The United States Should Peacefully Let China Rise

[Viet]

Read my post again. I'm responding to that guy who said we were the provocateur. It is all relative. Had we been a weak force, small country, and you are the powerful one, our action to fortify our defense would be regard as non-threatening and you will be regard as a threat. It is that simple.

And no, neither American and Russia can easily destroy us. Do not forget, we are a nuclear power.

first, my reply is to your utter nonsense saying small countries as VN and PN provoke CN. it is like saying the Dutch provoke the Germans. it never happens in history, a much weaker country attacks a bigger opponent.

shall I list here all the wars you launched against Vietnam?

all the provocations against us, all the supports you provided to our enemies?

second, nuclear weapons don´t make you immortal. your enemies have such thing, too. and your rhetoric encourages weaker neighbours to acquire nuclear weaponry. as deterrent.

 

[Pangu]

I dont think anyone lets anyone rise unless we are talking about an erection.

Lol, quite true my friend. Imagine one man says to another, "Your d.ick shall not rise unless I said so!"

 

[xunzi]

So I guess this never happened then, as you said China have not use force to settle disputes

Scarborough Shoal standoff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And by the way, both were solved by "Multi-national" talk, not a bi-lateral dialogue.

US negotiate with the UK on the Dominion of Canada, while US went thru ABC (Argentina, Bolivia and Columbia) to settle the dispute with Mexico

Who started the Scarborough Shoal standoff? It wasn't us. That is for sure. And no, when the Scarborough Shoal standoff occurred, we said to the Philippines to back off and we could go back to the status quo of keeping the Scarborough Shoal like before. They escalated this, threatening our interest. They seek the US back up and forced us into a multilateral forums when no power in history have used multilateral forum to settle a bilateral dispute on a feature.

UK represents Canada to settle bilateral negotiation. Which US-Mexico dispute was settle multilaterally? You mean the Chamizal dispute? Give me a specific dispute.

first, my reply is to your utter nonsense saying small countries as VN and PN provoke CN. it is like saying the Dutch provoke the Germans. it never happens in history, a much weaker country attacks a bigger opponent.

shall I list here all the wars you launched against Vietnam?

all the provocations against us, all the supports you provided to our enemies?

second, nuclear weapons don´t make you immortal. your enemies have such thing, too. and your rhetoric encourages weaker neighbours to acquire nuclear weaponry. as deterrent.

Like I said, just because your action is not threatening to us doesn't mean you didn't provoke us to fortify our defense.

I said before that we will not use nuke unless someone use nuke against us. So you can dream about acquiring nuke all you want. It will not change our position and policy of NFU unless some drastic change in strategic planning.

 

[gambit]

If a historic claim is not legal, then nobody can claim the SCS islands as these islands are inherently inhabited. So you can't have it your way. You can't say the Vietnamese or the Pinoy claim is legal while ours is not.

I challenge you to find a single post from me that said so. I have always advocated that contesting claims be settled in international court and that if a country chose this path, it has to accept the court's ruling as legal and binding.

 

[xunzi]

I challenge you to find a single post from me that said so. I have always advocated that contesting claims be settled in international court and that if a country chose this path, it has to accept the court's ruling as legal and binding.

You insinuating that ours claim is not legal while the Vietnam/Philippines claims were acceptable. This double standard is what I'm contending with. Most territorial disputes between two parties are settle bilaterally. This is the path that have been taking since modern time. If every disputes can be settle through international court, then there would be no disputes left.

 

[CHD]

China should thank ISIS,KSA,iran,Israel and other jihadists child of US , which is keeping the west busy.
Otherwise if the west was not facing these threats they would definitely be creating alot of troubles for china.
And for Pakistan it is also good that the west remains busy in the middle eastern mess, otherwise we are the next non white skin target by default.

As long they are busy their we will have enought time to consolidate our position.As their is no such thing as the fight against terrorism, the world is the survival of the fittest and if its not terrorism they will find some other thing.

 

[gambit]

You insinuating that ours claim is not legal while the Vietnam/Philippines claims were acceptable.

The 'insinuation' is from your overactive imagination. Nothing from what I said.

This double standard is what I'm contending with. Most territorial disputes between two parties are settle bilaterally. This is the path that have been taking since modern time. If every disputes can be settle through international court, then there would be no disputes left.

An international court is best if there are more than two claimants. It is not required, but only suggested as ideal. If China and others can do it among yourselves -- do so. But it looks like China is interested in only one outcome -- China. So please do not even pretend as if you are being fair here.

 

[jhungary]

Who started the Scarborough Shoal standoff? It wasn't us. That is for sure. And no, when the Scarborough Shoal standoff occurred, we said to the Philippines to back off and we could go back to the status quo of keeping the Scarborough Shoal like before. They escalated this, threatening our interest. They seek the US back up and forced us into a multilateral forums when no power in history have used multilateral forum to settle a bilateral dispute on a feature.

UK represents Canada to settle bilateral negotiation. Which US-Mexico dispute was settle multilaterally? You mean the Chamizal dispute? Give me a specific dispute.

Still, did China use force to "Settle" the business in the end? Most of the time it was Mexico started the dispute first anyway, they went in to New Mexico and kill a bunch of gringo, and they come to torch the American Oil field in Mexico as well as holding the US Naval Officer in Veracruz. I am not saying all of them were started by Mexico, but most of them were ended with US engage in talk, and by talk, I don't mean they are threaten Mexico to blow them til kingdom come

And first, I need to apologise for my previous post, ABC does not mean Argentina, Bolivia and Columbia, but Argentina, Brazil and Chile. And I am referring to the Niagara Fall peace conference, which ended the occupation of Veracruz in 1914 also known as ABC conference.

Niagara Falls peace conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And lol, no, UK does not represent Canada after 1870, after the independent dominion of Canada was form, I was talking about the Herbert Hoover visit to British Ambassdor in 1927, not 1827 when UK still have administration power to Canada.

 

[xunzi]

The 'insinuation' is from your overactive imagination. Nothing from what I said.


An international court is best if there are more than two claimants. It is not required, but only suggested as ideal. If China and others can do it among yourselves -- do so. But it looks like China is interested in only one outcome -- China. So please do not even pretend as if you are being fair here.

You have ALWAYS came to defend the provocation of the Vietnam and the Philippines, so your action insinuating your stance on the dispute. I don't need to tell you that.

Each of the features in SCS is dispute between two claimants whether it is China vs Vietnam, China vs Philippines, Vietnam vs Philippines, etc... How many times did we called the claimants to talk bilaterally? It was the Philippines that wanted to make our disputes into a circus. Luckily I have heard they started to change their tune a bit.

 

[Viet]

Like I said, just because your action is not threatening to us doesn't mean you didn't provoke us to fortify our defense.

I said before that we will not use nuke unless someone use nuke against us. So you can dream about acquiring nuke all you want. It will not change our position and policy of NFU unless some drastic change in strategic planning.

do you think I believe to your words not using nukes on non-nuclear states?

do you believe that we believe to your peaceful bullshit at all?

you are a nightmare to Southeast Asia.

if we had not stopped the genocide in Cambodia which was exported from you as a success model, you would have exported to Laos, too.

 

[xunzi]

Still, did China use force to "Settle" the business in the end? Most of the time it was Mexico started the dispute first anyway, they went in to New Mexico and kill a bunch of gringo, and they come to torch the American Oil field in Mexico as well as holding the US Naval Officer in Veracruz. I am not saying all of them were started by Mexico, but most of them were ended with US engage in talk, and by talk, I don't mean they are threaten Mexico to blow them til kingdom come

And first, I need to apologise for my previous post, ABC does not mean Argentina, Bolivia and Columbia, but Argentina, Brazil and Chile. And I am referring to the Niagara Fall peace conference, also known as ABC conference.

Niagara Falls peace conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And lol, no, UK does not represent Canada after 1870, after the independent dominion of Canada was form, I was talking about the Herbert Hoover visit to British Ambassdor in 1927, not 1827 when UK still have administration power to Canada.

No, we did not use force in the end. That is not an option that we like. We said before.

Mexico attacked you because you took advantage of their revolution to occupy a dispute territory, Veracruz which is closer to Mexico. That beside the point, the event and I think you mean the Niagara Falls peace conference, was nothing different from our Declaration of Conduct of Parties in SCS which was agreed upon, and the current negotiated Code of Conduct to lower the tension. Last, the US didn't go to international court to settle their dispute with Mexico.

Canada is a commonwealth country. They have tight relation with the UK so I won't be surprise they trust the UK to represent them to settle dispute with the USA. It is similar to the Mongolia back by the Soviet Union to settle border with us.

do you think I believe to your words not using nukes on non-nuclear states?

do you believe that we believe to your peaceful bullshit at all?

you are a nightmare to Southeast Asia.

if we had not stopped the genocide in Cambodia which was exported from you as a success model, you would have exported to Laos, too.

I will let your imagination believe in what you want. Our angle of using nuke is VERY clear. We even supported disarming nukes all altogether through a P5 treaty. But you know, the Soviet used nuke as a power tool, so it has a water fall effect. It keeps the US from obtaining nuke, which in turn force us to stockpile nukes.

Our peaceful rise is not subject to debate. You can believe in it however you want.

Not really. Beside the Philippines and Vietnam (the two claimants most actively fortifying against our position), none in ASEAN has bad relation with us. We have very productive relation with everyone, except you two.

You are no saint in Cambodia. No one in the UN, except the Soviet's camp, support your occupation of Cambodia.

 

[Zero_wing]

No, we did not use force in the end. That is not an option that we like. We said before.

Mexico attacked you because you took advantage of their revolution to occupy a dispute territory, Veracruz which is closer to Mexico. That beside the point, the event and I think you mean the Niagara Falls peace conference, was nothing different from our Declaration of Conduct of Parties in SCS which was agreed upon, and the current negotiated Code of Conduct to lower the tension. Last, the US didn't go to international court to settle their dispute with Mexico.

Canada is a commonwealth country. They have tight relation with the UK so I won't be surprise they trust the UK to represent them to settle dispute with the USA. It is similar to the Mongolia back by the Soviet Union to settle border with us.


I will let your imagination believe in what you want. Our angle of using nuke is VERY clear. We even supported disarming nukes all altogether through a P5 treaty. But you know, the Soviet used nuke as a power tool, so it has a water fall effect. It keeps the US from obtaining nuke, which in turn force us to stockpile nukes.

Our peaceful rise is not subject to debate. You can believe in it however you want.

Not really. Beside the Philippines and Vietnam (the two claimants most actively fortifying against our position), none in ASEAN has bad relation with us. We have very productive relation with everyone, except you two.

You are no saint in Cambodia. No one in the UN, except the Soviet's camp, support your occupation of Cambodia.

Sure if you're giving cambodia billions if china was not international deviant sure why not but she is and she creating enemies both near and far remember even elephants can be taken down by pride of lions

 

[Cossack25A1]

Here is the question.

If China and the Philippines enter bilateral talks, which country would have more advantage, the smaller one or the larger one?

Because given the situation, any bilateral talks with the China will end up being in favor of China due to their political, economic and specially military aspect. China will never agree on anything equal, China wants everything to itself only.

In fact, from the Qin Dynasty up to the present People's Republic of China, there is likely a territorial expansion that had and will occur, thus imperialism is not exclusively a "European/Western idea".

 

[Viet]

I will let your imagination believe in what you want. Our angle of using nuke is VERY clear. We even supported disarming nukes all altogether through a P5 treaty. But you know, the Soviet used nuke as a power tool, so it has a water fall effect. It keeps the US from obtaining nuke, which in turn force us to stockpile nukes.

Our peaceful rise is not subject to debate. You can believe in it however you want.

Not really. Beside the Philippines and Vietnam (the two claimants most actively fortifying against our position), none in ASEAN has bad relation with us. We have very productive relation with everyone, except you two.

You are no saint in Cambodia. No one in the UN, except the Soviet's camp, support your occupation of Cambodia.

I don´t believe to your peaceful rhetoric. your history proves your words are worthless.

you asked why you have good relationship to others except VN and PN?

I can´t speak for PN.

Let take Thailand.

Assuming Cambodia invaded Thailand (instead of Vietnam), killing the Thai people, destroying their cities. and when Thailand responded, you chinese as Cambodia ally become angry, invading Thailand killing Thai people including children and women, destroying their cities.

What do you think?

Will the Thai continue loving you?

or the Siamese wish you chinese to end in hell?

Germany invaded USSR. as revenge, the Soviets invaded Germany, took nearly half of Germany land as compensation.

what is your logic here? will China as germany friend invade USSR raping killing the Russians as you please?

Thailand has border dispute with Cambodia and Laos, resulting in shootings and deaths. why did you fail to jump in to intervene? where were you? why don´t you attack Thailand on behalf of Cambodia?

 

[beijingwalker]

Dont the events regarding the SCS show the intentions of China,what is peaceful about that?
Why would there be a need for anti-Chinese sentiments when China is peaceful to its neighbours?

The territorial disputes were settled long ago when the French tried to incorporate the islands into their Vietnamese territories but after the Sino-French War of 1884-85 France recognised the islands, as well as the Spratly Islands, as Chinese territories. In 1933 the French stabbed China in the back and seized the islands but were then displaced by the Japanese in 1938.
American Aggression against China | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization