China's SCS Strategy Thread

[B.I.B.]

You are conflating UN consensus with international tribunals. You need to first get your facts straight.

The ICJ made a ruling against the Uk and U.S.The UN consenus just reinforces that ruling to be the right one.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Just a quicky,

Just heard on CNBC news, that the Peoples' Daily of China just published on its editorials:

With regards to the supplied of Rare earth.

I quote "Don't say we didn't warn you!

The significant of these words is because it has ever only been used TWICE in is history.

Once in 1962 just before the war with India, and the second time in 1978 just before the conflict with Vietnam.

I guess China is peeved, and it's now serious.

So guess Trump's trade war is not easy to win after all!

Sorry wrong thread

 

[getready]

guys, give it a rest. Save your breath.
1) some people are so biased that they think evil China cannot do any good, and so must be stopped and contained before it's too late. but OTOH, USA is a beacon on the hill, a shining glory that God has placed on Earth to govern the whole world. So if Uncle Sam wants to kill you, it must be for your own benefit. that's their logic
2) you cannot wake up someone pretending to be asleep. They won't and they can't listen to reasons and sound arguments.
therefore, just state your case and move on.

I have long said that guy is anti china troll that isn't even here as a military enthusiast. This guy hides behind a wall of verbosity and twists and turns words. Most likely a lawyer of some sort. Just ignore him

 

[siegecrossbow]

I may be forced to close down this thread if you guys can't keep the discussions ON TOPIC.

 

[Brumby]

In other words, you have a reading comprehension problem. My position was NEVER that China should renounce these islands if any country has ever renounced territory from international pressure.

I asked for examples to understand where you got your crazy fancy idea that China should relinquish territory based on an "international tribunal." Were there examples? I want to understand your "thinking."

I made you a conditional offer because you insist on examples. I am not going to waste my time if you have no intention of honouring your end. As I said I can provide examples but that requires action on your part.

But like I said, it cannot outweigh the examples and evidence of countries going against it, backing my stance. There is no logic at all that all you need is an example of something happening in world history for all the multitudes of examples against it to be overturned, is there?

Now come on, where are those "examples"? That you are so hesitant to provide them leads me to think that they don't really parallel this situation at all but instead may have some vague semblance only, and they would easily be determined to be irrelevant on closer examination.

But now that you mention it, my original argument here was that there is absolutely no reason that someone else claiming your territory somehow reduces your right to build on them. Yes, that's how everything started, because by some confusion in your mind, you said that China announcing that it has the right to build on its own sovereign territory was somehow like... Nazi... Germany? LOL Simply because another country had made a claim on it. And there's just simply no logic and no law that would support that view.

The current world order is based on a set of international rules which China adheres to selectively when it suit its position. The issue of sovereignty is not based on opinion as you naively argue with example like if China declares a territory is in dispute others cannot build on it. That would be the argument of a juvenile speaking from ignorance. Maybe I am expecting too much from you.
Sovereignty claims require meeting various legal test to have standing to invoke a dispute Please don't embarrass yourself by debating on a subject which is clearly outside your intellectual capacity.

 

[manqiangrexue]

I made you a conditional offer because you insist on examples. I am not going to waste my time if you have no intention of honouring your end. As I said I can provide examples but that requires action on your part.

I'll make you an equal offer, then, and that's if I can find an example of a country pushing aside international orders to give up territory then you admit that what China's doing is correct. How's that?

I don't honor "my" end, because it was never mine; it was what you hoped you could get me to adopt. I honor my end whenever I make a promise. But no promise has ever been made. If it has, quote it.

You don't have to provide any examples; it just leaves your argument empty. You don't ask other people to take action for you to support your own argument. I'm not responsible for it; you are. If you want to abandon it with no substance, that would be my recommendation. I give you nothing.

Examples are a very small part of my argument; I have proven your logic wrong so many times that it's ridiculous to even have to rewrite.

The current world order is based on a set of international rules which China adheres to selectively when it suit its position. The issue of sovereignty is not based on opinion as you naively argue with example like if China declares a territory is in dispute others cannot build on it. That would be the argument of a juvenile speaking from ignorance. Maybe I am expecting too much from you.
Sovereignty claims require meeting various legal test to have standing to invoke a dispute Please don't embarrass yourself by debating on a subject which is clearly outside your intellectual capacity.

I think it's very obvious to everyone here reading who's being embarrassed and has hyper-extended his "intellectual" capacity by repeatedly demonstrating lack of reading comprehension, free-thinking, and the gaping emptiness of his argument (which he mistakes as his opponent's responsibility to entice him to substantiate). If you want me to drop to your level of thoughtlessly guzzling down propaganda, you are indeed expecting too much. We Chinese are free-thinkers unlike you. Sovereignty is based absolutely on opinion. China has an opinion; Vietnam does; so does the US and whatever "court" issued the empty ruling. There is no "GOD" figure to give an absolute answer so all we have are people's opinions. And countries with the power will honor their own opinions far above anyone else's attempts to coerce them to give up their interests. China has every reason that it needs to claim sovereignty over these territories and there is no power that has the authority to judge China's claims. Your "international rules" are clearly dysfunctional since many many countries adhere or reject them however they like, including China.

 

[Brumby]

I'll make you an equal offer, then, and that's if I can find an example of a country pushing aside international orders to give up territory then you admit that what China's doing is correct. How's that?

I don't honor "my" end, because it was never mine; it was what you hoped you could get me to adopt. I honor my end whenever I make a promise. But no promise has ever been made. If it has, quote it.

You don't have to provide any examples; it just leaves your argument empty. You don't ask other people to take action for you to support your own argument. I'm not responsible for it; you are. If you want to abandon it with no substance, that would be my recommendation. I give you nothing.

Examples are a very small part of my argument; I have proven your logic wrong so many times that it's ridiculous to even have to rewrite.

I think it's very obvious by the audience here who's being embarrassed and has hyper-extended his "intellectual" capacity. If you want me to drop to your level of thoughtlessly guzzling down propaganda, you are indeed expecting too much. We Chinese are free-thinkers unlike you. Sovereignty is based absolutely on opinion, as is the rest of the world. China has an opinion; Vietnam does; so does the US and whatever "court" issued the empty ruling. There is no "GOD" figure to give an absolute answer so all we have are people's opinions. And countries with the power will honor their own opinions far above anyone else's attempts to coerce it to give up its interests. China has every reason that it needs to claim sovereignty over these territories and there is no power that has the authority to judge China's claims. Your "international rules" are clearly dysfunctional since many many countries adhere or reject them however they like, including China.

Any further discussions is pointless when you don't respect rules. That is precisely why it is such a problem with China's rise because what is happening in SCS is the behaviour of a belligerent state that believe in might is right.

 

[manqiangrexue]

Any further discussions is pointless when you don't respect rules. That is precisely why it is such a problem with China's rise because what is happening in SCS is the behaviour of a belligerent state that believe in might is right.

Looks like you just described the US (and Russia, and many other countries) again. It is absolutely pointless because you want us to conclude that any other country (USA, Russia, Britain, Israel) can disrespect the rules but China should abide by them or it makes China belligerent. No, it makes China normal. And you flatter yourself to think you have the the mental debate skills to spin free-thinking people onto your skewed narrative.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Any further discussions is pointless when you don't respect rules. That is precisely why it is such a problem with China's rise because what is happening in SCS is the behaviour of a belligerent state that believe in might is right.

Gee who doesn't Does Britain and US comply with ICJ ruling to vacate Chagos island and return the sovereignty to Mauritania?. Now this is UN body ICJ the arbitration panel is not part of UN It is private body finance and paid by the Phillipine and US stack with their appointee It has no jurisdiction on settling territory claim. Whatever their ruling is worth the toilet paper and can be totally ignored
What goes for the geese is good for the gander.
Might is always right no need for grandstanding on high moral ground!

What those panel does is to provide veneer of legality in order to meddle in other people business Since the real purpose is to deny China their forward defense position for their own gun boat .
diplomacy.

 

[zgx09t]

South China Sea belongs to China.