The End of the American Century?

[JayZip]

There is no need to be wary about North Korea. North Korea and the Philippines have no common interests and are not in the proximity of each other.

 

Yeah sure, your call man.

 

Camiar's response hit the spot. At least that makes sense while I probably did not.

[JayZip]

Huh? What happened to "stopping here and decline to comment"?

 

Did you post because he gave a contradictory opinion to mine? Naghahanap ka ng kakampi?

 

But just for the heck of it, I will give my take. First of all, the reality is we are hard pressed to guard the Spratlys with our outdated military hardware and technology. If we are hard pressed to defend even our own territory, what more joining a theoretical war which would not really benefit us? Moreover, the AFP is having its hands full against domestic threats so the Philippines first before anyone. Secondly, we don't have an MDT with the Sokors and we are not a super power which could police the region. Lastly and most importantly, we are having good relations with China and Duterte has already declared an independent foreign policy which is not contingent on the US. You would not really want to rock the boat and piss off China which is helping us economically. If it came down to it, Duterte will not involve the Philippines in a peninsular war because we are currently having good relations with China and are an old ally of the US. Put succinctly, we will remain neutral.

Last na talaga and off topic hahahha baka ma kick ako mg admin.

 

Di ako naghahanap ng kakampi. Napagod na lang ako sumagot at mag explain lol

 

Honestly I regret ever expressing my opinions here.

[camiar]

Moreover, we are under no obligation to the UN to join a war if they pass a resolution to declare war or invade a certain country. If we are gonna join a war, it has to be voluntary. Besides, the road to a declaration of war or invasion of a country will have to go through the UN Security Council of which China is a permanent member. A UN resolution to declare war or invade North Korea will get shut down because under UN rules, one dissenting vote from a security council member will nullify the resolution. China has the privilege of "veto" power since it is a permanent member of the security council and because China is the only ally of Nokor in the outside world, it will definitely veto a "declaration of war" resolution on North Korea.

Regarding Philippine obligation to the UN, we are signatory to the United Nations Charter, which obliges us to support the UN Peacekeeping program. It includes sending, if asked by UN, military expeditionary forces under UN military command to areas with armed conflicts to protect a member country from aggression or invasion.

 

If North Korea initiates the aggression and invades South, China cannot veto UN's call to arms in aid of South Korea.

 

Anyway, North's aggressive action vs the South is against the best interest of China. China needs a pro-Chinese North Korea as buffer zone along its border with Korea. The North cannot sustain its military action against the South without Chinese support, and in the face of a US-led allied forces counter-attack, North will break down and will be pushed back all the way north to the Chinese border. China will then have the unsavory choice of assisting the North and go to war against US & its allies or abandon North Korea and lose its buffer zone.

 

It is up to China to keep North Korea in check - at least until a non-aligned unified Korea emerges.

Edited April 13, 2017 by camiar

[camiar]

In the event of an all-out peninsular war, the North will surely be annihilated but South will have the bigger losses as the South is home to big industries and businesses, not to mention loss of lives. North Korea loves to push its weight around and scare the South but as for going to the brink, I don't think Kim Jong Un is suicidal.

The only beneficiary to an armed conflict today in Korea is the USA.

 

If all-out war erupts, they can finally take down the North Korean leadership, destroy the North Korean military threat to the US mainland, and control the entire Korean peninsula.

 

China, on the other hand will lose its security buffer zone and end-up with a pro-US unified Korea at its southern border. What they would have wanted is a non-aligned, prosperous, friendly, and unified Korea that does not pose a threat to them.

[camiar]

You are assuming China will be influenced by other countries. I don't think so. China has an independent foreign policy and won't support a war because a majority of those in the security council voted to declare war on North Korea.

 

There was an issue recently regarding the alleged Syrian government use of chemical weapons. When the UN Security Council voted on the matter, Russia vetoed the resolution to condemn Syria on the chemical weapons attack. Hence, the resolution did not pass. It does not follow that all the members of the security council will acquiesce on a certain issue if there is a majority who voted for it. If an issue of greater magnitude like an invasion of North Korea will be voted on, China will definitely veto this. Russia and China are superpowers and they don't need to be bullied or influenced to come up with their own opinion on the matter.

You are referring to internal armed conflicts among political groups within a country.

 

I am talking about one country invading another.

[filibustero]

Once country A commits an act of aggression against country B, country B and its allies are within their sovereign rights to exercise individual and collective self-defense against country A. No UNSC resolution needed. The difference with respect to the chemical attack in Syria is that it was [allegedly] committed by the Syrian government against its own people. There was no inter-state aggression. Just like with most situations where States are faced with the situation of whether or not to exercise humanitarian intervention, the UNSC usually ends up with an impasse and some States just exercise unilateral action. Trumps 49 tomahawks in Syria is one example; NATO's actions in Kosovo is another. And even if such States exercise unilateral action, most other States support them and the vetoing countries (China or Russia) don't do anything about it afterwards. If North Korea invades South Korea, you can be sure the US will swoop in and attack North Korea. The only question there is whether China will come to North Korea's aid. States, no matter how big, avoid armed conflict with other bigger States. NATO didn't do anything when Russia invaded Georgia or when Russia annexed a portion of Ukraine. Russia could only criticize Trump when it rained missiles in Syria and pulled out its forces in that Syrian airbase precisely to avoid being pushed in a situation where they would have to actually respond militarily. The big bad wolves love to huff and puff, but we're still waiting for the house to really come down. We just have to settle for their proxy wars where small States take the beating.

[camiar]

The context of my post is the vetoing powers of permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Once a rouge member has been declared by the UN to be in violation of the UN Charter when it invaded another member nation, actions against it by the UN cannot be vetoed, otherwise, it will create a "constitutional crisis", in which the member exercising its veto can be subjected to expulsion from the UN by the General Assembly, which of course tantamount to dissolving the UN or declaring a World War.

Edited April 13, 2017 by camiar

[camiar]

 

North Korea is way too far from the US mainland. Furthermore, I don't think it has ICBM capability.

 

That's your opinion.

 

From the defense articles that I read, the USA is taking it seriously.

 

North Korea is within 2 years of coming up with an effective ICBM that can reach mainland US.

 

They are not waiting idly to allow that to happen, especially since North Korea doesn't really have much to lose other than their own pathetic lives if they decided to engage the US in a nuclear war.

[2WarningPoints]

As far as the Bible prophecy is concern this could be the case, USA is not a player on the end time scene...

Because Israel is an ally of USA, I believe USA will be silent or not going to be a Super power anymore to help Israel in the coming war... God will deal with the Enemy of Isreal by him self... and he will show the world that he is God...

[camiar]

Where did you get the idea that actions against a rogue member of the UN cannot be vetoed? Resolutions involving war passes through this council, hence, the actions to be taken by the UN come from the Security Council.

I'm sure you will eventually read the UN Charter and understand what I mean.

[JayZip]

It's not really against forum rules to express opinions. Expressing opinions is what makes a thread interesting.

 

Not if it misses the point of the discussion. Then it becomes uninteresting which where I am at right now...uninterested.

[camiar]

I did and I know that UN resolutions regarding the declaration of war pass through this council.

In simple terms, the UN Charter condemns aggression and use of force to resolve conflicts.

 

World politics comes into play. If you are a member of the Security Council, you will be going against the UN Charter if you veto UN sanctions against an aggressor country. If you do that, the General Assembly can expel you.

 

Members of the Security Council so far have been astute enough to uphold the basic UN principle of non-aggression and keep their veto powers to themselves in cases of invasion of one country by another. This was true during the Korean War, Vietnam War, Bosnian War, various African Wars, Kuwaiti War, etc...

[camiar]

The UN cannot expel a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

Oh yes, they can.See Articles 3 to 6.

 

The General Assembly can expel any member, even if it's a permanent member of the Security Council.

 

Of course I concede that in realpolitik it's a very remote probability.

[haroots2]

So did we send a contingent to Serbia when the UN Security Council voted to declare war on Serbia? As far as I know, there were only a few countries that participated in the UN-sanctioned war. The Philippines may be a signatory but we cannot be forced by the UN to go to war.

 

True, UN cannot force us pero hindi natin alam after PDU30 kung magpapa tuta siya sa mga kano at sumipsip sa kanila.

Also we did deploy a lot of peacekeeping force in Africa and the Middle East..

[camiar]

 

True, UN cannot force us pero hindi natin alam after PDU30 kung magpapa tuta siya sa mga kano at sumipsip sa kanila.

Also we did deploy a lot of peacekeeping force in Africa and the Middle East..

 

The UN cannot force us to go to war, but we can not just refuse, as it is an obligation we have to fulfill as UN member. We have to explain to the UN the reason for not complying to UN call for contingent forces. There are UN Charter articles covering these issues.(Articles 43,44,45, and 50)

 

Our support to UN Peacekeeping Operations does not necessarily mean we are sucking up to USA. They're just another member of the UN, just like the Philippines.

Edited April 18, 2017 by camiar

[haroots2]

 

The UN cannot force us to go to war, but we can not just refuse, as it is an obligation we have to fulfill as UN member. We have to explain to the UN the reason for not complying to UN call for contingent forces. There are UN Charter articles covering these issues.(Articles 43,44,45, and 50)

 

Our support to UN Peacekeeping Operations does not necessarily mean we are sucking up to USA. They're just another member of the UN, just like the Philippines.

 

US is not just a member. Its a superpower country that has a veto power and a permanent member of the security council. It can also influence a lot of countries to support their resolutions in the UN (that's where the sucking up take place). I'm sure they were pissed when Russia vetoed the condemnation of Syria by using chemical weapons.

Edited April 18, 2017 by haroots2

[camiar]

 

US is not just a member. Its a superpower country that has a veto power and a permanent member of the security council. It can also influence a lot of countries to support their resolutions in the UN (that's where the sucking up take place). I'm sure they were pissed when Russia vetoed the condemnation of Syria by using chemical weapons.

We all know that US is a superpower. Bur it doesn't necessarily mean that if we support the UN Peacekeeping Operations, we are sucking up to the US.

 

Hindi ibig sabihin na nag papa-tuta na si Duterte sa mga Kano kung magpapa-deploy siya ng sundalo natin para sa UN Peacekeeping. May mga sariling prinsipyo at dahilan yan. One of them is that by consistently supporting the UN Peacekeeping efforts, we are assured of UN support if we are at the receiving end of foreign aggression. And what is the cost to us? Deploying a few hundred soldiers to the war zone.

[haroots2]

We all know that US is a superpower. Bur it doesn't necessarily mean that if we support the UN Peacekeeping Operations, we are sucking up to the US.

 

Hindi ibig sabihin na nag papa-tuta na si Duterte sa mga Kano kung magpapa-deploy siya ng sundalo natin para sa UN Peacekeeping. May mga sariling prinsipyo at dahilan yan. One of them is that by consistently supporting the UN Peacekeeping efforts, we are assured of UN support if we are at the receiving end of foreign aggression. And what is the cost to us? Deploying a few hundred soldiers to the war zone.

 

My point is sucking up is on the /supporting/voting on the resolution. Coz if the resolution is passed, everyone in the UN is obliged to respect the decision of the majority.

Its hard to generalize on the resolution itself. It really boils down on a per scenario basis on the crisis.

[dungeonbaby]

There's a march for science that's more emotional than scientific.

There's a women's march that excludes conservative women.

There's an antifa movement that is downright fascist.

And then there are universities that shut down free speech.

With dormitories who wish to keep white people out.

 

Sigh.

 

The left are like Al Franken. They need an education, such as the one Gorsuch routinely delivered at his confirmation hearings.

[Ryuji_tanaka]

There's a march for science that's more emotional than scientific.

There's a women's march that excludes conservative women.

There's an antifa movement that is downright fascist.

And then there are universities that shut down free speech.

With dormitories who wish to keep white people out.

 

Sigh.

 

The left are like Al Franken. They need an education, such as the one Gorsuch routinely delivered at his confirmation hearings.

Reminds you of 1984 doesn't it...State Department as Ministry of Peace, AG as Ministry of Truth, DHS as Ministry of Love

[Ryuji_tanaka]

In the war of words, it seems that Kim Jong Un is winning over Trump. Will "Fire and Fury" trump (no pun intended) "Shock and Awe" or will it just be an empty statement?

If he does, Nokor will exercise the "final option".

[camiar]

US President Trump wants to build a US-Mexico border wall and he wants the Mexicans to pay for it.

 

What if it can actually be done?

 

 

 

What if the US-Mexico border wall was an energy corridor that could pay for itself?

March 6, 2019

Building an energy corridor along the border instead of just a wall would be a 'giant leap for mankind,' bringing security and jobs to the region, says a Purdue University-led national consortium of engineers and scientists

by Steve Tally, Purdue University

Instead of a wall, build a first-of-its-kind energy park that spans the 1,954 miles of the border between the United States and Mexico to bring energy, water, jobs and border security to the region.

That's the audacious plan put forward by a consortium of 28 prestigious engineers and scientists from across the nation who propose that the two nations work together on an enormous infrastructure project: a complex train of solar energy panels, wind turbines, natural gas pipelines, desalination facilities that together would create an industrial park along the border unlike anything found anywhere else in the world.

The facilities would provide the desired border security, the researchers say, because utility facilities and infrastructure must be well-protected. The connected energy parks would also be an economic driver, both in the construction of the facilities themselves and in the businesses that would be attracted to the region by cheap electricity and plentiful water resources.

 

Read more... https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2019/03/what-if-the-usmexico-border-wall-was-an-energy-corridor-that-could-pay-for-itself.html?cmpid=&utm_source=enl&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=renewable_energy_news&utm_content=2019-03-13&eid=288667458&bid=2392015

Edited March 13, 2019 by camiar

[lee sawyer]

President Trump engineered the US comeback Despicable Democrats notwithstanding. The twisted triumvirate of Petty Pelosi, Shitty Schiff and Nutty Nadler tried to undermine the Trump presidency by railroading an unfair impeachment hearing and delaying the transmission of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate because Petty Pelosi wanted her own rules in impeaching the president. The Despicable Democrats fell flat on their faces with the acquittal of the one of the greatest presidents in US history. What made it more hilarious was before the acquittal, Petty Pelosi tore up an official US document, the president's SOTU speech, during Trump's inspiring State of the Union address. In that moment in time when she tore up the speech, Pelosi epitomized what "pikon-talo" is.

Edited February 10, 2020 by lee sawyer

[camiar]

^^^ @ lee sawyer ---- you sound strangely familiar....

[NightWriter]

President Trump engineered the US comeback Despicable Democrats notwithstanding. The twisted triumvirate of Petty Pelosi, Shitty Schiff and Nutty Nadler tried to undermine the Trump presidency by railroading an unfair impeachment hearing and delaying the transmission of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate because Petty Pelosi wanted her own rules in impeaching the president. The Despicable Democrats fell flat on their faces with the acquittal of the one of the greatest presidents in US history. What made it more hilarious was before the acquittal, Petty Pelosi tore up an official US document, the president's SOTU speech, during Trump's inspiring State of the Union address. In that moment in time when she tore up the speech, Pelosi epitomized what "pikon-talo" is.

Nancy Pelosi is like a petulant school girl being rejected by the Highschool Quarterback named Donald Trump. I watched the State of the Union Address at the Sportsbar at the Hotel and everyone were elated by his achievements.In retrospect, Trump's enemies had been egging him along since he was running against Hilary Clinton and the Democrats were furious when he won and he keeps on winning.

 

The impeachment hearing was a total waste on taxpayer's money and a waste of airtime on the Fake News Networks like CNN and MSNBC - to be honest, nobody was watching the whole trial. Everybody were busy with their SuperBowl Parties or just plain watching the Joker on Hulu. It was painful to watch!