Page 4 of 18 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 260

Thread: Chinese actions in the South China Seas

  1. #46
    Regular
    Join Date
    24 Jan 17
    Location
    currently posted to auckland nz
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    Good god it is still the 1700's! If no one is there, seize it...

    Finders keepers, losers weepers...

    Possession in 9/10s of the law...

    Are you 10 years old?
    If the law still exists and is accepted by UNCLOs and other bodies, then why not use it.?

    If volcanic or an earthquake through up a small landmass off the coast of say Hawaii, I betcha the Americans would do the same to prevent anyone else from making it a base.

    FYI Britain and British academics back Japanese claims to the Diaoyo island under the guidelines of Terra Nullis. So it is still used in the 21st century.

    For someone who claims to base his posts on facts, you sure are letting yourself down bigtime.

    The Americans asked the British to sanitize Diego Garcia by removing any traces of human population. Isnt that what e of the German Army did during WW2
    Last edited by Funtastic; 11 Oct 18, at 04:04.

  2. #47
    Regular
    Join Date
    24 Jan 17
    Location
    currently posted to auckland nz
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    Bwahaha

    Obviously you were never a sailor. A ship never overtakes another ship and crosses it's bow suddenly unless it wants to cause something.

    However, a car driver doing this shit is not unknown. I suppose you drive this way.
    The picture does not show the Chinese boat trying to cross the U.S. ship.It could have been the completed final scene of the Chinese boat approching from the port side having given way to the starboard boat andnot crossing the bow of the approching boat. In this situation a turn to port would haveb been the olny option for the PLAN captain as a turn to starboard would have resulted in her hitting the US. Ship. Smart and quick thinking on the part of the Chinese Captain.
    Anyway the front boat's stern was clear of the following boat which was speeding up.You see moves like that in match racing where it is perfectly legal if the front boats stern is clear of the following boat.In pre race manouvring, when one boat causes another boat to back off, it is known as a "slamdunk"

    n this instance the presence of the U.S boat was challenging the Chinese by saying Im here, what you gonna do about it?. Well they got their answer when they got outsailed in a game of chicken and started to bellyache about it. Scorcard in a game of chicken China1 Usa Zip.
    Last edited by Funtastic; 10 Oct 18, at 20:42.

  3. #48
    Regular
    Join Date
    24 Jan 17
    Location
    currently posted to auckland nz
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    The point remains that the USN, RN, RAN, RCN, JSDFN, ROCN do not recognize Chinese soverignty over these waters no matter what kind of bellyaching Beijing is squawking. They are not shutting down their weapon systems and in effect telling the Chinese to fuck off.

    The US and others are calling these artifical islands and therefore cannot be used to lay claim to these waters. It's he sys/she says. Since neither the US nor China is going to allow the UNSC to decide the matter. The legality portion is mute. Both sides claim they're right and the bigger guns win and that ain't the Chinese.

    You can do as much wet dreams as you want. Chinese ownership claims are being ignored. Period.
    The Legailty is not mute.not mute. The rights of Terra Nullis are well established under law and China has the same rights to use them.

    All this does is demonostrate the duplicitous nature of the countries involved in FONOPS.
    Japan and Australia are involved because they are vassel states of the U.S. Britains not far behind either. Have you noticed that theres a couple of hundred other countries who are not running FONOPS.

    Of course the ROC would oppose the PRC claim because they have their own 11 dash claim or have you convienietly forgotten that

    In 1947 the US asked Chiang to submit his 9/11 dot claim.There was no diagreement from any of the major powers of the time. So whats changed.......oh thats right the CCP are now tht government of China......oh thats right, commies are bad.
    Last edited by Funtastic; 10 Oct 18, at 21:07.

  4. #49
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Funtastic View Post
    The Legailty is not mute.not mute. The rights of Terra Nullis are well established under law and China has the same rights to use them.
    Of course it's moot. France and England fought wars all over the world, including North America, simply because they did not recognize Terra Nullis. When you have a hostile power ready to challenge your claims, you better have the firepower to back up your claims. You do not.

  5. #50
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,707
    Quote Originally Posted by Funtastic View Post
    The picture does not show the Chinese boat trying to cross the U.S. ship.It could have been the completed final scene of the Chinese boat approching from the port side having given way to the starboard boat andnot crossing the bow of the approching boat. In this situation a turn to port would haveb been the olny option for the PLAN captain as a turn to starboard would have resulted in her hitting the US. Ship. Smart and quick thinking on the part of the Chinese Captain.
    Anyway the front boat's stern was clear of the following boat which was speeding up.You see moves like that in match racing where it is perfectly legal if the front boats stern is clear of the following boat.In pre race manouvring, when one boat causes another boat to back off, it is known as a "slamdunk"

    n this instance the presence of the U.S boat was challenging the Chinese by saying Im here, what you gonna do about it?. Well they got their answer when they got outsailed in a game of chicken and started to bellyache about it. Scorcard in a game of chicken China1 Usa Zip.
    One picture at the end of things showing the PLAN ship, cutting across the bow of another ship. The U.S ship was the stand on craft. Any ship approaching from the stern or port side the U.S. ship must maintain course and speed as it is the stand on craft. That put the U.S. ship on the starboard side of the PLAN ship which makes the PLAN ship the give way ship if the U.S. ship was overtaking the PLAN ship which wasn't the case. As for your ignorance they are not boats as must would know.

    Ooo, notice your American term "slam dunk." Do you also know the word "toast" as in a small isolate made man island disappearing?

  6. #51
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,707
    Quote Originally Posted by Funtastic View Post

    The Americans asked the British to sanitize Diego Garcia by removing any traces of human population. Isnt that what the Nazis did?
    Based on your reading out of some web site since you probably weren't alive at the time.

    Moving a population is not the same as removing traces. How many traces have you removed, permanently, over the last 50 years?

    As for your Nazi analogy I wold be very, very careful throwing that term around here.

  7. #52
    Regular
    Join Date
    24 Jan 17
    Location
    currently posted to auckland nz
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Of course it's moot. France and England fought wars all over the world, including North America, simply because they did not recognize Terra Nullis. When you have a hostile power ready to challenge your claims, you better have the firepower to back up your claims. You do not.
    No, The north american wars was about conquest and colinization.The presence of a indigenous population who fought for either side would have voided any claim of terra nullis. A High court decision in Australia twenty plus yrs ago has led many to belive Cook was wrong to declare claim Australia for Britain citing terra nullis because there existed a indigenous population to whom the land belonged. Terra nullis implies devoid of population and their is no ownership and other things.

    Anyway the concept of was first formly used to settle the disputes in the polar region in the early 20th century.

    So please give me better reason as to why China cannot utilize the concept of Terra Nullis to claim ownership of those island other than "U.S. dont like it and its got better guns planes ships yada yada yada."
    Last edited by Funtastic; 11 Oct 18, at 01:19.

  8. #53
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,707
    Quote Originally Posted by Funtastic View Post
    If volcanic or an earthquake through up a small landmass off the coast of say Hawaii, I betcha the Americans would do the same to prevent anyone else from making it a base.
    If within 200 mile EZ zone, of our 50th State, then most likely yes.

    How many are within 200 miles of your national coastline?

  9. #54
    Regular
    Join Date
    24 Jan 17
    Location
    currently posted to auckland nz
    Posts
    122
    [QUOTE=tbm3fan;1046113]
    Based on your reading out of some web site since you probably weren't alive at the time.
    Wrong. I was even around when the Americans moved the Population from biki attoll and then nuked the s--t out of it befor allowing the population out of it. Are you suggesting the alternative story is anti american B.s.

    Moving a population is not the same as removing traces. How many traces have you removed, permanently, over the last 50 years?

    It was forced removal

    As for your Nazi analogy I wold be very, very careful throwing that term around here.
    Sorry Ill see if I can remove it
    Last edited by Funtastic; 11 Oct 18, at 04:52.

  10. #55
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Funtastic View Post
    No, The north american wars was about conquest and colinization.The presence of a indigenous population who fought for either side would have voided any claim of terra nullis. A High court decision in Australia twenty plus yrs ago has led many to belive Cook was wrong to declare claim Australia for Britain citing terra nullis because there existed a indigenous population to whom the land belonged. Terra nullis implies devoid of population and their is no ownership and other things.
    Your tap dancing is very impressive. First citing Australia as TN but saying North America isn't. None of this precludes the fact that the European powers fought wars for new lands no matter who planted the flag first. TN alone does not give your sorveringty in perpetuity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Funtastic View Post
    Anyway the concept of was first formly used to settle the disputes in the polar region in the early 20th century.
    Backed by military force.

    Quote Originally Posted by Funtastic View Post
    So please give me better reason as to why China cannot utilize the concept of Terra Nullis to claim ownership of those island other than "U.S. dont like it and its got better guns planes ships yada yada yada."
    I will give you a big one. Because the Chinese claims the entire area as historically theirs and not because of Terra Nullis. Terra Nullis is frankly moot. It voids China's claims based on history.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 11 Oct 18, at 01:42.

  11. #56
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,487
    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    How many are within 200 miles of your national coastline?
    Spratly & scarborough are too far


    Name:  spratly.JPG
Views: 369
Size:  121.6 KB


    Scarborough shoal (Seriously? why is there even an argument about this one !!)
    Name:  scarborough shoal.JPG
Views: 367
Size:  117.4 KB

    Paracel is about 220 miles away
    Name:  paracel.JPG
Views: 367
Size:  100.7 KB

    I don't know as yet where those artificial islands are..
    Last edited by Double Edge; 11 Oct 18, at 02:27.

  12. #57
    Regular
    Join Date
    24 Jan 17
    Location
    currently posted to auckland nz
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Your tap dancing is very impressive. First citing Australia as TN but saying North America isn't. None of this precludes the fact that the European powers fought wars for new lands no matter who planted the flag first. TN alone does not give your sorveringty in perpetuity.
    Thats what I said. TN was not and cannot be a factor in the North American wars of conquest.

    Backed by military force.

    I will give you a big one. Because the Chinese claims the entire area as historically theirs and not because of Terra Nullis. Terra Nullis is frankly moot. It voids China's claims based on history.
    How does it void it. TN and Historical claims are two different things.

  13. #58
    Regular
    Join Date
    24 Jan 17
    Location
    currently posted to auckland nz
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    If within 200 mile EZ zone, of our 50th State, then most likely yes.

    How many are within 200 miles of your national coastline?
    And if it was outside? Would she claim it under TN?

  14. #59
    Regular
    Join Date
    24 Jan 17
    Location
    currently posted to auckland nz
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    One picture at the end of things showing the PLAN ship, cutting across the bow of another ship. The U.S ship was the stand on craft. Any ship approaching from the stern or port side the U.S. ship must maintain course and speed as it is the stand on craft. That put the U.S. ship on the starboard side of the PLAN ship which makes the PLAN ship the give way ship if the U.S. ship was overtaking the PLAN ship which wasn't the case. As for your ignorance they are not boats as must would know.

    Ooo, notice your American term "slam dunk." Do you also know the word "toast" as in a small isolate made man island disappearing?
    Ok smarty. If the difference between boats and ships was size, tonnage and its use, why did the germans and others refer to their submarines as u boats and not U Ships?

  15. #60
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Funtastic View Post
    How does it void it. TN and Historical claims are two different things.
    You must be daft. Historic claims means that China owns these waters in the past. New lands means no one has owned these waters before. You either owned it before or you discover land that no one else owned before, including the Chinese.

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
  •