South China/West Philippine Sea

[red60]

Artvader got the point. You and inverbrass didn't. You admire my "blind patriotism" and "reckless bravery"? If I was talking about blind patriotism and reckless bravery, then you really didn't understand what I was talking about.

 

The problem is that you are too pre-occupied with numbers. How inadequate you are. I don't share your pessimism.

 

I acknowlege how overwhelming the odds are against us. I support all diplomatic ways of resolving the territorial dispute. I also support upgrading our capability to defend our territory. And I know enough about defense strategies to say that we don't have to match the Chinese military might one-on-one to keep them at bay.

 

But all you talk about is the futility of standing up to the Chinese. So are you saying that it is no longer our duty to stand up to our country's aggressor, because, afterall, resistance is futile? Are you a "realist" like inverbrass?

 

 

Artvader got the point. You and inverbrass didn't. You admire my "blind patriotism" and "reckless bravery"? If I was talking about blind patriotism and reckless bravery, then you really didn't understand what I was talking about.

 

Artvader may have understood your point but it doesn't make it correct, sensible or ingenious.

When US pushed back the Japanese in WWII, the Japanese became desperate and started using "Kamikaze" tactics against the US. I believe it was admirable, patriotic and brave but was it wise? The Americans knew the Japanese were fanatical and will not easily surrender thus the decision of dropping two Atomic bombs . Philippines standing up to China through military conflict, is it admirable? Yes. Is it patriotic? Yes. Is it brave? Yes. Is it prudent? No. I perfectly understood what you were pointing out and we will probably end up like Argentina after the Falklands War or worse Japan after WWII if we follow your way of thinking.

 

The problem is that you are too pre-occupied with numbers. How inadequate you are. I don't share your pessimism.

 

Pessimism? Our situation is dire but I never said it was hopeless. I merely lay down the facts and concluded that we cannot engage the Chinese in any combat situation. My comments were supported by facts and NUMBERS. Unlike your comments which were lamely supported by snippets from the Korean war and Falklands war. Saying how the Argentinians "did fairly well" after sinking 2 British destroyers but failing to recognize Argentina's total defeat, collapse of the military government, years of chaos and civil unrest, proves your very narrow perspective and inadequate knowledge on the subject matter.

I'm not pessimistic. I am being realistic. I am not deluded in thinking that after we win a few skirmishes, the Chinese will simply turn their backs and leave us alone.

 

I acknowlege how overwhelming the odds are against us. I support all diplomatic ways of resolving the territorial dispute. I also support upgrading our capability to defend our territory. And I know enough about defense strategies to say that we don't have to match the Chinese military might one-on-one to keep them at bay.

 

We have an interesting development folks! Camiar who persistently defended that we can win against the Chinese thru well-planned strikes and brilliant hit-and-run tactics, has finally conceded that we cannot match the Chinese military might one-on-one. What the hell happened? I guess all those talk about the Korean War and Falklands War got flushed in the toilet. Perhaps it was the image of him shitting in his pants while carrying antique M1-Garand rifle.

Camiar, you are welcome to change your stand and perspective. If you had done this earlier, the long discussion would have been averted.

 

But all you talk about is the futility of standing up to the Chinese. So are you saying that it is no longer our duty to stand up to our country's aggressor, because, afterall, resistance is futile? Are you a "realist" like inverbrass?

 

Stop putting words in my mouth. Again, I never said that we should sit idle and let the Chinese occupy the islands. It is our duty to fight and secure the islands thru non-violent methods. Risking an all-out war by engaging in skirmishes against a foe a thousand times stronger is reckless, blind patriotism, suicidal and stupidity on so many levels.

Edited July 22, 2011 by red60

[camiar]

@red60:

 

So, after your lengthy reply, what is your answer?

 

Will you say that it is no longer your duty to fight to defend our territory because it is futile against the almighty Chinese?

[red60]

@red60:

 

So, after your lengthy reply, what is your answer?

 

Will you say that it is no longer your duty to fight to defend our territory because it is futile against the almighty Chinese?

 

I already answered your question. Read the last paragraph of my previous post.

[camiar]

I already answered your question. Read the last paragraph of my previous post.

That was not a reply. It's just a bunch of motherhood statements.

 

Will you say that it is no longer your duty to fight to defend our territory because it is futile against the almighty Chinese?

[red60]

That was not a reply. It's just a bunch of motherhood statements.

 

Will you say that it is no longer your duty to fight to defend our territory because it is futile against the almighty Chinese?

 

 

I don't know if you're playing stupid or really stupid.. Ito na para hindi ka na mahirapan..

 

I never said that we should sit idle and let the Chinese occupy the islands. It is our duty to fight and secure the islands thru non-violent methods. Risking an all-out war by engaging in skirmishes against a foe a thousand times stronger is reckless, blind patriotism, suicidal and stupidity on so many levels.

 

Camiar, I already refuted and replied to all of your comments point by point, if this question is all you can muster then we are done here.

Edited July 22, 2011 by red60

[camiar]

who are you kidding?

 

"It is our duty to fight and secure the islands thru non-violent methods."

 

A non-violent fight? A peaceful war?

 

Answer the question directly:

 

Will you say that it is no longer your duty to fight to defend our territory because it is futile against the almighty Chinese?

[dos8dos]

picked up this line from asian defense news

 

"a country with weak defense is at the mercy of its aggressor"

Edited July 22, 2011 by dos8dos

[2XS]

"It is our duty to fight and secure the islands thru non-violent methods."

Duty to fight tapos thru non-violent methods

Teka lang diba fight is a violent thing? Nakakatuwa naman yan, talk about an oxymoron.

[camiar]

I don't know if you're playing stupid or really stupid.. Ito na para hindi ka na mahirapan..

 

I never said that we should sit idle and let the Chinese occupy the islands. It is our duty to fight and secure the islands thru non-violent methods. Risking an all-out war by engaging in skirmishes against a foe a thousand times stronger is reckless, blind patriotism, suicidal and stupidity on so many levels.

 

Camiar, I already refuted and replied to all of your comments point by point, if this question is all you can muster then we are done here.

 

who are you kidding?

 

"It is our duty to fight and secure the islands thru non-violent methods."

 

A non-violent fight? A peaceful war?

 

Answer the question directly:

 

Will you say that it is no longer your duty to fight to defend our territory because it is futile against the almighty Chinese?

 

@ red60:

 

I knew you can’t answer the question because you painted yourself into a corner. Just like inverbrass.

 

Anyway, I’ll answer the question for you:

 

No matter how weak we are militarily, it is our duty to defend our country against the aggressors. When called to duty, you can’t argue that fighting a stronger enemy is blind patriotism, reckless bravery, stupidity, or suicidal -- it is a duty you must accept. So instead of whining about your weakness and your fear of the Chinese, just keep quiet about it and do something to correct the situation.

 

But instead, you and inverbrass just love to denigrate our military’s capability. You do it with so much relish, even questioning the sanity of those who would stand up to the Chinese aggressor.

 

You and inverbrass self-righteously claim that your defeatist mindset is just being “realist”.

 

Bakit? “Realist” na ba ang tawag ngayon sa mga walang bayag?

 

Jopoc was right when he said:

lets support our military rather than be pessimistic.

kung takot kang lumaban, suportahan mo na lang mga kababayan mo.

ang problema kasi ng iba sa atin, pakitaan lang ng malakas na armas, umiihi na sa pantalon.

Edited July 23, 2011 by camiar

[red60]

@ red60:

 

I knew you can't answer the question because you painted yourself into a corner. Just like inverbrass.

 

Anyway, I'll answer the question for you:

 

No matter how weak we are militarily, it is our duty to defend our country against the aggressors. When called to duty, you can't argue that fighting a stronger enemy is blind patriotism, reckless bravery, stupidity, or suicidal -- it is a duty you must accept. So instead of whining about your weakness and your fear of the Chinese, just keep quiet about it and do something to correct the situation.

 

But instead, you and inverbrass just love to denigrate our military's capability. You do it with so much relish, even questioning the sanity of those who would stand up to the Chinese aggressor.

 

You and inverbrass self-righteously claim that your defeatist mindset is just being "realist".

 

Bakit? "Realist" na ba ang tawag ngayon sa mga walang bayag?

 

Jopoc was right when he said:

 

 

@ Camiar

 

In case you haven't noticed I already directly answered your question several times and you just reiterated what I said. Didn't I say it was our duty to fight and secure the islands?

 

You've been wobbly ever since we started and you can't even defend your inference on the Korean and Falklands War. You even changed your stand and conceded that we can't win against China. The discussion is not about "our willingness to fight for the country" but rather "if the Philippines is capable of engaging China in Spartly Islands".

 

It's not really surprising that you're starting to deviate from our discussion. It often happens when you have nothing sensible to say about the subject matter. I refuted your statements and all I see here is a man desperate of salvaging what's left of his pride.

Edited July 23, 2011 by red60

[KillTheDEVIL]

Armed conflict is not anymore an option at present

 

picked up this line from asian defense news

 

"a country with weak defense is at the mercy of its aggressor"

 

Of course that's right. That's why during the time of Christ a lot of weaker countries became vassals to the mighty ones

Edited August 2, 2011 by TheSmilingBandit

[dominoneedsu]

i observed that instead of contributing

exciting and good ideas on this forum,

in south china sea/west philippine sea. Some of us

Filipinos, tend to fight, insult each other. Eh

kung sa forum pa lang d tau maging isa against a common

and superior enemy...paano tau lalaban? one good senator

wrote in a forum..na kaya wala respeto sa atin ang china,

dahil masyado tayong fractured and divided as a nation.

eh, bill about implementing family planning to restrict

our high birth rate,d natin kaya ipasa, how much more

a common voice to defeat china?

 

each of us has it's own idea..lets respect it.

 

good english or hinde...good idea or hinde...give him/her

a chance to express himself..

Edited July 24, 2011 by dominoneedsu

[lomex32]

This is very true

 

Filipinos in the Philippines, since we do not have any adjacent neighboring country we tend to fight with each other

Perhaps engaging a war with another country will bind us all Filipinos together

 

i observed that instead of contributing

exciting and good ideas on this forum,

in south china sea/west philippine sea. Some of us

Filipinos, tend to fight, insult each other. Eh

kung sa forum pa lang d tau maging isa against a common

and superior enemy...paano tau lalaban? one good senator

wrote in a forum..na kaya wala respeto sa atin ang china,

dahil masyado tayong fractured and divided as a nation.

eh, bill about implementing family planning to restrict

our high birth rate,d natin kaya ipasa, how much more

a common voice to defeat china?

 

each of us has it's own idea..lets respect it.

 

good english or hinde...good idea or hinde...give him/her

a chance to express himself..

[SaintPeter5858]

It's a good thing that there are now 42 Filipinos permanently residing in Pag-asa island of the Spratlys

 

i observed that instead of contributing

exciting and good ideas on this forum,

in south china sea/west philippine sea. Some of us

Filipinos, tend to fight, insult each other. Eh

kung sa forum pa lang d tau maging isa against a common

and superior enemy...paano tau lalaban? one good senator

wrote in a forum..na kaya wala respeto sa atin ang china,

dahil masyado tayong fractured and divided as a nation.

eh, bill about implementing family planning to restrict

our high birth rate,d natin kaya ipasa, how much more

a common voice to defeat china?

 

each of us has it's own idea..lets respect it.

 

good english or hinde...good idea or hinde...give him/her

a chance to express himself..

 

We to have to admit that we will never be united at this point in time. Those who are well-versed with Phil history can attest to this. Remember Galut? Our Igorot brother who helped the Americans in locating the position of Gen. Luna somewhere in tirad Pass which led to the death of the latter. Besides a lot of Filipinos in the provinces could not and do not want to speak Tagalog. Language alone is already a barrier

 

"It is our duty to fight and secure the islands thru non-violent methods."

Duty to fight tapos thru non-violent methods

 

Teka lang diba fight is a violent thing? Nakakatuwa naman yan, talk about an oxymoron.

 

Yeah, an oxymoron. But that was 4 decades ago. Now, fighting can be in spirit or by psycho warfare. Intelligent people always use diplomacy as the best immediate solution to any problem

Edited July 27, 2011 by TheSmilingBandit

[red60]

 

Yeah, an oxymoron. But that was 4 decades ago. Now, fighting can be in spirit or by psycho warfare. Intelligent people always use diplomacy as the best immediate solution to any problem

 

Technically its no longer an oxymoron because fighting is not synonymous to violence.

[jopoc]

Technically its no longer an oxymoron because fighting is not synonymous to violence.

 

 

i agree. like the motto of ateneo.... ONE BIG FIGHT.... but they are not asking for violence.

[camiar]

what is this?

 

Are you guys trying to redefine the word "fight" the way you redefined "realist"?

 

"...fighting is not synonymous to violence"...? the last time I checked the Thesaurus, the synonyms of "fight" are all violent or forceful actions.

 

a Marine gunnery sergeant once told off those who try to philosophize their way out of their duty to fight for the country, saying:

 

"shut up, suck it up, and do your job."

[laging_nagmamahal]

what is this?

 

Are you guys trying to redefine the word "fight" the way you redefined "realist"?

 

"...fighting is not synonymous to violence"...? the last time I checked the Thesaurus, the synonyms of "fight" are all violent or forceful actions.

 

a Marine gunnery sergeant once told off those who try to philosophize their way out of their duty to fight for the country, saying:

 

"shut up, suck it up, and do your job."

 

My apologies, but I failed to resist the temptation to reply.

 

The Thesaurus also defines fight n. as contest, and fight v. dispute - both of which may suggest violence in the same way that they may also suggest peaceful confrontation.

 

Most, if not all, of Mahatma Gandhi's biographies describe his efforts as a fight for freedom, independence, justice and so many other values through non-violence.

[red60]

My apologies, but I failed to resist the temptation to reply.

 

The Thesaurus also defines fight n. as contest, and fight v. dispute - both of which may suggest violence in the same way that they may also suggest peaceful confrontation.

 

Most, if not all, of Mahatma Gandhi's biographies describe his efforts as a fight for freedom, independence, justice and so many other values through non-violence.

 

Correct. Fight is also used extensively in the medical field. "Fight against cancer, AIDS, Tuberculosis ..."

Edited July 29, 2011 by red60

[camiar]

^^^ We are talking about military strength and the duty to defend our country from agressors.

 

When you talk about how the Chinese will sink all our ships, shoot down all our planes, and make mincemeat of all our soldiers, that is all about physical, violent and deadly fight. We are talking about a shooting war!

 

But when I asked what would you do if you are called to duty to face the Chinese agressors, you suddenly switch to fight against cancer, AIDS, and TB?

 

WTF are you talking about?

 

Try answering this question again:

 

Will you say that it is no longer your duty to fight to defend our territory because it is futile against the almighty Chinese?

Edited July 31, 2011 by camiar

[wolfwhistler]

we should start a club here at MTC...

we should call it - KEYBOARD COMMANDOS....

 

i think it is incumbent for any citizen to fight for his country...so the question of

'will you fight for your country'...is immaterial...the answer is "of course !"

with our backs against the wall or the idea of being cowed by conquerors

will make us angry ...take up arms, rise and fight...

 

there will always be benedict arnolds, quislings, vichys and makapilis...

but they will be the EXCEPTION rather that general rule...and debates and arguments

are based on the latter...

 

no membership fees ...

to be a keyboard commando, all one has to do is sound brave and courageous...

in your posts....drink cups and cups of that batangas coffee...insult a few MTC debaters...

and bang on your keyboards...

 

lets hope NOBODY signs up...?

[jopoc]

if there are keyboard commandos, then there must also be KEYBOARD COWARDS.

 

these are the MTC posters who are scared to fight for their country just because the enemy brandished stronger MILITARY weaponry.

 

 

so, START THE SIGN-UP.....

 

KEYBOARD COMMANDOS:

1.

2.

3.

 

 

 

or

 

 

KEYBOARD COWARDS:

1.

2.

3.

[camiar]

 

I'd sign them up under "realists". Mas gusto nila yung term na yun.

Edited August 1, 2011 by camiar

[SUICIDAL333]

Let's resolve the issue in a peaceful manner using diplomacy

 

Correct. Fight is also used extensively in the medical field. "Fight against cancer, AIDS, Tuberculosis ..."

 

The only objective of any fight is to overcome an opponent which/who may be a person, event, disease or calamities. Fight, like love, is one of the most ambiguous terms in English

Edited August 2, 2011 by TheSmilingBandit

[zenislev]

Let's resolve the issue in a peaceful manner using diplomacy

 

and if diplomacy fails?