South China/West Philippine Sea

[tk421]

I don't think you can strike a "50/50" deal with China. As far as they're concerned, all of the territories are theirs. We don't even have anything to bargain with, why would they give 50% of "their" stake to us?

[mokong10101]

I don't think you can strike a "50/50" deal with China. As far as they're concerned, all of the territories are theirs. We don't even have anything to bargain with, why would they give 50% of "their" stake to us?

 

Then if that's the case it's even more pointless to "modernize" the military. It's plain common sense 500 to 1 ratio ang discrepancy ng military naten. Money will just be wasted and let's not even start talking how much of those funds ang mapupunta sa corruption.

 

Ang fundamental issue dito ay ang security ng Pinas. The only solution is to arm every Filipino family.

 

Of course ayaw ng mga mason na bestfriend ni Pnoy nyan. Ayaw din ng military, pulis at gobyerno na armado ang mga Pilipino.

[filibustero]

Before anybody can strike a deal, the question of ownership would have to be resolved first. And I highly doubt that China would relinquish any claim of ownership over an area rumored to be mineral-rich. If it were the Philippines to give way first and relinquish its claim of ownership, how can the government be sure that the Philippines will indeed get the 50% share? It would be naive to think that China will not bully its way into getting the entire pie for itself. Ultimately, this piece of territory is crucial for China's dominance. The weakness of the United States is its dependence on oil-producing countries to fuel its industries. China will have to face the same problem, and its solution is to claim a territory that is rumored to have vast deposits of oil and natural gas.

 

Modernization of our military is necessary to repel any encroachment by Chinese vessels into our territorial waters. It's not necessary to match 1:1 the military might of China. We just need enough to patrol our seas properly. Both countries know that the moment a military vessel opens fire against another, the other members of the UN Security Council will sweep down on the West Philippine Sea to prevent any escalation of hostilities. This is the opening that the United States needs to take a firm stand against China. Unknown to many is that the reason why the US is not so firm on the dispute is that its fragile economy cannot take a backlash from China - one of its major creditors.

 

And the reason why it's not desirable to allow ordinary Filipinos to own guns is that it will just cause peace and order problems for the entire country. The military and the police will have to face a threat from within the country instead of just focusing on external threats.

[maxiev]

I don't think you can strike a "50/50" deal with China. As far as they're concerned, all of the territories are theirs. We don't even have anything to bargain with, why would they give 50% of "their" stake to us?

"He who has the guns makes the rules." China has the guns. We don't. We only have our diplomatic skills to make our case.

[maxiev]

Before anybody can strike a deal, the question of ownership would have to be resolved first. And I highly doubt that China would relinquish any claim of ownership over an area rumored to be mineral-rich. If it were the Philippines to give way first and relinquish its claim of ownership, how can the government be sure that the Philippines will indeed get the 50% share? It would be naive to think that China will not bully its way into getting the entire pie for itself. Ultimately, this piece of territory is crucial for China's dominance. The weakness of the United States is its dependence on oil-producing countries to fuel its industries. China will have to face the same problem, and its solution is to claim a territory that is rumored to have vast deposits of oil and natural gas.

 

Modernization of our military is necessary to repel any encroachment by Chinese vessels into our territorial waters. It's not necessary to match 1:1 the military might of China. We just need enough to patrol our seas properly. Both countries know that the moment a military vessel opens fire against another, the other members of the UN Security Council will sweep down on the West Philippine Sea to prevent any escalation of hostilities. This is the opening that the United States needs to take a firm stand against China. Unknown to many is that the reason why the US is not so firm on the dispute is that its fragile economy cannot take a backlash from China - one of its major creditors.

 

And the reason why it's not desirable to allow ordinary Filipinos to own guns is that it will just cause peace and order problems for the entire country. The military and the police will have to face a threat from within the country instead of just focusing on external threats.

So the US is just waiting for an excuse to take a firm stand on China. But since China is its greatest creditor, doesn't the US already hold the aces against Chinese government? Couldn't it warn China, "you guys better behave if you want to see your money again." China has a lot to lose if the US unilaterally uses this as a bargaining tool.

 

Then again, if the US ever resorts to doing this, market economies all over the world will go on a tailspin. The entire world economy could be disrupted.

Edited October 28, 2013 by maxiev

[sonnyt111]

So the US is just waiting for an excuse to take a firm stand on China. But since China is its greatest creditor, doesn't the US already hold the aces against Chinese government? Couldn't it warn China, "you guys better behave if you want to see your money again." China has a lot to lose if the US unilaterally uses this as a bargaining tool.

 

Then again, if the US ever resorts to doing this, market economies all over the world will go on a tailspin. The entire world economy could be disrupted.

If the US ever did this, no nation on earth will ever lend them money again.

[sonnyt111]

"He who has the guns makes the rules." China has the guns. We don't. We only have our diplomatic skills to make our case.

Which is exactly what is happening. Well so far China hasn't used in military advantage by forcibly taking over the disputed territory (if if they could do so any time). It has instead resorted to very strong rhetoric.

 

I pray that it stays this way for the years to come. They can talk all they want. As long as they don't use military force, then the status quo is maintained.

[Larry]

So the US is just waiting for an excuse to take a firm stand on China. But since China is its greatest creditor, doesn't the US already hold the aces against Chinese government? Couldn't it warn China, "you guys better behave if you want to see your money again." China has a lot to lose if the US unilaterally uses this as a bargaining tool.

 

Then again, if the US ever resorts to doing this, market economies all over the world will go on a tailspin. The entire world economy could be disrupted.

 

I don't think the US holds any "aces" of any sort against china. China has been buying up US government debt (which seems like a dumb move now considering the current situation, but that's another story). China buying up US debt is what currently holds down US interest rates (by as much as 1 percentage point), should they stop buying up dollar backed US securities, interest rates would spiral IMO. The US has a lot more to lose should they threaten China with that, especially given the debates about the debt ceiling, and the recent budget debacle they just had.

 

and on modernization, this issue isn't the only one that fuels the Modernization debate. There's a lot be gained from modernizing the military, and it affects everything, law enforcement, insurgency, foreign deterrence, just the thought of being able to properly patrol all our islands and keep the people in them safe is a huge argument for modernization. For an island nation not to have a proper navy is laughable at best.

[heatseeker0714]

For an island nation not to have a proper navy is laughable at best.

 

QFT... Laughable at best, Criminal at its worst...

[heatseeker0714]

http://manilastandardtoday.com/2013/10/24/biazon-asks-why-air-assets-cant-reach-quake-areas/

 

Biazon asks why ‘air assets’ can’t reach quake areas

By Florante S. Solmerin | Posted on October 24, 2013 at 12:02am | 1,679 views

 

He reminded the Department of National Defense and the Armed Forces of the Philippines to “revisit their priorities” in buying assets, while taking into account similar assets for disaster and relief operations.

 

He added that instead of buying more fighter jets, the AFP should also make it a priority to buy more helicopters.

 

 

Si Pong hindi maka-move on sa ISO role ng AFP... There will always be internal threats and natural or man made calamities whether you accept it or not, hindi mawawala yan... Grunt mentality at its finest, "Everything should revolve around the ground pounders"... The real lowdown in this situation, because of his past stint as CSAFP, the common tao out there will give his words a lot of thought...

 

Hayst... Na-stuck na si Pong sa 1980s not realizing that it's already 2013...

[lomex32]

With 3 of them in the senate (Gringo and Antonio), I wonder what have they really done that benefited much of our Men in Uniform ?

 

Hayst... Na-stuck na si Pong sa 1980s not realizing that it's already 2013...

Edited October 29, 2013 by lomex32

[tk421]

Then if that's the case it's even more pointless to "modernize" the military. It's plain common sense 500 to 1 ratio ang discrepancy ng military naten. Money will just be wasted and let's not even start talking how much of those funds ang mapupunta sa corruption.

 

Ang fundamental issue dito ay ang security ng Pinas. The only solution is to arm every Filipino family.

 

Of course ayaw ng mga mason na bestfriend ni Pnoy nyan. Ayaw din ng military, pulis at gobyerno na armado ang mga Pilipino.

 

Actually, we still have to modernize despite being overpowered.

 

If you're against modernizing the military, then we might as well just disband our army and just let anyone take over the archipelago. What use is an army without functioning weapons, then? Remember: China, too, had a weak army at some point in the past.

 

Modernizing allows us time and deters the other side from starting anything nasty until cooler heads prevail. Sure, in an all out war, we'd most likely lose. But the same can be said even if we arm every family in the Philippines.

 

Also, arming every Filipino family, we'll only be doing the invaders a favor: soon enough we'll be killing each other from the inside. Have you heard of that outgoing barangay captain that shot dead his siblings because he lost the election? That's just one family. Imagine arming the rest.

[hit05]

If the US ever did this, no nation on earth will ever lend them money again.

 

 

Sure, that is naive. You know why? The reason China had to buy the US Bonds is to safeguard against the domino effect of US economic recession spreading fast to China.

 

Thus, giving the US a loan via boonds sale at a time when Americans were losing confidence in the economy was never about charity or astute investments with an ROI. Rather it was about insurance money to prevent a sudden overpowering fear of change called ECONOMIC DEPRESSION.

 

In the outbreak of war, such holdings would be used as pledge for reparation funds. Just like in the Iraq war or even the Libyan Conflict, a declaration of war will nullify any claims and prevent enemy access to their bankable resources if these are on the other side of the conflict. Such holding can be released for humanitarian reasons or if a more friendly party comes to power.

[heatseeker0714]

With 3 of them in the senate (Gringo and Antonio), I wonder what have they really done that benefited much of our Men in Uniform ?

 

Pre 3 years ng wala sa Senate si Pong, he ended his stint there on June 30, 2010... Naka 2 terms na sya non.... Then ngayon 2013 elections mahina sa ratings kaya nag re-electionist congressman na lang dun sa Muntinlupa...

 

Ano ba nagawa nyang significant for the AFP as a Senator??? Ano nga ba? Tahimik lang naman sa Senado yan, pomopustura lang pag meron Marines na nagbabalak mag coup against Ate Glue....

 

Pero if any of you guys know of anything significant that Pong did as a Senator for the modernization of the AFP, please feel free to share....

[mokong10101]

Actually, we still have to modernize despite being overpowered.

 

If you're against modernizing the military, then we might as well just disband our army and just let anyone take over the archipelago. What use is an army without functioning weapons, then? Remember: China, too, had a weak army at some point in the past.

 

Modernizing allows us time and deters the other side from starting anything nasty until cooler heads prevail. Sure, in an all out war, we'd most likely lose. But the same can be said even if we arm every family in the Philippines.

 

Also, arming every Filipino family, we'll only be doing the invaders a favor: soon enough we'll be killing each other from the inside. Have you heard of that outgoing barangay captain that shot dead his siblings because he lost the election? That's just one family. Imagine arming the rest.

 

1. Until you understand that a ratio disadvantage of 500 to 1, I'm afraid no amount of explanation will make you discern how strategically pointless and an exercise in idiocy trying to modernize the military. Which in itself as an institution is an unbelievably corrupt organization.

 

The Chinese also have a few of those so-called NUCLEAR SUBMARINES which can fire missiles from 500 miles with great precision. We can buy 10 new craft and it will be sunk in less than 10 minutes.

 

2. You obviously are not a student of history. Or maybe you're still very young to remember that before the Martial Law era, a significant portion of the middle/upper class own guns and yet crime is relatively low.

 

Again you're missing the point.

 

And I repeat. The point here is not those islands but the overall safety of the country from foreign threats.

 

Countries which allows its citizens to have guns have the lowest crime rates (Switzerland, US). While those who impose strict gun controls suffer from high crime rates. Eherm! Philippines. hehe

 

It's quite basic and simple really. And I understand you have been deluded into thinking otherwise. MORE GUNS MEANS LESS CRIME.

 

But to finish the point.

 

Switzerland is a very small country in the middle of Europe and yet it has survived 2 world wars without being invaded by anyone. Kahit si Hitler at si Stalin hindi naglakas loob na pasukin ang bansang ito kahit nandito pa ang mga malalaking bangko at pera... dahil....

 

Tama ang hula mo pre. Ang galing.

 

Bawat pamilyang Swiss owns an average of 5-6 RIFLES. Essentially every man, woman and child is armed. Think 50 million Filipinos armed. The Chinese will never dream of sh_tting on us.

 

In contrast saten when the Japanese invaded Filipinos died by the thousands and thousands because we are unarmed.

 

Simple arithmetic and a knowledge in history goes a long way to wisdom. hehe.

Edited October 29, 2013 by mokong10101

[sonnyt111]

http://manilastandar...ch-quake-areas/

 

Biazon asks why 'air assets' can't reach quake areas

By Florante S. Solmerin | Posted on October 24, 2013 at 12:02am | 1,679 views

 

He reminded the Department of National Defense and the Armed Forces of the Philippines to "revisit their priorities" in buying assets, while taking into account similar assets for disaster and relief operations.

 

He added that instead of buying more fighter jets, the AFP should also make it a priority to buy more helicopters.

 

 

Si Pong hindi maka-move on sa ISO role ng AFP... There will always be internal threats and natural or man made calamities whether you accept it or not, hindi mawawala yan... Grunt mentality at its finest, "Everything should revolve around the ground pounders"... The real lowdown in this situation, because of his past stint as CSAFP, the common tao out there will give his words a lot of thought...

 

Hayst... Na-stuck na si Pong sa 1980s not realizing that it's already 2013...

Time for him to retire?

[hit05]

1. Until you understand that a ratio disadvantage of 500 to 1, I'm afraid no amount of explanation will make you discern how strategically pointless and an exercise in idiocy trying to modernize the military. Which in itself as an institution is an unbelievably corrupt organization.

 

 

 

 

Case in point is the helicopter gunship support given by the US to Erap's administration to help against insurgents in Mindanao. Shortly after EDSA 2, these military assets were handed to the MILF chieftain instead. News then was it had been used to attack an opponent for election.

 

The kidnapping case of American missionary Burnham, is another showcase of the government corruption. This kidnapping case was documented and reenacted in a film as written by the first hand eyewitness account of Mrs Burnham, the wife of the fatality and lone survivor of the kidnapping incident. According to the film, the insurgents had local military ID cards that allowed them safety passage despite intensive presence of government troops who have setup a dragnet. It is quite possible that the bullet that killed her husband was from government troops too, making the issue of strengthening the local military by lavishing it with state of the art weaponry an extreme case of foolishness.

[heatseeker0714]

1. Until you understand that a ratio disadvantage of 500 to 1, I'm afraid no amount of explanation will make you discern how strategically pointless and an exercise in idiocy trying to modernize the military. Which in itself as an institution is an unbelievably corrupt organization.

 

Countries which allows its citizens to have guns have the lowest crime rates (Switzerland, US). While those who impose strict gun controls suffer from high crime rates. Eherm! Philippines. hehe

 

 

Switzerland is a very small country in the middle of Europe and yet it has survived 2 world wars without being invaded by anyone. Kahit si Hitler at si Stalin hindi naglakas loob na pasukin ang bansang ito kahit nandito pa ang mga malalaking bangko at pera... dahil....

 

 

Bawat pamilyang Swiss owns an average of 5-6 RIFLES. Essentially every man, woman and child is armed. Think 50 million Filipinos armed. The Chinese will never dream of sh_tting on us.

 

In contrast saten when the Japanese invaded Filipinos died by the thousands and thousands because we are unarmed.

 

Simple arithmetic and a knowledge in history goes a long way to wisdom. hehe.

 

1.) Ratio na 500 to 1??? San galing yon? 100M Filipinos against 1.3B PRC citizens translates to 13:1.

 

2.) The US has low crime rates? As compared to Japan, Australia, Germany, The UK to name a few?

 

3.) Nobody invaded Switzerland not because they couldn't take them, but because the belligerents needed a place where their representatives could talk where their rights would not be violated by the other side.

 

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: troll alert.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Edited October 30, 2013 by heatseeker0714

[Larry]

1. Until you understand that a ratio disadvantage of 500 to 1, I'm afraid no amount of explanation will make you discern how strategically pointless and an exercise in idiocy trying to modernize the military. Which in itself as an institution is an unbelievably corrupt organization.

 

The Chinese also have a few of those so-called NUCLEAR SUBMARINES which can fire missiles from 500 miles with great precision. We can buy 10 new craft and it will be sunk in less than 10 minutes.

 

2. You obviously are not a student of history. Or maybe you're still very young to remember that before the Martial Law era, a significant portion of the middle/upper class own guns and yet crime is relatively low.

 

Again you're missing the point.

 

And I repeat. The point here is not those islands but the overall safety of the country from foreign threats.

 

Countries which allows its citizens to have guns have the lowest crime rates (Switzerland, US). While those who impose strict gun controls suffer from high crime rates. Eherm! Philippines. hehe

 

It's quite basic and simple really. And I understand you have been deluded into thinking otherwise. MORE GUNS MEANS LESS CRIME.

 

But to finish the point.

 

Switzerland is a very small country in the middle of Europe and yet it has survived 2 world wars without being invaded by anyone. Kahit si Hitler at si Stalin hindi naglakas loob na pasukin ang bansang ito kahit nandito pa ang mga malalaking bangko at pera... dahil....

 

Tama ang hula mo pre. Ang galing.

 

Bawat pamilyang Swiss owns an average of 5-6 RIFLES. Essentially every man, woman and child is armed. Think 50 million Filipinos armed. The Chinese will never dream of sh_tting on us.

 

In contrast saten when the Japanese invaded Filipinos died by the thousands and thousands because we are unarmed.

 

Simple arithmetic and a knowledge in history goes a long way to wisdom. hehe.

 

might be a troll or could just be a stupid child

 

in any case I'll bite since I'm bored.

 

1) a 500 to 1 ratio is absurd. just think about it. and LOL at this...

 

I'm afraid no amount of explanation will make you discern how strategically pointless and an exercise in idiocy trying to modernize the military.

 

 

which comes right before you cite chinese naval might. what do you propose we use should we come to blows with China? Foul language?

 

 

 

 

2) now you propose arming the populace as a DETERRENT TO FOREIGN THREATS. seriously dude? Do you even know how modern war looks like? You're proposing to arm all filipinos, untrained family men, who probably have never shot a gun in their entire lives, or who has been in any sort of physical confrontation their entire existence, you're proposing we arm these guys and ask them to defend the nation?

 

lol

 

and while I support responsible gun ownership as a right of every human being, the notion of having more guns equals less crime is just absurd. there has been no study to prove this fact, and the accompanying counter point is that countries with no guns have more crime is also false, just take a look at Japan and England.

 

and on switzerland.

 

please don't revise history and say Switzerland was never conquered in both world wars because every family owned guns.

 

Switzerland remained neutral through both conflicts and survived invasions by the Nazis in WW2 by providing concessions to the Germans via bilateral talks and some shady economic deals. It also helped that the swiss had a massive and professional army that can be mobilized quickly to secure their borders, it can also be argued that they had one of the most technically modern armies at the time.

 

basically it was a combination of political savvy, and a large military deterrent (professional soldiers and not citizens with hunting rifles) that kept them safe both times.

 

so no the fact that each family had 5-6 guns wasn't a factor, and you can't force that fact to fit your agenda, it doesn't work that way.

 

given that we can definitely look to the swiss experience to support the need for a modern military. With a modern, well trained and well equipped military we can deter larger invaders just by the virtue of making it too costly for them to invade.

 

We don't have that yet, which is why China constantly bullies us in that area. They can just prod and prod and take whatever they want, while we just yell out "no fair!"

[artvader]

1. Until you understand that a ratio disadvantage of 500 to 1, I'm afraid no amount of explanation will make you discern how strategically pointless and an exercise in idiocy trying to modernize the military. Which in itself as an institution is an unbelievably corrupt organization.

 

The Chinese also have a few of those so-called NUCLEAR SUBMARINES which can fire missiles from 500 miles with great precision. We can buy 10 new craft and it will be sunk in less than 10 minutes.

 

2. You obviously are not a student of history. Or maybe you're still very young to remember that before the Martial Law era, a significant portion of the middle/upper class own guns and yet crime is relatively low.

 

Again you're missing the point.

 

And I repeat. The point here is not those islands but the overall safety of the country from foreign threats.

 

Countries which allows its citizens to have guns have the lowest crime rates (Switzerland, US). While those who impose strict gun controls suffer from high crime rates. Eherm! Philippines. hehe

 

It's quite basic and simple really. And I understand you have been deluded into thinking otherwise. MORE GUNS MEANS LESS CRIME.

 

But to finish the point.

 

Switzerland is a very small country in the middle of Europe and yet it has survived 2 world wars without being invaded by anyone. Kahit si Hitler at si Stalin hindi naglakas loob na pasukin ang bansang ito kahit nandito pa ang mga malalaking bangko at pera... dahil....

 

Tama ang hula mo pre. Ang galing.

 

Bawat pamilyang Swiss owns an average of 5-6 RIFLES. Essentially every man, woman and child is armed. Think 50 million Filipinos armed. The Chinese will never dream of sh_tting on us.

 

In contrast saten when the Japanese invaded Filipinos died by the thousands and thousands because we are unarmed.

 

Simple arithmetic and a knowledge in history goes a long way to wisdom. hehe.

 

If you think the military is corrupt, then you must be living in a make believe world where the people are not corruptible themselves. Obviously, you've been filtering out news of people firing their guns indiscriminately during the new year, thereby killing innocent children. Or to that person who shot a driver because of a simple road altercation? I'm not convinced that ordinary Filipinos can be trusted to act responsibly with a gun.

 

I'd rather not add the stress of knowing that any day now my next-door neighbor can go postal, especially since he can now k*ll me and my loved ones from a few meters away.

 

Another reason why these should be left to the military? In the even that war happens and our military gets thrashed, there's a chance the invading forces will just spare the civilian population, or at least colonize them. Arm every population? The invading forces would just bomb the whole country until there's no population to worry about.

 

Now, if you're saying they have nuclear subs that can fire from 500 miles away, what would armed citizens have against that, you think? Your proposition is at least as pointless as what you think of mine.

 

And the US?!? Bad example, dude. Have you even heard of all those school massacres happening all over their country? The US doesn't even have a low crime rate. In fact, its at the top of the list that has jailed its citizens (1 out of 1000!).

[hit05]

 

 

We don't have that yet, which is why China constantly bullies us in that area. They can just prod and prod and take whatever they want, while we just yell out "no fair!"

 

There is the greater possibility that the circumstances have been created by Filipino leaders. Remember that under Cory, the US Bases were kicked out. It was after all Ninoy's vocal aspiration to make China a greater power than the USA at a time when the Cold War is at its peak. Perhaps his blind followers are doing this out of legacy to their hero?

 

 

But the Chinese already has a gut feel that this is just paying lip service to them. The Chinese Ambassador had it published that our president got no word of honor and lacks integrity. But the Chinese ought to use common sense rather than allow Filipinos to flatter and lure them into a trap that will cost them everything. The real enemy of the mainland Chinese are their local partners who have been busy sucking and milking them for nothing in return.

[mokong10101]

might be a troll or could just be a stupid child

 

in any case I'll bite since I'm bored.

 

1) a 500 to 1 ratio is absurd. just think about it. and LOL at this...

 

 

 

 

which comes right before you cite chinese naval might. what do you propose we use should we come to blows with China? Foul language?

 

 

 

 

2) now you propose arming the populace as a DETERRENT TO FOREIGN THREATS. seriously dude? Do you even know how modern war looks like? You're proposing to arm all filipinos, untrained family men, who probably have never shot a gun in their entire lives, or who has been in any sort of physical confrontation their entire existence, you're proposing we arm these guys and ask them to defend the nation?

 

lol

 

and while I support responsible gun ownership as a right of every human being, the notion of having more guns equals less crime is just absurd. there has been no study to prove this fact, and the accompanying counter point is that countries with no guns have more crime is also false, just take a look at Japan and England.

 

and on switzerland.

 

please don't revise history and say Switzerland was never conquered in both world wars because every family owned guns.

 

Switzerland remained neutral through both conflicts and survived invasions by the Nazis in WW2 by providing concessions to the Germans via bilateral talks and some shady economic deals. It also helped that the swiss had a massive and professional army that can be mobilized quickly to secure their borders, it can also be argued that they had one of the most technically modern armies at the time.

 

basically it was a combination of political savvy, and a large military deterrent (professional soldiers and not citizens with hunting rifles) that kept them safe both times.

 

so no the fact that each family had 5-6 guns wasn't a factor, and you can't force that fact to fit your agenda, it doesn't work that way.

 

given that we can definitely look to the swiss experience to support the need for a modern military. With a modern, well trained and well equipped military we can deter larger invaders just by the virtue of making it too costly for them to invade.

 

We don't have that yet, which is why China constantly bullies us in that area. They can just prod and prod and take whatever they want, while we just yell out "no fair!"

 

I'll even make it more simple for you dude.

 

China = Boot Philippines = Ant

 

Please read more of your history because every it's a well established fact that in Switzerland it has not been invaded for hundreds of years because it has maintained a military which can be fielded overnight and in large numbers because all swiss own guns.

 

If you can't understand that, go back to the library.

 

And if you can't understand that more guns equals less crime. Numbers don't lie. Countries with the most strict gun laws suffer from the most number of crimes.

 

Go educate yourself.

[mokong10101]

If you think the military is corrupt, then you must be living in a make believe world where the people are not corruptible themselves. Obviously, you've been filtering out news of people firing their guns indiscriminately during the new year, thereby killing innocent children. Or to that person who shot a driver because of a simple road altercation? I'm not convinced that ordinary Filipinos can be trusted to act responsibly with a gun.

 

I'd rather not add the stress of knowing that any day now my next-door neighbor can go postal, especially since he can now k*ll me and my loved ones from a few meters away.

 

Another reason why these should be left to the military? In the even that war happens and our military gets thrashed, there's a chance the invading forces will just spare the civilian population, or at least colonize them. Arm every population? The invading forces would just bomb the whole country until there's no population to worry about.

 

Now, if you're saying they have nuclear subs that can fire from 500 miles away, what would armed citizens have against that, you think? Your proposition is at least as pointless as what you think of mine.

 

And the US?!? Bad example, dude. Have you even heard of all those school massacres happening all over their country? The US doesn't even have a low crime rate. In fact, its at the top of the list that has jailed its citizens (1 out of 1000!).

 

In the US 90 percent of gun crimes happen in the 2 percent portion of the country.

 

And if you have to ask WHERE IN THE US IS THAT SO-CALLED 2 PERCENT?

 

Tama ang hula mo pre! Ang galing mo! Tada!

 

Gun free zones.

 

But here's something for your brain to munch.

 

The FBI in 2012 recently released stats regarding crime rates in the US and it showed that crime in the US has been steadily DECREASING for the past 15-20 years.

 

EMPHASIS ON STEADILY DECREASING.

 

More guns equals less crime.

 

Of course only a libertarian will understand that. Or someone who's life is in danger.

[mokong10101]

1.) Ratio na 500 to 1??? San galing yon? 100M Filipinos against 1.3B PRC citizens translates to 13:1.

 

2.) The US has low crime rates? As compared to Japan, Australia, Germany, The UK to name a few?

 

3.) Nobody invaded Switzerland not because they couldn't take them, but because the belligerents needed a place where their representatives could talk where their rights would not be violated by the other side.

 

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: troll alert.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

Another clueless idiot.

 

I'm getting tired of educating clueless sheep.

 

But for your sake, baka tumalab ng konti. Although I doubt it.

 

1. The 500 to 1 ratio I'm mentioning is the military industrial capability. Syempre sa tulad mong walang alam you don't factor in that military production is also a determinant of military advantage.

 

To simplify it further kasi baka hindi pa din naiintindihan sir.

 

The Chinese has production capacities to produce their own equipment. Tayo po ay bumibili lamang. Nagets mo nb? O bka kailangan ko pa ipaliwanag further? Kailangan pb i-memorize yan.

 

2. Stats showed by the FBI revealed that more than 90 percent of crimes are committed at a concentrated area of less than 2 percent of the whole US. That 2 percent are the areas where the government forbids its citizens to carry guns. Gun free zones ika nga.

 

Gets mo nb? O umiikot na ang ulo sa konting arithmetic.

 

FBI stats also showed that crime rates in the US has been steadily decreasing for the past 15-20 years. Common sense na lang kung hindi mo pa alam ang dahilan why bumaba ang crime rates. More guns equals less crime.

 

UK?

 

Hahahahahaha!

 

Yan ang problema sa taong nagmamarunong at nanghuhula lamang.

 

Dude next time before you speak make sure alam mo ang sinasabi mo. Fools speak because they want to say something. hahahaha!

 

Itatak mo to ha.

 

Since the UK imposed strict gun control laws bumaba ang GUN CRIMES NILA. But at the same time nag-skyrocket ang kanilang crime rates. Crime rate in the UK is so bad that...

 

Teka question portion ulet.

 

Alam mo ba pang ilan ang UK sa pinakamadaming crime rate sa Euro area? Google mo dali.

 

Siret?

 

The United Kingdom is 2nd in the Euro in terms of crime rate. Hahaha!

 

yan ang hirap sa nagmamarunong. Napapahiya.

 

3. Mejo pagod naq sa kakaisip. Di nyo din naman kayang intindihin ang sinasabi ko sa inyo dahil brainwashed sheep na kau eh. hehe.

 

But to finalize.

 

I'll give you a clue.

 

Switzerland maintains a very small standing army.

 

Emphasis on VERY SMALL. I think just over 100,000.

 

It also has a relatively small population of 7-8 million.

 

Ang galing mo talaga dre. Pinabilib moq. Galing mo manghula.

 

They are also all armed thus ready for conscription within 24 hours.

 

Hahaha!

 

Aral Aral din wag puro un ulo sa baba pinapagana mga ser.

[Larry]

I'll even make it more simple for you dude.

 

China = Boot Philippines = Ant

 

Please read more of your history because every it's a well established fact that in Switzerland it has not been invaded for hundreds of years because it has maintained a military which can be fielded overnight and in large numbers because all swiss own guns.

 

one thing doesn't have anything to do with another. it doesn't follow if whole families owns guns they get can mobilize a massive military force.

 

a military is a professional fighting force, very different from a populace armed with hunting rifles. a population owning guns doesn't always translate into a large military force. That's like saying a country with families that owns the most number of running shoes has the best runners.

 

LOGIC, HOW DOES IT WORK?

 

and please do school me on this history you speak of, I would so very well like to hear from you on this subject, which you seem to be a very avid student of.

 

 

 

And if you can't understand that more guns equals less crime. Numbers don't lie. Countries with the most strict gun laws suffer from the most number of crimes.

 

I'll give you two countries with strict gun laws that have low crime rates

 

Japan

 

and

 

England

 

now explain yourself.

 

Go educate yourself.

 

try harder son.