China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Dolcevita]

In case you have not noticed, this thread is about the SCS and the UN tribunal has already rules that China's occupation of the islands is illegal. As such its claim of sovereignty is simply belligerent act. If to wish to discuss other countries start a new thread. As Deino has advised, stay on topic or is it rules somehow don't apply to you guys?

The PCA sometimes gets confused with the International Court of Justice, which has its seat in the same building.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The PCA is however not part of the UN system,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

although it does have observer status in the UN General Assembly since 1993.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Hendrik. I think Brumby knows the difference. He is just being dishonest.

 

[broadsword]

Mr. Brumby is 110% dialed in here gentlemen, his honest, accurate, succinct summary of the truth is indeed threatening to China's narrative! that's what has you in a "funk".... it's indeed humorous to observe! LOL

Indeed, it's humorous to observe! The jokes are on!

 

[manqiangrexue]

Mr. Brumby is 110% dialed in here gentlemen, his honest, accurate, succinct summary of the truth is indeed threatening to China's narrative! that's what has you in a "funk".... it's indeed humorous to observe! LOL

Hey, forgot to call him handsome and smart! LOL

Can you please summarize your understanding of his point and the counterpoints made against him? Because I have a sneaking suspicion that you don't even understand the whole conversation but came to interject because you saw that one of your "allies" was being demolished in a debate so you read maybe the last 5% of the discussion, got all of your most shallow compliments together, and laid all of them out on him as if they were worth anything.

 

[manqiangrexue]

When you're so badly stuck in a time loop regurgitating your previously defeated points that people can reply to you entirely by citing old posts LOL:

You are suggesting that my arguments were in appropriate. I suggest you walk them through and point them out why they are inappropriate to the topic.

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/chinas-scs-strategy-thread.t3118/page-561#post-556692
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/chinas-scs-strategy-thread.t3118/page-562#post-556728

How is the US and Israel relate to the counter argument in this thread?

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/chinas-scs-strategy-thread.t3118/page-561#post-556692
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/chinas-scs-strategy-thread.t3118/page-562#post-556723

I get it that the US may be having disputes with other countries which it often does but that doesn't change the fact that there is a sovereignty dispute in the SCS and the tribunal has ruled on it. The issue isn't whether China or the US may not be abiding by certain rules but the denial that there is even a a dispute.

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/chinas-scs-strategy-thread.t3118/page-562#post-556720

PS. Ignoring people who debate much much better than you may work in a street setting but not on a public forum. Their points don't just disappear and neither does your public humiliation show.

 

[Gatekeeper]

It is not UN tribunal It is private arbitration panel paid for and stacked with full US appointee It has no jurisdiction at all
The UN go full length to distance themselves from this panel
Now ICJ IS UN BODY

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Wikipedia has this to say about the PCA.‘The PCA is not a “court" in the conventional understanding of that term but an administrative organization with the object of having permanent and readily available means to serve as the registry for purposes of international arbitration and other related procedures, including commissions of enquiry and conciliation. The judges or arbitrators that hear cases are officially called "Members" of the Court.

The public at large is usually more familiar with the International Court of Justice than with the Permanent Court of Arbitration, partly because of the closed nature of cases handled by the PCA and also the small number of cases dealt with between 1946 and 1990. Sometimes even the decision itself is kept confidential at the request of the parties.’

To simplify, this is a private entity established to facilitate arbitration by member states on a willing buyer willing seller basis. It is quite like a commercial establishment, any member state can come to seek help to arbitrate their disputes. It is not a court! It is not a world body like the UN or sanctioned by the UN. Its jurisdiction and ruling are as good as the disputing parties want it to be. It has no authority and no legal status if a disputing party is not willing to subject itself to its arbitration. The closest example of such a court is the international court in Tanjong Pagar in Singapore, a convenient store for customers to avail themselves of its facilities.

You are wasting your time, we have informed him of this, We even asked him google it if he doesn't believe us.

The man lives in a world of his own.

"A closed mind is like a closed book" Absolutely useless, its only good use as a door stop!

 

[Gatekeeper]

Mr. Brumby is 110% dialed in here gentlemen, his honest, accurate, succinct summary of the truth is indeed threatening to China's narrative! that's what has you in a "funk".... it's indeed humorous to observe! LOL

Come on Brat,

I don't mind having debates, and in a debate, theres going to be opposing views. Fair enough, but he's basically all posters here, and by extention, China and all Chinese a bunch of thugs that got no respect to international law!

All we are saying is this is not true.

Example 1, he ACCUSED posters here that we DON'T recognised theres a dispute in the SCS.

False, we recognised theres dispute, but we also recognised China claims sovereignty. They are not mutually exclusive.

Example 2, He then accused China of bullying by using its economic and military muscles to build on disputed territory which in his head China sholud not do, and because they did, it showed China an agressive country which show no respect to other claimants.

We countered by stating theres no law that says China can't do that. If there was such a law that prohibits building on disputed territory, then Vietnam, Phillipine, Malaysia, Indonesia is also guilty of the charge, why does he single out China. Indeed, the charge can apply to all nations in the world building on disputed territory. UK (Folklands, Gilbrater) Russia (South Krill) Australia (Timor gap), I could go on, but you get the picture

And finally, and this takes the biscuit. He accused all posters here, and China of not respecting "INTERNATIONAL LAW". The law he was refering to comes from the kangaroo court called "international court of abitration"! Lol

He refused to accept that by ALL measures, this is NOT a court, and it has no legal standing or any binding power.

This "court" is like us here in the forum decided amonst ourselves that the, say what the US is doing in the trade war is evil and the US should cease immediately! And in his head, the US should respect the SDF forum members court's ruling. And because the US refuse to comply, the US is shameless and lawless bunch of people and anyone supporting that should be ashame of himself.

And he stubbornly refuses to listen to views thats contrary to whats in his head, and continued to repeat whats in his head like he's in a time-loop!

And you think he's 110% spot on!?

Wow, brat, just wow!

 

[Dolcevita]

Come on Brat,

I don't mind having debates, and in a debate, theres going to be opposing views. Fair enough, but he's basically all posters here, and by extention, China and all Chinese a bunch of thugs that got no respect to international law!

All we are saying is this is not true.

Example 1, he ACCUSED posters here that we DON'T recognised theres a dispute in the SCS.

False, we recognised theres dispute, but we also recognised China claims sovereignty. They are not mutually exclusive.

Example 2, He then accused China of bullying by using its economic and military muscles to build on disputed territory which in his head China sholud not do, and because they did, it showed China an agressive country which show no respect to other claimants.

We countered by stating theres no law that says China can't do that. If there was such a law that prohibits building on disputed territory, then Vietnam, Phillipine, Malaysia, Indonesia is also guilty of the charge, why does he single out China. Indeed, the charge can apply to all nations in the world building on disputed territory. UK (Folklands, Gilbrater) Russia (South Krill) Australia (Timor gap), I could go on, but you get the picture

And finally, and this takes the biscuit. He accused all posters here, and China of not respecting "INTERNATIONAL LAW". The law he was refering to comes from the kangaroo court called "international court of abitration"! Lol

He refused to accept that by ALL measures, this is NOT a court, and it has no legal standing or any binding power.

This "court" is like us here in the forum decided amonst ourselves that the, say what the US is doing in the trade war is evil and the US should cease immediately! And in his head, the US should respect the SDF forum members court's ruling. And because the US refuse to comply, the US is shameless and lawless bunch of people and anyone supporting that should be ashame of himself.

And he stubbornly refuses to listen to views thats contrary to whats in his head, and continued to repeat whats in his head like he's in a time-loop!

And you think he's 110% spot on!?

Wow, brat, just wow!

Beautifully done.
fair, sincere, gentlemanly, truly honest, factually accurate, and succinct

 

[B.I.B.]

Come on Brat,

I don't mind having debates, and in a debate, theres going to be opposing views. Fair enough, but he's basically all posters here, and by extention, China and all Chinese a bunch of thugs that got no respect to international law!

All we are saying is this is not true.

Example 1, he ACCUSED posters here that we DON'T recognised theres a dispute in the SCS.

False, we recognised theres dispute, but we also recognised China claims sovereignty. They are not mutually exclusive.

Example 2, He then accused China of bullying by using its economic and military muscles to build on disputed territory which in his head China sholud not do, and because they did, it showed China an agressive country which show no respect to other claimants.

We countered by stating theres no law that says China can't do that. If there was such a law that prohibits building on disputed territory, then Vietnam, Phillipine, Malaysia, Indonesia is also guilty of the charge, why does he single out China. Indeed, the charge can apply to all nations in the world building on disputed territory. UK (Folklands, Gilbrater) Russia (South Krill) Australia (Timor gap), I could go on, but you get the picture

And finally, and this takes the biscuit. He accused all posters here, and China of not respecting "INTERNATIONAL LAW". The law he was refering to comes from the kangaroo court called "international court of abitration"! Lol

He refused to accept that by ALL measures, this is NOT a court, and it has no legal standing or any binding power.

This "court" is like us here in the forum decided amonst ourselves that the, say what the US is doing in the trade war is evil and the US should cease immediately! And in his head, the US should respect the SDF forum members court's ruling. And because the US refuse to comply, the US is shameless and lawless bunch of people and anyone supporting that should be ashame of himself.

And he stubbornly refuses to listen to views thats contrary to whats in his head, and continued to repeat whats in his head like he's in a time-loop!

And you think he's 110% spot on!?

Wow, brat, just wow!

You forgot the US base on Diego Garcia to your list of examples.

 

[B.I.B.]

Your assumption is clearly that it is the norm for countries to obey deliberations that they relinquish territory and that is not the case.

Your other assumption that having anyone else put a claim on your territory removes your right to build on it is either out of thin air or from some anti-China propaganda you ate.

Now after doing some research, I see that this "court" at Hague is a total joke; it has hardly any jurisdiction at all. Many countries in the world have not ratified their support and many more including China, USA and Russia, are not signatories to it. It literally has no jurisdiction whatsoever over these countries. To these 3 powers (and many many more), this "court" is just a bunch of Dutch guys debating amongst themselves. And what's even more funny is that even the Philippines withdrew their signature from it! This is hilarious! Check out the jurisdiction map on the right side below the logo. Only green countries have agreed to submit themselves to arbitration by this court. All other colors represent different ways and situations they used to say NO (detailed key is in the link under the picture).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Good job; the more you raise the issue the more holes become apparent in your "argument." Keep it up; I want to learn more about how China is acting completely within its rights and doing the right thing for its people.

I

Your assumption is clearly that it is the norm for countries to obey deliberations that they relinquish territory and that is not the case.

Your other assumption that having anyone else put a claim on your territory removes your right to build on it is either out of thin air or from some anti-China propaganda you ate.

Now after doing some research, I see that this "court" at Hague is a total joke; it has hardly any jurisdiction at all. Many countries in the world have not ratified their support and many more including China, USA and Russia, are not signatories to it. It literally has no jurisdiction whatsoever over these countries. To these 3 powers (and many many more), this "court" is just a bunch of Dutch guys debating amongst themselves. And what's even more funny is that even the Philippines withdrew their signature from it! This is hilarious! Check out the jurisdiction map on the right side below the logo. Only green countries have agreed to submit themselves to arbitration by this court. All other colors represent different ways and situations they used to say NO (detailed key is in the link under the picture).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Good job; the more you raise the issue the more holes become apparent in your "argument." Keep it up; I want to learn more about how China is acting completely within its rights and doing .

Deleted .just saw Blitzo's correction

 

[zgx09t]

Mr. Brumby is 110% dialed in here gentlemen, his honest, accurate, succinct summary of the truth is indeed threatening to China's narrative! that's what has you in a "funk".... it's indeed humorous to observe! LOL

Well, well, our in-house Joel Osteen and John Bolton embracing each other in all their full glory. How heart warming.