South China Sea Forum
- Thread starter SinoChallenger
- Start date
EastSea
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 3,787
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
But China is ready betrayed Russia like 1969.
Russia could play the game but never trust on Chinese.
ViXuyen
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
- Messages
- 1,276
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
The U.S lost almost 4000 jets trying to take out our air defence. China thinking about doing an air war against Vietnam is the biggest joke ever. You guys are just a bunch of rookies in air warfare while our air defence and pilots shot down almost 4000 jets of a first rated air force. We talk the talk and walk the walk. You don't even have anything close to 4000 jets to LOSE, LOL. Your air force is nowhere near the mighty U.S.A that we faced that had satellite, ballistic missiles, anti-radar missiles. Your military is indeed paper, try to launch an air and ground assault against us and see how we will humiliate you once again.Air Defences can easily be taken out by electronic, cyber and other means.
We have some of the best air defences in the world and we have the counters to them.
Vietnam even thinking about taking on the PLA is beyond a joke.
Once those air defences are taken out, Vietnam has nothing left.
Don't ever underestimate the ruthless and killer nature of the CPC and the PLA.
What a joke!
PLA dont reach the size of USA 1972 when they attacked North Vietnam. we don't mess with China, but we can defend our land like 1979.
China will loser when you can do such idiot provocative on Japan. Japan can take China easy like in WW II.
BoQ77
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2012
- Messages
- 8,704
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
I just want to remind Chinese pals learn again Sun Tzu theory of "Knowing you, and knowing me"
We Vietnamese say, you know it: "Knowing us, knowing enemy, hunderd battle, hundred victory". so why USA, France, Chinese invaders ran away from Vietnam.
Pangu
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2014
- Messages
- 1,501
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
We Vietnamese say, you know it: "Knowing us, knowing enemy, hunderd battle, hundred victory". so why USA, France, Chinese invaders ran away from Vietnam.
China did very badly in that stupid war. If I were Deng, I would not sent the PLA in to fight Vietnam on behalf of Cambodia, especially after the Vietnam War with the US which gave Vietnam a strong cadre of battle-hardened & experience troops. Vietnam fought very well & deserved that victory.
With that said, the Sino-Vietnamese War was a punitive expedition, not a war of occupation, so no need for PLA to remain in Vietnam. The French-Indochina war was a colonial war of occupation, while the war against the US was a USSR proxy war using Vietnam to exhaust the Americans.
All different political objectives.
NiceGuy
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2011
- Messages
- 5,569
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Oh yeah,l we look down on your coward and poor trained army now , show that ur PLA can fight without US daddy protection and support like in 1979 .Dont just come here to bark, its No use.
Battle of Bach Dang River
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 3,086
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Just need some Vietnamese women militia, our girls captured hundreds of PLA troops in 1979, like this:
See also: China-Vietnam Border War, 30 Years Later - Photo Essays - TIME
Beidou2020
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2013
- Messages
- 7,857
- Reaction score
- -48
- Country
- Location
Just need some Vietnamese women militia, our girls captured hundreds of PLA troops in 1979, like this:
See also: China-Vietnam Border War, 30 Years Later - Photo Essays - TIME
Nice photoshops.
Oh yeah,l we look down on your coward and poor trained army now , show that ur PLA can fight without US daddy protection and support like in 1979 .Dont just come here to bark, its No use.
We murdered you in 1974, 1979 and 1988
We crushed you like a dog in 1979 LOL
US lost its planes with Soviet air defaces operated by Soviet and Chinese soldiers.
There was nothing Vietnamese did. Vietnamese did guerrilla warfare on the ground. The high tech stuff was all done by Soviets and Chinese.
An EMP bomb over Vietnam and all your electronics are finished.
Then we will drop depleted uranium all over Vietnamese water, soil and population centres so your kids are born abnormal like with Agent Orange.
We will murder you like we did in 1974, 1979 and 1988.
Then we will bang all Vietnamese women and kill all the men.
We f**k your women, we f**k your country.
Why?
Because we are a superior race
Right now Russia is totally isolated.
We are the only country left for the Russians.
Last edited:
Battle of Bach Dang River
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 3,086
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
They are real photos of the truth but who brainwashed too much by CCP do not know or deliberately deny...
ViXuyen
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
- Messages
- 1,276
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
Your war machines do not work, your tacticians suk dik, your troopers are cowardice. That's why your loser military has lost every war against us since 938 A.D. There is nothing to brag about superior losing streak LOLNice photoshops.
We murdered you in 1974, 1979 and 1988
We crushed you like a dog in 1979 LOL
US lost its planes with Soviet air defaces operated by Soviet and Chinese soldiers.
There was nothing Vietnamese did. Vietnamese did guerrilla warfare on the ground. The high tech stuff was all done by Soviets and Chinese.
An EMP bomb over Vietnam and all your electronics are finished.
Then we will drop depleted uranium all over Vietnamese water, soil and population centres so your kids are born abnormal like with Agent Orange.
We will murder you like we did in 1974, 1979 and 1988.
Then we will bang all Vietnamese women and kill all the men.
We f**k your women, we f**k your country.
Why?
Because we are a superior race
Brainsucker
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2014
- Messages
- 2,679
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
China did very badly in that stupid war. If I were Deng, I would not sent the PLA in to fight Vietnam on behalf of Cambodia, especially after the Vietnam War with the US which gave Vietnam a strong cadre of battle-hardened & experience troops. Vietnam fought very well & deserved that victory.
With that said, the Sino-Vietnamese War was a punitive expedition, not a war of occupation, so no need for PLA to remain in Vietnam. The French-Indochina war was a colonial war of occupation, while the war against the US was a USSR proxy war using Vietnam to exhaust the Americans.
All different political objectives.
Well, I don't know. From what I heard, Deng sent those soldiers who he sent to Vietnam to be killed, not to win the war. They were the gang of four underlings. The people who almost destroyed China in '70. That's why they were not protected by air cover. But who know. Maybe what I heard is only a rumor.
BoQ77
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2012
- Messages
- 8,704
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Just need some Vietnamese women militia, our girls captured hundreds of PLA troops in 1979, like this:
See also: China-Vietnam Border War, 30 Years Later - Photo Essays - TIME
What you expect for local militaria ?
Women, ethnic women, oldies, ... ethnic ...
That's truth ... that's who caused heavy casualties to PLA soldiers
They handled well US soldiers
Ancient Vietnamese has the phrase " When enemy invades, even women would fight"
A good book about the Vietnamese women "Even women must fight" by Karen Gottchang Turner
Amazon.com: Even the Women Must Fight: Memories of War from North Vietnam (9780471327233): Karen Gottschang Turner: Books
Before and After
Kan Lich - ethnic lady - hero in Vietnam War
Ngo Thi Tuyen - guerrilla in Vietnam War
Last edited:
Srinivas
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2009
- Messages
- 12,455
- Reaction score
- -26
- Country
- Location
Dismounting China from the South China Sea
China's growing energy needs and overlapping territorial claims place its energy security on a collision course with its smaller, weaker neighbors
China's economy requires increased access to resources, especially when managing the needs of approximately 20% of the world's population.
China's growing energy needs and overlapping territorial claims in the resource-rich South China Sea place their energy security on a collision course with its smaller, weaker neighbors.
The most recent issue is China's increasingly hard-lined approach to the Scarborough Reef, approximately 4 times farther away from China than it is to the Philippines.
Historic lens
China backs its South China Sea claims through a Chinese map produced in 1947, Chinese Foreign Minister Zhou Enlai’s 1951 statement, and the discovery of the Belitung Wreck in 1998.
Please make your own opinions regarding the legitimacy of a map created in 1947 citing a historical claim. Minister Zhou’s statement denounced the San Francisco Peace Treaty – as China was not invited – and further declared Chinese ownership of the Spratly, Paracel, and Pratas Islands.
Furthermore, Beijing portrayed the Belitung Wreck as “[Tang Dynasty] artifacts at the bottom of [Indonesian coastal waters],” however failed to mention that the dhow (a lateen-rigged ship with one or two masts) was not a "Chinese vessel that had a seafaring purpose in the region," but is instead debated to have been an Arabian or Indian ship.
Even if it was a Chinese trade ship, a sunken vessel possibly lost at sea doesn’t really pass the legitimacy test for a territorial claim.
Legal lens
In addition to questionable historical interpretations, China tries to strengthen its claims with outdated legal decisions.
In 2010 and again in 2013, China attempted to gain ownership of up to two-thirds of Okinawa’s continental shelf by arguing Okinawa was a former Chinese vassal state and cited the 1969 North Sea Continental Shelf Case ruling to strengthen its cause.
However, this form of coastal delineation was superseded by the 1973 to 1982 drafting of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which replaced the natural prolongation argument with the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) – as demonstrated in 1982 (Libya v. Tunisia) and again upheld in 1985 (Malta v. Libya).
Additionally, Article 12 of UNCLOS defines islets as land masses incapable of sustaining life and therefore ineligible for EEZ status. Without this EEZ status, they cannot be used by Beijing (or any other country) to create a maritime boundary, such as Beijing’s Nine-Dash Line.
However, when we look at the Philippines’ and other countries’ disputes with China, we start to see some legitimacy of ownership. For example – the obvious distance factor aside – some countries have had prior habitation on the islets, whereas China has not.
Additionally, several of the claimant countries either have developed or are exploring ways to develop tourism (beaches, diving, fishing, etc), which assert possession over the area.
Other avenues have included deploying military contingents or setting up civilian communities on these islets to demonstrate physical occupation.
These countermeasures are in addition to the 1994 decision, determined by UNCLOS Article 121, which created international maritime boundaries – that China chooses to ignore.
Combined, these cursory examples prove Beijing lacks solid historical, occupational, and legal claims in the region.
Ways forward
Beijing’s branding of the South China Sea as one of its “core interests” will only compound matters.
Previous “core interests” include Taiwan, Tibet, and the former East Turkmenistan and generally means China will refuse to negotiate where they would need to concede territory; use force to protect their interests; and impose a regional order – an obviously bleak picture.
Moreover, China’s modus operandi for dealing with territorial claims is a 3-pronged approach; which includes delays in dispute resolution, consolidation of claims, and preventing the opposing country from strengthening their claims.
To many Asia-Pacific observers, Beijing’s heavy-handed approach is reminiscent of the “middle kingdom,” a time in China's imperialistic past when rulers, emboldened by the “mandate of heaven,” threatened and subdued all non-Chinese nations if they failed to pay tribute or showed deference.
Which is why China was angered when the Philippines didn’t back down and instead filed their territorial dispute in the Permanent Court of Arbitration on March 30, 2014.
To maintain regional stability, everyone’s motivation needs to be understood. For example, China’s hard-line approach may be rooted in the fact that it is 80 to 90% dependent on foreign oil; has a massive, growing population; and the Communist Chinese Party leadership must deliver continued high-growth to maintain its position.
On the other hand, as Dana Dillon suggests, China is viewed as the neighbor on the street who tries to own your yard, your driveway, and your mailbox, but allows you to keep your house.
Mainland China should be more like Taiwan – in April 2013 Japan and Taiwan concluded a fishing agreement surrounding the disputed Senkaku islands.
Following Taiwan's lead, Mainland China can prove that is dedicated to the Rule of Law and is not simply a reincarnation of the Middle Kingdom.
Instead of increasing tensions with the possibility of a mistaken calculation leading to conflict, Taiwan and Japan sat down, discussed their fishing requirements, and signed an agreement.
Their territorial dispute remains unsolved; however, both sides enjoy the new status quo and prove that even when a dispute exists, so too does an amiable solution for both sides.
Thus, we have a golden opportunity for China and the Philippines to work together, demonstrate that they support the Rule of Law and are capable of solving problems in a legal and friendly fashion. – Rappler.com
Dismounting China from the South China Sea
China's growing energy needs and overlapping territorial claims place its energy security on a collision course with its smaller, weaker neighbors
China's economy requires increased access to resources, especially when managing the needs of approximately 20% of the world's population.
China's growing energy needs and overlapping territorial claims in the resource-rich South China Sea place their energy security on a collision course with its smaller, weaker neighbors.
The most recent issue is China's increasingly hard-lined approach to the Scarborough Reef, approximately 4 times farther away from China than it is to the Philippines.
Historic lens
China backs its South China Sea claims through a Chinese map produced in 1947, Chinese Foreign Minister Zhou Enlai’s 1951 statement, and the discovery of the Belitung Wreck in 1998.
Please make your own opinions regarding the legitimacy of a map created in 1947 citing a historical claim. Minister Zhou’s statement denounced the San Francisco Peace Treaty – as China was not invited – and further declared Chinese ownership of the Spratly, Paracel, and Pratas Islands.
Furthermore, Beijing portrayed the Belitung Wreck as “[Tang Dynasty] artifacts at the bottom of [Indonesian coastal waters],” however failed to mention that the dhow (a lateen-rigged ship with one or two masts) was not a "Chinese vessel that had a seafaring purpose in the region," but is instead debated to have been an Arabian or Indian ship.
Even if it was a Chinese trade ship, a sunken vessel possibly lost at sea doesn’t really pass the legitimacy test for a territorial claim.
Legal lens
In addition to questionable historical interpretations, China tries to strengthen its claims with outdated legal decisions.
In 2010 and again in 2013, China attempted to gain ownership of up to two-thirds of Okinawa’s continental shelf by arguing Okinawa was a former Chinese vassal state and cited the 1969 North Sea Continental Shelf Case ruling to strengthen its cause.
However, this form of coastal delineation was superseded by the 1973 to 1982 drafting of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which replaced the natural prolongation argument with the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) – as demonstrated in 1982 (Libya v. Tunisia) and again upheld in 1985 (Malta v. Libya).
Additionally, Article 12 of UNCLOS defines islets as land masses incapable of sustaining life and therefore ineligible for EEZ status. Without this EEZ status, they cannot be used by Beijing (or any other country) to create a maritime boundary, such as Beijing’s Nine-Dash Line.
However, when we look at the Philippines’ and other countries’ disputes with China, we start to see some legitimacy of ownership. For example – the obvious distance factor aside – some countries have had prior habitation on the islets, whereas China has not.
Additionally, several of the claimant countries either have developed or are exploring ways to develop tourism (beaches, diving, fishing, etc), which assert possession over the area.
Other avenues have included deploying military contingents or setting up civilian communities on these islets to demonstrate physical occupation.
These countermeasures are in addition to the 1994 decision, determined by UNCLOS Article 121, which created international maritime boundaries – that China chooses to ignore.
Combined, these cursory examples prove Beijing lacks solid historical, occupational, and legal claims in the region.
Ways forward
Beijing’s branding of the South China Sea as one of its “core interests” will only compound matters.
Previous “core interests” include Taiwan, Tibet, and the former East Turkmenistan and generally means China will refuse to negotiate where they would need to concede territory; use force to protect their interests; and impose a regional order – an obviously bleak picture.
Moreover, China’s modus operandi for dealing with territorial claims is a 3-pronged approach; which includes delays in dispute resolution, consolidation of claims, and preventing the opposing country from strengthening their claims.
To many Asia-Pacific observers, Beijing’s heavy-handed approach is reminiscent of the “middle kingdom,” a time in China's imperialistic past when rulers, emboldened by the “mandate of heaven,” threatened and subdued all non-Chinese nations if they failed to pay tribute or showed deference.
Which is why China was angered when the Philippines didn’t back down and instead filed their territorial dispute in the Permanent Court of Arbitration on March 30, 2014.
To maintain regional stability, everyone’s motivation needs to be understood. For example, China’s hard-line approach may be rooted in the fact that it is 80 to 90% dependent on foreign oil; has a massive, growing population; and the Communist Chinese Party leadership must deliver continued high-growth to maintain its position.
On the other hand, as Dana Dillon suggests, China is viewed as the neighbor on the street who tries to own your yard, your driveway, and your mailbox, but allows you to keep your house.
Mainland China should be more like Taiwan – in April 2013 Japan and Taiwan concluded a fishing agreement surrounding the disputed Senkaku islands.
Following Taiwan's lead, Mainland China can prove that is dedicated to the Rule of Law and is not simply a reincarnation of the Middle Kingdom.
Instead of increasing tensions with the possibility of a mistaken calculation leading to conflict, Taiwan and Japan sat down, discussed their fishing requirements, and signed an agreement.
Their territorial dispute remains unsolved; however, both sides enjoy the new status quo and prove that even when a dispute exists, so too does an amiable solution for both sides.
Thus, we have a golden opportunity for China and the Philippines to work together, demonstrate that they support the Rule of Law and are capable of solving problems in a legal and friendly fashion. – Rappler.com
Dismounting China from the South China Sea
Similar threads
