PLAN SCS Bases/Islands/Vessels (Not a Strategy Page)

solarz

solarz

Brigadier
nfgc said:
I admitted the flaws of other nations. Yet you cannot read for comprehension and you continue to mention that I do not bring up said hypocrisies.

I conclude you are debating dishonestly.

Therefore, I am not going to spend my time debating, what is in effect, the entire pro-China, propaganda membership of this board, and its moderating staff.

You will never change. I will never convince you of anything. Certainly trying to convince anyone who is Chinese, if you are, to change their mind on this subject is beyond impossible.

The Chinese are set in their mindset, as are you and the membership of this forum. China the victim. Everyone else wrong. China always justified. China seeking revenge for things that happened 20, 100, 150, 200, 700, 1500 years ago.

(These similarities in thinking are some of the many clues as to who posts here.)

Words will not resolve this. There is no common ground.
Click to expand...

LOL, so you're still not answering my post eh?
 
J

joshuatree

Captain
nfgc said:
I admitted the flaws of other nations. Yet you cannot read for comprehension and you continue to mention that I do not bring up said hypocrisies.

I conclude you are debating dishonestly.

Therefore, I am not going to spend my time debating, what is in effect, the entire pro-China, propaganda membership of this board, and its moderating staff.

You will never change. I will never convince you of anything. Certainly trying to convince anyone who is Chinese, if you are, to change their mind on this subject is beyond impossible.

The Chinese are set in their mindset, as are you and the membership of this forum. China the victim. Everyone else wrong. China always justified. China seeking revenge for things that happened 20, 100, 150, 200, 700, 1500 years ago.

(These similarities in thinking are some of the many clues as to who posts here.)

Words will not resolve this. There is no common ground.
Click to expand...

Bravo Sierra, I asked a few specific questions in the spirit of your challenge. What is holding you back from answering them honestly? You brushed them aside in your last reply. I've only seen you admit the flaws of the US in regards to Johnston Atoll. But I'm asking specifically about a rival claimant in the SCS. Don't give me how many years Chinese this or Chinese that and whatever about convincing me, my questions were specifically about Vietnam's actions in the SCS and what your position is in regards to that claimant's actions. It is you who at this point is debating dishonestly.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
nfgc said:
I admitted the flaws of other nations. Yet you cannot read for comprehension and you continue to mention that I do not bring up said hypocrisies.

I conclude you are debating dishonestly.

Therefore, I am not going to spend my time debating, what is in effect, the entire pro-China, propaganda membership of this board, and its moderating staff.

You will never change. I will never convince you of anything. Certainly trying to convince anyone who is Chinese, if you are, to change their mind on this subject is beyond impossible.

The Chinese are set in their mindset, as are you and the membership of this forum. China the victim. Everyone else wrong. China always justified. China seeking revenge for things that happened 20, 100, 150, 200, 700, 1500 years ago.

(These similarities in thinking are some of the many clues as to who posts here.)

Words will not resolve this. There is no common ground.
Click to expand...

nfgc, dude, just directly answer the part of Joshuatree's post which you left out... this part:

What is remaining is whether nfgc will address the questions about Vietnam's actions in the SCS and I consider this remaining only because nfgc went off on rhetoric to anyone and how it was easy money on his challenge.
Click to expand...

If you refuse to answer it then that is fine, but you're choosing to ignore that specific part of his question and not even acknowledging it, which obviously is not in the nature of good discussion.
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
Bltizo said:
Which post of yours do you want him to respond to lol?

I can't tell with so many people popping in and out in this thread.
Click to expand...

Nevermind, found it! He didn't quote me so I never got a notification.

nfgc said:
Well, some can admit wrongs.

Solarz:
The difference is in scale. China has paved over entire reefs, not cut down a few trees or reclaimed a small area. The area destroyed is 100x that of Vietnam or Johnston Reef. 3500 acres vs a few dozen.

But, and I know you cannot comprehend this, you will excuse this as everyone here does with all things China.
Click to expand...

You seem to have a knack for ignoring inconvenient facts. Again, I refer you to my post:

solarz said:
To put things in perspective, the South China Sea is home to hundreds of islands and reefs. The Spratlys alone have over 100 reefs. China has so far built 4 artificial islands.

Rampant and illegal fishing, by fishermen of all nationalities, are a far graver environmental threat to the region. Hopefully, a stronger law enforcement presence will help protect the natural environment and resources of the SCS.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the impact of the Chinese reclamation activities on the SCS reefs. That the Vietnamese reclamation is smaller is irrelevant. 4 artificial islands out of hundreds of reefs have a negligible impact on the regional ecosystem. On the contrary, much like observatories in a forest, those islands can serve as bases for improved enforcement against illegal fishing, which would result in much greater benefit to the reef ecosystem in the region.
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Equation said:
No you have all the facts before hand. You're just trying to dilute the facts by continuing this charade game.
Click to expand...
Sorry you have not provided any historical evidence to me after many repeated attempts of me asking. You were the one wanting to step up to defend the historical title but looks like you now want to step down from it. It is fine by me.
 
Y

Yvrch

Junior Member
Registered Member
nfgc said:
I don't see or feel your moral weight here, not at all.
If you made a post designed to provoke, you'll get what you are looking for.
But I'll let you go here now since this gets boring.

Tick-tock.
Click to expand...
I made post to point out hypocrisy, not provoke.
Either you admit as I have, or you prove your bias.

I have called your bluff. You think I will respond as you do, that I will never admit doing anything wrong. Unlike you I am able to admit mistakes.

You cannot admit mistakes.

I admitted that reclaiming Johnson Atoll (60 years ago) should not have been done.

Your unwillingness to make a similar statement about China just proves your bias and hypocrisy, especially after you brought up Johnston Atoll, thinking I would not admit it was wrong.

I will make this easy. Either you admit as I have, or you expose your bias. The choice is yours.

I admit this:
It was wrong for (the USA) to reclaim (Johnston Atoll).

All you need do is insert "China" for "the USA" and "Any SCS Reclaimed Land" for Johnston Atoll. Just exchange what is in the parenthesis.

We both know, however, that you won't.
Click to expand...

I thought I told you I'd let you go as I got bored.
Alright, here is a fix for you.

nfgc said:
I admit this:
It was wrong for (the USA) to reclaim (Johnston Atoll).

All you need do is insert "China" for "the USA" and "Any SCS Reclaimed Land" for Johnston Atoll. Just exchange what is in the parenthesis.

We both know, however, that you won't.
Click to expand...

Let's see. How about this?

nfgc said:
nfgc admits this:
It was wrong for (Vietnam) to reclaim (Any SCS Reclaimed Land).

All you need do is insert "Vietnam" for "the USA" and "Any SCS Reclaimed Land" for Johnston Atoll. Just exchange what is in the parenthesis.
Click to expand...

We both know, however, that you won't.

Tick-tock.
 
P

PanAsian

Major
Brumby said:
Non response sometimes is because the so called evidence provided (that is if it even qualify within the meaning of the word) is either so irrational or absurd that it doesn't warrant a reply.QUOTE]

Plenty of irrational and dubious supposed evidence, especially opinion presented as evidence, if the need for evidence supporting their positions is even acknowledged by the anti-China side.

The most common include deliberately confusing military versus civilian "freedom of navigation", mischaracterizes the varied interpretations and piecemeal acceptance of different parts of UNCLOS by many countries, ignores or plays down aggression taken or threat posed by others at China's expense, and not demanding evidence or justification for others' claims.
Click to expand...
 
Equation

Equation

Lieutenant General
Brumby said:
Sorry you have not provided any historical evidence to me after many repeated attempts of me asking. You were the one wanting to step up to defend the historical title but looks like you now want to step down from it. It is fine by me.
Click to expand...

Sorry but the world doesn't revolves around you. It is imperative for you to prove me otherwise. You know there are tons of evidence showcasing China's historical activities through out those islands, you're just refusing the facts by trying to win the argument at all cost. Looks like you're running out excuses as well as time. Ignore history at one's own peril.
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Equation said:
Sorry but the world doesn't revolves around you. It is imperative for you to prove me otherwise. You know there are tons of evidence showcasing China's historical activities through out those islands, you're just refusing the facts by trying to win the argument at all cost. Looks like you're running out excuses as well as time. Ignore history at one's own peril.
Click to expand...

Our ongoing conversation exemplifies the irrationality of a discussion that is just going round in circles. In my last post I had already provided a graceful exit for you but you seem to want to prolong a senseless conversation and so I will statisfy you.

You are right that the world doesn't resolve around me but isn't that point both useless and irrelevant. Can we just be rational like if you are making an assertion you that you provide the evidence to support it. If you are unable or unwilling, then your position is simply unfoundered. Whether there are tons of evidence out there is irrelevant. It is not my job to search for what might constitute the evidence you have in mind but for you to present your case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top