What's new

Japan, Turkey build $1.3 bln Turkmen fertiliser plant

First of all, why would we intervene, if you got a better deal, take it, if you want new friends do it. Burma is starting to try to balance us and using US and India to have us up the offer. We feel that it's not worth our time if we do, so we'll just consolidate our existing projects, while going to other countries and invest. As it turns out, plenty of countries like our money and plenty want our expertise.
What Burma is finding out is, unlike the previous cold war, we don't want a pact, we don't want allies, we don't export ideology, we really don't care if you like us or not, we just want to improve our economy, and that can happen with anybody.
it's good to hear that btw selling gas to eu means more income for turkmenistan and it's means more turkmens will looked to china for it's projects
 
from your tone I can see you doubt our claims, one of the reasons for the current calm in Europe and Americas is one there is an America, and second the nations that can claim don't want to, like germany, or can't like Austria, while the ones like France and UK got what they wanted and could accept after WW2.

China on the other hand was so weak after Opium war that our power can no longer be extended that far and after a hundred plus years, it seems as if our original claim was out of this world.

The difference between Europe and Asia is we don't fall under the US and we are certainly not been reduced to the current Austria from the former Austrian Empire.

The other difference is the Chinese system, while in the West, people hold different titles like emperor of Austria, king of Hungary, and duke of this count of that, in effect it means the Austrian emperor accepts that his Austrian lands limits, but he just also owns the others, while Chinese system is all lands belongs to the Chinese emperor and he is not the king of this count of that, he is just one emperor of all China.

The different system, and the different result of WW2, as well as the last 200 years of Chaos has caused China to lose our strong hold on our own turf. Just ask yourself this, how can the Philippines that didn't even exist as a nation have a zone that extends further to China than China to it.

I doubt China's claims because China claims the right to reach back into any period in history to justify its claims, and if such a right were universal, most of the countries on Earth would cease to exist, since the colonial powers would assume ownership of those territories (remember: most countries did not exist as independent states before they were created by the colonial powers). This, of course, includes the United States, so I must necessarily reject that method of resolving territorial disputes.

As far as your point about how China is able to stand up to the big, bad US, whereas no one else can, please explain the following international territorial disputes that the evil US has with other innocent countries, and why the evil US hasn't simply deployed its military, China-style, to occupy these areas.

Petrel Islands
Navassa Island
Rosalind Bank
Serranilla Bank
Machias Seal Island
Strait of Juan de Fuca
Dixon Entrance
Yukon-Alaska EEZ

As far as the Philippines, what do you mean about zones?
 
As far as your point about how China is able to stand up to the big, bad US, whereas no one else can, please explain the following international territorial disputes that the evil US has with other innocent countries, and why the evil US hasn't simply deployed its military, China-style, to occupy these areas.

Petrel Islands
Navassa Island
Rosalind Bank
Serranilla Bank
Machias Seal Island
Strait of Juan de Fuca
Dixon Entrance
Yukon-Alaska EEZ


Those places have to strategic value to the US. Unlike China, the US already has military bases all over the globe, and the control of island chains in pacific.
 
I doubt China's claims because China claims the right to reach back into any period in history to justify its claims, and if such a right were universal, most of the countries on Earth would cease to exist, since the colonial powers would assume ownership of those territories (remember: most countries did not exist as independent states before they were created by the colonial powers). This, of course, includes the United States, so I must necessarily reject that method of resolving territorial disputes.

As far as your point about how China is able to stand up to the big, bad US, whereas no one else can, please explain the following international territorial disputes that the evil US has with other innocent countries, and why the evil US hasn't simply deployed its military, China-style, to occupy these areas.

Petrel Islands
Navassa Island
Rosalind Bank
Serranilla Bank
Machias Seal Island
Strait of Juan de Fuca
Dixon Entrance
Yukon-Alaska EEZ

As far as the Philippines, what do you mean about zones?

Really, so because of colonialism we are rejecting history. Qing emperor gave a funeral to the last Ming emperor and killed the Shun emperor that killed him, or made him commit suicide, in the official text, Qing was given the mandate to rule China by avenging the Ming.

The republic of China signed a treaty with the Qing that handed all Qing territory to ROC, which means all lands belonging to the Qing dynasty now belongs to ROC. ROC led by Sun Yat Sen, signed the treaty with the Soviets allowing Communist party to take root in the republic, which makes communists one of two leading parties in the then republic, the split between Communists and Nationalists were finalized after Chiang started the massacre.

But we were given legitimacy by the then president himself.

Which means by 1949, we were the continuation of the previous ROC, and thus ruler of all lands under the ROC, and in effect the Qing dynasty and Ming.


Now tell me, which one of those islands were historically America when America was first created. Did Americans lose those rights because of weakness? Did America lose those territories because of unfair treaties? If yes, then America should absolutely do exactly that.


To the later part,
20120428_asm906.png


Look closely at this map, Vietnam and Philippines are claiming right up to our shore line, especially Vietnam, who gave them that right.

How can a country that didn't exist until much later like the Philippines claim that much land, or Vietnam which needs to reach back to history as far back and even further to justify their claim be accepted, why because we are stronger, then we are evil.

This is that crappy mentality that rich and powerful means evil.
 
Those places have to strategic value to the US. Unlike China, the US already has military bases all over the globe, and the control of island chains in pacific.

It's a good point, but does that reasoning restrain China? For example, Diaoyu/Senkaku only seems strategic in that its ownership helps determine how prospective oil/gas resources in the region would be divided, but militarily, it's hard to see how it would benefit China if China did not already hold Taiwan. Have the oil/gas resources even been quantified?

How about the recent flare up with Vietnam? Did the rig find oil/gas? How much oil/gas is at stake in that area?
 
The republic of China signed a treaty with the Qing that handed all Qing territory to ROC, which means all lands belonging to the Qing dynasty now belongs to ROC. ROC led by Sun Yat Sen, signed the treaty with the Soviets allowing Communist party to take root in the republic, which makes communists one of two leading parties in the then republic, the split between Communists and Nationalists were finalized after Chiang started the massacre.

But we were given legitimacy by the then president himself.

Which means by 1949, we were the continuation of the previous ROC, and thus ruler of all lands under the ROC, and in effect the Qing dynasty and Ming.

Please elaborate, I don't understand this point. Sun Yat Sen declared that the Communist Party was the rightful successor of the ROC? Why did the KMT continue to claim that it was the legitimate sovereign of the ROC, then?


Now tell me, which one of those islands were historically America when America was first created. Did Americans lose those rights because of weakness? Did America lose those territories because of unfair treaties? If yes, then America should absolutely do exactly that.

This is what I'm getting at. Both the US and Canada (or the other countries with which we have those disputes) are recent creations, so the idea that islands have been "historically" part of one country or another is an anachronism. The disputes revolve around ambiguities in previous treaties that have been signed. Not because the treaties were unfair, but rather because the treaties were drafted in an unspecific (sloppy) manner.


To the later part,
20120428_asm906.png


Look closely at this map, Vietnam and Philippines are claiming right up to our shore line, especially Vietnam, who gave them that right.

How can a country that didn't exist until much later like the Philippines claim that much land, or Vietnam which needs to reach back to history as far back and even further to justify their claim be accepted, why because we are stronger, then we are evil.

This is that crappy mentality that rich and powerful means evil.

OK, I have to be honest. China's claims reaching all the way down the Malaysia and Brunei appear to be ludicrous. I can see legitimate and obvious claims for the Paracel Islands, and perhaps even the Scarborough Shoal, but beyond that, China might as well claim the Pacific Ocean. China's claims are really for domestic consumption, because the rest of the world finds such far-reaching claims to be surreal.

As @Chinese-Dragon has said many times, sovereign territory is territory that one can defend and hold. Any other claims are just pieces of paper. That's why China hasn't submitted its claims for international arbitration, because it knows its case is exceedingly weak.
 
As @Chinese-Dragon has said many times, sovereign territory is territory that one can defend and hold. Any other claims are just pieces of paper. That's why China hasn't submitted its claims for international arbitration, because it knows its case is exceedingly weak.

I did type a bigger reply, but I'll just use this last point instead.

Territory we can hold and defend, or one can. Tell me, how much of it can Philippines and Vietnam defend? How much of it can we defend?

Soon our hospital ships for the coast guard, and 10,000 ton coast guard ships will be done, to go with our dozens if not hundreds of 3,000, and 1,000 and even 5,000 ton ships, how much territory can we defend.

I'm not even including the navy. The Vietnamese, Philippines, and whoever else can include their navy if they wish.

We are also adding drones, more helicopters, and other aircraft, including the world's largest amphibious aircraft.

Our coast guard is already the most capable West of the US, while we will match the US in equipment and ships as well as exceed you guys in other areas by 2020.


So by this logic that you agree to, how much of South China sea should be ours do you think.

Either way, we will continue to push with our coast guard vessels, and with more and more islands being built, more and more aircraft types being developed, it's clearly tilting in our favor.
 
I did type a bigger reply, but I'll just use this last point instead.

Territory we can hold and defend, or one can. Tell me, how much of it can Philippines and Vietnam defend? How much of it can we defend?

Soon our hospital ships for the coast guard, and 10,000 ton coast guard ships will be done, to go with our dozens if not hundreds of 3,000, and 1,000 and even 5,000 ton ships, how much territory can we defend.

I'm not even including the navy. The Vietnamese, Philippines, and whoever else can include their navy if they wish.

We are also adding drones, more helicopters, and other aircraft, including the world's largest amphibious aircraft.

Our coast guard is already the most capable West of the US, while we will match the US in equipment and ships as well as exceed you guys in other areas by 2020.


So by this logic that you agree to, how much of South China sea should be ours do you think.

Either way, we will continue to push with our coast guard vessels, and with more and more islands being built, more and more aircraft types being developed, it's clearly tilting in our favor.

I don't underestimate China's growing military power, to be sure. That said, China continues to act aggrieved when other countries respond to China's show of force, which is strange. Escalation is met with escalation, as simple as cause and effect.

What is missing is the cost-benefit analysis.
 
I don't underestimate China's growing military power, to be sure. That said, China continues to act aggrieved when other countries respond to China's show of force, which is strange. Escalation is met with escalation, as simple as cause and effect.

What is missing is the cost-benefit analysis.

We feel, pushing our claim, letting our ships and other tech on show, while continue to highlight our technological advances is far more important than a relationship we can repair in a second.

No one is going to doubt our technology and products once we win this and maybe a war or two.

Even Nazi German had a good number of allies, including us, until they dumped us for Japan who also dumped us for conquering us.

We are not quite a Fascist nation are we, people respond to strength which creates prestige. Prestige is what we will use to advance our country.
 
so u are ok of any other company work in Turkmenistan ?? like japan and south Korea ? until this day china didn't done anything wrong in turkmenistan what possible will destroy this relation if turkmenistan make good relation with usa will u play nasty ?? what is your red line ? are u ok with turkmens to sell gas to eu ??


btw cmon turkmenistan is a 4.5 million pop with 4th largest gas energy in the world unlike russia and iran they dont use energy so much this make it more likly to others to isolate the country

like russia and iran they buy the gas with very very cheap price from turkmenistan and sell it with high price to eu and turkey and when turkmenistan try to find new costumer like china they play nasty this was what they have done to stop turkmenistan to sell it gas to china

russia purposely close the pipeline which lead to it's distraction
ukraine said it wont buy gas from turkmenistan
iran even was far worse they simply said we will use your gas but we wont pay u !

this lead the country with zero income will u act like them if turkmenistan try to sell gas to eu ?

You should ask US first because you are dealing with China and they are not happy with that and may harm you guys. And as far as we know Chinese they don't interfere on other people businesses.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Back
Top Bottom