Vietnam protests China's military exercise in South China Sea

[ptldM3]

We debunked your point about Soviet weapons already. China provided more aid, and airlift is extremely inefficient and still needs China's (or it can get Pakistan's but that'd mean flying even more) permission, unless it wants Soviet transport planes flying right over US carriers. No such event was ever recorded btw. As for "Copies", hahaha, let's put it this way, anyone in the world can buy a Mig-21 yet PAF looks down on Mig-21 and buys the J-7.

That's because they have no other choice, the Soviet Union would never sell Pakistan Mig-21's, even if they would the Mig-21 production line was discontinued long ago, and even if Pakistan would obtain Mig-21's from a third party they wouldn't have spares, of course they could have went with none OEM spares from China but that would likely result in problems.

 

[tanlixiang28776]

That's because they have no other choice, the Soviet Union would never sell Pakistan Mig-21's, even if they would the Mig-21 production line was discontinued long ago, and even if Pakistan would obtain Mig-21's from a third party they wouldn't have spares, of course they could have went with none OEM spares from China but that would likely result in problems.

Thank you for being reasonable.

The J- 7PGs we sold to Pakistan were only a gap stop.

Now we can supply them with far better planes.

 

[scuthan]

Sino-Soviet Split was in 1969, not 1960. It such a basic fact of history that I expect every Chinese to know it.

It's ironic that you don't even know the basic history of the Cold War vis-a-vis Vietnam, yet tell others not to talk about things they don't know about.

I have no time to discuss basic history.


Sayonara for now.

your basic history a$$ , use google before spew garbage next time. Sino-soviet split was in 1960.

and china stop aiding vietnam after sino-soviet split.?

how come your confidence to talk about history without any basic knowledge.

 

[no_name]

Split in 1960, conflict in 1969.

I think he is just playing the devil's advocate for entertainment.

 

[tanlixiang28776]

Split in 1960, conflict in 1969.

I think he is just playing the devil's advocate for entertainment.

No I think he just skims wikipedia pages.

 

[no_name]

Maybe he did that after he started playing and found out he was lacking a bit of info.

 

[scuthan]

To lose a war means not being able to fullfil objectives.

China did not fulfil their objecives, Vietnam did. Therefore, China was defeated by Vietnam

It's sad that I have to explain the most basic principles of war to you.

"china defeated by vietnam" "vietnam taught china a lesson" come on stop shifting your topic anymore. how hard it is to admit a mistake.

 

[no_name]

The sino-vietnamese war did not achieve the political objective china set out. But militarily I think it can be regarded as successful, abeit at a lot higher cost than previously anticipated.

 

[us1956]

1. What were China's goals in 1979?
2. Did China achieve those goals?

Educate yourself on the answers to those questions, and then come back.


1962 was a Chinese victory because China achieved its political goals, limited as they were.

first, VC was China's ally and China supplied weapons, advisers to VC which lead to the withdraw of U.S. troops; the agreement was signed between U.S. (Kissinger) & China to allow troops leaving safely in 3 days before the fall of Saigon April 30, 1975.
the 1979 was a signal to Soviet Union (S. Union & China did not get along till early 1990s) that China did not have problem to go for full scale of war with S.U. by punish VC with war and taking control of strategic point of defenses that VC. had artillery divisions on- high hills of Cao Bằng & Lạng sơn.
the 1979 war was not a good war for either side and neither side won the war. Vietnam thought Soviet Union would join the war because of the treaty and promises, so Vietnam acted like a tough guy, but the help never came.
the peace treaty and redraw of land border was signed in 2008?, thousands of Vietnamese around the world protested at both China and Vietnam embassies and consulates, because the advantage is greatly on China side.
currently, the border crossings traffics are getting heavy, heavier, just like US. to Toronto or US. to Vancouver B.C. people are able to make a better living, all they wish is "peace", so they can continue to make money and take care their families (i watched Vietnamese tv) and send kids to college.

 

[gambit]

Americans tend to ascribe their loss to guerilla warfare to make excuse.

No excuses but the truth. Guerrilla warfare does not win territory permanently. It can only harass the current military regime already in control of the territory. In Viet Nam, the supposedly 'military genius' Vo Nguyen Giap never won a 'set piece battle' in his career, even when he fought France and held the numerical superiority. Look up the definition and examples of 'set piece battle' for yourself. Guerrilla warfare can only prolong the conflict by retarding, or slowing down, the advancement of the larger force, not delay it. An example is the French 'resistance' in WW II or in the case of the Vietnam War, the Viet Cong.

Acutally guerilla is only a supplement of mainstream warfare, so did vietnam war. any successful cases of guerrila warfare i.e. vietnam, Afghanistan, and yugoslavia in WWII, can not sustain without external aids. without constant logistic supply , guerilla warfare failed in weeks.

Supplementary and complimentary but not necessary.

 

[Punjabbi Munda]

You know, what is wrong with these Indians. No Chinese members posts endless streams of negative news on the India forum. This is kind of annoying.

Are you an idiot?What's wrong with the news Veeru posted?Something false???isn't it a issue of concern?

 

[gambit]

...vietmonkeys.

Thanks much for continuing to prove that the Chinese boys here are a racist lot. Do keep it up.

 

[gambit]

China lost the war with Vietnam in 1979 because it failed to achieve its political objective. The reason for going to war. The reason was to force Vietnam to pull out of Cambodia. The war didn't achieve its objective. Vietnam was able to maintain its puppet government in Cambodia after expelled khmer Rouge.
The actual casualty count does not really matter as wars are never conducted for tactical reason or with tactical goals. Even if China suffers 10 times less casualty than Vietnam, China lost the war as it was not able to force Vietnam to withdraw from Cambodia.

Fine by that logic America has lost at least half its wars then.

Look it was a military victory and people were suggesting that it was not.

Politically it wasn't a disaster as you would think it was.

But that is precisely the reasoning everyone here uses, especially for Afghanistan and Iraq today. Pick a standard and apply it to all with no exception. If you do not agree, then concede to the technical definitions that there military objectives as well as political ones; that successful military objectives support political ones; that successful military objectives should be analyzed as standalone events; and that everything can be undermined by political decisions despite successful military objectives.

 

[Dalai Lama]

Thanks much for continuing to prove that the Chinese boys here are a racist lot. Do keep it up.

I have reported his racist posts.

 

[tanlixiang28776]

Thanks much for continuing to prove that the Chinese boys here are a racist lot. Do keep it up.

Can you just state Scuthan is racist? By stating the Chinese boys here are racist you yourself are making a racist comment.