Comments by "Yerris" (@yerri5567) on "" video.

  1.  @tinvan6824  Always? China had documented jurisdiction over it for at least 1000 years. Even China had control over Vietnam for over 1000 years. And your Prime Minister Pham wrote a letter to China in 1958 saying Vietnam acknowledges and respects Chinas claim over the Spratly and Paracel islands. Its a done deal. Its not until the 1970s after oil was found that Vietnam formally claimed the islands in the SCS.
    31
  2. @Fans.of.Darth.Vaders.Empire Look carefully. The "teardrop" on its face doesnt even look like the 9 dashed lines
    5
  3.  @antoniussamuelson3748  "We live in 21st century bro" I brought up history because the guy above said "always". Context matters. "but occupying a country does not make that occupied country belong to the occupiers" Yes it does. If it doesnt, then by your logic, southern Vietnam doesnt belong to Vietnam because that used to be part of part of Cambodia? "You can't said that vietnamese spratly island belong to china just because china in the past colonized vietnam" I never said that. Those were 2 different sentences with 2 different points as indicated when I used the word "even". China claims those islands because they had documented jurisdiction over it in previous dynasties, even when Vietnam wasnt part of China.
    5
  4.  @antoniussamuelson3748  No. With my logic, it means that if France decides to take over Vietnam now, and wins the war, then Vietnam becomes part of France. Territory belongs to whoever wins the war. And yes, the islands were never inhabited (by neither Vietnam nor China). They were fishing grounds, not places to live. Just like many areas like forests and deserts of large countries are not inhabited by people, that doesnt mean its not theirs. This has been widely documented. And there were markers on the islands what are you on about?
    2
  5. You are talking about history here, so of course we have to talk about happens in history. Whether you agree with it or not, that happened, and is still happening till this day. Doesnt matter if I "want" it or not. It is what it is. If the US was to take over Canada and Greenland. Who can stop them? Will "disagreeing" stop them? You can disagree all you want, but thats reality. Territory belongs to those that conquered. Invalid? What makes it "valid" then? Do you even have a proper answer to that question? Is Vietnams claims "valid"? Are the Frenches claims "valid"? What makes it "valid"? By occupying it? By "building" on it? Again, territories does not need to be inhabited or physically marked. There are many forests, deserts, mountains, grasslands etc in this world that are uninhabited. Must countries inhabit them or build upon them or "mark" them for it to be theirs? If that is your logic, then the MAJORITY of this words land cannot be claimed by their respective countries. Who are you to say countries must "build" upon that territory otherwise their claim is "invalid"? And like I said already, China did have physical markers. Look it up yourself. Markers dont have to be buildings. It could be flags too.
    2
  6.  @antoniussamuelson3748  You are talking about history here, so of course we have to talk about happens in history. Whether you agree with it or not, that happened, and is still happening till this day. Doesnt matter if I "want" it or not. It is what it is. If the US was to take over Canada and Greenland. Who can stop them? Will "disagreeing" stop them? You can disagree all you want, but thats reality. Territory belongs to those that conquered. Invalid? What makes it "valid" then? Do you even have a proper answer to that question? Is Vietnams claims "valid"? Are the Frenches claims "valid"? What makes it "valid"? By occupying it? By "building" on it? Again, territories does not need to be inhabited or physically marked. There are many forests, deserts, mountains, grasslands etc in this world that are uninhabited. Must countries inhabit them or build upon them or "mark" them for it to be theirs? If that is your logic, then the MAJORITY of this words land cannot be claimed by their respective countries. Who are you to say countries must "build" upon that territory otherwise their claim is "invalid"? And like I said already, China did have physical markers. Look it up yourself. Markers dont have to be buildings. It could be flags too.
    1
  7.  @antoniussamuelson3748  Comments above
    1
  8.  @antoniussamuelson3748  Couldnt tag
    1
  9.  @antoniussamuelson3748  Cant tag you for some reason
    1