6/02/2015
The daft’s understanding of disputed territories
The South China Sea islands are disputed territories so no one can conduct land reclamation. Who said so, the Empire said so. China first laid claims to the islands donkey years ago, centuries ago. Johnny comes lately makes his claim to the islands as well, so the islands are now disputed territories.
The Philippines are claiming Sabah. So Sabah is disputed territories and the Malaysian govt cannot to anything to the state until some warlord decides who has the right to the territory. If not happy, bring in the Americans and their warships to arbitrate according to American’s interest to favour whichever party. What if someone claims that Singapore belongs to him, so Singapore is a disputed territory and no more land reclamation can be carried out, no more building of HDB flats etc etc.
Is this an acceptable argument, a reasonable logic? What if the Red Indians start to make claims to the USA, Mexico starts to make claims to California and Texas and New Mexico, would these states also become disputed territories and all works must stop?
The daft are very easy to convince and very easy to con. The Americans are using power logic, using gunboat diplomacy and thinking that might is right all over again. This is the 21st Century and the Americans may have a lot of big guns, but other countries also have big guns. You want to play the game of chicken, come lets play.
What would the daft say? What would the daft think? Oops, sorry, the daft can’t think. They just parrot whatever the Americans are saying as the right thing. Ng Eng Hen also warned about the use of force and ‘might is right’ in the Shangri La Dialogue. The gangsters have brought in their biggest team this time with their Vietnamese killer, the Number One hawk in John McCain, to support another new hawk in Ash Carter.
Might is right is the American way when they have overwhelming power like in the Middle East where they could wallop the Arabs and the Arabs could not hit back. Now with ISIS growing as the next force to reckon with, the Americans knew they could not deal with them, so they shift their theatre of war to the South China Sea. It would be good if the ISIS could do more damages to the Americans in homeland and keep them at home and not doing mischief all over the world.
ISIS has promised to fight in American soil. The prospect of that happening should bring Ash Carter and John McCain rushing home to cover their asses. If that would to happen they will have no time to talk about disputed territories in South China Sea, show of force and their pivot to Asia. The only way to deal with the Americans is in homeland America, where their comfort zone is too close for comfort.
Remember George Bush Junior running for cover during 911?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
In the theatre of global politics, MIGHT is quite correctly RIGHT. Or to put another way, if you are mighty, you are able to "negotiate" (haha) from a position of power, of strength.
"Mighty" is not just militarily powerful. It has to do with influence of culture and values, one's connections---how solid and powerful are they?...the role of the "mighty's" MONEY viz a viz foreign investment, capital transfers, foreign aid. Plus stand-alone reputation.
When you take all the above, America is clearly the "mightiest". Then you go for the reputation: whilst govts are "damned if they do, damned if they don't" become America's "allies" (whores), they invariably choose the USA over China. ASEAN and Asians dun particularly trust China, the cuntry. However they would readily accept China's MONEY, tourist dollars and cheap crap made in China---which is resold by local businesses to their populations, and thus makes many local business folks RICH.
As I constantly state: US vs China rivalry is GOOD. US + China as allies---very fucking BAD. The more the US pushes, the more China resists. The more China "reclaims" islands, the more the cuntrees of Asia go nuts and push back, via their "hired gangster", the US.
This to me is STATUS QUO. It is dynamic equilibrium.
You can't have a world without hypocrisy and "situational ethics", especially in geo-politics.
After two centuries of badmouthing China and painting it as the demon, it is not easy erase while real devil is made to look like angel and the daft believing it to be so.
@ 1147:
Ethnic Chinese all over the world are negatively stereotyped. But let's concentrate on Asia:
In Malaysia and Indonesia, ethnic Chinese have had to put up with a lot of shit. Ethnic Chinese in Thailand and Vietnam are viewed with suspicion, and sometimes derision. The Filipinos are "envious" of the wealth of their local Chinese.
However, Payback's A BITCH!. Ethnic Chinese from every SE Asian cuntry own most of the WEALTH and makes most of the MONEY. They are the people who GET SHIT DONE...whilst the lazy locals just claim their "birthright" in some form of WELFARE---paid by taxes of the productive people.
In EVERY Asian culture, it is perfectly normal, if not de rigueur, to OVERTLY DISPLAY your economic achievements, to establish yourself in the social pecking order. This breeds scorn and envy in the local, more indigenous population, especially amongst the "under achievers" (BANG BALLS), who are easily courted and seduced by sly political leaders hungry for "followers", who later become "voters".
So ethnic Chinese already got a bad rep (for being "too successful") in SE Asia. Therefore the "logic" (champalang type) follows that "mother" China is also not to be trusted. Wah, they too make pots of money...too successful lah. Don't trust, don't trust....
The whites manipulated the rest of the coloured beans so that they can enjoy their decadent lifestyles.
Seen most of them enjoying the stupid hospitality of the daft coloured beans.
Yet, they worshipped them as Gods not spell backward.
If one is weak, one will be bullied. Its like this everywhere - schools, companies, countries. If americans are weak, they will also be bullied by china or arabs or others. if one is weak, then must gang up with another one so will not be easily bullied.
"The South China Sea islands are disputed territories so no one can conduct land reclamation. Who said so, the Empire said so. China first laid claims to the islands donkey years ago, centuries ago."
I agree that US is an interfering brat and should stay out of this dispute. But I disagree China has a right to unilaterally make a move to claim the disputed territory. So what if China has claimed donkey years ago. If China really valued this place donkey years ago, it would have developed it donkey years ago when there was no dispute. It is because of oil that has been discovered that so many nations now want to claim it. No one wants a barren land.
China now moves in aggressively because of the $$$ it offers. It is bullying its way in because everyone else is a small fry. It is doing exactly what US has been doing to others. So that is hypocrisy on US part to tell China to back off. But it doesn't mean that China is an angel either.
Sorry, not spamming but need to post one more time to activate email notification.
red hot heartlander
china officially publish their claim in 1947
before your so called philippine, vietnam even exist
before any oil and gas discovery
before the concept of territorial water, UNCLOS, EEZ and international water exist
before the principle freedom of navigation exist.
china claim is far more legitimate than
philippine national territory ( derived on historical claim based on SPAIN conquest, US conquest )
or some nation try to invoke claim which exist in 13th century but it no longer exist in 15th century - 19 century.( vietnam)
"china officially publish their claim in 1947"
If you are a China supporter, you will find any excuse to support its hostile act that is causing a lot of tension in the region. So what? Why did it not then develop the islands and stake a claim then? Why only now? It's because there is oil and gas. If there is nothing there, China would not do anything today just as it did nothing in 1947.
"before your so called philippine, vietnam even exist
before any oil and gas discovery
before the concept of territorial water, UNCLOS, EEZ and international water exist
before the principle freedom of navigation exist."
Put is this way. China made a claim. It did nothing to follow up. Until there was oil. Only then it woke up and you now use the 1947 argument.
"china claim is far more legitimate than
philippine national territory ( derived on historical claim based on SPAIN conquest, US conquest )"
Legitimate here is just an opinion. Let the world court decide. There is no need for hostile action as what China is doing. Its action is causing a lot of excuses for future hostilities. This gives America, the Number One Devil, the perfect excuse to get involved. China is only facilitating US to put its armada here. Why give US that excuse?
US is right here, albeit being a hypocrite. China should stop its aggression. US of course should follow its own advice. But that is another matter outside the Spratly dispute.
red dot heartland
Let the world court decide.
____________________________________________________________________________________
sovereignty are given by the world court?
did you submit any document to the world court and get a sovereignty certificate?
if your right are created , given by the relevant court
then it is logical that you should settle the dispute in the court.
like singapore court- your right as singapore citizen been violated
like american court - your right as american citizen been violated
can you ask singapore court to recognize your right ( gay marriage )?
if you are anti china hater
you will find any excuse to call CHINA legitimate, peaceful action as
" aggression, bullying." "hostile act"
"Put is this way. China made a claim. It did nothing to follow up. Until there was oil." - false statement.
"did you submit any document to the world court and get a sovereignty certificate?"
Why should I? China is the one who should, instead of trying to stoke tension by building infrastructures (and a military airstrip that's suited for military planes at that!) on the Spratly Islands. If that is not hostile action, what is it? How can you say that is peaceful?
Imagine if Malaysia had not agreed to go to International Court on Pedra Branca case. What if they had built military installations close to that island? Remember, Malaysia has also claimed that the island is theirs long before Singapore even became independent. Going by your argument, you are willing to let Malaysia take Pedra Branca without a fight?
You also posted:
[quote]"Put is this way. China made a claim. It did nothing to follow up. Until there was oil." - false statement.
[unquote]
If that is false, then tell readers here what did China do to follow up their claim in 1947. Built a military installation on the islands? Developed the islands for their citizens to reside?
red dot heartlander,
(quote}
In assessing the history of this region, the Court concluded in its judgment of May
23, 2008,that as of 1844, Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh “was under the sovereignty of the Sultanof Johor” (para. 117), the predecessor to Malaysia,
but that “by 1980 sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh had passed to Singapore” (para. 276).
The Court found “that sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh belongs to the
Republic of Singapore” (twelve votes to four),
“that sovereignty over Middle Rocks belongs to Malaysia” (fifteen votes to one)
(unquote)
it only took a panel of 16 people to stole someone else land and invalidate your historical right. and the so called court do recognize British invader have legal TITLE.( able to pass those title to third party)
it make mockery of English legal system ( thief dont have legal title)
indirectly, court would also recognized the philippine historical right are based on SPAIN conquest, US conquest.
malaysia and singapore should settle the dispute via boxing match, football match
it is much fairer than your so called ICJ judgement.
Post a Comment