South China/West Philippine Sea

[tk421]

Yup, be the cowards that we truly are and just surrender the islands. There's really no way of winning this.

[Jourdan]

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.

Edited December 8, 2012 by TheSmilingBandit

[TheSmilingBandit]

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

 

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

[tk421]

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

 

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

 

 

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

[TheSmilingBandit]

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

 

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

 

Definition of STATE

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

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

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

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

3a : social position; especially : high rank

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7b plural capitalized : The United States of America

8: the territory of a state

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Jourdan]

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.

Edited December 8, 2012 by TheSmilingBandit

[dungeonbaby]

@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?

 

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?

 

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?

 

 

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.

 

 

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."

 

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?

 

 

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.

 

 

It's funny you berate TSB with "context, dude, context" when you previously bragged you don't back-read. Who came in, saw a few words, and assumed everyone but himself was an idealist, a simpleton, or a dreamer? 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.

 

 

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.

[Jourdan]

@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

Edited December 8, 2012 by Jourdan

[Jourdan]

@ 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.

[tk421]

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

[TheSmilingBandit]

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

 

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

 

If you actually read what I said, to wit:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

1+1=2

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

1. China owned 8% of US public debt,

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Let us look at it from other possibilities.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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.

 

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

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

Edited December 8, 2012 by TheSmilingBandit

[TheSmilingBandit]

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

[Jourdan]

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.

[TheSmilingBandit]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

[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.