South China Sea Forum

[EastSea]

Then,Pham Van Dong Government's map

This map printed in China and chinese illegally changed names of our Islands. Idiot chinese, you are thief. Don't open big mouth to lie.

 

[gambit]

If you can't vote for an U.S. President, you're not American

Self-governing territories are not part of the United States until they are annexed by Congress and approved by the self-governing population.

Can Puerto Ricans vote for an American president? No.

Why not? Because Puerto Ricans are not full American citizens.

As with Convicted Felon. Does that mean those people is not American??

Marty,

You are confused between the theoretical concept of 'sovereignty' versus the practical day to day issues of 'governance'. The example of convicted felons hits your argument right between the eyes.

Governance and governments are about establishing rules and regulations applicable inside political associations and boundaries. Sovereignty is the greater theory that oversees and enables governance and governments. The US is not confined to the geographically contiguous 48 states but include any territories upon which US laws rules supreme.

Do you have any university level Political Science educkashun at all?

Self governance does not equal to sovereignty.

Self governance is the FREEDOM GRANTED BY A GREATER SOVEREIGN POWER to create unique rules and regulations believed to be necessary within a territory. If we go by your flawed argument, any degrees of governing autonomy automatically completely negate sovereignty and that mean China should give up Taiwan and Tibet, no?

With the convicted felon analogy, voting rights falls under governance and this specific right is negated by certain conditions, in this case it is a high crime, but the person who is denied this privilege is still under the sovereign power of the US government.

Again, Marty: Do you have any university level Political Science educkashun at all? Do you even read any political science books, not Internet blogs, written by political philosophers or even political operatives of any level whose contents are formulated for public consumption, and that whose contents ARE NOT approved by the Chinese government?

 

[Soryu]

This map printed in China and chinese illegally changed names of our Islands. Idiot chinese, you are thief. Don't open big mouth to lie.

Can you tell me the story about that fake map? I didn't know about that bullshjt map ...

 

[Martian2]

Getting ready for prime time in mainstream media

Dear Gambit, I do not "have any university level Political Science educkashun (sic) at all?" (your words in quotes)

I'm simply floating the idea that China's 1948 nine-dash-line map is much older than the U.S. annexation of Hawaii as a state. I have already changed the title of my post to avert any confusion between annexing Hawaii as a state and annexing Hawaii as a territory.

As a practical matter, I posted my idea in preparation to counter any unfavorable UNCLOS decision. While China has the legal power as an UNSC Permanent Five to veto any UNCLOS decision, I'm reaching for a deeper level of victory.

I want everyone to know that suing China over its 1948 nine-dash-line map is just as ridiculous as suing the United States over its 1959 annexation of Hawaii as a state.

In conclusion, I don't really care if any of you anti-Chinese forum members are not willing to listen to my ideas. The important thing is that you can't seem to find any real weakness in my argument and it is ready for prime time. I will roll out my idea in the mainstream media around June or July this year (after the UNCLOS decision to hear the case) if necessary.

----------

Related post:

Chinese 1948 South China Sea map predates 1959 U.S. annexation of Hawaii as a state

Can you sue the United States in any U.N. court to challenge the American annexation of Hawaii in 1959 as a state? Obviously, no.

Therefore, can you sue China in any U.N. court to challenge the 1948 Chinese territorial map (which reflects 2,000 years of sovereignty over the South China Sea since its discovery by the Han Dynasty)?

The answer is also clearly "no." The United States will tell you to go frack off if you try to question U.S. sovereignty over Hawaii. Similarly, China is telling the Philippines (and UNCLOS if necessary) to frack off over 2,000-year-old Chinese islands in the South China Sea as reflected in the 1948 nine-dash-line map.

Reference for 1959 U.S. annexation of Hawaii as a state: Hawaii - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[gambit]

Getting ready for prime time in mainstream media

Dear Gambit, I do not "have any university level Political Science educkashun at all?" (your words in quote)

I'm simply floating the idea that China's 1948 nine-dash-line map is much older than the U.S. annexation of Hawaii as a state. I have already changed the title of my post to avert any confusion between annexing Hawaii as a state and annexing Hawaii as a territory.

As a practical matter, I posted my idea in preparation to counter any unfavorable UNCLOS decision. While China has the legal power as an UNSC Permanent Five to veto any UNCLOS decision, I'm reaching for a deeper level of victory.

I want everyone to know that suing China over its 1948 nine-dash-line map is just as ridiculous as suing the United States over its 1959 annexation of Hawaii as a state.

In conclusion, I don't really care if any of you anti-Chinese forum members are not willing to listen to my ideas. The important thing is that you can't seem to find any real weakness in my argument and it is ready for prime time. I will roll out my idea in the mainstream media around June or July this year (after the UNCLOS decision to hear the case) if necessary.

Then what make you think whatever arguments you presented will have any philosophical impact? More likely you are doing this just so you can claim you did it out for your own ego?

You confused sovereignty and governance and you think your drivel about what China claimed but cannot prove will make a difference?

 

[jhungary]

Getting ready for prime time in mainstream media

This will be the last post regarding this issue.

What you claim is, Hawai'i are self governed and the Puerto Rico does not have voting right hence Hawai'i and Puerto Rico does not consider part of USA?? Hence Hawai'i are "annexed" and become part of the USA when Hawai'i apply to join the Statehood in 1959??

This is what you claim. Am I correct??

Let's look at a few places from around the world

Hong Kong - Hong Kong is currently a self governed autonomic territories of China. Hong Kong is ruled by Hong Kong Resident and under a One country two system from China (港人治港,一國兩&#21046 Hong Kong Resident in HK cannot be stand for voting nor does have any voting privilege on any Chinese Provincial or Local Election. Nor can anyone from HK vote for People Congress. Hong Kong have a land border with China, uses different travel document than Mainland Chinese. Chinese born in Hong Kong Does not automatically granted HK residence.

So, given what you are saying is true, that a self-governed territories does not have voting privilege does not consider a part of their mother country, then Hong Kong should also not consider part of China.

Macau - Macau is also a self governed autonomic territories of China. Macau Government comprise of Macau Resident only and like Hong Kong, Macau is under 1 country 2 system. Macau resident residing in Macau does not have voting right (Either voting or standing) in any local or provincial election. Nor People in Macau have any voting privilege to run for People Congress in China.

So are you also consider Macau not part of China? Because they also self governed and does not have voting right in China??

Taiwan - Taiwan is claimed to be a Province of People Republic of China and currently under self governed control. People in Taiwan currently governing the Government of Taiwan and people in Taiwan does not have voting right what so ever on Chinese provincial or local election. Nor do they have power to run for people congress.

So are you saying until the day Taiwan reunited with China then that is the same day China "annexed" Taiwan? That imply Taiwan is independent BEFORE said reunion exist. That contrary to the Chinese political means that Taiwan is part of China even before any reunion exist.

In short. Let's take a step back.

If you are willing to conceive that Hong Kong currently is not part of China, I am willing to conceive that Puerto Rico is NOT part of USA

If you are willing to conceive that Macau currently is not part of China, I am willing to conceive that Guam is NOT part of USA

If you are willing to conceive that Taiwan is independent territories before Reunion with China, I am willing to conceive that Hawai'i are annexed by the American in 1959

can you do that??

 

[Soryu]

Your trick is useless and fail.
We see through it, kid.

Hawaii has it own people, they was accept and joined to Union with USA, so no one protest or challenge it.
But in case of Spartly and Paracel Islands, you were rob them from others, you attacked other and rob it.

Your discovery was useless proof, no map show it belong to you at before 1948 ( legal map must has records of number, name, detail ... about object on it ).
If you saw it, you want it, you claim it, so Should we do it with the moon, huh? You can claim it, because you discoverd it from many thousand years ....

Getting ready for prime time in mainstream media

bla bla bla ...................................
----------

Related post:

Chinese 1948 South China Sea map predates 1959 U.S. annexation of Hawaii as a state

Can you sue the United States in any U.N. court to challenge the American annexation of Hawaii in 1959 as a state? Obviously, no.

Therefore, can you sue China in any U.N. court to challenge the 1948 Chinese territorial map (which reflects 2,000 years of sovereignty over the South China Sea since its discovery by the Han Dynasty)?

The answer is also clearly "no." The United States will tell you to go frack off if you try to question U.S. sovereignty over Hawaii. Similarly, China is telling the Philippines (and UNCLOS if necessary) to frack off over 2,000-year-old Chinese islands in the South China Sea as reflected in the 1948 nine-dash-line map.

Reference for 1959 U.S. annexation of Hawaii as a state: Hawaii - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First, say about discovery, claim, >>> fail >>> use a letter was written to agree with your 12 nm territorial water as proof about your claim >>> fail >>> then show off USA's case as rules for your claim >>> fail ...

I guess as usual, last words from chinese is still military power of PLA and robbery.

 

[Martian2]

Ambiguity had been removed

At JHungary, what is wrong with you?

I already changed the title of my post. There is no ambiguity.

It is now 100% correct, which I intend to post in the mainstream media.

You criticized and I fixed my title. When the appropriate time arrives, my post (with the corrected amended title) will be posted on many major mainstream news organizations.

You have served your function, which is to help me write bullet-proof posts for the mainstream media.

 

[gambit]

Ambiguity had been removed

At JHungary, what is wrong with you?

I already changed the title of my post. There is no ambiguity.

It is now 100% correct, which I intend to post in the mainstream media.

You criticized and I fixed my title. When the appropriate time arrives, my post (with the corrected amended title) will be posted on many major mainstream news organizations.

You have served your function, which is to help me write bullet-proof posts for the mainstream media.

You have been 'pwned'.

 

[jhungary]

Your trick is useless and fail.
We see through it, kid.

Hawaii has it own people, they was accept and joined to Union with USA, so no one protest or challenge it.
But in case of Spartly and Paracel Islands, you were rob them from others, you attacked other and rob it.

Your discovery was useless proof, no map show it belong to you at before 1948 ( legal map must has records of number, name, detail ... about object on it ).
If you saw it, you want it, you claim it, so Should we do it with the moon, huh? You can claim it, because you discoverd it from many thousand years ....


First, say about discovery, claim, >>> fail >>> use a letter was written to agree with your 12 nm territorial water as proof about your claim >>> fail >>> then show off USA's case as rules for your claim >>> fail ...

I guess as usual, last words from chinese is still military power of PLA and robbery.

lol, it's about time to drink some coffee and relax, let the clown post his "View" on the internet and get laugh at like a clown that he is, nobody is listening to him anyway. Just let him troll. Otherwise he will not get the 50 Cents he so well deserved.

We are just here to post our view, not to make people live a harsh life. Just let him be

 

[Martian2]

Reality Check

I put up with you anti-China guys, because you help me think through my positions.

As a reality check, you should acknowledge that I'm the person with a noticeable presence in the mainstream media (such as BusinessWeek, Reuters, Washington Times, and United Press International). I have something to say.

You guys don't even exist.

----------

Citation:

Thank you to everyone that answered my request for your support

I want to express my gratitude to all 35 people that supported my post on BusinessWeek against the Philippines. I only know the names of two of you (e.g. Liang and Aurorae).

I am grateful to the 33 anonymous people that voted for my comment to give it added weight during the early days of the Taiwan-Philippine dispute.

Muchas gracias!

Source link: Taiwan Demands Probe With Philippines Into Fisherman Death (1) - Businessweek

----------

I was on Reuters to support Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou against the Philippines on May 13, 2013.

Source link: Taiwan gives Philippines ultimatum after fatal shooting of fisherman | Reuters

----------

In case you're wondering, I'm still pounding away at the Philippines. Here is my comment at The Washington Times on May 23, 2013.

Source link: Inside China: Taiwan, China vie for toughness - Washington Times

----------

As the relentless keyboard warrior, here I am criticizing the Philippines on United Press International (UPI) on May 24, 2013.

I will be in the mainstream western media forever to remind the Philippines of their crimes until they start to behave in a civilized manner.

Source link: Philippines to spend $1.8 billion on defense upgrades - UPI.com

 

[gambit]

Chinese 1948 South China Sea map predates 1959 U.S. annexation of Hawaii

Can you sue the United States in any U.N. court to challenge the American annexation of Hawaii in 1959? Obviously, no.

Therefore, can you sue China in any U.N. court to challenge the 1948 Chinese territorial map (which reflects 2,000 years of sovereignty over the South China Sea since its discovery by the Han Dynasty)?

The answer is also clearly "no." The United States will tell you to go frack off if you try to question U.S. sovereignty over Hawaii. Similarly, China is telling the Philippines (and UNCLOS if necessary) to frack off over 2,000-year-old Chinese islands in the South China Sea as reflected in the 1948 nine-dash-line map.

This is where you are wrong. As usual.

Of course anyone can take the US to court to contest US sovereignty over any territory. Do you even understand why there is a legal contestant system in the first place? Apparently -- NOT.

When you contest someone over an issue in the legal system, you are effectively saying that you want to resolve a conflict in a peaceful and MORAL manner. Civilized peoples throughout the ages and over the world have ALWAYS have a morally compelling conflict resolution system. The words 'morally compelling conflict resolution' mean all contestants agreed to obey a verbal ruling regarding the conflict. That verbal ruling can only come from one place: The moral foundation of that civilization.

It does not matter if that verbal ruling is from a single judge or a panel of respected arbiters. What matters is that there is such a system in place, that conflicts are FIRST diverted to that system, and that contestants are willing to obey the ruling from that system. This removes the need for a government, be it a democracy or a monarchy or even a tribal chief, to resort to physical coercion. The system needs a moral people in order to function.

So you are wrong. If the US government wants to tell you to frack off, it will do so in a polite manner through this system. The US government is a contestant in a conflict, so is anyone willing to take the US government to court.

So can any or all of the other Asian powers take Imperial China to the international court system to try to resolve the South China Sea conflict? Absolutely. They can morally one-up Imperial China by telling the world they are willing to obey a morally compelling ruling from a panel of respected experts.

 

[gambit]

Reality Check

I put up with you anti-China guys, because you help me think through my positions.

Good, that means you are learning -- from us.

As a reality check, you should acknowledge that I'm the person with a noticeable presence in the mainstream media (such as BusinessWeek, Reuters, Washington Times, and United Press International). I have something to say.

Stroking your ego here is not going to help. Others also will read how you are often proven wrong on many things. They will use what they learned and will let their governments know of their support.

You guys don't even exist.

Neither do you.

 

[Minjitta]

Why not copy "Chinese" style? I can invent something like such thing: Japan discovered China in ancient times, so China belongs to Japan.

Half of China today belong to Great Viet, with that history Viet Nam have better argument than China with those islands.

 

[longyi]

Since the Great Viet defeated the Americans they can lay claim to America too, isn't it?