Jourdan

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.

I wll try to make it clear to you where you massively failed in logic...To wit (this is funny since there's very little involved here)

Statement: Actually a state only exists as long as its government (exists)

Proof

1. every change of a government may lead to the occupation of the territories of a previous state

2. but as the laws have changed

3. then it is a new state

Premise 1 talks about a change in government. Fair enough.

Premise 2 (a not-so-hidden premise) then adds "the laws have changed". Why would they change? Oh, is it because there was a change in government? From what I know, change in governments do NOT ALWAYS lead to change in the laws of the land. Heck, England had several dynastic changes and the laws stayed pretty much the same.

Conclusion 3 is nothing but a re-statement of the Statement only with an added premise to somehow slyly buttress a weak statement. It's nothing but a logical fallacy because the offered proof isn't a really a proof.

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.

No, it is obvious to anyone who studied symbolic logic that you just committed a circular argument: An egg is an egg because an egg, that has a yolk, is an egg.

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

Oh, did the Chinese turn into Martians? Are they now speaking Martian? writing in Martian? Worshiping a Martian God? do they now live in Mars?

You just don't get it, do you??? The state is an association of people who share a common sociocultural interests and who collectively assert control over a territory. A government could be of help to that, but is never the sole factor to establish one. Somalia for example existed as a state without a government during its civil war years. Iraq as well during the American-led US occupation. You could also have governments without states such as the Palestinian authority. So there's no one-to-one relationship between a state and a government.

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.

Facetious? is that the word of the month or something? hahahaha. You're all f#&king funny.

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.

And now we have to change tact lol. Why the change of heart from a hardliner "US will come to the Philippines' side because of MDT" to "anti-Chinese alliance" with "swallowing of pride"???

Why draw up an alliance now??? I thought Uncle Sam loves the Philippines and that love was enough to save us all. What happened?

You all are intellectual pansies. You can't even admit that your position is so f#&king weak that you have to sheepishly change your position. And oh, did you just say "US COULD PROBABLY..."? Wow, now even the help isn't guaranteed anymore. So much for MDT ey?

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.

WTF? hahahahahaha. The US does not have a say in China's oil production. Are you f#&king nuts? China is a sovereign state!!! And the US knows better not to f#&k sovereignty. So f#&king stupid for even saying this.

The US does not want China to control maritime traffic in the South East Asia. That's what the US is worried about. They want unimpeded entry to Asia. If China got hold of those islands, the whole of South China sea would become a Chinese lake, which would be tricky for the US since it has substantial economic interest in the region.

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.

Close ties, ey? tsk tsk tsk. How's no.2 trade partner to err, I don't know for the Philippines??? You're all intellectual shitheads. At the end of the day, America will cry a tear for the Philippines for going to war against China, probably send a naval contingent for defensive "peace-keeping" purposes, and throw hurtful rhetoric at the Chinese. But American government will not compromise its own domestic interests for a foreign state. The American public are just damn too intelligent to allow their government to do that. You know why the US is pulling out of Afghanistan despite that the Taliban has actually been gaining grounds since? It's because public support is no longer there. It's a drain on their economy with no end in sight. Heck, if the US would swallow its pride and leave a country that it "freed" from the "axis of Evil", what made you think that it would choose to engage China on behalf of the Philippines????

You're all f#&king dreamers. Wake up and read your history books.

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.

Really? So Gandhi was a faker? Nelson Mandela too? Did Chulalongkorn threaten the English and the French with its Siamese army? Oh, was he backed by the Americans???

Again, statements like this show how shallow your knowledge of history is.

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.)

Oh!!!!!! hahahahahahahaha. Now, this is funny. You don't know s@%t abt money, ey??? Here's the deal. The US cannot do that without violating WTO and IMF rules. And doing so will have severe consequences as to the standing of the dollar. It will get devalued. Its credit rating would get hit. Interest rates will soar. And that will plunge the US into another recession.

Should I elaborate on this further? Even Paul Krugman, who thinks that the US public debt to China is not that all-too-problematic, wouldn't dare suggest this.

I feel sorry for you. Err, try reading Paul Samuelson's economics textbook. That's a good start to learn the basics of monetary policies.

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.

Enough of the stupidity!!!!!!! Economic trade is not something you design on a piece of paper. It is market-driven. Trade patterns are dictated by competitive advantages, fiscal and monetary policies, and international rules. No country could unilaterally close its borders to trade - that's unfair trade practices.

Also, you clearly have no clue how economics work. The existing US-China relationship is so complex at all levels that no one on each side even wants to substantially disturb the status quo. The Chinese cannot simply dump the dollar by manipulating the goods or money markets because it will adversely reduce the value of its dollar-denominated assets, not to mention that it will cause the renminbi to appreciate, hence hurting its exports. The Americans, on the other hand, couldn't simply shun China because it needs Chinese demand for its products, and the Chinese funds to bouy up the weak domestic economy.

In sum, the ASEAN nations simply don't have the competitive advantages that China has, don't have the market demand that the US wants, and do not offer anything else, e.g. foreign direct investments, to the Americans.

To think that you really have to stress some phrases in your post...tsk tsk tsk. It's just laughably stupid.

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.

Oh geesh, you have such a wild imagination. The world NOW is different. It's so easy to pull out foreign direct investments out of any country. Technology is so good now that speculators could even wreck havoc on economies just by shifting funds here and there with few mouse clicks. The US would only be able to keep the physical plants + inventories because obviously, those are hard to pull out of any country. But that's only a small portion of the investments. The more liquid investments would have been long gone before the Army could even plant a foot on any Chinese-owned factory in the US.

Also, the US is no Venezuela. The large US corporations who have substantial Chinese investments would not approve of such unlawful act. It would be a cold day in hell for these US corporations to side with the US government and risk the drops in the share prices in markets where they operate, both inside and outside of US.

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.

Nothing that you said made sense. The US is not a warmonger state. It's not a rouge state who'd willfully violate WTO and IMF rules out of sympathy for the Philippines or your "alliance" BS.

And please, the US will resort to diplomacy because it can. It's intelligent enough to know when and how to use it. It has less to do with a stick than just having a sound mind.

only stupid fools like you would think that diplomacy only works when you have a stick. That's just insecurity to the extreme.

Actually I was using the dictionary to have a definite basis for arguments, you obviously are unable to back up your claims with anything even vaguely resembling a fact so you have to resort to insults as your arguments are based solely from your opinion.

 

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

No, yours stink. That I'm sure.

I am unable to backup my claim with facts??? wow. In this board, I have mentioned more facts than you all have done in less number of posts. I gave you historical facts. Who mentioned that Italy only existed as a state after the unification of the city-states of Milan, Florence, etc? Who mentioned facts and figures abt the state of affairs between US and China? Who mentioned how UNCLOS is such a flawed document based on differing interpretations of countries claiming the islands in the South China sea? Who mentioned that the articles of the MDT could even give the US excuses to f#&king leave the Philippine alone to fight China? Who mentioned examples of non-aggressive diplomacy that actually worked?

Meanwhile, you talk suppositions out of a Webster definition. You talk in terms of "IFs" and "What Ifs". Are those facts??? Wow.

Here's the deal. You want to know the scholarly "definitions" of a state? Read these:

- Politics as a Vocation by Max Weber

- The State and Revolution by Vladimir Lenin

- Philosophy of Right by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

- Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes

- The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau

There you go. Its so juvenile to rely on a dictionary to define a sociopolitical entity. It goes to show how shallow your knowledge of political sciences.

Where does it state that contiguous cannot be used temporally. That would depend if one views time as a single canvas or as a continuous flow of history as the former would be confusing.

excuses...excuses. this is the time to resort to a dictionary. You check the dictionary on how to use the word "contiguous" properly. Heck, what you did would have been forgivable if it there was a hint of sarcasm or something that would suggest it was colloquial. But nay, you used it whilst faking erudition.

So if you weren't referring to the land mass, what else could it be? Certainly not the political aspect, much less the socio-economic one. You are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole here.

I am referring to the Chinese people! My goodness. It's so f#&king obvious from the context. In fact, this is how PRC/ROC frame their historical claims. In fact, the Philippines historical claim of sovereignty over the islands is tied to the fact that there were Filipino settlers on the islands post-WW2, making the island a de facto part of Philippines.

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.

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.

What are the requirements of having sovereignty over the islands, then?

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.

@ Nick,

Learn to post correctly. Learn to quote correctly. Maybe by then, I'd be convinced that you have a working brain. And it's not nitpicking or anything. It's very real. If you can't learn a simple thing like making quotes on a board, then you're stupid. Plain and simple. I mean, that's how we say monkeys are not as smart as any adult humans...because they couldn't figure out and use tools that 5 yr olds could. Its kind of annoying and pitiful at the same time. I still couldn't make up my mind which is which.

But anyway, in the meantime, find your level.

But as a parting gift to you. No, I don't use the dictionary when dealing with sociopolitical concepts, or even economic ones. That's the discipline you get from studying Soc Sci II. You tend to give more respect for the nuances surrounding these concepts that you don't fall into the shithole of relying on dictionary entries to define them. To be fair though, I use the dictionary when I play scrabble.

@Jourdan. Sigh. For starters, let's have a perfunctory look at your posts to find a few contradicting statements:

 

 

You say the US is a nation that "pursues abstract goals and lofty aims." But you also say they can't be bothered to defend their allies, they only look out for themselves, they only care for economics. I assumed by abstract goals and lofty aims you meant something like coming to the defense of the helpless. What did you really mean?

Good that we're talking specifics. It's easier to deal with them than cryptic generalist statements...

The US indeed is a nation that pursues abstract goals and lofty aims. It's probably one of those superpowers left with a strong commitment to pursuing what it believes is right.

But no, "defense of the helpless" per se is NOT one of them. It's the pursuit of FREEDOM and its derivatives which the US holds so dear. Now, the dispute in Spratlys hardly involves the concept of freedom; it is nothing more than nations fighting over some islands in the South China Sea.

And I didn't say that the US can't be bothered to defend their allies. But the US will often do so much as to protect its own interests too. I just said that China happens to exert too much influence on the US economy that the US government will think a thousand times to alienate the Chinese. From the perspective of "who feeds who", China happens to more important to US than the Philippines.

You say historical claims are useless. But you also point out that both the PRC and the ROC "have long been fighting over who 'owns' the islands based on historical grounds." So, it's good enough for China and Taiwan but not for us?

I NEVER said historical claims are useless!!! I said OUR historical claims are useless in the context of convincing all other claimants to recognize and respect it. It practically does not convince anyone - not Vietnam, obviously not China. And when nobody believes it as valid, then why continue pinning your hopes on it? It's just stupid.

Some people define craziness as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. That's what you and others are stubbornly suggesting - that we keep our hardline stand on the issue while the Chinese keep on building whatever they want to build on those islands.

You say go read history. But then you say "you [can't] keep on looking back for solutions to issues that confront us now." So...how're you putting that Kas I knowledge to good use?

Looking at the past and being nostalgic abt "how great the Philippines was" is pretty much useless to resolve any existing problem now. But reading history to LEARN from OTHERS WHO HAD DONE A BETTER JOB at resolving such problems is never a bad thing. I guess you're sheepishly putting things out of context. I can't blame you. Even the devil quoted the very scriptures to make Jesus appear as an imbecile. Its a ploy most people use.

Simply put, nostalgia doesn't solve anything. Digging up lessons learnt does.

And I will repeat, the state of a problem is only defined by the existing parameters. Dwelling on how you got there is of no consequence to how you'd be able to change that to something better.

You wanted me to enumerate the ways in which you contradicted yourself, to show a claim was not an empty one. Your turn. Post a classcard of that Kas I grade.

Well, you failed miserably in the sense that you twisted my words and took them out of context. Now, whether that was sly intentional or something borne of your lack of comprehension is something that you could only answer.

And no, unfortunately, I don't keep records of my grades. So sorry. I mean, I didn't even attend my own graduation. I just took whatever prize I got after. It's just another day in the office; that classcard is nothing but a common piece of paper. Nothing out of the ordinary so why bother?

You also wanted to know why I said you were all over the place:

 

You said: "We readily commit ourselves to 'altruistic' pursuits without the benefit [of] careful reality check."

Uhhm, when people make a claim that their patriotism is gauged by how they defend a group of barely inhabited islands while remaining clueless that real communities in Mindanao no longer use Philippine peso, that to me screams ALTRUISM in the vacuum of space. it exists only in your head.

Ok. Apart from vubuli wanting to parcel out the Philippines to China, who here is advocating altruism? Was that a malapropism on your part or another sweeping generalization?

I don't really care abt vubuli or some shithead. I advocate diplomacy...a careful and informed diplomacy. where's the altruism in that compared to your position, which is to force the f#&king issue by way of holding on to UNCLOS and hence, uphold our sovereignty???? Heck, if your UNCLOS was foolproof, why are we having this debate until now????!!!

You said: "And while martyrdom is cute for the history books, it really does very little in real life."

 

Superfluous. No one is advocating we give up our lives either. Unless you count the formerly unspoken wish that Vubuli put his sorry *ss on Masinloc as part of our welcome committee to China.

Oh really, are you speaking for yourself or for your fellow apologists for the insane???? No one??? Err, dungeonbaby meet Nick Fury, our resident "let's fight the Chinese since Uncle Sam would help us anyway" dude. If war did not mean giving up lives to you, then I guess we really have different concepts of war. what's war to you? A pillow fight???

It's funny you berate TSB with "context, dude, context" when you previously bragged you don't back-read.

did I quote anyone when I first posted? was I replying or insinuating to reply to anyone? oh, I will repeat that question again...this time with RAISED VOICE: HAVE I EVER INSINUATED THAT I WAS REACTING TO ANYONE WHEN I FIRST POSTED HERE?

There goes your answer. He, on the other hand, specifically addressed my position. So please. Enough with this back-read thing. If I reacted to a post, you'd be pretty damn sure that I've read that post.

It's not really funny when you understand things, isn't it hey? The joke's on you.

Who came in, saw a few words, and assumed everyone but himself was an idealist, a simpleton, or a dreamer?

Well, I make inferences based on the posts that I am reacting on. You're an idealist. Nick is all of the above. Now, re-read your post with a fresh mind, like it's not you. If you don't sense some idealist BS in it, then maybe I'm wrong or you're just too dense to even feel it. Anyone who thinks UNCLOS will save the day for the Philippines is an idealist. Its the naivete that astonishes me to no end.

Who does that if not the most arrogant airhead? Who bandies their college grades as if that proved anything in the real world and expects people to take him seriously? What are you, a child? Maybe you could join vubuli and wave that class card from Prof. Gotiangco at the Chinese next time they disallow our fishermen from taking refuge in our atolls.

Oh, I am an airhead. Fine. I brandished my college grades. Fine. But to say that those grades don't mean a thing in the real world is plain sourgraping. Heck, HR's of the MNCs and TNCs have a pretty different view from you then, ey? And between you and those HRs, I'd take the latter's opinion. After all, theirs tend to lead to REAL $$$$, something that you use in the REAL world.

Also, if you don't believe the system, then why even go through it? Surely you've studied for a degree right? So please, enough of the s@%t saying that it doesn't mean a thing. You ridiculed my knowledge of Philippine geography, I simply provided you a contextual clue of my knowledge about it. And now, I'm not to be taken seriously???? Yeah right hahahaha.

And please, enough of the sheepish "putting words in my mouth" attempt. You're really have a knack for the melodrama...now, its the fishermen in the atolls. When did I ever mention them fishermen???

Oh, FYI, they're not strictly OUR atolls. they're contested, remember??? That's the whole issue to begin with. So your attempt to emotionally appeal to me is an epic failure!!! Next time you try to bait me with one of those melodramatic s@%t, please package it better. I didn't get my 1.0 for nothing.

Jejemon advisory: multiple punctuation marks don't strengthen your statement; you can drop the 13 extra question marks on your posts and help maintain a veneer of having had an education.

Really???? Rest assured you wouldn't see numerous punctuation marks when I respond to people who showed some really good level of education. Jejemon begets jejemon. That's how life is. I'm all for fairness. Tit-for-tits! lol

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.

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..."

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.

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).

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.

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:

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

But the capital of Italy is Rome which was once the capital of the Roman Empire. Rome is now just a city in Italy and is obviously under the jurisdiction of the Italian government. If there is an entity that can make a historical claim, it's Italy and not Rome. The United Nations will never make a city have a historical claim. Just imagine how awkward it would be to the UN if the mayor of Rome claimed Gallia (France) for Rome. It has to be the Italian Prime Minister making a historical claim and not the Rome mayor. Your reasoning is doltish at best.

 

Really? No person? Try Benito Mussolini. Check your facts before posting. Puro ka stupid, sablay naman mga post mo.

Ah hahaha. Stupid ass! Even Rome can't claim a piece of s@%t outside Rome! Hahahahahahahhahahahahaha. Did I ever insinuate that Rome could claim but not Italy? So f#&king stupid.

Dude, heres the list of GE subjects in UP that might help grow your brain - Philo 1, Kas 1, Soc Sci 1, Hum 1. Comm 1. And yeah, special students dont need to pass UPCAT to be admitted so dont worry. Please stop insulting me with your stupidity.

Modern Rome is never the historical successor of the Roman Empire. The Latin Roman Empire has been dead since the sacking of Rome by the Goths. The eastern empire lived until the fall of Constantinople. But even this eastern empire can be hardly classified as the true successor of the ancient Roman empire. Again, NO countrt existing today could claim the whole of Europe by way of highlighting historical links to the Roman empire. Thats outrageous and laughable hahahaha.

And wow you really would go and defend your stupidity. What a face! Hahaha. Reread my post. i said "SANE" hahahahah. Mussolini is hardly a sane man. I think history regards him more as a fascist/corporatist pig lol.

You have a point, but isn't it also true that the Yuan (or whatever) dynasty is also extinct?

Apples to oranges! Your talking states vs govts. China is not Yuan dynasty. China, the state, has existed since ancient times. It changed leadership. It changed forms of govts. But the Middle Kingdom persisted.

On the other hand, the Roman empire is long gone

Thats why Taiwan is also making historical claims rooted in its Chinese past. Bec Taiwanese govt considers itself as the REAL stewards of China, and not the PRC communist party.

Italy rebuttal my ass!

Italy is not the surviving nation that was the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire is an EXTINCT nation. It is neither Italy, Spain, Gaul, Brittania, or Turkey. Therefore for Italy to claim the whole of Europe by virtue of the fact that the Roman empire's capital happened to be geographically located in what is today an Italian territory is STUPID. No sensible person, past, present or future, will ever make that 'historical claim'.

Huh? I was talking about historical claims since that's your guide for ownership of a territory and you answer me with this off-tangent post. Hahaha! Sablay na naman as usual.

how was it off-tangent? Italy wasn't existing during the Roman times. The Romans never referred to themselves as Italians unless you have your own version of history books lol.

To say that Italy should own the whole of Europe just because the Romans did is not based on historical claims but on your own stupidity.

Italy was born when the city-states agreed to a unification. FYI.

Sablay ba? Whoops hahaha.

Hahaha...succint?

Challenge: "kindly elaborate the Philippine claim based on UNCLOS vis-a-vis other claimants' claim, including China's."

Response: The islands in the Spratlys that the Philippines claims is under the EEZ under the UNCLOS...I'm not exactly sure about China and the other countries. What I'm concerned about is the Philippines' claim.

Rebuttal: So Nick succintly does not know how China et al applied the same UNCLOS document to support their claims. Further, he succintly implies that the dispute over Spratlys can be settled by havjng a unilateral, i.e., Philippine-centric, interpretation of UNCLOS, notwithstanding any other basis for claims that are established as acceptable by jurisprudence, e.g., historical claims, 'self-determination', occupation, etc.

Yeah right, that's the kind of intelligence that people should respect. Bravo!

Kantong-kanto hahaha. "Ah basta, tama ako. Wala ako pakialam sa sasabihin mo. Peksman. Me resbak ako...Uncle Sam!" hahahaha

Hahaha! That's the problem with posters like you who don't know how to backread and just shoot their mouths off. What an imbecile. Magbackread ka muna totoy.

Imbecile? wow. totoy? Selos? hahahaha

Why would I backread? what for? You're evading the issue. PROVE that the MDT is so f#&king tight that the US will have no choice but to help the Philippines over an armed confrontation with the Chinese.

And oh, you're "IF China..." is a moot point. China ISN'T going to war against the Philippines. Why would it go to war????

There's no need for that. At any rate, the Chinese could build anything they want on those islands without a war, just as what they're doing now. So the only probable cause for a war to start between China and the Philippine is for the Philippines to strike first. And if that happens, bye-bye MDT.

First of all, and this really shows your intelligence, learn how to use the editor lol. hahahaha It's too f#&king simple!!!

Anyway, moving on...

Did I really use a stupid idiom or are you calling it stupid coz you got caught with your pants down and took it literally? Haha! Ok lang yan. It happens. No need to make lame excuses. China has to dance one way or the other because they are the ones who are in an inferior bargaining position since the Kalayaan Islands are under the RP EEZ under the UNCLOS.

oh yeah, with my pants down!!! PISSING ON YOU!! hahahaha. Who the f#&k couldn't understand what "two to tango" means? Anyway, for you to even think that I thought it was literal evidently shows your level of intelligence. I'm amaze at myself for keeping this discussion! lol

Since you've been saying this UNCLOS thing for sometime now, kindly elaborate the Philippine claim based on UNCLOS vis-a-vis other claimants' claim, including China's. Let's see how good your knowledge of geology is.

I just hope this isn't like the way you name-dropped MDT without ever reading it.

Why would you feel like talking to a dolt? Don't tell me the neurons in your brain have slowed down, hence, you feel like talking to a dolt.

Uhh, because you're a dolt?? Yeah, that's it.

Personally, I don't think we should negotiate with a country which has been pushing its weight around.

And personally, I don't give a s@%t. Cos you're a nobody.

What' will Aquino do? Beg the Chinese to take down the structures?

Ah you've read my posts right? I specifically was against begging and I was for joint development, wasn't I? your nth logical fallacy - begging the question.

 

The fact of the matter is China is an international bully and needs to be humbled. You don't negotiate with countries which violated international law on a number of occasions.

Humbled by the Philippines??? yeah, sure. Are you high?? Humbled with what?

Oh FYI, the communist leadership killed its own people when they tried to 'humble' the regime. So good luck.

My point is stupid. Really now? According to you. But hey, you're entitled to your opinion. Mr. Marcos was the epitome of that kind of strong leader I'm talking about. He was skilled in every aspect a savvy leader should be skilled at.

Wow, another Marcos fanboy. Yup, he's good. So good that he bankrupted the country that now we have the weakest army of all the Spratly claimants. Bravo!!!

Comical. Haha! This is coming from a guy who made a sweeping statement that the US won't side with RP to enforce the MDT.

Sweeping????!!!! Wow. After I mentioned 2 articles of the MDT that releases the US from its obligations to help the Philippines and highlighting historical performance of US with regards to helping its allies, e.g., S. Korea, Vietnam nationalists? Oh, and I remember mentioning the fact that US foreign policy begins and ends with US interests. How's that a sweeping statement??

Or maybe you have the gift of clairvoyance? Share naman dyan ng nalalaman mo tungkol sa US policy na hindi namin alam.

Nambaligtad pa!!! Ikaw ang walang mabigay na proof sa claim mo na siguradong-sigurado ka na tutulong ang US if an armed conflict happened in the Spratlys. I provided the supporting facts to destroy that claim. You haven't provided counter-factuals at all.

You're an intellectual pansy. A fake. hahaha. You don't even know how logical arguments are constructed. FYI, you can enrol as a special student in Philo 1 - UP Diliman. You need to learn symbolic logic. Your logical fallacies are pathetic.

If we are to go by historical claims, then Italy should own virtually all of Europe because almost all of Europe was once occupied by the Roman Empire. Think before posting. All you do is shoot your mouth off without thinking kaya ka sumasablay.

Italy = Rome??? Since when??? tsk tsk tsk.

Read your history on how Italy was formed from the city-states of Milan, Florence, Genoa, Pisa, etc.

How can one be THIS stupid?

the natural assumption when you make contradicting statements is that, yes, you are really THAT clueless.

ah hahaha. Well, you should know better.

Lemme see...Kasaysayan I - 1.0 under Prof. Gotiangco.

That's a not-so-subtle hint for you.

And mind you, what contradicting statements??? It's easy to accuse. But please, specifics dear.

your condescension and sarcasm are noted, but you're all over the place. so why don't you rest your smooth-skinned chin on your baby-soft palm and take a breather, let the brain work for once instead of jumping in wildly and assuming you understand the positions that are being stated here from reading a total of one or two pages.

I never really back-read, save for page 1 just to get the context. Was it an SOP to understand who's who??? And why am I all over the place? Again, accusations. Empty unless substantiated.

additionally, why should i amuse you? go amuse yourself and go through our islands to see just how close that huge chinese garrison is to our shores, we're talking dog-paddle distance. while you're there, take note of the dome that's on stilts that's also theirs. then, as you take that measurement, read the provisions in the unclos. and yes, as has been pointed out on this thread before by a lot of us - not that you can be bothered to read too far beyond your own words - the unclos may not hold water with some major stakeholders but, at present, it may be the best thing the region has. then think about squatters...and just how damn easy it is to get them off land that is not theirs. possession is nothing? possession is 90% of the game when you've got nobody willing to fight the bully.

and again, UNCLOS my foot. Have you read it? Has anyone of you who refer to it EVER READ IT? Nick hasn't even read MDT but was super-confident that it will force the US to come and help us against the Chinese over Spratly's.

You see I see a pattern here. People haphazardly name-dropping s@%t here and there without the benefit of understanding. I claim to be no expert on UNCLOS. But I know it is FLAWED. How? f#&k it. Almost all claimants use it to some extent to justify their claims. Malaysia uses continental shelf theory. China's interpretation of UNCLOS, which is almost similar to Brunei, uses the distance concept and it widely different from Malaysia's. Simply put, UNCLOS is not foolproof. Like any arbitrary document, it is subject to interpretation. Heck, even the theoretical foundation of UNCLOS is contentious. Err, are you a geologist? I'm not. But geesh, I know that geology ain't physics. It's as much as dark arts as it is science. How do I know? Again, context dear. You know who I am. Go figure.

Furthermore, UNCLOS is NOT the sole document to justify territorial disputes. As I mentioned, and that which you conveniently ignored, Western nations couldn't have owned any territory in the Pacific IF we're to follow UNCLOS alone. So how's that possible? Oh yes, HISTORICAL CLAIMS.

Funny that you hyped up this UNCLOS when one of the stronger arguments that the Philippines has over the Spratlys is rooted in its historical claims over the islands.

And wow, you're cryptic! Is this intentional or what? Who possesses what? Let's name names here lest I be accused of assuming too much.

Also, pls. enough of the drama. squatters? How's that f#&king relevant here??? Who squats on where??? Again, BE SPECIFIC. One thing I learned from Gotiangco is that examples are far better than rhetoric.

oh, by the way, there is sarcasm and hyperbole mixed in here somewhere. i'm sure you can separate the chaff from the grain, that is, if you can take time off from your beauty regimen

ah hahaha. I'm not sure which is which so I'll let you elaborate more. And oh, I think I can do the separating thing while putting on moisturizer on my face.

virtual hearts, sweetling. p

cool. I heart you too. hahahaha

since you won't backread, i'll return the favor and not put your replies in the context of your bigger view articulated to other posters here.

 

it's ours based on our map, on the un map, and based on the simple fact that it's right inside our waters.

 

a garrison with a couple hundred men is hardly a barong-barong, jourdan.

No, its not a 'simple' fact that its 'right inside our waters'. I wish it was that simple. There's no simple rule that defines territorial ownership. If there is, there'd no disputes everywhere in the world and we will all be happy.

But go ahead, amuse me. Tell me what's that simple fact and whys and hows behind it.

And oh, I was being sarcastic with the barong-barong. It was meant to exaggerate the contrast between what we built vs what the Chinese contingent had put up in the area.

who's talking about 50 years ago? nostalgia? don't get your critiques mixed up.

Err, hmm...I probably should stop the exaggeration bit because it just serves as a distraction. The whole point is that what happened in the past has little relevance to how things are now. You cant keep on looking back for solutions to issues that confront us now. The problem facing us right now is that a powerful bully is adamantly claiming those islands and our posturing and rhetoric had done nothing to deter the bully. Digging up what happened years ago or talking abt Marcos, Ramos, and whoever you can think of wont solve that problem. Neither does dreaming of some strong leader like what some intellectual pansy would solve the issue.

You tackle the issue given the actual, tangible parameters NOW. The state of any physical or social phenomenon is only defined by the parameters existing at the time of observation. However you get to that point is of little relevance to how you could change it for the future.

a tad too dramatic. that's the crow calling the raven's feathers black. lol.

Ok, case closed haha

you have no idea how close the Chinese are, do you?

Really? Do you really think I'm THAT clueless? Lol

Do you want the distances in km or nautical miles?

Again, if we're going to go by distances alone, western nations shouldnt have any claims over islands in the pacific. Now, hows that possible that France, Netherlands, etc own lands too far from their shorelines?

and since when was patriotism based on military might? you need a gun to feel love for your own, is that it? if you keep no weapons at home, you just let the friendly communist neighbor build a doghouse in your yard?

. You implied that guarding our shores isn't overzealous patriotism and not so sheepishly imply that I wasnt all for guarding our shores. I simply rebuked that by highlighting your misplaced sense of patriotism. You're looking to display your vaunted patriotism by guarding a barely uninhabited group of islands while you stand and do nothing about filipino communities in well-established Philippine territories who, for all practical purposes, no longer have allegiance to the flag. Its ridiculuous. If you cant assure them that the govt could viably take care of them, don't go and shout that you just have to guard those islands.

as for the US not taking an interest, i wonder what their navy base in Mindanao is for. (well if you believe UP law professors, the base is there to honor ancient treaties with the US protectorate in Mindanao. funny, funny lawyers.)

Oh sly....hahaha. You're one smart cookie. But I'll bite anyway. Yeah, lawyers are a funny bunch. Ancient treatise! Hahahahaha

The US is in Mindanao bec they had to have some presence in the region. SE Asia is a growth corridor, and buffer to China and India...2 of the emerging powers that seem to be not in awe of the American might. Its also a good staging ground for intel ops on Islamist extremists linked to Al Qaeda, e.g., JI and a deterrent too.

but all this discussion is moot and academic and frankly quite laughable. while we're all failing to "convince" each other here, guess which nation is of one mind in willfully claiming what they believe with all their communist hearts and souls is theirs.

Hardly communist at all. And no, I dont intend to convince anyone at all. I really dont care if you think you can change the world by shouting obscenities at the Chinese and threathening war with museum-quality military gear. I wouldnt fault the Chinese for believing its theirs. Pragmatic people only believe things that could really happen...like they have the resources to actually translate that belief into something concrete. And its usually at the expense of stubborn idealists and dreamers here and there. After all, words may hurt but missiles typically k*ll people.

Huh? The last time I checked, this thread was named the South China/West Philippine Sea thread. Go make a logic thread.

Oh, so since this is not a logic thread, you could be illogical??? Is that what you are? An illogical person? Ok. cool.

Perhaps, this lecture of yours would be more appropriate there. Hahaha! You call it a lame question coz you can't answer it. Hahaha! This is hilarious.

Well, its quite desperate to be honest...

1. You made a claim: Ownership of Spratlys should be settled by way of UNCLOS [A general claim]

2. I offered a counter-argument: UNCLOS cannot be relied upon as UN resolutions have historically failed to stop offending parties. I enumerated examples of major failings of the UN [specific proofs to demolish the truth of a general claim]

3. You offered a rebuttal: How many UN resolutions have failed?

Do you get it now? How is a question a valid rebuttal?

Just a suggestion junior, when you post something, be ready to defend it. You putatively can't defend that UN Resolution s@%t you've been talking about.

Because it is an irrelevant question. It's a logical trap. Your general claim is already falsified by a specific counter-example. Asking an off-tangent question is a desperate attempt to hide the fact that you cannot anymore defend your general claim.

So you won't follow international law because you think diplomacy is the best solution. The way I see it, the Chinese are not practicing diplomacy. Putting structures on disputed islands and fishing brazenly in another countries EEZ isn't really what you call diplomacy, is it?

How is practicing diplomacy not following international laws??? Reaching out to China to offer them an amicable solution to the problem is in line with what the UN wants - a peaceful means to settle disputes.

The fact that China hasn't practiced diplomacy is irrelevant to the Philippines attempting to resort to diplomacy to settle the dispute. In fact, when faced with a bully, the offended party could gain sympathy and support from others by not retaliating with force.

I was talking about the US losing face if it reneges on the MDT if China becomes aggressive in its expansionist plans (e.g. sinking the BRP Aguinaldo in the vicinity of the Kalayaan Islands). I'm befuddled why you even brought up the articles of the MDT when what I was trying to convey was clear. Reread and understand this clause "if China becomes aggressive in its expansionist plans."

Oh, I brought up the MDT because it seems unclear to you how it works. Your "IF China..." scenario would only happen if the Philippines would provoke an armed response. And provoking an armed response violates Article I. And even in the event that your "IF China..." premise happens, the US is not strictly bound to come and help the Philippines because the Spratlys are disputed and Philippine sovereignty is not established. By Article V, it's not strictly an attack on the Philippine soil.

Are you privy to Obama and Hillary Clinton's meetings so as to make a sweeping statement that the US won't side with us?

No, but the US has a history of putting its national interests first when making foreign policy decisions. It left Korea. It left Vietnam. In the end, protecting US interests dictates US foreign policies. The US will certainly react to Chinese aggression. But that's not because of its MDT with the Philippines, or that we're their little brown brothers. Rather, it is to protect US interests in the region since ownership of those islands in the South China Sea would give substantial China a control on maritime traffic and a strategic naval advantage.

My, oh my. You have a comprehension problem. Are you that obtuse? Read the post which you quoted.

Oh I did, its garbage. the "IF...then MDT.." is stupid to begin with since you obviously don't know the scope of the MDT. Now, the oil bit is just funny. You may want to ask your friend why it's unwise to talk oil. That's a hint to you. Ok?

Hahaha! You're getting comical by the post. I'm talking here of conventional warfare. Haha! Is China comparable to Al-Qaeda? The former is a country and the latter is a terrorist organization. Hahaha! I'll lecture you on this, junior, since your naivete is getting apparent based on this post. Al-Qaeda doesn't have nuclear warheads, subs, fighter planes, etc. They operate using insidious means. You ostensibly didn't understand what I posted. I was talking about a pre-emptive strike by the US on the Chinese missile silos to neutralize their ICBMs and you talk about 9-11? Hahahaha!

Well, its the same banana. Its all about the US military intelligence capabilities. Do you think the US has the military intelligence about all the location of China's ICBMs???? Wow. Do you think the Chinese are THAT dumb????

The US even have a hard time finding out the exact details about North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons. And now you're telling me that the US will easily preemptively wipe out all Chinese missile silos??? Wow.

Fyi, China, along with Israel, Russia, and the US, are the top countries when it comes to cyber-intelligence. And that's saying something about them. Again, why would I mention something that seems totally irrelevant to Spratlys? Well, it is to merely make a point about Chinese capabilities, which you seem to not appreciate at all. The Chinese are no pansies. They sent rockets to space, built levitating trains, and reverse-engineered almost anything that's made in the West. Give them some credit.

I will grant cheap and effective.

 

But not inevitable. Those yellow chekwas are hiding some rather deeps flaws. Or do you submit they have none?

 

LC

An open war involving ROC would expose PRC's leadership's hold on the army, the government, and party loyalty...something that they might want to avoid. Blood ties across Taiwan strait vs. party/ideological lines will really get tested once that war in the South China seas between two Chinese countries happen. There are strong sentiments for "one China" across mainland demographics. And the PRC leadership knows best not to test that.

Also, an open war in South China sea is not in the best interests of PRC. A threat of war is different from having an actual one. The former effectively deter other parties from actually striking first, bec that would give China the ascendancy to hit back. The latter is an open invitation to everyone to actually hurt Chinese interests, whether by military strikes or economic sanctions.

It was obviously an idiomatic expression (it takes two to tango). Don't take it literally.

You obviously didn't get it lol. Are you shallow Hal? Err, paging dungeonbaby...one soul needs your help here hahaha.

Oh well, its this dude...you used a stupid idiom, a corny cliche. All I did was to put an end to that s@%t. When I said "we're not dancing tango", I was implying that the Philippines isn't that attractive sexy lady that PRC would be naturally enticed to dance with. I was implying that we need to painstakingly initiate the talks since we are at an inferior bargaining position.

Negotiation of what? The issue in these disputed islands isn't over yet, yet they put up structures on some islands as if these islands are their own. Did it ever occur to you that the Chinese are Asian bullies? Try asking the Vietnamese and Indians.

I feel like talking to a dolt. Someone mentioned to me that you're supposed to be smart. It isn't showing at all. The reason why we need to now resort to diplomacy is precisely the fact that the Chinese have managed to build the structures even with our loudest protests. Gets?

Posturing didn't deter the Chinese. So a change of strategy is now required. Otherwise, we would get to a point where the Chinese would have set up a viable community with a functioning local government in the Spratlys. By then, "self-determination" would then come into play and our position will drastically weaken.

I don't argue against the obvious...the Chinese are indeed using bullying tactics. But it's incredibly stupid to continue posturing against that when the Chinese know that we couldn't back up the tough talk. It's not working.

You didn't seem to get the gist of what I posted. I'll be explicit. We need a strong leadership. A president who won't get cowed by bullies like the Chinese.

And you couldn't grasp my point: your point is stupid. Now that's explicit.

Rhetoric will not deter the Chinese from setting up structures in those islands. Threats of armed confrontation are laughable. If I, a Filipino, found it laughable, how much more laughable would it be to a Chinese leader who has an army that ranks no. 1 in size, and with military funding that ranks 2nd in the world? Oh, should I mention that Russia is its technological partner?

A strong bone-head Filipino leader will do nothing to prevent the Chinese to build whatever they want to build on those islands.

what we need is a statesman skilled in diplomacy. Here's a trivia for you: Thailand was never conquered by a western power. Was the king of Thailand during the age of imperialism the bravest, strongest leader? Hell no. Did he possess a treaty with a superpower? probably not. In fact, he didn't have to use force at all. No posturing. No rhetoric. He was rather smart. He knew how to bargain for his country.

 

The building of structures in the disputed islands would not have happened if we had a strong and clever leader.

Really??? Madam Auring ikaw ba yan??? Nakita mo ba yan sa bolang kristal??? lol

Stop convoluting your post. We're not talking here of Israel. So tell me, how many UN Resolutions were ignored by offending parties vis-a-vis the total number of UN Resolutions?

Oh, hmm...have you studied the rules of discourse? hahaha. evidently not. I attacked your "should" statement and disprove it by way of concrete examples. You see in LOGIC, a general statement is disproved by only one (1) instance that proves the negative. And I give not one, but a quite a few.

And then, I challenged you to dispute the counter-argument that your "should" isn't dependable in the world of international politics. I even ask leading questions that could help you build your counter-argument.

And all you have is a lame question as rebuttal??? Boy, questions don't count as valid counter-arguments.

If you can't follow logic, don't attempt to be logical. hahaha

Also, tell me what you'll follow to resolve a situation like the Spratlys? A turret aimed at you?

Oh, didn't you read my post? But for your sake, I'll reiterate it. I said diplomacy. No posturing BS. No overt display of machismo. Just real negotiations based on mutual interests.

First of all, we have the Mutual Defense Treaty. If the US doesn't honor that, the US will lose face in the international community.

US losing face over the Philippines? over the fact that Philippines would actually provoked an armed response from China? over DISPUTED islands??? have you read the MDT? Evidently not. So here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Defense_Treaty_%28U.S.%E2%80%93Philippines%29

Read it. Article I kills your argument immediately. If the Philippines would use force to provoke China, then the treaty goes down the drain. Article V then states clearly the scope of mutual defense. Sovereignty is not settled over the Spratly's and therefore a Chinese attack on the islands do not strictly fall within the bounds of MDT.

The US will evidently mediate because of its interests in the region. But definitely it will not side with us.

If China aggressively continues with its expansionist plans and the US somehow reneges on the MDT, how do you think the US will look in the international community? Certainly, not a world power that it is. I mean it's bad enough that the US reneged on a treaty and more importantly get cowed by an upcoming super power.

Hold your horses!!! hahaha. MDT will only matter IF the Chinese unilaterally attack the Philippines. Have they done that? So all these logical musings are worthless since you couldn't establish that those islands unequivocally belong to the Philippines.

Before the Chinese could launch those ICBMs, the US will have wiped out the Chinese missile silos.

Whoa!!! really??? How do you know that? Are you a spy??? lol. You're funny. Oh yeah, World Trade Center never happened. Pentagon was not hit. Yeah, the US is omnipotent and omniscient. I can't believe people can be so naive!!!

If there is, indeed, oil in the Spratlys, the US would rather deal with us than deal with China since we are one of its staunchest allies in Asia rather than a potential foe for world supremacy.

Hahaha. This is the part that really displays your vaunted intelligence. The USA is a capitalist country. Oil majors are PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. And these corporations don't give a s@%t where the oil is. They'll get the oil from war-ravaged Nigeria to a first world country like Canada. The US government may be alarmed if and when China would tap the reserves in Spratly islands. But it wouldn't use military force to prevent that just because it doesn't want China to own the oil. That goes against the very essence of what America is.

Besides, do you think China will sell a voluminous amount of oil to a country which rivals them in its usage?

hahahaha. Firstly, why would China sell the oil?????????????? You're clueless about oil that it's so funny. Err, my suggestion is ask LC about oil. He might be able to help you. Ok?

But here it is. China is VERY SHORT on crude. China is a net importer of oil. China, in fact, has skillfully secured oil supply from countries through a combination of investments, acquisitions and supply contracts. One thing that China wants out of Spratly's is oil FOR DOMESTIC USE. Not for export. So your whole point about selling s@%t is just that...s@%t.

The Philippines doesn't use as much oil as the US so it can sell a large amount of oil to one of the most industrialized countries in the world so the business relationship will be beneficial to both the US and RP.

This is becoming funnier. FYI, the US is nearing self-sufficiency in oil. The domestic production, or at least that of North America, is nearly balances the demand. In fact, the premium on West African sweet crude has dropped significantly due to a decrease in demand of foreign oil in the US. So the US couldn't care less on who gets the crude from Spratly's. The US don't need crude oil from across the Pacific.

It would have been wiser of you if you had mention Japan somewhere. Like Japan would certainly benefit from regional crude. Japan is importing huge amounts of crude since the switch from nuclear reactors to conventional thermal plants. And yes, Japan would probably prefer to buy crude from the Philippines than China.

The 38th parallel was established at the end of World War 2 which is before the Korean War.

And the US didn't push north when it could, which could have "erased" the 38th parallel and united Korea under a democratic rule. The question is why? According to you, Uncle Sam is the policeman of the world. So why did it allow the bastard commies to live?

Now, I'll let you in on something about the Vietnam War. The US won almost every military encounter with the VC/NVA but they couldn't annihilate the VC because they didn't get the sympathy of the peasants who are a valuable source of humint (human intelligence). The peasants offered sanctuary to the VC so the Americans had little intelligence as to the whereabouts of the VC. The Americans should have just invaded North Vietnam and thrown caution to the wind. The Americans, at that time, had the military wherewithal to defeat a combined NVA/USSR army. I believe the NVA was Russian backed.

Ok, look closely at what I highlighted. Why did America choose not to invade North Vietnam when it had the military wherewithal (your favorite word I see lol)? What stopped them??? The peasants?? I thought your GI joes are invincible, omnipotent, and omniscient? So why can't they find the vietcongs?

You don't have a point of view at all. You're all over the place. This last paragraph about Korea and Vietnam doesn't offer anything to counter my argument that the US cannot be relied upon to fight for the Philippines against China. Uncle Sam backed out from Korea. He also backed out from Vietnam. What you mentioned did nothing to refute those facts.

Take a look at yourself in the mirror before calling me a dreamer.

huh? why would I? you're the one who're hopelessly in-love with the US. dream on.

Guys, thanks for avoiding feeding the troll;

 

I submit that that the very opaqueness of China masks real, deep, and awkward weaknesses. And that is why they still make noises towards diplomacy, because they can't afford a war.

 

If they could, the chekwa (knowing how the chekwa race thinks) would have already grabbed the islands ten years ago, wala nang mahabang usapan, like they also grabbed tibet in the 50's, sent own troops to the Pusan perimeter in the Korean war, and also went to war against Vietnam in the mid 70's.

 

But they have not grabbed the islands. So they must have sensitive balls hidden somewhere. Find those balls, before even thinking of negotiating with them.

 

LC

LC,

The sensitive balls do not involve any SEA nation. Its Taiwan that the mainland "cares" about. Always has. Always will be. Like it or not, the sentiments on either side are mixed. Loyalties are suspect on each side.

PRC and ROC have long been fighting over who "owns" the islands based on historical grounds. Heck, the two have been "fighting" over who's the REAL China. Let's be frank. PRC could easily wipe out all the state capitals of the ASEAN nations with its ICBMs. China vs. ASEAN is like Israel vs. Arab nations in 1967.

But not ROC. ROC is a formidable foe, with or without the US. ROC Army is better equipped, more advanced, and better trained than PLA. If I remember it correctly, Taiwan's armed forces is more or less 20+ yrs ahead of PLA. It will be stupid for PRC to engage ROC. Why allow yourself to bleed when right now, everyone else thinks your a God?

And China is again, a merchant state - state capitalism at its finest (or worst depending on how you view it). They won't do something stupid for some altruistic motive or abstract goal. Its all business. what they're playing is war of attrition. Its a slow, methodical means to outlast all the claimants - it's cheap and effective.

it might help to look at some of the islands china has built on and see who owns it. gma has to answer for some of that, and that may be the one point i would cede to vubuli.

again, who owns it based on what? our map? UN map? Putting up a few temporary structures isn't enough to claim ownership. And yes, a barong-barong is a temporary structure.

but it's beside the point, really. I look at the whole issue at the vantage point of NOW. It's pretty useless to be nostalgic about how we "own" those islands 50 years ago. 50 years ago we were crying that Sabah was ours. Now, we have given up hope of getting it back. Borders across the world had been re-drawn countless times since. So, I don't get whole "dati amin" blah blah. It doesn't help.

The reality is NOW, those islands are hardly ours.

don't know who you're replying to but who's being sentimental? when diplomats shed tears it's not out of sentimentality but out of the very thing you complain of, mendicancy. was i criticizing that tendency to be overwrought? yes. would i have engineers and businessmen take charge? yes.

Well, I just find the whole "shedding a tear" comment a tad too dramatic. Even beggars hardly cry nowadays. I don't think diplomats would cry when they see the Chinese delegate. But yeah, I'd ask my friend if they did have some crying sessions.

is it overzealous patriotism to guard your shores? apparently, to at least two posters here, the answer is no.

Guard your shores? with what? Jesus, we don't even have a thriving community there.

It's this: Go to the southernmost islands of the Philippines and check yourself what currency they're using and where they are getting their livelihood. We couldn't even ensure that Filipinos in established Filipino communities use Philippine peso. We couldn't even support them economically. I guess you have to set your patriotism straight. Deal with the things closer to home first. Maybe then, you'd be able to convince me that you could guard those islands.

China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, etc. have made historical claims to the Spratlys. Not one of the aforementioned countries established a colony in those islands so it should be international law (UNCLOS) which should be given credence in order to settle the claims to the Spratlys, since there are multiple claimants to the Spratlys. Yes, it's true that we don't have the military wherewithal, hence, China is enforcing its claim to the Spratlys. What makes you think the US won't step in in the event China becomes too aggressive in its expansionist plans?

SHOULD..that's the operative word. Well, in 1947 the UN voted to have 2 states in the Palestine, one Arab and the other Jewish. It SHOULD have been two states. Did it happen? NO. When was Palestine recognized and admitted to the UN? 2012....after decades of wars and abject poverty.

Oh, the UN also said the NATO coalition 'should' not have invaded Iraq. Do you have any idea how many UN 'should' resolutions were just ignored by offending parties??? What's the UN's success rate at punishing offending parties for violating 'should' resolutions? If you're able to prove that your "should" 'laws' were ever effective especially against a powerful offender, then I'd happily concede.

The word 'should' has existed all throughout human history. But it's a pretty useless word. It only works when you're like the USA...when your military might translates that 'should' to a forceful 'shall'.

And what makes me think that the US won't help us? Hmm, let me just outline 3 of the many reasons why the US wouldn't backup its rhetoric:

1. The US military is already overstretched. 2 simultaneous wars in Iraq (2003) and Afghanistan (2001) were tough both on the personnel and on the coffers. A 3rd war in just 10 years will be a killer...especially against a well-trained army with ICBMs that could hit US territories. And mind you, save for the plane that hit the World Trade Center, no "foreign' attack has ever happened on the US mainland.

2. The US has some serious economic issues. Their fiscal problems are just enormous. They're not as strong as they once were.

3. China is a major trading partner. Chinese investments support the American economy. And China holds ~8% of the US public debt, which gives it a significant influence over the value of US dollar.

Now tell me? what's in it for the US to jump in and help us? Would it get anything from us? Certainly not since whatever oil you get from Spratly's wouldn't go to the US for free.

Oh right, to curb the "expansionist plans" of China. Right. Oh is that why the US settled with having the 38th parallel in Korea? Or why it chose to pull out of Vietnam and leave their nationalist comrades to die at the hands of Chinese-backed communists? Err, tell me why Tibet is still not a sovereign country? Where's the good 'ol Uncle Sam in that?

You're a dreamer. Now wake up and study history.

Yes, I agree that we should be diplomatic about it. It takes two to tango. What if the other party (China) doesn't want to dance the West Philippine Sea two-step? I mean they've been establishing structures in these disputed islands and the major reason they did that is because they can. I guess China is doing this because they can see that they could just push and shove the Philippine leadership. Did you see us being pushed by the Chinese, with regard to the Spratlys, during the time of Marcos? Or Ramos?

Yeah, it takes two to tango. But we're not dancing tango here. This is a negotiation. And frankly, we don't have much to offer. So you need to approach it with skill and tact. you said "what if"? Well, try it first before you assume that they wouldn't engage you. Like I said, the Chinese are pragmatic people. They won't waste a bullet if killing you doesn't give them anything. Malaysia has been very passively on the side of the Chinese. And I'm willing to bet that Malaysia stands to gain from that "friendly" standing with China. How? Well, Malaysia's has a proven track record at oil exploration. So when the dust settles, China would want to deal with countries who've done it.

And pls. Nostalgia! Again! hahaha.

China ain't CHINA during Marcos' time. And yeah, the Chinese were building structures even during Ramos' time. Read your history books. PRC and ROC have been fighting over these islands long before Ramos' time. Ramos wasn't just stupid enough to make a big deal out of it. He's the ultimate showman - a very pragmatic guy. He's a seller. All he did during his time is sell our country to foreign investors. So why make a big fuss about something and risk alienating both Chinese governments? I like him. We should have more of him and less of idealistic simpletons.

diplomacy is all well and good. fine, let's make nice. and being filipino, let's shed a tear of relief when china sits with us at table.

bringing in big business and bright-eyed engineers is great, too. sit and talk. maybe somehow do.

 

 

while we hem and haw, devious devils are chipping away at our sovereignty, not with pictures on passports, but with cement on islands.

Sovereignty? Hmm, are we still talking abt the Spratly's here? I guess we're missing the whole point - those islands are contested by several countries claiming sovereignty over them! So let's just relax a bit...we're not ceding palawan or mindoro to China. We're talking abt a hotly contested group of islands that are neither ours nor theirs!

And no, I wont shed a tear if I see a Chinese contingent come to the table to discuss joint development. Why would I? I'd shed a tear when I see the first drop of crude oil come out of Spratly's with the Philippines getting some much-needed $$$ from a joint-venture.

It is truly a unique pinoy problem....oversentimentalism. You dont solve problems with rhetorics and posturing. Instead, you sit down, roll up your sleeves, and iron out details where mutual benefit could be had. Overzealous patriotism is so 1900's. We dont have conquerors and colonial masters now. Its a whole new world. Economics is the language of geopolitics. Its a pity that our country is still run by lawyers who are more concerned abt "winning" arguments than putting food on the table for 90million plus pinoys.

let the businessman talk the walk. Much better than a war. China is bigger. 60-40. Would do. 40. On our side of the spratlys. Hell much better to show friendship and goodwill. if we invite them inside malampaya gas project. And kick those westerners out.

I said nothing about friendship and goodwill. Thats mendicancy and thats a shitty way to deal with anyone. You go to the table with a realistic expectation of what's achievable, but you need not beg for anything. What you do is offer plausible partnership agreements. You dont breed respect by begging. Skilled diplomacy is not mendicancy.

And please. Shut the f#&k up with your anti-west BS. I'm for for the Phils, not for China. And obviously, you know nothing abt Malampaya.

Who gives a s@%t about looking bad? Lol seriously...

Those islands could be sitting on a major oil reservoir, given the geology of that area and the historical finds nearby. No amount of sentimentalist BS could trump the $$$ and economic security that oil brings, esp for a energy-crazy nation like China.

Also, its a bit of an exaggeration to say that China is a lame duck just because it relies on imports. Thats like saying that they're beggars who are at the mercy of their counterparts. That's not the real picture. Their trade partners, e.g. Australia, are actually on all-time economic high because of Chinese demand. In fact, even African countries have jumped on the Chinese bandwagon. These countries need the Chinese dollars to keep their economies viable and avoid crippling recessions. The Chinese have smartly played their cards and have been using sound economics to actually make deals with foreign govts and private corporations to grant them long-term leases on land for crops, significant business interests in strategic sectors such as mining and resources, and long-term supply contracts on almost everything that they import. The Chinese are just as quietly increasing its influence over other countries by economic integration as it is loudly posturing as a political power to be reckoned with. So yeah, they're not as dumb tsekwas as we would wish them to be.

What people miss out on China is that despite of all its strength, it is still very much a 'Middle Kingdom'. They only will engage others if they see a tangible benefit for China. Otherwise, they couldnt care less. They're still very much the same - a nation of merchants. They are not as bothered as the US to be pursue abstract goals and lofty aims. So rest assured, the Chinese wouldnt be invading any country just bec it's ruled by a despot. Heck, it wouldnt even invade Taiwan since it just doesnt make economic sense for China. And amidst all that posturing, the 2 economies across Taiwan Strait are really getting more and more integrated, with most Taiwan manufacturing relocating to the mainland.

Which brings me to how we should deal wth Spratly's. The Chinese wont waste an expensive missile if not threathened. And all they want is to get something tangible out of that area, which is what I think we should want too. So the cool head approach is diplomacy. Focus on joint development. Scrap the sentimentalist BS. Put some numbers in. Let engineers and businessmen do the talking instead of lawyers and political advocates.

Let me just say something here.

From all indications, the Phils can't have the spratly islands. We have a very weak historical claim and Filipinos have not sufficiently established a colony to claim the island on the basis of "self-determination". We don't have the military might. The US will not fight on our behalf for those islands...not when the US is nearing self-sufficiency in oil. The US is also short on rare earth metals, which are very vital in this high-tech era and that which China has in great quantities. And it is probably worth mentioning that China is funding the US economy. The US will probably continue to publicly oppose China, as the world's policeman should. But would that deter China? Beats the crap of me. The Chinese have more grey matter between their ears to even be bothered by that.

So in the scheme of things, we are not the strongest player in that space. It's a little bit stupid to act tough based on some arbitrary international rule. The most pragmatic way is to seek a diplomatic solution to jointly develop the area...short of sucking up to the big wigs, e.g., China. A tenth of whatever resource that could be had is better than nothing. We could offer our skilled workforce. Once we talk business, I bet the Chinese would listen.

And you know what? skills in diplomacy could earn some credibility in the geopolitical world. No one 'respects' us because we're a bunch of simpletons who couldn't see past what's black and white. We readily commit ourselves to 'altruistic' pursuits without the benefit of of careful reality check. Altruism is deadly in the hands of an idealist. It normally results in martyrdom. And while martyrdom is cute for the history books, it really does very little in real life.

shower gel

I have learned that people will tolerate you for calling people sissies for no reason but will label you an ass when you imply that someone's fat and ugly. Arrgh, the biases

Being a fat, ugly person ain't bad. Being a fat, ugly, bully is. Let's all act our faces please.

i'll have a flat white.