China admits it: we are cutting off Filipino supply to Ayungin Shoal

[GR!FF!N]

Peaceful rise is crap. Who has ever rose peacefully. It's not a possibility. Unless somehow you think America will just move out of Asia by itself.

Taiwan and China will become one, one day, and in the event that it doesn't, Taiwan belongs to no organization, what does it matter what they think.

7 years war is just an example that, by playing it safe, IE india, you are really just doing nothing. I mean nothing is going to change if you don't do anything.

It may be the right or the wrong move, but doing something is better than doing nothing.

well,you're wrong in this case.not everybody use its power to stole land and wage wars against its neighbours without much of a reason...and one lesson China has to learn.never wage wars or never create uneasiness in the neighbourhood through your power.or else everybody will gang up against you and will stop from being a great power by every means.and why PH??why claim those god forsaken rocks at the cost of Peace and prosperity in this region.you might be thinking it'll be easy to win a war against PH.but you're wrong.PH is under USA's protection.you try to harm PH and USN will jump on PLAN.not just the war,they will actively seek bases around the China,not to mention helping Taiwan to acquire new weapons that they stalled on China's request.China not will loose its face,but it'll trap itself in much uncomfortably.Vietnam war was an example.you attacked for Khemer Rougue and created a permanent enemy for nothing.China already created much enemy in SCS region with its unrealistic claims,a war only increase the effort to contain China by its neighbours.

You will get tired of asking India to do something. They even don't fire a single shot but all the time chanting like, "we will do this, we will do that".

China needs to provoke India. If India does not do anything then at least China can do something.

I just hope somehow a shot, even if accidentally, is fired from the Indian side. It will be fun watching the fight live on TV with a beer in hand. Today's TV reporters will carry out the live coverage of an intensive war.

I got enough reson to call you a troll..thank you for that.

 

[Jade]

Just because Indians choose to listen to a foreign power doesn't mean we have to.

You are a nation of 1.2 billion, no shortage of some of the best talents, with a growing economy that will soon match swords with the world's best, so tell me why do you guys want to be under a UN that is American dominated.

There's a saying in Chinese
挟天子以令诸侯

It means, controlling the emperor to control the nobles.

The UN is in America, three out of 5 security member is one America, and two American "allies".

G7 all American "allies."

IMF, and all other major international institutions are American.

America is controlling the world even without the might of her military.

I mean all American wars are UN wars, they go in the name of world peace and legitimacy given to them by UN, what other nation can do this?

They have the imperial decree to do what ever and make it legitimate. How is this not an abuse of power.


We won't bow to America, and if we do it won't be for long and it'll just be a ploy to bid our time.

Regardless of whether you think we have a fair case, any trial and rule by UN imposed on China is unfair by the fact that the accused is also the judge, jury, and executioner.

Is that fair to you?

UN and the present international order for the all its fault, has worked and has kept the world out of major wars. The present system may not be equitable, but is gradually progressing towards a multi polar one.

India certainly don't want the mantle of global policeman pass from US to China.

As far as India listening to foreign power, give me one instance where India heed to US on major policy issue. India is all about self interest.

 

[Genesis]

well,you're wrong in this case.not everybody use its power to stole land and wage wars against its neighbours without much of a reason...and one lesson China has to learn.never wage wars or never create uneasiness in the neighbourhood through your power.or else everybody will gang up against you and will stop from being a great power by every means.and why PH??why claim those god forsaken rocks at the cost of Peace and prosperity in this region.you might be thinking it'll be easy to win a war against PH.but you're wrong.PH is under USA's protection.you try to harm PH and USN will jump on PLAN.not just the war,they will actively seek bases around the China,not to mention helping Taiwan to acquire new weapons that they stalled on China's request.China not will loose its face,but it'll trap itself in much uncomfortably.Vietnam war was an example.you attacked for Khemer Rougue and created a permanent enemy for nothing.China already created much enemy in SCS region with its unrealistic claims,a war only increase the effort to contain China by its neighbours.




I got enough reson to call you a troll..thank you for that.

The tension isn't from China Philippine, it's a China US war. Your assumption that US will actively sought more bases and giving weapons is exactly why China wants the Seas.

The combined might of SCS countries is weaker than one Chinese military region. The conflict stems from the fact US is in our backyard. Regardless of who SCS belongs to, US can mount an effective strike on China, but China can't reach US. This isn't balance, that's why China wants US out of SCS, so that they can't mount a strike against China.

As to contain China, stop it with that word, unless you think Indian neighbors can contain India, don't use it on China.

 

[Hellraiser007]

By the time of Vietnam war, America is already powerful enough that it no longer required the false title of UN in some situations.

Much like the saying 挟天子以令诸侯.

It talked about CaoCao, of Three kingdoms period in China. After he conquered ove rhalf of China, he adopted the title of king, even though during the beginning of the dynasty, the founding emperor made a rule no body who isn't from his blood can be made a king. (the title emperor is still higher to a king)

His son, eliminated the emperor and made himself an emperor and started a new dynasty.


America is at a point where finger pointing does as much to it as wind blowing in someone's face. America's got Amnesty international and organizations like these that constently point fingers at other countries that people stop focusing on America.

You may think America doesn't hold all the cards, but Russian economy is puny relative to America, militarily much weaker and Russian allies as well as Chinese are third world, while American allies are all the developed countries in the world.

How can our allies object to America, when they need help from "international" organizations like the IMF where the developed world provide the bulk of the funding and decide who gets what and how.

@Hellraiser007

You guys got beef with pretty much all your neighbors as well, let's be real. BTW, all world powers are created not by balance but by taking risks.

The rise of prussia is one of the riskiest, it started with the seven year war and at points it looked like the end of Prussia, but then Prussia survived and became a great power.

Balance is good, but to be great, you can't always play it safe.
@GR!FF!N

funny you choose to ignore this in my last post.

The risk factor is there but the path you are following is not the right one.

You cannot take on the NATO, Japan, India and other smaller nations single hand, You only have pakistan and North Korea to support.

You are threatening every neighbor and there by make enemies. It seems USA is tightening the screws and China is falling for that. USA can easily create a world war 2 like situation there by they can maintain the upper hand.

 

[Battle of Kursk]

@Genesis

By the time of Vietnam war, America is already powerful enough that it no longer required the false title of UN in some situations.

You wrote something plainly wrong, I corrected you. In any case you were discussing the influence the USA has on the UN now, so I can't see how the above statement is relevant, the same goes for the paragraph to follow.

America is at a point where finger pointing does as much to it as wind blowing in someone's face. America's got Amnesty international and organizations like these that constently point fingers at other countries that people stop focusing on America.

You are confusing cause and effect. The roots of current human rights philosophies lie in the west, so it's no surprise that the west was the first to adopt it and the one to adheres to them the most, generally speaking. Later it came with little surprise that many people have found merit in this philosophy without regard to ethnicity or nationality. Human right movement may be based in Europe but they are not controlled by the European governments nor the USA.
Since the west has currently in practice higher standards of human rights (again generally speaking), naturally they should get less criticism. However this is not the case due to the fact that many activists live in the west and that it's easier to criticize countries with freedom of press and expression.

Here are some facts to spice things up: In the years 1986-2000 the Amnesty international held the most press releases against (surprise surprise): The USA!
second place goes to Israel (American ally), while China is only ranked 4th.

info: http://www.mcgill.ca/files/rgchr/ISQsubmission.pdf

Another fact: The current Secretary General of the organization is Indian. How could this be if according to you we are led to believe that Amnesty is one of the organizations that is used by the USA against 3rd world countries?

The Secretary Generals before that were from Bangladesh and Senegal, well known western countries.

How can our allies object to America, when they need help from "international" organizations like the IMF where the developed world provide the bulk of the funding and decide who gets what and how.

What did you expect, to take their money and then just go and work against them? They are getting money which helps them become developed, in return they help the USA/EU in something else. This need not be permanent, look at Russia, which was deep in debt after the 90's, but is IMF debt free (or as good as) right now.

Anyway, there would be no need to "object to America" if you wouldn't grab what doesn't belong to you:

"Now we are grabbing Ayungin Shoal from Philippines just like we grabbed Scarborough Shoal.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/255897-china-admits-we-cutting-off-filipino-supply-ayungin-shoal.html#ixzz2UzbKeNpu"

If I allowed myself to get immersed in the discussion let me correct you on a few other points from the previous post:

The UN is in America, three out of 5 security member is one America, and two American "allies".

The UN consists of General Assembly, UN security council as well as other councils.
The USA does not control the General Assembly, in fact the 3rd world countries hold the majority there, they are many times vote with China against the USA.
Now to the UNSC, The USA cannot control the UNSC, it was created that way. China and Russia hold a veto right there.
Neither does the UNSC consist of 5 countries: There are 15 UNSC members at all times, the other 10 though temporary their power is real and except the veto have the same rights as the permanent 5 when it comes to votes. I would look to how they are elected if I were you, nothing the USA/West can dictate.

Regardless of whether you think we have a fair case, any trial and rule by UN imposed on China is unfair by the fact that the accused is also the judge, jury, and executioner.

Is that fair to you?

Unlike most countries China has veto power in the UNSC, a decision cannot be made against it in the UNSC. That is more than fair?

 

[Jade]

The risk factor is there but the path you are following is not the right one.

You cannot take on the NATO, Japan, India and other smaller nations single hand, You only have pakistan and North Korea to support.

You are threatening every neighbor and there by make enemies. It seems USA is tightening the screws and China is falling for that. USA can easily create a world war 2 like situation there by they can maintain the upper hand.

Forget Pakistan here in this equation. If given a choice between US and China. 100 out 100 times Pakistan will choose US.

North Korea however may support China.

 

[Genesis]

The risk factor is there but the path you are following is not the right one.

You cannot take on the NATO, Japan, India and other smaller nations single hand, You only have pakistan and North Korea to support.

You are threatening every neighbor and there by make enemies. It seems USA is tightening the screws and China is falling for that. USA can easily create a world war 2 like situation there by they can maintain the upper hand.

Why are we taking on India as well? For all we know, the stand off was blown out of proportion and in reality it was nothing.

Japan won't fight with another nation yet.

So just American alliance, and truth be told, how willing would the europeans follow America against China. They know full well China isn't Iraq. With their economy and politics the way it is they may even back out.

I'm not saying war is inevitable, as it very well could be avoided through politics, economics and military advancement, and other means.

In fact the way US China relationship is, we will probably do just that and not actually go through with actual war.
@Battle of Kursk

I very well, could have wrote something wrong, after all this is a forum not a essay writing assignment. Vietnam war was not just Americans, it also involved other countries, and you could see how I generalized there. But you have to admit, America uses to UN name way more than say China, Russia.

Whether or not we have good or bad human rights is irrelevant, I am just saying these organization, while true not directly controlled by US, but who sets the standard for Human rights. True, Chinese may not get the most freedom, but having lived in Canada and America, I know a lot of Chinese there have complained of American and Canadian freedom and the side effects of it.

Hence, I am, and a lot of the Chinese people I know, only seldom in Canada and US, to visit friends and other things. (though not here to discuss this)

As to the Indian SG, the UN SG is korean, does that mean US takes orders from Koreans.

I know SC has more than 5, but only 5 permanent members. As stated before, why go into so much detail when you know what I mean.

Being Russian or live in Russia, I'm sure you know Putin is not a fan of the West and of the UN at times. If the UN is as fair as you claim to be than why is Russia and China feeling like they do.

After Russia and China vetoed action in Syria, Hilary Clinton said we will pay for this. IS this an equal relationship, regardless of what you think of Syria.

Now they are arming the rebels anyways. Tell me how are we suppose to feel about the UN. If they don't like something, then they will find other ways of doing it anyways, if we do, it's a crime against humanity.

 

[Battle of Kursk]

Sorry, long post incoming

@Genesis

At the point China sign it, China had pretty much no navy, air force or anything else. Military or otherwise. What was China going to do, not sign it, when it concerned China almost non at all.

Exactly! Israel, Turkey Venezuela and the USA have not, Cambodia, Colombia, El Salvador, Iran, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Libya, United Arab Emirates signed but not ratified it. However strong you believe China is or will be it will still have to work with other nations, and breaking treaties is not the way to establish good relations with others. China stands quite some to loose from breaking a treaty.
BTW, it does concern China quite some since it has a long coast line and furthermore is not an Island so has naval borders to set with it's neighbors.

Peaceful rise is crap. Who has ever rose peacefully. It's not a possibility. Unless somehow you think America will just move out of Asia by itself.

Yeah, you're right. Lets reminisce on other powers in the past that believed that aggression and taking what is "rightfully theirs" by force is the way to go; Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Good luck with that, friend.
USA and USSR rose to power through WWII (WWI too for USA), not wars they started. If you want to rise to power then you need to take advantage of opportunities, not go on a power trip across neighboring countries. At least historically speaking, you can do what you like as long as you are prepared to face the consequences.

The combined might of SCS countries is weaker than one Chinese military region. The conflict stems from the fact US is in our backyard. Regardless of who SCS belongs to, US can mount an effective strike on China, but China can't reach US. This isn't balance, that's why China wants US out of SCS, so that they can't mount a strike against China.

Yes, but imagine the world reaction if you start bullying militarily weaker neighboring countries for their resources. The world does not end at the countries that border China. Already it seems like India and Japan are working to create a cooperation in wake of such behavior, it's the 20th century and the world does not like bullies.

Why are we taking on India as well? For all we know, the stand off was blown out of proportion and in reality it was nothing.

Japan won't fight with another nation yet.

Yet is the key word. Historically aggressors usually got a few free passes, Chamberlain given up Czechoslovakia so Hitler was sure they would do nothing if he took Poland. You have already taken Tibet... if I were you I would ask myself when would the rope snap, and am I willing to take the risk?

I very well, could have wrote something wrong, after all this is a forum not a essay writing assignment.

Well, i guess I went too much into detain in the later post, but I stand 100% behind the detail in the first one. You claimed something that was wrong and then used it to farther your point.

But you have to admit, America uses to UN name way more than say China, Russia.

Can't see anything wrong with that, inherently hearing the opinions of many states, as the UN enables is a good thing. Russia and China should use this tool more often imo.

As to the Indian SG, the UN SG is korean, does that mean US takes orders from Koreans.

The comparison is invalid, if are comparing UN SG to Amnesty SG then you should compare the power they exert over their organizations. Which doesn't have to be similar anyway.
This was a way to show that non 1st world countries are slowly getting a bigger share at international organizations.

Being Russian or live in Russia, I'm sure you know Putin is not a fan of the West and of the UN at times. If the UN is as fair as you claim to be than why is Russia and China feeling like they do.

Oh, I never claimed the UN is fair, I believe it is far from it. You would see similar claims from some in the USA by the way. But it is a great diplomatic tool, that as said above has a pretty good record at preventing big scale conflicts. Which I believe is for the best of all, including China.

After Russia and China vetoed action in Syria, Hilary Clinton said we will pay for this. IS this an equal relationship, regardless of what you think of Syria.

Now they are arming the rebels anyways. Tell me how are we suppose to feel about the UN. If they don't like something, then they will find other ways of doing it anyways, if we do, it's a crime against humanity.

Talk is cheap, Russia has been supplying weapons to Assad as well as political support. Has the USA done anything about it? no.
See, not only the USA can work around the UN. I am sure that China is capable as well. But antagonizing the whole international community and breaking international treating which China signed and ratified are not a way to do so.

 

[Genesis]

@Battle of Kursk

When did we break the treaty? We are going around it. We are discussing this on an individual bases with each country. We have exerted our influence to ASEAN, and the example is last year. So they can drag this on as China keeps getting stronger. Can't kick America out right now anyways.

Don't just use WW1 and 2, you know there are a lot of wars. There are many reasons for why certain things happened in WW1 and 2 that gave America a great advantage. For started, the WWs completely drained the European and Asian countries. China and Europe, especially Russia took the brunt of the force, while Americans came and clean it up.

China is clearly different from Germany and Japan, we are doing things differently, hence no force to this day is used. Also why we are building a massive coast guard force as to make our activities no military.

There are many wars in history, you should look for similarities in similar situations, not just things that happened recently.

You wrote 20th century, it's 21st, see how people make mistakes. India and Japan is a normal relationship, why can't they have a relationship? If anything I am only worried about Japan, because they are known for their efficiency, and India is not.

Did you just say we took Tibet and the international community let us.......? Yea, that's what happened, exactly what happened.....

looking at your Tibet point, at least my is just because I overlooked a detail, while yours is an entire misrepresentation of what happened. Look at what Tibet was during Qing dynasty, and republic of China too, if it wasn't divided even in the mainland China.

Just one question can China invade Philippine or Japan and claim WMDs and get the UN's seal of approval or at least non interference?

Nukes prevented big scale conflicts, UN was there as a general gather, but there have been many of these through out history. The reason this one worked is MAD.

When did we antagonize the entire international community, we haven't even antagonize the entire ASEAN, which as it turns out has a few Chinese supporters in it.

 

[skyisthelimit]

I agree with Kursk, China should play diplomatically..... this way of handling the hard way and bullying others who are small and weak, will only spoil China's image in front of other nations.

 

[Battle of Kursk]

@Genesis

Perhaps we didn't understand each other well enough. Allow me to try and clarify, through the past few decades China was quite peaceful, and in turn successful in building itself foreword. I never said you broke the treaty (though it seem like that with the Philippians) nor antagonized the international community, I was saying that China should be wary of such actions. Some your statements (not actions of China as of now) if carried out could lead to that.

Don't just use WW1 and 2, you know there are a lot of wars. There are many reasons for why certain things happened in WW1 and 2 that gave America a great advantage. For started, the WWs completely drained the European and Asian countries. China and Europe, especially Russia took the brunt of the force, while Americans came and clean it up.

I am well aware there are other wars and you are welcome to provide examples to farther your points? However I believe those are good examples as they were relatively recent, involved great powers and lead to the emergence of super powers.
USA was not the only one to emerge past WWII, another one is USSR. Anyway my example was trying to convey what happens to aggressors who overstep themselves in the age of globalism.

If anything I am only worried about Japan, because they are known for their efficiency, and India is not.

Why should you be worried about either? Neither seems to favor a militant approach to affair concerning China.
Unless you plan to be the aggressor. I have to admit that the USSR was not too efficient before the war, Communism doesn't encourage that much, and two front war is not a great idea under most circumstances.

Did you just say we took Tibet and the international community let us.......? Yea, that's what happened, exactly what happened.....

Did you read what I wrote, or made a whole sentence up? I clearly wrote "given up" when addressing Czechoslovakia as opposed to "taken" for Tibet. I know the comparison are not exactly similar, but I believe it worked well enough to give you the essence of what I think.

looking at your Tibet point, at least my is just because I overlooked a detail, while yours is an entire misrepresentation of what happened. Look at what Tibet was during Qing dynasty, and republic of China too, if it wasn't divided even in the mainland China.

Actually the comparison is pretty good, you can research on the claims Germany had on neighboring lands. Especially those that were taken from them under Versailles accords after WWI

Just one question can China invade Philippine or Japan and claim WMDs and get the UN's seal of approval or at least non interference?

Without UN interfering? of course! Every UN sanctioned action against any country has to go through the UNSC, so unless your ambassador falls a sleep it's impossible. The flip side is that you cannot force the member states to not act separately from the UN.

Nukes prevented big scale conflicts, UN was there as a general gather, but there have been many of these through out history. The reason this one worked is MAD.

I agree, it was both things. Hard to say how much each factor contributed, though I wouldn't argue against MAD being the bigger factor.

 

[Okemos]

I agree with Kursk, China should play diplomatically..... this way of handling the hard way and bullying others who are small and weak, will only spoil China's image in front of other nations.

Bullying is part of diplomacy, isn't it not? hehe..

Also China doesn't have much image in the world anyway with all international (English) media controlled by BBC, CNN, etc. Any dispute between China and another country is China's fault because "communism" is a sin in itself., so as long as China is ruled by the CCP, China will never have good image anyway. I don't see how worse China's image could get. Plus, image can improve in future (Take for example Japan and Germany) while sovereignty issues could have much much more consequences.

 

[ephone]

Territories of others? Idiots like you know nothing about history.

That has been our fishing ground for thousand of years. The last time there is a country called ph is just recent history.

Try to grab the territories of others and cry like a Bit-ch when bigger power gang up against china.

You may have occupied a small rock there but the enemies you are making in the due process will hurt you in the long term.

Nothing is going to change in SCS and Chinese must obey UNCLOS.

 

[Okemos]

Territories of others? Idiots like you know nothing about history.

That has been our fishing ground for thousand of years. The last time there is a country called ph is just recent history.

Created after the name of King Phillip II of Spain, hehe. I find it rather funny.

 

[p3avi8tor69]

The lesson here is if a country, such as the Philippines, wants to claim a piece of land then she must have the means to back her claim up. China will take all the island Philippines claim because that country did not do anything in the last 2 decades to strengthen her might. It is not like this land grabbing happened overnight. The Philippine lost mischief reef in 1994 when China forcibly grabbed the reef and yet Philippines did not do anything to improve her military capability other than issue rhetoric. Fast forward 2012 China grabs Scarborough Shoal/Huangyan Island through sheer intimidation due to the fact that the Pinoys are still weak militarily as they chose not to invest in improving their military.