fatchubs

Believe me, they will join the fray militarily. To do so otherwise would put them in such a bad light that no amount of legalese and or damage control would repair their image in this part of the world.

Your POV is noted ...

Let me just ask this. Is it always necessary to "fight" just to be able to defend your little bro from a bully? If the bully and little bro is in a fist fight and you know little bro is the underdog, do you need to attack the bully also instead of defending little bro by standing in between and successfully stopping the fight? Would taking the "peaceful" resolution put damage to big bro's image?

I believe the US will try and shield us from any attacks. If ever the untoward incident happens, they will be in a difficult position to balance their relationship with China as well as their commitment to the Philippines.

None the less, I'm strongly bias towards a peaceful resolution. Meaning, why should you escalate this into a bigger war had the US join the fray when everything can be resolve peacefully even after the first shot had been fired. My personal view and belief is that should this hypothetical event happen (assuming one crazy Chinese fire the first shot) and the Philippines counters) the US will as much as possible use moral suasion to end any military aggression. It's hitting 2 birds in one stone. They would not have to combat the Chinese together with the Filipinos which will only strain their relationship with China and at the same time be able to play its role of a big brother defending us by persuading China to stop further attacks. Remember the MDT is all about supporting each other when one is under attack. So if the US without firing any shot will be able to restore a ceasefire, what is the need to join the fray?

As I said we are all just second guessing here based on our personal views/expectations. . At the end of the day it is the president of the US to decide. But until that decision has been made, or at least a public announcement of what they intend to do (in this case to go to battle with us) then nothing is guaranteed for one to assume that they will be joining the fray. And for the Philippines, prudence dictates that a "no action" from the US as default rather than assuming that they will be there fighting with us.

^i dont think the US govt will renege on their obligation under the MDT, the widely EXPECTED assistance from the US may not come IMMEDIATELY, so we have to make SACRIFICES of our own on the onslaught

This I agree ...

Incidentally, the US will not renege on this treaty. They could always claim that they have already provided us with hardware and other military aid to strengthen our military forces even if they actually are not physically present in the combat. Whether these are enough to defeat the Chinese is another story.

If ever, should the US eventually decides to join the fray, do anyone here thinks it is because of the interest of the Philippines or is it because of their best interest? Yes we have a mutual defense treaty, but who thinks they need us more than we have the need for them now? The treaty was signed in the 50's when the US is trying to make their presence felt in the Asia Pacific.

As far as the increased military presence of the US is concerned, this is essentially shielding the Philippines from a possibility of an armed attack. The Chinese will have second thoughts about firing the first shot with the US there since I don't think anyone of them would want to take the ire of the other. Further, as the US promised, they will not renege on the treaty and this act is in compliance to Article II of the MDT wherein it states "In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty, the Parties separately and jointly by self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack."

Is that enough to conclude that the US definitely will fight our fight? I still don't think so. It's just like having a security guard at home. You expect the security guard to defend you from armed robbers but it isn't a guarantee that when the time comes the guard will be able to protect you from the robbers moreso offer his life to protect you.

Bottomline, we all are second guessing whether of not the Americans will be fighting our war. Agreements have been broken, what assurance is there that it will not happen this time around? Only time will tell, thus there is no guarantee to say they really will be fighting with us at this point unless somebody can come out and claim he can clearly read Obama's mind and knows how he will handle the situation should the Chinese fire the first shot. And if there is no certainty, then it is not automatic.

I think the key word there is that the president "may" commit forces. It is different from saying will commit for one to strongly believe indeed the US forces will be beside us fighting should there be a war.

While the US sending forces to fight our fight remains a possibility, I don't think it is automatic despite the mdt being in force indefinitely.

Interesting facts from our foreign secretary regarding the mdt...

http://www.manilatim...-defense-treaty

I think it is clear under item 12 that congress approval is still needed if they intend to go to war that will last more than 60 days.

1338691894[/url]' post='8225378']

1.) It is not automatic that the US will be fighting beside us if WE fire the first shot.

 

2.) However although not specifically written in the MDT, the US, I believe will automatically fight on our side if the other party and not us fires the first shot. They have to. No amount of "PIVOT" or "REBALANCING" would do the US any good in Asia in the future if it doesn't come to our aid. If the US drags its feet in defending us militarily, one of their FEW Asian Treaty Allies (we belong to that exclusive club of Japan, Australia, South Korea and I think Thailand, just correct me if i'm wrong on Thailand's case.) their credibility here in Asia would be ruined beyond repair. Despite hemming and yawing and their ambigous position position during the early stages of the Panatag Shoal Standoff. recent events point to an armed US response if the other party and not us fires the first shot.

 

3.) The US President in my opinion doesn't need Congressional Approval in going to war on our side because the Law, their Law because they are a party to it, mandates that they help us militarily if we are attacked. Not much point in signing an MDT with another country if you're gonna ask for Congressional Approval to help an ally because that would be redundant...

The US and the Chinese have mutual economic interest. That is why I have concerns as to the possibility of the US directly joining the fray and doubt it if the Chinese will fire the first shot knowing uncle Sam will not be too happy.

The way I see it, the Chinese will bully us without any shots being fired. They know we are no match to them just like big brother taking the candy of his younger bro. As for our military, it would be foolish for them to fire the first shot without any assurance that the US will back us and this will just give the Chinese the right to conduct an armed takeover of the disputed land.

For the meantime, the US is in the Pacific to show its presence but will just be an observer. If shots are fired by the Chinese, then my take is Uncle Sam will use moral suation rather than brute force to end the war/fighting. In other words, hindi sila makikipag tag team kundi mag referee Lang.

1338647821[/url]' post='8225005']

Those would normally be determined by conversations between our executive branch and the US executive branch. However, for all practical purposes, at least by conventional definition, the US would send military units to aid us, though how many and what type of aid, again needs to be defined.

Correct me if I am wrong here in my understanding .... In other words it is not automatic that USA will be fighting beside us should a war with China happens? It still will depend on the outcome of the conversation between the executive branch?

I believe the USA needs Congress approval to go to war. This is in their Constitution. And Article 4 of the mdt states that "Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes.". While the president can send troups it is limited for 60 days it will have to pull out unless Congress approves.

In other words, it is possible that the USA may eventually claim that they complied with the treaty under Article 2 even if not going to battle since they already supplied us with military harwares and provided us already military aid.

In the article I posted earlier, the US Ambassador actually mentioned they are neutral but reiterated they have been assisting us improve our military forces through their aids both in cash and in kind.

1338194964[/url]' post='8218534']

Our Mutual Defense Treaty with the USA obliges both the Philippine and American governments to aid each other if it comes under armed attack by external party.

 

One of the treaty's article staes: An armed attack on either of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of either of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.

 

If a US enemy militarily attacks Guam, for example, the Philippines is obliged to come to its aid. An attack on our Kalayaan Island (under our jurisdiction), or any of our armed forces, ships, or aircraft in this area, will bring on the same response from the US.

 

But we should no rely on the MDT for our own protection. Diplomacy is still the best strategy.

 

If we are too cocky to start a fight and end up getting clobbered by a stronger opponent, we would be the ones at fault.

 

What we should be doing is to increase our capability to resist an armed attack. We don't even need to match our opponent's war-fighting capabilities in the area. We just need to build enough strength to make it very very costly for them to attack us - both militarily and diplomatically.

 

Our Mutual Defense Treaty with the USA obliges both the Philippine and American governments to aid each other if it comes under armed attack by external party.

 

One of the treaty's article states: An armed attack on either of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of either of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.

 

If a US enemy militarily attacks Guam, for example, the Philippines is obliged to come to its aid. An attack on our Kalayaan Island (under our jurisdiction), or any of our armed forces, ships, or aircraft in this area, will bring on the same response from the US.

 

But we should no rely on the MDT for our own protection. Diplomacy is still the best strategy.

 

If we are too cocky to start a fight and end up getting clobbered by a stronger opponent, we would be the ones at fault.

 

What we should be doing is to increase our capability to resist an armed attack. We don't even need to match our opponent's war-fighting capabilities in the area. We just need to build enough strength to make it very very costly for them to attack us - both militarily and diplomatically.

Sir, how do you define or interpret "obliged to come to its aid"? Does it mean going into combat side by side only? Does providing military aid such as money to upgrade military equipments or weapons also constitute such?

Nakabawi ang Gin Kings! Tinambakan ang Bolts.

What part of "read up and you'll know" didn't you understand? What you know is irrelevant coz obviously you don't know what you're talking about.

hahaha ... daming satsat ng nagmamarunong di naman makasagot ng matino sa mga tanong ko

Thank you for being tight lip on the REAL ISSUE.

Talaga? Aware ka ba talaga or nung sinabi ko lang? Another foolish question. Read up and you'll know. Just go back to the Corona thread. You don't belong here.

how can it be a foolish question? why don't you enlighten me since i really don't know much on this. correct me if i am wrong but from what I know it is not automatic that the US can go to war and fight our fight despite the existence of the treaty.

Again, you're too excited because of one article which apparently you don't understand. The United States will take no sides in this issue but I was talking of the United States joining us in the event of war. You post without even thinking, which I've been telling you before. You forgot to mention the Mutual Defense Treaty (are you even aware of it?) which the US would honor in the event of a military showdown with China. Think before you post. Haha! You're making yourself look like a clown again by asking foolish questions.

 

 

 

I am aware of the treaty ... but I have some concerns. Is it automatic that the US fights our fight if China strikes given the existence of the said treaty?

What makes you think the US will not join in the fray? Perhaps, you can ask Obama if he's gonna send the USS George Washington in the event of a War of the Spratlys. After all, he is the commander-in-chief. He has a lot of Nimitz class super carriers to choose from.

What makes me think so ... well one would be this http://www.tribuneonline.org/headlines/20120114hed3.html

What made you think the US will fight our fight? Will it come to the point of possibly sending USS George Washington?

When ang game ng gin kings?

For culpable violation of the constitution!

pwede rin betrayal of public trust?

Furious Nicky ... tsk tsk tsk ... mainit na naman ulo mo?

Nag speculate ka na naman or sadyang mahina pagiisip mo? ikaw ata ang hindi nakakaintindi ng salitang levity o may sarili kang definition ng levity?

While levity is treating some serious matter with humor, it does not equate to "NAGPAPATAWA" as you claimed

Yan ang hirap sa defensive lagi ... hahaha!

So long amigo ... dream on!

1337185571[/url]' post='8205999']

Ano kamo? Where is the levity in my previous post? Before using the word levity, know what it means coz you are way too off. Magtatawag pansin ka na lang, mali pa. But hey, it ain't against forum policy to make a fool of yourself.

Huh? Anong pinagsasabi mo? Did you even try to understand the post before you comment? Who said I am alluding to your post when I said usaping levity?

I know you will react negatively again as you always do sa comments ko on your post kaya nga sinabi kong usaping levity ... Obviously in reference to this statement below:

Paulitbulit na paghuhumaling sa USS George Washington Ito?

May pasintabi na nga hindi pa ma gets? Unless of course talagang may paghuhumaling ko nga thus reacting this way

1336665211[/url]' post='8199325']

USS George Washington, wherefore art thou?

1337093816[/url]' post='8204790']

So it's a Virginia class submarine. Perhaps, the US can throw in the George Washington for good measure.

Usapang Levity ...

Paulitbulit na paghuhumaling sa USS George Washington Ito?

1337124799[/url]' post='8205089']

Caguioa set to play soon?

By Musong R. Castillo

 

MARK Caguioa has started practicing with Barangay Ginebra yesterday and, pending the release of another test this week, could suit up for the Gin Kings in the season-ending PBA Governors' Cup starting Sunday.

 

The 6-foot spitfire, who was named the Commissioner's Cup's Best Player of the Conference despite not playing in the finals, injured his right orbital eye socket in a fall during the eliminations and was initially declared out for the rest of the season.

 

He rejoined Ginebra in the Final FourÂwhere it lost to eventual champion B-Meg, 4-2Âafter he showed encouraging signs of recovery based on MRI results.

 

Meanwhile, the Kings failed in two recent tries to make its nucleus younger after Alaska and Talk 'N Text rejected trade offers.

 

A source bared that the Kings had haggled for the services of Texters reserve center Japeth Aguilar, but the deal was rejected by incoming TNT coach Norman Black.

 

Ginebra also tried to negotiate for deals that would have taken Sonny Thoss and LA Tenorio into its lineup, but Alaska team manager Joaqui Trillo shot them down.

 

 

Just wondering who were offered to get these players.

Bilisan niyo Lang po sir MVP at Baka mapamahal pa kayo pag nagkainterest si Mr Ang!

congrats to Canaleta for being crowned slam dunk king again and also to ex-GSM Intal for being 2nd.

Dylan 44 pts ... like like like

As concerned citizens why not look for a congressman that will endorse an impeachment proceedings against PNOY?

Nagmamadali pa ...

"O mighty Caesar! Dost thou lie so low?Are all thy conquests, glories, triumphs, spoils,Shrunk to this little measure? Fare thee well."

guys, I will appreciate an advice.

 

I have P750k right now, which I am supposed to turn over to the client in October. I'm thinking of investing it. Yung minimum risk lang sana, so I could keep the interest for myself and fork over the P750K to the client in October. That's our agreement kasi. I could utilize it, but I will have to turn it over in Oct.

 

Any suggestions? TIA

Find a bank that will accept the amount as an SDA investment.