Why Nansha Islands (Spratlys) belongs to China - Page 10

On June 19 2011 06:39 Romantic wrote:
LOL so China is trying to claim the ocean until about 40 feet from the coasts of those other nations? Oh, dear. I don't think that will go over well.

Just think about it for a minute, man. There is no reason, even if the islands were yours, to be able to claim all that ocean.

On June 19 2011 04:40 Qi wrote:

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

On June 19 2011 06:38 MethodSC wrote:


That was my point exactly. Why should China have control over the waters next to these countries? It's really a ridiculous claim for China to make. They can't expect these other people to stand for that.

On June 19 2011 06:44 stork4ever wrote:



They are using those islands as their border so everything within it is theirs. So the US owns all the sea leading up to Hawaii. England pretty much owns the entire atlantic.

On June 19 2011 04:40 Ciryandor wrote:


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

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

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best claims over the territory, the ROC by being virtue of the true successor state to the old imperial government that originally made those claims, and the Philippines through UNCLOS and Res Nullius.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

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

On June 19 2011 06:18 Cain0 wrote:


Anyone tries to take away our beautiful falklands, shits gonna go down bitches. /troll

On a more serious note, I dont know why countries must "flex" their muscles, I dunno what they get out of it and what it achieves. Theyve got like 1.3 billion people and one of the largest land masses of any country. Why are they bothered about some little islands that mean pretty much nothing.

On June 19 2011 06:53 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Ownership in an absolute sense means nothing more than having the power to maintain control over something. If China has the power and the will to own these islands and the sea surrounding them, then they own them.

Just to remind everyone again, the world is governed by force, not by emotions or desires or invented "moralities." You can lament that fact all you want, but it's never going to change anything.

On June 19 2011 04:04 GertHeart wrote:
For those who didn't study Chinese history, you have to understand china should not be able to get these islands, or anymore resources. Sadly the Chinese government is always fragile as has been for 1000's of years, a simple new leader can simply cause havoc to the rest of the world.

I have no problems with Chinese people, but I do have a problem with their leaders. There will probably be a WWIII and China will be the primary antagonist. Leaders cause wars nor individuals. If people had their way they wouldn't go to war.

On June 19 2011 05:23 zalz wrote:


China wants the islands because with the islands come the water and with the water come the shipping lanes.

Kind of like me robbing you from your wallet and the police then asking why you were provoking me for stealing your wallet.


Historical claims mean little imo. The water is well divided as it stands, it should remain as it is. You have to be practical in this. You can't adapt borders every time China comes up with a new piece of land or water it wants.

These countries are likely to prefer war rather then giving this area to China because if China gets it then war is no longer an option for them. Chinese naval forces could move withing firing distance of their shores, within range of their cities and if they said anything about it, they would be at fault.


These countries are rightfully concerned about the safety of their people and having control of the sea that borders a large part of your country is paramount to national security.



We need to stop pretending like China is a military super power. The Chinese army is underfunded, overstaffed and gravely lacks experienced soldiers and more crucially, experienced officers.

It is a very old and outdated army. Most of what it lacks is mobility. The Chinese army couldn't overun these countries even in a matter of years. They don't have the naval and aerial power to gain absolute control over the area and they lack the mobility to transport enough soldiers across water.


China has an undeserved reputation for being some kind of military super power. Currently China is a regional power but no greater then the Korean/Japanese/Australian trinity. It lacks the ability to project it's forces.

If China decides to go to war it will only end in humiliation. Similar to when the USSR invaded Finland.

On June 19 2011 07:01 Condor Hero wrote:

its funny that you think China will be the primary antagonist for a potential WW3 when it is currently the US that has armies deployed overseas, under the pretext of searching for "WMDs."

On June 19 2011 07:05 ChicoLopez wrote:
Communicating with this Qi character is like some high school boy who thinks he's communicating with a girl his age over the internet and she just happens to share his love of video games as much as he does, when she is actually a 55 year old man. Like it has been stated earlier, Qi is probably connected to the Communist Chinese government in some way or the other. I'm guessing this is his job and he, or is he a "he", spends all day literally chained to a computer in some authoritarian, austere government building in Beijing, setting up accounts across the internet....sites that many of his fellow countrymen MAY NOT visit under penalty of jail... trying to fool skulls full of mush in the righteousness of his government's cause, a government which killed at least 50 million of its own civilians over the past 60 years. Qi was probably a tank driver at Tiananmen Square.

On June 19 2011 07:14 Laurence wrote:


Ummmmm, i think you might have a slightly biased view about communism. No offense, but your country isn't exactly known for it's level-headed understanding view of why communism works in a lot of countries.

On June 19 2011 05:41 Qi wrote:

2000+ years means nothing? You are kidding right? To put it in context, China has claimed these islands LONG before any of the other countries even know they exist, LONG like almost 1000 years long. How is that nothing?
I'm also waiting for it. So far I know all they argue about is proximity, though that is easy to counter. I'm really curious also if they have substantial claim.