New Recruit
I understand what you mean. However, we have a map (original document) here and are dicussing about it. Let your doubts about Vietnamese's sovereignty since 16th century in another topic.
Fake up documents is the only way chinese can do to prove their "historical sovereignty" Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ;3252434 said:"Your" islands?
1) Your argument about "2000-year-old claim" is ridiculous, you said you "discovered" those islands, but in fact the "discovery" has nothing to do with sovereignty. Look at Colombo and his country, Spain.
2) We have a strong base of evidences to prove that we had sovereignty over those islands before 18th-19th century.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...tly-not-chinese-territory-13.html#post3237586
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...tly-not-chinese-territory-25.html#post3249921
3) There are many many maps from your gov before 193x which also don't have Paracel and Spartly:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...lippines-if-china-attacks-11.html#post3244021
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...tly-not-chinese-territory-24.html#post3248733
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...tly-not-chinese-territory-24.html#post3248736
1 or 2 maps isn't a problem. But so many maps is a different story
4) Vietnam and Philippines have been asked you to go to international court, but you always avoid. Why? You know that you don't have evidence, so if you go there, you will loose. End of story
In conclusion, they have never be your islands, you just came and invaded them in 1956, 1974, 1988. So China is the thief, the robber, the bully.
Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ;3253763 said:
Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ;3253813 said:
New Recruit
Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ;3249900 said:1) You haven't done what I asked: Go to google maps and find the archipelago which you think was mistaken with Paracels, capture your screen and post here.
And if you post here the same islands with my 1834 map, your argument is still invalid, and you will lost number 1).
2) You said
But in 1831:
The French book "Traité élémentaire de géographie: contenant un abrégé méthodique du Précis de la géographie universelle en huit volumes" (volume 2) was published in Paris, 1831. Page 221 said that: "equal-spaced between Hainan and Cochinchina, Paracels archipelago was depended on Annam Empire". "A une egale distance de la cote de Cochinchine et de l'ile d'Hai-nan, l'archipel de Paracels est une dependance de l'empire d'Annam". No near-coast islands in Central Vietnam is equal-spaced between Vietnamese coast and Hainan, according to 1).
Also, in our 1834 map, the near-coast islands in the Central Vietnam are also drawn and totally separated from Paracel:
So, your argument that "Vietnamese Paracel is the bar area (central Vietnam coast, islands and sandbars)" is invalid, you lost in number 2).
3) So you agree that the French mentioned the real Paracel, not the near-coast islands, because of the undeniable fact: No near-coast islands in Central Vietnam is equal-spaced between Vietnamese coast and Hainan.
Problem solved, you lost in number 3).
4)
So you still mean that Paracel (Cát Vàng) in this map is just near-coast islands?
Ok so problem solved, you failed, you lost in number 4).
5) Yes, around 200 km, that why we need 3 days 3 nights continuously.
Just do math. 3 days 3 night continuously -> 72 hours.
Speed of a small sailing ship is around 4~6 km/h. With 72 hours continuously and we start the journey in sailing season (we have the wind support us), we can even go for 288~432 km! Nothing is impossible there.
6) Just go to google map and capture the screen that archipelago
Wait a minute, you have that "near-coast islands" here separated from Paracel. So your argument about "near-coast islands in the Central Vietnam" is invalid. You lost in number 6).
7) I see, you afraid of losing so you don't want to go to international court.
So you lost number 7).
Your 193x maps mean that 193x is the first time you claim Paracel
In conclusion, you have number 1, 5 left to argue. Come on, I know you can't do it
Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ;3249921 said:Maps which prove that Vietnamese Paracel is far from the coast and "equal-spaced between Hainan and Vietnamese Central coast", but Chinese still want to argue that they are just "near-coast islands":
Western map, 1774
Western map, 1754
Western map 1735
Western map 1760
Of course China grabs islands.... we grab it so they don't fall into the hands of inferior nations like yours. We grab it so our fisherman can continue fishing there as we did for hundreds of years.
but we are not done yet -- these islands are just a forward military base to launch attacks on your country so we can subjugated you like your favorite Western powers did for hundreds of years.New Recruit
Grab is grab. However, your explaination for China's grab is quite interesting. Imagine one simple situation, you spend a night at your neiborgh's house, and then you rob the house because you want to continue to sleep there. For me, it is not reasonable but it may be reasonable for the brave Chinese like you.
1. It seems that the Vietnamese IQ is generally not high! I said many times, now you do not understand: What is the geographic coordinates. let me tell you how to use Google Maps to show the accurate location!
2 .In 1831 ,”Pracel” is a long strip region (this region: wide 106.5km long 500km). French description is too simple, there is no geographic coordinates as a reference. We do not know what geographic coordinates as a starting point, get equal distances of conclusion. Using Google Maps, starting from the northern "Pracel", arrived in Vietnam or on Hainan Island, the distance is over 200 kilometers (see satellite map). For example, people says that Korea is close to the distance from China, this proposition is established. But the problem is that China's territory is large, The fact that only in northeastern China is relatively close distance of Korea.
3. View map, Viet Nam arrived Hainan Island or Malaysia map scales roughly correct. According to Viet Nam，"黃沙" and "萬里長沙" is the Xisha and Nansha Islands, and then you will find: The map scale is a serious error! if According to this map scale,The Vietnamese side as long as necessary, Can put the coast of Vietnam some islands , Apply to become Java and Timor. It is simply not yet reached the time.
4. This map of the Chinese character meaning Annan ancient map, time for 1938, Appear the European Latin characters. Closer look, we can find a lot of serious problems: 1. Annan 1803 was renamed in Vietnam, but this 1838 map, why do you show Annan? 2. French 1858 invasion of Vietnam in 1885 colonial Vietnam, why this 1938 map appear Latin characters? 3.This map source is unknown, the production time is confusing, draw loosely and there have been many significant errors. So, can we suspect that this map is a fake?
5-6. How do you know "紅船" or "田姑船"speed? You said the speed is no real basis. Your premise is not that established, how can we reach the right result? As I have described in very clear, in 1776, when the ship's features are: small size, poor endurance, speed is very slow! In July 1795, From "廣南江口" to "占婆島", a distance of about 12 km, Chinese monks in the after noon (16:00) starting, The second day morning (24:00) reach. The journey time of eight hours, an average speed of 1.5km / h, sailing 72 hours, the voyage also 108km. From here through the ”Pracel“ the so-called Vietnam: "黃沙" and "萬里長沙", Need 197.5km, reach the Xisha Islands would need at least 250.75km.
7. I have the front that very clear, China's destiny by their own Control. China is not Vietnam, a poor and backward country, Can only be a pawn of big powers( The China in World War I), Country's destiny is not controlled by your own! Also, I would like to say: you are not only low-IQ, and eye problems. I have already released the 1712 map, does your eyes blind ?Do not see?
The Map of South and East Ocean Sea Routes was drawn in between 1712-1721 by Qing (Ching) Dynasty Fujian (Fuchien) Province Navy Commander Shi Shibiao, the son of a famous early Qing Dynasty Imperial Officer. This map shows clearly the sea routes, time and decriptions from Chinese coastal ports to Japan, Laos, Vietnam, Indonesia,Brunei, Cambodia and the Phinllipines. In this map, the locations and names of the Southern Sea Islands(Nanhai Zhudao) are very accurate. The map shows clearly Chinese sovereignty over the South China　Sea Islands including Nansha Islands, Xisha Islands, Zhongsha Islands and Dongsha Islands.Also note the "long bar area" shown in this map which locates close to the Vietnamese coast, which clearly tells that the so called "Truong Sa" and "Hoang Sa" as shown in the 1838 "Complete Map of Unified Great Nam" are not the Nansha (Spratlys) and Xisha (Paracels) Islands of China at all, but refers to the Pullo Canton near the central Vietnamese coast, which was also once been identified as "dangerous group" and named Paracels before Paracels was used to refer to China's Xisha Islands later.
This proves that your IQ is really low, you have the picture clearly support my point of view, But own not found. Western countries define “Pracel”, Representative regions are different at different times. Before 1851,Western countries will be the long bar area (central Vietnam coast, islands and sandbars) called "Pracel, After 1851, Western remove long strips of area, "Pracel" transferred to the Xisha Islands now. Note that in 1613,British Captain John Sullivan described ("LES Lunet TES") (Xisha Islands), In the long bar area ("Pracel") northeast. And then view your map, and now feel stupid?
