on the reef.
1991
Indonesia organises the first of its annual informal meetings (The South China Sea Workshop) of the six claimants to the Spratly Islands to find a peaceful solution to the dispute. Malaysia begins to develop a reef for tourism.
1992
ASEAN nations and China call for restraint in pursuit of territorial claims in the Spratly Islands.
1994,November
The US oil giant Exxon signs a US$35 billion deal to develop the gas fields north of Natuna Island. This area is partly claimed by China.
1995,8 February
The Philippines's armed forces discover Chinese-constructed concrete markers on Mischief Reef, within 200 kilometres of Palawan Island, in the Philippines.
1995,20-28 March
The Philippines seize Chinese fishing boats and crew, and destroy Chinese markers on Mischief Reef.
1995,31 March
Taiwanese naval mission of armed patrol boats to the Spratly Islands is called off midway to its destination.
1995, 7 April
Indonesia expresses concern over Chinese maps claiming sovereignty over part of the huge Natuna gas fields to the south of the Spratly Islands.
2011 June
The Philippines destroy Chinese markers on the Nansha Islands
|
![[image loading]](http://www.spratlys.org/maps/1/China-claims-Paracel-Spratly-Islands.gif)
So China can just claim all the territory all the way to the coasts of other countries? I don't think so, Tim.
|
Lol ^
I know you mention "strategic value" in the OP but I think that goes beyond "strategic value" and ventures into the realm of "OMFGTHISISIMPORTANT".
|
What the hell? This came out of nowhere.
|
On June 19 2011 02:31 bonifaceviii wrote:
What the hell? This came out of nowhere.
Read the damn post.
2011 June
The Philippines destroy Chinese markers on the Nansha Islands
Honestly IMO it's unwise for any of those countries to be provoking China right now. No idea why they decided this would be a good idea.
|
Are you working for the Chinese government ?
|
On June 19 2011 02:39 xHassassin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 02:31 bonifaceviii wrote:
What the hell? This came out of nowhere. Read the damn post. Honestly IMO it's unwise for any of those countries to be provoking China right now. No idea why they decided this would be a good idea.
Actually China is a little bit in a dilemma. If they show their muscle the will pretty much scare the crap out of the entire region. Cause many other states would feel threatened and they might band together to go against the Chinese interests or call upon the US for protection. But if the Chinese sit back other countries will threaten their interests, so china needs to act very carefully.
(sorry little bit redundant in the first two sentences but I am way to tired to make sense right now XD)
|
I don't really know about the "undeniable historical claim" over the Islands, they've been claimed by a number of surrounding countries in the past and have been on older maps of other countries too, that doesn't really mean anything.
Also, looking at the map SpeaKEaSY posted, I'm not surprised at all that some of those countries want the Islands, it's right off their coast. That's an incredibly strange line of claim to stretch out and if it goes undisputed, great for them, but since it isn't, I don't think I would say, "Yeah, it clearly belongs to China".
|
also, dokdo is korea territory
|
nevermind I shouldn't post in such thread with little knowledge
|
On June 19 2011 02:46 Doppelganger wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 02:39 xHassassin wrote:On June 19 2011 02:31 bonifaceviii wrote:
What the hell? This came out of nowhere. Read the damn post.
2011 June
The Philippines destroy Chinese markers on the Nansha Islands
Honestly IMO it's unwise for any of those countries to be provoking China right now. No idea why they decided this would be a good idea. Actually China is a little bit in a dilemma. If they show their muscle the will pretty much scare the crap out of the entire region. Cause many other states would feel threatened and they might band together to go against the Chinese interests or call upon the US for protection. But if the Chinese sit back other countries will threaten their interests, so china needs to act very carefully. (sorry little bit redundant in the first two sentences but I am way to tired to make sense right now XD)
China KNOWS it can exert considerable military leverage before having to worry about the U.S.
We all remember Vietnam don't we? Well China would be easily 50x Vietnam.
U.S. isn't stupid enough to flex its terribly weakened (by their economy) military muscles against China anytime soon short of China invading a neighboring country.
|
On June 19 2011 02:49 Kurumi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 02:43 Boblion wrote:
Are you working for the Chinese government ? I thought this post was made by an honest person who studied/is fascinated by Chinese culture/history. Then an idea came across my mind "where is the poster from?" China. I won't agree with Chinese claims,spreading communism is not what I'd like to see. Besides,they did it because they can. I can't see Poland and Lithuania claiming the Kaliningrad Oblast.
not that i agree with the OP (being chinese myself), but you have made the most porous argument there is.
you made your judgement of the OP not by what he wrote, but by his nation tag? if he tagged south africa, you'd believe him?
also, spreading communism? what era are you living in?
|
As far as I know, the so-called 'historical claim' means shit. Because that means China should not own Tibet, inner Mongolia, and the all other parts of the current western China because they have been historically part of other sovereign until about 1700s.
|
While it would be fairly hard to make a case to give China sole control of those islands if they were to be divided without regard for previous claims, China's long historical claims and ardent nationalism makes it a far murkier situation. Its claim are supported by recognized governments of old Chinese regimes, along with its wrest from historical Chinese control by "imperial powers" before and during WWII should still have strong legal standing.
It seems as though China has a pretty good case over control and is probably willing to go to war over it, which would probably lead to its eventual possession over at least a large number of the islands.
|
On June 19 2011 02:26 SpeaKEaSY wrote:So China can just claim all the territory all the way to the coasts of other countries? I don't think so, Tim.
![[image loading]](http://www.alaskaultrasport.com/assets/alaska-nat-parks.jpg)
Hrmm? Relevance to location has never been much of a boundary to claim.
|
On June 19 2011 02:56 jester- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 02:26 SpeaKEaSY wrote:So China can just claim all the territory all the way to the coasts of other countries? I don't think so, Tim. [spoiler]http://www.alaskaultrasport.com/assets/alaska-nat-parks.jpg[/spoiler] Hrmm? Relevance to location has never been much of a boundary to claim.
Alaska was purchased by the US from Russia in 1867. A quick scan the history of the islands in question do not show anything remotely similar. I question the relevance of your example, please take 3 seconds to find a better one.
|
On June 19 2011 02:46 Mordiford wrote:
I don't really know about the "undeniable historical claim" over the Islands, they've been claimed by a number of surrounding countries in the past and have been on older maps of other countries too, that doesn't really mean anything.
Also, looking at the map SpeaKEaSY posted, I'm not surprised at all that some of those countries want the Islands, it's right off their coast. That's an incredibly strange line of claim to stretch out and if it goes undisputed, great for them, but since it isn't, I don't think I would say, "Yeah, it clearly belongs to China".
What older maps? Show it? Nansha was on China's maps as early as when the Philippines was just represented by its northern island in the Chinese maps (c 200BC)
That geography thing is ignorant of geopolitics. Why is Hawaii, Guam, etc American territories when they are thousand of kilometers away from US mainland. What about Greenland? There is more to geography than mere proximity.
Please read the OP.
|
On June 19 2011 02:58 BloodNinja wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 02:56 jester- wrote:On June 19 2011 02:26 SpeaKEaSY wrote:So China can just claim all the territory all the way to the coasts of other countries? I don't think so, Tim. [spoiler]http://www.alaskaultrasport.com/assets/alaska-nat-parks.jpg[/spoiler] Hrmm? Relevance to location has never been much of a boundary to claim. Alaska was purchased by the US from Russia in 1867. A quick scan the history of the islands in question do not show anything remotely similar. I question the relevance of your example, please take 3 seconds to find a better one.
![[image loading]](http://theora.com/images/Falkland%20Islands.gif)
done
|
On June 19 2011 03:00 Kupon3ss wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 02:56 jester- wrote:On June 19 2011 02:26 SpeaKEaSY wrote:So China can just claim all the territory all the way to the coasts of other countries? I don't think so, Tim. Hrmm? Relevance to location has never been much of a boundary to claim. done
Thanks for this
|
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 02:58 BloodNinja wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 02:56 jester- wrote:On June 19 2011 02:26 SpeaKEaSY wrote:So China can just claim all the territory all the way to the coasts of other countries? I don't think so, Tim. [spoiler]http://www.alaskaultrasport.com/assets/alaska-nat-parks.jpg[/spoiler] Hrmm? Relevance to location has never been much of a boundary to claim. Alaska was purchased by the US from Russia in 1867. A quick scan the history of the islands in question do not show anything remotely similar. I question the relevance of your example, please take 3 seconds to find a better one.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 19 2011 02:43 Boblion wrote:
Are you working for the Chinese government ?
i was posting something like this aswell. Good one, rofl!
|
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
I play SC thats why Im here. It just so happened this is a relevant topic at the time I joined, so I wrote it here. Please don't make unsubstantiated claims like that again.
On June 19 2011 03:06 Grettin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 02:43 Boblion wrote:
Are you working for the Chinese government ? i was posting something like this aswell. Good one, rofl!
Someday I'd love to. I'm only 19 now.
Why do you respond arbitrarily? You'd rather speculate about me that respond to the issue?
|
The only thing your Historical Records show is that the islands have always been contested by various countries (including Europeans) and that the only reason that China has maintained them is through its sheer power.
The difference from the Alaska example is that it hasn't been continuously contested. It was sold and obtained amicably, all sides were in agreement.
edit:
Also, how does the fact that Britain and other European countries still have territories everywhere make it right? The territories with any power at all(India, USA) have claimed their independence.
I am not taking either side, I am just pointing to the flaw in your logic in certain points.
|
On June 19 2011 02:26 SpeaKEaSY wrote:So China can just claim all the territory all the way to the coasts of other countries? I don't think so, Tim.
Why does Greece have a claim over Cyprus? Clearly Cyprus is closer to Turkey. History plays a large part of ownership.
|
heres your 50 cents. you know what i mean.
and i am very surprised why the GFW has not covered TL yet, which they should for the sake of the world.
|
On June 19 2011 03:09 lofung wrote:
heres your 50 cents. you know what i mean.
and i am very surprised why the GFW has not covered TL yet, which they should for the sake of the world.
Are you serious?
I can't wait until 2040.
|
The issue remains that the other South-asian countries have the rights to claim these territories. For example, Vietnam has been part of China for hundreds of years. Once it achieved independence from China, however, it has the rights to make claims of Chinese territories which it believes to be part of Vietnam.
The Chinese claim of these islands are as legit as UK claiming New England and the original 13-colony area to be part of UK.
Basically, this is not an simple issue to resolve, especially with the consideration of the resources there. I think it's going to be a war there eventually.
|
There a quite a few claims in your "why the islands must be chinese that really don't add value at all
200BC around
China firstly discovered the Spratly Islands and other Suthern Sea Islands
doesn't add much since you can't really determine who discovered it first
206BC-24AD
Most of the Paracel, the Spratlys and Pratas Island were known by Chinese geographers of the Han Dynasty
many geographers noted many things, doesnt mean its theirs
23-220AD
Yang Fu of the East Han Dynasty made the reference to Nansha Islands in his book entitled Yi Wuzi (Records of Rarities)
nor do book records...
220-280AD
General Kang Tai one of the famous ancient Chinese navigator of East Wu State of the Three Kingdoms Period mentioned Nansha Islands in his book Funan Zhuan (or Journeys to and from Phnom) (the name of an ancient state in today's Cambodia).
another book?
265-420AD
Fei Yuan of the Jin Dynasty(265-420 A.D.) wrote about the fishing and collecting of coral samples by the fishermen of China on the South China Sea in his article Chronicles of Guangzhou.
collecting samples is absolutely irrelevant.
789
The Tang Dynasty, China included the Nansha Islands into its administrative map
adding it to your map doesnt make it yours.
990
Spratley Islands became a part of the Northern Song area in Hainan
they were claimed and does not necessarily mean its now a part of Hainan.
regardless of the rest this just shows how open ended your "proof" is
I really didn't examine everything but these first few are definitely not proof.
Just saying...
|
I love hearing from TL members from across the world about issues that are important to them. Starting an account to blabber away is just retarded though. Are you some sort of internet guerilla spokesman for the chinese government?
|
On June 19 2011 02:59 Qi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 02:46 Mordiford wrote:
I don't really know about the "undeniable historical claim" over the Islands, they've been claimed by a number of surrounding countries in the past and have been on older maps of other countries too, that doesn't really mean anything.
Also, looking at the map SpeaKEaSY posted, I'm not surprised at all that some of those countries want the Islands, it's right off their coast. That's an incredibly strange line of claim to stretch out and if it goes undisputed, great for them, but since it isn't, I don't think I would say, "Yeah, it clearly belongs to China". What older maps? Show it? Nansha was on China's maps as early as when the Philippines was just represented by its northern island in the Chinese maps (c 200BC) That geography thing is ignorant of geopolitics. Why is Hawaii, Guam, etc American territories when they are thousand of kilometers away from US mainland. What about Greenland? There is more to geography than mere proximity. Please read the OP.
Like I said, if they're disputed, they have a right to be disputed, if they aren't disputed, good for the nation that has laid claim to them.
As for the the maps of other nations, none go as far back as the pre-1000 AD but I don't know how relevant that really is, but from quick searches, I found some simple records referring to them as Bãi Cát Vàng through the Vietnam, and some other Vietnamese references. Regardless, the historical claim isn't too relevant in my opinion in this particular case.
|
On June 19 2011 03:13 Ghad wrote:
I love hearing from TL members from across the world about issues that are important to them. Starting an account to blabber away is just retarded though. Are you some sort of internet guerilla spokesman for the chinese government?
Pretty much, but it is "general" so he's posted in the correct places. at least TL is worldly.
However QI, I have to say coming from China, posting about China (as your first post) doesn't add credibility
|
On June 19 2011 03:12 Sufficiency wrote:
The issue remains that the other South-asian countries have the rights to claim these territories. For example, Vietnam has been part of China for hundreds of years. Once it achieved independence from China, however, it has the rights to make claims of Chinese territories which it believes to be part of Vietnam.
The same already applied to Falkland Island.
Basically, this is not an simple issue to resolve, especially with the consideration of the resources there. I think it's going to be a war there eventually.
Vietnam has no claim to any land outside its mainland. It barely had enough civilization in its mainland when China was already exploring the South China Sea. We hope it doesn't reach war. We want peace. But we also want our rightful claim to these islands. The problem is that other countries are aggressively claiming it without talking to China and respecting history.
|
On June 19 2011 03:15 Mykill wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:13 Ghad wrote:
I love hearing from TL members from across the world about issues that are important to them. Starting an account to blabber away is just retarded though. Are you some sort of internet guerilla spokesman for the chinese government? Pretty much, but it is "general" so he's posted in the correct places. at least TL is worldly. However QI, I have to say coming from China, posting about China (as your first post) doesn't add credibility
Well, it's not exactly his first post. He does have two random spam posts too lol but I do think he just made his account to talk about this.
|
On June 19 2011 03:13 Mykill wrote:There a quite a few claims in your "why the islands must be chinese that really don't add value at all Show nested quote +
200BC around
China firstly discovered the Spratly Islands and other Suthern Sea Islands
doesn't add much since you can't really determine who discovered it first Show nested quote +
206BC-24AD
Most of the Paracel, the Spratlys and Pratas Island were known by Chinese geographers of the Han Dynasty
many geographers noted many things, doesnt mean its theirs Show nested quote +
23-220AD
Yang Fu of the East Han Dynasty made the reference to Nansha Islands in his book entitled Yi Wuzi (Records of Rarities)
nor do book records... Show nested quote +
220-280AD
General Kang Tai one of the famous ancient Chinese navigator of East Wu State of the Three Kingdoms Period mentioned Nansha Islands in his book Funan Zhuan (or Journeys to and from Phnom) (the name of an ancient state in today's Cambodia).
another book? Show nested quote +
265-420AD
Fei Yuan of the Jin Dynasty(265-420 A.D.) wrote about the fishing and collecting of coral samples by the fishermen of China on the South China Sea in his article Chronicles of Guangzhou.
collecting samples is absolutely irrelevant. Show nested quote +
789
The Tang Dynasty, China included the Nansha Islands into its administrative map
adding it to your map doesnt make it yours. they were claimed and does not necessarily mean its now a part of Hainan. regardless of the rest this just shows how open ended your "proof" is I really didn't examine everything but these first few are definitely not proof. Just saying...
Those don't even matter. The map of China before 990 AD is a lot smaller than what is now. If we assume his argument is valid, then China also does not have any claim to Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, etc. because they weren't part of Chinese control until about 400 years ago.
|
On June 19 2011 03:09 Kamille wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 02:26 SpeaKEaSY wrote:So China can just claim all the territory all the way to the coasts of other countries? I don't think so, Tim. Why does Greece have a claim over Cyprus? Clearly Cyprus is closer to Turkey. History plays a large part of ownership.
greece has no claim over cyprus, cyprus is a seperate country that got invaded about 25 years ago and lost half its territory
|
On June 19 2011 03:09 lofung wrote:
heres your 50 cents. you know what i mean.
and i am very surprised why the GFW has not covered TL yet, which they should for the sake of the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party ?
man i thought it was something to do with curtis jackson lol
|
On June 19 2011 03:11 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:09 lofung wrote:
heres your 50 cents. you know what i mean.
and i am very surprised why the GFW has not covered TL yet, which they should for the sake of the world. Are you serious? I can't wait until 2040.
yes. although it is ethically and epically wrong to limit freedom of information by building a firewall to stop people from reading this and that, china has unintentionally done a good job in stopping stupidity spreading on the internet outside china. i am quite sure that they have not stop chinese from reading TL yet for some reason.
|
The level of shit one liners for such a detailed post is abhorrent. This is such an interesting issue that I'm hesitant to weigh in immediately, though I find the geographical distance from China curious. Despite repeated historical claims by China I still do not understand how they have a right to the islands more so than the Philippines, Vietnam or even Malaysia.
My uninformed gut reaction opinion is if China claims ownership and the Philippines engages in open military conflict, the United States should not become involved. I'll post more once I've thought more in depth.
Thank you for this thread, it is very interesting.
|
On June 19 2011 03:15 Mykill wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:13 Ghad wrote:
I love hearing from TL members from across the world about issues that are important to them. Starting an account to blabber away is just retarded though. Are you some sort of internet guerilla spokesman for the chinese government? Pretty much, but it is "general" so he's posted in the correct places. at least TL is worldly. However QI, I have to say coming from China, posting about China (as your first post) doesn't add credibility
Thanks Mykill for this sensible reply. I don't mind being labelled not credible because I'm Chinese, as long as the discussion is civil and informed. I don't expect someone from France or Africa to post this. And I already replied earlier that this is only unfortunate that the month I join TL and this issue comes up. What I don't get is people replying without basis.
On June 19 2011 03:18 Probe1 wrote:
The level of shit one liners for such a detailed post is abhorrent. This is such an interesting issue that I'm hesitant to weigh in immediately, though I find the geographical distance from China curious. Despite repeated historical claims by China I still do not understand how they have a right to the islands more so than the Philippines, Vietnam or even Malaysia.
My uninformed gut reaction opinion is if China claims ownership and the Philippines engages in open military conflict, the United States should not become involved. I'll post more once I've thought more in depth.
Thank you for this thread, it is very interesting.
Thank you also. Somehow I'm doubting about the people here. I'll just assume not all TL are like this.
|
On June 19 2011 03:17 Qi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:12 Sufficiency wrote:
The issue remains that the other South-asian countries have the rights to claim these territories. For example, Vietnam has been part of China for hundreds of years. Once it achieved independence from China, however, it has the rights to make claims of Chinese territories which it believes to be part of Vietnam.
The same already applied to Falkland Island.
Basically, this is not an simple issue to resolve, especially with the consideration of the resources there. I think it's going to be a war there eventually. Vietnam has no claim to any land outside its mainland. It barely had enough civilization in its mainland when China was already exploring the South China Sea. We hope it doesn't reach war. We want peace. But we also want our rightful claim to these islands. The problem is that other countries are aggressively claiming it without talking to China and respecting history.
Pretty sure that's false. China had minimal presence over these islands.
If you argue this way, then China also had very good claim over Korea and Japan because back then (say 1000-2000 years ago), they were once in some sense Chinese territory or Chinese satellite states, and they weren't "as civilized" as the Chinese then.
|
On June 19 2011 03:22 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:17 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:12 Sufficiency wrote:
The issue remains that the other South-asian countries have the rights to claim these territories. For example, Vietnam has been part of China for hundreds of years. Once it achieved independence from China, however, it has the rights to make claims of Chinese territories which it believes to be part of Vietnam.
The same already applied to Falkland Island.
Basically, this is not an simple issue to resolve, especially with the consideration of the resources there. I think it's going to be a war there eventually. Vietnam has no claim to any land outside its mainland. It barely had enough civilization in its mainland when China was already exploring the South China Sea. We hope it doesn't reach war. We want peace. But we also want our rightful claim to these islands. The problem is that other countries are aggressively claiming it without talking to China and respecting history. Pretty sure that's false. China had minimal presence over these islands. If you argue this way, then China also had very good claim over Korea and Japan because back then (say 1000-2000 years ago), they were once in some sense Chinese territory or Chinese satellite states, and they weren't "as civilized" as the Chinese then.
You are false. China has been trading with present-day Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam way before they even explored outside their immediate waters.
On your second paragraph, the answer is simple. China is not making any claims about Korea or Japan. So it's irrelevant to talk about it, right?
|
love your beautiful maps and descriptions of resources but
short answer: NO
china has no records after the cultural revolution, sorry, no claims
btw, are intellectuals and dissenters being quashed in china? dictatorship is nothing but a bunch of pigs competing to see who's fatter.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Almost no country has any kind of binding documentation about their territory besides ''de facto'' and which in time gets (or doesnt) accepted as de iure (by other nations). There is no fair way to award these islands to any country, question is which nation has bigger inluence and how far they are prepared to go (e.g. how much they value it) to acquire it or deny them to other claimants.
Honestly I dont see China getting sole ownership of these provinces as political pressure they would have to wield to gain this one would make a huge huge backlash and destroy China`s image (that is give valid excuse for other nations in future clashes)
|
I dont really see any of those 'undisputable evidence' as being so undisputable, they are just loose claims and references to having been on the island at one point in time or another... None of them constitutes a proper claim
|
So who has the most guns?
|
On June 19 2011 03:09 Kamille wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 02:26 SpeaKEaSY wrote:So China can just claim all the territory all the way to the coasts of other countries? I don't think so, Tim. Why does Greece have a claim over Cyprus? Clearly Cyprus is closer to Turkey. History plays a large part of ownership.
I believe in freedom, so I believe that land should be governed by the leaders chosen by the people living on that land. Ask the native population of Cyprus (who overwhelmingly speak Greek) who they want to be governed by.
Ask the native population of the islands of the Spratlys, and you'll find that no one is talking because no one lives there, and no one cared about these stupid rocks, some of which are underwater when it's high tide, until they figured there was oil there. I believe Taiwan and Philippines have people living on some of the Spratlys (I think one of them even has an airfield on one of the islands), I dunno about other countries though.
Honestly I think private companies should just do exploration there and get whatever resources they want on a first come first served basis, because even though no one wants to admit it, the resources are the only thing that matter. The only thing is each country wants a monopoly on exploration there, which is why they're all claiming that it's part of their territory.
|
On June 19 2011 03:28 Qi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:22 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:17 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:12 Sufficiency wrote:
The issue remains that the other South-asian countries have the rights to claim these territories. For example, Vietnam has been part of China for hundreds of years. Once it achieved independence from China, however, it has the rights to make claims of Chinese territories which it believes to be part of Vietnam.
The same already applied to Falkland Island.
Basically, this is not an simple issue to resolve, especially with the consideration of the resources there. I think it's going to be a war there eventually. Vietnam has no claim to any land outside its mainland. It barely had enough civilization in its mainland when China was already exploring the South China Sea. We hope it doesn't reach war. We want peace. But we also want our rightful claim to these islands. The problem is that other countries are aggressively claiming it without talking to China and respecting history. Pretty sure that's false. China had minimal presence over these islands. If you argue this way, then China also had very good claim over Korea and Japan because back then (say 1000-2000 years ago), they were once in some sense Chinese territory or Chinese satellite states, and they weren't "as civilized" as the Chinese then. You are false. China has been trading with present-day Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam way before they even explored outside their immediate waters. On your second paragraph, the answer is simple. China is not making any claims about Korea or Japan. So it's irrelevant to talk about it, right?
This goes back to my earlier statement though, if China made a claim to Korea or Japan, should we all get behind them since they have historical claim there? I feel this is kind of strange.
If the Island's went undisputed, good for China, but since they are being disputed, I think their claim to Islands based on historical precedent is somewhat irrelevant.
|
Canada and Denmark are in a large-scale dick-waving war over Hans island.....
Seriously. You'll laugh when you realize how much money both countries have spent over this little hump of land between Greenland and Ellesmere island.....
|
Under historical western interpretation, land claims were usually done in the following way
exploration -> check
cataloging and mapping -> check
formal claim -> check
resolution of potentially contradictory claims -> none existed when claims were made
presence -> minimal but always existent
under any reasonable (non far western-skewed) interpretation of such precedents, the only way that the Chinese claims can be disputed is by its passage through different regimes, either at the end of the Qing dynasty or at the point of the CCP/GMD split at the conclusion of the Chinese civil war
|
On June 19 2011 03:30 Impervious wrote:
Canada and Denmark are in a large-scale dick-waving war over Hans island.....
Seriously. You'll laugh when you realize how much money both countries have spent over this little hump of land between Greenland and Ellesmere island.....
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.
|
So what do undeniable historical claims have to do with anything? I would say both Mexico and Britain have an undeniable historical claim over parts of the US. The difference is that the US is filled with Americans who have been living there for hundreds of years. From your historical timeline, the Nansha Islands have little to no Chinese population, and the Chinese have allowed foreigners to settle there are build strategic bases there for about a hundred years.
On one hand, people shouldn't build things(especially militarily significant things) on land someone else claims. However, I see this as only China's fault if they made no effort to prevent this occurrence, despite the fact that they a great deal of time to do so. Geographically, it looks as though the Philippines have a very logical claim over the area, as well as a national security interest in preventing China from claim islands right of their coast. You should know well that China already puts extreme military pressure on the nations around it, simply by existing.
|
whats wif all this territory disputes lately
|
all your base are belong to us?
it should belong to Philippines :3
|
On June 19 2011 03:09 Kamille wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 02:26 SpeaKEaSY wrote:So China can just claim all the territory all the way to the coasts of other countries? I don't think so, Tim. Why does Greece have a claim over Cyprus? Clearly Cyprus is closer to Turkey. History plays a large part of ownership.
except no one really inhabits those islands unlike Cyprus which has a nice population to which can decide which country they align with.
|
On June 19 2011 03:30 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:22 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:17 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:12 Sufficiency wrote:
The issue remains that the other South-asian countries have the rights to claim these territories. For example, Vietnam has been part of China for hundreds of years. Once it achieved independence from China, however, it has the rights to make claims of Chinese territories which it believes to be part of Vietnam.
The same already applied to Falkland Island.
Basically, this is not an simple issue to resolve, especially with the consideration of the resources there. I think it's going to be a war there eventually. Vietnam has no claim to any land outside its mainland. It barely had enough civilization in its mainland when China was already exploring the South China Sea. We hope it doesn't reach war. We want peace. But we also want our rightful claim to these islands. The problem is that other countries are aggressively claiming it without talking to China and respecting history. Pretty sure that's false. China had minimal presence over these islands. If you argue this way, then China also had very good claim over Korea and Japan because back then (say 1000-2000 years ago), they were once in some sense Chinese territory or Chinese satellite states, and they weren't "as civilized" as the Chinese then. You are false. China has been trading with present-day Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam way before they even explored outside their immediate waters. On your second paragraph, the answer is simple. China is not making any claims about Korea or Japan. So it's irrelevant to talk about it, right? This goes back to my earlier statement though, if China made a claim to Korea or Japan, should we all get behind them since they have historical claim there? I feel this is kind of strange. If the Island's went undisputed, good for China, but since they are being disputed, I think their claim to Islands based on historical precedent is somewhat irrelevant.
I do not understand why you think it is irrelevant. So I will try to illustrate. China has for more then 2000 years has record and claim of these islands. These records go all the way back even before some countries now are countries at all. Suddenly, one country claims that these islands are theirs simply because it's closer to them.
I understand that this issue is not easy. But my logic tells me that between the two, I'd believe someone who has a (longer) record of being there and it being officially part of its geography.
|
On June 19 2011 03:28 Qi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:22 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:17 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:12 Sufficiency wrote:
The issue remains that the other South-asian countries have the rights to claim these territories. For example, Vietnam has been part of China for hundreds of years. Once it achieved independence from China, however, it has the rights to make claims of Chinese territories which it believes to be part of Vietnam.
The same already applied to Falkland Island.
Basically, this is not an simple issue to resolve, especially with the consideration of the resources there. I think it's going to be a war there eventually. Vietnam has no claim to any land outside its mainland. It barely had enough civilization in its mainland when China was already exploring the South China Sea. We hope it doesn't reach war. We want peace. But we also want our rightful claim to these islands. The problem is that other countries are aggressively claiming it without talking to China and respecting history. Pretty sure that's false. China had minimal presence over these islands. If you argue this way, then China also had very good claim over Korea and Japan because back then (say 1000-2000 years ago), they were once in some sense Chinese territory or Chinese satellite states, and they weren't "as civilized" as the Chinese then. You are false. China has been trading with present-day Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam way before they even explored outside their immediate waters.On your second paragraph, the answer is simple. China is not making any claims about Korea or Japan. So it's irrelevant to talk about it, right?
I am sorry, but I don't see how trading with a country has anything to do with that country not exploring its nearby islands.
As for your second paragraph, Tibet DOES claim sovereign of the the so-called Autonomic Tibet Territory. Their presence over Tibet has been around before 1600AD, and China did trade with it and interacted with it.
So yea, there is no way to solve it unless there is a war. Your claim that China wants to revolve this peacefully is complete bogus.
EDIT: the fact of the matter is, China's claim over these southern islands, given the evidence you gave, is as good as its claim over Tibet, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia. People from these parts wants to revolt every single day, as seen from chaos from the regions.
|
I don't know too much about this, but is this an area like the Gaza Strip and such for Israel? At least in that case it's connected to Israel.
From glancing at the map, it seems like the islands should belong to another country, but I guess if they own possession of the land, it's theirs.
|
Judging from what you've told us the islands are absolutely chinese.
|
On June 19 2011 03:18 Probe1 wrote:
The level of shit one liners for such a detailed post is abhorrent. This is such an interesting issue that I'm hesitant to weigh in immediately, though I find the geographical distance from China curious. Despite repeated historical claims by China I still do not understand how they have a right to the islands more so than the Philippines, Vietnam or even Malaysia.
My uninformed gut reaction opinion is if China claims ownership and the Philippines engages in open military conflict, the United States should not become involved. I'll post more once I've thought more in depth.
Thank you for this thread, it is very interesting.
I'm afraid that your gut reaction would only make sense IF the Philippines was the aggressor in a shooting incident. Removal of Chinese territorial markers in a segement of the Spratlys that is already claimed and controlled by the Philippines is entirely within the country's prerogative in keeping control of what it already has.
To respond to the OP; I'm afraid it misrepresents the other claimants in a negative light and is not balanced enough in refuting their claims to the islands, especially in certain segments like the French claim on the southern part of the island chain that was devolved to Vietnam, and the fact that the Mischief Reef is actually right in the middle of the archipelago and has had structural developments, mostly of a military nature, done by China ever since they were spotted in 1995.
Also, it's quite unwarranted to post this as a separate topic when this http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=233515 is already up as a more complete discussion and the post could have easily been placed there instead.
|
On June 19 2011 03:33 Fontong wrote:
So what do undeniable historical claims have to do with anything? I would say both Mexico and Britain have an undeniable historical claim over parts of the US. The difference is that the US is filled with Americans who have been living there for hundreds of years. From your historical timeline, the Nansha Islands have little to no Chinese population, and the Chinese have allowed foreigners to settle there are build strategic bases there for about a hundred years.
On one hand, people shouldn't build things(especially militarily significant things) on land someone else claims. However, I see this as only China's fault if they made no effort to prevent this occurrence, despite the fact that they a great deal of time to do so. Geographically, it looks as though the Philippines have a very logical claim over the area, as well as a national security interest in preventing China from claim islands right of their coast. You should know well that China already puts extreme military pressure on the nations around it, simply by existing.
The Mexican and British claims were both legally accepted and dealt with in the following way
Post the War of Independence, the main disputed lands lay in the Northwestern US, namely Oregon and in Northeastern US, namely Maine. In both cases both nations had laid claims over the same tracts of land at near simultaneous times with little cartography or mapping (in the case of the western part) or with statehood/provincial disputes (in the eastern part), both of the issues were resolved by treaties worked out by the parties
Mexican claims over land that is currently "American" were lost either during the Texan Revolution that made the settlers revolt, claim statehood, and join the United States, and by invasion of the US Army during the American Mexican war, at the end of which the lands were ceded to the United States for a sum of money
|
On June 19 2011 03:36 Qi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:30 Mordiford wrote:On June 19 2011 03:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:22 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:17 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:12 Sufficiency wrote:
The issue remains that the other South-asian countries have the rights to claim these territories. For example, Vietnam has been part of China for hundreds of years. Once it achieved independence from China, however, it has the rights to make claims of Chinese territories which it believes to be part of Vietnam.
The same already applied to Falkland Island.
Basically, this is not an simple issue to resolve, especially with the consideration of the resources there. I think it's going to be a war there eventually. Vietnam has no claim to any land outside its mainland. It barely had enough civilization in its mainland when China was already exploring the South China Sea. We hope it doesn't reach war. We want peace. But we also want our rightful claim to these islands. The problem is that other countries are aggressively claiming it without talking to China and respecting history. Pretty sure that's false. China had minimal presence over these islands. If you argue this way, then China also had very good claim over Korea and Japan because back then (say 1000-2000 years ago), they were once in some sense Chinese territory or Chinese satellite states, and they weren't "as civilized" as the Chinese then. You are false. China has been trading with present-day Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam way before they even explored outside their immediate waters. On your second paragraph, the answer is simple. China is not making any claims about Korea or Japan. So it's irrelevant to talk about it, right? This goes back to my earlier statement though, if China made a claim to Korea or Japan, should we all get behind them since they have historical claim there? I feel this is kind of strange. If the Island's went undisputed, good for China, but since they are being disputed, I think their claim to Islands based on historical precedent is somewhat irrelevant. I do not understand why you think it is irrelevant. So I will try to illustrate. China has for more then 2000 years has record and claim of these islands. These records go all the way back even before some countries now are countries at all. Suddenly, one country claims that these islands are theirs simply because it's closer to them. I understand that this issue is not easy. But my logic tells me that between the two, I'd believe someone who has a (longer) record of being there and it being officially part of its geography.
I don't think historical claim is very relevant to this situation, I feel Fontong aptly elaborates on my feelings in this regard.
|
On June 19 2011 03:08 seaofsaturn wrote:
The only thing your Historical Records show is that the islands have always been contested by various countries (including Europeans) and that the only reason that China has maintained them is through its sheer power.
The difference from the Alaska example is that it hasn't been continuously contested. It was sold and obtained amicably, all sides were in agreement.
edit:
Also, how does the fact that Britain and other European countries still have territories everywhere make it right? The territories with any power at all(India, USA) have claimed their independence.
I am not taking either side, I am just pointing to the flaw in your logic in certain points.
This is always the problem with water lines, land that people live on becomes a bit simpler as they seeker their own independence or not. But countries always drew lines in the water to how ever they see fit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes
|
On June 19 2011 03:37 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:22 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:17 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:12 Sufficiency wrote:
The issue remains that the other South-asian countries have the rights to claim these territories. For example, Vietnam has been part of China for hundreds of years. Once it achieved independence from China, however, it has the rights to make claims of Chinese territories which it believes to be part of Vietnam.
The same already applied to Falkland Island.
Basically, this is not an simple issue to resolve, especially with the consideration of the resources there. I think it's going to be a war there eventually. Vietnam has no claim to any land outside its mainland. It barely had enough civilization in its mainland when China was already exploring the South China Sea. We hope it doesn't reach war. We want peace. But we also want our rightful claim to these islands. The problem is that other countries are aggressively claiming it without talking to China and respecting history. Pretty sure that's false. China had minimal presence over these islands. If you argue this way, then China also had very good claim over Korea and Japan because back then (say 1000-2000 years ago), they were once in some sense Chinese territory or Chinese satellite states, and they weren't "as civilized" as the Chinese then. You are false. China has been trading with present-day Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam way before they even explored outside their immediate waters.On your second paragraph, the answer is simple. China is not making any claims about Korea or Japan. So it's irrelevant to talk about it, right? I am sorry, but I don't see how trading with a country has anything to do with that country not exploring its nearby islands.As for your second paragraph, Tibet DOES claim sovereign of the the so-called Autonomic Tibet Territory. Their presence over Tibet has been around before 1600AD, and China did trade with it and interacted with it. So yea, there is no way to solve it unless there is a war. Your claim that China wants to revolve this peacefully is complete bogus.
Let me simplify for you then. If Vietnam did not even explore more that 10 meters off its coast when China was already on mercantile relationship with most of the South East Asian countries, how could YOU claim that Vietnam has claims over these islands? It didn't even know they existed when China was already mapping them as part of its territory.
On your Tibet argument, it is true, but there is a bigger truth, Tibet is China. Officially. Recognized even by the UN. Until Tibet becomes a separate country, all so-called Tibet territories remain China's. When Tibet does become separate, it will be my honor to post it here.
On your third paragraph, I do not understand why you'd say that. Are you privy to the Chinese government that you know their plans?
|
On June 19 2011 03:44 Qi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:37 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:22 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:17 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:12 Sufficiency wrote:
The issue remains that the other South-asian countries have the rights to claim these territories. For example, Vietnam has been part of China for hundreds of years. Once it achieved independence from China, however, it has the rights to make claims of Chinese territories which it believes to be part of Vietnam.
The same already applied to Falkland Island.
Basically, this is not an simple issue to resolve, especially with the consideration of the resources there. I think it's going to be a war there eventually. Vietnam has no claim to any land outside its mainland. It barely had enough civilization in its mainland when China was already exploring the South China Sea. We hope it doesn't reach war. We want peace. But we also want our rightful claim to these islands. The problem is that other countries are aggressively claiming it without talking to China and respecting history. Pretty sure that's false. China had minimal presence over these islands. If you argue this way, then China also had very good claim over Korea and Japan because back then (say 1000-2000 years ago), they were once in some sense Chinese territory or Chinese satellite states, and they weren't "as civilized" as the Chinese then. You are false. China has been trading with present-day Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam way before they even explored outside their immediate waters.On your second paragraph, the answer is simple. China is not making any claims about Korea or Japan. So it's irrelevant to talk about it, right? I am sorry, but I don't see how trading with a country has anything to do with that country not exploring its nearby islands.As for your second paragraph, Tibet DOES claim sovereign of the the so-called Autonomic Tibet Territory. Their presence over Tibet has been around before 1600AD, and China did trade with it and interacted with it. So yea, there is no way to solve it unless there is a war. Your claim that China wants to revolve this peacefully is complete bogus. Let me simplify for you then. If Vietnam did not even explore more that 10 meters off its coast when China was already on mercantile relationship with most of the South East Asian countries, how could YOU claim that Vietnam has claims over these islands? It didn't even know they existed when China was already mapping them as part of its territory. On your Tibet argument, it is true, but there is a bigger truth, Tibet is China. Officially. Recognized even by the UN. Until Tibet becomes a separate country, all so-called Tibet territories remain China's. When Tibet does become separate, it will be my honor to post it here. On your third paragraph, I do not understand why you'd say that. Are you privy to the Chinese government that you know their plans?
You have not shown us, or probably never bothered, to research any Vietnamese records. Are you but merely automatically assuming that they were so barbaric that they never bothered to check out the islands 10 meters off its coast?
|
On June 19 2011 03:48 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:44 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:37 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:22 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:17 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:12 Sufficiency wrote:
The issue remains that the other South-asian countries have the rights to claim these territories. For example, Vietnam has been part of China for hundreds of years. Once it achieved independence from China, however, it has the rights to make claims of Chinese territories which it believes to be part of Vietnam.
The same already applied to Falkland Island.
Basically, this is not an simple issue to resolve, especially with the consideration of the resources there. I think it's going to be a war there eventually. Vietnam has no claim to any land outside its mainland. It barely had enough civilization in its mainland when China was already exploring the South China Sea. We hope it doesn't reach war. We want peace. But we also want our rightful claim to these islands. The problem is that other countries are aggressively claiming it without talking to China and respecting history. Pretty sure that's false. China had minimal presence over these islands. If you argue this way, then China also had very good claim over Korea and Japan because back then (say 1000-2000 years ago), they were once in some sense Chinese territory or Chinese satellite states, and they weren't "as civilized" as the Chinese then. You are false. China has been trading with present-day Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam way before they even explored outside their immediate waters.On your second paragraph, the answer is simple. China is not making any claims about Korea or Japan. So it's irrelevant to talk about it, right? I am sorry, but I don't see how trading with a country has anything to do with that country not exploring its nearby islands.As for your second paragraph, Tibet DOES claim sovereign of the the so-called Autonomic Tibet Territory. Their presence over Tibet has been around before 1600AD, and China did trade with it and interacted with it. So yea, there is no way to solve it unless there is a war. Your claim that China wants to revolve this peacefully is complete bogus. Let me simplify for you then. If Vietnam did not even explore more that 10 meters off its coast when China was already on mercantile relationship with most of the South East Asian countries, how could YOU claim that Vietnam has claims over these islands? It didn't even know they existed when China was already mapping them as part of its territory. On your Tibet argument, it is true, but there is a bigger truth, Tibet is China. Officially. Recognized even by the UN. Until Tibet becomes a separate country, all so-called Tibet territories remain China's. When Tibet does become separate, it will be my honor to post it here. On your third paragraph, I do not understand why you'd say that. Are you privy to the Chinese government that you know their plans? You have not shown us, or probably never bothered, to research any Vietnamese records. Are you but merely automatically assuming that they were so barbaric that they never bothered to check out the islands 10 meters off its coast?
Wikipedia summary
+ Show Spoiler +Ancient Chinese maps record the "Thousand Li Stretch of Sands"; Qianli Changsha (千里長沙) and the "Ten-Thousand Li of Stone Pools"; Wanli Shitang (萬里石塘),[7] which China today claims refers to the Spratly Islands. The Wanli Shitang have been explored by the Chinese since the Yuan Dynasty and may have been considered by them to have been within their national boundaries. [8][9] They are also referenced in the 13th century,[10] followed by the Ming Dynasty.[11] When the Ming Dynasty collapsed, the Qing Dynasty continued to include the territory in maps compiled in 1724,[12] 1755,[13] 1767,[14] 1810,[15] and 1817.[16] A Vietnamese map from 1834 also includes the Spratly Islands clumped in with the Paracels (a common occurrence on maps of that time) labeled as "Wanli Changsha".[17]
According to Hanoi, old Vietnamese maps record Bãi Cát Vàng (Golden Sandbanks, referring to both Paracels and the Spratly Islands) which lay near the Coast of the central Vietnam as early as 1838.[18] In Phủ Biên Tạp Lục (Frontier Chronicles) by the scholar Le Quy Don, Hoàng Sa and Trường Sa were defined as belonging to Quảng Ngãi District. He described it as where sea products and shipwrecked cargoes were available to be collected. Vietnamese text written in the 17th century referenced government-sponsored economic activities during the Le Dynasty, 200 years earlier. The Vietnamese government conducted several geographical surveys of the islands in the 18th century.[18]
From wikipedia
Basically, the islands were mapped and claimed by China since at least 1000 AD while any comparable Vietnamese claim occurs post 1800 at the earliest
|
On June 19 2011 03:50 Kupon3ss wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:48 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:44 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:37 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:22 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:17 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:12 Sufficiency wrote:
The issue remains that the other South-asian countries have the rights to claim these territories. For example, Vietnam has been part of China for hundreds of years. Once it achieved independence from China, however, it has the rights to make claims of Chinese territories which it believes to be part of Vietnam.
The same already applied to Falkland Island.
Basically, this is not an simple issue to resolve, especially with the consideration of the resources there. I think it's going to be a war there eventually. Vietnam has no claim to any land outside its mainland. It barely had enough civilization in its mainland when China was already exploring the South China Sea. We hope it doesn't reach war. We want peace. But we also want our rightful claim to these islands. The problem is that other countries are aggressively claiming it without talking to China and respecting history. Pretty sure that's false. China had minimal presence over these islands. If you argue this way, then China also had very good claim over Korea and Japan because back then (say 1000-2000 years ago), they were once in some sense Chinese territory or Chinese satellite states, and they weren't "as civilized" as the Chinese then. You are false. China has been trading with present-day Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam way before they even explored outside their immediate waters.On your second paragraph, the answer is simple. China is not making any claims about Korea or Japan. So it's irrelevant to talk about it, right? I am sorry, but I don't see how trading with a country has anything to do with that country not exploring its nearby islands.As for your second paragraph, Tibet DOES claim sovereign of the the so-called Autonomic Tibet Territory. Their presence over Tibet has been around before 1600AD, and China did trade with it and interacted with it. So yea, there is no way to solve it unless there is a war. Your claim that China wants to revolve this peacefully is complete bogus. Let me simplify for you then. If Vietnam did not even explore more that 10 meters off its coast when China was already on mercantile relationship with most of the South East Asian countries, how could YOU claim that Vietnam has claims over these islands? It didn't even know they existed when China was already mapping them as part of its territory. On your Tibet argument, it is true, but there is a bigger truth, Tibet is China. Officially. Recognized even by the UN. Until Tibet becomes a separate country, all so-called Tibet territories remain China's. When Tibet does become separate, it will be my honor to post it here. On your third paragraph, I do not understand why you'd say that. Are you privy to the Chinese government that you know their plans? You have not shown us, or probably never bothered, to research any Vietnamese records. Are you but merely automatically assuming that they were so barbaric that they never bothered to check out the islands 10 meters off its coast? Wikipedia summary + Show Spoiler +Ancient Chinese maps record the "Thousand Li Stretch of Sands"; Qianli Changsha (千里長沙) and the "Ten-Thousand Li of Stone Pools"; Wanli Shitang (萬里石塘),[7] which China today claims refers to the Spratly Islands. The Wanli Shitang have been explored by the Chinese since the Yuan Dynasty and may have been considered by them to have been within their national boundaries. [8][9] They are also referenced in the 13th century,[10] followed by the Ming Dynasty.[11] When the Ming Dynasty collapsed, the Qing Dynasty continued to include the territory in maps compiled in 1724,[12] 1755,[13] 1767,[14] 1810,[15] and 1817.[16] A Vietnamese map from 1834 also includes the Spratly Islands clumped in with the Paracels (a common occurrence on maps of that time) labeled as "Wanli Changsha".[17]
According to Hanoi, old Vietnamese maps record Bãi Cát Vàng (Golden Sandbanks, referring to both Paracels and the Spratly Islands) which lay near the Coast of the central Vietnam as early as 1838.[18] In Phủ Biên Tạp Lục (Frontier Chronicles) by the scholar Le Quy Don, Hoàng Sa and Trường Sa were defined as belonging to Quảng Ngãi District. He described it as where sea products and shipwrecked cargoes were available to be collected. Vietnamese text written in the 17th century referenced government-sponsored economic activities during the Le Dynasty, 200 years earlier. The Vietnamese government conducted several geographical surveys of the islands in the 18th century.[18] From wikipedia Basically, the islands were mapped and claimed by China since at least 1000 AD while any comparable Vietnamese claim occurs post 1800 at the earliest
Yeah, but as people have drawn comparisons, people explored quite a bit throughout history, I'm wondering what the actual populace of the Islands consists of. I don't think the historical claim is that substantial, nor is it really relevant.
|
United States33128 Posts
|
On June 19 2011 03:48 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:44 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:37 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:22 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:17 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:12 Sufficiency wrote:
The issue remains that the other South-asian countries have the rights to claim these territories. For example, Vietnam has been part of China for hundreds of years. Once it achieved independence from China, however, it has the rights to make claims of Chinese territories which it believes to be part of Vietnam.
The same already applied to Falkland Island.
Basically, this is not an simple issue to resolve, especially with the consideration of the resources there. I think it's going to be a war there eventually. Vietnam has no claim to any land outside its mainland. It barely had enough civilization in its mainland when China was already exploring the South China Sea. We hope it doesn't reach war. We want peace. But we also want our rightful claim to these islands. The problem is that other countries are aggressively claiming it without talking to China and respecting history. Pretty sure that's false. China had minimal presence over these islands. If you argue this way, then China also had very good claim over Korea and Japan because back then (say 1000-2000 years ago), they were once in some sense Chinese territory or Chinese satellite states, and they weren't "as civilized" as the Chinese then. You are false. China has been trading with present-day Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam way before they even explored outside their immediate waters.On your second paragraph, the answer is simple. China is not making any claims about Korea or Japan. So it's irrelevant to talk about it, right? I am sorry, but I don't see how trading with a country has anything to do with that country not exploring its nearby islands.As for your second paragraph, Tibet DOES claim sovereign of the the so-called Autonomic Tibet Territory. Their presence over Tibet has been around before 1600AD, and China did trade with it and interacted with it. So yea, there is no way to solve it unless there is a war. Your claim that China wants to revolve this peacefully is complete bogus. Let me simplify for you then. If Vietnam did not even explore more that 10 meters off its coast when China was already on mercantile relationship with most of the South East Asian countries, how could YOU claim that Vietnam has claims over these islands? It didn't even know they existed when China was already mapping them as part of its territory. On your Tibet argument, it is true, but there is a bigger truth, Tibet is China. Officially. Recognized even by the UN. Until Tibet becomes a separate country, all so-called Tibet territories remain China's. When Tibet does become separate, it will be my honor to post it here. On your third paragraph, I do not understand why you'd say that. Are you privy to the Chinese government that you know their plans? You have not shown us, or probably never bothered, to research any Vietnamese records. Are you but merely automatically assuming that they were so barbaric that they never bothered to check out the islands 10 meters off its coast?
Please dont use "barbaric". It's loaded and not desired for our discussion. I am simply stating historical facts. Read the post by Kupon above for a start.
|
On June 19 2011 03:53 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:50 Kupon3ss wrote:On June 19 2011 03:48 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:44 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:37 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:22 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:17 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:12 Sufficiency wrote:
The issue remains that the other South-asian countries have the rights to claim these territories. For example, Vietnam has been part of China for hundreds of years. Once it achieved independence from China, however, it has the rights to make claims of Chinese territories which it believes to be part of Vietnam.
The same already applied to Falkland Island.
Basically, this is not an simple issue to resolve, especially with the consideration of the resources there. I think it's going to be a war there eventually. Vietnam has no claim to any land outside its mainland. It barely had enough civilization in its mainland when China was already exploring the South China Sea. We hope it doesn't reach war. We want peace. But we also want our rightful claim to these islands. The problem is that other countries are aggressively claiming it without talking to China and respecting history. Pretty sure that's false. China had minimal presence over these islands. If you argue this way, then China also had very good claim over Korea and Japan because back then (say 1000-2000 years ago), they were once in some sense Chinese territory or Chinese satellite states, and they weren't "as civilized" as the Chinese then. You are false. China has been trading with present-day Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam way before they even explored outside their immediate waters.On your second paragraph, the answer is simple. China is not making any claims about Korea or Japan. So it's irrelevant to talk about it, right? I am sorry, but I don't see how trading with a country has anything to do with that country not exploring its nearby islands.As for your second paragraph, Tibet DOES claim sovereign of the the so-called Autonomic Tibet Territory. Their presence over Tibet has been around before 1600AD, and China did trade with it and interacted with it. So yea, there is no way to solve it unless there is a war. Your claim that China wants to revolve this peacefully is complete bogus. Let me simplify for you then. If Vietnam did not even explore more that 10 meters off its coast when China was already on mercantile relationship with most of the South East Asian countries, how could YOU claim that Vietnam has claims over these islands? It didn't even know they existed when China was already mapping them as part of its territory. On your Tibet argument, it is true, but there is a bigger truth, Tibet is China. Officially. Recognized even by the UN. Until Tibet becomes a separate country, all so-called Tibet territories remain China's. When Tibet does become separate, it will be my honor to post it here. On your third paragraph, I do not understand why you'd say that. Are you privy to the Chinese government that you know their plans? You have not shown us, or probably never bothered, to research any Vietnamese records. Are you but merely automatically assuming that they were so barbaric that they never bothered to check out the islands 10 meters off its coast? Wikipedia summary + Show Spoiler +Ancient Chinese maps record the "Thousand Li Stretch of Sands"; Qianli Changsha (千里長沙) and the "Ten-Thousand Li of Stone Pools"; Wanli Shitang (萬里石塘),[7] which China today claims refers to the Spratly Islands. The Wanli Shitang have been explored by the Chinese since the Yuan Dynasty and may have been considered by them to have been within their national boundaries. [8][9] They are also referenced in the 13th century,[10] followed by the Ming Dynasty.[11] When the Ming Dynasty collapsed, the Qing Dynasty continued to include the territory in maps compiled in 1724,[12] 1755,[13] 1767,[14] 1810,[15] and 1817.[16] A Vietnamese map from 1834 also includes the Spratly Islands clumped in with the Paracels (a common occurrence on maps of that time) labeled as "Wanli Changsha".[17]
According to Hanoi, old Vietnamese maps record Bãi Cát Vàng (Golden Sandbanks, referring to both Paracels and the Spratly Islands) which lay near the Coast of the central Vietnam as early as 1838.[18] In Phủ Biên Tạp Lục (Frontier Chronicles) by the scholar Le Quy Don, Hoàng Sa and Trường Sa were defined as belonging to Quảng Ngãi District. He described it as where sea products and shipwrecked cargoes were available to be collected. Vietnamese text written in the 17th century referenced government-sponsored economic activities during the Le Dynasty, 200 years earlier. The Vietnamese government conducted several geographical surveys of the islands in the 18th century.[18] From wikipedia Basically, the islands were mapped and claimed by China since at least 1000 AD while any comparable Vietnamese claim occurs post 1800 at the earliest Yeah, but as people have drawn comparisons, people explored quite a bit throughout history, I'm wondering what the actual populace of the Islands consists of. I don't think the historical claim is that substantial, nor is it really relevant.
Way to completely fall back.
Someone questioned the legitimacy of the comment of Vietnam not exploring those islands before China. A source was given that says China explored them 800 years before Vietnam, and now you say "OH IT DOESNT MATTER"
|
The modern Chinese nation-state simply did not exist during the time period you are talking about. Furthermore these claims hinge on the definition of a "Chinese people" that has changed wildly over time. The arguments presented can be summarily dismissed.
|
On June 19 2011 03:55 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:53 Mordiford wrote:On June 19 2011 03:50 Kupon3ss wrote:On June 19 2011 03:48 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:44 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:37 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:22 Sufficiency wrote:On June 19 2011 03:17 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 03:12 Sufficiency wrote:
The issue remains that the other South-asian countries have the rights to claim these territories. For example, Vietnam has been part of China for hundreds of years. Once it achieved independence from China, however, it has the rights to make claims of Chinese territories which it believes to be part of Vietnam.
The same already applied to Falkland Island.
Basically, this is not an simple issue to resolve, especially with the consideration of the resources there. I think it's going to be a war there eventually. Vietnam has no claim to any land outside its mainland. It barely had enough civilization in its mainland when China was already exploring the South China Sea. We hope it doesn't reach war. We want peace. But we also want our rightful claim to these islands. The problem is that other countries are aggressively claiming it without talking to China and respecting history. Pretty sure that's false. China had minimal presence over these islands. If you argue this way, then China also had very good claim over Korea and Japan because back then (say 1000-2000 years ago), they were once in some sense Chinese territory or Chinese satellite states, and they weren't "as civilized" as the Chinese then. You are false. China has been trading with present-day Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam way before they even explored outside their immediate waters.On your second paragraph, the answer is simple. China is not making any claims about Korea or Japan. So it's irrelevant to talk about it, right? I am sorry, but I don't see how trading with a country has anything to do with that country not exploring its nearby islands.As for your second paragraph, Tibet DOES claim sovereign of the the so-called Autonomic Tibet Territory. Their presence over Tibet has been around before 1600AD, and China did trade with it and interacted with it. So yea, there is no way to solve it unless there is a war. Your claim that China wants to revolve this peacefully is complete bogus. Let me simplify for you then. If Vietnam did not even explore more that 10 meters off its coast when China was already on mercantile relationship with most of the South East Asian countries, how could YOU claim that Vietnam has claims over these islands? It didn't even know they existed when China was already mapping them as part of its territory. On your Tibet argument, it is true, but there is a bigger truth, Tibet is China. Officially. Recognized even by the UN. Until Tibet becomes a separate country, all so-called Tibet territories remain China's. When Tibet does become separate, it will be my honor to post it here. On your third paragraph, I do not understand why you'd say that. Are you privy to the Chinese government that you know their plans? You have not shown us, or probably never bothered, to research any Vietnamese records. Are you but merely automatically assuming that they were so barbaric that they never bothered to check out the islands 10 meters off its coast? Wikipedia summary + Show Spoiler +Ancient Chinese maps record the "Thousand Li Stretch of Sands"; Qianli Changsha (千里長沙) and the "Ten-Thousand Li of Stone Pools"; Wanli Shitang (萬里石塘),[7] which China today claims refers to the Spratly Islands. The Wanli Shitang have been explored by the Chinese since the Yuan Dynasty and may have been considered by them to have been within their national boundaries. [8][9] They are also referenced in the 13th century,[10] followed by the Ming Dynasty.[11] When the Ming Dynasty collapsed, the Qing Dynasty continued to include the territory in maps compiled in 1724,[12] 1755,[13] 1767,[14] 1810,[15] and 1817.[16] A Vietnamese map from 1834 also includes the Spratly Islands clumped in with the Paracels (a common occurrence on maps of that time) labeled as "Wanli Changsha".[17]
According to Hanoi, old Vietnamese maps record Bãi Cát Vàng (Golden Sandbanks, referring to both Paracels and the Spratly Islands) which lay near the Coast of the central Vietnam as early as 1838.[18] In Phủ Biên Tạp Lục (Frontier Chronicles) by the scholar Le Quy Don, Hoàng Sa and Trường Sa were defined as belonging to Quảng Ngãi District. He described it as where sea products and shipwrecked cargoes were available to be collected. Vietnamese text written in the 17th century referenced government-sponsored economic activities during the Le Dynasty, 200 years earlier. The Vietnamese government conducted several geographical surveys of the islands in the 18th century.[18] From wikipedia Basically, the islands were mapped and claimed by China since at least 1000 AD while any comparable Vietnamese claim occurs post 1800 at the earliest Yeah, but as people have drawn comparisons, people explored quite a bit throughout history, I'm wondering what the actual populace of the Islands consists of. I don't think the historical claim is that substantial, nor is it really relevant. Way to completely fall back. Someone questioned the legitimacy of the comment of Vietnam not exploring those islands before China. A source was given that says China explored them 800 years before Vietnam, and now you say "OH IT DOESNT MATTER"
I'm not "falling back" anywhere, go look at some of my first posts in this thread, I specifically mentioned that China had mapped out those regions hundreds of years prior, and mentioned I didn't think it was relevant. Nice try though.
|
How will this get settled, if not with violence?
All involved seem to have some rational and justification for the islands belonging to them, and don't seem to want to easily surrender their claim. I don't see how this issue can get resolved peacefully if no one will simply give up the islands.
|
On June 19 2011 03:59 TALegion wrote:
How will this get settled, if not with violence?
All involved seem to have some rational and justification for the islands belonging to them, and don't seem to want to easily surrender their claim. I don't see how this issue can get resolved peacefully if no one will simply give up the islands.
This is pretty much true, given China's current economical and political position, it would be hard to see the US actually actively intervening on the behalf of say, the Philippines, barring that, any war that breaks out will be pretty similar to
Falklands_War
(maybe not as one sided)
|
OP working for chinese governement.
|
Even if his information was accurate, it's just a long post building on the genetic fallacy.
|
On June 19 2011 03:59 TALegion wrote:
How will this get settled, if not with violence?
All involved seem to have some rational and justification for the islands belonging to them, and don't seem to want to easily surrender their claim. I don't see how this issue can get resolved peacefully if no one will simply give up the islands.
Let's just hope US doesn't intervene. China and the ASEAN seem respectful for now. They have to talk though.
|
For those who didn't study Chinese history, you have to understand china should not be able to get these islands, or anymore resources. Sadly the Chinese government is always fragile as has been for 1000's of years, a simple new leader can simply cause havoc to the rest of the world.
I have no problems with Chinese people, but I do have a problem with their leaders. There will probably be a WWIII and China will be the primary antagonist. Leaders cause wars nor individuals. If people had their way they wouldn't go to war.
|
That map is pretty ridiculous, poor Brunei, they must be feeling claustrophobic. With such vital sea lanes being claimed by China, noone is going to allow China to exercise such a huge chunk of sea. For Japan/Korea, if they want to import oil from the Mideast they will have to send their ships through "Chinese claimed" sea or go the long way around. That can't be good for their economy.
Chinese Taipei? This isnt the Olympics!
|
I agree with OP but the thing is why is this under discussion and not listed as fact? Taiwan also claims those islands which makes this case bullet proof. Vietnam, Philippines and Indonesia surrender the islands or surrender in war.
|
On June 19 2011 04:04 GertHeart wrote:
For those who didn't study Chinese history, you have to understand china should not be able to get these islands, or anymore resources. Sadly the Chinese government is always fragile as has been for 1000's of years, a simple new leader can simply cause havoc to the rest of the world.
I have no problems with Chinese people, but I do have a problem with their leaders. There will probably be a WWIII and China will be the primary antagonist. Leaders cause wars nor individuals. If people had their way they wouldn't go to war.
If you could elaborate on the first paragraph instead leaving an inflammatory post, that would have added to the discussion. Instead you cite history that you don't specifically reference and then say China will be the villain of WWIII, this is nothing but inflammatory.
|
On June 19 2011 04:04 GertHeart wrote:
For those who didn't study Chinese history, you have to understand china should not be able to get these islands, or anymore resources. Sadly the Chinese government is always fragile as has been for 1000's of years, a simple new leader can simply cause havoc to the rest of the world.
I have no problems with Chinese people, but I do have a problem with their leaders. There will probably be a WWIII and China will be the primary antagonist. Leaders cause wars nor individuals. If people had their way they wouldn't go to war.
The Chinese Government has only been fragile for perhaps the past 100 years
A total of 3 regime changes over a period of 900 years does not constitute a fragile government
The claim that the Chinese government wants war is completely baseless and lubricious, given that you view China as a potential "antagonist" in a WW in which it would be the aggressor is something I completely broke up in laughter about, nor is it something to even joke about.
If the people were informed and had their way, America would not be in Iraq.
|
I think the citizens of those islands should simply vote on which country they want to be part of, and there you go: problem solved.
|
On June 19 2011 04:04 GertHeart wrote:
For those who didn't study Chinese history, you have to understand china should not be able to get these islands, or anymore resources. Sadly the Chinese government is always fragile as has been for 1000's of years, a simple new leader can simply cause havoc to the rest of the world.
I have no problems with Chinese people, but I do have a problem with their leaders. There will probably be a WWIII and China will be the primary antagonist. Leaders cause wars nor individuals. If people had their way they wouldn't go to war.
This is a bit vague what you are saying. What exactly do you want to say here?
On June 19 2011 04:07 stork4ever wrote:
That map is pretty ridiculous, poor Brunei, they must be feeling claustrophobic. With such vital sea lanes being claimed by China, noone is going to allow China to exercise such a huge chunk of sea. For Japan/Korea, if they want to import oil from the Mideast they will have to send their ships through "Chinese claimed" sea or go the long way around. That can't be good for their economy.
Chinese Taipei? This isnt the Olympics!
I'm sorry to break it to you, but "Taiwan" is simply a common name. Officially, it is Chinese Taipei or ROC.
|
The issue with china having many dynasty changes and leader changes doesn't really matter in my opinion. When you look at it, it's always been the HAN ethnic group that has controlled the area and laid claim to various places. Even during the dynasties where it was controlled by a minority chinese ethnic group, it didn't last very long and most of the population were the han ethnic group.
I am sure vietnam / phillipines and anyone else may have some legitimate claim to these territory but when you compare the amount of context historically/economically/millitarily/geographically it shouldn't even be close.
Vietnam and much of the southwest part of asia gained independence during the past 100 year when china was weak. If they couldn't take those land they claim now during that time you really think they'll be able to claim it now? The ONLY way china will give up those territory completely is through war. The present Chinese leaders are very adamant about sovereignty over the region and seems very willing to use military forces should the other side decide to.
bottomline, you can claim w/e you want in the region but there is no way you can reap the benefit of the region without the chinese leaders having something to do with it
|
i honestly question all china's historical claims of exploration and map charting. i'm pretty sure even if there were records, they would be censored or destroyed due to the changing political moods.
i call on all their bluffs. i'll go ask the indignous people who they want to live under. most likely not china lol.
|
On June 19 2011 04:14 Qi wrote:
I'm sorry to break it to you, but "Taiwan" is simply a common name. Officially, it is Chinese Taipei or ROC.
Officially its Republic of China. Chinese Taipei is used to make the People's Republic of China feel good.
There is like noone living on those rocks so unlike the Falklands, a vote would do nothing.
|
On June 19 2011 04:12 mathemagician1986 wrote:
I think the citizens of those islands should simply vote on which country they want to be part of, and there you go: problem solved.
problem is barely anyone lives there since its basically a bunch of rocks. what all the governments there want is not the rocks but whats in the water. if it were to be a voting contest, the chinese government would just ship a bunch of people there and call it a victory. lol
|
Original Message From GertHeart:
You seem to be a bit manipulated by your own government, or even your own mind. Learn your countries dark secrets, every country has them, the US used to kill groups of people off back in the 30's-70's just because they though they were communist supports, and that was a military style of execution. At one time they killed nearly 300 people in a small village. As well as poisoning many others.
You know yourself China has a lot of dark secrets, people of lower level, farmers, etc.. have no life, and are kept there, or students who take exams are taught to not think out of the box, and if they fail their life is almost over. Or further more they prefer workers not thinkers. The Chinese government is worse than the Russian Mafia run government, individuals not only have no say, but aren't even pawns, they are considered to be less than even tools. As internet exists you can find these truths out on your own, on the open web, or need be the underweb
I've read your posts, and you are quite blind to the actual truth, if you want to be a sheep the rest of your life so be it. Or if you would rather be a sheep and know the truth, then at least seek it.
I got this via PM but I want this out in the open. Let me say first thank you GertHeart for your concern for me to know about my government, but I assure you I am on the streets of China along with other students and protesters fighting the police to raise awareness on Tibet, government censor, and other ills of the government while you are somewhere out there.
Second, this is not about the evils of Chinese government. This is about territories that have been historically part of China when no one even knows they existed yet.
|
Well for me, China got their rights to claim that it belong to them cause of the history.
|
On June 19 2011 04:19 trucejl wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 04:12 mathemagician1986 wrote:
I think the citizens of those islands should simply vote on which country they want to be part of, and there you go: problem solved. problem is barely anyone lives there since its basically a bunch of rocks. what all the governments there want is not the rocks but whats in the water. if it were to be a voting contest, the chinese government would just ship a bunch of people there and call it a victory. lol
lol nice
|
I just noticed my post derailed the thread,sorry.
|
On June 19 2011 04:26 Kurumi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 04:19 trucejl wrote:On June 19 2011 04:12 mathemagician1986 wrote:
I think the citizens of those islands should simply vote on which country they want to be part of, and there you go: problem solved. problem is barely anyone lives there since its basically a bunch of rocks. what all the governments there want is not the rocks but whats in the water. if it were to be a voting contest, the chinese government would just ship a bunch of people there and call it a victory. lol Sounds like the trick Germany did to Poland ~_~ EDIT: They brought people across Germany who were born in the lands which were contested by both countries. Suddenly so many German people lived there,oh look!
could you please explain a little more? This statement baffles me.
|
On June 19 2011 04:21 Qi wrote:Show nested quote +Original Message From GertHeart:
You seem to be a bit manipulated by your own government, or even your own mind. Learn your countries dark secrets, every country has them, the US used to kill groups of people off back in the 30's-70's just because they though they were communist supports, and that was a military style of execution. At one time they killed nearly 300 people in a small village. As well as poisoning many others.
You know yourself China has a lot of dark secrets, people of lower level, farmers, etc.. have no life, and are kept there, or students who take exams are taught to not think out of the box, and if they fail their life is almost over. Or further more they prefer workers not thinkers. The Chinese government is worse than the Russian Mafia run government, individuals not only have no say, but aren't even pawns, they are considered to be less than even tools. As internet exists you can find these truths out on your own, on the open web, or need be the underweb
I've read your posts, and you are quite blind to the actual truth, if you want to be a sheep the rest of your life so be it. Or if you would rather be a sheep and know the truth, then at least seek it. I got this via PM but I want this out in the open. Let me say first thank you GertHeart for your concern for me to know about my government, but I assure you I am on the streets of China along with other students and protesters fighting the police to raise awareness on Tibet, government censor, and other ills of the government while you are somewhere out there. Second, this is not about the evils of Chinese government. This is about territories that have been historically part of China when no one even knows they existed yet.
Being polite, respectful and well-spoken is only the first step in having a meaningful discussion. At some point you have to consider positions that are different from yours. Even allow the possiblility that they might be correct and you might be at least partially wrong. If not, there's no discussion, just people repeating their positions over and over. And even if they are doing it politely and respectfully it's still a waste of their time.
This goes both for the statement that historical texts prove these islands are China's and the wider issue of China's government being a force for good or evil in international politics (which, like it or not will affect how people will react to claims like these).
|
On June 19 2011 03:39 Kupon3ss wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:33 Fontong wrote:
So what do undeniable historical claims have to do with anything? I would say both Mexico and Britain have an undeniable historical claim over parts of the US. The difference is that the US is filled with Americans who have been living there for hundreds of years. From your historical timeline, the Nansha Islands have little to no Chinese population, and the Chinese have allowed foreigners to settle there are build strategic bases there for about a hundred years.
On one hand, people shouldn't build things(especially militarily significant things) on land someone else claims. However, I see this as only China's fault if they made no effort to prevent this occurrence, despite the fact that they a great deal of time to do so. Geographically, it looks as though the Philippines have a very logical claim over the area, as well as a national security interest in preventing China from claim islands right of their coast. You should know well that China already puts extreme military pressure on the nations around it, simply by existing. The Mexican and British claims were both legally accepted and dealt with in the following way Post the War of Independence, the main disputed lands lay in the Northwestern US, namely Oregon and in Northeastern US, namely Maine. In both cases both nations had laid claims over the same tracts of land at near simultaneous times with little cartography or mapping (in the case of the western part) or with statehood/provincial disputes (in the eastern part), both of the issues were resolved by treaties worked out by the parties Mexican claims over land that is currently "American" were lost either during the Texan Revolution that made the settlers revolt, claim statehood, and join the United States, and by invasion of the US Army during the American Mexican war, at the end of which the lands were ceded to the United States for a sum of money
Everyone who took us history knows this, but OP is citing historical not legal.
|
Since nobody can agree about who owns the islands i have two suggestions.
1) Split them. Just an equal split for the countries that are considered contenders for the ownership.
2) Give them to the country that needs them the most, and help them out!
I doubt china really needs them, but some of the other countries could probably use them a lot more. Cause it seems like there is no real fact about who owns them, just opinions.
|
On June 19 2011 04:16 trucejl wrote:
The issue with china having many dynasty changes and leader changes doesn't really matter in my opinion. When you look at it, it's always been the HAN ethnic group that has controlled the area and laid claim to various places. Even during the dynasties where it was controlled by a minority chinese ethnic group, it didn't last very long and most of the population were the han ethnic group.
I am sure vietnam / phillipines and anyone else may have some legitimate claim to these territory but when you compare the amount of context historically/economically/millitarily/geographically it shouldn't even be close.
Vietnam and much of the southwest part of asia gained independence during the past 100 year when china was weak. If they couldn't take those land they claim now during that time you really think they'll be able to claim it now? The ONLY way china will give up those territory completely is through war. The present Chinese leaders are very adamant about sovereignty over the region and seems very willing to use military forces should the other side decide to.
bottomline, you can claim w/e you want in the region but there is no way you can reap the benefit of the region without the chinese leaders having something to do with it
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 04:34 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 04:21 Qi wrote:Original Message From GertHeart:
You seem to be a bit manipulated by your own government, or even your own mind. Learn your countries dark secrets, every country has them, the US used to kill groups of people off back in the 30's-70's just because they though they were communist supports, and that was a military style of execution. At one time they killed nearly 300 people in a small village. As well as poisoning many others.
You know yourself China has a lot of dark secrets, people of lower level, farmers, etc.. have no life, and are kept there, or students who take exams are taught to not think out of the box, and if they fail their life is almost over. Or further more they prefer workers not thinkers. The Chinese government is worse than the Russian Mafia run government, individuals not only have no say, but aren't even pawns, they are considered to be less than even tools. As internet exists you can find these truths out on your own, on the open web, or need be the underweb
I've read your posts, and you are quite blind to the actual truth, if you want to be a sheep the rest of your life so be it. Or if you would rather be a sheep and know the truth, then at least seek it. I got this via PM but I want this out in the open. Let me say first thank you GertHeart for your concern for me to know about my government, but I assure you I am on the streets of China along with other students and protesters fighting the police to raise awareness on Tibet, government censor, and other ills of the government while you are somewhere out there. Second, this is not about the evils of Chinese government. This is about territories that have been historically part of China when no one even knows they existed yet. Being polite, respectful and well-spoken is only the first step in having a meaningful discussion. At some point you have to consider positions that are different from yours. Even allow the possiblility that they might be correct and you might be at least partially wrong. If not, there's no discussion, just people repeating their positions over and over. And even if they are doing it politely and respectfully it's still a waste of their time. This goes both for the statement that historical texts prove these islands are China's and the wider issue of China's government being a force for good or evil in international politics (which, like it or not will affect how people will react to claims like these).
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
I don't like nationalist posts like this. Everyone has their own agenda and storyline to justify owning whatever it is they want. The OP has China's take on it but fails to argue any of the other sides (there's like 5 of them) and then deems that China is in the right.
|
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
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 04:46 Craton wrote:Show nested quote +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 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.
It really doesn't matter in the end.
Each party will have their justifications, but China will win because it is strong and the others are weak.
Might makes right.
That said, China's claims aren't as ridiculous as some people here think.
|
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.
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.
|
On June 19 2011 04:51 Consolidate wrote:
That said, China's claims aren't as ridiculous as some people here think.
It's not the claims themselves, its the manner the OP is written in and the lack of opposing information.
|
On June 19 2011 04:40 Qi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 04:34 hypercube wrote:On June 19 2011 04:21 Qi wrote:Original Message From GertHeart:
You seem to be a bit manipulated by your own government, or even your own mind. Learn your countries dark secrets, every country has them, the US used to kill groups of people off back in the 30's-70's just because they though they were communist supports, and that was a military style of execution. At one time they killed nearly 300 people in a small village. As well as poisoning many others.
You know yourself China has a lot of dark secrets, people of lower level, farmers, etc.. have no life, and are kept there, or students who take exams are taught to not think out of the box, and if they fail their life is almost over. Or further more they prefer workers not thinkers. The Chinese government is worse than the Russian Mafia run government, individuals not only have no say, but aren't even pawns, they are considered to be less than even tools. As internet exists you can find these truths out on your own, on the open web, or need be the underweb
I've read your posts, and you are quite blind to the actual truth, if you want to be a sheep the rest of your life so be it. Or if you would rather be a sheep and know the truth, then at least seek it. I got this via PM but I want this out in the open. Let me say first thank you GertHeart for your concern for me to know about my government, but I assure you I am on the streets of China along with other students and protesters fighting the police to raise awareness on Tibet, government censor, and other ills of the government while you are somewhere out there. Second, this is not about the evils of Chinese government. This is about territories that have been historically part of China when no one even knows they existed yet. Being polite, respectful and well-spoken is only the first step in having a meaningful discussion. At some point you have to consider positions that are different from yours. Even allow the possiblility that they might be correct and you might be at least partially wrong. If not, there's no discussion, just people repeating their positions over and over. And even if they are doing it politely and respectfully it's still a waste of their time. This goes both for the statement that historical texts prove these islands are China's and the wider issue of China's government being a force for good or evil in international politics (which, like it or not will affect how people will react to claims like these). 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.
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?
|
Given that China isn't exact a haven of free information I would rather question the bias of whatever sources (or lack thereof) he used to build that history. And I would also think that European imperial territories would be an argument *against* ignoring geography in determining territorial claims...
|
On June 19 2011 04:55 Ciryandor wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
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 02:20 Qi wrote:Historical records that show why China owns Nansha Islands+ Show Spoiler +
2011 June
The Philippines destroy Chinese markers on the Nansha Islands
You can add this May and June 2011
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.
The claim for these small islands / mere rocks has to do with Exclusive Economic Zones (UN law, which all claimants acknowledge).
These zones look like this when ignoring ownership of the mentioned islands:
![[image loading]](http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48951000/gif/_48951920_south_china-sea_1_466.gif)
Now if they are in fact Chinese islands it change the whole situation to this:
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/China_Exclusive_Economic_Zones.png)
Colors:
China's EEZ
EEZ claimed by China, disputed by the Republic of China (Taiwan)
EEZ claimed by China, disputed by others
And if you compare the Chinese claim in the first picture with the one in the second, you will see that the Chinese claimed territorial waters are even against the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, because "in 1947, China published a map drawing a U-shaped line of claim across South China Sea."
To conclude my point: I think Chinas claim is unreasonable and is going to harm their diplomatic relations to their neighbors even more (hi @ building aircraft carriers and hi @ having territorial disputes with nearly all neighbors). And if we say that the older the historical mention the better, then why is the current Chinese territory bigger than the one under the first Emperor?
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/EN-WarringStatesAll260BCE.jpg/651px-EN-WarringStatesAll260BCE.jpg)
|
On June 19 2011 04:56 Craton wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 04:51 Consolidate wrote:
That said, China's claims aren't as ridiculous as some people here think. It's not the claims themselves, its the manner the OP is written in and the lack of opposing information.
The vast majority of islands are uninhabitable. The simple fact of the matter is that no one really 'owns' them or has 'owned' them for any significant period of time throughout history.
Only two parties can claim to have first discovered them - those being China and Vietnam. Of the two, I'm slightly favor China's historical claims, but both are pretty tenuous.
That said, I think that all talk about 'fairness' regarding these sorts of matters is completely juvenile.
China will take these islands because no one is willing to stand up to them.
|
On June 19 2011 04:56 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 04:40 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 04:34 hypercube wrote:On June 19 2011 04:21 Qi wrote:Original Message From GertHeart:
You seem to be a bit manipulated by your own government, or even your own mind. Learn your countries dark secrets, every country has them, the US used to kill groups of people off back in the 30's-70's just because they though they were communist supports, and that was a military style of execution. At one time they killed nearly 300 people in a small village. As well as poisoning many others.
You know yourself China has a lot of dark secrets, people of lower level, farmers, etc.. have no life, and are kept there, or students who take exams are taught to not think out of the box, and if they fail their life is almost over. Or further more they prefer workers not thinkers. The Chinese government is worse than the Russian Mafia run government, individuals not only have no say, but aren't even pawns, they are considered to be less than even tools. As internet exists you can find these truths out on your own, on the open web, or need be the underweb
I've read your posts, and you are quite blind to the actual truth, if you want to be a sheep the rest of your life so be it. Or if you would rather be a sheep and know the truth, then at least seek it. I got this via PM but I want this out in the open. Let me say first thank you GertHeart for your concern for me to know about my government, but I assure you I am on the streets of China along with other students and protesters fighting the police to raise awareness on Tibet, government censor, and other ills of the government while you are somewhere out there. Second, this is not about the evils of Chinese government. This is about territories that have been historically part of China when no one even knows they existed yet. Being polite, respectful and well-spoken is only the first step in having a meaningful discussion. At some point you have to consider positions that are different from yours. Even allow the possiblility that they might be correct and you might be at least partially wrong. If not, there's no discussion, just people repeating their positions over and over. And even if they are doing it politely and respectfully it's still a waste of their time. This goes both for the statement that historical texts prove these islands are China's and the wider issue of China's government being a force for good or evil in international politics (which, like it or not will affect how people will react to claims like these). 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. 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?
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.
|
Why would you wanne work for the chinese goverment? Its a dicatorship based on supressing their own people, and giving privilege to party members.
|
On June 19 2011 04:40 Ciryandor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 04:16 trucejl wrote:
The issue with china having many dynasty changes and leader changes doesn't really matter in my opinion. When you look at it, it's always been the HAN ethnic group that has controlled the area and laid claim to various places. Even during the dynasties where it was controlled by a minority chinese ethnic group, it didn't last very long and most of the population were the han ethnic group.
I am sure vietnam / phillipines and anyone else may have some legitimate claim to these territory but when you compare the amount of context historically/economically/millitarily/geographically it shouldn't even be close.
Vietnam and much of the southwest part of asia gained independence during the past 100 year when china was weak. If they couldn't take those land they claim now during that time you really think they'll be able to claim it now? The ONLY way china will give up those territory completely is through war. The present Chinese leaders are very adamant about sovereignty over the region and seems very willing to use military forces should the other side decide to.
bottomline, you can claim w/e you want in the region but there is no way you can reap the benefit of the region without the chinese leaders having something to do with it 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.
first, get your facts straight. Manchus are not Mongolian. The mongolian dynasty is the Yuan dynasty. Manchus were another minority ethnic group to the northern part of china. 267 years is not long when put into the context of how long china has been around. It would be long for the United States but not China. Even though it wasn't a han controlled dynasty, most of the government had han officials with only the very top having manchu. The point i was trying to make was that even though there were a lot of leadership change, it has always been the han people that was in the middle of it.
vietnam has no pre-1800s claim. They were basically a colony of China with much of the region around that time.
I don't understand how people can claim ROC is the true successor to anything Chinese considering it LOST a civil war. It would be like saying the confederate is the true owner of the southern tradition of the United States even though they lost. To put it blunt, ROC is just an exiled government that would not exist today if it weren't for the international community.
Regarding phillipines and their claims through UNCLOS and Res Nullius, I am sure they are not the only ones that have documented claims for the regions.
|
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.
|
On June 19 2011 04:58 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 04:55 Ciryandor wrote: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. 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. 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.
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 05:07 Ciryandor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 04:58 Consolidate wrote:On June 19 2011 04:55 Ciryandor wrote: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. 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. 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. 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.
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 05:03 Qi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 04:56 hypercube wrote:On June 19 2011 04:40 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 04:34 hypercube wrote:On June 19 2011 04:21 Qi wrote:Original Message From GertHeart:
You seem to be a bit manipulated by your own government, or even your own mind. Learn your countries dark secrets, every country has them, the US used to kill groups of people off back in the 30's-70's just because they though they were communist supports, and that was a military style of execution. At one time they killed nearly 300 people in a small village. As well as poisoning many others.
You know yourself China has a lot of dark secrets, people of lower level, farmers, etc.. have no life, and are kept there, or students who take exams are taught to not think out of the box, and if they fail their life is almost over. Or further more they prefer workers not thinkers. The Chinese government is worse than the Russian Mafia run government, individuals not only have no say, but aren't even pawns, they are considered to be less than even tools. As internet exists you can find these truths out on your own, on the open web, or need be the underweb
I've read your posts, and you are quite blind to the actual truth, if you want to be a sheep the rest of your life so be it. Or if you would rather be a sheep and know the truth, then at least seek it. I got this via PM but I want this out in the open. Let me say first thank you GertHeart for your concern for me to know about my government, but I assure you I am on the streets of China along with other students and protesters fighting the police to raise awareness on Tibet, government censor, and other ills of the government while you are somewhere out there. Second, this is not about the evils of Chinese government. This is about territories that have been historically part of China when no one even knows they existed yet. Being polite, respectful and well-spoken is only the first step in having a meaningful discussion. At some point you have to consider positions that are different from yours. Even allow the possiblility that they might be correct and you might be at least partially wrong. If not, there's no discussion, just people repeating their positions over and over. And even if they are doing it politely and respectfully it's still a waste of their time. This goes both for the statement that historical texts prove these islands are China's and the wider issue of China's government being a force for good or evil in international politics (which, like it or not will affect how people will react to claims like these). 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. 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? 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.
If there's no way to definitely decide who is right it ultimately comes down to the question whether Chinese dominance in the region is desirable or not.
And please do not ignore the other question this time. Are you interested in a discussion (based on considering others' position) or are you just here to advertise your position?
|
On June 19 2011 03:33 Ghad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:30 Impervious wrote:
Canada and Denmark are in a large-scale dick-waving war over Hans island.....
Seriously. You'll laugh when you realize how much money both countries have spent over this little hump of land between Greenland and Ellesmere island..... 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.
Seriously. These types of disputes are almost jokes compared to what's going on elsewhere.
IMO, if all of the countries involved were to agree with binding arbitration by a 3rd party who has no interest in any possible outcome, we'd be able to solve this peacefully. I doubt that China would agree to this, since they currently have the "biggest backing" to their claim, and as such, have the most to lose through arbitration. But their claim seems ridiculously excessive to me.
I'm not saying that a claim to some/many of the islands is unreasonable. Far from it. But claiming that your territory is extending all the way to the Philippines and off the coast of Vietnam like that?
Yea.....
|
On June 19 2011 05:11 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:07 Ciryandor wrote:On June 19 2011 04:58 Consolidate wrote:On June 19 2011 04:55 Ciryandor wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. You're so misguided. The GFR doesn't filter English words nearly as strenuously as Chinese words. And the BBC article has no source.
Then educate me, I'm listening to what you have to contribute to the thread. 
Edit: Any sort of arbitration would not work simply because of the reason the dispute exists in the first place; oil. Any major country would have an interest in having the country they can influence the most/have the best agreement/s get a larger chunk of the area for them to explore for those reserves.
|
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.
You are actually right here. But we should also take note of ontologies. In history, it is counter-intuitive to discuss what did not/could have/should have happened. Though they are interesting, we only discuss what happened and is happening. Power is a big part of this. As it is, China has both historical claim and power, though it tries to wield only soft powers and saber rattling. I personally hope it doesn't get to war. I doubt Philippines or Vietnam or other countries in that region will be willing to really push and provoke China. They will exhaust all peaceful means, I hope. It will take the intervention of another big country to tip the scales.
It's wrong though, Mongols are a late addition to China's history.
And, the Nansha Islands are merely rock islands. The claim is over the resources in the region and the geopolitical implications of having control of that region. As someone said earlier, if it's going down to voting, China will simply send a city's worth of population their in the dark of the night before the election and win it once and for all. kidding
|
so many people going off topic throwing all type of trash out against china. everyone knows that china has its issues but those are not the ones being discussed here so keep it to another thread. want to discuss the firewall? make your own thread.
for all those saying have the inhabitants vote. THERE ARE BARELY ANYONE LIVING ON THESE ROCKS. so stop calling for it because it doesn't work in this situation.
in the end there is going to be 2 basic conclusions.
1. China secures full claim to these island.
2. China disputes these claim along with other island and nothing is done. (Because China is stronger economically and militarily)
The chance of there being a war for these territory is minimal and the chance of USA military intervention in this war would be even lower. so for china to lose claim on this island is basically impossible
|
why the fuck would these small asian countries try to provoke china?
|
I'm so tired of these disputes over various irellevant islands... don't care anymore; Åland belongs to sweden omfg omf gomfg fomdom!4
|
On June 19 2011 05:17 FenneK wrote:
why the fuck would these small asian countries try to provoke china?
Because they are backed by the USA and have a common "enemy"/target.
|
On June 19 2011 05:17 FenneK wrote:
why the fuck would these small asian countries try to provoke china?
because USA is always lurking the background trying to start shit lol.
otherwise these small asian countries wouldn't even dare to let off a fart in these islands since china can run them over in a few weeks.
|
"Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks"
Please don't say this then say "undeniable". You clearly do not understand what that means.
|
On June 19 2011 05:17 FenneK wrote:
why the fuck would these small asian countries try to provoke china?
China wants the islands because with the islands come the water and with the water come the shipping lanes.
Kind of like me robbing you from your wallet and the police then asking why you were provoking me for stealing your wallet.
Historical claims mean little imo. The water is well divided as it stands, it should remain as it is. You have to be practical in this. You can't adapt borders every time China comes up with a new piece of land or water it wants.
These countries are likely to prefer war rather then giving this area to China because if China gets it then war is no longer an option for them. Chinese naval forces could move withing firing distance of their shores, within range of their cities and if they said anything about it, they would be at fault.
These countries are rightfully concerned about the safety of their people and having control of the sea that borders a large part of your country is paramount to national security.
because USA is always lurking the background trying to start shit lol.
otherwise these small asian countries wouldn't even dare to let off a fart in these islands since china can run them over in a few weeks.
We need to stop pretending like China is a military super power. The Chinese army is underfunded, overstaffed and gravely lacks experienced soldiers and more crucially, experienced officers.
It is a very old and outdated army. Most of what it lacks is mobility. The Chinese army couldn't overun these countries even in a matter of years. They don't have the naval and aerial power to gain absolute control over the area and they lack the mobility to transport enough soldiers across water.
China has an undeserved reputation for being some kind of military super power. Currently China is a regional power but no greater then the Korean/Japanese/Australian trinity. It lacks the ability to project it's forces.
If China decides to go to war it will only end in humiliation. Similar to when the USSR invaded Finland.
|
On June 19 2011 05:19 Damian wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:17 FenneK wrote:
why the fuck would these small asian countries try to provoke china? Because they are backed by the USA and have a common "enemy"/target.
Bullshit.
The US couldn't give less a shit about Vietnam. They might give moral support to the Philippines , but definitely won't engage militarily.
The US nominally trying to keep the peace, but they won't be able to stop a military conflict between China and Vietnam, nor will they be inclined step in.
The United States would sooner help China than Vietnam if only because there is absolutely no way they would side with Vietnam.
|
On June 19 2011 05:14 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:03 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 04:56 hypercube wrote:On June 19 2011 04:40 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 04:34 hypercube wrote:On June 19 2011 04:21 Qi wrote:Original Message From GertHeart:
You seem to be a bit manipulated by your own government, or even your own mind. Learn your countries dark secrets, every country has them, the US used to kill groups of people off back in the 30's-70's just because they though they were communist supports, and that was a military style of execution. At one time they killed nearly 300 people in a small village. As well as poisoning many others.
You know yourself China has a lot of dark secrets, people of lower level, farmers, etc.. have no life, and are kept there, or students who take exams are taught to not think out of the box, and if they fail their life is almost over. Or further more they prefer workers not thinkers. The Chinese government is worse than the Russian Mafia run government, individuals not only have no say, but aren't even pawns, they are considered to be less than even tools. As internet exists you can find these truths out on your own, on the open web, or need be the underweb
I've read your posts, and you are quite blind to the actual truth, if you want to be a sheep the rest of your life so be it. Or if you would rather be a sheep and know the truth, then at least seek it. I got this via PM but I want this out in the open. Let me say first thank you GertHeart for your concern for me to know about my government, but I assure you I am on the streets of China along with other students and protesters fighting the police to raise awareness on Tibet, government censor, and other ills of the government while you are somewhere out there. Second, this is not about the evils of Chinese government. This is about territories that have been historically part of China when no one even knows they existed yet. Being polite, respectful and well-spoken is only the first step in having a meaningful discussion. At some point you have to consider positions that are different from yours. Even allow the possiblility that they might be correct and you might be at least partially wrong. If not, there's no discussion, just people repeating their positions over and over. And even if they are doing it politely and respectfully it's still a waste of their time. This goes both for the statement that historical texts prove these islands are China's and the wider issue of China's government being a force for good or evil in international politics (which, like it or not will affect how people will react to claims like these). 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. 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? 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. If there's no way to definitely decide who is right it ultimately comes down to the question whether Chinese dominance in the region is desirable or not. And please do not ignore the other question this time. Are you interested in a discussion (based on considering others' position) or are you just here to advertise your position?
You wont even answer a clearly worded question.
To answer you clearly, I have been respectful and open so far. What I don't get is people like you who'd rather talk about off tangent things like the evils Chinese government than what this OP is about. Clear now?
Write something that is actually related to the OP then we can have a discussion. And. to be clear again, the OP is: Nansha is historically, for more than 2000 years, part of China. Anything for or against that?
Sorry I have to be frank, I can't stand bad logic, pretense, and ad hominem that you are doing calling me out to answer your impertinent question and pretending it's that most important thing in the world but when I call you out on an actually directly related to the OP question you come up with these "there's no way to definitely decide who is right" "Chinese dominance in the region is desirable or not" obscurity.
|
It would appear that unless someone has tried to dispute the land with China by force, or if there is some tribe of no names living there somehow, China's claim to it is the most reasonable.
Though China has put itself into this predicament by being totalitarian assholes, but good businessmen.
|
On June 19 2011 05:22 dangots0ul wrote:
"Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks"
Please don't say this then say "undeniable". You clearly do not understand what that means.
What is not undeniable about 2000 years worth of records. Oh God should I reply to every uninformed one-liners like this...
|
On June 19 2011 05:25 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:19 Damian wrote:On June 19 2011 05:17 FenneK wrote:
why the fuck would these small asian countries try to provoke china? Because they are backed by the USA and have a common "enemy"/target. Bullshit. The US couldn't give less a shit about Vietnam. They might give moral support to the Philippines , but definitely won't engage militarily. The US nominally trying to keep the peace, but they won't be able to stop a military conflict between China and Vietnam, nor will they be inclined step in. The United States would sooner help China than Vietnam if only because there is absolutely no way they would side with Vietnam.
well for now, USA backs them on paper. Things like alliance always change when shit actually goes down.
something everyone needs to understand here is nobody wants to go to war. they are just trying to push their limits until someone shows with with guns and cannons waiting to fire. (like the recent north korea saga)
only reason USA is looking around the south western asia region is trying to find a location for another base to "contain" china. Its easy to infer that just from hillary clintons comment about the situation. she constantly tries to be a mediator for the 2 sides when china has express time and time again that USA needs to stay out of it.
in the end everything will likely stay the way it is after it blows over in a few weeks until the next time someone feels cavalier.
|
On June 19 2011 05:28 Qi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:22 dangots0ul wrote:
"Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks"
Please don't say this then say "undeniable". You clearly do not understand what that means. What is not undeniable about 2000 years worth of records. Oh God should I reply to every uninformed one-liners like this...
Records don't mean anything, as can be seen in the middle east. It is merely a means to rationalize a claim. In the end, it comes down to power to take what one wants. It would be interesting to see a perosn from the Philippines repüort on the Philippine reasons for claiming the Islands. They would probabaly have an equally long list of equally meaningless reasons.
|
Hmm, this is very interesting. Thanks for making this thread. Much ignorance abounds, but the topic is still worthy of discussion.
|
Also, a bit off topic. There is too much media influence going on here.
China is not exactly the repressive totalitarian idiot that it was 100 or 50 years ago. It is prosperous now, and relatively moving towards gradual openness. There are struggles, particularly on information, but otherwise, it is no worse that Singapore in terms of state policies and control.
It is a BIG struggle for sure, but not that I imagine most of you are imagining it to be.
|
On June 19 2011 05:28 Qi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:22 dangots0ul wrote:
"Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks"
Please don't say this then say "undeniable". You clearly do not understand what that means. What is not undeniable about 2000 years worth of records. Oh God should I reply to every uninformed one-liners like this...
If that was the case, Canada, the USA, Mexico, and many countries in South America would be very, very different than they are now..... There's undeniable evidence that native americans owned the land long before Europeans showed up and basically stole it.
|
On June 19 2011 05:32 trucejl wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:25 Consolidate wrote:On June 19 2011 05:19 Damian wrote:On June 19 2011 05:17 FenneK wrote:
why the fuck would these small asian countries try to provoke china? Because they are backed by the USA and have a common "enemy"/target. Bullshit. The US couldn't give less a shit about Vietnam. They might give moral support to the Philippines , but definitely won't engage militarily. The US nominally trying to keep the peace, but they won't be able to stop a military conflict between China and Vietnam, nor will they be inclined step in. The United States would sooner help China than Vietnam if only because there is absolutely no way they would side with Vietnam. well for now, USA backs them on paper. Things like alliance always change when shit actually goes down. something everyone needs to understand here is nobody wants to go to war. they are just trying to push their limits until someone shows with with guns and cannons waiting to fire. (like the recent north korea saga) only reason USA is looking around the south western asia region is trying to find a location for another base to "contain" china. Its easy to infer that just from hillary clintons comment about the situation. she constantly tries to be a mediator for the 2 sides when china has express time and time again that USA needs to stay out of it. in the end everything will likely stay the way it is after it blows over in a few weeks until the next time someone feels cavalier.
Hillary Clinton is actually retarded.
I used to have the faintest respect for her due her due to the presumption of her 'toughness', but every time I hear her talk, its like hearing a news pundit spew cliched talking points.
I'm convinced that she's pretty ill-qualified to manage the situation.
|
On June 19 2011 05:36 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 05:22 dangots0ul wrote:
"Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks"
Please don't say this then say "undeniable". You clearly do not understand what that means. What is not undeniable about 2000 years worth of records. Oh God should I reply to every uninformed one-liners like this... If that was the case, Canada, the USA, Mexico, and many countries in South America would be very, very different than they are now..... There's undeniable evidence that native americans owned the land long before Europeans showed up and basically stole it.
Even so at least that entails occupation of said territories there is no real occupation of the islands so even make such a claim.
On June 19 2011 05:28 Qi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:22 dangots0ul wrote:
"Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks"
Please don't say this then say "undeniable". You clearly do not understand what that means. What is not undeniable about 2000 years worth of records. Oh God should I reply to every uninformed one-liners like this...
Well to that claim then all claims made in the past are 100% legit. Also previous agreements among governments are still in progress so the Germany of pre WWI pre WWII and post WWII are all the same under such an assumption. Furthermore they only made claim to the island by themselves? And that's okay becuase the surrounding civilians weren't are developed. So under such an assumption india is still part of the British empire oh yeah and the british empire still exists apparently it's just called the UK same king and queen as ever ruling the country.
|
On June 19 2011 05:33 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 05:22 dangots0ul wrote:
"Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks"
Please don't say this then say "undeniable". You clearly do not understand what that means. What is not undeniable about 2000 years worth of records. Oh God should I reply to every uninformed one-liners like this... Records don't mean anything, as can be seen in the middle east. It is merely a means to rationalize a claim. In the end, it comes down to power to take what one wants. It would be interesting to see a perosn from the Philippines repüort on the Philippine reasons for claiming the Islands. They would probabaly have an equally long list of equally meaningless reasons.
truth. as long as china holds this claim, it will be hard for many western countries to get involved without a logical argument for either side. Besides the countries involved, no other country in the world has the right to get involved should a conflict happens. And we all know who would win that.
China is simply doing what the USA has been doing for years around the world. Use whatever claim (excuse) they can muster to get involved with whatever.
|
If China has "undeniable claims" why are so many people denying them?
From what I can see China is not in great proximity to the islands and just because a monk took a piss and set up a tent there 2000 years ago doesn't give the country a title deed.
It's hardly surprising most countries are telling China to go fuck itself. The only thing thats stopped people in the past seems to be the fact that you don't easily provoke the big guy.
|
On June 19 2011 05:16 Qi wrote:You are actually right here. But we should also take note of ontologies. In history, it is counter-intuitive to discuss what did not/could have/should have happened. Though they are interesting, we only discuss what happened and is happening. Power is a big part of this. As it is, China has both historical claim and power, though it tries to wield only soft powers and saber rattling. I personally hope it doesn't get to war. I doubt Philippines or Vietnam or other countries in that region will be willing to really push and provoke China. They will exhaust all peaceful means, I hope. It will take the intervention of another big country to tip the scales. It's wrong though, Mongols are a late addition to China's history. And, the Nansha Islands are merely rock islands. The claim is over the resources in the region and the geopolitical implications of having control of that region. As someone said earlier, if it's going down to voting, China will simply send a city's worth of population their in the dark of the night before the election and win it once and for all. kidding
Qi, from what I've read I understand that your thesis statement is "Nansha Islands (Spratlys) belongs to China". Now if you could define "belong" more clearly, we could steer this debate on a more determinable course. I do not agree that you based rightful claims on historical claims. I propose that "belong" in this case is "legitimate" and "ethical". But if we are talking about "what is happening/ will happen", I do not doubt the power of China over Spratleys/Philippines/any other country. There will be no outright war and from an Orwellian PoV, they would ultimately agree on the optimal (most profitable) cake splitting. Regarding the Mongols, I just added that to demonstrate that past absolute control does not equal current rightful claim.
|
On June 19 2011 05:37 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:36 Impervious wrote:On June 19 2011 05:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 05:22 dangots0ul wrote:
"Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks"
Please don't say this then say "undeniable". You clearly do not understand what that means. What is not undeniable about 2000 years worth of records. Oh God should I reply to every uninformed one-liners like this... If that was the case, Canada, the USA, Mexico, and many countries in South America would be very, very different than they are now..... There's undeniable evidence that native americans owned the land long before Europeans showed up and basically stole it. Even so at least that entails occupation of said territories there is no real occupation of the islands so even make such a claim. Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 05:22 dangots0ul wrote:
"Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks"
Please don't say this then say "undeniable". You clearly do not understand what that means. What is not undeniable about 2000 years worth of records. Oh God should I reply to every uninformed one-liners like this... Well to that claim then all claims made in the past are 100% legit. Also previous agreements among governments are still in progress so the Germany of pre WWI pre WWII and post WWII are all the same under such an assumption. Furthermore they only made claim to the island by themselves? And that's okay becuase the surrounding civilians weren't are developed. So under such an assumption india is still part of the British empire oh yeah and the british empire still exists apparently it's just called the UK same king and queen as ever ruling the country.
The majority of islands are literally uninhabitable - so there has been no real 'occupation' of them throughout history.
This is a strategic matter pure and simple - there is no right or wrong. These islands belong to whomever has the will and force to 'defend' them.
|
On June 19 2011 05:33 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 05:22 dangots0ul wrote:
"Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks"
Please don't say this then say "undeniable". You clearly do not understand what that means. What is not undeniable about 2000 years worth of records. Oh God should I reply to every uninformed one-liners like this... Records don't mean anything, as can be seen in the middle east. It is merely a means to rationalize a claim. In the end, it comes down to power to take what one wants. It would be interesting to see a perosn from the Philippines repüort on the Philippine reasons for claiming the Islands. They would probabaly have an equally long list of equally meaningless reasons.
2000+ years means nothing? You are kidding right? To put it in context, China has claimed these islands LONG before any of the other countries even know they exist, LONG like almost 1000 years long. How is that nothing?
I'm also waiting for it. So far I know all they argue about is proximity, though that is easy to counter. I'm really curious also if they have substantial claim.
|
On June 19 2011 05:38 Deja Thoris wrote:
If China has "undeniable claims" why are so many people denying them?
From what I can see China is not in great proximity to the islands and just because a monk took a piss and set up a tent there 2000 years ago doesn't give the country a title deed.
It's hardly surprising most countries are telling China to go fuck itself. The only thing thats stopped people in the past seems to be the fact that you don't easily provoke the big guy.
maybe you should try to read the thread before commenting. the proximity argument was brought up and smacked down pretty fast.
|
On June 19 2011 05:26 Qi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:14 hypercube wrote:On June 19 2011 05:03 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 04:56 hypercube wrote:On June 19 2011 04:40 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 04:34 hypercube wrote:On June 19 2011 04:21 Qi wrote:Original Message From GertHeart:
You seem to be a bit manipulated by your own government, or even your own mind. Learn your countries dark secrets, every country has them, the US used to kill groups of people off back in the 30's-70's just because they though they were communist supports, and that was a military style of execution. At one time they killed nearly 300 people in a small village. As well as poisoning many others.
You know yourself China has a lot of dark secrets, people of lower level, farmers, etc.. have no life, and are kept there, or students who take exams are taught to not think out of the box, and if they fail their life is almost over. Or further more they prefer workers not thinkers. The Chinese government is worse than the Russian Mafia run government, individuals not only have no say, but aren't even pawns, they are considered to be less than even tools. As internet exists you can find these truths out on your own, on the open web, or need be the underweb
I've read your posts, and you are quite blind to the actual truth, if you want to be a sheep the rest of your life so be it. Or if you would rather be a sheep and know the truth, then at least seek it. I got this via PM but I want this out in the open. Let me say first thank you GertHeart for your concern for me to know about my government, but I assure you I am on the streets of China along with other students and protesters fighting the police to raise awareness on Tibet, government censor, and other ills of the government while you are somewhere out there. Second, this is not about the evils of Chinese government. This is about territories that have been historically part of China when no one even knows they existed yet. Being polite, respectful and well-spoken is only the first step in having a meaningful discussion. At some point you have to consider positions that are different from yours. Even allow the possiblility that they might be correct and you might be at least partially wrong. If not, there's no discussion, just people repeating their positions over and over. And even if they are doing it politely and respectfully it's still a waste of their time. This goes both for the statement that historical texts prove these islands are China's and the wider issue of China's government being a force for good or evil in international politics (which, like it or not will affect how people will react to claims like these). 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. 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? 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. If there's no way to definitely decide who is right it ultimately comes down to the question whether Chinese dominance in the region is desirable or not. And please do not ignore the other question this time. Are you interested in a discussion (based on considering others' position) or are you just here to advertise your position? You wont even answer a clearly worded question. To answer you clearly, I have been respectful and open so far. What I don't get is people like you who'd rather talk about off tangent things like the evils Chinese government than what this OP is about. Clear now? Write something that is actually related to the OP then we can have a discussion. And. to be clear again, the OP is: Nansha is historically, for more than 2000 years, part of China. Anything for or against that? Sorry I have to be frank, I can't stand bad logic, pretense, and ad hominem that you are doing calling me out to answer your impertinent question and pretending it's that most important thing in the world but when I call you out on an actually directly related to the OP question you come up with these "there's no way to definitely decide who is right" "Chinese dominance in the region is desirable or not" obscurity.
I guess that does answer my question.
FWIW, I did make an honest attempt to answer your question. You might not like the answer but it's still an answer. Popularity matters.
And on a different matter, so does credibility. You had none when you started the thread and you did nothing to build it. Sorry if it sounds like an ad hominem but it's the truth. It's not the most important question in the world, but for me it is the most important question in this thread.
|
On June 19 2011 05:40 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:37 semantics wrote:On June 19 2011 05:36 Impervious wrote:On June 19 2011 05:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 05:22 dangots0ul wrote:
"Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks"
Please don't say this then say "undeniable". You clearly do not understand what that means. What is not undeniable about 2000 years worth of records. Oh God should I reply to every uninformed one-liners like this... If that was the case, Canada, the USA, Mexico, and many countries in South America would be very, very different than they are now..... There's undeniable evidence that native americans owned the land long before Europeans showed up and basically stole it. Even so at least that entails occupation of said territories there is no real occupation of the islands so even make such a claim. On June 19 2011 05:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 05:22 dangots0ul wrote:
"Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks"
Please don't say this then say "undeniable". You clearly do not understand what that means. What is not undeniable about 2000 years worth of records. Oh God should I reply to every uninformed one-liners like this... Well to that claim then all claims made in the past are 100% legit. Also previous agreements among governments are still in progress so the Germany of pre WWI pre WWII and post WWII are all the same under such an assumption. Furthermore they only made claim to the island by themselves? And that's okay becuase the surrounding civilians weren't are developed. So under such an assumption india is still part of the British empire oh yeah and the british empire still exists apparently it's just called the UK same king and queen as ever ruling the country. The majority of islands are literally uninhabitable - so there has been no real 'occupation' of them throughout history. This is a strategic matter pure and simple - there is no right or wrong. These islands belong to whomever has the will and force to 'defend' them.
Yup this i'm just disputing that 2000 years of claims is crud as there is no legit reason for china to have it over country x y or z it's just a matter of the land is valuable? Oh i want it.
|
On June 19 2011 05:41 trucejl wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:38 Deja Thoris wrote:
If China has "undeniable claims" why are so many people denying them?
From what I can see China is not in great proximity to the islands and just because a monk took a piss and set up a tent there 2000 years ago doesn't give the country a title deed.
It's hardly surprising most countries are telling China to go fuck itself. The only thing thats stopped people in the past seems to be the fact that you don't easily provoke the big guy. maybe you should try to read the thread before commenting. the proximity argument was brought up and smacked down pretty fast.
not really. Alaska and the British territories are different situations. They were either exchanged with agreement on both sides or there was an indigenous population to decide for themselves.
The history given in the OP clearly shows that the isles have been contested numerous times over hundreds of years. They were even named by the British, which seems strange.
|
On June 19 2011 05:43 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:40 Consolidate wrote:On June 19 2011 05:37 semantics wrote:On June 19 2011 05:36 Impervious wrote:On June 19 2011 05:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 05:22 dangots0ul wrote:
"Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks"
Please don't say this then say "undeniable". You clearly do not understand what that means. What is not undeniable about 2000 years worth of records. Oh God should I reply to every uninformed one-liners like this... If that was the case, Canada, the USA, Mexico, and many countries in South America would be very, very different than they are now..... There's undeniable evidence that native americans owned the land long before Europeans showed up and basically stole it. Even so at least that entails occupation of said territories there is no real occupation of the islands so even make such a claim. On June 19 2011 05:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 05:22 dangots0ul wrote:
"Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks"
Please don't say this then say "undeniable". You clearly do not understand what that means. What is not undeniable about 2000 years worth of records. Oh God should I reply to every uninformed one-liners like this... Well to that claim then all claims made in the past are 100% legit. Also previous agreements among governments are still in progress so the Germany of pre WWI pre WWII and post WWII are all the same under such an assumption. Furthermore they only made claim to the island by themselves? And that's okay becuase the surrounding civilians weren't are developed. So under such an assumption india is still part of the British empire oh yeah and the british empire still exists apparently it's just called the UK same king and queen as ever ruling the country. The majority of islands are literally uninhabitable - so there has been no real 'occupation' of them throughout history. This is a strategic matter pure and simple - there is no right or wrong. These islands belong to whomever has the will and force to 'defend' them. Yup this i'm just disputing that 2000 years of claims is crud as there is no legit reason for china to have it over country x y or z it's just a matter of the land is valuable? Oh i want it.
Well it is true that ancient China was probably the first to chart the islands.
But in my mind, the fact that no country has any legitimate claim to these islands is all the more reason that China shouldn't back down.
Better for China to have them than Vietnam or the Philippines.
|
On June 19 2011 05:40 zestzorb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:16 Qi wrote:You are actually right here. But we should also take note of ontologies. In history, it is counter-intuitive to discuss what did not/could have/should have happened. Though they are interesting, we only discuss what happened and is happening. Power is a big part of this. As it is, China has both historical claim and power, though it tries to wield only soft powers and saber rattling. I personally hope it doesn't get to war. I doubt Philippines or Vietnam or other countries in that region will be willing to really push and provoke China. They will exhaust all peaceful means, I hope. It will take the intervention of another big country to tip the scales. It's wrong though, Mongols are a late addition to China's history. And, the Nansha Islands are merely rock islands. The claim is over the resources in the region and the geopolitical implications of having control of that region. As someone said earlier, if it's going down to voting, China will simply send a city's worth of population their in the dark of the night before the election and win it once and for all. kidding Qi, from what I've read I understand that your thesis statement is "Nansha Islands (Spratlys) belongs to China". Now if you could define "belong" more clearly, we could steer this debate on a more determinable course. I do not agree that you based rightful claims on historical claims. I propose that "belong" in this case is "legitimate" and "ethical". But if we are talking about "what is happening/ will happen", I do not doubt the power of China over Spratleys/Philippines/any other country. There will be no outright war and from an Orwellian PoV, they would ultimately agree on the optimal (most profitable) cake splitting. Regarding the Mongols, I just added that to demonstrate that past absolute control does not equal current rightful claim.
Thanks zestzorb. This are the kind of post I appreciate and are valuable to the discussion.
This is my stand. Nansha has been in Chinese records for more than 2000 years, long before other countries are even aware of it. These records/claims are not merely nominal, they were made part of the state (or in this case, dynasty or whoever is ruling), both in terms of geography and politics. If not through historical means, is there actually any other way to legitimately/ethically claim a land as part of a country's territory? Proximity has been nuked already. What else. Honestly I'm curious. Power? I'm sure we all know what happens if that happens. (A side note, I agree with an earlier post saying that China's army is overrated. It's real power is economic.) Or if ASEAN with UN actually gang up on China and make it cease its claim and China obliged. Possible but unlikely. Honestly, how else, ethically and legitimately?
On the other hand, the way I see it, China will be saber rattling on this as long as it could. It will bank on the fact that US is too invested on China to actually side with Philippines and Vietnam. It also know ASEAN has nothing on it. So it will drag this as long as it could, and nothing happens while it maintains status quo control of Nansha and the surrounding waters.
|
I'll avoid getting drawn into this particular debate, but it must be said that saying "China" claims these islands back into the annals of history is a very questionable idea to bring up. That's projecting nationalism back centuries and centuries and implies a continuity that is contentious at best.
For the record, I have studied a great deal of Chinese history and find it absolutely fascinating to say the least, but, much like Balkan history for the Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, etc on Team Liquid, stretching back an idea of a true Chinese nation thousands of years is always a "dangerous" point. On this note, such projection of nationalism is most often seen in east Asian history (China, Korea, Japan in particular) and the Balkans (especially the Balkans). Definitely a fascinating thing to observe ^^
|
2000 yr claim is just that. 2000. If you look at any land, pretty much any land was most likely owned by various different people at different times. You'd have to acquiesce some chinese bordered land that they own right now if they wanna go by "who owned this islands first". which is stupid and probably not the logic they wanna follow for obvious reasons.
I only care about who only de facto controls the land. Falkland in practice is owned by UK, Liancourt isle in practice owned by korea. Theres no arguing that. Now opposing side can try to legitimize their side and try to overturn that. whatever. But thats none of my concern. from my quick googling tho, in this case, islands are pretty much split in who admisters it. from cia factbook
Spratly Islands consist of more than 100 small islands or reefs of which about 45 are claimed and occupied by China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam
so just keep it the way it is? it doesnt have to be winner takes all after all.
also it seems like territorial dispute thread is in style. counting down till dokdo thread? this TL is very related to all things korean here after all. :p
|
As it seems as if there is not particularly strong evidence for any one party's ownership, I propose a solution!
1951
At the San Francisco conference, Japan renounces all rights to the Spratly Islands. No resolution is made on who owns them.
Let Japan decide!
|
Alright! I can't wait to start speaking Portuguese... or Dutch...
|
On June 19 2011 05:41 Qi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:33 Electric.Jesus wrote:On June 19 2011 05:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 05:22 dangots0ul wrote:
"Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks"
Please don't say this then say "undeniable". You clearly do not understand what that means. What is not undeniable about 2000 years worth of records. Oh God should I reply to every uninformed one-liners like this... Records don't mean anything, as can be seen in the middle east. It is merely a means to rationalize a claim. In the end, it comes down to power to take what one wants. It would be interesting to see a perosn from the Philippines repüort on the Philippine reasons for claiming the Islands. They would probabaly have an equally long list of equally meaningless reasons. 2000+ years means nothing? You are kidding right? To put it in context, China has claimed these islands LONG before any of the other countries even know they exist, LONG like almost 1000 years long. How is that nothing? I'm also waiting for it. So far I know all they argue about is proximity, though that is easy to counter. I'm really curious also if they have substantial claim.
Yes.
In Canada, the tribes/nations were around for 10000+ years. And physically living on the land. And it meant virtually nothing in the end.
|
anybody who thinks that China cares about these uninhabitated spits of sand in the middle of the sea because they "found" some old maps which indicate that these islands exist is naive at best.
There is exactly one reason why the countries in that region fight all the time over these small islands and that is because they hope to increase their seaborders because they hope that in these new regions are oil and similar resources.
So noone has to argue with stuff like "but 2000 years ago someone painted these islands" because even 2000 years ago noone cared about these islands either. They were pirate nests at best. So arguing based on a 2000 years history of not caring about these islands is just plain stupid in my eyes and just a desperate attempt at finding any reason to get your hands on the islands.
And to me the OP just sounds like someone who was send from the communist propaganda bureau
|
As if China would ever let Japan decide on something they consider chinese. Anyways, this thread is silly and this discussion will lead nowhere - anybody chinese will agree the islands are chinese, anybody from countries near the islands will agree that they belong to them and anybody not involved will just say whatever's on their mind towards an issue that can't be solved by arguing over the internet.
All I'm concerned about is the formerly russian aircraft carrier the chinese have acquired and that's almost about finished in reequipping etc. and the first chinese carrier-based plane, which seems as if it has stealth technology.
|
On June 19 2011 05:41 trucejl wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:38 Deja Thoris wrote:
If China has "undeniable claims" why are so many people denying them?
From what I can see China is not in great proximity to the islands and just because a monk took a piss and set up a tent there 2000 years ago doesn't give the country a title deed.
It's hardly surprising most countries are telling China to go fuck itself. The only thing thats stopped people in the past seems to be the fact that you don't easily provoke the big guy. maybe you should try to read the thread before commenting. the proximity argument was brought up and smacked down pretty fast.
Answer my first question then.
|
On June 19 2011 06:08 Deja Thoris wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:41 trucejl wrote:On June 19 2011 05:38 Deja Thoris wrote:
If China has "undeniable claims" why are so many people denying them?
From what I can see China is not in great proximity to the islands and just because a monk took a piss and set up a tent there 2000 years ago doesn't give the country a title deed.
It's hardly surprising most countries are telling China to go fuck itself. The only thing thats stopped people in the past seems to be the fact that you don't easily provoke the big guy. maybe you should try to read the thread before commenting. the proximity argument was brought up and smacked down pretty fast. Answer my first question then.
"Undeniable" maybe have been a strong word to use, but a thesis must--of course--be clear-cut, and in this case, absolute.
To answer your question, I refer you to the "Why everone is interested in China's Nansha Islands" section of the OP.
+ Show Spoiler +
The islands are important, however, for strategic and political reasons, because ownership claims to them are used to bolster claims to the surrounding sea and its resources.
The South China Sea is rich in natural resources such as oil and natural gas. These resources have garnered attention throughout the Asia-Pacific region. Until recently, East Asia's economic growth rates had been among the highest in the world, and despite the current economic crisis, economic growth prospects in the long-term remain among the best in the world. This economic growth will be accompanied by an increasing demand for energy. Over the next 20 years, oil consumption among developing Asian countries is expected to rise by 4% annually on average, with about half of this increase coming from China. If this growth rate is maintained, oil demand for these nations will reach 25 million barrels per day - more than double current consumption levels -- by 2020.
Almost of all of this additional Asian oil demand, as well as Japan's oil needs, will need to be imported from the Middle East and Africa, and to pass through the strategic Strait of Malacca into the South China Sea. Countries in the Asia-Pacific region depend on seaborne trade to fuel their economic growth, and this has led to the sea's transformation into one of the world's busiest shipping lanes. Over half of the world's merchant fleet (by tonnage) sails through the South China Sea every year. The economic potential and geopolitical importance of the South China Sea region has resulted in jockeying between the surrounding nations to claim this sea and its resources for themselves.
|
I am curious Qi, do you support Russia or Japan in the Kuril Islands dispute?
EDIT: If you don't know, they are islands that start immediately north of hokkaido (you can see the southern most islands from Japan quite clearly), Japan held the islands for almost 400 years before Russia even discovered them. After WW2 resolved (in 1952 I believe) the Allied Forces signed documentation saying that Japan couldn't hold the islands. Immediately after this, Russia moved in and took them. The documentation doesn't say anything about Russia having a claim to the island, and the only thing keeping it in their control was the cold war.
EDIT 2 for further clarification: I'm talking about the southern islands, colloquially known as "Northern Territories" that Russia annexed.
|
Actually stuff like this is kind of important.
Not being from there it's hard to make a case either way.
But I know from being a norwegian, that Svalbard is absolutely vital to norwegian claims of the sea and parts of antarctica. We actually have a huge sea claim mostly because that island is part of our territory.
Both the 20 and the 200 nautical mile limits are very important for nations economy and security. And they are pretty much universally accepted. Which makes it very important to know who actually have the proper ownership of the sea area - and the gas and oil resources beneath.
|
On June 19 2011 05:41 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:26 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 05:14 hypercube wrote:On June 19 2011 05:03 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 04:56 hypercube wrote:On June 19 2011 04:40 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 04:34 hypercube wrote:On June 19 2011 04:21 Qi wrote:Original Message From GertHeart:
You seem to be a bit manipulated by your own government, or even your own mind. Learn your countries dark secrets, every country has them, the US used to kill groups of people off back in the 30's-70's just because they though they were communist supports, and that was a military style of execution. At one time they killed nearly 300 people in a small village. As well as poisoning many others.
You know yourself China has a lot of dark secrets, people of lower level, farmers, etc.. have no life, and are kept there, or students who take exams are taught to not think out of the box, and if they fail their life is almost over. Or further more they prefer workers not thinkers. The Chinese government is worse than the Russian Mafia run government, individuals not only have no say, but aren't even pawns, they are considered to be less than even tools. As internet exists you can find these truths out on your own, on the open web, or need be the underweb
I've read your posts, and you are quite blind to the actual truth, if you want to be a sheep the rest of your life so be it. Or if you would rather be a sheep and know the truth, then at least seek it. I got this via PM but I want this out in the open. Let me say first thank you GertHeart for your concern for me to know about my government, but I assure you I am on the streets of China along with other students and protesters fighting the police to raise awareness on Tibet, government censor, and other ills of the government while you are somewhere out there. Second, this is not about the evils of Chinese government. This is about territories that have been historically part of China when no one even knows they existed yet. Being polite, respectful and well-spoken is only the first step in having a meaningful discussion. At some point you have to consider positions that are different from yours. Even allow the possiblility that they might be correct and you might be at least partially wrong. If not, there's no discussion, just people repeating their positions over and over. And even if they are doing it politely and respectfully it's still a waste of their time. This goes both for the statement that historical texts prove these islands are China's and the wider issue of China's government being a force for good or evil in international politics (which, like it or not will affect how people will react to claims like these). 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. 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? 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. If there's no way to definitely decide who is right it ultimately comes down to the question whether Chinese dominance in the region is desirable or not. And please do not ignore the other question this time. Are you interested in a discussion (based on considering others' position) or are you just here to advertise your position? You wont even answer a clearly worded question. To answer you clearly, I have been respectful and open so far. What I don't get is people like you who'd rather talk about off tangent things like the evils Chinese government than what this OP is about. Clear now? Write something that is actually related to the OP then we can have a discussion. And. to be clear again, the OP is: Nansha is historically, for more than 2000 years, part of China. Anything for or against that? Sorry I have to be frank, I can't stand bad logic, pretense, and ad hominem that you are doing calling me out to answer your impertinent question and pretending it's that most important thing in the world but when I call you out on an actually directly related to the OP question you come up with these "there's no way to definitely decide who is right" "Chinese dominance in the region is desirable or not" obscurity. I guess that does answer my question. FWIW, I did make an honest attempt to answer your question. You might not like the answer but it's still an answer. Popularity matters. And on a different matter, so does credibility. You had none when you started the thread and you did nothing to build it. Sorry if it sounds like an ad hominem but it's the truth. It's not the most important question in the world, but for me it is the most important question in this thread.
I must say, if I was Qi, I'd be unbelievably annoyed with you by now. Reading everything between you two thus far, you've done nothing but bring up irrelevant cases to the situation. He's fully open to admitting some what you're saying (that China has done terrible things, brainwashes its youth, censors things), but that's completely irrelevant to the discussion on the territorial claims at hand.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
1. who cares
2. the world takes care of itself. will the islands go explode if "china" whatever that means does not "own" it
ridiculous next thing you may try to tell me that you belong to yourself or some such amazing insight while punching an old lady('s cat) with the hand that you own.
|
On June 19 2011 06:08 Deja Thoris wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:41 trucejl wrote:On June 19 2011 05:38 Deja Thoris wrote:
If China has "undeniable claims" why are so many people denying them?
From what I can see China is not in great proximity to the islands and just because a monk took a piss and set up a tent there 2000 years ago doesn't give the country a title deed.
It's hardly surprising most countries are telling China to go fuck itself. The only thing thats stopped people in the past seems to be the fact that you don't easily provoke the big guy. maybe you should try to read the thread before commenting. the proximity argument was brought up and smacked down pretty fast. Answer my first question then.
i wasn't the one that said "undeniable claims" so go ask Qi that. i believe he has been addressing that so once again read the thread?
|
On June 19 2011 03:00 Kupon3ss wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 02:58 BloodNinja wrote:On June 19 2011 02:56 jester- wrote:On June 19 2011 02:26 SpeaKEaSY wrote:So China can just claim all the territory all the way to the coasts of other countries? I don't think so, Tim. [spoiler]http://www.alaskaultrasport.com/assets/alaska-nat-parks.jpg[/spoiler] Hrmm? Relevance to location has never been much of a boundary to claim. Alaska was purchased by the US from Russia in 1867. A quick scan the history of the islands in question do not show anything remotely similar. I question the relevance of your example, please take 3 seconds to find a better one. done
Anyone tries to take away our beautiful falklands, shits gonna go down bitches. /troll
On a more serious note, I dont know why countries must "flex" their muscles, I dunno what they get out of it and what it achieves. Theyve got like 1.3 billion people and one of the largest land masses of any country. Why are they bothered about some little islands that mean pretty much nothing.
|
On June 19 2011 06:11 Z3kk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 06:08 Deja Thoris wrote:On June 19 2011 05:41 trucejl wrote:On June 19 2011 05:38 Deja Thoris wrote:
If China has "undeniable claims" why are so many people denying them?
From what I can see China is not in great proximity to the islands and just because a monk took a piss and set up a tent there 2000 years ago doesn't give the country a title deed.
It's hardly surprising most countries are telling China to go fuck itself. The only thing thats stopped people in the past seems to be the fact that you don't easily provoke the big guy. maybe you should try to read the thread before commenting. the proximity argument was brought up and smacked down pretty fast. Answer my first question then. "Undeniable" maybe have been a strong word to use, but a thesis must--of course--be clear-cut, and in this case, absolute. To answer your question, I refer you to the "Why everone is interested in China's Nansha Islands" section of the OP. + Show Spoiler +
The islands are important, however, for strategic and political reasons, because ownership claims to them are used to bolster claims to the surrounding sea and its resources.
The South China Sea is rich in natural resources such as oil and natural gas. These resources have garnered attention throughout the Asia-Pacific region. Until recently, East Asia's economic growth rates had been among the highest in the world, and despite the current economic crisis, economic growth prospects in the long-term remain among the best in the world. This economic growth will be accompanied by an increasing demand for energy. Over the next 20 years, oil consumption among developing Asian countries is expected to rise by 4% annually on average, with about half of this increase coming from China. If this growth rate is maintained, oil demand for these nations will reach 25 million barrels per day - more than double current consumption levels -- by 2020.
Almost of all of this additional Asian oil demand, as well as Japan's oil needs, will need to be imported from the Middle East and Africa, and to pass through the strategic Strait of Malacca into the South China Sea. Countries in the Asia-Pacific region depend on seaborne trade to fuel their economic growth, and this has led to the sea's transformation into one of the world's busiest shipping lanes. Over half of the world's merchant fleet (by tonnage) sails through the South China Sea every year. The economic potential and geopolitical importance of the South China Sea region has resulted in jockeying between the surrounding nations to claim this sea and its resources for themselves.
I didn't question their importance at all. I did read the articles posted and understand their strategic value.
If you will indulge me once more. This is a gaming website. I get that people interested in the games at hand come here and soemtimes post about other matters. Thats fair and reasonable and why a "general" section exists on the forums. This very much reads like some Chinese propaganda ministry person coming here to wave a red flag. He has no history on the forums, save an obligatory one liner in an LR thread. Am I the only one that thinks Qi is here pushing an agenda and that its improper?
|
On June 19 2011 06:18 Cain0 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:00 Kupon3ss wrote:On June 19 2011 02:58 BloodNinja wrote:On June 19 2011 02:56 jester- wrote:On June 19 2011 02:26 SpeaKEaSY wrote:So China can just claim all the territory all the way to the coasts of other countries? I don't think so, Tim. [spoiler]http://www.alaskaultrasport.com/assets/alaska-nat-parks.jpg[/spoiler] Hrmm? Relevance to location has never been much of a boundary to claim. Alaska was purchased by the US from Russia in 1867. A quick scan the history of the islands in question do not show anything remotely similar. I question the relevance of your example, please take 3 seconds to find a better one. done Anyone tries to take away our beautiful falklands, shits gonna go down bitches. /troll On a more serious note, I dont know why countries must "flex" their muscles, I dunno what they get out of it and what it achieves. Theyve got like 1.3 billion people and one of the largest land masses of any country. Why are they bothered about some little islands that mean pretty much nothing.
Read the OP, controlling the islands means they control the surrounding sea which is very rich in oil/natural gas.
|
On June 19 2011 05:41 Qi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:33 Electric.Jesus wrote:On June 19 2011 05:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 05:22 dangots0ul wrote:
"Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks"
Please don't say this then say "undeniable". You clearly do not understand what that means. What is not undeniable about 2000 years worth of records. Oh God should I reply to every uninformed one-liners like this... Records don't mean anything, as can be seen in the middle east. It is merely a means to rationalize a claim. In the end, it comes down to power to take what one wants. It would be interesting to see a perosn from the Philippines repüort on the Philippine reasons for claiming the Islands. They would probabaly have an equally long list of equally meaningless reasons. 2000+ years means nothing? You are kidding right? To put it in context, China has claimed these islands LONG before any of the other countries even know they exist, LONG like almost 1000 years long. How is that nothing? I'm also waiting for it. So far I know all they argue about is proximity, though that is easy to counter. I'm really curious also if they have substantial claim.
Native Americans held North America for how many years before others came to take it? They held it for how many years before people even knew about it? The discussion should be about the EEZ and its importance, not some silly historical claim that means nothing. Take away the power of the islands, and the islands will be worth nothing. China should not hold control over waters in the middle of a sea or up to the borders of other countries. If you think they should, then your mind is already lost.
|
On June 19 2011 06:19 Deja Thoris wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 06:11 Z3kk wrote:On June 19 2011 06:08 Deja Thoris wrote:On June 19 2011 05:41 trucejl wrote:On June 19 2011 05:38 Deja Thoris wrote:
If China has "undeniable claims" why are so many people denying them?
From what I can see China is not in great proximity to the islands and just because a monk took a piss and set up a tent there 2000 years ago doesn't give the country a title deed.
It's hardly surprising most countries are telling China to go fuck itself. The only thing thats stopped people in the past seems to be the fact that you don't easily provoke the big guy. maybe you should try to read the thread before commenting. the proximity argument was brought up and smacked down pretty fast. Answer my first question then. "Undeniable" maybe have been a strong word to use, but a thesis must--of course--be clear-cut, and in this case, absolute. To answer your question, I refer you to the "Why everone is interested in China's Nansha Islands" section of the OP. + Show Spoiler +
The islands are important, however, for strategic and political reasons, because ownership claims to them are used to bolster claims to the surrounding sea and its resources.
The South China Sea is rich in natural resources such as oil and natural gas. These resources have garnered attention throughout the Asia-Pacific region. Until recently, East Asia's economic growth rates had been among the highest in the world, and despite the current economic crisis, economic growth prospects in the long-term remain among the best in the world. This economic growth will be accompanied by an increasing demand for energy. Over the next 20 years, oil consumption among developing Asian countries is expected to rise by 4% annually on average, with about half of this increase coming from China. If this growth rate is maintained, oil demand for these nations will reach 25 million barrels per day - more than double current consumption levels -- by 2020.
Almost of all of this additional Asian oil demand, as well as Japan's oil needs, will need to be imported from the Middle East and Africa, and to pass through the strategic Strait of Malacca into the South China Sea. Countries in the Asia-Pacific region depend on seaborne trade to fuel their economic growth, and this has led to the sea's transformation into one of the world's busiest shipping lanes. Over half of the world's merchant fleet (by tonnage) sails through the South China Sea every year. The economic potential and geopolitical importance of the South China Sea region has resulted in jockeying between the surrounding nations to claim this sea and its resources for themselves.
I didn't question their importance at all. I did read the articles posted and understand their strategic value. If you will indulge me once more. This is a gaming website. I get that people interested in the games at hand come here and soemtimes post about other matters. Thats fair and reasonable and why a "general" section exists on the forums. This very much reads like some Chinese propaganda ministry person coming here to wave a red flag. He has no history on the forums, save an obligatory one liner in an LR thread. Am I the only one that thinks Qi is here pushing an agenda and that its improper?
I think this also, though I am quite skeptical when it comes to the Chinese government (My ex-gf was from Hong Kong, and a lot of Hong Kong and Beijing exchange students attended my high school, I also believe censorship, specifically internet censorship, is the most evil act a government can do).
|
On June 19 2011 06:18 Cain0 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:00 Kupon3ss wrote:On June 19 2011 02:58 BloodNinja wrote:On June 19 2011 02:56 jester- wrote:On June 19 2011 02:26 SpeaKEaSY wrote:So China can just claim all the territory all the way to the coasts of other countries? I don't think so, Tim. [spoiler]http://www.alaskaultrasport.com/assets/alaska-nat-parks.jpg[/spoiler] Hrmm? Relevance to location has never been much of a boundary to claim. Alaska was purchased by the US from Russia in 1867. A quick scan the history of the islands in question do not show anything remotely similar. I question the relevance of your example, please take 3 seconds to find a better one. done Anyone tries to take away our beautiful falklands, shits gonna go down bitches. /troll On a more serious note, I dont know why countries must "flex" their muscles, I dunno what they get out of it and what it achieves. Theyve got like 1.3 billion people and one of the largest land masses of any country. Why are they bothered about some little islands that mean pretty much nothing.
because countries need resources and territories has them in some form or another.
countries must flex there muscles just like idra has to no gg leave XD. when you get strong you have a reputation to uphold and you cant let some punk little country boss you around.
|
On June 19 2011 06:18 Cain0 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:00 Kupon3ss wrote:On June 19 2011 02:58 BloodNinja wrote:On June 19 2011 02:56 jester- wrote:On June 19 2011 02:26 SpeaKEaSY wrote:So China can just claim all the territory all the way to the coasts of other countries? I don't think so, Tim. [spoiler]http://www.alaskaultrasport.com/assets/alaska-nat-parks.jpg[/spoiler] Hrmm? Relevance to location has never been much of a boundary to claim. Alaska was purchased by the US from Russia in 1867. A quick scan the history of the islands in question do not show anything remotely similar. I question the relevance of your example, please take 3 seconds to find a better one. done Anyone tries to take away our beautiful falklands, shits gonna go down bitches. /troll On a more serious note, I dont know why countries must "flex" their muscles, I dunno what they get out of it and what it achieves. Theyve got like 1.3 billion people and one of the largest land masses of any country. Why are they bothered about some little islands that mean pretty much nothing.
From my fairly limited knowledge of the situation:
They get more natural resources, as well as a secure shipping lane for one of the largest shipping routes in the world. It's in their best interest to control that area, or at least as much as possible. The resources are just icing on the cake - the main interest is control of the shipping lanes.
At the same time, other countries also have interests in those same waters. Security of their own borders as well as secure shipping routes for themselves. Resources are secondary.
China having a monopoly of that shipping route is a bad thing imo. Same goes for any of the countries in the area, since there are so many different interests at stake. That's why I truly think the best solution is some kind of middle ground, where all parties can have their interests covered. And the only way I can see that happening is if there is some kind of binding arbitration, or outside influence to ensure that it is split up in a way that is beneficial for everyone.
|
On June 19 2011 06:22 MethodSC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:41 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 05:33 Electric.Jesus wrote:On June 19 2011 05:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 05:22 dangots0ul wrote:
"Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks"
Please don't say this then say "undeniable". You clearly do not understand what that means. What is not undeniable about 2000 years worth of records. Oh God should I reply to every uninformed one-liners like this... Records don't mean anything, as can be seen in the middle east. It is merely a means to rationalize a claim. In the end, it comes down to power to take what one wants. It would be interesting to see a perosn from the Philippines repüort on the Philippine reasons for claiming the Islands. They would probabaly have an equally long list of equally meaningless reasons. 2000+ years means nothing? You are kidding right? To put it in context, China has claimed these islands LONG before any of the other countries even know they exist, LONG like almost 1000 years long. How is that nothing? I'm also waiting for it. So far I know all they argue about is proximity, though that is easy to counter. I'm really curious also if they have substantial claim. Native Americans held North America for how many years before others came to take it? They held it for how many years before people even knew about it? The discussion should be about the EEZ and its importance, not some silly historical claim that means nothing. Take away the power of the islands, and the islands will be worth nothing. China should not hold control over waters in the middle of a sea or up to the borders of other countries. If you think they should, then your mind is already lost.
well whoever claims those island can claim to have the water next to it which just happens to be close to the borders of phillipines and vietnam. so its not as much claiming the waters next to another countries border but control islands which comes with the maritime territory.
|
On June 19 2011 06:27 trucejl wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 06:22 MethodSC wrote:On June 19 2011 05:41 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 05:33 Electric.Jesus wrote:On June 19 2011 05:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 05:22 dangots0ul wrote:
"Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks"
Please don't say this then say "undeniable". You clearly do not understand what that means. What is not undeniable about 2000 years worth of records. Oh God should I reply to every uninformed one-liners like this... Records don't mean anything, as can be seen in the middle east. It is merely a means to rationalize a claim. In the end, it comes down to power to take what one wants. It would be interesting to see a perosn from the Philippines repüort on the Philippine reasons for claiming the Islands. They would probabaly have an equally long list of equally meaningless reasons. 2000+ years means nothing? You are kidding right? To put it in context, China has claimed these islands LONG before any of the other countries even know they exist, LONG like almost 1000 years long. How is that nothing? I'm also waiting for it. So far I know all they argue about is proximity, though that is easy to counter. I'm really curious also if they have substantial claim. Native Americans held North America for how many years before others came to take it? They held it for how many years before people even knew about it? The discussion should be about the EEZ and its importance, not some silly historical claim that means nothing. Take away the power of the islands, and the islands will be worth nothing. China should not hold control over waters in the middle of a sea or up to the borders of other countries. If you think they should, then your mind is already lost. well whoever claims those island can claim to have the water next to it which just happens to be close to the borders of phillipines and vietnam. so its not as much claiming the waters next to another countries border but control islands which comes with the maritime territory.
It's basically an IRL Xel'Naga watchtower /
|
China should just be more civil and reasonable and make some kind of a compromise. If they have legitimate historical claim over a piece of land or sea that is vital to the military and/or economic security of neighbouring nations, they should not expect history to go undisputed in light of what's going on presently. This is not the way diplomacy works. Honestly I'm not convinced that they're even trying to gain the approval of other nations though, so much as to stir up more nationalistic fervor among their own people.
|
Let me tell you a story, in a far away land, where no one has claimed, an exploration team was sent to start conquering the wild nature. Each explorer is free to claim their land to settle down and grow their plants. Dude A one day go pass this area that no one has claimed, he go back home and write down his note that this land is his territory. Other day he go pass, he saw dude B start enclosing the land with fences and grow his crops. A just passed by and doesn't say or do anything. When the crops ripen, A take his note to B's field, kick down the fence and said that he's claimed this land for long ago, as written in his note so B should just scram. What do you think ?
Bringing history from your side to claim the matter is doing little, cause it's probaby favourble to your pov as so does my history and my pov so i won't bring that up as I already agree with Damian's post in this.
+ Show Spoiler +On June 19 2011 05:02 Damian wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 02:20 Qi wrote:Historical records that show why China owns Nansha Islands+ Show Spoiler +
2011 June
The Philippines destroy Chinese markers on the Nansha Islands
You can add this May and June 2011 Show nested quote +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. The claim for these small islands / mere rocks has to do with Exclusive Economic Zones (UN law, which all claimants acknowledge). These zones look like this when ignoring ownership of the mentioned islands: Now if they are in fact Chinese islands it change the whole situation to this: Colors: China's EEZ EEZ claimed by China, disputed by the Republic of China (Taiwan) EEZ claimed by China, disputed by others And if you compare the Chinese claim in the first picture with the one in the second, you will see that the Chinese claimed territorial waters are even against the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, because "in 1947, China published a map drawing a U-shaped line of claim across South China Sea." To conclude my point: I think Chinas claim is unreasonable and is going to harm their diplomatic relations to their neighbors even more (hi @ building aircraft carriers and hi @ having territorial disputes with nearly all neighbors). And if we say that the older the historical mention the better, then why is the current Chinese territory bigger than the one under the first Emperor?
But this attitude On June 19 2011 05:16 Qi wrote: As someone said earlier, if it's going down to voting, China will simply send a city's worth of population their in the dark of the night before the election and win it once and for all. kidding
is what I can't agree with. With the same attitude, China has been giving reconciliation on the diplomatic table while continue to make aggression on the sea to provoke smaller country in the matter. If you believe your rightful claim over this, why trying to wage war and doing such underhand method and not reasoning?
|
On June 19 2011 06:34 Sd13 wrote:Let me tell you a story, in a far away land, where no one has claimed, an exploration team was sent to start conquering the wild nature. Each explorer is free to claim their land to settle down and grow their plants. Dude A one day go pass this area that no one has claimed, he go back home and write down his note that this land is his territory. Other day he go pass, he saw dude B start enclosing the land with fences and grow his crops. A just passed by and doesn't say or do anything. When the crops ripen, A take his note to B's field, kick down the fence and said that he's claimed this land for long ago, as written in his note so B should just scram. What do you think ? Bringing history from your side to claim the matter is doing little, cause it's probaby favourble to your pov as so does my history and my pov so i won't bring that up as I already agree with Damian's post in this. + Show Spoiler +On June 19 2011 05:02 Damian wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 02:20 Qi wrote:Historical records that show why China owns Nansha Islands+ Show Spoiler +
2011 June
The Philippines destroy Chinese markers on the Nansha Islands
You can add this May and June 2011 Show nested quote +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. The claim for these small islands / mere rocks has to do with Exclusive Economic Zones (UN law, which all claimants acknowledge). These zones look like this when ignoring ownership of the mentioned islands: Now if they are in fact Chinese islands it change the whole situation to this: Colors: China's EEZ EEZ claimed by China, disputed by the Republic of China (Taiwan) EEZ claimed by China, disputed by others And if you compare the Chinese claim in the first picture with the one in the second, you will see that the Chinese claimed territorial waters are even against the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, because "in 1947, China published a map drawing a U-shaped line of claim across South China Sea." To conclude my point: I think Chinas claim is unreasonable and is going to harm their diplomatic relations to their neighbors even more (hi @ building aircraft carriers and hi @ having territorial disputes with nearly all neighbors). And if we say that the older the historical mention the better, then why is the current Chinese territory bigger than the one under the first Emperor? But this attitude Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:16 Qi wrote: As someone said earlier, if it's going down to voting, China will simply send a city's worth of population their in the dark of the night before the election and win it once and for all. kidding is what I can't agree with. With the same attitude, China has been giving reconciliation on the diplomatic table while continue to make aggression on the sea to provoke smaller country in the matter. If you believe your rightful claim over this, why trying to wage war and doing such underhand method and not reasoning?
I guess it's too bad that China and Vietnam are BOTH 'dude A'.
|
On June 19 2011 06:32 zobz wrote:
China should just be more civil and reasonable and make some kind of a compromise. If they have legitimate historical claim over a piece of land or sea that is vital to the military and/or economic security of neighbouring nations, they should not expect history to go undisputed in light of what's going on presently. This is not the way diplomacy works. Honestly I'm not convinced that they're even trying to gain the approval of other nations though, so much as to stir up more nationalistic fervor among their own people.
diplomacy is just another word for "i have the bigger gun so fk off"
you have to realize that it goes both ways. China can argue it needs these lands for its people in one way or another. And vietnam / phillipines can say same thing. reasons in politic means nothing unless you can back it up.
but the xelnaga reference is good =D
|
On June 19 2011 06:27 trucejl wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 06:22 MethodSC wrote:On June 19 2011 05:41 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 05:33 Electric.Jesus wrote:On June 19 2011 05:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 05:22 dangots0ul wrote:
"Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks"
Please don't say this then say "undeniable". You clearly do not understand what that means. What is not undeniable about 2000 years worth of records. Oh God should I reply to every uninformed one-liners like this... Records don't mean anything, as can be seen in the middle east. It is merely a means to rationalize a claim. In the end, it comes down to power to take what one wants. It would be interesting to see a perosn from the Philippines repüort on the Philippine reasons for claiming the Islands. They would probabaly have an equally long list of equally meaningless reasons. 2000+ years means nothing? You are kidding right? To put it in context, China has claimed these islands LONG before any of the other countries even know they exist, LONG like almost 1000 years long. How is that nothing? I'm also waiting for it. So far I know all they argue about is proximity, though that is easy to counter. I'm really curious also if they have substantial claim. Native Americans held North America for how many years before others came to take it? They held it for how many years before people even knew about it? The discussion should be about the EEZ and its importance, not some silly historical claim that means nothing. Take away the power of the islands, and the islands will be worth nothing. China should not hold control over waters in the middle of a sea or up to the borders of other countries. If you think they should, then your mind is already lost. well whoever claims those island can claim to have the water next to it which just happens to be close to the borders of phillipines and vietnam. so its not as much claiming the waters next to another countries border but control islands which comes with the maritime territory.
That was my point exactly. Why should China have control over the waters next to these countries? It's really a ridiculous claim for China to make. They can't expect these other people to stand for that.
|
On June 19 2011 06:34 Sd13 wrote:Let me tell you a story, in a far away land, where no one has claimed, an exploration team was sent to start conquering the wild nature. Each explorer is free to claim their land to settle down and grow their plants. Dude A one day go pass this area that no one has claimed, he go back home and write down his note that this land is his territory. Other day he go pass, he saw dude B start enclosing the land with fences and grow his crops. A just passed by and doesn't say or do anything. When the crops ripen, A take his note to B's field, kick down the fence and said that he's claimed this land for long ago, as written in his note so B should just scram. What do you think ? Bringing history from your side to claim the matter is doing little, cause it's probaby favourble to your pov as so does my history and my pov so i won't bring that up as I already agree with Damian's post in this. + Show Spoiler +On June 19 2011 05:02 Damian wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 02:20 Qi wrote:Historical records that show why China owns Nansha Islands+ Show Spoiler +
2011 June
The Philippines destroy Chinese markers on the Nansha Islands
You can add this May and June 2011 Show nested quote +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. The claim for these small islands / mere rocks has to do with Exclusive Economic Zones (UN law, which all claimants acknowledge). These zones look like this when ignoring ownership of the mentioned islands: Now if they are in fact Chinese islands it change the whole situation to this: Colors: China's EEZ EEZ claimed by China, disputed by the Republic of China (Taiwan) EEZ claimed by China, disputed by others And if you compare the Chinese claim in the first picture with the one in the second, you will see that the Chinese claimed territorial waters are even against the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, because "in 1947, China published a map drawing a U-shaped line of claim across South China Sea." To conclude my point: I think Chinas claim is unreasonable and is going to harm their diplomatic relations to their neighbors even more (hi @ building aircraft carriers and hi @ having territorial disputes with nearly all neighbors). And if we say that the older the historical mention the better, then why is the current Chinese territory bigger than the one under the first Emperor? But this attitude Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:16 Qi wrote: As someone said earlier, if it's going down to voting, China will simply send a city's worth of population their in the dark of the night before the election and win it once and for all. kidding is what I can't agree with. With the same attitude, China has been giving reconciliation on the diplomatic table while continue to make aggression on the sea to provoke smaller country in the matter. If you believe your rightful claim over this, why trying to wage war and doing such underhand method and not reasoning?
that is too bad because practically every powerful country has been doing that since forever.
|
LOL so China is trying to claim the ocean until about 40 feet from the coasts of those other nations? Oh, dear. I don't think that will go over well.
Just think about it for a minute, man. There is no reason, even if the islands were yours, to be able to claim all that ocean.
|
On June 19 2011 06:39 Romantic wrote:
LOL so China is trying to claim the ocean until about 40 feet from the coasts of those other nations? Oh, dear. I don't think that will go over well.
Just think about it for a minute, man. There is no reason, even if the islands were yours, to be able to claim all that ocean.
Russia did this almost 50 years ago to Japan.
|
1) Are you part of/ affiliated to the 50 cent party? Why on earth have you posted like this? It just doesn't sound right and if anything turns people off your own viewpoint.
2) The manner in which you have posted is quite one-sided on a controversial issue. I can see your point, but generally posts on contentious subjects should give a semblance of balance to the opposing viewpoints.
3) How come this is the only thing you have cared to write about on TL? You have two other posts on SC topics and they are meaningless one liners.
PS. I want to hear both sides of the issue before forming my own view.
|
On June 19 2011 06:39 Romantic wrote:
LOL so China is trying to claim the ocean until about 40 feet from the coasts of those other nations? Oh, dear. I don't think that will go over well.
Just think about it for a minute, man. There is no reason, even if the islands were yours, to be able to claim all that ocean.
They are using those islands as their border so everything within it is theirs. So the US owns all the sea leading up to Hawaii. England pretty much owns the entire atlantic.
|
On June 19 2011 04:40 Qi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 04:34 hypercube wrote:On June 19 2011 04:21 Qi wrote:Original Message From GertHeart:
You seem to be a bit manipulated by your own government, or even your own mind. Learn your countries dark secrets, every country has them, the US used to kill groups of people off back in the 30's-70's just because they though they were communist supports, and that was a military style of execution. At one time they killed nearly 300 people in a small village. As well as poisoning many others.
You know yourself China has a lot of dark secrets, people of lower level, farmers, etc.. have no life, and are kept there, or students who take exams are taught to not think out of the box, and if they fail their life is almost over. Or further more they prefer workers not thinkers. The Chinese government is worse than the Russian Mafia run government, individuals not only have no say, but aren't even pawns, they are considered to be less than even tools. As internet exists you can find these truths out on your own, on the open web, or need be the underweb
I've read your posts, and you are quite blind to the actual truth, if you want to be a sheep the rest of your life so be it. Or if you would rather be a sheep and know the truth, then at least seek it. I got this via PM but I want this out in the open. Let me say first thank you GertHeart for your concern for me to know about my government, but I assure you I am on the streets of China along with other students and protesters fighting the police to raise awareness on Tibet, government censor, and other ills of the government while you are somewhere out there. Second, this is not about the evils of Chinese government. This is about territories that have been historically part of China when no one even knows they existed yet. Being polite, respectful and well-spoken is only the first step in having a meaningful discussion. At some point you have to consider positions that are different from yours. Even allow the possiblility that they might be correct and you might be at least partially wrong. If not, there's no discussion, just people repeating their positions over and over. And even if they are doing it politely and respectfully it's still a waste of their time. This goes both for the statement that historical texts prove these islands are China's and the wider issue of China's government being a force for good or evil in international politics (which, like it or not will affect how people will react to claims like these). 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.
massacre of native americans.... hmmmm
dropping of the A-bomb....
stem cell research.....
actually...pretty related...the source of reasoning is the same: utilitarianism vs absolute moral ethics
EDIT: history has its mistakes... there were good intentions but the plan got side-tracked by stuff oh well
|
On June 19 2011 06:38 MethodSC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 06:27 trucejl wrote:On June 19 2011 06:22 MethodSC wrote:On June 19 2011 05:41 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 05:33 Electric.Jesus wrote:On June 19 2011 05:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 05:22 dangots0ul wrote:
"Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks"
Please don't say this then say "undeniable". You clearly do not understand what that means. What is not undeniable about 2000 years worth of records. Oh God should I reply to every uninformed one-liners like this... Records don't mean anything, as can be seen in the middle east. It is merely a means to rationalize a claim. In the end, it comes down to power to take what one wants. It would be interesting to see a perosn from the Philippines repüort on the Philippine reasons for claiming the Islands. They would probabaly have an equally long list of equally meaningless reasons. 2000+ years means nothing? You are kidding right? To put it in context, China has claimed these islands LONG before any of the other countries even know they exist, LONG like almost 1000 years long. How is that nothing? I'm also waiting for it. So far I know all they argue about is proximity, though that is easy to counter. I'm really curious also if they have substantial claim. Native Americans held North America for how many years before others came to take it? They held it for how many years before people even knew about it? The discussion should be about the EEZ and its importance, not some silly historical claim that means nothing. Take away the power of the islands, and the islands will be worth nothing. China should not hold control over waters in the middle of a sea or up to the borders of other countries. If you think they should, then your mind is already lost. well whoever claims those island can claim to have the water next to it which just happens to be close to the borders of phillipines and vietnam. so its not as much claiming the waters next to another countries border but control islands which comes with the maritime territory. That was my point exactly. Why should China have control over the waters next to these countries? It's really a ridiculous claim for China to make. They can't expect these other people to stand for that.
you missed what I was trying to say -.-. It wouldn't be a ridiculously claim for china if they controlled the island and control the water next to it. They aren't coming and saying we don't care about these island, we just want the water next to it. They are saying it indirectly which makes sense if you at it.
country A claims island next to country B.
Country A control water next to that island.
as oppose to
Country A claims water next to country B while being far away
It results in the same situation but one argument makes sense while the other doesn't
|
On June 19 2011 06:44 stork4ever wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 06:39 Romantic wrote:
LOL so China is trying to claim the ocean until about 40 feet from the coasts of those other nations? Oh, dear. I don't think that will go over well.
Just think about it for a minute, man. There is no reason, even if the islands were yours, to be able to claim all that ocean. They are using those islands as their border so everything within it is theirs. So the US owns all the sea leading up to Hawaii. England pretty much owns the entire atlantic.
By that logic Australia owns quite a lot of sea around Antarctica.
|
On June 19 2011 04:40 Ciryandor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 04:16 trucejl wrote:
The issue with china having many dynasty changes and leader changes doesn't really matter in my opinion. When you look at it, it's always been the HAN ethnic group that has controlled the area and laid claim to various places. Even during the dynasties where it was controlled by a minority chinese ethnic group, it didn't last very long and most of the population were the han ethnic group.
I am sure vietnam / phillipines and anyone else may have some legitimate claim to these territory but when you compare the amount of context historically/economically/millitarily/geographically it shouldn't even be close.
Vietnam and much of the southwest part of asia gained independence during the past 100 year when china was weak. If they couldn't take those land they claim now during that time you really think they'll be able to claim it now? The ONLY way china will give up those territory completely is through war. The present Chinese leaders are very adamant about sovereignty over the region and seems very willing to use military forces should the other side decide to.
bottomline, you can claim w/e you want in the region but there is no way you can reap the benefit of the region without the chinese leaders having something to do with it 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.
they didn't even know about those islands though
lol why can'y we just start drilling and call it a no-mans land
|
On June 19 2011 06:18 Cain0 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 03:00 Kupon3ss wrote:On June 19 2011 02:58 BloodNinja wrote:On June 19 2011 02:56 jester- wrote:On June 19 2011 02:26 SpeaKEaSY wrote:So China can just claim all the territory all the way to the coasts of other countries? I don't think so, Tim. [spoiler]http://www.alaskaultrasport.com/assets/alaska-nat-parks.jpg[/spoiler] Hrmm? Relevance to location has never been much of a boundary to claim. Alaska was purchased by the US from Russia in 1867. A quick scan the history of the islands in question do not show anything remotely similar. I question the relevance of your example, please take 3 seconds to find a better one. done Anyone tries to take away our beautiful falklands, shits gonna go down bitches. /troll On a more serious note, I dont know why countries must "flex" their muscles, I dunno what they get out of it and what it achieves. Theyve got like 1.3 billion people and one of the largest land masses of any country. Why are they bothered about some little islands that mean pretty much nothing.
how did the british get the falklands? dam it should be a US territory so i can go there for vacation.
|
Ownership in an absolute sense means nothing more than having the power to maintain control over something. If China has the power and the will to own these islands and the sea surrounding them, then they own them.
Just to remind everyone again, the world is governed by force, not by emotions or desires or invented "moralities." You can lament that fact all you want, but it's never going to change anything.
|
On June 19 2011 06:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Ownership in an absolute sense means nothing more than having the power to maintain control over something. If China has the power and the will to own these islands and the sea surrounding them, then they own them.
Just to remind everyone again, the world is governed by force, not by emotions or desires or invented "moralities." You can lament that fact all you want, but it's never going to change anything.
amen. someone who knows how world politics is done. the guy with the bigger gun is always right ^^
|
I think they should just let the population decide where they "belong" to. I mean where is they point in fighting over an island if the people living on it already feel as if they belong to a country.
A little bit like what was done in 1955 with the Saarland (part of Germany today/ back then under french control).
P.S: If that means independence....so be it
|
On June 19 2011 04:04 GertHeart wrote:
For those who didn't study Chinese history, you have to understand china should not be able to get these islands, or anymore resources. Sadly the Chinese government is always fragile as has been for 1000's of years, a simple new leader can simply cause havoc to the rest of the world.
I have no problems with Chinese people, but I do have a problem with their leaders. There will probably be a WWIII and China will be the primary antagonist. Leaders cause wars nor individuals. If people had their way they wouldn't go to war.
its funny that you think China will be the primary antagonist for a potential WW3 when it is currently the US that has armies deployed overseas, under the pretext of searching for "WMDs."
|
On June 19 2011 05:23 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:17 FenneK wrote:
why the fuck would these small asian countries try to provoke china? China wants the islands because with the islands come the water and with the water come the shipping lanes. Kind of like me robbing you from your wallet and the police then asking why you were provoking me for stealing your wallet. Historical claims mean little imo. The water is well divided as it stands, it should remain as it is. You have to be practical in this. You can't adapt borders every time China comes up with a new piece of land or water it wants. These countries are likely to prefer war rather then giving this area to China because if China gets it then war is no longer an option for them. Chinese naval forces could move withing firing distance of their shores, within range of their cities and if they said anything about it, they would be at fault. These countries are rightfully concerned about the safety of their people and having control of the sea that borders a large part of your country is paramount to national security. Show nested quote +because USA is always lurking the background trying to start shit lol.
otherwise these small asian countries wouldn't even dare to let off a fart in these islands since china can run them over in a few weeks. We need to stop pretending like China is a military super power. The Chinese army is underfunded, overstaffed and gravely lacks experienced soldiers and more crucially, experienced officers. It is a very old and outdated army. Most of what it lacks is mobility. The Chinese army couldn't overun these countries even in a matter of years. They don't have the naval and aerial power to gain absolute control over the area and they lack the mobility to transport enough soldiers across water. China has an undeserved reputation for being some kind of military super power. Currently China is a regional power but no greater then the Korean/Japanese/Australian trinity. It lacks the ability to project it's forces.If China decides to go to war it will only end in humiliation. Similar to when the USSR invaded Finland.
tell that to the people in south korea
it uses very inhumane tactics in my opinion
ever heard of "human sea tactic"? just imagine mass marines.... or mass scvs something like that
|
Communicating with this Qi character is like some high school boy who thinks he's communicating with a girl his age over the internet and she just happens to share his love of video games as much as he does, when she is actually a 55 year old man. Like it has been stated earlier, Qi is probably connected to the Communist Chinese government in some way or the other. I'm guessing this is his job and he, or is he a "he", spends all day literally chained to a computer in some authoritarian, austere government building in Beijing, setting up accounts across the internet....sites that many of his fellow countrymen MAY NOT visit under penalty of jail... trying to fool skulls full of mush in the righteousness of his government's cause, a government which killed at least 50 million of its own civilians over the past 60 years. Qi was probably a tank driver at Tiananmen Square.
![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UIspBuzluvA/TenFha39zAI/AAAAAAAABdk/h5BOJbE2kAw/s1600/tiananmen-tanks-sole-protester.jpg)
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On June 19 2011 07:01 Condor Hero wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 04:04 GertHeart wrote:
For those who didn't study Chinese history, you have to understand china should not be able to get these islands, or anymore resources. Sadly the Chinese government is always fragile as has been for 1000's of years, a simple new leader can simply cause havoc to the rest of the world.
I have no problems with Chinese people, but I do have a problem with their leaders. There will probably be a WWIII and China will be the primary antagonist. Leaders cause wars nor individuals. If people had their way they wouldn't go to war. its funny that you think China will be the primary antagonist for a potential WW3 when it is currently the US that has armies deployed overseas, under the pretext of searching for "WMDs."
lol ya fragile history where?
the chinese never attacked people beyond it's borders
well some failed attacks at some adjacent asian countries, but that really doesn't even count
it couldn't even annex taiwan after ww2...luckily lol
|
China can have the Spratly/oil/gas if they want. What I am concern about is the maritime border that they are claiming.
|
Most arguments on this thread come down to using the examples of India or the US or Japan because other countries have good historical claims over them, yet they do not belong to the country. I'm no expert on the topic, but from what i can see all those examples have inhabitants who rebel against the main power and earn independance. The OP says these islands aren't even habitable, there goes that counter-argument.
|
On June 19 2011 07:05 ChicoLopez wrote:Communicating with this Qi character is like some high school boy who thinks he's communicating with a girl his age over the internet and she just happens to share his love of video games as much as he does, when she is actually a 55 year old man. Like it has been stated earlier, Qi is probably connected to the Communist Chinese government in some way or the other. I'm guessing this is his job and he, or is he a "he", spends all day literally chained to a computer in some authoritarian, austere government building in Beijing, setting up accounts across the internet....sites that many of his fellow countrymen MAY NOT visit under penalty of jail... trying to fool skulls full of mush in the righteousness of his government's cause, a government which killed at least 50 million of its own civilians over the past 60 years. Qi was probably a tank driver at Tiananmen Square.
Ummmmm, i think you might have a slightly biased view about communism. No offense, but your country isn't exactly known for it's level-headed understanding view of why communism works in a lot of countries.
|
On June 19 2011 07:14 Laurence wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 07:05 ChicoLopez wrote:Communicating with this Qi character is like some high school boy who thinks he's communicating with a girl his age over the internet and she just happens to share his love of video games as much as he does, when she is actually a 55 year old man. Like it has been stated earlier, Qi is probably connected to the Communist Chinese government in some way or the other. I'm guessing this is his job and he, or is he a "he", spends all day literally chained to a computer in some authoritarian, austere government building in Beijing, setting up accounts across the internet....sites that many of his fellow countrymen MAY NOT visit under penalty of jail... trying to fool skulls full of mush in the righteousness of his government's cause, a government which killed at least 50 million of its own civilians over the past 60 years. Qi was probably a tank driver at Tiananmen Square. Ummmmm, i think you might have a slightly biased view about communism. No offense, but your country isn't exactly known for it's level-headed understanding view of why communism works in a lot of countries.
reluctance to work with the soviets seems to be one of the reasons why the A-bombs were dropped as a quick fix (end of war) without russian intervention.
i do think we have a tendency to demonize peoples. after all, we have self-respect :/
it's quite scary actually - this mob mentality
communism is the modern witch hunt, we see it as an ill or like cancer if we have it
|
If history gave people the right to claim land, the UK could annex the US and about half the planet, Italy could claim most of Europe, and Mongoloia could claim all of Asia.
I do not mean this offensively, but the amount of brainwashing that Chinese citizens are subjected to is completely insane, and I cannot take a word they say regarding their own country seriously. This is coming from someone who knows Chinese inhabitants(Fellow students), and knows what their viewpoints are on some of the biggest human rights violations committed by China.
User was warned for this post
|
On June 19 2011 05:41 Qi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 05:33 Electric.Jesus wrote:On June 19 2011 05:28 Qi wrote:On June 19 2011 05:22 dangots0ul wrote:
"Please no hate and ignorant posts.
Limit the discussion to facts and educated opinion.
Thanks"
Please don't say this then say "undeniable". You clearly do not understand what that means. What is not undeniable about 2000 years worth of records. Oh God should I reply to every uninformed one-liners like this... Records don't mean anything, as can be seen in the middle east. It is merely a means to rationalize a claim. In the end, it comes down to power to take what one wants. It would be interesting to see a perosn from the Philippines repüort on the Philippine reasons for claiming the Islands. They would probabaly have an equally long list of equally meaningless reasons. 2000+ years means nothing? You are kidding right? To put it in context, China has claimed these islands LONG before any of the other countries even know they exist, LONG like almost 1000 years long. How is that nothing? I'm also waiting for it. So far I know all they argue about is proximity, though that is easy to counter. I'm really curious also if they have substantial claim.
Hi Qi,
I think what he means to say is that the tern 'undeniable' is a bit too definitive for such an issue. Obviously those records are there and the claim of China is indeed an incredibly strong one, however, without a time machine or some way to look back in time it is just so difficult to be 100% sure about many things which have happened in the past. History is written by the winners and the conquerors (and by the people who can write :D ) so even the most authentic looking historical records might not be true.
Using words like 'undeniable' seems just a bit inappropriate. You just can't be sure. I agree that it is more likely than the other claims, but again, you can't be sure.
|
On June 19 2011 07:20 HoldenR wrote:
If history gave people the right to claim land, the UK could annex the US and about half the planet, Italy could claim most of Europe, and Mongoloia could claim all of Asia.
I do not mean this offensively, but the amount of brainwashing that Chinese citizens are subjected to is completely insane, and I cannot take a word they say regarding their own country seriously. This is coming from someone who knows Chinese inhabitants(Fellow students), and knows what their viewpoints are on some of the biggest human rights violations committed by China.
Get out.
You have no clue how naive you sound.
Its goddamn infuriating when people like you accuse other people of 'being brainwashed' when they are trying for a reasoned debate.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On June 19 2011 06:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Ownership in an absolute sense means nothing more than having the power to maintain control over something. If China has the power and the will to own these islands and the sea surrounding them, then they own them.
Just to remind everyone again, the world is governed by force, not by emotions or desires or invented "moralities." You can lament that fact all you want, but it's never going to change anything.
but wouldn't that mean the powerful only gets more powerful?
|
On June 19 2011 06:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Ownership in an absolute sense means nothing more than having the power to maintain control over something. If China has the power and the will to own these islands and the sea surrounding them, then they own them.
Just to remind everyone again, the world is governed by force, not by emotions or desires or invented "moralities." You can lament that fact all you want, but it's never going to change anything.
Wrong. Although a very valid view (it's called realism) the truth is probably somewhere in between realism and liberalism. Fact is that countries, including China, don't just do stuff without concidering the consequences. If China took these islands by force, just because they wanted to, they'd have major issues on the international stage. That's why it wont happen - not because they can't but because they realize the implications of doing so. And it's not that they'll be at war with anyone. At least not anyone that matters.
|
On June 19 2011 07:36 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 07:20 HoldenR wrote:
If history gave people the right to claim land, the UK could annex the US and about half the planet, Italy could claim most of Europe, and Mongoloia could claim all of Asia.
I do not mean this offensively, but the amount of brainwashing that Chinese citizens are subjected to is completely insane, and I cannot take a word they say regarding their own country seriously. This is coming from someone who knows Chinese inhabitants(Fellow students), and knows what their viewpoints are on some of the biggest human rights violations committed by China. Get out. You have no clue how naive you sound. Its goddamn infuriating when people like you accuse other people of 'being brainwashed' when they are trying for a reasoned debate.
When the entire educational system is owned and run by the state, and that very same state teaches them that all the human rights violations in Tibet don't even occur, but that the people in Tibet love them and that they are very grateful for China's presence in their country, there is a clear point where you just can't discuss these subjects with these people anymore, to no fault of their own.
I've been to Tibet and seen it first hand, yet Chinese citizens lie to my face about it. They aren't aware of what they're saying, and I don't blame them for it. Calm the fuck down.
|
On June 19 2011 07:46 HoldenR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 07:36 Consolidate wrote:On June 19 2011 07:20 HoldenR wrote:
If history gave people the right to claim land, the UK could annex the US and about half the planet, Italy could claim most of Europe, and Mongoloia could claim all of Asia.
I do not mean this offensively, but the amount of brainwashing that Chinese citizens are subjected to is completely insane, and I cannot take a word they say regarding their own country seriously. This is coming from someone who knows Chinese inhabitants(Fellow students), and knows what their viewpoints are on some of the biggest human rights violations committed by China. Get out. You have no clue how naive you sound. Its goddamn infuriating when people like you accuse other people of 'being brainwashed' when they are trying for a reasoned debate. When the entire educational system is owned and run by the state, and that very same state teaches them that all the human rights violations in Tibet don't even occur, but that the people in Tibet love them and that they are very grateful for China's presence in their country, there is a clear point where you just can't discuss these subjects with these people anymore, to no fault of their own. I've been to Tibet and seen it first hand, yet Chinese citizens lie to my face about it. They aren't aware of what they're saying, and I don't blame them for it. Calm the fuck down.
Tibet will be sinicized (again and permanantly). It will be painful, but it will happen.
The chinese are very aware of what's happening. Its strange that you make excuses for them.
|
On June 19 2011 07:36 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 07:20 HoldenR wrote:
If history gave people the right to claim land, the UK could annex the US and about half the planet, Italy could claim most of Europe, and Mongoloia could claim all of Asia.
I do not mean this offensively, but the amount of brainwashing that Chinese citizens are subjected to is completely insane, and I cannot take a word they say regarding their own country seriously. This is coming from someone who knows Chinese inhabitants(Fellow students), and knows what their viewpoints are on some of the biggest human rights violations committed by China. Get out. You have no clue how naive you sound. Its goddamn infuriating when people like you accuse other people of 'being brainwashed' when they are trying for a reasoned debate.
Well, to be fair, looking at the OP, he doesn't really seem to be looking for a reasoned debate. It is written a little bit more like he is informing people of something. Look at his first statement, talking about the undeniable historical claim. What is there to discuss following that claim?
While I do think HoldenR is being a bit over dramatic in his statement that he cannot take a word Chinese people say about their own country seriously, there is a bit of truth in his statement.
Chinese children do get classes in their school dedicated to learning to love China. I also know this for a fact because I've lived there and have many Chinese friends. It is a sort of 'brainwashing' though that term always seems a bit condescending.
|
On June 19 2011 07:46 HoldenR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 07:36 Consolidate wrote:On June 19 2011 07:20 HoldenR wrote:
If history gave people the right to claim land, the UK could annex the US and about half the planet, Italy could claim most of Europe, and Mongoloia could claim all of Asia.
I do not mean this offensively, but the amount of brainwashing that Chinese citizens are subjected to is completely insane, and I cannot take a word they say regarding their own country seriously. This is coming from someone who knows Chinese inhabitants(Fellow students), and knows what their viewpoints are on some of the biggest human rights violations committed by China. Get out. You have no clue how naive you sound. Its goddamn infuriating when people like you accuse other people of 'being brainwashed' when they are trying for a reasoned debate. When the entire educational system is owned and run by the state, and that very same state teaches them that all the human rights violations in Tibet don't even occur, but that the people in Tibet love them and that they are very grateful for China's presence in their country, there is a clear point where you just can't discuss these subjects with these people anymore, to no fault of their own. I've been to Tibet and seen it first hand, yet Chinese citizens lie to my face about it. They aren't aware of what they're saying, and I don't blame them for it. Calm the fuck down.
ah intellectually sheltered
blind love for a system that is so opaque....unfortunately outsiders don't really have time to help them
at least the economy seems okay right now...as long as they leave Taiwan alone... Hong Kong used to be nice until they screwed it up...
|
So wait.. Tibet belongs to China. Arunachal Pradesh belongs to China.. Nansha Islands belong to China....Taiwan belongs to China...So basically everything nearby should be China... Dude.. are you seriously working for the government, such posts should have been flagged up for review and ban!! Seriously.. China is delusional about so many things.
|
On June 19 2011 07:53 IzieBoy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 07:46 HoldenR wrote:On June 19 2011 07:36 Consolidate wrote:On June 19 2011 07:20 HoldenR wrote:
If history gave people the right to claim land, the UK could annex the US and about half the planet, Italy could claim most of Europe, and Mongoloia could claim all of Asia.
I do not mean this offensively, but the amount of brainwashing that Chinese citizens are subjected to is completely insane, and I cannot take a word they say regarding their own country seriously. This is coming from someone who knows Chinese inhabitants(Fellow students), and knows what their viewpoints are on some of the biggest human rights violations committed by China. Get out. You have no clue how naive you sound. Its goddamn infuriating when people like you accuse other people of 'being brainwashed' when they are trying for a reasoned debate. When the entire educational system is owned and run by the state, and that very same state teaches them that all the human rights violations in Tibet don't even occur, but that the people in Tibet love them and that they are very grateful for China's presence in their country, there is a clear point where you just can't discuss these subjects with these people anymore, to no fault of their own. I've been to Tibet and seen it first hand, yet Chinese citizens lie to my face about it. They aren't aware of what they're saying, and I don't blame them for it. Calm the fuck down. ah intellectually sheltered blind love for a system that is so opaque....unfortunately outsiders don't really have time to help them at least the economy seems okay right now...as long as they leave Taiwan alone... Hong Kong used to be nice until they screwed it up...
This is sarcasm right?
|
Ummmmm, i think you might have a slightly biased view about communism. No offense, but your country isn't exactly known for it's level-headed understanding view of why communism works in a lot of countries.
What countries has communism worked in?
No offense, but your comment shouldn't exactly be seen as a level-headed understanding of how communism worked out in practice.
China KNOWS it can exert considerable military leverage before having to worry about the U.S.
We all remember Vietnam don't we? Well China would be easily 50x Vietnam.
U.S. isn't stupid enough to flex its terribly weakened (by their economy) military muscles against China anytime soon short of China invading a neighboring country.
...With what?
The US military hasn't been weakened by the economy, what a silly notion. The Pacific Fleet didn't just disappear.
China vs US would easily be 50x Vietnam, for China. Horrible horrible damage to China to fight a war with the US right now or anytime soon. They don't have the Navy or the Air Force to do it, who cares about the People's Liberation Army? Soldiers can't walk on water.
Hrmm? Relevance to location has never been much of a boundary to claim.
Harrooommmmmm? We're not talking about claims to parts of land masses, we're talking about borders at sea, which have their own set of rules.
done
Done making yourself look ignorant, maybe. The existence of human beings living somewhere adds another layer of legal complexity that doesn't exist with uninhabited rocks in the ocean.
Antarctic claims aren't recognized by anyone, it has a special legal status. And all of the islands that are part of the Commonwealth are there by choice, the people are subjects of the Queen and under her protection.
One more time a piece of land or an island that has people living there is a different story from somewhere that is uninhabited, the rules are different.
Vietnam has no claim to any land outside its mainland. It barely had enough civilization in its mainland when China was already exploring the South China Sea. We hope it doesn't reach war. We want peace. But we also want our rightful claim to these islands. The problem is that other countries are aggressively claiming it without talking to China and respecting history.
Vietnam's claim to the Spratly's is as tenuous as China's.
The problem is that after hundreds of years of being replaced by European countries and Japan as the colonial bully of Southeast Asia, China now expects the other countries in the region to start behaving more like they did in the past, when they were puppet states or vassals of China. People talk about the USA thinking it can and should dominate other countries but China is the country that openly says they should be getting deference from other countries every day, from their government officials to their military to the Chinese E-Brigade to regular Chinese citizens. We want what is rightfully ours, you better respect China, disagreement with China = an attack on China. They do it to the US, they do it to anyone who disagrees with them about anything in the S. East Asia region, they returned to imperialism the instant the Communist Party took control, in Korea in 1950, in Tibet, in Xinjiang, in Mongolia, against India in the 1960s, against Vietnam in 1979, those are just the countries and regions they've fought aggressive imperialist wars against, on top of all their saber-rattling against Taiwan. Now they've added the Philippines and Malaysia and Brunei to the list.
It has nothing to do with communism it has to do with the facts that China has an aggressive attitude and speaks and acts in a bullying intimidating fashion and other countries in the region are not going to put up with it.
China's intent is to push all the other countries in the region out of the Yellow, East and South China Seas, so they can claim the economic rights (not just who owns the oil and gas under the seabed, but control of trade regulations and shipping lanes and everything) to enrich themselves with money and benefits that rightly belong to other countries as well.
Only one country wants to dominate these three seas at the expense of all the neighboring countries. China. Only when one certain country is involved in these disputes do they rise above the level of diplomatic squabbling. China.
And remember, Chinese arguing for this will tell you that it is China's "right" to give itself a beneficial position over every other country nearby. Just because.
|
On June 19 2011 07:52 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 07:46 HoldenR wrote:On June 19 2011 07:36 Consolidate wrote:On June 19 2011 07:20 HoldenR wrote:
If history gave people the right to claim land, the UK could annex the US and about half the planet, Italy could claim most of Europe, and Mongoloia could claim all of Asia.
I do not mean this offensively, but the amount of brainwashing that Chinese citizens are subjected to is completely insane, and I cannot take a word they say regarding their own country seriously. This is coming from someone who knows Chinese inhabitants(Fellow students), and knows what their viewpoints are on some of the biggest human rights violations committed by China. Get out. You have no clue how naive you sound. Its goddamn infuriating when people like you accuse other people of 'being brainwashed' when they are trying for a reasoned debate. When the entire educational system is owned and run by the state, and that very same state teaches them that all the human rights violations in Tibet don't even occur, but that the people in Tibet love them and that they are very grateful for China's presence in their country, there is a clear point where you just can't discuss these subjects with these people anymore, to no fault of their own. I've been to Tibet and seen it first hand, yet Chinese citizens lie to my face about it. They aren't aware of what they're saying, and I don't blame them for it. Calm the fuck down. Tibet will be sinicized (again and permanantly). It will be painful, but it will happen. The chinese are very aware of what's happening. Its strange that you make excuses for them.
Most Chinese are not aware of what's happening. They are being taught that Tibet is historically part of China and that the government is making things a lot better there now. Many Chinese are being encouraged to move there through things such as allowing them to have more kids there, or just offering good incentives. At the moment there are many more Chinese people living in Lhasa than original Tibetans.
|
On June 19 2011 07:46 HoldenR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 07:36 Consolidate wrote:On June 19 2011 07:20 HoldenR wrote:
If history gave people the right to claim land, the UK could annex the US and about half the planet, Italy could claim most of Europe, and Mongoloia could claim all of Asia.
I do not mean this offensively, but the amount of brainwashing that Chinese citizens are subjected to is completely insane, and I cannot take a word they say regarding their own country seriously. This is coming from someone who knows Chinese inhabitants(Fellow students), and knows what their viewpoints are on some of the biggest human rights violations committed by China. Get out. You have no clue how naive you sound. Its goddamn infuriating when people like you accuse other people of 'being brainwashed' when they are trying for a reasoned debate. When the entire educational system is owned and run by the state, and that very same state teaches them that all the human rights violations in Tibet don't even occur, but that the people in Tibet love them and that they are very grateful for China's presence in their country, there is a clear point where you just can't discuss these subjects with these people anymore, to no fault of their own. I've been to Tibet and seen it first hand, yet Chinese citizens lie to my face about it. They aren't aware of what they're saying, and I don't blame them for it. Calm the fuck down.
Get out.
You still have no clue how naive you sound.
Since you failed to comprehend the first time, let me tell you; you are incurably naive.
Don't mean to derail the thread, but I went to Tibet last summer on vacation for a matter of fact. And the undeniable fact is that the majority of Tibetans, who are VERY smart people, WANT and NEED to be part of China since it has always received money from the rest of the country. Look at the size of Tibet, and then look at their GDP; a little over $6 billion USD. Tibet is a joke economically (and will be for the longest foreseeable future), and it was just a small minority of mostly young people that started the few riots that was blown WAY out of proportion by the Western Media as expected.
If you actually went to Tibet then you wouldn't make such obviously false claims. I've got pictures, have you? I speak Chinese, have actual Tibetan friends, understands minor Tibetan, do you?
Yah that's what I thought. Get out.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On June 19 2011 07:53 Mr Tambourine Man wrote:
Well, to be fair, looking at the OP, he doesn't really seem to be looking for a reasoned debate. It is written a little bit more like he is informing people of something. Look at his first statement, talking about the undeniable historical claim. What is there to discuss following that claim?
While I do think HoldenR is being a bit over dramatic in his statement that he cannot take a word Chinese people say about their own country seriously, there is a bit of truth in his statement.
Chinese children do get classes in their school dedicated to learning to love China. I also know this for a fact because I've lived there and have many Chinese friends. It is a sort of 'brainwashing' though that term always seems a bit condescending.
Nationalism isn't by any means unique or even notable among the Chinese, just look at the American educational system and the veneration of the Founding Fathers, etc. If you read the earlier thread, there were like a dozen Filipinos posting about how the Philippines were the true owners of the island, not knowing the history of how the Philippines actually justified their claim. (Some guy pulled a Sealand on the islands in the 50s and went "welp imma give these to the government" in 1970, which was after basically everyone else's claims by decades)
|
The reason this is becoming an issue now is due to relative chinese naval strength. Since the 90's (and likely earlier) strengthening the People's Liberation Army Navy has been a major policy objective of the Chinese administration. There has been a recent (since 2005 or so) pattern of China increasingly asserting/claiming marine borders which are increasingly contentious.
|
I just read that "Nansha" is vietnamese name.
Historically speaking, this land seems to belong more to vietnam than other countries.
I also read that this Island as a huge economic value as it main contain multiple spots of petrol resources.
|
Regardless of if the point made is correct or not, the fact that someone thinks he needs to be an apologist for their government makes me sick. Such slavish selfrespectless behavior.
But this is probably a sockpuppet. I hope they pay you enough money to do this otherwise maybe you are better off farming WoW gold.
|
On June 19 2011 08:05 Ravencruiser wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 07:46 HoldenR wrote:On June 19 2011 07:36 Consolidate wrote:On June 19 2011 07:20 HoldenR wrote:
If history gave people the right to claim land, the UK could annex the US and about half the planet, Italy could claim most of Europe, and Mongoloia could claim all of Asia.
I do not mean this offensively, but the amount of brainwashing that Chinese citizens are subjected to is completely insane, and I cannot take a word they say regarding their own country seriously. This is coming from someone who knows Chinese inhabitants(Fellow students), and knows what their viewpoints are on some of the biggest human rights violations committed by China. Get out. You have no clue how naive you sound. Its goddamn infuriating when people like you accuse other people of 'being brainwashed' when they are trying for a reasoned debate. When the entire educational system is owned and run by the state, and that very same state teaches them that all the human rights violations in Tibet don't even occur, but that the people in Tibet love them and that they are very grateful for China's presence in their country, there is a clear point where you just can't discuss these subjects with these people anymore, to no fault of their own. I've been to Tibet and seen it first hand, yet Chinese citizens lie to my face about it. They aren't aware of what they're saying, and I don't blame them for it. Calm the fuck down. Get out. You still have no clue how naive you sound. Since you failed to comprehend the first time, let me tell you; you are incurably naive. Don't mean to derail the thread, but I went to Tibet last summer on vacation for a matter of fact. And the undeniable fact is that the majority of Tibetans, who are VERY smart people, WANT and NEED to be part of China since it has always received money from the rest of the country. Look at the size of Tibet, and then look at their GDP; a little over $6 billion USD. Tibet is a joke economically (and will be for the longest foreseeable future), and it was just a small minority of mostly young people that started the few riots that was blown WAY out of proportion by the Western Media as expected. If you actually went to Tibet then you wouldn't make such obviously false claims. I've got pictures, have you? I speak Chinese, have actual Tibetan friends, understands minor Tibetan, do you? Yah that's what I thought. Get out.
Conceited and disgustingly arrogant. Human rights violations for economic development are not okay.
I would reply with something equally retarded as "get out", but I'd rather just not read your posts anymore. I hope you enjoy justifying blood money.
|
Osaka27128 Posts
This thread, predictably, has devolved into personal insults.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Location_of_the_BOTs.svg/735px-Location_of_the_BOTs.svg.png)
