AsiaFinest Forum
Ad: 123Designing.com

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
South China Sea oil and gas exploration - Vietnam vs. China, S. China Sea
ivy20
post Sep 26 2011, 10:33 AM
Post #41


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 50
Joined: 19-October 09




It is so ridiculous when China uses the letter of Pham V. Dong to support for China claim in S. China Sea, but at the same time China claims 90% of S. China Sea belong to China & at the same time, China opposes the right to explore oil on the EEZ sea territory of Philippine & Vietnam!

Where did China claim 12 nautical miles as Pham V. Dong said in his letter???

China's cunning propaganda can cheat some stupid people, but can not cheat all people, of course not all people are stupid!

This post has been edited by ivy20: Sep 26 2011, 10:57 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mid-Night_Sun
post Sep 26 2011, 11:04 AM
Post #42


AF Supreme
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (ivy20 @ Sep 26 2011, 02:03 AM) *
[/size][size="3"]

You can not show where did China claim 12 nautical miles on the sea! Of course you can not show it because in the reality, China claims 90% of South China Sea, not 12 nautical miles!

It is so ridiculous when China always uses the letter of Pham V. Dong to excuse for China illegal actions in S. China Sea, but at the same time, China violates what Pham V. Dong said he respects in his letter! It is China's cheating #1
(This is one of reasons that China is always afraid to go to International Court for the conflict in S. China Sea)

China's cheating # 2: According to Geneva Accords 1954, French had to withdraw troops from Vietnam & returned back Vietnam's territory to
Vietnam. Vietnam was divided to 2 countries, North Vietnam & South Vietnam, from the 17th parallel to the south, belongs to South Vietnam. All countries sign the Accords 1954 should respect the territory of other country, can not use war to attack or violate the sovereignty and territory of other country.


Zhou Enlai, China Prime Minister attended Geneva Conference 1954, he DID SIGN the Geneva Accords 1954, but China seriously violated the sovereignty of South Vietnam on Paracel & Spratly islands when China declared that Paracel & Spratly islands belong to China in 1958! This is an illegal action, which violates what China already signed!
(This is another reason why China is always afraid to go to International Court for the conflict in S. China Sea)

China cheats people by saying that Paracel & Spratly islands don't belong to Vietnam because the name of these islands were not mention in Geneva Accords; however, China can cheat stupid people but China can not cheat International Courts & Lawyers!

Vietnam has more than 3,000 thousand islands, of course the names of Vietnam's 3,000 thousand islands don't appear in Geneva Accords, but Vietnam does have Legal Rights of sovereignty over these islands. Why?
Because the main purpose of Geneva Accords is French colonize denounced all rights in Vietnam & returned back Vietnam territory to previous owner is Vietnam. Vietnam has well documents of Vietnam's sovereignty of over 3,000 islands including Paracel & Spratly islands before French colonized & French also has documents of these islands when French received them from Vietnam 2 centuries ago. Documents of Paracel & Spratly islands from Vietnam & French are evidences to prove that Vietnam was the previous owner of Paracel & Spratly islands before French colonized. Of course, French should return these islands to the previous owner is Vietnam.


ready to get schooled again? embarassedlaugh.gif

i already showed you several times where the 12 nautical mile limit comes from. why dont you go tell someone in viet then get back to me when you figure out what your major comprehension problem is.


QUOTE (ivy20 @ Sep 26 2011, 02:03 AM) *
Zhou Enlai, China Prime Minister attended Geneva Conference 1954, he DID SIGN the Geneva Accords 1954, but China seriously violated the sovereignty of South Vietnam on Paracel & Spratly islands when China declared that Paracel & Spratly islands belong to China in 1958! This is an illegal action, which violates what China already signed!
(This is another reason why China is always afraid to go to International Court for the conflict in S. China Sea)


OH REALLY? China violated South Vietnam because it signed the Geneva Accord eh? then China did what South Vietnam didnt in the first place. Saigon's delegation DID NOT SIGN THE GENEVA ACCORDS. In fact, it is on this basis Diem did not participate in the elections that Geneva Accords stated.

Jul 6, 1955: Diem says South Vietnam not bound by Geneva Agreements
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history...neva-agreements



but even if you didnt just body bag yourself like a typical delusional wack job. i have another response.

lets pretend South Vietnam (the victim of so called Chinese violation) did sign the Geneva Accord (which only YOU claim includes those islands in the first place). so what? this was in 1954.
The ROC been occupying Taiping for 9 years now. but lets put that fact aside for now.

so you say Geneva Accord can give back islands WITHOUT identifying them and WITHOUT France even being the last owner (Japan was). then ill take a page from your book.
sharpen your mind, because i dont have faith you can follow this.



Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan. Signed at Taipei, 28 April 1952.
ARTICLE II
It is recognized that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco in the United States of America on September 8, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Pe...public_of_China



so, what does the San Francisco Treaty say about our issue (the islands)? you will understand why Kurile is there in a moment.


Article 2
(b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.
© Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of September 5, 1905.
(f) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands.

http://www.vcn.bc.ca/alpha/learn/SanFran.htm



now how did these articles get into the Treaty? here, from the Japanese Ministry of Affairs, you can see statements between the Soviets and the Japanese ON THE AMERICAN DRAFT OF THE TREATY.


"To sum up, the following conclusions regarding the American-British draft peace treaty can be drawn:"
- First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, A.A. Gromyko



so why were spratly and paracel included? SAME REASON KURILES IS. (note that Japan STILL has dispute with Russia in Kuriles).


The draft contains only a reference to the renunciation by Japan of its rights to these territories but intentionally omits any mention of the further fate of these territories.

It is an indisputable fact that original Chinese territories which were severed from it, such as Taiwan (Formosa), the Pescadores, the Paracel Islands and other Chinese territories, should be returned to the Chinese People's Republic.

The rights of the Soviet Union to the southern part of the Sakhalin Island and all the islands adjacent to it, as well as to the Kurile Islands, which are at present under the sovereignty of the Soviet Union, are equally indisputable."


To sum up, the following conclusions regarding the American-British draft peace treaty can be drawn:

5. The draft treaty flagrantly violates the legitimate rights of the Chinese people to an integral part of China - Taiwan, the Pescadores and Paracel Islands and other territories severed from China as a result of Japanese aggression.

6. The draft treaty is in contradiction to the obligations undertaken by the United States and Great Britain under the Yalta Agreement regarding the return of Sakhalin and the transfer of the Kurile Islands to the Soviet Union.

- First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, A.A. Gromyko

Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan
http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/europe/russia...92/period4.html


The Soviets complained the AMERICAN-BRITISH DRAFT wasnt clear about Spratly/Paracel belonging to China and Kurile belonging to Soviets. The Japanese delegation DID NOT agree with Kuriles. this is the background to why those articles are in there. specifically to this topic, Article 2b and 2f. Note that the articles now have Japan renouncing its right AND TITLE AND CLAIM.



ill summarize for you to make it easier. 2 years before Geneva Accord there is a treaty between Taiwan and Japan where it states Japan give up its right/title/claim to spratly and paracel (BY NAME, something your Geneva Accord doesnt do). it references the article in the san francisco treaty. as stated, article 2 says Japan gives up right/title/claim.

now how did those articles get there. the Japanese Foreign Ministry of Affairs gave detailed statements from the Soviets and themselves on how. The Soviet delegation said the American-British draft made unclear the fate of spratly/paracel for China and Kurile for them.

of course Japan disagree with Kurile and to this day they have dispute. but regardless, what were the resulting articles. Articles 2b and 2f and of course 2c (that is kurile, not part of a discussion, but is worth noting because japan definitely didnt agree with that. it is there at because of the soviet protest along with the articles on spratly, paracel, taiwan, etc.)

yes, we can all acknowledge the irony that despite the Soviet's best efforts we have uneducated morons still getting enough ambiguity to say it wasnt clear. Chinese thank the Soviets for their attempt on our behalf, but you cant stop idiots who are determined. course it is also on Chinese, whos civil war prevented us from going ourselves. you can bet if China attended we wouldnt even be having this discussion.


so, if you were able to keep up with me, ill reiterate my scenario. if we pretend, that South Vietnam was even a part of the Geneva Accord (which it didnt sign) and that the Geneva Accord can give to Vietnam islands (without naming them and without France even being the occupant). then i can make the arguement as early as 1951 San Francisco Treaty Japan already relinquish to China.






not only that, i can go back further. let me take you to 1945, which was when Republic of China occupied the biggest and only fresh water island in Spratly. what happen in 1945? Potsdam Declaration July 26 1945: PROCLAMATION DEFINING TERMS FOR JAPANESE SURRENDER. That is quite an amazing coincidence in timing huh.





lets go even further back. Cairo Declaration November 27, 1943. it clearly states ALL territories stolen from Chinese must go back to China. it even gave examples such as Manchuria, Formosa and Pescadores.

http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/shiryo...6/002_46tx.html

so let me reiterate once more. if you tell me the Geneva Accord (pretending the victim of Chinese 'invasion' even signed it) can legitimately give islands (despite NOT naming them and NOT being the last occupant); i can say China as early as 1943 already have claim.



lmao, even if i just give up everything i said with the treatys, pretend its all wrong. i still have recorded statements from the Soviet's that recognize Chinese claims. to this day, i still havent seen ONE non Viet foreign minister say 'the spratly and paracel islands indisputably belong to the vietnamese people'. and you are STILL claiming sovereignty over a group of islands where the biggest one belong to someone else ever since 1945.

This post has been edited by Mid-Night_Sun: Sep 26 2011, 11:47 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ivy20
post Sep 26 2011, 09:43 PM
Post #43


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 50
Joined: 19-October 09




QUOTE (Mid-Night_Sun @ Sep 26 2011, 11:04 AM) *
ready to get schooled again? embarassedlaugh.gif

i already showed you several times where the 12 nautical mile limit comes from. why dont you go tell someone in viet then get back to me when you figure out what your major comprehension problem is.


There are a lot of cheating in your comment!. I will go over it step by step. Now, lets discuss your first sencentence:

According to the letter of Pham V. Dong, he said very clear that he respects 12 nautical miles territory water of China, if China respects Pham V. Dong letter, why did GREEDY China attack Vietnamese fishermen & oppose the right of Vietnam to explore oil on Vietnam's territory water???

Answer my questions:

1. What kind of International Law is China using in S. China Sea???

2. Can you explain the reason why "12 nautical miles territory water" of China go...too....too....far....to Exclusive Economic Zone territory water of Vietnam???
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mid-Night_Sun
post Sep 26 2011, 10:00 PM
Post #44


AF Supreme
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (ivy20 @ Sep 27 2011, 12:43 AM) *
There are a lot of cheating in your comment!. I will go over it step by step. Now, lets discuss your first sencentence:

According to the letter of Pham V. Dong, he said very clear that he respects 12 nautical miles territory water of China, if China respects Pham V. Dong letter, why did GREEDY China attack Vietnamese fishermen & oppose the right of Vietnam to explore oil on Vietnam's territory water???

Answer my questions:

1. What kind of International Law is China using in S. China Sea???

2. Can you explain the reason why "12 nautical miles territory water" of China go...too....too....far....to Exclusive Economic Zone territory water of Vietnam???


the incidents are decades apart. IF you acknowledge the letter accept the Chinese declaration, there should have been no viets at those islands in the first place.

1. there are multiple angles, but i believe China is going with the historic route. aka. earliest claims and administration.
2. you never had an EEZ when the declaration and letter was done, thats why.

This post has been edited by Mid-Night_Sun: Sep 26 2011, 10:01 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yerroperil
post Sep 27 2011, 04:31 AM
Post #45


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




Midnight Sun,your rebuttals make it even more clear that ivy20 is a troll and rants on how CPP is evil(Chinese Communists' cunning propagandas lol favorite phrase). look at this bullsh1t she posts... These are the true & the fact:

1. Cantonese are descendants of Baiyue ancestors. Not all southern Chinese speak Cantonese, but many other southern Chinese, who speak difference languages, are also descendants of Baiyue ancestors.
2. Vietnamese are descendants of Baiyue ancestors.
3. By genetic scientific evidences, Vietnamese & many ethnic groups in China, including Cantonese, are blood relation
4. Vietnamese & southern Chinese have some similar culture & food & archaeology evidences (from Baiyue culture & archaeology artifacts)
6. Archaeology evidences of Northern & Southern China are difference
7. By genetic scientific evidences, nothern Chinese & Southern Chinese have different genetic
8. Culture, figure & surename are difference from Northern & Southern Chinese, eventhough most of them belong to the same Sino Tibetan speaking group.
9. During the last 2,000 years, since Qin dynasty stole the land of Bai Yue ancestors ( from Yangtze river to the south), there are many waves of nothern Han Chinese moved to the south; however, in present time, majority of Southern Chinese are descendants of Baiyue, according to history & DNA evidences.
10. Northern Han Chinese are descendants of Baiyue people mixed with Altaic people
11. More than 10,000 years ago, Baiyue people in Southern China are from Vietnam. Therefore, ancient Vietnamese in nothern Vietnam were ancestors of Baiyue people in Vietnam & southern China, according to DNA tests, Human Migration Map, anthropology & archaeology evidences. (It is the same meaning of acient Vietnam legend about Vietnamese King Lac Long Quan & his wife, Au Co has 100 children, each children became the leader of each tribe. It means Vietnamese King Lac Long Quan & his wife are ancestors of many ethnic groups, that belong to Baiyue people)

I seriously can't tell if she wants Chinese to be related to Vietnamese or not...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chutzpah
post Sep 27 2011, 04:55 AM
Post #46


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,103
Joined: 15-December 10




QUOTE (ivy20 @ Sep 26 2011, 09:43 PM) *
There are a lot of cheating in your comment!. I will go over it step by step. Now, lets discuss your first sencentence:

According to the letter of Pham V. Dong, he said very clear that he respects 12 nautical miles territory water of China, if China respects Pham V. Dong letter, why did GREEDY China attack Vietnamese fishermen & oppose the right of Vietnam to explore oil on Vietnam's territory water???

Answer my questions:

1. What kind of International Law is China using in S. China Sea???

2. Can you explain the reason why "12 nautical miles territory water" of China go...too....too....far....to Exclusive Economic Zone territory water of Vietnam???
You are quite obnoxious aren't you? Do you always accuse those you disagree with cheating and GREEDY? Others use facts and historical data to support their case, but you just bark away like a wronged female b!tch that you obviously are embarassedlaugh.gif Pathetic!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mid-Night_Sun
post Sep 27 2011, 12:21 PM
Post #47


AF Supreme
Group Icon

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




i gave ample warning in post 6. i was more then generous as well. several times i 'pretend' ivy was right and argue based on that. i even pretend all my supposition (which i dont think it really was) were ALL WRONG, only relying on PURE QUOTES from Soviet Foreign Minister sourced from JAPANESE Ministry of Affairs and i STILL have a far better example of someone recognizing Chinese claim.

let me post the entire Soviet Statement.





2. Statement of the First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, A.A. Gromyko, at the Conference in San Francisco (1951)

... The peace treaty with Japan should, naturally, resolve a number of territorial questions connected with the peace settlement with Japan. It is known that in this respect as well the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union undertook specific obligations. These obligations are outlined in the Cairo Declaration, in the Potsdam Declaration, and in the Yalta Agreement.

These agreements recognize the absolutely indisputable rights of China, now the Chinese People's Republic, to territories severed from it. It is an indisputable fact that original Chinese territories which were severed from it, such as Taiwan (Formosa), the Pescadores, the Paracel Islands and other Chinese territories, should be returned to the Chinese People's Republic.

The rights of the Soviet Union to the southern part of the Sakhalin Island and all the islands adjacent to it, as well as to the Kurile Islands, which are at present under the sovereignty of the Soviet Union, are equally indisputable.

Thus, while resolving the territorial questions in connection with the preparation of a peace treaty with Japan, there should not be any lack of clarity if we are to proceed from the indisputable rights of states to territories which Japan got hold of by the force of arms.

... As regards the American-British draft peace treaty with Japan in the part pertaining to territorial questions, the Delegation of the USSR considers it necessary to state that this draft grossly violates the indisputable rights of China to the return of integral parts of Chinese territory: Taiwan, the Pescadores, the Paracel and other islands severed from it by the Japanese militarists. The draft contains only a reference to the renunciation by Japan of its rights to these territories but intentionally omits any mention of the further fate of these territories. In reality, however, Taiwan and the said islands have been captured by the United States of America and the United States wants to legalize these aggressive actions in the draft peace treaty under discussion. Meanwhile the fate of these territories should be absolutely clear -- they must be returned to the Chinese people, the master of their land.

Similarly, by attempting to violate grossly the sovereign rights of the Soviet Union regarding Southern Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it, as well as the Kurile Islands already under the sovereignty of the Soviet Union, the draft also confines itself to a mere mention of the renunciation by Japan of rights, title and claims to these territories and makes no mention of the historic appurtenance of these territories and the indisputable obligation on the part of Japan to recognize the sovereignty of the Soviet Union over these parts of the territory of the USSR.

We do not speak of the fact that by introducing such proposals on territorial questions the United States and Great Britain, who at an appropriate time, signed the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations, as well as the Yalta Agreement, have taken the path of flagrant violation of obligations undertaken by them under these international agreements.

... To sum up, the following conclusions regarding the American-British draft peace treaty can be drawn:

1. The draft does not contain any guarantees against the reestablishment of Japanese militarism, the transformation of Japan into an aggressive state. The draft does not contain any guarantees ensuring the security of countries which have suffered from aggression on the part of militarist Japan. The draft creates conditions for the reestablishment of Japanese militarism, creates a danger of a new Japanese aggression.

2. The draft treaty actually does not provide for the withdrawal of foreign occupation forces. On the contrary, it ensures the presence of foreign armed forces on the territory of Japan and the maintenance of foreign military bases in Japan even after the signing of a peace treaty. Under the pretext of self-defense of Japan, the draft provides for the participation of Japan in an aggressive military alliance with the United States.

3. The draft treaty not only fails to provide for obligations that Japan should not join any coalitions directed against any of the states which participated in the war against militarist Japan, but on the contrary, is clearing the path for Japan's participation in aggressive blocs in the Far East created under the aegis of the United States.

4. The draft treaty does not contain any provisions on the democratization of Japan, on the ensurance of democratic rights to the Japanese people, which creates a direct threat to a rebirth in Japan of the prewar Fascist order.

5. The draft treaty flagrantly violates the legitimate rights of the Chinese people to an integral part of China - Taiwan, the Pescadores and Paracel Islands and other territories severed from China as a result of Japanese aggression.

6. The draft treaty is in contradiction to the obligations undertaken by the United States and Great Britain under the Yalta Agreement regarding the return of Sakhalin and the transfer of the Kurile Islands to the Soviet Union.

7. The numerous economic clauses are designed to ensure for foreign, in the first place American, monopolies the privileges which they have obtained during the period of occupation. The Japanese economy is being placed in a slave-like dependence on these foreign monopolies.

8. The draft actually ignores the legitimate claims of states that have suffered from Japanese occupation regarding compensation by Japan for the damage that they have suffered. At the same time, providing for the compensation of losses directly by the labor of the Japanese population it imposes on Japan a slave-like form of reparations.

9. The American-British draft is not a treaty of peace but a treaty for the preparation of a new war in the Far East.


http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/europe/russia...92/period4.html




can even Ivy's unique interpretation abilities change this?

....well actually.....maybe...never know. other things were just as clear and i had to repeat multiple times. im not even going to argue if she tries to reinterpret this. who fights with people that the Sun is bright.

it is times like this i really regret the Chinese Civil War. look at all the problems it cause for this issue. a united front would have been open and shut case at the negotiations for treatys. its funny how anyone even pretend Vietnam had any say during these times. looks at France/French IndoChina*

the entire chain of events China was heavily involved in the surrender of Japan since the beginning. Vietnam was never even MENTIONED in any of the treatys until MUCH later.




1. Cairo Declaration November 27, 1943


It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed.
http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/shiryo...6/002_46tx.html



2. Potsdam Declaration July 26 1945:
PROCLAMATION DEFINING TERMS FOR JAPANESE SURRENDER (The Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XIII, No. 318, July 29, 1945)
Proclamation Defining the Terms for the Japanese Surrender, July 26,1945


(1) WE — THE PRESIDENT of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, representing the hundreds of millions of our countrymen, have conferred and agree that Japan shall be given an opportunity to end this war.





3. OFFER OF SURRENDER FROM JAPANESE GOVERNMENT: (Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XIII, No. 320, Aug. 12, 1945)

The Japanese Government are ready to accept the terms enumerated in the joint declaration which was issued at Potsdam on July 26th, 1945, by the heads of the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, and China, and later subscribed to by the Soviet Government, with the understanding that the said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler.




4. JAPANESE ACCEPTANCE OF POTSDAM DECLARTION:Statement by the President: (The Department of State Bulletin, Vol. No.321, Aug. 19, 1945)

General Douglas MacArthur has been appointed the Supreme Allied Commander to receive the Japanese surrender. Great Britain, Russia, and China will be represented by high-ranking officers.

"Communication of the Japanese Government of August 14, 1945, addressed to the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and China:

"With reference to the Japanese Government's note of August 10 regarding their acceptance of the provisions of the Potsdam declaration and the reply of the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and China...




5. INSTRUMENT OF SURRENDER:
We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain on 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.



Source 2-5 http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/450729a.html



6. INSTRUMENTS FOR THE SURRENDER OF JAPAN
GENERAL ORDER NO.1
17 August 1945


a. The senior Japanese commanders and all ground, sea, air and auxiliary forces within China (excluding Manchuria), Formosa and French Indo-China north of 16 north latitude shall surrender to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek.


http://www.taiwandocuments.org/surrender05.htm





note, in none of these is vietnam even mentioned. the allied forces specifically included China again and again. vietnam was a NON FACTOR. you dont get ANY part in ANY of these documents as a victor. understand that.

This post has been edited by Mid-Night_Sun: Sep 27 2011, 12:39 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ivy20
post Sep 27 2011, 12:30 PM
Post #48


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 50
Joined: 19-October 09




QUOTE (Yerroperil @ Sep 27 2011, 05:31 AM) *
Midnight Sun,your rebuttals make it even more clear that ivy20 is a troll and rants on how CPP is evil(Chinese Communists' cunning propagandas lol favorite phrase). look at this bullsh1t she posts... These are the true & the fact:

1. Cantonese are descendants of Baiyue ancestors. Not all southern Chinese speak Cantonese, but many other southern Chinese, who speak difference languages, are also descendants of Baiyue ancestors.
2. Vietnamese are descendants of Baiyue ancestors.
3. By genetic scientific evidences, Vietnamese & many ethnic groups in China, including Cantonese, are blood relation
4. Vietnamese & southern Chinese have some similar culture & food & archaeology evidences (from Baiyue culture & archaeology artifacts)
6. Archaeology evidences of Northern & Southern China are difference
7. By genetic scientific evidences, nothern Chinese & Southern Chinese have different genetic
8. Culture, figure & surename are difference from Northern & Southern Chinese, eventhough most of them belong to the same Sino Tibetan speaking group.
9. During the last 2,000 years, since Qin dynasty stole the land of Bai Yue ancestors ( from Yangtze river to the south), there are many waves of nothern Han Chinese moved to the south; however, in present time, majority of Southern Chinese are descendants of Baiyue, according to history & DNA evidences.
10. Northern Han Chinese are descendants of Baiyue people mixed with Altaic people
11. More than 10,000 years ago, Baiyue people in Southern China are from Vietnam. Therefore, ancient Vietnamese in nothern Vietnam were ancestors of Baiyue people in Vietnam & southern China, according to DNA tests, Human Migration Map, anthropology & archaeology evidences. (It is the same meaning of acient Vietnam legend about Vietnamese King Lac Long Quan & his wife, Au Co has 100 children, each children became the leader of each tribe. It means Vietnamese King Lac Long Quan & his wife are ancestors of many ethnic groups, that belong to Baiyue people)

I seriously can't tell if she wants Chinese to be related to Vietnamese or not...


The problem is that you don't have enough knowledge about history, archaeology, linquistic, Human Migrations & DNA evidences, so you can not see the true about
Bai yue & Southern Chinese!

I will show you the the proofs & evidences about the true of Bai yue & Southern Chinese, these proofs are from Chinese Proffessors, Chinese experts also from International professors. Do you think you have "an ocean of knowledge" much more than many Chinese experts & International professors?

This thread is using for discussing about S. China Sea, it's real wrong place to discuss the ancestors of Southern Chinese in this thread. Go to Cantonese & Southern Chinese thread to discuss related informations.

Do you think I "want Chinese to be related to Vietnamese"? The answer is NO!

And also all Vietnamese never want to be Han Chinese or related to Han Chinese. The history of China & Vietnam in the last 2,000 years have proved that. During the last 2,000 years, Vietnamese have always fought against Han Chinese invasion to protect Vietnamese culture, Vietnamese language, Vietnamese identity & Vietnam territory.. Read history again to learn about that.

I am proud of Vietnam is a small country, but always full of heroes. I am proud of while China & many countries in this world were defeated & enslaved by Mongol Empire for many years, but Vietnamese ancestors defeated Mongol Empire 3 times to protect Vietnam independence, when Vietnam had very small population as much as 1/20 population of China at that time (1/20 = 5%). Why do I want to be related to many southern chinese, who ancestors are defeated by Han Chinese, and they have to be assimilated to Han Chinese???

But I do respect the true & the facts from evidences of history, archaeology, anthropology, Human Migrations & DNA from International professors.

This post has been edited by ivy20: Sep 27 2011, 08:12 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ivy20
post Sep 27 2011, 12:37 PM
Post #49


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 50
Joined: 19-October 09




QUOTE (Mid-Night_Sun @ Sep 26 2011, 11:00 PM) *
the incidents are decades apart. IF you acknowledge the letter accept the Chinese declaration, there should have been no viets at those islands in the first place.

1. there are multiple angles, but i believe China is going with the historic route. aka. earliest claims and administration.
2. you never had an EEZ when the declaration and letter was done, thats why.


You are a very good Chinese Communist propaganda agent, you have done very good job to cheat & twist the true for greedy China cunning propagandas!

You can not answer my question about what kind of International Law that China using in S. China Sea because China is using the Law of Bandit Gang in S. China Sea, not International Laws!

The letter of Pham V. Dong said very clear that he respects 12 nautical miles territory water of China, but you & your greedy China distort that letter to claim 90% of S. China Sea!


Are you talking to me by using China's Law of Bandit Gang???

You can use China's Law of Bandit Gang & China communist cunning propagandas to cheat stupid people, but you can not cheat all people, of course, not all people are stupid!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mid-Night_Sun
post Sep 27 2011, 12:43 PM
Post #50


AF Supreme
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (ivy20 @ Sep 27 2011, 03:37 PM) *
You are a very good Chinese Communist propaganda agent, you have done very good job to cheat & twist the true for greedy China cunning propagandas!

You can not answer my question about what kind of International Law that China using in S. China Sea because China is using the Law of Bandit Gang in S. China Sea, not International Laws!

The letter of Pham V. Dong said very clear that he respects 12 nautical miles territory water of China, but you & your greedy China distort that letter to claim 90% of S. China Sea!


Are you talking to me by using China's Law of Bandit Gang???

You can use China's Law of Bandit Gang & China communist cunning propagandas to cheat stupid people, but you can not cheat all people, of course, not all people are stupid!



hey genius, Vietnam claims spratly not from EEZ but historic claim as well. ignoring the fact historic claim is a legit method, all you really said was Vietnam uses Bandit Law as well.

This post has been edited by Mid-Night_Sun: Sep 27 2011, 12:43 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ivy20
post Sep 27 2011, 01:05 PM
Post #51


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 50
Joined: 19-October 09




QUOTE (chutzpah @ Sep 27 2011, 05:55 AM) *
You are quite obnoxious aren't you? Do you always accuse those you disagree with cheating and GREEDY? Others use facts and historical data to support their case, but you just bark away like a wronged female b!tch that you obviously are embarassedlaugh.gif Pathetic!


Go back to some previous comments to see the real evidence of China cheating: Look at the letter of Pham V. Dong, read the translation, then answer the reason why China claims 90% of S. China Sea belongs to China, when in fact, this letter states that Pham V. Dong "respects 12 nautical miles of China territory water". Why???

The following are the facts of China is too...too...GREEDY:

QUOTE
- In 1974, taking advantage while North VN & South VN were busy in civil war, China ILLEGALLY USED WARSHIPS to STEAL Paracel islands from Vietnam. China KILLED 54 Vietnamese sailors!

- In 1988, China also ILLEGALLY USED WARSHIPS to STEAL Spratly islands from Vietnam. China KILLED 64 Vietnamese sailors!

- After that, many times GREEDY China KILLED Vietnamese fishermen, BEAT Vietnamese fishermen, STOLE their fishing equipments, DESTROYED their fishing equipments and STOLE all of their fishes on VIETNAM'S SEA TERRITORY, which was RECOGNIZED BY INTERNATIONAL LAWS & by many countries from the world! It is VIETNAM TRADITIONAL SEA, that Vietnamese ancestors of those Vietnamese fishermen sailed over there for fishing from generation to generation for many THOUSAND YEARS!

- Many times CRUEL China ships HIT to SINK Vietnamese fishermen's boats, causing these boats WERE SUNK, many Vietnamese fishermen WERE INJURED & MISSING on the sea!

- CRUEL Chinese Navy used the LAWS of CHINA BANDIT GANG to SHOOT & CHASE AWAY Vietnamese Fishermen when these fishermen came closer to Paracel islands to hide from the big storm coming from Philippine.

According to International Laws, these fishermen HAVE THE RIGHT to escape the dangerous of the storm by coming closer to any island on the sea. Vietnamese Navy & Vietnamese people always help Chinese fishermen to escape the dangerous storms from the sea. Vietnamese Navy also used ships TO RESCUE Chinese fishermen during & after the storms, HOW CAN CRUEL Chinese Navy treated Vietnamese fishermen that way???! They violated the International Laws seriously!

- GREEDY CHINA used the map that China JUST DREW in 19th century to self claim that 90% of S. China Sea belongs to China, the sea that HAS BELONGED TO other 5 nations, where their people HAVE BEEN FISHING for MANY THOUSAND YEARS. By this GREEDY claim, CRUEL CHINA has killed & attacked many fishermen of other countries on the sea! Greedy China also opposed THE RIGHT TO EXPLORE OIL on THE SEA TERRITORY EEZ of Philippine & Vietnam, which are recognized by International Laws & many countries in the world. China DID SIGN the international laws of the sea UNCLOS, but China does not respect what China already signed!

Philippine & Vietnam have asked China many times to solve the conflict in S. China Sea by INTERNATIONAL LAWS , but China ALWAYS REFUSES!


The so-called "facts and historical data" from China are cheating! That's the reason why China is always afraid of going to the International Courts to claim China sovereignty in S. China Sea!

Because China can use cheating informations to cheat stupid people, but China can not cheat International Courts & Lawyers.

Be brave to bring all of the so-called "history data & facts" to International Courts to have the legal right over S. China Sea & its islands. Why is China always afraid of Internantional Courts? Why does China always escape the light of International Laws? Why???

It's the real evidence of China cheating & violating International Laws!

I know there are many uneducated Chinese like you as the way you said in your comment. But in fact, not all Chinese are bad, except Chinese Communists & their followers!


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ivy20
post Sep 27 2011, 01:32 PM
Post #52


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 50
Joined: 19-October 09




@chutzpah,

If my comment above has not enlightened you about the GREEDY of China in Vietnam's territory water, then the following are the facts of many people from many races, many countries are victims of greedy China, search on both Youtube.com & Google.com to see the true & the facts:

“Uyghur protest”

“Tibet protest”

“Mongolia protest”

“Philippine protest”

“Taiwan protest China”

Vietnam protest China

Burma protest China

Darfur protest China


“Paracel protest”

“Spratly protest”

“South China Sea protest”

bieu tinh trung

“protest China”

protest against China invasion


Hongkong protest

Falun Gong protest

Tiananmen square protest

China land grab

China land seizure

China organ harvesting

This post has been edited by ivy20: Sep 28 2011, 02:34 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ivy20
post Sep 27 2011, 01:47 PM
Post #53


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 50
Joined: 19-October 09




In order to have Peace & Justice in S. China Sea, China should respect International Laws, if China uses the Law of Bandit Gang, World War III will happen. China will never never "swallow" entire S. China Sea as greedy China dreams!

This post has been edited by ivy20: Sep 27 2011, 01:57 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ivy20
post Sep 27 2011, 02:21 PM
Post #54


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 50
Joined: 19-October 09




The main purpose for I am posting comments here is for Peace & Justice in South China Sea for all countries surrounding S. China Sea.

If China does not respect International Laws, many countries in this world will involve in World War III to protect International waters in South China Sea and the rights of all countries surrounding S. China Sea.

China will never never 'swallow' entire S. China Sea as China's greedy dream!

This post has been edited by ivy20: Sep 27 2011, 02:31 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
machpunch777
post Sep 27 2011, 02:46 PM
Post #55


AF Fiend
Group Icon

Group: Validating
Posts: 303
Joined: 10-September 11




get a life
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fireplant
post Sep 27 2011, 03:40 PM
Post #56


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,729
Joined: 19-June 11




I feel sorry for MNS he had to talk to someone like ivy20. eek.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chutzpah
post Sep 27 2011, 06:09 PM
Post #57


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,103
Joined: 15-December 10




QUOTE (ivy20 @ Sep 27 2011, 02:21 PM) *
The main purpose for I am posting comments here is for Peace & Justice in South China Sea for all countries surrounding S. China Sea.

If China does not respect International Laws, many countries in this world will involve in World War III to protect International waters in South China Sea and the rights of all countries surrounding S. China Sea.

China will never never 'swallow' entire S. China Sea as China's greedy dream!

for Peace & Justice ??? You are kidding right? As you are obviously too stupid, so let me explain again. It is your aggressive and nasty and unnecessary labeling and name calling that many find objectionable. Whether what you said is factual or historically accurate is beside the point (not that anything you said can be trusted) just look at the many disapprovals voiced by many about you in this thread. Understand stupid? Do you even understand the meaning of peace and justice? No one really cares about your hate for China and her people. But you should at least learn to be civil even though that is not part of your culture. As there are other nationalities here as well, it is international so be polite, it is not a Viet only chat site where you can behave as rudely and as obnoxiously as you like.

This post has been edited by chutzpah: Sep 27 2011, 06:16 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Banzai
post Sep 27 2011, 08:33 PM
Post #58


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 27-September 11




You can challenge a lot of things, but the South China Sea is China's exclusive sphere of influence, and nobody is going to challenge that and win, nobody!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elleX0
post Sep 28 2011, 02:33 AM
Post #59


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,802
Joined: 20-September 09
From: At Infinity




QUOTE (Banzai @ Sep 28 2011, 02:33 AM) *
You can challenge a lot of things, but the South China Sea is China's exclusive sphere of influence, and nobody is going to challenge that and win, nobody!

Is that any different than America who believes that the Pacific Ocean belongs to her and 300 miles form the American coast on the Atlantic is under her jurisdiction? or India believing that the Indian Ocean belongs to her, or Vietnam who believes the whole of the China Seas belongs to her? and so on.

This post has been edited by elleX0: Sep 28 2011, 02:33 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yerroperil
post Sep 28 2011, 07:04 AM
Post #60


AF Pro
Group Icon

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




QUOTE (ivy20 @ Sep 27 2011, 12:30 PM) *
The problem is that you don't have enough knowledge about history, archaeology, linquistic, Human Migrations & DNA evidences, so you can not see the true about
Bai yue & Southern Chinese!

I will show you the the proofs & evidences about the true of Bai yue & Southern Chinese, these proofs are from Chinese Proffessors, Chinese experts also from International professors. Do you think you have "an ocean of knowledge" much more than many Chinese experts & International professors?

This thread is using for discussing about S. China Sea, it's real wrong place to discuss the ancestors of Southern Chinese in this thread. Go to Cantonese & Southern Chinese thread to discuss related informations.

Do you think I "want Chinese to be related to Vietnamese"? The answer is NO!

And also all Vietnamese never want to be Han Chinese or related to Han Chinese. The history of China & Vietnam in the last 2,000 years have proved that. During the last 2,000 years, Vietnamese have always fought against Han Chinese invasion to protect Vietnamese culture, Vietnamese language, Vietnamese identity & Vietnam territory.. Read history again to learn about that.

I am proud of Vietnam is a small country, but always full of heroes. I am proud of while China & many countries in this world were defeated & enslaved by Mongol Empire for many years, but Vietnamese ancestors defeated Mongol Empire 3 times to protect Vietnam independence, when Vietnam had very small population as much as 1/20 population of China at that time (1/20 = 5%). Why do I want to be related to many southern chinese, who ancestors are defeated by Han Chinese, and they have to be assimilated to Han Chinese???

But I do respect the true & the facts from evidences of history, archaeology, anthropology, Human Migrations & DNA from International professors.

Lol I'm just commenting on how you are a troll,I am a Southern Han Chinese I don't need Vietnamese to tell me what my ethnic identity is. Then why do insist on how Southern Han Chinese are Bai yue the Vietnamese according to some were part of the Bai yue. What Vietanamese culture was there before Chinese came,modern Vietnamese culture is heavily sinofied. Enslaved lol,if Chinese were enslaved then why did people get government positions,also why do peasants still get money for their goods? Good for you,that Vietnamese repelled mongols with strategy and sickness,Mongols didn't conquer China until they invaded Middle East and Europe,also China was divided... Evidences of history,I bet you can't read San guo zhi,Han shu,Jin shu etc,not one single Southern dynasty claimed their inhabitants to be Bai yue,in fact they thought themselves as the true successors of Huaxia civilization since Nomads were intermixed with some Northern Han Chinese. You are retarded,not one single Han Chinese I met ever claim themselves to be Bai yue,they either call themselves Hua or Han.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st December 2014 - 08:03 PM