Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 260

Thread: Chinese actions in the South China Seas

  1. #16
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Funtastic View Post
    Indeed those islands belong to China.The European Court has no jurisdiction on the matter. Only the UN courts should decide if asked. Now the US iis having a tantrum and is organising multiple military exercises as a show of force because a PLAN captain poked them in them in the eye.
    Bwahaha...

    Alternative facts in China? Theft becomes belongs.

  2. #17
    Regular
    Join Date
    24 Jan 17
    Location
    currently posted to auckland nz
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    Bwahaha...

    Alternative facts in China? Theft becomes belongs.

    I guess a citizen of the U.S. would know alot about that.

  3. #18
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    5,371
    Quote Originally Posted by Funtastic View Post
    You seem to think that everything China does is bad while everything America does is good. I couldnt care a less that you lseem to like playing "Uncle Tom" to the U.S. and want India l to join Australia and Japan as her vassel states.
    China is a 20,000 year old civilization. During the early dynastic rule, China conquered 80% of the land mass of this earth, and ruled much of what is known in the modern world as Europe, Americas, India and Africa. It's a fact that the Mongols claim ancestry from the Hans. Outrage as China lays claim to Genghis Khan. Racist western press.

    If not USA, China will trade with like-minded countries such as Pakistan, NKorea, Somalia etc. This way those countries can make a quantum jump in technological adoption thereby reducing poverty and increasing Chinese population in their shores. Imagine a Somalian kid (no offence to Somalians) with a Huawei cellphone ordering food through Uber Eats from America, and having delivered by Alibaba to his table in Xamar. Or a NKorean/Pakistani ordering restricted dual use nuclear items and getting it delivered to their respective countries. Globalization.

    When it comes to FP, China is feared as well as respected by all nations, which is why China is on the news almost on a daily basis. Where fear and intimidation doesn't work, China will use dollars to coerce, bribe, threaten, bankrupt. Money talks, bullshit walks.

    If and when sovereignty of China is challenged, immediately Taiwan will be occupied & Tibet granted independence. Oops, not occupied, merged with the mainland. And just to prove that sovereignty rules supreme for the CPC, Japan & SKorea will be nuked. This should be taken as an early warning by the Americans, failing which the American sky will get lit by DongFengs, DongHais etc. Cowboys dead, America destroyed, China will rule unopposed.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  4. #19
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,466
    Quote Originally Posted by Funtastic View Post
    I guess a citizen of the U.S. would know alot about that.
    A citizen of the US or Canada can read just as well as you can.

    Artificial island - Wikipedia
    Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea treaty (UNCLOS), artificial islands are not considered harbor works (Article 11) and are under the jurisdiction of the nearest coastal state if within 200 nautical miles (370 km) (Article 56).[16] Artificial islands are not considered islands for purposes of having their own territorial waters or exclusive economic zones, and only the coastal state may authorize their construction (Article 60);[17] however, on the high seas beyond national jurisdiction, any "state" may construct artificial islands (Article 87).
    So, no. China's claims based on those artificial islands is legal horse puckey.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 07 Oct 18, at 22:34.

  5. #20
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Funtastic View Post
    I guess a citizen of the U.S. would know alot about that.
    A frickin' comedian we have.

    My currency is cold hard facts and not stories, fantasies or make believe

  6. #21
    Regular
    Join Date
    24 Jan 17
    Location
    currently posted to auckland nz
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    China is a 20,000 year old civilization. During the early dynastic rule, China conquered 80% of the land mass of this earth, and ruled much of what is known in the modern world as Europe, Americas, India and Africa.
    You forgot add Disneyland.
    Give me a link which details Chinese claims that they once ruled the Americas, Africa and conquered 80% of the world if you can. If you cant, then obviously you have let your rabid hatred of China affect your cognitive ability.

  7. #22
    Regular
    Join Date
    24 Jan 17
    Location
    currently posted to auckland nz
    Posts
    122
    [QUOTE=WABs_OOE;1045975]A citizen of the US or Canada can read just as well as you can.

    /QUOTE]

    So what your point concerning my reply to tbm3fan?
    FYI I was inferring that Americans stole land as well so he couldnt really "get off his high horse about"

    Anyway if the positions were reversed America would do exactly the same thing as China is doing in the SCS.
    Last edited by Funtastic; 07 Oct 18, at 19:45.

  8. #23
    Regular
    Join Date
    24 Jan 17
    Location
    currently posted to auckland nz
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    A frickin' comedian we have.

    My currency is cold hard facts and not stories, fantasies or make believe
    ROFL

    Heres some cold har facts. Much of the U.S and its off shore territories was established through conquest and steal. eg See Andrew Jacksons Indian Removal Policy or rewriting the narative to give some legality into turning Diego Garcia into a military base.

  9. #24
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,466
    Quote Originally Posted by Funtastic View Post
    So what your point concerning my reply to tbm3fan?
    His response was to you claiming that China owns those islands. As you can see from the UNCLOS, those artifical islands does not establish soverignty in disputed territory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Funtastic View Post
    FYI I was inferring that Americans stole land as well so he couldnt really "get off his high horse about"
    Neither here nor there. You try to imply that Chinese ownership of those artifcial islands give them claims over the area. It doesn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Funtastic View Post
    Anyway if the positions were reversed America would do exactly the same thing as China is doing in the SCS.
    Canada and the US (and Mexico) have border disputes and competing sea claims. Those are being dealt with by lawyers, not generals. FYI, Canada and Mexico have won more than their fair share of those legal disputes.

  10. #25
    Patron
    Join Date
    07 Jan 08
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Nowhere near enough to support combat operations which means that the Chinese must bring in fresh water, fuel, munitions, food to conduct combat operations. And you just conviently sunk the cargo ships needed to bring in those supplies and block any other cargo ships from coming in because you blocked their passage.

    Does not matter in anyway. Both China and the US can veto any UNSCR that they don't like.

    You're right there. The Chinese have zero clue in naval task group operations.

    I've heard this in the past 30 years and I have yet to see the Chinese to reach the level that was on par with the Soviets in the 70s.

    Now, if they only are allowed to patrol with nukes on board.

    As for the rest of your post, it reads like a budget demand. The big scary Chinese are going to put us in a disadvantage. We need to spend big time to counter them.

    I'm way too old to fall for those tricks no do I care.
    We all know that China will just get straight up rekt in a naval battle, unless the US warships show too much broadside. Then I'm curious what stops the US from dropping the hammer right now? There must be a reason, I just don't know.

  11. #26
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,654
    Quote Originally Posted by hboGYT View Post
    We all know that China will just get straight up rekt in a naval battle, unless the US warships show too much broadside.
    As i understand it allows China to claim territorial waters much further out. This then becomes their EEZ. The line sent out to the neighbours is no exploitation of maritime resources without joint development. Isn't so much a blockade but a way to regulate what development goes on in the area.

    Their tactic is useless in the event of a war but works well in peace time to coerce neighbours and is under the threshold of an American response. Thereby creating this continuous impression the Americans and anybody else are useless. Erodes confidence. So the FONOPS increase to show somebody is out there.

    If FONOPS are useless why does China care enough to want to ram vessels.


    Then I'm curious what stops the US from dropping the hammer right now? There must be a reason, I just don't know.
    How to do it without leading to a war ? Nobody wants that. The neighbours don't want to be forced to choose.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 08 Oct 18, at 16:37.

  12. #27
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Funtastic View Post
    ROFL

    Heres some cold har facts. Much of the U.S and its off shore territories was established through conquest and steal. eg See Andrew Jacksons Indian Removal Policy or rewriting the narative to give some legality into turning Diego Garcia into a military base.
    Ah, the Japanese excuse used in the '20s to justify their excursions around Asia. If you can do it we can do it. Granted they had a point at THAT time.

    Well it isn't the 1920s anymore it is 2018 and supposedly the world has evolved from seizure conquest. As for Andrew Jackson it isn't the 1830s and neither of us was alive. Had I been I am sure I would have had something to say and still would try if I could find my DeLorean and Mixmaster. As for Diego Garcia it seems the British bought the island and it was willing sold to them. Wait the French willing sold us the Louisiana Purchase so does that mean we have to give it back?

    I will send praise your way for the outpouring of concern for the Native American Indians back then. Is the outpouring of concern on equal par with Native Tibetans and Native Uyghurs? Just askin'

    You know it you really wanted an honest to God Island that satisfies all the legal definitions of an Island, and would turn the SCS into a lake, the Island is there for the picking. Lots of Chinese have lived there for hundreds of years. The Island's waters have untold numbers of ancient Chinese artifacts going back a thousand years. That would mean the Chinese were there before it was ever a country. I have dived on a few and the artifacts are on sale in the numerous antique stores around the country. I have some of my shelf. Some pottery and some San Miguel. I bought mine from a dealer in Manila.

  13. #28
    Regular
    Join Date
    24 Jan 17
    Location
    currently posted to auckland nz
    Posts
    122
    [QUOTE=tbm3fan;1046026]i

    As for Diego Garcia it seems the British bought the island and it was willing sold to them.
    I dont believe that to be the true story. Firstly why would Britain want to buy their own colony? This is what Happened....

    VGuided by Barber’s idea, the administrations of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson convinced the British government to detach the Chagos Archipelago from colonial Mauritius and create a new colony, which they called the British Indian Ocean Territory. Its sole purpose would be to house U.S. military facilities........During secret negotiations with their British counterparts, Pentagon and State Department officials insisted that Chagos come under their “exclusive control (without local inhabitants),” embedding an expulsion order in a polite-looking parenthetical phrase. U.S. officials wanted the islands “swept” and “sanitized.” British officials appeared happy to oblige, removing a people one official called “Tarzans” and, in a racist reference toRobinson Crusoe, “Man Fridays.”

    “Absolutely Must Go”.............
    http://ifg.org/2016/05/03/diego-garc...military-base/
    Last edited by Funtastic; 09 Oct 18, at 08:48.

  14. #29
    Regular
    Join Date
    24 Jan 17
    Location
    currently posted to auckland nz
    Posts
    122
    [QUOTE=tbm3fan;1046026]


    I will send praise your way for the outpouring of concern for the Native American Indians back then. Is the outpouring of concern on equal par with Native Tibetans and Native Uyghurs? Just askin'
    My attitude towards mudering terrorists would be pretty similar to yours.

    You know it you really wanted an honest to God Island that satisfies all the legal definitions of an Island, and would turn the SCS into a lake, the Island is there for the picking. Lots of Chinese have lived there for hundreds of years. The Island's waters have untold numbers of ancient Chinese artifacts going back a thousand years. That would mean the Chinese were there before it was ever a country. I have dived on a few and the artifacts are on sale in the numerous antique stores around the country. I have some of my shelf. Some pottery and some San Miguel. I bought mine from a dealer in Manila.
    Why should they have to do that? Unless the contributor to Wiki is mistaken, the Tribunal did not award those islands to any claimant. Therefore China hasnt stolen those islands from the Phillipines..... right? alsothe tribunal ruled that Firey Cross, Gaven, Johnson andCauterton reefs displayed features which allowed them to be awarded territoral waters of 12nm So under UNCLOS definition, that makes them islands..... right?
    Last edited by Funtastic; 09 Oct 18, at 09:20.

  15. #30
    Regular
    Join Date
    24 Jan 17
    Location
    currently posted to auckland nz
    Posts
    122
    [QUOTE=WABs_OOE;1046002]
    His response was to you claiming that China owns those islands. As you can see from the UNCLOS, those artifical islands does not establish soverignty in disputed territory.
    Who cares , "Posession is nine tenths of the Law"

    You try to imply that Chinese ownership of those artifcial islands give them claims over the area. It doesn't.
    See my post at 29 about the tribunal awarding territorial rights to four of those islands. Therefore under Unclos definitions, they are not artifical islands.

    eg On 12 July 2016, the tribunal of the Permanent Court of Arbitration concluded that Fiery Cross Reef contains, within the meaning of Article 121(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), naturally formed areas of land, surrounded by water, which are above water at high tide. However, for purposes of Article 121(3) of UNCLOS, the high-tide features at Fiery Cross Reef are "rocks that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own and accordingly shall be entitled to 12nm of territorial sea measured from its baseline but have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf".[12]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiery_Cross_Reef
    Last edited by Funtastic; 09 Oct 18, at 09:43.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. China to seize foreign ships in disputed seas
    By cyppok in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04 Dec 12,, 04:03
  2. Iowa on the high seas...
    By tbm3fan in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 02 Jun 12,, 20:47
  3. China claims they've found 30 Illegal oil platforms in South China Sea
    By cr9527 in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 26 Mar 12,, 05:32
  4. China charts course toward secure South China Sea
    By VietPhuong in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 13 Jul 09,, 10:41
  5. South-east Asia: Indo-Chinese Flashpoint?
    By Rani Lakshmibai in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 159
    Last Post: 23 Jun 05,, 13:44

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •