Götterdämmerung
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2011
- Messages
- 5,369
- Reaction score
- -14
- Country
- Location
This coalition makes as much sense as a coalition of Germany towing along Poland and Ukraine to counter Russia.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
One of the most stupidest rebuttal I have ever seen. LOL This is why the world always laugh at you Indian. Let take a deep logical step to evaluate your analogy, shall we?Because Person B gives lots of money to Person C to do it. Chinese stupidity always amaze me.
You still don't get it, do you? We made a declaration on our territory (including Paracel and Spratly) and its extended entitlement to the 12 nautical miles off those territories. Your PM informed us that you accepted and recognized those declaration that we made. The point is not whether your PM makes any reference to Paracel and Spratly in his letter. That is not important. The important legality here is that we declared clearly what territories we own and you accept and recognize it. And you didn't protest it, at all. In international law, you cannot change stance to suit your sympathetic excuse.no, China declared 12 miles of sea water. so North Vietnam letter didn't mentioned about Island Paracel and Spratly.
If North Korea DID say that Dokdo belong to Japan and later they reunified the country under the North Korea's flag, then yes they must keep that promise to Japan. Get it, my Vietnamese friend?Can North Korean say Dokdo belong to Japan ?
You still don't get it, do you? We made a declaration on our territory (including Paracel and Spratly) and its extended entitlement to the 12 nautical miles off those territories. Your PM informed us that you accepted and recognized those declaration that we made. The point is not whether your PM makes any reference to Paracel and Spratly in his letter. That is not important. The important legality here is that we declared clearly what territories we own and you accept and recognize it. And you didn't protest it, at all. In international law, you cannot change stance to suit your sympathetic excuse.
If North Korea DID say that Dokdo belong to Japan and later they reunified the country under the North Korea's flag, then yes they must keep that promise to Japan. Get it, my Vietnamese friend?
Again, If North Korea flag is the full flag of unify Korea or if Taiwan's flag is the flag of unify China, then they can say respective territories belong to them. Do you understand this? The world can clearly see the flaw logic of you Vietnamese.stop lying about nature of the letter.
North Korean don't have right to say that Dokdo belong to Japan.
What do you say when Lee Teng Hui, president of Taiwan said that Senkaku belong to Japan base on rule of international law ?
Again, If North Korea flag is the full flag of unify Korea or if Taiwan's flag is the flag of unify China, then they can say respective territories belong to them. Do you understand this? The world can clearly see the flaw logic of you Vietnamese.
Let me provide you a simple analogy. Let say you have a house next to a neighbor's house. You say that house belongs to your friend. Later you own that neighbor's house, should you keep that promise to your friend?
Again, If North Korea flag is the full flag of unify Korea or if Taiwan's flag is the flag of unify China, then they can say respective territories belong to them. Do you understand this? The world can clearly see the flaw logic of you Vietnamese.
Let me provide you a simple analogy. Let say you have a house next to a neighbor's house. You say that house belongs to your friend. Later you own that neighbor's house, should you keep that promise to your friend?
PM Dong didnt Own VietNam and had No right to decide abt VN's sovereignty. Only VN parliament have that right.Again, If North Korea flag is the full flag of unify Korea or if Taiwan's flag is the flag of unify China, then they can say respective territories belong to them. Do you understand this? The world can clearly see the flaw logic of you Vietnamese.
Let me provide you a simple analogy. Let say you have a house next to a neighbor's house. You say that house belongs to your friend. Later you own that neighbor's house, should you keep that promise to your friend?
Let me provide you a simple analogy. Let say you have a house next to a neighbor's house. You say that house belongs to your friend. Later you own that neighbor's house, should you keep that promise to your friend?
You should read his post again. Your analogy does not make sense.Let's see ...
1. Let say you have a house next to a neighbor's house.
--- meaning that house BELONG to me!
2. You say that house belongs to your friend.
--- false, because if that house belongs to my friend then how could you say: Let say I have a house?
---You should have stated that "Let say there is a house next to a neighbor's house" instead!
3. Later you own that neighbor's house
--- If I don't have that house before but I own it later because: I bought it from the neighbor or the neighbor gave it to me ...
4. should you keep that promise to your friend?
--- Keep what promise?
Your analogy makes no sense at all ... Are you sure this is how Chinese people think?
Let me provide you a simple analogy. Let say you have a house next to a neighbor's house. You say that house belongs to your friend. Later you own that neighbor's house, should you keep that promise to your friend?
You should read his post again. Your analogy does not make sense.Let's see ...
1. Let say you have a house next to a neighbor's house.
--- meaning that house BELONG to me!
2. You say that house belongs to your friend.
--- false, because if that house belongs to my friend then how could you say: Let say I have a house?
---You should have stated that "Let say there is a house next to a neighbor's house" instead!
3. Later you own that neighbor's house
--- If I don't have that house before but I own it later because: I bought it from the neighbor or the neighbor gave it to me ...
4. should you keep that promise to your friend?
--- Keep what promise?
Your analogy makes no sense at all ... Are you sure this is how Chinese people think?
And all this you will lose if you go to the U.S. side.For us, most important thing is Sovereignty, Independence and Freedom.
Let's see ...
1. Let say you have a house next to a neighbor's house.
--- meaning that house BELONG to me!
2. You say that house belongs to your friend.
--- false, because if that house belongs to my friend then how could you say: Let say I have a house?
---You should have stated that "Let say there is a house next to a neighbor's house" instead!
3. Later you own that neighbor's house
--- If I don't have that house before but I own it later because: I bought it from the neighbor or the neighbor gave it to me ...
4. should you keep that promise to your friend?
--- Keep what promise?
Your analogy makes no sense at all ... Are you sure this is how Chinese people think?
But we have No choice while Russian bro can not help VN now coz she get bogged down in Crime . If we dont join to US. side, then China will join to US. side like 1979 , beg for support and attack VN again .And all this you will lose if you go to the U.S. side.
PM Dong didnt Own VietNam and had No right to decide abt VN's sovereignty. Only VN parliament have that right.
PM Dong sent u a private letter, but our parliament sent u Nothing
And all this you will lose if you go to the U.S. side.
I think that Vietnam owes it to choose any side that can best support the national interest of Vietnam. To quote Lord Palmertson, "there is no such thing as permanent friends or allies, just permanent interests."