China Warns U.S. To Stay Out Of Sea Dispute

[siegecrossbow]

I think you need to check again, Su-30MK2 have canards but China refused to opt for that in order to increase payload.

Canards are the optional one.

Canards on the MK2 are necessary to balance the addition of heavier PESA radars. China did not want major modifications on MKK/MK2. Do you have proof that the Vietnamese MK2s have PESA radars?

 

[siegecrossbow]

It is not called "disputed area" but as McCain has said: “the aggressive behavior of China and the unsubstantiated territorial claims that it seeks to advance” are “exacerbating tensions” in the waters. Other countries in the area do not think differently either.

You say unsubstantiated territorial claims and I say substantiated. You say aggressive behaviour but I think the actual shooting of Chinese and Vietnamese sailors by Fillippino patrol boats is far more aggressive. I can't convince you and vice versa.

 

[Peter]

No my knowledge of South East Asian geography is sufficiently sound. Some one, on the other hand, needs a lesson in East Asian History/Current affairs.

---------- Post added at 03:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:10 AM ----------



Where is the "KMT pro-independence" under researcher Peter? The conflict between the KMT and CCP is an extension of the Chinese civil war and not some sort of bid for independence.

You're so naive Siegecrossbow. "pro-independence" is just a political correctness term to nicely push China a side for Taiwan to breathe easier, but it doesn't mean a unification with China as you have stated the "three nos" policy as defined by Ma Ying-jeou - no unification, no independence and no use of force.

Got it now?

 

[siegecrossbow]

You're so naive Siegecrossbow. "pro-independence" is just a political correctness term to nicely push China a side for Taiwan to breathe easier, but it doesn't mean a unification with China as you have stated the "three nos" policy as defined by Ma Ying-jeou - no unification, no independence and no use of force.

Got it now?

I am the naive one??? Some one can't read the "no independence" part of the three "no"s. Where is the proof that the KMT wants independence? Ma himself commented on the improvement of China's political system/living standards as prerequisite for reunification. Both sides want reunification but simply have different concept of who China must reunited under.

 

[Peter]

You say unsubstantiated territorial claims and I say substantiated. You say aggressive behaviour but I think the actual shooting of Chinese and Vietnamese sailors by Fillippino patrol boats is far more aggressive. I can't convince you and vice versa.

Exactly! Therefore, China's action of "attack-n-cut" Vietnam's survey ship's cables is reasonable, but not to Vietnam. Apparently, China is bullying smaller nations but dare not to her own size opponent's.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Apparently, China is bullying smaller nations but dare not to her own size opponent's.

Face palm! We are rehashing the same argument they had in the beginning of the thread again. Some one will now talk about Korea and then some one else will talk about how the U.S. only bully smaller countries and then some one will talk about how China hadn't fought any wars in 30 years....

 

[Peter]

I am the naive one??? Some one can't read the "no independence" part of the three "no"s. Where is the proof that the KMT wants independence? Ma himself commented on the improvement of China's political system/living standards as prerequisite for reunification. Both sides want reunification but simply have different concept of who China must reunited under.

Why trigger a bully one with "independence" while "no independence" still works fine as "do whatever I want"? For instance, record arms-sells from US - you see not Siegecrossbow!? Naive, yes?

 

[siegecrossbow]

Exactly! Therefore, China's action of "attack-n-cut" Vietnam's survey ship's cables is reasonable, but not to Vietnam. Apparently, China is bullying smaller nations but dare not to her own size opponent's.

Ok back on topic. What country "China's ownsize" should China bully then? Not very many countries are as large as China and only India is nearly as populous.

 

[Peter]

Face palm! We are rehashing the same argument they had in the beginning of the thread again. Some one will now talk about Korea and then some one else will talk about how the U.S. only bully smaller countries and then some one will talk about how China hadn't fought any wars in 30 years....

It is different: situation, area, time frame - NOW!

There is no need for those arguments that you have mentioned, Siegecrossbow!

 

[Peter]

Ok back on topic. What country "China's ownsize" should China bully then? Not very many countries are as large as China and only India is nearly as populous.

How's about us, US!?

 

[Peter]

A SIMPLE WARNING TO EVERYONE KEEP OUT OF CHINA TERRITORY DONT TRY TO PROVOKE CHINA AS YOU WILL PROVOKE PAKISTAN IF YOU PROVOKE CHINA

WHAT'S ABOUT US, US?

Actually, you are just a member of this forum and not reflect any authority of your government at all; so try not to show off anything funny, Khanz4966 - please

 

[siegecrossbow]

How's about us, US!?

If China had not challenged the U.S. why are we hearing about the "China threat" b.s. all the time?

 

[khanz4996]

WHAT'S ABOUT US, US?

cant you see it in afghanistan?Why does US think it untouchable?US will pay the a heavy price for it

 

[Gayorgy]

WHAT'S ABOUT US, US?

Well if the USA try to wade into this conflict, we will probably see a rerun of the Korean crisis where Chinese boats tail American aircraft carrier all the way through international waters, military tension runs high again and economic games played behind the scene like dumping the dollar, and calling for a new reserve currency etc. I don't think America would want to go through that episode again.

 

[siegecrossbow]

It is different: situation, area, time frame - NOW!

There is no need for those arguments that you have mentioned, Siegecrossbow!

Yes now! The more radical people will talk about why the U.S. hadn't gone into Iran or North Korea despite numerous provocations from those countries and get the conclusion that the U.S. can't even "bully" them.

---------- Post added at 03:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:44 AM ----------

Well if the USA try to wade into this conflict, we will probably see a rerun of the Korean crisis where Chinese boats tail American aircraft carrier all the way through international waters, military tension runs high again and economic games played behind the scene like dumping the dollar, and calling for a new reserve currency etc. I don't think America would want to go through that episode again.

It is gonna end up being a game of chicken. Worst case would be no one blinking till the very end.