欢迎, 游客
用户名: 密码: 记住我
01 四 2018
各位老友,若有老ID需要找回,请尽量回忆相关细节比如ID名称、注册时间、注册邮箱之类,联系我们可以解决。

浩如烟海
2018年4月1日
在不违背道德和法律的前提下,一切不合于其它版块的帖子,均可发表于此。
  • 页:
  • 1

主题: 表面上中国收回了1158平方公里国土--其实丢了2万多平方公里国土

表面上中国收回了1158平方公里国土--其实丢了2万多平方公里国土 2011-10-02 13:05 #1

  • Liang3a
  • Liang3a的头像 Topic Author
  • 离线
  • 版主
  • 版主
  • 帖子: 298
  • 感谢您收到 0
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12180567

13 January 2011 Last updated at 08:06 ET
Tajikistan cedes land to China

China and Tajikistan say that they have settled a century-old border dispute, after the Central Asian nation agreed to cede land to China.

The Tajik parliament voted on Wednesday to ratify a 1999 deal handing over 386 square miles (1,000 sq km) of land in the remote Pamir mountain range.

The Tajik foreign minister said that this represented 5.5% of the land that Beijing had sought.

China said the move thoroughly resolved the border dispute.

China is the biggest investor in the Tajik economy, particularly in the energy and infrastructure sectors.


http://www.chnqiang.com/article/2011/10 ... 1292.shtml

终于强硬了:中国收回了中塔1158平方公里国土 (1)

2011-10-02 10:48:05 来源: 互联网 强国论坛 

9月20日,中国和塔吉克斯坦共和国边防部队代表在帕米尔高原中方第75号界桩处举行中塔新划定国界交接仪式。

中午13时,中塔两国参加新划定国界交接仪式人员按照边境会谈会晤时双方商定的计划,准时在中方第75号界桩集结。

中方边防部队代表为新疆喀什军分区参谋长陆凤彬,塔方代表为莫尔加布段边防副代表纳扎波夫中校。新疆喀什军分区参谋长陆凤彬介绍,在漫长的中塔边界线上,领土的争议已不复存在,这是热爱和平的中塔两国人民的共同愿望。

根据中塔2010年4月27日签订的《中华人民共和国和塔吉克斯坦共和国政府关于中塔国界线的勘界议定书》,塔方实际控制下的1158平方公里土地划归中方。纳扎波夫中校说,两国边界线的清晰、明确,有利于两国边境地区和平稳定,更进一步推动了两国睦邻友好关系的发展。

期间,中塔边防部队代表还就边境会谈会晤机制、定期互通边境情况、重点地段管控等有关事宜进行了进一步磋商。


表面上中国收回了1158平方公里国土,其实中国丢了2万多平方公里。中国政府就是这样破财消灾,出卖国土以求和平。

Please 登录注册一个帐号 to join the conversation.

表面上中国收回了1158平方公里国土--其实丢了2万多平方公里国土 2011-10-02 13:13 #2

  • 祖国在南沙
  • 祖国在南沙的头像
  • 离线
  • 中级会员
  • 中级会员
  • 帖子: 29
  • 感谢您收到 0
不承认这个卖国条约!!!

Please 登录注册一个帐号 to join the conversation.

表面上中国收回了1158平方公里国土--其实丢了2万多平方公里国土 2011-10-03 10:38 #3

  • Liang3a
  • Liang3a的头像 Topic Author
  • 离线
  • 版主
  • 版主
  • 帖子: 298
  • 感谢您收到 0
http://menasborders.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... -long.html

While China will gain 1,000sq km of land, Tajikistan will gain 27,500sq km of land.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajikistan


Tajikistan:
Area
- Total 143,100 km2 (102nd)
55,251 sq mi

Population
- 2010 estimate 7,995,754[4] (96th)
- 2000 census 6,127,000
- Density 48.6/km2 (155th) 125.8/sq mi


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China


China:
Population
- 2010 census 1,339,724,852[4] (1st)
- Density 139.6/km2 (53rd) 363.3/sq mi


Tajikistan's total area is 143,100 km2. Out of this 27,500 km2 comes from China. In other words, some 20% of Tajikistan's land area is taken from China. Also the population density of Tajikistand is only 48.6/km2. China's population density is 139.6/km2. In other words, there are almost 3 times more Chinese per sq. km than Tajiks. Obviously China needs the land more than Tajikistan. China must not commit aggression against its neighbors without good reasons. But when there are good reasons to defend its sovereign territories, China must stand firm and insist on its sovereign rights. Chinese leaders who do not have the determination of mind to fight for China's sovereign territories should not be in the position of leadership. Chinese leaders must be tough minded and persistent in fighting for China's sovereignty. Those who just want to have an easy life of wine and meat should get out of the government as they are unfit to be the leaders of the potentially the greatest nation on earth.

Please 登录注册一个帐号 to join the conversation.

表面上中国收回了1158平方公里国土--其实丢了2万多平方公里国土 2011-10-03 11:53 #4

  • Liang3a
  • Liang3a的头像 Topic Author
  • 离线
  • 版主
  • 版主
  • 帖子: 298
  • 感谢您收到 0
http://www.chnqiang.com/article/2011/10 ... 1341.shtml


巴基斯坦《每日时报》13日题为“塔中终结百年边界争端”的文章说,塔吉克斯坦解决了沙俄帝国和苏联都没能解决的问题,2.85万平方公里争议领土相当于阿尔巴尼亚的国土面积。奥地利《维也纳日报》13日解释了“中国收回1100平方公里土地”有多大,答案是“3个维也纳”。

Translation:
The Daily News of Pakistan said on the 13th in an article titled "Tajikistand and China concluded century old border dispute" that Tajikistan had solved a problem that the Tzarist Russian and the USSR could not sovle. 28,500 square km is equivalent to the land area of Albania. Austrian "Vienna Daily" provided the answer to the question "how big is 1,100 sq. km", which is "3 Vienna".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan


Taiwan:
Area 36,008 km2 (13,902.8 sq mi)


http://www.chnqiang.com/article/2011/10 ... 41_2.shtml


但是,显然网友对此并不买账。通过综合中国与塔吉克斯坦领土问题的始末,很多人对2万多平方公里争议领土仅仅收回1100公里并不满意。联系到中国南海争端等问题,国人对北京的步步“退让”明显并不感冒。

===========================

1,100 sq. km. may be 3 Vienna but 27,000 sq. km is 3/4 of Taiwan. The Chinese government is very insistent that Taiwan be put under the rule of the CCP but it is very cavalier about giving away an area to foreigners that is more than 3/4 the size of Taiwan. It is obvious that the Chinese government is like always very aggressive against Chinese people but fear foreigners. I think the CCP government would gain the support of the Chinese people if it stand up to foreigners with even half the aggressiveness it use against our own Chinese people.

Furthermore, China has been standing up to foreign aggressors from the Tzarist Russia to the USSR for more than 100 years over the dispsuted territories in tha Pamir region. And now the Communist government of China just gave it away. I think if the Qing government wanted to "solve" the problem by giving away this big piece of land, it could have done it more than 100 years ago by just giving it to the Russian Tzar. Or the KMT government could have also "solved" the problem by giving it away to the USSR. Both the Tzarist Russia and the USSR were much more powerful than Tajikistan. And both the Qing government and the KMT government were also much weaker than the current CCP government. So what is the honor of giving away Chinese sovereign territories as big as 3/4 of Taiwan to a small and much weaker country? I'm sure the CCP government would love to ""solve" the problems of Diaoyu Island and the South Sea islands by just giving them away. If the Chinese people were not careful, the CCP government could still give them away. Is such a Chinese government that can't care less about defending sovereign Chinese territories deserve the support of the Chinese people?

Please 登录注册一个帐号 to join the conversation.

表面上中国收回了1158平方公里国土--其实丢了2万多平方公里国土 2011-10-04 01:36 #5

  • Liang3a
  • Liang3a的头像 Topic Author
  • 离线
  • 版主
  • 版主
  • 帖子: 298
  • 感谢您收到 0
http://www.chnqiang.com/article/2011/10 ... 48_2.shtml

1991年底苏联解体后,塔吉克斯坦继承了这一段边界,但是,由于塔国自身面积狭小,面积仅14.31万平方公里,中方如果坚持全部收回所有2.8万平方公里争议地区,无异于要塔国亡国,这是根本不切实际的。在双方谈判中,双方互谅互让,平等协商,中国在中塔边界南段取得了萨彦阔岭以西1000余平方公里土地的实际控制权,并不再主张剩余争议区的主权。对于塔国来讲,1000平方公里并不是小面积,故此举在塔国引起不小的动荡。


假如一个人抢了你100万元。他自己没有钱,所以100万元是他的财产的100%。如果你把你的钱都要回来那他就完全没有钱了。不过你能说“这是根本不切实际的”吗? 如果一个人抢了你的钱,无论多少你一定要叫就警察拘捕他把你的钱无论多少全部归还给你。所以说塔国抢了中国太多土地所以中国不好意思要回来实在是无稽之谈。这完全是败国之论。汉奸才说这种无理无知的话。如果塔国归还中国2.8万平方公里就会亡国,那是塔国的事。谁叫他抢中国的土地?中国有必要对一个强盗如此关心吗?中国的领导者可能忘记了中国政府的责任是保护国土造福国民,不是去关心抢中国国土的外国。

中国政府不保护国土却说一些无理无知没有逻辑的话来敷衍国人实在是没有责任。

Please 登录注册一个帐号 to join the conversation.

表面上中国收回了1158平方公里国土--其实丢了2万多平方公里国土 2011-10-06 13:16 #6

  • wang741yi
  • wang741yi的头像
  • 离线
  • 新手上路
  • 新手上路
  • 帖子: 12
  • 感谢您收到 0
塔吉克斯坦同俄罗斯领土之争是有本质的区别,当初是中国清朝把它割让给沙俄,是中方不要它,现在塔吉克斯坦从前苏联独立以后,同我们的领土争端,是在塔吉克族人的生活区域,他们祖辈就是生活在这里,属于兄弟内部分家。同俄罗斯领土那是他们强占我领土有所不同的

Please 登录注册一个帐号 to join the conversation.

表面上中国收回了1158平方公里国土--其实丢了2万多平方公里国土 2011-10-08 03:50 #7

  • Liang3a
  • Liang3a的头像 Topic Author
  • 离线
  • 版主
  • 版主
  • 帖子: 298
  • 感谢您收到 0

by wang741yi 2011-10-05 21:16
塔吉克斯坦同俄罗斯领土之争是有本质的区别,当初是中国清朝把它割让给沙俄,
是中方不要它,现在塔吉克斯坦从前苏联独立以后,同我们的领土争端,是在塔吉
克族人的生活区域,他们祖辈就是生活在这里,属于兄弟内部分家。同俄罗斯领土
那是他们强占我领土有所不同的

=======================================

baike.baidu.com/view/7570.htm

公元9—10世纪,塔吉克民族基本形成,

今天塔吉克大部分从西汉一直到西晋都属于中国版图,唐朝再次纳入中国版图,元朝时为蒙古族察合台汗国地,清朝时再次纳入中国版图,东部和南部大部分地区属于中国新疆,西部属中国清朝藩属国浩罕汗国和布哈拉汗国。

1864年10月7日,俄国强迫清政府签订中俄勘分西北边界条约,强行割让中国新疆西
部44万平方公里领土,其中就包括原来的中国领土,现今塔吉克的大部分土地。1876年
清朝藩属国浩罕汗国被沙俄吞并,至此,原来的中国领土、吉尔吉斯全部土地被沙
皇俄罗斯吞并。


=======================================
这位王先生好像是一个中国的精英,很会替外国人狡辩。“当初是中国清朝把它割
让给沙俄,是中方不要它”听起来好像中国很高兴的把几十万平方公里的土地送给
沙俄。这根本就是替敌人粉刷狡辩。替敌人粉刷狡辩是中国精英(汉奸)的出色的本
领。其实中国是被俄国强迫割让土地。强迫的契约是无效的。强迫的不公平的条约
也是无效的。所以塔吉克斯坦的几万平方公里的土地还是中国的。这好像中国把台
湾割让给日本。不过50年后还是把日本打败收回台湾。

王先生又自己前后矛盾。前面说“中国清朝把它割让给沙俄,是中方不要它”,后
面说“俄罗斯强占我领土”。如果真的是中方自己不要那就不是俄罗斯强占。如果是俄罗斯强占那就不可能是中国自己不要土地把他丢送了。所以说王先生自己说话前后矛盾。事实是沙俄强占我们领土。既然是强占那我们就有主权枪回我们被强占的领土。

现在塔国和我们争端领土不是什么“兄弟内部分家”。这还是国对国的领土
争端。中国的土地就是中国的土地,塔国的土地就是塔国的土地。说什么“兄弟内
部分家”也是替外国狡辩。再说塔族人祖辈在这里生活跟主权根本没有关系。如果
祖辈能决定主权的话那么中国人在汉朝就有在那里生活居住。那时候还没有塔人的
祖辈在那里住。所以基于以“祖辈在这里生活”为决定主权的理由那中国人的祖辈比塔族人的祖辈
早1千年(在汉朝公元前3世纪)在这里生活,所以这个土地因该是中国的。

“兄弟内部分家”根本就是胡说八道,无稽之谈。实际就是侵略。替侵略者粉刷狡辩的人以定义就是汉奸。

Please 登录注册一个帐号 to join the conversation.

表面上中国收回了1158平方公里国土--其实丢了2万多平方公里国土 2011-10-10 13:41 #8

  • wang741yi
  • wang741yi的头像
  • 离线
  • 新手上路
  • 新手上路
  • 帖子: 12
  • 感谢您收到 0
既然有人指名道姓,对我的观点加以批判,我不得不再详细阐明我的本意,虽然我没有精力同所谓书生派畅谈大谈,张嘴就是汉奸,闭口就是爱国。当初老毛同志宣扬解放全人类,却连藏南都丢给印度,磨嘴皮子不管用,最终还得看他具体做什么。我的言论具体阐述:1塔吉克斯坦的民族成分,主体是塔吉克族,建国时间是1991年。地理位置,主体在帕米尔高原,历史上属于中国,后来被清政府割让给沙俄。民族意愿,当初被割让其心态如何不清楚,但是是清朝割让给沙俄以土地换和平是事实。其国民属于清朝是事实。2沙俄的继承者,苏联建立15个加盟共和国,有塔吉克斯坦。沙俄的主题民族是俄罗斯族为主的斯拉夫民族,苏联的主体民族是斯拉夫族。塔吉克斯坦在其地位如何,我不知。3中塔领土争端的由来,1891年,沙俄出兵帕米尔,践踏"俄国界线转向西南"的规定,侵入"待议区"。1892年进一步扩大侵略,又破坏了"中国界线一直往南"的规定,武装侵占了这条界线以东的我国领土。至此,沙俄已侵占我萨雷阔勒岭以西两万多平方公里的领土。 4侵略主体,沙俄的斯拉夫族。被侵略主体,清朝。侵略者组成人员,沙俄斯拉夫族。被侵占组成人员,塔吉克族。5责任主体,清朝政府是中方主体责任人,丢失领土,至于塔吉克族责任,我没有能力,界定承担多少。侵略者主体,沙俄政府,至于有没有塔吉克族参与,我不清楚。6责任继承,沙俄到后来苏联,主体民族是斯拉夫族,得利者是沙俄政府和苏联政府,最终是塔吉克斯坦共和国继承土地。受害继承,清朝,中华民国,中华国人民共和国,民族主体满族,到汉族(中华民族)。实质受害者,塔吉克族,身份变迁,清朝-沙俄-苏联-独立建国。7现状争端,塔吉克斯坦-中国,民族主体塔吉克族-汉族(中华民族)。8个人观点,我把塔吉克族人当成是兄弟,我是汉族,因为我认为他们曾经是同我们生活在同一个国家,他们同我们的血统比同斯拉夫族的血统近。关于俄罗斯是侵占问题,斯拉夫族是实质元凶,与我方没有直接渊源。他们祖上也没有在我方祖上曾经实质统治区域形成民族或先存在。9个人对上面指责,不满之处。认为我是胡说八道,是替侵略者狡辩,是汉奸。本人不同意见:我是否胡说,仁者见仁智者见智,但是一个问题都是有两面性,但是不能因为不同意见就不能见到别人发表不同发言,就是狭隘个人主义;关于定性汉奸问题,我不知道汉奸在历史上准确的定义,但是我想说的是,是否是汉奸不是一两个人所能说了算,是否替侵略者狡辩的界定不是谁都能认定的;个人对论坛的观点是,持包容,团结态度,包括本人曾想成立南沙群岛志愿者协会,但是我最不能容忍夸夸其谈,只知道纸上谈兵,随意给别人扣大帽子。如果谁实质性为国家领土完整作出贡献,如在南沙群岛礁盘上呆过一年半载,或向边卡哨所支援修建设施等,给我扣这汉奸帽子,我无话可说,但是如果没有,那就请发言谨慎。人与人应该 相互尊重,爱国不是空谈,不要把自己的观点强加在别人身上,对我不同观点有认为不妥者我持欢迎态度,但是希望发言,理智中性,如果是毛党(左派)或者立宪派(右派),我不愿回复。

Please 登录注册一个帐号 to join the conversation.

表面上中国收回了1158平方公里国土--其实丢了2万多平方公里国土 2011-10-11 06:38 #9

  • Liang3a
  • Liang3a的头像 Topic Author
  • 离线
  • 版主
  • 版主
  • 帖子: 298
  • 感谢您收到 0

by wang741yi » 2011-10-09 21:41

既然有人指名道姓,对我的观点加以批判,我不得不再详细阐明我的本意,...


说了一大堆都是废话。塔国的历史跟中国与这片土地的主权有什么关系?我给你一个
例子。比如你有一个车子。有一天它给小偷偷了。过了不久又给第二个小偷偷了。
然后第二个小偷把它送给了一个朋友。最后这个朋友把它传给他的儿子。那么这个
车子是谁的呢?当然还是你的。被偷的东西无论经过多少手都还是原来的主人的东
西。所以说什么这块土地被沙皇抢去,后来苏联推翻沙皇,又后来塔国在这里独立,
这都是废话。从中国抢去的土地无论经过几个国家还是中国的土地。就像一个被偷
了的车子无论经过多少手还是原来的主人的车子。

你说的这些话都是废话因为你没有提出一点有理的逻辑分析证明这片土地应该属于
塔国。再说你的目的是说服国人放弃这片土地。如果国人放弃2万多平方公里的土地
那中国的国家利益就被损害。所以你的目的是损害中国的国家利益。所以说你是汉
奸是正确的。

我不是什么毛派。不过我对毛泽东的保卫中国国土,驱赶外国人,给了中国几十年
的平安的成绩很佩服。虽然毛泽东的经济政策不对,也有很多其他不对的政策,
不过平均起来他的功高于过。

Please 登录注册一个帐号 to join the conversation.

表面上中国收回了1158平方公里国土--其实丢了2万多平方公里国土 2011-10-11 13:06 #10

  • nick
  • nick的头像
  • 离线
  • 管理员
  • 管理员
  • 帖子: 1267
  • 声望: 3
  • 感谢您收到 7
各位息怒, 大家都再宽容一点, 对事不要对人. 不同意的观点我们尽可反驳, 至于是否"han jian", 各位读者自有独立判断, 也许不轻易下结论为好, 为的是避免不必要的情绪化的争论.

我认为来这个论坛的网友绝大多数都是爱国的, 鼓励大家畅所欲言, 可以相互批评但同时注意尽量避免有伤和气. 因掌握资料与认识历史的层次不同与看待问题的角度差异, 产生不同的观点非常正常. 对错误观点我们可以严厉批判, 至于各人的人品, 大家只在心里评说吧.

以上是我个人见解, 不当之处请各位批评.

Please 登录注册一个帐号 to join the conversation.

版权无有 多谢转贴
强盛 威严 博爱 之中国

表面上中国收回了1158平方公里国土--其实丢了2万多平方公里国土 2011-10-15 10:28 #11

  • 纵横山河
  • 纵横山河的头像
  • 离线
  • 专家会员
  • 专家会员
  • 帖子: 98
  • 声望: 2
  • 感谢您收到 1
我认为讨论这些既成事实的东西已经无意义,看看中国现在的政府这几年签订的领土条约,基本上都是以领土换协议,例如与俄平分黑瞎子岛,与塔只得到原争议的二十分之一,与越也有部分土地让出,到现在都还不公开内容,在例举毛泽东时代让给缅甸的部分领土,才导致现在缅甸克钦、果敢、佤邦的地方民族武装,让给越南的白尾岛,还有与朝鲜的长白山地区等.我们广大爱国人士主要是要防止现在的政府,别被外交部那帮子白痴误导,在国势渐强的今天,反而失去没有在国力贫弱时没失的领土及利益,特别是在钓鱼岛及东海、南海、藏南等没有既成事实方面再作出让步。这才是问题的关键。我很欣赏俄罗斯总理普京的一句话:俄罗斯的领导尽管十分广大,但没有一寸是多余的。这才是领导者。很佩服俄罗斯这几代的领导人,在苏联解体后,国力势危,但除了一些独立的共和国外,俄国没有在领土方面的大损失。特别是08年的俄格冲突,在世界一片反对声中,该出手时出手,坚决捍卫自己的利益。在看看我们的领导人,只知道维护自己的政权、权威,在世界上树立所谓的和谐理念,在我们中华民族的重大利益面前,危危诺诺,瞻前顾后,用香港卫视嘉宾讲的一句话说,甚至让那些鼻屎一样的国家欺负。希望我们后面的领导人,别再让我们的国民贫弱时受气,国强时窝囊了。

Please 登录注册一个帐号 to join the conversation.

Last Edit: 由 纵横山河.

表面上中国收回了1158平方公里国土--其实丢了2万多平方公里国土 2011-10-15 10:46 #12

  • Liang3a
  • Liang3a的头像 Topic Author
  • 离线
  • 版主
  • 版主
  • 帖子: 298
  • 感谢您收到 0

由 纵横山河 » 2011-10-15 10:28

我认为讨论这些既成事实的东西已经无意义,看看中国现在的政府这几年签订的领土条约,基本上都是以领土换协议,例如与俄平分黑瞎子岛,与塔只得到原争议的二十分之一,与越也有部分土地让出,到现在都还不公开内容,在推举毛泽东时代让给缅甸的部分领土,才导致现在缅甸克钦、果敢、佤邦的地方民族武装.我们广大爱国人士主要是要防止现在的政府在钓鱼岛及东海、南海没有既成事实方面再作出让步。这才是关键。


我想爱国人士应该再到天安门发表要求中国出兵南海。不过我已经说过。现在中国已经是一个半经济殖民地。中国政府已经被外国经过世贸控制。中国政府里面太多汉奸。现在中国已经像宋朝的末期,已经是大势已去。

Please 登录注册一个帐号 to join the conversation.

表面上中国收回了1158平方公里国土--其实丢了2万多平方公里国土 2011-10-18 22:18 #13

  • 祖国在南沙
  • 祖国在南沙的头像
  • 离线
  • 中级会员
  • 中级会员
  • 帖子: 29
  • 感谢您收到 0
wang741yi 简直在乱说。失去的塔吉克斯坦的中国领土,一定要夺回来的。走着瞧!

Please 登录注册一个帐号 to join the conversation.

表面上中国收回了1158平方公里国土--其实丢了2万多平方公里国土 2011-10-21 15:27 #14

  • fhchen
  • fhchen的头像
  • 离线
  • 高级会员
  • 高级会员
  • 帖子: 49
  • 感谢您收到 0
论坛里有很多愤青,只能说爱国的心情可以理解,只是有时要考虑实际情况,对于有争议的土地,有其历史原因,能多收回一部分领土对国民来说都是一丝安慰;如果说争议的土地 全都是自己国家 或 他国的 是不切实际的说法。元朝的时候蒙古占领了大半个亚洲,如果蒙古现在也按这个要求去争土地,那亚洲基本是他的了。
只想告诉愤青,如果认为自己有一腔热血,是纯爷们,那就驾个小船把越南等国侵占的岛礁给抢回来,全国人民都会当你是英雄;如果做不到,那发表言论时就请注意语气。

Please 登录注册一个帐号 to join the conversation.

表面上中国收回了1158平方公里国土--其实丢了2万多平方公里国土 2011-10-22 03:09 #15

  • Liang3a
  • Liang3a的头像 Topic Author
  • 离线
  • 版主
  • 版主
  • 帖子: 298
  • 感谢您收到 0

by fhchen » 2011-10-20 23:27

论坛里有很多愤青,只能说爱国的心情可以理解,只是有时要考虑实际情况,对于有争议的土地,有其历史原因,能多收回一部分领土对国民来说都是一丝安慰;如果说争议的土地 全都是自己国家 或 他国的 是不切实际的说法。元朝的时候蒙古占领了大半个亚洲,如果蒙古现在也按这个要求去争土地,那亚洲基本是他的了。
只想告诉愤青,如果认为自己有一腔热血,是纯爷们,那就驾个小船把越南等国侵占的岛礁给抢回来,全国人民都会当你是英雄;如果做不到,那发表言论时就请注意语气。

www.nansha.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3765&sid=bf477053ac2fbc3288a1368427fda46c

戴旭说中国有4位数(几千个)美国的重量级间谍 -- 中国不战的原因。


中国老百姓没有私人的战机军舰,你要他们去送死吗?躲在怕死的中国领导者后面消遣
爱国的老百姓你很光荣吗? 谁知道你是什么国家民族的人。
可能你是一个越南人来这里恐吓中国人。要我们爱国者“注意语气”。不“注意语
气”就怎样?如果你真的是一个中国人,那你应该很高兴得看到这么多爱国老百姓,
团结全国人民拥护收回国土,树立新的尊严形像。只是吓唬国人算什么种?

“历史原因”有很多看法。如果以你的看法那中国也应该让西藏新疆独立。要西藏
新疆独立的人应该叫他什么你自己也知道,就是像戴旭所说的。

Please 登录注册一个帐号 to join the conversation.

表面上中国收回了1158平方公里国土--其实丢了2万多平方公里国土 2011-10-23 13:04 #16

  • fhchen
  • fhchen的头像
  • 离线
  • 高级会员
  • 高级会员
  • 帖子: 49
  • 感谢您收到 0
本人多年来一直关注南沙问题(从本人多年来发的贴就可以知道),也希望国家在南沙有所建树。发以上言论就是想看看以上某些人能吐出些啥东西,张口汉奸,闭口卖国,甚至越南人都来了,新注册的仁兄此等素质,论坛上的各位有眼看。
当今世界的领土争端不是喊打喊杀就能收回来的,按照这个逻辑美国就应该侵略全世界。希望政府能少说多做,多争夺一个岛礁回来,都是对我们这些常年在论坛上为国呐喊的一种慰寂。

Please 登录注册一个帐号 to join the conversation.

表面上中国收回了1158平方公里国土--其实丢了2万多平方公里国土 2011-10-24 03:20 #17

  • Liang3a
  • Liang3a的头像 Topic Author
  • 离线
  • 版主
  • 版主
  • 帖子: 298
  • 感谢您收到 0

由 fhchen 2011-10-23 13:04
本人多年来一直关注南沙问题(从本人多年来发的贴就可以知道),也希望国家在
南沙有所建树。发以上言论就是想看看以上某些人能吐出些啥东西,张口汉奸,闭
口卖国,甚至越南人都来了,新注册的仁兄此等素质,论坛上的各位有眼看。
当今世界的领土争端不是喊打喊杀就能收回来的,按照这个逻辑美
国就应该侵略全世界。希望政府能少说多做,多争夺一个岛礁回来,都是对我们这
些常年在论坛上为国呐喊的一种慰寂。


同意你说的,世界上的领土争端不是“喊打喊杀”就能收回来的。领土是由“打杀”收回来的。但老百姓不能空手去跟外国军队打,只能发表意见-“喊打喊杀”-要求国家政府出兵去打。正常的政府应该服从民意。

言论不是数量多少而是品质。如果说的是不适当的话,越多越损害国家利益。损害国家利益的人应该叫什么?一个人是怎样的人不是由他自己说的,是由他的言语行动所表现鉴定。如果一个人所说的一大堆话都是替外国人狡辩损害中国国家利益, 别人对他有看法也是正常的了。

几个月前就有越南人来这里辩论。其实越南人一直暗中注意着我们这个论坛, 早在好几年前, 站长与网管都跟他们辩驳过。同时站长与网管当初也去越南人的网站跟他们辩驳。

美国侵略全世界和中国收回被占领土完全是两回事。中国收回被塔国占去的国土不可类比与美国侵略伊拉克。当今美国经济衰退,难以再去侵略其他国家,更没有能力和中国在南海打一场大战。

如果真的是一个爱国的中国人,那就要想一想所说的是什么话,是不是对中国主权有利益。

如果你有兴趣多了解一下领土主权的国际法律,我给你以下法律。希望你能看得懂英文:

http://cimun.com/index.php/conference/i ... of-justice

V. Legal Principles: Title to Territory.

With regards to international incidents, the ownership of a territory of land is an issue that is guided by well-established laws. The laws related to title to territory are among the oldest existing parts of international law. These laws are also of great importance, as the ownership of a territory by a state consequently gives it different rights on this territory. The international laws related to title to territory can be seen as both ancient and modern, as they were first established in early times but have faced different changes to match the circumstances of the respective time periods. The laws related to title to territory are also of great importance because, without them, many of the international law disputes of the past (and the inevitable disputes of the future) would have never reached a peaceful end. Still, as with any other principle of international law, title to territory has been and will always be used by some states to initiate wars and conflicts[22].

Terra Nullius
According to the book “International Law” by the renowned scholar Valerie Epps, “if a land is occupied by no one and not claimed by any state, no state owns the territory and it is said to be terra nullius.”Terra nullius is defined as land “open to an ownership claim.”[23] Historically, powerful states searched the globe for empty land to own. In most of these situations, the land would already be inhabited by natives. The powerful state would force the natives to sign treaties of cession or to acknowledge the ownership of the state over the natives’ land. The described process is more commonly known as colonialism. In the Declaration on Granting of Independence to Colonial Territories and Peoples established on the 14th of December, 1960, the United Nations stated that, under international law, “the subjection of people to alien subjection, domination and exploitation” is prohibited. The Declaration also states that all people have the right to self-determination. Therefore, since the 1960s, most of the occupied territories have gained their independence based on international laws of title to territory [24]. Defining the meaning of terra nullius is the basis for understanding the laws of title to territory in the international arena.

Discovery
Historically the most common way in which a state claimed title to a territory was through discovery. Most of the great empires sent discovery missions to find land as to increase their international power. Still the mere act of discovering a land was never enough for a state to have the title to the discovered territory. It has always been required that there would be some sort of ceremonial claiming. This ceremony would for example be the location of the claiming state’s flag on the discovered island. The claim over a territory by a state based on the acts of discovery and the ceremony was seen as a good title against any other claim as long as it was not transferred to another state through conquest or treaty. The title could also be lost if it was abandoned, relinquished or continually being challenged by occupation of the territory by another state. The Arbitrator Huber stated in the case concerning the dispute over the islands of the Palmas the change that took place in relation to the rules of the title of discovery. He states that the title of discovery, as stated above, would only be considered an inchoate title. The stated means that in modern international law the acts of discovery and the ceremony are not enough to give a state definite title but only an inchoate one. This inchoate title can be changed into a definite one by effective occupation of the land. Huber also states one of the most important evolutions of the rules of title to territory by discovery, which is that continuous and peaceful display of sovereignty over a territory will always prevail as the definite title in comparison to the inchoate title of mere discovery [11].

Occupation
Occupation as a claim to a title can only be done in relation to unoccupied territories which is then occupied by a state. Therefore, title to territory by occupation in international law can only be done if the territory is terra nullius. This means that territories that are inhabited by tribes or people that have political and social organizations are not considered terra nullius and therefore cannot be subjected to legal occupation. Hence, land with indigenous people can only be claimed by treaties of cession or conquest, which shall discussed [12].

Conquest
Commonly when a state invades another state and defeats it, the first state had the right to force the vanquished state in ceding its territory to the victorious state. Before the existence of the United Nations Charter these actions were considered legal in accordance to international law. But since the United Nations Charter prohibited the threat or use of force in international relations, the acquisition of title through conquest is currently seen as illegal, which is another evolution in the laws related to the principles of title to territory [13].

A main paradox in relation to the issue at hand is the fact that the Charter of the United Nations still allows the use of force only in the case of self defense.

The paradox appears in whether or not a state using force is the case of self defense has the right to take the land of the other state based on legal conquest. On one hand, some scholars agree that the state acting in self defense has the right to legal conquest. On the other hand, most of the scholars believe that the state acting in self defense has no right to keep the land. The only situation in which the state acting in self defense has the right to keep the land is when the threat or use of force leading to its self defense still exists. This means that as soon as the threat or use of force ends the state no longer has any legal base for keeping the land [14].

Although it is a known fact in international law that the United Nations Charter is a reflection of existing customary law in the case of its prohibition of the threat or use of force, and the acquisition of land as a result of so, still there are several places in the world that have been taken by countries by force, even after the Second World War. An example of these areas is the Tibet which was invaded by China and the Portuguese Goa which was taken by India. It still must be mentioned that both China and India claim to have taken over these areas as to “liberate” the people within them [15].

Cession
“Cession is the process whereby one sovereign gives title to territory to another sovereign.” [16] This process mostly takes place by treaties. In other situations cession can take place by the purchase of one state territory’s by another state, which was done by the United State of America as Louisiana was purchased from France and Alaska was purchased from Russia [17].

Prescription
In almost all domestic legislations a person can acquire the ownership of a real property that is officially owned by another person, by continuous use of the property for a number of years, which are most commonly twenty. The application of an equivalent principle in international law in relation to title to territory is questionable. No legal judgments indicate that this process of prescription is possible, still that does not mean that it is an impossible case [18]. The understanding of the modes based on which the claim to title to a territory is made is of great importance. Still other principles should also be discussed for a better understanding of the laws of title to territory.

Abandonment
A land abandoned by a state is definitely open for any other state to claim its title based on the stated modes. The unanswered question in relation to this issue is what exactly constitutes abandonment? [19]
Meanwhile, there are, traditionally, seven modes of territorial loss in international law: abandonment (or dereliction), relinquishment (or renunciation), cession, operations of nature, subjugation, prescription, and revolt. Each of these modes has played an important role in identifying legal bases for the resolution of specific territorial disputes, and, thus, has substantially contributed to resolving such disputes [20].


Uti Possidetis
The rule of uti possidetis is an ancient Roman rule that is now well-established as an international law. Uti possidetis literally means “as you did possess, so you shall possess.” The rule was first applied due to the independence of many previously colonized nations. Since the borders of these nations were decided mainly by the colonizing powers and since disputes on the issue of the border were expected to rise at the time of the independence, the rule of uti possidetis had to be applied. By applying this rule, the newly independent states had to accept the borders set by the colonial powers to avoid further disputes[25]. Some scholars argue that the rule of uti possidetis contradicts with another rule in international law which is the right to self-determination.

VI. Legal Principles: Self-Determination
The right to self-determination is the right of a people to determine its own destiny. This right allows a people to choose what political system to implement and what economic, social and cultural ideals to follow. It is a universal right and there must not be any impediments to it being exercised by whoever wishes to exercise it. However, in practice, the right to self-determination is often not used to its full extent. While in some cases certain people can achieve complete political independence or even full integration within a state, other peoples have only been allowed cultural or economic independence. The first situation is almost always rejected by states while the second situation is usually more accepted although still considered unfavorable. Another impediment to its application is the effect it has on territorial integrity, another very important aspect of international law.

International Court of Justice Page 4 of 8
http://cimun.com/index.php/conference/i ... t-of-jus... 6/25/2011
To understand what the right to self determination is we must look at the international documents that explain it. The right to self determination is mentioned in the United Nations Charter and in the International Covenants on Human Rights.

In the Charter of the United Nations, Article 1 (2) states that one of the purposes of the United Nations is to “to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples[26]”. What this means is that, in order for nations to develop friendly relations, the right to self-determination must be respected above all. All peoples have this right, and that is emphasized in occupant to relocate to another location. Oftentimes, this happens during wars and conflicts. The Fourth Geneva Convention, which was adopted in 1949, addresses this issue in the section concerning occupied territories. In Article 49, it is stated that “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons, from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.” This article clearly explains that transferring populations by force is completely prohibited by international law.
Legal Principle: Genocide Definition and UN Convention Generally speaking, the term “genocide” refers to violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group. The word was coined in 1944 by Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, who sought to describe Nazi policies of systematic murder, including the destruction of the European Jews. He formed the word "genocide" by combining geno-, from the Greek word for race or tribe, with -cide, from the Latin word for killing. The next year, the International Military Tribunal held at Nuremberg, Germany, charged top Nazis with "crimes against humanity." The word “genocide” was included in the indictment, but only as a descriptive term and not holding any legal connotations. Since then, many have tried to define the term, but there remains much controversy and debate regarding what exactly constitutes genocide, particularly in a legal sense[28].

On December 9th, 1948, the United Nations approved the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as General Assembly Resolution 260. It entered force on January 12th, 1951. The convention establishes "genocide” as an international crime, which signatory nations “undertake to prevent and punish[29]”. Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as: “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group, [30]”

This definition was included, without modification, in Article 6 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted in July 1988.
However, a more detailed description of each of the five acts is provided by the International Criminal Court Preparatory Commission, which agreed upon the “Elements of the Crime of Genocide” in a report filed in July 2000. The report states that:
“Killing members of the group” includes direct killing and actions causing death.
“Causing serious bodily or mental harm” includes inflicting trauma on members of the group through widespread torture, rape, sexual violence, forced or coerced use of drugs, and mutilation.
“Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group” includes the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical survival such International Court of Justice Page 5 of 8
http://cimun.com/index.php/conference/i ... t-of-jus... 6/25/2011
as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services. Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of harvests, blockade of foodstuffs, detention in camps, forcible relocation or expulsion into deserts.
“Prevention of births” includes involuntary sterilization, forced abortion, prohibition of marriage, and long-term separation of men and women intended to prevent procreation.
“Forcible transfer of children” may be imposed by direct force or by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or other methods of coercion. The Convention on the Rights of the Child defines children as persons under the age of 18 years [31].
Thus, there are two elements that must be present for an act to count as genocide: A physical aspect (the five acts of destruction mentioned above) and a mental aspect (the intent to commit any of the five acts of destruction mentioned above). Intent can be proven directly from statements or orders, but, more often,
it must be inferred from a systematic pattern of coordinated acts. Is must be differentiated from motive ━ whatever may be the motive for the crime (land expropriation, national security, territorial integrity, etc.), if the perpetrators commit acts intended to destroy a group or even part of a group, it can be considered
genocide. The phrase "in whole or in part" is also important. According to the Convention, perpetrators need not destroy the entire group for it to be considered genocide. Destruction of only part of a group (such as its educated members, or members living in one region) can also be considered genocide. Thus, theoretically, an individual criminal may be guilty of attempted genocide even if he kills only one person, so long as he knew he was participating in a larger plan to destroy the group. However, most authorities require that a substantial proportion of a given group be destroyed for the act to be considered genocide, and scholars have debated what criteria should be used to establish whether a part of a group is substantial enough for an act to be regarded as genocide.
[32]
One must also note that social and political groups are excluded from the definition as being possible targets of genocide (only national, ethnic, racial, or religious groups may be considered victims of genocide) and this has raised concerns for some scholars.

Article 3 of the Convention also states that “the following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide”. Thus, it is a crime to plan or incite genocide, even before
killing starts, and to aid or abet genocide[33].
Ratification and Enforcement of the Convention Articles 4, 5 and 6 of the Convention deal with the punishment and prosecution of those charged with genocide.
Article 4:
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.
Article 5:
The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3.
Article 6
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction
[34].
However, establishing who is to be held responsible for acts of genocide, establishing fitting punishment, and bringing those accused to trial are difficult tasks. As of 2010, 132 States are party to the Convention and are, thus, required to prevent and punish acts of genocide. However, many of the signatories included provisos granting them immunity from prosecution for genocide without their explicit consent, including India, Malaysia, and the United States.
In spite of protests by some nations regarding these reservations, some countries have invoked this immunity from prosecution in the past, such as when the United States would not allow Yugoslavia to bring charges of genocide against it following the 1999 Kosovo War [35]. Furthermore, acts of genocide are generally difficult to prosecute, given that intent must also be established. Thus, enforcement of the Convention is exceedingly challenging [36].
Examples of Genocide in History
The first use of the term “genocide” in a legal context occurred in 1945, with the indictment of the Nazi war criminals in the Nuremberg Trials. The Nazis in question were accused of “War Crimes" (Count Three), which included the "deliberate and systematic genocide; viz., the extermination of racial and national
groups, against the civilian population of certain occupied territories in order to destroy particular races and classes of people, and national, racial, or religious groups, particularly Jews, Poles, and Gypsies". The Nazi German extermination of approximately six million Jews, as well as other minority groups, in an act now known as “The Holocaust”, is the most studied and well-documented case of genocide in history [37]. However, this is not to say that it was the first act of genocide or the last. The systematic killing and abuse of the Armenian population by the Ottoman Empire during the First World War, widely known as the
Armenian Genocide, is largely recognized as the first genocide in modern times. Other famous examples of genocide in history include the 1994 Rwandan Genocide (After which the UN Security Council established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, an international court created for the trial of those responsible for the massacres that occurred)[38], the 1995 Srebrenica genocide (which the ICJ ruled to be genocide in a judgment published in 2007)[39], and the ongoing Darfur conflict (which former US Secretary of State Colin Powell referred to as an act of genocide in 2004)[40].
VIII. Conclusion
When discussing a conflict between two states as prominent in the international arena as Russia and Japan, it is a wonder as to why this controversial case over the Kuril Islands has not received as much media coverage or international recognition as it deserves. A contentious battle that has lasted for over fifty years now, and one that incorporates many fundamental and controversial aspects of international law, such as treaty law, title to territory, and forceful expulsion, is highly intriguing in that the dispute has not been brought to trial in any international court in existence. However, given the dedication and commitment of this year’s 2010 CIMUN ICJ Secretariat team, it is certain that the case that has prevented Russia and Japan from signing the WWII peace treaty of 1945 will finally be brought to a close.

[1] “Charter of the United Nations”, Article 2. The United Nations.
[2] “The Court”. International Court of Justice. September 3, 2010. .
(Nov 2010).
[3] deVillafranca, Richard. Japan and the Northern Territories Dispute-
Past, Present,
International Court of Justice Page 6 of 8
http://cimun.com/index.php/conference/i ... t-of-jus.. . 6/25/2011
Future. Asian Survey, 33 (June 1993): 610-624.
[4] “The Kuril Islands Dispute between Russia and Japan”. BBC News. BBC
News. 1 November 2010. . Web. 2 November 2010.
[5] Ibid.
[6] deVillafranca, Richard. Japan and the Northern Territories Dispute-
Past, Present,
Future. Asian Survey, 33 (June 1993): 610-624.
[7] deVillafranca, Richard. Japan and the Northern Territories Dispute-
Past, Present,
Future. Asian Survey, 33 (June 1993): 610-624.
[8] Ibid.
[9] “The Kuril Islands Dispute between Russia and Japan”. BBC News. BBC
News. 1 November 2010. . Web. 2 November 2010.
[10] Epps, Valerie. "Title to Territory." International Law. 3rd ed. Durham,
NC: Carolina
Academic, 2005. 23-44. Print. 197.
[11] Epps, Valerie. "Title to Territory." International Law. 3rd ed. Durham,
NC: Carolina
Academic, 2005. 23-44. Print. 24.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Epps, Valerie. "Title to Territory." International Law. 3rd ed. Durham,
NC: Carolina Academic, 2005. 23-44. Print. 40.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Valerie Epps, 41.
[16] Epps, Valerie. "Title to Territory." International Law. 3rd ed. Durham,
NC: Carolina
Academic, 2005. 23-44. Print. 41.
[17] Epps, Valerie. "Title to Territory." International Law. 3rd ed. Durham,
NC: Carolina
Academic, 2005. 23-44. Print. 40.
[18] Epps, Valerie. "Title to Territory." International Law. 3rd ed. Durham,
NC: Carolina
Academic, 2005. 23-44. Print. 41.
[19] Ibid.
[20]Shaw, Malcolm N. The International Law of Territory. London: Oxford
University Press, 2010. 90.
[21] Epps, Valerie. "Title to Territory." International Law. 3rd ed. Durham,
NC: Carolina
Academic, 2005. 23-44. Print. 244.
[22] Epps, Valerie. "Title to Territory." International Law. 3rd ed. Durham,
NC: Carolina
Academic, 2005. 23-44. Print. 23.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Epps, Valerie. "Title to Territory." International Law. 3rd ed. Durham,
NC: Carolina
Academic, 2005. 23-44. Print. 23.
[25] Epps, Valerie. "Title to Territory." International Law. 3rd ed. Durham,
NC: Carolina
Academic, 2005. 23-44. Print. 44-45.
[26] “Charter of the United Nations”, Article 1(2). The United Nations.
[27] “United Nations Covenants on Human Rights”, Article 1. The United
Nations.
[28] “What is Genocide?”. McGill Faculty of Law. September 3, 2010. .
(Nov 2010).
[29] Ibid.
[30] “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide”. Human
Rights Web, http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html (Nov. 2010).
International Court of Justice Page 7 of 8
http://cimun.com/index.php/conference/i ... t-of-jus.. . 6/25/2011
[31] “Elements on the Crime of Genocide”. September 3, 2010. < www.un .
org/law/icc/statute/elements/elemfra.htm>. (Nov. 2010).
[32] “The International Legal Definition of Genocide”, Prevent Genocide
International, .
[33] “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide”. Human
Rights Web. September 3, 2010. .
[34] “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide”. Human
Rights Web.
September 3, 2010. .
[35] “Oral Pleading, Legality of Use of Force, Yugoslavia v. United States
of America”, International Court of Justice, http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/
Kosovo-
International_Law10.htm (Nov. 2010).
[36] “Reservations and Declarations to the Genocide Convention”, Prevent
Genocide International, (Nov. 2010).
[37] Rummel, R.J. “Genocide”. University of Hawaii System. December 1,
2010.. (Dec. 2010).
[38] “Resolution 955”. United Nations Security Council. December 1, 2010.
. (Dec. 2010).
[39] “Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia Herzegovina v. Serbia and
Montenegro).”
International Court of Justice. December 1, 2010. . (Dec. 2010).
[40] “Powell Declares Killing in Darfur ‘Genocide’”. PBS Online News
Hour. December 1, 2010. . (Dec. 2010).
Copyright 2011 Cairo International Model United Nations
All Rights Reserved.
International Court of Justice Page 8 of 8
http://cimun.com/index.php/conference/i ... t-of-jus.. . 6/25/2011

Please 登录注册一个帐号 to join the conversation.

表面上中国收回了1158平方公里国土--其实丢了2万多平方公里国土 2011-10-24 13:12 #18

  • fhchen
  • fhchen的头像
  • 离线
  • 高级会员
  • 高级会员
  • 帖子: 49
  • 感谢您收到 0
正如站长说的,在这里的大部分都是爱国人士,希望这里成为畅所欲言的平台,不同观点可以反驳,但对事不对人,搞人身攻击只会激化矛盾。本人相识的人中有军中人士,甚至还去过南沙的岛礁,虽然从中能了解到实际情况很少,但体会到他们是更多的无奈。现在只能是希望政府能更有魄力去逐步解决南海方面的问题。
1987年菲律宾前总统访华拜会邓小平,谈到南沙主权问题时说:“至少在地理上,那些岛屿离菲律宾更近。”邓小平抽了口烟,说:“在地理上,菲律宾离中国也很近。”如果政府现在能有这样的魄力,何愁问题不解!

Please 登录注册一个帐号 to join the conversation.

  • 页:
  • 1
管理者: Liang3a
创建页面时间:0.190秒
核心: Kunena 论坛