South China/West Philippine Sea

[fatchubs]

From the very same article:

 

 

He committed the US to building a cooperative relationship with China, which has expressed misgivings over the strengthened US focus on the region and it's strengthened defence ties with Australia.

 

"We will do this even as we continue to speak candidly to Beijing about the importance of upholding international norms and respecting the universal human rights of the Chinese people," Mr Obama said.

 

 

 

No question, US will not renege on its commitment to defend the Philippines, Mrs Clinton and the US Defense Secretary have reiterated that already.

 

However, they will also not try to get the ire of the Chinese which will put a dent to their relationship or worst, burn the bridges with them if they are serious in "building a cooperative relationship". Its a tough balancing act which can't be achieve if the US will fight with us against the Chinese. Thus it only strengthen my belief that most likely US will resort to moral suasion or a peaceful way of defending the Phil. rather than being up in arms with our military in fighting the Chinese.

Edited June 5, 2012 by fatchubs

[fatchubs]

You have a point there ... the speech could be sugar coated. I also agree on two other points which you said. First, the US wanted its presence felt in the region and this is being done through its allies in the region. Second, by doing so they are indirectly telling the Chinese that they are still "THE" force to contend with as far as the region is concerned.

 

Note however that time and again, the US has reiterated for a peaceful resolution to our issue with the Chinese. Granted that China fires the first shot, why should the US further add fuel to the fire by fighting beside us when then can most likely resolve this scuffle through a peaceful negotiation with the Chinese? Would you think the Chinese want this to turn into a WAR from a scuffle? Will the US look bad if they "defended" us by asking the Chinese to stop any further aggression rather than being up in arms with our military forces for the same objective?

 

Just a hypothetical question ...

 

a scuffle between Chinese and Filipino troops patrolling the area happened wherein the Chinese fired the first shot. Does the MDT calls for the US going to war with us versus China (to supposedly get even) even if there was no more military aggression on the Chinese after the incident?

 

In other words up to what extent must the US join the fray based on the MDT? Should they join our forces in our counter strike efforts or should they just be there on stand-by only to open fire when there is further aggression from the Chinese? My view is its the latter.

Edited June 5, 2012 by TheSmilingBandit

[fatchubs]

Fire the first shot. So is this only one shot and then we don't retatliate?

 

As for your second point, US participation will depend on the gravity of the carnage the Chinese will inflict upon us. If it's just one shot and we don't retaliate coz it's only a warning shot, then I don't think the US will engage China but if it results in the sinking of one or a couple of our ships, then the gloves come off.

 

I was thinking in the line of the previous reported incident regarding RP patrol and Chinese fishing vessels then comes the Chinese Patrol ships.

 

What if a misunderstanding happened that day. China first fired a warning shot, RP refuse to nudge so another shot was fired now aiming at the RP vessel. RP retaliated but obviously lost the scuffle. End of action for the day. Subsequently, China did not make further moves.

 

So what's next? US "automatically" must comes in for "resbak" together with the RP troops despite no further attacks? If that would be the case, up to what extent? Sinking just one of their ships too? Destroy all vessel in sight in the area? When should the US call it quits?

 

What now is the role of the security council in this situation?

 

If China fires the first shot which would cause us to retaliate and will eventually result in the sinking of one or a couple of our ships, then all bets are off, the US is duty-bound to honor the treaty. As Obama said, the US commitment to the Philippines would never waver.

 

 

And what about Obama's commitment of building a cooperative relationship with China? Is it your POV that the MDT should be given more weight than the other commitment? Why is it so? Don't you think striking a balance between those two commitment is the WIN-WIN solution?

Edited June 5, 2012 by TheSmilingBandit

[camiar]

For the sake of clarity in our discussion, may I suggest to define the phrase "fired the first shot" to mean a premeditated armed attack which led to casualties or substantial damage.

 

Warning shot and accidental firing which does not cause any harm other than ruffle some nerves, should not be considered "firing the first shot".

 

This is the point why we should only put professional navy and coast guard presonnel in the area, and keep the area off limits to politicians. A lot of bad things can happen due to lack of discipline.

Edited June 5, 2012 by camiar

[fatchubs]

Like I said, the US will enforce the MDT only if the gravity of the offensive action of China would be grave like the sinking of an RP ship. I don't think the US will act if it's only shots. But I think Secretary Clinton or President Obama will have something to say about this. In the scenario you painted, the Chinese didn't sink an RP ship, so I don't think the US will act on it but Secretary Clinton or President Obama will have something to say about this.

 

Actually I was thinking of sinking an RP ship as a result of the cross fire between the two sides.

 

Let's repaint the scenario again ... RP patrol saw the Chinese fishing vessel in the area approach it. The Chinese patrol vessel noticed the incident, went to the area also. Misunderstanding followed. China fired a warning shot, RP did nudge, China fired another shot this time aimed at the vessel, a crossfire followed. RP lost the scuffle as their vessel sank. No further Chinese military aggression followed.

 

I guess by this scenario it is already "grave". So what's next? US with RP to join forces to sink a Chinese ship to get even then call it quits?

[fatchubs]

I think the article I posted focused more on US alliances and the US role in making its presence felt in Asia and the Pacific. As I said, Obama said that statement to be more diplomatic and courteous after he rebuked China. Obama will probably pursue the cooperative relationship with China but Obama is more concerned about its alliances with its allies in the area than a potential military rival in China. I never said that the MDT should be given more importance coz it will be only be enforced by the US once China does something grave like sink one of our ships.

 

Noted ...

 

I was more of reading your statement and looking how it would affect the issue on this thread in the event that RP will call for the help of Big Bro via the MDT. You can give your insights if you wish considering these statements are relevant to what is going on now and could be tested should the MDT be enforced.

 

There is no argument that the MDT is there and the US has reaffirmed its commitment a number of times. There is also the commitment to have a relationship with China.

 

The the question is this ... If the US is put in a situation wherein the MDT have to be enforced and honored otherwise lose face, do you believe that will they fight with us side by side despite knowing it will probably end any existing and future relationship with China or strike a balance between those commitments and go the route of a peaceful negotiation or via moral suasion? If it is the former, then why give more weight on the MDT?

 

In this scenario, I think the US and the Philippines will enforce the MDT.

 

Then how do you envision the scenario to be once the MDT will be enforced? Up to what extent? Is it as you mentioned earlier joining forces to sink a ship of the Chinese or is it to wipe out all vessels on sight?

 

When should the US stop in its military aggression?

Edited June 5, 2012 by TheSmilingBandit

[fatchubs]

As for your first question, yes, the US will fight with us and honor the MDT rather than have, in your words, a future relationship with China (the US and China have diplomatic relations, by the way). The Philippines and US have a historic partnership which goes back more than a century ago. RP was once a colony of the United States. Do you think the US would actually side with a potential military rival than one of its oldest and staunchest allies in the Asia-Pacific? More importantly, Obama, himself said that the United States' commitment to RP would never waver.

 

For your second question, the way I see it, a US hunter-killer Virginia or Los Angeles class submarine will sink a Chinese warship, most probably the ship that sunk the BRP ship, in the Panatag Shoal just to make a statement. After that, it will be China's move. After the hunter-killer sunk that ship, I don't think China will be dumb enough to sink another BRP ship. The Chinese, in all probability, will hold talks and the US will dictate the terms. This is how I envision the scenario.

 

The "relationship" I mentioned came from the US President himself. It is what Obama's referred to that the US is committed to build with China in the very same article you showed. I guess encompasses all kind of relationship such as but not limited to "diplomatic" as well as economic among others. Obviously should the US literally fight this war beside us (meaning sending their troops and ships to battle) then even the "diplomatic relationship", whatever they have now (even the slightest of it) will be thrown away. Future relationship (in terms of improving what they have now) will also be at risk. Is that what OBAMA really wants despite his claim that the US is also committed to building a relationship with China???

 

The US can honor the MDT by shielding us from any further aggression even if they will not fire a single shot. As you painted, China won't be dumb to battle the US so why would the US even bother to lift a finger (para rumesbak) when they know the Chinese fear them and will eventually end up in the negotiating table under the terms and conditions of the US?. Is sinking their ship a pre-condition for the Chinese not be dumb to engage with the US?

 

Finally, if the US are increasing their presence in the Asia Pacific because to them China is a military threat, what made you think that China will just take it (US joining forces with the RP sinking a Chinese warship) sitting down?

[dos8dos]

Just a hypothetical question ...

 

a scuffle between Chinese and Filipino troops patrolling the area happened wherein the Chinese fired the first shot. Does the MDT calls for the US going to war with us versus China (to supposedly get even) even if there was no more military aggression on the Chinese after the incident?

 

In other words up to what extent must the US join the fray based on the MDT? Should they join our forces in our counter strike efforts or should they just be there on stand-by only to open fire when there is further aggression from the Chinese? My view is its the latter.

 

washington will only interfere militarily in an event of FULL-SCALE ASSAULT which will include the main island like luzon. it will be limited in driving out the intruders

 

washington will NEVER fight a SKIRMISH on our behalf if the conflict is confined in a small area like the panatag shoal after all they cant be OMNIPRESENT. heck, they wouldnt even initiate a COUNTER-ATTACK on our behalf. the US navy will only send a boat to observe (assuming the fighting will last long enough for the US navy to get in the vicinity of the conflict), when they see that the phil navy is being clobbered the best they will do is to let their boat pass through to initiate a lull in the fighting to give us the chance to lick our wounds. the chinese at this stage will not harm a US navy boat unless they want to reverse the tide against their favor.

 

however, im very much interested on how washington will react as far as building up our defensive capability after the first BLOODY SKIRMISH ever transpired

Edited June 6, 2012 by dos8dos

[dos8dos]

You were the one who posted a scenario that the Chinese will sink a BRP ship, right? I replied that this is grave enough for the US to enforce the MDT. I also said that the US will sink the Chinese ship which sank the BRP ship with one of its hunter-killers to make a statement, right? If the Chinese sink a BRP ship, it's grave enough that the US will enforce the MDT. Is there something in my post you didn't understand? If there is, what is it?

 

it did not happen with north korea

[dos8dos]

What didn't happen?

 

when the north korean sunk a south korean patrol boat the US navy didnt sink any north korean boat after all they cant be OMNIPRESENT

 

washington only scheduled the biggest naval exercise with south korea in the yellow sea after the incident as a show of force not only to norkorea but also to china, considering the location of the military exercise

Edited June 6, 2012 by dos8dos

[BnF95]

I really don't know the articles in the Sokor-US MDT but it's clearly stated in Article V of our MDT with the US that if China sinks one of the BRP ships, the US would act on it and my take is that a hunter-killer will sink the Chinese ship that sunk the BRP ship. Of course, I'm basing this on the scenario that fatchubs gave.

If I can throw in my 2 cents here, it doesn't mean that they will sink the Chinese ship, they will take action, but it doesn't specify that it will be a military one based on your own quote.

[fatchubs]

Did you read what I said about what the US will most likely do? I said the US will stand-by one of it's oldest and staunchest allies in the Asia-Pacific rather than a potential military rival to be succinct about it.

 

Read you Loud and Clear sir ...Don't get me wrong but I am just presenting to you my view. Isn't this thread about exchange of ideas? We are all speculating on what may happen in the event the hypothetical scenario I painted becomes a reality. What you said is a possibility, but why not look into the other possibilities as well.

 

We all know that the US sees China as a potential military rival. Despite this, Obama per his own statement is also committed to build a relationship with China (as what was written in the very same article you showed wherein he manifest his unwavering support to the allies). So there goes my question ... why should he do something that may cause trouble in building that relationship moreso to "activate" that military rivalry intoa real military combat?

 

In other words yes, the US can and should stand-by the Philippines since it is her oldest and staunchest allies in the Asia Pacific, but he can also decide not burn the bridges with China (if he is true to his commitment of building a relationship with China). How? As I mentioned, why not via a WIN WIN solution wherein the US will honor the MDT by ensuring no further attacks by China without joining the fray. The US can denounce the act (wherein China sank our ship) and issue a stern warning that any further aggression will be dealt accordingly. Then ask both parties settle the matter "peacefully". Bottomline here is trying to strike a balance on both commitments. Why? Will a war between US and China do any good to both parties?

 

 

You were the one who posted a scenario that the Chinese will sink a BRP ship, right? I replied that this is grave enough for the US to enforce the MDT. I also said that the US will sink the Chinese ship which sank the BRP ship with one of its hunter-killers to make a statement, right? If the Chinese sink a BRP ship, it's grave enough that the US will enforce the MDT. Is there something in my post you didn't understand? If there is, what is it?

 

Again, take my post as presenting other possibilities based on my point of view .... and it is not there because something was not understood.

 

The one you presented is to take an aggressive stance when the MDT will be enforced because of the hypothetical incident. On the other hand I am presenting to you a more subtle approach to the situation taking into consideration a Win-Win approach which can only be achieved I believe if US will not "join the fray" of striking back at the Chinese.

 

Can you point out the post in which I said that China will just take it sitting down?

 

Don't get me wrong again ...You painted a scenario wherein the US and RP joint forces (actually this is more of US being the one capable of ) sinking a Chinese warship in retaliation "to make a statement". After which you said the Chinese won't be dumb to sink another BRP ship. So I was asking you, "what made you think the Chinese will take this sitting down?" ... this is obviously in reference to your statement that "the Chinese won't be dumb to sink another BRP".

 

Note that the US acknowledge China to be a military threat (otherwise why should they increase their "visibility" in the region). It only means China is capable of giving them a good fight if it happens thus they need to prepare for any eventuality. As such I asked you this "If ever US joins RP in retaliating, what made you think that the Chinese won't be dumb to strike again not only a BRP but also at any US vessel in the area?" In other words, what I am saying here is don't underestimate the Chinese. They may not be as "powerful" as the US military-wise but I don't think they are patsies either that will just stay put and go to the negotiating table in case the US join forces with the Philippines to sink their ship as you pictured to happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BnF95]

The US response of sinking the Chinese ship is my opinion based on the scenario that fatchubs painted.

Of course that is a possibility, on the other hand, is it possible that perhaps they (the USA) may try for a more diplomatic response?

[fatchubs]

1338977860[/url]' post='8229484']

Actions speak louder than words. Wait, we're not yet on the war scenario. We're still in the skirmish scenario wherein I said that the US would make a strong statement by sinking the Chinese ship that sunk the BRP ship just as you painted. The way I see it, the Chinese will listen to actions taken against them rather than rebuking statements from Obama. In situations like that, you need deed to back up your words to make the enemy know you mean business.

 

And what happens to their obligations under the charter of the united nation if you believe the US will act hastily, ignoring the possibilities that any retaliation with them joining the fray may escalate into a full blown war?

[fatchubs]

1338978572[/url]' post='8229495']

Superior technology and weapons

 

Just because one have superior technology and weapons then you believe they won't be dumb to retaliate if the US sinks one of their ships?

If that would be the case and the Americans thinks the same then there is no need for them to worry of china being a military concern in the region. As you say action speaks louder than words. The reality is that the US is increasing their visibility in the region.

Dont forget your history ... The Vietnamese were inferior in technology and weapons yet they didn't back off and gave the Americans one of their hardest battle in history. The Chinese fought the Japanese then who are considered more superior and you're saying they will not be dumb to retaliate?

The Chinese may be inferior in technology and weapons, but I don't think they are inferior in terms of courage and nationalism. You are underestimating the capabilities of the Sinos.

 

 

[fatchubs]

1338978269[/url]' post='8229490']

I was basing this statement of mine on this post of yours.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please clarify ... Weren't you asking me where did you said "the Chinese will take it sitting down" which I said is my statement paraphrasing your statement that the Chinese won't be dumb to retaliate. Yet you said you are referring to This post of mine wherein I repainted the picture of the hypothetical scenario. Shouldn't you refer to one of your post and not mine?

 

 

[fatchubs]

1338963973[/url]' post='8229194']

washington will only interfere militarily in an event of FULL-SCALE ASSAULT which will include the main island like luzon. it will be limited in driving out the intruders

 

washington will NEVER fight a SKIRMISH on our behalf if the conflict is confined in a small area like the panatag shoal after all they cant be OMNIPRESENT. heck, they wouldnt even initiate a COUNTER-ATTACK on our behalf. the US navy will only send a boat to observe (assuming the fighting will last long enough for the US navy to get in the vicinity of the conflict), when they see that the phil navy is being clobbered the best they will do is to let their boat pass through to initiate a lull in the fighting to give us the chance to lick our wounds. the chinese at this stage will not harm a US navy boat unless they want to reverse the tide against their favor.

 

however, im very much interested on how washington will react as far as building up our defensive capability after the first BLOODY SKIRMISH ever transpired

 

If the MDT would be enforce, this is a more acceptable Scenario to me .

 

1338984714[/url]' post='8229609']

Of course that is a possibility, on the other hand, is it possible that perhaps they (the USA) may try for a more diplomatic response?

 

Obviously a resounding YES to me ...

 

 

 

[fatchubs]

1338994836[/url]' post='8229765']

Act hastily? I think it will be acting accordingly based on the MDT. Can you specify what obligations under the charter of the United Nations?

 

It is in reference to what have been mentioned in Art VI in the MDT.

1338996460[/url]' post='8229777']

You are already talking of a war. We are still in the skirmish scenario. Yes, China won't be dumb enough to retaliate, unless, of course, they'd like more warships sunk.

 

As far as I know, in the Vietnam War, the Americans won a majority of the battles but lost the war due to a couple of reasons: the meddling Soviets which supported their ideological brethren, the uncooperative peasants who coddled the Vietcong and NVA, and pressure from back home (rallies, protests, etc.)

 

As for the Sino-Japanese war, Japan already occupied China but surrendered only because of the Enola Gay dropping atomic bombs on its cities.

 

Yes, I am already talking about war ... Coz I don't think the Chinese will be dumb not to retaliate. Once this happens you obviously would know the US wouldn't back down either.

It is immaterial who won or lost in the Vietnam war. The point that I'm showing you is it is not safe to assume that one will be dumb to retaliate or not fight just because one Iis deemed weaker considering the other party has a more superior technology and weapon. The vietnamese did fought the mighty US after all. And China I suppose is far "superior" than Vietnam. Further the Sino-Jap war was presented to show the Chinese actually have a history of "not being dumb not to retaliate or fight".

As you said actions speaks louder than words thus it is more prudent to believe the scenario you are painting is a possibility but with lesser probability than them retaliating should the US sinks one of their ships.

 

 

[fatchubs]

1338996713[/url]' post='8229780']

 

China will take it sitting down is not synonymous to China not dumb enough to retaliate. When you say "China will take it sitting down", it means it has the capability to retaliate but wouldn't do so while China not dumb enough to retaliate is prudence since it knows that the US is very capable of sinking more of its ships if it decides to retaliate. If the US and China would go at it in naval warfare, the Chinese would lose big. Three carrier battle groups would, in my opinion, be enough to annihilate the whole Chinese navy.

 

Isnt it obvious that if "the Chinese has the capability to retaliate but wouldn't do so " then it must be for a reason? Alangan naman Hindi pinagisipan? The choice of doing nothing or in this case to take it sitting down was a decision for whatever reason. That to me ain't being dumb.

Lose big or not history will show a sovereign nation would not take things sitting down or as you prefer to say would be dumb to retaliate.

[fatchubs]

Then show me the charter of the United Nations. If you post something like the charter of the United Nations, then be ready to post what it is, otherwise, I will consider your post irrelevant.

 

 

Irrelevant? How could that be when it was mentioned in one of the articles of the MDT. The MDT was your basis for the US to sink one of the Chinese ship in retaliation as well as to "send a statement".

 

Then I supposed that you know about it and have taken into consideration everything (Art. 1-8) in that MDT. This includes among others Art 5 which defines what constitutes an attack but also Art 6 that mentioned about the "OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES UNDER THE CHARTER OF THE UN".

 

Here is the link to the Charter of the UN as requested. Why don't you enlighten me on this as to how this scenario you painted will not run counter to it?

 

 

http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CTC/uncharter.pdf

If the Chinese are dumb enough to retaliate then let them suffer the consequences of their stupidity. As I said and I assumed you read it. If China and the US will go at it in naval warfare, 3 carrier battle groups are enough, in my opinion, to annihilate the whole Chinese navy. Do you know what a carrier battle group is? If you don't, read up.

 

You're talking about the Vietnam war, which is an incongruous analogy to a the theoretical skirmish in the West Philippine Sea. I don't think a skirmish would lead to war simply coz the Chinese know the stakes of a war of attrition. The US Navy can annihilate the Chinese Navy simply coz of its technological superiority. In terms of tactics, I don't think China will trump them. What I know is the US military's training is more difficult than actual battle. And no, the US won't invade

 

 

So in the Sino-Chinese war, who occupied who's country? Tell me.

 

Thus it shows that there could be other scenarios/possibilities other than ONLY assuming "the Chinese will be dumb to retaliate". This is the point I like to send across.

 

Yes we're talking of a skirmish between RP and China of which a third party comes in to retaliate (because there is the MDT). China may be dumb to retaliate once the US sinks their ship so what do you expect after ... still a skirmish?

 

Don't try to be too "technical" about the examples I gave (Vietnam and the Sino-Jap war), ... I think i said it already that these were cited just to prove two things. First, don't assume just because one is superior technically and in weapon you will automatically assume China not to be dumb to retaliate. Second, history will show that China fought the more superior Japanese so what will prevent them from doing it against the Americans this time around. You yourself made this statement already "If the Chinese are dumb enough to retaliate ..." thus it shows there is that possibility therefore it shouldn't be complicated.

 

 

 

 

Wait, wait. Which is which, the Chinese not doing anything or the Chinese retaliating? What is your opinion or stand? I'm a bit confused. Your 2 paragraphs in this post are contradictory. The first paragraph says that the choice of doing nothing or in this case to take it sitting down was a decision for whatever reason. In the next breath, you say that lose big or not history will show a sovereign nation would not take things sitting down. Which is which?

 

My opinion/stand is that the Chinese will retaliate if the US sinks one of their ship in retaliation of that skirmish with RP.

 

Your opinion is that "the Chinese won't be dumb to retaliate" of which I paraphrase "not retaliating to as "will treat it sitting down" In other words, they are supposed to mean the same for all intent and purpose.

[fatchubs]

Look, you brought up the UN charter. Perhaps, you can explain to me what the obligations of the parties under the charter of the UN. Why are you just giving me the link without explaining it? Besides, you brought it up so explain the part in the UN Charter that Article VI is alluding to. You're asking me to enlighten you so it means you're assuming that I posted a scenario that will not run counter to the UN. Where did I mention this scenario I painted (actually, it was you who drew the skirmish scenario. I was just saying what the US would do.) will not run counter to it?

 

Bringing up the UN charter was incidental since it is part of the MDT which correct me if I am wrong was your basis to believe that the US will join the fray and retaliate by sinking one of the Chinese ships. If that would be the case, is it right to be selective in which article to choose to justify one's basis rather than looking at the entire MDT (from articles 1-8)? As such I asked you whether your belief (of what the US will do) will not run counter to any of the articles, should there be any.

 

YES, I assumed that when one made the MDT as his basis for the US to join the fray to retaliate by sinking one of China's ship it was seen as adhering to what the MDT says in totality rather than selectively. It was the prudent thing to do ...

 

"Where did I mention this scenario I painted will not run counter to it" ... So are you simply asking me literally or making a statement that the scenario you painted did not take that to consideration? If you are asking me, then obviously it was the reason why I asked the question because I wanna know whether or not you considered that article when you made your stand. If it was the latter, wherein it was meant to tell me that you don't claim that it will run counter, then I now know where you are coming from.

 

 

The charter of the UN I believe is easy to understand ... in my opinion in relation to our discussion, its about avoiding WAR and respect for the laws (treaties as well). That is why I believe that the US while they should not renege on the MDT with the Philippines should not join the fray and instead just protect the Philippines from further aggression and find ways for an eventual peaceful resolution. In other words the US being in a tight situation MUST come up with a WIN-WIN solution. One that will not further anger the Chinese which could possibly escalate this simple skirmish into a WAR and at the same time be able to DEFEND the RP for further aggression.

 

 

If you think there are other scenarios, then go ahead and think that way. I'm not stopping you to think that way. If you want me to agree with you, which is what I think you're trying to do, I won't agree with you. I have my opinion.

 

After the US sinks its ship, I expect China to negotiate and the US to dictate the terms. I already said this in one of my posts.

 

I'm not being technical, I'm being factual that the Americans won almost every battle with the NVA and VC and that it was Japan which occupied China for 8 years. Yes, I am assuming that China will be dumb if it retaliated. If you want me to agree with you, I'm not. I have my own opinion and you have yours.

 

Anything else? I'm agreeing to disagree with you. I don't think we will agree in this scenario.

 

I know we have different views on this matter ... we both can never claim which one of us is correct as I've said we're both speculating/second guessing what may happen.

 

On the contrary, you're wrong in your assumption that I'm trying to make you agree with me. My objective really is to present my views. I did agree with you on certain aspects but will maintain my belief as well on others which is in conflict with yours. At the end of the day this thread is for us to exchange ideas and test each one's opinions. We can't be the jury on our own arguments but it will be the other readers (some of them may agree or disagree so you will see them post their own opinions). Or maybe in due time should the scenario we painted actually becomes a reality, we'll know in hindsight who made the right opinion.

 

Granted that you are being FACTUAL, does your ASSUMPTION that China will be dumb if she retaliates a GUARANTEE that CHINA won't do this dumb act of retaliating? Obviously NOT. People knows its dumb to do certain things and yet at times we still do it. That is the very point I am trying relay to you. It's FACTUAL too unless you want to disprove it.

[fatchubs]

I was being factual on the Sino-Japanese and Vietnam war. China being dumb if it retaliates is my belief. Now if you believe that China will retaliate, then think that way. I'm not making you agree with me. What is factual?

 

As I said, I agree to disagree with you. Anything else?

 

 

 

That your assumption of China will be dumb if she retaliates is NOT a GUARANTEE that she won't do the Dumb Act of retaliating.

 

The FACT is there are instances that people know doing a particular act would be dumb and yet they do it. This is the point being relayed to you unless you want to dispute this FACT.

[fatchubs]

I was asking you to elaborate on the UN charter since you brought it up. What do you mean you asked me whether my belief of what the US will do will run counter to any of the articles, should there be any? You asked me this: Here is the link to the charter of the UN as requested.Why don't you enlighten me on this as to how the scenario you painted will run counter to it? The it you're referring to is the UN charter which is why I asked you to elaborate the part in the UN charter which Article VI is alluding to. Don't convolute your posts. If you don't know that part, then just say you don't know instead of convoluting your posts. Do you know the part of the UN charter which Article VI is alluding to or not? If you can't answer this by yes or no, then don't convolute your posts. You can't even give me a straight answer.

 

Well didn't I already gave you my POV why the scenario you painted counters that of the UN Charter. SO what is this still all about???

"The charter of the UN I believe is easy to understand ... in my opinion in relation to our discussion, its about avoiding WAR and respect for the laws (treaties as well). That is why I believe that the US while they should not renege on the MDT with the Philippines should not join the fray and instead just protect the Philippines from further aggression and find ways for an eventual peaceful resolution. In other words the US being in a tight situation MUST come up with a WIN-WIN solution. One that will not further anger the Chinese which could possibly escalate this simple skirmish into a WAR and at the same time be able to DEFEND the RP for further aggression"

 

How can the US not renege on the MDT and not join the fray in the same breath? Contradictory statements again. How can you protect the Philippines if you don't join the fray?

 

Simple, the MDT did not spell out "MUTUAL AID" = mandatory on the part of either party, in this case the US to be physically present when the Philippines retaliate (should they wish to).

 

The US can continue to provide "military aid" which is essentially part of the treaty of providing mutual aid. If the US wishes to donate 3 of their best warships and these warships, all under the control and jurisdiction of the RP were used to retaliate and sink one or all of China's warship then it is tantamount to providing mutual aid without joining the fray.

 

It's just like MJ providing NC his alma matter the latest MJ shoes that enhanced the performance of the players which went on to win the NCAA title. MJ provided "aid" in terms of equipment but he didn't join the fray to win the title.

Edited June 7, 2012 by fatchubs

[fatchubs]

Again, my belief that China will not retaliate is firm. If you think it's not a guarantee, then that's your opinion. You say that "the fact is there are instances that people know doing a particular act would be dumb and yet they do it". I say there are instances that people will do the smart thing and that is not to retaliate. This is also a fact. Would you wanna dispute it?

 

So are you saying its a guarantee?

 

The mere fact that both our claims are non disputable obviously shows that my conclusion is correct ... There ain't a guarantee that what you claim is the ONLY possibility. Thus as I said I am just showing to you the other possibility.

 

I thought you have agreed to disagree, yet you are still raising a lot of issues? Anyway, whatever pleases you ...

[fatchubs]

I was asking you the part of the UN Charter which Article VI is alluding to and not your point of view.

 

What part? I think it is clearly stated in Art VI as highlighted below word for word ..

 

This Treaty does not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations of the Parties under the Charter of the United Nations or the responsibility of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.

The way the MDT was drafted, it was a general rather than being specific right? Therefore it encompasses all applicable articles pertaining to such.

And as I said having referred to the MDT as your basis for the picture you've painted, it is presumed that you would have in the practice of prudence took these into considerations first. Did you?

Art IV is more specific ...

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations.

Again, if you took the whole MDT into consideration and not only a specific article that defines what an "armed attack" is you should have take into consideration that the attack should be reported and let the UN Security Council do its job rather than join the fray to "retaliate".