China preparing for war aginst Vietnam?, S. China Sea Options

[Mid-Night_Sun]

ok? a puppet state during a civil war, but ok. i can give you macau as well, which would have been far more relevant. at least you know what a colony is now. you know for someone whos entire country was a colony you seem to have enormous trouble understand what it is. if bullying was all it takes to be considered a colony then....

well, i think you know what that means.

[Alpha]

Here's a question:

Why b!tch-slap a whore who's already sucking you nice & dry when you don't need to? No need to officially colonize a whore.

Don't be a semantic whore.

[Mid-Night_Sun]

wasnt about need. it was about viability. do you know how France ended up getting control over you? thats right, its your tributary status at work here. they fought China.



France obtained control over northern Vietnam following its victory over China in the Sino-French war (1884–1885). French Indochina was formed in October 1887 from Annam, Tonkin, Cochinchina (which together form modern Vietnam) and the Kingdom of Cambodia; Laos was added after the Franco-Siamese War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Indoch...rench_Indochina

Territorial
changes French protectorate over Tonkin and Annam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino%E2%80%93French_War


fighting china for vietnam or hong kong or favourable treatys is one thing. fighting china to control it would have been far beyond what the europeans were willing to expend since their primary goal was resource and trade.

This post has been edited by Mid-Night_Sun: Dec 19 2011, 02:37 PM

[Yerroperil]

Please. The allusion to the Nguyen defeating the Qing, or the Manchu, who pwned all of China, was sarcasm. This should have been understood the colloquial term/phrase that immediately followed: "Seriously,...."

China's enormous. China's colonizers (Brits, Ruskies, Japanese, etc.) were plenty happy with the plunder they were getting. A typical Chinese province is as geographically big as Vietnam, Japan, Britain, etc. Eh... Apples to oranges. Typically Chinaman logic.

So what if a Chinese province was huge,China as a whole was never colonized by Japanese or Europeans while Vietnam was,why do you use ethnic slurs?

This is a MIGHT MAKES RIGHT ARGUMENT. It's not a moral or legal argument.
And a pathetic MIGHT MAKES RIGHT argument at that: These maritime skirmishes were very small in scale, so don't get too uppity. Vietnam has repeatedly destroyed enormous Sino-Fabolous armies invading Vietnam for the last millennium.
Don't cherry-pick. It's a form of deception. It's also sign of stupidity when you try to pimp it off as a legit argument.

Took your country 1200 years and still Vietnam at times was a tributary why do you even bother calling yourself Viets,Yue was a Chinese state... You're not cherrypicking?

Sorry, but your buddy Twilight is nothing more than a wikileaks scholar. There's only and always two threads of logic running brazenly beneath his arguments:

1. MIGHT MAKE RIGHT. This is imperialism and hegemony, which he incessantly tries to pimp of as morality and legality. Typical Chinaman.

2. WE HAVE THE OLDEST RECORDS. Sorry, but this argument trumps only if you're writing history, assuming all else being equal.

When it comes to ownership, the only argument one can make is: THE LAST LEGIT OWNER IS THE RIGHTFUL OWNER.

Now, there is a "statute of limitations", if you will. You can't claim land going back 800 years as the Jews do in Israel. The Thai, the Hmong, the Mongol, the Manchu, etc., can't claim Chinese real estate going back 1000-2200 years. This is especially true of the Mongols and Manchus who surrender their rights to anything and everything due to their own aggression.

On the flip side, if a government severely oppresses its minorities, e.g. GENOCIDE, those minorities have the right to break away, regardless of whether or not the statute of limitations has expired. Case in point: Tibet.

When you clowns make imperialistic, hegemonistic, and misguided historical records arguments (which when applied back on you, China would cease to exist), don't try to pimp it off as morality, legality, and proper ownership.

Besides, your historical records can not be entirely trusted. You don't trust others' records on you, why then would you expect everyone else to blindly accept yours on them. Pot, meet kettle.

Good job, genius.

1. Then your are a hypocrite your Vietnam annexed Cham that isn't much different from China is it?
2. At least Chinese taught you how to write,its not my problem ancient Vietnamese didn't develop writing.
A thief such as you dares to talk about legitimacy.
Severely oppresses are you pulling my nuts,minorities get more rights then Han in China,why don't I see Manchus or Huis complaining about oppression...
How is Vietnam not imperialistic and hegemonistic return Champa to Chams,if you are whining about Han Chinese domination in Xinjiang(which the Uighurs aren't even native too),Tibet and Inner Mongolia,China would still exist the central plains is the origin of Han... Why can't Chinese records be trusted how else to Koreans,Japanese and Vietnamese know about their own history,people used to whine that Shang didn't exist until they found the oracle bones,I never said I didn't trust other peoples records fool.

[Theseus]

Vietnamese Claims to the Truong Sa Archipelago [Ed. Spratly Islands]

Todd C. Kelly, Univ of Hawaii, 1999

Regardless of which nation actually discovered the islands, Vietnam maintains that it alone exercised the earliest authority and control over the Truong Sa archipelago. Until the 17th century, no written documents existed to prove this assertion. The first mention of Vietnamese exercise of sovereignty over the island chain appears in an annotated atlas written between 1630 and 1653. Although a 17th century document, textual analysis--including "historical references and linguistic style"--indicates that this early contact with the islands actually began some 200 years earlier, under the reign of King Le Thanh Tong [1460 - 1497].[16] It was during this period that the Vietnamese began to "organize the exploitation" of both the Truong Sa and the Hoang Sa Archipelago farther to the north.[17] This exploitation consisted of harvesting "valuable sea-products" and conducting salvaging operations to collect cargoes from vessels shipwrecked in the treacherous waters of the Truong Sa.[18] Because of these state-sponsored economic activities, the Le dynasty considered the archipelago to be part of Vietnamese territory.[19]

This de facto sovereignty over the Truong Sa chain is confirmed by European sources. Portuguese and Dutch maps drawn by navigators in the early 17th century identify the islands as Vietnamese.[20] It is important to note, however, that these early maps identify the islands as the Pracel or Parcel archipelago and locate them "in the middle of the East Sea, East [sic] of Vietnam, off the Vietnamese coastal islands."[21] According to Vietnam, the apparent error in positioning the islands was due to the relatively primitive scientific and navigational technology of the time. In addition, the Europeans grouped both the Truong Sa and Hoang Sa archipelagoes together into a single island chain called the Paracels.[22] This imprecision in differentiating the two archipelagoes is consistent with Vietnamese records from the period. Until the 19th century, both islands groups were known by the common name of Bai Cat Vong, also sometimes referred to simply as "Hoang Sa."[23] Regardless of the nomenclature differences, it was during the 17th century that the Truong Sa were placed under the administration of the Binh Son district within the Quang Nghia prefecture of Vietnam. Route Maps from the Capital to the Four Directions by Do Ba Cong Dao provides documentation of sovereignty over the Truong Sa archipelago, the first Vietnamese documentation of formal exercise of authority over the Truong Sa.[24]

Economic exploitation of Truong Sa resources continued through the reign of the Nguyen Lords and their successors, the Tay Son. Aside from harvesting the natural and man-made treasures from these islands, the Vietnamese state also conducted geographical and resource surveys in the archipelago. Descriptions of Bai Cat Vang islands, sea products such as turtles and conch shells, and references to foreign shipwrecks fare found in period documents and surveys, including Miscellaneous Records on the Pacification of the Frontiers written in 1776.[25]

http://www.hawaii.edu/cseas/pubs/explore/todd.html

Centuries old Vietnamese records make no mention of running into Chinese naval patrols. These records go back at least 500 years.

This post has been edited by Theseus: Dec 21 2011, 05:09 AM

[Theseus]

1. Then your are a hypocrite your Vietnam annexed Cham that isn't much different from China is it?

Champa had a plunder based economy. Their main mode of economics was piracy, plunder, and the slave trade.

The Cambridge history of Southeast Asia, Nicholas Tarling, 1999.

Champa's Plunder-Based Political Economy

In the absence of a sufficient resource base to support their political aspirations, Cham kings by necessity depended on periodic military expeditions to aquire plunder that could be redistributed, directly (sharing booty with their warrior allies) or indirectly (via temple endowments), to maintain the loyalty of inhabitants of the Cham riverine networks. Cham monarchs maintained the subordination of their direct military allies by keeping them 'in the field' on various plunder expeditions... There was inherent instability in this political-economy that ulitmately depended upon redistributions of plunder. The fate of the Cham state was sealed, and Vietnamese retailiatory expeditions finally destroyed the Cham realm in the fifthteen century. (page 260)

The Dai-Viet state that established its independence from Chinese sovereignty in the tenth century, like its Southeast Asian contemporaries, depended on the production of its wet-rice economy. (page 265)

Cham plunder raids on Vietnamese territory had challenged the theoretical base of Vietnamese imperial authority, which in its cults of ligitimacy proclaimed the emperor's ability to guarantee his subjects' prosperity. These raids also depleted the state of needed resources. While the Vietnamese state had itself benefited economically from its various military expeditions against the Chams over the centuries, such actions had been justified as acts of reciprocity; they were also seen as necessary to initiate the future security of the Vietnamese people. Periodic Cham raids against the Vietnamese territory forced the Dai Viet state to fund the elaborate preparations that these 'defensive' acts of reciprocity necessitated; to lose against the 'barbarian' Chams was unthinkable. Final victory against the Chams stabilized Dai Viet state's wet-rice economy no only removing the financial drain... (page 269)

The Chams preyed upon all their neighbors quite visciously for their entire 1500 year existence, more often than not taking prisoners and selling them as slaves. The Khmers, Indonesians, Malaysians, Chinese, and everyone else also attacked them back in retaliation. Champa began around 192 AD, and immediately and repeatedly attacked and plundered the Chinese provinces in what is now northern Vietnam. Bare in mind, Vietnam was a part of China at this time. To attack Vietnam, was to attack the tax base of the Chinese emperor. It was an attack on China.

One can easily find even more damming Western scholarship on the Cham. Only Indian scholarship looks on them kindly, only because the Chams were a hindu kingdom.

The Chams were the Vikings, Commanches, or being Chinese, if you prefer... the Mongols of Southeast Asia.

This post has been edited by Theseus: Dec 21 2011, 05:53 AM

[Theseus]

"Your account has been temporarily suspended. This suspension is due to end on Jan 4 2012, 03:09 AM."

[Mid-Night_Sun]

http://www.hawaii.edu/cseas/pubs/explore/todd.html

Centuries old Vietnamese records make no mention of running into Chinese naval patrols. These records go back at least 500 years.

are you reading your own sources? first, nothing you said was new. second, what you bolded was contact, which China did in BC period. you bolded another part about european maps, but forced to make excuses why the islands arent where they are supposed to be. there are Chinese maps that had the same problem, but they also predate.

"The first mention of Vietnamese exercise of sovereignty over the island chain appears in an annotated atlas written between 1630 and 1653."

it is just wayyyyy too late.

but thats not even the funny part, but that your link repeats EVERYTHING i already said here. as claimed as "wikileaks" scholar?




from the French finding Chinese there

The mission witnessed the first recorded instance of a sovereignty marker placed on any Truong Sa features. It is interesting to note, however, that the French found Chinese fishermen already present on the island when they arrived but did not attempt to evict them.


to Japanese administrating it from Taiwan

For political administration, the island chain was incorporated into the territory of Taiwan, which was then a Japanese possession.[50] Both the ROC and the PRC have since pointed to this formalization of Taiwanese (and thus Chinese) sovereignty over the Truong Sa group to strengthen their claim to the islands.


even stuff i said before in other threads about the Soviets

However, while not specifically protesting against the Vietnamese declaration, the Soviet Union did introduce an amendment to the Peace Treaty stating in part that "Japan recognizes full sovereignty of the Chinese People's Republic over . . . the Spratly, and renounces all right, title, and claim to the territories named herein."[56]


China wasnt even at the conference because of civil war and the Soviets stepped in. meanwhile viet take no response (or ignoring) of a colony's speech as a sign they got away with something. even though a major power introduce an amendment that completely is OPPOSITE.

This post has been edited by Mid-Night_Sun: Dec 21 2011, 12:32 PM

[TMM]

Mid-Night_Sun...this is too much :O Overkilled

[elleX0]

Why bother with a country that will soon be a vassal state anyway? The economy of East Asia will depend on the success of the only great trading nation in the East.

[Asianfrog]

Why bother with a country that will soon be a vassal state anyway? The economy of East Asia will depend on the success of the only great trading nation in the East.

If it doesn't collapse before then !

[Liang1a]

Why bother with a country that will soon be a vassal state anyway? The economy of East Asia will depend on the success of the only great trading nation in the East.

The continuing rise of China does not depend on trade. Indeed, it cannot depend on trade. Why? Because China cannot achieve an economy of $100 trillion by doing $2 trillion of exports. Therefore, China needs to develop $98 trillion of economic activities in its domestic economy. This can be accomplished easily by achieving 200,000 yuan of per capita GDP or GNP and at 3 yuan per dollar of exchange rate. $66,000 times 1.5 billion population equal $100 trillion.

China does not need to trade because it is self-sufficient in terms of food, energy, raw materials and technologies. It can produce everything for itself with minimal amounts of imported raw materials. With energy self-sufficiency from solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear power, China can keep its environment clean while providing plenty of electricity for its billions of cars. Of course, China needs a smart government to implement an enlightened set of developmental policies. A good government is China's Achilles Heel.

As to Vietnam, it is only arrogant and "important" because China has given it credit. If China just slap it down years ago, then there won't be any problem now. Even now China can slap it down by obliterating its navy and air force and Vietnam will simply disappear. But by constantly trying to woo Vietnam for the sake of regional peace, China has emboldened this dog to bark ever more loudly and turned into an increasingly bigger problem.

This post has been edited by Liang1a: Sep 5 2012, 02:20 PM

[baal]

Don't make enemies of the Vietnamese. They will turn to Russia and India for help. Then China will be in trouble. Peace is the best policy. No war.

[Asianfrog]

If China is so sure to detain indisputable claims why does she wants to go towar with Vietnam and not to an international court?
With the last row with Japan, people in the west is questionning about the so called peaceful rise!
"The Middle Empire is coming back ,and how can it be contained ?" is in every body mind.

[baal]

China must take the road of peace. It is China's karma.