Japan’s Anti-China Coalition Is Dangerous

[Götterdämmerung]

This coalition makes as much sense as a coalition of Germany towing along Poland and Ukraine to counter Russia.

 

[xunzi]

Because Person B gives lots of money to Person C to do it. Chinese stupidity always amaze me.

One of the most stupidest rebuttal I have ever seen. LOL This is why the world always laugh at you Indian. Let take a deep logical step to evaluate your analogy, shall we?

1) Personal A has a fish. - You implied that Person A owns the fish.
2)Person B want that fish. - You implied Person B wants the fish.
3)Person C can't give fish to person B as it's not his to give. - You implied Person C cannot give fish to Person B because it is not his fish to give.

Then I ask you, why is Person C claiming the fish now when he never own the fish in the first place? LOL You need to take critical thinking 101 class, my Indian friendddd.

 

[xunzi]

no, China declared 12 miles of sea water. so North Vietnam letter didn't mentioned about Island Paracel and Spratly.

You still don't get it, do you? We made a declaration on our territory (including Paracel and Spratly) and its extended entitlement to the 12 nautical miles off those territories. Your PM informed us that you accepted and recognized those declaration that we made. The point is not whether your PM makes any reference to Paracel and Spratly in his letter. That is not important. The important legality here is that we declared clearly what territories we own and you accept and recognize it. And you didn't protest it, at all. In international law, you cannot change stance to suit your sympathetic excuse.

Can North Korean say Dokdo belong to Japan ?

If North Korea DID say that Dokdo belong to Japan and later they reunified the country under the North Korea's flag, then yes they must keep that promise to Japan. Get it, my Vietnamese friend?

 

[Rechoice]

You still don't get it, do you? We made a declaration on our territory (including Paracel and Spratly) and its extended entitlement to the 12 nautical miles off those territories. Your PM informed us that you accepted and recognized those declaration that we made. The point is not whether your PM makes any reference to Paracel and Spratly in his letter. That is not important. The important legality here is that we declared clearly what territories we own and you accept and recognize it. And you didn't protest it, at all. In international law, you cannot change stance to suit your sympathetic excuse.


If North Korea DID say that Dokdo belong to Japan and later they reunified the country under the North Korea's flag, then yes they must keep that promise to Japan. Get it, my Vietnamese friend?

stop lying about nature of the letter.

North Korean don't have right to say that Dokdo belong to Japan. If he did it could unified National Assembly of Korean State approve it or reject it ?

even agreement is signed but National Assembly has a Veto to ratify, to reject it.

What do you say when Lee Teng Hui, president of Taiwan said that Senkaku belong to Japan base on rule of international law ?

 

[xunzi]

stop lying about nature of the letter.

North Korean don't have right to say that Dokdo belong to Japan.

What do you say when Lee Teng Hui, president of Taiwan said that Senkaku belong to Japan base on rule of international law ?

Again, If North Korea flag is the full flag of unify Korea or if Taiwan's flag is the flag of unify China, then they can say respective territories belong to them. Do you understand this? The world can clearly see the flaw logic of you Vietnamese.

Let me provide you a simple analogy. Let say you have a house next to a neighbor's house. You say that house belongs to your friend. Later you own that neighbor's house, should you keep that promise to your friend?

 

[Rechoice]

Again, If North Korea flag is the full flag of unify Korea or if Taiwan's flag is the flag of unify China, then they can say respective territories belong to them. Do you understand this? The world can clearly see the flaw logic of you Vietnamese.

Let me provide you a simple analogy. Let say you have a house next to a neighbor's house. You say that house belongs to your friend. Later you own that neighbor's house, should you keep that promise to your friend?

Flag is changed time to time.

Taiwan flag is from KMT, who ruled all China in the past, he has his right. CPC is rebel, never control all China..

Neighbor does not have right over his neighbor house. when I buy neighbor house, every thing related to neighbor house is my. kid.

 

[Peter]

Again, If North Korea flag is the full flag of unify Korea or if Taiwan's flag is the flag of unify China, then they can say respective territories belong to them. Do you understand this? The world can clearly see the flaw logic of you Vietnamese.

Let me provide you a simple analogy. Let say you have a house next to a neighbor's house. You say that house belongs to your friend. Later you own that neighbor's house, should you keep that promise to your friend?

Let's see ...

1. Let say you have a house next to a neighbor's house.
--- meaning that house BELONG to me!

2. You say that house belongs to your friend.
--- false, because if that house belongs to my friend then how could you say: Let say I have a house?
---You should have stated that "Let say there is a house next to a neighbor's house" instead!

3. Later you own that neighbor's house
--- If I don't have that house before but I own it later because: I bought it from the neighbor or the neighbor gave it to me ...

4. should you keep that promise to your friend?
--- Keep what promise?

Your analogy makes no sense at all ... Are you sure this is how Chinese people think?

 

[NiceGuy]

Again, If North Korea flag is the full flag of unify Korea or if Taiwan's flag is the flag of unify China, then they can say respective territories belong to them. Do you understand this? The world can clearly see the flaw logic of you Vietnamese.

Let me provide you a simple analogy. Let say you have a house next to a neighbor's house. You say that house belongs to your friend. Later you own that neighbor's house, should you keep that promise to your friend?

PM Dong didnt Own VietNam and had No right to decide abt VN's sovereignty. Only VN parliament have that right.

PM Dong sent u a private letter, but our parliament sent u Nothing

 

[Jlaw]

Let me provide you a simple analogy. Let say you have a house next to a neighbor's house. You say that house belongs to your friend. Later you own that neighbor's house, should you keep that promise to your friend?

Let's see ...

1. Let say you have a house next to a neighbor's house.
--- meaning that house BELONG to me!

2. You say that house belongs to your friend.
--- false, because if that house belongs to my friend then how could you say: Let say I have a house?
---You should have stated that "Let say there is a house next to a neighbor's house" instead!

3. Later you own that neighbor's house
--- If I don't have that house before but I own it later because: I bought it from the neighbor or the neighbor gave it to me ...

4. should you keep that promise to your friend?
--- Keep what promise?

Your analogy makes no sense at all ... Are you sure this is how Chinese people think?

You should read his post again. Your analogy does not make sense.

Let me provide you a simple analogy. Let say you have a house next to a neighbor's house. You say that house belongs to your friend. Later you own that neighbor's house, should you keep that promise to your friend?

Let's see ...

1. Let say you have a house next to a neighbor's house.
--- meaning that house BELONG to me!

2. You say that house belongs to your friend.
--- false, because if that house belongs to my friend then how could you say: Let say I have a house?
---You should have stated that "Let say there is a house next to a neighbor's house" instead!

3. Later you own that neighbor's house
--- If I don't have that house before but I own it later because: I bought it from the neighbor or the neighbor gave it to me ...

4. should you keep that promise to your friend?
--- Keep what promise?

Your analogy makes no sense at all ... Are you sure this is how Chinese people think?

You should read his post again. Your analogy does not make sense.

 

[vostok]

For us, most important thing is Sovereignty, Independence and Freedom.

And all this you will lose if you go to the U.S. side.

 

[Brainsucker]

Let's see ...

1. Let say you have a house next to a neighbor's house.
--- meaning that house BELONG to me!

2. You say that house belongs to your friend.
--- false, because if that house belongs to my friend then how could you say: Let say I have a house?
---You should have stated that "Let say there is a house next to a neighbor's house" instead!

3. Later you own that neighbor's house
--- If I don't have that house before but I own it later because: I bought it from the neighbor or the neighbor gave it to me ...

4. should you keep that promise to your friend?
--- Keep what promise?

Your analogy makes no sense at all ... Are you sure this is how Chinese people think?

What he means is like this :

You have a house, your friend has a house. Then, you have an enemy in your neighborhood. Your friend seize your enemy's house backyard for himself. You acknowledge that that backyard belong to your friend. Then, you seize your enemy's house. Then after you got your enemy house, you want to take over your ex-enemy's backyard that you have acknowledge as your friend's.

 

[NiceGuy]

And all this you will lose if you go to the U.S. side.

But we have No choice while Russian bro can not help VN now coz she get bogged down in Crime . If we dont join to US. side, then China will join to US. side like 1979 , beg for support and attack VN again .

We r not worry if fighting one to one with China, but we know China willing to beg for US support again, so we have no choice, but join with US side first.

 

[Brainsucker]

PM Dong didnt Own VietNam and had No right to decide abt VN's sovereignty. Only VN parliament have that right.
PM Dong sent u a private letter, but our parliament sent u Nothing

I don't understand this. So a Vietnamese prime minister doesn't has some weight in the Vietnam decision making? So who sign the agreement between you and Pinoy, then you and Malay, and you and Japan? You said that you have settled your border dispute with Pinoy. Who signed that? Your parliament? You also said that you have settled your dispute with Malaysia. Who signed that treaty? Then what about the alliance between you and Japan? who decide that? if Vietnamese prime minister doesn't has any weight in any Vietnam decision, then you just want to cheat Pinoy, Malaysia, and Japan.

Who know after you kick China in the future You can said the same thing to Pinoy and Malaysia. You can just said that PM had no right to decide about Vietnam sovereignty. It is your parliament. So, you can just send your warship to kick Pinoy and Malaysia; then take over then whole Spratly and Paracel islands. Who know you will betray japan and argue that Vietnam PM doesn't has any "right" to decide.

 

[Aepsilons]

And all this you will lose if you go to the U.S. side.

I think that Vietnam owes it to choose any side that can best support the national interest of Vietnam. To quote Lord Palmertson, "there is no such thing as permanent friends or allies, just permanent interests."

 

[Brainsucker]

I think that Vietnam owes it to choose any side that can best support the national interest of Vietnam. To quote Lord Palmertson, "there is no such thing as permanent friends or allies, just permanent interests."

if Vietnam can betray Russia (I don't think it is happen yet), then they can also betray you in the future. Well, but just like what Lord Palmertson said, there is just permanent interest Vietnam owes too much to Russia