AsiaFinest Forum
Ad: 123Designing.com

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

China preparing for war aginst Vietnam?, S. China Sea
Liang1a
post Aug 9 2011, 06:37 PM
Post #1


AF Fiend
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 394
Joined: 7-August 11




QUOTE
english.peopledaily.com.cn/90786/7564716.html

PLA's operation in S. China routine drill: Defense Ministry
(Xinhua)
17:09, August 09, 2011

China's Ministry of National Defense on Tuesday said that a recent People's Liberation Army (PLA) operation in south China was a routine drill.

Media reports have speculated that a large buildup of PLA troops in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region along the Vietnam-China border could be related to the recent tensions over the South China Sea.

A statement published on the frontpage of the ministry's website, www.mod.gov.cn, said that the PLA's Guangzhou Military Area Command had conducted an annual routine drill in the region and the media should not leap to speculations.

======================================
China preparing for war aginst Vietnam?

Some people have speculated that the troop movements were preparations for an attack on Vietnam in the coming autumn. Maybe it is or maybe it is just a routine exercise as explained here. But if I were planning for an attack on Vietnam I would attack the Vietnamese air force and navy to destroy them totally. Destroying Vietnamese air force and navy isn’t such a difficult task because there are not that many fighters and frigates. Vietnamese air force has some 60 Su-30 and Su-27 fighters plus another 30 Mig-23 and 200 Mig-21 which are obsolete in Russia. This compares to China’s some 600 Su-30, Su-27, J-10, and J-11 plus hundreds of other fighters. There are evidence that China’s fighters are superior in equipment and pilots. So destroying the Vietnamese air force will not be a big problem. China also has many missiles which can be used to blow holes in the runways of air bases and so trap the fighters on the ground. Then cruise missiles can swoop in the blow up the fighters as they sit as well as the missile defenses. Then the Chinese fighter/bombes can come in and mop up the remaining fighters and whatever planes on the air bases. As to the navy, there really isn’t any navy to speak of. Vietnam will be getting a couple of frigates from Russia in 2011 and 2012. It will also get maybe 6 Kilo class submarines from Russia between 2012 to 2016. So it is advantageous for China to destroy the Vietnamese navy now with lower cost. Vietnamese navy now is just some patrol boats probably armed with machineguns. These will probably stay in port and can be hit with missiles fired from Chinese missile boats 100 km away.

Once the Vietnamese air force and navy have been destroyed, Chinese battleships can bombard the Vietnamese island garrisons until they surrender. And without any air force or navy, Vietnam cannot attack Chinese garrisons on these islands.

As China attack and destroy the Vietnamese air force and navy, the Vietnamese army might launch an attack into Guangxi, China. Therefore, it is a good and necessary precaution to deploy Chinese troops in the border area to trap and destroy any attacking Vietnamese invaders.

As Vietnam and the Philippines are stepping up and increasing the number of islands they occupy and the activities to explore for oil and other resources, China can use this as the reason to declare the peace agreement null and void and give them ultimatums to get out of Chinese sovereign islands. At the expiration of the ultimatums, China should just automatically go into war and destroy their air forces and navies and retake China’s sovereign islands.

Time is not on China’s side under the status quo. The longer Vietnam occupies the islands the more they can argue their sovereignty due to effective occupation and control. They can justifiably argue that since China took no forceful actions against their illegal occupation of Chinese sovereign territories, it must be due to the fact that China acquiesced to their occupation and give up on China‘s claim of sovereignty. And China’s argument that it did not attack due to considerations of peace and benevolence would not be accepted by the majority of the international community because that is a ridiculous argument. Also as Vietnam continues to get more fighters and frigates and submarines, it will cost more in equipments and lives for China to destroy their air force and navy. In the end, it is unrealistic to expect Vietnam to automatically leave the Chinese islands. The realistic choices are war or giving up. Since giving up on Chinese sovereign islands is no option the only remaining option is to go to war.

As China steps up preparation for war, Vietnam will surely show some signs of backing down. But this is surely just a ploy to play for time as it gets more fighters and naval vessels from Russia which will increase the cost for China to go to war against them. Therefore, China must make the decision to go to war now. There is simply no other choice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
Alpha
post Dec 19 2011, 12:55 AM
Post #2


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 18-December 11




Midnight,

The point is: Might makes right. vs Legitimacy.

The PRC has no legitimacy, rather just relative might on the high seas compared to Vietnam which currently has virtually nothing in said department.

And get this thru yer thick skull, age of claim/records means nothing. The last legit owner is the rightful owner. Let me spell it out: If you sell your Chinese Chery clunker car to your friend, it's no longer yours, even though your claim/ownership is older. THE MOST RECENT LEGIT OWNER IS THE RIGHTFUL OWNER.

IF YOU STEAL IT, YOU GOTTA GIVE IT BACK. Comprende?

During the age of empire, people regularly stole from each other. But even then, there were often treaties of peace where the loser was forced to make painful concessions. This is still very much true in the modern age, even though everyone gives lip service to the rule of law.

Further, in the modern age, a government loses it legitmacy if it is committing genocide, such as in Tibet.

But then again, "Might makes right" usually trumps legitimacy, which is why you still have Tibet. My genocidal fiends friends.

Vietnam legitimately owned what is now huge chunks of Cambodia and Laos. Vietnam lost it due to the French colonial administration redrawing the map. Do I want these lands back? NO. But Vietnam has stronger claims to these other lost lands than China's claims to the Spratly's and Paracels.

This post has been edited by Alpha: Dec 19 2011, 01:06 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mid-Night_Sun
post Dec 19 2011, 01:37 AM
Post #3


AF Supreme
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 16,645
Joined: 10-March 05




QUOTE (Alpha @ Dec 19 2011, 02:55 AM) *
Midnight,

The point is: Might makes right. vs Legitimacy.

The PRC has no legitimacy, rather just relative might on the high seas compared to Vietnam which currently has virtually nothing in said department.

And get this thru yer thick skull, age of claim/records means nothing. The last legit owner is the rightful owner. Let me spell it out: If you sell your Chinese Chery clunker car to your friend, it's no longer yours, even though your claim/ownership is older. THE MOST RECENT LEGIT OWNER IS THE RIGHTFUL OWNER.

IF YOU STEAL IT, YOU GOTTA GIVE IT BACK. Comprende?

During the age of empire, people regularly stole from each other. But even then, there were often treaties of peace where the loser was forced to make painful concessions. This is still very much true in the modern age, even though everyone gives lip service to the rule of law.

Further, in the modern age, a government loses it legitmacy if it is committing genocide, such as in Tibet.

But then again, "Might makes right" usually trumps legitimacy, which is why you still have Tibet. My genocidal fiends friends.

Vietnam legitimately owned what is now huge chunks of Cambodia and Laos. Vietnam lost it due to the French colonial administration redrawing the map. Do I want these lands back? NO. But Vietnam has stronger claims to these other lost lands than China's claims to the Spratly's and Paracels.


viet wasnt the last legit owner. you couldnt be. viet didnt even exist on its own. it was indo china under france. and france wasnt even the last owner. japan was. japan administered said islands from Taiwan. Taiwan took over the largest and only habitable island with fresh water as their base after Japanese surrender. Taiwan STILL has that island in its administration.

LMAO tibet. silly viets always tend to divert into all sorts of ridiculous topics when the relevant arguments is too much for them to handle.

viet claims to those lands is no stronger than chinese ones over northern vietnam.

This post has been edited by Mid-Night_Sun: Dec 19 2011, 01:50 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Alpha
post Dec 19 2011, 02:10 AM
Post #4


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 18-December 11




QUOTE (Mid-Night_Sun @ Dec 19 2011, 12:37 AM) *
LMAO tibet. silly viets always tend to divert into all sorts of ridiculous topics when the relevant arguments is too much for them to handle.

Sorry, just using your own logic against you.

QUOTE (Mid-Night_Sun @ Dec 19 2011, 12:37 AM) *
viet claims to those lands is no stronger than chinese ones over northern vietnam.

Nope, the most legit recent owner of northern Vietnam are the Vietnamese.

Get it thru your thick skull:

1. Vietnam was the most recent legit owner of these islands.
2. Nguyen records predate the French.
3. If you go by oldest claims, then China would cease to exists. There are so many claimants who lived in what is now modern China long before the arrival of the Han, Tan, Yuan (Mongol), etc.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yerroperil
post Dec 19 2011, 02:24 AM
Post #5


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,067
Joined: 14-June 11




QUOTE (Alpha @ Dec 19 2011, 01:10 AM) *
Sorry, just using your own logic against you.


Nope, the most legit recent owner of northern Vietnam are the Vietnamese.

Get it thru your thick skull:

1. Vietnam was the most recent legit owner of these islands.
2. Nguyen records predate the French.
3. If you go by oldest claims, then China would cease to exists. There are so many claimants who lived in what is now modern China long before the arrival of the Han, Tan, Yuan (Mongol), etc.

Han records predate French. If you go by oldest claims then Vietnam would also cease to exist same with other nations,Cham would form Southern Vietnam,not sure how you are going to give back Southern China to an extinct people such as the Baiyue,lmao did you even read what Mid-Night_Sun posted Taiwan is the most legit recent owner since Japan lost WW2. Central China all the way to the Yangtze would still be Han.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Alpha
post Dec 19 2011, 02:32 AM
Post #6


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 18-December 11




QUOTE (Yerroperil @ Dec 19 2011, 01:24 AM) *
Han records predate French. If you go by oldest claims then Vietnam would also cease to exist same with other nations,Cham would form Southern Vietnam,not sure how you are going to give back Southern China to an extinct people such as the Baiyue,lmao did you even read what Mid-Night_Sun posted Taiwan is the most legit recent owner since Japan lost WW2. Central China all the way to the Yangtze would still be Han.


Hey genius, how many times does it need to be said: I'M NOT GOING BY OLDEST CLAIM. I'm going by MOST RECENT LEGIT CLAIM.

If you sell your Chery clunker car to your buddy, you no longer own it even though your ownership is older. Your buddy is the most recent legit owner.

COMPRENDE?

All you're doing is incessantly making mindless MIGHT MAKES RIGHT and "We have the oldest records/claims!" arguments all the while citing wikileaks.

This post has been edited by Alpha: Dec 19 2011, 02:37 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yerroperil
post Dec 19 2011, 02:46 AM
Post #7


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,067
Joined: 14-June 11




QUOTE (Alpha @ Dec 19 2011, 01:32 AM) *
Hey genius, how many times does it need to be said: I'M NOT GOING BY OLDEST CLAIM. I'm going by MOST RECENT LEGIT CLAIM.

If you sell your Chery clunker car to your buddy, you no longer own it even though your ownership is older. Your buddy is the most recent legit owner.

COMPRENDE?

All you're doing is incessantly making mindless MIGHT MAKES RIGHT and "We have the oldest records/claims!" arguments all the while citing wikileaks.

Qing claimed at the same time at Nguyen,why are Vietnamese the only the legit claimants?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Alpha
post Dec 19 2011, 03:18 AM
Post #8


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 18-December 11




QUOTE (Yerroperil @ Dec 19 2011, 01:46 AM) *
Qing claimed at the same time at Nguyen,why are Vietnamese the only the legit claimants?


Because, from what I understand, we actually controlled these islands. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, if you want a MIGHT MAKES RIGHT argument, then Nguyen kicked Qing's @$$, BIG TIME.

Seriously, I'd have to look further into Qing's and Nguyen's claims, i.e. precise timeline etc. And look at who actually physically controlled these islands.

Like I said, prior to the age of oil, these islands were really worthless but to the odd fisherman here and there. It's hard for me to believe that China would spend any serious resources on controlling these islands which are much closer to Vietnam, especially Hanoi, than to distant Beijing--prior to the age of oil, that is.

BTW, please tell your buddy Midnight to stop citing wikileaks... It would help.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yerroperil
post Dec 19 2011, 08:46 AM
Post #9


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,067
Joined: 14-June 11




QUOTE (Alpha @ Dec 19 2011, 02:18 AM) *
Because, from what I understand, we actually controlled these islands. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, if you want a MIGHT MAKES RIGHT argument, then Nguyen kicked Qing's @$$, BIG TIME.

Seriously, I'd have to look further into Qing's and Nguyen's claims, i.e. precise timeline etc. And look at who actually physically controlled these islands.

Like I said, prior to the age of oil, these islands were really worthless but to the odd fisherman here and there. It's hard for me to believe that China would spend any serious resources on controlling these islands which are much closer to Vietnam, especially Hanoi, than to distant Beijing--prior to the age of oil, that is.

BTW, please tell your buddy Midnight to stop citing wikileaks... It would help.

French kicked Nguyen @ss shouldn't they get the lands for your logic,China was never in whole colonized by Europeans while your precious Vietnam was... How did Nguyen dynasty control please elaborate,Did Nguyen dynasty spend serious resources on those islands. Mid-Night_Sun has a more intelligence than what lies in your thick skull,can you not deny that Taiwan does infact control Taiping island,and PRC kicked Vietnams @ss to regain those islands?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Alpha
post Dec 19 2011, 01:26 PM
Post #10


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 18-December 11




QUOTE (Yerroperil @ Dec 19 2011, 07:46 AM) *
French kicked Nguyen @ss shouldn't they get the lands for your logic,China was never in whole colonized by Europeans while your precious Vietnam was... How did Nguyen dynasty control please elaborate,Did Nguyen dynasty spend serious resources on those islands.

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.

QUOTE (Yerroperil @ Dec 19 2011, 07:46 AM) *
can you not deny that Taiwan does infact control Taiping island,and PRC kicked Vietnams @ss to regain those islands?

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.

QUOTE (Yerroperil @ Dec 19 2011, 07:46 AM) *
Mid-Night_Sun has a more intelligence than what lies in your thick skull,

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.

This post has been edited by Alpha: Dec 19 2011, 01:37 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yerroperil
post Dec 20 2011, 12:53 AM
Post #11


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,067
Joined: 14-June 11




QUOTE (Alpha @ Dec 19 2011, 12:26 PM) *
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?

QUOTE (Alpha @ Dec 19 2011, 12:26 PM) *
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?

QUOTE (Alpha @ Dec 19 2011, 12:26 PM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- Liang1a   China preparing for war aginst Vietnam?   Aug 9 2011, 06:37 PM
- - ComradeDeki   I would think it's more of an aggressive gestu...   Aug 9 2011, 06:52 PM
|- - Liang1a   QUOTE (ComradeDeki @ Aug 9 2011, 07:52 PM...   Aug 9 2011, 07:51 PM
|- - papen   QUOTE (Liang1a @ Aug 9 2011, 08:51 PM) [c...   Aug 11 2011, 06:42 PM
|- - Liang1a   QUOTE (papen @ Aug 11 2011, 07:42 PM) Nob...   Aug 11 2011, 07:08 PM
|- - Liang1a   Below are some quotes to show the timeline of Chin...   Aug 11 2011, 07:21 PM
|- - Liang1a   http://www.spratlys.org/history/spratly-is...ry-ti...   Aug 11 2011, 07:29 PM
- - fireplant   China will always build up public opinion in the n...   Aug 9 2011, 07:02 PM
|- - Liang1a   QUOTE (fireplant @ Aug 9 2011, 08:02 PM) ...   Aug 9 2011, 07:40 PM
|- - fireplant   QUOTE (Liang1a @ Aug 9 2011, 08:40 PM) He...   Aug 10 2011, 07:07 AM
- - PTDTCH   QUOTE Some people have speculated that the troop m...   Aug 18 2011, 08:53 PM
|- - Liang1a   QUOTE (PTDTCH @ Aug 18 2011, 08:53 PM) Vi...   Aug 19 2011, 12:34 AM
|- - Liang1a   QUOTE (PTDTCH @ Aug 18 2011, 08:53 PM) As...   Aug 22 2011, 04:23 PM
- - asean.asia   When? today, tomorrow, this week, this month, nex...   Aug 22 2011, 04:49 PM
|- - Liang1a   QUOTE (asean.asia @ Aug 22 2011, 04:49 PM...   Aug 22 2011, 08:16 PM
|- - langtang77   QUOTE (Liang1a @ Aug 22 2011, 08:16 PM) I...   Aug 25 2011, 10:11 PM
|- - Liang1a   QUOTE (langtang77 @ Aug 25 2011, 10:11 PM...   Aug 26 2011, 01:46 AM
- - Mauser   China may not have to use military force to retake...   Oct 8 2011, 04:09 PM
- - jimmyle   There are too many negative consequences for attac...   Nov 7 2011, 06:07 PM
|- - port19   QUOTE (jimmyle @ Nov 7 2011, 06:07 PM) Th...   Nov 9 2011, 08:00 PM
- - Boron   ^I agree with what you said. China doesn't wan...   Nov 7 2011, 06:20 PM
- - JazzyQueen   MAY I ASK ANY CHINESE A QUESTION? IF YOU GUY SAID ...   Nov 10 2011, 02:12 AM
|- - Mid-Night_Sun   QUOTE (JazzyQueen @ Nov 10 2011, 04:12 AM...   Nov 17 2011, 08:49 PM
|- - bear11   QUOTE (JazzyQueen @ Nov 10 2011, 03:12 AM...   Nov 18 2011, 03:13 AM
- - DennisW   Anyone really from China or Vietnam here...if so w...   Dec 3 2011, 10:09 PM
- - kumanddie   Please no war !!! If China wants Spra...   Dec 10 2011, 09:48 PM
|- - Hugham   QUOTE (kumanddie @ Dec 11 2011, 10:48 AM)...   Dec 11 2011, 08:13 AM
|- - Alpha   QUOTE (Hugham @ Dec 11 2011, 07:13 AM) In...   Dec 18 2011, 07:14 PM
|- - Mid-Night_Sun   QUOTE (Alpha @ Dec 18 2011, 10:14 PM) Chi...   Dec 18 2011, 11:21 PM
|- - Alpha   QUOTE (Mid-Night_Sun @ Dec 18 2011, 10...   Dec 19 2011, 12:40 AM
|- - Yerroperil   QUOTE (Alpha @ Dec 19 2011, 12:40 AM) Hey...   Dec 19 2011, 01:13 AM
|- - Mid-Night_Sun   QUOTE (Alpha @ Dec 19 2011, 02:40 AM) And...   Dec 19 2011, 01:32 AM
- - ocrapdm   Join here in discussing Philippine claim on Nansha...   Dec 16 2011, 01:20 AM
- - Alpha   Midnight, The point is: Might makes right. vs Le...   Dec 19 2011, 12:55 AM
|- - Mid-Night_Sun   QUOTE (Alpha @ Dec 19 2011, 02:55 AM) Mid...   Dec 19 2011, 01:37 AM
|- - Alpha   QUOTE (Mid-Night_Sun @ Dec 19 2011, 12...   Dec 19 2011, 02:04 AM
||- - Mid-Night_Sun   QUOTE (Alpha @ Dec 19 2011, 05:04 AM) Eh....   Dec 19 2011, 02:09 AM
||- - Alpha   QUOTE (Mid-Night_Sun @ Dec 19 2011, 01...   Dec 19 2011, 02:25 AM
||- - Mid-Night_Sun   QUOTE (Alpha @ Dec 19 2011, 05:25 AM) Hey...   Dec 19 2011, 02:27 AM
||- - Alpha   QUOTE (Mid-Night_Sun @ Dec 19 2011, 01...   Dec 19 2011, 02:35 AM
||- - Mid-Night_Sun   QUOTE (Alpha @ Dec 19 2011, 05:35 AM) Why...   Dec 19 2011, 02:39 AM
|- - Alpha   QUOTE (Mid-Night_Sun @ Dec 19 2011, 12...   Dec 19 2011, 02:10 AM
|- - Mid-Night_Sun   QUOTE (Alpha @ Dec 19 2011, 05:10 AM) Sor...   Dec 19 2011, 02:14 AM
|- - Yerroperil   QUOTE (Alpha @ Dec 19 2011, 01:10 AM) Sor...   Dec 19 2011, 02:24 AM
|- - Alpha   QUOTE (Yerroperil @ Dec 19 2011, 01:24 AM...   Dec 19 2011, 02:32 AM
|- - Yerroperil   QUOTE (Alpha @ Dec 19 2011, 01:32 AM) Hey...   Dec 19 2011, 02:46 AM
|- - Alpha   QUOTE (Yerroperil @ Dec 19 2011, 01:46 AM...   Dec 19 2011, 03:18 AM
|- - Yerroperil   QUOTE (Alpha @ Dec 19 2011, 02:18 AM) Bec...   Dec 19 2011, 08:46 AM
|- - Alpha   QUOTE (Yerroperil @ Dec 19 2011, 07:46 AM...   Dec 19 2011, 01:26 PM
|- - Yerroperil   QUOTE (Alpha @ Dec 19 2011, 12:26 PM) Ple...   Dec 20 2011, 12:53 AM
|- - Theseus   QUOTE (Yerroperil @ Dec 19 2011, 09:23 PM...   Dec 21 2011, 05:50 AM
- - Alpha   Read the edited version of what you quoted. The f...   Dec 19 2011, 01:25 AM
|- - Yerroperil   QUOTE (Alpha @ Dec 19 2011, 12:25 AM) Rea...   Dec 19 2011, 01:31 AM
- - Alpha   You're quite the wiki scholar. A brazen one t...   Dec 19 2011, 02:13 AM
- - Alpha   In this case? Yeah.   Dec 19 2011, 02:42 AM
- - Mid-Night_Sun   theres viet logic for you. they dont even get to b...   Dec 19 2011, 01:37 PM
|- - Alpha   QUOTE (Mid-Night_Sun @ Dec 19 2011, 12...   Dec 19 2011, 02:07 PM
- - Alpha   Sematics... LOL Sorry, but they owned you. The ...   Dec 19 2011, 02:03 PM
- - Mid-Night_Sun   no, see while you made up your own viet rules. ima...   Dec 19 2011, 02:08 PM
- - Alpha   Does this ring a bell?   Dec 19 2011, 02:16 PM
- - Mid-Night_Sun   not for your argument no. there were unfair econom...   Dec 19 2011, 02:21 PM
- - Alpha   Manchukuo was a Japanese colony. The Europeans an...   Dec 19 2011, 02:26 PM
- - Mid-Night_Sun   ok? a puppet state during a civil war, but ok. i c...   Dec 19 2011, 02:28 PM
- - Alpha   Here's a question: Why b!tch-slap a whore...   Dec 19 2011, 02:31 PM
- - Mid-Night_Sun   wasnt about need. it was about viability. do you k...   Dec 19 2011, 02:35 PM
- - Theseus   QUOTE Vietnamese Claims to the Truong Sa Archipela...   Dec 21 2011, 05:04 AM
|- - Mid-Night_Sun   QUOTE (Theseus @ Dec 21 2011, 08:04 AM) h...   Dec 21 2011, 12:28 PM
- - Theseus   "Your account has been temporarily suspended....   Dec 21 2011, 05:55 AM
- - TMM   Mid-Night_Sun...this is too much :O Overkilled   Dec 23 2011, 07:59 PM
- - elleX0   Why bother with a country that will soon be a vass...   Jan 30 2012, 12:18 PM
|- - Asianfrog   QUOTE (elleX0 @ Jan 30 2012, 07:18 PM) Wh...   Sep 5 2012, 05:09 AM
|- - Liang1a   QUOTE (elleX0 @ Jan 30 2012, 12:18 PM) Wh...   Sep 5 2012, 02:16 PM
- - baal   Don't make enemies of the Vietnamese. They wi...   Sep 5 2012, 08:46 PM
|- - Asianfrog   If China is so sure to detain indisputable claims ...   Oct 15 2012, 04:24 AM
- - baal   China must take the road of peace. It is China...   Oct 16 2012, 12:39 PM


Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th July 2014 - 12:26 PM