|
Vietnam is holding live-fire drills in the South China Sea amid high tensions with China over disputed waters.
A Vietnamese naval officer said the "routine" drills were being held about 40km (25 miles) off central Quang Nam province, outside the disputed area.
The second stage of the exercise will be held at night; shipping has been warned to stay clear of the area.
Chinese state media denounced the exercises as a military show of force to defy Beijing.
The drills are taking place within days of an escalation in the long-standing maritime border dispute between China and Vietnam.
The South China Sea includes important shipping routes and may contain rich oil and gas deposits.
Vietnam last month accused China of cutting the exploration cables of an oil survey ship. In a similar incident last week it said a Chinese fishing boat had "intentionally rammed" the exploration cables of another of its boats.
China said that its fishing boats were chased away by armed Vietnamese ships in the incident last Thursday.
The fishing net of one of the Chinese boats became tangled with the cables of an Vietnamese oil exploring vessel, which was operating illegally in the area, and was dragged for more than an hour before it was cut free, the Chinese foreign ministry said.
China accused Vietnam of "gravely violating" its sovereignty and warned it to stop "all invasive activities". 'Official sanction'
The BBC's Southeast Asia correspondent Rachel Harvey says that military drills are not usually given such advance public prominence and the timing is extremely sensitive.
A Vietnamese naval officer said the "routine annual training" exercises have "nothing to do with the recent incidents involving China".
The first part of the nine-hour drill is being held around the uninhabited island of Hon Ong - well within Vietnamese territorial waters.
A second phase of live firing lasting about six hours will be staged at night, officials said.
China has not commented officially on the naval exercises, but a newspaper controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, the Global Times, said the drills were "a military show of force to defy Beijing".
Demonstrations have been held in Hanoi for the second weekend in a row, calling for China to get out of Vietnam's territorial waters.
Demonstrations are not usually tolerated in Communist Vietnam, but the authorities appear to be allowing protests related to the South China Sea dispute, our correspondent says.
China is engaged in maritime border disputes with several countries.
The Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan also have rival claims in the area. The US has also expressed concern about China's rising naval ambitions.
![[image loading]](http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48951000/gif/_48951920_south_china-sea_1_466.gif)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13745587
We all know Vietnam has never been in friendly term with China, but China isn't going to back down. Control of the South China sea is vital for their security which is why they're butting heads with everyone. But getting control may drive every country in the region into alliance against them. I don't know why they're not buying them off but they should. A hostile Vietnam could target every ship going to China from anywhere but the Americas.
And how exactly is China justifying such a huge claim?
Here is a blog about the situation from someone inside vietnam:
Inform sincerely to the people: There are situations when silence does not help avoid danger, but on the contrary increase the danger as it makes people misbelieve that silence means feebleness. Opposing via foreign affair channel is necessary, but not yet enough to make use of the international unition that Vietnam really needs in this moment. More than anyone else, those who based on the strength of the people to liberate and unify the country understand the value of the right to be informed and the right to act of the people. China has pushed forward the invasion on the East Sea. That is obvious to the world: We have to oppose strongly! China has violated all the terms and conditions which they have signed: We have to oppose strongly! The Chinese Navy has harassed, terrorized fishermen from the middle part of Vietnam on parts of the sea where they have fished since the time of their forefathers: We have to oppose strongly! We have to inform to the whole country and to the most remote areas with the life stories of our people who have been harassed, have been imprisoned and have been robbed and have gone bankrupt on the East Sea. In short: Inform sincerely to the people! Paracel and Spratly Islands belong to Vietnam! We should not be satisfied with the meeting of Vietnam specialists with international specialists to confirm that quietly. Those meetings are important, but we also need to confirm the sovereignty in schools, in historical and geographical lessons taught on the whole country. I feel surprised and painful to see that on Lý Sơn island - the starting place of fishermen who firmly stick to fishing on the sea parts of Paracel islands - the island which stands in the frontline of the war to confirm the sovereignty of Vietnam of Paracel islands - their descendants do not know anything about the geography of the islands which their ascendants have been imprisoned by the Chinese Navy. Many Vietnam administrative maps still lack of Hữu Nhật and Quang Ánh islands - places with deep emotion and meanings, as it is there that their ancestors in Paracel Navy group have sacrificed! Fear does not roll back the peril: I very well understand the difficult and sensitive standpoint of Vietnamese leaders with hopes to prevent the people, who have experienced pains in history, from suffering new losses. Vietnam history has witnessed more than a few times when the people had shed their blood: 1974, 1979, 1988… But fear does not roll back the peril. 73-years-old elder Bùi Thượng – a diving contest championship in Lý Sơn – is well aware of this. “When encounter a shark, you have to face it, look straight into its eyes. Only then it won’t attack you”, he said. There are times when we have to face things. That’s the matter of being dead or alive. Facing first means telling the truth, and only the truth. In Bình Châu and Lý Sơn, I have interviewed fishermen who risk their life everyday to go on fishing. They said they had clashed with fleets of Chinese fishing boats that come very close to the islands, only about 20 nautical miles away. Those Chinese fishing groups are well-organized and are supported by the Chinese Navy. For Vietnamese fishermen, they go out on the sea with unsafe feelings. And when doomed, they are caught, imprisoned, seized of fish and equipments, and there are large debts to pay. There are people like Mr. Tiêu Viết Là from Bình Châu village, who was caught four times by the Chinese. Subsidies from the government are negligible. Very brave are they to go on fishing in such situations! The widows of those fishermen who went missing mysteriously in Đá Bông Bay area, a kind of “Bermuda triangle” of Spratly archipelago, now live solely and lonely since their only “properties” are their husbands. Being full or hungry is all up to their husbands. There’s even one with no money to build a “wind grave” for her husband. In rain seasons, there’s no money to repair the roof of the one-room-house. Where to find money for her children’s tutoring lessons when the children’s study is the only hope for the rest of this utterly miserable widow’s life? Two millions VND of subsidy from the government for this and that place do not change the twist of their lives. We have to raise our voice. We have to talk about them! They must be eligible to receive official supports from the government, a prior plan, and at least they must have food, necessities and medicines provided. Their children must have free education and health care. They must be considered as the country’s children. To protect them and their mothers is to protect the sea and the islands, is to protect the country in the most realistic and efficient way. In such circumstances, no one have the right to reduce the responsibilities of China. Try talking about “strange boats” with fishermen in the middle part of Vietnam, they will adjust them immediately to “Chinese boats”. To them, there’s nothing strange. Many Vietnamese have told me: “The Chinese are very cunning”. Are the Chinese leaders “cunning”? Escalating disputes, China is creating conditions for ASEAN countries whose benefits are threatened come close to each other. They create a new front line. It means that they have to pin here their forces, have to redirect parts of investment which are needed in business development into a costly adventure which they will surely get bogged down. It’s over for the time when they apparently appropriated Paracel islands, apparently sank Vietnam transferring boats at Gạt Ma bank. China is developing rapidly, yet such a development is piercing deeply into the inner contradictions, is amplifying social inequalities. It’s not necessary to be a foreteller to see the difficulties of Beijing are right ahead but not yet behind. And when the time comes, they have to answer. In Lý Sơn, I had an occasion to attend a very meaningful ritual which presents the will of the islanders: When a fisherman went missing due to sea storms or some mysterious reasons, the family which can afford to build a grave and invite a priest will hold a very original ritual, may even be unique, to call the spirit of the dead to get into a clay puppet with incantation. This puppet is then buried into a grave called “wind grave”, so that family members can come to visit. Superstitious? Maybe. But it’s not just that. I think this has a profound meaning: this hundred-years-old ritual presents the will of the alive that they are determined to regain from the sea, from the enemies the most precious and bring them back to the families and the country. That is a very clear message to the invaders: “ Whatever you do, we will still attach to the fishermen, to the sea, to the culture and to the country. For those things, no one, no force is able to appropriate.” Translated by Tan Do, from Vietnamese version by Nguyễn Ngọc Giao. For original article, see http://tuanvietnam.vietnamnet.vn/2011-06-08-bien-dong-so-hai-khong-day-lui-hiem-hoa
|
Thanks for the information
|
Something tells me China is just trying to make Vietnam look like the bad guys even though they did nothing wrong...
|
Yeah, they're definitely getting ready to start a war with China right... If I was in the Chinese military, I would be really scared right about now.
|
They are both communist no? Hence nothing will come of this
|
On June 15 2011 08:20 Rebornlife wrote: They are both communist no? Hence nothing will come of this Vietnam doesn't like china very much, in a war they would more likely be in line with USA's interest's then china's.
|
Well a war between China and Vietnam wouldn't really favor either of them. It is however something the USA would be okay with I think, preventing the rise of China as a superpower I mean.
Either way, I don't see anything big happening out of this, they'll probably come to some compromise they'll both agree to.
|
Well Vietnam won the last China-Viet War so its like 2-1 Vietnam so far.
|
|
I don't see Vietnam actually being a threat to China considering it has the largest military on the planet.
|
On June 15 2011 08:11 Endymion wrote: Yeah, they're definitely getting ready to start a war with China right... If I was in the Chinese military, I would be really scared right about now. What? China is a superpower and Vietnam is a third world country that spends what little they have on military. China will win in a few days to a week if it comes to war (and it probably will).
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
A lil threats will be thrown around probably, but nothing will really happen. Both sides have too much to lose.
|
On June 15 2011 08:28 Antisocialmunky wrote: Well Vietnam won the last China-Viet War so its like 2-1 Vietnam so far. You missed the part where Vietnam was a vassal state to the Chinese Empire for centuries. It's more like 500-2.
On June 15 2011 08:37 gunman103 wrote: What? China is a superpower and Vietnam is a third world country that spends what little they have on military. China will win in a few days to a week if it comes to war (and it probably will). Go back a few decades and replace 'China' with 'USA' It really just depends on how far China is willing to go if it escalates into an armed conflict. They could easily destroy Vietnam, but destroying a country is usually a bad thing to do in a war, especially since China outsources some of its labor to Vietnam.
|
Expansion in the modern age. Interesting. I'm exited about this, as the outcome and decisions of China will reflect on their position and opinions on growing into superpower.
|
It will not come to any military conflict. That is not a threat. But trade sanctions and inflamed diplomacy are likely outcomes if they can't come to an agreement.
Vietnam takes their independence from China (and all other countries) very seriously since they have fought lots of wars against many countries for that independence (the Chinese, French and Americans). At the same time, China is always very protective of their buffer zones and always tries to make sure surrounding countries keep in line.
|
China outsources some of its labor to Vietnam
China outsources labor?!!? lmfao sry that was funny to me...
I hope this doesn't result in a war... too much turmoil around the world already
|
On June 15 2011 08:37 gunman103 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 08:11 Endymion wrote: Yeah, they're definitely getting ready to start a war with China right... If I was in the Chinese military, I would be really scared right about now. What? China is a superpower and Vietnam is a third world country that spends what little they have on military. China will win in a few days to a week if it comes to war (and it probably will).
Are you an idiot? Vietnam was a 3rd world country when America tried to go to war with it....they still won.
The u.s. said something along the lines of "it'll take us a couple weeks to win" too. And it took 2 years for us to realize we couldn't.
|
On June 15 2011 08:53 spidey1991 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 08:37 gunman103 wrote:On June 15 2011 08:11 Endymion wrote: Yeah, they're definitely getting ready to start a war with China right... If I was in the Chinese military, I would be really scared right about now. What? China is a superpower and Vietnam is a third world country that spends what little they have on military. China will win in a few days to a week if it comes to war (and it probably will). Are you an idiot? Vietnam was a 3rd world country when America tried to go to war with it....they still won. The u.s. said something along the lines of "it'll take us a couple weeks to win" too. And it took 2 years for us to realize we couldn't. The Vietnam war was fought guerrilla style not total war. America could of killed everyone in Vietnam and just been done. China may take it a bit further.
The big question here is: will this affect Korea? If the GSL finals get cancelled then shits going to hit the fan.
|
On June 15 2011 08:42 TALegion wrote: Expansion in the modern age. Interesting. I'm exited about this, as the outcome and decisions of China will reflect on their position and opinions on growing into superpower. I don't think expansion happens in the modern age with guns and borders, but with contracts and checks. You can also compare china's current position to that of the US before and after the 1st and 2nd world wars. But I think China could either be strengthened economically by a war or have a stifling effect on its growing economy...I'm not sure on the details of why wars help the economy for short bursts as they say.
|
On June 15 2011 08:37 gunman103 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 08:11 Endymion wrote: Yeah, they're definitely getting ready to start a war with China right... If I was in the Chinese military, I would be really scared right about now. What? China is a superpower and Vietnam is a third world country that spends what little they have on military. China will win in a few days to a week if it comes to war (and it probably will). Sarcasm alert!
|
On June 15 2011 08:57 -swordguy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 08:53 spidey1991 wrote:On June 15 2011 08:37 gunman103 wrote:On June 15 2011 08:11 Endymion wrote: Yeah, they're definitely getting ready to start a war with China right... If I was in the Chinese military, I would be really scared right about now. What? China is a superpower and Vietnam is a third world country that spends what little they have on military. China will win in a few days to a week if it comes to war (and it probably will). Are you an idiot? Vietnam was a 3rd world country when America tried to go to war with it....they still won. The u.s. said something along the lines of "it'll take us a couple weeks to win" too. And it took 2 years for us to realize we couldn't. The Vietnam war was fought guerrilla style not total war. America could of killed everyone in Vietnam and just been done. China may take it a bit further. The big question here is: will this affect Korea? If the GSL finals get cancelled then shits going to hit the fan.
Wars are no longer fought this way, and haven't been since WW2. The reason why is television. People see the horrors of war on TV and they'll quickly turn against any country doing it and the country doing it effectively isolates itself from the rest of the world.
|
There are only 2 facts.
1. A war between China vs Vietnam would be settled brutally and one sidedly within days.
2. China has already officially announced that they will NOT USE FORCE.
|
Look up Vietnam's history and see what superpowers have been beaten trying to take this country, (the mongols, the chinese, the french, and the US to name a few).
|
On June 15 2011 08:37 gunman103 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 08:11 Endymion wrote: Yeah, they're definitely getting ready to start a war with China right... If I was in the Chinese military, I would be really scared right about now. What? China is a superpower and Vietnam is a third world country that spends what little they have on military. China will win in a few days to a week if it comes to war (and it probably will).
.... It's called SOLDIERS DIE during wars.
Soldiers die due to wars, so if I was soldier, I would be scared.
|
On June 15 2011 08:37 gunman103 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 08:11 Endymion wrote: Yeah, they're definitely getting ready to start a war with China right... If I was in the Chinese military, I would be really scared right about now. What? China is a superpower and Vietnam is a third world country that spends what little they have on military. China will win in a few days to a week if it comes to war (and it probably will).
Militarily China is far from a superpower. Their navy is complete shit and is hardly functional, they have a huge chain of command issue from lack of officers, and despite buying technology from other countries or stealing from others like the US, they're boned. In fact, right now, if China tried to stake a claim on any waters and actually fought for it, they'd be toast. China essentially has no real navy. They have one shitty rust bucket of a carrier and poorly maintained and built submarines.
Gotta remember nowadays its rarely a scenario of country A vs country B nowadays.
|
The more powerful China gets I'm sure we'll see a ton more tension but I don't see that breaking into armed conflict unless it was small exchanges out in the sea. At the end of the day China is a monster compared to Vietnam and to retain there composure in view of the world I don't think the Chinese would take it to far. After all there rising and still existent superpowers like the US so they won't take it to far (I would hope). Wish they'd just all chill out with all the bullshit drama from small ass events as if the Vietnamese were openly defying them, need more peace these days, wish world leaders showed they cared more about that and actually showed it.
|
So the US is bringing the USS Geogre Washington carrier to the disputed sea from Japan. This is getting a bit scary.
|
How can so many people in this thread misjudge and underestimate the strengh of the vietnamese defense and force of will to win a defensive war? Did you forget about the french, did you forget about the americans AND chinese? What did Apocalypse now tell you? You can occupy vietnam for a while but you cant WIN a war. And if China threatens to OBLITERATE Vietnam, hence kill all the Vietnamese and delete their history and country with Nuclear missiles or so, the inofficial opponent for world dominance, the U.S.A. , would have a word in that topic for sure. It will come to an agent's war supported by the U.S. and the West against China, which will end in a disaster for chinas economy and thus a disaster for chinas strive to be a global super power. Imagine Guerilla forces backed up by Lockheed and co. , thrilled for chinese blood, ships and tanks. Stop foolishness , even if were all SC players, macro (amount of weapons and soldiers) is not everything. Moral, subject, and efficiency is also important. Get real...
The horror...the horror
|
Let's not forget the fact that Vietnam literally spanked china's ass during the Sino-Vietnam War.
Vietnam is force to be reckoned with. China is just big, but so what? All they have is a number. We have seen plenty of "BIG" countries trying to invade other "small" countries and end up getting literally embarrassed in front of the world.
Same thing can be applied to modern day.
|
Our navy will snap necks if China gets out of line and wants to go full retard.
User was warned for this post
|
Its news all over here too. Dispute over claims of Spratly's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands) seems to be the cause of the said "drill".
"Scary" is actualy an understatement as the US already warned about this "bullying" of china.
|
I was actually being sarcastic, sorry for the people quoting me and defending me, I think this will be a joke if China actually decides to fight because I can't see their military being as soft-heeled as the US was forced to be because of the domestic "war on war" that was going on during the first Vietnam war
|
On June 15 2011 08:20 Rebornlife wrote: They are both communist no? Hence nothing will come of this Vietnam has been in war with China more than with everyone else. Communism has nothing to do with this. They just hate each other.
Fun fact: The reason Vietnam became a communist country because back when it was colonized by France, it asked US for help but was refused because US and France were allied, that's why it turned to Soviet.
|
On June 15 2011 09:27 kaisen wrote: Let's not forget the fact that Vietnam literally spanked china's ass during the Sino-Vietnam War.
Vietnam is force to be reckoned with. China is just big, but so what? All they have is a number. We have seen plenty of "BIG" countries trying to invade other "small" countries and end up getting literally embarrassed in front of the world.
Same thing can be applied to modern day.
u guys need get your heads out of the sand. china is not stupid. china would just bombard the shit out of vietnam and reduce it to rubble INSTEAD of marching in and trying to occupy it. This is IF they go to war, and I highly highly doubt that it would occur. so we need to stop being hysterical 
|
On June 15 2011 08:41 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 08:28 Antisocialmunky wrote: Well Vietnam won the last China-Viet War so its like 2-1 Vietnam so far. You missed the part where Vietnam was a vassal state to the Chinese Empire for centuries. It's more like 500-2.
The Viet should get bonus points for USA and France tho.
|
On June 15 2011 09:46 Golgotha wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 09:27 kaisen wrote: Let's not forget the fact that Vietnam literally spanked china's ass during the Sino-Vietnam War.
Vietnam is force to be reckoned with. China is just big, but so what? All they have is a number. We have seen plenty of "BIG" countries trying to invade other "small" countries and end up getting literally embarrassed in front of the world.
Same thing can be applied to modern day.
u guys need get your heads out of the sand. china is not stupid. china would just bombard the shit out of vietnam and reduce it to rubble INSTEAD of marching in and trying to occupy it. This is IF they go to war, and I highly highly doubt that it would occur. so we need to stop being hysterical  US dropped 7.8 millions tons of bomb into Vietnam during Vietnam war, around serveral hundred pounds per person population (only 2mil tons of bombs were dropped in WW2) and still couldn't do jack. How many tons of bombs you expect China to drop to turn it to rubble?
But yeah, it's highly impossible that they would go to war. The era we are living is much better than before, a country would be sanctioned so bad by the world if they try to go to war without a reasonable reason.
|
Even though I consider the time of war between states to be pretty much over, China might be in a position to still wage one. The industrial nations economies are too severely interdependend with China as that they'ld really want to crush the relations, and I think most governments think that their people would never agree on a war against China to defend another nation. Further, China has a lot of relations to countries that don't bother about reputation and morals anyways, and is nuclear armed.
|
And how exactly is China justifying such a huge claim?
An enormous military. That's how.
Militarily China is far from a superpower. Their navy is complete shit and is hardly functional, they have a huge chain of command issue from lack of officers, and despite buying technology from other countries or stealing from others like the US, they're boned.
China has 82 active surface combat ships, consisting of 26 destroyers and 56 cruisers. All constructed between 1972 and present. 42 constructed between 1990 and present. All in serviceable condition, with technology somewhere in the middle between NATO and Russia. They are classified as a green water navy, meaning they are not capable of a global projection of naval force, but are capable of regional dominance. They are quite lacking in the carrier department, but that would be irrelevant in the case of a conflict with Vietnam, it is easily within strike fighter range, and China's air force is serviceable. As a frame of reference for the type of naval technology they have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_054A_frigate
Their submarines are hardly "rusting hulks", they have three nuclear strike submarines, dating from 2009-current production. They have four nuclear attack submarines dating from 2002-current production. They have 29 conventional attack submarines that are less then ten years old. In addition to these they have a number of cold war era submarines that are not really in active service.
In comparison: Vietnam has 5 Vietnam war era Soviet patrol vessels, and 2 modern Russian built patrol vessels, and 6 modern diesel submarines.
Its nowhere near the scale of the US navy, but China's navy is not "complete shit" by any stretch of the word.
|
Vietnam will take China down with their tunnel technologies. Even now they have tunneled under the 50 most populous countries in China. I know it to be true, because.. how could it not be?
|
You can't do a guerrilla war on sea.
Hopefully we can stop this trend of military strong countries forcing other countries to also waste cash and resources on military power so that they can project their power. We need to get rid of this. Just not the US is probably on the decline we have China and Russia that also wants to get back into the game.
|
FK CHINA! Starting to bully smaller countries, in the last few weeks China has been sending aircrafts to what they claim THEIR territory "Spratly's Islands". Which is clearly a Philippine territory.
|
Just the good old-fashioned sabre rattling. In the modern age such conflicts are more likely to be fought by economic means than by military force.
|
On June 15 2011 10:05 Hekisui wrote: You can't do a guerrilla war on sea.
Hopefully we can stop this trend of military strong countries forcing other countries to also waste cash and resources on military power so that they can project their power. We need to get rid of this. Just not the US is probably on the decline we have China and Russia that also wants to get back into the game. Actually, Vietnam won against China in a guerrilla war on sea before, and that victory (1000 years ago) freed Vietnam from 1000 years colonized by China. But yeah, it's 1000 years ago, so...
This makes me remember a joke in Vietnam: China don't have to go to war with Vietnam, if every Chinese spit on Mekong River, Vietnamese will all die by drowning.
|
On June 15 2011 08:20 Rebornlife wrote: They are both communist no? Hence nothing will come of this
This dude's a retard.
Tension between Vietnam and China has been there for forever. It's not some political bullshit, it is a blood feud. We're been fighting wars with China for the past thousand years, and believe it or not our patriotism against China carried over generations to generations. It's not hatred or anything; the Vietnamese has been doing business with the Chinese for as long as we exists and we don't make things difficult for the Chinese living in Vietnam (i should know, i used to live in what pretty is the Chinatown in Saigon); it's just that China is a country we just don't want to lose wars to or get bullied by. After the last Sino-Vietnamese War, people didn't really think about it much since everyone has their own lives to live, but recently, with the Chinese's harassment on our fishing boats and their claim on our sea and islands (coupled with the government's refusal to take action to protect boatmen), tension has been running high again.
None of us Vietnamese really expect to win a straight up fight in the first place at this point. The point was to get foreign involvement in should we ever get into a war.
And btw, you guys won't believe the bullshit China came up with to justify its claims. They actually sounds somewhat legit too if you don't know the history of Vietnam. It seems like they just want to get the claim out there and use that as an excuse later for w/e reason.
|
I think this is more than just Vietnam vs. China. Chinese are trying to declare war with the entire lower area. I think they would lose since no one surround china is in good term with them. BTW, they are both communist but they have different way of killing their people.
|
On June 15 2011 10:24 Tear388 wrote: I think this is more than just Vietnam vs. China. Chinese are trying to declare war with the entire lower area. I think they would lose since no one surround china is in good term with them. BTW, they are both communist but they have different way of killing their people. I heard bloodsucking is the new fad in commie circles. Come on, if you aren't actually familiar with the situation don't make up dumb theories.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
My friend translated this blog about it.
Inform sincerely to the people: There are situations when silence does not help avoid danger, but on the contrary increase the danger as it makes people misbelieve that silence means feebleness. Opposing via foreign affair channel is necessary, but not yet enough to make use of the international unition that Vietnam really needs in this moment. More than anyone else, those who based on the strength of the people to liberate and unify the country understand the value of the right to be informed and the right to act of the people. China has pushed forward the invasion on the East Sea. That is obvious to the world: We have to oppose strongly! China has violated all the terms and conditions which they have signed: We have to oppose strongly! The Chinese Navy has harassed, terrorized fishermen from the middle part of Vietnam on parts of the sea where they have fished since the time of their forefathers: We have to oppose strongly! We have to inform to the whole country and to the most remote areas with the life stories of our people who have been harassed, have been imprisoned and have been robbed and have gone bankrupt on the East Sea. In short: Inform sincerely to the people! Paracel and Spratly Islands belong to Vietnam! We should not be satisfied with the meeting of Vietnam specialists with international specialists to confirm that quietly. Those meetings are important, but we also need to confirm the sovereignty in schools, in historical and geographical lessons taught on the whole country. I feel surprised and painful to see that on Lý Sơn island - the starting place of fishermen who firmly stick to fishing on the sea parts of Paracel islands - the island which stands in the frontline of the war to confirm the sovereignty of Vietnam of Paracel islands - their descendants do not know anything about the geography of the islands which their ascendants have been imprisoned by the Chinese Navy. Many Vietnam administrative maps still lack of Hữu Nhật and Quang Ánh islands - places with deep emotion and meanings, as it is there that their ancestors in Paracel Navy group have sacrificed! Fear does not roll back the peril: I very well understand the difficult and sensitive standpoint of Vietnamese leaders with hopes to prevent the people, who have experienced pains in history, from suffering new losses. Vietnam history has witnessed more than a few times when the people had shed their blood: 1974, 1979, 1988… But fear does not roll back the peril. 73-years-old elder Bùi Thượng – a diving contest championship in Lý Sơn – is well aware of this. “When encounter a shark, you have to face it, look straight into its eyes. Only then it won’t attack you”, he said. There are times when we have to face things. That’s the matter of being dead or alive. Facing first means telling the truth, and only the truth. In Bình Châu and Lý Sơn, I have interviewed fishermen who risk their life everyday to go on fishing. They said they had clashed with fleets of Chinese fishing boats that come very close to the islands, only about 20 nautical miles away. Those Chinese fishing groups are well-organized and are supported by the Chinese Navy. For Vietnamese fishermen, they go out on the sea with unsafe feelings. And when doomed, they are caught, imprisoned, seized of fish and equipments, and there are large debts to pay. There are people like Mr. Tiêu Viết Là from Bình Châu village, who was caught four times by the Chinese. Subsidies from the government are negligible. Very brave are they to go on fishing in such situations! The widows of those fishermen who went missing mysteriously in Đá Bông Bay area, a kind of “Bermuda triangle” of Spratly archipelago, now live solely and lonely since their only “properties” are their husbands. Being full or hungry is all up to their husbands. There’s even one with no money to build a “wind grave” for her husband. In rain seasons, there’s no money to repair the roof of the one-room-house. Where to find money for her children’s tutoring lessons when the children’s study is the only hope for the rest of this utterly miserable widow’s life? Two millions VND of subsidy from the government for this and that place do not change the twist of their lives. We have to raise our voice. We have to talk about them! They must be eligible to receive official supports from the government, a prior plan, and at least they must have food, necessities and medicines provided. Their children must have free education and health care. They must be considered as the country’s children. To protect them and their mothers is to protect the sea and the islands, is to protect the country in the most realistic and efficient way. In such circumstances, no one have the right to reduce the responsibilities of China. Try talking about “strange boats” with fishermen in the middle part of Vietnam, they will adjust them immediately to “Chinese boats”. To them, there’s nothing strange. Many Vietnamese have told me: “The Chinese are very cunning”. Are the Chinese leaders “cunning”? Escalating disputes, China is creating conditions for ASEAN countries whose benefits are threatened come close to each other. They create a new front line. It means that they have to pin here their forces, have to redirect parts of investment which are needed in business development into a costly adventure which they will surely get bogged down. It’s over for the time when they apparently appropriated Paracel islands, apparently sank Vietnam transferring boats at Gạt Ma bank. China is developing rapidly, yet such a development is piercing deeply into the inner contradictions, is amplifying social inequalities. It’s not necessary to be a foreteller to see the difficulties of Beijing are right ahead but not yet behind. And when the time comes, they have to answer. In Lý Sơn, I had an occasion to attend a very meaningful ritual which presents the will of the islanders: When a fisherman went missing due to sea storms or some mysterious reasons, the family which can afford to build a grave and invite a priest will hold a very original ritual, may even be unique, to call the spirit of the dead to get into a clay puppet with incantation. This puppet is then buried into a grave called “wind grave”, so that family members can come to visit. Superstitious? Maybe. But it’s not just that. I think this has a profound meaning: this hundred-years-old ritual presents the will of the alive that they are determined to regain from the sea, from the enemies the most precious and bring them back to the families and the country. That is a very clear message to the invaders: “ Whatever you do, we will still attach to the fishermen, to the sea, to the culture and to the country. For those things, no one, no force is able to appropriate.” Translated by Tan Do, from Vietnamese version by Nguyễn Ngọc Giao. For original article, see http://tuanvietnam.vietnamnet.vn/2011-06-08-bien-dong-so-hai-khong-day-lui-hiem-hoa
|
Wow, that was long.
So then this is actually like a serious issue?
|
51373 Posts
While Vietnam has defended from France, China and even the US, consider too that they were all operated by some of the centuries most intelligent military officers (Ho Chi Minh and Vo Nguyen Giap). I don't think today, if (theoretically) attacked, they would be able to hold off whoever would attack them if it was based on pure numbers.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On June 15 2011 10:46 travis wrote: Wow, that was long.
So then this is actually like a serious issue? afaik its pretty serious if you're vietnamese don't know how much the rest of the world actually cares though.
|
Trying to compare the war with China to the US back in the Vietnam war doesn't make sense. The cities are actually cities and not tiny little villages so if China does try to drop some bombs they wont be bombing some random trails in the mountains. Also something tells me China does not give a shit what other countries think. They have the highest amount of executions per capita and have pissed off every one around them at one point or another. And the people living in China presumably won't be as well informed as the US back in the 1960's due to the government censorship.
And comparing this to France is even more retarded. France was still reeling from WW2 and is halfway across the world. China is right next door. Logistics back in the 1940s-1950s was much different getting men and supplies halfway across the world is still a pain in the ass now not to mention when the country doing the fighting doesn't support the war in the first place. China population may not like what's going on but the government doesn't really care.
|
I've read the blog in Vietnamese, great blog overall and it shows how even the Chinese doesn't know anything about Vietnamese. Every enemies of Vietnam has always underestimate the will power of Vietnamese people, and they paid for it. This is, if war comes which is very unlikely, the Chinese will pay for it as well.
And well, just look at the map provided in the OP. China is just being rediculous with their claim. How can you claim a sea territory just less than 2-5km from other country's land territory? I heard that, some Chinese official just draw that red line based on nothing in the mid 70, and they taught that in school, so every Chinese people thinks that they actually got that sea territory, in fact they are not.
Vietnam is the one that harvest the most oil out of South China Sea, China hasn't been able to harvest a single oil barrel at South China Sea. Well we have to see, how another superpower deal with Vietnam.
|
Growing up in Vietnam for 17 years, I learned that the reason why we held off both France and US is because guerrilla warfare is an option. France and US don't really point a gun at a civilian and shoot at them just because they can where as China's military wouldn't mind to do so. Hence, if war would break out, Vietnam would definitely be fucked.
However, is it worth it for China to perform such act? History have shown that it is extremely cost inefficient to fuck around with Vietnamese because our people are sly bastards. On top of that, China would be officially the notorious villain across the world. Imo, China would back off anytime soon.
Incidents like these has been happening for the past decades. Chinese government been taking out ore deposits, coastal islands and oil nodes but this seems to be the last straw and for the first time in history, the people are protected by the government to protest against China instead of being put into jail.
|
On June 15 2011 10:57 GTR wrote: While Vietnam has defended from France, China and even the US, consider too that they were all operated by some of the centuries most intelligent military officers (Ho Chi Minh and Vo Nguyen Giap). I don't think today, if (theoretically) attacked, they would be able to hold off whoever would attack them if it was based on pure numbers. Actually, Vietnam has almost never won anything head to head. The mongol in 12th century was led in the country by purpose so we can kick their ass after they occupied, and somehow we repeat that 3 times. Thats the way a small country go to war with big nation, no head to head, but wearing them down till they are dead.
War is very very unlikely, but if it ever comes, this will be the most uninformed war ever at least on the Chinese site. I live in China now so I know, even with a bombing economy, Chinese people lacks information and views toward international matters. They know nothing except what is allowed on state TV. Even me, the one who comes from a communist state can't stand the control of the Chinese gorverment upon its people. If war comes, it will be very bloody since all Chinese will think that they are fighting rightfully and for the motherland while all Vietnamese will think the same.
|
yeah yeah yeah the rest of the world always underestimates this 3rd world country. Vietnamese are nice but if you mess with em they are fearless warriors. Vietnamese are not new to war, just another day.
|
16952 Posts
On June 15 2011 10:07 guyabs wrote: FK CHINA! Starting to bully smaller countries, in the last few weeks China has been sending aircrafts to what they claim THEIR territory "Spratly's Islands". Which is clearly a Philippine territory.
Rofl, the entire point of this thread is that both Vietnam and China claim the Spratly Islands. The Philippines aren't even part of this current dispute and honestly, neither Vietnam nor China care.
In any case, I doubt that China is going to be aggressive militarily in this conflict. There might be a few shows of force here and there, but I'd be utterly surprised if they let it escalate to armed conflict. China is really set on showing the rest of the world that it's a responsible, peaceful nation that doesn't meddle in the affairs of others (although by claiming this as a domestic territorial dispute, I suppose they have a "loophole"), and they know that any overt military action is simply unwise not because they're afraid to lose to Vietnam, but because they'd lose in the international arena in terms of reputation and face.
In any case, I'm surprised at how many people are claiming that Vietnam would win in any modern armed conflict with China.
On June 15 2011 11:14 Caphe wrote: War is very very unlikely, but if it ever comes, this will be the most uninformed war ever at least on the Chinese site.
I'd agree with this. I'm in Shanghai now, and I haven't heard anything in the media about the current territorial dispute with Vietnam or the ongoing riots in Inner Mongolia. I'd be willing to bet that many people aren't even aware that they're going on.
EDIT: Sorry, the riots are in Guangdong province. The Inner Mongolia riots were a bit earlier (the two aren't related).
|
On June 15 2011 11:14 Caphe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 10:57 GTR wrote: While Vietnam has defended from France, China and even the US, consider too that they were all operated by some of the centuries most intelligent military officers (Ho Chi Minh and Vo Nguyen Giap). I don't think today, if (theoretically) attacked, they would be able to hold off whoever would attack them if it was based on pure numbers. Actually, Vietnam has almost never won anything head to head. The mongol in 12th century was led in the country by purpose so we can kick their ass after they occupied, and somehow we repeat that 3 times. Thats the way a small country go to war with big nation, no head to head, but wearing them down till they are dead. War is very very unlikely, but if it ever comes, this will be the most uninformed war ever at least on the Chinese site. I live in China now so I know, even with a bombing economy, Chinese people lacks information and views toward international matters. They know nothing except what is allowed on state TV. Even me, the one who comes from a communist state can't stand the control of the Chinese gorverment upon its people. If war comes, it will be very bloody since all Chinese will think that they are fighting rightfully and for the motherland while all Vietnamese will think the same.
Under the very short reign Ngyuen Hue the Chinese (and i think the Europeans too) did try to invade us. We bodied them for free. Vietnam defeated China in the 1978 conflict too.
Not that it's of any relevance right now though. If shit gets real China would take over Vietnam in a week.
|
On June 15 2011 11:20 Empyrean wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 10:07 guyabs wrote: FK CHINA! Starting to bully smaller countries, in the last few weeks China has been sending aircrafts to what they claim THEIR territory "Spratly's Islands". Which is clearly a Philippine territory. Rofl, the entire point of this thread is that both Vietnam and China claim the Spratly Islands. The Philippines aren't even part of this current dispute and honestly, neither Vietnam nor China care. In any case, I doubt that China is going to be aggressive militarily in this conflict. There might be a few shows of force here and there, but I'd be utterly surprised if they let it escalate to armed conflict. China is really set on showing the rest of the world that it's a responsible, peaceful nation that doesn't meddle in the affairs of others (although by claiming this as a domestic territorial dispute, I suppose they have a "loophole"), and they know that any overt military action is simply unwise not because they're afraid to lose to Vietnam, but because they'd lose in the international arena in terms of reputation and face. In any case, I'm surprised at how many people are claiming that Vietnam would win in any modern armed conflict with China. Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 11:14 Caphe wrote: War is very very unlikely, but if it ever comes, this will be the most uninformed war ever at least on the Chinese site. I'd agree with this. I'm in Shanghai now, and I haven't heard anything in the media about the current territorial dispute with Vietnam or the ongoing riots in Inner Mongolia. I'd be willing to bet that many people aren't even aware that they're going on.
Very true, an armed conflict is impossible at this point.
And I think the reason why many people believes Vietnam would stand a chance is due to bitter experience the US had, so by praising Vietnamese they feel better themself.
|
16952 Posts
On June 15 2011 11:34 furymonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 11:20 Empyrean wrote:On June 15 2011 10:07 guyabs wrote: FK CHINA! Starting to bully smaller countries, in the last few weeks China has been sending aircrafts to what they claim THEIR territory "Spratly's Islands". Which is clearly a Philippine territory. Rofl, the entire point of this thread is that both Vietnam and China claim the Spratly Islands. The Philippines aren't even part of this current dispute and honestly, neither Vietnam nor China care. In any case, I doubt that China is going to be aggressive militarily in this conflict. There might be a few shows of force here and there, but I'd be utterly surprised if they let it escalate to armed conflict. China is really set on showing the rest of the world that it's a responsible, peaceful nation that doesn't meddle in the affairs of others (although by claiming this as a domestic territorial dispute, I suppose they have a "loophole"), and they know that any overt military action is simply unwise not because they're afraid to lose to Vietnam, but because they'd lose in the international arena in terms of reputation and face. In any case, I'm surprised at how many people are claiming that Vietnam would win in any modern armed conflict with China. On June 15 2011 11:14 Caphe wrote: War is very very unlikely, but if it ever comes, this will be the most uninformed war ever at least on the Chinese site. I'd agree with this. I'm in Shanghai now, and I haven't heard anything in the media about the current territorial dispute with Vietnam or the ongoing riots in Inner Mongolia. I'd be willing to bet that many people aren't even aware that they're going on. Very true, an armed conflict is impossible at this point. And I think the reason why many people believes Vietnam would stand a chance is due to bitter experience the US had, so by praising Vietnamese they feel better themself.
I completely agree. Let's not kid ourselves here; if, in 2011, either the U.S. or China were to get in an armed conflict with Vietnam, it wouldn't even be a contest.
|
im quite sure there are several vietnamese among this RTS community, who were borned outside as well as inside the country.
This conflict between china and vietnam has been going on for awhile now but only recently, after all the effort of negotiation failed the military aspect started to kick in.
There are a LOT points of view into the current problem and i advice you guys to NEVER trust anyone completely when they talk about politic. Each person has their own point of view about this war, as a result of their background back from ww2 or the Vietnam war.
I really dont want to touch this problem but as a vietnamese who was borned and lived in vietnam for more than half of my life, i will make a long blog about the problem from my point of view soon.
Little preview: +the original problem in history with the paracell islands +the US-China conflict and the result +The ASEAN countries situation. +The vietnameses living aboard.
Again, the situation is very delicate and cant be understood just by 1 or 2 paragraphs :< I am sad now...
edit: changed my mind, should not polluted a beautiful place such as TL with all bunch of political craps. I think TL is not a place to discuss stuff like this where no one is/could be right!
|
Actually, China has alot to lose if they go to war, no one in their right mind would wage war at this point or at any other point. You will just got sanction so bad by many other countries. Beside that China has alot more matters inside its own just waited to be awaken such as tibet, inner mongol, riots in poor farming provinces etc.. I don't think they want to deal with that at the same time they wage war with another country, and by claim the are of South China Sea as seen in the OP. China is pretty much in conflict with most of South East Asia countries. I am sure the Phillipines, Malaysia and Indonesia, Brunei will not sitting still if China continue to a ridiculous claim like that.
|
Japan11285 Posts
I see, so the Philippines is not the only one showing some force in this dispute. The Philippine navy has been reinforcing its military installations in the Spratly Islands.
@ Empyrean, the Philippines not included in the dispute? Its all over the news here, the US has even voiced their support for the Philippines claim on the Spratlys.
|
FACT: China would wipe the floor with vietnam is any type of armed conflict. If you think vietnam has even a slight chance without international military aid, you need help...
China is doing what any powerful country would do. You think USA wouldn't fight back if something like what vietnam is doing happens in north america? Don't be illusional. Calling China a bully may be true but everyone knows the number 1 bully is USA undisputed.
|
On June 15 2011 08:20 Rebornlife wrote: They are both communist no? Hence nothing will come of this
China is a dictatorship with a capitalist economy.
|
I see how a tons of people was talking about who would win/lose when war happen... WHY WOULD YOU THINK ABOUT THIS THAT WAY?
Our goal is to stop war from happening from the first place. War just bring pain and lost to both side. Havent you learn anything from history?
|
On June 15 2011 09:38 Endymion wrote: I was actually being sarcastic, sorry for the people quoting me and defending me, I think this will be a joke if China actually decides to fight because I can't see their military being as soft-heeled as the US was forced to be because of the domestic "war on war" that was going on during the first Vietnam war
lol i cant even beleive so many people took you seriously. might wanna add a spoiler next time to show you were not serious haha. some people just cant detect sarcasm
i honesty think the asian countries need to stop fighting eachother, but that sure wont happen anytime soon.
|
On June 15 2011 08:53 spidey1991 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 08:37 gunman103 wrote:On June 15 2011 08:11 Endymion wrote: Yeah, they're definitely getting ready to start a war with China right... If I was in the Chinese military, I would be really scared right about now. What? China is a superpower and Vietnam is a third world country that spends what little they have on military. China will win in a few days to a week if it comes to war (and it probably will). Are you an idiot? Vietnam was a 3rd world country when America tried to go to war with it....they still won. The u.s. said something along the lines of "it'll take us a couple weeks to win" too. And it took 2 years for us to realize we couldn't.
We never took the offensive at all. I feel if we invaded the North and deployed all our military power, along with the use of nuclear weapons, Vietnam would not exist today. Not that I'm advocating it, but we definitely could've won that war. Easily.
|
A bunch of starving, freezing boys killing each other so the rich people can stay rich.
I hate war so much, can't we all just get a bong
|
On June 15 2011 11:47 c3rberUs wrote: I see, so the Philippines is not the only one showing some force in this dispute. The Philippine navy has been reinforcing its military installations in the Spratly Islands. Yeah, Spratly Island are occupied by several country for a long time now including Philippine, Vietnam, China, Taiwan etc.. But now the Chinese wants its and most of the sea around South East Asia for themselves only.
|
On June 15 2011 11:44 Caphe wrote: Actually, China has alot to lose if they go to war, no one in their right mind would wage war at this point or at any other point. You will just got sanction so bad by many other countries. Beside that China has alot more matters inside its own just waited to be awaken such as tibet, inner mongol, riots in poor farming provinces etc.. I don't think they want to deal with that at the same time they wage war with another country, and by claim the are of South China Sea as seen in the OP. China is pretty much in conflict with most of South East Asia countries. I am sure the Phillipines, Malaysia and Indonesia, Brunei will not sitting still if China continue to a ridiculous claim like that.
Who exactly cares so much about Vietnam that they would sacrifice trade relations with China?
Vietnam has no significant allies and no goodwill on the international stage.
Sanctions....
lmao.
|
On June 15 2011 11:50 Caphe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 11:47 c3rberUs wrote: I see, so the Philippines is not the only one showing some force in this dispute. The Philippine navy has been reinforcing its military installations in the Spratly Islands. Yeah, Spratly Island are occupied by several country for a long time now including Philippine, Vietnam, China, Taiwan etc.. But now the Chinese wants its and most of the sea around South East Asia for themselves only.
False.
The areas have always been 'disputed'.
For anyone to claim otherwise is disingenuous.
|
16952 Posts
On June 15 2011 11:44 Caphe wrote: Actually, China has alot to lose if they go to war, no one in their right mind would wage war at this point or at any other point. You will just got sanction so bad by many other countries. Beside that China has alot more matters inside its own just waited to be awaken such as tibet, inner mongol, riots in poor farming provinces etc.. I don't think they want to deal with that at the same time they wage war with another country.
In terms of a purely militaristic conflict, China would wipe the floor with Vietnam.
If they were actually to go to war, though, I completely agree. China would lose respect and face in the international arena in terms of foreign affairs, but this is also countered by the internal cost (that is, to nationalistic pride and to its citizens) of allowing Vietnam to "win" by acknowledging its territorial claims. My best guess is that China's going to try more backdoor diplomacy so that both sides can walk away from this with relatively intact reputations and not resort to petty violence.
In terms of the issues with China you pointed out, though, Inner Mongolia is traditionally seen as (and I hate to use this term) a "model" autonomous region. When riots broke out in Inner Mongolia, the government was unusually accommodating in its treatment. Keep in mind that the majority (around 90%) of Inner Mongolia's population is still Han Chinese. A bigger problem would be the Xinjiang autonomous region and the various issues involving discontent among the sizeable Uyghur population there. I'm not as familiar with Tibet, but I've read that many ethnic Tibetans are unsatisfied with the fact that China is developing it, and Han Chinese are absolutely baffled as to why.
As to riots in poor farming provinces, there's actually not as widespread as you would think. Large scale protest against the Chinese government is virtually guaranteed to fail. Many people (even in Shanghai, where I'm currently living), seem to have a sort of resigned defeatist attitude when it comes to regime change, as they're more or less satisfied with their lives, don't have that big of a gripe with much (mainly little things, although internet freedom and inflation are common worries), and realize that honestly, the CCP is going to remain in power and that's that.
On June 15 2011 11:47 c3rberUs wrote: I see, so the Philippines is not the only one showing some force in this dispute. The Philippine navy has been reinforcing its military installations in the Spratly Islands.
@ Empyrean, the Philippines not included in the dispute? Its all over the news here, the US has even voiced their support for the Philippines claim on the Spratlys.
This is because (I'm assuming) you're living in the Philippines. I highly doubt anyone in China (who's keeping up with this) cares at the moment about Filipino territorial claims on the Spratlys, because at the moment they're occupied with Vietnam.
|
On June 15 2011 11:38 Empyrean wrote:
I completely agree. Let's not kid ourselves here; if, in 2011, either the U.S. or China were to get in an armed conflict with Vietnam, it wouldn't even be a contest.
I would agree and disagree. It would be about as one sided of an invasion as the actual invasion of Iraq was(not talking about the resulting occupation). But much like the invasion of Iraq there would be no clear path to a victory or exit for the occupying power.
It would just result in years upon years of Guerrilla warfare, much like occurred in the original US occupation. The US had no problem achieving its military objectives there, nor did it lose a significant pitched battle at any point in the war. Even the Tet offensive was a tactical US victory: no territory was lost in end and the US+South Vietnam to North Vietnam casualty ratios were 2:1.
The problem was there was no clear path to victory. All the US could in the conflict was sit there and take constant casualties from guerrillas, even though the casualty ratios were positive in favor of the US throughout the war, the US government eventually realized what the people had long before: that it was nonsensical to fight an extended war in a foreign country, for no good reason, where the only possible victory condition would be from an extremely long war of attrition. As a frame of reference, total US deaths from the Vietnam war were 58,000 dead, 358,000 wounded. North Vietnam: 1,176,00 dead, 600,000 wounded.
|
On June 15 2011 11:04 tokicheese wrote: Trying to compare the war with China to the US back in the Vietnam war doesn't make sense. The cities are actually cities and not tiny little villages so if China does try to drop some bombs they wont be bombing some random trails in the mountains. Also something tells me China does not give a shit what other countries think. They have the highest amount of executions per capita and have pissed off every one around them at one point or another. And the people living in China presumably won't be as well informed as the US back in the 1960's due to the government censorship.
And comparing this to France is even more retarded. France was still reeling from WW2 and is halfway across the world. China is right next door. Logistics back in the 1940s-1950s was much different getting men and supplies halfway across the world is still a pain in the ass now not to mention when the country doing the fighting doesn't support the war in the first place. China population may not like what's going on but the government doesn't really care.
The same facts hold true of the Soviet Union during their attempted occupation of Afganistan yet even then, with the media supporting the military effort, there was no signs of victory.
Media certainly helps a lot and played a large role in the American Vietnam war but there are larger factors at stake if China went to war with Vietnam. It would be a war of attrition and wouldn't end until either China gave up as the US did, or they rooted out most every guerrilla faction on Vietnam. And like the US Vietnam war, it would end up being far more costly for China since its highly maintained military would be far more expensive to keep rolling than the armed peasants of Vietnam.
Thats just my amateur opinion, I'm no military analyst.
|
16952 Posts
On June 15 2011 11:54 InvalidID wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 11:38 Empyrean wrote:
I completely agree. Let's not kid ourselves here; if, in 2011, either the U.S. or China were to get in an armed conflict with Vietnam, it wouldn't even be a contest. I would agree and disagree. It would be about as one sided of an invasion as the actual invasion of Iraq was(not talking about the resulting occupation). But much like the invasion of Iraq there would be no clear path to a victory or exit for the occupying power. It would just result in years upon years of Guerrilla warfare, much like occurred in the original US occupation. The US had no problem achieving its military objectives there, nor did it lose a significant pitched battle at any point in the war. Even the Tet offensive was a tactical US victory: no territory was lost in end and the US+South Vietnam to North Vietnam casualty ratios were 2:1. The problem was there was no clear path to victory. All the US could in the conflict was sit there and take constant casualties from guerrillas, even though the casualty ratios were positive in favor throughout the war, the US government eventually realized what the people had long before: that it was nonsensical to fight an extended war in a foreign country, where the only possible victory condition would be from an extremely long war of attrition.
I'd argue that China wouldn't need to invade Vietnam in an armed conflict. It has vastly superior long-range missile capabilities, as well as a vastly superior navy and air force. It could also cut off trade ties because honestly, Vietnam is much more dependent on bilateral trade with China than China is with Vietnam. The only thing I'd make sure to do is ensure that Vietnam doesn't attempt to strike southern cities like HK, Guangzhou or Shenzhen.
Invading Vietnam would be costly and inefficient. It's much more effective to simply constantly bombard major Vietnamese cities with China's superior long-range capability, cripple the Vietnamese economy by cutting of trade relations, and threaten trade action against Vietnam's other local trade partners (all of whom have large bilateral trade relations with China as well) if they attempt to interfere.
I also highly doubt the United States would risk enlarging this conflict to a cross-Pacific scale.
|
Haha this thread is a prime example of " read OP then read the latest post, they will have no relation to each other" Do they go into detail about what exactly the "live fire drills" are? Live fire drills does not definatly mean they will be testing highly powered weapons in an attempt to scare an opponent. I was aboard HMS boxer (British warship) a while back when it was performing "live fire drills", which amounted to them firing off a few 40mm cannon shots into the sea. Really wasn't as interesting as the title "live fire exercise!" in the news would have you believe. I did get to dick about with an MP5 SMG though, which im not gonna lie was fun as hell!
|
On June 15 2011 09:16 kineSiS- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 08:37 gunman103 wrote:On June 15 2011 08:11 Endymion wrote: Yeah, they're definitely getting ready to start a war with China right... If I was in the Chinese military, I would be really scared right about now. What? China is a superpower and Vietnam is a third world country that spends what little they have on military. China will win in a few days to a week if it comes to war (and it probably will). .... It's called SOLDIERS DIE during wars. Soldiers die due to wars, so if I was soldier, I would be scared. LOL and thats why youre not a soldier. how pathetic would a country's military be if soldiers started shaking in their boots from the mere threat of war?
Do you think people join the military as infantry thinking its just going to be a parade march? Soldiers know that death is a possibility in their job and they still joined. I highly doubt that many of the soldiers are scared.
|
On June 15 2011 11:50 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 11:44 Caphe wrote: Actually, China has alot to lose if they go to war, no one in their right mind would wage war at this point or at any other point. You will just got sanction so bad by many other countries. Beside that China has alot more matters inside its own just waited to be awaken such as tibet, inner mongol, riots in poor farming provinces etc.. I don't think they want to deal with that at the same time they wage war with another country, and by claim the are of South China Sea as seen in the OP. China is pretty much in conflict with most of South East Asia countries. I am sure the Phillipines, Malaysia and Indonesia, Brunei will not sitting still if China continue to a ridiculous claim like that. Who exactly cares so much about Vietnam that they would sacrifice trade relations with China? Vietnam has no significant allies and no goodwill on the international stage. Sanctions.... lmao. You misunderstood my post, the reason Vietnam will be able to survive is it has no significant allies. Do you know why many world power wants to invade Vietnam, look at it on the map. Vietnam has a one of a kind geographic location. It overlook the whole SEA and close to China. US and the West will jump in at a heart beat if any conflict broke out. China doesn't like the US presence in the region, US doesn't want China dominate the region. Thats the point.
Any way, at this stage and this age, the chance of a war broke out is less than 0.0001%. We are all talking about a big IF here, so lets be imagination
|
On June 15 2011 11:53 Empyrean wrote:
This is because (I'm assuming) you're living in the Philippines. I highly doubt anyone in China (who's keeping up with this) cares at the moment about Filipino territorial claims on the Spratlys, because at the moment they're occupied with Vietnam.
Wrong. The Chinese have sent delegations to the Philippines already to discuss this, and the Chinese/Philippine media have been discussing this for several months now.
|
16952 Posts
On June 15 2011 12:01 Caphe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 11:50 Consolidate wrote:On June 15 2011 11:44 Caphe wrote: Actually, China has alot to lose if they go to war, no one in their right mind would wage war at this point or at any other point. You will just got sanction so bad by many other countries. Beside that China has alot more matters inside its own just waited to be awaken such as tibet, inner mongol, riots in poor farming provinces etc.. I don't think they want to deal with that at the same time they wage war with another country, and by claim the are of South China Sea as seen in the OP. China is pretty much in conflict with most of South East Asia countries. I am sure the Phillipines, Malaysia and Indonesia, Brunei will not sitting still if China continue to a ridiculous claim like that. Who exactly cares so much about Vietnam that they would sacrifice trade relations with China? Vietnam has no significant allies and no goodwill on the international stage. Sanctions.... lmao. You misunderstood my post, the reason Vietnam will be able to survive is it has no significant allies. Do you know why many world power wants to invade Vietnam, look at it on the map. Vietnam has a one of a kind geographic location. It overlook the whole SEA and close to China. US and the West will jump in at a heart beat if any conflict broke out. China doesn't like the US presence in the region, US doesn't want China dominate the region. Thats the point. Any way, at this stage and this age, the chance of a war broke out is less than 0.0001%. We are all talking about a big IF here, so lets be imagination 
I highly doubt either China or the United States would risk actual conflict with each other beyond glancing blows in international diplomacy.
As for Vietnamese trade relations, Japan, China, Singapore, and Australia are its major local trading partners.
|
Vietnam is still bitter about that border conflict from a while back I guess...
|
16952 Posts
On June 15 2011 12:02 vohne wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 11:53 Empyrean wrote:
This is because (I'm assuming) you're living in the Philippines. I highly doubt anyone in China (who's keeping up with this) cares at the moment about Filipino territorial claims on the Spratlys, because at the moment they're occupied with Vietnam. Wrong. The Chinese have sent delegations to the Philippines already to discuss this, and the Chinese/Philippine media have been discussing this for several months now.
Ah, my bad.
In any case, Chinese/Filipino relations on this issue seem to be calmer than Chinese/Vietnamese relations, which is probably why I haven't seen much in that regard. Thanks for informing me.
|
I bet my left kidney + my right ball that there will be no war.
Way too much more to lose than to gain for China. This is not the 1900's, these country are important economic partners.
|
16952 Posts
On June 15 2011 12:06 VIB wrote: I bet my left kidney + my right ball that there will be no war.
Way too much more to lose than to gain for China.
For both sides, actually.
I realistically don't see China going into any armed conflict in the foreseeable future.
|
On June 15 2011 12:04 Empyrean wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 12:01 Caphe wrote:On June 15 2011 11:50 Consolidate wrote:On June 15 2011 11:44 Caphe wrote: Actually, China has alot to lose if they go to war, no one in their right mind would wage war at this point or at any other point. You will just got sanction so bad by many other countries. Beside that China has alot more matters inside its own just waited to be awaken such as tibet, inner mongol, riots in poor farming provinces etc.. I don't think they want to deal with that at the same time they wage war with another country, and by claim the are of South China Sea as seen in the OP. China is pretty much in conflict with most of South East Asia countries. I am sure the Phillipines, Malaysia and Indonesia, Brunei will not sitting still if China continue to a ridiculous claim like that. Who exactly cares so much about Vietnam that they would sacrifice trade relations with China? Vietnam has no significant allies and no goodwill on the international stage. Sanctions.... lmao. You misunderstood my post, the reason Vietnam will be able to survive is it has no significant allies. Do you know why many world power wants to invade Vietnam, look at it on the map. Vietnam has a one of a kind geographic location. It overlook the whole SEA and close to China. US and the West will jump in at a heart beat if any conflict broke out. China doesn't like the US presence in the region, US doesn't want China dominate the region. Thats the point. Any way, at this stage and this age, the chance of a war broke out is less than 0.0001%. We are all talking about a big IF here, so lets be imagination  I highly doubt either China or the United States would risk actual conflict with each other beyond glancing blows in international diplomacy. As for Vietnamese trade relations, Japan, China, Singapore, and Australia are its major local trading partners. Yep, I agree to that as well. US and China will not risk an actual conflict with each other. But they won't not risk giving out this area without doing anything.
We are talking about war, but not actual war, I think diplomatic war between all parties involved and their allies will be fierce though. And this diplomatic war has been going on for quite sometime now. Last year Hillary Clinton was in Hanoi for no reason at all, and she stated that US wants the South China Sea region to be a peaceful region. Japan also wants to prevent anything will happen in the SCS cos its the main shipping line to supply oil and material for Japan.
|
16952 Posts
Oh I don't consider diplomatic "war" to be war, but rather just statesmanship. In that case, diplomatic tensions have been quite high. Many nations with a vested interest in the Pacific Rim (I'd say the U.S., Japan, and SK are the main ones I'm talking about here) are quite worried about China's growing influence.
It's my honest opinion that in modern society, conflict between major powers would be devastating to everyone, so no one wants to risk it. Armed "Wars" nowadays are usually either conflicts between (and I hate to use the term, but...) minor nations or a major power and a smaller one.
|
Japan11285 Posts
On June 15 2011 11:53 Empyrean wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 11:47 c3rberUs wrote: I see, so the Philippines is not the only one showing some force in this dispute. The Philippine navy has been reinforcing its military installations in the Spratly Islands.
@ Empyrean, the Philippines not included in the dispute? Its all over the news here, the US has even voiced their support for the Philippines claim on the Spratlys. This is because (I'm assuming) you're living in the Philippines. I highly doubt anyone in China (who's keeping up with this) cares at the moment about Filipino territorial claims on the Spratlys, because at the moment they're occupied with Vietnam. So you mean, because Vietnam is doing this drill, China doesn't care about the Philippine claim to the islands (at least right now), correct?
edit: nvm, just saw you answer the other guy. ^^
|
On June 15 2011 12:05 Empyrean wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 12:02 vohne wrote:On June 15 2011 11:53 Empyrean wrote:
This is because (I'm assuming) you're living in the Philippines. I highly doubt anyone in China (who's keeping up with this) cares at the moment about Filipino territorial claims on the Spratlys, because at the moment they're occupied with Vietnam. Wrong. The Chinese have sent delegations to the Philippines already to discuss this, and the Chinese/Philippine media have been discussing this for several months now. Ah, my bad. In any case, Chinese/Filipino relations on this issue seem to be calmer than Chinese/Vietnamese relations, which is probably why I haven't seen much in that regard. Thanks for informing me.
Yeah the most we're advocating in the senate here is a boycott of Chinese products (which seemingly a majority of Filipinos endorse), we aren't actually thinking of any military actions. Although in Filipino forums you can feel the anger, however we were never a very aggressive country due to several centuries of being colonised. I have been monitoring the senate hearings and it is a topic everyday. You're welcome.
|
Superpower has been thrown around a lot in this thread, and apparently having a huge army means you're a superpower now. China is not a superpower. The US is a superpower. The reason being is that they can project their military might anywhere in the world in less than 24 hours. No other country in the world can do this. The US navy is more powerful than all the navies of the world combined. They have 11 aircraft carriers currently in service. China has 0 carriers, (I think they are currently building 1).
|
On June 15 2011 08:20 Rebornlife wrote: They are both communist no? Hence nothing will come of this
Please tell me this is a troll post.
|
As of only a few days later, Philippines has already begun to remove territorial markers left by China, it is receiving an old US Coast Guard boat to bolster its patrols and is about to auction 2 out of 10 bids for the natural resources it has there. It has also renamed an island to Recto Bank. I'm closely monitoring the situation.
IMO it will not escalate to a war, the possibility is remote. US is in a defense treaty with the Philippines and its ambassador has already reiterated this over the past few days. US is also sending one of its powerful destroyer class vessels into the South China Sea.
What I think will happen is a surge of anti-Chinese sentiment in the SEA. Hopefully China weighs this one out properly, and of course, Philippines and Vietnam too.
|
On June 15 2011 11:59 Empyrean wrote: I'd argue that China wouldn't need to invade Vietnam in an armed conflict. It has vastly superior long-range missile capabilities, as well as a vastly superior navy and air force. It could also cut off trade ties because honestly, Vietnam is much more dependent on bilateral trade with China than China is with Vietnam. The only thing I'd make sure to do is ensure that Vietnam doesn't attempt to strike southern cities like HK, Guangzhou or Shenzhen.
Invading Vietnam would be costly and inefficient. It's much more effective to simply constantly bombard major Vietnamese cities with China's superior long-range capability, cripple the Vietnamese economy by cutting of trade relations, and threaten trade action against Vietnam's other local trade partners (all of whom have large bilateral trade relations with China as well) if they attempt to interfere.
I also highly doubt the United States would risk enlarging this conflict to a cross-Pacific scale.
Of course the United States would not enlarge it to a cross pacific scale. The US and China are both Nuclear Powers, with enough ICBMs aimed at each other to obliterate all human life on Earth in a matter of minutes. If the US involved itself, it would be in the reverse of the role the Soviet Union played in the US invasion of Vietnam: war by proxy. It would be massive military aid.
Of course China is too smart to start a direct regional conflict: the resulting economic sanctions would cripple their development. Much as we in the west are dependent on Chinese imports, China is dependent on foreign exports. The difference is that cheap labor is easy to come by, the western multinational companies can just as easily find their cheap labor in India and South America. Rich importers of manufactured goods are much harder to find. Even sanctions as small as a tariff sanction by NATO would be a huge blow to the Chinese economy. The NATO economies would suffer too, but China's developing economy would have far more to lose. Even more terrifying for China, is the fact they they are literally dependent on US food exports. The trade balance for food vs the US is 10 billion dollars. If the US decided to play dirty and cut off food exports, in conjunction with the other NATO food exporters, the resulting humanitarian crisis would be one of the worst in world history.
|
On June 15 2011 11:54 InvalidID wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 11:38 Empyrean wrote:
I completely agree. Let's not kid ourselves here; if, in 2011, either the U.S. or China were to get in an armed conflict with Vietnam, it wouldn't even be a contest. I would agree and disagree. It would be about as one sided of an invasion as the actual invasion of Iraq was(not talking about the resulting occupation). But much like the invasion of Iraq there would be no clear path to a victory or exit for the occupying power. It would just result in years upon years of Guerrilla warfare, much like occurred in the original US occupation. The US had no problem achieving its military objectives there, nor did it lose a significant pitched battle at any point in the war. Even the Tet offensive was a tactical US victory: no territory was lost in end and the US+South Vietnam to North Vietnam casualty ratios were 2:1. The problem was there was no clear path to victory. All the US could in the conflict was sit there and take constant casualties from guerrillas, even though the casualty ratios were positive in favor of the US throughout the war, the US government eventually realized what the people had long before: that it was nonsensical to fight an extended war in a foreign country, for no good reason, where the only possible victory condition would be from an extremely long war of attrition. As a frame of reference, total US deaths from the Vietnam war were 58,000 dead, 358,000 wounded. North Vietnam: 1,176,00 dead, 600,000 wounded.
You might be right, but we are talking about maritime dispute, you do not need to occupy a big piece of land to achieve that.
Also consider that the general chinese population are different to the americans, where state propaganda has been going well, with a history of past conflicts, you'd find way more people supporting the governament actions than than the anti war ones.
China definitely won't find shortage of good soldiers either. In China, to be part of a military is a privilege. Only the top men gets to join because of how large the population is, it is slightly different to the US where some people joined the army as second way out.
|
On June 15 2011 12:16 kdmx wrote: Superpower has been thrown around a lot in this thread, and apparently having a huge army means you're a superpower now. China is not a superpower. The US is a superpower. The reason being is that they can project their military might anywhere in the world in less than 24 hours. No other country in the world can do this. The US navy is more powerful than all the navies of the world combined. They have 11 aircraft carriers currently in service. China has 0 carriers, (I think they are currently building 1).
China is not a superpower in the militaristic sense, while you may think this is all that matters, in this situation, it isn't. China's economic might and growing political clout will be useful as it conducts their affairs in the SEA.
And also put things in relative terms. To the US and Europe, China is not a military superpower. In the eyes of the smaller SEA nations, it is. It is all relative.
|
On June 15 2011 12:15 vohne wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 12:05 Empyrean wrote:On June 15 2011 12:02 vohne wrote:On June 15 2011 11:53 Empyrean wrote:
This is because (I'm assuming) you're living in the Philippines. I highly doubt anyone in China (who's keeping up with this) cares at the moment about Filipino territorial claims on the Spratlys, because at the moment they're occupied with Vietnam. Wrong. The Chinese have sent delegations to the Philippines already to discuss this, and the Chinese/Philippine media have been discussing this for several months now. Ah, my bad. In any case, Chinese/Filipino relations on this issue seem to be calmer than Chinese/Vietnamese relations, which is probably why I haven't seen much in that regard. Thanks for informing me. Yeah the most we're advocating in the senate here is a boycott of Chinese products (which seemingly a majority of Filipinos endorse), we aren't actually thinking of any military actions. Although in Filipino forums you can feel the anger, however we were never a very aggressive country due to several centuries of being colonised. I have been monitoring the senate hearings and it is a topic everyday. You're welcome.
Which is ridiculous, because the Filipino claim to the islands is basically them going "I WANT THAT" in the 70s. Vietnam and China are the only ones that have claims that are based on reality, and it's debatable which side is in the right.
|
Japan11285 Posts
On June 15 2011 12:22 vohne wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 12:16 kdmx wrote: Superpower has been thrown around a lot in this thread, and apparently having a huge army means you're a superpower now. China is not a superpower. The US is a superpower. The reason being is that they can project their military might anywhere in the world in less than 24 hours. No other country in the world can do this. The US navy is more powerful than all the navies of the world combined. They have 11 aircraft carriers currently in service. China has 0 carriers, (I think they are currently building 1). China is not a superpower in the militaristic sense, while you may think this is all that matters, in this situation, it isn't. China's economic might and growing political clout will be useful as it conducts their affairs in the SEA. And also put things in relative terms. To the US and Europe, China is not a military superpower. In the eyes of the smaller SEA nations, it is. It is all relative. I think this is what you're saying is this Great Power
|
On June 15 2011 12:22 vohne wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 12:16 kdmx wrote: Superpower has been thrown around a lot in this thread, and apparently having a huge army means you're a superpower now. China is not a superpower. The US is a superpower. The reason being is that they can project their military might anywhere in the world in less than 24 hours. No other country in the world can do this. The US navy is more powerful than all the navies of the world combined. They have 11 aircraft carriers currently in service. China has 0 carriers, (I think they are currently building 1). China is not a superpower in the militaristic sense, while you may think this is all that matters, in this situation, it isn't. China's economic might and growing political clout will be useful as it conducts their affairs in the SEA. And also put things in relative terms. To the US and Europe, China is not a military superpower. In the eyes of the smaller SEA nations, it is. It is all relative.
Normally the word to describe this is regional power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_power
|
Japan11285 Posts
On June 15 2011 12:25 b0lt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 12:15 vohne wrote:On June 15 2011 12:05 Empyrean wrote:On June 15 2011 12:02 vohne wrote:On June 15 2011 11:53 Empyrean wrote:
This is because (I'm assuming) you're living in the Philippines. I highly doubt anyone in China (who's keeping up with this) cares at the moment about Filipino territorial claims on the Spratlys, because at the moment they're occupied with Vietnam. Wrong. The Chinese have sent delegations to the Philippines already to discuss this, and the Chinese/Philippine media have been discussing this for several months now. Ah, my bad. In any case, Chinese/Filipino relations on this issue seem to be calmer than Chinese/Vietnamese relations, which is probably why I haven't seen much in that regard. Thanks for informing me. Yeah the most we're advocating in the senate here is a boycott of Chinese products (which seemingly a majority of Filipinos endorse), we aren't actually thinking of any military actions. Although in Filipino forums you can feel the anger, however we were never a very aggressive country due to several centuries of being colonised. I have been monitoring the senate hearings and it is a topic everyday. You're welcome. Which is ridiculous, because the Filipino claim to the islands is basically them going "I WANT THAT" in the 70s. Vietnam and China are the only ones that have claims that are based on reality, and it's debatable which side is in the right. Reality? I suggest you refer to the map in the OP for reality.
|
On June 15 2011 12:25 b0lt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 12:15 vohne wrote:On June 15 2011 12:05 Empyrean wrote:On June 15 2011 12:02 vohne wrote:On June 15 2011 11:53 Empyrean wrote:
This is because (I'm assuming) you're living in the Philippines. I highly doubt anyone in China (who's keeping up with this) cares at the moment about Filipino territorial claims on the Spratlys, because at the moment they're occupied with Vietnam. Wrong. The Chinese have sent delegations to the Philippines already to discuss this, and the Chinese/Philippine media have been discussing this for several months now. Ah, my bad. In any case, Chinese/Filipino relations on this issue seem to be calmer than Chinese/Vietnamese relations, which is probably why I haven't seen much in that regard. Thanks for informing me. Yeah the most we're advocating in the senate here is a boycott of Chinese products (which seemingly a majority of Filipinos endorse), we aren't actually thinking of any military actions. Although in Filipino forums you can feel the anger, however we were never a very aggressive country due to several centuries of being colonised. I have been monitoring the senate hearings and it is a topic everyday. You're welcome. Which is ridiculous, because the Filipino claim to the islands is basically them going "I WANT THAT" in the 70s. Vietnam and China are the only ones that have claims that are based on reality, and it's debatable which side is in the right.
Look at any map of SEA with Spratley Islands, you will see that the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam are the countries closest to these Islands. "The archipelago lies off the coasts of the Philippines and Malaysia (Sabah), about one third of the way from there to southern Vietnam."
Feel free to do the research, and check some maps out. The spratley islands closest to the Philippines could be almost swimmable from the closest land area in the Philippines rofl.
|
On June 15 2011 12:33 c3rberUs wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 12:25 b0lt wrote:On June 15 2011 12:15 vohne wrote:On June 15 2011 12:05 Empyrean wrote:On June 15 2011 12:02 vohne wrote:On June 15 2011 11:53 Empyrean wrote:
This is because (I'm assuming) you're living in the Philippines. I highly doubt anyone in China (who's keeping up with this) cares at the moment about Filipino territorial claims on the Spratlys, because at the moment they're occupied with Vietnam. Wrong. The Chinese have sent delegations to the Philippines already to discuss this, and the Chinese/Philippine media have been discussing this for several months now. Ah, my bad. In any case, Chinese/Filipino relations on this issue seem to be calmer than Chinese/Vietnamese relations, which is probably why I haven't seen much in that regard. Thanks for informing me. Yeah the most we're advocating in the senate here is a boycott of Chinese products (which seemingly a majority of Filipinos endorse), we aren't actually thinking of any military actions. Although in Filipino forums you can feel the anger, however we were never a very aggressive country due to several centuries of being colonised. I have been monitoring the senate hearings and it is a topic everyday. You're welcome. Which is ridiculous, because the Filipino claim to the islands is basically them going "I WANT THAT" in the 70s. Vietnam and China are the only ones that have claims that are based on reality, and it's debatable which side is in the right. Reality? I suggest you refer to the map in the OP for reality.
Oh yeah, didn't see the map from the OP rofl. GG.
|
On June 15 2011 12:33 c3rberUs wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 12:25 b0lt wrote:On June 15 2011 12:15 vohne wrote:On June 15 2011 12:05 Empyrean wrote:On June 15 2011 12:02 vohne wrote:On June 15 2011 11:53 Empyrean wrote:
This is because (I'm assuming) you're living in the Philippines. I highly doubt anyone in China (who's keeping up with this) cares at the moment about Filipino territorial claims on the Spratlys, because at the moment they're occupied with Vietnam. Wrong. The Chinese have sent delegations to the Philippines already to discuss this, and the Chinese/Philippine media have been discussing this for several months now. Ah, my bad. In any case, Chinese/Filipino relations on this issue seem to be calmer than Chinese/Vietnamese relations, which is probably why I haven't seen much in that regard. Thanks for informing me. Yeah the most we're advocating in the senate here is a boycott of Chinese products (which seemingly a majority of Filipinos endorse), we aren't actually thinking of any military actions. Although in Filipino forums you can feel the anger, however we were never a very aggressive country due to several centuries of being colonised. I have been monitoring the senate hearings and it is a topic everyday. You're welcome. Which is ridiculous, because the Filipino claim to the islands is basically them going "I WANT THAT" in the 70s. Vietnam and China are the only ones that have claims that are based on reality, and it's debatable which side is in the right. Reality? I suggest you refer to the map in the OP for reality. Yep, this is not only about the islands in South China Sea. Its more about how ridiculous China claimed it water territory. I don't think the people that draw this red line event know Philippine exists when he basically draw the red line right next to Philippine land territory rolf.
|
On June 15 2011 12:27 furymonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 12:22 vohne wrote:On June 15 2011 12:16 kdmx wrote: Superpower has been thrown around a lot in this thread, and apparently having a huge army means you're a superpower now. China is not a superpower. The US is a superpower. The reason being is that they can project their military might anywhere in the world in less than 24 hours. No other country in the world can do this. The US navy is more powerful than all the navies of the world combined. They have 11 aircraft carriers currently in service. China has 0 carriers, (I think they are currently building 1). China is not a superpower in the militaristic sense, while you may think this is all that matters, in this situation, it isn't. China's economic might and growing political clout will be useful as it conducts their affairs in the SEA. And also put things in relative terms. To the US and Europe, China is not a military superpower. In the eyes of the smaller SEA nations, it is. It is all relative. Normally the word to describe this is regional power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_power
Exactly this, in the region cause it is relative.
|
On June 15 2011 12:37 Caphe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 12:33 c3rberUs wrote:On June 15 2011 12:25 b0lt wrote:On June 15 2011 12:15 vohne wrote:On June 15 2011 12:05 Empyrean wrote:On June 15 2011 12:02 vohne wrote:On June 15 2011 11:53 Empyrean wrote:
This is because (I'm assuming) you're living in the Philippines. I highly doubt anyone in China (who's keeping up with this) cares at the moment about Filipino territorial claims on the Spratlys, because at the moment they're occupied with Vietnam. Wrong. The Chinese have sent delegations to the Philippines already to discuss this, and the Chinese/Philippine media have been discussing this for several months now. Ah, my bad. In any case, Chinese/Filipino relations on this issue seem to be calmer than Chinese/Vietnamese relations, which is probably why I haven't seen much in that regard. Thanks for informing me. Yeah the most we're advocating in the senate here is a boycott of Chinese products (which seemingly a majority of Filipinos endorse), we aren't actually thinking of any military actions. Although in Filipino forums you can feel the anger, however we were never a very aggressive country due to several centuries of being colonised. I have been monitoring the senate hearings and it is a topic everyday. You're welcome. Which is ridiculous, because the Filipino claim to the islands is basically them going "I WANT THAT" in the 70s. Vietnam and China are the only ones that have claims that are based on reality, and it's debatable which side is in the right. Reality? I suggest you refer to the map in the OP for reality. Yep, this is not only about the islands in South China Sea. Its more about how ridiculous China claimed it water territory. I don't think the people that draw this red line event know Philippine exists when he basically draw the red line right next to Philippine land territory rolf.
Basically we can't swim in our own beaches..
|
From what I've seen on the wikipedia, it seems everyone all has a share :O
|
Wait, China actually claims that much sea territory? Ridiculous. Do they enforce it in any way? Do the local countries around that area encounter anything negative as a result of it?
|
On June 15 2011 12:39 vohne wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 12:37 Caphe wrote:On June 15 2011 12:33 c3rberUs wrote:On June 15 2011 12:25 b0lt wrote:On June 15 2011 12:15 vohne wrote:On June 15 2011 12:05 Empyrean wrote:On June 15 2011 12:02 vohne wrote:On June 15 2011 11:53 Empyrean wrote:
This is because (I'm assuming) you're living in the Philippines. I highly doubt anyone in China (who's keeping up with this) cares at the moment about Filipino territorial claims on the Spratlys, because at the moment they're occupied with Vietnam. Wrong. The Chinese have sent delegations to the Philippines already to discuss this, and the Chinese/Philippine media have been discussing this for several months now. Ah, my bad. In any case, Chinese/Filipino relations on this issue seem to be calmer than Chinese/Vietnamese relations, which is probably why I haven't seen much in that regard. Thanks for informing me. Yeah the most we're advocating in the senate here is a boycott of Chinese products (which seemingly a majority of Filipinos endorse), we aren't actually thinking of any military actions. Although in Filipino forums you can feel the anger, however we were never a very aggressive country due to several centuries of being colonised. I have been monitoring the senate hearings and it is a topic everyday. You're welcome. Which is ridiculous, because the Filipino claim to the islands is basically them going "I WANT THAT" in the 70s. Vietnam and China are the only ones that have claims that are based on reality, and it's debatable which side is in the right. Reality? I suggest you refer to the map in the OP for reality. Yep, this is not only about the islands in South China Sea. Its more about how ridiculous China claimed it water territory. I don't think the people that draw this red line event know Philippine exists when he basically draw the red line right next to Philippine land territory rolf. Basically we can't swim in our own beaches.. Yeah, I feel you man. Especially you fought for it with blood during WW2 and now the Chinese just jump in, point finger and says its theirs. This will definately pull SEA nations closer together which is a good thing if we want to stop China from this ridiculous claim.
|
16952 Posts
Let's not drop down to jingoistic posting here ._.
EDIT: China's claim as depicted in the OP is ridiculous, though X_X
|
On June 15 2011 12:25 b0lt wrote:
Which is ridiculous, because the Filipino claim to the islands is basically them going "I WANT THAT" in the 70s. Vietnam and China are the only ones that have claims that are based on reality, and it's debatable which side is in the right. By UN convention, the typical way in which sea boundaries are defined is a 200 n-mile EEZ. The Spratly islands have no indigenous population, the only people who live on them are on military bases. This would generally make them subject to the EEZ conventions, with a large portion of them in Philippine control. Of course in diplomacy, all things are fluid. There is a precedent of EEZs sometimes being defined by non-populated, or largely non-populated islands, due to historical precedent. France, for example, has an EEZ over a huge area of some of the richest fishing zones off of North America, by owning the tiny island of Saint Pierre, whose entire population of 14,000 basically exists because of the EEZ.
|
Japan11285 Posts
The islands remain in dispute but of course, countries claiming the area are building settlements to give themselves more political leverage in meetings to solve this.
|
Here is another clearer image of the current island occupants.
|
On June 15 2011 12:46 Mohdoo wrote: Wait, China actually claims that much sea territory? Ridiculous. Do they enforce it in any way? Do the local countries around that area encounter anything negative as a result of it? The line war draw by some random Chinese official in the 70-80s. China has nothing near to what the claim and didn't enforce it until recently when China economy is bombing and their thirst for oil grow bigger and bigger each day. What worst is they teach Chinese student with this map for many years now. Most chinese now are thinking SEA nation violate China territory O_O. A communist nation with blind patriotism is bad, very bad.
|
On June 15 2011 12:51 furymonkey wrote:Here is another clearer image of the current island occupants. + Show Spoiler +
For what is worth, islands with China flag was Vietnam's till 1975, while North and South Vietnam was busing killing each other on land. China sent a task force to capture these islands from South Vietnamese navy.
|
On June 15 2011 12:51 Caphe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 12:46 Mohdoo wrote: Wait, China actually claims that much sea territory? Ridiculous. Do they enforce it in any way? Do the local countries around that area encounter anything negative as a result of it? The line war draw by some random Chinese official in the 70-80s. China has nothing near to what the claim and didn't enforce it until recently when China economy is bombing and their thirst for oil grow bigger and bigger each day. What worst is they teach Chinese student with this map for many years now. Most chinese now are thinking SEA nation violate China territory O_O. A communist nation with blind patriotism is bad, very bad.
Scary. It sounds like China is hoping that the SEA nations aren't able to unify themselves. A united group of SEA nations appealing to the international community, I'd assume, would keep them nice and safe ^_^
|
16952 Posts
On June 15 2011 12:51 Caphe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 12:46 Mohdoo wrote: Wait, China actually claims that much sea territory? Ridiculous. Do they enforce it in any way? Do the local countries around that area encounter anything negative as a result of it? The line war draw by some random Chinese official in the 70-80s. China has nothing near to what the claim and didn't enforce it until recently when China economy is bombing and their thirst for oil grow bigger and bigger each day. What worst is they teach Chinese student with this map for many years now. Most chinese now are thinking SEA nation violate China territory O_O. A communist nation with blind patriotism is bad, very bad.
This is quite ironic, given the first part of your post. You seem to be quite antagonistic toward China, but not much of it is founded on hard evidence or reasoning.
In any case, I find China's territorial claims on the Spratly Islands to be ridiculous, but you have to realize that even if the government drew up those claims in the 70s, by going back and saying "oh wait guys, we were actually unreasonable," they lose a lot of face internally and would be met with criticism. Many Chinese youth (well, the ones who aren't completely disaffected anyway) are quite nationalistic.
|
On June 15 2011 12:45 furymonkey wrote:From what I've seen on the wikipedia, it seems everyone all has a share :O ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cf/South_China_Sea.jpg/556px-South_China_Sea.jpg)
Yeah it does seem everyone has a share. But China maintains that it owns all of it, how do we negotiate on that? Great maps btw, keep em coming.
As for me, I am Chinese born in the Philippines and raised there. Yet my views are strongly in favour of the Philippines, and as far as I am know considerate of all the facts and the obvious truths.
ALSO:
Why not split it? Philippines gets the two groups closest to it, the mischief islands and something else. Malaysia keeps where they are now. Vietnam gets the closest group to its south. While China gets Parcel islands.
Done? I think my 12 year old sister would have come up with this solution.
|
16952 Posts
On June 15 2011 12:54 Mohdoo wrote: Scary. It sounds like China is hoping that the SEA nations aren't able to unify themselves. A united group of SEA nations appealing to the international community, I'd assume, would keep them nice and safe ^_^
China doesn't have to worry about this. You're forgetting that there's more to SEA than Vietnam/Thailand/Philippines/etc. There are also countries more amenable to Chinese interests, such as Malaysia and Singapore.
You're also forgetting Indonesia, Australia, and NZ, three major countries that are still considered part of SEA.
|
On June 15 2011 12:54 Caphe wrote: For what is worth, islands with China flag was Vietnam's till 1975, while North and South Vietnam was busing killing each other on land. China sent a task force to capture these islands from South Vietnamese navy.
Unfortunately that is just 1 side of the story, problem with these territory disputs, it goes back few hundred years. It is very hard to judge.
|
On June 15 2011 12:33 c3rberUs wrote: Reality? I suggest you refer to the map in the OP for reality.
On June 15 2011 12:36 vohne wrote:
Look at any map of SEA with Spratley Islands, you will see that the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam are the countries closest to these Islands. "The archipelago lies off the coasts of the Philippines and Malaysia (Sabah), about one third of the way from there to southern Vietnam."
Feel free to do the research, and check some maps out. The spratley islands closest to the Philippines could be almost swimmable from the closest land area in the Philippines rofl.
"It's close to the Philippines" would only matter if there were no prior claims to the territory. But they were already claimed, by both China and Vietnam (via France), for about 100 years before the Philippines decided they wanted them. Should Canada gain control of Alaska because it's closer to it than the contiguous U.S.?
|
So in other words, vietnam moved like, a single BC over to the south china sea and set it to /dance. Dangit China, if you're going to expand throw down some static D and you'll be fine...
|
On June 15 2011 12:56 Empyrean wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 12:51 Caphe wrote:On June 15 2011 12:46 Mohdoo wrote: Wait, China actually claims that much sea territory? Ridiculous. Do they enforce it in any way? Do the local countries around that area encounter anything negative as a result of it? The line war draw by some random Chinese official in the 70-80s. China has nothing near to what the claim and didn't enforce it until recently when China economy is bombing and their thirst for oil grow bigger and bigger each day. What worst is they teach Chinese student with this map for many years now. Most chinese now are thinking SEA nation violate China territory O_O. A communist nation with blind patriotism is bad, very bad. This is quite ironic, given the first part of your post. You seem to be quite antagonistic toward China, but not much of it is founded on hard evidence or reasoning. In any case, I find China's territorial claims on the Spratly Islands to be ridiculous, but you have to realize that even if the government drew up those claims in the 70s, by going back and saying "oh wait guys, we were actually unreasonable," they lose a lot of face internally and would be met with criticism. Many Chinese youth (well, the ones who aren't completely disaffected anyway) are quite nationalistic.
I don't know man.
The Spratly's have never really been held by anyone for any significant length of time. Historically speaking, both China and Vietman claim to be the ones to have first charted them during ancient times.
Proximity isn't a great justification for ownership - take Hawaii for example.
I'm 99% sure that China will get the Spratlys because might makes right in cases like these.
|
On June 15 2011 12:58 Empyrean wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 12:54 Mohdoo wrote: Scary. It sounds like China is hoping that the SEA nations aren't able to unify themselves. A united group of SEA nations appealing to the international community, I'd assume, would keep them nice and safe ^_^ China doesn't have to worry about this. You're forgetting that there's more to SEA than Vietnam/Thailand/Philippines/etc. There are also countries more amenable to Chinese interests, such as Malaysia and Singapore. You're also forgetting Indonesia, Australia, and NZ, three major countries that are still considered part of SEA. I think you underestimate ASEAN, 10 SEA nations are bound to each other through ASEAN, if anything that make China hesitates to go forward with some more aggrestion it is the united of ASEAN. I don't think Singapore, Indonesia or any SEA countries will side with China on this matter, since if China actually got control of what it claimed they will be next under China's expanding claw.
|
On June 15 2011 12:56 Empyrean wrote: This is quite ironic, given the first part of your post. You seem to be quite antagonistic toward China, but not much of it is founded on hard evidence or reasoning.
Maybe you shouldn't post with such a tone if you don't know why?
Nothing is like china can afford a war anyway; it is too dependant on trade relations.
|
On June 15 2011 12:58 Empyrean wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 12:54 Mohdoo wrote: Scary. It sounds like China is hoping that the SEA nations aren't able to unify themselves. A united group of SEA nations appealing to the international community, I'd assume, would keep them nice and safe ^_^ China doesn't have to worry about this. You're forgetting that there's more to SEA than Vietnam/Thailand/Philippines/etc. There are also countries more amenable to Chinese interests, such as Malaysia and Singapore. You're also forgetting Indonesia, Australia, and NZ, three major countries that are still considered part of SEA.
Even though you're right, there does seem to be a trend of China being as ballsy as it thinks it can possibly be. I don't see any of China's relations to countries as friendly, but more so as opportunistic. Perhaps I come from a bias environment, but it seems like China would stop being friendly with their allies/trade partners as soon as it became a good idea.
Because of this, I, as one of the countries you listed, would actively be trying to have a backup plan.
On June 15 2011 13:04 TrainSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 12:56 Empyrean wrote: This is quite ironic, given the first part of your post. You seem to be quite antagonistic toward China, but not much of it is founded on hard evidence or reasoning.
Maybe you shouldn't post with such a tone if you don't know why? Nothing is like china can afford a war anyway; it is too dependant on trade relations.
How is this any better than what you criticize him for doing? You say he isn't aware of facts, because he didn't list his facts. Then you proceed to not list facts. Hypocritical, in my opinion.
|
On June 15 2011 08:37 gunman103 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 08:11 Endymion wrote: Yeah, they're definitely getting ready to start a war with China right... If I was in the Chinese military, I would be really scared right about now. What? China is a superpower and Vietnam is a third world country that spends what little they have on military. China will win in a few days to a week if it comes to war (and it probably will).
Ever hear of afganistan?
|
China is hungry for oil, that why shit is getting serious these days ...
|
On June 15 2011 13:00 b0lt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 12:33 c3rberUs wrote: Reality? I suggest you refer to the map in the OP for reality. Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 12:36 vohne wrote:
Look at any map of SEA with Spratley Islands, you will see that the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam are the countries closest to these Islands. "The archipelago lies off the coasts of the Philippines and Malaysia (Sabah), about one third of the way from there to southern Vietnam."
Feel free to do the research, and check some maps out. The spratley islands closest to the Philippines could be almost swimmable from the closest land area in the Philippines rofl. "It's close to the Philippines" would only matter if there were no prior claims to the territory. But they were already claimed, by both China and Vietnam (via France), for about 100 years before the Philippines decided they wanted them. Should Canada gain control of Alaska because it's closer to it than the contiguous U.S.?
I can see your point. It is apparent though that everyone has a historical claim, and that the argument based on this has been unresolvable thus far. Maybe it is best to divvy the islands up, in terms of distance from the claimants.
|
On June 15 2011 13:07 Detwiler wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 08:37 gunman103 wrote:On June 15 2011 08:11 Endymion wrote: Yeah, they're definitely getting ready to start a war with China right... If I was in the Chinese military, I would be really scared right about now. What? China is a superpower and Vietnam is a third world country that spends what little they have on military. China will win in a few days to a week if it comes to war (and it probably will). Ever hear of afganistan?
or even US vs Viet before.
|
On June 15 2011 12:56 Empyrean wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 12:51 Caphe wrote:On June 15 2011 12:46 Mohdoo wrote: Wait, China actually claims that much sea territory? Ridiculous. Do they enforce it in any way? Do the local countries around that area encounter anything negative as a result of it? The line war draw by some random Chinese official in the 70-80s. China has nothing near to what the claim and didn't enforce it until recently when China economy is bombing and their thirst for oil grow bigger and bigger each day. What worst is they teach Chinese student with this map for many years now. Most chinese now are thinking SEA nation violate China territory O_O. A communist nation with blind patriotism is bad, very bad. This is quite ironic, given the first part of your post. You seem to be quite antagonistic toward China, but not much of it is founded on hard evidence or reasoning. In any case, I find China's territorial claims on the Spratly Islands to be ridiculous, but you have to realize that even if the government drew up those claims in the 70s, by going back and saying "oh wait guys, we were actually unreasonable," they lose a lot of face internally and would be met with criticism. Many Chinese youth (well, the ones who aren't completely disaffected anyway) are quite nationalistic. Ofc I am antagonistic toward China, look where I am from :D. Anyway but not without reasoning, I agree that the Spratly Islands are disputed and need to be solved by some diplomatic ways. But what I found disgusting here, is the claim of China water territory, and with that I strongly oppose China actions in the South China Sea.
|
On June 15 2011 13:03 Caphe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 12:58 Empyrean wrote:On June 15 2011 12:54 Mohdoo wrote: Scary. It sounds like China is hoping that the SEA nations aren't able to unify themselves. A united group of SEA nations appealing to the international community, I'd assume, would keep them nice and safe ^_^ China doesn't have to worry about this. You're forgetting that there's more to SEA than Vietnam/Thailand/Philippines/etc. There are also countries more amenable to Chinese interests, such as Malaysia and Singapore. You're also forgetting Indonesia, Australia, and NZ, three major countries that are still considered part of SEA. I think you underestimate ASEAN, 10 SEA nations are bound to each other through ASEAN, if anything that make China hesitates to go forward with some more aggrestion it is the united of ASEAN. I don't think Singapore, Indonesia or any SEA countries will side with China on this matter, since if China actually got control of what it claimed they will be next under China's expanding claw.
I think the diplomatic pressure would come down to Australia. Australia walks with a big stick, carrying the military, economic, and diplomatic backing of NATO, sealed with AUSCANNZUKUS. If Australia backs the rest of ASEAN, China would be in a difficult diplomatic situation indeed.
|
On June 15 2011 13:03 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 12:56 Empyrean wrote:On June 15 2011 12:51 Caphe wrote:On June 15 2011 12:46 Mohdoo wrote: Wait, China actually claims that much sea territory? Ridiculous. Do they enforce it in any way? Do the local countries around that area encounter anything negative as a result of it? The line war draw by some random Chinese official in the 70-80s. China has nothing near to what the claim and didn't enforce it until recently when China economy is bombing and their thirst for oil grow bigger and bigger each day. What worst is they teach Chinese student with this map for many years now. Most chinese now are thinking SEA nation violate China territory O_O. A communist nation with blind patriotism is bad, very bad. This is quite ironic, given the first part of your post. You seem to be quite antagonistic toward China, but not much of it is founded on hard evidence or reasoning. In any case, I find China's territorial claims on the Spratly Islands to be ridiculous, but you have to realize that even if the government drew up those claims in the 70s, by going back and saying "oh wait guys, we were actually unreasonable," they lose a lot of face internally and would be met with criticism. Many Chinese youth (well, the ones who aren't completely disaffected anyway) are quite nationalistic. I don't know man. The Spratly's have never really been held by anyone for any significant length of time. Historically speaking, both China and Vietman claim to be the ones to have first charted them during ancient times. Proximity isn't a great justification for ownership - take Hawaii for example. I'm 99% sure that China will get the Spratlys because might makes right in cases like these.
Granted, however did you notice that their claim on the maritime claim of China conflicts with the already established territory of the Philippines. Disputed territory is one thing, grabbing sea waters that belongs to another country already is another.
|
On June 15 2011 13:12 InvalidID wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 13:03 Caphe wrote:On June 15 2011 12:58 Empyrean wrote:On June 15 2011 12:54 Mohdoo wrote: Scary. It sounds like China is hoping that the SEA nations aren't able to unify themselves. A united group of SEA nations appealing to the international community, I'd assume, would keep them nice and safe ^_^ China doesn't have to worry about this. You're forgetting that there's more to SEA than Vietnam/Thailand/Philippines/etc. There are also countries more amenable to Chinese interests, such as Malaysia and Singapore. You're also forgetting Indonesia, Australia, and NZ, three major countries that are still considered part of SEA. I think you underestimate ASEAN, 10 SEA nations are bound to each other through ASEAN, if anything that make China hesitates to go forward with some more aggrestion it is the united of ASEAN. I don't think Singapore, Indonesia or any SEA countries will side with China on this matter, since if China actually got control of what it claimed they will be next under China's expanding claw. I think the diplomatic pressure would come down to Australia. Australia walks with a big stick, carrying the military, economic, and diplomatic backing of NATO, sealed with AUSCANNZUKUS. If Australia backs the rest of ASEAN, China would be in a difficult diplomatic situation indeed.
Surely Australia can have a bit of sway, but the US is already involved.
"A US senator on Monday urged condemnation of China's behavior in maritime rifts with its neighbors, saying Washington has been too weak-kneed as tensions rise in the South China Sea. Jim Webb, who heads the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on East Asia, introduced a bill that would denounce China for the use of force and urge it to seek a peaceful resolution to disputes."
And the Philippines has a defense treaty with the US, and the US is already sending a destroyer class vessel into the area. Also holding a joint SEA naval exercise this month I think.
Aus has a sway, but US is the determining factor.
|
|
On June 15 2011 13:15 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 13:03 Caphe wrote:On June 15 2011 12:58 Empyrean wrote:On June 15 2011 12:54 Mohdoo wrote: Scary. It sounds like China is hoping that the SEA nations aren't able to unify themselves. A united group of SEA nations appealing to the international community, I'd assume, would keep them nice and safe ^_^ China doesn't have to worry about this. You're forgetting that there's more to SEA than Vietnam/Thailand/Philippines/etc. There are also countries more amenable to Chinese interests, such as Malaysia and Singapore. You're also forgetting Indonesia, Australia, and NZ, three major countries that are still considered part of SEA. I think you underestimate ASEAN, 10 SEA nations are bound to each other through ASEAN, if anything that make China hesitates to go forward with some more aggrestion it is the united of ASEAN. I don't think Singapore, Indonesia or any SEA countries will side with China on this matter, since if China actually got control of what it claimed they will be next under China's expanding claw. Here's the problem: When asked individually, I'd wager ALL ASEAN nations would prioritize relations with China over Vietnam. ASEAN might consider trying stepping in in order to legitimize itself, but China will just tell them to piss of. Australia is crazy about China right now due to their excellent trade relations. As for the United States. If they have already told the Philippines to back off, what makes you they they will ever help Vietnam?
US didnt tel Philippines to back off. Read my posts
|
This won't escalate into anything.
|
On June 15 2011 13:17 vohne wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 13:15 Consolidate wrote:On June 15 2011 13:03 Caphe wrote:On June 15 2011 12:58 Empyrean wrote:On June 15 2011 12:54 Mohdoo wrote: Scary. It sounds like China is hoping that the SEA nations aren't able to unify themselves. A united group of SEA nations appealing to the international community, I'd assume, would keep them nice and safe ^_^ China doesn't have to worry about this. You're forgetting that there's more to SEA than Vietnam/Thailand/Philippines/etc. There are also countries more amenable to Chinese interests, such as Malaysia and Singapore. You're also forgetting Indonesia, Australia, and NZ, three major countries that are still considered part of SEA. I think you underestimate ASEAN, 10 SEA nations are bound to each other through ASEAN, if anything that make China hesitates to go forward with some more aggrestion it is the united of ASEAN. I don't think Singapore, Indonesia or any SEA countries will side with China on this matter, since if China actually got control of what it claimed they will be next under China's expanding claw. Here's the problem: When asked individually, I'd wager ALL ASEAN nations would prioritize relations with China over Vietnam. ASEAN might consider trying stepping in in order to legitimize itself, but China will just tell them to piss of. Australia is crazy about China right now due to their excellent trade relations. As for the United States. If they have already told the Philippines to back off, what makes you they they will ever help Vietnam? US didnt tel Philippines to back off. Read my posts
I wasn't keeping up with the news. My mistake.
|
|
Japan11285 Posts
On June 15 2011 13:00 b0lt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 12:33 c3rberUs wrote: Reality? I suggest you refer to the map in the OP for reality. Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 12:36 vohne wrote:
Look at any map of SEA with Spratley Islands, you will see that the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam are the countries closest to these Islands. "The archipelago lies off the coasts of the Philippines and Malaysia (Sabah), about one third of the way from there to southern Vietnam."
Feel free to do the research, and check some maps out. The spratley islands closest to the Philippines could be almost swimmable from the closest land area in the Philippines rofl. "It's close to the Philippines" would only matter if there were no prior claims to the territory. But they were already claimed, by both China and Vietnam (via France), for about 100 years before the Philippines decided they wanted them. Should Canada gain control of Alaska because it's closer to it than the contiguous U.S.? To answer your question. No, because Alaska is not disputed.
edit: Also that's they're claim, other nations have their own claim on why they should have the islands.
|
"A US-led naval exercise in the Sulu Sea involving the Philippines and five other members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) began on Tuesday.
In the next 10 days, combined naval units from the Philippines, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and the United States will be in the Sulu Sea, Malacca Strait and Celebes Sea.
The naval exercise will be followed by another naval training exercise between the Philippines and the United States in the Sulu Sea. The Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (Carat) exercise from June 28 to July 8 will be held in the waters east of Palawan.
Dubbed the Southeast Asia Cooperation and Training (Seacat), the annual maritime exercise initiated by the United States covers training against terrorism, transnational crimes “and other maritime threats.”
A Philippine Navy spokesperson said the naval exercises had been arranged before fresh tension broke out between the Philippines and China over the disputed Spratly islands."
Source: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/14983/us-leads-asean-war-games-in-sulu-palawan
|
|
On June 15 2011 13:03 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 12:56 Empyrean wrote:On June 15 2011 12:51 Caphe wrote:On June 15 2011 12:46 Mohdoo wrote: Wait, China actually claims that much sea territory? Ridiculous. Do they enforce it in any way? Do the local countries around that area encounter anything negative as a result of it? The line war draw by some random Chinese official in the 70-80s. China has nothing near to what the claim and didn't enforce it until recently when China economy is bombing and their thirst for oil grow bigger and bigger each day. What worst is they teach Chinese student with this map for many years now. Most chinese now are thinking SEA nation violate China territory O_O. A communist nation with blind patriotism is bad, very bad. This is quite ironic, given the first part of your post. You seem to be quite antagonistic toward China, but not much of it is founded on hard evidence or reasoning. In any case, I find China's territorial claims on the Spratly Islands to be ridiculous, but you have to realize that even if the government drew up those claims in the 70s, by going back and saying "oh wait guys, we were actually unreasonable," they lose a lot of face internally and would be met with criticism. Many Chinese youth (well, the ones who aren't completely disaffected anyway) are quite nationalistic. I don't know man. The Spratly's have never really been held by anyone for any significant length of time. Historically speaking, both China and Vietman claim to be the ones to have first charted them during ancient times. Proximity isn't a great justification for ownership - take Hawaii for example. I'm 99% sure that China will get the Spratlys because might makes right in cases like these.
That is true, the distance has hardly any say on it, just look at US maritime territory for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_territory
The islands seems to changed hands quite a few time. Surprisingly the only inhabitable islands are the Itu Aba Island, and is currently under ROC (Taiwan)'s control.
If you read The Military conflict under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands , you will see the last real conflict were at WW2, which Japan surrendered and the islands fell onto ROC's hand, but civi war between PRC and ROC creates a vaccum, and so on and so on.
|
On June 15 2011 13:18 Consolidate wrote: I wasn't keeping up with the news. My mistake. Yes, it is doubtful the US would back any of the parties but the Philippines in the matter, outside of countering the expansionist interests of China through Vietnam. The Philippines were actually a part of the US from 1898-1946, when they were peacefully granted independence through referendum. They have since enjoyed very close relations.
|
I bet Chinese TLers have no idea what we're talking about.
The Chinese have been pulling all sorts of stunts to affect Vietnam's security and economy for like ever. But this rising tension is really uncalled for. They must have their heads up their asses if they think this will help them in any way at this age.
It should also be pointed out that Vietnam has never really been the ' traditional ' commie type. It was all abandoned since the reformed called " Doi Moi " some time ago. TBH I believe the Vietnamese government is looking to become more like a democratic system rather than pure communist, but cuz of Ho Chi Minh's vision(Communism) they try to keep this as low as possible.
|
On June 15 2011 08:51 slappy wrote:China outsources labor?!!? lmfao sry that was funny to me... vietnam's minimum wage (last i checked) was 1/2 that of china's. most manufacturers (chinese, taiwanese, koreans etc) have been moving from china to vietnam over the past decade.
Last year, vietnam's minimum wage was roughly ~40 dollars/month and China's was ~80-100/month this is a bigger difference than you might think for a manufacturer especially if you are producing millions of products per order for sometimes only 1-2 cents profit per unit
|
Man this region of the world is just getting crazier and crazier, NK vs SK, China/Taiwan issue, Thailand & Cambodia getting pissed at each other, Japan and SK over some islands (by far the least serious of these though I think), US concern over China's growing military ambitions in the region and now this...it's getting ridiculous.
|
16952 Posts
The main party line is that China doesn't have military ambitions in the region.
¬_¬
|
On June 15 2011 14:43 Empyrean wrote: The main party line is that China doesn't have military ambitions in the region.
¬_¬ yeah! :D. On other note, Empyrean, do you play SC2 now? If so, do you have a CN server account?
|
16952 Posts
No, I really dislike SC2, and live in the states. I'm in Shanghai on an internship with Genzyme.
|
I actually had no idea China and Vietnam don't get along. I figured with both countries being 'communist' and the large population of Chinese living in Vietnam they'd be more friendly.
|
This thread has so many stupid false comparisons, historical non-facts, and just generally retarded comments on the first page alone. Jesus, what a clusterfuck.
There is no comparison between China-Vietnam and US-Vietnam. One simple reason. China shares a border with Vietnam. The USA is on the other side of the world. The logistical challenges are completely different. Not only that, but cultural differences between the different powers are huge as well. Also, political constraints/climate etc again, completely different. Stop making this nonsensical comparison when talking about superpower vs 3rd world country.
Second, Vietnam is just as much in the wrong. Anyone who's not blind and can read a map should be able to see that. According to the 200 mi rule, Vietnam barely touches the Spratleys and doesn't wholly cover the Paracels.
Third, this will end up a conflict between gunboats and missiles at worst imo. No land-based conflict will happen. US will posture but hell no would they engage in any sort of armed conflict with China. That would be suicidal economically for BOTH sides. Just the specter of it alone would send world financial markets into a nosedive.
|
Good read, thanks for the information. I don't think this will escalate into a war the US will intervene well before that.
|
16952 Posts
Neither country is actually "communist." They are both single-party states, but neither of them actually subscribes much to actual communist ideals.
|
On June 15 2011 14:20 jello_biafra wrote: Man this region of the world is just getting crazier and crazier, NK vs SK, China/Taiwan issue, Thailand & Cambodia getting pissed at each other, Japan and SK over some islands (by far the least serious of these though I think), US concern over China's growing military ambitions in the region and now this...it's getting ridiculous.
The Middle east has Israel/Palestine, the Iraq and Afganistan wars, Iran etc. Europe has financial catastrophes in Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain and pretty much all over. Russia/Georgia war 2008 etc.
There are troubles everywhere imo.
|
On June 15 2011 13:42 MassacrisM wrote: I bet Chinese TLers have no idea what we're talking about.
The Chinese have been pulling all sorts of stunts to affect Vietnam's security and economy for like ever. But this rising tension is really uncalled for. They must have their heads up their asses if they think this will help them in any way at this age.
It should also be pointed out that Vietnam has never really been the ' traditional ' commie type. It was all abandoned since the reformed called " Doi Moi " some time ago. TBH I believe the Vietnamese government is looking to become more like a democratic system rather than pure communist, but cuz of Ho Chi Minh's vision(Communism) they try to keep this as low as possible.
Oh please.
I can't believe you buy that bullshit. Doi Moi is the Vietnamese equivalent of "________ with Chinese characteristics.
Vietnam has no chance of transitioning into democracy anytime soon.
|
On June 15 2011 14:49 StorkHwaiting wrote: This thread has so many stupid false comparisons, historical non-facts, and just generally retarded comments on the first page alone. Jesus, what a clusterfuck.
There is no comparison between China-Vietnam and US-Vietnam. One simple reason. China shares a border with Vietnam. The USA is on the other side of the world. The logistical challenges are completely different. Not only that, but cultural differences between the different powers are huge as well. Also, political constraints/climate etc again, completely different. Stop making this nonsensical comparison when talking about superpower vs 3rd world country.
Second, Vietnam is just as much in the wrong. Anyone who's not blind and can read a map should be able to see that. According to the 200 mi rule, Vietnam barely touches the Spratleys and doesn't wholly cover the Paracels.
Third, this will end up a conflict between gunboats and missiles at worst imo. No land-based conflict will happen. US will posture but hell no would they engage in any sort of armed conflict with China. That would be suicidal economically for BOTH sides. Just the specter of it alone would send world financial markets into a nosedive.
True, there may be logistical differences, but that alone shouldn't stop anyone from trying to draw a comparison. Hardly was there ever any perfect metaphors for anything. You may also say that China is spelt differently to US, we shouldn't compare. The mere fact is, China and US have a huge military lead over Vietnam, and it is enough to give credibility that a superpower does not automatically trump a smaller country in a military conflict.
If we're going to use proximity as a measure of the validity of the claims, you might as well put it to down whoever is closest gets it. If you are going by who has historical claims over it, then that is a different matter.
Agree with your third point.
|
On June 15 2011 14:50 Empyrean wrote: Neither country is actually "communist." They are both single-party states, but neither of them actually subscribes much to actual communist ideals. This! Many people esp people in the West still think that China and Vietnam are some evil communist. Everybody loves to get rich nowaday, thats what its all about. And Empyrean, I myself don't like SC2 that much either, but maybe you should give it a try. BW will be here forever while SC2 maybe not lol. Damn these rainy days in Shanghai -_-.
|
On June 15 2011 14:58 vohne wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 14:49 StorkHwaiting wrote: This thread has so many stupid false comparisons, historical non-facts, and just generally retarded comments on the first page alone. Jesus, what a clusterfuck.
There is no comparison between China-Vietnam and US-Vietnam. One simple reason. China shares a border with Vietnam. The USA is on the other side of the world. The logistical challenges are completely different. Not only that, but cultural differences between the different powers are huge as well. Also, political constraints/climate etc again, completely different. Stop making this nonsensical comparison when talking about superpower vs 3rd world country.
Second, Vietnam is just as much in the wrong. Anyone who's not blind and can read a map should be able to see that. According to the 200 mi rule, Vietnam barely touches the Spratleys and doesn't wholly cover the Paracels.
Third, this will end up a conflict between gunboats and missiles at worst imo. No land-based conflict will happen. US will posture but hell no would they engage in any sort of armed conflict with China. That would be suicidal economically for BOTH sides. Just the specter of it alone would send world financial markets into a nosedive.
True, there may be logistical differences, but that alone shouldn't stop anyone from trying to draw a comparison. Hardly was there ever any perfect metaphors for anything. You may also say that China is spelt differently to US, we shouldn't compare. The mere fact is, China and US have a huge military lead over Vietnam, and it is enough to give credibility that a superpower does not automatically trump a smaller country in a military conflict. If we're going to use proximity as a measure of the validity of the claims, you might as well put it to down whoever is closest gets it. If you are going by who has historical claims over it, then that is a different matter. Agree with your third point.
You're going to compare a transglobal conflict to a conflict between two powers that share a border? Do you realize the exponential difference in costs between the two types of conflict? You're acting like this is just driving down a different road. Logistics are 9/10ths of war nowadays and your example was silly.
What are you talking about proximity as measure of validity. Do you know what UNCLOS is?
|
On June 15 2011 14:50 Irave wrote: Good read, thanks for the information. I don't think this will escalate into a war the US will intervene well before that.
I don't think the US would intervene against a country which holds around 1/10th of it's debt.
|
On June 15 2011 14:50 Empyrean wrote: Neither country is actually "communist." They are both single-party states, but neither of them actually subscribes much to actual communist ideals. What is the quote China's people gave up worshiping gods for mao then gave up mao for worshiping the dollar. a stint on how china has changed economically forget the exact quote
|
On June 15 2011 15:09 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 14:50 Empyrean wrote: Neither country is actually "communist." They are both single-party states, but neither of them actually subscribes much to actual communist ideals. What is the quote China's people gave up worshiping gods for mao then gave up mao for worshiping the dollar. a stint on how china has changed economically forget the exact quote Nah, Everyone in China is still worshiping Mao since hes on every paper currency available. I myself love his red face on the 100RMB bill alot
|
16952 Posts
On June 15 2011 15:01 Caphe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 14:50 Empyrean wrote: Neither country is actually "communist." They are both single-party states, but neither of them actually subscribes much to actual communist ideals. This! Many people esp people in the West still think that China and Vietnam are some evil communist. Everybody loves to get rich nowaday, thats what its all about. And Empyrean, I myself don't like SC2 that much either, but maybe you should give it a try. BW will be here forever while SC2 maybe not lol. Damn these rainy days in Shanghai -_-.
I played it for a few months, but found it tedious and boring. I didn't enjoy playing it, and I didn't enjoy watching it either.
I still keep up with the BW scene, though. Also, you're in Shanghai too? We should meet up for lunch or something! I actually prefer the rainy days because it means it's not oppressively hot X_X PM me and we'll work something out.
(ok I'm gonna stop derailing the thread now ._.)
EDIT: And I think I heard somewhere that the "official" stance on Mao is something along the lines of "70% right; 30% wrong."
|
On June 15 2011 08:20 Rebornlife wrote: They are both communist no? Hence nothing will come of this On June 15 2011 14:48 red4ce wrote: I actually had no idea China and Vietnam don't get along. I figured with both countries being 'communist' and the large population of Chinese living in Vietnam they'd be more friendly. Are these kind of thinking common in the US, or are these 2 just exceptions?
|
16952 Posts
|
On June 15 2011 15:25 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 08:20 Rebornlife wrote: They are both communist no? Hence nothing will come of this Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 14:48 red4ce wrote: I actually had no idea China and Vietnam don't get along. I figured with both countries being 'communist' and the large population of Chinese living in Vietnam they'd be more friendly. Are these kind of thinking common in the US, or are these 2 just exceptions? its like how people think every russian who are success in NA is a spy. pretty common bc of false education system from ww2 day
|
On June 15 2011 14:49 StorkHwaiting wrote: This thread has so many stupid false comparisons, historical non-facts, and just generally retarded comments on the first page alone. Jesus, what a clusterfuck.
There is no comparison between China-Vietnam and US-Vietnam. One simple reason. China shares a border with Vietnam. The USA is on the other side of the world. The logistical challenges are completely different. Not only that, but cultural differences between the different powers are huge as well. Also, political constraints/climate etc again, completely different. Stop making this nonsensical comparison when talking about superpower vs 3rd world country.
Second, Vietnam is just as much in the wrong. Anyone who's not blind and can read a map should be able to see that. According to the 200 mi rule, Vietnam barely touches the Spratleys and doesn't wholly cover the Paracels.
Third, this will end up a conflict between gunboats and missiles at worst imo. No land-based conflict will happen. US will posture but hell no would they engage in any sort of armed conflict with China. That would be suicidal economically for BOTH sides. Just the specter of it alone would send world financial markets into a nosedive.
So does Hawaii not part of the U.S because it lies some 2000 miles away from the mainland? The Vietnamese government has had outposts and even proper goverment offices and tiny populations on the islands that could host people there (Hoang Sa - Truong Sa) a long fucking ass time ago, much longer before anyone else even gives a shit about those tiny, seemingly insignificant islands. We have historical proofs that we had marked those islands as ours for centuries already. And now the Chinese are coming in to place random claims on them turn the sea into "disputed" status in order to have a shot at taking the whole thing and suddenly the Vietnamese are also in the wrong? What the fuck?
For the past half year, the Chinese Navy has been coming in, capturing fishermen fishing on waters that has been traditionally fished on for centuries, beating them up, demanding ransoms, and even killing them and fuck up their boats. Who's right and who's wrong there?
|
On June 15 2011 15:38 O-ops wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 14:49 StorkHwaiting wrote: This thread has so many stupid false comparisons, historical non-facts, and just generally retarded comments on the first page alone. Jesus, what a clusterfuck.
There is no comparison between China-Vietnam and US-Vietnam. One simple reason. China shares a border with Vietnam. The USA is on the other side of the world. The logistical challenges are completely different. Not only that, but cultural differences between the different powers are huge as well. Also, political constraints/climate etc again, completely different. Stop making this nonsensical comparison when talking about superpower vs 3rd world country.
Second, Vietnam is just as much in the wrong. Anyone who's not blind and can read a map should be able to see that. According to the 200 mi rule, Vietnam barely touches the Spratleys and doesn't wholly cover the Paracels.
Third, this will end up a conflict between gunboats and missiles at worst imo. No land-based conflict will happen. US will posture but hell no would they engage in any sort of armed conflict with China. That would be suicidal economically for BOTH sides. Just the specter of it alone would send world financial markets into a nosedive.
So does Hawaii not part of the U.S because it lies some 2000 miles away from the mainland? The Vietnamese government has had outposts and even proper goverment offices and tiny populations on the islands that could host people there (Hoang Sa - Truong Sa) a long fucking ass time ago, much longer before anyone else even gives a shit about those tiny, seemingly insignificant islands. We have historical proofs that we had marked those islands as ours for centuries already. And now the Chinese are coming in to place random claims on them turn the sea into "disputed" status in order to have a shot at taking the whole thing and suddenly the Vietnamese are also in the wrong? What the fuck? For the past half year, the Chinese Navy has been coming in, capturing fishermen fishing on waters that has been traditionally fished on for centuries, beating them up, demanding ransoms, and even killing them and fuck up their boats. Who's right and who's wrong there?
Are you really using that justification? Pretty sure the native Hawaiians had their entire civilization on the island of Hawaii before the US took it over. Might makes right. China also has plenty of historical proofs that they owned Vietnam for centuries. It's not random at all.
|
On June 15 2011 15:44 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 15:38 O-ops wrote:On June 15 2011 14:49 StorkHwaiting wrote: This thread has so many stupid false comparisons, historical non-facts, and just generally retarded comments on the first page alone. Jesus, what a clusterfuck.
There is no comparison between China-Vietnam and US-Vietnam. One simple reason. China shares a border with Vietnam. The USA is on the other side of the world. The logistical challenges are completely different. Not only that, but cultural differences between the different powers are huge as well. Also, political constraints/climate etc again, completely different. Stop making this nonsensical comparison when talking about superpower vs 3rd world country.
Second, Vietnam is just as much in the wrong. Anyone who's not blind and can read a map should be able to see that. According to the 200 mi rule, Vietnam barely touches the Spratleys and doesn't wholly cover the Paracels.
Third, this will end up a conflict between gunboats and missiles at worst imo. No land-based conflict will happen. US will posture but hell no would they engage in any sort of armed conflict with China. That would be suicidal economically for BOTH sides. Just the specter of it alone would send world financial markets into a nosedive.
So does Hawaii not part of the U.S because it lies some 2000 miles away from the mainland? The Vietnamese government has had outposts and even proper goverment offices and tiny populations on the islands that could host people there (Hoang Sa - Truong Sa) a long fucking ass time ago, much longer before anyone else even gives a shit about those tiny, seemingly insignificant islands. We have historical proofs that we had marked those islands as ours for centuries already. And now the Chinese are coming in to place random claims on them turn the sea into "disputed" status in order to have a shot at taking the whole thing and suddenly the Vietnamese are also in the wrong? What the fuck? For the past half year, the Chinese Navy has been coming in, capturing fishermen fishing on waters that has been traditionally fished on for centuries, beating them up, demanding ransoms, and even killing them and fuck up their boats. Who's right and who's wrong there? Are you really using that justification? Pretty sure the native Hawaiians had their entire civilization on the island of Hawaii before the US took it over. Might makes right. China also has plenty of historical proofs that they owned Vietnam for centuries. It's not random at all.
The natives on those some of these rocks they're claiming as theirs are Vietnamese, and I'm pretty positive we didn't ask for no takeover there.
|
On June 15 2011 15:25 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 08:20 Rebornlife wrote: They are both communist no? Hence nothing will come of this Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 14:48 red4ce wrote: I actually had no idea China and Vietnam don't get along. I figured with both countries being 'communist' and the large population of Chinese living in Vietnam they'd be more friendly. Are these kind of thinking common in the US, or are these 2 just exceptions?
Can't speak for the other guy but for me it's a matter of there being tons of Chinese and Vietnamese living in the area and never have I encountered any sort of racial tension.
|
On June 15 2011 15:02 NeonFox wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 14:50 Irave wrote: Good read, thanks for the information. I don't think this will escalate into a war the US will intervene well before that. I don't think the US would intervene against a country which holds around 1/10th of it's debt.
China declares war, US cancels debt; voila, no more debt! /sarcasm
IMO, in an international court of arbitration; Vietnam has the best claim over the westernmost set of islands because of historical claims while the ROC has a better claim to the northern islands than the PRC does as the successor state to the Chinese state which was occupied by Japan in WWII. Most of the eastern reefs and islets, since they were unclaimed by either China/Vietnam, are probably best claimed by the Philippines under UNCLOS provisions.
|
16952 Posts
On June 15 2011 15:50 Ciryandor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 15:02 NeonFox wrote:On June 15 2011 14:50 Irave wrote: Good read, thanks for the information. I don't think this will escalate into a war the US will intervene well before that. I don't think the US would intervene against a country which holds around 1/10th of it's debt. China declares war, US cancels debt; voila, no more debt! /sarcasm IMO, in an international court of arbitration; Vietnam has the best claim over the westernmost set of islands because of historical claims while the ROC has a better claim to the northern islands than the PRC does as the successor state to the Chinese state which was occupied by Japan in WWII. Most of the eastern reefs and islets, since they were unclaimed by either China/Vietnam, are probably best claimed by the Philippines under UNCLOS provisions.
Unfortunately, people are rarely this reasonable.
As for the ROC getting a claim on the islands, I could see some drama arising if an international arbitration court declared ROC sovereignty over some of the Spratly Islands. No doubt PRC will claim the islands, as ROC is "part of China."
|
On June 15 2011 15:49 red4ce wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 15:25 VIB wrote:On June 15 2011 08:20 Rebornlife wrote: They are both communist no? Hence nothing will come of this On June 15 2011 14:48 red4ce wrote: I actually had no idea China and Vietnam don't get along. I figured with both countries being 'communist' and the large population of Chinese living in Vietnam they'd be more friendly. Are these kind of thinking common in the US, or are these 2 just exceptions? Can't speak for the other guy but for me it's a matter of there being tons of Chinese and Vietnamese living in the area and never have I encountered any sort of racial tension.
Unless it comes to something super-serious (like land disputes or war) Vietnamese and Chinese aren't going to be difficult to each other. Hell, i check on news and with my relatives back there quite often and I haven't heard of any racial violence as of yet, and i doubt there never will be unless war breaks out.
|
On June 15 2011 15:44 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 15:38 O-ops wrote:On June 15 2011 14:49 StorkHwaiting wrote: This thread has so many stupid false comparisons, historical non-facts, and just generally retarded comments on the first page alone. Jesus, what a clusterfuck.
There is no comparison between China-Vietnam and US-Vietnam. One simple reason. China shares a border with Vietnam. The USA is on the other side of the world. The logistical challenges are completely different. Not only that, but cultural differences between the different powers are huge as well. Also, political constraints/climate etc again, completely different. Stop making this nonsensical comparison when talking about superpower vs 3rd world country.
Second, Vietnam is just as much in the wrong. Anyone who's not blind and can read a map should be able to see that. According to the 200 mi rule, Vietnam barely touches the Spratleys and doesn't wholly cover the Paracels.
Third, this will end up a conflict between gunboats and missiles at worst imo. No land-based conflict will happen. US will posture but hell no would they engage in any sort of armed conflict with China. That would be suicidal economically for BOTH sides. Just the specter of it alone would send world financial markets into a nosedive.
So does Hawaii not part of the U.S because it lies some 2000 miles away from the mainland? The Vietnamese government has had outposts and even proper goverment offices and tiny populations on the islands that could host people there (Hoang Sa - Truong Sa) a long fucking ass time ago, much longer before anyone else even gives a shit about those tiny, seemingly insignificant islands. We have historical proofs that we had marked those islands as ours for centuries already. And now the Chinese are coming in to place random claims on them turn the sea into "disputed" status in order to have a shot at taking the whole thing and suddenly the Vietnamese are also in the wrong? What the fuck? For the past half year, the Chinese Navy has been coming in, capturing fishermen fishing on waters that has been traditionally fished on for centuries, beating them up, demanding ransoms, and even killing them and fuck up their boats. Who's right and who's wrong there? Are you really using that justification? Pretty sure the native Hawaiians had their entire civilization on the island of Hawaii before the US took it over. Might makes right. China also has plenty of historical proofs that they owned Vietnam for centuries. It's not random at all. Yeah that's another point that you may get confused. Chinese education teaches the Chinese that Vietnam (in Chinese, Viet Nam means Beyond the South) was a part of China, and the the south barbarians took over and claimed it their own. The truth is China has never owned Vietnam before. Vietnam got colonized. Although, China indeed marked Vietnam as a Chinese province several times, Vietnam still operate as a separate state from the "middle kingdom", which didn't follow most of Chinese policy, taxation, even language.v.v.v., just like Britain owning US before.
|
16952 Posts
On June 15 2011 15:59 canikizu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 15:44 StorkHwaiting wrote:On June 15 2011 15:38 O-ops wrote:On June 15 2011 14:49 StorkHwaiting wrote: This thread has so many stupid false comparisons, historical non-facts, and just generally retarded comments on the first page alone. Jesus, what a clusterfuck.
There is no comparison between China-Vietnam and US-Vietnam. One simple reason. China shares a border with Vietnam. The USA is on the other side of the world. The logistical challenges are completely different. Not only that, but cultural differences between the different powers are huge as well. Also, political constraints/climate etc again, completely different. Stop making this nonsensical comparison when talking about superpower vs 3rd world country.
Second, Vietnam is just as much in the wrong. Anyone who's not blind and can read a map should be able to see that. According to the 200 mi rule, Vietnam barely touches the Spratleys and doesn't wholly cover the Paracels.
Third, this will end up a conflict between gunboats and missiles at worst imo. No land-based conflict will happen. US will posture but hell no would they engage in any sort of armed conflict with China. That would be suicidal economically for BOTH sides. Just the specter of it alone would send world financial markets into a nosedive.
So does Hawaii not part of the U.S because it lies some 2000 miles away from the mainland? The Vietnamese government has had outposts and even proper goverment offices and tiny populations on the islands that could host people there (Hoang Sa - Truong Sa) a long fucking ass time ago, much longer before anyone else even gives a shit about those tiny, seemingly insignificant islands. We have historical proofs that we had marked those islands as ours for centuries already. And now the Chinese are coming in to place random claims on them turn the sea into "disputed" status in order to have a shot at taking the whole thing and suddenly the Vietnamese are also in the wrong? What the fuck? For the past half year, the Chinese Navy has been coming in, capturing fishermen fishing on waters that has been traditionally fished on for centuries, beating them up, demanding ransoms, and even killing them and fuck up their boats. Who's right and who's wrong there? Are you really using that justification? Pretty sure the native Hawaiians had their entire civilization on the island of Hawaii before the US took it over. Might makes right. China also has plenty of historical proofs that they owned Vietnam for centuries. It's not random at all. Yeah that's another point that you may get confused. Chinese education teaches the Chinese that Vietnam (in Chinese, Viet Nam means Beyond the South) was a part of China, and the the south barbarians took over and claimed it their own. The truth is China has never owned Vietnam before. Vietnam got colonized. Although, China indeed marked Vietnam as a Chinese province several times, Vietnam still operate as a separate state from the "middle kingdom", which didn't follow most of Chinese policy, taxation, even language.v.v.v., just like Britain owning US before.
Except the United Kingdom did own what's now considered to be the thirteen original states of the U.S.
In any case, the Han dynasty conquered Vietnam and put it under its subjugation. Vietnam didn't become officially independent until the 10th century. It was under Chinese rule for a millennium.
|
On June 15 2011 15:56 Empyrean wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 15:50 Ciryandor wrote:On June 15 2011 15:02 NeonFox wrote:On June 15 2011 14:50 Irave wrote: Good read, thanks for the information. I don't think this will escalate into a war the US will intervene well before that. I don't think the US would intervene against a country which holds around 1/10th of it's debt. China declares war, US cancels debt; voila, no more debt! /sarcasm IMO, in an international court of arbitration; Vietnam has the best claim over the westernmost set of islands because of historical claims while the ROC has a better claim to the northern islands than the PRC does as the successor state to the Chinese state which was occupied by Japan in WWII. Most of the eastern reefs and islets, since they were unclaimed by either China/Vietnam, are probably best claimed by the Philippines under UNCLOS provisions. Unfortunately, people are rarely this reasonable. As for the ROC getting a claim on the islands, I could see some drama arising if an international arbitration court declared ROC sovereignty over some of the Spratly Islands. No doubt PRC will claim the islands, as ROC is "part of China."
Yes, it's bound to be an unreasonable debate, given that the equivalent of a few hundred billion dollars of oil and natural gas are potentially down there for exploitation; allegedly similar to the North Sea in quality. And regarding the ROC/PRC drama; it's bound to happen anyway; the PRC would lose face if they were to be evicted by international arbritration, the ROC is de jure still the legal government for the mainland, and both states are still in the same boat as North and South Korea.
|
16952 Posts
On June 15 2011 16:06 Ciryandor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 15:56 Empyrean wrote:On June 15 2011 15:50 Ciryandor wrote:On June 15 2011 15:02 NeonFox wrote:On June 15 2011 14:50 Irave wrote: Good read, thanks for the information. I don't think this will escalate into a war the US will intervene well before that. I don't think the US would intervene against a country which holds around 1/10th of it's debt. China declares war, US cancels debt; voila, no more debt! /sarcasm IMO, in an international court of arbitration; Vietnam has the best claim over the westernmost set of islands because of historical claims while the ROC has a better claim to the northern islands than the PRC does as the successor state to the Chinese state which was occupied by Japan in WWII. Most of the eastern reefs and islets, since they were unclaimed by either China/Vietnam, are probably best claimed by the Philippines under UNCLOS provisions. Unfortunately, people are rarely this reasonable. As for the ROC getting a claim on the islands, I could see some drama arising if an international arbitration court declared ROC sovereignty over some of the Spratly Islands. No doubt PRC will claim the islands, as ROC is "part of China." Yes, it's bound to be an unreasonable debate, given that the equivalent of a few hundred billion dollars of oil and natural gas are potentially down there for exploitation; allegedly similar to the North Sea in quality. And regarding the ROC/PRC drama; it's bound to happen anyway; the PRC would lose face if they were to be evicted by international arbritration, the ROC is de jure still the legal government for the mainland, and both states are still in the same boat as North and South Korea.
The U.N. has recognized the PRC as the sole representative voice for "China" in its proceedings, no matter how valid sovereignty claims are from Taiwan. Any arbitration that goes against this would stir up intense controversy.
|
![[image loading]](http://digital.library.northwestern.edu/wwii-posters/img/ww0207-88.jpg)
This must be a bitter experience for the ROC. For many who didn't know, that china's flag is ROC's flag.
God the old Canada's flag looks ugly.
|
16952 Posts
The ROC represented all of China in the U.N. until the 1970s. The PRC had been lobbying for its claims for decades until it finally passed
EDIT: Also holy shit@all that red, white, and blue ._.
|
If China would start a war with any of their small neighbors they would be quite safe, they have such a big influence in the world economy nobody would bother actually enforcing sanctions. On the war side, look at what Russia did in Georgia.
China could go in for one massive push, occupy as much as possible to prevent incursions to their country. Then destroy every piece of military tech Vietnam has (navy, airforce, sams, artillery, armour), every little bit of industry, every military base and on their way out, all infrastructure. No need to even stay, just get back to China in a couple of weeks.
This way they get uncontested access to everything they want, Vietnam is back to the stoneage and its military is a lot of people with guns but no enemy to fight. Would be like Iraq invasion but without any need to stay there, they wouldn't care.
|
16952 Posts
China could also use nuclear weapons and wipe out Vietnam's major cities.
Neither of those scenarios is going to happen, nor would China's advisers ever recommend those courses of action.
|
|
On June 15 2011 08:53 spidey1991 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 08:37 gunman103 wrote:On June 15 2011 08:11 Endymion wrote: Yeah, they're definitely getting ready to start a war with China right... If I was in the Chinese military, I would be really scared right about now. What? China is a superpower and Vietnam is a third world country that spends what little they have on military. China will win in a few days to a week if it comes to war (and it probably will). Are you an idiot? Vietnam was a 3rd world country when America tried to go to war with it....they still won. The u.s. said something along the lines of "it'll take us a couple weeks to win" too. And it took 2 years for us to realize we couldn't. The Us lost because their military policy was not to intentionally kill civilians, which obviously doesn't help if the enemy is within the civilian populace. China doesn't have that issue at all.
Not to mention Vietnam didn't attack the US -- that would have been incredibly laughable.
|
On June 15 2011 16:35 Empyrean wrote: The ROC represented all of China in the U.N. until the 1970s. The PRC had been lobbying for its claims for decades until it finally passed
EDIT: Also holy shit@all that red, white, and blue ._. Well that doesn't really represent the whole picture. The PRC had been diplomatically recognized for over a decade by that point, but purposely did not send representatives to the U.N. while the ROC had representatives there under the pretense that the unity of China was more important ideologically than the representing body. Of course they lobbied intensely to act as the representative gov't for China at the UN all the while though.
More recently, the idea of "one china" has been the popular stance in both the mainland and Taiwan. The new president of Taiwan has brought taiwan much closer to China and is now little different from the other "autonomous" regions of China, where Beijing purportedly does not interfere with the local government (though it clearly did in the case of Tibet when violence between the Han settlers and the locals broke out), but acts as the treaty party in international agreements.
Also, people have said things about China getting their asses kicked in the 3rd indo-china war, but that's not exactly the case based on the accepted historical accounts. It was a costly war for both sides, obviously, but ultimately, China's invasion was never meant to be an occupying force, but rather to be a punitive expedition. That they pulled back as soon as they reached the capital might be properly attributed to Vietnam's fierce resistance, since if there was no resistance, the PLA most certainly would have pushed further to make an even bigger point. As the PLA retreated from Hanoi, they implemented a (even today) controversial scorched earth policy. Both sides claimed victory, and in a sense both sides had extra-military goals in mind.
The PRC saw this as a means to subdue Vietnamese aggression, following the earlier Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia and the resulting breakdown of diplomatic relations between Beijing and Hanoi. Their military offensive and scorched earth policy at the very minimum halted any further Vietnamese aggression in the region that might threaten China's borders.
On the other hand, the fierce resistance put up by the Vietnamese army solidified the regime's legitimacy and its ability to protect its people from foreign intervention. This makes sense so long as we remember that the primary narrative of many of these communist governments was not chiefly one of marxism, but rather one of anti-colonialism.
On June 15 2011 16:46 dakalro wrote: If China would start a war with any of their small neighbors they would be quite safe, they have such a big influence in the world economy nobody would bother actually enforcing sanctions. On the war side, look at what Russia did in Georgia.
China could go in for one massive push, occupy as much as possible to prevent incursions to their country. Then destroy every piece of military tech Vietnam has (navy, airforce, sams, artillery, armour), every little bit of industry, every military base and on their way out, all infrastructure. No need to even stay, just get back to China in a couple of weeks.
This way they get uncontested access to everything they want, Vietnam is back to the stoneage and its military is a lot of people with guns but no enemy to fight. Would be like Iraq invasion but without any need to stay there, they wouldn't care.
This is, in fact, what China did in their last conflict. They were not quite so successful as sending Vietnam "back to the stoneage."
|
Everyone on TL is too busy playing wargames and being an arm chair general. This is a pretty standard round of 'Chinese diplomacy', the point of the claims are not hinged around the islands themselves, rather the potential of an oil field under them. If there has been any sort of worrying conflict in the South China Sea, it would Taiwan (Chinese Taipei etcetc) and the military posturing both sides have been doing since the end of the Civil War. The Spratly Island's issue won't be resolved with violence, if anything the rights to the islands will be given to whatever country wants it, in exchange for the rights to search and prospect for oil for China.
|
On June 15 2011 16:58 hippocritical wrote: Everyone on TL is too busy playing wargames and being an arm chair general. This is a pretty standard round of 'Chinese diplomacy', the point of the claims are not hinged around the islands themselves, rather the potential of an oil field under them. If there has been any sort of worrying conflict in the South China Sea, it would Taiwan (Chinese Taipei etcetc) and the military posturing both sides have been doing since the end of the Civil War. The Spratly Island's issue won't be resolved with violence, if anything the rights to the islands will be given to whatever country wants it, in exchange for the rights to search and prospect for oil for China. I think you got the key payoffs correct, but I wouldn't be so optimistic. The other countries' claims aren't purely ideological either. They also want the oil. Thus, the whole "you can have the land, but we want the oil" resolution is highly unlikely to be amicable.
|
16952 Posts
On June 15 2011 16:58 Gummy wrote: [great post here]
Also, China accomplished its goal of demonstrating both to itself and to the world that it could successfully resist any Soviet attempts at playing mediator in conflicts in the communist world.
However, I'd disagree to a certain extent with your last point. The difference in technological and military power between China and Vietnam is much greater now than it was in the seventies. If China were to conduct the same type of campaign, there'd undeniably be vastly greater damage to Vietnam.
|
but, as the same time, Vietnam has established several relationship with the entire global community especially after they joined WTO with US support.
The fact that China has grown in econ as well as military strength so fast made the current top countries in the world such as Russian or US feel the pressure. If there is a war happen based on this Viet-China conflict, clearly US and Russia as well as the rest of the world will back Vietnam up instead of China. Which certainly will put them in a huge disadv.
Take a looks at the recent phenomenal between US-China relationship in trading and culture, you could see how much neglecting both side are to each other. The dollarbills saved up as well as how china decided English should not be used in any sort of local media devices. US has been trying to find a lots of way to pay back and 1 of them is agree for Vietnam join WTO in 2007.
Noticed that the conflict Viet-China by the island was discovered by the media as almost identical time :-/
|
The potential economic costs of this war far outweigh the worth of whatever resources can be found below these islands, I am sure pretty much any chinese government advisor, analyst or whatever came to the same conclusion long ago. Hence any military bullying is just part of putting up diplomatic pressure. This is a consequence of today's interdependent world market, especially if the potential opponent is well integrated into the world market (which Vietnam is, unlike for example Afghanistan).
|
Hmm, interesting development so far. Apparently Vietnam has called a draft? can some one verify this?
and also Taiwan has sent war ship to the area. It would be hilarious if Vietnam fired on Taiwanese ships and China rides in for the rescue.
|
On June 15 2011 19:28 haduken wrote: Hmm, interesting development so far. Apparently Vietnam has called a draft? can some one verify this?
and also Taiwan has sent war ship to the area. It would be hilarious if Vietnam fired on Taiwanese ships and China rides in for the rescue.
Oh the irony, the US Carrier Group shows up and see Taiwanese and PRC ships not shooting each other, and they sit there scratching the heads.
|
It won't be a military conflict. It takes alot to get one started in this day and age. If it would be close to starting there would be way way way way way more publicity.
|
On June 15 2011 19:28 haduken wrote: Hmm, interesting development so far. Apparently Vietnam has called a draft? can some one verify this?
and also Taiwan has sent war ship to the area. It would be hilarious if Vietnam fired on Taiwanese ships and China rides in for the rescue. What? A draft? There is no such thing. I think the title of this thread is misleading a little bit. This is no an issue between China and Vietnam alone. This directly involves Malaysia and Philippine as well as most East and South East Asia countries. But the situation is not as bad as it seems, there will just be alot of diplomatic talks and army show off, and thats about it.
|
|
Is this over the ownership of spratlys island? if it is, the only ones involved i think are only philippines and china, and china said they won't be even using forces to settle this.
|
after reading 10 pages, I realize:
1, most of the people dont understand the history of Vietnam and the diplomatic history between Vietnam and China and still make many (pre)judgements that aren't right.
*Personal idea: The Chinese was the one who started it, making a fuss and then they "try" to settle between each country alone. They slowly attempted to do this, long before this event but it was not this huge.
2. Filipinos do make random comments O.o
Fact is, I did study Vietnamese and Chinese history quite deeply, not the level of profession, but still know a lot of events since BC.
|
On June 15 2011 19:28 haduken wrote: Hmm, interesting development so far. Apparently Vietnam has called a draft? can some one verify this?
and also Taiwan has sent war ship to the area. It would be hilarious if Vietnam fired on Taiwanese ships and China rides in for the rescue.
I'm pretty sure what they did was outline who is exempt from the draft, not calling an actual draft.
|
On June 15 2011 17:28 Empyrean wrote:Also, China accomplished its goal of demonstrating both to itself and to the world that it could successfully resist any Soviet attempts at playing mediator in conflicts in the communist world. However, I'd disagree to a certain extent with your last point. The difference in technological and military power between China and Vietnam is much greater now than it was in the seventies. If China were to conduct the same type of campaign, there'd undeniably be vastly greater damage to Vietnam.
I don´t know. If the PRC really would conduct such a campaign wouldn´t they risk uniting everybody in the west? Sure, if a country or two would start to protest/put sanction in place China wouldn´t feel it. But if half of Europe and half of northern America would put sanctions into place China would have a huge problem. I think the political risk or fallout is simply too big. The oil in the sea certainly is interesting, but I doubt China would risk that much for it. To me it seems like a mindgame/bluff with no intention of escalating the situation to a critical point. At least I hope I am right.
|
These claims are pretty ridiculous. They're basically trying to get as much of the ocean for themselves as possible. I mean if they went a little bit farther, they'd be claiming land on Malaysia's soil.
The 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone seems like good boundaries.
|
On June 15 2011 08:42 TALegion wrote: Expansion in the modern age. Interesting. I'm exited about this, as the outcome and decisions of China will reflect on their position and opinions on growing into superpower.
China shouldn't be going to war with Vietnam. Right now for some reason people all over the world take them incredibly serious as a military force. The painfull truth is that their military is no stronger then Vietnam.
Perhaps if the two armies met on an open field China would win but that's not how war works. First up China would have to cross the sea...how? The American army's mobility is not standard, there isn't any nation in the world that can compare.
China couldn't mobilize it's military even if it wanted to. It's standing forces are about 1 million but China isn't going to be able to move most of those given it's enormous borders. The Chinese army lacks aerial or naval supremacy over Vietnam so it couldn't easily dominate the seas/air and create a transport route to ship land troops over.
The painfull truth is that if China goes to war with Vietnam then the result will most likely be similar to when the USSR tried to flex it's mucles and invade Finland. An incredibly embarasing display of military failure.
China cannot afford such a public humiliation, their government exists by the grace of their people. If people are unhappy about their government in the west they vote them out, if people are unhappy about the communist party they lynch them. Revolution is in the air and any public failure of such a magnitude will result in a very unstable situation for China.
All Vietnam would have to do is sit there and fend off the Chinese from a very nice position, all the while claiming (rightfully) that China was the offensive side that began a war of agression. Condemnation, military failure and economical slowdown would quikly force China to grovel back to the UN and present their mea culpa.
China is not a super power, it's a regional power. Problem for them is that India and Russia are also sharing that same region and the trinity of Japan/Australia/Korea dwarfs each one of them individually with economical power.
A Chinese/Vietnam war wouldn't do anyone any good but China sure as hell wouldn't be in any position to win it.
|
On June 15 2011 17:44 NB wrote: but, as the same time, Vietnam has established several relationship with the entire global community especially after they joined WTO with US support.
The fact that China has grown in econ as well as military strength so fast made the current top countries in the world such as Russian or US feel the pressure. If there is a war happen based on this Viet-China conflict, clearly US and Russia as well as the rest of the world will back Vietnam up instead of China. Which certainly will put them in a huge disadv.
Take a looks at the recent phenomenal between US-China relationship in trading and culture, you could see how much neglecting both side are to each other. The dollarbills saved up as well as how china decided English should not be used in any sort of local media devices. US has been trying to find a lots of way to pay back and 1 of them is agree for Vietnam join WTO in 2007.
Noticed that the conflict Viet-China by the island was discovered by the media as almost identical time :-/
You're way too optimistic about what Russia/US would do if China was aggressive. It's one thing to lob missiles at Gadhafi. Quite another to kick off a conflict with a superpower in their sphere of influence. And the rest of the world will not back Vietnam up lol. They have very little political clout. All they are is a cheap labor country who's willing to give the US seaport rights.
Edit: But in general, I agree with those saying it'd be retarded for China to be aggressive. They aren't capable of fighting a war of aggression. Nor would there be any profit in doing so. The Chinese people have nothing against Vietnam whatsoever, so they wouldn't have any popular support for it either. The Vietnamese haven't really ever done anything to Chinese ppl. There's no good rhetoric for it unlike the Taiwan/Japan issues. I don't see it ever going to a war or anything like it.
It's just a squabble over oil. Only the US is psychotic enough to run around bombing people for oil.
|
On June 15 2011 15:01 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 14:58 vohne wrote:On June 15 2011 14:49 StorkHwaiting wrote: This thread has so many stupid false comparisons, historical non-facts, and just generally retarded comments on the first page alone. Jesus, what a clusterfuck.
There is no comparison between China-Vietnam and US-Vietnam. One simple reason. China shares a border with Vietnam. The USA is on the other side of the world. The logistical challenges are completely different. Not only that, but cultural differences between the different powers are huge as well. Also, political constraints/climate etc again, completely different. Stop making this nonsensical comparison when talking about superpower vs 3rd world country.
Second, Vietnam is just as much in the wrong. Anyone who's not blind and can read a map should be able to see that. According to the 200 mi rule, Vietnam barely touches the Spratleys and doesn't wholly cover the Paracels.
Third, this will end up a conflict between gunboats and missiles at worst imo. No land-based conflict will happen. US will posture but hell no would they engage in any sort of armed conflict with China. That would be suicidal economically for BOTH sides. Just the specter of it alone would send world financial markets into a nosedive.
True, there may be logistical differences, but that alone shouldn't stop anyone from trying to draw a comparison. Hardly was there ever any perfect metaphors for anything. You may also say that China is spelt differently to US, we shouldn't compare. The mere fact is, China and US have a huge military lead over Vietnam, and it is enough to give credibility that a superpower does not automatically trump a smaller country in a military conflict. If we're going to use proximity as a measure of the validity of the claims, you might as well put it to down whoever is closest gets it. If you are going by who has historical claims over it, then that is a different matter. Agree with your third point. You're going to compare a transglobal conflict to a conflict between two powers that share a border? Do you realize the exponential difference in costs between the two types of conflict? You're acting like this is just driving down a different road. Logistics are 9/10ths of war nowadays and your example was silly. What are you talking about proximity as measure of validity. Do you know what UNCLOS is?
And US has a bigger, stronger and more efficient military that makes up for it. So what? The point is you have a country with a big military vs a smaller military country, and big does not always trump small. That was the point. The minute you start drilling down to specifics, whether or not they share a border, whether one has aircraft carriers or not, whether one has a billion population or not, then you lose the simplistic point that the metaphor was trying to establish. Give me any metaphor and I will break it down by being nitpicky, but the point of a metaphor is not to offer a complete and perfect substitute, but, in this case, it was to prove a single solitary point. BIG does not always beat SMALL.
If you still insist on this point, then lets take away the metaphor and tell me exactly who would stand a better chance at beating Vietnam at a military conflict and why. Is it the more sophisticated, better trained and better equipped US army. Or the larger and nearer Chinese army. If you say US, then you prove my point, because US lost it back then. If you say Chinese, and stick to your logistical argument, then you still do not disprove my point because I said sometimes big militaries don't beat small militaries, not always. Finally if you don't know, then what are you even talking about.
On the issue of proximity and UNCLOS, I would like to say this. UNCLOS applies only if there was not historical claim to the islands. Specifically the parcel islands, if Vietnam claims that it had Vietnamese inhabitants there way before and has ancestral rights to it, then it does not matter if the land was 10miles away or 1000 miles away, it has claims on it cause it had or has people living there. If the disputed territory has no historical claims, then the UNCLOS is the reference.
Read up, what I say is true.
|
On June 15 2011 16:52 hmunkey wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 08:53 spidey1991 wrote:On June 15 2011 08:37 gunman103 wrote:On June 15 2011 08:11 Endymion wrote: Yeah, they're definitely getting ready to start a war with China right... If I was in the Chinese military, I would be really scared right about now. What? China is a superpower and Vietnam is a third world country that spends what little they have on military. China will win in a few days to a week if it comes to war (and it probably will). Are you an idiot? Vietnam was a 3rd world country when America tried to go to war with it....they still won. The u.s. said something along the lines of "it'll take us a couple weeks to win" too. And it took 2 years for us to realize we couldn't. The Us lost because their military policy was not to intentionally kill civilians, which obviously doesn't help if the enemy is within the civilian populace. China doesn't have that issue at all. Not to mention Vietnam didn't attack the US -- that would have been incredibly laughable.
It can't win the war if it had a policy of killing civilians. The world would react, unite and attack the US. Hundreds of thousands or even millions of civilians died due to inaccurate bombing, US soldiers shooting randomly or even the project orange chemical sprays. Again if it had a policy of allowing civilians ot be killed, it would have to face most of the civilised World who would never allow this. And don't go into a jingoistic argument about how the US can beat everyone, it can'tm they will get nuked and it will be a Mutually Assured Destruction ending.
|
On June 15 2011 15:25 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 08:20 Rebornlife wrote: They are both communist no? Hence nothing will come of this Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 14:48 red4ce wrote: I actually had no idea China and Vietnam don't get along. I figured with both countries being 'communist' and the large population of Chinese living in Vietnam they'd be more friendly. Are these kind of thinking common in the US, or are these 2 just exceptions? It's a little understandable. Most knowledge about Vietnam stems from the Vietnam war, when China really was allied with the Viet Cong. Unless someone is taking a modern world history class, they won't know all the conflicts between them following that war.
|
|
I'm starting to wonder if there's anyone in this thread that acutally studied military history.
First off American soldiers and allies did their fair share of massacring Vietnamese civilians during the vietnam war.
Go Dai massacre Done by the south korean army. Ha My massacre Done by the south korean marines. My Lai Massacre Done by the US army Phong Nhi and Phong Nhat massacre Done by 2nd Marine Brigade of the South Korean Marines Tay Vinh massacre Done by south korean army
Those are what I found on wiki I don't remember any others but some sources state that over 3 million Vietnamese civilians were killed. Since clearly we can trust the american army only my lai was done by them. (sarcasm by the way.) The fact is that they already had guns pointed to their heads and they didn't back down the Chinese will be the same way.
|
On June 15 2011 08:20 Rebornlife wrote: They are both communist no? Hence nothing will come of this
I'm always astounded how close minded people are to ignore the big communist schisma and that they are in fact not communist countries anymore. I blame McCarthy.
|
On June 16 2011 05:04 fruchtzergeis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 08:20 Rebornlife wrote: They are both communist no? Hence nothing will come of this I'm always astounded how close minded people are to ignore the big communist schisma and that they are in fact not communist countries anymore. I blame McCarthy. Uh, why would you blame McCarthy when the Soviet Communist threat was very real and the schism wasn't quite apparent when he was Senator during the 1950's? Talk about being close-minded.
|
On June 15 2011 09:27 Alizee- wrote: Our navy will snap necks if China gets out of line and wants to go full retard.
User was warned for this post Most likely not, I see usa actually helping china as a more propable outcome! corrupt government (usa) + huge debt to china = not good combo
|
well most of the people here thinking wrong about how russia would have take a specific stand in this, if you just follow the UN/nato events for a while, you can clearly see how china/russia are cockblocking every kind of recent events and boycott whatever US/france/germany/portugal proposes.
for russias stance in case of a china-vietnam war; they would be the neutral dude once again, nato proposes some deal on the council, boycott it but also dont help china publicly and put political embargos on whoever trying to help vietnam in the asia.
|
On June 16 2011 05:14 Roflhaxx wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 09:27 Alizee- wrote: Our navy will snap necks if China gets out of line and wants to go full retard.
User was warned for this post Most likely not, I see usa actually helping china as a more propable outcome! corrupt government (usa) + huge debt to china = not good combo That's a pretty odd formula. Anyway, it's been one of the Department of State's focus in this term to build up relations with Southeast Asian countries to counterbalance Chinese power.
|
On June 16 2011 05:07 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 05:04 fruchtzergeis wrote:On June 15 2011 08:20 Rebornlife wrote: They are both communist no? Hence nothing will come of this I'm always astounded how close minded people are to ignore the big communist schisma and that they are in fact not communist countries anymore. I blame McCarthy. Uh, why would you blame McCarthy when the Soviet Communist threat was very real and the schism wasn't quite apparent when he was Senator during the 1950's? Talk about being close-minded.
i blame mccarthy about producing close-minded people due to his politics since 1950. People who just call everything communist instead of differentiating.
One can't deny the impact McCarthy had about anticommunist ressentiment.
|
On June 16 2011 04:45 vohne wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 16:52 hmunkey wrote:On June 15 2011 08:53 spidey1991 wrote:On June 15 2011 08:37 gunman103 wrote:On June 15 2011 08:11 Endymion wrote: Yeah, they're definitely getting ready to start a war with China right... If I was in the Chinese military, I would be really scared right about now. What? China is a superpower and Vietnam is a third world country that spends what little they have on military. China will win in a few days to a week if it comes to war (and it probably will). Are you an idiot? Vietnam was a 3rd world country when America tried to go to war with it....they still won. The u.s. said something along the lines of "it'll take us a couple weeks to win" too. And it took 2 years for us to realize we couldn't. The Us lost because their military policy was not to intentionally kill civilians, which obviously doesn't help if the enemy is within the civilian populace. China doesn't have that issue at all. Not to mention Vietnam didn't attack the US -- that would have been incredibly laughable. It can't win the war if it had a policy of killing civilians. The world would react, unite and attack the US. Hundreds of thousands or even millions of civilians died due to inaccurate bombing, US soldiers shooting randomly or even the project orange chemical sprays. Again if it had a policy of allowing civilians ot be killed, it would have to face most of the civilised World who would never allow this. And don't go into a jingoistic argument about how the US can beat everyone, it can'tm they will get nuked and it will be a Mutually Assured Destruction ending.
The US military probably couldn't take on the entire world but if you include all NATO members then it could steamroll over the entire world.
People still fail to understand just how massive the US military advantage is. Even today it's budget is almost just as big as the rest of the world combined. On land numbers mean a lot but in the air and sea technological advantage means everything. It doesn't matter if you have a billion ships when you can't find the enemy and the enemy can atack you from twenty times your range.
Most likely not, I see usa actually helping china as a more propable outcome! corrupt government (usa) + huge debt to china = not good combo
You do realize that when it comes to corruption the USA is more or less a perfect example of how reasonably low you can get corruption in a develloped nation with a lot of money and China is corrupt to the bone right?
Also the debt means nothing to the US. If you think the USA honestly gives a fuck about any demands China might make you are deeply mistaken. The debt is a chain that binds both countries together. If America defaults on it's loans (not realistic) then it's China that will suffer the most.
America will take a dive and it's outstanding loan will be eradicated as a result of dollar inflation. China will see the vast majority of it's outstanding finances evaporate into thin air and suffer dramastic economic setbacks with their main consumer of goods reducing it's intake. Or did you think Zimbabweans were gonna buy those Ipads?
Meanwhile the USA can bounce back pretty easy since it has both a strong production sector and probably the best service sector in the world. America is at the forefront of high know-how jobs. You can't export those to poor countries yet the demand will exist.
The debt "problem" is certainly a chain that binds both China and the USA but it's China that weaks up in the middle of the night fearing the day that the loan scheme runs out of control.
|
On June 16 2011 04:37 vohne wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 15:01 StorkHwaiting wrote:On June 15 2011 14:58 vohne wrote:On June 15 2011 14:49 StorkHwaiting wrote: This thread has so many stupid false comparisons, historical non-facts, and just generally retarded comments on the first page alone. Jesus, what a clusterfuck.
There is no comparison between China-Vietnam and US-Vietnam. One simple reason. China shares a border with Vietnam. The USA is on the other side of the world. The logistical challenges are completely different. Not only that, but cultural differences between the different powers are huge as well. Also, political constraints/climate etc again, completely different. Stop making this nonsensical comparison when talking about superpower vs 3rd world country.
Second, Vietnam is just as much in the wrong. Anyone who's not blind and can read a map should be able to see that. According to the 200 mi rule, Vietnam barely touches the Spratleys and doesn't wholly cover the Paracels.
Third, this will end up a conflict between gunboats and missiles at worst imo. No land-based conflict will happen. US will posture but hell no would they engage in any sort of armed conflict with China. That would be suicidal economically for BOTH sides. Just the specter of it alone would send world financial markets into a nosedive.
True, there may be logistical differences, but that alone shouldn't stop anyone from trying to draw a comparison. Hardly was there ever any perfect metaphors for anything. You may also say that China is spelt differently to US, we shouldn't compare. The mere fact is, China and US have a huge military lead over Vietnam, and it is enough to give credibility that a superpower does not automatically trump a smaller country in a military conflict. If we're going to use proximity as a measure of the validity of the claims, you might as well put it to down whoever is closest gets it. If you are going by who has historical claims over it, then that is a different matter. Agree with your third point. You're going to compare a transglobal conflict to a conflict between two powers that share a border? Do you realize the exponential difference in costs between the two types of conflict? You're acting like this is just driving down a different road. Logistics are 9/10ths of war nowadays and your example was silly. What are you talking about proximity as measure of validity. Do you know what UNCLOS is? And US has a bigger, stronger and more efficient military that makes up for it. So what? The point is you have a country with a big military vs a smaller military country, and big does not always trump small. That was the point. The minute you start drilling down to specifics, whether or not they share a border, whether one has aircraft carriers or not, whether one has a billion population or not, then you lose the simplistic point that the metaphor was trying to establish. Give me any metaphor and I will break it down by being nitpicky, but the point of a metaphor is not to offer a complete and perfect substitute, but, in this case, it was to prove a single solitary point. BIG does not always beat SMALL. If you still insist on this point, then lets take away the metaphor and tell me exactly who would stand a better chance at beating Vietnam at a military conflict and why. Is it the more sophisticated, better trained and better equipped US army. Or the larger and nearer Chinese army. If you say US, then you prove my point, because US lost it back then. If you say Chinese, and stick to your logistical argument, then you still do not disprove my point because I said sometimes big militaries don't beat small militaries, not always. Finally if you don't know, then what are you even talking about. On the issue of proximity and UNCLOS, I would like to say this. UNCLOS applies only if there was not historical claim to the islands. Specifically the parcel islands, if Vietnam claims that it had Vietnamese inhabitants there way before and has ancestral rights to it, then it does not matter if the land was 10miles away or 1000 miles away, it has claims on it cause it had or has people living there. If the disputed territory has no historical claims, then the UNCLOS is the reference. Read up, what I say is true.
So you're trying to boil down military conflicts into binaries. That's a pretty intelligent thing to do.
|
On June 16 2011 04:48 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 15:25 VIB wrote:On June 15 2011 08:20 Rebornlife wrote: They are both communist no? Hence nothing will come of this On June 15 2011 14:48 red4ce wrote: I actually had no idea China and Vietnam don't get along. I figured with both countries being 'communist' and the large population of Chinese living in Vietnam they'd be more friendly. Are these kind of thinking common in the US, or are these 2 just exceptions? It's a little understandable. Most knowledge about Vietnam stems from the Vietnam war, when China really was allied with the Viet Cong. Unless someone is taking a modern world history class, they won't know all the conflicts between them following that war.
Or a history class about all the conflicts between them before that war.
|
The similies between China vs Vietnam and USA vs Vietnam are only accurate if China forces all its supply to cross half the pacific and back, and also allow their media to portray the war any way they see fit.
|
With all this new technology, China can't afford more protests in their cities in this recession.
|
On June 16 2011 05:24 fruchtzergeis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2011 05:07 domovoi wrote:On June 16 2011 05:04 fruchtzergeis wrote:On June 15 2011 08:20 Rebornlife wrote: They are both communist no? Hence nothing will come of this I'm always astounded how close minded people are to ignore the big communist schisma and that they are in fact not communist countries anymore. I blame McCarthy. Uh, why would you blame McCarthy when the Soviet Communist threat was very real and the schism wasn't quite apparent when he was Senator during the 1950's? Talk about being close-minded. i blame mccarthy about producing close-minded people due to his politics since 1950. People who just call everything communist instead of differentiating. One can't deny the impact McCarthy had about anticommunist ressentiment. You have the causation arrow backwards. The USSR did plenty on its own to breed anti-communist resentment (e.g. Cuban Missle Crisis). McCarthy's "witchhunt"* wouldn't have gotten anywhere if people weren't already predisposed to the idea.
* McCarthy shamefully was way too zealous in trying to root out the very real threat. However, many of the people he was accusing did turn out to be Soviet spies.
|
On June 15 2011 08:37 gunman103 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 08:11 Endymion wrote: Yeah, they're definitely getting ready to start a war with China right... If I was in the Chinese military, I would be really scared right about now. What? China is a superpower and Vietnam is a third world country that spends what little they have on military. China will win in a few days to a week if it comes to war (and it probably will).
People thought the same about the United States in Vietnam back in the 1970s and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Again, that's because of the nature of the wars that were fought. Huge amount of hit and run/guerilla style tactics.
|
![[image loading]](http://m2.biz.itc.cn/pic/new/n/01/10/Img2641001_n.jpg)
Not Vietnam, but I thought it was cute.
|
On June 16 2011 06:06 Clbull wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2011 08:37 gunman103 wrote:On June 15 2011 08:11 Endymion wrote: Yeah, they're definitely getting ready to start a war with China right... If I was in the Chinese military, I would be really scared right about now. What? China is a superpower and Vietnam is a third world country that spends what little they have on military. China will win in a few days to a week if it comes to war (and it probably will). People thought the same about the United States in Vietnam back in the 1970s and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Again, that's because of the nature of the wars that were fought. Huge amount of hit and run/guerilla style tactics.
You do realize that both of those conflicts were proxy wars right?
|
|
|
|