South China/West Philippine Sea

[dos8dos]

^its more like the chinks are pissed right now

[TheSmilingBandit]

Okay children, multiple posts removed, let's try that again shall we?

 

Thanks for the heads up Camiar.

[fatchubs]

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[johnlove]

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

 

We didn't cooperate during the Iraq war, how would the American public feel if we ask for their help?

 

IMHO, the Americans considers Spratly and Scarborough as disputed territories, that's why many islands in the Spratly have been occupied by different countries.

 

My point is we should start building our navy and air force, because Uncle Sam might not help us if the fighting didn't reach our main islands.

[TheSmilingBandit]

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

[fatchubs]

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Edited June 2, 2012 by fatchubs

[heatseeker0714]

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

 

We didn't cooperate during the Iraq war, how would the American public feel if we ask for their help?

 

IMHO, the Americans considers Spratly and Scarborough as disputed territories, that's why many islands in the Spratly have been occupied by different countries.

 

My point is we should start building our navy and air force, because Uncle Sam might not help us if the fighting didn't reach our main islands.

 

Iraq didn't attack the US... It was the US who went on the offensive in Iraq...

[TheSmilingBandit]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

ROTFLMAO, yes pretty much they are waffling, since they can claim that the monetary aid plus the military advisers are assistance and if you parse through the agreement carefully, that could be considered enough.

[heatseeker0714]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[dos8dos]

^i believe congressional approval is already given after the treaty has been RATIFIED

[heatseeker0714]

^i believe congressional approval is already given after the treaty has been RATIFIED

 

My point exactly. Thanks for the simplified explanation!

[fatchubs]

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[fatchubs]

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

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

 

 

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

Edited June 3, 2012 by fatchubs

[fatchubs]

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

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

 

 

[heatseeker0714]

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

 

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

 

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

 

1.) No need to be concerned. Read my answer again. Despite the US-Chicom economic ties, if the Chicoms fire the first shot at us, the US would immediately act on it militarily because as i've said so, to do otherwise would irreparably damage US Credibility here in Asia, specifically the South East Asian and Oceania Region. The US has many interest in this region, not just their economic ties with the Chicoms. They have been either trying to maintain very good relations or wooing for economic, political or military purposes Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam, Myanmar, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. That's already 12 countries against the Chicoms here in the South East Asia and Oceania Region alone. How would you think those 12 countries would react if the US drags it's feet in performing it's Treaty obligations if the Chicoms fire the first shot against us????

 

Yes, the US populace per se is currently tired of War or any "Low Grade Conflicts" but they have no love for them Chicoms either. The average American may not care about the Panatag Shoal issue but they do greatly care about Cheap and Poisoned Chicom products flooding their country these past few years. They do greatly care about Cheap and Substandard Chicom labor stealing jobs from the average Joe. They do greatly care about Intellectual Property and Patent Rights being stolen left and right by the Chicoms and lastly they do greatly care about the Chicoms' increasing nefarious activities in stealing American Weapons Technologies and then having to face knock off versions of said technologies in hands that would do great damage to American interests.

 

2.) Yes they probably won't fire any shots and just annoy us so that we couldn't fully exploit our EEZ but they can only annoy us to a certain point. The ordinary brainwashed and moronic Chicom citizen would start asking questions why their government is all talk and no further actions have been taken. At the end of the day, despite the media hype they brandished in their own country, the Chicom government would themselves ask their brainwashed and moronic citizens to tone down their nationalistic feelings.

 

3.) Yes I agree with you that unless the Chicoms fire the first shot, the US would still keep in mind their economic ties with them Chicoms and just be an observer. But rest assured that when the shooting starts and such incident is initiated by the Chicoms, the Cavalry would immediately arrive. Them Chicoms may hold the biggest debt the US have but in a shooting war, said debts don't matter. As a matter of fact, covered by legalities, the debtor has nothing to lose in a shooting war.

[dos8dos]

I don't mean to belabor but this treaty is still in force indefinitely.

 

the MDT was RATIFIED by both the senate of the US & RP

 

learning from history agreements are BROKEN sometimes, just as hitler did to stalin, so its PRUDENT not to rely heavily on the TREATY. we have to build up some form of capability for the defense of our nation.

 

its GOOD for us that we have a TREATY but you cant expect the US to guard our territory for us when its our DUTY to do so.

 

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

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

 

just dont expect that the US will be on the side of the filipinos when the FIRST SHOT is fired, filipinos alone will have to absorb the FIRST SHOT coz we dont hold JOINT PATROL with the US

 

remember the US will not join the fray IMMEDIATELY, they will observe first before making a DECISION on what kind & how STRONG the force they need to send to counter the aggression

 

the US govt need not declare war, all they have to do is send their boats in the vicinity of the FIGHT & tell the chinese they need to PASS BY

Edited June 4, 2012 by TheSmilingBandit

[jopoc]

US will not engage in war against China just for us. i dont think they fight the war for the Ph unless there is a "compelling" reason for that.

[dos8dos]

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

Edited June 4, 2012 by dos8dos

[fatchubs]

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

 

This I agree ...

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

[heatseeker0714]

the MDT was RATIFIED by both the senate of the US & RP

 

1.) learning from history agreements are BROKEN sometimes, just as hitler did to stalin, so its PRUDENT not to rely heavily on the TREATY. we have to build up some form of capability for the defense of our nation.

 

2.) its GOOD for us that we have a TREATY but you cant expect the US to guard our territory for us when its our DUTY to do so.

 

 

 

3.) just dont expect that the US will be on the side of the filipinos when the FIRST SHOT is fired, filipinos alone will have to absorb the FIRST SHOT coz we dont hold JOINT PATROL with the US

 

4.) remember the US will not join the fray IMMEDIATELY, they will observe first before making a DECISION on what kind & how STRONG the force they need to send to counter the aggression

 

the US govt need not declare war, all they have to do is send their boats in the vicinity of the FIGHT & tell the chinese they need to PASS BY

 

1.) Hitler never had any good faith from the very beginning with regard to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Said Treaty was given the go signal by Hitler to his Foreign Minister Ribbentrop so that he won't have to worry about them commies while he had his attention on Britain. Numerous authors, historians and his Nazi minions have already proved that had that Austrian Corporal succeeded in bagging Britain, he would just rest and re-equip the Whermacht for a few months before initiating operation Barbarossa (the attack of the USSR) Hitler has said it so many times that Nazism and Communism cannot co-exist in Europe. It was only the Sovs who acted in good faith with regard to that Treaty with Stalin refusing to order any Soviet units to fire back at German Units till the 3rd day of the attack because he thought that there was only a miscommunication between the German Field Units and the German High Command.

 

2.) No serious member here in this thread in particular as far as i know or in the country in general has espoused that the US guard our territory for us.

 

3.) Just like my answer in number 2, i haven't come across anyone expecting the US to be there when them Chicoms fires the first shot against us. All of the talk going around is about US reaction, not them being in the thick of things if and or when them Chicoms fire the first shot.

 

4.) We can never tell. Remember that US Sub suddenly surfacing in Subic a few weeks ago. For all that we know, there are a number of them submerged in the area monitoring the situation. Besides, if they drag their feet in coming to our aid militarily, they lose face and whatever credibility they have in the area. When the Panatag Shoal Issue was starting to heat up, i'm sure they already have contingencies in place if the situation escalates. The Pentagon just like any government bureaucracy isn't that efficient, but they're not that negligent either.

[heatseeker0714]

 

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

 

 

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

[fatchubs]

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

 

Your POV is noted ...

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

[dos8dos]

^with all the speculation with the MDT, all i can say now is that washington as always will have to qualify first the extent of aggression. washington will have to discern a SKIRMISH from a FULL ASSAULT, this assessment will help determine what type of assistance they will send to their ally such as the phil.

 

in my humble opinion as far as the row in the shoal is concerned a SKIRMISH is the most likely thing to happen & washingtons response will simply be a STERN WARNING or REBUKE just like with north korea when they killed a few south korean sailors

 

i just hope in the event filipino sailors shed blood, the nation will be UNITED in meeting the chinese aggression with the mettle to put up a good fight

Edited June 4, 2012 by dos8dos

[camiar]

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

 

I would interpret the MDT to mean that either country (both PHL and USA)shall provide whatever aid necessary to "resist armed attacks" by external forces.

 

The MDT works both ways. If the US Fleet gets attacked in the Asia-Pacific region by another armed force, PHL is obliged to provide aid to the US Fleet. We may not even need to provide fighting troops, but we can provide behind-the-lines support and military bases to help the US fight off its attackers. Conversely, if the Philippine territory or its military forces are attacked, of course we should expect the US to help us fight off our attackers.

 

The terms of the treaty is quite clear. Both countries shall come to each other's aid if either country's armed forces are attacked in the Pacific. But one condition is that neither the US nor PH should act in a way that would provoke an armed conflict. If we militarily provoke China and starts the shooting, we'd better be prepared to finish it on our own, because in that case, the US is not obliged to help us.

Edited June 4, 2012 by camiar

[camiar]

US will not engage in war against China just for us. i dont think they fight the war for the Ph unless there is a "compelling" reason for that.

 

The mere geographic location of the Philippine archipelago is compelling enough reason for the US. PHL is essential to their strategic defense stategy in keeping their international shipping routes open.