China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Equation]

You need to take it up with nfgc. It is not for me to defend his statements.


Example of comparative development and your idea of restraint. I wonder what would constitute unrestrained.
View attachment 17819



For the simple reason due to the scale of China's reclamation relative to all the others combined.

No one and not even China is stopping the other player from doing the exact same size reclamation work as China. So why all the fuss and drama? Why taking aim at only China? Why only concentrating on the negative bias post in regards to China's reclamation? Why take that collective article as a sign that the majority of the ASEAN and neighbors are so concern about China? Why so defensive about it? Why so afraid of China is the bottom line of my argument when it's not even a big of a deal as some would make it? As I said before, it is NOT China's job to satisfy the insecurity of others around her.

 

[Equation]

According to history, the Philippines grounded the vessel in the Second Thomas in response to China's move on Mischief Reef. Regardless, the issue that China is a victim in this is laughable.


The aggression is in the blockade. Occupation is benign. In contrast, blockade is an action designed to prevent supply from getting through. That is aggression even a Vulcan can understand. Whether they would laugh at it I guess you have to ask Mr. Spock

So it's the guy that made the first move is the blockader? Occupation on land that doesn't belong to you in the first place doesn't make it right.

 

[Brumby]

No one and not even China is stopping the other player from doing the exact same size reclamation work as China. So why all the fuss and drama? Why taking aim at only China? Why only concentrating on the negative bias post in regards to China's reclamation? Why take that collective article as a sign that the majority of the ASEAN and neighbors are so concern about China? Why so defensive about it? Why so afraid of China is the bottom line of my argument when it's not even a big of a deal as some would make it? As I said before, it is NOT China's job to satisfy the insecurity of others around her.

I don't have a problem generally with what you have said. I get the part where China will need to do what it considers necessary in its national interest. The problem in the discussions is China claiming to be a victim in this. That claim is laughable unless one is brain dead. The comparative reclamation comments is a demonstration of facts on the ground that the claim is not supported by the facts.

 

[Brumby]

So it's the guy that made the first move is the blockader?
.

Are you contesting the facts that China is not conducting some form of blockade on the Philippines vessel?

Occupation on land that doesn't belong to you in the first place doesn't make it right.

Are you affirming nfgc's point that the basic starting point in the pro China camp is the SCS belongs to China - period?

 

[Zool]

According to history, the Philippines grounded the vessel in the Second Thomas in response to China's move on Mischief Reef. Regardless, the issue that China is a victim in this is laughable.


The aggression is in the blockade. Occupation is benign. In contrast, blockade is an action designed to prevent supply from getting through. That is aggression even a Vulcan can understand. Whether they would laugh at it I guess you have to ask Mr. Spock

Lol, come on now Brumby... A little consistency please. You yourself in past posts have characterized China's recent island expansions as aggressive. But the Philippines gets a pass on parking a ship on a reef years ago as a makeshift outpost? Either they are both aggressive acts or they are not.

In any case, it always comes back to the point that each nation will pursue and strengthen it's claims in the best way it can, until the matter is resolved. To not do so is to relinquish your claim.

 

[Equation]

I don't have a problem generally with what you have said. I get the part where China will need to do what it considers necessary in its national interest. The problem in the discussions is China claiming to be a victim in this. That claim is laughable unless one is brain dead. The comparative reclamation comments is a demonstration of facts on the ground that the claim is not supported by the facts.

It is a victim because others are taking advantage of a weaker China before today to stake claims that don't on territories that don't belong to them. The focus largely on why "China's claiming to be a victim" points to the fact that you don't want to see it that way and therefore avoid the issue China can do the same what others did before. That is fine with me if you view it that way, but it is laughable to think only China can't do the same as others did to her. There is fact that China has a historical occupation to those territories. The other players don't want to use history as evidence because they know they don't have the longevity of time in action to back their claim like China. It is NOT China's fault that her civilization and activities during those time are far older than others therefore more legit.

 

[Equation]

Are you contesting the facts that China is not conducting some form of blockade on the Philippines vessel?

Are you affirming nfgc's point that the basic starting point in the pro China camp is the SCS belongs to China - period?

Meanwhile the anti China camp is using China's island reclamation work as an act of aggression and does NOT abide to "international norms". It's another "do as I say, not what I did" mantra at China.

 

[Equation]

Are you contesting the facts that China is not conducting some form of blockade on the Philippines vessel?

You mean that the Philippine vessel are blocking China from developing and reclamation work on their own territory.

 

[Brumby]

Lol, come on now Brumby... A little consistency please. You yourself in past posts have characterized China's recent island expansions as aggressive.

I regard that you can deal with reasoning regardless of your personal leaning and so I will respond in similar regards. Aggressive expansion is different in meaning and effect as aggression. When I labelled China's expansion as aggressive it is on the basis that it had reclaimed (the last count) 300 acres of land. This is effectively many times beyond the rest of the claimants combined and it was done in two years vs. the last 20 years for the rest. I consider China's blockade of supply as aggression. I am normally careful in how I frame my reasoning and the situations in which they are referenced.

But the Philippines gets a pass on parking a ship on a reef years ago as a makeshift outpost? Either they are both aggressive acts or they are not.

If you wish to label both parties as aggressive acts I have no issue but that wasn't what was being discussed. The points were China's claim as a victim and the blockade of supply as aggression

In any case, it always comes back to the point that each nation will pursue and strengthen it's claims in the best way it can, until the matter is resolved. To not do so is to relinquish your claim.

Agree.

 

[Brumby]

You mean that the Philippine vessel are blocking China from developing and reclamation work on their own territory.

I have to acknowledge your sense of humour. I think it is funny.