|
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?
|
16934 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.
|
16934 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.
|
16934 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.
|
16934 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. 
|
16934 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.
|
16934 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
