What's new

Open war in the South China Sea

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

I really respect hard working guys...You really work hard for that 50 cants

You don't hear us making fun of you Indians working for 5 rupees.

Chinese class and Indian incivility are important differences that separate our peoples.
 
1. As sovereign, war is self-defense of Chinese territory.

Fair enough.

2. Every Chinese dynasty has claimed sovereignty over the South China Sea islands and maritime territories. So no, we are not like the Vikings and we didn't fiddle around a bit and we never left the South China Sea.

So if you never left, why are then all these tensions?

And what significant value would these islands present for an ancient kingdom to keep it in their scope? Are there any ancient city ruins maybe of Chinese origin?

Thanks for the above answers.

In regards to a "non-sequitur"...not so long ago you were bringing the same thing (a "non-sequitur") up equating SCS issue with the Falklands until that got debunked. So spare me with the Latin, you dont know how to use it.
 
Why there should be Bilateral diplomacy when the International maritime law states clearly China is eying others resources and territory?? :sniper:


Why don’t you ask the same question on Kashmir issue?

A timely recurring of amnesia for UN resolution on Kashmir plebiscite hits your hypocrite brain?

LOL! An internet China-bashing Indian... a typical “lifting stone to smash his own feet” one when attempting to bash China.

:lol:
 
Indonesia’s detention of 75 Chinese nationals and their eight fishing boats off the Natuna Islands in the South China Sea has unwittingly provoked a reaction from Beijing that revives its claim over the maritime zone.

A statement by a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman on June 25 used the term “Nangsha” Islands in reference to the case, China’s term for what the rest of the world calls the Spratlys.

China, the Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan, Vietnam and Brunei all assert rights to exclusive economic zones in parts of the South China Sea based on their claims to some or all of the rock atolls that poke above the surface at high tide.

The islands are vitally important to all these countries because they sit in waters that carry more than half of the world’s supertanker traffic. Significant reserves of oil and gas are believed to lie under the sea as well and the fisheries resources are enormous.

The dispute over who owns the islands has seen bloodshed a number of times. In 1976, China kicked Vietnamese forces out of the Paracels, in the northern part of the South China Sea. In 1988, the two sides clashed again at Johnson Reef in the Spratly Islands, with the loss of several Vietnamese boats and over 70 sailors.

Indonesia has until recently been a cautious bystander in these events. However, a series of Chinese maps, the first produced in 1993 at an informal workshop on the South China Sea hosted by Indonesia in Surabaya, appear to stake a claim by China to the entire South China Sea, including the marine territory north of the Natunas.

This claimed area overlaps Indonesia’s assumptions that its Exclusive Economic Zone extends northward from the Natunas, jutting into the South China Sea and including areas believed to hold significant oil and gas reserves.

At the meeting in Surabaya, B. Raman, a former senior Indian government official, wrote in Asian Affairs that there was alarm on the part of the Indonesian delegation.

“The Indonesians noticed to their surprise that the Chinese claim line was marked between the Natuna Islands of Indonesia and a gas-bearing area located 250 kilometers to the northeast of it, which lies within the limit of the Exclusive Economic Zone of 320 kilometers claimed by Indonesia, thereby raising the suspicion that China probably looked upon this gas-bearing area also as historically belonging to it even though it had never claimed it in the past before the discovery of gas.”

Nothing has been heard of the Chinese claim following another map published in 1998, at least until the arrests of the fishermen. The Chinese foreign ministry’s reaction to the arrests made it crystal clear that the issue remains on China’s agenda.

The language used by spokesman Qin Gang left no doubt that China will use its increasingly close association with Indonesia as momentum for a heightened position on the South China Sea issue.

“China is strongly dissatisfied with Indonesia for having detained these Chinese fishing boats and it demands that the Indonesian government immediately release the fishermen and boats,” Gang said.

Calling China and Indonesia “strategic partners,” Gang said, “the two countries should settle the problem as soon as possible in the spirit of friendly consultation and maintaining the overall situation of bilateral relations.”

While Gang demanded the release of the fishermen, Indonesia continues to detain them in West Kalimantan.

The government will need to judge its response to the demand carefully. Giving in to Beijing and releasing the men would be tantamount to acceptance of China’s implicit claim to the seas to the north of the Natuna Islands, along with the gas presumed to be there.

Going ahead with trials of the men and possibly sentencing them for illegal fishing would be seen by China as an aggressive act in contradiction of the strategic partnership agreement signed by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and President Hu Jintao in 2005 in Beijing, the first such agreement between China and a Southeast Asian state.

Since then, China has been a strong supporter of Indonesia and Chinese capital has been critical in funding the 10,000 megawatt electricity generation capacity expansion program.

China has shown in the past that it does not distinguish between its political and economic interests in adopting strategies toward the outside world. Jakarta now finds itself between a rock and a hard place in its relationship with the world’s emerging economic superpower.


Keith Loveard is a Jakarta-based journalist and political analyst.

The Thinker: Caution Over Natuna | The Jakarta Globe

===========================================

Now look what chinese doing, they try to make the modern colonialism
haha
 
Fair enough.



So if you never left, why are then all these tensions?

And what significant value would these islands present for an ancient kingdom to keep it in their scope? Are there any ancient city ruins maybe of Chinese origin?

Thanks for the above answers.

In regards to a "non-sequitur"...not so long ago you were bringing the same thing (a "non-sequitur") up equating SCS issue with the Falklands until that got debunked. So spare me with the Latin, you dont know how to use it.

You are mistaken about the Falkland Islands analogy. It was perfectly appropriate to show that first discovery trumps distance. It was applicable to illustrate the principle.
 
China is a signatory of that law. your Historic references are fake. Respect UN laws and you will gain friends around you otherwise it will be difficult situation for everybody around the SCS.


As if your Kashmir claim is not fake :rofl:

Listen, you English semi-illiterate, Martian2 has posted the Law, and China invokes "reason of historic title".

Prove it is fake. Or you are the biggest faker.
 
the neighboring countries of China have a long history over 2,000 years of Chinese, they do not BIG mouth like the Chinese , because they are not inferior to their history.
Qin Shihuang was burning books, killing students ... why Chinese still keep the history?
You have a history of fraud ! Chinese history is the Civil War and the invasion, I can not understand why the Chinese people feel proud!
ancient Chinese history, bring them to international courts of law of the sea! why only blatant?

A typical manifesto of history-less undereducated.

1) China has too many scholars, and too many books. QinShiHuang only burnt some and killed some. He was not able to wipe out Chinese history. Unlike your Vietnamese who effectively wiped out Viet history by abandoning Chinese language. Did your read your history book 《安南志略》? Did your read your history book 《大越史记全书》? Did your read your history books 《大越史略》、《越史通鉴纲目》、《历朝宪章类志》、《大南实录》... LOL! It is a foreigner like me who is trying to read and study and question and research topics in your history. And you are totally ignorant of your history, mush so of Chinese history. Clown!

2) LOL! admit it: Only those who have inferiority complex would first use "foreign" language to write their own history then abandon that language to wipe off their own history.

And the funny thing is: a history-illiterate blames others' history. :lol:
 
Indonesia’s detention of 75 Chinese nationals and their eight fishing boats off the Natuna Islands in the South China Sea has unwittingly provoked a reaction from Beijing that revives its claim over the maritime zone.

A statement by a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman on June 25 used the term “Nangsha” Islands in reference to the case, China’s term for what the rest of the world calls the Spratlys.

China, the Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan, Vietnam and Brunei all assert rights to exclusive economic zones in parts of the South China Sea based on their claims to some or all of the rock atolls that poke above the surface at high tide.

The islands are vitally important to all these countries because they sit in waters that carry more than half of the world’s supertanker traffic. Significant reserves of oil and gas are believed to lie under the sea as well and the fisheries resources are enormous.

The dispute over who owns the islands has seen bloodshed a number of times. In 1976, China kicked Vietnamese forces out of the Paracels, in the northern part of the South China Sea. In 1988, the two sides clashed again at Johnson Reef in the Spratly Islands, with the loss of several Vietnamese boats and over 70 sailors.

Indonesia has until recently been a cautious bystander in these events. However, a series of Chinese maps, the first produced in 1993 at an informal workshop on the South China Sea hosted by Indonesia in Surabaya, appear to stake a claim by China to the entire South China Sea, including the marine territory north of the Natunas.

This claimed area overlaps Indonesia’s assumptions that its Exclusive Economic Zone extends northward from the Natunas, jutting into the South China Sea and including areas believed to hold significant oil and gas reserves.

At the meeting in Surabaya, B. Raman, a former senior Indian government official, wrote in Asian Affairs that there was alarm on the part of the Indonesian delegation.

“The Indonesians noticed to their surprise that the Chinese claim line was marked between the Natuna Islands of Indonesia and a gas-bearing area located 250 kilometers to the northeast of it, which lies within the limit of the Exclusive Economic Zone of 320 kilometers claimed by Indonesia, thereby raising the suspicion that China probably looked upon this gas-bearing area also as historically belonging to it even though it had never claimed it in the past before the discovery of gas.”

Nothing has been heard of the Chinese claim following another map published in 1998, at least until the arrests of the fishermen. The Chinese foreign ministry’s reaction to the arrests made it crystal clear that the issue remains on China’s agenda.

The language used by spokesman Qin Gang left no doubt that China will use its increasingly close association with Indonesia as momentum for a heightened position on the South China Sea issue.

“China is strongly dissatisfied with Indonesia for having detained these Chinese fishing boats and it demands that the Indonesian government immediately release the fishermen and boats,” Gang said.

Calling China and Indonesia “strategic partners,” Gang said, “the two countries should settle the problem as soon as possible in the spirit of friendly consultation and maintaining the overall situation of bilateral relations.”

While Gang demanded the release of the fishermen, Indonesia continues to detain them in West Kalimantan.

The government will need to judge its response to the demand carefully. Giving in to Beijing and releasing the men would be tantamount to acceptance of China’s implicit claim to the seas to the north of the Natuna Islands, along with the gas presumed to be there.

Going ahead with trials of the men and possibly sentencing them for illegal fishing would be seen by China as an aggressive act in contradiction of the strategic partnership agreement signed by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and President Hu Jintao in 2005 in Beijing, the first such agreement between China and a Southeast Asian state.

Since then, China has been a strong supporter of Indonesia and Chinese capital has been critical in funding the 10,000 megawatt electricity generation capacity expansion program.

China has shown in the past that it does not distinguish between its political and economic interests in adopting strategies toward the outside world. Jakarta now finds itself between a rock and a hard place in its relationship with the world’s emerging economic superpower.


Keith Loveard is a Jakarta-based journalist and political analyst.

The Thinker: Caution Over Natuna | The Jakarta Globe

===========================================

Now look what chinese doing, they try to make the modern colonialism
haha

I can smell a gangbang!
 
Why are there so many of these threads on the same thing :confused:


Because those threads serve the purpose of China bashing by semi-illiterates.

Those semi-illiterate just can't figure out why China was so strong and influential before and again gets stronger and more influential now without adopting western universal values but using their own ideas and methodologies.

Pain in the @zz for them!

without resorting to China-bashing, they loose appetite during the day and can fall asleep in the night!
 
A typical manifesto of history-less undereducated.

1) China has too many scholars, and too many books. QinShiHuang only burnt some and killed some. He was not able to wipe out Chinese history. Unlike your Vietnamese who effectively wiped out Viet history by abandoning Chinese language. Did your read your history book 《安南志略》? Did your read your history book 《大越史记全书》? Did your read your history books 《大越史略》、《越史通鉴纲目》、《历朝宪章类志》、《大南实录》... LOL! It is a foreigner like me who is trying to read and study and question and research topics in your history. And you are totally ignorant of your history, mush so of Chinese history. Clown!

2) LOL! admit it: Only those who have inferiority complex would first use "foreign" language to write their own history then abandon that language to wipe off their own history.

And the funny thing is: a history-illiterate blames others' history.

perahu-di-Aborigin.jpg

This is ancient australian painting in the stone, and there is Indonesian Phinisi Ship from Makassar in the painting
Then I can say Australia is part of Indonesia, Right?
Hahaha

BTW, I Just wondering why the name is South China Sea? It was Far Awar from China!
It is more appropriate if the name is South East Asia Sea.
 
in Vietnam, hundreds of Chinese warships are kept at the Bach Dang river (year:937-938) ! Your ancestors did not dare to think that China's rivers:moil:

Contrary to your history-less bunch would believe: Vietnam was part of China, and the Chinese would well take Vietnam rivers as Chinese rivers.

Strange: what kind of garbage education would yield people that can't even figure out such simple logic?
 
You guys were British slaves. Therefore, India did not formally exist as a nation prior to 1947.

You existed as an identifiable group of people and culture, which was not part of your question.

Help you out on your ignorance.

scaled.php
 
now, posts like that prove that you are posting for the sake of posting, and when Indians say you are working for 50 cents/post..you say thats crap !!

What's wrong with the allegedly 50 cents?

They earn their honesty money: legal and paying taxes. 1000000 times better than those who undergo starvation and many millions die per year.

Those alleged 50 cent are the envy of your many jobless and starving Indians.

By the same note the descendants of Vikings can claim western Canada and parts of the US.....

Why not?

American Indians are not stopping in doing the similar...
 
They earn their honesty money: legal and paying taxes. 1000000 times better than those who undergo starvation and many millions die per year.

Those alleged 50 cent are the envy of your many jobless and starving Indians.

Here comes the ritualistic lie, :lol:

Show us statistics of starvation in millions in India as of 2012. Don't run away! :laugh:
 
Back
Top Bottom