South China/West Philippine Sea

[heatseeker0714]

curiois lang, nung time ba ni apo ferdie, someone dard cross our bounderies na katulad ngayon? R its just press freedom curtailed?

 

wala. kasi nung panahon ni Apo anjan mga kano para bantayan teritoryo natin...

[heatseeker0714]

at nung time ni apo ferdie. Tau malakas nun. Kinakatakotan.

 

Nirerespeto would be the more appropriate word...

[praetorian]

eh dati nga pag nagtayo chinese sa spratlys binobomba natin eh, ngyn npabayaan na kya ayan may nanirahan na

[dos8dos]

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=846907&publicationSubCategoryId=63

 

Singapore backs Phl on Spratly issue

 

RUSSKY ISLAND, Vladivostok – Singapore is fully behind the Philippines in its claim over the Spratly islands that is being contested by economic and military giant China and four other neighboring countries, a top Philippine diplomat said here yesterday.

 

Republic of the Philippines 8, 1

 

Show of public support

-Singapore

-Japan

-South Korea

-Indonesia

-Thailand

-Russia

-Australia

-New Zealand

-India

 

Basically, countries that MATTER...

 

Behind the scenes support

-USA

 

 

People's Republic of China 1, 2

 

Show of public support

-Cambodia

 

Behind the scenes support

-North Korea

-Islamic Republic of Iran

 

Basically, countries that are f*c3d-up...

 

it doesnt matter how many countries side with the phil in the UN, it takes just a VETO from the chinese to end any UN resolution against the chinese

 

it doesnt matter if the ITLOS decide in favor of the phil, the chinese can always resort to STONEWALLING

[TheSmilingBandit]

Joint war games with US not about China, says Philippines

 

By Robert Gonzaga

Inquirer Central Luzon

 

SUBIC BAY FREEPORT—The joint military exercises between the Philippines and the United States started in this former American naval base on Monday, but a top Philippine military official said the war games had nothing to do with the country’s conflict with China over disputed territories in the West Philippine (South China) Sea.

 

Officials from the Philippine and US armed forces held the opening ceremony for the 10-day Philippines-US Amphibious Landing Exercise (Phiblex) 2013 on the US helicopter carrier, USS Bonhomme Richard, which is docked here.

 

The ship, which is anchored next to the submarine USS Olympia, is joining Phiblex alongside other vessels from both countries.

 

Vice Adm. Alexander Pama, Philippine Navy flag officer in command, said the joint exercises “will enhance the interoperability of both our forces.”

 

Asked whether the territorial disputes with China over the Panatag (Scarborough) Shoal and the Spratly Islands would figure in Phiblex, Pama said: “This will make us more prepared and enable both countries to work together, but scenarios like that were not included in the [planning or execution of the] joint exercises.”

 

Pama said Phiblex was an annual event and was not a direct response to the looming threat of China in the Asia-Pacific.

 

In his speech, US Marine Corps Brig. Gen Craig Timberlake, US exercise director, said Phiblex was aimed at improving the capability of Philippine and American troops and at strengthening ties between the two nations.

 

“[Phiblex operates on] one simple truth. Phiblex is designed to always make us better, [make] both nations better friends, better allies,” Timberlake said.

 

He said the Philippines was the US’ “closest and oldest ally” and they shared a common history. He noted that the two countries fought side by side” during World War II.

 

Today, Timberlake said, both the US and the Philippines were in the same situation “as we face common threats.” He, however, did not elaborate on the nature of the threats.

 

He said Phiblex would enable both countries to “respond to issues, whether those issues are humanitarian or disaster response… or national security.”

 

Timberlake said he had been visiting the Philippines since 1985, when he was a young officer.

Is it just me or is there something wrong with this considering that the Philippines has a minuscule amphibious capability, has anyone else looked at the US ships with US troops deploying with Filipino "advisors" to "help them" and then wondered what kind of help do our tyro amphibious advisers have to offer to US Marines that have been practicing or performing amphibious assaults for over 70 years?

Edited October 9, 2012 by TheSmilingBandit

[JayZip]

if all else fails eh

 

i'd say we ask Sy to build a SM sa spratlys.

 

or a Jollibee.

[heatseeker0714]

it doesnt matter how many countries side with the phil in the UN, it takes just a VETO from the chinese to end any UN resolution against the chinese

 

it doesnt matter if the ITLOS decide in favor of the phil, the chinese can always resort to STONEWALLING

 

It does matter. China can veto all she wants but in the court of public opinion, we are in the right. With all of China's Financial standing and emerging military power, she still can't get the trust and affection of her own immediate neighbors... It is so because of the way she throws her weight around... Hindi habang panahon sila mamumunini dito sa mundo...

Edited October 11, 2012 by heatseeker0714

[dungeonbaby]

what is miriam santiago trying to do, fighting the VFA?

[Life Spice]

with everything that's been going on in the world of geopolitics, hope that the US will not use Us as their pawn against China.

[mata_hari]

with everything that's been going on in the world of geopolitics, hope that the US will not use Us as their pawn against China.

 

If that is to the advantage of Uncle Sam he will do just that.

[dungeonbaby]

so let me get this straight: you support China's claim over disputed territories for the following reasons:

 

1. you believe China makes for a better ally than the US or any western nation, especially since the US doesn't give free support and you still think they've not cleaned up their mess in Subic

2. you believe China will be a benevolent benefactor, all your personal dealings tell you so despite historical data which shows just how mild they can be

3. you believe giving up our claim to the Spratleys is a small price to pay for Chinese-style rule (communist), especially when you believe (without proof) that we've already sold said area to the Chinese

 

 

anything else?

 

 

 

by the way, effective nkvd, sd, and gestapo men would've executed you already for your treacherous statements against your own people. food for thought.

[Jourdan]

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.

[LostCommand]

manilatonightfan, et all - trolls are not to be replied to. It only breeds more of them.

 

On south china sea:

 

On top of what has been said above, note that china, to this date, remains as-yet incomplete in the bases of power: they need massive food imports on a daily basis to get by, have a history of peasant revolution, a badly graying population, and of course pollution on a tremendous scale. China's leaders have deep worries.

 

And must also well note that no one in the region loves china, not Japan, not Vietnam, not Thailand, not South Korea. In plain speak, this behemoth has sensitive balls too, just like any other behemoth, including the USA.

 

So I would wager that China will not go to war over the south china sea in the next 5 years, until they complete armoring their balls first, or unless the US markedly weakens - and both of these are not definite.

 

The question therefore is, what can we do in the next 5-10 years that will consolidate what little claims we have in the south china sea? And further, just in case the insecure tsekwas do weaken and f#&k up their social issues, leaving them unable to mind the seas while Tianenmen breaks out left and right, are we ready to exploit their weakness for our gain?

 

To kick them when they are down? Diyan naman magaling mga pinoy.

 

LC

Edited December 4, 2012 by LostCommand

[johnlove]

China's claim on Spratly's and Panatag is making all overseas Chinese look bad.

 

China is learning from our vendors who squatted on city streets.

Edited December 4, 2012 by johnlove

[Jourdan]

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.

[Jourdan]

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.

[dungeonbaby]

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.

Edited December 5, 2012 by dungeonbaby

[Jourdan]

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.

[dungeonbaby]

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.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

[Jourdan]

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.

Edited December 5, 2012 by TheSmilingBandit

[LostCommand]

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

[Jourdan]

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.

[Jourdan]

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.

[Jourdan]

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

Edited December 5, 2012 by Jourdan

[LostCommand]

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.

 

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