China builds new military facilities on South China Sea islands - think tank

[Dumbastheycome]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

You can repeat your "demonize China" nonsense all you like, still doesn't amount to demonstrating it. That it is your opinion doesn't make it fact. Similarly, despite your unfounded claims, both Reuters and the Center for Strategic and International Studies are credible sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Strategic_and_International_Studies).

 

In the same vain, insisting the PRC's efforts are "irrelevant", minimizing them as "dots" - is just more of the usual disingenuous, agenda driven propaganda which makes the bulk of your posts. Claiming that the PRC has no territorial ambitions, or no designs relevant to maritime traffic in the region is preposterous. and counterfactual. The irrelevant bit would be the childishly simplistic (and inaccurate) representation of military balance.

 

The PRC's efforts on these islands (not "dots") are not carried out for unspecified "symbolic" reasons. Nor are they carried out for vague "display purposes". There would be no need for these outposts to be militarized if they were about commerce and tourism.

 

There was nothing in my post which mentioned the UK, London or anything of the sort. Lame deflection. What you're on about is non stop support for PRC expansionist policies and dominance in the region.

To  support  your  insistence that the   PRC is  attempting  expansionism   can you   provide  information   about   the  PRC  annexing territory  on  the  the  opposite  side  of  the   globe for  the  primary  purpose  of   installing   military facilities?? 

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

To  support  your  insistence that the   PRC is  attempting  expansionism   can you   provide  information   about   the  PRC  annexing territory  on  the  the  opposite  side  of  the   globe for  the  primary  purpose  of   installing   military facilities?? 

 

Ummm I don't have to. Expansionism does not require bases and efforts to be "on the other side of the globe". It's perfectly acceptable to bring up expansionism when it is carried out nearer to home. If you insist, though, look up Djibouti as an example. And next time, just get straight to the US bash - why waste time, eh?

 

 

[Dumbastheycome]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Ummm I don't have to. Expansionism does not require bases and efforts to be "on the other side of the globe". It's perfectly acceptable to bring up expansionism when it is carried out nearer to home. If you insist, though, look up Djibouti as an example. And next time, just get straight to the US bash - why waste time, eh?

 

 

lol.  I  did  not  mention  the  US.  However  you   are  so insistent  in   patriotic  defence that  you  overlook the  fact that  despite  some  retractions  that  the  US  is  not  alone in  this.

I  would  also dto the  question  that can you   provide  some  evidence  that  the  PRC  has   initiated military  action against  another  territory  outside  of  it's   own  continent in the   last  3  decades?

Edited July 4, 2017 by Dumbastheycome

[Dumbastheycome]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Ummm I don't have to. Expansionism does not require bases and efforts to be "on the other side of the globe". It's perfectly acceptable to bring up expansionism when it is carried out nearer to home. If you insist, though, look up Djibouti as an example. And next time, just get straight to the US bash - why waste time, eh?

 

 

Near  to  home?  Can  that   not  been seen as  defensive?   Djibouti?  Enlighten me  as  to  PRC   expansionism in  Africa.

[Morch]

57 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

lol.  I  did  not  mention  the  US.  However  you   are  so insistent  in   patriotic  defence that  you  overlook the  fact that  despite  some  retractions  that  the  US  is  not  alone in  this.

I  would  also dto the  question  that can you   provide  some  evidence  that  the  PRC  has   initiated military  action against  another  territory  outside  of  it's   own  continent in the   last  3  decades?

 

The discussion is, for the most part, about the PRC and the US. Considering previous posts, the inference was rather obvious. And no, I did not "overlook" anything, just didn't find it relevant.

 

Don't see the need to provide your with "evidence". Especially seeing as it serves no purpose. If you have a point, make it.

 

50 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Near  to  home?  Can  that   not  been seen as  defensive?   Djibouti?  Enlighten me  as  to  PRC   expansionism in  Africa.

 

Countries taking up expansionist actions sometimes define this being "defensive". What of it?

 

 

[Dumbastheycome]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The discussion is, for the most part, about the PRC and the US. Considering previous posts, the inference was rather obvious. And no, I did not "overlook" anything, just didn't find it relevant.

 

Don't see the need to provide your with "evidence". Especially seeing as it serves no purpose. If you have a point, make it.

 

 

Countries taking up expansionist actions sometimes define this being "defensive". What of it?

 

 

Hmmm. Expansionist  actions defined  as  defensive?  What  of  it? It  becomes  an  excuse  to   declare  unchallenged  domination.l

Validated  on   hypocrisy and deception. Is  there  any  doubt as  to  where  from  that has  already   occurred?

[ilostmypassword]

20 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

So, what's the point of the Chinese dots ?  They are there, for symbolic reasons, for display purposes. Those countries on the South China Sea, we're talking Vietnam, Philipinnes, etc. Those countries are doing more and more trade with China (imports and exports) and China is sending increasing numbers of tourists to those countries. China is increasing it's economic influence on those countries, and the dots are symbolic of this increasing influence. By the way, nobody is forcing these countries to do more trade with China, Beijing is not forcing them to accept more and more tourists.

 

Really? Just symbolic? So does that mean that the Chinese are not in conflict with Vietnam over petroleum resources around the Paracel islands? I could swear I read otherwise.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Hmmm. Expansionist  actions defined  as  defensive?  What  of  it? It  becomes  an  excuse  to   declare  unchallenged  domination.l

Validated  on   hypocrisy and deception. Is  there  any  doubt as  to  where  from  that has  already   occurred?

 

Sorry, not playing.

I didn't raise the question of defining anything as defensive, you did. If you've got a point just go ahead and make it.

Same goes for you the rest of your queries.

[tonbridgebrit]

On 04/07/2017 at 7:11 AM, Morch said:

 

You can repeat your "demonize China" nonsense all you like, still doesn't amount to demonstrating it. That it is your opinion doesn't make it fact. Similarly, despite your unfounded claims, both Reuters and the Center for Strategic and International Studies are credible sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Strategic_and_International_Studies).

 

In the same vain, insisting the PRC's efforts are "irrelevant", minimizing them as "dots" - is just more of the usual disingenuous, agenda driven propaganda which makes the bulk of your posts. Claiming that the PRC has no territorial ambitions, or no designs relevant to maritime traffic in the region is preposterous. and counterfactual. The irrelevant bit would be the childishly simplistic (and inaccurate) representation of military balance.

 

The PRC's efforts on these islands (not "dots") are not carried out for unspecified "symbolic" reasons. Nor are they carried out for vague "display purposes". There would be no need for these outposts to be militarized if they were about commerce and tourism.

 

There was nothing in my post which mentioned the UK, London or anything of the sort. Lame deflection. What you're on about is non stop support for PRC expansionist policies and dominance in the region.

Morch, you don't need me to tell you that, the US combat jets are far more advanced than what China has got, right ?  You do know, that America's navy is massively greater than China's, right ?  How many aircraft carriers has China got ?  How many has Washington got ?

It's like people being in Texas, they go and compare the local college football team with the Dallas Cowboys. The Dallas Cowboys could bring out their reserve team, and will still thrash the college team, we know that.

I mentioned the UK. I'm trying to say, so, it's okay for America and Europe to import a huge amount of Chinese goods, bearing in mind that China has a trade surplus. And, it's okay for London and Paris to attract lots of Chinese tourists. And it's okay for Australia to export a mountain of coal and iron ore to China. But, but, when the Far East countries (Thailand, Philipinnes, Vietnam, etc) do more and more trade with China, oh, that's regarded as dangerous. That's called "China is taking over those countries".

The Chinese dots continue to be built. The Far East countries are still increasing their trade with China. I don't think the Philipinnes actually want Washington to protect them. Protect the Philipinnes from what ? An invasion from China ?
The Philipinnes might actually be drifting towards Beijing, they're not worried about being invaded.

 

[Morch]

27 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Morch, you don't need me to tell you that, the US combat jets are far more advanced than what China has got, right ?  You do know, that America's navy is massively greater than China's, right ?  How many aircraft carriers has China got ?  How many has Washington got ?

It's like people being in Texas, they go and compare the local college football team with the Dallas Cowboys. The Dallas Cowboys could bring out their reserve team, and will still thrash the college team, we know that.

I mentioned the UK. I'm trying to say, so, it's okay for America and Europe to import a huge amount of Chinese goods, bearing in mind that China has a trade surplus. And, it's okay for London and Paris to attract lots of Chinese tourists. And it's okay for Australia to export a mountain of coal and iron ore to China. But, but, when the Far East countries (Thailand, Philipinnes, Vietnam, etc) do more and more trade with China, oh, that's regarded as dangerous. That's called "China is taking over those countries".

The Chinese dots continue to be built. The Far East countries are still increasing their trade with China. I don't think the Philipinnes actually want Washington to protect them. Protect the Philipinnes from what ? An invasion from China ?
The Philipinnes might actually be drifting towards Beijing, they're not worried about being invaded.

 

 

Overall military power got little to do with the issue at hand. Just another pro-PRC spin. Same goes for irrelevant football analogies. Same goes for the whole international trade paragraph. Same goes for alleging non-existent claims that Far East countries trading with China is dangerous. Same with the bogus "China is taking over those countries" - which wasn't claimed.

 

These aren't "dots" even if you continue trying to minimize them. They are military bases. They are not "symbolic". They are not about free trade.

 

I don't know that there is a unified position within the Philippines with regard to this issue. And I don't know that your pro-PRC agenda is fully acceptable to all. Of course, there was nothing said about "invasion", that's just another disingenuous insert pushed.

Edited July 9, 2017 by Morch

[tonbridgebrit]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Overall military power got little to do with the issue at hand. Just another pro-PRC spin. Same goes for irrelevant football analogies. Same goes for the whole international trade paragraph. Same goes for alleging non-existent claims that Far East countries trading with China is dangerous. Same with the bogus "China is taking over those countries" - which wasn't claimed.

 

These aren't "dots" even if you continue trying to minimize them. They are military bases. They are not "symbolic". They are not about free trade.

 

I don't know that there is a unified position within the Philippines with regard to this issue. And I don't know that your pro-PRC agenda is fully acceptable to all. Of course, there was nothing said about "invasion", that's just another disingenuous insert pushed.

Oh, so the point about how America's combat jets and military ships are far superior than the stuff that China has got, that's irrelevant ?

So, they're not "dots", they've got missiles on the dots, that makes them military bases ?  But, but they're NOT stopping anybody's ships ?  Morch, if Beijing was to stop a single ship belonging to any country, then, I myself will certainly cheer on Washington when Washington launches a couple of missiles, to knock out and sink whatever Chinese ship.  And if the missiles are NOT going to be fired (because this would give Washington the perfect reason to take military action) well, what's the point of having the missiles there ?  There is no point, other than display purposes, and symbolic purposes.

About the Philipinnes. I claim that the governmnent of the Philipinnes was democraticaly elected.  I regard Duterte's democratic election victory to be almost as (or the same) democratic as Donald Trump's election victory. They've democraically elected their leader, surely, they should be allowed the freedom to move closer to Beijing, IF they want to ?

You're still saying that, I'm pro-PRC ?  Well, I say again, I have no problems with Europe (and the UK) importing a load of cheap Chinese goods. And I think it's great that Britain is trying to export more goods to China. And I have no problems with more and more Chinese tourists in London and Paris.  Does this make me pro-PRC ?

Actually, I want to say to the Chinese tourists who are going to America and Australia "hey, why do you people want to go to those places, why don't you come to London or Paris, we've got more interesting buildings to show you when compared to America and Australia". Does this make me pro-PRC ??

 

Edited July 9, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[Morch]

2 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Oh, so the point about how America's combat jets and military ships are far superior than the stuff that China has got, that's irrelevant ?

So, they're not "dots", they've got missiles on the dots, that makes them military bases ?  But, but they're NOT stopping anybody's ships ?  Morch, if Beijing was to stop a single ship belonging to any country, then, I myself will certainly cheer on Washington when Washington launches a couple of missiles, to knock out and sink whatever Chinese ship.  And if the missiles are NOT going to be fired (because this would give Washington the perfect reason to take military action) well, what's the point of having the missiles there ?  There is no point, other than display purposes, and symbolic purposes.

About the Philipinnes. I claim that the governmnent of the Philipinnes was democraticaly elected.  I regard Duterte's democratic election victory to be almost as (or the same) democratic as Donald Trump's election victory. They've democraically elected their leader, surely, they should be allowed the freedom to move closer to Beijing, IF they want to ?

You're still saying that, I'm pro-PRC ?  Well, I say again, I have no problems with Europe (and the UK) importing a load of cheap Chinese goods. And I think it's great that Britain is trying to export more goods to China. And I have no problems with more and more Chinese tourists in London and Paris.  Does this make me pro-PRC ?

Actually, I want to say to the Chinese tourists who are going to America and Australia "hey, why do you people want to go to those places, why don't you come to London or Paris, we've got more interesting buildings to show you when compared to America and Australia". Does this make me pro-PRC ??

 

 

The US military superiority is irrelevant in two aspects - mainly, it does not, by itself, confer legitimacy on the PRC's actions. And secondly, the US having military superiority globally does not imply that it enjoys that superiority in each corner of the globe.

 

Spin it all you like, the PRC's military bases are military bases. They are not "dots". They are not "dots" with missiles. They are not "symbolic". They are military bases. Are they stopping ships? Depends on what you call "stop", which I'd guess would be a convulsed nonsensical definition. Have they discouraged ships from sailing near these bases? Yes, on some occasions, when they safely bully. Did they stop US ships, not yet. Does this have anything to do with anything? No. Worth reminding that originally the PRC denied that there was construction going on, then denied it was military in nature, now you're here to say that the missiles are symbolic. Doubt anyone buys that. No reasonable explanation as to what those supposedly symbolic missiles symbolize, or how military bases are essential to trade.

 

You can regard what you like. And you can praise Duterte's Government all you like. You can repeat the "democratic" keyword some more. Still wouldn't make a difference. There is nothing in that which implies a unified position within the Philippines either way. And there was nothing claimed about the Philippines freedom with regard to foreign policy choices - just another dishonest insert.

 

Your views about UK-PRC trade and tourism are immaterial to the PRC building military bases in the South China Sea, or to the PRC's aspirations regarding this maritime territory.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Oh, so the point about how America's combat jets and military ships are far superior than the stuff that China has got, that's irrelevant ?

So, they're not "dots", they've got missiles on the dots, that makes them military bases ?  But, but they're NOT stopping anybody's ships ?  Morch, if Beijing was to stop a single ship belonging to any country, then, I myself will certainly cheer on Washington when Washington launches a couple of missiles, to knock out and sink whatever Chinese ship.  And if the missiles are NOT going to be fired (because this would give Washington the perfect reason to take military action) well, what's the point of having the missiles there ?  There is no point, other than display purposes, and symbolic purposes.

About the Philipinnes. I claim that the governmnent of the Philipinnes was democraticaly elected.  I regard Duterte's democratic election victory to be almost as (or the same) democratic as Donald Trump's election victory. They've democraically elected their leader, surely, they should be allowed the freedom to move closer to Beijing, IF they want to ?

You're still saying that, I'm pro-PRC ?  Well, I say again, I have no problems with Europe (and the UK) importing a load of cheap Chinese goods. And I think it's great that Britain is trying to export more goods to China. And I have no problems with more and more Chinese tourists in London and Paris.  Does this make me pro-PRC ?

Actually, I want to say to the Chinese tourists who are going to America and Australia "hey, why do you people want to go to those places, why don't you come to London or Paris, we've got more interesting buildings to show you when compared to America and Australia". Does this make me pro-PRC ??

 

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/06/29/Chinese-boats-attack-Vietnamese-fishermen-in-South-China-Sea/8561498755312/

http://time.com/91934/china-vietnam-south-china-sea-oil-rig-paracel/

[tonbridgebrit]

4 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/06/29/Chinese-boats-attack-Vietnamese-fishermen-in-South-China-Sea/8561498755312/

http://time.com/91934/china-vietnam-south-china-sea-oil-rig-paracel/

Right, little Vietnam, and their involvement in the South China Sea.

What's happening in Vietnam ? Vietnam is importing a load of cheap Chinese goods, well, who isn't ? 
And Vietnam wants to export it's goods, and regards China as a vital market. Well, yes, Britain and Germany regard China as a vital market for exports. Also, Vietnam is following in the footsteps of Thailand, there is an increasing flood of Chinese tourists going to Vietnam. That incident in the article above, it took place a few years ago. And yes, trade and tourism from China has increased since then.

Basically, I'm trying to say, that Vietnam needs China, Vietnam has great potential benefits from China. And that's what Vietnam is interested in.  A silly dispute over oil in the South China Sea is not as important as the huge trade and tourism benefits.

I'ill say something that will make us all grin over oil in the South China Sea. The world oil price is much lower than it was three years ago. The USA is getting shale oil, and all this extra American shale oil,  it's causing the world oil price to be low.  OPEC is also drilling out oil, OPEC needs money. OPEC is refusing to massively cut production, bearing in mind that massive production cuts will lift the world oil price. Basically, I'm trying to say, the world oil price (Brent Crude and WTI) will stay low, I think, for years to come. New off-shore oil rigs have become almost non-profitable when oil is at or below US$50.   

Makes more sense for Vietnam to not bother claiming whatever oil in the South China Sea. How about, encourage Beijing to flood Vietnam's beaches with more Chinese tourists ?  Bit like what's happening in Thailand.  

(oh, I do love the bit in the second article, where it says " Vietnam's ruling Communist Party is now faced with the delicate task of confronting China over the issue — doing so with sufficient assertiveness to placate nationalist anger at home, and yet not risk all-out enmity with the country's biggest trading partner". )

Edited July 9, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[ilostmypassword]

49 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Right, little Vietnam, and their involvement in the South China Sea.

What's happening in Vietnam ? Vietnam is importing a load of cheap Chinese goods, well, who isn't ? 
And Vietnam wants to export it's goods, and regards China as a vital market. Well, yes, Britain and Germany regard China as a vital market for exports. Also, Vietnam is following in the footsteps of Thailand, there is an increasing flood of Chinese tourists going to Vietnam. That incident in the article above, it took place a few years ago. And yes, trade and tourism from China has increased since then.

Basically, I'm trying to say, that Vietnam needs China, Vietnam has great potential benefits from China. And that's what Vietnam is interested in.  A silly dispute over oil in the South China Sea is not as important as the huge trade and tourism benefits.

I'ill say something that will make us all grin over oil in the South China Sea. The world oil price is much lower than it was three years ago. The USA is getting shale oil, and all this extra American shale oil,  it's causing the world oil price to be low.  OPEC is also drilling out oil, OPEC needs money. OPEC is refusing to massively cut production, bearing in mind that massive production cuts will lift the world oil price. Basically, I'm trying to say, the world oil price (Brent Crude and WTI) will stay low, I think, for years to come. New off-shore oil rigs have become almost non-profitable when oil is at or below US$50.   

Makes more sense for Vietnam to not bother claiming whatever oil in the South China Sea. How about, encourage Beijing to flood Vietnam's beaches with more Chinese tourists ?  Bit like what's happening in Thailand.  

(oh, I do love the bit in the second article, where it says " Vietnam's ruling Communist Party is now faced with the delicate task of confronting China over the issue — doing so with sufficient assertiveness to placate nationalist anger at home, and yet not risk all-out enmity with the country's biggest trading partner". )

Yes. The Chinese - Vietnam oil dispute is ancient history:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/world/asia/china-vietnam-south-china-sea.html

 

As are the fishing disputes

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/06/29/Chinese-boats-attack-Vietnamese-fishermen-in-South-China-Sea/8561498755312/

 

I just don't understand why people make things up when google makes it so easy to fact check.

Edited July 9, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[tonbridgebrit]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Yes. The Chinese - Vietnam oil dispute is ancient history:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/world/asia/china-vietnam-south-china-sea.html

 

As are the fishing disputes

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/06/29/Chinese-boats-attack-Vietnamese-fishermen-in-South-China-Sea/8561498755312/

 

I just don't understand why people make things up when google makes it so easy to fact check.

So, the dispute has carried on ?  I didn't say that the dispute as stopped.  I'm saying, that Vietnam regards China as a very valuble export market, they regard China as a very valuable trade partner.

The above articles don't change a basic issue. That basic issue being : Vietnam has a delicate job to do, it has to placate a bunch of Nationalists in Vietnam, at the same time, they don't want to damage trade with China, and Chinese tourists as well.

If it was me, given the two options, placate a bunch of Nationalists, or be friends with a neighbouring country, and that neighbouring country makes up a lot of 'our' trade, well, I know which option I woud pick.

[ilostmypassword]

6 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

So, the dispute has carried on ?  I didn't say that the dispute as stopped.  I'm saying, that Vietnam regards China as a very valuble export market, they regard China as a very valuable trade partner.

The above articles don't change a basic issue. That basic issue being : Vietnam has a delicate job to do, it has to placate a bunch of Nationalists in Vietnam, at the same time, they don't want to damage trade with China, and Chinese tourists as well.

If it was me, given the two options, placate a bunch of Nationalists, or be friends with a neighbouring country, and that neighbouring country makes up a lot of 'our' trade, well, I know which option I woud pick.

I have a quote for you that I doubt you'll recognize. But here it is:

"Morch, if Beijing was to stop a single ship belonging to any country, then, I myself will certainly cheer on Washington when Washington launches a couple of missiles, to knock out and sink whatever Chinese ship."

[Rancid]

Claiming these reefs is losing the Chinese a lot of political capital, they must have one very strong reason to p*ss off so many countries.

[Morch]

12 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Right, little Vietnam, and their involvement in the South China Sea.

What's happening in Vietnam ? Vietnam is importing a load of cheap Chinese goods, well, who isn't ? 
And Vietnam wants to export it's goods, and regards China as a vital market. Well, yes, Britain and Germany regard China as a vital market for exports. Also, Vietnam is following in the footsteps of Thailand, there is an increasing flood of Chinese tourists going to Vietnam. That incident in the article above, it took place a few years ago. And yes, trade and tourism from China has increased since then.

Basically, I'm trying to say, that Vietnam needs China, Vietnam has great potential benefits from China. And that's what Vietnam is interested in.  A silly dispute over oil in the South China Sea is not as important as the huge trade and tourism benefits.

I'ill say something that will make us all grin over oil in the South China Sea. The world oil price is much lower than it was three years ago. The USA is getting shale oil, and all this extra American shale oil,  it's causing the world oil price to be low.  OPEC is also drilling out oil, OPEC needs money. OPEC is refusing to massively cut production, bearing in mind that massive production cuts will lift the world oil price. Basically, I'm trying to say, the world oil price (Brent Crude and WTI) will stay low, I think, for years to come. New off-shore oil rigs have become almost non-profitable when oil is at or below US$50.   

Makes more sense for Vietnam to not bother claiming whatever oil in the South China Sea. How about, encourage Beijing to flood Vietnam's beaches with more Chinese tourists ?  Bit like what's happening in Thailand.  

(oh, I do love the bit in the second article, where it says " Vietnam's ruling Communist Party is now faced with the delicate task of confronting China over the issue — doing so with sufficient assertiveness to placate nationalist anger at home, and yet not risk all-out enmity with the country's biggest trading partner". )

 

9 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

So, the dispute has carried on ?  I didn't say that the dispute as stopped.  I'm saying, that Vietnam regards China as a very valuble export market, they regard China as a very valuable trade partner.

The above articles don't change a basic issue. That basic issue being : Vietnam has a delicate job to do, it has to placate a bunch of Nationalists in Vietnam, at the same time, they don't want to damage trade with China, and Chinese tourists as well.

If it was me, given the two options, placate a bunch of Nationalists, or be friends with a neighbouring country, and that neighbouring country makes up a lot of 'our' trade, well, I know which option I woud pick.

 

This topic is about the PRC building military bases in South China Sea, and about their maritime territorial aspirations in the region.

 

 

 

[Morch]

45 minutes ago, Rancid said:

Claiming these reefs is losing the Chinese a lot of political capital, they must have one very strong reason to p*ss off so many countries.

 

That's one way of looking at it. Another is that they see an opening where they can push without serious opposition.

Facing international condemnation is not a new proposition for the PRC, and doubt that without much to back it up it will be effective.

[tonbridgebrit]

6 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

I have a quote for you that I doubt you'll recognize. But here it is:

"Morch, if Beijing was to stop a single ship belonging to any country, then, I myself will certainly cheer on Washington when Washington launches a couple of missiles, to knock out and sink whatever Chinese ship."

And I confirm that I made that comment. And I certainly stick to the comment. See, I'm totally convinced China will not stop any ships in the South China Sea. It's not their intent to stop whatever ships. And if they did, it gives Washington a massive reason to sink whatever Chinese ship, with one or two missiles. And, bearing in mind that America's combat jets and military ships are far superior when compared to the stuff that China has got.

Beijing will never stop any ships. They don't intend to do it, and they don't have the ability to do it.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, tonbridgebrit said:

And I confirm that I made that comment. And I certainly stick to the comment. See, I'm totally convinced China will not stop any ships in the South China Sea. It's not their intent to stop whatever ships. And if they did, it gives Washington a massive reason to sink whatever Chinese ship, with one or two missiles. And, bearing in mind that America's combat jets and military ships are far superior when compared to the stuff that China has got.

Beijing will never stop any ships. They don't intend to do it, and they don't have the ability to do it.

 

You can make whatever comments you like, you can pretend the PRC's goals in the South China Sea are totally benign, you can ignore whatever they are actually doing. You can also harp on the irrelevant overall military superiority of the US, or make assumption as to under which conditions the US will use its military might. Whatever.

 

Still doesn't have anything to do with the PRC building military bases in the South China Sea.

 

And posting in bold doesn't make your statements any more relevant, or factual. You do not know what the PRC will do, you do not know what are their intentions, and they certainly have the ability to do as claimed.

 

[tonbridgebrit]

4 hours ago, Rancid said:

Claiming these reefs is losing the Chinese a lot of political capital, they must have one very strong reason to p*ss off so many countries.

Hello there.
Please note, that the Philipinnes is very much part of the 'dispute' about the South China Sea. A fair amount of the South China Sea is near the Philipinnes. And the Philipinnes, their leader, somebody called Duterte, well, Duterte is friendly with Beijing.

Is Thailand angry with China ?  Because China is claiming the South China Sea ? Thailand is not actually claiming large bits of the South China Sea.

Who is angry with China ?
The EU and Britain ?  The EU is far more concerned about what's going on in Europe, rather than some dispute as to who has got whatever reefs, in a sea that is thousands of miles away from Europe.

And Washington ?  I would like to point out, that officially, Washington is ordering military ships to carry out 'freedom of movement' navigation trips. Washington simply wants to see all ships having the freedom to sail across the South China Sea.
Washington is certainly NOT trying to say "look, this reef here, we reckon it belongs to Vietnam, and that bit over there, it belongs to the Philipinnes, and over there, that bit belongs to Malaysia".  In other words, Washington is not involved in the issue of who owns what bits of the South China Sea. Washington has said nothing regarding who owns what bits of the South China Sea.

Edited July 10, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

And I confirm that I made that comment. And I certainly stick to the comment. See, I'm totally convinced China will not stop any ships in the South China Sea. It's not their intent to stop whatever ships. And if they did, it gives Washington a massive reason to sink whatever Chinese ship, with one or two missiles. And, bearing in mind that America's combat jets and military ships are far superior when compared to the stuff that China has got.

Beijing will never stop any ships. They don't intend to do it, and they don't have the ability to do it.

June 29 (UPI) -- China may be flexing its muscle in the South China Sea with attacks on Vietnamese fishing boats.

Vietnamese newspaper Tuổi Trẻ reported Thursday two Chinese ships assailed a Vietnamese fishing boat near the disputed Paracel Islands in the South China Sea.

The attack took place on June 18, according to the report.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/06/29/Chinese-boats-attack-Vietnamese-fishermen-in-South-China-Sea/8561498755312/

[tonbridgebrit]

8 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

June 29 (UPI) -- China may be flexing its muscle in the South China Sea with attacks on Vietnamese fishing boats.

Vietnamese newspaper Tuổi Trẻ reported Thursday two Chinese ships assailed a Vietnamese fishing boat near the disputed Paracel Islands in the South China Sea.

The attack took place on June 18, according to the report.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/06/29/Chinese-boats-attack-Vietnamese-fishermen-in-South-China-Sea/8561498755312/

Okay, the above article. China has been trying to impose a ban on fishing in that area. It is an annual ban, and lasts for about three months. It's being done to prevent 'over-fishing'.  

Here's a link from yahoo.  https://ca.news.yahoo.com/vietnam-opposes-chinese-fishing-ban-disputed-sea-024009166.html
Surely, such a ban is good thing ?  

 

 

About the Paracel Islands. Who owns them ?  It's disputed. Here's a link from wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracel_Islands#Historical_perspectives

Are the Paracel Islands closer to Vietnam than China ?  Looking at the history of the Paracel Islands, well, it appears to be that, China got there before Vietnam.

Anyway, the issue of some fishing boats is not a big deal. So, three months per year, no fishing, let the fish stocks increase. Once the ban is over, then yes, can go and catch fish. And if you're caught fishing during the three month ban, well, there's a penalty to paid.

The important thing is this. Japanese ships carrying goods from Japan to Europe, those ships are not being stopped. And ships carrying goods from South Korea to Europe, they're also not being stopped. And ships carrying oil from the Middle East to Japan and South Korea, they're not being stopped. And all other ships transporting cargo, they're not being stopped. 

[Morch]

8 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Okay, the above article. China has been trying to impose a ban on fishing in that area. It is an annual ban, and lasts for about three months. It's being done to prevent 'over-fishing'.  

Here's a link from yahoo.  https://ca.news.yahoo.com/vietnam-opposes-chinese-fishing-ban-disputed-sea-024009166.html
Surely, such a ban is good thing ?  

 

 

About the Paracel Islands. Who owns them ?  It's disputed. Here's a link from wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracel_Islands#Historical_perspectives

Are the Paracel Islands closer to Vietnam than China ?  Looking at the history of the Paracel Islands, well, it appears to be that, China got there before Vietnam.

Anyway, the issue of some fishing boats is not a big deal. So, three months per year, no fishing, let the fish stocks increase. Once the ban is over, then yes, can go and catch fish. And if you're caught fishing during the three month ban, well, there's a penalty to paid.

The important thing is this. Japanese ships carrying goods from Japan to Europe, those ships are not being stopped. And ships carrying goods from South Korea to Europe, they're also not being stopped. And ships carrying oil from the Middle East to Japan and South Korea, they're not being stopped. And all other ships transporting cargo, they're not being stopped. 

 

Move the goal posts some more.

 

You said you'll be the first blah blah blah. Now you make excuses. You said they'll never do that, now "it's no big deal". Who gets to decide that? The PRC? You? All very routine for anyone following these topics. Regardless of whether a fishing ban is a good thing, it is not for the PRC to enforce it unilaterally and aggressively.

 

And on and on with the irrelevant droning about goods being shipped. When these will be stopped, you'll find another reason why it's alright, why it's nothing to get excited about.

 

 

 

[tonbridgebrit]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Move the goal posts some more.

 

You said you'll be the first blah blah blah. Now you make excuses. You said they'll never do that, now "it's no big deal". Who gets to decide that? The PRC? You? All very routine for anyone following these topics. Regardless of whether a fishing ban is a good thing, it is not for the PRC to enforce it unilaterally and aggressively.

 

And on and on with the irrelevant droning about goods being shipped. When these will be stopped, you'll find another reason why it's alright, why it's nothing to get excited about.

 

 

 

Morch, you're claiming that I've moved the goal posts. Well, I would like to protest against this particular comment. That's because I haven't moved the goal posts.

I said that if Washington fires a few missiles to sink Chinese ships, I would cheer on Washington. Now, are we in a situation where Washington has fired a few missiles and I am not cheering ?  Certainly not. And when you see Washington firing a few missiles, and you notice that I'm not cheering, well, yes, go ahead and criticise me. Go ahead and say "you said you would do it, but you're not".
So, Washington is not firing any missiles right now. And why on earth would Washington fire missiles right now ? Washington has no reason to fire any missiles. Taking action against China over the fishing boats would imply that Washington supports Vietnam's claims to the Paracel Islands. Washington is certainly not saying that the Paracel Islands belong to Vietnam.

But Washington certainly will fire a few missiles when or if ships carrying cargo get stopped. And that's when you will see me cheering.




You said in a previous comment about how this is all about PRC building military bases in the South China Sea, and it is not about trade. Morch, I quote from an article put up by "ilostmy password".  "Vietnam's ruling Communist Party is now faced with the delicate task of confronting China over the issue — doing so with sufficient assertiveness to placate nationalist anger at home, and yet not risk all-out enmity with the country's biggest trading partner. "

Morch, who is actually against China building these dots ? Well, yes, Vietnam is. But Vietnam's South China Sea policy is based on : having to placate a bunch of Nationalists, and also not making China angry, bearing in mind that China is Vietnam's biggest trading partner.  So, the issue of trade between Vietnam and China is certainly playing a massive role in Vietnam's South China Sea policy.  As in, Vietnam has to be very careful when protesting against China building these dots.

Edited July 11, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[Morch]

57 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Morch, you're claiming that I've moved the goal posts. Well, I would like to protest against this particular comment. That's because I haven't moved the goal posts.

I said that if Washington fires a few missiles to sink Chinese ships, I would cheer on Washington. Now, are we in a situation where Washington has fired a few missiles and I am not cheering ?  Certainly not. And when you see Washington firing a few missiles, and you notice that I'm not cheering, well, yes, go ahead and criticise me. Go ahead and say "you said you would do it, but you're not".
So, Washington is not firing any missiles right now. And why on earth would Washington fire missiles right now ? Washington has no reason to fire any missiles. Taking action against China over the fishing boats would imply that Washington supports Vietnam's claims to the Paracel Islands. Washington is certainly not saying that the Paracel Islands belong to Vietnam.

But Washington certainly will fire a few missiles when or if ships carrying cargo get stopped. And that's when you will see me cheering.


ou said in a previous comment about how this is all about PRC building military bases in the South China Sea, and it is not about trade. Morch, I quote from an article put up by "ilostmy password".  "Vietnam's ruling Communist Party is now faced with the delicate task of confronting China over the issue — doing so with sufficient assertiveness to placate nationalist anger at home, and yet not risk all-out enmity with the country's biggest trading partner. "

Morch, who is actually against China building these dots ? Well, yes, Vietnam is. But Vietnam's South China Sea policy is based on : having to placate a bunch of Nationalists, and also not making China angry, bearing in mind that China is Vietnam's biggest trading partner.  So, the issue of trade between Vietnam and China is certainly playing a massive role in Vietnam's South China Sea policy.  As in, Vietnam has to be very careful when protesting against China building these dots.

 

Luckily, we are not in your beloved PRC and you may protest to your little heart's content. Be that as is may, all you do is twist words in a failed attempt to legitimize the PRC's actions.

 

First you denied military bases were military bases. Then it was claimed that they are  "symbolic". Later, it was claimed the PRC will never disrupt maritime activities. Oops, they did? It was just a ban and who cares about a few fishing boats. Dunno about you, I see a rather clear pattern of deflection here.

 

So what you're on about now is that you're against the PRC stopping ships, on the condition that the US will start a war over it. Now, there are many contrived posts on these topics, but that's one for the books.

 

As for the rest of your nonsense, military bases are not "dots". They are military bases. And twisting my words will not change that. If this was solely about trade, then there would be no need of maritime confrontations, and no need for military bases with missiles.

[ddavidovsky]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Luckily, we are not in your beloved PRC and you may protest to your little heart's content. Be that as is may, all you do is twist words in a failed attempt to legitimize the PRC's actions.

 

First you denied military bases were military bases. Then it was claimed that they are  "symbolic". Later, it was claimed the PRC will never disrupt maritime activities. Oops, they did? It was just a ban and who cares about a few fishing boats. Dunno about you, I see a rather clear pattern of deflection here.

 

So what you're on about now is that you're against the PRC stopping ships, on the condition that the US will start a war over it. Now, there are many contrived posts on these topics, but that's one for the books.

 

As for the rest of your nonsense, military bases are not "dots". They are military bases. And twisting my words will not change that. If this was solely about trade, then there would be no need of maritime confrontations, and no need for military bases with missiles.

What is actually your solution to this issue? I mean a realistic one, not simply the wish that China would just pull out and go home - because they won't.

 

My own realistic, pragmatic, and conflict-less solution is to acknowledge that China has earned this territory by industry.

The world - especially the west - was built on such industry, as immoral as it often was.

 

No one was displaced here. China staked its claim many years ago. Nobody else developed the region since. I don't see how any moral objection can be made. Forlorn appeals to 'international law' are pointless if enough people (ie. the whole of China) don't give a <deleted>.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

What is actually your solution to this issue? I mean a realistic one, not simply the wish that China would just pull out and go home - because they won't.

 

My own realistic, pragmatic, and conflict-less solution is to acknowledge that China has earned this territory by industry.

The world - especially the west - was built on such industry, as immoral as it often was.

 

No one was displaced here. China staked its claim many years ago. Nobody else developed the region since. I don't see how any moral objection can be made. Forlorn appeals to 'international law' are pointless if enough people (ie. the whole of China) don't give a <deleted>.

 

I never mentioned anything about simply wishing that China would pull out. Same lame debate tactics on every topic.

 

There was no suggestion this could be resolved in a way which would satisfy all parties interests. Your "solution" amounts to to folding and saving face. That could very well be how things will pan out. Not like the US got a whole lot of leverage and a leadership able to effectively apply the leverage even if this was a realistic possibility. Is this a good outcome? If the alternative is war, then yes. If the consequences would be an emboldened PRC taking up similar initiatives elsewhere, then no. 

 

Pretty much like how things stand between the US and Russia, the other side had better timing, longer vision and a willingness to ignore convention. Playing by the rules doesn't always pay.