China's SCS Strategy Thread

[vesicles]

1) If you want to use historical precedent, the Vietnamese have been fishing in those waters since before the Sheng Dynasty, and the Vietnamese Neolithic societies predate those in China by a full 15,000 years when you compare the Banpo to the multiple known Viet sites.

OK, I think you are contradicting yourself here. You keep saying China as a big guy should ignore the tantrum of the small guys. Here, you say these "small guys" turn out to be very ancient and, therefore, should be very wise civilizations. As you point out, Vietnamese Neolithic societies "predate those in China by a full 15,000 years". Thus, these nations should be ancient and wise, much like Yoda (old and wise but small in size), while China is a youngster. So according to your logic, shouldn't the old and wise cut the youngster some slack? When was the last time that an old man fights with a baby for a lollipop? Why not just give it to the youngster?

 

[Blackstone]

To Everyone: I understand that the prevailing assumption on this forum is that the SCS has
always belonged to, or currently belongs to, China, and all follows from that. I reject this assumption and thus this exchange:
.
.
.

Word to the wise, you're standing on the tripwire and in danger of being placed in the penalty box for a week or two. This is from one who just got out of said box.

 

[solarz]

1) If you want to use historical precedent, the Vietnamese have been fishing in those waters since before the Sheng Dynasty, and the Vietnamese Neolithic societies predate those in China by a full 15,000 years when you compare the Banpo to the multiple known Viet sites.

LOL, I just want to say that by that logic, Chinese civilization began with the Peking Man, about 750,000 years ago.

Sorry, but I can't help but laugh at the ignorance of someone claiming a Neolithic society to belong to a particular modern nation.

 

[no_name]

By that logic everything should belong to Kenya.

 

[Brumby]

I disagree with you plawolf, this is not flamebait. There is a difference.

I note that pro-China posters may attack and insult other posters, yet I may not. How...fair. But this forum is not pro-China. Got it. Understood.



How does occupying unclaimed islands provoke someone?
If China can take what it wants, then it won't matter who is there. They just move in and take it by force. Easy...right? No need to be concerned, just take what they want when they want it. So then it won't matter who or what is there as they can do it at will.

Thus anyone else being there is irrelevant.
Thus it cannot be a provaction.



The PI Navy is tiny with 3 frigates and 11 corvettes. If China thinks that a threat, they need to readjust their thinking. I can only imagine what they think of the Vietnamese or USNavy.

A 20kg person confronts a 100kg person. Normally, the larger person interprets this as a non-threat and ignores the smaller person.

.

Only provactive and controversial to the interests of Mainland China. Last I checked, 18% of humanity.



...and the PLAN mowed down dozens of Vietnamese, mistaking them for USA or PI fishing boats I must assume?

.

You are stating that Mainland China has a policy of 'Mom! He made me!".

This is an unsuitable policy for nations.

Do you know what grown men do when a small child hits them? They laugh and walk away.





By 'Western' you mean 'Non-Chinese', I assume. Yes? Because last time I checked neither Vietnam nor the Philippines nor Indonesia were considered part of 'The West'.

So far the policy of the PRC has alienated everyone in the region except for Laos and Cambodia, two nations that receive 90+% of their FDI from China.

If their goal is to alienate even more nations than the USA, then they are succeeding. I do not see how this policy is efficacious, since by your own admission they are going to take what they want anyhow.



China stated in a press conference that it was the victim. Shall I post that in Putonghua and English as proof?



That attitude will win fewer friends than even the USA has.



The world expects mature, adult like behaviour. Playing the victim when one can take whatever one wants at any time, is not an admirable stance.

Having debated extensively with other posters in this forum I do have some observations that I can offer. Moderation are conducted professionally. Jeff in particular is as neutral as you can get. He is well respected by other posters regardless of ideological leaning. Any suggestion that moderation is bias is simply unfoundered when placed against facts. Having said that, many posters in this forum are generally pro China and any negative comments are not well received and that can generate a sense of forum bias. Any ensuring debate tends to degenerate and goes downhill. What is obvious it generally take a certain track :
* Arguments tends to mirror China official policies with very little substance being added;
* Playing the victimisation card i.e. it is someone else fault;
* Blame foreign media for reporting bias
* Dishing out the strawman argument even though it does not represent its usage in any shape or form
* Making assertions as if they are facts but will not respond when challenged

Finally, conduct yourself at all times in a civil and professional manner even if your actions might not be reciprocated because your patience will be tested.

 

[Brumby]

LOL, I just want to say that by that logic, Chinese civilization began with the Peking Man, about 750,000 years ago.

Sorry, but I can't help but laugh at the ignorance of someone claiming a Neolithic society to belong to a particular modern nation.

Your point under scores why China's claims on historic basis opens a whole can of worms when the rest of the world has moved on to UNCLOS.

 

[vincent]

* Arguments tends to mirror China official policies with very little substance being added;

Haing the same position as the Chinese government doesn't automatically mean it is wrong. Just as in the States where some people consider Snowden as a traitor, same as the US government, doesn't mean those people are wrong (it all depends on one's definition of a traitor)

 

[Brumby]

Haing the same position as the Chinese government doesn't automatically mean it is wrong.

I did not say sharing a similar view as Chinese policies is wrong. Please do not misrepresent what I said. I am simply stating the general inability to articulate substance to policies and in my view reflects a parroting approach.

 

[JayBird]

To some people out there, anything you say in agreeing with the Chinese official policies then you are accused of being one of the above: ChiCom, brain washed, or 50Center (Internet commentators hired by the government of the PRC).

That's how people are being treated in most other western forums when you mention anything postive about China. The mods will jump in to support them as well. They probably get used to that and anything else less than that is unfair and bias. How ironic when the moderators of SDF is one of the most balanced group I've been to in any internet forums.

 

[solarz]

Your point under scores why China's claims on historic basis opens a whole can of worms when the rest of the world has moved on to UNCLOS.

You mean the rest of the world minus the USA.

UNCLOS also says nothing about territorial claims.

Finally, you should understand the difference between history and prehistory.