South China Sea: China Drops a Bombshell

[Sashan]

It would be nice for the readers to have the source instead of you merely copied/pasted in and edited to suit.

Paracel and Spratly Islands Forum: The History of Sovereignty Dispute between Vietnam and China

Here is the missing paragraph that you dishonestly omitted...


Basically, the Viets did their own research and found the documents presented by the Chinese to be bogus.

Why did you omitted that paragraph and the link?

Further, here is the relevant section that you did not have the courage to highlight...

North Viet Nam may have made a huge mistake back then with that letter but ultimately that letter of ACKNOWLEDGEMENT does not constitute CONCESSION. There is a world of difference. The fact that you omitted that paragraph where the Viets challenged China's claim mean you know that challenge to be valid and potentially negate China's claim in the court of public opinion. The omission of that paragraph and the link is indicative of you willing to be intellectually dishonest and deceitful.

You are busted. As usual.

Nice read. Thanks for the link.

 

[timetravel]

You are busted. As usual.

thanks..

anyay only thats expected from martian..

 

[Martian2]

I am asking for 1 goddamn link which says Chinese naval aesa radar has 400km range. No claims & reportedly source. A confirmation is necessary.

Tiny F-22 AESA radar has 200-240km range and 400km range in narrow beam.

What's wrong with 450km range for gigantic Type 052C AESA radar?

Are you brain dead? I don't see you complaining about the 200-240km range for the tiny F-22 radar, which is only a meter square in size. In narrow beam, they're claiming 400km for the F-22 radar.

Yet, you're getting all worked up over the gigantic (e.g. many many meters square) Type 052C AESA radar with a gigantic power plant behind it? Get real.

The radar has an estimated range of 125–150 miles, though planned upgrades will allow a range of 250 miles (400 km) or more in narrow beams.[149] (Source: primary footnote at Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor )

China Type 052C AESA convex-shaped radar is huge in size compared to the F-22 AESA radar. Also, the Chinese Type 052C AESA radar is supplied by massive engines to provide unimaginable power. Since the F-22 radar has 400km range in narrow beam, it is common sense that a 450km claimed range for China's Type 052C AESA radar is reasonable.

Why did you omitted that paragraph and the link?

Further, here is the relevant section that you did not have the courage to highlight...

North Viet Nam may have made a huge mistake back then with that letter but ultimately that letter of ACKNOWLEDGEMENT does not constitute CONCESSION. There is a world of difference. The fact that you omitted that paragraph where the Viets challenged China's claim mean you know that challenge to be valid and potentially negate China's claim in the court of public opinion. The omission of that paragraph and the link is indicative of you willing to be intellectually dishonest and deceitful.

You are busted. As usual.

That's the Vietnamese historian's political spin and it's unrelated to the primary document. Premier Pham Van Dong did not sign a document for fun, which is what the historian is claiming.

The Vietnamese historian's claim is totally ridiculous. He's playing word games. Anybody can do that.

Well, an unconditional surrender doesn't mean unconditional surrender. It's only unconditional in the way we interpret it. Oh look, there's no time range for our unconditional surrender. We can claim the unconditional surrender is limited to the date of signing if we want. That's called crap.

Similarly, you Gambit are playing ridiculous word games.

Let's go to the dictionary/thesaurus and see whether "acknowledgment" and "concession" are synonyms. They mean the same thing (see citation below), you dishonest half-Viet nationalist.

----------

http://thesaurus.com/browse/acknowledgment

"Main Entry:
acknowledgment  [ak-nol-ij-muhnt] Show IPA
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: act of recognizing authority or truth of something
Synonyms: acceptance, accession, acquiescence, admission, admitting, affirmation, allowance, allowing, assent, assertion, asservation, avowal, compliance, conceding, concession, concurrence, confession, confirmation, corroboration, declaration, profession, ratification, realization, recognition, yielding"

 

[gambit]

That's the Vietnamese historian's political spin and it's unrelated to the primary document. Premier Pham Van Dong did not sign a document for fun, which is what the historian is claiming.

The Vietnamese historian's claim is totally ridiculous. He's playing word games. Anybody can do that.

If so, then it is no more 'spin' than what the Chinese presented. If so, then you would not have omitted it but included it along with the link for everyone to make up their own minds. But the fact that you omitted both items mean you were afraid of it and what truly objective readers may do -- DO NOT AGREE WITH CHINA.

Well, an unconditional surrender doesn't mean unconditional surrender. It's only unconditional in the way we interpret it. Oh look, there's no time range for our unconditional surrender. We can claim the unconditional surrender is limited to the date of signing if we want. That's called crap.

Similarly, you Gambit are playing ridiculous word games.

Let's go to the dictionary/thesaurus and see whether "acknowledgment" and "concession" are synonyms. They mean the same thing (see citation below), you dishonest half-Viet nationalist.

----------

Acknowledgment Synonyms, Acknowledgment Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

"Main Entry:
acknowledgment  [ak-nol-ij-muhnt] Show IPA
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: act of recognizing authority or truth of something
Synonyms: acceptance, accession, acquiescence, admission, admitting, affirmation, allowance, allowing, assent, assertion, asservation, avowal, compliance, conceding, concession, concurrence, confession, confirmation, corroboration, declaration, profession, ratification, realization, recognition, yielding"

The context of the letter mean that NORTH Viet Nam acknowledged that China made a claim. If this letter is to have any diplomatic worth, let alone legal worth, then it would have more details on what NORTH Viet Nam was willing to formally concede to China considering that SOUTH Viet Nam was in physical possession of the islands at that time. The reality is that -- that letter have no more legal worth than China's claim based upon historical discovery.

So who is really playing ridiculous word games here? YOU.

Of all the Chinese here on this forum, the China Chinese I can understand their efforts at lies and deceptions for China, but it is the Chinese-Americans like yourself that is the most intellectually dishonest in their service to China, a country that would see them as foreign as the blacks that the China Chinese racially despise.

 

[Vassnti]

Do you want me to post the citation for the discovery and claim of the Spratlys by China from the Han Dynasty?

So the boundries of the Han dynasty are the rule by which the boundries of modern China are to be set? Im sure Tibet will be very happy to hear this.

 

[EastSea]

So the boundries of the Han dynasty are the rule by which the boundries of modern China are to be set? Im sure Tibet will be very happy to hear this.

Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Manchuria, East Turkestan (Ujgur) they don't let chinese control them for ever. China will collapse like other Emperors in the past.

Tiny F-22 AESA radar has 200-240km range and 400km range in narrow beam.

What's wrong with 450km range for gigantic Type 052C AESA radar?

Are you brain dead? I don't see you complaining about the 200-240km range for the tiny F-22 radar, which is only a meter square in size. In narrow beam, they're claiming 400km for the F-22 radar.

Yet, you're getting all worked up over the gigantic (e.g. many many meters square) Type 052C AESA radar with a gigantic power plant behind it? Get real.

The radar has an estimated range of 125–150 miles, though planned upgrades will allow a range of 250 miles (400 km) or more in narrow beams.[149] (Source: primary footnote at Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor )

China Type 052C AESA convex-shaped radar is huge in size compared to the F-22 AESA radar. Also, the Chinese Type 052C AESA radar is supplied by massive engines to provide unimaginable power. Since the F-22 radar has 400km range in narrow beam, it is common sense that a 450km claimed range for China's Type 052C AESA radar is reasonable.



That's the Vietnamese historian's political spin and it's unrelated to the primary document. Premier Pham Van Dong did not sign a document for fun, which is what the historian is claiming.

The Vietnamese historian's claim is totally ridiculous. He's playing word games. Anybody can do that.

Well, an unconditional surrender doesn't mean unconditional surrender. It's only unconditional in the way we interpret it. Oh look, there's no time range for our unconditional surrender. We can claim the unconditional surrender is limited to the date of signing if we want. That's called crap.

Similarly, you Gambit are playing ridiculous word games.

Let's go to the dictionary/thesaurus and see whether "acknowledgment" and "concession" are synonyms. They mean the same thing (see citation below), you dishonest half-Viet nationalist.

----------

Acknowledgment Synonyms, Acknowledgment Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

"Main Entry:
acknowledgment  [ak-nol-ij-muhnt] Show IPA
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: act of recognizing authority or truth of something
Synonyms: acceptance, accession, acquiescence, admission, admitting, affirmation, allowance, allowing, assent, assertion, asservation, avowal, compliance, conceding, concession, concurrence, confession, confirmation, corroboration, declaration, profession, ratification, realization, recognition, yielding"

Islands belong to us south Vietnamese after 1954.
Lying is main charecteristic of Chinese.

Tiny F-22 AESA radar has 200-240km range and 400km range in narrow beam.

What's wrong with 450km range for gigantic Type 052C AESA radar?

Are you brain dead? I don't see you complaining about the 200-240km range for the tiny F-22 radar, which is only a meter square in size. In narrow beam, they're claiming 400km for the F-22 radar.

Yet, you're getting all worked up over the gigantic (e.g. many many meters square) Type 052C AESA radar with a gigantic power plant behind it? Get real.

The radar has an estimated range of 125–150 miles, though planned upgrades will allow a range of 250 miles (400 km) or more in narrow beams.[149] (Source: primary footnote at Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor )

China Type 052C AESA convex-shaped radar is huge in size compared to the F-22 AESA radar. Also, the Chinese Type 052C AESA radar is supplied by massive engines to provide unimaginable power. Since the F-22 radar has 400km range in narrow beam, it is common sense that a 450km claimed range for China's Type 052C AESA radar is reasonable.



That's the Vietnamese historian's political spin and it's unrelated to the primary document. Premier Pham Van Dong did not sign a document for fun, which is what the historian is claiming.

The Vietnamese historian's claim is totally ridiculous. He's playing word games. Anybody can do that.

Well, an unconditional surrender doesn't mean unconditional surrender. It's only unconditional in the way we interpret it. Oh look, there's no time range for our unconditional surrender. We can claim the unconditional surrender is limited to the date of signing if we want. That's called crap.

Similarly, you Gambit are playing ridiculous word games.

Let's go to the dictionary/thesaurus and see whether "acknowledgment" and "concession" are synonyms. They mean the same thing (see citation below), you dishonest half-Viet nationalist.

----------

Acknowledgment Synonyms, Acknowledgment Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

"Main Entry:
acknowledgment  [ak-nol-ij-muhnt] Show IPA
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: act of recognizing authority or truth of something
Synonyms: acceptance, accession, acquiescence, admission, admitting, affirmation, allowance, allowing, assent, assertion, asservation, avowal, compliance, conceding, concession, concurrence, confession, confirmation, corroboration, declaration, profession, ratification, realization, recognition, yielding"

Islands belong to us south Vietnamese after 1954.
Lying is main charecteristic of Chinese.

 

[Martian2]

So the boundries of the Han dynasty are the rule by which the boundries of modern China are to be set? Im sure Tibet will be very happy to hear this.

Modern China includes the territories after the Han Dynasty boundaries from 2,000 years ago. China discovered and claimed more unexplored lands. Our present-day boundaries include ALL of Chinese discovered and claimed territories.

 

[gambit]

Modern China includes the territories after the Han Dynasty boundaries from 2,000 years ago. China discovered and claimed more unexplored lands. Our present-day boundaries include ALL of Chinese discovered and claimed territories.

Sovereignty includes administration as in EFFECTIVE administration over time. Continuity of government demands that successive government honors agreements and treaties made by the previous leadership. This mean Taiwan is its own sovereignty. So are these islands since they have been under administration by non-Chinese governments.

 

[Martian2]

Sovereignty includes administration as in EFFECTIVE administration over time. Continuity of government demands that successive government honors agreements and treaties made by the previous leadership. This mean Taiwan is its own sovereignty. So are these islands since they have been under administration by non-Chinese governments.

Chinese history and maps claim sovereignty over the South China Sea. Anybody is free to engage China in a war if they disagree. Just remember, China reserves the right to use thermonuclear weapons to defend her sovereign territory.

China is not interested in your b.s. interpretation of sovereignty. We found it and claimed it. It's ours. Period.

No one cares about your made-up laundry list of your beliefs of what qualifies as sovereignty.

China's claim is based on common sense.

1. Discovery
2. Government claim of ownership as depicted in Chinese maps.
3. Use of islands (as evidenced by fisherman and Chinese bones and pottery on the South China Sea islands)

This is sufficient for sovereignty in any reasonable person's view.

If you disagree, go argue with the PLA Navy and China's Second Artillery.

 

[EastSea]

Chinese history and maps claim sovereignty over the South China Sea. Anybody is free to engage China in a war if they disagree. Just remember, China reserves the right to use thermonuclear weapons to defend her sovereign territory.

China is not interested in your b.s. interpretation of sovereignty. We found it and claimed it. It's ours. Period.

No one cares about your made-up laundry list of your beliefs of what qualifies as sovereignty.

China's claim is based on common sense.

1. Discovery
2. Government claim of ownership as depicted in Chinese maps.
3. Use of islands (as evidenced by fisherman and Chinese bones and pottery on the South China Sea islands)

This is sufficient for sovereignty in any reasonable person's view.

If you disagree, go argue with the PLA Navy and China's Second Artillery.

You are liar.

According to a map, published by the Qing Dynasty in 1894, Chinese territory ended at the Hainan Island.

 

[golmaal]

Brother, you're a generous man, giving out free lessons these uninformed youngster.

Huh.. Keep trolling..

 

[gambit]

Chinese history and maps claim sovereignty over the South China Sea. Anybody is free to engage China in a war if they disagree. Just remember, China reserves the right to use thermonuclear weapons to defend her sovereign territory.

China is not interested in your b.s. interpretation of sovereignty. We found it and claimed it. It's ours. Period.

No one cares about your made-up laundry list of your beliefs of what qualifies as sovereignty.

China's claim is based on common sense.

1. Discovery
2. Government claim of ownership as depicted in Chinese maps.
3. Use of islands (as evidenced by fisherman and Chinese bones and pottery on the South China Sea islands)

This is sufficient for sovereignty in any reasonable person's view.

If you disagree, go argue with the PLA Navy and China's Second Artillery.

If you have to resort to omission of relevant rebuttal, which you did , that mean you know yours and effectively China's arguments are weak to start. And if you have to resort to veiled threats of violence on behalf of China, that mean further confirmation of that weakness. Bottom line is this: No one but China have that simplistic interpretation of sovereignty.

 

[Srinivas]

I want everyone to remember that the Vietnamese flew combat patrols first. China is merely matching Vietnamese escalation.

The current standoff reminds me of Georgia. The Neo-cons egged Georgia to militarily confront the Russians. The Russians were generous to annex only 20% of Georgian territory. They could have taken the whole country.

It's now Vietnam's turn to confront a military superpower. It is politically incorrect for a stronger country to unilaterally attack a weaker country. However, if the weaker country escalates and draws first blood then all bets are off.

We are now playing a waiting game. When a Vietnamese warplane trespasses into Chinese territorial air space, missiles may start to fly.

The interesting question is whether China will launch a simultaneous ground attack on Hanoi. Will it come over the northern Vietnamese border or by sea?

This is pretty exciting. We can finally see the Vietnamese mouse fight the Chinese Dragon. Since the Vietnamese are looking for a fight, China will oblige them.

Flying Vietnamese combat patrols to threaten China was an idiotic move. Escalation favors the stronger military power.

If China goes to war with Philippines or even Vietnam. Lot of countries already know that it is the first step China is taking to grab others Terrirories. This is the reason US and other countries are conducting largest Naval exercises world has ever witnessed.
Your diplomacy claiming Vietanam is an aggressor is not a valid point since China is claiming more than 200 KM of its boundary which is against the Intenational laws.

Your assesment of Vietnam as a mouse will no longer valid once Vietnam gets nuke weapons. Already Japan is thinking of shifting its nuclear reactors to Vietnam.

 

[Battle of Bach Dang River]

Chinese scholar dismisses U-shaped East Sea line as baseless

Li Ling Hua, a Chinese researcher, has criticized China’s U-shape border in the East Sea saying it has no legal foundations

A Chinese scholar has objected to a U-shaped line that China has put in its maps to bring most of the East Sea under its sovereignty, including Vietnam’s Hoang Sa (Paracel) and Truong Sa (Spratly) Islands, calling it imaginary and having no legal foundation.
The line, also known as the “nine-dotted line,” “nine-dash line,” or “cow tongue line,” started to appear last year in American and Italian journals that cited Chinese articles with maps portraying more than 80 percent of the South China Sea, known in Vietnam as the East Sea, as belonging to China.

The concern grew after Google Maps also depicted the line several times.

But Li Ling Hua, a researcher for more than 20 years at China's National Oceanographic Data and Information Center, and the author of more than 90 reports on maritime issues and maritime laws, said at a conference June 14 that “The nine-dash line on the Nan Hai (or the East Sea) is unreal," according to a Tien Phong report Sunday.

"The line was established by our predecessors with no longitudes or latitudes, and it was not based on any laws or regulations.

“It was merely a unilateral announcement by China in 1947.”

He said the Chinese government has never officially announced the U-shaped line, but many textbooks and newspapers consider it the official sea border, making most Chinese believe it.

The Chinese government needs to clarify the legitimacy of the line, “or there will be clashes in the future” when Chinese people rely on the line to oppose any country they think is violating it.
The conference drew many scholars and saw arguments over solutions to the dispute between what the Chinese media described as “hawks” and “doves,” the latter also comprising the 66-year-old Li.

He urged the government to resolve the dispute peacefully based on international laws and regulations.

“Last month, when lecturing researchers over oceanographic studies and Chinese sea borders at Wu Han University, I also said that the real legal foundation has to be the 1982 United Nations Convention of the Sea.”

China is a member of the convention, so it should not have drawn its own borders after strong objection from the Vietnamese and Philippine governments, he said.

Countries bordering the East Sea should rely on the convention instead of their own policies to establish their 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zones and continental shelves, he said.

“Then people in every country in the area, including China, will have a 200-nautical mile area, large enough for fishing and developing marine resources.

“If neighboring countries develop economically in the future, China will also benefit. We should have a global point of view.”

The conference was organized by the Tianze Economic Research Institute and news website Sina.com to discuss national sovereignty and international regulations related to the East Sea dispute.

Vietnam latest news - Thanh Nien Daily | Chinese scholar dismisses U-shaped East Sea line as baseless

 

[Srinivas]

Chinese history and maps claim sovereignty over the South China Sea. Anybody is free to engage China in a war if they disagree. Just remember, China reserves the right to use thermonuclear weapons to defend her sovereign territory.

China is not interested in your b.s. interpretation of sovereignty. We found it and claimed it. It's ours. Period.

No one cares about your made-up laundry list of your beliefs of what qualifies as sovereignty.

China's claim is based on common sense.

1. Discovery
2. Government claim of ownership as depicted in Chinese maps.
3. Use of islands (as evidenced by fisherman and Chinese bones and pottery on the South China Sea islands)

This is sufficient for sovereignty in any reasonable person's view.

If you disagree, go argue with the PLA Navy and China's Second Artillery.

You Chinese are liars. You are claiming the South China sea on the account of "Yuan Dynasty" Which is originated from Mongolia. According to the Foolish logic of Chinese the whole of China should belong to Mongolia and the ancestors of Kublai Khan.