What's new

China's Leadership increaingly worried about Military's hunger for power.

Major Shaitan Singh

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Dec 7, 2010
Messages
3,550
Reaction score
43
Country
India
Location
India
Basically, Hu, before stepping down, is rapidly promoting people loyal to him to the general position, some 46 so far in order to keep a strict control on the PLA. Of course, PLA isn't liking this very much and is struggling to worm its way out and craving political power. One drunken Col., on a drunken tirade, lambasted Hu in front of his face by calling, "Whoever promotes me is my daddy". What with South China Sea and other territorial dispute heating up over there, this can get ugly if not handled properly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48563506/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times
 
.
Basically, Hu, before stepping down, is rapidly promoting people loyal to him to the general position, some 46 so far in order to keep a strict control on the PLA. Of course, PLA isn't liking this very much and is struggling to worm its way out and craving political power. One drunken Col., on a drunken tirade, lambasted Hu in front of his face by calling, "Whoever promotes me is my daddy". What with South China Sea and other territorial dispute heating up over there, this can get ugly if not handled properly.

NYT: Outspoken military alarms China's leaders - World news - The New York Times - NBCNews.com

Hello Major Satan Singh, this has been posted for so many times. Do Indian know English and post properly? Why Indian love to repeated themselves? Are they born with backward?
 
. . .
before 1960, Philippean never printed Spratly Islands on their official maps . and now they take them,just cauz the china's army did nothing. before 1990, Philippean never think Huangyan as their's. **** army of china
 
.
About time the PLA had more power, we need as many hardliners as possible to deal with despotic foreign regimes!
Military regimes are usually despotic. But cheer up, this is a sign that China is becoming a despotic 'praetorian state', just as you hoped for.
 
.
before 1960, Philippean never printed Spratly Islands on their official maps . and now they take them,just cauz the china's army did nothing. before 1990, Philippean never think Huangyan as their's. **** army of china

Why does China don't have a single map that have Paracels, Spratlys and Scarborough shoal/Panacot before 193x???
Vietnam have maps from 17xx, 18xx that have Paracels.
Philippines have maps from 17xx, 18xx that have Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal.
FACT: Chinese have "invisible historical evidences."

Just to enlighten you:

correspond.jpg


bajo+de+masinloc+-+USCGS+chart.jpg


page+26-bajo+de+masinloc+-+spratly.jpg



Here's more of our old maps:

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...03x403/487964_391121970944854_523560965_n.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2EpmmpsPOM0/T-9lcQxuTBI/AAAAAAAAHnk/_-N_wlLRc-8/s640/correspond.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NIUlB3CTX...A/s640/page+26-bajo+de+masinloc+-+spratly.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-N99Y8lx71eo/T-8XVhopbZI/AAAAAAAAHfs/pb8G63bDVes/s1600/page+45.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HhWAef6qaYI/T-8XEfEYLsI/AAAAAAAAHfg/LR_1U7hbBko/s640/page+44.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zrpC0VRIjiA/T-8WztedEoI/AAAAAAAAHfY/Dpzyc43_2cU/s640/page+43.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EWAPWa3p-BQ/T-8V16yEWJI/AAAAAAAAHe4/JODfKeARLF0/s640/page+40-c.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RXCDr_9GdDc/T-8Rvq9lnBI/AAAAAAAAHeI/qihmYrAvqV8/s640/page+40-a.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fh9DUBsv8Ko/T-8QxnGMarI/AAAAAAAAHds/W6x0boiG8BQ/s640/page+37.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TNiLFHX7M0Y/T-8P4HYoynI/AAAAAAAAHdY/2WnF8hmlVSU/s640/page+35.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LTtLvZPTF_Y/T--kbCr_4RI/AAAAAAAAHoM/khhTUNUGd8c/s640/page+30b.jpg

Go here if you want to see more of our old Philippine maps:

Em Esber Blog 2: Three Hundred Years of Philippine Maps 1598-1898



In the case of Bajo de Masinloc, the Philippines has exercised both effective occupation and effective jurisdiction over Bajo de Masinloc since its independence.
 
.
Why does China don't have a single map that have Paracels, Spratlys and Scarborough shoal/Panacot before 193x???
Vietnam have maps from 17xx, 18xx that have Paracels.
Philippines have maps from 17xx, 18xx that have Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal.
FACT: Chinese have "invisible historical evidences."

Just to enlighten you:5

correspond.jpg


bajo+de+masinloc+-+USCGS+chart.jpg


page+26-bajo+de+masinloc+-+spratly.jpg



Here's more of our old maps:

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...03x403/487964_391121970944854_523560965_n.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2EpmmpsPOM0/T-9lcQxuTBI/AAAAAAAAHnk/_-N_wlLRc-8/s640/correspond.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NIUlB3CTX...A/s640/page+26-bajo+de+masinloc+-+spratly.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-N99Y8lx71eo/T-8XVhopbZI/AAAAAAAAHfs/pb8G63bDVes/s1600/page+45.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HhWAef6qaYI/T-8XEfEYLsI/AAAAAAAAHfg/LR_1U7hbBko/s640/page+44.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zrpC0VRIjiA/T-8WztedEoI/AAAAAAAAHfY/Dpzyc43_2cU/s640/page+43.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EWAPWa3p-BQ/T-8V16yEWJI/AAAAAAAAHe4/JODfKeARLF0/s640/page+40-c.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RXCDr_9GdDc/T-8Rvq9lnBI/AAAAAAAAHeI/qihmYrAvqV8/s640/page+40-a.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fh9DUBsv8Ko/T-8QxnGMarI/AAAAAAAAHds/W6x0boiG8BQ/s640/page+37.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TNiLFHX7M0Y/T-8P4HYoynI/AAAAAAAAHdY/2WnF8hmlVSU/s640/page+35.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LTtLvZPTF_Y/T--kbCr_4RI/AAAAAAAAHoM/khhTUNUGd8c/s640/page+30b.jpg

Go here if you want to see more of our old Philippine maps:

Em Esber Blog 2: Three Hundred Years of Philippine Maps 1598-1898



In the case of Bajo de Masinloc, the Philippines has exercised both effective occupation and effective jurisdiction over Bajo de Masinloc since its independence.

That is how far you can go???
watermark.php

This map is from 1405-1421 by Zhenghe voyage, and it has . At that time there even was no unifying political state encompassing the entire Philippine Archipelago.

By the twelfth century, names for the South China Sea Islands began to appear, the Paracels and the Spratlys were referred to more consitently as Changsha and Shitang. By the mid-fourteenth century, Shitang could be accurately identified as the Spratlys. There is also evidence of Chinese naval control over some areas of the South China Sea, which resulted in complete Chinese domination of the South China Sea in the late thirteenth century. Finally, in the fifteenth century, Zheng He's seven voyages placed the South China Sea islands on the official navigational charts. In this map, the Xisha Islands are called Shitang, and the Nansha Islands are referred to as Wansheng Shitang Yu.
 
.
That is how far you can go???
watermark.php

This map is from 1405-1421 by Zhenghe voyage, and it has . At that time there even was no unifying political state encompassing the entire Philippine Archipelago.

By the twelfth century, names for the South China Sea Islands began to appear, the Paracels and the Spratlys were referred to more consitently as Changsha and Shitang. By the mid-fourteenth century, Shitang could be accurately identified as the Spratlys. There is also evidence of Chinese naval control over some areas of the South China Sea, which resulted in complete Chinese domination of the South China Sea in the late thirteenth century. Finally, in the fifteenth century, Zheng He's seven voyages placed the South China Sea islands on the official navigational charts. In this map, the Xisha Islands are called Shitang, and the Nansha Islands are referred to as Wansheng Shitang Yu.

Whats the name of the map??? Why does your map doesn't look old and real??? It looks like a photocopy of map taken from a textbook. I don't recognize any of the island in your map. It doesn't look the map of Spratly islands or the Paracels.

Why don't you compare that map to this 11-dash line Republic of China 1946 Map

ROC_SCS_map_y35m12_85dpi.jpg


I think your map is a make-believe map. And your history is also a make-believe.
 
.
Whats the name of the map??? Why does your map doesn't look old and real??? It looks like a photocopy of map taken from a textbook. I don't recognize any of the island in your map. It doesn't look the map of Spratly islands or the Paracels.

Why don't you compare that map to this 11-dash line Republic of China 1946 Map

ROC_SCS_map_y35m12_85dpi.jpg


I think your map is a make-believe map. And your history is also a make-believe.
The map is copy of Zhenghe voyage map from 15th century. Zhenghe you know, maybe you have heard of him. The original should be in the archive, shouldn't be too hard to find as all his voyages were pretty well documented.

You are the one that brought up the historical map argument, and as I said before in other post that those history evidences means BS for solving sterritorial dispute, otherwise . Many countries including your sugar daddy USA won't even exist, and folkland still belongs to Argintina instead UK.
The truth is officially your government did not make any claim to those islands until 1970 without any treaties supporting it. In contrast ROC inherited those island from its previews own Japan via Sino-Japan Peace treaty.
 
.
Red Text My Comments:

The map is copy of Zhenghe voyage map from 15th century. Zhenghe you know, maybe you have heard of him. The original should be in the archive ( Looks fake to me ), shouldn't be too hard to find as all his voyages were pretty well documented.

You are the one that brought up the historical map argument (read post #5, I was only replying to his post ), and as I said before in other post that those history evidences means BS for solving sterritorial dispute ( I agree, international law should be used but international law does not support China's 9-dash claim. China wants aggression and war to solve the dispute ), otherwise . Many countries including your sugar daddy USA won't even exist ( The US exist today because they chose and fight for their independence ), and folkland still belongs to Argintina instead UK ( The people of the Falkland chose to be British citizens, we have people living there in Spratlys too ).
The truth is officially your government did not make any claim to those islands until 1970 without any treaties supporting it ( Our Sultanate of Sulu already considered Spratlys as part of the sultanate long before China even discovered it. Filipinos are the first one to occupy Spratlys after it is abandoned by the Japanese ). In contrast ROC inherited those island from its previews own Japan via Sino-Japan Peace treaty ( LIE. Japan did not give those islands to China. ).

-In 1947, Cloma, a Filipino adventurer and a fishing magnate, found several uninhabited and unoccupied groups of islands/islets in the South China Sea. This forms part of the bases for justification of Spratly islands territorial claims by the Philippines, along with basis from 1982 UNCLOS archipelagic doctrine

International Law and the Philippines' Claim

4. The possession of an unoccupied territory

The territory must not have an owner (res nullius), or it has been abandoned (res derelicta).

Treaty of San Francisco (1951)– Japan surrendered all its illegally occupied territories.

People's Republic of China Objections to the Treaty:

September 18, 1951 the Peoples Republic of China published statements denouncing the treaty, stating that it was illegal and should not be recognized. Besides their general exclusion from the negotiation process, the PRC claimed that the Paracel Islands, Spratly Islands and Pratas Islands in the South Pacific were actually part of China. The treaty either did not address these islands, or in the case of the Pratas Islands turned them over to the United Nations.

1951: At the San Francisco Conference, the Peace Agreement with Japan did not state clearly which country had sovereignty over the islands. None of the 51 countries participated protested. The USSR proposed that the two archipelagos be given to China, but it was rejected with 46 votes against, 3 votes for.

Again

The Japanese Government surrendered and did not designate the Islands to a SPECIFIC COUNTRY making it TERRA NULLIUS (land belonging to no one).

In May 1956, Tomas Cloma, a Filipino FIRST CLAIMED THE ISLANDS after JAPAN SURRENDERED. Observing that there was no human settlement nor national flag present on them, he decided to establish the Kalayaan state. He posted a document in English, entitled Notice to the Whole World, on all features he claimed.

In September 1956 (4 months after Cloma announcement), after the Republic of China occupied the largest island, Ligao Island (Itu Aba),Tomas Cloma decided to cede and sell all the territories of his state to the Philippines for just one peso (US$0.50 of the time)

34ffhpt.jpg


6zq0pi.jpg
 
.
Military regimes are usually despotic. But cheer up, this is a sign that China is becoming a despotic 'praetorian state', just as you hoped for.

There is only one military regime in this world.... US regime.

Responsible for the murder of millions of humans all over the world, makes the nazi regime look like good guys.
 
. . .
Red Text My Comments:



-In 1947, Cloma, a Filipino adventurer and a fishing magnate, found several uninhabited and unoccupied groups of islands/islets in the South China Sea. This forms part of the bases for justification of Spratly islands territorial claims by the Philippines, along with basis from 1982 UNCLOS archipelagic doctrine

International Law and the Philippines' Claim

4. The possession of an unoccupied territory

The territory must not have an owner (res nullius), or it has been abandoned (res derelicta).

Treaty of San Francisco (1951)– Japan surrendered all its illegally occupied territories.

People's Republic of China Objections to the Treaty:

September 18, 1951 the Peoples Republic of China published statements denouncing the treaty, stating that it was illegal and should not be recognized. Besides their general exclusion from the negotiation process, the PRC claimed that the Paracel Islands, Spratly Islands and Pratas Islands in the South Pacific were actually part of China. The treaty either did not address these islands, or in the case of the Pratas Islands turned them over to the United Nations.

1951: At the San Francisco Conference, the Peace Agreement with Japan did not state clearly which country had sovereignty over the islands. None of the 51 countries participated protested. The USSR proposed that the two archipelagos be given to China, but it was rejected with 46 votes against, 3 votes for.

Again

The Japanese Government surrendered and did not designate the Islands to a SPECIFIC COUNTRY making it TERRA NULLIUS (land belonging to no one).

In May 1956, Tomas Cloma, a Filipino FIRST CLAIMED THE ISLANDS after JAPAN SURRENDERED. Observing that there was no human settlement nor national flag present on them, he decided to establish the Kalayaan state. He posted a document in English, entitled Notice to the Whole World, on all features he claimed.

In September 1956 (4 months after Cloma announcement), after the Republic of China occupied the largest island, Ligao Island (Itu Aba),Tomas Cloma decided to cede and sell all the territories of his state to the Philippines for just one peso (US$0.50 of the time)

34ffhpt.jpg


6zq0pi.jpg
The map is from the book "Voyage with the Tail Wind (順風相送)", the origninal version is located in Oxford University Bodleian Library. Maybe yo should have someone look it up.

USA's independence has anything to do with the argument, the argument is how USA come to process those land in the first place. Mostly it was through treaties and some other method. As for falkland, what will of the people? Those people who lived on Falkland before the 1982 Falkland War weren't even full British citizens.

Good thing you brought up San Francisco Conference, and you are absolutely right that Japanese government did not designate the Islands to a SPECIFIC COUNTRY in San Francisco peace treaty. However it did not make them TERRA NULLIUS at least not for long, because on April 28, 1952 The Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty commonly known as the Treaty of Taipei was signed in Taipei. In Article II of Taipei Treaty it stated clearly where those Island belongs to.
TREATY OF PEACE

The Republic of China and Japan,

Considering their mutual desire for good neighbourliness in view of their historical and cultural ties and geographical proximity; Realising the importance of their close cooperation to the promotion of their common welfare and to the maintenance of international peace and security; Recognising the need for a settlement of problems that have arisen as a result of the existence of a state of war between them; Have resolved to conclude a Treaty of Peace and have accordingly appointed as their Plenipotentiaries,

His Excellency the President of the Republic of China: Mr. YEH KUNG-CHAO;
The Government of Japan: Mr. ISAO KAWADA

Who, having communicated to each other their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed upon the following Articles:—



Article 1

The state of war between the Republic of China and Japan is terminated as from the date on which the present Treaty enters into force.

Article 2

It is recognised that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace which Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on 8 September 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title, and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratley Islands and the Paracel Islands.


Article 3

The disposition of property of Japan and its nationals in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores), and their claims, including debts, against the authorities of the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) and the residents thereof, and the disposition in Japan of property of such authorities and residents and their claims, including debts, against Japan and its nationals, shall be the subject of special arrangements between the Government of the Republic of China and the Government of Japan. The terms nationals and residents include juridical persons.

Article 4

It is recognised that all treaties, conventions, and agreements concluded before 9 December 1941 between Japan and China have become null and void as a consequence of the war.

Article 5

It is recognised that under the provisions of Article 10 of the San Francisco Treaty, Japan has renounced all special rights and its interests in China, including all benefits and privileges resulting from the provisions of the final Protocol signed at Peking on 7 September 1901, and all annexes, notes, and documents supplementary thereto, and has agreed to the abrogation in respect to Japan of the said protocol, annexes, notes, and documents.

Article 6

(a) The Republic of China and Japan will be guided by the principles of Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations in their mutual relations.
(b) The Republic of China and Japan will cooperate in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and, in particular, will promote their common welfare through friendly cooperation in the economic field.

Article 7

The Republic of China and Japan will endeavour to conclude, as soon as possible, a treaty or agreement to place their trading, maritime, and other commercial relations, on a stable and friendly basis.

Article 8

The Republic of China and Japan will endeavour to conclude, as soon as possible, an agreement relating to civil air transport.

Article 9

The Republic of China and Japan will endeavour to conclude, as soon as possible, an agreement providing for the regulation or limitation of fishing and the conservation and development of fisheries on the high seas.

Article 10

For the purposes of the present Treaty, nationals of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all the inhabitants and former inhabitants of Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) and their descendents who are of the Chinese nationality in accordance with the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores); and juridical persons of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all those registered under the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores).

Article 11

Unless otherwise provided for in the present Treaty and the documents supplementary thereto, any problem arising between the Republic of China and Japan as a result of the existence of a state of war shall be settled in accordance with the relevant provisions of the San Francisco Treaty.

Article 12

Any dispute that may arise out of the interpretation or application of the present Treaty shall be settled by negotiation or other pacific means.

Article 13

The present Treaty shall be ratified and the instruments of ratification shall be exchanged at Taipei as soon as possible. The present Treaty shall enter into force as from the date on which such instruments of ratification are exchanged.

Article 14

The present Treaty shall be in the Chinese, Japanese, and English languages. In case of any divergence of interpretation, the English text shall prevail.
In witness whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Treaty and have affixed thereto their seals.
Done in duplicate at Taipei, this Twenty Eighth day of the Fourth month of the Forty First year of the REPUBLIC OF CHINA, corresponding to the Twenty Eighth day of the Fourth month of the Twenty Seventh year of SHOWA of Japan and to the Twenty Eighth day of April in the year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty Two.
Treaty of Taipei

That is years before "In May 1956, Tomas Cloma, a Filipino FIRST CLAIMED THE ISLANDS after JAPAN SURRENDERED."

This is where things actually get complicated and also I think is the reason PRC government's reluctance to put this dispute in any international outsiders, because doing so it would put ROC government on the stand and clearly violates PRC's claim of sole legitimate government representing the whole China. To me I actually think that ROC's government on this matter has more rights to those islands than PRC's government, since they are also the one who drew the original 11 *** map. So they need to explain the reason behind its action.

Interesting thought.

Are you suggesting an invasion of North Korea?

This one is really funny, I did not know that you had this kind sense of humour in you. Good work.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom