General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Bob
Binkov's Battlegrounds
comments

Comments by "Bob" (@bobs_toys) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds" channel.

I think whatever you can say about Karens, one thing we can all agree on is that they're the best people to use as shock troops. Doesn't even need to be a war on. Just find a machine gun nest and get them to run at it.
30
International waters.
17
The idea that the CCP's words mean anything is completely baffling.
13
Imagine believing the labels the CCP gives to things.
10
This idea that the CCP's words mean anything is pretty weird.
10
Whose yard did they enter? It certainly isn't the PRC's yard. No permission is required.
10
@4nix591 probably not. Too far away and ICBMs were the best part of a decade away. Western Europe could have been screwed, though.
8
@hooke8069 a name doesn't denote ownership.
7
@klm2639 yes they did. No issue there, it's how the war ended up. The issue was with your attempt to pretend that the PLA wasn't involved, but it was basically a rag tag militia, with the implication that the "real" PLA would have done much better. The actual PLA was involved and the war, started by the PRC's ally ended with the previous status quo. Plus a bunch of pointless deaths. For your misrepresentation, I'll put it this way. Officially it wasn't a war, it was a police action. The army wasn't an army, it was a police force. Imagine if I said that the American police had killed hundreds of thousands of PLA soldiers in a foreign land, imagine if the real US military had come in. It would be about as honest as your line.
6
@cavaleer it's more like if you have an accident on a public road near your neighbour's house, your neighbour doesn't have a right to take your car.
6
A/An are based on phonetics.
5
@klm2639 ok, they were a militia fighting against a foreign police force to a stalemate. Congratulations?
5
@klm2639 it was a UN police action. Either labels matter or they don't. You're trying to have it both ways. Choose whether the label is more important than the reality and we can proceed. Up until then, if the Chinese involved were a militia, then the UN forces were police. And this idea that the PLA trained a militia that was otherwise unrelated to it from scratch rather than transferred from it and relabelled is a simple lie.
5
@liam7903 yeah, but compared with Mao, the Japanese weren't as damaging. Considering what was to come, I can see why defeating the Japanese could be seen as an evil act by Chinese eyes.
5
@MrFlatage I've pointed you to the 2016 UNCLOS arbitration result between the PRC act the Philippines before. That you're incapable of figuring out which is the correct 2016 UNCLOS arbitration between the PRC and the Phillipines is your own problem. While we're on the subject, are you going to ask Edwin for his official sources on them being Chinese waters?
5
@titustitusnation1999 unless the CCP keeps doing what it's been doing over the last decade and it becomes a choice between just letting them go as far as they like and going to war. What's worse? Losing a war without a shot being fired? Or winning a bloody war?
4
The PRC also said it would respect Hong Kong's autonomy until 2047.
4
@Nastheweasel You're free to ignore both as meaningless. It's possible for more than one entity to have meaningless words.
4
@klm2639 regardless of the label, they were PLA and not the militia you're pretending they were, and they did manage a surprise attack from their home country against a military whose home base of supplies was about 10000km away. The surprise attack went very well. But the overall situation isn't as you're pretending it was.
4
@1badhaircut Maybe we can also sell him our bridge.
4
Some air. Not all of them.
3
@klm2639 I am enjoying this "our labels define truth but your labels are meaningless" Just like I've enjoyed the transition from it was a militia to ok it was the PLA to aren't the PLA awesome for training this militia to they were PLA soldiers under a different label. Sorry dude, but it was a police action. I don't care what you think police do or don't do, it was a police action and the Chinese people's volunteer army only managed a stalemate against a UN police force. There was also no Korean war. It was a police action. Or none of these are true and these meaningless labels were only applied for political or legal reasons Either way, at least you're following the wumao standard of being consistent in your inconsistency.
3
Why wouldn't they? They're not going to be fired on.
3
@tasteslikeawesome >>China are clearly voluntary and consensual<< To say nothing of sex between young athletes and elderly party officials! The CCP has put the resources of the state into preserving its leadership's right to commit rape.
3
@КГБ-л3п you think that the CCP has forgotten about it? That only the Taiwanese govt remembers that land? Really? As for those precautions. Russia would be totally at the economic mercy of China if the west was neutered. As an Australian whose country is far less vulnerable than yours would be (but is still very vulnerable) good luck with that.
3
@wei0951 considering the sweeping claims in the nine dash line, I can't imagine why anyone would only be talking about influence. You also don't need permission to go into a place someone merely has influence over. Edit: unless you're talking about some mafia thugs protecting their spheres, which seems a pretty relevant comparison when talking about the CCP.
3
Which part of it is sketchy?
3
@MrFlatage >>Nope that is a blatant lie. I quoted you and you stated 'the arbitration' without naming any official source to your BS claim.<< Anyone who wasn't putting effort into being half witted would have found it easy to find it from what I provided you with (multiple times) >>Now what you claim is real? Is not real at all. There was never any 'UNCLOS arbitration between the PRC and the Philippines'. Yes not a true quote cos you literally cannot spell names of nations, lmao!!<< Yes there was. >>Was this PRC there for the arbitration? Did they ... agree to any arbitration? Who actually did any 'arbitration' named by name? << Thank you for confirming that you do know what I was talking about. Any subsequent confusion on what I'm talking about will be treated as a lie. >>Has there ever been an arbitration done by UNCLOS? Part XV of UNCLOS sets forth rules for the resolution of disputes between State Parties arising out of the interpretation or application of UNCLOS. Pursuant to Article 287(1) of UNCLOS? Awwhh everyone can easily prove read UNCLOS is not doing arbitration? Lmao!!<< If your objection to something you can easily find based on what you've been given is the title not being 100% accurate, you're getting desperate. >>You really think you and I quote 'the face of the CCP' could make up some BS stories that stand against proven facts we can proof read from official sources? Named by name? Yes you are the face of the CCP. Who else would hurl false accusations against innocent untill proven guilty?<< You yourself have shown you know what I'm talking about. If it hadn't happened, you wouldn't know enough to ask whether the PRC had attended (their refusal to attend was their problem) This is just sad. >>I will have my Onus Probandi. Each time you refuse that civil right you prove it is all just lies and propaganda.<< You've been given it. Again, that you know what I'm talking about shows that your whines about not getting what you ask for are a simple lie. >>Stop avoiding and deflecting. Prove your words and claim as required by every democratic constitution on this planet.<< I'm answering directly multiple times and you've demonstrated you know what I'm talking about. >>Again ... No 50 cents for you today.<< You seem to be projecting your own job here. Also, when are you going to ask Edwin for his sources?
3
@MrFlatage >>Haha stop deflecting your lies and put them on some kinda 'Edwin'? Rommel?<< AKA the person who made the first post in this thread. It seems like a huge amount of your arguing relies on selective illiteracy and ignorance (the word for this is disingenuous, BTW) >>Yes everyone here sees no proof and evidence to your big CCP lie. Now remember all you have given is 'the arbitration'. Do you deny your own words now? Yes or no?<< You mean the arbitration you have in front of you? >>What if We the People read from real official sources? PCA case number 2013–19, also known as the South China Sea Arbitration? Oooooh how come there is no UNCLOS arbitration going on? Where is it? Come on ... prove your big CCP lie already. Cos people will proof read from the official real world source quite easily as Onus Probandi is given. Where is yours? On 19 February 2013, China declared that it would not participate in the arbitration? But ... but comrade? How can any arbitration be done one sided? Does that not defy the very definition of the word in the dictionary? Haha!!<< If one side chooses not to argue its case, that's that side's problem. >>We can proof read from the actual case from the official source. Named by name that On 12 July 2016, the arbitral tribunal ruled it would not "rule on any question of sovereignty ... and would not delimit any maritime boundary", China's historic rights claims over maritime areas remain in legal effect under UNCLOS. On 12 July the Secretary-General publically stated that UNCLOS 'doesn't have a position on the legal and procedural merits of the case or on the disputed claims''?<< Seems a bit strange for Beijing to reject it if that's the outcome. Are you sure you're not missing something? >>But? Is there not a 'UNCLOS arbitration'? Are those not the words and screams of the CCP? So I state again. Where is it? Are these not your words and claim? Against the proven facts from real world official sources? Why not simply post the UNCLOS case number? Cos it ... doesn't exist? Lmao!!<< You've already given the case number 🙂 >>Too bad everyone who is free will read from the real world sources. Not commie lies that do not exist. Going to rinse and repeat your denial and deflect to others? For days at a end? Haha yes you will. All because you do not get your 50 cents for failing China.<< If you had anything meaningful to add, you wouldn't be putting this effort into splitting hairs over the title.
3
Treasury bonds don't work that way. All that would happen is that America might have to raise the interest paid on maturation a little. It's not like something you can just call in, and if they tried selling everything at once, they would not find it was a settler's market.
3
If maintaining a legal right is pushing the world to war, there are bigger problems. Namely the entity that sees someone maintaining its legal rights as a provocation that justifies war.
3
@titustitusnation1999 I certainly hope not. I'm in Hong Kong counting down the months until I can leave. Relations between China and the world are getting bad so quickly I'll admit to being more than a touch nervous. I also don't think Australia is nearly far enough away, but unfortunately I've lost that particular debate with the wife.
2
@Bialy_1 >>As someone knowledgeable said during Soviet era: "i do not put too much attention to rumours until TASS agency deny them. 😁<< I normally wait for the CCP to throw a 'how dare you even suggest this?' tantrum.
2
@bene8168 except as a thing to avoid an immediate invasion, I doubt they'd even do that. The nine dash line both steals from their EEZ and is perfectly capable of expanding. To say nothing of whatever else the creative minds in Beijing can be expected to come up with.
2
>>Just a reminder, it's called South China Sea due to it's geographic proximity to China while the US coast is weeks away - the US isn't an actual 'world police' to patrol international waters with authority or to exercise outside it's territorial water, pretending that there's an English speaking 'world state' since WW II doesn't make it so...<< It is, however, a state that has the perfect legal right to be exactly where it is. Pretending that the CCP's nine dash line has any legal validity doesn't make it so.
2
@christophmahler >>The US NAvy has no business to patrol outside territorial waters - regardless of international law, the US never abides to, anyway, looking back to 30 years of destabilization. << Sure it does. And nice bit of whataboutism. >>It's a provocation and in the end, carriers will be sunk by anti-ship missiles or sub surface nuclear detonations. << If it's a provocation to exercise the right of free passage covered under the UNCLOS, which the PRC voluntarily signed, then the problem isn't with the US. >>This is not about the CCP, but the drive for total supremacy by the West - of which all of us have had enough.<< This is very much about the CCP's illegal attempts to achieve 'total supremacy' over territory it doesn't own, and by the agreements it voluntarily signed, has no legal right to beyond those rights enjoyed by any random nation, including the USA.
2
Why shouldn't they be able to use international waters? What's more important? The F35 or the ability for global trade to go through the international waters of the South China Sea?
2
@dps253 in other words, you can't answer either question.
2
@klm2639 which was covered over two hours ago. It was you who decided reality needed embellishment.
2
@johnmabbett6586 instead we go back to that they regained the status quo. North Korea's invasion failed, a huge amount of people died and it was all for nothing.
2
It's amazing how many are on here pushing variations of this line as if what the CCP says actually means anything.
2
So. Assume there's a war in which China comes out triumphant. There's no brakes on what the CCP can do. All serious domestic and international foes are gone. Remember those huge chunks of China the now belong to Russia? How much do you think the Russian govt trusts the CCP to not try and grab that plus a little (lot) extra because of historical (or whatever) claims?
2
Basically no need.
2
@Quadnippz My dearest friend, let's do business! It worth 20 big piles of moneys, but we sell to you for 10 big piles of moneys with a deposit of two big piles. Let me give you my cryptocurrency wallet information.
2
@williammcconville4967 Everything in China is brand new or falling apart. Having lots of new stuff doesn't mean it's good. The quality control is just the worst. There's also a difference between the plans (which may or may not be the real thing) and the finished product.
2
GPS radio frequencies are blocked by water.
2
@hahahuhu9828 Listen to the one that's made disagreeing with the party illegal and practices mass censorship and persecution of those who say or write the wrong thing? Sure, why not? If you can't trust a sociopathic dictator, who can you trust?
2
@КГБ-л3п that you didn't answer the first questions says plenty. The simple answer is you couldn't. As for the bases. Let's assume they occupied the entire (bloody large and heavily populated) country. It seems a safe bet they would have their hands full for a long time anyway. The idea that they would voluntarily allow US forces there in that event is far fetched. And involuntary imposition also means they'd be fighting a war with a huge threat to their back. And in the end.... Russia just isn't that important. You're not the USSR anymore. You're just the remnant of a failed experiment.
2
@snslifestyleorg what does that have to do with what i said?
2
@carlosschaafygarcia884 Or like a PRC/Russian fleet that went through a strait separating two major Japanese islands late last year? To which the Japanese response was basically "We're watching, but it's legal" There's also the shadowing of exercises near the Australia coastline last year (I'm not American, BTW) to which the Australian response was also "We're watching, but it's legal" Prior to that (quick search) gets you bits like this "Chinese Navy Ships Came Within 12 Nautical Miles of U.S. Coast Vessels complied with international law, Pentagon officials say"
2
Or if not theirs, then the global average.
2
@fugueguy1929 I live in Hong Kong. I've seen first hand just how much being of the same ethnicity of those in the mainland helps with the feeling of unity. I've also been going round China for the last 16 years and married a former PRC citizen. Really, the only Han Chinese who seem united are those who can expect nasty consequences if they're not. There's very loud claims to be united, but very little substance (and so many of those who are loudly claiming to be united, patriotic Chinese are funnelling their funds and family overseas as fast as they can) At a bare minimum, you need to completely ignore the last two years to say the Chinese are united.
2
@fugueguy1929 that's superficial in many ways. It's also an image given to an outsider. Face is everything. I've spent the best part of two decades viewing this country from the inside and the outside. My best way of describing it is layers of circles. Culturally on the mainland, this goes from national, right down to personal family and friends. Anyone inside your circle is to be defended and supported. Anyone outside of it is an enemy to be profited from or treated as a threat. The inner circle is most important, the outer circle is least. So when given a choice, they'll tend to preference the inner circle at the expense of the outer. This is a collectivist culture thing to begin with (look up high and low context cultures. Also look up geert hofstede's cultural dimensions) but it's made so much worse by the CCP, particularly with the long term scarring from the cultural revolution which was very much a "succeed by any means to survive" event. For contrast, broadly speaking, we're (I'm guessing you're western) come from low context cultures, which are individualistic. This both means we're not as supportive of each other, but it also means that we view outsiders as individuals, just like ourselves. But in general, ignore the words and look at the actions. They paint a very different picture. And for what the leadership is afraid of, look at their actions. Also remember that the party is more important than the country. They're simply terrified of anything that unites the people against the centre and they'd rather see China burn in a civil war than to give up power any sooner than they need to. Hong Kong is proof of that. They could have used Hong Kong as a base to experiment with preparing China for a post CCP life. They didn't. All this ignores the trust issues, btw. This thing where we trust strangers is not normal. In the PRC it's taken to an extreme.
2
My wife is from there. I was there during the 2006 north Korean missile tests. It was one of the only times I've had nightmares. Far too close for comfort.
2
@clarkecorvo2692 Because they're the face of the CCP that people can easily access without going through the media. As much as they do a wonderful job of making themselves look like idiots, sometimes they need a bit of help.
2
@erikb8979 and then if Russia and the PRC were the winning side, neutering the ability of Western countries to oppose them... To start with, take a look at a Qing dynasty map. There's a lot of land there that's part of Russia. To say nothing of a vast, overpopulated country bordering a vast, sparsely populated region. You could say they were victorious allies and would never turn on each other, but I think we've tried that script for ww2. And you could say they'd sign a treaty if eternal friendship and promise never to be bad, but Hong Kong shows those agreements are easily made nothing more than historical documents of no practical significance
1
If a Russia PRC alliance won and achieved dominance, leading to no country having the clout to stop the PRC doing whatever it liked, how long do you think there would be peace between them? Keeping in mind the CCP is great at making up excuses on why things should belong to it and there's an awful lot of Siberian land that was once Chinese. You could sign a treaty with it, but Hong Kong shows those don't mean much.
1
@Nastheweasel >>that was always an option, but in this case china's words and actions match. << Do they? How do you know this? >>Americans in the south china sea are looking for their expensive junk and china isn't.<< You have your own spy satellite network? Edit: I should be clear - I'd have no problems with them searching for it. To me, it's fair game. There's no moral issue or blah de blah. But this idea that they're not searching for it is simply ludicrous. Only an imbecile (the same sort who'd take their words at face value) wouldn't be searching for it. Further edit: the only plausible reason for them to not search is if the chance of finding it first was basically zero.
1
@Nastheweasel you didn't answer my question of where this intimate knowledge of their actions came from. What your post lacked in brevity it made up for in irrelevance.
1
@Nastheweasel >>what intimate knowledge are you going on about? Do you know what it takes to pull out an F-35 that has crashed into the sea and sunk? Even if china wanted to retrieve it With all the American warships present how would they go about doing that?<< You think they'd be fired on if they found it first and got the crane out? >>It's a Job that requires a navy salvage ship among other things. What do you think china has an invisible navy?<< I don't. What I think it has is a navy you know nothing about, despite your claims that their actions matched their words. >>If there isn't a race to retrieve something for whatever reason there isn't a race so what do you want to run in circles about pretending to be a great wise general?<< You mistaking not pretending that the CCP is remotely honest (you first relied on their words, remember?) and not pretending that you've got knowledge of what the PLAN is doing (your second reason was their actions matching their words, remember?) for my pretending to be a great wise general. I haven't said they're doing or not doing anything. What I've said is the logic you've given for your knowledge of their actions is BS.
1
@Nastheweasel Just enjoying myself pointing out that intelligent people don't take the CCP's word at face value 🙂 Thank you for being further evidence of this.
1
@Nastheweasel My point is quite simple. I've been given many times, but here it is again: The CCP's words are meaningless. Maybe they coincide with reality, maybe they don't, but their words are only ever connected with reality by coincidence. The stuff you're coming up with really says you're relying on your imagination to argue against what I say, rather than what I'm actually saying 🙂if I thought you were capable of shame, I'd say you should be embarrassed. Also: If they think they've got a chance of getting it (or even think if they keep their stuff in the right place) of course they'd make the attempt, or be ready for the opportunity if it came up. It basically costs them nothing (meaningful) to do this vs what would be at minimum a propaganda victory, at best might get them something useful. Only someone with the sort of brain you're showing (youtube has a tendency to delete posts that bluntly describe people like you) wouldn't at least be ready for the attempt.
1
@Nastheweasel Still don't understand how only an imbecile takes the CCP's words at face, value, hey? I'm sorry I was too confusing for you 🙂 I should know that the sort of person who takes the CCP's word at face value needs things explained in a far simpler way than is reasonably possible. Anyway, I've got no idea how you'll read this. All I really know for certain is what you read won't be what was written.
1
Why would Indonesia side with the PRC? Do you think they're imbeciles who don't see what happens if the PRC is dominant?
1
@bobojr456 Is a pretty minor thing vs what's openly under threat from the CCP's expansionism.
1
@lenomali It's difficult to see what your point is or what you're getting at.
1
It's even funnier how he has zero issue with any unsourced claim about these being Chinese waters. I like him, though. He's so obviously a disingenuous troll that he does a first class job of making the CCP look bad by association. TBH, I love the entire 50 cent army for that.
1
True. The main vulnerability is economic. Kind of like how the USSR just caved in on itself. There's no need to take the land, causing economic collapse and letting whatever internal chaos comes next is plenty good enough.
1
@TheXanian one of these countries is terrified of separatism. Plus, a pro CCPer like yourself should know the value of an external enemy.
1
@yaucharles91 and if they don't, and the PRC wins, they've got the PRC as a neighbour with nothing holding them back. Which sounds at least as bad as what you're describing.
1
@anti-amentia5437 you say this as if China doesn't try to use economics to (very, very blatantly) control and punish other countries. I'm Australian. We've had a huge backlash for the dastardly crime or daring to ask how this incredibly damaging pandemic started. Plus the 14 points. Edit: you should also try telling China's other neighbours this. Anyone who's worried about the claims in the South China sea for a start.
1
@anti-amentia5437 I'd say it's interesting that you think that scripted boilerplate ramble was a response to what I'd actually said, but.... It's not interesting. It's just the boring same old, same old we've come to expect from the sort of people the CCP thinks improves its image.
1
@christophmahler >>You may argue like a child about a self-righteous historical mission of the US - including the elusive UNCLOS, set up by the US that had introduced the current confusion about 'extended zones' which had to lead to conflict. << According to the arbitration of the Phillipines claims, there's no such confusion. If it's a bad treaty, maybe the CCP shouldn't have voluntarily signed it. >>After the war, there will be nothing left to base such childlike vanity upon and we - the nationalist outside the Anglosphere - shall see to it that it won't when it comes to it...<< Actively preserving international rights, which the CCP voluntarily decided were worth signing up for is childlike vanity? Also, do you think what happens in general won't affect you and your family within the PRC?
1
@christophmahler lol. So let me get this straight. Either you think you're magically going to be safe if the barbarians in Beijing launch a nuclear war or you've got so little to live for that you're looking forward to the barbarians in Beijing ending everything in a nuclear holocaust (along with the lives of pretty much everyone else in the PRC) Which is it? Do you believe in magic? Or do you simply not enjoy living? Also, thank you for showing the barbarity of the pro CCPer (who's both savage and witless enough to gloat over the coming nuclear war intended to preserve his theft)
1
@christophmahler so from your gloating about nuclear war, I'm curious. Do you think you're magically going to be protected? Or is your life simply bad enough that you view a nuclear holocaust as an improvement?
1
@christophmahler I'm still curious. Do you believe in magic? Or do you hate your life? Anyone who actually gloats over the chance of a nuclear war is either an imbecile or a failure
1
Given two major cities inside a country that controlled and that MacArthur was in charge of had been nuked only five years prior, it seems a safe bet they at least had this much knowledge
1
@tek87 that's a fair counterpoint
1
Because the objective isn't to destroy the other side at any cost.
1
@03mai67 I see Carrie Lam saying the same thing about Hong Kongers support for her policies.
1
@dps253 >>No. I don't have an answer to your ideological question<< It seems a pretty practical one to me. >>because currently there's no danger of any trade route disruption, even with the Chinese military establishments in the middle of South China Sea<< Before anything else: It's interesting that even you felt the need to insert the word 'currently'. Anyway, is this where we try to pretend that the CCP doesn't use trade as a way of punishing countries that say things it doesn't like? More seriously: 1. The world (even if only tacitly) decides that these are PRC waters, and that the PRC has the right to say who can go through them. 2. The PRC starts to find reasons why ships going to countries it dislikes can't go through them. >>On the contrary, with her focus on the BRI project which will require this Seaway and all other international trade routes to be free of disruption,<< All approved trade routes >>China will ensure this passage be accessible to everyone<< Accessible to all approved entitites. >>But obviously you agree with sending 80% of the Navy strike groups to exercise in an area where there is no clear and present danger<< The only way there isn't a clear and present danger is if you believe the CCP doesn't have a tendency to use trade (and trade embargoes) as a weapon. >>while ignoring the real flashpoint 8000 km to the West,<< You mean the land based flashpoint? >>and you are more than willing to lose 78M of tax payers' money to a phantom mission,<< Peanuts vs the value of trade going through there. >>and you inadvertently place higher priority on commercial interest over democracy preservation, then in that case, I have no answer for that.<< How is allowing totalitarian states to have a powerful tool they could (If you're going to claim that the CCP doesn't use trade as a weapon, this Australian will simply laugh at you) use against democracies democratic preservation? More to the point, what do you even mean when you say 'democracy preservation'?
1
Anyone who's seen a Qing era map and compared it with today should be able to see that. And what happens next.
1
These are international waters.
1
@abcdefgabcedfg it's international waters, according to the UNCLOS, which the CCP voluntarily signed.
1
@abcdefgabcedfg a rose by any other name is still international waters. But if the only argument you've got is as irrelevant as a label, then that tells us everyone we need to know about the emptiness of the excuses behind the CCP's theft from its neighbours.
1
@abcdefgabcedfg because it's near to China. Same as the Indian Ocean. Only a liar or an idiot thinks that a convenient name = ownership. And why try to pretend that the PRC is more than the CCP? Only what the CCP wants matters. China and the Chinese people are completely irrelevant.
1
@abcdefgabcedfg (assuming it was exactly how you say it was) just like 1/4 of the globe was part of the British Empire and the entire Mediterranean was part of the Roman Empire? Lots of places were part of other places and now aren't. Only idiots use random bit of historical ownership to justify taking stuff, because it all becomes an irreconcilable mess. And in case you think you're special.... You're not. Which is why what's far more important is the UNCLOS, which the CCP voluntarily signed. If they didn't agree with how it defined ownership, they shouldn't have signed it. (Instead it looks like they signed it while intending to break it)
1
@abcdefgabcedfg Independent Taiwan isn't aggressively pressing any claims there. It's the CCP along with its property (that's you, amongst others. You're their property) in the mainland that's doing this.
1
@abcdefgabcedfg Overlapping territorial claims don't make independent Taiwan part of the PRC. And independent Taiwan has nothing to do with the actions of the CCP dominated PRC. If we're going to go by that they're both China, for accuracy we need to remember that there are two, separate, independent Chinas. One is the seccessionist PRC (You don't secede from things that came after you. They secede from you). The other is the original Republic of China, now known as Taiwan.
1
@abcdefgabcedfg You seem to have a weird fixation on labels and claims as if they mean everything. I've seen the Republic of China's (Short name is Taiwan) territorial claims. If you want to insist on it being China, then we're going to be talking about two separate, independent Chinas with overlapping territorial claims. (Here's where we need to remember that the sociopaths who run the separate country across the strait have threatened to invade if they do things like change the name) Sound good to you? That'll remove the confusion that will naturally come from pretending that these two, separate, independent countries are the same country.
1
@abcdefgabcedfg Just like Singapore? Australia eats largely British food, takes similar holidays to the UK, speaks English, it's part of the UK, right? Same with Canada, the USA, etc.
1
@abcdefgabcedfg It was. Now it isn't. The UK now has absolutely no claim on Australia (or America, or Canada, or India, or any of its former colonies) Just like how the territories that now comprise the PRC once were part of the ROC. Then the CCP led a rebellion and seceded. And now they're not. (By contrast, the territories that the ROC controls have never been part of the PRC)
1
@abcdefgabcedfg And now they're not. Do you see how that works? When a situation changes, it's different to what it was before. The past and the present are not the same thing. But thank you for differentiating between the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China. It's confusing to refer to two separate, independent nations by the same name 🙂
1
@abcdefgabcedfg At best (without knowing more specifics), that island would give independent Taiwan (If you're going to insist on using the short form name, the correct short form is Taiwan, not China) territorial waters about 12 nautical miles and an EEZ of 200NM in the South China Sea. Depending on what was around it. IIRC generally it would be halfway between it and the start of another country's legal claims.
1
@abcdefgabcedfg What's your point?
1
@abcdefgabcedfg which UN law? Which part of it says it extends out to the entire sea? Can you quote it? For bonus points, it needs to be signed by the ROC. if the ROC hasn't signed it, it doesn't apply to the ROC. The ROC is not bound by agreements signed by the PRC.
1
@abcdefgabcedfg I can't begin to imagine how you would even begin to believe that such an irrelevant statement answered my question.
1
@derbaeumaed8158 well I know that I liked many of my comments twice. Because that's a thing you can do.
1
@mrhdebater1607 I'm not pretending to know what goes on in their minds (although propaganda value alone of getting it would be enough) What I'm pointing out here is that the CCP's words are meaningless.
1
@frankyshh6827 you started your level of accuracy with your first statement and kept it consistent until the end. Congratulations😁 Seriously, if you're going to lie, try to come up with a believable one. The CCP is obsessed with its image.
1
@mrhdebater1607 >>If their words are meaningless, why are they not trying to fish this plane out of the sea? Why are they not bringing their navy along international waters heading to the US doing the same thing the US is doing in the SCS? << You're the second person I've come across on here arguing as if he has intimate knowledge of what the PLAN is doing. >>We all know the US wants a war so it needs to attack China first, but China is not interested in taking the bait, it is only interested in its own national security which is to defend itself, and the US can't win that way.<< As long as you ignore Taiwan and the result of its theft of the South China Sea. The PRC is only interested in self defence when there's nothing it thinks it can get away with grabbing.
1
@mrhdebater1607 >>And you are the only person suggesting that the Chinese has some secret plan of taking over the US's 800 military base camps stationed all over the world as if it wants to militarily control the world. Completely laughable. India has 9 military base camps around the world, some thousands of KMs from its mainland, that's 8 more than what China has, and you're telling me that China is a threat.<< Can you quote me on this? >>Taiwan is one of China's islands, what does this have to do with the topic?<< Taiwan is an independent nation whose capture can put Japan in a vulnerable position. >>Grabbing what? Guam? Hawaii? Puerto Rico? Pacific islands? 800 locations on foreign soils to support its military activities? The oil fields that it developed in Syria to steal oil? The dozens of invasions and the 5 wars that it currently fights in? Share with me your vast knowledge of the topic Robert Bray.<< The EEZs of the countries in the South China Sea are a prime example..... Basically, you're pretending to be completely ignorant of the topic at hand as an excuse to retreat to whataboutism. And that's the polite interpreation of this.
1
Who's starving?
1
Something like that. IIRC Different plane. Collided with a PLAAF plane that was flying dangerously.
1
@Benji-jj2bg ignoring that 100m isn't very far. The admiral who fired first would be the one who was ready to be responsible for starting a shooting war.
1
According to the UNCLOS, which the PRC voluntarily signed, those aren't its rightful territorial waters.
1
@williammcconville4967 >>5 million crap copys are more than likely better than a thousand originals<< That's nice. PLAAF apparently has about 4k planes vs the USAF's roughly 6k To say nothing of what the rest of the developed world has. >>if china had enough pointy sticks and the will the rest of the world hasnt enough bullets to stop them they can lose 7 to 1 all day long for a draw<< Only if they can get those pointy sticks to where they're needed. Only if they can supply the holders of those pointy sticks.
1
@WalkOverHotCoal >>Obvious the best quality control measures of America are still unable to prevent a F35 from falling into sea. More quality control over the existing quality control? << You're expecting perfection at all times? Screw ups happen. >>Ohh...I nearly forgotten about the Boeing 737 Max<< I guess I could put the same response here as well. Also, which of these is meant to contradict what I said?
1
@puellamservumaddominum6180 >>finished product of f 35 is not very good either. F35 is a maintenence nightmare<< That's more of a relevant issue if they're not being maintained. There's a huge difference between difficult to maintain and unmaintained. Which is why we go back to: In the PRC, everything is either brand new or falling apart.
1
@WalkOverHotCoal That, (plus a tendency to not bother to maintain stuff) but I don't see anything in your posts that's meant to contradict it. America not being perfect doesn't magically mean that the PRC isn't a country with terrible quality control and maintenance. America being exactly like North Korea wouldn't magically mean this either.
1
@WalkOverHotCoal Ok, when you first go into a major area, you're generally stunned. The entrance and central bits of a tier 1 city like Beijing, Shenzhen or (I assume) Shanghai is glorious. Priority is heavily placed on things that give a good first impression to outsiders. Image really is everything. If you don't spend much time there, you come away pretty amazed. Move away from things that come under this category and it changes. You can walk around a random city or town and basically see bad paving, concrete coming off walls. Last time I was in Shenyang, I went into a major govt run hotel that's heavily used by officials. It looked fine from a distance, but you go closer there are cracks in the facade, there were water leaks in the bedroom and so on (You had a shower, a couple of square meters next to the bed was soaked) and so on. There's a culture of rebuilding what's decayed, rather than doing anything for the long term and maintaining. And this last bit applies to a huge amount there. Everything is short term expediency. As true for simple things like queuing as it is for major things like construction.
1
@puellamservumaddominum6180 OK That doesn't contradict what I say, though. There's a difference between difficult to maintain and not maintained. Those things, however costly to maintain they may be, are maintained.
1
@williammcconville4967 >>you do realise they are building and building fast. Ever hear the term throw enough shit at the wall some is going to stick? << In this case, the shit that doesn't stick is a massive drain. >>Miss the memo of the hypersonic missles did we?<< I'd ask what that's got to do with reliability and maintenance, but the reality is it's got nothing to do with it, it's just a high profile thing that gets spoken about lots, while not being nearly what it needs to be. Like the high speed rail, which has turned into a liability.
1
@williammcconville4967 Considering that nuclear submarines are a thing that can wipe out a city within a few minutes and can't be destroyed in a first strike, it really isn't the game changer you think it is. The question isn't how do you do the first strike? but how do you prevent/survive the return strike? If I'm wrong, please explain how. Otherwise it goes into the category of being a massive bluff, however few bits of shit might stick where they're actually supports to go.
1
@williammcconville4967 >>mass production is more important that quality when it comes to large scale war. Just look at a sherman then look at a tiger tank. Perfection is the enemy of good enough.<< To a degree. Particularly for a defensive war. (The PRC won't be invaded. It'll just be put under blockade - It'll need its war to be fought away from its shores to get supplies) But I'd already replied to you on this subject. Maybe have a look above at the numbers for each. Having a massive amount of extra X only helps you when you actually have a massive amount of extra X.
1
@williammcconville4967 if you're bringing up hypersonic missiles, you're bringing up something whose primary use is as a first strike weapon. If you're talking about that, then it seems fair to say that talking about nuclear war (which I agree won't happen) is relevant. As far as having what they need goes, the PRC lacks food, fuel and raw materials. It's very vulnerable to siege
1
@williammcconville4967 see my other post about simply blockading China. If there's even anyone who wants to trade with it when it starts properly lashing out. It's a pretty friendless country.
1
@williammcconville4967 name their friends that could supply them and won't know that if the PRC ever gets complete control of the South China sea that they're next.
1
@williammcconville4967 that depends on the sources I'm waiting for. No point saying the Spanish would block cargo going from Papua New Guinea, now, is there? Edit: keep in mind that in this scenario, a shooting war has started. The time for ignoring what happens if the PRC becomes dominant is past.
1
@williammcconville4967 >>just like i said before just keep changing the angle, i cant be bothered going in circles time will tell<< I've just been replying to what you've said. If you can't answer it, that's your own problem. Worth pointing out here that this is in response to your waving a hypersonic missile magic wand around and pretending it'll basically put a stop to global air and sea travel that's not approved by them. If this were remotely true, Taiwan would be invaded by now and the rest of the world would be doing whatever they wanted. If it's true only for the seas around them, then we get back to blockade from pretty much any source of their needs (which are more than food) - Their neighbours know that if the PRC is ever dominant, they're dead (this includes Russia) and those far away are the sources of very long, very vulnerable supply lines. >>Only thing china needs is food << Minor thing. Barely worth a mention. Just like coal for heating and electricity. Another minor thing they depend imports for from countries they're a threat to. And oil. Easy, right? Russia's right there. Except look up what the Empire of China handed over to Russia over the last 160 years. I'm happy to continue. It's not the best of pictures. >>they will take the land they need<< From where? And how long before it's producing what they need? >>You do know who put them in power dont you? Look how doing what your saying effected them.<< Can you expand on this?
1
Whose back yard is this? It's definitely not the PRC's.
1
@holdfast453 it's interesting that you think that answers my question.
1
@holdfast453 how many recently? Can you give some dates and incidents so we can compare?
1
@holdfast453 oh, I thought you were talking about modern times, not stuff from the cold war (a time which had a mentality the new USSR keeps telling us to abandon) There was also this idea that we were talking about international waters, freedom of navigation and things related to that.
1
@holdfast453 yes, I saw the law. Try reading my comment again. I asked whose backyard it was and pointed out it definitely isn't the PRC's.
1
@holdfast453 why are you bringing up a landlocked country that harboured people who launched a major attack killing thousands in response to a question that's very clearly about excessive maritime claims?
1
@holdfast453 what does that have to do with who owns that patch of sea?
1
@holdfast453 Sure. Good luck in figuring out how to answer a question. It's a useful skill.
1
Ok. So there's a massive nuclear war. And then what?
1
Much more likely.
1
Saiyaku Ish the disparity between North and south has increased a little since the 1950's.
1
>>China announces they have no interest in the sunken F35<< What the CCP announces should never be taken as a guide to reality.
1
@КГБ-л3п because the first thing that would happen after China was victorious is it would start bringing up the huge amounts of land it's previously ceded to Russia.
1
@КГБ-л3п how would you deal with it? How could you deal with it? And you think American forces are going to take Siberia away?
1
@КГБ-л3п when you cherry pick the end of a statement and ignore everything that came before it, that says whatever reply you make is the best reply you think you can make. And when your reply doesn't actually address what was said, that says anything else you might have said was worse than your terrible best reply. Anyway, the USSR was a failed experiment. It failed completely. The system it tried to make work failed everywhere it was tried. And if no one cares about the USA or NATO, then your whole argument for Russia teaching the side of the PRC in any conflict is invalid. The PRC then is absolutely the bigger threat to Russia.
1
@КГБ-л3п I love how sensitive and defensive you are. No argument, just a Greta style "how dare you?" and trust in the CCP keeping its word. Good luck with your military, btw. Theirs is bigger and backed by a bigger economy. There's only so much a shrinking population with an economy 3/4 the size of Italy's can do. As far as the USSR not being a failed experiment. It's gone now. If the only achievement you can name is it helped defeat a slightly worse dictatorship (it had started the war in alliance with) then what was the point in it for the final 4.5 decades of its existence? History didn't stop with 1945. Edit: funny you mention Hitler and asking since when do outsiders get to decide who's a threat. Stalin had a strong tendency to ignore warnings from outsiders on who and who isn't a threat. It looks like you learnt nothing from that. And Stalin did choose to side with the most dangerous power at the time, "end of discussion"
1
1
1
First world = NATO/West aligned Second world = Soviet aligned Third world = unaligned. It was only later that these came up be references to economic development.
1
Steven Cher does it matter, as long as it works?
1
Steven Cher in a similar vein my question to your disparagement of India's tactics, do the reasons being impure matter nearly as much as the results?
1
They won't use nuclear missiles.
1
Nick Bennett worse. An independent country which chose to side with America.
1
@angelarmas8703 it's everything the CCP touches.
1
@fugueguy1929 as one half of a civil war, it looks like he was a very disuniting factor. And the country still isn't united. Particularly not in any stable way. I'm not just talking about Taiwan here. Huge swathes, obviously including Hong Kong are only kept in by use of force. And even then, I see so many excusing the CCP's failures by saying they've got a huge job. It seems like it would be better overall if the country were broken into smaller, easily administered chunks that could do what's best for them.
1
@amateur9626 you should tell the Spanish and Portuguese that. Peninsula wars.
1
@MrFlatage THis is a huge amount of rambling from someone who's had to pretend to not know the name of the person who started this thread. When are you going to ask him for his evidence that these are Chinese waters? Instead, we've even gone into such irrelevant inanities as arguing there's no such country as America. You can try again and keep it on topic all you like, but otherwise, thank you for being so blatant about going all over the place 🙂
1
@MrFlatage You've posted the case number yourself. It's pretty sad to get as hung up on a simple title as you are (if you'd been unable to find it, that would be one thing... But you found it). It shows you've got nothing of substance to offer. Still waiting for the same demands of Edwin, BTW (The person at the beginning of this thread. The one who you were forced to have no knowledge of)
1