U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Asia
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-19-2016, 03:04 AM
 
919 posts, read 606,873 times
Reputation: 369

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pennyone View Post
Sailing US military assets through the SCS to provoke the Chinese is not the solution.
I agree with that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-19-2016, 09:52 AM
 
3,345 posts, read 2,097,860 times
Reputation: 2367
Quote:
Originally Posted by pennyone View Post

And also, the US actually recognized Chinese sovereignty over the whole of the SCS after the Second War.
I didn't know a sea can be owned by nations. if that was true, they would have owned the Pacific and the SCS and the Atlantic and all the oceans because they were the most powerful nation at that time and no one could stop them. so why would it give to China when it can own it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2016, 10:33 AM
 
4,710 posts, read 3,639,604 times
Reputation: 7408
Quote:
Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas View Post
I didn't know a sea can be owned by nations. if that was true, they would have owned the Pacific and the SCS and the Atlantic and all the oceans because they were the most powerful nation at that time and no one could stop them. so why would it give to China when it can own it?
I guess we can argue all day here. But once the cruise missiles are in place and the J-20s and the Sukoi 35 are in place on those spanking new Chinese islands, the whole issue will die down and China will have its backyard nice and safe. It's just a modern day version of the Monroe Doctrine at work. The US benefited from it and so will China.

You want to talk about the SCS being "owned" by China? How about the Monroe Doctrine where the US basically insinuated that it "owned" the whole Western Hemisphere? LOL!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2016, 09:41 AM
 
353 posts, read 553,848 times
Reputation: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by pennyone View Post
I guess we can argue all day here. But once the cruise missiles are in place and the J-20s and the Sukoi 35 are in place on those spanking new Chinese islands, the whole issue will die down and China will have its backyard nice and safe. It's just a modern day version of the Monroe Doctrine at work. The US benefited from it and so will China.

You want to talk about the SCS being "owned" by China? How about the Monroe Doctrine where the US basically insinuated that it "owned" the whole Western Hemisphere? LOL!
The chief guarantor and benefactor of the Monroe Doctrine was Great Britain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2016, 10:33 AM
 
4,710 posts, read 3,639,604 times
Reputation: 7408
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdb05f View Post
The chief guarantor and benefactor of the Monroe Doctrine was Great Britain.
Yeah, at first because when it was first proposed, the US didn't have a navy worth the name to actually do the job. But by the late 1800's it was definitely the US doing its own thing. The British did it out of their own self interest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2016, 04:10 PM
 
4,710 posts, read 3,639,604 times
Reputation: 7408
Here is a quote from US Ambassador Chas Freeman who worked as a specialist on China and the South China Seas issues:

"In 1945, in accordance with the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations and with American help, the armed forces of the Republic of China government at Nanjing accepted the surrender of the Japanese garrisons in Taiwan, including the Paracel and Spratly Islands. Nanjing then declared both archipelagoes to be part of Guangdong Province. In 1946 it established garrisons on both Woody (now Yongxing / 永兴) Island in the Paracels and Taiping Island in the Spratlys. France protested. The French tried but failed to dislodge Chinese nationalist troops from Yongxing Island (the only habitable island in the Paracels), but were able to establish a small camp on Pattle (now Shanhu / 珊瑚) Island in the southwestern part of the archipelago."

So, it looks like the US helped the Chinese nationalists gain all of the islands in the SCS (both the Paracel and Spratly chains) right after the Second War. The Chinese took possession of those islands from the Japanese. Then, the Chinese had a change of government from the Nationalists to the Communists, and voila, the US changes its mind about who owns those islands? Now China is the aggressor? How strange.

The more the US provokes China, the more weapons will appear on those islands.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2016, 03:53 AM
 
4,710 posts, read 3,639,604 times
Reputation: 7408
Here is a short history of China and the SCS....

In the 3rd century, the local government of the Jin Dynasties (China) exercised jurisdiction over the South China Sea islands by sending patrolling naval boats to the surrounding sea areas. (Nordquist & Moore 1998, page 155)

5th–13th centuries: Naval forces of the Song State of the Southern Dynasties (420-479 AD) patrolled the Paracel and Spratly islands.[43] In the Tang dynasty (618-907 AD), the islands were placed under the administration and authority of the Qiongzhou Perfecture (now Hainan Province).[43] Chinese administration of the South China Sea continued into the North and South Song dynasties (970-1279).[43]

1883 - When the Spratlys and Paracels were surveyed by Germany in 1883, China issued protests.[40]

1887 - The Convention Respecting the Delimitation of the Frontier Between China and Tonkin between France and the Qing Empire set the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Tonkin.[49][50][51] The 1887 Chinese-Vietnamese Boundary convention signed between France and China after the Sino-French War said that China was the owner of the Spratly and Paracel islands.[40][52]

1898 - The Philippine Islands were ceded by Spain to the United States in the Treaty of Paris following the Spanish–American War. The U.S. reminded the Philippines at its independence (1946) that the Spanish-American treaty of 1898 made it clear that the western limit of the Philippines islands did not include the Spratlys (South China Sea).

1956 - Vietnam (DRV) declares Paracel and Spratly Islands are historically Chinese territory.[63]

1958 - The People's Republic of China issued a declaration defining its territorial waters which encompassed the Spratly, Paracel Islands and other islands in the South China Sea. The prime minister of Vietnam (DRV), Pham Van Dong, sent a diplomatic note to Zhou Enlai, stating that "The Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam respects this decision." The diplomatic note was written on September 14 and was publicized on Nhan Dan newspaper(Vietnam) on September 22, 1958.

Pham Van Dong:
Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Vietnam (SRV), in office, 2 July 1976 - 18 June 1987
Prime Minister of Vietnam (DRV), in office, 20 September 1955 - 2 July 1976

From the Chinese foreign Minister Wang Yi:

The fact is, according to the Treaty of Paris in 1898, the Treaty of Washington in 1900 and the Convention Between the United States and Great Britain of 1930 which defined the territory of the Philippines, the western boundary of the Philippines is delimited by 118 degrees east longitude. The Huangyan Island (Scarborough) and Nansha Islands (Spratly) are completely to the west of 118 degrees east longitude. They are not the Philippines' territory. After the Philippines gained independence, the domestic law of the Philippines, and the relevant treaties concluded by the Philippines all accepted the legal force of the three treaties mentioned above, and confirmed the scope of its territory to be limited by
118 degrees east longitude. Nevertheless, after the 1970s, the Philippines (dictator Marcos) staged four military operations and illegally invaded and occupied eight islands and reefs of China's Nansha Islands. This is what is at the bottom of the territorial dispute between China and the Philippines.

1968 - The Philippines (dictator Marcos) sent troops to three islands on the premise of protecting Kalayaan citizens, and announced the annexation of the Kalayaan island group (South China Sea)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2016, 11:36 AM
 
12,401 posts, read 18,495,911 times
Reputation: 19413
Quote:
Originally Posted by pennyone View Post
I guess we can argue all day here. But once the cruise missiles are in place and the J-20s and the Sukoi 35 are in place on those spanking new Chinese islands, the whole issue will die down and China will have its backyard nice and safe. It's just a modern day version of the Monroe Doctrine at work. The US benefited from it and so will China.

You want to talk about the SCS being "owned" by China? How about the Monroe Doctrine where the US basically insinuated that it "owned" the whole Western Hemisphere? LOL!
Oh man you totally misplace and misunderstand the Monroe Doctrine. That was not it at all, it was not a doctrine of ownership but a doctrine of independence. It's intent was almost total opposite to what you describe. Monroe doctrine was intended to establish the independence of Latin America at a time when the European powers were trying to retain there colonies. At the time, ironically, it was left to the British Navy to enforce it. If China wants to follow the equivalent they would recognize the South China Sea as neutral, give up claims to it, and just be there to enforce security and non-interference in the region. Not to claim it.
Now, some have interpreted it as a statement of Hegemony. But, hey, last time I checked South America was composed of 10 or so freely independent countries, and the US isn't building and arming islands in the carribean sea....and today the Panama canal is fully owned and governed by Panama, in a free and peaceful exchange of ownership. How often has that happened with China unless they were the beneficiary (i.e. Hong Kong).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2016, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Earth
4,548 posts, read 3,132,741 times
Reputation: 3376
move to the PRC if you feel so strongly about their sovereignty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2016, 01:18 PM
 
4,710 posts, read 3,639,604 times
Reputation: 7408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
Oh man you totally misplace and misunderstand the Monroe Doctrine. That was not it at all, it was not a doctrine of ownership but a doctrine of independence. It's intent was almost total opposite to what you describe. Monroe doctrine was intended to establish the independence of Latin America at a time when the European powers were trying to retain there colonies. At the time, ironically, it was left to the British Navy to enforce it. If China wants to follow the equivalent they would recognize the South China Sea as neutral, give up claims to it, and just be there to enforce security and non-interference in the region. Not to claim it.
Now, some have interpreted it as a statement of Hegemony. But, hey, last time I checked South America was composed of 10 or so freely independent countries, and the US isn't building and arming islands in the carribean sea....and today the Panama canal is fully owned and governed by Panama, in a free and peaceful exchange of ownership. How often has that happened with China unless they were the beneficiary (i.e. Hong Kong).
OMG, are you kidding me? I don't think the American Republic, or the British empire, had the "independence" of Central and Southern American states in mind when the Monroe Doctrine was coined...!!!!What kool-aid jug are you drinking from, genius!???? LOL, ROTFLOL!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Asia
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top