And so it begins - Philippine warship in standoff with China vessels

[trackwhack]

DFI has a very broad definition of 50 cents, which almost includes anyone who has any different opinions than Indians about China. It is a tragedy that DFI isn't only imposing the 50 cent tag on Chinese members, but also on American members like you.

Apparently, living in America isn't enough to convince them that you are not 50 cent. You should learn from Kickok, draw a clear line between you and CPC, slash at CPC for lack of democracy.

Way to go numpty, the point I am trying to make is that he keeps saying he is American thereby implying that his views are not biased and completely neutral. Which, is nothing but a crock of shit.

 

[nimo_cn]

Way to go numpty, the point I am trying to make is that he keeps saying he is American thereby implying that his views are not biased and completely neutral. Which, is nothing but a crock of shit.

You kept discounting his opinions by calling him 50-cent and forced him to pull his American citizenship. It is just laughable you are accusing an American of promoting CPC propaganda.

Biased or not biased, refute his points in a proper way, which can't be accomplished by calling him 50-cent.

Neutral views should not always be those consist with Indian views.

 

[nimo_cn]

Nope! We just couldn't agree with a retard like you! Whatever country your from or from whatever ethnicity u belong... U are putting it to shame!

Judging from the English skills you are possessing, you are not that smart.

s002wjh speaks way better English than you do.

 

[trackwhack]

You kept discounting his opinions by calling him 50-cent and forced him to pull his American citizenship. It is just laughable you are accusing an American of promoting CPC propaganda.

Biased or not biased, refute his points in a proper way, which can't be accomplished by calling him 50-cent.

Neutral views should not always be those consist with Indian views.

What is there to refute? He was not making any points worth refuting. Just going on an on like an empty can. There are enough people who have refuted his points.

Judging from the English skills you are possessing, you are not that smart.

s002wjh speaks way better English than you do.

This had me in splits. Oblaks posts have impeccable grammar and structure. And you are possessing - present continuous for an attribute is pathetic English that even a grade 3 student in the US would not use.

 

[pmaitra]

Judging from the English skills you are possessing, you are not that smart.

s002wjh speaks way better English than you do.

I think you could use some help yourself: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/members-corner/34548-writing-posts-blogs-articles-some-tips.html

 

[Oblaks]

Judging from the English skills you are possessing, you are not that smart.

s002wjh speaks way better English than you do.

whoa! Look who's talking! I Admit I do make a lot of Typos and yeah my english sucks at times. BTW, I used to be an asian correspondent from the wall street journal. I've spent quoite some time in most of the SEA countriesbeing involved in these discussion.. I've also spent some time in the ace cities of China. I have lived for almost a year in Shanghai. But I have never lived or studied in the US or any English speaking country like you Chinese-Americans in this discussion!

I'm bluffing!!! hahaha.. get it?

 

[s002wjh]

Nope! We just couldn't agree with a retard like you! Whatever country your from or from whatever ethnicity u belong... U are putting it to shame!

so your saying china doesn't have the capabilities to destroy vietnam navy? cause that was the OT. seem to me you are the retard, ask any expert with a bit of knowledge on chinese navy, they will say the same thing.

 

[trackwhack]

so your saying china doesn't have the capabilities to destroy vietnam navy? cause that was the OT. seem to me you are the retard, ask any expert with a bit of knowledge on chinese navy, they will say the same thing.

having capability and having balls are two different things. when talking of vietnam, CCP balls shrink to the size of little mustard seeds.

 

[s002wjh]

having capability and having balls are two different things. when talking of vietnam, CCP balls shrink to the size of little mustard seeds.

right keep believing that. its political reason. same as US don't want invade iran/NK

as i recall china fight a war against vietnam in 70s/80s. if they willing to sacrifice that many PLA just to teach vietnam a lesson, they have the balls to destroy vietnam navy when clearly china has the quantity/quality advantage over vietnam.

 

[trackwhack]

right keep believing that. its political reason. same as US don't want invade iran/NK

well those reasons did not stop the US from invading Iraq/Afghanistan etc? dont make excuses. CCP will not ever have the guts to fvck with Vietnam. They know better than that.

 

[s002wjh]

lol right like they didn't have the guts to invade vietnam in 70/80s. keep trolling.

so tell me why US didn't attack iran/NK. NK keep pushing US by doing its statelite test, nuke test, withdrawn from the 6 party talk, sink SK ship, fire upon SK island etc etc. so why didn't US invade NK, not even limited air strike. its for political reason.

 

[trackwhack]

lol right like they didn't have the guts to invade vietnam in 70/80s. keep trolling.

so tell me why US didn't attack iran/NK. NK keep pushing US by doing its statelite test, nuke test, withdrawn from the 6 party talk, sink SK ship, fire upon SK island etc etc. so why didn't US invade NK, not even limited air strike. its for political reason.

dont go OT by bringing in Iran and NK. They dont have territorial disputes with the US.

When China did invade Vietnam, they got a proper belting and the PLA was humiliated. So STFU and dont try to distort history.

 

[s002wjh]

dont go OT by bringing in Iran and NK. They dont have territorial disputes with the US.

When China did invade Vietnam, they got a proper belting and the PLA was humiliated. So STFU and dont try to distort history.

lol you can't find a good argument except use OT.

and your last sentence clearly is OT. PLA lost alot, but as i recall no single vietnam solider set foot in chinese terroritory. on top of that, china basically burn the entire area when they retreat. also we are talking about navy between vietnam vs china, not land warfare. jungle warfare clearly eliminate certain advantage of superior weapon platform.

anyway gonna watch B25 take off chow

 

[trackwhack]

oye duffer, my argument is that Iran and NK dont have territorial disputes with the US so its different. you are quite the Houdini. PLA got its ass handed to them on a platter by Vietnam. Its not surprising that as a Chinese you live in denial.

 

[Ray]

Vietnam did not go into China because it was China who attacked and had the initiative.

Then when things did not go China's way, China realised that things could go wrong and so they withdrew.

It was never Vietnam's intention to go to war and so they defended their land and when China withdrew, they accepted it since they were never interested in a war as it is!

 

[Ray]

Judging from the English skills you are possessing, you are not that smart.

s002wjh speaks way better English than you do.

Aha!

You write good English?

You must feel so since you must be an English teacher in China!

Anything goes out there as English!

I am still Finding the Real Nemo!

 

[s002wjh]

oye duffer, my argument is that Iran and NK dont have territorial disputes with the US so its different. you are quite the Houdini. PLA got its ass handed to them on a platter by Vietnam. Its not surprising that as a Chinese you live in denial.

lol right territorial disputes. you try anything to bend your arguement. Now by your logic i guess india doesn't have the ball to forcefully take india/china disputed area.

and the arguement of i'm chinese is really gettting tired now. i live in US, work here, i'm an american. stop your ridiculous arguement that anyone has different opinion than you is working for CCP.

 

[trackwhack]

lol right territorial disputes. you try anything to bend your arguement. Now by your logic i guess india doesn't have the ball to forcefully take india/china disputed area.

and the arguement of i'm chinese is really gettting tired now. i live in US, work here, i'm an american. stop your ridiculous arguement that anyone has different opinion than you is working for CCP.

Any sane person reading this can figure out who is bending the argument. What I said.

1) dont bring US -IRAN/NK as there is no territorial dispute.
2) Even if you bring US in, they do go around beating countries up just for the heck of it uinlike china
3) just like india claims chinese occupied territory, china claims Arunachal, so neither has the balls to do anything about it - status quo is fine.
4) I dont deny that you live in america and you are an american citizen. I only stated that dont pretend to be a neutral observer and commentator on the SCS issue as you are obviously one eyed and biased - since you are Chinese.

please reply, I am in the mood to make you look stupid.

 

[s002wjh]

Vietnam did not go into China because it was China who attacked and had the initiative.

Then when things did not go China's way, China realised that things could go wrong and so they withdrew.

It was never Vietnam's intention to go to war and so they defended their land and when China withdrew, they accepted it since they were never interested in a war as it is!

oh i have no doubt sino-vietnam war, the pla suffer enormous Casualties. but i was aruging with trackwhact regarding current navy warfare between vietnam and china. not sure where he get the idea that china didn't take vietnam part of SCS island because it didn't have the balls ? its political reason thats it.

 

[trackwhack]

oh i have no doubt sino-vietnam war, the pla suffer enormous Casualties. but i was aruging with trackwhact regarding current navy warfare between vietnam and china. not sure where he get the idea that china didn't take vietnam part of SCS island because it didn't have the balls ? its political reason thats it.

please explain what political reason is?