South China/West Philippine Sea

[Jourdan]

I will grant cheap and effective.

 

But not inevitable. Those yellow chekwas are hiding some rather deeps flaws. Or do you submit they have none?

 

LC

 

An open war involving ROC would expose PRC's leadership's hold on the army, the government, and party loyalty...something that they might want to avoid. Blood ties across Taiwan strait vs. party/ideological lines will really get tested once that war in the South China seas between two Chinese countries happen. There are strong sentiments for "one China" across mainland demographics. And the PRC leadership knows best not to test that.

 

Also, an open war in South China sea is not in the best interests of PRC. A threat of war is different from having an actual one. The former effectively deter other parties from actually striking first, bec that would give China the ascendancy to hit back. The latter is an open invitation to everyone to actually hurt Chinese interests, whether by military strikes or economic sanctions.

[Jourdan]

Huh? The last time I checked, this thread was named the South China/West Philippine Sea thread. Go make a logic thread.

Oh, so since this is not a logic thread, you could be illogical??? Is that what you are? An illogical person? Ok. cool.

 

Perhaps, this lecture of yours would be more appropriate there. Hahaha! You call it a lame question coz you can't answer it. Hahaha! This is hilarious.

 

Well, its quite desperate to be honest...

 

1. You made a claim: Ownership of Spratlys should be settled by way of UNCLOS [A general claim]

2. I offered a counter-argument: UNCLOS cannot be relied upon as UN resolutions have historically failed to stop offending parties. I enumerated examples of major failings of the UN [specific proofs to demolish the truth of a general claim]

3. You offered a rebuttal: How many UN resolutions have failed?

 

Do you get it now? How is a question a valid rebuttal?

 

Just a suggestion junior, when you post something, be ready to defend it. You putatively can't defend that UN Resolution s@%t you've been talking about.

 

Because it is an irrelevant question. It's a logical trap. Your general claim is already falsified by a specific counter-example. Asking an off-tangent question is a desperate attempt to hide the fact that you cannot anymore defend your general claim.

 

 

So you won't follow international law because you think diplomacy is the best solution. The way I see it, the Chinese are not practicing diplomacy. Putting structures on disputed islands and fishing brazenly in another countries EEZ isn't really what you call diplomacy, is it?

 

How is practicing diplomacy not following international laws??? Reaching out to China to offer them an amicable solution to the problem is in line with what the UN wants - a peaceful means to settle disputes.

 

The fact that China hasn't practiced diplomacy is irrelevant to the Philippines attempting to resort to diplomacy to settle the dispute. In fact, when faced with a bully, the offended party could gain sympathy and support from others by not retaliating with force.

 

 

I was talking about the US losing face if it reneges on the MDT if China becomes aggressive in its expansionist plans (e.g. sinking the BRP Aguinaldo in the vicinity of the Kalayaan Islands). I'm befuddled why you even brought up the articles of the MDT when what I was trying to convey was clear. Reread and understand this clause "if China becomes aggressive in its expansionist plans."

 

Oh, I brought up the MDT because it seems unclear to you how it works. Your "IF China..." scenario would only happen if the Philippines would provoke an armed response. And provoking an armed response violates Article I. And even in the event that your "IF China..." premise happens, the US is not strictly bound to come and help the Philippines because the Spratlys are disputed and Philippine sovereignty is not established. By Article V, it's not strictly an attack on the Philippine soil.

 

 

Are you privy to Obama and Hillary Clinton's meetings so as to make a sweeping statement that the US won't side with us?

 

No, but the US has a history of putting its national interests first when making foreign policy decisions. It left Korea. It left Vietnam. In the end, protecting US interests dictates US foreign policies. The US will certainly react to Chinese aggression. But that's not because of its MDT with the Philippines, or that we're their little brown brothers. Rather, it is to protect US interests in the region since ownership of those islands in the South China Sea would give substantial China a control on maritime traffic and a strategic naval advantage.

 

My, oh my. You have a comprehension problem. Are you that obtuse? Read the post which you quoted.

 

Oh I did, its garbage. the "IF...then MDT.." is stupid to begin with since you obviously don't know the scope of the MDT. Now, the oil bit is just funny. You may want to ask your friend why it's unwise to talk oil. That's a hint to you. Ok?

 

 

Hahaha! You're getting comical by the post. I'm talking here of conventional warfare. Haha! Is China comparable to Al-Qaeda? The former is a country and the latter is a terrorist organization. Hahaha! I'll lecture you on this, junior, since your naivete is getting apparent based on this post. Al-Qaeda doesn't have nuclear warheads, subs, fighter planes, etc. They operate using insidious means. You ostensibly didn't understand what I posted. I was talking about a pre-emptive strike by the US on the Chinese missile silos to neutralize their ICBMs and you talk about 9-11? Hahahaha!

 

Well, its the same banana. Its all about the US military intelligence capabilities. Do you think the US has the military intelligence about all the location of China's ICBMs???? Wow. Do you think the Chinese are THAT dumb????

 

The US even have a hard time finding out the exact details about North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons. And now you're telling me that the US will easily preemptively wipe out all Chinese missile silos??? Wow.

 

Fyi, China, along with Israel, Russia, and the US, are the top countries when it comes to cyber-intelligence. And that's saying something about them. Again, why would I mention something that seems totally irrelevant to Spratlys? Well, it is to merely make a point about Chinese capabilities, which you seem to not appreciate at all. The Chinese are no pansies. They sent rockets to space, built levitating trains, and reverse-engineered almost anything that's made in the West. Give them some credit.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Jourdan

[dungeonbaby]

again, who owns it based on what? our map? UN map? Putting up a few temporary structures isn't enough to claim ownership. And yes, a barong-barong is a temporary structure.

 

since you won't backread, i'll return the favor and not put your replies in the context of your bigger view articulated to other posters here.

 

it's ours based on our map, on the un map, and based on the simple fact that it's right inside our waters.

 

a garrison with a couple hundred men is hardly a barong-barong, jourdan.

 

but it's beside the point, really. I look at the whole issue at the vantage point of NOW. It's pretty useless to be nostalgic about how we "own" those islands 50 years ago. 50 years ago we were crying that Sabah was ours. Now, we have given up hope of getting it back. Borders across the world had been re-drawn countless times since. So, I don't get whole "dati amin" blah blah. It doesn't help.

 

The reality is NOW, those islands are hardly ours.

 

who's talking about 50 years ago? nostalgia? don't get your critiques mixed up.

 

Well, I just find the whole "shedding a tear" comment a tad too dramatic. Even beggars hardly cry nowadays. I don't think diplomats would cry when they see the Chinese delegate. But yeah, I'd ask my friend if they did have some crying sessions.

 

a tad too dramatic. that's the crow calling the raven's feathers black. lol.

 

Guard your shores? with what? Jesus, we don't even have a thriving community there.

 

It's this: Go to the southernmost islands of the Philippines and check yourself what currency they're using and where they are getting their livelihood. We couldn't even ensure that Filipinos in established Filipino communities use Philippine peso. We couldn't even support them economically. I guess you have to set your patriotism straight. Deal with the things closer to home first. Maybe then, you'd be able to convince me that you could guard those islands.

 

you have no idea how close the Chinese are, do you?

 

and since when was patriotism based on military might? you need a gun to feel love for your own, is that it? if you keep no weapons at home, you just let the friendly communist neighbor build a doghouse in your yard?

 

as for the US not taking an interest, i wonder what their navy base in Mindanao is for. (well if you believe UP law professors, the base is there to honor ancient treaties with the US protectorate in Mindanao. funny, funny lawyers.)

 

but all this discussion is moot and academic and frankly quite laughable. while we're all failing to "convince" each other here, guess which nation is of one mind in willfully claiming what they believe with all their communist hearts and souls is theirs.

 

[Jourdan]

since you won't backread, i'll return the favor and not put your replies in the context of your bigger view articulated to other posters here.

 

it's ours based on our map, on the un map, and based on the simple fact that it's right inside our waters.

 

a garrison with a couple hundred men is hardly a barong-barong, jourdan.

No, its not a 'simple' fact that its 'right inside our waters'. I wish it was that simple. There's no simple rule that defines territorial ownership. If there is, there'd no disputes everywhere in the world and we will all be happy.

 

But go ahead, amuse me. Tell me what's that simple fact and whys and hows behind it.

 

And oh, I was being sarcastic with the barong-barong. It was meant to exaggerate the contrast between what we built vs what the Chinese contingent had put up in the area.

 

who's talking about 50 years ago? nostalgia? don't get your critiques mixed up.

Err, hmm...I probably should stop the exaggeration bit because it just serves as a distraction. The whole point is that what happened in the past has little relevance to how things are now. You cant keep on looking back for solutions to issues that confront us now. The problem facing us right now is that a powerful bully is adamantly claiming those islands and our posturing and rhetoric had done nothing to deter the bully. Digging up what happened years ago or talking abt Marcos, Ramos, and whoever you can think of wont solve that problem. Neither does dreaming of some strong leader like what some intellectual pansy would solve the issue.

 

You tackle the issue given the actual, tangible parameters NOW. The state of any physical or social phenomenon is only defined by the parameters existing at the time of observation. However you get to that point is of little relevance to how you could change it for the future.

a tad too dramatic. that's the crow calling the raven's feathers black. lol.

Ok, case closed haha

 

you have no idea how close the Chinese are, do you?

Really? Do you really think I'm THAT clueless? Lol

Do you want the distances in km or nautical miles?

Again, if we're going to go by distances alone, western nations shouldnt have any claims over islands in the pacific. Now, hows that possible that France, Netherlands, etc own lands too far from their shorelines?

 

and since when was patriotism based on military might? you need a gun to feel love for your own, is that it? if you keep no weapons at home, you just let the friendly communist neighbor build a doghouse in your yard?

. You implied that guarding our shores isn't overzealous patriotism and not so sheepishly imply that I wasnt all for guarding our shores. I simply rebuked that by highlighting your misplaced sense of patriotism. You're looking to display your vaunted patriotism by guarding a barely uninhabited group of islands while you stand and do nothing about filipino communities in well-established Philippine territories who, for all practical purposes, no longer have allegiance to the flag. Its ridiculuous. If you cant assure them that the govt could viably take care of them, don't go and shout that you just have to guard those islands.

 

as for the US not taking an interest, i wonder what their navy base in Mindanao is for. (well if you believe UP law professors, the base is there to honor ancient treaties with the US protectorate in Mindanao. funny, funny lawyers.)

Oh sly....hahaha. You're one smart cookie. But I'll bite anyway. Yeah, lawyers are a funny bunch. Ancient treatise! Hahahahaha

 

The US is in Mindanao bec they had to have some presence in the region. SE Asia is a growth corridor, and buffer to China and India...2 of the emerging powers that seem to be not in awe of the American might. Its also a good staging ground for intel ops on Islamist extremists linked to Al Qaeda, e.g., JI and a deterrent too.

 

but all this discussion is moot and academic and frankly quite laughable. while we're all failing to "convince" each other here, guess which nation is of one mind in willfully claiming what they believe with all their communist hearts and souls is theirs.

 

Hardly communist at all. And no, I dont intend to convince anyone at all. I really dont care if you think you can change the world by shouting obscenities at the Chinese and threathening war with museum-quality military gear. I wouldnt fault the Chinese for believing its theirs. Pragmatic people only believe things that could really happen...like they have the resources to actually translate that belief into something concrete. And its usually at the expense of stubborn idealists and dreamers here and there. After all, words may hurt but missiles typically k*ll people.

[dungeonbaby]

No, its not a 'simple' fact that its 'right inside our waters'. I wish it was that simple. There's no simple rule that defines territorial ownership. If there is, there'd no disputes everywhere in the world and we will all be happy.

 

But go ahead, amuse me. Tell me what's that simple fact and whys and hows behind it.

 

And oh, I was being sarcastic with the barong-barong. It was meant to exaggerate the contrast between what we built vs what the Chinese contingent had put up in the area.

 

 

Err, hmm...I probably should stop the exaggeration bit because it just serves as a distraction. The whole point is that what happened in the past has little relevance to how things are now. You cant keep on looking back for solutions to issues that confront us now. The problem facing us right now is that a powerful bully is adamantly claiming those islands and our posturing and rhetoric had done nothing to deter the bully. Digging up what happened years ago or talking abt Marcos, Ramos, and whoever you can think of wont solve that problem. Neither does dreaming of some strong leader like what some intellectual pansy would solve the issue.

 

You tackle the issue given the actual, tangible parameters NOW. The state of any physical or social phenomenon is only defined by the parameters existing at the time of observation. However you get to that point is of little relevance to how you could change it for the future.

 

Ok, case closed haha

 

 

Really? Do you really think I'm THAT clueless? Lol

Do you want the distances in km or nautical miles?

Again, if we're going to go by distances alone, western nations shouldnt have any claims over islands in the pacific. Now, hows that possible that France, Netherlands, etc own lands too far from their shorelines?

 

 

. You implied that guarding our shores isn't overzealous patriotism and not so sheepishly imply that I wasnt all for guarding our shores. I simply rebuked that by highlighting your misplaced sense of patriotism. You're looking to display your vaunted patriotism by guarding a barely uninhabited group of islands while you stand and do nothing about filipino communities in well-established Philippine territories who, for all practical purposes, no longer have allegiance to the flag. Its ridiculuous. If you cant assure them that the govt could viably take care of them, don't go and shout that you just have to guard those islands.

 

 

Oh sly....hahaha. You're one smart cookie. But I'll bite anyway. Yeah, lawyers are a funny bunch. Ancient treatise! Hahahahaha

 

The US is in Mindanao bec they had to have some presence in the region. SE Asia is a growth corridor, and buffer to China and India...2 of the emerging powers that seem to be not in awe of the American might. Its also a good staging ground for intel ops on Islamist extremists linked to Al Qaeda, e.g., JI and a deterrent too.

 

 

 

Hardly communist at all. And no, I dont intend to convince anyone at all. I really dont care if you think you can change the world by shouting obscenities at the Chinese and threathening war with museum-quality military gear. I wouldnt fault the Chinese for believing its theirs. Pragmatic people only believe things that could really happen...like they have the resources to actually translate that belief into something concrete. And its usually at the expense of stubborn idealists and dreamers here and there. After all, words may hurt but missiles typically k*ll people.

 

the natural assumption when you make contradicting statements is that, yes, you are really THAT clueless. your condescension and sarcasm are noted, but you're all over the place. so why don't you rest your smooth-skinned chin on your baby-soft palm and take a breather, let the brain work for once instead of jumping in wildly and assuming you understand the positions that are being stated here from reading a total of one or two pages.

 

 

additionally, why should i amuse you? go amuse yourself and go through our islands to see just how close that huge chinese garrison is to our shores, we're talking dog-paddle distance. while you're there, take note of the dome that's on stilts that's also theirs. then, as you take that measurement, read the provisions in the unclos. and yes, as has been pointed out on this thread before by a lot of us - not that you can be bothered to read too far beyond your own words - the unclos may not hold water with some major stakeholders but, at present, it may be the best thing the region has. then think about squatters...and just how damn easy it is to get them off land that is not theirs. possession is nothing? possession is 90% of the game when you've got nobody willing to fight the bully.

 

oh, by the way, there is sarcasm and hyperbole mixed in here somewhere. i'm sure you can separate the chaff from the grain, that is, if you can take time off from your beauty regimen

 

virtual hearts, sweetling. p

[tk421]

While I believe China has no business in our waters, the sad fact is we are too weak to defend it. Too much in-fighting has crippled our defense and economic capability that we're virtually giving China the islands already.

[tk421]

Why stop there? Give them the whole Philippines.

[tk421]

Fellow Asians - by geography maybe, but not ideals. That, I think, is where the friction lies.

[tk421]

Might as well, 'no? If there are a whole lot of people who has the same view as you, what's the use of defending our ideals pa...?

[Jourdan]

the natural assumption when you make contradicting statements is that, yes, you are really THAT clueless.

 

ah hahaha. Well, you should know better.

Lemme see...Kasaysayan I - 1.0 under Prof. Gotiangco.

That's a not-so-subtle hint for you.

 

And mind you, what contradicting statements??? It's easy to accuse. But please, specifics dear.

 

your condescension and sarcasm are noted, but you're all over the place. so why don't you rest your smooth-skinned chin on your baby-soft palm and take a breather, let the brain work for once instead of jumping in wildly and assuming you understand the positions that are being stated here from reading a total of one or two pages.

 

I never really back-read, save for page 1 just to get the context. Was it an SOP to understand who's who??? And why am I all over the place? Again, accusations. Empty unless substantiated.

 

additionally, why should i amuse you? go amuse yourself and go through our islands to see just how close that huge chinese garrison is to our shores, we're talking dog-paddle distance. while you're there, take note of the dome that's on stilts that's also theirs. then, as you take that measurement, read the provisions in the unclos. and yes, as has been pointed out on this thread before by a lot of us - not that you can be bothered to read too far beyond your own words - the unclos may not hold water with some major stakeholders but, at present, it may be the best thing the region has. then think about squatters...and just how damn easy it is to get them off land that is not theirs. possession is nothing? possession is 90% of the game when you've got nobody willing to fight the bully.

 

and again, UNCLOS my foot. Have you read it? Has anyone of you who refer to it EVER READ IT? Nick hasn't even read MDT but was super-confident that it will force the US to come and help us against the Chinese over Spratly's.

 

You see I see a pattern here. People haphazardly name-dropping s@%t here and there without the benefit of understanding. I claim to be no expert on UNCLOS. But I know it is FLAWED. How? f#&k it. Almost all claimants use it to some extent to justify their claims. Malaysia uses continental shelf theory. China's interpretation of UNCLOS, which is almost similar to Brunei, uses the distance concept and it widely different from Malaysia's. Simply put, UNCLOS is not foolproof. Like any arbitrary document, it is subject to interpretation. Heck, even the theoretical foundation of UNCLOS is contentious. Err, are you a geologist? I'm not. But geesh, I know that geology ain't physics. It's as much as dark arts as it is science. How do I know? Again, context dear. You know who I am. Go figure.

 

Furthermore, UNCLOS is NOT the sole document to justify territorial disputes. As I mentioned, and that which you conveniently ignored, Western nations couldn't have owned any territory in the Pacific IF we're to follow UNCLOS alone. So how's that possible? Oh yes, HISTORICAL CLAIMS.

 

Funny that you hyped up this UNCLOS when one of the stronger arguments that the Philippines has over the Spratlys is rooted in its historical claims over the islands.

 

And wow, you're cryptic! Is this intentional or what? Who possesses what? Let's name names here lest I be accused of assuming too much.

 

Also, pls. enough of the drama. squatters? How's that f#&king relevant here??? Who squats on where??? Again, BE SPECIFIC. One thing I learned from Gotiangco is that examples are far better than rhetoric.

 

oh, by the way, there is sarcasm and hyperbole mixed in here somewhere. i'm sure you can separate the chaff from the grain, that is, if you can take time off from your beauty regimen

 

ah hahaha. I'm not sure which is which so I'll let you elaborate more. And oh, I think I can do the separating thing while putting on moisturizer on my face.

 

 

virtual hearts, sweetling. p

 

cool. I heart you too. hahahaha

[Jourdan]

First of all, and this really shows your intelligence, learn how to use the editor lol. hahahaha It's too f#&king simple!!!

 

Anyway, moving on...

 

Did I really use a stupid idiom or are you calling it stupid coz you got caught with your pants down and took it literally? Haha! Ok lang yan. It happens. No need to make lame excuses. China has to dance one way or the other because they are the ones who are in an inferior bargaining position since the Kalayaan Islands are under the RP EEZ under the UNCLOS.

 

oh yeah, with my pants down!!! PISSING ON YOU!! hahahaha. Who the f#&k couldn't understand what "two to tango" means? Anyway, for you to even think that I thought it was literal evidently shows your level of intelligence. I'm amaze at myself for keeping this discussion! lol

 

Since you've been saying this UNCLOS thing for sometime now, kindly elaborate the Philippine claim based on UNCLOS vis-a-vis other claimants' claim, including China's. Let's see how good your knowledge of geology is.

 

I just hope this isn't like the way you name-dropped MDT without ever reading it.

 

Why would you feel like talking to a dolt? Don't tell me the neurons in your brain have slowed down, hence, you feel like talking to a dolt.

 

Uhh, because you're a dolt?? Yeah, that's it.

 

Personally, I don't think we should negotiate with a country which has been pushing its weight around.

 

And personally, I don't give a s@%t. Cos you're a nobody.

 

What' will Aquino do? Beg the Chinese to take down the structures?

 

Ah you've read my posts right? I specifically was against begging and I was for joint development, wasn't I? your nth logical fallacy - begging the question.

 

The fact of the matter is China is an international bully and needs to be humbled. You don't negotiate with countries which violated international law on a number of occasions.

 

Humbled by the Philippines??? yeah, sure. Are you high?? Humbled with what?

Oh FYI, the communist leadership killed its own people when they tried to 'humble' the regime. So good luck.

 

My point is stupid. Really now? According to you. But hey, you're entitled to your opinion. Mr. Marcos was the epitome of that kind of strong leader I'm talking about. He was skilled in every aspect a savvy leader should be skilled at.

 

Wow, another Marcos fanboy. Yup, he's good. So good that he bankrupted the country that now we have the weakest army of all the Spratly claimants. Bravo!!!

 

Comical. Haha! This is coming from a guy who made a sweeping statement that the US won't side with RP to enforce the MDT.

 

Sweeping????!!!! Wow. After I mentioned 2 articles of the MDT that releases the US from its obligations to help the Philippines and highlighting historical performance of US with regards to helping its allies, e.g., S. Korea, Vietnam nationalists? Oh, and I remember mentioning the fact that US foreign policy begins and ends with US interests. How's that a sweeping statement??

 

 

Or maybe you have the gift of clairvoyance? Share naman dyan ng nalalaman mo tungkol sa US policy na hindi namin alam.

 

Nambaligtad pa!!! Ikaw ang walang mabigay na proof sa claim mo na siguradong-sigurado ka na tutulong ang US if an armed conflict happened in the Spratlys. I provided the supporting facts to destroy that claim. You haven't provided counter-factuals at all.

 

You're an intellectual pansy. A fake. hahaha. You don't even know how logical arguments are constructed. FYI, you can enrol as a special student in Philo 1 - UP Diliman. You need to learn symbolic logic. Your logical fallacies are pathetic.

 

If we are to go by historical claims, then Italy should own virtually all of Europe because almost all of Europe was once occupied by the Roman Empire. Think before posting. All you do is shoot your mouth off without thinking kaya ka sumasablay.

 

Italy = Rome??? Since when??? tsk tsk tsk.

 

Read your history on how Italy was formed from the city-states of Milan, Florence, Genoa, Pisa, etc.

 

How can one be THIS stupid?

Edited December 6, 2012 by TheSmilingBandit

[Jourdan]

Hahaha! That's the problem with posters like you who don't know how to backread and just shoot their mouths off. What an imbecile. Magbackread ka muna totoy.

 

Imbecile? wow. totoy? Selos? hahahaha

 

Why would I backread? what for? You're evading the issue. PROVE that the MDT is so f#&king tight that the US will have no choice but to help the Philippines over an armed confrontation with the Chinese.

 

And oh, you're "IF China..." is a moot point. China ISN'T going to war against the Philippines. Why would it go to war????

 

There's no need for that. At any rate, the Chinese could build anything they want on those islands without a war, just as what they're doing now. So the only probable cause for a war to start between China and the Philippine is for the Philippines to strike first. And if that happens, bye-bye MDT.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Jourdan

[Jourdan]

Huh? I was talking about historical claims since that's your guide for ownership of a territory and you answer me with this off-tangent post. Hahaha! Sablay na naman as usual.

 

how was it off-tangent? Italy wasn't existing during the Roman times. The Romans never referred to themselves as Italians unless you have your own version of history books lol.

 

To say that Italy should own the whole of Europe just because the Romans did is not based on historical claims but on your own stupidity.

 

Italy was born when the city-states agreed to a unification. FYI.

 

Sablay ba? Whoops hahaha.

 

Hahaha...succint?

 

Challenge: "kindly elaborate the Philippine claim based on UNCLOS vis-a-vis other claimants' claim, including China's."

 

Response: The islands in the Spratlys that the Philippines claims is under the EEZ under the UNCLOS...I'm not exactly sure about China and the other countries. What I'm concerned about is the Philippines' claim.

 

Rebuttal: So Nick succintly does not know how China et al applied the same UNCLOS document to support their claims. Further, he succintly implies that the dispute over Spratlys can be settled by havjng a unilateral, i.e., Philippine-centric, interpretation of UNCLOS, notwithstanding any other basis for claims that are established as acceptable by jurisprudence, e.g., historical claims, 'self-determination', occupation, etc.

 

Yeah right, that's the kind of intelligence that people should respect. Bravo!

 

Kantong-kanto hahaha. "Ah basta, tama ako. Wala ako pakialam sa sasabihin mo. Peksman. Me resbak ako...Uncle Sam!" hahahaha

Edited December 6, 2012 by TheSmilingBandit

[Jourdan]

Italy rebuttal my ass!

 

Italy is not the surviving nation that was the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire is an EXTINCT nation. It is neither Italy, Spain, Gaul, Brittania, or Turkey. Therefore for Italy to claim the whole of Europe by virtue of the fact that the Roman empire's capital happened to be geographically located in what is today an Italian territory is STUPID. No sensible person, past, present or future, will ever make that 'historical claim'.

[tk421]

Italy rebuttal my ass!

 

Italy is not the surviving nation that was the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire is an EXTINCT nation. It is neither Italy, Spain, Gaul, Brittania, or Turkey. Therefore for Italy to claim the whole of Europe by virtue of the fact that the Roman empire's capital happened to be geographically located in what is today an Italian territory is STUPID. No sensible person, past, present or future, will ever make that 'historical claim'.

 

You have a point, but isn't it also true that the Yuan (or whatever) dynasty is also extinct?

[tk421]

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

[Jourdan]

But the capital of Italy is Rome which was once the capital of the Roman Empire. Rome is now just a city in Italy and is obviously under the jurisdiction of the Italian government. If there is an entity that can make a historical claim, it's Italy and not Rome. The United Nations will never make a city have a historical claim. Just imagine how awkward it would be to the UN if the mayor of Rome claimed Gallia (France) for Rome. It has to be the Italian Prime Minister making a historical claim and not the Rome mayor. Your reasoning is doltish at best.

 

Really? No person? Try Benito Mussolini. Check your facts before posting. Puro ka stupid, sablay naman mga post mo.

 

Ah hahaha. Stupid ass! Even Rome can't claim a piece of s@%t outside Rome! Hahahahahahahhahahahahaha. Did I ever insinuate that Rome could claim but not Italy? So f#&king stupid.

 

Dude, heres the list of GE subjects in UP that might help grow your brain - Philo 1, Kas 1, Soc Sci 1, Hum 1. Comm 1. And yeah, special students dont need to pass UPCAT to be admitted so dont worry. Please stop insulting me with your stupidity.

 

Modern Rome is never the historical successor of the Roman Empire. The Latin Roman Empire has been dead since the sacking of Rome by the Goths. The eastern empire lived until the fall of Constantinople. But even this eastern empire can be hardly classified as the true successor of the ancient Roman empire. Again, NO countrt existing today could claim the whole of Europe by way of highlighting historical links to the Roman empire. Thats outrageous and laughable hahahaha.

 

And wow you really would go and defend your stupidity. What a face! Hahaha. Reread my post. i said "SANE" hahahahah. Mussolini is hardly a sane man. I think history regards him more as a fascist/corporatist pig lol.

 

You have a point, but isn't it also true that the Yuan (or whatever) dynasty is also extinct?

 

Apples to oranges! Your talking states vs govts. China is not Yuan dynasty. China, the state, has existed since ancient times. It changed leadership. It changed forms of govts. But the Middle Kingdom persisted.

 

On the other hand, the Roman empire is long gone

 

Thats why Taiwan is also making historical claims rooted in its Chinese past. Bec Taiwanese govt considers itself as the REAL stewards of China, and not the PRC communist party.

Edited December 8, 2012 by TheSmilingBandit

[TheSmilingBandit]

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

 

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

[tk421]

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

 

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

 

 

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

[TheSmilingBandit]

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

 

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

 

Definition of STATE

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

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

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

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

3a : social position; especially : high rank

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7b plural capitalized : The United States of America

8: the territory of a state

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Jourdan]

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

1. China owned 8% of US public debt,

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

The whole exposition was a baloney. It went south with the "...in the sense that it applies to the LAND". Obviously, I wasn't referring to it as a land mass. Context dude, context.

 

And please, I even laughed at your interpretation of "5a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign"

 

The "politically organized body of people" does not refer to the political entity, i.e., government. It refers to the whole population who exercise domestic authority over a territory under a common set of laws (written or unwritten). PRC's historical claim is founded on that the Chinese people have always exercised sovereign rule over the South China sea - something that is, as they claim, recognized by neighboring states in the past.

 

But nice try attempt at being logical.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Edited December 8, 2012 by TheSmilingBandit

[dungeonbaby]

@Jourdan. Sigh. For starters, let's have a perfunctory look at your posts to find a few contradicting statements:

 

 

You say the US is a nation that "pursues abstract goals and lofty aims." But you also say they can't be bothered to defend their allies, they only look out for themselves, they only care for economics. I assumed by abstract goals and lofty aims you meant something like coming to the defense of the helpless. What did you really mean?

 

You say historical claims are useless. But you also point out that both the PRC and the ROC "have long been fighting over who 'owns' the islands based on historical grounds." So, it's good enough for China and Taiwan but not for us?

 

You say go read history. But then you say "you [can't] keep on looking back for solutions to issues that confront us now." So...how're you putting that Kas I knowledge to good use?

 

 

You wanted me to enumerate the ways in which you contradicted yourself, to show a claim was not an empty one. Your turn. Post a classcard of that Kas I grade.

 

 

You also wanted to know why I said you were all over the place:

 

You said: "We readily commit ourselves to 'altruistic' pursuits without the benefit [of] careful reality check."

 

Ok. Apart from vubuli wanting to parcel out the Philippines to China, who here is advocating altruism? Was that a malapropism on your part or another sweeping generalization?

 

 

You said: "And while martyrdom is cute for the history books, it really does very little in real life."

 

Superfluous. No one is advocating we give up our lives either. Unless you count the formerly unspoken wish that Vubuli put his sorry *ss on Masinloc as part of our welcome committee to China.

 

 

It's funny you berate TSB with "context, dude, context" when you previously bragged you don't back-read. Who came in, saw a few words, and assumed everyone but himself was an idealist, a simpleton, or a dreamer? Who does that if not the most arrogant airhead? Who bandies their college grades as if that proved anything in the real world and expects people to take him seriously? What are you, a child? Maybe you could join vubuli and wave that class card from Prof. Gotiangco at the Chinese next time they disallow our fishermen from taking refuge in our atolls.

 

 

Jejemon advisory: multiple punctuation marks don't strengthen your statement; you can drop the 13 extra question marks on your posts and help maintain a veneer of having had an education.

[Jourdan]

@Jourdan. Sigh. For starters, let's have a perfunctory look at your posts to find a few contradicting statements:

 

 

You say the US is a nation that "pursues abstract goals and lofty aims." But you also say they can't be bothered to defend their allies, they only look out for themselves, they only care for economics. I assumed by abstract goals and lofty aims you meant something like coming to the defense of the helpless. What did you really mean?

 

Good that we're talking specifics. It's easier to deal with them than cryptic generalist statements...

 

The US indeed is a nation that pursues abstract goals and lofty aims. It's probably one of those superpowers left with a strong commitment to pursuing what it believes is right.

 

But no, "defense of the helpless" per se is NOT one of them. It's the pursuit of FREEDOM and its derivatives which the US holds so dear. Now, the dispute in Spratlys hardly involves the concept of freedom; it is nothing more than nations fighting over some islands in the South China Sea.

 

And I didn't say that the US can't be bothered to defend their allies. But the US will often do so much as to protect its own interests too. I just said that China happens to exert too much influence on the US economy that the US government will think a thousand times to alienate the Chinese. From the perspective of "who feeds who", China happens to more important to US than the Philippines.

 

You say historical claims are useless. But you also point out that both the PRC and the ROC "have long been fighting over who 'owns' the islands based on historical grounds." So, it's good enough for China and Taiwan but not for us?

 

I NEVER said historical claims are useless!!! I said OUR historical claims are useless in the context of convincing all other claimants to recognize and respect it. It practically does not convince anyone - not Vietnam, obviously not China. And when nobody believes it as valid, then why continue pinning your hopes on it? It's just stupid.

 

Some people define craziness as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. That's what you and others are stubbornly suggesting - that we keep our hardline stand on the issue while the Chinese keep on building whatever they want to build on those islands.

 

You say go read history. But then you say "you [can't] keep on looking back for solutions to issues that confront us now." So...how're you putting that Kas I knowledge to good use?

 

Looking at the past and being nostalgic abt "how great the Philippines was" is pretty much useless to resolve any existing problem now. But reading history to LEARN from OTHERS WHO HAD DONE A BETTER JOB at resolving such problems is never a bad thing. I guess you're sheepishly putting things out of context. I can't blame you. Even the devil quoted the very scriptures to make Jesus appear as an imbecile. Its a ploy most people use.

 

Simply put, nostalgia doesn't solve anything. Digging up lessons learnt does.

 

And I will repeat, the state of a problem is only defined by the existing parameters. Dwelling on how you got there is of no consequence to how you'd be able to change that to something better.

 

You wanted me to enumerate the ways in which you contradicted yourself, to show a claim was not an empty one. Your turn. Post a classcard of that Kas I grade.

 

Well, you failed miserably in the sense that you twisted my words and took them out of context. Now, whether that was sly intentional or something borne of your lack of comprehension is something that you could only answer.

 

And no, unfortunately, I don't keep records of my grades. So sorry. I mean, I didn't even attend my own graduation. I just took whatever prize I got after. It's just another day in the office; that classcard is nothing but a common piece of paper. Nothing out of the ordinary so why bother?

 

You also wanted to know why I said you were all over the place:

 

You said: "We readily commit ourselves to 'altruistic' pursuits without the benefit [of] careful reality check."

 

Uhhm, when people make a claim that their patriotism is gauged by how they defend a group of barely inhabited islands while remaining clueless that real communities in Mindanao no longer use Philippine peso, that to me screams ALTRUISM in the vacuum of space. it exists only in your head.

 

Ok. Apart from vubuli wanting to parcel out the Philippines to China, who here is advocating altruism? Was that a malapropism on your part or another sweeping generalization?

 

I don't really care abt vubuli or some shithead. I advocate diplomacy...a careful and informed diplomacy. where's the altruism in that compared to your position, which is to force the f#&king issue by way of holding on to UNCLOS and hence, uphold our sovereignty???? Heck, if your UNCLOS was foolproof, why are we having this debate until now????!!!

 

 

You said: "And while martyrdom is cute for the history books, it really does very little in real life."

 

Superfluous. No one is advocating we give up our lives either. Unless you count the formerly unspoken wish that Vubuli put his sorry *ss on Masinloc as part of our welcome committee to China.

 

Oh really, are you speaking for yourself or for your fellow apologists for the insane???? No one??? Err, dungeonbaby meet Nick Fury, our resident "let's fight the Chinese since Uncle Sam would help us anyway" dude. If war did not mean giving up lives to you, then I guess we really have different concepts of war. what's war to you? A pillow fight???

 

It's funny you berate TSB with "context, dude, context" when you previously bragged you don't back-read.

 

did I quote anyone when I first posted? was I replying or insinuating to reply to anyone? oh, I will repeat that question again...this time with RAISED VOICE: HAVE I EVER INSINUATED THAT I WAS REACTING TO ANYONE WHEN I FIRST POSTED HERE?

 

There goes your answer. He, on the other hand, specifically addressed my position. So please. Enough with this back-read thing. If I reacted to a post, you'd be pretty damn sure that I've read that post.

 

It's not really funny when you understand things, isn't it hey? The joke's on you.

 

 

Who came in, saw a few words, and assumed everyone but himself was an idealist, a simpleton, or a dreamer?

 

Well, I make inferences based on the posts that I am reacting on. You're an idealist. Nick is all of the above. Now, re-read your post with a fresh mind, like it's not you. If you don't sense some idealist BS in it, then maybe I'm wrong or you're just too dense to even feel it. Anyone who thinks UNCLOS will save the day for the Philippines is an idealist. Its the naivete that astonishes me to no end.

 

 

Who does that if not the most arrogant airhead? Who bandies their college grades as if that proved anything in the real world and expects people to take him seriously? What are you, a child? Maybe you could join vubuli and wave that class card from Prof. Gotiangco at the Chinese next time they disallow our fishermen from taking refuge in our atolls.

 

 

Oh, I am an airhead. Fine. I brandished my college grades. Fine. But to say that those grades don't mean a thing in the real world is plain sourgraping. Heck, HR's of the MNCs and TNCs have a pretty different view from you then, ey? And between you and those HRs, I'd take the latter's opinion. After all, theirs tend to lead to REAL $$$$, something that you use in the REAL world.

 

Also, if you don't believe the system, then why even go through it? Surely you've studied for a degree right? So please, enough of the s@%t saying that it doesn't mean a thing. You ridiculed my knowledge of Philippine geography, I simply provided you a contextual clue of my knowledge about it. And now, I'm not to be taken seriously???? Yeah right hahahaha.

 

And please, enough of the sheepish "putting words in my mouth" attempt. You're really have a knack for the melodrama...now, its the fishermen in the atolls. When did I ever mention them fishermen???

 

Oh, FYI, they're not strictly OUR atolls. they're contested, remember??? That's the whole issue to begin with. So your attempt to emotionally appeal to me is an epic failure!!! Next time you try to bait me with one of those melodramatic s@%t, please package it better. I didn't get my 1.0 for nothing.

 

 

Jejemon advisory: multiple punctuation marks don't strengthen your statement; you can drop the 13 extra question marks on your posts and help maintain a veneer of having had an education.

 

Really???? Rest assured you wouldn't see numerous punctuation marks when I respond to people who showed some really good level of education. Jejemon begets jejemon. That's how life is. I'm all for fairness. Tit-for-tits! lol

Edited December 8, 2012 by Jourdan

[Jourdan]

@ Nick,

 

Learn to post correctly. Learn to quote correctly. Maybe by then, I'd be convinced that you have a working brain. And it's not nitpicking or anything. It's very real. If you can't learn a simple thing like making quotes on a board, then you're stupid. Plain and simple. I mean, that's how we say monkeys are not as smart as any adult humans...because they couldn't figure out and use tools that 5 yr olds could. Its kind of annoying and pitiful at the same time. I still couldn't make up my mind which is which.

 

But anyway, in the meantime, find your level.

 

But as a parting gift to you. No, I don't use the dictionary when dealing with sociopolitical concepts, or even economic ones. That's the discipline you get from studying Soc Sci II. You tend to give more respect for the nuances surrounding these concepts that you don't fall into the shithole of relying on dictionary entries to define them. To be fair though, I use the dictionary when I play scrabble.

[tk421]

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