TheSmilingBandit

intrusion its an illegal act of entering ,seizing or taking possession of anothers property.. 2. Act or instance of thrusting or forcing in without invitation! In all meaning of the word it is us who violated their share of that area by sending ships. To bully them. And they just acted in self defense.

I don't quite follow. Are you saying that the US will launch attacks to China using airfields in the Philippines?

if thats the case. We would be destroyed in an american led war.. We should kick this yankees out to save our country.

I know a person who has mastered this art of war.

Genghis Khan and the Mongosl vs. Saladin and the Moors. What do you think guys? Who will win and why?

Tactically, the US will not put a carrier battlegroup in the West Philippine Sea in a shooting match unless the admiral's brain is addled. The area is too confined.

how can they exibit friendship when in fact. We have shown agressiveness against china. By sending our frigate.. We should have send instead diplomats to Beijing. To lay the policy of friendship and welcome stay. In our part of the spratlys.

and this so called chinese intrusion. Maybe this is a dis information campaign of our government. To get more military aid from america. The U.s. Congress should investigate this. Incident. To make sure about the exact picture. To avoid mistakes on whos lying to who?

3. No, what I mean is the UN and the US will talk China into having round-table talks with the ASEAN claimants and Taiwan.

 

4. Yes, I honestly think, the ASEAN alliance would get beaten soundly by China. Of course, we would be providing a halfway house and logistics base for the Yanks. They can use Subic to dock their super carriers, hunter-killers and Ohio class subs. You can bet your bottom dollar that the Japanese and Indians would join in the fray with South Korea keeping North Korea in check. I mean if push comes to shove, the US will take out all the missile silos of the Chinese, bomb its airfields to kingdom come and annihilate all Chinese subs with its superior hunter-killers.

3. Ah, I see what you mean, well we all know how powerless the UN really is. Let's face it the UN is probably even more corrupt that the Philippines.

4. As far as "taking out the missile silo's", that would be a problem, if the PRC feels like they have nothing left to lose, what is to prevent them from starting the nuclear fireworks? The MAD is the reason that the PRC remains confident, because while the USN has superior planes the the PLAAF, the PLAAF does have a quantitative superiority, they can lose 4 planes for every 1 the USN loses and still come out on top, not to mention that the Chinese highways (in certain areas) can double as airfields, and to make matters worse, several PLAAF fighters are rough terrain capable. I wouldn't be too sure about the outcome. Perhaps if the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Indonesia were willing to cooperate then maybe there would be a better chance in helping out the US, on the other hand, I think we can safely assume that the spoiled brats that are the ASEAN can talk as if they were the big boys, but in truth they are pretty much looking for the US or Russia (in the case of Vietnam) to help them out.

1. I would take it that you're referring to the Spratlys.

 

2. I agree. Quid pro quo.

 

3. In my opinion, the US backed up by the UN can convince China to get China into a round-table talk with the claimants. I'm pretty sure the UNCLOS will be the guide used by the participants in this discussion but China will go vehemently against it. Their historical claim baloney can easily be dismantled. The claimants may use an argument similar to yours to render China's historical claim moot. I see the UNCLOS winning in the end.

 

4. A US victory is assured in the event of a war. I don't think China would be stupid enough to engage the US, unless, it wants the annihilation of the Chinese race.

 

5. Just a question, Isn't the US already exporting to the ASEAN claimants?

 

6. When you say nationalize, do you mean an American take-over?

3. Unfortunately China is also a member of the defense council of the US, thus with VETO rights on the whole UN support.

4. A US victory is not assured, their lines of supply will be very extensive and assuming they join in they need basing in the area, remember the combined forces of the other claimants to the Spratley's aren't even 1/10th of the firepower of the PRC. So basically all the rest of us can do is provide R&R facilities and basing facilities for the US forces. The biggest boondoggle here would be the chances that we would try pissing on the US, specially with the people that think we can do it alone.

5. Yes, but imagine if the ASEAN claimants stop buying from China (due to the war) and buy from the US instead, how much more income will that be for the US, and how much more of their old factories can they bring out of mothballs.

6. Yes.

You don't have to sound so intelligent when talking abt s@%t. its this: you're full of s@%t. Eat it. or maybe sniff it. That's more productive than just putting in on display. Just as what you've done here.

Well it's is obvious that you have neither manners nor intelligence, account suspended for attacking another member.

Everyone say bye-bye to Jourdan.

There are no well-defined steps 1-n to claiming sovereignty over any territory. It's a mix of unfortunately poorly defined things.

 

Firstly, sovereignty itself is hardly well-defined; each country has a different view of what sovereignty means.

 

However, there are some commonalities, like the ability to exercise rule over a territory, formal recognition by the international community, ability to control ingress/egress of people across the borders, and domestic presence over the territory, which is linked to the ideas of self-determination.

 

That's why China is trying to establish a de facto rule over the Spratlys and civilian presence at the same time. If it was successful in those aspects, the only box that would remain unticked is that formal, international recognition, which, as I infer, has little weight to the Chinese given what they have done in Tibet.

Pretty much correct, China would prefer not having to say "f#&k off" politely to the UN, and let's face it, nobody quite ran in to save Tibet, probably because it is landlocked and the only other route would be via the Himalayas. However polite or not, that would be their response.

Oh by the way Jourdan, let's try to keep this on an intellectual level, there is no need to go around calling names and insulting other members. The same applies to all the other members here. Let's keep this civil please.

Actually you're wrong. A state is a sociopolitical entity, of which a government is an integral part of. But there's no one-to-one relationship between the two. A change of government does not always lead to a change in state. A change in the form of government does not automatically dissolve a previous state. Changes in territorial boundaries also does not equate to a change in statehood.

 

Actually, you demolish your argument yourself. You said "Actually a state only exists as long as its government" but then follow that up an ADDITIONAL premise "...but as the laws have changed..."

If you actually read what I said, to wit:

Actually a state only exists as long as its government, every change of a government may lead to the occupation of the territories of a previous state but as the laws have changed then it is a new state.

Then it is obvious that "every new change of a government leads to a new state" unless the person reading it is unable to comprehend basic grammar.

It is NOT ALWAYS TRUE that a change in government leads to a change in the laws. And it is NOT ALWAYS TRUE that a change in laws would lead to a change in state.

 

A state is considered dead when social, economic, cultural and political elements that fully describes it has stopped existing. The Roman empire ceased to exist in 476 AD simply because all the elements that exemplify Rome have been destroyed by its conquerors.

Really? So if the socio-economic, cultural, and political elements that FULLY describes it has stopped working, ergo as the IMPERIAL Dynasty of the Middle Kingdoms is now a Communist state, it loses the political element of having an Emperor thus it is no longer FULLY described the same way.

1+1=2

There is no "only" rule in human affairs. Only simpletons will attempt to describe reality in a few set of rules. Yes, sometimes 'might makes right' but not all the time. Gandhi proved that non-aggression can succeed. Nelson Mandela too. King Chulalongkorn of Thailand managed to keep Siam a free state during the Age of Imperialism by careful negotiations with the Western imperialists - English, French and Portuguese.

 

Anyone who says that diplomacy is useless when faced with an aggressor clearly has no knowledge of history. To suggest that war is only course of action in the Spratlys is clearly being stupid and shortsighted. The Philippines stands to lose more than China if it goes to war.

 

And please, I honestly couldn't fathom how educated people could even think that the US will go against China because of its friendship with the Philippines. Lemme see:

 

1. China owned 8% of US public debt,

2. In 2011, China is the no. 2 trade partner of the US in total goods basis.

3. China is the no. 3 buyer of US goods in 2011 (no.3 on export list)

4. China is no.1 seller of goods to US (no.1 on import list)

5. China is the fastest growing foreign direct investor in the US over the past 5 yrs (72% pa FDI growth)

 

The Philippines is not in the top 15 trading partners of the US on any category.

 

So dreamers, good luck. Yeah, Uncle Sam will choose you over the Chinese.

ROFL considering how facetious your arguments are, you are actually correct in 1 sense, the odds for the US supporting the RP against China doesn't make sense economically which it seems is how you are studying the issue.

Let us look at it from other possibilities.

Politically the US could probably support an anti-Chinese alliance (assuming the Philippines can swallow its pride and share with the Vietnamese and probably the Malaysians) for several good reasons.

1. It supports the "Freedom of the Seas" which the US has been harping on because the US does not want China controlling it's own oil production.
   
2. Any US president would think twice before abandoning an "ally" at least one with such close ties to the USA. Which is probably the reason that the CCP (partially funded by the PRC) is being very militant in "encouraging" it's vocal supporters to cry foul about the VFA. Remember if the Philippines cancels the VFA then the US would be more inclined to not interfere.
   
3. Diplomacy is useless unless it can be backed by naked force. Who would negotiate with the child throwing a temper tantrum, just spank the child and leave him crying in his crib.
   
4. In a state of war, the USA can cancel its notes to the PRC, imagine removing 8% of it's national debt by going to war. (Yes Virginia, you don't have to pay a debt to someone you are at war with.)
   
5. Your points 2, 3, and 4 are on an individual basis, however if you combine the potential buying capability of the ASEAN nations that are at loggerheads with China over the Spratleys, then that would INCREASE the USA's export market, meaning more money FLOWING INTO their economy, at the same time cutting down on the IMPORTS from the PRC cuts down of the money FLOWING OUT of their economy, factoring in a war boom, this could be just what they need to jump-start their economy.
   
6. As for the Chinese investments into the US, imagine if they NATIONALIZE those, as they did with the Nissei of the West Coast during WW2, again this stimulates their economy and would probably help lower their deficit.
   

All those said, the USA would probably prefer to keep it's "good guy" image and probably attempt to help secure a peaceful negotiations since unlike the Philippines, they have a stick to back up diplomacy.

Yes, that's good. Let's use Mirriam-Webster's definition...Are you what? Grade 4? hahahaha. Dictionary as a reference???? Wow!!! I'm just trying to imagine how Karl Marx, Carl Menger, or Paul Krugman would react to a person who'd pull out dictionary on them to define what a state means...their eye balls would probably pop out lol.

Don't worry though, opinions are like armpits, we all have 2 and they all stink.

contiguous??? Dude, you use the word "contiguous" only in spatial sense, not temporal. Don't make yourself sound so erudite when you're not.

The whole exposition was a baloney. It went south with the "...in the sense that it applies to the LAND". Obviously, I wasn't referring to it as a land mass. Context dude, context.

 

And please, I even laughed at your interpretation of "5a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign"

 

The "politically organized body of people" does not refer to the political entity, i.e., government. It refers to the whole population who exercise domestic authority over a territory under a common set of laws (written or unwritten). PRC's historical claim is founded on that the Chinese people have always exercised sovereign rule over the South China sea - something that is, as they claim, recognized by neighboring states in the past.

 

But nice try attempt at being logical.

all of these are just s@%t. You need to tell a story since you've misread 5a.

 

ROC's historical claim is no different from PRC. The crux of the matter is that the ROC government thinks they are the rightful stewards of "one China" whilst PRC obviously claims to be the same. It's a question of who's the legitimate ruler of one China, because each thinks that the other is illegitimate.

I'm sorry, who is rowing upstream full of fecal matter I wonder, that is basically your argument that the PRC is the inheritor, legally speaking it would be the one that the Manchu's abdicated to. However as I said BOTH their claims don't really matter.

For that matter, neither does Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, or the Philippines. Through all of history matters like this have been decided by naked force. Who wants it badly enough to fight for it and win. Currently, the PRC outmans and outguns the other claimants combined, so in all likelihood, without the support of either Russia or the USA, they can get it.

I was actually about to question that. Thank you. I was wondering if a state can indeed own a property or if it is the government that can own said property.

Well if we are to look at the term state as it is used in this particular thread, first we have to define the word STATE. Mirriam-Webster's defines state as:

Definition of STATE

1a : mode or condition of being <a state of readiness>

1b (1) : condition of mind or temperament <in a highly nervous state> (2) : a condition of abnormal tension or excitement

2a : a condition or stage in the physical being of something <insects in the larval state> <the gaseous state of water>

2b : any of various conditions characterized by definite quantities (as of energy, angular momentum, or magnetic moment) in which an atomic system may exist

3a : social position; especially : high rank

3b (1) : elaborate or luxurious style of living (2) : formal dignity : pomp —usually used with in

4a : a body of persons constituting a special class in a society : estate 3

4b plural : the members or representatives of the governing classes assembled in a legislative body

4c obsolete : a person of high rank (as a noble)

5a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign

5b : the political organization of such a body of people

5c : a government or politically organized society having a particular character <a police state> <the welfare state>

6: the operations or concerns of the government of a country

7a : one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government <the fifty states>

7b plural capitalized : The United States of America

8: the territory of a state

For our purposes 5a and 5b are the operative conditions of a state in arguing if the PRC is indeed contiguous to the Middle Kingdoms. Let us study the PRC in that regard.

5a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign

Now the PRC claims to be the inheritor of Ancient China, let us see if it applies.

Viewed from only the usage of the term "Middle Kingdom" in the sense that 中國 is applied to the LAND, then yes, however that argument then also applies to Italy as being a "successor state" to the old Roman Republic (take note, Roman Republic, not Roman Empire, as the Roman Republic occupied pretty much the same territories as Italy does today.)

However common sense as well as common practice accepts that a violent overthrow or outside invasion necessitates that the "politically organized body of people occupying a definite territory" is no longer the same political entity (i.e. each Dynasty founded via revolution forms a new government and thus a new state), otherwise the Aeta's can claim the Philippine Islands as belonging to them ancestrally, something I doubt most of our population would be willing to accept. Therefore in terms of 5a, the PRC is NOT the inheritor of Imperial China.

5b : the political organization of such a body of people

The previous political organization of that body of people (i.e. the various Chinese "tribes" as defined by their common language, which for the record is not Mandarin as that was only introduced late in the mid 1600s by the Qing Dynasty) previous to the PRC would be the RoC which currently occupies Formosa (or Taiwan), the RoC has a slightly better claim than the PRC to being a "direct inheritor" of Imperial China as Empress Dowager Xiao Ding Jing (孝定景皇后) had abdicated for her nephew Puyi (愛新覺羅·溥儀) all rights to the Imperial Chinese throne. The Qing Dynasty in turn had been a "restoration" state to the Ming Dynasty thus allowing, in a convoluted manner, that at least from the time of the Ming Dynasty (1368) until modern times, a "continuous government" ruling the lands of China is still extant albeit that the current political organization is a "government-in-exile".

Now I suppose a specious argument could be made that there was a transition of power between the RoC and the PRC but the continued existence of the RoC belies that and only persons with a weak grasp of reality or persons with altered states of reality would believe that.

Actually a state only exists as long as its government, every change of a government may lead to the occupation of the territories of a previous state but as the laws have changed then it is a new state.

As far as I can tell, the only universal rule is "might makes right" still exists, if the PRC can bully all the other states in the area to back down, which it can unless another super power steps in to tell the PRC to play nice. Let's face it, if the USA comes out and says that they will support the RP then the PRC can either back down or go to war (which it probably will not considering the existence of 2 potential trouble spots on the other ends of their borders).

Milky Way serves pretty good halo-halo.

Elephants were a major reason why Hannibal was able to annihilate the Roman Legions in those three major battles. But hey, India and China had a common border. Didn't they have skirmishes during the Mauryan and Han eras?

The common border would be the mountains where Nepal and Tibet are currently located, considering the height of those mountains and the extent of that mountain range, fighting a war would be a losing proposition to the attacker who would probably lose 30%-50% of his attacking forces.

Still the problem of logistics...besides elephants were a problem to their users too.

As for the logistics that would be a nightmare for any of them, although the Romans probably had the best logistical system among the 3.

Except, of course, against the Han Dynasty Chinese. I'm just curious if the legions of Caesar could handle Attila the Hun and his army.

Not necessarily, The Mauryan Empire of India would have probably given the Han Dynasty and the Roman empire a run for their money as well, They were known for their ability to field 600,000 infantry supported by "several thousands" of war elephants and up to 50,000 cavalry.

Thankfully for the Romans, neither the Mauryans nor the Han were in their region. To be honest, I feel that a war between Rome, India, and China would have resulted in a deadlock. Besides, considering the distances involved none of these armies had the logistical ability to support a major war at extended distances.

Thanks TSB. In what era were the best Roman legions in?

Actually the Roman Marian-type Legions of Julius Caesar's time is pretty good, against any contemporary opponent within their region, they could probably win any war, though they may lose a few battles.

Did the Chinese use cross bows in 218 BC?

 

Yes, the auxilia provided fire support for the cohorts. The cohorts being the assault element and the auxilia being the fire element.

 

Yeah, I read that the Parthians are expert horsemen and marksmen and their main fighting force was their cavalry.

Sun Tzu's Art of War has references to crossbows in chapter 5 and that book was written circa 500BC.

Yes, I chose this era because of Julius Caesar. Perhaps, you can also give an opinion of the Romans vs. The Chinese circa 218 B.C., or the time of Scipio Africanus and Hannibal of Carthage.[/size]

A great and comprehensive analysis on both armies TSB but I have a few questions. Who's better in throwing the javelin, the velites or the cohorts? When you say auxilia, do you mean archer auxilia? They're supposed to be at the back of the infantry to provide fire support, right? [/size]

It seems to me this Chinese tactic that you're referring to is akin to Hannibal's double envelopment tactic in his three major victories against the Romans. But I agree with you that the Chinese would beat the Romans simply because the Chinese can fight at a distance.

HTC One X+

HTC Desire C

HTC Desire HD

What is more strange is to let the debt reach 5Trillion dollars and declare the need for a much bigger government that would deliver health care. Please, these are facts that you can easily search using the net. Don't tell us that you have no means of verifying this issue.

Your statement was that all 50 states had already filed for secession and no such thing has happened, just because 0.02% of the population (700K out of 316M) was protesting you are assuming that this has already happened. I cannot verify something that only exists in your imagination. So prove it or move on.

5 trillion dollars is a lot of debt, much of it was incurred because of health care.

The decline of America spells a great investment loss for China. China propped up the US economy to save it from the dot com bust and became its largest single investor. No Chinese citizen ought to be happy with the impending fiscal cliff of the US Federal Government and the fact that Obama's more than 5 trillion dollar expenditures in his first term are more than what China ever produced in its first decade after opening up to the World Market. As of last week, 50 states in the USA have already filed for secession. This is a strong message that the gross mismanagement of the federal government is not going to be tolerated nor absorbed by state governments.

Strange, if ALL 50 states of the USA have filed for secession, basically there would be no more country called the USA. Care to add a link where there are 50 states filing for secession?

So far the movement is about 700 thousand people out of 350 MILLION citizens. Why is it we are so eager to assume that the will of a few is the truth?

The era of the Roman Republic. Around 44 BC to the time the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire. Ok war junkies, this is a what-if scenario. What are your thoughts? Who would win it and why?

Circa 44 BC would be the Triumvirate period of Rome and the Han Dynasty of China.

The basics:

Manpower

• Rome (SPQR) - Not yet the more famous Imperial army, the armies of Rome during this time were still based on the citizen levies but were already becoming a professional army as the Legionaries had to serve for 16 years and were mostly volunteers. Their training was for at least 6 months and included a lot of close-order drill as the might of the Roman Legions during this time was their adaptability and capability to work well. The basic legionnaire would be Italian (this was after the Social War) and approximately 80% were trained as infantry, 15% as navy (Roman infantry can function as marines), and merely 5% as cavalry. Considering that this was between the 1st and 2nd triumvirates, there were roughly about 40-50 legions (roughly 5,300 men each assuming full strength or 265,000 legionaries) and about an equal number of auxiliaries (mercenaries, natives of various provinces, etc. etc., mostly used as scouts, light infantry, or cavalry). So the pool of soldiers available for the Roman Republic would be 265,000 legionaries and perhaps 200,000 auxiliary infantry and perhaps 65,000 auxiliary cavalry.
  
• China (Western Han) - all able-bodied men served at least 1 year in the army as conscripts with 1 year before that for training, only a small professional army was maintained. The Western Han ruled a vast area and their armies were divided roughly into 60% infantry (mostly garrison troops), 10% navy, and 30% cavalry (most of their professional soldiers were cavalry). While there is no hard number to use for the Imperial Chinese Armies at this time, during the battle of Mayi, the Han Emperor sent about 300,000 soldiers while maintaining his garrisons and simultaneously expanding southwards. So we can assume that their manpower would roughly be in the 2 million range of trained infantry and cavalry.
  
• Summary - On the basis of manpower, China would have the edge.

Training

• Rome (SPQR) - The training for legionaries is 6 months, and was intensive, but as the new soldier was assigned to his legion, his cohort, and his century, his more experienced companions would teach him their tricks for survival, and the level of esprit de corp was very high.
  
• China (Western Han) - The Chinese soldiers were trained for 1 year, but the level of training depends on the type of soldier that was being turned out. Garritroops (perhaps 75% of the infantry) were trained mainly in the use of their spears and crossbows, relying on fortifications to protect themselves. Standard Infantry was not really considered of great value, and their training was mostly in volleying their crossbows together, soldiers were cogs in the machine and were transferable from 1 unit to another without much thought, their foremost thought would probably be to survive their 1 year in service. Cavalry on the other hand served for a minimum of 6 years and were considered elite units, their training and esprit de corps would be comparable to those of the Roman legions.
  
• Summary - Rome has the edge on infantry while China had the edge on cavalry.

Equipment

• Rome (SPQR) - At this time the basic equipment of the legionary would be their 2 javelins, their short sword, dagger, chain mail shirt, leather greaves (arm and leg), and their shield. The auxila infantry would normally have no armor and be armed with either bows or slings and perhaps a short sword or a dagger. The auxila cavalry would carry spears, long swords, and chain mail shirts with rounded shields.
  
• China (Western Han) - At this time the basic equipment of the Chinese infantry would be their their spear, their short sword, dagger, laminated plate armor (mostly leather maybe with some metal reinforcements towards the front) and shields or crossbows and dagger without armor. Han cavalry were very well equipped spear, sword, a type of mace, crossbow, dagger, metal scale mail (probably iron), and shield.
  
• Summary - Rome's legions would have the edge for the infantry while China's cavalry would massacre the auxila cavalry.
  

In essence, Roman legions would turtle up and dominate the center of the battlefield while the Chinese infantry would move aside and k*ll/wound the Roman infantry auxiliaries, Chinese cavalry would route the Roman cavalry auxiliaries, then they could surround the legions and take pot-shots using their crossbows, out of range of the pila of the legions. Eventually the legions would either surrender or die (from wounds or from starvation).

This is just my opinion of course and we have not yet gone into the leaders.

In a theoretical battle of ancient superpowers, who would you pick to win, the Chinese or the Romans? Why?

Depends which era and which commanders.

For anyone that is visiting Davao, avoid Honeybear Chicken House because BURNT is NOT a flavor.

Tried this place on a weekend night upon your recommendation... place was fully packed since it a weekend payday... oyakudon does not come with raw egg... curry katsu uses s&b but still lacks in flavor... fair deal considering the 145 peso tag... the quality of their meats are on the average... recommended for a quick fix but would rather have katsudon at omakase if near sta mesa/san juan area

Ah mon ami, the recommendation is for when they are NOT busy and the chef has the time to properly prepare the food. If you noticed my FR, we mostly pigged out on the sashimi and the sake.

for hot sake, some cooks add toasted tuna fish tail on top. personally, i don't like it

I've also tried hot sake where it had roasted rice kernels added, not bad. The one with fish though, I can live without.

nice FR on Yutaka Izakaya sir Smiling Sinful Bandit ........ I'll share some pics soon on my dining experience there.

 

Oh !!! was that cold sake ???? how does it compare to our favorite soju ???

I actually enjoyed the cold sake a lot more than soju, the taste is deffo better. Not to mention it mixes rather well with beer in sake bomb mode.